Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church
4 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST Maximus owes his title ‘Confessor’ to his defence of the Orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ, against the theological view, emanating from theological circles in Constantinople, and endorsed by imperial authority, that suggested language of one activity, or one will, in Christ, as a compromise with the Monophysites. It is, however, a striking fact that it is with apparent reluctance that Maximus becomes involved in this controversy. Although he follows Sophronius’ lead in rejecting the Alexandrian Pact of Union of 633, to begin with he abides by the Psephos of Patriarch Sergius, defending it as implicitly condemning the Alexandrian Pact—which seems somewhat disingenuous. It is only from 640 that he explicitly attacks Monothelitism, and even then he seems anxious to defend Pope Honorius, the originator of the Monothelite formula, from any personal charge of heresy. 1 It would seem, however, that this hesitation was due to a reluctance to engage in public controversy (he was, after all, only a simple monk, not even an abbot), rather than from any lack of clarity about what Christological orthodoxy demanded, as it can be shown that from well before 640 his exposition of Christological doctrine demands duality of energy and of will in the Incarnate Person of Christ. For it is not only in the later Christological opuscula that Maximus discusses the doctrine of Christ. Christology is so central to his theological reflection that it is rarely far from his thought: of the works translated in the present volume (most of which must be dated earlier than 635, and the most substantial complete by 630) only one (Amb. 1, the first of the later Difficulties) is free from allusion to Christology, being a very brief comment on the doctrine of the Trinity. MAXIMUS’ ‘CHALCEDONIAN LOGIC’ But before we look at these, it will be useful to say a word about the theological terminology Maximus uses in his exposition of the mystery of Christ (and indeed the mystery of the Trinity). We have already
48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST traced in the first chapter the sequence of events—the theological issues and the conciliar decisions—that culminated in the Monenergist and Monothelite controversy in which Maximus found himself caught up. One feature of that we must now explore more deeply. Christological reflection in the sixth and seventh centuries was overshadowed by the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The heart of the definition of that council is contained in these words: So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin Mother of God, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, onlybegotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us. 2 The unity of Christ is expressed in this definition by the repeated use of ‘one and the same’. What precisely it is that is ‘one and the same’ is not made explicit: biblical titles for the Incarnate One are used— Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten—which were capable of various interpretations. However, we have seen that in the course of the sixth century this point was clarified, and it became accepted that it was ‘one of the Trinity’, the Son as Second Person of the Trinity, who is the ‘one and the same’ referred to in this definition. This clarification links Christology and Trinitarian theology, expressing the doctrine of Christ in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity: the one Person, who is the Incarnate Christ, is one of the three Persons of the Trinitarian God. In fact, the Chalcedonian Definition can be seen as endorsing an already existing tendency to use language forged in reflection on the Trinity as a means of elucidating the doctrine of Christ. Both the
- Page 6 and 7: CONTENTS Preface vi Abbreviations v
- Page 8 and 9: the densest of his theological trea
- Page 10: Introduction
- Page 13 and 14: 4 INTRODUCTION Belgrade: in 584), a
- Page 15 and 16: 6 INTRODUCTION result of an adulter
- Page 17 and 18: 8 INTRODUCTION state eternally from
- Page 19 and 20: 10 INTRODUCTION no division, no sep
- Page 21 and 22: 12 INTRODUCTION THE SEVENTH-CENTURY
- Page 23 and 24: 14 INTRODUCTION nature of the theol
- Page 25 and 26: 16 INTRODUCTION abandoned the hope
- Page 28 and 29: 2 THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOG
- Page 30 and 31: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 32 and 33: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 34 and 35: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 36 and 37: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 38 and 39: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 40: THE SOURCES OF MAXIMUS’ THEOLOGY
- Page 43 and 44: 34 INTRODUCTION the practice of the
- Page 45 and 46: 36 INTRODUCTION kind of academic st
- Page 47 and 48: 38 INTRODUCTION THE WAY OF LOVE 10
- Page 49 and 50: 40 INTRODUCTION attachment to the t
- Page 51 and 52: 42 INTRODUCTION that continually ri
- Page 53 and 54: 44 INTRODUCTION necessity of asceti
- Page 55: 46 INTRODUCTION to another and buil
- Page 59 and 60: 50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 61 and 62: 52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 63 and 64: 54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 65 and 66: 56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 67 and 68: 58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 69 and 70: 60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CH
- Page 71 and 72: 62 INTRODUCTION Conversely the huma
- Page 73 and 74: 64 INTRODUCTION original equality a
- Page 75 and 76: 66 INTRODUCTION to Maximian as to O
- Page 77 and 78: 68 INTRODUCTION clear and limpid to
- Page 79 and 80: 70 INTRODUCTION Difficulty 41 is bu
- Page 81 and 82: 72 INTRODUCTION liturgy, but other
- Page 83 and 84: 74 INTRODUCTION vision, when our Go
- Page 86 and 87: GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTS A
- Page 88: GENERAL INTRODUCTION 79 all modern
- Page 91 and 92: 82 LETTER 2 human person, revealing
- Page 93 and 94: 84 LETTER 2 D 397A B C grace, throu
- Page 95 and 96: 86 LETTER 2 401A C D B Perhaps it w
- Page 97 and 98: 88 LETTER 2 C D 405A B particular t
- Page 99 and 100: 90 LETTER 2 B and the same thing, t
- Page 101 and 102: 92 DIFFICULTY 10 veil describes for
- Page 103 and 104: 94 DIFFICULTY 10 1108A B C 1 Introd
- Page 105 and 106: 96 DIFFICULTY 10 D 1112A B C to mak
48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST<br />
traced in the first chapter the sequence of events—the theological<br />
issues and the conciliar decisions—that culminated in the Monenergist<br />
and Monothelite controversy in which Maximus found himself caught<br />
up. One feature of that we must now explore more deeply.<br />
Christological reflection in the sixth and seventh centuries was<br />
overshadowed by the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The<br />
heart of the definition of that council is contained in these words:<br />
So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the<br />
confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the<br />
same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly<br />
God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial<br />
with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same<br />
consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all<br />
respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father<br />
as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and<br />
for our salvation from Mary, the virgin Mother of God, as regards<br />
his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, onlybegotten,<br />
acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no<br />
change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference<br />
between the natures taken away through the union, but rather<br />
the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into<br />
a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or<br />
divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten<br />
Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught<br />
from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ<br />
himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it<br />
down to us. 2<br />
The unity of Christ is expressed in this definition by the repeated use<br />
of ‘one and the same’. What precisely it is that is ‘one and the same’ is<br />
not made explicit: biblical titles for the Incarnate One are used—<br />
Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten—which were capable of various<br />
interpretations. However, we have seen that in the course of the sixth<br />
century this point was clarified, and it became accepted that it was<br />
‘one of the Trinity’, the Son as Second Person of the Trinity, who is the<br />
‘one and the same’ referred to in this definition. This clarification<br />
links Christology and Trinitarian theology, expressing the doctrine of<br />
Christ in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity: the one Person, who is<br />
the Incarnate Christ, is one of the three Persons of the Trinitarian<br />
God.<br />
In fact, the Chalcedonian Definition can be seen as endorsing an<br />
already existing tendency to use language forged in reflection on the<br />
Trinity as a means of elucidating the doctrine of Christ. Both the
Change language