§ 142. THE ORTHODOX CHKISTOLOGr. 761
controversy, is, on tlie one hand, a closer discussion ol the Pauline idea of the k^nosis, the self-limitation, self-renunciation of the Logos, and on the other hand, a truly human por trait of Jesus in his earthly development from childhood to the full maturity of manhood, without prejudice to his deity, but rather showing forth his absolute uniqueness and sinless perfection as a proof of his Godhead. Both these tasks can and should be so performed, that the enormous labor of deep and earnest thought in the ancient church be not condemned as a slieer waste of strength, but in substance confirmed, expanded, and perfected.
And even among believing Protestant scholars, who agree in the main views of the theanthropic glory of the person of Christ, opinions still diverge. Some restrict the henosis to the laying aside of the divine form of existence, or divine dignity and glory; ' others strain it in different degrees, even to a paitial or entire emptying of the divine essence out of himself, so tliat the inner trinitarian process between Father and Son, and the government of the world through the Son, were partially or wholly suspended during his earthly life.' Some, again, view the incarnation as an instantaneous act, consummated in the miraculous conception and nativity ; others as a gradual process, an ethical unification of the eternal Logos and the man Jesus in continuous development, so that the complete God-Man would be not so much the beginning as the consummation of the earthly life of Jesus.
But all these more recent inquiries, earnest, profound, and valuable as they are, have not as yet led to any important or generally accepted results, and cannot supersede the Chalcedonian Cliristolog3\ The theology of tlie church will ever return anew to deeper and still deeper contemplation and
' Of the So'fa ©eoD, John xvii. 5 ; the nop(pr] ©eoP, Phil. ii. 6 ff.
' Among these modem Kenotics, W. P. Gess goes the farthest in his Lehre von der Person Christi (Basel, 1856). Dorner opposes the theory of the Kenotics and calls them Theopaschites and Patripassians (ii. 126 ff.). There is, however, an essential distinction, inasmuch as the ancient Monophysite Theopaschitism reduces the human niture of Christ to a mere accident of his Godhead, while Thomasiue, Gess, and the other German Kenotics or Kenosists acknowledge the full humanitj of Christ, and lay great stress on it.
762 THERD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
adoration of the tlieanthropic person of Jesus Clirlst, which ia, and ever will be, the sun of history, the miracle of miracles, the central mystery of godliness, and the inexhaustible fouu* tain of salvation and life for the lost race of man.
§ 143. The Monojyhysite Controversies,
I. The Acta in Mansi, torn, vii.-ix. The writings already cited of Libeba*
TUB and Leontius Btzakt. Evagkius : 11. E, ii. v. Nicephorus : n, E. xvi. 25. Procopitjs (t about 552) : 'Av/Kfiora, Hist, arcana (ed, Orelli, Lips. 1827). Faotjndus (bishop of Hermiane in Africa, but residing mostly in Constantinople) : Pro defensione trium capitulorum, in 12 books (written a. d. 547, ed. Sirraond, Paris, 1629, and in Galland, xi. 665). FuLGKNTius Ferkandus (deacon in Carthage, t 551) : Pro tribus capitulis (in Gall. torn. xi.). Axastasius Sinaita (bishop of Antioch, 564): 'oST^yo? adv. Acephalos. Angei.o Mai: Script vet. nova coUectio. torn. vii. A late, tliough unimportant, contribution to the history of Monophysitism (from 581 to 583) is the Church History of the Mouophysito bishop John of Ephesus (of the sixth century) : The Third Part of the Eccles. History of John, bisliop of Ephesus, Oxford, 1853 (edited by W. Cureton from the Syrian literature of the Nitrian convent).
II. Petavius: De Inoarnatione, lib. i. c. 16-18 (torn. iv. p. 74 sqq.).
Waloh : Bd. vi.-viii. Sohrookh: Th. xviii. pp. 493-636. Neander; Kirchengeschichte, iv. 993-1038. Gieseler: i. ii, pp. 347-376 (4th ed.), and his Commentatio qua Mouophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona opiniones . . . illustrantur (1835 and 1838). Bauh: Geschichte der Trinittitslehre, Bd. ii. pp. 37-96. Doenek: Geschichte der Christologie, ii. pp. 150-193. ITefele (R. C): Conciliengeschichte, ii. 545 ff. F. Run, Hasse: Kirchengeschichte (18G4), Bd. i. p. 177 if. A. Ebrard : Handbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte (1865), Bd. i. pp. 263-279.
The council of Chalcedon did not accomplish the intended pacification of the church, and in Palestine and Egypt it met with passionate opposition. Like the council of Nicsea, it must pass a fiery trial of conflict before it could be universally acknowledged in the church. " The metaplnjsical difiiculty," says Niedner, " and the religious importance of the problem, were obstacles to the acceptance < f the ecumenical authority of the council." Its opponents, it is ti-.ie, rejected the Euty ehian theory of an absorption of the hunuui Tiature into the