« PoprzedniaDalej »
CYRILL in A.D. 433, accepted articles of agreement,* which in some of the statements opposed the Alexandrian dogma. It was prepared by the Orientals for the Council, in order to show their readiness to allow, in a certain sense, the appropriation of the epithet θεοτοκος to the VIRGIN MARY, namely, that in Christ there was a union of the two natures without a mixture. It might be expected that the adherents of CYRILL would see in this compromise a betrayal of the truth. He was therefore obliged to explain the formula according to his own views. The two unmixed natures spoken of in it, were to be understood only in abstracto. This distinction of the divine and human predicates had never been denied: the point contended for was the reference to the one concrete nature of Christ, and the document contained nothing in opposition to it. The zealous Orientals were still less satisfied with the compromise, and were highly incensed at the ruin of NESTORIUS. Moreover, CYRILL had only made a temporary concession for prudential reasons, and ceased not on that account to counterwork his dogmatical opponents. His successor DIOSCUROS (A.D. 444), was of a still more despotic temper, and widened the breach by using all the means in his power to gain the ascendancy for the doctrine of one nature in Christ. Among the monks there was also a party who did not know and understand all the distinctions of the Egyptian doctrine, but yet were fond of the paradoxical expressions in the interchange of the predicates, and easily detected blasphemy in the distinction of the two natures. They maintained that they
NESTORIUS AND CYRILL.
* Mansi, v. p. 303, f.Ὁμολογοῦμεν τοιγαροῦν, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν μονογενῆ, θεὸν τέλειον καὶ ἄνθρωπου τέλειον ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος· προ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ' ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτον δι ̓ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν θεότητα καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα ̇ δύο γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε· διὸ ἕνα Χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱὸν, ἕνα κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν. Κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁμολογοῦμεν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Θεοτόκον, διὰ τὸ τὸν Θεὸν λόγον σαρκωθῆναι καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς ληφθέντα ναόν· τὰς δὲ εὐαγγελικάς καὶ ἀποστολικὰς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου φωνὰς ἴσμεν τοῦς θεολόγους ἄνδρας τὰς μὲν κοινοποιοῦντας, ὡς ἐφ ̓ ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας, ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων· καὶ τὰς μὲν θεοπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰς δὲ ταπεινὰς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ παραδιδόντας.
only adhered to the Bible, although they used expressions that were quite unbiblical. The Logos, they said, became Flesh; this we firmly hold; it is an ineffable miracle. It was more than the assumption of human nature; the Logos had not changed himself; he was still the same; but everything human might be attributed to the Logos; God was born; God suffered; all was divine in Christ, even his body; but no human reason could explain how. The Abbot EUTYCHES stood at the head of the party in Constantinople. Against this monk THEODORET wrote his gaviors (or Mendicant, because this new heresy seemed to be made up of contributions from several ancient ones), or πολύμοςφος, a work in three Dialogues, (i.) ἀσύγχυτος, on the unmixedness of the two Natures; (ii.) ärgerros, their unchangeability; (iii.) άπans, the impassibility of Christ in respect of his divine nature. Against the doctrine of the Evwois puoiný, he adduced the views we have mentioned, of an union of the two natures according to the divine good pleasure and by means of grace, effected not according to a natural and necessary connexion, but by the free divine determination.
Meanwhile, a party had been formed which accepted neither the Antiochian nor the Alexandrian dogma in its extreme form; and between it and THEODORET a good understanding existed. FLAVIAN, the Patriarch of Constantinople, also belonged to it; EUTYCHES was accused before him, and he was obliged to investigate the matter. Such was the origin of the Eutychian controversy.* EUTYCHES, who was not skilled in dogmatic distinctions, declared himself ready to grant that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after it only one; and in saying this he meant nothing different from CYRILL. Furthermore, he objected to the assertion that the body of Christ was essentially the same with the bodies of men in general. As he declined giving the explanations that were required he was deposed and excommunicated, but he had patrons of rank, and FLAVIAN had powerful enemies. DIOSCUROS adopted the expedient of bringing about a new inquiry and decision. A council was again called at Ephesus, A.D. 449, and through the influence of DIOSCUROS, arrange
* Mansi, Concill. vi. vii. Liberati, Breviarium Causa Nestorianor. et Eutychianor. in Mansi, ix. 659. Walch's Ketzerhistorie, vi. Baur, Gesch. d. Lehre, v. d. Dreieinigkeit. i. 800. Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. Der Lehre, v. d. Pers. Christi. ii. 99.
ments were made that gave him and his party the ascendancy. The expedient was adopted of pronouncing an anathema on all innovations which, taking the Nicene Creed as the standard, had been made in this doctrine. Everything relating to the two natures was condemned as Nestorianism. This Synod prepared the way for the ascendancy of the Egyptian party; matters were carried with a high hand; the decisions were forced, and the worthiest men were kept down. This temporary victory was gained by recourse to political power, and hence, as soon as political circumstances altered, a violent reaction would necessarily follow. THEODOSIUS II. died; PULCHERIA and her husband MARCIAN, were his successors; this was the signal for strengthening the influence of the other party. An appeal was now made to the Roman Church, and to LEO the Great, a man of great dialectic acuteness. He had already expressed his opinion in a noted letter to FLAVIAN;* he adopted the mean between the two extremes, and gave the following exposition of his views:-The two Natures are united in one person, but so that each retains its peculiar properties, and but co-operates with the other. Thus the true God was born in a true and perfect human nature: he is complete in his own attributes, and complete in those of human nature; the xvwors is referrible to the divine nature, and consists in its making itself visible out of compassion and grace. As God was not changed through his compassion, so the human nature was not destroyed by the dignity attached to it. Fresh conferences were now commenced, to which Leo became a party, and a new Council was arranged, the fourth Ecumenical
* Ep. ad Flavian. c. 3. Mansi, v. 1359. —Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ et in unam coeunte 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-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.-Assumsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens.-Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura et sicut formam servi Dei forma non ademit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit.-Cap. 4. 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.
at CHALCEDON, A.D. 451. The design of the Emperor was not to crush either party, but to restore peace by their reunion; this, however, was impracticable; it was necessary to declare in favour of one or the other, and the only question was, which was to be the favoured party. In the dogmatic conferences there are many obscure passages, since only what passed in public lies before us, but not the private conferences; specially are data wanting in reference to the fourth and fifth. It is evident that a confession was drawn up which was more to the taste of the Alexandrian party. The promi nent article was the acknowledgment that Christ consisted of two Natures. This the Egyptians could admit as far as the distinction it contained appeared to be expressed in abstracto. But the Roman and Oriental delegates, vehemently asserted their dissatisfaction with the expression, on which account at the fifth conference a new Creed, based on LEO's letter, was drawn up. The doctrine of EUTYCHES was rejected as well as that of NESTORIUS; of those also who refused to call Mary Θεοτόκος. By Nestorianism was understood the separation into two Natures or Sons of God; by Eutychianism the mixture of the two Natures. The positive decisions were ;*—that Christ the only Son of God is of equal essence with the Father according to his divinity; but like men in all things according to his humanity. The one and same Christ is in two Natures without mixture-without change without division-without separation. One Oriental reading has ex δύο φίσεων, but this is not the original one ; for the whole con
Mansi, vi. p. 108.—ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐνθεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεόν 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' ἐσχατων 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, υἱὸν, κύριον, μονογενῆ ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνηρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἕν 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.
troversy turned upon this point, whether Christ was to be regarded as consisting of two Natures according to the Egyptian mode of doctrine, or in two Natures. It was further added, that by the Union, the distinction of the two Natures was not taken away; both natures with their respective characteristics are united to one πρόσωπον and to one ὑπόστασις.
It cannot be said that this Council resulted in the establishment of a good understanding and a settlement of differences, but a mean was sought between them by saving clauses and negative distinctions on both sides. In respect of form, the Antiochian doctrine maintained its ground, inasmuch as the doctrine of the two natures unconfounded was distinctly stated. But the attempt of this School to explain the union of the divine essence with human nature by means of analogies, was repelled: hence also Agnoëtism remained under the brand of heresy. In a material reference the Antiochian spirit had no influence, but the Egyptian School prevailed, as appears in the adoption of the predicate Jsoróxos, and in the general doctrinal development. We perceive a deep connexion in the historical development; as so important a theological element as the Antiochian could not retain its proper place, later reactions followed as in the Adoptianist Controversy,* and after the Reformation in Rationalism. But as to the immediate results, peace could not be restored in the Eastern Church by the decisions of the Council; for the advocates of the strict Egyptian doctrine felt themselves encroached upon, and continued to maintain the doctrine of the one nature of the Incarnate Logos. Hence originated the Monophysite controversies, which were so injurious to the Greek Church by the confusion and barren formalism which they occasioned. Attempts to unite contending parties by feigned reconciliations have always been attended with the same consequences. Such an attempt the Emperor Zeno made by means of his Henoticon,† which avoided the words puas and iróσrasis from which the dispute arose, and asserted that Christ was of the same essence with the Father according to his Divinity, and with us according to his Humanity: that he was one and not two. The attempt was fruitless, and the Monophysites persisted in their separation. In the reign
THE MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSIES.
*Neander's Ch. Hist. v. 220-228.
Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 14. Münscher, i. 306.