Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom the Faith of Nestorius was perverted. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter XXXII.—Of the
Presbyter Anastasius, by whom the Faith of Nestorius was
perverted.
Nestorius had an associate whom
he had brought from Antioch, a presbyter named Anastasius; for this man
he had the highest esteem, and consulted him in the management of his
most important affairs. This Anastasius preaching one day in the church
said, ‘Let no one call Mary Theotocos:1002
1002Θεοτόκον, i.e.
‘Mother of God.’ See Neander, Hist. of Christ.
Church, Vol. II. p. 449.
|
for Mary was but a woman;1003
1003ἄνθρωπος, ‘human
being.’
|
and it is impossible that God should be born of a woman.’ These
words created a great sensation, and troubled many both of the clergy
and laity; they having been heretofore taught to acknowledge Christ as
God, and by no means to separate his humanity from his divinity on
account of the economy of incarnation, heeding the voice of the apostle
when he said, ‘Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh;
yet now henceforth know we him no more.’1004
And again, ‘Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of
Christ, let us go on unto perfection.’1005
While great offense was taken in the church, as we have said, at what
was thus propounded, Nestorius, eager to establish Anastasius’
proposition—for he did not wish to have the man who was esteemed
by himself found guilty of blasphemy—delivered several public
discourses on the subject, in which
he assumed a controversial attitude, and totally rejected the epithet
Theotocos. Wherefore the controversy on the subject being taken
in one spirit by some and in another by others, the discussion which
ensued divided the church, and resembled the struggle of combatants in
the dark, all parties uttering the most confused and contradictory
assertions. Nestorius thus acquired the reputation among the masses of
asserting the blasphemous dogma that the Lord is a mere man, and
attempting to foist on the Church the dogmas of Paul of Samosata and
Photinus; and so great a clamor was raised by the contention that it
was deemed requisite to convene a general council to take cognizance of
the matter in dispute. Having myself perused the writings of Nestorius,
I have found him an unlearned man and shall candidly express the
conviction of my own mind concerning him: and as in entire freedom from
personal antipathies, I have already alluded to his faults, I shall in
like manner be unbiassed by the criminations of his adversaries, to
derogate from his merits. I cannot then concede that he was either a
follower of Paul of Samosata or of Photinus, or that he denied the
Divinity of Christ: but he seemed scared at the term Theotocos,
as though it were some terrible phantom.1006
1006μορμολύκιον
, ‘hobgoblin,’ ‘bugbear.’
|
The fact is, the causeless alarm he manifested on this subject just
exposed his extreme ignorance: for being a man of natural fluency as a
speaker, he was considered well educated, but in reality he was
disgracefully illiterate. In fact he contemned the drudgery of an
accurate examination of the ancient expositors: and, puffed up with his
readiness of expression, he did not give his attention to the ancients,
but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was evidently
unacquainted with the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of
John it was written in the ancient copies,1007
10071 John iv.
2, 3. The findings of modern
textual criticism are at variance with Socrates’ opinion that the
original in the epistle of John was λύει (separates). Westcott and Hort
admit λύει into their
margin, but evidently in order to have it translated as the Revised
Version has it (also in the margin) ‘annulleth,’ taking
away all the force of the passage as used here.
|
‘Every spirit that separates Jesus, is not of God.’ The
mutilation of this passage1008
1008Of what nature was this mutilation? Some authorities
omitted it altogether (see Tischendorf, Novum. Test. ed. Octav.
Maj., on the passage); others changed λύει into μὴ
ὁμολογῇ.
|
is attributable to those who desired to separate the Divine nature from
the human economy: or to use the very language of the early
interpreters, some persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at
‘separating the manhood of Christ from his Deity.’ But the
humanity is united to the Divinity in the Saviour, so as to constitute
not two persons but one only. Hence it was that the ancients,
emboldened by this testimony, scrupled not to style Mary
Theotocos. For thus Eusebius Pamphilus in his third book of the
Life of Constantine1009
1009Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. III. 43.
|
writes in these terms:
‘And in fact “God with us” submitted
to be born for our sake; and the place of his nativity is by the
Hebrews called Bethlehem. Wherefore the devout empress Helena adorned
the place of accouchement of the God-bearing virgin with the most
splendid monuments, decorating that sacred spot with the richest
ornaments.’
Origen also in the first volume of his
Commentaries on the apostle’s epistle to the Romans,1010
1010Cf. Origen, Com. in Rom. I. 1. 5.
|
gives an ample exposition of the sense in which the term
Theotocos is used. It is therefore obvious that Nestorius had
very little acquaintance with the treatises of the ancients, and for
that reason, as I observed, objected to the word only: for that he does
not assert Christ to be a mere man, as Photinus did or Paul of
Samosata, his own published homilies fully demonstrate. In these
discourses he nowhere destroys the proper personality1011
1011ὑπόστασιν; see I.
chap. 5, note 2.
|
of the Word of God; but on the contrary invariably maintains that he
has an essential and distinct personality and existence. Nor does he
ever deny his subsistence as Photinus and the Samosatan did, and as the
Manichæans and followers of Montanus have also dared to do. Such
in fact I find Nestorius, both from having myself read his own works,
and from the assurances of his admirers. But this idle contention of
his has produced no slight ferment in the religious world.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|