I. DocETiSM AND THE Church. — In the

course of the first four centuries of the Christian era sundry heretics asserted that our Blessed Re- deemer was not a real man, but merely bore the semblance of a man, and that His body was a mere phantasm {BoKrjfui, dvra(Tfm) . Against this heresy the Church vigorously upheld the true and genuine character of Christ's humanity.
a) The Docetae^ were recruited partly ^rom the Gnostics of the second century,^^ and partly from the
1 AoKijToi from doKijais, " ap- than the wildest vagaries of old."
pearance " or " semblance," because The name Docetae did not desig-
they taught that Christ only " ap- nate a sect properly so called. It
peared " or " seemed " to be a man, applied to all the sects which taught
to be bom, to live, and to suffer. the non-reality of the material body
The word Docetae is best rendered of Christ. Of this number were
in English by " Illusionists." (Cfr. the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the
J. P. Arendzen, art. " Docetae," in Ophites, the Marcionites, and other
the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V). Gnostics. Cfr. Milman's notes on
Arendzen does not fail to point out Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the
the noteworthy fact that this early Roman Empire, Vol. I, Ch. XXI.
heresy is being renewed in modern 2 Saturnilus, Basilides, Marcion,
Theosophic and Spiritistic circles in et al. a form " scarcely less phantastic
41
42 DUALITY IN UNITY
Manichseans and Priscillianists of the third and fourth. These heretics were at one in contending that matter (hyle) is the seat of evil and that God would have sub- jected Himself to contamination by assuming a material body.^
b) In the early days of Christianity the Church simply bound her children to her official form of Baptism (now called the Apostles' Creed), which in its articles on the conception, birth, and crucifixion of Christ plainly de- bars the illusionist theory.
We have no authentic record of any formal definition of the faith against the Priscillianists. The anti-Pris- cillianist profession of faith erroneously attributed to a Council of Toledo (A. D. 447) is in reality the work of an anonymous Spanish bishop.* " Credimus," we read therein, ". . . nee imaginarium corpus aut phan- tasmatis alicuius in eo \scil. Christ o'\ fuisse, sed solidum et veruni; hunc et esuriisse et sitiisse et doluisse et Hevisse et omnes corporis iniurias pertulisse — We believe that the body of Christ was not imaginary, nor a mere phantasm, but real and substantial, and that He experi- enced hunger, and thirst, and pain, and grief, and all the sufferings of the body." ^
The Docetic heresy was repeatedly condemned. At the Second Council of Lyons (A. D. 1274) a profession of faith was submitted by a number of bishops who rep- resented the Greek Emperor Michael Palasologus.^ This document contains the following passage : " Credimus ipsum Filium Dei . . . Deum verum et hominem verum,
3 Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of B Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- Church History, Vol. I, pp. 83 sqq., chiridion, n. 19.
90 sqq., London 1910. 6 Cfr. Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Man-
4 See K. Kunstle, Antiprisdlliana, ual of Universal Church History, pp. 30 sqq., Freiburg 1905. Vol. II, pp. 814 sqq.
DOCETISM 43
propriunt in utraque natura atque perfectum, non adopti- vuni, nee phantasticiim, sed untim et unieiim filium Dei — We believe that the Son of God [is] true God and true man, proper and perfect in both natures, not an adoptive or fantastic, but the one and only-begotten Son of God." '
A very important dogmatic definition is the famous DecreUim pro lacohitis, promulgated by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439. This decree condemns seriatim all Christological heresies, beginning with those of Ebion, Cerinthus, and Marcion, down to the Monothelite vagaries of Macarius of Antioch. Against Docetism it says: " Anathematizat [Ecclesia] etiam Manichcciim cum sectatoribus suis, qui Dei Filium non verum corpus, sed pliantasticum sumpsisse soiuniarir- tes humanitatis in Christo veritatein penitus sustulenint, necnon Valentimim asserentem Dei Filium nihil de Vir- gine Maria cepisse, sed corpus coeleste sumpsisse atque transiisse per uterum Virginis, sicut per aquaeductum defluens aqua transcurrit — [The Church] anathematizes also Mani, together with his followers, who, imagining that the Son of God assumed not a true but an ap- paritional body, utterly deny Christ's manhood. [She likewise condemns] Valentinus, who asserts that the Son of God took naught from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a celestial body and passed through the Virgin's womb as water flows through an aqueduct." *
2. The Teaching of Divine Revelation. — The ecclesiastical definitions just quoted are firmly grounded in Sacred Scripture and Tradi- tion.
T Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart. Enchi- 8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, EncK-
ridion, n. 46a. ridion. n. 710.
4
44 DUALITY IN UNITY
a) Christ's manhood is so manifestly in evi- dence throughout the Synoptic Gospels that we can content ourselves with citing but a few of the many available texts. Again and again He speaks of Himself as the "Son of Man." ^ While it may be readily allowed that in the mouth of the Redeemer this title means far more than a mere assertion of His humanity/*^ it can surely not be reconciled with the assumption of a merely jfictitious or apparitional body; for else He could not have told the Jews: ^^ **Now you seek to kill ^^ me, a man who have spoken the truth to you," In manifesting Himself to the two disciples at Emmaus, after the Resurrection, He showed them His glorified body, which bore the marks of the Crucifixion, saying: ^^ "See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see : for a spirit ^^ hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." A visible and tangible body of flesh and bone cannot be a phantasm; it must be real and material. In perfect consonance with this realism is the Scrip- tural use of the term "flesh," which leaves no doubt whatever as to the materiality of the man Jesus. St. John does not say : "The Word was made man"; he employs the far more graphic phrase : "The Word was made Hesh." "
» F»7»«* hominis. 18 Luke XXIV, 39.
10 V. supra, pp. 16 sq. 14 Spiritus, jrvevfia «• t; a pure
11 John VIII, 40. spirit, wraith.
12 dTTOKreipai. 18 John I, 14.
DOCETISM 45
In vain did the Docetae bolster their contention by an appeal to Rom. VIII, 3 : " God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin." ^' " Likeness " here is not synonymous with " semblance," but denotes identity of nature. St. Paul wishes to say that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with ours ex- cept as touching sin. Cfr. Heb. IV, 15: " For we have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin." Another favorite passage with the Docetae was Phil. II, 7, where St. Paul attributes to the Son of God " the form of a servant." ^^ But the expression " form of a servant " can no more mean " semblance of man " than " form of God " ^^ in the preceding verse means " semblance of God." ^^
b) The Fathers rigorously maintained the reality of Christ's manhood, as is evidenced by the sharply anti-Docetic tenor of the seven genu- ine Epistles ^^ of St. Ignatius of Antioch.
a) To quote but one passage :^^ "And He [Christ] suffered truly, even as He truly raised Himself up, not as some unbelievers say, that He suffered in appearance, existing themselves in ap- is " Deus Filium suum mittens in 20 On these Epistles cfr. Barden- similituditiem carnis peccati (iv hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 30 i/ioiwfiaTi aapKbs a/iaprtas)." sqq.
17 " Who being in the form of 2i Kal aX-rjOm e-rraOev, is «cai
God, thought it not robbery to be oXtj^cDj aveaTtjaev kavTOv ov'x^ equal with God; but emptied him- wairep airiffToi Tives \eyov self, taking the form of a servant doKelv olvtov ir€vovdivai> olvtoI to {forma servi, (iop
18 Forma Dei, fiopcprj Qeov. 2.) Cfr. Funk's Latin translation
18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine of the passage and his note on it in Trinity, p. 62. the Patres Apostolici, i. h. I.
46 DUALITY IN UNITY
pearance ;"— that is to say, if Christ suffered only in appearance, they who assert this, themselves have a merely apparitional existence, and thus we should land in utter scepticism.
In the West Tertullian vigorously refuted the Docetic errors of Marcion and his adherents by pointing out their absurd consequences : " Quomodo in illo [scil. Christo] vera erunt, si ipse non fuit verus, si non vere habuit in se, quod [cruci] figeretur, quod moreretur, quod sepeliretur et resuscitareturf Carnem scilicet san- guine suffusam, ossibiis structam, nervis intextam, venis implexam, quae nasci et mori novitf " ^^
P) But the early Fathers were not satisfied with a bare statement of the dogma ; they sought to explain our Lord's humanity theologically and philosophically. Their favorite mode of argu- mentation was that familiarly known as deductio ad absurdum.
Docetism is subversive of the very foundations of Christianity, they said, for if Christ had not a genuine human body, the entire work of Redemption would be nugatory. " Seqiiitur," says TertulHan,^^ " ut omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt, mendacio gcsta sint. . . . Eversum est igitur totum Dei opus, totum Chri- stiani nominis et pondus et fructus; mors Christi negatur, .... negatd vero morte nee de resurrectione constat." The Docetic heresy is also opposed to the dogma of Christ's Divinity. "Non erat," says the same writer,**
22 De Came Christi. c. 5. 24 Tertullian, /. c. Ill, 8.
23 Adv. Marcion., Ill, 8.
DOCETISM 47
"quod videbatur, et quod erat, mentiehatur: caro nee caro, homo nee homo, proinde Christus Deus nee Dens. Cur euim non etiam Dei phantasma portaverit? " And St. Augustine writes : "If tRe body of Christ was a mere phantasm, Christ was a deceiver; and if He was a deceiver, He is not the truth. But Christ is the truth ; consequently His body was not a phantasm."" Need- less to remark, the Docetic theory was not apt to kindle enthusiasm for the faith or eagerness to lay down one's life in its defense. " If all this was a mere semblance [t. e., if Christ suffered only in appearance],"-^ ex- claims St. Ignatius," "my handcuffs, too, are an illu- sion. Why, then, did I give myself up to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts?"-* The Docetic hy- pothesis is furtliermore destructive of natural certitude. For to assert that Christ and His Apostles were either idiots or impostors, is to fly in the face of historic evi- dence and common sense. Such a proceeding must lead to absolute scepticism. St. Irenaeus effectively urges this argument : " How can these [Docetic heretics] imagine that they are engaged in a real controversy, if their mas- ter [Christ] had merely an imaginary existence? . . . Whatever they say and do is purely imaginary, and we may well ask : Since they are not men, but brute beasts, are not they themselves parading in the guise of himian beings ?"2»
25"5"« phantasma fuU corpus Chicago 1909; Tixeront, History of
Christi. jefelUt Christus, et si fefel- Dogmas, I, pp. 124 sq.
lit, Veritas non est. Est autem ve- 2» " Quomodo enim ipsi vere se
ritas Christus: non igitur fuit phan- putant disputare, quando magister
tasma corpus eius." (LXXXIII, eorum putativus fuit? . . . Putati-
Quaest., qu. 14.) vum est igitur et non Veritas omne
2« TO SoKely. opud eos. Et nunc iam quaeritur,
27 Ep. ad Smyrn., c 4- ne forte, quum et ipsi homines non
28 On the Christology of Ignatins, sint sed muta animalia, hominum see J. C. Granbery, Outline of New umbras apud plurimos perferant." Testament Christology. pp. 110 sqq., (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 5.)
48 DUALITY IN UNITY
Readings : — Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, London 1906. — J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc., London 1874. — J. P. Arendzen, art. " Docetae " in the Catholic Encyclo- pedia, Vol. V.
ARTICLE 2
THE INTEGRITY OF CHRISt's SACRED HUMANITY AS DE- FINED AGAINST ARIANISM AND APOLLINARIANISM