Great and original thinkers in the Greek Church appeared occasionally throughout the Dark Ages. Their theology uniformly follows strictly in the wake of the orthodox synergism of Chrysostom and the Gregories.

Maximus Confessor, of the seventh century, (ob. 622,) produced profound works in the spirit of Gregory of Nyssa. On the subject of grace and free-will he says: "The faculty of seeking after the godlike has been implanted in human nature by the Creator. In consequence of sin this original faculty is overwhelmed by sense. But the Holy Spirit restores it to its pristine freedom and purity. Grace alone, however, does not operate independently of the natural faculties. Nor do the natural faculties work independently of grace. The Holy Spirit guides the spiritual striving of those who are seeking after the godlike to its desired end. The Spirit works not wisdom without a mind which is susceptible of it; nor knowledge without a recipient reason; nor faith without a rational conviction in the receiver; in a word, it produces no charisma whatever without the recipient faculty of each. The grace of the Spirit destroys not in the least the natural faculty, but much rather makes that faculty which has become inapt by unnatural use once more efficient by employing it conformably to its nature, when it leads it to the contemplation of the godlike."-Neander, iii, 172-3. From Palmer's account of Maximus (Herzog, xx, 136-7) we further cite: "In regard to depravity, Maximus is true to the orthodox Greek view. Moral freedom, (Tò avTežovolov,) as a constituent element of spiritual rationality, was not forfeited by the fall. This freedom is the principle of sin on the one hand, and the basis of redeemableness on the other. It is the element which receives and cooperates with regenerating grace."

Greatest among the later Greek theologians was John of Damascus, ob. 754. His "Ekdoos n пioтεws is one of the ablest and most systematic dogmatics which the Church had yet produced. In his soteriology he lays great stress on the role of human freedom. God made man innocent by nature, and autonomous (free) as to his will: Ἐποίησε δὲ ἀυτὸν φύσει ἀναμάρτητον καὶ θελήσει ἀυτεξούσιον.—ii, c. 12. The source of sin is not in man's nature, but in his volition: Our wç Ev Tñ þúσe tò dμapτάνειν ἔχοντα, ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει δὲ μᾶλλον. Man has the power

to continue and to advance in the good, co-operating with God's grace; as, also, to turn away from the right, and to become involved in evil, God permitting it in the interest of human freedom: Εξουσίαν ἔχοντα μένειν καὶ προκόπτειν ἐν τῷ αγαθῷ, τῇ θείᾳ συνεργούμενον χάριτι ; ὡςαύτως καὶ τρέπεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦ, καὶ ἐν τῷ κακῷ γινέσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ παραχωροῦντος θιὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον. For virtue is not a something that can be externally compelled: Οὐκ ἀρετὴ γὰρ τὸ Βίᾳ γινόμενον. Man, being a rational being, rules over his nature rather than being ruled by it: 'O dè avθρωπος, λογικὸς ὤν, ἄγει μᾶλλον τὴν φύσιν ἤπερ ἄγεται. It is God's will neither that sin should exist, nor that human holiness should be the fruit of a merely divine efficiency: Οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γινεσθαι, οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Thus is amply confirmed the statement of Hagenbach, as to this great theologian, (ii, 13:) "He every-where retained the principal definitions of the earlier Greek theologians concerning human liberty.”

The views of John of Damascus were fully shared by all the eminent Greek theologians of the later Middle Ages: by Theodore Studita, (ob. 826,) Theophylacṭ, (ob. cir. 1107,) Euthymius Zigabanus, (ob. cir. 1118,) Nicetas Choniates, (ob. cir. 1206,) and Nicolas of Methone. Euthymius, one of the best minds of the twelfth century, thus expresses the inefficaciousness of human effort without divine grace, and also the fruitlessness of grace without the co-operation of man's will: Méya doyua μανθάνομεν, ὡς ὄντε ἀνθρωπίνη προθυμία κατορθοῖ τι χωρὶς τῆς θείας ῥοπῆς, ουτε θεία ῥοπὴ κέρδος φέρει χωρὶς ἀνθωπίνης προθυμιας. Herzog, iv, 250. Nicolas of Methone had even more eminent abilities than Euthymius. "He laid great stress on the freedom of the will."-Hagenbach, ii, 26.

As to the formal symbols of the Greek Church, they uniformly reflect the views of the above-mentioned great orthodox theologians: the Gregories, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, etc. These symbols embrace, 1. The decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, (from A. D. 325 to 787;) 2. Certain extended confessions of modern times, framed in antagonism to Romanism and Protestantism. The decisions of the first seven councils are held in common with the Romish Church. They relate chiefly to the doctrines concerning God. So far as they are anthropological they reflect the Greek view. Of the later confessions we mention the following:

1. "The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church." Drawn up by Mogilas, (ob. 1647,) in 1640 it was sanctioned by a synod of the Greek and Russian clergy in 1643. It was then signed by the four Eastern Patriarchs. It is the fundamental creed of the whole Greek and Russian Church. On the subject of depravity and regeneration this confession teaches thus, (Schaff, Creeds, ii, 304-8:) God co-operates with our good acts, yet in such a manner as not to force our free-will. Though all are born with a depraved nature, yet each one can, by his will and choice, (θέλησιν και προαίρεσιν,) through the use of grace, become a holy seed, or the contrary. Whether we are actually the children of God or of the devil depends upon ourselves; yet in this sense, that in our spiritual life divine grace co-operates with us, ( Oeía xapis ovμßonoei,) though without forcing our wills.

2. The so-called "Confession of Dositheus" was sanctioned in 1672 by the most important Eastern synod of modern times. It was signed by the Patriarch Dositheus and sixty-eight Oriental Bishops and ecclesiastics. We cite from it the following affirmations: "God has predestinated to glory those who he foresaw would make good use of their free-will in accepting salvation, and has condemned those who would reject it, (Kaλῶς [οι κακῶς] τῷ ἀυτεξουσίῳ χρησομένους.) [See Schaff, ii, 403.] But our free-will needs always the assistance of grace, which is amply given to all men. Those who oppose this view, and teach an unconditional predestination, are impious and blasphemous heretics. They insult God, and make him the author of monstrous cruelty. We lay upon them an eternal anathema, and declare them worse than infidels. God foresees and permits (but does not foreordain) evil, and he overrules it for good. The fall did not destroy man's free-will, (rò dvтešovolov.) Good works done without faith cannot contribute to our salvation; only the works of the regenerate, done under grace and with grace, are perfect."

3. The "Larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church." This is the most authoritative standard of the Russian Church. It was adopted in 1839, and is very comprehensive. We cite as follows: "God has predestined to give to all men, and has actually given to them, preparatory grace and means sufficient for the attainment of happiness." "As

God foresaw that some would use well their free-will, but others ill, he accordingly predestined the former to glory, while the latter he condemned." "Was it for us all, strictly speaking, that Jesus Christ suffered? For his part he offered himself as a sacrifice strictly for all, and obtained for all grace and salvation; but this benefits only those of us who, for their parts, of their own free-will, have fellowship in his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death."

This brings us to the close of the stream of Greek orthodoxy.. As to the question before us, the result is unmistakably clear: The great Oriental Church has taught from the beginning that in the process of regeneration, it is necessary that the human spirit and divine grace shall co-operate; and it has understood this co-operation, this synergism, substantially in the sense in which Arminius and John Wesley afterward taught it. Arminius and Wesley's view of the role of human freedom is no theological novelty, but is a correct reflection of the orthodox catholic consciousness as represented by the entire stream of Greek dogmatic thought. The Orthodox Oriental Church (embracing at least eight millions of the Christian population of the world) is synergistic.

How will it result with our examination of the other, the Western, stream of theological development? Is the Latin Church (with its modern offshoot, Protestantism) synergistic or monergistic? Is its general theological drift better reflected by John Calvin or by James Arminius?

Let us examine the records. We have already seen that the earliest Christian writers of the one common Church are very distinct in their recognition of the moral autonomy of man, and that this recognition was equally positive throughout the history of Greek Christian orthodoxy. Turning now to the beginnings of a distinctive Latin Christianity, we meet, first, with Irenæus, ob. 202. "Irenæus," says Dr. Schaff, "cannot conceive of man without the two separate predicates of intelligence and freedom." He insists that souls cannot be good or bad by mere nature, (φύσει ἀγαθαί καὶ πονηραὶ ψυχαί.) Man is free, and is himself the cause of the good or the ill outcome of his life: "Liber in arbitrio factus et suae potestatis ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum, aliquando autem palea fiat." At the same time he insists that in fallen man

grace must co-operate with man's freedom. See Luthardt, 16: Hagenbach, i, 157.

Next we come to Tertullian, ob. cir. 220. His conception of regeneration is strictly ethical: "Fiant, non nascuntur Christiani." The image of God is not destroyed by the fall. Christianity meets a response from man's innate God-consciousness, (“anima naturaliter Christiana.") Even fallen man retains his moral freedom, (rò dvτešovolov.) Moral freedom is not so much extinguished as hampered: "Quod a Deo est, non tam extinguitur quam obumbratur."-De Anima, 41. Grace transforms man only in co-operation with his freedom. Moral freedom, rightly used, constitutes a receptivity for grace; a possibility of faith.

Cyprian (ob. 258) was no less a synergist than Tertullian. The reception of grace presupposes faith: "Quantum fidei capacis afferimus, tantum gratiæ inundantis haurimus." And faith is not God's act, but man's: "Credendi vel non credendi libertas in arbitrio forita."-Testim., iii, 54.

So taught also Hilary, ob. 268. The incipiency of the new life lies in ourselves: "Incipiendi a nobis origo est." It is of the essence of freedom that it acts of itself: "Voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet, ut velit." God cooperates with our efforts: "Incipienti incrementum dabit." This moral significance or value of regeneration lies in the fact that it is not simply a thing done to us, like our creation, but one in which we have a part from the very start: "Meritum adipiscendæ consummationis est ex initio voluntatis." God helps us on condition of our being willing: "Volentes adjuvet, incipiendes confirmet, adeuntes recipiat; ex nobis autem initium est." See Luthardt, 24.

Ambrose (ob. 398) laid greater stress than Hilary on prevenient grace, but was very positively synergistic. "We begin," says he, "our return to God, but we do not begin without God. The Sun of Righteousness wills that we turn toward it; and it is ready upon our turning." "Both Ambrose and Hilary teach the synergistic theory." Shedd, ii, 49.

Jerome (ob. 419) was synergistic. Man has the ability of good or of evil; which he actually does depends on his free choice. He stands between the two: "Inter hoc jurgium media anima constitit, habens in sua potestate bonum et malum