§ 136. THE APOLLINARIA^ HEKEST. 71S
The Churcli could not possibly accept such a half Doee> tistic incarnation, such a mutilated and fctunted humanity of Christ, despoiled of its royal head, and such a merely partia redemption as this inevitably involved. The incarnation of the Logos is his becoming completely man.' It involves, therefore, his assumption of the entire undivided nature of man, spiritual and bodily, with the sole exception of sin, which in fact belongs not to the original nature of man, but has entered from without, as a foreign poison, tlirough the deceit of the devil. Many things in the life of Jesus imply a reasonable soul : sadness, anguish, and prayer. The spirit is just the most essential and most noble constituent of man, the controlling principle," and it stands in the same need of redemption as the soul and the body. Had the Logos not assumed the human spirit, he would not have been true man at all, and could not have been our examj^le. Nor could he have redeemed the spirit ; and a halfredemption is no redemption at all. To be a full Eedeemer, Christ must also be fully man, reA-cto? dv'^p(07ro<;. This was the weighty doctrinal result of the Apollinarian controversy.
Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and Epiphanius combated the Apollinarian error, but with a certain embarrassment, attacking it rather from behind and from the flank, than in front, and unprepared to answer duly its main point, that two integral persons cannot form one person. The later ortho- ^dox doctrine surmounted this difficulty by teaching the impersonality of the human nature of Christ, and by making the personality of Christ to reside wholly in the Logos.
The councils at Rome under Damasus, in 377 and 378, and likewise the second ecumenical council, in 381, condemned the ApoUiuarians.^ Imperial decrees pursued them, in 388, 397, and 428. Some of them returned into the catholic church ; others mingled with the Monophysites, for whose doctrin*" Apollinaris had, in some measure, prepared the way.
' 'EvcTcipKcoffis is at the same time fuav^pdirrtan. Christ was really avbpanros, nol merely ws Hv^pumos, as Apollinaris taught on the strength of Phil. ii. 7.
' T}> KVpiWTaTOV.
' Cone. Constant, i. c:in. 1, where, with the Arians, semi-Arians, Pneumatomacbi, Sabellians, and Marcellians or Photinians. the ApoUinarians also are anathematized
714 THIRE PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
With the rejection of this error, liouever, tlic question of the proper rehition of tlie divine and human natures in Christ I was not yet solved, hut rather for the first time luirly raised Those church teachers proved the necessity of a reasonable human soul in Christ. But respecting the mode of the union of the two natures their views were confused and their expressions in some cases absohitely incorrect and misleading.* It was through the succeeding stages of the Christological controversies that the church first reached a clear insight into thia great mystery : God manifest in the fiesh.
§ 137. The Nestorian Controvemij, a. d. 428-431.
SOURCES.
L Nestorius: 'OfxiXliH, Sermones; Anatheraatisrai. Extracts from the Greek original in the Acts of the council of Ephems ; in a Latin translation in M(irim MercaPjr^ a North African layman who just then resided in Constantinople, Opera, ed. Gurnerius, Par. 1673. Pars ii, and better ed. Baluzius, Par. 1684; also in Gallaudi, Bibl. vet. P. P. viii pp. 615-735, and in Migue's Patrol, torn. 48. Nestorius' own account (Evagr. n. E. i. 7) was used by his friend Irex^us (come-;, then bishop of Tyro till 448) in his Tragodia s. comni. de rebus in synodo Epliesina ac in Oriente toto gestis, which, however, is lost ; the documents attached to it were revised in the 6th century in the Synodioon adver sus tragoediam Irenaii, in Mansi, torn. v. fol. 731 sqq. In favor of Nes torius, or at least of his doctrine, Theodobet (f 457) in his works against Cyril, and in three dialogues entitled ^¥.pavuTTr]i (Beggar). Coinp. also the fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia (f 429). n. Against Nestorius: Cyril of Alex.: 'Ai'n3f /aurtfr/u)). Five Books Kara Neo-Top/ov, and several Epistles against Nest., and Tlieod., in vol. vi. of Aubert's ed. of his Opera, Par. 1638 (in Migue's ed. t. ix.). Sookates: vii. 0. 29-85 (written after 431, but still before the death of Nestorius ; comp. c. 84). EvAGRius: II. E. i. 2-7. Liberatus (deacon of Carthage about 553) : Breviarium causoe Nestorianorum et Eutychianorura (ed. Gamier, Par. 1675, and i)rintod in Galhuidi, Bibl. vet. Patr. torn, xii. PI). 121-161). Leontius Byzant. (uKmachus) : De sectis; and contra Nestorium et Eutychen (in Gallandi, Bibl. torn. xii. p. 625 sqq., and 658-700). A complete collection of all the acts of the Nestorian controversy in Mansi, torn. iv. fcl. 567 sqq., and torn. v. vii. ix.
* This is true even of Athanasius. Couip. the note on him in § 135, p. 706 f.