CHRISTOLOGY

In approaching the subject of Christology, we may be permitted to emphasize the fact, that in this department we reach the very heart of Christianity. Here will be found those distinctive doctrines which mark Christianity as unique and universal; and which set it over against the ethnic religions in all of their forms. In our discussion of Religion, we pointed out the twofold ground of distinction between Christianity and the pagan religions as lying, first, in the difference of ethical quality; and second, in the character of the Founder. St. Paul recognized whatever of truth the ethnic religions contained, but condemned them because of their low moral tone. They were untrue to the creature, and untrue to the Creator. By way of anticipation also, we pointed out the superiority of Christianity as being founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of the only true and living God; and as being a religion of redemptive power and inward life. We are now to consider the distinctive doctrines of Christ in a more extended and critical manner.

Christology (Cpistou logoV ),is that department of theology which deals with the Person of Christ as the Redeemer of mankind. The subject is sometimes enlarged to include both the Person and Work of Christ; but in general the term Soteriology is applied to the latter, and the term Christology limited to the former. The Adevent of Christ is the central fact of all history, and with it is bound up the whole work of creation and redemption. Through Him, God sustains a twofold relation to mankind - one constituted by the creative Word in forming man after His own image; the other, as a consequence of sin having entered the world through the temptation and fall of Adam. A proper conception of the Advent, therefore, involves the two terms, God and man, and their reciprocal relations) As the Advent cannot be referred to God alone, or to man alone, so it may not be referred to merely legal and external relations existing between them. We must view it as an incarnation, in which God and man are conjoined in one Person - the eternal Son. In purpose it antedates, not only the fall of man and of angels, but the very beginning of the creative process. The cosmos included in its consummation the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. In the very heart of God, is to be found that sacrificial love which gave the Son to be the propitiation for our sins. "Amongst all the works God intended before time, and in time effected," said Archbishop Leighton, ""this is the masterpiece that is here said to be foreordained, the manifesting of God in the flesh for man's redemption."

As the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit in the Old Testament, so in the same manner, there is an Old Testament Christology. Thus, Abraham saw my day, and was glad (John 8: 56). Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see (Matt. 13: 17). The prophets.... searched diligently... what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow (I Peter 1: 10-12). Only in the New Testament were these mysteries fully revealed. The Old Testament, therefore, must be viewed in the light of a preparatory economy, which comes to its perfect fulfillment in Christ. In the words of Dr. Schaff, "Genuine Judaism lived for Christianity and died with the birth of Christianity." We may note two lines of development - one objective and divine, the other subjective and human.

First, there is the objective fact of Divine Revelation. In the protevangelium, (Gen. 3:15) the promise that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head is as broad as the human race. Perhaps it was for this reason that the title "Son of man" was so frequently used by our Lord. Following this there was throughout the course of history added revelations, each in some sense an advent or a coming to God to His people. There was the Abrahamic covenant, in which God selected a people with whom He established personal communion, and through whom the promised Seed should come. Following this was the law given by Moses, which quickened the sense of sin and guilt. It served also as a tutor to bring men to a felt need for One who should be a propitiation for sin. Thus the community originated by the Abrahamic covenant, and taught by this higher revelation, was gradually transformed into a ""peculiar people" (Deut. 14: 2; 26: 18, 19; I Peter 2: 9) with a nobler conception of the holiness of God, a deeper sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and a new prophetic hope. They were, as St. Paul declares, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3: 23, 24). But Israel failed to grasp the spiritual significance of the law and contented themselves with external forms and ceremonial washings. Only the ""remnant" understood its spiritual import, but out of this remnant the prophets arose. Prophetism in Israel was a distinct and far-reaching force. The prophets cultivated the Messianic hope and pointed the way to a new spiritual order. This prophetic line found its culmination and completion in John the Baptist, of whom our Lord said, There hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. . . . for all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (Matt. 11: 11, 13). Immediately preceding the birth of Jesus prophetism had been reduced to a small, apocalyptic circle - Zacharias and Elisabeth, Joseph and Mary, Simeon the aged and Anna the prophetess - all of whom waited for the consolation of Israel.

Second, there is the subjective factor of human submission. Divine revelation is in some sense conditioned by the passive element of human receptivity. As the prophetic order culminated in John, so human submissiveness and trust found its highest Old Testament expression in Mary - the ""highly favored" one of Israel, and blessed among women (Luke 1: 28). The character of Mary as it appears in the Gospel accounts is thus summarized by Dr. Gerhart: "Childlike simplicity is united with divine faith, holy self-surrender with womanly innocence, virgin purity with an obedient will. We detect a consciousness of spotless chastity, but no maiden prudery; a perception of the wonderful in the Annunciation, but no ecstatic excitement; a sense of extraordinary dignity of her vocation, but no proud elation; a deep joy, but no self-forgetfulness; an unwonted silence, but no fear; a becoming thoughtfulness, but no unbelief or doubt. The providence of God had in the process and through the conflicts of Messianic history formed a woman who by her moral and spiritual elevation was capable of becoming the mother of the ideal Man" (Gerhart, Inst. Chr. Relig., II, p.201). It was in Mary, therefore, that the protevangelium given in Eden came to its fulfillment through the grace of the covenant. This Mary recognized in the Magnificat, when she declared that he hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever (Luke 1: 54, 55). It is applied directly to Christ by St. Paul, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ (Gal. 3: 16). The nature of this covenant is given its spiritual interpretation by Zacharias in the Benedictus, The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life (Luke 1: 73, 74). The announcement of the Advent to Joseph in the words, She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1: 21), is by St. Matthew interpreted as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matt. 1: 23, Isa. 7: 14).

The study of Christology is best approached through its presentation in the Holy Scriptures, where the great events in the life of Christ are viewed in the light of the theological significance which attaches to them. Following this, the development of Christology in the Church will be considered, as furnishing the broad outlines under which the subject must be treated, and the dangers with which it is confronted. We shall then in this chapter consider (I) The Scriptural Approach to Christology; and (II) The Development of Christology in the Church.

THE SCRIPTURAL APPROACH TO CHRISTOLOGY

The events in the life of Christ, which will be considered in their theological significance, are as follows: (1) The Miraculous Conception and Birth; (2) The Circumcision; (3) The Normal Development of Jesus; (4) The Baptism; (5) The Temptation; (6) The Obedience of Christ, (7) His Passion and Death. The Descensus, the Resurrection, the Ascension and the Session, will be best considered in connection with His state of exaltation.

The Miraculous Conception and Birth. The account of the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus is given in the Gospel of Matthew as an exhibition of the fulfillment of prophecy, and in the Gospel of Luke as a fundamental historical fact in the work of redemption. This fact has been strongly assailed at times, but the preexistence of Christ demands it. Nor is it a matter of indifference as some have asserted, for its denial would reduce Christ to the level of a human being, and involve His person in the sin of the race. Those who deny the Virgin Birth involve themselves in greater problems than those who admit its miraculous nature. The appearance of Christ in the midst of history as the one and only sinless Being, cannot be explained except on the Scriptural basis that the Son of God became man (John 1: 14). It is for this reason that the Church affirms that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. From the human viewpoint, Mary conceives according

[Bishop Pearson states that "As the Holy Ghost did not frame the human nature of Christ out of His own substance; so must we not believe that He formed any part of His flesh of any other substance than of the Virgin. For certainly He was of the fathers according to the flesh, and was as to that truly and totally the son of David and Abraham" - Pearson, On the Creed, p. 253.]

to the natural law of motherhood but by miraculous agency, and thereby imparts to her child the same organic constitution which she possessed. Furthermore, the child was conceived with all the essential properties of original humanity, the accidental quality of sin in the fallen Adamic race being excluded. Sin is not an essential element of human nature, but an alien principle which falsifies the beginning of individual life (Psalms 51: 5), and brings men into bondage through the law of sin and death which is in their members (Rom. 7: 23).

But to establish the real and sinless humanity of Jesus, affirms but one aspect of the mystery of His person. His conception was also the assumption of human nature by the divine Son. As Hooker expressed it, "'The flesh and the conjunction of the flesh was but one act" (Hooker, Eccl. Pol., Bk. 5, chaps. 52, 53). It is for this reason that the Scripture speaks of the new being as "that holy thing" which was to be born; implying thereby that a change was to be wrought in the very constitution of humanity. Jesus was not, therefore, merely the origin of a new individual in the race, but a pre-existent One coming into the race from above; He was not merely another individualization of human nature, but the conjoining of the divine and human natures in a new order of being - a theanthropic person. The instant human nature is conjoined with God in the person of Jesus it becomes a redeemed nature, and furnishes the principle of regeneration for fallen mankind. In Jesus there is the birth of a new order of humanity, a new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4: 24). Hence in the person of Jesus Christ is to be found the ground of His mediatorial work, the principle of ""eternal life" which through the Spirit is given to all who believe in Him.

The Circumcision. The rite of circumcision marked the official induction of a Jewish child into the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus was therefore, in conformity to the Levitical law, circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). By His birth of the Virgin Mary, Jesus partook of the common human nature and was therefore the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1: 3) But He partook also of the life of the race as it had been elevated and disciplined through the Abrahamic covenant. Consequently He was not only the "seed of David," but also the "seed of Abraham." For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. And as the promise to Abraham included the gift of the Spirit (cf. Heb. 7: 6 and Gal. 3: 14); St. Paul affirms further, that He was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1: 4). The significance of these scriptures lies just here, that final perfection is not attainable through the kingdom of nature, but through the kingdom of grace. While the humanity of Jesus was spotless, and in some true sense already redeemed in the person of Christ, it was not true in the application of redemption to mankind apart from the incarnation. It could not, therefore, be the final perfecting of the Son for His redemptive office. It should be recalled that the promise to Abraham was that in Isaac shall thy seed be called (Gen. 21: 12). And although Isaac was the child of promise, prefiguring the birth of Christ, yet that promise was not made to Isaac after the flesh, but only when in a figure he had been received again from the dead. Hence St. Paul asserts that he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also....For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4: 11, 13).

But a sound Christology must hold that for Jesus circumcision was something more than an empty religious rite, devoid of meaning and spiritual power. For Him it was a covenant of grace, in which God's relation to man and man's relation to God was lifted to a unique and exalted level. It was for Him the communion of two natures in one Person - the divine and the human. Hence in this exalted communion with the Father through the Spirit, it was possible for the child Jesus to pass from the spotlessness and purity of His childhood, through perfect youth to an uncorrupted and undefiled manhood. In Him unconscious innocence was transformed into conscious obedience; and the holiness of His nature never knew either the contamination or experience of sin. We may say, then, that the personal fellowship of God with man promised in Abraham, received its perfect fulfillment in Christ without error or deficiency; and hence we read that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man (Luke 2:52).

The Normal Development of Jesus. We must regard that portion of life of Jesus from the circumcision to the baptism, a period of about thirty years as one of preparation for His great mediatorial work. Aside from the account of the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus became a child of the law, the Scriptures are silent; but we must not thereby assume that it was a period of inactivity. It must have been one of physical, ethical and spiritual development, for when our Lord took on Him our manhood, He took it under the law of natural development common to human nature. He might have taken it with all the glory of the Transfiguration, but He chose instead to take into communion with Himself the germ of all that is called man; that in Him human nature might unfold apart from sin, and consequently through the resurrection and ascension be brought to its glorious perfection. Early in the history of the Church Irenæus wrote that Christ ""did not despise or evade any condition of humanity, nor set aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctified every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself, infants, and children, and boys, and youth, and old men....At last He came on to death itself, that He might be "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence,' The Prince of life, existing before all and going before all."

There are two passages in the Gospel of Luke which refer to the growth and development of Jesus, one to His childhood (Luke 1: 80), and one to His youth as a ""son of the law" (Luke 2: 52). Dr. Gerhart points out that in the first passage the child is represented as being passive and receptive rather than active. The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom [or becoming full of wisdom]: and the grace of God was upon him (Luke 2: 40). In the second it is stated that he "increased" or "advanced" in wisdom implying that this was a personal advance, due to the free action of His own powers. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man (Luke 2:52). It should be further noted that in the first text the progress is from the physical to the spiritual; while in the second the order is reversed (cf. Gerhardt, Inst. of Chr. Relig., II, p. 233ff). We must conclude that the uniqueness of Jesus as it concerns His growth and development, lies in this, that it was the unfolding of a pure and normal human nature apart from sin. In ordinary childhood there is the disintegrating force of inherited depravity, the bias due to sin and hence its development can never be wholly normal. But Jesus had none of the vitiating consequences of inbred sin. The outward pressures He must have felt, but in His being there were no alien forces, no biased dispositions. Under the tuition of the Holy Spirit, and in spiritual communion with the Father, His development was pre-eminently perfect.

The Baptism. The baptism of Jesus was His official induction into the office of the Messiah or Christ. As in the case of the circumcision, this rite was not merely a form devoid of significance, but marks the official beginning of His mediatorial ministry. Here again the objective and subjective lines of development come together in the one Mediator, the latter in the consecration of his perfect and mature manhood to the vocation of the Christ, the former in God's acceptance of the offering and the official anointing bestowed upon Him. In the circumcision, Christ had unconsciously submitted to the imputation of sin, now in conscious obedience to the will of God He becomes the Representative of sinful mankind. Thus as He stood with the multitude awaiting baptism, the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled, He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53: 12). Having fulfilled all righteousness as required by the law (Matt. 3: 15), Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3: 16, 17). Here is the divine attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus, an attestation that sin had nothing in Him except as imputed to Him. Here also is the official anointing of the Spirit by which He was consecrated to the holy office of Mediator. One thing only remained, the prophet who was to prepare the way of the Highest must officially announce to the world His assumption of the office. This He did in words vitally related to the voluntary consecration of Jesus as the representative of sinners. when, therefore, he cried, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1: 29), he officially announced the death of Jesus as a vicarious atonement for all sin.

The Temptation. The temptation of Jesus was a necessity of the mediatorial economy, and like the baptism, was of universal import. Two factors are involved. First, Jesus must personally triumph over sin by voluntary opposition to it, before He could become the Author of life to others. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering (Heb. 2: 10). Second, He must not only conquer for Himse1f, but He must secure dignity and strength for His kingdom For this reason He became partaker of flesh and blood, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb. 2: 14, 15). When, therefore, the Spirit "driveth" Him into the wilderness, this extreme urgency must imply that the temptation was an essential element in His mediatorial work.

The temptation was both external and internal. It was external in that it originated outside and apart from Himself. It was not merely a confusion of cross purposes in His own mind. He was confronted by a personality representing the kingdom of evil. The evangelists seem to indicate that since the first Adam was tempted on the threefold level of physical, intellectual and spiritual evil, the last Adam must be likewise tested. As the failure of the first found its issue in the spirit of the world, which St. John interprets as the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2: 16); so the triumph of the last issued in life and light and love which were to form the basic principles of the new kingdom. Internally, the temptation was a conscious pressure in the direction of evil. We must believe that Christ felt the full force of the suggestions of Satan, but the Gospels tell us that He repelled them immediately, relying for His strength upon the firm foundation of the truth as "it is written" in the Scriptures.

The temptation is closely connected also with another question - that of the peccability or impeccability of Jesus. Was it possible for Jesus to sin; and if not, how could He have been tempted? The question is purely academic. It rests upon a misapprehension of the theanthropic Person who conjoins in Himself the two natures - human and divine. It is an attempt to consider the natures separately and apart from the one Person. Unless there be first a tacit assent to the Nestorian position that two persons are conjoined in affiliation, instead of two natures in one inseparable union, the problem cannot arise. The two natures being conjoined in one Person, peccability as attaching to the human nature, and impeccability as a property of the divine nature, are complements of each other-much in the manner as finiteness and infinity, or time and eternity. The former is a metaphysical principle limited solely to the self-determination belonging to personality; while the latter is an ethical fact grounded in the divine nature. "He could not do wrong because He would not," says Dr. Gerhart. "It is, however, more scriptural and more philosophical to express the thought thus: wrong He could neither do nor will, because He constantly willed, and effectually willed to do the right. The ethical impossibility to commit sin is mightier and more ennobling than the physical impossibility. The physical finds its complement in the ethical" (Gerhart, Inst. Chr. Relig., II, p.258). We may confidently affirm, then, that the peccability of Jesus was limited solely to the metaphysical autonomy of His own will, without which He would have been merely an automaton and incapable of voluntary sinlessness; while the impeccability lay in His positive ethical character. He was, as to His humanity, created in righteousness and true holiness. He said of Himself, I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14: 6). The eternal principles of truth, righteousness and holiness, being relative in man may be superseded; but being absolute in God, they can never be transmuted into unrighteousness and sin. Jesus Christ was not only the embodiment of truth, He was the truth; He was not only accepted as righteous, He was righteous; He was not only relatively holy, He was that holy thing which was born to be the Redeemer of mankind.

The Passion and Death of Christ. The perfected humiliation of Christ is to be found in the circumstances of His death on the cross. This marks the fulfillment of His perfect obedience. It is evident that no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between Christ's active and passive righteousness, for even his death was the consequence of His own free determination. Of His own life He said, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (John 10: 18). While the sufferings of Christ may be distinguished from the precise manner of His death, the death itself cannot be separated from the crucifixion. He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2: 8). "Hence the cross was to our High Priest simply the awful form which His altar assumed. His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2: 24). Isaac as "the most affecting type of the Eternal Son incarnate bore the wood on his shoulders to his Calvary, and that wood became the altar on which in a figure he was slain, and from which in a figure he was raised again....But, while the cross on which human malignity slew the Holy One is really the altar on which He offered Himself, and we forget the tree in the altar into which it was transformed, the cross still remains as the sacred expression of the curse which fell upon human sin as represented by the Just One. For he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (Pope, Chr. Th., II, p. 162). The passion and death of Jesus furnished the ground for His redemptive work, and will be considered further in our study of the Atonement.

It is a significant fact that St. Luke in his introduction to the Acts, speaks of his former work as comprehending all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. He thus limits the earthly life of Jesus, not by His death but by His ascension. The descensus, the resurrection and the ascension are but events in the life of the Eternal One. The state of humiliation ended with the cry on the cross, It is finished and His death which immediately followed. The events above mentioned - the descensus, the resurrection, the ascension and the session - will be treated in connection with the state of exaltation.

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGY IN THE CHURCH

Since the subject of Christology is closely related to that of the Trinity, we need not refer at this time to those controversies by which the deity of Christ as the second Person of the Trinity was firmly established. Following the Trinitarian controversies however, another series arose, which were concerned especially with the integrity of the two natures and their union in the one Person. After a brief review of the Primitive Period, we shall consider the subject under the threefold division of Nicene, Chalcedonian and Ecumenical Christology.

The Primitive Period. This period includes the thought of the Ante-Nicene fathers, from the earliest times to the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.); and is concerned primarily with the reality of the two natures in Christ.

1. The Ebionites denied the reality of the divine nature Christ. This Jewish sect is said to have derived its name from the Hebrew word meaning "poor," which is presumed to be a reference to the poverty so characteristic of the Church at Jerusalem. They accepted the Messiahship of Jesus but rejected His deity, maintaining that at the time of His baptism an unmeasured fullness of the Spirit was given to him, thereby consecrating Him to the Messianic office.

2. The Docetæ take their name from the Greek word dokew which means "to seem" or "to appear." As a sect they were greatly influenced by Gnosticism and Manichæism, and therefore denied the reality of Christ's body. Since Gnosticism held that matter is essentially evil, they argued that Christ's body must have been merely a phantasm or appearance. Ebionism was the result of the influence of Judaism on Christianity, Docetism the result of the influence pagan philosophy.

The Nicene Christology. The Nicene Christology dates from the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) to about 381 A.D. or the time of the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. Following this, controversies arose which demanded a further statement which was made at Chalcedon. The Nicene Christology was the outgrowth of the Arian and Semi-Arian controversies which for more than half a century agitated the eastern church. Arianism as it affected the trinitarian conception of God has already been discussed, but it had important bearings on Christology also and these must now be given consideration. Anus was a disciple of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian in turn, was a disciple of Paul of Samosata, but differed radically from the views of his master. He attempted to combine the adoptianism of Paul, his master, with the Logos Christology which Paul opposed. Hence he regarded Christ as an incarnation of a previously existent being - the Logos; but this Logos was an intermediate creature, and of another nature than either God or man. Anus accepted this doctrine and thereby came into conflict with Alexander, his bishop, the result being one of the most subtle and bitter controversies in church history. But the church saw and rejected his teaching which substituted an intermediate creature for the true deity of Christ. The Semi-Arians attempted a mediation between the heter-ousia of the Arians who regarded Christ as of a different nature, and the homo-ousia of the Athanasians who regarded Him as of the same nature of God. They affirmed a homoi-ousia, or like essence of Christ with the Father, but denied His numerical essence and therefore His proper deity. In opposition to these heresies the Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine, which affirmed the deity of the Son, and after a further struggle, reaffirmed it at the Second Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 381 A.D. The statement as found in the Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed is terse, but has become the standard of the orthodox faith since that time. The text is as follows: (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."

The Chalcedonian Christology. While the Council of Nicea affirmed the Deity of Christ, it left the question of His humanity unsolved. Athanasius had taken for granted that Christ was truly man as well as truly God, and in the controversy had neglected the problem of the two natures. When the question of the Deity of Christ was solved by conciliar action, the problem of His humanity became even more insistent. The Chalcedonian Christology, therefore, is the answer to three heresies, all of which were concerned with the constitution of the theanthropic Person, (1) Apollinarianism; (2) Nestorianism; and (3) Eutychianism.

1. Apollinarianism was the first heresy which confronted the church during this period. Apollinaris (d. 390), Bishop of Laodicea, was one of the most learned men in the ancient church. He argued that if Christ possessed a rational human soul, He could not be truly God incarnate, but merely a God-inspired man. Otherwise one of two things would follow as a necessary consequence, either He must retain a separate will, in which case His manhood would not be truly united with the Godhead; or, the human soul would be deprived of its own proper liberty through union with the divine Word. He took the position that the divine Logos in becoming incarnate took on human nature, but not a human personality. On the basis of the Platonic trichotomy which he later held, he ascribed to Christ a human body (swma), and an animal soul (yuch alogoV ), but not a human spirit or rational soul, (yuch logikh or pneuma). Instead, he held that the divine Logos took the place of the human spirit, thus uniting with soul and body to form a divine-human being, or the one theanthropic nature. He maintained that the active personal element in Jesus was divine, and the passive was composed of the human body and soul. While this position provided for both the fusion of the divine and human natures, and for the deification of human nature as required by the realistic theory of redemption, it was felt by the Church that Apollinaris had sacrificed the true humanity of Jesus in order to maintain His deity. As in the case of Arianism, Basil and the two Gregories opposed Apollinaris but offered no clear statement of their own. The chief opposition came from the Antiochan school which was represented at that time by Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia - the latter being regarded as one of the great exegetes of the Church. The interest of the Antiochan school being primarily ethical, its representatives looked upon Christ as a moral example, meeting and overcoming temptation, and therefore building up a character of His own - an ethical holiness. This He could not have done, had He not been completely human as well as perfectly divine. They therefore insisted that Christ must have had a genuine human personality, with freedom of the will and an independent moral character. Furthermore, they insisted that the human nature of Christ could not be merely impersonal nature apart from the rational soul, nor even human nature personalized by the divine Logos. The error of Apollinarianism lay in the fact that it presented a defective human nature in Christ, and was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople, 381 A.D.

2. Nestorianism was the second great heresy of this period. The Antiochan theologians in their opposition to Apollinarianism, seemed to develop the doctrine of two persons in Christ - one the divine Logos, the other the human Jesus. Each of these they regarded as a perfect and complete personality. The Logos, they claimed, dwelt in man but did not become man. They especially objected to that form of union between the divine and the human which precluded any development in the person of Christ. Theodore went so far as to declare that the divine Logos and the human Jesus lived in perfect harmony with each other, not because of compulsion but by free choice. The controversy reached its climax when Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople (428 A.D.); and while his teaching was no different from that of Theodore, his name became connected with the heresy because of the leading part which he took in the controversy. Nestorius attacked the Alexandrians for what he called their Apollinarianism. He objected especially to the word Theotokos or "Mother of God" which they applied to the Virgin Mary. The term was in common use among the Alexandrians and was also being used in Constantinople. Nestorius maintained the full deity of Christ and also His perfect humanity; but he regarded these rather as a loose connection or affinity than as an indissoluble union. The chief opponents of Nestorianism were found in the Alexandrian School, especially Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria (412-444 A.D.), who resolutely supported the Theotokos. The controversy was bitter, and aggravated further by court intrigue. The emperor Theodosius endeavored to appease the parties by convening the general council of Ephesus (431 A.D.). This council, however, under the influence of Cyril, hastily condemned the doctrines of the Nestorians without waiting for the arr4val of the Roman and Syrian delegates. When John, archbishop of Antioch, arrived with his delegation, they followed the example of Cyril and called a rival council, at which Cyril was condemned and the doctrines of the Nestorians approved. That peace might be restored, a so-called "union symbol" was prepared and signed by both Cyril and the Antiochans. In order to satisfy the Antiochans, Apollinarianism was condemned; while Cyril secured the recognition of the Theotokos, the one Person and the two natures. The formula, however, was very elastic, and each party interpreted it in its own peculiar manner. The union symbol is commonly known as the creed of Antioch, and is attributed to Theodoret of Cyrrhus (433 A.D.).

3. Eutychianism was the third and last Christological heresy of this period. It took its name from Eutyches, who at that time (444 A.D.) was the head of a monastery in Constantinople; and is a revival of the older Christology, in which the divine nature was so emphasized by the Alexandrians, as to make it a docetic absorption of His human nature. The ""union symbol" or Creed of Antioch which was intended to reconcile the

[The Creed of Antioch is as follows: "we, therefore, acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, complete God and complete man, of a rational soul and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to (His) divinity, but in these last days . . . . of Mary the virgin according to (His) humanity. For a union of the two natures has taken place; wherefore, we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this conception of the unconfounded union, we acknowledge the holy Virgin to be the mother of God, because the divine Logos was made flesh and became man, and from her conception united with himself the temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, making the characters of the divine Logos and the man common as being in one person, but distinguishing them as two natures, and teaching that the godlike traits are according to the divinity of Christ, and the humble traits according to His humanity" (cf. Seeburg, Textbook in the History of Doctrines, p. 266).]

Antiochan and Alexandrian schools was but a weak compromise, and resulted in further confusion. Eutyches taught that "after God the Word became man, that is, after the birth of Jesus, there was but one nature to be worshiped, that of God, who was incarnate and made man." It will be seen that this position is the direct opposite of that held by the Nestorians. Nestorianism preserved its belief in the distinctness of the two natures at the expense of the one person; Eutychianism maintained its belief in the unity of Christ's person at the sacrifice of the two natures. The absorption of the human by the divine was carried to such extreme length as to be in effect, a deification of human nature, even the human body. Hence the Eutychians held that it was permissible to use such expressions as "God was born," "God suffered," and "God died." Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated at a council held in Constantinople (448 A.D.) but appealed his case to Leo of Rome, as did also, Flavian, bishop of Constantinople. Dioscurus, the successor of Cyril had won the approbation of Theodosius, the emperor. A council was called to confirm the doctrine of Eutyches, and was presided over by Dioscuros, commonly known in church history as "the Robber Council" (449 A.D.). Dioscurus by brutal terrorism intimidated the delegates and forced his view upon the council. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus was deposed, and Flavian who had deposed Eutyches was murdered. Leo's Tome was not read. The following year the emperor Theodosius died, and the Council of Chalcedon convened in 451 A.D. This was the largest council which had been called up to that time, and by it both Eutychianism and Nestorianism were condemned. Here also the various errors and deficiencies in the statement of the doctrine of Christ's person were corrected and the creed drawn up by this council has from that time to the present been acknowledged as the orthodox statement.

The Chalcedonian Statement. The Council of Chalcedon approved the two letters of Cyril and Leo's Tome, and these furnish the basis of the Chalcedonian statement. Cyril's First Letter (to John of Antioch) affirmed the unity of the Person of Christ as against Nestorianism; and his second letter (to Nestorius) was likewise opposed to it. Leo's Tonic was concerned with the reality, the integrity and the completeness of Christ's manhood as against Eutychianism. The following is the text of the Chalcedonian Creed:

"Following the holy fathers we teach with one voice that the Son (of God) and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same (Person), that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, a reasonable soul and (human) body consisting, consubstantial (omoousion) with the Father as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial (omoousion) with us as touching His manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted, begotten of His Father before the worlds (pro aiwnwn) according to His Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born (into the world) of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God (QeotokoV ) according to His manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only begotten son (of God) must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly (asugcutwV ), immutably (atreptwV ), indivisibly (adiairetwV ), inseparably (axwristwV ) (united) and that without distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property (idiothV ) of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person (proawpov) and Hypostasis (upostasin), not separated or divided into persons, but one and the same Son and Only Begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of the old time have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed our fathers hath delivered to us."

[The statement against Eutyches as found in Leo's Tome is as follows: "For it confutes (1) those who presume to rend asunder the mystery of the Incarnation into a double Sonship, and it deposes from the priesthood (2) those who dare say that the Godhead of the Only Begotten is passible; and it withstands (3) those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ; and it drives away (4) those who fondly teach that the form of a servant which He took from us was a heavenly or some other substance; and it anathematizes (5) those who feign that the Lord had two natures before the union, and that these were molded into one after the union."]

The Post-Chalcedonian Christology. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) marked the close of the controversy in the West. The Eastern churches, however, refused to accept the decrees of the Council and called for a supplementary statement concerning the two wills of Christ. In 482 A.D., the emperor Zeno published a decree known as the Henoticon, in which both Nestorianism and Eutychianism were condemned, the Chalcedonian Creed abrogated, and the Creed of Constantinople declared to be the only standard of orthodoxy. Four leading tendencies appear, (1) Monophysitism; (2) Monothelitism; (3) Adoptianism; and (4) Socinianism.

1. Monophysitism was a revival of Eutychianism, or the doctrine that Christ had but one composite nature. His humanity was regarded merely as an accident of the divine substance. The liturgical shibboleth was "God has been crucified." While they were regarded as heretical, their beliefs were substantially those of Cyril and the Alexandrians of his time. Leontius of Byzantium attempted to appease those with Cyrillian sympathies by recasting the Chalcedonian formula in accordance with the categories of Aristotle, giving rise to his doctrine of the Enhypostasia. He asserted that one nature may combine with another in such manner, that it retains its peculiar characteristics, and yet have its substance in the second nature. It is not therefore without hypostasis, but enhypostasis, for "it has given of its attributes interchangeably, which continue in the abiding and uncommingled peculiarity of their own natures." Monophysitism was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.).

2. Monothelitism held that Christ possessed but one will, and is therefore closely related to Monophysitism. The emperor Heraclius who had become alarmed at the progress of Mohammedanism in Arabia, sought to reconcile the Monophysitists and the orthodox by suggesting

[A distinction should be made between the terms enhypostasia, and anhypostasia. Theology uses the former to express the fact that Christ has the two natures but in one person - the one nature having its hypostasis in the other; it uses the latter term to express the idea that the human nature of Christ has no separate personality of its own.]

the acceptance of a doctrine proposed a century previous in a book attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. This teaching was to the effect that there were indeed two natures in Christ - the divine and the human, but these were united in a manner which admitted of but one will and one operation. The compromise was accepted for a short time but was unsatisfactory to both parties. The emperor issued an edict known as the Ekthesis, giving sanction to Monothelitism but this only increased the strife. His successor, Constans II in 648 A.D. abrogated the Ekthesis and by another decree, the Typos, prohibited both the affirmation and the denial of Monothelitism. Constantine Pognatus in 680 A.D. called the Sixth Ecumenical council at Constantinople to settle the controversy. The Council condemned Monothelitism and added a paragraph to the Chalcedonian Creed which affirmed not only two natures but two wills, the human will being subject to the divine in the Person of Christ.

3. Adoptionism was similar to the earlier Nestorianism, and arose in Spain during the latter part of the eighth century. Two bishops, Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel, attempted to reconcile the doctrines of the church with the Mohammedan Koran. They suggested that Christ was the Son of God naturally, only in respect to His deity; but that in respect to His humanity, He was merely the servant of God, as are all men, and was made the Son by adoption. According to His divine nature, He was the Only Begotten; according to His human nature, He was the First Begotten. His humanity was adopted into His divinity by a gradual process. Beginning with His miraculous conception, it was more fully manifested at His baptism, and perfected at the time of His resurrection. This was but a revival of Nestorianism. Christ was regarded as an ordinary man

[The paragraph added to the Chalcedonian Creed is as follows: "And we likewise preach two natural wills in Him (Jesus Christ), and two natural operations undivided, incontrovertible, inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers; and the two natural wills (are) not contrary, far from it! (as the heretics assert), but His human will follows the divine will, and is not resisting or reluctant, but rather subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was proper that the will of the flesh, should not be moved, but be subjected to the divine will, according to the wise Athanasius."]

united to God in an ordinary manner, and was in no particular sense an incarnation. Charlemagne convened two synods in order to determine the orthodox faith. At Frankfort (794 A.D.) Adoptianism was condemned; at Aix-la-Chapelle (790 A.D.) it was again condemned, and in addition, Felix was deposed.

4. Socinianism belongs to the earlier part of modern church history and is related to the ancient Arianism. A crude unitarianism had previously appeared among the Italian humanists, whose views seem to have embodied the various modifications of Arianism and Ebionism. In 1546 a secret confraternity of rationalistic reformers is said to have held meetings in Vicenza. Two Italians of noble birth, Lælius Socinus, the uncle, and Faustus Socinus, the nephew, appear to have been the leaders. The former elaborated a system of unitarianism in which he regarded Jesus as supernaturally conceived and born of a virgin, so that He was truly the Son of God; but as to His nature, He was regarded simply as a man to whom God gave extraordinary revelations, exalted Him to heaven after His death, and committed to Him the government of the Church. He was, therefore, a divinized man. Early Socinianism held that Christ received the Spirit at the baptism, and since He was carried to heaven to receive special instructions, was therefore to be worshiped. Later Socinianism under the pressure of rationalism, developed into Deism and Unitarianism, which in its liberalistic forms regards Jesus Christ as no more than a man of exceptional character and power. Lælius Socinus died in Zurich in 1562, and Faustus Socinus soon after organized a Unitarian Society in Transylvania.

Ecumenical Christology. The development of ancient catholic Christology was practically closed at the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680 A.D. As we have indicated, Adoptianism and Socinianism appeared later, but these were only variations of the ancient heresies condemned by the Creed of Chalcedon. John of Damascus in the Eastern church, and Thomas Aquinas in the West, were perhaps the ablest exponents of the Chalcedonian Christology. The former offered an explanation of the two natures and the two wills in relation to the one Person, but otherwise made no further contribution. His great work was the systematizing and preserving of the results already gained. In the Western church, the scholastic theologians confined themselves largely to a discussion of incidental matters connected with the creed and cannot be said to have made any real progress. Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris (1164), whose Four Books of Sentences were sanctioned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) became the standard of orthodoxy. His assertion that "the human nature of Christ was impersonal," was challenged by Walter of St. Victor (c. 1180) who accused him of maintaining "that Christ had become nothing." This gave rise to the "Nihilian Heresy." The mystics,

[John of Damascus endeavored to answer the question, "How can the doctrine of two natures and two wills in Christ be reconciled with the unity of His Person?" His solution was as follows: first, he regarded the divine nature as that which constituted the person; and second, he supposed a kind of interpenetration or perichoresis, which brought about an interchange of properties between the two natures (cf. CRIPPEN, Hist. Chr. Th., p. 116).

The Augsburg Confession: "Also they teach that the word, that is, the Son of God, took unto Him man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably joined together in the unity of the person; one Christ, true God and true man: who was born of the virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and might be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men."

The Second Helvetic Confession: "we acknowledge, therefore, that there are in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord, two natures, the divine and the human nature; and we say that these two are so conjoined or united, that they are not swallowed up, confounded or mingled together, but rather united or joined together in one person, the properties of each nature being safe and remaining still: so that we worship one Christ our Lord, and not two; I say, one, true God and man; as touching His divine nature, of the same substance with the Father, and as touching His human nature, of the same substance with us, and 'like unto us in all things, sin only excepted.'"

The Westminster Confession: "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, or her substance: so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and Manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and men." This is usually considered the clearest and strongest expression of the Calvinistic churches.]

Tauler (d. 1361) and Ruysbroek (c. 1381) emphasized Christ as the Divine Representative, or the "Restored Prototype of humanity." The Lutheran and Reformed Churches also built upon the Chalcedonian statement. The Lutherans leaned more toward the Eutychian position of the unity of the Person, and the Reformed toward the Nestorian distinction between the two natures, but both denied these ancient heresies. Protestantism, however, uniformly rejected the Theotokos, regarding the expression, "Mother of God" as objectionable and misleading. Otherwise the Chalcedonian statement has become the orthodox creed of Protestantism, whether Lutheran, Reformed or Anglican. Dr. Shedd maintained that "the human mind is unable to go beyond it in the endeavor to unfold the mystery of Christ's complex Person." Dr. Schaff states that "the Chalcedonian Christology is regarded by the Greek and Roman, and the majority of orthodox English and American divines as the ne plus ultra of Christological knowledge attainable in this world: The statements of the Prostestant position are to be found in the various creeds and confessions, especially the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Second Helvetic confession (1566), and the Thirty-nine Articles (1571). Later creeds, including the Twenty-five Articles of Methodism are generally abridgments or revisions of the former creeds.

In more modern times, there developed what is known as the communicatio idiomatum, or communion of the two natures, a doctrine which apparently found its germ in the perichoresis of John of Damascus. In connection with the two estates of Christ, there arose the Kenotic and Kryptic theories which may best be considered in connection with the subject of Christ's humiliation. Modern Christology has been greatly influenced

[The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England: "The Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to he divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men."]

by the rationalistic and critical philosophies of our times, as has every other department of theology; and while the attacks were severe, they have failed to shake the firm foundations of the Christian faith. We must admit that the creeds are inadequate, for the finite can never express the Infinite; but we may still exclaim with St. Paul, "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (I Tim. 3: 16).

[The Twenty-five Articles of Methodism: "The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men." It will be noticed that the only difference between this and the statement found in the Thirty-nine Articles, is the omission of the phrase, "of her substance."

Articles of Faith, Church of the Nazarene: "We believe in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triune Godhead: that He was eternally one with the Father; that He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the virgin Mary, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, are thus united in one person very God and very man, the God-man. we believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly arose from the dead and took again His body, together with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us."]