[a] The Adoptianists, who seem to have been tlie doctrinal successors of the early Judaic-Christian sect of the Ebionites, and whose chief teachers at Rome were Theodotus and Artemon, all taught a subordination, to a greater or less degree, of the Son
to the Father, even making Christ nothing more than a highly exalted man, who was ' adopted ' to His Sonship by the Father. This last point was reached by the teaching of the brilliant Paul of Samosata (260-270), who was condemned by a series of Councils at Antioch, and hnally deposed in 270.
(b) On the other hand, the Monarchians or Patripassians, represented by Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, so merged the personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the Father, that it practically followed from their teaching that the historic Christ was actually the Father Himself who was incarnate, and sutiered on the cross, so that, in the spiteful epigram of Tertullian, Praxeas 'put to flight the Comforter and crucified the Father.' ^ , , .
The most important opponents of these heresies were Hippolytus, bishop of Portus (d. 258 ?), and Dionysius, bishop of Rome (d. 269). Only a frag- ment remains of the writings of the latter ; and those of the former, as well as the exact nature of his teaching, are wrapped in considerable obscurity.
The controversies of the 3rd cent, obviously still waited for a final solution. It is quite evident that the general conscience of the Church revolted against both Adoptianism and Patripassianism, though the uncertainty of theological terms, the absence of a fixed theological vocabulary, and the difficulty of arriving at common action OA\ing to the stress of frequent persecutions, rendered it difficult for the Church as a whole to come to close quarters with these different forms of error. This slight sketch of pre-Nicene theology should, how- ever, be sufficient to show that, despite the absence of any statement of faith common to the whole Church, there is an overwhelming consensus of Church belief from the first to the effect (1) that the historic Jesus Christ was truly God, pre- existent with the Father ; (2) that He was also truly man ; (3) that in Him are permanently united God and man in one Person.
5. The Edict of Milan (312) introduces a new
CHRIST IX THE EARLY CHURCH
«.3i
era of Churcli history. Persecution ceased, Chris- tianity tended at once to become the recognized religion of the Empire. This sudden outburst of popularity brought into the Church an influx of ill-instructed converts, who were naturally eager to assimilate Christianity as far as possible to their old heathenism.
{a) The teaching of Arius, a parish priest of Alexandria, who had, however, previously studied at Antioch, brought swiftly tlie crisis when the Churcli must definitely and clearly state her belief as to the Person of Christ. We thus enter upon the era of the great Councils, called ' Q^lcunienical,' as involving an appeal to the universal conscience and witness of the Christian Church tliroughout the world.
Arius seems to have taught a form of Adop- tianism : Ciirist was the Son of God, and prior to all other created things, and yet Himself a creature. To pay Divine honours to a creature, however exalted, was, of course, really idolatry ; but for this very reason Arianism was popular with those nominal converts who had never in their heart relinquished their old polytheism. To the teaching of Arius, the Church at the Council of Nicaia (325), mainly through the exer tions of the great Athanasius, opposed the key- word of the Nicene Creed. Christ, the Son of God, is 'of one substance' (o/xoovcnos) with the Father, i.e. He is, and was from all eternity, of the same Godhead as the Fatlier. Strife and contro- versy raged round this celebrated phrase during most of the 4th century. It was defended con- sistently by Athanasius, Basil, and the two Gregorys (of Nyssa and Nazianzus). Ultimately all attempts to substitute for it some vaguer ex- pression failed, and the Council of Constantinople (381) definitely re-affirmed the Nicene statement. The absolute Deity of Christ in the fullest sense of the term was thus finally vindicated. Other problems, however, remained.
{b) Apollinarisrn, a reaction against Arianism, ascribed to Christ an imperfect human nature, in which the Divine nature took the place of the human 'spirit' (irvfvij.a), the highest part of man's rational nature. This error was condemned at Constantinople (381); and it seems that at some later date other clauses were added to the original Nicene Creed, derived apparently from a Jerusalem baptismal creed, which emphasized the true and perfect humanity of Christ.
('■) The Council of Ephesus (431) dealt with a further problem, the 'Hypostatic Union,' i.e. the union of two whole and perfect natures. Divine and human, in the one Person of Christ, (a) The teaching of Nestorius, in which there are distinct traces of Gnosticism, practically made two persons of Christ, by denying that tlie infant child of Mary could properly be called ' God ' ; and by asserting api)arently that at some time after the birth of Jesus, the Divine Logos united Itself with Him. Tlie key-word which the Church adopted to refute Nestorius was the title Theotokos, ' mother of God,' applied to the Virgin Mary. (^3) A reaction in an opposite direction led Eutyrhes a few years later to exalt the Divinity of Christ at the expense of His humanity, by teaching that the humanity was in .some way swallowed up in tlie Divinity. The famous ' Tome ' of Pope Leo I. stated tlie balance of faith clearly and antitheti- cally, and the fourth Council (Chalcedon, 4.51), in condemning Eutyches, laid down that the two natures of Christ are to be acknowledged dai^yxi^ws (' without confusion '), irpi-rrTtJii (' without change '), aSiaipirw (' without division '), dxwp/<rrajs ('without separation '). The same trutiis were stated in a Latin dress, for liturgic use, alxjut this time, in the so-called ' Athanasian' Creed.