Two Ancient Christologies: A Study in the Christological thought of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early History of Christian Doctrine

142 Pages·1940·11.35 MB·English

by  R. V. Sellers

TWO ANCIENT
CH RISTOLOG I ES
A STUDY IN THE
CHRISTOLOGICAL THOUGHT OF THE
SCHOOLS OF ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH
IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
BY
R. V. SELLERS, D.D.
Warden of St Augustine's House
Reading
Published for the Church Historical Society
LONDON
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, WC 2
'Io
THE MEMORY OF
MY FATHER
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
PREFACE
IN the nineteenth century, when, in the reaction against
"other-worldliness", emphasis came to be laid on the notion
of immanence, and values were looked for in this world and
its civilization, it was but natural that Christian thinkers should
urge the re-exploration of Christianity, and see in the Man of
Nazareth and the revelation of God which is to be found in Him
the message for the age. Moreover, it was in keeping with this
changed habit of thought that students of the early history of
Christian dogma should select, as their special field of enquiry,
the teaching of the Antiochene theologians, whose writings reveal
a lively interest in anthropology; and, as is well known, of recent
years much important work has been done on this subject.
Now, however, when there appears to be a general dissatisfac
tion with a civilization which fails to bring with it the healing
of man and nation, the pendulum, it seems, is swinging away
from immanentism, and there are signs that the coming years
will see a demand, not for a religion which proclaims as its basic
conception that the Divine is to be found in the soul, but for one
which proclaims that God, a living and personal Being, while
immanent in creation, certainly transcends it, and that, since He
is not "wholly other", but One to whom man can lift up his
whole being, knowing that no phase of human life lies com
pletely outside of the divine life, it is in a relationship of mutual
love that man's cravings for a more abundant life can be satisfied.
It seems likely, then, that in the future more attention will be
paid to the work of the Alexandrine theoiogians, who, while
affirming the immanence of God in the world and in man, start
from the thought of the loving-kindness of the God who
transcends the world, and set at the forefront of their teaching
the principal assertion of Christianity-namely, that, in order
that man, released from sin, might enjoy the fulness of life in
perfect communion with his Maker, God has Himself come down
and undergone human experiences in the Person of Jesus Christ.
But in this reaction against immanentism it is important that
Vlll PREFACE PREFACE lX
what has been gained and proved worthy shoul<! be preserved of the Foundress, the late Mrs Eleanor Barrett Palmer, that
both what we have learned, and are still learning, concerning the St Augustine's should provide leisure for the pursuit of theo
immanence of God, and what concerning the historic Christ.
logical studies. To her, therefore, and to the Trustees of the
And the same holds good in respect of our knowledge of the Foundation, I owe no small debt.
teaching of the Antiochene theologians. Indeed, if the con
R. V. SELLERS
clusion which has been reached in this study is correct, it would
seem that, as we make use of ancient Christological thought in Reading
our attempt to understand (so far as human limitations will 8 May 1939
allow) the mysterium Christi, we cannot avoid turning to the
contribution made by the teachers of this school. For, though at
first sight the Antiochenes appear to establish their doctrine on
a dualistic conception of God and man, it seems clear that, as we
look beneath the surface and concentrate rather upon what they
were meaning to say than upon what, in the heat of controversy,
they actually said, it is found that these, too, though from their
own point of view, were upholding, and seeking to explain, the
Christian affirmation that 'IT]crovs Xprcrr6s is 9eov Yi6s and I:c.mip
-and, what is more, that in their teaching on the reality of the
Lord's human consciousness they supply what is lacking in the
system of the Alexandrines, as these start from the same affirma
tion. As is claimed in this work, if we are to see old things in a
new light, we must turn to our treasure, and out of it bring forth
together both these ancient Christologies, since the one without
the other cannot be deemed wholly satisfactory.
It remains for me to express my gratitude to the Regius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, the Rev. Canon C. E.
Raven, D.D., for his help and encouragement, and, for his
valuable advice and criticism, to the Dean of Clare College, the
Rev. W. Telfer, D.D., in what has been a lengthy course of study.
At the end of it I have the honour of being able to say that the
work has earned for me a doctorate in divinity at Cambridge.
I would also gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the
Church Historical Society and to the Managers of the Hort
Fund for their generosity in helping me with the publication
of this book; and, for their careful printing and proof-reading,
to the workmen and staff of the Cambridge University Press.
Finally, I would say that had I not enjoyed the privilege of
being Warden of the Foundation of St Augustine in Reading,
this work would not have been written; for it was the wish
CONTENTS
page xiii
INTRODUCΠON
Έπόμεvοι το!vνν τοίs ay!oιs πατράσιv
CHAPTER Ι. ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY
ένα και τόv αίιτόv όμολοyοίίμεv Ylov τοv Κίιριοv ήμωv Ίησοw Χριστόν
Ι. The Teaching of Athanasius and his Predecessors Ι
11. The Teaching of Apollinarius of Laodicea and his
προ α\ώvωv μέv έκ τοίί Πατροs yεvvηθέvτα
School 45
κατα τηv θεότητα
ΙΙΙ. The Teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers 65
rn'
έσχάτωv δέ τωv ήμερωv τοv αίιτοv δι' ήμas καi δια την
IV. The Teaching of Cyril 8ο
ήμετέραν σωτηρίαν έκ Μαρίας τfίs παρθέvοv τfjs θεοτόκοv
κατeχ τήv avθρωπότητα CHAPTER II. ΑΝηΟCΗΕΝΕ CHRISTOLOGY
Ι. The Soteriological Teaching of the Antiochene
έv δίιο φίισεσιv Theologians 107
&σvyχίιτωs άτρέπτωs άδιαιρέτωs ά)(ωρίστως 11. The Christological Teaching of the Antiochene
yvωριsόμεvοv Theologians 143
CoNCLUSION
Definitio Fidei αpud
Concilium Chalcedonmse Ι. The Conflict between the two Schools ofThought
and its Outcome 202
11. The Value of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene
Christologies 243
INDEX 259
INTRODUCTION
T HE purpose of this study is to examine the Christological
teaching of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene theo
logians in the early history of Christian dogma with a view
to showing that, in reality, they were both contending for the
same fundamental truths, and that, in consequence, the conflict
which raged between these two ancient schools of thought, and
had as its outcome the break-up of the school of Antioch, is to
be regarded as one of the major tragedies in the history of the
Early Church.
We shall first consider the Alexandrine Christology. Its early
exponents, Greeks, living in a Greek world, may betray signs of
the influence of the thought and religion of Hellenism, but it
seems clear that their Christological teaching, even if, in some
of its aspects, it must be deemed unsatisfactory, has at its root
ideas which are essentially Christian. Their successors in this
Greek doctrinal tradition carry forward and develop the same
basic Christological principles, only now these appear against a
background which is, apparently, more in keeping with Christian
fundamentals. These Christological principles are, first, that
Jesus Christ is one Person, God Himself, who has become man
for man's salvation, and, second, that in Him are the two ele
ments of Godhead and manhood, these remaining real in their
union in this one Person; as they are seen from the point of view
of what they are meant to deny, the one may be called the anti
Nestorian, the other the anti-Eutychian principle. It is upon the
first of these principles that the Alexandrines, in their determina
tion to resist the Nestorian doctrine, lay particular stress; the
second lies at the root of their teaching, but, as we shall try to
show, while they hold that the Lord's manhood is real, and that
it possesses the faculty of self-determination, they fail to develop
what they accept as a principle.
The Antiochenes approach the Christological problem from
a different standpoint, for if the Alexandrines can be called
Christian Platonists, these, brought up in what is known as the
Syrian doctrinal tradition, can be called Christian Aristotelians.
XlV INTRODUCTION
Yet, as we would show, these, too, building on the same Chris
tian fundamentals, uphold the same two Christological prin
ciples. The difference between these theologians and those of the CHAPTER I
school of Alexandria would appear to lie in this: that while main
taining the first of these principles (though, if attention is paid ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY
merely to some of their terms, it may seem that a very different
verdict is called for), the Antiochenes, intent on rejecting the I. THE TEACHING OF ATHANASIUS AND HIS
error of Eutychianism, lay emphasis on the second, and, what is PREDECESSORS
more, as it seems, succeed where their opponents fail, in that T HE Christological thought of the Alexandrine school of
these make use of the doctrine of the reality of the Lord's man
theology in the history of the ~arly Church finds its h~ghest
hood to the full extent, and do not hesitate to apply the principle expression before the Councll of Chalcedon ( 4 5I ) m the
of its individuality. teaching of Cyril, who came to be venerated as the defender of
So we would conclude that the Council of Ephesus (43 I), in orthodoxy against the peril of N estorianism. But the faith which
stead of marking the beginnings of a process which ended in the this theologian proclaimed was not his own creation. Central
disruption of the Syrian school of theology, might have stood as to the Alexandrine Christological tradition are both the great
the place where two ways met-and that to the benefit of the Athanasius and Apollinarius of .J,apdjc~a, whose doctrine (apart,
Christian Church. Perhaps in these modern days, when thought that is, from the particular error of the latter) Cyril carried for
is such that the doctrine of the Antiochenes has a special appeal, ward. But the principles upheld by Athanasius had been upheld
we can carry forward their work-only, it would seem, we should before him by earlier Greek teachers, and in particular by Origen.
be prepared to make use of the contribution of the Alexandrine So it is that, if we are to appreciate the development of the
teachers as well as that of the teachers of the school of Antioch, Alexandrine doctrine concerning the Person of Jesus Christ, we
since, the two contributions being complementary, both are must first consider the teaching of Athanasius as it is seen in the
necessary in the interest of sound Christological thought. light of that of his predecessors.
Now behind any given Christology there must needs lie cer
tain ideas concerning God and man and the relations between
them. It follows, then, that we cannot fully understand the Chris
tological teaching of the Alexandrine theologians without first
enquiring into their root ideas. Besides, an enquiry of this sort is
necessary in view of the important consideration that if these ideas
are not essentially Christian, it cannot but be that the doctrinal
structure which is founded upon them is, correspondingly, faulty.
So we begin with an investigation of the doctrine of God as this
was expounded by Athanasius and those who had gone before.
Perhaps it will be well if, by way of introduction to our sub
ject, we try to realize the difficulties that confronted the early
exponents of Christianity as these set out to explain their faith
to their neighbours. The Greeks had entered into the heritage
bequeathed to them by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, and, as
in Neo-Platonism, were now seeking to effect a closer fusion of
SAC
2 ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY 3
traditional philosophical ideas with that essentially religious idea taken captive by the very thought which they were attempting to
which is to be found at the heart of the Hellenic genius, namely, overcome. As seems clear, they never surrender the funda
that blessedness is to be found as the human soul, liberated from mentals of their faith; at its core, their doctrine does not vary:
all earthly bonds, mounts higher and higher in its contemplation the God of the Christians, they proclaim, is an ethical God.
of the Divine. So God was looked upon as the One, utterly tran And, especially at Alexandria, might we have expected Chris
scendent and unknowable, the Father, the God, who, as Plato tian teachers to have been so strongly influenced by the spell of
had said, stands "beyond knowledge and being" .1 But the Hellas that in their hands the gospel came to be deprived of its
Christian conception of God-a conception which has its roots essential character. For at this centre of Greek culture, with its
in Hebraic Theism-is radically different from this. Christianity Library and Museum, Eastern thought in its manifold forms was
proclaims, not that God is the One who, highly exalted and en being mingled with the philosophy of Greece. Here _Philo,
shrouded in mystery, is banished from the world, but that He is making use of Hellenic conceptions, had sought to present
the all-holy and all-loving Creator, who, yearning that man, made Judaism as a religious philosophy; here the leading Gnostics,
in His image, should enjoy perfect communion with Him, and Basilides and Valentinus, had flourished. It was here, too, that
rule his life in accordance with the divine will, again and again the first of the Neo-Platonists, Plotinus (204-270), had studied
intervenes in history-" rising up early and sending"- as He under the renowned Ammonius before he settled at Rome. The
works out His good purpose for His creation. Clearly, then, the tradition of learning for which Alexandria was famed was con
task facing early Christian teachers was no light one. How were tinued among the Christians, who set up their catechetical
they to present their message to a world long accustomed to school-a school which was to give to Christendom teachers who
vastly differe~t ideas? Can we blame them if they set out to dis could make their valuable contribution to Christian theology.
cover what common ground there was between the Greek and But, even if the earliest and most influential heads of the school
the Christian, and, having discovered such common ground, at of Alexandria, Clement (t before 215) and Origen (185-254),
once made use of it? Indeed, it must be admitted that such were Greeks by birth and outlook, they were never unmindful
perspicacity is greatly to their credit. Or, can we blame them if, of their Christian calling. They were Christians living in an
when speaking of God, they adopt terms and phrases which have atmosphere of Greek thought-but Christians they remained.
no ethical significance but are bound up with the Greek philo Clement, intent upon attracting the educated Greeks to the
sophical conception of the Divine? After all, they must have felt Christian message, lays all stress on the thought that the supreme
that it was only in this way that they could be sure of gaining a gift which Christianity has to offer to men is knowledge of the
hearing.2 But this is far from saying that they were themselves Divine, and makes use of their language. God, he says, is "above
all speech, all conception, and all thought, being inexpressible
1 Rep. vi. 509. even by His own power"; He is "ranked as the All on account
2 It may seem that Justin Martyr, for instance, anxious to com~end the of His greatness"; He is "the One, indivisible, without dimen
Gospel to his Greek neighbours as the only ~afe and profitable phtlosophy
(Dial. 8), thinks of God as the nar;>eless: far-dis~ant. Bemg wh_or:' men cannot sions and limit, without form and name" .1 Certainly, such
discover but it is evident that basic to his teachmg IS the Chnstian truth that
God is Father and Creator, the Lord and Master of all, who of His goodness spirit and power ineffable" (Suppl. ro). But, as is clear, this Apologist, too,
has created man in order that in his obedience to the divine commandments, does not consider that God is removed from the world; rather, for him, is He
he might reign .:Vith Him (AfJOl. i. 8, ro; ii. 7; Dial. 7), and ':ho, beholdin.g the world's Creator and Framer, who moulds it according to His will, just as
him now subject to the powers of evil, has int~rven~d, and H1mself. sent His the1 potter moulds the clay (ibid. 8, 9, rs).
Logos as man among men in order to effect his deliverance (Apol. 1. 28, 63; Strom. v. ro, 12; vii. I. It may be noted that Plato's words, "It is a hard
ii. 6). Similarly Athenagoras, answering the charge of "Atheism'.', t;>l~ads task to find the Father and Maker of this universe, and when you have found
that the Christians "acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, mvisible, f!:im, it is impossible to declare Him to all" (Timaeus, 28 c), are quoted three
impassible, incomprehensible, illimi:able, who is appreh~nded by the under times by Clement, and that with manifest approval: "We ,ll done, Plato; thou
standing only and the reason, who IS encompassed by hght and beauty and hasttouched on the truth" (Protrept. vi (ed. Dindorf, i.p. 74); Strom. v. r2, 14).
I-2
ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY 5
4 ALEXANDRINE CHRISTOLOGY
express these fundamentals that he makes use of sound philo
ewcisLGtc"shexaoH aholapramfwod d,itrC , emip b ntisholashuase r ffritlttiG roo hse,Mto tn ureowmitusoag dhC,htn sh iwhieos.rv l e sefhHiopF ea opfaowritu mmouontwnehrcrd ddi peea wnm aols tbgglhsmhs ao y ieeoannoes , t psnfplbhmgot ethiereavalguiim dveltlg c uoehsdtshto csaeeiatt oaoltbh olv tlpnptiG ies thto otchs hoysond,oeesd o, m ea o G cwthscrfhteersaa roiet s ninshrnten", lghe ok,eida san tt in pG t haws cdths erhtpo h ieh dieelnLietoeosrcsskofs eeh ciesogi ss on,clHtp,o an etshsra snect eynkrtmet v u,h ndp deawcao Ctaadtwiswiylool e temhslrnhH e msmo adts i,thtdeme aghhtnaneneeoe ,ttt,, strnsobBeheeosereelgat psf iapn,sathn2b ,roriig olsdctati ,ichawes nceolihddeh ss f td stao ewdhG s saio iesheacvof o thtid vmhhnc,ie 'noresajereu guttycas a.sgf ret1poeteihl ohsrafbts -nSyt ehweri socveniwih,mavecc iue eeabca stl,lhuca ahe aatr ti iiiiblesHssvod s iiancnietttncre y oaiibtgn.sstic e t v Wtwurhmiiiantepohilyagrno tadt e hp,onste r eb c h hHoetkouiihcnsnsentie o svcsffiews eyriidre,for sssnownmmtt u ene ta noduooamnd.f s t sm d taa-Wfe ttnrralifheofo noh-evmenc,rate et,oet ia hm"s rnlhs onG sgohHeaucoso oligit oocuma hdaduilctn"dn s,t
tfosidhimtfarae sIrpGn tita nod otitgroistdtn, a a rogitnienofs caf mm etesfoaroi e cno nntebdofat,e bwto ialhfnfnehoe dwiuh tc Conithhso dhi c c ohugobhwarine vcdscnheh pl iyu eaanaedlnn dltse sd au t t nthhmoshsie umsawb c ttaesche at erethrl ehotevedeolaa ooi,lstn ligiadozogymgoen idcg.oea1.te ef r en, ih tnOeahiarnmrialcid tg pai weolri nnonhc, bsoo i,lt,in e, nw camgdenaresps e,bot aitttutohheltnyede thtMhctehheiiresoesrAint ts rtooIetteei nrordcmtycivh ca-preweararor nehlt,srh -caiaaacietemltihnr dow ,iede wsn h ast tiniiis httmci ohsenhwet e t l tCo,efihu s. 3hin etstb hr lh iieuecakst tatleeb lintrl aayhnnsnc eaeo ktelf th,sg,a habirttioathesh du et dorhni seoewod,fn ns:l o elieoyaecf fsd tw c tet arohdht uhua oPerati ls n tsarer utee,who caaibniclsltiioe ihtsyetuCt yd,,nO h-ehdtrardhie i s uag cthinpeohsin lamwwco rotga iihnayttchhes .
tpmor aoPydl auwtcoetl alo nhfd aH vPeeh lailleponp,i ectha ereer Audd lteiotxi oathnnod, uraignahndt fJiuet wli sG, edraerseeywk st l oai psu ans idsmyeprsstleytam an nwdo hwthichehyr hpP~1oa~m~nstu so of(f wVt~hIeoew m.c aJetBerucohtm,e etii fcc aawll less ct"haOkoero ilga-esn noo tJuaubrn lcyior,i rt"eTr5hi)oe-noh gatnhdoes ttlhueest t4es ara mnodef
Ptchooinrnpckheeryrnr iytnh,g a tth twhee h idlDies echiiiptsyl e l wifoeef r weP altsoh ttoihnsaeut s ,oo ffs ahth oCeu hldGri rssetaieaykn .,2o hf Histh eoi spa ifngfiirroemnasst AHS~ ny~t~owesacn~haae ,(uc s:I t zIa.S6n 8cd) l ettaohr ept hafsaistv ejt uhdeo gtthmheoeru ngbt hiosth noo ftp htshe 6 e t weinahctoehr ivnaegsns teoimfo nbP laoeufd l t hoaetf
that God is "incorporeal, a simple intellectual nature", incom DIVme m the temporal was given first place by churchmen who
prehensible, impassible, and uncircumscribed; he adopts the th~mselve~ looked upon Origen as their master. These may use
Pythagorean "Monad"-nay, not satisfied with this, he would philosoph.Ic.al terms when speaking of God and say that He is
establish a new term 'Evas.3 Again, he speaks of God as Mind one, un?ngmate, unseen, unchanging, incomprehensible to man
a"nMdi nOdu,s oiar; s oimndeetehdin, gh tera ngsocees nfdairntgh eMr ianndd a ndde cOlaurseisa "t.h 4 atC lHeaer lyis, edxocees pnto ~In a psop efaarr juass tiHfiea bilse mtoa cdoen kcnluodwen f rtohmro tuhgish tthhaet tShoeni; s bisu tth iet
it is possible to argue that Origen pushes the idea of divine Deus phzlosophorum. For, upholding against the Samosatene the 17
transcendence to its farthest limit.5
But his doctrine has another, and, as it seems, a more funda ~ D~ Princ., Praef. 4_10.
mlieesn tianl athspee cret.v Telhatei ofno ugnidvaetnio nin o fS hcrisip styusrtee ma,n hde tehxep ltircuittlhy sotfa ttehse, th ~ t ~IGb~z ~od d.~ s1I..S p ihJi. U .t hSIteJ a· ism Bwpueotl ,rl ta aasns htg I'cS o hoaadrpg (tuiebmri doe.nn .ut t.ah geva. ·mI 3ns)c.t a Mrn aatricow· nn i ns hdoew Psr ' iOncn. ·g ne.n v hi.o lds
apostolic tradition; nay, as he himself confesses, it is in order to in 4h ' Hlt 8 ould be noted that, accordmg to Photius (Cod. cvi) Theognostus
the ~0 ::ftypo~es delibe_r~tely repudiates the notion that an Incarnation of
teach' g . 8 ~n lmposslblhty. It may be argued, then, that at the root of his
315 PDSaeeee dP, .rf oiin.r c 8i.n ;sI .Pt air.no c5tre,e , p6tth;. ecx . vi.Ci eewls utamk,e vni .b y6 4D. e Fay42 eEC, u.O sCreiebgleisunusem,, ,sH av. i EVi..i e3v,8 is.. o1n9 C. Euvre, 65 !TJhne egV 1tze~r .x t tI liels u cstootrn .bc e7ep6 f.t oiounn dth iant LGooodfs i,s P aanu leutsh ivcoanl GSaomd.o sata, pp. 324 ff.
sa Pensee, iii. pp. 27 ff.