clearly perceiving, that thus the specific difference between our Saviour and the rest of mankind was in danger of being set aside, strongly opposed both the new doctrine and the festival.3 Nor did Albert the Great, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, and the order of the Dominicans in general, approve of what had been done. 4 On the other hand, the Franciscan monk, Duns Scotus, endeavoured to refute their objections, and to demonstrate, by subtile reasoning, that the superiority of the Redeemer, so far from being lessened, was augmented, by supposing that he himself was the cause of this righteousness in the nature of Mary.5 The Church hesitated for a long time without coming to a decision. 6 Pope Sixtus IV., at last, confirmed the festival of the immaculate conception, and declared, that the doctrine itself should not be called heretical, without, however, prohibiting those who differed from retaining their own views ↳ Thus the controversy did not come to an end, especially as the tendency of the age was rather favourable to the doctrine in question.8

1 Thus Anselm de pecc. orig. drew a distinct line between the birth of John the Baptist (which was relatively miraculous, but did not, on that account, render him sinless), and the incarnation of the Redeemer (which excluded original sin.)

2 Concerning the worship of the Virgin in general, see § 188, on the worship of saints. The controversy on the immaculate conception was preceded by that carried on between Paschasius Radbert and Ratramnus, concerning the virginity of Mary. Comp. § 179, towards the end. Radbert himself maintained that Mary was sanctificata in utero matris (in d'Ackery Spic. Tom. i. p. 46), but it is difficult precisely to define what he understood by that expression (compare the following note.) It was, however, not only the worship of the Virgin as such, which led to the supposition of her immaculate conception, but this seemed a necessary inference from doctrinal premises. Theologians so acute as the scholastics could not but be aware that, in order to explain

the miracle of Christ's sinfulness on physical grounds, it was not sufficient to assert that man had no part in his generation; for as long as his mother was supposed to be stained with original sin, it was impossible to deny the part which she had in that event, unless they had recourse (after the manner of the Docetæ, and the Valentinians, in particular) to a mere birth dà owλñvos (comp. vol. i. § 65.) Anselm endeavoured to remove this difficulty, by leaving the physical aspect of original sin more or less out of question, (comp. the preceding §), de pecc. orig. c. 8. and c. 11. He decidedly rejected the doctrine of immaculate conception in his treatise cur Deus homo ii. c. 16: Virgo tamen ipsa, unde assumtus est, est in iniquitatibus concepta, et in peccatis concepit eam mater ejus, et cum originali peccato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Compare the latter part of that chapter, and ch. 17.a

3 Bernardi Ep. 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, quoted by Gieseler ii. 2. p. 429; and Münscher, edit. by Von Colln, p. 136. He, too, admitted that Mary had been sanctified in the womb (as Paschasius taught), but he did not draw from that doctrine the inference that she was free from original sin (quatenus adversus originale peccatum hæc ipsa sanctificatio valuerit, non temere dixerim), and continues as follows: Etsi quibus vel paucis filiorum hominum datum est cum sanctitate nasci, non tamen et concipi, ut uni sane servaretur sancti prærogativa conceptus, qui omnes sanctificaret, solusque absque peccato veniens, purgationem faceret peccatorum, etc.

4 Albert M. Sent. Lib. iii. Dis. 3. iii. Qu. 27. Art. 2. Bonav. in Sent. Lib.

Thom. Aqu. Summ. P. iii. Dist. 3. Art. 1. Qu. 2, (quoted by Gieseler 1. c. and Münscher ed. by Von Cölln, p. 136, 37.)

5 In Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 3. Qu. 1. and. Dist. 18. Qu. 1. (quoted by Gieseler); see Schröckh, Kirchengesch, xxxiii. p. 362, ss. Cramer vii. p. 567, ss.

6 See Gieseler 1. c. p. 431. The council of Oxford (A. D. 1222)

• Those theologians who sought to clear the mother of Christ from the guilt of original sin, did not bear in mind, that they only pushed the miracle one step further back, without entirely removing it; for in that case the parents of Mary must have been free from original sin, and again their parents, etc., and so on up to Adam. Bernard of Clairval seemed to perceive this difficulty. Compare his epistle to the canons of Lyons, mentioned note 3.

pronounced against the necessity of the festival; on the question whether the university of Paris pronounced in favour of it, see Gieseler. It was definitely adopted by the Synod of Basle, Sess. xxxvi. (A. D. 1439, Sept. 17th) in Harduini Concc. T. viii. Col. 1266: Nos......doctrinam illam disserentem gloriosam virginem Dei genitricem Mariam, præveniente et operante divini numinis gratia singulari, nunquam actualiter subjacuisse originali peccato, sed immunem semper fuisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa sanctamque et immaculatam, tamquam piam et consonam cultui ecclesiastico, fidei catholicæ, rectæ rationi et sacræ scripturæ, ab omnibus catholicis approbandam fore, tenendam et amplectendam, diffinimus et declaramus, nullique de cætero licitum esse in contrarium prædicare seu docere. (The celebration of the festival was fixed upon December 8th.)

7 See the bulls of Pope Sixtus IV., dated Febr. 27th, A. D. 1477, and Sept. 4th, A. D. 1483, in Extravagant. comm. Lib. iii. Tit. 12. Cap. 1. and 2. (quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 168, 169.) Comp. Gieseler ii. 4. p. 338, 39.

8 Even some of those who afterwards espoused the cause of the Reformation, were zealous advocates of the doctrine in question, such as Manuel, a poet of Berne, who wrote on the occasion of the scandalous affair of Jetzer. Compare his "Lied von der reinen unbefleckten Empfängniss" in the work of Grüneisen, Nic. Manuel p. 297, ss., where he also quoted the Fathers as authorities, even Anselm (!) and Thomas Aquinas.

25

FOURTH SECTION.

CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY.

§ 179.

THE OPINIONS OF THE GREEK CHURCH RESPECTING CHRISTOLOGY. THE ADOPTION CONTROVERSY IN THE WEST, AND THE HERESY OF NIHILIANISM.

* Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, p. 106, ss. Walch, Ch. G. F., historia Adoptianorum. Gott. 1755-8. Frobenii Dissertatio historica de hæresi Elipandi et Felicis (in his edition of the Works of Alcuin, T. i. p. 923, ss.)

John

THE Monothelite controversy having at last been brought to a close in the East, no further objections were raised against the ecclesiastical doctrine of two natures and two wills in one and the same person. But, in the course of the controversy respecting images, the question, whether it was right to represent Christ in a bodily form, gave rise to a renewed discussion concerning the relation of the Divine to the human nature. Damascenus, in particular, endeavoured to reconcile the doctrine of two natures and two wills, with the unity of person, by regarding the divine nature as that which constitutes the person, and by illustrating the mutual relation in which the two natures stand to each other, through the use of the phrases τρόπος ἀντιδόσεως, and Tegrywgnois.1 The Greek theologians in general adopt

ed his views.2 The orthodox doctrine was again endangered by the Adoption interpretation of the Sonship of Christ, advanced by several Spanish bishops, especially Elipandus of Toledo, and Felix of Urgella, whom Alcuin and others successfully combated. The adoption theory, by making a distinction between an adopted son and a natural one, would have restored Nestorianism, though with some slight modifications.3 Peter Lombard's opinion of the Son of God having not become anything by the assumption of our nature (because no change can take place in the divine nature), was branded with the appellation of the heresy of Nihilianism, though he advanced it without any evil intention, and was falsely interpreted as if Christ had become nothing.1 Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, endeavoured to develope the ecclesiastical doctrine of Christology on a philosophical basis.5 It had, however, its two aspects: the dialectico-scholastic on the one hand, and the mystical, practico-moral on the other, as its complement. The true mystics, some of whom despised all the subtile reasonings of the schools, while others partly adopted them, regarded Christ, as it were, as the Divine representative, or the restored prototype of humanity.6 On the contrary, the false mystics changed the historical Christ into a mere idea.

1 Joh. Dam. de fide orth. iii. c. 2, ss. p. 205: où yàp πроüποστάσῃ καθ' ἑαυτὴν σαρκὶ ἡνώθη ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ἀλλ ̓........ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος, γενόμενος τῇ σαρκὶ ὑπόστασις, ὥστε ἅμα σὰρξ, ἅμα θεοῦ λόγου σὰρξ, ἅμα σὰρξ ἔμψυχος, λογική τε καὶ νοερά· διὸ οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀποθεωθέντα λέγομεν, ἀλλὰ θεὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ὢν γὰρ φύσει τέλειος θεός, γέγονε φύσει τέλειος ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτὸς, κ. τ. λ. Concerning the terms τρόπος ἀντιδόσεως (communicatio idiomatum), and TPXpnois (immeatio), see ch. 3 and 4, p. 210: καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἀντιδόσεως, έκα τέρας φύσεως ἀντιδιδούσης τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὰ ἴδια διὰ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα, καὶ τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα αὐτῶν περιχώρησιν κατὰ τοῦτο δυνάμεθα