§ 142. THE OKTHODOX CHKISTOLOGT. 749
The perfaon of Jesus Christ in the fulness of its theaathropic life cannot be exhaustively set forth by any formulas of humat -ogic. Even the imperfect, finite personality of man has a mys terions background, that escapes the speculative comprehension ; ]iow much more then the perfect personality of Christ, in which tlie tremendous antitheses of Creator and creature, Infinite and finite, immutable, eternal Being and changing, temporal becoming, are harmoniously conjoined ! The formulas of ortho doxy can neither beget the true 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.'
Such considerations suggest the true position and the just value of the Creed of Chalcedon, against both exaggeration and disparagement. That symbol does not aspire to comprehend the Christological mystery, but contents itself with setting forth the facts and establishing the boundaries of orthodox doctrine. It does not mean to preclude further theological discussion, but to guard against such erroneous conceptions as would mutilate cither 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 speculation the channel between Scylla and Charybdis, and to save it from stranding upon the reefs of Nestorian dyophysitism or of Eutychian monophysitism. It contents itself with settling, in clear outlines, the eternal result of the theanthropic process of incarnation, leaving the st,udy of the process itself to scientific theology. The dogmatic letter of Leo, it is true, takes a step beyond this, towards a theological interpretation of the doctrine ; but for
8uid the KivuKTis (the entire abdication) of the divine attributes by the incarnate Logos, led to no definite results, and was swallowed up in the thirty years' war. It has been resumed in modified form by modern German divines.
' Comp. Cunningham (Historical Theology, vol. i. p. 319): " The chief use rum to be made of an examination of these controversies [the Eutychian and Nestorian] is not so much to guard us against errors [?] which may be pressed upon us, and into which we may be tempted to fall, but rather to aid us in forming clear and definite conceptions of the truths regarding the person of Christ, which all profess to believe ; in securing precision and accuracy of language in explaining thera, an<J especially to assist us in realizing them ; in habitually regarding as great and actuaJ realities the leading features of the constitution of Christ's person, which the woc^ of God unfolds to us."
750 TIIIKD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
this vciy reason it cannot liavo the same Uncling and norma' tive force as tlie symbol itself.
As the Kicene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway between ti'itheism and Sabellianism, so the Chalcedonian formula strikes the true mean between Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
It accepts dyophysitism ; and so far it unquestionably favored and satisfied the moderate Antiochian party rather than the Egyptian.' But at the same time it teaches with equal distinctness, in opposition to consistent Nestorianism, the inseparable unity of the person of Christ.
The following are the leading ideas of this symbol :
1. A true incarnation of tlie Logos, or of the second person hi the Godhead.'^ The motive is the unfathomable love of God ; the end, the redemption of the fallen race, and its reconciliation with God. This incarnation is neither a conversion of God into a man, nor a conversion of a man into God ; neither a humanizing of the divine, nor a deification or apotheosis of the human ; nor on the other hand is it a mere outward, transitory connection of the two factors ; but an actual and abiding union of the two in one personal life.
It is primarily and pre-eminently a condescension and selfhumiliation of the divine Logos to human nature, and at the same lime a consequent assumption and exaltation of the human nature to inseparable and eternal communion with the divine person. The Logos assumes the body, soul, and spirit of man, and enters into all the circumstances and infirmities of humari life on earth, with the single exception of sin, which indeed is not an essential or necessary element of humanity, but acci-
' Accordingly in Leo's Episiola Dogmat'ca also, which was tlie basis of the Creed, Nestorins is not even mentioned, while Eutychcs, on the other hand, is refuted at length. But in a later letter of liCO, addressed to the emperor, a. d. 457 (Ep. 156, ed. Ballerini), he classes Nestorius and Eutyches together, as equally dangero':* heretics. The Creed of Chalcedon is also regarded by Baiir, Niedner, and Doiiier as exhibiting a certain degree of preference for the Nestorian dyophysitism.
' 'Ei'a;'Spc57rr)(ny 0eoC, ivaapK<t>(n<i, incarnaiio, — in distinction from a mere a-vpa- <p(ia, conjunclio, or trxcrucij eVaxrir, of the divine and human, by irpoVATji/zis (from iTpo(T\a.fifidvoL>), ass^imptio, of the human, and fVoiKijo-ir of the divine; and on the other hand, from a (pvatK')) (vooais, or Kpucris, (TV7Xfcis, or adpKoiai^ in the ficnse of transmutation. The diametrical opposite of the ivaviipdnrr^ffis ©eoC io the heath a