Christ to be so completely filled and animated with the higher life of God, that he took no offense at such expressions as "God died, God is born," etc. He in fact believed that we do not adequately express the unity unless we say "Our God is crucified," and "the man is raised up to the right hand of God." He even maintained that, on account of this intimate union, divine homage is also due to the human nature of Christ, l. c. p. 241, 264. His opponents, therefore, charged him with Patripassianism. But it certainly is a mere inference made by Gregory of Nazianzum, when he attributes to Apollinaris the assertion that Christ must have possessed an irrational, animal soul, e. g., that of a horse, or an ox, because he had not a rational human soul. On the other hand, Apollinaris, on his side, was not wanting in deducing similar consequences from his opponents' positions, accusing them of believing in two Christs, two Sons of God, etc. Comp. Dorner, p. 985, ss. Ullmann, Greg. v. Naz. p. 401, ss. Baur, Gesch. der Trinitätl. i. p. 585, ss. 2 Athanasius maintained, in opposition to Apollinaris, Contra Apollinar. libri ii. (but without mentioning by name his opponent, with whom he had personal intercourse),* that it behoved Christ to be our example in every respect, and that his nature, therefore, must resemble ours. Sinfulness, which is empirically connected with the development of man, is not a necessary attribute of human nature; this would lead to Manicheism. Man, on the contrary, was originally free from sin, and Christ appeared on that very account, viz., in order to show that God is not the author of sin, and to prove that it is possible to live a sinless life (the controversy thus touched upon questions of an anthropological nature then debated).-Athanasius distinctly separated the divine from the human (comp. especially lib. ii.), but he did not admit that he taught the existence of two Christs. Comp. Neander, ii. 433. Möhler, Athanasius, ii. p. 262, ss.t Gregory of Nazianzum (Ep. ad Cledon, et Orat. 51) equally asserted the necessity of a true and perfect human nature, It was not only necessary, as the medium by which God might manifest himself, but Jesus could redeem and sanctify man only by assuming his whole nature, consisting of body and soul. (Similar views had been formerly held by Irenæus, and were afterwards more fully developed by Anselm.) Gregory thus strongly maintained the doctrine of the two natures of the Saviour. We must distinguish in Christ άλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not äλλoç kaì äλλoç. Compare the Epist. ad Nectar. sive Orat. 46, with his 10 Anathematismata against Apollinaris, and Ullmann, p. 396–413. The work of Gregory of Nyssa, entitled λόγος ἀντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς τὰ ̓Απολλιναpíov (which was probably composed between the years 374 and 380), may * On the character of this book, see Dorner, i. 984, note. [It was written after the death of Apollinaris, and very much in it has reference rather to what the tendency became, than to views actually avowed by Apollinaris himself.] Möhler compares the doctrine of Apollinaris with that of Luther. This is so far correct, as that in Luther we certainly find similar declarations; see Schenkel, Das Wesen des Protest. i. 313. Yet such parallels can seldom be fully carried out. Others have tried to find other correspondences with Apollinaris in later times; Dorner has compared his views with those of Osiander (p. 1028), and Baur with those of Servetus (Gesch. d Trin. iii. 104). be found in Zaccagni Collect. Monum. Vett. and Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. vi. p. 517. Comp. Gieseler, i. § 83, note 30. Rupp, p. 139.-He opposed the followers of Apollinaris (Evvovoiaoтaí, Aipoipiraí) in his Ep. Hær. 77.The doctrine of Apollinaris was also condemned in the West by Damasus, bishop of Rome (comp. Münscher von Cölln, p. 277), and once more by the second Ecumenical synod of Constantinople (A. D. 381, Can i. vii.). The later disciples of Apollinaris appear to have developed the doctrine of their master in a completely Docetic manner. Comp. Möhler, ubi supra, p. 264, sq. § 100. NESTORIANISM. Jablonski, P. E., Exercitatio historico-theologica de Nestorianismo. Berol. 1724.—Tübinger Quartalschrift, 1835, ii. part 1. [Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theologie, 1854. N. and the Council of Ephesus, by H. A. Miles, in the Christ. Examiner, Bost. 1853.] 2 The attempt to maintain the integrity of the human nature of Christ together with the divine, necessarily led from time to time to the inquiry, whether that which the Scriptures relate respecting the life and actions of the Redeemer, his birth, sufferings, and death, refers only to his humanity, or to both his divine and human nature; and, if the latter, in what way it may be said to refer to both? While the teachers of the Alexandrian school asserted in strong terms the unity of the divine and the human in Christ, the theologians of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, made a strict distinction between the one and the other.' At last the phrase, mother of God (OɛOTÓKOs), which the increasing homage paid to Mary had brought into use, gave rise to the controversy respecting the relation of the two natures in Christ. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, disapproved of this phrase, maintaining that Mary had given birth to Christ, but not to God.' Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, opposed him, and both pronounced anathemas against each other. Nestorius supposed, in accordance with the Antiochian mode of thought, that the divine and the human natures of Christ ought to be distinctly separated, and admitted only a ovvápeιa (junction) of the one and the other, an ¿voikŋois (indwelling) of the Deity. Cyril, on the contrary, was led by the tendencies of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) school,' to maintain the perfect union of the two natures (pvoikh Evwoiç.) Nestorius was condemned by the synod of Ephesus (A. D. 431), but the controversy was not brought to a close. 1 Diodorus died A. D. 394. Some fragments of his treatise : πρὸς τοὺς Evvovoiaσrás, are preserved in a Latin translation by Mar. Mercator, edit. Baluze, p. 349, ss. (Garner, p. 317), and Leontius Byzantinus. Comp. Mün scher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 280: Adoramus purpuram propter indutum et templum propter inhabitatorem, etc.-The opinions of Theodore are expressed in his confession of faith, which may be found in Acta Conc. Ephes. Actio vi. quoted by Mansi, T. iv. p. 1347; in Marius Mercator (Garner, i. p. 95); Münscher von Cölln, p. 280. On his controversy with Apollinaris, see Fritzsche, p. 92, 101. Comp. Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 446-95 (Torrey). Fragmentum ed. Fritzsche, p. 8: 'A2' ovx h 0ɛía púσiç èk парléνоν γεγέννηται, γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ὁ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς παρθένου συστάς· οὐχ ὁ θεὸς λόγος ἐκ τῆς Μαρίας γεγέννηται, γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ Μαρίας ὁ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ· οὐχ ὁ θεὸς λόγος ἐκ γυναικὸς γεγέννηται, γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ γυναικὸς ὁ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει διαπλασθεὶς ἐν αὐτῇ· οὐκ ἐκ μητρὸς τέτεκται ὁ ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ, ἀμήτωρ γὰρ οὗτος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου φωνὴν, ἀλλ' ὁ ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, ἐν τῇ μητρώα γαστρὶ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει διαπλασθεὶς, ἅτε καὶ ἀπάτωρ διὰ τοῦτο λεγόμενος. "Concerning the ecclesiastical meaning of this term, which came gradually into use, see Socrat. vii. 32. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, i. 286. The absurd discussions on the partus virgineus (comp. e. g., Rufinus Expos. 20), where Mary, with allusion to what Ezechiel says, is called the porta Domini, per quam introivit in mundum, etc., belong to the same class. Neander (Hist. Dogm. Ryland, p. 331) says that the controversy took an unfortunate turn from the beginning, because it started from a word, and not from a doctrinal idea: "thus the fanaticism of the multitude was inflamed, and political passions had the greater play." 'Anastasius, a presbyter of Alexandria (A. D. 428), preached against the use of the term in question, and thus called forth the controversy. He was followed by Nestorius (a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia); Socrat. vii. 32. Leporius, a presbyter and monk at Massilia, and follower of Pelagius, had previously propounded a similar doctrine in the West, see Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 282. The views of Nestorius himself are contained in iii. (ii.) Sermones Nestorii, quoted by Mar. Mercator, p. 53-74. Mansi, iv. p. 1197. Garner, ii. p. 3, ss. He rejected the appellation "mother of God" as heathenish and contrary to Heb. vii. 3. Resting, as he did, on the orthodox doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, he could say: Non peperit creatura eum, qui est increabilis; non recentem de virgine Deum Verbum genuit Pater. In principio erat enim verbum, sicut Joh. (i. 1), ait. Non peperit creatura creatorem [increabilem], sed peperit hominem, Deitatis instrumentum. Non creavit Deum Verbum Spir. S..... sed Deo Verbo templum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine, etc. But Nestorius by no means refused to worship the human nature of Christ in its connection with the divine, and strongly protested against the charge of separating the two natures: Propter utentem illud indumentum, quo utitur, colo, propter absconditum adoro, quod foris videtur. Inseparabilis ab eo, qui oculis paret, est Deus. Quomodo igitur ejus, qui non dividitur, honorem [ego] et dignitatem audeam separare? Divido naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam (quoted by Garner, p. 3). And in the fragment given by Mansi, p. 1201: Aià Tồv φοροῦντα τὸν φορούμενον σέβω, διὰ τὸν κεκρυμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινό μενον· ἀχώριστος τοῦ φαινομένου θεός· διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ μὴ χωριζομένου τὴν τιμὴν οὐ χωρίζω χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ' ἐνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. He preferred calling Mary Θεοδόχος or Χριστοτόκος, instead of Θεοτόκος. Comp. the other passages in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 284-286. Baur, Gesch. der Trinität. i. p. 727, ss. On the external history of this controversy, see the works on ecclesiastical history. It commenced with a correspondence between Nestorius and Cyril, in which they charged each other with respectively separating and confounding the two natures of Christ. Cyril was supported by Cœlestine, bishop of Rome, Nestorius by the eastern bishops in general, and John, bishop of Antioch, in particular.-In the progress of the controversy Nestorius declared himself willing even to adopt the term Oεотókоç, if properly explained. Comp. the Acta, and especially the Anathematismata themselves in Mansi, v. p. 1, ss., and iv. p. 1099; in Mar. Mercator, p. 142 (Garner, ii. 77, ss.), reprinted in Baumgarten's Theologische Streitigkeiten, vol. ii. p. Gieseler, Lehrb. der Kirchengesch. i. § 88, note 20. Münscher von Cölln, p. 290–295. 770, ss. “As the Alexandrians exalted the vπèρ hóуov, so did the Antiochians the Karà λóуov;" Neander, Hist. Dog. 334. On their differences, and the inferences which each party drew from the views of the other to its disadvantage, see ibid. The ἀντιμετάστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων was carried to an extreme by the Alexandrians, while the Antiochians distinguished between what is said δογματικῶς, and what is spoken πανηγυρικῶς. The acts of the Synod are given in Mansi, iv. p. 1123; Fuchs, iv. p. 1, SS. The synod was organized in a partisan way by Cyril.—A counter-synod was held under John, bishop of Antioch, in opposition to Cyril and Memnon; these in their turn excommunicated John and his party. The Emperor Theodosius at first confirmed the sentence of deposition which the two contending parties had pronounced upon each other, but afterwards Nestorius was abandoned by all; for John of Antioch himself was prevailed upon to give his consent to the condemnation of his friend, after Cyril had proposed a formula, the contradictions, of which, with his former Anathematismata, were but poorly slurred over (comp. Münscher ed. by von. Cölln, p. 297). The consequence was the separation of the Nestorian party (Chaldee Christians, Thomas-Christians) from the catholic church. On the further history of the Nestorians, see J. S. Assemanni, de Syris Nestorianis, in Bibl. Orient. Rom. 1728, T. iii. P. 2. "We may call the view of Cyril (according to which the human is changed into the divine), the MAGICAL aspect of the union, and that of Nestorius (according to which the two natures are only joined together) the MECHANICAL." Dorner, 1st ed. p. 90. § 101. EUTYCHIAN-MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY. The doctrine which separated the two natures of Christ, had been rejected by the condemnation of Nestorius. But with the growing influence and power of the party of Cyril, led by Dioscurus, Cyril's successor,' the still greater danger arose of confounding, instead of separating the said natures. The party zeal of Eutyches, an archimandrite [abbot] at Constantinople, who maintained the doctrine of only one nature in Christ,' caused new disturbances. After Dioscurus had in vain endeavored to force the Monophysite doctrine by violent means upon the eastern church,' both he and his sentiments were at last condemned at the council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451). In the course of the controversy, Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, addressed a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople. On the basis of this Epistola Flaviana, the synod pronounced in favor of the doctrine of two natures, neither to be separated nor confounded, and, in order to prevent further errors, drew up a formula of faith, which should be binding upon all parties. 1 Respecting his character and violent conduct, especially towards Theodoret, see Neander, Church History, ii. 500-522. The acts of this controversy are given in Mansi, T. vi. vii. (Ang. Mai. Script. Vett. Coll. T. vii. and ix. Coll. Class. Auct. T. x. p. 408, ss.) [Liberatus Breviarium Causæ Nestor. et Eutychian. in Mansi, ix. 659. Walch's Ketzerhist. vi. Baur, Dreielnigkeit, i. 800. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 99 sq.] Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Dorylæum with the revival of Valentinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constantinople in the year 449. See Mansi, vi. p. 694–754. According to the acts of this synod he taught: Μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου, τουτέστι μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μίαν φύσιν προσκυνεῖν καὶ ταύτην θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος. He denied that the flesh of Christ was of the same essence (óuoovotos) with ours, though he would not be understood to teach that Christ brought his body with him from heaven. But when his opponents brought him at last into a corner, he went so far as to admit the sameness of essence in respect to the body. But he could not be induced to confess his belief in the existence of two natures, a divine and a human. He maintained that there had been two natures only πρÒ Tηs Évwoεws; but after that he would acknowledge only one. Concerning the agreement between his doctrine and that of Cyril, see Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 301. These violent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the Synod of Robbers, A. D. 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum, oúvodos λŋorρIKŃ), the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593, ss. Fuchs, iv. p. 340, ss. The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359 (separately published by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1780, 4, comp. Griesbach, Opusc. Acad. T. i. p. 52, ss. Münscher von Cölln, p. 302): Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ et substantiæ et in unam coëunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab æternitate mortalitas; et ad resolvendum conditionis nostræ debitum natura inviolabilis naturæ est unita passibili, ut quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus |