Five Tomes Against Nestorius — Translator’s Introduction

When Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, died in A.D. 412, his nephew and successor, Cyril, suddenly appears before us. We have only a few scattered references to Cyril's earlier life. We do not know what year he was born, anything about his parents, or where he was raised. That Cyril received a thoroughly good education is abundantly clear—not only from his very extensive reading, which a mind as broad as Cyril's would always seek out for itself, but also because his reading was so well digested, which indicates good early training. The great accuracy of his theology indicates a most accurate theological education. That education included a wide range of secular study as well as divinity, and probably involved a good deal of memorization, not only of the holy Scriptures but also of non-Christian authors, as shown by a line of Antipater Sidonius quoted in his Commentary on Zechariah. He also quotes Josephus on the Jewish war. On Habakkuk 3:2, he mentions interpretations of that verse of two different kinds; on Hosea he gives a long excerpt from a writer whose works we apparently do not possess. Tillemont remarks that "his books against Julian show that he had a large acquaintance with secular writers."¹

On the death of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 412, his nephew and successor, S. Cyril, comes suddenly before us. For of S. Cyril's previous life we have only a few scattered notices. We do not know in what year he was born, nor any thing of his parents, nor where he was brought up. That S. Cyril had received a thoroughly good education, is abundantly clear; not only from his very extensive reading, which a mind of such large grasp as S. Cyril's would ever provide for itself, but that his reading being so well digested implies good early training. The great accuracy of his Theology implies a most accurate Theological education. That education included a large range of secular study as well as of Divinity, and probably comprised a good deal of learning by heart, not only of the holy Scriptures but also of profane authors, as witness a line of Antipater Sidonius quoted in his Commentary on Zechariah. He quotes too Josephus on the Jewish war. On Hab. iii. 2, he mentions interpretations of that verse of two different kinds: on Hosea he gives a long extract from a writer whom we do not apparently possess. Tillemont remarks, that " his books against Julian shew that he had a large acquaintance with secular writers."¹

We can deduce that Cyril was raised in a monastery, which served as a place for Christian education. Given the great respect he always showed to Isidore, Abbot of Pelusium, it seems quite possible that Isidore was his teacher during part of his early life. Isidore hints at some special connection in one of his short letters to Cyril when he was Archbishop. Near the start, Isidore writes, "If I am your father as you say I am, or if I am your son as I know I am, since you occupy the chair of Mark, etc." The many Platonic terms in Isidore's letters seem to suggest that he too had read Plato extensively, and Cyril may have gained some of his knowledge of Aristotle from him.²

We may infer that S. Cyril was brought up at some monastery, as a place of Christian education, and from the great reverence which he ever paid to S. Isidore, Abbot of Pelusium, it seems not unlikely that S. Isidore was his instructor during some part of his early life. S. Isidore alludes to some especial tie, in one of his brief letters to S. Cyril, when Archbishop. Near the beginning, S. Isidore says, " If I be your father as you say I be,…..or if I be your son as I know I am, seeing that you hold the chair of S. Mark &c." The large number of Platonic words in S. Isidore's letters seem to indicate that he too had extensive reading of Plato, and S. Cyril may have acquired from him some of his knowledge of Aristotle.²

But a mind of Cyril's breadth would have felt itself lost in the desert, longing for its own calling, and another letter from the same Isidore to Cyril, reproaching him for having his heart set on the world, may belong to this period. His uncle, Archbishop Theophilus, invited him to live with him and, we may reasonably conclude, ordained him as a priest and made him one of his clergy. In a very long letter that Cyril wrote around A.D. 432 to the elderly Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he mentions in passing the fact that he was present at the Synod of the Oak in A.D. 403, where Chrysostom's troubles began. Cyril would naturally have been there as part of Archbishop Theophilus' official entourage. Cyril says, "When your holy synod was gathered at great Constantinople, and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying this—"³⁴

But a mind of S. Cyril's grasp would feel itself lost in the desert, yearning for its own calling, and another Letter of the same S.Isidore to S.Cyril, reproaching him with his heart being in the world, may belong to this period. His uncle Archbishop Theophilus had him to live with him and, we may infer, ordained him priest and made him one of his Clergy. In a very long letter which S. Cyril wrote about A.D. 432 to the aged Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he incidentally mentions the fact that he was at the synod of the Oak, in A.D. 403, where S. Chrysostom's troubles began. S. Cyril would of course be there, as a portion of Archbishop Theophilus' official attendance. S. Cyril says, " When your holy Synod was gathered at great Constantinople…. and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying thus.—-"³⁴

When Cyril became Archbishop of Alexandria, he immediately gained a position of great power in the city. The early part of his time as archbishop brought trials related to the conflict between him and Orestes the governor, which resulted from a Jewish uprising against the Christians. This was followed by several years of relative peace, during which Cyril seems to have been rarely heard of outside his large diocese. Even in the quietest times, the Archbishops of Alexandria maintained yearly contact with churches everywhere through the annual letter they wrote to announce the date on which Easter would fall. Cyril's letters were clearly intended primarily for his own Egypt. For example, in his seventh Paschal homily in 419, he speaks very strongly about acts of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. Cyril introduces the subject with "And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian territory," showing that the letters themselves had a broader scope. I do not know at what time the letter was sent out so that it would reach the distant churches of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch in time to announce when Lent would begin. However, although Cyril became Archbishop in October 412, his first letter was for 414, in the early part of which (as Tillemont points out) Cyril speaks of having succeeded his uncle. He introduces the subject by mentioning the natural fear that people of old had regarding "the greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as examples of this, adds that "since the role of the priesthood calls one to preach, in fear of the words, Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."⁵⁶⁷

S. Cyril's accession to the Archiepiscopal Throne of Alexandria brought him at once into a position of great power in Alexandria; and brought too, in the early part of it, trials in regard of the disunion between him and Orestes the Governor resulting from the Jewish insurrection against the Christians. To this succeeded some years of great quiet, during which S. Cyril seems to have been very little heard of, outside his Great Diocese. The Archbishops of Alexandria, even in the very stillest times, were brought into yearly contact with the Churches every where by the annual Letter which they wrote to announce the day on which Easter would fall. S. Cyril's letters were evidently intended primarily for his own Egypt. Thus in his seventh Paschal homily A.D. 419, he speaks very strongly about deeds of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. S. Cyril introduces the subject with, " And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian territory," shewing that the Letters themselves had a larger scope. I do not know at what time the Letter was sent out, so as to reach the distant churches of Rome and Constantinople and Antioch in good time to announce when Lent would begin. But although S. Cyril became Archbishop in October A.D. 412, his first Letter was for 414, in the early part of which (as Tillemont points out) S. Cyril speaks of having succeeded his Uncle. He introduces the subject by mentioning the natural dread of those of old, of " the greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as instances of this, adds, that "since the garb of the priesthood calls to preach, in fear of the words, Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."⁵⁶⁷

During these quiet years, Cyril probably spent much of his time working on his earlier writings. Two of these dealt with selected passages from the Pentateuch: one volume was dedicated to passages Cyril believed could be understood as types of our Lord, while the other covered the remaining passages as types of the church. The commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets, as well as the books written against the Emperor Julian, likely belong to this period. In addition, Cyril followed the example of his great predecessor Athanasius by writing two books against the Arians: first, the Thesaurus, in which Cyril applied his knowledge of Aristotle; then the de Trinitate, which was written before A.D. 424, though not published until later. In his Paschal homily for A.D. 424, Cyril also discussed the Eternal Generation of the Son, and toward the end of the homily he opposed the Arian terms "Generate" and "Ingenerate."⁸

Much of these quiet years S. Cyril probably employed on his earlier writings: of these, two were on select passages of the Pentateuch; one volume being allotted to those which S. Cyril thought could in any way be adapted as types of our Lord, the other to the rest, as being types of the church. The commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets and the Books against the Emperor Julian probably belong to this period. Besides these S. Cyril, following the example of his great predecessor S. Athanasius, wrote two Books against the Arians: first, the Thesaurus, in which S. Cyril brought to bear his knowledge of Aristotle; then the de Trinitate, which was written, though not published till later, before A.D. 424. In his Paschal homily for that year A.D. 424, S. Cyril also speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son, and towards the close of the homily he opposes the Arian terms "Generate," "Ingenerate."⁸

In A.D. 429, when writings by Nestorius began circulating in Egypt, Cyril first wrote about the heresy of Nestorius. There is little doubt that the powerful mind of Leo, who was the driving force behind the Council of Chalcedon, learned through those writings in his younger days when he served as Archdeacon under Pope Celestine in 429, just as Cyril himself had been taught by the writings of Athanasius.

A. D. 429, the circulation of tracts of Nestorius in Egypt occasioned him first to write on the heresy of Nestorius. There can be little doubt that the powerful mind of S. Leo, who was the soul of the Council of Chalcedon, was, in his young days when S. Celestine's Archdeacon in 429, taught through those writings; as S. Cyril himself had been taught by the writings of S. Athanasius.

The 12 Chapters, which were attached to his final letter to Nestorius, caused problems for Cyril later in his time as bishop. Because of this, it is worth presenting them in full here. They were written to prevent any evasion of what that letter stated.

The 12 Chapters, appended to his last letter to Nestorius, were made a trouble to S. Cyril at a later period of his Episcopate, so that it may be well to give them in full. They were framed to preclude any evasion of that letter.

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God because she bore in the flesh the Word from God who became flesh, let him be anathema.

1. If any one confess not, that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she hath borne after the flesh the Word out of God made Flesh, be he anathema.

2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been personally united to flesh, and that He is one Christ with His own flesh—the same being both God and man—let him be anathema.

2. If any one confess not, that the Word out of God the Father hath been personally united to Flesh, and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.

3. If anyone divides the Hypostases of the one Christ after the Union, joining them only by a connection of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together into Unity of Nature, let him be anathema.

3. If any one sever the Hypostases of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a concurrence unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema.

4. If anyone distributes the words in the Gospels and apostolic writings—whether spoken about Christ by the saints or by Christ about Himself—to two persons or hypostases, attributing some to a man considered separately from the Word who is from God, and others as befitting God to the Word alone who is from God the Father, let him be anathema.

4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is out of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is out of God the Father, be he anathema.

5. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man bearing God, and not rather that He is truly God as being the one Son and that by nature, because the Word became flesh and shared in blood and flesh like us, let him be anathema.

5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son, and That by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh, be he anathema.

6. If anyone dares to say that the Word who is from God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, rather than confessing that the same one is both God and man because the Word has been made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

6. If any one dare to say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema.

7. If anyone says that Jesus was indwelt as a man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten was placed upon Him, as though He were someone other than the Word Himself, let him be anathema.⁹

7. If any one say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.⁹

8. If anyone dares to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and called God together with Him, as one person in another person (for the prefix "co-" that is constantly added forces us to understand it this way), and does not instead honor Emmanuel with a single act of worship and offer to Him one doxology, since the Word has been made Flesh, let him be anathema.

8. If any one shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one worship, and send up to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

9. If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, using the Spirit's power as if it belonged to another, and receiving from the Spirit the power to work against unclean spirits and to accomplish divine signs among men, and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, through whom He also worked the divine signs, let him be anathema.

9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs towards men, and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom also He wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.

The Divine Scripture says that Christ has been made the High Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us as a fragrance of a sweet smell to God the Father. If anyone therefore says that it was not the very Word from God who was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made flesh and man like us, but that the man born of a woman was made this separately by himself as someone other than He, or if anyone says that He offered the sacrifice on His own behalf as well and not only for us alone (for He who knows no sin had no need of an offering), let him be anathema.

10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the Sigh Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that, not the Very Word out of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart by himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and that it is the very own flesh of the Word Himself who is from God the Father, but instead says that it belongs to someone other than Him, connected to Him only by dignity or as having divine indwelling, and does not rather confess that it is life-giving (as we said) because it has become the very own flesh of the Word who is able to give life to all things, let him be anathema.

11. If any one confess not, that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father, but says that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only, and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the firstborn from the dead—since as God He is both Life and Life-giving—let him be anathema.

12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

The great diocese of Antioch, barely recovering from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness, oppression, and false belief, had been closely confronted with Apollinarianism—a false belief that the Only-Begotten Son took flesh only without a rational soul, and that His mindless body was somehow mixed together with the Godhead. Saint Athanasius and others add, among the forms of this false belief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's body was consubstantial with His Godhead. Saint Cyril in his Dialogue speaks of the great fear widespread among some people that if one Incarnate physis (nature) were held, the body must be believed to be consubstantial with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme western boundary of that great diocese or province of Antioch, sent to Saint Cyril a question to the same effect. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these chapters were issued, had held that the manhood of the Only-Begotten was a distinct man, having some undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings. So great was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy that there seems to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern bishops. Nestorius had cleverly sent the chapters to John of Antioch apart from the letter to himself, which would have made misinterpretation impossible. He sent them as propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church. John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, immediately pronounced them, thus unexplained, to be Apollinarian. He applied in an encyclical letter to the bishops of his patriarchate to have them disclaimed, but without naming the author, whom John did not believe to be Saint Cyril, and asked two of the bishops of his province, Andrew Bishop of Samosata and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shows that he read the chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly replies not to the chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that they contained. His reply is mainly orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as if his belief was rather vague, but he twists Saint Cyril's words so as to mean mixture, and so replies. Theodoret seems never to have gotten over his misapprehension. For in his long letter to the monks of his province—Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia—he still speaks of chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed into flesh, and of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms personal union and natural union, teaching through these names a mixture and confusion of the divine physis and the bondman's form. This is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation. And after speaking of chapter 4, he sums up, These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly more wicked descendants of a wicked parent. In his letter to John Bishop of Germanicia, written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, Let them deny now the chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed.^{10111213141516}

The Great Diocese of Antioch, barely rallying from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness oppression and misbelief, had been in close quarters with Apollinarianism, a misbelief that the Only-Begotten Son took flesh only without a reasonable soul, and that His mind-less Body was somehow immingled with the Godhead. S. Athanasius and others add, among the forms of the misbelief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's Body was consubstantial with His Godhead. S. Cyril in his Dialogue speaks of the great fear prevalent among some, that if One Incarnate Nature were holden, the Body must be believed to be consubstantial with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme west boundary of that great Diocese or Province of Antioch, sent to S. Cyril a question to the same effect. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these Chapters were issued, had held that the Manhood of the Only-Begotten was a man distinct, having some undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings; and so great was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy, that there seems to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern Bishops. [Nestorius had dexterously sent the Chapters to John of Antioch apart from the Epistle to himself, which would have made misinterpretation impossible. He sent them as 'propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church.'] John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, pronounced them at once (thus unexplained) to be Apollinarian; applied in an Encyclical letter to the Bishops of his Patriarchate to have them 'disclaimed, but without naming the author,' whom John did not believe to be S. Cyril, and asked two of the Bishops of his Province, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shews that he read the Chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly replies, not to the Chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that they contained. His reply is in the main orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as if his belief was rather vague, but he twists S. Cyril's words so as to mean 'mixture,' and so replies. Theodoret seems never to have got over his misapprehension. For in his long Letter to the Monks of his Province, Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, he still speaks of Chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed into flesh; of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms, Personal Union and Natural Union, "teaching through these names a mixture and confusion of the Divine Nature and the bondman's form: this is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation." And after speaking of Chapter 4, he sums up, "These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly more wicked descendants of a wicked parent." In his letter to John Bishop of Germanicia, written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, "Let them deny now the chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed."^{10111213141516}

Andrew of Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have had a much clearer position on the Incarnation and to have believed that some of Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian without objecting to all of them. Andrew's main objection to chapter 1 appears to have been that he misunderstood the phrase "for she bore according to the flesh (σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the Birth was entirely natural and therefore not from a Virgin. Andrew passes over chapter 2 as if the term "Personal Union" had not even struck him as problematic. In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an unacceptable expression for something that is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that because the words are not to be assigned to distinct Persons, Cyril must have meant that they are not to be assigned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the One Person of the Incarnate God. Cyril had said throughout his life that they were to be assigned in this way, but Andrew had obviously not read Cyril's writings. Andrew shows his own clear belief by using the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις (entire union) here, and the closing words of his reply to chapter 11 are "we confess the union entire (τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and divine and incomprehensible to us." These are almost identical to Cyril's expressions "we shall not take away the difference in nature by uniting them entirely (διὰ τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν)" and in his reply to Andrew, διὰ τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.¹⁷¹⁸

Andrew of Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have been decidedly more definite in his belief on the Incarnation, and to have thought that some of S. Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian without objecting to all. Thus Andrew's chief objection to chapter 1 appears to have been that he mistook the words "for she hath borne after the flesh ( σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the Birth was entirely in the order of nature and so not of a Virgin. Andrew passes over chapter 2, as though the term, "Personal Union," had not even struck him as a difficulty. In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an inadmissible expression, as to what is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that because the words are not to be apportioned to distinct Persons, therefore S. Cyril meant, that they are not to be apportioned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the One Person of the Incarnate God. S. Cyril had all his life said that they were to be so apportioned, but Andrew had of course not read S. Cyril's writings. Andrew shews his own definite belief by the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις, entire union, here; and, ' we confess the union entire ( τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and Divine and incomprehensible to us,' are the closing words of his reply to chapter 11. These are almost identical with S. Cyril's expressions, "we shall not take away the unlike by nature through wholly uniting them ( διὰ τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν)," and in his reply to Andrew, διὰτὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.¹⁷¹⁸

Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, and there is nothing in them that one would expect him to reject. He agrees with chapter 7, simply adding that in rejecting what Cyril rejects, we must not reject the apostolic words which speak of Christ in his human nature. Andrew also agrees with chapter 8, but does not fully understand it. In chapter 9, he overlooks the words "as though it were Another's." In chapter 10, Andrew thinks that the statement "the very Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means that the Godhead by itself was made such.

Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, nor is there anything in them which one would expect him not to accept. With chapter 7 he agrees, merely saying that in rejecting what S. Cyril rejects, we must not reject the Apostolic words which speak of Him in His human nature. "With chapter 8 too Andrew agrees, but does not quite understand the co. In chapter 9, he overlooks the words, "as though it were Another's:" in chapter 10, Andrew thinks that " the Yery Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means 'the Godhead apart by Itself was so made.'

We can see in our own times how prejudice can distort the meaning of words that are in themselves perfectly clear. Otherwise it seems inconceivable that language as plain as that of the Anathematisms, if read with the aim of understanding their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret, and Andrew. Much unholy dissension would have been avoided if John, instead of asking Theodoret and Andrew to respond to them, had sought an explanation from Saint Cyril himself. Saint Cyril, fully conscious of his own meaning, would naturally have given the explanation which later satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of Emesa.

[We see in our own times, how prejudice can distort the meaning of words in themselves perfectly intelligible; else it seems inconceivable that language so clear as that of the Anathematisms, if read with a view to understand their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret, and Andrew. Much unhallowed dissension would have been saved, if John, instead of asking Theodoret and Andrew to reply to them, had sought an explanation from S. Cyril himself. S. Cyril, in clear consciousness of his own meaning, would, of course, have given the explanation which afterwards satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of Emesa.

Petavius examined S. Cyril's anathematisms with his characteristic thoroughness, comparing them with Nestorius's counter-anathematisms, the criticisms from the Orientals and from Theodoret, and S. Cyril's responses. His conclusion is that there is nothing in S. Cyril's Anathematisms that is not correct and consistent with the Catholic rule, and that those who criticized or opposed them failed to make their case against him except through nitpicking and foolish slander. De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully examined in English in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.

S. Cyril's anathematisms have been weighed by Petavius with his usual solidity, as compared with the counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, the criticisms of the Orientals and of Theodoret, and S. Cyril's answers. His summary is, 'There is nothing in S. Cyril's Anathematisms not right and in harmony with the Catholic rule, nor did those who detract from or oppose them maintain their ground against him except through cavils and foolish calumnies.' De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully compared in English in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.]

Though Apollinarianism in its early form, before it spread widely as Eutychianism, seems to have mainly troubled Asia rather than Egypt, Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he clearly mentions and rejects Apollinarian errors and denies the claim "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." Cyril's tenth Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, just as much as what Cyril wrote when the Nestorian troubles had begun. In his commentary on Habakkuk, Cyril affirms, as he does throughout his whole life, that our Lord was not diminished by the Incarnation: "Yet even though He has been made flesh and has been set forth by the Father as a propitiation, He has not cast away what He was, that is, being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."¹⁹²⁰

Though Apollinarianism in its early form, ere its great spread as Eutychianism, seems to have chiefly troubled Asia rather than Egypt, S. Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he distinctly mentions and repudiates Apollinarian errors and denies the οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ γέγονε, "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." S. Cyril's tenth Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, not less than what S. Cyril wrote when the Nestorian troubles had begun. On Habaccuc S. Cyril affirms, as he does through his whole life, that our Lord was not worsened by the Incarnation; "Yet even though He has been made flesh and hath been set forth by the Father as a propitiation, He hath not cast away what He was, i.e., the being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."¹⁹²⁰

In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to become Archbishop of Constantinople. Because S. Cyril's famous Paschal homily for the following year, A.D. 429, dealt with the subject of the Incarnation, some have assumed that rumors of the denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. However, the Paschal homilies for A.D. 420 and 423 show that the Incarnation, the foundation and support of our souls, was a subject S. Cyril loved to focus on. During the year 429, however, even Egypt was disturbed by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons made their way into Egypt and were read and studied in the monasteries. This caused so much trouble in the minds of some of the monks that S. Cyril wrote a letter to them, explaining that the Incarnation means that God the Son united to Himself His own human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This letter circulated widely and reached Constantinople. It annoyed Nestorius. There was still a lingering bitterness toward Alexandria stemming from Theophilus' treatment of S. Chrysostom. Besides this, the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation—the manhood united by God the Son to His own self—was to Nestorius Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so himself. In his letter to S. Celestine he speaks of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and describes it this way,^2122232425

In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to be Archbishop of Constantinople. From the circumstance that S. Cyril's celebrated Paschal homily for the next year, A.D. 429, was on the subject of the Incarnation, it has been supposed that rumours of the denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. But the Paschal homilies for A.D. 420 and 423, shew that the Incarnation, the foundation and stay of our souls, was a subject, which S. Cyril loved to dwell on. In the course of the year 429, however, even Egypt was troubled by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons passed into Egypt, and were read and pondered over in the Monasteries. This occasioned so much disturbance in the minds of some of the Monks, that S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them, pointing out that the Incarnation means, that God the Son united to Him His own human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This Letter had an extended circulation and reached Constantinople. It vexed Nestorius. There was still a traditional soreness towards Alexandria, from the behaviour of Theophilus to S. Chrysostom. Besides this, the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, the manhood united by God the Son to His own self, was to Nestorius, Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so. In his letter to S. Celestine he tells of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and thus describes it,^2122232425

This is no small illness, but one closely related to the corrupt teachings of Apollinarius and Arius. For they reduce the Lord's union with humanity to a kind of confused mixture, to the point that even certain clergy among us—some from lack of understanding, others from heretical deception long hidden within them—are infected with heresy and openly blaspheme God the Word who is Consubstantial with the Father. They act as though He began His existence from the Virgin mother of Christ, was constructed together with His Temple, and was buried together with His flesh. They claim that the flesh after the resurrection did not remain flesh but passed into the physis of Godhead. They trace the Godhead of the Only-Begotten back to the beginning of the flesh that was joined with it, they make it subject to death along with the flesh, and they blasphemously say that the flesh joined with Godhead passed over into Godhead—using the very term "deifying," which amounts to nothing less than corrupting both.²⁶

'It is a sickness not small, but akin to the putrid sore of Apollinarius and Arius. For they mingle the Lord's union in man to a confusion of some sort of mixture, insomuch that even certain clerks among us, of whom some from lack of understanding, some from heretical guile of old time concealed within them.. are sick as heretics, and openly blaspheme God the Word Consubstantial with the Father, as though He had taken beginning of His Being of the Virgin mother of Christ, and had been built up with His Temple and buried with His flesh, and say that the flesh after the resurrection did not remain [miscuisse seems an error for mansisse] flesh but passed into the Nature of Godhead, and they refer the Godhead of the Only-Begotten to the beginning of the flesh which was connected with It, and they put It to death with the flesh, and blasphemously say that the flesh connected with Godhead passed into Godhead, using the very word deifying, which is nothing else than to corrupt both.'²⁶

Nestorius repeats the same thing in his second letter to Saint Celestine. Saint Cyril had clearly set forth the mode of the Union in his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius using these words. Nestorius does not understand this language and says the following about it:²⁷

Nestorius repeats the same in his second letter to S. Celestine. S. Cyril having in his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius put forth clearly the mode of the Union in these words, Nestorius does not understand the language and says thus of it,²⁷

I now turn to the second chapter of your letter, where I begin to praise the separation of the natures with regard to Godhead and Manhood and their union into one prosopon, and that we must not say that God the Word needed a second birth from a woman, and must confess that the Godhead cannot receive suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and oppose the bad reputations of all the heresies regarding the Lord's natures. As for the rest, whether they bring to the readers' ears some hidden, incomprehensible wisdom is for your precision to determine; to me they seem to overturn what came before. For the one who in the preceding section is proclaimed impassible and incapable of receiving a second birth, they introduce as somehow capable of suffering and newly created, as though the qualities naturally inherent in God the Word were corrupted by union with the Temple, etc.²⁸

'I come now to the second chapter of your Love, wherein I begin to praise the parting of the natures in regard to Godhead and Manhood and their connection into one Person, and that we must not say that God the Word needed a second generation out of a woman, and must confess that the Godhead is unrecipient of suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and counter to the ill-reputes of all the heresies, as to the Lord's natures. As to the rest, whether they bring to the ears of the readers some hidden incomprehensible wisdom, pertains to your accuracy to know; to me they seem to overturn what preceded. For Him Who in the preceding is proclaimed Impassible and non-recipient of a second birth, they introduce as somehow passible and new-created, as though the qualities by nature adherent in God the Word were corrupted by connection with the Temple &c. '²⁸

And yet St. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded that no one who believed in the true union of Godhead and Manhood in the incarnate Son would mistake it.

And yet S. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded, that no one who believed in True Union of Godhead and Manhood in the Incarnate Son would mistake it.

Nestorius appears not to have paid any attention to Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the Letter to the Monks more than once, as we can see from the excerpts of his sermons that Cyril had access to. The passages from the Letter to the Monks that Nestorius referred to are:

Nestorius does not appear to have taken any notice of S. Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the Letter to the Monks more than once, as we see from the extracts of such of his sermons as S. Cyril had access to. The passages of the Letter to the Monks referred to by Nestorius are;

These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian…. He, omitting to tell me by letter whether anything appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked, moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him, turns to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to understand the force of the doctrines. And finding the man's simplicity in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion deceives his ears with crafty letters, having long ago sent him my writings as irrefutable proof, as though I were making Christ out to be a mere man—I who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.²⁹

' These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian…. He, omitting to tell me by letter whether any thing appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked, moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him, turns him to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to fathom the force of the doctrines. And finding the simplicity of the man in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion circumvents his ears with crafty letters, long ago sending him my writings, as a proof which might not be gainsaid, as though I were making Christ out to be a mere man, I who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.²⁹

But he compiled writings by weaving together extracts from my sermons, so that the slander against me created by piecing together these extracts would not be discovered. He added some things to my sermons, broke off bits of others, and took what I had said about the Lord's Incarnation as if I had said it about a mere man. Things I had said in praise of the Godhead he cut away entirely from their context, leaving some out of their proper place, and thus created a plausible deception. To expose his wickedness in a few instances as it appears in the rest: I said somewhere, speaking against the pagans who claim we preach that the Essence of God was newly created from a Virgin, "Mary, my friends, did not bear the Godhead; she bore a man, the inseparable instrument of Godhead." But he changed the word "Godhead" and made it, "Mary, my friends, did not bear God." Now, to say "God" and to say "the Godhead" makes a very great difference. For the one signifies the Divine and unembodied Essence, but does not mean the flesh. For flesh is composite and created. But the word "God" also applies to the temple of the Godhead, which obtains its dignity by union with the Divine Essence of God, yet is not changed into that Divine Essence.

'But he compiled writings, interweaving extracts of my sermons, in order that the slander put on me by the piecing of extracts might not be found out. And some things he added to my sermons, he broke off bits of others and pieced what I had said of the Lord's Incarnation as though I had said them of a mere man. Things again which I had said in praise of the Godhead he cut entirely away from the context, leaving some out of their proper place, and thus made out a plausible misleading. And to publish his wickedness in a few instances such as it is in the rest, I said somewhere, speaking against the heathen who say that we preach that the Essence of God has been newly created from a Virgin, 'Mary, my friends, bare not the Godhead; she bare a man the inseparable instrument of Godhead.' But he changing the word, Godhead, made it, 'Mary, my friends, bare not God.' Here to say God, and to say the Godhead, makes very much difference. For the one signifies the Divine and unembodied Essence, but does not mean the flesh. For flesh is compound and created. But the word God belongs to the temple also of the Godhead, which obtains the dignity by union with the Divine Essence of God, yet is not changed into that Divine Essence.

In another place I spoke against those who, when they hear the same name used, are offended as though the same honor were also being given. When I say "Mother of Christ," they shudder as though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were being denied by this name, since many have been called by this name in the Old Testament. And so they think we are calling Him Christ in the same way as these others. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in church sermons that equality of honor does not follow from similarity of name. And this is what I said: "Or if the Temple of Godhead—we say that the descent of the Holy Spirit is not the same as what was accomplished in the Prophets, not the same as what was celebrated in the Apostles, nor yet the same as what takes place with regard to the Angels who are strengthened for the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, even as to the body. Therefore, just as we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet Scripture also calls Moses god, for it says, 'I have made you a god to Pharaoh,' and yet we by no means attach equal honor to that word, so neither should we stumble at the similarity of expression just because the word by which we say 'Christ' and 'Son' is common. For just as Israel is named son, for He says, 'Israel is My first-born son,' and the Lord is also called Son, for He says, 'This is My Beloved Son,' yet the expression being one does not mean the meaning is also one. And just as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ and, besides, the Babylonian, although they were surely not equal in piety to David, so we call the Lord also Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not make an equality of dignity." From this which I said, he everywhere removed the last words, that is, "Christ," and "we say that not the same is the indwelling as was accomplished in the prophets, not the same as was accomplished in the Apostles," and "we by no means assign like honor by like words," and "yet the community of names does not make equality of dignity." Cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he throws in people's ears what comes before these words, that is, "We call the Creator of all God, yet Scripture also calls Moses god," and "Israel is called God's son, the Lord too is called Son," and "Saul is called christ and David christ and even the Babylonian; thus then do we also call the Lord Christ christ." He therefore, by piecing these things together and cutting them off from the rest (as we said), created here through his slander something like what would happen if, from Paul's words by which he argues in writing, "If you are circumcised Christ will profit you nothing," one were to tear off what he says first, "If you are circumcised," and accuse Paul as though he preached, "Christ will profit you nothing." And why should we prolong our account by going through each instance? In short, Cyril, using many such thefts and additions as pleased him, soon led astray not only others but also Celestine by his deceptions.³⁰

'Again in another place I spoke against those who, hearing the like name, are offended as though like honour were also given. And when I say, Mother of Christ, they shudder as though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were denied by this name, seeing that many have been similarly called by this name in the Old Testament. And hence they think that we are calling Him Christ like these. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in church-sermons, that equality of honour does not follow likeness of name. And this is what I said, 'Or if the Temple of Godhead, wo say that the descent of the Holy Ghost is not the same as was wrought on the Prophets, not the same as was celebrated on the Apostles, nor yet the same as takes place in regard to the Angels who are strengthened unto the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, as to the body too. As therefore we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet does the Scripture call Moses too god, for it says, I have made thee a god to Pharoah, and yet we by no means attach equal honour to that word, so neither, because the word is common by which we say, Christ and Son, ought we to stumble at the likeness of expression. For as Israel is named son, for He says, Israel is My first-born son, and the Lord again Son, for He says, This is My Beloved Son, yet not, as the expression is one, is the meaning also one. And as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ and, besides, the Babylonian, albeit they were surely not equal in piety to David; so we call the Lord too Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not makes an equality of dignity.' From this which I said, he every where subtracting the last words, i.e. 'Christ,' and, 'we say, that not the same is the indwelling as was wrought on the prophets, not the same as was wrought on the Apostles,' and, ' we by no means allot like honour by like words,' and, 'yet the community of names does not make equality of dignity; ' cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he flings in the ears of men what precedes these words: i.e., ' We call the Creator of all God, yet does the Scripture also call Moses god:, and, 'Israel is called God's son, Son too is the Lord called;' and, 'Saul is called christ and David christ yea and the Babylonian; thus then do we call Christ the Lord also christ.' He therefore thus piecing these things and chipping them off from the rest (as we said), made up here by his slander like as if from Paul's words by which he contests writing, If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, one were to rend off what he says first, If ye he circumcised, and accuse Paul as though he preached, Christ shall profit you nothing. And why need we prolong our recital by going through each instance? In short Cyril using many such robberies and additions as pleased him, soon not others only but Celestine also were led away by his misleadings.'³⁰

Around this time, Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on the Incarnation. The treatise is very simple and almost free of controversy, explaining the Incarnation through simple analogies and biblical types. It contains one of Cyril's most careful statements of the doctrine, explicitly rejecting Apollinarianism. In the concluding sections, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with Nestorius, are striking and simple statements showing how the Passion belongs to God the Son, even though the Godhead cannot suffer.^31323334

Much about this time S. Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on the Incarnation. The treatise is very simple and almost uncontroversial, illustrating the Incarnation by simple analogies and Bible-types. It contains one of S. Cyril's most careful statements of the doctrine, excluding Apollinarianism. In the concluding sections, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with Nestorius, are striking and simple statements, how God the Son's Passion is His, though Godhead cannot suffer.^31323334

Shortly after this, Cyril wrote his first surviving letter to Nestorius, a brief letter in which he said he had heard that Nestorius was very angry about Cyril's letter to the monks. However, since certain teachings, whether Nestorius's or not, had been brought to Egypt and had seriously misled many people, it became his duty to God to set forth the correct doctrine. Cyril also mentioned that Celestine and the bishops with him had asked whether those teachings that had reached them were Nestorius's or not. Cyril did not know. Finally, Cyril asked him to resolve the confusion by using the single term Theotokos for the Holy Virgin. To avoid being misunderstood, he also mentioned a book he had written during the episcopate of Atticus of blessed memory, on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which he had woven in some material on the Incarnation similar to what he had now written.

Soon after this S. Cyril wrote his first extant letter to Nestorius, a short letter, saying that he hears that Nestorius was very angry at S. Cyril's letter to the Monks, yet that since 'expositions,' whether Nestorius' or not, had been brought to Egypt and had gravely misled many, it became a duty to God to put forth the right doctrine. S. Cyril also says that S. Celestine and the Bishops with him had asked whether those 'expositions' which had come thither were Nestorius' or not. S. Cyril did not know. Finally, S. Cyril asked him to heal the confusion by the use of the one word Theotocos, of the Holy Virgin. For fear of misapprehension he mentions also a book, which he had written in the Episcopate of Atticus of blessed memory, on the Holy and Consnbstantial Trinity, in which he had interwoven some things on the Incarnation, like what he had now written.

We do not know how much time passed between this and the second letter that Cyril wrote in synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation. Because of its acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church afterward, this letter has ecumenical authority. It was probably written before the end of 429 and is the letter quoted above, which Nestorius' reply showed that he could not understand. It has been suggested that because of Nestorius' reference to the imperial court at the end of his reply, Cyril wrote his three treatises de recta fide. The first of these is addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, and the other two are addressed to the emperor's queen and sisters. John, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following Cyril, quotes from both among his extracts in defense of the Council of Chalcedon. From the title with which he introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer treatise was addressed to the emperor's two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the three to the two Augustas, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia and his eldest sister Pulcheria, who had the title of Augusta from having been regent for the emperor during his minority. Cyril later recast his treatise to the emperor in the form of a dialogue, omitting what was specifically addressed to the emperor and making small adjustments to the language here and there. Thus the expression "neither do we say two Christs, even though we believe that the temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul" becomes in the dialogue "neither do we say two Christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel." A little further on, "we say that the whole Word out of God has been co-united with the whole manhood that is of us" becomes "we say therefore that the whole Word has been united to whole man." This dialogue was probably appended by Cyril to his older dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those dialogues. The other two treatises are mainly made up of expositions of biblical texts to prove that Christ is God and man. Near the beginning of the one addressed to the Augustas, Cyril refers to his earlier treatise.^{35363738394041}

We do not know what time intervened between this and the second Letter which S. Cyril wrote in Synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation, which, from its acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church subsequently, has Ecumenical authority. It was probably written before the close of A.D. 429 and is the Letter quoted above, which Nestorius' reply shewed that he could not understand. It has been supposed that it was in consequence of Nestorius' allusion to the Imperial Court in the close of his reply, that S. Cyril wrote his Three Treatises de recta fide; whereof the first is to the Emperor Theodosius; the other two to the Emperor's Queen and Sisters. John Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following S. Cyril, quotes from both among his extracts in defence of the Council of Chalcedon. From the title with which he introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer Treatise was addressed to the Emperor's two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the Three to the Two Augusta's, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia, and his eldest sister Pulcheria who had the title of Augusta, from having been Regent for the Emperor in his minority. S. Cyril afterwards recast his Treatise to the Emperor in the form of a Dialogue, omitting what was specially addressed to the Emperor, and giving little touches here and there to the language. Thus the expression " neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that the Temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul," becomes in the Dialogue, " neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel." A little further on, " we say that the whole Word out of Grod has been co-united with the whole manhood that is of us," becomes, " we say therefore that the whole Word has been united to whole man." This Dialogue was probably appended by S. Cyril to his older Dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those Dialogues. The other two treatises are chiefly made up of expositions of texts to prove that Christ is God and Man. Near the beginning of that to the Augusta's, S. Cyril alludes to his former treatise.^{35363738394041}

In my treatise to the holy Virgins (that is, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had embraced the virgin life), I provided a very large collection of more straightforward statements that had nothing difficult to understand. But in this work I have included the more obscure points. For your Pious Authority should both know these and not be ignorant of the others, so that through both, perfection in knowledge may dwell like a light in your most pure understanding.⁴²

"In my treatise to the holy Virgins [i. e. the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had embraced the virgin estate] I made a very large provision of more obvious sayings which had nothing hard to understand; but in this I have made mention of the obscurer. For your Pious Authority ought both to know these and not to be ignorant of the other, in order that by means of both, perfection in knowledge, like a light, may dwell in your most pure understanding "⁴²

Bishop Hefele believes there are signs that the two Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, supported Cyril and opposed Nestorius.⁴³

Bishop Hefele thinks that there are indications that the two Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, spoken for Cyril and against Nestorius.⁴³

Of the five sermons of Nestorius on the Incarnation that Marius Mercator translated into Latin, Saint Cyril quoted extensively from the second one. The fourth and fifth sermons in Mercator's collection belong to the end of A.D. 430. The fourth is dated December 6 (the eighth of the Ides of December), the Saturday after Nestorius received Saint Celestine's Letter through Saint Cyril's four bishops, along with Saint Cyril's letter containing the 12 Chapters. In this sermon, Nestorius repeats some of the teaching that Saint Cyril had quoted from an earlier sermon, specifically concerning God sending forth His Son. We have only fragments of that earlier sermon, but it was preached against Saint Cyril's letter to the monks. Nestorius refers to Saint Cyril as "the wrangler" and "the heretic," and he directly addresses Saint Cyril or Saint Proclus as "O heretic in clerical form."^44454647

Of the five sermons of Nestorius on the Incarnation which Marius Mercator translated into Latin, S. Cyril has cited copiously from the second: the fourth and fifth of Mercator's collection belong to the close of A.D. 430; for the fourth is dated the eighth of the Ides of December (Dec. 6), the Saturday after Nestorius had received S. Cyril's four Bishops with S. Celestine's Letter and S. Cyril's with the 12 Chapters. In it Nestorius recapitulates some of the teaching which S. Cyril had quoted from an earlier sermon, i.e. on God sending forth His Son. Of that earlier sermon we have only fragments, but it was preached against S. Cyril's letter to the Monks. Nestorius speaks of S. Cyril as the " wrangler, " the heretic," and he apostrophises S. Cyril or S. Proclus, "O heretic in clerical form."^44454647

The last sermon in that series from Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday, December 7.

The last of that series in Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday Dec. 7.

Count Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon provides it in a different translation.⁴⁸

Count Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon gives it in another translation.⁴⁸

One of the interests and activities of the bishops during their first days at Ephesus would have been getting to know some whom they had never met before. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between St. Cyril and Acacius, the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia toward Cappadocia. The long letter which he wrote to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, suggests that St. Cyril had reached some degree of closeness with him. He also wrote to Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, on the west coast of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships as well that came from the long stay at Ephesus. Some of St. Cyril's letters show how warm-hearted and sensitive he was, despite his strong will and unwavering purpose.

One of the interests and employments of the Bishops during their first days at Ephesus will have been the becoming acquainted with some whom they had never before seen. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between S. Cyril and Acacius the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia towards Cappadocia: the long letter which he wrote to Valerian Bishop of Iconium points at S. Cyril's having readied some degree of intimacy with him; he wrote too to Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, on the west of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships too as the fruit of the long sojourn at Ephesus. Some of S. Cyril's letters shew how warm-hearted and sensitive he was, notwithstanding his mighty will and unswerving purpose.

But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus: sickness and death. The sickness was probably the fever so common now along all that unhealthy coast, and in many cases it turned into dysentery. We do not know which Bishops the Council lost, for our knowledge of those who were present comes from the lists of names at the opening of the first and sixth sessions and the signatures to those two sessions. But the fact is mentioned several times. S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says,

But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus, sickness and death, the sickness probably the fever so prevalent now along all that poisonous coast, and passing in many cases into dysentery. "We do not know what Bishops the Council lost; for our knowledge of those who composed it is derived from the lists of names at the opening of the first and sixth session and the signatures to those two sessions. But the fact is mentioned several times: S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says,

some have fallen into sickness and some are dead;

"some have fallen into sickness and some are dead;"

the Council, in its report to the Emperors, says,

the Council in its Relatio to the Emperors, says,

Some of the holy bishops, burdened by old age, could not endure staying in a foreign place; some were endangered by illness; some even met their death in the city of Ephesus.

"and some of the holy Bishops weighed down by age did not endure their stay in a strange place; some were imperilled in weakness; some have even undergone the close of their life in the Capital of the Ephesians;"

in its report to Saint Celestine,

in its account to S. Celestine,

although many bishops and clergy were both afflicted by sickness and burdened by expense, and some had even died.

"although many both Bishops and Clergy were both pressed by sickness and oppressed by expense and some had even deceased."

After waiting two weeks—during which time, if everyone had been present, the business could have been finished and the bishops sent home—St. Cyril wrote to John, Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his report to the Emperors, says,

After waiting a fortnight, during which time, if all had been there, the business might have been completed and the Bishops dismissed, S. Cyril wrote to John Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his Relatio to the Emperors, says,

Two days before they held their assembly [the Council], Cyril of Alexandria himself sent word to me in Antioch that the entire Synod was waiting for my arrival.⁴⁹

"and Cyril himself of Alexandria sent to me of Antioch two days before the assembly made by them [the Council], that the whole Synod is awaiting my presence."⁴⁹

Cyril also refers to the Letter. He says about John,

S. Cyril too alludes to the Letter. He says of John,

He was always friendly and dear to me, never once finding fault with my words. He wrote to me kindly and received letters from me.⁵⁰

"he who was ever friendly and dear, who never at any time found fault with my words, who wrote kindly and received letters from me."⁵⁰

While this letter was being delivered, some of the bishops from John's party arrived, bringing with them a letter to Saint Cyril in which John said he was only about four days away. The bishops from John's party were Alexander, Metropolitan of Apamea, and Alexander, Metropolitan of Hierapolis; and apparently, though we are not explicitly told this, Theodoret and Meletius, bishop of Neocaesarea, were with them as well. The Council, in its report to Saint Celestine, describes their arrival and says,

While this letter was on its way, some of the Bishops of John's party arrived, and with them a letter to S. Cyril in which John spoke of being only about four days off. The Bishops of John's party were Alexander Metropolitan of Apamea and Alexander Metropolitan of Hierapolis; and, to all appearance, though we are not told so, Theodoret and Meletius bishop of Neocaesarea. The Council, speaking of the arrival in their Eelatio to S. Celestine, says,

Nevertheless, after the sixteenth day, some of the bishops who were with him went ahead—two metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis. When we complained about the late arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said repeatedly, "He told us to inform your Reverence that even if he should still delay, the synod was not to be postponed, but rather should do what was right."⁵¹

" Nevertheless after the sixteenth day there preceded him some of the Bishops who were with him, two Metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis; and when we complained of the tardy arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said not once but over and over, 'he bid us tell your Reverence that, if he should even yet loiter, the synod was not to be put off, but rather to do what was meet.' "⁵¹

Saint Cyril says nearly the same thing in his Apology to the Emperor. Nevertheless, it is clear that John meant the words "if I yet loiter" to be understood in connection with his own letter to Saint Cyril stating that he was only five or six days away, and so he should be allowed that interval.⁵²

S. Cyril says nearly the same in his Apology to the Emperor. Nevertheless it is plain that John meant the words, 'if I yet loiter,' to be taken in connection with his own letter to S. Cyril that he was but 5 or 6 days off, and so that he should have that interval allowed him.⁵²

The Council, however, despite the distress of many of its members, decided to meet the next day. Nestorius' friends, led by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, drafted a petition to the Council asking them to wait for John of Antioch, "who is now at the very door, as he has indicated in his letters," and for some Western bishops. The document also speaks of the unlawfulness of allowing excommunicated or deposed bishops to be admitted into the Council and concludes with these threatening words,⁵³

The Council however, in the distress of many of its members, determined to assemble the next day. Nestorius' friends headed by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, got up a memorial to the Council that they should wait for John of Antioch, "who is himself now at the door, as he has intimated by his Letters," and for some Western Bishops. The document further speaks of the unlawfulness of excommunicated or deposed Bishops being admitted into the Council and ends with the threatening words,⁵³

And let your Reverence know that everything done in a hasty way by reckless men will be turned back against the recklessness of those who act so presumptuously, both by Christ the Lord and by the Divine Canons.

"And let your Reverence know, that all that shall be done in an abrupt way by daring men will be turned back against the daring of them who so presume, both by Christ the Lord and by the Divine Canons."

There follow 68 signatures, 16 from the Province of Antioch including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while delivering John's message, did not consider it as preventing a four-day delay), and about 30 other friends of Nestorius. They also obtained about 23 other signatures. However, these 23 joined the Council the next day as a matter of course and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza, who signs for himself and for his Nestorian Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session, but he does sign the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had arrived late.

There follow 68 signatures, 16 of the Province of Antioch including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while they delivered John's message, did not consider it as precluding four days' delay) about 30 other friends of Nestorius. They procured also about 23 other signatures. These 23 however joined the Council next day as a matter of course, and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza who signs for himself and for his Nestorian Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session; but he signs the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had come in late.

No deliberative body would accept such an insulting memorial as this one from Nestorius's friends, and naturally it does not appear in the Acts of the Council. Count Irenaeus, who was a friend of Nestorius and later became Bishop of Tyre, preserved it for us along with other interesting documents from his party.

No deliberative body whatever would accept such an insulting memorial as this of the friends of Nestorius, and of course it does not appear in the Acts of the Council. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, has preserved it to us with other curious documents of his party.

Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century copied most of a unique manuscript from the Monastery Library of Monte Cassino. The compiler is believed to be African; he lived at the same time as Facundus, Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very enthusiastically on behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very forcefully in defense of Theodoret. His main source was an interesting and extensive collection of documents and letters assembled by Count Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains letters that were exchanged between the different bishops in the Province of Antioch concerning Nestorius and St. Cyril, and their views about reconciliation with St. Cyril, and one can see how eagerly the leading bishops obtained a copy of any new letter that St. Cyril wrote. This collection alone preserves St. Cyril's important letter to Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, in response to the first demand of the Eastern bishops that the Nicene Creed was sufficient and that St. Cyril should destroy everything else he had written on doctrine. St. Cyril refers to this letter of his in his letter to his representatives at Constantinople, and a fragment of it is preserved by John, Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in his Thesaurus of excerpts from St. Cyril in defense of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent, Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the first half of the sixth century.⁵⁴⁵⁵

Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century transcribed the greater part of an unique manuscript in the Monastery Library of Monte Cassino. The compiler is thought to be an African; he was a contemporary of Facundus, Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very eagerly in behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very strongly in defence of Theodoret. His principal material was a curious and extensive collection of documents and Letters made by Count Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains Letters that passed between the different Bishops in the Province of Antioch about Nestorius and S. Cyril, and their views as to reconciliation with S. Cyril, and one sees how eagerly the principal Bishops got hold of a copy of any fresh letter which S. Cyril wrote. This collection alone preserves S. Cyril's great Letter to Acacius Bishop of Beroea, in reply to the first demand of the Eastern Bishops that the Nicene Creed was enough and that S. Cyril should burn all else which he had written on dogma. S. Cyril alludes to this Letter of his in his letter to his Proctors at Constantinople and a fragment of it is preserved by John Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine in his Thesaurus of extracts of S. Cyril in Defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent, Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the earlier half of the sixth century.⁵⁴⁵⁵

Irenaeus was a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, and all the letters and documents he collected seem to have been accepted without any question about whether they were genuine. We also have several documents from other sources. However, the Compiler, who used Count Irenaeus' collection, also added near the end of his compilation some documents from other manuscripts he had access to. One of these is completely worthless: a confession of faith claiming to be from Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, but clearly written at a later date.

Irenaeus being a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, all the letters and documents collected by him seem to have been accepted without any doubt as to their genuineness. We also possess several from other sources. But the Compiler, who made use of Count Irenaeus' collection, has also inserted towards the end of his compilation, some documents from other MSS. to which he had access: one of these is absolutely worthless, viz. a confession of faith, purporting to be that of Acacius Bishop of Beroea, but evidently of later date.

Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived at the end of the 12th century, mentioned this work in his catalogue of church writers. Ebed-jesu says, "Irenaeus of Tyre compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and everything that happened at that time." Two or three pages earlier, Ebed-jesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings, also lists "A Book of a Tragedy."^5657585960

Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived in the end of the 12th century, has mentioned the work in his catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers. Ebedjesu says, "Irenaeus of Tyre compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and all that happened at that time." Two or three pages before, Ebedjesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings, gives also, "A Book of a Tragedy."^5657585960

The short treatise or confession of Saint Athanasius from which Saint Cyril quotes in his book against Theodore is placed by Montfaucon, Saint Athanasius' editor, among the doubtful works. Montfaucon's reasons for doing this are twofold: first, that the very famous expression "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" seems to contradict what Saint Athanasius says in other writings; second, that the treatise was challenged by Leontius of Byzantium at the beginning of the seventh century.⁶¹⁶²

The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century.⁶¹⁶²

Regarding the first reason for doubt, only someone who has studied Athanasius extensively has any right to offer an opinion. The second reason amounts to nothing. Leontius says,

Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says,

The party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch, presents another passage as belonging to Athanasius, from his treatise on the Incarnation. It goes like this: "And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word." To this we respond: first, it does not oppose us at all, because we do not hold two natures, one to be worshipped and the other not. Rather, we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Second, it is not by Athanasius. When we ask them where this passage is found and they cannot easily show it, they produce in their confusion some small treatise, about two pages long, which contains this passage. But it is clear to everyone that all of Athanasius' writings are very lengthy.

"They [the party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.

But what can we say when they bring forward blessed Cyril, citing this passage against Theodore as though it were Saint Athanasius's? We say that it does indeed appear in blessed Cyril's writings against Theodore, yet this is an old mistake. For Dioscorus, who succeeded blessed Cyril and found his works, might well have added whatever he wanted. We might even suppose that blessed Cyril himself did not cite it against Theodore, and that this is so is clear from the following. For Theodoret, speaking in defense of Theodore and overturning all the passages that blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, nowhere mentioned this one. To this they reply that Theodoret passed over it deliberately, for being unable to answer it since it was so obvious, he intentionally ignored it. To this we say that far from passing it by if it had been there, when Saint Cyril said elsewhere "One Nature Incarnate of God the Word," if Theodoret had known that this passage had been presented by blessed Cyril as quoted from Saint Athanasius, he would not have so ignorantly said, "Which of the Fathers said 'the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word'?" But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by Saint Athanasius that he said, "As the Fathers have said." To this we say that everyone is eager to show that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, then at least in meaning.⁶³

"But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?' But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense."⁶³

It is clear that no serious objection could be based on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact that one's opponent passes over an objection would not prove that the objection, which is admittedly there, was not made. The rest of Leontius' objection rests on the suggestion that "perhaps Dioscorus added something."

It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, " perhaps Dioscorus added something."

This confession was very well known to Saint Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it at the beginning of his Treatise on the True Faith to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to show that Saint Athanasius used the term Mother of God. Saint Cyril also cited two portions of it to show that in his eighth chapter, where he says that Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had only said what Saint Athanasius had also said. In all three citations the words "One Physis Incarnate of the Word" occur, and in the case of Saint Cyril's defense of his eighth chapter, the whole passage exists in the Latin translation (believed to be by Saint Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator), which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion—besides the fact that the citation forms an integral part of Saint Cyril's defense of his chapter.⁶⁴

This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces of it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.⁶⁴

It is therefore proven that these words were quoted as belonging to Saint Athanasius by Saint Cyril, the same Saint Cyril whose own thinking had been shaped and instructed by the writings of Saint Athanasius, and who in A.D. 431 brought out from the archives, probably of his own Church of Saint Mark, an authentic copy of Saint Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.

It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.

If this Confession is not genuine, it simply shows that, being only human, we make mistakes even in areas we know best.

If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.

Montfaucon concludes, "I would not dare to say whether the excerpts were inserted into Cyril's writings after his death, or whether someone created a short work like this before Cyril's time and attributed it to Athanasius."

Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."

My son had printed these fragments of a preface to the volume before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me clearly fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications of how they were to be completed. I have thought it might be useful to compile as a supplement some accounts of the development of the heresy of Nestorius and of the character of St. Cyril as they illuminate his controversy against him. E. B. P.

[My son had had these fragments of a preface to the volume printed, before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me manifestly fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications, how they were to be filled up. I have thought it might be useful to put together as a supplement, some notices of the course of the heresy of Nestorius, and of the character of S. Cyril as illustrating his controversy against him. E. B. P.]

The specific form of the disease to which the name of Nestorius became attached was hereditary in the great Province of Antioch. This is all the sadder because it came to him lurking in the writings of men of even great reputation, commentators on large parts of Holy Scripture, who seem to have inherited it unawares: Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both had died in the peace of the Church. Diodore, who had the very highest reputation, had shared in the persecution of Saint Meletius by the Arians, had been one of the Bishops of the Second General Council, and had helped to form the mind of Saint Chrysostom. Theodore, in whom the heresy appears more abundantly yet incidentally, had during the thirty-eight years of his episcopate written against other heretics—Arians, Eunomians, Origen, Apollinarius—and was intimate with Saint Chrysostom and with Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. The way of truth, as well as the way of life, is narrow.⁶⁵

THE special form of the disease, to which the name of Nestorius became attached, was hereditary in the great Province of Antioch. It is the sadder, because it came to him, lurking in the writings of men of even great name, commentators on large parts of Holy Scripture, who seem to have inherited it unawares; Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both had fallen asleep in the peace of the Church. Diodore, of the very highest reputation, had shared in the persecution of S. Meletius by the Arians, had been one of the Bishops of the Second General Council, and had helped to form the mind of S. Chrysostom. Theodore, in whom the heresy appears more copiously yet incidentally, had, during the thirty-eight years of his Episcopate, written against other heretics, Arians, Eunomians, Origen, Apollinarius, and was intimate with S. Chrysostom and with S. Gregory of Nazianzus. The way of truth as well as the way of life is narrow.⁶⁵

It appears to have been a tradition of heresy standing over against the tradition of faith. There is no doubt about the last two stages of this heretical tradition. This is clear from the fragments of their writings that still survive. Saint Cyril speaks fully about Diodore of Tarsus, saying that Nestorius's mind was darkened by his books. Leontius says that Diodorus had been for Theodore the author, leader, and father of those evils and impieties. In the ninth century, the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius as their three fathers. A Nestorian Patriarch-elect promised that he would hold to the true Nestorian faith, the synods of East and West, and the three fathers: Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius. An eminent Syrian writer of the century after Saint Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham, who held the title of honor "the Persian Preacher or Philosopher," says that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from Ebion, that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul. Theodore held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not, but the heresy concerning the Incarnation was much alike in both.^66676869

It appears to have been a tradition of heresy over against the tradition of faith. Of the last two stages of the heretical tradition there is no doubt. Of both it is clear from the fragments of their writings still extant. S. Cyril speaks fully as to Diodore of Tarsus, 'by whose books,' he says, 'the mind of Nestorius was darkened.' Leontius says, that 'Diodorus had been to Theodorus the author and leader and father of those evils and impieties.' In the 9th century the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodorus and Nestorius their 'three fathers.' A Nestorian Patriarch elect promised, ' that he would adhere to the true [Nestorian] faith, and the Synods of East and West, and the three fathers, Diodorus, Theodorus, Nestorius.' An eminent Syrian writer in the century after S. Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham (who had the title of honour of, 'the Persian Preacher or Philosopher ') says, that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from Ebion; that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul. Theodore held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not; but the heresy on the Incarnation was in much alike.^66676869

A parallel was drawn between the teaching of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation in a public adjuration issued by the clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of the Nestorian heresy and published in a church. The parallel went as follows:⁷⁰

In an Adjuration publicly put forth by the Clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of the Nestorian heresy and published in a Church, a parellel was drawn between the teaching of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation. The parallel ran;⁷⁰

Paul said, "Mary did not bear the Word." Nestorius, in agreement, said, "Mary, my good man, did not bear the Godhead." [The Anathema approved by Nestorius denied that "Mary bore God," not "the Godhead."] Paul said, "For he did not exist before all ages." Nestorius said, "And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times." Paul said, "Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word." Nestorius said, "How then did Mary bear Him who is older than herself?" Paul said, "Mary bore a man like us." Nestorius said, "He who was born of the Virgin is man." Paul said, "but a man superior in all things, since He is from the Holy Spirit, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon Him." Nestorius said, "It says, 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and abiding on Him,' which granted Him the Ascension. 'Commanding, it says, the Apostles whom He had chosen, He was taken up through the Holy Spirit.' This then was what conferred on Christ such glory." Paul said, "that neither should He who is of David, having been anointed, be alien from Wisdom, nor should Wisdom dwell in any other in the same way, for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in Christ as in the Temple of God." And elsewhere he says, "the Word is one thing and Jesus Christ is another." Nestorius said, "That it was not possible that He who was born before all ages should be born again, and that according to the Godhead." Look, the transgressor is revealed, saying that He who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. Look, he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that "the Word is one thing and Jesus Christ is another" and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.

Paul said, 'Mary did not hear the Word;' Nestorius, in harmony, said, 'Mary, my good man, did not bear the Godhead;' [the Anathema approved by Nestorius denied that 'Mary bare God' not 'the Godhead.'] Paul, 'For he was not before ages.' Nestorius,—- 'And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times.' Paul, 'Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word.' 'Nestorius, 'How then did Mary bear Him Who is older than herself?' Paul, 'Mary bore a man like unto us.' Nestorius, 'He Who was born of the Virgin is man.' Paul,—- 'but a man in all things superior, since He is from the Holy Ghost, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon Him.' Nestorius said, 'It saith, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and abiding on Him," which bestowed upon Him the Ascension. "Commanding, it saith, the Apostles whom He had chosen He was taken up through the Holy Ghost." This then it was, which conferred on Christ such glory.' Paul said, 'that neither He Who is of David having been anointed be alien from Wisdom, nor that Wisdom should dwell in any other in like way, for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in Christ as in the Temple of God.' And elsewhere he says, that 'other is Jesus Christ and other the Word.' Nestorius said, 'That it was not possible that He Who was born before all ages should anew be born, and that, according to the Godhead.' See, the transgressor is made manifest, saying, that He Who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. See, he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that 'Other is the Word and other Jesus Christ' and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.

The heresy stumbled at humanity's usual stumbling-block: God's love in the Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb." Theodore held it was madness to say that God was born of a Virgin. He held that the man who was born in this way was united to God only by grace, and that he was a son only by adoption.⁷¹⁷²⁷³

The heresy stumbled at man's wonted stumbling-block, the love of God in the Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb." Theodore held it to be madness to say that God was born of a Virgin; he held that the man who was so born was united to God only by grace, that he was a son only by adoption.⁷¹⁷²⁷³

This false doctrine and others likely went unnoticed because they were scattered throughout controversial writings against the Apollinarians or in scriptural commentaries. They were brought to light by the vanity of Nestorius.

This and other false doctrines had probably escaped notice, because they were scattered up and down in controversial writings against the Apollinarians, or in interpretations of Holy Scripture. They were brought out by the vanity of Nestorius.

Born of at least humble origins, he possessed the dangerous gift of great fluency in impromptu preaching and "a very beautiful and powerful voice." He was also considered an ascetic. Saint Cyril said to the Emperor,⁷⁴

Born of low parentage at least, he had the perilous gift of great fluency of extempore preaching and 'a very beautiful and powerful voice.' He was moreover accounted an ascetic. S. Cyril said to the Emperor,⁷⁴

He was chosen as someone practiced in the teachings of the Gospels and Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right faith, entirely without blame. Your Pious Majesty desired to have such a man, as did all who were set over the holy Churches, and I myself as well. And indeed when the letters of the most pious Bishops concerning his consecration were sent around by those who promoted him to this position, I wrote back without delay, rejoicing, praising, and praying that by the decree from above every choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.⁷⁵

' he was chosen as one practised in the doctrines of the Gospels and the Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right faith, altogether blamelessly. Your Pious Majesty longed to have such a man, and all who were set over the holy Churches, and I myself also. And indeed when the letters of the most pious Bishops about his consecration were sent round by those who advanced him thereto, I wrote hack without delay, rejoicing, praising, praying that by the decree from above all choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.'⁷⁵

Saint Celestine wrote to Nestorius himself that he had been concerned about the bishops who were successively appointed to his see.

S. Celestine wrote to Nestorius himself, that he had been anxious as to the Bishops successively appointed to his see,

because good things tend not to last, and what joy he had experienced in the successor of the blessed John Chrysostom, Atticus of blessed memory, the teacher of the Catholic faith; then in the holy Sisinnius, who was so soon to leave us, for his simple piety and pious simplicity; and when he was removed, the report of the messenger who came gladdened our soul; and this was immediately confirmed by the account of our colleagues, who were present at your consecration, who gave you such testimony as was fitting for one who had been elected from elsewhere [Antioch]. For you had lived before with such high reputation that another city envied you to your own people… Evil (as far as we can see) has followed upon your good beginnings; beginnings so good, so well reported to us, that in our response to the account of the brethren, we showed how we shared in the joy.⁷⁶

' because good is apt not to be lasting, and what joy he had had in the successor of the blessed John [Chrysostom], Atticus of blessed memory, the teacher of the Catholic faith; then in the holy Sisinnius, who was so soon to leave us, for his simple piety and pious simplicity; and when he was removed, the relation of the messenger who came rejoiced our soul; and this was straightway confirmed by the relation of our colleagues, who were present at thy consecration, who bare thee such testimony as was meet to one who had been elected from elsewhere [Antioch]. For thou hadst lived before with so high estimation, that another city envied thee to thy own people… Evil (as far as we see) has followed on thy good beginnings; beginnings, so good, so well reported of to us, that, in our answer to the relation of the brethren, we shewed how we were partakers of the joy.'⁷⁶

Saint Celestine dwells even fondly on this recollection, which stood in such sad contrast to the letter he had to answer.

S. Celestine lingers even fondly over the reminiscence, which was such a sad contrast to the letter which he had to answer.

Who could easily believe, asks Vincent of Lérins, that he was in error, when they saw he had been chosen by such judgment of the Empire and held in such high regard by the Bishops? He was so loved by the holy, so favored by the people, and daily taught the words of God while refuting the poisonous errors of Jews and Greeks. Who could he not persuade that he taught rightly, preached rightly, and believed rightly, when he persecuted the blasphemies of all other heresies in order to make room for his own heresy? But to pass over Nestorius, who had more admirers than usefulness, more fame than experience, and whom human favor had made great in the eyes of the people for a time rather than Divine grace—⁷⁷

'Who could readily believe,' asks Vincentius of Lerins, 'that he was in error, whom he saw to have been chosen by such judgement of the Empire, the object of such estimation of the Bishops? who was so loved by the holy, in such favour with the people, who daily discoursed on the words of God, and confuted the poisonous errors of Jews and Grentiles. Whom could he not persuade that he taught aright, preached aright, held aright, who in order to make way for his own heresy persecuted the blasphemies of all [other] heresies? But to pass by Nestorius who had ever more admiration than usefulness, more fame than experience, whom human favour had made for a season great in the eyes of the people rather than Divine grace—-'⁷⁷

The outward change was sudden, Vincentius also says,

The outward change was sudden, Vincentius too says,

What a temptation that was recently, when this unhappy Nestorius suddenly changed from a sheep into a wolf and began to attack Christ's flock, while those who were being attacked still largely believed him to be a sheep, and so fell all the more easily into his jaws!⁷⁷

' What a temptation was that lately, when this unhappy Nestorius, suddenly changed from a sheep to a wolf, began to rend the flock of Christ, when they too who were torn, in great part still believed him to be a sheep, and so the more easily fell into his jaws!'⁷⁷

Theodoret, who had defended him for so many years, spoke more harshly of him than any other writer after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon. Theodoret had an affectionate nature. The great curse of his life was that he would believe any evil of St. Cyril rather than suspect his former friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed St. Cyril to be an Apollinarian, which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic, which he was. When St. Leo took up his cause against the worthless successor of St. Cyril, Dioscorus, and showed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have felt toward Nestorius as the cause of an almost lifelong error from which he was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known, died unrepentant in a heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of Nestorius is,⁷⁷⁷⁸

Theodoret, who had for so many years defended him, after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon, spoke more severely of him than any other writer. Theodoret was of an affectionate disposition. The great bane of his life was, that he would believe any evil of S. Cyril, rather than suspect his former friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed S. Cyril to be an Apollinarian which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic which he was. When then S. Leo espoused his cause against the worthless successor of S. Cyril, Dioscorus, and shewed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have felt towards Nestorius as the occasion to him of an almost lifelong error, from which he was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known, died unrepentant in an heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of Nestorius is,⁷⁷⁷⁸

From the start, Nestorius showed what he would be throughout his life: he cultivated a merely popular eloquence that drew empty applause and attracted the unstable crowd. He went about dressed in mourning clothes, walking with a heavy step, avoiding public gatherings, and trying to appear ascetic through his pale appearance. At home he was mostly occupied with books and lived quietly by himself. He continued into old age enticing many people through such habits and pretenses, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than actually being one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.⁷⁹

' From the first, Nestorius shewed what he was going to be all his life through: that he cultivated a mere popular eloquence, eliciting empty applause and attracting to himself the unstable multitude; that he went about, clad in a mourning garment, walking heavily, avoiding public throngs, seeking by the pallor of his looks to appear ascetic, at home mostly given to books and living quietly by himself. He went on to advanced age enticing the many by such habits and counterfeits, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than to be one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.'⁷⁹

The progression of his heresy is described in summary by Theodoret.

The course of his heresy Theodoret describes in summary.

His innovation began with the claim that we must not confess the Holy Virgin who bore the Word of God, having taken flesh from her, to be Theotokos, but only Christotokos, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago taught us to call her Theotokos and believe her to be the Mother of the Lord.⁷⁹

' The first step of his innovation was that we must not confess the Holy Virgin who bare the Word of God having taken flesh of her, to be Theotocos, but Christotocos only, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago (tw~n pa&lai kai\ pro&palai) taught to call her Theotocos, and believe her the Mother of the Lord.'⁷⁹

Then he mentions the defense offered by Nestorius.

Then he mentions the plea of Nestorius,

that the name Christ signifies the two natures (physis), the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that the name God refers absolutely to the simple and incorporeal essence (ousia) of God the Word, and that the name man refers to human nature (physis) alone. Therefore it is necessary to confess that the Virgin is Christotokos and not Theotokos, lest we unwittingly say that God the Word received the beginning of His existence from the holy Virgin, and so be forced logically to confess that the Mother was older than the One who was born from her.

'that the name Christ signifies the two Natures, the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that of God absolutely the simple and incorporeal essence of God the Word; and that of man the human nature alone; therefore it is necessary to confess the Virgin to be Christotocos and not Theotocos, lest unawares we say that God the Word took the beginning of His Being from the holy Virgin, and so should be obliged consistently to confess that the Mother was older than He Who was born of her.'

Finally, he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, that in the Church of the orthodox he shouted out many such words as "Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she bore a man who was the instrument of God," and again among other follies, "The pagan is blameless when he gives a mother to the gods."

Lastly he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, that in the Church of the orthodox he shouted out many such words as 'Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she bore a man the instrument of God;' 'and again among other follies,' 'The Gentile is blameless, when he gives a mother to the gods.'

Here is his teaching at Constantinople in outline. He concentrated his efforts on replacing Theotocos with Christotocos, and instead of "God made Man," he promoted a human Christ connected with God, corrupting through frivolous statements the minds he was able to influence.

Such is the outline of his teaching at Constantinople. His efforts were concentrated on the substitution of Christotocos for Theotocos; for 'God made Man,' a human Christ connected with God, corrupting by flippant sayings the minds which he could influence.

He gained favor with Theodosius, who relied on those around him. His elevation to the Patriarchate was a marked distinction, since it involved a call from a different Patriarchate at the nomination of Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed to himself called to great things. According to Socrates, he had not yet, in the words of the proverb, tasted the waters of the city when, in an inaugural speech before the Emperor and a large crowd of people, he addressed the Emperor: "Give me, O king, the land cleared of heretics, and I in turn will give you heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and I will destroy the Persians with you." He must have meant, of course, that he could promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. People noticed, we are told, the vanity, passion, and vainglory of the speech. At the very least, it was a summons of civil power against those he himself knew nothing about and for whose conversion his predecessors had waited patiently, and it promised victory over a warlike people based not on self-humiliation before God but on the extermination of men who did not share his errors. An Arian congregation, seeing their church destroyed, in desperation set it on fire and threw themselves into the flames. This earned Nestorius, among all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of "the Incendiary." The persecution caused much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to restrain his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, and Caria were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia on his way from Antioch to his See, so that it was even thought he had absorbed his heresy at that time. Those he brought with him were from the same school.^8080818283

He gained favour with Theodosius who leaned on those around him. His elevation to the Patriarchate was a marked distinction, as being a call from a different Patriarchate, at the nomination of the Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed to himself called to great things. 'He had not,' Socrates says, 'tasted, according to the proverb, the waters of the city,' when in an inaugural oration before the Emperor and a large concourse of people, he apostrophised the Emperor, "Give me, O king, the land clear from heretics and I in turn will give thee heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and I will destroy the Persians with thee." He must have meant, of course, that he could promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. Men noticed, we are told, the vanity and passionateness and vainglory of the speech. It was, at the least, a calling in of the civil sword against those, of whom he himself knew nothing, and for whose conversion his predecessors had waited patiently, and promising victory over a warlike people, not upon self-humiliation before God, but upon the extirpation of men who had not the same errors with himself. An Arian congregation, seeing their church destroyed, in desperation fired it and threw themselves into the flames. This gained to Nestorius, with all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of 'the Incendiary.' The persecution occasioned much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to repress his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, Caria, were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia in his way from Antioch to his See; so that it was even thought that he had imbibed his heresy then. Those whom he brought with him were of the same school.^8080818283

He began cautiously at first. He used ambiguous language, but all of it was directed against the one crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin bore God—that is, Him Who was at once both God and Man—our Lord plainly would not have been God. And with that, the doctrine of the Atonement would have perished too, which Nestorius also did not believe. For a brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God a ransom for him. Too dear is the redemption of their souls, and it ceases forever.⁸⁴

He began at first warily. He used ambiguous language, but all directed against the one crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin 'bare God,' i. e. Him Who was at once both God and Man, our Lord plainly would not have been God. And therewith would have perished the doctrine of the Atonement too, which also Nestorius did not believe. For a "brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God a ransom for him. Too dear is the redemption of their souls, and it ceaseth for ever."⁸⁴

He used whatever terms he could to make up for the inadequacy of his conception. He could think of our Lord as a man, an instrument of Deity, a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit, and having a close or continual or the highest connection with God. But still, the connection was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.⁸⁵

He used what terms he could, to eke out the poverty of his conception. He could think of our Lord as a man, an instrument of Deity;' ' a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit,' and haying a close or continual or the highest connection with God; but still the 'connection' was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.⁸⁵

The ancient title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret recognized as "the Apostolical tradition" after his conflict with Cyril ended, ruled out this way of making our Lord merely human. And so Nestorius (a serious historian says) kept teaching about this in the Church and tried in every way to get rid of the term Theotocos, fearing it like people fear hobgoblins. He did this, Socrates adds, "out of great ignorance."⁸⁶⁸⁷⁸⁸

The hereditary title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret, when his strife with S. Cyril was over, recognised as ' the Apostolical tradition,' excluded this humanising of our Lord. And so Nestorius (a grave historian says) continuously teaching hereon in the Church, endeavoured in all ways to expel the term Theotocos, and dreaded the term as they do hobgoblins. This he did, Socrates adds, 'out of great ignorance.'⁸⁶⁸⁷⁸⁸

Being naturally a fluent speaker, he was thought to be well-educated. But in truth, he was poorly trained and scorned to study the books of the ancient interpreters. For being puffed up by his fluency of speech, he did not pay careful attention to the ancients, but thought himself superior to everyone.

'Being by nature fluent of speech, he was thought to have been educated; but in truth, he was ill-trained, and disdained to learn the books of the ancient interpreters. For being puffed up for his fluency of speech, he did not attend accurately to the ancients, but thought himself superior to all.'

Yet the term Theotokos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of Saint Athanasius, whose Council first condemned Arius; by Saint Athanasius himself; by the Arian Eusebius; and by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, who did not use the word Homoousios. The Emperor Julian the Apostate said, in controversy with the Christians, 'Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? But you do not cease calling Mary Theotokos,' confirming that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two Saint Gregories. It was also used by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, Saint Chrysostom, as well as by Ammon, Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by Saint Ambrose, Cassian, and Vincent of Lérins.^{89909192939495969798}

Yet the term Theotocos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries, that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of S. Athanasius, whose Council first condemned Arius; by S. Athanasius himself; by the Arian Eusebius; and by S. Cyril of Jerusalem, who did not use the word Homoousion. The Apostate Emperor Julian said, in controversy with the Christians, ' Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? but ye do not cease calling Mary Theotocos,' attesting that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two S. Gregories. It was used also by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, S. Chrysostom, as also by Ammon Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by S. Ambrose, Cassian, and Vincent of Lerins.^{89909192939495969798}

John of Antioch, at a later time, urged Nestorius to accept the term in order to prevent the coming schism, saying to him,

John of Antioch, at a later period, entreating Nestorius to accept the term, in order to prevent the impending schism, said to him,

This title has not been rejected by any of the church's teachers. Many distinguished figures have used it, and those who have not used it have never accused those who did use it of being in error.

'This name no one of the ecclesiastical teachers has declined. For those who have used it have been many and eminent, and those who have not used it have never imputed any error to those who used it.'

John tried to make it easier for him to accept the word.

John endeavoured to smoothe to him the adoption of the word.

The ten days that Celestine allowed are very short, but the matter could be settled in a single day, or perhaps even in just a few hours. For it is easy to use a suitable word in the divine plan of our Sovereign Ruler Christ for us—a word that has been used by many of the fathers and is true regarding the saving Birth from the Virgin. Your holiness should not refuse this, nor consider it a reason for concern that one should not act contrary to established practice. For if your mind agrees with that of the fathers and teachers of the Church (and this, my lord, I have heard from many mutual friends), what difficulty is there in expressing a pious thought with the appropriate word?⁹⁹

' The ten days, which Celestine allowed, are very short, but it might be made matter of a single day, perhaps only of a few hours. For to use a convenient word in the dispensation of our Sovereign Ruler Christ for us, which has been used by many of the fathers, and is true as to the saving Birth of the Virgin, is easy; which thy holiness ought not to decline, nor take that into account, that one ought not to do things contrary. For if thy mind is the same as that of the fathers and teachers of the Church (for this, my lord, I have heard from many common friends), what grief has it, to utter a pious thought in a corresponding word?'⁹⁹

Nestorius seems to have thought it was his role to convert the Church to his false belief. He says,

Nestorius seems to have thought it to have been his office to convert the Church to his misbelief. He says,

I see in our people much reverence and the most fervent piety, but they are blind when it comes to the dogma of the knowledge of God. However, this is not the people's fault, but rather (how can I say this politely?) the teachers did not have the opportunity to present to you any of the more accurate teaching.¹⁰⁰

' I see in our people much reverence and most fervent piety, but that they are blinded as to the dogma of the knowledge of God. But this is not the fault of the people, but (how shall I say it courteously?) that the teachers had not opportunity to set before you aught of the more accurate teaching.'¹⁰⁰

This was strong language—that the people of Constantinople were in error regarding the faith because of the fault of its former bishops. But by this he also acknowledged that his faith was different from theirs. Cassian then challenges him: "Are you, then, the one who corrects former bishops, the one who condemns former priests? Are you more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, surpassing John?"¹⁰¹

This was strong language, that the people of Constantinople were in error as to the faith through the fault of its former Bishops; but he also owned thereby, that his faith was different from theirs. 'Art thou then,' Cassian apostrophises him, 'the amender of former Bishops, the condemner of former Priests? art thou more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, surpassing John?'¹⁰¹

Nestorius appears to have taken on the role of mediator between opposing factions. In his third letter to Saint Celestine, he says,

Nestorius seems to have chosen for himself the office of arbiter between ideal parties. In his third Epistle to S. Celestine he says,

Your Holiness knows that if two sects oppose each other, and one uses only the word Theotocos while the other uses only Anthropotocos, and each sect tries to force the other to accept its own confession—so that if it does not succeed, there is danger that it will separate from the Church—then it will be necessary for someone appointed to examine this matter, having concern for each sect, to remedy the danger facing both parties by using a word provided by the Evangelist that signifies both physis. For that word, Christotocos, moderates the claim of both sides, because it both removes the blasphemy of the Samosatene which speaks of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were merely a man, and also drives away the wickedness of Arius and Apollinarius.¹⁰²

' It is known to your Blessedness, that if two sects stand over against one another, and one of them only uses the word Theotocos, and the other only Anthropotocos, and each sect draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it do not obtain this, there is peril lest it fall from the Church, it will be necessary, that one deputed to the consideration of this matter, having care for each sect, should remedy the peril of either party, by a word delivered by the Evangelist which signifies both natures. For that word, Christotocos, tempers the assertion of both, because it both removes the blasphemy of the Samosatene which is spoken of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were a pure man, and also puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinarius.'¹⁰²

It is strange that he did not see (if indeed he failed to see what everyone else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' that is, mother of Him who would be the Messiah. Vincent of Lérins uses the simple illustration,

It is strange that he did not see (if indeed he did not see what every one else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' i. e. mother of Him who should be the Messiah. Vincent of Lerins uses the homely illustration,

just as we speak of the mother of a presbyter or a bishop, not meaning that she gave birth to someone who was already a presbyter or bishop, but to a man who later became a presbyter or bishop.¹⁰³

' as we speak of the mother of a Presbyter or a Bishop, not that she bare one who was already a Presbyter or a Bishop, but a man who was afterwards made a Presbyter or Bishop.'¹⁰³

Saint John Damascene says that we must understand that the Virgin is the Mother of God, not as if the divinity of the Word took its beginning from her (since the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God, being perfect from eternity), but because from her the Word was born according to the flesh. For the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The flesh was united to the Word hypostatically from the very moment of conception, and therefore she is called Mother of God, because God was born from her according to the flesh. For it is not accurate to say that a mere man was born from her, and that afterward God came to dwell in him, but rather that God was united to the flesh in her womb itself, and was therefore born according to the flesh, condescending to grant birth to himself.

S. John Damascene says,

We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos because Nestorius invented it to deny the term Theotocos.¹⁰⁴

' We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos, because Nestorius invented it to deny the word Theotocos.'¹⁰⁴

The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been something he invented himself, in order to make room for his own term Christotocos as a middle option. No one would use that name as a descriptive title, no matter how much they believed our Lord to be merely a man; and Nestorius speaks of those who called the Blessed Virgin Anthropotocos as if they were within the Church.

The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been a fiction of his own, in order to make room for his own term Christotocos, as an intermediate term. No one would give the name as a descriptive name, however they may have held our Lord to be a mere man; and Nestorius speaks of those, who called the Blessed Virgin Anthropotocos, as in the Church.

However, in his own Patriarchate, Nestorius had his own way for three years. S. Cyril mentions this period in his full letter of explanation to Acacius of Beroea, who must have been aware of the accuracy of the statement.

However, in his own Patriarchate, for three years Nestorius had his own way. S. Cyril names that period in his full letter of explanation to Acacius of Beroea, who must have been cognizant of the accuracy of the statement.

But when we all waited for Nestorius while he spent a period of three years blaspheming, both we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him back from those errors and to the doctrines that belong to rightness and truth.¹⁰⁵

' But when we all waited for Nestorius, while he spent a period of three years in blaspheming, and we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him back from them, and to those doctrines which appertain to rightness and truth.'¹⁰⁵

Peter, the notary, read out the same statement in the first session of the Council. "Not many days having elapsed" after his consecration. Saint Cyril says this in his letter to Saint Celestine.¹⁰⁶

Peter, the notary, rehearsed the same in the first session of the Council. ' Not many days having elapsed' [after his consecration]. S. Cyril in his letter to S. Celestine says,¹⁰⁶

During the past I have kept silent and have written absolutely nothing either to your Religiousness or to any of our fellow ministers about the one who is now at Constantinople and rules the Church, believing that hastiness in these matters is not without blame.¹⁰⁷

' During the past I have kept silence and have written absolutely nothing either to your Religiousness, or any of our Fellow-ministers, about him who is now at Constantinople and ruleth the Church, believing that hastiness in these things is not without blame.'¹⁰⁷

Within Constantinople, Nestorius on two apparent occasions provoked a strong public outcry by statements he approved that flatly denied the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest he had brought from Antioch, whom he held in high regard and used as an advisor—a passionate supporter of Nestorius and his Jewish teachings. Anastasius declared openly in a sermon, "Let no one call Mary theotocos: for Mary was human, and it is impossible for a human being to give birth to God." The people could hardly tolerate this. Nestorius defended it vigorously.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

Within Constantinople, Nestorius, twice apparently, gave occasion to a great expression of popular feeling by utterances which he sanctioned, absolutely denying the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest whom he had brought from Antioch, whom 'he held in great honour, and employed as a counsellor; a fiery lover of Nestorius and his Jewish dogmas.' He burst out in a sermon openly, ' let no one call Mary theotocos: for Mary was human; but it is impossible that one human should bear God.' This the people could ill-endure. Nestorius supported it with vehemence.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

The other statement that reached Cyril, which he mentioned to some people in Constantinople who criticized him for his letter to the monks, came from Dorotheus, Bishop of Marcianopolis. Dorotheus said openly, "Anathema if anyone calls the holy Mary Theotocos."¹¹⁰

The other statement which reached S. Cyril, and which he mentioned to some at Constantinople, who blamed him for his letter to the monks, was by Dorotheus Bishop of Marcianopolis, who said openly, 'Anathema, if any call the holy Mary, Theotocos.'¹¹⁰

This went much further than the former statement. It pronounced anathema (as S. Cyril understood) upon all who held what everyone held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius immediately received him into communion.

This went much further than the former. It pronounced Anathema (as S. Cyril saw) upon all who held what all held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius at once received him to Communion.

Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotokos. In his first sermon, he says that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin should be called Anthropotokos or Theotokos. He appealed to his hearers,

Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotocos. In his first Sermon he says, that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin was to be called 'Anthropotocos or Theotocos.' He appealed to his hearers,

Does God have a mother? If so, then paganism can be excused for giving mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar when he says of Christ's Deity, "without father, without mother, without descent." Mary did not give birth to God, my good friends. For what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. The creature did not bear the Uncreated. The Father did not beget God the Word. For "in the beginning was the Word," as John says. The creature did not bear the Creator, but she bore a man, the instrument of Deity. The Holy Spirit did not create God the Word, for what was born of her was of the Holy Spirit. Rather, He formed from the Virgin a temple for God the Word to dwell in.¹¹¹

' Has God a mother? Then heathendom may be excused, bringing in mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar, who saith of the Deity of Christ, 'without father, without mother, without descent.' Mary bore not God, my good friends. For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The creature bare not the Uncreated: the Father did not beget God the Word. For 'in the beginning was the Word,' as John saith. The creature did not bear the Creator, but she bare a Man, the instrument of Deity: the Holy Spirit did not create God the Word; for that which was born of her was of the Holy Spirit; but He framed of the Virgin for God the Word a temple wherein He should dwell.'¹¹¹

Nestorius continued to preach the same message, sometimes using language that was sound in itself, but within the context of what is unsound.

Nestorius continued to preach the same, sometimes in terms, in themselves sound, but in the context of what is unsound.

From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence of the Emperor, or through his personal influence with Theodosius, he was able to overpower most opposition. As had been observed, what opposition there was came first from the laity, then from the clergy, and lastly from the bishops.

From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence of the Emperor, or his personal influence with Theodosius, he could overbear most opposition. What opposition there was came, it had been observed, first from the Laity, then from the Clergy, lastly from the Bishops.

In his first letter to Saint Celestine, Nestorius told him that he had used both "anger and gentleness" every day in suppressing the Theotokos. What he meant by "anger and gentleness" can be seen from a formal petition to the Emperors submitted by Basil, a deacon and archimandrite, and Thalassius, a reader and monk. According to the words of this petition,

Nestorius, in his first epistle to S. Celestine, told him that he had daily used both 'anger and gentleness' in repressing the Theotocos. His idea of 'anger and gentleness' may be gathered from a formal petition to the Emperors from Basil, a deacon and Archimandrite, and Thalassius a reader and monk, in their petition to the Emperors. In the words of this petition,

By his command and invitation, we went to the bishop's residence to be fully instructed whether what we had heard concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely allowed us to say what we wished. But when he had heard from us that what he had said—that 'Mary only bore a man consubstantial with herself' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh'—is not orthodox language, he immediately had us seized. From there, beaten by the crowd of officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What we do not say that clerks, archimandrites, or monks, or indeed any secular persons, suffer in the civil courts, we endured in the Church unlawfully from lawless men. Oppressed and starving, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this. After all this, by some deceit we were handed over to the most Excellent Prefect of this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison. Afterwards we were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no accuser, we were again led back by the guard to the prison. Thus he again punished us, striking us on the face, and having spoken and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of God, that He was born of the holy Mary the Theotocos, since there is another Son—so he dismissed us.¹¹²

' By his command and invitation, we went to the See-house, to be fully instructed whether what we had heard concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely bade us say what we wished. But when he had heard from us, that what he had said, that 'Mary only bore a man consubstantial with herself,' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh,' is not orthodox language, immediately he had us seized, and thence, beaten by the crowd of the officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners and subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What in the civil courts we do not say that Clerks, Archimandrites, or monks, nay, or any secular persons do not suffer, we endured in the Church lawlessly from the lawless ones. Oppressed, famished, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this, but after all this, by some deceit we were delivered over to the most Excellent Eparch of this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison, and afterwards were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no accuser, we were again led back by the guard in the prison and thus he again chastised us smiting us on the face, and having discoursed and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of Grod, that He was born of the holy Mary the Theotocos, since there is another Son; so he dismissed us.'¹¹²

Basil, who tells this story, also says that

Basil who relates this, says also,

Some of the most respected presbyters frequently rebuked to his face the man who is now entrusted with the episcopate (if he should be called a bishop), and because of his stubbornness in refusing to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos or Christ by nature true God, they have withdrawn from communion with him and still remain separated. Others do so secretly. Still others, because they spoke against the misguided renewal of this teaching in the holy church of Eirene-by-the-Sea, have been silenced. At this, the people, wanting to have the usual sound teaching, cried out, "We have a king, but we have no bishop." But this protest by the people did not go unpunished. Some were seized by the attendants and beaten in various ways in the imperial city, using methods not even practiced among barbarians. Some publicly contradicted him to his face in the church and suffered no small trouble. A monk of simpler background was driven by zeal to block this preacher of impiety from entering during the liturgical celebration, calling him a heretic. After beating him, Nestorius handed him over to the high-ranking governors, and after being beaten again and paraded publicly with a crier announcing his offense, Nestorius sent him into exile. And not only this, but even in the most holy church after his impious sermon, his supporters who controlled everything would have shed blood, had God's help not prevented it.¹¹³

' Some of the most reverend Presbyters frequently rebuked to the face him who is now entrusted with the Episcopate (if he should be called a Bishop) and, because of his self-will that he will not call the Holy Virgin Theotocos, or Christ by nature true God, have put themselves out of his communion, and so still remain; others do so secretly; others, because they spoke in this holy Church Eirene-by-the-sea against the ill-renewal of this dogma, have been silenced. On this the people, desiring to have the wonted sound teaching, cried out, 'A King we have; a Bishop we have not.' But this essay of the people did not remain unavenged; some were seized by the attendants, and beaten in divers ways in the royal city, as is not practised even among the Barbarians. Some contradicted him publicly to the face in the Church and underwent no little trouble. A monk of the simpler sort was constrained by zeal in the midst of the Church to hinder this herald of impiety from entering in at the Celebration, being a heretic. Him having beaten, he delivered to the Magnificent Governors and being again beaten and paraded publicly, the crier proclaiming (his offence), he [Nestorius] sent him into exile. And not this only, but even in the most holy Church after his impious homily, those on his side who held down every thing, would have shed blood, had not the aid of God prevented it.'¹¹³

They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, God knows, to avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as

They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, Grod knows, to avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as

intimidating, threatening, driving out, expelling, mistreating, acting recklessly and wickedly, and doing everything without restraint to establish his own madness and ungodliness. He neither fears God nor feels shame before men, but is clothed with contempt for all, confident in his anger and in the power of some who have been corrupted, and—to speak boldly—in your Majesty.

'intimidating, threatening, driving, expelling, maltreating, acting recklessly and ill, and doing all unsparingly to establish his own mania and ungodliness, neither fearing God, nor ashamed before men, but clothed with contempt of all, confident in his wrath and in the might of some who have been corrupted, and (to speak fearlessly) in your Majesty.'

It is strong language, but language that is all the more responsible because it was formally addressed to someone who held absolute power, who used that power in ways no modern ruler could, and who was known to favor the Patriarch against whom it was directed.

It is strong language, but language, the more responsible, as formally addressed to one who held absolute power, who used it as no modern Sovereign could, and who was known to favour the Patriarch, against whom it was directed.

Nestorius boasted to Saint Celestine about his success against those who had left him.

Nestorius boasted to S. Celestine of his success against those who had departed from him.

Moreover, they have dared to call the Virgin who bore Christ (Christotocos) in a certain way Theotocos. They do not shrink from calling her Theotocos, even though those holy fathers at Nicaea above all are recorded as having said nothing more about the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. I am not even speaking of the Holy Scriptures, which everywhere, both through angels and apostles, present the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. Because of these things, your Blessedness has probably already been informed by reports about what conflicts we have endured. Note also that we have not struggled in vain, but by the grace of the Lord, many of those who had been departing from us have been corrected.¹¹⁴

' Moreover they have dared to call the Virgin who hare Christ (Christotocos) in a certain way Theotocos. For they do not shudder at calling her Theotocos, although those holy fathers above all praise at Nice are read to have said nothing more as to the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. I do not speak of the Holy Scriptures, which every where, both by Angels and Apostles, set forth the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. For which things' sake what strifes we have endured, I suppose that report has, before this, instructed your Blessedness; observing this also, that we have not striven in vain, but by the grace of the Lord, many of those who were departing from us have been amended.'¹¹⁴

To Saint Cyril he says,

To S. Cyril he says,

Know that you have been deceived by the clerks of your own persuasion, who have been deprived of their positions here by the holy Synod because they held the same views as the Manichees.¹¹⁵

' Know that those hast been deceived by the Clerks of thine own persuasion, who have been deprived here by the holy Synod, because they were minded as the Manichees.'¹¹⁵

Cyril in the synodal letter from Alexandria, announcing Nestorius's impending excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as Cyril had informed Celestine, the most holy bishop of great Rome and fellow-bishop. Celestine also requires as a condition of communion that Nestorius should restore to the Church all those excluded for the sake of Christ its head. In his letter to John of Antioch, Celestine suggests that others may have done this as well.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

S. Cyril in the Synodal letter from Alexandria, announcing his impending excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as he had 'indicated to Celestine the most holy Bishop of Great Rome and our fellow-bishop.' S. Celestine also requires as a condition of Communion that he should ' restore to the Church all excluded for the sake of Christ its Head.' In his letter to John of Antioch he supposes that this may have been done by others also.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

Within Constantinople, Nestorius was opposed by those whose position protected them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, who had been appointed Bishop of Cyzicus but whom the Cyzicans refused because they wanted to appoint their own bishop, and who therefore remained a bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who

Within Constantinople Nestorius was opposed by those whose position secured them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, appointed Bishop of Cyzicus, whom the Cyzicans declined, wishing to appoint their own Bishop, and who remained a Bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who

being a man of great piety and skill among the laity, and having acquired no small amount of learning, was stirred by fervent and devout zeal and declared with a piercing cry that the Word himself, who exists before the ages, underwent a second generation through his birth in the flesh from a woman.¹¹⁸

' being of great piety and skill among the laymen, having gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal, and said with piercing cry, that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation by that after the flesh and from a woman.'¹¹⁸

Nestorius responded to him by speaking of the "pollution" of these wretches and saying that if there were two births, there must be two sons. In other words, he claimed that our "one Lord Jesus Christ" could not be begotten of the Father before all worlds and yet also be born of the Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation.

Nestorius answered him by speaking of the 'pollution' of these wretches and saying, "that if there were two births, there must be two sons," i. e. that our 'one Lord Jesus Christ' 'could not be Begotten of the Father before all worlds' and yet 'for us men and for our salvation' be born of the Virgin Mary.

Leontius says that Eusebius was also reported to be the author of the comparison between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.¹¹⁹

Leontius says that Eusebius was also said to be the author of the parallel between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.¹¹⁹

Different accounts exist of how people's minds were affected. St. Cyril says that when Dorotheus pronounced the Anathema,

Different accounts are given of the way in which the minds of the people were affected. S. Cyril says that on the Anathema pronounced by Dorotheus,

There was a great outcry from all the people, and they rushed out of the church. They refused to be in communion with those who held such views. Even now the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except for some frivolous individuals and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their archimandrites, along with many members of the senate, do not commune with him. They fear being deceived concerning his faith and the faith of those who came with him from Antioch, all of whom speak perverse things.¹²⁰

' There was a great cry from all the people, and a running out [of the Church.] For they would not communicate with those so minded. And now too the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except some of the lighter sort and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their Archimandrites and many of the senate do not communicate: fearing lest they should be wronged as to his faith and that of those with him, whom he brought when he came up from Antioch, who all speak perverse things.'¹²⁰

Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the end of his response to Saint Cyril's second letter,¹²¹

Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the close of his answer to S. Cyril's second letter,¹²¹

Church affairs among us are making daily progress, and through God's grace the people are growing so much that those who see their numbers cry out with the prophet that the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord as abundant water covers the sea, and the Emperors are exceedingly joyful, being enlightened regarding the doctrine; and, to put it briefly, one may see daily, concerning all the heresies that fight against God and the orthodoxy of the Church, that this word is daily being fulfilled among us: the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker, and the house of David grew stronger and stronger.

'Church matters with us advance daily, and the people through the grace of God so grow, that those who see their multitude, cry out with the prophet, that the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much water covereth the sea, and the Emperors are in exceeding joy, being enlightened as to the doctrine; and, to speak briefly, one may see daily, as to all the heresies which fight with God and the orthodoxy of the Church, that word is daily fulfilled with us, the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, and the house of David waxed stronger and stronger.'

It is not particularly significant that the Emperor told Saint Cyril that the Churches were united and would become even more so, and that he was forgiven (for Nestorius had convinced him that Saint Cyril was merely a troublemaker), or that Nestorius once mentioned that the people were crowded together. But some were even ready to oppose those who objected to his teaching, and many clergy and laymen from Constantinople who came to Antioch and Beroea agreed with what Dorotheus said, believing it contained nothing contrary to apostolic doctrine or the faith of Nicaea.^122123124125

It is not much that the Emperor told S. Cyril, that the Churches were united and would be yet more, and that he [S. Cyril] was forgiven; (for Nestorius had persuaded him that S. Cyril was a mere disturber of the peace) or that Nestorius on one occasion speaks of the people being thronged. But some were even ready to turn against those who objected to his teaching, and 'many Clergy and laymen from Constantinople coming to Antioch and Beroea agreed with the saying of Dorotheus, as having nothing contrary to Apostolic doctrine or the faith of Nicaea.'^122123124125

During these three years, Cyril had broken his silence only three times: first in his letter to the monks in Egypt; then in a letter to Nestorius explaining why he had written that first letter after hearing that Nestorius was offended by it; and finally in his second complete statement of doctrine in the letter that was received by the Council of Ephesus.

In these three years, S. Cyril had only broken silence three times; once in his letter to the monks in Egypt; a letter to Nestorius, explaining the occasion of that letter when he heard that Nestorius was offended by it; and the second full statement of doctrine in the Epistle, which was received by the Council of Ephesus.

The first was his 'letter to the Monks of Egypt.' Some of them had been deeply troubled—even concerning the Divinity of our Lord—by certain writings attributed to Nestorius. St. Cyril answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his writing,

i. The first was his 'letter to the Monks of Egypt.' Grave perplexity had been occasioned to some of them, even as to the Divinity of our Lord, through some writings attributed to Nestorius. S. Cyril answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his writing,

When Nestorius' homilies were brought to Egypt, I learned that some of the less serious people were influenced, and said doubtfully among themselves, 'Is he right?' 'Is he wrong?' Fearing that this problem might take root in the minds of simple believers, I wrote a general letter to the monasteries of Egypt, strengthening them in the right faith.¹²⁶

' When his [Nestorius'] homilies were brought to Egypt, I learnt that some of the lighter sort were carried away, and said doubtingly among themselves, 'does he say right?' 'Is he in error?' Fearing lest the disease should root in the minds of the simple, I wrote a general Epistle to the monasteries of Egypt, confirming them to the right faith.'¹²⁶

No bishop who was competent in his office could have done anything other than work to remove those uncertainties from the minds of the people under his care. Others distributed what he had written in Constantinople. Saint Cyril continues his account,

No Bishop, competent for his office, could have done otherwise than set himself to remove those perplexities in the minds of the people committed to his charge. Others circulated what he had written, in Constantinople. S. Cyril continues his account,

Some people took copies to Constantinople. Those who read them benefited greatly, and many officials wrote letters thanking me. But this only increased his anger toward me, and he [Nestorius] opposed me as an enemy, having no other basis for criticism than that I cannot agree with his views.

'Some took copies to Constantinople. And those who read them were much benefited, so that very many of those in office wrote, thanking me. But that too was fresh nutriment of displeasure against me, and he [Nestorius] contended against me as an enemy, having no other ground of censure than that I cannot think as he does.'

Cyril's two letters to Nestorius, written before the sentence of condemnation that he was authorized to announce if Nestorius did not retract his views, were letters of explanation.

ii. iii. S. Cyril's two Epistles to Nestorius (previous to the sentence of condemnation which he was commissioned to announce, unless Nestorius should retract) were letters of explanation.

The first letter was intended to address the offense that Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It reads as follows:

The first was to remove the offence, which Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It runs;

People who are completely trustworthy have come to Alexandria and have told me that Your Piety is extremely angry and is doing everything possible to cause me grief. When I tried to find out the reason for Your Piety's distress, they said that some people from Alexandria were circulating the letter I wrote to the holy monks, and that this was the cause of the hatred and displeasure. I was surprised that Your Piety did not instead consider that the disturbance concerning the faith did not begin with my letter, but with certain papers or exegeses that were circulated—whether written by Your Piety or not. We then worked hard, wanting to restore those who had been misled. For some people would barely acknowledge that Christ is God, but rather said He was merely an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man, and even things worse than this. I therefore had reason to complain about the things that Your Piety either wrote or did not write. (For I do not fully trust the papers that are being passed around.) How then could I remain silent when the faith is so damaged and so many people are being led astray? Will we not be brought before the judgment seat of Christ? Will we not have to give an account for our untimely silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is proper? What should I do now? For I must consult with Your Piety. And when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the God-beloved bishops with him, report concerning the papers brought there—I do not know how, whether by Your Piety or not—they write that they are extremely scandalized. And how shall we appease those who come from the East from all the churches and complain about the papers? Or does Your Piety think that only a small disturbance has arisen in the churches from such homilies? We are all struggling and working hard, bringing back those who have somehow been wrongly persuaded to think differently. When it is Your Piety who has necessarily made everyone complain, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that for no reason, and not instead correct Its own speech to stop this worldwide scandal? For although the speech is in the past, since it is still spreading among the people, let it be corrected through revision, and please grant one word to those who are offended by calling the holy Virgin Theotokos, so that by soothing those who have been grieved and having a good reputation among all, we may celebrate the Communions in the peace and harmony of the peoples. But let Your Piety not doubt that we are ready to endure all things for the faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself. But I speak the truth: even while Atticus of blessed memory was still alive, I composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I also wrote about the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten in agreement with what I have now written, and I read it to bishops and clergy and those laypeople who were eager to hear, but I have not given it out to anyone until now. If it should be published, it is likely that I may be blamed again, even though the little work was composed even before Your Piety's consecration.¹²⁷

' Persons deserving of all credit have come to Alexandria and have informed me that thy Piety is exceeding angry, and setting every thing in motion to grieve me. And when I would learn the cause of the grief of thy Piety, they said that some from Alexandria were circulating the letter written to the holy Monks, and that this was the occasion of the hatred and displeasure. I wondered then, that thy Piety did not rather think with Itself, that the disturbance as to the faith did not originate with my letter, but with some, whether written by thy Piety or no, but any how papers or exegeses which were circulated. We then toiled, wishing to restore those misled. For some would hardly admit that Christ is God; but that He was rather an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man, and things even beyond this. I had then reason to complain of the things, which thy Piety did or did not write. (For I do not much trust the papers which are carried about.) How then should I be silent, when faith is so injured and so many are perverted? Shall we not be placed before the Judgement-seat of Christ? Shall we not give account for the unseasonable silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is meet? What shall I do now? For I must consult with thy Piety. And that, when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the God-beloved Bishops with him, report about the papers brought thither, I know not how, whether by thy Piety or no. For they write, as exceedingly scandalized. And how shall we soothe those who come from the East from all the Churches, and murmur against the papers? Or does thy Piety think, that only a little disturbance has sprung up in the Churches from such homilies? We are all struggling and toiling, bringing back those who are somehow mispersuaded to think otherwise. When then it is thy Piety, who made all of necessity murmur, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that to no purpose, and does not rather correct Its own speech, to stop this world-wide scandal? For though the speech is past, yet as being diffused among the people, let it be set straight by revision, and do thou vouchsafe to concede one word to those who are offended, by calling the holy Virgin Theotocos, that soothing those who have been, grieved, and having a right repute among all, we may celebrate the Communions amid the peace and harmony of the peoples. But let not thy Piety doubt, that we are ready to endure all things for the Faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself. But I say the truth, that even while Atticus of blessed memory still survived, I composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I wrote also about the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten agreeably to what I have now written, and I read it to Bishops and Clerks and those of the laity who were fond of hearing, but I have not given it out hitherto to any one. If then it should be published, it is probable that I may again be blamed, whereas the little tract was composed even before the consecration of thy Piety.'¹²⁷

Writing to a Patriarch was certainly an unpleasant task, especially to one who was in high favor with the Emperor of both East and West, who had a very high opinion of himself and his writings, and who was extremely angry with Saint Cyril for writing against them. The task was to tell him that he was actually in the wrong, that Saint Cyril could not have acted differently than he did with the judgment seat of Christ before him, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had done, which had turned both East and West against him. These were not pleasant things to write, but I do not know how they could have been expressed more gently. Saint Cyril assures Nestorius that there was nothing personal in what he had written, since he did not even know for certain whose writings he was responding to, but that they were spreading wrong doctrine among those entrusted to Saint Cyril's care—wrong doctrine that Nestorius would not agree with. He explains that he had no part in circulating what he had written in Constantinople, that he had written similar things many years before, and that this earlier writing too might become a fresh subject of accusation if it were published, even though its date showed it could have no connection to Nestorius. He makes only one request of him, the same request that John of Antioch, Nestorius's friend, also made—by accepting which Nestorius might have escaped his own shameful legacy and avoided being the author of the miserable division in the body of Christ—that he would be willing to accept one word, Theotokos. But doing so would have meant giving up his heresy.

It was, of course, an unpleasant office to write to a Patriarch, in high favour with the Sovereign of both, who had no slight opinion of himself and of his writings, and was very angry with S. Cyril himself for writing against them, to tell him that he was in fact himself in the wrong; that he, S. Cyril, could not have done otherwise than he did, having before him the judgement-seat of Christ, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had done, which had set East and West against him. They were not smooth things to write; but I do not know how they could have been conveyed more smoothly. S. Cyril assures Nestorius, that there was nothing personal in what he had written, for he did not even know certainly, whose writings he was answering, but that they were conveying wrong doctrine among those with whom S. Cyril was put in trust; wrong doctrine, which Nestorius would not go along with; that he [S. Cyril] had had no part in the circulation of what he had written in Constantinople; that he had written the like many years before, and that this too might become a fresh subject of incrimination, if it should be published, whereas from its date it could have no bearing on Nestorius. One only request he makes him, the same, which John of Antioch the friend of Nestorius also made, by acceding to which he might have escaped his own evil memory and being the author of the miserable rent in the body of Christ, that he would vouchsafe to concede one word, Theotocos. But it would have been to give up his heresy.

The presbyter Lampon, who delivered Cyril's letter, could only get the following arrogant response from Nestorius, in which he avoided every topic that Cyril's letter had addressed.

The Presbyter Lampon who took S. Cyril's letter, could only obtain from Nestorius the following haughty answer, in which he avoided every topic of the letter of S. Cyril.

Nothing is more powerful than Christian fairness. We have therefore been compelled to write this present letter through the most religious presbyter Lampon, who said many things to us about your Piety and also heard much, and finally would not yield to us until he extracted this letter from us, and we have been overcome by the man's persistence. For I admit that I have great reverence for all Christian goodness in every person, since God dwells in him. We then, although many things have been done by your Religiousness (to put it gently) that are not in keeping with brotherly love, continue in patience and the friendly exchange of letters. But experience will show what the result is of the pressure applied by the most religious Presbyter Lampon. I and those with me greet all the brotherhood together with you.¹²⁸

' Nothing is mightier than Christian equity. We have then been constrained thereby to the present letter through the most religious presbyter Lampon, who said many things about thy Piety to us, and heard also much, and at last did not give way to us, until he wrung the letter from us, and we have been conquered by the man's importunity. For I own that I have great awe of all Christian goodness of every man, as having God residing in him. We then, although many things have been done by your Religiousness (to speak mildly) not according to brotherly love, continue in long-suffering and the friendly intercourse of letters. But experience will shew, what is the fruit of the constraint of the most religious Presbyter Lampon. I and those with me salute all the brotherhood together with thee.'¹²⁸

The response from Nestorius was essentially an apology he made to himself for condescending to write to Cyril.

The answer of Nestorius was in fact an apology to himself for vouchsafing to write to S. Cyril.

The second letter of Saint Cyril is also an apology.

The second Epistle of S. Cyril is also Apologetic,

in response to some people who are constantly gossiping to your Piety against my reputation, especially watching for opportunities when those in power are meeting.¹²⁹

' in answer to some who are babbling to thy Piety against my reputation and that incessantly, watching, above all, the seasons of the meetings of those in power.'¹²⁹

The letter is entirely doctrinal in content. However, there is no real dispute with Nestorius in it, except for the appeal at the end asking him to think and teach these things. It is simply a careful statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation that explicitly excludes what Nestorius called Apollinarian.

The Epistle is throughout doctrinal. But there is not the slightest controversy with Nestorius, except in the appeal at the end that he would think and teach these things. It is only a careful statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation, expressly excluding what Nestorius called Apollinarian.

Nestorius's reply is written in a tone of mocking condescension. He claims to overlook "the insults of your remarkable letters, since they call for patient forbearance like medicine"; "the supposedly all-wise words of your Love"; he advises Cyril to pay attention to doctrine—meaning that Cyril should not, as he had done, read the tradition of the most holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] superficially and thereby display an ignorance that required forgiveness. Nestorius treated Cyril's letter as self-contradictory and concluded in a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was obviously pointless. In fact, Nestorius's quotation from Saint Paul seems intended to close the discussion entirely.¹³⁰

The answer of Nestorius is in a tone of ironical condescension. He professes to pass by 'the contumelies of thy wondrous letters, as needing a medicinal long-suffering;' 'the all-wise words of thy Love;' advises him to attend to doctrine, i. e. not as he had, reading superficially the tradition of the all-holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] to shew an ignorance, which needed forgiveness; treated his letter as self-contradictory and ended in a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was of course useless. Indeed, the quotation from S. Paul seems intended by Nestorius to close the subject.¹³⁰

These are our recommendations, given from one brother to another. But if anyone seems inclined to argue, Paul will call out through us as well: "We have no such custom, nor does the Church of God."

'These are the counsels from us, as from a brother to a brother. But if any one seem to be contentious, to such an one Paul will cry out through us also, We have no such custom, neither the Church of God.'

It's possible that St. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family were prompted by Nestorius's claim that the Emperor was delighted to be instructed about the dogma. However, while Cyril clearly explains the facts to them, he neither mentions Nestorius by name nor quotes any known statement of his.

It may be that S. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family may have been occasioned by the statement which Nestorius gives of the joy of the Sovereign on being enlightened as to the dogma. But although he states the fact clearly to them, he neither mentions Nestorius, nor quotes any known saying of his.

He himself waited. He had probably learned from his passionate loyalty to his uncle and early benefactor, Theophilus, and the injustice it caused to the memory of Saint Chrysostom. He tells those who criticized him for his letter to the monks of Egypt that he could have responded to anathema with anathema.

He himself waited. He had learned probably from his fiery adhesion to his uncle and early benefactor, Theophilus, and its injustice to the memory of S. Chrysostom. He says to those who reproached him for his letter to the monks of Egypt, that he might have returned anathema for anathema,

Since we who are still living, and the bishops throughout the world, and our fathers who have departed to God, have been anathematized. For what prevented me from writing the opposite of his words: 'If anyone does not say that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema?' But I have not done this up to now for his sake, so that no one should say that the Bishop of Alexandria—that is, the Egyptian Synod—has anathematized him. But if the most devout bishops in East and West learn that all have been anathematized (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotokos), how will they react? How will they not be distressed, if not for themselves, then for the holy fathers, in whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary called Theotokos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find this word used not once but many times, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos.¹³¹

' Since we who are yet living, and the Bishops throughout the world, and our fathers who have departed to God have been anathematised. For what hindered me too from writing the converse of his words, 'If any one say not that Mary is Theotocos, be he anathema?' But I have not done this hitherto for his sake, lest any should say, that the Bishop of Alexandria, i. e. the Egyptian Synod, has anathematised him. But if the most religious Bishops in East and West shall learn, that all have been anathematised, (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotocos) how will they be disposed? How will they not be grieved, if not for themselves, yet for the holy fathers, iu whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary named Theotocos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find not once but many times this word used, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotocos.'¹³¹

When he finally wrote to ask the advice of Saint Celestine, he says.¹³²

When at last he wrote to ask the advice of S. Celestine, he says.¹³²

During the past time I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing about the man who is now in Constantinople and leads the Church, either to your Piety or to any of our fellow ministers, believing that hasty action in these matters deserves blame.

'During the time past I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing concerning him who is now at Constantinople and rules the Church, either to your Piety or to any other of our fellow-ministers, believing that precipitancy in these things is not without blame.'

However, the confusion was already significant. St. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius:

Yet the confusion was already not slight. S. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius;

There is no one from any city or country who does not say that these things are on everyone's lips, and ask what new teaching is being brought into the Churches.¹³³

' There is no one from any city or country, who does not say that these things are in every one's mouth, and, what new learning is being brought into the Churches?'¹³³

To Nestorius himself he said, "The books of your exegeses are circulated everywhere."¹³⁴

To Nestorius himself he said, ' the books of your exegeses are circulated every where.'¹³⁴

Vanity probably hastened the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low opinion of the abilities of S. Celestine.

Vanity probably precipitated the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low estimate of the abilities of S. Celestine.

Nestorius says, "The Egyptian [S. Cyril], frightened by the fear of being found guilty, and looking for some problem to help him, turns to Celestine of Rome, viewing him as too simple-minded to understand the power of theological teachings. Finding that man to be indeed simple, he childishly deceives him with the illusions of his letters."¹³⁵

' The Egyptian [S.Cyril] terrified,' he says, 'by the dread of being convicted, and seeking for some trouble to stand him in stead, betakes himself to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to penetrate the force of dogmas. Finding moreover the simplicity of that man, he childishly circumvents his ears with the illusions of letters.'¹³⁵

It did not occur to Nestorius that divine truth is seen through simple piety, not through proud intellect. He was also unaware that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius when he was a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was later to be developed on these very subjects—the one who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian.¹³⁶

It did not occur to Nestorius that Divine truth is seen by simple piety, not by proud intellect. He was not aware also, that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius when a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was afterwards to be developed on these very subjects; him, who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian.¹³⁶

To this same Celestine, whom he thought so little of, Nestorius wrote two letters. Ostensibly he was consulting him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality he was presenting his own heresy in the most persuasive way he could. He began by laying down,¹³⁷

To this S. Celestine, of whom he thought so lightly, Nestorius wrote two letters, ostensibly to consult him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality to propound his own heresy in as plausible a manner as he could. He began by laying down,¹³⁷

We owe each other brotherly discussion, since we must fight together in unity against the devil, the enemy of peace. What is the purpose of this introduction?

'We owe to each other brotherly conference, as having to fight in harmony together against the devil, the enemy of peace. To what end this preface?'

Julian and others, claiming to be bishops of the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him that they were being persecuted despite being orthodox. Since he was unaware of the facts of the case, he asked Saint Celestine to inform him, because a new sect requires great vigilance from true pastors.

Julian and others, alleging that they were Bishops of the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him, that they were persecuted being orthodox; so he, being in ignorance of the merits of the case, asked S. Celestine to inform him. 'For a new sect claims great watchfulness from true pastors.'

In his second letter, Nestorius says that he had written 'often' about these Pelagian Bishops. He himself might have known (as Celestine reminds him), since his predecessor Atticus had written to Celestine, what Celestine had done in their case. In both letters, Nestorius speaks of his efforts against 'something similar to Apollinarianism.' In his second letter, he says that he is working hard to 'root it out.' Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal, says that Nestorius wrote this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to win it over to his side.¹³⁸

In the second letter, he says that he had 'often' written about these Pelagian Bishops. He himself might have known (S. Celestine reminds him) since Atticus his predecessor had written to S. Celestine, what he had done in their matter. In both letters, he speaks of his efforts against 'something akin to Apollinarianism:' in his second, that he is at much pains to 'extirpate' it. S. Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal, says that Nestorius wrote this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to carry it away with him.¹³⁸

Through these letters to Celestine, Cyril became the reason why a letter in which he finally consulted Celestine about the matter of Nestorius was shown to Celestine. Cyril had instructed his deacon Posidonius: if he should find Nestorius's books of scriptural interpretations and his letters already delivered to Celestine, then deliver my letters as well; if not, bring them back here to me undelivered. Posidonius, finding that the interpretations and letters had been delivered, was therefore obliged to deliver Cyril's letters as well.¹³⁹

By these letters to S. Celestine, he was himself the occasion of a letter, in which S. Cyril at last consulted him about the matter of Nestorius, being shewn to S. Celestine. For S. Cyril had given instructions to his Deacon Posidonius,' if he should find the books of his [Nestorius] exegeses and his letters delivered to him [S. Celestine], deliver my letters also; if not, bring them here [to S. Cyril] undelivered. He then, finding the exegeses and the letters delivered, had himself also to deliver them.'¹³⁹

A synod was then held at Rome in which, after many sessions, the bishops declared that he had devised a new and very serious heresy, and they condemned him.¹⁴⁰

A synod then was held at Rome, in which, after many sessions, the Bishops declared him to have devised a new very grievous heresy, and condemned him.¹⁴⁰

A fragment of a speech by Saint Celestine is preserved, in which he cited the authorities of Saint Ambrose in his "Veni redemptor gentium," Saint Hilary, and Saint Damasus. Saint Celestine announced the result to Nestorius.¹⁴¹

A fragment of a speech of S. Celestine is preserved, in which he cited the authorities of S. Ambrose in his Veni redemptor gentium, S. Hilary and S. Damasus. S. Celestine announced to Nestorius the result;¹⁴¹

Unless you teach about Christ our God the same doctrine that the Church of Rome, the Alexandrians, and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well before you came, and unless within ten days counted from the date of this warning you revoke by an open written confession that faithless innovation which attempts to divide what holy Scripture unites, you are expelled from all communion with the Catholic Church.

'Unless you teach as to Christ our God the same which the Church of the Romans and the Alexandrians and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well till you, and, within the tenth day counted from the day of this admonition, annul by an open confession in writing that faithless novelty which undertakes to sever what holy Scripture unites, thou art cast out of all communion with the Catholic Church.'

Saint Celestine wrote the same message to John of Antioch. He had entrusted this decision to Saint Cyril, who was acting in his place. Saint Cyril wrote to John of Antioch about what had happened and about the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod, informing him that the Council had written similar letters to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and other bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them, and to Juvenal, Bishop of Aelia. He urged John to follow their decision and asked him to consider what steps to take to prevent this break in communion.¹⁴²¹⁴³

S. Celestine wrote the same to John of Antioch. This judgement he had entrusted to S. Cyril, holding his place. S. Cyril wrote what had passed and the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod to John of Antioch, telling him, that the Council had written the like to 'Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and other Bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them,' and to Juvenal Bishop of Aelia; that he himself should follow their decision, and asking him to consider what to do to hinder this breach of communion.¹⁴²¹⁴³

John of Antioch was alarmed at the prospect of this division and wrote to Nestorius to prevent it by accepting the word Theotokos. He wrote not only in his own name but also in the name of six other bishops who were with him at the time, including Theodoret. He wrote in complete sympathy with Nestorius and in opposition to those who opposed him. He speaks of the many as "unrestrained against us" and asks, "what will they be now that they have gained support from these wretched letters?" He assumes that Nestorius's faith was sound. He had heard that Nestorius had said he would use the word Theotokos if anyone of high standing in the Church suggested it. John tells him that he is not urging him to make a disgraceful change or engage in what might be called "boyish stubbornness." He notes that "though my lord Celestine had set a very short time for the answer, yet one day, perhaps even a few hours, would be enough." He urges Nestorius to seek the counsel of those who share his views, allowing them to speak fearlessly about what is useful, not what is pleasant. John himself held and stated the true faith, and he believed the word Theotokos was the appropriate and true way to express it, and that rejecting it would endanger the unspeakable mystery of the Only-Begotten Son of God.¹⁴⁴

John of Antioch was alarmed at this prospect of a rent, and wrote to Nestorius to prevent it by accepting the word Theotocos. He wrote not in his own name only, bat in that of six other Bishops who were then with him, among them Theodoret. He wrote in entire sympathy with Nestorius, in antagonism to those opposed to him. He speaks of the many, as 'unrestrained against us,' and asks, 'what will they be, now that they have gained support from these wretched letters? He takes it for granted that the faith of Nestorius was sound; he had heard that he had said that he would use the word [Theotocos] if any of those in high repute in the Church suggested it, tells him that he does not exhort him to disreputable change, or, so to say, 'boyish contradiction;' that 'though my lord Celestine had fixed a very narrow time for the answer, yet one day, perhaps a few hours would be enough; and urges him to take the counsel of those of his own mind, allowing them to speak fearlessly what was useful, not what was pleasant.' John himself held and stated the true faith, and thought the word Theotocos the convenient and true way to express it, and that to reject it would jeopardise the unspeakable mystery of the Only-Begotten Son of God.¹⁴⁴

Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement:

Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement;

I thought people could have launched any accusation against me except the false charge that I do not hold correct views about the piety of faith—I who have been pleased that thousands of hostilities have arisen against me because of my battle against all heretics. But I must endure this trial too with joy, for it also, if we are very careful, may give us much confidence in piety.¹⁴⁵

' I thought that people could have set anything in motion against me rather than the calumny that I do not hold aright as to the piety of faith, I who hitherto have been delighted that many thousand hostilities rise against me on account of the battle which I have against all heretics. But this temptation too I must bear with joy; for it too, if we watch very carefully, may confer on us much confidence to piety.'¹⁴⁵

He says in response that many heretics have adopted the word Theotokos as their own, and that some people here, by using the word carelessly, fall into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinarius. His own solution was that the word Theotokos should be explained harmoniously after we all deliberate together. He commands John

He says in answer, that 'the word Theotocos is assumed by many heretics as their own;' that 'some here, using the word incautiously, fall thereby into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinarius:' that his own solution was that 'the word Theotocos should be explained harmoniously after the deliberation of us all.' He bids John

dismiss all anxiety, knowing that by the grace of God we have thought and do think the same regarding the piety of the faith. For it is clear that if we meet, since God has granted us this Synod for which we hope, we will settle this matter and whatever else must be done for the correction and benefit of everyone, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things that are decided by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters of faith, and will give no one an occasion for objection even if he is very eager to object. But regarding the customary presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness should not be surprised, since we have had many examples of this for a long time. Shortly, if God wills, our counsel in this matter too will be worthy of praise.

'dismiss all anxiety, knowing that hy the grace of God we have and do think the same in what relates to the piety of faith. For it is plain that if we meet, since He has given us this Synod which we hope, we shall dispose this and whatever else must be done for the correction and benefit of the whole, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things which may be ordained by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters of faith, and shall give no one an occasion of contradiction even if he be very ready for it. But as to the wonted presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness ought not to wonder, since we have of old very many instances of this. After a little, if God shall will, our counsel herein also will be matter of praise.'

He adds in a postscript,

He adds in a postscript,

We have, by the grace of God, drawn more people—both clergy and laity, as well as those in the imperial court—to the teaching we publicly proclaim in the Church, through the letters from your Religiousness.

'We have by the grace of God attracted more both the Clergy and people and those who are in the imperial mansions, through the Epistles of your Religiousness, to that doctrine which we give publicly in the Church.'

To Saint Celestine, after writing in his usual manner about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, and Christotocos, he writes triumphantly:

To S. Celestine, after writing in his wonted strain about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, Christotocos, he writes exultingly:

The most devout Emperors have decided, with God's help, to call a worldwide Synod from which no one may excuse themselves, in order to investigate other church matters. I don't think any uncertainty about terminology will require difficult inquiry or prevent us from discussing the divinity of the Lord Jesus.¹⁴⁶

' The most pious Emperors have been pleased, with the help of God, to appoint a Synod of the whole world, from which no one is to excuse himself [inexcusabiliter] for the enquiry into other ecclesiastical matters. For any doubt about words will not, I suppose, involve any difficult enquiry, nor be a hindrance to treating of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.'¹⁴⁶

Saint Celestine says,¹⁴⁷

S. Celestine says,¹⁴⁷

He asks for a field of battle; he calls for an examination by priests, though he would not be present at it. Who would have thought that the one who requested a synod would be absent from the synod?

'He asks a field for battle; he calls for a sacerdotal examination, at which he would not be present. Who would have thought that he who asked for a synod [petitorem synodi] would be absent from the Synod?'

The Emperor's relationship to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter he wrote to Cyril, commanding him to attend. The letter can hardly have had any purpose other than to intimidate Cyril, since he had already received the circular summons to the Council, of which the only surviving copy is addressed to him. The letter was written entirely from Nestorius's perspective, for the Emperor treats Cyril as the one who caused the current confusion, and presents the doctrine as something yet to be examined and settled by the Council.¹⁴⁸

The relation of the Emperor to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter which he wrote to S. Cyril, commanding his attendance at it. The letter can hardly have had any other object than to intimidate S. Cyril. For he had already received the circular summons to the Council, of which the only extant copy is addressed to him. The letter was written altogether in the mind of Nestorius. For he treats S. Cyril as the author of the existing confusion, and the doctrine as one hereafter to be examined and settled by the Council.¹⁴⁸

Everyone knows that religion stands firm not because someone orders it to, but because of understanding. Now explain to us why you have ignored us—knowing as you do how much we care about godliness—and all the priests everywhere who could have resolved this dispute better, and have instead, as far as it depends on you, thrown confusion and division into the Church. It is as if rash impulsiveness is appropriate for questions about godliness rather than careful precision, or as if we value recklessness more than carefulness, or as if we prefer complexity in these matters to simplicity. We did not think that your Piety would receive our high regard this way, or that everything would be thrown into confusion, especially since we also know how to be displeased. But for now we will look after the sacred peace. But understand that you have disturbed everything in a way you should not have.¹⁴⁹

' It is plain to every one that religion has its firmness not from any one's bidding but from intelligence. Now then let thy Piety instruct Us, why, overlooking Us (whom thou knowest to have such care of godliness) and all the priests every where, who could better have solved this dispute, thou hast, as far as in thee lies, cast confusion and severance into the Church. As if a rash impetuosity became questions as to godliness, rather than accuracy; or as if carefulness had not more weight with Ourselves than rashness; or as if intricacy in these things were more pleasing to Us than, simplicity. And yet we did not think that Our high estimation would be so received by thy Piety, or that every thing would be thrown into confusion, inasmuch as We too know how to be displeased. But now We shall take heed to the sacred calm. But know that thou hast disturbed every thing as thou oughtest not.'¹⁴⁹

Then, after reproaching him for trying to sow division within the Imperial family through his letters to the Emperor, the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and telling him that wanting to split apart both Churches and royal power belongs to the same kind of person, as if there were no other way to gain prominence, he continues:

Then, having reproached him, as having tried to sow dissension in the Imperial family, by his letters to him and the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and told him that it belonged to one and the same, to wish to dissever Churches and Royalties, as though there were no other way of obtaining distinction, he resumes,

But so that you may know our position, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will be even more united at our command, with the providence of our Savior Christ, and that your Piety is forgiven, so that you may have no excuse, nor be able to say that you are blamed on account of religion. For we desire that all things shall be laid open at the holy Synod and that what seems good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from the fathers or not. We certainly will not tolerate that cities and Churches should be thrown into confusion, nor that the question should remain unexamined. Those who everywhere preside over the Priesthood must sit in judgment on these matters; and through them we have and shall have firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall anyone, who has even the slightest share in the polity, be allowed freedom of speech, if in his self-confidence he chooses to evade such a judgment. He shall not be permitted; for our Majesty must praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this inquiry, and will not tolerate it if any choose to command rather than be counseled about these matters. So then your Reverence must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and must not expect to recover the relation to us in any other way than by ceasing from all grievousness and turbulence, and coming willingly to the investigation of these questions. For thus you will appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and inconsiderately, yet still on behalf of your opinion, not through any private spite or undue hostility to anyone, and to be willing to do with justice what remains to be done. For if you choose to do otherwise, we will not endure it.

'But that thou mayest know Our state, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will be yet more united at Our command, with the providence of our Saviour Christ, and that thy Piety is forgiven, that thou mayest have no pretext, nor be able to say that thou art blamed on account of religion. For we will that all shall be laid open at the holy Synod and that what shall seem good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from the fathers or no. We certainly will not endure that cities and Churches should be thrown into confusion, nor that the question should remain unsifted. Of these they must sit in judgment, who every where preside over the Priesthood; and by them We have and shall have firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall any one, who has ever so little share in the polity, be allowed liberty of speech, if in his self-confidence he choose to evade such a judgement. He shall not be permitted; for Our Majesty [lit. Divinity] must praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this enquiry, and will not endure if any choose to command rather than be counselled about these matters. So then thy Reverence must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and must not expect to recover the relation to Ourselves in any other way than that, ceasing from all grievousness and turbulence, thou come willingly to the investigation of these questions. For thus thou wilt appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and inconsiderately, yet still in behalf of thy opinion, not through any private pique or undue hostility to any one, and to will to do with justice what remains to be done. For if thou willest to do otherwise, We will not endure it.'

A Caesar who wrote in this way could not be approached. It appears that he expected Saint Cyril to be condemned rather than Nestorius. Saint Cyril did not attempt to address the offense of his letters to the Imperial family until he had been permitted to return from the Council to his own diocese.

A Caesar who so wrote could not be approached. It seems that he expected S. Cyril to be condemned rather than Nestorius. S. Cyril did not attempt to remove the offence of his letters to the Imperial family, until he had been allowed to return from the Council to his own diocese.

Cyril explains his own attitude toward Nestorius to a zealous supporter of Nestorius with remarkable straightforwardness.¹⁵⁰

S.Cyril explains his own mind towards Nestorius to a zealous adherent of Nestorius, with a singular simplicity.¹⁵⁰

If I were writing to someone who didn't know my character, I might use many words to convince them that I am an extremely peaceful person, not inclined to strife, not fond of conflict, but someone who desires to love everyone and to be loved by everyone. But since I am writing to someone who knows me, I will say this briefly: if a brother's distress could be removed by the loss of money or possessions, I would gladly have done it, so that I would not appear to value anything more than love. However, since this is a question of faith, and all the Churches throughout the entire Roman Empire (so to speak) are offended—what are we to do, we who have been entrusted by God with the divine mysteries? For those who have been taught the faith will accuse us on the Day of Judgment, saying that they held the faith as we taught it to them. Let the faith alone be preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to no one in loving the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius more than I love myself. God is my witness that I wish he might be of good reputation in Christ and remove the stain of the past, and show that what is commonly said by some concerning his faith are false accusations.¹⁵¹¹⁵²

' If I were writing to one who knew not my disposition, I might have used many words, persuading that I am a person exceeding peaceful, not given to strife, not fond of warfare, but one who longs to love all and to be loved by all. But because I write to one who knows me, I say briefly, 'If a brother's grief could be removed by loss of money or goods, I would gladly have done it, that I might not seem to hold anything of more value than love. But since it is a question of faith, and all the Churches (so to say) in the whole Roman Empire are offended,—- what shall we do, who are entrusted by God with the Divine mysteries?' For those who are taught the faith will accuse us in the Day of Judgement, saying that they held the faith as taught by us….. Only be the faith preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to none as loving more than myself the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, who (God is my witness) I would might be of good repute in Christ and efface the blot of the past, and shew that what is commonly said by some as to his faith, are untrue accusations.'¹⁵¹¹⁵²

And again to the clergy at Constantinople:

And again to Clergy at Constantinople,

I must make my meaning plain to you, and so I write again. Although I naturally love peace and am very ignorant of strife, I still wish that the Churches should have peace, and that the priests of God living in peace should remember us, since Jesus Christ the Saviour of all says, "My peace I give unto you, My peace I leave with you." Say then in conferences that much has passed from them to injure us. Yet there will be peace when he ceases to think or speak such things. If he professes the right faith, there will be a full and most firm peace. If he desires this, let him write the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If this is written from his inmost heart, I too am ready, as far as it lies within me, to write the same and publish a book and say that none of our fellow-bishops ought to be aggrieved, because we learn that his words have a right intention and clear purpose. But if he continues in the perverseness of vain-glory and asks for peace, nothing remains but that we resist with all our might, lest we should seem to agree with him. For to me my chiefest desire is to labor and live and die for the faith which is in Christ.¹⁵³

' I must make my meaning plain to you and so I write again, that although I by nature love peace, and am very ignorant of strife, yet I wish that the Churches should have peace, and that the priests of God living in peace should remember us, since Jesus Christ the Saviour of all saith, "My peace I give unto you, My peace 1 leave with you." Say then in conferences, that much has passed from them to injure us; yet there will be peace, when he shall cease to think or speak such things. If he profess the right faith, there will be a full and most firm peace. If he desires this, let him write the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If this be written from his inmost heart, I too am ready, as far as in me lies, to write the like and publish a book and say that none of our fellow-bishops ought to be aggrieved, because we learn that his words have a right intention and manifest purpose. But if he continue in the perverseness of vain-glory and asks for peace, nothing remains but that we resist with all our might, lest we should seem to agree with him. For to me my chiefest desire is to labour and live and die for the faith which is in Christ.'¹⁵³

There could hardly be a more straightforward offer—setting aside everything of his own to "write the Catholic faith." Nestorius was not bound to any theological expressions, but only to the simple faith. He could not write it because he had stopped holding it.

There could scarcely be a franker offer, putting aside every thing of his own, to 'write the Catholic faith.' Nestorius is tied down to no Theological expressions, but to the simple faith. He could not write it, because he had ceased to hold it.

The bishops assembled in that synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lérins, writing about three years after it was held, speaks of its

The Bishops assembled in that Synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lerins, writing about three years after it was holden, speaks of its

great humility and holiness, noting that they were mostly metropolitans of such character and learning that nearly all of them were capable of debating matters of faith. Yet they claimed no authority for themselves, but took care to pass down to those who came after them only what they themselves had received from the Fathers.¹⁵⁴

' great humility and holiness, that they were for the more part metropolitans, of such condition and doctrine, that almost all could dispute about matters of faith, and yet they claimed nothing for themselves, but were careful to hand down nothing to those after them, which they had not themselves received from the Fathers.'¹⁵⁴

Saint Cyril, in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them "men very well known to your Majesty, and highly praised for their excellence in all things."¹⁵⁵

S. Cyril in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them ' men, very well known to your Mightiness, and exceeding well spoken of for excellence in all things.'¹⁵⁵

Nestorius came to the Council immediately after the Feast of Easter with ten or fifteen bishops who were his supporters. He was also backed by a few Pelagian bishops whom he had admitted to Communion and who were temporarily kept in their positions by Theodosius's order that everything should remain unchanged until the Council made its decision. It is said that he found many bishops already present. If this is true, they must have been bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus, since the others are reported to have arrived later. The Council was Nestorius's idea, and he naturally came among the first to guide its decisions, as he hoped to do. When S. Cyril arrived, he found that there had been active but unsuccessful efforts against the faith. He wrote, "The Evil one, the sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but achieves nothing." The Evil one is, of course, Satan, but Satan works through human agents. Nestorius says that he had no contact with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, a eunuch of the Emperor and his friend: "Cyril has previously avoided any conversation with us entirely, and continues to avoid it until now, thinking that he will thereby escape the conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without being challenged they are heretical." If, as has been suggested, it was at this time that S. Cyril made the extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers containing the true doctrine, he had enough to keep him busy. There is no reason to think that S. Cyril preached against Nestorius at this time.^{156157158159160161}

Nestorius came to the Council ' immediately after the Feast of Easter' with 10 or 15 Bishops, his adherents. He was also supported by a few Pelagian Bishops, whom he had admitted to Communion, and who for the time were retained in their office by the requirement of Theodosius, that everything should remain as it was, until the decision of the Council. He is said to have found many Bishops present. If so, they must have been Bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus. For the rest are related to have arrived later. The Council was the plan of Nestorius, and he naturally came among the first, to guide, as he hoped, its decisions. S. Cyril, on his arrival, found that there had been active, though ineffectual, efforts against the faith. He wrote, ' The Evil one, the sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but avails nothing.' The Evil one is, of course, Satan; but Satan acts through human agents. Nestorius says, that he had no intercourse with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, an Eunuch of the Emperor and his friend; 'Cyril has both heretofore entirely avoided any converse with us, and until now avoids it, thinking that he shall thereby escape the conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without contradiction they are heretical.' If (as has been conjectured) it was at this time that S. Cyril made the extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers, containing the true doctrine, he had enough to do. There is no reason to think that S. Cyril preached at this time against Nestorius.^{156157158159160161}

The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was revealed through the attempts of Theodotus of Ancyra and his pious friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith. To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's sacred infancy and childhood—that he would not call him God who was two or three months old, or who was nursed at the breast, or who fled into Egypt. This was stated under oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It provided what was still missing: the knowledge that Nestorius had not abandoned the heresy for which he had been condemned the year before. Saint Celestine had given formal advice to Saint Cyril that if Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment of the Council's opening, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the blasphemies which before he had sanctioned in his adherent Dorotheus. If one who plainly denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to Saint Cyril, which was formally condemned by the Council: that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind, although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.¹⁶²¹⁶³

The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was elicited by the attempts of Theodotus of Ancyra, and his pious friend, Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith. To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's sacred Infancy and Childhood, that he would not call Him God, who was two or three months old, or who was nurtured at the breast, or who fled into Egypt. This was stated upon oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It supplied what was yet wanting, the knowledge that Nestorius had not laid aside the heresy, for which he had been condemned the year before. S. Celestine had given the formal advice to S. Cyril, that if Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment of the opening of the Council, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the blasphemies, which before he had sanctioned in his adherent, Dorotheus. If one who nakedly denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to S. Cyril which was formally condemned by the Council, that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind, although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.¹⁶²¹⁶³

There could be no question among anyone who listened to the evidence, just as there was none among those who heard it. He was deposed based on the evidence from his own letter to Saint Cyril, from twenty statements in his acknowledged works, and from contradictions to the faith made in Ephesus itself.

There could be no question among any who listened to the evidence, as there was none among any of those who heard it. He was deposed on the evidence of his own letter to S. Cyril, of twenty sayings in his acknowledged works, and of contradictions to the faith in Ephesus itself.

Saint Celestine had, it appears, gathered a new Synod at Rome, from which he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that¹⁶⁴

S. Celestine had, it seems, collected a new Synod at Rome, from which he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that¹⁶⁴

Although the entire body of bishops was prevented from coming to Ephesus because of the distance, they gathered in their own regions under Celestine's leadership and unanimously expressed our position on the faith. Those who did come explained to our Synod by letter the thinking of the whole Western Church.¹⁶⁵

' although the whole multitude of Bishops were hindered from coming to Ephesus by the distance, yet being gathered in those parts, they, Celestine presiding, with entire consent, uttered our mind as to the faith. Those who came, explained to this our Synod by letter the mind of the whole Western Church.'¹⁶⁵

Philip, a presbyter and Roman legate, declared after reading the Acts that all things had been judged according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical discipline.¹⁶⁶

Philip, a presbyter, and Roman legate, after reading the Acts, declared that all things had been adjudged ' according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical discipline.'¹⁶⁶

After the representatives of John's party had spent a long time trying to get the Synod's sentence overturned, the Prefect finally wrote to Nestorius.

After long canvass on the part of the deputies of John's party to obtain a rescinding of the sentence of the Synod, the Prefect at last wrote to Nestorius,

We have long delayed what appeared to be accomplished by the judgment of the Synod, even though many people strongly criticized us and urgently pressed for it to happen. But now the letters from your Holiness have been delivered to us, showing that the prolonged stay at Ephesus is unpleasant to you, and that your Religiousness wishes to travel. We have ordered those who should attend to you throughout the entire journey to serve you by sea or land, all the way to your monastery. We do not think you need consolation, given the wisdom of your soul and the countless good qualities with which you are blessed beyond all others.¹⁶⁷

' We have delayed long what seemed to be done by the judgment of the Synod, although many greatly blamed us and were instant that it should be. But now the letters of your Holiness have been delivered to us, shewing that the lingering at Ephesus is distasteful to you, and that your Religiousness desires to journey, we have directed those, who ought to minister to you along the whole journey, to minister to you [by sea or land], on the whole way to your monastery…..We do not suppose that you need consolation, considering the wisdom of your soul, and the many thousand goods by which you are endowed above all others.'¹⁶⁷

Nestorius in his response accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.

Nestorius in his answer accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.

For nothing is more honorable to us than being removed for the sake of piety. But I beg your Highness, for the sake of religion, to frequently remind the pious Emperor to publicly note everywhere, through official Imperial letters, the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has judged against, so that this should be read throughout the orthodox Churches. Otherwise, in the absence of letters from the pious Emperor, if Cyril's writings should be said to be condemned by him, this could cause scandal among the simple believers, as if it were not truly said.¹⁶⁸

' For nothing is more honourable to us, than a removal for piety. But I beseech your Highness, for the sake of religion, often to remind the pious Prince to set a note everywhere, by public Imperial letters, on the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has adjudged, so that it should be read throughout the orthodox Churches, lest in the absence of letters of the pious Emperor, if the writings of Cyril should be said to be condemned by him, an occasion of scandal should arise to the simple, as if it were not said truly.'¹⁶⁸

Nestorius does not appear to be troubled by his own deposition, as long as the sentence against Cyril and Memnon is also upheld. This is confirmed by Count John's report to the Emperor that John's party calmly accepted the announcement of Nestorius's deposition when it was issued together with those of Cyril and Memnon.¹⁶⁹

Nestorius does not seem to mind his own deposition, so that the sentence against Cyril and Memnon be also confirmed; as Count John reported to the Emperor, that the party of John bore patiently the notice of the deposition of Nestorius, when united with that of Cyril and Memnon.¹⁶⁹

The public statement that Nestorius gave was that he was permitted, at his own request, to retire to his monastery, which was located no more than two furlongs outside of Antioch.¹⁷⁰

The public account which Nestorius gave, was, that 'he was allowed, at his own request, to retire to his monastery,' which was not more than two furlongs outside of Antioch.¹⁷⁰

There, Nestorius says, he 'received all kinds of honors and respectful gifts.'

There, Nestorius says, he 'received all sorts of honours and respectful presents.'

There, he says himself, he stayed for four years. The strong appeal of Saint Celestine to Theodosius to "remove him from all contact with others, so that he might have no opportunity to destroy others" went ignored. After four years, by decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius provides the detail that his former friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continuing blasphemies, and so "Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment."¹⁷¹¹⁷²

There, he himself says, he remained for four years. The adjuration of S. Celestine to Theodosius to 'remove him from all intercourse [with others], that he might have no facility to destroy others,' remained unheeded. After four years, by the decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius supplies the fact, that his former friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continued blasphemies, and so 'Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment.'¹⁷¹¹⁷²

He was prevented from spreading his heresy in person, but he could and did write in its defense. The Oasis, where he was finally sent, was not an unpleasant place in itself. However, it was exposed to raids by a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. The Church had no responsibility for his sufferings there, which resulted from the Emperor's edicts. The Emperor's treatment of him remains unexplained. But these sufferings were God's temporal judgment carried out through the State. The Church bore no guilt for them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth," they showed that God had not abandoned him to the very end.

He was removed from propagating his heresy personally, but could and did write in defence of it. The Oasis, to which he was finally removed, was a place not unpleasant in itself. It was however open to the incursions of a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. With his sufferings there, in consequence of edicts of the Emperor, the Church had nothing to do. His treatment by the Emperor is unexplained. But the sufferings were God's temporal judgement inflicted through the State. The Church was guiltless of them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth," they shewed that God had not abandoned him to the last.

Saint Cyril's relationship with Nestorius ended with the sentence passed against him. His own troubles then began. Saint Cyril himself, upon his arrival, had expected the Council to conclude quickly. The Bishops had urged Saint Cyril to speed up the hearing. Some of the Bishops were burdened by old age; some were in danger of dying from illness; some had already died; some were struggling with poverty. The Council had waited sixteen days after Pentecost, which the Emperor had strictly fixed as the opening date for the Council. The entire Synod had declared that he did not wish to be present. They assumed that he was afraid that the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under his authority, would be deposed, and was perhaps embarrassed by the whole affair.^173174175

S. Cyril's relation to Nestorius ended with the sentence upon him. His own troubles then began. S. Cyril himself, on his arrival, had anticipated a speedy close of the Council. The Bishops had urged S. Cyril to hasten the hearing. ' Some of the Bishops were weighed down by years; some were in peril of life through illness; some had died; some were straitened by poverty.' The Council had waited 16 days after the day of Pentecost, which the Emperor had peremptorily fixed for the opening of the Council. The whole Synod had exclaimed that he did not wish to be present. They supposed that he feared, ' lest the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under his jurisdiction, should be deposed, and was perhaps ashamed of the business.'^173174175

John's delay might well have been puzzling in those days when news traveled slowly. He did not explain it to the Council himself, though he did explain it later to the Emperor. There had been a food shortage at Antioch and resulting riots among the people, so much time was lost in departing. Constant rains made the roads poor. The Bishops at Ephesus naturally knew nothing of all this. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land journey instead of coming by sea, and even so, under normal circumstances, he could have arrived on time. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' journey from Ephesus. From the end of Easter week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had passed before there was any news of his arrival. Why would he delay, unless he did not want to be there? Even Eutherius, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

John's delay might well be puzzling in those days when tidings travelled slowly. He himself did not explain it to the Council, although he did subsequently to the Emperor. There had been a scarcity at Antioch and consequent tumults among the people, so that much time was wasted in setting out. Incessant rains made the roads bad. Of all this the Bishops at Ephesus naturally knew nothing. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land-journey instead of coming by sea, and even thus, under ordinary circumstances, he might have been punctual. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' journey from Ephesus. From the close of Easter-week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had elapsed before there was any notice of his arrival. Why should he delay, except that he did not wish to be there? Even Eutherius, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

According to John's statement, Cyril wrote to him two days before the Council opened, saying that the whole Council was waiting for his arrival. Cyril intended, then, to wait for him. Modern scholars describe Cyril as arbitrary, but no one has dared to say he was inconsistent. Therefore, something must have happened that caused him to give in to the bishops' wishes. The change would make sense if Cyril had meanwhile learned about the attitude in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it. Their representatives may have informed Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them and who at that time used Nestorianizing language that was condemned at the Fifth General Council, says,

According to the statement of John, S. Cyril wrote to him two days before the opening of the Council, that the whole Council was awaiting his arrival. He meant then to wait for him. Moderns speak of S. Cyril as arbitrary; no one has ventured to say he was fickle. Something then must have intervened, which occasioned him to yield to the wish of the Bishops. The change would be explained, if S. Cyril had come in the meantime to know of the mind, in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it. Their deputies may have informed S. Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them, and who at that time used Nestorianising language which was condemned at the 5th General Council, says,

Before we left for Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most God-beloved Bishop Eutherius of Tyana, Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these Chapters the teaching of Apollinarius. At Ephesus, our basis for deposing the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Ephesus was the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. Many synodical letters were written to the victorious Emperor, the high magistrates, and likewise to the people at Constantinople and the most reverend clergy. Moreover, when we were summoned to Constantinople, we held five formal meetings in the presence of the Emperor himself, and afterward we sent three protests to him.¹⁷⁸

' Before we departed to Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most-God-beloved Bishop Eutherius of Tyana, and Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these Chapters, teaching of Apollinarius. And at Ephesus our deposing him of Alexandria and him of Ephesus had for its ground the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. And there were many Synodical letters written to the Victorious Emperor, and the High Magistrates, and in like way to the people at Constantinople, and the most reverend Clergy. And moreover, when summoned to Constantinople, we had five resolutions in the presence of the Emperor himself, and we sent three protests to him subsequently.'¹⁷⁸

These accusations were the core substance of the various documents issued by John's irregular council. Naturally, violation of the Emperor's commands was placed first; but no assembly calling itself a Synod could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop simply for ignoring or violating an Emperor's orders. The heresy that was claimed could be the only basis for deposition. John presented this in the preamble that was accepted by his irregular council.

These charges were the pith of the different documents put forth by John's Conciliabulum. Of course, contravention of the Emperor's orders was put in the forefront; but no assembly, calling itself a Synod, could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop for neglecting or contravening the orders of an Emperor. The heresy alleged could be the only ground of deposition. John set forth this in the preamble which was accepted by his Conciliabulum.

I wish that none of those set apart as priests of God should be cast out of the Church. But since cutting off incurable members is necessary for the health of the whole body, it is fitting that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed as the leaders of the recent lawlessness and of the trampling upon ecclesiastical ordinances and the pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and because of the heretical meaning of the aforementioned Chapters, and that those under their authority should be excommunicated until, recognizing their offense, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril and agree to abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nicaea, not adding anything other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects under investigation, and establish the pious faith.¹⁷⁹

' I would that no one of those set apart as priests of God should be cast out of the Church. But since the excision of incurable members is necessary for the health of the whole body, it is meet that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed, as the chiefs of the past lawlessness and of the trampling upon Ecclesiastical ordinances and the pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and on account of the heretical meaning of the aforesaid Chapters, and that those subject to them should be excommunicated, until, recognizing their offence, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril, and agree to abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nice, not superadding any thing other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects of enquiry, and establish the pious faith.'¹⁷⁹

This same tone appears throughout every document from John's assembly.¹⁸⁰

This same note sounds throughout, in every document of John's Conciliabulum.¹⁸⁰

If Cyril had any knowledge of this attitude among the Antiochenes, it explains his sudden decision not to wait for them but to grant the wishes of the other bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed the previous year. The Council itself was only a scheme by Nestorius to avoid his condemnation. He had already been cut off from communion with the greater part of Christendom. The Council represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt, Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia. The fifteen or seventeen bishops with John of Antioch, even if united with the ten or fifteen bishops with Nestorius, were only a small fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But serious confusion and scandal might have followed John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the charge of heresy that his Conciliabulum so persistently alleged against Cyril and Memnon, it would have fallen to Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to decide in what order the charges should be heard. Candidian threw himself so completely onto John's side—even intercepting the Council's report to the Emperor—that he would undoubtedly have given priority to the charge of heresy against Cyril. What the result would have been, only He can know Who sees the things that have not happened as if they had happened. We cannot describe what has not happened, since God alone knows the hearts He made and how they would have responded under trials He spared them. But Nestorius had shown himself skilled at inflicting violence, as Dioscorus had not up to the eve of the Latrocinium. The soldiers of Theodosius had little respect for bishops. Those who carried the news of Nestorius's deposition to Count Irenaeus brought back to the Council the marks of their mistreatment. Nestorius had brought his own guard of soldiers and a large number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople. Candidian had drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been noted that the sailors who brought Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasants from the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The entire population of Ephesus was enthusiastic for the ancient doctrine, as they showed by their overflowing joy when the sentence for which they had waited from morning to evening was announced.^181182183184

If S. Cyril had any intimation of this mind of the Antiochenes, it accounts for his sudden resolve not to wait for them, but to accede to the wishes of the other Bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed in the previous year. The Council itself was only a device of Nestorius to ward off his condemnation. He had already been severed from the Communion of the greater part of Christendom. The Council represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt, Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia. The 15 or 17 Bishops of John of Antioch, even if united with the 10 or 15 Bishops of Nestorius, were but a fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But grave confusion and scandal might have ensued upon John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the charge of heresy, which his Conciliabulum alleged so perseveringly against S. Cyril and Memnon, it would have rested with Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to rule in what order the charges should be taken. Candidian threw himself so entirely into John's side (even in intercepting the Relation of the Council to the Emperor), that he would, without doubt, have preferred the charge of heresy against S. Cyril. What the result would have been, He only can know, Who sees the things which have not been, as if they had been. We cannot write the things which have not been, since God Alone knows the hearts which He made, and how they would have developed under trials which He spared. But Nestorius had shewn himself practised in inflicting violence, as Dioscorus up to the eve of the Latrocinium had not. Soldiers of Theodosius had not much respect for Bishops. Those who carried the news of the deposition of Nestorius to Count Irenaeus brought back to the Council the marks of their ill-treatment. Nestorius had brought his own guard of soldiers and a great number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople. Candidian had drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been noticed that the seamen who brought S. Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasantry of the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The whole population of Ephesus were enthusiastic in behalf of the ancient doctrine, as they shewed by their exuberant joy, when the sentence, for which they had waited from morning to evening, was announced.^181182183184

We can't know anything more about this beyond speculation. However, the second Council of Ephesus, which became known as the Latrocinium under Dioscorus's leadership, was convened with just as much legitimacy as the first Council.

It would be mere matter of imagination to picture anything further. But the second Council of Ephesus, which became the Latrocinium under the guidance of Dioscorus, was called just as legitimately as the first.

However this may have been, it doesn't require much humility to think that Cyril, in the midst of the events, knew more than we do, since we see them only through some fragmentary records of the past. Even apart from the threat posed by Candidian, someone as far-sighted as Cyril must have known that he would incur the serious displeasure of Theodosius by overriding his orders, that there was a strong prima facie case against him for violating them, and that the Emperor, who had written to him as he had, was not one to be trifled with. Yet he braved it all. It was important to the Church that the heresy of Nestorius should be condemned. Once the sentence was passed it could not be reversed, because the whole Church except the Antiochenes agreed with it.

However this may have been, it does not require much humility to think that S. Cyril, in the midst of the events, knew more than we, who see them only through some fragmentary records of the past. Even apart from the menace of Candidian, one so long-sighted as S. Cyril must have known that he would incur the grave displeasure of Theodosius, by superseding his orders; that there was a strong prima-facie case of contravening them against him; and that the Emperor, who had written to him as he had, was not one to be trifled with. Yet he braved it all. It was of moment to the Church, that the heresy of Nestorius should be condemned. The sentence once passed could not be reversed; because the whole Church except the Antiochenes agreed in it.

So Cyril agreed to the Council's wish not to delay, and faced the Emperor's displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone.

So S. Cyril assented to the wish of the Council not to delay, and braved the Emperor's displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone.

His earthly future, after the Council ended, remained uncertain for some time. Candidian sent an unfavorable report to the Emperor; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints as if they had been the Council; Nestorius sent his account; Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first condemned the condemnation of Nestorius, annulled the proceedings of the Council, and forbade any bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his court, or to return home. The supporters of Nestorius in Constantinople prevented any news of his deposition from arriving either by sea or by land. Candidian blocked access from a distance. Cyril's deposition by John's Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople as if it were the act of the Council; consequently, Cyril understood that it was being deliberated at court whether he should be banished.^{185186187188189190191192}

His earthly future, after the Council was over, remained for some time in the balance. Candidian sent to the Emperor an adverse report; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints, as if they had been the Council; Nestorius sent his account; S. Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first condemned the condemnation of Nestorius; annulled the proceedings of the Council; forbade any Bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his Court or to return home. The adherents of Nestorius in Constantinople hindered any tidings of his deposition coming both by sea and by land: Candidian precluded access at a distance. S. Cyril's deposition by John's Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople, as if it were the act of the Council; it was (S. Cyril understood) consequently deliberated at Court, whether he should not be banished.^{185186187188189190191192}

His deposition was accepted, and he himself was placed under guard, with soldiers stationed even at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote that they were sometimes deprived of necessities and were insulted by the country people and the mob that Nestorius had brought with him. S. Cyril was at peace. He wrote,¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

His deposition was accepted, and he himself put under a guard of soldiers placed even at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote, that they were sometimes deprived of necessaries, were insulted by the rustics and the rabble which Nestorius had brought. S. Cyril was at peace. He wrote,¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

Since the letter from the most religious and Christ-loving Emperors has been read, stating that the deposition of the three was to be accepted, we have been held under guard, not knowing what the outcome will be. But we give thanks to God if we are thought worthy for His Name's sake not only to be prisoners, but also to endure everything else besides. For it is not without its reward—as the blessed David says, "I am ready for the scourge."¹⁹⁵

' Since the letter of the most religious and Christ-loving Emperors has been read, in which it was said that the deposing of the three was to be accepted, we have been kept in ward, not knowing what will be the issue. But we give thanks to God, if we be thought worthy for His Name's sake not to be prisoners only, but also to endure all besides. For it is not without its reward.—-As the blessed David says, "I am ready for the scourge." '¹⁹⁵

At the request of the Council, he used the free time during his imprisonment to explain his Anathematisms.¹⁹⁶

At the wish of the Council, he employed the leisure of his imprisonment in explaining his Anathematisms.¹⁹⁶

The Conciliabulum, when sending out 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical chapters,' said that he 'thereby showed his impiety more clearly.' They were even surprised that the Council kept going, despite the fact that Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned. They write as a Synod,¹⁹⁷

The Conciliabulum, in transmitting 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical chapters,' said that he 'thereby shewed his impiety more evidently.' They even wondered at the perseverance of the Council, notwithstanding the imprisonment of Cyril and Memnon. They write as a Synod,¹⁹⁷

Count John is keeping Cyril and Memnon under very strict guard, separating each one and placing many soldiers around each man's house. Yet even this has not quieted those who turn everything upside down and have filled the world with confusion and rebellion. Instead, acting as they usually do, they create disorder and set in motion a rule against themselves. For though they have been excommunicated, they have boldly taken upon themselves the ministry of the priesthood, and so on.¹⁹⁸

' Count John holds in most guarded custody Cyril and Memnon, thrusting [detrudens] each apart, and placing a multitude of soldiers around the house of each. Yet not even thus are they still, who turn every thing upside down and have filled the world with confusion and sedition, but acting as usual, make a confusion, and set in motion a rule against themselves. For, being excommunicated, they have audaciously assumed to themselves the ministry of the priesthood, &c.'¹⁹⁸

And again in their letter to Acacius of Beroea,

And again in their Epistle to Acacius of Berrhoea,

Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the Council] have been excommunicated by us because they cooperated with the insanity of the heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and wickedly, and have presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned. And they commit these things knowing that those most harmful persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust away and are kept under guard by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting each one apart, they guard them night and day; therefore let your Holiness pray, etc.¹⁹⁹

' Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the Council] have been excommunicated by us, because they co-operated with the insanity of the heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and iniquitously, and have presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned.—-And these things they commit, knowing that those most injurious persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust [trusi] away and are kept by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting [trudentes] each apart, they guard them night and day; wherefore let your Holiness pray &c.'¹⁹⁹

The Bishops of the Council also appear to have believed that the Nestorianizers intended to exhaust them in order to reverse what they had accomplished. A short statement at the end of their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says,

The Bishops of the Council seem also to have thought that it was the intention of the Nestorianisers to wear them out to undo what they had done. A brief memorial at the end of their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says,

We are dying from the heat because of the oppressive atmosphere, and nearly every day someone is buried. All the servants have been sent home, and all the other bishops are in the same condition. Therefore, we ask your Reverences to go to the gracious Emperor and tell him that the Synod is being oppressed by those who refuse to allow any deadline to be set, so that we are completely dying from exhaustion. But your Reverences should know that even if they pressure us until we all die, we will not decree anything other than what our Savior Christ has taught us.²⁰⁰

' We are being killed with the heat through the heaviness of the air, and some one is buried almost daily; so that all the servants are sent home, and all the other Bishops are in the same state. Whence we pray your Reverences to go to the gracious Sovereign and say that the Synod is oppressed by those, who prevent any term being given, so that we are altogether perishing by exhaustion. But your Reverences should know, that although they press upon us till we all die, we will not do any thing other than our Saviour Christ has taught us to decree.'²⁰⁰

The barrier was set up with complete security to prevent any news from the Council from reaching the Emperor's ears. It was broken through by a beggar. The clergy of Constantinople wrote,

The cordon was drawn with all safety to hinder any report from the Council reaching the Emperor's ears. It was snapped by a mendicant. The Clergy of Constantinople wrote,

Since no one can do anything against God (for what is man?), by God's ordering a letter written from Ephesus arrived to the holy bishops and monks, sent by a beggar who tied it inside a reed and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it. Immediately all the monasteries with the archimandrites rose up and went to the palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the archimandrites, had not left his monastery for forty-eight years but remained enclosed. Our most pious emperor went to him and saw him. Since there were frequent earthquakes in Constantinople, the emperor often asked him to come out and say litanies, but he never would. But when he was praying about this matter, a voice came down from heaven commanding him to go out. For God did not want His flock to perish utterly.²⁰¹

' Since no one can do any thing against God (for what is man?), by the ordering of God there arrived an Epistle written from Ephesus to the holy Bishops and monks sent by a beggar who tied it within a reed, and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it. Forthwith all the monasteries with the Archimandrites arose and went to the palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the Archimandrites, had not left his monastery for 48 years, but remained enclosed. Our most pious Emperor went to him and saw him. There being ofttimes earthquakes in Constantinople, the Emperor ofttimes requested him to come forth and say litanies; he never would. But when he was praying about this, a voice came down from heaven bidding him go forth. For He did not will that His flock should perish utterly.'²⁰¹

The Archimandrites were admitted and prevailed. Theodosius learned with surprise that while the Nestorians had free access to come and go, the deputies of the Council had been refused access to him.²⁰²

The Archimandrites, who were admitted, prevailed. Theodosius learnt with surprise that while the Nestorians had free ingress and regress, the deputies of the Council had been refused access to him.²⁰²

The Emperor tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the Antiochenes with St. Cyril.

The Emperor tried in vain to reconcile the Antiochenes with S. Cyril.

The Antiochenes, in their third indignant protest, reproached the Emperor for ignoring their obedience and reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire. They warned that he needed the true faith to prevail in the war then engulfing Africa, that God would fight for him if he would defend the holy faith, and that He would not allow the body of the Church to be cut off—yet it would be cut off if the meaning imposed upon the faith by Cyril and confirmed by others were allowed to stand. They claimed that people mixed in with the Churches were teaching the doctrine of Apollinarius, Arius, and Eunomius, and were unlawfully and irregularly exercising the priesthood. They concluded with a prayer that he would not allow anything to be secretly introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nicaea. If, after this warning before God, the Emperor did not comply, they declared—echoing Saint Paul—that they shook off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all men." "We have not stopped, night and day, from the time we arrived at the holy Synod, protesting to the Emperor, judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen not to be betrayers of the faith handed down by the fathers."²⁰³

The Antiochenes, in their third indignant protest, reproached the Emperor with their obedience, reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire, that he needed the true faith to prevail in the war which then encircled Africa, that God would fight for him, if he would defend the holy faith, and would not allow the body of the Church to be cut of, but it would be cut off, if the meaning superinduced on the faith by Cyril and confirmed by others should stand; that persons intermixed with the Churches taught the doctrine of Apollinarius and Arius and Eunomius, and unlawfully and irregularly exercised the office of the priesthood. They conclude with the prayer that he would not allow any thing to be stealthily introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nice. If after this admonition before God the Emperor did not acquiesce, they 'with S. Paul shook off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all men." "We have not ceased night and day, from the time we came to the holy Synod to protest to the Emperor, Judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen, not to be the betrayers of the faith delivered by the fathers.'²⁰³

It was a destructive internal conflict that continued even after the Eastern bishops returned to their sees. The Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of Cyril, Memnon, and all their supporters, and that their teaching should be condemned.

It was an internecine war, continued even after the return of the Eastern Bishops to their sees; the Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of S. Cyril Memnon and all their adherents, and that their teaching should be proscribed.

When Cyril returned to Egypt, he demonstrated his peace-loving character. The Orientals had caused his imprisonment, its hardships and humiliations, and the threat of exile. They did this by mimicking a Council, but without the proper procedures of a Council and without investigating what the real Council had actually done. They assumed the real Council had done what it had not—that is, formally approved the Anathematisms that Cyril had written not as a rule of faith but to block the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were heretical. They convinced the Emperor that their 40 Bishops, who represented only one Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world that he had called together. Until they realized it was pointless to mention Nestorius's name to the Emperor, they pressed for his restoration and Cyril's deposition. Cyril had escaped in spite of their efforts. They refused to accept that Nestorius was the heretic he actually was, and they kept repeating that Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, even though they must have known that he was at least neither Eunomian nor Arian.²⁰⁴

S. Cyril shewed his peace-loving disposition on his return to Egypt. The Orientals had brought upon him his imprisonment, its privations and indignities, and the prospect of banishment. This they had done by aping a Council, yet without the formalities of a Council, without enquiring into anything which the real Council had done, assuming that they had done what they had not done—-formally sanctioned the Anathematisms which S. Cyril had framed, not as a rule of faith but to cut off the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were heretical. They had persuaded the Emperor, that their 40 Bishops, who represented one Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world, which he had convoked. Until they found it useless to mention the name of Nestorius to the Emperor, they urged his restoration and the deposition of S. Cyril. He had escaped in despite of them. They would not be persuaded that Nestorius was the heretic which he was; and they would repeat that S. Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, although they must have known that at the least he was neither Eunomian nor Arian.²⁰⁴

There was nothing Saint Cyril could do regarding them. They had fallen into the trap Nestorius had set by sending the Anathemas, which were meant to test his own sincerity, without the Epistle that would have explained them. It became a fixed principle for Theodoret that the Anathemas were heretical. Saint Cyril could only wait. Saint Sixtus III, a peace-loving bishop who had succeeded Saint Celestine, testifies that Cyril immediately showed how mindful he was of the faith and how unconcerned he was with the insults he suffered gloriously, according to the Apostle. Cyril wanted the Churches to be well-ordered rather than seeking vindication for himself. Since one person (Nestorius) had shipwrecked himself, Cyril was eager that all the rest should be saved from the waves. Sixtus writes: "We share the same mind: to act gently toward them when they stop being impious toward God. Let those who wish to return to the right way be received." He addresses Saint Cyril himself,

There was nothing then for S. Cyril to do in regard to them. They had fallen into the trap which Nestorius had laid for them by sending the Anathemas meant to test his own sincerity, without the Epistle which would have explained them. It became an axiom with Theodoret that they were heretical. S. Cyril then could but wait. S. Sixtus iii., a peace-loving Bishop who had succeeded S. Celestine, bears him witness that he had shewed at once how mindful he was of the faith and how regardless of contumelies, which he suffered gloriously, according to the Apostle, wishing that the Churches should be well-ordered, rather than that he should be righted himself; that one [Nestorius] having wrecked himself, he was anxious that all the rest should be saved out of the waves. 'The same mind is in us also; to act tenderly towards them, when they cease to be impious towards God. Let those then, who will to return to the right way, be received.' He addresses S. Cyril himself,

Hold on firmly, dearly beloved brother, to what has been accomplished by the Council and what has been decided by us. For a brother sets aside insults that benefit him before the Lord of all. Such insult is actually victory. Therefore he has endured all the harsh attacks patiently, and those things did not trouble him in which he now rejoices, because he was striving for a crown. He knows what rewards await the victors in such struggles.²⁰⁵

' Hold fast, most beloved brother, what has been done by the Council, and what has been defined by us. For a brother dismisses contumelies which benefit him before the Lord of all. For such contumely is victory. Whence he has borne meekly all the sharp blows, nor did those things grieve him, wherein he now rejoices; for he strove for a crown. For he knows what prizes are in store for the victors in such conflicts.'²⁰⁵

Sixtus completely agreed with Cyril, but spoke forcefully: "Let him [John] know that he will be one of the Catholic body only if, by reversing everything that was undone by the Synod, he shows himself to be a Catholic priest."

S. Sixtus coincided altogether with S. Cyril, but spoke strongly; 'let him [John] know that he shall be one of the Catholic body, if, undoing all undone by the Synod, he shew himself a Catholic priest.'

Cyril required nothing for himself. The bishops whom the Emperor assembled at Constantinople proposed the terms, which greatly pleased the Emperor.

S. Cyril required nothing for himself. The Bishops, whom the Emperor assembled at Constantinople, propounded the terms, at which the Emperor was 'exceedingly pleased.'

The devout Bishop John of Antioch must anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius and acknowledge his deposition in writing. Once this is done, the Bishop of Alexandria will, out of love, completely forget and consider as nothing the insults he suffered at Ephesus, even though they were very serious and difficult to bear.²⁰⁶

' The Bishop, full of piety, John of Antioch, must anathematise the doctrine of Nestorius, and acknowledge in writing his deposition; and this being done, the Bishop of Alexandria will, out of love, forget altogether and regard as nothing the contumelies which he endured at Ephesus, very grievous as they were, and hard to endure.'²⁰⁶

John's party would not accept these terms. The first conditions for peace from John's side, which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest option, were in reality conditions of unconditional submission.²⁰⁷

John's party would not accept them. The first conditions of peace on John's side, which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest, were in fact, of unconditional submission.²⁰⁷

The terms were,

The terms were,

We recognize the Nicene Creed as sufficient, but the letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We therefore stand by it and reject all teachings that have been recently introduced, whether through letters or chapters, as disturbing the common faith.²⁰⁸

' We acknowledge the Nicene Creed as sufficient, but the letter of S. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We abide therefore therein, and cast off all doctrines recently superinduced, either by Epistles or Chapters, as disturbing the common faith:'²⁰⁸

In other words, he was to acknowledge that he, not Nestorius, had been the one who disturbed the Church. Cyril most gladly received the Epistle to Epictetus, but showed them that their own copies had been corrupted by heretics. As for the rest, he said that withdrawing what he had written would mean taking back everything that had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, expected to withdraw by his own single action those Epistles—one of which had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus both individually and as a body, while the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts with no one objecting—and undo his entire work at the command of John and five other bishops.^209210211

i. e. he was to acknowledge that he, not Nestorius, had been the disturber of the Church. S. Cyril most gladly received the Epistle to Epictetus, but shewed them that their own copies had been corrupted by heretics. For the rest, he said that to withdraw what he had written would be to unsay all which had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, to withdraw by his single act Epistles, of which one had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus, individually and as a body, the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts (no one excepting), and undo his whole work at the dictum of John and five other Bishops.^209210211

The Orientals then chose a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burdened with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' at the Synod. This brought about the only reminder of past ill-treatment: 'They who ought to seek pardon for the past, how do they add fresh insults?' When these complaints were withdrawn, S. Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart,' and 'contrary perhaps to his expectations,' Paul found him fully ready for peace. S. Cyril's account shows how deeply he felt the division as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written (John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us in harmony.' He gave to Paul a statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the joyful letter, beginning with the words of the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of partition is dissolved; what caused sadness has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'^212213214215

The Orientals then selected a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burthened with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' in the Synod. This occasioned the only reminiscence of the past ill-treatment, ' They who ought to seek pardon for the past, how do they add fresh contumelies?' When these were withdrawn, S. Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart;' and 'contrary perhaps to his expectations,' Paul found him fully disposed for peace. S. Cyril's relation shews how deeply he felt the rent as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written (John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us in harmony.' He gave to Paul a statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the exulting letter, beginning with the words of the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of partition is dissolved; what saddened has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'^212213214215

He says, in a kind of undertone to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius,²¹⁶

He says, in a sort of under-tone to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius,²¹⁶

He says, speaking as if in private to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius: "Strife and contention do not rule among us. Instead, we all have one goal, aiming for peace. If those who from the beginning disagreed with us and separated themselves from us had been willing, there would have been no strife or division among the churches. But blessed be the Savior, who has calmed the storm, and so on."

'Strife and contention reign not among us, but we have all one mark, looking to peace. And if those who from the first have differed in opinion from us and cut themselves off from us, had willed, there would have been no strife or difference among the Churches. But blessed be the Saviour, Who hath lulled the storm &c.'

It was Cyril's lot, then as now, to be misunderstood. He was blamed for making peace, just as he had been blamed earlier for the conflict. Theodoret could not help but accept the approval of his own synodal letter, but he believed it directly contradicted the Twelve Chapters. Writing to "his lord and truly God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius," he apologizes for the peace and assures him that he holds Cyril in abhorrence as the author of all the disturbance throughout the whole world. The Nestorianizers were of course very angry, but he had to explain himself even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene and to others as well. The man whom the Orientals had so relentlessly persecuted was now their defender, showing that they were not Nestorians and patiently trying to win back to the communion of the Church individuals who were still alienated.^217218219

It was S. Cyril's lot, then as now, to be misunderstood. He was blamed as to the peace, as, before, for the conflict. Theodoret could not but acquiesce in the acceptance of his own Synodal letter, but held it to be directly contradictory of the twelve Chapters. To his lord and truly God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius' he apologises for the peace, and assures him, that he holds Cyril in abhorrence, as being the author of all the disturbance of the whole world. The Nestorianizers were of course very angry; but he had to explain himself, even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene as also to others. He whom the Orientals had so unrelentingly persecuted was now their defender, shewing that they were not Nestorians, and trying patiently to win back to the Communion of the Church individuals still alienated.^217218219

He had to endure something even more difficult: the reproaches of S. Isidore, for whom he had a son's affection. S. Isidore had earlier told him about the mockery of many at Ephesus, as if he were acting out of personal hostility rather than seeking, as an orthodox believer, the things of Jesus Christ. For they said, "He is a nephew of Theophilus."²²⁰²²¹

He had to bear what was still harder, the reproaches of S. Isidore, to whom he had a filial affection. S. Isidore had told him before of 'the jeers of many at Ephesus, as if thou wert wreaking thine own enmity, and not seeking, as one orthodox, the things of Jesus Christ. For, say they, he is a nephew of Theophilus.'²²⁰²²¹

He had explained to him again the faith concerning the Incarnation as something "you yourself would not deny," and now, when St. Cyril had accepted that same statement as Isidore presented it, Isidore wrote,²²²

He had again set forth to him the faith of the Incarnation as something which 'thou thyself wouldest not deny,' and now, when S. Cyril had himself accepted the same statement as propounded by him, he wrote,²²²

Amazing man, you should remain always consistent, not betraying heavenly things or appearing to contradict yourself. For if you compare what you have now written with your earlier writings, you will appear guilty of flattery or of being a servant of carelessness, giving in to vain-glory, instead of imitating the struggles of all those great holy fighters who endured mistreatment their whole lives in a foreign land rather than even listen to a single thought of evil doctrine.²²³

' Wondrous man, thou oughtest to remain ever unchanged, not betraying the things of heaven, nor appearing contradictory to thyself. For if thou comparest what thou hast now written with thy former writings, thou wilt seem chargeable with flattery, or the minister of off-handed ness, yielding to vain-glory, instead of imitating the strivings of all those great holy combatants, who endured to be ill-treated all their life in a foreign land, rather than even hear a thought of evil doctrine.'²²³

Saint Isidore, in his eagerness for Saint Cyril's spiritual growth, appears to have written to him based on what others had said. It must have been difficult to be so unfairly criticized by a saint, but Saint Cyril seems to have accepted the undeserved rebuke in silence.

S. Isidore, in his zeal for S. Cyril's perfecting, seems to have written to him according to the sayings of others. It must have been hard to be so unjustly blamed by a saint, but S. Cyril seems to have received the undeserved censure in silence.

One more occasion is recorded when he was asked to give a public statement about the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

One more occasion is recorded in which a public expression of opinion was asked of him, as to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The Council, while avoiding his name, had already condemned one of his creeds, which some Nestorians had presented to many Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church. St. Proclus sent John of Antioch a document containing Nestorian passages from Theodore (equally avoiding his name), asking him to have them condemned. Maximus, the messenger, contrary to his instructions, inserted the name. After this, the Antiochenes would not condemn the passages, even without the name. Maximus, an archimandrite, came to Alexandria, "speaking much and strongly" against the Easterners, saying "the orthodox have no room there nor freedom to speak the faith." A high-ranking palace official presented to St. Cyril, when at Jerusalem, a long letter from many clergy, monks, and lay people, accusing the Eastern bishops that they, while suppressing Nestorius' name, claimed to oppose him, yet clung to Theodore's books on the Incarnation, in which lie many more serious blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of Nestorius' false teachings, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition. The Alexandrians, having refused to sign St. Proclus' document, appealed to St. Cyril. St. Cyril indignantly rejected any similarity between "the disreputable doctrine of Diodore and Theodore" and that of the great fathers whom John cited. To John of Antioch he wrote that no one should speak Theodore's ungodly doctrines in church, but he emphasized the gentleness with which those returning should be received, and not be reproached for the past. To Proclus, he wrote that Theodore had died in communion with the Church; that in rejecting his creed the Council had deliberately spared his name, lest some should separate from the Church; that in rejecting Nestorius' blasphemies they had effectively condemned what resembled them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it would be best for the sake of others; but since John of Antioch wrote that "they would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the stilled flame?" He added that those who wished the writings condemned might be persuaded to be quiet rather than cause scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not commune with John because of some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to admit their fall.^{224225226227228229230231232}

The Council, while sparing his name, had already condemned a Creed of his, which had been presented by some Nestorians to many Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church. S. Proclus sent to John of Antioch a Tome containing Nestorian passages of Theodore (equally sparing his name), requesting him to have them condemned. Maximus, the bearer, contrary to his instructions, inserted the name. The Antiochenes, after this, would not condemn the passages, even without the name. Maximus, an Archimandrite, came to Alexandria, 'speaking much and strongly' against the Easterns, the 'orthodox have no room there nor freedom to speak the faith.' ' A noble officer of the Palace presented to S. Cyril, when at Jerusalem, a long Epistle of many Clergy and monks and laity, accusing the Eastern Bishops, that they, suppressing the name of Nestorius, professed to be averse to him, and bounded down to the books of Theodore on the Incarnation, in which lie many more grievous blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of the ill-doctrines of Nestorius, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition.' The Alexandrians, having refused to sign the Tome of S. Proclus, appealed to S. Cyril. S. Cyril indignantly set aside any likeness of 'the ill-reputed doctrine of Diodore and Theodore' to that of the great fathers whom John alleged. To John of Antioch he wrote, that no one should utter in Church the ungodly doctrines of Theodore; but he dwelt on the tenderness, with which those returning should be received, and not be reproached for the past: to Proclus, that Theodore had died in the communion of the Church; that in rejecting his Creed the Council had purposely spared his name, lest some should separate from the Church; that in rejecting the blasphemies of Nestorius they had virtually condemned what was like them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it would be best for the sake of others; but that since John of Antioch wrote, that 'they would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the stilled flame?' that those who wished the writings to be condemned might be persuaded to be quiet rather than give occasion of scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not communicate with John because of some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to own their fall.^{224225226227228229230231232}

Everywhere he acted as a peacemaker. The experienced pilot who, under God, had steered the ship through the storm sat watching each cloud as it appeared. His single concern was: "Peace has been restored; let us be careful not to break it again."

Everywhere he is the peace-maker. The veteran pilot, who, under God, had guided the ship through the storm, sat, watching each cloud, as it arose. His one thought was, 'Peace has been restored; take we heed that it be not again broken.'

Cyril thought it was right to correct Theodore's errors in writing, but this disturbed no peace since Theodore was dead. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret did not have Cyril's accurate theological mind. Cyril, in his ninth Anathema, called God the Holy Spirit "the very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ," adopting the language of Athanasius, that "the Holy Spirit was the very own Spirit of the Son." Theodoret objected chiefly as if Cyril had said this of the humanity of our Lord, not of his divinity. But Theodoret added, at the end, the sad words: "If he calls him this as one in physis and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if as having his existence from the Son or through the Son, we will reject it as blasphemous and ungodly." Theodoret could not have been, at that time, familiar with the great writers before him—Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem—who used the "from" or the "through" which he rejected. Cyril's carefully weighed and complete language has continued to teach humanity until now. The impulsive language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, contrary to our baptismal creed.²³³²³⁴

S. Cyril thought it indeed right to correct in writing the errors of Theodore; but this disturbed no peace, since Theodore was gone. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret had not S. Cyril's accurate Theological mind. S. Cyril, in his 9th Anathematism, called God the Holy Ghost, 'the Very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ' adopting the language of S. Athanasius, that ' the Holy Spirit was the Very own Spirit of the Son.' Theodoret declaimed chiefly, as if S. Cyril had said this of the Humanity of our Lord, not of His Godhead; but adds, at the end, the sad words, 'If he so calls Him as One in Nature and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if, as having His existence from the Son or through the Son, we will fling it away as blasphemous and ungodly.' Theodoret could not have been, at that time, acquainted with the great writers before him, S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, who used the 'from' or the 'through' which he 'flings' from him. S. Cyril's well-weighed and full language has continued to teach man until now. The impetuous language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, contrary to our Baptismal Creed.²³³²³⁴

Theodoret decided to defend Theodore against Cyril, arguing against all the authorities that Cyril had cited. The one fragment that survives is sharply written. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms in response to Theodoret's attacks, because the estranged Antiochenes had to be reconciled and a breach had to be healed. This criticism of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he continued on his way in peace.²³⁵²³⁶

Theodoret thought good to defend Theodore against S. Cyril, arguing against all the authorities which S. Cyril had adduced. The one fragment which remains is written sharply. S. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms against Theodoret's attacks; for the alienated Antiochenes had to be reconciled, and a breach to be healed. This censure of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he went on his way in peace.²³⁵²³⁶

Cyril's strong natural affection has been mentioned in passing. It would be hard to imagine him, as he is usually portrayed, in his later years embracing and kissing a letter from his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, who was asking about a typological figure in the Old Testament—the scapegoat. Yet since all service to God must involve self-denial, perhaps someone with strong natural affection was better suited as God's instrument for the difficult work of that wearisome conflict, just as it must have helped him in the more agreeable task of reconciling those who had become alienated.²³⁷²³⁸

S. Cyril's strong natural love has been incidentally noticed. One could hardly picture him, such as he has been ordinarily represented, in advancing years, enfolding and kissing the letter of his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, enquiring about a type in the Old Testament, 'the scapegoat.' Yet since all service to God must involve self-denial, perhaps one of strong natural love was the fitter instrument of God for the hard service of that dreary warfare, as it must have aided him in the congenial office of reconciling the alienated.²³⁷²³⁸

External events reveal little about a person's inner thoughts. Cyril is now mainly known (to the extent he is known at all) as an eager defender of the Faith. But it was the Faith in Him—his God and his All. He must have spent many peaceful years before his own people's needs called him to defend God's truth against a living opponent. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his critic Theodoret admired, despite his intense hostility) was written, he says, at many people's urging, because pagans were troubling Christians by claiming that Julian went unanswered because he could not be refuted. So this too was written out of love for souls. He himself explained to Nestorius that in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things similar to what he was then writing, but with no reference to Nestorius, since it was written before Nestorius himself had written.²³⁹²⁴⁰

Outward events give but little insight into the inward mind. S. Cyril is now chiefly known (as far as he is known at all) as the zealous defender of the Faith. But it was the Faith in Him, his God and his All. Many must have been his peaceful years before he was called out by the needs of his own people, to defend the truth of God against a living assailant. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his opponent Theodoret admired, in the midst of his hottest hostility) was written, he says, on the exhortation of many, because the heathen perplexed Christians, alleging that he was not refuted, because he could not. This then too was written out of a love for souls. He himself explained to Nestorius that, in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things akin to what he then wrote, but with no reference to him, since it was written before Nestorius himself wrote.²³⁹²⁴⁰

Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus lists him among those who were said to have written commentaries on all of Holy Scripture. His commentaries make up the largest portion of his surviving works, yet even these are only part of a larger body of writing. He was drawn away from these peaceful reflections on God's word when his monks were disturbed by the writings of Nestorius.²⁴¹²⁴²

Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus counts him among those who were said at least to have commented on the whole of Holy Scripture. His Commentaries are the largest portion of His extant works, yet these are but a part of a larger whole. From these peaceful meditations on God's word he was roused by the disturbance of his monks through writings of Nestorius.²⁴¹²⁴²

We have already noted that in his first book on the Pentateuch, "On Worship in Spirit and in Truth," his main interest was in types of our Lord. His faith in the Incarnation and our union with God through it naturally stands out, as this theme shines through his work everywhere. His approach was the exact opposite of Theodore of Mopsuestia from the Antiochene school. As has been said of Bishop Horne and another figure, "one sees Christ everywhere, the other nowhere." A mind that meditates on God's word in this way—not focusing on isolated phrases but on the whole—is not the mind of a fierce controversialist, as some recent writers have portrayed him.²⁴³²⁴⁴

It has been noticed already that types of our Lord were the chief object of interest to him in his first book on the Pentateuch, 'on the adoration in spirit and in truth:' his faith in the Incarnation and our union to God through It, are naturally prominent, as indeed it gleams through everywhere. His was the exact contrary of the mind of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the Antiochene school: as has been said of our Bishop Horne and another, 'the one sees Christ every where, the other no where.' A mind which so meditates on God's word, not on particular expressions, but on the whole, is not that of the fierce controversialist which some of late have pictured him.²⁴³²⁴⁴

It only remains to gather together what has been said about the contents of this volume.

It remains only to collect what has been said as to the contents of this volume.

The Five Books against Nestorius have been described as essentially a defense of St. Proclus. In this work, St. Cyril primarily responds to the sermons that Nestorius preached against St. Proclus. The first two books deal with the Virgin being Theotokos (God-bearer) and with the term "birth" being applied to God. The third book concerns Christ being our Priest, who is God. The fourth and fifth books focus mostly on God suffering and dying.²⁴⁵

i. The Five books against Nestorius. 'These,' it has been said, 'may be well called, a Defence of S. Proclus. For S. Cyril in it mainly answers the sermons preached by Nestorius against S. Proclus. For the first two books are on the Virgin being Θεοτόκος, and the term 'birth' ascribed to God; the third is of His being our Priest, Who is God; the fourth and fifth are for the most part on God suffering and dying.'²⁴⁵

Cyril himself says that he took on this work reluctantly, but the homilies were written in a popular and appealing style and were filled with serious accusations against orthodox doctrines, leaving him no choice. Nestorius is not mentioned by name in it. Because of this, scholars have concluded that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus. Photius notes that "in the first book, he refutes six points of Nestorius's blasphemies; in the second, fourteen; in the third, six; in the fourth and fifth, seven each." He adds that "his method of interpretation follows his usual manner of expression, though adapted to a simpler style."^246247248

S. Cyril himself says that he undertook the work with reluctance, but that the homilies were written in a popular and attractive style and were full of heavy accusations against the doctrines of the truth, and left him no choice. Nestorius is not named in it. Hence it has been inferred that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus. Photius notices that 'in the first book, he refutes six heads of the blasphemies of Nestorius; in the second, 14; in the third, 6; in the fourth and fifth, 7 each.' He adds that 'his mode of interpretation is framed according to his wonted way of expression, yet brought down to a lower style.'^246247248

Photius says the Scholia contain much that is useful. St. Cyril, with his customary simplicity, describes them as brief expositions of the dispensation of Christ, very good and useful. A modern writer says the value of the work can be inferred from the fact that almost every later writer who used Cyril's authority to explain the mystery of the Incarnation included at least one passage from the Scholia. This work was also quoted, along with two other passages of St. Cyril, among the testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers that were attached to St. Leo's Epistle to the Emperor Leo. It concluded the collection presented to the Council of Chalcedon, and then came the acclamations: Eternal be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught alike. It is even quoted by Theodoret along with sayings of nineteen other fathers as proof that the Saints distinguished the natures (physeis) after the union. He cites three passages from it, two from Cyril's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, one from the Epistle to Nestorius, one from the defense against the Easterns, and two more that cannot be identified. The Scholia are also quoted repeatedly by Facundus, Leontius of Byzantium, and St. Ephrem of Antioch. They not only quote it as St. Cyril's but also confirm the faith by citing testimonies from it.^{249250251252253254255256257258259260}

ii. The Scholia are said by Photius to 'contain much which is useful.' S. Cyril, with his wonted simplicity, speaks of them as ' brief expositions of the dispensation of Christ, very good and useful.' A modern writer says, ' The value of the work may be inferred from this, that scarce any subsequent writer, who employed the authority of Cyril in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, failed to take a passage or more from the Scholia.' This work also was quoted, with two other passages of S. Cyril, among the testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers, appended to the Epistle of S. Leo to the Emperor Leo. It closed the collection laid before the Council of Chalcedon and then ensued the acclamations, 'Eternal be the memory of Cyril.—-Leo and Cyril taught alike.' It is quoted even by Theodoret with sayings of 19 other fathers, in proof that 'Saints distinguished the Natures after the Union.' He alleges three places from it, two from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, one from the Epistle to Nestorius, one from the defence against the Easterns, and two more not identified. The Scholia are quoted also by Facundus, Leontius of Byzantium, and S. Ephrem of Antioch repeatedly. They not only quote it as S. Cyril's, but confirm the faith by testimonies from it.^{249250251252253254255256257258259260}

It was translated into Latin by Marius Mercator, a contemporary of S. Cyril. It also exists in a Syriac translation, which my son used occasionally to correct or clarify Mercator's Latin text.

It was translated into Latin by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator. It is extant also in a Syriac translation, from which my son, here and there, corrected or explained the Latin text of Mercator.

Garnier comments on the careful organization that St. Cyril used in constructing this work. He first explains individual terms: what is Christ; what is Emmanuel; what is Jesus; what is One; what is Union. Then he addresses the statements commonly used about these terms and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel is One; Jesus is One—that is, One Lord, and so forth. Further, he examines how the Word is said to have been "emptied," united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not thereby changed or ceasing to be God. From there, he shows how Christ is not a man who is Theophoros (bearing God) or inspired by God, but is truly God-Man. Then he explains in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos (God-bearer). Finally, he shows that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh, is called God and Man, and how He suffered. In this last section he refutes those who assume that things belonging to man can be spoken of God only in a relative sense. I have already said that nearly every chapter is full of distinctions useful for countering the objections of heretics. Photius divides the work into ten topics. He said these things are clearly explained in it: What is Christ; in what way the word "Emmanuel" is to be understood, and what is "Jesus the Christ"; and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we mean by the Union, and about the coal that Isaiah saw, and other similar matters.²⁶¹

Garnier remarks upon the careful arrangement which S. Cyril employed in its construction. 'He first explains single words; what is Christ; what, Emmanuel; what, Jesus; what, One; what, Union. Then, he turns to the propositions, commonly used herein, and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel, One; Jesus, One; i.e. One Lord, &c. Further, how the Word is said to have been 'emptied,' united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not therefore changed, or ceasing to be God. Thence, how Christ is not a man Θεοφόρος, [bearing God,] or inspired by God, but is really man-God [better, God-Man]; then, in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos. Lastly, that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh is called God and Man; how He suffered: in which last he refutes those who suppose, that things belonging to man can be spoken of God, relatively only. I have already said, that almost every chapter is full of distinctions useful in turning aside the objections of heretics.' Photius divides it into ten heads; ' These things,' he said, 'are clearly explained in it; What is Christ; in what way the word 'Emmanuel' is to be understood, and what is 'Jesus the Christ;' and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we say is the Union, and about the coal which Elias saw, and other things like these.'²⁶¹

That Christ is One. This treatise must have been written after Nestorius was condemned, since he is refuted by name in it. However, it must have been written no later than A.D. 441, since Andrew of Samosata quotes it. It is quoted with praise by S. Eulogius and Leontius of Byzantium. Father Garnier says of it: "Cyril wrote nothing more precise and carefully worked out concerning the history of the doctrine, so that the work appears to be that of a craftsman thoroughly trained by his previous labors."^262263264

iii. That Christ is One. The treatise must have been written after the condemnation of Nestorius, since he is refuted by name in it. It must, however, have been written not later than A. D. 441, since it is quoted by Andrew of Samosata. It is quoted with praise by S. Eulogius and Leontius of Byzantium… The Père Garnier says of it; ' Eo nihil exactius elucubratiusque ad historiam dogmatis Cyrillus scripsit, ut videatur opus artificis praecedentibus laboribus absolute eruditi.'^262263264

Cyril wrote the three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and the one against the Synousiastae (those who hold a particular Christological position associated with Apollinarius) at a later time. This was when the writings of Nestorius had been condemned, and supporters of Nestorian views turned instead to the works of Diodore and Theodore, who were the actual founders of Nestorianism. The fragments have been carefully gathered from every source known up to this point. Some were readily available, having been collected for the Fifth Ecumenical Council and included in its official records. Others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in his defense of the Council of Chalcedon, which still exists in manuscript form in both Syriac and Greek at Venice and at Cairo, where my son saw it. Still others were collected by Severus of Antioch. The sources from which these excerpts are taken are indicated in the notes. The original texts, as they exist in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of fragments attached to my son's third volume of Cyril's Commentary on John. This is the most complete collection in existence.²⁶⁵²⁶⁶

iv. S. Cyril wrote the three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and that against the Synousiastae or Apollinarians at a later period, when, the writings of Nestorius being proscribed, Nestorianisers betook themselves to those of Diodore and Theodore, the real originators of Nestorianism. The fragments have been collected with great pains from every source, hitherto known. Some were ready at hand, having been collected for the 5th General Council, and embodied in its Acts; others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in his defence of the Council of Chalcedon, which is still extant in MS., in Syriac and in Greek at Venice and at Cairo (where my son saw it); others by Severus of Antioch. The sources, whence the extracts are derived, are mentioned in the notes. The originals, as extant in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of Fragments appended to my son's third volume of S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John. It is the completest collection extant.²⁶⁵²⁶⁶

Saint Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection between the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker almost reached. At my request, in his constant filial love, my son took as the central work of his life to make the text of his works as accurate as it could be made. For this purpose he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Mount Athos, Cairo, Mount Sinai, and applied to this work his knowledge of Syriac, which he had perfected with another goal in mind that I had suggested to him: the re-editing of that now much undervalued critical authority, the Peshitta. Almighty God chose to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his Preface to his volume I have clarified anything regarding the self-forgetful, God-devoted character of my early benefactor, Saint Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and Who took away.

S. Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection of the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker all but reached. It was at my wish that, in his uniform filial love, my son took as the central work of his life, to make the text of his works as exact as it could be made. For this he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Mt. Athos, Cairo, Mt. Sinai, and applied to this the knowledge of Syriac, which he had perfected in view of another object which I had suggested to him, the re-editing of that now much undervalued Critical authority, the Peshito. Almighty God was pleased to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his Preface to his volume I have cleared any thing as to the self-forgetful, God-devoted character of my early Benefactor, S. Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and Who took away.

E. B. P.

E. B. P.

CHRISTMAS EVE, 1881.

C HRISTMAS E VE, 1881.