est eorum, quæ sunt illata perpessio. He makes a distinction between passionis materia et passibilitatis infirmitas. Hilary, moreover, ascribes a human soul to Christ, but says that he received neither that soul nor his body from Mary; on the contrary, the God-Man has his origin in himself: comp. Dorner, p. 1040, ss., and the whole section.

2

• Athan. Contra Apollin. ii. 3: "Αρειος δὲ σάρκα μόνην πρὸς ἀποκρυφὴν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου, τουτέστι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸν Λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει γεγονέναι, τὴν τοῦ πάθους νόησιν καὶ τὴν ἐξ ᾅδου ἀνάστασιν τῇ θεότητι προσάγειν τολμῶν. Comp. Epiph. Hær. 69, 19, and other passages quoted by Münscher von Cölln, p. 268. This notion was very prominently brought forward by the Arians, Eudoxius and Eunomius; respecting the former see Cave, Historia Script. Eccles. i. p. 210; concerning the latter, comp. Mansi, Conc. T. iii. p. 648, and Neander, Hist. Dogm. 300. [The doctrines of Arius were expressed still more definitely by Eunomius. The Son can not even be said to be like God; since likeness and unlikeness can only be predicated of created things. Generation from the divine essence is inconceivable; an eternal generation is unimaginable. The will is the mediating principle between the divine essence and agency. The Son of God was created according to God's will; he was eternally with God only as predestinated. Ibid. p. 316. In the Confession of Faith of Eunomius, it is stated that the Logos assumed man, both body and soul; but, doubtless, an ok has dropped out-"not a man consisting of body and soul;" this appears from a citation of Gregory of Nyssa from Eunomius, and also from a fragment lately published by Mansi.-Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 161, says that Eunomius widely diverged from the original stand-point of Arius, in maintaining that essence of God could be completely conceived-particularly in reference to the point, that God must be unbegotten. Thus Arianism logically leads to putting the infinite and the finite into an abstract opposition to each other. It presents the contrast of the Aristotelian with the Platonic mode of thought.] Another party of the Arians, however, rejected the notion that the Logos had been changed into the soul of Christ, and supposed a human soul along with the Logos. Comp. Dorner, ii. 2, p. 1038. But even some orthodox theologians of this period used indefinite language on this point previous to the rise of the Apollinarian controversy. Comp. Münscher von Cölln, p. 269. Dorner, l. c. p. 1071, ss.

$ 99.

THE DOCTRINE OF APOLLINARIS.

Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who, in other respects, had a high reputation among orthodox theologians, conceived that that higher life of reason which elevates man above the rest of creation, was not needed by him, in whom there is a personal indwelling of deity; or rather, that the place of this human reason was supplied in an absolute way, the Logos, or vous Oetos, being substituted.' His

intention seems to have been to honor Christ, not to detract from his dignity. He was opposed by Athanasius, and still more by Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, whose efforts led to the adoption of the doctrine that Christ had a perfect human nature, consisting of a body and a rational soul, together with the divine. nature. The council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) condemned Apollinarianism as heretical.

1

Apollinaris was led by his dialectic culture to suppose that he might establish his argument with mathematical precision (γεωμετρικαῖς ἀποδείξεσι Kaì ȧváykαıç). Of the writings in which he explained his views, only fragments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius Byzantinus (who lived about the year 590); they were the following: περì σαρκώσεως λογίδιον (ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας ενσαρκώσεως τὸ κατὰ κεφάλαιον βιβλίον—περὶ ἀναστάσεως—περὶ πίστεως λογίδιον—and some letters (in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. xii. p. 706, ss. Angelo Mai Class. Auct. T. ix. p. 495, ss.). Comp. Dorner, ii. 976, and Neander, Hist. Dogm. 320. Apollinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational human soul, that the human being thus united to the Logos must either preserve his own will, in which case there would be no true interpenetration of the divine and the human, or that the human soul must lose its liberty by becoming united to the Logos, either of which would be absurd. "He chiefly opposed the треTTÓν, or the liberty of choice in christology."-Dorner, 1. c. p. 987. In his opinion Christ is not merely avoрwπоs Evoεos; but God become man. According to the threefold division of man (the trichotomistic anthropology), Apollinaris was willing to ascribe a soul to the Redeemer, since he thought that was only something intermediate between body and spirit, and the hyεμovikov of the body. But that which itself determines the soul (Tò αὐτοκίνητον), and constitutes the higher dignity of man, the νοῦς (the ψυχὴ λoyikh) of Christ, could not be of human origin, but must be purely divine; for his incarnation did not consist in the Logos becoming vous, but in becoming oáps. (Whether and how far Christ brought the oaps itself from heaven, or received it from Mary, see Baur, 595, note, and Dorner, 1007 sq. [Dorner says that Apollinaris held that the Logos was always potentially, or had the destination to be, man, since he was the type of humanity; but yet, that the assumption of the form (flesh) of man occurred only at his birth.]) But as the divine reason supplies the place of the human, there exists a specific difference between Christ and other men. In their case every thing has to undergo a process of gradual development, which can not be without conflicts and sin (ὅπου γὰρ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖ καὶ ἁμαρτία, apud. Athan. i. 2, p. 923. Comp. c. 21, p. 939: áμаρтía èννTÓσтатоç). But this could not take place in the case of Christ: οὐδεμία ἄσκησις ἐν Χριστῷ· οὐκ ἄρα Vovs ÉσTIV ȧvůρúπivos. Comp. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhet. adv. Apollin. iv. c. 221. At the same time Apollinaris supposed the body and soul of

* Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. 160, sees here a twofold Platonism; not only the distinction between vous and yuxý, but also that in place of the vous comes a higher potence, but of the same nature.

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.† 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 äàão kaì äλào, but not aλλoç kai aλλoç. 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 ̓Απολλιναoíov (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 (Evvovocaσтaí, Aipoipiтaí) 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. Befol. 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 (EOTÓKOs),' 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 ovvápɛla (junction) of the one and the other, an ¿voćkŋois (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 (ovoukh Evwois.) 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 Evvovolaσtás, 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: 'Aλλ' ovx ǹ 0ɛía púois èk naplévov 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.

2

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 Tov φοροῦντα τὸν φορούμενον σέβω, διὰ τὸν κεκρυμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινό. 'μενον ἀχώριστος τοῦ φαινομένου θεός· διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ μὴ χωριζομένου τὴν