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 fórmula, the contradictions of which with his former Anathematismata were but poorly slurred over (comp. Münscher, von Cölln, s. 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. Asseman, de Syris Nestorianis, in Bibl. Orient., Rom. 1728, t. iii. pt. 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.), s. 90.

§ 101.

Eutychian-Monophysite Controversy.

Pressel in Herzog's Realencyclopädie, ix. s. 743 ff.

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 (1), the still greater danger arose. of confounding instead of separating the said natures. When the party zeal of Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople, maintained the doctrine of only one nature in Christ (2), there arose new disturbances; and, when Dioscurus had in vain endeavoured to force the Monophysite doctrine by violent means upon the Eastern Church (3), both he and his sentiments were 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 (4). On the basis of this Epistola Flaviana the synod pronounced in favour 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, Kg. ii. 3, s. 1064 ff. The original documents of this controversy are given in Mansi, t. vi. vii. (Ang. Maio, 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. Dreieinigkeit, i. 800. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 99 ff.]

Baur,

(2) Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Dorylæum with the revival of Valentinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constantinople in the year 448. 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 (oμoovotos) with ours, though he would not be understood to teach that Christ brought His body with Him from heaven. But when his opponents drove him at last into a corner, he went so far as to admit that the body of Christ was of the same substance with our own. 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 πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως; but after that he would acknowledge only one. On the agreement between his doctrine and that of Cyril, see Münscher, von Cölln, s. 301.

(3) These violent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the Robber Synod, A.D. 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum, σύνοδος ληστρική), the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593 ss.; Fuchs, iv. s. 340 ff.

(4) The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359 (separately published by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1780, 4to, comp. Griesbach, Opusc. Acad. t. i. p. 52 ss. Münscher, von

Cölln, s. 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. . . . 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, et carne exsequente, quod carnis est, etc. He then ascribes birth, hunger, nakedness, suffering, 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, Trin. i. 807 ff.

(5) Mansi, vii. 108 s. : ... 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 ἄνθρωπον 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 δι ̓ 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 (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν) ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης· οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον, ἣ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε· καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον.

We cannot fail to see a dogmatic parallel between these 1 On this different reading, comp. Mansi, p. 106, 775, 840. Walch, Bibl. Symb. p. 106.

Christological decisions and the theological definitions of the Council of Nice, with this difference only (demanded by the difference of the objects in view), that the latter understood by duos 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 (1) 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 (2). The exact medium, however, between the two extreme views was not strictly preserved. For by the admission of a new clause, viz. that one of the divine persons had been crucified (Theopaschitism), into the definitions of the fifth Ecumenical Synod (A.D. 553) (3), the Monophysite notion gained the ascendency within the pale of orthodoxy.

(1) The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, A.D. 482 (in Evagr. iii. c. 14; separately published by Berger, Wittenb. 1723, 4to), was intended to bring about a reconciliation between the contending parties, but was not followed by any permanent success. Comp. Jablonski, Diss. de Henotico Zenonis, Francof. ad Viadr. 1737, 4to. Münscher, v. Cölln, s. 306, 307. It was taught that Christ was ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. The predicate OεOTÓKOS was vindicated for Mary; and the Anathematismata of Cyril were justified.

(2) Symb. Athan. pars ii.-(Comp. § 97.)

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. 29. 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 persona. 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 omnes 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.

(3) Peter Fullo (o yvapeús) was the first who introduced the clause còs éστavpálŋ into the Trisagion, at Antioch (463-471). The African bishops, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, and Fulgentius of Ruspe, declared in favour of the formula, that one of the Trinity was crucified. See Gieseler, Kg. i. 2, 365.

In the year 533 Justinian pronounced the phrase, unum crucifixum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate, to be orthodox (Cod. lib. i. Tit. i. 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 τῆς 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 BeоTÓKOS 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,