§ 142, TllE ORTHODOX CHIilSTOLOGY. 753
word tlie Son of man ; while yet at the same time he is the eter iial Son of God in one person, with one undivided self-coii' scionsness.
4. The duality of the natures. This was the element of truth in Nestorianism, and on tins the council of Clialcedon laid chief stress, hecause this council was principally concerned with the condeujuatiou of Euiychianism or monophysitisra, aa that of Ephesus (431) had been with the condemnation of Nestoria.nism, or abstract djophysitism. Both views, indeed, admitted the distinction of the natures, but Eutychianism denied it after the act of the incarnation, and (like Apollinarianism) made Christ a middle being, an amalgam, as it were, of the two iiatares, or, more accurately, one nature in which the human element is absorbed and deified.
Against this it is aiRrmed by the Creed of Chalcedon, that even after the incarnation, and to all eternity, the distinction of the natures continues, without C(jiitusion or conversion,' yet, on the other hand, without separation or division,* so that the divine will remain ever divine, and the human, ever human,* and yet the two have continually one common life, and in^****penetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity,"
(or volitions) in Christ, which are necessary to the ethical conflict and victory of his own life and to his office as an example for us. This council teaches (Mansi, torn, ii. 637): Auo (pucriKas SeArJTfix •^roi SeAT^ftara Iv a.vT(f kuI Suo (pvaiKas ivepytiai aSia.peTois, arpeTrTcos, daepiVrcof, aauyxvTws . . . Kripvrrofx^v. These wills are not opposite to one another, bat the human will is ever in harmony with the d."vine, and in all things obedient to it. " Not my will, but thine be done : " therein is found the distinction and the unity,
* 'Kavyx'J'Tais and arpeVTcoy.
* 'ASiaipe'rcuj and axf^pfcTcos.
' " Tenet," says Leo, in his epistle to Flavian, "sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura, et sicut formam servi Dei fonnam non adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit .... Agit utraque cum alterius communione quod proprium est ; Yerbo scilicet operante quod Veibi est, et came exsequeute quod carnis est. Unum hurum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis."
* Here belongs John of Damascus' doctrine of the ■jrepixdop-n'^f^, permeatio, cireummeaiio, circulatio, circuminccssio, intercommunio, or reciprocal indwelling and pervasion, which has relation not merely to the Trinity, but also to Cliristology. The verb Trepixi^yuv is, so far as I know, first applied by Gregory of Nyssa (Contra Apollinarium) to the interpeuetratiou and reciprocal pervasion of the two natures in Christ. On this rested also the doctrine of the exchange or communication of at>
754 THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
The continuance of the divine nature unaltered is involved in its unchangeableness, and was substantially conceded by all \)arties. The controversy, therefore, had reference only to the human nature.
And here the Scriptures are plaiidy not on the Eutychian side. The Christ of tlie Gospels by no means makes the impression of a person in whom the human nature had been absorbed, or extinguished, or even weakened by the divine ; on the contrary, he appears from the nativity to the sepulchre as genuinely and truly human in the highest and fairest sense of the word. The body which he had of the substance of Mary, was born, grew, hungered and thirsted, slept and woke, sufifered and died, and was buried, like any other human body. His rational soul felt joy and sorrow, thought, spoke, and acted after the manner of men. The only cliange w^hich his human nature underwent, w^as its development to full manhood, mental and physical, in common with other men, according to the laws of growth, yet normally, without sin or inward schism ; and its ennoblement and completion by its union with the divine.
5. The unity of the person.^ This was the element of truth in Eutychianism and the later monophysitism, whicli, liowever, they urged at the expense of the human factor. Tliere is only one and the self-same Christ, one Lord, one Redeemer. There is an unity in the distinction, as well as a distinction in the unity. "The same who is true God," says Leo, " is also true man, atid in this unity there is no deceit ;
tributes, &i/T^5o(ris, a,vTijxiT6.aTa<Ti<;, Koivupia VSiuifxa.Twv^ commnnicaiio idioniafum. The ai/TtufTaaTaiTii tuv ovofxaTuiv, also avTi^xtblaraais, traiwnutatio propridalum, transmutation of attributes, is, strictly speaking, not identical with ii/Ti'5ocTiv, but a deduction from it, and the rhetorical expicssion for it. The doctrine of the comraunieatio idiomatum, however, awaited a full development much later, in the Lutheran church, where great subtlety was employed in perfecting it. This Lutheran doctrine has never found access into the Reformed church, and least of all the ubi<iuitarian hypothesis invented as a prou to consubstantiation ; although a certain msasure of truth lies at the basis of this, if it is apprehended dynamically, and not materially.
' The fvaxTis Ko^' vn6(TTa(Tti>, or tptcatr vtroaTaTiKi], unio hypostatica or person* lis, uiiitas personse. The unio personalis is the status unionis, the result of the uni tio or incarnatio.