NOTE B (see page 187.)

On the question how far the title "Son" is directly used of the Logos as pre-Incarnate; with special reference to Hippolytus against Noetus, and to Marcellus of Ancyra.

I am grateful for the suggestion that what is said in the text may be thought to resemble the argument of Marcellus of Ancyra, as exhibited by Eusebius; inasmuch as he claims "Son" as a title only of the Incarnate, and appeals to the Logos of St John as the one distinctively pre-Incarnate title.

The suggestion gives a natural opportunity for making clearer the meaning of what is said in the text, by emphasizing the contrast between it and the argument of Marcellus.

But I am referred also to the refutation of Noetus by Hippolytus. And before coming to Marcellus, it will be useful to consider the bearing of the passages in which Hippolytus refers to the subject. Noetus, over-emphasizing, or rather wrongly emphasizing, the fundamental unity of God, makes God uni-personal. He is therefore explicitly Patripassian. ἔφη τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Πατέρα γεγεννήσθαι καὶ πεπονθέναι καὶ ἀποτεθνηκέναι.

εἰ οὖν Χριστὸν ὁμολογῶ Θεὸν, αὐτὸς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ Πατήρ εἰ γάρ (αι. εἴγε) ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς, ἔπαθεν δὲ Χριστὸς, αὐτὸς ὢν Θεὸς, ἄρα οὖν ἔπαθεν Πατὴρ, Πατὴρ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἦν. . . . ἀναισχύντως λέγοντες, αὐτός ἐστι Χριστὸς ὁ Πατὴρ, αὐτὸς Υἱὸς, αὐτὸς ἐγεννήθη, αὐτὸς Talev, avτds Eavròv nyeɩpev. Hippol. c. Hær. Noeti, ch. 1, 2, and 3. Hippolytus is equally clear, on his own side, about the unity of God, --but not at the expense of the Incarnation. Tís yàp ovê épeî ěva Θεὸν εἶναι ; ἀλλ' οὐ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἀναιρήσει, ch. 3. Noetus would press such texts as "Surely God is in thee" and "O God of Israel, the Saviour" (où yàp ó Оeòs Tоû 'Iσ panλ σwrηp), Isaiah xlv. 14, 15, to mean the identity of the Incarnate with the Father. Against this Hippolytus, amongst other arguments, quotes John iii. 13, "No man hath ascended into Heaven, but He that descended out of Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," as an assertion by the Incarnate of His own pre-existence. But the preexistence of whom? Not of the flesh, Hippolytus answers, for that was assumed, at the Incarnation, of the virgin and the Spirit, to make the perfect offering of the Son of God; and till then there was no "flesh" in Heaven. It was the pre-existence, then, of the Aóyos άσаρкоs, the Logos not yet made flesh. It was the Logos who became Incarnate. He was flesh, was Spirit, was power; and He bore the gracious name of Son of Man by anticipation, because He

was to be man,—διὰ τὸ μέλλον, καίτοι μήπω ὢν ἄνθρωπος—as in the vision of Daniel vii. 13. It was right then to say that He, as pre-existent in Heaven, was called from the beginning by this name, the Logos of God. Ibid., ch. iv. p. 57.

In ch. xv. he anticipates that objection will be made to his using the word "Son" of the "Logos"; that is, apparently, to his using a personal title of the pre-existent, making Him, as "Son," a distinct personality. The title used by St John is Logos; and it seems to be argued (on the side of Noetus) that this title Logos is of the nature of a metaphor. It is, then, this metaphorical or impersonal interpretation of Logos that Hippolytus is concerned to deny. It is, he seems to argue, a personal name, as in the vision of Him that "sat on a white horse" in Rev. xix. 11, "and His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He hath a name written which no one knoweth but He Himself. And He is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God." The garment sprinkled with blood is His flesh which He offered in the passion. Thus the Person is He of whom St Paul speaks in Rom. viii. 3. "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Who was this "Son" but the "Word," whom He called "Son” because He was to be bornὃν Υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι It was in love towards man that He bore this title, and was called the "Son." For the Logos, as Logos, not being yet Incarnate, was not in the full sense "Son," though He was, in the full sense, the "Logos only begotten"; nor had His flesh any subsistence in itself, apart from the Logos, because the flesh subsisted only in the Logos. It was thus, then, that He was manifested, in completeness, as the One Son of God. Οὔτε γὰρ ἄσαρκος καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὁ Λόγος τέλειος ἦν Υἱὸς, καίτοι τέλειος Λόγος ὢν μονογενής, οὔθ ̓ ἡ σάρξ καθ' ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ Λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο, διὰ τὸ ἐν Λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν· οὕτως οὖν εἰς Υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη ch. xv. p. 73.

Verbally, then, Hippolytus appears to assert that the word "Son," in the fullest sense, belongs only to the Incarnate, as born in the world and though he says that the word was used before by anticipation, he does not apparently recognize any sense in which the word could be used rightly, except by anticipation, of the pre-Incarnate Logos. That he should take this position is the more remarkable, because he is, at the very moment, engaged in vindicating his own right to use the word "Son," in some way, of the Logos before Incarnation; and because he claims without reserve to call the Logos "only begotten," which would certainly seem to give some proper content of meaning to the word "Son."

But whatever may have been, in the case of Hippolytus, the motive or the significance of language like this, it is quite clear, if not what

Marcellus meant, yet at all events what he was understood by others to mean, by insisting on calling the pre-Incarnate exclusively Logos, and denying the title "Son."

It would be, indeed, beside the present purpose to raise any subtler question as to the meaning of Marcellus himself. If there is ground for doubting whether he has been truly interpreted, this is not the place to examine it. It is only with Marcellus as represented to us, that we are here concerned.

Marcellus, then, we are told, like Noetus, so emphasized the unity of God as to make Him uni-personal. It is precisely because he explains Logos impersonally, that he does not mind allowing the preexistence of the Logos of God. He understands Logos in God exactly as he understands logos in man, that is, as in no way distinct from the man himself. It is the man,-in a certain aspect or activity. So then "God," before the creation, was solitary. μýжW тоû Kóσμov γεγονότος οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν πλὴν Θεοῦ μόνου. The Logos was His utterance, inseparable, as such, from His personality. This can be readily understood from a little consideration of ourselves. Ovde yàp Tòv τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγον δυνάμει καὶ ὑποστάσει χωρίσαι τινὶ δύνατον. Ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ὁ λόγος, καὶ οὐδενὶ χωριζόμενος ¿TÉPų η μóvŋ Tỷ Tîs πpáέews évepyeía. Euseb., de Eccl. Theol., I. xvii., p. 860.

This, as Eusebius urges, is flat Sabellianism. Sabellius and Marcellus equally, he says, make the Father and the Logos identical; the only difference being that Sabellius had not the audacity to measure Logos in God by logos in man, nor the folly to describe as Son of God" a Logos who had no substantive existence,—οὐδ ̓ οὕτως ἠλίθιος ἦν ὡς τὸν μὴ ὑφεστῶτα λόγον υἱὸν Θεοῦ ἀνακαλεῖν. According to this view the phrase "let us make man in our image, after our likeness," is only like the word of a man who should talk to, or encourage, himself. But all this Marcellus does in the name of unity; as though unity were not equally real to us (Catholic Christians) who affirm the eternal generation of the Son, and that He was "Son" and not “Logos” only, from all eternity-ὡς οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμῶν τοῦτο λεγόντων, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀληθῶς εἶναι Υἱὸν παραδεδε[ι]γμένων, παρ' αὐτοῦ τε μεμαθηκότων ἑνὰ γνωρίζειν Θεὸν, αὐτόν τε εἶναι Θεὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ Πατέρα Υἱοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, ἑαυτοῦ δηλαδὴ ὄντος ἀληθῶς Υἱοῦ πρὸ πάντων αἰωνῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένου, καὶ οὐ μόνον Λόγου κεκλημένου πρὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως τῆς σαρκός. Ib., p. 861.

It is, then, in the interest of this denial of the Personality of the Son, that Marcellus insists that only the name Logos is predicable before the Incarnation, and "Son" only as a result of Incarnation. It is for this that he makes appeal to the opening verses of St John; and denies that the pre-incarnate Logos is ever called Son except prophetically, by anticipation. οὐκοῦν πρὸ μὲν τοῦ κατελθεῖν καὶ διὰ dià

τῆς παρθένου τεχθῆναι Λόγος ἦν μόνον. πρότερον γὰρ, ὥσπερ πολλουδά ηνφς,ικὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ Λόγος. . . . ὁ μὲν γὰρ Λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ ην, μηδὲν ἕτερον ὢν ἢ Λόγος· ὁ δὲ τῷ Λόγῳ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ὢν πρότερον γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ὡς διδάσκει ἡμῶν Ἰωάννης, Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. Διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν τοῦ Λόγου μνημονεύων φαίνεται μόνον. Εἴτε γὰρ Ἰησοῦ, εἴτε Χριστοῦ ὀνόματος μνημονεύοι ἡ θεία γραφή, τὸν μετὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνου ὄντα σαρκὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον ὀνομάζειν φαίνεται. Εἰ δέ τις καὶ πρὸ τῆς Νεᾶς Διαθήκης τοῦ Χριστοῦ [ἢ τοῦ] Υἱοῦ ὄνομα τῷ λόγῳ μόνῳ δεικνύναι δύνασθαι ἐπαγγέλλοιτο, εὑρήσει τοῦτο προφητικῶς εἰρημένον. ch. xviii. p. 864.

It is plain, then, from these quotations (1) that Marcellus (if rightly represented) denied the title Son to the Incarnate quite absolutely, without reserve of any kind ; and (2) that he intended, in this denial, to deny any personal pre-existence at all. Precisely because he understood it as impersonal, he desired to make exclusive use of the title Logos. And it is correspondingly plain that, to the mind of Eusebius, the assertion that the Aóyos was also from all eternity Yids, is the method of insisting, and is valued so earnestly just because it is the method of insisting, that the Aóyos was, before Incarnation, not only existent, but also existent as a Person. The real issue between them is the Personality of the Son; and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity of God.

But however remote, for these reasons, the position attributed to Marcellus may be from what any modern Christian, who intends to be orthodox, could hold; it may still not improbably be felt that the position stated by Eusebius is, if fully accepted, conclusive not only against the doctrine of Marcellus with whom he was arguing; but against a good deal besides, though it may have but little in common with Marcellus ; against, for instance, the suggestion made in the text. For to him the "Eternal Generation" of the Son, the eternal existence of the Son as "Son," is in itself a positive and a fundamental principle. Is this consistent with the suggestion in the text? I must answer that I do not think it is inconsistent, so long as the Eusebian principle is itself urged with reverent reserve, that is, without an undue crudeness of emphasis upon those elements in it which we least understand.

Let me raise the question in this form. What is, so far as is revealed to us, the relation between the First, and Second, Persons of the Blessed Trinity? and how completely is it expressed by the mutual words " Father” and “ Son ”? Now the two most extreme answers to this question, in the opposite directions, would be, as I conceive, these. On the one side it would be answered,-These words "Father" and "Son" have no application at all to the eternal relation within Deity. It is only improperly, by a sort of liberty, or extension of speech, that they are used of pre-Incarnate existence. Properly speaking they belong to the Incarnation, and to that quite exclusively

and alone. The extreme answer on the other side would be,— The eternal relation within Deity is exactly, and properly, defined by the words "Father" and "Son." It was in order to reveal the eternal relations that the words were chosen. It is to the eternal relations that they are primarily applicable. Of the eternal relations they are (whether intelligible or not) the authoritative revelation. Any application to the Incarnation or its effects, though that also may be true, is at most quite secondary and subordinate as interpretation of the terms.

The first of these answers might be made in two, widely differing, forms. It might be made by those who denied the personal preexistence of the Son (under whatever title) and the truth of the Trinitarian doctrine altogether. This is the unhesitating position of Marcellus, as Eusebius understands him. But it might also be made, more innocently, by those who, having no doubt of the eternal preexistence of the Personal Logos, yet thought that He could be called by the title "Son" only in reference to His coming Incarnation. This is the position which is, at one point, to say the least, very nearly adopted by Hippolytus.

But the suggestion made in the text is wholly distinct from the first answer, in either of its two forms. Only, whilst explicitly repudiating either form of the first, it does suggest that the other answer goes too far in the opposite direction, and that there is a considerable region of intermediate ground between the two. It does suggest that the reserve which would shrink from adopting outright the phrases of the answer at the other extreme, would be a reverent and a wise reserve.

It is possible to accept the words "Father" and " Son" as being sufficiently, for us, in harmony with that truth of the eternal relation within Deity which we are little capable of understanding, without supposing that they were revealed, either exclusively, or even primarily, in reference to those eternal relations with which they so correspond. It is possible, on this view, to accept and to value as an approximation to truth, all that theologians have ever said about the eternal generation of the Son; and yet not to press it forward with dogmatic insistence, as though it belonged to a region in which we could either speak, or think, with confidence. It is reverent, after all, to remind ourselves of the necessary limitation of our thought; and to realize how little way we are capable of going towards putting a positive content of meaning into such a phrase as "eternal generation," however valuable, in some contexts, it may be both to use, and to explain, the phrase.

We are not at all concerned to make a point of denying that the word "Son" is predicated of the Pre-existent in His eternal relations; far less to deny that it is capable of being so predicated: though, as to the fact, we may be allowed to feel some doubt whether it is, in the