« PreviousContinue »
von dorn behut, hellischer flut. In ewigkeit bestandtlich bistu allein, christliche ein, behalten hast gar trewlich. Die sunn ihr schein offt leytet ein in unflätiges kote, belibt doch keck on mass und fleck in ihrer schön on note.
Auch gold on luft, in erdes cluft, wechst unverseret glantze. Also beleib auch gantze Maria hoch on erbsund boch (poch-doch) an sel und leib, vors teufels streyt und gottes zorn gefreyet. Göttlicher gwalt in ihr heym stalt, und sye vor unfal weyhet, etc.
THE GREEK CHURCH ON CHRISTOLOGY. THE ADOPTION CONTROVERSY
IN THE WEST. NIHILIANISM.
Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Christologie, p. 106, ss., Walch, Ch. G. F., His
toria Adoptianorum. Gott. 1755-58. Frobenii Dissertatio Historica de Hæresi Elipandi et Felicis (in his edition of the Works of Alcuin, T. i. p. 923, ss.) [Christlier, John Scotus Erigena, 330–361.]
AFTER the Monothelite controversy had been brought to a close in the East, no further objections were there raised against the church doctrine of two natures and two wills in one and the same person. But, in the course of the controversy respecting images, the question, whether it was right to represent Christ in a bodily form, gave rise to a renewed discussion concerning the relation of the divine to the human nature. John Damascenus, in particular, endeavored to reconcile the doctrine of two natures and two wills, with the unity of person, by regarding the divine nature as that which constitutes the person, and by illustrating the mutual relation in which the two natures stand to each other, through the use of the phrases τρόπος αντιδόσεως and περιχώρησις.' The Greek theologians in general adopted his views.'—The orthodox doctrine was. again endangered by the Adoption interpretation of the Sonship of Christ, advanced by several Spanish bishops, especially Elipandus of Toledo, and Félix of Urgella, whom Alcuin and others successfully combated. The adoption theory, by making a distinction between an adopted son and a natural one, leaned toward Nestorianism, though its peculiar modifications admitted a milder interpretation.' Peter Lombard's view, that the Son of God did not become anything by the assumption of human nature (because no change can take place in the divine nature), was branded as the heresy of Nihilianism, though he advanced it without any evil intention, and was falsely interpreted as if he meant that Christ had become nothing. Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, endeavored to develop the christological doctrines of the church in a dialectic method. But alongside of this dialectic scholasticism,
there was constantly found, as its supplement, a mystical, and moral tendency of a practical character. Some of this class despised all the subtile reasonings of the schools, while others, partly adopting them, regarded Christ, as it were, as the divine representative, , , ,
, or the restored prototype, of humanity. On the contrary, the false mystics transformed the historical Christ into a mere ideal.'
' John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. iii. c. 2, ss. p. 205: Ου γαρ προϋποστάση καθ' εαυτήν σαρκί ηνώθη ο θείος λόγος, αλλ'........αυτός ο λόγος, γενόμενος τη σαρκί υπόστασις ώστε άμα σαρξ, άμα θεού λόγου σαρξ, άμα σαρξ έμψυχος, λογική τε και νοερά- διό ούκ άνθρωπον αποθεωθέντα λέγομεν, αλλά θεών ενανθρωπήσαντα. "Ων γάρ φύσει τέλειος θεός, γέγονε φύσει τέλειος άνθρωπος και αυτός, κ. τ. λ. Concerning the terms τρόπος αντιδόσεως (communicatio idiomatum), and περιχώρησις (immeatio), see ch. 3 and 4, p. 210: Και ούτός έστιν ο τρόπος της αντιδόσεως, εκατέρας φύσεως αντιδιδούσης τη ετέρα τα ίδια διά την της υποστάσεως ταυτότητα, και την είς άλληλα αυτών περιχώρησιν. Κατά τούτο δυνάμεθα ειπείν περί Χριστού, Ούτος ο θεός ημών επί της γης ώφθη και τους ανθρώπους συνανεστράφης και ο άνθρωπος ούτος άκτιστός έστι και απαθής και απερίγραπτος. Compare also the subsequent chapters, and Dorner, p. 106, ss. [and 259, sq. Baur, Dogmengesch. 211, says of John of Damasc., that in his view, the human nature of Christ is not a hypostasis by itself, and yet it is not without a hypostasis as far as it exists in the hypostasis of the Logos; it is human nature only as it exists before individual and personal being.]
· Thus Nicetas Choniates (Thesaurus, c. 16, quoted by Ullmann, p. 46), and Nicolas of Methone (Refut. p. 155, quoted by Ullmann, p. 84.) The
p. latter, in accordance with the communicatio idiomatum, called the body of Christ, owua Ostov, because, by means of the rational and spiritual soul, it was united with the God Logos, so as to form one person, and was thus deified (Deovpynév.) Compare Refut. p. 166 (Ullmann, I. c).- Among the western theologians Anselm adopted these definitions in his Cur Deus Homo ii. C. 7.
' On the progress of the Adoption controversy, see Walch, I. c. Ketzerhistorie, vol. ix. P. 667, ss.; Gieseler, Church Hist. ii. 75, ss; Neander (Torrey's transl.) iii. 156, ss. On the questions, whether Adoptionism had been propounded by earlier theologians! whether the correct reading of Hilary de Trin. ii. 29, is adoptatur or adoratur ? and concerning the Liturgia Mozarabica, see Gieseler, 1. c. On the earlier controversy of Elipandus with the Spanish bishop, Megetius, see Baur, Lehre d. Dreieinigkt. ii. 131, 89. [Neander, Hist. Dogm. 442, sq., traces Adoptionism to the influence of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of whom Felix was & diligent student. This is confirmed, adds Jacobi (in a note to Neander, p. 443), by the Commentaries on Paul's Epistle, published by Pitra, in his Spicileg. Solesmense, i. 170, sq., as a work of Hilary, but really written by Theodore. Rabanus Maurus seems to have made use of these Commentaries. Baur, Dogmengesch. 213, says, that Adoptionism was the logical result of the Christological maxim, with which Alcuin opposed them: viz., that in the assumption of flesh by deity, “persona perit hominis non natura."] The notion itself is most distinctly set forth in the Epist. Episcop. Hispan. ad Episc. Galliæ (in Alcuini Opp. T. ii. p. 568), quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 81, and Gieseler. Nos......confitemur et credimus, Deum Dei filium ante omnia tempora sine initio ex Patre genitam-non adoptione sed genere, neque gratia sed natura-pro salute vero humani generis in fine temporis ex illa intima et ineffabili Patris substantia egrediens, et a Patre non recedens, hujus mundi infima petens, ad publicum humani generis apparens, invisibilis visibile corpus adsumens de virgine, ineffabiliter per integra virginalia matris enixus : secundum traditionem patrum confitemur et credimus, eum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, non genere esse filium Dei,* sed adoptione, neque natura sed gratia, id ipsum eodem Domino attestante, qui ait: “ Pater major me est," etc.— Felix (apud Alcuin, contra Felic. lib. iv. c. 2): Secundo autem modo nuncupative Deus dicitur, etc. “ This union of the human nature, which is mean in itself, with the divine, by the elevation of the former in consequence of a divine judgment, may be called the unio forensis, or the legal union." Dorner, p. 112. On the comparison which may be drawn between the said elevation, and the viogeoía of the redeemed, see Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 381. Even in Spain, the priest Beatus, of the province of Libana, and bishop Etherius, of Othma, pronounced against the Adoption theory. Felix was compelled to retract, first at Ratisbon (A. D. 792), and afterwards at Rome; the Synod of Frankfort (A. D. 794), also pronounced against Adoptionism.-Respecting Alcuini Libellus adversus Hæresin Felicis, ad Abbates et Monachos Gothiæ missus (T. i. p. 759, ss.), and his Epistola ad Felicem, compare Gieseler, p. 77. Alcuin's principal argument was, that the doctrine in question would destroy the unity of the Son of God, p. 763 : Si igitur Dominus Christus secundum carnem, sicut quidam improba fide garriunt, adoptivus est Filius, nequaquam unus est Filius, quia nullatenus proprius Filius et adoptivus Filius unus esse potest Filius, quia unus verus et alter non verus esse dignoscitur. Quid Dei omnipotentiam sub nostram necessitatem prava temeritate constringere nitimur ? Non est nostræ mortalitatis lege ligatus; omnia enim quæcumque vult, Dominus facit in cælo et in terra. Si autem voluit ex virginali utero proprium sibi creare filium, quis ausus est dicere, cum non posse ? etc. Comp. p. 813. At the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (A. D. 799), Felix was induced to yield by Alcuin, while Elipandus persisted. Felix died A. D. 818, but he seems before his death to have returned to his former opinions; see Agobardi Liber adversus Dogma Felicis Episc. Urgellensis ad Ludov. Pium Imp. : comp. Baur, ii. 133.Folmar, canon at Traufenstein, who lived in the 12th century, was charged (A. D. 1160) with similar Adoption (Nestorian !) errors; see Cramer, vii. p. 43. And Duns Scotus and Durandus a. S. Porciano admitted the use of
* No son, says Felix (ubi supra) can have two natural fathers Christ, now, in his human nature is the son of David, as well as the Son of God. Consequently he can be the latter only by adoption, since he is the former by nature.—A subordinate question was this—When did this adoption take place ? already at birth, or first at baptism? ACcording to Walch (Ketzerhistorie, ix. 574, sq.), Felix maintained the latter: see in reply Neander, ubi supra, and compare Baur, Trinit. ii. 139. According to the representation of the latter, the relation of adoption was fully realized only in the resurrection of Christ.
the phrase filius adoptivus under certain restrictions. Walch, 1. c. p. 253; Gieseler, ii. 80; Baur, ii. 838.
• Concerning the heresy of Nihilianism (Lombardi Sent. Lib. iïi. Dist. 5-7, his language is not very definite), see Cramer, vol. vii. at the commencement; Dorner, p. 121, ss.; Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, pp. 86, 87; and Gieseler, Dogmengesch, 506, 89. In compliance with an order issued by Pope Alexander III., the phrase, “ Deus non factus est aliquid” was examined by the Synod of Tours (A. D. 1163), and rejected : Mansi, Tom. xxii. p. 239. It was also opposed by John Cornubiensis, about the year 1175 (Martène Thesaurus, T. v. p. 1658, ss.)* But it was principally Walter of St. Victor, who made it appear that the language of Peter Lombard implied the heretical notion : Deus est nihil secundum quod homo. “ The charge of Nihilianism is at least in so far unjust, as it represents the denial of existence in a certain individual form, as an absolute denial of existence. At all events, the attacks made upon Peter Lombard were among the reasons why theologians were henceforth more anxious to avoid the denial of the separate existence of the human nature of Christ. We meet, at least, in the writings of almost all the subsequent scholastics, with some passage or other, in which they urge, in opposition to the phrase ' non aliquid,' used by Peter Lombard, that the human nature of Christ is something definite, and distinct from all others, but yet subsisting only in the divine person ; hence they would not call it either individual, or person.” Dorner, pp. 122, 123. Baur, ii. 563.
· Albertus Magn. Compend. Theol. Lib. iv. de Incarnatione Christi c. 14, and lib. iii. on the Sentences, dist. xiii. (quoted by Dorner, pp. 124, 125). Thomas Aquinas P. iii. Qu. 8, 1, etc., quoted by Dorner, p. 126, ss. Comp. Cramer, vii. p. 571, ss.: Baur, ii. 787. [Baur, Dogmengesch. 259, says, that the christological theory of Aquinas ran out dialectically into the two negative positions, that God became nothing to the incarnation, and that of man as a real subject of the incarnation nothing could be said, because the subject (person) of the union is only the Son of God. The humanity of Christ is only a human nature, and not a human personality; the union kept the nature from becoming a person—otherwise the personality of the human nature must have been destroyed by the union. On the christological views of Anselm and Abelard, especially in relation to the possibility of Christ's sinning, see Neander, Hist. Dogmas, 513, 89. Anselm says, “ that Christ could have sinned if he had so willed, but this possibility is only hypothetical ;" Cur Deus Homo, ii, 10. Abelard, on Romans, avers, “that if Christ be regarded as a mere man, it is doubtful whether we could say
of him nullo modo peccare posse ; but speaking of him as God and man, only a non posse peccare is to be admitted."]
Concerning the mystical mode of interpretation adopted by John Damascenus and others, especially by his supposed disciple, Theodore Abukara, see Dorner, p. 115, ss. On the connection between the scholastic
* John of Cornwall appeals among other things to the usage of language. When we say, e. g., All men have sinned-Christ is expressly excepted. Or, again, we say, Christ was the most holy of men; or, we count the twelve apostles and their Master together, and say, there are thirteen persons. All this could not be, if Christ were not aliquis homo. See, further, in Baur, ubi supra.