G. j^Iiiuicliiihm (circa A.D. 274). — Mani or Manes, who was probably educated in the religion of Zoroaster, upon his adoption of the Christian faith, transferred to his Christ the Oriental views of incarnation. In this system the dualistic principle was more fully developed tiian in Gnosticism. He brought together as in a ka- leidoscope the fantasies of Parseeism, Buddhism, and Chaldeeism, bits of philosophy alike brilliant and alike worthless. " From Gnosticism, or, rather, from univer- sal Orientalism, he drew the inseparable admixture of moral and physical notions, the eternal hostility between mind and matter, the rejection of Judaism, and the identification of the God of the Old Testament wit^h the evil spirit, the distinction between Jesus and the Christ, with the Docetism or unreal death of the incorporeal Clirist." For a further admirable summary of his views, see Milman's Latin Christ, ii, 322 sq. The followers of Manes formed themselves into a Church A.D. 274, which possessed a hierarchical form of government, and consisted of two great classes, the perfect (elecli) and catechumens (auditores). (See Hase, sec. 82.)
7. Arianism (about 318).— The 4th century witnessed the rise of the most formidable and persistent of aU the forms of error as to the person of Christ. The teach- ings of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, that tlie Son was of the same essence with the Father, developed the latent doubts of one of his presbyters, Arius, who rushed to the other extreme. Charging his bishop with Sa- bellianism, he maintained that the Son was not the same in substance (ofioovaioc), but similar (unoioiaioc). He did not hesitate to accept the logical consequences of his dogma— that Christ, though the noblest of creatures, must, like all others, have been created from nothing. This deduction contains, as in a nut-sheU, the entire heresy.
8. Apollinarianism (about A.D. 378).— Apollinarls the younger rejected the proper humanity of Christ. He adopted many of the sentiments of Noetus the Monajj- chian. From the jiostulate that as the person of Christ was one, therefore his nature must be one, he reasoned that there could be no human intellect or will, but that the functions of soid and body must be discharged by the Logos, which so commingled with the imcreated body of Christ that the two distinct natures formed one heterogeneous substance entirely stii generis. (See Har- vey. On the Creeds, ii, 645.) " Both Noetus and Apolli- narls denied that the Word was made man of the Vir- gin by the Holy Ghost; the earlier heretic teaching that there was no real hypostatic distinction in the De- ity, the latter supposing that the flesh, as an eternally uncreated body, came down from heaven. Both deniedt
INCARNATION
536
INCARNATION
for the same reason, the inseparable union of two per- fect natures in one person; both denied that Christ was perfect man ; the Patripassiau, no less than the ApoUi- narian, having considered that the divine nature sup- plied the place of a human soul" (Harvey, Creeds, ii, 649).
9. Nestorianism (about 428) furnished the knotted root from which sprang ultimately the antagonist here- sies of the Monophysites and MonotheUtes. To the phrase Sjiotokoc, mother of God, applied to the Virgin, Nestorius took exception, maintaining that Mary had given birth to Christ, and not to God. Thus arose the long-protracted controversy respecting the two natures of Christ (Socrates, Eccl. /list, vii, ch. xxxii). Nesto- rius maintauied that a divine and human nature dwelt in Christ as separate entities, but in closest connection — cvva(pHa ; to use the figure of Wangemann, " as boards are glued together." His own admission, " Divido natu- ras sed conjungo reverentiam," justified the allegation brought against his doctrines that Christ is really a double being. The humanit}' of Christ was the temple for the indweUing (tvoiKj/aic) of Deity upon the sepa- rate basis of personality in his human nature.
10. Monophysitism (about 44G). — The doctrme of Nes- torius, that there must be two natures if there be two persons in Christ, led Eutyches, by the law of contrari- eties, to an exact counterpart, that there is but one per- son in Christ, and this one person admits of but one na- ture. The logic was the same in both heresies. Liddon has properly said, " The Monophysite formula practical- ly made Christ an unincarnate God ;" for, according to Monophysitism, the human nature of Christ had been absorbed in the divire. " We get, as it were, a Christ with two heads : an image which produces the impres- sion not merely of the superhuman, but of the mon- strous, and which is incapable of producing any moral effect" (Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, sec. 13G). Soon after the condemnation of this error by the foiu-th Gen- eral Council at Chalcedon, it branched out into ten lead- ing sects, whence it has been called " the ten-horned."
11. Monothelitism (about 625). — The controversy over the heresy of Monophysitism was prolonged for centu- ries. In the midst of the contest, the idle curiosity of the emperor Heraclius led him to propound the question to his bishops " Whether Christ, of one person but two natures, was actuated by a single or double will" (Wad- dington, Ch. History, i, 355). The question met with a ready response, but it was the response of error. It was said in reply that a multiplicity of wUls must of neces- sity imjily a multiplicity of v/illers. This is the postu- late of JMonothelitism. In maintenance of the miity of Christ's nature, they held that in him was only one will or energy, and that this was a divinely human will {iv- tpyeia OiavdpiKr]'), (For a statement of the orthodox view of the divine and human wiU of Christ, see Lid- don's Bampton Lect. v, 392.) The sixth General Coun- cil at Constantinople, A.D. G80, decided in favor of the Dyothclitic doctrine, while it anathematized the Mono- thelites and their views.