mixed or transformed. Each nature still retained its peculiar attributes, as is the case in man, who consists of two inoorάoes, soul and body. All these attributes and actions were predicable of one person, (ярóśwπov,) but not of both the natures; the inferior were predicable only of the human nature; the superior only of the divine nature. Accordingly, the terms, Deus natus, mortuus est, Mater Dei, eòs Evoapxos, were very unsuitable and unscriptural. These could be properly predicated only of Christ, (the name of the person.)"

with truth, to Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and other ancient, and especially Egyptian, teachers, who appeared to abolish the distinction of the two natures. Eutychianism may therefore be truly said to have existed before Eutyches; to prove which Salig published a treatise at Wolfenbütel, 1724, 4to.

Hence arose another unhappy division in the church. The patriarch of Constantinople joined with Pope Leo the Great in opposing Eutyches, | and accused the latter of reviving the heresy of Apollinaris, and of denying the true humanity of Christ. He protested against this conclusion; but they would not allow that his words admitted any other sense, and he was too obstinate to alter his terminology. At the Council at Chalcedon in the year 451, his doctrine was condemned as heretical. Here arose the sect of the Monophysites, which continues in the East to the present day.

In order to render the difference between theinselves and the catholics and Nestorians clearly discernible, some of these Monophysites employed paradoxical statements and phrases, like the following:-viz., one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified; the deity of Christ so penetrated his humanity as to render his body incor

Hereupon Nestorius was openly attacked, at first in Egypt. His chief opponent was Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, who maintained his own theory in opposition, and accused Nestorius of dividing Christ into two persons; because puois was the word used at Alexandria for what Nestorius called inóorasis, and inóstasis for what he called ярówяov. They disagreed, therefore, more in words than in reality. At length, in the year 431, the followers of Nestorius were condemned as heretics by the council at Ephesus. The whole party separated from the catholic church, and continues in the East to the present day. [For a more full account of the doctrines of Nestorius, with the original pas-ruptible, (apSaptov.) This, however, was denied sages, cf. Gieseler, Lehrb. d. k. Gesch. b. i. s. 85, ff. Neander, Gesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 951. As to the separate community of the Nestorians, cf. Neander in his Appendix to the History of this Doctrine, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1171. Also Mosheim (Murdock's Trans.), vol. i. p. 431, note. Whether the whole dispute between Nestorius and Cyril was mere logomachy is a matter of dispute.-Tr.]

IV. The Doctrine of Eutyches, and the Controversy

respecting it in the Fifth Century. Eutyches, an abbot, and presbyter in cloister at Constantinople, was one of the most zealous opponents of Nestorius. In order to oppose his doctrine more successfully, he affirmed, after the year 448, that Christ had only one nature (uia quos) after his deity and humanity were united. He called this nature, pois oɛoɑpxwuévn, the nature made human. In this way he supposed he could express the most intimate connexion between the two natures, which, in his opinion, were too widely separated by Nestorius, so as to make two persons in Christ. He meant, in fact, to say nothing more nor less than that there was only one Christ. The whole obscurity consisted in the word puss, which he understood to mean person; as Athanasius himself did in the fifth century, and also Ephraem the Syrian. This controversy, therefore, like the former, was, in fact, mere logomachy.* Eutyches appealed, and

[The doctrine of Eutyches respecting the person of Christ has been more definitely stated by other

by others, because it favoured the Docetæ. Some also, even of the Monophysites, believed that the divine nature was omniscient, but not the human nature connected with it, (Mark, xiii. 32.) These were called Agnoëtæ.

[Note. As Photinianism and Apollinarianism were the opposite extremes of this doctrine in the former period, so now were Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Between these the catholic fathers took a middle course, and condemned, on the one hand, the ovvapɛia of Nestorius, as indicating a mere external and moral connexion between the two natures in Christ, and, on the other, the ovyzvois or μeraßoań of Eutyches, as indicating such an entire interpenetration of the two natures as must destroy the peculiarities of each. The catholic doctrine in opposition to these extremes is expressed in the following symbol, established at the Council at Chalcedon, 451, under Marcian.

writers on doctrinal history. The principal peculiarity of it is placed in this point: while Eutyches admitted that before the incarnation (or, which was doubtless his meaning, according to conception, and not in reality) there were two natures in Christ, yet after this they did not remain distinct, but constituted one nature, not merely by a ovvácia, as Nestorius held, but by a real oúyxos or peraßoλn, so that his human nature could no longer be said to be comsubstantial with that of other men. Briefly, it is Eutychianism to say that Christ is constituted of or from two natures, but does not exist in two natures, (ix duo pierwv, not ¿v dío qúoco.) Cf. Neander, Gesch. b. ii. Ab. iii. s. 1078. Also Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i. p. 433, Note.-TR.]

act separately, but was subject to the divine will, and governed by it. Both parties were right in opinion, and only misunderstood each other. The latter, however, was outvoted, and at the third Council at Constantinople, in the year 680, was condemned as heretical; and thus the sect of the Monothelites arose in the East, [Cf. Hahn, s. 464. Gieseler, s. 162.]

Επόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν, ἕνα καὶ | one will ; since the human will of Christ did not 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, μόνογενῆ, ἐκ δύο φύσεων [ἐν δύο φύσεσι] ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπ‐ τως, ἀδιαιρέτως, αχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης | διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ιδιότητος ἐπατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἕν πρόσωπον, και μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης, οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε, | καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον.

There can be no reasonable doubt which of the two readings, èx dúo quoɛwv, or iv dúo qúoɛot, ought to be preferred. The whole force of the symbol, as far as it is directed against Eutychianism, lies in the latter reading, since Eutyches would allow that Christ was constituted ix dúo qúoɛwv. The reading ev dúo púosot is supported by good authority, probably from the whole course of events at the Council of Chalcedon, and more consistent than the other with the context, as the word yvwpisóμevov is of difficult construction with ex, and, on the contrary, reads naturally with iv. Cf. Neander, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1110.-TR.]

Note.-Another controverted point was the relation of Christ to the Father, in the union of his two natures. The ancient fathers had commonly used the appellation Son of God, as a name of the divine nature of Christ, and not as a name of his person and office. They found some texts of scripture, however, in which the human nature of Christ is also plainly designated by this name ; as Luke, i. 35. In order to relieve themselves from this difficulty, without relinquishing their position, they said, " Christ, as God, was the | natural Son of God, (i. e., he was, in a literal sense, eternally generated by the Father, he rem ceived his deity communicated to him from eternity, Ps. ii., but as man he was the Son of God by adoption-i. e., by the communication of the divine nature at the time of his conception, he was raised as a man to this dignity. And in this there is no heresy. But as these terms and representations respecting adoption were frequently employed by the Nestorians, they were gradually omitted by the catholics. This doctrine was, however, revived in Spain in the eighth century, 783, et seq., by Felix, Bishop of Urgel (Urgelitanus), and was approved by many in the West. Others regarded it as a revival of Nestorianism; councils were held upon the subject in Italy and Germany; and at length the opinion of the Adoptionists was condemned as heretical.

Respecting all these controversies, vide. Walch, Ketzergeschichte.

SECTION CIII.

V. The Theory and Sect of the Monothelites. This sect arose in the seventh century, from These unhappy dissensions should serve as a the attempt of some, who were rather inclined warning to every Christian who loves peace, not to the side of the Monophysites, to unite the to take upon himself to define and decide respectNestorians and Monophysites with the catholicing subjects which the holy scriptures have left church. They persuaded the emperor Heraclius undecided; as Morus truly observes, p. 138, s. to enact, that Christ, after the union of his two 10, coll. s. 101. natures, had only one will and one action of the will. To this it was thought all parties might assent, and thus become united. At first, many were inclined to adopt this opinion, and among HISTORICAL OBSErvations continuED; THE ANothers, the patriarchs at Constantinople and Rome. But a number of councils were held upon the subject, and the catholics at last came to the conclusion that this opinion would introduce only a different form of the doctrine of Eutyches. They therefore maintained a twofold will in Christ-i. e., one for his divine, and one for his human nature; but at the same time that these were never opposed and always agreed. The other party maintained that there was but

CIENT ECCLESIASTICAL TERMINOLOGY RESPECT-
ING THIS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED.

I. Terminology of the Fathers.
THE ecclesiastical terminology on this subject
came gradually into use, and originated partly
before the controversies of the fifth century,
partly at the time of these controversies, and in
consequence of them. Many ancient terms were
differently defined and understood after that

period. This indefiniteness of phraseology, and | This word was used at the same time in Egypt, the various use of terms, were the principal occasion of these controversies. The terms employed ought, first of all, to have been explained and understood.

(1) Some ANCIENT general terms respecting the person of Christ, and the relations and actions of his deity and humanity.

(a) The ancient fathers were in the habit of calling the mutual relation of the deity and humanity united in Christ, oixovouía, which signifies arrangement, institution, regulation; also, the fashion and manner in which anything is done or arranged. So it is used by Polybius, and Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, and by Paul, Ephes. i. 10. In the same way, Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 2) used the word œconomia, and rendered it dispensatio.

(b) They endeavoured to find some term which should appropriately designate the whole person of Christ, as composed of deity and humanity. As the New Testament contains no single word of this kind, they at last decided upon the word θέανδρος οι θεάνθρωπος, God-man, as Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et homo, and Origen Θεὸς καὶ ἀνθρωπος.

(c) They called the power which the deity and humanity of Christ had of working in common, ἐνέργεια θεανδρική, vis, sive operatio deovi rilis. This phrase first occurs in the PseudoDionysius Areopagitus, Epist. 4. Theologians, therefore, afterwards called the particular actions of Christ, as God and man, or his mediatorial works, operationes deoviriles; also, àñorεhéoμara. Vide s. 105.

and was one cause of the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius. Vide s. 102, iii. (c) Ovsía. This word was early in frequent use; but through the efforts of Cyril and the Roman bishop, in the fifth century, the word puss became current as orthodox.

(3) The terms used to denote the whole Christ, as consisting of two natures.

The Latin church used the word persona for this purpose; and this, being very definite and unambiguous, has been retained. Respecting its definition, &c., vide s. 104. But the Greek church had a great variety of terms to express the same thing, which occasioned the greatest confusion.

(a) Пpóбwлov. This word was, in fact, the least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the Latin persona, (a suppositum intelligens, which has its own proper subsistence.) In many churches this was originally the most common word. It was so even among the Syrians, who derived their word parsopa from it. Accordingly, Nestorius said, πρόσωπον ἐν καὶ δύο ὑποσ τάσεις (natures) ἐν Χριστῷ. But the word was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and elsewhere. In these places they used instead the word—

(b) Trooτaois. Among the Greeks this word means the actual existence (vxapšis) of a thing, the existing thing; also, an individual. It was therefore a far more ambiguous word than the other. Cyril used it to denote the whole Christ; but Nestorius, his separate natures. Vide s. 102, III. Cyril and the Roman bishop said: is (2) Various terms were originally used to de- Χριστός, μία ὑπόστασις, δύο φύσεις ἐν Χρισ note the two subjects (rрáyuara, res, as Cyril T. This party prevailed, and introduced inósof Alexandria calls them) connected in Christ. Tasis as the common word by which the orthodox In the Latin church the oldest term was substan- were distinguished. Even they, however, sometia. So Tertullian, "substantiæ duæ,-CARO et times still used the word рównov. The word SPIRITUS," Adv. Prax. 27. They had previous-ixóotasis may also have been regarded as more ly been contented with the simple formula: scriptural, from Hebrews, i. 2, xaрaxτǹp vñosτá"Christum esse Deum et hominem verum.' Gews; but here the person is not the subject of The word substantia was still used in this sense discourse. Vide s. 100. The Nestorians still by the Latin church in the fourth century, and adhered to their ярówяov and parsopa. sometimes even by Leo the Great in the fifth century. It signified, as they used it, ens singulare, or individuum. It was, however, regarded as ambiguous, since it also signified existence itself and that which really is. The word natura was gradually found to be more appropriate and definite. It had been early used by Ambrosius; but after the Council at Chalcedon, in the fifth century, it became, by means of Leo the Great, the usual and characteristic term of the catholic fathers.

(c) Pious. This word was applied to the person of Christ by many teachers of the fourth century, long before Eutyches. Athanasius and Ephraem the Syrian had affirmed, without being pronounced heretics, that there was μía pois in Christ. Eutyches, then, in the fifth century, thought that this word, already authorized by the catholic fathers, was the best adapted to express the most intimate connexion between the deity and humanity, in opposition to Nestorius. Vide s. 102, iv. His opponents, however, understood the word differently, and so made heresy out of it.

In the Greek church, also, many terms were originally in use. (a) Tлóoracis. This word answers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was (4) The words, comparisons, and established used by Nestorius, and before him by many distinctions employed to illustrate the manner of whose orthodoxy was never doubted. (b) Pvois. | the union of the two natures.

(a) The most ancient words used by the fathers to denote the union of the two natures convey the idea of a mixture of these natures. Among others was the word ouyxpaois, commixtio, and misceri, which is used by Tertullian (adv. Prax.) and by Cyprian, and even in the fourth and fifth centuries by Gregory of Nyssa and Ephraem the Syrian. This word occasionally escaped even from Leo the Great, the zealous opponent of Eutyches. Of the same kind were the words which frequently occur in the writings of the Grecian, and more especially the Egyptian, teachers of the third and fourth centuriesνίκ., μεταβολή, μεταποίησις, μεταμόρφωσις. But the word ovrápia was preferred by Nestorius and some others. But for this very reason it was rarely employed by his opponents. The other words súуxpasis, x. t. 2., which denote a mixture of natures, were rejected at the Council at Chalcedon, because they were used by Eutyches, and the word evwois, unio, was there established in their place.

(b) The illustrations of the manner of this union employed by the ancients.

rent, but real;) inooratix, (such that the two natures remained unchanged as to their kind, although they were essentially united—a term used by Cyril;) vлeppvoixý, (supernatural,) &c. After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the schoolmen of the West adopted these terminologies into their systems. The orthodox Greeks also constantly preserved them, in opposition to the Monophysites, Nestorians, and other heretics.

II. Later Distinctions.

During the sixteenth century, after the death of Luther and Melanethon, not only were the old subtilties in the doctrine respecting the nature and person of Christ revived by many Lutheran theologians, but many new ones were introduced. The occasion of this was, the controversy respecting the Lord's Supper between the zealous adherents of Luther and the Reformed theologians. The Reformed doctrine was at that time approved by many Lutheran theologians. The opposing party, therefore, and especially James Andreä, Chancellor at Tübingen, and Mart. Chemnitz, endeavoured, by new distinctions in the doctrine respecting the person of Christ, to draw the line of distinction between the two systems as finely as possible. Ecclesiastical authority was given to these distinctions by the "Form of Concord." Such subtilties as these do not appear in the "Loci The

(a) Comparisons and images. Some of these are very gross, and exhibit very imperfect conceptions. Tertullian said, (Adv. Prax. 27,) The deity and humanity in Christ were mixtura quædam, ut electrum ex auro et argento." Origen and Basilius the Great compared this union to iron heated in the fire, (penetrated through and through by the fire;) Ephraem theologici" of Melancthon. On this subject the Syrian, to a compounded medicine; Origen, in another passage, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, to the marriage connexion (two, one flesh)—a comparison of a more moral cast; Cyril of Alexandria and Leo the Great, to the union of soul and body, which comparison they particularly advocated.

(3) Many new terminologies were invented after the controversies commenced, in order to distinguish one sect from another, and to obviate various unscriptural representations. Thus, the natures in Christ were said to be connected àxwpiotws, àdiαipétws, and ådiakúrws-i. e., indissolubly and permanently, and not merely for a season; for the Gnostics taught that the on Christ was separated from the man Jesus at the time of the death of the latter; and Marcellus taught that the Logos would at some future time return to the Father. In opposition to these and similar errors, the above determinations were therefore adopted by the Council at Chalcedon. Thus, too, in opposition to Eutyches, this union was said to be ȧsvyzúrws, (such that a third nature had not arisen from the union of the two natures, as when material things are mingled ;) each nature existed by itself, unaltered in its kind, ȧrpets. Christ, it was said, should be one, ἓν πρόσωπον, μία ὑπόστασις θεανθρώπου. This was was said to be ovoúdns, (not appa

following particulars should be known—viz.,

(1) Luther affirmed the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But in the sixteenth century many of his disciples and zealous followers went beyond their teacher in this matter. Some of them advocated in fact, if not in words, a physical presence of the body of Christ. Beza, on the other hand, and other Reformed theologians, shewed, as Zwingli had done before, that this could not be supposed; considering that the human body of Christ is now in heaven, and could not, as a real human body, be present in more than one place at the same time.

(2) Against these objections the Lutherans maintained, either the actual constant omnipresence of the body of Christ, as Andreä appears to have done, or, that it could be present every where (ubique), whenever and wherever he would, and the case required. This was the view of Luther, Chemnitz, Hülsemann, and many others. Hence they were called by their opponents Ubiquitarians, and there was much controversy respecting the omnipresence of the body of Christ.

(3) In order to render this presence of the body of Christ more intelligible, assistance was sought from the doctrine de communicatione idiomatum interna et reali. Here Chemnitz was

the most active. They proceeded on the ground | authority of the Bible, only of the Son of God. that the human nature of Christ was united in The condition which arises from this union is the most intimate manner with the divine nature, called unio (vwois); the beginning of this that it was penetrated, as it were, by the divine union, or the act of uniting, unitio, which is nature, and received all divine attributes by com- therefore synonymous with incarnatio, (¿voápxwmunication. They invented for this purpose os.) This personal union is a real, not simply the "genus communicationis idiomatum majes- a moral, mystical, or figurative union; still it is taticum." At length they displayed this fine a supernatural union, such that one nature is, as web of subtilty and terminology in the "Form it were, penetrated by the other (permeata;) alof Concord." though the manner, the internal modus, of this is to us inexplicable, and such that the most intimate connexion subsists between the two in their mutual actions. Theologians call this union of one nature with the other, and their mutual relations, epizŵpnois, observing, however, that no mixture (ovyzvous) of the two natures takes place, and also that this union is inseparable and indissoluble, (axwpioτws.) Other distinctions and terminologies, which had their rise in the controversies relating to this subject, may be seen in s. 103.

(4) Hereupon new dissensions and schisms arose in the Lutheran church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the theologians of Brandenburg rejected the "Form of Concord" altogether, and the theologians of Helmstädt disapproved and rejected particular doctrines contained in it, such as the doctrine of the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ. The controversy which thus arose did great injury to the Lutheran church.

SECTION CIV.

A BRIEF EXHIBITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYS-
TEM RESPECTING THE PERSON AND THE TWO

II. Effects of this Personal Union of the Two Natures; and the Consequences deduced from it. (1) The impersonality, ȧvvrostasía, impersoNATURES OF CHRIST; AN EXPLANATION OF THE nalitas, of the man Jesus, or of the human nature

ECCLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY NOW IN USE IN
THE DOCTRINE "DE COMMUNICATIONE IDIOMA-

of Christ. Theologians maintain that the human nature of Christ does not subsist in itself,

TUM;" AND A CRITICAL JUDGMENT UPON THE but in the person of the Son of God, or that in

SAME.

FROM S. 102, 103, the gradual origin and increase of the learned ecclesiastical distinctions and terminologies is clearly seen. The most important of these only are still retained. How many of them are plainly founded in the holy scriptures may be determined by s. 100, 101.

I. Established Form of Doctrine respecting the Person of Christ, and the Union of his Two Natures. There are two natures in Christ, the divine and human. The Son of God (i. e., the divine nature) united himself so closely and intimately with the human nature, that one person is made from these two united natures. Person, in philosophical language, is a rational existence, (beasts then are not persons,) which has its being and subsistence in itself, (subjectum intelligens, volens, libere agens.) Thus Boëthius in his book, "de persona et natura," cap. 2. The abstract of person, or the existence of such a being, is called personalitas. This union, therefore, in being personal, (unio personalis,) is distinguished from the other kinds of union of God with his creatures, and even from that of God (the Father) with the man Jesus; vide s. 101. We may say that the triune God is in some sense united with Jesus. But neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit have so connected themselves with the human nature of Christ, that we can say that the Father or the Holy Spirit became man. This can be said, on the

itself it is ἀνυπόστατος, and that it has ἐνυποστα síav in him. For, if personality is ascribed to the human nature of Christ, he must be conceived as composed of two distinct persons. This distinction was directed principally against the opinions ascribed to the Nestorians, and also against the opinions of the Apollinarians, Monothelete and Agnoëtæ. If we would form any clear idea from this distinction, we must understand it, not in a physical, but in a moral sense, as Ernesti remarks in his programm “De incarnatione." All that is intended by it is this, that the man Jesus never was a mere man, and never acted from simple human power (ap' avzoù), in any such way as to be separated from the Son of God, and, as it were, independent of him. And this is the representation of the New Testament. When, therefore, Christ says, I do, I teach, &c., he speaks of the whole Christ, in which the divine is the superior and reigning nature, by which the inferior or human nature is governed and used as an instrument, just as we, when we speak of ourselves, our persons, mean soul and body together.

Note. In this way, and in this way only, can we explain the fact that Christ should speak of himself in the very same discourse, and indeed in the very same sentence, as man, and again in such terms as the eternal and immutable God alone uses of himself-e. g., John, xvii. 5, "Glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was;" in the same man