Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology

Classic Christianity

A Systematic Theology

Previously Published in Three Volumes

Thomas C. Oden

For Clark, Edward, and Laura

Contents

Preface: Getting Started

Classic Consensual Ecumenical Teaching

The System of References

Acknowledgments

Book One

The Living God

Working Assumptions

Credo

Part I

The Living God

Chapter 1: The Name of God

The Joy of Studying God

Whether God is Revealed

Whether God Can Be Defined

Whether God’s Character Can Be Ascertained

Knowing God by Negation and by Analogy

Chapter 2: The Nature of God

God Is Before Time

The Divine Sufficiency

The Unity of God

The Living God

The Majesty of God

Chapter 3: The Character of God

The Divine Thou

The Freedom of God

The Divine Goodness

The Holiness of God

The Constant Goodness of God

The Compassion of God

Part II

The Reality of God

Chapter 4: Whether God Exists

Whether the Existence of God Can Be Reasonably Argued

How to Reason from Order or Design

How to Reason from Human Nature: Mind, Human Nature, and General Consent

Arguments from Change, Causality, Contingency, and Degrees of Being

Arguments from Conscience, Beauty, Pragmatic Results, and Congruity

Argument from the Idea of Perfect Being

Conclusion

Chapter 5: Whether God Is Triune

Salvation History in Triune Faith

Faith’s Experience of Trinitarian Reasoning

Scriptural Roots of Trinitarian Reasoning

The Triune Structure of Christian Teaching

Part III

The Work of God

Chapter 6: God the Creator and Creation

Creator of All Things

The Biblical Perspective on God the Creator

Covenant Creation and the Covenant People of God

The Triune Creator

The God of Creatures

Chapter 7: God’s Care for the World

The Meaning of Providence

Divine Preservation and Cooperation with Natural Causality

Divine Governance of the World

Sin and Evil Viewed in the Light of Providence

God’s Care for the World

General and Special Providence

Part IV

The Study of God

Chapter 8: Whether God Can Be Studied

Is the Study of God Possible?

Revelation Requires Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason

Creedal Tradition as an Authoritative Source for the Study of God

Scripture and Tradition

Whether the Study of God Is a Science

Whether the Study of God Requires a Special Temperament

The Study of Religion and the Study of God

The Reasoning of Revelation

Reason and Certitude

How Faith Reasons

Book Two

The Word of Life

Chapter 1: Why Christ?

An Unforgettable Life

Person to Person: His Question to Us

The Subject

The Gospel

The Ascription of Lordship

Key Definitions: Person, Work, States, and Offices

Surveying the Christological Landscape in Advance

Part I

Word Made Flesh

The Map of the Road Ahead

Chapter 2: The Body Language of God

The Deity of Christ

Scriptural Reasoning About Christ’s Deity

Chapter 3: Divine Sonship

The Nature of Divine Sonship

Son of the Father, Son of Mary

The Preincarnational Life of the Son

The Humbling of God to Servanthood

Form of God, Form of a Servant

The Hidden Majesty: The Obscuration of the Divine

Chapter 4: The Incarnation

How Both Genders Were Honored Equally in the Incarnation

The Scriptural Teaching of Incarnation

The Necessity of the Incarnation

Consequent Issues of the Incarnation

His Humanity

Chapter 5: The Manner of God’s Coming

The Virginal Conception

Gospel Witness to the Virgin Birth

The Savior Was Truly Born

The New Eve

The Mother of the Savior

Chapter 6: One Person—Truly God, Truly Human

The Personal Union: Its Scriptural Basis

The Union of Two Natures in One Person

The One Person

The Logic of Intrapersonal Permeation

Defining Personal Union

Divine and Human Will in the Son

Part II

Our Lord’s Earthly Life

Chapter 7: The Proclaimer Proclaimed

The Historical Jesus

How the Quest for Jesus’ History Became Distorted

The Classic Christian Theandric Starting Point

Following the Sequence of the Transition from Proclaimer to Proclaimed

The Confession of Lordship

The Risen Lord: The Authoritative Interpreter of His Own Narrative

The Academy’s Prevailing Myth of the Myth About Jesus

Chapter 8: The Public Ministry of Jesus

Childhood Narratives: Circumcision, Flight, Obedience, Growth

Jesus’ Baptism: Its Meaning

The Temptation of Jesus

Three Archetypal Forms of Temptation of the Messianic Servant

The Sinlessness of Jesus: Classic Reasoning

The Son of Man

The Journey Toward Jerusalem

The Anointed One

Names and Titles Ascribed to the Anointed One

Chapter 9: The Work He Came to Do

Offices of the Anointed One

Defining the Prophetic Office: Christ as Prophet

He Taught with Authority

Signs, Wonders, and Demonstrations of Power and Deity

Christ as True Priest

First Phase of Christ’s Priestly Work: Sacrifice

Second Phase of Christ’s Priestly Work: Intercession

Third Phase of Christ’s Priestly Work: Blessing

PART III

He Died for Our Sins

Chapter 10: The Death of Jesus

He Suffered

The Passion Story Narrates the Humbling of the Son Even to Death

Crucified, Dead, and Buried

His Death

He Was Buried

Chapter 11: In Our Place

The Atonement Embodied in One Person

The Crossroad of Christian Reflection

The Cross Uniquely Joins Holiness and Love

The Reversal: God’s Own Sacrifice

The Finished Work: Reconciliation

Christ’s Obedience: Active and Passive

The Cross as Sacrifice

The Sacrificial Offering of Christ

The Unique Conditions Required for the Salvation of Humanity

Penalty as a Consequence of Law

Christ Died for Our Sins

Penal Substitution as Sufficient Vicarious Satisfaction

Victory by Justice, Not Power

The Value of Christ’s Death for Us

The Exemplary or Moral Influence Motif

The Orderly Governance Motif

The Exchange or Satisfaction Motif

The Victor or Dramatic Motif

Comparison and Integration of the Complementary Tendencies

The Meaning of Daily Suffering in the Light of the Cross

Suffering: Surveying the Human Predicament

How Does Christ’s Death Impinge upon Human Suffering?

The Mystery of Human Suffering Viewed in the Light of the Cross

Part IV

Exalted Lord

Chapter 12: Christus Victor

The Exaltation of Christ

Christ Is Alive

Descent into the Nether World

The Final Phase of the Humbling of God: The Abode of the Grave

Chapter 13: The Risen Lord

The Lord Is Risen Indeed

The Hope of Resurrection

How Jesus Transformed the End-Time Expectation

Jesus’ Resurrection in the Light of Apocalyptic Hopes

Lacking Resurrection, Faith in Vain

On the Third Day

Resurrection: An Event Without Analogy

Is the Resurrection Evidence Sufficient?

Deciding Fairly About the Evidence: Why the Account Is True

The Nature of Resurrection Evidence

Resurrection: The Proof of Lordship

The Modern Mythographers: Rewriting the Texts to Fit with Reductive Naturalism

Chapter 14: Ascension and Session

The Ascended Lord

Seated at the Right Hand of the Father

Christ the King

The Kingdom of Power, Grace, and Glory

A Modest Proposal for Christological Reform

Book Three

Life in the Spirit

Introducing the Study of the Spirit

The Shortfall of Language in the Study of the Spirit

The Way Ahead

Part I

The Person of the Holy Spirit

Chapter 1: The Person of the Holy Spirit

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Personal Nearness of the Holy Spirit Within the Human Heart

Sin Against the Spirit

The Person of the Holy Spirit in Triune Teaching

Chapter 2: The Work of the Spirit

The Spirit’s Preparatory Work

The Work of the Spirit in Creation and Providence

Types and Symbols of the Holy Spirit in Scripture

The Work of the Spirit in the Present Age

The Spirit’s Work in Applying the Work of the Son

The Counselor

Pentecost: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit

The Tongues at Pentecost and After

Holy Spirit and Holy Writ

The Spirit Works Through the Word in the Heart to Persuade

Part II

Salvation

Chapter 3: The Way of Repentanc

The Terms of Salvation

The Study of Salvation

The Elements of Personal Salvation Teaching

The Narrow Way of Repentance

Conviction of Sin

Contrition

The Resolution to Forsake All Sin

Conversion

Confession of Sin

Chapter 4: Justification by Grace Through Faith

Justification by Grace

Justification Under Grace

The Aquittal

The New Accounting

Faith in Christ

The Study of Faith

Elements of Saving Faith: Assent, Trust, and Decision

The Gift of Faith

Faith Working Through Love

The New Birth

Gracious Freedom

Word and Spirit in the Regenerate Life

Chapter 5: Baptism of the Spirit

The Spirit’s Indwelling

Baptism by the Washing of Water and Spirit

Water and Spirit Baptism

The Sealing of the Spirit

The Gifts of the Spirit

Adoption into the Family of God

Assurance of Salvation Through the Witness of the Spirit

Chapter 6: Union with Christ and Sanctification

Union with Christ

Sanctification

Called to Holiness

Grace and Character Formation

Birth and Growth

Yielding to the Spirit’s Guidance

Perfecting Grace and the Fullness of Salvation

Classic Consensual Teaching on Perfecting Grace

How Debates on the Holy Life Have Been Resolved by Ecumenical Consent

Life in Christ amid the Tension of Flesh and Spirit

Examining Arguments on the Intrinsic Unattainability of Perfect Love

Salvation Viewed from the Vantage Point of Its Effects

Part III

The Church

Chapter 7: The Community of Celebration

Complementary Ways of Looking at the Church

Biblical Teaching on the Church (Ekklēsia, Qahal)

The Called Community

Bath and Meal

The Spirit Builds Up the Community

Biblical Models of the Church

The Church as Body of Christ

The Spirit Enlivens the Church

Chapter 8: Marks of the Church

Word, Sacrament, and Discipline

Four Evidences of the Reality and Wholeness of the Church

The First Mark: The Church Is One

The Ecumenical Spirit

The Second Mark: The Church Is Holy

The Visibility of the Church

The Third Mark: Catholicity

Catholicity with Respect to Time and Place

Tolerance, Perpetuity, and Fallibility

The Fourth Mark: Apostolicity

Apostolicity and Succession

Ordination and Apostolicity

Questions of Petrine Leadership

Part IV

Human Destiny

Chapter 9: Last Things: Death and Personal Survival

The End of History

Death and Personal Survival

The Death of Believers

The Intermediate State of the Righteous

Chapter 10: The End of Human History

The General Resurrection of the Dead

We Shall Be Like Him

The Return of Christ

The Time of His Coming

Signs of His Coming

Alpha and Omega

The Millennial Hope

General Judgment

Individual Judgment

The Judicial Process

Consummation: The End of the Age

Chapter 11: The Communion of Saints and the Life Everlasting

The Communion of Saints

The Final State of the Unjust

Satan

Life Everlasting

Amen to the Glory of the Lord

Epilogue: General Consent of the Laity as the Principle of Legitimacy

Three Conclusions on Why Historic Consensus Is Vital to Doctrinal Definition

Consensual Teachings Are Readily Identifiable Textually

Consensual Authority Is Grounded in General Lay Consent

Consensus Clarification Is Feasible

Postlude: On Theo-Comic Perception

An Invitation to Partners in Dialogue

Abbreviations and References

Searchable Terms

About the Author

Credits

Copyright

About the Publisher

PREFACE: GETTING STARTED

Classic Consensual Ecumenical Teaching

My basic purpose is to set forth an ordered view of the faith of the Christian community upon which there has generally been substantial agreement between the traditions of East and West, including Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. My intent is not to present the views of a particular branch of modern Christian teaching, such as Roman Catholic or Reformed, but to listen single-mindedly for the voice of that deeper consensus that has been gratefully celebrated as received teaching by believers of vastly different cultural settings, whether African or Asian, Eastern or Western, sixth or sixteenth century.

My intention may be simply put: I hope to set forth what is most commonly stated in the central Christian tradition concerning God. This effort is therefore ecumenical in a larger sense than is usually assumed in the modern ecumenical movement. It proposes to follow that ancient ecumenical consensus of Christian teaching of God as seen in earliest creedal summaries of Irenaeus, c. AD 190; Tertullian, c. 200; Hippolytus, c. 215; Council of Caesarea, 325; Council of Nicaea, 325; Marcellus, 340; Cyril of Jerusalem, 350; Council of Constantinople, 381; Rufinus, 404; Council of Chalcedon, 451. These confessions still embrace and empower not only centrist Protestants and traditional Roman Catholics and Orthodox but also great numbers of evangelicals, liberals, and charismatics.

Hence I am seeking to set forth key constructive arguments of two millennia of ecumenical Christian thinking—that God is, who God is, and what that means for us today. I seek an internally consistent statement of classical Christian thinking about God so as to provide a reliable foundation for baptism, the life of prayer, scripture studies, and for the living of Christian life.

No attempt has been made to avoid the classical language of the church. The study of God does better by letting tested classical Christian language speak for itself in its own directly powerful way to modern minds and hearts wrestling with the limits and failures of modern consciousness. The faithful have no dread of using the traditional language of the church. Terms like incarnation and resurrection need to be explained, not avoided.

Contemporary cultures present no tougher challenges to Christianity than did the fall of Rome, the collapse of the medieval synthesis, the breakup of the unity of Christendom in the sixteenth century, or the French Enlightenment. Christian teaching today must be pursued amid a similar collapse of modern assumptions. I will not try to offer classic Christianity artificial crutches to assist it in catching up with the frenzied pace of modernity. My premise is that modernity has more catching up to do with classic Christianity. My passion is in the closest possible adherence to the texts of classic Christian teaching.

Modest Reaffirmations

In reworking the earlier three-volume edition (1987–92) into a single volume, I reaffirm solemn commitments made at its beginning:

to make no new contribution to theology

to resist the temptation to quote modern writers less schooled in the whole counsel of God than the best ancient classic exegetes

to seek quite simply to express the one mind of the believing church that has been always attentive to that apostolic teaching to which consent has been given by Christian believers everywhere, always, and by all. This is what I mean by the Vincentian method (Vincent of Lérins, Commonitory).

I have listened closely for the historic ecumenical consensus received by believers of widely varied languages, social locations, and cultures, whether of East or West, African, or Asian, whether expressed by women or men of the second or first Christian millennium, whether European or decisively pre-European, post- or pre-Constantinian.

My goal has not been to survey the bewildering varieties of dissent, but to identify and plausibly set forth the cohesive central tradition of general lay consent to apostolic teaching, seen not through its centrifugal aberations but in its centripetal centering. I will spend little time trying to knock down others’ cherished views. The focus is upon setting forth plausible layers of argument traditionally employed while presenting in connected order the most commonly held points of biblical teaching as classically interpreted by the leading teachers of the earliest centuries of Christianity.

My intention is not to try to satisfy the finicky appetites of naturalistic skeptics who will always remain hungry. Nor is it to find a clever way of making the way of salvation conveniently acceptable to the prejudices of modernity. I am pledged not to become fixated upon the ever-spawning species of current critical opinions, but instead to focus single-mindedly upon early consensual assent to apostolic teaching of how God the Spirit works to fulfill the mission of God the Son on behalf of God the Father.

I do not assume that my reader already affirms classic Christian teaching. I wish only to give a fair hearing to the way in which classical Christian teachers have always understood their own grounding and empowerment.

I will not dodge or explain away the time-honored vocabulary of the church, or seek constantly to substitute diluted terms congenial to modernity. The witness to God’s saving action is best served by letting the tested language of the Christian tradition, as refined through countless historical and political mutations, speak for itself out of its own power to modern minds struggling with the follies and limits of modernity. Only those who give traditional Christianity a fair hearing can fairly decide whether it makes sense. Deteriorating modern ideologies must now catch up with the ever-new forgings of classic Christianity, not the other way around.

Those who are at home with liturgy and those who prefer a down-to-earth, socially engaged, pragmatic level are inheritors of the same consensus. Both can dive deeply into the stream of classic Christian language without a sacrifice of conscience. Some will bring an imagination awakened by theoretical interests, other by practical ethics. All of these varied partners will recognize the best of their own recent traditions as already at home and included within the embrace of classical Christian thought. The beautiful species known as Christian orthodoxy deserves advocates who try to do what Rachel Carson did for birds or what Archie Carr did to advocate the cause of endangered sea turtles.

The Promise of Unoriginality

The only promise I intend to make, however inadequately carried out, is that of unoriginality. I plan to present nothing new or original in these pages. Nothing of my own that would have my initials stamped upon it is important in this discussion. Admittedly the classic language must be reappropriated and articulated in sentences written and ordered by some particular person. Yet I hope my own voice does not intrude upon the radiant voices of Paul, Irenaeus, Anthony, and Athanasius.

I wish to provide neither a new interpretation of old ideas, nor a new language that is more acceptable for modern sensibilities. Rigorous accountability to the ancient teachers themselves is a large enough task, without adding to it other heavy burdens. If that seems irregular, it can be viewed as a response to a prevailing excess, one that inordinately emphasizes self-expression, often exaggerated in current self-importance. I do not pretend to have found a comfortable way of making Christianity tolerable to vanishing forms of modernity. I present no revolutionary new ideas, no new way to salvation. The road is still narrow (Matt. 7:14).

I do not have the gift of softening the sting of the Christian message, of making it seem light or easily borne or quickly assimilated into prevailing modern ideas (Clement of Alex., Exhort to the Heathen; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Her. 4.47–51; Origen, Ag. Celsus 6.16). I do not wish to make a peace of bad conscience with dubious achievements of modernity or pretend to find a comfortable way of making Christianity expediently acceptable to modern assumptions (Kierkegaard, Judge for Yourselves!; Prefaces). If Paul found that the Athenians in general and foreigners there had no time for anything but talking or hearing about the latest novelty (Acts 17:21; Basil, Hom. on Ps. 45), so have I found too much talk of religion today obsessed with novelty.

I am dedicated to unoriginality. My aim is to present classical Christian teaching of God on its own terms, undiluted by modern posturing. I take to heart Paul’s admonition: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we had already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted [par o parelabete, other than what you received from the apostles], let him be eternally condemned [anathema esto]!" (Gal. 1:8, 9, italics added).

I have not focused upon answering contrary or odd opinions except when they have served to make ancient ecumenical reasoning more transparent. I have tried to keep out petty local viewpoints in the interest of clarifying only those teachings upon which the central streams of classical Christian theologians have textually agreed as expressing the mind of the believing church. At points where that agreement is not fully evident, I either leave the subject for further debate or try to state the principal viewpoints remaining in tension within classic voices. I hope to constrain my own particular idiosyncratic way of looking at things. My mission is to deliver as clearly as I can that core of consensual belief that has been shared for almost two millennia of Christian teaching. Vincent of Lérins described this core as that which has always, everywhere, and by all Christians been believed about God’s self-disclosure.

The modern rules of authorship insist that every author strive for originality. The classic Christian rule is opposite. Its writings value the most faithful replication of the most ancient sacred texts and resist vain pretenses of originality. So brace yourself. There is hardly a sentence ahead that is not accompanied by a classic reference or quote, most from the period before the fall of Rome.

The Consensual Doctors and Documents

The principal classical interpreters of scripture are those usually designated as the four great ecumenical Doctors of the Church of the Eastern tradition (Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Chrysostom) and the four Doctors of the Church of the West (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great).

Among others who have been perennially valued for accurately stating points of ecumenical consensus are Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo I, John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, and among Protestants especially Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer. Classic in our definition includes classic Reformation sources in so far as they reflect the ancient ecumenical consensus.

Consensual documents widely received by the consenting church over a long period of time are valued above statements of individuals. Most important of consensual documents are the decisions of ecumenical councils and the most widely received synods and councils. The method of consensus hinges on the fact of wide consent (consentio, to be of one mind, to agree, from con-, with, and sentire, feel or sense). Who gives consent in this consensus? The whole church, the cloud of witnesses. How is this consent defined? In correspondence with ancient ecumenical consent as found textually in the ecumenical councils.

The term traditionally applied to the classic Christian teachers of the first five centuries is patristic (from pater), in reference to the fathers of the church. Yet since there were also influential women and not men alone, we will also be hearing from the matristic (from mater) exegetes and saints such as Macrina, Perpetua, Caecilia of Rome, Agatha of Sicily, Margaret of Antioch, Paula, Eu-stochium, and Amma Theodora. When the generic term patristic is used, it refers mainly to those whose writings have most shaped the tradition, the fathers and mothers in the faith, whether they write or die to attest the faith.

I do not quote these interpreters in order to make intellectual heroes of them or to treat them as geniuses or creative innovators. Oddly enough, most of them, insofar as they were consensually received, thought of themselves as unoriginal in desiring especially not to add anything to an already sufficient apostolic faith, but only to receive and reappropriate that faith accurately and honestly in their particular social and historical setting. They were not seeking to invent new ideas but simply and plainly to understand God’s actual goodness and purpose as revealed in universal history.

There was indeed creative genius at work in the communities of orthodoxy, but the individual teachers who best served those communities did not think of themselves as creative geniuses. They knew that it was the community itself that was brilliant, and made brilliant by the power of the Spirit. The most powerful writers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine, were those who most accurately gave expression to the faith that was already well understood generally by the community they served.

Hence I will constrain the impulse to tangle with detailed controversies in modern sources. That is not my purpose. Each doctrine has a lengthy history of controversy. That history is the subject of historical theology, but that differs from the method of a compendium of classic Christianity, which assumes that it is useful to set forth classic Christian thinking cohesively without becoming disrupted or preoccupied with each successive stage of development through which each teaching has passed in various contexts, traditions, symbol systems, and periods. The teacher of classic Christianity must be thoroughly informed about these developments but need not always burden readers with their details.

Readers may be helped by assuming that before each and every paragraph is an implicit phrase: The principal classical exegetes say… It would be tedious to repeat such a reference constantly, so I ask your indulgence in my saying it only once.

Rediscovering Early African Voices in Classic Christianity

The earliest forms of classic Christian teaching bear a distinctly African stamp. The common perception is that Christianity in Africa is a relatively recent arrival from the West. This classic consensus shows the opposite: Christian intellectual formation is oldest in Africa. The contributions made by African Christian thinkers had decisive effects on the formation of world Christianity, and especially European Christianity. The editorial and translation teams that produced the twenty-nine volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture were amazed to find such a large proportion of texts from the African continent in the earliest comments on scripture.

African Christianity is foundational for classic Christian teaching. This serves as the potential basis for a new African ecumenism that promises to reshape the recovery of apostolic teaching in world Christianity. In the years between the publication of Systematic Theology and that of Classic Christianity, these African texts were being heavily mined in primary sources. Many of these appear prominently in these pages: Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Augustine, and the great Cyril. Christianity is often portrayed as an essentially European religion. This is regrettable because classic Christianity has its pre-European roots in cultures that are far distant from Europe and that preceded the development of early modern European identity, and some of its greatest minds have been African, as I have set forth in How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity.

The System of References

Embedded in almost every paragraph of these pages are references to leading classical Christian sources. They point modern readers to a textual history of dialogue that rightly informs contemporary discussion. The most important service I can render readers is manifested in these quotations and embedded annotations. This follows the method of reference in classic Christianity, with constant orientation to scripture and the tradition of exegesis of scripture.

To some it may seem amusing—to me it remains a sober, ironic fact—that this volume is written as an introduction to its annotations. If the text invites readers to search out the original sources that called it forth, the arrow will have struck its mark. Only if it succeeds in pointing believers back to Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Macrina has it fulfilled my expectation. This kind of textual accountability hopes to point beyond itself to the texts out of which its argument lives.

Among eccentricities I ask the reader to tolerate is my sincere opinion that the most valuable aspect of this compendium of classic Christianity is its parenthetical references. If it is possible for an author sincerely to ask a reader to rivet attention upon the sources to which he points and relatively less to his own inventions, I would indicate that as my true intention. Picture me as on my knees begging you to do just this one thing.

My concern is not primarily with knocking down beliefs but with upbuilding, not with polemics but with peacemaking, not with differences but with consensus, not with development of doctrine but with the unity of the Christian tradition, which has so astutely and imaginatively addressed so many different cultural environments. Hence I have preferred primary biblical and early Christian sources to recent secondary sources.

My criteria for textual citations need to be candidly stated. I have preferred citing:

biblical texts with clear teaching values, rather than those containing ambiguities or requiring clarification of complex historical conditions and assumptions;

the most widely received classical teachers rather than ancillary or nonconsensual exhibits;

earlier rather than later classical writers; and

those writings that most clearly reflect ancient apostolic teaching rather than those dealing with special viewpoints and controversial themes.

Clear Models of Consensus Versus Disputable Figures

I am less prone to quote Origen than Augustine, but I quote Origen on points on which he was generally received by the ancient church consensus and do not quote Augustine on those points on which he was not generally received. On those particular points on which respected patristic writers tended to diverge from the central ancient ecumenical consensus (e.g., Origenist views that the power of God is limited or that stars have souls, or Novatian’s view of the permanent exclusion of the lapsed, or Gregory of Nyssa’s universalism, or some of Augustine’s views of election and reprobation), I will be less prone to quote them, but I will quote freely from their writings that have been widely received.

Some may think it odd that I have sometimes quoted classic Christian teachers who have been declared anathema on some particular points by the councils or condemned by various consensual teachers. Examples among our referees are selected appreciative citations from Tertullian, Novatian, Theodoret, and Ambrosiaster, whose doctrinal aberations have been limited to specific points, but whose teachings beyond these are freely quoted within orthodox teaching. The points on which they are quoted here are only those in which their orthodoxy was not questioned or those on which they may have expressed the consensus better than many others. Among those regarded by most as profoundly orthodox but who suffered on some particular point from temporary excommunication are Maximus the Confessor, who lost his tongue for what he said, Chrysostom, who was expelled from Constantinople and died in exile, and the brilliant Origen, who was rejected by Jerome and Cyril but used extensively by both of them.

I will take this story step by step, avoiding technical phrases, striking for the heart of the matter. For models of the theological clarity, precision, and cohesion that all do well to emulate, see Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations, and John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith. Models for this ancient ecumenical method may be seen in Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Lect.; Vincent of Lérins, (Commonit. 1–3), and Gregory the Great (Epis. 25). Watching them play theology is like watching Willie Mays play centerfield or Duke Ellington play Sophisticated Lady.

As you go, bear in mind Kierkegaard’s axiom: everything about religion is amusing, and especially Christianity, where everything hinges on the incarnation. So cool it, relax, breathe, and swim to the deep fathoms.

Interlude: Seven Reasons Why this Exploration is Distinctive

Several features of this compendium make it unusual and in some ways distinctive. If asked to write an honest description of what is atypical and unusual about this volume, I would note the following:

This compendium is the first in many years to view systematic theology as a classic treasury of scriptural and widely received patristic texts that point toward this distinctive work of the Spirit: These texts all share a common classic premise that it is the same Spirit who inspired the canonical text who is actively creating the unity and cohesion of the whole doctrinal effort amid changing historical circumstances. This cohesion is not the product of the work of modern scholars, but of the work of the Spirit throughout twenty centuries of intensive, critical scriptural exegesis. Note how different this premise is from those that have prevailed in most theologies written since Schleiermacher early in the nineteenth century.

This volume is the first in the modern period to present the whole range of issues of classic Christian teaching with constant reference to the much wider range of patristic texts now available. Many of these were not available to premodern writers.

This volume is the first in recent decades to attempt to present a text-based consensus of early Christian thought that embraces the whole range of issues of systematic theology. It presents a consensual argument that appeals to authoritative texts shared by Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, classic liberal, evangelical, and charismatic believers. Most comparable attempts address only one or two of these audiences.

The reason for presenting these texts in systematic order in one volume is to offer the opportunity to see their intrinsic interconnections. Where repetitions occur, they are necessary to demonstrate the connections textually. I want only to provide clear evidences of the unity of classic Christian teaching by presenting discrete, convincing, and authoritative examples of it. This is the task of the science of theological reasoning as viewed classically. I know of no better place to glimpse the spirit and method that pervaded the forms of theological reasoning modeled notably by Cyprian, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Bede. They all showed these textual interconnections. They focused on delivering accurately the authoritative texts in a plausible, thoughtful arrangement and in an uncomplicated, readable style in order to show forth their cohesiveness as a demonstration of the work of the Spirit. There was no accent on the individual virtuosity of individual thinkers or on those who were putting the pattern together. The pattern arose out of a worshiping community. The important thing was not the brilliance of any individual’s arguments but the shared pattern formed by the conflation of texts themselves, radiating the power of the Spirit.

The purpose of extensive consensual reference is not to set forth all the conceivable interpretations of scripture. Rather it is highly selective: to present only those that best convey the consensus of faith. No other work focuses deliberately on this criterion to my knowledge. In fact this whole standard classic procedure is viewed with alarm by many academicians as an incongruous act of proof-texting. It is deemed incongruous because many in the academy have already decided before making the investigation that there can never be any consensus among such varieties. Meanwhile the truth of the consensus and its durability have remained unexplained and ignored in the academy. The cost is that the modern laity is deprived of the authoritative texts upon which classic Christianity is built. The selection of these references is very deliberate. They all hinge on canonical and authoritative classic texts—scripture texts first, and the most widely received interpreters of scripture worldwide over the centuries next. They beg to be read. They plead to be placed within an overarching argument of the whole sequence of topics of classic Christian teaching, as they have been so often in the history of classic Christian teaching.

My particular way of arranging and titling the headings of the compendium has little importance other than to introduce these more important voices in due order. The order is entirely borrowed from the consensus. If anything makes this book a little different from most popular modern theologies, it is this. I have exercised the freedom to reference a few modern texts, but only in those cases where a modern text gathers up the wisdom of the classic consensual texts most aptly.

This compendium is the first comprehensive attempt to carry out the ecumenical method proposed by Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century. Its classic medieval form is found in Thomas Aquinas’ Compendium of Theology and its best modern representative is William Burt Pope.

For these reasons this compendium is unique.

This Treasury

What I most want my reader to grasp is that the worshiping community has this treasury of sacred texts to deal with in constructing a pattern of Christian teaching. They are not merely speculation, and not the result of autonomous creative thinking, but wise texts that have proven important and valuable to the community of prayer for generations. This compendium consists primarily of the sequential presentation of those texts, both from scripture and tradition, with minimal claim of any originality of arrangement. Both the texts and their arrangement have been available for centuries. But they have been too long ignored.

This is a tested way of teaching introductory classic Christianity. Since so long ignored, it is perceived as a very unexpected way of teaching basic theology today. It is new only because it has been forgotten for many decades as a valid method of teaching. I want to show that the return to the method of classical Christian teaching is just as illuminating and fresh and edifying today as it has been for dozens of previous generations. I can only do this by presenting it point by point, in the order in which it has been most commonly presented over two millennia.

Classic Christian thinking can be grasped by contemporary critical minds if they can learn to think historically within a community, rather than individualistically. Only when each one hears his or her own individual experience illuminated by the wisdom of the historical Christian community is it then possible to contribute that illumined personal experience back to the community (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis, prologue: 1–6).

The Storehouse of Sources

The references in this book represent consensual Christianity, not because I say so but because a history of widely recognized consensual advocates says so. These are not just my opinions and choices. They are choices made by thousands, millions, of believers from multiple cultures over multiple centuries. Most of the references are from those sources most widely recognized by the classical tradition, especially through the councils and the Great Doctors of the Church. Ancillary voices that have received less attention may just as accurately express the mind of the believing church. They include great teachers of widely different cultures—like Ephrem the Syrian, Pachomius of Tabennisi on the Nile, Optatus of Numidia, Didymus the Blind, and Dorotheus of Gaza. They show that the consensus can be expressed by marginalized or minority voices who have not often been heard within the majority traditions.

The historic church does not depend upon modern cultural sources to legitimize it. Its sources are mature and made sufficient by the ways that the Holy Spirit has brought centrifugal unity to Christian teaching in the earliest centuries of Christianity. And do not get angry at me if I report what classic Christianity says. If I represent it wrongly, yes, let’s hear it. If I insert my own biases, tell me. But in most cases the problem is not with me but with classic Christianity, especially if I am telling the same truth held by the great tradition. You are confronted with a decision. Those who flatly disagree with classic Christianity have a basic decision to make, especially if they seek ordination. Is it right to pretend to ignore this teaching? Better to work it out by further counsel with people you trust. Better yet to go back to the texts and see if I am telling the truth.

Subjective judgments on whether these texts are intriguing or irrelevant, exciting or boring are entirely for the reader to decide. There is no doubt that they have been regarded as life-changing to many. But it remains a subjective judgment as to their ability to enliven a given reader. I prefer allowing them to be freely given permission to speak in their own language, even if it means that modern ears will stereotype them as old-fashioned and traditional. Being traditional is what makes them worth returning to again and again. Their longevity and the multicultural breadth of their authority is precisely what commends them. It is more relevant to ask why this extraordinary power of endurance still persists. The perception of classic Christian wisdom as if it were tedious may say more about the perceiver than about the truth of what is perceived. Even if they are perceived as dusty and dull, that does not change the objective fact that these texts have spoken powerfully for Christian teaching for hundreds of years, and in most cases more than a thousand years. They have changed thousands of lives. The reason why they are quoted directly is to allow the reader to encounter openly the texts that modern chauvinism has already decided are boring and dated, letting the reader make the call.

A Guide for Locating Parenthetical References

Those who wish to pursue a more concentrated investigation of classic works cited in this compendium will be able to do so through the parenthetical references. The key to the abbreviations is provided. Section numbers have been preferred to page numbers in citing references because this is common practice in patristic reference, and it more accurately points to the ancient text in its original language as found in commonly received editions. Patristic references provide information on the author and title, either by section number (ordinarily inserting periods between section and subsection numbers) or by page number (ordinarily inserting a colon before a page number). A colon in a parenthetical reference may point either to a page number or, in the case of a scripture text, a verse number. A period within a reference points to a section or subsection number. For example, Augustine, Confessions 10.1 means Book 10, Section 1 of the Confessions. References to scriptural commentaries by ancient writers typically follow the convention of including book, chapter, homily, section, or part number (then period), then section number or biblical chapter (period), then verse number (for example: Chrysostom, Hom. on Acts 11.4.31 means Homily 11 at the specific point of commenting on Acts 4.31, because that is how the commentary is arranged). Whether the first digit refers to a book, chapter, homily, section, or part number depends on the way the received source text or original language text is separated into segments. Anomalies persist because original language editions may vary in their systems of numbering or sectioning. Some texts are divided by book, chapter, section, and subsection, and others in other ways, such as volume, part, or division. A reference to Chrysostom, Hom. on John 88.2 does not refer to Chapter 88 of John, but Homily 88 written by Chrysostom on John, quoted from Section 2.

The comments on scripture by Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and others are commonly noted either as homilies or as commentary. We are forced by the standard literature to employ both forms. Homilies were normally presented as instruction to a worshiping community, while commentaries were line-by-line analyses of problems and issues in the text. While some prefer to distinguish these approaches sharply, we see them flowing together quietly in most ancient Christian writers. Chrysostom’s work is most variably referenced as homily, commentary, or simply epistle or gospel, but our preference is homily.

Since each original source may discuss varied topics in a single section or page, it is best not to expect the section reference to deal solely with the specific point the reader desires to see in context. Work through the flow of reasoning in the reference. Where some difficulty persists in locating a classic passage, it is wise to read sequential pages immediately following (or for context, preceding) the portion referenced, or consult the Latin, Greek, or Syriac text or another English translation (see list of abbreviations). Many difficulties will be avoided by remembering the distinction between colons and periods in the citations. The rule: where page numbers occur, they are preceded by a colon.

In order to standardized spelling and make grammatical idioms more uniform, the English references will not reflect odd alternative spelling variations of older translations. In cases where Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic texts have not been previously translated into suitable English, we provide new translations. The references point to the best and most accessible translations of biblical and patristic texts. Recent translations have been preferred to older ones, and many have been newly translated. We intend to present dynamic equivalency translations of long-neglected texts which historically have been regarded as authoritative models of biblical interpretation. Where current English translations are already well rendered, they will be used, but if necessary their language will be brought up to date or amended for easier reading. For ease of reading we have in some cases edited out superfluous conjunctions.

Where a scripture reference is followed by a classic patristic reference, my intention is to refer the reader to further insights from the consensual tradition of exegesis into that scripture text. The reason I have not limited the scripture references to a single translation from a single original language version is because the patristic writers themselves were quoting from various original Hebrew, Greek, or Old Latin texts. The Septuagint was their most frequent source for the Old Testament and Apocrypha, which they then translated into Latin or Greek or Syriac, from which the modern English translator of the patristic source has to search for the way in which that writer understood the scripture text. Since they did not always work out of the same original text, we cannot arbitrarily impose upon them a modern translation from the Hebrew Bible or Greek original. Most patristic writers were working out of the Greek Septuagint and New Testament, and some fewer out of a version of the Old Latin or Peshitta or Syriac text. The task of the modern translator is to follow the intent of the classic exegete rather than to provide a translation that would assume that the ancient writer who was using the Septuagint had access to the Hebrew Bible or the accepted modern critical text of the New Testament. In accord with the criteria used by the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS), we have either made our own translations in accordance with the patristic writer’s intent, or used or modified a reliable contemporary translation in accord with that intent. Since this is not a work for philological professionals, we have not cluttered up the text by seeking to speculate on which original source text the author was using or which modern translator comes closest to approximating that author’s intent in interpreting it. We prefer to use those translations that we have worked on together as an international translation team in the ACCS and its successive projects, and to use the norms of abbreviations that have been established there. The reader can search out page numbers of references in further detail by going directly to the extract as it is found in the ACCS or in the original edition of Systematic Theology. The central rule of translation has been clarity of intent and brevity of reference, so as not to load up the sentences with unnecessary subsequent or modern references. Intrinsically an ecumenical project, this study hopes to serve Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox lay, pastoral, and scholarly audiences.

The Pyramid of Sources

Following these criteria, it is evident that only a few of the most important contemporary contributors will be noted, whereas a much broader spectrum of ancient sources will be recalled. Over fifteen thousand specific primary source references to consensus-bearing teachers are here offered, most of which are ancient.

The weighting of references may be compared to a pyramid of sources, with scripture at the base, then the early Christian writers, first pre-Nicene then post-Nicene, as the central mass, then the best of medieval followed by centrist Reformation writers at the narrowing upper mass, and more recent interpreters at the smaller, tapering apex—but only those who grasp and express the prevailing mind of the believing historical church. Modern trends in systematic theology have been prone to turn that pyramid of texts upside down, quoting mostly modern sources and few earlier ones. I am pledging not to turn that pyramid upside down, as have those guild theologians who have most valued what is least tested.

I intend to set forth in consistent order those points most commonly held on all major affirmations of classic Christian teaching. The most authoritative affirmations of classic Christian doctrine hinge on the best and most widely received scripture interpretations of the classic exegetes. These are the views that have been happily received by the consensus fidelium. Medieval and Reformation exegesis stands upon the shoulders of the ancient Christian writers. The accompanying diagram represents this priority ordering of sources.

Hence primary biblical and classical Christian sources are consistently cited in preference to recent and secondary sources of all kinds. Among classic exegetes, those who have gained the widest consensus are quoted more often than those who have tended to elicit division, speculation, individual creativity, and controversy. Earlier rather than later sources are cited where possible, not because older is sentimentally prized, but because they have had longer to enrich and sculpt the historic consensus.

These classic Christian writers must not be pitted against scripture, since their deliberate purpose was to illuminate, order, and explicate the truth of scripture. In Luther’s view, that was precisely what made them authoritative sources: All the fathers concede their own obscurity and illuminate Scripture by Scripture alone. And, indeed, that is the right method. Scripture should be placed alongside Scripture in a right and proper way. He who can do this best is the best of the fathers (Luther, Reply to Emser, WML 3:277; WLS 1:88).

Why Consensus Is Not Fundamentalism

Consensus clarification is a far cry from peddling fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a recent concept. Classic Christianity is not recent. Fundamentalism takes its distinct form of its special definition only belatedly in the late nineteenth century. Since the founding conference of the fundamentalist movement in Niagara in 1895, it has been a movement with a very constricted vision of the history of exegesis as related to doctrine. Fundamentalism has a hundred-year-old memory. Classic Christianity has a two-thousand-year-old memory, plus its memory of ancient Israel before Jesus.

Here is a quick summary of ten major reasons why classic Christian teaching is not rightly termed fundamentalism.

This is merely recapped in ten points that could themselves constitute a book. But this is not what this book is about. Nonetheless it is necessary to say because some might misread my intent or mistake the catholicity and evangelical depth of classic Christianity. I cannot allow you to have an easy excuse to put down the great forms of reasoning in classic Christianity by pigeonholing it with an entirely wrong designation. Those who handle the text in too literal a manner have a veil cast over their eyes, whereas those who turn to contemplate the God of whom the Scriptures speak receive the revelation of divine glory which lies behind the letter of the text (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 7.1).

Re-Establishing the Scriptural Foundation of Classic Christian Teaching

Classic exegetes cite scripture not as wooden, lifeless proof-texts, but as vital landmark affirmations of a worshiping community, where the church has found consolation and wisdom, and upon which ancient teachers have repeatedly reasoned and commented.

The history of classic Christianity is primarily a history of exegesis. If so, to-day’s readers cannot be denied the right to examine the verbatim biblical texts upon which classic Christian teaching is largely a comment. It would be absurd to provide references to early exegetes but fail to mention the texts themselves. Yet this absurdity prevails in much contemporary theology. Most common points of consensual Christian exegesis were reasonably well formulated by the fifth century. Upon these we will focus.

A theology bent upon avoiding its textuary is inordinately self-inhibited. It ends in finally cutting itself off from its own vital sources. A theology that limits its referrals only to those texts that are elaborately placed in historical context will finally mutate into a historical report, not a systematic theology.

Literalist practices of proof-texting or stacking references relentlessly are rightly rejected. Yet the ancient ecumenical tradition requires theology to show how it bases its conclusions upon canonical texts. Disapproval of proof-texting must not lead to ignoring the very canonical texts upon which classic Christian teaching thrives. When modern forms of historical exegesis compulsively attempt to place every scriptural reference in its historical context, they risk becoming a long string of historical digressions on modern commentators so as to inadvertently forget the sacred text itself. This is another way for the interpreter to exercise silent control over the text. In this way the well-meaning attempt at historical critical exegesis may take a heavy toll on actually hearing the text, contrary to its intention.

The faithful are drawn to the living tradition, not dead archaisms. The affirmations most alive in Christian teaching are those that are most widely shared through all the times and contexts in which they have been celebrated. The faithful value the practiced wisdom of Christian tradition. Where highly imaginative forms of Christian tradition have received general lay consent, they are typically grounded in the preceding consensus of apostolic testimony.

The classic exegetes treated conserving forms of Christian tradition with lively imagination, and imaginative forms of Christian experience with a celebration of their antecedents. They have discovered through experience that there is nothing more forward-looking than taking the risk of allowing themselves to be addressed by the texts of holy scripture and tested tradition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In making these extensive revisions, I have sought rigorous criticism and advice from eight of my closest long-term associates. To these esteemed colleagues, my Editorial Advisory Group, I am profoundly grateful:

Prof. John R. Tyson of Houghton College

Prof. Stephen A. Seamands of Asbury Theological Seminary

Prof. Alan Padgett of Luther Theological Seminary

Dean David Eaton of Wesleyan Bible College

Prof. Sang Hoon Lee of the Academy of Korean Studies

Prof. Thomas Buchan of Asbury Theological Seminary (Orlando)

Prof. Neil Anderson of Asbury College

and my son Thomas Clark Oden II.

Each one of these editorial partners participated in a thorough review and critique of these classic arguments. Each one gave me invaluable advice on revisions and refinements. Innumerable hours have been selflessly devoted by these colleagues.

The last seventeen years of my academic life have been spent in close dialogue with colleagues in the research and writing of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS). Special thanks in this effort go to all my fellow volume editors of the ACCS. Digital searches for producing each of its twenty-nine volumes were actively utilized in the refashioning and strengthening of this inquiry. It would have been almost impossible to amass the exegetical and textual depth to accomplish this revision without the extensive research that went into the ACCS. My life has been enriched by my three closest colleagues in particular: Christopher Hall, Joel Elowsky, and Michael Glerup. To Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, I am forever grateful for their encouragement, as well as to the editors at Harper Collins for their helpful editorial judgment over the years since my first Harper book thirty-four years ago (1975).

For rabbinic partners in dialogue, especially Rabbi Judah Goldin, my former colleagues Peter Ochs and the late Will Herberg, and David Novak, I am inexpressibly grateful. To superb Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish partners in dialogue in the New York circle of theologians in the Avery Dulles Group, I am truly appreciative. Especially for the extended ministry of friendship of Richard John Neuhaus, James M. O’Kane, and John Ollom, I give grateful thanks. Orthodox theologians to whom I am most deeply indebted include John Breck, Vigen Guroian, and David Ford.

To Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) I have remained especially indebted since 1988 for his theological wisdom and empathic concern for my struggles from the time when we first met in a New York symposium of theologians, and then through subsequent dialogues in Rome during the 1990s on my sabbatical leave and other research visits. Among Catholic thinkers to whom I owe an incalculable debt are Avery Dulles, Michael Novak, George Weigel, Robert Wilken, C. John McCloskey, and Louis Bouyer. Evangelical scholars to whom I continue to be indebted include Carl F. H. Henry, Timothy Smith, and James I. Packer. Other Protestant partners in dialogue upon whom I have long depended are Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Albert C. Outler. Special thanks are due to William Burt Pope of Didsbury College, Manchester, the most brilliant of Methodist theologians, whose ignored but classic 1875 three-volume Compendium of Christian Theology has inspired my vision throughout. Among those who have most deeply enriched my awareness of classic Reformed and Baptist exegesis are John Leith and Timothy George. Among charismatic and Pentecostal theologians, I am beholden to H. Vinson Synon, W. J. Hollenweger, and Frederick Dale Bruner. I have been blessed by many superb graduate school students at Drew University who have challenged me on virtually every issue broached in this study. This far-flung circle of collaborators stretching from Africa to the Far East and to Oxford, Tübingen, and Rome means all the world to me. I have been rescued from innumerable blunders by these wonderful colleagues.

The overarching theme of classic Christianity is life—life with God, life in Christ, life in the Spirit. If Michelangelo could invest eleven years of his life on the Rondanini Pietà, I do not regret spending three decades hammering, chipping, and polishing away intermittently at this endeavor, and now revising it for a new generation of partners. I did not know when I began this work that my own life would be gravely threatened after bypass heart surgery. I am especially thankful for superb physicians (Carlos Garces, Stephen Guss, Carl Rubenstein, and Philip Adamson), who have kept this heart beating under challenging circumstances. Ensuing limitations have deepened my awareness of how God’s strength is made perfect through human weakness. Paul expressed his ongoing confidence that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion (Phil. 1:6).

No words can adequately express my enduring affection for Edrita, my life partner of blessed memory, now much missed, and our sons and daughter, Clark, Edward, and Laura, to whom this book is affectionately dedicated.

Classic Christianity remains, like Keats’s urn, a still unravish’d bride of quietness, a foster-child of silence and slow time (Ode on a Grecian Urn). I feel the eccentric longing of Henry Vaughan’s Retreat:

O how I long to travel back,

and tread again that ancient track!…

Some men a forward motion love,

But I by backward steps would move.

BOOK ONE

THE LIVING GOD

BECAUSE OF PIETY’S PENCHANT for taking itself too seriously, theology does well to nurture a modest, unguarded sense of comedy. Some droll sensibility is required to keep in due proportion the pompous pretensions of the study of divinity.

I invite the kind of laughter that wells up not from cynicism about reflection on God but from the ironic contradictions accompanying such reflection. Theology is intrinsically funny. This comes from glimpsing the incongruity of humans thinking about God. I have often laughed at myself as these sentences went through their tortuous stages of formation. I invite you to look for the comic dimension of divinity that stalks every page. It is not blasphemy to grasp the human contradiction for what it is. The most enjoyable of all subjects has to be God, because God is the source of all joy.

Working Assumptions

The Subject

The subject matter that we cannot finally evade if we pursue a reflection on faith’s understanding, is the incomparable Subject,