Phil. ii. 8. To these he adds two Old Testament passages, Ps. xl. 9, liv. 6. Finally, Agatho represents the whole body of those who supported the Chalcedonian decree, in arguing from the existence of the two natures in Christ to a duality of wills and operations. “The Church," he says, " acknowledges Christ as ex duabus et in duabus exsistentem naturis. . . consequenter itaque duas etiam naturales voluntates in eo et duas naturales operationes esse confitetur et prædicat." He does not, however, say anything respecting the mode in which the two wills operate. The decree of the Sixth Council goes somewhat further, and declares that the two wills coexist adialρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως.

With two remarks we may leave the study of this difficult and perplexing controversy.

1. We notice the prominence of the word púois throughout the disputes of the fifth and sixth centuries. The word in itself testifies to the universality of the belief that the God-man stood in an essential relation to the whole human race. It was man's nature which He had assumed in its completeness and totality, with all its endowments and faculties; in order that He might renew it after the image of God. This thought,-a precious heritage from the Church of the past,-reappears towards the close of the monothelite struggle, and indicates the deeper interest that underlay an apparently sterile and unprofitable controversy. It is expressed in a somewhat original form by a writer to whom allusion has already been made, Anastasius the presbyter. "The Word of God having visited us for the purpose of renewing Adam, created for Himself such a soul as He had imparted from Himself to Adam by means of the original inbreathing, a soul fashioned after the image and likeness of the Word of God, as the Scripture declares,-yea, wholly subsisting (vπápxovσav) after His image; after His likeness having its sub

sistence (vπapşıv), after His image determining (Staypápovoav) its volition, after His image its operation; a soul pure, spotless, ineffable, sinless; a soul having no need of any essential re-creation, like the body and all that pertains to it; requiring no alteration or refashioning of its proper parts and elements (μeλŵv); not possessing any volition that needed to be quenched, nor any operation that required to be arrested. For how should such a soul require essential re-creation-that soul which came forth from God, which subsisted in the image and likeness of God, above all, the soul of the Word, which was utterly free from defilement? For the soul of Adam had its origin from God (ex@cov) by means of the inbreathing; but the soul of Emmanuel had a substantial existence (ovoiwow), Divine (ěvleov), and . . . equal with God (ouóleov); from Him, and through Him, and with Him, and in Him, by personal incorporation (xaľ ὑπόστασιν συσσώμως), having its subsistence in the undefiled womb which received God."1 Here reappears the thought of a Redeemer, essentially Divine,-exhibiting in His assumed humanity the type after which mankind was to be renewed; the Creator Himself becomes the author of a new creation, as a true member of our race, but also its eternal archetype and head.

2. It should also be noticed that the tendency of the time was to overpress the subordination of Christ's human will; to withdraw from it the avтežovσιov which Maximus regarded as an integral element of true humanity, and rather to insist on its Trekovσlov, its perfect subjection to the Divine will.2 So far the

1 Anast. ap. Mai, Pat. vet. nov. coll. vii. p. 199. Cp. Jo. Damasc. de orth. fid. iii. 14 (p. 229 D).

2 Jo. Damasc. instit. elem. c. x. [Opera, ed. Lequien, vol. i. p. 520]. For a much later statement, cp. Petav. de Incarn. v. 12, § 6: "Siquidem vel adoptivi filii sunt ii qui spiritu Dei aguntur (Rom. viii. 14): quanto propius excellentiusque naturam ac mentem propriam Deus ipse modera

Deity in Christ is still regarded as entirely predominant ; the Church substantially adheres to the doctrine of the unus operator, if not of the una voluntas.1 This practical assertion of the omnipotence of the Logos determined the general course of Christology during the Middle Ages. The Adoptianist reaction, however, may perhaps be viewed as an early attempt to secure due recognition for the human element in the Redeemer.

§ II. THE LATER THEOLOGY OF THE GREEK CHURCH

1. The theology of the Greek Church, now formulated and developed to its highest point, finds an exponent in JOHN OF DAMASCUS (d. about 760), whose task it was to summarise and exhibit in exact phraseology the results of the dogmatic activity of the preceding ages. To him faith appears to be an " easy assent "2 to the doctrine of the Triune God, the dogmas of the Church, and the utterances of the Fathers. His chief work, περὶ ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, exercised a great influence on the thought of the Western Church. The third book treats of Christology in general, but devotes special attention to the question of the two wills or operations. The following are the most distinctive points of John's theology.

(1) The writer is an adherent of Chalcedon, and a dyothelite. Christ is at once perfect God and perfect man, possessing all that belongs to the Father Tλ ȧyevvnoías, and all that belongs to the first Adam, save sin. He has a body and a reasonable, intellectual soul; batur, impulsuque suo quam vellet in partem flectebat? In quod intuens Apostolus dixit caput Christi Deum, quæ vox capitis r nyeμovikų respondet," etc. So Bp. Pearson speaks of Christ's "directed will" (On the Creed, art. 3, p. 284).

1 Dorner, div. ii. vol. i. p. 205.

2 de orth. fid. iv. 11 (Lequien, i. 263 E) πloris dé éσtiv åñoλvñpayμóvηtos συγκατάθεσις.

and corresponding to His two natures all the natural attributes of each,--two natural modes of volition (eλńoeis), a human and Divine, two natural operations, two principles of free choice (avrekovata), the human and Divine, and even a double wisdom and knowledge,1 human and Divine.

Then follows a strong statement: ὁμοούσιος γὰρ ὢν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, αὐτεξουσίως θέλει καὶ ἐνεργεῖ ὡς θεός· ὁμοούσιος δὲ ὢν καὶ ἡμῖν, αὐτεξουσίως θέλει καὶ ἐνεργεῖ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός· αὐτοῦ γὰρ τὰ θαύματα, αὐτοῦ καὶ τà πаlńμата.2 Here, then, is a consistent evolution of the Chalcedonian theology, especially in the ascription to Christ of a dual will, on the ground that will belongs to the perfection of either nature, of human nature equally with Divine. Elsewhere the human will is described as in all respects subject to the Divine.*

(2) John follows Leontius, whom he mentions by name, in teaching the union of the two natures in one hypostasis. No nature is ávvTÓσтатоs, but two natures may have a common vπóσTaσis. So Christ's humanity has no independent subsistence. It becomes "enhypostatised” in the Logos: αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο τῇ σαρκὶ ὑπόστασις (c. xi.), οὐ γὰρ προϋ ποστάσῃ καθ' ἑαυτὴν σαρκὶ ἡνώθη ὁ λόγος (c. ii.). The one hypostasis embraces (πеρLEKTIKń σTI) the two natures. In this view the distinctive theology of Cyril and his school is recognised.

(3) The relation of the two natures is next described.

1 See iii. 19-a remarkable passage describing the reflective self-consciousness of Christ's human voûs; cp. iv. 1 (Dorner, l.c. note 45). 2 de orth. fid. iii. 13.

This is argued at length in c. 14.

See c. 15 (p. 235 D).

5 Cp. especially cc. 3, 6, and 9. In general the logical conceptions and language of Leontius reappear in John's treatment of the hypostasis.

From the unity of the hypostasis in Christ follows the ἀντίδοσις ἰδιωμάτων and the περιχώρησις. The doctrine of the Tepixápnois "permeation" of the human by the Divine nature may be traced to Maximus.2 The phrase is intended to express that intimate union between the two natures in virtue of which there was an avτidoois ἰδιωμάτων a reciprocal interchange of properties: ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἀντιδιδούσης τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὰ ἴδια διὰ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα καὶ τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα αὐτῶν περιxwpnow. In theory indeed the permeation is mutual, the Divine nature in some way being affected and pervaded by the human. "The human nature," we may think, in some mysterious way "penetrated and pervaded the Divine in all those moral and religious departments in which the two natures are akin." But in point of fact it was the fixed idea of later Greek theology that the Divine so entirely dominated the human element that the Teρixwpnois was necessarily one-sided. So it is expressly stated in ch. 7, "Though we declare that the natures of the Lord permeate each other, yet we know that the permeation issues from the Divine nature; for this penetrates through all things according as it wills and permeates them, while nothing can permeate it; it imparts to the human nature of its own glories, remaining itself impassible and without part in the passions of the humanity." Thus the Deity in Christ "appropriates" (oikeιoûtai) all that belongs to humanity; the One person is the author of all action in either nature; and the ȧvridoois resolves itself into a mere ἀντίδοσις ὀνομάτων. "For Christ (who is both together)

1 John teaches that Christ has a composite personality (σúvOETOS ὑπόστασις). "The hypostasis of the Logos, formerly simple, became composite ” (σύνθετον ἐκ δύο τελείων φύσεων), c. 7 ; ep. bk. iv. 5.

* Dorner, div. ii. vol. i. note 41.

Milligan, The Ascension, etc. p. 177.