Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine/Lecture 4

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It was not the personal character of Nestorius which caused his tragic fortune; if he was guilty, it was his doctrine which was to be blamed—this we saw in the preceding lecture. We have tried, therefore, to gain an idea of his teaching. Was Nestorius orthodox? What is his position in the history of dogma?—these are the questions which will occupy us to-day.

The question as to whether Nestorius was orthodox cannot be regarded as really answered by the anathema of the so-called third ecumenical council of Ephesus, because, as we saw[1], an ecumenical council of Ephesus never existed. It was only the party council of Cyril which condemned Nestorius, while the council of the Antiochians was on his side, and the question of doctrine was still undecided even when the council consisting of these two party councils was dissolved. The idea that Nestorius was condemned by "the holy ecumenical council" was only the result of the ecclesiastical-political transactions of which the union of 433 was the outcome[2]. This fiction and the consent of the Antiochians, which they were ignominiously forced to give, cannot help us to decide the question, all the more so since Nestorius could have accepted the doctrinal basis of the peace, although his condemnation was its result.

The standard of measure for Nestorius' doctrine must, therefore, be the definition of that ecumenical council which gave the first decision about the christological question (although proved later to be a preliminary one), viz. the fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon, of 451.

The definition of this council, which is to be seen not only in its creed but also in its recognition of Leo's letter to Flavian and Cyril's epistola dogmatica[3] and epistola ad Orientales[4], was a compromise, as the Roman legates could not and would not give up the letter of Leo, while the majority of the Eastern bishops were for their part tied to the Cyrillian tradition. Without doubt, however, there is no real harmony between these different standards of faith. For Leo's letter declares: Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est, verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est et carne exequente quod carnis est; unum horum coruscat miraculis, alterum succumbit injuriis[5], but Severus of Antioch, the well-known later monophysite, was right, when he said: οὐ γὰρ ἐνεργεῖ ποτε φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα προσωπικῶς[6], and for Cyril the human nature of Christ was a φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα, as is shown by his understanding of the ἕνωσις καθ' ὑπόστασιν[7]. Nay, in his epistola synodica to Nestorius[8] he even anathematised the διαιρεῖν τὰς ὑποστάσεις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν and required a union of the natures καθ’ ἕνωσιν φυσικήν[9]. This disharmony between the Cyrillian tradition and that of the western church represented by Leo showed itself also during the proceedings of the council in a very distinct manner, when the wording of the creed was deliberated. The first draft of this creed contained the words ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς[10], which corresponded to the Cyrillian tradition, but Leo asserted in his letter, that the unity of Christ's person was seen "in two natures[11]," and especially blamed Eutyches for not having been willing to concede the duality of the natures after the incarnation, while allowing the term ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς[12]. The Roman legates, therefore, energetically opposed the phrase ἐκ δύο φύσεων in the draft of the creed[13] and they succeeded in substituting ἐν δύο φύσεσιν for ἐκ δύο φύσεων[14]. One self-consistent view, therefore, could not be attained in Chalcedon; a compromise had to be made. And it was made by recognising as standards of faith at the same time Leo's letter and Cyril's epistola dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales[15]. Cyril's epistola synodica, which understood the ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν in the sense of a ἕνωσις φυσική, was not approved by the council[16], and its creed, by treating the words ὑπόστασις and persona as identical, interpreted the terms ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν in the sense of a personal union. By this interpretation Cyril's epistola dogmatica, which contained this term[17], was made acceptable to western thought. But even Cyril's epistola synodica with its anathematisms, once so sharply attacked by the Antiochians, although it was not recognised, was spared criticism[18]. And more, Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, who had been a more incautious upholder of the Alexandrian tradition than Cyril and who at the Robber-synod had declared the assertion of two natures after the union to be unlawful[19], although he was deeposed, was nevertheless not declared a heretic[20]. On the other side also Theodoret, whom a decree of the Robber-synod had deposed[21], was present in Chalcedon. Pope Leo had recognised him as orthodox[22], the imperial commissioners stood up for his right to be a member of the council[23], and the synod rehabilitated him after he had consented to anathematize Nestorius[24]. Nevertheless he was not forced to retract his book against Cyril's anathematisms. In the same way Ibas of Edessa, who had likewise been deposed in 449[25], was at Chalcedon reinstated as bishop[26], without having been forced to recant what he had said in his letter to Maris about Cyril's "Apollinarism" as he called it, although this letter had been condemned by the Robber-synod.

Hence it follows, that the decision of Chalcedon was interpreted in very different ways by the western church, by the adherents of Cyril and by Theodoret, Ibas and other Antiochians. It is, therefore, impossible to answer in one sentence the question whether Nestorius was orthodox according to the standard of the Chalcedonian definition.

It is certain that he could have accepted the creed of Chalcedon and its standards of faith as easily as Theodoret, for he could have reconciled himself to Cyril's epistola dogmatica if understanding the ἕνωσις καθ' ὑπόστασιν in the sense of a personal union, and what Theodoret, yielding to pressure, had anathematized in his old friend[27], Nestorius had never taught, nay he had even expressly rejected such assertions[28]. Nestorius can therefore be regarded as orthodox according to the Antiochian interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition.

The formulas contained in Leo's letter, as we shall see later more accurately, had their root in a view somewhat different from that of Nestorius, but Nestorius had endeavoured more earnestly than Leo to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ[29], and in any case he himself approved of Leo's letter[30]. Thus according also to the western interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition Nestorius can be regarded as orthodox.

On the other hand, an interpretation according to the Cyrillian tradition could not have been accepted by Nestorius, and measured by the standard of such an interpretation he could not be regarded as orthodox. Such an interpretation, however, had considerable difficulties. For, while to western thinking Cyril's letters, which were recognised at Chalcedon, had been made acceptable by interpretation, there was at that time in the East no Cyrillian theology, i.e. no theology following the Cyrillian tradition, which could digest Leo's letter. The quarrels about the decision of Chalcedon show how disagreeable it was to the majority of the Eastern Christians.

Hence as long as we apply no other standard than the Chalcedonian definition, the statement of Professor Bethune-Baker, that Nestorius was orthodox, is not to be held a false one. It was a tragic feature in the fortune of Nestorius, that he had already been condemned, when the council, whose creed he could have accepted, was held.

The Chalcedonian definition, however, was not the final one. The uncertainty as to how its formulas were to be interpreted was removed. The first step of importance in this direction was the Henotikon of the Emperor Zeno in 482[31]. This edict, indeed, did not condemn the Chalcedonian definition, but in actual opposition to Leo's letter and to its assertion about the operation of each nature in Christ[32] it expressly declared: ἑνὸς εἶναί φαμεν τά τε θαύματα καὶ τὰ πάθη[33], condemning at the same time everyone who then or earlier, at Chalcedon or elsewhere, thought otherwise[34]. That means that an interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition according to the Cyrillian tradition only was to be regarded as right, while Leo's letter with all its contents, which did not suit the Cyrillian point of view, was practically put aside. The eastern church, while under the Henotikon, on the whole enjoyed peace—the Antiochian tradition having been put into the background—, but between it and the western church a schism arose. When in 519 a settlement was reached, the Henotikon being at the same time abrogated, the question as to how the decree of Chalcedon, then reacknowledged, was to be interpreted, came again to the fore in the East.

This time it did not remain long without an answer, for at the same time the activity of the so-called Scythian monks began, and this was important just because they developed a theology wholly along the lines of Cyril, which nevertheless could do justice to all requirements of the Chalcedonian definition[35]. It was scholastic arguing, creation of terms and logical distinctions, which brought into existence this Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Only one of these saving terms need be mentioned, namely ἐνυποστασία. This term allowed the assertion that the human nature of Christ, although it had no ὑπόστασις of its own, nevertheless was not without ὑπόστασις, the ὑπόστασις of the Logos becoming that of the human nature, too. By the help of this term the twofold operation of the natures, spoken of in Leo's letter, could be accepted, the one ὑπόστασις of the Logos being thought of as the actual subject of the operation of the divine and human nature of Christ. Really, however, this doctrine of the Enhypostasia is identical with the Cyrillian view of the Anhypostasia of Christ's human nature, for actually it assumed that the Logos and the human nature became one being in the same sense as understood by Cyril, when he used the term ἕνωσις φυσική and the phrase μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη which had come in the orthodox tradition through the Apollinaristic forgeries[36]. There was now only the possibility of abstract separation of the natures in Christ[37]. As a shibboleth of their Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the Scythian monks used the phrase: ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος πέπονθε σαρκί, and this phrase was really characteristic. For, like Cyril, it makes the Logos the subject even of the sufferings, while by the addition of σαρκί, which naturally was not uncyrillian, it was asserted, that the natures were not mixed through the union; and to some extent justice was done also to Leo's letter, which contended that it was the human nature which suffered. The Antiochian tradition naturally was considered to be insupportable by this new orthodoxy. The Scythian monks, therefore, acted consistently in demanding that Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the famous teachers of the Antiochian school, although they had died in the peace of the church should be anathematised, as well as Nestorius[38].

This Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy was supported by the emperor Justinian, and the fifth ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in 553, approved the emperor's church-policy and the doctrine which he had supported[39].

The condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of the anti-cyrillian writings of Theodoret and Ibas, sanctioned by this council[40], clearly manifested the fact that an Antiochian interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition no longer was allowed. And twice in the decision of the council an Antiochian interpretation of Chalcedonian formulas was expressly anathematised[41]. Cyril, therefore, remained master of the field. Even his epistola synodica actually was approved, for Theodoret and Ibas were criticized for having attacked it[42].

The term ἕνωσις φυσική, used in Cyril's epistola synodica, was left, it is true, unapproved; for this term could have been understood as allowing the assumption that the natures in Christ were mixed through their union. Nevertheless, what Cyril really meant by the term ἕνωσις φυσική was accepted; for the ἕνωσις καθ΄ ὑπόστασιν is interpreted in the sense of an ἕνωσις κατὰ σύνθεσιν[43]. The Logos took on—this is the doctrine of the council—a human σάρξ with ψυχή and νοῦς in such a way, that out of the two natures came one Christ[44], who was the subject as of the θαυματουργεῖν so of the παθεῖν[45]; the two natures, of which the one Christ is composed, are only to be distinguished abstractly[46], the Logos himself was born a second time through Mary[47], the ἐσταυρωμένος is εἶς τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος[48].

There can be no doubt, that, measured by the standard of these decisions, the christology of Nestorius is to be called heterodox. It was the main purpose of all the anathematisms of the council to show the Nestorian understanding of the ἕνωσις, of the ἓν πρόσωπον, and of the θεοτόκος, to be heretical.

And these decisions remained valid. The sixth ecumenical council, it is true, in opposition to the Greeks, who were drawing back gradually and too openly from the formulas of Chalcedon, sanctioned the Dyotheletism, asserting, under the strong influence of the western church, the difference between the natures of Christ also as regards the ἐνέργειαι and the φυσικὰ θελήματα[49], but it left the Cyrillian interpretation of the Chalcedonian creed untouched and even gave to the dyotheletic statement a look suited to the Cyrillian tradition; for it said that the human will became in the same sense the real will of the Logos as the human flesh became his flesh, the human soul his soul, the human intellect his intellect[50], and that the Logos had his being also in the human ἐνεργεῖν and θέλειν[51]. Even if some other parts were added to the apparatus of flesh, soul, intellect, energy, will, which was regarded as composing the human nature, it would not have mattered, since the Cyrillian doctrine had won the victory, and since there existed now in the East a theology which was able to master difficult formulas by means of scholastic distinctions and arguments.

Also the Occident, as far as it belonged to the East-Roman Empire, Rome included, had had to accept the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy of the council of 553; and Rome led the young nations of the mediaeval world in the same direction. When in the Adoptianism of Spain old western tradition, not consistent with the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, emerged once again, the Carolingian theologians with the agreement of Rome rejected them, and Alcuin in conformity with the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy contended: in assumptione carnis a deo persona perit hominis, non natura[52].

There cannot, therefore, be the least doubt, that Nestorius was an exponent of a doctrine which even if not through the decree of Chalcedon, at least through the decisions of later time, was condemned by the church. Hence, measured by the standard of church-orthodoxy, Nestorius—in spite of all Professor Bethune-Baker's attempts to save him—must be regarded as a heretic.

Nevertheless his doctrine has more historical right than the Cyrillian orthodoxy. That is what remains for me to show.

Nestorius was a pupil of the Antiochian school; all Antiochian theologians were at first on his side. He seems to have endeavoured more earnestly than the greatest teachers of his school, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ. An absolute decision is not possible in this case, as the chief dogmatic works of Diodore and Theodore are lost. But even if appearance speak the truth—I shall return to this question later[53]—it is nevertheless without doubt, that the fundamental ideas and the decisive formulas which we find in Nestorius were part of the traditional teaching of his school.

It was not Diodore or even Theodore who first created these formulas; they had already been used by Eustathius bishop of Antioch (who was deposed in 330). We are able to observe this, although only small fragments of his works are preserved[54]. It is proved not only by the idea, that it was not the Logos who was born, who suffered, but the man, whom he joined with him[55], whom he resuscitated from the dead[56], and who then became his σύνθρονος[57], and also not only by phrases as ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐφόρησεν[58], or ἀνθρώπινον ὄργανον[59] or κατοικοῦσα ἐν αὐτῷ (viz. τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ) θεότης[60] or ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος[61] or ναὸς τῆς θεότητος[62], but we find him also, however sharply he distinguished between the Logos and the man in Christ, asserting the oneness of the πρόσωπον, the μοναδικὸν πρόσωπον, in contrast to the oneness of the natures which was taught by the Arians[63]. He, too, spoke of the Logos (or of the pre-existent son of God) as the image of God, and of Christ as the image of the son of God or the image of the archetype of the image of God[64]; he too—only to mention one further line of thought common to him and Nestorius—dealt with Melchisedek as a type of Christ, in order to refute by means of Hebrews vii. 3 (ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ) the idea, that the Logos was born[65]. The theological tradition followed by Nestorius can thus be traced at least to Eustathius.

But it dates from a still earlier period. To prove this, I will start by pointing to the fact that Nestorius himself found in Leo's letter views which agreed with his own. Leo was not the author of these views; he, too, followed a tradition which had come down to him. A generation before Leo a very striking agreement with Nestorius is seen in Pelagius, a native of Britain[66]. He says about the Logos, quem ubique esse non dubium est: descenderat ad formam servi non localiter, sed dignanter[67], and even the following sentence is found in him: omnes simul hominem adorent cum verbo assumptum[68]. It is not wholly improbable that these formulas of Pelagius were influenced by the Antiochian theology, for it is possible that Pelagius visited the East before he came to Rome. But even if Pelagius be left out of consideration (although his utterances may be wholly explained as having their origin in western tradition),—even then a near relationship between the western and the Antiochian tradition can easily be proved. As early as in Tertullian's time, one spoke in the West of two natures of Christ which were not mixed but joined (conjunctae = συνημμέναι[69]) and Tertullian himself says[70]: adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiate, ut et spiritus (i.e. the Logos[71]) res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes, et caro passiones suas functa sit, denique et mortua. The phrases "homo Christi," "assumptus homo" or "susceptus homo" are very often found in the west even as late as in Augustine[72]. The idea of the coexistence of the forma servi and the forma dei, which we found in Nestorius, belonged here to the tradition[73], and in Novatian (about 250) we find the idea, returning even in the 8th century in the Adoptianism of Spain, that by the son of God by nature the son of man also, whom he joined to himself and who was not son of God by nature, was made a son of God[74], and as late as in the 4th century Ambrosius says about the words on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" clamavit homo divinitatis separatione moriturus[75].

There was, it is true, a difference between western and Antiochian thinking, for, while all Antiochians, Nestorius included, even when starting with the Logos endeavoured to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ, that is, to use Melanchthon's[76] words, to explain the modus incarnationis, the Westerners did not trouble themselves with this difficulty. The oneness of the person of the Jesus of history—"persona" being here more than the πρόσωπον of the Antiochians and nearer to what we understand by "person"—was with the western theologians an indisputable fact, which was presupposed in all their christological explanations. About this one person they asserted, that it was the filius dei incarnatus and also that two distinct substances or natures were clearly to be seen in it[77]. The speculative question as to how this was to be conceived did not occupy the western church; the doctrine of two natures meant here nothing more than that only afterwards one discerned in this one person the two natures; and the presupposition of the oneness of the person of him who was God and man together was here regarded without any efforts of thought as so certain, that because of this oneness of the person the phrases deus natus est and crucifixus est were used in early times[78]. The western theologians were, however, aware of the fact, that such phrases were only inaccurate and incomplete statements, for only by virtue of the addition "ex humana substantia" did these phrases suit the undivided Christ, while as regards the Logos they were nothing more than forms of speech[79].

Nevertheless, in spite of this difference there can, in my opinion, be no doubt, that there must have been a kinship between the western and the Antiochian tradition. Adolf Harnack, it is true, does not admit this. He says that the Antiochians were going the same way as Paul of Samosata[80], and he even thinks that the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia about the relation of the Logos and the man in Christ, and about Christ's natures, will, feelings and so on were, here and there, literally identical with those of Paul of Samosata[81]. The christology of Paul of Samosata, as to itself, is considered by him to be an advanced form of the christology of Hermas and the so-called Monarchians of Rome[82]. Between Tertullian's doctrine of two natures in Christ, however, and the doctrine of the Monarchians he sees no connection; he looks upon Tertullian's doctrine, in so far as it goes farther than Irenaeus on whose works Tertullian was dependent, as formulated by Tertullian himself and influenced by Gnostic ideas[83]. Besides in Harnack it is not clear whether these relations are to be regarded as based on mere resemblance or on real kinship, for he remarks even as regards the connection between Eustathius and the later Antiochians, that in consequence of the many crossings it would be very difficult to prove a direct dependence and influence. He thinks it must suffice to group together what is homogeneous[84]. I cannot share this sceptical attitude—in the course of my research into the history of dogma I have become increasingly more convinced of the influence of tradition—, and the very kinships assumed here by my honoured teacher and friend do not seem to me to be the right ones[85]. In my opinion the supposition that there was a kinship in tradition between the Antiochian and the western christology seems to be unavoidable because of the close resemblance of the views and the formulas. But what sort of kinship was it? To answer this question I must enlarge upon two other points, i.e. the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra and the so-called Symbolum Sardicense.

Marcellus of Ancyra, whose huge work is preserved only in fragments[86], does not seem to have occupied himself with the christological question as such, as far as we can judge. It was the Arian Logos-doctrine that he opposed; the Arian doctrine as to the Jesus of history was not made an object of discussion by him. Hence it may be explained, that in some places he says: the Logos took on flesh, and in others: God joined a man to his Logos. This latter phrase, it is true, is less often used than the other, but nevertheless it does occur[87]. And it is not this phrase alone which shows resemblance to Nestorius' doctrine; it is also said by Marcellus, that the man joined to the Logos became son of God by adoption (θέσει)[88], and we even find in him the idea, that this man joined to the Logos[89], after having been exalted, became σύνθρονος τῷ θεῷ[90]. Still more of kinship in tradition is to be seen between Marcellus and Nestorius when in Marcellus Christ appears as the beginner of a new humanity. It was for this purpose, that the Logos took on the man, viz. that he might assist the man who has been deprived by the devil of his position of glory, in gaining victory over the latter[91]. He, the man joined to the Logos, is the πρωτότοκος τῆς καινῆς κτίσεως and the πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν[92], the πρῶτος καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, εἰς ὃν τὰ πάντα ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ἐβουλήθη ὁ θεός[93], he is the image of the Logos and thus of the invisible God[94], and, having become κύριος and θεός[95] he received thereby the firstfruits of the position of power which is given back to man[96]. Finally it is deserving of notice, that Marcellus, when applying the terms υἱός, κύριος and Χριστός only to the Christ of history, is, as regards the two latter terms, in perfect harmony with Nestorius, and that further, as regards the first, Nestorius, too, applied the term after the incarnation only to the undivided historical person of Christ[97]. I have, therefore, no doubt that there existed a kinship in tradition between Marcellus and Nestorius[98]. I do not mean that Nestorius had necessarily read Marcellus' work. It is probable—if a conjecture as to the text is right—that he once named[99] him, opposing his idea, that the Logos, when going at the end of all things to be reabsorbed into the Father, would put off his flesh; but he could have learned this idea through hearsay. Marcellus and Nestorius could have a kinship in tradition even if Nestorius did not know Marcellus' work. Besides it is perhaps remarkable, that Nestorius who so zealously anathematises all heretics never put Marcellus on such a black list.

Likewise it seems to me without doubt, that there is a kinship in tradition between Nestorius and the so-called Symbolum Sardicense[100]. In the beginning of this creed Ursacius and Valens, "the Arians," as they are called, are blamed because they pretended to be Christians, and nevertheless dared to say, that the "Logos or Spirit" was wounded, slain, died and rose again[101]. Correspondingly the creed declares at the end, that not the Spirit in Christ (i.e. the Logos) suffered, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐνεδύσατο, ὃν ἀνέλαβεν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν παθεῖν δυνάμενον[102], and it asserts as to the resurrection that not ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἀνέστη[103]. This conformity of views between the Sardicense and Nestorius is really not surprising, for the Sardicense is of western origin and we have already seen that since Tertullian's time the western tradition included a doctrine of the two natures of Christ, which resembled that of Nestorius[104].

Moreover, as regards the relation between Nestorius and the Sardicense another point, too, is to be discussed. I must go a roundabout way to show this. First, attention must be drawn to the fact that the Sardicense had a particular kinship with Marcellus[105]. Like Marcell us, the Sardicense declares that the term πρωτότοκος, if used of Christ, is applied to him as to the new creature, i.e. as to the beginner of the new humanity[106]. Like Marcellus, it understands the eternity of the Logos, not as Origen did as an eternal existence beside God the Father, but as the eternal existence in him up to the time when he issued from God[107]. Like Marcellus, the Sardicense contends that God and his Logos have one ὑπόστασις[108]. Like Marcellus, it identifies the λόγος ἄσαρκος and the Spirit of God[109]; and like Marcellus, it assumes, that from the historical Christ the Spirit of God proceeded and went over to the disciples[110]. Like Marcellus, therefore, the Sardicense teaches an economic-trinitarian monotheism, i.e. the Trinity does not appear here as eternal, but as produced in the course of the economy, i.e. of God's dispensation. God was according to Marcellus originally an absolute μονάς, then the Logos issued from him as his δραστικὴ ἐνέργεια without being separated from him δυνάμει, and then from the incarnate Logos the Spirit proceeded, the Spirit of God, who was in him and went over to the Christian community. These views were without doubt shared by the Sardicense, although they are not all definitely expressed. It did not even blame another idea of Marcellus which is closely connected with these views, viz. that just as the divine μονάς has been extended, the Spirit and the Logos will finally be reabsorbed in God in order that God may be all in all; for this idea, in spite of all opposition to it on the part of Marcellus' enemies, is passed over in silence by the Sardicense, and, as I have shown elsewhere[111], this silence was not merely the result of church-policy, i.e. it cannot be explained by the fact, that Marcellus, in contradiction to the majority of the eastern bishops but in harmony with the western, held to the Nicene creed. The real reason was, that the idea of Marcellus here in question corresponded to a tradition found in Tertullian and Novatian and found in the western church as late as the middle of the 4th century[112].

Now it is theoretically possible that Marcellus was influenced by the western tradition existing long before his time, although it is very improbable that western tradition could have made such an impression on an eastern theologian. Actually, however, this is quite impossible; for it is admitted by all that the origin of the ideas of Marcellus can be sufficiently explained by an earlier eastern theological tradition. This latter is seen in Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, about 185, although it is in him influenced by the quite different views of the apologists[113]. Before Irenaeus it is to be found in the utterances of the presbyters of Asia Minor which are quoted in several places by Irenaeus[114]. Even in the beginning of the second century, about 110, we meet ideas resembling the fundamental thoughts of Marcellus in Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who, as is shown in the course of his last journey through Asia Minor and by his relation to the Gospel of John, must have had intercourse with Asia Minor before becoming bishop. Like Marcellus, Ignatius assumes that the Logos of God is not begotten[115]; like Marcellus and differing from the apologists, he applies the term Son of God only to the historical and exalted Christ[116]; like Marcellus he nevertheless speaks about an issuing of the Logos from God[117]; like Marcellus, he says that God, when the Logos issued from him, broke his silence[118], i.e. opened the economy, i.e. his dispensation which was intended for the world's salvation; like Marcellus, he speaks about the οἰκονομία εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, i.e. about the dispensation of God which gave in Christ a new beginning to the humanity[119]; like Marcellus, he probably identified the λόγος and the Spirit of God as regards the time before the Spirit went over from the historical Christ to his disciples[120]. For him as for Marcellus the historical Christ is at once God revealed in flesh and the new and perfect man[121]. Finally, it is not improbable that Ignatius, too, supposed that the Logos and the Spirit would at last be reabsorbed in God[122].

Hence dependence of Marcellus on the western tradition is excluded from possibility. There is also another argument against it, viz. that even in Tertullian the western tradition shows itself influenced by the views of the apologists[123], who, to take only one example, applied the term "Son of God" to the pre-existent Logos and did not comprehend that the historical Christ was even as the Son of God the beginner of a new humanity[124].

The western tradition, therefore, must be traced back to the very pre-apologetic views which gave birth to the tradition followed by Marcellus. And this connection is at least recognisable for us in one place; for we find that Tertullian was strongly influenced by Irenaeus and Melito, both natives of Asia Minor, and by the Montanistic movement which arose in the same country.

This is the line of tradition in which Nestorius, too, has his place. That has been proved by what I have said about his relation to Eustathius, Marcellus, and the Sardicense.

The old tradition shows in him, it is true, in many respects an altered face. Origen had strengthened the influence of the apologists; Nestorius, too, shows many signs of this influence. But the old tradition seems to have had more influence on him than on the famous earlier teachers of his school. The tendency of his christology to start from the historical Christ and to apply not only the terms and but also the term Son of God only to the historical Lord[125] probably did not come only from his own endeavour to lay stress on the oneness of the historical person of Christ, but must have had a connection with the old tradition which had come down to him.

If all this is right Nestorius is justified in his thinking in a higher degree than if he had been shown to be orthodox in the sense of the later orthodoxy; for then he is nearer to the oldest theological tradition and nearer to the N.T. than this later orthodoxy itself.

Only two remarks are to be made in this respect. We are accustomed to the orthodox trinitarian and christological formulas as they appear when detached from the whole to which they originally belonged. Hence we do not see that in these formulas a mythology, actually contradicting the monotheistic belief, had gained the victory.

This is, however, shown just by the contrast between Nestorius and the Cyrillian orthodoxy. The council of 553 sanctioned, as we saw[126], the statement of the Scythian monks τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον σαρκὶ … εἶναι ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος. What weight this sanction had is illustrated by the remark of the same council, that the Holy Trinity did not receive any addition when "one of the Trinity" became man[127]. This remark is purposely directed against Nestorius, who himself deals with the reproach, that his doctrine led to the result, that the man in Christ was added to the Trinity as the fourth person[128]. He did not give a satisfactory answer to this reproach[129]. Nor did Marcellus master the difficulty. For him the problem did not lie in the fact, that on account of the flesh, he had to regard the historical and exalted Christ as another beside God, in spite of his dynamic unity with God, for this is undoubtedly the view held by the N.T. also; but he confesses, that he did not know, what would become of the manhood (flesh) of Christ, when the Logos should finally be reabsorbed in the unity of God, so that God might be all in all[130]. There was no difficulty here for the old tradition; for when finally all Christians are made perfect and wholly filled with the Spirit of God, then naturally the beginner of the new humanity would no longer have a peculiar position to himself, although God with his Logos would not cease to dwell in him; for God will be all in all[131].

But I shall not discuss this longer nor enter into the question as to whether the old tradition followed by Nestorius can be accepted by us, and if so, how[132]. The main thing for me is to contrast this tradition with the trinitarian doctrine of the council of 553. Here the Holy Trinity has become something through the incarnation which it was not before[133]. As regards the time before, it is to some extent a conceivable idea, that the three ὑποστάσεις, although they are regarded as in such a way independent of each other that one alone can become man, nevertheless together make the one God; for all three ὑποστάσεις are of the same spiritual substance. But after the incarnation, the Trinity is the triad of the merely spiritual Father, of the crucified (i.e. the Logos united with human flesh, soul and intellect), and of the Spirit[134]. This understanding of the Trinity is represented by the terrible mediaeval pictures of the Trinity which show an old man holding tip the Crucifix by the arms of the cross with a dove hovering above. That is certainly not the one God of the Christian belief! Nestorius, like Augustine, was convinced that the opera trinitatis sunt indivisa[135] . And only if we go back to the old economic-trinitarian tradition, will the trinitarian doctrine be compatible with monotheism.

The same is to be said about the doctrine of the incarnation. Cyril thought he had treated the idea of incarnation in a serious manner. He, too, however, did not assume that the Logos was confined by the body of Jesus during his earthly life; the Logos remained, according to him, pervading the world, and this by his Godhead alone[136]. As regards the time after the ascension, the same must be assumed. Then also in Cyril something heterogeneous is added to the Trinity by the manhood of Christ and, what is still more noticeable, the idea of incarnation appears as not sharply distinguished from that of inspiration. Mythological and popular thought may imagine an incarnation perfectly distinguished from inspiration, but the theology of the ancient church did not dare to do so. Luther was the first, who endeavoured to think out such a doctrine of incarnation, and he did this by means of his idea of Christ's bodily ubiquity, which began with the first moment of his conception and remained even during the time when Christ's corpse lay in the grave. However, by following this line of thought, we arrive at mere absurdities [137]. And if thus the endeavour to think out the idea, that the Logos assumed the manhood in his ὑπόστασις, leads us to absurdities, then we must go further back than the first beginnings of this doctrine, which are made by nothing other than the introduction of popular mythological views into the Christian theology. Only by returning to the lines of the Antiochian theology, along which in Germany e.g. I. A. Dorner and M. Kaehler went and R. Seeberg and others now are going [138], can we arrive at an understanding of the Johannine "ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" which is in harmony with the N.T. and avoids theological and rational impossibilities.

  1. Above, p. 53.
  2. Comp. above, p. 56.
  3. Comp. above, p. 37.
  4. Comp. above, p. 53.
  5. Ch. iv; Mansi, v, 1375 c d; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, p. 325.
  6. Doctrina patrum, ed. F. Diekamp, Münster, 1907, p. 310, 19 f.
  7. Comp. above, p. 72.
  8. Comp. above, p. 44.
  9. Anath. 3, Migne, 77, 120 c.
  10. This document was not inserted in the Proceedings (Mansi, vii, 100 d: ὅρον, ὃν ἔδοξε μὴ ένταγῆναι τοῖσδε τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι) and now, therefore, is lost, but there cannot be any doubt, that it contained the words ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς (comp. Mansi, vii, 103 d: definitio … ex duabus naturis habet, and 106 c: Dioscorus dicebat: "Quod ex duabus naturis est, suscipio, duas non suscipio"; sanctissimus autem archiepiscopus Leo duas naturas dicit esse in Christo … Quem igitur sequimini? sanctissimum Leonem, aut Dioscorum?
  11. Ch. 5, Mansi, v, 1379 b: Propter hanc unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam (comp. the preceding note).
  12. Ch. 6, Mansi, v, 1386 f.
  13. Mansi, vii, 101 a b; comp. above, p. 96 f. note 6.
  14. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, p. 166; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd edition, ii, 470 f. note 1.
  15. Mansi, vii, 113 b c. The meaning of the sentence τὰς τοῦ μακαρίου Κυρίλλου … συνοδικὰς ἐπιστολὰς πρός τε Νεστόριον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς … ἐδέξατο is illustrated by the fact, that Cyril's epistola dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales, but not his epistola synodica, were previously (Mansi, vi, 959 a b, 959 d, 971 a b, 973 c) approved. Comp. p. 98 note 1.
  16. This is expressly said in the Collatio cum Severianis (Mansi, viii, 821 e—822 a) and is to be seen also in the proceedings of the Chalcedonian council itself (comp. Ermoni, De Leontio Byzantino, Paris, 1895, p. 100 f. and 111 f.). I now give up my former opinion, that Cyril's epistola synodica was implicitly acknowledged (Leontius von Byzanz 1887, p. 50, Hauck's Real-Encycklopädie, v, 646, 40).
  17. Migne, 77, 48 b: ἐὰν δὲ τὴν καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν … παραιτούμεθα, ἐμπίπτομεν εἰς τὸ δύο λέγειν υἱούς.
  18. That is less than "acknowledged implicite" (comp. above note 1).
  19. Mansi, vi, 737 c.
  20. Mansi, vi, 1094 f., comp. Mansi, vii, 103 b: Anatolius … dixit: propter fidem non est damnatus Dioscorus, sed quia excommunicationem fecit domino archiepiscopo Leoni et tertio vocatus est et non venit.
  21. The second synod of Ephesus together with etc. ed. by S. G. F. Perry, 1881, pp. 251–258.
  22. Mansi, vii, 190 d.
  23. Mansi, vi, 592 d and vii, 190 b c.
  24. Mansi, vii, 190 a b and 191 b–d.
  25. Perry, l.c. p. 134 f.
  26. Mansi, vii, 262–70.
  27. Mansi, vii, 189 b: ἀνάθεμα Νεστορίῳ καὶ τῷ μὴ λέγοντι τὴν ἁγίαν Μαρίαν θεοτόκον καὶ τῷ εἰς δύο υἱοὺς περίζοντι τὸν ἕνα υἰὸν τὸν μονογενῆ.
  28. Comp. above p. 31 f. and 74 and his epistola ad Constantinopolitanos (comp. above p. 24 f.), ch. 2, Nau, p. 374.
  29. Leo asserted the unitas personae, but made no attempt to show how this unitas personae was to be imagined (comp. below p. 113).
  30. See above p. 22.
  31. Evagrius, h. e. 3, 14, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier p. 111–114.
  32. See above p. 96.
  33. Evagrius l. c. p. 113, 9.
  34. l. c. p. 113, 21 ff.
  35. Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, 1906, p. 304 f. and my Leontius von Byzanz, 1887, pp. 60–74.
  36. Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, p. 270 and 293.
  37. Comp. my Leontius, p. 71.
  38. Leontius, contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, 3, 7 ff. and 3, 37 ff. Migne, ser. graeca, 86, 1364–1387.
  39. Comp. the anathematisms of this council, Mansi, ix, 375–388, Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, pp. 168–172.
  40. Anath. 12–14.
  41. Anath. 5: Εἴ τις τὴν μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οὕτως ἐκλαμβάνει, ὡς ἐπιδεχομένην πολλῶν ὑποστάσεων σημασίαν καὶ διὰ τούτου … ἓν πρόσωπον λέγει κατὰ ἀξίαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ προσκύνησιν καθάπερ Θεόδωρος καὶ Νεστόριος μαινόμενοι συνεγράψαντο· καὶ συκοφαντεῖ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀσεβῆ ἔννοιαν χρησαμένην τῷ τῆς μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως ῥήματι … ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—Anath. 6: Εἴ τις καταχρηστικῶς, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀληθῶς, θεοτόκον λέγει τὴν ἁγίαν ἔνδοξον ἀειπαρθένον Μαρίαν ἢ κατὰ ἀναφοράν, ὡς …, καὶ συκοφαντεῖ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀσεβῆ ἐπινοηθεῖσαν παρὰ Θεοδώρου ἔννοιαν θεοτόκον τὴν παρθένον εἰποῦσαν … ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
  42. Anath. 13: Εἴ τις ἀντιποιεῖται τῶν ἀσεβῶν συγγραμμάτων Θεοδορίτου τῶν κατὰ … τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου καὶ τῶν ιβ' αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων … καὶ … οὐκ ἀναθεματίζει … πάντας τοὺς γράψαντας κατὰ … τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου καὶ τῶν δώδεκα αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων … ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Anath. 14 (against Ibas) has an analogous wording.
  43. Anath. 4: Ἡ … ἐκκλησία … τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν σάρκα κατὰ σύνθεσιν ὁμολογεῖ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ καθ' ὑπόστασιν.
  44. Anath. 8.
  45. Anath. 3.
  46. Anath. 8.: … τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν, τούτων λαμβάνειν, ἐξ ων συνετέθη.
  47. Anath. 2.
  48. Anath. 10; comp. 5.
  49. Comp. the creed of the council (approved the 16th of September 861), Mansi, xi, 631–640, the main section of which is to be found also in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole etc., 3rd edition, pp. 172–174.
  50. Mansi, xi, 637 c d.
  51. l. c. xi, 637 e sq.
  52. adv. Felicem 2, 12, Migne, ser. latina 101, 156 a.
  53. See below p. 126.
  54. The only book of Eustathius which is preserved intact (De Engastrimytho, Migne, ser. graeca 18, 613–676) is of little value here. The fragments of other works were first collected by J. A. Fabricius (Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles ix, 1804, pp. 136–149)—these fragments (about 35 in number) are the most important ones—; in Migne (18, 676–696) the number of fragments is enlarged to about 50; and a collection of 86 fragments (of which those, which were formerly known, for the most part are not given in full text) is to be found in S. Eustathii, episcopi Antiocheni, in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia christologica (which is spurious) … edita cum commentario de fragmentis eustathianis opera et studio Ferdinandi Cavallera, Paris, 1905.
  55. De engastrim. 17, p. 652 a: ὁ λόγος … ἀρετῇ τῆς θεότητος ἀνανταχοῦ πάρεστιν ἀθρόως. εἰ δὲ καὶ … τὸν ἔκκριτον αὐτοῦ ναὸν ἐπέτρεψε λυθῆναι, τριήμερον μὲν αὐτίκα πάλιν ἀνήγειρε (comp. 18, p. 653: θεότητος ἀρετῇ … πάντα πληροῖ)—; Cavallera, 15, p. 72 = Migne, p. 685 c: οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ … ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐνειρόνεμος ὑψοῦται—; Migne, p. 681 c: (Cav. 30): ἀπαθὲς τὸ θεῖον τοῦ Χριστοῦ πνεῦμα—; Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 73): Si in Christo plenitudo divinitatis inhabitat, aliud … inhabitatur; si vero naturaliter differunt ab alterutris, neque mortis passionem, neque cibi appetitum … plenitudini divinitatis coexistere fas est …, homini vero haec applicanda sunt proprie, qui ex anima constat et corporeMigne, p. 691 (Cav. 65): hominem causa salutis hominum Verbo coaptavit (συνῆψεν)—; Migne, p. 684 a (Cav. 27): τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα … ἐσταυροῦτο, τὸ δὲ θεῖον τῆς σοφίας πνεῦμα καὶ τοῦ σώματος εἴσω διητᾶτο καὶ τοῖς οὐρανίοις ἐπεβάτευε καὶ πᾶσαν περιεῖχε τὴν γῆν—; comp. Migne, 681 b (Cav. 29), p. 684 c (Cav. 28), Cav. 55, p. 90 = Migne, p. 689 b, Cav. 83, p. 99 etc.
  56. Cav. 16, p. 72 = Migne, p. 685 c: τοῦ λόγου τε καὶ θεοῦ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν ἀξιοπρεπῶς ἀναστήσαντος—, comp. Cav. 13, p. 71 and Migne, 677 b (Cav. 25): Joh. 2, 19; Migne, p. 681 c (Cav. 30) and the preceding note.
  57. Cav. 14, p. 71 f. = Migne, p. 685 b: σύνθρονος ἀποδέδεικται τῷ θειοτάτῳ πνεύματι διὰ τὸν οἰκοῦντα θεὸν ἐν αὐτῷ διηνεκῶς.
  58. Migne, p. 677 c (Cav. 26), p. 677 c (Cav. 21).
  59. Migne, p. 680 c (Cav. 20).
  60. Cav. 12, p. 69 = Migne, 688 b: θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθεὶς ὁ χρίσας, ὁ δὲ χρισθεὶς ἐπίκτητον εἴληφεν ἀρετήν, ἐκκρίτῳ ναουργίᾳ κοσμηθεὶς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κατοικοῦντος ἐν αὐτῷ θεότητος, comp. note 3.
  61. Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 77 and 78): deiferum hominem; homo deum ferens.
  62. Migne, p. 677 b (Cav. 25): ναὸς γὰρ κυρίως ὁ καθαρὸς καὶ ἄχραντος ἡ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπόν ἐστι περὶ τὸν λόγον σκηνή, ἔνθα προφανῶς σκηνώσας ᾤκησεν ὁ θεός—; Migne, p. 684 c (Cav. 28): πάσχει μὲν ὁ νεώς—; comp. p. 109 notes 1, 2 and 6.
  63. Cavallera, 7, p. 67: μοναδικὸν τὸ πρόσωπον· οὐκ εἶπον μοναδικὴν τὴν φύσιν …, ἀλλ' εἶπον ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν … ἐν τῷ διαφόρῳ τῶν φύσεων γνωριζόμενον—; comp. Cav. 82, p. 98.
  64. Migne, p. 677 cd (Cav. 21): οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ Παῦλος (Rom. 8, 29) συμμόρφους τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ· ἄλλο μέν τι δεικνύων τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι, ἄλλο δὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸς … εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ πατρός …, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐφόρεσεν, εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ υἱοῦ—; comp. p. 693 (Cav. 70) and Cavallera 452 2 p. 85: τὸ γοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα ἀδόλωτον ἔχοντες πρὸς τὸ τῆςυἱότητος?⟩ πρωτότυπον καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος μόρφοωμα προσβλέποντες δοξάζομεν τὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ἀρχέτυπον, comp. Cav. 82, p. 98, where Baruch 3, 36–38 is quoted.
  65. Cavallera, 3, p. 63.
  66. Comp. Hauck's Real-encyklopädie xxiv, 1913, p. 312, 30 ff.
  67. On Eph. 4, 9, Migne, ser. lat. 30, 1846, p. 832 a, comp. Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland, p. 365.
  68. On Phil. 2, 10, Migne, p. 846 a, Zimmer, l.c. p. 378. Comp. other striking quotations in my Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, p. 287 f.
  69. Comp. Tertullian adv. Praxeam 27: Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum, sed conjunctum, in una persona, deum et hominem Jesum.
  70. adv. Praxeam 1. c.
  71. Comp. about Eustathius above p. 109 notes 1 and 3 and about other western theologians Loofs, Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Homousianer v. Sardica (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1909, p. 35).
  72. Comp. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, ii, 358 ff.; Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, p. 284 ff. Augustine often used the term dominicus homo (comp. O. Scheel, Die Anschauung Augustins von Christi Person und Werk, 1901, p. 228) and only as late as Retract 19, 8 (Migne, ser. lat. 32, 616) blamed this expression.
  73. Comp. J. B. Lightfoot's Commentary, 127–135; H. Reuter, Augustinische Studien, 1887, p. 198 ff .; O. Scheel, l. c. p. 189 ff.; Leo, ep. ad Flavianum, ch. 3.
  74. Novatian de trin. 24 (al. 19), Migne, ser. lat. 3, 933 c: legitimes dei filius, qui ex ipso deo est, … dum sanctum istud (comp. Luke 1, 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et … filium ilium dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit.
  75. in Luc. 10, 127, Migne, ser. lat. 15, 1836 a.
  76. Loci of 1521, Corpus Ref. 21, 85.
  77. Comp. above p. 111, note 4.
  78. Tertullian, de carne Christi 5; Damasus, epigramma 91, ed. M. Ihm, p. 94; Reuter, Augustinische Studien, p. 205 ff.
  79. Tertullian adv. Praxeam 29 and Reuter l. c.—Even Leo, ep. ad Flavianum 5, says: filius dei crucifixus dicitur, cum haec non in divinitate ipsa …, sed in naturae humanae sit infirmitate perpessus.
  80. Dogmengeschichte ii1 1, 324; ii4, 339.
  81. l. c. i1, 599; i4, 732.
  82. i1, 594; i4, 727.
  83. i1, 474; i4, 606.
  84. ii4, 341 note 1.
  85. I do not deny that there was a kinship in tradition between Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, and the later Antiochians. The famous passages of Paul in the Doctrina patrum (ed. Diekamp, p. 303 iv—304 viii), about the genuineness of which I am more doubtful than Harnack (Dogmengeschichte i4, 724 note 1), especially the most interesting of them (l. c. p. 304 viii: τὰ κρατούμενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως κ.τ.λ.), could have been written by Theodore of Mopsuestia or by Nestorius. But Paul of Samosata was not the creator of the formulas he used; he stood in the same line of tradition as Eustathius, Theodore and Nestorius, although he modified these traditions—perhaps, however (comp. Harnack i4, 724 note 2), not in such a degree, as his opponents try to make us believe.
  86. Collected after Rettberg (Marcelliana, Göttingen, 1794) by E. Klostermann (Eusebius Werke iv, Gegen Marcell., etc., Leipzig, 1906), pp. 185–215. Comp. F. Loofs, Die Trinitätslehre Marcells v. Ancyra (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie), 1902, pp. 764–781).
  87. Klostermann, 74, p. 200, 5 f.: οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὂν ἀνείληφεν ἀποβλέπων τοῦτό (John 10, 30) φησιν, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς προελθόντα λόγον—; 1, p. 185, 10: ὅτε τὸν ἀγαπηθέντα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ συνῆψεν λόγῳ—; comp. 107, p. 208, 15; 108, p. 208, 22; 117, p. 210, 29.
  88. Klostermann, 41, p. 192, 1 ff.: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐχ υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἀλλὰ … υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου …, ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁμολογίας θέσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίαν υἱὸν θεοῦ γενέσθαι παρασκευάσῃ.
  89. Klostermann, 42, p. 192, 8 and 109, p. 208, 25: ὁ τῷ λόγῳ ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπος.
  90. Klostermann, 110, p. 208, 30.
  91. l. c. 108, p. 208, 21 ff.: ἵνα ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπατηθέντα πρότερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν αὖθις νικῆσαι τὸν διάβολον παρασκευάσῃ· διὰ τοῦτο ἀνείληφειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα ἀκολούθως τοῦτον ἀπαρχὴν τῆς ἐξουσίας παραλαβεῖν παρασκευάσῃ.
  92. l. c. 2, p. 185, 24: οὐ μόνον τῆς καινῆς κτίσεως πρωτότοκον αὐτὸν ὁ ἀπόστολος εἶναι φησίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρωτότοκον ἐκ νεκρῶν.
  93. l. c. 6, p. 186, 18 f.
  94. l. c. 94, p. 205, 12 ff.: εἰκών ἐστιν τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ· νῦν δηλονότι, ὁπηνίκα τὴν κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένην ἀνείληφε σάρκα … εἰ γὰρ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἠξιώθημεν γνῶναι, πιστεύειν ὀφείλομεν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ διὰ τῆς εἰκόνος λέγοντι· έγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. οὔτε γὰρ τὸν λόγον οὔτε τὸν πατέρα τοῦ λόγου χωρὶς τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης γνῶναί τινα δυνατόν.
  95. l. c. 111, p. 209, 1 f.: τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν πρότερον διὰ τὴν παρακοὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἐκπεπτωκότα κύριον καὶ θεὸν γενέσθαι βουλόμενος ὁ θεὸς ταύτην τὴν οἰκονομίαν εἰργάσατο.
  96. See p. 117, note 3, comp. above p. 89 at note 8.
  97. See above p. 86.
  98. In consideration of the fact that a common kinship of two persons to a third one proves them to be akin to one another, I notice that we find in Marcellus and Eustathius the same understanding of the ὁμοούσιος as excluding persons (ὑποστάσεις) in the Trinity, the same use of πνεῦμα as applied to the Logos, the same quotation of Baruch, 3, 36–38 (comp. above p. 110, note 2, and Marcellus, fragm. 70, p. 202, 20 ff.) and the same striking explanation of Prov. 8, 22 (comp. Eustathius, fragm. Cavallera, 33, p. 77: ἀρχὴ γάρ τοι τῶν καλλίστων τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὁδῶν γεγένηται ἡμῖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῖς κρείττοσι τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων προσάγω ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. and Marcell, fragm. 9–15, Klostermann, p. 186 f.).
  99. Nestoriana, p. 298, 23, where Marcellus is substituted for Manichaeus.
  100. I quote the revised text I gave in Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Homousianer von Sardica (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1909) pp. 7–11.
  101. 3, p. 7, 7–10.
  102. 11, p. 10, 53–55.
  103. ib. p. 10, 55 f.
  104. Comp. the references to western theologians I gave in the notes of Das Glaubensbekenntnis etc. (p. 11 ff.).
  105. This, too, is proved in the notes mentioned in the preceding note.
  106. Comp. above p. 117, note 4, and Sardicense, 7, p. 9: ὁμολογοῦμεν μονογενῆ καὶ πρωτότοκον· ἀλλὰ μονογενῆ τὸν λόγον, ὃς πάντοτε ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ πατρί· τὸ πρωτότοκος δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ διαφέρει (i.e. refers to the man) καὶ τῇ καινῇ κτίσει, ὅτι καὶ πρωτότοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν.
  107. Comp. the preceding note.
  108. Sardicense, 4, p. 7: ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην παρειλήφαμεν … πίστιν καὶ ὁμολογίαν· μίαν εἶναι ὑπόστασιν, … τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
  109. Sardicense, 11, p. 10: καὶ τοῦτο (viz. τὸ πνεῦμα) πιστεύομεν πεμφθέν· καὶ τοῦτο οὐ πέπονθεν, ἀλλ’ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐνεδύσατο.
  110. This cannot be proved by a single quotation; but evidence is given in my papers Die Trinitätslehre Marcells (p. 771 ff.) and Das Glaubensbekenntnis etc. (p. 31 ff.). Also regarding the statements which follow above I must refer to these papers.
  111. In the papers mentioned note 6, p. 120.
  112. Comp. my paper Das Glaubensbekenntnis etc., p. 31–34. Only four quotations may be given here: Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, ch. 4 ed. Kroymann, p. 232, 16 ff.: cum autem subjecta erunt illi omnia absque eo, qui ei subjecit omnia, tunc et ipse subjicietur illi, qui ei subjecit omnia, ut sit deus omnia in omnibus (1 Kor. 15, 28). videmus igitur non obesse monarchiae [filium], etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.— Novatian, de trin. 3, Migne, ser. lat. 3, 952 a: subjectis enim ei quasi filio omnibus rebus a patre etc. (1 Kor. 15, 28), totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit; unus deus ostenditur verus et aeternus pater, a quo solo haec vis divinitatis emissa et jam in filium tradita et directa rursum per substantiae communionem ad patrem revolvitur.—Victorinus Afer (†circ. 363), adv. Arianos, 1, 39, Migne, ser. lat. 8, p. 1070 d: evacuatis enim omnibus, requiescit activa potentia (i.e. the Logos) et erit in ipso deo secundum quod est esse et secundum quod est quiescere, et in aliis autem spiritualiter secundum suam et potentiam et substantiam, et hoc est "ut sit deus omnia in omnibus," non enim omnia in unoquoque, sed deo existente in omnibus, et ideo omnia erit deus, quod omnia erunt deo plena.—Zeno of Verona (about 370), after having quoted 1 Kor. 15, 24 ff. on the one side and Luke 1, 32 (regni ejus non erit finis) and Sap. 3, 4 ff. (regnabit dominus eorum in perpetuum) on the other: quid hoc est? si in perpetuum regnat, Paulus erravit; si traditurus est regnum, isti mentiuntur. absit! nullus hic error, diversitas nulla est. Paulus enim de hominis assumpti temporali locutus est regno …, hi autem ad principalem vim retulerunt, in cujus perpetuitate commanens in aeternum, a patre filius regnum nec accepit aliquando, nec posuit; semper enim cum ipso regnavit.
  113. Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, § 21, 2d, p. 143 f.
  114. l. c. § 15, 6, p. 103.
  115. ad Ephes. 7, 2: εἶς ἰατρός έστιν, σαρκικὸς τε καὶ πνευματικός, γεννητὸς (as σαρκικός) καὶ ἀγέννητος (as πνευματικός) κ.τ.λ.
  116. Comp. the preceding note and ad Smyrn. 1, 1: υἱὸν θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ γεγενημένον … ἐκ παρθένου.
  117. ad Magn. 7, 2: Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν ἀφ' ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα.
  118. Marcellus, fragm. 103, Klostermann, p. 207, 25: πρὸ γὰρ τῆς δημιουργίας ἀπάσης ἡσυχία τις ἦν, ὡς εἰκός, ὄντος ἐν τῷ θεῷ τοῦ λόγου—; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 8, 2: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών.
  119. As regards Marcellus comp. above p. 117, notes 4 and 5, and Klostermann, Index s. v. οἰκονομία; Ignatius, ad Ephes. 20, 1: οἰκονομία εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν and ad Smyrn. 4, 2: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου γενομένου.
  120. In Ignatius, ad Philad. inscriptio, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is τὸ ἅγιον Χριστοῦ πνεῦμα, while, according to ad Smyrn. 3, 3, Christ was on earth πενυματικῶς ἡνωμένος τῷ πατρί; and ad Rom. 7, 2, Ignatius apparently had in mind John 7, 38 f.
  121. Comp. above note 1 and ad Ephes. 19, 3: θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου εἰς καινότητα αἰδίου ζωῆς.
  122. It seems to me not improbable, that in Ignatius ad Magnes. 7, 2 is to be read: ἐπὶ ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν ἀφ’ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα {comp. p. 123, note 5) καὶ εἰς ἕνα ὄντα (comp. John 1, 18) καὶ εἰς ἕνα χωρήσοντα (instead of χωρήσαντα).
  123. The influence of the apologists on Tertullian needs not to be proved; about the older traditions, which are clearly seen in him, comp. W. Macholz, Spuren binitarischer Denkweise im Abendlande, dissert. theol. Halensis, 1902, pp. 35–57.
  124. There are in Tertullian remains of the pre-apologetic understanding of the term "Son of God," e.g. adv. Praxeam, 26, ed. Kroymann, p. 277, 26: dicens (viz. the angel in Luke 1, 35) autem "Spiritus dei" portionem totius (viz. substantiae divinae) intelligi voluit, quae cessura erat in filii nomen.
  125. Comp. Nestoriana, Index, s.v. Χριστός, κύριος, υἱός and above, p. 86.
  126. Above p. 105 at note 7.
  127. Anath. 5: οὔτε γὰρ προσθήκην προσώπου ἢ ὑποστάσεως ἐπεδέξατο ἡ ἁγία τριὰς καὶ σαρκωθέντος τοῦ ἑνὸς τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος, θεοῦ λόγου.
  128. Liber Heracl. B. 33 = N. 19; B. 34 = N. 20; B. 38 = N. 23.
  129. B. 360 = N. 231 (comp. note 4): Le prosôpon de l'humanite n'est pas odieux à la trinité; what is said B. 33 f. = N. 20 suffices just as little.
  130. Klostermann, 121, p. 211.
  131. Comp. the closing sentences of Irenaeus adv. haer. (5. 36, 2): Etenim unus filius, qui voluntatem patris perfecit, et unum genus humanum, in quo perficiuntur mysteria dei, quem (read quae) concupiscunt angeli videre et non praevalent investigare sapientiam dei, per quam plasma ejus conformatio et concorporatum filio perficitur; ut progenies ejus primogenitus (= πρωτότοκος; hence not "primogenita"), Verbum, descendat in facturam, hoc est in plasma, et capiatur ab eo, et factura iterum capiat Verbum et ascendat ad eum, supergrediens angelos, et fiet secundum imaginem et similitudinem dei.
  132. Comp. the closing remarks in my Oberlin-lectures "What is the truth about Jesus Christ?" (New York, 1913) pp. 237–241.
  133. Cp. ibid. p. 174.
  134. Cp. ibid. p. 175 note.
  135. Nestoriana, p. 225, 13 ff.; Liber Heracl. B. 326 = N. 208.
  136. ep. 17 (synodica) Migne, ser. graeca, 77, p. 112 c: ἑνωθεὶς γὰρ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος σαρκὶ καθ' ὑπόστασιν, θεὸς μέν ἐστι τῶν ὅλων, δεσπόζει δὲ τοῦ παντός.
  137. Comp. Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie x, 258, 41–260, 21.
  138. Comp. the lectures mentioned above (p. 128, note 2) pp. 228–35.