THE NKW SCIlAFF-IIERZOa
the Monothelite heresy, and repeated the Gli.ilcodonian Cree,!, with the following .suppleiiieat. coucerning the two wills (cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 72-73):
" And we likewise preach two natural wills in him [Jesus Christ], and two natural operations undivided, inconvertible, inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers; and the two natural wills [are] not contrary (far from it), as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows the divine will, and is not resisting or reluctant, biit rather subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was proper that the wi'l of the flesh should be moved, but be subjected to the divine will, according to the wise Athanasius. "
The same council condemned Pope Honorius I. (625-638) as a Monothelite heretic, and his successors confirmed its decision. JMonothelitism continued among the IVIaronites on IVIount Lebanon, who, howe\-er, afterward submitted to the Roman Church, as well as among the IMonophysites, who are all Monothelites.
With the sixth ecumenical council closes the development of the ancient Catholic christology.
The Adoption controversy (see Adop-
3. Adop- tionism), which arose in Spain and
tionism. France toward the close of the eighth century, turned upon the question whether Christ as man was the Son of God by nature {naturaliter), or simply by adoption (nuncupative). The Adoptionists maintained the latter, and shifted the whole idea of sonshi]) from the person to whom it belongs to the nature. Their theory was a modification of the Nestorian error, and was condemned in a synod at Frankfort, 794; but it did not result in a positive addition to the creed statements.
The scholastic theology of the Middle Ages made no progress in christology, and confined itself to a dialectical analysis and defense 4. The Me- of the Chalcedonian dogma, with a dieval one-sided reference to the divine na-
Church. ture of Christ. John of Damascus in the East, and Thomas Aquinas in the West, were the ablest exponents of the Chalcedonian dogma. The medieval Church almost forgot, over the glorious divinity of our Lord, his real humanity (except his passion), and substituted for it virtually the worship of the Virgin Mary, who seemed to appeal more tenderly and effectively to all the human sensibilities and sympathies of the heart than the exalted Savior.
VI. The Ecumenical Christology (i.e., the christology taught in common by the doctrinal standards of the Greek, Latin, and Evangelical Protestant . Churches).
1. Its Leading' Ideas: These may be stated as follows: (1) A true incarnation of the Logos, i.e., the second person in the Godhead (Gk. enanthropesis theou, ensarkosis tou logou, Lat. incarnatio verbi). This is an actual assumption of the whole human nature — body, soul, and spirit — into an abiding union with the divine personality of the eternal Logos, so that they constitute, from the moment of the supernatural conception, one undivided life. The incarnation is neither a conversion or transmutation of the divine nature into the human nature, nor a conversion of man into God, and consequent absorption of the one, nor a confusion (Gk. ATa.s/s. si/achi/^<ix) of the two.
Oil the other hand, it is not a mere in.lwellmg (Gk. cnoikcsis, Lat. inhabitatio) of the one m the other, nor an outward, transitory connection (Gk. .si/napheia, Lat. conjnnctio) of the two factors. (2) The distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance (essence, Gk. ousia) denotes the totality of powtTS and qualities which constitute a being; while person (Gk. hypostasis, prosopon) is" the ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting, and acting subject. The Logos assumed, not a human person (else we should have two persons — a divine and a human), but human nature, which is common to us all. (3) The God-man (Gk. theanthropos) as the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a (Nestorian) double being, with two persons, nor a compound (ApoUinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium quid, partly divine and partly human; but he is one person, at once wholly divine and wholly human. (4) The duality of the natures. The orthodox doctrine maintains, against Eutychianism, the distinction of natures, even after the act of incarnation, without confusion or conversion (Gk. asynchytos and atreptos, Lat. inconfuse and immutabiliter) , yet, on the other hand, without division or separation (Gk. adiairetos and achoristos, Lat. indivise and inseparabiliter); so that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human; and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity (Gk. perichdresis). According to a familiar figure, the divine nature pervades the human as the fire pervades the iron. Christ has all the properties which the Father has, except the property of being unbegotten; and he has all the ]>roperties which the first Adam had before the fall; he has, therefore (according to John of Damascus), two consciousnesses and two physical wills, or faculties of self-determination (Gk. autexousia). This is the extreme border to which the doctrine of two natures can be carried, without an assertion of two full personalities; and it is almost impossible to draw the line. (5) The unity of the person (Gk. hendsis kath' hypostasin, hendsis hypostatike, Lat. unio hypostatica or unio personalis). The union of the divine and human nature in Christ is a permanent state, resulting from the incarnation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union, in distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere moral union, or from a mystical union, such as holds between the believer and Christ. The two natures constitute but one personal life, and yet remain distinct. " The same who is true God," says Pope Leo I. in his famous Epistle, which anticipated the decision of Chalcedon, " is also true man; and in this unity there is no deceit, for in it the lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one another. Because the two natures make only one person, we read, on the one hand, ' The Son of man came down from heaven ' (John iii. 13), while yet the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin; and, on the other hand, ' The Son of God was crucified and buried,' while yet he suffered, not in his Godhead, as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father,