Christ, had been rejected by the condemnation of Nestorius. But with the growing influence and power of the party of Cyrill, which was headed by Dioscurus, Cyrill's successor, (1) the still greater danger arose of confounding, instead of separating the said natures. The zeal of Eutyches, an archimandrite [abbot] at Constantinople, who maintained the doctrine of one nature alone of Christ, (2) caused new disturbances. Dioscurus endeavoured to force the Monophysite doctrine by violent means upon the eastern church,(3) but both he, and his sentiments, were at last condemned at the council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451.) In the course of the controversy Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, had addressed a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople.(4) On the basis of this Epistola Flaviana the synod pronounced in favour of the doctrine of two natures, which should neither be separated nor confounded, and, in order to prevent further errors, drew up a confession of faith, which should be binding upon all parties.(5)

(1) Respecting his character and violent conduct, especially towards Theodoret, see Neander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. 3, p. 1064, ss. The acts of this controversy are given in Mansi, T. vi. vii. (Ang. Mai. Script. vett. Coll. T. vii. and ix. Coll. Class. Auct. T. x. p. 408, ss.)

(2) Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Dorylæum with the revival of Valentinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constantinople in the year 449. See Mansi, vi. p. 694-754. According to the acts of this synod he taught: Μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, τουτέστι μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυβίου ἡμῶν ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μίαν φύσιν προσκυνεῖν καὶ ταύτην θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος. He denied that the flesh of Christ was of the same essence (ooooos) with ours, though he would not be understood to teach, that Christ brought his body with him from heaven. But when his opponents brought him at last to a dilemma, he went so far as to admit the sameness of essence in respect to the body. But he could not be induced to confess his belief in the existence of two natures, a Divine and a human.

He maintained that there had been two natures only πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως; but after that he would acknowledge only one. Concerning the agreement subsisting between his doctrine and that of Cyrill, see Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 301.

(3) These violent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the Synod of Robbers, A. D. 449. (Latrocinium Ephesinum, σύνοδος ληστρική) the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593, ss. Fuchs, iv. p. 340, ss.

(4) The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359, (separately published by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1780, 4, comp. Griesbach opusc. acad. T.i. p. 52, ss. Comp. Münscher von Cölln, p. 302.): Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ et in unam coëunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab æternitate mortalitas; et ad resolvendum conditionis nostræ debitum natura inviolabilis naturæ est unita passibili, ut quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris etc. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo, et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis et altitudo deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est: Verbo scilicet operante, quod verbi est, et carne exsequente, quod carnis est etc. He then ascribes birth, hunger, nakedness, sufferings, death, burial, etc., to the human, the miracles to the Divine nature; the passage in John xiv. 28, refers to the former, that in John x. 30, to the latter.

(5) Mansi, vii. 108, ss. :... Επόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἀγίοις πατράσιν, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες 4 ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας· πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δι' ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς Θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν Υἱόν, Κύριον, μονογενῆ ἐκ δύο φύσεων (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν α ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, αχωρίστως

a Concerning the different reading comp. Mansi, p. 106, 775, 840. Walch, bibl. symb. p. 106.

γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃξημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης· οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον, ἢ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, Θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτος ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ἐξεπαίδευσε· καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον.

We cannot fail to perceive a dogmatic parallel between the decisions of this synod respecting the nature of Christ, and those of the council of Nice, with this difference only, that the latter understood by puss that which belongs to each nature separately, but by imóorzas, agóowwow, that which both have in common; the reverse is the case in the decisions of the synod of Chalcedon.

§ 102.

PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.-THEOPASCHITISM.

But the authority of the decision of the Synod of Chalcedon was not at once generally acknowledged. Many conflicts ensued (1) before the doctrine of “ two natures in one person" was received as the orthodox doctrine of the church, and finally inserted into what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed.(2) The exact medium, however, between the two extreme views was not strictly preserved. For by the admission of a new clause, viz. that one of the Divine persons had been crucified (Theopaschitism), into the creed of the fifth œcumenical synod (A. D. 553),(3) the Monophysite notion gained the ascendancy within the pale of the church.

(1) The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, A. D. 482, in Evagr. iii. c. 14, (separately published by Berger, Wittemb. 1723, 4,) was intended to bring about a reconciliation between the contending parties, but was not followed by any permanent success. Comp. Jablonsky, Diss. de Henotico Zenonis. Francof. ad Viadr. 1737. 4. Münscher v. Cölln, p. 306, 7.

(2) Symb. Athan. pars. ii.-(Comp. § 97.)

27. Sed necessarium est ad æternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. 28. Est

ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius, Deus pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante sæcula genitus: homo ex substantia matris in sæculo natus. 30. Perfectus deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. 31. Equalis Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. 32. Qui licet deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. 34. Unus omnino non confusione substantiarum, sed unitate personæ. 35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita et Deus et homo unus est Christus. 36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 37. ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. 38. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere debent cum corporibus suis et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. 39. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam æternam qui vero mala, in ignem æternum. 40. Hæc est fides catholica, quam nisi quisquam fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

(3) Peter Fullo ( yapsùs) was the first who introduced the clause Jos raugún into the Trishagion. [On the gay see Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 110, note 12.] He was, however, banished by an imperial decree about the year 470.-In the year 533 Justinian pronounced the phrase unum crucifixum esse ex sancta et consubtantiali Trinitate to be orthodox, (Cod. L. 1. Tit. 1. 6) he did so in accordance with John II. bishop of Rome, but in opposition to his predecessor Hormisdas.-The decree of the council is given in Mansi, ix. p. 304 : Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἐσταυρω μένον σαρκὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν εἶναι θεὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ κύριον τῆς δόξης, καὶ ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος· ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—This victory of the advocates of Theopaschitism was only the counterpart of the one which the friends of the phrase Storóxos had gained in former years. Thus such expressions as "God is born, God died," came gradually into use in dogmatic theology. It was in this sense that, e. g. the author of the soliloquia animæ (which may be found in the works of Augustine) c. 1, offered the following prayer: Manus tuæ, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me, manus inquam illæ, quæ affixæ clavis sunt pro me.

§ 103.

VARIOUS FEATURES OF THE MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE.
APHTHARDOCETÆ, PHTHARTOLATRI, AGNOËTÆ.

Gieseler, J. C. L., commentatio, qua monophysitarum veterum variæ de Christi persona opiniones inprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur. Parts I. II. Gött. 1838. IV.

The Monophysites themselves were not agreed on the question whether Christ possessed a corruptible, or an incorruptible body? The Phthartolatri (Severians) maintained the former, the Aphthardoceta (Julianists) asserted the latter, in accordance with their opinions respecting the nature of Christ. Different views obtained among the Aphthardocetæ themselves on the question whether Christ's body was created or not, and led to the formation of two distinct parties, the Ktistolatri and the Akstiteta. The omniscience of Christ necessarily followed from the Monophysite doctrine. The assertion, therefore, of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, that the man Jesus had been ignorant of many things (Agnoetism, Mark xiii. 32; Luke ii. 52;) was rejected by the strict Monophysites.

SOURCES: Leont. Byzant. (in Gallandii Bibl. Patr. xii.) Niceph. Callisti, lib. xvii. Gieseler (in the 2d Part of the dissertation cited before) endeavours to prove, that the view of the Julianists was by no means purely Docetic, but allied to that taken by Clement of Alexandria, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, etc., and also bore resemblance to the opinions entertained by Apollinaris. Xenaias (Philoxenus), bishop of Hierapolis, and the contemporary of Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, appears as the representative of this view, comp. p. 7. Different meanings were attached to the word Jogá, which was made at one time to denote the frailty of the living body, and its susceptibility of undergoing sufferings, at another to signify the dissolubility of the corpse; ibidem, p. 4.

Though the orthodox church was far from giving the least countenance to Docetism, yet the ideas entertained by Origen in the preceding period