(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

PATRISTIC DOCTRINES OF GOD—(Continued).

SPECIAL TEXT: "There shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." II Peter ii, 1.

NOTES.

1. The Nicene Creed: The next official formulation of alleged Christian doctrine after the "Apostles Creed," was the creed drafted at the council of Nicea, in Bithynia, 325 A. D., as follows:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was made of nothing (he was created), or who say that He is of another hypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic church anathematizes."^[1]

2. Creed of St. Athanasius: Nearly all Ecclesiastical writers doubt of Athanasius being the author of the creed accredited to him; but all agree, nevertheless, that it is an orthodox explanation of the Nicene Creed. "This creed was evidently composed long after the death of the great theologian whose name it bears, and after the controversies closed and the definitions established by the councils of Ephesus (A. D. 431), and Chalcedon (A. D. 451). It is a grand (?) and unique (!) monument of the unchangeable faith of the whole Church as to the great mysteries of Godliness, the Trinity of the Persons in the one God, and the duality of natures in the one Christ." (Commentary on the confession of Faith—Presbyterian—by Rev. A. A. Hodges, D. D., 1870. Designed for Theological Students, ch. i, pp. 6, 7.) The creed follows:

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty; and yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son, is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God."

"So, likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For likewise as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say: There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father; not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after, other; none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At Whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works." (Common Prayer, Church of England.) (For comment upon this creed, see Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii.)

3. Pro Et Con of the Arian Controversy: The orthodox doctrine of deity for the Patristic period, is found in the last two creeds quoted, still it is well enough to give each side of the controversy, out of which the creeds were born, opportunity to state its own case. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, states the orthodox side. He first represents Arius, leader of the opposition, as:

"Denying the divinity of our Saviour, pronounced him on a level with all other creatures. He says that they held, there was a time when the Son of God was not; and he who once had no existence, afterwards did exist; and from that time was, what every man naturally is; for (say they) [the Arians] 'God made all things of nothing, including the Son of God, in this creation of all things, both rational and irrational; and of course, pronouncing Him to be of a changeable nature, and capable of virtue and of sin.'" Then, affirmatively, Alexander gives his own views as follows:

"We believe, as the Apostolic Church does, in the only unbegotten Father, who derived his existence from no one, and is immutable and unalterable, always the same and uniform, unsusceptible of increase of diminution; the giver of the law, and the prophets, and the gospels; Lord of the patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, not begotten from nothing, but from the living Father; and not after the manner of material bodies, by separations and effluxes of parts, as Sabellius and Valentinian supposed, but in an inexplicable and indescribable manner, agreeably to the declaration before quoted: 'Who shall declare his generation?' For His existence is inscrutable to all mortal beings, just as the Father is inscrutable; because created intelligences are incapable of understanding this divine generation from the Father—'No one knoweth what the Father is, but the Son; and no one knoweth what the Son is, but the Father.'

"He is unchangeable, as much as the Father; lacks nothing; is the perfect Son, and the absolute likeness of the Father, save only that He is not unbegotten. * * * Therefore, to the unbegotten Father, His proper dignity must be preserved. And to the Son, also, suitable honor must be given, by ascribing to Him an eternal generation from the Father."

Arius, making complaint that he is persecuted by Alexander—states first the position of his adversary thus: Arius and his friends are persecuted—"Because we do not agree with him, publicly asserting that God always was, and the Son always was; that He was always the Father, always the Son; that the Son was of God himself." Then stating his own position affirmatively, he says:

"We have taught, and still teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a portion of the unbegotten, in any manner; nor was He formed out of any subjacent matter, but that in will and purpose, he existed before all times and before all worlds, perfect God, the only begotten, unchangeable; and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not; for He was never unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God was without beginning. We are also persecuted, because we say, that He is from nothing; and this we say, inasmuch as He is not a portion of God, nor formed from any subjacent matter. Therefore we are persecuted. The rest you know." (Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 288—Notes).

The Differences Summed Up: Summing up the differences between the two parties, Murdock, the able translator and annotator of Mosheim, says: "According to these statements, both the Arians and the orthodox considered the Son of God the Saviour of the World, as a derived existence, and as generated by the Father. But they differed on two points. (1.) The orthodox believed His generation was from eternity, so that he was coeval with the Father. But the Arians believed there was a time when the Son was not. (2.) The orthodox believed the Son to be derived of and from the Father; so that He was of the same essence with the Father. But the Arians believed that He was formed out of nothing, by the creative power of God. Both, however, agreed in calling Him God, and in ascribing to Him divine perfections. As to His offices, or His being the Saviour of sinful men, it does not appear that they differed materially in their views." (Ibid).

4. Origin of These Metaphysical Difficulties: Undoubtedly it was contact with Oriental and Greek philosophical vagaries, and seeking to harmonize the facts of revelation, with these vagaries, that led to the intellectual difficulties of patristic Christianity. The temptation to seek such harmony, was strong. Already a similar work had been done for the Jews at Alexandria, under the leadership of Philo. He found, in the lofty speculations of Plato, the wisdom of Moses and of Solomon; and in the second century of the Christian Era, Numenius could ask "What is Plato but Moses talking Attic?" "The arms of Macedonians," remarks Gibbon," diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning of Greece"; and with that language and learning, and as part of the latter, went the philosophy of Plato, until among the learned and influential it was largely the ground plan of their thinking. The Christians, in the first three centuries of their existence, had been despised sectaries, with no standing among those who made any pretensions to learning; so that when there came opportunity to show identity between the holy trinity of the Christian faith, and the supposed trinity of Plato's philosophy; and identity of the "word" of John's Gospel with the "Logos" of Plato's divine "being," it was seized upon with avidity, not alone, it is to be feared, because of the semblance of truth that was seen in the two things, but also because of the advantages that struggling Christianity would secure by linking the theology of the church with the philosophy of the Academy. "The lofty speculations," says Gibbon, "which neither convinced the understanding nor agitated the passions of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of mankind. But after the 'Logos' had been revealed as the sacred object of the faith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians, the mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing multitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from their age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge, who were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning, aspired to contemplate the economy of the divine nature; and it is the boast of Tertullian, that a Christian mechanic could easily answer such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between the highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be calculated as infinitely small, yet the degree of weakness may perhaps be measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence." What more is necessary to know upon this topic, can be learned from the note entitled "Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather than of Christian Origin," and Lesson xxxvii, in Year Book II.

5. The Manner of Apprehending "That Which Is"—God: The manner of apprehending God—"that which is"—by the Christian Fathers, is very similar to the method of the pagan philosophers in apprehending "being"—or the "absolute." Take two examples of this process; the first from Plato's "Republic," a conversation between teacher and pupil; the second from the confessions of Augustine; where the father describes how he came to his apprehension of God:

It is necessary first to remind the student that in Plato's philosophy the "supreme being" is "being absolutely bare of quality." Of Him it can only be said that he is not what he is. In Timaeus, Plato says: "We say, indeed, that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will be,' but the truth is that 'he is;' alone truly expresses him." (Jowett's Translation, Vol. 2, p. 530.) And now as to the method of arriving at the apprehension of the "infinite being," or the "absolute," through the medium of finite or relative things; and which, in the case here quoted from Plato, is from "relative beauty" to "absolute beauty"; the same process, however, may be followed from "finite being" to "infinite being."

"This is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving, art-loving, practical class, and those of whom I am speaking, and who are alone worthy of the name of philosophers.

"How do you distinguish them? he said.

"The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones and colors and forms, and all the artificial products that are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or loving absolute beauty.

"That is true, he replied.

"Few are they who are able to attain the sight of absolute beauty.

"Very true.

"And he who, having a sense of beautiful things, has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty, is unable to follow—of such an one, I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only? * * * *

"I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.

"But take the case of the other, who recognizes the existence of absolute beauty, and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects—is he a dreamer? or is he awake?

"He is the reverse of a dreamer, he replied.

"And may we not say that the mind of the one has knowledge, and that the mind of the other has opinion only?

"Certainly."

And how Augustine, the Christian father, spoken of as "the brightest, clearest, most comprehensive" of Christian philosophers. ("Lectures on the History of Christian Philosophy"—Elmendorf—p. 92):

"And I inquired what iniquity was, and found it to be no substance, but the perversion of the will, turned aside from Thee, O God, the Supreme, towards these lower things, and casting out its bowels, and puffed up outwardly.

"And I wondered that I now loved Thee, and no phantasm for thee. And yet did I not press on to enjoy my God; but was borne up to Thee by Thy beauty, and soon borne down from Thee by mine own weight, sinking with sorrow into these inferior things. This weight was carnal custom. Yet dwelt there with me a remembrance of Thee; nor did I any way doubt, that there was One to Whom I might cleave, but that I was not yet such as to cleave to Thee; for that 'the body which is corrupted, presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things.' And most certain I was, that 'Thy invisible works from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even Thy eternal power and God-head.' For examining whence it was that I admired the beauty of bodies celestial or terrestrial; and what aided me in judging soundly on things mutable, and pronouncing, 'This ought to be thus, this not'; examining, I say, whence it was that I so judged, seeing I did so judge, I had found the unchangeable and true Eternity of Truth above my changeable mind. And thus, by degrees, I passed from bodies to the soul, which through the bodily senses perceives; and thence to its inward faculty, to which the bodily senses represent things external, whitherto reaches the faculties of beasts; and thence again to the reasoning faculty, to which what is received from the senses of the body, is referred to be judged. Which, finding itself also to be in me a thing variable, raised itself up to its own understanding, and drew away my thoughts from the power of habit, withdrawing itself from those troops of contradictory phantasms; that so it might find what that light was, whereby it was bedewed, when, without all doubting, it cried out:

"'That the unchangeable was to be preferred to the changeable'; whence also it knew That Unchangeable, which, unless it had in some way known, it had had no sure ground to prefer it to the changeable. And thus with the flash of one trembling glance it arrived at That Which Is. And then I saw 'Thy invisible things understood by the things which are made.'"

6. Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather Than of Christian Origin—Data Not in the Old Testament: The data for the doctrine that God is "pure being," "being absolutely bare of all quality," are not found in the Old Testament, for that teaches the plainest anthropomorphic ideas respecting God. It ascribes to Him a human form, and many qualities and attributes possessed by man, which, in the minds of orthodox Christian philosophers, limit Him who must be, to their thinking, without any limitation whatsoever, either as to essence, or form, or passion, or quality; and ascribes relativity to Him who, according to their conceptions, must not be relative but absolute. The passage usually depended upon as giving the data for this "being absolutely bare of quality," and that is held to identify the ground plan of the philosophy of Moses and Plato—"I am that I am"—the God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush; and Who replied when the Hebrew prophet asked what he should say when the Egyptians and Israel should ask who had sent him—"Say, I Am sent me;" that is the Self-Existing One sent me. This passage, I say, does not furnish the data for the Orthodox Christian conception of God, that He is "being, absolutely free from all quality"; not material (the "without body" of the creeds), without parts, and without passions; for to be self-existent does not demand the absence of quality; indeed, to be without quality, run to its last analysis, would mean non-existence.

Data Not in the New Testament: The data for the doctrine of God's absolute "simplicity," or, "being absolutely without quality," do not come from the New Testament; for the writers of that volume of scripture accept the doctrine of the Old Testament respecting God, and even emphasize its anthropomorphic ideas, by representing that the man Christ Jesus was in the "express image" of God, the Father's person; was, in fact, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3: 16); "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1: 5); God, the Word, who was made flesh, and dwelt among men, and they beheld His glory (St. John 1:1-14). Hence the Orthodox Christian doctrine of God's "simplicity" cannot claim the warrant of New Testament authority.

Data Found in Pagan Doctrines: It is easy, however, to trace this doctrine to Pagan sources. Plato, in his Timaeus (Jowett's translation, p. 530), incidentally referring to God, in connection with the creation of the universe, says: "We say indeed that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will be,' but the truth is that 'he is' alone truly expresses him, and that 'was' and 'will be' are only to be spoken of generation in time."

Here, then, is the Orthodox Christian doctrine of "pure being," "most simple," "not compound."

Again: "We must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself giving out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the sight is granted to intelligence only." (Ibid. p. 454). Here the Orthodox Christian may find his God, 'who cannot change with regard to his existence, nor with regard to his mode of existence.' Also his God who can only be seen with the 'soul's intellectual perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from God.' Dr. Mosheim, in his account of Plato's idea of God, says: "He considered the Deity, to whom he gave the supreme governance of the universe, as a being of the highest wisdom and power, and totally unconnected with any material substance." (Mosheim's "Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity, During the First Three Hundred Years," Vol. 1. p. 37).

To the same effect, also, Justin Martyr (second Christian century) generalizes and accepts as doctrine what may be gathered from the sixth book of Plato's "Republic," with reference to God. To the Jew, Trypho, Justin remarks: "The Deity, Father, is not to be viewed by the organs of sight, like other creatures, but He is to be comprehended by the mind alone, as Plato declares, and I believe him. * * * * Plato tells us that the eye of the mind is of such a nature, and was given us to such an end, as to enable us to see with it by itself, when pure, that Being who is the source of whatever is an object of the mind itself, who has neither color, nor shape, nor size, nor anything which the eye can see, but who is above all essence, who is ineffable, and undefinable, who is alone beautiful and good, and who is at once implanted into those souls who are naturally well born, through their relationship to and desire of seeing him."

Athanasius (third Christian century) quotes the same definition (Contra Gentes, ch. 2), almost verbatim. Turning again to the Timaeus of Plato, this question is asked: "What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and has never any being? That which is apprehended by reflection and reason [God] always is; and is the same; that on the other hand which is conceived by opinion, with the help of sensation without reason [the material universe], is in a process of becoming and perishing but never really is. * * * * Was the world [universe], always in existence and without beginning? or created and having a beginning? Created, I reply." In this, the orthodox Christians may find their God of pure "being," that never is "becoming," but always is; also the creation of the universe out of nothing.

Pagan Origin of Doctrine of God Admitted: "In his great work on the 'History of Christian Doctrine,' Mr. William G. T. Shedd says (Vol. I, p. 56): "The early Fathers, in their defenses of Christianity against their pagan opponents, contend that the better pagan writers themselves agree with the new religion in teaching that there is one Supreme Being. Lactantius (Institutiones, 1, 5), after quoting the Orphic Poets, Hesiod, Virgil, and Ovid, in proof that the heathen poets taught the unity of the supreme deity, affirms that the better pagan philosophers agree with them in this. 'Aristotle,' he says, 'although he disagrees with himself, and says many things that are self-contradictory, yet testifies that one supreme mind rules over the world. Plato, who is regarded as the wisest philosopher of them all, plainly and openly defends the doctrine of a divine monarchy, and denominates the supreme being, not ether, nor reason, nor nature, but as he is, God; and asserts that by him this perfect and admirable world was made. And Cicero follows Plato, frequently confessing the deity, and calls him the supreme being, in his Treatise on the Laws.'"

"It is conceded by Christian writers that the Christian doctrine of God is not expressed in New Testament terms, but in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics, as witness the following from the very able article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on 'Theism,' by the Rev. Dr. Flint, Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh: 'The proposition constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity—the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo, relative to the immanent distinctions and relations in the Godhead—were not drawn directly from the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the product of reason speculating on a revelation to faith—the New Testament representation of God as a Father, a Redeemer and a Sanctifier—with a view to conserve and vindicate, explain and comprehend it. They were only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions, and formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics.' The same authority says: 'The massive defense of theism, erected by the Cambridge school of philosophy, against atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral distinctions, was avowedly built on a Platonic foundation.'" (See note).

Guizot, the eminent stateman and historian of France, in one of his lectures of which this is a sub-division of the title—"Of the Transition from Pagan Philosophy to Christian Theology"—says, in concluding his treatment of this theme: "I have thus exhibited the fact which I indicated in the outset, the fusion of Pagan philosophy with Christian theology, the metamorphosis of the one into the other. And it is remarkable, that the reasoning applied to the establishment of the spirituality of the soul is evidently derived from the ancient philosophy, rather than from Christianity, and that the author seems more especially to aim a convincing the theologians, by proving to them that the Christian faith has nothing in all this which is not perfectly reconcilable with the results derived from pure reason."

"In method of thought also, no less than in conclusions, the most influential of the Christian fathers on these subjects followed the Greek philosophers rather than the writers of the New Testament. 'Platonism, and Aristotelianism,' says the author of the 'History of Christian Doctrine,' exerted more influence upon the intellectual methods of men, taking in the whole time since their appearance, than all other systems combined. They certainly influenced the Greek mind, and Grecian culture, more than all the other philosophical systems. They reappear in Roman philosophy—so far as Rome had any philosophy. We shall see that Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero exerted more influence than all other philosophical minds united, upon the greatest of the Christian Fathers; upon the greatest of the Schoolmen; and upon the theologians of the Reformation, Calvin and Melanchthon. And if we look at European philosophy as it has been unfolded in England, Germany and France, we shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools have discussed the standing problems of human reason, in very much the same manner in which the reason of Plato and Aristotle discussed them twenty-two centuries ago. Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant, so far as the first principles of intellectual and moral philosophy are concerned, agree with their Grecian predecessors. A student who has mastered the two systems of the Academy and Lyceum, will find in modern philosophy (with the exception of the department of natural science) very little that is true, that may not be found for substance, and germinally, in the Greek theism."

"It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact that the conception of God as 'pure being,' 'immaterial,' 'without form,' 'or parts or passions,' as held by orthodox Christianity, has its origin in Pagan philosophy, not in Jewish nor Christian revelation." (Mormon Doctrine of Deity—Roberts—pp. 114-119).

Footnotes

1. For a brief account of the Arian controversy which resulted in the formulation of this creed, see notes in Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii; also note 3, this Lesson.