« PoprzedniaDalej »
of JUSTINIAN the Chalcedonian creed gained a more complete victory, though a Monophysite party still continued to stand aloof. But since the distinction of the predicates in Christ was allowed by this party, and only that of the two natures was excluded, it may be easily understood how similar differences might arise among the Monophysites themselves, and in what position they stood in relation to the dominant Church; but these differences always degenerated into mere logomachies. There was among the Monophysites a more rigid and a milder party, who engaged in a dispute respecting the qualities of the body and soul of Christ. JULIUS of HALICARNASSUS was a representative of the former; he was held in high repute and taught the doctrine which has been distinguished as Aphthartodocetism; he maintained, very much like CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA and HILARY of POICTIERS, that since the body of Christ was without sin it must have been different from those of other men; that pogá did not cleave to him; and that hence it followed that Christ could not have been subject to sensuous affections according to his bodily nature, but only xar' oixovoulav, voluntarily, for the salvation of men. To this party also belonged XENAYAS, or PHILOXENUS. In opposition to this tendency was that of SEVERUS, who taught that the body of Christ was precisely similar to that of other men. His party was styled by their opponents Phthartolatrai. Aphthartodocetism found some adherents among those who held the doctrine of two natures, and as such a sentiment had to the Emperor Justinian an appearance of piety, it seemed not unlikely that this doctrine would be introduced into the Eastern Church. But his death shortly ensued and prevented new and unspeakable disorders. Many among the Monophysites acknowledged the purely human of Christ's soul. The deacon THEMESTIUS distinguished the divine in Christ from his soul, and adopted the doctrine of Agnoëtism. He was disposed to interpret in a strictly literal sense all the passages of the New Testament, in which Christ's not knowing is spoken of. Agnoëtism was pronounced heretical as a consequence of Nestorianism. Among those who declared against it was GREGORY the GREAT.*
The quiet development of this doctrine in the Western Church was now interrupted by the controversy with the Gallic monk Epp. lib. x. 35, 39.
(already mentioned) LEPORIUS, about A.D. 426. His doctrine, in its development, defence, and results, bore a striking resemblance to that of THEODORE of MOPSUESTIA, though it cannot be proved that it was denied from his writings. He contended, like THEODORE, for the unconditional transference of the predicates of the human nature to the divine, and consequently for such expressions as "God was born"- God died;" he taught likewise a progressive revelation of the divine Logos in the human nature to which he was united, and Agnoëtism. He was accused of denying the true Incarnation of the Son of God, and of admitting two persons in Christ; being excommunicated he retired to North Africa. AUGUSTIN endeavoured to settle the controversy, to make LEPORIUS sensible of what was objectionable in his peculiar views, and induced him to give an explanation* with which the bishops of Gaul were satisfied. We see from this, what statements of this doctrine were regarded as essentially Christian in the Western Church before the Nestorian controversy; they were these that in Christ two natures are joined in one substance; that the Word and the Flesh are so united that each substance remains with its proper completeness, without mutual encroachment; that the Divinity is communicated to the Humanity, and the Humanity to the Divinity; that Christ did not advance to Divinity through certain degrees and times, and was not in two different states before and after the Resurrection, but always possessed the same perfection and power. Whether a man so acute as LEPORIUS really altered his views, or only yielded to authority, is very doubtful. The reasons which AUGUSTIN employed: I believe that God is unable to do only what he does not will to do, and that if he willed to be born-as it is certain that he did will it-he could be born, and that he did not believe it unworthy of himself to become man for our sake, since he did not think it unworthy of himself to create the human being by whom man must be born"—such reasons were certainly not sufficient to convince LEPORIUS, for the question with him was not respecting the Incarnation of the Logos generally, but, assuming the reality of that, whether such expressions as those referred to, were justifiable.
* Libellus Emendationis et Satisfactionis, Mansi, iv. p. 519.
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HUMAN SOUL.
In determining the nature of the human soul, a controversy arose between those who regarded it as something corporeal, and those who thought it to be spiritual. The former representation was not now founded, as in the case of TERTULLIAN, on an incapacity generally, to imagine the existence of a pure spirit; this sensuous limitation had been for a long while overcome; but the question in dispute was, whether any created spirit could be a pure spirit; whether the idea of a creature did not include that of corporeity. HILARY of POICTIERS Shows a trace of this in his commentary on Matt. v. 8: "All creatures must have something on which their existence is founded (that is, a body)." DYDIMUS* regarded the Angels as pure Spirits in relation to us, but as heavenly bodies as to their distance from the infinite essence of God. In the latter part of the fifth century a controversy arose in Gaul on this subject. FAUSTUS, the Bishop of REJI, in Provence, propounded the above-mentioned view in his work, De Creaturis.† He appears to have been led to adopt it by his opposition to Arianism, which had spread among the German tribes in his neighbourhood; for he tried to prove that if the Son of God was to be regarded as a creature, he must also be thought of as a corporeal being; either he was a Divine Being, or at an infinite distance from God, a creature limited in his nature and within the bounds of space and time. The difference between Spirit and Body belonged to the distance between God and the creature. If thought was adduced as a proof of the spirituality of the soul, he rejoined, that the essence and the acts of the soul must be distinguished; that thought belongs not to its essence, for it may be conceived to exist without thinking. CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, a Presbyter, of Vienne,‡ came forward as his antagonist, a man of superior speculative talent, and well versed in Augustin's Metaphysics. He showed that thought
* De Spir. S. ii. cap. 4.—Οἱ ἄγγελοι πνεύματα, καθὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀσώματοι, σώματα ἐπουράνια διὰ τὸ ἀπείρως ἀπέχειν τοῦ ἀκτίστου πνεύματος.
Bibl. Patr Lugdun. tom. viii.
Three books. De Statu Animæ, to Sidonius Apollinaris. Biblioth. Patr. Lugdun. tom. vi.
MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE, ETC.
is inseparable from the essence of the Soul, and that its spiritual activity is indestructible; it is apparent, from dreams, that its activity is uninterrupted.
2. OF MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE; OF SIN, GRACE, AND
In the preceding period an antagonism had been developed between the Alexandrian Theologians who strongly advocated the doctrine of Free Will, and those of the Western Church who laid greater stress than the former on the depravity of man and the importance of Grace; yet these tendencies had never been formed into exclusive contrarieties. The former still retained the preponderance in the East. In common with the Western Church there was an acknowledgment of the want of Redemption and the necessity of Grace: but the operation of Grace was always supposed to be conditioned by the Free Will. More precise distinctions were avoided. GREGORY of NYSSA, for example, was shy of everything which could encroach on Free Will. Unconditional predestination was decidedly denied; a divine prescience in reference to the free self-determination of Man was allowed, and the passages relating to it in Paul's Epistles were explained unnaturally with dogmatic prejudice. The Western Church pursued its own divergent path; but till the Pelagian controversy arose, aimed at keeping Grace and Free Will in harmony with one another, so that there was no open opposition to the Orientals. This stage of the development is represented by HILARY of POICTIERS and AMBROSE of MILAN.
The ancient Latin translation of Rom. v. 12, p' TÁVTES huagrov by in quo (Adamo) omnes peccaverunt was not without influence on the doctrine of hereditary depravity, although this exegetical error would not have given rise to the doctrine, if there had not been in addition the general consciousness of sin. HILARY* recognises an hereditary sin in connexion with the first sin; he speaks of sins to which man is inclined by nature, and derives them from Adam's sin; for he says that
Tractat. in Pss. i. § 4.-Ad hæc nos vitia naturæ propellet instinctus.
In Matth. 18, § 6.-Ovis una homo intelligendus est et sub
in Adam's sin the whole race sinned, though without explaining precisely how. He contrasts original sin with regeneration by the Holy Spirit, through which man is freed from sinfulness. The consciousness of the need of Redemption is pre-supposed, and that forgiveness of sins is only a gift of divine grace.* The forgiveness of sins, he says, which the Law cannot effect, is obtained through faith; faith alone justifies. According to the old Latin version justificatio in the Latin Church was understood of making just or righteous, that is, of subjective sanctification, which continued in later times to be the Catholic doctrine; yet HILARY seems according to the connexion to have intended by it objective justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sins, especially if the words are compared.‡ Works of righteousness do not suffice to merit perfect happiness if God's mercy in this willing of righteousness did not overlook the faults of human mutability." Accordingly we must suppose that HILARY firmly held the Pauline doctrine, that no man can fulfil the requirements of the Law, but must always fall short of them. Yet on this point there is a remarkable contradiction. Before AUGUSTIN, no sharp distinction was made in the various applications of the idea of Law-the Mosaic Law in its historically defined form, and as a representation of the
eternal Divine Law-the verbal and outward construction of it, and the moral law in a strict sense as an objective representation of all moral requirements. If regarded in that limited form, the result was, that the fulfilling of the Law was viewed as something imperfect, and there was a higher standpoint above it, with which was connected the doctrine of the Consilia Evangelica. Corresponding to this distinction, there was, according to HILARY, a twofold stage of Salvation.§ Thus he asserts a righteousness of the Law; which leads to
homine uno universitas sentienda est. Sed in unius Adæ errore omne hominum genus aberravit.
* In Matth. ix. 2.
+ In Matth. viii. 6.-Remissum est a Christo, quod lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola justificat. Neander's Ch. Hist. iv. 281.
In Psalm 51, § 25.
§ In Ps. 68, § 24.-Nec ambiguum est, eos in viventium libro esse qui antea sine ulla Christi cognitione pie in lege versati omnia prescripta legis impleverint. Scribuntur autem in libro justorum, quibus justitia Christus est factus,