The History of Christian Doctrines - Monergism History of... · the past with impunity. May this brief study of the history of doctrines serve to create a greater interest in such

TheHistoryofChristianDoctrines

byLouisBerkhof

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Preface

PROLEGOMENA

I.TheSubject-MatteroftheHistoryofDogma

II.TheTaskoftheHistoryofDogma

III.MethodandDivisionsoftheHistoryofDogma

IV.HistoryoftheHistoryofDogma

PREPARATORYDOCTRINALDEVELOPMENT

I.TheApostolicFathersandTheirDoctrinalViews

II.PerversionsoftheGospel

III.ReformMovementsintheChurch

IV.TheApologistsandtheBeginningsoftheChurch'sTheology

V.TheAnti-GnosticFathers

VI.TheAlexandrianFathers

VII.Monarchianism

THEDOCTRINEOFTHETRINITY

I.TheTrinitarianControversy

II.TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinLaterTheology

THEDOCTRINEOFCHRIST

I.TheChristologicalControversies

II.LaterChristologicalDiscussions

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE AND RELATEDDOCTRINES

I.TheAnthropologyofthePatristicPeriod

II.ThePelagianandAugustinianDoctrinesofSinandGrace

III.TheAnthropologyoftheMiddleAges

IV.TheAnthropologyofthePeriodoftheReformation

V.AnthropologicalViewsofPost-ReformationTimes

THEDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENTOROFTHEWORKOFCHRIST

I.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementBeforeAnselm

II.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementfromAnselmtotheReformation

III.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementinthePeriodoftheReformation

IV.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementAftertheReformation

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APPLICATION ANDAPPROPRIATIONOFDIVINEGRACE

I.TheSoteriologyofthePatristicPeriod

II.TheSoteriologyoftheScholasticPeriod

III.ReformationandPost-ReformationSoteriology

THEDOCTRINEOFTHECHURCHANDTHESACRAMENTS

I.TheDoctrineoftheChurch

II.TheDoctrineoftheSacraments

THEDOCTRINEOFTHELASTTHINGS

I.TheIntermediateState

II.TheSecondAdventandtheMillennialHope

III.TheResurrection

IV.TheLastJudgmentandFinalAwards

Literature

Preface

The Historical Volume of what was originally called "ReformedDogmatics" now appearswith a new title, namely,History of ChristianDoctrines.WorksonthegradualdevelopmentoftheologicaltruthintheChurchofJesusChristusuallyappearalongsideofthosewhichdealwiththesystematicreproductionofit,andthusstandoutasseparateworks.Itwasthoughtbesttofollowthispractice,sincethiswillstressthefactthatafter all the history of the development of Christian thought in theChurchisaseparatestudy.

Butwhile it isaseparatestudy, it isnotonewhichstudentsoftheologycan afford to neglect. The study of doctrinal truth, apart from itshistoricalbackground,leadstoatruncatedtheology.Therehasbeentoomuchofthisinthepast,andthereisagreatdealofiteveninthepresentday.Theresulthasbeenthelackofasoundunderstandingandaproper

evaluation of the truth. There was no appreciation of the fact that theHolySpiritguidedtheChurch inthe interpretationanddevelopmentofthe truth as it is revealed in the Word of God. The checks and theroadsigns of the past were not taken into consideration, and ancientheresies, long since condemnedby theChurch, are constantly repeatedand represented as newdiscoveries. The lessons of the past are greatlyneglected,andmanyseemtofeelthattheyshouldstrikeoutentirelyontheir own, as if very little hadbeen accomplished in thepast. Surely, atheologian must take account of the present situation in the religiousworld,andeverstudythetruthanew,buthecannotneglectthelessonsofthepastwith impunity.May this brief study of thehistory of doctrinesserve to create a greater interest in suchhistorical study, and lead to abetterunderstandingofthetruth.

L.BERKHOF

GrandRapids,Michigan

August1,1949.

PROLEGOMENA

I.TheSubject-MatteroftheHistoryofDogma

TheHistoryofDogmaisnotconcernedwiththeologyingeneral.Itdealsprimarily with dogmas in the strict sense of the word, and onlysecondarily with doctrines that have not yet received ecclesiasticalsanction.

1. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "DOGMA". The word "dogma" isderived from the Greek dokein, which in the expression dokein moimeant not only "it seems to me", or "it pleases me", but also "I have

definitelydeterminedsomethingsothatitisformeanestablishedfact".The last meaning gradually predominated, so that the word "dogma"became thedesignationof a firm, and especially apublic, resolutionordecree. It was applied to the self-evident truths of science, to wellestablished and admittedly valid philosophical convictions, togovernmentdecrees,andtoofficiallyformulatedreligioustenets.

TheBible uses theword as a designationof governmentdecrees in theSeptuagint, Esth. 3:9; Dan. 2:13; 6:8; Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7, of theordinances of the Old Testament, Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14, and of thedecisions of the Assembly of Jerusalem, Acts 16:4. While it was thephilosophicalandnot thebiblicalusageof the termthatgaverise to itslater meaning in theology, yet its use in Acts 16:4 has points ofresemblancewithitslaterusageintheology.TheJerusalemAssembly,itistrue,didnotformulateadoctrinebutaregulationfortheethicallifeoftheChurch; yet its decisionwas occasioned by a doctrinal controversy,had doctrinal bearings, and was not merely a piece of advice but apositiveinjunctionwithecclesiasticalsanction.

Whiletheword"dogma"issometimesusedinreligionandtheologywitha great deal of latitude, as practically synonymous with "doctrine," itgenerallyhas amore restrictedmeaning.Adoctrine is thedirect, oftennaive,expressionofareligioustruth.Itisnotnecessarilyformulatedwithscientificprecision, andwhen it is,maybemerely the formulationof asingleperson.Areligiousdogma,ontheotherhand, isareligioustruthbased on authority and officially formulated by some ecclesiasticalassembly.Thismeaningof theword isnotdeterminedby its scripturalusage,inwhichitalwaysdenotesadecree,acommandment,oraruleofpractical life, but ismore inharmonywith thephilosophical use of theword to denote a proposition or principle. Some of the early ChurchFathers used it to describe the substance of doctrine. Cf. Hagenbach,HistoryofDoctrinesI.,p.2f.;Hauck,Realencyclopaedie,Art.Dogmatik.

2. THEORIGIN AND CHARACTEROFDOGMAS. Religious doctrinesare found inScripture, thoughtnot in finished form,butdogmas in thecurrent sense of the word are not found there. They are the fruit ofhuman reflection, the reflection of the Church, often occasioned orintensifiedbytheologicalcontroversies.RomanCatholicsandProtestants

differsomewhatintheirdescriptionoftheoriginofdogmas.Theformerminimize,iftheydonotexclude,thereflectionoftheChurchasthebodyofbelievers,andsubstituteforitthestudyoftheteachingChurchorthehierarchy.Wheneveranewformoferrorarises,theteachingChurch,thatis the clerus,whichnowhas its infallible spokesman in the Pope, aftercareful examination, formulates the doctrine taught in Scripture or bytradition,declaresittobearevealedtruth,andimposesitsacceptanceonallthefaithful.SaysWilmersinhisHandbookoftheChristianReligion,p.151:"Adogma,therefore, isatruthrevealedbyGod,andatthesametimeproposedbytheChurchforourbelief."SimilarlySpirago-ClarkeinTheCatechismExplained: "A truthwhich theChurchputsbeforeus asrevealedbyGodiscalledatruthof faith,oradogma."p.84.AndsincetheChurchisinfallibleinmattersofdoctrine,atruthsoproposedisnotonly authoritative but also irrevocable and unchangeable. "If any oneshallassertittobepossiblethatsometimes,accordingtotheprogressofscience, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Churchdifferent from thatwhich theChurchhasunderstoodandunderstands:lethimbeanathema."DogmaticDecreesoftheVaticanCouncil,CanonsIV.3.

TheReformerssubstitutedforthisRomanCatholicviewanotherwhich,inspiteofitssimilarity,yetdiffersfromitinimportantpoints.Accordingto them all truly religious dogmas derive their material contents fromScriptureand fromScriptureonly.Theydonot recognize theunwrittenwordor tradition as a source of dogmas.At the same time theydonotregarddogmasasstatementstakendirectlyfromtheBible,butrepresentthemasthefruitofthereflectionoftheChurch,asthebodyofbelievers,onthetruthsofrevelation,andastheofficialformulationsofcompetentrepresentative bodies. Since the reflection of the Church is oftendeterminedanddeepenedbydoctrinalcontroversies,theformulationstowhichChurchCouncils or Synods are finally led under the guidance oftheHoly Spirit often bear the earmarks of past struggles. They are notinfallible but yet have a high degree of stability. And they areauthoritative,notmerelybecause theyareproposedby theChurch,butformallyasdefinedbytheChurchandmateriallyasbasedontheWordofGod.

Under the influence of Schleirmacher, Ritschl, Vinet, and others, aradically different conception of the origin of dogmas was developed,which found ready acceptance inmany Protestant circles. It representstheChristianconsciousness,Christianexperience,theChristianfaith,ortheChristian lifeas the sourceof thematerial contentsofdogmas,andregardsthisasmoreinharmonywiththeprinciplesoftheReformation.ThedogmasoftheChurcharesimplytheintellectualformulationsofitsexperiences, sentiments, and beliefs, which, according to some, areawakened by an objective factor, in which piety recognizes a divinerevelation.Schleiermachercontendsfortheimmediacyofthesereligiousexperiences,whileRitschlandhisSchoolmaintainthattheyaremediatedbysomeobjectivefactor,whichfaithhonoursasarevelationofGod.Thereligious community reflects on these experiences and finally by somecompetent body gives them formal intellectual expression and thustransformsthemintodogmas.Onthisview,aswellasontheother,theformulationofdogmasisnottheworkofanindividualtheologian,butofacommunity,eithertheChurch(Schleirmacher),ortheStategoinghandinhandwiththeChurch(Lobstein).ThisviewoftheoriginofdogmasisheldbySchleiermacher,Ritschl,Kaftan,Lobstein,Vinet,Sabatier,Is.VanDijk, andothers. It shouldbenoted,however, that itdoesnotdescribethewayinwhichtheexistingdogmasactuallyoriginatedintheProtestantChurches,butonlythewayinwhich,accordingtothesewriters,dogmasshould come into existence.They regard the olddogmas as antiquated,becausetheyaretoointellectual,anddonotgiveadequateexpressiontothelifeoftheChurch,andcallforanewdogmavibrantwiththelifeofthereligiouscommunity.

Harnack'sviewdeservesspecialmentionhere.InhismonumentalworkonTheHistoryofDogmaheseekstodiscreditthewholedogma(i.e.thewhole complexofdogmas)of the earlyChurchby representing it as anunnaturalmixtureofGreekphilosophyandChristiantruth,inwhichtheforeignphilosophicalingredientisthepreponderatingelement.Sayshe:"DogmainitsconceptionanddevelopmentisaworkoftheGreekspiriton the soil of the Gospel." The Church yielded to the temptation torepresent itsmessage in a form that wouldmake it appear as wisdomrather than foolishnessand thus togain for it theproper respectof theeducatedpeople.ThepracticalfaithoftheChurchwastransformedinto

an intellectual concept, a dogma, and this became the real pivot of thehistoryof theChurch.Thiswasagreatmistake,andamistakethatwascontinuedinthelaterformationofdogmas,sothatthewholehistoryofdogmaisreallythehistoryofacolossalerror.Itisthegreatambitionofthe Ritschlian School, to which Harnack belongs, to eliminate allmetaphysicsfromtheology.

Adogmamaybedefinedasadoctrine,derivedfromScripture,officiallydefinedby theChurch,anddeclared to restupondivineauthority.Thisdefinitionpartlynamesandpartlysuggestsitscharacteristics.Itssubject-matterisderivedfromtheWordofGodandisthereforeauthoritative.Itis not amere repetition of what is found in Scripture, but the fruit ofdogmatic reflection. And it is officially defined by a competentecclesiastical body and declared to rest upon divine authority. It hassocialsignificance,becauseitistheexpression,notofasingleindividual,but of a community. And it has traditional value, since it passes theprecious possessions of the Church on to future generations. In theHistory of Dogma we see the Church becoming ever increasinglyconscious of the riches of divine truth under the guidance of theHolySpirit,mindfulofherhighprerogativeaspillarandgroundofthetruth,andengagedinthedefenseofthefaithoncedeliveredtothesaints.

II.TheTaskoftheHistoryofDogma

The task of the History of Dogma is, briefly stated, to describe thehistoricaloriginofthedogmaoftheChurchandtotraceitssubsequentchangesanddevelopments;or,inthewordsofSeeberg,"toshowhowtheDogma as a whole and the separate dogmas have arisen and throughwhat course of development they have been brought to the form andinterpretation prevailing in the churches of any given period." Thefollowing general remarksmay bemade respecting its presuppositions,itsgeneralcontents,andthepointofviewfromwhichitiswritten.

1.ITSPRESUPPOSITIONS.TheonegreatpresuppositionoftheHistoryofDogmawouldseemtobethatthedogmaoftheChurchischangeableandhas,asamatteroffact,undergonemanychangesinthecourseofits

historical development. That which is unchangeable is not subject todevelopment and has no history. Protestant theology has alwaysmaintained the position that the dogma of the Church, whilecharacterizedby ahighdegree of stability, is yet subject to change andhas in the course of historybeen enrichedwithnew elements, receivedmore careful formulation, and evenundergone certain transformations.It has no difficulty, therefore,with the idea of a history of dogma. Thesituation is somewhat different, however, in Roman Catholic theology.RomanCatholicsgloryinthefactthattheyhaveanunchangeabledogmaand feel far superior to the Protestant who, in the words of CardinalGibbons, "appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his ever-changing doctrines." He says that the creed of the Church "is nowidenticalwithwhatitwasinpastages."FaithofourFathers,pp.11,87.Winnersspeaksinasimilarveinwhenhesays:"TheChristianreligionisunchangeable in all its revealed doctrines—in all those precepts andinstitutions which are intended for all men. No article of faith (for ofdoctrine there ismainly question) canbe added or subtracted; nor canany dogma receive a different meaning from that given it by Christ."Handbook of the Christian Religion, p. 67. We are told repeatedly byRomanCatholicauthorsthattheChurchcannotmakenewdogmas,butcanonlyhanddownthesacreddepositthatwasentrustedtoher.

ButiftherepeatedassertionsthattheChurchcannotmakenewdogmasistrue,thenitfollowsthatthedogmaswerealreadygivenintheoriginaldeposit, in the faith once delivered to the saints and contained inScriptureandintheapostolictradition.Nodogmawaseveraddedtothesacred deposit, and no dogma contained in it was ever changed. TheChurchonlyhaspower todeclare a truth tobe revealedbyGodand togive it an infallible interpretation, thus dispelling uncertainty andincreasing the positive knowledge of the faithful. It did this in the pastandwill continue to do itwhenever historical occasions call for it. Thedogmaitselfthendoesnotdevelopandthereforehasnohistory;thereisdevelopment only in the subjective apprehension of it, and thisdeterminestheRomanCatholicconceptionoftheHistoryofDogma.SaysB. J. Otten, the Roman Catholic author of AManual of theHistory ofDogmas (third edition), "It (the History of Dogmas) presupposes thatrevealed truthsareobjectivelypermanentand immutable,andalso that

their subjective apprehension and outward expression admits ofprogress."Vol.I,p.2.

ForalongtimeRomanCatholicslookedaskantattheHistoryofDogma.Neandersays thata"modern theologian,HermesofBonn,hasassertedthat to treat the History of Dogmas as a special branch of Study, onaccount of the change in development which it presupposes, militatesagainsttheCatholicChurch,andforthatreasonhehasscrupledtogiveLecturesuponit."TheHistoryofChristianDogmas,I.p.28.Petaviuswasthe firstof theRomanCatholics tosuggestsomething likeadoctrineofdevelopment,buthisworkwasnotwell received,andhehad toqualifyhis statements. Later on Moehler and especially Newman advocated atheory of development, which met with considerable, though nouniversal, favor. The latter's theory is to the effect that many of thedoctrines of the Church were only germinally present in the originaldeposit.Theywere likeseeds implanted in themindof theChurch thatwere pregnant with unsuspected possibilities and in course of timeunfolded into full-blown doctrines.While opposition often arose to thenewdoctrinalexpressions,theygraduallygainedgroundandincreasedinpopularity.FinallytheteachingChurch,thehierarchy,steppedintotesttheresultsofthisnewdevelopmentandtosetthestampofitsinfallibleapproval on some of them by declaring them to be divinely revealedtruths.This theory found favorwithmanyof theRomanCatholics, butdidnotcommenditselftoallandneverreceivedofficialapproval.

AsecondpresuppositionoftheHistoryofDogmaisthatthedevelopmentofthedogmaoftheChurchmovedalongorganiclinesandwasthereforein themainacontinuousgrowth, inspiteof the fact that the leadersofthe Church in their endeavors to apprehend the truth often wanderedinto blind alleys, chasing will-o'-the-wisps and toying with foreignelements; and that even the Church itself, as a whole or in part,sometimeserredinitsformulationofthetruth.God'sspecialrevelationisthe progressive unfolding of the ectypal knowledge of God and of theredemptive idea inChrist Jesus. It is anorganicwhole inwhichall theparts are interrelated, the comprehensive expression of divine thought.TheChurchinitsendeavorstoapprehendthetruthissimplyseekingtothinkthethoughtsofGodafterHim.Itdoesthisundertheguidanceof

theHolySpirit,whichistheSpiritoftruthandassuchguaranteesthatitwillever-increasinglyseethetruthasaninternallyconnectedorganism.The History of Dogma may not be a mere chronicle, recording theexternalhistoryofthevariousdogmasoftheChurch.ItisthehistoryofanorganicgrowthandoftheinnerworkingsofthemindoftheChurch,and therefore presupposes a rather continuous development of theecclesiasticaldogma.

If the Church in the past had proceeded on the assumption, nowadvocatedbymany,thatthechangingconditionsofthereligiouslifeeverandanoncallforanewdogma,andthateveryagemustformulateitsowndogma, discarding the old and substituting for it another more inharmony with the spiritual condition of the times, it would have beenquite impossible towriteahistoryofdogma in theorganicsenseof theword. We shall have to proceed on the assumption that the Church,despitethemelancholyaberrationsthatcharacterizedhersearchforthetruthandoftenledherintowaysoferror,yetgraduallyadvancedinherapprehensionandformulationofthetruth.Weshallhavetoassumethateven such a tremendous religious upheaval as theReformation did notconstituteacompletebreakwith thedoctrinaldevelopmentof thepast.While many errors were exposed and corrected, the Reformers soughtsupport for their views in the early Church Fathers, and did not evenhesitate to adopt some of the views that were developed during theMiddleAges.Therewascontinuityofthoughtevenhere.

2. ITS SUBJECT MATTER. The fact that the History of Dogma dealsprimarilywiththedogmasoftheChurchdoesnotmeanthatitneednotconcern itselfwith thosedoctrinaldevelopments thatwerenot yet, andperhapswerenevertobe,incorporatedintheofficialCreeds.ItwouldbeamistaketoassumethatitcanbeginwiththeCouncilofNiceaandendwith the adoption of the last of the historical Confessions. In order todescribethegenesisoftheearliestdogmasoftheChurch,itmusttakeitsstartingpointatthecloseoftheperiodofspecialrevelationinthestudyof the Apostolic Fathers. It will have to take account of thosepreformations of the dogmas of the Church that resulted from thetheologicaldiscussionsofthedayandmetwithrathergeneralapproval,though they did not receive the official stamp of the Church; of those

peripheral truths that necessarily followed from the central andcontrollingdogma,andyetdidnotreceivespecialecclesiasticalsanction;andofthosefurtherdevelopmentsofdoctrinaltruththatpointforwardtoandprepare theway for additional formulationsof theological dogmas.Since the dogma of the Church is not the fruit of a mechanicalconstruction but rather of an organic growth, the study of its historycannotaffordtolimititsattentiontotheclearlydefinedresultsobtainedatvarioustimes,butmustalsoconsidertheinterveningstageswiththeirpromiseofevenbetterandricherfruits.

Fromthis it followsthat,asfarastheexternalhistoryisconcerned,theHistory of Dogma cannot neglect the study of the great doctrinalcontroversiesoftheChurch,whichwerethebirthpangsofnewdogmasandoftenhadadetermininginfluenceontheirformulation.Thoughthisstudymay not always be edifying, it is absolutely essential to a properunderstanding of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogmas. In thesecontroversiesdifferencesofopinionbecameapparentandinsomecasesgave rise to different lines of development, and doctrinal formulationsarosewhichwereatvariancewiththeunitedconsciousnessoftheChurchin general or of some particular denomination. Even these departuresfrom themain lineof thought are important for theHistoryofDogma,sincetheyoftenledtoaclearerandsharperformulationofthetruth.

But while the History of Dogma cannot afford to ignore any of theexternal facts that bear on the development of dogma, it should neverlosesightofthefactthatitisprimarilyconcernedwiththedevelopmentof theological thought in the consciousness of the Church and shouldtherefore trace the development of the idea which is inherent in therevealedrevelationofGoditself.HegelandBaurrenderedgoodservicetotheHistoryofDogma,when theydirectedattention to the fact that thedevelopment of dogma is controlled by an inner law, though theirprincipleofinterpretationdoesnotcommenditselftoChristianthought.Wecandiscernacertainlogicalnecessityinthesuccessivestagesofthedevelopment of each dogma, and in the order in which the variousdogmaticalproblemspresentedthemselves.Ingeneralitmaybesaidthatthelogicalorder,usuallyfollowedinthestudyofDogmatics,isreflectedmoreorlessintheHistoryofDogma.

III.MethodandDivisionsoftheHistoryofDogma

There has been considerable difference in the division of the subject-matter of the History of Dogma and in the method followed in itstreatment.Webrieflycallattentiontosomeofthesedifferences.

1. DIVISIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. The common divisionfound inmost of the olderworks on theHistory ofDogma is that intoGeneralandSpecialHistoryofDogma.Thisdivisionisfollowedineachof the successive periods, the General History sketching the generalphilosophicbackground,themainthemesofdiscussion,andthegeneraldirection of doctrinal study in each period under discussion; and theSpecial History tracing the genesis and development of the separatedogmas, especially those which are central and have a controllinginfluence on the formation of more peripheral dogmas. The specialdogmasareusuallydiscussedunderthecustomaryrubricsofDogmatics:theology, anthropology, christology, and so on. This is called the lokal-methode,and is followedbyHagenbach,Neander,Sheldon,andothers.Ritschlobjected tobothpartsof thismethodofdivisionon thegroundthat they represented an anatomic rather than an organic method oftreatment;andinlaterworksontheHistoryofDogmabothitsdivisionintoGeneralandSpecialHistoryandthelokal-methodeareabandoned.This is one of the striking differences between the works of Harnack,Loofs, Seeberg, and Fisher on the one hand and most of the previousHistories on the other hand. The great objection to the division of theHistory of Dogma into General and Special is that it separates whatbelongstogether;andtothelokal-methode,thatitisartificialratherthanhistorical and does not do justice to the difference of emphasis in thevariousperiods,ortothatwhichisdistinctiveinthediscussionsofeachperiod. The later writers, though not in complete agreement as to thedivisiontobeappliedinthestudyoftheHistoryofDogma,allstrivetogiveamoreunifiedviewofthegenesisanddevelopmentofthedogmaoftheChurch.Thedivisions ofHarnack andLoofs reveal great similarity,while that of Seeberg runs to a great extent along similar lines. Hisdivision is as follows: I. The Construction of Doctrine in the AncientChurch. II. The Preservation, Transformation, and Development of

DoctrineintheChurchoftheMiddleAges.III.TheDevelopmentoftheDoctrinal System through the Reformation, and the OpposingCrystallizationofDoctrinebyRomanCatholicism.

2.METHODOFTREATMENT.Underthisgeneralheadtwodistinctionscallforconsideration.

a.Thatbetweenthehorizontalandtheverticalmethod.SomefollowthehorizontalandotherstheverticalmethodintheirstudyoftheHistoryofDogma. They who adopt the former take up the history of doctrinaldevelopmentasawholebyperiodsandtracethegenesisofallthevariousdogmasineachparticularperiod,leavingthematthestageatwhichthecloseoftheperiodfindsthem,andtakingthemupagainatthatpoint,totrace their further development. Thus the unfolding of the doctrine ofGod is studied up to the beginning of the Middle Ages; then this isdroppedandisfollowedbyastudyofthedevelopmentofthedoctrineofChristuptothesamepoint;again,thisisdiscontinuedandissucceededby a consideration of the gradual expansion of the anthropologicaldoctrinesofsinandgracewithinthesameperiodoftime;andsoonallalongthe line.Theywhofollowthe lattermethod,however, takeupthestudy of the separate dogmas in the order in which they become thecenterofattentionintheChurch,andtracetheirdevelopmentuntiltheyreach their final form.Thedoctrine ofGod is takenup first, because itwas the first to engage the special attention of the Church, and itsdevelopment is traced up to the time of its final formulation in thehistoric Creeds of the post-Reformation period. In a similar way theremainingcentraldoctrines,suchasthoseofChrist,ofsinandgrace,oftheatonement, and soon, are studied in their various stagesof growthuntil theyreach their finalofficial form.The formermethod is followedby Hagenbach, Neander, Sheldon, Harnack, Loofs, and Seeberg; thelatter, though with certain differences, by Thomasius, Shedd, andCunningham.Eachoneofthesehasitsadvantagesanddisadvantages.Inour brief discussion it seems preferable to follow the latter, because itkeeps the separate dogmas more prominently before the mind, andenables us to trace their development from start to finish withoutdivertingtheattentionfromtheregularflowofthoughtbyamoreorlessmechanicaldivision.Ofcourse,thedangerliesathand,andoughttobe

avoidedasmuchaspossible,thatthedoctrinesunderconsiderationwillappearmoreorlessdetachedfromtheirhistoricalsettingandfromtheirlogical connection in the systemsof thoughtof the great theologiansofthe Church, such as Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Anselm, ThomasAquinas,Luther,Calvin,andothers.Happily,thisdangerisobviatedtoagreat extent by the fact that the central doctrines of the Church, withwhichwe aremainly concerned, didnot occupy the center of the stagesimultaneously.Moreover,thereadingofanotherworkontheHistoryofDogma, such as that of Seeberg, Sheldon, orFisher,will help to off-setthis handicap.While pursuing thismethod,we shall not terminate ourhistorical discussion of each one of the dogmas at the point of theirincorporation into the last of the great historic Creeds, but shall alsoconsider the changes or developments suggested in later theologicalliterature, since theymay in course of time lead to sounder, clearer, ormorecompletedogmaticalformulations.

b. That between a purely objective and the confessionalmethod. Someareoftheopinionthattheonlyproper,theonlyscientificway,totreattheHistory of Dogma is according to the purely objective method. Theyregard it as the task of the historian to describe the genesis anddevelopment of the dogma of the Church without any prepossessions,withoutmanifestinganysympathyorantipathy,andwithoutinanywayjudging of the truth and falsity of the various doctrinal formulations.Suchjudgment,wearetold,isnotinplaceintheHistoryofDogma,butonly in Dogmatics proper. And so, whenever the general course ofdoctrinal development divides itself into various currents, which yielddiversified and even antithetical doctrines, as in theGreek, theRomanCatholic,theLutheran,andtheReformedChurches,thehistorianshouldsimplydescribethese,oneafteranother,withouttestingtheminanywayand without expressing any preferences. Dr. Kuyper correctly callsattention to the fact, however, that no one could follow thismethod indescribing the history of his country, or in writing the biography of afriend,sinceonewouldnotbeabletowriteasadisinterestedspectator.

Just so the historian, who has definite doctrinal convictions andsubscribes to a certain Creed,will find it difficult, if not impossible, towrite a history of dogmas without any prepossession and without

revealing his ecclesiastical standpoint. He will prefer the confessionalmethod, according to which he will take his starting point in his ownConfessionandwillseektogiveageneticexplanationofitscontents.InjudgingofthevariousdoctrinaldevelopmentshewillemploynotonlythestandardofGod'sWord,butalsothecriterionofhisownConfession:theformeras the absolute standardof religious truth, and the latter as thewellconsideredandcarefullyformulatedresultofpreviousinvestigationswhich, while not infallible, should yet be regarded as a truerepresentationofScripturetruthuntilthecontraryisproved.Historysowrittenwill notbe colorless, butwill naturally reflect the standpoint oftheauthoronalmosteverypage.Itwillnotwittinglypervertthefactsofhistory, but will judge them primarily by the standard of Scripture bywhich all religious truth should be judged, and secondarily by apredetermined ecclesiastical criterion. This is the method we prefer tofollowinourstudyoftheHistoryofDogma.

IV.HistoryoftheHistoryofDogma

1. FACTORS THATGAVE RISE TO THEHISTORYOFDOGMAAS ASEPARATE DISCIPLINE. The study of the History of Dogma as aseparatedisciplineisofcomparativelyrecentdate.Valuablematerialsforsuchastudyweregathered in thecenturiespreceding theReformation,but, as Harnack says, "They scarcely prepared the way for, far lessproducedahistoricalviewofdogmatictradition."HistoryofDogmaI,p.24. Since the Church of Rome proceeded on the assumption, and stillmaintainstheposition, thatdogmaisunchangeable, itmaybesaidthattheReformationbybreakingwiththatviewopenedthewayforacriticaltreatmentofthehistoryofdogma.Moreover,itwasamovementwhich,in its very nature,waswell calculated to furnish a special incentive forsuch a study. It raised many questions respecting the nature of theChurch and her teachings, and sought to answer these not only in thelight of Scripture but also with an appeal to the Fathers of the earlyChurch, thus furnishing a direct and powerful motive for a historicalstudyofdogma.YettheReformersandthetheologiansoftheeraoftheReformationdidnotinitiatesuchaninvestigation.Thoughtheyappealedto theFathersof the firstcenturies tosubstantiate theirviews, theydid

not feel the need of a careful and critical inquiry into the historicalgenesis of that whole body of doctrine that constituted the content oftheirfaith.Theyharborednodoubtsastothescripturalcharacterofthedoctrines which they believed. Moreover, these doctrines entered intotheir very life and were verified by experience. And not only did theirrobust faith have no need of such a historical investigation, but thedogmatical and polemical interests that were uppermost in theirmindleftlittletimeforhistoricalstudy.

That fact remains, however, that the Roman Catholic and ProtestantChurches accused each other of departing from the historic faith ofChristendom, and that only a careful study of history could settle thatdispute.While thismotiveremained inoperative fora long time,due todogmaticalandpolemical interests, itwasthereandwasboundtohavesomeinfluenceincourseoftime.Itdidnotbecomeoperative,however,until itwas reinforcedbyothermotives, suppliedbymovementswhichwere unfriendly to the dogma of the Church. Pietism was born of theconvictionthatProtestantScholasticismexercisedapetrifying influenceand thus threatened the living truths of the Reformation. It reactedagainstwhatitregardedasthebarrenintellectualismoftheseventeenthcenturyandsawinthisadeparturefromthefaithoftheReformers.AndRationalismwashostiletothedogmaoftheChurch,becauseitwasbasedonauthorityratherthanonhumanreasonandwithitsvauntedstabilityrepresented a check on the free inquiry of the human mind. It wasinterested in showing that the dogma of theChurch had been changedrepeatedly, and therefore could not lay claim to the permanence andstabilityusuallyascribedto it.Thesetwomovements,howeverdifferentandevenantagonisticinsomerespects,joinedhandsintheiroppositiontodogmaandbeganthestudyofitshistorywiththeill-concealeddesireofunderminingit.

Anotherfactorthatshouldbetakenintoconsideration,istheawakeningof thehistoricalspiritunderthe influenceofSemlerandothers.Semlerinitiated the modern historical study of Scripture and wrote a workintitled, An Experiment of a Freer Method of Teaching, which was apioneerwork inwhich the practical value of the historicalmethodwasexplained.InChurchHistorythefruitofthisnewspiritwasfirstseenin

thegreatworkofMosheim.Whileitdidnottakeupthehistoryofdogma,itneverthelessgavegreatimpetustothisstudy.ImportantelementsforitarefoundintheworksofLessingandSemler.

2. EARLIER WORKS ON THE HISTORY OF DOGMA. The realbeginningsofthestudyoftheHistoryofDogmaareseenintheworksofS.G. Lange andMuenscher. Thework of the formerwas planned on alargescale,butwasnevercompleted.Thelatterwroteaworkconsistingoffourvolumesin1797,andfollowedthisupwithacompendium.Byanunbiased study he sought to answer the queestion, How and why thedoctrineofChristianitygraduallyassumeditspresentform?HisworkismarredbytheinfluenceofRationalismandleftthequestionunanswered,whether the proper object of the study is doctrine or dogma. HeintroducedthedivisionofthestudyintoaGeneralandSpecialHistoryofDogma, which is found in many of the later works. The manuals thatfollowedtheworkofMuenscherdidnotmarkanyspecialadvanceinthestudyofthesubject.

UndertheinfluenceofHegelabetterhistoricalmethodwasintroduced.Theapplicationof it tothestudyoftheHistoryisseenespecially intheworkofF.C.Baur,thefatheroftheTuebingenSchoolofNewTestamentcriticism.TheHegelianprincipleofevolutionwasintroducedintracingadefinite order and progress in the rise of ecclesiastical dogmas. It wasregardedastheobjectoftheHistoryofDogma(a)toascertainthefactsintheir actual settings as attested by accredited witnesses, and (b) tointerprettheminaccordancewithanexactlawofinnerunfolding.Foralong time,however, itwas apurely speculative ideaofdevelopment, asembodied inthe familiarHegeliantriad, thatwassuperimposedonthisstudy.ThisappearsmostclearlyintheworkofBaur.

The idea of development, however, gradually acquired other thanHegelian applications. It is assumed in the productions ofSchleiermacher'sschooloftheology.ItisalsoappliedbysuchmediatingwritersasNeanderandHagenbach,who surpass theHegelians in theirestimate of Christianity as a religion and of the religious value ofdoctrine. They fall short, however, in their application of the historicprinciplewheretheycontinuetheolddivisionintoaGeneralandSpecialHistory, and in the latter also apply the so-called lokal-methode.Other

modifications are found in the writings of such confessionalists asKliefothandThomasius.Intheworkoftheformertheideaofdogmaindistinctionfromdoctrineemergesand ismadetheproperobjectof thisstudy. According to this writer each epoch yields its own cycle ofdogmatictruthandleavesthistosucceedinggenerationsasatreasuretobe preserved rather than as material to be reshaped, or even to becancelled (Baur). It is to be incorporated as a whole in the followingdevelopment. Thomasius carefully distinguished between central andperipheraldogmas,theformerbeingthegreatfundamentaldoctrinesofGod,ofChrist,andofSinandGrace,andthe latter themorederivativedoctrineswhicharedevelopedonthebasisof thecentraldoctrines.HisworkiswrittenfromtheconfessionalstandpointoftheLutheranChurch.

RomanCatholicscholarshipwasslowintakinganinterestinthestudyoftheHistory ofDogma. Andwhen it did, it took its startingpoint in thedistinct conception of dogma as the authoritative deliverance of theChurch on the fundamentals of the Christian religion. The olderworksproceedontheassumptionthattheearlyChurchwasinpossessionofthecomplete dogma of Christianity, and that there is no possibility ofmaterial alteration from one generation to another. It is claimed thattherehasbeennoadditiontotheoriginaldepositbutonlyinterpretationsof it.Newman introduced the theoryofdevelopment.According tohimtheoriginaldepositof revealed truth in theBible is largely implicitandgerminal, and only gradually unfolds under the stimulus of externalconditions.Theprocessofdevelopmentisabsolutelycontrolled,however,bytheinfallibleChurch.Buteventhistheory,however,carefullyput,didnotmeetwithgeneralacceptanceinRomanCatholiccircles.

3.LATERWORKSONTHEHISTORYOFDOGMA.LaterworksontheHistory of Dogma reveal a tendency to break with the mechanicalarrangementoftheearlierworkswiththeirdivisionofthesubjectintoaGeneralandaSpecialHistoryandtheirapplicationofthelokal-methode.Thisisstillfound,indeed,intheworkofSheldon,andpartlyalsointhatofShedd,butisconspicuousbyitsabsenceinotherrecentworks.ThereisagrowingconvictionthattheHistoryofDogmashouldbetreatedmoreorganically.Nitzschadoptedagenetic arrangementunder the followingheads:ThePromulgationof theOldCatholicChurchDoctrine,andThe

Developmentof theOldCatholicChurchDoctrine.A similardivision isfound inHarnack,who speaksofTheRiseofEcclesiasticalDogmaandTheDevelopmentofEcclesiasticalDogma.

HarnackshowsaffinitywithbothThomasiusandNitzsch,butadvancesfar beyond their position. He limits his discussion to the rise anddevelopmentofdogmasasdistinguished fromdoctrines, and takes intoaccount the constantly changing aspects of Christianity as a whole,particularly in connection with the general cultural development. Hisworkbreaks radicallywith the lokal-methode.Buthehas an erroneousconceptionofdogma,regardingitinitsinceptionandstructureasaworkof the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel, a mixture of ChristianreligionandHellenisticculture, inwhichthe latterpredominates.Ashesees it, propositions of faith were wrongly turned into intellectualconcepts,whichweresupportedbyhistoricalandscientificproofs,butbythat very process lost their normative value and dogmatic auhority.Accordingtohimthatcorruptionbegan,notintheNewTestamentitself,as later writers assert, but in the second and third centuries with thedevelopment of the Logos doctrine, and was continued in the RomanCatholic Church up to the time of the Vatican Council, whileProtestantism at the time of theReformation in principle set aside thedogmaticconceptionofChristianity.Itsdogmasareconstantlysubjecttorevision. Strictly speaking, it has no place for fixed truths, for dogmas,butonlyforaGlaubenslehre.Harnacktakestoolimitedaviewofdogma,doesnotdojusticetotheaversionoftheearlyChurchFatherstoheatheninfluence,andmakesthewholeHistoryofDogmaonegiganticerror.

LoofsandSeebergdonotfollowthedivisionofHarnack,butseemtofeelthat the second division of his great work really covers practically thewhole of theHistory of Dogma, though the former still has a separatechapter on the genesis of dogma among theChristians.And thoughhedoes not entirely agreewithHarnack's conception of dogma, he showsgreateraffinitywithhimthanSeebergdoesinhismonumentalwork.Thisworkissomewhatofasourcebook,sinceitcontainsnumerousquotationsfrom the authors whose doctrinal views are discussed. Like Harnack,Seeberghasalsowrittenatextbookintwovolumes,whichwastranslatedintoEnglishbyDr.CharlesE.Hayandappearedin1905underthetitle,

Textbookof theHistoryofDoctrines. It isaworkof considerablevalueforthestudent.

Questions for Further Study: How do the Roman Catholic and theProtestant conceptions of dogma differ? How did Newman's theorychange the Roman Catholic view of the history of dogma? WhatobjectionsaretheretoHarnack'sviewofdogma?Hashisviewmetwithgeneral favor among the Ritschlians? Are Roman Catholics andProtestants agreed as to the task of the history of dogma? Is thechangeable element of dogma, presupposed in its history, found in itsformor in its contentor inboth?Whatcanbe said forandagainst theHegelian method as applied to the History of Dogma? Did Baur inapplyingitdojusticetotheexternalhistoricalfacts?Mustthehistoryofdogma, in order to be truly scientific, be written in a purely objectiveway?

Literature:Harnack,HistoryofDogma I, pp. 1–40;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrinesI,pp.19–27;Loofs,HandboekderDogmengeschiedenis,pp.1–9;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmasI,pp.1–32;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.1–22;Hagenbach,HistoryofDoctrines,I,pp.1–47;Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,I,pp.1–48;Rainy,DeliveryandDevelopment of Christian Doctrine; Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der HeiligeGodgeleerdheid,III,pp.370–386.

PREPARATORYDOCTRINALDEVELOPMENT

I.TheApostolicFathersandTheirDoctrinalViews

1.THEIRREPUTEDWRITINGS.TheApostolicFathersare theFatherswho are supposed to have lived before the last of the apostles died, ofwhomsomearesaidtohavebeendisciplesoftheapostles,andtowhomthe earliest Christian writings now extant are ascribed. There areespecially six names which have come down to us, namely, Barnabas,Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius. The first is

generallyregarded,thoughwithdoubtfulwarrant,astheBarnabaswhoisknown as the companion of Paul in theActs of theApostles.He is thereputedauthorofastronglyanti-JudaicEpistleofdoubtfulgenuineness.Hermas is supposed tohavebeen thepersonmentioned inRom.16:14,thoughoninsufficientgrounds.TheShepherdofHermasascribedtohimcontains a series of visions, commands, and similitudes. It is aworkofdoubtful authenticity, though it was held in high esteem by the earlyChurch.ClementofRomemayhavebeenPaul'sfellow-workernamedinPhil.4:3.HeiscommonlyrepresentedasbishopofRome,thoughhemayhave been, andmost likely was,merely an influential pastor there. Hewas author of an Epistle to the Corinthians, containing general moralinjunctions and special exhortations, occasioned by discords in theCorinthian church. The authentictiy of this Epistle is also doubted bysome, though without good reasons. It is probably the earliest of thegenuine remains of early Christian literature. Polycarp is usuallydesignated "bishop of Smyrna", but Eusebius speaks of him morecorrectlyas "thatblessedandapostolicpresbyter."HewasadiscipleofJohn andwrote a short Epistle to the Philippians, consisting chiefly ofpractical exhortations in Scripture language. Papias, called "bishop ofHierapolis",wasacontemporaryofPolycarp,andperhapsalsoadiscipleofJohn.Hewastheauthorofan"ExpositionoftheOraclesoftheLord,"ofwhichonlyafewdoctrinallyinsignificantfragmentswerepreservedbyEusebius.Ignatius,commonlyknownas"bishopofAntioch",alsolivedinthedaysof the lastof theapostles.Fifteen letterswereascribedtohim,butonlysevenarenowregardedasgenuine,andeventhesearedoubtedby some.To thesewritings twoofunknownauthorshipmustbeadded,namely, the Epistle to Diognetes and the Didache. The former issometimes ascribed to Justin Martyr, since he wrote an Apology toDiognetes.His authorship is veryunlikely, however, in viewof internalevidence. The writer gives an account of the grounds on which manyChristianshadabandonedPaganismandJudaism,describestheleadingfeaturesofthecharacterandconductofChristians,andtracesthistothedoctrine of Christianity, ofwhich he gives an admirable summary. TheDidache,discoveredin1873,wasprobablywrittenabouttheyear100A.D.The first part containsmoral preceptsunder the schemeof theTwoWays, thewayof lifeand thewayofdeath,while the secondpartgivesdirections pertaining to worship and church government, interspersed

withstatementsrespectingthelastthings.

2. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR TEACHINGS. It isfrequentlyremarkedthatinpassingfromthestudyoftheNewTestamenttothatoftheApostolicFathersoneisconsciousofatremendouschange.Thereisnotthesamefreshnessandoriginality,depthandclearness.Andthis is no wonder, for it means the transition from truth given byinfallible inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. TheirproductionswereboundtoleanratherheavilyonScriptureandtobeofaprimitive type, concerning itselfwith the first principles of faith ratherthanwiththedeepertruthsofreligion.

Their teachings are characterized by a certain meagerness. They aregenerally in full agreement with the teachings of Scripture, are oftencouched in the very words of the Bible, but add very little by way ofexplicationandarenotatallsystematized.Andthisneednotsurpriseanyone,fortherehadasyetbeenbutashorttimeforreflectiononthetruthsofScriptureandforassimilationofthegreatmassofmaterialcontainedintheBible.ThecanonoftheNewTestamentwasnotyetfixed,andthisexplainswhytheseearlyFatherssooftenquoteoraltraditionratherthanthewrittenword.Moreover, itshouldbeborne inmindthat therewerenophilosophicalmindsamongthemwithspecialtrainingforthepursuitof the truth and outstanding ability for its systematic presentation. Inspiteoftheircomparativepoverty,however,thewritingsoftheApostolicFathers are of considerable importance, since they witness to thecanonicity and integrity of the New Testament Books and form adoctrinal link between the New Testament and the more speculativewritingsoftheApologeteswhichappearedduringthesecondcentury.

AsecondcharacteristicoftheteachingsoftheApostolicFathersistheirwant of definiteness. The New Testament records various types of theApostolic kerugma (preaching): the Petrine, the Pauline, and theJohannine. The three are in fundamental agreement, but each one ofthem represents a different emphasis on the truth. Now it may seemsurprisingthattheApostolicFathers,whilerevealingsomepreferencefortheJohanninetype,withwhichtheymayhavebeenbestacquainted,yetdidnotdefinitelyattachthemselvestoanyoneofthesetypes.However,several considerations may be offered in explanation. It requires

considerable reflection to distinguish these types. These early Fathersstood too near the Apostles to grasp the distinctive features of theirteachings. Then, too, for them Christianity was not in the first place aknowledge tobeacquired,but theprincipleofanewobedience toGod.Whiletheywereconsciousof thenormativevalueof thewordsofJesusand theApostolickerugma, theydidnotattempt todefine the truthsofrevelation,butsimplytorestatetheminthelightoftheirunderstanding.And, finally, the general conditions of their life, in so far as thesewereinfluencedbythepopularheathenphilosophyoftheday,andbyheathenand Jewish-Helenistic piety, were not favorable to the properunderstandingofthecharacteristicdifferencesbetweentheseveraltypesoftheApostolickerugma.

3. MATERIAL CONTENTS OF THEIR TEACHINGS. It is a matter ofcommon observation that thewritings of theApostolic Fathers containvery little that isdoctrinally important.Their teachingsaregenerally inharmony with the truth revealed in the Word of God, and are oftenrepresentedintheverywordofScripture,butforthatveryreasoncannotbesaidtoincreaseordeepenourinsightintothetruthortoshedlightontheinterrelationsofthedoctrinalteachingsofScripture.Theytestifytoacommon faith in God as the Creator and Ruler of the universe and inJesus Christ, who was active in creation and throughout the olddispensation, and finally appeared in the flesh. While they use thescriptural designation ofGod as Father, Son, andHoly Spirit, and alsospeakofChristasGodandman,theydonottestifytoanawarenessoftheimplicationsandproblemsinvolved.TheworkofChristastheRedeemeris not always represented in the same way. Sometimes His greatsignificance is seen in the fact thatHe,byHispassionanddeath, freedmankind from sin and death; and sometimes in the related, but notcorrelatedfactthatHerevealedtheFatherandtaughtthenewmorallaw.InsomecasesthedeathofChristisrepresentedasprocuringformenthegraceofrepentanceandasopeningthewayforanewobedience,ratherthan as the ground of man's justification. This moralistic strain is,perhaps, theweakest point in the teachings of theApostolicFathers. Itwasrelatedtothemoralismpresentintheheathenworldofthatdayandcharacteristic of the naturalman as such, and was bound to serve theinterests of legalism. The sacraments are represented as themeans by

which the blessings of salvation are communicated to man. Baptismbegetsthenewlifeandsecurestheforgivenessofallsinsorofpastsinsonly (Hermas and II Clement); and the Lord's Supper is themeans ofcommunicatingtomanablessedimmortalityoreternallife.

TheindividualChristianapprehendsGodinfaith,whichconsistsintrueknowledgeofGod,confidenceinHim,andself-committaltoHim.Manissaid tobe justifiedby faith,but the relationof faith to justificationandthenewlifeisnotclearlyunderstood.Ananti-Paulinestrainoflegalismbecomesmanifestatthispoint.Faithissimplythefirststepinthewayoflife,onwhichthemoraldevelopmentoftheindividualdepends.Butafterthe forgiveness of sins is once granted in baptism and apprehended byfaith,mannextmerits thisblessingbyhisgoodworks,whichbecomeasecondandindependentprinciplealongsideoffaith.Christianityisoftenrepresentedasanovalex,andlove,leadingontoanewobedience,takesthe leading place. Not the grace of God, but the good works of mansometimesappearintheforeground.

The Christian is represented as living in a Christian community, thechurch,whichstillrejoicesinthepossessionofcharismaticgifts,butalsoshowsanincreasingrespectfortheecclesiasticalofficesmentionedintheNewTestament. Insome instances thebishopstandsoutassuperior tothepresbyters.Avividsenseofthevanityandtransitorycharacterofthepresentworld,andoftheeternalgloryofthefutureworld,ismanifestintheirwritings.Theendof all things is thought tobeverynear, and therepresentations of the end of the present world are derived from OldTestament prophecy. The Kingdom of God is regarded as the supremegood and as a purely future blessing. According to some (Barnabas,Hermas,Papias)itsfinalformisprecededbyamillennialkingdom.Butwhatever attention is devoted to the millennium, there is far greateremphasison thecoming judgment,whenthepeopleofGodwill receivetherewardsofheaven,andthewickedwillbecondemnedtoeverlastingdestruction.

Questions for Further Study: How is the indefinite character of theteachingsof theApostolicFathers tobe explained?Onwhichpoint aretheseteachingsdefective?WhatseedsofthedoctrinespeculiartoRomanCatholicismarealreadypresent in thesewritings?Howcanweaccount

for their different representations of the work of Christ? In whatparticular points does the moralism or legalism of the early Fathersappear?Whatcanbesaid inexplanationof thisphenomenon?Could ithave been occasioned in any way by Scripture statements? IsHarnackcorrectwhenhe says that theChristologyof theApostolicFathers is inpart"AdoptionChristology"?

Literature: Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers; Lechler, Das apostol. u.nachap. Zeitalter; Moxom, From Jerusalem to Nicaea, pp. 99–162;Cunningham, Historical Theology I, pp. 94–120; Scott, The NiceneTheology, pp. 82–87, 142–160; Moody, C. N., The Mind of the EarlyConverts, pp. 10–101; Harnack, History of Dogma I, pp. 141–221;Seeberg, History of Doctrines I, pp.55–82; Loofs, Handboek derDogmengeschiedenis, pp. 57–66; Otten, Manual of the History ofDogmasI,pp.62–98;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.41–47.

II.PerversionsoftheGospel

InthesecondcenturytheChristianreligionasanewforceintheworld,revealing itself in the organization of the Church, had to engage in astruggleforexistence,Ithadtoguardagainstdangersfromwithoutandfromwithin,hadtojustifyitsexistence,andhadtomaintainthepurityofdoctrineinthefaceofsubtleerror.TheveryexistenceoftheChurchwasthreatened by State persecutions. The first persecutions were entirelyJewish,due to the fact that theChurchwas largely limited toPalestine,andthattheRomanGovernmentforsometimeconsideredthefollowersof Christ as a Jewish sect, and therefore regarded their religion as areligiolicita.ButwhenitbecameapparentthatChristianitylaidclaimtoa universal character, thus endangering the State religion, and that theChristianslargelydisregardedtheaffairsoftheStateandrefusedtojoinin the idolatrous worship of the Romans, and particularly in theiremperor worship, the Roman government inaugurated a series ofpersecutionswhichthreatenedtheveryexistenceoftheChristianChurch.AtthesametimeChristianityhadtosufferagreatdealfromthewrittenattacks of some of the keenest minds of the age, such as Lucian,Porphyry,andCelsus,menofaphilosophicalbentofmind,whohurled

theirinvectivesagainsttheChristianreligion.Theirargumentsaretypicalof thephilosophical opposition toChristianity throughout the centuriesand frequently remind one of those employed by rationalisticphilosophers and higher critics in the present day. But however greatthesedangersfromwithoutwere,therewereevengreaterdangerswhichthreatenedtheChurchfromwithin.TheseconsistedindifferenttypesofperversionsoftheGospel.

1. JEWISH PERVERSIONS. There were three groups of JewishChristianswhichrevealedaJudaistictendency.TracesofthemarefoundevenintheNewTestament.

a.TheNazarenes.ThesewereJewishChristianswhoadoptedthetenetsoftheChristianreligion.TheyusedonlytheHebrewGospelofMatthew,butatthesametimerecognizedPaulasatrueapostle.Indistinctionfromother Jewish sects they believed in the divinity and the virgin birth ofJesus.Andwhiletheyboundthemselvesinpracticetoastrictobservanceofthelaw,theydidnotdemandthisofGentileChristians."Theywere,"asSeebergsays,"reallyJewishChristians,whereasthetwofollowinggroupswereonlyChristianJews."

b. The Ebionites. This sect really constituted the continuation of theJudaisticopponentsof theApostlePaulandwasofaPharisaic type.Itsadherents refused to recognize the apostleship of Paul, whom theyregardedasanapostatefromthelaw,anddemandedthatallChristiansshouldsubmittotheriteofcircumcision.TheyhadaCerinthianviewofChrist, which was probably due to their desire to maintain the OldTestamentmonotheism.Both thedivinityofChristandHisvirginbirthwere denied. In their opinion Jesus distinguishedHimself from othersonlybyastrictobservanceofthelaw,andwaschosentobetheMessiahonaccountofHislegalpiety.HebecameconsciousofthisatthetimeofHisbaptism,whenHereceivedtheSpirit,whichenabledHimtoperformHistask,theworkofaprophetandteacher.TheywerereluctanttothinkofHimassubjecttosufferingsanddeath.

c. The Elkesaites. This group represented a type of Jewish Christianitymarked by theosophic speculations and strict asceticism. While theyrejectedthevirginbirthofChristandclaimedthatHewasbornasother

men, they also spokeofHimas ahigher spirit or angel.They regardedHimasanincarnationoftheidealAdam,andalsocalledHimthehighestarchangel.Circumcisionandthesabbathwereheldinhonour;therewererepeatedwashings,towhichamagicalcleansingandreconcilingmeaningwasascribed;andmagicandastrologywerepracticedamongthem.Theyhad their secret doctrines respecting the observance of the law. Theirmovement was probably an attempt to gain general recognition forJewish Christianity by adapting it to the syncretistic tendencies of theage. In all probability the Epistle to the Colossians and First Timothyrefertothisheresy.

2. GENTILE PERVERSIONS: GENTILE-CHRISTIAN GNOSIS. InGnosticismwemeetwithasecondperversionofChristianity.IthadthisincommonwiththeJudaisticsects,thatitconceivedoftherelationshipbetween theOldTestament and theNew, and between their respectivereligions,asoneofopposition.Itsoriginal formwasrootedinJudaism,but it ultimately developed into a strangemixture of Jewish elements,Christiandoctrines,andheathenspeculativethought.

(1)OriginofGnosticism.ThereareindicationsintheNewTestamentthatanincipientGnosticismwasalreadymakingitsappearanceinthedaysofthe Apostles. There were heretical teachers even then who drew theirimmediate impulse from Judaism, engaged in speculations respectingangelsandspirits,andwerecharacterizedbyafalsedualism,leadingonto asceticism on the one hand, and to an immoral libertinism, on theother hand, who spiritualized the resurrection and made the Church'shopetheobjectofderisivemockery,Col.2:18ff;1Tim.1:3–7;4:1–3;6:3f.;2Tim.2:14–18;Tit.1:10–16;2Pet.2:1–4;Jude4,16;Rev.2:6,15,20f.Therewasalsoatendencytoreligiousphilosophicalspeculation,whichappeared especially in the heresy of Cerinthus, who distinguishedbetweenthehumanJesusandChristasahigherspiritwhichdescendedon him at the time of his baptism and left him again before thecrucifixion.Johnindirectlycombatsthisheresyinhiswritings,John1:14;20:31;1John2:22;4:2,15;5:1,5,6;2John7.

Fromtheearlypartof thesecondcentury theseerrorsassumedamoredevelopedform,wereopenlyproclaimed,andatoncehadanamazinglywidecirculation.Thiscanbeunderstoodonlyinthelightofthegeneral

syncretismoftheperiod.Therewasawidespreadreligiousunrestandasurprising eagerness to absorb all possible religious ideas, and togeneralizeandharmonizethem.Westernreligionshadceasedtosatisfy,and Eastern cults, diligently propagated by itinerant preachers, wereeagerly embraced. The great aim was to gratify the thirst for deeperknowledge,thedesireformysticcommunionwithGod,andthehopeofsecuringasurepathforthesoulinitsascenttotheupperworldatdeath.It is nowonder that this tendency attached itself toChristianity,whichseemedtoaddressitselftothesametaskwithmarkedsuccess.Moreover,it found support in the claim of Christianity to be the absolute anduniversal religion. Itmaybe said thatGnosticismmistakenly sought toelevateChristianity to its rightfulposition, thatofuniversal religion,byadaptingittotheneedsofall,andbyinterpretingitinharmonywiththewisdomoftheworld.

(2)TheEssentialCharacterofGnosticism.Gnosticismwas first of all aspeculative movement. The speculative element was very much in theforeground.TheverynameGnostikoi,adoptedbysomeofitsadherents,indicatesthattheylaidclaimtoadeeperknowledgeofdivinethingsthancould be obtained by common believers. The Gnostics grappled withsomeofthedeeperproblemsofphilosophyandreligion,butapproachedthem in the wrongmanner and suggested solutions totally at variancewith the truthsof revelation.Their twogreatestproblemswere thoseofabsolutebeingandoftheoriginofevil,problemsnotofChristianbutofheathen religious thought. They developed a phantastic cosmogony, inwhich they borrowed freely from oriental speculation, and with whichtheysoughttocombinethetruthsoftheGospel.Undoubtedly,theywereserious intheirattemptstomaketheGospelacceptabletotheeducatedandculturedclassesoftheirday.

In spite of its speculative character, Gnosticism was also a popularmovement. In order to sway themasses, it had to be somethingmorethan mere speculation. Therefore attempts were made in specialassociations to popularize the general cosmical theory by symbolical,rites, mystic, ceremonies, and the teaching of magic formulas. In theinitiation into these associations strange formulas and rites formed animportant part. Thesewere supposed to form a necessary and effective

protection against the power of sin and death, and to be a means ofgaining access to the blessedness of theworld to come. In reality theirintroduction was an attempt to transform the Gospel into a religiousphilosophy and into mystic wisdom. Yet Gnosticism claimed to beChristian in character.Whenever possible, it appealed to the words ofJesusexplainedinanallegoricalway,andtoaso-calledsecrettraditionhandeddownfromthetimesoftheApostles.ManyreceiveditsteachingsasgenuineChristiantruth.

Gnosticism was also a syncretistic movement within the sphere ofChristianity.It isstillamatterofdiscussion,whethertheGnosticswereChristiansinanysenseoftheterm.AccordingtoSeebergGnosticismwaspaganratherthanGentileChristian.Itaddresseditselftothesolutionofproblems that originated in the religious thought of theheathenworld,and merely gave its discussions a somewhat Christian colouring.Apparently it placed a high estimate on Jesus Christ as marking thedecisive turning point in human history, and as a teacher of absolutetruth.Harnackspeaksofitas"theacuteHellenizingofChristianity,"andcallstheGnostics"thefirstChristiantheologians."Prof.Waltherismorecorrect,whenhesaysthatGnosticismis…"astealingofsomeChristianragstocoverheathennakedness."ThiscorrespondswiththedescriptionofSeebergwhenhespeaksofitas"anethnicizingofChristianity."

(3) TheMain Teachings of Gnosticism.We cannot discuss the variousGnosticsystems,suchasthoseofValentinusandBasilides,butcanonlybrieflyindicatetheteachingsofGnosticismingeneral.Atraitofdualismruns through thewhole systemandmanifests itself in theposition thattherearetwooriginalprinciplesorgods,whichareopposedtoeachotherashigherandlower,orevenasgoodandbad.ThesupremeorgoodGodis an unfathomable abyss. He interposes between Himself and finitecreatures a long chain of aeons ormiddle beings, emanations from thedivine, which together constitute the Pleroma or fullness of the divineessence.ItisonlythroughtheseintermediatebeingsthatthehighestGodcan enter into various relations with created beings. The worlds is notcreated by the good God, but is the result of, probably, a fall in thePleroma,andistheworkofasubordinate,possiblyahostile,deity.ThissubordinategodiscalledtheDemiurge,isidentifiedwiththeGodofthe

OldTestament,and isdescribedasan inferior, limited,passionate,andvengeful being. He is contrasted with the supreme God, the source ofgoodness,virtue,andtruth,whorevealedHimselfinChrist.

Theworldofmatterastheproductofalesserandpossiblyanevilgod,isessentiallyevil.Thereisfoundinit,however,aremnantfromthespirit-world,namely,thesoulofman,asparkoflightfromtheupperworldofpuritywhich insomeinexplicablewaybecameentangled inevilmatter.Its deliverance can be obtained only through some intervention of thegoodGod.Away of deliverance has been provided by the sending of aspecialemissaryfromthekingdomoflightintotheworldofdarkness.InChristianGnosticismthisemissaryisregularlyidentifiedwithChrist.Heis variously represented, either as a celestial being appearing in aphantasmalbody,orasanearthlybeing,withwhomahigherpowerorspirit temporarily associated himself. Sincematter is in itself evil, thishigherspiritcouldnothaveanordinaryhumanbody.

Participation in redemption, or victory over theworld,was gainedonlythrough the secret rites of the Gnostic associations. Initiation into themysteriesofmarriagetoChrist,ofpeculiarbaptism,ofmagicnames,andofspecialanointing,bywhichthesecretknowledgeofBeingwassecured,formed the path of redemption. At this pointGnosticismbecamemoreand more a system of religious mysteries. Men are divided into threeclasses:thepneumaticwhoconstitutetheeliteofthechurch,thepsychicconsistingoftheordinaryChurchmembers,andthehylicortheGentiles.Onlythefirstclassisreallycapableofhigherknowledge(epignosis)andthus obtains the highest blessedness. The second class may be savedthrough faithandworks,but canonlyattain toan inferiorblessedness.Thosebelongingtothethirdclassarehopelesslylost.

The ethics or moral philosophy, accompanying these views ofredemption,was dominated by a false estimate of sensuousness,whichresultedeitherinstrictasceticabstinenceorinlowcarnality,bornoftheassurance that nothing could really hinder those who were favored ofheaven. There was asceticism on the one hand and libertinism on theother. The ordinary eschatology of the Church had no place in thissystem.Thedoctrineoftheresurrectionofthedeadwasnotrecognized.When the soul was finally released from matter, it returned to the

Pleroma,andthismarkedtheend.

(4) Historical Significance of Gnosticism. Even Gnosticism, howeverformidable an enemy of the truth, was not able to check the onwardmarch of Christianity.Manywere indeed swept along for a time by itsdaringspeculationsorbyitsmysticrites,butthegreatbodyofbelieverswas not deceived by its phantastic representations nor by its alluringpromises of secret bliss. In fact, Gnosticism was short-lived. Like ameteoritlituptheskyforamoment,andthensuddenlydisappeared.Itwas overcome by the direct refutations of the Church Fathers, by thepreparationandcirculationofshortstatementsofthefundamentalfactsof the Christian religion (Rules of Faith), and by a more rationalinterpretationoftheNewTestamentandalimitationofitscanon,totheexclusion of all the false Gospels, Acts, and Epistles that were incirculation.YetitdidnotfailtoleavealastingimpressionontheChurch.Someof its peculiaritieswere absorbedby theChurchand in courseoftime came to fruition in the Roman Catholic Church with its peculiarconceptionofthesacraments,itsphilosophyofahiddenGod,whoshouldbeapproachedthroughintermediaries(saints,angels,Mary),itsdivisionofmenintohigherandlowerorders,anditsemphasisonasceticism.

TheChurchalsoderivedactualprofitfromtheappearanceofGnosticism,but only in an indirectway. It learned tomark off clearly the limits ofdivinerevelation,andtodeterminetherelationoftheOldTestamenttotheNew.Moreover,itbecamekeenlyalivetothenecessityofdrawingupshort statements of the truth, based on current baptismal formulas,whichcouldserveasstandardsof interpretation(RulesofFaith).Therewas also a very evident doctrinal gain. Christianity was now firstconceivedasa"doctrine"andasa"mystery."Theintellectualelementinthe Christian religion was emphasized, and this marked the realstartingpoint for doctrinal development. TheChristian idea ofGodwasrescuedfromthemythologicalspeculationsoftheGnostics.TheChurchcame into conscious possession of the truth that God is the SupremeBeing,theCreatorandUpholderoftheUniverse,thesameintheOldandin the New Testament. The doctrine of the Demiurge and his creativeactivity was set aside, and the dualism of the Gnostics,makingmatteressentially evil, was overcome. Over against the Gnostic tendency to

regardJesusChristmerelyasoneof theaeons,HisuniquecharacterastheSonofGodwasemphasized,andatthesametimeHistruehumanitywasdefendedagainstallkindsofdoceticdenials.Thegreat factsofHislife,His virginbirth,miracles, sufferings, death, and resurrection,wereall maintained and set in clearer light. Moreover, the doctrine ofredemption through the atoning work of Christ was put forward inoppositiontothespeculativevagariesoftheGnostics;andtheuniversalreceptivityofmenfortheGospelofJesusChristwasstressedinanswertoGnosticexclusivenessandpride.

Questions for Further Study: Are there any traces of the Nazarenes,Ebionites,andElkesaitesintheNewTestament?HowdoestheEbionitedenial of the divinity of Christ follow from Judaism? Does the NewTestamentcontainanyindicationsofanincipientGnosticism?Wherearethesefound?ArethereanyelementsofNewTestamentteachingtowhichGnosticism could rightly or wrongly appeal? On which sources didGnosticism draw? Wherein does the anti-Judaistic character of themovementinitsfinalformappear?WhyisitsChristologycalleddocetic?Whatmethodof interpretationdidtheGnosticsadopt infoundingtheirsystem on Scripture? How did the Gnostics distinguish between pistisand gnostis? Are the Gnostic distinctions between the world and thekingdom of God, between good and evil, of an ethical nature? Is thereanything in other systems corresponding to their doctrine of anunapproachableGodandintermediatebeings?WhatlentGnosticismitstemporary popularity, its speculations or its esoteric religion? Why isHarnackhardlyjustifiedinspeakingoftheGnosticsas"thefirstChristiantheologians"?

Literature: Burton,Heresies of the Apostolic Age;Mansel, TheGnosticHeresiesoftheFirstandSecondCenturies;King,TheGnosticsandtheirRemains;Lightfoot,CommentaryonColossians,pp.73–113;Moody,TheMindoftheEarlyChristians,pp.148–203;Scott,TheNiceneTheology,pp.87–133;Faulkner,CrisesintheEarlyChurch,pp.9–51;Cunningham,Historical Theology I, pp. 121–133; Neander, History of ChristianDogmas I, pp. 33–45; Harnack, History of Dogma I, pp. 222–265;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrineI,pp.87–102;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryof Dogmas I, pp. 99–105; Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine I, pp.

105–117;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.48–58;Orr,ProgressofDogma,pp.54–70.

III.ReformMovementsintheChurch

1.MARCIONANDHISMOVEMENTOFREFORM

a.Hischaracterandpurpose.MarcionwasanativeofPontus (Sinope),whowasdrivenfromhishome,soitseems,onaccountofadultery,andmadehisway toRomeabout theyear 139A.D.He is representedasamanofdeepearnestnessandmarkedability,wholaboredinthespiritofareformer.HefirstmadetheattempttobringtheChurchtohiswayofthinking, and when he did not succeed in his work of reform, feltconstrainedtoorganizehisfollowersintoaseparatechurchandtoseekuniversal acceptance of his views by active propaganda. He has oftenbeenclassedasaGnostic,butthecorrectnessofthisclassificationisnowdoubted. Loofs says that the statement of Hahn, "Marcion perperamgnosticus vocatur, is to the point, since Marcion had a soteriologicalratherthanacosmologicalpurpose,faithratherthanknowledgeoccupiedthe most important place in his system, he did not work out orientalmyths nor Greek philosophical problems, and excluded allegoricalinterpretations. This is in general agreement with the statement ofHarnack, who says that he should not be classed with Gnostics likeBasilidesandVanlentinusandgivesthefollowingreasonsforhisopinion:"(1)Hewasguidedbynometaphysical,alsobynoapologetical,butonlyby a purely soteriological interest, (2) he therefore placed the wholeemphasisuponthepureGospelanduponfaith(notuponknowledge),(3)he did not employ philosophy—at least not as amain principle—in hisconception of Christianity, (4) he did not endeavor to found schools ofphilosophers,buttoreform,inaccordancewiththetruePaulineGospel,the churches whose Christianity he believed to be legalistic (Judaistic)and who, as he thought, denied free grace.When he failed in this, heformeda churchofhis own."Seeberg also singleshimout for separatetreatment.

b.Hismainteachings.ThegreatquestionforMarcionwashowtorelate

theOldTestament to theNew.He foundthekey to thisproblemin theEpistle to theGalatians,whichspeaksofaJudaisticopposition toPaul,andproceededontheassumptionthattheotherapostlessharedinthis.Hebecameconvinced that theGospelwascorruptedbycommingling itwith the law. So he set himself the task of separating the Jaw and theGospel,andworkedouthistheoryofoppositesorantitheses.HeacceptedtheOldTestamentasthegenuinerevelationoftheGodoftheJews,butdeclaredthatHecouldnotbethesameastheGodoftheNewTestament.HeistheCreatoroftheworld,butaGodbynomeansperfect.Heruleswith rigour and justice, is full of wrath, and knows nothing of grace.However, He is not opposed to the God of the New Testament as theprincipleofevil,butonlyasalesserGod.

TheGodoftheNewTestament,ontheotherhand,isgoodandmerciful.Hewasunknownuntil the fifteenthyearofTiberias,whenHe revealedHimselfinChrist,whoisoftenspokenofasthegoodGodhimself.ChristisnottobeidentifiedwiththeOldTestamentMessiah,sinceHedoesnotanswerto thepropheticdelineationsof thecomingRedeemer.Hecameas the manifestation of the good God, and did not defile Himself bytakingonarealbody,sinceHewouldtakenothingfromthekingdomoftheDemiurge,butmerelyassumedanapparentbody, inorder tomakeHimself intelligible. He abrogated the law and all the works of theDemiurge,whoforthatreasonsecuredHisexecutiononthecrossbytheprinces of the world. But because of the unreality of His body, thecrucifixiondidnotharmChrist.HeproclaimedtheGospelofloveandoffreedomfromthe lawoftheOldTestamentGod,thusopeningawayofsalvationforallwhobelieveandevenforthewickedinthenetherworld.Itwasunderstood,however, that themajorityofmankindwouldperishbybeingconsigned to the fireof theDemiurge.ThegoodGoddoesnotpunishthem;Hesimplywillnothavethem.ThatisHisjudgmentonthewicked.SinceMarcionbelievedthatPaulwastheonlyapostlewhoreallyunderstoodtheGospelofJesusChrist,he limitedthecanonof theNewTestamenttotheGospelofLukeandtenEpistlesofthegreatApostleoftheGentiles.

2.THEMONTANISTREFORMATION:

a.Itsorigin.WhileMontanismmayberegardedasareactionagainstthe

innovationsoftheGnostics,itwasitselfalsocharacterizedbyinnovatingtendencies.MontanusappearedinPhrygiaabouttheyear150A.D.,andtherefore his teaching is often called the Phrygian heresy. He and twowomen,PriscaandMaximilla,announcedthemselvesasprophets.Onthebasis of theGospel of John theyheld that the last andhighest stage ofrevelationhadbeenreached.TheageoftheParacletehadcome,andtheParacletespokethroughMontanusnowthattheendoftheworldwasathand. The revelations given throughMontanus weremainly concernedwith those things in which it seemed that the Scriptures were notsufficiently ascetic. From this it would seem that the most essentialelementinMontanismwasitslegalisticasceticism.

b. Its main teachings. According to Montanism the last period ofrevelation has opened with the coming of the Paraclete. Hence thepresentageisoneofspiritualgiftsandespeciallyofprophecy.Montanusandhisco-laborersareregardedasthelastoftheprophets,bringingnewrevelations.OnthewholetheMontanistswereorthodoxandacceptedtherule of faith. They strongly emphasized the nearness of the end of theworld,andinviewofthisinsistedonstrictmoralrequirements,suchascelebacy (or at most a single marriage), fasting, and rigid moraldiscipline.Theyundulyexaltedmartyrdomandabsolutelyforbadeflightfrompersecution.Moreover,theyrevealedatendencytoexaltthespecialcharismsintheChurchattheexpenseoftheregularofficesandofficers.While Marcion appealed especially to the writings of Paul, MontanussoughtsupportmoreparticularlyintheGospelandEpistlesofJohn.

c. Its reception in the Church. The Church was placed in a somewhatembarrassingpositionbyMontanism.Ontheonehanditrepresentedtheorthodox position over against the speculations of theGnostics, and assuch deserved appreciation. And in view of the Scriptural emphasis onthe nearness of the end of the world, on the great importance of thecharismaticgifts,particularlyprophecy,andonthenecessityofkeepingoneself unspotted from theworld—it is not difficult to understand thatmany regarded itwith favor.On the other hand theChurch followed atrue instinct in rejecting it, especially because of the fanaticism itinvolvedand its claim to ahigher revelation than that contained in theNewTestament.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:WhyisMarcionoftenrankedasaGnostic?In what respects does he differ from the Gnostics? What contrastsdominateallhis teachings?Whatobjectionsdidhehave tomostof theNew Testament writings? To what New Testament books is Marcion'scanon limited?How did the Church indirectly profit by theMarcionitecontroversy?WhatfactorsgaverisetoMontanism?Howdoyouaccountforitsasceticism,andforitsemphasisonspecialcharisms?Howshouldwe judge of its claim to a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and topropheticgifts?Wasitsstrictdisciplinejustified?

Literature:Consult thebooksonGnosticismmentioned in thepreviouschapterforMarcionism;Faulkner,CrisesintheEarlyChurch,pp.52–75;McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought I, pp. 149–174; Harnack,History of Dogma I, pp. 266–286; II, pp. 94–104; Seeberg, History ofDoctrineI,pp.102–108;Fisher,HistoryofDoctrine,pp.59,60,81–83.

IV.TheApologistsandtheBeginningsoftheChurch'sTheology

1. THE TASK OF THE APOLOGISTS. Pressure from without andfromwithincalledforaclearstatementandfordefenseofthetruth,andthusgavebirthtotheology.TheearliestFatherswhotookupthedefenseof the truth are for that very reason called Apologists. The mostimportantof thesewereJustin,Tatian,Athenagoras,andTheophilusofAntioch.Theyaddressedtheirapologiespartlytotherulersandpartlytotheintelligentpublic.Theirimmediateobjectwastomollifythetemperofthe authorities and of the people in general towards Christianity; andtheysoughttodothisbysettingforthits,truecharacterandbyrefutingthe charges proffered against the Christians. They were particularlysolicitous to make the Christian religion acceptable to the educatedclassesbystressingitsrationality.Withthatinviewtheyrepresenteditasthe highest and surest philosophy, gave special emphasis to the greattruthsofnaturalreligion:God,virtue,andimmortality,andspokeofitasthefulfilmentofallthetruthfoundinbothJudaismandHellenism.

Their task assumed a threefold character, defensive, offensive, andconstructive. They defended Christianity by showing that there was no

evidenceforthechargesbroughtagainstitsadherents,thattheoffensiveconductascribedtothemwasaltogetherinconsistentwiththespiritandprecepts of the Gospel, and that the character and lives of those whoprofessedtheChristianfaithweremarkedbymoralpurity.

Not satisfied with a mere defense, they also attacked their opponents.TheychargedtheJewswithalegalismthatlostsightoftheshadowyandtypicalcharacterofmuchthatwas foundinthe lawandrepresented itstemporal elements as permanent, and with a blindness that preventedthemfromseeingthatJesuswastheMessiah,promisedbytheprophets,and as such the fulfilment of the law. Moreover, in their assault onpaganism,theyexposedtheunworthy,absurd,andimmoralcharacterofthe heathen religion, and particularly of the doctrine of the gods, ascompared with the doctrines of the unity of God, His universalprovidence,Hismoralgovernment,and the future life.Tatiansaw littleornogoodinGreekphilosophy,whileJustinrecognizedatrueelementinit,whichheascribedtotheLogos.Acommonfeatureintheirwritingsisablendingofgeneralandspecialrevelation.

Finally,theyalsofelt it incumbentonthemtoestablishthecharacterofChristianityasapositiverevelationofGod.Indemonstratingtherealityofthisrevelation,theyreliedmainlyontheargumentfromprophecy,butalso, though in a lesser degree, on that from miracles. They appealedrepeatedly to theremarkablespreadof theChristianreligion inspiteofallresistance,andtothechangedcharacterandlivesofitsprofessors.

2. THEIR POSITIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUTH. InstatingthedoctrinalcontentsofthedivinerevelationtheApologetesdidnotalwaysclearlydistinguishbetweengeneralandspecialrevelation,andoftenfailedtodiscriminatecarefullybetweenthatwhichistheproductofthehumanmindandthatwhichissupernaturallyrevealed.Thisisduetothe fact that they conceived of Christianity too much as a philosophy,albeittheonlytruephilosophy,superiortoallotherphilosophiesinthatitwasbasedonrevelation.SaysHarnack:"Christianityisphilosophyandrevelation.ThisisthethesisofeveryApologistfromAristidestoMinuciusFelix." They regarded it as a philosophy, because it contains a rationalelement and satisfactorily answers the questions that have engaged alltruephilosophers;butalsoasthedirectantithesisofphilosophy,sinceit

is free from all mere notions and opinions, and originates from asupernaturalrevelation.

They represented God as the Self-existent, Unchangeable, and EternalOne,whoistheprimalcause,oftheworld,butbecauseofHisuniquenessandperfection canbest be described in terms of negation.TheyhardlygotbeyondtheideaofthedivineBeingastoonorabsoluteattributelessexistence. In speaking of the Son they preferred the use of the term"Logos",undoubtedlybecause itwasa commonphilosophical termandthereforeappealedtotheculturedclasses.AtthesametimeitsuseshowsthattheChurch'sattentionwasfocusedonthedivineandexaltedChristrather than on theman Jesus. TheApologists didnot have the biblicalconceptionoftheLogos,butonesomewhatresemblingthatofPhilo.Tothem the Logos, asHe existed eternally in God, was simply the divinereason, without personal existence. With a view to the creation of theworld,however,GodgeneratedtheLogosoutofHisownBeingandthusgaveHimpersonalexistence.EssentiallytheLogosremainsidenticalwithGod,but inviewofHisoriginasapersonHemaybecalledacreature.Briefly stated, Christ is the divine reason, immanent in God, to whichGodgaveaseparateexistence,andthroughwhichHerevealedHimself."As the divine reason," says Seeberg, "hewas not only operative at thecreationoftheworldandintheOldTestament,butalsointhewisemenof theheathenworld." It shouldbenotedparticularly that theLogosofthe Apologists, in distinction from the philosophical Logos, has anindependentpersonality.

TheLogosbecamemanbyassumingarealhumannature,consistingofbody and soul. Yet He was not an ordinary man, but God and man,thoughHisdivinitywasconcealed.Henceitwasnotamereman,buttheverySonofGodthathungonthecross.AllemphasisisplacedonthefactthatHebecametheteacheroftherace,asHehadalreadyshownHimselfbeforetheincarnation.ThemaincontentofHisteachingisfoundintheideas of the one God, the new law requiring a virtuous life, andimmortality, particularly the resurrection, carryingwith it rewards andpunishments.BecauseGodcreatedmanfree,thelatterhastheabilitytokeepthecommandmentsofGod.Graceconsistsonlyintherevelationofdoctrine and of the law. The sufferings of Christ hardly appear to be

necessary, except as a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. Yet theApologists do insist on the reality and the great significance of thesesufferings as obtaining formen the forgiveness of sins and deliverancefromsinandthedevil.

The origin of the new life is represented somewhat dualistically by theApologetes. Sometimes it appears to be wholly dependent on the freechoiceofman,and thenagain it seems tobeentirelycontingenton thefreegraceofGod.Baptismstands in theclosestrelationship to thenewbirth,andmarksthebeginningofthenewlife.TheChurchconsistsofthepeople ofGod, the true Israel, and thehigh-priestly generationofGod,andischaracterizedbystrictmorality,holylove,andreadinesstosufferwith rejoicing.TheApologists firmlybelieved in the resurrectionof thedead, but therewas some difference of opinion among them about theessential immortality of the soul. Tatian and Theophilus regardedimmortality as a reward for the righteous and a punishment for thewicked,andJustinseemstohavesharedthisview.Intheirdescriptionoftheblessednessof the future themillennialkingdomsometimesplaysapart,(Justin).

3. THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.HarnackandLoofsareoftheopinionthattheApologistscompletelyfellaway from the right apprehension of the Christian Gospel. They claimthattheseearlyFatherssoughtthesubstanceofChristianitysolelyinitsrational contents, valued the objective facts of revelation, such as theincarnation and the resurrection, merely as certifying the truths ofnatural revelation, and Hellenized the Gospel by turning faith intodoctrine and by giving Christianity, especially through their Logosdoctrine, an intellectual character. But while there may be somesemblance of truth in their representation, it is clearly the result of aonesided contemplation of some of the teachings of theApologists andfailstotakeallthefactsintoconsideration.

ItmustbeadmittedthattheseearlyFathersgavegreatprominencetothetruthsofreasonandsoughttodemonstratetheirrationality.Butitshouldbeborneinmind,(a)thattheywerewritingApologiesandnotdoctrinaltreatises,andthatthenatureofApologiesisalwaysdeterminedmoreorless by the opposition; (b) that the truths which they stressed also

constitutea very essentialpartof the systemofChristiandoctrine; and(c) that their writings also contain many positive Christian elements,whichdonotmerelyserveaspropsforthefundamentaltruthsofreason.

Again, itmustbe admitted that they representedChristianity largely interms of philosophy, that they did not clearly discriminate betweenphilosophy and theology, and that their representation of the truths ofrevelation, and particularly of the Logos doctrine, suffered from anadmixture ofGreek philosophical thought. But they evidentlymeant togiveacorrect interpretationof the truthsof revelation, though theydidnot always succeed. The fact that they sought to give a rationalinterpretationofChristianitycannotbeheldagainst them, for thisdoesnotconsistexclusivelyinreligiousexperiences,asRitschlianssometimesseem to think, but also has an intellectual content and is a reasonablereligion.ItisquiteevidentfromthewritingsoftheApologiststhattheirconception of Christianity still suffered from the same defects andlimitationsasthatoftheApostolicFathers.Thisisseenespeciallyinthedoctrineof theLogosandinthatof thewayofsalvation(moralism).Atthe same time theirworkmarked the beginnings ofChristian theology,thoughthiswasforcedintoaphilosophicalframework.

Questions for Further Study: How do you account for it that the earlyApologetes placed somuch emphasis on natural theology; onChrist astheLogosratherthanonChristastheRedeemer;onHisteachingratherthanonHisdeath?DidtheysucceedinharmonizingtheworkofChristasLogoswithHiswork asRedeemer?Howdoes theirmoralism comparewith that of theApostolic Fathers?What do you think of the idea thatChristianity is anova lex?Whatwas theprominent element in faith asunderstoodbytheApologists?Howdidtheyconceiveoftheforgivenessof sins after baptism?What do you think of their conviction that suchGentilesasSocratesandPlatoweresaved?WastheirLogosdoctrinethatoftheGreeksandthereforeaperversionofChristianity?

Literature:Scott,TheNiceneTheology,pp.160–178,208–210,219–229,271–275; Moody, The Mind of the Early Converts, pp. 102–147;McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought I, pp. 96–131; Harnack,HistoryofDogma II, pp. 169–229;Cunningham,HistoricalTheology I,pp. 134–139; Seeberg, History of Doctrine I, pp. 109–118; Loofs,

Dogmengeschiedenis,pp.72–81;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmasI,pp.110–137;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.61–69.

V.TheAnti-GnosticFathers

FromtheApologistswenaturallypassontotheanti-gnosticFatherswhosucceededthem.Threeofthesestandoutwithgreatprominence.

1. THE ANTI-GNOSTIC FATHERS. The first one that comes intoconsiderationhereisIrenaeus.HewasbornintheEast,wherehebecameadiscipleofPolycarp,butspentthemainpartofhislifeintheWest.Atfirst a presbyter, he afterwards became bishop of Lyons. He evinces apracticalChristianspiritinhiswritings,andrepresentsaJohanninetypeofChristiandoctrine,thoughnotwithoutsometracesofamoresensuousconception. In his chief work, Against Heresies, he takes issueparticularlywithGnosticism.Itisaworkmarkedbyability,moderation,andpurityinitsrepresentationofChristianity.

The second of these Fathers is Hippolytus, who is said to lave been adisciple of Irenaeus andgreatly resembledhis teacher inmentalmake-up,beingsimple,moderate,andpractical.LessgiftedthanIrenaeus,hegaveevidenceofagreaterfondnessforphilosophicalideas.Afterlaboringin theneighborhoodofRome,he seems tohave sufferedmartyrdom inthatcity.HisprincipalworkisentitledTheRefutationofAllHeresies.Hefindstherootofalltheperversionsofdoctrineinthespeculationsofthephilosophers.

The third and greatest of the famous trio was Tertullian, a man ofprofound intellect and deep feeling, of a vivid imagination, anddistinguishedbyacutenessandgreat learning.AspresbyterofCarthagehe represents the North African type of theology. Due to his violenttemperhewasnaturallypassionate inhisrepresentationofChristianityandsomewhatgiventoextremestatements.AsalawyerhewasfamiliarwithRomanlawandintroducedlegalconceptionsandlegalphraseologyinto theological discussions. Like Hippolytus he, too, was inclined todeduce all heresy from the philosophy of the Greeks, and therefore

became a zealous opponent of philosophy. His native fervor reactedstrongly against the lax spirit of the age, and even induced him toembraceMontanisminlaterlife.Convincedofthefutilityofarguingwithheretics, he said it was best tomeet themwith a simple demurrer.HeinfluencedWesterntheologymorethananyoftheothers.

2.THEIRDOCTRINEOFGOD,MAN,ANDTHEHISTORYOFREDEMPTION.TheyregardedtheseparationofthetrueGodandtheCreator as the fundamental error of the Gnostics, as a blasphemousconceptionsuggestedbythedevil,andstressedthefactthatthereisbutoneGod,who isbothCreatorandRedeemer.Hegave the lawandalsorevealed the Gospel. This God is triune, a single essence subsisting inthreepersons.Tertullianwasthefirsttoassertthetri-personalityofGodand to use the word "Trinity". In opposition to the Monarchians heemphasized the fact that the three Persons are of one substance,susceptibleofnumberwithoutdivision.Yethedidnotreachthepropertrinitarianstatement,sinceheconceivedofonePersonassubordinatetotheother.

In the doctrine ofman they also opposed theGnostics by stressing thefactthatgoodandevil inmandonot findtheirexplanationindifferentnaturalendowments.Ifevilisinherentinmatter,andthereforeinmanassuch,hecannomoreberegardedasafreemoralbeing.Manwascreatedin the image of God, without immortality indeed (i. e. withoutperfection), but with the possibility of receiving this in the way ofobedience.Sinisdisobedienceandbringsdeath,justasobediencebringsimmortality. In Adam the whole race became subject to death. TheconnectionofoursinwiththatofAdamisnotyetclearlyapprehended,thoughTertullianmakessomesuggestivestatementson thesubject.Hesaysthatevilbecame,asitwere,anaturalelementinman,presentfrombirth, and that this condition passes over through generation upon thewholehumanrace.Thisisthefirsttraceofthedoctrineoforiginalsin.

Irenaeus has something special on the history of redemption. He saysthatGodexpelledman fromparadise and sufferedhim todie, inorderthat the injury sustainedmightnot remain forever.From the startGodwasdeeplyconcernedforthesalvationoftherace,andsoughttowinitbythreecovenants.Thelawwrittenintheheartofmanrepresentedthefirst

covenant.ThepatriarchswererighteousbeforeGodbecausetheymetitsrequirements.Whentheknowledgeofthislawfadedaway,thedecaloguewasgiven,representingthesecondcovenant.OnaccountofIsrael'ssinfuldisposition the lawof ceremonieswas added, toprepare thepeople forfollowingChrist and for friendshipwithGod. ThePhariseesmade it ofnon-effect by robbing it of its chief content, namely, love. In the thirdcovenantChristrestoredtheoriginallaw,thelawoflove.Thiscovenantisrelated to theprecedingas freedom tobondage, and requires faith,notonlyintheFather,butalsointheSon,whohasnowappeared.Itisnot,like the preceding, limited to Israel, but is universal in its scopeChristiansreceivedastricterlawthantheJewsandhavemoretobelieve,but theyalsoreceiveagreatermeasureofgrace.To these threeperiodsTertullian, while an adherent ofMontanism, still added the era of theSpirit.

3. THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON AND WORK OFCHRIST.IrenaeusandTertulliandifferconsiderablyintheirdoctrineofthe Person of Christ, and therefore it may be well to consider themseparately.

a.Irenaeus.TheChristologyofIrenaeus issuperiortothatofTertullianandHippolytusandinfluencedthelattertoagreatextent.Heisaversetospeculations about the Logos, because these lead at most to probableguesses.Hemerely asserts that the Logos existed from all eternity andwas instrumental in revealing the Father; and then takes his realstartingpoint in the historically revealed Son of God. Through theincarnationtheLogosbecamethehistoricalJesus,andthereafterwasatoncetrueGodandtrueman.HerejectstheheresyoftheGnosticsthatinHis suffering and death the passible Jesus was separated from theimpassibleChrist,andattaches thegreatest significance to theunionofGodwithhumannature.InChristasthesecondAdamthehumanraceisoncemoreunited toGod.There is inHima recapitulationofmankind,which reaches backward as well as forward, and in which mankindreversesthecourseonwhichitenteredatthefall.Thisistheverycoreofthe Christological teaching of Irenaeus. The death of Christ as oursubstituteismentionedbutnotstressed.Thecentralelementintheworkof Christ is His obedience, whereby the disobedience of Adam is

cancelled.

b. Tertullian. Tertullian takes his startingpoint in the doctrine of theLogos, but develops it in away that becamehistorically significant.HestressesthefactthattheLogosoftheChristiansisarealsubsistence,anindependentPerson,whowasbegottenbyGodandthusproceededfromHim,not by emanation, but by self-projection, just as a root projects atree.TherewasatimewhenHewasnot.HeemphasizesthefactthattheLogosisofthesamesubstancewiththeFather,andyetdiffersfromHiminmodeofexistenceasadistinctPerson.Hedidnotcomeintoexistencebypartitioningbutbyself-unfolding.TheFatheristhewholesubstance,buttheSonisonlyapartofit,becauseHeisderived.Tertulliandidnotentirely get away from the ideaof subordination.Hiswork is of lastingsignificance in connection with the introduction of the conceptions ofsubstance and person into theology, ideas that were utilized in theconstruction of the Nicene Creed. It may be said that he enlarged thedoctrineoftheLogosintoadoctrineoftheTrinity.InoppositiontotheMonarchian theory he stressed the fact that the three persons in theGodhead are of one substance, susceptible of numberwithout division.Yet he did not succeed reaching the full trinitarian statement. He tooconceivedof theLogos as originally impersonal reason inGod, becomepersonalatthetimeofcreation.Andsubordinationoftheonepersontothe other is presented in the crude form of a greater and lesserparticipationofthefirstandsecondpersonsinthedivinesubstance.

Relative to the God-man and His two natures Tertullian expressedhimselfverymuchastheSchoolofAsiaMinordid.Hesurpassesalltheother Fathers, except Melito, in doing justice to the full humanity ofChrist,andinhiscleardistinctionofthetwonatures,eachoneretainingitsownattributes.Accordingtohimthereisnofusion,butaconjunctionof the human and the divine in Christ. He is very emphatic on theimportanceofthedeathofChrist,butisnotentirelyclearonthispoint,sincehedoesnotstressthenecessityofpenalsatisfaction,butonlythatofpenitenceonthepartofthesinner.Whilehedoesrecognizeapunitiveelementinjustice,heexaltsthemercyofGod.Atthesametimeacertainlegalismpervades his teaching.He speaks of satisfactionmade for sinscommitted after baptism by repentance or confession. By fasting and

other forms of mortification the sinner is able to escape eternalpunishment.

Of theAntignostic Fathers Irenaeus gives the fullest description, of theworkof redemption,buthis representation isnotaltogetherconsistent.While he is regarded as one of themost orthodox of the early ChurchFathers,therearetwolinesofthoughtpresentinhiswritingswhicharehardly Scriptural, the onemoralistic and the other somewhatmystical.According to the former man regains his destiny, when he voluntarilychooses the good which he is still able to do. The real significance ofChrist'sworkliesinthefactthatHebroughtthesureknowledgeofGodand thus strengthened the freedom of man. According to the secondChrist recapitulates the whole human race in Himself, and thusestablishesanewrelationbetweenGodandmanandbecomestheleavenofanewlifeinhumanity.TheLogosidentifiesHimselfwithhumanityinHis sufferings and death, and becoming instrumental in raising it to ahigher level by sanctifying and immortalizing it. He recapitulates inHimselfthewholehumanraceandreversesthecoursewhichderivesitsimpetusfromthefallofthefirstAdam.Hecommunicatestoittheleavenofanewandimmortal life.Thismayeasilybe,andhasfrequentlybeeninterpreted as teaching atonement by a mystical process begun in theincarnationandresultinginthedeificationofman.Theemphasisonthisidea in the writings of Irenaeus may be due to the fact that he wasinfluencedbytheJohanninewritingsmorethanbythePaulineEpistles.Itisquiteevident,however,thatIrenaeusdidnotmeantoteachapurelymysticalorhyper-physicalredemption.WhilehestronglyemphasizesthenecessityofalivingunionofChristwiththesubjectsofhisredemption—somethingwhichAnselmfailedtodo—heassociatesthiswithotherideas,suchasthatHerenderedforustheobediencerequiredbyGod,thatHesuffered in our stead, paying our debt andpropitiating theFather, andthatHeredeemedusfromthepowerofsatan.

4.THEIRDOCTRINEOFSALVATION,OFTHECHURCH,ANDOF THE LAST THINGS. Irenaeus is not altogether clear in hissoteriology. He emphasizes the necessity of faith as a prerequisite forbaptism.Thisfaithisnotonlyanintellectualacceptanceofthetruth,butalso includesa self-surrenderof the soulwhich issues inaholy life.By

baptismman isregenerated;hissinsarewashedawayandanew life isborn within him. He evidently has no clear conception of the Paulinedoctrine of justification by faith, for his representation of the relationbetween faithand justification isdifferent.Faithnecessarily leadson tothe observance of the commandments of Christ, and is thereforesufficienttomakeamanrighteousbeforeGod.TheSpiritofGodendowstheChristianwithnewlife,andthefundamentalcharacteristicofthenewlifeisthatitbringsforththefruitsofrighteousnessingoodworks

TheworkofTertullianmarksnoparticularadvanceinthedoctrineoftheapplicationoftheworkofChrist.Moralismagainappearsintheviewthatthe sinner by repentance earns for himself salvation in baptism. Hisrepresentationofthedoctrineofpenanceisofspecialinterest,however,sinceheintroduceslegaltermsherewhichwereinlatertheologyappliedto the redemptive work of Christ. He regards God as a Lawgiver andJudge, who looks upon sin as transgression and guilt, and thereforedemandssatisfaction,andinlieuofsatisfactioninflictspunishment.Sinscommitted after baptism require satisfaction by penance. If this isrendered, the punishment iswarded off. In this representationwe findthe foundation for theRomanCatholicsacramentofpenance.The legalterms employed, such as "Judge", "guilt", "punishment", and"satisfaction",were transferred to thework of Christ in the theology oftheChurch.

IntheirteachingsrespectingtheChurchtheseFathersrevealatendencytoyieldtoJudaisminsubstitutingtheideaofanexternalcommunityforthat of a spiritual fellowship. They sowed seedswhich bore fruit in theCyprianicorRomanCatholicconceptionof theChurch.Theydo indeedstillretaintheideathattheChurchisaspiritualcommunityofbelievers,butrepresentthisascoincidingwithanexternalfellowship.Infact,theyrepresent the visible organization as the channel of divine grace, andmake participation in the blessings of salvation dependent onmembershipinthevisibleChurch.TheywhoseparatedthemselvesFromtheexternalcommunionoftheChurch,whichwasofApostolicoriginandhadasitsheadthesedesapostolicae,therebyalsorenouncedChrist.Dueto the influence of the Old Testament the idea of a special mediatingpriesthoodalsocametotheforeground.

The Antignostic Fathers in general championed the doctrine of theresurrectionoftheflesh,andbaseditontheresurrectionofChristandonthe indwelling of the Spirit. The end will come when the devil hassucceededingivingtheentireapostatethronganewheadinAntichrist.ThenChristwillappear,andthesixthousandyearsoftheworldwillbefollowedbythefirstresurrectionandthesabbaticrestofthemillennium.In Palestine believers will enjoy the riches of the land. After themillenniumtherewillbeanewheavensandanewearth,andtheblessedwillliveingradedorderinthemansionspreparedforthem.

Questions for Further Study: Do the Antignostic Fathers mark anyadvance in the doctrine of God? How must the recapitulation idea inIrenaeusChristologybeunderstood?DoesitagreewithSchleiermacher'smysticaltheoryoftheatonement?WhatotherconceptionsoftheworkofChrist are found in hiswritings?Does his recapitulation theory reckonwithsinas individualguilt,andprovide for individualredemption?Didhebelieveinadeificationofman?Howaredivinegraceandhumanmeritrelated in his soteriology? At what point did he change the currentconceptionoftheChurch?Whatwashisconceptionofthelastthings?InwhatrespectwasTertullian'sdoctrineoftheTrinitydefective?WhatwascharacteristicofhisLogosdoctrine?WhateffectdidMontanismhaveonhis views?What legal termsdidhe introduce into theology?Were theyapplied to the work of Christ. Does the legal element constitute adeteriorationofthepureGospel?

Literature:Scott,NiceneTheology,pp.95–102,178–184,210–212,230–236, 281–286;Moody, TheMind of the Early Converts, pp. 204–237;Cunningham,HistoricalTheologyI,pp.139–146,158–163;Morgan,TheImportance of Tertullion in the Development of Christian Dogma;Harnack, History of Dogma II, pp. 230–318; Seeberg, History ofDoctrines I, pp. 118–140; Loofs, Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 87–101;McGiffert,HistoryofChristianThoughtI,pp.132–148;Otten,Manualofthe History of Dogmas I, pp. 138–152, 160–169; Fisher, History ofChristianDoctrine,pp.84–98.

VI.TheAlexandrianFathers

Just as in a former century Jewish religious learning and Hellenisticphilosophy combined to produce the type of thought represented byPhilo, so in the secondand third centuriesHellenistic learning and thetruthsof theGospelwere combined ina ratherastonishingway togivebirthtotheAlexandriantypeoftheology.Theattemptwasmadebysomeof the leading theologians toutilize theprofoundest speculationsof theGnostics in the construction of the Church's faith. In doing this theyresorted to the allegorical interpretation of theBible. The truths of theChristian religion were turned into a science couched in literary form.The most important representatives of this form of Christian learningwereClementofAlexandriaandOrigen.

1. THEALEXANDRIAN FATHERS. Clement and Origen representthe theology of the East, which was more speculative than that of theWest. Both were influential teachers of the school of the catechetes atAlexandria.ClementwasnotanorthodoxChristianinthesamemeasureas Irenaeus and Tertullian. He did not adhere to the Rule of Faith asmuchastheydid,butfollowedinthepathoftheApologetesinseekingtowed the philosophy of the day, as he understood it, to the Christiantradition,andsometimespracticallysubstitutedtheformerforthelatter.IndistinctionfromTertullianhewasfriendlytophilosophy,andinsistedon it that the Christian theologian should build a bridge between theGospel andGentile learning,He found the sources of the knowledgeofdivine things inScripture and reason, exalted the latterunduly, andbyhisallegoricalinterpretationopenedwidethedoorforallkindsofhumanspeculation. His estimate of Greek philosophy is not altogetherconsistent. Sometimes he ascribes it to a partial revelation, andsometimeshestigmatizesitasplagarismfromtheHebrewprophets.

OrigenwasbornofChristianparentsandreceivedaChristianeducation.Hewasaprecociouschild,andfromearlychildhoodpracticedarigorousasceticism.Hesucceededhisteacher,Clement,ascatechistatAlexandria.TofithimselffortheworkhemadeathoroughstudyofNeo-Platonism,whichwasthencoming into favor,andof the leadinghereticalsystems,especiallyGnosticism.Hisfamesoonspreadandlargenumbersattendedhislectures.HewasthemostlearnedandoneoftheprofoundestthinkersoftheearlyChurch.Histeachingswereofaveryspeculativenature,and

inlaterlifehewascondemnedforheresy.HebattledagainsttheGnosticsandalsostruckadecisiveblowagainstMonarchianism.Butthiswasallincidentaltohismainpurpose,thatofconstructingasystematicbodyofChristiandoctrine.Hisprincipalwork,DePrincipiis,isthefirstexampleofapositiveandwell-roundedsystemof theology.Partofhis teachingswereafterwardsdeclaredheretical,butyethehadanenormousinfluenceon the development of doctrine. It seems that he desired to be anorthodoxChristian:hetookhisstandsquarelyontheWordofGodandontheRuleoffaithasastandardofinterpretation;andmaintainedthatnothing should be received that was contrary to Scripture or to alegitimatedeductionfromScripture.YethistheologyboretheearmarksofNeo-Platonism,andhis allegorical interpretationopened theway forallkindsofspeculationandarbitraryinterpretation.

2.THEIRDOCTRINEOFGODANDOFMAN.LiketheApologetes,Origen speaks of God in absolute terms, as the incomprehensible,inestimable, and impassibleOne,who is beyondwant of anything; andlike the Antignostic Fathers, he rejects theGnostic distinction betweenthegoodGodandtheDemiurgeorCreatoroftheworld.GodisOne,thesameintheOldandintheNewTestament.HeascribesabsolutecausalitytoGod,andsincehecanconceiveofsuchattributesasomnipotenceandjustice only as eternally in action, he teaches the doctrine of eternalcreation.

ClementofAlexandria isbynomeansclear inhisrepresentationof theLogos. He stresses the personal subsistence of the Logos, His onenesswiththeFather,andHiseternalgeneration;butalsorepresentsHimasthe divine reason, and as subordinate to the Father. He distinguishesbetween the realLogosofGodand theSon-Logoswhoappeared in theflesh. From the beginning the Logosmediates the divine revelation bystampingdivinewisdomontheworkofcreation,byimpartingtomenthelight of reason, bymaking special disclosures of the truth, and by HisincarnationinJesusChrist.ThelightoftheLogosservestheGentilesasstepping-stonetothefuller lightoftheGospel.OrigensaysthattheoneGod is primarily theFather, butHe reveals himself andworks throughthe Logos,who is personal and co-eternalwith the Father, begotten ofHim by one eternal act. In connection with the generation of the Son

every idea of emanation and division is rejected. But though herecognizes the full divinity of the Son, he uses some expressions thatpointtosubordination.Whilehespeaksofeternalgeneration,hedefinesthe phrase in such a way as to teach not merely an economic but anessentialsubordinationoftheSontotheFather.HesometimescallstheSonTheosDeuteros.IntheincarnationtheLogosunitedhimselfwithahuman soul, which in its pre-existence remained pure. The natures inChrist are kept distinct, but it is held that the Logos by the HisresurrectionandascensiondeifiedHishumannature.

ClementdoesnottrytoexplaintherelationoftheHolySpirittotheotherPersons of the Trinity, andOrigen's view of the third Person is fartherremoved from the Catholic doctrine than his conception of the SecondPerson.He speaks of theHoly Spirit as the first creaturemade by theFatherthroughtheSon.TheSpirit'srelationtotheFatherisnotascloseasthatoftheSon.Moreover,theSpiritdoesnotoperateincreationasawhole,butonly in the saints.Hepossessesgoodnessbynature, renewsandsanctifiessinners,andisanobjectofdivineworship.

Origen'steachingsrespectingmanaresomewhatoutoftheordinary.Thepre-existenceofman is involved inhis theoryof eternal creation, sincetheoriginalcreationconsistedexclusivelyofrationalspirits,co-equalaswell as co-eternal. The present condition of man presupposes a pre-existent fall from holiness into sin, which was the occasion for thecreation of the present material world. The fallen spirits now becamesoulsandwereclothedwithbodies.Matterwascalledintobeingforthevery purpose of supplying an abode and a means of discipline andpurgationforthesefallenspirits.

3. THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON AND WORK OFCHRIST.Bothof theseFathersteachthat inthe incarnationtheLogosassumedhumannatureinitsentirety,bodyandsoul,andthusbecameareal man, the God-man, though Clement did not entirely succeed inavoidingDocetism.HesaysthatChristusedfood,notbecauseHeneededit,butsimplytoguardagainstadenialofhishumanity,andthathewasincapableofemotionsofjoyandgrief.OrigenmaintainsthatthesoulofChristpre-existed, likeallothersouls,andwasevenin itspre-existenceunited,with the Logos. In fact, even before the incarnation a complete

interpenetration had taken place between the Logos and this soul. TheLogos-filled soul assumed a body, and then even this body waspenetratedanddivinizedbytheLogos.Therewassuchaminglingofthedivine and the human in Christ that by his glorification He becamevirtuallyubiquitous.OrigenhardlysucceededinmaintainingtheintegrityofthenaturesinChrist.

Therearedifferent representationsof theworkofChrist,whicharenotproperly integrated.Clement speaksof the self-surrenderofChrist as aransom,butdoesnotstresstheideathatHewasapropitiationforthesinofmankind.HeplacesfargreateremphasisonChristastheLawgiverandTeacher, andas theway to immortality.Redemptiondoesnot somuchconsist in undoing the past as in the elevation of man to a state evenhigherthanthatofunfallenman.ThedominantthoughtinOrigenisthatChristwasphysician,teacher,lawgiver,andexample.Hewasaphysicianforsinners,ateacherofthosewhohadbeenpurified,thelawgiverofhispeople, requiring obedience toGod and faith inChrist, and the perfectexample of a virtuous life for His followers. In all these capacities Hemakessinners,asmuchaspossible,partakersofthedivinenature.Atthesame timeOrigen recognizes the fact that the salvation, of believers isdependent on the sufferings and death of Christ. Christ delivers themfromthepowerofthedevil,anddoesthisbypracticingdeceitonSatan.HeoffersHimself to Satan as a ransom, andSatan accepts the ransomwithoutrealizingthathewouldnotbeabletoretainhisholdonChrist,the Sinless One. The death of Christ is represented as vicarious, as anofferingforsin,andasanecessaryatonement.Theredemptiveinfluenceof theLogos,extendsbeyond this life.Notonlymenwhohave livedonearth and died, but all fallen spirits, not excluding Satan and his evilangels, are brought under redemptive influences. There will be arestitutionofallthings.

4.THEIRDOCTRINEOFSALVATION,OFTHECHURCH,ANDOFTHELASTTHINGS. TheAlexandrian Fathers recognize the freewill of man, which enables him to turn to the good and to accept thesalvation that is offered in JesusChrist.God offers salvation, andmanhasthepowertoacceptit.ButwhileOrigenrepresentsfaithasanactofman, he also speaks of it as an effect of divine grace. It is a necessary

preliminary step to salvation, and therefore salvation may be said todependonit.However,itisonlyaninitialacceptanceofGod'srevelation,mustbeelevatedtoknowledgeandunderstanding,andmust leadontotheperformanceofgoodworks.Faithsavesbecauseiteverhasworksinview.Thesearethereallyimportantthings.Origenspeaksoftwowaysofsalvation, one by faith (exoteric), and another by knowledge (esoteric).TheseFatherscertainlydidnothavethePaulineconceptionoffaithandjustification.Moreover,Origenstressesthefactthatfaithisnottheonlycondition of salvation. Repentance is even more necessary, WhichconsistsintheconfessionofoursinsbeforeGod.Heascribestoitamoreinward, and less legal, character than the Western Fathers, andparticularlyTertullian.

Origen regards the Church as the congregation of believers, outside ofwhich there is no salvation. He discriminates between the ChurchproperlysocalledandtheempiricalChurch.Andwhileherecognizesallbelieversaspriests,healsospeaksofaseparatepriesthoodwithspecialprerogatives. Both he and Clement teach that baptism marks thebeginningof thenewlife in theChurch,and includesthe forgivenessofsins. Clement distinguishes between a lower and a higher state of theChristianlife.Intheformermanattainstoholinessundertheinfluenceoffearandhope,whileinthelatterfeariscastoutbyperfectlove.Thisisthelifeofrealknowledgethat isenjoyedbyhimtowhomthemysteriesare revealed. The eucharist bestows participation in immortality, forthrough it the communicant enters into fellowshipwith Christ and thedivine Spirit. In Origen the sacraments are spiritualized. They aresymbols of divine influences, though they also represent graciousoperationsoftheHolySpirit.

AccordingtobothClementandOrigentheprocessofpurification,beguninthelifeofthesinneronearth,iscontinuedafterdeath.Chastisementisthegreatcleansingagencyandcureforsin.Origenteachesthatatdeaththegoodenterparadiseoraplacewheretheyreceivefurthereducation,andthewickedexperiencethefireofjudgmentwhich,however,isnottoberegardedasapermanentpunishment,butasameansofpurification.Clementassertsthattheheathenhaveanopportunitytorepentinhadesand that their probationdoesnot enduntil the day of judgment,while

Origenmaintains thatGod'sworkof redemptionwillnotceaseuntilallthingsarerestoredtotheirpristinebeauty.Therestorationofall thingswillevenincludeSatanandhisdemons.Onlyafewpeopleenteruponthefullblessednessof thevisionofGodatonce;thegreatmajorityof themmust pass through a process of purification after death. Both of theseFatherswere averse to the doctrine of amillennium, andOrigenhad atendencytospiritualizetheresurrection.Heseemstohaveregardedtheincorporeal as the ideal state, but did believe a bodily resurrection.Accordingtohimagermofthebodyremainsandgivesrisetoaspiritualorganism, conformed to the nature of the particular soul to which itbelongs,whetheritbegoodorevil.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:HowdidthetheologyoftheEastingeneraldiffer from that of theWest? How do you account for the difference?Whatbearingdid theallegorical interpretationofScripturehaveon thetheology of the Alexandrian Fathers? Did the Logos doctrine of theseFathers differ from that of the Apologists? If so, how?How does theirdoctrineoftheTrinitycomparewiththatofTertullian?DotheyshedanylightontherelationoftheHolySpirittotheFatherandtheSon?Howdotheyrepresentthemainsourcesofsinanditschiefremedy?DoesOrigenhave a self-consistent theory of the origin of sin? Inwhatdirectiondidtheydevelopthedoctrineoffreewill?(cf.Scott,TheNiceneTheology,p.212).Howdo they conceive of thework ofChrist?Do the sufferings ofChristformanessentialelementintheirteachings?Inwhatsensedotheyteachthedeificationofhumannature?HowdoesOrigen'stheologyofferpointsofcontact forArianism?Howdoeshiseschatologycomparewiththat of the Roman Catholic Church? Is Allen justified in consideringGreekratherthanLatintheologyasexpressingtheChristianfaith?Whatpoints of similaritymay be noted between Greek theology and presentdayModernism?

Literature:Fairweather,OrigenandGreekPatristicTheology;Scott,TheNiceneTheology,pp.188–194,212–219,236–251,286–289;Moody,TheMind of the Early Converts, pp. 258–301; Cunningham, HistoricalTheologyI,pp.146–158;McGiffert,AHistoryofChristianThoughtI,pp.177–231;Harnack,HistoryofDogmaII,pp.319–380;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrines I, pp. 140–161; Loofs, Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 106–126;

Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrineI,pp.274–277,288–305;II,pp.3–10,31–36,226–237,395,396;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmasI,pp. 190–209;Neander,History of ChristianDogmas, cf. Index; Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.94–97,104–116.

VII.Monarchianism

While the great heresy of the second century was Gnosticism, theoutstandingheresyof the thirdcenturywasMonarchianism.TheLogosdoctrineoftheApologetes,theAntignosticFathers,andtheAlexandrianFathers did not give general satisfaction. Apparently many of thecommonpeopleregardeditwithmisgivings,since itseemedto impingeon their theological or on their Christological interests. Where thetheological interest was uppermost, the doctrine of the Logos as aseparate divine Person appeared to endanger the unity of God ormonotheism;andwheretheChristologicalinterestwasintheforeground,the idea that the Logos was subordinate to the Father seemed tocompromise thedeityofChrist. In courseof timemenof learning tooknoticeofthemisgivingsofthepeopleandattemptedtosafeguard,ontheonehandtheunityofGod,andontheotherhandthedeityofChrist.Thisgave rise to two types of thought, both of which were calledMonarchianism (a name first applied to them by Tertullian), thoughstrictlyspeakingitcouldjustlybeappliedonlytothattypeinwhichthetheologicalinterestwasuppermost.Inspiteofitspartialimpropriety,thename is generally usedup to thepresent time as a designationof bothtypes.

1.DYNAMICMONARCHIANISM.ThisisthetypeofMonarchianismthatwasmainlyinterestedinmaintainingtheunityofGod,andwasentirelyinlinewiththeEbioniteheresyoftheearlyChurchandwithpresentdayUnitarianism. Some find the earliest manifestation of it in the ratherobscuresectoftheAlogi,butSeebergquestionsthecorrectnessofthis.Inall probability its earliest representative was Theodotus of Byzantium,who was excommunicated by Victor, the bishop of Rome. After thatArtemon,aSyrianbybirth,triedtoprovethepeculiarviewsofthistypeof Monarchianism from Scripture and tradition. His arguments were

effectively refuted, however, in the publication of an unknown author,entitledtheLittleLabyrinth.Thesectgraduallydwindledaway,butwasrevivedagainthroughtheeffortsofthemanwhobecameitsmostnotedrepresentative,PaulofSamosata,thebishopofAntioch,whoisdescribedasaworldly-mindedandimperiousperson.AccordingtohimtheLogoswasindeedhomoousiosorconsubstantialwiththeFather,butwasnotadistinctPersonintheGodhead.HecouldbeidentifiedwithGod,becauseHeexistedinHimjustashumanreasonexistsinman.Hewasmerelyanimpersonal. power,present in allmen,butparticularlyoperative in themanJesus.BypenetratingthehumanityofJesusprogressively,asitdidthatofnootherman,thisdivinepowergraduallydeifiedit.AndbecausethemanJesuswas thusdeified,He isworthyofdivinehonour, thoughHe cannot be regarded as God in the strict sense of the word. By thisconstruction of the doctrine of the Logos Paul of Samosatamaintainedthe unity of God as implying oneness of person as well as oneness ofnature,theLogosandtheHolySpiritbeingmerelyimpersonalattributesof theGodhead; and thusbecame the forerunner of the later SociniansandUnitarians.LikethemhewasinterestedinthedefenseoftheunityofGodandof the realhumanityofJesus.McGiffertasserts that the latterwashisprimaryinterest.

2. MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM. There was a second form ofMonarchianismwhichwasfarmoreinfluential.ItwasalsointerestedinmaintainingtheunityofGod,butitsprimaryinterestseemstohavebeenChristological, namely, themaintenanceof the full divinity ofChrist. ItwascalledModalisticMonarchianism,because it conceivedof the threePersons in the Godhead as so many modes in which God manifestedHimself;wasknownasPatripassianismintheWest,sinceitheldthattheFather Himself had become incarnate in Christ, and therefore alsosuffered inandwithHim;andwasdesignatedSabellianism in theEastafter the name of its most famous representative. The great differencebetweenitandDynamicMonarchianismlayinthefactthatitmaintainedthetruedivinityofChrist.

TertullianconnectstheoriginofthissectwithacertainPraxeasofwhomlittleisknown,whileHyppolytusclaimsthatitoriginatedintheteachingsof Noëtus of Smyrna. However this may be, both were evidently

instrumental in propagating it. Praxeas was absolutely inimical topersonal distinctions inGod. Tertullian says of him: "He drove out theParaclete and crucified the Father." Praxeas, however, seems to haveavoided the assertion that the Father suffered, but Noëtus did nothesitate at this point. To quote thewords ofHippolytus: "He said thatChrist isHimself theFather,andthat theFatherHimselfwasbornandsufferedanddied."Accordingto thesameChurchFatherheevenmadethe bold assertion that the Father by changing the mode of his beingliterallybecameHisownSon.ThestatementofNoëtusreferredtorunsasfollows: "WhentheFatherhadnotyetbeenborn,HewasrightlycalledtheFather;butwhenitpleasedHimtosubmittobirth,havingbeenborn,HebecametheSon,HeofHimselfandnotofanother."

ThemostimportantrepresentativeofthissectwasSabellius.Sinceonlyafewfragmentsofhiswritingsareextant,itishardtodetermineindetailjustwhathe taught. It isperfectly clear,however, thathedistinguishedbetween the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of itsmanifestations,whichare representedas followingoneanother like theparts of a drama. Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divinepersons, but then used the word "person" in the original sense of theword, inwhich it signifies a role of acting or amode ofmanifestation.According to him the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are simplydesignationsofthreedifferentphasesunderwhichtheonedivineessencemanifests itself. God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in thegiving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit inregenerationandsanctification.

Questions for Further Study: What accounts for the rise ofMonarchianism? In what countries did it make its appearance? Is itcorrecttosaywithMcGiffertthatMonarchianismwasonlymoderately,ifatall, concernedabout theunityofGod;and that itsmain interestwasChristological?TowhatotherearlyheresieswasdynamicMonarchianismrelated? Has it any modern counterpart? What did the two types ofMonarchianism have in common? Has Sabellianism any moderncounterpart? What Fathers combatted this type of heresy? Was theposition of the Alogi in any way related to this heresy? Is Harnack'ssympathywithMonarchianismjustified?

Literature: Scott, The Nicene Theology, pp. 89, 184–188, 275–280;Faulkner, Crises in the Early Church, pp. 76–96;McGiffert,History ofChristian Thought I, pp. 232–245;Harnack,History of Dogma III, pp.14–118; Seeberg, History of Doctrines I, pp.162–168; Loofs,Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 112–126; Neander, History of ChristianDogmasI,pp.164–171;Orr,TheProgressofDogma,pp.91–102;Otten,Manual of the History of Dogmas I, pp. 153–156; Fisher, History ofChristianDoctrine,pp.98–104.

THEDOCTRINEOFTHETRINITY

I.TheTrinitarianControversy

1.THEBACKGROUND

Thetrinitariancontroversy,whichcametoaheadinthestrugglebetweenAriusandAthanasius,haditsrootsinthepast.TheearlyChurchFathers,aswe have seen, hadno clear conception of theTrinity. Some of themconceived of the Logos as impersonal reason, become personal at thetimeof creation,while others regardedHimaspersonal and co-eternalwith the Father, sharing the divine essence, and yet ascribed toHim acertain subordination to the Father. The Holy Spirit occupied noimportantplace intheirdiscussionsatall.TheyspokeofHimprimarilyinconnectionwiththeworkofredemptionasappliedto theheartsandlivesofbelievers.SomeconsideredHimtobesubordinate,notonlytotheFather,butalso to theSon.Tertullianwas the first toassert clearly thetri-personalityofGod,andtomaintainthesubstantialunityofthethreePersons.ButevenhedidnotreachaclearstatementofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.

MeanwhileMonarchianismcamealongwithitsemphasisontheunityofGodandonthetruedeityofChrist,involvingadenialoftheTrinityintheproper sense of the word. Tertullian and Hippolytus combatted theirviewsintheWest,whileOrigenstruckthemadecisiveblowintheEast.Theydefendedthetrinitarianpositionas it isexpressedintheApostles'

Creed.ButevenOrigen'sconstructionof thedoctrineof theTrinitywasnotaltogethersatisfactory.HefirmlyheldtheviewthatboththeFatherandtheSonaredivinehypostasesorpersonalsubsistences,butdidnotentirelysucceedingivingascripturalrepresentationoftherelationofthethreePersonstotheoneessenceintheGodhead.Whilehewasthefirsttoexplain the relation of the Father to the Son by employing the idea ofeternalgenerationthedefinedthissoasto involvethesubordinationofthe Second Person to the First in respect to essence. The FathercommunicatedtotheSononlyasecondaryspeciesofdivinity,whichmaybecalledTheos,butnotHoTheos.HesometimesevenspeaksoftheSonasTheosDeuteros.ThiswasthemostradicaldefectinOrigen'sdoctrineoftheTrinityandaffordedasteppingstoneforArius.Another,lessfatal,defect is found inhiscontention that thegenerationof theSon isnotanecessaryactoftheFather,butproceedsfromHissovereignwill.Hewascareful,however,not tobring in the ideaof temporalsuccession. Inhisdoctrine of the Holy Spirit he departed still farther from therepresentation of Scripture. He not only made the Holy Spiritsubordinateeven to theSon,butalsonumberedHimamong the thingscreatedby theSon.Oneofhis statementsevenseems to imply thatHewasamerecreature.

2.THENATUREOFTHECONTROVERSY

a. Arius and Arianism. The great trinitarian strife is usually called theAriancontroversy,becauseitwasoccasionedbytheanti-trinitarianviewsofArius,apresbyterofAlexandria,aratherskilfuldisputant,thoughnota profound spirit.His dominant ideawas themonotheistic principle ofthe Monarchians, that there is only one unbegotten God, oneunoriginatedBeing,withoutanybeginningofexistence.Hedistinguishedbetween the Logos that is immanent in God, which is simply a divineenergy, and the Son or Logos that finally became incarnate. The latterhadabeginning:HewasgeneratedbytheFather,whichintheparlanceof Arius was simply equivalent to saying that He was created. He wascreatedoutofnothingbeforetheworldwascalledintobeing,andforthatvery reasonwasnoteternalnorof thedivineessence.Thegreatestandfirstofall createdbeings,Hewasbrought intobeing that throughHimtheworldmightbecreated.Heisthereforealsomutable,butischosenof

Godon account of his foreseenmerits, and is called the Son ofGod inview of His future glory. And in virtue of His adoption as Son He isentitledtothevenerationofmen.AriussoughtScripturesupportforhisviewinthosepassageswhichseemtorepresenttheSonasinferiortotheFather,suchas,Prov.8:22(Sept.),Matt.28:18;Mark13:32;Luke18:19;John5:19;14:28;1Cor.15:28.

b.TheOppositiontoArianism.Ariuswasopposedfirstofallbyhisownbishop, Alexander,who contended for the true and proper deity of theSon,andatthesametimemaintainedthedoctrineofaneternalsonshipbygeneration.Incourseoftime,however,hisrealopponentprovedtobethearch-deaconofAlexandria, thegreatAthanasius,whostandsoutonthepagesofhistoryasastrong,inflexible,andunwaveringchampionofthetruth.Seebergascribeshisgreatstrengthtothreethings,namely,(1)the great stability and genuineness of his character; (2) the surefoundationonwhichhestoodinhisfirmgraspontheconceptionoftheunityofGod,whichpreservedhimfromthesubordinationismthatwassocommoninhisday;and(3)theunerringtactwithwhichhetaughtmentorecognize thenatureandsignificanceof thePersonofChrist.He feltthat toregardChristasacreaturewas todeny that faith inHimbringsmanintosavingunionwithGod.

HestronglyemphasizedtheunityofGod,andinsistedonaconstructionof thedoctrineof theTrinity thatwouldnotendanger thisunity.WhiletheFatherandtheSonareofthesamedivineessence,thereisnodivisionorseparationintheessentialBeingofGod,anditiswrongtospeakofaTheosDeuteros,ButwhilestressingtheunityofGod,healsorecognizedthree distinct hypostases in God. He refused to believe in the pre-temporally created Son of the Arians, andmaintained the independentandeternallypersonalexistenceoftheSon.Atthesametimeheboreinmind that the three hypostases in God were not to be regarded asseparated inanyway,sincethiswould leadtopolytheism.Accordingtohim the unity of God as well as the distinctions in His Being are bestexpressed in the term "oneness of essence." This clearly andunequivocallyexpressestheideathattheSonisofthesamesubstanceastheFather,butalsoimpliesthatthetwomaydifferinotherrespects,as,forinstance,inpersonalsubsistence.LikeOrigenhetaughtthattheSon

isbegottenbygeneration,butindistinctionfromtheformerhedescribedthisgenerationasaninternalandthereforenecessaryandeternalactofGod,andnotasanactthatwassimplydependentonHissovereignwill.

It was not merely the demand of logical consistency that inspiredAthanasiusanddeterminedhis theologicalviews.Thecontrolling factorin his construction of the truth was of a religious nature. Hissoteriological convictions naturally gave birth to his theological tenets.His fundamental position was that union with God is necessary untosalvation,andthatnocreaturebutonlyonewhoisHimselfGodcanuniteuswithGod.Hence, as Seeberg says, "Only ifChrist isGod, in the fullsenseofthewordandwithoutqualification,hasGodenteredhumanity,andonlythenhavefellowshipwithGod,theforgivenessofsins,thetruthofGod,andimmortalitybeencertainlybroughttoman."Hist.ofDoct.I,p.211.

3.THECOUNCILOFNICEA.TheCouncilofNiceaconvenedin325A.D.to settle the dispute. The issue was clear-cut, as a brief statement willshow. The Arians rejected the idea of a timeless or eternal generation,while Athanasius reasserted this. The Arians said that the Son wascreatedfromthenon-existent,whileAthanasiusmaintainedthatHewasgenerated from theessenceof theFather.TheAriansheld that theSonwas not of the same substance as the Father,whileAthansius affirmedthathewashomoousioswiththeFather.

Besides the contending parties there was a great middle party, whichreally constituted the majority, under the leadership of the Churchhistorian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and which is also known as theOriginistic party, since it found its impetus in the principles ofOrigen.ThispartyhadArian leaningsandwasopposedto thedoctrine that theSonisofthesamesubstancewiththeFather(homoousios).Itproposedastatement,previouslydrawnupbyEusebius,whichconcededeverythingtothepartyofAlexanderandAthanasius,withthesingleexceptionoftheabove named doctrine; and suggested that the word homoiousios besubstituted for homoousios, so as to teach that the Son is of similarsubstancewiththeFather.Afterconsiderabledebatetheemperorfinallythrew theweightofhisauthority into thebalanceand thus secured thevictory for the party of Athanasius. The Council adopted the following

statementon thepoint inquestion: "Webelieve inoneGod, theFatherAlmighty,Maker of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord JesusChrist,begottennotmade,beingofonesubstance(homoousios)withtheFather", et cetera. This was an unequivocal statement. The termhomoousios could not be twisted to mean anything else than that theessenceoftheSonisidenticalwiththatoftheFather.ItplacedHimonalevel with the Father as an uncreated Being and recognized Him asautotheos.

4.THEAFTERMATH

a.UnsatisfactoryNatureoftheDecision.ThedecisionoftheCouncildidnotterminatethecontroversy,butwasratheronlythebeginningofit.Asettlement forced upon the Church by the strong hand of the emperorcould not satisfy and was also of uncertain duration. It made thedeterminationof theChristian faithdependenton imperial caprice andeven on court intrigues. Athanasius himself, though victorious, wasdissatisfied with such a method of settling ecclesiastical disputes. Hewould rather have convinced the opposing party by the strength of hisarguments.Thesequelclearlyprovedthat,asitwas,achangeinemperor,an altered mood, or even a bribe, might alter the whole aspect of thecontroversy.Thepartyintheascendancymightallatoncesuffereclipse.Thisisexactlywhathappenedrepeatedlyinsubsequenthistory.

b.TemporaryAscendancyofSemi-ArianismintheEasternChurch.Thegreat central figure in the Post-Nicene trinitarian controversy wasAthanasius.Hewasbyfarthegreatestmanoftheage,anacutescholar,astrongcharacter,andamanthathadthecourageofhisconvictionsandwas ready to suffer for the truth. The Church gradually became partlyArian, but predominantly Semi-Arian, and the emperors usually sidedwith themajority, so that itwas said: "UnusAthanasius contraorbem"(oneAthanasiusagainsttheworld).FivetimesthisworthyservantofGodwas driven into exile and succeeded in office by unworthy sycophants,whowereadisgracetotheChurch.

The opposition to the Nicene Creed was divided into different parties.SaysCunningham:"ThemoreboldandhonestArianssaid that theSonwas heteroousios, of a different substance from the Father; others said

thatHewas anomoios, unlike the Father; and some,whowere usuallyreckoned Semi-Arians, admitted that He was homoiousios, of likesubstancewiththeFather;buttheyallunanimouslyrefusedtoadmittheNicenephraseology,becausetheywereopposedtotheNicenedoctrineofthe true and proper divinity of the Son and saw and felt that thephraseology accurately and unequivocally expressed it, though theysometimes preferred to adduce other objections against the use of it."Historical Theology I, p. 290. Semi-Arianism prevailed in the easternsection of the Church. TheWest, however, took a different view of thematter,andwas loyal totheCouncilofNicea.This finds itsexplanationprimarily in the fact that, while the East was dominated by thesubordinationism of Origen, the West was largely influenced byTertullian and developed a type of theology thatwasmore in harmonywith the views of Athanasius. In addition to that, however, the rivalrybetween Rome and Constantinople must also be taken into account.WhenAthanasiuswasbanishedfromtheEast,hewasreceivedwithopenarms in the West; and the Councils of Rome (341) and Sardica (343)unconditionallyendorsedhisdoctrine.

His cause in the West was weakened, however, by the accession ofMarcellusofAncyratotheranksofthechampionsoftheNicenetheology.He fell back on the old distinctionbetween the eternal and impersonalLogos immanent in God, which revealed itself as divine energy in thework of creation, and the Logos become personal at the incarnation;denied that the term "generation" could be applied to the pre-existentLogos, and therefore restricted thename "SonofGod" to the incarnateLogos;andheldthat,attheendofhisincarnatelife,theLogosreturnedtohispremundanerelationtotheFather.HistheoryapparentlyjustifiedtheOriginistsorEusebiansinbringingthechargeofSabellianismagainsttheir opponents, and was thus instrumental in widening the breachbetweentheEastandtheWest.

Various efforts were made to heal the breach. Councils convened atAntioch which accepted the Nicene definitions, though with twoimportant exceptions. They asserted the homoiousion, and thegenerationoftheSonbyanactoftheFather'swill.This,ofcourse,couldnot satisfy theWest.OtherSynodsandCouncils followed, inwhich the

Eusebians vainly sought a western recognition of the deposition ofAthanasius,anddrewupotherCreedsofamediatingtype.Butitwasallin vain until Constantius became sole emperor, and by cunningmanagement and force succeeded in bringing thewestern bishops intolinewiththeEusebiansattheSynodsofArlesandMilan(355).

c.TheTurningoftheTide.Victoryagainprovedadangerousthingforabadcause.Itwas,infact,thesignalforthedisruptionoftheanti-Niceneparty.TheheterogeneouselementsofwhichitwascomposedwereunitedintheiroppositiontotheNiceneparty.Butassoonasitwasrelievedofexternal pressure, its lack of internal unity became ever increasinglyevident. The Arians and the Semi-Arians did not agree, and the latterthemselves did not form a unity. At the Council of Sirmium (357) anattempt wasmade to unite all parties by setting aside the use of suchtermsas ousia, homoousios, andhomoiousios, aspertaining tomattersfarbeyondhumanknowledge.But thingshadgonetoo far foranysuchsettlement. The real Arians now showed their true colours, and thusdrovethemostconservativeSemi-AriansintotheNicenecamp.

Meanwhile a younger Nicene party arose, composed of men who weredisciplesoftheOriginistSchool,butwereindebtedtoAthanasiusandtheNiceneCreedforamoreperfectinterpretationofthetruth.Chiefamongthem were the three Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa,andGregoryofNazianze.Theysawasourceofmisunderstandingintheuseofthetermhypostasisassynonymouswithbothousia(essence)andprosopon(person),andthereforerestricted itsusetothedesignationofthepersonalsubsistenceoftheFatherandtheSon.InsteadoftakingtheirstartingpointintheonedivineousiaofGod,asAthanasiushaddone,theytook their point of departure in the three hypostases (persons) in thedivineBeing,andattempted tobring theseunder the conceptionof thedivineousia.TheGregoriescomparedtherelationof thePersons in theGodhead to the divine Being with the relation of three men to theircommon humanity. And it was exactly by their emphasis on the threehypostases in thedivineBeing that they freed theNicenedoctrine fromthe taints of Sabellianism in the eyes of the Eusebians, and that thepersonalityof theLogosappeared tobe sufficiently safeguarded.At thesametimetheystrenuouslymaintainedtheunityofthethreePersonsin

theGodheadandillustratedthisinvariousways.

d.TheDisputeabouttheHolySpirit.UptothistimetheHolySpirithadnotcomeinforagreatdealofconsideration,thoughdiscordantopinionshadbeenexpressedonthesubject.AriusheldthattheHolySpiritwasthefirst created being produced by the Son, an opinion very much inharmony with that of Origen. Athanasius asserted that the Holy SpiritwasofthesameessencewiththeFather,buttheNiceneCreedcontainsonly the indefinite statement, "And (I believe) in theHoly Spirit." TheCappadocians followed in the footsteps of Athanasius and vigorouslymaintained the homoousis of the Holy Spirit. Hilary of Poitiers in theWestheldthattheHolySpirit,assearchingthedeepthingsofGod,couldnot be foreign to the divine essence. An entirely different opinion wasvoicedbyMacedonius,bishopofConstantinople,whodeclared that theHolySpiritwas a creature subordinate to theSon; buthis opinionwasgenerally considered as heretical, and his followers were nicknamedPneumatomachians (from pneuma, spirit, andmachomai, to speak evilagainst).Whenin381A.D.thegeneralCouncilofConstantinoplemet,itdeclared its approval of the Nicene Creed and under the guidance ofGregoryofNazianzaacceptedthefollowingformularespectingtheHolySpirit:"AndwebelieveintheHolySpirit,theLord,theLife-giving,whoproceedsfromtheFather,whoistobeglorifiedwiththeFatherandtheSon,andwhospeaksthroughtheprophets."

e.CompletionoftheDoctrineoftheTrinity.ThestatementoftheCouncilof Constantinople proved unsatisfactory in two points: (1) the wordhomoousioswasnotused,sothattheconsubstantialityoftheSpiritwiththe Father was not directly asserted; and (2) the relation of the HolySpirit to theother twoPersonswasnotdefined.Thestatement ismadethattheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFather,while it isneitherdeniednor affirmed thatHe also proceeds from the Son. Therewas no entireunanimity on this point. To say that theHoly Spirit proceeds from theFatheronly,lookedlikeadenialoftheessentialonenessoftheSonwiththe Father; and to say thatHe also proceeds from the Son, seemed toplacetheHolySpiritinamoredependentpositionthantheSonandtobean infringement onHis deity.Athanasius, Basil, andGregory ofNyssa,asserted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, without

opposinginanywaythedoctrinethatHealsoproceedsfromtheSon.ButEpiphaniusandMarcellusofAncyrapositivelyassertedthisdoctrine.

Western theologians generallyheld to theprocessionof theHolySpiritfromboththeFatherandtheSon;andattheSynodofToledoin589A.D.thefamous"fileoque"wasaddedtotheConstantinopolitanSymbol.Inthe East the final formulation of the doctrine was given by John ofDamascus. According to him there is but one divine essence, but threepersonsorhypothases.ThesearetoberegardedasrealitiesinthedivineBeing,butnotrelatedtooneanotherasthreemenare.Theyareone inevery respect, except in their mode of existence. The Father ischaracterizedby"nongeneration",theSonby"generation",andtheHolySpirit by "procession." The relation of the Persons to one another isdescribedasoneof"mutualinterpenetration"(circumincession),withoutcommingling. Notwithstanding his absolute rejection ofsubordinationism, John of Damascus still spoke of the Father as thesourceof theGodhead,andrepresents thespiritasprocessing fromtheFatherthroughtheLogos.ThisisstillarelicofGreeksubordinationism.TheEastneveradoptedthe"fileoque"oftheSynodofToledo.ItwastherockonwhichtheEastandtheWestsplit.

Thewesternconceptionof theTrinity reached its final statement in thegreatworkofAugustine,DeTrinitate.HetoostressestheunityofessenceandtheTrinityofPersons.Eachoneof the threePersonspossesses theentireessence,and is inso far identicalwith theessenceandwitheachone of the other Persons. They are not like three humanpersons, eachoneofwhichpossessesonlyapartofgenerichumannature.Moreover,the one is never and can never be without the other; the relation ofdependencebetweenthemisamutualone.Thedivineessencebelongstoeachofthemunderadifferentpointofview,asgenerating,generated,orexisting through inspiration. Between the three hypostases there is arelationofmutualinterpenetrationandinterdwelling.Theword"person"doesnot satisfyAugustineasadesignationof the relationship inwhichthethreestandtooneanother;stillhecontinuestouseit,ashesays,"notin order to express it (the relationship), but in order not to be silent."Withthisconceptionof theTrinity theHolySpirit isnaturallyregardedasproceeding,notonlyfromtheFather,butalsofromtheSon.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:WhatdifferentviewsoftheLogosandofHisrelation to theFatherwereprevalentbefore theCouncilofNicea?HowdidOrigen'sdoctrineof theTrinity comparewith that ofTertullian? Inwhatpointswashisdoctrinedefective?WhatconceptiondidAriushaveofGod?HowdidhisviewofChristfollowfromthis?TowhatpassagesofScripturedidheappeal?WhatwastherealpointatissueattheCouncilofNicea? What was Athansius' real interest in the matter? How did heconceive of man's redemption? Why was it essential that the termhomoousion rather than homoiousion should be used? Why were theSemi-Arianssoopposedtoitsuse?HowcouldtheydetectSaballianisminit? What valuable contribution did the Cappadocians make to thediscussion?HowmustwejudgeoftheanathemaattheendoftheNiceneCreed? How was the question of the relation of the Holy Spirit to theotherPersonssettledintheWestandhowintheEast?WhywastheEastunalterablyopposedtothefamous"fileoque"?DoesthefinalstatementofthedoctrineoftheTrinitybyJohnofDamascusdiffermuchfromthatbyAugustine?

Literature:Bull,DefenseoftheNiceneFaith;Scott,TheNiceneTheology,pp. 213–384; Faulkner, Crises in the Early Church, pp. 113–144;Cunningham,HistoricalTheologyI,pp.267–306;McGiffert,AHistoryofChristian Thought I, pp. 246–275;Harnack,History of Dogma III, pp.132–162; Seeberg, History of Doctrines I, pp. 201–241; Loofs,Dogmengeschiedenis,pp.140–157;Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrineI,pp.306–375;Thomasius,DogmengeschichteI,pp.198–262;Neander,History of Christian Dogmas I, pp. 285–316; Sheldon, History ofChristianDoctrineI,pp.194–215;Orr,ProgressofDogma,pp.105–131.

II.TheDoctrineoftheTrinityinLaterTheology

1.THEDOCTRINEOFTHETRINITYINLATINTHEOLOGY

LatertheologydidnotaddmateriallytothedoctrineoftheTrinity.Therewere deviations from, and consequent restatements of the truth.Roscelinus applied the Nominalist theory that universals are merelysubjective conceptions to the Trinity, and thus sought to avoid the

difficulty of combining the numerical unity with the distinction ofpersons inGod.HeregardedthethreePersons intheGodheadasthreeessentiallydifferentindividuals,whichcouldbesaidtobeonegenericallyandinnameonly.Theirunityismerelyaunityofwillandpower.Anselmcorrectlypointedout that thisposition logically leads toTritheism,andstressedthefactthatuniversalconceptionspresenttruthandreality.

If Roscelinus gave a Nominalistic interpretation of the doctrine of theTrinity, Gilbert of Poitiers interpreted it from the point of view of amoderate Realism of the Aristotelian type, which holds that theuniversals have their existence in the particulars. He distinguishedbetweenthedivineessenceandGodandcomparedtheirrelationtothatbetweenhumanityandconcretemen.ThedivineessenceisnotGod,butthe form ofGod, or thatwhichmakesHim to beGod. This essence orform(latinforma,i.e.thatwhichmakesathingwhatitis)iscommontothe three Persons and in that respect they are one. As a result of thisdistinctionhewaschargedwithteachingTetratheism.

AbelardspokeofthedoctrineoftheTrinityinawaythatcausedhimtobechargedwithSabellianism.HeseeminglyidentifiesthethreePersonsinthedivineBeingwiththeattributesofpower,wisdom,andgoodness.ThenameofFatherstandsforpower,thatofSonforwisdom,andthatofHolySpirit forgoodness.WhilehealsousesexpressionswhichseemtoimplythathedistinctionsintheGodheadarerealpersonaldistinctions,heemploysillustrationsthatclearlypointinthedirectionofModalism.

InThomasAquinaswe find theusual representation,of thedoctrineoftheTrinity,andthiswastheprevailingviewoftheChurchatthetime.

2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN THE PERIOD OF THEREFORMATION.CalvindiscussesthedoctrineoftheTrinityatlengthinhis Institutes I. 13,anddefends thedoctrineas formulatedby theearlyChurch. On the whole he preferred not to go beyond the simplestatementsofScriptureonthematter,andthereforeduringhisfirststayatGenevaevenavoidedtheuseoftheterms"person"and"trinity".InhisInstitutes,however,hedefendstheuseofthesetermsandcriticizesthosewhoareaversetothem.CarolibroughtachargeofArianismagainsthim,whichprovedtobeutterlybaseless.Calvinheldtotheabsoluteequality

ofthePersonsintheGodhead,andevenmaintainedtheself-existenceoftheSon, thereby implying that it isnot the essenceof theSon,butHispersonalsubsistencethatisgenerated.Hesays"thattheessenceofboththe Son and the Spirit is un-begotten", and "that the Son, as God,independentlyof theconsiderationofperson, isself-existent;butastheSon,wesay, thatHe isof theFather.ThusHisessence isunoriginated;but the origin of His person is GodHimself." Institutes I. 13, 25. It issometimessaidthatCalvindeniedtheeternalgenerationoftheSon.Thisassertion is based on the following passage: "For what is the profit ofdisputingwhethertheFatheralwaysgenerates,seeingthatitisfoolishtoimagine a continuous act of generating when it is evident that threepersonshavesubsistedinGodfrometernity."InstitutesXIII.29.ButthisstatementcanhardlybeintendedasadenialoftheeternalgenerationoftheSon,sinceheteachesthisexplicitlyinotherpassages.Itismorelikelythat it is simply an expression of disagreement with the Nicenespeculation about eternal generation as a perpetual movement, alwayscomplete,andyetnevercompleted.SaysWarfield:"Calvinseemstohavefoundthisconceptiondifficult,ifnotmeaningless."CalvinandCalvinism,p.247f.Thedoctrineof theTrinity,as formulatedbytheChurch, findsexpression in all Reformed Confessions,most completely and with thegreatestprecisioninchapterIIIoftheSecondHelveticConfession.

In the sixteenth century the Socinians declared the doctrine of threePersons possessing a common essence, to be contrary to reason, andattemptedtorefuteitonthebasisofthepassagesquotedbytheArians,cf.abovep.89.ButtheyevenwentbeyondtheAriansindenyingthepre-existenceof theSonandholding thatChrist,as toHisessentialnature,wassimplyaman,thoughHepossessedapeculiar fulnessof theSpirit,had special knowledge of God, and since His ascension receiveddominion over all things. They defined the Holy Spirit as "a virtue orenergyflowingfromGodtomen."IntheirconceptionofGodtheyweretheforerunnersofthepresentdayUnitariansandModernists.

Insomequarterssubordinationismagaincametotheforeground.Someof the Arminians (Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and Limborch), whilebelievingthatallthreePersonssharedinthedivinenature,yetascribedacertain preeminence to the Father over the other Persons in order,

dignity, and power or domination. In their estimation belief in theequalityofrankwasalmostsuretoleadtoTritheism.

3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AFTER THE PERIOD OFREFORMATION

In England Samuel Clarke, court preacher to queen Anne, published awork on the Trinity in 1712, inwhich he approached theArian view ofsubordination.HespeaksoftheFatherasthesupremeandonlyGod,thesole origin of all being, power, and authority. Alongside of Him thereexisted from the beginning a seconddivinePerson called the Son,whoderivesHisbeingandallHisattributes from theFather,notbyamerenecessityofnature,butbyanactoftheFather'soptionalwill.Herefusestocommithimselfon thequestion,whether theSonwasbegotten fromtheessenceof theFather,orwasmadeoutofnothing;andwhetherHeexistedfromalleternityoronlybeforeallworlds.AlongsideofthesetwothereisathirdPerson,whoderivesHisessencefromtheFatherthroughtheSon.He issubordinate to theSonbothbynatureandbythewilloftheFather.

Some of theNewEngland theologians criticized the doctrine of eternalgeneration.Emmons even called it eternal nonsense, andMoses Stuartdeclared that the expression was a palpable contradiction of language,and that theirmost distinguished theologians, for forty years past, haddeclared against it. He himself disliked it, because he regarded it ascontrarytotheproperequalityoftheFatherandtheSon.Thefollowingwordsseemtoexpresshisview:"Father,Son,andHolySpiritarewordswhichdesignate thedistinctions of theGodhead asmanifested tous inthe economy of redemption, and are not intended tomark the eternalrelationsoftheGodheadastheyareinthemselves."

Sabellian interpretations of the Trinity are found in EmanuelSwedenborg,whodeniedtheessentialTrinityandsaidthatwhatwecallFather, Son, andHoly Spirit is simply a distinction in the eternalGod-man,assuminghumanfleshintheSon,andoperatingthroughtheHolySpirit;inSchleiermacher,whosaysthatGodinHimselfastheunknownunityunderlying all things is theFather,Godas coming into consciouspersonalityinman,andespeciallyinJesusChrist,istheSon,andGodas

thelifeoftherisenChristintheChurch,istheHolySpirit;andinHegel,Dorner,andotherswhoadoptasomewhatsimilarview.InRitschlandinmany Modernists of the present day the view of Paul of Samosatareappears.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:InwhatsensedidtheScholasticsregardthedoctrine of the Trinity as a mystery? Why did Roscelinus deny thenumerical unity of essence in God? How did the Church judge of histeaching?WhywasGilbert of Poitiers chargedwithTetratheism?Whatwas thenatureofAbelard'sSabellianism?Whatwas the attitudeof theChurchtohisteaching?WhatwasthegenerallyaccepteddefinitionofapersonintheTrinity,asgivenbyBoethius?Whatcriticismswereleveledagainstit?DidtheScholasticsregardthedivineessenceoftheSonorhispersonal subsistence as the object of generation? How did theydistinguishbetweenthegenerationoftheSonandtheprocessionoftheHolySpirit?Whatrelationdidtheyexpressbytheterm'circumincessio'?HowdidCalvindefineapersonintheTrinity?Howdidheconceiveofthegeneration of the Son? Where do we find the doctrine of the Trinitydeveloped along Arian lines? Where along Sabellian lines? And wherealongthelineofapurelyeconomicalTrinity?

Literature: Seeberg,History ofDoctrine II, cf. Index;Otten,Manual ofthe History of Dogmas II, pp. 84–99; Sheldon, History of ChristianDoctrine I, pp. 337–339; II, pp. 96–103, 311–318; Cunningham,Historical Theology II, pp. 194–213; Fisher, History of ChristianDoctrine,cf.Index.

THEDOCTRINEOFCHRIST

I.TheChristologicalControversies

TheChristologicalproblemcanbeapproachedfromthesideoftheologyproperandfromthesideofsoteriology.ThoughtheearlyChurchFathersdidnotlosesightofthesoteriologicalbearingsofthedoctrineofChrist,theydidnotmaketheseprominentintheirmaindiscussions.Breathingtheairofthetrinitariancontroversies,itwasbutnaturalthattheyshouldapproach the study of Christ from the side of theology proper. Thedecision towhich the trinitariancontroversy led,namely, thatChristastheSonofGodisconsubstantialWiththeFatherandthereforeveryGod,immediatelygavebirthtothequestionoftherelationbetweenthedivineandthehumannatureinChrist.

The early Christological controversies do not present a very edifyingspectacle The passions were toomuch in evidence, unworthy intriguesoftenplayedandimportantpart,andevenviolenceoccasionallymadeitsappearance. It might seem that such an atmosphere could only beproductive of error, and yet these controversies led to a formulation ofthedoctrineof thePersonofChrist that is still regardedasstandard inthepresentday.TheHolySpiritwasguiding theChurch,often throughshameandconfusion,intotheclearatmosphereofthetruth.Someclaimthat the Church attempted toomuchwhen it tried to define amysterywhichfromthenatureofthecasetranscendsalldefinition.Itshouldbeborneinmind,however,thattheearlyChurchdidnotclaimtobeabletopenetratetothedepthsofthisgreatdoctrine,anddidnotpretendtogiveasolutionoftheproblemoftheincarnationintheformulaofChalcedon.Itmerely sought toguard the truthagainst theerrorsof the theorizers,and to give a formulation of it whichwouldward off various, palpablyunscriptural,constructionsofthetruth.

TheChurchwasinquestofaconceptionofChristthatwoulddojusticetothe following points: (a) His true and proper deity; (b) His true andproperhumanity;(c)theunionofdeityandhumanityinoneperson;and(d)theproperdistinctionofdeityfromhumanityintheoneperson.Itfelt

thatas longas theserequirementswerenotmet,oronlypartlymet, itsconception of Christ would be defective. All the Christological heresiesthat arose in the early Church originated in the failure to combine allthese elements in the doctrinal statement of the truth. Some deniedwhollyorinpartthetrueandproperdeityofChrist,andothersdisputedwhollyorinpartHistrueandproperhumanity.Somestressedtheunityof the person at the expense of the two distinct natures, and othersemphasized the distinct character of the two natures in Christ at theexpenseoftheunityofthePerson.

1.FIRSTSTAGEOFTHECONTROVERSY

a. The Background. This controversy also had its roots in the past.Ebionites, Alogi, andDynamicMonarchians denied the deity of Christ,and Docetae, Gnostics, and Modalists rejected. His humanity. Theysimplyruledoutoneofthetermsoftheproblem.Otherswerelessradicaland denied either the full deity or the perfect humanity of Christ. TheAriansdenied that theSon-Logos,whobecome incarnate inChrist,waspossessed of absolute Godhead. And on the other hand Apollinaris,bishop of Laodicea (d. 312), denied the true and proper humanity ofJesusChrist.Heconceivedofmanasconsistingofbody,soul,andspirit,andsoughtthesolutionoftheproblemofthetwonaturesinChristinthetheorythattheLogostooktheplaceofthehumanpneuma(spirit).InhisopinionitwouldbeeasiertomaintaintheunityofthePersonofChrist,iftheLogosweresimplyregardedastakingtheplaceofthehigherrationalprinciple in man. Over against Arius he defended the true divinity ofChrist,andsoughttosafeguardHissinlessnessbysubstitutingtheLogosforthehumanpneuma,whichheregardedastheseatofsin.Accordingtohim a complete human nature would naturally involve sinfulness.Moreover, he tried tomake the incarnation intelligible by assuming aneternal tendency to the human in the LogosHimself as the archetypalman.ButthesolutionofApollinariscouldnotsatisfy,because,asSheddsays,"iftherationalpartbesubtractedfromman,hebecomeseitheranidiot or a brute." His purpose was praiseworthy, however, in that hesought to safeguardboth theunityof thePersonand the sinlessnessofChrist.

Therewasconsiderableoppositiontothesolutionoftheproblemoffered

byApollinaris.ThethreeCappadociansandHilaryofPoitiersmaintainedthat,iftheLogosdidnotassumehumannatureinitsintegrity,HecouldnotbeourperfectRedeemer.Sincethewholesinnerhadtoberenewed,Christ had to assume human nature in its entirety, and not simply theleastimportantpartsofit.TheyalsopointedtoadoceticelementintheteachingsofApollinaris.IftherewasnorealhumanwillinChrist,therecouldbenorealprobationandnorealadvanceinHismanhood.Eventheopponents of Apollinaris, however, while stressing the completehumanity of Christ, conceived of this as overshadowed byHis divinity.GregoryofNyssaevensaysthatthefleshofChristwastransformedandlostallitsoriginalpropertiesbyunionwiththedivine.

OneresultofthispreliminatryskirmishwasthattheSynodofAlexandriain362assertedtheexistenceofahumansoulinChrist.Theword"soul"was used by the Synod as inclusive of the rational element, whichApollinariscalledpneumaornous.

b.ThePartiestotheControversy

(1) The Nestorian Party. Some of the early Church Fathers usedexpressions which seemingly denied the existence of two natures inChrist, and postulated a single nature, "the incarnate and adorableWord."FromthispointofviewMarywasoftencalledtheotokos,motherof God. It was particularly the School of Alexandria that revealed thistendency. On the other hand the School of Antioch went to the otherextreme. This appears especially in the teachings of Theodore ofMopsuestia.HetookhisstartingpointinthecompletemanhoodofchristandtheperfectrealityofHishumanexperiences.AccordingtohimChristactually struggled with human passions, passed through a veritableconflictwithtemptation,andcameoutvictoriously.Heowedthepowertokeephimselffreefromsin(a)toHissinlessbirth,and(b)totheunionof His manhood with the divine Logos. Theodore denied the essentialindwelling of the Logos in Christ, and allowed only for a mere moralindwelling. He saw no essential difference, but only a difference ofdegree, between the indwelling of God in Christ and that in believers.This view really substitutes for the incarnation themoral indwelling ofthe Logos in the man Jesus. Nevertheless, Theodore shrank from theconclusiontowhichhisviewwouldseemtoleadinevitably,thatthereisa

dual personality in Christ, two persons between whom a moral unionexists.Hesaidthattheunionwassoclosethatthetwomightbespokenofasoneperson,justashusbandandwifecanbecalledoneflesh.

ThelogicaldevelopmentofthisAntiochianviewisseeninNestorianism.Following in the footsteps of Theodore,Nestorius denied that the termtheotokoscouldproperlybeapplied for thesimplereasonthatsheonlybrought forth a man who was accompanied by the Logos. AlthoughNestoriusdidnotdrawtheinevitableconclusionthatfollowedfromthisposition, his opponent, Cyril, held him responsible for that conclusion.Hepointedout (a) that, ifMary isnot theotokos, that is, themotherofone person, and that person divine, the assumption of a single humanbeingintofellowshipwiththeLogosissubstitutedfortheincarnationofGod; and (b) that, if Mary is not theotokos, the relation of Christ tohumanity is changed, and He is no more the effectual Redeemer ofmankind. The followers of Nestorius did not hesitate to draw theconclusion.

Nestorianismisdefective,notinthedoctrineofthetwonaturesinChrist,butinthatoftheonePerson.Boththetrueandproperdeityandthetrueandproperhumanityareconceded,buttheyarenotconceivedinsuchaway as to form a real unity and to constitute a single person. The twonaturesarealso twopersons.The importantdistinctionbetweennatureas substance possessed in common, and person as a relativelyindependentsubsistenceofthatnature,isentirelydisregarded.Insteadofblending the twonatures into a single self-consciousness,Nestorianismplacesthemalongsideofeachotherwithnothingmorethanamoralandsympatheticunionbetweenthem.ThemanChristwasnotGod,butGod-bearer,theophoros,apossessoroftheGodhead.Christisworshipped,notbecause He is God, but because God is in Him. The strong point inNestorianismisthatitseekstodofull justicetothehumanityofChrist.Atthesametimeitgoescontrarytoallthescripturalproofsfortheunityof the Person in the Mediator. It leaves the Church with an exaltedexample of true piety andmorality in the human person of Jesus, butrobs itof itsdivine-humanRedeemer, the sourceofall spiritualpower,grace,andsalvation.

(2)TheCyrillianParty. Themost prominent opponent ofNestorianism

was Cyril of Alexandria. According to him the Logos assumed humannatureinitsentirety,inordertoredeemit,butatthesametimeformedthe only personal subject in the God-man. His terminology was notalwaysclear,however.OntheonehandheseemedtoteachsimplythattheLogosassumedhumannature,sothattherearetwonaturesinChrist,which find their indissoluble union in the one Person of the Logos,without any change in the natures themselves. But he also usedexpressionsinwhichhestressedtheunityofthetwonaturesinChristbymeansofamutualcommunicationofattributes,andspokeofthePersonofChristas if itwerearesultantunity.Hisgreatsignificance lies inthefactthat,overagainstNestorianism,hestressedtheunityofthePersonofChrist.Thethreepointswhichheemphasizedaboveallwere inperfect,harmony with the catholic doctrine of the day, namely; (a) theinseparable conjunction of the two natures; (b) the impersonality anddependence of themanhood, which the Logos uses asHis instrument;and(c) theunityandcontinuityof thePerson inChristOccasionallyheused expressions, however, which seemed to justify the later Eutichianerror.Heappliedthetermphusis(nature)totheLogosonly,andnottothe humanity of Christ, thus using it as a synonym of hypostasis. Thisgave some occasion to saddle on him the doctrine that, after theincarnation.therewasonlyonedivine-humannatureinChrist,andmadeitpossible for theMonophysites toappeal tohim,when theywanted toprove that,as therewasbutonePerson,so therewasalsoonlyasinglenatureintheMediator.Theycontinuedtheirappealtohiminspiteofhisstrenuousdenialofanymixtureof thenatures.TheCouncilofEphesuseffecteda sortof compromisebymaintainingon theonehand that thetermtheotokoscouldbeappliedtoMary,andassertingontheotherhandthedoctrineofthetwodistinctnaturesofChrist.

(3)TheEutichianParty.ManyofCyril'sadherentsweredissatisfied.Theydidnottakekindlytothedoctrineofthetwodistinctnatures.Eutichus,anagedmonkof ratherunbalancedconvictionsandwitha stronganti-Nestorian bias, espoused the cause of the Alexandrian theology atConstantinople. According to Theodoret hemaintained in effect, eitheranabsorptionof thehumannature in thedivine,ora fusionof the twonatures,resultinginasortoftertiumquid.Hewasoftheopinionthatthehuman attributes were assimilated to the divine in Christ, so that His

body was not consubstantial with ours and He was not human in thepropersenseof theword.CondemnedbytheCouncilofConstantinoplein448,heappealedtoLeo,thebishopofRome.AfterLeoreceivedafullreportofthecasefromFlavianandwasurgedtoexpresshisopinion,headdressedtoFlavianhiscelebratedTome.BecausethisTomeprofoundlyinfluenced the Chalcedonian formula, it may be well to note its mainpoints,whichareas follows: (a)Thereare twonatures inChrist,whicharepermanentlydistinct. (b)Thetwonaturesunite inonePerson,eachoneperformingitsownproperfunctionintheincarnatelife.(c)Fromtheunity of the Person follows the communication of attributes(communicatio idiomatum). (d) The work of redemption required aMediator both human and divine, passible and impassible,mortal andimmortal. The incarnation was an act of condescension on the part ofGod,butinittheLogosdidnotceasetobeveryGod.Theformaservididnotdetractfromtheformadei.(e)ThemanhoodofChristispermanent,and itsdenial implies adoceticdenial of the realityof the sufferingsofChrist.ThisisreallyacompendiumofwesternChristology.

c.TheDecisionoftheCouncilofChalcedon.AfterseverallocalCouncilshadmet,somefavoringandsomecondemningEutichus,theecumenicalCouncil of Chalcedon convened in the year 451, and issued its famousstatementofthedoctrineofthePersonofChrist.Thisreadsasfollows:

"We,then,followingtheholyFathers,allwithoneconsent,teachmentoconfessoneandthesameSon,OurLordJesusChrist,thesameperfectinGodheadandalsoperfectinmanhood;trulyGodandalsotrulyman,ofareasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according totheGodhead,andconsubstantialwithusaccordingtothemanhood;inallthings like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Fatheraccording to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for oursalvation,bornof thevirginMary, theMotherofGod, according to themanhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to beacknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly (asuggutos), unchangeably(atreptos), indivisibly (adiairetos), inseparably (achoristos), thedistinctionof natures beingbynomeans taken awayby theunion, butratherthepropertyofeachnaturebeingpreserved,andconcurringinonePersonandonesubsistence,notpartedordividedintotwopersons,but

oneandthesameSon,theOnly-begotten,GodtheWord,theLordJesusChrist; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerningHim,andtheLordJesusChristHimselfhastaughtus,andtheCreedoftheHolyFathershashandeddowntous."

Themostimportantimplicationsofthisstatementarethefollowing:(1)Thepropertiesofbothnaturesmaybeattributed to theonePerson,as,forinstance,omniscienceandlimitedknowledge.(2)ThesufferingoftheGod-mancanberegardedastrulyandreallyinfinite,whileyetthedivinenature is impassible. (3) It is the divinity and not the humanity thatconstitutestherootandbasisofthepersonalityofChrist.(4)TheLogosdidnotunitewithadistincthumanindividual,butwithahumannature.There was not first an individual Person in the Godhead associatedHimself.Theunionwas effectedwith the substanceofhumanity in thewombofthevirgin.

2.SECONDSTAGEOFTHECONTROVERSY

a.ConfusionaftertheDecisionoftheCouncil.TheCouncilofChalcedondid not put an end to the Christological disputes any more than theCouncilofNiceaterminatedthetrinitariancontroversy.Egypt,Syria,andPalestineharboredmanyfanaticalmonksofEutichianconvictions,whileRome became ever-increasingly the center of orthodoxy. In fact, theprocessofdogmaticdevelopmentwas fastpassing from theEast to theWest.AftertheCouncilofChalcedontheadherentsofCyrilandEutichuswere called Monophysites, because they conceded that after the unionChrist had a composite nature, but denied that He-had two distinctnatures.Astheysawit, twodistinctnatureswouldnecessarily involveaduality of persons. There was a lengthy and rather unseemly strugglebetweenthedifferentparties.EventheMonophysiteswerenotallagreedamong themselves. They were divided into several sects, of which thenamesalone,saysDr.Orr,"areenoughtogiveoneacoldshiver."ThereweretheTheopaschitists,whoemphasizedthefactthatGodsuffered;thePhthartolatrists,whocamenearesttotheformulationofChalcedon,andstressedthefactthatthehumannatureofChristwas,likeours,capableofsuffering,andwerethereforesaidtoworshipthatwhichiscorruptible;and the Aphthartodocetists, who represented just the opposite view,namely, that the human nature of Christ was not consubstantial with

ours,butwasendowedwithdivineattributes,andwasthereforesinless,imperishable,andincorruptible.

The ablest andmost prominent defender of the Chalcedonian theologywas Leontius of Byzantium. He added an element to the dogmaticalconstructionof thedoctrineofChrist,whichwasmore fullyworkedoutby John ofDamascus. The point is this: The rejection ofNestorianismmight lead to the idea of an independent impersonal existence of thehumannatureofChrist.Thisideawasapttobefosteredbytheuseofthetermsanupostasisandanupostasia.ThereforeLeontiusstressedthefactthat the humannature of Christ is enupostasia, not impersonal but in-personal,havingitspersonalsubsistenceinthePersonoftheSonofGodfromtheverymomentoftheincarnation.

In553theemperorJustiniansummonedthefifthoecumenicalCouncilatConstantinople, which was favorable to the Monophysites in itscondemnationofthewritingsofTheodore,butunfavorabletoitinsofaras it anathematized those who declared that the Council of Chalcedoncountenanced the very errorswhich it condemned. This did not satisfytheMonophysites,butrathersealedtheirseparationfromtheChurchoftheempire.

b. The Monothelitic Controversy. It soon became evident that theattemptedsettlementoftheMonophysitecontroversybytheCouncildidnotrestoreharmony.Severalvitalquestionsremainedunanswered.Notonlydid thehowof the twonatures inChrist remainunsolved,but theadditionalquestionarose,Howmuchisincludedinthepersonandhowmuchinthenature?Inthisconnectiontheveryimportantquestionwasraised, whether the will belongs to the former or to the latter. This isequivalent toasking,whether there isbutonewill inChristor two?TosaythatthereisbutoneseemstorobChristoftruehumanvolition,andtherefore to detract from the integrity of His humanity. On the otherhand, to say that there are two seems to lead right into the Nestoriancamp.

The result was that a new sect arose among the Monophysites, calledMonothelites.As thename indicates, they started from theunityof thePersonandassertedthatthereisbutonewillinChrist.Thisdoctrinealso

took two forms: either the human will was regarded asmerged in thedivine, so that the latter alone acted; or the will was re garded ascomposite, resulting from the fusion of the divine and the human. TheopponentsoftheMonotheliteswerecalledDuothelites.Thesetooktheirstandonthedualityofthenaturesandassertedthepresenceoftwowillsin Christ. TheMonophysites charged themwith the destruction of theunityofthepersonallifeofChrist.

For a time the term energeia (energy) was used in this controversy inpreference to thelema (will), but soon the latter, as the more definiteterm,prevailed.Itshouldbeborneinmind,however,thattheword"will"wasusedinabroadsense.Strictlyspeaking,wemeanby"will"thefacultyof volition, of self-determination, and of choice. But the word is oftenusedinabroadersense,asincludingtheinstincts,appetites,desires,andaffections,withtheircorrespondingaversions.Allthiswascoveredbytheterm"will"intheancientcontroversy,sothatthisincludedthequestion,whetherChristwas capableof fearandof shrinking fromsufferinganddeath. The denial of the humanwill inChristwould therefore giveHishumanityasomewhatdoceticcharacter.

The sixth ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680), with the co-operation of the bishop ofRome, adopted the doctrine of the twowillsand two energies as the orthodox position, but also decided that thehumanwillmustalwaysbeconceivedas subordinate to thedivine.Theestablishedopinionwasthatthehumanwillbyitsunionwiththedivinedid not become less human, but was heightened and perfected by theunion,thetwoalwaysactinginperfectharmony.

c. The Construction of the Doctrine by John of Damascus. In John ofDamascus the theology of the Greek Church reached its highestdevelopment,andthereforeitisofimportancetonoticehisconstructionof the doctrine of the Person of Christ. According to him the Logosassumedhumannature,andnotviceversa,thatis,themanJesusdidnotassume the Logos. This means that the Logos is the formative andcontrollingagency,securingtheunityofthetwonatures.TheLogosdidnot assume a human individual, nor human nature in general, but apotential human individual, a human nature not yet developed into apersonorhypostasis.ThroughtheunionoftheLogoswiththispotential

man in the womb ofMary, the latter acquired an individual existence.WhilethehumannatureofChristhasnoindependentpersonalityof itsown,itneverthelesshaspersonalexistenceinandthroughtheLogos.Itisnotnon-hypostatic,buten-hypostatic.Heillustratestheunionofthetwonatures in Christ by the union of body and soul in man. There is acircumincessionofthedivineandthehumaninChrist,acommunicationofthedivineattributestothehumannature,sothatthelatterisdeifiedandwemay also say thatGod suffered in the flesh.Thehumannatureonly is thusaffected, and is thereforepurely receptiveandpassive.TheSon of God, now including His complete humanity, is an object ofworshipfortheChurch.Thoughthereisatendencytoreducethehumannature of Jesus to the position of a mere organ or instrument of theLogos,itisadmittedthatthereisaco-operationofthetwonatures,andthattheonePersonactsandwillsineachnature.Thewillisregardedasbelonging to thenature, but it is claimed that inChrist thehumanwillhasbecomethewilloftheincarnateGod.

d. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. The WesternChurch remained comparatively unaffected by the controversies thatwereragingintheEast.Itseemsthatonthewholethewesternmindwasnotsufficientlyfamiliarwithallkindsoffinephilosophicaldistinctionstotakeanactivepart in thediscussionofquestionsthatweresodeepandsubtleasthosethatdividedtheEasternChurch.

AnewmovementofChristological thoughtappearedinSpain,however,in theseventhandeighthcenturies,called theAdoptionistControversy.The term "adoption" was already familiar in Spain, since a Council ofToledodeclaredin675thatChristwastheSonofGodbynatureandnotby adoption. The real champion of the Adoptionist doctrine was Felix,bishopofUrgella.HeregardedChristastoHisdivinenature,thatistheLogos,astheonly-begottenSonofGodinthenaturalsense,butChristonhishumansideasaSonofGodbyadoption.Atthesametimehesoughtto preserve the unity of the Person by stressing the fact that, from thetimeofhisconception,theSonofManwastakenupintotheunityofthePersonoftheSonofGod.

This theory therefore makes a distinction between a natural and anadoptivesonship, the formerpredicatedof thedivinityandthe latterof

thehumanityofChrist.Felixandhisfollowersbasedtheiropinion:(1)OnthedistinctionofnaturesinChrist,which,accordingtothem,impliedadistinctionbetweentwomodesofsonship. (2)OnpassagesofScripturewhichrefertotheinferiorityofChristasmantotheFather.And(3)Onthe fact that believers are sons ofGodby adoption, and are also called"brethren" of Christ. This would seem to imply that Christ as to hishumannaturewasaSonofGod in the samesense. Inorder toexplaintheirmeaningstillfarther,theydistinguishedbetweenanaturalbirthofChristatBethlehemandaspiritualbirth,whichhadits inceptionatthetimeofbaptismandwasconsummatedintheresurrection.ThisspiritualbirthmadeChristtheadoptedSonofGod.

WhiletheopponentsofthisviewdidnotchargetheAdoptionistswiththeexpliciterrorof teachingadualpersonality inChrist, theyassertedthatthis would be the logical result of a dual sonship. Alcuin, the notedscholar of the days of Charlemagne, took issue with Felix and chargedhim with dividing Christ into two sons. He maintained that no fathercould have a son, who was such both by nature and by adoption.Undoubtedly, theAdoptionistswere inerror,whentheyassignedto thehuman nature of Christ a sort of alien position until He was made topartake of divine sonship by a special act of adoption. This error wascondemnedbytheSynodofFrankfortin794A.D.

Questions for Further Study: Did the position of Apollinaris find anypoint of contact inArianism?What interests did he seek to safeguard?What traces of Platonic and Manichæan influence are found in histheory? What was his peculiar view of the Logos as the archetype ofhumanity?Whatwere themainobjections tohis theory? Inwhat sensewasNestorianisma reactionagainstApollinarianism?HowmanykindsofindwellingdidTheodoredistinguish?WhatledtotheapplicationofthetermtheotokostoMary?DidCyrilreallyconfusethetwonatures?Howcanweaccountforagreatdealofthemisunderstandingcurrentonthispoint?WhatwasthestrongpointinNestorianism?HowdidtheChurchmeet itserror?WhatwasCyril'sviewof theunityof thePerson,andoftherelationofthetwonaturesinChrist?Whatwastheparticularinterestof Eutichianism? Inwhat respect did it err?How did Leo in his Tomeconstruct the doctrine of Christ? What element did Leontius of

ByzantiumcontributetotheconstructionofthedoctrineofChrist?HowdidtheMonothelitecontroversyarise?Whatdiditinvolveandhowwasitsettled? On what was the Adoptionist theory based? Were theAdoptionistsreallyNestorianintheirview?

Literature: Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, pp. 39–82; Ottley, TheDoctrineof the Incarnation,pp. 323–481;Mackintosh,TheDoctrineofthePersonofChrist, pp. 174–230;Harnack,History ofDogma, IV, pp.138–267; Seeberg, History of Doctrine, I, pp. 243–288; Loofs,Dogmengeschiedenis,pp.153–170;Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte,I,pp.287–378;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,I,pp.316–339;Shedd,History of ChristianDoctrine, I, pp. 393–408; Cunningham,HistoricalTheology,I,pp.307–320;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.148–160;Orr,ProgressofDogma,pp.173–206.

II.LaterChristologicalDiscussions

1. INTHEMIDDLEAGES.During theMiddleAges thedoctrineof thePerson of Christ was not in the foreground. Other problems, such asthoseconnectedwiththedoctrinesofsinandgrace,andwiththedoctrineof the work of redemption, became the center of attention. A briefindicationofthemostsalientpointsofThomasAquinas'constructionofthedoctrineofChristwillbesufficienttoindicatehowthematterstoodatthetimeoftheReformation.

As to the hypostatic union in Christ Thomas Aquinas adhered to thereceived theology.ThePersonof theLogosbecame composite after theunion at the incarnation, and thisunion "hindered" themanhood fromarrivingatanindependentpersonality.AtwofoldgracewasimpartedtothehumannatureofChristinvirtueofitsunionwiththeLogos,namely:(a) thegratiaunionisor thedignity that resulted fromtheunionof thehumannaturewiththedivine,sothatthehumannaturealsobecameanobjectofworship;and(b)thegratiahabitualis,thegraceofsanctificationwhichwasvouchsafedtoChristasman,sustainingthehumannatureinits relationship to God. The human knowledge of Christ was twofold,namely,scientiainfusaandscientiaacquisita.InvirtueoftheformerHe

couldknowallthingsthatcanbesoknownbymenandallthatismadeknown to them by revelation, a knowledge perfect in its king but yetsubject to creaturely limitations.And in virtueof the latterheknewallthat can be known through the intellectual faculties. There is nocommunication of attributes between the natures in the abstract, butboth human and divine attributes may be ascribed to the Person. ThehumannatureofChristwasnotomnipotent,butwas subject tohumanaffections, such as sorrow, sadness, fear,wonder, and anger. There aretwowills inChrist, butultimate causalitybelongsbelongs to thedivinewill.Thehumanwillisalwayssubjecttothedivine.

2.DURINGTHEREFORMATION.There isonepeculiarityofLutheranChristology which deserves special attention. Luther held firmly to thedoctrineofthetwonaturesandtheirinseparableunioninthePersonofthe Logos. But his doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's Suppernecessitated the view that, after the ascension, the human nature ofChristisomnipresent.ThisledtotheLutheranviewofthecommunicatioidiomatum, to the effect "that each of Christ's natures permeates theother(perichoresis),andthatHishumanityparticipatesintheattributesof His divinity." Neve, Lutheran Symbolics, p. 132. But while certaindivineattributes,suchasomniscience,omnipresence,andomnipotence,wereascribedtothehumannature,therewasconsiderablehesitationinascribing human attributes to the divine nature, and in course of timethissideofthematterwasdroppedaltogether.AccordingtotheFormulaofConcordthedivinenatureimpartsitsattributestothehumannature,but the exercise of these is dependenton thewill of theSonofGod. Itshould be noted, however, that the Formula is very ambiguous, if notactuallyinconsistentinitsstatements.Cf.Schmid,DoctrinalTheology,p.340. Small wonder therefore that Lutheran theologians themselves donotagreeonthesubject.

Thedoctrineof thecommunicationofattributes led toacontroversy inthe Lutheran Church. Lutheran theologians evidently realized that thelogicofthecaserequiredacommunicationofattributesattheverytimeoftheunionofthetwonatures.Butonthisassumptiontheyatoncefacedthequestion,howtoexplainthelifeofhumiliationasitispicturedinthepagesoftheGospel.ThisledtothedisputebetweentheGiessenandthe

Tuebingentheologians.TheformerheldthatChristlaidasidethedivineattributes received in the incarnation, or used them only occasionally;and the latter, thatHe always possessed them, but concealed them, orused themonlysecretly.Chemnitz is themost importantrepresentativeof the former,andBrenzof the latteropinion.TheFormulaofConcordon the whole leans to the side of the former, and his view graduallyprevailed in the Lutheran Church. In the work of Quenstedt, at whosehandsthedoctrinereceiveditsfinalshape,thepresenceofstrictlydivinepowersinthemanhoodofChristbecomesamerepotentiality.ThereisanoticeabletendencyamongsomeoftheLutheranstodaytodiscardtheircharacteristic view of the communicatio idiomatum, and to conform totheReformedviewthatthepropertiesofeachoneofthenaturescanheascribedtothePerson.Cf.LecturesontheAugsburgConfession,p.91f.;Sprecher,GroundworkofaSystemofEvangelicalLutheranTheology,p.458.

The most complete official deliverance on the Reformed position withrespect to the doctrine of Christ is found in the Second HelveticConfession, prepared in 1566. We quote some of the most pertinentstatements:

"ThereforetheSonofGodisco-equalandconsubstantialwiththeFather,astouchingHisdivinity;trueGod,andnotbynameonly,orbyadoption,orbyspecialfavor,butinsubstanceandnature…WethereforedoabhortheblasphemousdoctrineofArius,utteredagainsttheSonofGod…WealsoteachandbelievethattheeternalSonoftheeternalGodwasmadetheSonofMan,oftheseedofAbrahamandDavid;notbymeansofanyman, asEbion affirmed, but thatHewasmost purely conceivedby theHoly Spirit, and born of the virginMary …Moreover, our Lord JesusChristhadnotasoulwithoutsenseorreason,asApollinaristhought;norfleshwithouta soul, asEunomiusdid teach;buta soulwith its reason,and fleshwith its senses…Weacknowledge, therefore, that therebe inoneandthesameJesusChristourLordtwonatures—thedivineandthehumannature;andwesaythatthesetwoaresoconjoinedorunitedthattheyarenotswallowedup,confounded,ormingledtogether,butratherunited or joined together in one person (the properties of each naturebeing safe and remaining still), so that we do worship one Christ, our

Lord, and not two … As, therefore, we detest the heresy of Nestorius,whichmakestwoChristsofoneanddissolvedtheunionoftheperson,sodoweabominate themadnessofEutichusandof theMonothelitesandMonophysites, who overthrow the propriety of the human nature.ThereforewedonotteachthatthedivinenatureinChristdidsuffer,orthatChrist,accordingtoHishumannature,isyetintheworld,andsoinevery place. For we do neither think nor teach that the body of ChristceasedtobeatruebodyafterHisglorying,orthatitwasdeifiedandsodeified that it put off the properties, as touching body and soul, andbecamealtogetheradivinenatureandbegantobeonesubstancealone;therefore we do not allow or receive the unwitty subtleties, and theintricate, obscure, and inconsistent disputations of Schwenkfeldt, andsuch other vain janglers, about this matter; neither are weSchwenkfeldians."

3. IN THENINETEENTHCENTURY.During the eighteenth century astrikingchangetookplaceinthestudyofthePersonofChrist.Uptothattime the point of departure had been prevailingly theological and theresultingChristologywas theocentric. Scholars engaged in constructingthedoctrine ofChrist took their startingpoint in theLogos, the SecondPersonintheTrinity,andthensoughttointerprettheincarnationsoasto do justice to the unity of the Person of the Saviour, but also to theintegrityandveracityofbothnatures.Butinthecourseoftheeighteenthcenturytherewasagrowingconvictionthatthiswasnotthebestmethod,andthatmoresatisfyingresultscouldbeobtainedbybeginningcloserathome,namely,withthestudyofthehistoricalJesus.AnewChristologicalperiod was ushered in. For more than a century the attention wasfocussedonthepictureoftheSaviourpresentedtousintheGospels,andmanyaresodelightedwiththeresultsofthisstudythattheyspeakofitastherediscoveryofJesus.Thepointofviewwasanthropological,andtheresultwasanthropocentric.

Now the statement of Mackintosh may be true, that "these adjectivesneed implynoseriousdifferenceofopinionas toultimateconclusions,"since"anthropomorphicmustnotbeconfusedwithhumanitarian,"butasamatter of fact thenewmethodwas employed in suchamanner as toyield destructive rather than constructive results. Its application went

hand inhandwitha strongaversion toauthority and the supernatural,andwithaninsistentappealtoreasonandexperience.NotwhattheBibleteachesusconcerningChrist,butourowndiscoveriesininvestigatingthephenomena of His life and our experience of Him, was made thedetermining factor in forming a proper conception of Jesus. A far-reaching and pernicious distinction was made between the historicalJesus,delineatedbythewritersoftheGospels,andthetheologicalChrist,thefruitofthefertileimaginationoftheologicalthinkersfromthedaysofPaulon,whose imageisnowreflectedintheCreedsof theChurch.TheLordofGlorywasshornofallthatissupernatural—ornearlyso—andthedoctrineof (concerning)Christ gaveway for the teachingsof Jesus.Hewho had always been regarded by the Church as an object of divineworship now became a mere teacher of morality. Attempts were notwanting, however, to retain something of the religious significance ofJesusChrist,whileyetconceivingofHiminamannerthatconformedtothespiritoftheage.WelimitourselvestoabriefindicationofsomeoftheoutstandingviewsrespectingChrist.

a. The View of Schleiermacher. In the Christology of SchleiermacherJesuscanhardlybesaidtoriseabovethehumanlevel.TheuniquenessofHisPersonconsistsinthefactthatHepossessesaperfectandunbrokensenseofunionwiththedivine,andalsorealizestothefullthedestinyofmaninHischaracterofsinlessperfection.HewasthesecondAdam,trulyman like the first, but placed in more favorable circumstances andremainingsinlessandperfectinobedience.Heisthenewspiritualheadof the race, capable of animating and sustaining the higher life of allmankind. His transcendant dignity finds its explanation in a specialpresence ofGod inHim, inHis supremeGod-consciousness.He is theperfectly religious man, the fountain of all true religion: and throughliving faith in Him all men may become perfectly religious. Theextraordinary character of Christ points to the fact that He had anunusualorigin,forthereisnohereditaryinfluenceinHimthatmakesforsinfultendencies.Itisnotnecessarytoacceptthevirginbirth.HisPersonwas constituted by a creative act which elevated human nature to theplaneofidealperfection.

b. The Conceptions of Kant andHegel. The speculative Rationalism of

GermanyalsoclaimsasympatheticappreciationofspecificallyChristiandoctrines,andfindsinthemalargedepositofrationaltruth.

(1)TheKantianChrist.ToKantChristwasfirstofallmerelyanabstractideal,theidealofethicalperfection.Whatsavesisfaithinthisideal,andnotinJesusasaPerson.TheChurchmadeamistakewhenitappliedtoHim epithets and conceptions which rightly belong only to the ethicalideal, which He merely symbolizes. This ethical ideal, which hoveredbeforethemindofGodfromthebeginningandcanbecalledtheSonofGod,camedownfromheavenandbecomesincarnateinthemeasureinwhich it is realizedonearth inaperfecthumanity. It is revealed in thetruthsofreason,andisthecontentofarationalfaith,ofwhichJesuswasthemosteminentpreacherandpioneer.Iftrulyappropriated,itwillsaveman irrespective of any personal relation to Jesus Christ. This vieweliminatestheGospeloftheNewTestament,robsusofourdivineLord,andleavesusonlyapreacherofmorality.

(2)TheHegelianChrist.ForHegel thebeliefsof theChurch respectingthe Person of Jesus Christ aremerelyman's stammering utterances ofontological ideas—symbolsexpressiveofmetaphysical truth.Heregardshuman history as the process of God's becoming, the self-unfolding ofreason under conditions of time and space. This is the only sense inwhich the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. God becomesincarnateinhumanity,andthisincarnationexpressestheonenessofGodandman.ThoughstudentsofHegeldifferastothequestion,whetherheconceives of the incarnation as purely racial, or regards the uniqueincarnationofJesusChristasitsculminatingpoint,thelatterseemstobethe correct interpretation. According to Hegel the historicalmanifestationofGodinChristisviewedintwodifferentways.HumanityingeneralregardsJesusasahumanteacher,bringingthedoctrineoftheKingdom of God and a supreme code of morality, and giving us anexamplebylivinguptothisteachingevenuntodeath.Butbelieverstakea higher view. Faith recognizes Jesus as divine and as terminating thetranscendenceofGod.AllthatHedoesbecomesarevelationofGod.InHimGodHimselfdrawsnearuntous,touchesus,andsotakesusupintothedivineconsciousness.Herewemeetwithapantheisticidentificationof the human and the divine in the doctrine of Christ. Of course, the

Church expresses this idea only in a symbolical and imperfect way;philosophy,wearetold,givesitmoreperfectexpression.

c.TheKenoticTheories.Aremarkableattemptwasmadeintheso-calledKenosis doctrine to improve on the theological construction of thedoctrine of the Person of Christ. The term Kenosis is derived fromPhilippians2:7,whichsaysthatChrist"emptiedHimself,takingtheformofaservant."TheGreekwordheretranslated"emptied"isekenosen,theaoristofkenoo.AmisinterpretationofthispassagebecametheScripturalbasisfortheKenosisdoctrine,alongwith2Cor.8:9.ThesepassageswereinterpretedasteachingthatChristattheincarnationemptiedordivestedHimself of His divinity. But there are serious objections to thisinterpretation: (1) as Dr. Warfield has shown the rendering "emptiedHimself"iscontrarytotheusualmeaningoftheterm"tomakeoneselfofno account" (Christology and Criticism, p. 375); and (2) the impliedobjectoftheactionexpressedisnotChrist'sdivinity,butHisbeingonanequalitywithGodinpowerandglory.TheLordofglorymadeHimselfofnoaccountbybecomingaservant.However,theKenoticistsbaseonthispassageandon2Cor.8:9 thedoctrine that theLogos literallybecame,that is, was changed into aman by reducing (depotentiating) Himself,eitherwhollyorinpart,tothedimensionsofaman,andthenincreasedinwisdomandpoweruntilatlastHeagainassumedthedivinenature.

This theoryevidentlyresulted fromadoublemotive,namely, thedesire(1)tomaintaintherealityandintegrityofthemanhoodofChrist;and(2)tothrowintostrongrelieftheexceedinggreatnessofChrist'shumiliationin that He, being rich, for our sakes became poor. It assumed severalforms. According to Thomasius the divine Logos, while retaining Hisimmanent or moral attributes of absolute power or freedom, holiness,truthandlove,divestedHimselftemporarilyofHisrelativeattributesofomnipotence,omnipresence,andomniscience,butaftertheresurrectionresumed theseattributes.The theoryofGess,whichwasmoreabsoluteandconsistent,andalsomorepopular, is to theeffect that theLogosattheincarnationliterallyceasedfromHiscosmicfunctionsandHiseternalconsciousness, and reduced Himself absolutely to the conditions andlimitsofhumannature,sothatHisconsciousnessbecamepurelythatofahuman soul. It comes very close to the view of Apollinaris. Ebrard, a

Reformedscholar,assumedadouble lifeoftheLogos.OntheonehandtheLogosreducedHimself tothedimensionsofamanandpossessedapurelyhumanconsciousness,butontheotherhandHealsoretainedandexercised His divine perfections in the trinitarian life without anyinterruption. The same ego exists at once in the eternal and in thetemporal form, is both infinite and finite.AndMartensenpostulates intheLogosduringthetimeofHishumiliationadoublelifefromtwonon-communicating centers. As the Son of God, living in the bosom of theFather, He continued His trinitarian and cosmic functions, but as thedepotentiated Logos He knew nothing of these functions and knewHimselftobeGodonlyinthesenseinwhichsuchknowledgeispossibletothefacultiesofmanhood.

Thistheory,onceverypopularinoneformoranother,andstilldefendedby some, has now lost a great deal of its charm. It is subversive of thedoctrineoftheTrinity,contrarytothatoftheimmutabilityofGod,andatvariancewiththosepassagesofScripturewhichascribedivineattributestothehistoricalJesus.InthemostabsoluteandmostconsistentformitteacheswhatLaTouchecalls"incarnationbydivinesuicide."

d. Dorner's Conception of the Incarnation.Dornermay be regarded asthemainrepresentativeoftheMediatingSchoolonthedoctrineofChrist.Hestressesthefact thatGodandmanareakin,andthatthere is intheessentialnatureofGodanurgetocommunicateHimselftoman.Inviewof this fact the incarnation was transcendentally and historicallynecessary, andwould have taken place even if sin had not entered theworld. The humanity of Christ was a new humanity, in which thereceptivity of thehuman for thedivinewas raised to thehighestpoint.This was necessary, since Christ was destined to be the Head of theredeemedrace.NowtheLogos,theante-mundaneprincipleofrevelationand self-bestowal in God, joined Himself to this humanity. But thebestowaloftheLogostothenewhumanitywasnotcompleteatonce;theincarnationwasofaprogressivenature.Themeasureof itwasateverystagedeterminedbytheever-increasingreceptivityofthehumannaturefor thedivine,and itdidnot reach its final stageuntil theresurrection.ThistheoryissubversiveofScripture,sinceitrepresentstheincarnationas thebirthofamereman,whograduallybecame theGod-man inHis

conception and birth. It is really a new and subtle form of the oldNestorianheresy.Moreover,bymakingtheunioninChristtoconsistofaunion of two persons, it makes this even less intelligible than it isotherwise.

e. Ritschl's View of the Person of Christ. With the single exception ofSchleiermacher no one has exercised greater influence on present daytheology than Albrecht Ritschl. In his Christology he takes hisstartingpoint in the work of Christ rather than in His Person, andemphasizes the former far more than the latter. The work of ChristdeterminesthedignityofHisPerson.Christisamereman,butinviewofthe work He accomplished and the service He rendered we rightlyattributetoHimthepredicateofGodhead.HewhodoestheworkofGodcanproperlybedescribed in termsofGod.Christ, revealingGod inHisgrace,truth,andredemptivepower,hasformanthevalueofGod,andisthereforealsoentitledtodivinehonour.Ritschldoesnotspeakofthepre-existence, the incarnation, and the virgin birth of Christ, because thesehave no point of contact in the believing experience of the Christiancommunity.HisviewofChristisinrealityonlyamoderncounterpartoftheconstructionputonthehistoricalJesusbyPaulofSamosata.

f.ChristinModernTheology.Onthebasisofthemodernpantheisticideaof the immanenceofGod, thedoctrine of thePersonofChrist is todayoften represented in a thoroughly naturalisticway. The representationsvary,butthefundamentalideaisgenerallythesame,thatofanessentialunityofGodandman.ChristdifferedfromothermenonlyinthatHewasmore conscious of theGod immanent inHim, and consequently is thehighest revelation of the Supreme Being in His word and work.Essentiallyallmenaredivine,becauseGodisimmanentinall,andtheyareallsonsofGod,differingfromChristonlyindegree.Thelatterstandsapart only in view of His greater receptivity for the divine and of HissuperiorGod-consciousness.)

Questions forFurtherStudy:Whatancienterrorswerevirtuallyrevivedby Roscelinus and Abelard? What was the Christological Nihilism invogueamongthedisciplesofAbelard?HowdidPetertheLombardviewChrist?DidtheScholasticsbringanynewpointstothefore?WhatistheBoethiandefinitionofpersonality,generallyacceptedbytheScholastics?

DidLuther giveoccasion for the characteristicallyLutheranviewof thecommunicatio idiomatum? Where do we find the official LutheranChristology? How can we account for the seemingly inconsistentrepresentations of the Formula of Concord? What ChristologicaldifferenceswerethereintheLutheranChurch?Whatobjectionsarethereto theLutheran view that divine attributesmaybepredicated of of thehumannature?HowdidtheLutheransandtheReformeddifferintheirinterpretationofPhil.2:5–11?HowdoestheReformedChristologydifferfrom the Lutheran? What is the main difference between theChristological discussions of the last two, and those of the previouscenturies? How do the Christologies of Kant and Hegel, and those ofSchleiermacher and Ritschl differ? What objections are there to theKenosisdoctrine?WhataretheobjectionablefeaturesoftheChristologyofModernism?

Literature:TheFormulaofConcordandtheSecondHelveticConfession;La Touche, The Person of Christ inModern Thought; Schweitzer, TheQuestoftheHistoricalJesus;Ottley,TheDoctrineoftheIncarnation,pp.485–553, 587–671; Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of JesusChrist, pp. 223–284; Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, pp. 74–236;Sanday,ChristologiesAncientandModern,pp.59–83;Heppe,Dogmatikdes deutschen Protestantismus, II, pp. 78–178; Dorner, History ofProtestant Theology, pp. 95 f., 201 f., 322 f.,; Seeberg, History ofDoctrine, II, pp. 65, 109 f., 154 f., 229 f., 321 f., 323 f., 374, 387;Hagenbach,HistoryofDoctrine,II,pp.267–275;III,pp.197–209,343–353; Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte, II, pp. 380–385, 388–429;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,II,pp.171–195.

THEDOCTRINEOFSINANDGRACEANDRELATEDDOCTRINES

I.TheAnthropologyofthePatristicPeriod

1.THEIMPORTANCEOFANTHROPOLOGICALPROBLEMS

While the Christological controversies were agitating the East, otherproblems,suchasthoseofsinandgrace,ofthefreedomofthewillanddivinepredestination,werecomingtotheforegroundintheWest.TheirimportancecanscarcelybeoverratedfromthepointofviewofpracticalChristianity. Their bearing on the work of redemption is even moredirectly apparent than that of the Christological questions. It is in thisfield that the chief lines of demarcation between the great divisions ofChristianityarefound.SaysDr.Cunningham:"Therenever, indeed,hasbeenmuchappearanceoftruepersonalreligionwherethedivinityoftheSon of God has been denied; but there has often been a profession ofsounddoctrineuponthissubject,longmaintained,wheretherehasbeenlittle real religion. Whereas, not only has there never been much realreligionwheretherewasnotasubstantiallysounddoctrine inregardtothepointsinvolvedinthePelagiancontroversy,butalso—andthisisthepoint of contrast—the decay of true religion has always beenaccompaniedbyalargemeasureoferrorindoctrineuponthesesubjects;the action and reaction of the two upon each other being speedy andmanifest."HistoricalTheologyI,p321.

2. THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE GREEK FATHERS. The maininterestoftheGreekFatherslayinthefieldofTheologyandChristology,andwhile theydiscussed anthropological questions, they touched thesebut lightly.Therewasa certaindualism in their thinkingabout sinandgrace,whichledtoratherconfusedrepresentationswithapreponderantemphasis on doctrines which show a manifest affinity with the laterteachingsofPelagiusratherthanwiththoseofAugustine.Inameasure,itmay be said, they prepared the way for Pelagianism. In our briefdiscussion a bare indication of the main ideas prevalent among themmustsuffice.

Their view of sin was, particularly at first, largely influenced by theiropposition toGnosticismwith its emphasison thephysicalnecessityofevilanditsdenialof thefreedomofthewill.Theystressedthefact thatAdam's creation in the image of God did not involve his ethicalperfection,butonlythemoralperfectabilityofhisnature.Adamcouldsinanddidsin,andthuscameunder thepowerofSatan,death,andsinfulcorruption.Thisphysicalcorruptionwaspropogatedinthehumanrace,

but is not itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt. There is nooriginalsininthestrictsenseoftheword.Theydonotdenythesolidarityof the human race, but admit its physical connection with Adam. Thisconnection,however,relatesonlytothecorporealandsensuousnature,whichispropagatedfromfathertoson,andnottothehigherandrationalsideofhumannature,whichis ineverycaseadirectcreationofGod.Itexerts no immediate effect on the will, but affects this only mediatelythroughtheintellect.Sinalwaysoriginatesinthefreechoiceofman,andistheresultofweaknessandignorance.Consequentlyinfantscannotberegardedasguilty,fortheyhaveinheritedonlyaphysicalcorruption.

Itshouldbenoted,however, that thereweresomedepartures fromthisgeneral view. Origen admitting that a certain hereditary pollutionattachedtoeveryoneatbirth,foundtheexplanationforitinapre-natalor pre-temporal fall of the soul, and came very close to a doctrine oforiginal sin. And Gregory of Nyssa came even nearer to teaching thisdoctrine. But even the great Athanasius and Chrysostom scrupulouslyavoidedit.

Naturallythedoctrineofdivinegracethatwasprevalentintheteachingsof theGreekFatherswasprofoundly influencedand largelydeterminedby theirconceptionofsin.Onthewhole themainemphasiswason thefreewillofmanratherthanontheoperationofdivinegrace.ItisnotthegraceofGod,butthefreewillofmanthattakestheinitiativeintheworkof regeneration. But though it begins the work, it cannot complete itwithoutdivineaid.ThepowerofGodco-operateswith thehumanwill,andenables it to turnfromevilandtodothatwhich iswellpleasing inthe sight ofGod. These Fathers do not alwaysmake a clear distinctionbetweenthegoodwhichthenaturalmanisabletodoandthatspiritualgoodwhichrequirestheenablingpoweroftheHolySpirit.

3.THEGRADUALEMERGENCEOFANOTHERVIEWINTHEWEST.This Greek anthropology also influenced theWest more or less in thesecondandthirdcenturies,butinthethirdandfourthcenturiestheseedsof the doctrine that was destined to become prevalent in the Westgradually made its appearance, especially in the works of Tertullian,Cyprian,Hilary,andAmbrose.

The traducianism of Tertullian was substituted for the creationism ofGreektheology,andthispavedthewayforthedoctrineofinnatesin,indistinction from innate evil. His famous maxim was, Tradux animae,tradux peccati, that is, the propagation of the soul involves thepropagationofsin.Heweddedhisdoctrineoftraducianismtoatheoryofrealism, according to which God created generic human nature, bothbody and soul, and individualizes it by procreation. In this process thenature does not lose its distinctive qualities, but continues to beintelligent, rationalandvoluntaryat everypointand ineveryoneof itsindividualizations, so that its activities do not cease to be rational andresponsibleactivities.Thesinoftheoriginalhumannatureremainssininalltheindividualexistencesofthatnature.TertullianrepresentsonlythebeginningofLatinanthropology,andsomeofhisexpressionsstillremindoneoftheteachingsoftheGreekFathers.Hespeaksoftheinnocenceofinfants,butprobablyassumesthisonlyintherelativesensethattheyarefree from actual sins; and does not altogether deny the freedom of thewill. And though he reduces human efficiency to a minimum, hesometimes uses language that savours of the synergistic theory ofregeneration, that is, the theory that God and man work together inregeneration.

In the writings of Cyprian there is an increasing tendency towards thedoctrineoftheoriginalsinfulnessofman,andofamonergisticrenewalofthesoul.Heseemstoholdthattheguiltoforiginalsinisnotasgreatasthat of actual sin. The doctrine of a sinful, as distinguished from acorrupt,natureisevenmoreclearlyassertedinthewritingsofAmbroseandHilary.TheyclearlyteachthatallmenhavesinnedinAdam,andaretherefore born in sin. At the same time they do not hold to an entirecorruptionofthehumanwill,andconsequentlyadheretothesynergistictheory of regeneration, though they appear to be more uncertain andcontradictoryinthismatterthansomeoftheearlierFathers.Allinallwefind in thema gradual preparation for theAugustinian viewof sin andgrace.

Questions forFurtherStudy:Whowere theprincipal representativesofearlyGreektheology?HowdidtheiroppositiontoGnosticisminfluencetheir anthropology?DidPlatonismhave any effect on it?Howdid they

conceive of the original condition of man? Does the fall receive dueemphasisintheirteachings?Howdoyouaccountfortheirconceptionofsin as corruption rather than guilt? How did they conceive of thepropagationofsin?WhoweretheprincipalrepresentativesofearlyLatintheology?HowdidtheiranthropologydifferfromthatoftheEast?Howdoyouaccountforthedifference?Howdocreationismandtraducianismdiffer?

Literature:Morgan,TheImportanceofTertullianintheDevelopmentofChristian Dogma; Fairweather, Origen and Greek Patristic Theology;Moody, The Mind of the Early Converts, cf. Index; Scott, The NiceneTheology, pp. 209–219; McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, cf.IndexunderSin;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,I,pp.182–192;Moxon,TheDoctrineofSin,pp.17–46;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,I,pp.109–161;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,I,pp.104–110.

II.ThePelagianandAugustinianDoctrinesofSinandGrace

1.AUGUSTINEANDPELAGIUS

Augustine'sviewofsinandgracewasmouldedtosomeextentbyhisdeepreligious experiences, in which he passed through great spiritualstrugglesandfinallyemergedintothefulllightoftheGospel.Hetellsusin his Confessions that hewandered far from the path ofmorality andreligion, sought escape inManichaeism and almost fell into its snares,butfinallyturnedtoChrist.Hewasneverquiteatrestduringtheyearsofhiswanderings,andAmbrosewas instrumental inwinninghimback tothe faith. His conversion took place in a garden at Milan after deepagitation, weeping, and prayer. He was baptized in 387, and becamebishopofHippoin395.SomefindtracesofaManichaeaninfluenceinhisgloomyviewofhumannatureasfundamentallyevil,andinhisdenialofthefreedomofthewill.Itismorelikely,however,thatitwasexactlyhissenseof inherent evil and spiritual bondage that causedhim to turn toManichaeism temporarily, forhe combats theManichaeanson theverypoints in question, holding that human nature was not originally andnecessarily evil, and insisting on a measure of freedom as a basis for

humanresponsibility.

Pelagiuswas amanof an entirely different type. In comparing the twoWiggerssays:"Theircharacterswerediametricallyopposite.Pelagiuswasa quietman, as free frommysticism as from aspiring ambition; and inthis respect, hismode of thought and of actionmust have beenwhollydifferent from that of Augustine … Both therefore thought differently,according to their totally different spiritual physiognomy; and both,moreover, must have come into conflict just as soon as an externaloccasion should be presented." Augustinianism andPelagianism, p. 47.Pelagius was a British monk, a man of austere life, of a blamelesscharacter,andofaneventemper,andperhapspartlyforthatveryreasona stranger to those conflicts of the soul, those struggles with sin, andthose deep experiences of an all-renewing grace, which had suchprofoundinfluenceinmouldingAugustine'sthought.

The question is sometimes raised, whether Augustinianism was notsimply a reaction againstPelagianismand therefore largely determinedby its antipode. Itmaybe said,however, that in theiroriginal form thetwo views were developed independently before the authors becameacquainted with each other's teachings. At the same time it cannot bedenied that, when the two engaged in mortal combat, the formalstatement of Augustinianism was determined in some of its details byPelagianismandviceversa.BothrepresentedelementsthatwerealreadypresentinthewritingsoftheearlyChurchFathers.

2.THEPELAGIANVIEWOFSINANDGRACE

ThemostimportantquestionsindebatebetweenPelagiusandAugustinewerethoseoffreewillandoriginalsin.AccordingtoPelagiusAdam,ashewascreatedbyGod,wasnotendowedwithpositiveholiness.Hisoriginalcondition was one of neutrality, neither holy nor sinful, but with acapacityforbothgoodandevil.Hehadafreeandentirely,undeterminedwill,whichenabledhimtochoosewithequalfacilityeitheroneofthesealternatives.Hecouldeithersinorrefrainfromsinning,ashesawfit.Hismortalitycouldnotdependonhischoice,forhewascreatedmortalinthesense that he was already subject to the law of death. Without anyantecedent evil in his nature, which might in any way determine the

course of his life, he chose to sin. His fall in sin injured no one buthimself, and left human nature unimpaired for good. There is nohereditarytransmissionofasinfulnatureorofguilt,andconsequentlynosuch thing as original sin. Man is still born in the same condition inwhichAdamwasbefore the fall.Notonly ishe free fromguilt but alsofrom pollution. There are no evil tendencies and desires in his naturewhichinevitablyresultinsin.TheonlydifferencebetweenhimandAdamisthathehastheevilexamplebeforehim.Sindoesnotconsistinwrongaffectionsordesires,butonlyintheseparateactsofthewill.Itdependsin every case on the voluntary choice ofman. As amatter of factmanneednotsin.Heis,likeAdam,endowedwithperfectfreedomofthewill,with a liberty of choice or of indifference, so that he can, at any givenmoment, choose either good or evil. And the very fact that Godcommandsmantodowhatisgoodisproofpositivethatheisabletodoit.Hisresponsibilityisthemeasureofhisability.Ifnotwithstandingthissinisuniversal—andPelagiusadmitsthatitis—thisisdueonlytowrongeducation,tobadexample,andtoalongestablishedhabitofsinning.Inturning from evil to good man is not dependent on the grace of God,though its operation is undoubtedly an advantage andwill help him toovercomeevil inhis life.But thegraceofwhichPelagius speaks in thisconnection does not consist in an inward-working divine energy or, inother words, in the influence of the Holy Spirit, inclining the will andempoweringmantodothatwhichisgood,butonlyinexternalgiftsandnaturalendowments,suchasman'srationalnature,therevelationofGodinScripture,andtheexampleofJesusChrist.Thoughtherewouldhardlyseemtobeanyplaceforthebaptismofinfantsinsuchasystem,Pelagiusholdsthattheyshouldbebaptized,butregardstheirbaptismmerelyasarite of consecration or an anticipation of future forgiveness. Ratherillogically, he takes the position that children are excluded from theKingdomofHeaven,thoughnotfromalowerstateofblessedness,whichiscalledeternallife.

3.THEAUGUSTINIANVIEWOFSINANDGRACE.Augustine'sviewofsin and grace was undoubtedly influenced somewhat by his earlyreligiousexperiencesandbyitsoppositeinthePelagiansystem,butwasprimarily determinedbyhis careful studyof theEpistle to theRomansandbyhisgeneralconceptionofthesoul'srelationtoGod.Heregarded

man,even inhisunfallenstate,asabsolutelydependentonGodfor therealizationofhisdestiny.

a.HisViewofSin.InoppositiontotheManichaeansAugustinestronglyemphasizes thevoluntarycharacterofsin.At thesametimehebelievesthattheactofsinbywhichthesoulcutloosefromGodbroughtitunderanevilnecessity.Asaresultoftheentranceofsinintotheworldmancannomorewillthetruegood,whichisrootedintheloveofGod,norrealizehistruedestiny,butsinkseverdeeperintobondage.ThisdoesnotmeanthathehaslostallsenseofGodfor,asamatteroffact,hecontinuestosighafterHim.

Augustinedoesnotregardsinassomethingpositive,butasanegationorprivation.Itisnotasubstantialeviladdedtoman,butaprivatioboni,aprivationofgood.Hefindstherootprincipleofsininthatself-lovewhichissubstitutedfortheloveofGod.Thegeneralresultofman'sdefectionisseen in concupiscence, in the inordinate power of sensuous desires, asopposedtothelawofreason,inthesoul.Fromsinandthedisturbanceitintroduced death resulted.Man was created immortal, which does notmean that hewas impervious to death, but that he had the capacity ofbodily immortality. Had he proved obedient, he would have beenconfirmed inholiness.From the stateof thepossenonpeccare etmori(theabilitynot to sinanddie)hewouldhavepassed to thestateof thenonpossepeccare etmori (the inability to sin anddie).Buthe sinned,andconsequentlyenteredthestateofthenonpossenonpeccareetmori(theinabilitynottosinanddie).

ThroughtheorganicconnectionbetweenAdamandhisdescendants,theformer transmits his fallen nature, with the guilt and corruptionattaching to it, to his posterity. Augustine conceives of the unity of thehuman race, not federally, but realistically. Thewhole human racewasgerminallypresentinthefirstman,andthereforealsoactuallysinnedinhim.Theraceisnotconstitutedindividually,thatis,ofalargenumberofrelatively independent individuals, but organically, that is, of a largenumber of individualizations which are organic parts of that generichuman nature that was present in Adam. And therefore the sin of thehumannaturewasthesinofallitsindividualizations.

Astheresultofsinmanistotallydepravedandunabletodoanyspiritualgood. Augustine does not deny that the will still has a certain naturalfreedom.Itisstillcapableofactsthatarecivillygood,andfromalowerstandpointevenpraiseworthy.Atthesametimehemaintainsthatman,separatedfromGod,burdenedwithguilt,andunderthedominionofevil,cannotwillthatwhichisgoodinthesightofGod.Asheseesit,thatonlyisgoodinthesightofGodwhichspringsfromthemotiveoflovetoGod.

b.HisViewofGrace.Thewillofmanstandsinneedofrenewal,andthisisexclusivelyaworkofGodfromstarttofinish—aworkofdivinegrace.Itis necessary to guard against a possible misunderstanding here.WhenAugustineascribes the renewalofman todivinegraceonly, and in thisconnection speaks of "irresistible grace," he does notmean to intimatethatdivinegraceforcesthewill,contrarytothenatureofmanasa freeagent,butratherthatitsochangesthewillthatmanvoluntarilychoosesthatwhich isgood.Thewillofman is renewedand thus restored to itstrue freedom.God can anddoes so operate on thewill thatmanof hisownfreechoiceturnstovirtueandholiness.InthiswaythegraceofGodbecomesthesourceofallgoodinman.

FromwhatwassaiditfollowsthatAugustine'sdoctrineofregenerationisentirelymonergistic. The operation of theHoly Spirit is necessary, notmerely for the purpose of supplying a deficiency, but for the completerenewal of the inner disposition of man, so that he is brought intospiritualconformitytothelaw.SaysShedd:"Graceisimpartedtosinfulman,notbecausehebelieves,butinorderthathemaybelieve;forfaithitself is thegiftofGod."Thedivineefficiency in regeneration results inthe conversion of the sinner, in whichmanmay be said to co-operate.Augustinedistinguishesseveralstagesintheworkofdivinegrace,whichhecalls"prevenientgrace","operativegrace",and"co-operativegrace'.InthefirsttheHolySpiritemploysthelawtoproducethesenseofsinandguilt;inthesecondHeusestheGospelfortheproductionofthatfaithinChristandHisatoningworkwhichissuesinjustificationandpeacewithGod;and in the third therenewedwillofmanco-operateswithHiminthelife-longworkofsanctification.Theworkofgraceincludestheentirerenewalofmaninthe imageofGodandthespiritual transformationofthesinnerintoasaint.Itishardlyinlinewithhismainthoughtwhenhe

also represents the Church as amore or less independent dispenser ofdivinegrace,andspeaksofbaptismalregeneration.

Augustine's representation of the grace ofGod as the efficient cause ofsalvationledontohisdoctrineofpredestination.WhatGoddoesintimeforthegraciousrenewalofthesinner,HewilledtodoinHiseternalplan.At firstAugustine,manifested a tendency to consider predestination ascontingent on divine foreknowledge, and to represent God as electingthose of whom He knew that they would believe. This really makespredestination conditional on the foreseen free action ofman.He soonsaw, however, that consistency and a fair interpretation of the relevantpassagesofScripture,demandedthatheshouldconsiderman'schoiceofthegoodandhisfaithinChristasthemselvestheeffectofdivinegrace;and therefore modified his doctrine of predestination accordingly. Heusually views predestination in connection with the sinner's salvation,and even held that it might be called this salvation viewed sub specieaeternitatis (from the point of view of eternity). With reference to thenon-elect,heconceivesofthedecreeofGodasoneofpretermissiononly.Reprobationdiffersfromelectioninthisthatitisnotaccompaniedwithany direct divine efficiency to secure the result intended. But whileAugustine isastrictpredestinarian, there isalsohereanelement inhisteachings that is foreign tohismain thought,namely, the idea that thegraceofregenerationcanagainbelost.Heholdsthatonlythosewhoareregenerated and persevere, or in whom, after loss, the grace ofregenerationisrestored,arefinallysaved.Thereisaredeemingfeature,however, in his assertion that the elect never die in an unregeneratecondition.

4. PELAGIAN AND SEMI-PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES. In thePelagiancontroversytheviewsofAugustineonsinandgracewereputtothe test. Small wonder that his views met with opposition, since theproblems involvedhadneveryetbeendiscussed ina thoroughmanner.The Eastern Church preferably emphasized the element of freedom inhumannature, inoppositiontothepaganideaoffateordestiny.Itwasadmitted that the humanwill was corrupt, and had become subject toSatan,tosensuoustemptations,andtodeath;andthatthenewlifewascommunicatedinbaptism.OnthewholetheGreekFatherswerecontent

withplacingthegraceofGodandfreewillsidebyside.

In view of all this it was perfectly natural that Augustine's derivingeverything, free will included, from divine grace, collided wtih theopposite tendency, as represented in Pelagius. The two systems wereabsoluteantipodes.PelagiusadvancedhisviewsfirstatRomefrom409to411A.D.HissystemwasintroducedintotheNorthAfricanChurchbyhis pupil Coelestius. At the same time Pelagius went to Palestine topropagate his views. The matter of his departure from the generallyacceptedteachingsoftheChurchwasbroughtupinseveralCouncils.In412 Coelestius was adjudged heretical at Carthage, and wasexcommunicated when he refused to retract his opinions. Pelagiushimself was accused of heresy before the Synods of Jerusalem andDiospolis (also in Palestine), but by specious explanations and byqualifying several of his statements succeeded in satisfying his judges,and was acquitted, 414–416 A. D. In the year 416 Pelagianism wascondemnedasaheresyby theSynodsofMileveandCarthage,and thisdecision was finally endorsed by the vaccilating bishop of Rome,Zozimus,whohadfirsthandedPelagiusacertificateoforthodoxy,418A.D. Finally, in. 431 A. D. the Council of Ephesus, which condemnedNestorianism,alsopassedasentenceofcondemnationonPelagianism.

Between the extremes of Augustinianism and Pelagianism amediatingmovement arose, which is known in history as Semi-Pelagianism. As amatter of fact that halfway position served to bring out clearly—asnothing else could have done—that only a system like theAugustinian,with itsstronglogicalcoherence,couldmaintain itsgroundsuccessfullyagainst the onslaughts of Pelagius. Semi-Pelagianism made the futileattempt to steer clear of all difficulties by giving a place to both divinegraceandhumanwillasco-ordinatefactors intherenewalofman,andbybasingpredestinationonforeseenfaithandobedience.Itdidnotdenyhuman corruption, but regarded the nature of man as weakened ordiseased rather than as fatally injuredby the fall. Fallenhumannatureretainsanelementof freedom, invirtueofwhichitcanco-operatewithdivine grace.Regeneration is the joint product of both factors, but it isreallymanandnotGodthatbeginsthework.

Semi-PelagianviewsspreadespeciallyinGaul.Theirchiefrepresentative

wasCassian,abbotofMassilia(Marseilles).ItfoundabledefendersalsoinFaustusofRhegiumandGennadiusofMassilia.Butitlackedinternalcoherence,andcouldnotholdoutindebateagainstsuchaclose-knitandcompact system as Augustinianism. The systemwas condemned at theimportant Council of Orange, which vindicated a moderateAugustinianism.

Augustine'sdoctrineofsinandgracewasadoptedastheanthropologyoftheWesternChurch,thoughitsacceptancewasnevergeneraleventhere.Influentialmen, like Leo andGregory, Bede and Alcuin, adhered to it,thoughtheywerenotasstrongasAugustineinassertingthepreteritionand reprobation of the lost. They placed great emphasis on theenslavementofthehumanwill,andontheabsoluteneedofdivinegraceinrenewal.ItmaybesaidthatthemostimportantleadersoftheChurchremainedtruetothemostpracticalpartofAugustiniananthropologyfortwoorthreecenturiesafterAugustine.AndtheSynodofOrangeadoptedamoderate Augustinianism as the doctrine of the Church. PelagianismandSemi-Pelagianismwerebothcondemnedascontrarytotheorthodoxfaith.TheAugustiniandoctrineofsalvationbygraceonlywasvictorious,butthedoctrineoftheirresistiblegraceofpredestinationwassupplantedbythatofthesacramentalgraceofbaptism.Andthedoctrineofadoublepredestination—predestinationalsotoevil—wasabandonedin529A.D.GraduallythegeneraldeclineintheRomanCatholicChurchledtoadriftin the direction of Semi-Pelagianism, which had long before secured arather sure footing in the East. In course of time the Latin Churchadopted the anthropology of the Greek Church and adhered to it eversince.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:InwhatrespectdidtheanthropologyoftheEast differ from that of theWest?Were the Pelagian and AugustiniantenetsnewintheChurch?WhatwasthefundamentalerrorofPelagius?Howdid his doctrine of freewill affect the doctrines of sin and grace?Why did he stress the free will of man? Is his doctrine of free willpsychologicallytenable?Whyishisexplanationoftheuniversalityofsininsufficient?HowdidheconceiveofthegraceofGod?Whatvaluedidheascribetoit?Didhealtogetherdenygraceasaninwardspiritualenergy?WhatScriptural basisdidhehave forhisdoctrine?HowdidAugustine

conceiveofthefreedomofwillingbeforeandafterthefall?Didheascribeavoluntarycharactertosinornot?Didheregardconcupiscenceassinornot?Howdoyouaccount forhisemphasisonsinasprivation?DidhisdoctrineoforiginalsingobeyondthatoftheearlierFathers?Ifso,how?Howdidheconceiveofthetransmissionofsin?Howdidhisdoctrineofsin andgrace leadhim tohisdoctrineofpredestination?Whatwashisconceptionofthedecreeofreprobation?

Literature:Wiggers,AugustinianismandPelagianism;Cunningham, St.Austin;Moxon,TheDoctrineofSin,pp.47–140;Cunningham,HistoricalTheology, I, pp. 321–358; Harnack, History of Dogma, V, pp. 61–261;Seeberg, History of Doctrine, I, pp. 328–381; Loofs,Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 183–238; Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte, I,pp. 437–557; Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, I, pp. 345–356;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,pp.357–386;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,I,pp.222–243;Shedd,HistoryofDoctrine,II,pp.26–110;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.176–198;McGiffert,AHistoryofChristianThought,II,pp.71–143.

III.TheAnthropologyoftheMiddleAges

1.THEVIEWSOFGREGORYTHEGREAT.Gregory theGreat,bornatRomeabout540A.D.,wasadiligentstudentofAugustine,Jerome,andAmbrose.Hisreligiousdispositionpromptedhimtorenouncetheworld,andafterthedeathofhisfatherhedevotedhiswealthtogoodworks,andparticularly to the building of cloisters for the promotion of the purelycontemplative life. Unanimously elected Pope in 590, he accepted theposition only with great hesitation. Though not an original thinker, hebecame an author of great repute and didmuch to disseminate sounddoctrine.Next toAugustinehewasthemost influentialauthority in theChurch.Infact,AugustinewasunderstoodintheearlyMiddleAges,onlyasinterpretedbyGregory.ForthatreasonthehistoryofdoctrineintheMiddleAgesmustbeginwithhim.

The Augustinianism of Gregorywas somewhat attenuated.He explainstheentranceofsinintotheworldbytheweaknessofman.Thefirstsinof

Adamwasafreeact,inwhichhesurrenderedhislovetoGodandbecamesubjecttospiritualblindnessandspiritualdeath.Throughthesinofthefirstmanallmenbecamesinnersandassuchsubjecttocondemnation.This sounds rather Augustinian, but Gregory did not carry these ideasthrough consistently. He regarded sin as a weakness or disease ratherthanasguilt,andtaughtthatmanhadnotlostthefreedombutonlythegoodnessof thewill.At thesame timehestressed the fact thatwithoutgrace there can be no salvation nor any human merits. The work ofredemptionisbegunbythegraceofGod.Prevenientgracecausesmantowillthegood,andsubsequentgraceenableshimtodoit.Thechangeofmanisbeguninbaptism,whichworksfaithandcancelstheguiltofpastsins.ThewillisrenewedandtheheartisfilledwiththeloveofGod,andthusmanisenabledtomeritsomethingwithGod.

Gregoryretainedthedoctrineofpredestinationonlyinamodifiedform.Whilehespeaksoftheirresistibilityofgrace,andofpredestinationasthesecret counselofGodrespecting thecertainanddefinitenumberof theelect,thisisafterallonlyapredestinationbasedonforeknowledge.Godappoints a certaindefinitenumberunto salvation, sinceHeknows thattheywillaccepttheGospel.Butnoonecanbecertainofhisownelectionorofthatofanyotherperson.

2.THEGOTTSCHALKIANCONTROVERSY.Augustinehadoccasionallyspokenofadoublepredestination,andIsodoreofSevillestillwroteofitas being twofold. Butmany of the Augustinians in the seventh, eighth,andninthcenturieslostsightofthisdoublecharacterofpredestination,and interpreted it as Gregory had done. Then came Gottschalk. whofound rest and peace for his soul only in the Augustinian doctrine ofelection,andcontendedearnestly foradoublepredestination, that is, apredestinationofthelostaswellasofthesaved.Hewascareful,however,tolimitthedivineefficiencytotheredemptivelineandtheproductionofholiness, and to regard sinmerely as the object of a permissive decreewhichneverthlessrendereditcertain.Heexplicitlyrejectedtheideaofapredestination based on foreknowledge, since this makes the divinedecree dependent on the acts of man. Prescience merely accompaniespredestinationandatteststhejusticeofit.

Hemet a great deal of unwarranted opposition.His opponents didnot

understandhimandlodgedagainsthimthefamiliaraccusationthathisteachingsmadeGod the author of sin,His doctrinewas condemned atMayence in848A.D., and the following year he himselfwas scourgedand condemned to life-long imprisonment. A debate ensued, in whichseveralinfluentialtheologians,suchasPrudentius,Ratramnus,Remigius,and others, defended the doctrine of a double predestination asAugustinian,while especiallyRabanusandHincmarofRheimsassailedit. But this controversy proved to be after all littlemore than a debateaboutwords.Both thedefendersandtheassailentswereatheartSemi-Augustinians.Theyexpressedthesameideaindifferentways.TheformerspokewithAugustineofadoublepredestination,butbasedreprobationonforeknowledge,whilethelatterappliedtheterm"predestination"onlyto the election to life, and also based reprobation on prescience. Bothsubscribed to the idea of sacramental grace, and feared that the stricttheoryofpredestinationwouldrobthesacramentsoftheirspiritualvalueandmakethemmereforms.

Thedecisionsof theCouncilsofChiersyandValencewerealtogether inharmony with these views, the former reproducing the views of theassailants, and the latter those of the defenders. The statement of theCouncilofValencereadsasfollows:"Weconfessapredestinationoftheelecttolife,andapredestinationofthewickedtodeath;butthat,intheelectionof thosewhoaresaved, themercyofGodprecedesgoodmerit,andinthecondemnationofthosewhowillperish,evilmeritprecedestherighteous judgment of God. But that in predestination God hasdetermined only those thingswhichHeHimself would do, either fromgratuitousmercyor inrighteous judgment…But that in thewickedHeforeknew the wickedness because it comes from them; and does notpredestinateit,becauseitdoesnotcomefromHim."QuotedbySeeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,II,p.33.TheseCouncilsmetin853.

3.THECONTRIBUTIONOFANSELM

There was one great thinker during the Middle Ages who not onlyreproduced the Augustinian anthropology, but also made a positivecontributiontoit,namely,AnselmofCanterbury.

a.His Doctrine of Sin.He emphasizes the doctrine of original sin, but

stressesthefactthattheterm"original"doesnotrefertotheoriginofthehuman race, but to that of the individual in the present condition ofthings.Inhisopinionoriginalsinmayalsobecalledpeccatumnaturale(natural sin), though it does not belong to human nature as such, butrepresentsaconditionintowhichithascomesincecreation.Bythefallmanbecameguiltyandpolluted,andbothguiltandpollutionarepassedonfromfathertochild.Allsin,originalaswellasactual,constitutesguilt.

Sincesinpresupposestheexerciseoffreewill,heraisesthequestion,howsincanbeascribedtochildren,andwhyinfantsshouldbebaptizedforitsremission. He finds the explanation in the fact that human natureapostatized after creation. Like Augustine he regards every child as anindividualizedpartofthatgeneralhumannaturewhichAdampossessed,so that it has actually sinned in Adam and is therefore also guilty andpolluted. If Adam had not fallen, human nature would not haveapostatized,andaholynaturewouldhavepassedfromfathertoson.Inthe present state of affairs, however, a sinful nature is propagated.Originalsinthereforehas itsorigin inasinofnature,while lateractualsinisaltogetherindividualincharacter.

Anselmraisesthequestion,whetherthesinsoftheimmediateancestorsare imputed to posterity as well as the sin of the first father. And hisanswer is negative, because these sins were not committed by thecommonnatureinAdam.ThesinofAdamwasunique;thereneverwasasecond like it, because it was the transgression of an individual whoincluded within himself the whole of humanity. This is undoubtedly aweak point in the system of Anselm, since all the following sins arecommitted by the same human nature, though individualized, andbecauseitdoesnotanswerthequestion,whyonlythefirstsinofAdamisimputedtohisposterity,andnothislatersins.HefurthercallsattentiontothefactthatinAdamtheguiltofnature,thatis,originalsin,restsupontheguiltoftheindividual,whileinhisposteritytheguiltoftheindividualrestsupontheguiltofnature. In thepersonofAdamthewholehumanracewastried.Atthispointheapproachesthelatercovenantidea.

b. His Doctrine of the Freedom of theWill. Anselm also discusses theproblemofthefreedomofthewillandmakessomevaluablesuggestions.Hedeclaresthepopulardefinitionoffreedomasthepowerofsinningor

not sinning, or as the possibilitas utriusque partis, to be inadequate. Itdoesnotholdwithreferencetotheholyangels.Theyhaveperfectmoralfreedom,andyetarenotabletosin.Heholdsthatthewillwhich,ofitselfandwithoutexternalcompulsion, issostronglydeterminedto therightastobeunabletodesertthepathofrectitude,isfreerthanthewillwhichissofeeblydeterminedtotherightastobeabletodepartfromthewayofrighteousness.But if this is so, thequestionarises,whetherwecancallthe apostasy of the angels and of our first parents a free act. To thisAnselm replies that the act of our first parents was certainly an act ofspontaneity, of pure self-will, but not an act of genuine freedom. Theysinned,notbecauseof their freedom,but in spiteof it. by virtueof thepossibilitas peccandi (the possibility of sinning). The power to dootherwisethantheyweredoingaddednothingtotheirfreedom,becausethey were voluntarily holy without it. He distinguishes between truefreedom and the voluntary faculty itself. The former was lost, but thelatterwasnot.The trueendanddestinationof thewill isnot tochooseeither good or evil, but to choose the good. The voluntary faculty wasintended by the Creator to will the right and nothing else. Its truefreedom consists in its self-determination to holiness. This means therejectionoftheideathatfreedomiscaprice,andthatthewillwascreatedwiththelibertyofindifference.It isbycreationshutuptothechoiceofbutoneobject,namely,holiness.Buttheacceptanceofthisendmustbeaself-determination, and not a compulsion from without. The power tochoose the wrong, when given for the purpose of probation, subtractsfromtheperfectionofrealfreedom,becauseitexposestothehazardsofanillegitimatechoice.

4. PECULIARITIES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC ANTHROPOLOGY. TheRomanCatholicChurchclearlyharbored twotendencies, theoneSemi-Augustinian and the other Semi-Pelagian, of which the latter graduallygained the upper hand. We cannot follow the discussions of all theScholasticshere, and thereforemerely state the characteristic teachingsthatgraduallyemerged.

The view gradually prevailed that original righteousness was not anatural but a supernatural endowment of man. Man, it was held,naturallyconsistsoffleshandspirit,andfromthesediverseorcontrary

propensities there arises a conflict (concupiscence), which oftenmakesrightactiondifficult.Tooffsetthedisadvantagesofthisoriginallanguorofnature,Godaddedtomanacertainremarkablegift,namely,originalrighteousness,whichservedasachecktokeeptheinferiorpartofmaninpropersubjectiontothesuperior,andthesuperiortoGod.Thisoriginalrighteousnesswasasupernaturalgift,adonumsuperadditum,somethingadded to the nature of man, who was created without positiverighteousness,butalsowithoutpositiveunrighteousness.

With the entrance of sin into the world man lost this originalrighteousness.Thismeans that theapostasyofmandidnot involve thelossofanynaturalendowmentofman,butonlythelossofasupernaturalgift, which was foreign to the essential nature of man. Originalrighteousness was lost and man lapsed bark into the condition of anunrestrained conflict between flesh and spirit. The supremacy of thehigherover the lower element inhisnaturewas fatallyweakened.Manwasbroughtbacktotheneutralcondition,inwhichhewasneithersinfulnorholy,butfromtheveryconstitutionofhisnaturesubjecttoaconflictbetweenthefleshandthespirit.

Since Adam, the head of the human race, was constituted therepresentative of all his descendants, they all sinned in him and comeinto the world burdened with original sin.While the Scholastics differverymuchastothenatureoforiginalsin,theprevailingopinionisthatitisnotsomethingpositive,butrathertheabsenceofsomethingthatoughttobepresent,particularly theprivationoforiginal justice, thoughsomeaddapositiveelement,namely,aninclinationtoevil.Byoriginaljusticesome understand that original righteousness that was super-added toman, and others in addition to this also what is called the justitianaturalis.Thissinisuniversalandisvoluntaryasderivedfromthefirstparent. It should not be identified with concupiscence, with the evildesires and lusts that are present inman, for these are not sin in thepropersenseoftheword.

Roman Catholics reject the idea of man's spiritual impotence and hisutterdependenceonthegraceofGodforrenewal.Theyadoptthetheoryof synergism in regeneration, that is, thatmanco-operateswithGod inthespiritualrenewalofthesoul.Hepreparesanddisposeshimselfforthe

graceofjustification,whichissaidtoconsistininfusedrighteousness.Inthe days of the Reformation the monergism of the Reformers wasopposedbytheRomanCatholicChurchwithgreatervehemencethananyotherdoctrine.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:WhydidtheChurchhesitatetoacceptstrictAugustinianism?InwhatdirectiondidtheChurchmoveatfirst,andwhatviewgraduallygainedtheupperhand?HowdidtheviewsofGregorytheGreat differ from those of Augustine? Did Gottschalk hold that Godpredestinatedthereprobatetocommitsin?Whatpracticalinterestswerethoughttobeendangeredbyhisteaching?InwhatrespectwasAnselm'sconceptionoforiginalsindefective.Didhegiveanadequateexplanationofthetransmissionofsin?HowdidhisconceptionofthefreedomofthewilldifferfromthatofPelagius?WhatdifferentviewsoforiginalsinwerecurrentamongtheScholastics?DoRomanCatholicsbelievethatthefallofman affected the constitutional nature ofman?How do they defineoriginal sin? How does it differ from concupiscence? Do they ascribefreedomtothewillafterthefall?Inwhatsense?

Literature:Moxon,TheDoctrine of Sin, pp. 142–165;Otten,Manual oftheHistoryofDogmas, II, pp. 129–170;Welch,AnselmandHisWork;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,II,pp.21–23,30–33,114–118,andsoon,cf.Index;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,II,pp.508–512;Sheldon,History of Christian Doctrine, I, pp. 343–356; Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte,II,pp.115–121,125–142;Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,II,pp.111–151;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,cf.Index.

IV.TheAnthropologyofthePeriodoftheReformation

1. THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. The ReformersfollowedAugustine andAnselm in their construction of the doctrine ofsinandgrace, thoughwithsomemodifications.Theygaveamoreexactdefinition of the relation of Adam's sin to that of his descendants bysubstitutingfortherealistictheoryofTertullian,Augustine,andAnselm,thecovenantidea.Itistruethattheydidnotfullydevelopthisidea;yetthey utilized it in defining the relation between Adam and his

descendants.BezaespeciallyemphasizedthefactthatAdamwasnotonlythenatural head of thehuman race, but also its federal representative;and that consequently his first sin is imputed as guilt to all hisdescendants.AndbecauseallareguiltyinAdam,theyarealsoborninapollutedcondition.

Calvinstressedthefactthatoriginalsinisnotmerelyaprivation,butalsoa total corruption of human nature. And where Augustine sought thiscorruptionprimarily in the sensual appetites,Calvinpointedout that ithasitsseatinthehigheraswellasinthelowerfacultiesofthesoul,andthat it operates through these as a positive evil. In opposition to theRomanCatholicstheReformersmaintainedthatoriginalsinissomethingmore than a mere absence of original justice; and that also the firstmovementsofthedesires,whichtendinthedirectionofsin,areactuallysins., even before they are assented to by the will, and notmerely thefomesorfuelofsin.Theyareindwellingsins,whichmakemanguiltyandworthy of condemnation. According to Calvin and the Reformersgenerally,originalsinisahereditarydepravityandcorruptionofhumannature, renderingmanobnoxious to thedivinewrath andproducing inhimtheworksoftheflesh.WearebynatureguiltyandpollutedinAdam,andstandjustlycondemnedinthesightofGod.

ThegenerallyprevailingviewamongtheReformerswasthat,asaresultofthefall,manistotallydepraved,incapableofdoinganyspiritualgood,andthereforealsounabletomaketheleastadvancetowardhisrecovery.LutherandCalvinexpressthemselvesstronglyonthis,point,andZwingliis in general agreement with them here, though he seemingly regardsoriginalsinasadiseaseandaconditionratherthanassininthepropersenseoftheword.EvenMelanchtonsubscribedtothisviewatfirst,butinalaterperiodmodifiedhisopinion.Butwhilemaintainingthedoctrineoftotaldepravity,theReformersalsoheldthattheunregeneratecouldstillperformcivil righteousness, a righteousnesswhichGodapproves in thesocial relations of men. Even Luther, who uses exceptionally strongexpressions respecting the spiritual inability ofman, clearly recognizeshis ability to do good in secular affairs.Melanchton went even fartherthanLuther;andCalvindidmorethananyoneelsetodirectattentiontothe fact that there is a common grace of God. which enables man to

performcivilrighteousness.

The natural correlative of the doctrine of total depravity, is that of theabsolute dependence of man on the grace of God for renewal. Luther,Calvin,andZwingliareaunitonthispoint,butMelanchton,thoughfirstinperfect agreementwithLuther, under the stress of the opposition tothe doctrine of the bondage of the will, ascribed a certain measure ofmaterial freedomor spiritualpower to thewill and taughta synergistictheoryofregeneration.

InviewofalltheprecedingitwasbutnaturalthattheReformersshouldbe strict predestinarians. Luther and Calvin both believed in a doublepredestination, though the former does not make the doctrine asprominentas the latterandsometimesmanifestsan inclinationtodenythedoctrine of reprobation or tomake it dependent on foreknowledge.Zwinglialsotaughtthisdoctrine inunmistakableterms,andwasnotascautiousasCalvin indescribing therelationof thedivineagency tosin,but insistsonreprobationasanefficientdecree.Melanchton,ofcourse,wavered here, as he did in his teaching on sin and regeneration. Heavoidedthesubjectofpredestinationasmuchaspossible.

After the Reformation the covenant idea was more fully developed,especially in thewritingsofBullinger,Polanus,Gomarus,Cloppenburg,andCoccejus. It becameevident thatAdamwasnotmerely thenaturalhead of humanity, but also its federal head, the moral and legalrepresentative of all his descendants. As a result the idea that all mensinned in Adam literally and realistically gave way to the thought thattheysinnedinhimrepresentatively.Becausethefirstmansinnedasthelegalrepresentativeofallhisdescendants,theguiltofhissinisimputedtothem,andconsequentlytheyarealsoborncorrupt.Therealistictheorywas abandoned, more generally in Reformed than in Lutheran circles,andthecovenantideawasutilizedinitssteadtoexplainthetransmissionofsin.

2.THESOCINIANPOSITION.SocinianismrepresentsareactionagainstthedoctrineoftheReformation,andinthedoctrinesofsinandgraceitissimplyarevivalof theoldPelagianheresy.Accordingto it the imageofGodinwhichmanwasformedconsistedmerelyinman'sdominionover

the lower creation, and not in any moral perfection or excellence ofnature.SinceAdamhadnopositive righteousnessorholiness,hecouldnot lose it as the resultof sin.Whilehe sinnedand incurred thedivinedispleasure, his moral nature remained intact, and is transmittedunimpaired tohis posterity.Mandies, not because of the sin ofAdam,but because he was created mortal, Men are even now by nature likeAdaminthattheyhavenopronenessortendencytosin,butareplacedinsomewhatmore unfavorable circumstances because of the examples ofsin which they see and of which they hear. While this increases theirchances of falling into sin, they can avoid sin altogether, and some ofthem actually do. And even if they do fall in sin and are thus guilty oftransgression,theydonotthereforeincurthedivinewrath.GodisakindandmercifulFather,whoknowstheirfrailtyandisquitereadytoforgivethemwhentheycometohimwithpenitenthearts.TheyneednoSaviournoranyextraordinary interpositionofGodtosecuretheirsalvation.Nochange in theirmoralnature is required,andnoprovision for effectingsuchachangewasmade.However,theteachingsandexampleofChristarehelpfulinleadingthemintherightdirection.

3. ARMINIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. In the beginning of the seventeenthcentury theCalvinisticdoctrineof sinandgracemetwithadeterminedopposition in the Netherlands, which centered in the great Arminiancontroversy.Arminius, a disciple of Beza, and at first a strict Calvinist,became a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and free will. Hedeniedthedecreeofreprobationandtoneddownthedoctrineoforiginalsin.HissuccessoratLeyden,Episcopius,andhisotherfollowers,suchasUytenbogaert,Grotius,Limborch,andothers,departedstillfartherfromtheaccepteddoctrineoftheChurch,andfinallyembodiedtheirviewsinaremonstrance,consistingoffivearticles.

The position taken by the Arminians is practically that of Semi-Pelagianism.WhiletheydobelievethatAdam'stransgressionhadanevileffect on the spiritual condition of all his descendants, they reject thedoctrine of original sin as it was taught by the Churches of theReformation.TheymaintainthattheguiltofAdam'ssinisnotimputedtohisdescendants,thoughitspollutionispassedonfromfathertoson.Thispollution theydonot regardas sin in theproper senseof thewordbut

onlyasadiseaseoraweakness.Itdoesnotbringmanunderasentenceof condemnation, but weakens his nature, so that he is incapable ofattaining to eternal life, either by reestablishing himself in the favor ofGodorbydiscoveringforhimselfawayofsalvation.Theydonotbelieveinthetotaldepravityofhumannature,thoughtheyoccasionallyexpressthemselvesas if theydo,but leave room for the freewill ofman in thematerialsenseoftheword,thatis,asanaturalpowerorabilityinmantodosomethingthatisspirituallygood,sothathecanalsoinsomemeasurepreparehimselfforturningtoGodanddoingHiswill.

TheyalsoproposeatheoryofgracewhichdiffersessentiallyfromthatoftheConfessions,distinguishingthreedifferentdegreesingrace,namely,(a)prevenientorcommongrace;(b)thegraceofevangelicalobedience;and (c) the grace of perseverance. The Holy Spirit confers on all mensufficientgracetocounteracttheeffectoftheinheriteddepravityandtoenablethemtoco-operatewiththeSpiritofGodinregeneration.Ifsomearenotregenerated,itmustbeduetothefailureofthehumanwilltoco-operatewith the divine.Hewhomakes proper use of this sufficient orenabling grace becomes the object of God's efficient grace.He receivesthe higher grace of evangelical obedience, and in theway of obediencemaybecomeapartakerofthestillhighergraceofperseverance.

This theory of sufficient grace is supposed to safeguard the doctrine ofhumanresponsibility.Sinceoriginalsincannotbe imputedtomanasafault, God cannot demand faith of him irrespective of the bestowal ofenabling grace. But if He bestows a grace on him, as He does, whichremoveshis spiritual inability,He alsohas theperfect right todemandfaith.IfmanresiststhisgraceofGodandrefusestoco-operatewithit,heisnaturallyresponsibleforthefactthatheisnotregenerated.

Inharmonywith theseviews theArminiansnaturallydidnotbelieve inabsolute election or reprobation, but based election on foreseen faith,obedience, and perseverance, and reprobation on foreseen unbelief,disobedience, and persistence in sin. In that respect they were far lessconsistent than the Socinians, who clearly saw that, if they rejectedpredestination,theyhadtorejectforeknowledgeaswell.

4. THE POSITION OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. This Synod was

summoned by the States General of the Netherlands in 1618, and wasindeed an august assembly, consisting of eighty-four members andeighteenpoliticaldelegates.Forty-eightofthesewereHollanders,andtherest foreigners, representing England, Scotland, the Palatinate, Hesse,Nassau,Bremen,Emden,andSwitzerland.ThedelegatesofFranceandBrandenburg did not appear. The Arminians were not seated asmembers,butappearedonlyasdefendants.Onehundredand fifty-foursessionswereheld,anda largenumberof conferences. Itwas themostrepresentativebodythatevermet.TheSynodwasuncompromisinginthedoctrinalmattersthatwerebroughtbeforeit:itrejectedthefiveArticlesoftheRemonstrance,andadoptedfivethoroughlyCalvinisticcanons,inwhich the doctrines of the Reformation and particularly Calvin, on thedisputed points are set forth with clearness and precision, and theArminianerrorsareexposedandrejected.

TheSynodaffirmedthedoctrineofadoublepredestination,basedonthegood pleasure of God, and not on foreseen faith and unbelief. Bothelection and reprobation are therefore absolute. Election is from thefallenrace,subjecttocondemnationonaccountofthesinofAdam;andreprobationconsistsinpreterition,thepassingbyofacertainnumberofthefallenrace,leavingthemintheirruin,andcondemnationonaccountoftheirsin.

It asserted the doctrine of original sin in the strict sense of the word.SinceAdamwasthelegalrepresentativeofallhisdescendants,theguiltofhisfirstsinisimputedtothem,andinconsequencethecorruptionofhumannature isalsopropagatedto them.Theyare totallycorrupt, thatis,corruptineverypartoftheirbeingandsocorruptthattheycannotdoanyspiritualgoodandcannotmakeasingleefforttorestorethebrokenrelationship with God. At the same time the Canons also say: "Thereremain,however,inmansincethefall,theglimmeringsofnaturallight,wherebyheretainssomeknowledgeofGod,ofnaturalthings,andofthedifferencebetweengoodandevil,anddiscoverssomeregard forvirtue,good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly externaldeportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient tobringhimtoasavingknowledgeofGod,thatheis incapableofusingitarighteveninthingsnaturalandcivil."IIIandIV,Art4.

Regeneration is regarded as strictly monergistic, and not at all as thework of God andman.Without regenerating grace no one can turn toGod,andnonecanaccepttheofferofsalvationapartfromanefficientactofGodfoundedonelection.YetsalvationisofferedinallseriousnesstoallwhoheartheGospelonconditionoffaithandrepentance.Theywhoarelostwillhaveonlythemselvestoblame.

ThedecisionsoftheSynodofDortwereofgreatimportanceforvariousreasons: (a) They were deliverances on some of the most importantpointsofReformedtheology,whichuptothattimehadnotreceivedsuchcareful consideration. (b) They were to all intents deliverances of anEcumenicalCouncil, composedofmanyof theablest theologiansof theday,themostrepresentativebodythatevermet.(c)Theyterminatedtheuncertainty that prevailed in the churches of the Netherlands, anuncertainty thatwasalso felt inothercountries,andwardedoffagreatdanger that threatened theReformed faith. (d)TheyhadadetermininginfluenceonthecompositionofthelaterWestminsterConfession.

5. THE POSITION OF THE SCHOOL OF SAUMUR. The School ofSaumurmade an attempt to tone down the Calvinism of the Synod ofDort especially on two points. Amyraldus distinguished between auniversalandconditional,andalimitedandunconditionaldecree.Intheformer God decreed to provide a universal salvation through themediationofJesusChrist,tobeofferedtoallalikeonconditionoffaith,andinthelatterHe,seeingthatofhimselfnomanwouldbelieve,electedsometoeternallifeanddecidedtogivethemthenecessarygraceoffaithand repentance. And Placaeus, another representative of the School,deniedtheimmediateimputationofAdam'ssintohisposterity.MenarenotaccountedguiltyinAdamandthereforeborncorrupt,butderivefromhimthecorruptionofnature,andthis isnowimputedto themasguilt.Placaeuscallsthismediateandconsequentimputation.

The case of Amyrald was brought up at three Synods, which did notcondemnhim,butfounditnecessarytoguardagainstthemisconceptionsto which his view might lead, while the Synod of Charenton in 1645rejected the theory of Placaeus. In opposition to both the FormulaConsensusHelveticawasdrawnupbyHeidegger,Turretin,andGeneler,whichgaveaclearstatementoftheReformedpositionandwasforatime

honouredinSwitzerlandasanofficialstandard.TheArticlesbearingonthepositionofAmyraldusandPlacaeusarequotedbyShedd,HistoryofDoctrineII,pp.472,473.

Questions for Further Study: How do Calvin and Luther differ withrespect to the doctrine of predestination? What advantage has thecovenant idea in the explanation of original sin? Is the total depravitytaught by the Reformers the same as absolute depravity? What is theArminian view of sin and grace? Does it differ in any way from Semi-Pelagianism?How do theWesleyan Arminians differ from the originalArminians on these doctrines? Does the position of the Synod of Dortdiffer from that of the Heidelberg Catechism on these points? WhatobjectionsaretheretothepositionofAmyraldus?Whatisthedifferencebetweenmediateandimmediateimputation?

Literature:Calvin,Institutesof theChristianReligion,BooksIIandIII;Luther, The Bondage of the Will; Canons of Dort; Cunningham, TheReformersandtheTheologyoftheReformation,pp.413–470;Koest-lin,The Theology of Luther, cf. Index; Dorner, History of ProtestantTheology, 2 vols., cf. Index; Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, pp.371–513; Seeberg, History of Doctrine, II, pp. 227–272, 398–408;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,II,pp.117–133;Neander,Historyof Christian Dogma, II, pp. 653–660; Shedd, History of ChristianDoctrine,II,pp.111–196.

V.AnthropologicalViewsofPost-ReformationTimes

It isnotnecessary todiscuss the anthropologyof thePost-Reformationperiod at length. There have been no controversies that brought newelements to the foreground,andnoSynodsorCouncils that formulatednewdogmas.Itmaybewell,however, tonoticeacoupleofdivergengesfromtheteachingsoftheReformation,andtogiveabriefdescriptionofthe most important theories of sin that were advanced by individualtheologiansduringthelasttwocenturies.

1. DIVERGENT VIEWS. There are especially two that deserve

consideration.

a.AModificationoftheArminianViewinWesleyanArminianism.Itisawell known fact that Arminius himself did not depart as far fromScripture truth and from the teachings of the Reformers as did hisfollowersatthetimeoftheSynodofDort.MosesStuarteventhoughtitpossible to prove that Arminius was not an Arminian. Now WesleyanArminianism.whichoriginated in themiddleof theeighteenthcentury,claims the parentage of Arminius himself rather than that of laterArminianism,thoughitdiffersinsomerespectsevenfromArminius."Itstheology", says Sheldon, "was shapen by awarm evangelical piety, andhearstheimpressatonceofadeepsenseofdependenceuponGod,andof an earnest, practical regard for human freedom and responsibility."HistoryofChristianDoctrineII,p.263.ItdiffersfromthedoctrineofsinandgraceoftheearlierArminiansinthefollowingpoints:(1)Itstressesthefactthatoriginalsinisnotmerelyadiseaseorapollutionofnature,whichcannotbecalledsininthestrictsenseoftheword,butisreallyandtrulysinandrendersmanguiltyinthesightofGod.TheguiltofAdam'ssin is indeed imputed tohisdescendants.Butat thesame time itholdsthat this original guilt was cancelled by the justification of all men inChrist. This means that the idea of original guilt has after all only atheoretical place in this system, since its cancellation is one of theuniversal benefits of the atonement. (2) It denies thatman, ashe is bynature, has any abilitywhatsoever to co-operatewith the grace ofGod,andadmitshisentiremoraldepravity,sothatheisabsolutelydependentonthegraceofGod forsalvation.Butat thesametime itholds thatnoman actually exists in that state of inability. In view of the universalbearing of the redemption throughChristGod graciously endows everymanwithsufficientenablinggrace,sothathecanturntoGodinfaithandrepentance. The original Arminians held that it was only just thatGodshould thus enablemen to believe and repent, since they could not beheld accountable without some spiritual ability. The WesleyanArminians,however,regardthisasamatterof freegraceonthepartofGod.

b. A Modification of the Reformed Views in New England, Theanthropology of the New England theologians differs in some respects

fromthatoftheReformersandoftheReformedChurchesingeneral.Themostimportantofthesedeparturesarethefollowing:

(1) That on the Relation of God's will to the fall of man. JonathanEdwardsruledoutthecategoryofefficiencyfromGod'sconnectionwiththefallofman,andusedtheordinaryCalvinisticphraseology.Butsomeofhisfollowerswerenotsocareful,andeitherimpliedorstatedexplicitlythatthereisadivineefficiencyinconnectionwiththeproductionofevil.Hopkins seems to imply this in some of his statements, and Emmonsteaches it explicitly. In later New England or New Haven theology,representedbysuchmenasTimothyDwightandN.W.Taylor,therewasa strong tendency to reduce thedivine connectionwith the entrance ofsin into the world to the lowest possible point consistent with an all-inclusive providence. The general view seems to be that God'sdeterminationtocreateamoraluniversenaturallyincludedthecreationoffreemoralagentswiththepowerofcontrarychoice,andthusrenderedsinpossible,buthardlycertain.Atthesametimesinisalsoregardedas"necessarilyincidentaltothebestsystem."

(2) That in Connection with the FreeWill of Man. Jonathan Edwardssomewhat over-emphasized the determinate character of the will, andthus exposed himself to the charge of determinism. He was perfectlyright,however,inemphasizingthefactthatfreedomhasitslaws,knownto God, and that in view of this fact it is perfectly consistent withcertainty.Manashewas createdbyGodpossessedmoral freedomandpossesses it still; and it was in the exercise of this freedom that hebroughtsinintotheworld.Healsopossessedrealfreedom,however,thatis,hiswillwasdetermined in thedirectionofgoodnessandholinessbytheoriginal constitutionofhisnature.This real freedomhe lostby sin.Later New England theologians stressed the fact that the power ofcontrarychoicemustbepredicatedofafreeandresponsiblemoralbeing.They approached the Arminian standpoint, but yet subscribed to thetheorythatgivenantecedentswillbefollowedbygivenconsequents,thatthe power to vary the result is never used, and that the divineforeknowledge is dependent on this variable, but non-necessitatedsuccessionofconsequentsfromantecedents.

(3) That Respecting the Transmission of Sin. Edwards adopted the

realistictheory.WeareconnectedwithAdamasthebranchesarewithatree,andconsequentlyhissinisalsooursinandisimputedtousassuch.Thistheoryisnotpeculiartohim,however.ItfindsgreatfavoramongtheLutherans, and is also advocated by such Reformed scholars as H. B.Smith and Wm. T. Shedd. Some New England theologians, such asWoodsandTyler,defended thePlacaean theoryofmediate imputation.ThroughhisnaturalconnectionwithAdammaninheritsmoraldepravity,and this is imputed to him as guilt and makes him worthy ofcondemnation.

2.SOMEMODERNTHEORIESOFSIN

a. Philosophical. Some prominent philosophers of the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries expressed themselves on the nature and origin ofsin, and in a measure influenced theological thought. Leibnitz lookedupontheeviloftheworldassomethingmetaphysicalratherthanethical,regardingitasthesimpleandnatureresultofthenecessarylimitationofthe creature. Kant struck a discordant note in his day by postulating aradical evil in man, a fundamental inclination to evil that cannot beeradicated by man. It precedes all empirical acts, but is neverthelessrooted inanautonomouswill,andtherefore involvesguilt.Hedoesnotidentifythis"radicalevil"withwhatisgenerallycalledoriginalsin,forherejects thehistoricalaccountof theoriginofsinandalso the ideaof itsphysical inheritance. To him sin is something that defies explanation.Hegelregardedsinasanecessarystepintheevolutionofmanasaself-conscious spirit. The original condition of man was one of naiveinnocence—astatealmostresemblingthatofthebrute—inwhichheknewnothing of good or evil, andmerely existed in unity with nature. Thatstate, however natural for animals, was not natural for man, and wasthereforenotideal.Manwasdestinedtoseparatehimselffromitandtobecome a self-conscious spirit. The transition from the natural to themoral state was effected by knowledge. The eating of the tree ofknowledgecausedmantofalloutofhisstateofparadisaicalbliss.Withtheawakeningof theself-conscious life, thebeginningof theego-sense,maninvoluntarilybeginstofollowhisnaturaldesiresandmakesthenewfound self the centerof these, that is,hebecomes selfishand thusevil.This isa stage,however, throughwhichhemustnecessarilypass inhis

self-development. While this selfishness is sinful, it cannot really beascribed to man as guilt until he wilfully chooses it even after he hasawakened to the consciousness thathemust rise above it, and that theselfish man is not what he ought to be. The struggle against thisselfishnessisthepathtovirtue.

b. Theological. Schleiermacher regards sin as the necessary product ofman'ssensuousnature—aresultofthesoul'sconnectionwithaphysicalorganism.Itisfoundwherethebodilyappetitespreventthedeterminingpowerofthespiritfromperformingitsproperfunction,andthesensuousnatureexercisesadominatinginfluence.Hedeniestheobjectiverealityofsin, however, and ascribes to it only a subjective existence, that is, heregards it as existing only in our consciousness. The sense of sin, theconsciousnessofstrifewithinman isdue to the inadequacyofhisGod-consciousnessas longasthesensuousnaturepredominates.Godhassoordained thatman shouldascribe guilt to this feelingofdeficiency,notbecause it is really sin, but so that there might be occasion forredemption."Originalsin"issimplyanacquiredhabitthathasgraduallybeenformed,andthatisnowthesourceofallactualsin.

JuliusMueller,adiscipleofKantandarepresentativeof theMediatingSchool,wroteanimportantmonographonthedoctrineofsin.HeagreeswithKantinregardingsinasafreeactofthewillindisobediencetothemoral law.HewentbeyondKant,however, inanattempttoexplaintheorigin of sin. TheKoenigsberg philosopher found it impossible to shedanylightonthis.Muellersawthatthe"radicalevil"ofwhichKantspokewaspresentinhumannaturefrombirth,oratleastpriortoanyconsciousdecisionofthewill,apartfromwhichthereisnosin.Sincehecouldnotdiscovertheoriginofsinintime,hesoughtitinanon-temporalorpre-temporaldeterminationofthewill.Insomepreviousexistencethechoicewasmade,andthereforemanisbornguiltyanddepraved.Thistheoryisso extremely speculative and so utterly beyond the possibility ofverificationthatithasfoundlittleacceptance.

RitschlagreeswithHegelinregardingsinasaspeciesofignoranceandasa necessary stage inman'smoral development. Like Schleiermacher heholds thatman knows sin only from the point of view of the religiousconsciousness.ManmustseektheKingdomofGodasthehighestgood,

but inhis ignoranceof theperfect gooddoes theopposite.Actual sin—andthisistheonlysinwhichRitschlrecognizes—setsitselfinoppositiontotheKingdomofGod.Increasingknowledgeoftheidealcarrieswithitthe consciousness of sin, which man imputes to himself as guilt. Inreality, however, asOrr says, "The guilt attaching to these acts is but afeeling in the sinner's own consciousness, separating him from God,whichtherevelationofGod's fatherly love intheGospelenableshimtoovercome."TheChristianViewofGodand theWorld,p. 179.Goddoesnotimputesinasguiltbecauseoftheignoranceinwhich,wenowlive.ItispurelyimaginarytothinkthatHeisangrywiththesinner.

TennantinhisHulseanLectureson"TheOriginandPropagationofSin"develops the doctrine of sin from the point of view of the evolutionarytheory. He denies that the impulses, desires, and qualities which maninherited from the brute can be called sinful. These constitute only thematerial sin, and do not become actual sin until they are indulged incontrary to ethical sanctions. In the course of his development mangradually became an ethical beingwith an indeterminatewill (Tennantdoesnotexplainhowsuchawillispossibleinabeingsubjecttothelawofevolution),andthiswill istheonlycauseofsin.Sinisdefinedas"anactivity of the will expressed in thought, word or deed contrary to theindividual's conscience, to his notion of what is good and right, hisknowledgeofthemorallawandthewillofGod."Inthemeasureinwhichthe race develops the ethical standards becomemore exacting and theheinousnessofsin increases,Tennantrecognizes theuniversalityofsin,Andadmitsthatournatureandenvironmentareofsuchakindthattheymaketherealizationofourbetterselfa"stupendouslydifficulttask."

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:Whattheorieswereadvancedrespectingtheoriginof thehumansoul?Inwhatcircles is traducianismfavored?Whydo the Reformed Churches favor creationism? Was the covenant ideagenerallyutilized toaccount for the transmissionof sin?Wheredoyoumeet with a realistic explanation?What extremes do we meet in NewEnglandrespectingGod'sconnectionwiththefall?Canweconceiveofsinasanecessityinhumanlife,andyetmaintainman'sresponsibility?Whatobjectionsaretheretotheviewthattheguiltofsinismerelyamatterofoursubjectiveconsciousness?Doesthedoctrineofevolutionallowfora

fallofman?Canitconsistentlyfindaplaceforsinasguilt?

Literature: Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism;Boardman,NewEnglandTheology,pp.61–130;Foster,HistoryofNewEnglandTheology,cf.Index;Taylor,MoralGovernment,I,pp.302–325;Mackintosh,Christianity andSin,pp. 119–147;Moxon,TheDoctrineofSin, pp. 176–219;Orchard,ModemTheories of Sin, pp. 30–46, 49–58,65–88,94–103;Tennant,TheOriginandPropagationofSin,especiallyLecture III; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, II, pp. 324–347;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.381–423,502–528.

THEDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENTOROFTHEWORKOFCHRIST

I.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementBeforeAnselm

1. INGREEK PATRISTIC THEOLOGY. The Apostolic Fathers speak ingeneral, usually Scriptural terms, of the work of Christ. The mostsignificantstatementisfoundintheEpistletoDiognetus.Itcombinestheideasofman'ssinasdeservingpunishment,ofGodasgivingHisSonasaransomforsin,andoftheresultingcoveringofsinbytherighteousnessof Christ. The Apologists contain very little on the subject that is ofimportance.InsofarasChristisrepresentedasaRedeemer,itisusuallyas aRedeemer from thepowerof thedevil. In theGnostic systems theredemption wrought by Christ is a redemption from the kingdom ofdarkness,theworldofmatter.InMarcionthedeathofChrististhepriceatwhichtheGodoflovepurchasedmenfromthecreatoroftheworld.

Irenæus, who stands mid-way between the East and the West, agreeswith theApologists incontemplatingmanasenslavedby thepowersofdarkness, and looks upon redemption partly as deliverance from thepowerofSatan,thoughhedoesnotlookuponitasasatisfactionduetoSatan.His idea is rather that thedeathofChrist satisfied theJusticeofGodandthusliberatesman.Atthesametimehegivesgreatprominencetotherecapitulationtheory,theidea"thatChristrecapitulatesinhimself

all the stages of human life, and all the experiences of these stages,including those which belong to our state as sinners." (Orr) By Hisincarnationandhuman lifehe thusreverses thecourseonwhichAdambyhissinstartedhumanityandthusbecomesanewleaveninthelifeofmankind.Hecommunicatesimmortalitytothosewhoareunitedtohimby faith and effects an ethical transformation in their lives, and by hisobediencecompensatesforthedisobedienceofAdam.

IntheAlexandrianSchoolwefindseveralrepresentations.InoneofhisminorworksClement ofAlexandria represents the death ofChrist as apaymentofman'sdebtandasaransom;butinhismainworkshegivesmore prominence to the thought that Christ as Teacher saves men byendowing themwith true knowledge an inspiring them to a life of loveand true righteousness.Origen presents several different viewswithoutcombining themintoasyntheticwhole.Christsavesbydeifyinghumannature through the incarnation; by giving the supreme example of self-sacrifice, thus inspiringothers toa similar sacrifice;by layingdownhislifeasasacrificefortheexpiationofsin;andbyredeemingmenfromthepower of Satan. In connectionwith the idea ofman's redemption fromthepowerof thedevilOrigen introducesanew idea,namely thatSatanwas deceived in the transaction. Christ offeredHimself as a ransom toSatan,andSatanacceptedtheransomwithoutrealizingthathewouldnotbeable to retainhisholdonChristbecauseof the latter'sdivinepowerand holiness. Satan swallowed the bait of Christ's humanity, and wascaught on the hook ofHis divinity. Thus the souls of allmen—even ofthoseinhades—weresetfreefromthepowerofSatan.

The first systematic treatise on the work of the atonement wasAthanasius' De Incarnatione. This work also contains several differentideas.TheLogosbecameincarnatetorestoretomanthetrueknowledgeof God, which had been lost by sin. The incarnate Logos is alsorepresentedasman'ssubstitute,whopayshisdebt forhimbyenduringthe penalty of sin. The necessity of this satisfaction is based on theveracityratherthanonthejusticeofGod.ItisnotsaidthatthepricewaspaidtoSatan.TheideaofIrenæusthattheLogosassumedfleshinordertodeifyandimmortalizeit,however,ismadeparticularlyprominent.Atthe same time the representation of Athanasius differs from that of

Irenæusontwopoints:(a)theincarnationisconnectedupmoredirectlywith thedeathandresurrectionofChrist in thesavingprocess;and(b)theemphasisisonTheethicalratherthanonthephysicalelementintheprocess.Christoperatesbyhiswordandexampleontheheartsofman.

The true successors of Athanasius are the three Cappadocians. Basilcontributedlittletothedoctrineoftheatonement.Hisyoungerbrother,GregoryofNyssa,isoffargreaterimportanceastheauthorofthesecondimportant systematic treatment on the work of Christ, the GreatCatechism. He repeats the idea of the deceit practiced on Satan, andjustifies thedeceiton twogrounds: (a) thedeceiver simply receivedhisduewhenhewasdeceivedinturn;and(b)Satanhimselfbenefitsbyitinthe end, since it results in his salvation. The underlying thought of theGreat Catechism is the idea, borrowed from Athanasius, that in theincarnation God joined himself to our nature, in order to free it fromdeath. It is pointed out, however, that not only death but sin also wasdestroyed.GregoryofNazianzerepudiateswithscornandindignationtheideaofaransompaidtoSatan.ButhealsorejectstheideathatGodtheFatherrequiredaransom.Fortheresthevirtuallyrepeatstheteachingsof Athanasius. John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria stress theimmensevalueofthedeathofChrist.Themaincontributionofthelatterlies in his emphasis on the infinite value of the death of Christ as thedeathofadivinePerson.Baur findsthat inhimwehavepractically thefullconceptofsatisfaction,excepttheexpressreferenceofittoGodandthedivinerighteousness.

GreekpatristictheologyculminatesinJohnofDamascus.Hegathersupthe previous thoughts on the work of Christ, but adds no distinctivecontribution of his own. In summing up the development thus far, wemaysaythatthedoctrineoftheworkofChristappearsundertwomainaspectsinGreektheology.(a)Ontheonehandsalvationiscontemplatedasthedirectresultoftheincarnation,asanewdivinerevelationgiventoman, or as (alongwithChrist's death and resurrection) communicatingnewlifetomankind.(b)Ontheotherhanditisviewedastheresultofthefulfilment of certain objective conditions, such as that of a sacrifice toGod, or of a satisfaction to the divine justice, or of a ransom paid toSatan.IfweweretonameanytheoriesthatarecharacteristicoftheGreek

patristic period, we would point to what Mackintosh calls "the greatexoteric doctrine of atonement in theGreek Church", the doctrine of aransom paid to the devil; and towhat he styles "the esoteric theory ofrecapitulatio."

2.INLATINPATRISTICTHEOLOGY.Thoughthedoctrineof theworkofChrist inLatinpatristic theologyhas several points in commonwiththat of early Greek theology, yet even in this early period importantdifferences begin to emerge. The distinctively Latin type of theologybegins with Tertullian. To a certain extent he adopts Irenaeus'recapitulation theory, but conceives of the incarnation as affectingmankind chiefly through precept and example. Yet this whole idearecedes somewhat into the background. He stresses far more thanIrenæus the central significance of the death of Christ on the cross,regarding it as the culminating point in, and as the real end of, themissionofChrist. It cannotbesaid thathewent farbeyondIrenæus inthe definite formulation of the doctrine of the death of Christ.His realsignificance lies in the fact that he introduced the use of several legalterms into theology, such as "guilt", "satisfaction", "merit", and so on,whichweredestinedtoplayagreatpartinthetheologicaldevelopmentofthedoctrineof theworkofChrist. It shouldbenoted,however, thathedidnotyetapplythesetermstothesacrificialworkofChrist,buttotherepentance and good works that should follow sins committed afterbaptism.He laid the foundation for thedevelopment of thedoctrine ofpenanceintheRomanCatholicChurch.

From Tertullian we pass on to Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose, whointerpretedGreekthoughttotheWest.Theformerrepresentsmorethanany other the Greek conception of the restoration of humanity by theincarnation. But this does not prevent him from ascribing the mostdefinitesignificancetothedeathofChrist.IndistinctionfromTertullianheevenviewsitasasatisfactionrenderedtoGod.Christdiedvoluntarily,in order to satisfy a penal obligation. He infers the necessity of thissatisfaction, like Athanasius, from the veracity rather than from thejusticeofGod.AmbrosealsosharestheviewofIrenæus,andinadditionrepeats the idea of Origen that Christ paid a ransom to Satan andpracticed deceit on him. At the same time he strongly stresses the fact

thatthedeathofChristwasasacrificetoGod,andregardsthissacrificeas a satisfaction of the divine sentence of death pronounced on sinfulhumanity.However,hedoesnotexplainwhythissacrificewasnecessary.

Wenaturally feel inclined toexpect thatAugustine, thegreatestChurchFather of theWest, added greatly, bothmaterially and formally, to thedoctrine of the work of Christ. But this is not the case; his mainaccomplishments lie elsewhere. Summing up in himself the previousdevelopment, he presents a variety of views. There is the idea of thedeificationofhumannaturebytheincarnation,thoughonlyinanethicalmanner; and there is also the notion that Satan had a claim on man,complemented, however, by the thought that the claim of Satan wasannulled by the death of Christ. But inwhatmay be considered as hismainlineofthoughtAugustineisfarremovedfromGreektheology.Bothhis presuppositions andhis conclusions are different. The central ideasarethoseoforiginalsin,ofjustificationbygrace,andofreconciliationbythesacrificeofChrist.ThenewWesterntypeofthoughtisassertingitselfand we find ourselves moving in a Pauline circle of ideas. Man iscontemplatedassubjecttothewrathofGod,andthesacrificeofChristasplacating this wrath and reconciling man to God. Augustine does notworkout these thoughts into a complete system;his statement falls farshortofAnselm'swellarticulatedtheoryof theatonement.Hedoesnotsharply distinguish between the judicial and the renovating side ofredemption. Justification is sometimes made to rest, not upon theremoval of the guilt of sin by Jesus Christ, but on the sanctifyinginfluenceoftheHolySpirit.Again,hesometimesteachesthat,thoughtheatonementbyChristwas themostsuitablewayof salvation,Godmighthavesavedsinners insomeotherway, thusmakingtheatonementonlyrelativelynecessary.ThisreallymeansthatGod'spowermighthavegoneagainstHiswisdom.

Of the theologians thatwere strongly influencedbyAugustineonlyonecallsforspecialmention,namely,GregorytheGreat.Hiswritingscontaina passage which has been called "the completest synthesis of ancientLatin theology on the atonement." Its thought runs as follows: Manvoluntarilyfellunderthedominionofsinanddeath,andonlyasacrificecould blot out such sin. But where was the sacrifice to be found? An

animal could not serve the purpose; only amanwould do, and yet noman could be found without sin. Therefore the Son of God becameincarnate,assumingournature,butnotoursinfulness.TheSinlessOnebecame a sacrifice for us, a victim that could die in virtue of Hishumanity,andcouldcleanse invirtueofHisrighteousness.Hepaid forusadebtofdeathwhichHehadnotdeserved,thatthedeathwhichwasourduemightnotharmus.ThisstatementofGregorymayberegardedas a distinct advance in the development of the doctrine of theatonement.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:Atwhatpointsdidthephilosophyofthedayaffect the doctrine of the work of Christ? In what sense did the earlyChurchFathersspeakofthedeificationofhumannature?Howisittobeunderstood thatmanbecomes immortal through theworkofChrist? Isthereanyscripturalbasis forIrenæus'recapitulationtheory?Isthe ideathat the incarnation savesman fundamentally Johannine?DoesOrigenhavethesameconceptionofdeificationasIrenæus?HowcanweexplaintheoriginoftheideathataransomhadtobepaidtoSatan?DidalltheearlyFathersconceiveof salvationby the incarnation in thesameway?Did they have a clear conception of the death of Christ as renderingsatisfactiontothejusticeofGod?HowdidTertullianapplytheconceptsofguilt,satisfaction,andmerit?WhatPaulineideasdowemeetwithinAugustine?HowdidGregorytheGreatconceiveoftheatonement?

Literature:Franks,AHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheWorkofChrist,I,pp.34–140;Scott,TheNiceneTheology,pp.219–245;Fairweather,OrigenandGreekPatristicTheology;Morgan,The Importance ofTertullian inthe Development of Christian Dogma; Mozley, The Doctrine of theAtonement,pp.94–125;Mackintosh,HistoricTheoriesoftheAtonement,pp. 80–116; Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte, I, pp. 379–395; Shedd,History of Christian Doctrine, II, pp. 203–272; Sheldon, History ofChristianDoctrine,I,pp.115–125,251–258;Orr,ProgressofDogma,pp.209–220; Histories of Harnack, Seeberg, Loofs, Neander, Fisher, cf.Indices.

II. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anselm to the

Reformation

The theological discussions in the five centuries between Gregory theGreat and Anselm were of such a nature that they did not contributemuchtothedevelopmentofthedoctrineoftheatonement.WithAnselmthesystematicstudyofthedoctrineoftheatonementbegan.Heopensanewerainthehistoryofthisdoctrine.

1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN ANSELM. Anselm ofCanterbury made the first attempt at a harmonious and consistentrepresentationof thedoctrine of atonement.HisCurDeusHomo is anepoch-makingbook, amasterpieceof theological learning, inwhich theauthorcombinesmetaphysicaldepthwithclearnessofpresentation.Theopening portion of the work testifies to the fact that at the time of itswritingmanymindswereoccupiedwith thequestionof thenatureandnecessity of the atonement. It also indicates that the problem of theatonement was generally approached from the Christological side as aquestion respecting the necessity of the incarnation. Several questionswereraisedatthetime,suchasthefollowing:CouldnotGodhavesavedmanbyamereactofHisomnipotence,justaseasilyasHecouldcreatetheworld?CouldnotHe,themercifulGod,simplyhavepardonedthesinof man, without demanding satisfaction? And if a mediator wasnecessary, why did He choose His only-begotten Son for the work ofmediation,andnotsomeotherrationalbeing?Oncetheincarnationwasadmitted, it was felt that it could only find its explanation in somestupendous exigency. This question respecting the incarnation explainsthetitleofAnselm'swork.

TheAlphaandOmegaofthepositionofAnselmistheabsolutenecessityof the atonement for the redemptionofman.Hedeliberately rejects asunsatisfactory theRecapitulationTheory, theRansom-to-SatanTheory,and the idea that thedeathofChristwasmerelyamanifestationof thelove of God to man, since these do not explain the necessity of theatonement adequately. In his opinion the absolute necessity of theatoningsacrificeofJesusChristmustbegroundedinanimmanentandnecessaryattributeofthedivinenature.HefindstheultimategroundforitinthehonourofGod.

TheexactpositionofAnselmcanbeunderstoodonly in the lightofhisconceptionofsinandsatisfaction.AsacreatureofGodmanwasunderobligationtosubjecthiswillabsolutelyandentirelytothedivinewill,andwhenhe refused this in a spirit of revolution,hedishonouredGodandthuscontractedadebt.GodwasrobbedofHishonourandthismustberestored insomeway.Hismercycouldnotsimplyoverlooksin, for thiswouldbean irregularityandan injustice.Therewere twoandonly twoways in which the divine honour could be vindicated, namely bypunishment or by satisfaction. God did not pursue the way ofpunishment,since thiswouldhavespelledruin for thehumanraceandwouldhavedefeatedHisverypurpose.Hechosethewayofsatisfaction,which included two things: (a) thatmanshouldnowrender toGod thewilling obedience which he owed Him; and (b) that he should makeamends for the insult to God's honour by paying something over andabove the actual debt. But since even the smallest sin, as committedagainst an infinite God, outweighs the whole world and all that is notGod, and the amends must be proportionate, it follows that these arebeyondthepowerofman.Agift—andAnselmlooksuponsatisfactionasagiftratherthanasapunishment—surpassingallthatisnotGodcanonlybeGod.Godonlycouldmaketruereparation,andHismercypromptedHimtomakeitthroughthegiftofHisSon.ItwasnotsufficientthattheonerenderingsatisfactionshouldbeGod;Hehadtobemanaswell,oneofthehumanracethatcontractedthedebtofsin,butamanwithoutsin,whowasnothimselfburdenedwithdebt.OnlytheGod-mancouldsatisfytheserequirementsandthusdojusticetothehonourofGod.

It was necessary for the God-man to render the obedience whichmanfailedtorendertoGod.ButthiswasnotsufficienttomaintainthehonourofGod,forindoingthisHedidnothingmorethan.Hisdutyasman,andthiscouldnotconstitutemeritonHispart.However,asa sinlessbeingHewasnotunderobligationtosufferanddie.ThiswasentirelyvoluntaryonHispart,andbysubmittingtobittersufferingsandashamefuldeathin the faithful discharge ofHis duty toHis Father,He brought infiniteglory toGod.Thiswasaworkof supererogation,whichcouldaccrue tothe benefit of mankind, and which more than counterbalanced thedemeritsofsin.Justicerequiredthatsuchafreegiftshouldberewarded.But there is nothing which the Father can give the Son, for He needs

nothing.ThereforetherewardaccruestothebenefitofmanandassumestheformoftheforgivenessofsinsandoffutureblessednessforallthosewholiveaccordingtothecommandmentsoftheGospel.

ThetheoryofAnselmmarksanimportantadvanceinthedevelopmentofthe doctrine of the atonement. Its real value lies in the fact that itestablishes the objective character of the atonement and bases itsnecessity on the immutable nature of God, which makes it impossiblethatHeshouldpermittheviolationofHishonourtogounpunished.Itisdefective, however, as compared with the later penal substitutionarydoctrine,inseveralpoints:(a)Iterroneouslyrepresentspunishmentandsatisfactionas alternatives fromwhichGodCould choose. (b) IthasnoplacefortheideathatinHissufferingChristenduredthepenaltyofsin,since it regards the sufferings of Christ as a voluntary tribute to thehonourofGod,asuperfluousmeritwhichservedtocompensate for thedemerits of others. This is really the Roman Catholic idea of penanceappliedtotheworkofChrist.(c)Itisinconsistentinsofarasitstartsoutwith the principle of "private law" or custom, according to which theinjuredpartymaydemandwhateversatisfactionheseesfit,andthen,inordertoestablishtheabsolutenecessityoftheatonementpassesovertothe standpoint of public law. (d) It is one-sided in basing redemptionexclusivelyonthedeathofChrist,anddenyingtheatoningsignificanceofHislife.And(e)itrepresentstheapplicationofthemeritsofChristtothesinnerasamerelyexternal transaction.There isnohintof themysticalunionofChristandbelievers.

2. ABELARD'S THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. Abelard's theory haslittleincommonwiththatofAnselm,exceptthedenialthatapricewaspaidtoSatan.ThedeathofChristisnotregardedasaransom,notevenasaransomofferedtoGod.AbelardrejectstheAnselmianviewthatGodwasreconciledbythedeathofHisSon.Godcouldnottakesuchpleasurein thedeath ofHis only-begottenSon as tomake it the ground for theforgivenessofsins.Moreover,nosuchgroundwasneeded,sinceGodisloveand isquitereadyto forgive irrespectiveofanysatisfaction.AllHerequires is penitance in the sinner; andHe is ready and even eager topardonthepenitent.AtthesametimeitmaybesaidthatwearejustifiedandreconciledtoGodbythebloodofChrist.Christrevealedtheloveof

God by assuming our nature and by persevering as our teacher andexample even unto death. This great love calls for and awakens aresponsiveloveintheheart,ofthesinner,andthisisthegroundfortheforgiveness of sins Luke 7:47. The newly awakened love redeemsus byliberatingus fromthepowerofsinandby leadingus intothe libertyofthesonsofGod,sothatweobeyGodfreelyfromthemotiveoflove.Thustheforgivenessofsinsisthedirectresultofthelovekindledinourhearts,andonlyindirectlythefruitofthedeathofChrist.

This theory brought Abelard into difficulty in connection with thecommondoctrineoftheforgivenessofsinsthroughbaptism.Ifthelovethat is kindled in our hearts by the death of Christ justifies us, why isbaptism still necessaryunto salvation?To this questionAbelard repliesthat, unless baptism ormartyrdom follows the kindling of this love, itmustbeconcludedthatperseverancehasbeen lacking.Thismeansthatthe remission of sins does not really take place until baptism isadministered, even though love was kindled before. Particularly in thecase of children Abelard had to admit that the remission of sin wasindependentofthelovekindledintheheart.LoofscorrectlyremarksthatAbelard'snewviewcouldnotbemaintainedwithoutmorechangesthanhewaspreparedtomake.ItisprobablyduetothisfactthathesometimesspeaksofChristashavingborneoursins,andofHisdeathasasacrificeforsin.

In distinction from Anselm's doctrine of the atonement, this theory ofAbelard is thoroughly subjective. It is sadly lacking in thatmoraldepthandinnercoherencethatissocharacteristicofAnselm'sview.Wehaveinit a typical representation of what is today called theMoral, orMoralInfluenceTheoryoftheatonement.Itproceedsonthefalseprinciplethatlove is the central and all-controlling attribute inGod, and ignores thedemandsofHisjusticeandholiness.Moreover,itfurnishesnoadequatereason for the sufferings of Christ. If God could have forgiven sinswithout demanding satisfaction, why did He give up His Son to bittersufferingsandashamefuldeath?Wasthisnotaverydubiousrevelationof love, seeing thatHe could have awakened the sinner's love inmanyotherways?ThistheoryrobsthesufferingsofChristoftheirredemptivesignificance and reducesHim to ameremoral teacher, who influences

menbyHisteachingsandbyHisexample.

3.REACTIONTOABELARDINBERNARDOFCLAIRVAUX.BernardofClairvauxcriticizedAbelard'stheory,butdidnotpresentoneofhisown.Neither did he accept the view of Anselm … He took Abelard to taskespecially for his rationalistic interpretation of Christianity, andmaintainedthattheexampleofChristmakesussaintsjustaslittleastheexample of Adammade us sinners. He was quite willing to admit thegreatnessandimportanceoftheexampleoftheloveofChrist,butonlyasfoundedinHisredemptivework.Infact,itmaybesaidthathehadthisincommonwithAbelard, thathestressed the loveofChristmanifested inHishumanlifeandpassion;buthesawinthisnotmerelyarevelationoftheloveofGod,butthesavingmanifestationofChrist'sowndivinity.

ThisideaofBernardmayberegardedastheWesterncounterpartofthedoctrine of Irenæus and Athanasius, that the incarnation was thetransforming entrance of God into humanity. It should be observed,however,thathedidnotemphasizethephysicalresultoftheincarnation,asbringinglifeandimmortality,butitspsychologicaleffect,asinspiringapatienceandlovesimilartothatofChrist.Atthesametimehedidnotrest satisfiedwith this purely subjective idea, but firmly believed in anobjectiveredemptionas thebasis for thesubjective.TheFatherdidnotrequire thedeathofHisSon,butaccepted itasanoblation:andnowitservestoredeemusfromsin,death,andthedevil,andtoreconcileustoGod.

4.SYNCRETISTICVIEWSOFTHEATONEMENT.InsuchSchoolmenasPetertheLombard,Bonaventura,andThomasAquinas,wefindtracesofthe influence of both Anselm and Abelard. They adopt elements fromboth,butdonotsucceedincombiningthemintoaninnerunity.

a. Peter the Lombard and Bonaventura. Peter the Lombard. takes hisstartingpointinthemeritsofChrist.ByHispiouslifeChristmeritedforHimself freedom fromsuffering andglorification, andwhenhe enteredintosufferings,anddeath,Hedid itvoluntarily,not forHimselfbut forsinners.Hetherebymeritedforthemredemptionfromsin,punishment,and thedevil, andadmittance toparadise.Up to thispoint the trainofthoughtisAnselmian.Butwhenthequestionisasked,howthedeathof

Christeffectsthisdeliverance,theansweristhatitrevealstoustheloveofGod.Bysogreatapledgeoflovetous,wearemovedandpromptedtoloveGod,andarethusreleasedfromsinandmaderighteous.Andwhenwearefreefromsin,wearealsofreefromthedevil.

b. Bonaventura. According to Bonaventura it was the requiredsatisfaction thatmade the incarnationnecessary.Asimplecreaturewasnot able tomake satisfaction for thewholehuman race, and itwasnotproperthatacreatureofanotherraceshouldbetakenforthatpurpose.Hence itwasnecessarythatthepersonrenderingsatisfactionshouldbebothGodandman.ThissatisfactionwasrenderedbythemeritsofChrist,whichHewonbyactingandsuffering.TomakesatisfactionistopaythehonourthatisduetoGod,andthisisdonebythesufferingsofChristasthemostappropriatemeansforplacatingGod.ThustherigheousnessaswellasthemercyofGodisdisplayed.WiththisAnselmianidea,however,theAbelardianiscombined,thatthepassionofChristwasalsothemostfittingmeans,sinceitwasbestsuitedtoarouseinmanaresponsivelovetoGod.Bydeveloping the thought ofChrist's relation to theChurch asthatof theHead to themembersof thebody,Bonaventuraexplains farbetterthanAnselmhaddone,howtheblessingsofChristaretransferredtobelievers.

c.ThomasAquinas.ThegreatestoftheSchoolmenwasThomasAquinas.Heabsorbedthethoughtsofhispredecessorsmorecompletelythananyothermediævaltheologian.InviewofthisitisnotsurprisingthatwefindinhimtracesofboththeAnselmicandAbelardianviews,andthatthereisnounityinhisrepresentationoftheworkofChrist.

There isarepresentationthatremindsusofbothIrenæusandAbelard.ThefulnessofallgracedwellsinthehumannatureofChrist.andbecauseHeisnowtheHeadofthehumanrace,Hisperfectionandvirtueoverflowtothemembersofthebodyinsofarastheyarewillingtobelongtothehead.Christ as thenewman is theprincipleand the leavenof thenewhumanity.Theworkofredemptionis thusconsideredfromthepointofviewthatmakesChristtheteacherandpatternofthehumanracebyHisteachings,acts,andsufferings.ThesesufferingsrevealmoreparticularlytheloveofGodandawakenaresponsiveloveintheheartsofmen.

However, there is also a more Anselmic line of thought, and this isgenerallyfollowedintheRomanCatholicChurch.Aquinasmaintainsthatredemption was not absolutely necessary, since God might havepermittedmankindtoperishinitssins;yetheregardsitasmostfittinginview of all the attributes of God. Again, he is of the opinion that Godcouldhaveredeemedmanwithoutdemandinganyadequatesatisfaction.Headmits thatahuman judge couldnot simplyoverlookaviolationofthelaw,butassertsthatGodcoulddothisinthecaseofsinfulhumanity,sinceHeisHimselfthesourceofjusticeandwasalsotheinjuredpartyinthecaseunderconsideration.HeHimselfdeterminedbyanactofHiswillwhatwasrightinthiscase,andcouldverywellhaveremittedsinwithoutsatisfaction,sincethiswouldhavewrongednoone.Godchosetodemandsatisfaction, however, and thismade the incarnation of the Son ofGodnecessary,becauseameremancouldnotatoneforsincommittedagainstaninfiniteGod.

ThemeritsofChristextendedthroughoutthewhole timeofHisearthlyexistence,sothateveryactionofHislifecontributedtotheatonementofman's sin. And this was really all that was necessary to render to Godcondign satisfaction. The passion and death of Christ were, strictlyspeaking,notneeded.Therewerespecialreasonsofcongruity,however,whyGodwantedfullredemptiontobewroughtbythepassionanddeathof Christ, namely, that this was in keeping with both His mercy andjustice, and at the same time ensured the greatest possible effect. Thedeath of Christ reveals the great love of God, sets man an example ofobedience,humility,constancy,andsoon; itnotonlydelivers fromsin,but also merits justifying grace and eternal bliss, and offers a strongmotiveforrefrainingfromsin.

The passion of Christ effects the salvation of sinners in four differentways: (a)bymeriting theblessingsof salvation,whicharepassedon tosinners; (b) as a superabundant satisfaction well-pleasing to God, thebenefits of which are communicated to the faithful in virtue of themysticalunion;(c)asavoluntarysacrificewithwhichGodwasdelighted;and(d)byredeemingsinnersfromslaveryandpunishment.Thoughmanwas reduced to spiritual slavery by the devil, the latter had no rightfulclaims, and therefore did not receive the ransom. The superabundant

satisfaction of Christ does not saveman, however, apart from baptismandpenance;andthereasonforthisliesinthenecessary"configuration"ofthememberstotheHeadinthemysticalbodyofJesusChrist.

WhiletheseviewsofThomasAquinasrevealconsiderablesimilaritywiththoseofAnselm,theyareinsomerespectsinferiorandinotherssuperiorto them. They are inferior, since they do notmanifest the same logicalcoherenceandfailtogroundthenecessityoftheatonementinthedivinenature,making,itdependentsimplyonthewillofGod,whichmighthavechosen another way and might even have dispensed with satisfactionaltogether.This elementof arbitrariness readilybecameabridge to theacceptilationtheoryofDunsScotus.Theyaresuperior,however,intheirapproachtotheideaofpenalsatisfaction,thatis,ofsatisfactionthroughpunishment; intheirgreateremphasisonthemeritsofChrist, inwhichthelaterdistinctionbetweentheactiveandpassiveobedienceofChristisanticipated;and inthe introductionof the ideaof themysticaluniontoaccountforthetransmissionofthemeritsofChristtobelievers.

5.DUNSSCOTUSONTHEATONEMENT.WhileAquinasrepresentstheDominicantheology,whichistheofficialtheologyoftheChurchofRome,DunsScotusmayberegardedasthefounderoftheFranciscantheology.His work is primarily critical and negative. He wrote no Summa likeAquinas,butincorporatedhisviewsontheatoningworkofChristinhisCommentariesontheSentencesofLombardus.Wemayproceedontheassumption that he shares the views of Lombardus where he does notcorrect them. In this way it is possible to obtain a somewhat morepositiveconstructionofhisviewoftheatonementthanwouldotherwisebeavailable.Hediffersinsomeimportantpointsfromhispredecessors.

Hemakes theatonement itself, the character it assumes, and the effectwhich ithas,dependaltogetheron thearbitrarywillofGod.Heassertsthattherewasnoinherentnecessityforrenderingsatisfaction.Thiswasnecessary only becauseGodwilled it; but it was not necessary thatHeshouldwill it;thiswasaltogetheracontingentactofGod.Furthermore,heholdsthat,evenifthenecessityofsatisfactionweregranted,itwouldnotfollowthatithadtoassumetheexactformwhichitactuallytook.ItwasnotnecessarythattheonerenderingitshouldbeGod,orshouldbegreater than the whole creation. One pious act of Adam might have

servedtoatoneforhisfirstsin.Again,hedoesnotconsideritcapableofproof that satisfaction had to be rendered by a man. God might haveacceptedthedeedofanangelasasufficientatonement.ItalldependedonthearbitrarywillofGod.

However, God foreordained from eternity the passion of Christ as themeansforthesalvationofthepredestinated.Thispassionhasapeculiarvalueandaspecialefficacyonlybecauseitwasforeordainedasthemeansofsalvation,andbecauseGodwaswillingtoaccept itaseffectual.DunsdeniestheinfinitevalueofthemeritsofChrist,becausetheyweremeritsof the human nature, which is after all finite. By an act of His will,however,Goddeterminedtoacceptthemassufficient.AmeritthatisnotatallcommensuratewiththedebtowediswillinglyacceptedbyGod.Thistheory is generally called the Acceptilation Theory, but according toMackintosh(HistoricTheoriesoftheAtonement,p.110f.)shouldreallybecalledtheAcceptationTheoryoftheatonement.

Questions for Further Study: Does the Roman Catholic Church followAnselminmaintainingtheabsolutenecessityoftheatonement?Howdoyou account for it that Anselm represents the honour rather than thepenaljusticeofGodasdemandingsatisfaction?Whatwashisconceptionof sin?Where did he get the idea that sin must be followed by eitherpunishmentorsatisfaction?HowcanitbeaccountedforthathecentershisthoughtofmeritexclusivelyonthedeathofChrist?Whyishistheorysometimes called the "Commercial Theory"? Inwhat sensedidAbelardregardtheatonementasnecessary?Whyishistheorycalledsubjective?Is it proper to speak of the so-called subjective theories as theories ofatonement?DoesAbelardgivea sufficient explanationof the sufferingsand death of Christ? What is the great objection to the view of DunsScotus?What remains of themerits of Christ in his view?What is thedifference between acceptilation and acceptation? Inwhat respect doestheviewofThomasAquinasmarkanadvanceonthatofAnselm?

Literature:Mackintosh,HistoricTheoriesoftheAtonement,pp.117–148;Mozley,TheDoctrineoftheAtonement,pp.125–140;Franks,AHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheWorkofChrist,I,pp.147–328;Welch,AnslemandHisWork, particularly pp. 172–184;Otten, AManual of theHistory ofDogmas,II,pp.201–213;McGiffert,AHistoryofChristianThought, II,

pp.185–305;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrines,II,pp.66–74,110–114;156–160; Loofs, Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 260–264; Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte, II, pp. 95–115; Neander, History of ChristianDogmas, II, pp. 514–521, 580–584; Shedd, History of ChristianDoctrines, II, pp. 273–320; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines, I,pp. 361–370;Orr, Progress ofDogma, pp. 220–233; Fisher,History ofChristianDoctrines,pp.216–228.

III. The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of theReformation

Thedoctrineof the atonementdidnot constituteoneof the subjectsofdebate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church. BothregardedthedeathofChristasasatisfactionforsin,andasatisfactionofinfinite value. Their differences concerned primarily the subjectiveapplicationoftheworkofChrist.Yettherewasadifferenceofemphasiseven in connection with the atonement. The Reformers moved alongdefinite lines in fundamental agreement with Anselm, though differingfromhiminsomedetails,whiletheRomanCatholicChurchreflectedtheuncertainty and indeterminateness of the scholastic era, though in themainagreeingwithThomasAquinas.

1.THEREFORMERSIMPROVINGONTHEDOCTRINEOFANSELM.ThereissubstantialagreementbetweentheReformersandAnselm.Bothmaintain the objectivenature of the atonement andboth regard it as anecessity. They differed, however, as to the nature of this necessity.Anselmspeaksofthisasabsolute,whilesomeoftheReformersregarditasrelativeorhypothetical.SpeakingoftherequirementthattheMediatorshouldbebothGodandman,Calvin says: "If thenecessitybe inquiredinto(theveryquestionofAnselm),itwasnotwhatiscommonlytermedsimple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which thesalvationofmankinddepended.Whatwasbestforus,ourmostmercifulFatherdetermined."InstitutesII.12.1.Theyareallagreed,however,thatthe atonement through the sufferings and death of Christ is most in

harmonywithdivinewisdomandhighlyappropriate.Andit iscertainlyunfair to say that Calvin, like Duns Scotus, makes the atonementdependent on the arbitrarywill ofGod.He knows of no indeterminatewillinGod,butonlyofawillthatisdeterminedbythewholecomplexofHisattributes,anddulyemphasizesthefactthattheatonementinChristfullysatisfiesthejusticeofGod.

In several points the doctrine of the atonement, as developed by theReformers, issuperiorto itsAnselmianform.WhileAnselmregardssinprimarilyasan infringementonthehonourofGod, theReformers lookuponitfirstofallastransgressionofthelawofGodandthereforeasguiltratherthanasaninsult.Andwhiletheformerviewstheatonementinthedeath of Christ as a superabundant gift to God in vindication of Hishonour, the latter thinkof itasapenal sacrifice tosatisfy the justiceofGod.Thustheatonementisliftedoutofthesphereofprivaterightsintothatofpubliclaw.

Thismeans that the Reformers also rejected the Anselmian alternative"satisfaction or punishment", and pointed out that the one does notexcludetheother,butthatthesatisfactionrenderedthroughthesacrificeof Christ was satisfaction through punishment. In other words, theystressedthefactthatthesufferingsofChristwerepenalandvicarious.

Again,theywentbeyondAnselmindistinguishingclearlybetweenactiveand passive obedience in the mediatorial work of Christ, and inrecognizingtheformeraswellasthelatterasapartoftheatoningworkofChrist.TheGod-mansatisfied thedemandsof thedivine justice,notmerelybyHissufferingsanddeath,butalsobyobediencetothelawinitsfederalaspect.Hisatonementconsistednotonly inmakingamends forpast transgressions, but also in keeping the law as the condition of thecovenantofworks.AsthelastAdamHedidwhatthefirstAdamfailedtodo.

Finally,theyalsosurpassedAnselmintheirconceptionofthemannerinwhich themerits ofChristwerepassedon to sinners.Anselm's viewofthishadaratherexternalandcommercialaspect.Aquinas improvedonthis by stressing the significance of themystical union as themeans oftransferring the blessings of salvation to those who stood in living

relationshiptoJesusChrist.Hefailed,however,togivedueprominenceto the receptive activity of faith. The Reformers shared his opinionrespecting the great importance of the mystical union, but in additiondirected the attention to that conscious act of man by which heappropriatestherighteousnessofChrist—theactoffaith.Theywereverycareful, however, not to represent faith as the meritorious cause ofjustification.

2.THESOCINIANCONCEPTIONOFTHEATONEMENT.AformidableattackwasmadeonthedoctrineoftheReformersbySocinus.Hebeganwith an attempt to remove the very foundation onwhich itwas based,namely, the idea of justice in God as understood by Anselm and theReformers. He denied the presence of any such justice in God "asrequiresabsolutelyandinexorablythatsinbepunished."Thatperpetualand constant justice by whichHe is characterized ismerelyHismoralequityandrectitude,byvirtueofwhichthereisnodepravityoriniquityinanyofHisworks.ThejusticewhichiscommonlysocalledandwhichisopposedtomercyisnotanimmanentattributeofGod,butonlytheeffectofHis will. This also holds for thatmercy of Godwhich is opposed tojustice.ItisnotaninternalqualityinGod,butismerelyaneffectofHisfree choice. Suchmercy does not preventHim frompunishing anyone;neither does such justice keepHim from pardoningwhomHe pleases,andthatwithoutsatisfactionofitsclaims.

TheburdenofSocinus'criticismistotheeffectthat it is inconsistenttocombine the grace of God and the merits of Christ as the ground offorgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible to maintain one of twothings:eitherthatGodforgivesfreely,orthatHeforgivesforthesakeofChrist;butyoucannot sayboth, for theyaremutuallyexclusive.Of thetwoalternativeshechoosestheformer,namely,thatGodforgivesfreely.Healsoholdsthat,sinceguiltispersonal,substitutioninpenalmattersisimpossible; and that, even if it were allowable, it cannot be said thatChristbore theexactpenaltyof the law,since thiswouldmeanthatHediedasmanyeternaldeathsastherearesinners.Andyethedidnotevensuffer one endless death, but only finite pain. Moreover, Socinusmaintains that the ideas of satisfaction and imputation are self-contradictory. If Christ rendered complete satisfaction, that settles the

matterbysettingtheworldfree.Itisinconsistenttomaketheenjoymentofitsfruitsdependentondivineimputationandonthefaithofman.

Socinusnevertiresofsayingthattheforgivenessofsinsisanactofpuremercy, simply on the basis of repentance and obedience. The onlyconditionsaresorrow forsinandanearnestdesire toobey the law.Herealized, however, that he had to give some explanation of the uniquesignificance of Jesus, whose saving work was really excluded by hissystem.HesaysthatChristsavessinnersbyrevealingtothemthewayoffaithandobedienceasthewaytoeternallife;bygivingthemanexampleoftrueobediencebothinhislifeandinhisdeathandbyinspiringthemtoasimilar life;bygivingaconcreterepresentationofobedienceas thewayoflifeinanobedienceuntodeathfollowedbytheresurrection;andby bestowing eternal life, by virtue of the power received at theresurrection,onallthosethatattachthemselvestoHiminfaith.GodgaveHimthispowerasarewardforHisobedience.Thistheoryestablishesnodirect connection between the death of Christ and the salvation ofsinners.ThedeathofChristdidnotatoneforoursin,neitherdiditmoveGod to pardon sin. The forgiveness of sins depends exclusively on themercyofGod.ButbecauseChrist received thepower tobestoweternallife on believers immediately after His death, Socinus considers itpossibletomaintainthatthisdeathexpiatedoursins.

The Socinian doctrine is really nothing but a concoction of severalheresiescondemnedbytheearlyChurch;arevivalofancientPelagianismwithitsbeliefintheinherentgoodnessandspiritualabilityofman;oftheoldAdoptionistdoctrine,makingChristastoHishumannatureaSonofGodbyadoption;oftheMoralInfluencetheoryoftheatonementwithitsemphasisontheexemplarylifeofChrist;andoftheScotistdoctrineofanarbitrarywillinGod.Itfoundlittlefavorevenamongthosewhoopposedthe penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. And this is nowonder in view of the fact that it is thoroughly rationalistic, a mereabstractplayofhumanlogicthatfailsaltogethertodojusticetothefactsrevealed in the Word of God and experienced in the lives of theredeemed.

3. THEGROTIANTHEORYOFTHEATONEMENT.This theory reallyrepresents amiddle course between the doctrine of theReformers and

theSocinianview.Grotiushimselfevidentlydidnotsoconsiderit,forheentitled his work, Defense of the Catholic Faith Concerning theSatisfactionofChristAgainstFaustusSocinusofSiena.Itistheworkofanablejuristwho,onthebasisofRomanlaw,towhichSocinusappealed,points out several flaws in the latter's arguments. At the same time hefails tomeet themost importantcriticismofSocinuson thedoctrineoftheReformers,namely,thatChristdidnotandcouldnotreallybearthepenaltyofthelawimposedonsinners.Infact,hehimselfabandonsthisideaandbroachesanewtheory.Hemaintainsthatthereisnodominantquality of distributive justice in God which demands that therequirementsofthelawbemetineveryparticular,andwhich,incaseoftransgression,makesfullsatisfactionbypunishmentimperative.Thelawwith which the sinner is concerned is not a transcript of the inherentrighteousness ofGod, but a positive law (as opposed to natural law), aproductofthedivinewill,bywhichGodisinnowayboundandwhichHecanalterorabrogateasHepleases.BoththelawitselfanditspenaltycanbemodifiedorevenabolishedaltogetherbytheRuleroftheuniverse.

While God certainly intended this law to be valid and binding, Hereserved the right to relax it, if He should deem this best for someimportantreason.ThisisthefundamentalideawhichGrotiusappliesinhis theoryof theatonement. In strict justice the sinnerdeserveddeath,even eternal death; but as amatter of fact that sentence is not strictlyexecuted, for believers are free from condemnation. A relaxation takesplace:thepenaltyisdispensedwith,andthatwithoutstrictsatisfaction.GrotiusindeedspeaksofChristasrenderingsatisfaction,butthisshouldnotbeunderstoodinthestrictsenseofanexactequivalentofthepenaltydue to man. It is only a nominal equivalent, something which God ispleasedtoacceptassuch."ThisactoftheFather,"saysGrotius,"sofarasitrelatestothelawisrelaxation,butsofarasitrelatestothecriminalisremission." According to the doctrine of the Reformers there is such arelaxation on the part of the Supreme Judge in the adoption of theprinciple of vicarious substitution, but not in the substitution that ismade;thisisarealandnotamerenominalequivalent.Grotiusextendsthe principle to both. The sufferings of Christ were only a nominalequivalent for the sufferings due to the human race. Grotius disclaimsthat his theory is a theory of acceptilation, for this, according to him,

denotes an act by which a creditor, without any compensationwhatsoever,absolutelyremitsanindebtedness.

Butnowthequestionnaturallyarises,WhydidnotGodsimplyabrogatethelaw,seeingthatthiswaswithinHispower?WhywasitnecessaryatallthatChristshouldsuffer?Whywasnotthepenaltyremittedoutright?Grotius answers thatGod as theRuler of the universe had tomaintainorderinHisgreatrealm.ItwouldnothavebeensafeforHimtoremitsinwithout revealing in someway the inviolablenatureof the lawandHisholydispleasureagainstsin.SaysShedd:"ThesufferingsanddeathoftheSonofGodareanexemplaryexhibitionofGod'shatredofmoralevil,inconnectionwithwhichitissafeandprudenttoremitthatpenalty,whichas farasGodand thedivineattributesare concerned,mighthavebeenremittedwithoutit."Thenecessityoftheatonementisthereforebasedontheinterestsofthemoralgovernmentoftheuniverse.HencethetheoryiscalledtheGovernmentalTheoryoftheAtonement.

On the one hand the theory of Grotius shows some leanings to thedoctrineoftheReformers.Ithasatleastsomeappearanceofteachinganobjectiveatonement,andmaintainsthattheatonementwasnecessarytosafeguard themoral governmentof theuniverse, a considerationwhichoccupiesasecondaryplaceinthedoctrineoftheReformers.Ontheotherhand it also has affinity with the Socinian theory. Both deny that thesatisfactionofChristwas requiredby thenature andattributesofGod,andwasafullequivalentforthepenaltyofsin.Itisperfectlyevidentthat,accordingtoGrotius,thedeathofChristismerelyexemplaryandnotatallretributive,while theReformersclaimthat it isboth.Andfinally,onthistheorythesufferingsofChristmerelyservethepurposeofpreventingfuturesins,anddonotreallyatoneforpastsin.

4.THEARMINIANVIEWOFTHEATONEMENT.ThistookshapeafterGrotiushadpublishedhiswork,andthetwotheologiansthatweremostactive in its constructionwere Curcellæus and Limborch. They did notadopttheGrotianscheme,thoughtheyjoinedhimintheattempttosailinbetween theScyllaof theSociniansand theCharybdisof theChurchdoctrine. In line with the Reformers they based the necessity of theatonementonthedivinenatureratherthanontheinterestsofthemoralorder, though they failed to carry the idea through with logical

consistency.

ItisquitecharacteristicoftheArminianviewthatitrepresentsthedeathofChristasasacrificialoffering,butatthesametimemaintainsthatthissacrifice should not be regarded as the payment of a debt, nor as acompletesatisfactionofjustice.Itisrathersomewhatofaconcomitantora conditio sine qua non of the forgiveness of sins. In both the OldTestamentandtheNewGodseesfit toconnectthemanifestationofhispardoninggracewith theantecedentdeathofasacrifice.ThesufferingsanddeathofChristareregardedaspenalandjudicial,andthereforeasofthenatureofpunishment.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatHeenduredwhatmandeservedtoendure,butonlythatbyadivineappointmentHissacrificialdeathtooktheplaceofapenalty,andassuchhadtheeffectofreconcilingGodtomanandprocuringtheforgivenessofsins.ThismeansthatthedeathofChristisnotregardedasasubstitutedpenalty,whichisastrictequivalent(theviewoftheReformers),butasasubstitutionforapenalty,whichmaybeofinferiorworth.Itisspokenofasasatisfactionofbenevolence. On this point the Arminians are quite in agreement withGrotius.

They have several objections to the officially adopted doctrine of theatonement, themost important of whichmay be stated as follows: (a)Christ did not endure the full penalty of sin, since He did not suffereternaldeath,eitherintimeorindegree.TherewasnoendlesssufferinginHiscase,neitherwas thereabsolutedespair. (b) IfChrist completelyatoned for sin, there is nothing left for divine grace to accomplish. Ifjusticeissatisfied,theremissionofsincannolongerbeamatterofdivinecompassion.And(c)ifChristrenderedfullsatisfaction,Godhasnorightto demand faith and obedience, nor to punish the sinner, if he fails toobey, for it is unjust to exactdoublepunishment for one and the samesin.

Moreover, they regard the atonement of Christ as general or universal,which means that he "made an atonement for the sins of mankind ingeneral, andof every individual inparticular."God sentChrist into theworld, and Christ offered Himself willingly for the purpose of savingeveryindividualofthehumanrace.Butwhiletheatonementisuniversalinthedivineintention,itisnotuniversallyeffective,sincemanyarelost.

Thispartial failure isascribed to theobstinacyof thesinner inrefusingthe offered atonement and defeating the divine intention. The effectiveapplication of the atonement depends ultimately on the sinner's will,whichcananddoesinmanycasesdefeattheverypurposeofGod.

InoppositiontothisArminianerrortheSynodofDorttookthepositionthattheatonementofChrist,thoughquitesufficientforthesalvationofallmen,wasneverthelessintendedonlyforthosetowhomitiseffectivelyapplied, in otherwords, for the elect.Moreover, itmaintained that theeffectual application of the atonement does not, ultimately, depend onthe sinner's decision, but on the divine determination to exert specialgrace.By thepowerof theHolySpirit theatonementofChrist ismadeeffective in the hearts and lives of all those for whom Christ shedHisblood.Theyareallsaved,andtheyowetheirsalvationexclusivelytothegraceofGod.

5.THECOMPROMISEOFTHESCHOOLOFSAUMUR.TheSchoolofSaumurrepresentsanattempttotonedowntherigorousCalvinismoftheSynodofDort,andtoavoidatthesametimetheerrorofArminianism.This is seen especially in the work of Amyraldus, who boldly taught ahypothetical universalism, which was really a species of universalatonement.Godwilled by an antecedent decree that allmen should besavedonconditionofrepentanceandfaithinJesusChrist.Hethereforesent Christ into the world to die for all men. But seeing that, left tothemselves,nonewould repent andbelieve,Heby a subsequentdecreeelected some as the objects of the saving operation ofHis grace. Theseandtheseonlyareactuallysaved.

Theoutcomeprovedthistobeanuntenableposition.Ofthefollowersofthis school some emphasized the first decree and the universal offer ofsalvation based on it, with the result that they landed in the Arminiancamp; and others stressed the second decree and the necessity ofeffectualgrace,andthusreturnedtotheCalvinisticposition.TheviewsoftheSchoolofSaumurwerepracticallysharedbyDavenant,Calamy,andespeciallyRichardBaxter,inEngland.ItspeculiaropinionsgaveoccasionfortheconstructionoftheFormulaConsensusHelveticabyTurretinandHeidegger,inwhichtheseviewsarecombatted.

Questions for Further Study:Did theReformers agreewith Anselm ontheabsolutenecessityoftheatonement?WhatwasCalvin'sviewonthispoint? Are the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century inagreementwithhim?Dotheybasethenecessityoftheatonementonthehonour or on the justice of God? Did the Lutheran and the Reformedtheologians agree on the extent of the atonement? Are they agreed intheirviewoftheactiveobedienceofChrist?WhatisyourcriticismoftheSociniansystem?DidSocinusregardChristasapriestduringHisearthlylife? In what sense did he regard the death of Christ as a means ofredemption?HowdidGrotiusseektoescapetheSocinianposition?Whatcriticism would you offer on the Governmental Theory? Does theuniversalism of the Arminians imply that the atonement of Christ isuniversallyefficacious?Whydid theSynodofDort insiston the limitednature of the atonement? On what grounds did Piscator deny that theactiveobedienceofChristwaspartofhis satisfaction?Wherein lies theweaknessoftheAmyraldianposition?

Literature:Franks,AHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheWorkofChrist,I,pp.353–444;II,pp.1–120;Mackintosh,HistoricTheoriesoftheAtonement,pp. 149–187; Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 141–158;Cunningham,Historical Theology, II, pp. 237–370; Seeberg,History ofDoctrines,cf.Index;Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrines,II,pp.348–386; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines, II, pp. 138–152; Fisher,History ofChristianDoctrines, pp. 317–325, 337–346;Orr, Progress ofDogma,pp.236–239.

IV.TheDoctrineoftheAtonementAftertheReformation

1. THE MARROW CONTROVERSY IN SCOTLAND. An interestingcontroversyaroseinScotlandinthebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury.Neonomianism, very prevalent in England in the seventeenth century,alsomadeitsappearanceinScotland.Thenameisduetothefactthatitpractically changed the Gospel into a new law. According to this viewChristatonedforallmeninthesensethatHemadesalvationpossibleforall, and thus brought them all into a salvable state. He met all theconditionsofthecovenantofworks,andtherebyabrogatedtheoldlawof

that covenant, so that His work can be called our legal righteousness.Having met all the conditions of the covenant of works, He thenintroduced a new law, the law of the Gospel, which requires faith andconversion.Theseconstitutetheevangelicalrighteousnessofthebelieverwhich, however imperfect it may be, is the ground of his justificationratherthantheimputedrighteousnessofJesusChrist.Thusthecovenantof grace was changed into a covenant of works. This is simplyArminianismunderanewname.

TheNeonomianpositionwasopposedinEnglandbyFisher'sMarrowofModern Divinity, published in 1647. On the appearance ofNeonomianism in Scotland this work was re-published in that countryunder the care of James Hog in 1718, and found ardent admirers inThomas Boston and the two Erskines. These men, together with Hog,weresooncalledtheMarrow-men,andwereincourseoftimeaccusedofteaching antinomianism (which was not true; they wereantineonomians), and also of sponsoring a doctrine of universalatonement and universal pardon. Though this charge did not do themjustice,yetitmustbesaidthattheirdesiretoestablishfirmlythewarrantof theuniversalofferof salvation led them tousedubious language,bywhichtheylaidthemselvesopentothechargeinquestion.TheyheartilyendorsedthesoundlyCalvinisticprinciplethatChristdied,inpursuanceofthecovenantofredemption,tosecurethesalvationoftheelect.Butatthesametimetheyinsistedonageneralreferenceoftheatonement.Theysaid that, while Christ did not die for all, that is, to save all, yetHe isavailableforall,wasdeadforall,iftheywillbutreceiveHim.ThegivingloveofGodmadeagiftofChristandofthebenefitsofredemptiontoallmen, to be claimed on condition of faith. This is the basis for theuniversalofferofsalvation.AtthesametimeonlytheelectaretheobjectsofGod'selectivelove,andtheyonlysecuresalvation.Theirpositionwascondemnedin1720,andthisgaverisetotheseparationof1733.

2.SCHLEIERMACHERANDRITSCHLONTHEATONEMENT

a.Schleiermacher.WemeetwithacomparativelynewlineofthoughtinSchleiermacher.He rejectsaltogether thedoctrineofpenal satisfaction.His constructive work on the doctrine of the atonement reveals littleresemblance to earlier theories, except when, in dwelling on the

sympatheticsufferingsofChristanditseffectonmen,itrecallstheviewofAbelard.Hismain lineof thoughtmaybesaidtoechosomewhatthethoughtsofthoseearlyChurchFatherswhostresstheincarnationasthegreat redemptive act of Christ, though they certainly did not share hispantheistic notions. Under the influence of Hegel the idea that theincarnationwas the central fact of redemptionwas rejuvenated; and itwas adopted by Schleiermacher, though with a slightly differentemphasis.

Schleiermacher regards Christ as the archetypal man, the perfectprototype of humanity,whose uniqueness consisted in the fact thatHepossessed a perfect and unbroken sense of union with God, and alsorealized to the full the destiny of man in his character of sinlessperfection.HewasthesecondAdam,likethefirsttrulyman,butplacedin more favorable circumstances and remaining perfect and sinless inobedience.HewasthespiritualHeadofhumanity,capableofanimatingandsustainingthehigherlifeofallmankind,theperfectlyreligiousmanandthefountainoftruereligion,throughlivingfaithinwhomothersmayalso become perfectly religious. This transcendant dignity finds itsexplanationinapeculiarpresenceofGodinHim.Heenteredintothelifeof humanity as a new leaven,making those who come in contact withHim receptive for higher things and communicating to them an innerexperienceofGod-consciousnesssimilar toHisown.Hisactivity isofacreativekind,aninspiringandlife-givinginfluenceofspirituponspirit.HisvoluntarysufferingsanddeathservedtorevealHislovetomankindandHis devotion to His task, and to intensify the influence which Hebrings to bear on souls that were previously alienated from God. Thisview is called the Mystical Theory of the atonement. It is thoroughlysubjectiveand is therefore, strictly speaking,no theoryof atonementatall.It takesnoaccountoftheguiltofsin,butonlyseekstoexplainhowmanisdeliveredfromitspollution,whichinhistheoryisreallynosinatall.ItalsofailstoexplainhowtheOldTestamentsaintsweresaved.

b.Ritschl.TheinfluenceofRitschlinmoderntheologyissecondonlytothat of Schleiermacher and is still potent in present day theologicalthought.RitschlviewsChristasamanwhohasforusthevalueofaGodandtowhomthepredicateofGodheadcanbeascribedonaccountofHis

work. He denies the fact and even the possibility of a vicariousatonement,declaresthatreconciliationconsistsexclusivelyinthesinner'schange of attitude to God, andmaintains that the work of redemptionpertainsprimarilytoacommunity,andonlysecondarilytoindividualsinso far as they becomemembers of the redeemed community and thusshare its benefits. Christwrought redemption, according to him, as thebeareroftheperfectandfinalrevelationofGod,andasthefounderandsustaineroftheChristiancommunity—theKingdomofGod.HefoundedtheChristiancommunitybylivingHislifeinperfecttrustandobedience,andbyexhibitingthesamequalitieswhenfidelitytoHisvocationmadeitnecessary forHim to endure sufferings anddeath.However, this deathhadnosignificanceasapropitiationforsin.Itsvalueliesinthefactthatit is apowerwhichcontinues toawakensteadfast faith inGod's love, aspiritofobedienceuntodeath,andasenseofvictoryovertheworld.YetGod pardons sin on the basis of the work of Christ in founding theKingdom,orforthesakeoftheKingdom.IndistinctionfromtheMoralInfluence Theory, therefore, Ritschl posits an objective ground for theforgiveness of sin. Sometimes he seems to regard Christ merely as anexemplar, but this is only apparent. He traces the influence of ChristprimarilythroughthecollectivespiritandlifewhichpassesfromtheLordtothecommunitywhichHefounded.

3.SOMEOFTHEMORERECENTTHEORIESOFTHEATONEMENT.IntheEnglishspeakingcountrieswemeetwithreproductionsofmostofthe typical theories considered in the preceding, though often withvariations.Thefollowingarethemostimportant.

a. The Governmental Theory inNew England Theology. The history ofNewEngland theology reveals adownward trend in thedoctrineof theatonement.At first thepenal substitutionarydoctrineof theatonementfoundacongenialsoilthere.Butevenasearlyas1650WilliamPynchon,aprominent layman,attacked thedoctrine thatChristsuffered theverytorments of the lost, and the doctrine of imputation founded on it.Hewas answered by Norton in 1653. Bellamy introduced what wasafterwards known as theNew England doctrine of the atonement, andwas in essence simply a reproduction of the Governmental Theory ofGrotius.Healsodeniedthelimited,andassertedtheuniversaldesignof

theatonement.Hopkinswasinagreementwithhim,andmaintainedthatChrist did not suffer the exact penalty for sin, but something that wassubstituted for it.Moreover, itwasgenerallydenied thatChristmeritedanything by His active obedience; only the sufferings of Christ wereregarded as having redemptive significance. The Governmental Theorybecame thedominant viewof the atonement inNewEngland theology.Emmonstriedtoimproveuponitbytheintroductionofamoralelement.HestressedthefactthatthegovernmentofGodisamoralgovernment,actuatedby love.AndHoraceBushnellwentstill fartherby introducingtheMoralInfluenceTheory.

b.DifferentTypesoftheMoralInfluenceTheory

(1) Bushnell. Horace Bushnell rejected both the penal and thegovernmental theories, but considered the former as superior to thelatter, since it does not lose sight of the justice of God. He does notunderstandhow a spectacle revealingGod's abhorrence of sin can everissueintheforgivenessofsin.Butheobjectstoboththeoriesonthescorethat they are too legal and external and fail to do justice to the ethicalelement in the atonement. InhisVicariousSacrificehe rejects the ideathatGodhadtobepropitiated,andmaintainsthattheonlyrequirementwas thatmanshouldbe reconciled toGodandmanifestanewspiritoflove andobedience.GodHimselfwent forth inChrist to saveman andeven suffered in the Son of His love. Christ came to lead man torepentanceandthustoreconcilehimtoGod.Inordertodothis,Hehadto revealGod toman and to gain a newpower over him, bywhichHecouldleadhimawayfromsin.SoHecameonearthandactuallyenteredintothelotofman,sufferedfromman'soppositionandsin,servedhimineveryway,healedhisdiseases,sympathizedwithhiminhistroubles,andthereby revealed God to him in all His holiness and suffering love. BydoingthisHebrokeman'soppositionandgainedhis love.Thiswastheatonement. Christ is not only man's exemplar, but also a power ofrighteousnessinthelifeofman.

LateronBushnell receivednew light, and then saw thatGodhad tobepropitiated. Consequently, in his Forgiveness and Law he retracted thelastpartofhisformerpublication,andsubstitutedforittheideaofself-propitiationbyself-sacrifice.HelaiddowntheprinciplethatneitherGod

normancanforgiveasinneruntilhehassoughttodohimgoodandhassufferedunderhis repulses.Whenmancontemplates the forgivenessofonewhohaswrongedhim,hefeelsaresentmentthathindershim;buthecanovercomethisresentmentbysacrificingsomethingorbysufferingforthe culprit. So God by His self-sacrifice overcame His resentment toforgiveness,and thusmadeobjectiveatonement.Bushnellevidentlydidnot realize that he made God inferior to good men, who often forgivefreelyandgladlywithoutresortingtosuchunusualmethods.

(2)FrederickDennisonMaurice.Mauricetakeshisstartingpoint intrueAlexandrian fashion in Christ as the Logos, and regards Him as thearchetype or root of humanity. As such Christ stands in a unique andoriginalrelationtotherace—aneternalsecondAdam.IntheincarnationHe becomes the Mediator between God and man, bringing man intounionwithGod through fellowshipwithHimself.He isnotasubstitutefor,buttherepresentativeofthehumanrace.Hissufferingsandsacrificeare those due to God from the humanity of whichHe is the Root andHead,andareacceptedbyGodasaperfectsatisfaction.ThusinChristallmenare redeemed, irrespectiveof their faith, and theyneedonly tobebroughttotheconsciousnessofthisredemption.Thebasisofthistheoryis a realistic union of Christ with mankind. It can be called a MoralInfluenceTheoryinsofarasitholdsupChrist'sofferingofobedienceasanexample forus to follow.Evidently,Maurice'sview isalso related tothatofSchleiermacher.

(3)McLeodCampbell.ThetheoryofCampbellissometimesdescribedasthe theory of vicarious repentance. Campbell examined the doctrine oftheatonementastaughtbyOwenandEdwardsandhadgreatrespectforthis type of theology. Yet he regards their view of the atonement asdefectiveinthatitistoolegalanddoesnotsufficientlyreflecttheloveofGod.IntheadmissionofEdwardsthataperfectrepentancewouldhaveavailed as an atonement, if man had only been capable of adequaterepentance, he finds a hint of the true theory of the atonement. HemaintainsthatChristofferedtoGod,onbehalfofhumanity,therequisiterepentance, andby so doing fulfilled the conditions of forgiveness. TheworkofChristreallyconsistedinthevicariousconfessionofsinsinbehalfofman.Thequestionnaturallyarises,howthedeathofChristisrelated

to this vicarious confession.ByHis sufferings anddeathChrist enteredsympathetically into the Father's condemnation of sin, brought out theheinousness of sin, and condemned sin; and this was viewed by theFather as a perfect confession of our sins. This condemnation of sin iscalculatedtoproduceinmanthatholinesswhichGoddemandsinsinfulhumanity.Thegreat troublewith this theory is that ithasnoscripturalbasiswhatsoever,andthatit ishardtoconceiveofvicariousrepentanceina sinlessbeings.Moreover, it falls shortwoefully in its conceptionoftheseriousnessofsin.

c.TheMysticalTheoryoftheAtonement.Thereisanothertheorythatispopularinsomecircles,namely,themysticaltheorythatwasfirsttaughtby Schleiermacher. Bruce speaks of it in its later development as the"theory of redemption by sample." It is also known as the IrvingianTheory, or the Theory of Gradually ExtirpatedDepravity.We concludeour sketchby callingattention to the viewsofEdward Irving, thegreatEnglish preacher and contemporary of ThomasChalmers.According tohimChristassumedhumannatureasitwasinAdamafterthefall,thatis,human nature with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moralevil.ButthroughthepoweroftheHolySpirit,orofHisdivinenature,Hewasabletokeepthiscorrupthumannaturefrommanifestingitselfinanyactual or personal sin, gradually purified it through His sufferings,completelyextirpatingtheoriginaldepravitybydeath,andthusreunitedit toGod.Thispurifyingofhumannature in thepersonofJesusChristconstitutes His atonement. Consequently, men are saved, not by anyobjective propitiation, but by becoming partakers of Christ's newhumanitybyfaith.

Questions for Further Study: How did the Marrow-men exposethemselvestothechargeofuniversalism?IsitcorrecttosaythatChristisdead for all men, or is available for all? What type of theory didSchleiermacher advocate? Did he conceive of sin as a reality? Does atheory of atonement have a logical place in his system? Does theRitschliantheologydomorejusticetothedoctrineoftheatonement?DothesesystemsdojusticetothedeathofChristintheworkofredemption?WasJonathanEdwardsinanywayresponsiblefortheintroductionoftheGovernmentalTheoryinNewEngland?Whatadvantagehasthistheory

overtheMoralInfluenceTheories?Whyisit,strictlyspeaking,incorrecttocallthelattertheoriesofatonement?Whyarethesetheoriessomuchmorepopularthanthetheoryofvicariousatonement?DoesthetheoryofIrvingdojusticetotheholinessofChrist?Dohisfollowersstillteachitinitsoriginalform?

Literature:Franks,AHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheWorkofChrist,II,pp.225–259,329–370,387–414;Bruce,TheHumiliationofChrist,pp.309–326; Mackintosh, Historic Theories of the Atonement, pp. 207–258;Crawford, The Atonement, pp. 297–381; Sheldon, History of ChristianDoctrines,II,pp.353–362;Orr,ProgressofDogma,pp.338–345;Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrines,pp.411–413,437–445,477–479;Mozley,TheDoctrineof theAtonement,pp. 165–201;Park,TheAtonement (InNewEnglandTheology).

THEDOCTRINEOFTHEAPPLICATIONANDAPPROPRIATIONOFDIVINEGRACE

I.TheSoteriologyofthePatristicPeriod

It is natural to pass from the doctrine of the atonement, or of theobjective work of redemption through Christ, to a discussion of themethod in which believers obtain a share in its benefits, or of thesubjectiveapplicationofthemeritsofChristthroughtheoperationoftheHolySpirit.

1. THESOTERIOLOGYOFTHEFIRSTTHREECENTURIES. Itwouldbeunreasonabletolookforacommon,definite,wellintegrated,andfullydeveloped view of the application of the work of redemption in theearliest Church Fathers. Their representations are naturally ratherindefinite,imperfect,andincomplete,andsometimesevenerroneousandself-contradictory. Says Kahnis: "It stands as an assured fact, a factknowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in thematter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in theappropriationofsalvationthereisaco-workingoffreedomandgrace."

In harmony with the New Testament statement, that man obtains theblessingsofsalvationby"repentancetowardGod,andfaith inourLordJesus Christ", the early Fathers stressed these requirements. This doesnotmean,however,thattheyatoncehadafullandproperconceptionoffaith and repentance. Faith was generally regarded as the outstandinginstrumentforthereceptionofthemeritsofChrist,andwasoftencalledthe sole means of salvation. It was understood to consist in trueknowledgeofGod,confidenceinHim,andself-committaltoHim,andtohaveasitsspecialobjectJesusChristandHisatoningblood.Thisfaith,rather than the works of the law, was regarded as the means ofjustification. These ideas are repeatedly expressed by the ApostolicFathers,andre-occurintheApologetesalongsideoftheideathatthenewknowledge or wisdom revealed by the Logos has saving significance.LaterFathers,suchasIrenæusandOrigen,sharetheideathatmancan

be saved by faith, while the Latin Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, andAmbrose,evensurpasstheminstressingtheutterdepravityofmanandthenecessityof justificationby faith. It cannotbe said,however, that aclear conception of faith emerged in the thinking of the first threecenturies. In their emphasis on faith the Fathers largely repeatedwhatthey found in theBible. It is not altogether clear justwhat theymeantwhentheyspokeoffaith.Theprevalentideaseemstobethatofamerelyintellectualassent to the truth,but insomecases itapparently includestheideaofself-surrenderYetitgenerallyfallsfarshortofthefullandrichconception of it as saving trust in Jesus Christ. The Alexandrianssometimescontrastfaithandknowledge,representingtheformerastheinitialstage,theacceptanceofthetruthinageneralway,andthelatterasthe more perfect stage in which its relations and bearings are fullyunderstood.

Moreover,inspiteofalltheiremphasisonthegraceofGodandonfaithas the appropriating organ of salvation, the early Fathers reveal amoralismthat isnot inharmonywith thePaulinedoctrineof salvation.The Gospel is frequently described as a new law (nova lex). Faith andrepentancearesometimesrepresentedasbeingsimplydependentonthewillofman.Salvation ismade todependnowon thegraceofGod,andanononthevoluntaryco-operationofman.

Alongside of faith repentance was also regarded as a preliminaryconditionofsalvation.Thereissomedoubtastotheexactconnotationoftheterm"repentance",asitisfoundintheearlyFathers.Itisuncertain,whethertheyconceivedofitmerelyasanactorconditionofthemind,orregarded itas includingamendmentof life.At thesametime it isquiteevidentthat,whentheyspeakofitintheformersense,theyattachgreatimportance to its external manifestations in penitential deeds. Thesedeeds are even regarded as having expiatory value in atoning for sinscommitted after baptism.There is a tendency to stress the necessity ofgood works, especially works of self-denial, such as liberal almsgiving,abstinencefrommarriage,andsoon,toattachspecialmerittothese,andto co-ordinate themwith faith as ameans of securing the divine favor.The view taken of good works is legal rather than evangelical. Thismoralistic perversion of New Testament Christianity found its

explanation in the natural self-righteousness of the human heart, andopened a doorway through which a Judaistic legalism entered theChurch.

There is another point that deserves notice. TheChurch Fathers of thefirstthreecenturiesalreadyrevealaninitialdrifttowardsceremonialism.Theideaiswidelyprevalentamongthemthatbaptismcarrieswithittheforgiveness of previous sins, and hat pardon for sins committed afterbaptismcanbeobtainedbypenance.Moreover,thethoughtisgraduallygaininggroundthatthegoodworksofsome,andespeciallythesufferingsofmartyrs,mayservetoatoneforthesinsofothers.Towardstheendofthis period an excessive value is ascribed to the intercessions ofconfessors andmartyrs, though someof theChurchFathersdiscouragethis idea. Sohm finds the explanation for this departure from theteachings of Scripture in the fact that "the natural man is a bornCatholic." It was inevitable that in course of time these twofundamentallydifferent typesof thoughtshouldcome intoconflictwitheachother.

2. THE SOTERIOLOGY OF THE REMAINING CENTURIES OF THEPATRISTICPERIOD.PelagiusdeviatedmuchfartherfromtheScripturalrepresentation of the application of redemption than any of the earlierChurch Fathers. It may even be said that he forsook the biblicalfoundationwhichwassacredtothem,andre-assertedtheself-sufficientprincipleofheathenphilosophy.Hisconceptionofsinanditsresultsledhim to deny the absolute necessity of the grace of God in Christ untosalvation,andtoconsideritquitepossibleformantoobtainsalvationbykeeping the law. He did not altogether despise the "help of grace" or"divineassistance,"butevenconsideredthisdesirable"inorderthatwhatis commanded by God may be more easily fulfilled." But the grace ofwhichhespeaks isnotthegratia interna, theregeneratinggraceofGodbywhichthemindisenlightenedandthewillisinclinedtogoodnessandholiness. It consists only in: (a) "the good of nature", that is, man'sendowmentwithafreewill,sothathecandoeithergoodorevil;and(b)thepreachingoftheGospelandtheexampleofChrist,bothofwhicharedirectedtothemindofmanandteachthewayofsalvation.Thegraceofnatureisuniversalandabsolutelyessentialornecessary,butthegraceof

theGospelisneitheruniversalnornecessary,thoughrenderingiteasierformentoobtainsalvation.Itisgivenonlytothosewhomakeaproperuse of their natural powers. This grace does not operate directly andimmediatelyonthewillofman,butonlyonhisunderstanding,whichitilluminates,andthroughthisonthewill.Moreover,itisquitepossibleformantoresistitsoperation.Christianityisregardedasanewlawand,incomparison with the Old Testament, as an enlarged law. The realChristian is one who knows God, believes that he is accepted by God,obeys the precepts of the Gospel, and imitates the holiness of ChristratherthanthesinofAdam.

Augustine takes his startingpoint in a radically different view ofman'snatural condition.He regards the naturalman as totally depraved andutterlyunable toperformspiritual good.Healso speaksof grace in theobjectivesense,consistingintheGospel,baptism,theforgivenessofsins,andsoon,butrealizesthatthisisnotsufficient,andthatsinfulmanhasneedofaninternal,spiritualgrace,asupernaturalinfluenceoftheSpiritof God by which the mind is enlightened and the will is inclined toholiness. This grace, which is the fruit of predestination, is freelydistributed according to the sovereign good pleasure of God, and notaccordingtoanymeritsinman.ItisagiftofGodthatprecedesallhumanmerits. It renews the heart, illumines the mind, inclines the will,produces faith,andenablesmantodospiritualgood.Upto the timeofman'srenewalitsoperationisstrictlymonergistic.Augustineatonetimethoughtitwasinthepowerofmantobelieve,butwastaughtotherwisebyPaulin1Cor.4:7.

Hedistinguishesbetweenagratiaoperansandagratiaco-operans.Theformer "goes beforeman when unwilling, that hemay will"; the latter"follows himwhenwilling, that hemay not will in vain." This grace isirresistible,notinthesensethatitconstrainsmanagainsthiswill,butinthesense that it inevitablyrenewstheheart, so that thewillvoluntarilychooses the right. Man receives the first blessings of grace throughbaptism,namely,regenerationortheinitialrenewaloftheheartandtheforgivenessofsins.Bothoftheseblessingscanbelost;infact,neitherofthemcanberetainedunlessthegraceofperseveranceisalsoreceived.

Great significance is attached to faith asmarking the beginning of the

Christianlifeandasthesourceofallgoodworks.Augustineconceivesoffaith primarily as an intellectual assent to the truth, though in somepassages he evidently rises to a higher conception. He distinguishesbetweenfaithingeneralandChristianfaith,betweenbelievinginChristand believingChrist.One really believes in Christ onlywhen one lovesHimandfixesone'shopeonHim.Christianfaithisafaiththatworksbylove.His conception of faith does not yet give due prominence to thatchildliketrustinChristwhichisthecrowningelementofsavingfaith.Hedoesregardfaithasfunctioninginthe.justificationofthesinner,forhesays thatman is justifiedby faith, that is, obtains justificationby faith.Buthedoesnotconceiveofjustificationinapurelyforensicsense.Whileit includes the forgiveness of sins, this is not its main element. InjustificationGodnotmerelydeclaresbutmakes thesinnerrighteousbytransforming his inner nature. He fails to distinguish clearly betweenjustificationandsanctificationand really subsumes the latterunder theformer. The notable feature of Augustine's doctrinal system is that hereferseverythingtothegraceofGod.

The Semi-Pelagians took an intermediate position, denying the totalinability of man to do spiritual good, but admitting his inability toperform really savingworkswithout the assistanceofdivinegrace.ThegraceofGodilluminesthemindandsupportsthewill,butalwaysinsuchamannerthatthefreewillofmanisinnowaycompromised.Infact,thetwo co-operate in the work of redemption. While the grace of God isuniversal and intended for all, it becomes effective in the lives of thosewhomakeaproperuseoftheirfreewill.Strictlyspeaking,itisreallythewillofmanthatdeterminestheresult.It isuptomantobelieveandtocontinueinfaith,andgraceisneededonlyforthestrengtheningoffaith.Thereisnosuchthingasirresistiblegrace.Pelagianismwascondemnedby theSynodofCarthage, by theCouncil ofEphesus, and againby theSynod of Orange, which also rejected Semi-Pelagianism; and, in afashion,AugustinianismappearedtriumphantintheChurch.

This does not mean, however, that the doctrine of Augustine did notundergocertainmodifications.TheteachingsofthisgreatChurchFatherhimself contained some elements thatwere in conflictwith the idea ofman's absolute dependence on the grace of God, and pointed in the

directionofceremonialismandwork-righteousness.Thefollowingpointsmay bementioned: (a) Participation in the grace of God is sometimesmadedependenton theChurchand its sacraments. (b) It is consideredpossiblethatthegraceofGodintheforgivenessofsinsandregenerationis lost again. (c)Thedoctrine of justificationby faith, so vital to a trueconceptionofthewayofsalvation,isrepresentedinawaythatcanhardlybe reconciled with the doctrine of free grace. The grace of God freelygiven,doesnot consistprimarily in the forgivenessof sins—which is infact a minor point in Augustine's system—but in regeneration, in theinfusion of a grace which enablesman to do good works and tomeriteverlasting life. Faith justifies, not because it appropriates therighteousness of Jesus Christ, but because it works by love.Man, it istrue,hasnomerits antecedent to theoperationof grace and thegift offaith,butwhenthegraceofrenewalandfaithiswroughtintheheart,hisworks are indeed meritorious. Fundamentally, therefore, grace merelyserves the purpose of making it possible for man once more to meritsalvation.

Now these elements are certainly foreign to Augustine's main line ofthought,butwereeagerly seizeduponby some in theChurchandgavecountenance to teachings that were more Semi-Pelagian thanAugustinian. There was a protracted struggle between Augustinianismand Semi-Pelagianism, which revealed a strong opposition to thedoctrinesofpredestination,thetotalinabilityofmantodospiritualgood,andirresistiblegrace.AndthepositionthatwasfinallysanctionedbytheChurch,was that of amoderateAugustinianism.Seeberg says that "thedoctrine of 'grace alone' came off victorious; but the doctrine ofpredestination was abandoned. The irresistible grace of predestinationwas driven from the field by the sacramental grace of baptism. Thedoctrine of grace was hereby brought into closer relationship with thepopularCatholicism,asalsobytheexaltationofgoodworksastheaimofthedivineimpartationofgrace."HistoryofDoctrinesI,p.382.

Therewere influences atwork in the Church thatwere contrary to thedoctrineofgraceasthesourceofallspiritualblessings,andoffaithastheprinciple from which good works proceed; influences which inducedmanytoexaltoutwardworks,toinsistontheirmeritoriuscharacter,and

to stress them at the expense of the great subjective conditions ofsalvation. The following should be noted particularly: (a) There was atendency to confound faith with orthodoxy in the assumption that tobelievewassimplytoholdanorthodoxcreed.Theattentionwasfocussedonalistofdoctrinesthatrequiredassent,andwasdivertedfromfaithasanattitudeof thesoul toGod,productiveof the fruitsofrighteousness.(b)Worksofmercyandself-disciplinewerehighlycommendedandoftendescribed as the proper way of making satisfaction for the sins ofbelievers. (c) Many Church Fathers distinguished between divinecommandsandevangelicalcounsels,ofwhichtheformerwereabsolutelybindingonallChristians,whilecompliancewiththelatterwasamatterofchoice, but brought greater reward to those who observed them. Thisdistinctionwasmadeintheinterestofmonasticism,andtendedtomakeeminent holiness The prerogative of a class that was diligent in theperformance of certain externals. (d) The increasing practice of saint-worshipanddependenceon the intercessionofsaints,andespeciallyofthevirginMary,proveddetrimentaltospiritualconceptionsofsalvation.Itledtoexternalismandtorelianceontheworksofman.Theunderlyingideawasthatthesaintshadasuperabundanceofgoodworks,andcouldsimplytransfersomeofthemtoothers.(e)Therewasagrowingtendencytomakesalvationdependentonbaptism,whichmarkedtheentranceintothat Church outside of which there is no salvation. In the East thepossibilityofbeingsavedwithoutbaptismwasdoubted,andintheWestitwasabsolutelydenied.EvenAugustinetaughtthatchildrenwhichdieunbaptizedwerelost.

Questions for Further Study:What accounts for the emphasis on faithfrom the verybeginning?DoesScripture justify the special prominencegiven to repentance?Does the patristic conception of repentance agreewiththescripturalideaofit?Howdoespenancedifferfromrepentance?What led to theconceptionofChristianityasanew law?Howcan itbeexplainedthatfaithwasprimarilyunderstoodasintellectualassenttothetruth? Do the early Fathers relate faith to justification? Have they aproperconceptionofthisrelation?Dotheyregardgoodworksmerelyasthefruitsoffaith,orasmeritoriousperformances?Howdotheyconceiveoftheforgivenessofsinsafterbaptism?WhatdidCyprianmean,whenhewrote,"Therecanbenosalvationtoanyexcept intheChurch"?Inhow

far does Augustine regard divine grace as operating in a purelymonergistic manner? Did he consider regeneration as a sure sign ofelection?Did he regard it as possible that some of the elect are finallylost?

Literature: Means, Faith, An Historical Study, pp. 80–176; Scott, TheNicene Theology, Lecture IV; Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification,pp. 77–98; Swete, The Forgiveness of Sins, pp. 87–116; Bavinck,Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, III, pp. 573–586; Wiggers, AugustinianismandPelagianism,pp.177–228;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,I, pp. 89–98, 180–189, 368–381; Sheldon, History of ChristianDoctrines, I, pp. 125–132, 258–267; Crippen, History of ChristianDoctrine,pp.146–153;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrines, I, cf. Indexunder"grace,""faith,"justification,""baptism,""penance,""goodworks,"andsoforth.

II.TheSoteriologyoftheScholasticPeriod

When we come to the scholastic period, we meet with a variety ofopinions respecting the main elements of the saving process, such asgrace, faith, justification, merit, and good works. On the whole thepositionof theChurchwas thatofamildAugustinianism. thoughthereappears in the Schoolmen a drift in the direction of Semi-Pelagianism.Weshallbrieflyconsidersomeofthemainconcepts.

1.THESCHOLASTICCONCEPTIONOFGRACE.Therewasonepointonwhich the prevailing opinion among the Scholastics was in agreementwith Augustinianism rather than with Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. While the latter asserted that it lay in the power of thenatural man to originate and increase faith, the Scholastics generallymaintainedthatmancouldnotdothiswithouttheaidofsufficientgrace.ButthisisaboutasfarastheagreementwithAugustinewent.Andevenhere the agreement was not complete, for Augustine asserted thenecessity of efficient grace. There was no general agreement on thesubjectofgraceamongtheSchoolmen.TheviewsofPetertheLombard,whichshowanunmistakableaffinitywiththoseofAugustine,wererather

widely accepted.He considered it difficult todefine the exactnature ofgrace, but preferred to think of it as a supernatural quality or powerwrought in man, and distinguished between a gratia operans, whichenablesmanto turntoGod in faith,andagratiaco-operans,whichco-operateswiththewillandiseffectiveinbringingaboutthedesiredresult.Only the former, and this merely as it is first bestowed on man, iswrought in himwithout any action on his part, and is purely a gift ofgratuitous mercy. All further communication of grace to man isdependent on the active consent and co-operation of thewill. The freewill ofman acts, but divine grace assists it as a co-operating principle,andthussecuresthedesiredeffect.

The representation of Alexander ofHales is in general agreement withthatofPeter theLombard,buthe introducedanotherdivision,which ischaracteristic of scholastic theology, when he spoke of a gratia gratisdans, a grace giving freely (referring to the gracious activity ofGod), agratiagratisdata,agracegivenfreely(designatingallactualgracesandinfused virtues), and a gratia gratum faciens, a grace making gracious(graceasapermanentqualityofthesoul,makingitwell-pleasingtoGod).Thomas Aquinas uses these terms in a somewhat different sense, andtherebydetermined their laterusage.Whileheemploys the termgratiagratumfaciensasadesignationofallthesupernaturalhelpsintendedfortherecipient'sownsanctification,herestrictsthetermgratiagratisdatatothosegratuitousgiftsthataimatthegoodofothersratherthanatthatof the recipient. In connection with the gratia gratum faciens hedistinguishes between prevenient or operating and subsequent or co-operatinggrace.Theformerrenewsthewill,andthelatterassistsitinitsoperations;theformermaybecalledsufficientandthelatterefficacious.

2. THE SCHOLASTIC CONCEPTION OF FAITH. There was a generaltendencyinthescholasticperiodtodistinguishbetweenfaithasaformofknowledge,amereassent to thetruth,andfaithasaspiritualaffection,productive of good works. Peter the Lombard makes a threefolddistinction here, namely, Deum credere, Deo credere, and in Deum orChristumcredere.Thefirsttwomeanpracticallythesamething,thatis,to accept as truewhatGod says; but the last denotes faith in a deepersense,bywhichweenterintocommunionwithGod.Hesaysthatitisone

thing to believe God, to believe that what He says is true, and quiteanother tobelieve inGod, that is, tobelievesoas to loveHim, togo toHim, to cleave toHim,and tobe joined to themembersof thebodyofChrist.Healsomakesadistinctionbetween the faithwhich isbelieved,that is, the creed or dogma, and the faith bywhich onebelieves and isjustified.

After his day it became customary to distinguish between a fidesinformis,consistinginamereintellectualassenttothetruth,andafidesformata(charitate),afaithwhichisaugmented,vivified,anddeterminedby the power of love, and of which love is therefore the formativeprinciple. Moreover, it was emphatically declared that, while the fidesinformis was one of the preparations for justification, only the fidesformata,whichincludestherightinwarddispositionandworksbylove,isthe faith that justifies. At the same time the priesthood considered itadvantageous to stress the idea that unquestioning submission to theauthorityoftheChurchwasthemaincharacteristicoffaith,andsomeofthetheologiansratherencouragedthatnotion.

3.THESCHOLASTICCONCEPTIONOFJUSTIFICATIONANDMERIT.Augustine'sconfusionofjustificationandsanctificationwasnotrectifiedbutrather intensifiedbytheSchoolmen.Theircommonteachingis thatjustificationiseffectedthroughtheinfusionofsanctifyinggraceintothesoul by God. It includes on the part of God the infusion of sanctifyinggraceandtheforgivenessofsins,andonthepartofmantheturningofhis free will to God through faith and contrition. Naturally, the lastelementsarenotincludedinthecaseofinfants,forinthemjustificationis entirely theworkofGod, andas such comprisesonly the infusionofgraceandtheremissionoforiginalsin.

The Scholastics were generally agreed as to what was included injustification, and never conceived of it as a mere imputation of therighteousness of Christ to the sinner. They differed, however, in theirdeterminationofthelogicalorderofthevariouselementsinjustification.According toThomasAquinas there is first of all the infusion of grace,thentheturningofthefreewilltoGod,nexttheturningofthefreewillagainst sin, and, finally, the remission of guilt. Alexander ofHales andBonaventura,however,contendforadifferentorder,namely,attritionor

turningfromsin,infusionofgrace,remissionorexpulsionofsin,andtheturning of the freewill toGod.Themoment grace is infused, however,attritionbecomescontrition,andthensinisexpelledbygrace.

Duns Scotus has an altogether different opinion. He conceives ofjustification as consisting of two divine operations, namely, theforgiveness of sins and the renovation of the soul through sanctifyinggrace.Whilethetwoaresimultaneousintime,intheorderofnaturetheforgivenessofsinprecedestheinfusionofgrace.

The Scholastics speak of justification as an instantaneous act, but theCouncilofTrentmakesmentionofaprogressiveincreaseofjustification.With respect to the assurance of possessing the grace of justification,Aquinasmaintains that this isnot the commonprivilegeofbelievers ingeneral.Thesemustbesatisfiedwithareasonableconjecture,baseduponthe signs of grace. Absolute assurance is given only to thosewho haveaccomplished or suffered much for the sake of religion, and then bymeansofaspecialrevelation.

Alongside of the doctrine of free grace, and in connection with that ofjustification, the doctrine of merit came to the foreground. Themeritoriousness of virtue, especially as expressed in good works, wasgenerally taught in the Middle Ages, and was hardly opposed by anyscholastictheologianofnote.ThomasAquinasdistinguishedbetweentwokinds of merit, namely, "merit of condignity," which in strict justicedeserves reward and belongs to Christ alone, and "merit of congruity",which is fit to be rewarded and can be acquired bymen.However, hisfollowers,theThomists,wentsofarastoassertthatafterjustificationamanmaybytheandofdivinegraceacquireameritofcondignity,thatis,candosomethingthatgiveshimaclaimonGod.ThefollowersofDunsScotus denied this, but maintained that good works done beforejustificationmightobtainameritofcongruityandonthisbasisreceiveanincrease of grace. They held that the perfection of the divine characterwouldimpelGodtobestowonmanthegracethusmerited.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the application and appropriation ofdivinegracefinallyassumedthefollowingform.Childrenbornwithinthepale of the Church receive the grace of regeneration, including an

infusionofgraceandforgivenessofsin,inbaptism.Others,however,whocomeunder the influenceof theGospel in lateryears, receive sufficientgrace, that is,an illuminationof theunderstandingandastrengtheningofthewillbytheHolySpirit.TheycanresistbutalsoyieldtothisworkofGod and follow the promptings of the Spirit. By yielding to it and co-operatingwithGodtheypreparethemselvesforthegraceofjustification(gratiainfusa).Thispreparationconsistsofthefollowingsevenelements:(a)AssenttothetruthtaughtbytheChurch;(b)insightintoone'ssinfulcondition; (c) hope in themercy of God; (d) the beginnings of love toGod;(e)anabhorrenceofsin;(f)aresolutiontoobeythecommandmentsofGod;and(g)adesireforbaptism.

It isquiteevidentthat faithdoesnotoccupyacentralplacehere,but isco-ordinated with the other preparations. It is merely an intellectualassent to the doctrines of the Church (fides informis), and acquires itsjustifying power only through the love that is imparted in the gratiainfusa, by which it becomes a fides caritate formata. It can be calledjustifying grace only in the sense that it is the first of the sevenpreparations,andinthatsensethebasisandrootofjustification.

After thissevenfoldpreparation justification itself follows inbaptism.Itconsists in the infusionofgrace, (supernaturalvirtues), followedby theforgivenessofsins.Themeasureofthisforgivenessiscommensuratewiththedegreeinwhichsinisactuallyovercome.Itisgivenfreelyandisnotmeritedbytheprecedingpreparations.Anditispreservedbyobeyingthecommandments and by doing good works. In the gratia infusa manreceives the supernatural strength to do suchworks, and thus tomeritwith a merit of condignity all following grace and everlasting life. ThegraceofGod,therefore,servesthepurposeofenablingmanoncemoretomeritsalvation.Butitisnotcertainthatthepreciousgiftofjustificationwill be retained. It may be lost, not only through unbelief, but by anymortal sin. Itmay be regained, however, by the sacrament of penance,consisting in contrition (or attrition), confession, together withabsolution, and works of satisfaction. Both the guilt of sin and eternalpunishmentmayberemovedbyabsolution,butthetemporalpenaltiesofsincanonlybecancelledonthebasisofworksofsatisfaction.

Questions for Further Study: What factors contributed to the

externalization of religion in the Middle Ages? Did the Scholasticsemphasize external or internal grace? What was their conception ofdivinegrace, andhowdoes their viewcomparewith thatofAugustine?Howdidtheirrepresentationsofthegratiagratisdansdiffer?HowdoesAquinas' use of the terms gratia gratis data and gratia gratum faciensdiffer fromthatof theearlierScholastics?Whatwasthemostprevalentconceptionoffaithinthescholasticperiod?Didtheyconceiveoffaithasexcludingmerit?DidtheyhavethePaulineconceptionofjustificationbyfaith?Whatdidjustificationinclude?Howisfaithrelatedtojustificationin the Roman Catholic system? How do you account for the RomanCatholicpositionthatordinarybelieverscannothaveanassuredfaith?

Literature:Means, Faith, AnHistorical Study, pp. 177–226; Buchanan,TheDoctrineofJustification,pp.87–99;Swete,TheForgivenessofSins,pp. 117–127; Ritschl, History of the Christian Doctrine of JustificationandReconciliation,pp.73–120;McGiffert,HistoryofChristianThought,II, pp. 185–312; Bavinck,GereformeerdeDogmatiek, III, pp. 580–586;Otten, Manual of the History of Dogmas, II, pp. 234–271, 338–360;Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines, I, pp. 370–380; Crippen,History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 153–158; Histories of Seeberg andFisher,cf.Index.

III.ReformationandPost-ReformationSoteriology

1.THELUTHERANORDEROFSALVATION

It was especially the system of penances as developed in the RomanCatholicChurchandthetraffic inindulgencescloselyconnectedwithit,thatpromptedLuthertotakeuptheworkofreformation.Hehimselfwasdeeply engaged in works of penance, when from Rom. 4:17 the truthflasheduponhim thatman is justifiedby faith only, andhe learned tounderstand that therepentancedemanded inMatt.4:17hadnothing incommonwiththeRomanCatholicworksofsatisfaction,butconsistedinrealinnercontritionoftheheartandwasafruitofthegraceofGodonly.Itdawneduponhimthatthereallyimportantthinginrepentancewasnotthe private confession before a priest, which has no foundation in

Scripture,noranysatisfactionrenderedbyman,sinceGodfreelyforgivessin;butaheartfeltsorrowonaccountofsin,anearnestdesireto leadanewlife,andtheforgivinggraceofGodinChrist.Thereforehemadethedoctrineofsinandgracecentraloncemoreinthedoctrineofsalvation,and declared that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was "thearticle of a standing or falling Church." The result was that theReformationrejectedallthatwasmostdistinctiveinmediævaltheology,such as indulgences, expiatory penances, priestly absolution in theRoman Catholic sense, works of supererogation, and the doctrine ofhumanmerit.

ScholarsdifferastotherelationinwhichLutherplacedrepentanceandfaith to eachother.Ritschlholds thathe first regarded repentanceas afruitoffaith,butafterwardsplaceditbeforefaithaswroughtbythelaw;but Lipsius denies this change and maintains that the great Reformeralwaysregardedpoenitentiaasincludingcontrition,wroughtbythelaw,and faith as a believing acceptance of Jesus. Both are instrumental inleadingthesinnertoChrist,andthereforedonotyetpresupposeaunionwithHim.AtthesametimeitcanbesaidthatintheearlierperiodofhislifehisoppositiontoRomanCatholicwork-righteousnesspromptedhimtostress the fact that true repentance is the fruitof faith,and that inalater period hemet antinomianismwith the assertion that true faith isprecededbyadeepfeelingofpenitence.Buthealwaysconceivedof thewayofsalvationasconsistingincontritio(penitenceinthelimitedsense,thatissorrowonaccountofsin),fides,andbonaopera,alifeconsecratedtoGod.Thisorder is retainedby theearlyLutheran theologians,and isalsothatoftheconfessionalstandardsoftheChurch.

TheLutheranordosalutis,whichatfirstcomprisedonlythreeelements,became far more elaborate in the writings of the great Lutherantheologiansoftheseventeenthcentury.ItwasbasedratherartificiallyonActs 26:17, 18, and made to include calling, illumination, conversion,regeneration, justification, renovation and glorification. In the doctrinethat all who live under the Gospel receive sufficient grace, either inbaptismorthroughthepreachingoftheword,wherebytheyareenabledto not-resist the grace of God in regeneration, the germ of synergismmadeitsappearanceinLutheransoteriology,andtheprocessofsalvation

was conceived of as follows: Children born of Christian parents, whocannotyetresistthegraceofGod,areregeneratedinbaptismandreceivethe gift of faith. Others, however, are called in later life with a vocatiosufficiens,which isalike inall cases,andwhichby illumining themindandstrengtheningthewillenablesthemtonot-resistthegraceofGod.IftheydonotresisttheworkoftheHolySpiritincalling,theyarebroughtto contrition (penitence in the limited sense), are regenerated, and areendowedwiththegiftoffaith.Byfaiththeyarethenjustified,receivetheforgivenessofsins,areadoptedaschildrenofGod,areincorporatedintoChrist,arerenewedbytheHolySpirit,andarefinallyglorified.

Suchistheprocessinallthoseinwhomitiscompleted;butitsbeginningdoesnotyetinsureitscompletion.ThegraceofGodisalwaysresistible,canberesistedallalongtheline,canalwaysbelostnomatterhowfaritswork has progressed, and that not merely once but several times.Notwithstanding the strong assertions that man owes his salvationentirely to God, it is held that man can frustrate the divine operationeffectively,sothatthedecisionreallylieswithhim.

Furthermore,theLutheranordosalutiscentersinfaithandjustification.Strictly speaking, calling, repentance, and regeneration, are merelypreparatoryandservethepurposeofleadingthesinnertoChrist.ItisnotuntilhebyfaithacceptstherighteousnessofChrist,thatGodpardonshissin,setshimfreefromthelaw,adoptshimasHischild,andincorporateshim into the mystical body of Jesus Christ. Everything, therefore,dependsonfaith.Withitmanentersincreasinglyonthepossessionoftheblessingsofsalvation,butwithoutithelosesall.Henceitisoftheutmostimportance to retain this faith. While this is the ordo salutis as it isusually represented, it does not always reveal exactly the same form inlaterLutherantheology.

2.THEREFORMEDORDEROFSALVATION.InReformedtheologytheordosalutisacquiredasomewhatdifferent form.This isdue to the factthatCalvinconsistentlytookhisstartingpoint inaneternalelectionandinthemysticalunionestablishedinthepactumsalutis.HisfundamentalpositionisthatthereisnoparticipationintheblessingsofChrist,exceptthroughalivingunionwiththeSaviour.Andifeventheveryfirstoftheblessingsof savinggracealreadypresupposesaunionwithChrist, then

thegiftofChristtotheChurchandtheimputationofHisrighteousnessprecedesallelse.IntheCouncilofPeaceaunionwasalreadyestablishedbetweenHimandthosewhoweregivenuntoHimbytheFather,andinvirtueofthatunion,whichisbothlegalandmystical,alltheblessingsofsalvationareideallyalreadytheportionofthosewhoareofChrist.Theyarereadyfordistributionandareappropriatedbythemthroughfaith.

Fromthisfundamentalpositionseveralparticularsfollow.Thesalvationof theelect isnotconceivedatomistically, since theyareall eternally inChrist, and are born out ofHim, who is theHead, asmembers ofHismystical body.Regeneration, repentance, and faith are not regarded asmerepreparations, altogether apart fromanyunionwithChrist, nor asconditions to be fulfilled by man, either wholly or in part, in his ownstrength.Theyareblessingsofthecovenantofgrace,whichalreadyflowfromthemysticalunionandthegrantofChristtotheChurch.Penitenceassumes a different place and character than in the Lutheran order.Calvin recognizeda repentancepreceding faith,but saw in itmerelyaninitialfear,alegalrepentancethatdoesnotnecessarilyleadtofaithandcannot be regarded as an absolutely essential preparation for it. Hestresses the repentance that flows from faith, that is possible only incommunionwithChrist,andthatcontinuesthroughoutlife.Moreover,hedoesnotregarditasconsistingofcontritioandfides.Herecognizedthecloseconnectionbetweenrepentanceandfaith,anddidnotconsidertheformer possible without the latter, but also pointed out that Scriptureclearly distinguishes the two, and therefore ascribed to each of them amoreindependentsignificanceintheorderofsalvation.

But however Calvin may have differed from Luther as to the order ofsalvation,hequiteagreedwithhimonthenatureandimportanceofthedoctrine of justification by faith. In their common opposition to Rometheybothdescribe itasanactof freegrace,andasa forensicactwhichdoesnotchangetheinnerlifeofmanbutonlythejudicialrelationshipinwhichhestandstoGod.Theydonotfindthegroundforitintheinherentrighteousness of the believer, but only in the imputed righteousness ofJesusChrist,whichthesinnerappropriatesbyfaith.Moreover,theydenythatitisaprogressiveworkofGod,assertingthatitisinstantaneousandatoncecomplete,andholdthat thebelievercanbeabsolutelysurethat

heisforevertranslatedfromastateofwrathandcondemnationtooneoffavorandacceptance.

Lutheran theology did not always remain entirely true to this position.Faith issometimesrepresentedasaworkthat isbasic forregeneration;and the mediating theologians base justification on the infusedrighteousnessofJesusChrist.

3.THEARMINIANORDEROFSALVATION.TheArminiansteachthatGodbestowsauniversalgraceonman,which issufficient toenable thesinner tobelieveandobey theGospel;andthat thecallwhichcomestomanthroughthepreachingoftheWordexertsamerelymoralinfluenceon his understanding and will. If he assents to the truth, trusts in thegrace of God and obeys the commandments of Christ, he receives agreatermeasureofdivinegrace,isjustifiedonaccountofhisfaithand,ifheperseverestotheend,becomesapartakeroflifeeternal.

The School of Saumur moved in the same general direction. Cameronteaches that the will of man always follows the final dictate of theunderstanding, and that therefore in regeneration and conversion aneffective illumination of the mind is all that is required and all thatactuallytakesplace.ThereisnosupernaturaloperationoftheHolySpiritdirectly on the will of man. And Pajon holds that a special internaloperationofthegraceofGodisunnecessary,andthattheefficacyofthedivinecallingdependsonitscongruitywiththeexternalcircumstancesinwhichitcomestoman.

TheseArminian teachings led to thatrepresentationof theordosalutis,which was known in England as Neonomianism. According to theNeonomiansChristatonedforthesinsofallmen,thatis,madesalvationpossibleforallandbroughtthemallintoasalvablestate.Hedidthisbymeeting the demands of the old law, the lawof the covenant ofworks,andbysubstitutingforitanewlaw,alawofgracewhichissatisfiedwithfaith and conversion, and a true, albeit imperfect, obedience of therepentant sinner. This work of Christ may be called the sinner's legalrighteousness,sinceitwasinstrumentalinsatisfyingandabrogatingtheoldlaw.Butevangelicalrighteousness,consistinginobediencetothenewlaw, that is, faithandconversion, constitutes thegroundof the sinner's

justification.Thisrationalistictendencyfinallyresultedinthatliberalismwhich recognizes Christ only as a great prophet and teacher, whoproclaimed the truth of God and sealed it with His death, and whoseexamplemanhasbuttofollow,inordertoobtaineternalsalvation.

Methodismisanother,morepietistic, formofArminianism.It isaverseto the idea of gradual conversions, and knows of no lengthy period ofcontrition,followedbyaperiodinwhichthedarknessisdispelledandthelightbreaks through, anda still later seasonwhendoubt turns into thegladassuranceofsalvation.ItconcentratesalleffortsinthepreachingoftheGospelonasinglepoint:castingthesinnerdownbythepreachingofthelaw,dragginghim,asitwere,totheverybrinkoftheabyss,fillinghisheartwith fearand trembling; and thenplacinghimatoncebefore theglorious Gospel of redemption, and pleading with him to accept JesusChrist by faith and be saved from eternal damnation. The sinner whodoessoacceptChristpassesinasinglemomentfromthegreatestmiseryinto the most rapturous ecstasy, and from the deepest gloom into themosttranscendentjoy.Thissuddentransitioncarrieswithanimmediateassurance of being saved.ManyMethodists hold that a second radicalchange is necessary, and is actually wrought in man, for entiresanctification.

4.MINORCONCEPTIONSOFTHEORDEROFSALVATION

a. Antinomian. The Antinomians really leave no room for a subjectiveapplicationoftheredemptionwroughtbyChrist.Theydonotdistinguishbetween theworkofChrist inprocuring, and that of theHolySpirit inapplyingtheblessingsofsavinggrace;butspeakasifChristdidallthereis tobedone,as ifhe tookuponhimselfnotonlyourguiltbutalsoourpollution,so thatweare justified,regenerated,andsanctified—inshort,areperfectinHim.InviewofthefactthatmanissubjectivelyrighteousandholyinChrist,theonlythingrequiredofhimistobelieve,thatis,tobecomeconsciousofthatfact.HemayrestassuredthatGodcanseenosininhimasabeliever.Hisso-calledsinsarenotreallysins,butmerelyworksoftheoldman,whicharenotreckonedtothebeliever,sinceheisfree from the law, is perfect in Christ, and glories in the grace ofGod.SometimestheAntinomianwillgoevenfartherthanthat,andclaimthatChristdidnotreallymeritsalvation,sincethiswaseternallyreadyinthe

counselofGod,butmerelyrevealedtheloveofGod.Tobelieve,issimplytolayasidethefalsenotionthatGod'sangeriskindledagainstus.Suchideasas theseprevailedamongsomeof theAnabaptists, theLibertines,theHattemists,andcertainsectsbothinEnglandandinNewEngland.

b.Mystical.InGermany,England,andtheNetherlandsalargenumberofpreachers arose who sought the essential thing of the Christian life inexperience, and emphasized the fact that true faith is experience. Theyenlarged on what one must needs experience before one can beconsideredasatruebeliever,andindoingthiswereprimarilyguided,notbytherepresentationsofScripture,butbytheexperiencesofthosewhowerereputedtobe"oaksofrighteousness."Theyheldthatthelawshouldbe preached to all, but the Gospel only to certain "qualified" sinners.Beforemenmight reallybelieve themselves tobe childrenofGod, theyhad to be brought under the terrors of the law, had to pass throughagonizingstruggles,hadtofeeltheaccusingpangsofconscience,andhadto writhe in the throes of a fearful anticipation of eternal damnation.Theywerenotpermittedtobelievewithoutsomespecialwarrantof theHoly Spirit, and even then their faith could at first be only a faith thatflees for refuge to Jesus Christ, a hungering and thirsting forrighteousness.Thisfaithprecedesandistheconditionofjustification;init the sinner entrusts himself to Christ, in order to be justified. Thisrefugeseekingfaithdoesnotatonceturnintoanassuredfaith.Thereisagreatdistancebetweenthetwo,anditisonlyaftermanyupsanddowns,after all kinds of doubts and uncertainties, and throughmany spiritualstruggles, that the believer passes into the assurance of salvation—theprivilegeofbutaselectfew.Thisassuranceoftencomestohiminaveryspecialway,byavoice,avision,awordfromScripture,andothersimilarmeans.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:Whatwerethethreeusualstagesoftheordosalutis in the theology preceding the Reformation? Should the ordosalutis stress the application or the appropriation of the work ofredemption?HowdoLutherans,Reformed,andArminiansdifferonthispoint?WhatelementsdotheLutheransconsideras themost importantin the ordo salutis? How do the Reformed differ from them in thisrespect?WhatviewsdidSchwenkfeld,Agricola,Osiander,andtheDutch

Mennonitesholdastofaithandjustification?HowdotheLutheransandthe Anglicans conceive of regeneration by baptism? Do the Reformedconnectthegraceofregenerationwithbaptisminanyway?WhatistheWesleyandoctrineofentiresanctification?WhatviewsdidtheReformed,theArminians,andtheWesleyansholdastotheassuranceofsalvation?

Literature: Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek III, pp. 587–690;Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, pp. 100–219; Swete, TheForgivenessofSins,pp.128–141;Heppe,GeschichtedesPietismus;ibid.,Dogmatik, II, pp. 262–395; Pope, Christian Theology, II, pp. 439–451;Bavinck,RoepingenWedergeboorte;Kramer,HetVerbandvanDoopenWedergeboorte;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrines,II,pp.153–181;Crippen,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.158–169;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,II,cf.Index.

THEDOCTRINEOFTHECHURCHANDTHESACRAMENTS

I.TheDoctrineoftheChurch

1.INTHEPATRISTICPERIOD.ThedoctrineoftheChurchalsohasitsroots in the earliest literature of the Christian era. In the ApostolicFathersandintheApologetestheChurchisgenerallyrepresentedasthecommunio sanctorum, the people of God, which He has chosen for apossession. While it is spoken of as the true Israel, its relation to itshistoricpreparationinIsraelwasnotalwayswellunderstood.Buteveninthesecondcenturyaperceptiblechangecameaboutintheconceptionofthe Church. The rise of heresies made it necessary to designate someexternal characteristics by which the true Catholic Church could beknown. The result was that the Church began to be conceived as anexternalinstitute,ruledbyabishopasadirectsuccessoroftheapostles,and inpossessionof the true tradition.The ideabecameprevalent thatthe universal Churchwas the historical prius of all local churches. Thelocalchurcheswerenotconceivedassomanyseparateunits,butasparts

of theuniversalChurchwith theepiscopacy;andtheywereregardedastruechurchesonlyaslongastheywereloyalandsubjecttothecatholicChurchasawhole.

In the sects, however, another tendency manifested itself, namely, tomaketheholinessofitsmemberstherealmarkofthetrueChurch.ItwasrepresentedbyMontanisminthemiddleofthesecond,byNovatianisminthemiddleofthethird,andbyDonatisminthebeginningofthefourthcentury. These sects were born of a reaction against the gradualsecularization and the increasing worldliness and corruption of theChurch. The Montanist leaders inveighed with prophetic authorityagainstthelaxityandworldlinessofthechurches,andinsistedonasceticpractices. They spoke of gross sins committed after baptism as beingunpardonable; but also of the possibility of atoning formortal sins bymartyrdom. The Novatians did not share the prophetic claims of theMontanists, but followed their example in striving for the purity of theChurch. They held that the Church had no power to forgive thosewhohad denied the faith during the Decian persecution and soughtreadmission to theChurch.Finding thatmanybishopsreadmittedsuchmembers,andthatthechurchesingeneralwerelaxindiscipline,theyre-baptized those who joined their circle. The Donatists represented thesame tendency during the persecution of Diocletian. They insisted onrigorous ecclesiastical discipline andpure church-membership, rejectedunworthyministers,andprotestedagainstStateinterferenceinreligiousmatters; but at the same time themselves courted the favour of theemperor.

TheChurch Fathers took issuewith all these sectaries and emphasizedever increasingly the episcopal institution of the Church. Cyprian, thediscipleofTertullian,hasthedistinctionofbeingthefirsttodevelopthedoctrineoftheepiscopalChurch.Heregardedthebishops,chosenbytheLordHimself,as thereal successorsof theapostles,andmaintainedonthebasisofMatt.16:18,thattheChurchwasfoundedonthebishops.ThebishopwasregardedastheabsolutelordoftheChurch.ItwasuptohimtodecidewhocouldbelongtotheChurchandwhomightberestoredtoitsfellowship.HeconductedtheworshipoftheChurchasapriestofGod,andinthatcapacityofferedsacrifices.Cyprianwasthefirstonetoteach

an actual priesthood of the clergy in virtue of their sacrificial work.Accordingtohimthebishopsconstitutedacollege,calledtheepiscopate,andas suchrepresented theunityof theChurch.Hebased theunityoftheChurchontheunityofthebishops.AtthesametimehemaintainedtheparityofthebishopsandascribednoprimacytothebishopofRome.Rebellion against the bishop was regarded as rebellion against God.Anyonewhorefusedtosubmittotherightfulbishoptherebyforfeitedhisfellowship with the Church and consequently also his salvation. Truememberswill always obey and remain in the Church, outside ofwhichthere is no possibility of being saved. This conception of the ChurchlogicallycausedCypriantodenythevalidityofbaptismadministeredbyheretics.TohimitwasperfectlyevidentthatonewhowashimselfoutsideoftheChurchcouldnotinductothersintoit.Moreover,hebelievedthatonlytheleaderswhoreceivedtheSpirit—andHewasreceivedonlyintheChurch—couldimparttheforgivenessofsins.ThusCyprianwasthefirstto bring out clearly and distinctly the idea of a catholic Church,comprehending all true branches of the Church of Christ, and boundtogetherbyavisibleandexternalunity.This iswhatCunninghamcalls"Cyprian'sgrandcontributiontotheprogressoferrorandcorruptionintheChurch."HistoricalTheologyI,p.169.

Augustinemovedinthesamegeneralcircleofthought.Itwashisstrugglewith the Donatists that compelled him to reflect more deeply on theessenceoftheChurch.Sadtosay,hisconceptionoftheChurchdoesnotaltogetherharmonizewithhisdoctrineof sinandgrace.AsamatteroffactthereisacertaindualisminhisideaoftheChurch.OntheonehandheisthepredestinarianwhoconceivesoftheChurchasthecompanyoftheelect, thecommuniosanctorum,whohavetheSpiritofGodandarecharacterizedbytruelove.ThereallyimportantthingistobelongtotheChurch so conceived, andnot to be in theChurch in amerely outwardsenseandtopartakeofthesacraments.Itisthroughtheintercessionofthis community that sins are forgiven and that gifts of grace arebestowed.Therealunityof thesaintsandthereforeof theChurch isaninvisibleone.AtthesametimeitexistsonlywithinthecatholicChurch,foritisthereonlythattheSpiritworksandthattruelovedwells.

OntheotherhandheistheChurch-man,whoholdstotheCyprianicidea

of the Church, at least in its general aspects. The true Church is thecatholic Church, in which the apostolic authority is continued byepiscopalsuccession.Itisspreadthroughouttheworld,andoutsideofitthere isno salvation, for it isonlywithin itspale thatone is filledwithloveandreceivestheHolySpirit.Itssacramentsarenotmerelysymbols,butarealsoaccompaniedwithanactualexertionofdivineenergy.Godreally forgives sins in baptism, and in the Lord's Supper actually givesspiritualrefreshmenttothesoul.ForthepresentthisChurchisamixedbody,inwhichgoodandevilmembersarepresent,butitisdestinedforperfectpurityinthefuture.

TheDonatistscriticizedAugustinebysayingthathesplittheChurchintotwoChurches, themixedChurchof thepresentand thepureChurchofthefutureinheaven.InanswertothemhemanitainedthepurityoftheonecatholicChurchalsointhepresent,butsoughtitmoreparticularlyintheobjectiveinstitutionwithitsoffices,sacraments,andministrations.Inaddition to that, however, he also defended a certain subjective purity.WhileheadmittedthatgoodandevilmemberswerecommingledintheChurch,heheldthat thesetwowerenot in it inexactly thesamesense.While the wicked cannot be outwardly excluded, they are neverthelessinwardlyseparatedfromthepious:theybelongtothehouse,butarenotin the house; they are the evil tumors in the body of Christ that aredestinedtobesloughedoff.ThusAugustineeffectedinthoughtthepuritywhichtheDonatistssoughttorealizeinactuallife.

Anotherpointtobetakenintoconsiderationhere,isAugustine'sdoctrineof the Kingdom of God. The earlier Church Fathers used the term"Kingdom of God" to describe the result and goal of the Church'sdevelopment, that is, as thedesignationof the eschatologicalKingdom.ButAugustinesays: "TheChurch isevennowtheKingdomofHeaven."BythishemeansprimarilythatthesaintsconstitutetheKingdomofGod,thoughhealsoappliesthetermtotheleadersoftheChurchcollectively.While theKingdomisessentially identicalwith thepiousandholy, it isalso the episcopallyorganizedChurch.The contrastbetween the cityofGodandthecityoftheworld(or,ofthedevil)isregardedasequivalenttothatbetweenChristianityandheathenism,betweenthegoodandthebad(including angels and devils), between the saints and the wicked even

withintheChurch,betweenthespiritualandthecarnal,betweentheelectandthenon-elect.TheevilworldisneverrepresentedasequivalenttotheState,butsincethecivitasDeimaybeandisfrequentlyconceivedastheempiricalChurch,itispossiblethat—asisfrequentlysaid—hethoughtofthecivitasmundiasfindingitsconcreteembodimentintheState.

AugustinedidnoteffectatruesynthesisofhisdivergentviewsrespectingtheChurch, and itmaywell bequestioned,whether sucha synthesis ispossible. Harnack calls attention to the fact that in Augustine "theexterna societas sacramentorum, which is communio fidelium etsanctorum,and finally also thenumeruspraedestinatorumareoneandthe same Church." Outlines of the History of Dogma, p. 362.Consequentlyathreefoldanswermaybegiventothequestion,WhoareintheChurch?Itmaybesaid:(a)all thepredestinated, includingthosewho are still unconverted; or (b) all believers, including thosewhowillrelapse; or (c) all thosewho have part in the sacraments. But then thequestionarises,WhichisthetrueChurch,theexternalcommunionofthebaptized,orthespiritualcommunionoftheelectandthesaints,orboth,since there is no salvation outside of either? Moreover, how is theChurch,asconstitutedofthenumberoftheelect,relatedtotheChurchasthe communionof the faithful?They are clearlynot identical, for somemaybeof the faithfulwhoarenotof theelect andare finally lost.AndwhenAugustinesaysthatnoonehasGodforaFather,whodoesnothavethe Church, that is the one visible catholic Church, for a mother, thequestion naturally arises, What about the elect who never join theChurch?Again,iftheonevisiblecatholicChurchis,ashemaintains,thetruebodyofChrist,doesnot thisprove thecontentionof theDonatiststhatwickedpersonsandhereticscannotbetoleratedinit?Oncemore,ifthe Church is founded on the predestinating grace of God, how is itpossiblethattheywhohaveoncereceivedthegraceofregenerationandtheforgivenessofsinsinbaptism,shouldlosethisagainandthusforfeitsalvation?And,finally,ifGodistheonlyabsolutesourceofallgraceanddispensesitinasovereignway,canitbeconsideredpropertoascribethispower to the visibleChurchwith its sacraments, and tomake salvationdependentonmembershipinthatorganization?InconnectionwiththispointitmaybesaidthatAugustine'spredestinationviewskepthimfromgoing as far as some of his contemporaries did in the direction of

sacramentalism.

2.INTHEMIDDLEAGES.Itisastrikingfactthat,whilethetheologiansoftheMiddleAgeshaveverylittletosayabouttheChurch,andthereforecontribute but few elements to the development of the doctrine of theChurch,theChurchitselfactuallydevelopedintoaclose-knit,compactlyorganized,andabsolutehierarchy.Theseeds for thisdevelopmentwerefound in the writings of Cyprian and in the teachings of Augustinerespecting theChurch as an external organization.Theother andmorefundamental ideaof thegreatChurchFather, thatof theChurchas thecommunio sanctorum, was entirely disregarded and thus remaineddormant. Two ideas became very prominent during the Middle Ages,namely, that of the primacy of Rome, and that of the identity of theChurchandtheKingdomofGod.

ThetraditiongainedcurrencyinthefourthandfifthcenturiesthatChristhadgivenPeteranofficialprimacyovertheotherapostles,andthatthisapostlehadbeenthefirstbishopofRome.Furthermore, itwasassertedthat this primacy was passed on to his successors, the bishops of theimperialcity.This ideawasnotonlyfosteredbysuccessivebishops,butalso appealed to the popular imagination, because at the fall of theWestern Empire it seemed to contain a promise of the renewal, inanother form, of the ancient glories of Rome. In the year 533 theByzantine Emperor Justinian recognized the primacy of the bishop ofRomeovertheoccupantsoftheotherpatriarchalsees.GregorytheGreatstill refused the title "UniversalBishop",but in607 itwasconferredonhissuccessor,BonifaceIII,whohadnoscruplesinacceptingit.Fromthistime on the spiritual primacy of the succeeding bishops of Rome wasgenerallyhonouredintheWest,thoughstrenuouslyresistedintheEast.ItmarksthebeginningofPopery.TheChurchthusreceivedanexternalandvisiblehead,whosoondevelopedintoanabsolutemonarch.

Alongside of this the idea developed that the Catholic Church was theKingdomofGodonearth,andthatthereforetheRomanbishopricwasanearthly kingdom. This notionwas greatly encouraged by two notoriousforgeries,the"DonationofConstantine"andthe"ForgedDecretals",bothofwhichwerefoisteduponthepeopleintheninthcenturytoprovethatthe authority then claimedby thePopeshadbeen conferredupon, and

exercisedby,theirpredecessorsasearlyasthethirdcentury.

TheidentificationofthevisibleandorganizedChurchwiththeKingdomofGodhadimportantandfar-reachingconsequences.IftheChurchaloneistheKingdomofGod,thenallChristiandutiesandactivitiesmusttakethe form of services rendered to the Church, for Christ speaks of theKingdomas thehighest goodandas thegoal of allChristian endeavor.Naturalandsocial lifethusassumedaone-sidedchurchlycharacter.Allthat did not come under the control of the Church was considered aspurelysecular,anditsrenunciationbecameaworkofspecialpiety.Thelifeofhermitsandmonksstoodoutasagrandideal.

Another result was that an undue significance was ascribed to theoutwardordinancesoftheChurch.TheKingdomofGodisrepresentedintheNewTestament,notonlyastheaimoftheChristianlife,butalsoasthesum-totalofChristianblessedness.Consequently,alltheblessingsofsalvationwerethoughtofascomingtomanthroughtheordinancesoftheChurch.Withouttheirusesalvationwasconsideredtobeimpossible.

And,finally,theidentificationoftheChurchandtheKingdomledtothepractical secularization of the Church. As an external kingdom theChurch felt in duty bound to define and defend its relation to thekingdoms of the world, and gradually began to pay more attention topoliticsthantothesalvationofsouls.Worldlinesstooktheplaceofother-worldliness. Itwas but natural that theRomanPontiffs, in view of thesuperior character of theKingdomofGod andof its all-comprehensivedestiny,shouldseektorealizetheidealoftheKingdombydemandingofthe emperors subjection to the rule of the Church. This was theconsuming ambition of such great Popes as Gregory VII (Hildebrand),InnocentIII,andBonifaceVIII.

It was not until after the Reformation that the Roman Catholicconceptionof theChurchwasofficially formulated.Yet it isbest to callattention to the form it finally assumed at this point, because the ideaalready found actual embodiment in the Church of Rome before theReformation, andbecause theProtestant conception isbestunderstoodwhen seen against the background of the Roman Catholic idea of theChurch. TheCouncil of Trent did not venture upon a discussion of the

properdefinitionoftheChurch.Thiswasduetothefactthat,whilethehighestofficialsoftheChurchdesiredrecognitionofthepapalsystem,agreat number of the bishops were thoroughly episcopal in their ideas.They were not ready to admit that all ecclesiastical authority belongsprimarily to thePope, and that the bishops derive their authority fromhim;butheldthatthebishopsderivetheirauthoritydirectlyfromChrist.ThisclashingofviewsmadeitimprudenttoattempttheformulationofadefinitionoftheChurch.

TheTridentineCatechism,however,defines theChurchas "thebodyofallthefaithfulwhohaveliveduptothistimeonearth,withoneinvisiblehead,Christ,andonevisiblehead, thesuccessorofPeter,whooccupiestheRomansee."CardinalBellarmine(1542–1621)surpassedallothersofhisdayingivingaclearrepresentationoftheRomanCatholicconceptionof theChurch.AccordingtohimtheChurch is"thecompanyofallwhoareboundtogetherbytheprofessionofthesameChristianfaithandbythe use of the same sacraments and are under the rule of legitimatepastorsandprincipallyChrist'svicaronearth, theRomanPontiff."Thefirst clause of this definition (profession of the same Christian faith)excludes all unbelievers; the second (use of the same sacraments),catechumens and those that are excommunicated; and the third(obedience to the Roman Pontiff), all schismatics, such as the GreekChristians.

ThefollowingparticularsshouldbenotedinconnectionwiththeRomanCatholicconceptionoftheChurch:

a.ThevisiblenatureoftheChurchisstronglyemphasized.Theultimatereasonfor thevisibilityof theChurch is found in the incarnationof thedivine Word. The Word did not descend into the souls of men, butappeared as aman amongmen, and in harmonywith this appearancenowcarriesonhiswork througha visiblehumanmedium.TheChurchcanevenberegardedasacontinuationoftheincarnation.ChristHimselfprovided for the organization of theChurch by appointing the apostlesandbyplacingoneofthem(Peter)attheheadoftheapostles.ThePopesare the successors ofPeter, and thebishops, of the apostles in general.The former possess direct and absolute authority,while the latter haveonlyalimitedauthorityderivedfromthePopes.

b. A very important distinction is made between the teaching church(ecclesiadocens)andthehearing, learningorbelievingchurch(ecclesiaaudiens, discens, or credens). The former consists of the whole cleruswith the Pope at its head; the latter, of all the faithfulwhohonour theauthorityoftheirlawfulpastors.Itisprimarilytotheecclesiadocensthatthe Roman Catholic ascribes the attributes which he applies to theChurch.She is theoneonly,catholic,apostolic, infallible,andperpetualChurch, which denies all others the right of existence, and thereforeassumesanintolerantattitudeoveragainstthem.Theecclesiaaudiensisaltogetherdependentonit,andhaspartinthegloriousattributesoftheChurchonlyinaderivativemanner.

c.TheChurch ismadeup, like ahumanperson, of bodyand soul.ThesouloftheChurchconsistsatanyparticulartimeof"thesocietyofthosewho are called to the faith of Christ, and who are united to Christ bysupernatural gifts and graces." Not all the elect are in the soul of theChurch;neither are all thosewhoare in it elect, since there are alwayssome that fall away; and someof thosewho arenot in the body of theChurchmaybeinthesoul,suchascatechumenspossessingthenecessarygraces.ThebodyoftheChurchisthesocietyofthosewhoprofessthetruefaith,whethertheybejustorsinners.OnlybaptizedpersonsbelongtotheChurch; but some baptized persons, such as catechumens, do not yetbelongtoit.

d. In the Church Christ distributes the fulness of those graces andblessingswhichHemeritedforsinners.Hedoesthisexclusivelythroughthe agency of the clergy, that is, through the legitimate officers of theChurch.Consequently, the instituteof theChurch logicallyprecedes theorganism, the visible Church precedes the invisible. The Church is amater fidelium before she is a coetus fidelium. The ecclesia docensprecedestheecclesiaaudiens,andisfarsuperiortoit.

e.TheChurchisexclusivelyaninstituteofsalvation,asavingark.Assuchshehas three functions: (1) topropagate the true faithbymeansof theministry of the Word; (2) to effect sanctification by means of thesacraments; and (3) to govern believers according to ecclesiastical law.But it is only the ecclesia docens that cando all this. Strictly speaking,

therefore, she constitutes the Church. She is (under Christ) the onlyMediatorofsalvation,thedepositaryanddistributorofgraceforallmen,and the only ark of safety for the entire human race. The order in theworkofsalvationis,notthatGodbymeansofHisWordleadsmentotheChurch,butjustthereverse,thattheChurchleadsmentotheWordandtoChrist.

3.DURINGANDAFTERTHEREFORMATION.The conception of theChurchthatwasbornoftheReformationwasquitedifferentfromthatoftheRomanCatholicChurch.Lutherwasgraduallyweanedfromthepapalconception.TheLeipsicdisputationopenedthewayfornewideasontheChurchanditsauthority.

a.TheLutheranView.LutherrejectedtheideaofaninfallibleChurch,ofa special priesthood, and of sacraments that operate in amagical way;andrestoredto itsrightfulplacethescriptural ideaof thepriesthoodofallbelievers.HeregardedtheChurchasthespiritualcommunionofthosewhobelieveinChrist,acommunionestablishedandsustainedbyChristas its Head. He stressed the oneness of the Church, but distinguishedbetween two aspects of it, the one visible and the other invisible.According to Seeberg Luther was the first tomake this distinction.Hewas careful topoint out, however, that these arenot two churches, butsimplytwoaspectsofthesameChurch.HisinsistenceontheinvisibilityoftheChurchservedthepurposeofdenyingthattheChurchisessentiallyanexternalsocietywithavisiblehead,andofaffirmingthattheessenceof the Church is to be found in the sphere of the invisible: in faith,communionwithChrist,andinparticipationintheblessingsofsalvationthroughtheHolySpirit.

This sameChurch,however,becomesvisibleandcanbeknown,notbytheheadshipofthePope,norbytheruleofcardinalsandbishops,norbyallkindsofexternalparaphernalia,butbythepureadministrationoftheWordandthesacraments.ThereallyimportantthingformanisthathebelongstothespiritualorinvisibleChurch;butthisiscloselyconnectedwithmembershipinthevisibleChurch.ChristgatherstheChurchbyHisSpirit,butindoingthisbindsHimselftothechosenmeans,theWordandthesacraments.Hencethenecessityofanoutwardecclesiasticalsociety,whichLutherdescribesas"thenumberormultitudeofthebaptizedand

believingwhobelongtoapriestorbishop,whetherinacity,orinawholeland, or in the whole world." He admits that the Church, externallyconsidered, will always harbor a number of hypocritical and wickedmembers,whodonotshareinthespiritualexercisesoftheChurch.TheAugsburgConfessiondefines thevisibleChurchas "the congregationofthe saints inwhich theGospel is rightly taught and the sacraments arerightlyadministered."

b. The Anabaptist View. The Anabaptists represent the most extremereactionagainsttheRomanCatholicexternalizationoftheChurch.WhileRomebased itsChurchorganization largelyon theOldTestament, theydenied the identity of theOldTestamentChurchwith that of theNew,andinsistedonaChurchofbelieversonly.ThoughchildrenhadaplaceintheChurchoftheOldTestament,theyhavenolegitimateplaceintheChurchof theNewTestament, since theycanneitherexercise faithnormakeaprofessionofit.Intheirinsistenceonthespiritualityandholinessof the Church many of them even scorned the visible Church and themeans of grace. In distinction from the Lutheranswith their territorialsystem,theAnabaptistsdemandedtheabsoluteseparationofChurchandState,someevengoingtotheextremeofsayingthataChristiancannotbeamagistrate,maynotswearanoath,nortakepartinanywar.

c. The Reformed View. The Reformed conception of the Church isfundamentallythesameastheLutheran,thoughdifferingfromitinsomerelativelyimportantpoints.BothagreethattherealessenceoftheChurchisfoundinthecommuniosanctorumasaspiritualentity,thatis, intheinvisibleChurch.ButwhiletheLutheransseektheunityandholinessoftheChurchprimarilyintheobjectiveordinances,suchastheoffices,theWord,andthesacraments,theReformedfindthesetoafargreaterextentin the subjective communion of believers. According to the former theblessings of salvation canbe obtained only in and through theChurch,since God in dispensing His grace binds Himself absolutely to theordainedmeans, thepreachingof theGospel and theadministrationofthesacraments.SomeoftheReformed,however,wereoftheopinionthatthe possibility of salvation extends beyond the borders of the visiblechurch,andthattheSpiritofGodisnotabsolutelyboundtotheordinarymeans of grace, but may work and save "when, where, and how he

pleases."Then,too,theReformedspokeoftheinvisibilityoftheChurchinmore than one sense: (1) as ecclesia universalis, becauseno one caneversee theChurchofallplacesandall times; (2)ascoetuselectorum,which will not be completed and visible until the parousia; and (3) ascoetus electorum vocatorum, because we are not able to distinguishabsolutelythetruebelieversfromthefalse.Finally,theReformedfoundthetruemarksoftheChurch,notonly inthetrueadministrationoftheWord and the sacraments, but also in the faithful administration ofChurchdiscipline.BesidesallthesetherewerealsoimportantdifferencesastothegovernmentoftheChurch.

d.DivergentPost-ReformationViews

(1) Socinian and Arminian. This altered conception of the Church hadimportant practical consequences. Uniformity made way formultiformity, and this, in turn gave rise to various Confessions. TheReformerssoughttomaintaintheproperconnectionbetweenthevisibleandtheinvisibleChurch,buthistoryprovedthistobeverydifficult.Andchurches outside of the Lutheran and Reformed communions oftensacrificedtheinvisibletothevisibleChurch,orviceversa.TheSociniansindeedspokeoftheinvisibleChurch,butinactuallifeforgotallaboutit,since they conceived of the Christian religion simply as an acceptabledoctrine.AndtheArminiansfollowedsuitbydenyingexplicitlythattheChurch is essentially the invisible communion of the saints and bymakingitprimarilyavisiblesociety.Moreover,theyrobbedtheChurchofitsindependencebyyieldingtherightofdisciplinetotheState,retainingfor theChurchonly the right topreach theGospeland toadmonish itsmembers.

(2)LabadistandMethodist.Theoppositetendencyalsomanifesteditself,namely, to disregard the visible Church. Jean de Labadie founded an"evangelical congregation" at Middelburg in 1669, to which only truebelieversmightbelong.Pietismingeneralinsistedstronglyonapracticalreligion.Itnotonlycombattedworldliness,butviewedtheworlditselfasanorganismofsin,whichevery"awakened"Christianmustshun,lestheput his soul in jeopardy. At the same time it made people indifferenttowardsthe institutionalChurchwith its functionsandsacraments,andbrought them together in conventicles.The realChurchwasconsidered

ever-increasingly insuchcirclesasthecommunionof thosewhosharedinaspecialilluminationoftheHolySpirit,andwho,invirtueoftheinnerlight,alsoagreedoutwardlyintheirprofessionandlife.ThisviewisalsofoundinsomecirclesofMethodism,theconsistentapplicationofitbeingseen in the Salvation Army. The converts do not form a church, but astanding army of Jesus Christ, distinguished from the world by adistinctiveuniformandaspecialmodeoflife.

(3)RomanCatholic.TheRomanCatholicChurchmovedevenfartherinthedirectionofanabsolutehierarchysincethedaysoftheReformation,andbecamemorepronouncedinaffirmingtheauthorityofthePope.TheGallicanParty,ofwhichBoussetwastheoriginal leader,maintainedfortwocenturies, inopposition to theJesuitsand theUltramontaneParty,that thePopemayerr inhisdecisions, and is always subordinate toanoecumenical council. This was also the common teaching of a largenumber of Roman Catholic textbooks. In 1791 fifteen hundred EnglishCatholicssignedastatementdenyingthatpapalinfallibilitywasadogmaoftheRomanCatholicChurch.However,theoppositionoftheGallicanswasgraduallyovercome, and in 1870 theVaticanCouncildeclared that"the Roman Pontiff when speaking ex cathedra—that is to say whenfulfillingtheofficeofpastorandteacherofallChristiansinvirtueofhissupreme apostolic authority—defines a doctrine regarding faith ormorals, de fide vel moribus, as a doctrine to be held by the universalChurch,thenthroughthedivineassistancewhichhasbeenpromisedhiminthepersonofSt.PeterheenjoysfullythatinfallibilitywhichthedivineRedeemerwishedhisChurchtohaveindefiningdoctrinetouchingfaithandmorals;andconsequentlysuchdefinitionsoftheRomanPontiffareofthemselvesunchangeableandarenottobechangedthroughapprovaloftheChurch."TheGermanswerenotwillingtosubmittothisdecision,andthereforeconstitutedthemselvesthe"OldCatholicChurch",withDr.Doellinger,thehistorian,as leader,andDr.Reinkensas itsfirstbishop.Over against the Protestants the Roman Catholics continue to glory intheir unity, though this ismore apparent than real. The Church is notonlydividedonthequestionofpapalinfallibility,butalsoharborsaneverincreasing number of monastic orders, often leading to rivalries andbitter disputes,which show that they stand farther apart thanmany oftheProtestantdenominations.Moreover,theReform,theLos-von-Rome,

and theModernisticmovements clearly show that the boasted unity oftheChurchofRomeisamerecorporateuniformityratherthanaunityofspiritandpurpose.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:WhatspecialsignificancedidCyprianhaveforthedevelopmentofthedoctrineoftheChurch?CanAugustine'sviewsontheChurchbereducedtoaconsistentunity?Howcanweaccountforthedualityinhisrepresentation?Howdidthepriestlyconceptionoftheministry arise? How do the Augustinian and the Roman CatholicconceptionoftheKingdomofGoddiffer?Whatistheessentialdifferencebetween the Roman Catholic view of the Church and that of theReformers? How do the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, and theReformed respectively conceiveof the relationbetween theChurchandtheState?Howdopresent-dayModernistsconceiveoftheChurch?

Literature: Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol I; A. Taylor Innes,Church and State; Schaff, Church and State; Hagenbach, History ofDoctrines,I,pp.271–277;II,pp.62–67,312–319;III,pp.122–140,369–374;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,I,pp.218–228;II,pp.394–398;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrines, I, pp. 133–136, 268–270,384–391; II, pp. 182–191, 378–382; Otten, Manual of the History ofDogmas, I, pp. 171–179, 323–337; II, pp. 214–233;Crippen,History ofChristianDoctrine,pp.170–172,182–189,209–221;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,cf.Index.

II.TheDoctrineoftheSacraments

1.THESACRAMENTSINGENERAL

a.DevelopmentoftheDoctrineBeforetheReformation

The term "sacraments" is derived from the Latin "sacramentum", bywhich the Vulgate rendered the Greekmusterion, which is used in theNewTestamenttodesignatesomethingthatwasnotrevealedintheOldTestament, but later on acquired another connotation. It became thedesignation of all that was mysterious and incomprehensible in theChristianreligionandinotherreligions,includingmysteriousactionsorthings.ThismeaningofthetermwasalsotransferredtotheLatinwordsacramentum,whichoriginallydesignatedanoathrequiredofasoldier,or a sum of money deposited as security in cases of litigation andforfeitedtotheStateortothegods,ifthecasewaslost.

This accounts for the fact that theword "sacrament"hada ratherwideapplicationintheearlyChristiancenturies.Itcouldbeusedofanythingtowhichtheideaofsanctitycouldbeattached.Tertullianappliesittotheworksof theCreator,and to theworkof the incarnateSon,particularlyHis death. The sign of the cross, the salt that was given to thecatechumens, the ordination of the priests, marriage, exorcism, thecelebrationofthesabbath—theywereallcalledsacraments.Atthesametime the term was applied predominantly to baptism and the Lord'sSupper. The same loose usage of the term is found in the writings ofAugustine,Hilary,LeotheGreat,GregorytheGreat,andothers.

OnthewholeitmaybesaidthattheScholasticsfollowedtheAugustinianconceptionofthesacramentsasvisiblesignsandmediumsofaninvisiblegrace.Therewasnounanimity as to theirnumberwhich rangesall theway fromfive to thirty (HugoofSt.Victor).Peter theLombardwas thefirst to name the well known seven of the Roman Catholic Church. Invirtue of the fact that his Sententiae became the general handbook oftheology,hisprivateopinionsoonbecameacommunisopinio,andfinallytheCouncilofFlorenceofficiallyadopted these seven in 1439:baptism,

confirmation, eucharist, penance, priestly consecration, marriage, andextremeunction.

This restriction of the number of sacraments naturally led to thedelimitation of the concept. A doctrine of the sacraments was still adesideratum:therelationofthesensibletothespiritualelementwasnotclearlydefined;neitherwasthereaclearrepresentationofthemannerinwhich the sacraments work. Augustine had occasionally made theoperationof thesacramentssodependentonfaith in therecipient, thattheexternalsacramentbecameonlyanimageofwhatGodworksinthesoul.Thisnotionwasalso clearly reflected inoneof theviews thatwasprevalent in the scholastic period andwhich, in fact,was dominant forsome time, namely, that the sacraments do not contain but onlysymbolizegrace,thoughGodhascovenantedtoaccompanytheuseofthesacraments with a direct operation of His grace in the souls of therecipients.ThisviewisfoundinBonaventuraandDurandus,andbecamethe prevailing one in the Middle Ages through the advocacy of DunsScotus.

Alongside of this view, however, therewas another, namely, that gracetrulyresidesinthevisiblesacrament.Thisdoesnotmeanthatitresidesinthevisibleelementsasapermanentpower,butthat"thewordsoftheinstitution effect a spiritual efficacy (virtus) in the external sign,whichresides inthe latteruntil thisvirtushasaccomplished itsend."HugoofSt. Victor and Thomas Aquinas advocated this view, which was finallyadoptedbytheChurch.

Inconnectionwiththequestion,whethertheoperationofthesacramentsdepends in any way on the worthy or unworthy reception oradministrationofthem,Scholasticismgravitatedtotheopinionthattheyare effectual ex opere operate, that is, in virtue of their objectiveadministration.Thismeans,ofcourse,thatthereceptionofsacramentalgraceisnotdependentonthespiritualdevotionoftherecipient,noronthecharacterof theofficiatingpriest, thoughaspiritualpreparation forthe reception of the sacrament will certainly bring its reward. Theworkingofthesacramentsexopereoperatowasconsideredtomarkthesuperiority of the New Testament sacraments over those of the OldTestament.

TheCouncilofTrentpassedseveraldecisionsrespectingthesacraments,ofwhich the following are themost important: (1) The sacraments arenecessaryuntosalvation,thatis,theymustbereceivedoratleastdesiredbythosewhowouldbesaved.Itcannotbesaid,however,thattheyareallnecessary foreveryman. (2)Theycontain thegracewhich they signify,andconferthisexopereoperato,orthroughtheactperformed,upononewhodoesnotpresentanobstacletotheiroperation,suchasamortalsinor some other obstacle. (3) The intention of the officiating priest toadministerthesacramentinallsincerity,doingwhattheChurchintends,isessentialtoitsvalidity.HemustintendtodowhattheChurchdoes,butfor the rest may be in mortal sin. (4) The sacraments of baptism,confirmation, and order (or, ordination) impress an indelible characteron the soul of the recipient, and therefore are not repeated. (5) Thepriests, and the priests only are the legitimate administrators of thesacraments.However,confirmationandordinationcanbeadministeredbybishopsonly,andbaptismmayincasesofnecessitybeadministeredbylaymen.

Besides baptism and the Lord's Supper the following sacraments arerecognized:confirmation,penance,extremeunction,ordination(orders),andmarriage.Thesemaybebrieflydescribedasfollows:(1)Confirmationis the sacrament in which, through the bishop's laying on of hands,unction,andprayer,thosealreadybaptizedreceivethesevenfoldgraceofthe Holy Spirit, so that they may steadfastly profess their faith, andfaithfullyliveuptoit.(2)Penanceisthesacramentbywhichforgivenessforpost-baptismalmortalsinsisobtainedbythosewhoareheartilysorryfor their sins, sincerely confess them, and are willing to perform thepenance imposed upon them. (3) Extreme unction is the sacrament inwhichthosewhoappeartobeneardeath,bytheanointingwithholyoil,and by the prayer of the priest, receive special grace to confide in themercyofGodandtoresistthefinalattacksandtemptationsofthedevil.(4)OrdinationorHolyOrders is thesacramentwhichcommunicates tothose who receive it the full power of the priesthood, together with aspecialgracetodischargetheirdutieswell.(5)Marriageisthesacramentbywhichamanandawomanarejoinedinholywedlock,andreceivethenecessarygracetodischargethedutiesoftheirstatefaithfullyuntildeath.

The following points deserve attention here: (1) Rome conceives of thegrace communicated in the sacraments exclusively as an infusedsanctifying grace that raisesman to the supernatural order andmakeshimapartakerofthedivinenature.Itisregardedasasupernaturalgiftthat comes to man from without. The forgiveness of sins, which isgenerally connected with baptism in Scripture, occupies a relativelyunimportant place in the system of Rome. (2) The connection of thesacramentwiththeWordispracticallyignored.TheWordhassome,butonlyapreparatorysignificance in that itworksapurelyhistorical faith,whichcannotreallysave,exceptwhenitisinformedbylove,thatis,byagratiainfusa.Sincethisloveiscommunicatedonlybythesacrament,thelatter acquires an independent significance alongside of theWord andreallysurpasses it invalue. (3)Faith isnotanabsoluterequirement forthereceptionofthesacrament.Sanctifyinggraceispresentasamaterialelement in the sacrament, is communicatedby it exopereoperato, andpresupposesatmostthattherecipientplacesnoinsuperableobstructionsintheway.

b.TheDoctrineoftheReformersandofLaterTheology

IneveryoneofthepointsjustmentionedtheReformationsubjectedthedoctrine of the sacraments to a scriptural revision. Luther, Calvin, andZwingli were agreed in their opposition to Rome. They united in theposition that the grace imparted in the sacrament is first of all theforgivinggraceofGod,whichbearsontheguiltofsinratherthanonthelower nature of man deprived of the donum superadditum. They alsosharedtheconvictionthatthesacramentsaresignsandsealsattachedtotheWord,whichcommunicatenokindofgracethatisnotalsoimpartedbytheWord,andwhichhavenovalueapartfromtheWord.And,finally,theyalsoconcurredintheopinionthat,notthesacrament itself,but itsoperationandfruit isdependentonfaith in therecipient,andthereforealwayspresupposessavinggrace.

Butwhiletheywereatoneontheseparticulars,itsoonbecamemanifestthattheydifferedonimportantpoints.Thesacramentsbecameaboneofcontentionamongthem.InoppositiontoRome,Lutherat firststressedthefactthattheoperationofthesacramentsisdependentonfaithintherecipient, and later on gave greater prominence to their intimate and

essential connection with theWord, of which they are signs and seals.TheydifferfromtheWordespeciallyinthisthattheyarenotaddressedtotheChurchingeneral,buttoindividuals.AsaresultofhisstrugglewiththeAnabaptistshe,after1524,emphasizedtheabsolutenecessityof thesacraments and their objective character, making their effectivenessdependentonthedivineinstitutionratherthanonthesubjectivestateoftherecipient.Cf.Heppe,Dogm.III,p.380.Thesamecontroversycausedhimtoinsistonthetemporal,corporal,andlocalconnectionbetweenthesignandthethingsignified.InhisopinionthedivinepowerispresentinthesacramentasthevisibleWord,andassuchthevehicleofdivinegrace.

Since the sacraments are administered only to believers, Zwingliconceivesofthemasbeingfirstofallsignsandproofsoffaith,andonlysecondarily means for the strengthening of faith as reminders of theblessings appropriated by faith, and as directing our faith away fromourselves to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. For him the sacramentswere memorials and badges of profession, though he also usesexpressionswhichseemtopointtoadeepersignificance.

Calvin also regards the sacraments as acts of confession, but onlysecondarily.TohimtheyarefirstofallsignsandsealsofthepromisesofGod which direct attention to the riches of His grace. He finds theiressentialelementinthewordofpromise,inthecovenantofgrace,andinthe person of Christ with all his blessings. But he did not conceive ofthesespiritualblessingsasdepositedinthevisibleelements,asinherentin these,making themmore or less independent distributors of divinegrace. For him God is and remains the only source of grace, and thesacramentsaremerelytheinstrumentsbywhichitiscommunicated.Godcommunicates this grace only to believers by nourishing andstrengtheningtheir faith.Unbelieversmayreceivetheexternalsign,butdonotparticipateinthethingsignified.

Outside of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches the Zwinglianconceptionof thesacramentsenjoyedgreatpopularity.TheAnabaptistsdenied that the sacraments are seals and regarded them as signs andsymbolsonly.Theygiveavisiblerepresentationoftheblessingsconveyedtobelievers,butdothismerelyasactsofconfession;theycommunicatenograce.

Socinians regarded the Lord's Supper as a memorial of Christ's death,andbaptismmerelyasaprimitiveriteofprofessionforJewishandpaganconverts,withoutanypermanentvalidity.TheArminiansdospeakofthesacraments as exhibiting and sealing the blessings of grace, but do notwant to convey the idea that they are seals of the promise of God andcommunicate grace. They are rather simply signs of the covenantbetweenGodandman, inwhich the formerexhibitsHisgrace,and thelatterpledgestoleadaholylife.

Rationalists reduced the sacraments tomerememorials and badges ofconfession, aiming at thepromotionof virtue. Schleiermachermade anattempt to maintain their objective character, and to unite all thedifferent views in a higher synthesis, but did not succeed. In thenineteenth centurymany Neo-Lutherans and the Puseyites in EnglandadvocatedadoctrineofthesacramentsthatremindsusverystronglyoftheRomanCatholicconception.

2.BAPTISM

a.DevelopmentoftheDoctrineBeforetheReformation

Baptismwasforemostamongthesacramentsastheriteofinitiationintothe Church. Even in the Apostolic Fatherswe find the idea that it wasinstrumental in effecting the forgiveness of sins and in communicatingthenewlifeofregeneration.Inacertainsenseitmaybesaid,therefore,that some of the early Fathers taught baptismal regeneration. Yet thisstatement requires some limitations: (1) They held baptism to beefficacious in the case of adults only in connectionwith the right innerdispositionandpurpose,thoughTertullianseemedtothinkthattheveryreceptionoftheritecarriedwithittheremissionofsins.(2)Theydidnotregardbaptismasabsolutelyessentialtotheinitiationofspirituallife,orthelifeofregeneration;butvieweditratherasthecompletingelementinaprocessofrenewal.

Infant baptism was evidently quite current in the days of Origen andTertullian,thoughthelatteropposeditonthegroundoftheinexpediencyofplacingyoungchildrenundertheheavyresponsibilityofthebaptismal

covenant.Thegeneral opinionwas thatbaptismought inno case toberepeated; but there was no unanimous opinion as to the validity ofbaptism administered by heretics. The bishop of Rome asserted that itcould be regarded as valid, but Cyprian denied this. The former finallygainedtheupperhand,anditbecameafixedprinciplenottore-baptizethosewho had been baptized according to the trinitarian formula. Themodeofbaptismwasnot indispute.While immersionwaspracticed, itwas not the only mode, and certainly was not considered to be of theessenceofbaptism.

From the second century on the conception of baptism graduallychanged. The idea gained ground ever increasingly that the sacramentworks more or less magically. Even Augustine promoted this view tosomeextent,thoughheconsideredfaithandrepentanceasthenecessaryconditions of baptism in the case of adults. In the case of infants,however,heseemstohaveassumedthatthesacramentwaseffectiveexopereoperato.Heheldthatchildrenwhichdieunbaptizedare lost,andthat in the case of those who are baptized the faith of the Church,represented by the sponsors, can be accepted as that of the child.Moreover, he maintained that baptism in every case impresses on thechildacharacterindelibilis,invirtueofwhichitbelongsbyrighttoChristandHisChurch.Hedefinedtheeffectofbaptismmorespecificallythanwascustomarybystating that,while itwholly removesoriginal sinasamatterofguilt,itdoesnotwhollyremoveitasacorruptionofnature.Ingeneral baptism was now considered as absolutely necessary, thoughmartydomwas regarded as a full equivalent for baptismal washing. Inviewofthesefacts,itstandstoreasonthatinfantbaptismwasgenerallypracticed.

TheScholasticsatfirstsharedtheviewofAugustine,thatbaptisminthecase of adults presupposes faith, but gradually began to consider thesacramentaseffectiveexopereoperato,andtominimizetheimportanceofsubjectiveconditions.ThusthewaywaspavedfortheRomanCatholicconception of baptism, according to which it is the sacrament ofregenerationandofinitiationintotheChurch.Itcontainsthegracewhichitsignifiesandconfersitexopereoperatoonallthosewhodonotputanobstacleintheway.Thegracesoconferredisoftheutmostimportance,

sinceitincludes:(1)Thecharacterindelibilis,whichbringsoneunderthejurisdictionof theChurch. (2)Deliverance (a) fromtheguiltoforiginalsinand fromtheguiltof sinscommittedup to the timeofbaptism; (b)fromthepollutionofsin,thoughconcupiscenceremainsasthefomentingagentofsin;and(c)frometernalpunishmentandalsofromalltemporalpunishments,except inso faras theseare thenaturalresultsofsin. (3)Spiritual renewal by the infusion of sanctifying grace and of thesupernatural virtuesof faith,hope, and love. (4) Incorporation into thecommunion of the saints, and into the visible Church of believers.Becauseofthisimportanceofbaptism,itwasdeemedquiteessentialthatitshouldbeadministeredassoonaspossible,andincasesofnecessitybylaymenorevenbynon-Christians.


TheoppositionoftheReformationtotheRomanCatholicdoctrineofthesacramentsdidnotcenter inbaptism,but in theLord'sSupper. In fact,the German Reformers adopted much of the baptism of the RomanCatholicChurch,evenretainingmanyoftheceremoniesconnectedwithit,suchasthesignofthecross,exorcism,sponsorship,andsoon.Luthertaught that theWord of Godwith its intrinsic divine powermakes thewaterofbaptismagraciouswateroflifeandawashingofregeneration.Itis not simply common water, but "the water comprehended in God'scommandandconnectedwithGod'sWord."SmallerCatechismIV.1.Atfirst hemade the salutary effect of baptism dependent on faith, but inviewofthefactthatchildrencanhardlyexercisefaith,henextheldthatGod byHis prevenient graceworks faith in the unconscious child, andfinallyhe turned thequestion involvedover to thedoctors, saying, "Wedo not baptize upon that (faith in the infant), but solely upon thecommandofGod."ManyoftheLutherantheologians,however,retainedthedoctrineofaninfant-faith,eitherasapre-conditionforbaptism,orasan immediately produced effect of its administration. In the latter casetheimplicationis,ofcourse,thatthesacramentworksexopereoperato.Itworksregenerationandtakesawaytheguiltandpowerofsin,butdoesnotentirelyremoveitspollution.Theradixautfomespeccatiremains.

In opposition to both Luther and Zwingli a new sect arose, during theReformation, in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, which

denied the validity of infant baptism. Its adherents were calledAnabaptistsbytheiropponents,sincetheyinsistedonrebaptizingthosewho were baptized in infancy, when these desired to join their circle.They did not consider this a rebaptism, however, because they did notregardinfantbaptismasatruebaptism.IntheirestimationtherewasnotruebaptismthatwasnotprecededbyavoluntaryprofessionoffaithinJesus Christ. Children really have no standing in the Church. Thespiritual successors of theAnabaptists prefer to speak of themselves asAnti-Pædo-Baptists.

TheReformedproceededontheassumptionthatbaptismwasinstitutedfor believers and therefore doesnotwork but strengthens faith.But byproceedingonthisassumptionthey faceda twofolddifficulty.Theyhadto prove in opposition, especially to the Anabaptists, but also to theRoman Catholics and the Lutherans, that children can be regarded asbelievers before baptism, and as such ought to be baptized. And inaddition to that theyhad todefine the spiritual benefitwhich the childreceivesinbaptism,seeingthatitisnotyetinapositiontoexerciseactivefaith, and therefore cannot be strengthened in it. On the whole littleattentionwas paid to the last point. Itwas generally said that baptismgives the parents the assurance that their child is incorporated in thecovenant,isarichsourceofconsolationforthechildasitgrowsup,andgives it, even in its unconscious state, a title to all the blessings of thecovenant.

Theanswerstothequestion,howthechildrenthatreceivebaptismaretobe considered varied from the start. There was general agreement inestablishing the right of infant baptism by an appeal to Scripture andparticularly to the scriptural doctrine of the covenant. Children ofbelievers are covenant children, and are therefore entitled to thesacrament. Opinions differed, however, as to the implications of thiscovenantrelationship.Accordingtosomeitwarrantstheassumptionthatchildrenofbelievingparentsare regenerateduntil thecontraryappearsindoctrineorlife.Others,deeplyconsciousofthefactthatsuchchildrenoften grow upwithout revealing any signs of spiritual life, hesitated toaccept that theory.Theyadmittedthatregenerationbeforebaptismwasquitepossible,butpreferred to leave itanopenquestion,whetherelect

children are regenerated before, at (during), or perhaps long afterbaptism.Itwasfeltthatthecasesvariedanddidnotconformtoageneralrule.Inharmonywiththisideathespiritualeffectofbaptismasameansof grace was not limited to the time of the administration of thesacrament.Someevenregardedbaptismasnothingmorethanasignofanexternal covenant.Under the influenceofSocinians,Arminians,andAnabaptists it became quite customary in some circles to deny thatbaptism was a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act ofprofessiononthepartofman.

3.THELORD'SSUPPER

a. Development of the Doctrine Before the Reformation. At first theLord's Supper was accompanied with a common meal, for which thepeople brought the necessary ingredients. These gifts were calledoblationsandsacrifices,andwereblessedbythebishopwithaprayerofthanksgiving.Incourseoftimenamesderivedfromthispractice,suchasprosphorai (oblations), thusiai (sacrifices), and eucharistia(thanksgiving),wereappliedtotheLord'sSupper itself.Thiswasratherharmlessinitself,butledtoadangerousdevelopment,whentheclericalidea was strengthened and the bishop became a priest. Then thethanksgivingwasregardedasaconsecrationoftheelementsintheLord'sSupper,andtheSupperitselfassumedthecharacterofasacrificebroughtby the priest (bishop). This, in turn, affected the representation of thesacramental union. The symbolical or spiritual conception found inOrigen,andessentiallyalsoinEusebius,Basil,GregoryofNazianze,andothers,wassupplantedbythedoctrinethatthefleshandbloodofChristwere in someway combinedwith thebreadandwine in the sacrament(Cyril,GregoryofNyssa,Chrysostom,JohnofDamascus),andthisagainpassedintothedoctrineoftransubstantiation.

In theWest the development of the doctrine of the Lord's Supperwasslower,butledtothesameresult.AugustineadmittedthatthesacramentwasinasensethebodyofChrist,andinthelanguageofScriptureoftenspoke of bread andwine as the body and blood of Christ. At the sametime he clearly distinguished between the sign and the thing signified,andasserted that the substanceofbreadandwine remainsunchanged.Hestressed thecommemorativeaspectof the rite,andmaintained that

thewicked,thoughtheymayreceivetheelements,donotpartakeofthebody.Heevenprotestedagainstthesuperstitiousreverencethatwaspaidto the ordinance by many in his day. In fact, the views of Augustineretardedthefulldevelopmentoftherealistictheoryforalongtime.

During theMiddle Ages the doctrine as taught by Augustine graduallygaveway for the doctrine of theRomanCatholic Church. In 818A.D.PaschasiusRadbert formallypropounded thedoctrine that thematerialelementsinthesacramentarebydivinepowerliterallychangedintotheverybodythatwasbornofMary, theoutwardappearanceofbreadandwinebeing,afterconsecration,amereveilthatdeceivesthesenses.Thisdoctrine was opposed by the foremost theologians of the day, andparticularlybyRabanusMaurusandRatramnus,whopointsoutthatthenew teaching confounds the sign with the thing signified and replacesfaithbyagrossmaterialism.Thenewdoctrinewasdefended,howeverbyGerbert (1003), and shortly after that became the subject of a furiouscontroversy. About the year 1050 Berenger of Tours affirmed that thebodyofChrist is indeedpresent in theEucharist,not inessence,but inpower;thattheelementsarechangedbutnot insubstance;andthat, inordertosecurethischangeandpower,notmerelyconsecration,butfaithonthepartoftherecipientaswellisneeded.Hisviewswerestrenuouslyopposed by Lanfranc (1089) andHumbert (1059),whomade the crassstatement that "the very body of Christ was truly held in the priest'shands, broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful." This viewwasfinally defined by Hildebert of Tours (1134), and designated as thedoctrineoftransubstantiation.Itbecameanarticleoffaith,whenitwasformally adopted by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. This doctrinesuggested a good many problems to the Schoolmen, such as thoserespectingthedurationof thechangeeffected, therelationofsubstanceandaccidents, themannerofChrist'spresence inbothelementsand ineverypartofthem,theadorationofthehost,andsoon.

TheCouncilofTrentdealtwiththesubjectoftheeucharistasrecordedinSessioXIII of itsDecrees andCanons.The gist ofwhat is contained ineightChaptersandelevenCanonsmaybestatedasfollows:JesusChrististruly,really,andsubstantiallypresentintheholysacrament.ThefactthatHeisseatedattherighthandofGodaccordingtothenaturalmode

of existencedoesnot exclude thepossibility thatHemaybepresent inseveralotherplacesatthesametimeaccordingtoahigher,spiritualandsupernaturalmodeofexistence.Wemaynotbeabletoexplainhow,butwe can conceive of the possibility of His substantial and sacramentalpresence inseveralplacessimultaneously.Bythewordsofconsecrationthe whole substance of bread and wine is changed into the body andbloodofChrist.TheentireChristispresentundereachspeciesandundereachparticleofeitherspecies,sothathewhoreceivesoneparticleofthehostreceivesthewholeChrist.Heispresentnotonly inthemomentoftheadministration,butevenbeforethereceptionoftheelementsbythecommunicant, since theLord called thebreadhisbodyevenbefore thedisciplesreceivedit.InviewofthispresenceofChristintheeucharisttheadoration of the host and the festival of the Corpus Christi are butnatural. The chief effects of the sacrament are: "increase of sanctifyinggrace, special actual graces, remission of venial sins, preservation fromgrievous(mortal)sin,andtheconfidenthopeofeternalsalvation."


The Reformers one and all rejected the sacrificial theory of the Lord'sSupper and the mediæval doctrine of transubstantiation. But that isaboutasfarastheiragreementinthematterwent.WhentheyaddressedthemselvestothepositivetaskofconstructingascripturaldoctrineoftheLord's Supper, theirways parted. Luther at first taught that bread andwinewere signs and seals of the forgiveness of sins, but soon adoptedanotherview, inwhichheopposedZwingli's figurative interpretationofthe words of the institution. He asserted the necessity of taking thesewordsliterallyandassumedarealbodilypresenceofChristintheLord'sSupper. At the same time he rejected the Catholic doctrine oftransubstantiation, substituting for it thedoctrine of consubstantiation,defendedatlengthbyOckhaminhisDeSacramentoAltaris.InhislargerCatechismLutherexpresseshimselfasfollows:"TheverybodyandbloodofourLordJesusChristare,bythewordofChrist,institutedandgiventous Christians to be eaten and drunk in and under bread and wine."Accordingtohimthebodyisalsoreceivedbyunbelieverswhopartakeofthesacrament,butonlytotheircondemnation.

Zwingli opposed especially the idolatry of the mass, and denied

absolutely the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Heinterpretedthewordsoftheinstitutionfiguratively,takingtheword"is"tomean "signifies", as inGen.41:26;John10:9; 15:1. In thebreadandwine he saw mere symbols, and in the sacrament itself an act ofcommemoration. Yet he did not deny the spiritual presence of Christ."The true body of Christ", says he, "is present to the contemplation offaith; but that his natural body is really and actually present in theSupper,oriseatenwithourmouths.…weconstantlyasserttobeanerrorrepugnantto theWordofGod."Whilehesays,"There isnothing intheeucharistbutcommemoration",healsousesexpressionsthatwouldseemtopointtoadeepersignificance.Hispositionisnotaltogetherclear.

Calvinheldanintermediateposition.HeagreedwithZwingliinrejectingabsolutely the bodily, local, and substantial presence of Christ in theLord's Supper. But he had especially two objections to the view of theSwiss Reformer, namely that the latter, (1) stresses the activity of thebelievers rather than the gracious gift of God in the sacrament, andtherefore conceives of the Lord's Supper one-sidedly as an act ofprofession;and(2)sees in theeatingof thebodyofChristnothingelseandnothingmorethananexpressionofbeliefinHisnameandconfidenttrustinHisdeath.WhiledenyingthebodilyandlocalpresenceofChristintheLord'sSupper,heyetagreedwithLuther,thatChristisreallyandessentially present in his entire person, and is received as such bybelievers.HisviewissuccinctlyandcorrectlyexpressedbySheldonwhenhesays:"Histheory"inbriefwasthattheglorifiedhumanityofChristisafountainofspiritualvirtueorefficacy;thatthisefficacyismediatedbytheHoly Spirit to the believing recipient of the eucharistic elements; thataccordingly the body of Christ is present in the eucharist in virtue ofefficacy;thattheeatingofChrist'sbodyisentirelyspiritual,bymeansoffaith,theunbelievinghavingnopartinit,andanoralmanducationbeingoutofthequestion."HistoryofChristianDoctrinesII,p.207.ThisviewwasincorporatedintheReformedConfessions,andbecamethecommonpropertyofReformedtheology.TheThirty-NineArticlesoftheChurchofEnglandarenotverydefiniteonthesubject.

After the Reformation the Zwinglian conception of the Lord's Supperfoundfavorinsomecircles.Itwassometimesregardedasasacramentof

a purely external covenant, to which all who gave no offense wereentitled. Thus the way was paved for Rationalism, which adopted theviewsof theSocinians, theArminians,andtheMennonites,whosaw intheLord'sSupperonlyamemorial,anactofprofession,andameansformoralimprovement.UndertheinfluenceofSchleiermachertheobjectivecharacterofthesacramentasameansofgracewasagainstressed.Manyof the mediating theologians (Vermittelungs-theologen) rejected theLutheranconsubstantiationandmanducatiooralis, andapproached thedoctrine of Calvin by teaching that Christ is spiritually present in theLord's Supper, and in the sacrament impartsHimself andHis spiritualblessingstobelievers.Others,suchasScheibel,Rudelbach,andPhilippireaffirmedtheoldLutheranposition.InEnglandtheOxfordMovementmarksareturntothepositionofRome.ManyoftheHighChurchpartyteachthattheconsecratedelementsintheLord'sSupperarereally,beitmystically,thebodyandbloodofChrist.

QuestionsforFurtherStudy:Whatarethemarksofasacrament?Arethesacraments necessary unto salvation? Do Roman Catholics defend thepositionthattheirsacramentswereinstitutedbyJesus?Whatscripturalgroundsdotheyadducefortheirvarioussacraments?Howdidtheideaofbaptismal regeneration arise?How did the Anabaptist view of baptismdifferfromthatoftheReformers?Onwhatgroundsdotheydenyinfantbaptism?HowdidthesacrificialideaoftheLord'sSupperarise?WhydoRoman Catholics withhold the cup from the laity? How did CalvinconceiveofthepresenceofChristintheLord'sSupper?

Literature:Wahl,HistoryofInfantBaptism;Dimock,TheDoctrineoftheSacraments;Hebert,TheLord'sSupper,HistoryofUninspiredTeaching;Ebrard, Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl; Hagenbach, History ofDoctrines,I,pp.277–299;II,pp.67–86,319–377;III,pp.140–173,219–226,374–381;Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,I,pp.227–247;II,pp.398–413,455–463,527–537,588–595,613–619,688–702;Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrines,I,pp.136–144,270–281,388–404;II,pp.191–212,382–388;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,I,pp.180–189, 338–356; II, pp. 272–396;Crippen,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.189–207;Cunningham,HistoricalTheology,II,pp.121–154;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrine,cf.Index.

THEDOCTRINEOFTHELASTTHINGS

I.TheIntermediateState

Thedoctrineof the last thingsnever stood in thecenterofattention, isoneoftheleastdevelopeddoctrines,andthereforecallsfornoelaboratediscussion. Its main elements have been rather constant, and theseconstitute practically thewhole dogma of the Church respecting futurethings.Occasionallydeviatingviewsoccupiedaratherimportantplaceintheological discussions, but these were never incorporated in theConfessionsoftheChurch.Itmaybethat,asDr.Orrsurmises,wehavenowreachedthatpointinthehistoryofdogmainwhichthedoctrineofthe last things will receive greater attention and be brought to furtherdevelopment.

The Apostolic Fathers did not yet reflect on the intermediate state.According to the common opinion of their day the pious at deathimmediatelyinherittheheavenlyglorypreparedforthem,andthewickedat once suffer the punishment of hell. It was only when it becameapparent that Christ would not immediately return, that the ChurchFathersbegantoreflectonthestatebetweendeathandtheresurrection.One of the first was Justin, who said: "The souls of the pious are in abetterplace, thoseof theunjust andwicked in aworse,waiting for thetimeofjudgment."Hedenouncedashereticalthosewhosaid"thattheirsouls,whentheydie,aretakentoheaven."

The general opinion of the later Fathers, such as Irenæus, Tertullian,Hilary,Ambrose,Cyril, andevenAugustine,was that thedeaddescendinto hades, a placewith various divisions, where they remain until theday of judgment or, according to Augustine, until they are sufficientlypurified.InthemeasureinwhichitbecameapparentthattheparousiaofChristwasafardistantevent,itbecameincreasinglydifficulttomaintaintheideaofhadesasamerelytemporaryandprovisionalhabitationofthedead. An exception was soon made for the martyrs who, according toTertullian,were at once admitted into glory.Thedescent ofChrist into

hades was interpreted as having effected the deliverance of the OldTestamentsaintsfromthelimbuspatrum.Andwhenthedoctrineofthemeritoriousness of good works became prominent, it was taught thatthosewhowerediligentintheirperformancewereworthyofpassingintoheavenatonce.Hadeswasgraduallyrobbedofitsrighteousinhabitants.Finally, the wicked were about the only ones left, and it began to beregardedas aplaceofpunishment, sometimes identifiedwithgehenna.Origen taught explicitly that Christ transported all the righteous offormeragesfromhadestoparadise,whichfromthattimeonbecamethedestinationofalldepartingsaints.

InconnectionwiththeideathatmanyChristiansarenotsufficientlyholyat death to enter the region of eternal bliss, the conviction graduallygained currency that these are subjected to a process of purificationbeyondthegrave.TheearlyChurchFathersalreadyspokeofapurifyingfire,whichsomeofthemlocatedinparadise,andothersassociatedwiththe final conflagration. They did not always have in mind a literal ormaterial fire, but often thoughtmerely of a spiritual test or discipline.Origen conceived of hades, including gehenna, and also of the finalconflagrationat the endof theworld, as apurifying fire. Several of thelaterGreek andLatinChurchFathers, such as the threeCappadocians,Ambrose, Ephræm, Augustine, and others, entertained the idea of apurgatorialfireintheintermediatestate.

ItwasespeciallyintheWestthattheideaofaspecialpurgatorialfirewasdeveloped. Gregory the Great already stressed it as a matter ofunquestionedbelief.Sayshe:"Itistobebelievedthatthereis,forsomelight faults,apurgatorial firebefore the judgment."Hencehe isusuallycalled"the inventorofpurgatory."Hewasalsothefirstonewhoclearlypropounded the idea,vaguelyentertainedbyothers longbeforehim,ofdeliverance from this fire by intercessory prayers and oblations. ThemediævalScholasticsandMysticswereveryexplicit in theirdescriptionofpurgatory,andthemajorityofthemconceivedofitasamaterialfire.TheGreekChurchnevercordiallyacceptedthegrossviewscurrentintheWest.

The locality of purgatory was also discussed, and it was generallyregarded as that division of hades that was nearest to hell. At a little

remove from itwas the limbus infantum, theplacewhere, according tothe Scholastics, childrenwho died in an unbaptized state are confined,sufferingnopositivepainindeed,butyetkeptforeveroutofheaven.Stillfarther away from hell was the supposed limbus patrum, also called"paradise"or"Abraham'sbosom",where,itwasheld,theOldTestamentworthies were retained until the descent of Christ into hades. Thedoctrineofpurgatorywas solemnly affirmedby theCouncil ofTrent in1546.ItwasinconnectionwiththisdoctrinethattheviciouspracticeofsellingindulgencesgrewupintheChurch.

The doctrine of purgatory was opposed towards the end of theMiddleAgesbysuchforerunnersoftheReformationasWyclifandHuss.LutherfulminatedagainsttheperniciouspracticesthatgrewupintheChurchinconnection with it, and the Reformers, one and all, rejected the wholedoctrine of purgatory as contrary to Scripture. The Smalcald Articlesspeak of purgatory as belonging to "the vermin brood of idolatry,begottenby the tail of thedragon."And theThirty-NineArticles of theChurch of England declare that "the Romish doctrine concerningpurgatory.… is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon nowarrantyofScripture."

II.TheSecondAdventandtheMillennialHope

The earlyChristianswere taught to look for the return of JesusChrist,and it is evident even from the New Testament that some of themexpected a speedy return. The literal interpretation of Rev. 20:1–6 ledsome of the early Church Fathers to distinguish between a first and asecondresurrection,andtobelieveinaninterveningmillennialkingdom.Someof themdweltvery fondlyonthesemillennialhopesandpicturedtheenjoymentsofthefutureageinacrasslymaterialisticmanner.ThisistrueespeciallyofPapiasandIrenæus.OtherssuchasBarnabas,Hennas,Justin, and Tertullian, while teaching the doctrine, avoided itsextravagances.Themillennialdoctrinealso found favorwithCerinthus,the Ebionites, and the Montanists. But it is not correct to say, asPremillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first threecenturies.The truthof thematter is that the adherentsof thisdoctrine

werearatherlimitednumber.ThereisnotraceofitinClementofRome,Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement ofAlexandria,Origen,Dionysius,andotherimportantChurchFathers.

TheMillenarianismof the earlyChurchwasgraduallyovercome.WhencenturiesrolledbywithoutthereturnofJesusChrist,whenpersecutionsceased, and when Christianity received a sure footing in the RomanEmpireandevenbecametheStatereligion,thepassionatelongingfortheappearanceofJesusChristverynaturallygavewayforanadaptationoftheChurchtoitspresenttask.TheallegoricalinterpretationofScripture,introduced by the Alexandrian school, and sponsored especially byOrigen,alsohadachillingeffectonallmillennialhopes.IntheWestthepowerfulinfluenceofAugustinewasinstrumentalinturningthethoughtsof theChurch fromthe future to thepresentbyhis identificationof theChurch and theKingdom ofGod.He taught the people to look for themillenniuminthepresentChristiandispensation.

During the Middle Ages Millenarianism was generally regarded asheretical. There were, it is true, here and there transient and sporadicbuddings of the millennial hope in the sects, but these exercised noprofound influence. In the tenth century there was a widespreadexpectation of the approaching end of the world, but this was notaccompaniedwithchiliastichopes,thoughitwasassociatedwiththeideaof thespeedycomingofAntichrist.Christianartoftenchose its themesfromeschatology.ThehymnDiesIraesoundedtheterrorsofthecomingjudgment, painters depicted the end of the world on the canvass, andDantegaveavividdescriptionofhellinhisDivinaComoedia.

At the time of the Reformation the doctrine of the millennium wasrejected by the Protestant Churches, but revived in some of the sects,such as that of the more fanatical Anabaptists, and that of the FifthMonarchyMen.Lutherscornfullyrejected"thedream"thattherewouldbe an earthly kingdom of Christ preceding the day of judgment. TheAugsburgConfessioncondemnsthose"whonowscatterJewishopinions,that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy thekingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed." Art.XVII.AndtheSecondHelveticConfessionsays:"Moreover,wecondemnthe Jewish dreams, that before the day of judgment there shall be a

goldenageintheearth,andthegodlyshallpossessthekingdomsoftheworld,theirwickedenemiesbeingtroddenunderfoot."ChapterXI.

A certain formofMillenarianismmade its appearance, however, in theseventeenth century. There were several Lutheran and Reformedtheologianswho,while rejecting the idea of a visible reignofChrist onearthforathousandyears,advocatedamorespiritualconceptionofthemillennium. Their view of the matter was that, before the end of theworldandthereturnofJesusChrist,therewillbeaperiodinwhichthespiritual presence of Christ in the Church will be experienced in anunusual measure and a universal religious awakening will ensue. TheKingdomofJesusChristwill thenstandoutasakingdomofpeaceandrighteousness. This was the early form of Post- as distinguished fromPremillennialism.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the doctrine of themillenniumagainmetwithgreatfavorinsomecircles.Itwasadvocatedby the school of Bengel and more recently by that of Erlangen, andnumbered among its adherents such men as Hofmann, Delitzsch,Auberlen, Rothe, Elliott, Cumming, Bickersteth, the Bonars, Alford,Zahn, and others. There is great diversity of opinion among thesePremillenarians as to the order of the final events and the actualconditionofthingsduringthemillennium.Repeatedattemptshavebeenmade to fix the time of Christ's return, which is with great assurancedeclaredtobeimminent,butuptothepresentallthesecalculationshavefailed. Though there is a widespread belief to-day, especially in ourcountry,thatthereturnofChristwillbefollowedbyatemporaryvisiblereignofChristonearth,yettheweightoftheologicalopinionisagainstit.In liberal circles a new form of Post-millennialism has made itsappearance.Theexpectedkingdomwillconsistofanewsocialorder"inwhich the law of Christ shall prevail, and inwhich its prevalence shallresult in peace, justice and a glorious blossoming of present spiritualforces."ThisiswhatRauschenbuschhasinmindwhenhesays,"Weneedarestorationofthemillennialhope."ATheologyfortheSocialGospel,p.224.Uptothepresenttime,however,thedoctrineofthemillenniumhasneveryetbeenembodiedinasingleConfession,andthereforecannotberegardedasadogmaoftheChurch.

III.TheResurrection

MostoftheearlyChurchFathersbelievedintheresurrectionofthebody,that is, in the identity of the future bodywith that of the present. Theviews of Clement of Alexandria are somewhat uncertain, but it is clearthatOrigen,whiledefending thedoctrineof theChurchagainstCelsus,rejectedtheideathattheidenticalbodywouldberaisedup.Hedescribedthe resurrection body as a refined and spiritualized body. Some of theChurchFathers sharedhis view,but themajorityof themheld that theresurrection body would be in every respect identical with the bodyformed in the present life. Augustinewas in agreement withOrigen atfirst,butfinallyacceptedtheprevalentview,thoughhedidnotconsideritnecessarytoassumethatthepresentdifferencesofsizeandstaturewouldcontinueinthelifetocome.Infact,hebelievedthatattheresurrectionall would have the stature of the full-grown man. Jerome, however,insistedontheidentityoftheveryhairsandteeth.OnthewholeitmaybesaidthattheEastmanifestedatendencytoadoptamorespiritualviewofthe resurrection than the West. The two Gregories, Chrysostom, andSynesius,wereingeneralagreementwithOrigen.JohnofDamascusdidaffirmtherestitutionofthesamebody,butwassatisfiedwiththatviewofidentitywhichissuggestedbytheanalogyoftheseedandtheplant.Theywhobelievedinafuturemillenniumspokeofadoubleresurrection,thatofthepiousatthebeginning,andthatofthewickedatthetermination,ofthemillennialreign.

The Scholastics speculated in their usual way about the body of theresurrection. Their speculations were rather fanciful and had littlepermanent value. Thomas Aquinas seemed to have special informationon the subject.He informsus that theywho are alive at the coming ofChristwill firstdie, and thenbe raised againwith the rest of thedead.The resurrection will take place towards evening. That substance willarisewhichexistedat themomentofdeath.Allwill be in thebloomofyouth. The bodywill be tangible, but fine and light, and not subject togrowth. Inobedience to the impulseof thesoul itwillmoveswiftlyandeasily. The bodies of the wicked, on the other hand, will be ugly anddeformedandcapableofmuchsuffering,thoughincorruptible.

The theologians of the Reformation period were quite agreed that theresurrectionbodywouldbeidenticalwiththepresentbody.Thisdoctrineis also embodied in the confessional standards of the Churches of theReformation. With the advance of the physical sciences some of thedifficultieswithwhichthedoctrineoftheresurrectionisburdenedwereaccentuated, and as a result modern religious liberalism either bluntlydeniestheresurrection,orexplainsthescripturalrepresentationsofitasa figurative representation of the idea that the full human personalitywithallitspowerswillcontinuetoexistafterdeath.Thisviewispopularwithmanyatthepresenttime.

IV.TheLastJudgmentandtheFinalAwards

The earliest Church Fathers have very little to say about the lastjudgment, but generally stress its certainty. Most of them are of theopinion that the saints in heaven will enjoy different degrees ofblessedness, commensurate with the virtues which adorned them onearth. Some of their writings aboundwith sensuous representations ofthe pleasures of the future world. Those of Origen, however, reflect amorespiritual conception.Thepunishmentof thewickedwasgenerallythoughtofaseternal,Origenforminganexception.It istruethat inhispopulardiscourseshe also speaks of eternal punishment, but inhisDePrincipiis he tends to rule this out altogether. But even he does notconceiveofthefuturepunishmentaspurelyspiritual.Hereallyresolvesitintochastisementbyholdingouthopeeventothewicked,andexpressesbeliefinthefinalrestorationofallthings.

ThelaterFathersalsostoodfirmintheconvictionthattherewouldbeafinaljudgmentattheendoftheworld.Buttheyspokeofthismostly,justasofothereschatological events, inahighly rhetorical fashion,withoutconveying any definite information. Augustine proceeds on theassumption that the scriptural representations of it are figurative. Heexpresses the conviction thatChrist is coming again to judge the livingandthedead,butmaintains thatScripture leaves ituncertainhow long

thisjudgmentwilllast.

There was no unanimous opinion as to what will constitute theblessedness of heaven. A more fully developed knowledge, intercoursewiththesaints,deliverancefromthefettersofthebody,andtrueliberty—these are some of the outstanding elements that were named. Thesufferingsofthedamnedwereregardedastheveryoppositeofthejoysofheaven. Some believed in degrees of bliss and torment, though both oftheseweregenerallyregardedaseternal.MostoftheChurchFathersalsoclung to the idea of a material fire, though some surmised that thepunishmentof thewickedwouldconsistchiefly inseparation fromGodandaconsciousnessoftheirownwickedness.

The Scholastics paid particular attention to the location of heaven andhell.Accordingtothemheavenisdividedintothreeparts,namely,(1)thevisible heavens (the firmament); (2) the spiritual heaven, thedwellingplaceofsaintsandangels;and(3)theintellectualheaven,wheretheblessedenjoytheimmediatevisionofGod.Theyalsoconceivedoftheunderworld as divided into different departments, namely, (1) hell,properlysocalled,theabodeofdevilsandofthedamned;and(2)regionsthat might be called intermediate between heaven and hell, of whichthere are three: (a) purgatory in close proximity to hell; (b) the limbusinfantum,whereunbaptizedchildrenremain;and(c)thelimbuspatrum,theabodeoftheOldTestamentsaints.

TheReformerswerecontentwiththeaffirmationof thesimpledoctrineof Scripture that Christ will come again to judge theworld. Theywerecareful to distinguish between the general judgment at the end of theworld and the secret and particular judgment which takes place at thedeathofeachindividual.Thepurposeoftheformerwasunderstoodtobethe public vindication of divine justice in making final awards. Theysharedthecommonbelief in theeternalblissofheavenandtheeternaltorments of hell. Some Anabaptists taught restorationism, and someSocinians, the annihilation of the wicked. Some Protestant theologiansheld the opinion that material fire will play a part in the endlesspunishment of the wicked; others were non-committal on the subject;andstillothersinterpretedallthattheBiblesaysaboutfireinafigurativemanner.Thedoctrineof future rewardsandpunishments, as taughtby

theReformation,remainstheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchesuptothepresentday,thoughsincethemiddleofthepreviouscenturythedoctrineofconditionalimmortalityenjoyedgreatpopularityinsomecircles.Onlythorough-going Universalists—and they are few—believe in universalsalvationandintherestorationofallthingsintheabsolutesenseoftheword.

Questions for Further Study: Is it true that Chiliasmwas the generallyaccepteddoctrineoftheChurchinthesecondandthirdcenturies?Whataccounts for it in the early Church?Was all Chiliasm even then of thesametype?WhatwasAugustine'sviewofthemillennium?Whatcanbesaid in favor of it? What accounts for the repeated re-occurrence ofChiliasm? Are the historical Confessions of the Churches favorable orunfavorable to it?Did theReformers encourage chiliastichopes? Is thePremillennialisminthepresentdaythesameastheChiliasmoftheearlycenturies?Howdid the Scholastics seek to prove the idea of purgatoryfromScripture?DoesScripturefavortheideathatthedeadareinsomeintermediateplace,neitherheavennorhell?Whotaughtthesleepofthesoul and on what grounds? What are the doctrines of conditionalimmortality and of a second probation? What sects believe in theannihilation of the wicked? Does the doctrine of universal restorationfindconsiderablefavor?

Literature: Mackintosh, Immortality and the Future, Chap. V; Brown,TheChristianHope,Chap.VIII;Alger,CriticalHistoryoftheDoctrineofaFutureLife;Hoekstra,HetChiliasme,pp. 9–59;Case,TheMillennialHope;Hagenbach,HistoryofDoctrines,I,pp.301–322;II,pp.87–105,378–405; III, pp. 173–175, 226–229, 382–390; Neander, History ofChristianDoctrines, I, pp. 247–256; II, pp. 413–417; Shedd,History ofChristian Doctrines, II, pp. 389–419; Sheldon, History of ChristianDoctrines, I,pp. 145–155,282–290; II,pp.213–217,389–399;Crippen,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,pp.231–253;Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,I,pp.105–107,457–463;II,pp.418–437;Seeberg,HistoryofDoctrines, cf. Index; Addison, Life Beyond Death in the Beliefs ofMankind.

LITERATURE

GENERAL

Allen,TheContinuityofChristianThought,Boston,1885.

Boardman,AHistoryofNewEnglandTheology,NewYork,1899.

Cunningham,HistoricalTheology,Edinburgh,1870.

Crippen,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,Edinburgh,1883.

Fisher,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,NewYork,1901.

Foster,AHistoryofNewEnglandTheology,Chicago,1907.

Hagenbach,HistoryofDoctrines,Edinburgh,1880.

Harnack,HistoryofDogma,Boston,1897–1905.

Harnack,OutlinesoftheHistoryofDogma,NewYork,1893.

Klotsche,AnOutlineoftheHistoryofDoctrines,Burlington,1927.

Loofs,HandboekderDogmengeschiedenis,Groningen,1902.

McGiffert,HistoryofChristianThought,NewYork,1932–'33.

Neander,HistoryofChristianDogmas,London,1858.

Orr,TheProgressofDogma,NewYork,1902.

Otten,ManualoftheHistoryofDogmas,St.Louis,1922.

Seeberg,TextbookoftheHistoryofDoctrines,Philadelphia,1905.

Shedd,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,NewYork,1889.

Sheldon,HistoryofChristianDoctrine,NewYork,1886.

Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte,Erlangen,1874.

SPECIAL

Addison,LifeBeyondDeath,NewYork,1932.

Bavinck,RoepingenWedergeboorte,Kampen,1913.

Berkhof,TheAssuranceofFaith,GrandRapids,1928.

Berkhof,VicariousAtonementThroughChrist,GrandRapids,1936.

Bruce,TheHumiliationofChrist,NewYork,1901.

Buchanan,TheDoctrineofJustification,Edinburgh,1867.

Candlish,TheKingdomofGod,Edinburgh,1884.

Case,TheMillennialHope,Chicago,1918.

Dee,HetGeloofsbegripvanCalvijn,Kampen.

DeJong,DeLeerderVerzoeningindeAmerikaanscheTheologie,GrandRapids,1913.

Dimick,TheDoctrineoftheSacraments,London,1908.

Dorner,HistoryofProtestantTheology,Edinburgh,1871.

Ebrard,DasDogmavomheiligenAbendmahl,Frankforta.M.,1845.

Emmen,DeChristologievanCalvijn,Amsterdam,1935.

Emerton,UnitarianThought,NewYork,1916.

Flew,TheIdeaofPerfectioninChristianTheology,Oxford,1934.

Franks,AHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheWorkofChrist,NewYork.

Girardeau,CalvinismandEvangelicalArminianism,Columbia,1890.

Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Church, Oxford andCambridge,1881.

Hebert,TheLord'sSupper,UninspiredTeaching,London,1897.

Henderson,TheReligiousControversiesofScotland,Edinburgh,1905.

Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus in sechzentenJahrhundert,Gotha,1857.

Heppe,GeschichtedesPietismus.

Hoekstra,HetChiliasme,Kampen,1903.

Hoffmann,DieLehrevonderFidesImplicita,Leipzig,1903.

Illingworth,TheDoctrineoftheTrinity,London,1907.

Innes,ChurchandState,AHistoricalHandbook,Edinburgh.

Impeta,DeLeerderHeiligmakingenVolhardingbijWesleyenFletcher,Leiden,1913.

Kerr,AGod-CenteredFaith,NewYork,1935.

Köstlin,TheTheologyofLuther,Philadelphia,1897.

Kramer,HetVerbandvanDoopenWedergeboorte,Breukelen,1897.

Lindsay,TheChurchandHerMinistryintheEarlyCenturies,NewYork.

Mackintosh,H.R.,TheDoctrineofthePersonofJesusChrist,NewYork,1912.

Mackintosh,H.R.,ImmortalityandtheFuture,NewYork,1917.

Mackintosh,R.,ChristianityandSin,NewYork,1914.

Mackintosh,R.,HistoricTheoriesoftheAtonement,London,1920.

Mathews,TheGrowthoftheIdeaofGod,NewYork,1931.

Mathews,TheAtonementandtheSocialProcess,NewYork,1930.

McGiffert,ProtestantThoughtBeforeKant,NewYork,1911.

McGiffert,TheRiseofModernReligiousIdeas,NewYork,1915.

McPherson,TheDoctrineoftheChurchinScottishTheology,Edinburgh,1903.

Moore,ProtestantThoughtSinceKant,NewYork,1922.

Morgan, The Importance of Tertullian in theDevelopment of ChristianDogma,London,1928.

Moxon,TheDoctrineofSin,NewYork,1922.

Mozley,TheDoctrineoftheAtonement,NewYork,1916.

Olthuis, De Doopspraktijk der Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland,Utrecht,1908.

Orchard,ModernTheoriesofSin,London,1909.

Ottley,TheDoctrineoftheIncarnation,London.

Peters,TheTheocraticKingdom,NewYork,1884.

Ritschl, History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification andReconciliation,Edinburgh,1872.

Robertson,RegnumDei,NewYork,1901.

Robinson,TheChristianDoctrineofMan,Edinburgh,1920.

Rutgers,PremillennialisminAmerica,Goes,1930.

Sanday,ChristologiesAncientandModern,NewYork,1910.

Schaff,CreedsofChristendom,NewYork,1877.

Schweitzer,DieProtestantischenCentraldogmen,Zürich,1854.

Stevens,TheChristianDoctrineofSalvation,NewYork,1905.

Storr,TheDevelopmentofEnglishTheologyIntheNineteenthCentury,London,1913.

Swete,TheForgivenessofSins,London,1917.

Talma,DeAnthropologicvanCalvijn,Utrecht,1882.

Tennant,TheOriginandPropagationofSin,Cambridge,1906.

VandenBergh,CalvijnOverhetGenadeverbond.

Walker,TheTheologyandTheologiansofScotland,Edinburgh,1888.

Wall,HistoryofInfantBaptism,Oxford,1836.

Warfield,CalvinandCalvinism,London,1931.

Warfield,StudiesinPerfectionism,London,1931.

Wiggers,AugustinianismandPelganianism,Andover,1840.

Workman,ChristianThoughttotheReformation,NewYork,1911.

MONERGISMBOOKS

TheHistoryofChristianDoctrinesbyLouisBerkhof,Copyright©2018

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthe

non-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions December 2018 Requests for informationshouldbe addressed to:MonergismBooks,POBox491,WestLinn,Or97068

Documents

The History of Christian Doctrines - Monergism History of... · the past with impunity. May this brief study of the history of doctrines serve to create a greater interest in such