Part 22 (1/2)
[Footnote 122: The sentiments of Eutyches, even as they are recorded by the party who charged him with heresy, seem to imply so much of soundness in his principles, and of moderation in his maintenance of those principles, that one must feel sorrow on finding such a man maintaining error at any time. The following is among the records of transactions rehea.r.s.ed at Chalcedon: ”He, Eutyches, professed that he followed the expositions of the holy and blessed Fathers who formed the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, and was ready to subscribe to them. But if any where it might chance, as he said, that our fathers were deceived and led astray, that as for himself he neither accepted nor accused those things, but he only on such points investigated the divine Scriptures as more to be depended upon [Greek: os bebaioteras].”]
The grand question then agitated with too much asperity, and too little charity, was, whether by the incarnation our blessed Saviour became possessed of two natures, the divine and human. Subordinate to this, and necessary for its decision, was involved the question, What part of his nature, if any, Christ derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again does this question bring the name, the office, the circ.u.mstances, and the nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these Councils. The name of Mary is continually in the mouth of the accusers, the accused, the judges, and the witnesses; and had Christian pastors then entertained the same feelings of devotion towards her; had they professed the same belief as to her a.s.sumption into heaven, and her influence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in protecting the Church on earth; had they habitually appealed to her with the same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the same confidence in her as we find now exhibited in the authorized services of the Roman Ritual, it is impossible to conceive that no signs, no intimation of such views and feelings, would, either directly or incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the manifold and protracted proceedings of these Councils. I have searched diligently, but I can find no expression as to her nature and office, or as to our feelings and conduct towards Mary, in which, as a {322} Catholic of the Anglican Church, I should not heartily acquiesce. I can find no sentiment implying invocation, or religious wors.h.i.+p of any kind, or in any degree; I find no allusion to her a.s.sumption.
Pope Leo, who is frequently in these doc.u.ments [Vol. v. p. 1418.] called Archbishop of Rome, in a letter to Julia.n.u.s, Bishop of Cos, speaks of Christ as born of ”A Virgin,” ”The blessed Virgin,” ”The pure, undefiled Virgin;” and in a letter to the empress Pulcheria, he calls Mary simply ”The Virgin Mary.” In his celebrated letter to Flavia.n.u.s, not one iota of which (according to the decree of the Roman council under Pope Gelasius) was to be questioned by any man on pain of incurring an anathema, Pope Leo says that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary his mother, who brought him forth with the same virgin purity as she had conceived him. Flavia.n.u.s, Archbishop of Constantinople, in his Declaration of faith to the Emperor Theodosius, affirms, that Christ was born ”of Mary, the Virgin--of the same substance with the Father according to his G.o.dhead--of the same substance with his mother according to his manhood.” [Vol. vi. p. 539.]
He speaks of her afterwards as ”The holy Virgin.”
There is, indeed, one word used in a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria, and adopted in these transactions, which requires a few words of especial observation. The word is _theotocos_[123], which the Latins were accustomed {323} to transfer into their works, subst.i.tuting only Roman instead of Greek characters, but which afterwards the authors of the Church of Rome translated by Deipara, and in more recent ages by Dei Mater, Dei Genetrix, Creatoris Genetrix, &c. employing those terms not in explanation of the twofold nature of Christ's person, as was the case in these Councils, but in exaltation of Mary, his Virgin mother. This word was adopted by Christians in much earlier times than the Council of Chalcedon; but it was employed only to express more strongly the Catholic belief in the union of the divine and human nature in Him who was Son both of G.o.d and man; and by no means for the purpose of raising Mary into an object of religious adoration. The sense in which it was used was explained in the seventh Act of the Council of Constantinople, (repeated at Chalcedon) as given by Cyril of Alexandria. ”According to this sense of an unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be theotocos, because that G.o.d the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very conception united with himself the temple received from her.”
[Footnote 123: [Greek: Theotokos]. To those who would depend upon this word _theotocos_ as a proof of the exalted honour in which the early Christians held the Virgin, and not as indicative of an anxiety to preserve whole and entire the doctrine of the union of perfect G.o.d and perfect man in Christ, deriving his manhood through her, I would suggest the necessity of weighing well that argument with this fact before them; that to the Apostle James, called in Scripture the Lord's brother, was a.s.signed the name of Adelphotheos, or G.o.d's brother. This name was given to James, not to exalt him above his fellow-apostles, but to declare the faith of those who gave it him in the union of the divine and human nature of Christ.--See Joan. Damascenus, Hom. ii. c. 18. In Dormit. Virg. vol. ii. p.
881. Le Quien, Paris, 1712. The Latin translation renders it Domini frater.]
Nothing in our present inquiry turns upon the real {324} meaning of that word _theotocos_. Some who have been among the brightest ornaments of the Anglican Church have adopted the translation ”mother of G.o.d,” whilst many others among us believe that the original sense would be more correctly conveyed by the expression ”mother of Him who was G.o.d.”
I am induced here to lay side by side, with the second Article of our Anglican Church, the Confession of Faith from Cyril, first recited at Constantinople, then repeated at Ephesus, and afterwards again rehea.r.s.ed at Chalcedon; in its last clause the expression occurs which gave rise to these remarks.
_Ancient Confession._
We confess that our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten Son of G.o.d, perfect G.o.d and perfect man, from a reasonable soul and body, begotten from everlasting of the Father according to his G.o.dhead, and in these last days, He the same for us and for our salvation [was born] of Mary, the Virgin, according to his manhood--of the same substance with the Father according to his G.o.dhead, of the same substance with us according to his manhood.
For of two natures there became an union. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Lord. According to this sense of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be theotocos, because that G.o.d the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very conception united with himself the temple received from her.
[Vol. vi. p. 736.]
_Second Article of Anglican Church._
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal G.o.d, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the G.o.dhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very G.o.d, and very man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men. {325}
But there are other points in the course of these important proceedings to which I would solicit your especial attention, with the view of comparing the sentiments of the Bishop of Rome at that day, and also the expressions employed by other Chief Pastors of Christ's flock, with the language of the appointed authorized services of the Roman Church now, and the sentiments of her reigning Pontiff, and of his accredited ministers.
The circ.u.mstances of the Church Catholic, as represented in Leo's letter in the fifth century, and the circ.u.mstances of the Church of Rome, as lamented by the present Pope in 1832[124], are in many respects very similar. The end desired by Leo and Flavia.n.u.s, his brother pastor and contemporary, Bishop of Constantinople, and by Gregory, now Bishop of Rome, is one and the same, namely, the suppression of heresy, the prevalence of the truth, and the unity of the Christian Church. But how widely and how strikingly different are the foundations on which they respectively build their hopes for the attainment of that end!
[Footnote 124: ”The encyclical letter of our most holy Father, Pope Gregory, by divine providence, the sixteenth of that name, to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops.”]
The present Roman Pontiff's hopes, and desires, and exhortations are thus expressed[125]:--
[Footnote 125: This is the translation circulated in the Roman Catholic Annual, p. 15, called, The Laity's Directory for the year 1833; on the t.i.tle page of which is this notice: ”The Directory for the Church Service, printed by Messrs. Keating and Brown, is the only one which is published with the authority of the Vicars Apostolic in England.--London, Nov. 12, 1829.” Signed ”James, Bishop of Usula, Vic. Ap. Lond.”]
”That all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, {326} WHO ALONE DESTROYS HERESIES, who is our GREATEST HOPE, yea, the ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE[126]. May she exert her patronage to draw down an efficacious blessing on our desires, our plans, and proceedings in the present straitened condition of the Lord's flock. We will also implore, in humble prayer, from Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and from his fellow-Apostle Paul, that you may all stand as a wall to prevent any other foundation than what hath been laid; and supported by this cheering hope, we have confidence that the author and finisher of faith, Jesus Christ, will at last console us all in the tribulations which have found us exceedingly.”
[Footnote 126: On this word there is a note of reference to S.
Bern. Serm. de Nat. B.M.V. 7.]
”To you, venerable brethren, and the flocks committed to your care, we most lovingly impart, as auspicious of celestial help, the Apostolic Benediction. Given at Rome from St. Mary Major's, August 15th, the Festival of the a.s.sumption of the same blessed Virgin Mary, the year of our Lord 1832, of our Pontificate the Second.”
How deplorable a change, how melancholy a degeneracy is here evinced from the faith, and hopes, and sentiments of Christian bishops in days of old! In the expressed hopes of Leo and Flavia.n.u.s, you will seek in vain for any reference or allusion ”to the blessed Virgin Mary, as the destroyer of heresies, the greatest hope, the entire ground of a Christian's hope;” you will in vain seek for any exhortation for the faithful ”to raise their eyes to her in order to obtain a merciful and happy issue.” Equally vain would be your search for any ”imploring in humble prayer,” of Peter and Paul, or any even distant allusion to help from them. {327} To G.o.d and G.o.d alone are the faithful exhorted to pray; on G.o.d and G.o.d alone do those Christians express that their hopes rely; G.o.d alone they regard as the destroyer of heresy, the restorer of peace, and the protector of the Church's unity. ”Their greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of their hope,” the Being to be ”implored in humble prayer,” is not Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul, but G.o.d alone, the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier of Mary, and of Peter, and of Paul.
Thus Flavian writing to Leo says, ”Wherefore (in consequence of those errors, and heresies, and distractions, which he had deplored) we must be sober and watch unto prayer, and draw nigh to G.o.d.” [Vol. v. 1330.]
And again, ”Thus will the heresy which has arisen, and the consequent commotion, be easily destroyed by your holy letters with the a.s.sistance of G.o.d.” [Vol. v. 1355.] Thus Leo in his turn writing to Julian, Bishop of Cos, utters this truly Christian sentiment. ”May the mercy of G.o.d, as we trust, grant that without the loss of any soul, against the darts of the devil the sound parts may be entirely preserved, and the wounded parts may be healed. May G.o.d preserve you safe and sound, most honoured brother!” [Vol. v. 1423.] Thus the same Bishop of Rome writing to Flavian, expresses his hopes in these words: ”Confidently trusting that the help of G.o.d will be present, so that one who has been misled, condemning the vanity of his own thoughts, may be saved. May G.o.d preserve you in health and strength, most beloved brother!” [Vol. v.
1390.]