Try out the new BibleStudyTools.com. Click here!

Appendix

APPENDIX I.

NOTES.

Note 1, page 26.

We need only mention the investigations recently instituted into the Ignatian Epistles, to which occasion was given by Cureton's discovery of the Syriac Recension, which is the shortest that has hitherto come to light:—specially the labours of Bunsen, Ritschl, and Weiss, on the one hand, and of Baur and Uhlhorn on the other. Much new light is also thrown on the intellectual movements in the Syrian Church during the first centuries, by the recently discovered work, edited by Miller of Oxford under the false title of 'flpvyevoisi <f>i\aao<povfieva. To this treasure, which dates from the commencement of the third century, Bunsen directs attention in his "Hippolytus und seine Zeit" (see vol. i. of German edition), and justly praises it as of great importance, relatively to both criticism and history.—The correctness of the historical and critical point of view from which the subject of Christology was considered in the first volume of this work, has received ample confirmation from this unexpected discovery. Specially, confirmation has been brought of the important thesis, that, in the ancient Christian Church, an Ebionitic Christology was never dominant; although it is undeniable that a doctrine of the deity of Christ, unconnected with the doctrine of the Trinity, existed for a long time, and was widely diffused ;—that is, there existed a species of Monarchianism, which at first bore a resemblance to Patripassianism, and then gradually inclined to Sabellianism (Sec. 3), after it had become plain, in the second century, that the Logos-doctrine, in its development, was unable to offer any lasting resistance thereto.— We may still expect further disclosures in respect to the Syrian Church, if success do but attend the efforts which are being made to reconstruct the history of the ecclesiastical constitution of Syria; materials for which are afforded partly by the Antiocheian text of the "Apostolic Constitutions," and partly by the treasures of ancient Syriac literature contained in the British Museum. New light may be expected to be thus thrown also on the Pseudo-Clementines. Compare Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. i. 418 ff. (German edition); Bickell's "Geschichte des Kirchenrechts," 1843, pp. 63, 185 f., 215 ff.

Note 2, page 29.

As might be expected from this its tendency, which was stimulated to activity and set into ferment, in innumerable ways, by the religious doctrines and the spirit of the neighbouring peoples, the Church of Eastern Syria manifested a special productivity in connection with hymnology, liturgies, and the construction of ritus and constitutions, for the Church. No wonder, therefore, that the Ignatian Epistles, with whose spirit Ephraem, in particular, was as it were baptized, should have taken specially strong hold on these districts, and, through the medium of an early translation, have there found a second home. The intercourse between the two parts of Syria (as also between the whole of Syria and Egypt) was in other respects also, lively. In both divisions of Syria, the Greek language and literature were current.

Note 3, page 30.

It is deserving of notice, that the anthropology of Apollinaris, which formed also the basis of his Christology, is substantially identical with that of James of Nisibis (compare Jacobi Nisib. vi., Sermo de Devotis, § xiii.; Galland. Bibl., T. v. pp. xlix. l.). The first generation confers merely the "spiritus animalis, qui confirmatur in ventre,"—hence the mortality of man: holy baptism bestows the spirit, which is from the Deity Himself,—that spirit which constitutes the true personality of man, and which, at the proper time, will aid in the resurrection of the body. (See above, i. pp. 992 ff.) The trichotomy of Apollinaris cannot be satisfactorily referred back to Plato. In the Platonic trichotomy Apollinaris could not have found irvevfia or vow; in the Christian sense, that is, in the sense in which those terms are applied, not merely to Christ, but also to Christians, in whom is realized the true idea of the divine image and likeness. It would appear, however, that James of Nisibis did not advance to the point of giving his doctrine a Christological application; otherwise he would have proceeded to a more distinct denial of the existence of a human soul in Christ, as we have found to be the case with Patripassianism and Sabellianism.

Note 4, page 30.

It is still more interesting to look back from the Audianites to earlier parties. From of old, patripassian representations had found a home in Mesopotamia: the Minaeans had directed their steps especially thither. (Vol. i. 305.) Even Manichaeism, which was diffused from the neighbouring country, Persia, designated the good principle "patibile." The Audianites are often represented as occupying the same platform with the Manichaeans. Theodoret informs us that they did not consider fire, water, and darkness to have been included in the divine work of creation; but this in itself is not enough to show that they held an absolute dualism. Baumgarten-Crusius, in his "Compendium der Dogmengeschichte" (1840, p. 117), maintains that the sect bears the stamp of a Judaizing theosophy, with which dualistic elements are frequently found connected. Their asceticism and their usages also have a Judaistic character:—for example, they clung firmly to the Jewish festival of Passover. Neander (see his "Church History"), who also regards them as Judaistic in tone, reminds us that fire is similarly spoken of in the Pseudo-Clementines: it is described, namely, as the element of evil. That there was a very strong Judaizing tendency in Eastern Syria, is further clear from the character of the sects which, in all probability, took their rise in those districts :—for example, the Hypsistarians (whose system Ullmann considers to have been a mixture of Judaism and Parsism); the Abelonii (from Eljon) and the Coelicolac, mentioned by Augustine; the Euphemitae and ©eoae/Sctv, mentioned by Epiphanius and Cyrill of Alexandria. On the basis of these data, the following may be taken as the probable internal and external connections of the matter. Even as early as the time of Christ, Judaism was very powerful in Adiabene, and indeed in Mesopotamia generally, and must have extraordinarily facilitated the speedy spread of Christianity in those parts (compare 1 Pet. v. 13). At the same time, however, owing to this circumstance, the Christianity of Eastern Syria must have had a Judaistic colouring for a considerable period; and that, although the Gospel was probably first proclaimed by preachers from Antioch. This must have been still more the case after intercourse had been broken off with Antioch, or after the clergy had begun to resort to Jerusalem for ordination. Further, what can be more likely, than that after the destruction of Jerusalem, under Hadrian, many Jewish Christians from Palestine would settle down in these same districts, and bring with them the ideas and pretensions they had previously cherished? More at home they could scarcely feel themselves anywhere, than in the land whose inhabitants (according to the traditions of the North) consisted for the most part of Jews of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Add to this, that, in the south of Mesopotamia, there were flourishing Jewish colonies, and that the feeling for a hierarchical constitution, and for the elaboration of the cultus, had early worked. It is possible that the Christians of East Syria were acting under the influence of the Pseudo-Clementine literature or thoughts, when, about the middle of the second century, they constituted themselves into an independent National Church (Assem. iii. 2, 612), with an archbishop at its head, the seat of whose see was Seleucia.—But both the Judaism and the Christianity of Eastern Syria were particularly in danger of undergoing disintegration, partly from their action upon each other, and partly from the action upon them of the religious systems prevailing in those districts, which were for the most part somewhat characterized by dualistic and emanatistic elements. Whilst these circumstances rendered an hierarchy the more necessary, they also put it out of the power of any hierarchy to prevent a multitude of sects breaking loose from its authority. All the above-mentioned sects bear a certain family likeness to each other. The older ones—as, for example, the Melchisedekians, the Audianites, and the Messalians—combined Judaistical elements, both of a doctrinal and practical nature, with dualistic, after the manner of the Clementines. The remaining sects went back to a primal revelation; designated Adam, Melchisedek, Moses, Christ, and others, prophets of the Most High God (having in this respect some affinity with the Clementines and the Melchisedekians); and thus developed a kind of religious syncretism, on a groundwork which was gradually more and more purged of dualistic elements. So the Hypsistarians (a name derived from ©eo9 {hfnaros, PyJ? <>K, Gen. xiv. 18), who regarded fire and light as an emanation of the good principle, and kept the Sabbath (Jewish); and the Coelicolae and Oeoaefieh of the fourth and the fifth centuries. That such sects, existing near the confines of Arabia in the fifth century, must have prepared the way for Muhammedanism, with its syncretistic doctrine of a primal revelation, and its acknowledgment of a diversity of prophets, needs no more detailed elucidation. Side by side with these sects, however, there existed in East Syria a powerful and flourishing Church, especially in the fourth century. Although the above-mentioned parties did not fail to act upon this Church, it developed a very distinct character of its own, and through its peculiar character, subsequently to the second half of the fourth century, exercised considerable influence, first over the West Syrian, and afterwards over other portions of the Christian Church. The vehicle of this influence was, in particular, the monastic system and mode of life, which had struck firm roots in Eastern Syria, and diffused itself from thence ever more widely through Western Syria; and the adherents of which devoted their attention very largely to scientific questions. It would probably repay the labour, to renew the inquiry into the origin of the Pseudo-Clementines, on the basis of the data just furnished.

Note 5, page 32.

How far does Theodore advance in this respect beyond Origen, with whom (as with the anthropological views of the Clementines) he has, in other matters, as much affinity! For if man is higher than pure spirits, the supposition is inevitable, that matter confers upon spirit a further advantage, of which it would be otherwise destitute. The controversy with Dualism and Manichaeism, carried on with such zeal by the school of Antioch, must unquestionably have contributed materially to this result. Diodorus (see Phot. Cod. 83) had written twentyfive books against the Manichaeans; so also against the el/iapuivtj; in which connection he discussed both the Dualists and Bardesanes (Cod. 223). Theodore wrote against the Magism of Persia (Cod. 81); and, at the same time, gave an exposition of the doctrine of Zoroaster, opposing to it the cosmogony of Moses. It was in the course of this struggle that the Antiocheian teachers were driven to emphasize so strongly the unity of the world, and to the rejection of the Origenistic doctrine of matter. This point also determined Theodore's relation to Augustinianism, with which he was acquainted solely through Hieronymus Ara-m (Phot. Cod. 177).

Note 6, page 34.

The descendants of Adam sin, not <f>vae(. but yinofiy (see Phot. Cod. 177, p 121, and my Dissertation, pp. 19 ff.). They still possess freedom, and the knowledge of good and evil (p. 14, Note 17). But the tie between body and soul, which in Adam, though dissoluble, did still really exist, was loosened, and almost completely broken, when they entered on their possession. And the result of this independence of the mortal body, with its desires and its mutability, has been, that the freedom of all alike is exposed to assaults and temptations. Even at this point, Theodore diverges from Pelagius, and allows the existence of an inherited defect in the descendants of Adam, although he acknowledges no sin, save where a free act has really been performed. He further appears to resemble Pelagius in teaching, that Adam was subjected to the necessity of dying; though here again there is the difference, that he traces the necessity of death, to which Adam was subjected from the moment of creation, to the Divine foreknowledge of the fall. Because God foreknew man's career, He did what He otherwise would not have done, to wit, He created man necessarily mortal. Death would in any case, he thinks, have been introduced by sin. Adam is, it is true, thus put on an equality with us; and that not merely in reference to death, but strictly also in reference to sin. If Adam were created with the link connecting body and soul already broken, then that antagonism and indestructible enmity between body and soul, on which he in other respects lays such great stress, must have clung to Adam from the very commencement, and creation itself must have, empirically, necessarily co-operated in the origination of sin:— a yiew which would smack of supralapsarianism. This, however, he did not intend to teach; but he knew no other way of avoiding the conclusion, than by denying that the historical causalities took a natural and normal course, and by treating them docetically: he says, therefore,—It was not the innate actual mortality of Adam that produced his fall, but the freedom with which he was endowed. In like manner, on the other hand, he represents God and His creative act as the real cause of death, and consequently denies actual sin to be the veritable cause of death. That such a view reduces guilt and the real causality of sin to a mere seeming, is evident. On this point, Theodore approximated to the doctrine of an intelligible freedom, which pursues its own course, whilst the real corporeal world is, from the very commencement, bound as by an iron necessity, by the firm chain of cause and effect. (The Praeearistentianism of Origen is not to be found in his system.) We shall find that this played also an important part in connection with his Ohristology. God gave the visible world such a constitution as seemed to Him fit and just, in accordance with His foreknowledge of the use which Adam and his descendants would make of freedom. Theodore thus left the world in partial possession of unity (the mortality of the body befalls the spirit as a punishment); but if he had advanced no further than this scanty commencement, the eternization of sin and unblessedness would have been inevitable.

Note 7, page 35.

In the view of Theodore, salvation consists mainly in the fact of resurrection, and in the gift of eternal life, that is, in the overcoming of death, which is the punishment of sin ;—it is not in the victory over guilt, or over sin itself, that consists salvation. Similarly, also, though not with so conscious an exclusiveness relatively to other aspects, teachers like Athanasius had laid chief stress on the immortality gained for men by the work of Christ. From the victory over mortality, Theodore then proceeds to derive the eradication of the earthly tendency of our nature, of its disorderly and evil desires. Now that humanity has been restored by the Prince of life to a unity like the unity of God, it is possible for the Holy Spirit so to pervade men, that they P. 2.—VOL. I. 2 B

can no more apostatize and sin, but possess true freedom—the freedom of irrestrainable love. It would seem, therefore, that during their earthly life, the only part of redemption which Christians, strictly speaking, experience, is the knowledge of a salvation to come: they do not realize a present salvation, but merely receive the promise of a future salvation,—a view of the matter essentially Old Testament. This account of the office of Christ is the proper counterpart to the Ebionitic eschatological view of the Person of Christ, referred to above (see vol. i. 230 ff.). Holy baptism he regarded as containing the promise of this body of resurrection and of eternal life—hope through the Holy Spirit. For this reason, infant baptism occasioned him no embarrassment: even without recognising original sin, he found a significance in the rite—a significance, indeed, very similar to that attached to it by the disciples of John, when they baptized for a kingdom that was to come. Notwithstanding this, he held that baptism strengthens us in our earthly struggle, as a pledge of the fulfilment of the promise. He who rose again, gives us jn baptism a pledge that we also shall rise again, and that we shall be sinless, without the law, through the Holy Spirit: it is both symbol and pledge of the future regeneration,—a thing of which those who occupied a purely legal, Judaistic point of view, had not even an idea. Although he further denies the inherence of sin in children, and traces no connection between their baptism and the forgiveness of sins, he still assumes the existence of a bias (pornj) to evil in our nature, which is not fully eradicated till the resurrection (compare Phot. Cod. 177; Spicileg. Bom. ed. A. Mai, T. iv. Comment. Ep. ad Kom. p. 502 ff., 510). All that he postulates for the present world, is an imitation (jtifir^ii) of the future life Karet To Bvvarbv, the will to be pure (Comm. ad Rom. 7, 4; 6, 12; cf. Catena in Epp. ad Corinth. ed. Cramer, Ox. 1841; the note on 1 Cor. vi. 15). That a new birth takes place in the present world, he does not hold; but merely that past sins are forgiven, especially through the medium of the holy Eucharist (l. c. in connection with 1 Cor. xi. 34). The promise, however, acquires a fuller significance, because there is so sincere an intention that it shall attain realization in all. Like Origen, he taught that there would be an airoKaTaaraais; but differed from Origen, in believing that it would be a per

manent one (Comm. ad Rom. v. 20, iroXKol is synonymous with irdvres; compare Phot. Cod. 177), not without the just punishment of the wicked (see his remark on 1 Cor. x. 15), who will be saved merely as a brand from the fire. Freedom he treats as, in all cases, mediatively necessary to salvation: grace is imparted to those alone, concerning whom God knows that they will use their freedom well. Even after the bestowal of that pledge of hope, all depends on its being freely and faithfully guarded.

Note 8, page 39.

By Eustathius, for example (see above, vol. i. 965 ff.). The rpemov attributed to the middle being of Arianism, may perhaps have been the expression, under an abnormal and mythological form, of the ethical tendency to assert for Christ a certain independence,—an independence, it is true, such as might pertain to a mere creature. Eustathius and others relieve the confusion by which Arian representations were characterized, in so far as, by asserting for Christ a true human soul, a- fitting place was secured for the rperrrbv, whilst the Logos at the same time continued arpeirrOs. Theodore, however, first traced this Tpeirrbv of the humanity of Christ to its ethical roots, and limited it by his own profounder doctrine of freedom. Diodoms' work against the elfiapfievrj, and Theodore's against the Magusseans, formed the points of transition thereto. We may therefore be allowed to say, that an element of Arianismrnot previously properly appreciated by the teachers of the Church, and badly expounded even by Arians, endeavoured to secure for itself the recognition it deserved, by means of the school of Antioch. With regard to Paul of Samosata, compare i. 510-516.

Note 9, page 40.

In the passage cited from pp. 300 ff., after saying that the evoiKrjais must be something distinctive, he proceeds to say,— ovcla fiev ovv \eyeiv ivoiKeiv rbv Qeov Twv airpeireardrwv icrriv, for then He would be present merely as to His essence in those in whom He dwells, Kal earai Twv aKKov airavTwv e'/cro? oirep a.rOirov elirelv eVl rrj<; direipov </>uae&>?, or we must attribute His ivotKrjais to all beings, even rots 0X070i? Kox a^rv^otf, inasmuch as it would be based on His <f>vais, which is omnipresent and cannot be restricted. Oukovv oiiaia Ttjv ivoiKi)aiv \eytw yiveadai Twv evrjdearara>v av eirj. To b" avro av Ti? eXiroi K<u eVt r7/<? evepyeias, and on the same ground. TV ovv apa mo\eiirerai; rivi %pr)a6p,eda \oytp o? em Tovtojv IBid^ov <f>avurm <f>v\aaaofievos; Brj\ov ovv &•? evBoKiq. \eyeiv yiveadai Tijv evou<tf, acv irpoa/jKei. EvBoKia Be \eyerai»; dpiarrj Kai KaWtaTt) OeXrjci1; Tou Qeov fjv av iroirjaerai apeadels Toi<; dvaKeiadai cunut etnnv' BaKoacv airo Tov ev Kal Ka\d BoKelv avrm irepl airrtov. Wherefore, aireipos pev yap av Kal direplrfpa<po'; rrjv <f>vaiv fraoeari r0t9 irdai, ry Bl evBoKla ruv fiev earl pMKpdv, rStv Be C77119. Compare Col. i. 19.

Note 10, page 44.

A. Mai Coll. N. vi. 304,—tfvayro p^ev yap e£ ap^s To) 8ea 6 j<f>del<; Kara, irpoyvwaiv iK airrfj rf) Bianr\daei Tt)? fujrpa1; rrp Karapyrjv T^? ewuceo)? Bel-dfievos. This reference back to the Divine irpoyva>ai<; is a remnant of the Christology of Origen. But that there ever was a real moment in which Christ had made Himself worthy of union with the Logos by His own virtue, is no longer assumed :—such a purely human life, is merely held to have existed as a thought of the Divine mind. At the same time, the knowledge that Christ, even independently of an original union with the Logos, would have made Himself worthy of the distinction, was the ground of the distinction actually conferred on Him by God, from the very beginning. But the passage cited, xxvi., should also be compared: according to it, irpoyvooaK is not so much "praescientia" as predestination. God would not, says he, merely out of regard for utility (ypnp1,/io? Xoyo?) have assumed a man, and so united him with Himself as that he should become an object of adoration to the whole of creation, had not the work to be accomplished through him been a common benefit to the universe.

Note 11, page 51.

It is not without interest to compare the work erroneously attributed to Justin Martyr, "EKdeai<; T^<? opdrjs iriarew (compare Pseudo-Justini Opp. ed. Otto, T. i. 1-57; and Gass in Illgen's "Hist, theol. Zeitschrift" xii. 4, p. 130 ff.), with the doctrine either of Theodore or of his school. In the matter of .the Trinity, the "Exeais, like Theodore, kept to the doctrine of the Church. In the matter of Christology, there are no traces whatever of that speculative element which laid hold of the idea of the divine image ; on the contrary, the incomprehensibility of the How 1 of the union of the two natures, is emphatically asserted (c. 14). And yet the path into which the writer strikes, despite all his caution, is substantially the same as that pursued by Theodore. Significant especially are such expressions as. the following: vaos (c. 13), evBoKia. (c. 15), etc. (C. 10),—6 Aoyosrtjv (rrjs irapdevov) vijBvv eloSii<; olovei rt<? delo<; cnropos ir\drrei, vabv eavrm Tov Te\eiov avdpamov, /iepos Ti \a/3d>i/ Tt;? iKeiw)s <pvaea>s, Kal ei? Tijv Tov vaov BiMirXaacv ovaubaas. 'EvBiis 8e axrrov Kar aKpav evaxnv, 0eo? of&ov Km avdptairo'; irpoe\dwv ovrw Ttjv Kaff rjfia<; olKovofilav eKjpioaeu. That the avdpanros, the reKeios avdpanros, is not here mentioned by mistake instead of the dvdpa>'rrivr) <f>vai<;} is evident from the circumstance, that he only partially approved of the comparison drawn from the relation of the body to the souk as applied, to Christology', although it was so much in vogue. It is appropriate, he remarks, in so far as man is one, and yet consists of two natures, with one of which he thinks, with the other executes: for Christ also is one; and with one of his natures He performed miracles, in the other He abased Himself;—both which parts of His life are to be carefully discriminated and strictly distributed between the two natures. This principle in itself puts a decided limit on the Kowwvia of the two natures. But then he goes on to say,—In another respect, the comparison halts; for, concerning man, although he has a double nature, we cannot say—he is the two natures; but merely, he has them, he consists of them. Furthermore, man is a third something in addition to the two natures of which he consists, town, the real unity which combines them together; even as a house is not the building material, nor the plan, but is the union of the two. Christ, on the contrary, does not consist of deity and humanity, in the sense of His being a new third something in addition to the two aspects, but He is simply the two, both God and man; that is, He is just their arithmetical sum. Further, the soul is able to suffer along with the body; but it is absurd to affirm such a thing of the deity in Christ. But still the author puts the question exactly as it presented itself to Theodore, namely,—If the entire Logos were in Christ, how

could He at the same time be in the world as to His essence? And if the Logos was omnipresent, in agreement with the nature of God, what remained for the temple of the Logos t He gives the following answer:—As the universal light, which was everywhere diffused, was created in the beginning; and as then the solar body was created, in order that the general light might be concentrated in it without thereby undergoing any change of substance, though destined to be indissolubly united with, and to shine by, it: so likewise the connection between the Logos and human nature was indissoluble after the Unio; the oue Son can now no more be separately termed Divine Logos, and the other Son, Man, but there is one Sonship; even as light and its vehicle constitute one Sun (c. 12). But the question returns again,—How came the temple (Christ's humanity) to such a distinguished, yea, of its kind, unique, participation in the Logos, if the Logos dwell indeed in all things as to His essence? (c. 15 ft). At this point he argues zealously against those who, hr avaipkaei Tu>v Bvo <f>vaea>v, wish to bring about a Kpaais, avy^yais, a /jwaftoj airb awficiTOS els deoTTjra, an ovaiwdrjvai of the <rapi- in the X070?: in the same connection also, he rejects the formula, capita Tw \oyov yeyanjadai (compare Theodore in A. Mai Coll. Nov. vi. l. c. Nro. viii.). In fact, the relative independence of the humanity of Christ is given as the reason why the Logos, who, in respect of His essence, is omnipresent, could dwell in Christ in a peculiar and unique way In this case, the law holds good, that although the sun shines everywhere, and everywhere alike, an impure body cannot receive its rays. Of the rays which this sun sends forth for all alike, he who has strong eyes receives the larger number; not as though the sun diffused its rays more over him than over others, but because of the strength of his own eyes, and because he whose eyes are weak cannot bear the brightness of the light. So also the Sun of Righteousness, in that it is God, is present with all in like measure as to its essence; but we all, through our weakness and impurity, are unable to bear the entrance of the Logos. On the contrary, the temple which the Logos inhabits as His own, is, as it were, the purest possible eye, and can take in the full brightness of His light;—for His temple was formed of the Holy Ghost without sin (c. 17).

That concentrated revelation or appearance of the Logos, whose end was the salvation and the organic articulation of humanity, did not demand for its accomplishment, therefore, that He should Himself cease to be essentially present in the All;—the Logos remained as He was, both in Himself and in His activity, but had a different existence in Jesus from His existence in the universe, in so far as His light found in Jesus an eye of the purest and most susceptible kind, an eye prepared by the Holy Spirit. This humanity abides; it participates in the divine dignity (a^la), though not in the divine nature, according to the good pleasure of the Logos (evBoKia: c. 15). A comparison somewhat suggestive of the one just adduced, may be found employed by Gregory of Nyssa (Or. Cat. M. c. 10):— The infinite Logos is not imprisoned within Christ's soul and body, any more than light is confined to a torch. The flame, indeed, is indissolubly joined to the inroKel/JAvov, to the substratum of the torch, but the light is not therefore imprisoned.— The difference between this Christology and Theodore's may, on the whole, be said to consist in its laying greater stress on the divine evBoKia, regarded in the light of a decree, than upon the freedom of Christ. Produced within the limits of the Church, this work shows how near theologians who took their stand on the principles of the Council of Chalcedon, might approximate to the school of Antioch, through the very earnestness of their antagonism to Monophysitism.

Note 12, page 66.

T. v. 2, p. 705,—o X070? eveirXdjaj vapid: p. 708,—e« h> af>ufxo avWeywv Kal a>enrep aWifiuus dvaKipvas To>v <pvaewv IBuofiara. 711,—The Logos remained what He was, both in time and in the flesh; as 0eo? Kara <pvaiv evwdeU aapKl Kal ra 777? ISlas <pvaeios dyadd KoivoiroieZv etwde To> IBUp adifiari. 712,—fiovovox/)(i avvayeipeL ra? <f>vaei<i Kal et'9 utaydyKeiav dyet rSsv eKarepa irpeirovra>v IBta>fidrwv rr)v Bvvafiiv. Homil. xvii. pp. 226, 228. Ep. ad Monach. p. 9; avvBeBpaa^Kora els evorryra cpvaiKqv. Ep. ad Acac. p. 115,— Prior to the evioais there were two natures; uerd Be ye rrjv evwaiv a>s dvrjprjaevrjs tfBrj rijs ek Bvo Biarofifjs ulav elvai inarevofiev rrjv Tov vlov <f>vaiv to? evos irKrjp ivapdpayir^aavros. He is not content merely with the recognition of <f>vaea>v To Bidcj>opov, even after the incarnation; he is willing, indeed, still to allow that there are diverse utterances (tf>wvhs), divine and human predicates, but demands for both classes of predicates one common centre of unity (<£wr«r), p. 119. Kpaais, rpoirfj, <f>vp/ib<; he repudiates (p. 718); and yet he frequently employs the simile of wine mixed with water. Homil. xvii. p. 228; Dial. 9, p. 776.

Note 13, page 75.

For details, see Neander's " Church History," vol. 4, 913 ff. 921 (German edition). A common Confession of Faith the Egyptians- at Ephesus refused to agree to, on account of the Orientals who were present at the Synod. And yet Cyrill afterwards entered into negotiations regarding the Confession of Faith of the very same men. The " Confession of Faith of the Orientals," which Cyrill subscribed in the year 432, draws. a sharp distinction between the two natures, teaches no eva>ai s <pvaud), no fila ^wi? after the incarnation, no natural Son of God according to the human aspect; but one Son of God, one Lord and Christ, in agreement with the union of the natures without mixture; and it allows to Mary the title deor6Ko<;. On the other hand, however, in the later negotiations, Cyrill was not compelled to recall his anathemas: the judgment of deposition pronounced at Ephesus against Nestorius was also, at a subsequent period, accepted by the Orientals, with few exceptions. That judgment, it is true, as we learn from Ep. Cyr. 34 ad Acac., charged Nestorius with teaching that there were two Christs;—a doctrine which might, indeed, be deducible from, but was not explicitly set forth in, his writings, as is allowed even by learned Roman Catholics; for example, by Enhuber, in his Dissertation appended to Alcuin's Opp. T. i., Regensb. 1777. This unhistorical representation of Nestorius' teachings was then handed down from century to century through a long period.—From what has been advanced, it is also clear, that the obligation to accept the decrees of the Council of Ephesus, still occasionally enforced by law, related to an object of an extremely uncertain and indefinite character. One thing alone may be confidently affirmed, that the party which conquered at Ephesus in the year 431, stood much nearer to Cyrill, and consequently to the doctrine of fila <f>vais, than to the Antiocheians and to the Chalcedoniah Dyophysitism, with which even a Theodoret might have been content.

Note 14, page 77.

The Nestorians took firmest root in Assyria and Chaldaea; hence also they have been termed Chaldsean, Assyrian, or Oriental Christians. The usages of the Chaldsean Christians contain many ancient elements, which remind us of Jewish Christianity. Their liturgy was celebrated in the evening,—a circumstance which seems to point to the old division of the day; and they reject celibacy. In Chaldsea they still offer sacrifices of thanksgiving or in the fulfilment of vows, offerings of the first fruits; they observe the laws of the Old Testament relating to food and purification; and in their sanctuaries is a recess entitled the Holy of Holies, which is not entered. (Compare Grant's "Nestorians, or the Ten Tribes;" Lechler's " Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter," 1851, p. 302.) They themselves, and the Jews also, consider themselves to be of Jewish extraction, and style themselves Nazarenes. Nestorianism would thus seem to have been ingrafted, as an homogeneous branch, on an old Judaiaing stem with remarkable results. About the end of the eighth century, according to some, Babseus (Assem. iii. 429), according to others (Assem. ii. 406), Acacius, as Patriarch of Seleucia, passed over to the Nestorians, and brought their ecclesiastical arrangements into order, by means of a Synod in the year 499. From that time onwards Nestorianism attained to supremacy in the interior of Asia, especially under the rule of the Persians. For a long period, however, the Chaldaean Christians declined to acknowledge the name Nestorians,—Acacius, even in his day, objected thereto (see Assem. ii. 407); the Monophysite Xenajas, say they, first gave them the name. They traced their rise to the Apostle Thomas (ib. 388 ff.), and considered themselves (no less the Monophysites of that district) to be the genuine inheritors of the old patriarchate of Seleucia, which was subordinate to Antioch (compare iii. 299, 587). The Chaldaean Christians maintain that no heresy has found its way into their midst, but that they have preserved the apostolic faith in its purity (iii. 298-302): they also complain that the name Nestorians was given them at a later period, and unjustly (iii. 69, 299,355, 383, 587). It appears probable, also, that the name was first introduced into Chaldsea, Persia, and Assyria, at the time of the expulsion of the Nestorians from the school at Edessa by Rabulas and Cyrus: Maanes, Narses, and Barsumas were especially instrumental in its introduction (iii. 303, 381). Justinian endeavoured (see Assem. iii. 632), but in vain, to lead them back into the Church. For the first time, in the seventeenth century a part of the Chaldaean Nestorians passed over to the Romish Church (Ass. iii. 621 ff.). At a later period, the fixed doctrine of the Nestorians regarding the Person of Christ became the following,—that two natures and two "Knumas," or hypostases, were conjoined into one person, "parsupa," irp6aO>irov (for example, Ass. iii. 108, 280, ii. 292, i. 550). Over the two hypostases, therefore, they set the one "parsupa," within which they, as well as the natures, are comprised as momenta. On this ground they believed themselves able, in part, to join the Monophysites in confessing one will of the one "parsupa;" and deemed it as justifiable as to maintain that the three Persons of the Trinity have but one will (Ass. ii. 292, iii. 547). At the same time, they expressly deny any intention of substituting a quaternity for the Trinity. The human hypostasis they assert to be of quite a different kind from the divine hypostases, and therefore not to be reckoned along with them. Similarly, a controversy arose under the Nestorian Catholicos Timotheus, about the year 760, regarding the knowledge of Christ. One party maintained that Christ's humanity had the vision of His deity; consequently, that He had an adequate knowledge of God. Inasmuch as this implied, that the knowledge regarding the Son of God possessed by the Son of man was equal to the Son's own knowledge regarding Himself; it followed that the knowledge of the deity and that of the humanity had been equalized, and that therefore, in this respect, the Unio had been absolutely accomplished (Ass. ii. 287). Another party, on the contrary, maintained that Christ's human knowledge was not adequate to that of the divine nature; and so far coincided with the monophysitic Agnoetes (Ass. 1. c). Ebed Jesus, about 1280, not only assumed, like the rest, that the Unio was indissoluble, but also that it was operative. In consequence of the avvafeia (adhesio), the divine nature illuminated the human, and made it like itself: the human itself, therefore, now shone with a divine brightness, like the most beautiful diamond, and bore the likeness of the nature of the Creator, without having undergone any conversion (iii. 354). Babaeus (Ass. iii. 95) held, that the soul of Christ, whilst separated from the body, ceased to think and act, even as ours ceases to think and act after death.—With the Muhammedans they were able to keep on pretty good terms (Ass. iii. 585), but with the Monophysites they were constantly quarrelling, even in a scientific respect (ii. 543) ; and the churchfellowship which Barhebraeus asserts (ii. 291) to have been mutually cherished, can only have been a transient and local thing, although it must be allowed that the Nestorians appear to have been more inclined to concord than the Monophysites (iii. 514). In accordance with the law, that extremes meet, we find Nestorians frequently becoming Monophysites, and Monophysites Nestorians. Worthy of remark is, further, the Nestorian doctrine of the Eucharist. They celebrated the "Communio" in both kinds, and for the most part confessed that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood (Ass. iii. 514). But the reproaches brought against the Nestorians by Xenajas (ii. 39), and the express teachings of Babaeus, and George, Metropolitan of Arbela (iii. 95, 534), who rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, and insisted on distinguishing accurately between sign and substance, would seem to imply that they meant by transubstantiation that, in one respect, to wit, as symbols, the elements are the body and Wood of Christ; that through the medium of the act of consecration, a connection is established between the elements and Christ, either subjectively, by each individual mind, or objectively, in agreement with the will and in virtue of the action of God. Ebed Jesus of Soba (Nisibis), who died in 1318, first taught, exactly after the manner of the Romish Church, that the elements are converted into the body and blood of Christ, by the living word of Christ (the words used at the institution), and by the Holy Ghost (Assem. iii. 358). This latter is the doctrine frequently held in the East, even by Monophysites (Assem. ii. 200).

Note 15, page 77.

Leporius attributed to Christ, labour, piety, faith, and merit (Leporii presbyteri libellus emendationis, cap. viii.; bibl. patrum Gallandii, Tom. ix.). To this assumption he adds the further one, that Christ, the perfect man, successfully underwent His sufferings without receiving any kind of help from His deity (cap. ix.). His notion was, that the perfection of the man in Christ consisted, firstly, in His having undergone all His sufferings without any participation whatever on the part of the Word of the Father; and secondly, in the human nature of Christ possessing the power to accomplish everything by itself. In this connection, he appealed especially to the words of Christ on the cross,—" My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" These words indicate, says he, that the sufferings of Christ were completely and exclusively human. Pelagian principles evidently here lay in the background. Augustine was successful in his discussions with him. The chief argument with which Augustine met him was, that such an idea would lead to the assumption of a human personality alongside of the divine; consequently, of two Christs: and as the humanity remains eternally united with the Logos, a fourth person would thus be introduced into the Deity. It is, therefore, not allowable to teach, that the man was born with God in such a sense, that what belongs to God must be attributed to Ilim alone, and what belongs to the man must be attributed to him alone. The argument thus drawn from the danger of introducing a quaternity of persons, evidently implied that in idea the Persons of the Trinity were put on the same level as the human personality Leporius, however, yielded; and taught (c. 3), that the Word of God, having taken upon Himself all that pertained to man, was man, and that the man assumed by Him, in that he participated in all that belongs to God, was nothing else than God: out of compassion, God commingled Himself with human nature, but human nature was never commingled with the divine nature (c. 4). The relation between them was not that of two visible created things or substances which permeate each other, so that the two natures were, as it were, chemically converted into one substance (conflatili quodam genere). "Caro proficit in Verbum, non Verbum proficit in carnem," and yet the Word really became flesh, but "preprie solumpersonaliter, non naturaliter" because otherwise the "Pater cum Spiritu Sancto" would have become His flesh. "Verbum caro factum evacuat inpersona quodpossidet in natura," so that the " persona" alone, without the " natura," became man. Augustine did not always express himself in the same terms regarding the human nature of Christ. In some instances he designated Christ "homo dominicus:" a designation which, at a later period, he repudiated. As Ambrose, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, remarks on the words, " Servus Jesu Christi" (cap. i. 1),—"Utrumque posuit, ut dei et hominis personam significaret, quia in utroque et dominus (est)— Quoties scriptura aut Jesum dicit, aut Christum, aliquando personam dei, aliquando personam hominis indicat;" so also says Augustine,—" Christ was an object of predestination as to His humanity." In Joh. xvii. Tract. 105. Contra Manichseos, lib. ii. 24,—" Reliquit patrem, cum dixit, 'ego a patre exivi,' etc., apparendo hominibus in homine, cum Verbum caro factum est, —quod non commutationem naturae dei significat, sed susceptionem inferiorispersona, i.e. humanae. (The reading "naturae" is spurious.) Similarly in his de Trinit. lib. i. 7, § 15. But Augustine's standing doctrine was,—"Two natures, one person." He allowed that the Logos assumed a "perfectum plenum hominem," but held that the existence of this humanity commenced with the act of assumption, creando, and that it belonged to the person of the Only-begotten One, not by nature, nor by merit, but by grace. Similar also is the view expressed by Fulgentius of Ruspe, in his " de Fide ad Petr." c. 17,—"Verbum personam non accepit hominis, sed naturam, duarum naturarum Veritas manet in Christo secundum. unam tamen personam." Compare, in libro sententiarum Prosperi,—"persona Christi constat et conficitur deo et homine." August. Epist. 3 ad Volusian. ed. Venet. 1756, T. 2, Ep. 137, p. 529,—" Ita mediator—apparuit, ut in unitate personne copulans utramque naturam et solita sublimaret insolitis et insolita solitis temperaret.—Persona Christi mixture est Dei et hominis." The nature of the Verbum est sine mole ubique tota (for not mole sed virtute magnus est Deus); but "longe alio modo quodam quam eo quo ceteris creaturis adest, suscepit hominem, seque et illo (—um) fecit unum Jesum Christum."

Along with the expressions just qiioted, which appear to teach the personality of the humanity of Christ, he employs also the old images of "vestis, templum, vehiculum, instrumentum." Sympathizing with the opposition raised against Apollinarism, he strongly objected to every species of transubstantiation or commixture, and gives careful prominence to the "gemina substantia." The only way in which it seemed to him possible (de Trin. i.) really to meet Arianism, was by referring the "inferiora" exclusively to the humanity, and not directly to the one person in its totality. Not even in the state of exaltation does he allow that the humanity is converted into deity. On the other hand, he attributes to the Soul of Christ perfect knowledge from the very beginning. It was merely for His disciples, that He did not know this and that (for example, de Trin. i. 23). As far as the individual elements of His humanity were concerned, Augustine attributes to it soul and body, but no freedom of choice. The body was a part of the Adamitic mass, which was constituted a body by the act of assumption; Mary conceived Him, " non carnaliter concupiscendo, sed spiritaliter credendo;" she gave birth to Him also in unviolated virginity. It was necessary that He should take upon Him flesh, in order that our souls might become His members, and that the devil might be vanquished by the same nature which he had seduced. Hence also Christ must needs purchase us by His own death. Along with the body, He took upon Himself all human " affectus et infirmitates, non conditionis necessitate, sed miserationis voluntate et potentia." He appears, however, to conceive of the purpose of incarnation as involving the subjection of His nature to the law of mortality, to the necessity of death: consequently, the body He assumed was not like that of Adam prior to the fall, but one bound by the necessity of death. In his "De peccati meritis et remissione," L. ii. c. 29, he says, "Quia in eo erat similitudo carnis peccati, mutationes aetatum perpeti voluit—ut ad mortem videatur etiam senescendo illa caro pervenire potuisse, nisi juvenis fuisset occisus." Wherefore also he remarks, that Christ assumed, with the " caro," the " poena (mortem)," even if not the " culpa," of sin. At the same time, he naturally does not agree with the Pelagians, in their opinion, that other men are by nature "aequali puritate" with Christ (c. Julian, v. 15). Other men, born of "concupiscentia," inherit "concupiscentia." Hence also the Pelagian objection has no force, that, if "peccatum" is "naturale," as the Traducians believe, it is "irrefutabiliter necesse, dici etiam Christum reatum de Mariae carne traxisse." Whether the inherited " tabes" is propagated through the body and the soul, or through the body which affects the soul—that, indeed, he does not undertake to decide (c. Julian, v. c. 4, § 17); but he maintains, that a body not formed in "concupiscentia" cannot have attracted to itself this "tabes" (c. 15, § 54). The soul of Christ, however, he thinks, is not in any case "ex traduce animus illius primae praevaricatricis (de Genesi ad Literam, L. x. 22 f., about 393). On the other hand, in the letter to Euodius, written about the year 415 (ep. 164, ed. Venet. T. ii. 754), he lays it down as possible, that if all souls are derived from the fallen soul of Adam, He "eam suscipiendo mundavit." But when this humanity was assumed by the Son of God, it became, at the same time, God—"homo deus. Sic homo susceptus est a Verbo ut simul cum eo Deus fieret." Vice versa, also, he says in Serm. 187, in nat. Dom. 3, c. 3,— through the assumption, not merely did the Son of man become the Son of God, but the Son of God also the Son of man. "Homo factus est, ut nos Deus faceret." He is the Head of the Church, and we are His members: see, for example, his Enarr. 2, in Ps. 29; De Trinitate iv. 2-7; "De Agone Christiano," c. 20. Yet the Son of God remained what He was, and did not renounce the " forma dei," as Hilary supposed: He continued with the Father in heaven, at the very time when Jesus was sojourning on earth; but still He was in Jesus. "Forma servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit." Sermo 183, de 1 Joh. iv., Tract. 28 in Evang. Joh. De Verbis Evang. Joh. i. Sermo 122,—" Accessit ad nos, sed a se non multum recessit, immo a se quod Deus est, nunquam recessit, sed addidit quod erat, naturae nostrae. Accessit enim ad id quod non erat, non amisit quod erat." Sermo 123, He is "Deus manendo et hominis carnem assumendo, addendo quod non erat, non perdendo quod erat." But if the Word, as " Deus, ubique totum est" (see above), in Christ it would appear to have no distinctive mode of existence: the only difference between Christ and others would then apparently be, that He possessed a degree of susceptibility to God which no one else possessed;—an idea which might lead to a Nestorian view, especially as he says,—His " exinanitio" was merely an "occultatio" of that which He was, and a " demonstratio" of that which Pie had become. It would then be a mere abuse of language to apply to Him the words, " He became flesh ;" and, in fact, he says, that because of the union of the Word with humanity, their respective predicates are spoken of as interchanged. But he again eases his mind with the affirmation,— the human nature is to be distinguished, indeed, but not to be separated, from the personality of the Word, nor to be placed in a distinct and separate person. Sermo 47, de'ovibus in Ez. 34, -—" Distinguenda erat forma servi (Joh. xiv. 9, 10) non separanda et alienanda et in aliam personam constituenda." But although Christ consists of the two natures, or is a " totum" made up of Word, soul and body, God did not therefore become a mere part in Christ (c. Maximin. Arian. L. ii. 10). The three Persons of the Trinity are not each a "pars dei." And quite as inadmissible is it to call Christ " una persona gemina? substantiae, pars hujus personae." For, before the assumption of the form of a servant, the Son of God was "totus," and underwent no increase when the humanity was superadded. This wholeness, this totality of the person, evidently relates in the first instance to the Ego, to the constitutive principle of personality, and not to the result, the collective person. And yet he also makes the general observation,—" Pars rei ullius esse non potest Deus." Even so, God does not increase through those who, by cleaving to Him, become one spirit with Him. The category of Part and Whole are, he thinks, inapplicable to God. Now, if we pass by the circumstance that he elsewhere, notwithstanding, designates Christ a composite person (see Abaelard's detailed discussion in his " Sic et Non") ; if, further, we allow that, considering the matter from the lower side, from the side of the man Jesus, he says,—This is not a mere man, but a person compounded of body, soul, and divine nature; and that, considering the matter from the higher side, from the side of the Logos, he denies that the Son of God became a part of the Person of Christ; still we are forced to confess that Augustine did scarcely anything in the way of showing that the incarnation was more than a closer relation, " relatio," a^eaK, of the "Verbum quod ubique totum est," to that particular point of humanity, which became Jesus in consequence of its special and unquestionably God-created susceptibility to God. In that case the difference between Christ and others is merely a quantitative one, especially as they also, like His humanity, become sons of God by grace, though they are not such from the very beginning. And Augustine's view contains traces not only of Ebionitical, but also of Docetical elements. For, not to mention other matters, what reality can be attached to the expression, "factus est, quod non erat," or even to that other expression, * ao cessit, quod non erat," if attention be directed merely to the

unchangeableness and omnipresence of the "Verbum," who notwithstanding His union with Christ, was "ubique totum?" How can Christ be seriously regarded as an incarnation of the Son, if He did not actually come into the possession, not even by love, of something which He had not possessed before? According to Augustine, the world of revelation, that is, the Church, presents to view, in general, nothing more than the hinder part of God (de Trin. ii. 30); God can reveal Himself solely through the creature. Even the Son is essentially invisible in the revelation; and therefore, the inmost essence of God does not become manifest (iii. 7, 21). On the other hand, however, the warmth of his Christian feelings drove him out beyond a position like this, and prevented him being satisfied with the idea that the eternal Son of God existed merely theophanically or symbolically in Jesus, or stood merely in an external relation to Him: he pressed directly on towards the position, that we have in Christ, Him who "personam Sapientiae Dei sustinuit," with whom God was personally united, so as in no other theophany. His best utterances on the subject of Christology lie in the sphere of the mystical, especially in his Tractat. on the Gospel of John; for example, Tract. 21, 28, 52, 61, 67, 80, 81; in Ep. Job. c. i. Tract. 1, 3, 9; in Joh. Tract. 28,—" Non enim Christus in capite et non in corpore, sed Christus totus in capite et in corpore. Quod ergo membra ejus, Ipse; quod autem Ipse, non continuo membra ejus, nam si non Ipse essent membra ejus, non diceret, Saule, quid me persequeris 1 Non enim Saulus Ipsum, sed membra ejus persequebatur. Noluit tamen dicere, sanctos meos, servos meos, postremo honorabilius fratres meos, sed, Me, h. e. membra mea, quibus ego sum caput." In 1 Joh. v. Tract. 10,—" Extende caritatem per totum orbem si vis Christum amare, quia membra Christi per orbem jacent. Si amas patrem, divisus es; si divisus es, in corpore non es; si in corpore non es, sub capite non es." Compare Chrysostom, ed. Montfaucon, T. iv. 678, Homil. in Genes. 7, where he carries out the idea, that Christ has won more treasure than Adam ever lost. In Theodoret's writings, also, there are many passages which point to a mystical Christology, as the background and basis of his system of ideas, although the system itself is otherwise fabricated of very different material. Theodor. Opp. ed. Schulz, T. iv. pp. 27.5, 278 ff., P. 2.—VOL. I. 2 C

"de haeret. fab." L. iv. 13, pp. 373 f.; Ep. viii. ad Eugraphiam, p. 1066; Ep. cU. p. 1291.

Note 16, page 78.

Opus imperfectum iv. § 92 f.,—" Quidquid naturale est, voluntarium esse non potest. Si ergo est naturale peccatum, non est voluntarium; si est voluntarium, non est ingenitum." § 47,—" Hie ut adsit toto animo lector, admoneo; videbit enim Apollinaristarum haeresim, sed cum Manichaei per te adjectione reparari." Apollinaris denied Christ's having a human soul; Augustine now teaches that He had a soul, but denies the existence of "sensus corporis" in Christ, and affirms Him to have been incapable of sinning, as though He "non virtute judicii delicta vitasset, sed—felicitate carnis a nostris sensibns sequestrates cupiditatem vitiorum sentire nequivisset." Such a Christological adulation (adulatio) is in reality a profanity: § 49,—" Si vel carnem sine annua, vel hominem sine sensibns quibus nos imbuit natura gestavit, exempli formam et legis non docetur implesse. Quid enim fuit laude dignum, contemnere illecebras sensuum, quarum incapax erat beneficio natura? § 50,—" Qu33 postremo palma tolerantiae, si dolor vulnerum et verberum, intercepto itinere sensuum, pertingere ad animum non valebat? Quo ergo profecit Apollinaris adulatio? Videlicet ut omnis virtutum pulchritudo, quam in se Christum expresserat, indebitis naturae ejus laudibus vacuata flaccesceret, cunctoque veritatis suae splendore nudata sacrum magisterium mediatoris offerret irrisui T" § 53,—He was rich in all virtues, non carnis infirmitate (incapability of sinning), sed virtute mentis; and not even the supernatural character of His birth might at all alter the state of the case. § 54,—"Praedico omnem in eo sanctitatem beneficio animi, non carnis stetitisse praejudicio. Sic enim et natura tam conditione ejus quam susceptione defenditur et vita hominum virtutis illins imitatione dirigitur." He then further proceeds to say (§ 56 ff.),— Augustine does not agree with the Manichaeans in teaching that there is a natural evil in natural beings; what right has he then to designate the same natural element, evil in man," the will of man has no share in it? If Christ did not assume these "sensus" which pertain to our nature, and the "possibilitas," He did not really take upon Himself our nature.

§ 84,—" Proinde incarnatio Christi opus suae divinitatis tuetur, qui afferens ad me naturam meam et voluntatem suam, cujus mihi speculum afferebat et regulam—ostendit, culpam non de carnis conditu, sed de sola suscipi voluntate ;—etiam illucl claro testimonio perdocetur, quod suscepti hominis justitia non de natura diversitate sed de voluntaria actione substiterit."

Note 17, page 78.

Opus imperfectum 1. c. § 84. "Itane vero ne hoc quidem Christus diversum habuit in natura, quod ita ex virgine natus est, ut jam esset non solum hominis, sed et Dei filius? Ergone ista susceptio—nihil illi homini valuit ad excellentiam justitia3 ?—Siccine vos contra Dei gratiam defensio liberi arbitrii pnecipites agit, ut etiam ipsum Mediatorem, ut esset Dei filius unicus, voluntate sua meruisse dicatis—? Secundum vos-—non a Verbo Dei homo susceptus est ut ex virgine nasceretur; sed natus ex virgine suae postea voluntatis virtute profecit, et fecit ut a Verbo Dei susciperetur; non talem ac tantam voluntatem illa susceptione habens, sed ad illam susceptionem tali et tanta voluntate perveniens; nee Verbum caro factum est,—sed postea, merito ipsius hominis et ejus humanse voluntariaeque virtutis." From which it follows, that it is possible for others to be like Christ.

Note 18, page 79.

Even as early as the year 435 he began to utter threats against the Antiocheians, who accepted the deoroKos, saying,— "For the destruction of the virus of Nestorianism, that is not enough; whoso appeals to Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, still cherishes the error of Nestorius." And, accordingly, even at that time he aimed at compassing the condemnation of these teachers, notwithstanding the reverence with which they were regarded in the East, and that they were dead. (Ep. 179 to Aristolaus, and Ep. 167 to Johannes.) "Theodore," says he, "taught the same, yea, even a stronger, degree of Godlessness; under his name, the Nestorian heresy is being revived." But it was in vain that he applied to the Emperor and to the successor of Nestorius, the Patriarch Proclus. This latter, indeed, his opinion having been asked by the Armenian Church, in the course of his discussion of the point in dispute with Nestorius, in his "Tomus ad Armenos," adduces, with expressions of disapprobation, statements from the works of Theodore, without mentioning his name ; but entirely disavowed any intention of thus condemning a teacher who had died at peace with the Church. The Emperor further commanded peace to be kept. Consequently Cyrill complied, but wrote a work against Theodore—the work already mentioned, "That there is but one Christ." Theodoret felt himself, therefore, called upon to write a defence of his teacher.

Note 19, page 84.

This would be equivalent to the "conflatile genus" of Leporius, and the <nn>ovalwai<; of Theodoret. The union of the divine and the human issues in a new third product; but in the new product, the divine is not merely one of the factors, but also the conjunctive, and therefore the completely predominant, constituent. Whether the conversion, in consequence of which the human element derived from Mary ceased to be of the same substance with us, related to the human form or the human essence, he does not state;—probably, to the latter, on account of the term ovala. To such an humanity, which would be neither like us nor merely divine, but through the divine would have become a new third something, the simile of rj\eKrpov might be applied. Electron, a chemical mixture of gold and silver, was a substance of the highest value; and the image drawn from it was not seldom, without any particular name, attributed by the Fathers to a monopbysitic heresy. Eutyches regarded Christ as reXeto? avdpamos,—the holy Virgin as of like nature with us,—and acknowledged that ef avrfjs eaapKoidrj o ©eo? i)fiwv (Mansi vi. 700, 741). But the body of our Lord and God was not O/aoowtio? r)p!iv. Further, says Flavian (see Mansi v. pp. 1328 ff., Ep. ad Leon, i.),—Eutyches rejects the Council of NicEea, Cyrill's letter to Nestorius, and (which was probably the main thing in Flavian's eyes) his letter to the Orientals, and renews the errors of Valentin and Apollinaris. The following are said to have been the words spoken by him before the Synod,—Tov Kvpiov r)fiS)v 'Irjaovv Xpurrbv p.rj %eh> (ofioKoyelv) iK Bvo <pvaea>v fiera rrjv hiavdp&nrqaiv, ev fiia vxoardaei, Kal iv ivl irpoadnrip irap r)fiS)p yvwpi&fiei'ov, /iijtc pyv rhv adoKa T. K. ofioovaiov rjfilv virdpyetv, ola Brj ef r)fi5>v irpoaj$deiaav, kal eva>delcav Tio 6ea> \6y(p Kad' inroaraciv aXX' tcpacKe, rrjv fiev reKovcav avrov irapdevov, Kara capita ofioovciov fifilv elvai, avrov Be Tov Kvpiov firj etj<f>evai e^ avrr)<; Capua fjfiiv ofxoovcwv, dWa To Tov Kvplov cwfia /jutj elvaL fiev cdfia dvdpanrov, avdpwmivov Be cwfia To eti Ttjs irapdevov.

Note 20, page 84.

The appeal of Eutyches to Leo, gave promise at first of the most favourable results. Leo expressed himself to Flavian as hurt at not having been at once put into possession of the facts of the controversy. He remarks, that he had been first informed of the matter by the Emperor (who was favourable to Eutyches), and by a memorial addressed to himself by Eutyches; that he did not know what just ground there was for excommunicating Eutyches, but that he will postpone his decision until he had received more accurate information. He expresses his wish to know what new dogma, contrary to the old faith, has been taught by Eutyches, and recommends moderation, as Eutyches declares himself ready to give way if he be proved to have acted wrongly. In conclusion, he repeats that it is his intention to abide immoveably by the divine tenets of the Fathers (among whom, however, Coelestin also must be included). Besides this, Leo wrote to the Emperor to the following effect,—" The memorial of Eusebius, which has come to me through Eutyches, does not clearly state what is the ground of the complaint of heresy raised against him: Flavian's silence is blameworthy; but I trust he will speak out, so that I may be able to pronounce a judgment." Probably not entirely without Leo's connivance and approval, Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, wrote to Eutyches, who had been excommunicated in Constantinople, addressing him as "his brother." In this letter, as it were with the design of inspiring him with confidence, he gives prominence to the divine majesty of Jesus, saying, "Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now know we Him no longer." In conclusion, he admonishes him to submit himself to the Romish See and its decisions; for the same Peter, who still lives and presides on his own throne, gives the true faith to all those who yeam for it.

Note 21, page 85.

Dioscurus had not suffered Leo's circular letter of June 449, addressed to the Synod of Ephesus, to be read at all (Mansi v. 1409); nay more, Leo's legate had been compelled to take to flight. This was a treatment, indeed, which little accorded with the expectations expressed by Leo (Ep. ad Dioscurum, in the year 445, Mansi v. 1239), and which were intended to point out his proper position to him, the successor of an Athanasius and a Cyrill, and the inheritor of a see which had gained so perceptible a predominance in the Church. Leo's first greeting to the new bishop, Dioscurus, had been, namely, an admonition to the effect, that an Alexandrine bishop is ns inferior to the Romish, as the founder of the Alexandrian Church was inferior to Peter;—a clear evidence of the importance attached by Leo to the humiliation of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, and of his opinion that, to be well timed, the step must be taken prior to the Council of Ephesus. Between that see and Leo's predecessors, in the time of Cyrill, there had been no dissension on the doctrine of the one nature of Christ.

Note 22, page 86.

Even in his second letter to Leo, written in March 449, Flavian adopted more the tone of willingness to be accountable to Leo, to whom he forwarded the entire Acts of the Council of Constantinople. He there (p. 1352) reproached Eutyches with commingling (avyyeei) the attributes of the natures united in Christ, and the natures themselves, after the Unio; and with thus contradicting the letter addressed to Nestorius by the Synod of Ephesus, in which it was taught,—8uitf>opoi fiev ai wpo? evorrjra rrjv dj&ivrjv cvvevej^deurai <pvaei<;- el? Be e'f a/uJMM ^piCTTo? Kat n(09, oiry &>? rfjs r&v <f>vaea)p 8ia<popa.; avyprffievifi Bia Ttjv evw&iv, airore\eaaaa>v Be fiSXKov i)fiu> Tov eva Kvpiov 'Irjcovv Xpurrov deoTrjTO<; re Km dvOpwirorrjrOS, Bui Tj}? afypaarov Kal airepworjTov "irpbs evorrjra avvBpofifjs. Relatively to Eutyches, therefore, he takes up the position of a defender of the first Council of Ephesus. He further gives Leo to understand that the Emperor ranges himself on the side of Eutyches; denies that Eutyches at the Synod appealed to Leo; and begs him to make common cause with the rest, to agree to his depositlon, and to establish the faith of the Emperor: for, he urges, it is in Leo's power to turn the scale (poirrj); and if he give his help, peace will return, and the Synod, of which much is spoken, and which threatens to throw all the churches into confusion, will be able to be avoided, and will be dispensable. Such was Flavian's language to Leo, even prior to the Synod of Ephesus held in the year 449. That Flavian had made important concessions to Leo, in regard to the precedence of the latter, ere Leo decidedly took his part, is evident from Leo's letter to the Emperor and to the Synod of Ephesus (Tom. v. 1411, 1359). But towards the end of the year 449 (Mansi vi. 36 ff.), Theodoret said to Leo, after the second Council of Ephesus had terminated, and he himself had been deposed, that as Paul, on the occasion of the dispute concerning circumcision at Antioch, hastened to the great Peter, in order to beg him to solve his doubts, even so he hastens with his difficulties—in fact, with even more justice, considering his own insignificance—to the apostolic throne, Bia irdvra yap vfiwv To irparrevuv dp/Morrei. Especially, he adds, is Leo clothed with an apostolic character; as is evident from other things, but particularly from his work on " The Incarnation of God," and from the admirable acuteness and spiritual wisdom it evinces. He refers to the letter addressed by Leo to Flavian in June 449, which had attained great note (Mansi v. 1365-1389). After reading it, he had praised the grace of the Holy Spirit, which had spoken through Leo, and now entreats him to deliver the Church of God from the storms which are raging around it.

Note 23, page 93.

lb. ep. ad Anatolium 91, p. 129,—" Mirati sumus congregandi synodo tam augustum tempus adpositum; cum, etsi nulla necessitas hostilitatis existeret, ipsa interjectorum dierum paucitas necessarios sacerdotes nos evocare non sineret. Quando enim per diversas longinquasque provincias mitteremus, ut fere possit fieri universale concilium." There were therefore many absent, whose presence was required to constitute an Oecumenical Council. But, on the other hand, that the participation of so many bishops in the so-called Fourth Oecumenical Council, who at Ephesus had subscribed, under constraint, a different creed from that of Chalcedon, as did the Orientals; and of those who at Chalcedon, after the deposition of Dioscurus, had ranged themselves under a confession of faith other than that which they really acknowledged, as did the Egyptian and Palestinian bishops and others, must detract from the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, no unprejudiced historian can well doubt; especially as the passage above quoted makes it very questionable whether it was truly oecumenical. This is true, apart from the fact of its not having been recognised as authoritative by great churches. Some Romish theologians also are of the same opinion (compare Bailer, not. iii. on the above Ep. 91, p. 129). Indeed, to Romish theologians this defect is rather welcome than otherwise; for they resort at once to the expedient of saying, that it first acquired oecumenical character through the approbation bestowed on it by the Romish See.

Note 24, page 99.

Anatolius asked the Synod, whether the formula met with their approbation; whereupon all the bishops, with the exception of the Roman and some Orientals, answered in the affirmative,—" That is the faith of the Fathers; whoso thinketh otherwise is an heretic, and let him be cursed; out with the Nestorians. The whole world holds the true faith; yesterday, the formula pleased all, and one can scarcely discover who they are (that do not consent)." Others, however, exclaimed,— "The faith should not be handled deceitfully (rj Tti<ttk Bo\ai firj irady)." The former then cried out again,—" The formula has pleased God; yesterday, it pleased all; the Emperor is orthodox, the Empress also; Nestorius is deposed. The State authorities are orthodox; we beg that the formula may be subscribed on the Holy Gospels; it has pleased all; command its subscription. Whoso subscribeth it not, is a heretic; the Holy Ghost has inspired it; cast out the heretics. Out with the Nestorians." The State authorities said,—" Dioscurus deposed Flavian because he taught the two natures; but the formula contains the words, e'/e Bv&v <f>vaea>v" (that is, the doctrine of Dioscurus is not favoured; the party of Flavian ought to be content; Dioscurus is and will remain deposed). Anatolius, in order to prevent it being thought that the Synod, in confirming the deposition of Dioscurus, had also condemned his doctrine, reminded the assembly, that Dioscurus had not been deposed on account of his faith, and that, consequently, the point of faith is still a "res integra:" by way of conciliating the Romans, he added,—" He is deposed because he excommunicated Leo, and, although three times summoned, refused to appear." The imperial authorities endeavoured to put an end to the disputes, by proposing that from Leo's letter such things as affected the point in question should be added to the formula. But the bishops, and, among them, now also Eusebius of Dorylaeum, exclaimed,—"We will construct no other formula; nothing fails the formula; the formula recognises Leo's letter; let it be subscribed; it contains everything! Leo has said that which Cyrill said; Coelestin has confirmed it, Sixtus has confirmed it!" But the cry was again raised,—"Put away the deceit of the formula!" Then the authorities declared, that these cries should be brought to the notice of the Emperor.

Note 25, page 100

After the proceedings described in Note 24, the authorities appeared again, with the command from the Emperor, either, as had been already previously proposed to them, to form a Commission, consisting of six Oriental, three Pontic, three Thracian, three Illyrian bishops, and three from Asia Minor, under the presidency of Anatolius, whose business shall be to frame another formula, with which no fault can be found, in order that nothing amphibolical may remain: or, if that course did not please them, that each member of the Synod should declare his faith through the medium of his Metropolitan, in such a manner, however, that there shall remain no ambiguity or discordancy. But if they refuse to adopt either the one or the other course, they are informed, that the Synod will be convened in the West. One party now again called out,—" The formula must continue, or we will depart." Cecropius of Sebastopolis demanded that the formula should be read aloud to the Synod, and that those who neither accept, nor subscribe it, shall quit the assembly: The formula is good, and he and his party accepted it. The Illyrian bishops cried out,—" Let the opponents of the formula show themselves; they are Nestorians; its opponents may go to Bome." The opponents appear, at this point, to have maintained silence. From all this we may see how great must have been the number of those who, at the outset, expressed their approval of the first formula, which was favourable to Dioscurus, and the renunciation of which can scarcely have been due solely to accident. We see, also, what opinion is to be formed of the majority of the Synod, who afterwards again took an opposite, course, and only consented to allow the first formula to be dropped after they had heard the Emperor's threat, which indicated in a sufficiently clear manner the dogmatic conclusions he expected to be arrived at. The threat to bring the matter to a decision in the West took the greater effect, as there were probably few in the- Greek Church who would not have esteemed the transference of the Council to the West a great disgrace and danger to the East. The State authorities, on their side, now that they had learnt from the declaration of Leo's legates that a formula of the first kind would in no case meet the approbation of Rome, but would merely lead to a schism between the East and the West, no longer glossed over the "status controversiae," but, decidedly taking Leo's part, set it forth exactly as it was. Previously they had said,—Dioscurus rejects the doctrine of the two natures; but the formula teaches it, namely, To Ck rwv. Bvwv <f>vaewv. Now, however, they said,—Dioscurus also expresses his readiness to accept the e/ e Bvwv <pvaea>v, but not the Bvo <f>vaei<; in Christ: Leo, on the contrary, teaches the latter. Whom, then, are they disposed to follow, Leo or Dioscurus? And when the cry resounded,—We believe as Leo believes (whose letter, in fact, had been already subscribed); they reiterated their demand, that an addition should be made to the formula from Leo's letter,—that they, for example, should add, —In Christ are two natures, unchangeably, undividedly, and without mixture, united. The matter was thus again led into a path, in the pursuance of which alone an union of all was attainable,—into the path of a formula which should include the most important propositions of Leo's letter, and to which, therefore, no one could object who had subscribed the letter itself. For the reasons just given, the Commission now chosen must necessarily start with the best possible prospect of arriving at a conclusion which should meet with the approbation of all.

Note 26, page 101.

'Ofio\oyeiv eKBiBdaKop-ep epa Kal Top avrbv vlbv Top K. i)fMav I. X. re\eiov, rbv aiirbv iv debrrjri, KaX reKetov, Top avrbv iv dvdfxinroTifriofioovatop ru\ irarpl Kara Ttjp deorrfra, Kui ofioovaLov Top avrov rjfUP Kara Ttjp avdpayiroTrjTa, Kara iravra Sfioiop rjfiip ^&)pt? dfiaprla<;—e« Map. rrjs irapdepov, rfj<; deoTokov—era Kat Tw avrbv xpurrbvex Bvwv <f>vaeojp (al. eV Bvo <pvaeaiv) aavyyyrw<! arpkirra>s, dBiatpera>s, dywptarw? yvwpi^o/u^pop" ovBap-ov rfjs rwv <pvaewv Biacpopas dprjpr)fieprj<; Bui rrjp epoxriv, aa)^ofieprj<i Be fwWov T?)? Ibiottjtos €Karipa<; <pvaea><;, Kal ep irpoaooirov Ka\ filap viroaraaiv avvrp€yovarj<i} Ovk eis Bvo irpoaunra p-epi^bfiepop rj Buupoiifiepop, aW' epa Ku\ Top avrbv vlbv, etc. That the Greek version of the formula should have ex Bvwv <pvaewv (to which Dioscurus also agreed), and the Soman version, on the contrary, "in duabus naturis," can, of course, scarcely be regarded as an accident, when considered in connection with the history of the Council. For, in the case of the first formula, which was rejected, the entire dispute concentrated itself on the particles e« and iv—which should be adopted. The Romans, in particular, rejected ex. It is also true, that eii Bv&p <f>vaea>p suits the verb yiwpiCppxvov better than ei» Bvo <pvaeaiv,—which is so far, therefore, an argument for the genuineness of the former. Perhaps, also, the choice of ex was partially dictated by a wish to humour the ear of the Monophysites. But as far as the actual thought is concerned, Monophysitism is excluded not merely by the verb yvwpityfievop (ex Bv&p <pvaeoap), but also by a number of other determinations contained in the symbol. If Christ is cognised, or becomes cognisable, from or out of the two natures, the said natures must surely exist together in Him. For there is certainly, in this case, no reference to the natures "in abstracto." But with respect to the Latin formula, we must also allow, that it is as little open to the charge of falsification, on the ground of its "in," as the Chalcedonian, on the ground of its ex. For, as ix was necessary on account of the verb yva>pi^ofiepop, so was " in" necessary on account of the verb "agnoscendum," which is not identical with yva>pity/iAvov. The Latin formula has,—"Christ is to be recognised as the Son in two natures;" the Greek has,—" Christ is to be cognised as Son out of or from two natures :" both evidently contain substantially the same thought. The Latin formula is merely a free, but substantially faithful translation; the tone of which, perhaps, hints more distinctly at the subsistence of Christ in two natures:—on which account it was undoubtedly more agreeable to the Roman type of doctrine.

Note 27, page 104.

A third form of the Unio is further excluded by the term <urvyxyrm,—the form, namely, which treats the two natures, as it were, as the constituent elements of a chemical process, in the result of which both continue to have a certain kind of existence (and the pure doctrine of conversion leaves neither the one nor the other an existence). This result, however, in which the two natures continue to exist, is not conceived as a new, third substance; for even the doctrine of the Church speaks of the Person of Christ as compounded of the two natures (avvdero^); but as of such a character, that the one nature is affected, tempered, as it were chemically bound and saturated, by the other,— the two forming thus one new third substance (compare above, pp. 77 ff., Leporius). To the same point might the monophysitic (Severian) view arrive,—the view, namely, that Christ had a nature compounded of the divine and the human, <f>vat^ avvdero<;, which, at a later period, was frequently controverted, —for example, by S. Maximus, John of Damascus, and the Scholastics. The Church, on the contrary, used this expression regarding the personality alone.

Note 28, page 112.

The Logos-doctrine, in its day, rendered the Church the important service of describing the relation of the divine principle in Christ both to the Father and to the humanity of Jesus. On the one hand, the idea of the Logos as the principle of revelation, which is itself God, rendered it easier to say that there was a divine principle in Christ; and, on the other hand, it offered a welcome link of connection for the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos, in so far as, according to it, the Logos found in the rational nature, with which every man is endowed, an element related to, or even derived from, Himself. At the same time, in another respect, the doctrine of the Logos brought with it its own peculiar difficulties and dangers; and was therefore more and more completely driven into the background, the greater definiteness was given to the doctrine of the Church. For example, as respects the doctrine of an immanent Trinity,— so long as the Logos was regarded simply as the Principle of Revelation, or the Word, or Reason, the possibility of vacillation between Sabellianism and Subordinatianism was not quite set aside. Furthermore, in consequence of the universality attributed to the Logos as the Principle of Revelation,* the boundary line between His ante-Christian and Christian kingdoms, instead of being clearly defined, was hazy and blurred;—especially was this the case, when no reason could be assigned why the incarnation and work of Christ were necessary, and why the proper and true reign of the Logos began with, instead of anterior to, the coming of Christ. Those vague theories of the \6yos trirepfiiiTtKos, which obliterated the features of historical Christianity, needed to be limited, and the degree of the participation of humanity prior to the time of Christ, in the Logos, to be carefully defined, in order that nature might not be made to anticipate grace. We have seen, that from the third century onwards, the Church warded off the danger with which that Logos-doctrine threatened the Trinity, partly by the substitution, and partly by the explanation, of the word "Son," in the sense of a true divine hypostasis, for the expression " Logos," in the usage and symbola of the Church. As to the other matter, it was indispensably necessary that a much more precise distinction should be drawn between the divine and the human, between nature and grace, than the Logos-doctrine of the second century had really accomplished.

Note 29, page 125.

With Nestorianism, on the contrary, the case was a different one. Having fled out of the way of the persecutions of the Court of Byzantium into the interior of Asia, and thus come under the rule of heathen monarchs, the Nestorians and their system passed more and more beyond the horizon of the Church. Polemical works, it is true, still continued to be written against Nestorianism;—for example, besides Cassian, by Vigilius of Tapsus, Boethius, the Constantinopolitan monk Leontius, the presbyter Anastasius, and others. But there were no continuous * " Durch das Offenbarungsprinzip des Logos in seiner Allgemeinheit."

colloquies, enlivened by the starting of new points, and furthering the development of the question in both its aspects: the Church remained, on the whole, ignorant of the course taken by the doctrine amongst the Nestorians. Its polemic, therefore, was almost solely with the old form of Nestorianism, which, in consequence, constantly acquired features of a more mythical character. It had in itself, however, enough dualistic elements.

Note 30, page 127.

A different opinion was expressed, for example, by Amphilochiusof Iconium (A. Mai, Tom. vii. p. 15, a), who not merely denied that the deity suffered in its own essence, but also rejects the statement, that the deity suffered in the flesh, or through the flesh. We can only say that Christ suffered. The Logos did indeed appropriate to Himself that which affected His temple, but He did not Himself suffer thereby. For further information, see Baumgarten-Crusius's "Compendium der Dogmengeschichte," pp. 203,204 ; Baur's " Trinitatslehre" ii. pp. 61-68. The necessary consequence of the ecclesiastical recognition of this proposition was, that the idea of personality, even as applied to the Father and the Spirit, was formed in analogy with that of the personality of the God-man, and that the distinctions in the Trinity, therefore, approached nearer to Tritheism. It was, consequently, neither an accident, nor solely the effect of the Aristotelic philosophy, that during the sixth century important Monophysites, such as Johannes Askusnages and Johannes Philoponus, turned to Tritheism, in opposition to which the Monophysite Damian then set Tetradism. That the conception of person, in the Trinity, was otherwise viewed in the Church at an earlier period, we have shown in vol. i., pp. 904—938. Opposition was also raised to it by teachers of the Church; for example, by Eulogius of Alexandria (A. Mai vii. 18), and Anastasius Sinaita (Galland. xii. 240; "De Trinitate"), who tried to bring back the Christian mind to the point of view which obtained in the fourth century.

Note 31, page 143.

In illustration of this statement, it may perhaps also be appropriate to mention here, that a number of Monophysites, subsequently to the ninth century, taught that He who was born of Mary was perfect God, perfect, complete man, and had one personality formed out of two personalities, and one nature out of two natures (Assem. l. c. ii. 125). So the Patriarchs Theodosius, Johannes (ahout the year 969), Athanasius,1 and Dionysius V. (similarly the Nestorians; see above, pp. 77, 78). It is scarcely correct simply to say, with Assem. and others, that they interchanged the terms, nature and personality, in Christology, and did not do so in the Trinity. They rather taught, on the principle of Aristotle, that a nature (the Koivov, " universale") cannot be conceived without a personality, without an individual being, in which it subsists; and that, consequently, the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon, when they teach two natures, ought also to teach that there were two persons. They, the Monophysites, on the contrary, are consistent, in that, whilst allowing that one nature may appear in several persons (as in the Trinity), they maintain that a nature must necessarily subsist, at the very least, in one person: on the other hand, it is not enough to hold that in Christ there were two natures, for two natures would necessarily imply two persons; but the distinctive essence of the incarnation is, that two natures and two persons through it became one. Christ's one nature and person, therefore, after the incarnation, in that it was composite or a synthesis, comprised both natures and persons in itself as in the whole (compare Assem. ii. 137, 152). "Fieri nequit, ut natura sit nisi in persona." For there is nowhere to be found a "natura absque persona" (except in an individual being, Isikov). Similar was the view taken by the Nestorians (see above, pp. 76 ff.), who, even earlier than the Monophysites, directed their attention to Aristotle, and occupied themselves with the problem —How one person could be formed out of two hypostases or inroKelfieva, out of two distinct and independent existences?

Note 32, page 145.

Compare Galland. Biblioth. T. xii.; Rustici diaconi disputatio contra Acephalos, pp. 39-76 (about the year 550); Anastasii Sinaitae, Patriarchal Antiocheni, oratio iii. de divina oeconomia, i.e., incarnatione (about the year 570), pp. 246-251; Eulogii Alexandrini (about the year 580), capita vii. de duabus naturis, etc., p. 310; Leontii Byzant. scholia de sectis, pp. 625 ff. 644 ff. (about 610); Ejusdem Libri tres contra Eutychianos et Nestorianos, pp. 660 ff.; Ejusdem solutiones argumentationum Seven, 708-715; Ejusdem dubitationes hypothetic^, 715-718; Leontii Monachi Hierosolymitani (about 610), apologia concilii Chalcedon. 719-737. See further, A. Mai, Tom. vii. pp. 10 ff.; cap. vi. p. 18; cap. xi. pp. 40 ff.46, 52 ff.; Leontii quaestiones adv. eos, qui imam dicunt naturam compositam J. Christi, pp. 110-155; Anastasius presbyter contra Monophys. 192 ff.; Eustathii monachi ep. ad Timoth. Schol. de duabus naturis contra Severum, pp. 277-291; Boethius de duabus naturis, etc. (see below; about the year 510); Justinianus imperator contra Monophysitas, 292-313; Joannes Damascenus, de natura composita, adv. Acephalos. Nicephorus and Gelasius have been mentioned above. Amongst the acutest polemics against the Monophysites, may be mentioned several writings of S. Maximus, Opp. T. i. ii. ed. Combefis.

Note 33, page 148.

Compare Niceph. Eccl. Hist. L. xviii. c. 47, 49. Well acquainted with the philosophy of Plato, and especially of Aristotle, he endeavoured, in his AiavrryrrY; (Arbitrator, Schiedsrichter), to show that the view he entertained was dialectically necessary. One may speak of essence or nature in a double sense,—firstly, as a common idea, or common image, without reference to any concrete existence; or secondly, it may be conceived as the generic nature or substance, which exists in individuals, which acquires an independent existence in each individual, but which has no existence save in such separate individuals: and what each of these individuals has, it alone has; for by that which it thus has, it is distinguished from others. Such also is the teaching of the Church on the subject of the Trinity. The three subsistences, or persons, are realiter distinguished by their individual peculiarities. What else, then, can the one divine nature be, but the common or generic idea, which has no real existence, and is distinguished from each of the persons solely in thought. This usage of the word "Nature," according to which it denotes the general nature which has assumed an individual form, or the nature in the form, in which it pertains to no other individual, is followed also in the doctrine of the unity of the deity and humanity in Christ. For, not the common deity or divine nature, the idea of which we think in the Trinity, became incarnate;—otherwise, the Father and the Spirit must also be held to have become incarnate: nor, again, was the common generic humanity assumed by the Logos;—otherwise, we should have to conceive Him united with all men, even with those who are yet to come. Indeed, this general nature exists solely in the form of a conception; there is no real divine nature, save as it is found in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Spirit. Now, that divine nature which subsisted in the person of the Son, we say, became incarnate, and assumed, not the generic or general human nature, but alone humanity as contained in a particular individual.—According to this position, the universal general nature individualizes itself eternally in itself; nay more, exists solely in the form of individuals.

Note 34, page 150.

Anastasius Sinaita 1. c. c. 10-12:—Substance is not a particular nature, but the universal nature. Christ took upon Himself our whole substance (totam massam nostram), and became the firstling of our nature. For, because it was His will to deliver the whole of that which had fallen, and the entire race had fallen, lie submerged Himself entirely into the entire Adam; He, the Life, penetrated into that which was dead—He penetrated the entirety of that with which He was united, animating the whole, as it were, like the soul of a great body. Hence the human race is termed the body of Christ: Christ is conceived to permeate the whole equally, and yet He dwells peculiarly in each particular member, according to the measure of its faith; for each member is a separate individual; and what holds good of it, does not hold good of the corporate body. When the Apostle speaks of the body and its members, he describes, indeed, the distinction between the genus and the individual; but in that he designates us the body of Christ, and not His "genus," he meant to teach, that Christ was united with the universal generic substance of humanity, not with a particular individual; for otherwise we should not be called His body and His members. He desired to constitute us all and entirely His garment or body. He was both God and man, but neither a God nor a man: as God and man He is characterized by more general names; for He consisted not of particular hypostases, but of general substances. (We

P. 2.—VOL. I. 2D

see here clearly, that Anastasius, as little as the Monophysites, draws a distinction between individuality and hypostasis; he therefore feared, that to concede the individuality of the human nature, would lead to a double personality.) Nor can we say that He was a part of the substance; for the parts of substances are themselves substances, and that which we call a part has in all respects the character of the whole: consequently, He must be styled the Whole (dynamically ?), and not a part; for we cannot speak of dividing a substance, as we speak of dividing a ball. Christ became man, therefore, not by assuming a part of human nature, but the whole.—So also, it is not allowable to say, that He assumed merely a part of the Divine substance, to wit, the Son. For the distinction of part and whole cannot be applied to God. As Son also, God is not a "natura particularis specialis" or "singularis" (Orat. i. de S. Trinit. c. 18, p. 240). And Rusticus says (ibid. p. 40),—The divine nature of Christ included also the Father and the Holy Spirit; and His human substance included the remaining men. This is connected with the older doctrine, that Christ atrapy^v dveKafit Tov rjfierepov <f>vpdftfiros : this wnapyrj, however, is through Him also an apyrj,—a beginning and principle of an universal kind, an universal power of rebegetting all, through His new humanity. John of Damascus gave this idea the following turn,—All persons, indeed, did not die and rise again in Christ, but still our entire nature died and rose again in Him (L. iii. c. 6, p. 213, ed. Lequien). Consequently, not merely a man, nor the nature of a single man, nor, again, we ourselves as to our personality, but we, as to our nature, were assumed by the Logos. We, as to our nature, rose again in Him, ascended up to heaven, and so forth. Theodore Abukara, who belonged to his school (Opuscula ii. pp. 386 ff.), sought to connect the universal signifi cance of the humanity of Christ with the fact of His being a single, individual human existence. We cannot say that the humanity of Christ, and the body of Christ animated and endowed with intelligence, were the same thing. When we say, —He took upon Himself humanity, we mean, the humanity of us all, who are men; whereas His body and His soul were specially His : otherwise, He would not have been of the like substance with us, or the body of the eternal Son must have been the body of us all, who are men. He does not, in this conneotion, regard the general as a nonentity, as a mere thing of thought; but it is incorporeal, it does not helong to the world of the senses, it is universal; and this incorporeal existence first becomes visible by means of the Ibl6tt)t€<; opurriKal, the individualizing predicates. These ideas show us, further, how physical was the conception of redemption which prevailed at this period. Theodore Abukara says (vi. 452),—A lemon seed dipped in honey is said, when planted, to communicate its sweetness to the fruit; even so Christ, when He assumed humanity in the state in which it was prior to sin, and dipped it in the honey of His deity, gave us also to share in its sweetness, &>? ol Kokkol Tov ireKOpOS rp air avra>v Kapira> Kal Kara Sia^o-^fjv (per traducem).

Note 35, page 150.