Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.04 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.04 Mb.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   38


Smyrna, and through him a grand pupil of St. John, the inspired master. He likewise uses the terms " Logos " and " Son of God" interchange­ably, and concedes the distinction, made also by the Valentinians, between the inward and the uttered word, in reference to man; but contests the application of it to God, who is above 4. Irenesuo. all antitheses, absolutely simple and unchangeable, and in whom before and after, thinking and speaking, coincide. He repudiates also speculative or a priori attempts to explain the derivation of the Son from the Father. This he holds to be an incomprehensible mystery. He is content to define the actual distinction be­tween Father and Son by saying that the former is God revealing himself; the latter, God revealed. The one is the ground of revelation; the other is the actual, appearing revelation itself. Hence he calls the Father " the invisible of the Son "; and the Son; " the visible of the Father." He dis­criminates most rigidly the conceptions of genera­tion and of creation. The Son, though begotten of the Father, is still, like him, distinguished from the created world as increate without beginning, and eternal; all plainly showing that Irena;us is much nearer the Nine dogma of the essential identity of the Son with the Father than Justin Martyr and the Alexandrians. When, as he does in several passages, he still subordinates the Son to the Father, he is certainly inconsistent, and that for want of an accurate distinction between the eternal Logos and the incarnate Christ. Expres­sions like " My Father is greater than I," which apply only ,to the Christ of history, in the state of humiliation, he refers also, like Justin and Origen, to the eternal Logos. On the other hand, he is charged with leaning in the opposite direction­toward the Sabellian and Patripassian views but unjustly. Apart from his frequent want of pre­cision in expression, he steers in general, with sure Biblical and churchly tact, equally clear of both extremes, and asserts alike the essential unity and the eternal personal distinction of the Father and the Son. He vindicates at length the true and full humanity of Christ against the Docetism of the Gnostic schools. Christ must be man, like us in body, soul, and spirit, though without sin if he would redeem us from sin, and make us perfect. He is the second Adam, the absolute, universal man, the prototype and summing up of the whole race. He also teaches a close union of the divinity and humanity in Christ, in which the former is the active principle, and the seat of personality, the latter the passive and receptive principle.

Tertullian (about 220) can not escape the charge of subordinationism. He bluntly calls the Father the whole divine substance, and the Son a part of it, illustrating their relation by the figures of the fountain and the stream, the sun and the beam. He would not have two suns, he says; but he might call Christ God, as Paul does in Rom. ix. 5. The sunbeam, too, in itself considered, may be called sun, but not the sun a beam. Sun and beam are two distinct things (species) in one essence (sub­stantia), as God and the World, as the Father and the Son. But figurative language moat not be

taken too strictly, and it moat be remembered that Tertullian was especially interested to distinguish

the Son from the Father, in oppo­6. Tertal  eition to the Patripasaian Praxeas.

lien. In other respects he did the Church

christology material service. He pro­

pounds a threefold hypoatatical existence of the

Son (filiatio): (1) The preexistent, eternal imma­

nence of the Son in the Father, they being as in­

separable as reason and word in man, who was

created in the image of God, and hence in a measure

reflects his being; (2) the coming forth of the Son

with the Father for the purpose of the creation;

(3) the manifestation of the Son in the world by

the incarnation. He advocates the entire yet sin­

less humanity of Christ, against both the Docetistic

Gnostics (Adv. Mareioreem and De carne Christi)

and the Patripaesiana (Adv. Praxeam). He ac­

cuses the former of making Christ, who is all truth,

a half lie, and, by the denial of his flesh, resolving

all his work in the flesh into an empty show. He

urges against the latter that God the Father is

incapable of suffering and change. Professor War­

field (see bibliography) lays much stress upon the

definition which Tertullian gives of the Trinity,

and regards Tertullian rather than Origen as the

real father of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Dionysius, bishop of Rome (262), came nearest the Nicene view. He maintained distinctly, in

e. Dio  the controversy with Dionyaius of

nysins Alexandria, the unity of essence and

of Rome. the threefold personal distinction of

Father, Son, and Spirit, in opposition to Sabellianiam, tritheiam, and subordinationiam. His view is embodied in a fragment preserved by Athanasius (De sententiis Dionysii, iv., and Routh, Reliquics sacrx, iii., Oxford, 1846, p. 384).

III. The Nicene Christology, from 325 to 381: This is the result of the struggle with Arianism and semi Arianism, which agitated the Eastern Church for more than half a century. The Arian heresy denied the strict deity of Christ (his coequality with the Father), and taught that he is a subor­dinate divinity, different in essence from God (Gk. hetero ousios), preexisting before the world, yet not eternal (" there was a time when he was not "), himself a creature of the will of God out of nothing (Gk. ktisma ex ouk ontbn), who created this present world, and became incarnate for our salvation: Semi Arianism held as untenable middle ground between the Arian hetero ovsia and the orthodox homo ouusid, or coequality of the Son with the Father, and asserted the hpmoi ousid, or similarity of essence, which was a very elastic term, and might be con­tracted into an Arian, or stretched into an ortho­dox, sense, according to the general spirit and tend­ency of the men who held it.

In opposition to these heresies, Athanasius of Alexandria (" the father of orthodoxy ") and the three Cappadocian bishops Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa maintained and defended with superior ability, vigor, and perseverance, the horiw ousia, i.e., the essential oneness of the Son with the Father, or his eternal divinity, as the corner atone of the whole Christian system. This doctrine triumphed in the councils


of NicEea (325) and Constantinople (381), and is expressed in the Nicaeno Conatantinopolitan Creed, which has stood ever since .like an immovable rock:
" (We believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only­begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begot­ten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," etc.

IV. The Chalcedoniaa Christology : This finds its normal expression in the Chalcedonian state­ment of 45), (see below, § 2). It was the answer of the orthodox Church to the heresies relating to the proper constitution of Christ's divine human per­son, of which the chief were three, viz., (1) Apol­linarianiam, a partial denial of the humanity of Christ. Apollinaris (the Younger) of Laodicea (q.v.; d. 390), on the basis of the Platonic trichot­omy, ascribed to Christ a human body (Gk. soma) and animal soul (Psyche alogos), but not a human spirit or reason (psyche logike, noes, pneuma); he put the divine Logos in the place of 1' An the rational soul, and thus substituted

Answer a theos sarkophoros for a real thean­to

Heresies. thr6pos a mixed middle being for a

divine human person. From this er­

ror it follows, either that the rational soul of man

was not redeemed, or that it needed no redemption.

(2) Nestorianiam (from Nestorius, patriarch of

Constantinople, d. in exile 440; see NEBTORIUS)

admitted the full deity and the full humanity of

Christ, but put them into loose mechanical con­

junction, or affinity (Gk. synapheia), rather than a

vital and personal union (henosis); and hence it

objected to the unscriptural term " mother of God "

(Gk. theotokos, Lat. Deipara), as applied to the Vir­

gin Mary, while willing to call her " mother of

Christ " (Christotokos). (3) Eutychianism (from

Eutychea, presbyter at Constantinople, d. after

451; see EUTYCHIANLSM) is the very opposite of

Neatorianism, and sacrificed the distinction of the

two natures in Christ to the unity of the person i

to such an extent as to make the incarnation an

absorption of the human nature by the divine, or a

deification of human nature, even of the body:

hence the Eutychiana thought it proper to use the

phrases " God is born," " God suffered," " God

was crucified," "God died."

The third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephe­aus, 431, and Chalcedon, 451) settled the question

of the precise relation of the two na­

g. The tures in Christ's person. The decree of

Chaloe  the Council of Ephesus, under thelead

doniaa of the violent Cyril of Alexandria, was


ment. merely negative, a condemnation of

the error of Nestorius, and leaned a

little toward the opposite error of Eutychea. Nes­

torianism triumphed temporarily in the " Robber

Synod " of Ephesus, in 449, under the lead of

Dioacurua of Alexandria, who inherited all the

bad, and none of the good, qualities of his prede­

cessor, Cyril. But Dyophysitism reasserted itself;

and Dioscurun and Eutyches were condemned by

the Council of Chalcedon. This council gave s clear and full statement of the orthodox chris­tology as follows (for Greek and Latin text and. notes, cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 62 65):
" Following the holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly man, of s reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coequal] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us second­ing to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin, begotten before all ages of the Father according to the God­head, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begot­ten, to be acknowledged in two natures, £nconfusedly, un­changeably, indivisibly, inseparably: the distinction of na­tures being by no means taken away by the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and con­curring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two Persona, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

The same doctrine is set forth in a more con­densed form in the second part of the Symbolism Qacicunque, or the so called Athanasian Creed (for text and trans]., with notes, cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 66 71; see ATHANA6IAN CREED).

V. The Post Chalcedonies Christology: The Chalcedonian decision did not stop the contro­versy, and called for a supplementary statement concerning the two wills of Christ, corresponding to the two natures. Eutychianism revived in the

form of Monophysitiem (nee MONOPHY­1. mono  srrES), or the doctrine that Christ had physitiem, but one composite nature (Gk. mia

physic synthetos or mia physic dine). It makes the humanity of Christ a mere accident of the immutable divine substance. The liturgical shibboleth of the Monophysites was " God has been crucified," and they even introduced the idea into the Trisagion (q.v.); hence they are also called Theopaschiten (from theos, " God," and paschxin, " to suffer "). The tedious Monophysite contro­versies convulsed the Eastern Church for more than a hundred years, weakened its power, and facilitated the conquest of Mohammedanism. The fifth ecumenical council (553) made a partial con­cession to the Monophyaites, but did not recon­cile them. They separated, like the Nestorians, from the orthodox Greek Church, and' continue to this day under various names and organiza­tions the Jacobites in Syria, the Copts in Egypt, the Abyssinians, and the Armenians.

Closely connected with Monophysitiem was Mon­othelitism (see MONOTHELITES), or the doctrine that Christ had but one will, as he had but one person. The orthodox maintained that will is an attribute of nature, rather than of person, and consequently that Christ had two wills a . human

will and a divine will both working 2. Mono  in harmony. The Monothelite con­thelitiam. troversy lasted from 633 to 680. The

Emperor Heraclius proposed a com­promise formula one divine human energy (mia theandrike energeia); but it was opposed in the West. The sixth ecumenical council condemned



the Monothelite heresy, and repeated the Chalce­donian Creed, with the following supplement con­cerning the two wills (cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 72 73):
.. And we likewise preach two natural wills is him [Jesus Christ], and tvoo natural operations undivided, inconvertible, inseparable, unmized, according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers; and the two natural wills [are] not contrary (far from it), as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows the divine will, and is not resisting or reluctant, but rather subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was proper that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subjected to the divine will, according to the wise Atha­nasiue. '

The same council condemned Pope Honorius I. (625 638) as a Monothelite heretic, and his suc­cessors confirmed its decision. Monothelitism con­tinued among the Maronitea on Mount Lebanon, who, however, afterward submitted to the Roman Church, as well as among the Monophysites, who are all Monothelites.

With the sixth ecumenical council closes the de­

velopment of the ancient Catholic chriatology.

The Adoption controversy (see Anor 

g, Adop  xrornsns), which arose in Spain and

tioairm. France toward the close of the eighth

century, turned upon the question

whether Christ as man was the Son of God by nature

(naturaditer), or simply by adoption (nuncupative).

The Adoptioniata maintained the latter, and shifted

the whole idea of sonehip from the person to whom

it belongs to the nature. Their theory was a modi­

fication of the Nestorian error, and was condemned

in a synod at Frankfort, 794; but it did not result

in a positive addition to the creed statements.

The scholastic theology of the Middle Ages made no progress in chriatology, and confined itself to a dialectical analysis and defense

4. The Me  of the Chalcedonian dogma, with a

dieval one sided reference to the divine na­Chnroh. tore of Christ. John of Damascus in the East, and Thomas Aquinas in the West, were the ablest exponents of the Chalce­donian dogma. The medieval Church almost for­got, over the glorious divinity of our Lord, his real humanity (except his passion), and substituted for it virtually the worship of the Virgin Mary, who seemed to appeal more tenderly and effectively to all the human sensibilities and sympathies of the heart than the exalted Savior.

VI. The Ecumenical Christology (i.e., the chris­tology taught in common by the doctrinal standards of the Greek, Latin, and Evangelical Protestant Churches).

1. Its Leading Ideas: These may be stated as follows: (1) A true incarnation of the Logos, i.e., the second person in the Godhead (Gk. enanthro­penis theott, ensarkasis too logott, Lat. incarnalio verb9,). This is an actual assumption of the whole human nature body, soul, and spirit into an abiding union with the divine personality of the eternal Logos, so that they constitute, from the moment of the supernatural conception, one un­divided life. The incarnation is neither a con­version or transmutation of the divine nature into the human nature, nor a conversion of man into God, and consequent absorption of the one, nor a confusion (Gk. krasis, synchysis) of the two.

On the other hand, it is not a mere indwelling (Gk. enoikesia, Lat. inhabitatio) of the one in the other, nor an outward, transitory connection (Gk. synapheia, Lat. .conjunctio) of the two factors. (2) The distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance (essence, Gk. oasis) denotes the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; while person (Gk. hypostasis, Prosbpon) is the ego, the self conscious, self asserting, and acting subject. The Logos assumed, not a human per­son (else we should have two persona  a divine and a human), but human nature, which is common to us all. (3) The God man (Gk. theanthr8pos) as the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a (Nea­torian) double being, with two persona, nor a compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium quid, partly divine and partly human; but he is one person, at once wholly divine and 'wholly human. (4) The duality of the natures. The orthodox doctrine maintains, against Eutychianiam, the distinction of na­tures, even after the act of incarnation, with­out confusion or conversion (Gk. asynchytiia and atreptba, Lat. inconfuse and immutabiliter), yet, on the other hand, without division or separation (Gk. adiairetds and achzristbs, Lat. indivise and inseparabiliter); so that the divine will ever re­main divine, and the human ever human; and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other; like the persons of the Trinity (Gk. Pericharwsis). According to a fa­miliar figure, the divine nature pervades the hu­man as the fire pervades the iron. Christ has all the properties which the .Father has, except the property of being unbegotten; and he has all the properties which the first Adam had before the fall; he has, therefore (according to John of Da­mascus), two consciouanesaes and two physical wills, or faculties of self determination (Gk. autexousia). This is the extreme border to which the doctrine of two natures can be car­ried, without an assertion of two full personalities; and it is almost impossible to draw the line. (5) The unity of the person (Gk. heraasis kath' hypo­stasin, henZ:sis hypostatiko, Lat. unio hypoatatica or unio personalis). The union of the divine and human nature in Christ is a permanent state, result­ing from the incarnation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union, in distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere moral union, or from a mystical union, such as holds between the believer and Christ. The two natures constitute but one personal life, and yet remain distinct. " The same who is true God," says Pope Leo I. in his famous Epistle, which anticipated the decision of Chalcedon, " is also true man; and in this unity there is no deceit, for in it the lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one another . . . . Because the two natures make only one person, we read, on the one hand, ` The Son of man came down from heaven' (John iii. 13), while yet the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin; and, on the other hand, ` The Son of God was crucified and buried,' while yet he suffered, not in his Godhead, as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father,


but in the weakness of human nature." (6) The whole work of Christ is to be attributed to his person, and not to the one or the other nature exclusively. The person is the acting subject; the nature, the organ or medium. It is the one divine human person of Christ that wrought miracles by virtue of his divine nature, and that suffered through the aensorium of his human nature. The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer's work must be ascribed to his person, because of his divinity; while it is his human­ity alone that made him capable of, and liable to, temptation, suffering, and death, and renders him an example for our imitation. (7) The An­hypostdsia, or, more accurately, the Enhypostasia (Impersonality), of the human nature of Christ. The meaning is that Christ's human nature had no independent personality of its own, and that the divine nature is the root and basis of his personality. His humanity was enhypoatatized through union with the Logos, or incorporated into his personality. The Synod of Chalcedon says nothing of this feature; it was an afterthought developed by John of Damascus. It seems incon­sistent with the dyotheletic theory; for a being with consciousness and will has the two essential ele­ments of personality, while an impersonal will seems to be a mere animal instinct. Ritachl (jus­tification and Reconciliation, New York, 1900, p. 437) says: " That the divine revealing Word con­stitutes the form, and the human individual the substance, of the person of Christ . . . is what in the end the doctrine of the Greek Church comes to. For the theory of the anhypoatasis of the human nature in Christ . . . is intelligible only if the Divine Logos is the form in which this human in­dividual exists, outside of which he has no real existence at all. For the form is the basis of real­ity."

2. Criticism: The Chalcedonian chriatology is regarded by the Greek and Roman, and by the majority of the orthodox English and American theologians, as the highest chriatological knowl 

1. Favor  edge attainable in this world. Dr.

able oyin  Shedd (History of Christian Doctrine,

ions. i., New York, 1863, p. 408) thinks it

probable that " the human mind is

unable to go beyond it in the endeavor to unfold

the mystery of Christ's complex person." Dr.

Hodge (Systematic Theology, ii., New York, 1872,

pp. 397 sqq.) notice and criticizes several of the

more recent " erroneous and heretical doctrines,"

but holds to the Chalcedonian statement as adopted

by the scholastic Calvinists of the seventeenth


On the other hand, the Chalcedonian chrie­tology has been subjected to a rigorous criticism in Germany by Evangelical as well as rationalistic divines by Schleiermacher, Baur, Dorner, Rothe, and the modern Kenoticists, also by Ritechl and his followers, and by! Professor Pains in America. It is charged with a defective psychology, and now with dualism, now with docetiem, according as its dis­tinction of two natures or the personal unity is made its most prominent feature. It is said to oscillate between two extremes, without truly recoa 

citing them; as the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity

stands between tritheiam and modaliam, now leaning

to the one, now to the other, when either the tri­

personality or the union is emphasized. It assumes

two natures in one person; while the dogma of the

Trinity assumes three persona in one nature.

Professor Pains (Critical History of the Evolution

of Trinilarianism, Boston, 1900, p. 279) marvels

"'how such a bald antinomy, Christ wholly God

and wholly man, could have been adopted by theo­

logians who were adepts in the Aristotelian and

Platonic philosophies." Again he speaks of the

Chalcedonian chriatology as " an unhistorical and

unscientific violation of logical and psychological

laws." The Chalcedonian definition, it is further

objected, teaches a complete human

2. alxieo  nature with reason and will, and yet

dons and denies it personality. It does not do

justice to the genuine humanity of

jcisms. Cwt in the Gospels, and to all those

passages which assert its real growth. 1t over­

shadows the human by the divine. It puts the

final result at the beginning, and ignores the inter­

vening process. If we read the Gospel history, we

find that Christ was a helpless infant on his mother's

breast and therefore not omnipotent till after

the resurrection, when " all authority in heaven and

on earth " was given unto him (Matt. xaviii. 18); he

grew in wisdom, and learned obedience (Luke ii.

40; Heb. v. 8), and was ignorant of the day of

judgment (Mark xiii. 32), therefore not omniscient;

he moved from place to place, and was therefore

not omnipresent before his ascension to heaven;

be was destitute of his divine glory, which he was

to regain after his death (John avii. 5). To con­

fine these limitations and imperfections to his

human nature, while in his divine nature he was,

at one and the same time, omnipotent, omniscient,

and omnipresent, even in the manger and on the

cross, is to destroy the personal unity of life, and

to make two Chriats. How can ignorance and omni­

science simultaneously coexist in one and the same

mind? How can one and the same individual per­

vade and rule the universe in the same moment in

which he exclaims, " My God, my God, why heat

thou forsaken me? " Christ speaks and acts

throughout as one undivided ego. We must, there­

fore, so reconstruct or improve the Chalcedonian

chriatology as to conform it to the historical realness

of his humanity, to the full meaning of his own

sayings concerning himself, and to all the facts

of his life. This is generally felt among the Evan­

gelical theologians in Germany, where christo­

logical speculation has been moat active since the

Reformation, and by not a few in other countries.

If anything has resulted from the multitude of

lives of Christ, written by learned and able men in

the nineteenth century, it is the fact of the perfect

and unique divine human personality of Jesus of

Nazareth (cf. some good remarks on thin subject

by Dr. J. 0. Dykes, in the Expository Times, Jan.,

1906, pp. 151 eqq. ).

At the same time the Chalcedonian dogma is the ripest fruit of the chriatological apecnlsvtions and controversies of the ancient Church, and can never be lost. It gave the clearest eaprea 

1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page