Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian Doctrine

: @-1-eT) ¥

NESTORIUS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Hondon: FETTER LANE, E.C.
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

Evinburgh: roo, PRINCES STREET
Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
fies Work: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Lrp.
Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, Lro.
Tokyo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

All rights reserved

NESTORIUS

AND HIS PLACE IN THE
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by
PRinOKRICH -LOOES, -D.D.,;. Pam.

Professor of Church History in the University
of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Cambridge :
at the University Press
1914

oh ; F avi, 4 r " ‘te av f
, *

:
He a3

: c

a]

ial
“

“ " = .
Ohne, Cambridge:

oh PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
ae AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

A idee STUBIES

-e

9
tS 63 |
3

PREFACE

N this small book I publish four lectures which
I was invited to give in a course of “advanced
lectures in theology” at the University of London,
March, 1913. The lectures were for the most part
originally written in German. I translated them with
the kind assistance of Miss Ida Southhall, M.A., of
Birmingham, then a guest at my house. But it is not
she alone to whom Iam indebted. I have also to thank
my dear host during my stay in London, Professor
H. J. White, who read two of my lectures before I
gave them, and the corrector of the Cambridge
University Press and two of our American students,
Mr H. Harper, B.A., of Avalan (U.S.A.), and Mr
Charles Baillie, B.D., of Picton (Canada), whose kind
suggestions I often utilized in reading the proofs.
However, I beg my readers to put it to my account,
that in spite of all these friendly helpers, the German
author very often reveals himself.

In quoting Nestorius’ “Book of Heraclides” I have
given the pages both of the Syriac text and of Nau’s
French translation—not in order to raise in my reader's
mind the idea that I made use of the Syriac text.

v1 PREFACE

Having forgotten nearly all I once knew of Syriac,
I examined the Syriac text with the help of various
friends only in a very few places, and I realize how
much the ordinary use of the French translation alone
is to be regarded as a defect in my lectures. I have
quoted the numbers of the pages of the original Syriac
text, as given by Nau, only in order that in this way
the places where the quotations are to be found may be
more accurately indicated than by merely quoting the
pages of Nau’s translation.

Since this book went to press I have made the
acquaintance of a lecture by Dr Junglas, a Roman-
Catholic scholar, entitled Die Irrlehre des Nestorius
(Trier, 1912, 29 pages), and of the interesting chapters
on “the tragedy of Nestorius” and “the council of
Chalcedon” in L. Duchesne’s Histoire ancienne de
?Eglise (tom. 111, Paris, 1911, pp. 313-388 and 389-
454). The latter makes little use of the newly
discovered Liber Heraclidis and does not give much
detail about the teaching of Nestorius. Nevertheless
I regret very much that I did not know earlier this
treatment of the matter, surely more learned and more
impartial than any other of Roman-Catholic origin.
Dr Junglas in giving a short delineation of Nestorius’
“heresy” has utilized the “ Book of Heraclides” and,
in my opinion, made some valuable remarks about the
terminology of Nestorius which are not to be found
elsewhere. However, in his one short lecture he was

PREFACE _ Vll

not able to go into details, and there are many things
which he has failed to observe. There is a third
Roman-Catholic research into the doctrine of Nestorius
(J ugie, article “ Ephése, concile de” in the Dictionnaire
de la théologie catholique, Fasc. 37, Paris, 1911, pp. 137-
163), which, as I understand, endeavours more eagerly
than Dr Junglas to show that Nestorius was justly
condemned; but I have not had the opportunity to
read this article.

As regards my own treatment of the matter, I do
not pretend to have exhausted the subject nor to have
found the definite and final answers to the various
questions aroused about Nestorius’ life and doctrine by
his Liber Heraclidis. I trust that I have indicated
more clearly than Professor Bethune-Baker has
already done the way by which we may arrive at a real
understanding of Nestorius’ peculiar ideas. Others,
I hope, may be stimulated by the present lectures
to a further study of Nestorius’ christology. The
subject is deserving of interest. For there is no other
christology in the ancient church so “ modern” as his
and perhaps that of his teachers whose dogmatical
works are lost.

Po

HALLE ON THE SAALE, GERMANY,
January 20th, 1914.

Rey
¥

-~B

‘

I

THE subject of my lectures—<Nestorius and his
position in the history of Christian Doctrine ”—seems
at the first glance to have little interest for us modern
men. Almost 1500 years have passed since Nestorius
played his réle in history. And this réle was in the
orthodox church a very transitory one.

For the Persian-Nestorian or Syrian-Nestorian
church (as the language of this church was Syriac)
Nestorius, it is true, became a celebrated saint; and
still to-day small remains of this once far-reaching
church are to be found in the vicinity of the Urmia
Lake in the north-west of Persia and south of it in the
mountains of Turkish Kurdistan. But in the orthodox
church Nestorius was even in his own time an ephemeral
appearance. In the year 428 a.p. he became bishop of
Constantinople and as early as 431 he was deposed.
Four years later he was banished to Oasis in Egypt,
and up to a few years ago the common opinion was
that he died soon after in his exile.

For the orthodox church he remained merely one of
_ the most condemned heretics. He was reproached not
L. N. 1

2 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

only for having forbidden the title @eoré«os, mother of
God, as applied to Mary the virgin, but it was told of
him that he, separating the divine and the human
nature of Christ, saw in our Saviour nothing but an
inspired man'. What was right in his statements, viz.
his opposition to all monophysitic thinking, was held to
be maintained by the famous letter of Leo the Great to
Flavian of Constantinople of the year 449, acknow- |
ledged by the council of Chalcedon, and by the creed of
that council itself. The rest of what he taught was
regarded as erroneous and not worth the notice of
posterity.

That this is not a tenable theory I hope to prove in
my lectures. .

To-day it is my aim merely to show that just at the
present time different circumstances have led to the
awakening of a fresh interest in Nestorius.

The church of the ancient Roman Empire did not
punish its heretics merely by deposition, condemnation,
banishment and various deprivations of rights, but,
with the purpose of shielding its believers against
poisonous influence, it destroyed all heretical writings.
No work of Arius, Marcellus, Aetius and Eunomuus e.g.,
not to speak of the earlier heretics, has been preserved
in more than fragments consisting of quotations by their
opponents. A like fate was purposed for the writings

1 Comp. Socrates, h. e. 7, 32, 6ed. Gaisford m1, 806; Evagrius,
h. e. 1, 7 ed. Bidez and Parmentier, p. 14, 6.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 3

of Nestorius: an edict of the Emperor Theodosius II,
dating from the 30th of July 435 ordered them to be
burnt!. Even the Persian church, about the same time
won over to Nestorianism, had to suffer under this
edict: only a few works of Nestorius came into its
possession for translation into Syriac.

This we learn through Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of
Nisibis (1318), the most famous theologian of the
Nestorians in the middle ages and who has given us
the most complete account of the writings of Nestorius.
He introduces in his catalogue of Syrian authors? the
notice about Nestorius with the following words:
Nestorius the patriarch wrote many excellent books
which the blasphemers (viz. the Antinestorians) have
destroyed. As those which evaded destruction he
mentions, besides the liturgy of Nestorius, ae. one
of the liturgies used by the Nestorians, which without
doubt is wrongly ascribed to Nestorius, five works
of the patnarch. The first of these is the book
called Tragedy, the second the Book of Heraclides,
the third the Letter addressed to Cosmas, the fourth a
Book of letters and the fifth a Book of homilies and
sermons.

For us the edict of Theodosius against the writings
of Nestorius has had a still more important result.
Until 1897 nothing was known about the second book

1 Cod. Theodos. 16, 5, 66; Mansi, v, 413 f.
2 J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, ur, 1, p. 35 f.
1—2

4 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

mentioned by Ebed-Jesu, 7.e. about the Book of Hera-
clides. Also the Letter addressed to Cosmas mentioned
third by Ebed-Jesu had to be counted and is still to be
counted as lost’. Of the three other works ascribed by
Ebed-Jesu to Nestorius we had and still have only
fragments—occasional quotations in the works of his
enemies and his friends.

Among the hostile writings in which we find such.
fragments are to be named especially the works of his
chief opponent Cyril of Alexandria; then the proceedings
of the council of Ephesus; then some works of Marius
Mercator, a Latin writer who in the time of Nestorius
lived in Constantinople and translated a series of
quotations from Nestorius given by Cyril, three letters
of Nestorius and also, but with considerable omissions,
nine of his sermons; finally the church history of Evagrius
(living about 590). The latter gives us? an account of
two works of Nestorius dating from the time of his
exile, one of which must be the Tragedy, while the
other could not be identified up to the last ten years,
and he inserts in his narration extracts from two
interesting letters of the banished heretic. Among
the friends who preserved for us fragments of Nestorius
the Nestorians of later date played a very unimportant
part. Important is a Latin work which has connection
with the earliest friends of Nestorius, the so-called

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie, xxiv, 242, 56 ff.
2h.e.1, 7ed. Bidez and Parmentier, pp. 12 ff.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 5

Synodicon, known since 1682! or, in complete form, since
18737, and which is a later adaptation of a work of
Bishop Irenaeus of Tyrus, a partisan of Nestorius,
which was entitled “Tragedy ” like the lost “Tragedy ”
of Nestorius, upon which perhaps it was based.

The quotations of these enemies and friends re-
present, as I said, fragments of three books of Nestorius
mentioned by Ebed-Jesu, viz. the Book of letters, the
Book of sermons and the Tragedy. The first two of
these three works of Nestorius need no further explana-
tion. The third, the Tragedy, about which Evagrius
and the Synodicon teach us, must have been a polemical
work, in which Nestorius, as Evagrius says, defended
himself against those who blamed him for having
introduced unlawful innovations and for having acted
wrongly in demanding the council of Hphesus®. The
title which the book bears must have been chosen
because Nestorius told here the tragedy of his life up
to his banishment to Oasis in Egypt.

Fragments of other books of Nestorius not mentioned
by Ebed-Jesu were not known to us ten years ago‘.

1 Ch. Lupus, Ad Ephesinum concilium variorum patrum epistolae,
1682= Mansi, v, 731-1022.

2 Bibliotheca Casinensis, 1, 49-84. $ h.e. 1, 7, pp. 12, 24f.

4 We had, it is true, the Anathematisms of Nestorius against
Cyril’s Anathematisms, and a fragment of his Aoyidiia; but the
Anathematisms probably were attached to a letter, and the Aoyidiia
(short discourses) perhaps belonged to the Book of homilies and
sermons.

6 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

All the fragments previously known and in addition
to them more than 100 new fragments preserved
especially by the Syrian-monophysitic literature I
collected and edited in 1905 in a volume entitled
Nestoriana’. It is with pleasure that here in England
I mention the collaboration of the learned English
scholar Stanley A. Cook, an expert in Syrian language
and literature, without whose help I never could have ~
used the Syriac texts in the British Museum. I will
not speak long of the book which this help and that of
a German scholar then at Halle, Dr G. Kampffmeyer,
enabled me to compose. Three remarks only shall be
made. Firstly: The Syriac fragments gave us knowledge
of a book of Nestorius not mentioned by Ebed-Jesu,
which was written in the form of a dialogue and which
was certainly a comprehensive work, although the
number of the fragments handed down to us is very
small. The title of this work is The Theopaschites,
that is, the man who thinks God had suffered, a title
certainly chosen because Nestorius in this dialogue
opposed the Cyrillian party, which he accused of holding
a doctrine which imagined the God in Christ suffering.

Secondly: The introductory headings in the Syriac
fragments of the sermons of Nestorius in combination
with a reconstruction of the order of the leaves in the

1 Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius, gesammelt, unter-
sucht und herausgegeben von F. Loofs. Mit Beitrigen von Stanley
A. Cook und G. Kampffmeyer, Halle, 1905.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 7

manuscripts used by Marius Mercator and by the
council of Ephesus, offered the possibility of arranging
the fragments of the sermons of Nestorius in such
a manner that more than 30 sermons could be clearly
discerned and that not a few of them were recognisable
in their essential contents and their characteristics.

Thirdly: By the help of the quotations I succeeded
in finding—as did also at almost the same time a
Catholic scholar! independently of me—the original
Greek of one sermon of Nestorius in a sermon preserved
in a manuscript at Dresden and printed in 1839 as
a work of Chrysostomus. It is a sermon on the high
priesthood of Christ in many respects especially charac-
teristic of the teaching of Nestorius.

Thus my Nestoriana gave for the first time an
opportunity to survey the remains of the works of
Nestorius then accessible. They were the first factor
in arousing fresh interest in Nestorius. They inspired,
as the author himself says, the writing of a monograph
on the christology of Nestorius by a Roman Catholic
chaplain, Dr Leonhard Fendt’.

But the second factor now to be treated is still
more important and surely more interesting. Let me
give some introductory remarks before treating the
subject itself.

1§. Haidacher, Rede des Nestorius iiber Hebr. 3.1, iiberliefert
unter dem Nachlass des hl. Chrysostomus (Zeitschrift fiir katholische
Theologie, xxtx, 1905, pp. 192-195).

2 Die Christologie des Nestorius, Kempten, 1910.

8 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

Some few heretics of the ancient church were
fortunately enabled long after their death to triumph
over the condemnation or even destruction which the
orthodox church pronounced against their writings.

Of Apollinaris of Laodicea, the heretic whose
doctrine was to Nestorius a special cause of offence, we
have still not a few writings because the Apollinarists
secretly introduced the works of their master into the ©
church literature, inscribing them with the names of
orthodox authors of good renown, e.g. Athanasius, Julius
of Rome, Gregorius Thaumaturgos. Since these
JSraudes Apollinaristarum’, of which as early as the 6th
century some church writers had an idea or at least
a suspicion”, were carefully examined, a small collection
of works of Apollinaris could be made. Prof. Lietz-
mann of Jena gave such a collection in his Apollinaris
von Laodicea in the year 1904.

Severus of Antioch, the most conspicuous of the
Monophysites of the 6th century, continued to be
admired in the Syrian monophysite church, although
the orthodox church had anathematized him. Hence
not an unimportant part of the works of Severus
translated into Syriac has been preserved, especially
among the Syriac manuscripts of the British Museum.

1 Comp. Leontius, adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum; Migne,
ser. graec. 86, 1947-1976.

2 Comp. the preceding note and Nestorius’ ad Constantinopolita-
nos (F. Nau, Nestorius, Le Livre d’ Héraclide, p. 374).

RECENTLY AWAKENED 9

And, besides others}, your famous countryman E. W.
Brooks has, to the great advantage of historical science,
begun the publication of this material*.

Pelagius, the well-known western contemporary of
Nestorius, whose doctrine Augustine opposed, wrote
beside other smaller dogmatical works a large commen-
tary on the:Epistles of Saint Paul, the original text of
which was held to be lost. An orthodox adaptation only
of this work, as was the opinion of ancient and modern
scholars, existed in a commentary regarded since olden
times as belonging to the works of Hieronymus and it
has been printed among them. But nobody took much
notice of these commentaries; for because they were
regarded as. having been revised they could teach
nothing new about Pelagius, and one could only make
use of those thoughts which otherwise were known to
be his. Lately we have come by curious bypaths to
valuable knowledge about the Pelagius-commentary
which we hope will soon put us in possession of the
original text of Pelagius. The well-known Celtic scholar,
Heinrich Zimmer, formerly professor at the University
of Berlin (+ 1910), was led, as we see in his book Pelagius
mm Irland (1901), to traces of the original Pelagius-
commentary by quotations in Irish manuscripts. He

1 e.g. R. Duval in Patrologia orientalis, 1v, 1, 1906.

2 The sixth book of the select letters of Severus, Patriarch of
Antiochia in the Syriac version etc., 2 vols., London, 1902-1904;
Hymns in Patrologia orientalis, v1, 1, 1910.

10 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

even believed he had recovered the original commentary
itself; for a manuscript which he found in the monastery
of S. Gallen (Switzerland) in his opinion nearly re-
sembled the original text, in spite of some additions,
and showed that the Pseudo-Hieronymus, i.e. the form
printed among the works of Hieronymus, was more
authentic than was previously supposed. This judgment
on the manuscript of S. Gallen and the Pseudo-Hiero-
nymus proved, it is true, to be too optimistic. But the
investigation, begun by Professor Zimmer, has been
furthered by German and English scholars by means of
extensive study of manuscripts. Professor A. Souter
of Aberdeen, who played a prominent réle in this
research and who really succeeded in finding at Karls-
ruhe a manuscript of the original Pelagius-commentary,
is right in hoping that he will be able to give to
theological science the original text of Pelagius within
a few years‘.

In a still more curious manner Priscillian, the first
heretic, who in consequence of his being accused was
finally put-to death (385), has been enabled to speak to
us in his own words. None of his writings were
preserved; we only had the accounts of his opponents.
Then there was suddenly found, 27 years ago, in the
University library at Wiirzburg (Bavaria) a manuscript
of the 5th or 6th century containing 11 treatises of the
old heretic perfectly intact—the genuineness of which

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopidte, xxiv, 311.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 11

cannot in the least be doubted. It must remain a
riddle for us how this manuscript could be preserved
without attention having been drawn to it. Neverthe-
less it is a matter of fact that these 11 treatises of
Priscillian now, more than 1500 years after his death,
can again be read; they were printed in the edition of
the discoverer, Dr Georg Schepps, in 1889.

A similar fortune was prepared for Nestorius. A
Syriac translation of his Book of Heraclides mentioned
above, which was made about 540 A.D., is preserved in
a manuscript, dating from about 1100, in the library of
the Nestorian Patriarch at Kotschanes in Persian
Turkestan. The American missionaries in the neigh-
bourhood of the Urmia Lake having heard about this
manuscript, attempted to gain further information about
it, and in 1889 a Syrian priest, by name Auscha’na,
succeeded in making secretly a hurried copy of the
manuscript for the library of the missionaries at Urmia.
One copy of this Urmia copy came into the University
library of Strassburg, another into the possession of
Professor Bethune-Baker of Cambridge; a fourth
copy has been made directly after the original at
Kotschanes for the use of the Roman Catholic editor,
the well-known Syriac scholar Paul Bedjan.

The rediscovery of this work of Nestorius was first
made known when the existence of the Strassburg
manuscript was heard of, in 18971. The publication of

1 Comp. my Nestoriana, p. 4.

3 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

the Syriac text was delayed longer than scholars seemed
to have had a right to hope. The first detailed notice
of the work, therefore, was given by Professor Bethune-
Baker in his work, Nestorius and his teaching, edited
1908. ‘This scholar had been enabled by means of an
English translation of a friend to make use of the Book
of Heraclides or “ Bazaar of Heraclides” as he called it.
Long quotations from the book of Nestorius made this |
publication of great value. As late as 1910 the edition
of the Syriac text by Paul Bedjan appeared and at
the same time a French translation by F. Nau1. It is
especially this publication which is able at the present
time to arouse interest in Nestorius.

First the preface of the Syriac translator attracts
our attention. The translator remarks at the conclusion
that the following book of Nestorius belongs to the
controversial writings on the faith and must be read
after the “ Theopaschites” and the “ Tragedy”, which he
wrote as apologetic answers to those who had blamed him
for having demanded a council”, This remark not only
confirms what we already knew from Evagrius about
the Tragedy of Nestorius, but it enables us also to
identify the second book of the banished Nestorius
known to Evagrius. Evagrius tells us that it was
directed against a certain Egyptian—Cyril is often

1 Nestorius, Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas, ed. P. Bedjan,
Paris, 1910; Nestorius, Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas, traduit en
Francais par F. Nau, Paris, 1910.

2 Bedjan, p. 4; Nau, p. 3.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 13

called by Nestorius “the Egyptian”—and that it was
written dvarextixas', apparently meaning “in the form
ofadialogue”. These words of Evagrius even before the
discovery of the Book of Heraclides could be held to point
to the Theopaschites, which has in the fragments that
are preserved the dialogue form. Nevertheless in my
Nestoriana I did not venture to make this identification
because the book known to Evagrius must have also
contained historical-polemical passages, while the frag-
ments we have present no such material. Now according
to the preface of the translator of the Book of Heraclides
the Theopaschites really contained historical-polemical
material. One can therefore now without doubt identify
it with the second book notified by Evagrius.

More interesting than the preface is naturally the
book itself. Its title, “Tegurta” of Heraclhdes of
Damascus, according to Bedjan? and Nau? corre-
sponding in Greek to IIpayywareia ‘Hpaxreidouv rod
Aapacknvod, hence “Treatise of Heraclides ”—not
“Bazaar of Heraclides” as Professor Bethune-Baker
translated—is the most puzzling thing in the whole
work. ‘The Syriac translator remarks in his preface that
Heraclides was a noble and educated man living in the
neighbourhood of Damascus, and that Nestorius puts
this name in the title of his book because he feared

1h. e. 1, 7, pp. 13, 21: ypdger dé Kal €repov Adyov pds Twa SOE
Aiyirriov ovyKelmevov K.T.r. 2 p. viii, no. 2.
3 p. xvii and Revue de l’ Orient chrétien, x1v, 1909, pp. 208 f.

14 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

that his own name would prevent people from reading
it. The Syriac translator therefore had already found
the title Treatise of Heraclides in his Greek original.
He does not seem to have known anything about the
meaning of this title. The vague remarks he makes
about Heraclides tell nothing more than anyone might
guess without his help. The book itself in its present
incomplete condition—about one-sixth of the whole is —
missing—nowhere explains the title, Heraclides not
being mentioned at all. And Nestorius has made no
effort to conceal his authorship. The names of the
persons which, in the dialogue of the first part of the
book, head the single portions of the text, viz. Nestorius
and Sophronius, must, it is true, be regarded as later
additions—just as the headings of the chapters. But
the manner in which the matter is dealt with, especially
in the second half of the book, reveals so clearly that
Nestorius is the writer, that a pseudonym, as Heraclides
or anyone else, could have deceived only those who
gave no attention to the contents. Perhaps—that is
the opinion of Bethune-Baker?—the pseudonymous
title is to be regarded as the device of an adherent of
Nestorius, to save his master’s apology from destruction.

However it may be—the book itself has nothing to
do with Heraclides of Damascus. It falls, as the Syriac
translator rightly remarks*, into two parts, the first of

1 Bedjan, p. 3; Nau, p. 3.
2 Nestorius and his teaching, p. 33. * Bedjan, p. 4; Nau, p. 4.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 15

which has three, the second two sections. ‘To the first
section of the first part! the translator gives the
heading: Of all heresies opposed to the church and of ali
the differences with regard to the farth of the 318 (1.e. the
Fathers of Nicaea). In the second section? Nestorius,
as the translator observes, attacks Cyril and criticizes
the judges (who condemned him) and the charges of
Cyril. The third section? contains according to the
translator his (viz. Nestorius’) answer (or apology) and
a comparison of their letters (viz. of Cyril and Nestorius).
The first section of the second part* is characterized by
the translator as a refutation and rectification of all
charges for which he was excommunicated, and the
second section® as dealing with the time or the events
from his excommunication to the close of his life.

Even the first of the five sections shows considerable
omissions ; the second is incomplete in the beginning
and again at the end; also of the third section the
beginning is missing. The fourth section, in which all
extracts from the sermons of Nestorius criticized at
Ephesus as heretical are brought under review, seems,
apart from small omissions, incomplete only in the

1 Bedjan, pp. 10-13 f.; Nau, pp. 1-88; comp. Hauck’s Real-
Encyklopddie, xxtv, 240, 44 ff.

2 Bedjan, pp. 147-209; Nau, pp. 88-125.

3 Bedjan, pp. 209-270; Nau, pp. 126-163.

* Bedjan, pp. 138-160 and 271-366 (or 459); Nau, pp. 163-235
(or 294); comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie, xxtv, 240, 55 f.

5 Bedjan, 366 (or 459)-521; Nau, 235 (or 294)-331.

16 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

beginning; the last section is the most completely
preserved.

In spite of all omissions it is a book of extensive
scope in which Nestorius speaks to us: the Syriac text
has 521 pages, the French translation of Nau fills 331,
and they are of a large size.

In reading the book one has to regret, it is true,

again and again, that it has not been preserved intact.

and in its original language. It would be of inestimable
importance for the history of Christian doctrine if we
possessed the original Greek of these explanations, so
important from a dogmatic point of view.

Nevertheless even as we have it now in the Syriac
translation the Treatise of Heraclides of Nestorius
remains one of the most interesting discoveries for
students of ancient church history. In two respects it
is able to awaken fresh interest in Nestorius: by what
we hear about his life and by what we led:n about his
doctrine. |

As concerning the first, the Treatise of Heraclides
has undoubtedly many relations to that earlier work of
Nestorius, entitled 7ragedy and only known in a few
fragments, in which he treated historically and polemi-
cally the tragedy of his life and especially the doings
of the Cyrillian council of Ephesus. Also in the
Treatise of Heraclides Nestorius writes as one who is
conscious of being unjustly condemned and wrongly
delivered over to the intrigues of the unscrupulous

RECENTLY AWAKENED ef

Cyril. But he does not make pretentious claims for
his person or hope for another turn of his fortune. He
has no more interest in the world. For e.g. after having
said that one might ask him why the bishops of the
Antiochian party had given assent to his deposition he
answers!: Well you must ask him (meaning Cyril),
apparently also those (meaning the Antiochians). Jf
you want to learn anything else of me, then I will speak
of what rs now gradually coming to the knowledge of the
whole world, not in order to find approbation or assistance
among men—for earthly things have but little interest
for me. I have died to the world and live for Him, to
whom my life belongs ;—but I will speak to those who took
offence etc. He writes in exile in the deserts of Egypt
and has no prospect but of death. As for me, so
he concludes the treatise*, I have borne the sufferings
of my life and all that has befallen me in this world as
the sufferings of a single day; and I have not changed
all these years. And now I am already on the point to
depart, and daily I pray to God to dismiss me—me
whose eyes have seen his salvation. Farewell Desert, my
Friend, mine upbringer and my place of sojourning, and
thou Exile, my mother, who after my death shalt keep my
body until the resurrection comes in the time of God’s
pleasure! Amen.

We knew previously that Nestorius had to endure

1 Bedjan, p. 451; Nau, p. 289.
2 Bedjan, p. 520f.; Nau, p. 331.

18 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

many sufferings during his exile. Evagrius, as I said
above, hands down to us fragments of two letters of
Nestorius to the governor of Thebais'. From these
we learn that Nestorius was captured in Oasis by
invading bands of barbarians and then, being released,
surrendered himself, by a letter written in Panopolis, into
the hands of the governor, in order not to come under

the suspicion of having fled. But then, so the second

letter teaches us, he was sent by order of the governor
first to Elephantine and, before reaching it, back to
Panopolis, then into the surrounding district and from
there to a fourth place of exile. The hardships of these
continual removals and severe bodily pains caused by an
injured hand and side had brought him to the brink of
death. We cannot help being moved when we see him
in his first letter from Panopolis, written directly after
his release from capture, asking the governor that he
should see to a lawful continuation of his exile, lest in
all future generations should be told the tragic lstory
that it was better to be captured by barbarians than to take
refuge with the Roman Empire*. But these occurrences

happened soon after 435, for in the first letter Nestorius

mentions the synod of Ephesus as a fact of the recent
past. Scholars therefore could suppose and actually

1 Evagrius, h. e. 1, 7, pp. 14-16; Nestoriana, pp. 198-201.

2 va wh waoats €x ToUTOU yeveats TpaywonTa KpetrTov elvar BapBdpwy
aixuddrwrov 7 mpbopuya Baoirelas pwuaixjs (Evagrius, 1, 7, p. 15, 12f.;
Nestoriana, p. 199, 12 ff.).

RECENTLY AWAKENED 19

did suppose that death soon put an end to the sufferings
of the banished Nestorius. He feels himself an old man
even as early as the time of these letters.

But now the Treatise of Heraclides teaches us
that Nestorius was still alive at least in the autumn of
450, for the news of the death of the Emperor Theo-
dosius, who died 28 July 450, had penetrated even
to the loneliness of his exile. Professor Bethune-
Baker! goes even further, thinking—in my opinion
without sufficient grounds—that Nestorius must have
died after the council of Chalcedon, about 452.
During at least 15 to 16 years, therefore, Nestorius
endured the hardships of exile. How many sufferings
these years may have seen! Nestorius does not speak
much of them. But he remarks incidentally, that for
many years he never had a moment of repose or any
human comfort®. Surely the person claims our interest
who in spite of all this could write*: The goal of my
earnest wish, then, is that God may be blessed on earth as
in heaven. But as for Nestorius,—let him be anathema !
Only let them say of God what I pray that they should
say. I am prepared to endure and to suffer all for
Him. And would God that all men by anathematizing
me might attain to a reconciliation with God.

1 Nestorius and his teaching, pp. 34-37, and Journal of theol.
studies, tx, 1908, pp. 601-605.

2 Bedjan, p. 519; Nau, p. 330.

3 Bedjan, p. 507f.; Nau, p. 323.

2—2

20 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

Thus, if we are interested by what the Treatise of
Heraclides teaches us about the life of Nestorius, in no
less a degree ought our interest to be awakened by
what we learn about his doctrine.

As early as about 440 Socrates the church-historian
defended, with the impartiality which distinguished
him, his contemporary Nestorius against the grave
misrepresentation to which his doctrine was exposed. |
People, as he says!, thought that Nestorius regarded
the Lord asa mere human being, as did Paul of Samosata
and Photinus. But, so he continues”, J read his writings
and I will say the truth: he did not hold the same
opinions as Paul of Samosata and Photinus nor did he
at all regard the Lord as a mere man, only he abhorred
the term Oeoroxos as a bugbear.

In a still higher degree Luther did justice to
Nestorius. In his book Von Concilits und Kurchen he
confesses that he himself for some time did not under-
stand what the error of Nestorius was, and that he also
thought that Nestorius had held Christ to be nothing
more than a man, as the popish decrees and all popish
writers declared; but that after having looked more
accurately at the accounts he saw that this was false®.
This, too, according to Luther, was wrongly assumed
about Nestorius, that he made two persons of the one
Christ. Nestorius, Luther says, really does not teach more

1 h.e. 7, 32, 6. 2 16.8.
3 Erlanger Ausgabe, Deutsche Schriften, 2. Aufl. 25, 364.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 21

than one Christ ; hence he could not regard Christ as two
persons ; otherwise he would have said a Yes and a No
im the same article, contradicting himself!. Nestorius,
he says”, rightly believed that Christ was God begotten
of the Father from all eternity and man born of Mary
the Virgin; and, he declares®, it was right, too, that
Mary did not bear the Godhead. But Luther thought
that Nestorius as a rough and unlearned man did not
comprehend the communicatio idiomatum, which in his
opinion justifies the phrase that God was born of Mary,
just as a mother (although the soul of her child does
not come from her) is nevertheless not only the mother
of the body, but the mother of the child‘.

Luther had but a very limited knowledge about
Nestorius. To the increased knowledge of our day
even before the discovery of the Treatise of Heraclides
the doctrine of Nestorius showed itself in a still more
favourable light. As early as ten years ago I wrote in
the Realencyklopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und
Kirche: If Nestorius had lived in the time of the council
of Chalcedon, he would possibly have become a pillar
of orthodoxy*®. Now the Treatise of Heraclides teaches
us that Nestorius lived roughly speaking till the time of
that council. Accurately speaking there is no trace of the
Chalcedonian synod in the Treatise of Heraclides, and
the passages which seem to point to the time following it

1 |.c. p. 365. 2 l.c. p. 366. 3 lic. p. 367.
4 lic. p. 367. ® xn, 741, 16f.

22 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

must in my opinion be explained otherwiset. Hence
I believe that the monophysitic stories asserting that
Nestorius had been invited to the council of Chalcedon,
but died a dreadful death on the journey thither? are
right in so far that Nestorius did not live to see the
opening of the council in October 451. But he saw the
beginning of the reaction which followed the so-called

robber-synod of Ephesus in 449. He even read the ~

famous letter of Pope Leo to Flavian of Constantinople,
which was of such decisive importance for the determina-
tion of Chalcedon and was acknowledged as a norm of
doctrine by this council. What was his judgment about
this letter of Leo’s? Many times in the Treatise of
Heraclhides he declares that Leo and Flavian taught

the truth and that their opinion was exactly the same

as his®. He even tells that he was begged by friends to
write to Leo of Rome, but he did not do it, lest—so he
says—through the prejudice existing against him he
should hinder him (ze. Leo) who was running a right
course’,

Because of all this, Professor Bethune-Baker, in
his above-mentioned book, Nestorius and his teaching,

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie, xx1v, 241, 36 ff.

2 Comp. F. Nau, Nestorius d’aprés les sources orientales, Paris,
1911, p. 51 ff.; Evagrius, h. e. 2, 2,ed. Bidez and Parmentier,
p. 39, 17 ff.

3 Bedjan, pp. 466, 474, 495, 514, 519; Nau, pp. 298, 303, 316,
327, 330.

* Bedjan, p. 519; Nau, p. 330.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 23

thought he could maintain on the ground of the Treatise
of Heraclides that Nestorius was not a Nestorian but
was perfectly orthodox!. This thesis and the Treatise of
Heraclides on which it is based are indeed both able to
awaken our interest in Nestorius.

And still a third factor capable of arousing our
interest besides my Nestorvana and the Treatise of
Heraclides must be named. The French translator of
the Treatise of Heraclides, F. Nau, has added to his
translation four further almost new Nestoriana. He
thinks he has discovered the original Greek text of
three sermons of Nestorius on the story of the temptation,
of which I knew only fragments from the first and third?,
I had grounds for supposing that more of these sermons
existed in manuscripts of Chrysostomus, but I did not
succeed in finding such material®. The new discovery,
I fear, is looked upon in a too optimistic manner by its
editor. The new sermons certainly contain actual
sections of homilies of Nestorius; but taken as a whole
they do not seem to me to be of a really different kind
from that Pseudo-Chrysostomus-homily from which I
took the fragments of the sermons on the story of the
temptation. Hence I cannot believe that the new
sermons present the homilies of Nestorius on the
temptation in an unaltered and complete form‘.

1 pp. vii and 197 ff.

2 Nau, pp. 333-358 ; Nestoriana, pp. 341-347.

3 Nestoriana, p. 149.

4 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopéidie, xx1v, 242, 29 ff.

24 A FRESH INTEREST IN NESTORIUS

More interesting, therefore, in my opinion, is the
fourth Ineditum which Nau gives in a French transla-
tion, after a Syrian British Museum manuscript to which
I pointed in my Nestoriana'. I refer to a fragment
of a letter of Nestorius to the inhabitants of Constanti-
nople, the beginning and end of which were previously
known by a quotation made by the Monophysite
Philoxenus of Mabug?. I did not include this letter
in my estoriana, because with all other scholars I
regarded it as a monophysitic forgery intended to
discredit the doctrine of Pope Leo by showing it to be
approved by Nestorius. Indeed the letter appears for
the first time in monophysitic circles—in the writings
of Philoxenus about 520? and, what escaped the notice
of Nau, about 570 in the so-called anonymous Historia
miscellanea®. But according to the Syrian translator*
the Nestorians also, e.g. Simon Bar Tabbahé about 750° ;
acknowledged it as genuine, and since we know from
the Treatise of Heraclides the judgment of Nestorius
about Flavian and Leo there is no longer a plausible
objection which may be raised from this side against
the genuineness of the letter. I confess, however, that
Tam not rid ofall doubts. Certainly a definite judgment
is not possible till the whole of the letter be brought to

1 p. 84. 2 Comp. Nestoriana, p. 70. r
3 Die Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor in deutscher Uber-
setzung von K. Ahrens und G. Kriiger, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 23, 31 ff.

4 Nau, p. 376.
* Assemani, Bibliotheca orientales, m1, 215.

RECENTLY AWAKENED 25

light; for now between the beginning quoted by
Philoxenus and the fragment of the British Museum
a section is missing, the length of which we do not know.
Nevertheless the genuineness of the letter seems to me
now to be more probable than the contrary*.

The beginning of the letter refers to the synod of
Constantinople, held in 448 by Flavian for the purpose
of condemning Kutyches, and the criticism of his
doctrine given by Leo in his letter to Flavian. Jt is
my doctrine, so Nestorius declares, which Leo and
Flavian are upholding?. Then, after the omissions, some
assertions corresponding to the doctrine of Nestorius only
as described by Cyril, are disproved. Then follow
polemics against Cyril, rejecting various quotations from
the Fathers which he was in the habit of using in
supporting his doctrine, these quotations being for the
most part apollinaristic forgeries®. Then the letter
ends in exhortations. These conclude with the words
preserved also by Philoxenus: Believe as our holy
comrades in the faith, Leo and Flavian! Pray that
a general council be gathered in order that my doctrine,
v.€. the doctrine of all orthodox Christians, be confirmed.
My hope is, that when the first has taken place, the
second, too, will come to pass*. Here Nestorius is
wooing the interest of his readers for the council of

1 Comp. note 3. 2 Nau, p. 374; 1, 3.
3 This fact evidently is in favour of the genuineness of the letter.
4 Nau, p. 375; 11, 19.

26 THE TRAGEDY

Chalcedon before it was held. Was his doctrine really
in harmony with that of this council? Was this heretic
a rudely maltreated exponent of orthodoxy ?

These questions, you see, are not only raised by
Professor Bethune-Baker; but we, too, have to raise
them, when we are considering the material we find in
the sources.

Hence I hope that, while dealing with these questions, -

I shall succeed in gaining your further interest during
the course of the next three lectures.

In the next lecture we shall see that really to no
other heretic has been done such great injustice as to
Nestorius. The last two lectures will deal with the
doctrine of Nestorius and his position in the history of

dogma.

Il

In the preceding lecture we saw that by the
increased knowledge of the works of Nestorius and
especially by his lately rediscovered Treatise of Hera-
clides, written not long before his death, and by his still
later letter to the inhabitants of Constantinople, the
question is raised whether this heretic was a rudely
maltreated exponent of orthodoxy.

About his doctrine we shall speak in the next
lecture, to-day it will only occasionally be mentioned.
For what now will occupy us is the fact that he was

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 27

indeed so rudely maltreated that his life really became
what he himself called it—a tragedy. This tragedy is
composed of five acts: first the undivided affection of his
parish was robbed from him, then the sympathies of the
Occident, then the favour of the court and his episcopal
office; then he was brought into disfavour as a heretic
also amongst the majority of his friends, and finally as
an exiled and forgotten man he was exposed to common
condemnation.

1

It is well known that Nestorius in April 428 was
called out of the monastery of Kuprepios, in the neigh-
bourhood of Antioch, to the vacant bishopric of Con-
stantinoplet. We knew before the discovery of the
Treatise of Heraclides that it was the aversion of the
court to the election of a Constantinopolitan which
caused the decision to be in his favour*. Now we are
told more about this by an address which Nestorius in
his Treatise of Heraclides puts into the mouth of the
Emperor Theodosius®. Of course this address cannot
be regarded as given by the Emperor in these very
words; but it is certainly trustworthy in what it tells
about the events in Constantinople. We see here that
the sentiment of the court was the result of lengthy

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopiidie, x11, 737, 45 ff.

2 Le. p. 737, 37 ff.

3 Bedjan, p. 377 ff.; Nau, p. 242 ff.; comp. Bethune-Baker,
Nestorius and his teaching, p. 6 ff. note 3.

28 THE TRAGEDY

transactions, in which the emperor made great con-
cessions to the monkish party and its leader, the archi-
mandrite Dalmatius. The monks themselves, according
to the narration of Nestorius, finally asked for the
decision of the court'. They, too,—later the most
embittered enemies of Nestorius—had at first no ground
for being discontented with his election. And, apart

from the heretical parties, which experienced the anti- —

heretical zeal of the new bishop soon after his enthrone-
ment?, this contentment was at first general®.

But already before the end of Nestorius’ first year
of office, the controversy began. Nestorius asserts in
the Treatise of Heraclides in just the same manner as
in a letter of December 430 to John of Antioch and in
his Tragedy, that he was not its beginner—he had
found a quarrel over the question as to whether Mary
was to be called @eotoKos or avOpwrotoKos, when he
arrived at Constantinople, and in order to settle it, he
had suggested the term ypictotoxos*t. When did
Nestorius do this? I think it was common opinion that
it took place in his “ first sermon on the Georoxos,” which
dates perhaps as far back as 428, perhaps only from the
beginning of 429. But in the fragments of this sermon®

1 Bedjan, p. 379; Nau, p. 243f.; Bethune-Baker, p.8, note.

2 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie, x1, 738, 1 ff.

3 Lc. p. 737, 53 ff.

4 Bedjan, p. 151; Nau, p. 91; ep. ad Joann., Nestoriana,
p. 185, Tragoedia, Nestoriana, p. 203.

5 Nestoriana, pp. 249-264; comp. pp. 134-146.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 29

the term ypsototoKos does not occur. Now Nestorius
in his Treatise of Heraclides tells us that the quarrelling
parties, which abusively designated each other by the
names of “ Manicheans” and “Photinians”, came into the
bishop's palace and begged his counsel. He recognised
that neither the friends of the @eotdxos were Manicheans
nor were the upholders of the term av@pwrotoxos
adherents of the heresy of Photinus, and he declared
that both terms, when rightly understood, were not
heretical, but as a safer one he suggested the term
xpictotoKos'. In this way, Nestorius narrates, the
parties were reconciled, and they were at peace with
one another until Cyril of Alexandria intruded himself
in the matter”.

In this account, three points are worthy of considera-
tion. First the notice that Nestorius advised the
quarrelling parties in his home. This report is un-
doubtedly trustworthy, for in his first sermon on the
Oeotoxos Nestorius directly makes mention of such
persons, who shortly before in his presence argued
against each other the question whether Mary should be
called @eotoxos or avOpwroroKos*®. This extension of
our knowledge as regards the place where Nestorius
advised the contending parties seems to be very un-
important. But that this is not the case we shall now

1 Bedjan, p. 151f.; Nau, p. 91f. 2 |.c. pp. 152 and 92.

3 Nestoriana, p. 251, 21 ff.: Audiant haec, qui..., sicut modo
cognovimus, in (ex?) nobis invicem frequenter sciscitantur :; @eordxos...
Maria, an autem avOpwrordkos ?

30 THE TRAGEDY

see, if we discuss the second point which in the above-
quoted narration of the Treatise of Heraclides seems to
be worthy of consideration.

Nestorius, as I mentioned, says here he had declared
that both terms, @eordxos as well as av@pwroroKos, rightly
understood, were not heretical, but that he reeommended
as more safe the term yptorotoxos'. This account of
Nestorius seems to be untrustworthy ; for his well-known —
first sermon on the @eoroxos, preserved in long frag-
ments”, seems wholly to exclude the term @eoroxos ; and
it is likewise well known that Nestorius was continually
reproached for interdicting or at least refusing to give
to Mary the title @eoroxos?. Even his afterwards
unfaithful friend, John of Antioch, asked him in a letter
of the autumn of 430 to give up his opposition against
this designation of Mary*. Is Nestorius, therefore,
telling a falsehood when he narrates that he had
declared the @eoroxos, when rightly understood, to be
non-heretical? Here the place of meeting between
Nestorius and the quarrelling parties becomes important.
For, while I do not believe that Nestorius even in his
first sermon on the @eoroxos, in spite of his criticism,
declared the term to be nevertheless tolerable, yet it is
not quite improbable that he did so previously in the

1 Comp. above, p. 29.
2 Comp. above, p. 28, note 5.
% Comp. sermo 18, Nestoriana, p. 300, 15: Non dicit, inquiunt,

Td Geordbxos, et hoc est totum, quod nostris sensibus ab illis opponitur.
4 Mansi, tv, 10658.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 31

presence of the contending parties. This would agree
with what he narrated as early as December 430 in his
answer to the above-mentioned letter of John of Antioch}.
And even in his first letter to Pope Celestine, after
having expressed his strong aversion to the term
Meotoxos, he nevertheless wrote: The term may be
tolerated. Hence we can give credit to the statement
of Nestorius, that from the beginning he did not regard
as intolerable the term Qeord«os if rightly understood.
His position was this: he feared the term would originate
false ideas?, and for this reason and because he believed
the term unknown to the orthodox Fathers of the past,
he had nothing in its favour and undoubtedly opposed it
on frequent occasions ; but even in a sermon of the spring
of 429, which was known to Cyril before writing his
epistola dogmatica, he declared: If you will use the
term OeotoKos with simple faith, it 1s not my custom to
grudge it you’. Afterwards in a sermon, which cannot
be dated, but was certainly delivered before the spring
of 430, he was able to say: I have already repeatedly
declared that if any one of you or any one else be simple
and has a preference for the term Qeotoxos, then I have

1 Nestoriana, p. 185, 10 f.: volentibus concessi, ut pie genitricen vel
particen dei virginem nominarent.

2 l.e. p. 167, 24: ferri tamen potest hoc vocabulum.

* Sermo 10, Nestoriana, p. 273, 4f.: rhv ris AéEews mpodopay
doparlfoua, tov ev 7TH NéEer KpuTToucvov Kivduvoyv bpopwuevos.

4 Le. p. 272, 13f.: ef wera ricrews dardhs TO ‘* OeordKos”’ ™po€pepes,
ovK av og THs AéEews EMObyNoa.

32 THE TRAGEDY

nothing to say against it—only do not make a Goddess
of the virgin’. And even before the letter of John of
Antioch mentioned above Nestorius came to an under-
standing with his clergy about the necessary use and
meaning of the term @eotdKos?.

How under these circumstances was such a passionate
controversy as that which followed, possible? What
was it that deprived Nestorius of the undivided affection
of his parish which he enjoyed at the beginning ?

First it may be noted that the enemies of Nestorius
were persuaded that bad heresies lurked behind his
opposition to the term Q@eoroxos. As early as the
spring of 429 Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum,
accused Nestorius by means of a public placard of
thinking as Paul of Samosata?. Even at that time
Nestorius was reproached for regarding Jesus as a mere
man‘, This reproach however was still more groundless
than the indignation about his opposition to the term
Geotoxos. Hence this reproach, too, cannot be the first
and the true cause of the controversy.

Nestorius declares in the above-quoted passage of
the Treatise of Heraclides—and this is the third point

1 Nestoriana, p. 353, 17 ff.: Elwov 5¢ 4dn mrevordxus, Ore el Tis F
éy wiv adedéorepos, elre ev dddows Tit xalper TH TOD ‘‘ Oeordkos”’ Gury,
éuol mpos Thy pwviv POdvos ovK eorr. pdvov wy Toelrw THY wapbévor
beav.

2 ep. ad Joann. Nestoriana, p. 184, 21 ff.

3 Mansi, 1v, 1008 r-1012 8 (Greek text) and v, 492-494 (Latin
text); comp. Nestoriana, p. 49.

4 Nestoriana, p. 259, 16; 284, 2; 285, 12.

:
|
|
|

OF NESTORIUS LIFE 33

which in his statement needs explanation—that the real
cause of the controversy is to be found in the intrigues
of Cyril of Alexandria!. These intrigues on their part,
according to what Nestorius tells in the continuation of
the above-quoted passage’, originated in accusations
which were brought against Cyril himself. Cyril is
regarded by Nestorius as having framed the dogmatic
controversy for no other reason than to keep these
accusations in the background. Nestorius raised this
reproach against Cyril as early as in the late summer
of 430 in a letter to the bishop of Rome?*; and that this
reproach was well grounded, I tried to show as far back
as 1903 by pointing to a letter, written by Cyril to his
clerical agents in Constantinople*. After long explana-
tions about the perverted doctrine of Nestorius he says
in this letter: J had till now no quarrel with him and
wish him betterment ; but for supporting my enemies he
shall give answer before God. No wonder if the dirtiest
persons of the city, Chairemon, Victor and others, speak
ull of me. May he, who incites them, learn that I have
no fears about a journey or about answering them.
Often the providence of the Saviour brings tt about that
little things cause a synod to be held, through which His
church 1s purified. But even if others and honourable
men should accuse me on his instigation—that wretched

1 Comp. above, p. 29. 2 Bedjan, p. 152f.; Nau, p. 92.
3 ep. ad Caelest. 3, Nestoriana, p. 181, 10f.
* Hauck’s Real-Encyklopidie, xm, 745, 30 ff.; comp. 743, 28 ff.

L. N. 3

34 THE TRAGEDY

man shall not hope that he can be my judge. I will
withstand him, if I come thither, and it ts he who shall
answer for error’. Nevertheless Cyril says in a
following section of this letter preserved only in its Latin
text: If he professes the right faith, then shall be made
the most perfect and firmest peace. If he longs for that,
let him compose an orthodox confession of faith and send it
to Alexandria....Then I, too,...will publish a writing and
declare that nobody shall reproach one of my fellow-bishops
because his words—so I shall say—are rightly meant?.
Does not this mean: If he does what I wish (pointing
naturally and especially to the accusations, mention of
which is cleverly omitted), then he is no heretic! To
give you a full idea of the plottings of Cyril as shown
by his communication with his agents I must add a
further quotation from the letter which occupies us. It
is out of the last part of the Greek text which by ancient
scholars* was held to be a supplement to the letter.

1 Cyril, ep. 10, Migne, ser. graeca, 77, p. 65D; comp. the Latin
translation of Marius Mercator, ed. Baluze, p. 106=Migne, Lc.
p. 74f. It is noteworthy that Marius Mercator, a partisan of Cyril,
suppressed the words 6 defAaros [uh mpocdoxdrw]; he translates: Non
igitur speret, etc. Veracity was not a common virtue among the
Christians of that time!

2 ed. Baluze, p. 108=Migne, l.c. p. 77f.: Si rectam fidem profi-
teatur, fiet plenaria et firmissima pax. Quam si in voto gerit, scribat
catholicam fidem et mittat Alexandriam, Si haec ex affectu cordis
intimi scribantur, paratus sum et ego pro viribus meis similia scribere
et edere ac dicere, nullum debere gravari consacerdotum meorum, quia

ejus voces, dicimus, habent intentionem ac propositum manifestum.
3 Garnier in his edition of Marius Mercator, 1673, 1,56=Migne,

OF NESTORIUS LIFE 35

Cyril says here?: I received and read the petition you
sent me, which, after having recewed my consent, is
purposed for presentation to the Emperor. But since it
contains various complaints against my brother there
—or what shall I call him??—I kept it back for
the time, lest he should reproach you saying: you
accused me as a heretic before the Emperor. But
I composed another petition, in which I declined to be
judged by him, pointing to his enmity and proposing that
...the judgment be handed over to other officials. Read
this petition and present rt, if need be. And if you see
that he continues to scheme against me and really tries
to set all things against me, write it to me at once. Then
I shall choose some wary and prudent men and send
them as soon as possible. For, as tt 1s written®, I will
not give sleep to mine eyes or slumber to mine eyelids
till I have finished the fight for the salvation of all.

Whoever knows this advice of Cyril to his agents
cannot doubt that the accusations brought against
Cyril played a prominent réle in the beginnings of the
Nestorian controversy, and will, therefore, put confidence
in what Nestorius tells about this matter in his 7'reatise
of Heraclides. The agents of Cymil, he narrates‘,
Le. p. 78; Tillemont, Mémoires, ed. of Venice, xtv, 755; Ch. W. F.
Walch, Historie der Kezereien, v, 392, note 4.

1 Migne, l.c. p. 68 c-69 a.

2 Kara Tod éxeioe—F adeAPOD 7 THs ay elo;

3 Psalm 132, 4.
4 Bedjan, p. 152 ff.; Nau, p. 92f.

3—2

36 THE TRAGEDY

counselled the contending parties not to accept the
term ypiototoxos. They schemed, agitated and were
to be found everywhere, referring always to Cyril as
their ally. Then, according to Nestorius’ narration,
men who had complaints against Cyril, brought speakable
and unspeakable things against him before the Emperor
and requested at the same time that Nestorius should
be judge. Nestorius then sent for Cyril’s clerical agents
and asked them to explain the situation. But these, to
use Nestorius’ own words, were annoyed and said to me:
What, you admit an accusation against the patriarch of
Alexandria and do not at once condemn the accusers as
calumniators without trial ?...We contest your right and
with good ground ; for that would be a dangerous en-
couragement of accusers, while it will be a profit to you to
keep him (Cyril) as your good friend and not to turn him,
who is famous because of his importance and who vs among
the great, intoan enemy. Then I answered them: I have
no desire for a friendship which would make me guilty
of injustice, but only for such which without respect of
persons does God’s work. Thereupon they returned:
We will report it to the patriarch. Svnce that time,
continues Nestorius, he became my irreconcilable enemy
and ready for anything. He started a quarrel in order
_ to decline my judgment on account of my enmity, and to
outwit his accusers according to his custom, and to keep
the charges, brought against him, in the background.
This he managed to do, and then presented a petition

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 37

asking that the judgment might be handed over to others’.
As evidence of this, Nestorius quoted the above-
mentioned? conclusion of (or supplement to) Cyril’s
letter to his agents, adding a sharp criticism.

We do not know which were the charges made
against Cyril before the emperor and before Nestorius
—they do not seem to have been of a dogmatic kind ;
but, in my opinion, nobody can rightly dispute that
they were of decisive importance for the dogmatic
accusations which Cyril brought against Nestorius.

There is, however, one argument which could perhaps
be advanced against this. Hefele, the Roman Catholic
author of a famous history of the councils, objected?
that Cyril did not speak of the fact that his name was
slandered by false accusers before his second letter to
Nestorius, the so-called epistola dogmaticat, which was
written about the end of January 430, while even
his first letter® to Nestorius contained the dogmatic
charges against him. The observation seems at first
to be night. For Cyril’s letter to his agents, which we
have discussed, is contemporary with his epistola
dogmatica to Nestorius’, in spite of the differing tone of
the two letters’. Nevertheless Cyril spoke of his being

1 Bedjan, p. 153f.; Nau, p. 93. 2 p. 35.

3 C. J. v. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd ed. u, 165 f.

4 ep. 4, Migne, 77, 44-49. 5 ep. 2, Migne, 77, 40f.
§ Garnier, opp. Marii Mercatoris, u, 53.

? Comp. ep. 4, Migne, 77, p. 48D: raira xal viv é& dydarns ris
év Xpicr@ ypdg@w wapakadGy ws ddedpdv x.7.X.3 ep. 10, p. 68a: uh

38 THE TRAGEDY

accused before his second letter to Nestorius and the
contemporary letter to his agents. We learn this from
the Treatise of Heraclides. We saw! that Nestorius
here quoted and discussed the last part of Cyril’s letter
to his agents, which by ancient scholars was held to be
a supplement to it; and the French translator of the
Treatise of Heraclides really is of the opinion that
Nestorius quoted only the mere conclusion of this letter?
But in no words of Nestorius is there a hint that he
deals with a part of a letter*, And more: if he had
known the beautiful phrase which we found in a
preceding section of the letter: That wretched man
shall not hope that he can be my judge etc.*, he would
not have passed it by. Hence he knew the “supplement ”
as a separate letter. That it really was one® is
confirmed by the translation of the letter to the agents
made by Cyril’s contemporary Marius Mercator; for in
this translation the “supplement” is missing®. Then
mpocdokdtw dé 6 deldacos, dre x.7.r.; and 68C: Kara Tov éxetoe—7F
ddedpod 7 mas av elroy; K.T.r.

1 Above, p. 34f. 2 Nau, p. 93, note 6.

3 Nestorius however omitted at least an introductory sentence; for
the opening words of the ‘‘supplement’’: Té dé ye cxeddpiov K.T-d.
cannot have been the exordium of a letter.

4 Above, p. 34, note 1.

5 Comp. the restriction made above in note 3.

6 Baluze, p. 108. Garnier (u, 56), giving Peltan’s (comp.
Nestoriana, p. 9f.) Latin translation by the side of the Greek text,
has induced some of his readers (e.g. Walch, Historie der Kezereien,

v, 392, note 4, and, as it seems, also Migne, ser. gr. 77, p. 78) to take
the Latin text as a translation of Mercator.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 39

the question arises as to when the “supplement-letter,”
so to speak, was written, and this question must be
answered by the assertion that it was earlier than the
letter to the agents as the conclusion of which it is
found in the Greek manuscripts!. For in the supplement-
letter, Cyril, even writing to his own agents, is not yet
sure whether he shall call Nestorius a brother or not,
and he will not yet give Nestorius cause for the reproach
that his agents denounced him as a heretic. The
supplement-letter is written, therefore, at least as early
as the first letter of Cyril to Nestorius, dating from
about late summer 429. Nestorius in his Treatise of
Herachides seems to regard it as still earlier, for his

1 About these manuscripts comp. Nestoriana, p. 8 ff. In the
manuscripts used by Peltan in his translation (comp. Sacrosancti...
conciliti Ephesini acta omnia Theodori Peltani...opera.,.latinitate
donata, Ingolstadt, 1576, p. 220) and by the editio Commeliana (Ta
TpaxTiKa THS olkoupevixys Tplryns cvvddov x.7.r., 1591, p. 73), in the cod.
Coislin. 32 (saec. xm) of which Professor Henry Lebégue, of
Paris, kindly has sent me a collation, in the codices Monacenses 115
and 116 (both saec. xv1; Nestoriana, p. 10, I gave erroneously the
numbers 114 and 115) about which I received kind information from
the Royal Library of Munich, and in the cod. Vat. 830 (saec. xv), as
I learnt from a kind letter of Dr Erich Katterfeld, now at Rome,
the ‘‘supplement’’ (7d dé ye oxeddpiov x.7.X.) immediately follows
the preceding sentence (explicit: ef uy Tis yévnrar perdyrwors). But
the Greek text given by these manuscripts proves itself to be very
badly preserved, as is shown even by the address (rpds rods Kwv-
oravrwouTbdews KAnpixods oTagidfovras); the Greek manuscripts
cannot therefore give evidence against the hypothesis that the
‘*supplement’’ originally was a separate letter or part of such.
The Latin versions of the Acta Ephesina do not contain Cyril’s letter
to his agents (comp. Mansi, v, 465 ff.).

40 THE TRAGEDY

narration gives the impression that the conversation
between him and Cyril’s agents took place some time
before he received the first letter from Cyril. There
are arguments against asserting that Nestorius was
right in presuming this. I shall not lay any stress
upon the fact that, according to Cyril’s letter to pope
Celestine’, it was only the doctrine of Nestorius which

gave him offence; for we have ground to distrust this.

holy man. And also the objection that the affair of
the accusations against Cyril probably did not last a
whole year or more, is not decisive. But it is certain
that a reason for opposing the doctrine of Nestorius was
to be found by Cyril in the party-difference between
the Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools and in the
rivalry between the sees of Alexandria and Con-
stantinople. Cyril’s letter to the Egyptian monks in
which, about Easter 429, without mentioning Nestorius,
he began to oppose his doctrine, really may have been
brought forth by the party-difference alone. In Con-
stantinople, too, in the very beginnings of Nestorius’
time as bishop, there certainly were theologians and
laymen who opposed his teaching for no other reason
than because they were adherents of a different theo-
logical tradition. I leave, therefore, the question
undecided as to whether the supplement-letter of Cyril
to his agents was earlier than his first letter to Nestorius

1 Comp. Bedjan, p. 157; Nau, p. 95.
2 ep. 11, Migne, p. 89 ff.

———

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 41

or not. But it is certain that Cyril, who before
writing his epistola dogmatica had knowledge of a
sermon of Nestorius in which he allowed the use of the
term Oeoroxos, could have come to an agreement with
him as easily as with the Antiochians afterwards in
4337, if he had not had, on account of the charges
brought against himself, an interest in discrediting him.
More than the heretic Nestorius, the “Saint” but
really very unsaintly Cyril is to be held responsible for
the Nestorian controversy. And it is not improbable
that his agents in Constantinople were among those
and behind those who aroused the first opposition
against the teaching of Nestorius.

Nestorius was not quite guiltless, as he had been
incautious in his polemics against the @eordxos. But it
seems not to have been his fault that he made an
enemy of Cyril. He, Cyril, the Saint, had the chief
part in bringing it about that Nestorius lost the
common confidence of his parish.

2

And Cyril did more. At about the same time
that he wrote his eprstola dogmatica he prepared for
war against Nestorius. He composed his five books

1 sermo 10, Nestoriana, pp. 265-277, which contains the passage
quoted above, p. 31, note 4, is mentioned in Cyril’s letter to his
agents (Nestoriana, p. 264, 7) and this letter is contemporary with
the epistola dogmatica (comp. above, p. 37, note 6).

2 Comp. below, p. 53 f.

42 THE TRAGEDY

adversus Nestorium}, a work which opposed and de-
nounced as heretical 43 quotations from the sermons of
Nestorius, which partly he had previously adapted to
suit his polemical ends» Then he sent this work,
translated into Latin, to the bishop of Rome together
with a letter as untrue as it was clever*. About the
same time he wrote three doctrinal letters really against
Nestorius, but without mentioning his name, and
addressed these to the emperor, to the empress and to
the sister of the emperor, the “ Augusta” Pulcheria‘.
With the first of these actions which opens the second
act of our tragedy Cyril was astonishingly fortunate.
I say astonishingly fortunate, for it is a riddle that
Rome, whose dogmatic traditions were nearer to those
of the Antiochians than to those of Cyril, let herself be
guided by Cyril. In order to explain this riddle we
can point to the fact that Rome had taken it amiss of
Nestorius that he had received in Constantinople some
banished western adherents of Pelagius®. One could
even say that Rome took up her position against

1 ed. Pusey, Oxford, 1875.

2 Comp. Nestorius, tragoedia, Nestoriana, p. 205 ff. and liber
Heracl. Nau, p. 222, note 2. 3 ep. 11, Migne, pp. 80-89.

4 Mansi, tv, 617-679; 679-802; 803-884=Migne, ser. graec.
76, 1133-1200; 1201-1336; 1336-1420; comp. Theodosius, ad
Cyrillum, Mansi, tv, 1109 D, E. .

5 Comp. Marius Merc. exemplum commonitorii, ed. Baluze,
p. 132f.; Nestorius, ad Caelestium (Nestoriana, p. 172f.) and ad
Caelestinum, ep. 1 (ibid. p. 165); Caelestin. ad Nestorium, Mansi, tv,
1034 B.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 43

Nestorius before Cyril’s action. For the seven books
of Johannes Cassianus contra Nestorium, the writing
of which was instigated by Rome, show no influence of
the material sent by Cyril, as they deal only with
three of the earliest Constantinopolitan sermons of
Nestorius, evidently sent by Nestorius himself together
with his first letter to pope Celestine’. But the work
of Cassianus itself is a riddle. Is it not monstrous to
build up a strongly antinestorian work on this small
basis of three sermons? This piece of monstrous daring
cannot be explained unless it be that Rome was
prejudiced against Nestorius. Is the reception of the
Pelagians in Constantinople a sufficient ground for this
prejudice? Hardly. For as regards these Pelagians
Nestorius demanded advice of the Roman bishop in his
very first letter?. He would doubtless have sent them
away if the pope had asked this. But Celestine of
Rome had left unanswered at least three letters of
Nestorius. The reason he afterwards gave, viz. that the
letters of Nestorius had first to be translated into Latin3,
deserves to be met by us with an incredulous shake
of the head. Was the real reason perhaps plottings of
Cyril? Cyril declares in May 430, in a letter to the
pope, that he had not written before to any of his
fellow-bishops about Nestorius*. As regarding the

1 Comp. Nestoriana, pp. 51 f., 57, 156-158.
2 Nestoriana, p. 166, 9 ff.

3 ad Nestor. Mansi, tv, 1026p.

4 ep. 11,1, Migne, 77, 80c.

44 THE TRAGEDY

pope this must be true. But Cyril may have had his
confidents also in Rome ;—I believe him to have been
capable of the most reckless intrigues. Indeed he says
in the conclusion of his above-discussed supplement-
letter to his agents: The necessary letters will soon be
written to the necessary persons'. However it may
have been, at any rate it must be charged to Cyril

that Celestine of Rome came to the firm conviction —

that Nestorius was a heretic. And in an astonishing
degree the pope’s actions followed the advice of Cyril.
In a synod at Rome he condemned Nestorius and notified
this, the 11th of August 430, to Cyril, to Nestorius,
to John of Antioch and others, to whom he had been
advised to write by Cyril% The letter to Nestorius
was sent to Cyril for forwarding; it declared that
Nestorius was to be regarded as excommunicated, if he
did not recant within 10 days*. It is well known that
Cyril made the best of the success he had had at
Rome: he held a synod in Alexandria and wrote in its
name his third letter to Nestorius, the so-called
epistola synodica, which ends in the famous 12
anathematisms which Nestorius was to accept within
10 days on penalty of excommunication’. It was
' Sunday, the 6th of December 430, when this letter of

1 ep. 10, Migne, 77, p. 69a.

2 Mansi, rv, 1018 ff.; comp. the marginal note, p. 1050p and
Cyril, ep. 11, 7 (ad Caelest.), Migne, 77, 854.

3 Mansi, Iv, 10354 B.

4 ep. 17, Migne, 77, 105-121.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 45

Cyril together with that of the pope was delivered to
Nestorius by an Alexandrian legation’. Now there
was an enmity not only between Nestorius and Cyril
and his adherents, but also between him and the
western division of the church.

Nestorius was not quite guiltless as regards this
course of events. His behaviour towards the Pelagians
had not been cautious, and the tone of his letters had
perhaps displeased the pope. But it was tragic that
there was a Cyril who was capable of turning the
mistrust of Nestorius which previously existed in Rome
into enmity.

3

In this case we find the turning point, as is usual,
in the third act. The emperor, in spite of (or rather
because of) the above-mentioned letters of Cyril, re-
mained at first still inclined towards Nestorius®. For it
was Nestorius and no other who succeeded in inducing
the emperor to call a new ecumenical synod*. On the
19th of November 430 the emperor ordered that it
should be gathered together in Ephesus on Whitsunday
next, ze. the 7th of June 4314, To Cyril it was notified

1 Nestoriana, p. 297, 25.

2 Comp. Theodosius, ad Cyrillum, Mansi, tv, 1109 ff.

3 Comp. above, pp. 5 and 12, and Nestorius, ad Caelest. ep. 3
(Nestoriana, p. 182, 12).

4 Mansi, tv, 1111 ff.; Easter-day fell in 431, according to the
Alexandrian Easter cycle, on the 19th of April (comp. E. Schwartz,
Christliche und jtidische Ostertafeln, Abhandlungen der Konigl. Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Neue Folge, vim, 6, 1905, p. 48).

46 THE TRAGEDY

also by a very ungracious imperial letter, which in the
strongest terms required his appearance before this
synodical court’. Under these circumstances Nestorius
could, on the 6th of December 430, receive with perfect
composure the letters from Rome and Alexandria, The
council would examine the matter, as he believed; and
he looked forward to it without any fear. For he was
convinced of the orthodoxy of his teaching, and the
emperor was favourably inclined toward him ; Cyril, on
the contrary, was under suspicion for his doings and,
as Nestorius with many others thought, also for his
doctrine, and was out of favour with the emperor’.
But Cyril was clever enough to change his position
in Ephesus from that of anvil to that of hammer.
Three things enabled him todo so. Firstly the great
number of Egyptian bishops he had brought with him,
secondly the support he found in Memnon the bishop
of Ephesus and so in the population of that city,
thirdly the effrontery with which he, who as having
been accused ought to have remained in the back-
ground, pushed himself forward into a leading position?.
Before the Antiochian bishops and the Roman legates
had arrived he and his adherents opened the council on
the 22nd of June+, though 15 days after the appointed

1 Mansi, rv, 1109 f., comp. especially, p. 1112 c.

2 Comp. his sermon of December 12th, Nestoriana, p. 299, 25 ff.
3 Comp. liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, p. 256f.; Nau, p. 155.

4 X Cal. Jul., Mansi, 1v, 1123 and v, 7724.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 47

time!, nevertheless in an arbitrary manner. John of
Antioch had, in a still existing letter written on the
journey, given a prospect of his and his countrymen’s
arrival within 5 to 6 days”, and this letter had arrived
at Ephesus at the latest on the 20th of June*; 68
bishops on the 21st of June had protested against the
opening of the synod before the arrival of the
Antiochians‘, and the commissioner, whom the emperor
had sent to Ephesus, the count Candidian, emphatically
demanded that the opening should be postponed’,
But Cyril could not be hindered from making the
best of the favourable situation. That Nestorius did
not present himself before this party-council is com-
prehensible. They condemned him then in absentia®
and incited the people of Ephesus to tumultuous
approbation of this judgment’. At the latest four days

1 Comp. above, p. 45, note 4; Memnon (Mansi, rv, 1129 p)
counts 16 days, including the first and the last day.

2 Mansi, rv, 1121.

3 John’s friends declared June 21st (comp. the next note): jurta
quae nuper suis litteris intimavit (Mansi, v, 765c). Cyril’s lost
letter to John of the 20th of June (Mansi, tv, 1272 c) seems to
have been an answer to John’s letter.

4 Mansi, v, 765-768 (directa pridie quam celebrarentur gesta
contra Nestorium, i.e. XI Cal. Jul.=June 21; comp. Mansi, v, 765,
note d).

5 Comp. his contestatio of June 22nd: haec non semel sed saepius
admonens...nihil profect (Mansi, v, 771 c).

6 Mansi, tv, 1211. It was in the first session of the Cyrillian
council (June 22ndq)..

7 Mansi, tv, 12644 B; comp. Nestoriana, 188, 19 ff.

48 THE TRAGEDY

after the opening of the Cyrillian council the Antio-
chians arrived, and, as they, too, on the 26th of June?,
probably the very day of their arrival’, opened with
Nestorius and others the council or rather their party-
council, and deposed Cyril and Memnon, there was,
therefore, then, one party-council standing in opposition
to the other. The Roman legates who arrived last of
all joined the Cyrillian synod. i
Now it was for the emperor to decide. After many
transactions, which need not be described, induced by
the demonstrating monks of Constantinople, he heard
delegates of both parties*, and if not earlier at least
then ceased to be a protector of Nestorius. Nestorius
himself made this: easier for the emperor by writing
to Constantinople that he, if the right doctrine were
sanctioned, would willingly renounce his bishopric and
return to his monastery at Antioch®. Nevertheless the

1 Hefele, 2nd ed. 1, 192, note 2 (1875), left it undecided whether
John arrived June 26th or the 27th; but even before the publication
of the Bibliotheca Casinensis, 1, 2, p. 24 (published 1873), it was to be
seen in Mansi, v, 773 B, that the first session of the Antiochian
council was held the 26th of June (VI Cal. Jul.).

2 Comp. the preceding note.

’ This is pretended by the Cyrillian party (Mansi, rv, 1333 8);
and the notice in the Synodicon (Mansi, v, 7734; Bibliotheca
Casin. 1,1, p. 58 A): mox enim post triduum veniens Joannes, probably
confirms it, since the preceding document dates from June 23rd
(Mansi, v, 772c: hesterno die).

4 Hefele, un, 213 ff., 230 ff.; comp. now Nestorius, liber Hera-
clidis, Bedjan, p. 375 ff.; Nau, p. 241 ff.

5 Nestoriana, p. 194, 16ff.; comp. p. 195, note=Mansi, v, 792f.

|
|

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 49

emperor when at about the end of July’ he sent to
Ephesus a second commissioner, the count John, one
of his confidants, was not yet on Cyril’s side: the royal
order delivered by count John confirmed all three de-
positions, that of Nestorius, of Cyril and of Memnon?,
and when John committed all three into close custody, he
consigned Nestorius to the care of count Candidianus,
_ who was inclined towards him, while Cyril seems to have
been treated in a less friendly manner*. The question
of the doctrine was regarded by the court as still open ;
and as count John was not able to bring the parties at
Ephesus to an understanding with one another, in the
second half of August* delegates of each group were
called to the capital, or rather to the neighbouring city
of Chalcedon, for further negotiations. But as regards
the persons one decision was given just at this time:
the emperor resolved about the end of August® to send

1 Hefele, m, 219, note 2. 2 Mansi, tv, 1395f.

3’ Mansi, rv, 1398 B=v, 7805; comp. Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan,
p. 387f.; Nau, p. 248f.

4 A letter written by the Antiochian delegates immediately after
their arrival at Chalcedon dates from Gorpiaei mensis wndecimo,
(Mansi, v, 794 B=1v, 1406 8), i.e. according to Tillemont (edition of
Venice, xiv, 776 f) the 4th or the 11th of September: and although
each of these dates seems to me open to controversy (comp. Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopidie, 2nd edition, vu, 1664), we can and must let the
matter rest. Nearly the same time, as given by both dates, is
indicated by the course of events.

® Eight days before the letter mentioned in the preceding note was
written (Mansi, v, 794 a).—The Alexandrian report in Mansi, v,
255 and 658f., connecting the imperial order regarding Nestorius—

L. N. 4

50 THE TRAGEDY

back Nestorius into his monastery. This resolve which
was followed, though perhaps not instantly, by the
return of Nestorius to Antioch, seemed regrettable to all
Antiochians”, but corresponded, as we saw, to the request
of Nestorius. The emperor, however, did not order this
because Nestorius had wished it. Nestorius was now
in open disfavour; not even his name could be mentioned
before the emperor’. But as for Cyril the situation
had changed in his favour: he had been able to escape
from custody and to return to Alexandria*, and as

erroneously styling it an order of banishment—with the election of
Maximian, which happened a month later, is not trustworthy (comp.
Tillemont, xtv, 7774).

1 Nestorius, ep. 10.(Nestoriana, p. 195 f.=Mansi, v, 793), and
the epistola praefecti, answered by this letter, seem to indicate a delay,
and the Antiochians as late as in their answer to the second letter
of their delegates (for the heading of chapter xxv1 in Mansi, v, 794,
belongs to chapter xxvm1, comp. Bibliotheca Casinensis, 1, 1, p. 60)
apparently did not know anything about the departure of Nestorius,
for they wrote only: ea vero, quae contra personam, quae injustitiam
pertulit, facta sunt, cognoscentes, totius obstuporis sumus taciturnitate
perculsi (Mansi, v, 7968).

2 Comp. epist. legat. orient., Mansi, v, 7944 B:...imperatori placu-
erit, dominum Nestorium ab Epheso dimitti, quocumque ire voluerit.
Et omnino doluit anima nostra, quia, si hoc verum est, ea, quae
absque judicio et illicite facta sunt, interim roborari videntur.

3 Comp. Theodoreti ep. ad Alex. Hieropol., Mansi, v, 8008, and
epistola legatorum orientalium, Mansi, tv, 14208 (=v, 8024).

4 That Cyril escaped from custody is told not only by Acacius
of Beroea (Mansi, v, 819c: dum custodiretur in Epheso, fuga est
usus) and by Nestorius (Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, p. 388; Nau,
p. 249: Cyrille...échappa a ceux qui le gardaient..., et gagna sa ville);
also the postscript given to the ultima sacra imperatoris ad synodum
(Mansi, rv, 1465; v, 805) in the Synodicon (Mansi, v, 805) says:

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 51

successor to Nestorius a man was elected, Maximian by
name, with whom he could be quite satisfied’. And
when the emperor, though no decision had been reached
at Chalcedon, officially dissolved the council, Cyril’s
return to Alexandria was allowed and Memnon was
permitted to remain in his office at Ephesus”.

This change of feeling in the court is explained by
Nestorius in a passage of his T’reatise of Heraclides by
the fact, as he thinks, that Cyril gave or promised
much money to the count John and through him to
the emperor®. He presumes, that the favour which
John showed towards him was as unreal as his disfavour
towards Cyril, as this disfavour only enabled him to let
Cyril escape from custody’. The narration by which
Nestorius tries to prove this assertion® is very similar

massa sacra ultima omnium, directa est, quando jam redierat in
civitatem suam beatus Cyrillus. Now this sacra was later than
the consecration of Maximian which took place on the 25th of
October (Socrates, 7, 37, 19; Mansi, v, 255 B=6594: post hoc):
the Alexandrian deputies of the Ephesian synod assisted at this
consecration (Mansi, v, 255=658; Cyril, ep. 32, Migne, 77,
157 f.=Mansi, v, 265), and the Antiochian deputies, too, had not
yet departed from Chalcedon, although they were not allowed to
assist at Maximian’s consecration (Acacius Beroe., Mansi, v, 819 op).
But Cyril arrived at Alexandria as early as October 30th (Mansi,
vy, 255c=6594); hence he left Ephesus before the council was
dissolved.

1 Comp. Cyril, ep. 32 (Migne, 77, 157 f.; Mansi, v, 265)

2 Mansi, tv, 17658; v, 8058.

3 Bedjan, p. 385 ff.; Nau, p. 247 ff.

* Bedjan, p. 388; Nau, p. 249.

° Bedjan, p. 385; Nau, p. 247f.

52 THE TRAGEDY

to that which we find in a letter of Acacius of Beroea,
written as early as 43114. But in this letter it is the
eunuch Scholasticus, not count John, who is bribed,
and other differences, too, are to be observed. We
see, therefore, that Nestorius is repeating party-gossip.
Nevertheless there may be a foundation of truth in this
gossip, for Nestorius and the Antiochians complain
again and again—and, as we shall see, not without
grounds—of the briberies of Cyril. In another place
in his Treatise of Heraclides Nestorius tells us, that
the Augusta Pulcheria supported Cyril, because he,
Nestorius, offended her by not paying her, on account of
doubts about her. virtue, the ceremonial honours which
she as a virgin demanded?; and in this narration the
disfavour, which Nestorius had experienced at the hands
of Pulcheria, cannot be an invention of the writer.
Then it is interesting to note that Cymrl in the
beginnings of the controversy tried, as we saw®, to win
Pulcheria to his cause, and afterwards, as we shall see4,
sought her favour even by means of presents. But the
endeavours of Cyril to gain favour with Pulcheria are
only one example of his intrigues. More generally
speaking it can be said: it was essentially Cyril’s work,
that the council of Ephesus, demanded by Nestorius

1 ad Alexandr. Hierop., Mansi, v, 819 c.

2 Bedjan, p. 148; Nau, p. 89; comp. ep. ad Cosmam, Nau,
p. 363, 8.

3 Above, p. 42.

4 Below, p. 55, note 3.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 53

himself and hailed by him with joy, led to the result
that Nestorius lost the emperor’s favour and his .
bishopric. It was the tragedy of Nestorius’ life, that,
in Ephesus, the question was whether he should be
overthrown or Cyril, a man as unscrupulous as he was

greedy of power.
4

After the transactions at Ephesus the tragedy of
Nestorius’ life came to its end in two acts, the first
of which is now to be treated. I say after the transac-
tions at Ephesus and not after the council of Ephesus,
for “a council of Ephesus,” an ecumenical council of
Ephesus, never existed. Two party-councils had sat
and cursed each other; the dogmatic question had
remained undecided. The Antiochians continued to
hold Nestorius in esteem and to treat as heretical the
anathematisms of Cyril; the latter, for his part, regarded
Nestorius as a condemned heretic and had grounds for
thinking that his council had proved his anathematisms},
The church of the East was divided. The emperor,
assisted by Maximian, the new bishop of Constantinople,
forced the parties to a peace by means of the union
of 433. The document of this union between Cyril
and the Antiochians is Cyril’s epistola ad orientales?,
in which he accepted an Antiochian confession of faith,

1 Comp. Tillemont, Mémoires, edition of Venice, x1v, 398 and
p. 758 (note 26).
2 ep. 39, Migne, 77, 173-181.

54 THE TRAGEDY

composed in 431 at Ephesus, probably by Theodoret.
The prolonged transactions which led to this union are
even in their details sufficiently known to us. But
I am glad not to have to treat them now; for the
Treatise of Heraclides, although very often dealing with
this union, adds nothing to our knowledge here, as far
as I have been able to see.

I remark only, that Nestorius in his Treatise of
Heraclhides gives a sharp and right characterisation
of the situation which preceded the union’, Cyril
and John of Antioch had each two wishes in the event
of peace. Cyril wished to see acknowledged, firstly his
council and the condemnation of Nestorius, secondly
his anathematisms; John on the other side wished as
ardently that the first should not take place and
secondly, that Cyril should recant his anathematisms.
Cyril, in order to retain his power, let himself be
bartered down to a great extent. He accepted the
Antiochian confession of faith and was contented with
the fact that his anathematisms were not condemned.
But he did not give up the demand, that his council
should be acknowledged and Nestorius be anathematised.
He again set in play all his possible means for attaining
this end. And here we are in a position to follow
his actions by means of documents, which show clearly
that he did not even hold himself back from bribery.
These documents are a letter of Cyril’s archdeacon

1 Bedjan, pp. 395-403; Nau, pp. 254-259.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 55

Epiphanius to Maximian of Constantinople!, and, sup-
plementing it, a list of the presents which Cyril at the
same time sent to Constantinople*. I regret that time
forbids me to quote this letter, but I beg every one who
holds my judgment upon Cyril to be too harsh, to begin
his study on the holiness of this man by reading this
letter*. The aim of Cyril’s intrigues and briberies

1 Mansi, v, 987-989.

2 Bibliotheca Casinensis, 1, 2 (Florilegiwm Casinense), p. 46 f.,
comp. I, 1, p. 72.

3’ Now in the printed text I am able to add some quotations,
Mansi, v, 988p:...Nune igitur, domine mi sanctissime, impone tibi
omne in hac causa studium. Scriptum est a domino meo, fratre vestro,
et dominae ancillae dei reverentissimae Pulcheriae et praeposito
Paulo et Romano, cubiculario, et dominae Marcellae, cubiculariae,
et dominae Droseriae, et directae sunt benedictiones dignae
eis. Et ei, qui contra ecclesiam est, Chrysoreti praeposito, magnifi-
centissimus Aristolaus paratus est scribere de nonnullis, quae angelus
tuus (read: sanctitas tua=7% oh aydryns? comp. Mansi, note i) debeat
impetrare; et ipsi vero dignae transmissae sunt eulogiae
(comp. in the list of presents, Bibl. Cas. 1, 2, p. 47a: Praeposito
Chrysoreti, ut nos impugnare desinat, coacti sumus du-
plicia destinare). Scripsit autem dominus meus, frater vester, et
domino Scholastico (comp. Bibl. Cas. l.c. p. 470, and above, p. 52)
et magnificentissimo Arthebae, ut ipst conveniant et persuadeant Chry-
sorett tandem desistere ab oppugnatione ecclesiae; et ipsis vero
Denedictiones dignae directae sunt. Festina igitur et tu tpse,
sanctissime, supplicare dominae ancillae dei Pulcheriae Augustae, —
ut iterum ponat animam suam pro Domino Christo—puto enim, quod
nune non satis curet pro sanctissimo vestro fratre Cyrillo ut et omnes,
qui sunt in palatio regis, et quicquid (read: quod aliquid ?) avaritiae
eorum deest, quanquam non desint etipsi diversae benedictiones—,
ut scribat increpative Joanni, quo nec memoria illius impii (viz.
Nestorii) fiat. Scribatur vero et magnificentissimo Aristolao, ut
instet et (viz. Joanni) celeriter. Et roga dominam Olympiadem, ut

56 THE TRAGEDY

shown by this letter was, that John of Antioch and his
friends should be made willing to accept the judgment
of his synod against Nestorius. John of Antioch
yielded to Cyril at this point: to bring about the
union he payed the heavy price of giving up his
old friend. The same price was paid by almost all
Antiochians who accepted the union, only Theodoret
and a few others being excused from doing so.

From that time forth one could speak in eccle-
siastical phraseology of the holy ecumenical council of
Ephesus, which had condemned Nestorius. Nestorius
could have accepted the confession of faith on which the
union was based. It was, therefore, really tragic that the
anathema against him was the price of the peace. He
was now also robbed of his former friends, and there
cannot be the least doubt that for this painful experience,
too, he had to thank Saint Cyril.

et ipsa coadjuvet nos et ut insuper roget Marcellam et Droseriam,
quia satis eam patienter auscultant...Et dominum meum sanctissimum
Dalmatium abbatem roga, ut et imperatori mandet, terribili eum
conjuratione constringens, et ut cubicularios omnes ita constringat, ne
illius (viz. Nestorii) memoria ulterius fiat, et sanctum Eutychen, ut
concertet pro nobis...Subjectus autem brevis (comp. above p. 55, note 2)
ostendit, quibus hinc directae sint eulogiae, ut et ipse noveris, quantum
pro tua sanctitate laboret Alexandrina ecclesia, quae tanta praestat
his qui illic sunt; clerici enim, qui hic sunt, contristantur, quod
ecclesia Alexandrina nudata sit hujus causa turbelae...De tua ecclesia
praesta avaritiae quorum nosti, ne Alecandrinam ecclesiam contristent...
Festinet autem sanctitas tua rogare dominam Pulcheriam, ut faciat
dominum Lausum intrare et praepositum fieri, ut Chrysoretis (comp.
above) potentia dissolvatur et sic dogma nostrum roboretur.

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 57

5

The last act of our tragedy may be treated shortly,
but it stretches over a much longer period than any
of the others. It was opened by the banishment of
Nestorius to Oasis in the year 4351, and not until
sixteen years later was it closed by Nestorius’ death’.

We have only two accounts which give us informa-
tion as to how this banishment of Nestorius came about.
Nestorius himself, as we learn from Evagrius, narrated
that for four years he had enjoyed at Antioch various
tokens of esteem, but had then been banished to Oasis
by order of Theodosius*. Evagrius adds that Nestorius
did not say how fitting a measure this was, for also in
Antioch Nestorius had not ceased his blasphemy, with
the result that even Bishop John complained about
it, and Nestorius was condemned to permanent exile‘.
The Nestorian legend, too, tells us that Nestorius had
lived four years in Antioch and that then John of
Antioch had caused his banishment out of jealousy
of his influence®. That the first part of this account
goes back to Nestorius’ own narration is made probable
by its concurrence with the words of Nestorius in
Evagrius. It is, therefore, probable that also the

1 Comp. below, note 3. 2 Comp. above, p. 19 and 22.

8 Evagrius, h. e. 1, 7, ed. Bidez and Parmentier, p. 13, 12 ff.

41. oc. p. 13, 16 ff.

> M. Briére, La légende syriaque de Nestorius (Revue de l’ Orient
chrétien, 1910, p. 21; Nau, p. xxi, note 1).

58 THE TRAGEDY

account given about John of Antioch in both sources
is derived from Nestorius. His banishment according
to this account took place in the year 4351. In the
same year, on the 30th of July, Theodosius, the emperor,
issued an edict which ordered the impious books of the
detestable Nestorius against the orthodox piety and
against the decrees of the synod of Ephesus to be

burnt, and which gave the name of Simonians (that.

of an ancient heretical party) to his adherents. The
wording of this edict and the account of Evagrius that
Nestorius had not ceased his blasphemy in Antioch
could make possible the conjecture? that the banish-
ment of Nestorius and this edict against his books were
caused by what he had written in Antioch, especially by
his Tragedy which dealt with the decrees of the synod
of Ephesus. But this conjecture has its difficulties‘.
We are, therefore, obliged to take the edict as referring
to the earlier books of Nestorius and the account
of Evagrius to spoken blasphemies. All the more
important in this connection must have been the in-
stigatory efforts of John of Antioch. Pope Celestine,
too, petitioned the emperor as early as 432 for the
exile of Nestorius®, and Cyril was probably working with

1 Four years after the synod of Ephesus, comp. above, p. 57, note 3.

. 2 Mansi, v, 413f.; cod. Theodosianus, 16, 5, 66.
3 Nestoriana, p. 88.
4 For according to Evagrius (l. c. p. 13, 15 f.) Nestorius mentioned

in his Tragedy his banishment to Oasis.
5 Mansi, v, 271 B.

—————

OF NESTORIUS’ LIFE 59

the same end in view. These latter are not much to be
blamed for this wish. It is not the same with John
of Antioch. He may have had, even if jealousy was
out of the question, many grounds for finding the stay
of Nestorius in Antioch disagreeable—his mere presence,
after the union, was a reproach to him—but he has
much impaired his good renown by this Judas-deed.
And for Nestorius it was the consummation of his
tragic fortune that his final banishment was caused by
his former friend.

How rich the years of exile were in tragic events
we have seen already in the first lecture. I merely
remark here that Nestorius in these years was even
before his death a dead man for the world—I mean
the orthodox church. He now was nothing but the
condemned heretic, nothing but the cause of offence
thrust out from the people of God.

He was really not dead: he hailed with joy the
change of the situation after the robber-synod, hailed
with joy Leo’s letter to Flavian, hailed with joy the
new council he saw in prospect”. He did not live to
experience the fact that this council, too, condemned
him and that also Theodoret, who even up to his death
held to him, was forced to consent to this condemna-
tion®. With this the tragedy of Nestorius’ life came
to an end. Now he was regarded by all in the church
as a cursed heretic; now for him came to pass what,

1 Above, p.17f. 2 Comp. above, p. 25f. 3 Mansi, vu, 188f.

60 THE DOCTRINE

according to the edict of 435, was to be the fortune
of his adherents: he had not only supported the
punishment of being covered with ignominy during his
lifetime, but also after his death did not escape from
ignominy}.

The orthodox saw in his sufferings nothing but a
just penalty: Nestorius himself called his life a tragedy.
I, too, used the same expression. But his life was a |
tragedy only if he was guiltless. The question as to —
whether he was guiltless shall occupy us in the next
two lectures.

it

In the last lecture we spoke about the tragedy
of the life of Nestorius. Was it really a tragedy? His
enemies regarded his sufferings as deserved punishment
for his impiety. Were they wrong? Was Nestorius
really the guiltless victim of a tragic fortune? He was.
It is this which I wish to prove in this and the next
lecture.

I do not mean that Nestorius was altogether guiltless
in his life’s misfortune. He was incautious, passionate
and reckless, and this, as we saw in the preceding lecture,
was not without unfavourable influence upon the course

1 Mansi, v, 4138: pyre fGvras Tiuwplas, unre OavdvTas atiulas
ExTos UTdpxew.

OF NESTORIUS 61

of events. But no hero of a tragedy is quite guiltless,
And we Christians know that we all have the old Adam
in us as long as we live.

Only by understanding the word “guiltless” in a
broader sense I am able to say that Nestorius was
guiltless. His guilt was very slight in comparison with
the heavy weight of his sufferings.

Socrates, the church historian, regarded, as we saw1,
the dogmatic charges against Nestorius as essentially
unfounded. He thought the fault of Nestorius was his
lack of knowledge”. But I must decline to accept for
Nestorius this privilegium ignorantiae. It is true that
Nestorius at first did not know that the term @eoroxos
was used by some of the orthodox Fathers of the fourth
century. But this lack of knowledge is not a sign
of ignorance. I won't say that Nestorius was a learned
man. Neither the fragments of his works nor his
Treatise of Heraclides show patristic or philosophical
erudition. But his education was not in any way a
merely rhetorical one. The Treatise of Heraclides and
many of the earlier known fragments of Nestorius prove
that, in spite of some inaccuracies in his terminology’,
he was a theologian well educated in dogmatics.

Luther thought that, besides his want of learning, it
was fatal for Nestorius that he was a boorish and proud

1 Above, p. 20.
2 h. e. 7, 32, 8: dyvoodvra épevploxw roy dvdpa.
3 Comp. below, p. 90, note 1.

62 THE DOCTRINE

man!, This judgment was based on a very insufficient
knowledge of the sources. But it may give us occasion
to enquire whether the personal character of Nestorius
was the cause of his tragic fortune.

Nestorius was passionate and dogmatic. John of
Antioch reminds him in a letter of a scene from their
earlier life in common, which may prove this*. And
even an account, which is friendly to Nestorius, tells
about him, that he was lacking in courtesy and
amiability®. This characteristic is really shown in his
letters to Cyril. Also his letters to Rome are not
exactly models of courtesy. And even from the pulpit
he sometimes declaimed against his enemies in a rough
and passionate manner‘.

The account, which denied him amiability, points
in explanation of this characteristic to the fact that
Nestorius, as a monk, had no experience of worldly
affairs’, Indeed, it was an unpolished nature he
showed. But the merits of this naturalness came out
as clearly as the demerits. Even now we see some-
thing straight and open in the letters and in the
polemics of Nestorius. And comparing his writings

1 Comp. above, p. 21. 2 Mansi, trv, 1064p.

3 ep. ad Cosmam, Nau, p. 364, 9: C’était un homme excellent et
jalousé, qui n’avait pas Vexpérience des affaires du monde et qui
manquait de ce qu’on appelle amabilité.

4 In a sermon (Nestoriana, p. 300) he addressed Cyril: Quid per-
turbationes ferinis rugitibus adferre conaris ?

5 Comp. above, note 3.

OF NESTORIUS 63

with those of Cyril, which overflow with so-called piety,
and even with some of the letters of John of Antioch’,
we are agreeably impressed by observing that Nestorius
did not wrap up his thoughts in pious phrases. It is
also deserving of mention that Nestorius, where he
had confidence, showed nothing of narrow-minded
sensitiveness, His answer to the above-mentioned
letter of John of Antioch is proof enough of this*. I
think he was also sincere when he asked Cyril the
reproachful question: Why did you not write me a
Sriendly letter and inform me of the troubles in Egypt,
their cause and the manner of settling them, instead
of writing to the monks about my doctrine? ?

And it would be quite wrong to presume that
Nestorius had also in his intellect something rough
and blunt. He is, on the contrary, acute in his thinking,
not without ability in his polemics, and here and there,
by the use of fitting images, he shows that he was
capable of fine observation‘.

The reproach that he was proud is still less well
grounded. He seems to have had an exalted idea of
the bishop’s position to which he was called®. This will

1 Comp. e.g. his letter to Cyril, mentioned above p. 47, Mansi,
ry, 1121. 2 ep. vu, Nestoriana, pp. 163-186.

3 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, p. 158f.; Nau, p. 96.

4 Comp. Liber Heracl., Bedjan, p. 188, Nau, p. 113 (cuttle-
fishes), B. p. 189=N. 114 (fights with children), p. 204=123 (timid
dogs), p. 3388=217 (drowsy men), p. 438=280 f. (wounded snakes).

5 Ido not point here to the famous apostrophe, which, according

64 THE DOCTRINE

explain why he wrote to the Roman bishop with a
self-conscious assurance and agreed without hesitation
to become the judge dof Cyril. But this self-con-
sciousness of office was something other than pride
and greed of power and glory. This is convincingly
proved by the fact, that Nestorius himself offered the
emperor to return to his monastery’; and he did not
only offer this, but he proved by the deed, that he
easily gave up his episcopal honours®. One cannot call
him proud who regarded nothing more blissful than
the calm stillness of the monastery®. And when in his
exile he surrendered himself to the governor, as we
saw‘, he showed himself not only straightforward and
honest, but also proved that he did not set a high value
on himself and his life. Finally his remark that he did
not write to Leo of Rome lest he should bring him into
discredit®, may be taken as proof that striving after
glory and honour and esteem was far from him.
May we now realise that, nevertheless, in the
personal character of Nestorius are to be found the
grounds for the tragic course of his life? It is intelligible

to Socrates (7, 29, 4f.), he gave to the king in his first sermon at
Constantinople: Ads wo, @ Bacired, xabapay thy yiv Tay aiperixdr,
Kaya co. Tov ovpavoy dvTidwow. For here, I think, Nestorius is to
be assumed as having spoken in the name of God.

1 Comp. above, p. 48.

2 Comp. ep. x, Nestoriana, p. 194, 14f.: a me, teste deo, episco-

palis honor facillime respuatur.

3 lc. p. 194, 22. + Above, p. 18.

5 Above, p. 22.

SS.

OF NESTORIUS 65

that a man with such characteristics was not exactly
suited to the taste of the court and especially of the
circle of that most pious lady, the Augusta Pulcheria ;
he was not cut out for a courtier. But even if the
ground of his misfortune were to be found here, his life
should nevertheless be called a tragedy, for his sufferings
would have been too harsh a punishment. We can,
however, hardly assume that the characteristics we
discussed were the cause of Nestorius’ unhappy
fate. For he enjoyed the favour of the court as long
as he lived in Constantinople and even longer, and his
enemies never pretended, as far as I know, that his
guilt rested in his personal character.

His enemies condemned him for his teaching. It
is, therefore, his teaching that we must examine.

Nestorius was an Antiochian as regards his theo-
logical upbringing. I do not believe that he was a per-
sonal pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia—the chronology
contradicts this, and there are no convincing arguments
for this assumption’, But that he was educated in the
traditions of the Antiochian school is without doubt.

The Antiochian Christology is most easily compre-
hended, if we contrast it with Apollinarism, condemned
by the church about fifty years before Nestorius became
bishop of Constantinople. Apollinaris of Laodicea is
well known to have taught that a real incarnation
and a real unity of the historical person of Christ was

1 Comp. Walch, Ketzerhistorie v, 315f.

66 THE DOCTRINE

only intelligible, if the Logos took on himself not
a perfect man, that is body and animal soul and
intellectual soul or intellect, but joined himself with a
human body and a human soul in such a manner that
he himself became the intellect, the moving principle,
in the new and united being. This idea of a substantial _
unity between the Logos and the human nature which
resulted in the new and composite nature of the
incarnate Logos seemed to the Antiochians to do away
with the true manhood of Christ and with the possibility
of his moral development. They taught, therefore,
that the divine and the human nature in Christ were
to be regarded as perfect each in itself, a human free
will, too, having to bé assumed in Christ. To maintain
this, they laid stress on the assertion that the two
natures in Christ were not altered by their union as
substances which are chemically combined. Hence
they did not think the union to be a substantial one.
Before going further I will make a short remark
about the term nature, deferring discussion of the term
substance till later. I can do it by quoting Professor
Bethune-Baker. For this scholar is right in saying
that the term nature at that time meant all the
attributes or characteristics attached to a substance
and as a whole always associated with it’. Apollinaris
saw in Christ but one substance, viz. the substance of

1 Comp. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his teaching, p. 48.

OF NESTORIUS 67

the Logos, to which in addition to its own characteristics
those of the imperfect human nature were attached.
Nestorius was as strong an opponent of this
Apollinaristic doctrine as any other Antiochian. Re-
garding his zeal in opposing it, it is characteristic that
he almost always named Apollinaris in the same breath
with Arius and Eunomius or placed the Apollinarists and
the Arians side by side’. He had a right to do so; for
the Arians were the first who looked at the incarnation,
like Apollinaris, in a—I do not say serious—but
mythical light. The pre-existent son of God, so was
their teaching, really changed into man, taking the
body from the virgin as his body so that he himself
became the soul of this body and the subject of all
experiences which are told of Jesus: he hungered,
suffered, died. Hence the Arian Eudoxius expressly
said that there were not in Christ two natures, the
whole being one combined nature*. Nestorius knew
of course that Apollinaris, differing from the Arians,
regarded the pre-existent Son of God, following the
decree of the Nicene synod, as owootcvos TO TaTpi,
and, at least in the second period of his development,

1 Comp. Nestoriana, p. 166, 19; 170, 30; 179, 4; 181, 18; 182,
8; 184, 15; 185, 12; 194, 16; 208, 16; 267, 16; 273, 6f.; 300, 20;
301, 4. 5. 16; 305, 15f.; 312, 7; Liber Heracl., e.g. B. 252=N. 152;
B. 261=N. 157.

* Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln, 3rd edition,
Breslau, 1897, §191 p. 262: od dvo pices, érel wh TédNeLos Hv dvOpwros,
GXN dvrl Puxijs Geds év capki: ula 7d bdov Kara cbvOcow dicots. Comp.
Nestorius, Liber Her. B. 12=N. 6, 5.

5—2

68 THE DOCTRINE

conceded that this Adyos took on a human body with a
soul!; but he was right in minimising this difference.
Here and there, he argued, the peculiar human nature
of Christ became perfect only when the Logos was added
to it, neither here nor there is Christ a real man as we?;
and with acute perception he brings to light the
weakness of Apollinaris’ theory. Even if, he says, the
incarnation was thought by Apollinaris to be a voluntary
action of the Logos, nevertheless as soon as the unity
between the Logos and the body with human soul
was perfected, the union was after the manner of a
substantial one, not voluntary: the Logos was forced
nolens volens to suffer what his body and soul suffered?,
And a second difficulty, too, is seen by Nestorius,
a difficulty which afterwards gave trouble to the
scholastics. If the Son, so Nestorius argues, was united
substantially with the human nature, the same must be
assumed also of the Father and the Holy Spirit because
of the unity of substance in the Godhead, but if the
Father and the Spirit had not, in the same measure as
the Son, partaken in the sufferings of the historic
Jesus, then the unity of substance with the Father and
the Spirit is taken from the Son‘.

But these difficulties of thinking are not the
chief stumbling-block for Nestorius as regards the

1 Liber Her. B. 50=N. 31.
2 Lc. B. 50 f., 52 ff.=N. 31, 32 ff.
3 le. B. 55f.=N. 35. 4 le. B. 56, 58=N. 35, 36.

OF NESTORIUS 69

Apollinaristic teaching. The chief cause of offence for
him is, that the Logos appeared here as capable of
suffering and dying and, therefore, his divine nature as
altered in itself. In opposition to these thoughts
Nestorius held by the Antiochian doctrine, afterwards
also acknowledged by the council of Chalcedon, that
the two natures in Christ were each perfect in itself
and unaltered.

This was also conceded by Cyril. In his epistola
dogmatica to Nestorius he had written: The natures
which are brought together into a true union are different,
but of the two there is one Christ and one son, the
difference of the natures not being destroyed by the
umon'; and in contradiction to Apollinaris he, too,
contended that the Logos took on a perfect human
nature, not only body and animal soul, but also an
intellectual soul or a human intellect”. Where then
was the difference between this Alexandrian exponent
of the two natures and Nestorius? Cyril’s formula,
also in the quotation which I have given, was: one
Christ out of both, out of two natures. This formula is
at the first glance unintelligible, since Cyril would not
assert a mixture of the natures and, apart from some
incautious utterances’, really did not do so; but it

1 ep. 4 Migne, 77, 45: didgdopo pév al mpds évdrnra rhv adnOwiv
cvvaxbeioa pices: els 5é cE dudorépwv Xpicros cal vids* ob~ ws Thy Tov
picew Siapopas dvynpnudvys dia Thy Evwow x.T.Xr. 2 Le. p. 45 B.

3 Comp. e.g. de recta fide ad Theodos. 40, Migne, 76, 11938:
"Inoods Xpiords...eis & Te TO weratd ocvyKeluevos.

70 THE DOCTRINE

is explained in Cyril by another term, viz: that of
hypostatic union: Cyril teaches a &vwous Kal’ vrrootacw.
Nestorius, on the contrary, protested against this phrase.
In his Treatise of Heraclides he deals much with the
question of this phrase and openly says that he did not
understand it then (when he first heard it) and did not
understand it now?+.

Indeed this term has its difficulties. If we wish
to comprehend in which sense Cyril made use of it
and Nestorius opposed it, we must, as Professor
Bethune-Baker rightly remarks’, put out of the
question that meaning of the term which is taught by
the council of Chalcedon and adopted by the orthodoxy
of later times, for this meaning is a result of a
development, which was not yet completed when Cyril
and Nestorius wrote. Originally vmdcracis is a
synonym of ovcia, if this latter is understood in the
sense of real being; both words then may be translated
by substance. As synonymous with ovcia the term
Umoatacis appears in the Nicene creed, because the
Logos here is deduced é« rns ovcias Tod matpos and the
assertion is anathematised, that he was ¢€& érépas ovcias
}) troordcews. And Athanasius said even about the —
end of his life: 1 twooracis ovcia éote Kal ovdev GdXO
onpatvopmevov éxet 7 avTO TO Ov®, Avro TO dv, the being
itself—that is the meaning of vmdoraois. The term

1 Liber Her. B. 228=N. 138. ? Nestorius and his teaching, p. 47.
3 ad Afros 4, Migne, 26, 1036 B.

OF NESTORIUS 71

means! 70 viroxeipevor, as Aristotle said, the ultimate
reality which is the bearer of all the attributes which
are called the nature of a thing, the substance in the
sense in which the earlier philosophy, that of the
middle ages included, made use of this term and which
was afterwards criticised by Locke and Hume. The
term ovcia could also be used in a generic sense and
then received a meaning similar to kind or nature, but
Umootacts means only that which ovcia could mean
in addition to its other meaning, viz, a single and
really existing being, whether material or immaterial.

As regards the doctrine of the Trinity these two terms,
originally synonymous to some extent, were differen-
tiated: one spoke of uia ovcia and tpeis vroctacets in
the Trinity; but, as Professor Bethune-Baker rightly
observed”, there is not any clear evidence that a similar
usage, a similar differentiation between ovcia and
Um@ootacts, had been extended in the time of Cyril to
the christological problem. Hence in the discussion
between Cyril and Nestorius on the relation of the
Godhead and manhood in Christ the term vadoracus
must be understood as essentially synonymous with
ovcia. Now Nestorius, just as the earlier Antiochians,
believed that the natures of Christ, as both really
existing in him, had each their vwootacis: he spoke
of two vmootdces with as little scruple as of two

1 Comp. Bethune-Baker, l.c. p. 48 ff.
2 l.c. p. 50.

72 THE DOCTRINE

natures in Christ’. Cyril, on the contrary, expressly
condemned the diarpeiv tas broardcets emi Tov évds
Xpictov’, the é&vwaors Kal’ Urdctacw excluded for him
the existence of two vroaracers in Christ. In explaining
this theory he is not always fortunate, and in his
terminology he is not always consistent. Professor
Bethune-Baker is right in saying: “His use of the
expression évwous guvoixy gives strong support to the
view that he used the parallel expression évwars nal!
vmootacw in the sense of substantial rather than in
the sense of personal oneness*.” Nevertheless his real
theory is clearly to be perceived. The divine Logos,
he thinks, who naturally has his vawéocraous or is an
vTocTtacts, remained the one and the same that he was
before the incarnation, also after having assumed
human nature. He took in his vrrocracis a human
body, soul and intellect as his own body, soul and
intellect, so that his human nature had, therefore, no
tmootacts. Christ's human nature was, according to
Cyril, nothing more than all the human characteristics
taken as a whole, which the Adyos cecapxwpévos had
as such. It existed, so to speak, before the incarnation
as the nature or substance of the human race; but
after the incarnation, because of the é€vwais kal?

1 Comp. e.g. Liber Her. B. 291=N. 184, B. 302=N. 192, B. 305=
N.193: On ne doit pas concevoir une essence sans hypostase, comme st
V’unton avait eu lieu en une essence.

2 ep. 17, anath. 2, Migne, 77, 120c.

3 Bethune-Baker, l.c. p. 174.

OF NESTORIUS 73

vUmooraow, it cannot be regarded apart from the
vmoatacis of the Logos. That is meant by Cyril’s éx«
dv0 pioewyr els.

It is easy to perceive that this theory is not
conceivable. If it meant that the Logos became man
in the manner of a mythical metamorphosis, this would
be, although a false, yet a somewhat intelligible theory,
and I am convinced that thousands of Cyril’s adherents
took this to be the meaning of his theory, and that
even in our day thousands of simple Christian people
understand the incarnation in this mythical interpreta-
tion. Cyril, however, asserted that this was not his
meaning. Then, as I said, his theory is not conceivable.
For what is a nature which has no real existence of its
own? Is then the Logos not thought of as suffering
and dying, in spite of Cyril’s protest ? or can one speak
of sufferings and death where there is no suffering or
dying subject, but only an impersonal nature? And
is it still possible to say that Christ was a man as we
are, if the human nature existed in him only as assumed
in the érdatracts of the Logos and as having become
his human nature? Nestorius is quite mght in
reproaching Cyril that his doctrine resulted in a
suppression of the manhood of Christ, for, according to
Cyril’s doctrine, the human intellect of Christ cannot be
realised as operating in him’. The Christ of Cyril, as

1 Liber Herac. B. 341=N. 218, comp. B. 295=N. 187: Qu’est ce
que Vhomme parfait qui n’agit pas et qui n’est pas mi selon la nature

74 THE DOCTRINE

Nestorius rightly observed, did not think with the
intellect of manhood, but with the intellect of the
God-Logos; he did not feel by means of a human soul
but in unity with his Godhead ete.!

Nobody can doubt that the doctrine of the Antiochian
school, which Nestorius held, was a clearer one. Christ,
according to them, was really a man who thought and
felt as a man and had his bodily, intellectual and moral
development as other men. Nevertheless they asserted
that Christ was also perfect in his Godhead, as the
Logos is 6poove.os TO Twatpi. But they were blamed
by their opponents for not having brought these two
ideas to such an agreement, that the oneness of the
person of Christ became comprehensible. They were
said to have divided Christ into two persons and two
sons—the eternal son of God and the son of Mary,—
the first being son of God by nature and the other only
by adoption.

Nestorius, too, is reproached for this, but he again
and again protested against this reproach. Christ, as
he continually says, was one: one Christ, one son of God,
one Lord, one wpocwrov”. Also in the Treatise of
Heraclides there are numerous explanations of this kind.
If you, so he says to Cyril, understand by the &vwous

de Vhomme? Il n’est homme que de nom, corps de nom, ame rationnelle
de nom, celui qui n’est pas mt selon la nature de son étre, etc.

1 Le. B. 251=N. 152.

2 Comp. Nestoriana Index s.v. Christus (p. 397 b), xépros (p. 402 a),
vids (p. 407 a), mpdowrov (p. 405 a).

OF NESTORIUS 75

Kal wrootacw the union in the mpocwror of Christ,
then I agree with you, And with the formulas which
he saw proposed by Flavian of Constantinople? or found
in Leo’s letter to Flavian? he showed himself well
contented‘,

Thus apologising for himself, Nestorius was not
fortunate in his own time but he is in our time. For
Professor Bethune- Baker has in his book on Nestorius
and his teaching a particular chapter with the heading:
“Two persons not the teaching of Nestorius®,” and here
we find Professor Bethune-Baker asserting: “It is
impossible to doubt that Nestorius was clear in his own
mind that his doctrine of the incarnation safeguarded
absolutely the unity of the subject. He did not think
of two distinct persons joined together, but of a single
person, who combined in Himself the two distinct
substances, Godhead and manhood, with their charac-
teristics (natures) complete and intact though united in
Him®.” Of course Professor Bethune- Baker does not
fail to recognise that the use of the term mpoce@oyp in
Nestorius is somewhat “puzzling’,” but nevertheless,

1 Liber Heracl. B. 229=N. 138 (condensed translation).

2 Comp. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, § 223, p. 321:
év d0o0 piceow...€v mia vroordca Kal &v évi mpocwmw eva Xpiordv, eva
vlév, va Kvpiov dmodoyovpuev.

3’ Hahn, lc. § 224, pp. 321-330; wunitas personae in utraque
natura intelligenda (c. 5, p. 326).

4 Comp. above, p. 22 and 25.

5 pp. 82-100. © 1.c.. p. 87. 7 le. p. 97.

76 THE DOCTRINE

without much discussion of the term zpoowmov—some
remarks are given’—he arrives at the conclusion that
Nestorius “used the term person (1pocwrov) to express
that in which both the Godhead and manhood of our
Lord were one”*®; and his final judgment is, that
Nestorius, though not sharing the later orthodox
phraseology which declares the human nature of the
Lord impersonal in itself but personal in him only,
nevertheless seems to have made an attempt to express
the same conception in other terms’.

Here, I am afraid, I cannot agree with Professor
Bethune-Baker, however much I sympathise with
him in his doing justice to the miserable exile of Oasis.

First, it must be emphasised that rpocwzov is for
Nestorius not the same as what we call person. For
our notion of person the main thing is the oneness of the
subject or of the internal self. We can, therefore, use
the term person only for rational beings or at least those
living beings, in which—as in the case of the higher
animals—we see some analogy to human thinking,
feeling and willing. For Nestorius, who in this respect
was influenced by the manner of speaking common at
that time, the main thing in his notion of rpocw7roy,
according to the etymology of the word and to the
earlier history of its meaning‘, was the external

1 loc. p. 97. 2 1.e. é 3 lic. p. 98.
4 Comp. Siegmund Schlossmann, Persona und IIpéowrov im
Recht und im christlichen Dogma, Kiel and Leipsic, 1906, p. 11 ff.

OF NESTORIUS 77

undivided appearance’. He was, therefore, able to
call a bishop preaching from the pulpit the poowmov of
the church (because the church appeared in him)? and
to say that Christ had exhibited in himself the
mpoownov of the human nature as being sinless*. In
his opinion, I believe, everything had its. rpocw7rop,
that is its appearance, its kind of being seen and judged.
In not a few places in Nestorius, it is true, the meaning
of rpocwoy coincides with our understanding of the
term person, e.g. “Cyril’s tpoawrov”* means Cyril, “these
mpdocwra’ means these persons’, and eis cai 6 avTos and
év mpoowrov may be used alternately®. Nevertheless,
before we go further, I must lay stress on the fact that
the notion of mpoowmoy in Nestorius grew upon |
another soil and, therefore, had a wider application than
our term person.
Coming now to the matter itself I must firstly remark

that the places in which Nestorius, just as Theodore

1 Comp. Liber Heracl. B. 89=N. 58: L’homme est reconnu en
effet au mrpdowmov humain, c’est a dire @ l’apparence du corps et a la
forme (du serviteur); comp. B. 31 ff.=N. 18 ff., where Nestorius is
regarding a soldier’s uniform as his mpécwrov. This conception of
mpsowrov makes intelligible the phrasings we find B. 241=N. 145
(dans tout ce que le prosépon comporte) and B. 276=N. 174 (en tout ce
qui forme le prosépon).

2 Nestoriana, p. 332, 13.

3 le. p. 239, 18f.: deltas ev EauvT@ 7d Tis PUcEews mpdowmoy damaprias
éhevPepor.

4 Liber Heracl. B. 195=N. 117.

* Los B. 197 N. 118.

6 Lc. B. 823=N. 206.

78 THE DOCTRINE

of Mopsuestia!, speaks about two wpoowra in Christ,
viz. the wpocwov of the Godhead and the mrpocwor
of the manhood, are more numerous? than Professor
Bethune-Baker’s book? leads us to suppose. Nestorius
as an adherent of the Antiochian school could as little
realise a really existing nature without mpocwroy as
without vardctacis*, for the whole of the characteristics
which make the nature must, in his opinion, as
necessarily have a form of appearance, 1.e. a mpoowor,
as a real being by which they are borne, ze. an
vméatao.s. One place in the Treatise of Heraclides is
very characteristic in this respect. Here Nestorius is
asking Cyril: Which of the natures do you think 1s
without mpocwroyr, that of the Godhead or that of the
manhood? Then you will no longer be able to say that
the God-Logos was flesh and that the flesh was Son’.
That is: if you think the Godhead without rpocw ov
then there will be lacking the form of appearance which
the manhood could take on, and if the manhood, then

1 Comp. de incarn. ed. H. B. Swete, Theodori episc. Mops. in
epistolas B, Pauli etc., u, 299, 18 ff.: drav wév yap Tas pices dvaxpil-
vwmev, TeANcLav THY pUow TOU Oeod Adyou dayev Kal TédELov TO mpdowror *
ovdé yap amrpbowmrov éorw wirbotracw eimeiv' tedelav dé Kai Ti Tov
avOpwmrov picw Kal 7rd mpbowrov omolws. bray dé émi THv cvvdderay
amliwuev, év wpdowmov ToTe paper.

2 eg. B. 78=N. 50; B. 94=N. 61;. B. 106=N., 60; B. B=
N. 194: les natures subsistent dans leurs prosdpons et dans leurs
natures; B. 341=N. 218.

3
p. 97 f.

4 Comp. Liber Heracl. B. 316=N. 202: pour ne pas faire...les
prosdpons sans hypostase. 5 B. 305=N. 194.

ie ve ll a Pace 3

OF NESTORIUS 79

the form of appearance of the flesh which the Logos
could take on.

Nevertheless the number of those places in which
Nestorius asserts that there was one mpocwrrov in Christ
is much greater than that of those in which he
speaks about the wpocw7a in Christ. The former are
found in great number already in the earlier known
fragments! and in a still greater in the Treatise of
Heraclhides*. This formula is to be held as charac-
teristic of the teaching of Nestorius. He repeats again
and again that the natures were united in the one
mpoowroy of Christ. But what does he understand by
this ?

At first we must answer: Nestorius has in his mind
the undivided appearance of the historic Jesus Christ.
For he says, very often, that Christ is the one
mpoowtov of the union®. And he argued with Cyril:
You start in your account with the creator of the natures
and not with the rpoowrrov of the union’. It is not the

1 Comp. Nestoriana, Index, s.v. rpdcwmor, p. 405 a.

2 Comp. Nau’s translation, Index, s.v. prosdpon, p. 388 b.

3 e.g. B. 212=N. 128: C’est donc le Christ qui est le prosdpon de
Vunion; B. 223=N.134f.: le prosdpon d’union est le Christ; B, 250=
N: 161; B. 307=N. 195.

4 B. 225=N. 136; comp. B. 255=N. 154: Pourquoi donc m’avez-
vous condamné? Parce que je lui ai reproché de...commencer par celui-ci
(Dieu le Verbe) et de lui attribuer toutes les propriétés, and B. 131=
N. 85: C’est pourquoi celui-la (Cyrille), dans V’incarnation, n’attribue
rien @ la conduite de homme, mais (towt) % Dieu le Verbe, en sorte
qwil s’est servi de la nature humaine pour sa propre conduite.

80 THE DOCTRINE

Logos who has become twofold; tt is the one Lord Jesus
Christ who is twofold in his natures?. In him are seen
all the characteristics of the God-Logos, who has a nature
eternal and unable to suffer and die, and also all those
of the manhood, that 1s a nature mortal, created and
able to suffer, and lastly those of the union and the
incarnation®. To understand this idea of Nestorius all
thoughts of a substantial union ought to be dismissed.
A substantial union—so Nestorius argues—including a
confusion, a mixture, a natural composition, would
result in a new being*. Here the natures are unmixed:
the Logos opoovcwos te tatpi is bodyless® and is
continually what he is in eternity with the Father®, being
without bound, without limit’, but the manhood has a
body, is mortal, limited etc.§ These different natures
are united not substantially but in the mpocwmov of
the union’; and it is to be noticed, that for Nestorius
there is nothing singular in such a union in itself, that

1B. 213=N. 128; B. 215=N. 130; B. 248=N. 150; B. 296=
N. 188.

2 B. 213=N. 128; Nestoriana, p. 283, 13; 341, 2.

3 B. 249 f.=N. 151.

4 B. 250f.=N. 151; comp. B. 236=N. 142.

5 B. T0=N. 45. 6 B. 265=N. 160.

7 B. 304=N. 193; comp. B. 289=N, 144. 8 B. 265=N. 160.

9 e.g. B. 213=N. 129: L’wunion est en effet dans le prosépon, et non
dans la nature ni dans Vessence; B. 230=N. 139: C’est powrquoi je
crie avec insistance en tout lieu que ce n’est pas & la nature, mais au
prosdpon, qwil faut rapporter ce qu’on dit sur la divinité ou sur
V’humanité,

‘

—— ee ee

——— le

OF NESTORIUS : 81

is apart from the very natures which are united here.
I know, he says, nothing which would suit a union of
different natures except a single mpoawrov by which
and in which the natures are seen, while they are giving
their characteristics to this rpocwmov'.

For the detailed explanation of this thought an
idea is important which Professor Bethune-Baker
has already noted? in the Treatise of Heraclides, viz. the
idea that in Christ the manhood is the mpocwmov of
the Godhead, and the Godhead the mpocwrov of the
manhood*®, Reading Professor Bethune-Baker’s book
one could think that this idea appeared only once or at
least seldom. Really, however, it recurs again and again‘.
It is the leading idea of Nestorius that the natures
of Christ made reciprocate use of their tpdcw7a*, the
Godhead of the form of a servant, the manhood of the
form of God®. In this sense in the one rpocwop of
Christ, according to Nestorius, a wnion of the rpocwra

1 B. 230=N. 138 f.

2 p. 97. 3 B. 144=N. 168.

4 Comp. eg. B. 78ff.=N. 50ff.; B. 289=N. 183; B. 305=
N. 193f.; B. 334=N. 208, etc.

5 Comp. e.g. B. 341 f.=N. 219: Pour nous, dans les natures, nous
disons un autre et un autre, et, dans union, un prosdpon pour L’usage
de Vun avec Vautre (ow: pour leur usage mutuel); B. 289=N. 183:
Vhumanité utilisant le prosdpon de la divinité et la divinité le prosdpon
de Vhumanité; B. 307=N. 195: Ils prennent le prosépon Vun de
Vautre; B. 334=N, 213: Elles (les natures) se servent mutuellement de
leurs prosépons respectifs.

6 eg. B. 81=N. 52; B. 90f.=N. 59; B. 241=N. 145.

L. N. 6

82 THE DOCTRINE

took place’ so that this is that and that is this®. Professor
Bethune-Baker, who did not enter into a discussion
of the last quoted formulas, says in reference to the
former (viz.: The manhood is the rpécwov of the God-
head and the Godhead 1s the rpéacwrrov of the manhood*):
“These words come near to eliminating ‘personality,
as we understand it, altogether, or at all events they
suggest the merging of one personality in the other,
each in each. This in fact seems to be the meaning
of Nestorius. He is in search of the real centre of
union and he finds it here. He uses the term
mpoowrrov to express that in which both the Godhead
and manhood of our Lord were one, even while
remaining distinct from one another, each retaining its
own characteristics*.” I think that Professor Bethune-
Baker is here still striving to find a metaphysical
centre of union. In my opinion the idea of Nestorius
is most easily® understood by us, if we look at
Philippians u, 6 ff. The form of a servant and the form

1B. 305=N. 193: L’union des prosbpons a eu lieu en prosdpon.
Comp. B. 213=N. 129: L’union est en effet dans le prosépon et non
dans la nature; B. 275=N. 174: Il n’y a pas un autre et un autre
dans le prosépon; B. 281=N.177: Nous ne disons pas un autre et un
autre, car il n’y a qu’un seul prosépon pour les deux natures.

2B. 331=N. 211: C’est dans le prosdpon, qu’a eu lieu Vunion,
de sorte que celui-ci soit celui-la et celui-la, celui-ci. These last words
are to be found very often.

3 Comp. p. 81 with note 3. Similar sentences recur again and
again. 4 p. 97.

5 About the difficulties which remain see below, p. 90, note 1.

OF NESTORIUS 83

of God here spoken about do not, according to
Nestorius, succeed each other, they are co-existent, 2.
the one Christ shows us as clearly the form of God as
the form of a servant, and it is once expressly said
by Nestorius that the form is the mpécwrov, The
statement, that the mpoocwma interchange, means,
therefore, that the Logos shows himself in the form
of a servant and the man in the form of God, this one
by humbling himself, the other by being exalted?, or
as Nestorius says? with Gregory of Nazianzen*: @eod
bev évavOpwrncavtos, avOpwrrov bé PewbEvTos.

Let us examine these two thoughts further. First,
that the union takes place in the zpdcw7rov of the man.

The Logos humbled himself in willing obedience
unto death, yea, the death of the cross, taking on the
mpocwrov of the man, who suffered and died, as his
own 7pécwtov®. From the annunciation, the birth and
the manger till death® he was found in outward being
as a man, without having the nature of a man; for he
did not take the nature but the form and appearance of

1 B. 244=N, 147.

2 B. 84f.=N 54f.; B. 244=N. 147; B. 341=N. 218.

3 e.g. B. 280=N.177; B. 307=N. 195; B. 315=N. 201; B. 330=
N. 210f.; B. 3832=N. 212; B. 360=N. 231.

4 ep. 101, Migne, 37, 1804.

5 Comp. B. 84f.=N. 55; comp. B. 131=N. 85: La forme de
Dieu était en apparence comme un homme.

6 B. 132=N. 85; B. 11I8=N. 76: Parce qu’il était Dieu et im-

mortel, il a accepté dans son prosdpon—lui qui n’était pas coupable—
la mort, c’est & dire ce qui est mortel et capable de changement.

6—2

84 THE DOCTRINE

a man as regards all which the mpoowov includes}.
But how can the Logos himself have the form of a
servant if he did not have the human nature? An
answer may be found in the following words of Nestorius:
God the Logos is said to have become flesh and son of
man as regards the form and the mpoowrov of the flesh
and of the man, of which he made use in order to
make himself known to the world’. It was the flesh,
in which he manifested himself, in which he taught, in
which and through which he acted, and that not as being
absent ; he made use of His mpocwrov in the flesh,
because he wished that he himself might be the flesh and
the flesh He himself*. God had a beginning and develop-
ment by manifestation’. Nestorius takes this so
earnestly that he says: Christ is also God and he is no
other than God the Logos”.

The second side of the idea we are discussing, viz.
that the manhood in Christ shows itself in the form
of God, is already partly explained by the preceding
quotations, as they assert that it was the Logos who
was to be seen in the man. But we need to have a
clearer understanding of this second side of the idea

1B. 241=N. 145; comp. B. 252=N. 152: Un et le méme (est le)
prosdpon, mais (il n’en est pas de méme pour) lV’ essence ; car LV’essence de la
forme de Dieu et lVessence de la forme du serviteur demeurent; and
B. 262=N. 158: Il a pris la forme du serviteur pour son prosdpon et
non pour sa nature ow par changement d’ essence.

2 B. 230=N, 139. 3 B. 80=N. dl.

4 B. 274=N. 173; comp. below, p. 85, note 6.

6 B. 218=N. 132.

OF NESTORIUS 85

also. Because the Logos manifested himself in the
form of servant, the man appeared in the form of God.
No one ever saw before that a man in his own pocwrov
made use of the mpocwmov of God‘. The prophets, it
is true, were to a certain extent the representatives
of God, for delegates wre substitutes of the persons of
those who sent them and because of this they are thewr
mpocwtra by virtue of their ministry®. But in Christ
the man in the real sense used the rpocwroyv of God,
for Christ has said: “My father and I are one,” and: “ He
who has seen me, has seen the father*,’ and all honour
due to the Logos is partaken of by the manhood, because
it has become the wpécwov of the Logos®. Likewise,
however, as the Logos did not become man by nature,
so also the manhood in Christ is not deified by nature.
He who had a beginning, grew and was made perfect,
so Nestorius often declares with Gregory of Nazianzen,
ws not God by nature, although he is called so on account
of the manifestation which took place gradually®. He is

* 5B, 76=N. 49. 2 1.c.; comp. B. 82=N. 53.

3 B. 83=N. 54. 4B. 76=N. 49.

5 B, 348=N. 223: Diew était aussi en lui ce qu’il était lui-méme ;
de sorte que ce que Dieu était en lui pour la formation de son étre a
son image, lui aussi l’était en Dieu: le prosdpon de Dieu; B. 350=
N, 224: L’homme...est Diew par ce qui est uni.

6 Gregory, ep. 101, Migne, 37, 18: 70 yap Hpyuévov 7 mpoxdrrov 7
Tederovpevovy ov Beds, Kav Sid Thy KaTa muixpdv avadecEw otrw éynTaL;
Nestorius, Liber Herac. e.g. B. 273=N. 173; B. 280=N. 177;
B. 283=N. 179; B, 286=N. 181; B. 332=N. 212; B. 349=N. 224;
B. 360=N, 231.

86 THE DOCTRINE

God by manifestation because he was man by nature}.
As regards the manhood he is not divine by nature but
by manifestation’.

But this is not all that is to be said; for the
manhood in Christ, according to Nestorius, has really
through the union with the Logos become something
which it would not be otherwise. The man in Christ
has the wpocwmov of the son of God not only in the
sense we have already discussed. For when Nestorius
says that the wnion took place in the wpocwrov of the
son®, then this does not mean only that aspect of the
interchange of the tpocw7a, on account of which the
manhood as really bore the mpocwov of the Logos as
the latter took up the wrpécwmoy of the man’. Here a
new idea is to be noticed. Although—so Nestorius
says—the Logos was the son of God even before the
incarnation, nevertheless after having taken on the
manhood, he can no more alone be called the son, lest
we should assert the existence of two sons®. The manhood
has become the son of God because of the son, united
with it’. Again and again Nestorius repeats that two
sons of God was not his doctrine.

1B. 349=N. 294. 2B. 288=N.182. 3 B. 231=N. 140.

4 Comp. B. 331=N. 211: A cause de celui qui Va pris pour son
prosépon, celui qui a été pris obtient d’étre le prosépon de celui qui
Va pris.

5 Nestoriana, p. 275, 1-5 (condensed).

6 Nestoriana, p. 274, 17: vids dia rdv cuvnupévov vidv; Liber

Heracl. B. 145=N. 168: Cette humanité est dite le Fils de Dieu par
Vunion avec le Fils (et non par la nature); B. 80=N. 51:...et da

OF NESTORIUS 87

One will understand this better if a new line
of thought is followed, which in Nestorius is clearly
shown to us only.by the Treatise of Heraclhides. To
Adam the Logos as his creator gave his image in all
glory and honour’, but Adam lost it for himself and for
his descendants”. Hence the Logos became man im
order to efface the fault of the first man and to gwe back
to his nature the original image*®. Only he could do it:
apart from him there was nothing dwine or honourable’,
and only in the manhood could this renovation take
place®. Nestorius gives in this connection a complete
answer to the question: Cur deus homo®? and it is not

donné &@ la forme du serviteur (qui est) sa forme, un nom qui lV’ emporte
sur tous les noms, c’est & dire le nom de Fils, auquel tout genou, etc.

1 B. 90=N. 58. 4 B. 91=N. 59; B. 107£.=N. 70.

* 5. 91=N. 59. * Te.

5 B. 267=N. 161: On avait besoin de la divinité adhérente pour...
refatre la forme de Vimage qui avait été détruite par nous; (on avait
besoin) aussi de Vhumanité qui fut renouvelée et qui reprit sa forme ;
Vhumanité était nécessaire pour observer Vordre, qui avait existé.

6 e.g. B. 297=N. 188: Dieu le Verbe s’est incarné pour faire de
Vhumanité la forme de Diew en lui, et pour le renouveler en lui dans la
nature de Vhumanité..., parce que lut seul pouvait rénover celui qui
était tombé en premier liew par la transgression de Vinobservance des
préceptes ; et il donna sa vie pour lui, pour les observer, parce qu’il ne
suffisait pas qwil se conservat sans péché ; sinon, notre chute serait de-
meurée sans guérison comme le paralytique qui se soigne et qui reste sans
marcher, mais pour qui le médecin marche, et qui le porte, mais qui ne lui
dit pas: ‘* Léve tot (et) marche, car tu a été guéri pour marcher,’’ C’ est
pourquoi il a pris une forme de serviteur qui était sans péché dans
sa création, au point de recevoir dans les observances des préceptes un
nom supérieur @% tous les noms, et de fortifier, par les observances et par
la vigilance, ce qui était dans la rénovation de sa créature.

88 THE DOCTRINE

only by physical categories as in Athanasius’ de incar-
natione! that Nestorius argues. The idea is- further
not exhausted by the thought that the Logos took such
a form of a servant, as was without sin in its creation?,
The main thing is that the Logos in the form of a
servant brought into existence a sinless man*®; hence
the stress is laid on the moral and religious development
of Jesus. | |
The man alone, even the second Adam, would not
have been able to remain sinless‘ ; but God was acting in
him, and observed the commandments in his place because
he was in this nature’. Christ had all that belongs to
a true man, but without being deprived of the union with
God the Logos’. God’s will was his own will’; he
raised his soul to God conforming his volitions to those of
God, so that he was an image of the archetype of the

1 Migne, ser. graeca 25, 96-197; comp. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch
der Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, Tiibingen, 1909, m, 159-162.

2 Liber Heracl. B. 297=N. 188 (see p. 87, note 6).

3 Nestoriana, p. 239, 19: deltas év éavr@ 7d THs Picews mpdowrov
duaptias éhevepov.

4 Liber Heracl. B, 298=N. 189. 5 le.

6 B. 133=N. 86.

7 B. 102=N. 67; compare the preceding sentence: Parce que done
il s’est humilié en toute chose d’une fagon incompréhensible par une
humiliation sans pareille, il est apparu encore un seul esprit, une
seule volonté, une seule intelligence inséparable et indivisible, comme
dans un seul étre. Comp. also Nestoriana, fragments, 197, 198, 201
and 202 (pp. 65f. and 219f. and 224) the genuineness of which
perhaps may be defended with more confidence than I showed, in
my Nestoriana (p. 65 f.).

OF NESTORIUS 89

umage of God}, viz. the Logos. So he renewed our
nature in himself by means of a perfect obedience? till
the death, to which he was condemned for us* and
through which he, as being sinless, gained the victory
over the devil’. By means of this renewal humanity
received the form of the sonship of him who had created
w°, And together with and by virtue of the gift of
sonship there was given to the manhood also a share
in the position of power and dominion of the son of
God®,

Now I come to the question: Did Nestorius really
make the unity of the natures in the one person of
Christ intelligible? As long as one starts by pointing
to the Logos on the one side and the man on the other,
it is comprehensible that a negative answer should have
been given. The Antiochian formulas, which are found
in Nestorius, e.g. dua tov gopodyta Tov hopovpevov
céBo, dia Tov KEeKpuppévoy TpotKUYa Tov Patvopevov™
and: oporoyauev tov év avOpwore Oedv, céBwpev tov
Th Oeia ovvadeia TH Tavtoxpatopt Oe@ cvptpoc-
kuvovpevov avOpwrov®, seem again and again to force

1 B. 96=N. 62; comp. B. 102=N. 66: La forme de serviteur V’a
servi absolument comme il le voulait.

2B. 342=N. 219. 3 B. 102=N. 66.

4 Comp. B. 297=N. 188; B. 299=N. 189; Nestoriana, p. 344
6 ff.

5 B. 299=N. 189.

6 Nestoriana, p. 361, 22; comp. above, p. 86f., note 6.

7 Nestoriana, p. 262, 3 f. 8 lio. p. 249, 2 ff.

90 THE DOCTRINE

us to such anegative answer. Besides the one 7poow7rov
of Christ we find the two 7pécw7ra’, one of each nature,

1 Comp. above, p. 78, and B. 348=N. 223: les prosépons de l’union.
Nestorius was even able to write: Nous ne disons pas union des
prosépons, mais des natures (B. 252=N. 152), and as it is not the
translator who is to be blamed for the contradiction to other state-
ments of Nestorius which is to be seen here (comp. above, p. 82,
note 1), it must be conceded that Nestorius in his terminology was not
quite free from inaccuracy (which is to be observed also in his position

toward the comparison of the union in Christ to the union of body and -
soul, comp B. 236=N. 142 and B. 292=N. 185). Nevertheless there -

is no real contradiction in Nestorius’ thoughts. What he is denying
(B. 252=N. 152) is one natural prosdpon: C’est pourquoi l’union
a liew pour le prosdpon et non pour la nature. Nous ne disons pas
union des prosdpons, mais des natures. Car dans Vunion il n’y a
qwun seul prosdpon, mais dans les natures un autre et un autre, de
sorte que le prosdépon soit reconnu sur Vensemble (B. 252=N. 152).
This is clearly to be seen also in other passages, e.g. B. 304 f.=N. 193:
Ce n’est pas sans prosdpon et sans hypostase que chacune d’elles (viz.
natures) est connue dans les diversités des natures. On ne congott pas
deux prosdpons des fils, ni encore deux prosopons des hommes, mais
dun seul homme, qui est mu de la méme maniére par Vautre. L’ union
des prosdpons a ew lieu en prosdpon et non en essence ni en nature. On
ne doit pas concevoir une essence sans hypostase, comme si union avait
eu liew en une essence et qu’il y ewt un prosipon d’une seule
essence. Mais les natures subsistent dans leurs prosdépons et dans
leurs natures et dans le prosdpon d’union. Quant au prosdpon naturel
de Vune, l’autre se sert dw méme en vertu de V’union; ainsi il n’y
a qu un prosdpon pour les deux natures. —B. 239=N. 144:...le prosépon
de Vune est aussi celui de lVautre et réciproquement.—B. 333 f.=
N. 212 f.: La divinité se sert du prosépon de V humanité et V humanité
de celui de la divinité; de cette maniére nous disons un seul pros-
épon pour les deux.—B. 340=N. 218: Ne comprends tu pas, comment
les péres confessent un prosdpon de deux natures? et que les différences
des natures ne sont pas supprimées @ cause de V’union parce qu’elles
se réunissent en un seul prosdpon, qui appartient aux natures et aux
prosépons.—We need however, a more exhaustive examination of

OF NESTORIUS 91

asserted. There is, as Nestorius himself says, a
difference between the Lord Jesus Christ and the
Logos!; or: the terms God-Logos and Christ do not
have the same meaning. For, though Christ 1s not out-
side the Logos, nevertheless the Logos is not limited
by the body’. Christ spoke of the Logos as of his
mpoowrov and as if he were one and had the same
mpoowmov®; there appeared one spirit, one will, one
inseparable and indivisible intellect as in one being® ;
we regard this one as that one and that one as this one,
although this one and that one remain’. But if one
keeps in mind that Nestorius rejected the idea of a
substantial union which would include an alteration
of the Logos, then one must say that he came as near
as possible to the idea of a union. Where a substantial
union is excluded, there the union can only come about
on a spiritual plane. Hence Nestorius says that the
incarnation took place through an intelligent and rational
soul®. By means of the soul a relation is set up between

Nestorius’ terminology, especially of the meaning of mpécwmov in
his works. In B. 240 f.=N. 145 (Ces choses [corps et dme] s’unis-
sent en une nature et en prosdpon naturel. Dieu prit pour lu
la forme du servitewr et non d’un autre pour son prosdpon et sa
jiliation; ainsi sont ceux qui sont unis en une nature. Il
prit la forme dw serviteur, etc.) the words ainsi sont ceux qui sont
unis en une nature must have been inadvertently transposed: their
place, in my opinion, is before Diew prit pour lui, ete.

1 B. 120=N. 133. 2 B. 254=N. 153.

3 Lo. 4 B. 239=N. 144. 5 .B. T8=N Gl,

6 B. 102=N. 67 (see above, p. 88, note 7: comme).

7 B. 348=N. 2238. 8 B. 128=N. 83.

92 THE DOCTRINE

the Logos and the man, and this relation is on both
sides one of free will!, a relation of love?, a relation
of giving on the one side and of taking on the other?,
a relation that becomes so close, that the one presents
himself as the other, and that the form of God shows
itself in the form of a servant and the form of a servant
is teaching, acting, etc. in the form of God.

We must observe, it is true, that the man is God
not by nature, but only because God reveals Himself in
him, and that the Logos is not flesh by nature, but only
manifests himself in the flesh*. But also my late
colleague Dr Martin Kahler (+Sept. 7th, 1912), who
was regarded as orthodox, held it to be a vain attempt to
combine two independent beings or two persons in an
indindual life’. He himself thought that the union
of the Godhead and manhood will become intelligible
if understood as a reciprocity of two personal actions,

1 B. 264 f.=N, 159:...wne union volontaire en prosépon et non en
nature.

2B. 81=N. 52: unies par V’amour et dans le méme prosdpon;
B. 275=N. 174: réunies en égalité par adhésion (cuvddea) et par
amour.

3B. 299=N. 189 f.:...afin que le prosdpon fit commun a celui
qui donnait la forme et &% celui qui la recevait & cause de son obéissance ;
B. 348=N. 223: Par les prosdpons de Vunion Vun est dans Vautre
et cet ‘un’ nest pas concu par diminution, ni par suppression, ni par
confusion, mais par l’action de recevoir et de donner et par
usage de Vunion de Vun avec l’autre, les prosdpons recevant et
donnant l’un et Vautre. 4 Comp. above, p. 83 f. and 85.

5 Kahler, Die Wissenschaft der christlichen Lehre, 3rd edition,
Leipsic, 1905, § 388, p. 339.

OF NESTORIUS 93

viz. a creative action on the part of the eternal Godhead
and a receiving action on the part of the developing
manhood'. If thus justice is done to the idea of the
unity of the natures in one person, then Nestorius, too,
made it intelligible, even where he, dealing with the
Logos on the one side and the man on the other, tries to
understand the union as the result of the incarnation.
His understanding of wpocwzrov, it is true, does not
coincide with what we mean by “person ”—we cannot free
ourselves from metaphysics—but we, too, can sympathise
with him when he took the incarnation as meaning
this, that in the person of Jesus the Logos revealed
himself in human form so that the Logos exhibited
himself as man and that the man of history was the
manifestation of the Logos in such a way that he
exhibited himself to us as the eternal Logos®. We, too,
therefore, understand what Nestorius means when he
said that the 7pécw7ov of the one is also that of the
other.

Still more intelligible does the christology of
Nestorius become to us, if, following his advice, we
start from the one rpocw7ov of the union, ze. from the
one Jesus Christ of history®. As regards him we are

1 lie.

2 Comp. Liber Heracl. B. 362=N. 233: V’incarnation est congue
comme V’usage mutuel des deux (prosdpons) par prise et don.

3 Liber Heracl. B. 230=N. 139 and in many other places the

prosdpon of the union evidently is the prosépon of the flesh. Comp.
B. 304f.=N. 193 (above p. 90, note 1): On ne concoit pas deux

94 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

able to speak of one person in our sense of the word
also. This one person, it is true, is not simply the
Logos, as this is not limited by the body, but still less
is hea mere man. This Jesus Christ of history is the
beginner of a new humanity and at.the same time the
personal revelation of God, and he is the one because
he is the other. Only the renewed manhood could
become the image of God, but even this was only possible
because the God-Logos was acting here in the manhood
by means of a union of giving and taking.

Is this orthodox? The answer I will give in the
next lecture.

IV

It was not the personal character of Nestorius which
caused his tragic fortune; if he was guilty, it was his
doctrine which was to be blamed—this we saw in the
preceding lecture. We have tried, therefore, to gain
an idea of his teaching. Was Nestorius orthodox ?
What is his position in the history of dogma ?—these
are the questions which will occupy us to-day.

The question as to whether Nestorius was orthodox
cannot be regarded as really answered by the anathema
of the so-called third ecwmenical council of Ephesus,

prosdpons des fils, ni encore deux prosépons des hommes, mais d’un
seul homme, qui, ete.
1 Comp. above, p. 88.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 95

because, as we saw1, an ecumenical council of Ephesus
never existed. It was only the party council of Cyril
which condemned Nestorius, while the council of the
Antiochians was on his side, and the question of doctrine
was still undecided even when the council consisting of
these two party councils was dissolved. The idea that
Nestorius was condemned by “the holy ecumenical
council ” was only the result of the ecclesiastical-political
transactions of which the union of 4383 was the outcome’.
This fiction and the consent of the Antiochians, which
they were ignominiously forced to give, cannot help us
to decide the question, all the more so since Nestorius
could have accepted the doctrinal basis of the peace,
although his condemnation was its result.

The standard of measure for Nestorius’ doctrine
must, therefore, be the definition of that ecumenical
council which gave the first decision about the christo-
logical question (although proved later to be a
preliminary one), viz. the fourth ecumenical council
of Chalcedon, of 451.

The definition of this council, which is to be seen
not only in its creed but also in its recognition of Leo’s
letter to Flavian and Cyyril’s epistola dogmatica® and
epistola ad Orientales*, was a compromise, as the Roman
legates could not and would not give up the letter of
Leo, while the majority of the Eastern bishops were for

' Above, p. 53. 2 Comp. above, p. 56.
3 Comp. above, p. 37. 4 Comp. above, p. 53.

96 NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

their part tied to the Cyrillian tradition. Without
doubt, however, there is no real harmony between
these different standards of faith. For Leo’s letter
declares: Agit utraque forma cum alterius commumione,
quod proprium est, verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est
et carne exequente quod carnis est; unum horum
coruscat mwraculis, alterum succumbit injurws, but
Severus of Antioch, the well-known later monophysite,
was right, when he said: ov yap évepryet rote picts ovx
ipectoca TpocwmiKas”, and for Cyril the human nature
of Christ was a gvois ovy Vpeotaca, as is shown by his
understanding of the &vwo1s xa® vroctacw*. Nay,
in his epistola synodica to Nestorius* he even anathe-
matised the dcarpeiy Tas UmooTdces peta THY Evwow
and required a union of the natures ca® &vwaw guaorknp’.
This disharmony between the Cyrillian tradition and that
of the western church represented by Leo showed itself
also during the proceedings of the council in a very
distinct manner, when the wording of the creed was
deliberated. The first draft of this creed contained the
words éx dvo di'cewy eis®, which corresponded to the

1 Ch. iv; Mansi, v, 13875cp; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole,
3rd edition, p. 325.

2 Doctrina patrum, ed. F. Diekamp, Miinster, 1907, p. 310, 19 f.

3 Comp. above, p. 72. 4+ Comp. above, p. 44.

5 Anath. 3, Migne, 77, 120c.

6 This document was not inserted in the Proceedings (Mansi,
vil, 100D: dpov, dv e50k wh evrayhvar Toicde Trois brouvjpacr) and

now, therefore, is lost, but there cannot be any doubt, that it con-
tained the words éx dvo gicewy eis (comp. Mansi, vu, 103 D:

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 97

Cyrillian tradition, but Leo asserted in his letter, that
the unity of Christ’s person was seen “in two natures’,”
and especially blamed Eutyches for not having been
willing to concede the duality of the natures after the
incarnation, while allowing the term é« dvo ducewr eis’,
The Roman legates, therefore, energetically opposed
the phrase éx édvo d@vcewy in the draft of the creed?
and they succeeded in substituting év dve dvcecuy for
éx dvo0 duaewr*. One self-consistent view, therefore,
could not be attained in Chalcedon; a compromise
had to be made. And it was made by recognising as
standards of faith at the same time Leo's letter and
Cyril’s epistola dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales®.
Cyril’s epistola synodica, which understood the évwais
xa? brocracw in the sense of a &vwous huotKy, was not

definitio...ec duabus naturis habet, and 106c: Dioscorus dicebat:
** Quod ex duabus naturis est, suscipio, duas non suscipio’’; sanctis-
simus autem archiepiscopus Leo duas naturas dicit esse in Christo...
Quem igitur sequimini ? sanctissimum Leonem, aut Dioscorum ?

1 Ch, 5, Mansi, v, 13798: Propter hanc unitatem personae in
utraque natura intelligendam (comp. the preceding note).

2 Ch. 6, Mansi, v, 1386 f.

3 Mansi, vi, 10148; comp. above, p. 96f. note 6.

4 Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, p. 166; Hefele,
Conciliengeschichte, 2nd edition, 11, 470 f. note 1.

5 Mansi, vu, 113 spc. The meaning of the sentence ras rod
pakaplou Kupiddov...cuvodixas émicrodas pds Te Neorépiov xal mpds rovs
THs dvaroNjs...€d¢Earo is illustrated by the fact, that Cyril’s epistola
dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales, but not his epistola synodica,
were previously (Mansi, v1, 959 AB, 959 p, 971 aB, 973 c) approved.
Comp. p. 98 note 1.

L. N. 7

98 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

approved by the council’, and its creed, by treating the
words vréatacts and persona as identical, interpreted the
term €vwous xa virootacwy in the sense of a personal
union. By this interpretation Cyril’s epistola dogmatica,
which contained this term?, was made acceptable to
western thought. But even Cyril’s epistola synodica
with its anathematisms, once so sharply attacked by the
Antiochians, although it was not recognised, was spared
criticism?. And more, Dioscorus, Cyril’s successor,
who had been a more incautious upholder of the
Alexandrian tradition than Cyril and who at the Robber-
synod had declared the assertion of two natures after
the union to be unlawful‘, although he was deposed,
was nevertheless not declared a heretic®. On the other
side also Theodoret, whom a decree of the Robber-synod
had deposed®, was present in Chalcedon. Pope Leo

1 This is expressly said in the Collatio cum Severianis (Mansi,
vit, 821 r—822 a) and is to be seen also in the proceedings of the
Chalcedonian council itself (comp. Ermoni, De Leontio Byzantino,
Paris, 1895, p. 100f. and 111f.). I now give up my former opinion,
that Cyril’s epistola synodica was implicitly acknowledged (Leontius
von Byzanz 1887, p. 50, Hauck’s Real-Encyklopidie, v, 646, 40).

2 Migne, 77, 48 B: éav 6¢ rHv Kal’ drboTacw Evwow,..rapa:rovueda,
éumlaropev eis Td S00 Aéyew viods.

3 That is less than ‘‘ acknowledged implicite’’ (comp. above note 1).

4 Mansi, vi, 737 c.

5 Mansi, vi, 1094 f., comp. Mansi, vir, 103 B: Anatolius...dizit:
propter fidem non est damnatus Dioscorus, sed quia excommunicationem
fecit domino archiepiscopo Leoni et tertio vocatus est et non venit.

6 The second synod of Ephesus together with etc. ed. by 8. G. F.
Perry, 1881, pp. 251-258.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 99

had recognised him as orthodox}, the imperial com-
missioners stood up for his right to be a member of
the council”, and the synod rehabilitated him after he
had consented to anathematize Nestorius’. Nevertheless
he was not forced to retract his book against Cyril’s
anathematisms. In the same way Ibas of Edessa, who
had likewise been deposed in 4494, was at Chalcedon
reinstated as bishop®, without having been forced to
recant what he had said in his letter to Maris about
Cyril’s “ Apollinarism” as he called it, although this
letter had been condemned by the Robber-synod.

Hence it follows, that the decision of Chalcedon
was interpreted in very different ways by the western
church, by the adherents of Cyril and by Theo-
doret, Ibas and other Antiochians. It is, therefore,
impossible to answer in one sentence the question
whether Nestorius was orthodox according to the
standard of the Chalcedonian definition.

It is certain that he could have accepted the creed
of Chalcedon and its standards of faith as easily as
Theodoret, for he could have reconciled himself to Cyril’s
epistola dogmatica if understanding the &wois Ka?
UTootacw in the sense of a personal union, and what
Theodoret, yielding to pressure, had anathematized in

1 Mansi, vit, 190 p.
2 Mansi, vi, 592 p and vn, 190 Bc.
3 Mansi, vu, 190 aB and 191 B-p.

4 Perry, l.c. p. 134f.
5 Mansi, vir, 262-70.

100 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

his old friend*, Nestorius had never taught, nay he had
even expressly rejected such assertions”. Nestorius can
| therefore be regarded as orthodox according to the
' Antiochian interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition.

The formulas contained in Leo’s letter, as we shall
see later more accurately, had their root in a view
somewhat different from that of Nestorius, but Nestorius
had endeavoured more earnestly than Leo to make in-
telligible the oneness of the person of Christ?, and in
any case he himself approved of Leo’s letter*. Thus
according also to the western interpretation of the
Chalcedonian definition Nestorius can be regarded as
orthodox.

On the other hand, an interpretation according to
the Cyrillian tradition could not have been accepted by
Nestorius, and measured by the standard of such an
interpretation he could not be regarded as orthodox,
Such an interpretation, however, had considerable
difficulties. For, while to western thinking Cyril's
letters, which were recognised at Chalcedon, had been
made acceptable by interpretation, there was at that
time in the East no Cyrillian theology, ze. no theology

1 Mansi, vu, 189 B: dyvd@eua Neoropiw cal To wy A€yorTe THY
aylay Maplay @eotéxoy kal rm els SUo viods meplfovTe Tov Eva vidy TOY
povoryev 7}.

_ 2 Comp. above p. 31f. and 74 and his epistola ad Constantinopoli-
tanos (comp. above p. 24f.), ch. 2, Nau, p. 374.

3 Leo asserted the unitas personae, but made no attempt to show
how this wnitas personae was to be imagined (comp. below p. 113).

4 See above p. 22.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 101

following the Cyrillian tradition, which could digest
Leo’s letter. The quarrels about the decision of Chal-
cedon show how disagreeable it was to the majority of
the Eastern Christians.

Hence as long as we apply no other standard than
the Chalcedonian definition, the statement of Professor
Bethune-Baker, that Nestorius was orthodox, is not
to be held a false one. It was a tragic feature in the
fortune of Nestorius, that he had already been con-
demned, when the council, whose creed he could have
accepted, was held.

The Chalcedonian definition, however, was not
the final one. The uncertainty as to how its formulas
were to be interpreted was removed. The first step of
importance in this direction was the Henotikon of the
Emperor Zeno in 4821. This edict, indeed, did not
condemn the Chalcedonian definition, but in actual
opposition to Leo’s letter and to its assertion about
the operation of each nature in Christ? it expressly
declared : évds eivai hapev Ta Te Oavpata Kai Ta TAOn?,
condemning at the same time everyone who then or
earlier, at Chalcedon or elsewhere, thought otherwise‘.
That means that an interpretation of the Chalcedonian
definition according to the Cyrillian tradition only was
to be regarded as right, while Leo’s letter with all its

1 Eyagrius, h.e. 3, 14,ed.J. Bidez and L. Parmentier p.111-114,
2 See above p. 96. 3 Evagrius l. ce. p. 113, 9.
41. 6. p. 113, 21 ff.

102 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

contents, which did not suit the Cyrillian point of view,
was practically put aside. The eastern church, while
under the Henotikon, on the whole enjoyed peace—
the Antiochian tradition having been put into the
background—, but between it and the western church
a schism arose. When in 519 a settlement was reached,
the Henotikon being at the same time abrogated,
the question as to how the decree of Chalcedon, then
reacknowledged, was to be interpreted, came again to
the fore in the East.

This time it did not remain long without an answer,
for at the same time the activity of the so-called
Scythian monks began, and this was important just
because they developed a theology wholly along the
Imes of Cyril, which nevertheless could do justice to all
requirements of the Chalcedonian definition’. It was
scholastic arguing, creation of terms and logical dis-
tinctions, which brought into existence this Cyrillian-
Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Only one of these saving
terms need be mentioned, namely éyutoctacia. This
term allowed the assertion that the human nature
of Christ, although it had no tectacis of its own,
nevertheless was not without baroctacis, the vroctacis
of the Logos becoming that of the human nature, too.
By the help of this term the twofold operation of the
natures, spoken of in Leo’s letter, could be accepted,

1 Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, 1906, p. 304 f. and my
Leontius von Byzanz, 1887, pp. 60-74.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 103

the one trrécracis of the Logos being thought of as
the actual subject of the operation of the divine and
human nature of Christ. Really, however, this doctrine
of the Enhypostasia is identical with the Cyrillian view
of the Anhypostasia of Christ’s human nature, for actually
it assumed that the Logos and the human nature became
one being in the same sense as understood by Cyril,
when he used the term évwous duorxy and the phrase
pia pvots Tod Geod Adyou cecapKwpévy Which had come
in the orthodox tradition through the Apollinaristic
forgeries'. There was now only the possibility of
abstract separation of the natures in Christ. As a
shibboleth of their Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy,
the Scythian monks used the phrase: &va tis ayias
Tptados mémovle capxi, and this phrase was really
characteristic. For, like Cyril, it makes the Logos the
subject even of the sufferings, while by the addition
of capxt, which naturally was not uncyrillian, it was
asserted, that the natures were not mixed through the
union ; and to some extent justice was done also to Leo’s
letter, which contended that it was the human nature
which suffered. The Antiochian tradition naturally was
considered to be insupportable by this new orthodoxy.
The Scythian monks, therefore, acted consistently in
demanding that Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, the famous teachers of the Antiochian

1 Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, p. 270 and 293.
2 Comp. my Leontius, p. 71.

104 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

school, although they had died in the peace of the
church should be anathematised, as well as Nestorius’.

This Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy was supported
by the emperor Justinian, and the fifth ecumenical
council, held in Constantinople in 553, approved the
emperor’s church-policy and the doctrine which he
had supported”,

The condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and

of the anti-cyrillian writings of Theodoret and Ibas,
sanctioned by this council?, clearly manifested the fact
that an Antiochian interpretation of the Chalcedonian

definition no longer was allowed. And twice in the

decision of the council an Antiochian interpretation of
Chalcedonian formulas was expressly anathematised‘.
Cyril, therefore, remained master of the field. Even

1 Leontius, contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos, 3, 7 ff. and 3, 37 ff.
Migne, ser. graeca, 86, 1364-1387.

2 Comp. the anathematisms of this council, Mansi, rx, 375-388,
Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, pp. 168-172.

3 Anath. 12-14.

4 Anath. 5: Ei ris ryv play trbcracw tod Kupiov huav “Inood
Xpicrod obrws éxauBaver, ws émcdexouévynv mrodr\Gv brosrdcewy onuaciav
kal dia Tovrov...€v mpdowmov éyer kara akiav kal Tiny Kal mpooKkivnow
Kkabdrep Oeddwpos kai Neordpios pawduevo cvveypdwavro: Kal cuKo-
pavret rHnv aylav év Xarkynddve cbvodor, ws kKaTa TavUTHY THY
aoeBH evvorav xpynoauévynv To THS mas brocrdcews pyyare...6
TowvTos avdbeua éorw.—Anath. 6: Ei ris xaraypynorikds, adr ovK
ddnbas, Beordkov Aéyee Thy aylay évdokov derapbévov Maplay 4 Kara
dvagdopay, ws..., Kal cukogavTet Tiv aylav év Xadknddut cbvodor,
OS KATA TAUTHY THY acEeB7 Emivonbcioav Tapa Deodwpovéevvo.av
Oeotéxov rhv wmapbévor elrotcayv...o TooiTos avadeua Ecru.

‘

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 105

his epistola synodica actually was approved, for Theo-
doret and Ibas were criticized for having attacked it’.

The term évwots dvoixy, used in Cyril’s eprstola
synodica, was left, it is true, unapproved ; for this term
could have been understood as allowing the assumption
that the natures in Christ were mixed through their
union. Nevertheless, what Cyril really meant by the
term évwows duotkyn was accepted; for the &vwars Ka?
v’mdortacw is interpreted in the sense of an évwous Kata
cvvOeow?. The Logos took on—this is the doctrine of
the council—a human oap& with wuyn and vods in
such a way, that out of the two natures came one
Christ®, who was the subject as of the @avuatoupyetv
so of the wa@eiv*; the two natures, of which the one
Christ is composed, are only to be distinguished
abstractly®, the Logos himself was born a second time
through Mary®, the éctavpwpévos is eis THs dryias
Tptados'.

There can be no doubt, that, measured by the

1 Anath. 13: Hires avrimouetrar Ov doeBOv cvyypaypdtwv Beodopirouv
TOY KaTa...ToD &v arylors Kupiddov kal rev 1B’ ab’rod Kepadalwy...xal...ovK
dvadeuwarifer...rdvras Tovs ypdwavTas KaTa...Tod év drylous KupidXov Kal
Tav dwoexa avrov Kedadalov...6 Towotros dvddeua éorw. Anath. 14
(against Ibas) has an analogous wording.

2 Anath. 4: ‘H...ékkAnola...riv €vwow tod Oo Nbyou mpds Thv
gdpxa Kata ovvOeoww omodoyet, Sep éotl Kad’ bmrdboracw.

3 Anath. 8. 4 Anath. 3.

5 Anath. 8.:...77 Oewpla pbvyn thy Scapopar' rovrww NauBdvew, ef wy
auveTédn.

6 Anath. 2. 7 Anath. 10; comp. 5.

106 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

standard of these decisions, the christology of Nestorius
is to be called heterodox. It was the main purpose
of all the anathematisms of the council to show the
Nestorian understanding of the &vwaus, of the &v
mpoowrrov, and of the Qeordxos, to be heretical.

And these decisions remained valid. The sixth
ecumenical council, it is true, in opposition to the
Greeks, who were drawing back gradually and too
openly from the formulas of Chalcedon, sanctioned the
Dyotheletism, asserting, under the strong influence of the
western church, the difference between the natures of
Christ also as regards the évépyesas and the gvavxa
Gexnpwata}, but it left the Cyrilian interpretation of
the Chalcedonian creed untouched and even gave to the
dyotheletic statement a look suited to the Cyrillian
tradition; for it said that the human will became
in the same sense the real will of the Logos as the
human flesh became his flesh, the human soul his soul,
the human intellect his intellect”, and that the Logos
had his being also in the human évepyety and Oérew’®.
Even if some other parts were added to the apparatus
of flesh, soul, intellect, energy, will, which was regarded
as composing the human nature, it would not have
mattered, since the Cyrilliian doctrine had won the

1 Comp. the creed of the council (approved the 16th of September
861), Mansi, x1, 631-640, the main section of which is to be found
also in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole etc., 3rd edition, pp. 172-174.

2 Mansi, x1, 637 cp.
$ j.c. xt, 637 E sq.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 107

victory, and since there existed now in the Hast a
theology which was able to master difficult formulas
by means of scholastic distinctions and arguments.

_ Also the Occident, as far as it belonged to the Kast-
Roman Empire, Rome included, had had to accept the
Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy of the council of 553;
and Rome led the young nations of the mediaeval world
in the same direction. When in the Adoptianism of
Spain old western tradition, not consistent with the
Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, emerged once again,
the Carolingian theologians with the agreement of
Rome rejected them, and Alcuin in conformity with
the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy contended: i
assumptione carnis a deo persona perit hominis, non
natura’.

There cannot, therefore, be the least doubt, that
Nestorius was an exponent of a doctrine which even if
not through the decree of Chalcedon, at least through
the decisions of later time, was condemned by the
church. Hence, measured by the standard of church-
orthodoxy, Nestorius—in spite of all Professor Bethune-
Baker’s attempts to save him—must be regarded as
a heretic.

Nevertheless his doctrine has more historical right
than the Cyrillian orthodoxy. That is what remains
for me to show. -

Nestorius was a pupil of the Antiochian school ; all

1 adv. Felicem 2, 12, Migne, ser. latina 101, 1564.

108 NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

Antiochian theologians were at first on his side. He
seems to have endeavoured more earnestly than the
greatest teachers of his school, Diodore of Tarsus and
Theodore of Mopsuestia, to make intelligible the oneness
of the person of Christ. An absolute decision is not
possible in this case, as the chief dogmatic works of
Diodore and Theodore are lost. But even if appearance
speak the truth—I shall return to this question later'—it_
is nevertheless without doubt, that the fundamental ideas
and the decisive formulas which we find in Nestorius
were part of the traditional teaching of his school.

It was not Diodore or even Theodore who first created
these formulas; they had already been used by Eustathius
bishop of Antioch (who was deposed in 330). We are
able to observe this, although only small fragments of
his works are preserved?. It is proved not only by
the idea, that it was not the Logos who was born,
who suffered, but the man, whom he joined with

1 See below p. 126.

2 The only book of Eustathius which is preserved intact (De
Engastrimytho, Migne, ser. graeca 18, 613-676) is of little value
here. The fragments of other works were first collected by J. A.
Fabricius (Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles 1x, 1804, pp. 136-149)—
these fragments (about 35 in number) are the most important ones— ;
in Migne (18, 676-696) the number of fragments is enlarged to
about 50; and a collection of 86 fragments (of which those, which
were formerly known, for the most part are not given in full text) is to
be found in S. Hustathii, episcopi Antiocheni, in Lazarum, Mariam
et Martham homilia christologica (which is spurious)...edita cum
commentario de fragmentis eustathianis opera et studio Ferdinandi
Cavallera, Paris, 1905.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 109

him}, whom he resuscitated from the dead?, and who then
became his cvv@povos*, and also not only by phrases as
0 avOpwros, dv épopynaer*, or avOpwrivoy Gpyavov? or
Katoiukovoa év avT@ (viz. TO avOpwr@) Oeorns® or
avOpwros Oeopédpos’ or vaos THs PeoTnTOos®, but we find

1 De engastrim. 17, p. 652 a: 6 Ndyos...dperH THs OedryHTOS amayTaxod
mapecr dOpows. ei dé Kal.,.rov éxxpirov avrov vadv émérpepe AvOFvat,
Tpinwepov ev avdtixa mddw avr7yyepe (comp. 18, p. 653: Oedrnros dper7...
mdvra wrAnpot)—; Cavallera, 15, p. 72=Migne, p. 685 c: obdé 6 Adyos
avTo0...d\N 6 dvOpwiros Tov. Xpicrod éx vexpav éyeipduevos bpodrar—;
Migne, p. 681 c (Cav. 30): dmaéés 7d Oeiov Tod Xpicrod mvetpua— 3;
Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 73): Si in Christo plenitudo divinitatis in-
habitat, aliud...inhabitatur ; si vero naturaliter differunt ab alterutris,
neque mortis passionem, neque cibi appetitum...plenitudini divinitatis
coexistere fas est..., homini vero haec applicanda sunt proprie, qui ex
anima constat et corpore—; Migne, p. 691 (Cav. 65): hominem causa
salutis hominum Verbo coaptavit (cvvjpev)—; Migne, p. 6844 (Cav.
27): 7d wev yap cGpua...éoravpotro, 7d dé Oeiov ris codias mvetua Kal
TOU gwuaros elow OinTaro Kal Tots ovpavios EmeBdreve Kal TacaY TepLEetxe
Tv yiv—; comp. Migne, 681 B (Cav. 29), p. 684 c (Cay. 28),
Cav. 55, p. 90=Migne, p. 689 B, Cav. 83, p. 99 ete.

2 Cav. 16, p. 72=Migne, p. 685 c: rod Adyou Te Kal Beod Tov
€avrod vady déiompemGs dvacrjocavros— 3; comp. Cay. 13, p. 71 and
Migne, 6778 (Cav. 25): Joh. 2, 19; Migne, p. 681 c (Cav. 30)
and the preceding note.

3 Cay. 14, p. 71f.=Migne, p. 685 B: civ@povos dmodédexrar Ta
Pevordrw mvedmare did Tov olkodvra Oedv ev avT@ Sinvexas.

4 Migne, p. 677 c (Cav. 26), p. 677. (Cav. 21).

> Migne, p. 680c (Cav. 20).

6 Cay. 12, p. 69=Migne, 688 B: Oeds éx Oeod yevynbels 6 xplcas,
0 6€ xpioGels erixrntov etAnpev dperhv, éxxplrw vaovpyla Koounbels éx THs
TOU KaTotKodvTos év a’T@ Oedrnros, comp. note 3.

7 Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 77 and 78): deiferwn hominem; homo
deum ferens.

8 Migne, p. 677 B (Cav. 25): vads yap Kuplws 6 KaOapds kal
dxpavros ) xara Tov dvOpwrdy éore wepl Tov NOyor oKynvy}, évOa mpopayds

110 , NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

him also, however sharply he distinguished between
the Logos and the man in Christ, asserting the oneness
of the 1pdcwrror, the povabdixov mpoowror, in contrast
to the oneness of the natures which was taught by the
Arians'. He, too, spoke of the Logos (or of the pre-
existent son of God) as the image of God, and of Christ
as the image of the son of God or the image of the
archetype of the image of God?; he too—only to
mention one further line of thought common to him
and Nestorius—dealt with Melchisedek as a type of
Christ, in order to refute by means of Hebrews vii. 3
(arratwp, auntwp) the idea, that the Logos was born’.
The theological tradition followed by Nestorius can
thus be traced at least to EKustathius.

But it dates from a still earlier period. To prove
this, I will start by pointing to the fact that Nestorius
himself found in Leo’s letter views which agreed with

oknvicas @knoev 6 Oebs—; Migne, p. 684c (Cav. 28): mdoye pév
6 vess— 3; comp. p. 109 notes 1, 2 and 6.

1 Cavallera, 7, p. 67: wovadixdv 76 mpdowmov: ovK elroy povadiKny
rhv piow..., GAN elmov eva Kipiov "Inootv Xpiorov...€v TO duapbpw rdv
picew yrupifsuevov—; comp. Cav. 82, p. 98.

2 Migne, p. 677 cv (Cav. 21): ob yap eiwev 6 Iladdos (Rom.
8, 29) cuupbppous rod viod rot Beod, aAda oummdppous Tis elkdvos Tob
viod a’rod* ado pév Te Secxviwr Tov viov eivat, GAXo 5é Thy eixova adbrod*
6 pev yap vios...elkav éore Tod warpbs..., 6 O€ dvOpwios, dv épdpecer, cikwy
éort Too vioJ—}; comp. p. 693 (Cav. 70) and Cavallera 45? p. 85: 76
yoov THs Wuxhs dupa dddrwrov éxovTes mpds TO THs (vidryTos?) mpwrd-
rurov Kal THs elKkdvos udppwua mpooBrérovres Oofdfouev 7d THs eixdvos
dpxérurov, comp. Cav. 82, p. 98, where Baruch 3, 36-38 is quoted.

3 Cavallera, 3, p. 63.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 111

his own. Leo was not the author of these views;
he, too, followed a tradition which had come down to
him. A generation before Leo a very striking agree-
ment with Nestorius is seen in Pelagius, a native of
Britain'. He says about the Logos, quem ubique esse
non dubium est: descenderat ad formam servi non
localiter, sed dignanter”, and even the following sentence
is found in him: omnes simul hominem adorent cum
verbo assumptum®. It is not wholly improbable that
these formulas of Pelagius were influenced by the
Antiochian theology, for it is possible that Pelagius
visited the East before he came to Rome. But even
if Pelagius be left out of consideration (although his
utterances may be wholly explained as having their
origin in western tradition),—even then a near relation-
ship between the western and the Antiochian tradition
can easily be proved. As early as in Tertullian’s time,
one spoke in the West of two natures of Christ which
were not mixed but joined (conjunctae = cvvnupévar*)
and Tertullian himself says®: adeo salva est utriusque

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-encyklopddie xxtv, 1913, p. 312, 30 ff.

2 On Eph. 4, 9, Migne, ser. lat. 30, 1846, p. 832 a, comp.
Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland, p. 365.

3 On Phil. 2, 10, Migne, p. 8464, Zimmer, l.c. p. 378. Comp.
other striking quotations in my Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmen-
geschichte, 4th edition, p. 287 f.

4 Comp. Tertullian adv. Praxeam 27: Videmus duplicem statum,
non confusum, sed conjunctum, in una persona, deum et hominem
Jesum.

5 adv. Praxeam l. ¢c.

112 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

proprietas substantiae, ut et spiritus (i.e. the Logos')
res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes, et caro passiones
suas functa sit, denique et mortua. The phrases “homo
Christi,’ “asswmptus homo” or “susceptus homo” are very
often found in the west even as late as in Augustine’.
The idea of the coexistence of the forma servi and the
forma dei, which we found in Nestorius, belonged here
to the tradition®, and in Novatian (about 250) we find
the idea, returning even in the 8th century in the
Adoptianism of Spain, that by the son of God by
nature the son of man also, whom he joined to himself
and who was not son of God by nature, was made
a son of God‘, and as late as in the 4th century
Ambrosius says about the words on the cross: “ My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” clamavit
homo divinitatis separatione moriturus®.

1 Comp. about Eustathius above p. 109 notes 1 and 3 and about
other western theologians Loofs, Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Homou-
sianer v. Sardica (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1909, p. 35).

2 Comp. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, 1, 358 ff.;
Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, p. 284 ff. Augustine often
used the term dominicus homo (comp. O. Scheel, Die Anschawung
Augustins von Christi Person und Werk, 1901, p. 228) and only as
late as Retract 19, 8 (Migne, ser. lat. 32, 616) blamed this expression.

3 Comp. J. B. Lightfoot’s Commentary, 127-135; H. Reuter,
Augustinische Studien, 1887, p. 198 ff.; O. Scheel, l.c. p. 189 ff.;
Leo, ep. ad Flavianum, ch. 3.

4 Novatian de trin. 24 (al. 19), Migne, ser. lat. 3, 933 c:

‘legitimus dei filius, qui ex ipso deo est,...dum sanctum istud (comp.
Luke 1, 35) asswmit, sibi filiwm hominis annectit et...filium illum det

facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit.
5 in Luc. 10, 127, Migne, ser. lat. 15, 18364.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 1138

There was, it is true, a difference between western
and Antiochian thinking, for, while all Antiochians,
Nestorius included, even when starting with the Logos
endeavoured to make intelligible the oneness of the
person of Christ, that is, to use Melanchthon’s! words,
to explain the modus incarnationts, the Westerners did
not trouble themselves with this difficulty. The oneness
of the person of the Jesus of history—“ persona ” being
here more than the mrpécw7oyv of the Antiochians and
nearer to what we understand by “ person ”—was with
the western theologians an indisputable fact, which was
presupposed in all their christological explanations.
About this one person they asserted, that it was the
filius dei incarnatus and also that two distinct substances
or natures were clearly to be seen in it® The specu- |
lative question as to how this was to be conceived did
not occupy the western church; the doctrine of two
natures meant here nothing more than that only after-
wards one discerned in this one person the two natures ;
and the presupposition of the oneness of the person of
him who was God and man together was here regarded
without any efforts of thought as so certain, that
because of this oneness of the person the phrases deus
natus est and crucifiwus est were used in early times®.

1 Loci of 1521, Corpus Ref. 21, 85.

2 Comp. above p. 111, note 4.

3 Tertullian, de carne Christi 5; Damasus, epigramma 91, ed.
M. Ihm, p. 94; Reuter, Augustinische Studien, p. 205 ff.

L. N. 8

‘114 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

The western theologians were, however, aware of the
fact, that such phrases were only inaccurate and in-
complete statements, for only by virtue of the addition
“ex humana substantia” did these phrases suit the
undivided Christ, while as regards the Logos they were
nothing more than forms of speech}.

Nevertheless, in spite of this difference there can,

in my opinion, be no doubt, that there must have been
a kinship between the western and the Antiochian ~

tradition. Adolf Harnack, it is true, does not admit
this. He says that the Antiochians were going the
same way as Paul of Samosata?, and he even thinks
that the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia about
the relation of the Logos and the man in Christ, and about
Christ’s natures, will, feelings and so on were, here and
there, literally identical with those of Paul of Samosata*.
The christology of Paul of Samosata, as to itself, 1s con-
sidered by him to be an advanced form of the christology
of Hermas and the so-called Monarchians of Rome‘.
Between Tertullian’s doctrine of two natures in Christ,
however, and the doctrine of the Monarchians he sees
no connection; he looks upon Tertullian’s doctrine, in
so far as it goes farther than Irenaeus on whose works
Tertullian was dependent, as formulated by Tertullian

1 Tertullian adv. Praxeam 29 and Reuter |. c.—Even Leo, ep.
ad Flavianum 5, says: filius dei crucifizus dicitur, cum haec non in
divinitate ipsa..., sed in naturae humanae sit infirmitate perpessus.

2 Dogmengeschichte 111, 324; 114, 339.

3 j.c. 2, 599; 14, 732. 4 71, 594; 14, 727.

a a

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE EES

himself and influenced by Gnostic ideas}. Besides in
Harnack it is not clear whether these relations are to
be regarded as based on mere resemblance or on real
kinship, for he remarks even as regards the connection
between Eustathius and the later Antiochians, that in
consequence of the many crossings it would be very
difficult to prove a direct dependence and influence.
He thinks it must suffice to group together what is
homogeneous’. I cannot share this sceptical attitude—
in the course of my research into the history of dogma
I have become increasingly more convinced of the
influence of tradition—, and the very kinships assumed
here by my honoured teacher and friend do not seem
to me to be the right ones*. In my opinion the
supposition that there was a kinship in tradition
between the Antiochian and the western christology
seems to be unavoidable because of the close resem-
blance of the views and the formulas. But what sort

1 71, 474; 1, 606. 2 m4, 341 note 1.

3 I do not deny that there was a kinship in tradition between
Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, and the later Antiochians.
The famous passages of Paul in the Doctrina patrum (ed. Diekamp,
p. 303 1v—304 viz), about the genuineness of which I am more
doubtful than Harnack (Dogmengeschichte 1*, 724 note 1), especially
the most interesting of them (l. c. p. 304 viz: 7a xparovmeva TH AOyw
rhs picews x.T.d.), could have been written by Theodore of Mopsuestia
or by Nestorius. But Paul of Samosata was not the creator of the
formulas he used; he stood in the same line of tradition as Eustathius,
Theodore and Nestorius, although he modified these traditions—

perhaps, however (comp. Harnack rf, 724 note 2), not in such a
degree, as his opponents try to make us believe.

8—2

116 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

of kinship was it? To answer this question I must
enlarge upon two other points, te. the doctrine ‘of
Marcellus of Ancyra and the so-called Symbolum
Sardicense.

Marcellus of Ancyra, whose huge work is preserved
only in fragments!, does not seem to have occupied
himself with the christological question as such, as far
as we can judge. It was the Arian Logos-doctrine
that he opposed; the Arian doctrine as to the Jesus
of history was not made an object of discussion by him.
Hence it may be explained, that in some places he says :
the Logos took on flesh, and in others: God joined a
man to his Logos. This latter phrase, it is true, 1s less
often used than the other, but nevertheless it does occur”.
And it is not this phrase alone which shows resemblance
_to Nestorius’ doctrine ; it is also said by Marcellus, that
the man joined to the Logos became son of God by adop-
tion (@écec)*, and we even find in him the idea, that this

1 Collected after Rettberg (Marcelliana, Gottingen, 1794) by
KE. Klostermann (Eusebius Werke tv, Gegen Marcell., etc., Leipzig,
1906), pp. 185-215. Comp. F. Loofs, Die Trinititslehre Marcells v.
Ancyra (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1902, pp. 764-781).

2 Klostermann, 74, p. 200, 5f.: ovx els rov dvOpwrov by avei-
Anpev admwoBrérwv rodrTd (John 10, 30) dyow, adrN els rov éx Tod warpds
mpoedOovTa Adyov—; 1, p. 185, 10: dre riv ayarnbdvta im adbrod
&vOpwrov TH Eavtod ouwvjpev A6yw—; comp. 107, p. 208, 15; 108,
p. 208, 22; 117, p. 210, 29.

- § Klostermann, 41, p. 192, 1 ff.: kal dia Todro ov~ vidv Oeot
éaurov dvoudger, addQ...vldv dvOpwrov..., wa dia THs ToLadTHS Opmoroylas
Oéces Tov GvOpwrov dia Tiv mpds adtrov Kowwviay viov Oeot yevérOar
TApPATKEVaTy.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 17

man joined to the Logos', after having been exalted,
became avvOpovos to Oe@?. Still more of kinship in
tradition is to be seen between Marcellus and Nestorius
when in Marcellus Christ appears as the beginner of
a new humanity. It was for this purpose, that the
Logos took on the man, viz. that he might assist the
man who has been deprived by the devil of his position
of glory, in gaining victory over the latter*. He, the
man joined to the Logos, is the tpwtoroxos Tis Kawwis
Ktigews and the mpwtodtoxos éx vexpav*, the patos
Kavos avOpwros, eis Ov TA TaVTA avaxeparalwcac bar
€BovAHOn o Oeos®, he is the image of the Logos and
thus of the invisible God®, and, having become «vptos
and @eos’, he received thereby the firstfruits of the

1 Klostermann, 42, p. 192, 8 and 109, p. 208, 25: 6 tw Adyvw
évwhels dvOpwrros. 2 Klostermann, 110, p. 208, 30.

3 1. ec. 108, p. 208, 21 ff.: iva brd Tod diaBddov drarnbévra mpbrepov
Tov GvOpwirov abrdv avis vikfjoa Tov SidBorov mapackevdcyn: dia TolTO
dveihnpev tov dvOpwrov, va dkodovOws Tovrov dmapxnv THs ékovolas
TmapahaBew mrapacKkevacn.

41, ¢. 2, p. 185, 24: od udvoy Tis Kawis xricews mpwréroKov abrov
6 amécronos elvan pyoly, ddd Kal rpwrdroKov Ex veKpav.

S-1. 6.6, 9.196, 18:1,

8 ]. c. 94, p. 205, 12 ff.: elkav éorw rod dopdrov Oeod: viv dndovdrt,
ornvika thy Kar’ elxdva Tod Pod yevouévny dvelknpe cdpxa...el yap dad
THs eikdvos TavTns Tov TOU BEeod Nbyov HEWOAnuEV yvvar, miorevew dHel-
Aouev adT@ TO Ady Sid Ths elkdvos NéyorTi: yw Kal 6 warhp &v écpev.
ore yap Tov éyov otre Tov marépa Tod Néyou xwpls Tis elxdvos Ta’rns
yraval riva duvarév.

7 1. e. 111, p. 209, 1 f.: rdv dvOpwaev roy mpdrepov dia THY mapaKxohy
THs Baowsias éxrerTwxdra Kipiov Kal Oeov yevérOar BouNduevos 6 Beds
TavTny THY olKovoulay elpydoaro.

118 NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

position of power which is given back to man!. Finally
it is deserving of notice, that Marcellus, when applying
the terms vids, kvpios and Xpuoros only to the Christ
of history, is, as regards the two latter terms, in perfect
harmony with Nestorius, and that further, as regards the
first, Nestorius, too, applied the term after the incarna-
tion only to the undivided historical person of Christ?.
I have, therefore, no doubt that there existed a kinship
in tradition between Marcellus and Nestorius®. I do
not mean that Nestorius had necessarily read Marcellus’
work. It is probable—if a conjecture as to the text
is right—that he once named* him, opposing his idea,
that the Logos, when going at the end of all things to
be reabsorbed into the Father, would put off his flesh ;
but he could have learned this idea through hearsay.
Marcellus and Nestorius could have a kinship in

1 See p. 117, note 3, comp. above p. 89 at note 8.

2 See above p. 86.

3 In consideration of the fact that a common kinship of two
persons to a third one proves them to be akin to one another, I notice
that we find in Marcellus and Eustathius the same understanding
of the dpuoovovos as excluding persons (irocrdces) in the Trinity, the
same use of mveiua as applied to the Logos, the same quotation of
Baruch, 3, 36-38 (comp. above p. 110, note 2, and Marcellus, fragm.
70, p. 202, 20 ff.) and the same striking explanation of Prov. 8, 22
(comp. Eustathius, fragm. Cavallera, 33, p. 77: dpxy ydp Ta Trav
KadNicTrev THs Sikacocvyys ddGy yeyévynTar Nuiv O &vOpwros TOU Xpicrod,
rots Kpelrroo. Tay émitndeumdtrwv mpocdywv huds x.7T.r. and Marcell,
fragm. 9-15, Klostermann, p. 186f.).

4 Nestoriana, p. 298, 23, where Marcellus is substituted for
Manichaeus.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 119

tradition even if Nestorius did not know Marcellus’
work. Besides it is perhaps remarkable, that Nestorius
who so zealously anathematises all heretics never put
Marcellus on such a black list.

Likewise it seems to me without doubt, that there
is a kinship in tradition between Nestorius and the
so-called Symbolum Sardicense’. In the beginning of
this creed Ursacius and Valens, “the Arians,” as they
are called, are blamed because they pretended to be
Christians, and nevertheless dared to say, that the
“ Logos or Spirit” was wounded, slain, died and rose
again®. Correspondingly the creed declares at the
end, that not the Spimt in Christ (ze. the Logos)
suffered, adr’ 0 avOpwrros, dv évedvcato, dv avéXaBev
éx Mapias tis mwapOévov, tov avOpwroy tov trabeiv
dvvapevov®, and it asserts as to the resurrection that
not o Beds év TO avOpeTw adr oO avOpwtos év TO
Ge avéotn*. This conformity of views between the
Sardicense and Nestorius is really not surprising, for
the Sardicense is of western origin and we have already
seen that since Tertullian’s time the western tradition
included a doctrine of the two natures of Christ, which
resembled that of Nestorius®.

1 I quote the revised text I gave in Das Glaubensbekenntnis der

Homousianer von Sardica (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1909)

pp. 7-11.

2 3, p. 7, 7-10. 311, p. 10, 53-55. 4 ib. p. 10, 55 f.

5 Comp. the references to western theologians I gave in the notes
of Das Glawbensbekenntnis etc. (p. 11 ff.).

120 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

Moreover, as regards the relation between Nestorius
and the Sardicense another point, too, is to be discussed.
I must go a roundabout way to show this. First,
attention must be drawn to the fact that the Sardicense
had a particular kinship with Marcellus’. Like Mar-
cellus, the Sardicense declares that the term 7pwrtotoxos,
if used of Christ, is applied to him as to the new
creature, 2.e. as to the beginner of the new humanity”.
Like Marcellus, it understands the eternity of the Logos,
not as Origen did as an eternal existence beside God
the Father, but as the eternal existence in him up
to the time when he issued from God’. Like Marcellus,
the Sardicense contends that God and his Logos have
one wmdatacts*. Like Marcellus, it identifies the Acyos
aaapxos and the Spirit of God®; and like Marcellus, it
assumes, that from the historical Christ the Spirit of
God proceeded and went over to the disciples®. Like

1 This, too, is proved in the notes mentioned in the preceding
note.

2 Comp. above p. 117, note 4, and Sardicense, 7, p. 9: éuodoyoipev
povoyerA Kal mpwréroxov: adAd movoyer TOV Adyov, bs wdvToTE WY Kal
gor év T@ waTpi’ Td mpwrdroKos 6é TH avOpwrw Siadéper (i.e. refers to
the man) kal 77 Kaw7 Krice, Ort Kal MpwroroKos Ex veKpHy.

3 Comp. the preceding note.

4 Sardicense, 4, p. 7: ‘els 5€ tavrnv rapernpapuev...tricrw Kal
duoncyltav: play elvat vrécracwy,...T0 marpos Kai Tov viod Kal Tov aylov
TVEVLATOS.

.5 Sardicense, 11, p. 10: xal rofro (viz. 7d mvedua) miorevouer
weupbev> Kal TodTO ov mérovOev, GX’ 6 GvOpwros, bv EvedvoaTo.

6 This cannot be proved by a single quotation; but evidence is
given in my papers Die Trinitdtslehre Marcells (p. 771 ff.) and Das

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 121

Marcellus, therefore, the Sardicense teaches an economic-
trinitarian monotheism, 1.e. the Trinity does not appear
here as eternal, but as produced in the course of the
economy, 1.e. of God’s dispensation. God was according
to Marcellus originally an absolute wovds, then the Logos
issued from him as his dpactixn évépyera without
being separated from him dvvaye, and then from the
incarnate Logos the Spirit proceeded, the Spirit of God,
who was in him and went over to the Christian com-
munity. These views were without doubt shared by
the Sardicense, although they are not all definitely ex-
pressed. It did not even blame another idea of Marcellus
which is closely connected with these views, viz. that
just as the divine wovas has been extended, the Spirit
and the Logos will finally be reabsorbed in God in
order that God may be all in all; for this idea, in spite
of all opposition to it on the part of Marcellus’ enemies,
is passed over in silence by the Sardicense, and, as I
have shown elsewhere’, this silence was not merely
the result of church-policy, ae. it cannot be explained
by the fact, that Marcellus, in contradiction to the
majority of the eastern bishops but in harmony with
the western, held to the Nicene creed. The real reason
was, that the idea of Marcellus here in question corre-
sponded to a tradition found in Tertullian and Novatian

Glaubensbekenntnis etc. (p. 31 ff.). Also regarding the statements
which follow above I must refer to these papers.
1 In the papers mentioned note 6, p. 120.

122 NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

and found in the western church as late as the middle
of the 4th century’.

Now it is theoretically possible that Marcellus was
influenced by the western tradition existing long before
his time, although it is very improbable that western
tradition could have made such an impression on an
eastern theologian. Actually, however, this is quite

1 Comp. my paper Das Glaubensbekenntnis etc., p. 31-34. Only
four quotations may be given here: Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, ch. 4 ed.
Kroymann, p. 232, 16 ff.: cum autem subjecta erunt illi omnia absque
€0, qui et subjecit omnia, tunc et ipse subjicietur illi, qui ei subjecit
omnia, ut sit deus omnia in omnibus (1 Kor. 15, 28). videmus igitur
non obesse monarchiae [filium], etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo
statu est apud filium et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.—
Novatian, de trin. 3, Migne, ser. lat. 3, 952 a: subjectis enim ei quast
filio omnibus rebus a patre etc. (1 Kor. 15, 28), totam divinitatis
auctoritatem rursus patri remittit; unus deus ostenditur verus et
aeternus pater, a quo solo haec vis divinitatis emissa et jam in filium
tradita et directa rursum per substantiae communionem ad patrem
revolvitur.—Victorinus Afer (+ circ. 363), adv. Arianos, 1,39, Migne,
ser. lat. 8, p. 1070 p: evacuatis enim omnibus, requiescit activa
potentia (i.e. the Logos) et erit in ipso deo secundum quod est esse
et secundum quod est quiescere, et in aliis autem spiritualiter secundum
suam et potentiam et substantiam, et hoc est ‘‘ut sit deus omnia in
omnibus,’’ non enim omnia in unoquoque, sed deo existente in omnibus,
et ideo omnia erit deus, quod omnia erunt deo plena.—Zeno of Verona
(about 370), after having quoted 1 Kor. 15, 24 ff. on the one side and
Luke 1, 32 (regni ejus non erit finis) and Sap. 3, 4 ff. (regnabit dominus
eorum in perpetuum) on the other: quid hoc est? st in perpetuum
regnat, Paulus erravit; si traditurus est regnum, isti mentiuntur.
absit! nullus hic error, diversitas nulla est. Paulus enim de hominis
assumpti temporali locutus est regno..., hi autem ad princi-
palem vim retulerunt, in cujus perpetuitate commanens in aeternum,
a patre filius regnum nec accepit aliquando, nec posuit ; semper enim
cum ipso regnavit.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 123

impossible ; for it is admitted by all that the origin of the
ideas of Marcellus can be sufficiently explained by an
earlier eastern theological tradition. This latter is seen
in Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, about 185, although
it is in him influenced by the quite different views of
the apologists1. Before Irenaeus it is to be found in
the utterances of the presbyters of Asia Minor which
are quoted in several places by Irenaeus?. Even in
the beginning of the second century, about 110, we
meet ideas resembling the fundamental thoughts of
Marcellus in Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who, as is shown
in the course of his last journey through Asia Minor and
by his relation to the Gospel of John, must have had
intercourse with Asia Minor before becoming bishop.
Like Marcellus, Ignatius assumes that the Logos of
God is not begotten?; like Marcellus and differing
from the apologists, he applies the term Son of God
only to the historical and exalted Christ*; like Marcellus
he nevertheless speaks about an issuing of the Logos
from God®; like Marcellus, he says that God, when the
Logos issued from him, broke his silence®, 2.e. opened

1 Comp. my Dogmengeschichte, 4th edition, § 21, 2d, p. 143 f.

2 1, ¢. § 15, 6, p. 103. |

3 ad Ephes. 7, 2: eis larpéds éorw, capxixds Te Kai mvevpmarixés,
yevenros (as capkixds) Kal dyévynros (as mvevpariKds) K.T.r.

4 Comp. the preceding note and ad Smyrn. 1, 1: vidv @e0d xara
OéA\nua Kal dUvvapuv Oeod yeyevynuévory...éx mapOévov.

5 ad Magn. 7, 2: “Inootv Xpurriv, tov ad’ évds warpds mpoedOdvra.

6 Marcellus, fragm. 103, Klostermann, p. 207, 25: mpd yap
Ths Snmovpylas amdons jnovxia Tis Hv, ws elkds, dvTos ev TE Hew Tod

124 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

the economy, 2.e. his dispensation which was intended
for the world’s salvation; like Marcellus, he speaks
about the oixovouia eis Tov Kawvov avOpwrror, 1.e. about
the dispensation of God which gave in Christ a new
beginning to the humanity*; like Marcellus, he probably
identified the Acoyos and the Spirit of God as regards
the time before the Spirit went over from the historical
Christ to his disciples*. For him as for Marcellus the
historical Christ is at once God revealed in flesh and
the new and perfect man*. Finally, it is not impro-
bable that Ignatius, too, supposed that the Logos and
the Spirit would at last be reabsorbed in God*.

Hence dependence of Marcellus on the western

tradition is excluded from possibility. There is also ~

another argument against it, viz. that even in Tertullian
the western tradition shows itself imfluenced by the

éyou-—; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 8, 2: "Inoot Xpicrod rod viod av’rod,
ds é€otw abrov Néyos ard ovyfs mpoehOwv.

1 As regards Marcellus comp. above p. 117, notes 4 and 5, and
Klostermann, Index s.v. olxovoula; Ignatius, ad Ephes. 20, 1: oixo-
voula els Tov Kawdv dvOpwrov *Incotvy Xpicrdv and ad Smyrn. 4, 2:
"Inood Xpicrod...rod redelov avOpwov yevouévov.

2 In Ignatius, ad Philad. inscriptio, the mvedua adyov is 7d aytov
Xpicrod mvevua, while, according to ad Smyrn. 3, 3, Christ was on
earth mvevpatriuds jvwpuévos TH warpi; and ad Rom. 7, 2, Ignatius
apparently had in mind John 7, 38 f.

3 Comp. above note 1 and ad Ephes. 19, 3: Oc00 dvOpwrivws
pavepoupmévou els katvorynra aidiov wis.

' 474 seems to me not improbable, that in Ignatius ad Magnes.
7,2is to beread: émi éva’Inoovv Xpiorév, rov ad’ évds ratpods mpoehOdvra
(comp. p. 123, note 5) kal eis va dvra (comp. John 1, 18) kal eds eva
xwpjncovra (instead of ywpjcavra).

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 125

views of the apologists! who, to take only one
example, applied the term “Son of God” to the pre-
existent Logos and did not comprehend that the
historical Christ was even as the Son of God the
beginner of a new humanity”.

The western tradition, therefore, must be traced
back to the very pre-apologetic views which gave
birth to the tradition followed by Marcellus, And
this connection is at least recognisable for us in one
place ; for we find that Tertullian was strongly influenced
by Irenaeus and Melito, both natives of Asia Minor, and
by the Montanistic movement which arose in the same
country.

This is the line of tradition in which Nestorius, too,
has his place. That has been proved by what I have
said about his relation to Eustathius, Marcellus, and
the Sardicense.

The old tradition shows in him, it is true, in many
respects an altered face. Origen had strengthened the
influence of the apologists ; Nestorius, too, shows many
signs of this influence. But the old tradition seems to have

1 The influence of the apologists on Tertullian needs not to be
proved; about the older traditions, which are clearly seen in him,
comp. W. Macholz, Spuren binitarischer Denkweise im Abendlande,
dissert. theol. Halensis, 1902, pp. 35-57.

2 There are in Tertullian remains of the pre-apologetic under-
standing of the term ‘‘Son of God,’’ e.g. adv. Praxeam, 26, ed.
Kroymann, p. 277, 26: dicens (viz. the angel in Luke 1, 35) autem
‘* Spiritus dei’’ portionem totius (viz. substantiae divinae) intelligi
voluit, quae cessura erat in filit nomen.

126 NESTORIUS’ PLACE IN THE HISTORY

had more influence on him than on the famous earlier
teachers of his school. The tendency of his christology
to start from the historical Christ and to apply not
only the terms Xpicros and xvpios but also the term
Son of God only to the historical Lord! probably did
not come only from his own endeavour to lay stress on
the oneness of the historical person of Christ, but must
have had a connection with the old tradition which had
come down to him. |

If all this is right Nestorius is justified in his
thinking in a higher degree than if he had been
shown to be orthodox in the sense of the later orthodoxy;
for then he is nearer to the oldest theological tradition
and nearer to the N.T. than this later orthodoxy itself.

Only two remarks are to be made in this respect.
We are accustomed to the orthodox trinitarian and
christological formulas as they appear when detached
from the whole to which they originally belonged.
Hence we do not see that in these formulas a mythology,
actually contradicting the monotheistic belief, had
gained the victory.

This is, however, shown just by the contrast between
Nestorius and the Cyrillian orthodoxy. The council of
553 sanctioned, as we saw”, the statement of the Scythian

monks tov éotavp@pévoy capki...civar &va THs ayias

1 Comp. Nestoriana, Index, s.v. Xpicrds, xdpios, vids and above,

p. 86.
2 Above p. 105 at note 7.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 127

tpiados. What weight this sanction had is illustrated
by the remark of the same council, that the Holy
Trinity did not receive any addition when “one of
the Trinity” became man!. This remark is purposely
directed against Nestorius, who himself deals with the
reproach, that his doctrine led to the result, that the
man in Christ was added to the Trinity as the fourth
person”, He did not give a satisfactory answer to this
reproach®. Nor did Marcellus master the difficulty.
For him the problem did not lie in the fact, that on
account of the flesh, he had to regard the historical and
exalted Christ as another beside God, in spite of his
dynamic unity with God, for this is undoubtedly the
view held by the N.T. also; but he confesses, that he
did not know, what would become of the manhood
(flesh) of Christ, when the Logos should finally be
reabsorbed in the unity of God, so that God might be
all in all*. There was no difficulty here for the old
tradition; for when finally all Christians are made
perfect and wholly filled with the Spirit of God, then
naturally the beginner of the new humanity would no
longer have a peculiar position to himself, although

1 Anath. 5: oltre yap mpocOnkny mpocwmou 7) Urocrdcews éredétaro
h ayla rpids kai capxwévros Tov évds Tis aylas Tpiddos, Oeov Abyouv.

2 Liber Heracl. B. 33=N. 19; B. 34=N. 20; B. 388=N. 23.

3 B. 360=N. 231 (comp. note 4): Le prosépon de Vhumanité n’est
pas odieux @ la trinité; what is said B. 33 f.=N. 20 suffices just
as little.

4 Klostermann, 121, p. 211.

128 NESTORIUS PLACE IN THE HISTORY

God with his Logos would not cease to dwell in him;
for God will be all in all}.

But I shall not discuss this longer nor enter into
the question as to whether the old tradition followed by
Nestorius can be accepted by us, and if so, how%. The
main thing for me is to contrast this tradition with the
trinitarian doctrine of the council of 553. Here the
Holy Trinity has become something through the in-
carnation which it was not before®. As regards the
time before, it 1s to some extent a conceivable idea,
that the three b7ocracets, although they are regarded
as in such a way independent of each other that one
alone can become man, nevertheless together make the
one God; for all three trrocrace:s are of the same
spiritual substance. But after the incarnation, the
Trinity is the triad of the merely spiritual Father, of
the crucified (z.e. the Logos united with human flesh,
soul and intellect), and of the Spimit*+” This under-
standing of the Trinity is represented by the terrible

1 Comp. the closing sentences of Irenaeus adv. haer. (5. 36, 2):
Etenim unus filius, qui voluntatem patris perfecit, et unum genus
humanum, in quo perficiuntur mysteria dei, quem (read quae) con-
cupiscunt angeli videre et non praevalent investigare sapientiam dei,
per quam plasma ejus conformatum et concorporatum filio perficitur ;
ut progenies ejus primogenitus (= mpwrébroxos; hence not ‘‘ primogenita’’),
Verbum, descendat in facturam, hoc est in plasma, et capiatur ab eo, et
factura iterum capiat Verbum et ascendat ad eum, supergrediens angelos,
et fiet secundum imaginem et similitudinem det.

2 Comp. the closing remarks in my Oberlin-lectures ‘‘ What is the
truth about Jesus Christ ?’’ (New York, 1913) pp. 237-241.

3 Cp. ibid. p. 174. 4 Cp. ibid. p. 175 note.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 129

mediaeval pictures of the Trinity which show an old
man holding up the Crucifix by the arms of the cross
with a dove hovering above. That is certainly not
the one God of the Christian belief! Nestorius, like
Augustine, was convinced that the opera trinitatis sunt
indivisat, And only if we go back to the old economic-
trinitarian tradition, will the trinitarian doctrine be
compatible with monotheism.

The same is to be said about the doctrine of the
incarnation. Cyril thought he had treated the idea of in-
carnation in a serious manner. He, too, however, did not
assume that the Logos was confined by the body of Jesus
during his earthly life ; the Logos remained, according to
him, pervading the world, and this by his Godhead alone”.
As regards the time after the ascension, the same must
be assumed. Then also in Cyril something hetero-
geneous is added to the Trinity by the manhood of
Christ and, what is still more noticeable, the idea of
mearnation appears as not sharply distinguished
from that of imspiration. Mythological and popular
thought may imagine an incarnation perfectly distin-
guished from inspiration, but the theology of the
ancient church did not dare to do so. Luther was
the first, who endeavoured to think out such a doctrine

1 Nestoriana, p. 225, 13 ff.; Liber Heracl. B. 326=N. 208.

2 ep. 17 (synodica) Migne, ser. graeca, 77, p. 112 0: évwOels yap
6 TOU Beot Adyos capKi Kad’ Urbcracwv, eds nev eo THY drwy, Seordfer 5é
TOU TavrTds.

130 NESTORIUS’ PLACE

of incarnation, and he did tins by means of his idea of
Christ’s bodily ubiquity, which began with the first
moment of his conception and remained even during the
time when Christ’s corpse lay in the grave. However,
by following this line of thought, we arrive at mere
absurdities’. And if thus the endeavour to think out
the idea, that the Logos assumed the manhood in his
vrootacts, leads us to absurdities, then we must go
further back than the first beginnings of this doctrine,
which are made by nothing other than the introduction
of popular mythological views into the Christian
theology. Only by returning to the lines of the
Antiochian theology, along which in Germany eg.
I. A. Dorner and M. Kaehler went and R. Seeberg
and others now are going’, can we arrive at an under-
standing of the Johannine “o Adyos cap éyéveto,”
which is in harmony with the N.T. and avoids theological
and rational impossibilities.

1 Comp. Hauck’s Real-Encyklopddie x, 258, 41-260, 21.
2 Comp. the lectures mentioned above (p. 128, note 2) pp. 228-35.

INDEX OF NAMES

Acacius (of Beroea) 52
Aétius 2

Aleuin 107

Ambrosius 112
Apollinaris 8, 65, 66, 67
Aristolaus 55

Aristotle 71

Arius 2, 67

Arthebas 55
Athanasius 8, 70, 88
Augustine 9, 112, 129
Auscha’né 11

Bedjan 11, 12, 13

Bethune-Baker 11, 12, 13, 14, 19,
22, 26, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76,
78, 81, 82, 101, 107

Brooks 9

Candidian 47, 49

Cassian 43

Celestine (of Rome) 31, 42, 43,
44, 58, 64

Chairemon 33

Chrysoretes 55, 56

Chrysostomus 7, 23

Cook, Stanley A. 6

Cosmas 3, 4

Cyril 4, 5, 12, 15, 17, 25, 29,
31, 33-56, 58, 62, 63, 64, 69-
74, 77, 78, 79, 95-100, 102,
103, 104, 105, 129

Dalmatius 28, 56
Diodor (of Tarsus)
Dioscorus 98
Dorner 130
Droseria 55
Duval 9

103, 108

Ebed Jesu 3, 4, 5, 6
Kpiphanius 55

Eudoxius 67

Eunomius 2, 67

Eusebius (of Dorylaeum) 32
Eustathius 108-110, 115, 125
Eutyches 25, 56, 97

Evagrius 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 57, 58

Fendt 7
Flavian 2, 22, 24, 25, 59, 75, 95

Gregorius Nazianzenus 85
Gregorius Thaumaturgos 8

Harnack 114, 115
Haidacher 7
Hefele 37, 48

Heraclides 13, 14
Hieronymus 9, 10
Hume 71

Ibas 99, 104, 105

Ignatius 123, 124

Irenaeus (of Lyons) 114, 123,
125

Irenaeus (of Tyrus) 5

John of Antioch 30, 31, 32, 44,
47, 54-59, 62, 63

John (count) 49, 51, 52

Julius (of Rome) 8

Justinian 104

Kahler 92, 130
Kampffmeyer 6
Katterfeld 39

Lausus 56

132

Lebégue 39

Leo (of Rome) 2, 22, 24, 25, 59,
64, 75, 95, 96-98, 100-102,
110, 111

Locke 71

Luther 20, 21, 61, 129

Marcella 55, 56

Marcellus (of Ancyra) 2, 116-
119, 120, 121-125, 127

Maris 99

Marius Mercator 4, 7, 34, 38

Maximian 51, 53, 55

Melanchthon 113

Melito 125

Memnon 46-49, 51

Nan 32: 43.16, 33,.24

Nestorius 1-9, 11-54, 56-65, 67-
89, 90, 91-96, 99-101, 106-108,
110, 111, 113, 116-120, 125-
129

Novatian 112, 121, 122

Olympias 55

Paul of Samosata 20, 32, 114,
115

Paulus (praepositus) 55

Pelagius 9, 10, 42, 111

Peltan 39

Philoxenus 24, 25

Photinus 20, 29

INDEX OF NAMES

Priscillian 10, 11
Pulcheria 42, 52, 55, 56, 65

Romanus 55
Sardicense symbolum 116, 119-
121

Schepss (sic! not Schepps) 11
Scholasticus 52, 55

Seeberg, R. 130

Severus 8, 96

Simon Bar Tabbahé 24
Socrates 20, 61

Sophronius 14

Souter 10

Tertullian 111, 114, 119, 121,
122, 124, 125

Theodore of Mopsuestia 65, 77,
103, 104, 108, 114

Theodoret 54, 56, 59, 98, 99, 105

Theodosius II (emperor) 3, 19,
27, 35-37, 45, 47-51, 53, 57, 58

Ursacius 119

Valens 119

_ Victor 33

Victorinus Afer 122

Zeno (emperor) 101
Zeno (of Verona) 122
Zimmer 9, 10

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

A

1647 Loofs F = Nest:
.L& history of cl

| pat laa 1957 |
Lot o/b) APRZ8I961 |

24 + bef T. Dram.

1949

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

10 ELMSLEY PLACE
TORONTO 5, CANADA,

2+7/-