« PoprzedniaDalej »
the salvation of Mankind, till by his Resurrection he attained to the complete unchangeableness of the divine life; an end which he reached by persisting victoriously with free selfdetermination under temptations and conflicts. THEODORE therefore assumed that the divine Logos left the Man with whom he was united, to himself, in many respects, till death; the Logos, when it was needful, excited and strengthened him. Accordingly, he was one of the first who taught that the sinlessness of Christ was to be regarded as a posse non peccare, not as a non posse peccare. He would not allow the least degree of sin in Christ, but he asserted, against APOLLINARIS, that he was subject to temptations as far as he could be without sin, and overcame them by the determination of his own will. Christ would not have uttered to Peter the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" if, what that apostle said to him could not, by any possibility, have seduced him to unfaithfulness.
The Antiochians were indeed willing to admit a transference of predicates; but they never lost sight of the ȧruyurov; hence they admitted the transference only with an exact definition of the altered sense; * in a proper sense, the Divine belonged to the Logos, and the Human to the Man; only in an improper sense the one took part in the other. Theodore said, "In reference to the Union of Divinity and Humanity we acknowledge one person, just as we say of a man and his wife that they are one; but in reference to the distinction, we acknowledge two Natures and two persons (ToσTάoeis), God and Man; for we cannot conceive of a perfect nature without a perfect person; and consequently he asserts, respecting the ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων, Divine honour is due to Christ in reference to his divinity, and, in a certain sense, in reference to his humanity; for the proper Son of God made use of the Man Jesus as his organ, and dwelt in him as in a Temple; but the one is God, according to his essential nature, with whom the Man is united, and shares his name and honour.† Such being the wide difference of the two standpoints, it * Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 119.
See his Creed in Walch, Bibl. Symbolica Vetur. p. 203.-Kai ovre δύο φαμὲν υἱοὺς, οὔτε δύο κυρίους, ἐπειδὴ εἷς θεὸς κατ ̓ οὐσίαν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς, ᾧπερ οὗτος συνημμένος τε καὶ μετέχων θεότητος κοινωνεῖ τῆς υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τε καὶ τιμῆς· καὶ κύριος κατ' ουσίαν ὁ Θεὸς λόγος, ᾧ συνημμένος οὗτος κοινωνεῖ τῆς τιμῆς.
was of greater importance, for the further development of Dogmas, which of them should prevail. It would have been a salutary result, if the supernaturalist and the rationalist principles had mutually complemented and balanced each other. If they could have worked together with equal influence in the formation of Dogma, the whole form of the later Orthodoxy, both in the Eastern and Western Church, would have been different, and many a reaction would have been avoided. But amidst the prevalent arrogance, the heats of controversy, and the influence of political parties, this was impossible: every party regarded the rest only as objects of extreme aversion. The Alexandrians found Photianism (a name for Rationalism) among the Antiochians, who, in their turn, charged the former with Docetism. The controversy took an unfavourable turn from the first, since its issue depended not on a complete dogmatic view, but on a single word, though that was certainly connected with a difference in the view taken of the Incarnation of the Logos. Hence the fanaticism of the multitude was aroused, and so much greater room was given for the conflict of political passions.
NESTORIUS, a presbyter of Antioch, was raised, A.D. 428, to the patriarchate of Constantinople, a man not to be compared with THEODORE as a systematic thinker, and not so exact and distinct in his definition of terms, but certainly accustomed to the distinction of the two natures in Christ. The avrielioraois of the predicates was now widely spread in the terminology of the Church. Many uneducated persons were partial to such expressions, because their pious feelings were excited, and they thought by the use of them to do honour to Christ. NESTORIUS found the designation of the VIRGIN MARY Us DEOTÓKOS very rife in Constantinople. His presbyter, ANASTASIUS, who was also educated at Antioch, took offence at it. It was not prudent, that he at once publicly denounced it, and averred that God could not be born of a human being. The controversy broke out; NESTORIUS was unable to quell it, and was himself drawn into it. He took the part of ANASTASIUS the more zealously, that the excessive reverence for the VIRGIN was promoted by such an epithet. As in his preaching he taught the doctrine of the one Christ,* in whom the two
* Fragments of it in Latin are to be found in Marius Mercator, a layman of North Africa; see his Works, ed. Garnier. Large fragments
natures were to be distinguished, he became himself exposed to obloquy, and was charged with holding the Samosatensian view of Christ's divinity. The laity also took an increasing interest in the movement. A respectable layman interrupted NESTORIUS While stating his views in a sermon, by saying, "The Logos who existed before all time, submitted himself to a second birth." The controversy became still more important when CYRILL, bishop of Alexandria, a man who stood at the head of the opposite party, entered the lists. He had, it is true, a dogmatic interest in it; but an unholy passion mingled with it from the first, jealousy against the Patriarch of Constantinople. He composed a work on true faith in Christ, addressed to the Emperor and the Princess Pulcheria, in which he attacked Nestorius without naming him. A correspondence soon followed between them. Both sides appealed to other bishops, especially to the first bishop of the West, CELESTIN of Rome. In the West, similarly to what we have seen in the Arian controversy, a mild conciliatory view of this doctrine had been formed which agreed with neither of the two extremes. This is evident from a brief prelude to this conflict, the dispute with the monk LEPORIUS.* Hence, it was possible, in discussing this dogma, to accept intermediate statements by which extremes were reconciled without occasioning thereby a more general conflict. Yet in the preponderance of the immediate practical religious interest the Antiochian doctrine must have appeared more objectionable than the Alexandrian to the Western Church. It contributed to this, that CŒLESTIN received his first accounts of the controversy from CYRILL, who was politic enough to accompany his letters to him with a Latin translation, as the Greek was but imperfectly understood in the West. CELESTIN having been also prejudiced against NESTORIUS from another quarter, declared himself in favour of CYRILL, entrusted him with the preparation of a summons to NESTORIUS to recant, and with authority to excommunicate him, if he did not comply within a given time. But meanwhile the Churches in the eastern province of Roman Asia (the ȧvaroλió) entered into the
in Actis Synod. Ephes. Mansi, iv. p. 1197. Salig, De Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. 1723, 4.
* Gennadius De Scriptoribus Eccl. 59. c. 4-6.
Cassian De Incarnatione, i.
NESTORIUS AND CYRILL.
dispute, and expressed themselves with the greatest impartiality and moderation. The bishops of this class who approved the Antiochian doctrine endeavoured to hush up the controversy, and through the Patriarch, JOHN of ANTIOCH, impressed on NESTORIUS that while it was proper to guard against misconceptions, a single word was not of sufficient importance to justify so dangerous a quarrel. NESTORIUS replied to their satisfaction; he did not declare absolutely against the use of the epithet SeoToxos, provided it was used in a right sense of the union of the Divinity and Humanity; but since the terms Θεοτοκος and ανθρωποτοκος were liable to be misunderstood, he proposed that the expression Xgrororóxos should be used as referrible to the whole Christ. But while he thus expressed himself, the dispute of individuals was made, through the arrogance of CYRILL, a dispute between two dogmatic schools. In the year 430, he demanded an express recantation, and set forth his errors in twelve condemnatory clauses, which contained the Alexandrian doctrine in the strongest and most paradoxical language.* The ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων was carried to an extreme; all divine and human predicates were to be referred without distinction to the one Incarnate Logos. The Incarnate Logos was born corporeally; the Ένωσις οι συναφεία φυσικη was opposed to the συναφεία κατ' ἀξίαν οι κατ' αὐθεντίαν. This was an open attack on the Antiochian dogmas, and was so regarded. The leading men in the Anatolian churches felt themselves called upon to write to CYRILL; and among them, THEODORET more especially, Bishop of Cyrus on the Euphrates, in whom the Antiochian tendency appeared moderated by a devout, practical, Christian spirit, formed by the study of the Scriptures. The contrast he formed to CYRILL, made the relation of their standpoints more striking. THEODORET rejected the ἔνωσις φυσική, and taught a συνηφεία, without xgdos, so that each of the two natures retained their peculiar features; hence, one Christ was to be adored in two natures. In making this distinction of natures, he was still very far from wishing to suppose a double Christ in one person. Only he did not distinctly keep apart the ideas of φύσις and ὑπόστασις. He also asserted a natural development of the Human in Christ; Christ manifested the indwelling divinity as much as he could, at all times. On the contrary, * Münscher, i. 290.
CYRILL maintained that whoever said that the form of a servant merely gave a manifestation of the indwelling divine Logos, made Christ a mere Prophet. The Asiatics distinguished more clearly between the strictly dogmatic and the liturgic phraseology, the δογματικῶς and the πανηγυρικῶς λαλεῖν; hence THEODORET says,* Whoever, in liturgical language, is disposed to carry matters to an extreme, and to lay emphasis on the greatness of the Mystery, may do it as his feelings may impel him; but dogmatical distinctions are to be differently treated, and require precision of thought. He allowed the epithet soróxos, in the former case, but in the latter it was inadmissible.
The third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus,† A.D. 431, was to decide the controversy. From the manner in which it had been hitherto conducted a mutual understanding could hardly be expected, and CYRILL'S arbitrary behaviour, placed greater hindrances in the way, and occasioned a violent rupture. Before the arrival of the Eastern bishops, he took the liberty of holding a council with his party, in order to condemn NESTORIUS, and to attach the authority of a creed to his anathemas. As soon as the other bishops reached Ephesus, they pronounced these proceedings to be nugatory, asserted the orthodoxy of NESTORIUS, and condemned CYRILL and his anathemas. Efforts were also made at Constantinople to bring about a reconciliation; but at court the influence of the Cyrillian party prevailed more and more, being favoured by the fanatical monks and female intrigue; at last a factious decision was passed against the Orientals; NESTORIUS was deposed and exiled, and CYRILL retained the greatest influence in the appointment to offices. Diplomatic and political theologians exerted themselves to rectify the hostile attitude in which the Syrian and Alexandrian Churches now stood to one another. CYRILL might, indeed, perceive that he was not, at the time, successful with his dogmas; but if he had been only right in practical matters, especially in the deposition of NESTORIUS, he might have allowed himself to infer, that his whole dogmatic tendency was condemned along with him. On the other hand, the leaders of the Orientals were ready to yield in practical matters if they could only maintain their ground substantially against the Alexandrian dogma. Hence, Ep. 151.
+ Mansi, iv. v. vii. Socr. vii. 29. Euagrius, i. 7.