?There was no need here of the virgin-birth for to secure a sinless father as well as mother would have been enough. Nestorianism holds to no real incarnation, only to an alliance between God and man. After the fashion of the Siamese twins, Chang and Eng, man and God are joined together. But the incarnation is not merely a higher degree of the mystical union.? Gore, Incarnation, 94 ? ?Nestorius adopted and popularized the doctrine of the famous commentator, Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the Christ of Nestorius was simply a deified man, not God incarnate. He was from below, not from above. If he was exalted to union with the divine essence, his exaltation was only that of one individual man.?

6. The Eutychians (condemned at Chalcedon, 451) denied the distinction and coexistence of the two natures, and held to a mingling of both into one, which constituted a tertium quid, or third nature. Since in this case the divine must overpower the human, it follows that the human was really absorbed into or transmuted into the divine, although the divine was not in all respects the same, after the union, that it was before. Hence the Eutychians were often called Monophysites, because they virtually reduced the two natures to one.

They were an Alexandrian school, which included monks of Constantinople and Egypt. They used the words su>gcusiv , metabolh> ? confounding, transformation to describe the union of the two natures in Christ. Humanity joined to deity was as a drop of honey mingled with the ocean. There was a change in either element, but as when a stone attracts the earth, or a meteorite the sun, or when a small boat pulls a ship, all the movement was virtually on the part of the smaller object. Humanity was so absorbed in deity, as to be altogether lost. The union was illustrated by electron, a metal compounded of silver and gold. A more modern illustration would be that of the chemical union of an acid and an alkali, to form a salt unlike either of the constituents.

In effect, this theory denied the human element and, with this, the possibility of atonement, on the part of human nature, as well as of real union of man with God. Such a magical union of the two natures as Eutyches described is inconsistent with any real becoming man on the part of the Logos. The manhood is well nigh as illusory as upon the theory of the DocetĀ«. Mason, Faith of the Gospel. 140 ? ?This turns not the Godhead only but the manhood also into something foreign ? into some nameless nature, betwixt and between ? the fabulous nature of a semi- human demigod,? like the Centaur.

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment