enforce its acknowledgment in the church. It expressions, to which might be added others of accused of reviving the errors of Paulus Samo- A. D. 527. CHAP. not satisfied with this, now joined his enemies against him. The council of Ephesus was convened for the purpose of trying him, and he was denounced as a heretic, in a summary and disgraceful manner. Without giving him the opportunity of explaining, defending, or retracting his sentiments, they deprived him at once of his see, and banished him from the city. He retired to his monastery, near Antioch, but his enemies would not allow him long to repose in its solitude. After four years he was removed to Tarsus, and then driven thence from place to place, until, worn out with grief and fatigue, he died of a broken heart. We cannot take even this cursory view of these painful events, without deploring the intolerance and bigotry which both parties displayed. If, on the one hand, the sole object of Nestorius had been to protest against the Apollinarians' abuse of the term, Mother of God, and in his zeal to correct it, had proceeded with the discretion becoming a Christian prelate, he would have commanded the admiration of all devout and orthodox Christians, and the Lord would, doubtless, have prospered his work. Or if, on the other hand, in refusing to the Virgin Mary this title, he had really meant to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, there would have been no injustice in his excommunication. For to hold such a heresy, is to subvert the fundamental doctrine of Jesus' atonement, and therefore to cease to be a Christian, in the proper sense of the term. It would then have been a manifest neglect of duty on the part of the other prelates to have allowed him to remain in communion with the orthodox: and, on his own part, he would have been practising gross hypocrisy by continuing in the church, and palpable dishonesty by retaining his preferment and emoluments. But it no where appears that he had the remotest intention so to dishonour the Lord and had both parties mutually explained their views in a dispassionate manner, there can be little doubt that they would have come to a right understanding upon the disputed question. There seems, however, to have been too much of human passion in the contest to admit of an amicable adjustment. While Nestorius, like the furious Jehu, fancied that he was showing his" zeal for the Lord," it is to be feared that he was gratifying his own pride, or impetuosity of temper. And on the other hand, it cannot be denied that Cyril, in his treatment of Nestorius, was actuated by a spirit most unbecoming his character and station. For he presided at the council of Ephesus, which condemned him unheard, and is accused of bribing many to join him in proceeding against that unhappy prelate. His passion carried him so far, that, without waiting the arrival of the chief members of the council, and even of the Bishop of Antioch, he judged and condemned Nestorius at the first sitting, and had the cruelty to announce to him his condemnation in these terms. "To Nesto"rius, a new Judas. Be it known to thee, that "thou art deposed, and stripped of all ecclesi"astical rank," &c. Conduct so opposed to the spirit of the Gospel, nothing can warrant; yet it is not difficult to account for it. Soon after Constantinople had become the seat of government, the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, began to observe with a jealous eye the growing influence of the prelate of that city and there is too 1 2 Kings x. 16. G A. D. 527. CHAP. The progress of his sect and de generacy of his tenets. much reason to suspect that Cyril, who was Bishop of Alexandria, and chief actor in this disgraceful tragedy, was not sorry to have so plausible a pretext for humbling that rival prelate in the eyes of the universal church. How implacable is jealousy! It will pay no regard to the feelings of humanity, to the decision of justice, or to the voice of truth. May the Lord henceforth keep the unity of His Church from being disturbed by its baneful influence! 6. But while condemning the injustice of Cyril and his party, we must not fail again to notice the retributive justice of God, in giving up Nestorius to be chastened by such weapons as he had himself so unsparingly used. In this instance, however, as in most others, persecution had the contrary effect to that which was intended. The sentiment so violently opposed soon spread far and wide, like the waters of a river impeded in their course.' The churches of Syria, Egypt, Persia, and, according to Cosmas, that of India, embraced the obnoxious tenet of Nestorius: nor did they long confine themselves to his simple refusal to concede to the Virgin Mary the title in dispute. It would answer little purpose here to discuss all the notions imputed to the unhappy founder of this sect. Suffice it to say, that the allegations which represent him as erring essentially from the orthodox faith, might all be shown to have as little foundation in truth as that just This observation applies also to the vehemence of Nestorius, his proceedings causing the very superstition he desired to correct to be the more tenaciously maintained: and the image of the Virgin Mary, holding the child Jesus in her arms, obtained the principal place among the idols in the churches, in consequence of the Nestorian controversy.— Mosheim, Cent. 5. pt. 2. c. 4. s. 2. disproved. The historian, La Croze, has examined the question with his usual candour and diligence; and he does not hesitate to affirm, that the whole controversy was a mere logomachy. But this apology cannot be offered for his followers, many of whom appear to have enrolled themselves as disciples of his school without comprehending his tenets. The duality of natures for which he contended, soon degenerated into a duality of persons, which he expressly denied. The difference between the divine and human natures of Jesus, which they attempt to define, is as unprofitable as unintelligible. It will be enough for our present purpose to state the two distinguishing tenets of the Nestorian heresy, as generally understood. First, That in Christ there were not only two natures, but two persons: of which, one was divine, even the eternal Word; the other human, even the man Jesus. Second, That Mary was to be called the Mother of Christ,' and not the mother of God. A. D. 527. 7. This discussion,2 brief as it is, might be Importance deemed too great a digression from our subject, 1 XpiσTOTÓKOS. Besides these leading tenets, they maintained that the two persons of Jesus had only one aspect.-That the union between the Son of God and the Son of Man was formed at the moment of the Virgin's conception, and was never to be dissolved. That it was not, however, a union of nature or of person, but only of will and affection. That Christ was therefore to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in Him. as in His temple. 2 The following are the principal authorities for the account here given of Nestorius, and of the heresy bearing his name. Socrates Scholasticus, Lib. vii. c. 29-34. La Croze, Hist. Du Lib. i. pp. 8-20. Fleury, Ecc. Hist. Lib. xxiv. s. 55. of this dis cussion reference to the history of Christianity in India. |