§ 142. THE ORTHODOX CHRISTOLOGT. 751
dental to it. "The Lord of the universe,'' as Leo puts the matter in his epistle, " took the form of a servant ; the impassible God became a suffering man ; the Immortal One su bmitted himself to the dominion of death ; Majesty assumed intc itself lowliness; Strength, weakness; Eternity, mortality." The game, wlio is true God, is also true man, without either element being altered or annihilated by the other, or being degraded to a mere accident.
This mysterious union came to pass, in an incomprehensible way, through the power of the Holy Ghost, in the vii'gin womb of Mary. But whether the miraculous conception was only the beginning, or whether it at the same time completed the union, is not decided in the Creed of Chalcedon. According to his human nature at least, Christ submitted himself to the laws of gradual development and moi-al conflict, without which, indeed, he could be no example at all for us.
2. The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being ; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, selfasserting, and acting subject. There is no person without nature, but there may be nature without person (as in irrational beings).' The Church doctrine distinguishes in the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in the ordinary human sense of the word) in one divine nature or substance which they have in common ; in its Christology it teaches, conversely, two natures in one person (in the usual sense of person) which pervades both. Therefore it cannot be said : The Logos assumed a huunm person,'^ or united himself with a definite human individual : for then the God-Man would consist of two persons ; but he took upon himself the human nature, which is common to all men ; and therefore he redeemed not a particular man,
' Compare the weighty dissertation of Boethius : De duabiis naturis ei una perlona Christi, adversus Eutychen et Neslorium (Opera, ed. Basil., 1546, pp. 948-95'7), in which he defines natura [(pixrf; or ovaia), substantia (uTrJcrTatris), and persona [irpScrwnov). " i\^atera," he says, " est cujusUbet substantia specificata proprietas persona vero rationabilis naturae iudlAadua subsistentia."
' TtAfiov ixpSipwirov fiATjcpe, as Theodore of Mopsuestia and the strict Neflotians expressed Iheraselyea
752 THIKD PERIOD. A.I). 311-590.
but all men, as partakers of the same nature or substance.* Tlie l)ersonal Logos did not become an individual av'^p(oTro<;, but (Tup^, iiesh, wliich includes the whole of human nature, body, soul, and spirit. The personal self-conscious Ego resides in the Logos. But into tliis point we shall enter more fullj below.
3. The result of the incarnation, that infinite act of divine love, is the God-Man. Not a (Nestorian) dcnihle being, with two persons ; nor a compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium qiiid, neither divine nor human ; but one person, who is hoih divine a/nd human. Christ has a rational human soul, and — according to a definition afterwards added — a human will," and is therefore in the full sense of the
' As Augustine says : Dens Verbum non accepit pemonam hominis, sed naturarriy et in etemam personam divinitatis accepit temporalem substantiam camis. And again : " Deus naturam nostram, id est, animain rationalem camemque hominis Christ! suscepit." (De corrept. et grat. § 30, torn. x. f. 766.) Comp. Johaunea Damascenus, De fide orthod. iii. c. 6, 11. The Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, styled on account of his sober equipoise of intellect " the judicious Hooker," sets forth this point of the Church doctrine as follows : "He took not angels bat the seed of Abraham. It pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person amongst men, for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed, and no more, but Wisdom to the end she might save many built her house of that Nature which is common unto all, she made not ihh or that man her habitation, but dwelt in vs. If the Son of God had taken to himself a man now made and already perfected, it would of necessity follow, that there are in Christ two persons, the one assuming, and the other assumed ; whereas the Son of God did not assume a man's person Into his own, but a man's nature to his own person ; and therefore took serrun, the seed of Abraham, the very firat original and element of our nature, before it was come to have any personal human subsistence. The flesh and the conjunction of the flesh with God began both at one instant; hia making and taking to himself our flesh was but one act, so that in Christ there is no personal subsistence but one, and that from everlasting. By taking only the nature of man he still continueth one person, and changeth but the manner of his subsisting, which was before in the glory of the Son of God, and is now in the habit of our flesh." (Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. ch. 52, in Keble's edition of Hooker's works, vol ii, p. 286 f.) In just the same manner Anastasius Siuaita and John of Damascus ex press themselves. Comp. Dorner, ii. p. 183 ff. Hooker's allusion to Ilcb. ii. 16 {oh yap S-qvov ayjfKwv iiriXa/jL^dyeTat, aAA.a awepixaTo^ ^A^paa/x f TriAa^/Sarfrai), it may be remarked, rests upon a false interpretation, since i-mKafx^dvecr^ai does not refer to the incarnation, but signifies : to take hold of in order to help or redeem (aa in Sirach, iv. 11). Comp. ^ori^briaat, Heb. ii. 18.
' The sixth ecumenical council, held at Constantinople, a. d. 680, condemned msnothelitism, and decided in favor of dyothel'tiflm, or the doctrine of two willf