trine of the Trinity, by adding an article about the Holy Spirit. This subject had been barely mentioned in the Nicene Creed, but it had now for some time been much discussed, and had come to assume cardinal importance. In the new form of the Creed, therefore, the deity of the Holy Spirit was adopted (not without considerable opposition) as a part of the orthodox doctrine of one God in three persons; and thus the doctrine of the Trinity came to be received as the central doctrine of orthodox Christian belief. It was given further definition in the remarkable document known as the Athanasian Creed.1

Thus Arianism was finally outlawed in the Roman Empire. Its downfall was rapid. It was suppressed in the West in 388, and thenceforth survived only among the barbarian nations. For the Goths, the Vandals, the Lombards, and the Burgundians had originally been converted to Arian Christianity, and it did not become extinct among them until late in the sixth century. Individuals here and there may still have held Arian views, but as an organized movement it was no more. Unitarians in modern times have, often been called Arians, and have sometimes held Arian views; but they have had no historical connection with the Arians of the fourth century. Unitarians, too, have often felt a sentimental sympathy with these earlier heretics, if only because they were opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Yet if we were compelled to choose between the two to-day, the doctrine of Athanasius should be less objectionable than that of Arius. The latter left too wide a gulf between God and man, and its Christ, being neither God nor man, did nothing to bring the two together. The needs of religion were better served by the view of Athanasius, and it was well for Christianity that that prevailed. 1 See Appendix, page 473.

(

But whether either doctrine is adapted to our day, when we do not begin as men then did by taking it for granted that an immense chasm separates the Father in heaven from his children on earth—that is another question, though the discussion of it does not properly belong in a history.

The whole controversy was really one between speculative theologians. The great mass of the people can have had no real understanding of it. They might prefer the doctrine of Athanasius because it seemed to give more honor to Christ than did that of Arius, but the subtle distinctions of the creeds they did not comprehend. The unfortunate result was, and long remained, that Christian doctrines came more and more to be regarded by the people at large as mysteries, not to be understood, nor even inquired into, but simply to be taken on faith, and on the authority of the Church. Men were not supposed to reason about religion. It was this condition of things that in the sixteenth century, when men's minds were becoming emancipated, led to the rise of Unitarianism with its insistent demand for freedom of thought and the use of reason, in religion. There were, however, yet other questions to be settled before the system of orthodox beliefs should be quite complete; and in order to understand the story that is to follow, we shall have in another chapter to glance also at those.

CHAPTER V

THE COMPLETION OF THE ORTHODOX

THEOLOGY, TO 451 A. D.

The last chapter showed how the Arian controversy led to two main results. It established the doctrine of the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicæa, and that of the Trinity at Constantinople. It had lasted for over sixty years, and it might well have been hoped that the Church would now have peace. But not so. The accepted Creed left open more questions than it had settled; so that almost immediately a new controversy broke out, which lasted for seventy years more, and not only was thus longer, but also was far more violent, than the previous one. Discussion which in the former period had begun with Christ and ended with God now swung back to Christ again. The new question was as to the relation of the divine and the human natures in him. No authority had yet settled this question, and no one had thought out the answer to it. But every one who wished might guess at it, and it offered an endless field for speculation until some statement should be found which could be generally agreed to. There is no telling how long it might have lasted, had there not been such institutions as General Councils, to decide what opinions must be held as Christian truth, and that whoever holds otherwise is no Christian, but must be put out of the Church, and be punished by the State as his case deserves.

The question disputed about was this: It had always

been taken for granted that Christ had lived upon earth as a human being, and hence had a human nature; and now the Nicene Creed made it necessary also to believe that he was a divine being, and hence had a divine nature. But how could both these apparently contradictory statements be true of one person? Hence the discussion went from one extreme to its opposite, for no middle view seemed possible.

It will be enough for our purpose if we follow simply the brief outlines of the long story. First came Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicæa in Syria, who was teaching about the time of the Council of Constantinople that Christ's two natures were so much alike as not to be distinguishable: his divine nature was so human, and his human nature was so divine, that there was scarcely any difference between them. But the result of this view was that he did not seem to have been really a human being at all. Apollinaris himself at length withdrew from the Church, and so escaped trial and punishment for heresy, but his doctrine was condemned by various councils.

Some of his followers, continuing his doctrine, drew the conclusion that since Christ was so wholly divine, Mary might be called the Mother of God, and this view was widely accepted. Others thought this to be absurd blasphemy; and in opposition to it Nestorius, who was Metropolitan (chief bishop) of Constantinople from 428, taught that the two natures in Christ were perfectly distinct, so that Mary was mother only of the human nature in Christ. The people fancied he was thus denying the Christ they worshiped, and insulted him on the street; while Cyril, Patriarch (chief bishop) of Alexandria, going to the opposite extreme, taught that in Christ the two natures were completely

united; and, wishing for personal reasons to humiliate Nestorius, he used his influence to get the third General Council called, at Ephesus, 431. The bishops on both sides came to it armed as if for battle, and accompanied by a mob of followers; the meetings were turbulent and feeling ran high; but the purpose of the Council was realized, and Christ was declared a little later to be perfect God and perfect man, having two natures united with each other. The teaching of Nestorius was condemned, and he himself was sent into exile, where a few years later he died miserably in some remote part of Egypt. His doctrine nevertheless spread widely in the far East, and a sect of Nestorians still exists among Christians of Armenia and India.

Next came Eutyches, an aged archimandrite (chief abbot) of Constantinople, who, starting with this new orthodox doctrine that in Christ there was a union of two natures, carried it out further by teaching that in this union the human nature was wholly absorbed into the divine; so that he had no human body, but only a divine one; whence it must follow that it was God himself that was born in Bethlehem, suffered, and died on the cross. This extraordinary doctrine, and its teacher, were at once attacked with great violence at Constantinople; and Eutyches was deposed and his doctrine condemned at a local council. But he had powerful friends at court, so that the next year a fourth General Council was called in his behalf at Ephesus, 449; where, under the threats and coercion of the Emperor, his doctrine was actually approved as orthodox, and even Pope Leo of Rome, who had opposed him, was excommunicated for doing so. What manner of Council this was, however, and how much its opinion on a point of Christian doctrine was worth, may be judged from the fact that in the process