spirit of Cyril, but with better success. A controversy which arose at Constantinople, respecting Eutyches, afforded him an opportunity, in a new general council at Ephesus, A. D. 449, to put down the opposing party, although the Roman Bishop, Leo the Great, warmly remonstrated. Yet, soon after, his hard gained victory was again wrested from him, by the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 461; and a precise formula, in regard to the contested points, was established.

References. Leo Magn. Ep. ad Flavianum : ed. Henke, Helmst. 1781, also in his Opusc. Arademica, Helmst. 1802. 8vo.

The formula of Chalcedon: Επόμενοι τοινυν τοις ἅγιοις πα πρασιν, ἕνα και τον αυτον ὁμολογέον υιον του κυριον ἡμων Ιήσουν χριστον, συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδασκομεν, τέλειον τον αυτον ἐν θεότητι και τελείον τον αυτον ἐν ἀνθρωποτητι, θεον ἀληθινον, και άνθρωπον άληθως τον αυτον ἐκ ψυχης λογικής και σώματος, ὁμοουσίον τῷ πατρὶ κατα την θεότητα, και ὁμοούσιον τον αυτον ἡμιν κατα την ανθρωποτητα, κατα πάντα όμοιον ἡμιν, χωρίς ἁμαρτίας. προ αιώνων μεν ἐκ του πατρός γεννηπεντα κατα την θεότητα, ἐπ' ἐσχατων δε των ήμερων τον αυτον δι ἡμας και δια την ημετεραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας της θεοτόκου κατα την ἀνθρωπότητα, ένα και τον αυτον χριστον, διον, κυριον, μονογενη, ἐκ δυο φυσεων (ἐν δυο φύσεσιν) ἀσυγ χυτως, ἀτρέπτως, αδιαιρέτως ἀχωριστῶς γνωριζομενον, ουδαμου της των φυσεων διαφορας ανηρημένης δια την ένωσιν, σωζομένης δε μάλλον της ιδιότητος έκατέρας φύσεως και ἐς ἓν προσωπον και μιαν ὑποστασιν συντρεχούσης, ουκ εις δυο πρόσωπα μεριζόμονον ή διαιρουμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα και τον αυτον διον και μονογενη, Θεον λογον, κυριον Ἰησουν χριςον καθαπερ άνωθεν δι προφηται περι αυτου, και αυτος ἡμας ὁ κύριος Ιησους ἐξεπαίδευσε και το των πατέρων ήμιν παραδέδωκε συμβολον.

SEC. 84. Subsequent Contests.

The formula of Chalcedon, did not meet universal approbation; and a numerous body of Monophysites, separated themselves from the other churches. The attempt of the Emperor Zeno, to win them back, by means of his Henoticon, produced no lasting effect. In the entire La

tin church, and in a large part of the Greek church, the formula of Chalcedon was received; and it was annexed to the, so called, Athanasian Creed. The Monophysite contests were followed, by that of the Theopaschites, and that concerning the three chapters, (de tribus capitulis,) which were decided in the fifth general Council. There was also, dissension among the Monophysites, respecting the incorruptibility of Christ's body; in which the Emperor Justinian took part.

Sed

Reference. Second Part of the Athanasian Creed: necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia dominus noster Jesus Christus, dei filius, deus pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia patris ante saecula genitus: homo ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationalitet humana carne subsistens, aequalis patri secundum divinitatem, minor patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet deus sit et homo, non duo tamen sed unus est Christus ; unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnio non confusione substantiarum sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita et deus et homo unus est christus, qui pas sus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in coelos, sedet ad dexteram patris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere debent cum corporibus suis, et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem, et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam, qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisquam fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit,

CHAPTER VII.

DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION BY JESUS CHRIST.

SEC. 85. The general and constant doctrine of the Church.

That men need to be redeemed, because they are involved in ignorance, error, and sin; that Jesus Christ has promulged God's plan, for the redemption of men; that it is through him, they obtain forgiveness of sins, power and help to become virtuous, and the hope of blessedness; and that faith in Jesus Christ, forsaking sin, and practising goodness, are means for the attainment of the blessings of christianity; all christians, unitedly, and constantly, believed. But these simple propositions were capable of diversified explanations, and they gave rise to various questions and investigations; so that the teachers found abundant matter, to exercise and employ their powers of reflection and discrimination.

SEC. 86. Nature of man.

To explain the nature of redemption, we must keep in view the degeneracy of mankind; and not to cast the blame of this on God, we must go back to the nature and the original character of mankind. The universal doctrine of the church, was that God created mankind, and with ability to good; and especially, that he endued them with freedom. Yet it remained undetermined, whether man consists of two(1) parts, [body and soul,] or of three(2) [body, soul, and spirit ;] whether the soul is to be considered as corporeal, as Tertullian(3), and after him many others supposed; and what origin is to be ascribed to the soul. In regard to the last point, the opinions of the Gnostics(4) and Manichaeans(5) were rejected; the early opinion, that the soul is a part or a breath from God(6), was gradually discarded; and Origen's(7) hypothesis, of the pre-existence of souls, sunk into dis

repute, and was at last condemned. On the contrary, the two theories,-of the creation, and of the derivation, of the soul, both prevailed, without either's gaining a complete ascendency.

1) So Tertullian, and probably Lactantius.

2) So Clemens Alex. and Origen.

(3) de Anima. c. 51.

4) They held the spirit of man to be a ray, or spark of light, from the Pleroma; but the sensitive soul, to be the creation of the Demiurge.

(5) They held the rational soul, to be a particle from the world of light, stolen by the Prince of darkness; but the sensitive soul, to be the creation of the devil.

(6) So thought Justin M. (Dial. p. 106.) Tatian, (Orat.p. 253 &c.) and Tertullian, (de Anim. c. 3, 11.) (7) de Princip. passim.

SEC. 87. Endowments of men.

The fathers speak most frequently, of two endowments of men; namely, the immortality of the soul, and the image of God. Some of the earlier fathers, as Justin(1), Tatian(2), Theophilus(3), and after them, Arnobius(4) and Lactantius(5), believed the soul to be, naturally, mortal; but that God rewards it with immortality. Tertullian (6), on the contrary, and Origen, who were followed by the subsequent fathers, supposed the soul to be immortal, in its nature; and they supported this opinion by various arguments(7). The image of God in men, some of the earlier fathers indeed referred to the body(8); but the Alexandrians(9) took pains, to suppress an opinion so gross. They(10) discriminated between the image of God, and likeness to him; understanding by the former, rational endowments; and by the latter, virtuous sensibilities. Most of the succeeding fathers(11) coincided with them; yet some of them explained the image of God, to denote dominion over the creatures. The Mosaic account of the state and the apostacy of the first human pair, was generally understood

to be proper history; but Origen(12), viewing the literal sense of it, to be absurd, interpreted it allegorically.

(1) Dial.

p. 107 &c.

(2) Orat. p. 249, 254.

(3) ad Autol. Lib. II. p. 368.

(4) adv. Gentes Lib. II. p.52 &c.

(5) Instit. div. VII. c. 5, 9, 10, 11 &c.

(6) de Anima c. 51.—Also Irenaeus adv. Haer. V. c. and II. c. 34.

4, 7. (7) Origen argued from the nature of the soul, it being a spirit, like God and the angels, (de Princip. IV. § 36 :) also from the longing of the soul after immortality. Exhort. ad Martyros.

(8) Justin M. Fragm. de Resurrect. Irenaeus adv. Haeres. V. c. 6. Clementina, Homil. III. c. 8. Lactant, Instit. div. II. c. 10.

(9) Clemens, Strom. Lib. II, p. 483. Origen, contra Cels. in Opp. T. I. p. 680. and T. II. p. 57.

(10) Clemens, Strom. Lib. II. p. 499. Origen, Opp. T. I. p.522.

(11) Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. IV. c. 4,38. and V. c. 16. Tertullian, contra Marcion. Lib. II. c. 5, de Baptismo, c. 5. (12) adv. Cels. Lib. IV. Opp. T.I. p. 539 &c. de. Princip. Lib. IV. p. 175.

SEC. 88. Origin and propagation of sin, according to the Greek fathers.

Historians: J. G. Walch, Historia doctrinae de Peccato originis;-in his Miscell. sacra. A. D. 1744. 4to. Jo. Horn, Commentatio de sententiis eorum patrum, quorum auctoritas ante Augustinum plurimum valuit, de peccato originali. Gotting. 1801. 4to.

According to the Gnostics, and the Manichaeans, the sinfulness of mankind, arose from their souls being connected with material bodies. The Greek fathers(1) believed that, in consequence of Adam's sin, not only he, but his posterity also, became mortal. But all sin, they traced to the free choice of men: yet they allowed, that