« PoprzedniaDalej »
and maintained a λarvouós of the essence of the Logos, that the Word was changed into flesh. According to this, he supposed that the δραστικὴ ἐνέργεια of the λόγος had formed a personality at the conception of Christ, so that the spiritual in Christ was nothing else than an irradiation of the Logos in the rág. Consequently, he substituted this hypostasizing of σάρξ. the Logos for a human soul in Christ, and his personality was a manifestation of the dgarrinn vέpyea of the Logos. He differed only from Marcellus in maintaining that the personality would not cease, but exist to all Eternity. On this account his doctrine, at a later period, was described, though not quite correctly as Samosatenism.
The completeness of the human nature in Christ was now insisted on, in opposition to Arianism; and in another direction against what was called Photianism, the true union of the divine Logos and Man was asserted in opposition to the view that Christ was to be placed in the same class as the Prophets. The articles of the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, were directed against both. They determined that the Logos was not related to Christ in the same manner as to the Prophets, but had himself become Man; but he had not assumed a σῶμα ἄψυχον; for the salvation of the soul is effected by the Logos; the Son of God became also Son of Man; he who raised Lazarus from the dead was no other than he who asked after him. On both points the bounds of orthodoxy were fixed, and those who stood at the head tried to prevent all further definitions, so that diversified views might be held without producing a disruption. Hilary of Poitiers+ supported a peculiar view-that Christ had assumed a soul ex se, and a body per se; that is, a soul specially allied to himself, derived in a certain manner from his divine essence, and a body so formed by his divine agency, that it was not subject to the defects of a sensuous nature, and therefore did not necessarily suffer pain or hunger, &c. But he did not explain
* Athan. ad Antioch. Opp. i. p. 615, sqq. cap. vii.-wμoλóyovv yàp καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι οὐ σῶμα ἄψυχον, οὐδ ̓ ἀναισθητον, οὐδ ̓ ἀνόητον εἶχεν ὁ σωτὴρ, οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν, τοῦ κυρίου, δι' ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπου γινομένου, ἀνόητον εἶναι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ σώματος μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ σωτηρία γέγονεν· υἱός τε ὢν ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, γέγονε καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου.
De Trinitat. lib. 9, 10. Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 96.
THE CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS.
the passages in the Gospel referring to Christ's body docetically, but maintained that Christ really subjected himself to all his bodily sufferings voluntarily, and for the salvation of
The peculiar manner in which the three Cappadocian Fathers, and especially GREGORY of NYSSA and GREGORY NAZIANZUS elaborated the doctrine, had a great influence on the development of the Oriental Church. Like Origen, they aimed at proving that the Logos had united himself with a sensuous nature, by means of a rational human soul. The essential point in this union, the mark of a true personal unity, they made to consist in all the parts of human nature being penetrated by the divine Essence. This penetration took place at the birth of Christ, but its complete consequences were not developed till after the Resurrection, and with the glorification of Christ his body also was glorified. Gregory of Nyssa, in combating Eunomius, says,* The divine Essence is unchangeable; even the sensuous nature has its peculiar qualities; but when taken into fellowship with the divine, the human no longer retains its peculiar marks and properties, but as wood is consumed in the fire so is the human in the divine. Thus we may speak of a true unity in the God-Man. As a mark of this union he adduces the reciprocal transference of the predicator of the divine and human natures, the å‹μεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων.† He expresses himself so strongly in reference to the penetration of the human by the divine, as to maintain that the body of Christ, by its amalgamation with the Divine Essence after its glorification, laid aside all the qualities of the human nature, and from this fact he inferred the ubiquity of Christ's human nature. Christ is with us in all parts of the World, as he is in Heaven. Gregory Nazianzus does not go quite so far, but only says that Christ has no longer a strictly sensuous nature, though his body has not become a spiritual being; but concerning the constitution of his glorified nature in the body penetrated by the divine, nothing precise can be determined.
This peculiar doctrinal type was likely to give offence, especially where the principles of Origen's theology were not * Contr. Eunom. Orat. 3, tom. ii. p. 589.
Ep. ad Theophilum contr. Apollinarem, tom. iii. p. 265.
Or. 40, tom. i. p. 671.
adopted. Opposition to it was called forth from an altogether different quarter, in the doctrine of APOLLINARIS of Laodicea.* He was a man of much acuteness; he subjected the doctrine to a fresh scientific examination, pondered its difficulties, and tried to surmount them by a scheme which presented the Unity of the two natures in the God-man with mathematical precision. The greatest difficulty appeared to him to consist in the union of the divine person of the Logos with a perfect human person. Two perfect wholes could not be united in one whole.+ Setting out from Anthropology, he asserted that the essence of the rational soul consists in its self-determination. If this characteristic were retained in connexion with the divine nature, there could be no true personal union, but only such a divine influence on Jesus as might be experienced by any other man. On the other hand, if the soul forfeited this characteristic, it would renounce its essential peculiarity. On the first point he objected to the School of Origen, that it admitted no true union of the divine and the human, but made instead two Sons of God, the Logos and the Man Jesus. § Hence he thought the rational human soul must be excluded from the God-man, and, in this, the old undefined doctrine was on his side. For the human soul he substituted the Logos himself as the vous eos. He developed this doctrine with originality and acuteness. The scheme of human nature which he made use of, was the common trichotomical one, of the ψυχή λογική (νοερά), ἄλογος and the σῶμα. That an animal principle of life, a uz ahoyos, must be admitted to exist in human nature, he thought might be proved from Paul's
* The writings of Apollinaris περὶ σαρκώσεως λογίδιον (ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας ἐν σαρκώσεως)—τὸ κατὰ κεφάλαιον βιβλίον περὶ ἀναστάσεως.—περὶ πίστεως λογίδιον. Fragments in Gregory of Nyssa, especially in bis λόγος ἀντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς τὰ Απολιναρίου (37480), ed Zacagni in Collectan. Monum. Veter. Eccl. Gr. Romæ, 1698, 4, rec. in Gallandi, Bibl. P. P. t. vi. p. 517. See also, A. Mai, Coll. Nova, t. vii. Gregor. Naz. Ep. i. et ii. ad Ædonium, tom. i. p. 737. Athanasius, C. Apollinaristas, i. 2. Epiphanius Hæres. 62. Theodoret Hær. fab. 4, 8; Dialog 3. Leontius Byz. in Canisius Bamasse, i. 600.Catena in Ev. Joh. ed. Corderius, 1630.
+ Antirrh. cap. 39, p. 323.—εἰ ἀνθρώπῳ τελείῳ συνήφθη θεὸς τέλειος δύο ἂν ἦσαν.
* Ibid. p. 245.—φθορὰ του αὐτεξουσίου ζώου τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτεξούσιον· οὐ φθείρεται δὲ ἡ φύσις ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτήν.
§ L. c. 42. - εἷς μὲν φύσει υἱὸς Θεοῦ, εἷς δε θετός.
Epistles, in the passages where he speaks of the Flesh lusting against the Spirit, for the body in itself has no power of lusting, but only the soul that is connected with it. It is not self-determining, but must be determined by the uxǹ 20yıxń which with it ought to govern the body. But this result is frustrated by Sin; and conquered by it, the reason succumbs to the power of the irrational desires. In order to free Man from Sin, the unchangeable Divine Spirit must be united with a human nature, control the anima, and present a holy human life.* Thus we have in Christ as man, the three component parts, and can call him the veganos Tougάvios, only with this difference, the Divine occupies the place of the human vous. The character of Christ's life also proves this, for from the first he was wise and holy, while it belongs to the human spirit to acquire these qualities by conflict and earnest endeavour. But how did APOLLINARIS conceive of the divine Logos? If the Patripassians believed the whole divine essence to be united with the human body, and acting as a substitute for the soul, such a representation cannot appear very strange in these people who had a strong practical tendency. And for the Arians who regarded the Logos only as a subordinate Spirit, it must have been easier to include his whole being in a human body. But as to a man of such acuteness as APOLLINARIS, it seems strange how he could regard the totality of the infinite Logos as the animating principle of the human body without the intervention of a human Spirit. The fragments of his own writings, and the statements of his opponents which have come down to us, render little aid in the solution of the difficulty. But that Apollinaris studied it, and endeavoured to obviate it, is evident from a remarkable passage in which he says of the relation of Christ to the Father,+— that Christ separated his agency from that of the Father, in reference to his bodily existence, but placed it on an equality in reference to the divine nature of the Logos. He insists on equality in respect of power, and on the distinction of agency
* L. c. p. 225.—Οὐκ ἄρα σώζεται τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος δι' αναλήψεως νοῦ καὶ ὅλου ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ προσλήψεως σαρκὸς, ᾗ φυσικὸν μὲν τὸ ἡγεμονεύεσθαι, ἐδεῖτο δὲ ἀτρέπτου νοῦ, μὴ ὑποπίπτοντος αὐτῇ διὰ ἐπιστημοσύνης ασθένειαν, ἀλλὰ συναρμόζοντος αὐτὴν ἀβιάστως ἑαυτῷ. + Antirrh. c. 29, p. 194.—Διαιρῶν μὲν τὴν ἐνέργειαν κατὰ σάρκα, ἐξισῶν δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα.
in reference to the corporeal. It would seem that he did not regard the Logos in his totality, but a certain végye proceeding from him, as constituting the soul in Christ. A further development of this speculation must have led him to Sabellianism or Photianism. But this he was desirous of avoiding, because it seemed to him to derogate from the true dignity of the God-Man, and thus, though he approached very near it, he never explicitly adopted it. By means of his theory APOLLINARIS believed that he not only fully represented the God-Man, but also maintained the true Unity of the Divine and the Human in so intimate a connexion as to admit of an interchange of predicates; and yet he also wished to keep the two classes of predicates fairly apart, and regarded this point as giving his theory the preference to that held by the school of Origen and the Cappadocian teachers. As the human body remains unaltered in its connexion with the soul, so also it retained its peculiar characteristics in its connexion with the divine Logos, while, according to their doctrine, Christ's body underwent an Apotheosis. But now, through fellowship with the God-Man, power is bestowed on men to overcome the opposing influences of the lower soul; in the Christian faith alone, he said, we find the whole man who is accepted by God unto salvation. At first APOLLINARIS adopted the common Church phraseology respecting the three component parts of Christ's person, and his delegates subscribed the creed of the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, which expressly asserted the doctrine of a human soul in Christ. But though he avowed his agreement with this creed in a letter to the Council at Dio-Cæsarea, yet, at the same time, he explained the peculiar sense in which he accepted it. Deceived by this formal assent, his opponents began with attacking not himself, but his disciples. ATHANASIUS wrote
against them his Epistle ad Epictetum.* APOLLINARIS did not regard these attacks as personal, because they were directed against representations which were not altogether his own. Yet, as time advanced, he could not keep clear of the controversy; he was accused of departing from the simplicity of the faith, and of adulterating it by arbitrary speculations. He rejoined, that it was of prime importance to examine what the true Faith really was; that an unexamined faith resting Opp. i. p. 720.