truly man, the same composed of a reasonable soul and a body: consubstantial with the Father as to the Divinity, consubstantial with us as to the humanity; in all things like us, sin excepting.......... One only Son Jesus Christ, the Lord, in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the union making no difference in the natures; but, on the contrary, the property of each is preserved, and concurs in one. sole person and one sole hypostasis; so that he is not divided nor separated into two persons, but is one sole and only Son, the God-Word, our Lord Jesus Christ."*

66

د,

Now Nestorius maintained that the man Jesus, born of the holy Virgin, was ANOTHER PERSON from the Divine Word, who dwelt in Him. He regarded the visible Christ, not (by reason of a substantial union with the Deity) to be 05, "God," but av pшдоs Jεopорwv, “a man bearing God." He did not acknowledge the έvwσis, or "adunation of the two natures in Jesus; but taught that the union of the Godhead with the humanity was xara waρaστaσw, "by a species of intimate companionship ;' κατα χαριν και ευδοκιαν, “ by grace and good-will ; κατα ταυτοβουλιαν και ενέργειαν, “by oneness of sentiment and operation;" and xar' aşıav naι ισοτιμίαν, "by an elevation of the human nature to a participation of divine dignity." The fact of the incarnation, in his view, did not consist in the natural and substantial union of the Divine Word with the manhood, but the inhabitation of the Word in the human nature of Jesus, as subsisting by itself; a simple indwelling, as a God in a temple. The early Syrian followers of Nestorius were fond of illustrating this kind of union by a variety of analogies; as that, for example, between the monarch and the purple robe; or that of the fire with iron heated red; or a vestment with the body of the wearer; or the * Vide EVAGRII Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cap. 4.

diadem with the head; or the king with his ambassador; or friend with friend. According to them, it was like the union between the faculty of thought and the voice or the writing which gives it expression; or the sun and the mirror, which becomes itself an orb of glory by his rays; or the pearl and the eye, which catches its image; or the signet with the wax, or the ring with the finger: all forms and modes of union that, it will be observed, are either accidental or conventional, or moral, or affective, and not essential, hypostatic, or substantial. Hence, also, such words in their language as Lol usia, “substance;" 12 ithutha, 1200) essence or existence;

وو

D

A

kyona, "nature; nature; "o knuma, “hypostasis or person," when used in reference to Jesus Christ, they were accustomed to express in the dual number, as declaratory of their belief, that in him these things were twofold; while parsopa, "person, or visible ap10 pearance;" tsalma, "image; " tsebyona,

"will;" 12 mab'donutha, "operation;"

chaila, "power;" lie shultona, "authority; were put in the singular, as indicating the truth of their oneness in the Being of our Lord.

But, from the doctrine of Nestorius it would obviously follow, first, that Jesus Christ is not God, but only the receptacle of the Deity, in whom he dwells as in a temple. Secondly, that the statements of scripture which ascribe to his human nature attributes, names, and actions, which are predicable of the Godhead only; and which affirm things done or suffered by the manhood to have been accomplished by the Godhead; are unworthy of being regarded as literally true. Thirdly, that the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, was not the

*As in Acts xx. 28.

*

death of a divine person, nor, on that account, an adequate, because infinitely available, atonement for human guilt. It would also result, fourthly, that the worship offered to Christ as to a person who is in himself worthy of supreme honour and adoration, implies a Quaternity, instead of a Trinity, in the persons of the blessed Godhead; all of them conclusions from which the thoughtful Christian would turn with the strongest disapproval.

We are not to suppose that Nestorius had the slightest inclination to follow out these consequences of his system, for the deadly errors involved in them were evidently his abhorrence; yet, by a not unparalleled tenacity in holding fast a favourite error, with a steadfastness of purpose in rejecting others which claimed a necessary kindredship with it, he still maintained a deeply-sincere and openly-avowed communion with the faith of the universal church, on all the other verities relating to the salvation of mankind. He held the personal distinction in the Triune Essence against the Sabellians. He did not, with Arius, regard the Son as inferior in nature to the Father; nor maintain, with the Docetæ and the Gnostics, that his humanity was merely phantasmal; nor, with Apollinarius, that he had but the exterior of our nature; nor, with Paul of Samosata and others in afterdays, that he was a perfect man, and only a man. But Nestorius fell, notwithstanding, into a great and grievous heresy. He denied the Son, not indeed in his divine and eternal pre-existence; but in that his perfect and incarnate character, in which only he could become the Saviour of our race; an error which, without judging of its remote results in this particular instance, must be seen to possess tendencies which, if yielded to by any mind, will lead it at once to hopelessness.

IV.

CONTROVERSY. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS.

CYRIL, then bishop of Alexandria, a man whose distinguished capabilities of intellect and brilliant theological learning were counterbalanced to a melancholy degree by much that has the semblance of malignity of temper and an overbearing love of power, appeared as the opponent of Nestorius and the champion of the orthodox faith. In a series of epistles to the monks of Egypt, to Nestorius himself, to Celestine, bishop of Rome, (who likewise took an active part in the defence of the true doctrine,) and to the emperor Theodosius, he laboured with great ability to overthrow the portentous heresy and to restore tranquillity to the church.

The spirit of controversy was now universally in the ascendant, and manifested itself in those excesses of bad feeling by which the charities of religion have been sacrificed, times without number, to the pride and obstinacy of the human heart. To bring this state of things to an issue, the emperor, at the request of both parties, summoned the celebrated council of Ephesus, which opened in the church of St. Mary, in that city, in the June of the year 431, with the presence of a hundred and fiftyeight bishops. Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip, a presbyter, attended as the legates of Celestine. Theodosius had deputed, as his own ministers, the counts Irenæus and Candidian, both imbued with the opinions of Nestorius. The bishops of the Syrian churches, however, had not presented themselves. Under the influence and conduct of John, metropolitan of Antioch, (who was actuated both by dislike to Cyril and by partiality for Nestorius, though he had not committed himself to the doctrine of that prelate,) and reluctant to participate in the deposition of one endeared to many of them by the ties of country and early association, they purposely

delayed their arrival at Ephesus till an advanced period of the council. On the opening of the transactions, Nestorius, who had taken up his residence in the city, was three times formally cited to appear; but alleging his determination to await the arrival of John and the oriental bishops, he refused the summons, in which he had the concurrence of the emperor's representatives. This determination being found unalterable, the council, having discussed the dogma that had brought them together, and taken a review of the controversial proceedings issuing in the crisis then pending, pronounced the doctrine of Nestorius to be heretical, and deposed him from his episcopate. Five days afterward, John of Antioch made his appearance, attended by forty-two bishops; among whom we find Alexander of Apamea, John of Damascus, Dexian of Seleucia, Alexander of Hierapolis, and the eminent Theodoret of Cyrus. These immediately announced their dissent from the decision of the council; and, in a synod held apart by themselves, deposed Cyril, and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, and anathematized the twelve propositions* of the former as unsound. There followed upon this a wearisome series of contention and intrigue, in which all that was dignified in the episcopal character was forfeited, on both sides, by the indulgence of personal animosities. The imperial counts, who took a decided part with the Eastern bishops, intercepted the letters of the council to Theodosius, and, by ex-parte statements, so filled the mind of the emperor with misapprehension and ill-feeling, as to induce him to consign Cyril to prison. A letter, however, from the orthodox, conveyed by a messenger who made his way to Byzantium in the disguise of a mendicant, with the epistle enclosed in the hollow of a cane, gave Theodosius, at length, a true exposition of the case.

* See the note at the end of this article, page 133.