APOLLINARIS
297
APOLLO
Apollinarist. t. i, cap. xiii, p. 73G). Thus we have in Christ, as man, the three component parts, and can call him the avOpioTrog irrovpdi'tog, only with this dif- ference, the Divine occupies the place of the human voug" (Neander, Hist, of Docti-incs, i, 320). Athana- sius wrote against Apollinarism, though not against Apollinaris personally (Epist.ad Epict.; contra Apol- Unaristas); Gregory of Nazianzus wrote against him also (Ep. I, ii, ad Cledonium; ad Xectarhnn); and Greg- ory of Nyssa his 'AvrtppnTiKuc (in Galland. Bill. Pair. vi, 517). His heresy became generally known A.D. 371. The accusations of Socrates, Sozomen, and The- odoret against the character of Apollinaris are not plausible. "Of the writings in which he explained his views, only fragments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius Byzanti- nus (who lived about the year 590) ; they were the fol- lowing: irtpi aaoKiueuuQ Xoyictov (cnroSei^ig TTtpi rijg Stlag tvcrapiaiiOEWg) — rb Kara Ki<pdXaiov (iifiXiov — irtpi civaaTaatwc — irtpl Trlvrtojg Xoyidiov — and some letters (in Gallanclii Bibl. PP. xii, 70G sq. ; Angelo Mai Class, auct. ix, 495 sq.). Apollinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational soul ; that the human being thus united to the Logos must either preserve his own free will, in which case there would be no true union of the Divine and the human, or that the human soul had lost its proper liberty by becom- ing united to the Logos, either of which would lie ab- surd. ' He chiefly opposed the rp£7rr(h', or the liberty of choice in christology' (Dorner, Person of Christ, per. i, ep. iii, ch. iii). In his opinion, Christ is not only (I)'3rp(j7roc i'vStog, but the incarnate God. According to the threefold division of man, Apollinaris was will- ing to ascribe a soul to the Redeemer in so far as he thought it to be a mean between body and spirit. But that which itself determines the soul (-6 airoKivnrov), and constitutes the higher dignity of man, the foi'g (the ipvX't Xoyuct]) of Christ, could not be of human origin, but must be purely divine ; for his incarnation did not consist in the Logos becoming vovg, but in be- coming aapE. But the Divine reason supplying the place of the human, there exists a specific difference between Christ and other beings. In their case, ev- ery tiling had to undergo a process of gradual devel- opment, which cannot be brought about without either conflicts or sin (ottov yap rtXttog ai>$tpt»Troc, iKii Kai dpapria, apud. Athan. i, 2, p. 923 ; compare c. xxi, p. 9)!9 : apapria ivvTr'xrraTOc). But this could not take place in the case of Christ: ovStpia adenine: iv Xpia- Tifi " ouk dpa vovg turiv ai'Srp(i)Tni'og (comp. Grego- ry of Nyssa, Antirrhct. adv. Apollin. iv, c. 221). At the same time, Apollinaris supposed the body and soul of Christ to be so completely filled with the higher and divine principle of spiritual life, that he did not hesi- tate to use expressions such as 'God died, God is born,' etc. He even maintained that, on account of this intimate union, Divine homage is also due to the human nature of Christ (1. c. p. 241, 264). His oppo- nents, therefore, charged him with Patripassianism. But we do not think that Apollinaris ever asserted, as Gregory of Nazianzus would have us believe, that Christ must have possessed an irrational, animal soul, e. g. that of a horse or an ox, because he had not a ra- tional human soul: Gregory himself seems to have drawn such inferences from the premises of Apollina- ris. On the other hand, he accused his opponents in a similar manner of believing in two Christs, two Sons of God, etc. (comp. Dorner, 1. c, and his Notts G3, 64; Ullmann, Gregory ofNaz. p. 401 sq. ; Baur, Chr. Lehre v. d. Dreidnigkeit, i, 585 sq.). Athanasius maintained, in opposition to Apollinaris (contra Apollinurist. libri ii, but without mentioning him by name : the book was written after the death of Apollinaris), that it behooved 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,
as the Manichaean notions would lead us to suppose. Man, on the contrary, was originally free from shi; and Christ appeared on that very account, viz., in or- der to show that God is not the author of sin, and to prove that it is possible to live a sinless life (the con- troversy thus touched upon questions of an anthropo- logical nature). 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, Ch. Hist, ii, 433; Miilder, Athan ;s'us, ii, 262 sq., compares the doctrine of Apol- linaris with that of Luther. Gregory of Nazianzus (Ep. ad Cledon. et orat. 51) equally asserted the neces- sity of a true and perfect human nature. It was not only necessary, as the medium by which God mani- fested himself, but Jesus could redeem and sanctify man only by assuming his whole nature, consisting of bod}' and soul. (Similar views had been formerly held by Irenaeus, and were afterward more fully de- veloped by Anselm.) Gregory thus strongly main- tained the doctrine of the two natures of the Saviour. We must distinguish in Christ «X\o Kai «XXo,but not aXAoc Kai dXXoc. Compare the Epist. ad Nectar, sive orat. 46, with his 10 anathemas against Apollinaris, and Ullmann, p. 396-413. The work of Gregory 6f Nyssa, entitled Aoyoc; dvTtppijriKbc irpbc rd 'AttoXXi- vapiov (which was probably composed between the years 374 and 380), may be found in Zaccagni, Collect, monum. vett., and Gallandi, Bibl. Pair, vi, 517; comp. Gieseler, Ch. History, i, § 83, note 30. He opposed the followers of Apollinaris (Svvovmaorai, Atpoiptrai~) in his Ep. hair. 77. On the question whether Apollina- ris or his disciples ever adopted the Docetic errors re- specting the body of Christ, see Mohler, 1. c. p. 264 sq." (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doct. § 99). Apollinarism was first condemned at the synod held at Rome A.D. 375, in which the Roman bishop Damasus presided; all mention of the name of Apollinaris was carefully avoided on this occasion. Nevertheless, this condem- nation induced Apollinaris to form a separate congre- gation, over which he ordained the presbyter Yitalis as bishop. Hence the Apollinarists are also called Vitalians. The}- are also called Dimoerites, because they were accused of dividing the nature of Christ into two parts. Before the death of Apollinaris, which happened between A.D. 382 and 392, the Apollinarists formed in Syria and the adjacent countries several separate congregations, having their own bishops. Af- ter his death the Apollinarists were divided into two parties, one of which, under Polemo, or Polemius, and Timotheus, pretended that the divinity and the body of Christ were transformed into one substance, and, consequently, that the flesh was to be worshipped as well as the Logos; these were called Polemians and Synousiasts, and also 'sarcolatrae (aapKo\arpai, flesh- worshippers) ; in retaliation, they called the orthodox anthropolatrai, or men-worshippers. The other party, which adhered to the original doctrine of Apollinaris, were called Valentinians. By imperial command, the public worship of the Apollinarists was impeded A.D. 388 and 397, and A.D. 428 in all towns entirely pro- hibited. The sects of the Apollinarists assimilated, in the fifth century, partly to the orthodox, and partly to the Monophysites. See Monophysites. For a full view of Apollinarism in its origin and history, see Wernsdorf, Diss, de Apollinare (Vitemb. 1694 and 1719) ; Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, i, 926-1070 (Eng. transl., Div. i, vol. ii, p. 352 sq.) ; Herzog, i, 419. See also Penny Cyclopaidia, s. v. ; Neander, Ch. Hist, ii, 428; Lardner, Works, iv, 257-274 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. anno 362 ; Shedd, Hist, of Doctrines, i, 344 ; Pearson, On the Creed.