Nestorius and his Teaching
a fresh examination of the evidence
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE
C. F. CLAY, Manager.
Hontron: FETTER LANE, E.C.
©laggofo: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
Hetpjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
#eto gork: G. P PUTNAM'S SONS.
fcombag anD Calcutta : MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
[All Rights resei'ved.'\
Nestorius and his Teaching
a fresh examination of the evidence
by
J. F. BETHUNE-BAKER, B.D.
With special reference to the newly recovered
Apology of Nestorius
{The Bazaar of Heradides)
Cambridge :
at the University Press
1908
2A
©ambrrtrge :
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
i
NESTORIO
ILLI VERITATIS DIVINAE INDAGATOKT
SIVE VICTORI SEV PARVM FELICI
VIRO PROPOSITI PRAE CETEROS TENACI
MONACHO EPISCOPO EXVLI
NEC NON ECCLESIAE NESTORIANAE
RERVM SACRARVM OLIM FAVTRICI INSIGNI
SERAS IN VLTIMOS NOMINIS CHRISTI PRAECONI
ANTIQVA PRO FIDE QVAM DIV INFANDA PERPESSAI
NON SINE DEO SVPERSTITI
OMNIVM CHRISTIANORVM PRECIBVS OPIBVS RESTITVENDAE
STVDIA HAEC QVALIACVMQVE
VTINAM SANAE DOCTRINAE ET IPSA ADFVTVRA
NOTIS IGNOTVS
DEDICO
638574
Donee spiro, sano dogmati adsum. (Nestorius apud Marium Mercatorem.)
6 debs 82 ovBefiiav <-x et irpbs 7)(ias <pv<nK7]v axkciv^ ws oi tQ>v aXpiaeuv
KTiaral 8£\ovffiv...d \x.i\ tis fxipos ai/rov /cat b/xoovviovs ijfxas to" de$ roKfi'qaei
X^-yeip' kolI oi)K old Situs dv^erat tis etratuiv toijtov debv eyvuKibs, dn-iScbj/
(is rbv fiiov rbv rjfitrepov, 4p oVois <pvp6fie6a /ca/colj.
(Clem. Al. Strom, n xvi)
O God, Who didst put it into the heart of Ezra the priest to bring
again Thy people from their captivity, teaching them Thy Holy Scripture
and renewing among them Thy godly discipline ; mercifully grant that we
who desire to restore this church and repair the desolations thereof, may be
blessed in our endeavour, and strengthened for the work Thou wouldest
have done ; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Memorial of the English Mission to the Assyrian Christians ,
composed by Archbishop Benson.)
PREFACE
THE Following pages are an attempt to reexamine th<
teaching of Nestorius, and the conclusion to which
they lead is that Nestorius was not "Nestorian".
I am aware that to some, for whose point of view I have
a deep respect, a question which has been the subject of
consideration and decision by a General Council of the
Church is a chose jugee, and any attempt to reopen it i^ idle
and on the part of a Churchman even disloyal. I have
given further on some of the reasons why I think that this
general demurrer does not apply to the case of Nestorius.
But I desire at once to express my conviction, apart from
any ecclesiastical theories, that the doctrinal decisions of a
General Council of the Church, properly conducted, are
infinitely more likely to embody, as nearly as it can be
embodied in words, a true interpretation of the facts of
human life — to give us a true theory of the relation between
God and man — than are the reflexions of any individual
thinker or school of theologians. That the General Council
which condemned the teaching of Nestorius erred in matters
of faith might be a conclusion to which we should be very
unwilling to come. But we are not called upon to enter on
this question. Councils come into existence to express the
communis sctisus fidelium y which sums up a vast range of
religious experience ; and their decisions need to be confirmed
by subsequent acceptance by the Church as a whole. This
" consensus of the faithful " has ratified the doctrinal decisions
*5
viii Preface
of the Council of Ephesus, and the question immediately
before us is only, Did Nestorius mean what the Council
thought he meant?
To others such a question as is considered here is one of
merely antiquarian interest and may be left to "scholars"
who are condemned by unfortunate circumstances, or their
own misguided choice of a vocation, to trivial details which
cannot claim attention from any one who is in touch with
the realities of life. The great doctrinal controversies of the
past are described as "dead battlefields" and the deeper the
oblivion in which they are buried the better.
This is a view with which no student of doctrine can
sympathise. There is no past controversy in which he does
not detect tendencies of thought which have their repre-
sentatives in his own times. He could easily label opinions
within and without the various Christian Societies with the
names of famous heresies, which had their champions — their
parties, their "schools" — of old as they have today. Always
in the past he sees the communis sensus fidelium^ the great
Catholic Church of Christ in the larger sense of the title,
refusing to accept definitions of the Faith which would ignore
the religious experience of the past in favour of a temporary
phase of opinion and a narrower range of experience; and
though he sees it also sometimes refusing adequate recognition
of new experience, as long as it is new and limited to the few,
he sees the new interpretations winning their way into the
body of Christian doctrine and forming part of the floating
stream of the river of truth, though the Creeds themselves
remain inviolate, just because the new interpretations, so far
as they are true to the real facts of life, are found to conflict
with none of the definitions of the Church. And just because
he is always surrounded by heretics in mind who are Christians
at heart, he finds the study of the history of the developement
of Christian doctrine so full of living interest, and at the same
time so instructive, so necessary for any one who would form
Preface \ \
a tru mon of the movements of thought and tendencies
of his own tin
It disturbs him less to so- in Rbfonite or a Gnostic, an
.\rian or an ApolKnarian, ring perhaps i prominent
pulpit in a Christian Church In the twentieth century, as an
accredited teacher of the Christian faith, when he realizes how
i partial and onesided and positively erroneous views of
Christian doctrine have been preached in the past, in defiance
of the definitions of the Church; and he is emboldened to
believe that the primitive faith in Jesus SJ St once both God
and man, the revealer of God and the Saviour of men, will
survive all attempts to interpret Him exclusively in the terms
of this or that age, this or that partial and limited mode
of thought or expression.
The primitive faith in Jesus as at once both God and
man: — it was just this faith for which Nestorius contended,
tlu- faith which he found expressed in the Gospels and
believed to have been always the faith of the Church, faith
in a Person who was both God and man, very God incarnate.
For this faith he felt himself called to do battle against new
teaching which seemed to him to be a denial of the doctrine
of the Incarnation, inasmuch as it seemed to do away with
the real manhood of the Lord. In days like our own, when
a merely naturalistic conception of the Person of Jesus is
gaining ground in unexpected quarters, however much for
the moment it may be disguised, even for some of its chief
exponents, by a religious haze which is the product of the old
belief, it would not have been the manhood of the Saviour of
men that Nestorius would have been constrained to defend. He
would have entered the lists against all who denied the reality
either of His Godhead or of His manhood. The champion of
a kenotic theory that eliminates the Divine consciousness of
the incarnate Son of God ; the emotional preacher who con-
fuses the Divine and the human and gets rid of God or of
man (we cannot tell which) ; the mystic whose doctrine of the
x Preface
immanence of God threatens to crowd out the recognition of
His transcendence, imperatively demanded as it is by the
deepest religious instincts and experience of the Saint of every
age ; the thinker of any school who thinks that the facts of
human life and history "don't matter", or that the only
criterion of truth is its working value at the moment : — all
these, no less than those who frankly denied the Godhead of
Jesus, would have found in Nestorius a formidable opponent.
For the question which underlies the whole of the controversy
is just the question of the relation between God and man,
between Godhead and manhood. Is there, or is there not,
a real distinction between them? Crude assertions of the
humanity of God or of the Divinity of man would have
seemed to the school of thinkers to whom Nestorius was
opposed as ill-considered and unmeaning as to Nestorius him-
self. But the Christian philosophy of life, metaphysical and
ethical, is summed up in the doctrine of the Incarnation;
and for Christians their theory of the Person of Jesus is their
statement of the relations between God and man, and in
every age their theory must be consistent with the actual facts
of His life in the world as well as with their own individual
religious experience and the religious experience of Christians
of earlier times. The authors of our first three Gospels, in
giving, or at all events professing to give, a simple narrative
of incident and teaching, and reporting the impression which
Jesus made on the first generations of disciples, shew us a
Person with a double consciousness ; to whom the Divine com-
munion He enjoyed was as real as the human life He lived.
It is a Person who has a unique sense of His own relation
to God in the midst of all the activities of His life on earth,
that they exhibit to us : — if technical terms must be used,
a Person whose uniqueness is quite as much a metaphysical
as an ethical or a psychological problem l . And later reporters
1 I am aware that many modern scholars would not allow these state-
ments to pass unchallenged. I can only say here that they are made after
Preface xi
of their own experience^ and interpreters of the early record,
when they came to formulate their theory of this Person, in
the terms of contemporary philosophical conceptions (only
the terms, not the theory, being new), spoke of Him as having
two "substances", two "natures", the one "Divine", the other
"human". That Godhead and manhood were two distinct
realities no one doubted : but no more did any one know
how two distinct realities could be combined in a single
Person. And almost all the "heresies" as to the Person of
our Lord are connected with different attempts to solve or
to evade this problem. In circles of Christians in which the
conception of the transcendence of God in the strictest
monotheistic (" Deistic") sense was dominant, either the God-
head of Jesus was conceived as a mere power not really His own,
or the manhood was regarded as a delusion : He was thought
of as a man, miraculously endowed with Divine attributes,
or else either as a Divine Person who only seemed to have
a human form and live a human life, or as a Spirit who
simply used the person of a man as a medium through whom
to make His revelation. And later on Arius and Apollinarius
were at one in the conception of Him as a kind of demi-God,
careful study, to the best of my opportunities, of recent work on the
sources and historical character of the Gospels, and express my conviction
that no fresh investigations of this kind have in any way invalidated
the traditional belief of the Church that our Lord made claims on the
allegiance of His followers to Himself personally which are inconceivable
on the part of one who was not conscious of possessing authority and
power which were at once Divine and His own. No fresh knowledge
which results from the literary and historical criticism of the Gospels,
in my judgement, affects the evidence that the historical Jesus based His
teaching on Himself. The more reason we see to doubt the historical
accuracy of some of the narratives and some of the readings of incidents
given in our Gospels, the more irresistibly are we forced back upon
the old "apologetic" position as to the personal claims which our Lord
made as the only available explanation, the necessary presupposition, not
only of the beliefs about Him of St Paul and the author of the Fourth
Gospel, but also of the early history of the Christian Church as a whole.
xii Preface
either not truly Divine, or not really human. When all these
views had been decisively excluded from the Church, as in-
compatible with the plain facts of the Gospel history and
the experience and institutions of the Church, the problem
still remained. The faith of the Church demanded the
recognition of the full Godhead and the full manhood of her
Lord. But what was the nature of the union? where, so to
speak, was its centre to be found? In what sense was the
"one Christ" both God and man? Was it that the distinction
between Godhead and manhood was done away with, so that
the two became one? or was the one-ness to be sought else-
where, the two remaining still distinct? These were latent
questions which the controversy between Nestorius and Cyril
brought to the fore. The Church agreed upon a form of
sound words by way of answer, which had at least the merit of
recognizing all the facts that had to be explained. But the
questions are perennial. If there is still among us some
professedly Christian thought that practically annihilates the
manhood of our Lord, there is also much that tends to elimi-
nate His Godhead, and Christians of the twentieth century
who have the patience to review this ancient battlefield may
find themselves repaid 1 . Nestorius and Cyril are with us still:
though dead, their spirits yet speak. Only with one voice
they would cry out against "solutions" of the problem which,
professing to recognize the spiritual or religious "unique-
ness" of the Lord, reduce Him to the level of the first of
" Christian " saints, and therefore only push the problem
farther back. Nestorius at all events would have made short
work of "solutions" such as this — a Christian saint without
a Christ. And both of them would have repudiated any teach-
ing to the effect that man is "consubstantial" with God.
The only question that I have set myself to consider is the
1 The subject is in part incurably technical, but I would venture to
invite particular attention to the more general considerations which are set
out in the concluding chapter of this study.
Pre/ace Kill
question whether the teaching of Nestorius was "orthodox"
or not; but it is clear that in determining this question we
shall be implicitly passing judgement on the claims of in
schools of thought to rank as orthodox. The further question,
whether teaching may be Catholic or orthodox and yet un-
christian and untrue. 1 leave to others.
But the study of the Nestorian controversy brings before
us also another question which is of immediate moment. We
are able today to read the past history of the Church with less
prejudice than was possible in former times. We can see that
the "heretic" and the "schismatic" often had scant justice
done them, and that free enough play for differences of
temperament and individual and racial environment was not
allowed in the Church. And the question is forced upon us
whether any society of Christians has the right to perpetuate
divisions among Christians which had their origin in circum-
stances and conditions alien from those that prevail today.
The reunion of the separated Churches of Christendom is,
doubtless, for ecclesiastical statesmen a delicate problem, for
the solution of which the time is not yet ripe. To those who
have no sympathy with any Church, be they Christian at
heart or "enemies of the cross of Christ", the divisions of
Christendom are the strongest argument against cooperation
or belief. But to the moral consciousness of every Christian
they are an outrage. Mffxtpiarai 6 Xpurros: — it is Christ
Himself who is divided, Christ who is torn asunder in the
schisms of His Body.
With one of the members of this Body, one of these
separated Churches, commonly known as "Nestorian", the
Church of England, not of her own seeking, has been brought
into exceptionally close relations. A reconsideration of the
teaching of Nestorius and the circumstances in which he was
banished from the Church of his day may perhaps help to
determine the nature of those relations in the future.
xiv Preface
The main lines of the enquiry were laid down before
I was able to make any use of a new and as yet unpublished
source of information — the Syriac version (under the title of the
Bazaar of Heraclides) of an account of the whole controversy
written in Greek by Nestorius himself. This comprehensive
and interesting account fully confirms the conclusions to
which I had come from a fresh study of the documents which
are independent of it, while it is invaluable as a revelation
of the mind and character of Nestorius himself, and of the
highest importance in determining several of the historical
and doctrinal questions connected with the controversy, to
which, without its help, we could give no certain answer.
I have used it freely for this purpose.
The first public announcement of the discovery of the
Syriac MS containing this work was made by a German
scholar, Dr H. Goussen, in an incidental allusion in a book
which escaped general notice (Martyrius Sa/idona's Leben und
Werke, Leipzig, 1897). It was again referred to by another
German oriental scholar, Dr Braun, a few years later {Das
Buck der Synhados, Stuttgart, 1900); but students of the
history of doctrine seem to have remained unaware of the
discovery till Dr Loofs (Nestoriana, Halle, 1905) drew attention
to it and published a short note from Dr Goussen on the
contents of the MS. It is to Dr Loofs that I owe my own
first knowledge of the existence of the book.
From Dr Goussen I ascertained that the preparation of
an edition of the text with a French translation had been
entrusted to Father V. Ermoni of Paris, who in reply to my
enquiry informed me that he had been at work on the MS
some time but could not name a date at which his edition
would be ready for publication.
Meanwhile, however, I learnt from Mr O. H. Parry, the
head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the
Assyrian Christians at Urmi (to whom I am much indebted
for other information as well), that the members of the Mission
had long been acquainted with the book, and that several
Preface xv
copies of it had been made. Mi D. Jenks, I former member
of the Mission (1892 — 1899), was tin first to U am of the MS
and to procure a copy of it. A copy was also obtained by
Di Rendel Harris in 1899. (This copy is now, I understand,
at Harvard.) Mr Parry himself has had a copy by him for
the last seven years, and has made a translation of part of it.
All three recognized the importance of the discovery, but have
been prevented by other duties and engagements from making
any public use of the book or preparing an edition of it.
Mr Jenks, now a number of the House of the Sacred Mission,
who was the first to have a copy made, brought it back with
him to England in 1899 and has kindly placed his copy at
my disposal for use in this fresh examination of the teaching
of Nestorius.
A friend, who is an expert Syriac scholar, has been good
enough to make a translation of it for me, and it is his
translation which I have used whenever the book is referred
to or quoted. He has also supplied the very valuable
Appendix on the history of the use of the Syriac terms, about
the meaning of which there cannot, in future, be any doubt.
I cannot express too strongly my sense of gratitude to him
for the time and pains which he has bestowed on the work of
reading and translating the MS, the text and the language
of which are often obscure, and for all I have learnt from his
wide knowledge of early Syriac literature. So much of any
fresh interest that the subject may have is dependent on his
work that I should have wished his name to appear on the
title-page. But his standpoint in matters concerning the
Church and the history of Christian Doctrine is not the same
as mine. He would not treat the subject as a whole as I have
treated it, nor would he wish to associate himself with all the
inferences which I have drawn from the fresh evidence which
is now available. As, therefore, his share in the book is strictly
limited to the translation of the Bazaar of Heradides and the
Appendix on Syriac terms, and he has no responsibility for
xvi Preface
anything else that is contained in it, I can only make this
general acknowledgement of what is due to him here. The
choice of extracts too has been my own, though he allows me
to say that he thinks the selection fairly represents Nestorius's
presentation of his case. I must add on my own account
that my endeavour has been to make it as thoroughly re-
presentative as possible of Nestorius's whole position, and
that I believe I have quoted his most typical and hardest
sayings. I can indeed conceive that some readers of the
passages which are cited will find in them abundant justifi-
cation of the judgement which the Council of Ephesus passed
on Nestorius.
I regret that the circumstances which I have named
above (p. xiv) seem to preclude "us, for the present at all
events, from publishing the whole of the English translation,
and that we can only herald the complete edition of the
text which we hope will be given us as soon as possible by
Father Ermoni.
J. F. BETHUNE-BAKER
Cambridge
23 August 1907
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
Introduction i
CHAPTER II.
The sources of our knowledge of Nestorius and
his teaching 22
CHAPTER III.
The doctrines attributed to Nestorius and the
TERMS which hi USED 42
CHAPTER IV.
The title Theotokos 55
CHAPTER V.
A FAMOUS SAYING OF NESTORIUS 69
CHAPTER VI.
"TWO PERSONS" NOT THE TEACHING OF NESTORIUS . 82
CHAPTER VII.
The highpriesthood of Christ 101
xviii Contents
CHAPTER VIII.
PAGE
The ethical valuation of the doctrine of the
Person of Christ 121
CHAPTER IX.
The Eucharistic teaching of Nestorius . . .140
CHAPTER X.
Nestorius's statement of his own position posi-
tively AND IN RELATION TO CYRIL'S . . 148
CHAPTER XL
The phrase "hypostatic union" 171
CHAPTER XII.
The teaching of Nestorius in relation to the
teaching of Flavian and Leo . . . .189
CHAPTER XIII.
Conclusion 197
Appendix on the history of the Syriac terms
Ithuth&i Ithya, Kydnd, Parsopd, AND Qnoma . . 212
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Thkre are few more interesting figures on th<
ERRATA
p. 44 n. a line a for d€&popos read 0eo$opot
p. 58 n. a line 6 for protdtokos read prototdkos
p. 74 transpose lines 3 and 4
some measure of admiration and compassion. Such learning
and enthusiasm in the cause which he firmly believed to be
a life and death struggle for the doctrine of the Incarnation ;
so staunch a determination to accept no theory which seemed
to him to obscure the true humanity of the Lord of human
life, the Saviour — as he says — not of angels but of men ; such
a firm grip on the human appeal of manhood to men ; so eager
a desire to expound without fear or favour the teaching of
(iospels, Epistles, and Creeds, and to make the doctrine of the
Bible and the Church intelligible to men : — and yet such
a fate.
It is certainly an edifying picture which ecclesia
history has painted for us; and, if its colours had become
xviii Contents
CHAPTER VIII.
PAGE
The ethical valuation of the doctrine of the
Person of Christ .121
CHAPTER IX.
The Eucharistic teaching of Nestorius . . .140
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XIII.
Conclusion 197
Appendix on the history of the Syriac terms
fthutha, Ithyd, K'yana, Parsopd, AND Qnotnd . . 212
CHAPTKR I
INTRODUCTION
Iiikre are few more interesting figures on the great Cfl
of the history of Christian Doctrine than that of the learned,
eloquent, and austerely religious abbot of the monastery of
Euprepius outside the city of Antioch, called unexpectedly
to the see of Constantinople, like a segond Chrysostom ;
eagerly setting to work to make the Christian faith a reality
in the life of the capital of the Empire; suddenly charged
with heretical teaching and involved in a merciless doctrinal
controversy; deposed from his bishoprick, excommunicated,
deserted by friends who really shared his beliefs, banished to
a remote spot in the deserts of Egypt, dying in exile.
It is a figure that seizes our attention and wins at least
some measure of admiration and compassion. Such learning
and enthusiasm in the cause which he firmly believed to be
a life and death struggle for the doctrine of the Incarnation ;
so staunch a determination to accept no theory which seemed
to him to obscure the true humanity of the Lord of human
life, the Saviour — as he says — not of angels but of men ; such
a firm grip on the human appeal of manhood to men ; so eager
a desire to expound without fear or favour the teaching of
Gospels, Epistles, and Creeds, and to make the doctrine of the
Bible and the Church intelligible to men : — and yet such
a fate.
It is certainly an edifying picture which ecclesiastical
history has painted for us; and, if its colours had become
Nestorius and his teaching
somewhat dim through the lapse of time and we did not see
its details very clearly, we might well be loth to attempt to
touch it up or restore it in any way, lest we should only spoil
it. But, as a matter of fact, many of the details have really
become more clear to us than they were to most of those who
played their various parts in the drama, and some of them
seem to belong to another picture. They rouse the suspicion
that the artist of the traditional picture has exercised the
license, which all artists claim, to leave out some of the details
which do not compose well with their interpretation of the
subject before them, and to heighten or lower the tones in
order to produce the effect they want.
The tale of the controversy has been told so often and so
fully that there is little to add to the received account of the
various stages through which it passed or of the incidents
which took place. It is rather the inner history that needs
rewriting. Nearly all that we know has come down to us
through the medium of those who were hostile to Nestorius
at the time or concerned to maintain the ecclesiastical tradition
in later times, without any attempt to form an independent
judgement and usually without the means of doing so, had they
had the wish.
The external history, so far as it concerns us, can be very
briefly told. The questions of doctrine that arise must be
examined at greater length.
Nestorius when we first hear of him was a member of the
monastery of Euprepius near Antioch in priest's orders. Of
his earlier life we know nothing except that he was a native
of Germanicia, in the Euphrates district, within the patriarchate
of Antioch. To Antioch evidently he belonged by theological
lineage and point of view. By his zeal for careful biblical
exegesis, his insistence on the recognition of the full manhood
of our Lord, by his dread of any mode of thought or expression
which might obscure the reality of the human experiences
Introduction
of the historic Christ, by his desire to make tin- doctrine of
the Church intelligible to men'l minds, be ibewi bil kinship
to the leaders of the theological school for which Antioch was
famous. At Antioch where the disciples were first called
Christians, when the Gospel was first preached to Cent
which had been the centre from which the evangelization of
the Empire had begun, whkfa early in the second century
had had as its bishop the Ignatius who had insisted with such
passionate earnestness on the reality of the human nature and
experiences of Jesus, who had made his appeal above all else
to the actual facts of the Gospel history — at Antioch the
historical tradition had never been allowed to fade. Theosophy
never had a chance of success where the influence of Antioch
could reach. Paul of Samosata and Lucian and the Arians
who were an offshoot of his school, so far as they diverged
from the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead, were probably
led into heresy by their conviction that at all hazards they
must maintain the distinction between the human and the
1 >i\ine. They could admit no doctrine of the Deity of Christ
which would in any way obscure the fact that He lived upon
earth the life of men. They started from the one quite certain
fact that He lived as a man among men 1 . They reasoned
from the known to the unknown. They tried to find some
means of reconciling the traditional faith in the Godhead
of Jesus with their conviction that God was one, and they did
it in terms that seemed to endanger the traditional faith. The
definition of Nicaea prevailed and the Trinitarian conception
triumphed. The full Godhead of Jesus was recognized, and
the oneness of the Godhead in three modes of being. So far
the question had been theological, it was the definition of the
doctrine of God that had been at stake.
1 This, I think, is true of Arians, in spite of their Christology that
excluded a really human soul ; and though they thus made the historical
Person a demi-god.
I — 2
Nestor ins and his teaching
But the same interest in the recognition of the distinction
between man and God was seen again in the Christological
question which the theories of Apollinarius brought to the
fore. Again the theologians of Antioch shewed their native
bent. In the discussion of the problem of the relation between
the Godhead and the manhood in the Person of our Lord they
would tolerate no teaching that seemed to merge the one in
the other. Again they started from the manhood ; again they
laid stress on all the passages in Scripture which seemed to
emphasize the human consciousness of the Lord. At all
hazards they insisted on the recognition in His Person of
a genuine human element — by whatever term it was described,
in virtue of which a genuine human experience was possible.
They did not for a moment call in question, or fail to recognize,
the equally genuine Divine element, in virtue of which Divine
experience and power was His. They did not doubt that the
historical Jesus Christ was both God and man. They took
their stand on history, on the primitive record, on apostolic
testimony and interpretation.
Theological traditions such as these were the inheritance
of Nestorius. There is no reason to suppose that he intended
at any time to introduce new doctrines or to make innovations
of any kind. In an eloquent passage in his book he deplores
the attack that was made on Diodore and Theodore, who had
been held in the highest esteem as Fathers by all the Church,
until it was found that he was only teaching what they had
taught before. Basil and Gregory and Athanasius and Ambrose
must all, he declares, come under the same condemnation 1 .
And he joins himself with Athanasius and Eustathius and
numberless others who ' were deserted by those who were
'really orthodox' 2 . It is indeed as the champion of a great
1 Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 330 ff.
2 id. p. 1 50.
introduction
religious ami historical tradition that be figures'. And we
shall altogether misjudge him if we fail to realize his strong
:ous interest and his fervent pastoral spirit. It was as one
who had consecrated himself to the religious life, a monk of
unusual devotion, and an earnest preacher in the cathedral
church of the great city of Antioch, with its teeming masses of
men and women with souls to be saved from the temptations
of life in a great centre of the world's traffic, that he first won
fame. The ex tempore preacher whom men crowd to hear
\posed, no doubt, to subtle spiritual risks. He is liable,
moreover, to slips of the tongue and the peril of the " telling "
phrase that seldom tells the whole of the truth, but once
uttered cannot be recalled end is never forgiven by those at
whose views it is aimed. Nestorius was a master of the art
of speaking, as the art was taught and practised in his dfl
and the pulpit was the recognized medium of theological
instruction and discussion. The twentieth century, weary of
controversy, is disposed to claim for the pulpit a kind of treve
de Dieu ; but daily papers and magazines and journals of every
kind are at the disposal of the disputants. In the fifth century
the sermon afforded the chief, and certainly the readiest, way to
the public ear, and Nestorius used it with conspicuous ability
and great success. He had a fine voice, a keen dialectical
mind, and a vigorous personality: he could present his views
effectively, and his views were hard to refute: he could hit
hard, and he did so freely, with all the rhetorical tricks that met
the taste of the time — the taste which permitted a congregation
to punctuate a preacher's points by loud applause, so that on
one occasion, when Chrysostom had declaimed against the
custom, the congregation shewed their admiration of his
eloquent rebuke by a spontaneous outburst of the same
applause. His opponents brought the usual charges against
1 It was, of course, commonly the case that ''heretics " claimed the
support of tradition for their doctrines. Each case must be judged on
it> Hi' :
Nest or ins and his teaching
him. He was too fond of his own voice; he was proud of
his powers of speaking: he mistook fluency for learning and
rhetoric for argument 1 . These charges must be judged by the
standards of the time. The same kind of thing is said of men
today. Nestorius was at all events transparently honest and
all in earnest. His opponents used, according to the measure of
their powers, the same means to promote their own ideas ; and
they used many other means to which Nestorius never resorted.
His sermons at Antioch were no doubt taken down by
shorthand writers and collections of them published. The
" innumerable tracts on various subjects " which we are told 2 he
composed at Antioch were probably these sermons revised for
publication. Some of them must have reached the other great
cities of the Empire, and in securing him as bishop the Church
of Constantinople thought they had found another Chrysostom.
A graphic picture is given, in the Emperor's address to
Dalmatius recorded by Nestorius, of the difficulties which
were experienced in finding a bishop who would be acceptable 3 .
1 Socrates //. E. vii 32 professes to give an impartial judgement. He
has read his writings and repudiates the view that he held the doctrines
either of Paul of Samosata or of Photinus (popularly understood to be that
the Lord was a mere man) : he says, however, that he was naturally fluent and
puffed up by his own eloquence and anxious for applause, but unwilling to
study the ancient teachers and ill-informed and ignorant, though he thought
himself well educated, and so he made a "bug-bear " of the term Theotokos
which abler men than himself had freely used in the past. Socrates also
(id. vii 29), on the evidence of his first utterance at Constantinople, speaks
of him as superficial, impetuous, and vainglorious.
2 Vincent of Lerinum, who was contemporary with the Council of
Ephesus, (Comm. i 11) speaks of his daily discourses on the Divine Scrip-
tures in public ; and Gennadius (de viris illustrilnis liii) writing fifty years
later, says 'he composed innumerable tracts on various subjects in which
with subtle malice he distilled the poison of his heresy — which betrayed
itself afterwards, though for the time his high moral character hid it '.
3 ' The Emperor said to him [sc. Dalmatius] : I find no evil in this man
[i.e. Nestorius], nor any cause deserving of deposition. I testify to thee
and to all men that I am innocent. For I have no love for this man
Introduction 7
Not a breath of suspicion of unorthodox teaching had tou<
his fame, though discussions had already taken place at Antioch
through any hunun inclination that I should act thus and be criticised and
condemned as one who withstands God and arrogates to himself the rights
of the priests. Never did I insist upon his ordination that punishment and
vengeance should be exacted (of me) because of his election, but through
the concurrence of you all I of necessity introduced this man, though he
was much beloved in Ids own country and among his own people. You
win :!h etllM "f this and not I. Thee thyself, Dalinatius, I begged to
undertake this office, ami I besought thee with many words not to refuse
the ministry of God. But thou didst refuse, and didst beg of me in turn
Dg: "compel me not for I am an ignorant man." And another also of
the monks, ■ man who was thought to l>c somewhat and was well esteemed
for his religiousness, did I entreat, and he also refused as not knowing how
to conduct this ministry because he was unlearned. Then you said :
"Constantinople requires a bishop who for his words and his conduct shall
be agreeable to all, who shall be a teacher in the church and a mouth to
every one in all things." Hut when you refused for these reasons, did I do
aught by my own authority ? Did I not again beg of you to choose one of
this character? Did I not implore of the clergy of Constantinople to
choose one who was fitting ? Did I not speak these same things to the
bishops, saying : " It is yours to choose and to make a bishop " ? And you
also I implored in like manner. Did I not leave the matter in your hands
all this time, being patient in order that you should choose quietly, lest
through haste some mistake should be made as to him who should be
chosen ? But did you choose and I not receive your choice ? Dost thou
wish me to say something against you ? Shall I speak of their violence
and bribery and presents, and their promises and oaths, and how they
sought to turn the whole affair into a sale. Which of these men did you
wish to be bishop ? But I pass on : which choice did you wish should be
made ? Was it to be thyself, or that other of whom I spoke, or yet another?
For some chose one, some another ; not according to fitness did they choose,
but rather those that were unsuitable. Every one recommended his own
choice and spoke ill of him whom others chose, bringing damaging charges
against him. You could not agree upon one man ; but whom the people
agreed upon you would not accept. I read before you what the people said
of each one that was selected. What then ought I to have done that I did
not do? You, the monks, did not agree with the clergy: the clergy were
not of one mind : the bishops were divided : and the people in like manner
disagreed. Each was contending for a different man. Yet not even so did I
assume to myself the authority, but I left the choice to you. But when you
8 Nestorius mid his teaching
as to the propriety of the term which became the battle-cry of
his opponents, and its use had already been denounced by
Theodore, the accepted representative of the best theological
thought of Antioch.
It was, indeed, as an impetuous opponent of heresy of
every kind that he first impressed himself on the people of
Constantinople. 'Give me' he said on his reception by the
Emperor: 'Give me, Emperor, the world free from heretics,
'and I will give thee heaven in return : help me to destroy the
'heretics and I will help thee to destroy the Persians!' Finding
that the Arians still had a chapel in which they met, he at once
began to pull it down. They themselves set fire to it, and
burnt down with it many of the adjacent buildings. The odium
aroused by this conflagration was turned on to Nestorius, and
within a week of his consecration as bishop the nickname of
"Incendiary" or "Firebrand" was invented for him. It seems
unjust that, because the Arians set fire to their own church
and destroyed the property of their neighbours, Nestorius
should be called a firebrand. It was an omen of the future.
But the energy with which he combated the laxity of life as
well as the errors of thought which were rife in his diocese
naturally made him enemies as well as friends, and many were
ready to take advantage of any opening for attack that he gave.
His reception of the Western bishops exiled on the charge of
Pelagian heresy, when they came to Constantinople, and the
were all at a loss you came to me and deputed me to choose whom
I would. And even then I scarcely consented, though you all begged of
me. Now I considered that it was not right to appoint any one from here,
lest he should have to contend against enmity and opposition, for every
one hated, and was hated by, the others, as though each were covetous of
the office ; so I sought to find a foreigner who should be unknown to those
here and should not know them, one who should be a clear speaker and of
good morals. And I was told that Nestorius of Antioch was such a one.
Him I sent for and took, thereby causing sorrow to his whole city, and I
brought him hither for your advantage — since this I held to be of more
importance than that of the others. But when he was appointed this was
not your estimate of him' (Bazaar of Heme lides pp. 279 — 281).
Introduction
letters whi( h he wrote to the bishop of Rome asking for
information about them, as a bishop to a brother bishop,
alienated at once the sympathy of the chief ecclesiastic of the
w it Roma locu 1 bet decisions ought to have been
received without question. And Rome WW Already affronted
by the -rowing power of the upstart see of the Nova Roma
of the East and me canon of me Council which had placed
it on a level with the great and ancient apostolic sees. Official
udice was reinforced by personal displeasure. When the
controversy broke out, the representative of the West was in
me mood to think and to believe the worst that his oppon
could say of the bishop of Constantinople \ his discomfiture
would be a personal satisfaction as well as an official triumph
tor the bishop of Rome. Nor, if he ever got into trouble,
could he hope for an unbiassed judgement from the leader
of the Church of Alexandria. A certain rivalry had existed
from old time between the sees of Antioch and Alexandria,
and the theological schools connected with them. The mystic
tendency prevailed at Alexandria, the practical and historical
at Antioch ; and these different tendencies shewed themselves
in different methods of study and different ways of expounding
Scripture and presenting doctrine. At the same time, though
the Church of Alexandria had her own battles to fight with
the Church of Rome, and was not averse on occasion from
soliciting and accepting the support of Constantinople, she
really shared to the full the prejudice of Rome against the new
Eastern see. She would gladly have played in relation to other
Churches in the East the dominant role that Rome aspired
to play in the whole of Christendom ; and she had at this time
a bishop who, if he had few equals in theological insight and
learning, was surpassed by none in official arrogance and un-
scrupulous use of means to compass his ends. To satisfy
a personal animosity, Theophilus, Cyril's uncle and predecessor
as bishop of Alexandria, had fomented the scandalous attack
on Chrysostom which resulted in his deposition from the
bishoprick of Constantinople. Cyril had worked at Alexandria
io Nestorius and his teaching
in close association with Theophilus, and the fierce and
domineering spirit of his uncle lived in him. It was only
after a tumultuous contest that he was enthroned as bishop,
and his episcopate was inaugurated by deeds of violence and
unsparing use of the great powers which the patriarch of
Alexandria could put in motion. He was urged not to per-
petuate a private feud under the pretext of piety, but he could
scarcely be induced to atone for the great wrong that had been
done to Chrysostom, and to place his name on the diptychs of
his Church, though all the rest of Christendom had made such
reparation as it could, and only on these terms could communion
with Rome and the West be reestablished. Was it likely that
a successor of Chrysostom, both at Antioch and at Con-
stantinople, would meet with fair treatment at the hands of
a bishop of Alexandria of Cyril's type ? " History repeats
^itself." A painful family likeness can be traced in all contro-
versies about religion : we see in them all the same zeal for the
truth as each side understands it, the same inability in all the
disputants to conceive the possibility that they may be mistaken,
the same mixture of the highest with the lower aims and
motives. And in many ways Cyril's treatment of Nestorius
recalls the attack of Theophilus on Chrysostom. Without
in the first instance addressing enquiries or protests to
Nestorius himself, he circulated reports of the erroneous
teaching of the bishop of Constantinople, and by letters to
the Emperor's sister and other ladies and officials of the
court — and handsome presents such as are customary in the
East, whether they be regarded as bribes or not — had won
over to his side many of the most influential of the Emperor's
advisers. The bribery then and later (for whatever Cyril's
apologists may say, no one who reads the letter of Cyril's
archdeacon and chancellor to the patriarch, who was appointed
in place of Nestorius after the council *, can doubt that it was
1 The letter of Epiphanius to Maximianus preserved in the Synodico?i
adv. trag. Iren. ch. 203 (Mansi Concilia torn, v p. 987 and Theodoret Opp.
Migne P. G. lxxxiv. 826).
Introduction i i
bribery) was on so extensive a scale that the archdeacon
declares the expenditure had reduced the clergy and Church
of Alexandria to poverty. Cyril, moreover, had sent to
capital a large body of Egyptian bishops and monks, who
appeared as a kind of guard set over against Nestorius to
u iron a him, so that Nestorius could say that they had
actually seized his church. 'I,' he says, addressing Cyril
(Bazaar of Htraelides p. 106), 'who was patient with
*was to be scared and chased out ; and thou, being bishop of
'Alexandria, didst take possession of the Church of Constanti-
nople, a thing that no bishop in any city would put up with.'
There is of course no intellectual discipline which is more
exacting than the discipline which makes it possible to enter
into another person's point of view, whose antecedents and
training and environment, moral or intellectual or theological,
widely different from one's own. Even to-day members
of one school of thought are seldom able, assuming that they
have the will, to be quite fair to opponents ; and in the times
we are considering the will and the power were rarer than they
are today. Partizanship is an infirmity even of noble minds.
It so easily disguises itself as loyalty to tested truth and a great
religious tradition. We need not blame Cyril and his school
too harshly if we recognize that something of the lower nature
entered into their treatment of the questions at issue, and that
they were not free from the desire to seize an opportunity
of humiliating a rival school of theological thought and a
chance of crushing the bishop of a see, which from the mere
accident of its being the see of the new capital, the seat of
government, was threatening to usurp the position of their own
ancient Church of apostolical foundation, with its glorious
literary and theological heritage from the past. We need
not blame them too severely: — but we shall fail altogether
to understand the controversy if we do not clearly recognize
the facts and allow them their full weight.
1 2 Nestorius and his teaching
And yet again, though speech can be a veritable sword
of God, sharper than any two-edged sword of man, laying bare
the secrets of the mind and heart, it too often also does the
Devil's work. A phrase may sum up the experience of a life,
the loyalties of a people, the aspirations and eternal hopes of
men. It may serve to make ideals real, to give stability to the
elusive visions of a larger life, to guard a truth once won from
the loss and change which all things human suffer. But
a formula may become a mere party-cry, the rejection of
which is treated as proof of blasphemy — political or social
or religious.
Every society of men who are banded together for common
aims must define their beliefs, must have a Creed, acceptance
of which is one of the conditions — indeed the very reason — of
membership : and from time to time new terms to express the
aims and beliefs of the Society may be devised. The Church
has never been exempt from this experience j and as each new
term has been fashioned there has always been a stage in
which the Church has been divided as to its real meaning and
its correspondence with the old faith and the main lines of
primitive and patristic interpretation. If the term which was
new, or newly brought into prominence, and proposed as a test
of a sound belief, was really only a summary expression of the
genuine convictions of Churchmen, it was accepted on its
merits as such by the Church at large after due discussion ;
and many who had suspected it at first acquiesced in its use.
Such a term was homoousios, "consubstantial", round which
the Arian controversy had been fought. The term itself was
not new : its Latin equivalent had been in use in the West for
a century at least, and before the time of Arius and Athanasius
it had been the subject of discussion between the bishops of
Alexandria and of Rome, and the former had admitted that,
though he could not find the word in Scripture, the sense of it
as expounded by his brother bishop he found and believed.
But the term could easily be used in a sense that was not
Introduction
scriptural, ami it took fifty years to convince the I
that DO other word would suttu id<- the Arian theories
and to safeguard the reality of tlu- ( iodhead of the Son.
Another such tern was tlu- title «>t the Virgin M.iry which
Nestorius feared and Cyril championed. The term Thtot,
Mother of God", was free no doubt from the philosophical
refinement! and ambiguities that made komooumx
objectionable to some of tlu- learned as it was unintelligible
to the many : but it, too, could easily be understood in
which seemed to violate the plain and obvious meaning
Scripture and to be inconsistent with the ancient faith of the
Church.
Yet though the two terms have so much in common,
neither of them being a scriptural or primitive term, yd each
expressing the scriptural and primitive doctrine of the Cod!
of the Son, there is one great difference between them.
•:oousios never was, and never could be, a popular term :
it bears upon it the mark of the school ; it is the philosopi
mintage ; and though it was not actually coined to define what
men would fain have left indefinite, it was imposed on the
rank and file by a "superior" act, in order to keep them in
orthodox paths. It belongs to the province of technical
theology, and it had to live down the prejudice which always
attaches to learned and technical terms: opposition to it was
sure of popular sympathy. On the other hand Theotokos
belongs to the language of devotion 1 . There is an emotional
and personal ring about it, which Jwmoousios could never
have : it makes its appeal to the heart, and popular sentiment
was outraged when she who gave birth to the Lord was denied
the title that expressed the distinctive glory of her motherhood.
Piety would in this case have been pledged to the phrase that
1 Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, a strong champion of the term, in a
sermon preached at Constantinople expressed his regret that he was
compelled to speak in public of things which ought to be honoured only in
the silence of faith. See infra p. 56 note.
14 Nes tortus and his teaching
summed up the unreflecting religious feeling of the Church,
even if exact theologians had cause to shrink from its use. It
expressed in a single word the reverence that Christians felt
for her who stood in the closest of human relations to the Son
of God, the Saviour of men. Objections to it were merely
technical.
The use of the term may have denoted a growth in the
tendency to exalt unduly one who was only a woman, because
she gave birth to One who was more than Man. How should
it not be so, when no one denies her meed of reverence to the
mother of one who is great among mere men ? It was an age
in which the tendency, present in the Church from early days,
to pay extravagant honour to martyrs was assuming even less
defensible forms, that would have been repugnant perhaps
to primitive Christian feeling; though it may well be argued
that the spirit which canonizes great doctors of the Church
is the same as the spirit that in the age of the persecutions
admitted as Saints those only who bore witness by death to
the Faith. Indications are not wanting that this natural
human tendency, which has its origin in the noblest of human
instincts, and some of its fruits among the things that "enrich
the blood of the world ", needed restraint in the ages succeeding
the last great persecution. But there are very few signs that
this aspect of the question had much influence with Nestorius
and his school. They saw in the term a danger that struck
far deeper into the Christian faith, as delivered once for all to
the saints, a danger affecting the Person of the Lord Himself.
That His Mother should be given a title that was quasi-divine
mattered little. But the danger that under cover of such
a title an unhistorical conception of the facts of the Gospel
should grow up, and a false doctrine of the relations between
the human and the Divine be encouraged, — this was a subtle
danger that needed to be exposed. So Nestorius was forced
into the position of one who brings technical objections against
a popular term.
Introduction 1 5
1 Athanasius no doubt rightly belongs the Credit of having
|een clearly from the outset the real BgDlficaUce Of Ariamsm,
and the need of a resolute stand against it, at I time when
understood tin- issues and most were prepared to accept
a compromise which would have allowed the Arian teaching
to go on unchecked. By his undaunted defence of the term
homoousios and his persistent refusal to recognize the Arians
as Christians he saved the Christian doctrine of God.
And Cyril is commonly credited with similar insight. With
no less clearness than Athanasius, he is said to have grasped
the real point of the controversy from its very beginning. Had
he yielded to the arguments alleged against the title Theotokos
the true doctrine of the Incarnation would have been lost. He
well deserved the name of a second Athanasius which his
admirers bestowed on him. He too was the true conservative,
and in defending the term he was defending the deepest
religious instincts and convictions of the people against a
merely rationalistic mode of thought : the Christian con-
sciousness of all ages sides with Cyril against Nestorius. This
view undoubtedly has strong support in the later history of the
Church. For my own part I cannot doubt that popular piety,
and the phrases and forms in which it clothes itself, are the
truest tests of the genuine spirit of religion ; they sum up the
real religious experience of ordinary men and women. But
the popular phrase more often than not corresponds to a cry
of the heart, in an hour of need or a moment of rapture, that
ignores a wider range of feeling and thought : and it needs
to be balanced by other terms that express equally genuine
experiences. It is in adjusting this balance that "technical"
theology has its province ; in reflecting on religious experience
on the largest scale and securing, so far as language allows, an
interpretation that shall do justice to all the facts that have
to be included. Nearly all "heresies" have arisen from over-
valuation of a single aspect of the facts to be explained. If it be
true that pectus facit thcologum, and that no one can interpret
1 6 Nestorius and his teaching
religious feeling aright unless his own heart has been touched
and he has some religious knowledge of his own, it is none
the less true that something other than ordinary religious
experience enters into and fashions the formulas of theologians.
We have in them the product of reflexion, and sometimes the
appeal which they make to the mind deprives them of all
religious value for any but trained theologians, and the few
who can make their somewhat repellent language really their
own. There is a restraint about theological terms that may
chill rather than guide and quicken devotion.
Such a word as Theotokos corresponds to the warmth of
St Thomas's cry " My Lord and my God ! " It might seem
that, though it expressed only a half-truth, it might have been
allowed to pass. But Nestorius found in it a technical flaw ;
and, challenged on technical grounds, Cyril at once took up its
defence and claimed not only high ecclesiastical authority for
its use but theological correctness for the term itself, as an
expression which must be admitted by all who were sound in
the Faith.
Let me quote Nestorius's own words as to the state of
things which stirred him to action, in his first letter to Celestine,
bishop of Rome.
'We too', he writes 1 , 'find here (in Constantinople) no
'little corruption of orthodox doctrine.... It is no slight com-
'plaint, but one akin to the festering disease of Apollinarius
'and Arius. For of the union of the Lord and man in the
' Incarnation they make a mixture, which results in a blending
' and confusion of both. There are even some of our clergymen,
1 We have only the Latin translation of his letter. Loofs Nestoriana
pp. 166 — 168. I have endeavoured to give here and elsewhere the exact
sense, though not always what is commonly called a "literal" translation.
And I have not marked omissions of words which add nothing to the sense.
But where terms or turns of expression have technical importance they are
added in a bracket.
Introduction
'some of then merely ignorant, but others with conscious
•heretical intent, who openly blaspheme God the Word con-
1 substantial with the Father, representing Him as having
4 received His first origin from the Virgin Mother of Christ
'and as having been built up along with His temple (sc. the
4 body) and buried with His flesh. And they say that His
1 flesh did not remain Beth after the resurrection, but became
4 of the nature of the Godhead. So they make the origin of
4 the Godhead of the Only-begotten the same as the origin of
'the flesh which was conjoined with It, and they make It die
with the flesh; and in speaking of the "deification" of the
4 flesh and its transition to Godhead they rob both flesh and
'Godhead of their real nature.
4 But this is not all. They dare to treat tin Virgin Mother
4 of Christ as in some kind of way divine, like God. I memo,
4 they do not shrink from calling her Mother of God, although
4 the holy fathers of Nicaea, who are beyond all praise, said
4 nothing more of the holy Virgin than 44 our Lord Jesus Christ
4 was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary".
• And I need not mention the Scriptures— everywhere by the
4 mouth of angels and apostles they proclaim the Virgin the
4 Mother of 44 Christ", not of 44 God the Word".
* If however anyone justifies this title Mother of God
4 because of the conjunction with God the Word of the man-
4 hood that was born, and not because of the mother, then I
4 say that this title is not suitable for her, for a real mother
4 must be of the same substance as that which is born of her :
'vet the application of the term to her is tolerable on one
'ground only, viz. that the temple of God the Word which is
'inseparable from Him was derived from her — not that she
' herself was the mother of God the Word. For no one gives
' birth to one who is in existence before herself.'
In a second letter he uses similar expressions', saying that
1 Ep. II ad CatUstinum. Loofs op. cit. p. 171.
1 8 Nestorius and his teaching
the men he has in view imagine a kind of amalgamation of
Godhead and manhood and attribute bodily characteristics to
the Godhead of the Only-begotten, and imagine some trans-
formation of the Divine into the corporeal, confusing the
Divine and the human natures which are worshipped together
in the one Person of the Only-begotten because of their com-
plete conjunction, though they remain each of them unchanged
and intact. The framers of the Creed, however, were careful
to use the word " Christ ", which signifies both natures, in
declaring Him consubstantial with the Godhead of the Father.
The manhood was born afterwards of the holy Virgin and
because of its conjunction with the Godhead is worshipped at
the same time by angels and men.
And he gives substantially the same account in his Apology
saying that he did not begin the opposition to Apollinarianism,
either in Constantinople or in the East. It began before he
was born, and at Antioch he had taught to the same effect and
no one had found fault with him ; and it was as peacemaker
that he first intervened at Constantinople. Soon after he
came there he was asked to decide a question which was
causing dissension, and he acted just in the spirit which
Athanasius shewed at the Council of Alexandria in 361.
1 For a number of people who were discussing this matter
* came with one accord to the Bishop's house requiring to have
' their dispute settled and to be brought to agreement. Some,
' on the one hand, called those who spoke of Blessed Mary as
' " Mother of God " Manichaeans, while those, on the other
' hand, who called Blessed Mary " Mother of man " the others
' called [Paulites or Photinians]. But when I questioned them,
'the one party did not deny the manhood, nor the other the
'Godhead. But they made confession of both in the same
'manner, differing only as to the terms. Those accused of
' being connected with Apollinarius accepted the title " Mother
' of God", and those connected with Photinus the title " Mother
' of man ". But when I learned that in their quarrel they were
hit rod net ion 19
'not heretically minded, I t*id: Neither these nor those
'heretics for the one party knew nothing of Apollinarioi and
•his doctrine, nor did the otheri know might of Photuras <■■
1 Paul And I tried to bring them out of their c o nt ro ve r sy and
'quarrel saying : If without separating or severing or denying
'either the Godhead Of die manhood they employ those ex-
'pre ss S o ns that are used by them, they do not sin ; othen
'let us employ that expression which is more guarded, I mean
'the expression of the Gospel — "Christ was born", or M the
'book of the birth of Jesus Christ", or any such likr. We
' confess Christ to be God and man ; for of the two was born
* " Christ in the flesh, who is God over all ". Do you then call
ry " Mother of Christ" in the union ; and do not say that
* this and that an- rent asunder in the Sonship, but employ
'the unexeeptionable expression of the Gospel, and put away
'this dissension from amongst you, using the title that mi
'for concord. When they heard this they said: Before God
'our controv, tiled And exceedingly did they y\
'and glorify God.' 1
Nestorius does not for a moment dream of denying the
full Godhead of the Son. Indeed, though some misunderstood
his position at the time (see infra pp. 42 ff.), the chief point that
he makes in his letters to Celestine is that the teaching which
he attacks was derogatory to the Godhead ; and that is why he-
calls its champions Arians. If the Godhead of the Son had its
origin in the womb of the Virgin Mary, it was not Godhead as
the Father's, and He who was born could not be homoousios
with God; and that was what the Arians denied Him to be.
1 Bazaar of Heraclidcs p. 108. He goes on to attribute the outbreak
of the controversy to the action of those who had been disappointed over
the bishoprick election, and the agents of Cyril who wanted money and got
no support from him, and wanted to discredit him in connexion with the
case of certain Alexandrines who had brought complaints of Cyril's wrong-
doings to Constantinople.
2 — 2
20 Nestorius and his teaching
On the other hand Apollinarius expressly denied the complete-
ness of His human nature, in the normal sense, in teaching
that the Word of God took the place of the human soul in
His Person, so that a kind of deification of the human nature
resulted and He was neither really Divine nor really human ;
and Nestorius attributed this mixture of two things which were
distinct into a third, which was neither the one nor the other,
to those who used the title Theotokos.
At Rome and in the West, if anywhere, he might have
expected support on the doctrinal question. For though
Rome and the West had but little mind for speculative
theology, they had the Catholic genius for keeping the balance
between contrasted points of view and rival schools of thought. -
If logical reconciliation seemed impossible, it was always easy
to frame a statement in which ideas that seemed to be exclusive
of each other and incompatible were simply set side by side as
complementary truths, which found their unification on the
higher plane of faith. The best example of such a statement
is perhaps the "Athanasian Creed" (which embodies the spirit
of Latin theology), and Leo had no difficulty in composing one,
that gave full recognition to the standpoint of Nestorius and
was accepted by the Church at large, without employing the
disputed term 1 . But the personal and political accidents, to
which reference has been made, threw the sympathies of Rome
at the moment entirely on to the side of Cyril.
It is not necessary to review the whole course of the con-
troversy, or to tell again the history of the Council of Ephesus.
It is a singularly painful story, even in the annals of con-
1 "Mother of the Lord" is the term Leo uses in the Letter to Flavian,
which was endorsed by the Council of Chalcedon. In the Definition of
the Faith accepted at the Council it is true the term Theotokos slips in,
but the Definition as a whole is certainly not conceived in the spirit or
expressed in the language of the chief champions of the term. See infra
p. 205.
Introduction 2 1
troversies and of Councils. All that need be said at the
moment is that the circumstances in which the decisions of
the majority were reached were such as to preclude the
possibility of an unbiassed consideration of the questions in
dispute. Nestorius and his friends never had a hearing. '1 Ik
"Council" was, as Nestorius says, (Mil ; it simply registered
his point of view.
A council attains tin rank of ecumenicity by the subseqiu nt
ptance of its decisions by the Church at large; and those
of Ephesus received such acceptance at Chalcedon and after-
wards. The sensus fidelium, however, though a finely sensitive-
Court of Appeal in really religious issues, is a less satisfactory
judge of questions of fact: and one who accepts the positive
affirmations of Ephesus as a final authority in the sphere of
doctrine and faith may yet be permitted to doubt whether
Nestorius taught or intended to teach the doctrines attributed
to him and condemned as his.
This only is the question which I proceed to consider in
the light of some fresh discoveries and a reexamination of old
evidence which has lately been made more easily accessible
than it has been hitherto. First of all the evidence must be
described.
CHAPTER II
THE SOURCES OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF NESTORIUS
AND HIS TEACHING
On dit que Dieu est toujours pour les gros bat ai lions. In no
case is the power of majorities more overwhelming than in the
case of ancient heresies. The majority took all the measures
they could to prevent the views of the minorities, when once
condemned, from ever troubling the peace of the Church
again. The heretic himself, if he held any official position,
was deposed and sent into exile; his followers were not allowed
to meet together in a religious association of their own; and
his writings were carefully collected and burnt, or, if they
survived to later times, no one would waste his time and defile
his pen by copying them again. Our knowledge of heresies,
and of the controversies which they caused, is usually derived
only from the orthodox writers who undertook their refutation.
They give us, of course, sometimes the heretic's own words and
some of his arguments : but a catena of extracts, isolated from
their context, and arranged in a manner designed to set them
in the most unfavourable light, is not the kind of evidence on
which we should wish to condemn a man today. The great
1 St Denys, the ablest theologian and administrator of his time,
used many of the very phrases which became the watchwords
of the Arian party; and a list of them was sent to his name-
sake, the bishop of Rome, that he might check the blasphemies
of his colleague. But Athanasius himself, the chief opponent
of our knowledge 23
of the Aiians, undertook the vindication of his memory and
I for us the words in which he described the tactics of
his accusers. The phrases impugned, he Ityt, were only cursory
illustrations, good enough so far as they went: but he
besides then many others more apposite in other connexions.
'These and the like written statements', he M pretend
not : id try to pelt me with two ftipfflttOf lfl separated
from their context like stones flung from a distance.' 1 If we
possessed all the writings of heretics, the suspicion we some-
times cannot help feeling, that the refutation scarcely does
justice to the argument and the doctrines which are impugned,
might be confirmed. The extract which looks so damaging
might seem less decisive in its place in the passage as a whole,
and the unfortunate phrase flung back in the heretic's teen
might recall the "stones from a distance" of which Dionysius
complained.
A collection of the sermons of Nestorius seems to have
reached Alexandria soon after Nestorius entered on his office
of bishop 1 . So incisive a speaker as Nestorius gave many
openings for attack, and the dissentients at Constantinople,
when they complained to Cyril, would of course select the
sayings which caused the chief offence. Such a selection of
sayings and sermons was sent by Cyril to the bishop of Rome
with a covering letter, and translations in full of all his own
writings on the subject ; and on the strength of Cyril's extracts,
\thanasius de sententiis Dionysii 18.
- It is quite possible, as Mgr Batiffol points out {Revue biblique vol. ix
pp. 329 ff.), that sermons preached at Antioch before his elevation to the
episcopate (10 April 428) had reached Egypt and been circulated in the
monasteries, and that it was not only the sermons of 428 — 429 that were
known in Egypt and prompted Cyril's letter to the monks early in the year
430. According to Gennadius the sermons preached at Antioch were just
M heretical as the later ones at Constantinople. But a bishop's first
Utterances no doubt attracted particular attention in those days as in our
own, and so diligent a preacher as Nestorius must have supplied plenty of
material in the first year of his episcopate.
24 Nestorius and his teaching
without more ado, Nestorius was called upon to abjure the
heretical propositions which were attributed to him. It was on
the strength of extracts such as these, and of the inferences
that could be drawn from them, that he was condemned at
Ephesus, and they have formed down to the present day the
chief source of our knowledge of his teaching.
Besides these extracts, which are mainly extracts from
sermons, and all of them selected by personal opponents at the
time and preserved in official documents or the writings of con-
temporary and later anti-Nestorians, we have a few letters from
his own pen, preserved in the collections of the works of those to
whom they were addressed — a commendable practice of former
days for which we often have cause to be grateful. And to
the happy accident that Marius Mercator, an African layman
with theological interests, was engaged in business in Con-
stantinople at the time of the controversy, and made or
procured for his own use Latin translations of some of the
sermons of Nestorius, we owe it that we have the full text in
Latin of several sermons of importance and can read some of
the Greek fragments in their original connexion. Moreover,
one sermon at least, which throws a good deal of light on one
of the more obscure details of the controversy, has lately been
discovered in a collection of sermons ascribed to St Chrysostom
(see infra pp. 105 ff.). And extracts from other works of
Nestorius have been recovered in Syriac from manuscripts,
not yet published, containing works of writers of the school
that gave frank expression to the tendencies which Nestorius
believed the champions of Theotokos encouraged,
The first collection of the extant writings of Nestorius was
made in the middle of the seventeenth century by the French
scholar, Gamier, in an edition of the works of Marius
Mercator 1 . Gamier, however, allowed himself too free a hand
1 Paris, 1673 : reprinted in Migne's Patrologia Latina vol. 48.
Sources of our knowledge 25
in dealing with his texts and in supplying their deficient
from other soim< ih materials too Have been made
accessible sinee liis time, and a new collection was published
by Dr Loofs in 1905. In this volume, entitled Nestoriana.
have, accordingly, the fullest collection of the ipsissima verba
of Nestorius that could be made, and we are enabled to read
them under conditions more favourable to a fair judgement of
the questions in dispute. The publication of this new collec-
tion carries with it aw invitation to a fresh study of the question,
even though the greater part of the evidence has been accessible
to every student of the history of Doctrine or of Councils.
Here, in a single volume, in some hundred pages of mod'
can be read the remains of those innumerable writings to
which Gennadius alludes. We can turn from page to page, and
compare one passage with another, and correct or confirm the
inference suggested by an ambiguous phrase or a passing
comment. This volume is likely to remain the most useful
source of information as to the teaching of Nestorius. The
evidence which it furnishes is amply sufficient on all the main
points, as soon as it is investigated without the personal
praejudicium which is always fatal to a frank enquiry, and the
unhistorical assumption that theological terms conveyed to all
who used them at any given moment, any more than at long
intervals of time, one and the same fixed and definite sense.
• But for the moment this volume of Nestoriana is over-
shadowed in interest by the discovery of Nestorius's own
account of the whole controversy and his statement of Cyril's
position in relation to his own, under the title of the Bazaar
vf Heradides. Written under this pseudonym, or safeguarded 3
by it from the destruction to which the works of heretics
were doomed, it doubtless owes its preservation in a Syriac
1 See Loofs Nestoriana pp. i , i ; or Journal of Theological Studies
October 1906 (vol. viii, no. 29, p. 120).
' See infra pp. 33, 29 note 7.
26 Nest or his and his teaching
version to some member of the Eastern Church in the
Euphrates valley where the exiled " Nestorian " bishops found
a home. There we hear of it just before the cataclysm which
Tamerlane's invasion brought upon that famous Church. Ebed
Jesu, the learned Nestorian, who died in the early part of the
fourteenth century (131 8) mentions as works of Nestorius still
extant (that is, of course, in Syriac), the Tragedy, the Book of
Heradides, a Letter to Cosmas, a prolix Liturgy, one book of
Letters and one of Homilies and Sermons. Another list of his
writings 1 names, besides the Book of Heradides, the Theopasdiites,
the Tragedy, and another with the title Historica. It is possible
that Historica was a general title that covered the Letters and
Sermons, some of which, as we have seen, remain; but it
would exactly fit the "Book of Nestorius" which Evagrius con-
gratulates himself on coming across, and describes as containing
his "defence of his blasphemy" and the "history" of his
fortunes after his condemnation. Information as to this
Evagrius could not find in the historians, and had he not
lighted on this book, he says, all knowledge of the facts would
have vanished and been swallowed up by time, leaving not
even hear-say behind 2 . The Liturgy too, which may perhaps
have been the work of Nestorius, is still in use in the Nestorian
Church. Of the Theopaschites fragments are extant, and the
Tragedy, unless it is really the work of the Count Irenaeus, may
be the writing of which a passage is cited as from a " book on
the history". Of the Letter to Cosmas nothing is known. It is
not impossible that some of these lost works may still be
recovered. Meanwhile we have already the "Book of Hera-
elides", in a Syriac version, in a MS in the Patriarch's
library at Kochanes.
1 In the translator's Preface to the Book of Heradides.
2 Evagrius H. E. i 7.
The Bazaar of Heraclides 27
The Bazaar 1 of Heraclides of Damascus
To the words of Nestorius himself tin- translator has
prefixed a preface in which he gives the reason why the book
wai published under such a title 'list since his own name
a lmgbear to many, they should be unwilling to read it and be
converted to the truth'. It was written, he mys, * that it might
be a remedy to restore the health of souls that were labouring
under the offence of prejudice and sunk in the deep of imp
Kor great in truth was the schism which Satan brought into the
body of the holy Christian Church, so as to lead astray, if it
urn pel ren the elect And so this correcting and
health-giving antidote was needful for the disease of their
mind.... It enlighten! the eyes of our soul with teaching con-
cerning the Christian dispensation; and it is in truth an
lent system of teaching concerning the Codhead; for by
its means we avoid both the blasphemies concerning the
Divine nature and those concerning the Incarnation; and by
God's abundant mercies we draw near to knowledge.' Heraclides
! a certain man, had in honour for his way of life, and yet
more for his learning; and he dwelt in Damascus. And for his
eminence in these ways he was celebrated even at the Court, for
his faithfulness and right speaking: for, being superior to all
passions that separate from the truth, he acted in all things
without respect of persons.' 2
1 The Syriac word is Ti^i'trtA, which means the "business of a
merchant " or " merchandise ", and the translator says that the book is
indeed a tig&rtA of spiritual knowledge. The Greek word was probably
tUTbpiov (6rfaavp6t would have been rendered GazzA). "Mart" or "store"
magazine " suggest themselves as renderings, but Bazaar perhaps has
the best claim to represent the title.
■ This statement may be the invention of the translator. He prefaces it
with the words ' but who Heraclides was, is not clear. But this, O Reader,
may be said by way of throwing light on the subject.' It was the best he
could do by way of explanation. I cannot find that any Heraclides of
28 Nes tortus and his teaching
The translator proceeds to describe the contents of the
book and to give a list of headings of the various sections.
He says it was divided into two books, the first book into three
parts and the second into two parts : as follows —
Book I
Part i 'of all the heresies opposed to the Church and of all
the differences with regard to the faith of the
318.'
Part 11 'against Cyril... of the exactions (or examination) of
the judges and the charges of (or against) Cyril.'
Part in 'his own apology, and a copy (or comparison) of
their letters.'
Book II
Part 1 'an apology, and a refutation of the charges (against
him), dealing with those matters for which he was
excommunicated.'
Part 11 'from his excommunication till the close of his life.'
The MS was much damaged at the time of the Nestorian
massacre of Bedr Khan Beg some sixty years ago, and there are
many lacunae, sometimes more than twenty pages in succession
being wanting. Altogether about one-sixth of the whole — in
particular most of Part 11 of Book I — is missing; but for
doctrinal purposes the loss is probably not important. The
transcriber of our copy (which is in the regular Nestorian book
hand) appears to have made an exact reproduction of the MS,
copying it line for line, leaving blank spaces and pages (num-
bered) to correspond with the original before him, and adding
notes stating that the MS is defective in those places. We
therefore refer to the book by the pagination of our copy.
Damascus is known to history. There were Nestorians at Damascus
apparently from an early time (a metropolitan had his seat there certainly
in the eighth century and probably much earlier), but it is not probable
that it was at Damascus that the pseudonym was invented.
The Bazaar of Heraclides 29
The only clue to the time at which the translation was
made is to be found in a part of the Preface of which several
tinea and words arc missing. It is apparently the dedication of
the translation to one who had 'undertaken the toil of a long
journey from East to West, to illumine the souls which \
sunk in the darkness of the Egyptian error and were intent on
the blasphemy which originated with Apollinarius.' We know
that bishops of the " Nestorian " Church were more than once
sent by kings of Persia on embassies to the West. The term
" Egyptian error " need have, of course, no specially localized
sense: there were Monophysites nearer at hand in Armenia.
But Egypt was the real home of Monophysites, and on the way
from East to West. Perhaps one of these bishops, whose
interest in his mission was more theological than political, may
have seized the opportunity of doing a little work on his own
account of an evangelistic kind. And though we must infer,
from the words of the Dedication, that this part of his mission
was not successful in the way which he wished, and that he did
not bring the " Egyptians " over to the sounder faith of his own
Church 1 ; it is not impossible that he found in Egypt, the land
of literary resurrections, a copy of the great work of Nestorius
(which had been written in Egypt and is said to have been
addressed to an Egyptian), and brought the book back with him
to the East and set one of his chaplains to translate it. If so,
we at least must hold that his mission achieved a great success.
The fact that the translator expresses his firm confidence in the
power of his patron's prayers to support his "incapacity" in
the work before him favours this view of their mutual
relations*.
1 The translator can only claim that his patron had the best of the
argument, not that his reasoning carried conviction ('even though. ..they
were not persuaded, they were refuted and exposed by the error itself).
8 We can, however, possibly fix the time of the translation more
closely. The famous Catholicos of the Eastern Church, Maraba, in his
earlier life, between the years 515 and 533, made such a journey as
3<D Nestorius and his teaching
The translator's preface is followed by the heading 'Be-
ginning of the Book (that is to say the Saint's own words begin
here)'. Then comes the title, which is apparently the trans-
lator's own composition and shews the esteem in which
Nestorius was held in his circle : ' The Book of the holy Mar
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and Standard (kcu'cdv) of
orthodoxy.'
There is first a short introduction :
1 It is right, as I think, for one who sets himself to enquire
is referred to in the Dedication, and with a similar purpose. After
studying at Nisibis, he was seized with the desire to visit the holy
places and to hold discussion with one Sergius, described as an Arian
strongly tainted with paganism, in the hope of converting him to the
true faith. At Edessa he met with a Syrian named Thomas who taught
him Greek, and together they visited first Palestine and then Egypt, and
from there took ship to Constantinople, staying at Corinth and Athens
on the way. He did not fail to make a pious pilgrimage to the famous
solitudes of the Egyptian desert, where thousands of monks were living the
ascetic life. At Alexandria he expounded the Scriptures in Greek, and is
said to have made a translation of them, and also to have brought back
with him from the West a translation of the works of Theodore of Mop-
suestia, in which he was helped by his friend, Thomas of Edessa. That
he failed to convert Sergius, the most learned person of his time, famous
as physician and philosopher alike, may be regarded as certain. He pro-
bably had more to learn from him than he had to teach him. His repu-
tation, already high, was increased by his austerity of life and his work as
teacher at Nisibis or Seleucia ; and soon after his return to the East he
was unanimously elected Patriarch (see J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans
V empire perse, pp. 163 ft). It might well have been he who found the
work of Nestorius in Egypt, or even in Constantinople, and had it trans-
lated into Syriac on his return. (On the other hand, the copy which was
used by Evagrius, who did not write his history till forty years after the
death of Maraba, was probably found by him at Constantinople, where he
held the office of Master of the Rolls, and was apparently in Nestorius's
own name ; whereas before it was translated into Syriac it already went
under its pseudonymous title. It is not, however, impossible that the rare
copy on which Evagrius lighted was a survival of the " first edition " of
the book, and that in the time of Maraba it was already current in Greek
Nestorian circles under the title which would convey nothing to others as
to its contents.)
Th i des
'With all diligence bltO the truth and would tn.tt his su:
'without Ulterior bias, to bring forward all those opinions that
'are opposed to the truth and examine thru
separate tin- true gold from the base, and, by com-
* paring the two together, demonstrate the difference to the
v of those who would as soon have the counterfeit as tin-
•true, or even prefer it. For many choose evil rather than
'good, and falsehood rather than the truth ; for both are alike
them; and they attach more imj>ortance to contending
'against and worsting one another than to establishing the
* truth. And whereas some confess Christ after this fashion
'and some after that, clinging merely to the name — though
'some even quarrel about the name itself — it is right that we
'should set forth the views of the various heresies with regard
'to Christ, that so the Faith may be recognized in contrast
* with the heresies, and we ourselves may not be perpl<
' and perhaps fall into one or other of them, like men devoid of
' vision.'
Then follows a brief statement of various heresies, after
which the book suddenly assumes the form of a dialogue
between Nestorius and one Superianus (or Soprinus or possibly
Severianus) l , probably an imaginary person, who puts objections
and arguments from the point of view of each heresy as it
comes in turn under examination, as its 'advocate and helper':
and the discussion is carried on in that form throughout the
first part of the book, though at times the writer's feelings run
away with him and, dropping the literary device, he speaks of
himself in the third person, or addresses himself directly to
his friends or opponents, with impassioned appeal or ironical
cross-examination, as he does in his extant sermons. In the
1 The Syriac form is SSptryditts. At the end of the book, by an
apparent play on his real or imaginary name, he addresses him as
sdphrdnaye in the phrase ' chief of holy and prudent men \ Perhaps an
Egyptian name is transliterated (if the "certain Egyptian" of Evagrfol U
more than a guess), or it may have been simply 2u:<ppu/v.
32 Nestorius and his teaching
latter part of the book, too, there is a duel between Cyril and
Nestorius. Cyril is introduced as speaking in his own person,
while Nestorius replies : and there is a good deal of simple
narrative all through. The argument thus proceeds in stages
with a good deal of repetition, and its effect is cumulative.
The method has its drawbacks. Nestorius's own views are
often conveyed through criticism of other views ; and on some
points it is at first sight easier to understand what his objections
were to the views he criticizes than to be sure what his own
positive statement of the doctrine was. I think, however, that
the passages which I have selected fairly represent his concep-
tions on all the points which were at issue : there are many
others like them, and all his criticisms of other opinions point
in the same direction. It has been difficult to know where to
begin and where to leave off in making selections, especially in
view of the fact that the whole work is to be published with a
translation in French (see Preface p. xiv).
I have only aimed at selecting some of the passages which
seem to be most characteristic and to supplement most usefully
the evidence of the Greek and other fragments that are to be
found in the collection of Dr Loofs.
This is, I think, the chief value of the long and sometimes
(it must be confessed) rather wearisome arguments which it
contains. There is a pathetic human interest in it as the work
of a man of unusual mental vigour, banished in the prime of life,
and growing old as an exile in the Egyptian desert, giving his
own account of the matter, justifying himself and criticizing
his opponents. They had no mercy on him, and he has none
on them. He hits as hard as ever, and exposes the weak
spots in their armour as shrewdly as an old man often can.
He is anxious to shew the ambiguities and sophistries and
inconsistencies of which they were guilty. What is it that
they really mean ? He still believes that he is right and they
are wrong j and he states his case as fully as possible, partly
perhaps to unburden his mind and encourage his friends, but
The Bazaar of Heraclu 33
partly, we may believe, in the hope that some day ju^
would be done his memory. And then 1 \ I think, no doubt
that the book reveals the strength and the weakness of his
position. If it did not add much definite information to our
store of his arguments and illustrations, it would be of value as
putting them all in a new setting and a moiv systematic form.
It will, however, be seen that it does contribute materially to
a truer appreciation of the controversy than has been possible
before, and it reveals to us the personality of Nestorius in full
light. We know the man himself as he has never been known
perhaps outside the circle of his own adherents; and know-
ledge of the man opens the way to understanding of his
teaching.
That it is the genuine work of Nestorius himself, translated
from the original Greek, would be clear from the style and the
personal ring as well as the argumentation of the whole book,
had the translator's preface which states the fact and the
reason 1 for its publication under a nom de guerre been lost.
The personality of Nestorius is unmistakeable, and it is one
and the same person who speaks to us throughout this book
and in the other remains of sermons and letters and tracts that
are undoubtedly his. There is indeed no trace of anonymity
or of any attempt at disguise in the book itself. It is probably
the "other treatise" (other than the "history") which Evagrius
says he wrote " in dialectical fashion (in the form of a dialogue)
to a certain Egyptian " on the same subjects (viz. the history of
the proceedings and defence of his own teaching), but at
greater length 2 . Evagrius gives no hint that the authorship of
this book was in any way concealed, and the pseudonymous
title may well have been the device of an adherent to save the
Master's apologia from destruction. In any case it goes back
1 ' Lest on account of his own name many in their loathing for him
would be unwilling to read it and to be turned to the truth.'
1 Evagrius H. E. i 7.
34 Nestorius and his teaching
to a Greek edition of the book, as the Syriac translator found
it in his copy.
The place at which he wrote was the desert where he had
long lived in exile (probably as a monk and perhaps in con-
nexion with some monastery), till it had become a second
home to him 1 ; for though he had been bitterly assailed by
Schenute, the great hero of the Egyptian monks, he seems to
have won respect from others and to have had some friends.
His personal holiness and devotion to the religious life, as it
was counted in those days, must have been appreciated on
its merits.
The time when he wrote is fixed within narrow limits.
The date of his death has been regarded as uncertain.
A Coptic life of Dioscorus 2 says that he was summoned to
the Council of Chalcedon but died before the summons
reached him ; and Evagrius, in mentioning the statement of
the historian Zacharias Rhetor that he was summoned to the
Council, rejects it only on the ground that the Council
anathematized him, not on the ground that he was already
dead 3 . This two-fold evidence now receives at least chrono-
logical justification. Nestorius gives a full account of the
second Council of Ephesus, the " Robber Synod " of 449. The
barbarians have attacked Rome once, and are about to do so
again 4 . Theodosius (tjuly 28, 450) is dead. There is no
1 See the last words of his book infra p. 36.
2 Discovered at Fayum and printed in the Revue tgyptologique,
1880— 1883.
3 Evagrius H. E. ii 2.
4 The statement occurs in the concluding section of the book, in which
the writer alludes to "prophetic" announcements of his in former times.
Leo, he says, shall deliver over to the barbarian with his own hands the
sacred vessels of the sanctuary. This prophetic reference to an attack on
Rome and Leo's action suggests the actual facts of the year 452, when
Attila's threatened advance was turned aside by Leo's embassy and (doubt-
less) gifts. But no great prophetic insight was needed to foresee in the
The Bazaar of He rat I ides 35
dived mention of the Council of Chalcedon, but the orthodox
faith — the faith of Flavian and of Leo which Nestorius regards
as his own faith — has already triumphed, and I >■ 1 has
betaken himself to flight 'as a means of avoiding deposition
•and being driven into exile'. But Dioscorus was at the
Council of Chalcedon, still en d e avourin g to brave out all that
he had done, and it be took to flight it can only have been
the- Council had already condemned him and before their
sentence had been ratified 1>\ the Emperor, in the hope that
his friends might secure more favourable treatment for him.
The Council sat from the 8th of October to the 1st of November,
and the formal deposition of Dioscorus was pronounced at the
third session on the 13th of October. On the 7th of February
of the following year the Emperor published an edict con-
firming the doctrinal decisions of the Council, but the d< <
condemning Eutyches and Dioscorus to banishment was not
issued till the 6th of July. Nestorius therefore wrote the
concluding portion of his book after the Council (apparently
before the Acts of the Council had reached him) and before
the news of the imperial edict which sent Dioscorus into exile-
had travelled so far up the Nile. The earlier parts were pro-
bably written at a much earlier time : — they breathe more of
the spirit of battle and give no indication of the denouement ;
it seems to be only to a distant future that the writer looks for
the vindication of his doctrine. The attack on another bishop
of Constantinople — done to death at another synod at Ephesus
by another bishop of Alexandria, as he says he might himself
have been had he gone to Cyril's meetings — seems to have led
him to take up the pen again, rejoicing to hail this time a
bishop of Rome as champion of the Truth.
year 451 (or even early in 452) the situation which actually occurred
(Alaric's capture of the city in 410 and the Vandal invasions shewed what
was coming), and the Old Testament parallel, when Hezekiah bought
off Sennacherib's attack with the gold of the Temple (1 Kings xviii 13—16),
would naturally supply the sacred vessels in the prophet's vision.
36 Nes tortus and his teaching
He has already dealt fully with all the doctrinal questions
involved and a few supplementary pages are all that are needed
to bring the history up to date and to point its moral. As he
writes the last lines of his book he feels that the hand of Death 1
is already on him, but he can say his Nunc Dimittis in peace.
1 As for me, I have borne the sufferings of my life and all
1 that has befallen me in this world as the suffering of a single
' day ; and I have not changed, lo, all these years. And now,
1 lo, I am already on the point to depart, and daily I pray to
' God to dismiss me — me, whose eyes have seen His salvation.
1 Rejoice with me, O Desert, thou my friend and mine
'upbringer and my place of sojourning; and thou, Exile, my
'mother, who after my death shalt keep my body until the
4 resurrection cometh in the time of God's good-pleasure.
'Amen.'
These are for us his last words, and the Egyptian desert no
doubt received his bones, and three hundred and fifty years
1 There is no indication in the book of a lingering illness. We know
that he was, in common with all Egypt, exposed to the dangers of attack
by the nomad tribe, the Blemmyes, who were formidable enemies of the
Empire in Africa, and that he was for some time their prisoner, and that by
taking him from the Oasis and setting him free in the Thebaid near
Panopolis about the year 450 they exposed him to further persecution from
Schenute. He was old and ailing, and in a letter to the governor, explain-
ing how it was that he had left his place of exile, he says he had broken his
hand and a rib ; and he was hurried about from place to place (Evagrius
H. E.'xf). But the report that he died of cancer of the tongue, which is
related with, gusto by Evagrius (id. "his tongue was eaten by worms and so
he passed to the greater and immortal House of Correction"), was probably
due to a misunderstanding of Schenute's remark quoted infra p. 43. The
words "whose tongue swelled and filled his mouth" were probably meta-
phorical (cf. to crbfia clvt&v \a\el viripoyKa Jude 16) and have an analogy
in a modern popular phrase. (It was because of his reputation as an orator
that he was summoned from Antioch to the capital, and he writes com-
passionately of Flavian as one who, though he was sound in the faith,
could not express himself clearly.)
The Bazaar of Heraclides $*]
after his death men thought they know where they were laid.
A Nestorian who had been on a journey to Egypt at the
beginning of the ninth century brought back the news that
the Jacobites were insulting Notorial and throwing stones on
his tomb. A certain Gabriel, one of the many fatuous p hy rf cym i
whom the Nestorians numbered in their ranks, was indignant
at the report and procured a letter from the Caliph to the
Sultan of Egypt, ordering him to send the bones of Nestorius
in a casket to Bagdad, that they might be deposited in the
church of Kochanes. But a certain Nestorian hermit, wishing
to ward off this reproach from his communion and to shew
that it was not really Nestorius whom tin- Jacobites had
outraged, said that one of the holy Apostles had appeared to
him in a dream and told him that it was a mistake— they
were not really the bones of Nestorius, as was commonly
believed, for his place of burial was unknown to mortal men.
So Gabriel the physician ceased to press for the translation of
his remains from Egypt, and the Desert of the land of his Exile
still keeps his dust ■ until the resurrection cometh in the time
4 of God's good-pleasure ,l .
The latter part of the work with its graphic picture of
Eutyches, the real ruler of the Church of Constantinople,
1 The account is given in an extract from a Syriac writer, quoted in
Assemani Bibl. Orimt. ii p. 316 (I owe the reference to Dr Salmon's
article "Nestorius" in D. C. /?.). We might be tempted to suppose that
Gabriel, disappointed of his purpose, brought back, instead of the bones of
Nestorius, his long-lost book the Bazaar of Htraclides, and so to date the
translation at this time. But from Assemani's Latin translation of the
passage I understand that the hermit was not an Egyptian (as indeed he
hardly could have been) but a Nestorian living in Persia, and that his
vision saved Gabriel the trouble of the journey to Egypt. Yet the traveller
who brought back the news may have been he who brought the book, if it
had not been already, as suggested above, long known to the Church of
the East.
38 Nestorius and his teaching
1 who constituted himself a bishop of bishops ', and ' used
1 Flavian as a kind of deacon ' (p. 333), and its account of the
second Council of Ephesus, is full of personal and historical
interest, and of value as shewing how Nestorius conceived his
teaching to stand in relation to that of Leo. But it is in the
earlier part that the doctrinal questions are really threshed out.
The fact that a number of bishops assembled in Council
had condemned a bishop and his teaching would have weight
with many who would make no enquiry into the merits of the
case — the many of whom Nestorius speaks as 'those who
1 merely believe and do not investigate ' (Bazaar of Heradides
pp. 183, 184). Nestorius, therefore, is at pains to discredit
the proceedings of the majority at Ephesus. He has no
difficulty in shewing, from a simple narrative of the facts,
with quotations from the protest of the imperial commissioner
appointed to superintend the arrangements, the Emperor's
letters, and Cyril's replies, how utterly disorderly the conduct
of the case had been ; how Cyril had succeeded in imposing
his own will on the Council, many of whom were reluctant to
act before the arrival of the oriental bishops ; and how he had
been at once accuser and judge.
'Was it', he asks (Bazaar of Heradides p. 151), 'the Synod
• \ and the Emperor who summoned it that heard my cause, if he
' (Cyril) was ranked among the judges ? but why should I say
1 " ranked among the judges " ? He was the whole tribunal ;
1 for everything that he said was at once said by all of them as
'well, and they unhesitatingly agreed with him as the per-
'sonification of the court. Now if all the judges were
'assembled, and the accusers were set in their ranks, and the
1 accused also in like manner, all should have had equal liberty
' of speech. But if he was everything — accuser and Emperor
' and judge — then he did everything, ousting from this authority
' him who was appointed by the Emperor and setting himself in
1 his place, and assembling to himself those whom he wanted,
The Bazaar of Heraclides 39
'both far and near, ami making himself the court. And so I
'was summoned by Cyril, who assembled tin synod, and by
1 who was its head. Who is judge? Cyril. And who
'the accuser? Cyril. Who the bishop of Rome? Cyril.
'Cyril was everything... Who would believe that these things
'were so, were it not that God had constrained then to speak
'and to write and send them to the whole world? But
ryone of his (sc. Cyril's) party who reads these thin.
' incredulous and mistrusts even his own senses : for the things
1 that happen in dreams are more credible than these. If then
' these things are so, and in fact they did actually happen, where
• was the need of the synod ? for this man was everything.^
And, again, he speaks of 'a rabble of idlers and country
'folk assembled by Memnon, bishop of Ephesus' filling tin
streets, with the bishop at their head 'parading them armed
'through the city, so that we were obliged to flee, each and all
' of us, and to hide ourselves and employ a guard : (//>. p. 1 53).
f^They acted in everything as if it was a war they were
' conducting, and the followers of the Egyptian (Cyril) and of
' Memnon, who were abetting them, went about in the city girt
' and armed with clubs, men with high necks, performing strange
' antics (lit who were leaping over their hands, ? leaping along
' beside them) with the yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely with
'horrible and unwonted noises, raging with extravagant arro-
' gance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their
' doings, carrying bells about the city and lighting fires in many
' places and casting into them all kinds of writings. Every-
' thing they did was a cause of amazement and fear: they
'blocked up the streets so that everyone was obliged to flee
'and hide, while they acted as masters of the situation, lying
' about drunk and besotted and shouting obscenities. And there
'was none to interfere or lend assistance ' (ib. pp. 273, 274).
In order to prevent these ruffians from setting upon him
and murdering him, Nestorius was obliged to ask for a guard
of soldiers round his house {id. pp. 153, 154).
*J
40 Nestorms and his teaching
The whole account which Nestorius gives is singularly
graphic : but, as the facts are not disputed, more of this part
of his narrative need not be quoted, racy reading as it is.
The proceedings may have been disorderly, scandalously
uncharitable and partial, such as no court of judges would
allow. There is, indeed, no doubt that they were. They
violated at every point the Emperor's instructions, which were
the authority under which the Council met. Nestorius's
refusal to appear before the body that Cyril called the Council 1 ,
and to plead his cause in the absence of all the bishops of the
province of Antioch, was abundantly justified.
And yet the decision may have been right, though the
method of reaching it was wrong. Nestorius is well aware of
this.
' But perchance some may say : ' he writes {Bazaar of
Heraclides p. 149), '"Do not mind so much about all this,
' but shew us from your own writings and from those of Cyril
1 how it was that you were unjustly deposed. For even if a
'full examination had been held, how would you have been
'benefited?... What we really have to enquire is what opinion
1 it is right for us to hold ; and we must not stray from the
1 orthodox position either through a prejudice in favour of this
' man (sc. Cyril) or through sympathy with you ".'
He wishes no favour, but only simple justice to his views,
and even this not because they are his, but because the Faith
is at stake. Grievous as were the proceedings of the Council,
he could let them pass as a merely personal wrong : but the
issue is more solemn.
' Who could refrain from weeping when he remembers the
1 wrongs done at Ephesus ! And would God it were against me
'and against my life they were done, and not in a wrong cause!
1 For then I should have no need of these words on behalf of
1 one who was meet to be punished ; but on behalf of our
1 In the Emperor's own words ' assembled for the purpose of giving
only a half judgement ', Bazaar of Heraclides p. 282.
T/u Bazaar of Heraclides 41
* Saviour Jesus Christ, the just Judge, for whose sake I have
4 undertaken to endure patiently, that the whole body of Christ
1 may not be accused— for Him I must speak ■ (id. p. 154).
Was Nestorius, then, misrepresented, or at all events mis
understood? Well, in the first place ire have his own complaint
that his sayings were garbled by Cyril ; a complaint which he
supports by chapter and verse : secondly we have some definite
instances of m is repre se ntation by others than Cyril; and
thirdly we have enough of his own writings to enable us to
judge for ourselves what his real teaching was, what he meant
by expressions which were ambiguous and how far they justify
the charges commonly brought against htm.
It will be convenient to state those charges and examine in
some detail the evidence of his writings with regard to them.
If there is any dearth of evidence, of one thing we may be
sure : we have before us all the evidence that tells against him.
His opponents took care that we should know the worst that
could be said of him : we have their dossier complete. It may-
be that " ordinary optics " will fail to find a defence, and that
to discover a case for him we " must dive by the spirit-sense ".
That too we must try to do. We may need to look beyond
the mere words, and to endeavour to penetrate to the shadowy
region where tendencies dwell, before we can account for the
course the controversy ran. The process has been already
indicated : we must not ignore the political and ecclesiastical
considerations and the personal aspects of the question. And
the verdict of the moment must be considered also in the light
of the later history and beliefs of those who held that Nestorius
had been unjustly judged and clung to his teaching, regarding
him as Doctor and Saint.
CHAPTER III
THE DOCTRINES ATTRIBUTED TO NESTORIUS AND
THE TERMS WHICH HE USED
The controversy was precipitated by Nestorius's protest
against the use of the term Theotokos, "Mother of God", as a
title of the Virgin Mary. Mary must not be called Mother
of God. We must examine the meaning of this protest of
Nestorius in all its technical bearings. But before doing so
we may clear the ground a little by considering the less
technical charge which was immediately brought against him.
It was said that he taught that He who was born of Mary was
only a man: he denied that Jesus Christ was God. It was
perhaps natural that such a cry should be raised by the people,
and that, when once they had got hold of the belief that
Nestorius denied the Godhead of our Lord, they should never
let it go. But the clergy of Constantinople also joined in the
cry, and a statement which they composed 1 containing the
charge was one of the incriminating documents read' at
Ephesus on the evidence of which he was condemned. The
document is headed "a deposition put forth in public by the
clergy of Constantinople and published in church, to wit that
Nestorius is of the same opinion as Paul of Samosata who was
anathematized a hundred and sixty years ago by the orthodox
bishops ". It gives a list of sayings of Paul and of Nestorius,
1 Mansi Concilia torn, iv pp. 1008 — 1012.
Doctrines attributed to Nestorius 43
placing them side by side, to shew that Nestorius agreed with
Paul in regarding Him who was born of the Virgin as a mere
man, and that he taught that the Ix)rd Jesus Christ was not at
once the Only-begotten Son of the Father, born before all ages,
■ad also born of the Virgin Mary, but that the Only-begotten
Son was one and He who was born of the Virgin another.
So some at least of the clergy attested the popular charge, and
Socrates' could say that the general opinion was that Nestorius
held that the lord was a mere man, bringing into the Church
the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and 1'hotinus.
The charge was supported by quoting, as his, words which
he never used. One instance is furnished by Sehenute of
Atripos who wrote*: 'Nestorius too, who was called a bishop...
And others like him— he whose tongue swelled and filled his
mouth and who died in exile, said [of the Virgin Mary] "She
who bore a good man, who was like Moses and David and
others V To get the expression at all Sehenute had to change
one of the letters in the word Nestorius used, replacing an iota
1 J/.E.sW y..
2 The remark of Sehenute is quoted by Loofs Nestoriana p. 291 note
from J. Leipoldt Scheuutc von Atripe Texte u. Unters. xxv, n. P. x I,
1003 p. 46. This Sehenute (or Schnoudi) was one of the Egyptian monks
who went to the Council of Ephesus. According to the account of his
disciple and successor, Besa (an account, however, which is not quite
consistent with the accepted tradition that Nestorius refused to appear at
ril's Council "), he distinguished himself by his outrageous violence
against Nestorius, seizing the book of the Gospels which Nestorius brought
with him and hurling it at him. Nestorius protested against his presence
at the Council, being ' neither a bishop, nor an archimandrite, nor a
provost, but merely a simple monk \ and Cyril removed the objection on
the spot by investing Sehenute with the rank and robe of an archimandrite
and so enabling him to act as one of the M judges " of Nestorius. He
became the most celebrated abbot of the Pachomian monasteries after
Pachomius himself, and all through the life of Nestorius (and, as we see,
after his death) remained his bitter enemy. He was as violent a champion
of Dioscorus as he had been of Cyril, and refused to accept the decisions
of the Council of Chalcedon. See D. C. B. art. " Senuti ".
44 Nes tortus and his teaching
by an eta and so converting "anointed" (christon) into "good"
{chreston). But even that was not all. For again and again in
the sermons that are extant Nestorius insists that, though the
terms "God" and "Christ" (i.e. "anointed"), and the like, are
used in Scripture of Moses and others, yet they are applied to
the Incarnate Word in an altogether different sense. 'It is the
* community of names that is alike, the honour (or rank) is not
'the same.' 'Community of names does not constitute com-
'munity of honour or equality.' 'The one, I have said, is God
'by nature, consubstantial with the Father, and Creator and
'Maker of all; but not the other.' 1
Socrates himself, however, though he has a poor opinion
of the intelligence of Nestorius, and thinks he simply made a
"bug-bear" of the term Theoiokos, acquits him of this charge and
gives it as his opinion that Nestorius was no follower of Paul or
of Photinus. The charge that he denied the Godhead of our
Lord no doubt did much to rouse prejudice against him among
those who could not enter into the meaning of his argument,
but it may be dismissed without investigation. The only basis
for it is the fact that he objected to the title "Mother of God",
and it is refuted by almost every word he said or wrote 2 . The
1 Bazaar of Heraclides p. 223, where he definitely repels the mis-
representation of his words and adds that Christ is ' something to which
there is nothing corresponding in those things which were spoken of, that
is, in the case of the great men of the Old Testament.
2 The saying of Nestorius ' on account of Him that bears I worship him
that is borne ' gave rise to the phrase dvdpwiros de6<popos as a concise
description of his theory of the Person of our Lord. The compound
might be either active or passive in sense. If active, the phrase would
mean that our Lord was "a God-bearing man", that is to say a man who
was vested or clothed with God, or who carried God about with him ; and
so it would express the view of a double personality in which the actual
initiative would be human rather than Divine. It is in this sense that
the phrase has commonly been understood. If the compound be passive,
the phrase means ' ' a man who is borne by God ", uplifted, inspired, con-
trolled by God ; and so the active personality would be Divine. In any
case the phrase is not Nestorius's own, but his opponents' epigram; and
Doctrines attributed to Nestorius 45
charges which the theologians brought against his teaching
much more recondite and call for careful examination.
These wire that he so distinguished between the Godhead and
the manhood of our Lord as to treat them as separate personal
existences, as though a man and God were joined together, so
that our Lord was not one Person but two Persons and no real
union of God and man was effected in Him. It was supposed
that he held the Word to be a Person distinct from Jesus, and
the Son of God distinct from the Son of Man, and that therefore
lu avoided the term which expressed the real union of both
and preferred to speak of a "conjunction" between them. And
so some of the old charges against the Gnostics and Paul of
Sa mosata were raked up again and he was said, in teaching
"two Sons", to introduce a fourth person into the Godhead,
and to transform the Trinity into a Quaternity.
Teaching such as this is obviously destructive of the whole
conception of the Incarnation. It was on the charge of such
teaching that he was condemned and it is this teaching that is
known to history as "Nestorianism". It would surely have been
condemned at any period in the history of the Church. We
must keep these charges in view in our examination of his actual
words. And we must bear in mind his anxiety for clearness of
expression in matters of the faith. The interlocutor in the
dialogue would let some difficult points alone. But 'No!' says
Nestorius :
4 1 could wish that you would not pass them over, but
4 examine them with all care, so that matters of faith may not
4 be treated lightly and left without discussion, but rather may
4 be clearly known to all — circumscribed, as it were, with defi-
nitions and illustrated with suitable examples, and not
4 pourtrayed in shadowy images which hint at different things
in all his sayings which could be held to justify it the active agency is
attributed to u the God ", not to •• the man ". It would be God, not man,
who would be the dominant partner, if the phrase may be allowed, in the
dual alliance which Nestorius is supposed to have imagined.
46 Nes tortus and his teaching
' (these and those) till they are represented as the same'
(Bazaar of Heradides p. 14).
He is only 'one of those who knock and ask at the door
'of Truth, if only it be the truth' (ib. p. 15). He knows it
may be said to him ' Things which ought to be accepted by
' faith, you, by accepting them on the ground of human reason,
* reduce to impossibilities; and, indeed, you sever us from the
'Christian Faith like the heathen and the Manichaeans who
'stumble at the cross of Christ' (ib. p. 17). He knows the
difficulties which he must confront, but he knows also that
great moral issues are at stake, and he will not shrink from the
use of all the powers of reason in the effort to reach the truth.
In dealing with views other than his own he wishes that no
argument in their favour should be ignored. To the interlocutor
in the dialogue, who shrinks from adducing one line of reason-
ing, he says:
' Say what it is with all confidence and without fear, using
4 all their arguments persistently and exhaustively even as they
' would themselves ; for one cannot deliver battle effectively
* against half an opinion' (ib. p. 26).
He is well aware that heresies embody elements of truth, and
he is anxious to give credit where credit is due — even those who
confess Christ to be a mere man must have their meed of praise
for recognizing a fact which some theologians in his day seemed
to ignore.
'Let us divide up their heresy... that we may not run away
* from the things which have been well said by them on account
'of those that have been ill said without recognizing the
' difference. For to confess Christ to be man, and truly and
* naturally man, is correct and is attested by the truth; and on
'this count one has no fault to find with them. But their
' rejection of the Divinity, which is His in truth and by nature,
1 causes them to be rejected as undoers of the incarnation of
* God the Word ' (ib. p. 39).
He was certainly sometimes misunderstood, and he was in
Doctrines attributed to Nestor in J 47
consequence sometimes hum (presented as using words and
expressions which he did not use. "Half the controversies
of the world would never have happened if the disputants had
at the outset defined their toBM ving the truth of which
is always more obvious to the onlookers of a later age than it
was to the disputants at the time. Hut in this ease it is we of
a later age who need to l)e on our guard that we may not import
into the terms whieh Nestorius employed the MOM that th.-y
bore in later ecclesiastical usage. No one who reads his
writings as a whole could make the mistake, but single passages
■Bghl prove to be pitfalls even for the war\ . 1 or one of the
chief terms used had already acquired in the time of Nestorius,
in other connexions at least, a sense which is different from
that in which he employs it. The term in question is hypostasis,
and Nestorius always maintained that there were in the Person
of our Lord two hypostases. The Chalcedonian definition of
the Faith, on the other hand, uses the expression "one hypo-
stasis ", and this expression ultimately ousted all others, so that
to say "two hypostases" became impossible. To understand
the use of Nestorius we must look ba ck w ards 1 .
The history and meaning of the terms
To express any kind of real existence two terms were in
common use among Greek thinkers, viz. ousia and hypostasis-.
the former the noun of the verb " to be " (" being "), the latter
the noun of a verb of similar sense " to subsist " or " to exist "
("subsistence", "existence"). Subtle shades of difference of
meaning may be detected in these two terms; but in practical
use they were synonymous, and Greek writers who well knew
the values of words declared them to be so. Their equivalents
1 Only a summary statement can be given here. For fuller particulars
I may refer to Texts and Si tidies vol. vii no. i, or to my Introduction to
the early history of Christian Doctrine pp. 731 — 238, and to Journal of
Theological Studies vol. iv no. 15 p. 440, vol. viii no. 29 p. 124.
48 Nestorius and his teaching
in Latin were essentia (or entid) and substantia, " essence " (or
"entity") and "substance": but the equivalents of ousia were
never domesticated in the Latin language; substantia alone
was taken into use, and "substance" is thus the English
representative of the original sense of both the Greek terms.
We must be on our guard against attaching any " materialistic "
sense to this word " substance ". And if the term is not now
commonly used in discussions as to ultimate realities and the
objects or process of cognition, and if " modern philosophy "
tends to repudiate the idea that anything exists or can be
known "in itself" apart from, or in any other way than in virtue
of, its relations to other things and the perceptions of minds or
persons — we must yet remember that throughout the period in
which Christian doctrines assumed their form a very different
conception of existence and of knowledge prevailed. According
to the dominant theory there were ultimate realities, whether
they could be fully known or not, and whether they were con-
ceived as in some sense material or as immaterial. And to
these realities the term which we render "substance" was
applied. Everything that existed was a "substance".
To this "substance" attached all the attributes or character-
istics which as a whole were always associated with it, though
some of them might characterize other substances as well; and
these were called, by a general term, the " nature " of the thing.
Different substances might have attributes in common, and so
their natures might be similar; but they themselves remained
distinct, and in thought at least could be distinguished from
their natures: while the natures, too, of different things might
have much in common with one another, but yet remained
distinct, and could be spoken of almost as if they were real
existences in themselves. This however was only a loose mode
of speech — the reality was always the "substance" to which the
nature belonged. The "nature" was not conceived of as being
the "substance", nor the "substance" as being the "nature".
"It" was not "it's nature", nor was it's nature "it".
The terms used by Nestom 49
It was usually, no doubt, quite enough to speak of the
"nature". It was tin- more popular term and expressed all that
was wanted. The idea of the "substanee" was more teehnical
and could he left t« , w nether in philosophy or in theology.
So it is that in popular nttge we commonly speak of our Lord as
"of the same nature" as the Father and as taking "our nature"
upon Him, though we still retain the accurate rendering of the
Greek and Latin terms in the clause of the Nicene Creed "of
one substance with the Father" and the very un-English "con-
substantial" of our hymns; while the translation of the Athanasian
Creed carefully preserves not only "substance" but also the
corresponding words "Godhead" and "manhood" rather than
"Divine" or "human" nature. There is such a thing as "God-
head", and there is such a thing as "manhood", and there is a
real distinction between them. If we use only the vague term
"nature , we run the grave risk of confusing two distinct
realities, because they may have some attributes in common.
In the interest! of clear thought, and of the practical moral
issues that ensue, it is earnestly to be desired that exponents of
the Catholic faith would use the genuine English words "God-
head" and "manhood" rather than "Divinity" and "humanity"
of our Lord. Nestorius knew very well what he was doing when
he insisted on the recognition of the "substances" as well as the
"natures" in the Person of our Lord. To express the concep-
tion "substance" he used either of the two Greek synonyms
ousia and hypostasis, the latter more frequently than the
former; and, inasmuch as the term "substance" is almost as
strange in this connexion to English ears today as are the
( .reek expressions, we have usually kept in the translation the
original terms. The Syriac translator himself simply trans-
literated ousia, except in a few cases in which the Being of
God Himself (rather than the Godhead) is meant; and in these
he used a Syriac word (iih&tha) which was commonly employed
of Divine beings. But hypostasis he always rendered by a native
Syriac term (a' noma). For "nature" also he had a Syriac word
5<D Nestorius and his teaching
at hand {Kyana). In speaking of two " substances " in the
Person of our Lord Nestorius was employing an expression
which had been recognized in ecclesiastical usage from the
times of Melito in the East and Tertullian in the West — that is
to say from the earliest days of formal theology. The phrase
was simply the technical expression of the Christian faith in the
Godhead and manhood of the Lord, and its constant recurrence
in the passages cited from the writings of Nestorius calls for no
further comment.
In like manner, in treating ousia and hypostasis as equivalent
terms, Nestorius was simply carrying on the old traditional use
of the words, reflected in the anathema appended to the Creed
of Nicaea, in which the two terms are placed side by side, and
in the assertion of Athanasius in one of his latest writings
"hypostasis is ousia ".
But in connexion with the Being of God, in order to express
the Christian conception of Trinity in Unity, a new and artificial
sense had been put upon the word hypostasis by some of the
chief Greek theologians in the latter half of the fourth century.
The word had been narrowed down from its wider meaning
" substance " and forced to do duty for the conception of the
particular "modes of existence" of the one God which con-
stituted God a Trinity. In connexion with the doctrine of the
Trinity this use of the term had probably won wide acceptance
by the time of Nestorius. He himself recognizes the usage 1 .
But it must be doubted whether this conventional sense had
established itself universally even in regard to the modes of
existence implied by the three names Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit ; and I am not aware of any clear evidence that such a
usage had been extended to the Christological problem or that
this sense of the term would have seemed at all natural in a
discussion of the relation of the Godhead and manhood of our
Lord. Cyril's own use of the term hypostasis (and its adjectival
1 See Loofs op. cit. p. 225 and Bazaar of Heradides p. 39.
The terms used by Ncstoriits 51
form //i/Vn/\/// ) is certainly not consistently, if ever, the same
as that which became established at a later time. Manih
Mercator in translating Cyril leaden it wmdlknm h\ substantia
instance") and sometinn ■ 1 itia ("subset! in se") as
if he felt some shade of differenee in its significance in different
Connexions 1 ; hut he never renders it by the natural I^atin
equivalent of its Trinitarian usage, viz. persona ( "person"). And
it" it seems incredible that a word which had ic quir cd a definite
value in the statement of the doctrine of (iod should he used in
a different sense in the statement of the doctrine of the Person
of Christ, it may be well to remember that this very word
"person" of ours cannot possibly bear the same sense w hen we
apply it to the three Persons of the Trinity as it has when we
speak of the Person of the incarnate Word, both God and man.
ill events it does not appear that exception was taken to
Nestorius's use of the word hypostasis as practically synonymous
with ousia. The difference between the controversialists went
deeper than technical terms : it was concerned with the manner
in which the union of Godhead and manhood was conceived.
The word hypostasis in this connexion did not mean to Cyril
exactly " person ", as it certainly did not to Nestorius.
To express the idea of personality Nestorius always uses
prosopon (which the Syriac translator transliterates parsopa) — a
word which has the same history as the Latin persona ; meaning
originally an actor's mask, or face, — the part which an actor
played, the dramatis persona — role or function in life in general
— the character or aspect in which some one is conceived —and
so some one regarded in a particular relation, a person. The
1 It may be this shade of difference, akin to that between the general
ami the particular, which made it possible to agree to speak of the, one
ousia and the three hypostases of God, that underlies Nestorius's use of
ousia as well as hypostasis in speaking of the Godhead and the manhood of
Christ. If so he would use ousia of Godhead or of manhood regarded, so
to say, in themselves, and hypostasis of the particular mode of the existence
of the same Godhead or manhood in the Lord JeSM Christ.
4—2
52 Nestorius and his teaching
words were current simultaneously in all these senses : no one
of the possible meanings drove out the others. Latin theologians
used the phrase tres personae of the Trinity and una persona of
Christ, though more often they seem to have avoided the word
and to have been content to speak of "Three" {tres) and "One''
(unus). Neither in Latin nor in Greek was a denning noun
needed as it usually is in English. For Greek theologians the
word prosopon was tainted by the Sabellian use of it to express
the conception of the One God assuming different roles and
playing the part now of Father, now of Son, and now of Holy
Spirit j and therefore they had no unequivocal term to use in
this connexion (of the doctrine of the Trinity) until the con-
ventional distinction between ousia and hypostasis was estab-
lished. But though they avoided the term prosopon in stating
the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not seem to have shrunk
from using it of the incarnate Son in connexion with the
doctrine of the Incarnation. And when Nestorius insisted
that he believed our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Godhead and
His manhood, to be "one prosopon", it was not that they
suspected the term prosopon of any hidden heretical meaning,
but that they did not believe that he really believed what he
said that he believed. They, too, were quite ready to use the
term to express the " Person " of the Lord, and even in the
Chalcedonian definition "one person" is joined with "one
hypostasis ", preceding it to define the sense in which " hypo-
stasis " was then used, just as at an earlier time in the Nicene
anathema (before this new usage of hypostasis was recognized)
ousia and hypostasis were used together as synonyms. Distrust
of the term itself in expressing the doctrine of the Incarnation
is of later origin than the time of the Nestorian controversy and
mu#t not be allowed to colour our consideration of it.
The problem of the union of Godhead and manhood in
a single subject or being is one that perhaps defies solution.
It had not been seriously faced in earlier times. Cyril was no
doubt feeling after a more " substantial " unity than he thought
The terms used by Ncstorius 53
the teaching of Ncstorius allowed, and was content to guard
the distinction between the " sub and to ignore
it in tut. To Nestorius Godhead and manhood, God and
man, men much too real to be able to lose themselves in
another : the unity must be found in something other than the
"substamvs '* themseh
A lover of epigram might be tempted to settle the qu<
by saying that the supreme realities were to Cyril persons and
to Nestorius things. Hut the epigram would not, I think, be
true, while it certainly would have been unintelligible to Cyril
and Nestorius. Nor was the one ■ nominalist and the other a
realist. Nestorius can poke fun at Cyril because he speaks of
■ " nature" when the ousia which the *' nature" presupposes is
wanting 1 ; but Cyril meant the "nature" to be as real U the
ousia. As far as precision of terminology goes, Nestorius is more
definite than Cyril. Cyril does not seem to have had a clear
conception of the difference between the terms "substance",
" nature ", and "person ". But he used them all, and his language
is really as elusive as Nestorius found it, though it supplied the
Church with phrases to which a conventional value could be
assigned, so that they might become the standard expression of
the Christian faith in the union of Godhead and manhood in
our Lord. The fugitive phrase was captured, and acclimatized.
But in reading the words of Cyril and Nestorius it must be
remembered that the hunt for the proper term was still going
on, unconsciously rather than of purpose; and though we
cannot avoid consideration of the terms themselves, it is to the
arguments of Nestorius rather than to the technical terms he
uses that attention must be paid, and to these we may now
pass.
As the meaning of the terms employed by the modern
Syriac-speaking " Nestorians " has been uncertain, and the
1 Sec infra p. 1 70 note.
54 Nest or ins and his teaching
Syriac translation of the Bazaar of Heradides shews beyond
question what the theological usage was at the time when the
translation was made, and earlier writers used the words in the
same sense, the English translator of the Bazaar has prepared
a statement setting out the history of the Syriac terms as an
Appendix to this volume 1 .
In the citations of the words of Nestorius in these pages it
must be understood that " person " represents the Syriac J>arsdfid
or the Greek Trpovio-rrov. In translations from the Greek, ovoia
and v7roo-Tao-ts are rendered alike either "being" or "substance":
but in the translation of the Bazaar of Heradides, in which
olaia is simply transliterated, the transliteration ousia is pre-
served, while hypostasis or "substance" represents a' noma. The
Greek <£v<ris and the Syriac ttyana are translated "nature",
though "physical" is often used for the adjectival forms in
accordance with common theological usage. The idiomatic
Syriac rendering of 6/aoovVios means literally " son of the nature
of", and as there is no doubt about the original term it is either
transliterated "homoousios" or translated by "consubstantial"
or some equivalent phrase.
1 See infra p. 212.
CHAPTER IV
THE TITLE THEOTOKOS
W i. have to enquire, then, first, what were the reasons that
led Nestorius to object to the use of the title "Mother of
Clod".
It would be interesting to know how far this use implied at
the time with which we are concerned an incipient "cult" of
the Virgin, and whether this cult had grown up in the districts
in which the worship of the Virgin Goddess of pagan fame was
prevalent or had its origin in purely Christian circles as the
natural outcome of the same deep-seated human instincts,
independent of any particular non-Christian rites. Was popular
feeling roused against Nestorius because he was opposing a
popular form of worship which he regarded as a pagan super-
stition ? And was the Virgin Mother of the Lord already the
patron-saint of the monastic life, and were the monks who
played so threatening and noisy a part in the background of
the discussions and intrigues stirred up to action by the belief
that the institution of monasticism itself was the object of
attack? Was any question of regular versus secular clergy
involved ?
In later ages Cyril, as the great champion of the disputed
title, was held in special reverence by those to whom monasti-
cism and the cult of the Virgin were dear.
But there is little evidence to shew that this aspect of the
56 Nestorius and his teaching
question had influence at the time 1 . The demonstrations of
the people of Ephesus against Nestorius — the people of the
city which long before had resounded with the cry "Great
Artemis of the Ephesians" — the city which had been the
central shrine of the worship of the Virgin Goddess — suggest
some local current of feeling. The traditions of St John and
the Virgin connected with Ephesus lend further support to the
view that local memories and loyalties might have been enlisted
against him. But feeling always ran high against a heretic, and
the bishop of Ephesus was one of the strongest supporters of
Cyril. There was reason enough for the violent action of the
1 There is of course evidence that shews the high esteem in which the
Virgin Mother of the Lord was held in the Church from early days. Justin
and Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, do not hesitate to contrast her
and her obedience with Eve and her disobedience, in a manner analogous
to St Paul's comparison of the first man Adam and the second Man from
heaven, and so to assign to her expressly her share in the redemption of
mankind (see Justin Dial. 100, Iren. adv. haer. Mass. v xix 1, Tert. de
came Christi 17). Among the Syrians I am informed the Virgin seems
to have been from an early time a centre of special honour. In the works
of Ephraim (fourth century) there are many hymns of praise of her, which
there is no reason to doubt are genuine compositions of Ephraim, though
the MSS in which they are found are not the earliest. (The hymns in
question are printed by Lamy with a Latin translation in vol. ii of his
edition of the works of St Ephraim. With them may be compared the
certainly genuine hymns On the Nativity in Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers
vol. xiii.) And many prayers addressed to the Virgin are attributed to
RabbCda, bishop of Edessa (f 435), who was contemporary with Cyril
and Nestorius, a devoted friend of Cyril, and famous for his zeal against
Nestorians, who named him the "tyrant of Edessa". (Yet this same
Rabbula preached a sermon on the term theotokos at Constantinople, while
Nestorius was still bishop, in which though upholding the term he depre-
cated the discussion of it — see Burkitt Early Eastern Christianity p. r 10.)
The remark of Nestorius that it was sufficient honour for the " Christ-
bearing " Virgin ' to have given birth to the manhood which was the
instrument of the Godhead of God the Word ' (Sermo viii, Loofs Nestoriana
p. 247) shews that the question of the status of the Virgin was, as of course
it must have been, deemed to be involved in the controversy; but it was
not the ground on which it was fought.
The title " Theoloko 57
mob of the town. Nestorius too had himsrli been a monk,
with a high reputation for austerity and devotion, and as
a monk he had preached against tin tern at Antioeh. It
was to please the monks of Constantinople, as the Bmp
reminded Dalmatius aftet the Council of BpbeSOl . that he-
had been selected as bishop when the clergy and monks and
people could not agree to elect any of the original candidates ;
and as a monk too, after his deposition, he gladly returned to
his old home at Kuprepius, and was received with \\« ]<
and honour and spent four years in pea* Cyril,
on the other hand, though he had spent five years under
monastic discipline in "the desert", seems to have found the
restrictions irksome; he had been reproved for occupying
himself, even in "solitude", with worldly thoughts and interests';
and he had returned to Alexandria to a more active ecclesiastical
life. Though Cyril could use the monks for his purp<
it does not appear that the two parties were divided by any
line of cleavage on the monastic question. The monks of
Egypt were always ready to play the part of the M hooligan " of
today. They did it again at Ephesus, a few years later, when
Eutyches, who had been one of Cyril's agents against Nestorius
at Constantinople, was arraigned for teaching what he believed
to be Cyril's doctrine, and was supported by Cyril's successor
at Alexandria. Eutyches, the archimandrite, might of course-
expect support from monks : but there is no evidence, so far
as 1 am aware, that any question affecting the status of monks
or the honour of the Virgin entered into the Eutychian contro-
versy.
It would, I believe, be an anachronism to represent such
ideas as underlying the disputes about the title Theotokos.
Attention seems to have been fixed entirely on the question
affecting the doctrine of the Person of the Lord — His Godhead
and the relation between the Divine and the human in Him.
1 See Bazaar of Hcraclidts p. 281 {supra p. 6 note 3).
* Evagrius //.£. i 7. * Isidore of Pelusium Epp. i 15.
58 Nestor ins and his teaching
The term had been in vogue, in some circles at least, for
many years. Responsible theological teachers like Origen,
Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Cyril of Jerusalem had
used it incidentally, while Julian's taunt "you never stop calling
Mary Theotokos" 1 would seem to point to a wider popular use.
Doubtless to any one with a fine sense for philological
niceties the English translation "Mother of God" is lacking
in precision. The Greek adjectival compound is a little less
abrupt' 2 , and need only mean " who gave birth to one who was
God" or "whose child was God". But subtle distinctions of
this kind are not for the ordinary layman whether he speaks
Greek or English, or lives in the fifth or the twentieth century.
It was as a title of the Virgin Mary that the word was fashioned,
and the sense conveyed by the only possible equivalent in
English is the sense that the term must have had to most
of those who used it.
The first protest, with which we are acquainted, against its
use came from the distinguished Antiochene teacher, Theodore,
bishop of Mopsuestia. He died in the year in which Nestorius
was elected bishop, and though that most obscurantist of
General Councils — the fifth held at Constantinople in 553 —
declared him anathema, the esteem in which he was held in
earlier times is shewn by the cry often heard in the churches :
" We believe as Theodore believed ; long live the faith of
Theodore ! " 'It is madness ', he said, 'to say that God is born
of the Virgin,... not God, but the temple in which God dwelt,
is born of Mary.' And again, 'Mary', he said, 'bore Jesus,
1 Quoted by Cyril contra Julianum 262 D from Julian's Logos A contra
Christianos (C. J. Neumann's edition p. 214).
2 The word ** God " is logically a predicate, whereas in the English
phrase it is practically a subject and so includes logically the person of the
Father. That is to say, the Greek term fixes attention on the Godhead of
Him who was born, rather than on the glory of the motherhood of her who
bore Him. " God-bearing " is the literal rendering of the Greek compound.
The word is formed on the analogy of the word protdtokos (active) in
common use of one who bears her first child.
The title u Theoiokos" 59
not the IvOgos, for the Ix>gos was and remained omnipres-
although from the btgUMttllg He dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar
manner. Thus Mary is properly the Mother of Christ, not the
her of God. Only figuratively can she be called the Mother
of ( '»od also, because God was in Christ in a remarkable manner.'
We only have the version of his words as they were cited at
Kphesus. According to that version he went on to say
1 Properly she bore a man, in whom the union with the Word
was begun, but was still so little completed, that he was not
but only from the time of his baptism) called the Son of
Now Theodore is regarded as the Father of " Nes-
torianism " — the /ok s it otigo mali. But the thought expressed
in these words, if they are his, ungarbled 1 , is not "Nestorian".
If the words are more than a somewhat unguarded expression
of the teleological view of man's developement OB which we
know he laid great stress — if, that is, they mean more than the
assertion of a real moral growth of the manhood of Christ :
then they express not the views of Nestorius, but those which
are attributed rather to Paul of Samosata, and mean that
a man received in increasing measure the gift of the Word
as a result of his own moral growth, and his Godhead was an
attainment, the goal of endeavour. Nestorius never conceived
of the Incarnation thus, and — as we have seen — it was only
popular clamour that attributed to him such a conception.
He expresses himself quite differently.
His account of the beginning of the controversy, which has
been already quoted, can be supplemented by extracts from his
1 I do not believe either that Theodore was ,4 Nestorian ", or that these
words were his. They are not consistent with his careful statements in the
passage in his work On the Incarnation in which he discusses the nature of
the union (Migne P. G. lxxxvi I pp. 1367 — 1396— sum marized in my
Introduction to the early history 0/ Christian Doctrine pp. 257 ft) ; and the
same interests which Nestorius had at heart account for, and I think
legitimatize, other phrases or illustrations he uses which might be held to
convict him of " Nestorianism " before Nestorius.
60 Nestorius and his teaching
Sermons and other writings. Some of these that are not
directly concerned with the term theotokos, though they reveal
his belief about the Person who was born, will be cited later
on in other connexions 1 . Here it will suffice to collect a few
passages that shew his feeling about the term itself.
In the first place it may be noted that Nestorius objects to
our Lord being called either " God the Word " or " Man ".
1 By the expression "Christ" or "Only-begotten" or "Jesus"
' or " Son ", or by others which are similar to these, we'indicate
'the union: but by the expression "Man" the substance which
'was assumed, and by the expression "God the Word" the
'characteristics of the substance which became man.' 2
' They say that Christ is God alone. And see, God is the
' Trinity. So Christ is the Trinity. If however Christ is God
' alone, and the Father is not Christ, then they separate them
'in nature. Much rather is the case thus: "Christ" is not the
'name of the substance but of the dispensation [i.e. of the
'incarnate person]. And Christ is God, but God is not
' Christ.' 3
He repeatedly insists that the terms "Christ", "Son", "Lord"
are the proper terms to use of the incarnate Word, just because
they are significant of the two natures and sometimes indicate
the Godhead, sometimes the manhood, and sometimes both ;
and that in this way and in such a sense they are used in
Scripture 4 . Evangelists and apostles, he protests, never said
that " God " was born or died. Again and again he makes his
appeal to Scripture. It is always by Scripture that he would
himself be judged and judge in turn the views of others. His
exegesis is of a minutely verbal kind. I should not say that
1 See especially pp. 82 ff.
2 Syriac fragment from the Theopasc kites, tr. Loofs Nestoriana p. 211,
cf. p. 254.
3 Syriac fragment id. p. 218.
4 There are many passages to this effect. See e.g. ib. pp. 269 ff.
The title M Theotokos" 61
he misses the general sense of the passage, but no turn of
expression escapes his vigilant eye. In his sense of the value
of words he is In agreement with the extreme allegorists of the
opposite school of interpreters. He will not let one go without
its due share of attention. It is often in his exegesis of Scripture
that his suspicious phrases are found. Here is an instance —
one of the passages quoted in the Syriac collections of his
" blasphemies ".
1 When John saw our Lord, he said " Behold! the I^mb of
d" (See! here is the Lamb of God). He did not say "See
* the Lamb of God ! " For he who is visible is the Lamb, but
'he who is hidden is God. These natures are separate
(Loofs tr. Nestoriana p. 334).
This passage might of course be understood to imply two
persons joined together; but as elsewhere Nestorius uses the
neuter 4 that which is visible ' and ' that which is hidden ', and
says 'the visible and the invisible are one Son ', and as in tin
immediate context he is contrasting the Godhead which could
not die with the manhood which suffered death, the phrases
' he who is visible ' and ' he who is hidden ' must not be pressed
against him.
In another passage the same motive is apparent : he is
declaring that it was not God the Word who was killed.
'If you reflect on him who according to nature in the
' course of months was born of the Virgin, it is a man who was
' born of the Virgin, according to the words of" him who was
' born, who says : Why seek ye to kill me, a man, who have
'spoken the truth among you?... One to be sure is God, one
' too the mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christy
1 who was born of the race of David ' (id. p. 247).
But in the same context he goes on to say :
' But He, who was of the race of Israel as regards the flesh,,
'who according to appearance was a man, who according to
' Paul's expression was M born of the seed of David ", was by
'the conjunction almighty God... .According to the flesh
62 Nestorius and his teaching
4 Christ is a man * but according to His Godhead He is God
* over all ' (ib. p. 248).
He quotes and carefully examines other passages from
St Paul, to shew his usage of titles, and that he never has
the expression " as regards the flesh ", or any of the terms that
relate to human affections and experiences, in conjunction with
the term "God", always employing instead the titles "Christ " or
"Son" or "Lord" (ib. pp. 254, 269). And the Creed of the
Fathers of Nicaea, carefully following the usage of Scripture,
avoids saying that it was God the Word who was begotten of
Mary, and employs the title that signifies the two natures, that
is, "Christ " (ib. p. 295).
What he feels must be guarded against at all costs is, on
the one hand, the idea that the Godhead itself was born of
a woman, wrapped in swaddling-clothes, suffered and died ;
and, on the other hand, the idea that the manhood of the
incarnate Word was not real manhood like our own.
He puts the same point clearly also in the Bazaar of
Heraclides x saying that the Fathers of Nicaea were careful
1 See also Loofs Nestoriana p. 226 'Pilate did not kill the Godhead,
but the vesture of the Godhead'. There are many indications that
Nestorius dreaded the attribution to God Himself of " the things that are
proper to the flesh ". The title of one of his works, the Theopaschites (' he
who represents God as suffering ') — a dialogue in which ' Orthodox ?
answers the champion of this view, shews his anxiety to guard against
what seemed to him to be a new form of the patripassian heresy. And
when Dalmatius, to the amazement of every one broke his life-long rule,
and leaving his monastery came into the Emperor's presence and frightened
him into passive acceptance of the doings of the Council of Ephesus, and
as he was borne back in triumph in a litter was surrounded by the mob of
Constantinople crying " God the Word died " — in that cry Nestorius sees
the real mind of his opponents. 'All of them as one rose up against God
1 the Word ; and those who would not consent to attribute passions to the
* nature of God the Word they persecuted without mercy ' (Bazaar of
Heraclides p. 283). The same feeling is shewn by the charge he brings
that they altered the Trisagion (" Holy God, holy Almighty, holy Immortal,
have mercy on us ")— believed to have been miraculously revealed as the
The title " r/notokos" 63
to speak of 'one Lord Jesus Christ', before they went on to
refer to the human experiences which I belonged to Him not as
God but as incarnate and made nun
* We were discussing whether it was right to understand and
' to say that the proper things of the flesh and of tin retSl liable
'soul, and the proper things of Cod the Word, both belong to
'God the Word by nature; or whether SJS should hrist
•that the two natures were united in Him in a union of one
'Person. And I was saying and maintaining that the union WSJ
'of the one Person of Christ. And I was shewing that Cod the
* Word certainly became man, and that Christ is Cod tin Word
' and at the same time man, inasmuch as He became man. And
'for this reason it was that the Fathers, when F et chin g us who
'Christ is, about whom then was a dissension, first laid down
'those things of which Christ consists. Hut thou (i.e. Cyril 1.
'because thou wishes! that the Person of the union should be
'God the Word in both natures, fast neglect these thing
'superfluous (sc. the earlier passage- in the Nieene Creed), and
'dost neglect to make a beginning from them. And from this
' (the human nature) thou dost apply to that (the divine nature)
'all those things which are said, with reference to the natu
'about Christ; and as though thine was a different Christ, thou
'didst refuse to speak of the Christ of the Fathers. And yet
' thou sayest, though unwillingly, that Christ is in both natures,
' and that God the Word is not in both natures ' {Bazaar of
Her acl ides pp. 176, 177).
most acceptable form of supplication. They added the words " God the
Redeemer of all", he says: thus in effect repudiating the 'immortal'
(ib. p. 358). [He also gives the form "Praise and thanksgiving to the
holy and immortal God the Redeemer of all ". His evidence shews that
Peter Fullo's addition of " who was crucified for us" was not so original as
it has been thought to be.] And again, he tells a tale that, when the
barbarians were threatening Constantinople and their progress could not be
checked, a crucifix was sent out against them and set up in the city, and so
they were put to flight: — and the moral is that it was the body, the man-
hood, and not the Godhead, that suffered on the Cross (ib. pp. 359, 360).
64 Nestorius and his teaching
The following passages also are among the most charac-
teristic.
1 Holy Scripture nowhere says that " God " was born of the
1 Virgin Mother of Christ, but " Jesus Christ " and " the Son "
'and "the Lord". This, that holy Scripture teaches, we all
'confess' (Loofs Nestoriana p. 278).
' The Scripture speaks of the " incarnation " of the Word,
'but never of His "birth" ' (ib. p. 287).
'They make God the Word later than the blessed Mary
' and impose a temporal mother on the Godhead that created
' time. Nay, it would be more true to say they do not admit
' that she who bore Christ was the mother of Christ. For if he
' who was from her was not man's nature, but God the Word,
' as they say, then she who gave birth was not the mother of
' him who was born. For how could any one be mother of one
' whose nature was not the same as hers ? But if they give her
' the name of mother, then what was born was manhood, not
' Godhead : for the mother's offspring must be of the same
'substance as herself (Sermo viii, ib. p. 245).
' She who bore Christ was the mother of the child whom
' she bore, not of the Godhead which is universal ' {ib. p. 246).
' The Virgin who bore Christ bore indeed the Son of God,
' but since the Son of God is twofold in nature, she bore indeed
'the Son of God, but she bore the manhood which is Son
'because of the Son who is joined thereto.... Therefore God
' the Word is called " Christ ", because the conjunction which
' He has with Christ is perpetual. And it is not possible for
'God the Word to do anything without the manhood: for it
' has been brought into a state of complete conjunction with him,
' but it has not been deified as the wiseacres among our younger
'dogmatists would have it' (Sermo x, ib. pp. 274, 275).
'The form 1 that received God 2 let us honour as God
1 Cf. Phil, ii 6, 7. Nestorius frequently in the Bazaar of Heraclides
uses juop077 in this way, as Leo and others used the Latin equivalent forma.
2 This is the term Nestorius proposed, differing in sound from the other
The title " Tlieotokos" 65
'together with Cod tin \\'<>rd, Init the Virgin who received
I let us not honour as God together with Cod. I say
d God, not who gave birth to God. ..for there is only
1 one... God the Father to whom this compound word (T/teotokes)
'applies 1 ' (id. p. 276).
As Instinctive as any Of hll sayings ID this connexion, and
absolutely decisive as to his meaning, is a passage in which he
exposes one of Cyrils perversions (whether they were delibt
or unconscious) of his words: — a passage which also s!
that Christians wnv still exposed to the heathen taunt, which
Athanasius had to meet*.
'Once, in speaking against the heathen who say that wc
'declare that the Being (sus/'a, substantia) of God was created
w from a Virgin, I said : My good Sir>, Mary did not give
' birth to Godhead, but she gave birth to a man, the insepar.
1 instrument of the Divinity. Kut he (sc. Cyril) by a change of
'the word "Divinity " made me say : My good Sirs, Mary did
'not give birth to God. But there is surely a great difference
'between saying "God" and saying "Godhead". For the
Matter word means the divine and incorporeal substance, not
'flesh at all (for flesh is composite and created); whe:
• " Cod " is a term that can properly be used also of the temple
by only the difference l>etween / and d — TluodocJtos instead of Thcotokos —
as he explains in this passage.
1 Only God, that is, could 'give birth' to God. The argument seems
to be entirely in keeping with the comment of Augustiue on the saying
man, what have I to do with thee?", which he interprets as designed
to make us understand that " in so far as He was God, He had no mother".
" lie who was uniquely born, had a Father without a mother, had a mother
without a Father; was God without a mother, was man without a Father."
- mother therefore was mother of the flesh, mother of the manhood,
mother of the infirmity which He took upon Him for our sakes." Tract, tn
Joann. viii 8, 9.
2 See p. 92. In another passage (Loofs op. n't. p. 339) it is the fact
that the term thcotokos favours the Arian theory of the Person of Christ that
Xestorius has in view : the theory, that is, which excluded the human soul
and so emptied the manhood of ethical value.
b. 5
66 Nestorius and his teaching
* of Divinity which by its union with the Divine substance of
'God receives dignity, but is not changed into the Divine
'substance 1 .'
If only the transcendence of God is safeguarded, and His
ousia preserved intact, so that in gaining the Incarnation we
do not lose God Himself; and if only the manhood of Christ
is recognized as derived from a human Mother, so that as man
He is " flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone " — the ousia of
His manhood one and the same as hers — He Himself as touch-
ing His manhood " consubstantial with us"; — then Nestorius is
content, and he does not grudge us or her the title " Mother of
God" 2 , for it was, he says, the Lord of the universe who came
forth through the Virgin 3 . He who was born was God.
That is to say, he accepts the title in the only sense in
which it is tolerable. He prefers the term " Mother of Christ "
as being entirely free from ambiguity. ^If we say " Mother of
God " we ought in strictness to add " Mother of man " as well 4 .
But Mary is Theotokos 'because the Word was united to the
'temple... which is in nature consubstantial with the holy
'Virgin... .In virtue of this union the holy Virgin is Theotokos™. \
For members of the Church of England it is of interest to
remember that the great divines of the Reformation period,
1 From the Tragedy or the History of Nestorius (Loofs op. cit. p. 205,
cf. pp. 252, 337). At the end of this passage on the calumnies of Cyril he
says that he dealt with his sayings as any one might do with St Paul's, if he
took his words " Behold, I Paul say unto you that, if you let yourselves
be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing ", and left out the qualifying
clause "if you let yourselves be circumcised" — so representing the apostle
as saying nakedly " Christ will profit you nothing ".
2 'I have already said many a time that, if any one... delights in the
term "Mother of God", I have no quarrel with the term. Only let him
not make the Virgin a goddess (dedv) ' (id. p. 353). Cf. id. pp. 273, 277.
3 Sermo x Loofs p. 272, fragment id. p. 277.
4 To this effect the whole of Sermo xviii Loofs pp. 297 ff. and Sermo
xxvii id. pp. 337 ff. 5 Loofs pp. 303, 309.
The title u Theotoko 67
of whose loyalty to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation
re can be no qneitton, ihared the ippfefaenaoM of NY storms
term " Mother of God", They withdrew it from public
use ill te Services of the Church 1 . The Reform
undoubtedly anxious to bring back to the full conscious
of the Church the manhood of the Son of Cod, and to set
Him before men as the ethical Ideal and the means of access
to the Father. They thought that tin- Mother of the Ix>rd and
Stints had conn- be tw ee n men and Cod, and they wished
to restore the supremacy of the "One and Only Mediator".
But there seems to have been little discussion of the term
itself. It was quietly dropped, both from the Article on the
;rnation, which in all other respects closely follows the
Definition of Chalcedon, and from the place which it had
come to occupy in the public prayers of the Church*. The
invocation "Saint Mary, mother of Cod, our Saviour Jesus
Christ, pray for us'', which hadf been retained in Crann
1 The Lutherans and all the reformed Churches also discarded the
term. The fact that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the
Md Virgin can be defended as a logical inference from the title
Theotokos will seem to some to shew how easily the term can be understood
to imply a view of the person of the Mother of our Lord that isolates her in
nature, as well as in honour, from all other women, and therefore seems to
impair the reality of the human nature of her Son and to carry with it the
denial of the doctrine that He was M consubstantial with us".
2 I refer only to public use of the title. It is still, of course, standard
for English churchmen — not only by reason of the fact that there was no
break in the continuity of the Church at the Reformation, and on the
principle that every doctrine and practice of the ancient Church that has
not been expressly repudiated has still such authority as it ever had, but
also by explicit recognition of the doctrinal decisions of the first four
General Councils— recognition made in various ways and notably in a
statute of the first year of Elizabeth which was successfully pleaded in
recent times before Archbishop Tait as a statute of the realm which
recognized this very title Theotokos as in agreement with the doctrine of the
Church of England, and assured any English clergyman who used it of the
support and protection of the State.
5—2
68 Nestorius and his teaching
Litany, was omitted altogether in the First Prayer Book of
Edward VI, and of course not reinstated in subsequent revisions.
" Mother of our Saviour " or " of our Saviour Jesus Christ ", or
" Mother of the Lord " or " of our Lord Jesus Christ " are the
titles which, since the Reformation, members of the Church
of England have commonly been content to use, while at the
same time firmly holding the belief that He who was born
of her was God as well as man. These titles are enough to
secure to her all the affectionate devotion and reverence that
such Motherhood inspires. The faith in the Godhead of her
Son is guarded in other ways 1 .
1 In this connexion, without endorsing all the doctrinal statements and
historical inferences which it contains, or all that is said of the Anglican
position in general, I would refer to the interesting and suggestive survey of
the doctrine of the Incarnation and the aims of the Reformers in Dr
A. V. G. Allen's recently published Freedom in the Church (New York,
the Macmillan Co., 1907).
CHAPTER V
A FAMOUS SAYING OF NESTORIUS
koI Srj voWCbv dfoXoywvTu* to* 'Ii^oPr, 'Eyut, tyy Ne<rTfy*oj, top y<*6-
jitvov SifiTjvaiw teal Tpinrjvatov ovk ar dtbv 6vofid<raifn' teal Sib. touto Ka6apb%
cl/jd dxd tov atfiaros vnu>r y xal d»6 roO *vv wpbt vfiaf ovk iXfi'vofiat.
i 34.
In close connexion with the term "Mother of God" we
must consider one of the sayings for which Nestorius has never
been forgiven — the one which Socrates reports as spoken by
him in conversation with another bishop at EpbesilS. It was
on one of the days when they were still waiting for the arrival
of John of Antioch and the bishops of his province ; and
Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, took the opportunity
to go and talk to Nestorius and convince him, if he could, of
the error of his ways. All that is generally known of the dis-
cussion is the last remark of Nestorius which ended it :\ ' /
could not give the name of God to one who was two or three
months old : and so I am innocent of your blood, and hence-
forth I will not come to you' 1 . \There is irritation and petulance
1 Socrates H.E. vii 34 gives the remark in these terms. Theodotus
gave evidence at the Council and Added that many others heard the same
words which he repeatedly uttered (Mansi Concilia iv p. 1 181)— toXK&kii
4(fnj, oinrjvaiov fj Tpinyvaiov fir) Srfy \4y(adat 6(6v. Acacius, bishop of
Melitene, also interviewed Nestorius with the same object, and stated
before the Council that he found that he had fallen into two absurdities at
once. He put a question the answer to which required either a denial that
the (lodhead of the Only-begotten had become man or an assertion that the
jo Nestorius and his teaching
in the exclamation. It sounds like the hasty utterance of a
man who is getting the worst of the argument, and in his
annoyance loses his temper : though it might also have come
from one who had been plied by a stupid opponent with argu-
ments that had no point and shewed no intelligent grasp of the
issues, whose patience was exhausted and who simply wished to
break off a futile discussion. We can all put ourselves into Nes-
torius's position. In any case piety was shocked. To Christian
sentiment, nourished and sustained from the earliest days by
the belief that found expression in St Luke's account of the
Nativity and St Matthew's narrative of the visit of the Wise
Men from the East to offer to the new-born Babe the symbolic
gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh, such a saying seemed
intolerable. The man who could say that was not a Christian,,
and to play the part of a Coriolanus and say ' / banish you ' at
the end of it was adding insult to injury. Unhappy man, what
could they do with him ? We can well imagine how Theodotus
and Acacius hurried away and told their tale.
But Nestorius's own account of the interview (if the Syriac
translator has rightly understood the Greek before him) puts a
different complexion on it, and shews that even the unfortunate
exclamation itself was misrepresented. His account must be
given in full. He has alluded just before to the slander that he
himself misrepresented the facts as to the proceedings at Ephesus
in order to create a prejudice against his opponents, and so he
is obliged to say what really happened and the kind of trial he
had. He has said that Cyril was accuser and judge, indeed
the whole court, in one ; and his account of this episode opens
with one of those apostrophes of Cyril which are characteristic
of the style of the book, which throughout passes backwards
Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit had become
incarnate with God the Word. Acacius added that not Nestorius himself,
but a bishop who was with him, had interposed and said that the Son who
suffered death was one, and God the Word another. Unable to endure
this blasphemy Acacius made his adieus and retired.
A famous saying of No yi
a\m\ forwards without warning from simple narrative to im-
passioned personal taunt or a;>;
Nest, n of the facts
' But (to resume) :
'Thou dioSt first of all sit among the judges. And as
1 there were no accusers — since they were judges — they put
'forward to accuse me Theodotus bishop of Ancyra in Galati.i
'and Acacius bishop of Metitene, who was the question
' First, Theodotus said that he had had a conversation with
1 me : hut the conversation itself he did not report ; nor did
' this man (Cyril) ask what the conversation was about, so that
'they might weigh as judges what mu Mid on either side,
'(p. 155) and accept the one and reject the other as one
1 who had fallen into open impiety : but the charge alone the)
' heard.
1 Theodotus bishop of Ancyra says' : lam pained indeed for
' my friend's sake : but religion is of more importance than any
' friendship, and therefore I am constrained, with much sorrow,
' to answer truthfully the questions I am asked. Yet I think
' that my testimony is needless, since his views are known from
' his letters to your piety ; for the things that he there said
'that one might not say of God — i.e. of the Only-begotten —
'reproaching Him with human things: ^the same he has said
'here in conversation, to wit, that it is not right to say of God
' that He sucked milk, or that He was born from a virgin. In
' the same way he has often repeated here the words : " I do
' not say that God is two or three months old " 2 . \
1 Nestorius is evidently quoting from the Acts of the Council, as in
the case of the speech of Acacius (sec below).
2 The Syriac is ^oi\*£\ ^k\^> "!=» o^ ^4* ^n^ Tra
*^*^ T£7*^ f^\ ; that is, literally: 'a son of two months or a son
of three God I do not say (to be)'. The saying is given in the same form
lower down (MS p. «f6 <ui init.). The fact that the prefix / is attached to
72 Nes tortus and his teaching
' They did not as judges examine this evidence, nor yet did
* he speak as to scrutinizers and judges. But he stood as the
1 witness of an accusing judge : " For the things, forsooth, that
1 he there rejected, that they should not be said of God — i.e. of
1 the Only-begotten — reproaching Him with human things : the
1 same he has said here in conversation, to wit, that it is not
' right to say that God sucked milk or was born of a virgin.
' And he has likewise said : 'I do not say that [God] is two
'or three months old'" 1 .
'And he (Cyril) received this statement without examination,
' as a hostile judge, without asking the witness any questions,
' such as : " Of what was he speaking to you when he spoke
' thus ? " or : " What did you say to this ? Stay, tell us in
'what it was that he was opposing you, that we may know
'in what sense he rejected these expressions, and not admit
' without cause an accusation against him in his absence, and
' that we may not give sentence (d7ro<£a<rts) against him without
' examination and without enquiry and before we know those
'things that ought to be accurately ascertained, namely, of
'what he was guilty. For thus neither will the accused be
' able to deny, nor will he have any ground for accusing me
'of partiality. Say, then, O Theodotus [what it was about
'which] you were talking with him. If, as you say, (p. 156)
' God ', and not to ' a son,' shews that (rightly or wrongly) the Syriac trans-
lator took ' God ' to be the subject described, and ' a son ', etc., to be the
description predicated of 'God'. This is in accordance with the regular
Syriac usage: cf. below (MS p. 156 ad mi/.): 'Was it as though he did
not say that Christ is God?' where 'Christ' has the prefix /, and not ' God'.
Moreover, the Syriac expression 'a son of, followed by a number of days,
months, years, does not of itself introduce the idea of childhood, but
merely indicates the age. In Lk iii 23 the Syriac versions say, 'now
Jesus was about a son of thirty years '. In giving a person's age Syriac
employs the same idiom as Hebrew: cf. 2 Kings viii 17, xii 7, xiv 2, etc.
1 In the MS these words are given as if repeated by Theodotus with a
fresh heading " Theodotus ", but it is clear that they are a scornful repetition
of Theodotus's words by Nestorius.
/ famous saying of Nestor 73
4 you were accurately informed as to his meanings when you
4 questioned him and he Mism red ><>u that he did not say that
d is two or three monthi old»f*ai it as- though he did not
. that Christ is Cod— for He was two or three months
4 old— was it in this sense that he said it to you? You, then,
Mid you say that Cod was born of a woman and was two
4 or three mouths old in the sense that His own ousia was
'changed into the Of a man, and that in this sense He
'was begotten and became two 01 three months old? or that
'lie WIS < hanged in His form and appearance (ax^t^a.) into
* the form and appearance (<r\rjfia) of a man as regardi His own
'<>usi\r, and that Christ is thought of as in the single ousia of
4 Cod, and not in two ousias? And, if in both ousias y how?
4 Are both from the one ousia of Cod the Word, or was He of
net and unlike ousias and begotten in both of them? Or
4 was it that one of these ousias 1 was begotten And became
4 two or three months old in the sense that before it was
* begotten and became two or three months old it did not exist?
4 Or was it that the ousia was eternal and did not receive a
* beginning so as to be begotten and become two or three
4 months old, since He (the Word) did not possess that which
4 they have who must of necessity be begotten ? Or was He
* begotten in the birth of the flesh by * appropriation ,s of
* ousia}"
4 If he were thus questioned he would of necessity cont< H
4 that which he said before the Eastern Bishops when he was
4 questioned by them in writing, viz. that the Only-begotten
4 Son of Cod created and was created— He the same, but not
4 in the same sense: that the Son of Cod suffered and did not
1 It is fairly clear that the Divine ousia — God the Wotd — is here
meant.
* The Syr. word corresponds in formation to ou<€i6tiis, the verb
oUtioixjdtu being constantly used in the controversy of the Word "making
His own " the things of man. The Syriac word itself means " association"
or " intimacy.
74 Nestorius and his teaching
' suffer — He the same, but not in the same sense. For some
' of these things belong by nature to the Godhead, but some to
' underwent by the manhood, and all the divine by the Godhead.
1 the nature of the manhood. All the human experiences He
' For the birth from a woman is human, but the birth from the
c Father [is Divine] ; [this is] without beginning, but that with a
1 beginning : this is eternal, but that in time. About these
1 things, when he was throttled by the truth, he was unable to
'hide his opinions, but was forced by the persistency of the
'examination to put them into writing; and, as a dog which is
' forcibly tied up hides his evil manners, but as soon as he
'escapes from the chain runs off (p. 157) to the kennel of his
' companions, and barks at those who held him, and dares not
1 come out into the open and fight : but when he is inside
' he sets back his ears and puts his tail between his legs :
'so this man did not dare to promise that he would speak
' and vindicate himself, while confuting me, nor any such thing
' as those are accustomed to do who have confidence in their
'own case — I mean, that he should uphold his cause and
1 vindicate himself from the Divine Scriptures and the traditions
' and teachings of the holy Fathers ; but : " Hear", he says,
' " these things ". Not openly, as I speak, does he dare to treat
' of the things he speaks of, and to establish from the Divine
'Scriptures and from the writings of the Fathers what they
'have said and how they have said it. Nor has he deemed
1 it necessary to be consistent and commit to writing the things
'that he has said; but, "it is right", says he, "to say what
' I consider to be the truth ".
1 This was the first [anxiety] that took hold of them, (viz.)
' that they (the assembled bishops) should not know the whole
'conversation nor the whole discussion that we (Theodotus
'and I) had. Since, if they related those things that were
'said against them they would have nothing to say, for this
'reason they did not write them, not even in the Hypomne-
' mata, — save only this, that it is not right to say that God
A famous saying of A r estorius 75
'Slicked milk or that He was horn of a virgin in the common
'way. They enquired (only) so far as they thought fit. l!ut
'about these matters we shall speak presently.
'Attn this man (TbeodotUt) came Acacius, and recounted
'to them a conversation that he had with me— and (the tl
'he said) did [not] 1 appear impossible to them I He answers
'his interrogation by detailing an accusation against me: not
'by a refutation, nor by shewing the truth of tho that
' he held : but he received the questions asked him with an
'accusation against me. And, that you may know that this
' is no fabrication of mine, hear it from their own Hfpomttc
' mata.
The speech of Acacius Bishop of Afciitcne
• As soon as I came to the city of Ephesus I had a dispu-
'tation with this man, who has already been spoken of; and
'when I learned that he held incorrect opinions, I used all
'possible diligence to put him right and to remove him from
'this mind of his. And he appeared to me to make a
'verbal promise to change his views, (p. 158) After I had
'dropped the matter about ten or twelve days, a discussion
' having again arisen upon some point between us, I began t< >
' speak up for the correct faith, and I saw that he was against
1 it. And I found that he had fallen into two errors. For first
'he perversely asked a question which laid upon those who
' were to answer it the necessity of either denying altogether
'that the Godhead of the Only- begotten became man, or
'confessing — what is impious — that the Godhead of the
'Father and the Holy Spirit also became incarnate with the
'Word."
u '[Nestorius] Some questioned, others answered that the
'things were absurd and impious. Some confessed and
1 Unless we supply a negative I cannot make sen>e of this passage. It
would be very easy. for the scribe to omit one, for two may have stood near
together in the original — thus : ' and it did not seem not possible to them !'
J 6 Nestorius and his teaching
'accepted the expression 1 which I had proposed to confute
'them J [others rejected it] 2 and were condemned by those
' who accepted it.
'Surely one would suppose that there is some mistake
'when they write all these things in the Hypomnemata and
' make everybody bear witness against them ! For suppose
1 that my dilemma (lit. " question ") were true 3 : then thou
'(Acacius) oughtest not to have accepted it, but rather to have
'exposed the fallacy of the alternative, lest, by accepting its
1 validity, thou shouldst launch into the ford that leads to
' impiety and absurdity. But thou didst accept religiously an
'absurd alternative; then, from this, thou earnest to impiety,
' so as to confess either that God the Word, the Son of God,
'did not become man, or that the Father and the Spirit
'also became man. That, therefore, which thou didst agree
' to when questioned thou oughtest to have let alone, even if
'thou didst not — treating it as someone else's — correct it.
' Grant that thou didst not, either willingly or unwillingly, fall
' into this absurdity : why didst thou not pronounce the question
' absurd on the strength of which you wished to condemn me ?
' But thou didst not pronounce it so, nor did the judges require
' thee to do this. And if it was so absurd that it was left with-
' out refutation, being unrefuted by your whole synod ; and if
' you all left it unrefuted, and there was not among you anyone
' that was able to refute it, say, if you have even the appearance
' of being judges, that they examined an absurd alternative, and
'write the question down as fictitious (p. 159) for those who
'have sense and will have to examine your judgement. But
'through your incapacity you remained in the dark, for you
' could not see even what was obvious : rather I should say
'that God was assisting you in your examination, that you
1 This probably means "the alternative ".
2 Some such words seem to have dropped out.
3 i.e. that I really put it.
A famous saying of N$stor\ 77
'should write down these tilings, in order thai it should be
'made manifest : \m\ that all this was done through
'enmit) and without can
From this Recount, then, if u 1 has not
misunderstood thi n that tin SCtttsJ words of
Nestorius hftVC DOt come down to us ruiu<tl\. He did not
Sty thai he could not bring himself to call a babe God, but he
said that he could not bring himself to call God a babe. The
word "God" was the subject rather than the predicate. Hi
refused to predicate infancy of God, rather than Godhead of an
infant. The verbal difference is clear. There is really the sani<
logical difference between the two expressions as there is bet\v
ing "Christ is God" and saying "God is Christ'". And
there was a real difference of intention in the mind of Nestorius.
He did not intend by the phrase to deny the ( iodhead of Him
who was born. He intended to deny that God Himself could
in His own being (in His essence, substance, ousia — whate\< i
it is that makes God God) submit to a human birth and become
a babe. In Himself, in His own being, He remained God and
ought not to be called by any other name. Nestorius had no
wish to imply by the words he used any disparagement of the
Holy Infant : he did wish to safeguard the Majesty on High
from merely human experiences and attributes. The recovery
of the setting of the words which were impeached reveals to us
the thoughts and the fears that prompted them. This setting
is so thoroughly consonant with the general trend of his argu-
ment elsewhere, and fits so naturally into its place in his
narrative of those miserable days at Ephesus, that I am quite
unable to harbour the suspicion that Nestorius — writing at a
later time after further reflexion — has himself given a cunning
twist to the phrase he ^actually used. I have emoted already
1 Sec mpra p. 60.
\
78 Nestorius and his teaching
(p. 46) the words in which he shews that he knew that his
opponents thought he was a man who propounded conun-
drums — subtle dialectical puzzles — in matters which were
beyond reason and ought to be accepted in humble unreason-
ing faith. Nestorius did not take their view, and the passage
just cited gives us an instance of the method which they
disliked. There is the real man— " at his worst n perhaps:
subtle, ingenious, unsparing and — must we add? — unanswer-
able on his own ground : chafing as one whose arguments are
ignored, whose sense of intellectual fair-play is outraged :—
himself intellectually straight as a die. It is to reason as
supreme interpreter of the words of evangelists, apostles, and
fathers that he appeals throughout his book, and it is an
intellectual sense of outrage at the treatment meted out to
his ideas, rather than to him, that makes him w r rite : page after
page throbs with this saeva indignatio. It is impossible to
suppose that the man who reveals himself so plainly would
have condescended to such a perversion of the facts. Not one
respite has he had, nor any human consolation all those years ;
but he has not been ' cowed by hardships, nor run away from
'the contest' 1 . However outspoken he was, however onesided
his phrases may seem, they are at least always straightforward.
Perhaps his very straightforwardness was his bane. He is too
impatient of any approach to intellectual jugglery or the vague-
ness of statement that shuffles this and that together till you
cannot tell what either is, or which is which 2 . There is of
course a sense of moral wrong underlying all the personal
references to Cyril and his "judges", and the specifically moral
note is firmly struck at the end of his book, when he speaks
of the impending siege of Rome by the barbarians and says
that it is sure to come because Leo 'although he held the faith
' aright, agreed to all the things that had been done against him
4 without examination '. Such moral obliquity does indeed cry
1 Bazaar of Heraclides p. 370. 2 Cf. ib. p. 14.
./ famous saying of NtsUm 79
out to Heaven foff vengeance, and the cry has gone up to Him
who works out His moral purpose fa tin- world l>y human
meant, r.ut the intellectual is the dominant theme throughout
his apologia.
Although, however, we could not entertain tin- idea that
Nestorius himself on second thought! slightly altered the
words he actually need, there remains tin- possibility that his
. translator misunderstood the Cm k. I'.ut mt CM turn
to the Greek itself, and by this instance judge of the com
petence of the translator. I or Nestorius evidently had a
of the official report of the proceedings at Ephesus before
bin as he wrote and quoted from it: and TheodotOS*! \eision
of his Saying, taken down at the time no doubt by the slv
hand writers who compiled the rej>ort, can be read in the
uncil. And when we turn to this official record,
we find that it supports the Syriac version of the words. What
Theodotus told the Council was that Nestorius said that tin
words two or three months old ought not to be used of God
»d ought not to be called two or three months old "). It
can only be familiarity with the traditional version of the
raying that has led anyone to understand the words as they
stand in the Acts of the Council in any othe: It will
1 1 have cited the words supra p. 69 n. 1 ; hut they must be read in
their context. Theodotus has referred to expressions used by Notorial
in a letter to Cyril, and then goes on as follows: a yap 4ku (that is, in his
letter to Cyril) axrrydpewrt repl tov deov \6yov \4ycadai, Toinrian. rov fiovo'
-yero*/*, dvciSlfav avT$ ra avdpunriva, ravra kcli ivravda (that is, here in
Ephesus) SiaXeydneros IQt)' fii) Seiv irtpi dcov X^a? yaXaKTorpoipLav p-r)8i
y4p¥ifciv rr\v </c Tapdivov ovtu) teal ivravda toWclkis t<pi) biix-rjvaiov rj t/mjuij-
raio» p.T) fciv X^7«r0eu dtbv (Mansi Concilia iv p. 11 81 ). There cannot really
he any doubt that $e6v is here the subject of the predication, as in the
preceding saying that God must not be said to have sucked milk or un
gone birth. The words Siftrjyaiov and Tpifirjvalov are ordinary adjectives
(used e.g. of corn that ripens in two or in three months) and without the
article (which Socrates inserts), or a noun like /Sp^ot, could only be
predicates. Qt6v on the other hand could be used with or without the
article, indifferently, as subject. No Greek scholar, I am sure, would read
80 Nestorius and his teaching
be noticed that Nestorius makes no complaint here, as he
does elsewhere, that his actual words were distorted ; and his
other sayings at the same time, which he says were repeated
by Theodotus, and all the questions which he suggests should
have been put by his "judges" in order to discover his real
meaning, have reference to the attribution of human ex-
periences to God, and imply that God was the subject, rather
than the predicate 1 , in the particular saying which has ever
since been quoted as proof of his unorthodox)*. The Syriac
translator has thus restored to us the words Nestorius really
used, and opened our eyes to the fact that the. Greek Acts of
the Council shew that Theodotus reported them fairly. The
perversion of them, with which we are familiar, is due to
misunderstanding or malice on the part of his opponents.
The word was passed round that Nestorius said he could
not call a baby God, and Socrates, no doubt, in his account
of the saying, is reporting what people believed he had said.
Perhaps even at Ephesus they understood his actual words
to mean what the traditional version of them has seemed to
mean. In any case the main contention of Nestorius is that
they did not stop to ask what he really meant. They isolated
the words from their context, and made no enquiries as to the
subject under discussion. His words as reported to the Council
the passage in any other way. Our Syriac translator evidently knew the
language. (It ought to be noted also that the words would apply to a
child before birth as well as after birth.)
1 There is, so far as I can see, only one passage in Nestorius's imaginary
cross-examination of Theodotus in the Bazaar of Heradides, quoted above
p. 73, which may seem at first sight to favour the other version of the
saying : the passage ' When you questioned him and he answered you that
he did not call God two or three months old, was it as though he did not
call Christ God?' As "God" is predicate in the principal clause, the
logical balance of the clauses would be more exact if "God " were predicate
also in the saying itself. But the lack of exact correspondence in such a
case could only turn the scale if the other evidence was much less cogent
than it is.
A fa saying of Nt 81
were to his u judges" simply another of his "blasph
quite in keeping with his argumenti against the term rheo-
; and all that has been said as to the ming of
his objection to this term apptt saying that he could
not bring himself to call God I three months 1 rhikl. As a
matter of fact he does not shrink from saying 'the Babe is ^
'God in His own right ' ,
Even if he had said that "a child two or three months
old ought not to be called God," it would be clear that he
did notinlend in any way to question the Godhead of our
Lord. £what he was anxious to maintain was the Catholic
doctrine of the relation between the natures in the Person of
the Incarnate Son of God, the doctrine commonly known by
the term communicatio idiomatum. In view of other, ancient
and more modern, teaching which conceives of the Godhead
and the manhood of our Lord as so completely identified
that what is true of the one is true also of the other, it is
perhaps well to remind ourselves that the Catholic doctrine
(admirably expressed by Tertullian and Athanasius and others,
and lucidly summed up by Leo in his Letter to Flavian),
while maintaining that all experiences, whether of Godhead
or of manhood, are rightly predicated of the one Person
Jesus Christ, whether He be styled Son of God or Son of
man, — yet forbids us to ascribe human experiences to the
Godhead or Divine experiences to the manhood : the special
properties of either nature belong to it and to it alone, though
the Person who is both God and man is the subject of them
ahV^All Catholic teachers have always repudiated the idea I
that God in His own being was capable of human affections
1 See the passage cited infra p. 85.
CHAPTER VI
"TWO PERSONS" NOT THE TEACHING
OF NESTORIUS
Nestorius did not hold the belief commonly attributed to
him that in Jesus Christ two persons, the person of a God and
the person of a man, were mechanically joined together, one
being Son by nature and the other Son by association, so
that really there were two Sons and two Christs. He is as
explicit as possible on this point. He knows that such ideas
have been held, but he regards them as absurd and entirely
incompatible with Scripture. Writing of the followers of Paul
of Samosata, who come near to regarding Christ as only a man
and distinct from God the Word, he describes them as saying
that there is a division into two Sons, so that some things may
suitably be attributed to the one and some to the other, in
such a way as not to be absolutely incompatible with each
other nor yet in mere semblance (crx^a). 'They speak of
1 a double son and a double Christ, both as to persons and as
1 to substances ; and even as the saints received the indwelling
1 and image of God, so they say [it is with Christ] ' {Bazaar
of Heraclides p. 40).
This view Nestorius proceeds to refute, by special reference
to the prologue to St John's gospel, insisting that there is but
one Word and Son of God and that He assumed flesh and
made it His own without any change of ousia. And to those
that receive Him and believe in His name He gives authority
11 Two persons' 1 not the teaching of Nestorius 83
to become the sons of God (which tin •>• could not do before).
' il ■ is "full of grace and truth", not as one that has been
'rlunged, but as being that which He was, even the beta
i. Such as they received Him and believed Him to be
4 such also they saw Him revealed in the Beth Him, and not
* another God, nor another Word, nor another Life, nor another
* Light, nor another Only-begotten, but Him, the same, that
'was revealed in the flesh. "And of His fulness we have all
' received " as those who had nothing. And we received " of
* His fulness", and not " His fulness", for this is a fulness that
'lacks nothing, as God. Therefore He, "The Only-begotten
' who is in the bosom of His Father", has declared to us God
1 " whom no man hath ever seen " ; not another, but He " that
1 is in the bosom of His Father " ; and He came and became
* flesh and dwelt in us. And He is in the bosom of His Father,
'and is with us; since He is what the Father is, and has
'"declared" unto us — though plainly He did not shew the
'infinity and incomprehensibility of His ousia as He is in the
' bosom of His Father. As one who knew our nature, in the
' same nature of ours He " declared " unto us Him " whom no
' man hath ever seen ".
'How then can we understand this to be one Son, and
' Christ to be another Son, and one that is man only ? For He
'(Christ) keeps the equality and the honour of sonship in
' the image of Him whom you deny to have been sent and to
'have dwelt among us; who, while He is in the form 1 of God,
' dwells as a divine indwelling. And so it is that the Evangelist
' clearly begins from God the Word and leads us up to God the
'Word. And he knows nothing of any Word or any Only-
' begotten Son of God apart from God the Word — but Him
'only, the same with His flesh ' (Bazaar of Heraelidcs pp. 43,
44)-
Nestorius thus forcibly refutes the idea that there are two
1 i.e. /*o/>0ifr.
6-2
84 Ne storms and his teaching
persons, though he persistently maintains that there are two
substances, in the one Christ, who is the one Son and Word of
God. He also argues at length (ib. pp. 300 ff.) that the charge
might equally fairly be brought against all who believe that
Christ was in two natures.
Many other passages equally explicit might be cited. Here
are a few of them.
' God the Word and the man in whom He came to be (lv
' <S yiyovtv) are not numerically two. For the Person of both
' was one in dignity and honour, worshipped by all creation, in
1 no way and at no time divided by difference of purpose and
'will* (Fragment Loofs op. cit. p. 224).
' The unity of the natures is not divided ; it is the ousiae of
'the natures that are united that are divided. This division
1 consists not in the abolition of the union, but in the idea of
1 the flesh and the Godhead. Hear this plainly stated. Christ
' is indivisible in His being Christ, but He is twofold in His being
' God and His being man. He is single in His Sonship ; He is
' twofold in Him who has assumed and him who is assumed.
' In the person of the Son He is a single (person), but, as with
' two eyes, He is different in the natures of manhood and God-
' head. For we know not two Christs or two Sons or Only-
' begottens or Lords, not one and another Son, not a first and
' a new Only-begotten, not a first and a second Christ, but one
1 and the same, who was seen in the created and the uncreated
'nature' (Sermo xii Loofs op. cit. p. 280).
'He who is one is Himself twofold... in nature' (ib. ib.
p. 281).
'Our Lord the Christ is God and man' (ib. ib. p. 284).
' The natures must remain in their own properties, and so
' one glory must be understood and one Son confessed in virtue
' of the wonderful union which transcends all reason... we do not
' make two persons one person, but by the one name " Christ "
' we denote the two natures together ' (Letter xi ib. p. 196).
Again and again he insists that He who was born of Mary,
:
11 Two persons" not the teaching of Nest or ins 85
our Lord, the ( Ihritt, was one Son, the Son of Ciod, but twofold
in His Godhead and in His manhood.
1 1 say this that you may learn how close a conjunction of
' the Godhead and the Lord's visible flesh existed even in the
4 babe. For the same person (6 avroc) was both babe and
* Lord of the babe. [At this the congregation seem to have
* applauded, for Nestorius goes on] You approve the expression,
4 but do not applaud it without seeing what it means. I
* I said : The same person was babe and inhabitant of the
*babe' {Sermo xv Loofs op. cit. p. 292).
I f the babe and the l^ord of the babe are one and the same
person, the suspected phrase * inhabitant of the babe ' must be
simply intended as a safeguard against identification of the
Word with the flesh. So Mary is Theotokos —
'because the Word was united to the temple... which is in
'nature consubstantial with the holy Virgin. ...It is in virtue of
4 this union that the holy Virgin is called Theotokos' {Sermo xviii
Loofs op. cit. pp. 303, 309).
4 The Word of God was not separated from the nature of
4 the temple ' {id. id. p. 308).
4 1 call Christ perfect God and perfect man, not natures
4 which are commingled, but which are united ' {Fragment it'.
P- 33 2 )-
4 The visible and the invisible are one Son ' {i!>. p. 299).
On the text " Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same
for ever " (as he reads it) he says :
4 He himself [sc. the one and the same person] is new as
4 man, but as God before the ages' {id. p. 270).
4 Great is the mystery of the gift : for this babe that can be
4 seen, this fresh appearance, this that needs swaddling clothes
4 for the body, this that in the visible substance is newly born,
4 is in respect of that which is hidden eternal, the Son who
4 made the universe.... Yes, and the babe is God in his own right
4 (0c6s avT«£ovo-io?). So far is the Word of God from being
4 subject to God, O Arius!...We acknowledge therefore the
86 Nestorius and his teaching
'manhood and the Godhead of the babe... .We maintain the
'singleness of the Sonship in the nature of manhood and of
'Godhead' (Sermo xx Loofs op. cit. pp. 327, 328).
And another passage must be added here in which he
expressly repudiates the inferences which were drawn by Cyril
and Acacius from " cuttings " from his writings :
'Neither hast thou (sc. Cyril) properly understood those
' cuttings (from my writings) which thou hast written down, (e.g.)
'that I say "we learn from the Divine Scriptures that God
' passed through the holy Virgin, the mother of Christ ", as
'thou hast written that I say. How then dost thou cry out
' that I speak of God the Word who was born of the Father as
' one Christ apart, and of another Christ who was born of holy
' Mary? Of which dost thou consider that I said "God passed
'through her"? It is obvious that I said it of God the Word,
' who was born of the Father. How then do I speak of another
' Christ apart from God the Word who was born of the Father?
' I said that He (the Word) also passed through blessed Mary
' inasmuch as He did not receive a beginning by birth from her,
'as is the case with the body which was born of her. For
' this reason I said that God the Word " passed ", and not
' " was born ", because He did not receive a beginning from
' her. But the two natures being united are one Christ. And
' He who " was born of the Father as to the Divinity ", and
' "from the holy Virgin as to the humanity" 1 is, and is styled,
' one j for of the two natures there was a union.
'And it is right for us to say against thee also, Acacius,
' that the two natures unconfused I confess to be one Christ.
' In one nature, i.e. the Godhead, He was born of God the
' Father, and in the other, i.e. the manhood, of the holy Virgin.
' How then canst thou style her Mother of God, when thou
1 These phrases are borrowed from the Confession of John of Antioch
and the Eastern bishops which was accepted as orthodox by St Cyril.
Throughout this passage "born" is to be understood in the sense of
"begotten" — a distinction which cannot be expressed in Syriac.
" Two persons" not the teaching of Ncstorius 87
'hast confessed that He (God) was not born of her? If thotr
'hast said that the Godhead was born of the holy Virgin, ihe
•will be called Mother of God from the (Divine) nature being
' born of her ; but if thou also confess that the Godhead
'not born (of her), how canst thou — confessing that It was not
' born— confess her to be Mother of God? And how canst
'thou accuse me of speaking of two Christs, when thou th\
'dost confess that Christ is of two natures, one nature of the
'Godhead, which is called Christ, and one of the manhood,
' which thou also stylest Christ ? Dost thou confess two Chi
'(p. 300) because the natures are different 1 — one, the manhood
'which was born of the holy Virgin, and another, God the
1 Word who was born of God the Father? Or dost thou say —
as he (Cyril) says — "One in the union", and nothin.
1 Why then hast thou gone to such extremes, and brought
'others with thee, against a man who has also said this?'
(Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 299, 300).
In view of the many expressions and arguments of which
these are only typical, 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 things
(substances) Godhead and manhood with their characteristics
(natures) complete and intact though united in Him. (Indeed
at a later time his worst enemies themselves bore witness on
this point. For when the charge of " Nestorianism " was flung by
the Eutychians at their opponents, and Flavian and his friends
defended themselves by saying that Nestorius believed there
were " two Sons ", whereas they taught " two natures " only, and
not two persons; the Eutychians declared that he never taught
1 The text has 4 in one variety of natures'. The above translation is
based upon a trifling and obvious correction of the IIS.
"88 Nestorius and his teaching
"two Sons" and was condemned simply because he taught "two
natures " in the Incarnate Word — though, they added, two
natures could only mean two persons 1 .)
But the question arises, Was it a real union ? Did he not
constantly use phrases and turns of expression that rob his
strong assertions of the unity of the Person of all their value,
and shew that he was either radically unsound in his doctrine
or hopelessly muddle-headed ? He used the terms " the God "
and " the man " and spoke of them as "joined together " and as
"worshipped together", and of the relation between them as
one of "good-pleasure", and he had some very suspicious
phrases about " the person of the Godhead " and the " person
of the manhood". What kind of " union" was it that he had
in mind?
These phrases must be examined. We need not dwell
long over the first. The language which Nestorius spoke and
wrote is responsible for some of the ambiguities of his ex-
pressions. Ordinary usage in Greek allowed the concrete to
stand for the abstract, "the God" for "Godhead", "the man"
for " manhood ". The use of the concrete may perhaps convey
a shade more of personalized significance than the use of the
abstract would; but I can find nothing in Nestorius on this
count that could not be found in other theologians of un-
tarnished reputation. The conception that one nature is the
sphere of one set of experiences passes insensibly into the
conception that it is in some sense the particular subject — or
almost the agent — of them. Leo, in his letter to Flavian, uses
expressions that are at least as strong in this respect as any
that Nestorius used, in the way of personalizing the two
1 See Bazaar of He rac I ides pp. 366, 367.
2 e.g. "Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium
est."
" Two persons " not the teaching of Ncstorins 89
Men whose own language was Greek might, of course, be
ex pe cte d to understand such ambiguous expressions. But it is
clear that the opponents of Nestorius were determined to put
the worse sense on his words and never to give him "the
benefit of the doubt ". We have seen already that one of the
passages which Cyril garbled has reference to thil very point.
Nestorius had actually used the word "Godhead" and (
replaced it by the word " God ". Frequently in decisive con-
nexions Nestorius speaks of "the Godhead" and "the manhood"
rather than of " the God " and "the man". Athanasius 1 employs
the phrase "the man" in his discussion of the same problem
which Nestorius handles, both by itself and in direct antithesis
to "God the Word". For example, in explaining the termi
" humbled " and " highly-exalted" of Phil, ii 5 — 1 1, he says that
they have reference to the manhood and the assumption of
flesh, in consequence of which the exaltation was necessary \
" for the man was in need of this on account of the lowliness of
the flesh and of death " g . And elsewhere he uses the same or
similar phrases. He has no scruple in speaking of the " union
of God the Word with the man from Mary"*, and with regard
to the title " Christ " he represents the Word as saying " I the
Word am the unction, and that which is anointed by me is the
man. He would not be called Christ apart from me, but
because he is with me and I am in him " 4 . Athanasius also has
the same term, " the man ", qualified by the addition tl belonging
1 I turn to Athanasius for parallels the more readily because he is
commonly regarded as a chief representative of the orthodox school of
thought farthest removed from ■ ' Nestorianism " — the school of thought,
that is, which sees in the Incarnation a real re-creation of the human race
or deification of mankind, the whole race solidaire in sin and alienation
from God receiving in Christ actual, real, redemption.
* Or. c. Ar. i 41, cf. i 45, ii 45.
* id. iv 35.
* ov \upis ovp tfiov xpurrbt KXrjdclri dV, d\\d <riv ifioi w* kox 4fiov 4* ai/ry
id. iv 36. This passage furnishes other notable parallels to the language of
Nestorius. See also infra p. 91.
90 Nestorius and his teaching
to the Lord" or "of the Saviour"; and by a barbarous word-
for-word rendering of the former phrase as " the lordly man "
(instead of "the Lord's manhood") scholars have been able
to convince themselves that the tract in which it occurs could
not have been written by Athanasius 1 , though St Augustine's
Latin equivalent of the phrase (Dominicus homo) has not,
I believe, been called in question 2 . The Pauline expressions
" the second man, from heaven ", " the heavenly (man) " (i Cor.
xv 47, 48) — if we agree that they cannot be allowed to support
the conception of a preexistent manhood of a celestial character,
attributed to Apollinarians — must be given a sense which covers
the Athanasian use of " the man ". And if we do not find
a doctrine of "two persons" in Athanasius 3 , we need not
attribute such a doctrine to Nestorius merely on the evidence
of his use of these phrases.
But what of the term "conjunction" (<Tvvd<j>€ia), which
Nestorius used to express the relation between the God-
head and the manhood? In the first place, the translation
"conjunction" scarcely does justice to the term: it expresses
a closer connexion than the word " conjunction " necessarily
implies and might be rendered " contact " or " cohesion ". * In
1 The phrase 6 Kvptaicbs dvdpcoiros, as well as rbv rj/mirepov dudpuwov, occurs
twice in the Exposiiio Fidei (part of which is printed in Hahn Bibliotek der
Symbole* p. 137). The phrase 6 &vdpu)tros rod aurripos in the Sermo major
de fide 24, 30 has contributed to throw doubt on the Athanasian authorship
of that treatise too. The fact seems to be that, a prava interpretatio having
been put on Nestorius's expressions, a praejudicium has been established
which has blinded the eyes of literary and historical critics.
2 It is rendered "Divine Man" in the translation in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers series i, vol. vi p. 40 b.
3 It is true that in Or. c. Ar. iv, where the phrase is so frequent, it is
constantly the phrase of the heretics whom Athanasius is combating, and
that in the opening sections of the book it bears the sense of mankind in
general (we all receive exaltation in the exaltation of the incarnate Word),
but plenty of instances remain to shew that Athanasius had no objection to
the phrase itself in connexion with the doctrine of the Incarnation.
" Two persons" not the teaching of Nest or ins 91
the second place, we are accustomed to contrast the Nestor i.m
use of Ihii tern frith the Catholic use of the tern "union"
»■«). But Nestorius himself had no such antithesis in
mind. He uses the terms M united and "union", much n
frequently (in the Bazaar at all events) than those which
we render (following the Latin translation) "conjoined" and
"conjunction ". His choice of the latter terms was in antit!.
to words like u mixture", "commingling", "blending together",
"confusion" 1 , and to all ideas which would merge the two
substances and natures of Godhead and manhood in one :
it was determined by his resolution to maintain the doctrine
that the Redeemer of men was at once really God and really
man. In his own words he had 'one end only in view : — that
1 no one should call the Word of God a creature, or the man-
'hood which was assumed incomplete". He denies altogether
that he means any placing side by side of dignity or honour.
The same resolute purpose accounts for his use of the ex-
pressions "worship-together" or "glorify-together" — 'I separate
I the natures, but I conjoin my reverence ', that is ' the worship
I I pay them is joint and one \ In the minds of his opponents
the compound verb which he used in this connexion, the "with"
or " together ", was clear proof that he thought of two persons
who were only brought into an external relation to each other.
This, they said, is evidently what he means. But it was not
what Nestorius meant; and he makes much play with them
for pretending to think it was. For he does not believe their
charge is honest 3 and he has no difficulty in shewing that they
1 icpaaii, fd$it, ffOyx 1 ^" and the like.
2 Sermo xviii Ntstoriana p. 313. See also further on this point infra
ch. x.
* He is so clear that the charge cannot with any show of reason be laid
to his door on the ground of his language about "uniting the worship", that he
tells his accusers that anyone knowing the facts would say to them *0 men,
you have been drinking mandrake ! ' {Bazaar of Heraclidts p. 109). More-
92 Nestor ims and his teaching
themselves used similar expressions 1 . Cyril, indeed, in the
very sentence in which he repudiated the Nestorian phrase,
spoke of the Word's flesh or body "with which He is seated
with the Father". It is true he used a different preposition 2 ;
but Nestorius insists that, if his own phrase implies duality of
persons, Cyril's cannot escape the same — as Nestorius thinks—
absurd inference. "Consession" implies at least as much
difference of person as " co-worship ", and Cyril's statement that
" the difference of the natures was not destroyed by the union "
meant, Nestorius says, as much division of natures as he wanted,
1 as when the fire was united with the bush and the bush with
1 the fire, and they were not confused '.
Athanasius may again be cited 3 . The Arians brought the
charge against the Nicenes that they worshipped the human
nature of Christ, a creature. Some sought to repell the charge
by saying u we do not worship the Lord with the flesh, but we
separate the body and worship Him alone". But Athanasius
does not approve of this denial that " the flesh " (the manhood)
has any share in the worship paid to the incarnate Word. "Let
them know that in worshipping the Lord in the flesh, we are
not worshipping a creature, but the Creator clothed with the
created body... .We neither divide the body, as such, from the
Word, and worship it by itself; nor, when we wish to worship
the Word, do we set Him far apart from the flesh ; but knowing. . .
that 'the Word was made flesh' we recognize Him as God also
after he has come in the flesh." And he speaks of "the Creator
of the universe dwelling in a created temple " and of " the Lord
who is in the flesh as in a temple ".
over the actual word he used was not "conjoin ", as Marius Mercator has it,
but "unite" ! This is shewn by the Greek extract from the Sermon itself
(Loofs p. 262) and by the Syriac in a passage of the Bazaar of Heraclides
in which the saying is referred to. See infra p. 169.
1 Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 184 — 186. See the letter of Cyril read at
Ephesus, and infra p. 175.
2 fiera instead of <xvv.
3 Ep. lx {ad Adelphium) 3, 5.
M Two persons' not the teaching of Nestor i us 93
• again the language of AthtnastUI is very close to thai
restorios. It is true that the words " Wi worship the Lord
with the Beah" tie not the actual words of Athanaataa, hut be
would not meet them with a negative; he would -not
them any denial of the unity of the Person ; and n<> expression
which carries full recognition of the place which the manhood
occupies in relation to the worship paid to the one Person
seems to come readily to his lips.
Yet again, Nestorius, following in this as in other res]
the teaching of Theodore, spoke of the method of the Incarna-
tion as an "indwelling " of the Godhead in Christ by the divine
complacence or good-pleasure (cv6Wa). He is therefore
supposed to have meant that a man became the habitation
of God the Word, and that the relation between them, however
intimate and close, was yet only moral and conditioned by the
exceptionally holy character of the man l . In earlier times the
term had been used in connexion with the doctrine of the
Incarnation: — the Son was said to be begotten by the Father's
good-pleasure, or will, or purpose or design. The Arians used
the latter phrases to justify or cover their teaching as to the
subordinate rank and being of the Son, and the phrase of
Nestorius might hide or reveal the conception that the relation
between the Divine and the human in Christ was similar in
character to the relation of God to ordinary men. But
Nestorius uses it in another way. He does not represent
a man as the recipient or object of the divine complacence ;
1 In the Bazaar of Heraclidts p. 217 he complains that he is wronged
when he is said to teach ' that the oiisias are distinct in the sense of being
locally apart, and that only by cohesion and love do they participate one in
the other, by agreement and not by nature '. He declares that he says the
opposite — 'for I unite the ousias, and from the union of ousias I speak of
one person, asserting one equality in everything that pertains to the person;
and in this the ousias are separate, not by severance and putting apart, but
in one and the same person '. See also the passage cited infra p. 168.
94 Nestorius and his teaching
nor indeed, if it may be said without implying any tritheistic
conception, is it God the Father who is the subject of the
"good-pleasure", but God the Word. The thought is not that
God bestows Himself or His favour on a man, or that He is
present by any kind of mere sympathetic benevolence in a man :
but the term is used to safeguard the voluntariness of the con-
descension by which He who was God became man. God the
Word of His own good pleasure becomes incarnate, and so the
idea that His being or nature was changed into the being or
nature of man is excluded. The Incarnation is the outcome
and free and unconstrained expression of God's love for man :
remaining what He is in being and in nature, he takes to
Himself in the Person of the Word the being and nature of
man 1 .
There remain to be noticed his expressions about "the
person of the Godhead " and " the person of the manhood ".
Phrases of this kind occur several times in the Bazaar of
Heraclides, and must be considered in their context. The
following passages seem to be fairly representative of the
thought of Nestorius. The first of them furnishes, I think,
the clue to his real meaning ; it occurs in his statement of his
own opinion in relation to Cyril's, and must be considered in
its context. As the passage is quoted in full later on 2 I give
here only the chief sentences :
1 It is by person that He (the Son) is distinguished (from
4 the Father). But it is not so in regard to the union of the
4 Godhead and the manhood. He is not by the union in
4 all those things that the person by its nature is, so that in the
4 one person He should become another ousia. For He took
4 man's person, not the ousia or the nature, so that it should be
4 either homoousios with the Father or else another Son altogether
'and not the same Son. For the manhood is the person of
1 See infra pp. 152 ff. 2 See infra p. 163.
" Two persons" not ike teaching of Nestorius 95
1 the Godhead, and the Godhead is the person of the manhood :
1 but they (the manhood and the Godhead) are distinct in nature
'and distinct in the union' (Bazaar of Heraclides p. 79).
Again :
The union was 'into the Person of the dispensation which
'was for us (i.e. the Incarnation). For the natures bear the
'person one of the other: wherefore the one nature employs
'the person of the other nature as its own — not by both
4 natures employing either the one or the other person in-
' differently, nor yet by a compounding into one complete
• nature, like soul and body into the nature of man ; but one
1 nature employs as its own the very same person as the other'
( ib. p. 303).
Or again :
' Therefore Christ took upon him the person of the nature
' which was in debt, and by means of it as Adam's son paid the
'debt' (Sermo ix Loofs p. 255).
And again :
'Just as a king, when he assumes the garb of soldierhood
1 and is a soldier, does not become a double king, nor yet is he
' king without the soldier, for the reason that he is in the
'soldier; nor is he worshipped without that in which he is
'made known and in which they 1 have known him and been
' delivered : so God also adapts His own person to the con-
' descension of poverty and shame, even unto the death of the
' cross, for our redemption ; and in this person He was exalted
'unto honour and glory and worship. In that wherein He
'suffeVed reproach, in the same He was glorified. But the
' standard of redemption and victory is one of honour, and not
' of disgrace ; and He received no addition of ousia\ since the
1 sc. the other soldiers.
* With this may be compared Athanasius's discussion of the passage
Phil, ii 5— 11 in Or. c. Ar. i 40—45 (see esp. 45). Indeed the argumenta-
tion of Nestorius constantly recalls that of Athanasius.
96 Nestorius and his teaching
' ousias remain unchanged 1 . If that which is different in ousia
1 should receive identity of ousia, that would be an addition of
1 ousia'. Nor is there any addition to the person when He takes
'man to His own person and not to another 3 — not with
'a distinction (sc. of persons) but with a union into His own
' person of that also in which He became man. And in this
' way his (? man's) person also is in Him and not in another :
'for He put on the form 4 of a servant and thereby emptied
' Himself; and He clothed the servant with His person and
' lifted him up to His " name which is above all names ". In
• the person of the Godhead therefore He is worshipped, and
1 not in that of some other. One therefore is the person and
'the name of the Son ' (Bazaar of Heraclides p. 22).
Now in considering these statements we must of course
bear in mind the main argument of Nestorius to the effect that
any view of the Incarnation which does not recognize the
continued existence of the ousia of the human nature is not
a real incarnation. If the human nature was seized upon by
the Divine nature as by fire and so transmuted into the Divine
nature itself that no addition to the Trinity resulted (for the
upholders of this view were obliged to repudiate the charge
that they meant an addition to the ousia of Godhead) then
there was no incarnation, but a sheer abolition of the incarna-
tion : ' for that which results in the abolition of the human
'nature and not in its preservation — this does not effect an
' incarnation ' {Bazaar of Heraclides p. 24). A theory which
changes the ousia of man into the nature of God is no better
than one that changes God into the ousia of man. In the
1 i.e. His own ousia — His own Godhead — is not altered in any way. For
any depreciation of the Divine ousia would be defeat, not victory.
2 i.e. if the human ousia were identified with the Divine, there would be
an addition made to the Divine.
3 Or, ' and not (sc. does not take) another (person) '. This is to guard
against the introduction of a fourth person into the Trinity.
4 fiopttf.
" Two f " nai the teaching of Nestorius 97
the Divine nature lapses, in the farfltsf human
nature is sublimated. Unthinkable and impossible results
follow on either theory. Nestorius puts tin theories to
tlal>orate dialectical test to then tins, and that the union
must be found so m ew h ere else than in either the ousia or
the nature of cither God <>r man, ami he finds it in the
"person ".
But what does be mean by the "person''? His use of the
word in mete passages is undoubtedly puzzling. The phrase
'• Re took man's person", if isolated from the context, would
convey the idea that the Incarnation was a conjunction of two
persons. We can sympathize with those who thought that this
his meaning, in spite of all his asseverations that it was
not. But the rest of the passage shews unmistakeably that
whatever he meant, he did not mean this. Nor can we put
on the word "person" the sense of roU or function or part
played : — this sense is equally eacfadcd DJf the context. "The
manhood is the person of the Godhead, and the Godhead is
tin person of the manhood " -.— these words are quite incon-
sistent with the idea of the coexistence of two srparate and
distinct persons side by side; they 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 "person" to express that in which both the
Godhead and the manhood of our Lord were one, even while
remaining distinct from one another, each retaining its own
characteristics. The Godhead becomes the subject of human
experiences by taking to Itself that which is the centre of
human experiences ; and the manhood becomes in turn the
subject of Divine experiences by being taken up into the
centre of Divine experiences. But the Subject is neverthe-
less one.
There is a passage in which, in arguing with Cyril, he refers
b. 7
98 Ne storms and his teaching
to the words he has used ' as a brother to a brother ' saying :
1 We do not sever the union and the person which results from
'the union; nor do we begin from God the Word as the
'person of the union, but from Him (sc. Christ) from whom
' the Fathers (sc. of Nicaea) began, who were wiser than thou
'and better acquainted with the Divine Scriptures' 1 . By
themselves these words might suggest the conception of a
personality which only began at the Incarnation : the person
was one who was both God and man, and that person did not
exist before. It was a new Person (Christ) who was formed,
not a new divine-human nature. The strong interest of
Nestorius in the historical person, who lived the life of man,
would favour this interpretation. But his reference really is to
the words of the Nicene Creed and the order in which its
clauses are placed, "beginning" with the "one Lord Jesus
Christ"; and elsewhere he is strong on the point that it was
the pre-existent Word of God, consubstantial with the Father,
who became man.
The later orthodox phraseology (by eliminating altogether
the human centre, and declaring the human nature of the Lord
to be impersonal in itself, but personal in Him only 2 ) secures
perhaps a clearer expression of the unity of the subject : one
Divine Person, the subject of Divine experiences, becomes also
at the same time the subject of human experiences — He exists
in both substances and in both natures. But the words of
Nestorius seem to be an attempt, by no means unworthy of
respect, to express the same conception, and the ambiguity
of the expression must be settled by other passages to the
effect that it is in the one Person that the two substances and
natures — the Godhead and the manhood — have their union 3 .
Will it not at all events be time to condemn them as
1 Bazaar of Heradides p. 179. Cf. pp. 196 — 199.
2 More accurately perhaps, the ' human nature of the Lord ' is never
impersonal, because it has His personality from the first.
3 See further his statements infra ch. xi pp. 177 ff.
' Twe persons" not the teaching of Nestorius 99
incompatible with a sound belief in the Incarnation when we
have foond I solution of all the problems DM taphysical and
hotogiol by which tin* orthodox doctrine is betel ? 1 or if
the human mind is so constituted that we must dbcoei these
questions, and our Ix>rd Himself is truly r cptet c nt cd as moving
His disciples to the eriqn li y by the words "But whom M]
that I am?", we shall not forget that after | bitter controversy
it was decided that, though our Lord's human nature had no
personality of its own (but only the personality of the Word),
He had nevertheless a human will, and that the chief opponents
of this doctrine — the "orthodox" doctrine — were the de-
scendants of the opponents of Nestorius, and that they denied
also the reality of the human nature of our Lord. We have
got a form of sound words ; but is not " will " one of the chief
notes of "personality"? If "man" without individuality is
conceivable, can we say the same of " will " ? Or can we feel
security in the old theological explanation that the will belongs
not to the " person " but to the " nature " ? Theology, like all
other sciences, may fairly claim a language of its own, but
when that language is incapable of being translated into the
language of intelligent and well-informed men and women, it
ceases to fulfil any useful function beyond that of registering
an impasse.
After subjecting different theories of different thinkers, and
the chief passages of Scripture which bear upon the question,
to an elaborate examination, Nestorius concludes his discussion
of the relation between the Godhead and the manhood with
the words — ■ Wherefore by no other line of reasoning than this
1 [which I have followed] can the words of the Divine Scripture
* be made consistent with Christ ; but, as we have tested and
1 found, they all favour, not a union of mixture, but a natural
'and hypostatic ' Person ' {Bazaar of Heraelides p. 70).
The adjectival phrase a * natural and hypostatic' Person
1 The words are the adjectival forms oiKy&nA and q'ttdtnA.
7—2
ioo Ne storms and his teaching
can only mean a single Person who is characterized by the
natures and hypostases of God and man — who is the subject
of the two " natures " and the two " substances ", to whom both
alike belong. The phrase expresses what has always been the
orthodox doctrine.
CHAPTER VII
THE HICHPRIESTHOOD OF CHRIS1
It was, as we have seen, U I monk of exemplary life who
was also a great preacher, that Nestorius was (ailed from
Antioch to occupy a more prominent pulpit and a position
of wider influence in the counsels of the Church ; and it was
by incessant sermons ("he new r stopfl talking " was Cyril's
complaint) that he dqp g e M Cd and propagated his views, alike
at Antioch and afterwards. Of these sermons only the few
that the Latin translation of Mariu> Mercator has preserved
have come down to us as the sermons of Nestorius. It is,
however, well known that works of heretics were often, after
their condemnation, issued under the name of some older writer
of unblemished reputation in order to save them from destruc-
tion. The works of Nestorius were so diligently sought out
and burned that very few remained, and his followers were
obliged to content themselves in later times with the writings
of other representatives of the School which bred Nestorius.
(It is worth noting, by the way, that they served their purpose
equally well.) But some of the "infinite number of homilies"
to which (lennadius refers may well have escaped and survived
in collections under other names. To one such sermon, which
is certainly genuine, a fresh survey of the teaching of Nestorius
must give particular attention. It illustrates so well his method
of exegesis of Scripture and one of the more obscure points in
his teaching. But notice must first be taken of a number of
J02 Nestor ius .and his teaching
other sermons, culled from various collections, which have
recently been attributed to Nestorius 1 .
Mgr Batiffofs Nestorian Sermons
In the year 1900 Mgr Batiffol published an interesting
article in the Revue biblique* in which he proposed, on grounds
of internal evidence only, to father on Nestorius no fewer than
fifty-two sermons, which have passed under the names severally
of Athanasius (three), Hippolytus (one), Amphilochius (three),
Basil of Seleucia (thirty-eight), and Chrysostom (seven). Some
of these sermons present close parallels of thought or expression
or mannerism with what we know of the ideas and the words
and the pulpit-style of Nestorius. But there is one important
demurrer which I should make at the outset, and it amounts
to a praescriptio such as Tertullian urged. To whom do the
early Fathers and ecclesiastical writers belong ? In a very true
sense, of course, to the Churchman, the systematic theologian
of a later time, for whom all the hard work of the making of
Christian doctrine and the manufacture of formulas has been
done, who only has to take up his heritage and use it as wisely
as he can : but in a sense more true, I think, they belong to
the student who can forget altogether the end of the great
movement of thought which was in progress in those earlier
days and abstain from interpreting expressions, however signifi-
cant they may appear to be, by the standard of the settled
terminology of a time when men no longer thought for them-
selves. And in this particular study it appears to me that the
standpoint from which Mgr Batiffol approaches his enquiry is
the standpoint of the Catholic theologian securely entrenched
1 I mention them here partly because the suggestions of so distinguished
a scholar as Mgr Batiffol cannot be ignored, and partly because — in spite of
his authority — they seem to me to afford an illustration of a kind of research
which is common today and is, I believe, to be deprecated rather than
welcomed.
2 Revue biblique vol. ix pp. 329 ff. " Sermons de Nestorius ".
The Highpriesthood of Chrx 103
inside tin tradition of ages. From this position of assured
results, as from some lofty town, he looks back on the centuries
when these results men in tin making, and anything which has
a "NestOtitn " ring about it be "restores" to Nestorius.
But, in spite of the earlier doctrinal investigations and de-
finitions— in spite of the work of Tertullian with his sagacious
and illuminating descriptions of tin relations between the two
natures in the Person of our Ix>rd, which seem to have estab-
lished a sound tradition in the West ; and although almost
his very words and the same illustrations were repeated by
Dionysius of Rome in the third century and by Athanasius in
the fourth ; yet the tradition was not established so firmly in
the East, and the period with which we are concerned was
really a creative period : a period to which the Intel history
of the Church can offer many parallels, when problems which
seemed to have been already solved (perhaps they were not
quite the same) again presented themselves and again de-
manded solution. And the scholars and divines of those days
seem, as it were, to have started afresh — as they so often
must — and to have made the same or very similar mistakes,
and slowly, not without misunderstandings of each other's
meaning and intentions, to have reached some common
ground on which the communis setisus fidelium could find safe
footing.
To this demurrer the Roman Catholic theologian in Mgr
Batiffol might object; the scientific historian in him, whom ire
know well and admire, would I am sure, in other connexions
at all events, admit its validity.
I would only add : first, so far as these sermons recall the
style of Nestorius, we must remember that pulpit oratory
was, in those days, an art that was carefully studied; and
nothing so bears upon it the mark of the " school n as rhetoric
(this is almost Mgr Batiffol's own phrase) : — the use of the
same rhetorical style is, as regards those times at least, far too
precarious a test of authorship to give any sure results : and
104 Nestorius and his teaching
secondly, so far as these sermons offer parallels to the thought
of Nestorius, they may fairly be claimed as evidence rather of
the wide diffusion of similar ideas and as tending to shew that
they were current Antiochene conceptions at the time and not
peculiarly characteristic of Nestorius.
It does not appear to me, therefore, that even a prima facie
case is made out for these sermons. We are probably too
eager today to give new names and dates to our ancient
Christian writings. It may well happen that a later generation
of students will restore to their traditional authors, or at least
to the repose of anonymity, some of the works which are being
so diligently re-christened today, and then perhaps, less dis-
tracted by investigations of this kind, have leisure for more
truly sympathetic appreciation of their contents. In this parti-
cular case, just as Dr Lietzmann in his recent collection of the
genuine writings of Apollinarius (against whom Nestorius so
often inveighs) disowns all those which Dr Draseke a few
years ago had laboriously rescued from other authors, so in
like manner Dr Loofs says nothing about these sermons
of Nestorius and allows them no place in his volume of
Nestoriana.
If the sermons were genuine they would add nothing,
I think, of importance to our knowledge of the teaching of
Nestorius; but the moral which I have ventured to draw from
Mgr BatiffoPs study is so vital, in my judgement, to a true
appreciation of the whole controversy, that the result of these
reflexions on his method of investigation is by no means only
negative, although for the present purpose we must leave the
sermons in question out of account. In any case the attribution
of them to Nestorius is a hypothesis that lacks all support of
external evidence.
The Ffigkpriestkodd oj 105
MM <>// the llijiprusttuhui of Christ
The case ii altogether different with regard to a single
sermon which teema to hive escaped the notice of ■ iflbl.
It w.is first puhtisbed in 1839 by Wilhetan T« M. Becheri
chaplain to the military prison at I>n-sd«-n, from a MS of the
ninth century which had belonged to a Russian monastery
and had come by purchase from a j> of Greek at
Moscow to the library oJ l hreeden. The MS contained eleven
homilies ascribed to Chrysostom. Six of these had been
..(ly published. Becher edited the remaining five, adding
a Latin translation of his own. Our homily is the fifth of his
edition. All five irere afterwards reprinted in the supplement
to Migne's edition of the works of Chrysostom 1 . As genuine
works of Chrysostom they were accepted, till two voices
raised almost simultaneously in protest against this attri-
bution to Chrysostom of one of them. A Roman Catholic
scholar of Salzburg pointed out* the fact that the sermon with
which we are concerned could not be Chrysostom's, but must
be the work of Nestorius on the highpriesthood of Christ
already known from the extracts contained in anti-Nestorian
writings ; and Dr Ix>ofs independently made the same identifi-
eation in the Prolegomena to his volume of Nestoriana. The
strongest external evidence attests this sermon as the work of
Nestorius.
The apologist of Nestorius would not be slow, I imagine,
to seize the point that a sermon which contains many of the
characteristic thoughts of the great heretic, in regard to matters
which were in dispute between him and his critics, could be
1 Migne P. G. Ixiv 453 — 4^2.
* S. Haidacher Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 1905 i pp. 193 —
195. The oply good word, however, that he finds to say for Nesloriu> i>
one of surprised recognition of the soundness of his teaching about the
Kucharist, as if it were in spite of himself and his real convictions. Sec
the passage at the end of the sermon infra p. 112.
106 Nes tortus and his teaching
identified as the work of the " golden-mouthed " preacher of his
own home Antioch, who had sat in his own episcopal chair —
a Saint of the Catholic Church : that this identification could
have been made by a scholar of the nineteenth century and
the sermon allowed a place among the genuine works of
St Chrysostom in Migne's edition of the Fathers. Such an
apologist would recall, perhaps, the complaint of Leontius
of Byzantium that the Nestorians used to get people to read
their books, without telling them the author's name, in con-
fidence that, if only they would read them without knowing
that they were Nestorian, they would see for themselves how
much maligned Nestorians were. "Read first," they say, "and
then learn who these men were, and how important, whose
names, poor soul, you had never so much as heard of till
now." 1
One who enters on the investigation in no apologetic spirit,
simply desiring to find out the facts and form his conclusions
as the evidence suggests, may be content merely to note the
fact. Here is a newly discovered homily, by general consent
of scholars of our own time quietly attributed to Chrysostom :
and yet nearly a quarter of it, the most striking doctrinal part,
could have been reconstructed from materials already in our
possession — in a quarry, indeed, to which we should not have
looked for the wherewithal to fashion one more memorial of
Chrysostom, namely the various collections of the heretical
sayings of Nestorius that are to be found in the Acts of the
Council that condemned him and the works of the Fathers
who exposed his errors 2 .
It was the exegesis of Nestorius that first roused opposition.
He lived, as we have noted, before the age of theological
1 Migne P. G. lxxxvi 1362 B.
2 If it be urged that Chrysostom really was in some respect? " Nestorian " ,
I can only plead for a less anachronistic reading of history and refer to what
has been said in the preceding pages.
The HighprusikoQd of Christ 107
journals, when die pulpit was the recognised medium of theo-
logical investigation. One of his sermons often us as fair a
test of his point of view and general teaching as we can get.
I give a summary of this, the only complete sermon of his
which we possess in his own tongue. It is an exposition of
passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Nestorius begins by expressing his sense Of the inadequacy
of human language, and his constant fear k ll in his instructions
he should be guilty of unwittingly belittling instead of magnits
ing God. Even the highest hymnody that nun can direct to
God is superlatively low in comparison with His surpassing
glory. Vet the offering of divine praise (tfcoAoyta) which man
can make is acceptable to the Lord of the universe, for He
knows man's limitations.
But heretics complain that Nestorius attributes greater
honour to the Lord of the universe than He himself claims :
and they examine the Scriptures as though they were the
papers of some opponent in a law-suit, and make of them a
tribunal for God, and treat Paul as if he were a lawyer drawing
up a contract for the servitude of God the Word, as though it
were this object that he had in view when he declared to e\
one about Him " Consider the apostle and highpriest of your
confession Jesus Christ, who was faithful to him that made
him ". See, they say — indisputable witness that the Son was
created ! The words are clear enough, but the heretics are
blind. They think that God the Word is apostle and the
Godhead the highpriest. It is a surprising piece of madness
on their part. No one else would imagine that the terms
" apostle " and " highpriest " are used of the Godhead. If the
Godhead is highpriest, who is it who is served by the ministry
of the highpriesthood ? if he who offers is God, there is no one
for the offering to be made to. Offering is from an inferior
to a superior, and there is no superior to whom God could
offer.
108 Nestorius and his teaching
Moreover Paul's words shew clearly that a highpriest must
be taken from among men, to minister on behalf of men, one
who is able to bear gently with the ignorant and erring, since
he himself is beset by infirmity and therefore must, as for the
people, so also for himself, offer sacrifices for sin. This could not
be said of Godhead which is in no need of the perfecting which
comes of grace. God the Word needs no sacrifices for His
own progress as the highpriests do— so it cannot be God the
Word who is called highpriest. All the expressions which
are used in the context are inapplicable to the Godhead. It
is not the nature of angels that he takes upon him 1 , but it is
the nature of the seed of Abraham he takes upon him : and
therefore he must needs be made like his brethren in all things,
in order that he might be a merciful and faithful highpriest
in the things concerning God : for in that he himself suffered
by being tempted he is able to succour those that are being
tempted. "Consider therefore..." and so on. This is the
connexion of the phrases, and the heretics do wrong to tear
them apart. But since they prefer disjecta membra and find
it pleasant to read disjointedly, I will take, he says, the
phrases one by one and shew you w T hat violence they do to
them.
Nestorius then proceeds to shew by this method that it is
not to the Godhead that the writer ascribes the highpriesthood.
He who is to be the highpriest takes upon him the seed of
Abraham : the seed of Abraham is not Godhead. He must
be made like his brethren in all things. Did God the Word
possess brethren like the Godhead ? It is he who has suffered
who is a merciful highpriest, but what is capable of suffering
is the temple (sc. the human nature) not the life-giving God
of that which suffered. It is he who is " yesterday and to
1 So Nestorius with all ancient commentators understands £itCka.}i$a.
verai, though Becher translates opitulatur. The paraphrase ovk dyy^Xuv
irepidt/Acvos <f>v<nv occurs further on in the sermon, though elsewhere he says
you must take hold of that which you want to lift up.
The Highpriest hood of Chris t 109
day —in Paul's phrase— who is the seed of Abraham ; not be
who says "before Abraham was, I am". Like his brethren in
all things is be who took upon him brotherhood of human
soul and flesh: not he Who njl M he that hath seen me hath
the Father", Apostle is be who is of one substance with
us. mi as even to be anointed to preach release to captives and
recover) of ngh< to blind, he who says plainly "The spirit of
the Lord came upon me, wherefore He ■nointed me, to preach
good tidings to the poor He sent me". It is not Godhead but
manhood that is anointed. This is he who has been made
a faithful highpriest to God— he came to be, he was not
eternally so before: he advanced by degrees to the dignity
of highpriest.
There are still clearer words used on this point, shewing
that he was gradually perfected. Nestorius appeals to the
passage "In the days of his flesh having offered prayers and
supplications to him that was able to save him from death
with vehement crying and tears, and having been heard be
cause of his piety, though he was Son, he lemmt obedience from
the things which he suffered, and being made perfect became
to all that ol>ey him the cause of eternal salvation" (Heb. v 7 — 9),
receiving from God the appellation highpriest after the order of
.NKlchisedek.
To say that he was made perfect means that he advanced
little by little : and Paul's words are in agreement with Luke's
"and Jesus advanced in stature and in wisdom and in favour".
He is highpriest who in relation to his office as leader is
compared to Moses, who is called the seed of Abraham, who
is like his brethren in all things, who became in time high-
priest, who was made perfect through sufferings, who in that
he suffered himself by being tempted is able to succour those
that are tempted, who is called highpriest after the order of
Melchisedek.
Why then, says Nestorius, with the personal address which
he is fond of employing, apostrophizing in this sermon even
no Nestorius and his teaching
Paul himself 1 as to his meaning — Why then, O heretic, do you
misinterpret Paul and confuse the divine and the earthly and
represent God the Word who cannot suffer as a highpriest
who suffers?
To do this is, he insists, to do -violence alike to the actual
words of St Paul and to the general purpose and aim which he
has in view throughout. The Epistle, he says, is addressed to
Hebrews who while they professed love for Christ and faith in
Him wished to retain unchanged the Law and the ancient
priesthood and its ordinances. Paul, in reply to their specious
reasoning and appeals, shews that the system of the Law was
shaken by the coming of Christ, and that the purpose of the
Incarnation was to fit him to be highpriest and so to replace
the levitical priesthood by a higher order. The promise had
been given to the patriarch Abraham that one who was of his
seed should bring blessing to all nations. The seed had
grown, but no one had been worthy. The claims of Moses,
Aaron, and Elijah are briefly discussed and dismissed. Moses
was too timid, Aaron too complaisant to sinners, Elijah for all
his zeal lacked sympathy.
There was wanted, as the means through which the promise
should be realized, a highpriest — by birth a descendant of
Abraham, by dignity higher than prophets, sinless and gentle,
capable of suffering, inasmuch as he was kith and kin with
Abraham, but knowing how to cry to God in moments of peril
" Only not what /will, but Thou ". For this purpose, with this
end in view Christ was born. Paul's purpose is to shew those
who thought this priesthood of Christ superfluous that without
it the promise of the blessing could not be fulfilled.
Anyone who carefully attends to the sequence of Paul's
argument and the niceties of his expressions will see, the
preacher claims, that this is no figment of his own brain, and
1 In accordance with the prevailing opinion of the time Nestorius
regards St Paul as the author of the Epistle.
The High priesthood of Christ \ \ \
be wishes to accustom bia bearen to exactitude of docu
so that they may be I people well instructed and able- them
selves to teach the tbinga o( <iod. So he takes then through
the steps of the argument again, to ihew thai it is all directed
to the one end of estabKihing the fitness of Jesus to act as
highpriest and mediator of the promise in virtue <>t his human
IPB and perfected experience of me tcmptatioot and suffer-
ings which are the lot of men, remaining himself sinless through
all 1 . The YttJ fad that he suffered* temptation in his sinless
human nature confers upon him a power on behalf of those
who are his kinsmen, an unanswerable plea in tl ice*;
for the fact that not even the sinless man escaped the Devil's
malignant attack shews the injustice of the power with which
be assails all other men 4 . On behalf of himself and of the
race he offered as a joint offering (sc. for himself and them)
the sacrifice of his body 5 , and so he reconciled human nature
to God by means of his own sinless human nature.
The comparison with Moses is only intended to shew that
there were parallels to this providential order by which one
who was man could act as the medium between man and God.
With a few sentences to this effect Nestorius concludes his
argument
But before he ends his sermon he has something else to
say, and I venture to quote his words in full though they deal
with another matter. They give us a glimpse of Nestorius in
a role which we are apt to forget he played with conspicuous
success, so completely has the great moral preacher and
pastor of souls been lost for us in the vigorous thinker and
1 His exact words are 'exhibiting in himself the person of human
nature free from sin '. On the phrase ' the person of human nature ' see
ch. vi pp. 94 ff.
2 So Nestorius undcrstamls the words e> <£ rirovdtv.
3 Or an irrefutable justification for them, a 5iKaio\oyia d^mp-of.
* Cf. Bazaar of HeradiJes infra pp. 133 ff.
* avpexaydficros T^...6vciaM.
1 1 2 Nestorius and his teaching
maker of phrases which the Church of his day could not conceive
to be compatible with the true doctrine of the Incarnation.
The subject is a familiar one — neglect of the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper by the faithful. It has often, I think, been less
effectively treated. He concludes his exposition of the passage
in the Epistle to the Hebrews with the words : 'Let what I have
1 said suffice as regards the violence which the heretics do to the
1 expressions the Apostle uses.' He goes on :
1 But there is something amiss with you which I want to
' put before you in a few words and induce you to amend it.
' For you are quick to discern what is seemly 1 . What, then,
' is it that is amiss ? By and bye the holy rites are set before
' the faithful, like a banquet, a king's gift to his soldiers. But
1 by then the host of the faithful is nowhere to be seen : they
'are blown away along with those who are not allowed to
'stay 2 , like chaff, by the wind of indifference. And Christ is
1 crucified in symbol, slain by the sword of the prayer of the
' priest ; but, as at the Cross of old, he finds his disciples fled I
' This is a grievous fault — betrayal of Christ when there's no
' persecution, desertion of the flesh of their Master by believers
' under no stress of war ! What is the reason for their deser-
1 Such I suppose is the meaning. The Greek words are yopyol yap
irpbs to. Ka\a KadeaTrjKare and Becher translates nam honesto reluctati estis,
taking yopyol to mean " hostile ". Such a meaning is possible : — the vigorous
action taken by Nestorius at Constantinople to check abuses of all kinds,
and raise the tone of spiritual life in that great city, must have involved
plain speaking, and we know he was not one to disguise his meaning by-
honied words. But the tone of this sermon, as indeed of all the extant
sermons, throughout suggests that the preacher expected a sympathetic
congregation, and — though he must reprove — he would hardly alienate
them in this way. The noun yopyorijs is used by writers of the second and
the fourth centuries in the sense "quickness ", " rapidity ", and the use of the
adjective of a horse (" spirited ") is familiar. Nestorius, practised orator as
he was, puts his audience "on their mettle". He has to find fault, but first
he gives the praise he could. " You are", he says, "on your mettle to do
what is right."
2 The "catechumens", not yet admitted to full Church privileges.
The High priest hood of Christ i 13
1? is it urgent engagements? Why, what engagement is
'more binding than one that Ins to do with the service of
d, and that, too, one that takes hut little time? Is it,
'then, Tear because of your sins, pray? What, then, *ai it
' that purified that blessed harlot? was it fleeing from the Besfa
'of the Lord, or fleeing to it for refuge? Shame on us if we
' shew ourselves less compunctious than that harlot woman !
We ought to tremble at the words adjuring us —
" Verily, verily, I say to you, except ye eat tin- flesh of the
'Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have not life in your-
' selves." We ought to be afraid of his rebuking us too and
ng to us from heaven — "Were ye not able to stay with
'me one hour?"' 1
And so he comes back to his doctrinal theme :
Moreover let us beware of becoming accomplices of the
1 heretics in their evil doings against Him. Let us give diligent
' heed to Paul's expressions about the Incarnation. Let us not
' dehumanize the manhood and at the same time humanize the
'Godhead'. Let us not confuse the experiences of the man-
' hood with those of the Godhead. While we keep distinct the
'properties of the natures, let us conjoin the dignity of the
* union*. Let us not say that God the Word is the temple,
' but rather its inhabitant ; let us not imagine that the temple
1 oi'x /<rxi''<rare fjuav ujpav wapa^fti'ai /i«r' ifiou; — for ypijyoprjaai of all
the MSS. Dr Becher, instead of translating, gives the Vulgate vigilant, as
our English translators of early Christian writers were wont to obliterate
for their English readers any differences between their author's biblical
text and the Authorized Version.
2 The Greek is tA rrji avdpwvoTr]Tot ry rijt dtorrjrot ocrw/xaTy n$i
ovtaaunaTuxrufuv 'Let us not do away with the corporeal character of
the things of the manhood along with the incorporeal character of the
Godhead.' Or the meaning might perhaps be "along with (because of)
the incorporeal character of the Godhead", i.e. " in our zeal for the trans-
cendence of the Godhead ".
3 I leave the un-English expression. The meaning clearly is " let us
make no distinctions of rank in the honour we pay to the Person who is
one " — cf. supra p. 91 and infra p. 169.
B. 8
1 1 4 Nestorius and his teaching
'is He who inhabits it, but rather that which is inhabited.
'Let us remember the words which express in turn one after
'another His two natures: — "Destroy this temple", that is,
'what is capable of coming to an end; "and in three days
' I will raise it ", that is, I, the God who am invisibly con-
' joined with that which is mortal. His is the glory for ever.
' Amen.'
Such is the sermon. Is it heretical ? It elucidates the
rather puzzling tenth anathema of Cyril and the reply of
Nestorius. The question of the highpriesthood of Christ is
a very precarious one to handle, involving as it does the whole
problem of mediation ; and Nestorius was charged with so
treating it as to deny the union of the natures in the Person
of our Lord, and at the same time to teach that He offered
the sacrifice on behalf of Himself as well as on behalf of us.
The inconsistency between these two charges seems not to
have been noticed. The latter could only be maintained if the
former were false, for it presupposes the unity of the Person
which the former charge alleges to be denied.
Read in their context, the passages which were extracted
by the opponents of Nestorius can be more fairly judged, and
the sermon as a whole seems to me to be an able and honest
piece of exegesis 1 . Following closely the argument of the
Epistle, Nestorius maintains that the expressions which are
used of the characteristics of the highpriest — his initial qualifi-
cations " taken from among men ", " beset by infirmity ", " like
his brethren in all things " — and the course through which he
passes "strong crying and tears", "being tempted", "learn-
1 If Nestorius is unorthodox in his language, it would be difficult to ward
off the charge from the writer to the Hebrews : even though we have to
admit that the expressions of a single writer in the New Testament must
be harmonized with the language of other writers, and that genuine
Scriptural language might well be " unorthodox " in the fifth century — an
admission which we can only make with important qualifications.
The Highpriesthood of C/ir. i 15
ing obedience", "made perfect through suffering" — are all of
them applicable not to the Godhead but to the manhood
of the Lord. They refer, be says, to one who 'exhibits in
'Himself the person of human nature tree from sin'. I
whole argument, he urges, is directed to the one end <>f estab-
lishing the fitness of Jesus to act as highpriest and mediator in
virtue of His human nature and j»« experience of the
temptations and sufferings which are the lot of men, remaining
Himself sinless through all. On behalf of Himself and of the
race of men He offered as a joint offering the sacrifice of His
body, and so reconciled human nature to God by means of
His own sinless human nature. It is to the manhood that
the highpriesthood and the offering must be referred : and the
offering was made on behalf of the highpriest Himself as well
as of all men.
The question turns mainly on the interpretation of two
passages in the Epistle. The first is the passage " For every
highpriest being taken from among men"(Heb. v 1). One
interpretation, adopted in our Authorized Version, regards the
words " taken from among men " as part of the subject, and
makes them express a contrast between the highpriesthood
of Christ and all human priesthood. The interpretation of
Nestorius, on the contrary, sees in them the expression of one
of the primary qualifications of Christ to be the Priest of men,
namely that He is himself man. This interpretation is adopted
in our Revised Version, and in his commentary on the Epistle
by Dt Westcott, who says " It is unnatural and injurious to the
argument to take [the phrase in question] as part of the
subject". On this point at all events Nestorius gets strong
support from scholars. And he has also support which in
a matter of this kind is perhaps still more decisive. For it is
the human qualification that men's hearts have seized upon.
It is a Brother who is our Highpriest.
Difficult as is the whole conception of the highpriesthood
8—2
1 1 6 Nestorius and his teaching
of our Lord, that it can be the centre of the devotional life
and eucharistic worship of the Church is due to this fact, which
finds familiar expression in the hymn "Where high the heavenly
temple stands ".
The second passage is the one on which Nestorius based
his argument that the highpriest is said to offer on behalf of
himself, and that, as the Godhead had no need of offering, it
must be to the manhood that the priesthood attaches.
Here again it is possible to throw over Nestorius the cloak
of Dr Westcott. The passage is " Who hath no need daily, as
the high-priests, to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins,
then for the sins of the people, for this he did once for all in
that he offered up himself" (Heb. vii 27). With special refer-
ence to the last clause Dr Westcott writes : " It is generally
supposed that the reference is to be limited to the latter clause,
that is, to the making an offering for the sins of the people.
It is of course true that for Himself Christ had no need to offer
a sacrifice in any sense. But perhaps it is better to supply the
ideal sense of the highpriest's offering, and so to leave the
statement in a general form. Whatever the Aaronic high-
priest did in symbol, as a sinful man, that Christ did perfectly
as sinless in His humanity for men." Dr Westcott expresses
himself guardedly, with less positive assertion than Nestorius ;
but the concluding sentence "...that Christ did perfectly as
sinless in His humanity for men " gives essentially the interpre-
tation of the passage that Nestorius gives, to the effect that
the offering of the sinless One, in His humanity the perfect
representative of men, was in some sense therefore on behalf
of Himself as well as on behalf of the whole race of men whose
representative He was.
It is the human nature which qualifies our Lord to act as
our highpriest ; it is the human nature, perfected through
temptations and suffering, perfectly obedient to the Father's
will and sinless through them all, that constitutes the offering.
Is it dividing the natures to say with Nestorius that it is not of
The Highpriesthood of C/u 117
God the Wurd that these tilings arc said? Must not some
such distinction be made, if we are to attempt to embody in
accurate doctrine the profoundly edifying and ennobling con-
ception of the highpriesthood of our Lord — a distinction
which we may feel to be logical rather than real, but one that
is forced upon us by the conditions under which we think and
express our thought. Who is it that offers, what is the offering,
to whom is it offered? if the priest is a true representative of
those for whom He offers, so far as He is representative does
He not offer also on his own behalf? It is easy of course for
us to find orthodox words in which to answer these questions,
and to say that the one Person, the incarnate Son of God, who
is both God and man, offers His perfected manhood to God
the Father; while we insist that it is only in virtue of His man-
hood that He is enabled to act as highpriest. And it may be
that while the protest of Nestorius was valid as against the
tendencies of those whom he suspected of Apollinarian heresy,
from whose circle the frank Monophysites of later times were
descended, yet none the less his own conception was at fault.
Let us turn to the anathemas.
Cyril leads off: u Holy Scripture says that Christ became
(or was made) highpriest and apostle of our confession, and
offered up Himself on behalf of us to be a sweet-smelling
savour to God the Father. If therefore anyone asserts that it
was not the Word of God Himself who became highpriest and
apostle, when He became flesh and man like us; but man
born of a woman conceived of as distinct from Him (i.e. as a
separate person) : or if anyone says that He offered the offering
on behalf of Himself also, and not rather on behalf of us
only — for He who knew not sin could not have needed an
offering: Let him be anathema."
Nestorius replies (according to the Latin version of Marius
Mercator which is the only form in which the counter-anathem u
of Nestorius are extant): 'If anyone says that the Word who
was *. in the beginning was made highpriest and apostle of our
1 1 8 Nestorius and his teaching
1 confession, and offered up Himself on behalf of us, and does
'not rather say that the apostleship is Emmanuel's 1 , and on the
'same principle divide the offering between Him who united
'and him who was united in the one Sonship 2 — that is to say,
' attributing to God what is God's and to man what is man's :
'Let him be anathema.'
Now here, so far as the actual words go, we have Cyril
insisting that we must say that the Word of God Himself is
highpriest, though he qualifies the baldness of the assertion
by adding " when He became flesh and man like us " ; and he
declares it anathema to say that He offered on behalf of Him-
self. The verbal difference between Cyril's requirements and
the argument of Nestorius in his sermon is almost absolute.
But in his reply to Cyril's anathema Nestorius only repu-
diates the teaching that the Word who was in the beginning
(that is, the pre-incarnate Word, the Word in His own Divine
substance) was made highpriest and offered Himself (that is,
not the manhood but the Godhead) as a sacrifice for us ; and
he declares that it is the Person who is man as well as God
(Emmanuel, "God with us", the Incarnate One) whose
function it is to perform this act, and that in the offering
itself the distinctive parts which are played by the Godhead
and the manhood respectively must be recognized. What
these distinctive parts are, the anathema does not define 3 .
1 That is to say, the incarnate Person's, who is "God with us", both
God and man — the title which safeguards the manhood.
2 The Latin is ad unam societatem (al. communitateni) Jilii, which
represents I suppose the Greek els ixiav Koivcovlav viov, and means that the
union was of such a kind that He who united and he who was united
became in fellowship together one Son.
3 In an incidental illustration in another sermon he says the Lord's
supper is not commemorative of the death of God the Word — 'And it is
not the death of God the Word we proclaim when we feed on the Lord's
blood and body, for the nature of God receives sacrifice and is not itself
offered as a victim in sacrifice' [Sermo x Loofs p. 271). Cf. also infra
pp. 140 ff.
The Highpriestkood of Christ
\ [Q
The sermon might seem to leave the whole id the m I o( the
manhood, and yet it assumes and presupposes the unity of the
on, and indeed seems to be conceived quite in the spirit
of Leo's agU Utrmpu forma cum a/terius communions quod
proprium est — a dictum which was of course strongly objected
to by the opponents of Nestorius. The phr.ts. s and argum
that might be suspected, so far as they are more than legitimate
comment on the words and arguments of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, are explained partly by tin- fact that In- lias in
riew teaching which appeared to attribute to Godhead itself
characteristics and functions which are proper to manhood,
and partly by the difficulty of the subject and the ambiguity
of some of the terms. If we dealt with his opponents' ph rases
in the same critical spirit, we should find many which could
be similarly misinterpreted, as tiny were, in the opp<
direction 1 .
The real problem whether "manhood" can exist in any
other way than in an individual man was apparently not
recognized on either side, and therefore — though it is the
1 I am in no way concerned in this enquiry to question the soundness
of Cyril's beliefs or to belittle such services as he rendered to the Church.
Hut many of his expressions are at least no more immaculate than some of
those of Nestorius, and we do not need to turn the microscope on them to
discover flaws. He used it freely against Nestorius, and of course Nestorius
retaliated. Here is one example which bears on the question before us.
He is objecting to Cyril's expression ** two natures, out of which (<£ w#») we
say that the ineffable union was effected ". * This " out of which " sounds
as if he spoke as regards the natures of the Lord of parts on one side and
the other, which parts became one. For he ought to have said not "out
of which " but, as we say, M of which " («*) an ineffable union was effected.
For that ineffable union is not out of the natures, but it is such a union of
the natures.... Here he surreptitiously confuses the peculiar properties of the
natures' {Letter xii Syriac fragment Loofs p. 197). — It will be remembered
that it was just such a phrase as this of Cyril's that seemed to justify the
contention of Eutyches that our Lord was "of two natures" before the
Incarnation, which Leo dubbed as impious as the assertion of "one only
nature " after the Incarnation was scandalous.
120 Nest or ins and his teaching
crucial question for Christian philosophers today — it need not
be brought into account in this connexion.
Accordingly the conclusion of this examination of the
sermon as a whole and the anathemas would be that, in this
particular controversy as between Cyril and Nestorius, judge-
ment cannot be given against Nestorius.
This question of the highpriesthood of Jesus is, at its core,
of ethical even more than of metaphysical interest and import-
ance. Of the highest ethical significance too is the doctrine
of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, in which He who is "at once the Victim and the
Priest " fulfils His sacrificial function — the supreme illustration
and example of the union of the Divine and the human and of
the dual natures and functions of the One Highpriest. As
such Nestorius inevitably referred to it in his sermon, pointing
the moral, and inviting his hearers to realize for themselves,
in the only way they could, the mystery of the ineffable union,
which (as he said at the outset) words were unable to describe.
How keenly alive he was to the ethical significance of the
doctrine of the Person of Christ, which needs for its statement
such abstruse discussions — and how barren he would have
thought these discussions apart from their ethical implications —
is shewn by passages in the Bazaar of Heradides to which
I must now ask attention.
CHAPTER VIII
THE ETHICAL VALUATION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST
No student of the history of Christian doctrine would for
a moment belittle the value of a sound metaphysical theor
God and of the Incarnation. But no would-be disciple of
Christ attaches importance to it apart from its moral isv
It is only so far as doctrine embodies an interpretation of
human life, and so supplies a working theory of life, that
it appeals with constraining power to men and women who are
set here in the world to live that life. It is essentially a moral
appeal that doctrine makes to the ordinary man
44 with soul just nerved
To act tomorrow what he learns today".
Only so far as doctrine furnishes a basis for actual life, and
expresses principles which can be applied to the conditions of
things as they are, has it practical value for the " children of
men ". And the practical consequences which flow from
doctrines, the principles of active life which can be deduced
from them, are a sure test of their truth. They must corre-
spond with human experience; they must interpret the facts
of human life, and direct the aims and activities of men. In
the doctrine of the Incarnation the whole Christian philosophy
of life is summed up. Nothing else matters, for indeed it is
122 Nestorius and his teaching
all in all : it spreads its ramifications into every nook and
cranny of human life. Jesus is to His disciples of all ages the
clue to the mystery of existence : so far as they can understand
Him they have the solution of all the enigmas of their being ;
they know what they are, and therefore they know what to do.
They do not give or withhold obedience to commands imposed
by an authority outside themselves : it is the law of their own
being that they follow or resist. If, then, the Person of Jesus
is a metaphysical " problem " which challenges the highest
efforts of man's intellect, it is one in which his deepest moral
interests are involved. And the moral issues of the problem
have never been absent from the consciousness of His Church.
That doctrinal controversies should so often seem to be a mere
exercise of dialectical subtleties is not the fault of theologians.
Such " subtleties " are not the monopoly of theologians, but the
common property — the alphabet — of thinkers. If impeachment
is to lie at all, it is the "mind of man" that must be arraigned.
The Nestorian controversy is full of such subtleties : we have
had to consider some of the dialectical puzzles with which the
apologia of Nestorius abounds. But Nestorius was not the
man to lose himself in a maze of metaphysics. His hold of
the moral thread is as firm as the simplest believer's. As
much to him as to the humblest sinner who has found salvation
in faith in Jesus, Jesus is the Saviour and Example of men ;
and he brings the doctrine of His Person to the test of this
conviction.
Does the doctrine correspond with the facts of the life of
Jesus on earth as they are told in the records of Scripture?
and are the results that follow from it, as affecting the life that
men live in the world, consistent with the results to which the
earliest interpreters and preachers of Jesus pointed ?
To Nestorius it seems that the moral purpose of the
Incarnation is frustrated unless the incarnate Word of God
underwent a genuine human experience, and he argues against
every doctrine of His Person which seems to debar Him from
Ethical valuation of the doctrine i 23
being a real Example and Pattern of a genuinely human
I' He did not become man in (or into) man. then He
'saved Himself but not us. But if He saved us, thin in 01 11
'became man, and He was in the form of men, and in fashion
i l was found as a man, and He did not of Himself become
'a man' 1 .
In this connexion, as illustrating the paramount interest of
Nestorius in the moral issues of the questions in dispute, it is
a pleasure to quote a passage in which he writes of the
" obedience " of Christ and its bearing on the doctrine of the
relation between the Divine and the human in Him. The two
or three sentences which are obscure will be examined in
another connexion. The passage as a whole glows with en-
thusiasm for the triumph of Manhood under a searching trial*.
'And therefore He took the form of a servant — a lowly
' form, a form that had lost the likeness of God. He took not
'honour and glory, nor worship, nor yet authority, though
' He was Son ; but the form of a servant was acting with
* obedience in the person of the Son, according to the mind of
'God; having His mind 3 and not its own. Nor did it do
' anything that it wished, but only what God the Word wished.
1 For this is the meaning of u the form of God " — that the form
'of the servant should not have a mind or will of its own, but
'of Him whose the person is and the form 4 . Wherefore the
'form of God took the form of a servant, and it did not
'avoid aught of the lowliness of the form of a servant, but
1 Bazaar of Heradides p. 274 — the phrase 4 of Himself means inde-
pendently of human conditions, or, so as to be changed from His own nature
into the nature of man.
- The main idea is touched upon also in Sermo ix Loofs p. 250 ff. and
Sermo xviii id. p. 307.
$ i.e. aims and purpose. Nestorius strongly opposes the Apollinarian
theory, that the Word took the place of the human intellect.
4 Nestorius is speaking morally rather than psychologically.
124 Nestorins and his teaching
1 received all, that the (Divine) form might be in all ; that
'without stint it 1 might make it 2 to be its own form.
' For because He took this form, that He might take away
' the guilt of the first man and give to his nature that original
'image which he had lost by his guilt, it was right that He
1 should take that which had incurred the guilt and was held
'under subjection and servitude, together with all its bonds
'of dishonour and disgrace; since apart from His person it
'had nothing divine or honourable or independent. Just as
' a son who is still a child does not attain to be heir or " lord
' of all " independently, but through obedience ; so also the
'form of a servant which He took unto His own person He
' took as the form of a servant — not unto authority, but unto
' obedience, and obedience of such a kind that from it there
'should be begotten exact obedience, even sinlessness. And
' truly He was seen to be without sins.
' Now, when a man is saved from all the causes from which
' disobedience arises, then truly and without doubt is he seen
'to be without sins. And therefore He took of the nature
' that had sinned, lest, by taking of a nature which is incapable
'of sins, it should be thought that it was by nature that He
' could not sin, and not through His obedience. But though
' He had all these things that belong to our nature— anger, and
'desire, and thought — and these things also were developing
'as He grew gradually in age; yet they were made firm in
'the purpose of obedience.
'And the response of His obedience extended to all the
' former commandments, and not to some only, that it might not
' be thought that it was through their easiness that He was able
'to continue innocent. Nor did He undertake obedience in
' the matter of those things in which there is a certain incentive
' of honour, of power, of renown, but rather in those that are
'poor and beggarly and contemptible and weak, and might
1 i.e. the form of God. 2 i.e. the form of the servant.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 125
well baulk the purpose of obedience: things which have
absolutely no incentive to obedience, but rather to slackness
'and remissness. And He re c ei v ed DO sort of encouragement ;
'but from Himself alone came His desire of obedience to God
'and of loving what God wills 1 .
1 And therefore He was needy in all things. But though
' He was forcibly drawn by contrary things, in nothing did He
'decline from the mind of God ; although Satan employed all
• these means to withdraw Him from the mind of ( iOd And
'Satan sought to do this the more because He saw that He
'was in no wise anxious*: for He was not seen at first to
'work any miracles, nor did He appear to have a charge to
' teach, but only to be in subjection and keep all the command-
' ments. While He was consorting with all men and surrounded
'on all sides by all the commandments, which shewed that
' He had the power to disobey, in the midst of them all He
'behaved manfully, using nothing peculiar or different from
'others for His sustenance, but availing Himself of such things
'as were usual, like other men ; that it might not be supposed
' that He was preserved from sin by aids of this sort, and that
' He could not be so preserved without these things. And
'therefore in eating and drinking He observed all the com-
'mandments. And through fatigue and sweat He remained
' firm in His purpose, having His will fixed to the will of God.
' And there was nothing that could withdraw or separate Him
'therefrom; for He lived not for Himself but for Him whose
1 own the person was 3 ; and He kept the person without stain
'and without scar; and by its means He gave victory to the
' human nature.
1 All this shews that Nestorius was not a monothelite. The human
will conformed itself to the Divine— it was not sunk in the Divine will, so
as to will by necessity what God wills.
* From what follows this would seem to mean that He was not at first
anxious to display His Divinity.
* Or ' whose person He was'.
126 Nestorius and his teaching
* And because in all things He was full of obedience, He
* received the baptism of John as a first-fruits, like all men.
' And although He had no need, as being without sins, yet in
1 His entire obedience He received it as though he had need ;
'for it was the first-fruits of obedience that He should not
1 behave in a manner conformable to His honour and glory,
'but as under obedience to one who commands 1 ; and that He
'should not only permit him to baptize, but should even
1 be baptized by him as one requiring purification and in need
1 of forgiveness. This is what obedience in all things means —
' that He should not require or exact anything in His own
'person, but in the person of Him whose the person is, and
'that He should possess His own will, in that the person is
' properly His own ; and that He should account His person
'to be His own person 2 .
' One is the person j therefore the Father pointed Him out
'from above, saying: "Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee am
' I well pleased " ; and the Holy Ghost came down in the form
*of a dove and abode upon Him. And it does not say that
' the Son came down, since He is the Son who has the person,
'and the things that belong to this One (i.e. Jesus) His own
' (i.e. the Son's) person did, without being distinguished from
1 Him (Jesus). Therefore He is one even in the birth of flesh:
' " The Holy Spirit ", it says, "shall come and the power of the
' Most High shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that which
'is being born of thee shall be called Holy (Thing), Son of
1 i.e. John Baptist.
2 The pronouns refer, of course, to the Divine and the human natures ;
but it is difficult to assign them to their proper subjects. The following,
which is, I think, a legitimate rendering, gives a better sense : ' that He
(the Word) should not require or exact anything in His own person (i.e. on
His own behalf), but in that of (i.e. on behalf of) him (i.e. the man) whose
person He is ; and that He should win his will, since He is strictly his
person ; and that He should account his person to be His own person ' :
but the passage is obscure.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 127
'God" 1 . It never said that the Son should com. thai
'which He took unto His own person is not another but the
y same — even Him whom He gave for the dispensation
'which is on our behalf for tin reasons of which we I
'already spoken.
'And because He was accounted to be a more eminent
' observer of the I^aw than all (other) men during His sojourn
'amongst all men . ■
II< went forth to the wilderness alone to be tempted by
1 the devil, lacking all things that are in the world, and even
1 that which is accounted fatigue and privation 8 . And by
1 reason of His withdrawal from all things He attained to the
' greatest eminence to which bodily power is capable of t>
'exalted. And, instead of the impulses of physical delights,
4 He was holding on to the things of God, as though He «
* incorporeal, not answering to His body as if it were His own,
* but as if apart from it. For this belongs alone to the image
1 of God and of Him who keeps the image of God in God —
'(viz.) that He should will what God the Father wills; and
* because there was nothing else 4 , in all that the devil said He
* put him to shame as one who was removed from the will of
1 God. He lifts Himself up to God, bringing the things that
'belong to His own will into conformity with the will of
' God, so that it should be merely the image of the archetype,
1 not of itself; for an image is in itself without a form ; but it
1 Karlier in the book it appears that Nestorius adopts this interpretation
of the passage. The Syriac seems to imply it here also.
* I cannot translate ^ooo nuottJa ^^\^ | \™-^ ^^ ^^
* The context suggests that this refers to the sublime rapture of contem-
plation which Christ enjoyed during the fast in the desert. But the words
may be taken with the first clause: 'and [be tempted] by that also which
is accounted', etc.
4 This appears to mean : "and because no other motive could enter into
the mind of Christ ".
Nestorius and his teaching
'has as its proper form that of the archetype; and both of
'them are the same, and the appearance is one. For by
'deeds He kept the form of God in bodily things from all
' bodily passions ; and elected that God's will should be done
' and not that of the flesh ; and made the form His own by
'deeds, so that He should will what He (God) willed, and
'that there should be one and the same will in them both,
' and one person, without division : This being That, and That
'This, while both This and That are preserved 1 . And He
' was being made firm in all things by temptations of body
'and soul — in cities and in the desert — there being no dis-
tinction 2 in His observance (of the commandments) and in
' His subjection.
' Henceforth, as one who had conquered and triumphed in
' all things, there was given to Him as the prize of His victory
'authority to preach and to announce the Gospel of the
' Kingdom of Heaven, saying, " Be of good cheer, I have
' conquered the world ; now is the judgement of this world ;
'now is this its ruler defeated. And I, when I shall have
' been lifted up from the earth, will draw every man unto
' myself". And, although He is the Son, through the fear and
'suffering which He bore He learned obedience, and was
'made perfect; "and He became to all who obey Him a
'cause of everlasting life". And He was sent to teach every
'one, and to work signs and wonders and cures, and all the
' rest — not that He should be stimulated and urged to obedi-
'ence: but, that those things that were done for our sake should
'be believed, He employed all these things (i.e. signs etc.) to
' bring about the obedience of those who were learning. For
' until the time of His victory 3 He was striving to make firm in
'God the image that had been given to Him. But because
1 Nestorius is now, apparently, speaking of the two natures — explaining
the relation of the two wills — united in the one Person.
2 As to the natures (?).
3 i.e. at the temptation.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 1 29
' He had now established His image in diwrs manners through
Mil kinds of temptations, being without any shortcoming or
'defect, He was henceforth acting on our behalf, being eager
1 to rescue us captives from the oppression of the tyrant, and
1 to draw us to Himself and nuke us all sons of His kingdom —
' partakers and heirs and sons of God. For the overthrow of
4 tht' tyrant was to be without hope of recovery, when He should
'openly cast him down from his principality, and seize His
'powei iftn He had cast him down. And His own victory
' was not to suffice for Him, after He had seized him, but was
'now to be ours also for whose sake He had fought. And
'those who obeyed Him He was henceforth bringing to Him-
4 self, freely, and not by compulsion. And those who come (to
'Him) He persuades to depart from him (Satan) willingly,
Mnd not against their will... 1 .
1 Wherefore, after His victory was complete, and it had
' been said from Heaven : " This is my beloved Son ", He
'commenced again other battles. [And when He undertook]*
'the leadership and the office of teaching and the working
' of wonders with authority, again He becomes obedient. And
' He did not act loftily in matters pertaining to us, i.e. in
' human and weak things : [but just as though] a He possessed
'no authority and superiority at all — being persecuted, and
'smitten, and fearing with such fear as troubles all men,
'having no place, as even the birds and beasts have, where
'to lay His head, changing from place to place, and being
'buffeted and expelled from them all, — for our sakes, and to
' make us obedient, without compulsion from anyone, that He
'might fully teach us with all care. And He bore all temp-
'tations in order to teach us. And from every place He
'was driven forth to those to whom He had not yet bee
1 Some words are missing from the MS.
* A word, or words, missing from the MS.
* Supplying vy^O.
130 Nestorius and his teaching
'announced; so that the very thing which He Himself was
'anxious to bring about was accomplished by the persistence
1 of enemies who could not foresee the outcome of the matter,
1 but were thinking to hinder Him by opposition. (And He
'undertook) tasks full of contempt and dishonour, and fear
' even unto death. And even after His victory, and after His
' election by God (when He said) : " This is my beloved Son
' in whom I am well pleased " : after He had received the
'authority of the Gospel, after He had been made manifest
1 that by His own authority He was doing the works of God,
' after He had said " I and my Father are one ", He was in
' all this weakness and contempt in things human — things the
' burden of which it was not thought possible that He should
'bear, but, on the contrary, that they would be irksome to
'Him, and cause Him to reject grace. And so there were
' many things that were hindering Him from announcing the
' Gospel; whence it came about that there arose against Him
' accusers, (as it were) on God's behalf — as though He (Christ)
' afforded them an excuse for disobedience in that they could
* charge Him with being contemptible and weak.
1 For on all hands the dishonour that comes after honour
1 is accounted the most contemptible. But Christ came in the
' flesh and, on the contrary, accepted " obedience unto death,
' even unto the death of the cross," as the greatest honour. And
' He shewed to Satan and to every principality and authority
' that it is complete obedience that is the cause of honour,
'rather than the disobedience to God through which Satan
'suffered when he made himself equal to the Divine nature
'and honour, and brooked not the obedience which belongs
'to men, since he estimated honour and dishonour according
'to the difference between his own nature and that of men;
'and on account of this ambition of his he considered that
'this obedience was not due from him to God. And he
' cast Adam into the same evil plight by persuading him not
'to obey God. And he (Adam) chose to be unthankful (to
Ethical valuation of the doctrine i 3 1
4) and disobedient in all things ; and, because he was
'deemed worthy of His image, when he was forbidden to
4 eat of one of the trees he took it ill, where there was no
4 cause for grievance, and transgressed the command of God,
* regarding God as niggardly. Wherefore, because He acted
1 entire obedience, God accounted the Second Adam
rthy of all this honour— honour than which there is none
4 higher, corresponding to obedience which nothing could
4 surpass — who esteemed not Himself to be anything, but
4 (strove) to be conformable to the will of God, even as God
1 wished that He should be.
'And so God became incarnate in a man in His own
4 person. And He made his person His own person. And
4 there is no condescension comparable to this, that his person ■
4 should become His own person, and that He should give
4 him His person. Wherefore He employed his person in that
4 He took it to Himself. But He took it, not as having made
4 it honourable, but as (having left it) contemptible — that He
4 might shew to all henceforth* that whatever exaltation there
4 is comes about by (previous) condescension — and not as
4 though it were abolished by the fact that He "took the
4 form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man ".
'The form of a servant served this purpose according to
4 His will : for He willed, according to what belonged to (its)
4 nature, that He should be obedient to His person: not only
4 for His own sake — that there might be no doubt about His
4 being the Son of God— but also for our sake : that He might
4 be led away and die for the sake of our redemption : for
4 our sake, I say, not as though we were righteous or good —
4 for in this there would be an inducement, if one should die
4 for such as these — but for the wicked : " for scarcely for the
1 Lit. ' the person of that one '.
* Conjecturing that jar^c^ oos^ ►£» stands for \oiv6v , or rb \oi*6i>.
Taken literally the text yields no tolerable sense.
9—2
132 Nestorius and his teaching
' ungodly (plur.) will one die : yet peradventure for the good
'(plur.) some one would dare to die" 1 .
'Since then in a manner unsearchable He condescended in
'all things with an incomparable condescension, (here) again
* was shewn one purpose, one will, one mind — not to be dis-
tinguished or divided — as though in One (being). And in
1 might and in authority and in judgement — in all things He
1 (the Man) was partaker with God inseparably : (acting) as
'though from One, with one discrimination and choice of
' both ; in such a way that in things human He should not,
' as human, possess aught as (peculiarly) His own, but that the
' will of God should be His will, when He had been stablished
' by works and by natural sufferings ; and that in Divine things,
' in like manner, nothing should belong to Him as (peculiarly)
' His own, apart from human lowliness, but that in all things
'that which was by suffering and by its nature man should
' be a party to all the Divine things, and even impassibility ;
'that, even as by depletion He employed the form of a
' servant, so also He should participate in the exaltation of
'the form of God, since He (Christ) is in both of them —
'in the form of a servant, and in the form of God — and
'possesses one and the same person of the humiliation and
'the exaltation.
'Wherefore it was required that the incarnation of God
' should be into the complete nature of rational beings ; that
' we should learn to share that graciousness of His, by reason
' of which, without any need, He did everything (for us), and
'did not shrink from doing even things that are despised;
' and further, that He should make man to share His image,
'that everyone beneath Him 2 should, in imitation (of Him),
' share His greatness without giving way to pride. And according
' to His power He was doing everything in the sight of God 3 .
1 Cf. Rom. v. 7. 2 Or, ' after Him '.
3 So text. We expect rather : ' and according to his power do every-
thing in the sight of God ' — ' everyone' continuing as subject.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 1 33
'Since then Satan dealt perversely with those (powers)
4 which were given him by God and fell away from the mind
1 of God, he did not employ the image of God (in him) as a
'model and pattern worthy of God, but with spite (he used it)
'against man, to lead him astray from God. And he caused
1 man to go astray and to fall away from His image by not
'observing the Will of God; and he established him as an
'enemy and one who fights against God, that thereby he
'might accuse God of unjust dealing, in that He shewed so
1 friendly a disposition towards man, and make good his charge
'against Him when at length He should avenge His disgi
' upon man and lay a just punishment upon him for what he
' had done against Him. For since Satan acted in anger and
* without counsel, he forgot that God might act in a manner
' contrary to what he could have wished.
'For God did not by means of death compass man's
' destruction, but brought him to a better mind, and gave him
1 helps that he should not sin nor again consent to the counsels
* of the Evil One which lead to destruction.
' Nor has this become an occasion of slandering God, but
' rather (a proof of) His greater goodness, that He advanced
' man to such an honour as this when he was nothing at all ;
'and that He might convict the tyrant of his treachery, who
'had thought to destroy man, and shew that He had not
'determined on his (man's) destruction, but that in His
'goodness He would save him and preserve him and be
'careful of him, so that he might return and come again to
' that which he (formerly) was. But Satan thought that if, after
'all this God's love towards man, he could make him again
' transgress the commandment of God, He would certainly be
< so enraged as to destroy him, and that man would have no
'chance of repenting and being healed. For those who had
'sinned and had been held worthy of redemption, but still
'continued in the same (sins) — though they were not as yet
'quit of the original punishment — there could be no refusal
134 Nestorius and his teaching
' (he thought) but that wrath should be stirred up against such
1 as these, without any further possibility of their rescue. These
1 things, then, that Satan determined for man's destruction he first
'thought out with himself, and he persuaded himself that he
1 had rendered man liable to punishment without leaving him
' any chance of forgiveness. And because he was blinded by
'rage and spite he did not learn from his own case the
'goodness of God, by reason of which He did not destroy
'even Satan himself, deceiver as he was, but bore with his
' wickedness — (he did not understand, I say) that for the sake
' of this (His goodness) God would be patient with men also
'when they sinned and committed iniquity — inasmuch as it
' was another that had led them astray — and that He is patient
' with the folly of men, and with the boundless wickedness of
'the devil towards them, who, in the height of his malice,
'conceived the design of leading all astray, and of bringing
'all into enmity (with God), that our whole race might be
'seduced by him without any one to act as its advocate.
'And, whereas Satan displayed all this exceeding wickedness
' without any cause at all : with all this wickedness was shewn
'forth also the goodness of God. And He shewed His un-
'speakable goodness by doing good to all men in common.
' For with surpassing condescension He came unto him who
'had thus greatly sinned, in contempt and dishonour and
'weakness. And He did not shrink from dishonour for the
'sake of his advantage; but through His person He became
' his (man's) own person ; and he became God's (person),
'fulfilling 1 all the things of God, teaching the lesson of the
' condescension ; for the surpassing obedience of the humanity
'was a lesson of humility, since it sought not its own but
'God's. And it was united into one mind (with Him),
'so that Satan should have no chance at all of bringing
1 The writer is now thinking of the Person, Christ, rather than of
human nature in general.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 1 35
1 in 1 disobedience. And because He had singled out death alone
1 to be both for defeat and for victory, finally He underwent
•this also, that, when He should be found victorious over it,
* He should utterly abolish it. And two things He accom-
•plished by it (death): He convicted Satan, and He removed
'from Himself all suspicion of disobedii m
'And since many were overcome by tin feu of death,
'He bore even death tttl If, and paid for us the penalty
4 justly due by substituting for our death that death which
'unjustly came upon Himself. Wherefore, after he had kept
'all the commandments, so that He should be innocent of
1 death and receive for us the verdict * of innocence, He again
'adopted this course of action* for the teaching of those who
'had erred. And He died for us erring ones; and He
'brought Death into the midst, because it was necessary for
'him to be destroyed. And He did not hold back even from
' this, that He Himself should submit to Death ; for by this
' He won the hope of Death's undoing. And it was for this
' cause that He first of all underwent divers temptations also, that
' we might not die as evildoers, without the penalty being paid.
' And it was with this same hope that He undertook obedience
1 with immense love — not that He Himself should be cleared
' of guilt, but that He might pay the penalty for us ; and not
' that He should gain the victory for Himself, but for all men.
' For as the guilt of Adam established all under guilt, so did
' His victory (or acquittal) acquit all.
' And from these two (i.e. Adam and Christ) all intelligent
'powers have learned that there is no respect of persons with
'God, but the love of just judgement, whereby mankind was
1 Reading * .^^/mW^A 'for the introduction of, instead of
•* ^^q iW-t A, 'for the loftiness of (text).
* Or 'election', 'calling' (^^v*=v\J: but the language appears to
be legaL
8 i.e. obedience and suffering.
136 Nestorius and his teaching
' cleared of guilt and Satan was convicted. And God increased
1 His victory, and gave Him an honour "better than all names".
' And all intelligent powers together marvelled at His victory,
* and were kneeling and worshipping the name that was given
1 Him, acknowledging that it was justly given ; and every
'tongue was confessing the just dispensation which was
'wrought on behalf of all, through which peace and concord
1 reigned over the earth. And in all things by persuasion He
' was bringing them near (to God), and not by compulsion.
'And God Himself carried out the dispensation, and did
'not accomplish it by the hand of another, lest, when he
'should be in contempt and weakness of this sort, His com-
'mandment should be accounted dishonourable, and again
'envy should be stirred up afresh against man. But He of
' Himself accepted it (i.e. apparently, the commandment) who
' is able to bear all things. And He established as witnesses of
1 the lowliness of His humanity the angels who were strength-
ening Him 1 ; that no one should say that it (the humanity)
' was undergoing sufferings without pain because that He (God)
'was strengthening 2 it that it should not suffer, and hence
'there was no cause why it should not be obedient. For
'everything that could possibly be thought or said about
' Him in doubt : and those things that He knew men might
'say about Him— even though (perhaps) they did not actually
' say them, either through fear, or through obedience (to Him)
' — everything He did ; that He might not leave any cause at
' all for doubt. For men were not aware of this mystery : but
'it was hidden even from principalities and authorities and
'from all powers, and was revealed to them that had know-
' ledge; and they were confessing, after this refutation, that
' design which overthrew all (human) designs and vanquished
1 Pointing .A "i^S instead of ^Aausdtj, which would mean 'who
were feeble '.
8 Pointing Auksn for Vt>-^
Ethical valuation of the doctrine
'them. And He shewed that His incarnation was a dis,
'sation that was universal, unto all those who, with one mind
'and with one accord, conspitvd with Him to oppose their
'common enemy — even him whom He had crushed and
'brought to nought, that he should no more find scope for
'his treachery and spiu .
'But though overthrown he (Satan) remains, as it were for
'his own manifest condemnation and theirs who consented to
'him, since he no longer has the same power to lead aft
' And (that he remains), it is for the sake of the victory of those
'who do not consent to him; for "no man", it says,
'crowned except he strive lawfully". And hence he (Satan)
'remained (as a factor) in the Christian discipline, even after
' the victor)' (of Christ) and the abolition of death — that dis-
' cipline which had been abolished by Christ — that those also
'who are in Christ may conduct themselves after His liken
' not through the grace of the resurrection alone, but also by
'individual works and conduct*. For the former is universal,
' but the latter is for each one. And that it may not be thought
' concerning the (human) nature of Christ that it is a unique
'and peculiar creation — that it was fashioned so as to be
' without sins, and gained the victory by virtue of this (alone) —
'He brings it about that he (Satan) is conquered by many
'myriads in our very nature, by means of conduct such as
' Christ's*, even by those who strictly keep the commandments,
'and in respect of the law behave in the body well nigh with
' the conduct of incorporeal beings, and in tribulation and in
' distress and in all weakness bear the seductions of nature and
'its fluctuations, with those assaults which are from without.
' And they have so conquered in all things that the complete-
' ness of Satan's defeat is proportioned to the advancement of
1 i.e. the grace which comes by virtue of Christ's resurrection and
victory over death does not remove individual responsibility, or abolish
the contest. Satan has to be overcome by each and all.
* Lit. 4 which is in Christ '.
138 Nestorius and his teaching
'the commandments; whereas he had thought that it was just
'by men's conduct that their ruin would be effected most
'easily.' 1
To the same effect is a long discussion (which follows the
passage just cited) of the moral purpose and issues of the
Incarnation in relation to the power which Satan had acquired
over men — a discussion which seems to me to compare not
unfavourably with other familiar investigations of the question
Cur Deus homo ? in connexion with the supposed rights of
Satan. He who was really and fairly to overcome the Devil
and break the fatal rule he exercised over mankind needed to
be himself man (to have man's real ousia), and as man in all
respects to fight against and conquer evil. Man's real nature
must be appropriated, made his own, by one who can as man
render perfect obedience to the will of God. No theory of the
Incarnation which does not leave the victory man's victory,
Nestorius argues, can avail to release men from the Devil's
authority and to secure to men the mastery in the struggle in
which they are engaged. No mixture of natures (which would
produce a being neither God nor man) would avail, and no
deification of man (a change of the ousia of manhood into the
ousia of Godhead); and yet no mere man could achieve the
triumph.
' How should He make His incarnation a stumbling-block
'through mixture or confusion or participation of natures, so
' as to be thought of as neither God nor man, but as one made
' from the two, and not (as He really is) simple and indivisible ?
' Hence it is, then, that with the manhood He is as an
'arbiter in a cause, and in a true contest, while He has the
' manhood in His own person and it is obedient to Him in all
' things. And it is not He that contends and is judged, except
' only in so far as He has brought the manhood into an ap-
propriation 2 with His own image — but not into the nature of
1 Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 53 — 63.
2 Or ' intimate association' : see above, p. 73 note 2.
Ethical valuation of the doctrine 139
1 the invincible and ini| I iodhcad ■ (Bazaar
of Heradidts p. 68).
Wt need not, I think, consider win tlnr tin- implications of
the doctrine of which Cyril was in the eyes of Nestorius a
champion were necessarily inconsistent with tin moral intei
which appealed so strongly to Note this. But we are concern* d
to note that these interests could only be latitfied, in his
judgement, by a doctrine of the Incarnation which secured
il condescension of God in the Person of the Word. a real
assumption to His own Person of real manhood in its own
being and characteristics, so that the sphere of the struggle
which He underwent was man's own sphere of struggle, and it
Vti manhood that issued invincible in His victory — the pledge
of future victories of man. His whole treatment of the
question utterly excludes the idea that the protagonist in the
drama of man's redemption merely played the part of man, or
achieved His end by magical means beyond the reach of men.
It attributes the work to a single Person and excludes any
notion of a mere external alliance between an individual man
and God, while it allows for the double consciousness of Christ
to which many a passage of Scripture points. It draws largely,
as Nestorius does elsewhere, from the teaching of the Epistle
to the Hebrews.
CHAPTER IX
THE EUCHARISTIC TEACHING OF NESTORIUS
Hooker, it will be remembered, introduces his description
of the doctrine of the Sacraments by a careful statement of
the doctrine of the Person of our Lord. The theory of the
sacraments is that they effect union between man and Christ,
and that that union is union with God in Christ. It is
necessary therefore to shew that Christ is a Person able to be
the medium between man and God. "And forasmuch as there
is no union of God with man without that mean between both
which is both, it seemeth requisite that we first consider how
God is in Christ, then how Christ is in us, and how the Sacra-
ments do serve to make us partakers of Christ. In other
things we may be more brief, but the weight of these requireth
largeness." 1 Our theory of the Eucharist must, if it be a
reasoned theory, correspond to our doctrine of the Person of
Christ; and Eucharistic experience will readily furnish analogies
by which to illustrate — or even tests by which to determine —
our doctrine of the Person of our Lord. In the Eucharist He
gives His Body and His Blood. What is it that He gives?
The answer to this question may help to determine the answer
to the question Who is He that gives ?
Eucharistic experience was invoked in early days to refute
theories of the Person of our Lord that reduced His human
nature to a mere illusion. The incidental character of the
1 Hooker Ecclesiastical Polity bk. v ch. .1.
Eucharistic teaching of Nestorius 141
illustrations from the Eucharist which occur, for instano
the writings of Irenaeus, shew how naturally they came to his
mind in combating Gnostic conceptions. The Lord's body was
real, because the Eucharistic bread and wine are real and able
to nourish our body and blood : they impart to us the gift of
utl life, because they become tin very body and the very
blood of the incarnate Word of God 1 . So against Nestorius
appeal was made to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and what
he has to say upon the subject is of value in the indications it
gives of the difference between his point of view and that of
his opponents. Their advocates, Superiamis, hints that there
is one argument they use which perhaps it would not be
edifying to mention, though by it they confidently support
their view of the union of the natures in our Lord. Nestorius
urges him to state it without hesitation, even as they would
themselves. Superianus states it, and Nestorius discusses it at
length.
'Superianus. The union ought to be like that of the bread
1 when it becomes the body. The body is but one and the same,
4 and not two ; and that which is thought of (or the object of
1 thought) is but one — but (one) in that into which it has been
1 made, as having been made into it 8 , and so that it is no longer
4 that which it appears to be, but that which it is thought to
1 be (or the object of thought). And for this reason it was that
1 the Apostle gave a terrible sentence against those who sup-
* posed that the Body of our Lord was "of the common sort" 3 ,
* speaking to this effect : " If one who transgressed the Law
'of Moses was put to death without mercy when convicted
'out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, of how much
'more severe a sentence is he deserving who has trampled
1 See Irenaeus adv. hacr. it 31 4, id, 51 1, vii a.
* This I take to be the meaning of
* Heb. x ao. : notvbv.
142 Nestorius mid his teaching
1 upon the Son of God and accounted the blood of His testa-
' ment, by which he has been sanctified, to be common, and
' has blasphemed the Spirit of grace?" 1 This he said against
' those who accounted the blood and body of God to be the blood
1 and body of a man, and wrongly supposed that it was like
1 that which is common to all men, and blasphemed that body
' and blood, whereby they had been sanctified, and the Spirit
'of grace, by not confessing it to be the Son of God, con-
' substantial (6/aoovo-ios) with God the Father, but saying that
'that body of the Son of God was a human body — though
f He had taken up His body and blood into His own ousta,
' and did not leave them to be insulted with the reproach of
'being a human body, but willed that they should be wor-
' shipped in His own ousia.
' Nestorius. Does this illustration then seem insignificant
' to you, that you should pass it over in silence ? Yet they set
' great store by it ; and so you should not have been so tardy
'in bringing it forward. For if this had escaped my notice
' it would have looked as though I were like those who see the
' mote but not the beam.
' Let us examine it from all points, and see exactly what it
' may import, and what it is that the Divine Scripture wishes to
' make us understand; that so we may not incur the just blame
'of God.
'■ And first, let us speak here of the Greek word q'yonon
'(koiiw). It can mean (1) that which is defiled, (2) what is
' common {or universal), (3) participation.
'(1) In the sense of "defiled": — as when [Peter] says in
'the Acts, "I have not eaten anything 'defiled' or unclean" 2 .
'(2) In the sense of "common": — as the saying that every-
' thing the Apostles had was "in common".
'(3) In the sense of "participation":— as, "the cup of
'confession which we bless, is it not a participation of the
1 Heb. x 28, 29. 2 Acts x 14.
Eucharist ic teaching of Nestorius 143
4 blood of Christ? And the bread we break, is it not a par
'potion of the body of Christ?" 1
'Again: "He that amctfta ami tin v that arc sain ti lied are
'of one. Wherefore He was not ashamed to call th-
* brethren saying: I will declare Thy name to my b re thr e n ;
'in tin- midst of the congregation I will praise Thee; and again,
1 I will rely on Him; and again, I and the sons which God hath
' given me"*. Therefore, since the sons participated in the Beth
'and blood, so He also in like manner participated in them 3 .
4 Since then some use the word in the sense of "unclean", and
'"defiled", or again, of what is "common" (i.e. universal), and
again of ''participation" — did the Apostle then use the
'expression, which may fall into three different usages, and,
'without first specifying against what opinion he used it. lay
' down that on this account men were trampling upon the Son
' of God ? Which of the three is the correct (meaning) ?
1 Superianus. He uses it against those who think that He
' did not die on our behalf, but died His own death, like all
'men; and that, whether alive or dead, He was as one of the
* sons of men, and possessed nothing over and above : being
' ignorant that He is the Son of God, and His blood the blood
' of God and not of man.
' Nestorius. Do you say then that the body and blood are
4 the ousia of the Son of God, or that the body and blood are
'of the human ousia, but became the nature of the Divinity?
' For, according to what you say, the flesh is not really flesh,
' since it has been changed by means of mixture and union
4 into the ousia of God the Word; and, forsooth, the blessed
' Apostle soundly rated those who were confessing His body
' and blood, and said that they were holding it to be something
' unclean.
4 Superianus. He spoke these things not against those who
1 1 Cor. x 16. * Heb. ii u — 14.
* Le. flesh and blood — as the Syriac shews by the use of the fern.
144 Nestorius and his teaching
'altogether denied that it was in truth body; nor yet against
' those who change or destroy the ousia of flesh, as it were by
1 fire, or make the ousia of flesh defiled by means of mixture 1 ;
1 but against those who confess the flesh and blood, but reckon
1 it to be of the common sort.
1 Nestorius. It appears to me that the opinion which you
' hold is not so much in point against these, but rather against
1 those who change the ousia of God into the nature of flesh
' and blood, thinking that the ousia of the flesh and blood of
'our Lord is not of the common sort, but that it is derived
1 from God the Word and not from man.
1 Superianus. Hence we ought not to answer these persons
' except with rebuke for using contradictory arguments. But
' now discuss those who think that the flesh was from the ousia
'of God.
1 Nestorius. You forget that the Apostle has not said two
'contradictory things; for what he means is this: that "He
• that sanctifies and those who are sanctified " should be " of
' one ", and that they should be brethren, of one ousia and
'not of one and another (ousia), and His sons as springing
'from Him. And he speaks to this effect: "He that sanctifies
' and they that are sanctified are all of one ". Wherefore that
' blood also by which we are sanctified and which was shed
'for our sake is "of one", and by this we also are His
'brethren, as of one father. But again we are His sons
' as having the same ousia (with Him) : in which also we
'are sons. But God the Word has nothing in which He
' and we should be at one, or we be called of one form with
' Him, and so be His brethren. For we have no source of
'resemblance such as sons of the same Father have. Nor
' could we, again, become His sons, since we do not participate
' in one and the same ousia. He (the Apostle) then convicts
'those who will not acknowledge that the human blood (of
1 The text of this last clause is somewhat obscure.
Eucharistu teaching of Nestorius 145
• ( h bfa to N.mctify, and who think that it is unclean as
1 being the blood of a man. And therefore they deem unclean
'the blood of the testament whereby we have been sanctified
4 and saved from death by the true death of a man. This is
- what Blessed Paul says ; and he hereby declares that we are
4 "of one" (nature with Christ's body); and he calls us His
* brethren by reason of that nature which was born of our
'fathers and also died for us. For in that He was born He
1 belongs to our race, and we are all u of one ". But in that
He died for us and renewed us in immortality and incor-
1 ruption unto that estate which is to be, we are His sons ; for
1 He is " Father of the world to come n \ Are we not there-
4 fore all together one body ? For we all receive of that one
4 body, even of that in which He has made us to participate,
'with that very blood and flesh which are of one and the
'same nature (with us). And we are made to participate with
' Him in the resurrection from the dead and in immortality.
' And thus are we in regard to Him, even as the bread is His
' body. " Even ", he says, " as that bread is one, so are we all
'one body, for we all receive of that one bread"*
'Are we then changed into His flesh, and are we His body:
' and are we no longer the body and blood of man, but His
' body? For one is the bread, and therefore we are all one body,
'because we are the body of Christ. "But you", he says, "are
'the body of Christ, and severally 3 members." 4 Is the bread
' the body of Christ by a change of ousia, or are we His body
' by a change, or is the body of the Son of God one in nature
' with God the Word ? But if they are one in nature, it is no
'more bread, nor again is it body. The Apostle, then, says
' that they who think the body of the Son of God to be some-
1 thing defiled trample upon the Son of God in the sense that
1 1$. ix 6 (the readingof K cm A). 2 i Cor. x 1 7.
3 Lit. * in your parts \ Syr. vg. has ' in your place \ Gr. «U /aAif
U /lipout.
4 1 Cor. xii 37.
B. IO
146 Nestorius and his teaching
' they reject and deny it. Not of those who confess the body
1 to be of our nature [did he say that] they account it as sorae-
' thing defiled ; but rather that it was given for our redemption
1 because it was pure and without blemish, and preserved from
'sins, having undertaken death on behalf of all sins as an
' offering to God. But if we are not all of one (nature) we
' have not rightly been called His brethren and His sons ; nor
'again are we His bread and His body. But if all these things
'truly belong to Christ, we (also) are His body and of one
' nature with Him, because we are the same that the ousia of
' His body also is' (Bazaar of Heradides pp. 27 ff.).
And later on in the book Nestorius touches on the matter
again, to illustrate the coexistence of the two natures (and
their ousias) in Christ.
' How is it that, when He said over the bread "This is my
' body", He did not say that the bread was not bread and His
'body not body? But He said "bread" and "body" as
' shewing what it is in ousia. But we are aware that the bread
' is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet Cyril wishes to persuade
' us to believe that the bread is His body by faith and not by
' nature : — that what it is not as to ousia, this it becomes by
'faith' (ib. p. 326).
When our Lord called the bread His body, Nestorius
argues, He shewed that His human nature (with its ousia) was
real and did not simply exist in idea as the object of faith;
whereas Cyril's doctrine of the unification of the natures in
His Person would imply, he holds, the existence of the human
nature merely in idea.
The view of the Eucharist which is represented as that of
Cyril's school, it is evident, approximates closely to the doctrine
of "transubstantiation", the ousia of the bread and wine
becoming the ousia of the Word of God and ceasing to remain
real bread and wine ; whereas Nestorius champions the view
that they remain in their own ousia, though inasmuch as that
Eucharist ic teaching of Nestorius 147
ousia is the same as the MOM of His human natuie they are
His body and blood. It is becaus, i( ■ human
ousia that we who are human caw be His sons anil brethren,
and that the bread and wine become means of union with
Him The Word of ( iod as such, in His own ousia, has nothing
in common with our ousia ; and we. as men, hate no share in
the divine ousia. According to our own Article, the doctrim
that the ousia of the bread and wine does not remain after
consecration u overthroweth the nature of a t". Ac-
cording to Nestorius, apparently, a similar doctrine of the
Eucharist, that did away with the reality of the bread and wine,
corresponds to a doctrine of the Person of Christ which
transmuting His human ousia into the divine ousia, annihilates
the reality of the Incarnation.
Precisely the same conception underlies his reply to Cyril's
eleventh anathema, directed against the denial that the "flesh
of the Lord" was ''life-giving" 1 .
1 Cf. also passages in Loofs A'estoriana j>p. ?:; — 330, 3*5—357 : lad
Cyril c. Aflat, iv 3 — 6.
IO-
CHAPTER X
NESTORIUS'S STATEMENT OF HIS OWN POSITION
POSITIVELY AND IN RELATION TO CYRIL'S
The examination of the teaching of Nestorius which we
have conducted up to this point seems to be steadily leading
to the conclusion that he was the victim of much misunder-
standing, that many of his sayings and arguments were mis-
represented, and that the doctrines attributed to him were
not his. I have said already that this is the conclusion to
which I myself have been led by the attempt to understand
what he really meant ; and I have quoted largely from his own
words. I do not think I have brought too sympathetic a mind
to bear upon them, or that any isolation of them from their
context (which has, however, been avoided as much as possible)
could in any event be favourable to Nestorius. It was how-
ever on the evidence of extracts and of such isolated sayings
that he was condemned, and his Western judges refused (as he
believed) to consider what he really meant. He may be allowed
now to address himself at length, without interruption, to
a wider world of the West than he could ever have conceived
— or at least to that small part of it that still considers the
questions which to him were more than life and death worthy
of an hour's attention. Let him, then, speak for himself and
state in his own words his own position, and how he believes
it to be related to Cyril's.
At the end of the first part of the discussion in the Bazaar
of Heraclides Superianus asks Nestorius to pass in review
His own statement of his position 1 49
briefly the theories of the Incarnation to which he is opposed,
and then to state his own theory clearly so that no one can
misunderstand him. The section is headed by the translator
"Concerning the Faith M| .
'Suptrianus. Since then there are many who accept the
* faith of the 318 which was set forth at Nicaea, even among
* those who hold divergent beliefs and interpret in divers ways
'the divine Scriptures, and understand the words "He was
'incarnate" and "He became man" in different senses : may
'it please your Piety to pass in review their opinions and
'notions; and do you write for my information what is your
'opinion and which view you approve as correct; that you may
'give no occasion to those who seek one for misrepresenting
'you.
' Nestorius. (A) Some of them say then that the incarnation
' of Christ our Lord took place in fancy and semblance only,
' to the end that He might be seen of men, and that we might
' learn about Him, and that He might give the grace of the
' Gospel to every one. And they say that just as He appeared
' to each of the saints, even so in the last times He appeared
' to all men.
' (B) Others say that the very Divine ousia itself became
' flesh, so that the ousia of flesh should be in His (God's) very
' ousia instead of the nature of men ; and that He might conduct
' Himself as a man and suffer, and set free our nature. For
' one, they say, that became man not in His own ousia but in
'outward fashion assuredly did not set us free, but utterly
' deceived us, since He appeared in outward fashion only, and
' seemed to suffer on our behalf, whereas He did not suffer.
' (C) Others again confess that God became incarnate in
' flesh, as a complement (or for the completion) of the nature —
' instead of a soul — being physically incarnate in flesh, so as to
' do and suffer ; and that He was suffering physically the natural
1 Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 70 ff.
150 Nestor ius and his teaching
1 passions of the body : being in His own nature impassible,
1 yet passible in the physical incarnation. After the manner of
■ the soul, they say, which of its nature is not susceptible of the
1 passions of the body, and feels neither pain nor hunger, yet
■ by a physical dispensation suffers physically the passions of
1 the body while physically united to it — (so He became in-
1 carnate) that He might act and suffer for our sake physically.
4 And not in imagination or in outward show, or in a different
* nature, but in His own nature He set us free from death and
1 corruption.
1 (D) Others confess that He became incarnate in a body
1 and a soul, as a complement of the nature ; and that God the
' Word was in the place of the intelligence : so that He should
'take the place of the intelligence in the body and the soul;
1 and that He should act and suffer in the nature of man for
1 our sake. For He came, they say, to do away with that
4 intelligence which transgressed the commandment and was
1 disobedient to God, and to be instead of the intelligence in
' the soul and body ; and not in semblance without substance
1 (q'noma), or in a different nature, nor yet in an inanimate
' body.
1 (E) Others say concerning that flesh in which God the
' Word was incarnate, that in flesh endowed with a soul He was
' incarnate ; yet He (Christ) did not exercise sensation by
1 means of its nature, nor did He understand by means of the
1 soul ; but He understood and felt by the operation of God
1 the Word ; — yet the soul itself also felt and understood, and
1 the body too, and it was as an instrument (opyavov) in the
' nature. Yet we do not, they say, divide Christ into an instru-
'ment and an operator, for (here) instrument and operator
'operate together.
'(F) Others confess two natures in Christ before the
' union, and hold that each one of the natures is to be con-
' sidered as in its own nature — God the Word in the Father
1 and in the Holy Spirit, and man in the flesh. But after the
His own statement of his position 151
union, tluy say, two natures are not thought of; since they
' have been united in ousia and have been made one out of
'two. And they change them from one nature to another:
'so that He may strictly be man, and, He the same, God
4 also ; and so that God may act as man, and die for our sake
'as God, and rise by His own pot
' (G) But others 1 say that the incarnation of our Lord was
' in flesh endowed with a soul, — a rational soul, and one capable
'of knowledge and complete in its nature and in its powers
'and natural functions — and not in seeming only, nor by a
'change of ousia, nor yet by a physical substitution for the
• nature of body and soul or for the intelligence Nor was it
' (sc. the incarnation) a welding of two natures into one ; nor
' were the natures changed one into another; nor was it (sc. the
' incarnation) for a supplying of the natural functions, in such
' a way that the flesh should not act in its own nature. But
1 they attribute the things of both natures to One, while they
1 vindicate to each the proper things of its own nature. The
' ousia of the Godhead is preserved and is impassible while it
' is in the ousia of flesh ; and the flesh also remains in the ousia
1 of flesh while it is in the nature and person of the Godhead.
' For the body is one, and both natures are one Son ; for God
' the Word in flesh is not said to be another, apart from Him
* who is in our flesh ; nor the flesh in like manner : but in the
' Son it is in God the Word ; that He may act completely in
' the nature of men, inasmuch as He is man, and remain as
' God, in that He is by nature God ; and that, being without
' sin and having kept the likeness [6/xotWis] of His own image,
'He might be delivered up to death for our redemption*;
1 This is evidently the beginning of Nestorius's statement of his own
position.
2 The text is confused; literally it runs: 4 He who, because (He was)
without sin, and when He had kept [ ?], should be delivered up to
death for our redemption, [and when] He had kept the likeness of His own
image'. I conjecture that the words 'the likeness of His own image'
152 Nestorius and his teaching
' tthat forthwith that saying should come to pass — not however
'as regards the form [fxopc^yj] 1 — "He received a name better
* than all names" 2 ; that so the nature of man should be exalted.
1 But an ousia that is no more that of man but that of God
'the Word cannot receive (further) honour or exaltation! 3 .
'It is our nature that has been honoured in another nature,
' and not in our own nature. For the exaltation of our
'nature to that "name better than all names" is shared in
'common by the human nature of Him who is the exaltation
' of that which abides in His ousia ; which human nature is
' able to be what it is (i.e. keep its identity) whilst in the ousia
' of God the Word. For this is an incomparable exaltation ;
' but a change of ousia into ousia puts an end to that ousia
' which should have been exalted, and likewise to the exaltation
'itself. Nor is it a condescension on the part of God the
' Word if He has changed into another ousia, since this latter
' does not belong to that nature which originally condescends.
'But this is the meaning of "condescend": — If, for example,
'a king makes himself as his subjects, he is said to "con-
' descend" — though he is truly king — and because of the
' garments of subjection that he has put on he is said indeed
' to have condescended, for that in outward fashion he employs
'that which is proper to himself in that which belongs to
should follow ' when He had kept ', and that the second ■ He had kept '
should be omitted.
1 The Syriac word ^«\cvm^, d'mfitha, is the natural equivalent for the
two Greek words o/xoluxris (Gen. i 26) and fJ.op<pr) (Phil, ii 6, 7). When
therefore there is reference to the passage in Gen. we should understand
that it translates the former Greek word, when to Phil, ii the latter. Now
all through this work Nestorius appears to use /J.op<f>r) in a strongly
theological sense which is practically equivalent to the sense he gives to
0&ris (kydnd, "nature"), virbaraais (q'ndmd), and ov<xia (ousia). This is
certainly so whenever there is a reference to Phil. ii.
2 Phil, ii 9.
8 The words between t...t represent the best sense I can obtain from
the Syriac, which is obscure.
His own statement of his position 1 53
'another, that, just as others are under the institutions of the
* law, so be too may come under the law of his own good-
'pleasure, being the while himself king and master of legal
'institutions. For there is no exaltation i! II .ilted to
• 1 1> own nature i but only if He should give it that which it
'had not before — not that He should take away from it that
! which it was. For if the exaltation is of that which previously
'existed, and the humiliation also is the humiliation of that
! natun which previously existed — of what then was the exalta
4 tion? First he (the Apostle) says of an ousia\ that it was
Ited; then of the nana into which it was exalted, that it
'was "above all names". Now if thou take away the ousias
\ from receiving exaltation and humiliation, there is no ousia to
' have been exalted. Therefore, that "He humbled Himself" —
' he (the Apostle) says this of a union of good-pleasure, and
4 of the incarnation, and of the kind of humiliation which He
' shewed in taking the form of a servant. And again he says
1 that what took place was a union of good-pleasure, not of
1 nature: "in fashion He was found as a man", not "in ousia ".
4 For "the form of a servant" is "in the form of God": "the
4 form of God" became "in fashion as a man" — for in His
'own ousia He was God — that both humiliation might be
'attributed to that which took the form of a servant, and
'exaltation to the form of the servant, in that it received "a
'name better than all names". (The union) is not to be
' conceived of as a change of ousia — either into another ousia
' or unto a physical compounding into a single nature — but as
'one of good-pleasure, through humiliation and exaltation.
' For a physical (union) implies the passible and changeable,
' such as a nature which is created and made, not the increate
' and unchangeable and unalterable.
' Wherefore in the incarnation this man (Cyril)* assigns
1 Cf. Phil, it 7, 9. Note the substitution of oioia. for ^ofxp-q.
1 There is no doubt that t^ios (o£toj) here refers to Cyril: as will
appear further on. The 'wherefore' will denote: 4 in view of what we
154 Nestorius and his teaching
' nothing to the control of the man, but only to God the Word
1 — in such a way that He employs the human nature for His
'own operations. So Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius
' taught : for in name they say that Christ is God, but in fact
- they deprive Him of being God ; for they assign His human
'things by nature to His (i.e. the Word's) own ousia. And
1 they make void the generations of the descent of the Messiah^
'and the promises to the Fathers that from their seed the
' Messiah should spring according to the flesh. For this reason
' it was that the Evangelists recorded all those things that truly
'shew the human nature, lest perhaps, on account of His
' Divinity, it should not be believed that He is man also; and to
' shew moreover that He it is that was affirmed by the promises.
' And for this cause he (the Evangelist) mentioned the Blessed
'Virgin as being a woman betrothed to a man; and wrote
' even his (Joseph's) name and race and craft and place : that
' there might be nothing to cause doubt and prevent her from
' being believed to be truly a woman. For the same reason he
' wrote also of His being despised, and the announcement of
'His conception, and His birth, and the manger, and the
' making known of Him that was born with her that bare Him,
' that it might be established that He was truly man : the cradle
' in a manger, the wrapping in swaddling clothes, with those
' things that are natural to babes : the gifts offered for His
' sake, His gradual growth in stature and wisdom before God
' and men, His conduct in the world, His watchings, His sub-
jection, the petition He made, and all His fulfilling of the
' Law, His baptism and the voice that was uttered concerning
' Him that He is the Son — even He who is Son from the
' womb by the union — the witness from the marking of His
' conduct, the voice of the Father, the manifestation of the
'Holy Spirit, His earthly life full of care for us, and not
have said it is clear that Cyril' etc. Possibly the underlying Greek was
dia ti; or diari; and was read by the translator as 5i6rt.
His own statement of his position 155
•in the phantom or the mere fashion of a man, hut in human
* nature and body, and a reasonable soul which thought and
'reasoned in the nature <>r men ! that He might be all that He
'was by tin nature of man without ceasing from the union
' with God the Word. But the union was not one of nat
' into 1 tingle nature, nor a confusion, nor a change, nor
' a changing of ousia — whether of God into man, or of man
'into Cod — nor a mingling of natures, nor a compounding
into one nature, so that they should be mingled and be
'affec t ed by one another as being physically united as to
' natural functions. Now all these things they make void by
'a union of nature and of hypostasis (f'ndtnd), and they take
'away from Him all those things which He has by His human
' nature and assign them by nature to God the Word : His
1 human fear, His betrayal, His trial, His answering, the smiting
'on His cheek, the sentence of the cross, His setting forth,
' the laying of the cross upon His shoulder, the bearing of His
'cross and its being taken away from Him and laid on otl
4 the crown of thorns, the crimson garments, the setting up of
* the cross, the crucifixion, the driving of the nails, the gall that
' was offered to Him, the other acts of violence, the delivering
' up of His spirit to His Father, the bowing of His head, the
' taking down of His body from the cross, the embalming, the
' burial, the resurrection on the third day, His manifestation
'in the body, His speaking and teaching: — (all which things
' were done) that men might not suppose that it was the
1 phantom of a body that He had, but truly a body of flesh.
' And indeed the body and soul were no phantom and illusion,
'but true and natural. Nothing is concealed: all the human
'things which men now blush to say of Him the Evangelists
' were not ashamed to say : though these persons do not blush
' to attribute these things to the Divine nature by means of a
4 union of physical hypostasis (q'ndmd) — God suffering the
'passions of the body which is physically united, thirsting
'and hungering and being needy and anxious, thinking, and
156 Nestorius and his teaching
i making petition that He may conquer these very human
1 things that He suffers, and fight against human nature to
' the undoing of our glorying and the undoing of our redemp-
* tion. And these men will make void the proper things of
t God the Word also, and make them human. That He (the
'Word) should act and surfer physically in His own nature
* by physical sensation, receiving sufferings physically by His
' own ousia, even as the body suffers by means of the soul and
1 the soul by the body — this it would be a frightful and horrible
' thing for us to think literally or to say to men endowed with
'the least intelligence concerning the Son (making Him) a
' slave and a creature, (and asserting) that He was changed from
'impassible to passible, or from immortal to mortal, or from
' unchangeable to changeable. Even if one should make Him
' into the ousia of the angels, and impassible, and say that He
'does not act by His own nature and operation and power,
* but by that which He has become — He would flee away from
' being of like passions even with such a nature. But one that
1 is physically united cannot flee ; for even if He did not
' physically suffer the passions of the body, yet psychically He
' would suffer instead of the soul ; for He would be instead of
' a soul that did not think as an intelligence ; and in matters of
' the intelligence He would be instead of the intelligence ; and
' He would be man in outward fashion only, and would be
' a deluder in the fashion of a man : as though He possessed
'the proper things of soul and body and intelligence, while
' these were deprived of their natural operations.
'Such things are said by those who are the would-be
'orthodox — to wit, that He is of the impassible and inde-
' fectible and unchangeable and unalterable nature of the
' Father — and then, like the Jews who, setting Him at naught
' while they called Him the Messiah, actually crucified Him,
' these persons give to Him the title of an unchangeable and
' impassible and indefectible nature, and then attribute to Him
' all the passions and defects of the body, and assign all the
His awn statement of his position 157
'things of the soul and of tin- intelligence t<> Cod the Word
'by means of a hypostatic union. And, like those who
'change Him from His nature, they say once and for all that
'He is impassible and immutable and unchangeable, and
4 henceforth forbid it to be said that He is immortal and
' impassible and unchangeable ; and they are enraged at any
'one who says repeatedly that God the Word is impassible:
'"You have heard it once", they say, "that is enough for
' you ". And they maintain two perfect natures, of the God-
' head and the manhood, and then maintain a change of the
' natures by the union ; assigning nothing either to the man-
' hood or to the Godhead ; making these the natural things of
' the manhood and those the natural things of the Godhead,
'and yet not keeping the Divine things in the (Divine) nature,
' since they make God the Word to be in the nature of both
' ousias, hiding away the man and all His proper things — He
' for whose sake and in whom the incarnation took place, and
' by whom we are freed from the captivity of death.
' In name, then, they pose as orthodox, but in fact they
' are Arians ; and they undo the perfection of God the Word by
' all the naturally human things they say about Him : such as,
'that He should act from the union of a physical hypostasis
'(q'ndmd), and suffer naturally all human things. And, that
' He employed human nature, it was not so that the manhood
'itself should act and suffer for our sakes, but that God the
' Word should so act : not that He should employ a person,
'but a nature — for a union as to person is impassible 1 , and
' this is orthodox ; but the other implies passibility, and is the
' invention of heretics who fight against the nature of the
' Only-begotten.
'To whichever union a man inclines he is sure to claim the
' credit of orthodoxy and not the reproach of heresy. Now all
4 his (Cyril's) contrary arguments concerning the hypostatic
1 i.e. the Word can remain impassible in such a union.
158 Ne storms and his teaching
* union he has written without reserve in his "Chapters", and
* much has been written by many about them. But it will not
* do for us to make our book interminable by treating of things
' that are obvious ; we have rather to reveal to all the gradual
' growth of this species of impiety; the which having myself
* foreseen, I have not withdrawn from what is right and
* orthodox, nor will I unto death. And even though through
* ignorance all oppose me — and even some of the orthodox —
' and are unwilling to hear and learn of me : well, let them
'have time to learn from the heretics themselves by fighting
'against them, even as they have fought against him who
'fought on their behalf.'
Another passage in which Nestorius freely expresses his
own conceptions in relation to those of Cyril must also be
quoted at length if justice is to be done it.
1 But perhaps some one will say : You have only read
'us a letter. Read also the blasphemies that are in your
'writings. You have perhaps written a letter with reserve
' and caution, according to the views of him to whom it was
'written. But your doctrines, which have been stated
'authoritatively by you, clearly interpret your meaning. And
1 so a letter is not enough for us ; but we have examined your
'doctrines that we might accurately learn everything about
' you. And not even so did we dare to assume authority, but
' we have set the doctrines of the Fathers also before us, and
'have compared them with these; and so, having made our
'examination with all accuracy, we have also given sentence,
' adducing the Fathers against whom you have fought. Where-
'fore, whereas you were called and did not answer, we have
' done all things justly : we have condemned your letter, we
'have examined your teachings, and we seek also to set up
' the teaching of the Fathers as law. What then ought we to
in relation to Cyril's teaching 159
'do that we haw not done ? Thil man' was present and said
Mho things that ought to be said, and taught also; but you
* withdrew at that time, and now you blame ami slander OS.
•Why do you not accuse yourself instead of us? For we
'did not judge you in secret, but o|>enly. If we omitted
'anything, if we acted on insufficient knowledge, tell us now,
'if this be the case, how it is — though, if we were not
'justly roused against you, you ought to have said so then,
'not now.
my part, though I could accuse them of having done
'and omitted many things, I pass on now from this subject,
' lest any should say, " he treats immoderately of these matters".
4 Hut I will convict them of judging me unjustly from tl
1 things that they did against me. For they spoke deceitfully
' and led many astray, though they did not keep this examina-
tion secret, but,...' J as this man wished— for he wished the
' matters not to be duly examined lest he himself should stand
' condemned ; for he persuaded them all, as one who should
' know the secrets of the heart, and they who were in collusion
4 with him so presented the matter to the many as though he
' were the vindicator of Christ's Divinity, and was preventing
1 me from maintaining the opposite. And so he carried them
'all away into opposition to me, insomuch that they would
'not listen to a word until I should utterly make an end of
'Christ's humanity, — as though I were maintaining to him
' (Cyril) that Christ was man in ousia, but God by an equality
' of honour. And he employed prejudice against me, and was
' saying against me, making God a man, that Christ should not
' be considered to be anything at all save only God the Word.
* And I of necessity aimed my arguments against him, main-
' taining that He is also man ; and I proved it to him from the
' Divine Scriptures and from the Fathers. And this also he
1 Clearly Cyril is meant.
3 Some words seem to have dropped out, for no good sense is obtained
by taking the 'but ' with what follows.
160 Nestorius and his teaching
' used against me, as though I had said that Christ was man
'only. For when I demanded 1 that he should make con-
cession in this matter he was unwilling to confess; whilst
'he tried to keep secret that of which I was speaking and
'making confession. For I was not accusing him of not
' confessing Christ to be God, ' but of refusing to say that
'Christ is perfect man in nature and operations, and that
'God the Word did not become the nature of man but is
' in the nature and operations of man — so that God the Word
'should be both by nature 2 . And these things I will demon-
' strate from the things that were written when he took passages
'from my teaching and from his own, which latter — whether
' they were so from the first, or whether, out of enmity to me
'and through the machinations of heretics, he changed them
' to the opposite sense — are really like those of Arius, since,
'inconsistently with the ousia of God, he attributed all the
' human things to the nature of God the Word through a union
' of hypostasis (g'nomd), as though He (the Word) should suffer
' all human passions by physical sensation.
' " From the book of Nestorius ", he says, " from the
'17th quire, On the Faith": — From what book of mine, and
'from what 17th quire did you bring forward what you wanted
'when there was none to gainsay you? — But I do not care
' so much about this if the passages adduced were clear, and if
' they required to be discussed. But concerning those things
' by which he led many astray and drew them from the Faith,
' as though an examination had been made of the Acts (inro/jLvrj-
' fxara) (of the Council), I wish to persuade you all : those
1 Reading cuooa «^—>^^ for ^003 ^radta ('he demanded').
As the text stands it might be translated : • in the case of that (other) man,
when he demanded that he should make confession and he was unwilling
to confess '. If this be correct John of Antioch is probably referred to.
2 i.e. the result of Cyril's refusal to confess Christ as perfect man is that
the Word must be both natures at once. It is fairly obvious from the
Syriac that this is the meaning.
in relation to Cyril's teaching 161
things, namely, of which they accused me with prejudice
l (or prejudged me) 1 without examination; that those who
'have received my (account) and his without investigation'...
When the Divine Scripture is about to speak
'of the birth of Christ from the Virgin, or of the death, it is
'nowhere found that it puts 'God,' but either 'Christ', or 'the
'Son', or 'the Lord'; for all three of these titles are indications
'of the two natures: sometimes of this, sometimes of that, and
1 sometimes of this and that For example, when the Scripture
'relates to us the birth from the Virgin, what does it say?
"God sent His Son'. It does not say 'God sent God the
Word', but it takes the word that declares the two natim s.
' Because the Son is God and man, it says 'God sent His Son,
' and He was made from a woman ' 8 . And when thou seest
' the name given, which declares both natures, thou wilt call
'the Child of the Blessed Virgin 'Son'; for the Virgin mother
'of Christ bore the Son of God. But because the Son of
' God is twofold in natures, she did not 4 bear the Son of God,
' but the manhood, which is Son on account of the Son who
'is united thereto".
'I ask you now to examine these statements carefully.
'I pass over what they have left out 5 — and clearly they have
' not even preserved the connexion. It is for these statements
' then that he accuses me of dividing up and setting apart the
1 Praeiudido me damnauerunt is the meaning.
5 A line is wanting in the MS. Probably the words contained a reference
to the work of Nestorius from which what follows is quoted. The passages
will be found in Sermo x of Loofs's collection pp. 265 ff. and similar ones
elsewhere. See supra p. 6a.
* Gal. iv 4.
4 This negative is not found in the Greek text printed by Loofs (t'b.
p. 174), which runs tytpvtfae ulr t6p xAbv tov 0«r>, dAV tyfrrtffft rV
dfdpvirdTTiTa., ijtis iorlv vlln 8ii rbv avrijfifi^vof vlbv.
8 Evidently this passage is one of those that are said above to have been
quoted by Cyril in a garbled form. It is a little shorter than the Greek ;
but the omissions are unimportant.
B. 1 I
1 62 Nes tortus and his teaching
'Godhead on the one hand and the manhood on the other;
\ but of employing the words " honour " and " equality " of the
'One, inasmuch as there is a drawing together of things
' separate, by love, not as to ousias. Thus he accuses me on
'the score of both the Godhead and the manhood; for "God
'the Word", he says, "is flesh and man, but the manhood
' is Son and Lord (and) God : and this came about (forsooth)
'by love and cohesion !" This is his chief misrepresentation.
'You must be continually on the alert then — for you are the
'judges in this matter — and if you find me to be of this way
' of thinking you must condemn me. And for my part, I will
' condemn myself, and even beg of you to visit my guilt with
'retribution 1 , as it is just, even though I should make ten
' thousand supplications to you, and bring forward all manner
'of arguments in justification of my not employing the word
*"ousia" but merely "love", and maintaining that by this He
' is called Lord and Christ and Son. But if I say the contrary :
' let them shew that the union was of nature 1 and that the
' union was a nature. But I from a union of natures* speak
* of one person, one equality, one honour, one authority, one
* lordship. In short, in whatsoever things the person of this
'and that (nature) is by nature, in the same these (natures)
' also are in the union of the one person. For a person is of
' natures-, it is not a nature) and it is by nature, but is not
' a nature. For the Son of God the Father is by nature con-
' substantial with 4 the Father; and whatever is in the nature of
' the Father, this the Son also is. But not everything that the
1 This seems to be the force of the expression
^=^*CuA ^C\Ql*-n\T-ri— > ^p\ nnffi^
lit. : ' that you would receive with handing over (to punishment) my guilt'
2 i.e. , evidently from the context, into one nature.
3 Text has ' nature ' ; but it seems necessary to read the plural, as
a little below.
4 Lit. ' Son of the nature of • : a common Syriac equivalent for
bfiooiaios.
in relation to Cyril's teaching 163
4 Son is by nature as a person is the Father also; for Son, which
4 He is by nature, the Father is not : nor is the Son Father ;
4 for He is in the nature of the Father, and is by nature Son.
4 For they are distinct in person, but not distinct fan ousia and
* nature, but one, without division, without severance, without
* distinction, in all things that the person has by nature.
4 So it is by person that He (the Son) is distinguished.
1 But not so as regards the union of the Godhead and
4 the manhood — He (i.e. the Word) is not by the union in all
* those things that the person by its nature is, so that in the
4 one person [He should become] another ousia. For He took
'him (man) into His person — not into the (Divine) ousia or
* nature, so that he should be either consubstantiul (i.e. opoovaio*)
' with the Father or else another son altogether — and not one
4 and the same Son 1 . For the manhood is the person of the
4 Godhead, and the Godhead is the person of the manhood,
4 but they are distinct in nature, and distinct in the union.
'Examine, now, and see what sort of things that man
4 (i.e. Cyril) has written : " One (i.e. Nestorius) who attributes
* two natures to the Son, and says that each of these is separate
*{or independent) 9 , removing and distinguishing God apart,
*and the man apart." Now if I had said without qualification
4 "God" and "man", and not "two natures, one Christ", you
* would have had a pretext for misrepresenting me, as though
4 1 should call the man " God and man ", in that I spoke of
'"two natures" and "God". I did not say that the Man is
4 two natures — even though He should be called God because
4 of the union ; nor again did I call God two natures — even
"though He should be called flesh in the union. You have
* not the least excuse for misrepresentation because I said that
*the one "Son" and "Christ" indicate two natures. But
1 Nestorius argues elsewhere that a union of two natures into one must
either result in the loss of one in the other, or else produce a nature that is
different from both the original ones.
3 OS^O OJ3C73.
II 2
164 Nestorius and his teaching
' I said that the Son is God and man. First I had said that
'the name "Christ" and "Son" indicates the two natures;
1 and then I went on immediately to mention the natures. But
'that the Son is God and man, — this is not said without
'qualification (lit. by itself), but "He is two natures" is
' added. But thou (Cyril) art enraged against me — for I cannot
' think otherwise — for not saying that God the Word is both
' natures by a change of ousia. But is it this that I have said —
'that the man was in human nature, and that the man is
' Son by the union, and not by nature — is it this that troubles
' you (plur.) ? Or is it that which he also has said : that
'when flesh was born He (the Word) is said to have been
'born? for he clearly reckons the birth of His flesh to be
'His (the Word's) birth. Thus he also has said that flesh
' was born : but he makes it His (the Word's) own. What
' then is new in what I have said : to wit, that when the man
'was born the Son of God is said to have been born from
' Mary the Virgin ? since the humanity itself is Son of God
' by the union with the Son, but not by nature. For by the
' union God the Word made the things of the flesh His own :
'not that the Divinity is born in the birth which is of the
'flesh, nor again that the flesh was naturally born in the
' birth of the Divinity : but by the union with the flesh God
'is called flesh; and flesh, by the union with the Son, (i.e.)
'God, the Word, is called Son. Or was He not united, and
' are we misrepresenting Him ?
'Who has led you astray? Is this agreement one (charac-
' teristic) of those who are in error ? ' For this agreement is in
'regard to the two natures. Now that the words "Son" and
'"Christ" and "Lord" indicate two natures even he (Cyril)
'has proclaimed. "The natures", he says, "which are brought
1 Lit. ' Is this agreement of those who are in error ? ' The genitive
maybe objective, and thus equivalent to "with"; if so Nestorius means
that he has shewn Cyril to hold the same view as himself about the two
natures, and he asks: ' Is Cyril then in agreement with heretics?'
in relation to Cyrifs teaching 165
* together into a true union are different ; but of the two there
1 is one Son, while the natures continue without confusion
* in the union, the difference of the natures not being de-
stroyed by the union." 1 And again: "The flesh is Son
'by the union, but not by nature,...* for that is not foreign
4 to Him with which He sat with the Father". And Ambrose
4 has said: "Though in two (characters) the Son of God
* speaks— -since in Him there are two natures— it is He that
'speaks. Nor does He always speak in one kind: behold
* Him now in glory, and now in the sufferings of a man. For
4 as God He teaches things divine, because He is the Word ;
'but as man He teaches human things, because He speaks
4 in our ousia. 'This is the living bread that came down
1 from heaven ' : this bread is the body, even as He said :
1 'This bread that I will give you is my body that came down':
' this is He whom the Father sanctified and sent into the
4 world ' ". Does not the Scripture itself teach you that the
4 Godhead has no need of sanctification, but the flesh. Why
* have you set aside these utterances and anathematized mine?
4 for I have said nothing different....' *
TKese two passages, which follow one another in the
Bazaar of Heraclides, may be left without remark. Some of
the phrases and arguments used in them have already been
examined, and further comment would be superfluous. But
the space for which Nestorius can be allowed to speak in his
own person, pending the publication of the entire book, may
be extended to let us hear him on the theme that "distinction
of natures does not imply local or any other interval between
them". The passage is from the later part of the book and
has in view the terms of the eirenicon between Cyril and the
1 See the first of the letters of Cyril read at Ephesus.
* Three dots in MS seem to denote words omitted from context.
* Here there is a lacuna of n fols. in the MS, the leaves being torn out
(according to the writer of our copy).
1 66 Nestorius and his teaching
Antiochenes (the "Easterns") who had been on the side of
Nestorius, to whom they were linked by every tie of country
and friendship and theological tradition, though in the hour of
his greatest need — the plain fact must be written down — they
deserted him. The supporters of Nestorius, including the
Emperor himself, were cowed : they dared not resist the clamour
of clergy and monks and people. Cyril's "friends at court " were
more influential than the friends of Nestorius, and Cyril him-
self had been trained in the school of his uncle Theophilus and
left no means of securing the victory unused. But though the
Antiochenes could abandon Nestorius himself to his fate, and
perhaps allow themselves to be persuaded that he had really
erred in some points of his exposition and argument; they
could not give up the doctrine of the Incarnation which he
had championed, however onesidedly or unwisely, and they
could not believe that Cyril was really sound in the faith of
the Fathers. There was imminent risk that the whole patri-
archate of Antioch, the whole of the Church of the East — as
the East was counted then, would refuse to fall into line with
Alexandria and the West. This was more than even Cyril
could face without a qualm. So then took place between the
Easterns and Cyril that quieter discussion of the question on
its merits which Nestorius had passionately desired. The
Easterns acquiesced in the condemnation of their unfortunate
champion ; but for the rest they held their ground so firmly
that Cyril had to content himself with the Easterns' acceptance
of the term Theotokos interpreted in a sense that would have
satisfied Nestorius himself. The terms of the gloss could
indeed be collected from his own words. And ever after Cyril,
suspected by his own school of thought of having made con-
cessions which were inconsistent with the kind of union of the
" substances " that they and he believed in, busied himself to
explain that the Easterns did not really mean what they said or
what Nestorius had meant. It is to these efforts of Cyril that
Nestorius refers in the following passage, but it is particularly
in relation to Cyrifs teaching 167
for the sake of its positive statement of his own position that
it is cited here.
'I say, adhering to the Divine Scriptures and teachings,
'that two natures were united. When I mention " God tin
4 Word", this is in regard of nature, but when I sj)eak of Him
*as "Son", this is in regard of the person: but He is one
'and the same God the Word. In the same way when I men-
•tion "God", this is as to nature: but "Father", "Son" and
' " Holy Spirit " belong to person. Thus the Godhead is one,
4 but the persons are three ; for the Father is God and the Son
'is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The persons are not
•without the ousia 1 . So in like manner as regards Christ:
1 there are two natures, one of God the Word, and one of the
' manhood ; but there is one person of the Son, which same
'person the manhood also employs, and one [of the] man,
4 which same the Godhead also employs — not in nature, but
'in the natural ("physical") person of the natures. For the
' natures remain without confusion even in the union. And
'the natures are not without person*, nor was the person*
* without ousia. Nor, as in the case of an animal nature,
'was the union for the completing of one living thing, which
' in order to be complete has taken of both natures, but of two
' complete natures. From one nature the other can be under-
' stood by means of appropriation, — not by nature, but by
'the natural ("physical") person of the natures.... 4
1 Cyril. [Quoting another passage from Nestorius to shew
that he means something quite different from the Easterns.]
1 This argument is aimed at the letter of Cyril to Acacius of Melitene,
in which he explains that the Antiochenes accept the distinction of natures
in Christ only as a mental one— denoting the natures which were united
into one. Nestorius discusses this letter at length.
* The text has ' persons': but Nestorius has consistently denied duality
of persons. The Greek was probably drpScutwoi, "impersonal"; i.e. the
natures were not left without personality, inasmuch as they both had the
same person.
* Singular here. 4 Bataar of Herac tides pp. 310, 311.
1 68 Nestorius and his teaching
\ He names two natures, and separates them from one
' another, setting God apart by Himself and similarly the man
1 by himself, who is conjoined to God only by proximity and
* equality of honour and authority ; for he speaks thus : " God
* is not distinguished from Him that is seen. Because of that
* which is not separated I do not separate the honour : I separate
1 the natures : I unite the worship ".' ■
[Cyril says this is something different from what the Easterns
mean. Nestorius goes on for several pages to point out that
when he says he does not separate the honour and the worship
he means it — he gives the united honour and worship to the
person. He insists that what he means by the passage is
a union of two complete and distinct natures in one person.]
* It (the union) is into one person ; and in this it consists.
' For God the Word did not employ an inanimate body, nor
' yet a soul devoid of will and understanding, nor was he
' instead of the soul or the intelligence ; for this doctrine
'distinguishes the Church of the Arians and Apollinarians,
'which does not accept the union of two complete natures.
' I do not separate the natures that have been united by removal
'or isolation ; nor yet do I speak of a conjunction of love and
* proximity, as in the case with those who are apart and are
'united by love and not as to ousias; nor again do I say that
' the union is one of equality of honour and authority, but of
' natures, and of complete natures ; and by a bringing together
'of the ousias I posit a union without confusion. By "one
' honour" and "one authority", then, I mean a union of natures,
'and not a unity of honour and of authority.... Where have
' I said in these passages that I "separate the natures from each
' other, and speak of God the Word apart and of the man
'apart"? or that "they are conjoined by a proximity of love
'and by equality of honour or authority"? For by saying "I
' do not separate God from Him that is seen", I do not imply
1 Bazaar of Heraclides, p. 312. The passage is from Cyril's letter to
Acacius of Melitene (see Migne P. G. vol. lxxvii col. 193).
in relation to CyriFs teaching 169
* "proximity", or "equality of honour", or "agreement "; hut
1 I say that I do not separate God Himself in His nature
1 from the nature that is seen, and " on account of God who
'is not separated (from the man), neither do I separate the
* honour "....Though I said "I separate the natures and I unite
1 the worship ", I did not speak of a separation of removal,
4 that I should put the natures apart one from another, as
* thou with thy misrepresentation hast accused me of saying.
* If there were no other kind of distinction of natures save
* only removal, thou mightest well have accused me of making
* this sort of distinction ; but as there are many others, and
* particularly in the case of natures, with which our whole
'controversy had to do, what I said was that the union of
'the natures was without confusion or alteration. Why dost
'thou keep before thee and investigate up and down this
'notion, that I in my mind mean to separate the natures?
'And how dost thou assert that they (the Easterns) "in no
4 wise divide those things which have been united ", whereas
' thou hast already said formerly that they are distinct ? " Our
' brethren of Antioch ", sayest thou, " speak of a difference of
' natures as recognizing, only and merely mentally, those things
' of which Christ is known to be constituted : because the God-
' head and the manhood are not one thing as to natural quality,
* as I have said, but there is one Son and Christ and Lord who
'is truly one; for we say that He is one person".' 1
The above extract, it will be noticed, ends with Cyril's
assertion that the Easterns only meant to recognize a "mental "
distinction of natures or ousias in the Person of the Incarnate
Word of God, that is to say, a logical distinction, or one which
existed in their own minds only, and not a real distinction
between the Godhead and the manhood of our Lord. That is
a thoroughly Alexandrine conception. It is one that has
1 Bazaar of Heraclidts, pp. 314, 315. The passage quoted from Cyril
continues that referred to in the last note.
170 Nestorius and his teaching
appealed in the past, and appeals today perhaps as much as
ever it did, to the reason and the emotions of numbers of
Christians. But sympathy with this conception, if we feel
sympathy, must not be allowed to blind our eyes to the fact
that the Antiochenes did not mean this 1 ; and, further, that
such a conception is not easily reconciled with the authoritative
decisions and formulas of the Church. If they are indeed
patient of such a conception, it can only be by a method of
interpretation which ignores the plain meaning of words ; and
such a method of treating careful definitions of the Faith
cannot be justified — unless indeed it be held that the union of
natures is one of the things that it is as " pious to exaggerate "
as it is " impious to minimize ", while the same indulgence is
denied in regard to the equally Catholic doctrine of the perma-
nence of the distinction between them. This point will come
before us again in the conclusion of our enquiry. But before
we reach this conclusion we must hear what Nestorius has to
say about his adversary's definition of the union as "hypo-
static ", clearing our minds of any prejudice in favour of a
particular form of words and attending only to the sense in
which they are used. And we must also let Nestorius tell us
what he thought of the doctrine of Flavian and Leo in relation
to his own unassailable convictions.
1 Nestorius returns to the charge a little further on in the book than the
passage quoted above. 'They do not', he says, 'conceive of the natures
without hypostases nor of the expressions as existing in the mind without
the hypostases of the natures.... Cyril says that they accept the expressions
as to difference of natures only in idea, and he himself does not accept the
idea of the natures as existing in their ousias : but without hypostases and
without subsistence they take their rise and spend themselves in the mind '
{Bazaar of Heraclides, pp. 321, 322). And he goes on to argue that Cyril
ignores the process of cognition, confusing the objective ousia, the idea of
the ousia in the mind, and the expression which makes known the idea.
In saying that the Easterns accept only the idea of the difference of
natures, he ignores the fact that the natures have their ousias, and so he
allows of difference only in the idea of the natures and not in the ousia [ib.).
CHAPTER XI
THE PHRASE " HYPOSTATIC UNION"
In one of his sermons 1 reported by Marius Mercator as
preached on the 12th of December, 430, on the receipt of the
letters of excommunication from Celestine and Cyril, Nestorius
appeals to Cyril to be a man and come out into the open, and
lot their dispute be decided on a fair field, instead of hiding in
the dark and shooting at him with arrows of gold*. He does
not believe in his bona fides. He cannot think what it is that
he really wants or means.
In the Bazaar of Heraclides he argues the matter at length*,
asking what in the world Cyril means by a " hypostatic union "
if not what he himself understands by a union of two distinct
hypostases and natures in one Person.
It is by the arguments of Nestorius himself that we must
judge of his meaning ; and I am loth to interpose between him
and that hearing which has been so long denied him. But
a few words, by way of preface, may supplement what has been
already said as to the different meanings which the terms
involved in the discussion bore 4 , and call attention to the
ambiguity of the phrase, which long usage has rendered
familiar in a particular sense, and for theologians hallowed.
Nestorius, as we have seen, is always consistent in his use of
1 Strmo xviii in Loofs Nestoriana pp. 297 ff.
* An allusion to Cyril's presents to the officers and ladies of the Court.
3 pp. 186 — 196.
4 See supra ch. iii.
172 Nestorius and his teaching
the term hypostasis in connexion with the doctrine of our Lord's
person. It always has, for him, in this connexion, the sense
of "substance", and he maintains that the two substances,
Godhead and manhood, though united in the one Person,
continued to retain their respective and different characteristics,
which are summed up under the term * natures ". Cyril, on
the contrary, is not so definite in his usage of either of the
terms hypostasis and "nature", that we can say at once
exactly what he meant by any composite phrase in which
either of them occurs. To describe the union he uses the
adjectival form of both these terms : he speaks of it as
"hypostatic" and as "natural". We too must ask, like
Nestorius, what he means. It will be enough to examine the
former phrase.
" Hypostatic union " (tWo-is vtzo<rT(x.TiKr\) may mean a union,
or unification, of two hypostases, the result of which is the
formation of a new hypostasis which is something other than
either of the two out of which it is compounded. If this is
what Cyril intended, using hypostasis in the sense of "substance"
(and Nestorius evidently thinks this is the obvious meaning of
the phrase), then Nestorius could not, of course, regard the
phrase as anything but a summary statement of the doctrine
of the Person of our Lord which he dreaded. For it would
express the blending or compounding or confusion of the
Godhead and manhood (the two hypostases) which he himself
believed to still remain, each in its own nature, although
united in our Lord's person. Nor was the case better if, with
this use of the adjective, hypostasis was given the sense of
"person". For then the phrase would signify that two persons
had been made one, and Nestorius insists that though it is a
person in whom the union is realized, the union itself is not of
persons : — the component parts of it, so to speak, are not
persons, but the distinct substances of Godhead and manhood
with their distinctive characteristics. It is in this sense that
he repudiates the term "prosopic union ", which he suggests is
The phrase "hypostatic union 19 173
possibly what Cyril means ; a " personal union ", in the sense
of a unification of persons, is as unsound a doctrine as the
unification of "substances".
But, on the other hand, in the phrase " hypostatic union *
tin adjective may have its full adjectival force as a description
of the union when realized, rather than as a statement of the
mode in which it is brought about or of the elements which
produce it. In this sense the phrase would still seem to
Nestorius (who would naturally take "hypostatic" to mean
" substantial ") to be an unsatisfactory expression, as implying
a doctrine which did not safeguard the distinction between the
substances in the Incarnate Word, Emmanuel. It would not
give adequate recognition to the reality of the human nature
and experiences of the Lord Jesus Christ; it would tend to
" dehumanize the manhood " ; or else it would suggest a
" mixture " which resulted in the degradation of the Godhead.
If, however, Cyril really meant by it only that the "substances",
while retaining their distinctive properties, found their union in
one Person — so that it was the Person who was " one ", while
the substances were "two" — , and that therefore genuinely
Divine and genuinely human experiences alike were His ;
then Nestorius was in complete agreement with him. To the
phrase "personal union " in this sense Nestorius could have no
doctrinal objection, even though he might think it a somewhat
equivocal phrase, capable of being misunderstood.
As after all these years we read the words of Cyril, a
canonized Doctor of the Church, whose terminology has become
our own, we are scarcely conscious of the ambiguity. We
assign to his terms a conventional meaning, and familiarity with
them makes us suspicious of any other form of words : — if
Nestorius objected to them, it was because he was a heretic.
But again it must be said, it was a period when terms were "in
the making". We read Cyril more easily than we read
Nestorius, but anyone who carefully examines his expressions
will find himself often arrested. And if he compares the
174 Nestorius and his teaching
accounts of Cyril's teaching which he finds in the works of
Catholic theologians and historians of doctrine with his very
words, he will find many a gloss inserted 1 . If it is clear that he
used expressions which could only be interpreted as "orthodox"
(in accordance, that is, with the definitions of Chalcedon), it
is none the less clear, I believe, that he also used expressions
which, if interpreted in accordance with the common con-
temporary usage of the terms, were prima facie and so far as
they went unorthodox. And it is not clear that he consciously
attached to such expressions a meaning which would free them
from suspicion. His use, for example, of the expression
4t natural union" («Wo-is <f>v<riiaj) gives strong support to the
view that he really used the parallel expression "hypostatic
union " in the sense of " substantial " rather than in the sense
of " personal " oneness. We give Saint Cyril the benefit of the
doubt, and we use his phrases in an orthodox sense ; though
we know that many devout Christians have passionately clung
to them as true interpretations of the doctrine of the Incar-
nation in a sense which the Catholic Church has disallowed.
We cannot wonder that Nestorius, in his zeal for Catholic truth,
as he understood it, insisted on putting them to the test of
a careful dialectic. Technical terms must always be ready to
run the gauntlet. Happily for them, though perhaps unfortu-
nately for those on whom they are imposed, there is not always
a Nestorius in the line.
He cannot find any peace of mind in the fog, or golden
haze, whichever we prefer to call it, of the ambiguous phrase
which half conceals and half reveals the truth he sees so
clearly. He is, no doubt, a little impatient; but I do not
think there is anything unfair in the process to which, himself
a trained theologian attacked on technical grounds, he subjects
the technical language of his chief opponent. A recent
historian of the Council of Ephesus writes that, before the
1 This is true, for example, of Dr W. Bright's account of Cyril's
teaching.
The phrase "hypostatic union" 175
Council opened, Cyril "endeavoured to drive Nestorius into
a corner by acute arguments "'. I do not know what evidence
there is of such a personal encounter, or whether Nestorius
ever had an opportunity of plying Cyril face to face with
questions in his turn. Here, at any rate, in his book, we can
read the questions that he would have asked, we can see how
tar he was ready to meet acutencss with its own weapon, and
we can judge whether he or Cyril was the more likely to be
driven into the corner. He addresses himself, in this part of
his book, directly to his antagonist, as though he was indeed
face to face with him, but they are written words of Cyril that
he cites.
'Thou shewest surprise when thou hearest expressions of
'mine which are thine also; for there is no union which does
' not demonstrate a difference : as also (a difference is implied)
4 by a worship of consession'.... Therefore, either give up
* speaking of two natures united without confusion, or confess
* and say this. And does it not appear to thee absurd to speak
4 of a union of the two different natures in the sense of a union
* of ousia, and not in the sense of a union of person ?
1 u But ", thou hast said, " if we reject the hypostatic union
*as incomprehensible or unbecoming we fall into the error of
* speaking of two Sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish
* and speak of the man separately who is honoured with the
* name of Son, and separately of the Word of God who possesses
'the appellation and the reality of Sonship by nature. It is
not right therefore to distinguish the one Lord Jesus Christ
* into two Sons."
* What wouldst thou have a hypostatic union to mean ? —
4 which does not allow us to understand that the ousia of man
* exists, nor to understand a man by nature, but only God the
1 Hefele History of tfu Counafs Eng. tr. vol. iii p. 44.
* Nestorius is arguing that Cyril's phrase M with which He sat" implies
a difference of natures quite as much as any phrase used by Nestorius
himself to express the distinction.
176 Nes tortus and his teaching
' Word by nature : i.e. that even He who is God is not (now)
1 what He is by His nature, on account of a hypostatic union
' which does not admit the distinctions and definitions of things
1 that are different 1 . Therefore this union is one of those which
'are denned by the term "ousia 2 ". But if it (the union) be
' rendered inactive it is no longer a union, but from a union
1 (i.e. the result of a union) — not (actually) a union 3 . And if
' all definition of the natures is destroyed, how has the union
' not destroyed the distinctions of the natures ? And if they
1 (the natures) are not thought of (as existing) in nature 4 nor
' yet in union, how is it that thou hast said that He made His
1 own the proper things of the flesh, saying that He has this by
'nature and that by the union, and that His suffering and
'dying in (human) nature are His (the Word's) because he
' made them His own ?
'In what sense, then, art thou considered to uphold a
'hypostatic union? What is this hypostatic union which cannot
' be understood ? Or how can we accept it without under-
' standing ? Or how hast thou understood it ? How is it
'lofty and " incomprehensible ", and again "not becoming" 6 ?
' Teach us
1 i.e. a hypostatic union abolishes the distinctions and definitions
belonging to the things united in it.
2 i.e. the union thus effected results in a single ousia.
3 The context shews that this means that if the union results in one
ousia, then the component parts are obliterated, or fused so as to be
indistinguishable ; hence it can no longer be called a union, but only
the result of a union, for a true union implies the continuance of the
natures united.
4 <f>v<riKu>s probably.
5 Cyril's words were "if we reject the hypostatic union as incompre-
hensible and unbecoming, we fall into the error ", etc. (in the first of the
letters read at Ephesus). They were aimed undoubtedly at Nestorius and
others like him who wished to understand with their minds the doctrine
they professed with their lips. Nestorius replies that no one would say at
the same time that a doctrine was both "incomprehensible" and "un-
becoming ", inasmuch as the first epithet precludes him from the use of the
I he phrase "hypostatic union" 177
i>r neither thou n»>r the whole Synod can mffii
'give a name to the union. But 1 also speak of a union;
4 but thou dost not receive what I say because I distinguish
* (in) the union. If I say concerning those things which have
'been united: He (Christ) is body in ousiu and not body in
ml they (the natures) art- distinct from one another,
'this as created and that as increate, this mortal and thai
'immortal, this eternal with the Father and that created at
' the end of the times, and this consubstantial with the
' Father and that consubstantial with us — for the union does
'not abolish the ousias that were united so that they cannot
'be known — (if I say this) thou sayest to me: "Thou art
' dividing " : yet thou thyself hast gone so far as to use these
'words — having been led into them in order to accuse me —
1 for thou hast said : " The natures which came unto a true
' union are different ; but of the two there is one Lord Jesus
' Christ : not as though the difference of the natures were
'taken away by the union". Dost thou then allow us to think
1 thus concerning a hypostatic union also ? Or is it that, having
'made a distinction by saying that the natures that were
1 united were different through their diversities, thou dost wrest
' this admission into accordance with thine own teaching " lest
'thou shouldst admit the suspicion of severance" 1 ? And
1 what shall I say of the words " admit the suspicion of sever-
'ance"? Or what of the word "suspicion"? Dost thou
'understand "severance of natures" according to the mean-
' ing of " natures ", and as " without confusion ", yet without
4 there being any " suspicion " of a limitation of the natures
second : if he declares it "incomprehensible" he disqualifies himself from
passing any further judgement on it, as to whether it is "becoming" or not.
The answer is of course "eristic", but Nestorius scores his point in the de-
bate ; and it is a good instance of the manner in which he retaliated, when
attacked, and of the way in which he annoyed his opponents. J. F. B-B.
1 The same letter of Cyril is referred to. The Greek is twa fii) To/irjt
<pa.vTa.ffLa vafxiffKplvrjTai did rod \iyuv rb " ffvp".
B. 12
178 Nestorius and his teaching
* in thy mind, as when the fire was united with the bush and
'the bush with the fire, and they were not confused 1 ? Thus
1 thou shewest them (the natures) to be without limitation and
' without difference. But I hold them to be limited and dis-
'tinct. If then thou speak of a hypostatic union, say clearly
' what thou meanest — for I confess that I did not then under-
stand 2 , and even now I have no need that thou shouldst
'teach me 3 , — that I may agree with thee. Or, if I do not
• accept thy meaning, say that I do not accept it ; and, if
'the judges agree with thee, let them either convince me or
' condemn me as one who cannot be removed from his error.
' Say, then, what thou meanest by a hypostatic union. Wouldst
'thou have us to understand hypostasis as prosopon, as we
'speak of one ousia of the Godhead and three hypostases,
' understanding the hypostases as prosopa ? If so, by hypostatic
'thou meanest pi-osopic union. But the union was not one of
''persons, but of natures : " The natures which came unto a
' true union ", thou sayest, " are different ; but there is one
'Christ of the two". Dost thou mean the one person of
' Christ, or (again) a hypostasis of the ousia and of the nature —
'as it were an express image of His hypostasis* — and dost thou
'speak of (or mean) a union of natures by "hypostatic union"?
1 This illustration probably applies to the first part of the sentence
only, and not to the immediately preceding clause, for Nestorius presently
employs it himself with reference to the union of the natures in Christ.
2 When he first received Cyril's letter — or at the Council.
3 The meaning of this is not obvious. I suggest reading r<£\y£ y
1 but ', for <^Ao, ' and not ' : the sense then will be, ' and even now
I have need that thou shouldst teach me, that I may agree with thee \
This is obviously the sense required. I have noticed other cases in the MS
of the interchanging of y^\y^ and t^Ao.
4 oitncvlnn ^ono-n *&\Zi<*£, 'as it were an impress of His
hypostasis', is of course a reference to Heb. i 3, koX x a po-K T VP *%*
vToarda-eus avrov. In the Peshitta this is rendered (7)«ocu^ ^isaX -o
"and the image of His being" (ithfitheh). The translator of Nestorius
has either not seen the allusion to Heb., or (more probably) preferred to
The phrase "hypostatic union" 179
' But I also say this ; ami in this I applaud thee, that thou
* hast so spoken and made a distinction of the n ature* o f
'God the Word and of the manhood and a conjunction of
itQ (me |>erson. Or hast thou MM said "differer
'without ronfusion", and (again) ,4 it (the union 1 ) continued
' without any difference by which it should be severed"? And,
'even though thou do not grant a dm". 1 a difference
'of natures, yet thou unwittingly grantrst a n.itural s,-\«-rance.
1 Hut is there no distinction in the union when those which
'have been united therein remain without confusion, like the
'bush in the fin and the \u\- in the hush?
' I'.ut it does not appear that thou meanest this ; and thou
( blamest me as though I did not accept the hypostatic union.
' Bui any other hypostatic union of different natures I am not
'acquainted with 3 ; nor do I know of anything else that is pi
'to a union of different natures WW only a single person.
'through which and in which both natures are recognized,
'and which makes the things that belong to these (the natures)
' to belong to the person. For, that the body is the temple of
' the Godhead of God the Word, and that the temple is united
'to God by the highest kind of (or by a perfect) conjunction 4 ,
'so that He (God) should bring for Himself the things of
'this temple into an intimate association s with the Divine
give a more exact rendering, using q'ndmA for vrdaraffis (as he regularly
does), and giving a different rendering of xo-po-^Pt and one which better
expresses the idea of depicting, or expression, than the simple word
" image ".
1 The fem. shews that ' it ' refers to ' union '.
* i.e. apparently the view that Nestorius approves.
* Or, perhaps, 'I do not recognize': referring to the sort of hypostatic
union which he has just said he would approve of.
4 i^dUX.i T^«* fS II ■ 1 ~ * 7 *npr.-mA r.yniunrfmns.
5 The word *^tt outturn corresponds in formation to (and doubtless
stands for) otVeidnyt, which with other derivatives of oUeios is constantly
used in the controversy in this sense. Cf. Leo Ad Mav. " ct aedificante
12 — 2
180 Nest or ins mid his teaching
'nature, — this it is right to confess, and it agrees with the
'tradition of the Gospels: but not that He made them 1 (the
' things of the body) into His own ousia. What other hypostatic
1 union, therefore, thou wishest to teach me by speaking of a
1 supreme and divine and ineffable union, I do not know :
1 unless it be that of a single person, whereby this is that and
1 that this. Wherefore I everywhere persistently proclaim that
'it is not right for those things which are said, either of the
' Godhead or of the manhood, to be attributed to a single
'nature, but rather to a person, lest, when the two (sets of
'properties 2 ) are united into an ousia, there should be a mere
' phantasm (^avraaia) of the human things. For that which
' He (the Word) is by ousia He is not said to be as to ousia in
' all the things (i.e. the properties of the natures); but (He is so
' in) all things that proclaim the person ; and God the Word,
'who is said to have become flesh, and the Son of man, is
' recognized through the form (^«\cvm^ = fxop<f>rj) and person
'of the flesh and of the man, which (form and person) He
' employed that He might make Himself known to the world.
' For God the W T ord is not said to be those things which the
'flesh is said to be by nature, so that it should be said that
' " there was when He was not ", or, " from things that were not
' He was made ", — or whatever may be said of the flesh before
' it was made, or whatever happened to it after it was made
'through the changes of growth and waste— (that it should
' be said) in short that He (the Word) is consubstantial with
' us. . . .
'So also the flesh is not said to be everything that God
'the Word is by nature; for it is not without beginning, or
'unmade, or incorporeal, or invisible, or consubstantial with
1 the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even though that which He
sibi sapientia domum, verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, hoc
est in ea carne quam assumpsit ex homine ".
1 Feminine, representing the Greek neuter.
2 The fem. shews that this is meant, and not directly the natures.
The phrase " hypostatic unu 181
4 who is Son and Ix>rd and (iod is said to be, tlu- Qetfa also
milarly said to be in the union: because a union has taken
* place into the person of the Son of Clod: not into an ousia
*nor into a nature, but of natures: not into a nature, but into
•a person', for all the things of the person belong to it (the
lb) except the ousia 1 .
'What other hypostatic union, then, is it that thou speakest
'of which, as thou Myett, I reject as being "either inconij
'hensible or unbecoming", and thus "fill into the error of
'saying two Christs — one, a man who is honoured with tlu
'title of Son, and, apart from Him, the Word of (lod, who
' possesses by nature both the name and the reality of Son-
' ship"?
' How can it be that he who speaks of one Son, one Christ,
' one Lord in the union means that the Son, the Son of God,
' is one separately and apart, and that it (i.e. the flesh) is another,
' and thus speak of two Sons? For this could no longer be
'called a union. But each one of the natures is in its own
1 ousia ; nor is God the Word said to have become flesh in His
' own ousia, but by a union with flesh ; nor again is the flesh
' called Son apart from the union with the Son of God. Hence
' in (the union of) the two there is one flesh and one Son.
' Now that which (either nature) receives through the union to
' be and to be called, this it is not and is not called when (the
' natures) are marked off and distinguished one from another. So
' God the Word is in His own nature God, and incorporeal: but
' in the union of the flesh He is called flesh ; and the flesh,
' which is by its nature and in its ousia corporeal is, neverthe-
' less, by the union with God the Word the Son of God, both
1 God and Son. Yet those things which by nature are different
' and are united in a union of natures are not said to be two
' fleshes, nor again two Sons
' Now it is as it were by grace (or favour) that it (the flesh) is in
1 i.e. the divine ousia.
1 82 Nestorius and his teaching
' His (the Word's) hypostasis, and that in His own form (ixop<j>r)) x
'He made for it a form — not through a commandment 2 , nor
1 yet by honour, nor yet by a mere making worthy by grace,
' but in His own natural form He made it His form 3 , so that
'it should not be other than, but the very same as, He who
' received it into His own person, that this should be that, and
'that this 4
' I know not then in what sense thou speakest of the hypo-
static union, that I should receive it, or not receive it, as
'something "incomprehensible or unbecoming, so that the
'man should be isolated and spoken of apart as having the
' title and honour of Son, and the Word, who is of God, also
' apart, even He who has the Sonship and the appellation and
'the title by nature".
'That word "apart" 5 — how dost thou understand it
1 There is a reference to Phil, ii 6, 7. Nestorius in the earlier part of
this treatise frequently uses "form" (<fmutM = /Aop(f>T?i), with a reference to
the passage in Phil, ii, not in the sense of mere figure or outward mani-
festation, but almost as equivalent to hypostasis (in the sense in which it
leans towards irpbauirov), or even otiala, and <p6(ns : i.e. in a strongly
theological sense. Compare Leo's use of "forma": "agit enim utraque
forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est".
2 i.e. not by an advancement which is the reward of keeping the
commandments. Nestorius rejects this error in the earlier part of his
work, and (if I remember rightly) has before referred to it simply as
* ■ through a commandment ".
3 The sentence up to this point is rather obscure, but I think the above
gives substantially the sense of the text. Nestorius is probably concerned
here with shewing that expressions used elsewhere to describe the union,
such as "union of love ", " of grace ", were employed by him only to
guard against the idea of physical union (or union into one nature), and not
with any intent to express a loose or local union. Elsewhere when he has
spoken of a union of love or good-pleasure it is always God's love that is
meant — not a mutual love between the man and the Word as two persons,
but God's condescension in causing the union.
4 i.e. clearly, that both "forms" should be one in the one Person of the
incarnate Word of God.
5 Gr. id ik us.
I he phrase "hypostatic union" 183
• Ho\ thou that we ihoold not understand the nature of
man "apart"— aside from the ousia of God the Word — as
'bong Son not [by nature] 1 hut through the union? Yet
'thou also invest that there if i diiEerenoe between the natures
'which have been brought together into the union of the one
'Son, and that the difference of the Datum H not taken away
'by the union of the natures: "not" (thou sayest), "as
'though the difference of the natures is taki n away by the
'union". If then the difference! of the natures are not
• moved, the nature of the flesh is "apart" the nature of man-
'hood; but that which is Son and homoousios with the Father
'and the Holy Spirit is separately and "apart " the (nature)
'of the Godhead; but in the union the flesh is Son, and God
' the Word is flesh. Wherefore, he who speaks thus does not
• speak of two Sons, nor of two fleshes ; nor does he speak of two
1 fleshes by nature, — the flesh on the one side and (its) Sonship
' on the other ; but in the person the natures use their properties
' mutually, like the fire in the bush. The bush became fire,
' and fire the bush ; yet severally they were bush and fire, not
1 two bushes nor yet two fires, for both were in the fire, and
' both in the bush. For there is no division ; but by the union
' of two natures the two natures become a person. Either,
1 then, cease to speak of distinct natures which remain with the
' distinctions of their natures and are not destroyed, or else say
' that they remained in different natures
' But dost thou perhaps speak of a hypostatic union which
'is into one nature, — so that after the union the natures do
'not retain their own properties, — thus correcting the things
1 thou hadst before said ? Rather it is that thou aimest at
4 making them (the things Cyril had said) incapable of receiving
' approval from me ; for thou dost wish to say what is different
'from that which I say — since it is not for the truth but
1 The word t^u^ra, 'by nature', or ^*qdo*<^=>. 'in omia\ has
dropped out of the text.
184 Nes tortus and his teaching
1 through perversity, as an enemy, that thou happenest to be
'displeased with me — that thou mayest seek an occasion of
" differing from me. And this union (that thou meanest) is
'one that destroys the natures, and so I do not accept it.
'In thine enmity against me thou hast thought out 1 difficult
' words and definitions, as thieves do, that thou mayest conceal
'thy meaning and not be understood; and thou sayest this
'and that and everything. Thou dost not, however, make
'(the expression) "hypostatic union" to mean an abolition of
' the natures, but rather a physical union which comes from a
' compounding into one nature.
' As the soul and body make up the one nature of a man,
'so (as thou wouldst have it) was God the Word united to
'manhood 2 : and this thou callest a hypostatic union. But
'here, even though the natures continue, yet the union is
'into one passible and made and created nature. For a
' physical union is a second act of creation ; for what each
'has not by its nature, this it receives by nature in the
' physical union. Now things that are united into a physical
'union are united so as to have the passions, each of the
'other, physically, and do not freely receive each other's
' passions : like the body and soul, which by their natures
'are not susceptible of the proper things of one another, yet
' by a physical union become partakers one of another, and
'receive and cause sufferings to each other by physical ne-
' cessity, and by a sort of physical mixing, so that each of them
'will suffer (physically) what neither could suffer apart. For
' in the union the soul does not of itself suffer hunger and
'thirst, nor is it (by itself) pained by cutting or burning or
1 The Syriac verb is pointed as 1st pers. sing. If this be correct the
text must, I think, be defective in other respects, thus : ' Thine enmity
against me, with thy definitions by means of difficult words, I have thought
over... like thieves ; that thou mayest conceal', etc.
2 St Cyril uses this illustration in the second of his letters read at
Ephesus.
The phrase " kypostctfit unic
'smiting; and the body, again, without the soul has no per-
*ception of these things; bat by i physical union of the
* different natures they are mutually capable of experiencing
'these things, and share them by a necessity which comes
4 of the union.
in tli is way, thou meanest //" by "hypostatic" 1
* union, thou Bpeakest like the Arians; for it is a physical and
'not a free union if He (the Word) suffered with physical
' passibility. He suffered, they say, through a physical union
' (with the flesh) ; for the passions of the soul are the passions
'of the body by a physical compounding. Hut the I'nmade
'who by His nature is increate was not compounded so as to
' suffer like that which is created and made.
'Now it is not merely because the soul is in the Ixxly and
' the body in the soul that they exhibit a union of one nature :
'for not in ever)' body that has a soul within it does it (the
' soul) cause a union, nor can the soul in this case always make
'the body its own; but there must he a compounding like that
'by which it was fashioned into one nature (with the body)
'by the Creator, and by which it is physically limited and
'confined so that it cannot go abroad, being held and retained
4 without any choice. (Natures) then in a physical union are
'set loose or bound together by a creative act. If then God
' the Word was united with the humanity by a union into one
'nature, and even if the natures themselves remain without
'confusion, — yet the Maker and the made will have been
'fashioned into a physical union by change, willy-nilly. And
' He who is able to create all, that is God, will be the nature
'of the union, and not the hypostasis of manhood, which (only)
'in the nature (of the union) is known to be living 1 . For
' neither is the body without the soul living by its own hypo-
* stasis, but it becomes living by the creative act implied in a
1 The Syriac noun probably stands for fcor, or fwi'nj, in the widest
sense of " living being ".
1 86 Nestorius and his teaching
1 physical union. If this be so, then the man receives through
'God (the Word) to become living, and has not this by 1 his
'own hypostasis and nature, but gets it from the hypostatic
'union which subsists in one nature 2 .
'Therefore he (Cyril) refuses to say 3 that the man is man,
' and is living by his own hypostasis and nature, and that God
'the Word is God the Word by His own hypostasis in such a,
' way that He retains His own nature in the union, and did not
' receive from the union to be living. Now that he (the man)
' should be man he received through an act of creation on
' the part of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit : that he should
' become the Only-begotten Son he received from the union
' with God the Word, not from his own nature, nor yet through
' a physical and hypostatic union. But that which he comes to
'be by a physical union, this he does not receive to be from
' aught else than from physical creation : I mean, that he should
' become one living thing, which he was not by the body alone,
'nor yet by the soul alone, nor yet by both 4 , but by an act of
' physical creation.
' But this (kind of union) is corruptible and passible ; but
' a union of natures into a person is impassible and incorrup-
' tible ; for it comes by free appropriation — for the union is
' not in voluntary — by condescension and exaltation, by au-
thority and obedience 5 . And it (this latter kind of union)
1 Reading oa^ncvlora for oa^ncOo.
2 Nestorius's argument seems to be that, as the body is not really
animal unless it is united with the spiritual soul, and thus by the union
becomes something that it is not apart from the union, so neither can the
manhood of Christ (if the hypostatic union be considered to be the same as
that of soul and body in man) remain hypostatically human when united
with the Word ; for a creative act has been performed upon it, making it
into a new nature which is shared by the Word also.
3 i.e. if he understands hypostatic union in this sense.
4 Nestorius has already said that mere position — the fact that a body
has a soul in it — does not constitute a living organism.
5 These two words are not the ordinary ones in Syriac for " authority "
The phrase M hypostatic union" 187
• is to be so understood, not by the lapsing or nullification or
Tjution of one of tin natures or of the proper things of
'both natures, but in the sense that tfafl natural proper!
lain distinct both as to mind and as to will, with a dis-
'tinetion which is that of natures (united) in one agreement.
'For there was one and the same will and mind in the union
'of the natures 1 , so that both should will or not will exactly
'the same things. They (the natures) have moreover a mutual
'will 3 , since the person of this is (the person) of that, and (the
'person) of that (the person) of this.
IK who is (the resultant) of a union of natures speaks
1 in one person of this (nature) from (the standpoint of) that,
'and of that from this, as from one person.
' He (Christ) is not a single hypostasis or nature ; for the
' Godhead is not confined in the body, as is the case with
'all natures which are united into a hypostasis ; for these are
' bounded by the nature which confines them in their existence
'( yatha), and they have no existence apart from each other*.
' If then this is what thou meanest by saying that God
'the Word was united hypostatic a //y with flesh, and if thou
' callest this an " incomprehensible and unbecoming " union,
*I do not hesitate to say clearly that they who so speak 4 are
' impious, and that this opinion is unorthodox
and "obedience", they rather express the ready alacrity of the human
will answering to the call of the divine.
1 Nestorius is not here denying the existence of a human will in our
Lord — he has just before asserted it. He means unity of will with regard
to the objects of will, in other words, complete agreement of wills, — a
moral, not a psychical union. The same applies to M mind ", which in
Syriac, as in English, can mean "attitude of mind ". Nestorius is never
tired of proclaiming the existence in Christ of a complete human intellect
That doctrine lies at the root of his whole position.
.* Using St Leo's word "invicem", we might translate this "sed et
invicem sunt voluntates, (Deitatis et hominis)". Cf. supra p. 183.
* Lit. * and outside themselves they are not '.
4 i.e. who hold this Arian view of the union.
1 88 Nestorius and his teaching
'Wherefore thou meanest (by "hypostatic union") a volun-
tary union whereby we think of a union without confusion
'and without physical sufferings (on the part of the Word) — a
1 union into one person, not a physical union.
'Now we can speak of the person which comes from a
' physical union as being of two natures : just as man is neither
'body nor soul (taken separately), but is a nature which has
' resulted from a union of these things, and a physical person.
' But God (the Word) "took the form of a servant" into His
' own person and Sonship. It did not come from some other —
'as in the case of those things which are united into one
' nature — that He took the form of a servant ; nor was "the
'form of a servant" the ousia of man: but He that took it
'established it as [His own] 1 form and person and became
' in the form of men, (but did) not (become) the nature of men '
( Bazaar of Heraclides pp. 1 86 — 196).
1 I think we must supply this in the text — the context seems to under-
stand it, and its omission is not grammatically justifiable if it is to be
understood. There are perhaps other clerical errors in the context : the
words 'nor was "the form of a servant" the ousia of man' do not yield a
very satisfactory sense.
CHAPTER XII
THE TEACHING OF NESTORIUS IN RELATION TO
THE TEACHING OF FLAVIAN AND LEO
1 iik conclusion to which a fresh study of the remains of
Nestorius's teaching collected in Dr Loofs's Nestoriana had
brought me was that there was nothing in the teaching of Leo
and the Chalcedonian definition which he would not have
endorsed, that his conceptions were indeed essentially in
harmony with the "orthodox" doctrine as to the Person of our
Lord. The date of his death was uncertain. The tale that he
lived till the eve of the Council of Chalcedon was very meagrely
supported by external evidence and seemed to lack intrinsic
probability; it was generally discredited. There were no
means of knowing for certain what his attitude would have
been towards the definition of Chalcedon, though it was of
course certain that he would have regarded Eutyches and
Dioscorus as worthy successors of Cyril and, while fervently
abhorring their doctrine, would have been able to respect them
more as men who "came out into the open" and frankly and
unashamed said what they meant.
The recovery of the Bazaar of Heraclides removes the
atmosphere of uncertainty which would otherwise have con-
tinued to veil the question. It is no longer a hypothesis that
Nestorius would have welcomed Leo as an ally. It is a fact
that he lived to read Leo's letter to Flavian ; that he regarded
the treatment of Flavian at Ephesus as a repetition of the
190 Nestorius and his teaching
history of his own case — the same doctrines were condemned,
and had he himself attended the former Council of Cyril he
would have suffered on the spot as Flavian suffered ; and it is
a fact that he welcomed the proceedings of the Council of
Chalcedon as a final triumph for the Faith for which he had
contended. We have his own words. In this victory all
personal questions were swallowed up. The Faith, indeed, was
all he had ever cared for. It had been, he says, in order to
remove all personal animus that after the Council he had
wished to return to Euprepius and to inform the Emperor
that—
' Notions of self-advancement in connexion with the episcopal
' office had no influence with me, but that I was only longing
'for my own country Having witnessed the intrigues and
'attacks formerly prepared against me... and how through their
1 bitterness against me they became embittered against the
1 faith, it seemed to me wiser and better to sacrifice myself for
' that which was more important ; for when enmity is removed
'men often return to their better selves' (Bazaar of Heradides
p. 286).
And again :
' 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.... And would to God that all men by anathe-
'matizing me might attain to a reconciliation with God; for
'to me there is nothing greater or more precious than this.
'Nor would I refuse to retract what I have said 1 were I but
' assured that it was required of me to do so, and that men
' would hereby be brought to God, and that I should be in
' honour with God for the sake of the things of God, which
' I have conceived of in a manner according to God and not
'according to man' {ib. p. 363).
1 Nestorius doubtless means that he would readily make concessions as
to the language to be employed.
in relation to teaching of Flavian and Leo 191
It was tin Mine feeling that had prevented him from writing
to Leo, as he had been urged to do, especially since he had
read the Letter to Flavian and found in it the faith plainly set
forth without fear of the Kmpcmr's favour to Eutyches.
1 My reason for not writing is this : not that I am a proud
*and unreasonable man, hut that I might not be a hindrance
him, by reason of the prejudiee that exists against tin
* person, in the course that In- was running so well. And I h
ted to bear the accusations made against me, to the end
* that, while these accusations rest upon me alone, others may
* accept the doctrine of the Fathers without hindrance ; for
4 what things were done against me are of no account to me'
{Bazaar of Heraclides p. 370).
He describes the pleasure with which he learnt that Un-
church of Rome, which in the person of Celestine had con-
demned him, was now* in the person of Leo ranged on the side
true confession.
' When the bishop of Rome hat! read what had been done
'against Eutyches, he condemned Eutyches of impiety. Now
* when I came upon that exposition (sc. I^eo's Tome) and read
'it, I gave thanks to God that the Church of Rome was
' rightly and blamelessly making confession, even though they
* happened to be against me personally' {Bazaar of Heraclides
P- 337).
He declares repeatedly at the end of his book that Leo and
Flavian and he held the very same opinions, and that the
scandalous treatment of Flavian ('who filled my place') at
the "Robber Synod" was only a repetition of what had happened
to himself: the same parties and the same doctrines had been
at issue, and only the persons were different. It was one and
the same struggle for the truth of the Incarnation, and in this
epilogue to the drama of which he himself had been the central
figure, and the subsequent overthrow of the Eutychian party,
he recognized the Hand of God. Here is one of the chief
passages in which he expresses his conviction : —
192 Nes tortus and his teaching
[ Who was it that constrained them to utter these doctrines
1 of mine which by interdicts were forbidden to be read, and to
1 fight for these very things and contend with all persistency
' that they should be said, while I was silenced and deprived of
1 the right to say them and was not believed ? It was God, who
'had raised up those who, when they uttered my doctrines,
1 should be believed that these (doctrines) are true, — those
1 upon whom there rested no suspicion that they uttered them
' for any friendship or love of me. _^It was God who did this :
1 not on my account — for who is Nestorius, or what his life or
1 his death in the world ? — but for the sake of the truth which
' He had given to the world and which was being made void
'by error He rebuked them that were leading men astray.
'And because men were suspicious of me, and would not
1 believe what was said by me — for I was held as one who hides
* the truth and withholds his exact meaning— ^God gave to this
1 teaching a preacher who was clear of this suspicion, even Leo,
• who without fear proclaimed the truth. And whereas many
1 were prejudiced and overawed by the idea of the Synod and
'also by the person of the Romans 1 , and would not believe
1 what I said 2 , and my case remained without examination, God
' allowed these things to fall out contrariwise.^For He would
' remove the bishop of Rome who had ratified 3 the machina-
'tions of the Synod of Ephesus against me, and make him 4
'to approve and affirm the doctrine of the bishop of Con-
' stantinople. And he who had been all-powerful was now
'esteemed of no account, I mean Dioscorus the bishop of
'Alexandria. "Of no account", I say, for he took to flight
' as a means of avoiding deposition and being driven into exile.
1 The Roman legates appear to be meant.
2 To 'say things' is continually used in this work in the sense of "to
hold or teach doctrines ".
3 ^003 nn^....t^C\oiin^ appears to be a periphrasis for e/ctf-
puxrev.
4 i.e. put another bishop there who should etc.
in relation to teaching of Flavian and Leo i 93
Ami all this happened that they (those of Flavian's party) 1 ,
' by suffering the same things themselves, might believe those
things that were done by an Egyptian against me also in the
4 former Synod, and know that it was through the treachery of
'the Emperor and the court nobles that I was regarded as
4 one who resisted the Synod, since it could not terrify me into
' relinquishing the truth or force me to submit to the Emperor
'in those matters which were done against me; for it was
'because they (Flavian'! party) had never investigated the
4 truth that they held me for a blasphemer. But God, in order
4 to shew that the Emperor's friendship for me was a mere
1 pretence, and not genuine but for the purpose of acquiring
'money, shewed in the case of Eutyches and Flavian what
'the worth of his assistance was to those whom he did not
'even allow to take part in the assembly, and to those who,
4 taking part in it, were not permitted to speak a word beyond
' what was commanded them, so that through fear and con-
4 fusion they were even incriminating themselves. And because,
'again, they (Flavian etc.) supposed that my assertion that the
'summons I received (to attend the Synod of Ephesus) was
4 not to a fair judgement, and that they were summoning me
' to be condemned and not to be tried, and were attempting
' to lure me into a plot for my destruction and death — because
'they supposed that this was mere idle talk, God allowed
' Flavian to come to the Synod and to suffer what he suffered,
4 in order that He might convince them that those also (of the
' first Council of Ephesus) were murderers. For it is evident
' that this (that was done to Flavian) is what would have been
1 The Greek construction has no doubt been altered in the Syriac. It
is evident that these words refer back to those who, prejudiced by the
decision of the Synod, would not examine Nestorius's cause. This was
probably quite clear in the original construction. Nestorius is drawing a
parallel between the two synods of Ephesus — he and Flavian, who held
the same doctrines, were each condemned at Ephesus by a bishop of
Alexandria.
R 13
194 Nestorius and his teaching
' done to me formerly by those others. And again, because it
'was supposed that they (of the first Synod), being bishops,
1 would not allow themselves to do anything that was improper
' or unjust, whether out of attachment to the Emperor or
1 through fear or violence ; once more God has exposed them
1 and convicted them before all men of acting otherwise. And
' He has left nothing without a witness, but by every means He
'has exposed the causes which led to error, and has caused
' them to be proclaimed upon the housetops, so that there may
' be no excuse for those who affect ignorance ; for as by every
' means Pharaoh was convicted by God, and remained without
'excuse — since neither by the logic of words, nor by deeds,
' nor by the reproof of men or of God would he be persuaded,
'but died in his blasphemy — so these also remain without
' excuse.
' When I have seen these things, then, that God has done,
' would you have me keep silence and hide so great a dispensa-
'tion of God? The prophets of God would not have been
' approved — those who by lying prophets were anathematized
' as lying prophets, as it were by (true) prophets — unless they
' had suffered to be anathematized for God's sake by lying
'prophets. Their sons would not have been worthy of the
' honour and the doctrine of prophets if they had kept to the
' communion of lying prophets. Those of the Jews who be-
'came Christians would never have been singled out to be
' saved if they had adhered to the judgement and the injustice
' of their fathers against Christ as that of holy and righteous
' men. They would never have become apostles of Christ if
' they had clung to the whole synagogue of the Jews and the
'priests and the lawyers and the heads of the people as to
' teachers of the Law and as prophets. They would not have
' believed in Christ or have died for Christ unless they had
' reckoned death and contempt as an honour instead of a dis-
' grace ; nor at this present time would they be held in honour
'by peoples and leaders and lords unless they had suffered
in relation to teaching of Flavian and Leo 195
1 death and shame at the hands of princes and peoples. They
4 would not have been worthy to be thus revered by kings and
* princes and powers if they had observed the commands and
' laws of kings and judges and princes. Our fathers would not
\it tli is time be accounted orthodox teachers had they striven
* to avoid the condemnation of the Synods of heretics and con-
ted to confess their doctrines and play the hypocrite. We
* should not have been accounted worthy of the teaching (which
* is the fruit) of their labours had we accepted without exami-
* nation the united opinon of those opposed to them as coming
'from Synods. In short Meletius and Eustathius would not
* have been bishops of Antioch had they acquiesced in the
* election and the judgement of a Synod of heretics opposed
* to them ; nor would Athanasius have been bishop of Alexandria
1 if without doubting he had accepted his sentence of deposition
4 as coming from orthodox men. John (Chrysostom) would
* not have been bishop of Constantinople if he had accepted
* the judgement of deposition pronounced against him without
mination as coming from a (true) Synod ; nor again would
* Flavian have been bishop of Constantinople had he agreed to
* the decision of the ecumenical Synod which deposed him as
* coming from a Synod ; nor would all those of whatever city
* who have suffered all these things on my account (now) be
* shining as the sun if I had given heed to my accusers rather
* than to God ; nor to those doctrines to which each and all
* of these have belonged in God should I have been worthy
* to belong. But not mine is the work, but Christ's who has
* strengthened me ; for every man shall give an answer to God
* for those things he has said and done, whether it be that he
'has caused offence or has laboured with all zeal to remove
* offences. But if, when a man has done all that in him lies,
'he that has stumbled will not be persuaded, then let his
1 stumbling be laid to his own account, and not to his who has
* spoken to him and cried out without being heard' (Bazaar of
Heraclidfs pp. 366 — 370).
13—2
196 Nes tortus and his teaching
Nestorius certainly did his best to get a hearing for the
" sound doctrine " on the side of which he took his stand and
for the sake of which he bore so much unflinchingly. The
"heresies" against which he foresaw his opponents would
have to contend, because they would not listen to him and
be forearmed 1 , came only too surely and wrought havoc in the
Church of Christ. He had only "cried out without being
heard", and even the "great dispensation of God" which
exposed the errors against which he protested, and led him
at the end of his life to break silence once more, brought no
reparation to him. His apologia, the final vindication of his
teaching, remained unheeded, if not unknown. The Church's
condemnation had been passed upon him, and he and his
teaching have been ever since anathema.
In the same "dispensation of God" his work has come
to knowledge again in an age in which the doctrine of the
Incarnation is exposed to dangers, from opponents and de-
fenders alike, which are at least as dissolvent as those against
which he cried unheard.
1 See supra p. 158.
CHAPTER XIII
CONCLUSION
Nestorius says that if he held the views attributed to him
he would condemn himself, and even beg that his guilt might
be visited with retribution, as would be just, even though he
made ten thousand supplications for mercy and brought for-
ward all manner of arguments in justification of his words.
He had had all through the weary years of the struggle " one
only end in view — that no one should call the Word of God a
creature, or the manhood which was assumed incomplete".
^Vith this end in view he had been forced to oppose the
" would-be orthodox ", as he calls them, who were, he thought,
either Arians or Apollinarians in disguise.
' It is my earnest desire that even by anathematizing me
* they may escape from blaspheming God, and that those who
'so escape may confess "God, holy, and almighty and im-
* mortal ", and not " change the image of the incorruptible God
* for the image of corruptible man " l and mingle heathenism
'with Christianity, but that they may confess God as He is
'in His image, and man as he is in his image, so that the
* passible and the immortal be confessed in their own natures ;
1 that Christianity may not confess, after the manner of heathen
* ungodliness, either any change of God or any change of
'man. And let there be with the truth, yea, yea, and nay,
* nay, — the Redeemer and the redeemed— so that Christ may
1 Cf. Rom. i 33.
198 Nestorius and his teaching
'be confessed to be in truth and in nature God and man,
1 being by nature immortal and impassible as God, and mortal
'and passible by nature as man — not God in both natures, nor
'again man in both natures. 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 men so speak
' of God as I pray for them that they may speak. For I am
'with those who are for God, and not with those who are
' against God, who with an outward show of religion reproach
' God and cause Him to cease from being God ' {Bazaar of
Heraclides pp. 362, 363).
Reading his own words, carefully and consecutively, as we
can read them now, it is impossible to believe that Nestorius
was " Nestorian ".
But there is other evidence. Theodoret was as obnoxious
to the opponents of Nestorius as Nestorius himself. His
doctrine has lately been subjected to a fresh examination by
a French scholar 1 , who, by a careful comparison of the
anathemas of Cyril with the replies to them composed by
Andrew of Samosata, on behalf of the Eastern bishops, and
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, is led to the conclusion that the two
Christologies, of Antioch and of Alexandria, in spite of notable
differences, were alike perfectly orthodox. Underneath all
their differences of terminology and expression the doctrine
is essentially the same. It is true he excludes from his
investigation the counter-anathemas of Nestorius himself.
But, as we have seen, it is certain that Nestorius intended
to express the ordinary doctrine of the school of Antioch —
and who should know it, if not he ? — and that in his counter-
anathemas at all events there is nothing that is explicitly
unorthodox. The evidence shews that he was personally
1 Pere J. Mahe in the Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique vol. vii, no. 3
(July, 1906).
Conclusion 1 99
MCrificed n> the agreement whieh was madi between Alexandria
and Antioch, and suggests that personal rather than doctrinal
rmined his fate and the destiny of the band of
enthusiastic Christians who would not be 1 > such a
transaction.
And we may look still further afield For the large body
of bishops and others, who could not accept the ecclesiastieal
condemnation of Nestorius, found a home in Persia, where the
imperial decrees, without the aid of which the condemnation
could not be effective, did not run. And there, on the
foundation of the old Eastern Church which had seldom had
much to do with the Church of " the West ", they built up the
great Syriac Church which, in numbers and learning and
missionary zeal combined, surpassed all others and was till the
fourteenth century the Church of the East par excellence,
reaching far into India and China 1 . » A few years ago the
collection of the canons of the Councils and Synods of this
Church, known as the Synodicon Orientate, was published with
a French translation 8 , and writings of some of its early re-
presentatives have been made available for use in the same
way. After the revival of monophysitism at Constantinople,
and the controversy of "the Three Chapters" (the condemnation
of Theodore, Theodoret in part, and Ibas'), and when a new
1 A convenient sketch of the history of the Church will be found in the
Annual Report of "the Archbishop's Mission to the Assyrian Christians"
published by the S. P.C. K. See also M. Labourt's history cited p. 200, n. 1.
* By M. Chabot — vol. xxxvii of the Notices et extraits des manuscrits Je
la bibliothique nationals.
* It must be remembered that again, in this painful episode, political
considerations, rather than theological, were dominant. The Emperor
Justinian wished to conciliate the Monophysites, who would not accept the
Council of Chalcedon ; and the formal condemnation of their chief
opponents in the past offered an easy means to secure the end in view.
Motives of state policy dictated this early instance of anathemas on the
famous dead, who while they lived had been held in high honour and had
died in M the peace of the Church ". (The effect this condemnation might
200 Nestorius and his teaching
terminology had been introduced or popularized by Leontius
of Byzantium in the first half of the sixth century, some of the
terms employed by the Nestorians might seem to express a
definitely unorthodox doctrine. But it does not appear that
the Nestorian Church ever changed its traditional terminology;
nor indeed could it be expected to change it, in view of all the
facts of the case; and if they speak of the union as " prosopic ",
and not as " hypostatic ", it is not fair to assign to the phrase
the new Byzantine meaning of it. Indeed, it would be a mere
blunder to do so. (They mean to assert that the one-ness is
to be found in the Person, and that the distinction between
the hypostases Godhead and manhood is preserved.) In any
case, during the whole period when the teaching and termino-
logy of Theodoret and Nestorius were well remembered as
well as standard (" standard " they have always remained), the
Creeds of the Councils of the Nestorian Church are perfectly
orthodox. No trace of heresy has crept into them. I can
find no trace of " Nestorianism " in the Nestorian Church of
that time. And a writer, like M. Labourt, in his recent and
valuable history of Christianity in Persia 1 , who notes at an
early date how " singularly attenuated " " Nestorianism " had
become 2 , is really unconsciously misinterpreting the facts. I
cannot find evidence that " Nestorianism " ever existed in any
but this " singularly attenuated " form. In other words, it was
never more than a tendency.
But it was a tendency. At the back of it all there is some-
thing that goes deeper than mere differences of terminology.
And if we are to get down to it, we must not shrink from
have on the Christians in Persia could of course be disregarded, as they
were outside the Empire ; and the opposition to it in Africa and the West,
where the theological issues were understood, seems to have come as a
surprise to the Emperor.)
1 Le Christianisme dans V empire perse (pp. 224 — 632), Paris, 1904.
2 ib. p. 268.
Conclusion 201
asking ourselves one of those large questions which we are
usually content to "let lie". What is the ultimate significance
of all our doctrinal controversy s ? What real difference does
it make to us, what theory we hold of the Person of Jesus
Christ? Why, for example, does Gibbon seem to any
theologian so extraordinarily absurd when he makes merry
over the long controversy which was waged between two
competing definitions, which differed from each other by a
mere iota— the smallest letter in the alphabet?
The answer is not hard to find. It is just because, be it
articulate or inarticulate, our whole philosophy of life is based
on Jesus. We see in Him the Saviour of the World ; One
who has shewn Himself in word and in act able to bind men
to Him by the closest of ties, to give them power to overcome
temptation to evil, and to assure them of forgiveness and bring
them the peace of God. That is the practical Gospel. But
when we say that, and just because we believe it, as a practical
truth, for us as we are, in the world as it is, we say a great deal
more and we believe a great deal more. He can only be that
if He does really in His own Person, as well as in His whole
attitude to life, embody the meaning of human life, the solution
of the enigma of existence —
what we are, and whence we came ;
whence we came and whither wending.
He can only be Saviour of men constituted as they are, and
placed as they are, if in His own actual experience — thought,
feeling, will — indeed, in His whole being — He represents and
expresses a perfect human life. This is the philosophy of the
Gospel.
So it is that the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation
expresses a philosophy of life ; and variations in the definitions
of the Person of Jesus, if words have any significance at all,
carry with them variations in the theory of the meaning of
human life, the place of man in the universe.
202 Nestorius and his teaching
The whole ecclesiastical system is based on the antithesis
— the Divine : the human ; — God and man. And Christianity,
as at once a historical religion and a philosophy of life, an
interpretation of actual facts of human experience, is based on
the theory of the Incarnation : — the belief, that is, that once in
human experience this fundamental antithesis found its syn-
thesis. Once a Person lived a human life who united in
Himself the human and the Divine, who was conscious of the
antithesis, who could feel the war of wills, who could be
tempted as we are tempted, who had to learn obedience by
the things which He suffered, who shared the limitations of
human existence : — One who was fully conscious of all these
things, and yet at the same time was conscious of Divine
origin, of insight into the Divine will and Divine power to
fulfil it, of oneness with the Divine by which He transcended
the limitations of the human.
So acting on, and following up, this belief, that the true
relations between God and Man, the true interpretation of the
meaning of the universe and of human life, were visibly realized
in Him, the Church has always taught that what was actual in
Him was potential in all men ; and that just because of Him
and in and through Him, so far as they could become one
with Him, they too in their individual experience might hope
to realize the synthesis.
This is however an entirely different thing from the denial
of the antithesis, as practically true, a present reality of
experience.
We are, of course, face to face here with a profound
problem — though it can perhaps be stated simply, sufficiently
for the purpose.
The doctrine of the Incarnation seems to proclaim as
ultimate reality the oneness of God and man, the Divine and
the human, Godhead and manhood : but as practically true
the antithesis of both. If then we have a real unity in our
philosophy of life — our theory of being — we seem to proclaim
Conclusion 203
the I >i\ ine and the human as correlates or counterparts of each
other — the spiritual and the material (to use somewhat
antiquated terms) as different modes of one existence 1 : or it
might be said that neither was complete without the otl
So, in the representative instance of our Lord Himself, this
is the obvious doctrine of the Church, which has always resisted
any theory which failed to recognize in Him both alike : — H .
the one being, is complete in Godhead and complete in man-
hood. To His full being manhood is as essential as Godhead.
It is this in another form that is the thought of the writer of the
Epistle to the Ephesians in the passage "and He gave him to be
head over all things to the church, which is his body, the
fulfilment of him who all in all is being fulfilled" (Eph. i 22,
23) — the true meaning of which words has only lately been
given back to us 9 . The Christ Himself is not complete without
His Body, and the Body itself will not be complete till the
Church is complete— that is to say till all mankind is actually
one with Him. Then and not till then will He be "all in all
fulfilled ". Till then the antithesis holds.
This great thought, it is true, perhaps does not find very
explicit recognition in the ordinary theological teaching of the
Church. But consciously or unconsciously it is the spring and
life of its practical work and of the institutions by which it
seeks to train its members. It is the life of Christian ethics,
both of its principles and of its praxis. And so alike in the
doctrine of the Incarnation on the one hand, and in the whole
. l It is, I believe, generally recognized by theologians that the theoretic
dualism of spirit and matter is not Christian. The world, including
all that we call matter, has its origin in the will and love of God alone,
and the idea of the world at least has always been conceived by Christian
theology as eternally existent in God. It is only the practical dualism, the
"logic of facts", that has impressed itself on Christian thought.
* u There is no justification for the rendering ' that filleth all in all '
(A. V.)." Such idiomatic uses of the middle of the verb as are cited afford
no justification for taking it here in what is really the active sense. See the
Dean of Westminster's note ad loc.
204 Nestorius and his teaching
sacramental system on the other hand, the Christian philosophy
of life is embodied, with full recognition of Divine and human;
maintaining fearlessly the apparent contradiction of the trans-
cendence and yet the immanence of God ; and proclaiming as
the ultimate goal of life the complete realization of manhood in
union with God.
The mystic temperament has tended, in every age, to
concentrate attention on the synthesis, and has seemed to
others, in doing so, in the effort to attain the synthesis, to
ignore or annihilate the human. Yet the Church — with St Paul
and the Fourth Gospel as her guides, and the practical salvation
of men as they are as her mission, and the facts of everyday life
as the sphere of her activities : — while she has given shelter to
the mystic, and has ever held before men's eyes the vision
of the synthesis as the ultimate reality — the Church in all her
definitions and doctrinal statements has maintained the anti-
thesis. She has never spoken of the "humanity" of God or
the "Divinity" of man. Any theology that did — were it old
or new — would be obviously false to the facts of everyday
experience. Any theory which denies the distinction between
the Divine and the human is essentially monophysite, and, if it
seems to tend to the glory of God and the ennoblement of man
today, it may issue tomorrow in the supersession of God by
man — a world without God. In the days of Nestorius the
danger was that the doctrine of the Church should be robbed of
its moral appeal to men as they are, and it was his ethical
insight and practical instinct that made him oppose a form
of thought which seemed to him in his own words to "de-
humanize the manhood" of the Lord. 'The manhood', he
says in the striking passage already quoted 1 , 'has been brought
' into a state of complete cohesion with Him, but it has not been
1 deified, as the wiseacres among our younger doctrinaires would
1 have it '.
1 Supra p. 64 airrjKpipwTcu yap ets aKpav cvvafeiav, ovk et's airodtucriv
Kara roi/s <ro<f>obs tQv doynaTKrT&v tQv vetartpuv.
Conclusion
205
He was resisting the covert monophysitism of his times : a
tendency of thought which may be traced all down the history
of the Church, assuming various forms at different epochs : —
the tendency, that is, in sonic form or other to deny the dis-
tinction between the Divine and the human : — primarily, of
course, in the Person of our Lord, but, so far as the doctrine
of His Person expresses the Christian theory of existence, in
effect and by consequence to deny it altogeth
As spectators of the controversy we are really watching the
struggle between mystical unity and practical duality. Neither
side really denied the chief contention of the other ; but each
suspected his opponent of failing to recognize what was to him-
self the main premiss.
One of the earliest champions of the Nestorian side after
the Council of Chalcedon, Narsai, a student and teacher in the
school of Edessa, and afterwards the first head of the school of
Nisibis (from 457 to 507), whose homily in defence of the three
great Doctors, Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius, can now be
read in French, declares that though these three "just" men
were unjustly persecuted by emissaries of Satan, yet in spite of
all the victory remained with them*. And we have seen good
reason to think that he was right. As a matter of fact, though
Nestorius as an individual was condemned, all that he con-
tended for was amply conceded in Leo's letter to Flavian and
at the Council of Chalcedon — which was silent about Theodore,
the teacher to whom Nestorius was most indebted; which
pronounced Ibas and Theodoret orthodox, the chief champions
of the same school of thought ; and declared unmistakeably
the duality not only of natures but of substances 2 , as distinct as
1 Sec the Homily with a French translation by Abbe* F. Martin in the
Journal asiatique, Nov.-Dec. 1899 and May-June 1900.
* " Consubstantial with the Father as regards His Godhead", "con-
substantial with us as regards His manhood", and the term "Mother of
God" only with the qualification "as regards His manhood" which was
just the limitation which Nestorius desired.
206 Nestorius and his teaching
they were ineffably united : and in spite of the later chaotic
disputes in connexion with the controversy over the "three
chapters ", and the Council (the " fifth general council ") which
declared that the distinction was to be understood to be
"logical" only, and in spite of all the turmoil between East
and West of the sixth and the seventh centuries, duality finally
triumphed in the doctrine of two wills. The human is not the
Divine even in the Person of our Lord. And therefore it is not
in us.
Many a phrase no doubt can be cited from orthodox Greek
fathers, whether in regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation or
in connexion with the doctrine of the Eucharist, shewing the
thought that in virtue of the Incarnation, or through the
Eucharist, men may become Divine : — the ipse per se hominem
admians Deo of Irenaeus, or phrases such as that of Athanasius
€vr)v0pw7rr)cr€v Iva rjfxil^ 9eoTrovq$^jxev (He became man in order
that we might be made Divine) and some of those of Gregory
and others about the Eucharist. But "deification" is a
process : the process for which the Church and its whole
system of sacraments exists : — but still a process, not an
achieved result. Men may become Divine in Christ : they are
very far from being Divine. This is the thought of one of
St Paul's most pregnant sayings, in which he expresses both
the antithesis and the synthesis, in words that no familiarity can
dull — " Him that knew not sin He made sin on behalf of us,
in order that we may become God's righteousness in Him"
(2 Cor. v 21). The saying remains, in its ethical assertions as
well as in the metaphysical implications that underlie them, as
startling today as it must have been when it was first read out
to the Corinthians of old; and nearly every word in it has
emphasis.
Apart from the theory of the synthesis — the traditional
doctrine, that is to say, of the Incarnation — Christian philosophy
and Christian piety cease to be. Apart from belief in the
practical truth of the antithesis the whole fabric of Christian
Conclusion 207
ion and Christian (thus rnimhkw to the ground. The
assertion of so obvious a truism would call for apology were
there not signs today that the Nestorian controversy may have
to be fought out again in a new form is tin* twentieth eentury.
v has always resented the appeal to history, and has always
tied to know Christ no longer "according to the flesh".
D if we admit that individual experience is the finally
convincing test of spiritual things, we need to remember that
Christianity owed its triumph over many other ennobling
phili and " mysteries ", its early rivals, to the fact that it
was based upon belief in a Person, born of a woman, who had
lived the life and died the death of men, before He proved
Himself to be victorious over death. A historical religion,
while it may strictly limit the scope of the reference, can never
ignore the facts of its early history, nor can it tolerate doctrines
which are inconsistent with any of those facts.
We have seen that the ideas, for which Nestorius in common
with the whole school of Antioch contended, really won the
day, as regards the doctrinal definitions of the Church ; though
Nestorius himself was sacrificed to "save the face" of the
Alexandrines. The manhood of Christ was safeguarded, as
distinct from the Godhead : the union was left an ineffable
mystery.
The views against which Nestorius protested would have
robbed us altogether of the historical Christ of the Gospels.
Though inspired by the inevitable philosophical craving for
unity, and the supreme desire of genuine piety to see in the
manhood of Christ the real deification of human nature as
an entity, they would have made of the Saviour of men a
Person not really human, and of Redemption a magical,
instantaneous, rather than an ethical, gradual, process. The
possibility of an ethical valuation of His human life and
experiences was in large measure saved by the stand the
Nestorians made: for the Church of the West, though all
208 Nestorius and his teaching
its doctrinal traditions linked it to them, was, as we have seen,
by a strange political accident, arrayed for the moment against
them. That the Son of God should continue to be the Lord of
human life we owe to Nestorius first — for it was in his day that
the tendencies to an unhistorical interpretation of the Person of
the Lord (always present in the Church from the times of the
Gnostics) first became a serious menace to the traditional
doctrine of the Incarnation within the Church itself — and
after him to the " Nestorians " of later times and other lands.
But more and more, all down the centuries since, the man-
hood receded farther and farther behind the Godhead. The
Person, who has been the stay of the religious hopes and
aspirations of the great majority of Christians all down the
ages, has been the Divine Person, whose manhood has been
the mystery : till now again, in our own times, the human
Christ has come back to us in the fulness of His manhood.
The Alexandrine — the mystic religious — conception has pre-
vailed so long, that now that we are again permitted, indeed
constrained, to examine freely and trace afresh the human
history of our Lord's life on earth, the life which he lived
as man among men, to " recover the primitive portrait ", there
is the new danger that the reaction may mislead as much as it
helps. For the new distinction between "the Christ of History"
and " the Christ of Faith " is as false as it is in some ways
specious. The real Christ of History is the Christ of all the
ages since the Advent, and of all the ages still to come. Cyril
and Nestorius both spoke Greek, but they were to each other
fiappapou The same kind of difference separates men today.
The Nestorian controversy has its warnings for us in this
respect. For though the doctrine of. one Person in two
natures, living always in two spheres of consciousness, comes
probably as near as we can come towards satisfying the double
demand of piety and of practice, of philosophy and of redemp
tion, the problem is, if not insoluble, still unsolved. The
Gospels represent Him to us as one who knew Himself as man
Conclusion 209
and as God. Metaphysicians and psychologists have their
special lines of investigation and their own proper terms : but
is there yet any betttt definition of the union of the natures
than is contained in the words "He km w Himself Al man and
as God"?
It the teaching of Nestorius is to be put to a practical test;
and, I imagine, he would have asked nothing better himself;
the test is ready to hand. We know what those Christians,
whose boast it was that they believed as Nestorius believed,
could do and dare and endure to spread the Faith in the
Inramau Word, their Lord and his Lord, to the ends of
the earth. They are his " letters testimonial ", to be " known
and read of all men ".
It is of course possible to see a Divine judgement on doctrinal
error in the disasters which befell that Church of the East
Syrians after nearly a thousand years of undaunted missionary
enthusiasm — disasters which make it necessary for us, after an
interval of half as many years again, to try once more slowly to
win to Christ great tracts which were once the sees of Nestorian
bishops. It may even be possible — who knows? — to see in
Tamerlane, that scourge of humanity, the minister of the
Wrath of God. The problem presented by the extinction of
once flourishing Christian Churches is one on which we need
not enter here. Only we may note that the judgement, if it
were judgement, fell with almost equal weight on Nestorians
and on anti-Nestorians, on monophysites and on orthodox,
alike ; and it will scarcely be supposed that it was more accurate
definitions, or a sounder faith, that enabled Europe to repel
the Turk. And in view of its history it is difficult to believe
that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the faith of
the Nestorian Church. Whatever the explanation of its over-
throw may be, for one who believes in the providential govern-
ment of the world, it is clear that for centuries its devotion
to the Person of our Lord carried it triumphantly through
b. 14
210 Nes tortus and his teaching
extraordinary difficulties and was signally " blessed " in results.
And now that it is well known to us in its humiliation, we find
that there is, so far as we can learn, nothing essentially un-
orthodox in the faith of its members or in the writings of
the Fathers to which it appeals.
The question which has been under consideration is clearly
not one of merely antiquarian or historical interest. No
question affecting the doctrine of the Person of our Lord can
ever be thus described with truth. But it is also closely
connected with one of the great problems by which the Church
of England is faced today : — its relation to the separated
Churches of all kinds. On the one hand are those Societies of
Christians who would dispense with all doctrinal definitions, as
needless accretions to the simple primitive faith, or even danger-
ous impediments to the free growth of knowledge, petrifying
what should be the flowing stream of interpretation of Christian
experience. These are outside the range of thoughts which
the Nestorian controversy suggests. But on the other hand
are historic Churches, Christian Societies with all the notes
of genuine national churches — the Sacraments, the Creed, the
historic ministry — such as the Church which has maintained
unbroken its continuity from the fifth to the twentieth century.
With this great ancient Church, which " was a centre of light
and power when we (in Cambridge) were a reed-fen" 1 — not of
her own seeking, but in tardy and still very meagre response to
repeated appeals for help — the Church of England has already
been brought into peculiarly close relations, through the action
of successive Archbishops of Canterbury. We are on intimate
terms of friendship. Only between us, between the two
1 I quote the words from a letter written by Archbishop Benson, the
founder of the Anglican Mission, on its "distant and yet touching and lofty
object", after a great meeting at which he was present in the Guildhall in
Cambridge in 1895 in support of the Mission.
Com /its ion 211
Christian Churches, there is as yet no ecclesiastical fatal
Bunion. The terms ut q apathetic, as between two alien
bod nal to each other; between whom there can only
be a <rwety«a <rx*Tuoj such as Nestorius was said to maintain —
conjunction of relations ".
If what was said of Nestorius was true, and if it be true that
the so-called Nestorian Christians of today " divide " the Person
of Christ ; then between us and them there must still, it seems,
be division : we must still be sundered in the supreme bond of
Christian fellowship, the supreme act of Christian worship, the
Sacrament of Union. But if it is, and was, mainly a question
of tendencies and terms : if the Nestorians of today are not
unsound in regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation', and
if Nestorius himself did not really "separate" the natures m
the one Person of the Lord, then the way would be smoothed
to a real " union " between his Church and ours. If we both
believe that in our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, Godhead
and manhood, while really distinct, were yet brought together,
reconciled, united, really, truly, ineffably, indissolubly — has not
the time arrived for genuine Christian fellowship, ecclesiastical
intercommunion ? The age of anathemas is gone. To have
realized this will be perhaps the chief merit of the twentieth
century of the era of our Lord. If they are willing to cease to
pronounce their ancient anathema on Cyril, we shall not surely
ask them to disown their early hero Nestorius.
1 The Letter of Leo to Flavian and the Council of Chalcedon are,
I am informed, formally recognized in their official collection of conciliar
documents.
I4~2
APPENDIX
ON THE HISTORY OF THE SYRIAC TERMS ItHUTHA,
ITHYA, ICY AN A, PARSOPA, AND QNOMA
(by the English translator of the Bazaar of Heraclides)
The words ithllthd, itkyd, k'ydnd 1 , parsopa, and q'nomd
have played a part in Syriac theological and Christological
discussions parallel to that played in Greek by ova-ia, <£vo-is,
7rp6<To)7rov, and v7ro<rTa<ris. The object of this note is to
determine, as far as may be, the theological value of these
Syriac terms. It is hoped that what is here offered, however
incomplete, may throw some fresh light upon their meanings,
and perhaps help to clear away some misconceptions.
I. fth&tha and itkyd.
These words, which may be discussed together, are derived
from the root itk, which corresponds to the Heb. yesk, "being'',
"existence". Properly itk is a substantive in the construct state
(i.e. that form which precedes a genitive). In use it corresponds
to the verb substantive "is", but it is conjugated by means of
the nominal, not the verbal suffixes. Syriac has a separate word
for what in Greek and Latin is expressed by ytyva/wu and
"fio".
In derivation, then, the terms itMtkd and itkyd answer to
the Greek ovala. According to its formation itkyd should
1 Whenever the word "nature" occurs in the following pages in
translations from Syriac works it is to be understood that it renders
k'ydnd.
History of the Syriac terms 2 1 3
express the idea of " being nee ", according to a DM
concrete concept than that conveyed by Uh&tfut. This
grammatical distinction holds good (generally shaking) in
(1) In the lVshitta version of the N I
IthyA does not occur at all in Pesh., and ithutha only once,
in Heb. i 3, where it translates v7roora<m, which there
practically means owrw. Thus o« wv Airavyaa-fia rip &6$r)? *ui
\apaKTrjp Trjs vir<Krra<rea>s avTov is rendered, "who is the ray
(or effulgence) of His glory and the image of His ithuthd".
(2) Other Syriac writings,
(a) Bardaisan.
A c haracteristic use of Uhya in the earlier Syriac writers
is to express the notion of an independent or elemental Being ;
while it hut ha strictly denotes the being or existence which such
a Being has : though it also is sometimes found in the more
concrete sense of "a Being". Hence St Ephraim and writers
of all ages after him constantly use these words absolutely to
denote " the Deity ", or " the Divinity ".
Bardaisan, according to the notices of him found in the
works of St Ephraim 1 , used Uhya and Uhfttha to denote
certain elemental substances which God first created and from
which He then fashioned the world ; thus air, fire, and water
were Uhyt\ or elements. In the De Fato itself Bardaisan is
1 Most of Ephraim's references to Bardaisan are collected by Nau in
his recent edition of the De Fato, otherwise called The Book of the Laws of
Countries {Patrol. Syr. pars I t. ii). This work was first edited with an
English translation by Cureton in his Spicilegium Syriacum. It was com-
posed by Bardaisan 's disciple, Philip, and takes the form of a Socratic
dialogue between Bardaisan, two or three of his disciples, and an unbeliever.
* Cf. Nau op. cit. p. 501. It is this teaching that Ephraim has in view
when, in his commentary on Genesis (Ed. Rom. i 6 d), he writes : •* Since
water and wind were not yet created, nor fire and light and darkness
established, they, being younger than heaven and earth, are (part of) the
creation... and are not fthyi".
214 Nestorius and his teaching
made to speak in one place of ithye as synonymous with the
borrowed Greek word estukse (o-Tot^€ta) : " He said to me, Not
in so far as they are fixed, O Philip, will the Elements (estukse)
be judged, but in so far as they have power ; for Beings {ithye)
when they are fashioned together are not deprived of their
nature, but they lose somewhat of their own proper force by
being mingled one with another, and they are subdued by the
power of their Maker ; and in so far as they are subjected they
will not be judged, but only in that which is their own" 1 .
Itkuthd does not occur in the De Fato.
(/?) St Ephraim.
We may take St Ephraim next, since he affords more
information than Aphraates, who is a decade or so earlier
chronologically. Of his extant works perhaps the most in-
structive for our purpose is the second of two tracts Against
False Doctrines published by Overbeck. In this work Ephraim
examines some of the speculations of Mani as to the origin of
the world. Here again we find ithya and tthiltha employed to
denote the two Manichaean Beings, or first principles, the
Good and the Bad, Light and Darkness. Ephraim himself,
however, does not appear to recognize these as real ithye. He
writes 2 : "But if everything is one nature and from one good
ithyd, how can it be divided ; and how can that impassible
nature be cut up?... And if the earth has no feeling, and the
stones are incapable of suffering, how is it, since there is but
one ithyd, that both rational souls and dumb stones come from
it ? So then it is not one homogeneous ithuthd ".
Again : " Now if it (Light) is a nature that is stable and
continuous, the sons of Darkness when they ate it — if they did
eat it — could not have dissolved its nature. For even as they
could not destroy its being (ithtithd), so that it should cease to
be — for, lo, it is — so they were not able to dissolve the stability
1 Nau op. cit. col. 548 ; Cureton op. cit. p. 4 (text).
2 Overbeck S. Ephraemi Syri aliorumque Opera Selecta p. 6 1 .
History of the Syriac terms 2 1 5
of its being (i/huthd) ". Ephraim Ipfikl in this tract of God as
the Self-exist 1 tit Being, the "Ukyi in Hm ithuthd" \ and indeed
tin Divine Being was the only ithyd he really recognized. He
says that the "hateful idea of tin- filthy hula (vAr?)" which tat
heretics regarded as an ithuthd was got from the Greeks, but
that "all the sons of the truth have preached but one ithyd"
(i.e. God)'.
(y) Aphraates.
There are only two passages in Aphraates' Homilies in
which the words occur: (1) " \\V praise in Thee the hidden
Mercy that sent The e — e ven Him who had pleasure in us that
we should live by the death of His Only-begotten ; we glorify
in Thee the Self-existent Being (lit. the ithyd of Himself)
who separated Thee from His being {'ithuthd) " 2 ; and (2) "We
adore Thee, the Self-existent Iking (the ithyd of Him-
who made us out of nothing "*.
The first of these passages well illustrates the difference
between ithyd and ithuthd.
(8) Later writers.
In the above passages ithyd is simply "a Being", and
especially "the Being" par excellence, the Deity 4 ; while ith&thd
is similarly "being", and often the Divine being. As yet
there is no suggestion of the ideas which we connect with
the word "essence". Although ithtithd seemed the natural
word to take over all the theological functions of owrtia, it did
not in fact do so. Jthiithd in theological (as distinct from
philosophical) language can only represent owria when applied
1 Nau op. at. p. 501.
* Ed. Parisot, in Patrol. Syr. I ii col. 100. Dom Parisot, who completes
his edition of Aphraates' Homilies in this volume, has added a concordance
of all the Syriac words in the Homilies and an admirable Index Analyticus.
* ib. col. 1 1 7.
* C£ the Syriac Acts of Judas Thomas (Wright Apocryphal Acts vol. i
p. 179), "To be glorified art Thou, ineffable Being (tthyd) *,
216 Nes tortus and his teaching
to the Divinity. A Syrian might translate ovo-ia, meaning the
Divine ova-la, by ithutha, but — I speak under correction — he
would not dream of using such an expression as " the ithutha
of the humanity" in Christ, although ova-la is frequently so
used (e.g. by Nestorius). Thus we read in one of Narsai's
Homilies-. "Three hypostases {q'ndme) the Church learned
from our Lord — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit —
one ithfithd" 1 ; and again : "This is what the crying of Holy
three times means; but that of "Lord" teaches concerning
the nature of the Deity (iihyd) that it is one" 2 . The orthodox
(?) Isaac of Antioch also writes : " Thy nature is not mixed
with our nature, nor is our nature fused with Thy nature.
Our completeness, Lord, is preserved in Thee, and Thy ithtitha
dwelleth in our body" 3 ; and again : "From the Father is His
ithutha, and from the mother is His humanity. He had no
father on earth; He had a Father on high. Virgin is the
Child in His ithutha; virgin is the Child in His humanity" 4 .
And the Monophysite Philoxenus writes : "And, being Himself
God, the Son of God is man, and the man Son of God ; the
Son of the ithutha is Son of the Virgin, the Son of the
Virgin is Son of the ithutha" 5 .
When a Syrian wishes to speak of any other ova-la than the
Divine he prefers to use the word h'ydnd, " nature ", or to take
over the Greek word in the form usiyd. The latter is the
regular practice of the translator of Nestorius's Heraclides, even
when the Divine ova la is meant ; and even in original Syriac
writings usiyd is often employed in the same way.
1 Narsai Homiliae et Carmina ed. Mingana (Dominican press Mosul)
1905, vol. i p. 381. Narsai was the founder of the second School of
Nisibis, after the expulsion of the Nestorians from Edessa circa 457 a.d.
(cf. Mingana's Preface p. 8).
2 id. p. 382.
3 Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni ed. Bedjan, vol. i p. 790.
4 ib. p. 811.
5 The Discourses of Philoxenus ed. Budge vol. ii p. 97 (Introduction).
Dr Budge has missed the construction in his transl. of this passage (p. 32).
History of the Syriac terms 2 1 7
Finally the expression "Son of the ithtMha of the Father''
came to be a recognized rendering of the Nicene phrase 6/xoov-
aioF T<j* lrarpi In a fragment of the Nicene Creed pi
in the mutilated MS of the Heraduits the Greek phrase is so
translated. The more oommon rendering is "Son of tin
nature (k'y&mi) of the Father"; ind in in. my ftttnsiooi made
by Nestorius to the creed clause it is so turned. We find
both expressions in the Acts of Sharbil^ a document which was
written probably at the end of the fourth or beginning of tin-
fifth century and shews many traces of Greek influence, thus :
" For He who put on a body is God, Son of God (i.e. 0c6? U
0cot), Son of the it hit ilia of His Father, and Son of the ky&nA
of Him that begat Him "'. The latter phrase is that employed
in the Nestorian Creed of today, which probably goes back at
least to the time of Narsai.
II. Kyami.
This word means " nature ", and is capable of all the shades
of meaning in which we use "nature". In translations from
the Greek it invariably renders <f>wri% as may be seen by
comparing the Peshitta version with any passage in which
<t>v<Ti<> occurs in the Greek. It occurs in the Syr. N.T. in a
couple of places in which <f>v<ris is not found in the Greek. ;
thus, in 1 Cor. xv 38 ISiov o-cU/za is translated " the body of its
k'ydnd " ; and in J a. i 2 1 for tof tfufrvrov Xo'yov we have " the
word which is planted in our kydnd". Bardaisan's disciple,
Philip, uses it in the De Fato to express that which belongs in
common to the members of any particular order of beings :
mankind his one nature^ the animals have another. He
contrasts it with Fortune and Free-will : " And we men are
found to be governed by Nature equally, by Fortune differently,
and by Free-will each as he wishes"*. He also employs it
of Nature in the widest sense: "Nature has no law, for a
1 Cureton Ancient Syriac Documents p. 43 (Syr. text).
* Cureton Spic. p. 10 (text).
218 Nestorius and his teaching
man is not blamed because he is tall in his stature or little,
or white or black, or because his eyes be large or small...
for, lo!...as to those things which are not done by our
hands, but which we have by our Nature, we are not indeed
condemned by these ; neither are we justified " l . Again :
"From Nature there is a sufficiency in moderation for all
bodies ; and from Fortune comes the want of food ".
But kyana had probably a wider application than the
Greek Averts. Bardaisan, in the work referred to, speaks of
God "who ordained how should be the life and perfection
of all creatures and the state of ithye and Hybrid," . And
Ephraim in the tract Against False Doctrines writes: "And
who can fix a nature that cannot be fixed ? For who can
fix the nature of fire so that it be not divided by the wick
of a lamp ? Although fire is a nature it is capable of being
divided, because of its nature not being fixed. But a ray of
the sun no man can divide, because it is fixed, all in all, in
a nature which is indissoluble " 2 . Here we have Kydnd used —
in one instance at least — in exactly the sense in which Bar-
daisan or Mani would (according to Ephraim) have used it/iyd,
"Being": fire is a Kyana with a Kyana. We have seen that
Ephraim objected to using ithyd except of God ; he prefers to
call all dependent beings natures. Another good example of
this use is found in a late (saec. xiii) Nestorian writer, Solomon
of el Basra: "Darkness is a k'ydnd which subsists of itself;
and if it were not a Kyana it would not have been numbered
with the seven k'ydne which were created in the beginning in
silence. Others say that darkness is not a k'ydnd that subsists
of itself, but the shadow of bodies " 3 .
Where we should speak of material things as "substances "
a Syrian would call them "natures" \ thus, "oil is a liquid
substance" would be "oil is a liquid nature".
1 Cureton Spic. p. 8. 2 Overbeck op. cit. p. 63.
3 The Book of the Bee ed. Budge, p. 16. Ephraim (Ed. Rom. i 6 f)
speaks of darkness as a tfy&na in this sense.
History of the Syriac terms 2 1 9
III. iWsdpd.
This is irpoeronroi' in a Syriac dress. It frequently translates
the latter word in the N.T. : always in tin- sense of "face",
"appearance ", with the possible exception of Jude 16 where
^av/xa'CoiT<? irpacTM-ra is n ndered "glorifying parsdpS". Syriac
has also a word of its own for "face", and this sometimes
takes the place of parsdpd in rendering irpovwirov — especially
in the expression irpwrmirov Aa/x/ftiVco', where the idiom is
borrowed from the Semitic.
In Payne Smiths Thesaurus (s.v.) several examples are
quoted in which parsdpd is used absolutely to denote men,
individuals: e.g. " illustrious parsdpd - "illustrious persons".
There can be no doubt that the later Syrians (say, after the
middle of the fifth century) sometimes used the word in practi-
cally the same sense as we use " person ", " personage ". But I do
not remember to have met with a similar usage in the earlier
writers (Aphraates, Ephraim, etc.). Aphraates certainly never
uses the word in any sense but " face " or " appearance ".
But there was a tendency to make parsdpd denote not so
much the actual human visage as a mask or presentation
(true or false) of some real or supposed person or thing.
Hence we have the very common idiom to do something
" in the parsdpd of another ", i.e. as, truly or falsely, represent-
ing another : as acting for or pretending to be another. One
or two examples may illustrate this. Rabbula in his Canons
for Monks 1 writes: "Let not the brethren in the parsdpd of
sicknesses (i.e. feigning sickness, or on the plea of sickness)
leave their monasteries " ; again : " Let not the monks leave
their own locality and, in the parsdpd of Others (i.e. under
an assumed personality), obtain judgments by bribery".
Examples of this usage are constantly occurring. We meet
also with such cases as "in his (own) parsdpd "=" propria
persona ".
1 Overbeck op. cit. p. 313.
220 Nestorius and his teaching
Parsdpa is, of course, the word by which the Nestorians,
following Nestorius's own use of 7rpoo-o>7rov, have always ex-
pressed their conception of the unity of person in Christ.
Nestorius rejected the expression /xta woo-tcxo-i? because, as
will have been observed from the passages quoted in this
volume from his Heradides, he continued to understand viro-
<TTa<ris in its older sense as almost equivalent to ovaia (cf. the
anathema to the Nicene Creed, rj ££ kripas v-Koardana^ rj
ouatas). The Nestorian Syrians similarly rejected the phrase
"one q J ndmd" because, as we shall see, q'ndmd in this con-
nection meant to them something very like what v7ro<rrao-is
meant to Nestorius. Hence they have always expressed the
union of the natures in Christ by the formula "two k'ydrie
and two q'fidme, one parsdpa". We shall quote presently,
when discussing q'ndmd, two Nestorian definitions of the words
4' noma and parsdpa which were given in the seventh century.
IV. Q'ndmd.
This is the most difficult of the terms which we have to
deal with, and at the same time by far the most important
theologically. Its derivation is uncertain. It is sometimes
(probably erroneously) connected with the root qum, "to stand
up". The Syrians themselves apparently so derived it 1 : at
least they explain it by derivatives of qtim.
Before we can hope to understand what q'ndmd meant to
those who employed it in the controversies of the fifth century
we must try to find out what sort of background it had in
earlier usage.
(1) . In the N.T.
By far the most common use of q'ndmd in writings of all
ages is that in which it is coupled with the personal suffixes
and means "self" ; "my q'ndmd" is "myself", "egomet ipse",
"his q'nomd" is "himself", "ipse" or "se ipsum", and so on.
1 Cf. Payne Smith s.v.
History of the Syriac terms 221
Thus employed it is rather more emphatic than naphshd
dit. "soul"), which is used, much in the same way, as a simple
reflexive, "me", "se", etc. It is in this idiom that <fndm&
niployed in the Petbitta NT. with one exception— if
indeed it be a real exception : in Heb. x 1 the words
avTTfV -njr ifafri tmv irpay/Acrn i air translati d, "not the things'
own q'ndmd". We must leave the discussion of this passage
until we have seen more of the use of q'mhnd.
According to the usage just noticed q'ndmd sometime
the force of the Greek oAu* ; thus at Mt. v 34 in both the
Old Syriac MSS of the Gospels for pr) o/ioV<u oXok we have
"do not swear yourselves (lit. your q'ndmd)". Similarly at
In. ix 34 €V d/iopTwis <rv iy€vvrj$rj<: 5Xo? is rendered in Syr. Sin.
"thou thy q'ndmd wast born in sins", where Prof. Hurkitt
conjectures that oA.u>« was read for oAos. Two similar instances
occur in Bardaisan's Dc Fato\ in both of which we must
translate q'ndmd with the possessive suffix by "at all".
Similarly St Ephraim says of the moon that it is sometimes
invisible "for two actual (or whole) days (lit. for two days
their t/nomj)" *.
(2) Aphraates.
Aphraates several times employs q'ndmd in the ordinary
idiom in which it = " self"; but two passages in which he uses
it call for special notice. In Horn, vi § 1 1 he says that " God
and His Christ, though They are one, yet dwell in many men ;
and They in their q'ndmd (sing.) are in heaven"*. In Horn.
xxiii $ 7* he says, "at another time when he (Moses) prayed
his prayer did not suffice for the q'ndmd of himself". Noldeke
recognizes in this latter instance only an extension of the
1 Ed. Nau op. cit. col. 560 1. aa, and col. 567 1. 9. Cureton Spic. pp. g
1. 1 and 9 1. 9.
a Overbeck op. cit. p. 7a 1. 20.
3 Parisot op. cit. i col. 385 1. 10.
4 id. ii col. ail. 12.
222 Nestorius and his teaching
pronominal use of q'noma 1 ; and I think the same pronominal
force is felt in the former case also, and that Parisot is right in
translating "dum ipsi in caelo remanent ". I believe also that
the same is to be said of the use of q'noma in Heb. x i, and
that we should translate the Syriac, "not the actual things
themselves"*.
But the real question is, What idea underlies this pro-
nominal use? Is it that of reality, actuality, subsistency, or
that of personality? Noldeke says {Gram. § 223) that "q'noma
person'" is "often employed with the personal suffixes to
express the reflexive with accuracy". But according to this
usage it is employed indifferently of persons and of things',
and, like our word "self", it may merely emphasize the refer-
ence to a particular entity, whether it be a person or a thing.
"Self" does not necessarily imply personality.
For further enlightenment we must examine passages in
which q'ndma is used as a simple substantive. Let us try to
understand what St Ephraim's notion of q'noma was.
(3) St Ephraim.
In the tract already quoted, Against False Doctrines, he
writes : " But the spiritual q'noma of the angels bears witness
that their nature is incapable of increase. And not only these
holy ones are lifted above this, but not even does the nature
of the unclean demons receive increase or suffer diminution in
any part of its being (ithuthd); nor is the nature of the sun
ever greater or less than what it is ; for these things and those
like them are complete q'nome, and keep always the quantity
of their nature. But anything that diminishes or increases, or
waxes or wanes, or loses, or grows weak, is by its creation
a perishable nature — though even over natures which are
not perishable the imperishable Will that made them has
1 Syriac Grammar § 223.
2 The expression q'ndmd dilhen is only a strengthened form of q'ndmh^n.
History of the Syriac terms 223
authority '"'. Here Ephraim uses q'ndmd to express that which
in Lndhrisibly one in iti eminence and nature, it dttfen from
his conception of Uhya % in that tins to liim denotes the ultimate
hereasa q'udmA maybe created. It differs from NyAnA
(,is used to denote what l.ardaisan and Mani would call ithyA —
see above under the discussion on #yAnd) in that a k'y&nA may
be divided — as fire— while a q'nfimA is naturally incapable of
-ion or any essential modification. Then H ben no sus-
1 of the idea of personality— St Ephraim did not regard
the sun as a person.
In another treatise published by Overbeck (also against
.1) Ephraim refutes Mani's doctrine that (iood and Evil
arc two co-eternal principles mutually antagonistic. He argues
that good and evil are not Beings at all, but conditions resulting
from the right or wrong use of free-will : " Now if Evil exists
•>u\\i//y (q'normVit/i, an adv. of q'ndmA), as they say, it is
possible for it to be repelled (only) by the Good — which also
exists q y ndmically — for power must resist power, and q'ndmA be
repulsed by q'ndmA^ and force by force be conquered ; for our
word without the hand is not able to move a stone, nor can
our will without the arm move objects about. And if inanimate
and weak objects cannot be moved by our will, how shall it be
• match for mighty Evil?"*
Here Evil is certainly personified ; but this is quite in-
dependently of the use of the word q'nomd : a morally bad
Being must be a person. What the writer means by "and
mA be repulsed by q'ndmd " is shewn by the illustration :
a mere word cannot move a stone : there must be something
with a corresponding q'ndmic existence, some reality. Just so,
if Evil is a q'ndmA, the will, not being a q'ndmA, cannot resist it.
We are not concerned with St Ephraim's logic.
Some fifty years ago the Rev. J. Brande Morris made an ex-
1 Overbeck op. cit. pp. 63 f.
* Op. cit. p. 57.
224 Nestorius and his teaching
cellent translation of a selection of St Ephraim's works, to which
he added many useful and scholarly notes. Having made a
special study of Ephraim's writings he came to the conclusion
that this Father had no fixed theological terminology to express
the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in
the Trinity. He consequently refused to translate q'fioma by
"person" and used either " subsistency " or "reality". On
pp. 398 f. (in the second Hymn On the Faith 1 ) there is an
important passage, which may be given in Morris's translation :
" Thou hast heard of God that He is Father j by His Father-
hood know His Begotten. For if the Father begetteth, the
Son that is from Him did He beget from Himself. That One
Offspring which is the Only-begotten Son, let not thy question-
ings sunder ! thou hast heard of the Brightness of the Son ; do
not thou insult Him by thy questioning ! Thou hast heard of
the Spirit ; surname Him by the Name that they have called
Him. Thou hast heard His Name; praise [Him] by His
Name : to pry into His Name is not allowed. Thou hast
heard of the Father and the Son and the Spirit ; by the Names
hold the Realities {q'nonie). These Names are not blended
together : the Three are in truth blended together. If thou
confessest their Names, and confessest not their Subsistencies
(q'nome), thou art in name a worshipper, in deed an unbeliever.
Where there is nothing in subsistency (q'nomd), the name
which intervenes is an empty one; whatsoever hath no sub-
sistency (q'nomd), of that the appellation also is void: the
word subsistency (q'nomd) teacheth us that it is some reality ".
This is a most instructive passage : on the first occurrence
herein of q'nomt Morris remarks that it is used "in a sense
approximating to Person"; but he observes that from the
subsequent language it appears that the writer " regards q'nomd
1 This Hymn is one of three published in the Roman Edition of
St Ephraim's works vol. iii p. 164. Though only found in one MS of the
1 2th century these hymns bear every internal mark of genuineness. Their
interest is Trinitarian and not Christological.
History of the Syriac terms 225
...as the reality which every name implies, and not as that
reality viewed in a definite sense, as modified by those prope:
which constitute its personality ".
There is a somewhat similar passage in the preceding
Hymn (Morris p. 380). The writer is speaking of the myste-
rious relation of Father and Son in the Godhead: "Confess
that there is a Father and a Son in reality as in Names. The
root of the name is the subsistency (q^ndmA) ; by it the names
IK bound together. For who ever set a name on aught when
the subsistency (q'ndmA) belonging to it had no e?"
Further on (p. 382) : "The name of the fruit belongeth to the
fruit alone, the name of the tree to the root alone. Two
powers and two subsistencies (q'ndme) in one power and love
are mingled. For if there be the name of the fruit, and there
is not the subsistency (q'ndmd) of the fruit, then hast thou
named the tree a stock by the name of the fruit that it bare
not 1 ; as then the tree exists in name, and likewise in subsistency
(q'ndma), the fruit is also like it, in that it also is so in name
and in reality. If the fruit be in name, but the stock in its
subsistency (q'ndmA), a falsity and a reality is there in thy
naming them, since one exists and the other does not.... The
Father thou learnest by His Name, and the Son by His Sur-
name ; thou hast heard ■ Father ', the Name is enough for thee ;
and the Son's Name sufficeth for thee. There is no face
(parsopa) there that thou shouldst be informed by the face
(parsopa) ; their names are to us as faces (parsdpi). By their
names even men when far off are distinguished; by their
names are they learnt. In place of faces (parsdpt) are appel-
lations, and in place of forms (or features) are names. The
voice riseth instead of light, and instead of the eye is the
hearing ".
Morris remarks on this passage : " St E. again and again
1 That is, if the Son is not a reality you must not speak of a " Father".
Observe that the word stfrdrd, "truth", "reality", is several times em-
ployed in these passages as a synonym oiqUtdmA.
B. 15
226 Nestorius and his teaching
speaks of the Names, but does not use the word q'noma alone
(though even the metre would not interfere with his doing so)
for Persons. To express this he contends that the Names
have a reality to answer to them". That is, I venture to
think, a correct statement of the case. To Ephraim q'noma
did not mean " person " : it meant " substantia " or " sub-
stratum". We see also from this passage that parsopa,
though tending towards the meaning "person", was as yet
too materialistic a word to stand for the Persons of the
Trinity.
Commenting on Gen. i i Ephraim writes (Ed. Rom. i 6 a) :
"In the beginning, it says, God created the being 1 of the
heaven and the being ' of the earth : i.e. the tfnoma, of the
heaven and the tfnoma of the earth". He argues from this
that the passage does not admit of being interpreted away,
and the words " heaven " and " earth " of being taken figura-
tively : we must understand that " they are truly heaven and
earth".
From all this it would appear that the idea which under-
lies the various pronominal uses considered above is not that
of personality, but that by the use of q'noma the notion of
actuality or reality is coupled with a noun or pronominal suffix
in order to give it emphasis.
We now come to the question, What did tfnotna mean to
the Syrians of the fifth and following centuries who used it in
the great Christological controversies ?
The first point to be noticed is that at this period it is the
regular word to translate woo-rcum. In the Heraclides of
1 The word ydth is here employed in the Peshitta in the attempt to
render literally the Hebrew objective particle eth. Like fthfithd ydth is
said to mean "being" or "essence" ; but as I have scarcely ever met it in the
earlier writers except when coupled (like q'ndmd) with pronominal suffixes
in the sense of " self", and as it seems never to have acquired any specifically
theological colouring, I have not attempted to discuss its use.
History of the Syriac terms 227
Nestonus it .stands for the hit i . r Greet word in quotations
made from the Nicene anathema; also in 1 nm and
s to some of St Cyrils Utters of which we possess the
originals, and in other places where the hypostatic as opposed
to ti .;• union is clearly meant it igun represents.
iVoorourccj? of the Nicene anatliema in the Syriac version
published by Martin'. It is true that in Heb. i 3 vwwrraai,
rendered by UhMhA ; but that version dates back before the
of the Christological controversies; and in any case vro-
<rra<ris there means, according to its older sense, owrtia, tin
1 >ivine being considered in its unity ; and we have seen that
it/iuthd is the one Syriac term that exactly expresses this.
Yet even here we find q'ndmd for viroorao-is in an extant Syriac
on of a letter of Andrew of Samosata to Rabbula of Edessa
in which Heb. i 3 is quoted in connexion with the Nestorian
controversy'. Finally the Nestorian Catholicus Isho'yabh III
(647 — 658) writes in a letter to Sahdona, or Sahda : " Learn
then from those who know the language that the Greeks call
fmdmd ipdst&sis " (i.e. xmwrrams)*.
The next point is that Syrians of all communions spoke of
three q'ndmi in the Trinity. This, of course, corresponds to a
well-known use of vVdorcuri? in Greek theology — one, however,
which did not always pass unchallenged.
A third fact is equally well ascertained, though it has not
always been recognized, viz. that Nestorians and Monophysites
alike regarded the doctrine of one q'ndmd in Christ as tanta-
mount to the assertion of one nature (k'y&nd) : exactly as
Nestorius himself (and some of those who, accepting the
1 Loc.cti.
a Overbeck op. cit. p. 723 1. f I. Cf. also in the present vol. p. 178,
note 4.
* Printed by Budge in his edition of Thomas of Marga's Book of
Coventors vol. ii p. 136; re-edited by R. Duval in his edition of
Isho'yabh's letters, Corpus Scriptotum Oritntalium 3rd series t. lxiv
p. 131.
228 Nestorius and his teaching
Council of Ephesus, afterwards declared for Monophysitism)
maintained that unity of vVooTacris implied unity of <f>vo-is.
Before proceeding to quote one or two formal explanations
of parsopd and q'noma which were given by Nestorian writers
of the seventh century we may notice a couple of passages in
which Narsai, a fifth century writer, employs q'?wma in a non-
theological sense. He says in one place 1 : "Something, be it
never so contemptible, is better than nothing, by how much
the q'noma that exists (lit. stands) is more real than the
shadow ". Notice here (besides the familiar contrast of sub-
stance with shadow) the use of the verb qtim ("to stand")
to explain q'noma. In describing the horrors of Gehenna
Narsai says there will be there " immaterial fire (lit. fire with-
out k'yana), worms without body, and unsubstantial darkness
(lit. darkness without q'noma) ".
Early in the seventh century Babai, a distinguished Nestorian
theologian, and abbot of the great convent on Mount Izla 2 ,
wrote a work on the union of the two natures in our Lord.
This work is unpublished; but there is a MS of it in the
Vatican Library 3 . M. Labourt when writing his excellent little
book Le Christianisme dans V empire perse had access to a copy,
and he has given several extracts from the treatise De Unione,
and amongst them the following :
" We apply the term hypostasis to the particular substance
(ovo-ia), which subsists in its own single being, numerically one
and separate from the rest ; not in so far as it is individualized,
but in so far as, if it belong to the class of things created,
rational, and free, it receives various properties — such as virtue
or blame, knowledge or ignorance, and if it be among things
that do not possess reason, in like manner various properties
in consequence of contrary temperaments, or in an altogether
different way Hypostasis is invariable in respect of its own
1 Mingana, op. cit. vol. i p. 37.
2 See Wright Syriac Literature p. 167.
3 Wright ib. p. 168 refers to Catal. Vat. iii. 372.
History of the Syriac terms 229
nature and in its kind («!$<*), for the nature of the hypostas.
common to it and to all like hypostases. But it is extinguished
from the hypostases that arc like- it 1>\ tin- individual attributes
which \\\c person possesses : Gabriel is not Michael, Paul is not
Peter. But in each of these hypostases, the nature which is
common to them all shews itself, and reflexion leads to the
recognition of the single nature which embrace* the hypostases
in common, whether it be the nature of men or the nature of
other things. But the hypostasis does not embrace the universal.
As t. , it is that characteristic of the hypostasis which
distinguishes it from other hypostases. The hypostasis of Paul
is not the hypostasis of Peter. On the count of nature and
of hypostasis, there is no difference between them ; for both
of them have a body and a soul, are alive, rational and
corporeal. But by person they are distinguished each from
the other, in virtue of the individual particularity which each
possesses, whether it be on account of wisdom, or of strength,
or of figure, or of appearance or temperament, or of paternity
or sonship, or by masculine or feminine sex, or in any nay,
whatever it may be, that distinguishes and reveals the particular
characteristics and shews that this man is not that woman, and
that that woman is not this man, although on the count of
nature there is no difference between them. And because the
particular characteristic which the hypostasis possesses is not
the hypostasis itself, the term person is used of that which
makes the distinction." 1
The Syriac word rendered hypostasis is no doubt q'ndmA,
though M. Labourt does not say so. But even if it be only
the Greek word transliterated it matters little, since q'ndmd was
at this period its recognized Syriac equivalent. No doubt the
words "in so far as... it (the hypostasis) receives various proper
ties" mean, "in so far as it is receptive of", etc. : it is person
that adds these distinguishing attributes.
1 Rabat De uuiotu ch. xx apud J. Labourt Le Christianisme dans
fempire perse pp. 183 — 285.
230 Nestorius and his teaching
We have already spoken of the Catholicus Isho'yabh III
who wrote later in the same century (eighth) as Babai. Several
of his letters deal with the case of Sahdona, bishop of Mahoze
dhe Ariwan, who seems to have attempted to bring about an
understanding between the Nestorians and the Catholics on
the ground that the latter used v7rocrrao-is in the same sense
as 7rpoo-(i)7rov, and that the word q'nomd might be capable of
a similar interpretation. Isho'yabh writes to the clergy and
people of Sahdona' s diocese as follows 1 : "You have purified
your believing Church from all the wicked and % multiform error
of those who by unity of q'nomd, that is to say of nature,
destroy the confession of our faith". Again, in the same
letter : " For you all know, as men taught of God, that one
q'nomd necessarily indicates one nature .. .and, that we should
understand this q'nomd as par sop a, i.e. parsopa by q'nomd,...
this the ancient meanings which attach to the words utterly
forbid. ...And that there cannot arise from the Divinity and the
humanity a single subsistency (?n' qimiithd) or a single q'nomd
the impossibility of the things cries out as with a loud voice ".
In the letter to Sahdona already quoted he explains the differ-
ence between parsopa and q'nomd : " For parsopa, O brother,
is that which distinguishes the q'nomd, and it has a great
variety of ideas connected with it, and has a ready aptitude
for being bartered and exchanged 2 , and, as I have said, it
contains a complex idea. But q'nomd merely contains the
idea of essence 3 as isolated; and by the simple declaration
1 Budge op. cit. ii 133 ; Duval op. cit. p. 223.
2 i.e. personality is something that is capable of being transferred or
delegated. The writer is probably thinking of the union of natures in
Christ, where (according to Nestorius) the person of the Word takes the
place of a separate human irp6<r<airov, without, however, impairing the per-
fection of the human virSffraats.
3 The word k'ydn&yiithd is explained as " quiditas naturalis, quae de
omni re definitione statuitur ". Thus it is nearer to "essence" or "substance"
than to " nature " {k'ydnd).
History of the Syriac terms 231
Of its eSStence it remains embracing fa whole idea
ssence 8 as it is exhibited (i.e. in ■ co n c r ete ip*
and it does not admit of being bartered and exchanged".
Further on in the same letter: "Nor should you, O brother,
have recourse to another error, to the effect that some say
t li.it among the Creeks /w,w»/«f and q'ndmd are the Mme.
Learn then from. ..those who know the language that the
Greeks call q'ndmd ipdshhis, Le. fVrtwJ, and 'that which
subsists ' (qayydmd), and 'subsistency ' (m'qlmMM), and 'sub-
stance ' (quyydmd); but parsdpd they call prosopon, i.e. parsdpd,
and 'face', and 'individuality' {pnshuilui), and '(that which
is capable of) perception', and 'that which declare! a free and
independent self (ydthd) ' ".
Let us ask finally what the Monophysite Syrians thought
about tfndmd.
In the Introduction to his edition of the Discourses of Philo-
xenus, the Monophysite champion, who died early in the sixth
century, Dr Budge prints a tract by the same author in which
he is arguing against the Chalcedonian doctrine of one vrroorcum
and two natures in Christ. His point is that it is folly to allow
two natures when you speak of one q'ndmd : " There is no
k'yiind without a q'ndmd, neither is there a q'ndmd without
a k'ydnd. But if there are two Pydne, then there must be two
q'ndme and two Sons "*. Similar arguments are employed for
several pages. When Philoxenus says that there is no nature
that has not a q'ndmd he surely means by this word a " sub-
sistency " and not a " person ".
Again, in Wright's Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the
British Museum, p. 93 7 b , there is a quotation from a MS
1 I take this to mean that q'ndmd is an essence with existence predicated
of it, which circumscribes and isolates it and constitutes it a single entity.
* See p. 230, note 3.
* p. exxiii (text), p. xxxix (transl.). The reader is warned that where
"Person" occurs in Dr Budge's translation the Syriac word is regularly
q'ndmd.
232 Nestorius and his teaching
of the eighth century which contains a catena of passages from
the Fathers in favour of the Monophysite doctrine. It is to
this effect: "Wherefore, the Synod of Chalcedon did nothing
different from the former heretics, in that it confessed one Son
and one Christ but [separated] the two inseparable natures,
and understood tfnoma as parsopa after the view of Nestorius,
as Theodoret testifies ".
This statement is somewhat confused : but when we take
it to pieces it implies that tfnoma cannot mean the same as
parsopa, but is equivalent to nature. Then, the strange mis-
statement about Nestorius I take to mean this : that the
writer, being convinced that Nestorius taught two persons,
concluded that he spoke of two v7roorao-€is (i.e. tfnome) in the
sense of two 7rpoVa>7ra. Though Nestorius maintained two
v7roo-Tao-€is in Christ, he denied that this implied two irpocruyrra
or two Sons.
Chronological Table of Syriac Writers referred to in the
foregoing Appendix
Bardaisan, died c. A.D. 222, called " the last of the Gnostics ".
Philip, disciple of Bardaisan, wrote the De Fato, probably after
his master's death.
Aphraates, the " Persian Sage ", wrote the last of his Homilies
A.D. 345.
Ephraim, died A.D. 373 (for a list of certainly genuine works see
Burkitt, S. EphrainCs Quotations from the Gospel, in Texts
and Studies, vol. vii no. 2).
Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, died A.D. 435.
Sharbil, Acts of, composed about the beginning of the fifth century.
Isaac of Antioch, fl. (probably) towards the end of the fifth or
the beginning of the sixth century.
Narsai, died c. 502.
Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbog, died c. a.d. 523.
Babai, died about the middle of the seventh century.
Isho'yabh III, Nestorian Catholicus, died c. 658.
SAHDONA, or Sahda, contemporary of Isho'yabh.
Cambridge: printed by john clay, m.a. at the university press.
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
TO— ► 202 Main Library
LOAN PERIOD 1
— HOME USE
2 ;
3
4
5 (
b
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
ADO Ol "ft«
*
ArN^i a
^JSTMAY 1 5J9 (
n
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720
«y
mi mi i ii 1 111 1 iiiiii ii
/
JS574
*""■> A
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
