66

the Antiochian school in the East. But the opposite view, the doctrine of the incomplete humanity, the denial of individuality to the human nature of Christ, cannot be said to have gained the sanction of General Councils. Certainly the Council of Chalcedon did not teach it, nor does anything in its acts necessarily warrant the inference that Christ was 'man," and not "a man, or that individuality did not of necessity inhere in His human nature. The decision of Chalcedon was that in Christ there were two natures and one person. Beyond that the council did not go. But others did go beyond this statement, reading into it what it did not originally contain. For the Council of Chalcedon, in which the influence of the Western Church was strong, had rendered a decision not acceptable to the Church as a whole in the East. It had also, while adopting the Western view of the Incarnation, neutralized it to some extent in approving the term "Mother of God" (EOTÓKOS) as the designation of Mary.

It therefore became necessary in the East to work over the decision of Chalcedon, in order to bring it into harmony with the prevailing popular theology. This was done first by Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485-543 A.D.). What Newman undertook to do for the Articles of the

Anglican Church, in the nineteenth century, Leontius accomplished in the sixth century for the decrees of Chalcedon, giving them a sense which reversed their original purport, and by means of which he accommodated himself to their statements. "He was the first definitely to maintain that the human nature of Christ has its personality in the Logos." 1 "A devout disciple of Apollinaris," says Harnack, "might properly have said, in reference to the phrase of Leontius, 'the personality of the human nature is in the Logos' (vπоστηvaι ev тậ λóyw), that Apollinaris said about the same thing, but said it in plainer words.” 2

1

From this time, and in consequence of this view of the Person of Christ, no further interest

1 Cf. Harnack, "Dogmengesch.," ii, 383 ff., Eng. tr., v. 232 ff. Also Loofs, "Leitfaden," 175, 185.

وو

2 See ante, p. 131. The consequence of the doctrine of the impersonality of the human nature a doctrine, says Dorner, "sanctioned by no Ecumenical Council" is this, "Instead of our seeing God in Christ, who is also the veritable Son of man, full of grace and truth, the humanity of Christ must, logically, be lowered to the position of a mere selfless opyavov of God, or even to that of a mere temple or garment." It was a further consequence, that the Church "made such a use of the doctrine of the impersonality of the human nature, that the tendency toward the magical view of the operations of grace and toward transubstantiation, which was characteristic of the Middle Ages, found ever increased satisfaction." Dorner, "Person of Christ," vol. iii, pp. 116, 119.

was felt in the study of the life of Christ, nor any effort made to get deeper insight into His consciousness, or His teaching. "The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," by John of Damascus (754-787), is an illustration of the mechanical method of dealing with the life of Jesus, after separating Him from humanity and nullifying His human nature, no matter how strongly in mere formulas that humanity may be asserted. Nor is there any hope for the Orthodox Church of the East so long as the Damascene remains its most authoritative theologian. Since Christ, as the Damascene affirms, "is not an individual," and since the Incarnation was complete from the moment of His conception, actual growth in "wisdom" or "in favor with God and man cannot be predicated without qualification. "He receives no addition to these attributes," but rather manifests, as the occasion demands, the wisdom already possessed, adapting it to the moment as the years increase, and simulating these for human growth ("Expos.," 32). The Gospel narrative tells us that He feared, and these are His own words, "Now is my soul troubled." John admits the fear was real, and not apparent, but "now means just when He willed" to be troubled ("Expos.," 23). He prayed, but not because He felt any "need of

uprising toward God," but because it was the action appropriate to the moment, and in order to become an example to us. And so when He said, Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will but as thou wilt, "Is it not clear to all," so runs the comment, "that He said this as a lesson to us to ask help in our trials only from God, and to prefer God's will to our own, and as a proof that He did actually appropriate to Himself the attributes of our nature?" (34, 35).1

The view of the Incarnation maintained by John of Damascus met with clear-sighted opposition for the first time in the teaching of Luther, who, according to Dorner,

"insisted on the reality of the humanity of Christ, even in the matter of growth. He earnestly and distinctly repudiates all those mythical elements which the legends of the Church had introduced into the life of the child Jesus. Not merely as to the physical, but also as to the spiritual aspects of Christ's

1 Cf. Dorner, "Person of Christ," iii, 205 ff., for a critical study and estimate of John of Damascus. His "Exposition" was translated into Latin, and from its use by Peter the Lombard, his teaching on the Incarnation passed over into scholastic mediæval theology and held its own until the Reformation brought a change, and Augustine came again to his own.

humanity, does he maintain that He underwent an actual development. He was in all respects like other children, with the single exception of sin. Though he decidedly represents the life of Jesus as at once divine and human from the very commencement, he is equally sincere in teaching that He increased, as in years, so also in wisdom and in favor with God and men. His humanity was not omniscient but was under the necessity of learning, though perhaps not from men. Although the Spirit did dwell in Him from the beginning, but as His body grew, and His reason grew in a natural way like that of other men, so did the Spirit penetrate into and pervade Him even more fully and moved Him the longer the more. It is, therefore, no pretence when Luke says: He became strong in the Spirit. The older He grew, the greater He grew; the greater, the more rational; the more rational, the stronger in Spirit and the fuller of wisdom before God, in Himself, and before the people. These words need no gloss. Such a view too is attended with no danger, and is Christian; whether it contradicts the articles of faith invented by them or not, is of no consequence. Although Jesus continued