Scanned text contains errors.
phunes, Nestorius* himself had prepared, and intrusted him to deliver* " Let no one," said the preacher, " call Mary ' the, mother of God ;' for Mary was a human being ; and that God should be born of a human being is impossible." Euse-bius, then a Scholasticus or pleader at Constantinople, afterward bishop of Dorylaeum, was, according to Theophanes, the first to catch at the obnoxious objection [EusEBius of dorylaeum] ; and many both of the clergy and laity were scandalized by it. Nestorius, of course, supported Anastasius; and by continually insisting on the subject in dispute, and reiterating the objection to the term ©eoro/cos, aggravated the quarrel. As might be expected, his adversaries were too much inflamed to judge him fairly. Instead of recognizing his true object, which was to guard against confounding the two natures of Christ, many of them charged him with reviving the dogma of Photinus and Paul of Sa-mosata [paulus samosatenus ; photinus],that Christ was x|/i\os dVflpcoTros, "a mere man." Some of his own clergy preached against the heresy of their bishop, others attempted to catechize him on the alleged unsoundness of his faith. The violence and arrogance of Nestorius could not brook this : the preachers were silenced, the catechizers cruelly beaten and imprisoned: a monk who opposed his entrance into the church, was whipped and exiled ; and many of the populace, for crying out that they had an emperor but not a bishop, were also punished with lashes. (Basil, diaconi Supplicatio, apud Concil. vol. i. col. 1335, &c. ed. Hardouin.). Pro-clus, titular bishop of Cyzicus, himself afterwards a competitor for the patriarchate of Constantinople, preaching in the great church at the command, and in the presence of Nestorius, asserted the propriety of giving the title &sotokos to the Virgin. The audience applauded, and Nestorius rose and delivered a discourse in reply to Proclus, the substance of which is preserved in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator (Opera, vol. ii. p. 26, ed. Gamier, p. 70, ed. Baluze ; and apud Galland, BiUiotli. Patrum, vol. viii. p. 633) [mercator]. The conflict became hotter. Dorotheus bishop of Mar-cianopolis, an ultra Nestorian [dorotheus, No. 5], pronounced a public anathema in the church of Constantinople against all who applied the word ©cotokos to the Virgin. The audience raised a great outcry and left the church ; and abbots and monks, priests and laymen, withdrew from communion with the patriarch, who countenanced Dorotheus (Cyril. JSpistolae, 6, 9, pp. 30, 37; Opera, vol. v. pars ii.). Nestorius, no wise daunted by this mark of public opinion, assembled a council of those who adhered to him, and deposed priests and deacons,and even bishops of the opposite party, on a charge of Manicheism.
As might be expected, the struggle had meanwhile extended beyond the church and patriarchate of Constantinople. Pope Coelestine I. of Rome, and the haughty and violent patriarch Cyril of Alexandria embraced the opposite side to Nestorius. [COELESTINUS J st. CYRILLUS of ALEXANDRIA.] Cyril assembled a council of the Egyptian bishops at Alexandria; and addressed synodal letters, one to Nestorius, setting forth the faith which the Egyptians regarded as orthodox, and concluding with twelve anathemas against the presumed errors of Nestorius; another to the recusants at Constantinople, clerical and lay, animating them in their resistance to their heretical
bishop ; and a third of similar tenour to the monks of that city. Nestorius was not slow to retort on his adversary the same number of anathemas., Coelestine, not satisfied with the doctrinal statements sent him by Nestorius, wrote to him (a. d. 430), threatening him with deposition and excommunication from the whole Catholic church within ten days, unless he expressed his accordance with the faith of the churches of Rome and Alexandria. He also wrote to the recusants to encourage them, and likewise to John, patriarch of Antioch [joannes, No. 9], to inform him of the sentence of deposition and excommunication pronounced against Nestorius. John wrote to Nestorius, inviting him to withdraw his opposition to the term ®eoro-kos, but manifesting a very different temper from Cyril and Coelestine* Nestorius, in his reply, which is extant in a Latin version, vindicated his opposition to the word, affirming that he had, on his first arrival at Constantinople, found the church divided on the subject, some calling the Virgin "Mother of God," others "Mother of Man ;" and that he, to reconcile all, if possible, had proposed to call her " Mother of Christ" (Eplstol. Nestorii ad Joan, apud Concil. vol. i. col. 1331; comp. Evagr. H. E. i. 7). The expedient was unobjectionable ; but the violence of its proposer would have prevented peace, even had the temper of the factions and the times been more peace-loving and moderate.
A general council was now inevitable ; and an edict of the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III. appointed it to be held at Ephesus. Nestorius, prompt and fearless, arrived with a crowd of followers soon after Easter (a. d. 431). Cyril, who, beside his own dignity, was appointed temporarily to represent Coelestine, arrived about Pentecost : and the session of the council commenced, although John of Antioch, and the bishops of his patriarchate had not yet arrived. Cyril and Nestorius had a sharp encounter, Cyril seeking by terror to break the resolution of his opponent, Nestorius undauntedly replying, and then withdrawing with the bishops of his party, declaring that he would not return to the council until the arrival of John and the Eastern bishops. Cyril and his party refused to wait; and having sent to warn Nestorius to attend, and their messengers having been refused admittance, they proceeded in his absence (22d June) to try him, and depose him. A very few days afterward John and his fellow-prelates of the East arrived; and being indignant at the indecent haste and manifest injustice of Cyril and his party, and being countenanced by Candidianus, Comes Domesticorum, who was present by the emperor's order, formed themselves into a council, at which, however, Nestorius was not present, and imitating the very conduct which they blamed, deposed Cyril himself, and Menmon, bishop of Ephesus, one of his chief supporters. Cyril, supported by Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, retorted by deposing John ; and the general council, instead of healing, seemed likely to extend the breach. The whole church was threatened with disruption. Tumults and conflicts ensued ; and John, Comes Largitionum, found it needful to place Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon under surveillance. Nestorius appealed to the emperors ; the party of Cyril did the same, as also did John and the Oriental bishops. It is needless here to relate all the perplexed particulars of the sub
.4 f 2