Allin, Lias. The Augustinian revolution in theology. 1911

8/3/2019 Allin, Lias. The Augustinian revolution in theology. 1911.

1/244

THEAUGIl^riNlANRBTOTIONIN THEOLOGY

THOMAS ALUN, D.D.


2/244

LIBRARYBrigham Young University


3/244

5 ,? C.^-


4/244


5/244


6/244


7/244

THEAUGUSTINIAN REVOLUTIONIN THEOLOGY


8/244


9/244

^ ^ THEAUGUSTINIAN REVOLUTIONIN THEOLOGY

ILLUSTRATED BY A COMPARISON WITH THETEACHING OF THE ANTIOCHENE DIVINES OF

THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES

BYTHOMAS ALLIN, D.D.AUTHOR OF "RACE AND RELIGION"; " UNIVERSALISM ASSERTED

AS THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL," ETC.

EDITED BYJ. J. LIAS, M.A.

CHANCELLOR OF LLANDAFF CATHEDRAL; FORMERLY HULSEANLECTURER PREACHER AT THE CHAPEL ROYAL, WHITEHALL,AND VICAR OF STl EDWARD'S, CAMBRIDGE

LONDONJAMES CLARKE & CO., 13 & 14 FLEET STREET

1911


10/244

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNlVERSiTYlLlBRAilV

PROYO, UTAH


11/244

CONTENTSPAQB

INTRODUCTION 9author's preface . 21

Part ITHE ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL

I. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA .... 27II. NESTORIUSTHEODORETCHRYSOSTOM . . 73

Part IIAUGUSTINE . . 100CONCLUSION 194


12/244


13/244

INTRODUCTION(BY THE EDITOR)

When I was asked to find an editor forthe present work I gladly undertook thetask myself, first, on account of the deeprespect I have long felt for the thorough-ness, originality, and many-sidedness ofthe author, and next, on account of the diffi-culty, which amounted almost to an impossi-bility, of finding anyone who would entersympathetically into the task. The viewsexpressed here and elsewhere by the authorare altogether untinged by the popularis aura^and yet, or may I not rather say therefore,for many reasons, it is desirable thatthey should be made public, in order totheir careful and impartial convsideration,and this because of the light they throwon questions which have hitherto beenapproached with prepossessions not alto-gether justified by the facts. The editormight have excused himself on account of


14/244

Introductionhis own advanced age ; and this has un-doubtedly stood in the way of as thoroughexamination of the authorities quoted asmight have been desired. But the citationshave not been neglected. A large majorityof them have been carefully examined, and,startling as many of them will seem to thereader, they have been found correct. Itmay, I think, fairly be assumed that in thefew which it has not been found possible toinvestigate thoroughly, the same amount oicorrectness will be found as in the rest. Ihave not been able to identify the quotationsfrom Chrysostom at all, because the authorhas not stated from what edition they aretaken. They are not taken, like the others,from Migne's Patrologia. One reason formy venturing to undertake my task is that,though I never met the author face to face,I was introduced to him by a friend whowas himself a man of great originality ofmind, and who also occupied an uniqueposition in the realm of theological thought.The result was that the MS. of the author's** Race and Religion " was sent to me beforepublication, and I had a vigorous corre-

10


15/244

Introductionspondence with its author in consequence.Only a part of the original work was pub-lished, the author having reserved the otherportions for more detailed treatment. Thishas ultimately been given to the public inthe present work. I have, therefore, for sometime been acquainted with the generalcharacter of the author's treatment of thesubject, and I believe that his work will befound to fill up the many details which havehitherto been lacking. I have personally longbeen of the opinion that the reputation of thefamous Syrian theologian, Theodore of Mop-suestia, has suffered very seriously from histreatment in the Nestorian controversy, andthat he deserves rehabilitation as in the mainan orthodox divine. We must remember thathe never defied the verdict of the Church,for the simple reason that no such verdictwas ever pronounced against him while helived. He died ^' in the peace of theChurch," as his champions in the Nestoriancontroversy did not fail to point out. Inthe conflicts of centuries the truth has beenaltogether forgotten that both he and hisgreat Alexandrian prototype Origen, whether

II


16/244

Introductionall their opinions were sound or not, werenot heretics in the proper sense of the term,that is to say, they did not indulge in thearbitrary choice of their opinions, and per-sist in them against the deliberate verdictof the Church, pronounced after full and im-partial consideration. Such full and impar-tial consideration could hardly be said to havebeen given in the heated discussions overtheir writings which took place after theirdeath. The fact is that the great Alexan-drian and the great Syrian divine were reallypioneers of the free inquiry which the Chris-tian Church has never formally condemned.That they made mistakes is undeniable.Humanum est errare^ and when we considerthe vast area of thought which they tra-versed, it was obviously impossible for themto avoid mistakes. The true heretic is hewho persists in his error when it is pointedout. The subsequent arraignment of Origen'sopinions during the long disputes whichraged concerning him is as often wrong asright. That he was often grossly misrepre-sented during the protracted and bitter con-troversy which raged over his writings, no

12


17/244

Introductionimpartial person will be found willing todeny. Many of his mistakes, moreover, aremere obiter dicta^ thrown out for fuller con-sideration. And he often corrected themhimself when he had an opportunity of con-sidering them more fully. Such was the casewith his famous suggestion that the pricepaid by the Redeemer ^' for us men and forour salvation " was paid to the devil. Mostof those who have undertaken to tell posteritywhat he really taught on that subject haveoverlooked a passage in which he remarksthat the doctrine of Atonement is a verycomplex subject, embracing some considera-tions which are extremely simple, and somewhich, on the contrary, are shrouded in thedeepest mystery,^ It had been well if thosewho came after him, and endeavoured toreduce a mighty mystery into two or threesimple propositions, had fully pondered hiswarning. Another instance is the fact thatOrigen frequently calls St. Peter the Rock.But when he comes to explain the passagein St, Matthew on which that mistake isfounded he abandons the error and tells us

^ See his 6th Homily on St. John's Gospel, c. 37.13


18/244

Introductionthat the Rock was not St. Peter, but hisconfession of Christ. Theodore also un-questionably fell into error on the questionof the Person of Christ. But so, as unques-tionably, did Cyril of Alexandria. It is anoutrage to common fairness that the formergreat divine should be handed down tothe latest posterity as a heretic, while thelatter, who was certainly his inferior intemper and fairness, and in not a few otherways, should be regarded as a canonizedsaint.^ Whatever may be the faults of thepresent age, and, in the opinion of the writerat least, they are neither few nor light, itmay at least be confidently expected of itthat it will replace many of these lumi-naries of old time in the position which theyhave deserved to occupy, but from whichthey have been hurled by the odium theolo-gicum. The author's treatment of Augus-tine maybe deemed harsh. But I am bound

1 It is a credit to those concerned in the work ofMigne's Patrologia that Theodore is spoken of in themost honourable terms, and is not denied the title ofiiniveyscB ecclesicB doctor. Tillemont, the great ecclesias-tical historian, says of him that his memory embracedthe whole Bible.

14


19/244

Introductionto confess that it is borne out by thepassages quoted by the author, so far as Ihave been enabled to verify them. Theincalculable extent of Augustine's influenceover the West in succeeding ages, whicheven the Reformation failed to overthrow,may to a certain extent be explainedby the fact that he was felix opportunitatevitce. Writing, as he did, just when theRoman Empire, and with it the political,social, and intellectual influences which ithad gathered around it, was on the point ofbeing destroyedat a time when civilizedsociety was reduced for ages to its con-stituent elementshe had no competitorfor at least 800 years. This advantage,reinforced as it was by his large grasp oftheological problems, and by the strength ofa vigorous and absolutely merciless logic,as well as by literary gifts of no ordinarykind, he reigned without a rival over thereligious thought of the West, at least, untilthe Scholastic philosophy arose. But theSchoolmen themselves were largely underhis influence, so that the intellectual influ-ences of the thirteenth century only served

15


20/244

Introductionto establish his authority more firmly. Hiscelebrated Confessions contained the onething yet wanting to secure his ascen-dency over the rude ages when the workof the Greek Dramatists was forgotten,and when Dante and Shakespeare had notyet arisen. This was the human elementcontained in a work eagerly perused bymillions who have not read a single line ofAugustine's other writings. It is a boldthing to attempt, as our author does, toattack the foundations on which Augustine'sfascination for mankind have so long rested.But it seems to the writer impossible to denythat his later religious beliefs were colouredby the heresy and scepticism of his earlierdays, as well as by the grave moral lapseswhich he so nobly and so frankly confesses.The thought of Origen and Theodore wasfar wiser, fairer, broader and purer than thatof Augustine. And theirs were speculationswhich invited inquiry, instead of composing,like his, a system riveted on the humanmind by a rigorous logic. The God,moreover, whom the Greek and Syriantheologians asked us to fall down and

i6


21/244

^ Introductionworship, was removed as far as the polesfrom the stern potentate Augustine imaginedOne who ruled the worlds with rigourrather than with love. Not that there wasno compensation in his writings. Long afterthe change which, as our author remarks,took place in Augustine's opinions, ^^ twonations" continued to *^ struggle in thewomb" of his thoughts. The broader andmore genial spirit of the older Catholictheology broke out sporadically in his laterwritings from time to time, strangely incon-sistent as it was with the conceptions hisstrange and startling experiences contrivedto impose upon him. But in the chaos inthought and morals, in society and politics,which reigned around him, and for centuriesafter his death, his later religious systemdominated the monasteriesthe only placeswhere reflection and inquiry could then findrefuge. K few faint protests were heard atfirstnotably in the Commonitorium ofVincent of Lerinsfrom men who, thoughno doubt wiser and more far-seeing thanhimself, were incomparably his inferiors inevery other respect. Until the middle of the

17 B


22/244

Introductionnineteenth century he continued to domi-nate Christian theology, and even to thishour it requires some courage to disputehis sway. Yet the author of this bookseems to me to have made it clear thatAugustine's system was more harsh andcruel than it has hitherto been supposed tobe, and that even Calvin did but feeblyecho the stern sentence of eternal vengeanceupon those who were, not for their ownmerits or demerits, but by the stern fiat ofan irreversible Will, condemned before theworld began to '^ everlasting destructionfrom the Presence of God."

Before I conclude I must be allowed toenter into an explanation on one or twopoints. It must not be supposed that,because I am in thorough general agree-ment with the author, that I make myselfresponsible for every expression of opinionin his book. It might seem needless tomake this reservation, since no two personscan be found who agree on every point.But all persons are not equally fair andreasonable, and there are many who wouldnot scruple to make an editor responsible

i8


23/244

Introductionfor every statement contained in the workhe has agreed to edit. In particular, Ishould mention the fact that the authoris a convinced Universalist, and has main-tained his opinions in a work of muchability. Now, though I go as far as thelate Lord Tennyson in entertaining

*^ The wish that of the living wholeNo life may fail beyond the grave,"I cannot follow him in his vSuggestion thatto entertain such a wish makes the personwho entertains it to be more like God.Such assumptions seem to me to be par-ticularly characteristic of the present age.I dare not constitute myself a critic of myMaker. And as what I believe to containthe Revelation of His Spirit ascribes tothe Word made Flesh certain expressionswhich appear to imply that some souls mayultimately ^' fail '' to attain salvation, it isnot for me to arrogate to myself superiorwisdom or goodness by disputing such astatement. The opinions on the universe ofone of those ephemerides whose life does notextend beyond twelve hours would hardly befelt to be of much use to humanity. And

19 B 2


24/244

Introductionoi^f judgments on such matters must, I amconvinced, seem as futile and absurd in theeyes of Him Who is from Eternity, andholds the universe in the hollow of HisHands. Therefore I am content to leavesuch matters in those Hands, and humbly toaccept the salvation which He has declaredHimself wilHng to bestow on all who arewilling to receive it. I conclude with thereiterated expression of my belief that such abook as this deserved publication, and thatwhether all the conclusions to which itarrives are ultimately accepted or not, thequestion of which it treats still awaits theimpartial and thorough discussion which itcannot be said to have as yet received.

J. J. LIAS.Hayward's Heath,Jiily^ 191 1.

20


25/244

AUTHOR'S PREFACEIn our ecclesiastical map, if the term may

be allowed, there are at least two spaceswhich need to be filled up with more accuracyof detail. While few men know the Hellenisttheology with any completeness, fewer stillhave any real acquaintance with the oncefamous school of Antioch in the fifth andfollowing centuries. Travellers bent ontheological discovery, if they journey east-wards, do not, as a rule, pass beyond Alex-andria ; very rarely do they penetrate tothe rival centre, Antioch, the theologiansof which at one time stood, in point ofintellect, nearly on a par with the renownedteachers at Alexandria, and may be fairlysaid to have been superior to their rivalsin the important domain of Scriptural inter-pretation as well as in missionary zeal.Grave suspicions, it is true, have gatheredround Antioch and its theology, but in thistwentieth century intelligent and indepen-dent thought will not be content to shake

21


26/244

Author's Prefaceits head and pass on because of suspicionsentertained in ages of ignorance and violence.Men of the present era will be inclined togo over the evidence afresh and endeavourto discover what manner of men theseAntiochenes were, ^' nothing extenuating,nor setting down aught in malice."

Antioch, it cannot be denied, producedthe most eloquent preachers of all primitivetimes, and probably the greatest commen-tators and missionaries also, and itsadherents in ages past far outnumberedthose of any Hellenist school, and werespread over a wider area. It is only fair,therefore, to inquire what was the real beliefof these men, and what the character oftheir teaching. This I shall try to state intheir own words, and not in the languageof any text-book.The attempt to fill in a blank vSpace in

our map will occupy the first part of thefollowing volume. The second part willtake us nearer home, to a region where,strange to say, we have not too little,but too much, information. I mean NorthAfrica, where the famous Augustine, at

22


27/244

Author's Prefacewhose feet we all have sat, lived and taught,though, perhaps, we know it not. In thisdirection we are even blinded by excess oflightso much so that we cannot ^' seethe wood for the trees." The world hasheard so much of Augustine that theman himself remains concealed. An idealAugustine has been substituted for theactual one. There is a great lack of first-hand acquaintance with his individuality.Scarcely one man in a thousand has readAugustine's works with any approach tothoroughness, and among the innumerabletext-books which have spun theologicalcobwebs round his memory, not a singleone exists which has not substitutedfancy images in place of the true man.Thus we have learned to bend the kneeto an imaginary figure, to venerate notthe genuine Augustine but an AugustimispoeticuSj if the expression may be pardoned,a sort of sublimated personality, as hestands in the well-known picture, by theside of his mother, looking like a secondElijah ready to soar heavenward. Nor isit inappropriate to call him an ** Elijah,"

23


28/244

Author's Prefacefor Augustine, as we shall see, is rather ofthe Old Testament than of the Newman far more ready to call down fire fromheaven than to teach the Gospel of JesusChristone in whom, at least towards theclose of his life, the instincts of the fierceand cruel African have gained an unhappymastery, and have become blended with theManichaeanism never wholly banished fromhis mind.

Augustine, as I shall try to show, andalways on the authority of his own writings,was in very truth the greatest revolutionaryof primitive times. By sheer force of geniusand strength of will he deflected and darkenedthe whole course of Christian thought in theWest. He left Latin Christendom, at hisdeath, the dreadful legacy of belief in anangry and cruel Deity, at whose feet thewhole human family lay in terror ; destinedto perdition already, before birth, and neverin any sense redeemed by Jesus Christnotsons of God but slaves, and with no claimon God except an appeal to an occult justicewhich no man, no saint, no angel, could hopeto understand. I do not write rhetorically,

24


29/244

Author's Prefacebut in soberest and saddest earnestandpledge myself to make good, and more thanmake good, every word I have here written.For this great man's influence extended forevil, as his writings show, over practicallynearly the whole field of human activity,social and political, no less than religious.

I have now briefly indicated the scope otthis small volume. We shall see the con-trast between Antioch and North Africabrought into clear relief when we cometo consider the case of the Pelagians whofled from Augustine to seek shelter amongthe Antiochenes. But, in considering thesetwo schools, there remains a still wider andeven fundamental question which I shallendeavour to impress on those who mayread the following pages. Incidentally theywill learn to appreciate the deep and vitaldifferences which separate Latin and Hel-lenistic thought differences which are sofar-reaching as to constitute almost, if notquite, two distinct religionstwo differingversions of Christianity, for, though nomi-nally serving the same Lord and Master, Idare to say they proclaimed two wholly

25


30/244

Author's Prefacedivergent conceptions of God. The accentsin which they speak are unhke, their motivesdiffer vitally, and the whole atmospherethey breathe is different. These are, Igrant, strong statements, but they do not inthe least go beyond the facts of the case.Finally, I may perhaps remark that, whilewriting in popular language, I have in everycase gone to the original authorities for factsand quotations.

26


31/244

THEAUGUSTINIAN REVOLUTION

IN THEOLOGYPART I

The Antiochene SchoolI. Theodore of Mopsuestia

A STORY is told of St. Bernard that he wasaccustomed to require of all who soughtfrom him spiritual help^* to come with thespirit only ; leaving the body behind." Diffi-cult as this condition may have been, some-thing similar is needed as a pre-requisite fora study of such a school as that of Antioch.We must come with the spirit of impartialityonly, leaving the body of prejudice and sus-picion behind us. Antioch, now a miserableshrunken town of 5,000 souls, was then a city

27


32/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologycontaining perhaps 500,000 inhabitants.^ Itlay, beautiful for situation, on the slopes ofMount Silpius, looking over the sea and therich and fertile plain through which thebroad Orontes of historic fame meandereddown to the Mediterranean shore. Cyprus,the island home of Barnabas, lay in the neardistance from its mouth. Be it rememberedthat it was not an Oriental city but theGreek capital of the Seleucids, enriched andadorned by the munificence of many Kings,and a centre of Greek culture and thought.It was as luxurious as it was splendid, andthe celebrated grove of Daphne was devotedto all that could minister to the lust of theflesh and of the eyes.'^ It also containedperhaps the largest Christian community ofthe second century A.D. It may indeed becalled the second metropolis of Christianity.Here it was that the wandering Hellenists

1 So Farrar, '' Life of St. Paul,'' p. 162, but Chry-sostom, Horn, iii., on the Statues, says that the popu-lation was too great for calculation. Elsewhere, how-ever, he says that it contained 200,000 inhabitants,of whom 100,000 were Christians. See in Milman'sedition of Gibbon, ch. xxiii.

2 Gibbon, ^' Decline and Fall," Lc.28


33/244

The Antiochene Schoollaid the first foundation of a Gentile Church.A very brief sketch of what Barnabas andPaul found when they came to Antioch mayperhaps be pardoned here. Through theentire length of Antioch there ran for nearlyfive miles a Corso or Boulevard linedwith trees, colonnades, and statues, due tothe munificence of Seleucus, and of Herodthe Great, who had paved it for two milesand a half with blocks of white marble.Here the disciples were first called Christians.Hither came Barnabas bringing Saul tominister to the infant Church, even thenvery numerous, a point on which the nar-rative in the Acts lays unusual stress.^We may imagine our two travellers enter-ing the city by this route, resting undercolumns which bordered the road, and plan-ning their future labours on behalf of theGospel. In such a Church provision wasdoubtless made very early for systematicinstruction, which developed towards the endof the third century into a famous schoolunder the presbyter Lucian,^ as well asDorotheus (of whom less is known).

1 Acts xi. 21, 24, 26. 2 Martyred in 311.29


34/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyThe Syrian Church ^ falls into two main

divisions. That of the west had Antioch asits centre and comprised the cities Hiera-polis, Laodicea, Emesa, and Samosata, allof which have men of reputation as theirrepresentatives in history. In the easterndivision^ the chief centres were Edessa andNisibis,^ in the northern part of Mesopo-tamia, and Seleucia Ctesiphon and Babylonin the southern. The Church of Antioch hada Syrian translation of the New Testamentas early as the middle of the second century,^and many Christian hymns had been longin use. In fact, everything indicates, evenat this early date, great activity and awidespread Christianity. It is worth notingthat at this early time the Syrian mindhad been awakened to the study of Holy

1 See Dorner,


35/244

The Antiochene SchoolScriptures.^ So practically complete hadbeen the Hellenisation of the East, thatall the teachers in the Antiochene schoolof whom we shall here treat, wrote andpossibly thought in Greek, though doubt-less familiar also with the Syrian vernacu-lar. We should naturally expect a stronginfusion of OrientaHsm in a school sosituated geographically. But this washardly the case except in the extreme east,where we see a tendency to theosophy andasceticism.^ But as regards the westernAntiochenes we find a logical and rationaltone of thought displaying greater modera-tion than is found in Alexandrian theology,which in the days of Cyril tended to theabsorption of the human into the Divinenature of Christ. Yet though the Antio-chene school declined to go so far as this,it nevertheless insisted on the dignity ofmanhood, as created by God in His ownimage.

1 The first harmony of the Gospels was the work otthe Syrian Tatian in the second century.

2 Monasteries were very numerous in this regionfrom the fourth century onward.

31


36/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyThe theologians of this school who wrote

in Syriac belong to a somewhat later datethe period when, after the condemnationof Nestorius, its teachers crossed theborder into Persia and other regions wherethe writ of the Roman Empire did notrun, and where, therefore, they were freeto teach as they pleased, and were evenprotected for political reasons. It is worthnoting as an illustration of the narrow linesin which our ideas of ecclesiastical historystill run, that we find a practical ignoranceprevailing very widely even now as to the greatschool of Antioch, an ignorance which ismade worse by unreasonable depreciationof the supposed tendencies of the school. Igladly hail the recent appearance of Mr.Bethune-Baker's study of Nestorius, whichis a remarkable vindication of his standpointand teaching.^ And if, as Mr. Bethune-Bakerputs it, Nestorius is found ** not to be aNestorian," how much more is the orthodoxyof the great Syrian teacher, Theodore of

1 In his ** Bazaar of Heraclides," an account of a lostwork of Nestorius, which has been almost miraculouslypreserved.

32


37/244

The Antiochene SchoolMopsuestia, vindicated when we rememberthat, Hke Origen before him, he was a pioneerof theological research, and that if, oncemore like his prototype, he fell into mistakesoccasionally, he died, as Theodoret takescare to remind us, uncondemned by theChurch.To Theodore, no doubt, Nestorius wasindebted for his theology, and it has nowbecome perfectly clear that Nestorius sawand protested against a real danger to theChristian religion in the Monophysite ten-dencies of his rival Cyril, to avert which histheology was designed. The teaching of theAlexandrian School unmistakeably tended toobscure the real humanity of Jesus Christand to substitute for the true manhood ofChrist the absorption of His human into HisDivine nature. It seems pretty clear thatNestorius, who was not heard in his owndefence at Ephesus, was, in spite of someinjudicious and sometimes unsound utter-ances, in substantial agreement with theorthodox position, as taught by Pope Leoin his famous letter to Flavian and bythe Fourth General Council. Indeed, Mr.

33 c


38/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyBethune-Baker is not afraid to say that theideas for which Nestorius and the wholeSchool of Antioch contended really won theday as regards the doctrinal definition of theChurch, though Nestorius himself was sacri-ficed to save the face of the Alexandrianpatriarch, or, to put it in another shape,was a victim to the jealousy and ambitionof Cyril.

If I may say so, two great names, and twoonly, tower above their fellows in the EasternChurches, Origen of Alexandria and Theo-dore of Mopsuestia. I do not mean to assertthat the genius of Theodore reached to sohigh a level as that of Origen, nor that theformer possessed the special attraction forfuture ages of the great Alexandrian, whoin spite of all aspersions has remained themost striking figure among the Church'sgreat divines. The speculative power ofOrigen surpassed that of the Antiocheneteacher. His philosophy was more pro-found, and his genius more original, yetTheodore, if less gifted as a philosopher,was perhaps the more statesmanlikeand practical of the two, and certainly a

34


39/244

The Antiochene Schoolsafer, if less daring, guide than Origen.Both men agreed in the necessity of asystematic statement of religious prin-ciples, and of a philosophy which shouldco-ordinate all known facts and combinethem into a well-ordered whole. Othergreat men of those daysAthanasius, forinstancewere absorbed for long and wearyyears in one great controversy which taxedall their energy and exhausted all theirpowers. Origen and Theodore had notemptation to exhaust their powers in thisway. They were free to devote themselvesto the laying down of principles. It waswell that this was so, for they possessedthe requisites necessary for their task,namely, a deep insight into mysteries, andthe power of discerning the Divine purposebeneath the conflict and disorder whichexisted in the world around them. Inoriginality of mind and breadth of visionthey were unequalled in their age, and haveseldom been approached since. Their out-look extended beyond time into eternity, andeverywhere they saw *^ all things moving toonefar-off Divine event/' The whole creation,

35 C2


40/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyspiritual as well as material, came withintheir purview, and they discerned the DivineUnity which underlay it all. So deep andprofound was their conception of redemptionthat its efficacy overflowed, as it were, thelimits of earth, and spread its healing watersover the spiritual universe. We must alsonote the fact that while both agreed inascribing an ultimate victory to the redemp-tive plan of God, their conceptions were insome respects unlike and their standpointsdistinct. Yet we may hazard a conjecturethat had they been less optimistic theywould have been less scorned by the LatinChurch, tinctured with pessimism almostfrom the beginning, and more so than eversince the time of Augustine.

Before we enter upon an examinationof the system of Theodore it may benecessary to explain the attitude of theAntiochene and Alexandrian Schools re-spectively toward two great questions, theinternal relations of the Godhead, and therelation between the human and the Divinein the Incarnation. Simpler in appearance,the latter was the more difficult of solution

36


41/244

The Antiochene Schoolof the two. The first question was virtuallydecided at Nicaea, though the decision wasnot finally arrived at till the Council ofConstantinople, fifty-six years later. Butfour great Councils hardly sufficed to dis-pose of the last. Dorner's famous work onthe Person of Christ reminds one of a vastcemetery. Theory after theory was dis-cussed, only to be rejected and speedilyentombed, while, as it were, the ghosts ofthose theories move in sad procession alonghis pages. Two facts, however, should besteadily kept in view if we wish to under-stand the position of the School of Antiochone political, one geographical.^ Politi-cally and ecclesiastically Antioch was arival of Alexandria. The rivalry of theirrespective patriarchs is therefore a leadingfactor in the controversies which arose.The mushroom growth of Constantinopleawakened still more serious jealousies, inwhich Rome had her full share. Thestruggle, therefore, was not merely onebetween rival doctrines, but between rival

1 [The author does not appear to have dealt withthe geographical question. Ed.]

37


42/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyPatriarchates. One can easily estimate thefeeHngs with which Alexandria saw apatriarch supplied from Antioch to Con-stantinople for the second time in succes-sion in the person of the monk Nestorius.Rome was not one whit behindhand inher alarm at the progress of the newcapital.Nor was this all. The rival cities repre-

sented different tendencies and differenttheological standpoints. In Alexandria itwas a period of religious conflict and theo-logical innovation. Many were seeking togive new life to the popular heathenism,veiling in allegory its coarse and cruelelements. I^Plato had already allegorisedHomer witH^the idea of thus reaching thehidden meaning of the Iliad. |jrhe NewPlatonists carried this attempt into moresacred fields. A distinguished school ofHellenized Jews applied this system to theOld Testament, hoping thus to shield thesacred story from the reproach of containingmatter unworthy of a book purporting to bewritten by the inspiration of God. Inthe great Christian School of Alexandria

38


43/244

The Antiochene Schoolmen like Pantaenus, Clement and Origenworked in the same spirit, allegorisingthe text of the Bible where aught thatthey deemed trivial or unworthy was found(a process which St. Paul seemed to haveauthorised). We can easily perceive howfatal to the entire historic truth of theBible this method must prove when carriedoutas it was carried outrigidly ; sinceit possessed that indefinable charm whichmysticism and allegory ever possess fordevout and able minds of a certainclasQ

It has often been said that every man isborn a Platonist or an Aristotelian. Ifthe School of Alexandria was Platonist thatof Antioch was Aristotelian. Whether thiswas the outcome of an unconscious rivalryor from natural instinct, it would be vain toinquire. We must be content with the fact,and it marks and determines the entirescheme of thought of both these Schools.On this point our debt to Antioch is greaterthan most of us imagine. It is to thisSchool that we must attribute the ultimatetriumph of that sober textual exegesis which

39


44/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyhas kept a steady middle course betweenmere literalism on the one hand and thoseallegorizing tendencies which made of thetext of Scripture a playground for devoutdreams and mystical fancies.Modern theological thought has, as a rule,

failed to perceive how deeply the Church atlarge is indebted to the School of Antiochin the matter of the exegesis of Scripture, aswell as for its practical turn, as opposed tothe mystical and imaginative fancies of itsantagonists. Its methods, as we have seen,were historical rather than mystical. Itstheories were based on facts rather than onideals or aSvSumptions. It started with man,not with God. Alexandria, on the contrary,based its theological system on the Divineside of things, laying down as a basis itsown conceptions of the Divine Nature.Thus it unconsciously became one-sided,and fell into very real dangers which tookvery many forms, of which the most pro-minent was Monophysitisma theory whicheither postulated the absorption of theManhood of Christ into His Godhead orconstructed a Christ who was neither man

40


45/244

The Antiochene Schoolnor God, but a kind of being intermediate toeither. Even Athanasius says : ^^ We con-fess and adore One Nature of God, the WordIncarnate.''^ It is not, therefore, too muchto assert that the leaning of the wholeAlexandrian School, from Origen onward,was virtually, if not openly, in this direction ;and the Antiochenes in their resoluteassertion of the true Manhood of the his-toric Christ, who certainly lived and workedas a man among men, were contendingagainst a dangerthat was most real and mosturgent. Even before Origen, Clement, thenhead of the Alexandrian School, was un-willing to believe that Jesus Christ reallyneeded to eat or drink, thus rendering Hishumanity a mere appearance. And when theAntiochene doctrine was condemned, thereis reason to beheve that the whole Egyp-tian Church had practically adopted theMonophysite positiona position still heldby their descendants, the present CopticChurch in Egypt, which, though long reducedto the deepest poverty, wretchedness andignorance, still numbers many bishops and a

^ Gieseler, '< Eccl. Hist.," i. 390.41


46/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologylarge body of clergy.^ So persistent was thetendency against which the Antiochenesstruggled that we find it emerging in variousforms.Thus there was a strong tendency in very

many quarters, even on the part of men likeIrenaeus, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, andGregory of Nazianzus, to speak of theblending or mixture ^ of the human andDivine in our Lord. This practically meantthe obliteration of the former. The Antio-chenes were particularly opposed to thistendency, as it had appeared, in one shapeat least, even within their own borders.Apollinarius had taught at Hierapolis thatour Lord had no human soul, and that itsplace in His Being was supplied by theDivine Logos. Many of the writings of thegreat Theodore were directed against thisheresy. We may be thankful to him to-day,

1 [The condition of the Copts has been extraordinarilyimproved since the British occupation of Egypt, andthe educated laity have within the last few yearsextorted from their ecclesiastical superiors a body oflay lecturers, empowered to give religious instructionin the churches. Ed.]

^ jM^LSj KpaCTLS,

43


47/244

The Antiochene Schoolfor the tendency against which he protestedis far from extinct. It may still be tracedin our popular theology and may befound in more than one of our favouritehymns.To the divines of Antioch it seemed an

indispensable thing to assert prominentlya human personality in Christ co-existingwith His Divine Nature. They affirmed thedivinity of Jesus Christ with perfect clear-ness, but in their view no true redemptionwas possible for the human race, unless Onewho was truly man and truly God sharedall forms of human life, all phases ofhuman experience, sin excepted. We cantherefore see how the entire scheme of re-demption appeared to them most gravelyendangered if any doubt existed of the trueManhood of Jesus Christ. They, moreover,frankly accepted the Creed of Nicaea inregard to the Person of Christ, and thefact of redemption by Christ Jesus was cen-tral in their theology. They also, to theirhonour, remained true to that traditionwhich, even in Apostolic days, made Antiocha centre of missionary journeys. We must

43


48/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyin all fairness bear in mind the fact thatwhile Church historians have dwelt on theerrors of Antiochene theology, real orsupposed, they have not always dwelt withequal emphasis on the fact that when NorthAfrica and its Church were torn by schismand convulsed by the cruellest intestinestrife, when the Church of Alexandria prac-tically adopted Monophysitism, the despisedSyrians carried the banner of the Cross toregions hardly visited by any traveller.Their missions penetrated to Hindoos andChineseto Bactrians, to Huns, to Persians,to Medes, to the coast of Malabar and theisles of the Indian Oceanand in later ageseven to Balch and Samarcand. The Chris-tianity which produced fruits so noble, andwhich to such missionary zeal added in itsfamous school the lustre of great learningand earnest Biblical study, ought to receivefull recognition from all who name the nameof Christ. Surely such a record is not pos-sible on the part of men sunk in deadlyheresy. We must not forget how the unjusttreatment of Nestorius gave a fresh impulseto the nascent Mariolatry which has pro-

44


49/244

The Antiochene Schoolduced such baneful results in East andWest alike.With these few words of introduction wecome to particulars of the life and teach-ing of the great Theodore, who, if heoccasionally fell into errors, at least devoteda long and laborious life to combatingheresy in every form in which he recog-nised it, and who won for himself a famethroughout the East as a great masterand interpreter of things Divine.Born in Antioch in the year 350, of anoble and wealthy family, Theodore, with a

small band, of whom Chrysostom was chief,abandoned, when not yet twenty years ofage, all worldly prizes, and retired to amonastery near Antioch, under the chargeof Carterius and Diodorus. Of Theodore'spersonal appearance no picture has survived.We shall, however, gain a clear idea of hispersonality from a letter addressed to him byChrysostom himself: ^^ Who," he says, '^ hasnot admired your quick, sincere and ferventconversion to what was good, when all festivalluxury was neglected, all splendour of dresswas despised, all pride trampled under foot,

45


50/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyall study of wisdom was at once transferredto the Divine Word ? The whole of yourdays were devoted to reading, the whole ofyour nights given to prayer. You no longerthought of your family and station, norremembered your wealth ; you believed thatto sit at the feet of the monks was a thingloftier than any rank." Such is Chrysostom'stestimony of Theodore's contempt of wealth,rank, and family. It is also recorded ofhim that when many friends begged of himthat he would return to the city and itsoccupations and pleasures, '* What then,"he replied, '* if I live my life wrongly fora short time, how, in that case, shall Iapproach Him who said, ' Delay not to beconverted to the Lord, and do not put it offfrom day to day.' " ^ This incident in Theo-dore's life had an interesting sequel. When,on account of family affairs, he returned toAntioch for a time, he met and was attractedby a beautiful girl, Hermione, whom heearnestly desired to marry. The letter justquoted is, in fact, part of an earnest remon-strance on Chrysostom's part against this

1 See Migne, " Theod. Mops.," p. 15.46


51/244

The Antiochene Schoolstep. How deeply ascetic were the ideas otthe time we may judge from the extravagantlanguage used by Chrysostom on the subject.He tells Theodore that in his case to marrywould be no less than to commit adultery.His remonstrances did not fail to attaintheir object. Theodore abandoned his

"^

project of marriage and returned to hismonastery. We are further told that he,in common with other great divines ofthe period, including Chrysostom, studiedrhetoric and literature under the celebratedheathen teacher Libanius, the friend ofJulian, and the advocate of oppressed Chris-tianity,^ while he studied theology under thefamous Diodorus, and also under Flavian,Bishop of Antioch.^We must here interrupt our narrative ofTheodore to give some account of the noless famous Diodorus, who, with Carterius,presided over a monastery near Antioch,where the young Theodore with his com-

^ Gibbon, " Decline and Fall," ch. xxiii., xxxii.(Milman and Smith's edition).

2 ** Flaviani magni pontificis amantissimus disci*pulus," Migne, 67, 563.

47


52/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologypanions took up their residence as pupils.^He became one of the most renownedteachers in the School of Antioch, but hiswritings have nearly all been lost.^ Trainedin Athens under famous teachers, he was asgreat a proficient in heathen as in Christianliterature, while his steadfast adherence towhat he believed the Catholic faith, and hispersevering and consistent defence of thatfaith during his whole life, won for himuniversal honour. As we have seen, hebecame the pupil and associate of Flavianof Antioch (not to be confounded with hisnamesake, Flavian of Constantinople), andthe '' guide, philosopher and friend " ofsuch men as Theodore and Chrysostom.We further learn from the historian Socratesthat at the Council of Constantinople in 381the care of the Churches throughout theEast was committed to him.^

1 Socr., '* Eccl. Hist.," vi. 3.2 Some fragments, however, are to be found in

Catenae.2 Socr., '* Eccl. Hist.," v. 8. This commission, we

further learn, was not to be used to the prejudice ofMeletius, who was there recognised as the orthodoxPatriarch of Antioch.

48


53/244

The Antiochene SchoolFlavian, the well-known Bishop of Antioch,

describes his pupils Diodorus and Theodoreas two rocks standing boldly out rocksagainst which the waves of heresy beat invain. The praises of Diodorus were alsosung by Basil and Chrysostom. Theodoretthe able, moderate, yet consistent oppo-nent of Monophysitism tells us thatDiodorus and Flavian, even when laymen,boldly stood up for the Catholic faith.^He describes them as working side byside for the Catholic faith in Antiochwhen Valens, the Arian Emperor, hadturned the Catholics out of their churches,so that they were forced to hold servicesin the open air, in rain and storm or burn-ing sunshine. He was even mentioned ina rescript from the Emperors to theProconsul of Asia as a standard of ortho-doxy to others.Of this great man's personal appearance

we catch an interesting if fugitive glimpse.The Emperor Julian writes to Photinus^ He quotes Athanasius to this effect, '* EccL Hist /'

ii. 25 ; cf. V. 23. This was about a.d. 359, before theCouncil of Constantinople.

49 D


54/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologythat when at Athens he had met Diodorus,and heard him '' philosophising/' that is,teaching, there. He describes him asbent and aged, emaciated and broken bysuffering and austerities. His features weredeeply furrowed, and bore evident tracesof pain and penitential discipline. Thesewere to Julian only so many marks of thevengeance of the gods of the heathen,against whom Diodorus had so long andso earnestly contended.-^We now return to Theodore. Some yearsafter the letter of Chrysostom quoted abovehe became presbyter of Antioch, where heworked with Chrysostom (about 383), andfollowed his master to Tarsus, of which

^ Diodorus was an Universalist. He says in afragment from his book on the ** Divine Plan " whichhas come down to us, '^ For the wicked there arepunishments not perpetual, . . . but they are to betormented for a certain brief period . . . according tothe amount of malice in their works. They shall,therefore, suffer punishment for a short space, butimmortal blessedness having no end awaits them . . . thepenalties to be inflicted for their many and greatcrimes are very far surpassed by the magnitude of themercy to be showed them." The resurrection, there-fore, is regarded as a blessing not only to the goodbut also to the evil.

50


55/244

The Antiochene SchoolDiodorus had been made bishop, at a datenot exactly known. By his aid, probably,Theodore in turn was raised to the Seeof Mopsuestia/ the second city of CihciaSecunda, when forty-two years old, in theyear 392 a.d.^ He died toward the end ofthe year 428.Our next task is to give a conspectus of

Theodore's theological system.^ It wasdesigned to grasp in one synthesis thespiritual and moral history of our race ; topoint out its close relation to the widerhistory of spiritual beings in general ; totrace the orbit of the Divine plan asguided by Jove, and issuing in a final anduniversal restoration to produce, in aword, a philosophy of theology.

I. If Origen, with a clearness far in1 Mopsuestia (Moi/^ovco-rta), i.e., the seat or home of

Mopsos, its king and founder, apparently a Greekcolonist.

2 See Migne, '* Theod. Mops.," pp. 1821.3 It may be well to mention here that Theodore

always uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testa-ment, and it is doubtful whether he even was acquaintedwith Hebrew, though it would appear that he musthave known Syriac, because of his criticising someSyriac version of the Old Testament.

51 "O 2


56/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyadvance of his age, taught the spiritualaspect of the Resurrection, as against theprevalent materialism, Theodore, with atleast equal acuteness, perceived that theanastasis forms in the Gospel plan thecrown and climax of redemption. This, heclearly perceived, is what is meant when, asrepeatedly in the Acts of the Apostles, theApostolic message is declared to be *^ Jesusand the Resurrection."

2. Another peculiarity of Antiochenetheology was the placing God's image inman not in man's rational nature, but in hisbeing the visible representative of Deity onearth. As an absent king sends his repre-sentative to a distant province to carry onthe government in his name, so God hasmade man, His living image. His vicegerentbelow.

3. Another feature of this school is thatthey held that the goal of Redemption wasnot merely restoration, but elevation to apoint higher than that of our first creation,in fact, a perfection of the whole (reXetcoo-ty).

4. They also agreed with a vast body ofHellenists in maintaining that man does

52


57/244

The Antiochene Schoolnot move alone towards this glorious end.It was a fixed principle of almost all Hellen-ists, whether in Syria or elsewhere, thatthe final destiny of all spiritual creatures isthe same. They held that there is a solemnmarch of all rational beings throughoutthe universe towards Him who is theirAuthor and their End. Age after age thegreat stream of life is growing; at everymoment tributary rills pour in their waters.The tide flows on, majestic and resistless,till one day its waters reach that Oceanwithout shore, without limit, without stormthat Ocean which is God ; for out of Himflow, and to Him return, all things what-soever. We shall hardly be able to dojustice to Hellenism unless we try to standfor a moment where its writers stood.Neither can we understand the SyrianSchool unless we note the points inwhich it agreed with Hellenism as wellas those in which the two schools are inantagonism. The Resurrection, in fact, is,according to Antiochene theology, a secondand better creation of all humanity. It isnot merely salvation, it is life. In harmony

53


58/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologywith the best modern thought the SyrianSchool says :

** 'Tis LIFE, whereof our nerves are scant,More life and fuller that we want."

Its great exponent Theodore views the entireuniverse as slowly moving away from one poleto the other. In the history of all spiritualbeings there are two supreme categories,one mortality^ with instability, passion anddisease as its attendantsthe other immor-tality, with its synonyms, immutability andsinlessness. Between the two stands theResurrection in splendour and dignitybefore it we see change, sin, defects ; afterit come glory, renewal and blessedness.It IS the new birth. It is the new creationof humanity. It is the force which raisesman, the vital energy which quickens andsaves, the great uplifting power whichunites man with God. "' Who is such afooV asks Theodore, *^ as to think that sogreat a boon can be to any man the sourceof endless pain?" From the Incarnateand Risen Lord, who is the second Adam,Head of humanity, there flows that energywhich banishes all mutability and all mor-

54


59/244

The Antiochene Schooltality, all passion, all sin. Even sin, disease,and death itself are, in Theodore's eyes, nomore than God's engines for the training ofmankind. The Fall was a step in theDivine scheme for the elevation of man ;Redemption is no mere after-thought. Evensin itself interposes no permanent obstaclesto God's purpose. It may be maintainedby timid souls that in the splendour of thegoal the dangers of the way were minimised.Sin, it may be said, on such a view, losessomething of its awfulness. But a Hellenistmight reply that because of its very awful-ness sin must be extinguished finally andabsolutely. And we should remember thewide prevalence of asceticism among themembers of the Syrian school. As this typeof life was most widely diffused among them,and as in its very nature it implies a verysolemn and even awful view of man's natureand his liabilities in the future, it is difficultto see how such a mode of life could haveflourished at all unless the true sinfulness otsin had been clearly perceived.

5. Another remarkable feature in Theo-dore's teaching is a certain critical attitude

55


60/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologytowards the Bible. His opposition to theallegorising propensities of the AlexandrianSchool has already been mentioned. Buthe went further. He refused to accept asinspired the titles prefixed to the variousPsalms, and criticises in a strikingly modernspirit such books as the Song of Solomonand the story of Job.^

6. We now proceed to the teaching ofTheodore on the Incarnation. It stands invery close connection with his theory ofRedemption, which is really the ruling ideahere, as also in Hellenistic thought. Forthe salvation of man the Deity was pleasedto unite Himself to a perfect human being,who must share every thought, experienceand passion incident to humanity, sinexcepted. In other words, the Divine Being

1 Theodore also (perhaps justly) restricted Mes-sianic references in the Psalms, preferring the obvioushistorical meaning. Still he did not deny the mira-culous element in the Bible, e.g., he accepts as literallytrue the story of Jonah and the whale. His liberalviews were thus limited, and we must not credit ordiscredit him with the so-called modernism of to-day.It is interesting to find him pointing out that the lastchapter of St. John's Gospel is really an appendix byanother hand.

56


61/244

The Antiochene Schoolmust come into actual and vital contact withour humanity, at every point and at everystage of its growth. And so a Man is chosenand fashioned by the Divine Spirit in theVirgin's womb. For this Man, as in Histemple, the Spirit dwells in a mode ineffable,far higher than His indwelling in the greatestsaint. *' To compare the two," says Theo-dore, *^ is mere madness." Christ had theSpirit completely ; the rest of mankind onlyin a measure. The Divine Child, evergrowing, yet sharing human weakness andhuman ignorance, is increasingly filled withthe Divine influence. Thus it is that Jesusis said to increase in wisdom and in know-ledge, a statement which was embarrassingto the Alexandrian divines. Still more werethey embarrassed by the suggestion that theman Christ Jcvsus was ignorant of the dayand hour of the coming Judgment. Tothe Antiochenes this idea appeared quitenatural. Nor were they perplexed at Jesusshowing signs of fear and anguish as Hispassion approached. They did not shrinkfrom affirming that He even ** learnedobedience," as the author of the Epistle to

57


62/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologythe Hebrews says, '^ by the things HevSuffered.'' But once risen, Jesus fears nomorethe union with God is now complete ;the Incarnation is perfected ; the chmax isreached. Yet Theodore uniformly asserts asingle Person in Christ, in whom two naturesare inseparably united. Over and over againhe teaches this unity of Person with dualityof nature in our Lord. An illustration ofhis may be given ; as a man and wife arenot two but one flesh, so, in the Incarnation

. the Man and the God are not two but onePerson or Hypostasis. This is, in fact, thevery watchword of his teaching on this head.As we shall presently see, it is quite certainthat he does not intend to teach any divisionof Christ into two separate entities. Thevery last thing he intended to do was todeviate from the Catholic Faith. This isclear from sentence after sentence in hiswritings.

7. Before leaving this subject of ourLord's Person, it may be well to point outthe attitude of Antioch towards the famousphrase, '' Mother of God." If it be askedwhether the Virgin maybe styled ^* Deipara '^

58


63/244

The Antiochene Schoolin Greek, '* Theotokos ''that is, literally,God's Mother, the reply given by Theodorewould be in exact accordance with that ofnearly all reasonable and orthodox men ofto-day. He would reply '' Yes " or '' No."In other words, literally God cannot be born,and therefore literally a negative answermust be given, but figuratively and ideallywe are justified in calling the Blessed Virgin'^ Theotokos," on account of the intimaterelations held by the human to the Divinein the Incarnate Son.^ And if in attemptingto state so great a mystery human words aresometimes found ambiguous and misleading,that is not enough to substantiate the chargeof heresy (a remark which, indeed, is true ofboth schools in many ways). As a pioneerof theological progress, he doubtless, likehis predecessor, Origen, may have falleninto error, and may, like thousands of othermen, have expressed too great contempt forhis opponents. But he never deliberatelyopposed himself to Church authority, and,

1 He would even go further and admit the proprietyof a phrase current in the opposing school, i,e,, that** God was crucified."

59


64/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyas has already been pointed out, he remainedtill his death in the communion of the Church.His standpoint compelled him to deny anyactual transubstantiation of the Divine intothe human, such as Cyril of Alexandriadistinctly affirmed. The union for whichhe contended between the Godhead andManhood, while most intimate, was dis-tinctly spiritual and ethical. In his view theIncarnation took place, not by any physicalblending, but by a spiritual force. A manis assumed (a favourite expression of his)by the Divine Son, and made one byHim with Himself in the womb of theBlessed Virgin, through the action of theSpirit.We will conclude this section with a briefsummary of the conflicting views of Antioch

and Alexandria on this crucial point oftheology. What, then, did the Antiochenesteach ? The Antiochene School unques-tionably maintained, verbally^ at leasts theCatholic doctrine of the two Natures in theone Person, while they asserted that theunity of God and Man was wholly spiritualand not in any sense physical. This unifi-

60


65/244

The Antiochene Schoolcation (epoxTLs) of man and God beginsin the womb before the birth of Jesus, andis one that develops and increases as theman Jesus develops. The Incarnation isthus progressive as w^ell as ethicala factto be noted. In this unification^ bothNatures remain distinct, yet they are soclosely drawn together as to form but OnePerson. In Theodore's words: *'So thatwhat the Lord says about the man and thewoman, ' and so that they are no longer two,but one flesh,' we, too, may reasonably sayabout the matter of the unification, so thatthere are no longer two Persons (ttpoo-cotto)but one, the Natures having clearly been dis-criminated. . . . The unification of the Person{iTpoacoTTov) is not destroyed by the differenceof the Natures. . . . For when we dis-tinguish the Natures we say that the Natureof God the Word is perfect, and His Person(ttpoVcottoi/) perfect ; since we do not say thathypostasis is non-personal. But also theNature of the Man is perfect, and likewisehis Person. When, moreover, we regard

1 I use this term *' unification " because the word" unity *' scarcely conveys the sense of the original,

6i


66/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologythe conjunction {avmcpetajj then we affirmthe Person. For when the Natures havebeen distinguished, the Person is perfectedin the unification. ''^ But he is careful toadd that when we consider the unity thenwe teach that both Natures form but OnePersonin a word, if you consider theNatures, both are distinct and both arepersonal, but if you look at the unity thenthere is but One Person.^

Doubtless there is a difficulty here. Butit is because mere human words are apt to

1 These passages are from Theodore^s book onthe Incarnation, characteristically described in someeditions as the work of ** the heretic Theodore againstthe Incarnation." See Migne, in loc, pp. 974, 981.

2 At this point it is necessary to recall a wise cautionattributed to the late Bishop Westcott. He says thatour difficulties begin in attempting to draw a series ofinferences from the words of Scripture, and not restingcontent with the text itself. Thus, to take an instruc-tive instance, we know how frequent is the use of theterm Redemption applied to our Lord's work. If weaccept the term, all is easy, but when our inferencesbegin, then comes a knot which no man can unloose,and which in very early days caused perplexity andindeed led to even absurd statements. For instance, ifChrist redeems usthat is, '*buys us back"fromwhom does He buy ? Who receives the price ? Is itGod or is it, as very many thought, the devil. Thus

62


67/244

The Antiochene Schoolbreak down under the strain such topicsimpose. The meaning, however, is notaltogether beyond comprehension. Thereare two Natures each in themselves personal,the Divine and the human, but the momentyou look away from these to the Unity thereis but a single Person. There is, as itwere, a sub-personality-that of the Manwhen you look only at the human elementin the Incarnation, but looking at the greatineffable union of Man and God, then thereis but one Incarnate Person. '* Our enemiesprofess that if we speak of two perfect things(or beings), we necessarily must teach twoSons in Jesus Christ. But we justly confessone Son, since the distinction of Naturesmust necessarily persist, and the Oneness ofPerson be indissolubly preserved. . . . Again,in reply to what they say, it is enough toshow that we teach that the Son is justlyendless difficulties arose. If, in the same way, we arecontent to believe in the perfect Manhood and Godheadin our Lord, abandoning inferences and deductions, weshould go very far to reconcile the rival schools whomight have met in harmony on the one great truthwhich both accepted, though neither could explainevery detail.

63


68/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyconfessed to be One, yet the difference of theNatures ought to remain and the unificationof His Person be inseparably preserved." ^The man Jesus was gifted with the indwell-ing Spirit, not as other men, for He receivedin Himself the whole grace of the Spirit,but all other men received only a share inthe presence of the Spirit. These quotationsmay perhaps suffice to illustrate Theodore'steaching. The crux of the whole matterlies plainly here, and I know not whetherany CEdipus can completely unravel theknot if, in spite of warnings, men willpersist in drawing inferences. If you retaina human Person, then, said the Alexandrianyou practically abandon the Incarnation, foryou no longer have one Incarnate Christ, nolonger one centre, but two. But, repliesAntioch, if there is not a human personalitythere can be no true Manhood in the Incar-nation, and no real union of Man and Godand we are thus forced back into theregion of unrealities, where we are com-pelled to content ourselves with a being reallyunthinkable and therefore wholly ineffectual

1 Migne, p. 985.64


69/244

The Antiochene Schoolto redeem us because no true man. Allthese objections seemed trifles light as airto the mystics of Alexandria, who had nodifficulty whatever in accepting a mysteriouspermeation of the human by the Divine, ormore accurately, either a sort of ^^ transtib-stantiation '' of the God into the Man ; or a** deification '' of the humana phrase notvery uncommon.

I feel deeply how attractive is theAlexandrian view of the Incarnation. Tomany it appears to have deeper roots, andto appeal more strongly than the rivalsystem to our religious consciousness.Men's deepest feelings respond when theyare told that the Man is actually part andparcel of the Deity in a true sense '^ thatthe Divinity has become the actual posses-sion of human nature,'' ^ and yet when welook more closely the difficulties involved inthis view become clear. We have alreadyseen that the Incarnate Man, if regarded asmerging His human personality in the God-head, would seem thereby to lose his Man-hood. It melts away into a golden haze.

1 Dorner, '' Person of Christ,'* p. 62.65 E


70/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyBut, furthermore, if the Logos literally be-comes Man, and if His divinity thus embraceshis human nature, where is there any possi-bility in Christ of imperfection, of learninganything through suffering, weakness, ortemptation, all which are clearly taught bythe New Testament ? And how could sucha Divine Person need the descent of theSpirit at His baptism, or the help of anangel to strengthen Him ? All these pointsthe Aritiochenes strongly pressed. And ifthe human nature ^ has no personal centre ofits own, it has no independent subsistence,and exists merely in a form of a number ofaccidents held together by the Divine Logos.Thus it would seem that Cyril, while reallystriving to found his system more deeply,has to a large extent been playing withwords, and that, as Dorner says, the Christhe taught was simply God with the appear-ance of man, but not a real man, andconsequently Cyril did not acknowledgea real Incarnation of God.^ We are here,in fact, face to face with the immemorial

1 lb., p. 67.2 /&., p.73.

66


71/244

The Antiochene Schoolconflict of the mystic and the realist, ofthe Platonist and the Aristotehan. In theAlexandrian view, God does actually andliterally become Man. There is a real ifineffable transmutation, and the resultantbeing is God. From this feeling theregrew quite naturally that vast group ofheresies which, under various namesApollinarian, Monophysite, Monothelitefor long ages troubled and all but over-whelmed the Church. Roughly speaking,they were in fact so many ways of denyingthe Man Jesus in the Incarnate Son.Against this the Church at the Council ofChalcedon steadily proclaimed the doctrineof two Natures in One Person and onehypostasis. The Realist, or Critical, Schoolof Antioch also opposed this mystical view,and said to the AlexandriansThat whichyou offer is no real Man, it is an impersonalSomething which is quite unintelligible.At this point one is tempted to askwhether an accommodation were notpossible between the rival schools, for if, asthe Council of Chalcedon declared, therewas in the Incarnation a human entity

67 E 2


72/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theology^'Nature" they called itpossessing ahuman soul, a human reason, and a humanconsciousness and will, which speaks,thinks, and acts of and from itself, all ofwhich Pope Leo's letter admits, then it maybe argued that this human entity is to allintents and purposes a human person. Ifthis be granted, and here certainly the rivaltheories almost coincide, then this painfulcontroversy might have been prevented.But, in fact, there was no real desire foran equitable consideration by the rivalleaders. It was so much easier to takeup the nearest stone and fling it at arival's head than to take him by the armand honestly seek to arrive at a satis-factory understanding as friend with afriend. I have tried to be fair. I admitthe reasons that may be urged againstthe merely spiritual tie uniting man andGod in the Incarnation, as Antioch heldthey have been stated already. Butfairness demands the admission that Cyril'sview is even more vulnerable. Perhaps wemay sum up thus : The rival theories, ifpressed to the bitter end with sharp logic,

68


73/244

The Antiochene Schoolhave both their weak points. Both havemerits, yet neither can stand a rigid criticalanalysis. Yet here, above all, on groundso sacred, there is room and space for aharmony which shall preserve all that isbest in the rival schemes. Reasonablyinterpreted (as I have tried to show) thehuman '^nature," *^soul," ''will," ''reason,"which the orthodox view concedes, I think,to the Man Jesus, involves in one sense atrue personality, and where this is concededvirtually it matters little if a verbal denialof personality is made. At this point wemay perhaps pause to remark two things :First, that, notwithstanding the gravity ofthese questions, there is a certain air ofunreality in all this controversy, and thisarises inevitably from want of clear per-ception as to the precise meaning of theterms employed. We do not know exactlywhat such terms as " nature," " person,""substance," "hypostasis," etc., etc., reallydenote. I am not certain even that all ofus can define with precision what Incarna-tionthe master term of allmay denote.What I mean is that we are most of us

69


74/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyincompetent to explain what condition orconditions need to be fulfilled in order tomake a valid Incarnation. There is thusan element of uncertainty imparted to thediscussion. How, for instance, could wereason about geometry if we did not knowexactly what was meant by an angle, asquare, or a parallelogram. The secondremark is that we cannot understand themotive underlying these controversies, if wedo not try to assume the Hellenisticstandpoint. It has been said with someexaggeration, but with a good deal of truthnevertheless, that the early Hellenists hadbut one doctrine, namely, that of theIncarnate.Thus the interminable discussions which

to us seem so often unintelligible, or evenirreverent, were to the disputants of thosedays absolutely vital. With the Hellenistthe Incarnation was everything, the Atone-ment (in the sense in which modern theologyhas come to use the word) nothing. Christsaves usso they thoughtnot by HisDeath, but by His Birth. His mere ap-pearance in the world is sufficient to drive

70


75/244

The Antiochene Schoolall foul things away and compel them tohide themselves from His presence. AsAthanasius puts it, just as if a city is inrevolt against its sovereign, so his presenceis in itself sufficient to restore order, soChrist by simply coming into this w^orld,is of Himself sufficient to restore peaceand concord. He is the Light w^hichdispels darkness by its presence ; the leavenw^hich penetrates and purifies the w^holeinert mass of humanity by His living power.Thus the Incarnation was the very coreand heart of the Hellenist system.^

1 I give Theodore's words as to the wicked andtheir lot in the future life. ** The wicked/' he says,** who during the whole of their life have turned awayto sin, when through punishment and fear they shallhave repented and chosen and learned what is goodand thus obtained the knowledge of the fear of God,shall be made worthy of the joy of the Divine pardon,for never would Christ have said, * Until thou hastpaid the uttermost farthing ' (St. Mark v. 26), unlessit were possible that, when we had atoned for sins bypenalty, we should be cleansed from themnor wouldHe have said, * I shall be beaten with many andbeaten with few stripes ' (St. Luke xii. 47, 48), unlessafter they had borne punishment in proportion to theirsins they should finally receive pardon.'' [The authorgives no reference here. Ed.]

71


76/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyWith these remarks we leave the general

question, and proceed to inquire what lightthe career of Nestorius and the writingsof Theodoret and Chrysostom throw uponthe situation.

72


77/244

II

NestoriusTheodoretChrysostomA STRIKING and even pathetic figure now

claims our attention. Of Nestorius we firsthear as Abbot of the Monastery Euprepius,a Httle outside the city of Antioch. In theyear 428, while Theodore was approachingthe end of his labours, Nestorius, alreadyfamous for his eloquence and fervour ofpreaching, united with earnestness andausterity of life, was raised to the great Seeof Constantinople. Enough has perhapsbeen said of the bitter jealousies andrivalries of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.But we ought not to forget that all of them,Antioch not excepted, were jealous of thesudden rise of Constantinople to the secondplace in rank, and that Rome in particularwas afraid of losing the primacy which oncebelonged to her as the Imperial city. Notmany years previous to the appointment ofNestorius to Constantinople Chrysostom

73


78/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyhad been hurled from that *' place of pride "through the wiles of the ambitious andtreacherous Theophilus of Alexandria, hadbeen driven into exile, and had perished indistress and disgrace among the barbariansof Pontus. Now the nephew of Theophilus,Cyril, was to open a campaign againstanother Bishop of Constantinople and todrive him also into exile and condemn himto a lonely death in the wilds of UpperEgypt.

I have already mentioned Mr. Bethune-Baker's " Bazaar of Heraclides.'' I desire torefer to it once more in this connection.Its reasonable tone, combined with ortho-doxy of teaching, its genuine desire to befair to all parties concerned in this painfulcontroversy, are conditions at once unhappilymost rare in religious controversy, and there-fore most welcome. Mr. Bethune-Baker'spoint may be stated thus : That the teach-ing attributed to Nestorius was not reallyhis, that he in fact accepted the definitionsof Pope Leo and of the Council of Chalce-don, and that he believed the doctrine oftwo Natures in our Lord united in One

74


79/244


80/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyare hardly suitable for these pages, dealingas they do, not with the history, but withthe opinions of the Antiochene School.The practical result seems to me that themiserable controversy might have beenaltogether avoided had there been anyreal desire, especially on Cyril's part, toattain peace. The moderate men on bothsides were clearly prepared to acquiescein the statement which now represents theCatholic position, that in our Lord's Personthe Manhood and Godhead were unitedeternally and indivisiblywhich is preciselythe way in which the Council of Chalcedon,and Leo's letter to Flavian of Constanti-nople, accepted by that Council, definedthe faith.We come now to one ofthe most attractivecharacters in early Church history, thelearned, moderate, and fair-minded Theo-doret. Bishop of Cyrus.^ Less original andsystematic than Theodore, less brilliantthan Chrysostom, Theodoret is quite thebest representative of the moderate Antio-chene. If Theodore is the thinker, and

1 Or Cyrrhus.76


81/244

Nestorius, Theodoret, ChrysostomChrysostom the orator, Theodoret is thehistorian and commentator of the school.In the repose of his writings is a constantreasonableness of tone, possibly even in acertain want of ^^ unction." Theodoret offersa marked contrast to the fire and passion ofthe North African School. Like Theodore,who may be called his master, he is on everyvital point a Hellenist. This is evident in hismode of treating such questions as God'swrath, retribution, death, the RcvSurrec-tion, the descent into Hades, the unity ofCreation, and the like. The ethical tonewhich pervades his theology is also Hel-lenistic, and so is the optimism displayedin many passages of his writings. As willbe seen later, he, no less firmly than Chry-sostom, takes up an attitude of markedopposition to anything like the Augustiniandoctrine of original sin. He will not evenhear it said that God inflicted death on Adamin anger for a little eating} It may be at once

1 [Here Theodoret has taken Gen. iii. 3, in thepurely literal sense. But the sacred historian doesnot say that ** God inflicted death on Adam in angerfor a little eating." What he does say is that Adam

77


82/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyconceded that Theodoret (as do all earlyHellenists) applies the term aidvLos to thefuture punishment of the wicked, but he iscareful to tell us that this term is sometimesapplied to a limited period.^ He especiallycontrasts it with a/8to9, applied to Christ inHeb. i. 2.^ He teaches that there is redemp-tion from aeonian death in Zech. ix. ii.^I will proceed to quote from Theodoret a fewspecimens of his teaching. Here is a passagebreathing the spirit of Theodore's system.^^ It is," says Theodoret, ^^ God's purpose toweld into one the totality of things {rb (Tvimav)^brought God's wrath on himself for knowing evil aswell as good. Ed.]

1 In his ^* Questions on Exodus," dealing with thematter of the slave who is to become the property ofhis master, he says (i., p. 155) of the word mwi/, thereused, evT^vOev hrjXov, ws ov Travraxov o alojv rov arreipovSrjXoiTLKOS, aXA' (TTiV OTOV KOi wpiCT/JiivOV )(pbvOV CrrjfJidVTiKOS*[That this is the case with alo)v is undeniable. It istherefore the more remarkable that the limited senseshould be strenuously denied in the case of the adjec-tive directly formed from it. The quotations aretaken from Schulze's edition. Ed.]

2 III., 547. [But he does not contrast atStos withalwvLO^, but with aldjv (tcov aldvoiv),Ed.]

3 [What Theodoret actually says is that the " pitwhich has no water " (Zech. ix. 11) means either eternal(atcii/105) death or the error of idols. Ed.]

78


83/244

Nestorius, Theodoret, Chrysostomand of this purpose man is the pledge, beinga bond between the visible and invisible, andGod's image, i.e., God's representative/He quotes with approval from Athanasiusa passage which says that the whole race ofman is so permeated by the Resurrection asto become like a single living creature,^ astatement which certainly implies universalsalvation. Elsewhere Theodoret assertsthat the passion of anger does not move Godto chastise, but the words are used to frightenmen who resist His will by the name ofanger.^ Over and over again this Fatherasserts that Divine threats, stripes andpenalties are inflicted in order to heal/God, he elsewhere says, does not know howto execute His threats/ Like the Hellenists,

1 Quest. XX. in Gen. i., p. 30.2 Dial, iii., Impat., iv., p. 242. The words of

Athanasius are rovs Trai/ras iviSv(Tv dcfiOapcrta Iv rfj ireplTrj


84/244

Augustinian Revolution in TheologyTheodoret sees a redemptive purpose every-where ; the very destruction of the Egyptiansin the Red Sea is but an overthrow throughHoly Baptism, i,e,^ God destroys in order tosave them.^ In his commentary on Hab. ii.14,^ he bids us not think this hard tounderstand, for that all the generations ofmankind shall be illumined by the splendoursof the knowledge of God, so that the bitterwaters of unbelief shall be covered by thesweet waters of the knowledge (of God). . . .When speaking ofthe atoning work of Christ,Theodoret repeatedly says that, by payingthe debt due from sinners. He saved all menfrom the penalties due from them for theirsins.^ . . . On the Resurrection Theodoretpractically repeats what he has learnt fromTheodore. Commenting on Ps.viii. 9,^ alsoPs. xxi.,^ he teaches that not merely ^^allsheep and oxen, but the whole creation,

suffering He knows how to avoid giving effect toHis threats."Ed.]1 On Ps. Ixxxix. 10, i., p. 1233.2 II., p. 1547.3 Orat. '' De Providentia/' iv., p. 666 sqq,4 I., p. 654.^ I.I P- 745-

80


85/244

Nestorius, Theodoret, Chrysostomvisible and invisible, " shall share in theunspeakable union which He has cometo make, and that some will share in HisResurrection willingly, others unwillingly,some from love, and some from fear.^Before leaving Theodoret we must com-pare his views with those known asAugustinian. His opposition to Augus-tinianism, while at first sight it may not seemso complete as in the case of Theodore, is yetvital. True, there are some passages inwhich Theodoret traces human sin to Adam'stransgression, but he means something differ-ing radically from what Augustine asserts.Adam became mortal by sin, and beingmortal he begets mortal children ; and sincefrom a state of mortality flow, as a rule,perturbations, passions, desires, sin itselfderives its origin from these. It is clear thathis view of sin is not that it is derived fromour parents, but that it is produced by theconfusion and disorder which the first sinhas brought into the world, just as the

1 See also i., p. 1293 (0^ P^- ^^v. 11), where hedescribes the angels as rejoicing in the change(jx^ralSoXyj) of all men.

. 81 F


86/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyperturbations in the path of the planet Uranuswere scientifically proved to have been theresult of external forces.^ But Theodoret'strue standpoint and his complete disagree-ment with the North African theologyare best seen by taking certain pointsseriatim

(i) Death is toTheodoret a remedy devisedby God for man's help.^

(ii) Each man dies, not on account of hisprogenitor's sin, but his own (which is franklyPelagian).^

(iii) Indeed, if sin were a natural energy,we should be free from punishment.^

(iv) We first choose good, then receiveGod's help.^

(v) Concupiscence (rather desire, kmOvixia)is a necessity for man become mortal.^ Sofar from being sinful it, in moderation,

1 See on Ps. li. 7.2 In Gen. Quest. 37, 40. In Rom. v. 16, Theodoretdistinctly says that death is not imposed as a penalty

(rt/xcopta), but as a means of life.^ On Rom. v. 13.^ On Ps. li. 7.5 On Haggai ii. i ; cf. on Rom. vi. 13,^ Aetrac yap iTnOvixca^,

82


87/244

Nestorius, Theodoret, Chrysostomprocures what is good, it works out alonging after God.^

(vi) The grace of the Spirit is insufficientwhere there is no readiness of mind.^

(vii) God calls those who have a purposeto come.^On this point Theodoret speaks at length,

God's election depends on human purpose ;so with Esau and JacobGod knows whatthey will do.^ If God's acts were arbitraryGod would take vengeance unjustly onsinners.^ The comments here are root andbranch opposed to Augustine ; he will notfor a moment admit as just in God what inman would be unjustGod predestinatesthose who are worthy of salvation.^

(viii) ^^ By one man's disobedience manywere made sinners"the Apostle rightlyuses *' many," for some in all nations became

1 On Rom. vii. 17.2 On Phil. i. 30 ; cf. ii. 13.3 On Rom. viii. 28, 30.^ On Rom. ix. 13, 18.^ Ih, ix. 19.6 lb, ix. 24. [It may be necessary to remind the

reader that the question here is not whether Theodoretis right, nor whether he is orthodox, but whether heagrees with Augustine. Ed.]

83 F 2


88/244

Augustinian Revolution in Theologyworkers of virtue and remained at the limitsof nature.^ Referring to *^ Gentiles doing bynature the works of the law," Abimelech,slave and Ethiopian, gained salvation by hispiety.^

(ix) ^' Baptism does not, as the Messa-lians supposed, simply clear away, as with arazor, the sins which had gone before, forthis is freely granted beforehand. For, ifthis were the only object of baptism, why dowe baptise infants who have not yet com-mitted sin ? Baptism is the earnest of futureblessings, the type of the coming Resurrec-tion, the communion in the sufferings of theLord, the participation of His Resurrec-tion."^ If we remember that Theodoretand Augustine were contemporaries, thisdifference is striking. It is, I submit, adifference of view, alike in principle and indetail, which may be fairly called funda-mental. Nor should I hesitate to

Documents

Allin, Lias. The Augustinian revolution in theology. 1911