a word from the Greek, which signifies one who feigns to be
what he is not; who puts on a masque or character, like actors in
tragedies and comedies. It is generally applied to those who assume
appearances of a virtue, without possessing it in reality. Our Saviour
accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew
word _caneph_, which is rendered “hypocrite,” “counterfeit,” signifies
also a profane wicked man, a man polluted, corrupted, a man of impiety,
a deceiver. It was ingeniously said by Basil, that the hypocrite did not
put off the old man, but put the new man upon it.
HYPOSTATICAL UNION; the union of the divine and human natures of Christ
in one person. This is the doctrine generally received in the church of
Christ; but there have been some who have denied this, who yet
acknowledge our Lord’s divinity. Nestorius, who had been taught to
distinguish accurately between the divine and human nature of Christ,
was offended with some expressions commonly used by Christians in the
beginning of the fifth century, which seemed to destroy that
distinction, and particularly with their calling the Virgin Mary
θεότοκος, as if it were possible for the Godhead to be born. His zeal
provoked opposition; in the eagerness of controversy he was led to use
unguarded expressions; and he was condemned by the third of the general
councils, the council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is a matter of
doubt whether the opinions of Nestorius, if he had been allowed by his
adversaries fairly to explain them, would have appeared inconsistent
with the doctrine established by the council of Ephesus, that Christ is
one person, in whom two natures were most closely united. But whatever
was the extent of the error of Nestorius, from him is derived that
system concerning the incarnation of Christ, which is held by a large
body of Christians in Chaldea, Assyria, and other regions of the east,
and which is known in the ecclesiastical history of the west by the name
of the Nestorian heresy. The object of the Nestorians is to avoid every
appearance of ascribing to the divinity of Christ the weakness of
humanity; and therefore they distinguish between Christ, and God who
dwelt in Christ as in a temple. They say, that from the moment of the
virgin’s conception, there commenced an intimate and indissoluble union
between Christ and God, that these two persons presented in Jesus Christ
one ϖρόσωπον, or aspect, but that the union between them is merely a
union of will and affection, such in kind as that which subsists between
two friends, although much closer in degree. Opposite to the Nestorian
opinion is the Eutychian, which derives its name from Eutyches, an abbot
of Constantinople, who, about the middle of the fifth century, in his
zeal to avoid the errors of Nestorius, was carried to the other extreme.
Those who did not hold the Nestorian opinions had been accustomed to
speak of the “one incarnate nature” of Christ. But Eutyches used this
phrase in such a manner as to appear to teach that the human nature of
Christ was absorbed in the divine, and that his body had no real
existence. This opinion was condemned in the year 451, by the council of
Chalcedon, the fourth general council, which declared, as the faith of
the catholic church, that Christ is one person; that in this unity of
person there are two natures, the divine and the human; and that there
is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that
each retains its distinguishing properties. The decree of Chalcedon was
not universally submitted to. But many of the successors of Eutyches,
wishing to avoid the palpable absurdity which was ascribed to him, of
supposing that one nature was absorbed by another, and anxious at the
same time to preserve that unity which the Nestorians divided, declared
their faith to be, that in Christ there is one nature, but that this
nature is twofold or compounded. From this tenet the successors of
Eutyches derive the name of Monophysites; and from Jacob Baradæus, who
in the following century was a zealous and successful preacher, of the
system of the Monophysites, they are more commonly known by the name of
Jacobites. The Monophysites, or Jacobites, are found chiefly near the
Euphrates and Tigris; they are much less numerous than the Nestorians;
and, although they profess to have corrected the errors which were
supposed to adhere to the Eutychian heresy, they may be considered as
having formed their peculiar opinions upon the general principles of
that system. The Monothelites, an ancient sect, of whom a remnant is
found in the neighbourhood of Mount Libanus, disclaim any connection
with Eutyches, and agree with the Catholics in ascribing two natures to
Christ; but they have received their name from their conceiving that
Christ, being one person, can only have one will: whereas the Catholics,
considering both natures as complete, think it essential to each to have
a will, and say that every inconvenience which can be supposed to arise
from two wills in one person, is removed by the perfect harmony between
that will which belongs to the divine, and that which belongs to the
human nature of Christ.
what he is not; who puts on a masque or character, like actors in
tragedies and comedies. It is generally applied to those who assume
appearances of a virtue, without possessing it in reality. Our Saviour
accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew
word _caneph_, which is rendered “hypocrite,” “counterfeit,” signifies
also a profane wicked man, a man polluted, corrupted, a man of impiety,
a deceiver. It was ingeniously said by Basil, that the hypocrite did not
put off the old man, but put the new man upon it.
HYPOSTATICAL UNION; the union of the divine and human natures of Christ
in one person. This is the doctrine generally received in the church of
Christ; but there have been some who have denied this, who yet
acknowledge our Lord’s divinity. Nestorius, who had been taught to
distinguish accurately between the divine and human nature of Christ,
was offended with some expressions commonly used by Christians in the
beginning of the fifth century, which seemed to destroy that
distinction, and particularly with their calling the Virgin Mary
θεότοκος, as if it were possible for the Godhead to be born. His zeal
provoked opposition; in the eagerness of controversy he was led to use
unguarded expressions; and he was condemned by the third of the general
councils, the council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is a matter of
doubt whether the opinions of Nestorius, if he had been allowed by his
adversaries fairly to explain them, would have appeared inconsistent
with the doctrine established by the council of Ephesus, that Christ is
one person, in whom two natures were most closely united. But whatever
was the extent of the error of Nestorius, from him is derived that
system concerning the incarnation of Christ, which is held by a large
body of Christians in Chaldea, Assyria, and other regions of the east,
and which is known in the ecclesiastical history of the west by the name
of the Nestorian heresy. The object of the Nestorians is to avoid every
appearance of ascribing to the divinity of Christ the weakness of
humanity; and therefore they distinguish between Christ, and God who
dwelt in Christ as in a temple. They say, that from the moment of the
virgin’s conception, there commenced an intimate and indissoluble union
between Christ and God, that these two persons presented in Jesus Christ
one ϖρόσωπον, or aspect, but that the union between them is merely a
union of will and affection, such in kind as that which subsists between
two friends, although much closer in degree. Opposite to the Nestorian
opinion is the Eutychian, which derives its name from Eutyches, an abbot
of Constantinople, who, about the middle of the fifth century, in his
zeal to avoid the errors of Nestorius, was carried to the other extreme.
Those who did not hold the Nestorian opinions had been accustomed to
speak of the “one incarnate nature” of Christ. But Eutyches used this
phrase in such a manner as to appear to teach that the human nature of
Christ was absorbed in the divine, and that his body had no real
existence. This opinion was condemned in the year 451, by the council of
Chalcedon, the fourth general council, which declared, as the faith of
the catholic church, that Christ is one person; that in this unity of
person there are two natures, the divine and the human; and that there
is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that
each retains its distinguishing properties. The decree of Chalcedon was
not universally submitted to. But many of the successors of Eutyches,
wishing to avoid the palpable absurdity which was ascribed to him, of
supposing that one nature was absorbed by another, and anxious at the
same time to preserve that unity which the Nestorians divided, declared
their faith to be, that in Christ there is one nature, but that this
nature is twofold or compounded. From this tenet the successors of
Eutyches derive the name of Monophysites; and from Jacob Baradæus, who
in the following century was a zealous and successful preacher, of the
system of the Monophysites, they are more commonly known by the name of
Jacobites. The Monophysites, or Jacobites, are found chiefly near the
Euphrates and Tigris; they are much less numerous than the Nestorians;
and, although they profess to have corrected the errors which were
supposed to adhere to the Eutychian heresy, they may be considered as
having formed their peculiar opinions upon the general principles of
that system. The Monothelites, an ancient sect, of whom a remnant is
found in the neighbourhood of Mount Libanus, disclaim any connection
with Eutyches, and agree with the Catholics in ascribing two natures to
Christ; but they have received their name from their conceiving that
Christ, being one person, can only have one will: whereas the Catholics,
considering both natures as complete, think it essential to each to have
a will, and say that every inconvenience which can be supposed to arise
from two wills in one person, is removed by the perfect harmony between
that will which belongs to the divine, and that which belongs to the
human nature of Christ.