In closer contact with (.'hrlsiianlty proper are the heretical Ebloniles. For them a better claim might be made out to represent a real divergence of tradition. It Is possible that their (leniai of the Vlririn-Hirth was derived front the state of things when the canonical narratives had not yet obtained any wide circulation. And yet we sliould have to' pass U|Kin these Kbioniles a verdict similar to that already passi-d upon tlie (f nostics. They were really Jews imperfectly C"hristianize<l. If they regarded Christ as li/iAb? dv9piuTro^, it was doubtless because the Jews did not expect their Messiah to have any other origin. This is a different thing from, though it may have some subonli- nato connexion with, the views (e.{/.)of Paiil of Samosata, whose dirticulty was caused by the union of the two natures. The human nature ho regarded as having an ordinary human birth, though It came to be united to the Divine L<)g08.'
A like account would hold goi>d of Tlieodotus of Ryzantiuni and the Kationalists described in Eus. HE y. xxviii.' .\t last the rea<ler may think that he is upon the track of a genuine nationalism ; but this did not go very deep. It was consi^tent with belief In the Virgin-Birth and in the Resurrection (Hippniytus. lief. I/ivr. vii. •.\h)\ in fact It probably amounted to little more than a dry literal exegesis.
The Clem^utine //mnilies point out that Christ did not call lliiiisclf 'God,' but the "Son of God.' and they emphasize this (li,-tinciion somewhat after the manner of the later Arlans ixvi. I'), 1*)). When we have said this, we shall have touched (it is believed) on all the main types of what might be thought to be a denial of Christ's full Godhead.
The more pressing danger of primitive Christianity lay in an opposite direction. Loyalty to Christ was so strong tliat the simpler sort of Christians were apt to look upon the humanity as swallowed up in the divinity. This is the true account of the early prevalence of Docelism (which made the deity of Christ real, the humanity phantasmal or unreal), and of the later prL'valence of what is known to students as .Modalistlc Monarch- ianism. and to the general reader as Sabellianism (the doctrine that the Son and the Spirit were not distinct IVrsons in the Godhead, but modes or aspects of the One God). The answer of N'oetus was tvpical of the frame of mind that gave rise to this, * What harm do I do in glorifying Christ ? ' (Hippol. c. Xoei. 1) : it seemed mt-ritorious to identify Christ with God. Both these tendencies were far stronger and more widely spread than anything that savoured of Rationalism. Docelism entered largely into the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, which were very popular; and both Ter'lullian (Prax. 1,8) and Ilippolytus {l£e/. I/trr. ix. r». tifyttTTO': aytuv) imply that the struggle against Monarchianisra was severe.
It is evident from this to which side the scales inclined. The traces of anything like nationalism in the modern sense are extremely few and slight. For the most part, what looks like it is not pure Hationali.sm (or lluraanitarianism) at all. More formidable was the excess of zeal which exalted the divine in Christ at the expense of the human. Hut the main body of the Church held an even way between both extremes, — held it at least in inten- tion, though there were no doubt a certain number of unsuccessful experiments in the construction of reasoned theory.
(c) It was inevitable that in the early centuries there should be a great amount of tentative think- ing. But little by little this was sifted out ; and by the middle of the 5th cent, the ancient Church had practically made up its mind. It forniulated its belief, perhaps almost at the same time, in the Chalcedonian definition (5po5 rijs 4v Xa\KTjd6vi TfTdpTTjff <rvv65ov) of the year 451 (which counts as
Kcumt'uical, though the only Westerns prfst-nt were the two legates of Pope Leo and two fugitive l)islio|)s from Africa), and in the Quicumque vnlt, a liturgical creed composed in Southern Gaul (prob- ably at, or in connexion with, the school of Leri- num), which came to be generally accepted in the West.
This creed and the deflnltlons of Chalcedon represent the end of the process ; the beginning 1* marked by the creed known as the Apostles'. Crltlcl>ni has of late been active upon this creed as well as upon the so-called JS'icene and Athanaslan, with a result which tends. It may be generally said, to heighten the value of all throe. The date of the Api)siles' Creed (In Its oldest and shortest f*»rni) has been reduced within the limits a.d. HHW l.'iO; Kattenbusch, the author of the most elaborate monograph on the subject, leans to the beginning of that period, Ilurnack to the end. It is agreed that It was in the flrst instance the local baptismal cree^l of the Church of Rome, and that It was the parent of all the leading provincial creeds of the West. The principal open question at the present moment (isyu in.) Is as to Its relation to the Eastern creeds. Kattenbu.sch and Ilarnack both think that It was carried to the East in the time of Aurelian (c/nv/ 27(0. and that It became the parent of a number of Eastern creeds. Including that which we know as the Nicene ; but this Is cruijccturc. Ilarnack thinks that the Roman creed coalesced with tloatlng formulte, to which he gives the name of Kei'ijgmatii, already circulating In the East. But these also are more or loss hypothetical. And the question is whether tha Eastern creeds, which resemble the Roman, were not rather olTshoots, parallel to It, of a single primitive creed, perhaps originating In .\sia Minor. This is substantially the view of Dr. I.oofs. The main argument in favour of it Is that character- istic features of the Eastern type of creed already appear in Irena-us and in less degree in .Instin. Ilarnack wouhl explain these features as due to his Kerijgitntta ; and t^om the point of view of the history of doctrine the dilferenco is not very great, because the Kery'gmata were in any case In harmony with the creed.