Theodori presbyteri Rhaethensis Libellus adversus haereses quibus jam olim hypostatica duarum in Christo naturarum unio oppugnata est

OPINION OF APOLLINARIS.

When no small amount of time had passed, a certain Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in maritime Syria, became the leader and author of another very vain opinion. For while the Arians claimed that the flesh of the Lord was entirely devoid of a soul, this Apollinaris said that the Lord indeed assumed flesh animated by a vital soul, but that He did not admit our human mind. He claimed that this flesh did not need a human mind, as it was governed by the Word of God who had clothed Himself in it, and that it could not contain any other intellectual power besides the divine one, for the human mind itself could not endure to dwell with that which is superior and lordly. Having posited these things, he maintains that there is one nature of the Word and the flesh, as if the flesh, being imperfect, does not constitute a whole man, and for this reason does not deserve to be called a nature.

Not much time having passed, a certain Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, a maritime city of Syria, was the leader and author of another very vain opinion. For since the Arians said that the Lord's flesh was entirely without a soul, this Apollinaris said that the Lord indeed assumed flesh animated by a vital soul, but that He did not admit our Mind at all. For that flesh did not need a human mind, being governed by God the Word who had put it on, nor could it take any other intellectual faculty besides that divine one, because the human mind itself cannot sustain dwelling with the more excellent Lord. Having posited these things, he says there is one nature of the Word and the Flesh, as if the flesh, being imperfect, is not a whole man, and therefore does not deserve the name of nature.

OPINION OF THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA.

Immediately after this Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia emerged.