caro factum est, non verbum in carnem pereundo cessit, sed caro ad verbum ne ipsa periret accessit, ut quemadmodum homo est anima et caro, sic esset Christus Deus et homo. Idem Deus qui homo, et qui Deus idem homo: non fusione naturæ sed unitate persona. . . . Ac per hoc qui erat Dei Filius factus est hominis filius, assumptione inferioris, non conversione potioris, accipiendo quod non erat, non amittendo quod erat. Augustine in fact adheres simply to the received theology, and finds relief for his intellect in the thought of the Divine omnipotence. The fact is his interest in Christology is rather religious than purely intellectual; he delights to dwell on the significance of Christ's human example, and the humility by which He healed and subdued human pride. The subject of the human soul in Christ is not fully developed by Augustine; 3 but he approves the suggestion that the Son of God created a soul for Himself, without however definitely stating his own view; and he regards the Godhead as To nyeμоviкóv in Christ: Deus non quomodo alios sanctos regebat illum hominem sed gerebat.*

On a general review of the Apollinarian controversy the most important points seem to be these

(1) Church teachers had successfully vindicated the reality and completeness of Christ's human nature. They had insisted on the evidence of the Gospels, but still more emphatically perhaps on the a priori consideration that the true redemption of man's nature must necessarily involve the assumption of manhood in its entiretybody, soul, and spirit, with their several faculties of action, thought, and will.

1 Serm. clxxxvi. 1, 2.

2 See Enchir. 108, and the beautiful passage Confess. vii. 18. See Epist. cxl. 12 for an anti-Apollinarian passage; cp. de agone Chr. xx., xxiii.

de Trin. xiii. 23.

(2) They had also maintained, as a matter of Church tradition and of Christian intuition, the essential unity of Christ's person: but so far they had not succeeded in explaining the conditions under which such unity was conceivable. The general tendency of the catholic writers is to allow to Christ's human nature a relative independence, but at the same time to subordinate the humanity entirely to the Godhead as its true ruling principle (yeμovikov). It was inevitable that attention (ἡγεμονικόν). should henceforth be devoted to the mode, condition, and effect of the union between God and man in Christ. This tendency of thought probably received an impetus from the anthropological controversies of the fifth century in the West. There Christian thought busied itself with the significance of our Lord's human example, the reality of grace, and the nature of the work of redemption,1 the doctrine of God and of Christ's person being studied chiefly in the light of man's redemption. On the other hand, in the East the intellectual problem still confronted the Church, though, as we have seen, her teachers were to some extent guided in their opposition to Arius and Apollinaris by the idea of redemption, and what it involved. The two factors in Christ's person-the Divine nature and the human-had been asserted. Christ was truly God (ảλnows Ocós); the redeemer of humanity could not be less than Divine. On the other hand, He was perfectly human (Teλéws äv0pwπos); fallen man needed an entire and comprehensive restoration of his nature. Christ then was Divine and human. How was the union of the two natures in His person to be conceived, and what did it imply? The controversies of the first half of the fifth century are concerned with the solution of this problem.

1 Aug. Epist. cxl., de gratia novi testamenti, is an illustration of the way in which the doctrine of grace is linked to that of the Incarnation.

§ II. NESTORIANISM

1. Nestorianism had its root in the theology of Antioch, especially in that of its representative teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428). The school of Antioch was chiefly interested in anthropology; its system of scriptural exegesis was literalistic; its logical method was Aristotelian.

The error of Apollinaris had led to the vindication of the real distinctness of two complete natures in the incarnate Christ: it is this distinctness which is exaggerated by the Antiochene school. The Christology of Theodore starts from the conception of Christ's complete manhood; the perfection of His human experience. Christ actually struggled with human passions, and passed through a veritable conflict with temptation, in which He was continually victorious. So, remaining sinless under probation, He passed into the state of immutable virtue. The power to keep Himself free from sin He owed (1) to His sinless birth; (2) to the union of His manhood with the Divine Logos. In fact, while His birth and baptism imparted to Him a unique unction of the Spirit, the perpetual co-operation of the indwelling Logos made it morally impossible for Him to fall. But the union with the Logos was only bestowed on the manhood of Jesus by anticipation as the reward of His foreseen sinless virtue; it was finally consummated in the state of glory, to which the manhood was elevated.

1 For Theodore's view of man as a microcosm, see Dorner, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 31 ff. Christ came to be what Adam had failed to be,— the real image of God. His humanity was therefore real and complete; He must needs be perfected through a real human experience. Theodore reproduces the general tendency of Diodore of Tarsus [d. circ. 394], some fragments of whose writings are found in Marius Mercator and others. Cp. Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, §§ 36, 37.

Theodore conceived three modes of union to be possible between the Logos and the manhood 1———

(1) An essential indwelling (évoírnσis Kaт' ovσíav); but such a self-limitation of God seemed to him incompatible with the conditions of the Divine nature.

(2) An effectual indwelling (Kat' évépyeιav); but as God is everywhere present in operation and energy, this mode of indwelling would be no special privilege of Christ.

(3) Accordingly he fell back on the idea of a moral indwelling (xar' evdoxíav)—that special indwelling which God vouchsafes to those whom He regards with complacency, and who display a moral affinity with His own character and will. Such an indwelling demands moral conditions in the subject of it; it depends on his habit or state of mind and will (σχέσις τῆς γνώμης). Of this type was the Divine indwelling in Christ, according to Theodore's view (cp. S. Luke iii. 22); it was in fact the same in kind, but higher in degree than the indwelling of God in His saints; for in Christ God dwelt os év vi. God assumed and adopted the man Jesus, and fitted him to partake of all the honour which the Logos (who is púσe viós) enjoys. The man Christ shared the glory of Divine sonship, being adopted at His baptism, and gradually exalted so as to become the "firstborn" of creation, the head of the human race, the recipient of the homage of the universe.

In effect this view substitutes for the Incarnation the indwelling of a man by the Logos. The Logos assumed the man Jesus from the moment of His conception, and brought Him through trial and probation to perfection.

1 The idea of an essential union (ένωσις φυσική, or καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν. See “Ath.” c. Apoll. i. 10, 12) was supposed by the Antiochenes to be discredited by its practical consequences as displayed in Apollinarianism.

Theodore seems to shrink from the conclusion to which this view tends a dual personality in Christ. He insists on the fact that the conjunction (ovváþeia) between the Logos and the man is so close and indissoluble, that they may be spoken of as one person, just as man and wife are one flesh."1 Theodore maintained that he did not teach a dual sonship: "We speak not of two sons or two lords; since the Divine Logos is essentially one God, to whom he [the man Christ] is united and partakes of His deity, so sharing the title and dignity of Son."

2. The Christology of the Antiochene school appears in its logical and developed form in Nestorius. We must remember that it represents a reaction from the tendency either to mutilate Christ's human nature (Apollinarianism), or to minimise the actual experience of humiliation recorded in the Gospels. In any case Nestorius is the exponent of the reactionary view; he popularises the ideas of Theodore, and brings the Antiochene tendency to a point.

NESTORIUS succeeded to the see of Constantinople in 428. In that year one of his presbyters, Anastasius, preached a sermon impugning the use of the term Theotokos as applied to the blessed Virgin; and he was supported by Nestorius in a series of discourses.2 The word, which seems to have been quite familiar for at least half a century previously, had already been dis

1 See various passages collected by Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogm. § 23, p. 202; also Theodore's confession of faith, in Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. p. 392 [Eng. tr.]; cp. a valuable note in Bright, S. Leo on the Incarnation,

note 34.

'The sermons of Nestorius were translated by Marius Mercator; see his works, Migne P.L. 48, pp. 757 ff.

3 See Petav. de Incarn. v. 15, §§ 6-9. The more usual expression was that "God was born" of the B. V. M. The word had been used by Church writers from Origen downwards. See Pearson on The Creed, art. 3, note 36; Bright, S. Leo, note 3.