quæ affixæ clavis sunt pro me. Cf. Herzog, Realenc. xvi. s. 15. § 103. Various Modifications of the Monophysite Doctrine. Aphthartodocetæ, Phthartolatri, Agnoëtæ. J. C. L. Gieseler, Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum veterum Variæ de Christi Persona Opiniones inprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur. Part. i. ii. Gött. 1838, 4to. The Monophysites themselves were not agreed on the question whether Christ possessed a corruptible or an incorruptible body. The Phthartolatri (Severians) maintained the former; the Aphthartodoceto (Julianists) asserted the latter, in accordance with their Monophysite premisses respecting the nature of Christ. Different views obtained among the Aphthartodocetæ themselves on the question whether Christ's body was created or not, and led to the formation of two distinct parties, the Ktistolatri and the Aktisteto (1). The omniscience of Christ necessarily followed from the Monophysite doctrine. The assertion, therefore, of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, that Christ as man was ignorant of many things (Agnoëtism, Mark xiii. 32; Luke ii. 25), was rejected by the strict Monophysites (2). (1) SOURCES: Leont. Byzant. (in Gallandii Bibl. Patr. xii.). Niceph. Callisti, lib. xvii. Gieseler (in the 2d Part of the dissertation cited before) endeavours to prove that the view of the Julianists was by no means purely Docetic, but allied to that taken by Clement of Alexandria, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, etc., and that it also bore resemblance to the opinions entertained by Apollinaris. Xenaias (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis, and the contemporary of Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, appears as the representative of this view (Gieseler, s. 7). Different meanings were attached to the word peopá, which was made at one time to denote the frailty of the living body, and its susceptibility to suffering; at another, to signify the dissolubility of the corpse (ibidem, s. 4). (2) On the orthodox side, Gregory the Great (Epist. x. 35, 39) declared against Agnoëtism. On the controversy in the West, with Leporius, a monk of Gaul (about 426), who also taught Agnoëtism in connection with the doctrines of Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Neander, Dg. s. 354. [He contended 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 also taught a progressive revelation of the divine Logos in the human nature to which he was united, and Agnoëtism.] Though the orthodox Church was far from giving the least countenance to Docetism, yet the ideas entertained by Origen in the preceding period (see § 66, note 6), viz., that Christ rose from the tomb with a glorified body, found many more friends in the present period. Not only Hilary, whose views, generally speaking, come nearest to those of the Docetæ, but also Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the eastern theologians, with the exception of Ephraem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria, adopted more or less the notion of Origen. Thus Chrysostom says in reference to John xxi. 10: ἐφαίνετο γὰρ ἄλλη μορφή, ἄλλη φωνῇ, ἄλλῳ xμar; in support of his opinion he appealed especially to the appearance of Christ when the doors were shut. On the other hand, the last-named Fathers of the Eastern Church, as well as the western theologians, Jerome in particular, asserted that Christ possessed the very same body both prior and anterior to His resurrection. Cyril firmly maintains that Christ was i cúμarı xaxsĩ. Augustine and Leo the Great, on the contrary, endeavoured to reconcile the notion of the identity of Christ's body with the idea of its glorification. Thus Leo says in Sermo 69, de Resurrect. Dom. cap. 4 (t. i. p. 73): Resurrectio Domini non finis carnis, sed commutatio fuit, nec virtutis augmento consumta substantia est. Qualitas transiit, non natura deficit : et factum est corpus impassibile, immortale, incorruptibile... nihil remansit in carne Christi infirmum, ut et ipsa sit per essentiam et non sit ipsa per gloriam. Gregory the Great and others used similar language. - Most of the theologians of this period also adhered to the opinion that Christ had quickened Himselj by His own power, in opposition to the notion entertained by the Arians, viz. that the Father had raised Him from the dead. For the doctrine of the two natures in Christ led them to imagine that the union subsisting between the divine and the human was so intimate and permanent, that both His body and soul, after their natural separation by death, continued to be connected with His divine nature, the body in the grave, the soul in Hades. Nor did Christ stand in need of the angel to roll away the stone; this took place only in consequence of His resurrec tion. His ascension was likewise the self-exaltation of the Godhead in Him, not a miracle wrought by the Father upon Him (generally speaking, theologians were accustomed at this time to consider the miracles of Christ as works achieved by His divine nature). The cloud which formerly enveloped all the events of Christ's life was now changed into a triumphal car (öxnua) accompanied by angels. Comp. Athan. De Assumt. Dom.; and for further particulars, see Müller, 1.c. p. 40 ss., p. 83 ss. § 104. The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ.-Monothelites. T. Com'efisii, Historia Monothelitarum, in the second volume of his Nov. Auctuarium Bibl. PP. Græco-Latin. Par. 1648, fol. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, vol. ix. s. 1-606. Pressel in Herzog, Realenc. ix. s. 752 ff. The attempt made by the Emperor Heraclius, in the seventh century, to re-unite the Monophysites with the Catholic Church, led to the controversy respecting the two wills in Christ, akin to that concerning His natures (1). In agreement with Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, the emperor, hoping to reconcile the two parties, adopted the doctrine of only one divine-human energy (évépyeta), and of one will in Christ (2). But Sophronius, an acute monk of Palestine, afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 635), endeavoured to show that this doctrine was inadmissible, since the doctrine of two natures, set forth by the Synod of Chalcedon, necessarily implied that of two wills (3). After several fruitless attempts had been made to establish the Monothelite doctrine (4), the sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680), with the co-operation of the Bishop of Rome (5), adopted the doctrine of two wills and two energies as the orthodox doctrine, but decided that the human will must always be conceived as subordinate to the divine (6). (1) In this way the controversy was removed from the province of pure metaphysics into the moral and practical sphere, and thus brought into connection with the anthropological disputes, as there had also been occasion for this in the Apollinarist strife (see above). But this did not help the Inatter itself. (2) When the Emperor Heraclius, in the course of his campaign against Persia, passed through Armenia and Syria, he came to an understanding with the Monophysite leaders of the Severians and Jacobites, and induced Sergius, the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, to give his assent to the doctrine of ἓν θέλημα καὶ μία ἐνέργεια, or of an ἐνέργεια θεανδρική. Cyrus (a Monophysite), whom the emperor had appointed patriarch of Alexandria, effected, at a synod held in that place (A.D. 633), a union between the different parties. The acts of this synod are given by Mansi, Conc. xi. p. 564 ss., as well as the letters of Cyrus, ibid. p. 561. (3) See Sophronii Epist. Synodica, which is given in Mansi, xi. 461. Those Monophysites who maintained the doctrine of two natures, and of only one will, were quite as inconsistent as most of the orthodox theologians in the Arian controversy, who held that the Son was of the same essence with the Father, but asserted a subordination of the Spirit. (4) The Greek emperor at first endeavoured to settle the matter amicably by the "Exeσis [an edict issued by the Emperor Heraclius, A.D. 638, in which he confirmed the agreement made by the patriarchs for the preservation of ecclesiastical union] and the Túπos [an edict issued by the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 648, in which the contending parties were prohibited from resuming their discussions on the doctrine in question]. See Mansi, x. p. 992, p. 1029 ss. Afterwards Martin 1. and Maximus were treated with the most shameful cruelty; for further particulars, see Neander, Kg. iii. s. 377 ff. (5) Pope Honorius was in favour of the union, but his successors, Severinus and John IV., opposed it. The latter condemned the doctrine of the Monothelites, and Theodore excommunicated Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, till the doctrine of two wills and two energies was at last adopted at the first synod of the Lateran, held under Martin I., Bishop of Rome, in the year 649; see Mansi, x. p. 863 s. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos cum una voluntate et una operatione, quæ ab hæreticis impie confitetur, et duas voluntates, pariterque et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanam, quæ in ipso Christo Deo in unitate salvantur, et a sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipso prædicantur, denegat et respuit, condemnatus sit. (Comp. Gieseler, Kg. i. s. 666. Münscher, von Cölln, ii. 78, 79.) (6) This council (also called the First Trullan) was summoned by Constantinus Pogonatus. The decision of the synod was based upon the epistle of Agatho, the Roman bishop, which HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. I. 2 C was itself founded upon the canons of the above Lateran synod (Agathonis Ep. ad Imperatores, in Mansi, xi. 233–286), confessing belief in duæ naturales voluntates et duæ naturales operationes, non contrariæ, nec adversæ, nec separatæ, etc. This was followed by the decision of the council itself (see Mansi, xi. 631 s. Münscher, von Cölln, ii. s. 80. Gieseler, lc.). Δύο φυσικὰς θελήσεις ἤτοι θελήματα ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ δύο φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμεριστως, ἀσυγχύτως, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων διδασκαλίαν κηρύτ τομεν· καὶ δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα οὐχ ὑπεναντία, μὴ γένοιτο, καθὼς οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἔφησαν αἱρετικοί· ἀλλ ̓ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ θέλημα, καὶ μὴ ἀντιπαλαῖον, μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πανσθενεῖ θελήματι. -Respecting the insufficiency of these, and the indefiniteness of the other canons of the council, see Dorner (1ste Ausg.), s. 99 ff.-The Reformers did not accept the decisions of this council. The Monothelites (Pope Honorius included) were condemned. They continued to exist as a distinct sect in the mountains of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon under the name of Maronites (which was derived from their leader, the Syrian abbot Marun, who lived about the year 701). Comp. Neander, 1.c. s. 398. [Baur, Dogmengesch. s. 211, says of this controversy: "Its elements on the side of the Monothelites were, the unity of the person or subject, from whose one will (the divine will of the incarnate Logos) all must proceed, since two wills also presuppose two personal subjects (the chief argument of Bishop Theodore of Pharan, in Mansi, tom. xi. p. 567); on the side of the Duothelites, the point was the fact of two natures, since two natures cannot be conceived without two natural wills and two natural modes of operation. How far, then, two wills can be without two persons willing, was the point at which they slipped away by mere assumptions."] § 105. Practical and Religious Significance of Christology during this Period. Unedifying as is the spectacle of these manifold controversies, in which the person of the Redeemer is dragged down |