REI^IGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
ChristologTT
of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), and is expressed in the Nicseno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which has stood ever since like an immovable rock :
" (We believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," etc.
See Arianism; Athanasius; Constantino poliTAN Creed; NiCjEA, Councils of.
IV. The Chalcedonian Christology: This finds its normal expression in the Chalcedonian statement of 451 (see below, § 2). It was the answer of the orthodox Church to the heresies relating to the proper constitution of Christ's divine-human person, of which the chief were three, viz., (1) Apollinarianism, a partial denial of the humanity of Christ. ApoUinaris (the Younger) of Laodicea (q.v.; d. 390), on the basis of the Platonic trichotomy, ascribed to Christ a human body (Gk. soma) and animal soul (psyche alogos), but not a human spirit or reason" (psyche logike, nous, pneuma);ThQ put the divine Logos in the place of Answer rational soul, and thus substituted
a theos sarkophoros for a real thean- Heresies thropos — a mixed middle being for a divine-human person. From this error it follows, either that the rational soul of man was not redeemed, or that it needed no redemption^ (2) Nestorianism (from Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, d. in exile 440; see Nestorius) admitted the full deity and the full humanity of Christ, but put them into loose mechanical conjunction, or affinity (Gk. synapheia), rather than a vital and personal union (henosis); and hence it objected to the unscriptural term " mother of God " (Gk. theotokos, Lat. Deipara), as applied to the Virgin Mary, while willing to call her "mother of Christ" (Christotokos). (3) Eutychianism (from Eutyches, presbyter at Constantinople, d. after 451; see Eutychianism) is the very opposite of Nestorianism, and sacrificed the distinction of the two natures in Chri it to the imity of the person to such an extent as to make the incarnation an absorption of the human nature by;^e divine, or a deification of human nature, even of the body: hence the Eutychians thought it proper to use the [phrases "God is born," "God suffered," "God * was crucified," " God died."
The third and fourth ecumenical councils (Ephesus, 431, and Chalcedon, 451) settled the question 2 of the precise relation of the two na-
Chalce^ tures in Christ's person. The decree of donian Council of Ephesus, under the lead
State- violent Cyril of Alexandria, was
ment. merely negative, a condemnation of the error of Nestorius, and leaned a little toward the opposite error of Eutyches. Nestorianism triumphed temporarily in the " Robber Synod " of Ephesus, in 449, under the lead of Dioscurus of Alexandria, who inherited all the\ bad, and none of the good, qualities of his prede- ^ cesser, Cyril. But Dyophysitism reasserted itself; and Dioscurus and Eutyches were condemned by
the Council of Chalcedon. This council gave a clear and full statement of the orthodox christology as follows (for Greek and Latin text and notes, cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 62-65):
" Following the holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coequal] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin begotten before all ages of the Father according teethe Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord/Only-beggtten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, uSechangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of na^ tures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two Persons, but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the-jWord, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
The same doctrine is set forth in a more condensed form in the second part of the Symbolum Quicunque, or the so-called Athanasian Creed (for text and trans]., with notes, cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 66-71; see Athanasian Creed).
V. The Post-Chalcedonian' Christology: The Chalcedonian decision did not stop the controversy, and called for a supplementary statement concerning the two wills of Christ, corresponding to the two natures. Eutychianism revived in the form of IMonophysitism (see Monophy- 1. SCouo- sites), or the doctrine that Christ had physitism. but one composite nature (Gk. mia physis synthetos or mia physis ditte). It makes thft humanity of Christ a mere accident of the immutable divine substance. The liturgical shibboleth of the IMonophysites was " God has been crucified," and they even introduced the idea into the Trisagion (q.v.); hence they are also called Theopaschites (from theos, " God," and paschein, " to suffer "). The tedious IMonophysite controversies convulsed the Eastern Church for more than a himdred years, weakened its power, and facilitated the conquest of IMohammedanism. The fifth ecumenical council (553) made a partial concession to the Monophysites, but did not reconcile them. They separated, like the Nestorians, from the orthodox Greek Church, and continue to this day under various names and organizations— the Jacobites in Syria, the Copts in Egypt, the Abyssinians, and the Armenians.
Closely coime'cted with IMonophysitism was Monothehtism (see IVEonothelites), or the doctrine that Christ had but one will, as he had but one person. The orthodox maintained that will is an attribute of nature, rather than of person, and consequently that Christ had two wills — a human will and a divine will — both working 2. Mono- in harmony. The IVTonothelite con- »thelitism. troversy lasted from 633 to 680. The Emperor Heraclius proposed a compromise formula — one divine-human energy (mia theandrike energeia); but it was opposed in the r^est. The sixth ecumenical council condemned
Christologry