Sonici liiiiu I" !"■ iiii'lia-stood there was. The wlioir |iic.i .- , is iiiirlliuiMe Only ou the assumption of tlie imlievitaliim ar.i>|itance of belief in Christ's higher nature. The prolileni to the Jews had been, Is this rabbi more than tlie Messiah ? The problem to the Hellenic world now was, Is tliis Word more than our X(57os ? and before the proliIeni was solved to its satisfai-tion, Greek tlioniihl i.nss,.,l llirough an experience a^ leirealue and i (■\ olm ionary as Jewi.sh aspiration lia.l ilone in lie- A|.o lolie, age. The answer, fmlliei, ]irr^rr\ cl I lie he.sl, ideal of classical (ailime, aiel haii-lair.l it into a con- stituent trenMiM- ..1 tin- riiii ij.in (•onsciousness. The result wa^ ilier.,ii,|ii. -t oi i 1m- older conceptions of deity, whether of prophet- oi [.liilos-ophers, by a new conception, a monotheisni i.lentiral with no previous form, the richest liillierto r.aihed, and one which eventually proved eapalile ol imparting a spiritual unity to "men of vast ly more educative value than any system of organized culture before or since.
(a) Patristic aflre.— At first (up to A.D. 300) the
process is slow and uncongenial. There are parties of prnetieal outlook only and others of eonserv.itive instiiiet whieh fail to comprehcml lie- urw -itna- tii>n. Kut in the better represenlaiiMs of the ("liriNtiaii nuivement there is a readier coiuave and a more vigorous intellect. They manifest, indeed, no lapse from Apostolic attainments. The desire to keep to what is primitive is with them, as witli the others, passionate, but in no narrow spirit. They are eauer to search into the implications of their doel rin>'. I'.ul iliey plainly exhibit a want of ei|ui|ineiit lor the ta-k. They are always vague, ofliii ( onllietinu. \ clear theory cannot he gained fiieii tlii'ir writings. Both facts, the existence of >cci~ wliirli refused to theorize and the uncertain - t ic- oi t \\:>-i- w ho did, are alleged by some historians as ,-1 ^ldund for denying to that age any assured belief in Christ's Divinity. The niat'erial for judgment is not too abundant, hut. there are cer- tain guiding facts. Clni-I is eveiywbere wor- shipped as God. Cf. riinys \i ell-known letter to Trajan ; the Vesper hymn of the Eastern Church, the Gloria in Excclsis, the Tcrsancttis, all in use in the 2nd century. Lucian's satire betrays a series of characteristic traits of Christians, in- cluding the worsl.i|. of -the crucitid sophist.' There is the witncs,,,r il,c ni.irlvrs «lio ]iref,ariMl death to replaciic4 (III ist li\ the Kiii]icior in llndr adoration. The i;,i|,|i-n.al I'irolcssions ,,t the period, too, niaiiit.iiu unimpaired tie- NT pr.icl ii-e of com- bining the ,Soii with Ihc father .and Spirit. We distinguish lietween the popular belief embodied in the foregoing, and explanations of the belief in face of the Greek mind. The former was general — the latter were but tentative. The eflbrts of the First Fathers and Apolo/jitts were neither pro- found nor precise. They were directed towards three aims, (1) to justify the worship of Christ, (2) to define aright the relation of the Son to the Father, and (3) to elucidate the operation of the Word in creation. Their discussions have in view three types of opposition, of which the first refused to recognize Christ as the equal of God (Ebionism) ; the second denied His perfect manhood (Docetism) ; while the third, prepared for by Docetism and em- bracing an embarrassing mixture of tendencies known as Gnosticism, conceived amiss the relation between God and the T'niversp. The Cliristian thinkers were iirofoundly moved hy this threefold antagonism. Tlicy kc.-p then hiitli linn, but tlieir apologetics are inn ci tain .md incmlious. An adequate iihilosophy i- l.e\ond tlieir power. Let it be remcmlicrcd, howexir, that tlie views they repel are also ch.iotic and crude: moreover, all of them represent some sort of a faith in Christ as a IJeing of a higher order, liy the controversy con- ducted bjr writers .such as Barnabas, St. Ignatius, Hennas, in particular, Church doctrine attains at this stage a certain measure of self-consciousness, especially over against Jud.aism, and to a slighter extent over against the abstract notions of heathen speculation.
Around the problems raised by the latter, thought in the next period deepens immeasurably, the seeds of all future discussion are planted, both of orthodox and lieretical opinion. A succession of writers, interesting and copious in suggestion, including such names as .lust in Mart \ r, Iren.aais, Tertullian, Clement of Alex.andiia, Oii.cn, develop the Clnis- tian positions in \ai eiu- diic, nons wiih dialect ieal skill and eonsidciiililc -puiinal insiLdit : (1) the natureof onr kiio\\ Icd-c ..i ( ;.id a-, icl.itive and our knowledge of the naliirc oi Cod a, w holly separate
from the created «oi Id, spii it ual and i uiterial ;
(2) our knowled.e,- of the nature ol the Logos as immanent in the Divine nature and expressed in the world of created things, as eternal and mani- fest in time ; (3) our knowledge of the identity of
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
DIVINITY OF CHRIST
481
the Son with the Father as one in essence as in will, related by generation, and of the identity of the Son with tlie human race as its ' recapitula- tion' or archetype, leading to affirmations of a real Fatherhood in the Godhead and the conception of the Divine Unity as a life of moral relationsnips. The stress of the argument came to concentrate itself in the third of these points, against the Adoptionists on the one hand, who secured the unity of God by confining Christ within the limits of humanity, and against the Sabellians on the other hand, who secured it by treating the dis- tinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as simply modes of the one God. By the beginning of the 4th cent, this long interior process of conflicting reflexion was ready for a final issue.