τιμὴν οὐ χωρίζω χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ' ἐνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. He preferred calling Mary Θεοδόχος οι Χριστοτόκος, instead of Θεοτόκος. Comp. the other passages in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 284-286. Baur, Gesch. der Trinität. i. p. 727, ss. 4 On the external history of this controversy, see the works on ecclesiastical history. It commenced with a correspondence between Nestorius and Cyril, in which they charged each other with respectively separating and confounding the two natures of Christ. Cyril was supported by Cœlestine, bishop of Rome, Nestorius by the eastern bishops in general, and John, bishop of Antioch, in particular.-In the progress of the controversy Nestorius declared himself willing even to adopt the term Oɛотóκоç, if properly explained. Comp. the Acta, and especially the Anathematismata themselves in Mansi, v. p. 1, ss., and iv. p. 1099; in Mar. Mercator, p. 142 (Garner, ii. 77, ss.), reprinted in Baumgarten's Theologische Streitigkeiten, vol..ii. p. 770, ss. Gieseler, Lehrb. der Kirchengesch. i. § 88, note 20. Münscher von Cölln, p. 290–295. "As the Alexandrians exalted the vπèp λóуov, so did the Antiochians the Karà λóуov;" Neander, Hist. Dog. 334. On their differences, and the inferences which each party drew from the views of the other to its disadvantage, see ibid. The ἀντιμετάστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων was carried to an extreme by the Alexandrians, while the Antiochians distinguished between what is said δογματικῶς, and what is spoken πανηγυρικῶς. t'. The acts of the Synod are given in Mansi, iv. p. 1123; Fuchs, iv. p. 1, The synod was organized in a partisan way by Cyril.—A counter-syrod was held under John, bishop of Antioch, in opposition to Cyril and Memnon; these in their turn excommunicated John and his party. The Emperor Theodosius at first confirmed the sentence of deposition which the two contending parties had pronounced upon each other, but afterwards Nestorius was abandoned by all; for John of Antioch himself was prevailed upon to give his consent to the condemnation of his friend, after Cyril had proposed a formula, the contradictions, of which, with his former Anathematismata, were but poorly slurred over (comp. Münscher ed. by von. Cölln, p. 297). The consequence was the separation of the Nestorian party (Chaldee Christians, Thomas-Christians) from the catholic church. On the further history of the Nestorians, see J. S. Assemanni, de Syris Nestorianis, in Bibl. Orient. Rom. 1728, T. iii. P. 2. "We may call the view of Cyril (according to which the human is changed into the divine), the MAGICAL aspect of the union, and that of Nestorius (according to which the two natures are only joined together) the MECHANICAL." Dorner, 1st ed. p. 90. § 101. EUTYCHIAN-MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY. The doctrine which separated the two natures of Christ, had been rejected by the condemnation of Nestorius. But with the growing influence and power of the party of Cyril, led by Dioscurus, Cyril's successor,' the still greater danger arose of confounding, instead of separating the said natures. The party zeal of Eutyches, an archimandrite [abbot] at Constantinople, who maintained the doctrine of only one nature in Christ, caused new disturbances. After Dioscurus had in vain endeavored to force the Monophysite doctrine by violent means upon the eastern church,' both he and his sentiments were at last condemned at the council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451). In the course of the controversy, Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, addressed a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople. On the basis of this Epistola Flaviana, the synod pronounced in favor of the doctrine of two natures, neither to be separated nor confounded, and, in order to prevent further errors, drew up a formula of faith, which should be binding upon all parties.5 1 Respecting his character and violent conduct, especially towards Theodoret, see Neander, Church History, ii. 500-522. The acts of this controversy are given in Mansi, T. vi. vii. (Ang. Mai. Script. Vett. Coll. T. vii, and ix. Coll. Class. Auct. T. x. p. 408, ss.) [Liberatus Breviarium Causæ Nestor. et Eutychian. in Mansi, ix. 659. Walch's Ketzerhist. vi. Baur, Dreielnigkeit, i. 800. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 99 sq.] 2 Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Dorylæum with the revival of Valentinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constantincple in the year 449. See Mansi, vi. p. 694–754. According to the acts of this synod he taught: Μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου, τουτέστι μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μίαν φύσιν προσκυνεῖν καὶ ταύτην θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος. He denied that the flesh of Christ was of the same essence (óμoovoios) with ours, though he would not be understood to teach that Christ brought his body with him from heaven. But when his opponents brought him at last into a corner, he went so far as to admit the sameness of essence in respect to the body. But he could not be induced to confess his belief in the existence of two natures, a divine and a human. He maintained that there had been two natures only пρ τ Eνwσεws; but after that he would acknowledge only one. Concerning the agreement between his doctrine and that of Cyril, see Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 301. 'These violent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the Synod of Robbers, A. p. 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum, oúvodos Anσ¬ρɩký), the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593, ss. Fuchs, iv. p. 340, ss. The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359 (separately published by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1780, 4, comp. Griesbach, Opusc. Acad. T. i. p. 52, ss. Münscher von Cölln, p. 302): Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ et in unam coëunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab æternitate mortalitas; et ad resolvendum conditionis nostræ debitum natura inviolabilis naturæ est unita passibili, ut quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus ... in suis, totus in nostris, etc... Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo, et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis et altitudo deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est: Verbo scilicet operante, quod verbi est, ut carni exsequente, quod carnis est, etc. He then ascribes birth, hunger, nakedness, sufferings, death, burial, etc., to the human, miracles to the divine nature; the passage in John xiv. 28, refers to the former, that in John x. 30, to the latter. Comp. on Leo's Christology, Perthel, u. s. 146; Baur, 807 sq. Mansi, vii. 108, ss.: Επόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἀνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας· πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ' ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς Θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν Υἱὸν, Κύριον, μονογενῆ ἐκ δύο φύσεων (ἑν δύο φύσεσιν)* ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωρι ζόμενον· αὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνηρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης· οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον, ἢ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτος ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε· καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον. We can not fail to see a dogmatic parallel between these Christological decisions and the theological determinations of the council of Nice, with this difference only (demanded by the difference of the objects in view), that the latter understood by puoiç that which belongs to each nature separately, but by ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, that which both have in common; the reverse is the case in the decisions of the synod of Chalcedon. § 102. PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.-THEOPASCHITES. But the authority of the decision of the council of Chalcedon was not at once generally acknowledged. Many conflicts ensued' before the doctrine of "two natures in one person" was received as the orthodox doctrine of the church, and finally inserted into what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed.' The exact medium, however, between the two extreme views was not strictly preserved. For by * Concerning this different reading, comp. Mansi, p. 106, 775, 840. Walch, Bibl. Symb p. 106. the admission of a new clause, viz., that one of the divine persons had been crucified (Theopaschitism), into the creed of the fifth ŒŒcumenical Synod (A. D. 553),' the Monophysite notion gained the ascendency within the pale of orthodoxy. The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, A. D. 482, in Evagr. iii. c. 14 (separately published by Berger, Wittemb. 1723, 4), was intended to bring about a reconciliation between the contending parties, but was not followed by any permanent success. Comp. Jablonsky, Diss. de Henotico Zenonis. Francof. ad Viadr. 1737, 4. Münscher v. Cölln, p. 306, 7. It was taught that Christ was ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. The predicate Θεοτόκος was vindicated for Mary; and the Anathematismata of Cyril were justified. 27. Sed necessarium est ad æternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. 28. 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 sæcula genitus: homo ex substantia matris in sæculo natus. 30. Perfectus deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. 31. Equalis Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. 32. Qui, licet deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. 34. Unus omnino non confusione substantiarum, sed unitate personæ. 35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita et Deus et homo unus est Christus. 36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 37. ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. 38. Ad cujus adventum omncs homines resurgere debent cum corporibus suis et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. 39. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam æternam : qui vero mala, in ignem æternum. 40. Hæc est fides catholica, quam nisi quisquam fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. * Peter Fullo (8 yvapɛùç) was the first who introduced the clause Оɛòç éoravρúon into the Trishagion, at Antioch, 463-471. [On the rpioáyiov see Gieseler, l. c. i. § 110, note 12.]-In the year 533 Justinian pronounced the phrase, unum crucifixum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate, to be orthodox (Cod. L. 1. Tit. 1. 6): he did so in agreement with John II., bishop of Rome, but in opposition to his predecessor Hormisdas.-The decree of the council is given in Mansi, ix. p. 304 : Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον σαρκὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν εἶναι θεὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ κύριον τῆς δόξης, καὶ ἕνα της ἁγίας τρίαδος· ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—This victory of the advocates of Theopaschitism was only the counterpart of the one which the friends of the phrase Ocотókoç had gained in former years. Thus such expressions as "God is born, God died," came gradually into use in dogmatic theology. It was in this sense that, e. g., the author of the Soliloquia Animæ (which may be found in the works of Augustine) c. 1, offered the following prayer: Manus tuæ, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me, manus inquam illæ, quæ affixæ clavis sunt pro me. § 103. VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS OF THE MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE. Gieseler, J. C. L., Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum veterum Variæ de Christi Persona Opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur. Parts I. II. Gött. 1838, IV. 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 premises 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 Aktisteta.' The omniscience of Christ necessarily followed from the Monophysite doctrine. The assertion, therefore, of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, that the man Jesus was ignorant of many things (Agnoetism, Mark xiii. 32; Luke ii. 25), was rejected by the strict Monophysites." SOURCES: Leont. Byzant. (in Gallandii Bibl. Patr. xii.) Niceph. Callisti, lib. xvii. Gieseler (in the 2d Part of the dissertation cited before) endeavors 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 Apollina ris. Xenaias (Philoxenus), bishop of Hierapolis, and the contemporary of Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, appears as the representative of this view, comp. p. 7.-Different meanings were attached to the word p0opá, 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, p. 4. 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 doc trines of Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), 339 [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 |