THE THIRD OECUMENICAL SYNOD AT EPHESUS, A.D. 431.

CHAPTER 1. Preliminary History.

SEC. 127. THE PRE-NESTORIAN DOCTRINE ON THE UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.

In opposition to the Docetae, the Church had maintained the true manhood of Christ; in opposition to the Ebionites, Arians, and others, His true Godhead. The development of doctrine and of science now led necessarily to the special christological question: In what manner the divine and human natures in Christ were united. The fact that they were closely united was an established portion of the faith of the Church, but the manner of the union had not yet become the subject of exact consideration; and as often as the ancient Fathers touched this point, they employed vague formulae and expressions. Thus Ignatius calls our Lord a (Ad Smyrn . c. 5); Tertullian recommends us to say, that the Logos put on humanity, carne est indutus, as being better than caro factus, because the latter expression would lead one to think of a transfiguratio of the flesh (Adv. Praxeam, c. 27). Origen, again, defines the union of the two natures as an interweaving (sunufai>nesqai ), and still more frequently he (Adv. Cels. iii. 41; De Princip. iii. 6, 3), as well as Irenaeus (in. 19, 1), Methodius, and later writers, used the expression kra~sis = mixture or mingling, and the Latins the similar expression commixtio. Thus, Tertullian (Apolog. c. 21) says, Christ is homo Deo mistus; Cyprian (De vanit, idol. p. 228, ed. Paris, 1726) says, Deus cum homine miscetur; Lactantius (iv. 13) says, Deus est et homo, ex utroque genere permistus. They also speak of a running together, sundromh<, of the two natures, of their copulatio, connexio, and the like; and it was only at the time of the fourth Oecumenical Council, and by its means, that the question as to the manner of the union of the two natures received an authoritative solution by the doctrine of the unio hypostatica. According to this, the two natures of Christ are unseparated and inseparable, but are also united untransformed and unmingled in the one divine personality (uJpo>stasiv ) of the Logos. The personality in Christ, however, is neither a double (divine and human) personality, nor a mingled (divine-human) personality, but the pure personality of the Logos, who has united Himself only with a human nature, not with a human person since otherwise the unity would be lost, and we should be obliged to accept the anomaly of two persons in one individual manifestation (Christ), either in juxtaposition or mingled (and thus also a mingling of the natures).

About a hundred years before this ecclesiastical solution of the great christological question was given, another was attempted in an erroneous manner by the learned Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. He transferred the doctrine of the trichotomy from the Psychology of Plato to Christology in such a manner as to teach that, as the ordinary man consists of three factors, body, soul, and spirit, so the God-man consists of three factors, body, soul, and Lo>gov. The last, according to his view, took the place of the human spirit (pneu~ma ), and was combined with the two lower factors so as to constitute an unity. In this way he certainly brought the humanity and divinity in Christ into an unity, so that they were not merely in juxtaposition and yet distinct; and he considered that he was not simply justified in adopting this theory of union, but even under a necessity of doing so. So long, he thought, as a human pneu~ma is ascribed to Christ, we must also assign to Nestorius the liberty, and at the same time the mutability (to< preptotime to obtain a comprehensible idea of the union of the two natures by denying to Christ a human pneu~ma . But Apollinaris overlooked the fact that, by such a theory, there was no true God-man, and that he had destroyed the true and perfect manhood of the Redeemer.

The error of the Apollinarian system was recognized and opposed by many teachers of the Church, especially by Athanasius, the two Gregories, of Nazianzus and of Nyssa, and Epiphanius; and their chief merit in this controversy was, that they held fast at the same time the true Godhead of our Lord and His uncurtailed manhood, and developed the necessity of a reasonable human soul in Christ. But, when they proceeded to speak of the manner of the union of the two natures, their expressions became vague and liable to be misunderstood, and in part even erroneous. Thus, on the one hand, Epiphanius (Ancorat. §§ 44 and 81) certainly rejected with propriety the expression mixture or confusion (su>gcusiv ) of the two natures, and the notion of the one being transformed into the other (ouj trapeisin ); but, on the other hand, he nevertheless makes use of the scarcely less objectionable phrase, ta< du>o kera>sav eijv e]n , that is, “that Christ has made the two natures to unite into one.” Similarly is it with Athanasius. He defines the union of the two natures with the expression which afterwards became famous, ajsu>gcutov fusikh< e[nwsiv tou~ lo>gou proan aujtou~ genome>nhn sa>rka (Adv. Apollinar. i. 10, t. i. P. ii. p. 742, ed. Patav.), and thus certainly denies the mingling of the two natures; but, when he (1.c .c. 12) defines the e[nwsiv fusikh< more exactly as an e[nwsiv kata< fu>sin, and expressly as not an e[nwsiv kaq uJpo>stasin , one should suppose, at the first glance, that he is asserting hereby the opposite of the orthodox doctrine of the unio hypostatica This, however, is not the case, for by the expression e[nwsiv kaq uJpo>stasin the whole connection shows that he means not the union in one Person, but a substantial union, and he says with perfect propriety that the two natures in Christ cannot become substantially one. Still his expression e[nwsiv fusikh< or kata< fu>sin remains liable to be misunderstood, as though he intended thereby to teach monophysitism, while in reality he uses fu>siv as in the other case he uses uJpo>stasiv, not in our exactly defined sense, which belongs to a later period, but with a more general meaning, and intends to say nothing else than that the two natures are united into one, or into one Person. If the Confession of Faith attributed to Athanasius,peri< th~v sarkw>sewv tou~ Qeou~ Lo>gou (Opp. t. ii. p. 1, ed. Patav.), is genuine, Athanasius would have taught ouj du>o fu>seiv , and would have used the expression mi>an fu>sin tou~ Qeou~ Lo>gou sesarkwme>nhn. But this writing is not genuine, and belongs rather to Apollinaris than to S. Athanasius, as is acknowledged not only by Montfaucon of S. Maur in his edition of the works of S. Athanasius, and after him by Mohler, but also by Munscher in his Textbook of the History of Doctrines (i. p. 273), although in his earlier Manual of the History of Doctrines (iv. p. 15) he maintained the Athanasian authorship. From what has been said, however, it does not follow that Athanasius never used the expression mi>a fu>siv tou~ Qeou~ Lo>gou sesarkwme>nh, which besides could be employed with a perfectly orthodox meaning: the phrase seems in fact to have met with general acceptance in Egypt, and was by Cyril and Dioscurus referred to Athanasius, and held as an acknowledged watchword of orthodoxy.

When, later, the two Gregories, of Nazianzus and of Nyssa, took part:in the battle against Apollinarianism, they put forth definitely and expressly the duality of the natures, particularly Gregory Nazianzen (fu>seiv meo QeoOrat. 51); but both also speak of a su>gkrasiv and ajna>krasiv that is, a mingling of the two natures, and Gregory Nyssen besides cannot entirely free himself from the notion of a transmutation of the human nature into the divine. f2 The great teachers of the Antiochene school, at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, not satisfied with all that had been done, thought themselves bound to strike out a new path, so as to define in an intelligible manner the union of the two natures. All their predecessors seemed to them to have preserved insufficiently the particular and inviolable character of each nature, and not to have given a sufficiently fundamental opposition to Apollinaris, but to have more or less given in to his views. And thus Apollinaris now found much more violent opponents in his own native country, Syria, than elsewhere, men of high reputation and great endowments, particularly Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore afterwards Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. In the latter we behold the special representative and spokesman of this school, who, further developing and rectifying the ideas of Diodorus, built up a new christological system. f3 In opposition to Apollinaris, Theodore holds most decidedly that complete humanity and so also moral freedom must be ascribed to the Redeemer. In order, however, to keep at a distance from the not[on of the mutability of Christ, — a theory which, however objectionable, seemed to be involved in that of His liberty, — Theodore did not allow the idea of liberty to result in that of liberty of choice, but went on to the idea of a higher, ethical liberty, which consists in the unchangeable harmony of the human will with the divine, and ascribed to the human nature of Christ such a higher liberty, a kind of liberty which practically excluded all sin. So far he was right. But he further regarded the union of the divine and human in Christ only in the sense of ejnoi>khsiv , that is, indwelling, because to him the idea of Incarnation seemed to be identical with transmutation of the Logos into a man, and was therefore rejected by him as absurd. When, however, God dwells in any one, he thinks, He does not dwell in Nestorius according to His nature, and so not by the expression of His power, but by His good pleasure (sujdoki>a| ). This indwelling is not alike in all the righteous, but its measure is determined by the measure of the divine eujdoki>a. But in no one did it take place in so high a degree as in Christ. In order to show mankind its future perfected condition, to which it was destined, God formed a man in a miraculous manner, in the womb of the Virgin, by the Holy Ghost; and in the moment in which this man was formed, the Logos united Himself with Nestorius. After some time the Logos led the man to baptism, then to death, then raised Nestorius again, took Nestorius up into heaven, placed Nestorius (by reason of His union with Himself) at the right hand of the rather, and from that time He (the man) is worshipped by all and will judge all.

As every one who strives after righteousness progresses in union with God, so also it is with Christ. His union with the Logos had first begun with His conception and birth, and now increased gradually as moral union, wherein His humanity was constantly impelled, elevated, strengthened, and preserved from all aberrations by the indwelling Logos. This moral union was confirmed and strengthened peculiarly in the temptations and at the passion of Christ, but it receives its perfection only after the death of Christ, when He has exchanged the state of humiliation for that of exaltation.

If, according to this theory, the union of the divine and human in Christ is placed on the same level with the union of the divine good-pleasure with every righteous man, yet the two are in the highest degree essentially different, and Christ can in no way be compared with men. On the contrary, He transcends all men (a) by His supernatural birth, and (b) by His sinlessness; but (c) also in this respect, that it is not merely the eujdoki>a of God generally, but the Logos, and so God Himself, the second Person of the Trinity, who dwells in Nestorius; and (d) the Logos is so closely united with the man in whom He dwells, that He has destined him to participate in all the honors which properly belong to the Logos alone. f4 It is true that in this manner Theodore could maintain the two natures in their perfection, and fundamentally oppose all mingling of the two; and he also explains that this is his aim, when he says, “Mingling is not suitable for the two natures; there is a difference between the divine form and the form of a servant, between the temple which is adopted and Nestorius who dwells therein, between Nestorius who was dissolved in death and Nestorius who raised Nestorius, between Nestorius who was made perfect through sufferings and Nestorius who perfected Nestorius, and so forth.

This difference must be preserved: each nature remains indissoluble by itself, in its essence.” But Theodore, and here is his fundamental error, not merely maintained the existence of two natures in Christ, but of two persons, as, he says himself, no subsistence can be thought of as perfect without personality. As, however, he did not ignore the fact that the consciousness of the Church rejected such a double personality in Christ, he endeavored to get rid of the difficulty, and he repeatedly says expressly: “The two natures united together make only one Person, as man and wife are only one flesh… If we consider the natures in their distinction, we should define the nature of the:Logos as perfect and complete, and so also His Person, and again the nature and the person of the man as perfect and complete. If, on the other hand, we have regard to the union (suna>feia ), we say it is one Person.” The very illustration of the union of man and wife shows that Theodore did not suppose a true union of the two natures in Christ, but that his notion was rather that of an external connection of the two. The expression suna>feia, moreover, which he selected here, instead of the term e[nwsiv , which he elsewhere employs, being derived from suna>feia [to join together], expresses only an external connection, a fixing together, and is therefore expressly rejected in later times by the doctors of the Church. And again, Theodore designates a merely external connection also in the phrase already quoted, to the effect that “the Logos dwells in the man assumed as in a temple.” As a temple and the statue set up within it are one whole merely in outward appearance, so the Godhead and manhood in Christ appear only from without in their actuality as one Person, while they remain essentially two Persons.

To be consistent, Theodore was forced to regard also as inadmissible the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum which had practically found acceptance in the Church. This doctrine, as is well known, is predicating the same properties of the two natures in Christ, not in abstracto (Godhead and manhood), but in concreto (God and man). Christ Himself had declared in S. John 3:16: “God... gave His only begotten Son” (namely, to death), and similarly S. Peter declared ( Acts 3:15): “Ye... killed the Prince of Life,” when in fact the being given up and being killed is a property (ijdi>wma = Predicate) of man, not of God (the only begotten, the Prince of Life). In the same way Clement of Rome, for example, spoke of paqh>mata Qeou~ (1 Ad Cor. 2), Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Ephes. c. 1, and Ad Rom. 6) of an ai=ma and pa>qov Qeou~, Tatian of a Qeo(Ad Graecos, c. 13); Barnabas teaches (c. 7) that “the Son of God could not suffer except on our behalf... and on our behalf He has brought the vessel of His Spirit as a sacrifice.” Similarly Irenaeus (iii. 16, 6) says, “The Logos unigenitus impassibilis has become passibilis;” and Athanasius, ejstaurw>menon ei+nai Qeo(Ep. ad Epictet. n. 10, t. i. P. ii. p. 726, ed Patav.). Specially cherished was the expression “God-bearer” (qeoto>kov = Deipara), and we find it more than a hundred years before the outbreak of the christological conflict in the writings of Origen, of Alexander of Alexandria, and of Athanasius. f9 It is, however, to be remarked that the properties of the one nature were never transferred to the other nature in itself, but always to the Person, who is at the same time both man and God. Human attributes were not ascribed to the Godhead, but to God, and vice versa. They did not say, “the Godhead suffered,” but “God suffered,” and so forth. The ground of this communicatio idiomatum lies in the unio hypostatica of the two natures, whereby the Godhead and manhood in Christ are united in the one divine Person of the Logos; and long before the introduction of the expression unio hypostatica, the ancient fathers felt the truth set forth in it, when they endeavored, although still inadequately, to give the ground of the communicatio. Thus Gregory of Nyssa remarks: “So long as the divine and human in Christ are regarded, each by itself, the properties (ijdiw>mata ) of both remain unmixed, but after the union (mixing, ajnakraqei~sa ) the flesh (the human nature) participates in the glory of the Logos, in the power of the Godhead.” Still better Epiphanius writes: “If God suffered in the flesh, it was not His Godhead (in itself) which suffered; but what He suffered in the flesh which was borne by the Godhead, has relation also to the Godhead. It is just as when one has on a garment. If this garment is spotted with a drop of blood, we then say that the man is spotted with blood, although the spot has fallen only on the garment, and not on the man.” f11 Even Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his time, considered himself bound especially to oppose the expression “God-bearer.” “Mary,” he says, “bare Jesus, not the Logos, for the Logos was and remained omnipresent, although from the beginning He dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner. Thus Mary is properly the Christ-bearer, not the God-bearer. Only figuratively, per anaphoram, can she be called God-bearer also, because God was in Christ in a remarkable manner. Properly she bare a man, in whom the union with the Logos was begun, but was still so little completed, that He was not yet (but only from the time of His baptism) called the Son of God.”

And in another passage he remarks: “It is madness to say that God is born of the Virgin... not God, but the temple in which God dwelt, is born of Mary.” f12 SEC. 128. NESTORIUS.

From the school of Theodore came Nestorius, with whose name the first period of the great christological controversy is connected, Born at Germanicia, a city of Syria, Nestorius came to Antioch at an early age, chiefly for the purpose of obtaining a more liberal secular education, he soon distinguished himself by great facility in extempore speaking in union with a beautiful and powerful voice, and shortly afterwards entered the monastery of Euprepius at Antioch, and was thence appointed as deacon and afterwards as priest in the Cathedral of Antioch. As priest he preached very frequently and with remarkable acceptance, while he also enjoyed the reputation of being a rigid Ascetic, and repeatedly showed great zeal for orthodoxy, so that he was the first who publicly impugned an erroneous statement which Theodore of Mopsuestia had brought forward in the pulpit. But with all his activity he showed, as Theodore and others affirm, great vanity and a desire for the applause of the multitude, particularly in his sermons. In consequence of the fame which he acquired, after the death of Bishop Sisinnius of Constantinople (Dec. 24, 427), he was raised to this famous throne; and his people hoped that in him they had obtained a second Chrysostom from Antioch. From the time of his ordination (April 10, 428)he showed great fondness for the work of preaching, and much zeal against heretics. In his very first sermon he addressed the Emperor Theodosius the younger with the words: “Give me, O Emperor, the earth cleansed from heretics, and I will for that give thee heaven; help me to make war against heretics, and I will help thee in the war against the Persians.” A few days afterwards he determined to deprive the Arians of the chapel which they still possessed in Constantinople, so that they were led themselves to set fire to it, on which account Nestorius received from the heretics and from many of the orthodox the nickname of the Incendiary. Besides this he also attacked the Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Macedonians, and obtained from the Emperor several stringent laws against the heretics (ibid. c. 31). The Pelagians alone found favor with him, since he seems to have regarded as correct their doctrine of the sufficiency of man’s free will for the accomplishment of what is good; but not their view on original sin. He received Julius, Bishop of Eclanum, Coelestius, and other exiled leaders of the Pelagians, and interceded for them, in the year 429, with the Emperor and also with Pope Coelestine. The Western layman, Marius Mercator, however, who at that time resided in Constantinople, made the Emperor acquainted, through a memorial (Commonitorium) still extant, with the true state of affairs, and with the fact that the Pelagians had already been condemned by Western Synods and Popes; whereupon Theodosius commanded them to leave the capital. The sympathy which Nestorius had with them is shown by his letter to Coelestius, the well-known friend of Pelagius, in which he bestows upon him the highest titles of honor, and compares him with John the Baptist, with Peter, and with Paul, as the object of unrighteous persecution. f19 It was during these transactions in connection with the Pelagians that the other controversy began through which Nestorius has so sadly immortalized his name, and he refers to it in the first letter which he wrote to Pope Coelestine on the Pelagian question. In another letter to John, Bishop of Antioch, Nestorius asserts that at the time of his arrival in Constantinople he had found a controversy already existing, in which one party designated the holy Virgin by the name of “God-bearer,” the other as only “man-bearer.” In order to mediate between them, he said, he had suggested the expression “Christ-bearer,” in the conviction that both parties would be contented with it, since Christ was at the same time God and man. On the other hand, Socrates relates (vii. 32) that “the priest Anastasius, a friend of Nestorius, whom he brought to Constantinople with him, one day warned his hearers, in a sermon, that no one should call Mary the God-bearer (qeoto>kov ), for Mary was a human being, and God could not be born of a human being. This attack on a hitherto accepted ecclesiastical term and ancient belief caused great excitement and disturbance among clergy and laity, and Nestorius himself came forward and defended the discourse of his friend in several sermons. One party agreed with him, another opposed him, and many went so far as to accuse him, but evidently with injustice, of the error of Paul of Samosata, as if he acknowledged in Christ only a man.” f23 According to this account of the matter, Nestorius did not find the controversy already existing in Constantinople, but, along with his friend Anastasius, was the first to excite it. The sermons, however, which, as we have stated, he delivered on this subject, are still partially preserved for us, and are fully sufficient to disprove the inaccurate assertion of many, that Nestorius in fact taught nothing of a heterodox character. In his very first discourse he exclaims pathetically: “They ask whether Mary may be called God-bearer. But has God, then, a mother? In that case we must excuse heathenism, which spoke of mothers of the gods; but Paul is no liar when he said of the Godhead of Christ ( Hebrews 7:3) that it is without father, without mother, and without genealogy. No, my friends, Mary did not bear God;... the creature did not bear the Creator, but the Man, who is the Instrument of the Godhead. The Holy Ghost did not place the Logos, but He provided for Nestorius, from the blessed Virgin, a temple which He might inhabit... This garment of which He makes use I honor for the sake of Nestorius who is hidden within it, and is inseparable from it... I separate the natures and unite the reverence. Consider what this means. He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God Himself, but God assumed Nestorius (assumsit, that is, clothed Himself with humanity) and, because of Nestorius who assumes, He who is assumed is also named God. ” f24 The second homily opens with a bitter reproach against his predecessors, as though they had not had time to lead the people to the deeper knowledge of God. Thereupon he turns again to his main theme, that Christ is double in nature and single in dignity. “When,” he says, “the Holy Scripture speaks of the birth of Christ, or of His death, then it never calls Nestorius God, but Christ, or Jesus, or Lord, designations which apply to both natures... Mary may then be called Cristoto>kov , and she bore the Son of God inasmuch as she bore the man who, by reason of his union with the Son of God (in the proper sense), may also be called Son of God (in the wider sense). In the same way, it may be said that the Son of God died, but not that God died... We will, then, hold fast the union of the natures without confusion, and in the man we will acknowledge God, and will reverence the man who, by a kind of divine union with God, is at the same time to be worshipped.” f25 In the third discourse he says: “The Arians place the Logos only below the Father, but these people (who teach the qeoto>kov and speak of a birth of God) place Nestorius below even Mary, assert that He is more recent than she, and give to the Godhead which created all a temporal mother as origin. If He whom she bore was not man, but God the Logos, then she was not the mother of Nestorius who was born, for how could she be the mother of Nestorius who is of a different nature from herself? But if she is to be called His mother, then he who is born is not of divine nature, but a man, since every mother can bear only that which is of like substance with herself. God the Logos, then, was not born of Mary, but He dwelt in Nestorius who was born of Mary.”

It is easy to see that Nestorius occupied the point of view of his teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was even less inclined than he to set aside the duality of the persons in Christ otherwise than in appearance. Several of his priests gave him notice of withdrawal from his communion, and preached against him. The people cried out, “We have an Emperor, but not a Bishop.” Some, and among them laymen, spoke against him even in public when he preached, and particularly a certain Eusebius, undoubtedly the same who was subsequently Bishop of Dorylaeum who, although at the time still a layman, was among the first who saw through and opposed the new heresy. Nestorius applied to him and others, for this reason, the epithet of “miserable men,” called in the police against them. and had them flogged and imprisoned, particularly several monks, whose accusation addressed to the Emperor against him has come down to our times. f27 It was in a more careful way that Proclus, Bishop of Cyzicus, stepped into the lists. He had formerly been a priest of Constantinople, and was appointed by the late Patriarch Sisinnius as Bishop of Cyzicus. But the inhabitants of that city would not accept him, and therefore he continued to live in Constantinople. Invited by Nestorius to preach at one of the festivals of the Virgin (429), he made use of the opportunity to describe, in his presence, the honor and dignity of Mary as God-bearer in many rhetorical phrases drawn from the Bible, and to defend the expression which had been called in question in a clever but, at the same time, rather a pompous manner. Nestorius thus found it necessary at once to deliver a second sermon, in order, as he said, to warn those who were present against an excessive veneration of Mary, and against the opinion that the Word of God (the Logos) could be born twice (once eternally from the Father, and a second time of Mary). He who says simply that God is born of Mary makes the Christian dogma ridiculous to the heathen... for the heathen will reply, “I cannot worship a God who is born, dies, and is buried.” It is evident that what is born is the human nature, but the Godhead is united with it... He entirely agreed, therefore, with the previous speaker, when he said that “He who was Born of woman is not pure God and not mere man, for the manhood which is born is united with the Godhead.”... Is the Logos risen from the dead? And if the life-giver (Logos) died, who then could give life? The mystery of godliness must, however, be expressed in this manner: “One thing is the Logos who dwelt in the temple formed by the Holy Ghost, and another is this temple itself, different from the God who dwells within it.” He acknowledged, then, the unity of the combination, but the duality of the natures and substances.... In short, it was an absurd accusation to charge him with teaching the error of Photinus; on the contrary, that which he asserted overthrew the doctrine of Photinus. f29 In a second discourse, delivered afterwards against Proclus, he explained that he could allow the expression qeoto>kov if it were rightly understood, but that he was forced to oppose it because both the Arians and the Apollinarians sheltered themselves behind it. If they did not sufficiently distinguish the two natures, an Arian might take all these scripture texts which referred to the tapei>nwsiv of Christ as man, e.g. His not knowing and the like, and transfer them to the divine nature, so as to prove from them the theory of subordinationism. Nestorius further attributes to those who make use of the qeoto>kov the view that, in their opinion, the Godhead first had its beginning through Mary, which certainly none had asserted; and in order to avoid this notion, he proposes, instead of the expression “God was born of Mary,” to allow this, “God passed (transiit) through Mary.” f30 The fragment of another sermon is directed entirely against the communicatio idiomatum, particularly against the expression, “the Logos suffered;” but still more important is the fourth discourse against Proclus, containing these words: — “The life-giving Godhead they call mortal, and dare to draw down the Logos to the level of the fables of the theater, as though He (as a child) was wrapped in swaddling-clothes and afterwards died... Pilate did not kill the Godhead, but the garment of the Godhead; and it was not the Logos which was wrapped in a linen cloth by Joseph of Arimathea and buried... He did not die who gives life, for who would then raise Nestorius who died?... God was not altered through His union or communion with man, but, united with human nature and clasping it in His embrace (complexibus stringens), He raised it up to heaven, while He Himself remained unchanged... In order to make satisfaction for men, Christ assumed the person of the guilty nature (of humanity) (debentis suscepit personam naturae)... Christ is not mere man, but God and man at the same time... And this man I worship along with the Godhead as the cooperarius diviner auctoritatis, as the instrumentum of the goodness of the Lord,... as the living purple garment of the King,... separo naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam. That which was formed in the womb of Mary is not God Himself... but because God dwells in Nestorius whom He has assumed, therefore also He who is assumed is called God because of Nestorius who assumes Nestorius. And it is not God who has suffered, but God was united with the crucified flesh... We will therefore call the holy Virgin qeodo>cov but not qeoto>kov for only God the Father is qeoto>kov ; but we will honor that nature which is the garment of God along with Nestorius who makes use of this garment, we will separate the natures and unite the honor, we will acknowledge a double person and worship it as one .” f32 We can see from all this, that Nestorius (a) Properly determined to hold fast the duality of the two natures and the integrity of each; that he (b) Was in a position, with his teaching, to reject the theories alike of the Arians and Apollinarians; that he (c) Says, with perfect right, that the Godhead in itself can neither be born nor suffer; also, (d) That the notion of the qeoto>kov , which he persistently opposes, which would assume that the Godhead in itself had been born, and could have its beginning of Mary, was certainly worse than heretical. (e) Further, we see that in a certain sense he would allow even the expression qeoto>kov ; but (f) AS often as he makes the attempt to hit the truth, he is again trained aside by his fear of the communicatio idiomatum .

This fear pursues him like a specter, and in fact for this reason, that, instead of uniting the human nature with the divine person, he always assumes the union of a human person with the Godhead. Embarrassed by the concrete notion of a man, he can never rise to the abstract idea, nor think of human nature without personality, nor gain an idea of the union of the merely human nature with the divine person. Therefore he says quite decidedly, Christ has assumed the person of guilty humanity, and he can unite the Godhead and manhood in Christ only externally, because he regards the latter as a person, as is shown by all the figures and similes which he employs. The Godhead dwells only, as he says, in the manhood, the latter is only a temple, only a garment of the Godhead, and the latter was not born of Mary at the same time with the former, but only passed through Mary; it did not suffer along with the humanity, but it remained impassible in the suffering man, that which evidently would be possible only if the humanity had a center and a special personality of its own. If, however, the personal in Christ was His Godhead, and this alone, then, if Christ suffered, the Godhead must also have entered into His suffering, and the human nature could not suffer alone, because it had no proper personal subsistence. So also only one Person could be born of Mary; and because the personal in Christ was only His Godhead, this must also have participated in the birth, although in itself it is as little capable of being born as of suffering.

SEC. 129. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CYRIL AND NESTORIUS BEGINS.

It was not long before the Nestorian views spread from Constantinople to other provinces, and so early as in the year 429 Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, found it necessary in an Easter sermon to give clear and plain expression to the orthodox doctrine, without, however, mentioning Nestorius and the events which had occurred at Constantinople, declaring that not the Godhead (in itself), but the Logos which was united with the human nature, was born of Mary. f33 There had been a special attempt made to extend Nestorianism among the numerous monks of Egypt, and emissaries sent for the purpose had been active in this effort. Cyril considered it, therefore, his duty to put them on their guard at once, especially as many of them had no theological education; and if once they had been laid hold of by the error, they would of necessity have been most dangerous, on account of their huge number and their great influence upon the people. In a very complete doctrinal letter to his monks, he now shows how even the great Athanasius had used the expression “God-bearer,” and that both Holy Scripture and the Synod of Nicaea taught the close union of the two natures in Christ. The mystery of the Incarnation of God had a certain analogy with the birth of every human being. As the body and the soul of the child are born at the same time of a woman, although properly the soul in itself cannot be born, so also the divine Logos was born along with the human nature. The Logos in Himself cannot properly be called Christ (c. 18); but neither must we call Christ a homo deifer (qeofo>rov), who has assumed humanity as an instrument, but he must be called “God truly made man” (c. 19).

The body of Christ is not the body of any other, but of the Word (c. 20); i.e., the human nature of Christ does not belong to any human person, but the personality to which it belongs is the Logos. (In this way Nestorianism was struck on the head.) Were the humanity of Christ, he proceeded, a mere instrumentum of the Godhead, then Christ would not be essentially different from Moses, for he, too, was an instrument of God (c. 21). At the close he further compares the death of Christ with our death. In our case, he says, it is properly only the body which dies, and yet we say “the man dies” (that is, the soul in itself does not die, but it participates in the suffering and death of the body). So it is with Christ. The Godhead in itself did not die, but the Logos has what in the first place belonged to His human nature, velut proprium in, se transtulit; and thus we can say, “He suffered death” (c. 24). As man He suffered death, as God He again abolished death; and He could not have wrought out our salvation by His divine nature if He had not endured death for our sake in His human nature (c. 25).

This treatise of Cyril was also brought to Constantinople, and excited Nestorius to employ violent expressions respecting his Alexandrian colleague. The latter therefore directed a short letter to Nestorius, in which he said, “that it was not he (Cyril)and his treatise, but Nestorius or his friend who was the cause of the present prevailing ecclesiastical disorder. It had even gone so far already, that some would no longer call Christ God, but only instrument of God and a God-bearing man. At such a violation of the faith, it had not been possible for him to keep silence, and Nestorius could himself say what he would have to answer the Roman bishop Coelestine and other bishops, who asked him whether Nestorius had really written and said the things which were currently reported of him. Besides, there came from all the provinces of the East unfavorable reports concerning Nestorius, and he should therefore pacify again all who had taken offense from the use of the expression qeoto>kov . f36 Nestorius answered this in a few lines, which contained hardly anything but self-praise and insolence, to the effect that “Christian love and the urgency of the Alexandrian priest Lampo alone had induced him to give an answer to Cyril, whose letter contained much that was at variance with brotherly love. He greeted all the brethren who were with Cyril.” f37 About the same time Nestorius availed himself of an opportunity of endeavoring, if possible, to gain over Pope Coelestine to himself and his teaching. He wrote to him that some Western bishops — namely, the Pelagian Julian, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius — had complained to the Emperor and to him that, although orthodox, they were persecuted. They had been several times sent away, but they had always renewed their complaints, and he would now ask for more exact information respecting their case. Moreover, he said, he had wished to destroy a heretical disease which prevailed in his diocese, and even among the clergy, which was akin to the corruption of Apollinarianism and Arianism. These heretics mingled the Godhead and manhood in Christ, and blasphemously alleged that the Word of God had, as it were, taken a beginning from the Christ-bearer; that He was built up along with His temple (the humanity), and was buried along with the flesh (humanity); and that, after the resurrection, the flesh (humanity) had passed over into the Godhead. They ventured, therefore, to call the Virgin God-bearer, whilst neither the Fathers at Nicaea nor the Holy Scriptures had employed this expression. Such an expression was not in fact admissible, and could be tolerated only with a certain explanation (that Mary had borne only a man, but that with this the Godhead was inseparably united). Coelestine had probably already heard what struggles he (Nestorius) had to maintain against these false teachers; but he had not struggled in vain, for many had been happily converted. f38 A second and somewhat later epistle explains to the Pope, that Nestorius had long waited for an answer with reference to those Western (Pelagian) bishops, and requests that Coelestine would at last let him have more accurate information concerning them. At the same time he speaks again of the new heresy, which renews Apollinarianism and Arianism. f39 The state of tension which had arisen between Cyril and Nestorius had induced some Alexandrians, who had been punished by Cyril on account of gross moral excesses, now to go to Constantinople, and there to bring forward complaints against their archbishop. One of these complainants had been guilty of dishonesty as a reliever of the poor, the second had shockingly ill-treated his mother, the third had stolen; and Nestorius had granted these people a hearing. Cyril now complains of this in a fresh letter to Nestorius, and joins with it, as the principal thing, a request that Nestorius will redress the grievance which he has occasioned by his sermons. At the same time, he briefly defines the orthodox doctrine, to the effect that the Word did not become flesh in such a manner as that God’s nature had changed or been transformed into sa ; on the contrary, the Logos had hypostatically united with Himself the sa , and thus had, in an inexplicable manner, become man... .The two distinct natures had been united into a true unity (prothat thseiv), from both one [not double] Christ and one Son had come, not as though the difference of the natures had been done away by the union, but, on the contrary, that they constituted the one Lord Jesus Christ and Son by the unutterable union of the Godhead and the manhood. He then rejects the unjust reproach of Nestorius, who represented that Cyril and his friends taught that the Logos had first received His beginning from Mary (this was a false inference which Nestorius deduced from the expression qeoto>kov ), and he proceeds: “It is not that a man was born of Mary upon whom the Logos then descended, but the Logos united Himself with the human nature in the womb of Mary, and thus was, after the flesh, born. So also He suffered, etc., since the Logos, who is in Himself impassible, endured this in the body which He had assumed.” f40 Nestorius replied that “he would pass in silence the insults which were contained in this astonishing production of Cyril’s, but on another point he would not be silent. Cyril appealed to the Creed of Nicaea, but he had certainly read it only superficially, and his ignorance therefore deserved excuse.” He would now show him from this Creed, and from Holy Scripture, that we ought not to say that God was horn and suffered, and that Mary was the God-bearer; that was heathenish, Apollinarian, Arian.

Cyril had certainly said rightly, that two natures were united in one person, and that the Godhead in itself could neither he born nor suffer; but what he added afterwards, as to how far the Godhead of Christ entered into the suffering, etc., entirely did away with what was said before. At the close Nestorius remarks, in a harsh and scornful tone: “That Cyril was so zealous for the cause of God, and so anxious for the Church of Constantinople, but he had been deceived by clergy of his own stamp (th~v sh~v i]swv diaqe>sewv ), who had been deposed at Constantinople on account of Manichaeism. At Constantinople itself everything was in an excellent condition, and the Emperor was quite in agreement with the doctrine.” f41 While the correspondence of Cyril with Nestorius himself led to no result, the former found it necessary, particularly on account of the last remark of Nestorius, also to apply to the Emperor and to address two letters to the imperial ladies (taissaiv), Eudocia (the wife of the Emperor) and Pulcheria (the Emperor’s sister), and, without mentioning the name of Nestorius, to explain to them the true doctrine by passages front Holy Scripture and the Fathers, in a very complete manner. That Cyril should apply to the Emperor will astonish no one, but even his doctrinal letter to the two princesses finds its explanation and justification in the then existing condition of the Byzantine Court. After the death of his father Arcadius, in the year 408, Theodosius the younger became Emperor at the age of from seven to eight years. He was and remained kindly and pious all his life long; but far more talent than belonged to him was shown by his sister Pulcheria, who was only a few years older than himself, to whom the Senate, on account of her remarkable prudence, in A.D. 414, when she numbered only sixteen years, gave the title of Augusta, and confided to her the administration of the Empire together with the guardianship of her brother.

She married the latter in the year 421 to Eudocia, the intellectual and amiable daughter of a heathen philosopher of Athens, whom she had herself gained over to Christianity, and whom she had regarded as worthy of the throne; and both these excellent women took so great an interest in all ecclesiastical and political occurrences, and were so highly educated and of so great influence, that Cyril had every reason for laying the great theological question as distinctly as possible before them. So also he applied to several Greek and Oriental bishops, particularly to the venerable Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea, who was nearly a hundred years of age, in order to make them thoroughly acquainted with the whole controversy, and to gain them for the orthodox side. f43 Acacius answered in a friendly spirit, lamented the controversy, and counselled peace. The Emperor Theodosius, on the other hand, allowed himself to be prejudiced by Nestorius against Cyril, and blamed the latter for having begun the quarrel, particularly for having addressed the imperial ladies in a special letter, as if they were not in agreement with the Emperor on this question, or perhaps even to sow discord in the imperial family. f45 We may, with much probability, infer from these last words, and also from what happened, especially through Pulcheria, after the death of Theodosius, that the two princesses had expressed themselves in opposition to the Emperor, on behalf of Cyril and against Nestorius.

Long before this imperial letter was despatched, Cyril addressed a letter also to those Alexandrian clergy who attended to his interests at Constantinople, and explained to them, too, the true doctrine on the controverted point, as well as the deceptive statements and false accusations of the Nestorians. At the same time, he continued, he would not yet, as they advised, come forward with a formal complaint against Nestorius, whilst he certainly could not at all acknowledge him as his judge, and he asked them, when it became necessary, to transmit the enclosed explanation to the Emperor. Cyril then pointed out that Nestorius had laid under anathema all who made use of the expression “God-bearer,” and had threatened to bring before a Synod the charges against Cyril conveyed to him by some Alexandrians, and to have him deposed, as he had already done with others who reverenced the expression qeoto>kov. For this reason, and also because Nestorius himself had first applied to Rome in regard to the question of qeoto>kov, and, on the other hand, the Pope also had made inquiries on the subject of Cyril, the latter had felt bound to inform the Pope on the subject of the new heresy, and he did this in a letter, in which he said: “It would be more agreeable if we could keep silence, but God demands of us watchfulness, and ecclesiastical custom requires me to inform your holiness. I have hitherto observed profound silence, and have written neither to you nor to any other Bishop on what has been passing in Constantinople, because haste in such a case is a fault; but now that the evil has reached its culminating-point, I believe myself bound to speak and to explain all that has occurred.” He then relates how the whole controversy arose in Constantinople, and how he has warned Nestorius several times, and is for this reason persecuted by him. Nearly all the Eastern bishops are in accord with Cyril, especially the Macedonian bishops; but Nestorius considers himself wiser than all, and believes that he alone understands the divine mysteries. He (Cyril) had not wished to threaten him with excommunication before he had given the Pope notice of it, and the latter may now decide what is to be done and give instructions on that point the Eastern and Macedonian bishops. f50 Along with this he sent the Deacon Possidonius to Rome, and gave him at the same time translations of all the other letters written hitherto by Cyril on the Nestorian question, as well as a special memorial in which he had drawn out in short propositions the Nestorian error, and the orthodox doctrine opposed to it. He particularly says in it that Nestorius avoids the expression e[nwsiv , and speaks only of a suna>feia of the two natures. f51 Possidonius was further commissioned to give the documents in question to the Pope only when he learnt that Nestorius had already appealed to the Pope. f52 SEC. 130. SYNOD AT ROME, A.D. 430, AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONNECTED WITH IT.

In consequence of this, Pope Coelestine, in the year 430, held a Synod at Rome, at which Nestorius was declared a heretic, and threatened with deposition, unless he revoked his errors within ten days of the reception of this decision. We have still the fragment of a speech made by the Pope at the Synod, in which he approves of the expression qeoto>kov as well as the four letters which he despatched, as the result of the Synod, to Nestorius, to his Church, to Cyril, and to John of Antioch, all dated the 11th of August 430. f54 In the first of these, to Nestorius, in which he uses very sharp language, the Pope complains that now, alas! the good reputation formerly enjoyed by Nestorius has entirely vanished. The Pope had not hitherto answered his letters, because it was necessary that they should first be translated into Latin; but in the meantime very bad news respecting him had been received from Cyril. Nestorius had paid no regard to two warnings from Cyril; if he now refused to obey this third admonition, then he must be shut out from the Catholic Christian Church. It is no wonder to the Pope that Nestorius protects the Pelagians, since he is much worse than they. It is to be hoped, however, that he will not destroy the unity of the Church, and that in token of his improvement he will recall all those whom, for Christ’s sake (that is, on account of their orthodoxy), he has expelled from the Church. If he does not condemn his impious innovation within ten days, he must be expelled from all communion with the orthodox Church, and Cyril has to publish this judgment, as representative of the Pope. f55 To nearly the same effect is the second letter of the Pope, addressed to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, in which he exhorts them all to stedfastness and fidelity in the faith, and to endurance, if they are persecuted by Nestorius; for all whom the latter has smitten, or shall hereafter smite, with excommunication or deposition, on account of their adherence to orthodoxy, are and remain in communion with the Pope. In conclusion, he informs them that he has delegated to Cyril to give effect to the sentence against Nestorius. f56 Substantially the same statements were contained in those letters which Coelestine addressed to the most distinguished Eastern and Macedonian Bishops, so as to inform them of the error of Nestorius, and of the sentence which had just been pronounced against him. These were John, Bishop of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi. Of these letters, the one addressed to John of Antioch is no longer extant, but they all seem to have been to the same effect. It is very probable that the Pope sent at least the two letters destined for Asia first to Alexandria, for greater certainty, on which account Cyril on his part contributed a companion letter, and from these the two addressed to Juvenal and John have come down to us. Cyril in these letters endeavored to justify his previous conduct in this matter, and to induce his colleagues to recognize the Roman decision. f58 More important for us is Coelestine’s letter to Cyril himself. In it he praises him in strong terms, approves of his teaching, sanctions all that he has done, and gives order that, in case Nestorius perseveres in his perverse opinion, and does not within ten days after the reception of the Papal letter condemn his impious doctrine, and promise to teach so as to be in accordance with the faith of the Roman and Alexandrian Churches and in fact with the whole of Christendom, Cyril must carry into effect the judgment of the Roman Synod in the name of the Pope, with all energy, and give him notice of his exclusion from the Church. f59 It was probably before Nestorius had received intelligence of the sentence pronounced against hint at Rome, but certainly while he was in fear of it, that he addressed his third letter to the Pope, in which he first makes the false statement that Cyril had begun the controversy respecting qeoto>kov in order to avert the holding of a Synod at Constantinople, to consider the charges which had been brought against him to that city; whereas the first letters between Cyril and Nestorius, as has already been pointed out, referred to the controversy respecting qeoto>kov and it was only those written somewhat later which mention those accusations (see pp. 20 and 23). Equally deceptive is the second assertion which Nestorius makes in this letter to the Pope,” that he has nothing against those who make use of the expression God-bearer, when it is not done in an Apollinarian and Arian sense,:” when in fact he had given a general approval of the anathema pronounced on this expression, and had excommunicated those members of his Church who made use of it. (See above, p. 25 f.) It is evident that he is ready to make certain concessions, and so to avert from himself the threatening storm; therefore he also proposes to select the middle way between the two parties, of which the one calls Mary “Godbearer ,” and the other “Man-bearer,” by adopting the expression “Christbearer.” Finally, he remarks that shortly by God’s help an Oecumenical Council of the Church will take place and again restore ecclesiastical peace. f60 John, Bishop of Antioch, was most anxious to bring about such a peace as soon as possible, even without a Synod. he had been in his youth a friend of Nestorius, and immediately after receiving the papal letter already mentioned he urged hint to submission. The limit of ten days, he said, was certainly brief, but it needed only a few hours to give his approval to the expression qeoto>kov which was quite applicable to the saving Incarnation and Birth of Christ, and had been used by many of the Fathers. Here, then, was no danger, and consequently no reason for hesitation, especially as Nestorius himself acknowledged that this expression had also a quite orthodox meaning. It was in fact perfectly accurate, and if it were rejected, then it would of necessity follow that He who had come into the world for us was not God. And certainly the Holy Scripture represented this as the most glorious operation of the grace of God, that the eternal Son of God was born of the Virgin; without the Logos having thereby suffered any unworthy change. Therefore Paul says ( Galatians 4:4): “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman.” Nestorius ought then to accept the expression qeoto>kov ; and this was not only his counsel, but also that of many other Eastern Bishops, of whom he particularly mentioned several. f61 Nestorius answered courteously but evasively, expressed a hope that the controversy might be discontinued, but at the same time gave no promise respecting qeoto>kov , and referred everything specially to the expected Oecumenical Synod. From Rome, however, he had still received nothing, for Cyril, whose duty it was to transmit the sentence, first held another SEC. 131. SYNOD AT ALEXANDRIA, in order to draw up Or have sanctioned a formula of belief, which Nestorius should be required to accept, if the judgment pronounced against him at Rome was not to be put in force. The very comprehensive letter to Nestorius, prepared by Cyril and sanctioned by this Synod, begins with somewhat violent complaints of his heresy, which it was a sacred duty to resist. Then follows the announcement that Nestorius, in case he refuses to depart from his errors within the space of time allowed by Pope Coelestine, shall be entirely excluded from the number of God’s bishops and priests. It is not sufficient that he acknowledge the Creed of Nicaea, for he understands it in an erroneous and perverse manner, and therefore he must add a written and sworn declaration, that he moreover condemns his (previous) pernicious and unholy assertions, and will in future believe and teach the same as Cyril, as the Synod, and the Bishops of the East and West. This orthodox doctrine is now explained in the following paper, and in the first place the Nicene Creed (without the additions of Constantinople, but along with the Anathema appended against Arianism) is verbally repeated. To this is added a doctrinal discussion of the point of doctrine in question, and it is said: “Following the Confessions of the Fathers, and thus also going along the royal road (basilikhmenoi tri>bon), we explain that. the only-begotten Logos of God... assumed flesh of the blessed Virgin, made it His own, subjected Himself to human birth, and came forth from the woman as Man, without casting off that which He was, but even in the flesh remaining the same, namely, true God in His nature. And the flesh (= human nature) was not changed into the nature of the Godhead, nor the nature of the divine Logos into that of the flesh, for it is subject to no change. But even as a child and in the mother’s bosom, the Logos at the same time filled the whole world, and was Governor of it along with His Father, for the Godhead has no bounds and limits. If, however, the Logos is hypostatically united with the flesh, then we reverence only one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, and do not sever man and God, nor believe that they are united (suna>ptw ) only in dignity and power: — these are new expressions. We do not teach two Christs, of whom the one was the true Logos of God, the other the true Sort of the woman, but we know only one Christ, the divine Word, united with that which has become His own flesh (e[na mo>non eijdo>tev Cristogon meta< th~v ijdi>av sarko>v). Moreover, we do not say that the divine Word dwelt in the man who was born of the holy Virgin, as in an ordinary man, and we do not call Christ a qeofo>rov a]nqrwpov ; for when we say that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ (Col 2:9), we do not thereby mean such a dwelling as that of the Godhead in the saints, but that in Christ the Godhead united itself with the manhood kata< fu>sin, just as in man the soul is united with the body.

There is thus one Christ, one Son and Lord, and not merely by the suna>feia with the divine dignity and power, by which different natures are not united. Peter and John had equal dignity, for both were apostles and both holy disciples, but yet they were not one Person. Moreover, the expression suna>feia is not admissible, because it does not clearly indicate the union; nor can we properly say that the divine Logos is the Lord of Christ, since thereby we should again separate the one Lord and Christ. So also we should not say: I reverence Nestorius who is borne (the human nature of Christ) on account, of Nestorius who bears Nestorius, the visible on account of the invisible; or, He who is assumed is called God, together with Nestorius who assumed Nestorius; for in this way, too, would Christ be divided into a God and a man. On the contrary, we must conceive of Christ as One, and honor Nestorius together with the flesh which has become His own. Further, we acknowledge that the only-begotten Son of God is, in His own nature, incapable of suffering, but that, for our sake, He suffered in the flesh, and was in the crucified body, and being free from suffering, He appropriated to Himself the sufferings of His own flesh” (ta< th~v ijdi>av sarkonhv pa>qh ), and so forth.

That this is the orthodox doctrine, the synodal letter afterwards shows very beautifully by reference to the eucharistic belief, thus: “This very fact, that we acknowledge that the only-begotten Son of God died in the flesh, rose, and ascended into heaven, qualifies us for offering the unbloody sacrifice in the Church, and, by participation in the holy flesh and precious blood of the Redeemer, for receiving the mystical blessing so as to be sanctified. We receive it not as common flesh, nor as the flesh of an eminently sanctified man, or of one who has received dignity by being united with the Logos or by the divine indwelling, but as the true life-giving and proper flesh of the Word. For since He as God is, in His own nature, life, and is become One with his own flesh, so has He imparted to this flesh a life-giving power.”

The Synod further explains a series of Scripture passages, to which Nestorius, like the Arians, had appealed. These are the passages of which one class ascribe full divine dignity to Christ, while another class express a limitation and the like. If the Arians had endeavored from the latter class to prove their theory of subordination, Nestorius, on the other hand, made use of both classes of texts to justify his division of Christ into a Son of man and a Son of God. The Synod, in opposition to this, shows how both classes of texts apply to one and the same Christ, and developes the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. When he speaks of Himself according to His Godhead, says the Synod, we refer this to His divine nature; and when He ascribes to Himself human imperfections, we refer these expressions also to the divine Logos, in so far as He has become man, and has voluntarily emptied Himself of His glory; as, for example, when Christ is called an High Priest and the like, or it is said of the Holy Ghost that He has glorified Christ. All such expressions must be assigned to one Person, the one incarnate Hypostasis (Personality) of the Logos.

But since the holy Virgin bore, after the flesh, God hypostatically united with the flesh, we call her the God-bearer; yet not as though the nature of the Logos had first taken the beginning of its being from the flesh (the body of Mary), but because the Word, uniting the human hypostatically with Himself, subjected Himself to a fleshly birth from a human mother.

SEC. 132. THE ANATHEMATISMS OF CYRIL AND THE COUNTER ANATHEMATISMS OF NESTORIUS.

At the close of their letter the Synod summed up the whole in the celebrated twelve anathematisms, composed by Cyril, with which Nestorius was required to agree. They are the following: — 1. “If any one does not confess that Emmanuel is true God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is God-bearer, since she bore, after the flesh, the incarnate Word of God, let him be anathema.” 2. “If any one does not confess that the Logos from God the Father hypostatically united Himself with the flesh (= human nature), and with that which has become His own flesh is one Christ, God and man together, let him be anathema.” 3. “If any one separates the hypostases (= natures) as to their unity in the one Christ, connecting them only by a suna>feia in dignity, power, and appearance, and not rather by a conjunction in physical union (kai< oujci< dh< ma~llon suno>dw| th~| kaq e[nwsin fusikh This is the proposition on account of which the Nestorians accused S. Cyril of Monophysitism. But S. Athanasius had already spoken of an e[nwsiv fusikh<, and (like the Alexandrian Synod) had spoken of an union kata< fu>sin , without thereby intending to signify a mingling or confusion of the two natures in Christ. Rather by that expression did he understand the union of the Godhead and manhood into one Being, or one existence, in which they still remain two distinct elements, which are never mingled, but which are indissolubly connected (see above, p. 3). This mode of expression employed by his great predecessor Cyril now adopted, and understood, as he himself expressly declared in his reply to the polemic of Theodoret of Cyrus, by e[nwsiv fusikh< , not an e[nwsiv eijv mi>an fu>sin, which would certainly be Monophysitism, but only a true, real union, an union into one Being, into one existence, in opposition to a merely moral or external union, such as the Nestorians admitted. In the first words of the anathematism before us Cyril would not and could not in any way deny the duality of natures, for he speaks everywhere of two natures in Christ; but he wishes to reject the separating of them. tie distinguishes them indeed, but does not divide them. 4. “If any one divides the expressions which are used in the evangelical and apostolic writings or by the saints, in reference to Christ, or which are by Nestorius applied to Himself, between two Persons (prosw>poiv) or Hypostases, and specially ascribes the one class to the man, separated from the divine Logos, and the other as divine merely to the Logos, let him be anathema.” 5. “If any one ventures to say that Christ is a man who bears God (qeofo>ron ), and not rather, that He is true God, as the One Son in nature, in accordance with the expression: ‘The Word was made flesh’ (S. John 1:14), and ‘He partook of flesh and blood’ ( Hebrews 2:14); let him be anathema.” 6. “If any one ventures to say that the divine Logos is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess that one and the same is at the same time God and man, since, according to the Holy Scripture, the Logos became flesh, let him be anathema.” 7. “If any one says that the divine Logos only worked in the man Jesus, and that the glory of the Only-begotten was only conjoined (perih~fqai) with Jesus as something foreign; let him be anathema.” 8. “If any one ventures to say that the man assumed is to be reverenced, praised, and acknowledged as God, along with God the Logos, as if the one were separate from the other — for this is the necessary meaning of the word with (su>n ) which is always employed (by Nestorius) — and does not rather reverence Emmanuel in one reverence, and direct one praise to Nestorius, as the Word made flesh; let him be anathema.” 9. “If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as though the power thus employed, which is through Nestorius, were a foreign one, as though He had first received from the Spirit might over evil demons, and miraculous power, and does not rather regard the Spirit by whom He wrought miracles as His own; let him be anathema.” 10. “If any one says that it was not the divine Logos Himself, when He was made flesh and man, like us, but another than He, a man distinct from Nestorius (ijdikw~v a]nqrwpov ), who became our High Priest and Apostle (according to Hebrews 3:1 and Ephesians 5:2); or says that He gave Himself as a sacrifice not for us alone, but also for Himself, although He as the sinless One needed no sacrifice; let him be anathema.” 11 . “If any one does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and belongs to the divine Logos as His own, but says that it belongs to another external to Nestorius, who is united with Nestorius only in dignity, or only participates in the divine indwelling; and does not rather hold it to be life-giving, for this reason, as we have said, that it belongs to the Logos, who can make all things live; let him be anathema.” 12. “If any one does not confess that the Word of God suffered in (or after) the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and became the first-born from the dead, since He as God is life and the life-giver; let him be anathema.” f65 In a second, much shorter, and less important letter to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, the Alexandrian Synod, with Cyril at its head, expresses the hope that Nestorius will now forsake his false doctrines. But the zeal with which he has propagated them in sermons and writings, has made it necessary that Pope Coelestine should limit him to a certain period for recanting, and no reproach can be brought against Cyril and the Synod on account of the long delay which has already occurred. Those whom they address should, however, hold fast by the orthodox doctrine, and have no communion with Nestorius. f66 The Synod addressed a third letter to the monks of Constantinople, of similar purport with the preceding, and at the same time sent four commissioners with full authority to Constantinople — two Egyptian Bishops, Theopentus and Daniel; and two of the Alexandrian clergy, Potamon and Macarius, who, on a Sunday, in the Cathedral, solemnly and publicly delivered to Nestorius the synodal letter respecting him, together with the documents from Rome. He gave no answer, but appointed to meet the deputies on the following day; but when this arrived he did not admit them, nor did he give them a written answer, but, on the contrary, stirred up the Emperor Theodosius the younger, so that he endeavored to frighten Cyril by threats in consequence of his persecution of Nestorius; and further, Nestorius published, on his part, twelve anathematisms, representing Cyril as a heretic. These have been preserved for us only by the Western layman Marius Mercator, who took a great interest in both the Pelagian and the Nestorian controversies, on the orthodox side, and employed his residence for the transaction of business in Constantinople, in translating the sermons and writings of Nestorius into Latin, so as to make them more accessible to the Westerns. The twelve counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, of which each number corresponds with the same number of Cyril’s, are as follow: — f69 1. “If any one says that Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that He has united Himself to a like nature with ours, which He assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if any one calls Mary the mother of God the Logos, and not rather mother of Nestorius who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Logos has changed Himself into flesh, which He only assumed in order to make His Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.” 2. “If any one asserts that, at the union of the Logos with the flesh, the divine Essence moved from one place to another; or says that the flesh is capable of receiving the divine nature, and unites this partially with the flesh; or ascribes to the flesh, by reason of its reception of God, an extension to the infinite and boundless, and says that God and man are one and the same in nature; let him be anathema.” 3. “If any one says that Christ, who is also Emmanuel, is One, not (merely) in consequence of connection, but (also) in nature, and does not acknowledge the connection (suna>feia ) of the two natures, that of the Logos and of the assumed manhood, in one Son, as still continuing without mingling; let him be anathema.” 4. “If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one only of those natures, and ascribes even suffering to the divine Logos, both in the flesh and in the Godhead; let him be anathema.” 5. “If any one ventures to say that, even after the assumption of human nature, there is only one Son of God, namely, He who is so in nature (naturaliter filius = Logos), while He (since the assumption of the flesh) is certainly Emmanuel; let him be anathema.” 6. “If any one, after the Incarnation, calls another than Christ the Logos, and ventures to say that the form of a servant is equally with the Logos of God, without beginning and uncreated, and not rather that it is made by Nestorius as its natural Lord and Creator and God, and that He has promised to raise it again in the words: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again;’ let him be anathema.” 7. “If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born from the bosom of the Father, before the morning star was ( <19A903> Psalm 109:3), and does not rather confess that He has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of His connection with Nestorius who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father; and besides, if any one calls another than the Emmanuel Christ; let him be anathema.” 8. “If any one says that the form of a servant should, for its own sake, that is, in reference to its own nature, be reverenced, and that it is the ruler of all things, and not rather, that (merely) on account of its connection with the holy and in itself universally ruling nature of the Only-begotten, it is to be reverenced; let him be anathema.” 9. “If any one says that the form of a servant is of like nature with the Holy Ghost, and not rather that it owes its union with the Logos which has existed since the conception, to His mediation, by which it wrought miraculous healings among men, and possessed the power of expelling demons; let him be anathema.” 10. “If any one maintains that the Word, wire is from the beginning, has become the High Priest and Apostle of our confession, and has offered Himself for us, and does not rather say that it is the work of Emmanuel to be an apostle; and if any one in such a manner divides the sacrifice between Nestorius who united (the Logos) and Nestorius who was united (the manhood), referring it to a common sonship, that is, not giving to God that which is God’s, and to man that which is man’s; let him be anathema.” 11. “If any one maintains that the flesh which is united with God the Word is by the power of its own nature life-giving, whereas the Lord Himself says, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing’ (S. John 6:64), let him be anathema.” [He adds, “God is a Spirit” (S. John 4:24). “If, then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a carnal manner, in His substance, become flesh, and persists in this with reference to the Lord Christ, who Himself after His resurrection said to His disciples,’ Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having’ (S. Luke 24:39); let him be anathema”] f74 12. “If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, ascribes these also to the Logos of God, as to the flesh in which He appeared, and thus does not distinguish the dignity of the natures; let him be anathema.”

One can easily see that Nestorius is here doing battle with windmills, since he ascribes to S. Cyril views which he never held. But, at the same time, he allows his own error in many ways to appear, — -his separation of the divine and human in Christ, and his rending of the one Christ in two.

It was, however, not Nestorius merely, but the whole Antiochene school in general, which was dissatisfied with the anathematisms of Cyril, and particularly John, Archbishop of Antioch, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, and the celebrated Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, thought that they detected in them Apollinarian errors, which they opposed in letters and treatises.

John of Antioch especially found fault, in a letter to Firmus, Archbishop of Caesarea, and other Oriental Bishops, with the third anathematism, from its saying that the flesh of Christ was one nature with the Godhead, and that the manhood and Godhead in Christ constitute only one nature, tie thus misunderstood the expression e[nwsiv fusikh< , and added that he could not believe that this sentence really proceeded from Cyril, and now, in a manner wholly inconsistent with his previous letter to Nestorius, came round to his side, especially as the latter had recently declared his willingness to admit the expression God-bearer in a certain sense. Andrew of Samosata wrote a whole book against the anathematisms of Cyril, and a considerable part of it has been preserved for us in an apologia of Cyril’s directed against it, from which we see that Andrew contested every one of those twelve propositions, but particularly the third, where he professed to see in the expression e[nwsiv fusikh< mingling of the two natures, and consequently monophysitism. Still more weight had the voice of Theodoret, particularly as he corn-bated the anathematisms of Cyril, and not in one treatise only, but in several, written partly of his own accord, and partly at the request of his ecclesiastical superior, the Bishop of Antioch.

Some, and particularly Protestant scholars, for example, Schrockh, f78 Fuchs, and others, have ventured to maintain that Cyril departed at least as far as Nestorius, if not further, from the orthodox line, and that the whole controversy between the two was a mere strife of words, and did not touch the kernel of Christianity. In opposition to this assertion, which is as false as it is superficial, Dr. Gengler expresses himself, in his treatise on the condemnation of Nestorius, in the following admirable manner: “In truth, the controversy by which the Church, after storms which had scarcely been stilled, was shaken anew in the middle of the fifth century, was not merely about a word, but the question had reference to a whole system of doctrinal propositions, which in their organic connection threatened to destroy the kernel of the Christian faith, and to this system the expression was thoroughly entangled, this expression was the qeoto>kov was not adapted. In opposition to this false theory, in which Nestorius thoroughly entangled, this expression was the very shibboleth of the true Christian doctrine, and had for the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century the same significance as the expression oJmoou>siov in the Arian controversy. This truth stood plain and clear before the mind of Cyril. He declared, and he was most clearly conscious, that this was the state of the controversy. He compared in the same way, as has already been mentioned, the expression qeoto>kov with oJmoou>siov and truly; for just as the great Athanasius saved the Christian doctrine of the Logos by his persistent and energetic defense of the oJmoou>siov so Cyril, by his defense of the qeoto>kov , saved the true doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos. This was acknowledged also by his contemporaries; they gave him the commendation which he deserved by calling him a second Athanasius.

He was that. With the same clearness as Athanasius, he grasped the real point of the controversy from the very beginning, He was not fighting with shadows. There was no need for his views to grow clearer in the course of the controversy. At the end he maintained nothing different from what he asserted at the beginning, and the confession of faith which he subscribed at the end was not a retractation, — it was nothing but what he had long maintained, but which his opponents, in their passionate blindness, could not or would not acknowledge.’

CHAPTER 2. Beginning, Conflict, And Victory Of The Synod Of Ephesus.

SEC. 133. CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD — THE PAPAL AND IMPERIAL COMMISSIONERS.

As we have already seen, it was not long after the out-break of the Nestorian controversy that it was proposed to hold an Oecumenical Council for its settlement, and this was expressly demanded both by the orthodox and by Nestorius. In his third letter to Pope Coelestine, Nestorius spoke of this (see above, p. 28); and, in like manner, the letter of the monks of Constantinople to the Emperor, in which they complained of the ill-treatment which they had received from Nestorius, contains a loudlyexpressed desire for the application of this ecclesiastical remedy. In fact, the Emperor Theodosius II., so early as November 19, 430, and thus a few days before the anathematisms of Cyril arrived at Constantinople, issued a circular letter, bearing also the name of his Western colleague, Valentinian III., addressed to all the metropolitans, in which he summoned them, for the Pentecost of the following year, to an Oecumenical Synod at Ephesus.

He added that each of them should bring with him from his province some able suffragan bishops, and that whoever should arrive too late should be gravely responsible before God and the Emperor. Theodosius was in this visibly anxious that he should not allow that prepossession for Nestorius, which he had already betrayed on several occasions, to appear in this important document; and therefore this feeling showed itself the more openly in his letter (Sacra imperatoria), already referred to (see above, p. 3), addressed to Cyril, in which he accuses him of having disturbed the peace, of having given forth rash utterances, of not having acted openly and honorably, and of having brought every thing to confusion. Particularly he blamed him for having communicated in writing with the Augusta (co- Empress) Pulcheria, and the consort of the Emperor, Eudocia, and for having most improperly endeavored, by means of this letter, in an underhand way, to work out a malicious design of sowing discord even in the imperial family. Still he would forgive him what was past; and he added that on the subject of the contested doctrinal propositions the future Synod would decide, and that what they should decide must be universally accepted. It would be especially a duty for Cyril to appear at the Council, for the Emperor would not any one should only be a ruler, and not take common counsel with others, nor allow himself to be taught by them. The conclusion of the letter contains some further bitter remarks of a similar character. f84 The Emperor had despatched a peculiarly respectful letter to Augustine, on account of his great celebrity, inviting him to come to the Synod at Ephesus, and Bad expressly entrusted an official of the name of Ebagnius with the delivery of the letter. But Augustine was already (August 22 [28], 430) dead, and thus the bearer of the letter could only bring back to Constantinople the news of his death. f85 Cyril, on his part, now found it necessary to ask of Pope Coelestine whether Nestorius should be allowed to appear at the proposed Synod as a member, or whether the sentence of deposition pronounced against him, after the period of time allowed for recanting had elapsed, should now still have effect. We no longer possess this letter itself, but we have the answer of the Pope, dated May 7, 431, which gives a beautiful proof of his peaceloving disposition, and in which he says, God willeth not the death of the sinner, but his conversion, and that Cyril should do everything in order to restore the peace of the Church and to win Nestorius to the truth. If the latter is quite determined against this, then he must reap what, with the help of the devil, he has sown. A second letter was addressed by the Pope, May 15, 431, to the Emperor Theodosius, saying that he could not personally be present at the Synod, but that he would take part in it by commissioners. The Emperor should allow no innovations, and no disturbance of the peace of the Church. He should even regard the interests of the Faith as higher than those of the State, and the peace of the Church as more important than the peace of the nations. As his legates at the Synod, the Pope appointed the two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, and gave them a commission to hold strictly by Cyril, but at the same time to preserve the dignity of the Apostolic See. They were to take part in the assemblies, but not themselves to mix in the discussions (between the Nestorians and their opponents), but to give judgment on the views of others. After the close of the Synod an inquiry should be instituted, requirendum est, qualiter fuerint res finitae. If the old faith triumphed, and Cyril went to the Emperor at Constantinople, they were also to go there and deliver to the Prince the papal briefs. If, however, no peaceful decision were arrived at, they were to consider with Cyril what must be done. The papal letter, which they had to lay before the Synod, dated May 8, 431, first explains with much eloquence the duty of the bishops to preserve the true faith, and then, at the close, goes on: “The legates are to be present at the transactions of the Synod, and will give effect to that which the Pope has long ago decided with respect to Nestorius, for he does not doubt that the assembled bishops will agree with this.” f89 As the Pope, so neither could either of the Emperors appear personally at Ephesus, and therefore Theodosius II., in his own name and in that of his colleague Valentinian III., appointed the Count Candidian (captain of the imperial bodyguard) as the protector of the Council. In the edict which he addressed to the Synod on this subject, he says that Candidian is to take no immediate part in the discussions on contested points of faith; for it is not becoming that one who does not belong to the number of the bishops should mix himself up in the examination and decision of theological controversies. On the contrary, Candidian was to remove from the city the monks and laymen who had come or should afterwards come to Ephesus out of curiosity, so that disorder and confusion should not be caused by those who were in no way needed for the examination of the sacred doctrines, tie was, besides, to watch lest the discussions among the members of the Synod themselves should degenerate into violent disputes and hinder the more exact investigation of truth; and, on the contrary, see that every statement should be heard with attention, and that every one put forward his view, or his objections, without let or hindrance, so that at last an unanimous decision might be arrived at in peace by the holy Synod. But above all, Candidian was to take care that no member of the Synod should attempt, before the close of the transactions, to go home, or to the court, or elsewhere. Moreover, he was not to allow that any other matter of controversy should be taken into consideration before the settlement of the principal point of doctrine before the Council. Further, the Emperor had given order that no civil accusation should be brought against any member of the Synod, either before the Synod itself or before the court of justice in Ephesus; but that, during this time, only the supreme court at Constantinople should be the competent tribunal for such cases. Finally, a second imperial count, Irenaeus, was to appear at Ephesus, but he was only to accompany his friend, the God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, and therefore should take no part in the transactions of the Synod, nor in the commission of Candidian. f90 In accordance with the imperial command, the Synod was to begin at Pentecost (June 7) in the year 431, and Nestorius, with his sixteen bishops, was among the first who arrived at Ephesus. As though going to battle, he was accompanied by a large number of men in armor. Soon afterwards, four or five days before Pentecost, Cyril arrived, with fifty bishops, about one-half of his suffragans; and we still possess two short letters from him to his Church, of which the one was written on the journey at Rhodes, and the other immediately after his arrival at Ephesus. In the latter he says particularly that he looks forward with longing to the actual opening of the Synod. Some days after Pentecost, Juvenal of Jerusalem and Flavian of Thessalonica appeared with their bishops; Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus, too, had assembled around him forty of his suffragans and twelve bishops from Pamphylia. While they were waiting for the arrival of the others, there was already a good deal of preliminary conversation on the point in question, and particularly Cyril endeavored to drive Nestorius into a corner by acute arguments, and to gain friends for the true doctrine.

It was then that Nestorius allowed himself to break out into the exclamation: “Never will I call a child, two or three months old, God; and I will have no more communication with you;” and at the same time showed clearly the nature of his heresy, which, up to this time, he had endeavored in various ways to disguise, and also his obstinacy, which left no hope of his submission to the decision of a Synod.

SEC. 134. FIRST SESSION, JUNE 22, 431. — PRESIDENCY AND NUMBER OF THOSE PRESENT.

There was still wanting one of the superior metropolitans (patriarchs), namely, John of Antioch. His bishops, he said, could not leave their dioceses before Renovation Sunday (Dominica in Albis), and then it would take them twelve days to travel to Antioch, and from thence to Ephesus thirty-nine, so that they could not arrive until some days after Pentecost. f96 At last (just about Pentecost) John came into the neighborhood of Ephesus, and sent to Cyril a letter, which is still extant, full of friendliness, setting forth that the length of the road and the death of several of their horses had delayed the journey, but that nevertheless he was close at hand, and would appear at Ephesus in five or six days. In spite of this they waited sixteen days; and then two of the metropolitans of the patriarchate of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis, came and repeatedly declared that “John had bid them say that they were no longer to defer the opening of the Synod on his account, but, in case it should be necessary for him to delay longer, they were to do what was to be done.” From this they inferred that the Patriarch John was intending to avoid being personally present at the condemnation of his former priest and friend Nestorius. Cyril and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate opening of the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th day of the Egyptian month Payni (= June 22) 431, in the cathedral of Ephesus, which, with great suitableness for that assembly, was dedicated to the God-bearer, and named after her. On the day before, several bishops received a commission to go to Nestorius and invite him to the session, in order to give an account of his statements and doctrines. At first he replied, “I will consider it.” When, however, a second deputation, sent on the 22d of June by the Synod, then opening, came to him, his residence was, by command of Candidian, surrounded with troops, who prevented the bishops, by threats of blows, from entering, and Nestorius sent them word that “he would appear as soon as all the bishops were assembled.” The Synod now, for the third time, sent off some bishops to him; but these received no further answer, and were treated with insolence by the soldiers on guard in and around the house. f102 At an earlier period, sixty-eight Asiatic bishops, among whom were, in particular, Theodoret of Cyrus and the two above-mentioned metropolitans of Apamea and Hierapolis, in a letter to Cyril and Juvenal, had requested that they would be pleased to defer the opening of the Synod until the arrival of bishops from Antioch. Now, however, the imperial commissioner, Candidian, himself appeared in the place of assembly, in order to have the imperial decrees read, and to protest against the immediate opening of the Synod. His demand, that they should wait four days longer, remained disregarded, and the first solemn session began under the presidency of Cyril, who as is expressly stated in the Acts, also represented the Pope. No fewer than 160 bishops were present from the beginning, and when (still at the first session) the document of deposition came to be subscribed, their number had increased to 198. f107 Particularly were there twenty of those sixty-eight Asiatic bishops who had gone over to the side of the Synod, as is clear from a comparison of their names with the subscriptions of the synodal Acts. The first thing which was done at the Synod was the reading of the imperial letter of convocation to all the metropolitans (see above, p. 40). That they should begin with this had been proposed by the Presbyter Peter of Alexandria, who acted as senior notary during the whole Synod, and externally controlled the arrangement of the business. f109 Thereupon Bishop Memnon of Ephesus pointed out that sixteen days had elapsed beyond the limit appointed for the opening; and Cyril explained that, even in accordance with the express command of the Emperor, they must without delay begin with the transactions respecting the faith.

Thereupon reference was made to the first invitation sent to Nestorius on the previous day, and directly afterwards the second and third deputations, already referred to, were sent to him, and the reports of the bishops who had returned were received. As Nestorius decidedly declined to appear, they proceeded, on the motion of Juvenal, to an examination of the point of doctrine in question, and began by reading the Nicene Creed. They next proceeded to the reading of the second letter which Cyril, as we saw, had a long time before addressed to Nestorius, in which he had explained the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ (see above, p. 21). To the question of Cyril, whether this letter of his agreed with the contents of the Nicene Creed, all the bishops present answered, and among them 126 in short speeches still preserved (explanatory of their votes), in a manner entirely affirmative and consentient, and for the most part full of commendation for Cyril. It then came to the turn to read the letter which Nestorius had sent in answer to the letter of Cyril just mentioned (see above, p. 21), and after thirty-four bishops, in explaining their votes, had declared emphatically its nonagreement with the Nicene faith, all the bishops cried out together: “If any one does not anathematize Nestorius, let him be himself anathema; the true faith anathematizes him, the holy Synod anathematizes him. If any one has communion with Nestorius, let him be anathema. We all anathematize the letter and the doctrines of Nestorius. We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine.

We all anathematize the impious (ajsebh~ ) Nestorius,” and so forth. f113 Afterwards there were two other documents read, namely, the letter of Coelestine and the Roman Synod (p. 25 f.), and that of S. Cyril and of the Alexandrian Synod to Nestorius; and the four clerics whom Cyril had sent to deliver that document to Nestorius were examined as to the result of their mission. They gave the information, with which we are already acquainted (see above, p. 34), that Nestorius had given them no answer at all. In order, however, to be quite clear as to whether he still persisted in his error, two bishops, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene, who were personal friends of Nestorius, and had during the last three days been in habitual intercourse with him, and had endeavored to convert him from his error, were questioned on oath respecting the matter. They announced that, unfortunately, all their efforts with him had been in vain. f115 In order, however, to submit the doctrinal point in question to a thorough investigation, and in the light of patristic testimony, at the suggestion of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, a number of passages from the writings of the Fathers of the Church were now read, in which the ancient faith respecting the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ was expressed. These were statements of the opinions of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (t 311), of Athanasius, Pope Julius I. ( H 352), Pope Felix I. ( H 274), Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria ( H 412), of Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople ( H 426), and Amphilochius of Iconium ( H 394). All these early authorities knew nothing of the Nestorian separation of the Godhead and manhood, but, on the contrary, taught the true incarnation of the Logos. The venerable martyr, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, said: “God the Logos was made flesh, and born of the Virgin’s womb;” but Athanasius used frequently and unhesitatingly the expression qeoto>kov contested by Nestorius, and says: “As the flesh was born of the God-bearer Mary, so we say that He (the Logos) was Himself born of Mary.” And in a second passage Athanasius strongly blames those who (exactly like Nestorius) say that “the suffering and crucified Christ is not God the Logos;” who distinguish between Christ and the Logos, and do not confess, and do not acknowledge, “that the Logos, inasmuch as He assumed a body from Mary, was made man.” And in a third passage Athanasius teaches that “the Logos was in truth, in the full sense of the word (not qe>sei = by adoption, external connection), made man, otherwise He would not be our Redeemer.” In agreement with this Pope Julius said: “There are not two sons, one true who assumed the man, and another the man who was assumed by God, but an only-begotten God in heaven, and an onlybegotten God on earth.” Even Pope Felix I., who lived more than a century and a half before Nestorius, rejected his error, when he wrote: “We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, that H is the eternal Son and Word of God, and not a man assumed by God, distinct from that (Word). For the Son of God did not assume a man, so that this was distinct from Him, but He, the perfect God, was at the same time perfect man, made flesh of the Virgin.” Less striking are the passages from Cyprian and Ambrose; but Gregory of Nazianzus is again quite explicit: “We do not sever the man from the Godhead, but declare both to be one and the same who at the beginning was not man, but God, and the only Son of God, before all time and without all corporeity, but who at the end of the ages assumed man for the sake of our salvation. We confess that He is one and the same, divine and earthly, visible and invisible, and so forth, at the same time, so that through the whole man, who is at the same time God, the whole man, who has fallen into sin, is created anew.” The seven Anathematisms, too, which Gregory of Nazianzus appends to this passage, are entirely anti- Nestorian, and the very first of them anathematizes those who do not call Mary qeoto>kov , and the fourth those who hold that there are two sons, the one eternal from the Father, and a second from Mary.

Further, the passage selected from Basil sounds as if it had been written with reference to Nestorius; for it says: “The immeasurable and infinite God, without being capable of suffering (in Himself), by assuming flesh combated death, in order by His own suffering to deliver us from liability to suffering.” To the same effect, in fine, speak also Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople, Amphilochius of Iconium, and Theophilus of Antioch, “that God was born and died.” f116 In opposition to these patristic passages there were next read twenty passages, some longer and some shorter, from the writings of Nestorius, in which his fundamental views, which we have presented above connectedly, were expressed in separate parts and in concreto. f117 The last document which was produced at this first session was the letter of Capreolus, Archbishop of Carthage, in which he asks them, on account of the war in Africa (consequent upon the invasion of the Vandals), to excuse his own inability to be present, or to send any of his suffragan bishops. Besides, he said, the Emperor’s letter of invitation had not reached him until Easter 431, and thus too late; and Augustine, whose presence the Emperor specially wished, had died some time before. He (the archbishop) therefore sent only his deacon Bessula, and prayed the Synod to tolerate no novelties whatever in matters of religion. In this he does not refer expressly to Nestorius, but he unmistakably indicates that he reckons his doctrines among the unauthorized novelties. The Synod gave its approval to this letter of the African bishop, and proceeded at once (the intermediate speeches are not known to us) to the condemnation of Nestorius. The sentence is as follows: hJ aJgi>a su>nodov ei+pe Prote uJpakou~sai Boulhqe>ntov tou~ ajsebesta>tou Nestori>ou th~| par hJmw~n klh>sei mh>te mhntav aJgiwta>touv kai< Qeosebesta>touv ejpisko>pouv dexame>nou ajnagkai>wv ejcwrh>samen ejpi< thtasin tw~n dussebhqe>ntwn aujtw~|. Kai< fwra>santev aujtotwn aujtou~, kai< ejk tw~n ajrti>wv par aujtou~ rJhqe>ntwn kata< th>nde thpolin kai< pro>smarturhqe>ntwn dussebw~v fronou~nta kai< khru>ttonta ajnagkai>wv katepeicqe>ntev ajpo> te tw~n kano>nwn kai< ejk th~v ejpistolh~v tou~ aJgiwta>tou patronou tou~ ejpisko>pou th~v Rwmai>wn ejkklhsi>av dakru>santev polla>kiv ejpi< thsamen ajpo>fasin.

O blasfhmhqeinun par aujtou~ ku>riov hJmw~n Ihsou~v Cristoshv aJgiwta>thv suno>dou ajllo>trion ei+nai torion tou~ ejpiskopikou~ ajxiw>matov kai< pantogou ijeratikou~ ; that is: “As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Urged by canons (c. 74 Apostol .), and in accordance with the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Coelestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.”

As we have already remarked above, this judgment was in the first place subscribed by 198 bishops who were present. Some others afterwards took the same side, so that altogether over 200 subscribed. f120 The session had lasted from early in the morning into the night, and the assembled population of Ephesus waited the whole day to hear the decision. When this was at last known, there arose an universal rejoicing; they commended the Synod, and solemnly accompanied the members, particularly Cyril, with torches and censers to their houses. The city was also illuminated in many places. This is joyfully related by Cyril in one of the three letters which he despatched at that time to the members of his Church of Alexandria, and to the monks of Egypt. f121 On the next day the sentence which had been pronounced was sent to Nestorius himself in a very laconic edict. In the superscription he is called a new Judas, and in the text it is said briefly: “He must know that, on account of his impious doctrines and his disobedience to the canons (because he had not appeared in answer to the citations), he had been, on the 22d of June, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws, deposed by the holy Synod, and expelled from the body of the clergy.” f122 In two other similarly curt letters of the same date, the one to the collective people, the other to the clergy of Constantinople, the Synod announced that which had been done, and required the latter to watch carefully over all the property of the Church of Constantinople, so as to be able to give an account of it to him who should, in accordance with the will of God and the indication (neu>mati ) of the Emperor, become bishop of that city. f123 Cyril, as president of the Synod, wrote at greater length to his friends and agents in Constantinople, the Archimandrite Dalmatius and several (certainly Egyptian) bishops and priests, and related to them the whole course of the session, from the citation of Nestorius to his deposition, with the request that they would take care that no false rumors on the subject should go abroad. It was reputed that Count Candidian had already sent such false information (to the Emperor); whereas the Synod had not yet completed its full report (together with the Acts) to the Emperor. f124 SEC. 135. OPPOSITION. THE CONCILIABULUM OF THE ANTIOCHENE BISHOPS.

Candidian had, in fact, not only done what has been mentioned, but also had caused the placards to be torn down by which the sentence against Nestorius was to have been published, and had imposed silence upon the criers who proclaimed it in the city. At the same time he published an edict proclaiming his great displeasure with what had been done, and declared that which only a part had done before the arrival of John of Antioch, as well as the Latin bishops, to be wholly invalid, and in a separate letter adjured those bishops who had not taken part in the first session, not to give their adhesion to the others, but to await the opening of the Oecumenical Synod. Nestorius, too, did not fail to raise complaints, and immediately, even before the arrival of John of Antioch, addressed a letter to the Emperors, setting forth that the Egyptians and Asiatics had, of their own will, held a session, and thus had gone against the imperial command, which required a common consultation which should embrace all. Moreover, the people of Ephesus had been specially stirred up by their bishop, Memnon, and misled into committing all kinds of acts of violence against Nestorius and his friends. They had forced their way into their residences, had dispersed their meetings there, and had even threatened them with death. For this reason they had decided to take refuge in the Church of St. John or in a martyr’s chapel. and hold their sessions there; but Memnon had shut every door against them. The Emperor, therefore, was requested to allow them to return home again, or to protect them in Ephesus, and to see to the holding of a genuine Synod, at which only bishops should be present, and not monks and clerics, and further, only such bishops as were specially summoned to it. And for this purpose two learned bishops from each province, together with the metropolitan, would be sufficient. Besides Nestorius, ten other bishops signed this document: Fritilas of Heraclea, in Thrace; Helladius of Tarsus; Dexianus of Selencia; Himerius of Nicomedia; Alexander of Apamea; Eutherius of Tyana; Basilius of Thessaly; Maximus of Anazarbus; Alexander of Hierapolis; and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Mysia. f128 In order to preserve public opinion in Ephesus on the side of the Synod, sermons were preached by Cyril and by Rheginus, Archbishop of Constantia (Salamis), in Cyprus, and also repeatedly by Theodotus of Ancyra, in opposition to the heresy of Nestorius, and the Synod now sent to the Emperors their complete report, of which we have already spoken, in which it was specially explained why it had not been thought proper to wait longer before beginning the first session. Not only had sixteen days elapsed from the period of the opening of the Council appointed by the Emperors, but many bishops had already fallen sick at Ephesus, and some had even died, and particularly, the most aged of the bishops were earnestly longing to return home. Besides, John of Antioch had requested them, through Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis, to begin at once. They had therefore, notwithstanding the refusal of Nestorius to appear, opened the Synod on the 22d of June, and in doing so had placed the holy Gospel, as the representative of Christ, on the throne which was set up in the midst of the assembly. Then all besides which had taken place in the first session was accurately and particularly related and described to Pope Coelestine, who had already pronounced the same judgment as the Synod upon Nestorius. Finally, the Emperors were entreated to take care that the heresy should be eradicated from all the Churches and the books of Nestorius burnt. The Acts of the Synod, which had in the meantime been prepared, were also enclosed. f130 A few days afterwards, on the 26th or 27th of June, John of Antioch arrived at last at Ephesus, and the Synod immediately sent a deputation to meet him, consisting of several bishops and clerics, to show him proper respect, and at the same time to make him acquainted with the deposition of Nestorius, so that he might not be drawn into any intercourse with him.

The soldiers who surrounded Archbishop John prevented the deputation from speaking to him in the street; consequently they accompanied him to his abode, but were compelled to wait here for several hours, exposed to the insults of the soldiers, and at last, when they had discharged their commission, were driven home, ill-treated and beaten. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, had suggested this treatment, and approved of it. The envoys immediately informed the Synod of what had happened, and showed the wounds which they had received, which called forth great indignation against John of Antioch. According to the representation of Memnon, excommunication was for this reason pronounced against him; but we shall see further on that this did not take place until afterwards, and it is clear that Memnon, in his very brief narrative, has passed over an intermediate portion the threefold invitation of John. In the meantime, Candidian had gone still further in his opposition to the members of the Synod, causing them to be annoyed and insulted by his soldiers, and even cutting off their supply of food, while he provided Nestorius with a regular body-guard of armed peasants. John of Antioch, immediately after his arrival, while still dusty from the journey, f135 and at the time when he was allowing the envoys of the Synod to wait, held at his own residence a Conciliabulum with his adherents, at which, first of all, Count Candidian related how Cyril and his friends, in spite of all warnings, and in opposition to the imperial decrees, had held a session five days before, had contested his (the count’s) right to be present, had dismissed the bishops sent by Nestorius, and had paid no attention to the letters of others. Before he proceeded further, John of Antioch requested that the Emperor’s edict of convocation should be read, whereupon Candidian went on with his account of what had taken place, and in answer to a fresh question of John’s, declared that Nestorius had been condemned unheard. John found this quite in keeping with the disposition of the Synod, since, instead of receiving him and his companions in a friendly manner, they had rushed upon them tumultuously (it was thus that he described what had happened). But the holy Synod, which was now assembled, would decide what was proper with respect to them. And this Synod, of which John speaks in such grandiloquent terms, numbered only forty-three members, including himself, while on the other side there were more than two hundred.

John then proposed the question, what was to be decided respecting Cyril and his adherents; and several who were not particularly pronounced Nestorian bishops, came forward to relate how Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus had, from the beginning, maltreated the Nestorians, had allowed them no church, and even on the festival of Pentecost had permitted them to hold no service. Besides, Memnon had sent his clerics into the residences of the bishops, and had ordered them with threats to take part in his council. And in this way he and Cyril had confused everything, so that their own heresies might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian, the Apollinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in the last letter of Cyril (to Nestorius, along with the anathe-matisms). It was therefore John’s duty to see to it that the heads of these heresies (Cyril and.

Memnon) should be suitably punished for such grave offenses, and that the bishops who had been misguided by them should be subjected to ecclesiastical penalties.

To these impudent and false accusations John replied with hypocritical meekness, “that he had certainly wished that he should not be compelled to exclude from the Church any one who had been received into the sacred priesthood, but diseased members must certainly be cut off in order to save the whole body; and for this reason Cyril and Memnon deserved to be deposed, because they had given occasion to disorders, and had acted in opposition to the commands of the Emperors, and, besides, were in the chapters mentioned (the anathe-matisms) guilty of heresy. All who had been misled by them were to be excommunicated until they confessed their error, anathematized the heretical propositions of Cyril, adhered strictly to the creed of Nicaea, without any foreign addition, and joined the Synod of John.”

The assembly approved of this proposal, and John then announced the sentence in the following manner: — “The holy Synod, assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and the command of the pious Emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to be able to hold a Synod in peace, but because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate disposition, although we were already in the neighborhood, and have filled both the city and the holy Synod with confusion, in order to prevent the examination of your Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies, and have not waited for the arrival of the holy bishops of all regions, and have also disregarded the warnings and admonitions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyril of Alexandria, and you, Memnon of this place, know that you are deposed and dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originators of the whole disorder, etc. You others, who gave your consent, are excommunicated, until you acknowledge your fault and reform, accept anew the Nicene faith (as if they had surrendered it!) without foreign addition, anathematize the heretical propositions of Cyril, and in all things comply with the command of the Emperors, who require a peaceful and more accurate consideration of the dogma.” f136 This decree was subscribed by all the forty-three members of the Conciliabulum: John of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea, and Alexander of Hierapolis; John, Metropolitan of Damascus; Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Marcianople; Dexianus, Metropolitan of Selencia; Basilius, Metropolitan of Thessaly; Antiochus, Metropolitan of Bostra; Paulus, Bishop of Emesa; Apringius of Chalcis; Polychronius of Heraclea; Cyril of Adana; Ausonius of Himeria; Musaeus of Aradus and Antaradus; Hesychius of Castabala; Salustius of Corycus; Jacobus of Dorostolus; Zosis of Isbuntis; Eustathius of Parnassus; Diogenes of Seleucobelus; Placon of Laodicaea; Polychronius of Epiphania; Fritilas, Metropolitan of Heraclea; Himerius, Metropolitan of Nicomedia; Eutherius, Metropolitan of Tyana; Asterius, Metropolitan of Areida; Theodoret, the famous Bishop of Cyrus; Macarius, Bishop of Laodicaea Major; Theosebius of Cios, in Bithynia; Maximian, Metropolitan of Anazarbus; Gerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis; Cyrus of Marcopolis; Aurelius of Irenopolis; Meletius of Neocaesarea; Helladius of Ptolemais; Tarianus (Trajanus) of Augusta; Valentinus of Mallus; Marcianus of Abrytus; Daniel of Faustinopolis; Julian of Larissa; Heliades of Zeugma; and Marcellinus of Arca. f137 The Conciliabulum then, in very one-sided letters, informed the Emperor, the imperial ladies (the wife and sister of the Emperor Theodosius II.), the clergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople, of all that had taken place, and a little later once more required the members of the genuine Synod, in writing, no longer to delay the time for repentance and conversion, and to separate themselves from Cyril and Memnon, etc., otherwise they would very soon be forced to lament their own folly. f139 On Saturday evening the Conciliabulum asked Count Candidian to take care that neither Cyril nor Memnon, nor any one of their (excommunicated) adherents, should hold divine service on Sunday.

Candidian now wished that no member of either synodal party should officiate, but only the ordinary clergy of the city; but Memnon declared that he would in no way submit to John and his Synod, and Cyril and his adherents held divine service. All the efforts of John to appoint by force another bishop of Ephesus in the place of Memnon were frustrated by the opposition of the orthodox inhabitants. f142 It is generally assumed that Candidian anticipated the legitimate Synod with his information, and did not allow their account to reach Constantinople. But this was not the case; for we see from a still extant letter of Dalmatius and other monks and clergy of Constantinople to the Synod, that the Emperor himself had sent them the letters which the Synod had addressed to them immediately after the deposition of Nestorius (see p. 54), and so he must also have received the account which had been addressed to him. Dalmatius asserts, at the same time, that all the people had approved of the deposition of Nestorius, and that the Emperor had expressed himself very favorably respecting the Synod. From this we perceive that at that time he had not yet received the account of Candidian.

After the arrival of this a violent change immediately took place. The Emperor Theodosius now sent the Magistrian Palladius to Ephesus with a letter, setting forth “that he had learnt from Candidian that a part of the bishops had held a session without waiting for John of Antioch. Further, that not even all the bishops who were then present at Ephesus had taken part in this session, and that those who had done so had not discussed the dogma in the prescribed manner, but in a factious spirit. He therefore declared all that had been done to be invalid, and said he would send a special official of the palace, who in conjunction with Candidian might examine what had taken place, and guard against all disorder for the future.

In the meantime, and until the collective Synod should have discussed the dogma, no bishop was to leave the city of Ephesus, whether to proceed to the imperial court or to return home. The command should also be given to the governors of the several provinces not to allow any bishop who might return from Ephesus to remain at home. He (the Emperor) took no part on behalf of any man, and so not for Nestorius, but only for the truth and the doctrine.” This letter bears date 3 Kal. Jul., that is, June 29. As, however, Cyril’s answer relating to it, which was given to Palladius, was drawn up on July l, Palladius must have arrived in Ephesus before the end of June, and that date must have been a mistake of the writer. On the margin of the text, instead of triw~n kalandw~n dekatriw~n, is put, that is, June 19, and many learned men have agreed to this suggestion; but Tillemont has properly drawn attention to the fact that the first session of the Synod, and the deposition of Nestorius, of which the Emperor speaks in this letter, did not take place until the 22d of June. f146 John and his adherents naturally rejoiced at this imperial letter, and thought the world happy, as they say in their answer, to be under such rulers. They went on to say why they had been constrained to depose Cyril and the others, and did not disdain to allege as their chief reason, that these had ventured to attack the bishop of the imperial city, and had not obeyed the Emperor’s commands. Their Conciliabulum they call a holy Synod, and pray that the Emperor will give order, that at the examination respecting the dogma, which is about to take place, each metropolitan shall take only two bishops with him, in order to paralyse the excessive number of bishops from Egypt and Asia Minor, of whom they thought they could not speak with sufficient contempt. After reading the Emperor’s letter, they had wished, they said, to hold a thanksgiving service in S. John’s Church, but the people had shut the doors against them, and had driven them to their houses by force. The origin of all was Memnon, and the Emperor should therefore have him expelled from the city. f147 It is probable that the incident to which they refer had taken place on the attempt to appoint another bishop for Ephesus, since Memnon also mentions a tumult as having arisen on that occasion. f148 In a second letter to the Emperor, they request that the Synod should be removed to another place, nearer to the court, where Cyril and his adherents might be convicted from his own writings. f149 SEC. 13 6. LETTER OF THE ORTHODOX.

THEIR SECOND SESSION, JULY 10.

On the other hand, Cyril and his Synod also addressed a letter to the Emperors by the before-named Palladius, dated July 1, 431, setting forth that all that was necessary on the subject of Nestorius and his heresy had already been said in the reports and Acts of the first session, which they had sent. But Count Candidian preferred the friendship of Nestorius to piety, and therefore he had preoccupied the ears of the Emperors, and furnished one-sided reports. It would, however, be seen from the Acts of the Synod that they had acted against Nestorius without any partiality, and had carefully discussed the whole subject. The Emperors should therefore not listen to John of Antioch, who cared more for his friend than for the faith, and had allowed the Synod to wait for twenty-one days. After his arrival, however, he had immediately declared himself for Nestorius, whether from friendship, or because he shared his error. As Candidian prevented the Synod from sending to the Emperor an exact account of what had taken place, he could summon him, together with five members of the Synod, before him, and obtain intelligence from them by word of mouth. Recently, moreover, several bishops, who had hitherto been on the side of Nestorius, had come to take a better view of the matter, and had passed over to the Synod, so that now only about thirty-seven bishops remained with Nestorius and John, and these, for the most part, because they were afraid of punishment on account of offenses committed, or because they were heretical, e.g. Pelagians. On the side of the Synod, on the contrary, was Bishop Coelestine of Rome and the whole episcopate of Africa, although they were not personally present. Further, they touched slightly upon the acts of violence which Irenaeus had permitted himself against the members of the Synod, and declared that on their side there were more than two hundred bishops, but that it was impossible to give a complete account because of the speedy return of Palladius. f150 About eight days later, July 10, Cyril arranged the second session of the Synod in the episcopal residence of Memnon, and he is again designated in the acts of these proceedings as representative of the Roman bishop. f151 The number of those present was the same as at the first session, The occasion for this second session, however, was given by the arrival of the legates sent by Pope Coelestine to the Synod, Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Presbyter Philip, who had to deliver the letter of the Pope, which has already been mentioned. It was first read in the original Latin text, and then in a Greek translation, and it pronounced in energetic language a commendation on the Synod, and exhorted them that they should tolerate no erroneous doctrines on the Person of Christ; that they should make their own the mind of the holy Evangelist John, whose relics were honored in Ephesus; contend for the true faith, and maintain the peace of the Church. At the close the Pope said that he sent three deputies, that they might be present at the transactions, and carry out what he had already decided in reference to Nestorius, and that he did not doubt that the assembled bishops would agree with the same (see above, p. 42).

Notwithstanding that the papal claims were strongly expressed in the last sentence, the members of the Synod greatly rejoiced at the Pope’s letter, and exclaimed: “That is the true judgment, thanks to Coelestine the new Paul to Cyril the new Paul, to Coelestine the watchman of the faith.”

The papal legate Projectus then directed closer attention to the contents of the papal letter, and especially to the point that the sentence which had already been delivered by the Pope should be carried into effect for the use of the Catholic Church, and in accordance with the rule of the Catholic faith; that is, that all the bishops should accede to the papal sentence, and so raise it to the position of a judgment of the whole Church. In t matter, according to the Pope’s opinion, the Synod had no longer to examine whether Nestorius taught error; this was quite settled by the Roman sentence, and it was only incumbent upon the Synod to confirm this by their accession. The Synod had in their first session practically taken a different view, and had introduced a fresh examination as to the orthodoxy of Nestorius; nevertheless they now gave, partly in silence and partly expressly, their adhesion to the papal view, whilst Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, in Cappodocia, declared “that the former letter of the Apostolic See to Cyril had already contained the sentence and direction (yh~fon kai< tu>pon ) respecting the Nestorian question, and they (the assembled bishops) had, by ordering themselves accordingly, only fulfilled this direction, and pronounced the canonical and apostolic condemnation against Nestorius.” f153 One of the papal legates, the Presbyter Philip, who was rather more prominent than his colleagues, now thanked the Synod for this, “that the holy members had adhered to the holy head, knowing well that Peter was the head of the Catholic faith, and of all the apostles,” and asked that the decisions of the Synod already adopted might be laid before them, so that the legates might confirm them (bebaiw>swmen ), in accordance with the commission of the Pope. This was agreed to, and the session then ended. f154 SEC. 137. THIRD SESSION AT EPHESUS, JULY 11, 431. — TWO SYNODAL LETTERS.

The third session took place on the next day, July 11, and also in the residence of Memnon. The papal legates declared that they had in the meantime read the Acts of the first session, which had been given to them, and had found the judgment to be quite canonical and in accordance with ecclesiastical discipline; but, in compliance with the commission of the Pope, they must still request that the Acts of that session also should now be read again in their presence, which was then immediately done.

Thereupon each of the papal legates, the priest Philip again at their head, after a long introduction on the importance of the Pope, pronounced excommunication and deposition against Nestorius; and Cyril of Alexandria then remarked that they had thus spoken as representatives of the Pope and of the assembly of the Western Bishops. They could now sign the Acts of all the three sessions of the Synod already held, which they immediately did. Philip is again foremost, whilst elsewhere he is often put in the third place.

All the bishops present then subscribed a synodal letter addressed to the Emperors, in which it was first related how, even before the opening of the Ephesine Synod, the Westerns had held a Council of their own in Rome, and had there rejected the doctrine of Nestorius. Pope Coelestine had already communicated this in a letter, but now three legates had arrived from him, and had confirmed the sentence of Ephesus on Nestorius. Thus the whole of Christendom, with the exception of the few friends of Nestorius, had pronounced an unanimous judgment; consequently the Emperor should appoint that a new bishop should be given to the Church of Constantinople; and that the members of the Synod should be allowed to return home, as the long sojourn abroad was very inconvenient for many of them, that several had already fallen sick, and some had even died. At the same time the Synod, in a second letter to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, expressed the hope that soon a worthy bishop might be found for the imperial city. Cyril subscribed in the first place, after him the Presbyter Philip of Rome, then Juvenal of Jerusalem, and then came the two other legates. f157 SEC. 138. FOURTH SESSION AT EPHESUS, JULY 16, 431.

Five days later, on July 16, the fourth session was celebrated, again in the great Church of S. Mary, and the Acts always place Cyril first, but as representative of the Pope. After him the three papal legates are named (the presbyter this time last), and next Juvenal and the rest. Cyril and Memnon had handed in a memorial, in which they briefly related the history both of the Synod and of the opposition Conciliabulum, denied to the latter the authority to condemn them, and concluded with the request that John of Antioch and his companions might be cited before the Synod, and called to an account, Immediately three bishops were sent to the Patriarch John to cite him; he did not, however, allow them admission, and they found his house surrounded by many armed men, who uttered insulting remarks respecting the Synod and the orthodox faith, and threatened the deputies.

When they had returned and communicated the intelligence to the Council, Cyril brought forward the proposal that, as John plainly had an evil conscience, and therefore did not come, the Synod should declare the judgment put forth by him against Cyril and Memnon as null, and pronounce a suitable punishment against him. Thereupon Juvenal of Jerusalem remarked that John should certainly have been present to show due reverence and submission to the apostolic see of great Rome and the apostolic Church of Jerusalem, especially as it was in accordance with apostolic order and tradition that the see of Antioch should be by the former. (A Greek scholium is added to the text, to the effect that this must be understood of the Roman see, not of that of Jerusalem; for Rome had, even in the time of Paul of Samosata, and later, in that of Meletius, pronounced judgment concerning the see of Antioch.) Juvenal further proposed that the Patriarch John should be cited a second time by another deputation. The proposition was accepted, and three bishops were again sent. But neither were they admitted by John; but received for answer, that “he held no intercourse with deposed and excommunicated men.”

At the repeated wish and motion of Cyril and Memnon the Synod therefore now declared: “The judgment which John and his companions have pronounced against Cyril and Memnon is uncanonical and altogether invalid. On the other hand, he must himself be cited for the third time before the holy Synod, and the Emperors must be made acquainted with all that has happened.” f159 SEC. 139. FIFTH SESSION AT EPHESUS, JULY 17, 431, AND TWO SYNODAL LETTERS.

On the very next day the bishops assembled for the fifth session. Cyril reported that John and his friends had in the meantime publicly circulated and posted up an insolent placard full of folly, containing the sentence of deposition against him and Memnon, and accusing them of Apollinarianism, Arianism, and Eunomianism. This accusation was wholly unfounded, for he and Memnon anathematized these and all other heresies, together with the new heretic Nestorius and his adherents. The Synod should now cite John and his friends for the third time, so that they might publicly prove their accusations (against Cyril and Memnon), or themselves be condemned, especially as they had conveyed false reports to the Emperors. — Again three bishops were sent, together with a notary, to John, in order to cite him for the third time, under a serious threat of canonical punishment in case of his non-appearance. They came to his residence, but instead of being received by him, his archdeacon was instructed to deliver to them a document with the words: “The holy Synod (that is, the Conciliabulum) sends this to you.” It was probably nothing else but the decree of deposition of Cyril and Memnon already mentioned, and the deputies of the Synod declined to receive it. The archdeacon reported this to his master, and returned immediately with the document, declaring that the decisions (of the Conciliabulum) were already communicated to the Emperor, and they must therefore wait for further rules of procedure.

When the deputies were about to deliver orally the commission of their Synod, the archdeacon sprang hastily away, saying, “You have not received the document, neither will I listen to the message of your Synod.”

The deputies, however, had the opportunity of making some of John of Antioch’s priests acquainted with its contents, so that he might learn them in this way. Thereupon the Synod declared that they had reason to proceed in the most stringent manner against John and his companions, but that they preferred gentleness, and (not to depose, but only) to excommunicate them, and suspend them from all spiritual jurisdiction until they confessed their offenses. If, however, they would not do this soon, then the stringent canonical sentence must be pronounced against them. At the same time, it was self-evident that all their decisions against Cyril and Memnon were wholly invalid. Finally, the Acts of this session also were to be transmitted to the Emperors.

The Synod mentioned all who were thus punished and threatened, particularly John of Antioch, John of Damascus, Alexander of Apamea, Dexianus of Seleucia, Alexander of Hierapolis, Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea, Hella-dius of Tarsus, Maximian of Anazarbus, Dorotheus of Mar-cianopolis, Peter of Trajanople, Paul of Emesa, Polychronius of Heraclea, Eutherius of Tyana, Meletius of Neocaesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcis, Macarius of Laodicea Major, Zosis of Esbuntis, Salustius of Corycus, Hesychius of Castabala, Valentinus of Mutlubbaca (Mallus), Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip of Theodosianopolis, Daniel, Julian, Cyril, Olympius, Diogenes, Palladius (these without names of places), Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajanus of Augusta, Aurelius of Irenopolis, Musaeus of Arcadiopolis, and Helladius of Ptolemais. They are altogether thirty-five bishops, and a comparison of their names with those forty-three who subscribed the decree of the first session of the Conciliabulum shows that this party had certainly won a few new adherents, but had lost considerably more, a fact which, as we know, had been before maintained by Cyril.

The Synod immediately reported what had taken place, both to the Emperors and to the Pope, and we are still in possession of these documents, which are not without value. In the letter to the Emperors it is related that the Synod had deposed Nestorius, but that his friends had won over John of Antioch, and in union with him, although only thirty in number (the letter to Pope Coelestine says “about thirty”), had held a spurious Synod, whilst the Emperors had expressly required only one, and that a general Synod, to be held. Among the members of the spurious Synod were many who had not yet purged themselves of offenses of which they had been accused, and even John of Antioch had feared lest he should be called to account for his long absence from the Synod. And this spurious Synod, without observing any regular order of proceeding, without accusers, and without citation, had, in a manner wholly uncanonical and unjust, declared Cyril and Memnon deposed, and had endeavored by false representations to deceive the Emperors. The true and only Synod had therefore three times cited John of Antioch and his companions, that they might bring forward their complaints against Cyril and Memnon. They had not appeared, and therefore their resolutions against Cyril and Memnon had been declared invalid, and they themselves had been placed under excommunication until they should be reformed.

The Emperors should certainly not regard that conventicle of sinners as a Synod. Even at Nicaea a small minority had separated itself from the Synod of 318 bishops, but these men were in no way regarded as a Council by Constantine the Great; on the contrary, they were punished. It would be in the highest degree absurd that thirty persons should set themselves in opposition to a Synod of two hundred and ten holy bishops, with whom, moreover the whole Western episcopate was united. And, besides, there were among those thirty several — who had been previously deposed, several Pelagians and Nestorians. The Emperors should therefore confirm and give effect to what the holy and Oecumenical Synod had decided against Nestorius and his impious doctrine. f163 Still more complete is the synodal letter to Pope Coelestine, and it contains a complete history of the Ephesine Council from the imperial edict of convocation to the results of the fifth session, with the remark that the Synod had declared Cyril and Memnon to be quite innocent, and maintained the closest communion with them. Much more important is the addition, that in the Ephesine Synod (although we are not informed in what session) the Western Acts on the condemnation of the Pelagians and Celestians, of Pelagius, Coelestius, and his adherents, Julianus, Persidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and Orentius, etc., were read, and the papal judgment on them universally approved. f164 As before against Nestorius, so now Cyril preached also against John of Antioch, and we possess still a beautiful and very powerful discourse on that subject. If it has some strong expressions of an abusive character, it is still moderate in comparison with what John had allowed himself to say against Cyril.

SEC. 140. SIXTH SESSION AT EPHESUS, JULY 22, 431.

On the 22d of July the sixth session of the Synod was held in the residence of Memnon, and on that occasion the Nicene Creed was first read, and then again all those passages from the Fathers which had been brought forward at the condemnation of Nestorius in the first session. This was done in proof that the Nestorians had not correctly comprehended and explained the Nicene formula.

Then Charisius, a cleric (Oeconomus) of the Church of Philadelphia, gave the information that two priests from Constantinople, Anastasius and Photius, had sent a certain Jacobus provided with letters of introduction to the Bishops of Lydia, and had commended his orthodoxy. This Jacobus had come to Philadelphia, and had soon misled some clerics, and induced them to sign another Nestorian Creed instead of the Nicene. As, now, many Quartodecimans in Lydia wished to return again to the Church, they had also allured these to subscribe a heretical Creed, instead of the Nicene.

He (Charisius), because of his opposition, had been declared a heretic by the others, and excommunicated, but he was thoroughly orthodox, and could prove this by his creed, which he laid before them. This was, in meaning, entirely accordant with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan, and in words almost identical. He also brought forward the falsified creed in question, and there is no doubt that this, under inflated language and apparent zeal for orthodoxy, contained the fundamental Nestorian error — the dividing of Christ into the Logos and an assumed man. The creed was not composed by Nestorius himself, but by Theodore of Mopsuestia, but it had been circulated by the Nestorians, and the copy which Charisius presented was subscribed by many former Quartodecimans and some Novatians, almost all laymen of different ranks. Still there was among them a Quartodeciman priest, named Patricius, who could not write. f170 The Synod now gave order, under pain of excommunication and deposition, that no other than the Nicene Creed, particularly not that presented by Charisius, should be used, and had the well-known extracts, of the first session, from the writings of Nestorius read again, after which all who were present, and Cyril first, subscribed the Acts.

SEC. 141. SEVENTH, SESSION AT EPHESUS.

CIRCULAR LETTER AND CANONS.

It is doubtful when the seventh and last session was held. The Acts name the 31st of August, but Garnier, and after him many scholars of distinction, have supposed that there was a mistake of the writer at this point, and have pronounced for the 31st of July, for this reason, that the new imperial commissioner, John, reached Ephesus at the beginning of August, and no more sessions were held after his arrival, This seventh session again took place in the Church of S. Mary, and began with the reading of a petition given in by Rheginus, Archbishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, and signed by him and the two other Cypriote bishops, Zeno and Evagrius. For some time the Patriarchs of Antioch had claimed rights of superiority over the Bishops of Cyprus particularly the right of ordination, etc. When the metropolitan chair of this island was, by the death of Troilus, again left empty, at the time of the convocation of the Synod of Ephesus, the Proconsul of Antioch, Duke Dionysius, at the request of the Antiochene patriarch, forbade the election of a new archbishop before the pending controversy should be decided by the Synod. If, however, contrary to his expectation, a bishop for Constantia should be elected, he must appear at the Synod at Ephesus. — The two letters of the proconsul, on this subject, to the President of Cyprus and to the clergy of Constantia, were appended to the petition, and read at the same time with it. The Bishops of Cyprus, however, had paid no regard to this prohibition, and had chosen as archbishop Rheginus, who has already been mentioned (according to their custom), in their provincial Synod, because, as they explained at Ephesus, those pretensions of Antioch were contra apostolicos canones et definitiones sanctissimoe Nicenoe Synodi. That by apostolici canones they meant a pseudo-apostolic, and, in particular, No. 36, has already been noticed in vol. i. p. 454 f. In reference to the canons of Nicaea, however, they evidently had in view canon 4, which says: “The bishop shall be appointed by all (the bishops) of the province” (vol. i. p. 381). In the debate which arose at Ephesus, on the application of the Cypriotes, it was remarked by several, “that it ought not to be forgotten that the Synod of Nicaea had preserved its own dignity for every church, and this ought especially to be remembered at Antioch.” The speakers here unmistakeably referred to the sixth Nicene canon, and meant to say that “this canon confirmed to the great patriarchal sees, and among them to Antioch, their ancient rights. Therefore the question must be put in this form: How was it in earlier times? Did the Antiochene bishops possess and exercise the right in earlier times of consecrating the Cypriote bishops or not?” The Synod there upon required of the Cypriote bishops to prove that Antioch had no such ancient rights over them, and one of them, Zeno by name, certified on this point, that the late Archbishop Troilus of Cyprus, and all his predecessors, back to the apostolic times, had always been ordained by the bishops of their own province, and never by the Bishop of Antioch. There upon the Synod drew up the resolution, “That the churches of Cyprus should be confirmed in their independence, and in their right to consecrate (and elect)their own bishops; that the liberties of all ecclesiastical provinces generally should be renewed, and all intrusions into foreign provinces forbidden.” f175 In the same session the Synod also sent forth a circular letter to all bishops, clergy, and laity, to the effect that they had pronounced excommunication and suspension from all spiritual jurisdiction against John of Antioch and his adherents, who were mentioned by name. To this general proclamation they appended the following six canons: — CANON 1.

Ei] tiv oJ mhtropoli>thv th~v ejparci>av ajpostath>sav th~v aJgiav kai< oijkoumenikh~v Suno>dou prose>qeto tw~| th~v ajpostasi>av sunedri>w| h\ meta< tou~to prosteqei>h h\ ta< Kelesti>ou ejfro>nhsen h\ fronh>sh| ou=tov kata< tw~n th~v ejparci>av ejpisko>pwn diapra>ttesqai> ti oujdamw~v du>natai, pa>shv ejkklhsiastikh~v koinwni>av ejnteu~qen h]dh uJpo< th~v Suno>dou ejkbeblhme>nov, kai< ajnene>rghtov uJpa>rcwn ajlla< kai< aujtoi~v toi~v th~v ejparci>av ejpisko>poiv kai< toi~v pe>rix mhtropoli>taiv toi~v ta< th~v ojrqodoxi>av fronou~sin uJpokei>setai eijv to< pa>nth kai< tou~ baqmou~ th~v ejpiskoph~v ejkblhqh`nai.

If a metropolitan has separated himself from this holy and Oecumenical Synod, and has joined that assembly of apostates (the Conciliabulum), or shall hereafter join them, or has agreed with Coelestius ( — the Pelagians), or shall agree, he has no more jurisdiction over the bishops of his province, and is already (by the previous sentence on John and his adherents) excluded and suspended by the Synod from all church communion. It is further the duty of the bishops of the province themselves, and the neighboring metropolitans, who are orthodox, to see to his total deposition from the episcopate.

CANON 2.

Eij de> tines ejparciw~tai ejpi>skopoi ajpelei>fqhsan th~v aJgi>av Suno>dou kai< th~| ajpostasi>a| prosete>qhsan, h\ prosteqh~nai peiraqei~en, h\ kai< uJpogra>yantev th~| Nestori>ou kaqaire>sei ejpalindro>mhsan proav sune>drion tou>touv pa>nth kata< to< do>xan th~| aJgi>a| Suno>dw| ajllotri>ouv ei=nai th~v iJerwsu>nhv kai< tou~ baqmou~ ejkpi>ptein If any provincial bishops (ejparciw~tai =the suffragan bishops of a province, cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.) were not present at the holy Synod, but passed over to the apostates (the Antiochenes), or attempted to pass over, or if they signed the deposition of Nestorius, but then went over to the assembly of apostates, these shall be entirely deposed from the holy priesthood, and shall be deprived of their degree (office).

CANON 3.

Eij de> tinev kai< tw~n ejn eJka>sth| po>lei h\ cw>ra| klhrikw~n uJpo< Nestori>ou kai< tw~n sunhv ejkwlu>qhsan dia< to< ojrqw~v fronei~n ejdikaiw>samen kai< tou>touv ton koinw~v de< touxw| kai< oijkoumenikh~| Suno>dw| sumfronou~ntav klhrikou>v keleu>omen toi~v ajpostath>sasin h\ ajfistame>noiv ejpisko>poiv mhq o[lwv uJpokei~sqai kata< mhde>na tro>pon.

If any of the clergy in any town or in the country have been deposed by Nestorius or his adherents on account of their orthodoxy, they shall receive their office again. Generally, all clerics who adhere to the orthodox and Oecumenical Synod shall in no way be subject to the apostate or apostatizing bishops.

CANON 4.

Eij de> tinev ajpostath>saien tw~n klhrikw~n kai< tolmh>saien h\ kat ijdi>an h\ dhmosi>a| ta< Nestori>ou h\ ta< Kelesti>ou fronh~sai, kai< tou>touv ei=nai kaqh|rhme>n ouv uJpo< th~v aJgi>av Suno>dou dedikai>wtai.

If any of the clergy shall apostatize, and either privately or publicly hold with Nestorius or Coelestius, the Synod decides that they also shall be deposed.

CANON 5.

Osoi ejpi< ajto>poiv pra>xesi katekri>qhsan uJpo< th~v aJgi>av Suno>dou h\ uJpo< tw~n oijkei>wn ejpisko>pwn, kai< tou>toiv ajkanoni>tev kata< than aujtou~ oj Nesto>riov, kai< oiJ ta< aujtou~ fronou~ntev ajpodou~nai ejpeira>qhsan h\ peiraqei~en koinwni>an h\ baqmotouv me>nein kai< tou>touv kai< ei+nai oujdenouv ejdikaiw>samen.

Those who have been condemned on account of improper actions, either by the holy Synod or by their own bishops, and whom Nestorius and his adherents, uncanonically, and without making any distinction between that which is allowed and forbidden, have attempted, or shall attempt, to restore to communion or to their office, shall derive no advantage from this, but shall remain deposed.

CANON 6.

Omoi>wv de< kai< ei] tinev boulhqei~en ta< peri< eJka>stwn pepragme>na ejn th~| aJgi>a| Suno>dw| th~| ejn Efe>sw| oiJw|dh>pote tro>pw| parasaleu>ein hJ aJgi>a Su>nodov w[risen eij meskopoi ei=en h\ klhrikoi> tou~ oijkei>ou pantelw~v ajpopi>ptein baqmou~ eij de< lai`koi< ajkoinwnh>touv uJpa>rcein.

Generally, with respect to those who may, in any way whatever, resist any of the enactments of the holy Synod at Ephesus, the Synod decrees, if they are bishops or clerics, that they shall be entirely deprived of their office, but if they are hymen they shall be excommunicated.

The Acts add, besides, that these canons were subscribed by all the bishops. When, however, in several manuscripts, eight Ephesine canons are numbered, this arises from the fact that the resolution of the Synod in the matter of Charisius is put down as the seventh canon, and the decree respecting the Cypriote bishops as the eighth. f178 It is worthy of note that Dionysius Exiguus does not receive a single canon of all those of Ephesus into his collection, perhaps because these have no general bearing, but only contain such decisions as have a special application to the Nestorian and Pelagian questions.

SEC. 142. THE AFFAIRS OF PAMPHYLIA, THE MASSALIANS, THRACE, AND THE SEE OF JERUSALEM.

That the Synod of Ephesus considered several other special subjects, is shown by various documents which have been preserved, only we do not know to what session they belonged. At the head of them stands the letter to the provincial Synod in Pamphylia with reference to Bishop Eustathius.

This man (whether, Metropolitan of Pamphylia or Bishop of Artalia is doubtful) had resigned, because he could not properly preside over his diocese and hold his opponents in check. In his place a certain Theodorus was appointed by the other bishops of the province; but, in agreement with his successor, Eustathius petitioned the Synod for permission to be allowed to retain the title and rank of bishop; and the Synod granted him this, with the limitation, that he should undertake no ordinations, and that he should never of his own authority hold service without consent of the bishop. f180 The second document belonging to this subject is a decree in reference to the Massalians or Euchites. The Bishops of Pamphylia and Lycaonia, in whose districts these heretics dwelt, presented a decree respecting them adopted by the Council of Constantinople under Bishop Sisinnius, and our Synod confirmed it, as well as that which was done in this matter at Alexandria. According to this decree, defies who had been hitherto Massalians, but now anathematized this heresy, were to remain among the clergy, and laymen were to be admitted to communion. If, however, they declined to anathematize their previous error, then the clergy were to lose office, dignity, and church communion, and the laity to be anathematized.

Moreover, those who were proved to be Massalians (even if they repented) were to have no monasteries allowed them, so that this creed (which was quite at home in monasteries) should not spread farther. Finally, anathema was pronounced upon a writing of these heretics, their Asceticon. f181 For a third decree two Thracian bishops, Euprepius of Biza (Bizya) and Cyril of Cede, gave occasion, praying for protection against their metropolitan, Fritilas of Heraclea, who had gone over to the party of John of Antioch, and at the same time for the confirmation of the previous practice of holding two bishoprics at the same time. The Synod granted both. f182 Finally, we also know, from a letter of Pope Leo the Great, that at the Synod of Ephesus Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem endeavored, among other things, dishonestly and by the presentation of false documents, to get quite free from the patriarchal authority of the Bishop of Antioch, and to gain the ecclesiastical primacy over Palestine for his own see; but that Cyril of Alexandria, although closely united with Juvenal on the main point, the struggle against Nestorius and the Antiochenes, yet earnestly opposed this intrigue, and subsequently reported it to the Pope. f184 SEC. 143. BOTH PARTIES AT EPHESUS APPEAL TO THE EMPEROR.

As we saw, the Synod had resolved repeatedly, and in every session, to send their Acts to the Emperor, but they had complained, even at the time when Palladius arrived at Ephesus, that Count Candidian had not allowed their reports to reach the Emperor. Similar and still more wanton acts of violence in this direction had been performed by the Nestorians in Constantinople itself. They had taken possession of the high ways and gates, and visited all the ships, in order to prevent any communication between the Synod and the capital. In spite of this a beggar at last succeeded in smuggling in a letter, which is now lost, concealed in a hollow stick, from Cyril to the bishops and monks of Constantinople, in which the oppression of the Synod by Candidian and the Orientals was described, and a request made that they might be allowed to send bishops as deputies to Constantinople. Deeply moved by this letter, the monks of Constantinople, with their archimandrites and specially Dalmatius at the head of them, marched, with singing of hymns and psalms, in front of the imperial residence. For eight-and-forty years Dalmatius, who enjoyed a great reputation for sanctity, could in no way be induced to leave his monastery; but now he believed that he was summoned by a heavenly voice to save the Church, and his sudden appearance made a great impression. The Emperor permitted the archimandrites to come into his presence, while the crowd of monks and the people waited in the meantime singing sacred songs before the gates. The archimandrites read the letter which they had received from Ephesus before the Emperor, and the following conversation arose. The Emperor said: “If this is so, some of the bishops (of the Synod) must come to me and represent their case.” Dalmatius answered: “None of them dares to come hither.” To which the Emperor replied: “No one hinders them.” Dalmatius: “Yes, they are hindered. Many who belong to the Nestorian party come and go without the least hindrance; but no one dares to give your Piety intelligence of what the holy Synod does.” He added: “Will you rather hear six thousand bishops (the whole of orthodox Christendom) or a single impious man (Nestorius)?”

The Emperor now gave permission for the envoys of the Synod to come to Constantinople, and in conclusion asked the archimandrites for their prayers to God. The archimandrites, retiring from the imperial palace, with the monks and people, went into the Church of S. Mocius the martyr, where Dalmatius ascended the pulpit and gave an account of what had happened, whereupon all present shouted out, “Anathema to Nestorius!” Making use of the imperial permission, perhaps even before this arrived at Ephesus, the Synod sent Bishops Theopemptus of Cabasus and Daniel of Darnis (two Egyptians) to Constantinople with a letter of thanks to Dalmatius. f189 But John and his Orientals also found it necessary to use influence at court.

Out of obedience to the imperial command, however, they would not, as they said, like the Egyptians, send bishops, but requested Count Irenaeus, the zealous friend of Nestorius, to go on their behalf to Constantinople. He was quite ready, and took a letter from the Schismatics with him, in which they informed the Emperor how they had not been allowed to hold divine service in Ephesus; how, shortly after the arrival of Palladius, when they wished to go into a church to return thanks to God for the letter received from the Emperor, they had been maltreated; and how Cyril and his adherents had allowed themselves in all kinds of acts of violence. The Emperor therefore should listen to Irenaeus, who transmitted several proposals from their side, with the view of putting an end to the evil. f192 As it is not mentioned in this letter that the Synod had already pronounced sentences of excommunication and suspension on the Schismatics, it appears that it was composed before the fourth and fifth sessions of the Synod (July 16 and 17), so that Irenaeus must have departed about the middle of July.

After, however, the Synod in those two sessions had pronounced judgment on John of Antioch and his adherents, these last immediately prepared an account of this also for the Emperor, and sent it after Irenaeus, who had already departed, that he might deliver it to the Emperor at the same time.

In this they attempt to prove that their judgment on Cyril and Memnon is valid, and, on the other hand, that of the Synod upon them foolish and impotent; they complain again of oppressions, and request that they may be summoned to Constantinople or Nicomedia (to a new Synod), for the sake of a more careful examination. But orders should be given (as they had proposed before) that no metropolitan should bring more than two bishops to this Synod. Finally, they asked the Emperor to give orders that every one should subscribe the Nicene Creed, which they themselves placed at the head of their letter, that no one should add anything new, that no one should call Christ a mere man (as Nestorius), and that no one should declare the Godhead of Christ to be capable of suffering (which was brought as a reproach against Cyril), for both these statements were quite sacrilegious. At the same time the Schismatics addressed letters to some high state officials, in order to represent to them their sad condition in Ephesus, and the bad treatment which they experienced, with the petition that they would assist in having them summoned to Constantinople, and in obtaining the holding of a new Synod. To this time certainly belongs also the letter of Theodoret of Cyrus to Andreas, Bishop of Samosata, which we now possess only in Latin, and in which he congratulates him that sickness prevented his coming to Ephesus. In this way he has not been forced to behold their sorrow and misery. The Egyptian, he says, rages against God, and the greatest part of the people of God are on his side, the Egyptians, the Palestinians, those from Pontus and Asia, and the Westerns. The deposed men (Cyril and the others) held divine service, while those who deposed them had to sit lamenting at home.

Never had writer of comedy composed such a laughable story, or a writer of tragedy such a sorrowful play. f196 The envoys of the genuine Synod arrived at Constantinople three days before Irenaeus, as the latter himself relates, and by their representation of the true state of affairs, made a powerful impression on many persons of high rank, statesmen and generals, so that these recognized the sentence of the Synod on Nestorius as perfectly just. This view was adopted particularly by the chamberlain Scholasticus, especially for this reason, that Nestorius had at Ephesus opposed the expression “God-bearer.” After the arrival of Irenaeus, several interviews and discussions were brought about between the adherents of the two parties, and they came to an agreement that Irenaeus and the deputies of the Synod should appear together, and in the presence of the highest officers of state, before the Emperor. Ireaeus declares that he was unable to get as far as the palace without incurring the danger of being thrown into the sea (so greatly were the people enraged against the Nestorians), but boasts of his having succeeded in convincing the Emperor of the injustice of the Synod, and its disorderly conduct (in not having waited for the Antiochenes), and of having persuaded him to resolve on the deposition of Cyril, and to declare what had been done by the majority at Ephesus as invalid. Soon afterwards, however, he said, John the physician and Syncellus (secretary) of Cyril had arrived in Jerusalem, and had overthrown the structure of Irenaeus, and won over again many of the high officials. One party now advised that the Emperor should confirm the depositions which had proceeded from both sides, and thus, on the one side, that of Nestorius, and, on the other, that of Cyril and Memnon; a second party, on the contrary, advised that the Emperor should agree to neither of these depositions, but rather should call together the most eminent bishops to examine what had been done. A third advice was to the effect that the Emperor should send commissioners to Ephesus, in order to restore peace again. This last proposal was the least acceptable of all to Irenaeus, as it proceeded from a side which was unfriendly to Nestorius. f198 SEC. 144. RESOLUTION OF THE EMPEROR. ARREST OF CYRIL, MEMNON, AND NESTORIUS. DISTRESS OF THE SYNOD.

The Emperor, in fact, united the first and second proposals, confirmed the deposition as well of Nestorius as of Cyril and Memnon, and at the same time sent one of the highest officers of State, the Comes Sacrorum (= sacrarum largitionum = treasurer of state) John, to Ephesus, to publish the sentence, and to effect a union of the separated bishops. The edict in which he announced this decree was addressed to all those archbishops and prominent bishops who had previously received special invitations to the Synod of Ephesus, and probably through an error of the chancery there is still found among them the name of Augustine, who had died eleven months before (August 28, 430). The first among all the bishops united in the superscription of the edict is Pope Coelestine, although he was not personally present at Ephesus; the names of Cyril and Memnon, and on the other side of Nestorius, are, however, for obvious reasons passed over.

Whether John of Antioch is specially named is doubtful. There are certainly two Johns mentioned without more particular description, but neither of them is placed immediately after Pope Coelestine, which the hierarchical order would have required if John of Antioch were intended. As, however, this order is not strictly maintained in the superscription, and, for example, Juvenal of Jerusalem is mentioned only in the eighteenth place, and after bishops who were decidedly inferior to him in rank, this argument again loses its force.

That the Emperor pronounced a sentence of deposition on S. Cyril need not surprise us, for he was himself destitute of all necessary insight into the whole theological question, otherwise he could not have taken under his protection first Nestorius, and then, as we shall see, at a later period his opposite Eutyches. The Antiochenes, however, even the highly meritorious and orthodox men among them, like Theodoret of Cyrus, had done all in their power to convict Cyril’s doctrine of Apollinarianism, and his conduct of injustice and passionateness. They said As his uncle Theophilus persecuted S. Chrysostom from private hatred, so does Cyril act towards Nestorius. He stamps him as a heretic in order to ruin him.

Accusations of this kind had, to a certain extent, prevailed even with orthodox theologians, as we see from the letters of the holy Abbot Isidore of Pelusium (near Alexandria)to Cyril, in which it is said quite distinctly that these complaints had proceeded from the Antiochene party at Ephesus. What wonder if the never very powerful-minded Emperor Theodosius II. was led into error, especially as his commissioner, Candidian, was in entire agreement with the Antiochenes. His edict has, however, a more extensive side, which deserves special attention. After the cunning manner of diplomatists, the true state of the matter is ignored, that is, the actual existence of two opposing Synods at Ephesus. The matter is represented as though the whole of the bishops present at Ephesus, united in one Council, had on the one side deposed Nestorius, and on the other Cyril and Memnon, and as though they were quite agreed as to the orthodox faith, so that nothing more remained to be done but to appease some still existing enmities, and then to separate in peace. To this peace the Emperor not only himself exhorted the Synod, but he also sent to it at the same time a letter directed to the same end from the more than centenarian Bishop Acacius of Beroea (now Aleppo), in Syria, a man held in the highest esteem, who was unable to come in person to the Synod, but who wished to send to it his counsel and his opinion.

With this letter of the Emperor and that of Bishop Acacius, the new commissioner, John, proceeded to Ephesus, and, as is universally admitted, arrived there at the beginning of August. There was great fear that the cause of orthodoxy was in danger, but Cyril endeavored to lay this apprehension to rest by a sermon preached probably before the bishops of the Synod, in which he pointed out that persecutions always contributed to the wellbeing of the righteous. In the superscription of this sermon it is remarked that he delivered it before his arrest, and that this was ordered by the new commissioner, Count John, who thus informed the Emperor respecting his proceedings at Ephesus:” Immediately after his arrival in Ephesus he had greeted the bishops, as many as he met of both sides, and had announced to them, as well as to those who were absent (Cyril and Memnon in particular had not appeared), that they should assemble all together the next day in his residence. At the same time he had decided in what order they should enter, so that conflicts should not arise at the meeting together of the two parties. Very early, almost at daybreak, Nestorius and John of Antioch had come, somewhat later Cyril and the other bishops; only Memnon had failed. The adherents of Cyril, however, had immediately demanded the removal of Nestorius, because he was already deposed, and therefore the sacred letter (of the Emperor) ought not to be read in his presence and in that of the Orientals (Antiochenes). On the other hand, the Antiochenes had demanded the same in reference to Cyril and Memnon, who had also been deposed by them, and a long and violent dispute had arisen on this question. After a considerable portion of the day had been spent in this manner, he (the Count) had succeeded, by persuasion and force, as he must plainly declare, and in spite of the opposition of Cyril’s party, in having the imperial letter read without the presence of Cyril and Nestorius, to whom, in fact, it was not addressed.

Thus the deposition of Cyril, Nestorius, and Memnon had been proclaimed, and the Antiochenes had received this with approval, and confirmed it; while the others declared the deposition of Cyril and Memnon to be illegal.

In order to avoid greater excitement, Count Candidian had undertaken the custody of (the now imprisoned) Nestorius, and he had given Cyril into the hands of Count Jacobus, and had sent officers, together with the senior deacon of Ephesus, to the absent Memnon, in order to announce to him his deposition. Thereupon he (John) had proceeded to the church for prayer, and when he learned that Memnon was still at the episcopal residence, had immediately summoned him to come to him. To the question why he had not come in the morning, Memnon had made an insufficient excuse, that he had then immediately of his own accord gone to the Count’s lodging, had been there arrested, and given over also into the custody of Jacobus.

Finally, he (John) had taken pains to exhort the bishops to peace and unity, and would do so still further, and would afterwards acquaint the Emperors with everything of importance that should take place.” f203 That Cyril and Memnon were separated and kept apart in a strong prison, and watched by many soldiers, we know from two letters of the Antiochenes, who announced this triumphantly to their adherents. The orthodox Synod, however, appealed in a frank letter to the Emperors (of the East and West), declaring that the decree published by Count John had caused deep disturbance, and proved that some treachery and falsehood had perverted the ears of the Emperors, who had formerly been so truthloving.

The matter was represented in the imperial edict as though the Synod itself had pronounced a sentence of deposition on Cyril and Memnon; but it was not the Oecumenical Synod, which was in union with the Roman and apostolic see, with the whole of the West, with the whole of Africa and Illyricum that had done this; on the contrary, it admired those two bishops on account of their zeal for the orthodox faith, and believed that they were, before men and before Christ, the Lord, worthy of noble garlands. It was only Nestorius, as the herald of the new heresy of the manworshippers, that they had deposed, and of this they had given the Emperors information. It had further pained them greatly — and this, too, could be: explained only on the ground of deception — that the names of John of Antioch and his adherents, also those of the Coelestians (Pelagians), although condemned by the Oecumenical Synod, were included among the bishops of the Synod, and that the imperial Sacra were addressed to them as to the bishops of the Synod. Then a brief account was given of the conduct of the Antiochenes, with which we are already acquainted, and the history of their separation from the Synod, with the remark that they could not possibly be received into church communion, partly because they had not subscribed the deposition of Nestorius and quite openly agreed with him, partly because, through their insolence towards the presidents of the Synod (that is, through their sentence against Cyril and Memnon), they had violated the canons; partly, in fine, because they had dared to lie to and deceive the Emperors. The Synod prayed therefore that the Emperors would restore Cyril and Memnon, and provide for the steadfast maintenance of the faith, which was inherited from their fathers, which was impressed on the hearts of the Emperors by the Holy Spirit, and which was contained in the declarations of the Synod issued against Nestorius. If, however, the Emperors wished to learn more exactly what had taken place between the Synod and the Antiochenes, they might send trustworthy commissioners. The meaning here attached to the last sentence is given by the Greek text as it exists; in accordance, however, with a conjecture of Tillemont, which is very worthy of notice, it would read: “If the Emperors wished to know that more exactly, they should order the Synod to send trustworthy envoys (to Constantinople)” (th~| aJgi>a| suno>dw| ejpitre>pein ejkpe>myai k.t.l ); and this conjecture is supported by the consideration that — (a) not the sending of new imperial commissioners to Ephesus, but only the sending of envoys from the Synod to Constantinople could be of use, and therefore could be desired by the Synod; (b) that the Emperor did, in fact, somewhat later sanction the sending of envoys from the Synod; and (c) that the Synod, in their subsequent letter (see below, § 146), expressly assert; that the Emperors had granted their requests, and permitted the sending of deputies. f206 With reference to this suggestion of the Synod to the Emperors, Cyril addressed from his prison a letter to the clergy and the people of Constantinople, in which he asserts that Count John (really the imperial decree) had not properly represented the state of the case, and had falsely ascribed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon to the Synod. For this reason they were under the necessity of sending a new account to the Emperor. The imperial commissioner had taken all trouble to bring about the union of the Synod with John of Antioch and his adherents, but this was not possible until the Antiochenes should have recalled their illegal resolutions, approached the Synod as petitioners, and anathematized in writing the doctrines of Nestorius. In order, however, to reach his end by another way, the Count had demanded a written confession of faith from the Synod with the view of having it subscribed by the Antiochenes, and of then declaring,” I have reunited those who were separated.” The Synod, however, had not agreed to this, but had remarked that they were there, not to give an account respecting their faith, but to confirm the wavering faith, and that the Emperor did not need now, for the first time, to be taught their faith, for it was known to him since his baptism.

Cyril further relates that the Antiochenes were not agreed among themselves as to whether Mary should be called “Mother of God” or not, since some of them would rather have their hands cut off than subscribe this expression. Of all this he informed the Constantinopolitans, particularly the archimandrites, so that Count John, when he returned, should not carry false information and mislead the people. The Constantinopolitans, too, should continue their efforts on behalf of the Synod, for there were at Ephesus bishops who were not even personally known to him, ready to go with him into exile, and even to death. He was himself watched by soldiers, who slept before his door, and the whole Synod was in a very exhausted condition; several members were dead, and the others so impoverished that they had been forced to sell their possessions in order to procure the means of subsistence. f208 Another letter was addressed by the Ephesine Synod to the bishops and clergy present in Constantinople, in which they say that Ephesus is like a prison, in which they have been shut up for three months (the letter must therefore have been written at the end of August or the beginning of September), so that they have not been able to send a messenger by land or by water to the court or elsewhere; and as often as they have ventured upon it, the bearers have exposed themselves to countless dangers of life, and have been forced to conceal themselves in all kinds of disguises. The reason of this strict watching arose from the false accounts which had been sent from all sides to the Emperors. By one class they (the bishops of the Synod) had been denounced as the cause of the division, by others it had been said that the Synod itself had deposed Cyril and Memnon; and again, others had perhaps asserted that the Synod was ready to come to a friendly union with the schismatical false Synod of the Antiochones. It was in order to prevent the exposure of these falsehoods that the Synod was so closely watched, and that war was so violently carried on against it. The clergy of Constantinople should therefore cast themselves at the feet of the Emperor and acquaint him with all. The further contents of the letter give the substance of that which the Constantinopolitans are to communicate to the Emperor: that the Synod had by no means deposed Cyril and Memnon, but held both in the highest honor, and would never separate from communion with them; that, on the other hand, they never could hold communion with the schismatic Conciliabulum, for the same reasons which the Synod had already (p. 86) assigned in their letter to the Emperor, but which they now repeated, because, in their state of blockade, they were forced to doubt whether that letter had reached the Emperor. In conclusion, the clergy of Constantinople are once more exhorted to beseech the Emperor, in the name of the whole Synod, to restore Cyril and Memnon, to liberate the bishops of the Synod from their imprisonment, and to give them leave either to return home or to appear in his own presence, so that they might not all perish, partly through sickness, and partly through sorrow.

In order to make the letter more concise, all the bishops of the Synod did not subscribe, but only their heads, — whether Cyril and Memnon, or Juvenal and another metropolitan, is doubtful. In an appendix it is added: “We are slaughtered here by the heat; almost daily one is buried; all our servants are worn out, and have to be sent home. Go therefore to the Emperor and represent to him the distress of the Synod. Finally, be assured that, however our death may be disregarded, on the part of Christ nothing else will take place than that which we have decided.” f210 This letter, it would appear, crossed the one which the bishops who were present at Constantinople sent on the 13th of August to the Synod. They expressed in it their liveliest sympathy with their distress, and assured them that they felt bound personally to appear at Ephesus, but that the way by sea and land was closed against them. They had, however, worked for the Synod in Constantinople, inflamed the zeal of many, and strengthened men’s minds in their adhesion to it. The Synod would therefore, they requested, let them know what they had to do, and whether they should come to Ephesus in order to share their conflict and their sufferings. f211 We learn the names of these bishops from the superscription of the answer which the Synod sent to them. They were Eulalius, Eutrechius, Acacius, Chrysaphius, Jeremias, Theodule, and Isaias. The Synod now tell them how greatly they rejoice at this sympathy, inform them anew of the progress of events and of their own condition, and request the bishops to remain at Constantinople, on the one hand, in order to acquaint the Emperor with the condition of the Synod; and, on the other, to give them information as to what is passing at Constantinople. As, however, it was feared that the previous letters had not been made known to the bishops, a copy of them was now added, and, at the same time, a second account addressed to the Emperor. The bishops might now, in case the Emperors had received the previous account, put them in mind of it; if not, then the Emperors should learn from the bishops what had been kept from them by intrigue. f214 In this second letter the Synod urgently entreated that they might at last be delivered from their distress, and that their heads, Cyril and Memnon, should be given back to them; and they strengthen this appeal by a short but detailed and calm narration of the way and manner in which the Antiochenes had separated from the rest of the bishops, and how those of Nestorian opinions had connected themselves with John of Antioch. At the same time, it was towards the end quite correctly remarked: If the Emperors confirmed, as they had done, the deposition of Nestorius, it would certainly be quite inconsistent if they gave their assent to that which the friends of Nestorius had done, in order to avenge him. This letter was signed by Juvenal of Jerusalem, who since the imprisonment of Cyril had been president of the Synod. f215 The last document which at this time went forth from the orthodox side at Ephesus is a short letter of Cyril’s to the three bishops, Theopemptus, Potamon, and Daniel, whom the Synod had at an earlier period sent to Constantinople (see p. 79). In this he said that several false accusations had been raised against him, as, that he had brought with him both attendants and women from monasteries, and that Nestorius had been deposed only by his intrigues, and not by the will of the Synod. But, God be praised, Count John had recognized the falsehood of these charges, and had condemned his accusers. Moreover, in consequence of the imperial Sacra, he was still under arrest, and did not see what it would lead to; but he must thank God that he was thought worthy to be put in chains for His name’s sake. The Synod, on their side, had in no way allowed themselves to be misled into having communion with the Antiochenes, and had declared that they would never do so until these withdrew their insolent resolutions against the heads of the Synod, and confessed the true faith, for they were still Nestorian, and this was the turning-point of the whole controversy. f216 In the meantime, the clergy of Constantinople had delivered to the Emperor Theodosius the Younger a memorial on behalf of the Ephesine Synod, addressed to him and to his colleague in the empire, which at the very beginning sets forth the proposition that God should be obeyed rather than the rulers, and that therefore a frank word had become a matter of duty. The deposition of Cyril and Memnon by the Antiochenes is next declared to be entirely illegal, and the Emperors are entreated to restore those two highly meritorious bishops, and to confirm those decrees which the far larger number at Ephesus (in opposition to the Antiochenes) had drawn up. If Cyril, the leader (kaqhghthwhole Synod which agreed with him, and as a matter of consistency all the bishops ought to have been punished in the same way as Cyril and Memnon. But the Godloving Emperors should take thought that the Church, which they cherished like a nurse, should not be rent, and that the century of the martyrs should not be renewed. f217 To this time probably belongs also the short letter of Dalmatius to the Synod, mentioned above (p. 79, note 3), in which he announces the reception of the letters sent to him, expresses his sympathy with reference to the death of several members of the Synod, and assures them that he has now, as hitherto, fulfilled the wishes of the Synod. Another letter was addressed to Cyril by Alypius, a priest of the Apostles’ Church in Constantinople, in which he congratulates him on his sufferings, and compares him with Athanasius. Cyril himself, however, employed the leisure which his imprisonment afforded in drawing up a clearer explanation of his twelve anathematisms which had been so often assailed. f220 SEC. 145. THE CREED OF THE ANTIOCHENES.

THEIR SUBSEQUENT LETTERS.

On the other hand, the Antiochenes also were taking all possible pains to win the Emperor to their side. More especially they despatched to him by Count John a paper, which is extant only in Latin, partaking chiefly of the character of a polite letter, which exalts the recently issued imperial edict (on account of the deposition of Cyril, etc.) above all measure, as calculated again to pacify the whole world, which the Egyptian (Cyril) had, according to Ms custom, thrown into confusion. After the arrival of this edict, they had immediately hastened to condemn the anti-evangelical and anti-apostolic propositions of Cyril (his anathe-matisms), in which he ventured to pronounce anathema on the saints of all the past, and for which he had, Duly through abuse of the ignorance of some and the sickness of others, as well as by his own craft and obstinacy, gained surreptitiously a synodal confirmation. As the holy Father Acacius (of Beroea) had written to the Synod, these were Apollinarian propositions, and this bishop of one hundred and ten years old, who knew the Apollinarians so thoroughly, must certainly know this. They had, therefore, in union with Count John, entreated the bishops who had been misled by Cyril, and who had subscribed those propositions, now to declare the same erroneous, and in common with them (the Antiochenes) to subscribe the Nicene formula.

These, however, had refused, and therefore it only remained for them, simply on their own behalf, to confess the true faith, and to reject those false propositions by a written manifesto. The Creed of Nicaea needed no addition; since, however, the Emperors, as Count John had intimated, required a declaration in regard to the holy Virgin and God-bearer, they would, although such things transcended human powers, under invocation of divine aid, and to confute their enemies, give expression to their belief: “We acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is true God, and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and a body; that He was born (begotten) before all time by the Father, as to His Godhead, and was in the end of the days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin as to His manhood, of one substance with the Father in respect to His Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect to His manhood. For two natures are united together (unio facta est), and therefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Lord, and one Son. On account of this union, which is, however, far from being a mingling (inconfusa unio), we also confess that the holy Virgin is the God-bearer, because God the Word was made flesh, and by the incarnation, from the time of His conception, has united the temple (manhood) which He assumed of her (the Virgin) with Himself.” They add the request that the Emperor will, in his wonted manner, take under his protection the religion which has been endangered by the Egyptian propositions, and demand of all the bishops the rejection of Cyril’s propositions, and the subscription of the unaltered Nicene Creed; for without the rejection of those propositions, no peace is possible in the: Church. f222 In proportion as this letter did wrong to Cyril, and found Apollinarianism where none existed, so did it on the other side weaken the reproach of Cyril and his friends, that the Antiochenes were quite Nestorian in their opinions; for the formula drawn up by them bears a thoroughly orthodox sense, and was subsequently approved even by Cyril. The Antiochenes, however, conceal in this letter the fact, that by no means the whole of the members of their party had agreed to this form of faith, as we learn from a letter of Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, who expresses himself as decidedly for Nestorius, and against qeoto>kov and that formula of the Antiochenes, and accuses the latter of falsehood and wickedness, who, although the Emperor required no such declaration, had thereby betrayed the orthodox Nestorius. We see, therefore, that Cyril could justly accuse at least some of the Antiochenes of Nestorianism; and that his assertion, quoted above (p. 88), that the controversy respecting the qeoto>kov had arisen among the Antiochenes themselves, was entirely in accordance with truth.

In the letter to the Emperors just mentioned, the Antiochenes refer to a document which they had put forth after the arrival of Count John, in which they, on the one hand, had renewed the Nicene Creed, and, on the other, had rejected the twelve propositions of Cyril by a written declaration. This paper, I believe, we possess in a document which has been erroneously attributed to a somewhat earlier period, but which decidedly cannot have been drawn up before the arrival of Count John, since it speaks of three edicts which the Emperors had addressed to the Synod. This is the synodal declaration mentioned above (p. 80, note 3), subscribed by John of Antioch and all his adherents, with the heading De Schismaticis. f224 A third letter was now addressed by the Antiochene Conciliabulum at Ephesus to the clergy, the monks, and the people of Antioch, in which they relate, not without a good deal of self praise, all that has hitherto been done, and then remark that Cyril and Memnon, even in their close imprisonment, have not yet come to a better mind, and continue to throw all into confusion, apparently from despair. They had not troubled themselves, they say, about the excommunication pronounced, and had continued their spiritual functions. In accordance, therefore, with the ecclesiastical regulation (canon 4 of the Synod of Antioch of 341), they could no longer be restored, and knowing this well, they endeavored to make the confusion in the Church lasting. In Antioch, however, they might have good hope, and thank God for what had been done, pray for the erring, deliver sermons against the impious doctrine (of Cyril), and deliver up to the judges every one who sought in any way to propagate it. f225 At the same time the false Synod appealed to the aged Bishop Acacius of Beroea, assured him of its zeal against Apollinarianism, and announced that even now those who had been misled by Cyril would not obey the imperial command, or reject those false propositions. They (the Antiochenes) had with much trouble drawn up complete refutations of these propositions, and invited their opponents to a disputation on them; but they had not appeared, but continued to confuse everything, and were sending into all cities and provinces lying letters full of accusations against the Antiochenes. But they could thus mislead none but the simple; every one else knew that what proceeds from deposed men has no power at all.

These, however, were for ever deposed, since even after their excommunication they had discharged spiritual functions. Cyril and Memnon were very carefully imprisoned, and watched by soldiers day and night. Acacias might thank God, and pray for the Antiochenes, and for those who had erred, that the latter might return to the ancient faith. f226 SEC. 146. THE EMPEROR SUMMONS BEFORE HIM DEPUTIES FROM BOTH SIDES.

The efforts of Dalmatius and of the bishops who were present at Constantinople were not without favorable results, and the latter remarked in their letter to the Synod of Ephesus, mentioned above (p. 90), that it was rumored that the Emperor had already gained a truer view of the subject. How this change was gradually brought about is unknown; we know only that Theodosius now resolved to comply with the petition of the Synod, and personally to hear deputies from both sides. Baronius thinks that the overthrow of his general, Aspar, in his war with the Vandals in Africa, shook the Emperor, and changed him; but Tillemont remarks against this, with justice, that, on the one side, Theodosius had taken the previous false steps only from ignorance, and not from any evil will, and thus could not well have regarded a misfortune as a punishment from God; and that, on the other side, that unfortunate battle did not take place before the end of August 431, and therefore the result could not have been known so early in Constantinople. f228 The decree by which the Emperor summoned before him eight representatives of each of the two parties is no longer extant, and we are acquainted with it only from its results, and from the writings to which it gave occasion on both sides. Count John made it known to the one side as well as to the other, and each party made haste to elect and send its commissioners. On the Catholic side the Roman priest and papal legate Philip, and the Bishop Arcadius (also a papal legate), Juvenal (of Jerusalem), Flavian (of Philippi), Firmus (of Coesarea in Cappadocia), Theodotus (of Aneyra), Acacius (of Melitene), and Euoptius (of Ptolemais, in Africa) were selected. Cyril, too, would gladly have been among the number of these deputies, but he was obliged, as was Memnon also, to remain in prison. From the Antiochene side, John of Antioch, John of Damascus, Himerius of Nicomedia, Paulus of Emisa, Macarius of Laodicea, Apringius of Chalets, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Helladius of Ptolemais (in Phoenicia) were entrusted with the office of deputies. f230 The mandate which the orthodox Synod committed to their deputies, given in a somewhat free translation, is as follows: “Since the God-loving Emperors have given us permission, in the name of the whole world, which, represented by the Synod, contends for the right faith, to send an embassy to Constantinople in the interest of orthodoxy and of the holy Bishops Cyril and Memnon, we have selected you for this purpose, and give you the following instructions. Before all, you must consent to no communion with John of Antioch and his apostate Council, because they have refused in common with us to depose Nestorius, because they have been his patrons up to the time of your departure, because they have ventured, in opposition to all the canons, to condemn Cyril and Memnon; but especially because to this day they defend the doctrines of Nestorius, and besides, many of them are Coelestians (Pelagians), and for this reason are deposed; finally, because they have not shrunk from slandering the Synod of the whole world as heretical. If, however, the Emperor urgently requires it (for we must always obey him, when possible), you shall grant the Antiochenes communion on the condition that they subscribe the deposition of Nestorius, ask the forgiveness of the Synod in writing, with reference to Cyril and Memnon, principally, anathematize the heresies of Nestorius, reject his adherents, and take common action with the Synod for the restitution of Cyril and Memnon. Moreover, you must communicate on every point with the Synod, since the complete restoration of peace with the Antiochenes needs their approved; and you must not allow communion to the Antiochenes until the Synod have received back their heads (Cyril and Memnon).” This document is signed by Bishop Berinianus of Pergae, who now probably, as the oldest of the metropolitans (as Juvenal was among the deputies), occupied the presidency of the Council. f231 The Synod entrusted their delegates with the following letter to the Emperors. They said “they had at last responded to the prayers of the Synod, and had allowed the command to be conveyed to them by Count John, that they should send a deputation. The Synod thanked them for this, and sent Arcadius, etc. (the Roman priest Philip is here named ultimo loco) as their representatives, and prayed the Emperors, on their behalf, for a benevolent reception and a favorable hearing. At the same time they would mention in this letter that which weighed so heavily on them. They then relate how Nestorius was summoned sixteen days after the expiry of the appointed period, and had not appeared; how John of Antioch and his adherents had comported themselves, had deposed Cyril and Memnon, and had also deceived the Emperor by false intelligence, and what had then been done on the part of the Synod. They now, by their letter and their deputies, embraced the knees of the Emperors, and prayed that they would annul the sentence obtained by deception against Cyril and Memnon, and give back to the assembly their heads. For these were altogether sound in faith, and the whole Synod shared their faith, as they had declared in writing. In these their heads the whole bishops regarded themselves as prisoners, and the Emperors were therefore requested to release them all from bonds.” f232 The Antiochenes, too, did not fail to commit to their deputies, whom we have already mentioned, a written mandate, which, however, only indulges in general expressions on the rights and duties of those elected, and stipulates for the ratification of all the proceedings of the Conciliabulum.

This would, however, satisfy everything, if only the heretical propositions of Cyril were rejected. All the Antiochenes, with Alexander of Hierapolis and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis at their head, signed this commission. f233 SEC. 147. THE DEPUTIES OF BOTH PARTIES ARE SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. from a short letter of the Antiochene deputies to their Conciliabulum, dated the 11th Gorpiaeus, that is, the 11th of September 431, we learn that the Emperor Theodosius had in the meantime altered his plan, and did not allow either of the parties to enter Constantinople, but ordered them to go to Chalcedon (vis-a-vis to Constantinople, and separated from it only by the Bosporus), and to await him there. Disturbances among the monks, according to the Antiochenes, induced him to take this decision. At the same time we learn from this letter that Nestorius, about eight days before, had received notice to quit Ephesus, and to return to the monastery in which he was formerly a monk. The deputies of the Antiochenes complained of this, because it must have appeared like a confirmation of the unjust judgment pronounced against Nestorius. They then declare their readiness to contend for the faith even to blood, and remark that on that day, the 11th of the month Gorpiaeus, they expect the Emperor, who is on his way to Rufinianum, a suburb of Chalcedon. Finally, they commend themselves to the prayers of their friends, to whom they wish stedfastness in the faith, and conclude with the intelligence that Himerius (Bishop of Nicomedia, one of the Antiochene deputies, who had been taken ill on the way) had not yet arrived. f235 We have just heard that Nestorius had received notice, during the interval between the departure of the deputies of the two parties and their arrival in Chalcedon, to leave Ephesus. The edict in which this was announced to him we still possess, if not quite in its entirety, and it probably proceeded from the prefect of the Praetorians, Antiochus, but according to the ordinary custom it was drawn up in the name of all the prefects. It is short and courteous, but definite, and states that, as Nestorius himself had wished to depart from Ephesus and to return into his previous monastery, a convoy had been provided for him, which would attend upon him during his journey, he was allowed himself to choose the route, whether by land or by water, but these attendants had to accompany him to his monastery (that of S. Euprepius at Antioch). In conclusion, all good is wished him for his future life; and it is added that he, with his wisdom, cannot lack for comfort. f237 Nestorius answered: “He had received the letter of the prefect, and from that had learnt the command of the Emperor that he should henceforth live in the monastery. He accepted this thankfully, for nothing was more honorable in his view than to be exiled for the sake of religion, he only requested that the prefect would use his endeavors with the Emperor, that imperial edicts might be published in all churches in order to the rejection of the false doctrines of Cyril, so as to prevent an offense to the simple.”

If we turn our attention again to the deputies of the two parties and their efforts, we must chiefly lament the great dearth of original sources of information, especially that there is not a single original document from the orthodox deputies, and from this whole side generally only a single contemporaneous brief account of what was done (see p. 108, note 1, and p. 110) has come down to us. But even the documents which proceed from the Antiochenes and the Emperor are too defective to enable us to understand in sufficient detail the proceedings at Chalcedon. We believe we may venture to place the little that is known in the following chronological order. In the first place stands the short account just mentioned of the Antiochene deputies to those whom they represented, in which they announce the arrival of the Emperor on the 11th of Gorpiaeus (September 11) 431. A few days afterwards they despatched again a short letter to their friends at Ephesus, in which they gave them an account of the first proceedings which took place at Chalcedon in the presence of the Emperor. They are full of joy, for the Emperor has received their proposals very favorably, and they have triumphed over their opponents. That; which these had brought forward had made a bad impression. Ever and anon these had put forward the name of their Cyril, and had entreated that he might himself be allowed to appear and undertake his own cause. They had not, however, attained to this, but it had been insisted upon that the faith should be considered and the doctrine of the holy Fathers affirmed.

Further, they (the Antiochenes) had opposed Acacius of Melitene, a friend of Cyril’s, because he maintained that the Godhead was capable of suffering (cf. p. 122) At this blasphemy the Emperor had been so much annoyed that he shook his purple mantle. The whole Senate, too, agreed with him. At last the Emperor had commanded that each side should hand in to him a written account of their faith. They had replied that they could give no other declaration of faith than the Nicene, and this also had greatly pleased the Emperor. All Constantinople had come out to them, and entreated them to contend bravely for the faith. In conclusion, they adjoined two copies of the Nicene declaration of faith, deigned for the Emperor so that the Conciliabulum might sign them with their own hands. f239 The Antiochenes at Ephesus were highly delighted at this, and immediately sent the two documents back with their signatures, assuring their deputies in their answer that they would rather die than accept one of the heretical propositions of Cyril. But if these propositions were heretical, so also were the sentences of deposition which the adherents of these propositions had pronounced (they referred particularly to those against Nestorius, as is clear from the letter which follows), and entirely null and void. They confided in the envoys that they would obtain from the Emperor the rejection both of the chapters (of the anathematisms) of Cyril and of those sentences of deposition, and they transmitted to them a copy of the explanation of his anathematisms, recently drawn up by Cyril, so that they might the more easily demonstrate his impiety. f240 This document was signed by forty-two adherents of the Antiochene party, Tranquillinus of Antioch, in Pisidia, at their head; at the same time they transmitted a letter to the (Emperor, in which they thank him for the friendly reception of their deputies, glory in the zeal of the Emperor for the faith, and make intercession for Nestorius, without directly naming him, as his deposition by the heretical party of Cyril was invalid. At an earlier period, when the Emperor pronounced a sentence of deposition on Nestorius at the same time as upon Cyril and Memnon, they had preserved a cowardly silence, and had even commended the imperial wisdom, and separated themselves entirely from Nestorius, as even one of their own friends, Alexander of Hierapolis, reproached them with having done (p. 94). Now, on the contrary, the moment seemed to have come to throw off the mask, and again to take the side of Nestorius. They deceived themselves, however, and their sanguine hopes did not in the least progress towards fulfillment.

There were, in fact, at Chalcedon, after the first session just mentioned, four other sessions, or series of proceedings, held in the presence of the Emperor; but no record of the details has been preserved. At the most we have a few small fragments of Theodoret, containing a polemic against the adherents of Cyril, belonging to the speeches which he may have delivered at these proceedings. The other existing documents are all drawn up after that session, and in particular a letter of the Antiochene deputies to Rufus, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who had in writing exhorted Julian, Bishop of Sardica, a member of the Conciliabulum, to allow nothing to be added to the Nicene Creed, and nothing to be taken from it. The deputies commend him for this, speak again of the Apollinarian-ism of Cyril, of their own contending for the Nicene faith, of the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, of the impossibility of their restitution (because they had continued the exercise of their spiritual functions), and of the obstinacy of Cyril’s party. The Emperor had already admonished the envoys of this party in five sessions, either to reject the chapters of Cyril, as contrary to the faith, or to prove their conformity with the doctrine of the holy Fathers in a disputation. They themselves (the Antiochenes) had collected complete proofs against these doctrines, together with evidences from Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius, Damasus of Rome, and Ambrose of Milan, and they gave some of them (but no patristic passages) for the benefit of Rufus, in order to prove that Cyril was an Arian and a Eunomian. Of entirely similar views with their own were many Eastern and even Latin bishops. To this effect Bishop Martin of Milan had written to them, and sent them the work of S. Ambrose, De Dominica Incarnatione, which taught the opposite of those heretical chapters. Besides, they said, Cyril and Memnon had not only falsified the faith, but had also violated all the canonical laws, and had received heretics, Pelagians and Euchites, into their communion, in order to multiply their number. They had thought that, by means of men and by the expenditure of much money, they could overthrow the faith of the Fathers. Rufus should beware of holding communion with them, and declare far and near that their chapters were Apollinarian. Finally, a copy of the letter sent by them to the Emperor lay before him, in which they had given utterance to the Nicene faith, and had opposed the chapters of Cyril. f246 SEC. 148. THE EMPEROR DECIDES IN FAVOR OF THE ORTHODOX, AND SUMMONS THEIR DEPUTIES TO CONSTANTINOPLE.

The prospects of the Antiochenes had already become more troubled when Theodoret wrote from Chalcedon to Alexander of Hierapolis as follows: “No kind of friendliness, no kind of urgency, no kind of exhortation, no kind of eloquence had been by them left untried with the Emperor and his Senate in order that the Nicene Creed alone should be received, and the newly-introduced heresy should be rejected. But to the present day they had produced no effect, although they had even sworn to the Emperor that it was impossible for them to agree with Cyril and Memnon. As often as they had endeavored to speak of Nestorius to the Emperor or the Senate, they were accused of departing from their previous resolutions, so great was the enmity against him, and the Emperor had declared with decision that no one should venture again to speak to him of that man. Yet, as long as they were here, they would concern themselves about this father, Nestorius, convinced that wrong had been done him. In other respects they wished generally to be set free from this place, for there was no further hope of any success, as the judges (the imperial officials, who had to decide between the two parties) were accessible to gold, and maintained that the Godhead and manhood make only one nature. The people (of Constantinople), on the contrary, behaved admirably, and often came out to the Antiochene deputies. They had there-tore begun to deliver discourses to them, and to have meetings for public worship with them in the great imperial Aula at Rufinianum. The clergy and the monks, however, were hostile to them, and once on their return from the meeting they had been stoned, and several had been wounded. The Emperor had learnt it, and had said to Theodoret, when he met him: You assemble unlawfully; but Theodoret had frankly declared how unfair it was that the excommunicated (Cyril’s party) should be allowed to hold their services in the churches, while all the churches were shut against them. (The people, clergy, and Bishop of Chalcedon were orthodox.) The Emperor, he said, should do as Count John did at Ephesus, and forbid divine service to both parties alike. The Emperor replied: I cannot give such an order to the Bishop of Chalcedon, but for the future I have not forbidden the meetings of the Antiochenes (without the Eucharist). The meetings were up to this time very much frequented; but they were themselves always in danger on account of the monks and clergy, and had, on the one side, to endure acts of violence, and on the other, (the Emperor’s) indifference.” f248 It was not long before they experienced worse. Despairing of the possibility of a compromise, the Emperor suddenly returned from Chalcedon to Constantinople, without the deputies of the Antiochenes venturing to follow him, whilst he ordered those of the orthodox party to come after him, and to ordain another Bishop of Constantinople in the place of the deposed Nestorius. The Antiochenes, who had expected further sessions, were greatly troubled at this, but would not yet give up the hope of triumphing over their opponents in discussions, and therefore directly sent after the Emperor a memorial, of which we no longer possess the Greek original, but of which we have two ancient Latin translations, diverging considerably from each other, and in many places evidently corrupt. On the whole, that text which is given by the Synodicon of Irenaeus is less corrupt than the other, so that for the most part we adhere to the former.

The document begins with a violent attack upon Cyril and his adherents, accuses him even of heresy, and ascribes to him (as Nestorius had done before) the intention of giving occasion for the whole confusion, and the misleading of the others by all kinds of promises, in order to escape punishment for his own offenses (see above, pp. 27 and 56). To this the assurance was added how willingly the Antiochenes would be silent, but how their conscience, because it was a question of the overthrow of the faith, imperatively required of them that they should come and make their petition to the Emperor, who, next to God was the protector of the world.

They adjure him then, by God, who sees all, by Christ, who will judge all, by the Holy Ghost, through whose grace he governs, and by the angels who protect him, to avenge the religion which is now attacked, to order the abolition of the heretical chapters of Cyril, and to give instructions that every one who has subscribed them, and who, in spite of the pardon offered by the Antiochenes, perseveres in his contentiousness, shall come here (to a new disputation on the theological controversy in the presence of the Emperor), and be punished, after the sentence of the Emperor, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws. The Emperor could do nothing better to express his thankfulness that Christ had granted him so many victories over the Persians and other barbarians. Moreover, it was necessary that the proceedings (the disputations of the deputies on both sides) should be produced in writing in presence of the Emperor. He could then decide whether those who suppressed the true faith, and yet would not stand to their new doctrines nor discuss them, were henceforth worthy to be called teachers. They had conspired among themselves, and intended to grant ecclesiastical privileges as the wages of impiety (to their adherents), and in various ways to destroy canonical order, if the Emperor did not prevent it. Nay, the Emperor would see how, when they had overthrown the faith of Christ, they would soon distribute the spoils of victory as the wages of treachery. In many ways Juvenal of Jerusalem had been guilty of presumption (they had previously, however, been silent on the subject), and his plans on both Phoenicia and Arabia were well known to them. In opposing these efforts they put their hope in the judgment of God and in the piety of the Emperor; at the present moment, however, they, before everything and exclusively, presented a petition on behalf of the purity of the faith, that this which has had such glory since Constantine, and even under the present Emperor has been extended to Persia, should not be oppressed in the very palace of the Emperor himself. If any one should ever venture to become indifferent in regard to religion, they hoped that might be any one rather than the Emperor, to whom God had entrusted the power over the whole world. They were ready to follow his decision, for God would enlighten him so that he might perfectly apprehend the subject to be handled (in the proposed disputation). Should, however, such a new disputation be impossible, then let the Emperor allow them to return home to their dioceses.

As is shown by what follows, this refers chiefly to Jerusalem. The Antiochenes accused the party of Cyril of having promised Juvenal of Jerusalem, in reward for his assistance, their support in his endeavor to obtain a higher hierarchical position. In fact, however, as we saw above, p. 77, Cyril did the reverse.

A short time afterwards they addressed a second memorial to the Emperor, and there give an account, from their own point of view, of the whole course of the Synod of Ephesus, and the summoning of the deputies to Chalcedon. They say further, that the opposite party had entered into no conferences with them on the subject of Cyril’s propositions, and to this party, although persisting in heresy, permission had been given at Chalcedon to attend church and to hold divine service, while they (the Antiochenes), for a long time at Ephesus, and here also, had been forced to be without holy communion. They had endured much besides, and had even been pelted with stones by servants who were attired as monks. The Emperor had promised them one more session, but had de, parted for Constantinople, and had commanded the opposition party, although excommunicated, to follow him to celebrate divine service and even to ordain (a new bishop for Constantinople). They, the Antiochene deputies, on the other hand, did not dare either to go to Constantinople or to return home. Of one mind with them were the bishops of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, Illyricum, and even of Italy, who would never approve of the teaching of Cyril, and had transmitted to the Emperor a writing of S.

Ambrose which contradicted the new heresy (cf. p. 104). In conclusion, they pray that no bishop may be allowed to be ordained for Constantinople before a decision is arrived at as to the true faith. f255 The Emperor answered by a short decree addressed to the whole Synod of Ephesus, — that is, to both parties in common, — in which he laments that the discord still lasts, and commands all the members of the Synod to return home from Ephesus, and again to fill their episcopal sees. Only Cyril and Memnon are to remain deposed. f256 The Antiochene deputies now addressed their third memorial to the Emperor. “Such a result they had not expected: but their modesty had injured them. They had been so long detained at Chalcedon, and now they were sent home, while those who had thrown everything into confusion and divided the Church, exercised spiritual functions, celebrated divine service, held ordinations, and spent the property of the poor upon soldiers.

And yet Theodosius was Emperor not for these only, but also for the Antiochenes, and the East was no small part of his kingdom, he should not despise the faith into which he had been baptized, for which so many martyrs had bled, through which he had overcome the barbarians, and of which he had now great need in the African war. God would protect him if he protected the faith, and did not allow the body of the Church to be rent.

They further assure the Emperor that the party of Cyril repeat the errors of Apollinaris, Arius, and Eunomius, and discharge spiritual functions in a manner not permitted. The greatest part of the people, on the other hand, were still sound, and very anxious for the faith. If the Emperor, in spite of their adjuration, would not receive the true faith, then they shook the dust off their feet, crying, with Paul, ‘we are guiltless of your blood.’” f257 SEC. 149. THE EPHESINE SYNOD IS DISSOLVED.

This, however, made no more impression than their previous efforts. On the contrary, the Emperor now placed himself still more decidedly than before upon the side of the orthodox; and after these had, in accordance with his command, ordained a new bishop for Constantinople in the person of Maximian, a priest of that Church, he put forth a new decree to the Synod of Ephesus, under which title he understands here no longer, as before, both parties, but only the assembly of the orthodox; but he does not treat even this in a quite friendly manner, and he does not conceal his displeasure at the miscarriage of his plans for unity. He says: “As you could not be induced to unite with the Antiochenes, and, moreover, would not join in any discussion of the points of difference, I command that the Oriental bishops return to their churches, and that the Ephesine Synod dissolve. Cyril, too, is to return to Alexandria (to his diocese), and Memnon shall remain bishop of Ephesus. At the same time we also give it to be known that, as long as we live, we shall not condemn the Orientals, for they have not been confuted in our presence, and no one would dispute with them. Moreover, if you wish for the peace of the Church (with the Orientals = Antiochenes), that is, if you will still come to an understanding with them at Ephesus, let me know this immediately; if not, then think of your return home. We are not to blame (that no unity was accomplished), but God knows who must share the blame.” f259 An addition to this imperial edict in the Synodicon notifies that Cyril, even before the arrival of this decree, had been released from his imprisonment, and had set out on his return to Alexandria. Front the previously quoted sole communication from the orthodox side we learn further, that Cyril arrived at Alexandria on the 3d of Athyr, that is, October 30, 431, and was received with great rejoicing. He was, besides, soon gladdened by a very friendly letter from the new bishop of Constantinople. f261 The Antiochene deputies do not seem to have been as quick as Cyril in returning home from Chalcedon. At least, after Cyril and Memnon had already been set at liberty, and the imperial edict of dissolution had appeared, they prepared a new statement — their third and last — to their friends, in which they refer to all that has taken place, and promise to make further efforts on behalf of Nestorius, if that be still in any way possible.

Until now, however, they say, all their attempts have remained without result, for all here had been unfavorably affected by the very mention of the name of Nestorius. At the same time they mention how, in view of the fact that the party of Cyril had endeavored to ensnare all by violence, flattery, and bribery, they had repeatedly petitioned the Emperor to dismiss them and the Synod from Ephesus. For a longer sojourn there was now entirely useless, since Cyril (the party of Cyril) steadily refused all conference. The Emperor had at last, after repeated admonitions, formed the resolution that all should return to their homes, but that Cyril and Memnon should retain their dignities. Now Cyril would be able to ensnare all by his presents, so that the guilty would return to his diocese, but the innocent would be shut up in the cloister. f262 Immediately before their actual departure from Chalcedon the Antiochenes again delivered discourses to the Nestorians who came over to them from Constantinople. Of two of these we still possess considerable fragments. In the first discourse, delivered by Theodoret of Cyrus, he complained that they, the Antiochenes, were prevented from going to Constantinople on account of their stedfastness to Christ, but that, instead, the heavenly Jerusalem was waiting for them. His hearers had crossed from Constantinople over the fearful waves of the Propontis (at Chalcedon the Bosporus opens into the Propontis) in order to hear his voice, because they believed that in it they could see a reflection of the voice of their pastor (Nestorius.). He then went on to praise Nestorius, and invoked woes upon his persecutors. No less pathetically did he proceed to speak on the expression of the orthodox, “God has suffered” (cf. § 153), for which he placed them far down below the heathen. f263 After Theodoret, the Patriarch John of Antioch took up the word, and of his discourse also we possess a fragment, in which he greets his hearers, and at the same time takes farewell of them, exhorts them to stedfastness in the faith, and assures them that from mere believers they have now become Confessores. For the rest they must not allow themselves to be misled into the notion that God was capable of suffering, for the natures (in Christ)were only united, not mingled. To that they must hold fast, and God would be with them. f264 SEC. 150. SLANDERS ON CYRIL AND S. PULCHERIA.

We saw how the Antiochenes repeatedly accused Cyril and his friends of having brought about by bribery the remarkable revolution in the views and conduct of the court. The most important document on this subject is a letter from the centenarian Bishop Acacius of Beroea, of whom we have already heard, to Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, who declares that he had heard from John of Antioch, Theodoret, and others, that the Emperor had at first been entirely on the side of the Antiochenes, but that Cyril had bribed the influential eunuch Scholasticus, of whom we have already heard (pp. 81 and 108, note 3), and many others. When he died the Emperor had discovered written proof among his effects that he had received many pounds of gold from Cyril. Paul, a brother’s son of Cyril’s, and an official at Constantinople, had arranged for these payments. The Emperor had therefore confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but Cyril had escaped from prison at Ephesus, and the monks at Constantinople had, so to speak, compelled the Emperor to dissolve the Synod, and to fulfill their wishes (and among them the liberation of Cyril). f266 This report, which Acacius, as he declares himself, had only from hearsay, and which those who communicated it to him again could only have heard from others (they certainly did not venture to come to Constantinople), arouses at the very first glance certain doubts. We know that Scholasticus had, at an earlier period, been a patron of Nestorius, but that afterwards he inclined to the other side, and in consequence was very likely to become the spokesman of this side with the Emperor. It is also correct to say that., after the conclusion of the conferences at Chalcedon, Theodosius at first reaffirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon; but it is scarcely credible that, if he had discovered the bribery, and therefore had renewed the edict against Cyril and Memnon, he would so soon afterwards have again given to both complete liberty, and restored them to their dioceses. To this we must add, that the deputies of the Antiochenes, so long as they were at Chalcedon, and so in the immediate neighborhood of Constantinople, had not said a single syllable respecting this discovery made at the death of Scholasticus, and yet the thing must have occurred before their departure from Chalcedon (cf. p. 111). And how gladly would they have rejoiced over such a thing if they had known it! Besides, it is not probable that Cyril would have been able and willing to escape from his imprisonment at Ephesus, or if he had actually done so, that the Emperor, instead of inflicting punishment, would have sent after him a decree granting him perfect liberty. Finally, it was not Scholasticus, but the Emperor’s sister, S.

Pulcheria, as she relates, who was principally active against Nestorius, f267 for which reason she was horribly slandered by his adherents. Nestorius, they said, had once accused her of an unlawful connection with her own brother, and therefore she had hated him so bitterly. f268 We will not directly deny that Cyril may at that time have offered gifts to Scholasticus and others, for that he afterwards made presents to the Empress Pulcheria, and to many other high personages, we are told by his own archdeacon and Syncellus Epiphanius, as we shall see more fully further on at sec. 156. But this must be judged of not by our customs and circumstances, but by those of the East, according to which no one is allowed to approach a superior without bringing a present with him, however just his cause may be. The making of presents is absolutely universal in the East, but these presents are not all bribes ; very many are simply customary recommendations of a cause which, in itself, is thoroughly just. In reference to this custom of the East, the Protestant theologians, who in the 16th and 17th centuries labored to bring about a union of the Greeks with the Protestants, had not the slightest hesitation in pleasing and conciliating the Greek prelates and dignitaries by presents. f269 And the matter may be stated even more advantageously for Cyril. In any case, he only sought to gain friends and protectors for the ancient faith to which those who were the objects of his gifts entirely belonged, whereas those Protestant theologians endeavored to draw away the Greek clergy from duties which they had sworn to observe.

CHAPTER 3. Proceedings With A View To Union Between Cyril And The Antiochenes. Overthrow Of Nestorianism.

SEC. 151. THE RUPTURE STILL CONTINUES. SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE, TARSUS, AND ANTIOCH.

THE rupture which had taken place during the Ephesine Synod unfortunately lasted on after its dissolution for several years, as the Antiochenes persevered in their peculiarly perverse attitude. In the first place, they would not decidedly defend the doctrine of Nestorius, but came forward occasionally as its advocates, and endeavored to protect and cover their own doctrinal indecision by the formally Catholic bulwark: Nil innovetur (on the Nicene Creed). In a similar way, the point of view which they occupied in reference to the person of Nestorius was purely formal.

That materially he had been deposed with justice they would neither concede nor deny; but they persistently declared the sentence against him to be formally invalid, because it was pronounced by the Synod too early, before the arrival of the Antiochenes. Thence it resulted that they in like manner disapproved the election of the new Bishop Maximian for Constantinople, which had taken place on the 25th of October 431, and were compelled decisively to reject it, as the chair was, in their opinion, not vacant. Positively and dogmatically they pronounced only upon one point, — namely, the teaching of Cyril, — since they took single expressions of his, which were inadequate to convey his meaning, and liable to be misunderstood, disregarding all the explanations which he had given, and by arbitrary inference charged them with Apollinarianism, Arianism, Eunomianism, and all other possible heresies. It is peculiar that Walch and other historians have not the slightest word of disapprobation to utter over this imputation of heresy in the gross, while no phrase is strong enough, in their view, to scourge Cyril with for his attitude towards Nestorius. Finally, the Antiochenes persisted in the assertion: Cyril and Memnon were deposed by us, and can no longer hold their sees.

As we have already seen, the appointment of a new bishop for Constantinople was accomplished by the deputies of the orthodox majority of Ephesus, whom the Emperor had summoned to the metropolis for that purpose. At first they thought of the learned priest, Philippus Sideres, and of Bishop Proclus, who had been unjustly refused possession of his diocese of Cyzicus, and had always distinguished himself by his anti-Nestorian zeal (see p. 14). At last they came to an agreement in the person of the monk and priest Maximian, who, according to the Greek Menologies, was born at Rome, had served long among the clergy at Constantinople, and had gained a very good name by his piety and unpretentiousness. Socrates says of him that he was not exactly learned, and that he was addicted to the quiet and contemplative life. A nature thus peaceful and free from ambition was a real benefit to Constantinople, and well adapted to reconcile parties, so that only one small Nestorian congregation continued for a short time to exist there.

In union with the orthodox deputies of the Synod, and forming with them a kind of Synod (at Constantinople), Maximian communicated immediately to the rest of the bishops intelligence of the election which had taken place, and transmitted to them the decrees of Ephesus, as we learn from his letter to the Bishops of Epirus. A second letter he addressed to Cyril, in which he congratulated him on his final victory, and his unchangeable, martyr-like steadfastness for the good cause. In his answer Cyril explained to his new colleague in all brevity the orthodox doctrine on the union of the two natures (without mixture), and indeed this letter alone would suffice to prove the groundlessness of the charges of the Antiochenes, that Cyril mingled the two natures, and thus impaired both. At the same time, Cyril expressed his joy at the election of Maximian in a short letter to the orthodox synodal deputies who had co-operated in securing it. Similar sentiments were expressed by Pope Coelestine in his letters to Maximian, to the Church of Constantinople, and to the Emperor Theodosius H. They are all dated on the 15th of March 432, and on the same day Coelestine dispatched a fourth letter, full of praise and appreciation, to the Synod of Ephesus, which he regarded as still existing in the deputies present at Constantinople, and which he commended for the election of Maximianus.

In the meantime the Antiochenes had, on their return from the Council, gone as far as Ancyra in Galatia, and were here, to their great annoyance, already treated practically as excommunicated men. Bishop Theodotus of Ancyra, who belonged to the orthodox party of Ephesus and to the synodal deputies, had, in union with his colleague Firmus of Caesarea, dispatched a letter from Constantinople to Ancyra, in which he gave instructions to this effect. John of Antioch complained of this to the Prefect Antiochus, and apparently about the same time addressed in writing to the Emperor the request that he would suppress the heretical teaching of Cyril. On their way home the Antiochenes held a Conciliabulum at Tarsus in Cilicia, where they pronounced anew a sentence of anathema on Cyril and at the same time on the seven orthodox synodal deputies, and published this decision in a circular letter. We learn this from two letters of Bishop Meletius of Mopsueste (who belonged to the Antiochene party) to Count Neotherius and the Vicar Titus, and Theodoret of Cyrus also refers repeatedly to the same. A second similar Conciliabulum took place somewhat later at Antioch, and after excommunication had here too been repeatedly pronounced upon Cyril and his adherents, John of Antioch and some of his party proceeded to Beroea, in order to give the aged Bishop Acacius information of what had been done by word of mouth, and to obtain his assent, in which they succeeded. At the same time Theodoret of Cyrus, Andrew of Samosata, and Eutherius of Tyana took all pains in writings and in learned letters to represent the views and statements of Cyril as heretical, and to defend those bishops who, on account of their open leaning to heresy, had been recently deposed by Archbishop Maximian of Constantinople and Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, namely, Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis. Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, on the contrary, who was so celebrated afterwards, now seceded from the antiochene party and joined that of Cyril. SEC. 152. THE POPE AND THE EMPEROR ATTEMPT TO MEDIATE. SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE AND ANTIOCH.

On the 26th of July 432, Pope Coelestine I. died, and Sixtus III. was his successor. Gennadius relates, that in the year 430, when he was still a priest at Rome, he had required of Nestorius to yield to Cyril; but this statement has been pronounced to be inaccurate by later scholars. It is certain, on the other hand, that Sixtus, soon after his entrance upon office, by circular writings and separate letters, particularly to Cyril, solemnly approved the decisions of the Synod of Ephesus, and at the same time endeavored again to restore the peace of the Church, on the basis that John of Antioch and his adherents should, without further difficulties, be received into communion, if they rejected all which had been rejected by the holy Synod of Ephesus. This mildness and placableness brought him indeed, in some quarters, an in report, as though he had even regarded the deposition of Nestorius with dissatisfaction; but his letters show the reverse, and Cyril defended him with decision against this accusation. The Emperor Theodosius H. also took part in the attempt to mediate, and for that purpose, about the middle of the year 432, held a consultation with Maximian of Constantinople and the other bishops and clergy who were present there (in a kind of Synod), on the ways which might lead to peace.

By their advice he wrote to John of Antioch, saying, “It was sad that bishops who are one in faith should fall into such discord, and very sad that the teachers of peace themselves should need an exhortation to peace. John and Cyril should therefore be reconciled, and the holy bishops assembled at Constantinople had declared that, if John would subscribe the deposition of Nestorius, and anathematize his doctrine, then all cause for strife would be removed. Cyril and Pope Coelestine (who is thus shown to have been then alive, or, at least, whose death was not yet known at Constantinople) and all the other bishops would then immediately return into Church communion with him, and all further smaller scruples could easily be set aside. John should now come to Nicomedia as soon as possible for the conclusion of peace, whither also Cyril was ordered to go by an imperial letter; but neither of them was to bring with him other bishops (who might perhaps destroy the good understanding), but only a few confidential clerics as attendants; nor would either be received by the Emperor until they were reconciled. Finally, until then no new bishop was to be appointed and none was to be deposed.” This letter was sent to Antioch by the hand of the tribune and notary Aristolaus, so that he might personally urge on the affair.

In a second letter, the Emperor requested S. Simeon Stylites, afterwards so highly honored, that he would by powerful prayer and exhortation cooperate for the peace of the Church. A similar letter, also asking for intercession with God, he addressed to the aged Bishop Acacius of Beroea and others. The imperial letter to Cyril, on the contrary, is lost, and its exact contents unknown. We know only that it required of him a forgetting and a forgiving of the ill-treatment which he had endured at Ephesus. Tillemont (l.c. p. 516) supposes, further, that the Emperor had in it suggested to Cyril that he should repudiate his own anathematizes in the same way as he had required of John the repudiation of the counteranathematizes of Nestorius (of his teaching generally). But Walch (l.c. S. 581 f.) has already declared this to be improbable, because the Emperor certainly regarded Nestorius, but not Cyril, as heretical. And this comes out still more clearly from what follows. John of Antioch was placed in great embarrassment by the arrival of the imperial letter, and wrote to Alexander of Hierapolis, that he was too weak and infirm to travel to Constantinople (properly to Nicomedia, and thence, after peace was concluded, to the Emperor at Constantinople). Besides, he had been told that his enemies might easily do him an injury upon the journey. Alexander, however, with Theodoret and other bishops, after they had held their conference at Cyrus, should come as quickly as possible to him and advise him as to what was to be done, for he did not know what he should answer to the Emperor. His propositions were aperte impioe, since the chapters of Cyril in an indirect manner contained that which was wrong (the Emperor then had not demanded their repudiation of Cyril), and he was required to pronounce anathema on those who recognize two natures in Christ (no one had required this, and John misrepresents the matter). He adds that the Magistcr Militum (Plinthas) urged him greatly to accept the imperial propositions. John, however, sought to gain time, and held a Synod, first at Antioch and then in a city of Syria which is unknown to us, with the Bishops Alexander of Hierapolis, Acacius of Beroea, Macarius of Laodicea, Andrew of Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrus. They here drew up six propositions, probably framed by Theodoret, with the condition that they would receive into Church communion whoever would accept one of them, without, however, on their side recognizing the deposition of Nestorius.

They themselves describe, as the first and most important, the proposition: “That the creed of Nicaea must be maintained without any additions, and with the rejection of all other explanations, which were given in letters and chapters (of Cyril), and only that explanation of it must be accepted which S. Athanasius had drawn up in his letter to Epictetus of Corinth (against the Apollinarians).” This first proposition alone is still preserved, and it was placed before Cyril and his friends, together with the epistle of Athanasius in question, as we learn from a letter of the Antiochenes to Bishop Helladius of Tarsus. SEC. 153. ARISTOLAUS TRAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA.

THE HOPES OF PEACE INCREASE.

With this first proposition and a letter of the aged Acacius to Cyril the State official, Aristolaus, who has already been named, traveled to Alexandria in order the better to advance the work of peace in this place by carrying on negotiations with Cyril. Cyril speaks of his arrival in his letters to Bishop Acacius of Melitene, to Bishop Donatus of Nicopolis in Epirus, and to Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, to the effect that “the friends of Nestorins had abused the venerable Acacius of Beroea by writing to him that which was unfitting, and requiring of him that he should withdraw and repudiate all that he had written against Nestorius, and should hold merely to the Nicene Creed. But that he had answered them, We hold firmly by all that is in the Nicene Creed; but what I have rightly written against Nestorius it is impossible that I should declare to be false, and it is, on the contrary, necessary that you should, in accordance with the imperial command and the decree of Ephesus, repudiate Nestorius, anathematize his teaching, and recognize the election of Maximian.”

He gives here in brief the substance of that which in fact he explained more fully in his answer to Acacius of Beroea (for this letter, too, we still possess), with the remark that from love to God and the Emperor he willingly forgave all the injuries inflicted upon him by the Antiochenes. In proceeding further, he asserts that he is unjustly accused of Apollinarianism or Arianism, etc.; on the contrary, he anathematizes Arianism and all other heresies, confesses (in opposition to Apollinaris) that Christ had a reasonable human soul (pneu~ma ), further, that no mixing and mingling and no confusion of the natures in Christ had taken place; but, on the contrary, that the Logos of God is in its own nature unchangeable and incapable of suffering. But in the flesh one and the same Christ and only-begotten Son of God suffered for us. — Further, that his (Cyril’s) chapters had their strength and power only in opposition to the errors of Nestorius, were intended only to overthrow his false statements, and that he who condemned the latter should certainly cease to find fault with the chapters.

If Church communion were again restored, he would by letters pacify all, and explain all the misunderstood passages of his writings to their satisfaction; but repudiate them he could not, for they were doctrinally accurate, and in accordance with truth, and approved by the whole of the rest of the Church. In conclusion, he speaks of the earnest efforts for peace of Aristolaus, and greets the receiver of his letter, together with all the bishops assembled around him.

Cyril had consented to give the more exact explanations which were sent, in consequence of the urgent wish of Aristolaus, as his archdeacon, Epiphanius, informs the bishop of Constantinople, and these were in fact very well adapted to rebut the false reproaches and accusations of his opponents. Besides, Cyril could give them without in the least departing from his original teaching, as is clear from a comparison with what was said before (pp. 21 and 29 ff.), and only ignorance or prejudice can accuse him of a departure from his original principles.

Aristolaus sent his companion and assistant Maximus to the East with this letter of Cyril’s, along with the request that the Antiochenes would now collectively anathematize Nestorius and his teaching. At the same time, the Pope also and some other bishops addressed letters to Acacius for the promotion of peace. Acacius handed the documents which he received over to his Oriental colleagues, and at the same time, in his letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, expressed his present satisfaction with Cyril without the least reserve. As was to be foreseen, this decided friend of Nestorius was of a quite different view, and maintained in his answer to Acacius that Cyril, notwithstanding the explanation which he had given, was still an Apollinarian, and that Nestorius should not be anathematized before it was proved that he had taught that which was contrary to Scripture. He wrote in a still more violent style to his fellow-partisan, Andrew of Samosata, full of astonishment at the changeableness of Acacius, and declaring that “he would rather give up his office, yes, rather lose a hand, than have communion with Cyril, unless he anathematized his errors, and acknowledged that Christ is God and man, and that He suffered in His manhood” (it is well known that Cyril did not deny this).

Andrew of Samosata now adopted the same tone in his answer to this letter. Cyril is to him a deceiver, and he supposes that they are already giving in at Antioch, and that it was not wrongly that he had lately dreamt that Bishop John of Antioch had allowed himself to pronounce a eulogy upon Apollinaris. Acacius had also written to Theodoret, and invited him to a personal interview; but the latter, being prevented by sickness and visitors, expressed himself in writing to the effect that the most recent explanations of Cyril did not please him badly. They were less in harmony with his earlier utterances, and more with the teaching of the Fathers. On the other hand, it was very blameworthy that Cyril, instead of simply accepting one of the six propositions thus modified, which had been drawn up, had given out much verbiage and circumlocution, and had not chosen the short and simple way to peace. He also required that the Antiochenes should sign the deposition of Nestorius, but they had not even been present at his condemnation, and it would be imposing a great burden upon their conscience to do anything which they regarded as unjust. In conclusion, Acacius should so manage the affair that the peace should be pleasing to all, but especially to God. Theodoret expressed himself somewhat more exactly in his letter to Andrew of Samosata. He commends the act of Cyril in pronouncing anathema upon Apollinarianism, etc.; but, he said, it was not possible that the Antiochenes should anathematize the teaching of Nestorius en bloc (indeterminate), as it appeared to them correct. It would be something quite different if Cyril had required an anathema on those who teach that Christ was a mere man, or who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Theodoret knew well that such statements were decidedly heretical, but he professed to see in them, particularly in the latter, not a consequence of Nestorianism, but only an unfounded charge which was brought against it. His offer to repudiate these propositions, without, however, alluding to Nestorius himself, has accordingly no other foundation than the Jansenistic distinction between question du fait and du droit . that is, that those propositions should be as of right (du droit) repudiated, but the quoestio facti, as to whether Nestorius taught them, was to be answered in the negative.

Andrew of Samosata hereupon answered that he was quite in agreement with Theodoret’s proposition, that they should promise Cyril to pronounce anathema on those who call Christ a mere man, and on those who divide the one Lord into two Sons. Moreover, if Cyril should persist in requiring that they should subscribe the deposition of Nestorius, but should be satisfied if they did not all give their signature, but only some of them, it was probable that some would do tills. In conclusion, he asked that Theodoret would pray that peace should be hindered by no obstacle.

We see how much more placably Andrew here speaks than formerly in his answer to the violent Alexander of Hierapolis. In order, however, to bring the latter to greater mildness, he now sent him the letter of Theodoret, recommends submission, depicts the disadvantages of persisting in schism, and wishes that Alexander too would accept the new proposal. The latter, however, again expressed himself fanatically and bitterly in two letters to Andrew and Theodoret, and saw only a temptation of Satan in the whole of the proceedings for peace. He is peculiarly indignant at John of Antioch, and swears by his soul’s salvation not to yield a foot’s breadth. Theodoret replied to him quietly and calmly, that he knew the patriarch better, and that neither he nor himself would agree to the condemnation of Nestorius. On the other hand, the new declaration of Cyril seemed to him to tend to peace, and he was curious to learn how it could be contradictory to the gospel. As for the rest, he agreed that it did not yet suffice to justify the reception of Cyril into communion again; in order to this, more exact expressions in the sense of the Nicene Creed would be necessary. Bishop Maximin of Anazarbus inclined to the side of Alexander, and informed him by letter that John of Antioch had commended the latest explanations of Cyril; while in the copy which a friend had given him, Cyril expressed his resolution of simply maintaining his previous assertions. He hoped then that Alexander would give him an explanation on this point. — We may remark that Maximin had seen correctly, for in fact it was only the perverse meanings which were attributed to the earlier words of Cyril, and not these words themselves, which were contradictory to his latest explanations. Hence it comes that Theodoret and John of Antioch, and all those who had falsely apprehended the earlier words of Cyril, were certainly compelled to assume that there was a considerable difference between his present and his earlier utterances, while in the eyes of a genuine Nestorian they were equally Apollinarian, and made too little distinction between the natures of Christ.

The third violent zealot and decided Nestorian was Bishop Helladius of Tarsus, who in his letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, already treats those of the Antiochenes who were disposed for peace as traitors. Alexander commends him for this, and rejoices that the Churches of both Cilicias are so distinctly or, the side of the preacher of truth — namely, Nestorius. On the other side, Theodoret sought to win this Helladius of Tarsus for his more peaceful view, and therefore wrote to him that the new explanations of Cyril might be accepted, but not his demand that they should anathematize Nestorius. Besides, all deposed bishops of the Antiochene side (see above, pp. 67 f. and 118) must be restored again before they could receive Cyril into Church communion. Helladius would please soon to communicate to him his view on this subject, and would also win over Bishop Himerius of Nicomedia to the same views, and convince him that he (Theodoret) had not betrayed the cause of religion. At the same time, he explained to this Himerius, in a separate letter, his view, with which we are acquainted, of the new explanations of Cyril and the possible acceptance of them, with the addition, that this was not merely his view, but also that of John of Antioch, and of all the bishops with whom he had held a Synod. In a subsequent letter to the head of the violent party, Alexander of Hierapolis, Theodoret defends himself against the reproach of treachery, and against the suspicion that he had become submissive for the sake of a better position, or in order to escape persecutions. Finally, Archbishop Eutherius of Tyana, in Cappadocia in two letters to John of Antioch and to Helladius of Tarsus, expressed himself very decidedly against the party of peace, and very violently against reconciliation with Cyril. We see that, on the question of the peace of the Church, the Antiochenes were divided into two great parties. The peace-seeking majority, who had John of Antioch and the venerable Acacias at their head, were opposed by a minority disinclined for reconciliation; but the majority, too, fell into two divisions, while Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata formed a kind of middle party, and wished to make new proposals (see above, p. 124 f.).

SEC. 154. PAUL OF EMISA IS SENT TO ALEXANDRIA AS MEDIATOR.

In union with his partisans the Patriarch John immediately sent the aged Bishop Paul of Emisa as envoy to Alexandria, so that he might by word of mouth have further communication with Cyril, and obtain still clearer explanations from him. At the same time the Patriarch John now for the first time since the outbreak of the rupture came into personal correspondence by letter with Cyril, in the letter of introduction written for Paul of Emisa, and still extant in Latin, saying that, “although personally unknown to each other, he and Cyril had been united in love with one another, but unfortunately the twelve anathematisms of Cyril had destroyed this unity, and it would have been good if their publication had never taken place, lie had at the beginning been unable to believe that they proceeded from Cyril. By his most recent explanations, however, they had been essentially improved, and it might be hoped that this would be completely accomplished. Cyril himself had promised, after the restoration of peace, still further to remove disquiet, and some few additions were in fact necessary. John and his friends were in a high degree rejoiced by the letter of Cyril to Acacius (which contained the explanations referred to), especially because he had so readily accepted the letter of S. Athanasius to Epictetus, which so correctly explained the Nicene Creed, and removed all difficulties. The work of peace thus begun should now be continued, and the mutual revilings and accusations of heresy of the Christians among themselves must cease. Cyril might receive Paul in a friendly manner, and trust him fully, as though John himself were present.” According to an expression of Cyril’s archdeacon, Epiphanius, the Patriarch John had also explained that the Orientals would never consent to the condemnation of Nestorius; the letter now before us, however, does not contain, at least directly, a syllable of this. On the other hand, we may say with Theodoret, that John therein decidedly repudiated the anathematisms of Cyril. With this step, the sending of Paul of Emisa, the Patriarch John made Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, the head of the strict party, acquainted, in reply to a letter of the latter which is now lost. John blames his dialectical subtlety, which is disposed to see Apollinarianism everywhere in Cyril, and shows briefly and incisively that the confession of Cyril, that the natures of Christ are not mingled, is entirely opposed to the principle of Apollinarianism. None of those who dwell in Pontus (probably Firmus of Caesarea and other opponents of the Antiochenes) had thus expressed themselves. It were indeed well if he, who was in Alexander’s neighborhood (probably Rabulas of Edessa), and those beyond the Taurus (a mountain range in the south of Asia Minor), would make the same confession. Alexander must not be pusillanimous, but trust in God. He was always speaking of not drawing back, even of being prepared for martyrdom, but this was not now necessary, but only the restoration of the peace of the Church. The other contents of the letter have to do with little belonging to this subject, consisting of scarcely intelligible details. Alexander answered in an unfriendly spirit, and tried to show that Cyril, even in his new explanations, was still heretical. If, however, John and Acacius could find them orthodox, then the journey of Paul of Emisa was really superfluous. He, for his part, would hold communion neither with Cyril nor with those who were reconciled with him, so long as he had not spoken out in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. The matter was simple: “Cyril offers us communion if we become heretics.” The patriarch answered quite calmly and quietly that he would not go into all the bitterness in the letter of Alexander, but would pray for one thing, that he might still put some hope in the journey of Paul, since he would have to lay before Cyril the ten propositions of the Antiochenes, and communication by word of mouth often led to a better result than was accomplished by writing. The Patriarch John had, moreover, acquainted not merely the bishops of his province, but also foreign friends and partisans, e.g. Archbishop Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Moesia (in Europe), with his latest steps, and had received from him and his suffragans a very sympathetic letter in return, in which John was only still asked to see that Cyril acknowledged two unmingled natures, and repudiated his anathematisms. SEC. 155. THE UNION-CREED OF THE ANTIOCHENES: IT IS ACCEPTED BY CYRIL.

John of Antioch had given to Paul of Emisa, along with the abovementioned letter, a form of faith drawn up by him and his friends, which Cyril was to be required to accept. We learn this from the subsequent letter of Cyril to John, and from a letter of John to Cyril; and it is clear at the first glance that this, apart from the introduction and some concluding words, is quite the same formula which the Antiochenes at Ephesus had previously presented through Count John to the Emperor Theodosius, and of which we have already spoken above (p. 93 f.). It fails into two divisions — the introduction and the creed itself. In the first it is said, “That which we believe and teach concerning the virgin God-bearer, and concerning the manner of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, we will now, because it is necessary, briefly set forth in accordance with Scripture and tradition, not in order to add anything, but in order to give satisfaction to others, without adding anything whatever to the faith explained at Nicaea.

As in fact we said before, that is quite sufficient for the knowledge of religion, and for the refutation of heretical error. And we give this new explanation, not because we venture to explain the incomprehensible, but in order by the confession of our own weakness to refute those who reproach us with discussing that which is to man incomprehensible.” Next followed the second part, the creed itself: “We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, was begotten before all time by the Father accord-lug to the Godhead, but at the end of the days, for us and for our salvation, was born of the Virgin, according to the manhood, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, and of one substance with us as touching the manhood. For two natures are united together (du>o gasewn e[nwsiv ge>gone ). Therefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Lord, and one Son. On account of this union, which, however, is remote from all mingling (kata< tau>thn thtou eJnw>sewv e]nnoian ), we acknowledge also that the holy Virgin is the Godbearer, because God the Logos was made flesh and man, and before conception united with Himself the temple (the manhood), which He assumed from her (the Virgin).” As regards, however, the evangelical and apostolical utterances respecting Christ, we know that theologians apply them differently: the one class, having reference to the one person, apply them to both natures in common; the other class, referring to the two natures, separate them. The confessions which are suitable to God they refer to the Godhead, and those which apply to the humiliation to the manhood. We have already remarked that this formula was quite orthodox in meaning, and therefore Cyril consented without difficulty to further its acceptance, and gave his adhesion to it, which he afterwards repeated in his celebrated letter to John of Antioch after the actual conclusion of peace. After Cyril had done this, he then first began to discuss with Patti the outrages which had been inflicted upon him at Ephesus; but after a considerable time had elapsed in discussing, them, and also on account of his illness, he allowed this personal matter to drop, and turned to the more important question as to whether the Orientals were now inclined to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, which was the conditio sine qua nor, of their Church communion; and whether Paul had with him a letter from John on this subject. Paul then communicated to Cyril the letter of his patriarch, which we have already described, and Cyril was so little satisfied with it that he declared that this paper did not at all contain what it ought (namely, the agreement on the subject of Nestorius), and that it embittered the controversy rather than softened it, since it sought to justify all that had been done at Ephesus as having proceeded from a dutiful zeal for pure doctrine. Cyril therefore refused to receive this document, and was at last induced to do so only by the apologetic explanations of Bishop Paul, who made oath that it was not so intended. Paul then declared that he was ready to anathematize the heresies of Nestorius, and that this should suffice as though all the Oriental bishops had done the sane. Cyril replied with justice that Paul could act for himself, and that then he could be, without delay, received into communion, but that this could not possibly suffice for the rest of the Oriental bishops, particularly for their patriarch, since there needed an express commission from him for that purpose, and therefore he must be asked to give a written declaration on the subject. Paul of Emisa then in his own behalf presented a written document to the effect that he acknowledged Maximian as bishop of Constantinople, and Nestorius as deposed, and that he excommunicated his heresy, and was then not only solemnly received into Church communion by Cyril, but was also repeatedly invited to preach in Alexandria. We have still (parts of) three homilies of his, which he preached there at that time. When, however, Paul abandoned Nestorius, he requested in return that the deposition pronounced upon Helladius, Entherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus (four Nestorians) by Cyril and Maximian (see above, p. 113) should be removed. Without this concession, h e maintained, peace could not possibly take place. Cyril, however, replied that this could never be, and that on his part he would not agree to it, so that Paul let this point drop. All this, especially on account of Cyril’s illness, had taken up a good deal of time, and the Orientals were complaining already that it was so long since they had any intelligence from Alexandria, and that the whole transaction seemed to have no result. We see this from a letter of Bishop Andrew of Samosata to Alexander of Hierapolis. Now, however, the imperial commissioner Aristolaus sent a letter to the Antiochenes, in which he urgently demanded of them the wished-for declaration respecting Nestorius.

SEC. 156. SYNOD OF THE ANTIOCHENES:

CYRIL’S PRESENTS.

The Orientals upon this held a new Synod at Antioch, and drew up new resolutions of which we have no very definite knowledge, and made Aristolaus acquainted with them through Verius (the Antiochene deputy at Constantinople), adding that soon Bishop Alexander (probably of Apamea) would appear with the new resolutions at Alexandria. That these were not favorable is shown by that which followed; but even Cyril’s own friends at Constantinople sent him, about this time, highly disagreeable information, and they had become very languid in their zeal for the good cause, as we learn from the frequently quoted letter of Cyril’s archdeacon, Epiphanius. It is certain that the latter, with Cyril’s knowledge and consent, wrote now to Bishop Maximian of Constantinople, informing him that Cyril had fallen in again in consequence of this bad news, blamed the lukewarmness of Maximian and other friends, and exhorted them to new zeal. In particular, he urged that they should bring it about that Aristolaus should once more go in person to Antioch (that the obscure words, hinc exire faciatis Aristolaum, are to be taken in this sense, is shown by the course of the history). At the same time he mentions that Cyril has written to Pulcheria, the Praepositus Paulus, the Chamberlain Romanus, and the two court ladies Marcella and Droseria, and has sent them valuable benedictiones (presents). To the Praepositus Chrysoretes, who was unfavorable to the Church, Aristolaus was ready to write, and to him also were eulogia (presents) sent. Further, Cyril had entreated Scholasticus and Arthebas, at the same time sending them presents, to influence Chrysoretes at last to abstain from his persecution of the Church. Bishop Maximian himself was asked to pray the Empress Pulcheria again to show zeal for Christ, for she and all the persons at court at present had but little care for Cyril, perhaps because the presents, although not of trifling value, were yet insufficient to satisfy the covetousness of the courtiers. Pulcheria should write to the Antiochene, ordering him to submit; but Aristolaus must be required to be urgent with John. Further, Maximian should entreat the Archimandrites Dalmatius and Eutyches (afterwards the heretic), to adjure the Emperor and the court officials in reference to Nestorius, and to support Cyril with all their might. The little note which accompanied this mentioned the presents which had been given to each, so that Maximian might see how much the Alexandrian Church had sacrificed. They had even been compelled to obtain a loan for the purpose. Now the Church of Constantinople should also do its duty and satisfy the cupidity of certain persons. Finally, Pulcheria should use her influence to have Lausus made Praepositus soon, so that the power of Chrysoretes might be weakened. That Cyril put every engine in motion, so as to obtain a victory for the cause of orthodoxy, will hardly be imputed to him as a fault by the unprejudiced. That he also had recourse to presents is a circumstance which we will defend as little as did Tillemont (l.c. p. 541); while, at the same time, we must explain it and excuse it, as we have said already (p. 113 f.), by the peculiar customs of the East.

SEC. 157. THE UNION TAKES PLACE.

Cyril now in fact attained his end. Aristolaus allowed himself to be induced to go again with Paul of Emisa to Antioch, and two of Cyril’s clergy, Cassius and Anmon, had to accompany them and present for his subscription to the Patriarch John a document on the deposition of Nestorius and the anathematizing of his teaching, and in case of his subscribing, to hand him the document of his restoration to Church communion. This way appeared to Cyril to lead much more quickly to the goal, especially as Paul of Emisa and Aristolaus of Alexandria carried on the affair too slowly. Besides, this. way seemed safe enough, since Aristolaus declared on oath that the document of union should certainly not be given up before the signature of the other document, and if John of Antioch refused to sign, he would immediately travel to Constantinople and explain that it was not the Church of Alexandria, but the Bishop of Antioch, that was the disturber of the peace. The proceedings at Antioch came to a happy termination. John on his part wished still for a few slight and insignificant alterations in the document which he had to sign, and as, according to his own statement, and as his subsequent letters show, the sense was not thereby altered, the two delegates of Cyril, with the concurrence of Aristolaus and Paul of Emisa, consented to them. Thereupon the Patriarch John, together with the bishops assembled around him, addressed friendly letters to Cyril, to Pope Sixtus, and to Bishop Maximian of Constantinople, which are still extant, and are interesting evidences of the restored unity. The most important of them is directed to the three heads of the Church just named, and says: “In the year which has just passed, at the command of the pious Emperors, the holy Synod of the God-beloved bishops came together at Ephesus in order to oppose the Nestorian heresy, and, in accord with the legates of the blessed Pope Coelestine, deposed the aforenamed Nestorius, because he used unholy doctrine (bebh>lw| didaskalia| crw>menon ), scandalized many (skandali>santa pollou>v ), and in regard to the faith did not stand upright (oujk ojrqopodh>santa ). We arrived subsequently at Ephesus, found that the matter had been already settled, and were dissatisfied therewith. For this reason there arose a difference between us and the holy Synod, and after much had been done and spoken backwards and forwards, we returned to our Churches and cities without having subscribed the sentence of the holy Synod on Nestorius, and the Churches were disunited by a difference of opinion. As, however, all must really have had it in view to seek restoration of union by the removal of differences of opinion, and the God-fearing Emperors required this, and in order to bring it about sent the tribune and notary Aristolaus, we also determined to agree to the judgment pronounced against Nestorius, to recognize him as deposed, and to anathematize his infamous doctrines (dusfh>mouv didaskali>av), since Church, like your Holiness, has always had the true doctrine, and will ever preserve it and transmit it to the nations. We also agree to the consecration of the most holy and God-fearing bishop, Maximian of Constantinople, and have communion with all the Godfearing bishops of the world who retain and held fast the orthodox and pure doctrine.” The second letter of John is addressed to Cyril alone, and begins: like the first, with the remark that the Antiochenes had not taken part in the Council of Ephesus, but considers it now, in the time of peace, superfluous to go into the causes of the past discord, and prefers to go on to the efforts for the restoration of peace which followed, particularly to the sending of Aristolaus and Paul of Emisa, repeats the declaration of faith asked by the Antiochenes from Cyril, and proceeds as follows: “After thou hast received this formula of faith, we, in order to remove all controversy, to unite all the Churches of the world, and to remove all offenses, have resolved to acknowledge that Nestorius is deposed, and to anathematize his evil and corrupt new doctrines (talav aujtou~ kai< bebh>louv kainofwni>av ),” and so forth, as in the first letter. The third letter of John is again addressed only to Cyril, and is of a more confidential nature. He begins with the joyful exclamation: “We are again united,” then says that Paul of Emisa is returning to Alexandria with the documents of peace, speaks of his great services in the cause of union, as well as of those of Aristolaus and the two Alexandrian clerics, assures Cyril of his most friendly disposition, prays him to accept this peace with goodwill, and promises to do all he can to induce all the other Oriental bishops to join it. — He did this honestly, and we still possess a letter belonging to this time from him to Theodoret, in which he joyfully informs him that Cyril has now made it impossible falsely to explain his words as teaching only one nature, and has recognized the diversity of the natures.

The complete confession of his orthodoxy, however, Paul of Emisa would soon bring back from Alexandria. Cyril did in fact now transmit, by the medium mentioned, his celebrated letter Laetentur Coeli to John of Antioch, as answer to his Eirenicon, in which, according to the wish of the Orientals, he repeated verbally not only the introductory (declaration given by them, which we adduced above at p. 130, and the creed of the Antiochenes which followed upon it, but also added still further doctrinal explanations, in order to completely remove all suspicion.

As this letter of Cyril’s, often also called “Ephesine Creed,” has obtained great celebrity, we quote the following portions of it. After Cyril had, as has been said, expressed his full agree-merit with the above-mentioned introduction and the creed of the Antiochenes, he designates as slanderers those who accuse him of maintaining that the body of Christ comes from heaven, and not from the holy Virgin. The whole controversy, he says, has arisen from this, that he called Mary the “God-bearer.” But this expression he could not possibly have used, if he had regarded the body of Christ as having come down front heaven. Whom else had Mary then borne, but Emmanuel after the flesh? If, however, we say that “our Lord Jesus Christ is from heaven,” we mean not that His flesh came down from heaven, but we follow the holy Paul, who exclaims: “ O prw~tov a]nqrwpov ejk gh~v coi`koterov a]nqrwpov ejx oujranou~ ( 1 Corinthians 15:47).

Christ is also called a]nqrwpov ejx, as He, perfect according to the Godhead, and perfect also according to His manhood, is to be comprehended as one Person. For the Lord Jesus Christ is One, although the difference of the natures, from which the unutterable union took place, is not to be ignored. Those, however, who speak of a mixture (kra~siv h\ su>gcusiv h\ furmoaccuse me of such language; I am, however, so far removed from it, that I hold as senseless those who suppose that any change can take place in the divine nature. Moreover, we all teach that the Logos of God is incapable of suffering, although He attributes to Himself the suffering of His flesh (kat oijkei>wsin oijkonomikh>n )…We do not in any wise allow that any one should alter a single word or omit a syllable in the Nicene Creed, for it was not those (318) Fathers who spoke there, but the Spirit of God and the Father, who proceeds from Him, but is also not foreign to the Son in regard to His essence (oujsi>a )…. Finally, Cyril remarks, as the letter (so often quoted in the Nestorian question)of S.

Athanasius to Epictetus was circulating in falsified copies (falsified by the Nestorians), he appended accurate copies of the original which was at Alexandria. To his own Church Cyril announced the joyful event of the restoration of peace in a sermon, of which a fragment in a Latin translation, and with the date 28th of Pharmut, i.e. April 23 (probably of the year 433), has come down to us. Tillemont infers from this that the union in question was probably concluded in March 433, which, besides, is not in itself improbable, even if that date in the superscription of a mere translation can have no great importance. The happy restoration of peace was immediately communicate by Cyril Pope Sixtus and to Bishops Maximian of Constantinople and Donatus — Nicopolis. The Patriarch John, however, in announcing the fact to the two Emperors, Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., added a petition that they would see to the restoration of the deposed bishops. In a circular letter to the rest of the Oriental bishops, he informed these also of what had been done, communicated to them the letters of reconciliation which had been exchanged between Cyril and him, assured them that Cyril was quite orthodox, and entreated them not again to break this beautiful unity. Finally, Pope Sixtus also, greatly rejoiced at their being won back, wrote at last, on September 11,433, to Cyril, and four days later to John of Antioch, to acquaint them with the sympathy of the Holy See with that which had been accomplished. SEC. 158. THE UNION FINDS OPPONENTS, BUT IS DEFENDED BY CYRIL.

The judgments which were soon pronounced upon this work of pacification were very different. The great majority of Christians were in a high degree delighted at it, and congratulated Cyril on his meritorious efforts in the good cause. But there were four classes who were discontented; two classes of his own previous adherents, and two classes of his previous opponents. Of the latter, the one — the enraged Nestorians — decidedly refused, as we shall see more particularly hereafter, to enter the union; while the others affirmed that Nestorius himself had taught nothing different from that which Cyril now acknowledged, and endeavored to conceal their Nestorian-ism under the expressions of the creed subscribed by Cyril. Cyril therefore found himself under the necessity of opposing them and their tergiversation’s, in a comprehensive letter to Bishop Valerian of Iconium. But even of his own previous adherents there were many who were dissatisfied with Cyril, and thought that he had yielded more than was right, had sacrificed his original doctrine, had allowed himself to accept Nestorian terms, and had not imitated those great men of the ancient Church, who endured lifelong banishment rather than give up one iota of the dogma. This reproach was brought against him peculiarly by S. Isidore of Pelusium, the same who had previously blamed him for passionateness against Nestorius (see above, p. 83).

According to the testimony of Liberatus, similar accusations were made by Bishop Acacius of Melitene and Valerian of Iconium, as well as by several persons at the imperial court. As already indicated, these accusers of Cyril, who came from his own camp, also fell into two classes, those who brought these reproaches merely from a misunderstanding, as undoubtedly was the case with Isidore of Pelusium; and those who, really holding Monophysite or Monothelite opinions, understood correctly indeed the new explanations of Cyril, but thought themselves decidedly bound to disapprove of them. The ecclesiastical mean represented by Cyril appeared to them, from their extreme point of view, to be Nestorian. To this class perhaps belongs Acacius of Melitene, who in a letter to Cyril, still extant, commends his efforts for the anathematizing of Nestorianism (and Theodore of Mopsuestia), but at the same time adjures him to pronounce anathema also upon those who maintain that, after the union of the natures in Christ, there still remain two natures, and that each of them has its own operation or activity. This evidently, he said, led to Nestorianism. — He was wrong, for that which here seems to him to be Nestorianism is the orthodox doctrine; he himself, however, stood, although probably without knowing it, at the Monothelite point of view, when he refused to ascribe two operations to the two natures of Christ, or even at the Monophysite, if he meant entirely to deny the duality of the natures.

All this led Cyril to defend himself and the union which had been concluded in a series of treatises. (1) First of all he met the accusation of having required from any one, or having accepted, a new (altered)creed. The matter, on the contrary, stood thus: As the Oriental bishops at Ephesus had fallen under suspicion of holding Nestorian opinions, it had been necessary that they should give an explanation of their faith for their own vindication. (2) Secondly, he shows that this declaration of faith of the Orientals was in fact satisfactory, and that there was a great difference between their faith and that of Nestorius. The latter really denied the Incarnation of the Logos, and rent the one Son in two. The Orientals, on the contrary, because of the unutterable and unmingled union of the Godhead and the manhood (dia< thgcuton e]nwsin ), call the holy Virgin “the God-bearer,” and confess one Son and Christ and Lord, per-feet in the Godhead and perfect in the manhood, because His flesh was quickened by a reasonable soul (in opposition to Apollinarianism). Thus they in no way divide the one Son, Christ, and Lord Jesus into two, but they say: tie who was from eternity and who appeared on earth in the last time is one and the same; the former is of God the Father as God, the latter is of woman after the flesh as man. We teach that an union of the two natures has taken place (du>o fu>sewn e[nwsin gene>sqai ), and acknowledge openly only one Christ, one Son and Lord. We say not, as the heretics, that the Logos prepared for Himself a body out of His own divine nature, but we teach that He assumed flesh of the holy Virgin. If we now regard (hold in our thoughts) that from which He is, the one Son and Lord, we say that two natures are united; but after the union we believe that, while the division into two is now removed (wJv ajnh|rhme>nhv h]dh th~v ei=v du>o diatomh~v ), the nature of the Son is one, as that of the one, but incarnate (mi>an ei=nai pisteu>omen thsin wJv eJnosantov ), and far be all suspicion of a transformation (of the natures) having taken place. The e[nwsiv is an ajsu>gcutov . (3) Sonic said’” How can Cyril commend those (the Orientals) who accept two natures? That is certainly a Nestorian expression.” Cyril replies: “That Nestorius teaches two natures is quite true, for in fact the nature of the Logos is different from that of the flesh; but he is wrong in this, that he does not acknowledge with us an e[nwsiv of the natures.

We unite them and thus receive one Christ, one Son, and one incarnate nature of God (mi>an thsin sesarkwme>nhn ).

Something similar may be said in reference to every man. Every human being consists of two different parts, body and soul, and the intelligence and the perception (qewri>a ) separate the two; but uniting them we make only one nature of man (poiou~men mi>an ajnqrw>pou fu>sin ).

To recognize the difference of natures, then, is not to divide the one Christ into two.” In another place he says: “The fu>siv of the Logos is recognized as only one: merely in reference to the Incarnation of the Logos can the difference of the natures or hypostases be thought of (hJ tw~n fu>sewn h]goun uJposta>sewn diafora> ). If the question is asked as to the manner of the Incarnation, the human intelligence sees two things unutterably united with each other, but unmingled; yet it in nowise separates that which is united (o[tan toi>nun oJ th~v sarkw>sewv polupragmonh~tai tro>pov du>o ta< ajllh>loiv ajporjrJh>twv te kai< ajsugcu>twv sunhnegme>na kaq e[nwsin oJra~| dh< pa>ntwv oJ ajnqrw>pinov nou~v eJnwqe>nta ge mhsthsin oujdamw~v ), but recognizes in both one God and Son and Christ.” We can see that Cyril held firmly the traditional expression: mi>a fu>siv tou~ lo>gou sesarkwme>nh, but in such a way that he does not thereby deny the distinction of natures. On the contrary, he says expressly: “Godhead and manhood are not alike in natural quality” (ejn poio>thti fusikh~| ), and will only assert:” The one and unique principle or subject or Ego in the God-man is the Logos, He is also the bearer of the human in Christ.” As with Athanasius, so with Cyril, as often as he uses the expression, the idea of fu>siv approaches to that of nature or personality (see above, p. 3); as we have seen, with reference to this subject he uses fu>siv and uJpo>stasiv as identical. It is true that Cyril says repeatedly:

Only when one holds firmly in thought that of which Christ consists, can two natures be distinguished (ejn yilai~v kai< mo>naiv ejnoi>aiv deco>menoi ); but it would be wrong to understand this as though in his view the two natures were not real, but were mere abstractions, fwnai<, verba, and that, after the union, only one nature really remained. Against this notion we have (a) The example used by Cyril of the union of soul and body in man, where, however, both factors remain after the union as always real.

Besides, (b) Cyril repeatedly asserts that no mingling or transmutation of the natures of the Christ consists, is to be received, which is the same as to say that neither of them has lost its reality through the union. To this we must add (c) that the whole accusation, that Cyril regarded the two natures in Christ as only fwnai< , rests upon a mere misunderstanding, for he understands by this not the natures, but the attributes and predicates (ijdiw>mata ), as that which follows shows. (4) The opponents had represented to Cyril that “the Antiochenes speak of two natures, and mean that in reference to this the fwnai< of those who speak of God (i.e. the predicates used of Christ)are distinct.

Is this not a contradiction of your doctrine? You certainly do not allow these fwnadivided into two pro>swpa or uJposta>seiv .” Cyril replied that he had certainly, in his fourth anathematism, anathematized those who so separate the fwnaaiv ) a difference (diaforaresin fusikhreference to our Lord. They do not say: “The one class of these fwnai< refer only to the Logos of God, the other only to the Son of man” (for the Son of God and the Son of man are one), but: “The one refer only to the Godhead, the other to the manhood.” Other fwnai< , however, they say again, are common and apply to both natures. And in all this they are right, for some fwnai< refer principally to the Godhead, others more to the manhood, others are of an intermediate kind; but both those which refer to the Godhead and those which refer to the manhood are ascribed only to one Son. (5) John of Antioch had written in a letter to some acquaintances that “Cyril now recognizes the difference of the natures, and divides (diairei~n ) the fwnai< between the natures.” Former friends of Cyril took offense at this, on which account he declared as follows, that his opponents had suspected him as though, like Apollinaris, he had denied to the manhood of Christ a reasonable soul, and asserted a mingling or transmutation of the Logos into flesh. In the same way they had said that he agreed with Arius, because he would not recognize the diafora< of the fwnai< . He had defended himself against these accusations, and had written to John that he maintained neither a transmutation of the Logos into flesh nor of the flesh into the divine nature, nor had he denied the diaforai< of the fwnai< . The words quoted, however, diairei~n, etc., were not his, but proceeded from the Antiochenes. The apology for his Eirenicon was put forth by Cyril principally in his letters to Bishop Acacius of Melitene, and to his own envoy at Constantinople, the priest Eulogius, in the letter already quoted to Valerian of Iconium, and also in two letters to Bishop Successus or Succensus of Diocaesarea in Isauria. The latter appears to have partially occupied the Apollinarian point of view, and from this to have addressed reproaches to Cyril, in two admonitions which he sent to him.

Cyril, in answer to the first, defends the Antiochene expression, “two natures,” clearly explains his own doctrinal position, and in conclusion opposes the Apolliharlan or Eutychian proposition advanced by Succensus, that after the resurrection the body of Christ was transformed into the Godhead. In his second letter, on the contrary, which at the conclusion corresponds with that addressed to Acacius of Melitene, he shows that his words: mi>a fu>siv tou~ lo>gou sesarkwme>nh , did not lead to the Apollinarian (better, Monophysite) consequences which, in the first admonition of Suecensus, had been deduced from them. At the same time Cyril speaks in two letters of the Nestorians as then circulating various spurious letters drawn up by themselves, particularly one from the Roman priest and legate Philippus, according to which Pope Sixtus had disapproved of the deposition of Nestorius; a second from Cyril himself, full of professed regret for his conduct at Ephesus, and others again from distinguished Oriental bishops containing their renunciation of the reconciliation which had been effected. Cyril asserts most distinctly that the first two are entire forgeries, and that the latter are also certainly spurious. As we have already seen, John of Antioch had informed all the Oriental bishops of the conclusion of the union by an encyclical letter, and had invited them to accept it, and in particular had informed Theodotet of Cyrus, but at an earlier period, of the now undoubted orthodoxy of Cyril.

Theodoret’s answer was unfriendly. The union in itself (from the dogmatic point of view) he did not blame, and thus implicitly recognized the orthodoxy of Cyril, but he demanded that all the bishops who had taken sides in the controversy with the antiochenes, and had for that mason been deposed (see above, p. 118), should be restored to their sees, otherwise the peace would be dishonorable and he could not come into it. But the Patriarch John must use his influence with the Emperors to secure that restoration. At the same time he informed him that Bishop Himerius of Nicomedia (one of the four deposed) went much further, and declared him, Theodoret, together with the patriarch, to be a traitor to their cause. The Eirenicon of Andrew of Samesara, Meletius of Mopsuestia, and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Moesia, was attacked more from the doctrinal side, and most strongly by Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, and charged with too great a leaning to Apollinarianism. Alexander, as violent as ever, added, moreover, invectives against his Patriarch, John, declaring that he would refuse communion to him and all the allies of Cyril, even if it should cost him his life. He had already prepared a memorial on the subject, and had not yet circulated it publicly, only because he wished first to communicate it to Andrew of Samesara and Theodoret. In a second letter, addressed to the latter, he reminds him how he had protested at Ephesus against the word qeoto>kov , and now he would rather a thousand times suffer death than hold communion with Cyril and those who accepted the blasphemous word. This word alone contained a complete heresy, however many explanations might be appended to it. In a third letter, also intended for Theodoret, he accuses Paul of Emisa of having from the first mutilated the document of the Orientals which had been transmitted to Alexandria (i.e. the declaration of faith which they presented to Cyril), in order that Cyril might the more easily accept it. Theodoret confirmed this accusation, and invited Alexander and Andrew of Samosata, with other colleagues, to a Synod at Hierapolis or at Zeugma (both lay in the Syrian province of Euphratensis), in order to take counsel with them as to what was further to be done in reference to the union. Informed of this by Alexander, Andrew of Samosata declared himself quite ready to go to Zeugma, remarking that he had no need to deliberate on the subject of Nestorius, because he was quite convinced of his innocence. It was quite otherwise with Alexander. Theodoret besought him to come to Zeugma as soon as possible; but he answered evasively, and while he would not directly withdraw from participation, at the same time he does not believe that John of Antioch will, as Theodoret requires, pronounce an anathema on the propositions of Cyril, and just as little that Cyril had, as Theodoret reported, altered his teaching. On the contrary, the new declarations of Cyril were as impious as the old. For the rest, he would come to the Synod if Theodoret would first obtain from John of Antioch an anathema on the propositions of Cyril, and a refusal to accede to the deposition of Nestorius. These were the two points on which John had given him offense, and if Theodoret and the others did not; take the same offense at them, then a meeting with them would be superfluous. In fact, although he was metropolitan of the province of Euphratensis, he did not appear at the Synod at Zeugma, as we learn from the still extant documents of the Synod. These are, first, a letter of Theodoret to John of Antioch, which undoubtedly belongs to this subject, in which it is said that the assembled bishops recognized the recent declarations of Cyril as orthodox, and had seen in them a recantation of the error contained in his anathematisms. Whilst they rejoiced at this, they could not, however, concede that Cyril should require that the Orientals should pronounce an anathema on Nestorius, and John should inform them whether such was actually demanded. In conclusion, Bishop Alexander was requested to reconsider his violence. The other documents belonging to this subject are: a letter of Bishop Andrew of Samosata to Alexander, two letters of Alexander to him, and a letter from Alexander to John of Germanicia. We see from these that Alexander had not been present at the Synod of Zeugma, and did not approve of its resolutions; that, on the contrary, Andrew of Samosata, John of Germanicia, and Theodoret acknowledged, at the Synod, the orthodoxy of Cyril, but not the deposition of Nestorius.

Theodoret, in particular, explained in a still extant letter to Nestorius, that he had found the writings of Cyril free from every stain of heresy, but that, on the other hand, he was equally convinced of the innocence of Nestorius, and would rather lose both hands than agree to his deposition. He wrote the same to Bishop Theosebius of Chios in Bithynia. Another and much more violent letter, which is equally attributed to Theodoret, cannot, as Tillemont long ago pointed out, have proceeded from him, since in it Cyril is distinctly charged with heresy. Such was the view of Alexander of Hierapolis, who persisted in this opinion and refused communion not only to his Patriarch, John, but also to Theodoret of Cyrus, Andrew of Samosata, and all who regarded Cyril as orthodox, and summoned them before the judgment-seat of God. His point of view was taken by many other Oriental bishops of the province of Euphratensis, of the two Cilicias, of Cappadocia Secunda, Bithynia, Thessaly, and Moesia, chiefly Bishops Eutherius of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus, who now wrote to Pope Sixtus, asking him to make common cause with them against the union. They invited also the accession of Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret of Cyrus, and that of the former with success. At the same time the bishops of Cilicia Secunda assembled in a Synod at Anazarbus, in which they declared that the union was void, that Cyril was a heretic as before, and that every one should be excommunicated who was in communion with him until he had completely repudiated his impious chapters. To this resolution the bishops of Cilicia Prima also assented. SEC. 159. THE UNION IS AT LAST, ALTHOUGH NOT WITHOUT CONSTRAINT, ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY.

In consequence of what has been mentioned, Theodoret and his friends took an intermediate position between this party of utter hostility to the union on the one side, and the Patriarch John with the decided friends of union on the other side. While Alexander of Hierapolis and the Synod of Anazarbus entirely repudiated the union, and persistently declared Cyril to be a heretic, Theodoret and the Synod of Zeugma did not deny the orthodoxy of Cyril, but would accept the union only upon the condition of saving Nestorius. John of Antioch was dissatisfied with both sides, and thought it the best way to compel the universal acceptance of the union in his patriarchate, by the application of punishments and threats. In this he thought the Emperor should help him and apply the secular arm for the purpose. He therefore addressed a letter to the prefect of the Pretorian guard, Taurus, expressing his satisfaction that, after the death of Maximian, the (and-Nestorian) Proclus of Cyzicus had been raised to the see of Constantinople, and praying that the court would take measures to reestablish peace and to bridle the obstinate. At the same time Verius, his secretary at Constantinople, of whom we have already heard, exerted himself to obtain an imperial Sacra, to the effect that the Oriental bishops must be in communion with John or leave their sees. The Nestorian Meletius of Mopsuestia (see above, p. 145) reproaches hint with having spent much money for this purpose on the court officials, and adds that he has certainly attained his end, but that the carrying out of the decree was still postponed for some time, until peaceful efforts for the re-establishment of union should once more be made. Others, on the contrary, professed to know that the Emperor had recalled the command which he had given, in order to avoid making the excitement still greater in some of the provinces. In order to induce the bishop of Cilicia to reunite with the Patriarch John, the imperial Quaestor Domitian now wrote to the Cilician Metropolitan Helladius of Tarsus, who was hostile to union, with reference to the imperial rescript. John of Antioch, however, informed Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, that, in accordance with the imperial command, no bishop must appear at court (where they would intrigue against the union), and that he should communicate this to the bishops who were subject to him. Alexander certified that this letter had been read in his presence, but he had not received it personally, as it came from the Bishop of Antioch. Andrew of Samosata acted quite differently. Hitherto belonging to the middle party, he found, by the influence of the earnest friends of union, and especially of Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, a feeling of hostility stirred up against him among a number of his own diocesans, and therefore had left his diocese, in order, as it appears, to visit Rabulas, and to take counsel with him. At the same time he also left the middle party of Theodoret and came into full communion with his patriarch, without wishing to make any further stand on the condition in reference to Nestorius. Indeed he now became a zealous promoter of union, and endeavored to induce the clergy of Hierapolis, in opposition to their bishop, Alexander, to take part in the work of pacification. Theodoret continued longer in his middle position, and for a time was even driven by some violent steps on the part of John further to the left side. In a letter to Meletius of Neocaesarea, he complains particularly that John illegally appointed bishops in foreign dioceses (over which he was patriarch, but not metropolitan), and even chose for them unworthy persons. He had for this reason broken off communion with him. A second letter he, in common with Alexander, Abbibus, and others, addressed to the bishops of Syria, Cilicia Prima and Secunda, and Cappadocia Secunda, again full of complaints respecting the attempts at union, and the arbitrary ordinations of John. The bishops of Cilicia Prima and Secunda answered, with letters full of sympathy, in the like spirit of hostility to the union. Theodoret further addressed a letter of complaint to a Magister Militum, and described how his opponents had endeavored to set fire to his basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, but had been prevented by the people. They had also driven from his house Bishop Abbibus of Doliche in Syria, who was at the point of death, and had declared him to be mad; and in his place John of Antioch had set up the vicious Athanasius, and in another see the ill-famed Marinian, in defiance of all the canons. Abbibus himself had before given information of what had been done to Theodoret and other friends, with the addition that John had required a recantation of him; but that he had neither conceded this, nor voluntarily resigned his bishopric. About the same time Dorotheus of Marcianopolis transmitted to Alexander and Theodoret a copy of the pastoral letter in which the new bishop of Constantinople, Proclus, had declared the Orientals to be heretics, and asks whether they should not with one accord address the Emperor; and, in fact, Alexander of Hierapolis and his suffragans Theodoret, Abbibus, etc., in short, the bishops of the Provincoa Ephryhratensis, now addressed a letter of complaint against John of Antioch to the Empress Pulcheria. They did not, however, attain their end in the least; on the contrary, there appeared an imperial Sacra (of which we now possess only a fragment), in which the efforts for peace are commended, and the disturbers of unity threatened. In particular, Meletius of Mopsuestia was exhorted (although in vain), by the imperial Count Neotherius, to be reconciled to John; the like exhortation was addressed by Dionysius, Magister Militum (for the East), to Alexander, Theodoret, Helladius (of Tarsus), and Maximinus (of Anazarbus), with the alternative either to surrender their episcopal sees, or to come into communion with John. At the same time the Emperor entrusted to Count and Vicar Titus a commission to hasten the execution of these alternatives. This was effectual. First, the bishops of Cilicia Secunda, with their Metropolitan, Maximin of Anazarbus, returned to communion with Cyril and John of Antioch. The same was requested by nearly all the bishops and clergy of Cilicia Prima, and even their Metropolitan, Helladius of Tarsus, began now to waver. This is shown by his letter to Meletius of Mopsuestia, whom he asks for counsel; and although the answer dissuaded him, yet Helladius found himself constrained, by the example of Cilicia Secunda and by the wish of his own suffragans, to come into the union, although, as he declares, with a heavy heart. Theodoret, too, the spiritual head of the middle party, had counseled him to it, since, after long hesitation and negotiation, he had now become friendly to the union.

The Count and Vicar Titus, already named, had sent a special official to him with a letter to the then famous monks, Jacob of Nisibis, Simeon Stylites, and Bardatus, and had threatened them all with deposition unless they would be reconciled with John. Theodoret at first laughed at this threat, and intended to resign his bishopric, but the monks so urged him that he yielded so far as to have a conference with John of Antioch. Alexander of Hierapolis, with whom he was still in accord, and to whom he communicated this (l.c.), was very much annoyed with these monks, and persisted in his opinion as to Cyril’s heresy. Theodoret replied to him that the formularies (the union documents) had been laid before him, and that one of the provisions seemed less insidious, inasmuch as it required no approval of that which had been wrongly done at Ephesus (the deposition of Nestorius). As for the rest, he heard that the present bishop of Constantinople, Proclus, was orthodox in his teaching. Alexander would, he hoped, impart to him his view of the conditions of peace which the bishop of Antioch had laid down. The bishops illegally ordained by him must be deposed. That John had consented to the condemnation of Nestorius was incorrect; but he had certainly done so in a mild form, and had not condemned his teaching directly, but had only said:” We anathematize whatsoever he has taught or thought in opposition to the sense of the Church.” Alexander replied, that it was not the unlawful depositions and the like, but the doctrinal point, which he regarded as the principal matter; and so long as Cyril did not recant his heresy, he would not have communion with him or with those who recognized him. Theodoret endeavored again to make him more submissive, but Alexander remained obstinate, and Theodoret now concluded peace with the Patriarch, after he had, in the interview just mentioned, satisfied himself of his orthodoxy, and John had conceded, that, whoever was unwilling, should not be required to subscribe the deposition of Nestorius. On the same conditions the bishops of Isauria also joined the union, but Alexander of Hierapolis, Meletius of Mopsuestia, Abbibus of Doliche, Zenobius of Zephyrium in Cilicia Prima, Eutherius of Tyana, Anastasius of Tenadus, Pausianus of Hypata, Julianus of Sardica, Basilins of Larissa, Theosebius of Chios, Acilinus of Barbolissus, Maximinus of Demetrias in Thessaly, and the three Moesian bishops, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, Valeanius, and Eudocius, were deposed and expelled from their sees. The Emperor (Theodosius n.) further gave command, in the year 435, that Nestorius, who since the year 432 had lived in his former monastery at Antioch, should be banished to Petra in Arabia. Probably in consequence of a second decree he was, however, brought to Oasis (perhaps to the city of Great Oasis) in Egypt. He still lived there in the year 439, at the time when Socrates wrote his Church history. The irruption’s of barbarous tribes caused him to leave this place again and flee to the Thebaid; but the imperial governor had him conveyed, against his will and not without severe constraint, to Elephantis, at the outermost boundary of the Thebaid, and subsequently to Panopolis. When and where he died is unknown. The and-Nestorian zeal of the Emperor was now, however, so great that he ordered all the writings of Nestorius to be burnt, and his adherents for the future to be called by the nickname of Simonians (from Simon Magus), in the same way as the Arians were called Porphyrians by command of Constantine the Great. For the rest, he sent anew the tribune and notary Aristolaus, of whom we have already heard, to the East, in order further to bring all the bishops who had entered the union to the positive acceptance of the anathema on Nestorius. That the bishops of Cilicia Prima acceded, they tell us themselves in a letter still extant, and besides, John of Antioch remarks that also in Paralia (Cyprus), Phoenicia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Osrhoene, Euphratesia, the two Syrias, and Isauria, the same took place. At the same time Cyril sent to Aristolaus and the patriarch John a new declaration of faith, which the Orientals should be required to subscribe, along with the anathema on Nestorius. The information, that many Orientals had accepted the expression qeoto>kov and the anathema on Nestorius, and yet retained the Nestorian doctrine, had induced him to do this. John, however, would hear nothing of a new formula, and Cyril now restricted himself to the request that Aristolaus would urge the acceptance of the three propositions: (a) Mary is the God-bearer; (b) there are not two, but only one Christ; and (c) the Logos, although in His nature incapable of suffering, suffered in the flesh. SEC. 160. ATTACK UPON THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA.

SYNODS IN ARMENIA AND ANTIOCH. OVERTHROW OF NESTORIANISM.

In order thoroughly to eradicate Nestorianism, Cyril and his friends, especially Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, now also began the war against the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the now long deceased teacher of Nestorius (see above, p. 5 ff). Since the Emperor had so strictly prohibited the books of Nestorius, his adherents had circulated those of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of the still older Diodorus of Tarsus, and had translated them into Syriac, Armenian, and Persian. Rabulas of Edessa, therefore, pronounced in church an anathema on Theodore, as Ibas the priest and subsequently the bishop of Edessa tells us in his letter to Marls, which afterwards became so famous. Rabulas further drew Cyril’s attention to the fact that Theodore was peculiarly the father of the Nestorian heresy, and, in union with Acacius of Melitene, warned the Armenian bishops of the books of Theodore; while, on the other hand, Cilician bishops assured the Armenians that Rabulas was denouncing the writings of Theodore merely out of personal spite, because the latter had once convicted him of an error. The Armenians now held a Synod, and sent two clerics, Leontius and Aberius, to Bishop Proclus of Constantinople, in order to obtain information as to whether the genuine doctrine was that of Theodore or that of Rabulas and Acacius. Proclus, in an excellent letter, which is still extant, wrote decisively against Theodore, of whose errors he earnestly warned them. This letter was also signed by Cyril and John of Antioch, with his bishops. At the same time Cyril, on his own behalf, wrote a work, of which we possess only fragments, against Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom he described as the source of the Nestorian heresy. When he afterwards visited Jerusalem he heard here also complaints of the writings of Theodore, and of many Orientals, who, through using them, propagated errors worse than those of Nestorius, so that he now found it necessary to explain the true sense of the Nicene formula, and asked his colleague John, by letter, not to allow the impious doctrines of Theodore to be propagated in Antioch. In the same sense he also addressed the Emperor. As, however, many, especially Armenian monks, went much further than Cyril, and declared decidedly orthodox expressions of Theodore to be heretical, inasmuch as theft themselves occupied the Monophysite point of view, not only did John of Antioch take up his defense in a Synod and in several letters, but also Cyril and Proclus of Constantinople opposed his unjust accusers, and resisted their demand for an anathema on Theodore. The Emperor, moreover, gave order, in an edict addressed to John of Antioch, that the peace of the Church should be maintained, and that it should not he permitted that men who had died in the communion of the Catholic Church should be calumniated. With this the controversy rested for several years, especially as Bishop Rabulas (lied about this time, in the year 435, and the most declared admirer of Theodore, the priest Ibas, who has been already mentioned, became his successor. The Nestorian heresy, however, in consequence of stringent imperial edicts, and by the deposition of the bishops who were hostile to union, was, after a few years, suppressed throughout the whole Roman Empire. It died out, so to speak, with the exiled bishops; and its last relics were annihilated by the Emperor Zeno in the year 489, when he ordered the closing of the school at Edessa, their last refuge. Some traces of Nestorians have been discovered by Tillemont as late as towards the end of the sixth century; but their special home was no longer in the Roman Empire, but in the kingdom of Persia, where they continued to exist under the name of Chaldaean Christians, and whence they have spread into other countries of the East, to India, Arabia, China, and among the Tartars. For a long time Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and later Bagdad, was the residence of the Nestorian Patriarch, who, in the thirteenth century, was owned by no fewer than twenty-five metropolitans as their spiritual head. The terrible Tamerlane almost exterminated them; and only on the heights and in the valleys of Kurdistan have about 700,000 Nestorians maintained an existence under a Patriarch of their own, who resided on to the seventeenth century at Mosul, and more recently at Cochanes, near Djulamerk in Central Kurdistan. A portion of the Nestorians, on the other hand, particularly those in the cities, have, at different times and in different sections, become again united with the Catholic Church, and are likewise under a special patriarch as “Chaldaean Christians.” Their number, however, has been reduced to an extraordinary extent by wars, pestilence, and cholera.