Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus .Apotelesmaticum." 653 @bangeIium§, ~ e t a u § entftanben ift, ift Die befte m3ibetlegung aUe bet lBef±rebungen unfeter Sdt, tDonad; e§ ~ u f g a b e bet SNrd;e fein foU, Me iiunere Eage ber IDecnfd;en aUf @tben au betbeffern, aUf bai3 merljiiItni0 ber milner 3ueinanber einautDirfen unb bie [ljtiftenljeit a10 ein mad;t" boIle§ fid;tbarc§ meid; nad; 2rrt ber meid;e biefet m3eIt bari3uftcIlen. :Rid;t aUf fOi3ialem, nid;t aUf poHtifd;em @leIJiet rieg! bie 2rufgabe ber ~ i r d ; e , fonbern iljre 2rufgabe if± ei3, ben IDeenfd;en fd;on jett in ber Seit bie etDigen ljimmHf d;cn @liiter au bermitteln, burd; bie fie ljier uub bod tDaljrljaft gfiicfIid; uub eluig fe!ig tDerben.] 60 ift in bet :tat Die ted;±e Untetf d;eibung unb ~ a n b ~ a b u n g bon @ l e f e ~ unh @vangelium Die ~ i l d ; f t e :tljeologenfllnft, burd; hie aIlein man gefdjidt tDirh, Me : t ~ e o l o g i e ted;! au ±teiben unb ber SNtd;e unb bet m3eIt n u ~ o t i n g e n b au bienen. @ldern! lDirb Mefe ~ u n f t aUein in ber @5d;ule be0 ~ e m g e n @leifte§. SDer mad;e aucfj un§ aIle tiicfjiig, Mefe red;te :tljeologie au leljten, au rernen unb au treiOenl Seljrenbotf, :!leutf d;lanb. IDe. m3 i II f 0 m m. Rejection of Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus Apotelesmaticum" and a Short Review of Reformed Christology. * The incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of the world is the central truth of the Gospel, and since the Ohurch of the living God is the "pillar and ground of the truth," it has the duty to maintain this truth, to defend it against the assaults of error, and to transmit it to future generations. This we must keep in mind when conconsidering the two natures in Ohrist; for at first we, too, might be inclined to agree with Hodge when he says: "Not content with admitting the fact that the two natures are united in one person, the Lutheran theologians insist on explaining that fact. They are willing to acknowledge that two natures, or substances, soul and body, are united in the one person in man without pretending to explain the essential nature of the union. Why, then, can they not receive the fact that the two natures are united in Ohrist without philosophizing about it? The first objection therefore is that the Lutheran doctrine is an attempt to explain the inscrutable." (Systematic Theology, VoL II, p. 14.) In his epistle the Apostle John strikes at the root of all heresy when he gives as its distinctive mark the denial of the incarnation of the Son of God. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Ohrist " Cf. Pieper's Dogmatik, pp. 296-309. 654 Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus Apotelesmaticum." is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Ohrist is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world," 1 John 4,2. 3. "The Word was made flesh," John 1, 14. With this truth Ohristianity conquered the ancient world; but unbelieving Judaism and crass paganism, though vanquished, sought vengeance by sowing the seed of heresy within the Ohristian Ohurch, the former by denying the deity, the latter by denying the humanity of Ohrist. Thereby divine truth was undermined and rejected; for if Ohrist is not the God-man in the full sense of the term, He is not the Mediator and Reconciler between God and man. The Ohristian doctrine of redemption demands a Redeemer who possesses all divine attributes and at the same time enters into all the conditions and relations of mankind. It is therefore easy to understand how everything turns to that fundamental question "What think ye of O h r i s t ~ " And the correct and complete answer to that question is the best refutation of all error. The Ohristian Ohurch has always known in whom it has believed; but from time to time, in its many conflicts, it has defined this faith more distinctly, without adding to, or subtracting from, its original belief: the Word was made flesh. If we study the history of the Ohristian Ohurch, we see a continual conflict with the twofold error: the denial of the deity, the denial of the humanity of Ohrist. With their carnal ideas of a Messiah, the Ebionites taught that the Messianic prophecies were indeed fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and that He would found an earthly kingdom at His second coming; but to them Jesus was a mere man anointed of God, but not the Son of God. In contrast to this pseudo-Ohristian Judaism stood a pseudoOhristian paganism. The Gnostics despised matter as the source of all evil and contended that Ohrist was an ideal spirit or aeon coming from the plfYroma to reveal to mankind the superior wisdom, or gnosis, of freeing oneself from the bonds of matter. Gnosticism denied the humanity of Ohrist and made Him a mere superhuman phantom. Both heresies of course denied the Ohristian doctrine of redemption. Over against this gross and radical Judaizing and paganizing heresy the Ohristian Ohurch of the first centuries faithfully held fast to the deity and humanity of Ohrist, and nobody dared to deny either one without thereby placing himself outside of the pale of Ohristianity. But error was not satisfied and would not concede victory to the truth. It now sought to weaken the deity of Ohrist. Arius subordinated the Second Person of the Trinity. He taught that Ohrist, while indeed the Oreator of the world, was Himself a creature of God and not equal to the Father. This heresy was rejected by the Oouncil of Nicaea in 325, which declared that Jesus Ohrist was Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus Apotelesmaticnm." 655 "one in substance with the Father." But still error did not cease its cunning. It now sought to weaken the humanity of Ohrist. Apollinaris, adopting the psychological trichotomy, attributed to Ohrist a human body and a human soul, but not a human spirit. He denied that Jesus was a complete man. This error was rejected at the Oouncil at Alexandria in 362. And yet error would not acknowledge defeat. It now sought to undermine and void the mystery of the Incarnation by separating or dividing the two natures in Ohrist, and thus weakening the deity, or by co=ingling and confusing the two natures, and thus weakening the humanity of Ohrist. The former is the heresy of Nestorianism and the latter is Eutychianism. During the Arian controversy the Antiochian, or Syrian, school of theology had inclined towards a separation of the human and the divine nature in Ohrist. This theology begat N estorianism.. which stretched the distinction of the human and the divine nature into a double personality. Thus the incarnation became a mere indwelling of the Logos in man or, rather, the union of two persons, the divine ego and the human ego. The Alexandrian school of theology, on the other hand, favored a connection so close that it was in danger of losing the human in the divine or, at least, of mixing it with the divine. This theology begat Eutychianism, which urged the personal unity of Ohrist at the expense of the distinction of natures and made the divine Logos absorb the human nature. Thus the incarnation became a transmutation or mixture of the divine and the human. The question at issue at that time was, How are the two natures in Ohrist united? This question is therefore not something "peculiar" to the Lutheran Ohurch, as Hodge contends, but was a matter of dispute already in the early Ohristian Ohurch; and if the Lutheran theologians "philosophize" about this question, they are only following in the footsteps of those early Ohurch Fathers. That controversy was finally settled at the Oouncil of Ohalcedon, and the controversy between the Lutherans and the Reformed concerning the person of Ohrist is merely a renewal of that same controversy, with the Lutherans contending that the doctrine as promulgated at Ohalcedon is Scriptural. In 428 the see of Oonstantinople became vacant. Because of local factions no local candidate could be elected harmoniously. The emperor, Theodosius II, therefore summoned N estorius from Antioch. Nestorius was originally a monk, then a presbyter at Antioch, and after 428 he became Patriarch of Oonstantinople. He had established quite a reputation as an eloquent preacher and was a zealot for orthodoxy. But soon Nestorius himself fell out with the prevailing faith 656 Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus Apotelesmaticum." of the Ohurch. The occasion was his opposition to the expression mother of God, which had been applied to the Virgin Mary by some of the Ohurch Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, etc.) to denote the indissoluble union of the divine and the human nature in Ohrist. Taking His human nature from the body of Mary, He came forth from her womb as the God-man, and as God-man He suffered and died on the cross. The Antiochian school, as said before, was inclined towards separating the two natures and therefore opposed this term. Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428) declared: "Mary bore ;resus, not the Logos, for the Logos was, and continues to be, omnipresent, though He dwelt in ;r esus in a special manner from the beginning. Therefore Mary is strictly the mother of Ohrist, not the mother of God. . .. Properly speaking, she gave birth to a man in whom the union with the Logos had begun, but was still so incomplete that He could not yet (till after His baptism) be called the Son of God. Not God, but the temple in which God dwelt, was born of Mary." Following in the footsteps of his teacher, N estorius argued against this term {}601;OUor;, mother of God. He saw in it a relapse into heathen mythology and preferred the expression xe.G7:0TOXOr;, mother of Ohrist. His object was undoubtedly to counteract the growing worship of Mary. "In the first three centuries the veneration of martyrs in general restricted itself to the thankful remembrance of their virtues and a celebration of the day of their death as the day of their heavenly birth. But in the Nicene age it advanced to a formal invocation of the saints as patrons and intercessors before the Throne of Grace and had degenerated into a form of refined polytheism and idolatry." (Schaff.) The worship of Mary as distinct from the worship of saints does not appear until after the Nestorian controversy, which gave a new impetus to ~ a r i o l a t r y . In his first sermon on this subject Nestorius declared: "You ask whether Mary may be called mother of God. Has God then a mother? If so, heathenism itself is excusable in assigning mothers to its gods. . .. No, my dear sirs, Mary did not bear God . . .; the creature bore not the uncreated Godhead, but the man, who is the instrument of the Godhead; the Holy Ghost conceived not the Logos, but formed for Him, out of the Virgin, a temple which He might inhabit. . .. The incarnate God did not die, but quickened Him in whom He was made flesh. . .. This garment which He used I honor on account of the God which was covered therein and inseparable therefrom. . .. I separate the natures, but I unite the worship. Oonsider what this means. He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not himself God, but God assumed him, and on account of Him who assumed, he who was assumed, is also called God." In his second homily he declared: "I cannot worship a born, dead, and buried God." In another sermon he said: "Pilate did Eutychianism and Nestorianism in the "Genus Apotelesmaticum." 657 not crucify the Godhead, but the clothing of the Godhead, and Joseph of Arimethea did not shroud and bury the Logos." Thereby N estorius pressed the distinction of the two natures into a double personality and in reality denied the personal unity of Ohrist. For the ao.e; s)'svno he substituted an indwelling, {;voix,)au;, of the Godhead in Ohrist. Instead of the God-man we therefore have the idea of a God-bearing man, and the person of Jesus of Nazareth is only the garment or temple in which the divine Logos dwells. According to Oyril of Alexandria, Nestorius taught a avvarpau, an affinity or conjunction of the two natures. They maintain an outward mechanical relationship to each other, but each one retains its own peculiar attributes. Since N estorius denied the personal union, the svwa!!; VJlOCI1:uux11, it is self-evident that he also denied the communicatio idiomatum, especially the genus apotelesmaticum, according to which both natmes operate in communion with each other, thus performing a theanthropic act. N estorius claimed that he could not worship a born, dead, and buried God, the divine nature could not take part in these acts. Thereby he rejected the Ohristian doctrine of redemption; for, if the death of Ohrist was merely that of man, if it was not God Himself who died on Oalvary, then man has not been redeemed. The death of a mere man cannot save us. Our Redeemer must be true God. In 431 the Ecumenical Oouncil of Ephesus condemned N estorius and deposed him from office. But this did not restore peace, for the council had only defined the faith against one extreme and not against the other extreme, which denied the two natures in Ohrist. The chief opponent of Nestorius was Oyril of Alexandria (died 444), but he by his misleading and faulty expression "one incarnate nature of the Logos" had opened the door to the monophysite heresy. Philippi says: "Den staerksten Schein des Monophysitismus hat Oyrill allerdings durch seine Behauptung der p.{a