THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
i re
the error named from himself, that the humanity assumed by Christ in the incarnation was only a human body with its complementing
4. Contro- animal soul, the Logos existing in the
versies of place of its missing spirit. This novel
the Fourth teaching was a proof of the tenacious
Century. presence, in Alexandrine Christological
thought, of that insidious docetic influence from whence had come this definite denial of the real humanity of the Logos, condemned as heretical by the second ecumenical council, convened in 381 at Constantinople. During the controversy caused by the Alexandrine Apollinaris, who overemphasized the divinity of the Logos, the Antiochene Diodorus (q.v.), likewise one of the chief defenders of the conciliar Christology of Nicea against the Arian schismatics, while opposing, as bishop of Tarsus, Apollinaris’ docetic denial of the complete humanity of Christ, and though remaining faithful to the traditional teaching of his own synoptic school, developed a theory of the relation of the seemingly separate coexistence of the divine and the human natures in the one person of Christ which, through the teaching of his pupil, Theodore of Mopsuestia (q.v.), was to reappear in the doctrinal dissensions caused by Nestorius (q.v.) in the succeeding century.
A conflict between the traditional Christological teachings of the two rival schools was inevitable when the Antiochene Nestorius, soon after his elevation to the patriarchate at Constantinople, defended his Antiochene presbyter Anastasius in public protests against the use of the Alexandrine term Theotokos (‘‘ Mother of God’’) as applied to the incarnation of the Logos in the Virgin Mary. This newer imperial see of Constantinople, established by Constantine the Great, was the object of persistent ecclesiastical plotting by the partizans of the apos-
tolic see of Alexandria, the aggressive 5. Conflict opponent of the equally apostolic see between of Antioch, and each of these two rival
Nestorius schools of doctrine contested the theand Cyril of ological terms used by the other. Thus
Alexandria. it was that the bishop of Alexandria
entered so eagerly into the strife caused by this Antiochene attack on the use of Theotokos. The fanatical Cyril (see Cyrm or ALEXANDRIA) was very willing to become the accuser of the equally fanatical Nestorius, and each charged the other with defending that evident Christological error which the traditional teaching of his own school was suspected of propagating. It is doubtful whether or not Nestorius had really asserted a double personality in Christ, as the doctrine of his preceptor, Theodore of Mopsuestia (also ascribed to his predecessor, Diodorus of Tarsus [see Dioporvs]), seemed to teach, when he declared that the Logos was not inseparably incarnated in Christ, but had united his divinity with the man Jesus, “ the Son of God dwelling in the Son of David”’; and that, therefore, the Logos only cooperated with the human Jesus, two persons, a divine and a human, becoming one in will and act. The Antiochenes were consistently compelled to emphasize the humanity of Christ, in opposition to the Alexandrine overemphasis of the divinity of the Logos, evident in the do-
cetism of the Apollinarian heresy. Cyril, after formulating twelve anathematizing statements of the alleged errors of Nestorius, including ‘“ that Immanuel is not really God, and the Virgin not Theotokos; that there was a connection (synapheia) of two persons; that Christ is a God-bearing man (theophoros); that he was a separate individual acted on by the Logos, and called ‘God with him’; that his flesh was not truly that of the Logos; and that the Logos did not suffer death in the flesh,” sought to compel his subscription to them. The answer of Nestorius was a counter-statement of twelve anathematizing articles of the alleged errors of Cyril. Alexandria, with its traditional emphasis on the divinity of the Logos, denied defiantly the orthodoxy of Antioch, with its traditional emphasis on the humanity of Christ.
The third ecumenical council was convened in 431 at Ephesus to declare and define the true teaching of the Church on this contested question of the relation of the divine and the human natures in the incarnate Logos Christ. Neither Christological school seemingly perceived that its doctrine was dogmatically defective in emphasizing a single as-
pect of the duality of the person of 6. Condem- Christ, nor that their differing characnation of teristic definitions could be combined Nestorius. in one orthodox statement. To the deliberate defiance of this truth by Cyril of Alexandria, who with his partizans controlled the proceedings of this council of Ephesus, can be confidently ascribed all those succeeding schisms and destructive divisions which were later to divide the Christian Church of the East into two antagonistic communions of confederated national churches, unreconciled to this day. The school of Antioch was at this time surprisingly conservative, for the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, developed from that of his predecessor, Diodorus of Tarsus, and defended apparently by his own pupil, Nestorius, had not affected adversely its general orthodoxy, even in the opinion of its opponents. It depended on Alexandria, whether or not their truly complementing teachings were to be combined in a fuller form of the common Christological creed. But Cyril, defiant in his defense of the twelve anathematizing articles rejected by the Antiochene Nestorius, and assured that his partizans predominated in the assembled council, continued in his predetermined course of condemning the errors ascribed to Nestorius and of deposing him from his episcopate, without awaiting the delayed arrival of John of Antioch and his Syrian suffragans, who, therefore, justly rejected, as contrary to the canons, all completed acts of the council. The third council of Ephesus having approved and adopted as its own declaration of dogma the twelve anathematizing articles of Cyril, every attempt thereafter on the part of the Antiochenes to emphasize the humanity of Christ against the Alexandrines was condemned by them as Nestorianism; and, on the contrary, every attempt on the part of the Alexandrines to emphasize the divinity of the Logos against the Antiochenes was denounced by them as Apollinarianism. Since the Antiochene bishops persisted in their