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 Ephräm the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jeru salem, adopted more or less the notion of Origen. Thus Chrysostom says in reference to John xxi. 10: ἐφαίνετο γὰρ ἄλλῃ μορφῇ, ἄλλῃ φωνῇ, ἄλλῳ σχήματα; in support of his opinion he appealed especially to the appearance of Christ when the doors were shut, etc. 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 vowμarı naxei. Augustine and Leo the Great, on the contrary, endeavored 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 himself 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 resurrection.-His ascension was likewise brought about by an independent act of his divine nature, not by 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), which angels accompanied. Comp. Athan. De Assumt. Dom., and for further particulars see Müller, 1. c. p. 40, ss., p. 83, 8s. § 104. THE DOCTRINE OF TWO WILLS IN CHRIST.-MONOTHELITES. Combefisii, T., Historia Monothelitarum, in the second volume of his Nov. Auctuarium Bibl. PP. Græco-Latin. Par. 1648, fol. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, vol. ix. p. 1-606. 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, kindred to that concerning his natures. In agreement with Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, the emperor, hoping to reconcile the two parties, adopted the doctrine of only one Divine-human energy (repyέla), and of one will in Christ. But Sophronius, an acute monk of Palestine, afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem (A. D. 635), endeavored 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. After several fruitless attempts had been made to establish the Monothelite doctrine, the sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 680), with the cooperation of the bishop of Rome,' 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." 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 matter itself. 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 dif ferent 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. 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 the subordination of the Spirit. 4 The Greek Emperor at first endeavored to settle the matter amicably, by the "EKOɛσiç [i. e., 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 Túños [i. e., 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 I. and Maximus were treated with the most shameful cruelty; for further particulars see Neander, Church. Hist. (Torrey), iii. 186-192. Pope Honorius was in favor 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, ss.: 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, l. c. § 128, note 11. Münscher v. Cölln, ii. 78, 79.) • 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 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, ss. Münscher, von Cölln, ii. p. 80. Gieseler, 1. c. § 128, notes 14-17). Aúo pvoikàs leλýσeis йTOL θελήματα ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ δύο φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων διδασκαλίαν κηρύττομεν· και δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα οὐχ ὑπεναντία, μὴ γένοιτο, καθὼς οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἔφησαν αἱρετικοί· ἀλλ ̓ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ θέλημα, καὶ μὴ ἀντιπίπτον, ἢ 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, 1st ed. p. 90, ss.-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 Antilebanon 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. p. 197. [Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te Aufl. p. 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 can not be conceived without two natural wills, and two natural modes of operation. How far now two wills can be without two persons willing, was the point from which they slipped away by mere suppositions.] § 105. PRACTICAL AND RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTOLOGY Unedifying as is the spectacle of these manifold controversies, in which the person of the Redeemer is dragged down into the sphere of passionate conflicts, yet it is still cheering to see how the faith of Christians in those times was supported by that idea of the GodMan, which was above all such strife, and how it attributed to the doctrine of the one and undivided person of Christ its due import in the history of the world. "All the Fathers agreed, as it were with one mind, that to Christ belongs not merely the limited importance attached to every historical personage, but that his Person stands in an essential relation to the WHOLE HUMAN RACE; on this account alone could they make a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL the object of an article of faith, and ascribe to him a lasting and eternal significancy in relation to our race." Dorner, 1st ed. 1. c. p. 78; compare the passages from the fathers there cited. [They say, e. g., that Christ is the primitive type after which Adam and the whole of humanity were created; the principle, the ȧpxn, of the whole new creation, in which the old is first completed; the draрxý of the whole pvpãua of humanity, penetrating all; the eternal head of the race-a member of it indeed, but yet its plastic and organizing principle, in virtue of the union between divinity and humanity in him per. fectly realized, etc.] SECOND DIVISION. DOCTRINES RESPECTING ANTHROPOLOGY. § 106. ON MAN IN GENERAL. The Platonic doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul, which none but Nemesius and Prudentius favored,' was almost unanimously rejected as Origenistic. Along with physical Traducianism (favorable as was this doctrine in certain aspects to the idea of original sin, see § 55), Creatianism was also able to obtain more authority. According to this view, every human soul was created as such, and at a certain moment of time united with the body, developing itself in the womb. Yet the most influential teachers of the church, as Augustine and Gregory the Great, expressed themselves with reserve on this point. In the West the threefold division of man (§ 54) gave way to the simpler division into body and soul, on the mutual relation of which different views obtained among the fathers of the present period. Nor did they agree in their opinions respecting the image of God, though most of them admitted that it consisted in reason imparted to man, in his capacity of knowing God, and in his dominion over the irrational creation. There were still some who imagined that the image of God was also reflected in the body of man; but, while the Audiani perverted this notion in support of gross anthropomorphism, others gave to it a more spiritual interpretation. The immortality of the soul was universally believed; Lactantius, however, did not regard it as the natural property of the soul, but as the reward of virtue.* 6 1 The former did so as a philosopher (De Humana Natura 2, p. 76, ss. of the Oxford edit.), the latter as a poet (Cathemerin. Hymn. x. v. 161-168). [Cf. Aur. Prudent. Carmina, ed. Alb. Dressel, Lips. 1860.] 2 Conc. Const. A. D. 540, see Mansi, ix. p. 396, ss.: 'H ¿kkλŋoía Toiç θείοις ἑπομένη λόγοις φάσκει τὴν ψυχὴν συνδημιουργηθῆναι τῷ σώματι· καὶ οὐ τὸ μὲν πρότερον, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον, κατὰ τὴν 'Ωριγένους φρενοβλάβειαν. › Lactantius maintains, Inst. iii. 18, that the soul is born with the body, and distinctly opposes Traducianism De Opif. Dei ad Demetr. c. 19: Illud |