gradually growing, therefore He concealed Himself and kept daily appearing wiser to those who saw and heard Him... But because He was ever wiser and more gracious to those who saw Him, therefore He was said to advance, the advance being in fact relative to those who admired, rather than to Himself (&s évreûdev ñòn tìv τῶν θαυμαζόντων προκόπτειν ἕξιν ἢ τὴν αὐτοῦ). Cf. p. 429 ὅτιπερ καὶ ὄργανον εἴη [τὸ ἀνθρώπινον] τῆς ἐν αὐτῇ θεότητος, κατὰ βραχὺ πρὸς τὴν ἔκφασιν αὐτῆς διὰ τῶν ἔργων ὑπηρετοῦν, and scholia 13, t. lxxv. p. 1388.

In another passage, adv. Nestor. t. lxxvi. p. 154, he definitely distinguishes this view from that of a real advance postulated by Nestorius. The above quotations are mostly to be found in Bruce (l. c.), whose discussion of the matter is, I think, exhaustive. He also (p. 425) points out how Cyril had in view and repudiated (1) an idea of the 'depotentiation' of God incarnate, such as some extreme Lutherans have held, and (2) the attempt to distinguish the nature from the personality of the Word, and to assert that in the Incarnation the nature remained in the glory of God, but not the personality; see adv. Nest. i. 1, adv. Anthropomorph. 18, t. lxxvi. pp. 1108 ff.

In general one must allow, I think, that there is in St. Cyril, side by side with a real apprehension of our Lord's manhood especially in its physical aspects-of hunger, thirst, pain, &c.—a tendency to allow its spiritual and intellectual reality to be merged in his emphasis on the Godhead. He had no sympathy with Apollinarius' formal denial of the human spirit in Jesus, but his language is sometimes markedly akin to Apollinarius' language when he speaks of the manhood as simply the

instrument or veil, through which the Godhead communicates or discloses itself, and it is remarkable that the phrase adopted by Cyril, which afterwards afforded an excuse for Monophysitism-the μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σeσaρkwμévŋ—is derived from a treatise de Incarn. Verbi Dei, ascribed by Cyril to Athanasius 1, but which appears in fact to have been written by Apollinarius; see Robertson, Athanasius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), p. lxv. There is no doubt that in the early part of the fifth century the more moderate disciples of Apollinarius succeeded in disseminating writings of their master under the famous names of Athanasius, Julius, and Gregory Thaumaturgus. This was disclosed first at the Council of Chalcedon, and later, in the early part of the sixth century, by Leontius of Byzantium, if indeed he is the writer of the adversus Fraudes Apollinistarum 2. The tract from which Cyril derived his famous phrase was one of these Apollinarian treatises ascribed to Athanasius. The whole matter of Apollinarian propaganda under assumed names has been the subject of recent investigation by C. P. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Christiania, 1879); and by Dräseke, Apollinarios von Laodicea (Texte und Untersuch. vii. 3, 4). The whole discussion is reviewed in the Ch. Quart. Review (Oct. 1893, Apollinarius of

1 See Dict. of Chr. Biography, i. p. 770.

2 Loofs (Text u. Unt. iii. 1, 2), who has recently investigated Leontius of Byzantium and his works, thinks that its author was an older contemporary of Leontius, i. e. that it was written c. A. D. 512. But the grounds assigned for this date are not over-convincing. It may well have been by Leontius and written about 531. See the last investigator of the subject, P. W. Rügamer (a Roman Catholic), Leontius von Byzanz (Würzburg, 1894) pp. 14 ff.

Laodicea). I must add that Cardinal Newman's Tract (Tracts Theol. and Eccl.) on St. Cyril's formula, in spite of its interest and learning, is really in great part an apology for minimizing the meaning of our Lord's manhood.

§ 7.

The Monophysite controversy.

The heresy of Eutyches was in part due to a misunderstanding of Cyril's teaching, in part it was a revival of a certain still current aspect of Apollinarianism to which some of Cyril's language had been too closely akin. Speaking generally, Eutychianism, and the 'Monophysite' doctrine which was a modification of it, postulated, in varying degrees1, a transubstantiation in the person of Christ of the manhood into God. As against such teaching, the definition of Chalcedon secured dogmatically the distinct and permanent reality of our Lord's manhood, and the later decision of the third council of Constantinople dogmatically secured the presence in Him of a distinct human will and energy, linked hypostatically to the divine will and energy, but not swallowed up in it. But from the point of view of our present inquiry it must be noticed

(1) that these definitions did not lead to any perma

1 In varying degrees: because some Monophysites, like the Agnoetae or even the Severians, generally recognized the reality of the manhood in the composite nature' of Christ to a very great extent. See the excellent account of the Severians in Dorner's Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 133-143.

nent reaction among catholic theologians in favour of recognizing the reality of our Lord's mental growth or limitation in knowledge as man :

(2) that there was no real help given by the orthodox thought of the time towards solving the question of the relation of the divine and human natures, which the dogma of Chalcedon left simply juxtaposited in the unity of Christ's person1.

(1) This is best shown by the attitude of the Church towards the Agnoetae. This sect-which is also known as the 'Themistians' from its chief representative Themistius-arose among the Monophysites on the moderate or Severian wing, i. e. among those who maintained the naturally corruptible nature of our Lord's body, about A. D. 540 or somewhat later 2. Its characteristic tenet was the limitation of our Lord's human knowledge, and its adherence to this was based upon the natural interpretation of the often-discussed passages of the Gospels, such as St. Mark xiii. 32, St. John xi. 34. The Monophysite origin of the sect would countenance the hypothesis (to which Dr. Liddon adheres 3) that they affirmed ignorance of our Lord in the only nature which Monophysites could consistently recognize in Christ, viz. the divine. But men are not always consistent, and

1 So far, I think, Dorner is right. But not in his criticisms on the Chalcedonian formula considered per se, l. c. pp. 113-119. That was in no contradiction to Ephesus and was a most necessary supplement to it. Further the function of a dogmatic decision is not to supply the philosophy of the subject: see Bampton Lectures, 1891, p. 110.

2 Leontius Byz. de Sectis, v. 6 'while Theodosius (the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria) was living at Byzantium as a private person,' i.e. after his banishment from Alexandria, c. 537.

3 Divinity of our Lord, p. 468, quoting Suicer.

moreover the Severian Monophysites in their view of the 'composite nature' of Christ allowed a great deal of reality to the humanity. At any rate the evidence does not seem to warrant this hypothesis. If the language of Eulogius, the patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote against the Agnoetae about A. D. 590, is ambiguous1, that of the treatise de Sectis, ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium, is quite distinctλέγουσιν ἀγνοεῖν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἠγνόει ὁ Χριστὸς ὡς ἄνθρωπός που 2 : and

1 See just below, p. 158. John of Damascus is also ambiguous in his account of Themistius, see de Haer. 85.

2 de Sectis, x. 3 (cited below). The Greek title of the work is Aeovríov σχολαστικοῦ Βυζαντίου σχόλια ἀπὸ φωνῆς Θεοδώρου, τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου ἀββᾶ καὶ σοφωτάτου φιλοσόφου, κ.τ.λ. That is to say it is a work compiled by the Abbot Theodore from the scholia of Leontius. Theodore must have written after the accession of Eulogius of Alexandria, which he mentions, in 579, and the scholia were probably compiled about the middle of the century. See Loofs, l. c. and Rügamer, l. c. pp. 25 and 30.

The passage in question is probably due to Leontius (so Rügamer as against Loofs); at least the passage in what is apparently Leontius' earliest work (c. 531)-adv. Nestorianos et Eutychianistes, iii. 32-directed against a Nestorian view of Christ's ignorance, is no argument against it. For the latter passage is directed against an extreme view of Christ's 'ignorance' and one in which ignorance is identified with sin; and is also separated by perhaps nearly twenty years from the passage in the de Sectis. Even in the earlier work Leontius is jealous for the verity of our Lord's manhood, especially on its physical side-contending for instance that xarà ẞpaxù èv τῇ παρθενικῇ μήτρα προέκοπτε νόμῳ κυήσεως, ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπηρτισμένην τοῦ Bpépovs teλeiwoiv (con. Nest. et Eut. ii. p. 1328 c). But on this subject he seems to have changed his mind, adv. Nestorian. iv. p. 1669, and his later view was followed by orthodox divines, who postulated an instantaneous formation of the embryo, e. g. John Damasc. où тaîs kaтà μкpòv προσθήκαις ἀπαρτιζομένου τοῦ σχήματος ἀλλ ̓ ὑφ ̓ ἓν τελειωθέντος (de Fid. Orthod. iii. 2). So St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, p. iii. qu. 33. art. I.

It is remarkable that a writer such as Leontius, of whom so much remains of great interest, whom Cardinal Mai describes as 'in theologica scientia aevi sui facile princeps,' and who has been the subject of so much recent discussion in Germany, should be all but passed over in silence in the