Obrazy na stronie
[blocks in formation]

on tradition, would contain in all likelihood heathen or Jewish notions; the doctrine of the Person of Christ, especially, without careful examination would unavoidably be injured by Jewish conceptions of Christ, or by the heathen representation of a deification of his human nature. ATHANASIUS, in opposition to the Apollinarian theory, asserted that the true Christ could not be described by the human understanding.* Christ, he further said, could not exhort us to imitate him, if his human nature had not been like ours. If he had not perfectly assumed this, he could not have redeemed it. He appealed to the affections and acts of Christ, which could not be conceived to exist apart from a human soul; his feelings of sorrow and agony, his praying, and his descent into Hades. It has been often asserted that APOLLINARIS denied this doctrine of the descensus ad inferos as not in agreement with his principles, and that this occasioned its insertion in the Creed; but this latter point is an anachronism. It is certainly difficult to perceive how APOLLINARIS could give his assent to it; yet we are not justified in asserting that he did not acknowledge it, though ATHANASIUS does not specially refer to it. In the Catena on the Octateuch, attributed to NICEPHORUS,† there is a passage which contains the assertion of an APOLLINARIS, that this act of Christ, belonged to the true death of his human nature. There was, indeed, a CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, an apologist of the second century, who possibly might be intended. When APOLLINARIS argued from the holy constitution of Christ's person, that the divine vous occupied the place of the human reason, ATHANASIUS rejoined that were it really so, that Christ could not have assumed human nature as sinless without doing it violence - it would follow that sinlessness was opposed to human nature. But the very opposite is the case; Christ has represented human nature in its original state-in its innocence and freedom. But in their ideas of freedom there was a difference between these two men. APOLLINARIS made it consist in a freedom of choice between good and evil; ATHANASIUS in a self-determination for good. GREGORY NAZIANZEN also maintained against the former, that according to his theory, the human soul would have been destitute of true redemption by Christ. The Logos connected himself with human nature, in

*Contr. Apollinarist t. i. p. 736, cap. 13.
Published at Leipzig, 1772, 2 vols. fol. vol. i. p.


order not merely to reveal himself to man in a visible manner, but to redeem and to save it in its totality, and therefore none of its essential parts could be wanting to him. If his opponent urged that in the New Testament it is said, λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, he replied, that the word ragg is there used synecdochically, so that it denotes the whole of human nature. In this controversy many novel distinctions were formed by the Church teachers, especially by the two GREGORIES, the principal of which were these that in Christ there was not a mere divine cooperation (ovvégynois xarà xáçıv) but an essential connexion, so that the two natures were blended in one (siç ë). Against APOLLINARIS, the completeness of the two natures was maintained; against PHOTINUS, that not two different subjects (äλλ05 καὶ ἄλλος), but only different relations of Unity (ἄλλο καὶ λ20) were to be distinguished in Christ. But this was still so indefinite, that new controversies were necessarily started. Moreover, there was the uncertain use of the words puos and Tóraois; the interchange of predicates which was formerly maintained against Photianism, was rendered suspicious, ever since APOLLINARIS had made use of it. Then there was the designation of the VIRGIN MARY as Jeoróxos; some persons took offence at it, and would only call her άνθρωποτόκος.

By degrees, a difference was more distinctly developed in the mode of treating the doctrine of Christ's person, even after the warfare had been commenced against Apollinarism and Photianism. In the first case, the point of interest was the keeping asunder, in the second the unity of the divine and human in Christ. Thus various dogmatic types were formed in connexion with the existing fundamental differences of theological tendencies. Minds of one class would attach importance to the distinction of the two natures, while those of another would insist on their Union. The tendency of the Understanding is to distinguish and separate; the mystical element is opposed to a false separation. This difference marks the two leading Schools of the East, the Antiochian and the Alexandrian.

During this period, the Alexandrian School withdrew more and more from the peculiar scientific element of Origen. In the Arian controversy, the prevailing tendency was to give prominence to the divine nature in Christ, and to keep the human in the background. It was the habit of this school to


shun whatever was rationalistic; to dwell by preference on what was wonderful and supernatural in the Dogma of Christ's person, and which could not be grasped by any effort of the understanding. Their favourite formula was, that the one Christ consisted of (x not iv) two natures which, in an inexpressible (apgάorws) and inconceivable (ȧregionτws) manner, were united with one another. As they laid the greatest stress on the unity, though willing to distinguish, in abstracto, the divine and human predicates, they referred both equally to the one incarnate Logos. In the actual Christ the two natures were not to be distinguished; they could not be contemplated separately, but in the wonderful union of both in Christ, all belonged to the uia puas of the Logos. Owing to the indefiniteness of the terms φύσις and ὑπόστασις, the Alexandrians were more easily induced, on account of the one róσrasis to allow only one one φύσις in Christ, and urged the ἕνωσις φυσική against those who spoke of two natures. The ἀντιμεθίστασις Tav ovoμáruv (the interchangeableness of the predicates) was to them the mark of the doctrine of one nature, and in this they indulged their disposition to choose paradoxical expressions for the wonderful; hence, among other things they called the VIRGIN MARY SEOTóxos. They did not wish by expressions which attribute the Divine to Christ as a man to teach a transformation of his divine nature, but they believed themselves warranted in using them by their representation of the union of the two natures.

The Antiochian School, represented principally by DIODORUS of Tarsus and THEODORE of Mopsuestia, cultivated its Christology, chiefly in opposition to Gnosticism and Apollinarism. Thus, on the ground of the intellectual scientific tendency of this School, a disposition was cherished by it, to separate sharply the Divine and the Human, which, to these theologians, seemed the best method of confuting Arianism. If the Alexandrians gave prominence to the règ Xóyov, they gave it to the xarà λóyov, since they brought the supernatural as near as possible to intellectual apprehension. They proposed to themselves the question, How the special relation of God to the human nature in Christ must be thought of? It was not their design to deny the miracle or to explain the union; but they wished to find analogies and categories to aid their contem plation of this divine act. Among the possible modes of

representing it, the wors xar' ovcíar suggested itself to them, that the Logos dwelt in human nature only according to his essence. This seems not admissible; for according to his essence he is omnipresent. Or there was the ἕνωσις κατ' ἐνεργείαν, but according to his energy or operation the divine Providence extends over all things. Therefore, it seemed necessary to find a particular formula, for the peculiar union into which God entered with a rational nature. The suitable expression for this purpose appeared to be κατὰ χάριν or κατ ̓ εὐδοκίαν. The connexion of the Logos with human nature was not thereby lowered to the divine agency in the Prophets, but the two were compared together only with a reference to the fact that this peculiar act was not a natural necessity, but proceeded from the resolve and free grace of God. They expressly declared that the agency of the Logos in Christ, was something far higher than in other men; God operated in him not as in the Prophets, and all other righteous men, but as in his own Son. Theodore marks the pre-eminence of Christ before all other men by his violecia (adoptio). He meant to assert that Christ, according to his humanity was taken into connexion with God, in distinction from the dignity of the Logos, who was the Son of God by his essence and nature. From this standpoint the Alexandrian doctrine of an ἕνωσις κατ' οὐσίαν, seemed something quite anthropopathic, by which the unchangeableness of the divine nature was denied; on the other hand, the Antiochians appeared to the Alexandrians to place Christ only in the class of enlightened men; a representation which they most vehemently opposed. The Antiochians considered the connexion of the divine Logos with the human nature, to take place at the miraculous conception; but the connexion at first was only potential, and gradually manifested itself in the human development; the agency of the Logos in his human nature was developed in successive stages till his Resurrection. Since they had also paid attention to the purely Human and Historical, and were unfettered in their exposition of the New Testament, they regarded the purely human in him as a mark of the human nature developing itself according to its own laws, and progressively revealing the agency of the Logos. On the other hand, the Alexandrians explained the Historical according to their scheme of the one nature of the Incarnate Logos, and obviated the difficulties belonging to it by means of


Allegory. For example, in reference to the passages in the Gospels which speak of Christ, "not knowing the day nor the hour," ,"* CYRILL said that omniscience belonged to the one nature of the Incarnate Logos, and that his not knowing was only a seeming ignorance for special holy designs. The Antiochians on this point were influenced by the controversy with APOLLINARIS, who asserted that in Christ there was no conflict nor progressive development, from which it followed that he had no human soul, but had in himself the unchangeable divine Spirit. To them, on the contrary, the temptations, conflicts, and progressive development of Christ were important, in order to prove the identity of his nature with ours. In the system of THEODORUS this was connected with other important points, of which the foremost was the Free-Will, which, according to him, conditioned the development of the whole human race, and of all rational beings, and on which depended the reception of all the operations of divine grace, and advance in the divine life. Corresponding to a double standpoint of the whole Universe, and of the rational Creation, of the period of changeableness and of the unchangeable divine life, Christ also, by whom the exaltation of Humanity is effected from that lower to the higher stage, must represent both in his life, and according to the measure of his free self-determination will be the manifested activity of the divine Logos. For this reason, he passed through all the stages of human nature; only everything human was rendered more intense by its connexion with the Logos, everything proceeded more energetically, more powerfully, more rapidly; as for example, in childhood, his faculties expanded far more quickly. THEODORE distinguished as marked periods in Christ's life, the standpoint of the Law, and that of Grace which he entered upon at his baptism, and that of Glorification after his Resurrection. Thus his life in all its stages, till the Resurrection, presented points of analogy to that of believers. As after the Resurrection we first possess, in its fulness, the operation of the Holy Spirit, in which our whole life corresponds to it, yet by communion with God we already experience the first fruits of this operation, so Christ from the beginning had within him the divine Logos; but at first it did not effect everything in him, but only the greater part, as far as it was necessary for *Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 151.

« PoprzedniaDalej »