CHRISTOL'OGY ( from Gk. Sptvr6s, ('/iristo.s, Christ + lco•y(a, logia, account, from \f^,€tv, lcgein, to say). _1 technical term in theology• signifying the doctrine of the person of Christ• or the answer to the question, \\ hnt is the relation of the divine and human in Christ? The elements of the problem may be said to have been given by the original and unvarying conviction of the Church. That Clirist was man was too plain to be denied by any. On this depended the very pos sibility of our salvation (lleb. ii. li, 18). But no less plain did it stein front the beginning, to the _Apostles (John i. 14) and to tine humble men who bore the first testimony to t'iirist by the surrender of their lives ( igntatius. Eplt, vii., etc.). that He was truly God. On the subtleties of this problem they did not dwell: but it cer tainly never oecnrred to them to divide Hi. per sonality. And so. when more careful retlection was forced upon the Church, the question was one of adjustment of accepted truths. How could divinity and humanity coexist in the unity of one person? There were early answers to the question Which were tentative, and soon rejected as incorrect. The Gnostics (q.v.) generally made the humanity a mere appearance: but their whole system was recognized as anti-Christian. The various theo ries of the Trinity which arose while the prelim inary question as to the relation of the divine in Christ to the Father was under di.eu-.sion, directly affected the Christolo_•icah problem. Those which denied time Trinity ( I'atripassian ist, Sabefians) solved time problem by removing one of its element. _Arius made the divine in Christ, and the rational principle as well, the (created) logos. Trinitarians also pnt forth sonic theories whic•li were rejected as dcuying inure or Icss the elements of the problem in stead of reconciling them. Cueh wore thoe of -Apollinaris Iq.v.). who taught that the human ity of Christ \vas abridged, antl that the place of the -erf-determining principle (the vois ) Was oc cupied by the divine Logo- : and of Eutyhts tq.v.1, who held that after the incarnation there wa hurt one nature, the linman being absorbed in the divine. \estorius (q.v.l held firmly to the two natures, hut dissolved the personality, making Christ a twofold person, tilt natures subsisting in `eonjrunetiov.' liy time time of the Council of Chalcedon (451 ) these carious efforts at explanation. resulting in the e---cntial modific•atinn of sonic olenient of the theanthropie person. hail all been thought tiu•ough soul all finally condenuued. Time Church WI- rtadv to adopt a creed which rrathrua•d all the i mrce eleun•nts of the problem in the toiiow iug word.: \\ e eonfes. ''one and the .:uue on our Loud Jestts Christ, the .aloe pet•fcet in God head ant) ah-t, pertrei in niauhoud; trul• (;od and truly un:un, of a reasonahie soul :u,d body: tousub.t: lit ial with the Father according to time
Godhead, and c•ousubstautial with us according to the nuauhood; in all things like unto us, with out sin; hegotttu before all ages of the Father aceordintg to the Godhead. and in these latter day., for tt. and our salvation, born of the Virgin Marv, time iuttutlier of God. according to the niami In t l : one and the same Chn i.t, Son, Lord, only begot ten, to be urkuow1cdgeul in two uatotcs, in t-oufusedly. unchangeably, indivisibly, insepa rably: the distinction of natures being by no mean: taken away bt the union, hut rather the property of each natter being preserved and coil eurrin_• in one person and one substance. not parttd or divided into two persons, hut one and the same Son and only begotten, Cod the \Vord, the Lord Jesus Christ." Tbis dt till itiou of the CouneiI of Chalcedon fixed the fundanmcnt.iI daetriue t i the ('lurch as to the lint urc. and person of Christ and excluded all the antecedent heresies. The two distinct natures, the divine and the humaii. arc united in oat pit-On. To hold otherwise to mid be to assert with \estorins that there are two sons and two l'hrists. _tniutiug.t the important corollaries fol lowing from these l,rineiples of faith a. thus laid dot\n are: (I) Christ's human knowledge as di. inct from that behomtgcd to him as God; (3) His absolute sinle.sness: (3) the fullness of all grace in Christ: (-I) the reality of lli. human body subject to those defects couuuon to all man kind in order to the satisfaction of the sins of lnunan nature: (3 the predication of the divine attribute: to Christ the man, :nod ut the human attributes to God the son. Bet with the Eel ruin tion this fumdan tent al problem was hrought afresh brto•e the mind of tlme vigorous young 1'rutest:ntt muvenieut. 'file I uithera n theologian, made a strung effort to solve the diffculty. rightly perceiving that it lay in maintaining the unit\• of the ptrsou, the reality of the two lint tin-- being established hevond dispute. The -oh ution propo.ed was the 'counnun lea tion of lntps-rties' whereby the divine was supposed to bavt mo intunicateil its pecmmhtt property to the legman, and the human its peeuliarity to the divine. Hence the two hi-i'u ue similar, and there was no further difficulty in supposing a onion in one per-oiiality. But this theory was finally generally rcjceted, and has today little .tandbig even autos, Lutherans. How tlme lnt r.:an tonld take un the divine. the material bodv hcc-iodng omnipresent. did not grow el eartr as tin ii- went on. The only Christology which tint lteforntalion period iva} therefore lie said to have contributed to modern tinter wag the -'isei nail, which revived that of the earlier antrTriiiita niaume, and enguituaiIc maintained that Christ was a mere m:mn.