about Christ was divine, even his body.^ The opposition between the Syrian and Egyptian bishops (Antioch and Alexandria) be- came so pronounced, that any distinction of natures in Christ was by the latter denounced as Nestorianism. It was Eutyches, how- ever, a presbyter of Constantinople, one of the most strenuous ad- vocates of the views of Cyril and an opponent of Nestorius, who became the representative of this doctrine which has since gone by his name. He was accused of heresy on this account, and con- demned in a Council called by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Eutyches admitted that before the incarnation there were two natures, but afterwards only one. 'O/ioAoyai e/< 8vo t^vatinv yeyevirjo-dai Tov KvpLov rjfjiuyv irpo Trj<; evwatois, /uera 8e rrjv cvwcrtv, fxiav (fivaiv o/AoAoyai. But what was that nature which resulted from the union of the two ? The human might be exalted into the divine, or lost in it, as a drop of vinegar (to use one of the illustrations then em- ployed) in the ocean. Then Christ ceased to be a man. And as the union of the two natures commenced from the beginning, the whole of Christ's human earthly life became an illusion, or empty show. Where then are his redeeming work, and his bond of union or sympathy with us ? Or the effect of the union might be to merge the divine into the human, so that the one nature was after all only the nature of man. Then the true divinity of Christ was denied, and we have only a human saviour. Or the effect of the union of the two natures was the production of a third, which was neither human nor divine, but theanthropic, as in chemical combinations an acid and ah alkali when united, produce a sub- stance which is no longer either acid or alkaline. Then Christ instead of being God and man, is neither God nor man. This being contrary to the Scriptures, and placing Christ out of the range of human sympathies, was opposed to the intimate convic- tions of the Church.
The condemnation of Eutyches at Constantinople greatly in- censed Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria, and his associates. Through his influence a general synod was convened at Ephesus in 449 A. D., from which the opposers of Eutyches were forcibly excluded, and his doctrine of one nature in Christ formally sanc- tioned. The Council proceeded to excommunicate those who taught a contrary doctrine, and Eutyches was restored to office. The doctrines of the Council (known in history as " the robber council ") were sanctioned by the emperor Theodosius. But as he died in the following year, his successor being hostile to Dios-
1 Neander, Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. p. 349.
404 PART III. Ch. m. — the person of CHRIST.
curus, summoned another general synod, which met at Chalcedon, A. D. 451. Here Dioscurus was deposed, and the letter of Leo of Rome to Flavian of Constantinople was adopted as a true exposi- tion of tlie faith of the Church. Agreeably to the distinctions contained in that letter the Council framed its confession, in which it is said,^ " We teach that Jesus Christ is perfect as respects God- head, and perfect as respects manhood ; that He is truly God, and truly a man consisting of a rational soul and a body ; that He is consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity, and consubstan- tial with us as to his humanity, and like us in all respects, sin excepted. He was begotten of the Father before creation (^po alwvwv^ as to his deity ; but in these last days He, for us, and for our salvation, was born of Mary the Virgin, the mother of God as to his humanity. He is one and the same Christ, Lord, only begotten, existing in two natures without mixture, without change, witliout division, without separation ; the diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union in the one person, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being pre- served, and concurring to one person, and one subsistence." This was one of the six general Councils in whose doctrinal decisions all Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, professed their agree- ment. The Latin Church received this confession of the Council of Chalcedon cheerfully, but it met with great opposition in some parts, and especially in Palestine and Egypt, and therefore did not bring the controversy on this subject to an end. Tiiis conflict re- sulted in great disorders and bloodshed in Palestine and Eoy{)t, and in Constantinople even in revolution ; one Emperor was deposed, and another enthroned. After nearly two centuries of controversy, the Emperor Heraclius endeavoured to effect a reconciliation by getting both parties to admit that there are two natures in Christ, but only one will and operation, /ua OeaiBpcKr] ivepycLa. This effbrt was so far successful that a portion of the Monophysites assented to this modification of the creed of the Council of Chalcedon ; but the more determined of that party and the great body of the ortho- dox refused. The controversy turned after this specially on the question whether there is one only, or two wills in Christ. If only one, then, as the orthodox asserted, there could be but one nature, for will is one of the essential elements or faculties of a rational nature. To deny Christ a human will, was to deny that He had a human nature, or was truly a man. Besides, it precluded the pos- sibility of his having been tempted, and therefore contradicted the ^ Acta Quinta, Binius, ConciUa Oeneralia, vol. ii. part i. d. 253, e. f.