Images de page
PDF
ePub

singulari, nunquam actualiter subjacuisse originali peccato, sed immunem semper fuisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa sanctamque et immaculatam, tamquam piam et consonam cultui ecclesiastico, fidei catholicæ, recta rationi et sacræ scripturæ, ab omnibus catholicis approbandum fore, tenendam et amplectendam diffinimus et declaramus, nullique de cætero licitum esse in contrarium prædicare seu docere. (The celebration of the festival was fixed upon December 8th.) The Dominicans, however, adhered to their opposition; thus particularly the Dominican Torquemada (Turrecremata). The decrees of Basle could not be considered as binding, because this council was held to be schismatical; and it was the very men who guided that council, as D'Ailly and Gerson, who maintained the new dogma. Even at the council of Constance Gerson proposed to introduce also a festival in honor of the immaculate conception of St. Joseph! (Müller, ubi supra, p. 8). [On the introduction of the festival and the Paris decree, see Meth. Quarterly, as above, p. 280-82.]

7

See the bulls of Pope Sixtus IV., dated Febr. 27th, A. D. 1474, and Sept. 4th, A. D. 1483 (Grave minus) in Extravagant. Comm. Lib. iii. Tit. 12. Cap. 1. and 2. (quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, pp. 168, 169.) Comp. Gieseler, iii. p. 387.

• Even some of those who afterward espoused the cause of the Reformation, were zealous advocates of the doctrine in question, such as Manuel, a poet of Berne, who wrote on the occasion of the scandalous affair of Jetzer: compare his “Lied von der reinen unbefleckten Empfängniss" in the work of Grüneisen, Nic. Manuel, p. 297, ss., where he also quotes the fathers as authorities, even Anselm and Thomas Aquinas*, and then proceeds thus:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

FOURTH DIVISION.

CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY.

§ 179.

THE GREEK CHURCH ON CHRISTOLOGY. THE ADOPTION CONTROVERSY IN THE WEST. NIHILIANISM.

* Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Christologie, p. 106, ss., Walch, Ch. G. F., Historia 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.]

1

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 ἀντιδόσεως 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 Felix 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."

1

6

1 John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. iii. c. 2, ss. p. 205: Où yàp πроνποστάσῃ καθ' ἑαυτὴν σαρκὶ ἡνώθη ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ἀλλ'...αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος, γενόμενος τῇ σαρκὶ ὑπόστασις ὥστε ἅμα σαρξ, ἅμα θεοῦ λόγου σὰρξη ἅμα σὰρξ ἔμψυχος, λογική τε καὶ νοερά· διὸ οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀποθεωθέντα λέγομεν, ἀλλὰ θεὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. "Ων γὰρ φύσει τέλειος Θεός, γέγονε φύσει τέλειος ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτὸς, κ. τ. λ. Concerning the terms τρόπος ἀντιδόσεως (communicatio idiomatum), and περιχώρησις (immeatio), see ch. 3 and 4, p. 210: Καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἀντιδόσεως, ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἀντιδιδούσης τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὰ ἴδια διὰ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα, καὶ τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα αὐτῶν περιχώρησιν. Κατὰ τοῦτο δυνάμεθα εἰπεῖν περὶ Χριστοῦ, Οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὤφθη καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη· καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος ἄκτιστός ἐστι καὶ ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀπερίγραπτος. 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 hu man 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.]

2 Thus Nicetas Choniates (Thesaurus, c. 16, quoted by Ullmann, p. 46), and Nicolas of Methone (Refut. p. 155, quoted by Ullmann, p. 84.) The latter, in accordance with the communicatio idiomatum, called the body of Christ, owμa Oɛĩov, 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 (0ɛovрyn0év.) Compare Refut. p. 166 (Ullmann, 1. c).-Among the (θεουργηθέν.) western theologians Anselm adopted these definitions in his Cur Deus Homo ii. c. 7.

On the progress of the Adoption controversy, see Walch, 1. 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 carlier controversy of Elipandus with the Spanish bishop, Megetius, see Baur, Lehre d. Dreieinigkt. ii. 131, sq. [Neander, Hist. Dogm. 442, sq., traces Adoptionism to the influence of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of whom Felix was a 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 genitum-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, cum 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 violɛoía 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 Gothic 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 cœlo 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. And Duns Scotus and Durandus a. S. Porciano admitted the use of

43.

*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.

« PrécédentContinuer »