On the Christology of the N. T., see, besides the works already cited, Gess, Lehre von der Person Christi (Basel, 1866, 8vo) ; Sadler, Emmanuel (Lond. 1867, 8vo, especially ch. 1); Schaff; Apostolic Church, § 148; Goodwin, Christ the Mediator (Plymouth, 1819, 8vo); Hooker, Ecdes. Polity, bk. v, 61 ; Waterland's Works (12 vols.), vol. iv; Pye Smith, First Lines of Theol- ogy, bk. ii, chap, iv ; Guraey, Biblical Notes to Cot^firm ^ Deity of Christ (Lond. 1830, 8vo), and the writers generally on the Trinity, on the Divinity of Christ, and the Life of Christ Prof. Beyschlag, of Halle, in his Christologie des N. T, (Berlin, 1866, 8vo), attempts to show that the N. T. represents Christ as divine, bat not as pre-existent, or eqnal with the Father.
II. CHRISTOLOGY of thb Chubch. The doc*
CHRISTOLOGT
280
CHRISTOLOGT
trine of the person and work of Christ formed the nukin topic of theological speculation and controversy in the early Chnrch, and is again the most prominent relig- ious problem of modem times. The peculiarity of Ms Person consists in the perfect union of the divine and human which constitutes him the Mediator between Qod and man, and the Saviour of the fallen race. This has always been the &ith of the Christian Church, but in every age it has had to encounter a new enemy, or the old enemy in ever-varying phases, and to achieve new triumphs in the refutation of error and the vindi- cation of truth. The orthodox Christology is derived from the New Testament, especially firom St Paul and St. John (see above), and has gradually been unfolded in sharp.conflict with a larg^ number of Christological heresies, each serving to elicit a clearer view of some particular aspect either of the divinity or of the human- ity of Christ, or of the union of the two natures. *' The person of Jesus Christ in the fulness of its theanthropic life cannot be exhaustively set forth by any formulas of human logic. Even the imperfect, finite personality of man has a mysterious background that escapes the speculative comprehension ; how much more, then, the perfect personality of Christ, in which the tremendous antithesis of Creator and creature, infinite and finite, immutable, eternal Being and changing temporal be- coming, are harmoniously conjoined! The formulas of orthodoxy can neither beget the faith nor nourish it ; they are not the bread and the water of life, but a standard for theological investigation and a rule of public teaching" (Schaif).
The Orthodox Christology is essentially the same in the Greek, Latin, and evangelical Protestant churches. It forms (like the doctrine of the Trinity, so closely connected with it) one of the ftmdamental bonds of union between the great divisions of Christendom . Tet there have been some new features brought out since the Reformation. We subdivide it into oecumenical, scholastic, and evangelical.
1. The CEcuMENicAL or Catholic Christology was prepared in the ante-Nicene age (see Bull*s Z>e- fennofidd NtccmcBy, and fiiyy matured in the Nicene and post-Nicene age. The doctrine of the person of Christ, in inseparable connection with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, was the chief problem of theological speculation from the third to the middle of the fifth century, and was settled by the four great oecumenical councils of Nictea (325), Constantinople (881), fiphesus (431), and Chalcedon (451). The first two were main- ly concerned with the assertion of the strict divinity of Christ against its partial denial by Arianism and Semi- Arianism. The last two set forth the relation of the divine and the human nature of the one person against the opposite extremes of Nestorianism and Eutychian- iam. The decree of the Council of Ephesus was more negative, a condemnation of Nestorius. But the Coun- cil of Chalcedon gave a clear and full statement of the positive doctrine of Christ's person, and summed up the final result of those deep, earnest, and violent Trin- itarian and Christological controversies which had agi- tated the Church so long.
The Christological symbol of the Chalcedonian or fourth oecumenical Synod of 451 ranks next in au- thority to the Apostles* and Nicene Creeds, and has not been superseded to this day. "It does not as- phre to comprehend the Christological mystery, but contents itself with setting forth the facts and estab- lishing the boundaries of orthodox doctrine. It does not mean to preclude further theological discussion, but to guard against such erroneous conceptions as would mutilate either the divine or the human in Christ, or would place the two in a false relation. It is a light- house to point out to the ship of Christological specu- lation the channel between Scylla and Charybdis, and to save it from stranding upon the reefs of Nestorian Dyophysitism, or of Eutychian Monophysitism. As the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway be-
tween Tritheism and Sabellianism, so the Chalcedooiaii formula strikes the true mean between Nestorianism and Eutychianism. But it contents itself with setting forth, in clear outlinea, the final re$uU of the tfaean-> thropic process of incarnation, leaving the stndj of the process itself to scientific theology** (SchafF). The Chalcedonian symbol is as follows : ^^ FoUowlng the holy fathers, we unanimonslj temcfa one and the same Boo, oar Lord Jesus Christ, complete ae to hla God- head and complete m to his manhood, truly God and traly man, of a reasonable sonl and human flesh subaiating ; ooo> substantial with the Father as to his Godhead, and oenrab- Btantial also with ns as to his manhood ; like onto us In aB things, yet without sin; as to his Godhead begotten of the Fa- ther befoffe all worlds, but as to his manhood, in these Ia«t days bora, for us men and for our salvation, of the Viigfai Mary, the mother of God ; one and the same Chrfet ; Boo, Lord, Only-begotten, known in (qf) tun natures {h dvo ^^««- o-iy, in duaims nattaris^ or, with the present Greek tett, fe &*• ^i/cre*>y, of two natures, which signifies essentially the ■*"**» thing], trithout eonfueion iinnrixvr*^\ withoui eonterskm (arp^iTTetfr), ufithotU severtmce (ud«uprrwr), and without divi- sion {^xtdptmn) ; the distinction of the natures being in as wise abolished by their union^ but the peculiarity of each na- ture being maintained, and both concurring in one persoB and hTpostasls. We confess not a Son divided and etm- dered into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Onlj- b^^tten, and God-Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ, even as the prophets had before proclaimed concerning him, and he him- self hath taught us, and the symbol of the fiktbers hath hand- ed down to us.** See Cdaloedon.