PART I
CHAPTER 13
NESTORIANISM
HOME | contents | introduction | Nestorianism | Theodore of Mopsuestia | Nestorius: Bishop | Theotokos | Cyril | Council of Ephesus | Nestorius: later history | necessity of definition | Nestorianism: Pelagianism | modern Nestorianism | Nestorian church
Apollinarianism was a reaction against Arianism.
Arius had denied that the Son was in the full sense God.
Apollinarius denied that He was in the full sense Man.
top
I. Nestorianism a Reaction against Apollinarianism
Nestorianism, the third great heresy, was in its turn a reaction against
Apollinarianism.
Like Arianism, it sprang from the School of Antioch.
Its defenders (like many modern theologians) began with the conception of
Christ as Man,
and were looking for some way of reconciling that conception with the traditional
belief in His Godhead.
top
II. Theodore of Mopsuestia
The father of Nestorianism was Theodore of Mopsuestia
(this strange name is Μόψου
ἑστία, the hearth of cult-centre of the
god Mopsus, a local name for Apollo).
Mopsuestia was in Cilicia somewhat east of Tarsus.
Theodore, its bishop, was a friend of St. John Chrysostom
and was famous for his commentaries on the Bible,
which won for him in Syriac-speaking Christendom the title of the Expositor.
His method was critical, rational, and historical,
and he anticipated some of the results of modern critical study.
But his teaching about the Incarnation was unsatisfactory.
Being anxious to defend the complete manhood of our Lord,
in opposition to the teaching of Apollinarius,
he held that the human nature was united to the Word by a kind of external tie
( συνάφεια), which
he compared to the union of man and wife.
Theodore of Mopsuestia was never condemned during his lifetime.
The controversy began when, shortly after his death,
his pupil Nestorius, a popular preacher at Antioch,
became Bishop of Constantinople in 428.
top
III. Nestorius Appointed Bishop of Constantinople
Nestorius was an ardent partisan.
In his inaugural address he cried,
"Give me, O Emperor, the earth clear
of heretics, and I will give you the kingdom of heaven.
Help me to
destroy the heretics, and I will help you to destroy the Persians."
So great was his persecuting zeal that he became known as the Bonfire.
Anastasius, a priest whom Nestorius had brought from Antioch, and in whom
he had great confidence, used these words while preaching in the cathedral
at Constantinople:
"Let no one call Mary the God-bearer (Θεοτόκος),
for she was a human being, and of a human being it is impossible that God
should be born."
top
IV. The Word Theoticos
The word Theoticos
(which should always be pronounced with the emphasis on
the syllable -ti-, where the accent stands in the Greek,
because Theokos
has a different meaning [I
owe this point to the present Primate of All Ireland, Dr. Gregg.])
means "God-Bearer",
or "Mother of Him who is God",
and had been used by Origen, Chrysostom, the Gregories,
and indeed by Christians in general since the third century.
The translation "Mother of God", though orthodox if rightly understood,
is easily misinterpreted.
Theoticos is an example of the "communicatio idiomatum",
or attribution to one of our Lord's natures of a word that is properly applied
to the other.
There is an example in Acts 20.28:
the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
The words of Anastasius aroused much excitement, and Nestorius gave him
full support.
The historian Socrates tells us that in his opinion Nestorius was very ignorant
of theology, and that the word Theoticos was a bugbear to him.
He
is reported to have said: "I cannot call an infant of two months God".
But
we cannot be sure that what he really said was not: "I cannot call God
an infant of two months" an entirely different thing.
top
V. Cyril Attacks Nestorius
The case against Nestorius was taken up by Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,
who was, indeed, a great theologian, but who was not free from personal motives.
The
see of Alexandria had always been jealous of Constantinople, and these two
sees were on opposite sides in every controversy.
After some correspondence, which led to no agreement, both Nestorius and
Cyril called for the support of Celestine of Rome.
Celestine summoned
a synod of his bishops, which having considered both sides, decided in favor
of Cyril. Celestine then wrote to Cyril, telling him that unless Nestorius
abjured his errors within ten days, he would excommunicate him, and empowering
Cyril to act as his proxy for this purpose.
He also sent an ultimatum
to Nestorius, threatening that if he did not abjure his errors within ten
days, he would be excommunicated by Rome and Alexandria, and so far as Celestine's
influence could effect it, by Antioch as well.
He also wrote to the
clergy and laity of Constantinople, promising them his support against Nestorius
if he should continue in his errors.
Cyril, on receiving Celestine's letter, called together a synod of his own
bishops and, having obtained their agreement, sent to Nestorius a letter
requiring him to condemn twelve propositions known as the Twelve Anathematisms.
In this document the theories of Nestorius were condemned in the harshest
manner.
The Twelve Anathematisms can be satisfactorily explained, as
they afterwards were by Cyril himself, but taken by themselves they are a
dangerously one-sided statement.
No attempt was made to conciliate
Nestorius or to bring him to reason.
Cyril's object seems to have been
to humiliate and crush him.
John, Patriarch of Antioch, who was a personal friend of Nestorius,
having received the letters of Celestine and Cyril, wrote to Nestorius
advising him to follow the example of his master Theodore
and to accept the word Theoticos in its orthodox sense.
Nestorius, after reading this letter and that of Cyril, waited for three
weeks,
and then announced that he would accept the word Theoticos,
provided that his opponents would balance it with the complementary word
Anthropoticos, Bearer of Man.
He sent the sermon including this statement to John,
who was satisfied with it but highly dissatisfied with the Anathematisms
of Cyril.
Here the controversy might have ended.
But before receiving Cyril's letter,
Nestorius had asked the Emperor Theodosius II to call together a General
Council.
Also Nestorius had unwisely replied to Cyril's Anathematisms with a rival
set, awkwardly drawn up, which did not make for peace.
top
VI. The Council of Ephesus
The Council was opened at Ephesus on May 22, 431.
Celestine of Rome was not present, but his representatives, or "legates",
were instructed to follow in all things the directions of Cyril, who was
accompanied by fifty Egyptian bishops and who presided at the Council.
John of Antioch and his bishops were late, and Cyril refused to wait for
them.
Nestorius would not appear until all the bishops were assembled.
In his absence, the correspondence between him and Cyril and extracts from
his sermons were read.
The Council agreed unanimously to condemn Nestorius and to proclaim that
the title Theoticos must be given to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
We observe, first, that the ultimatum sent by Celestine was not regarded
as sufficient in itself (as it would have been on the later papal theory),
for the ten days named were long since passed;
second, that Nestorius was given no real chance of defending himself, while
Cyril, against whom Nestorius had issued counter-anathemas, was judge in
his own cause.
When the business was finished, John of Antioch arrived.
He and his supporters proceeded to hold a rival Council,
in which they condemned the previous proceedings and declared Cyril,
Memnon of Ephesus, and their supporters deposed.
Upon this the Council met again,
confirmed the condemnation of Nestorius,
condemned the Pelagians,
who had been associated with Nestorius,
and ordered that no creed different from the Nicene Creed
should be imposed upon converts,
and that anyone composing or proposing such a creed, should be deposed if
a cleric, and be anathematized if a layman.
Nestorius was deposed and sent into exile.
A new bishop, Maximian, was consecrated in his place.
But John of Antioch and most of his bishops refused to accept the decisions
of the Council, and a schism followed, accompanied by much bitterness.
However, Cyril was persuaded to send to John an explanation of his Twelve
Anathematisms, with the result that John, and ultimately the whole patriarchate
of Antioch, were reconciled with Cyril and the Council.
But this was only brought about by Government pressure.
The Emperor was determined to enforce the decrees of the Council.
top
VII. Later History of Nestorius
Nestorius was banished to a monastery in the Great Oasis in the Sahara Desert
where he remained, as far as is known, for the rest of his life.
In recent times a book written by him in exile, called The Bazaar of Heracleides,
which was before quite unknown, has been discovered.
On the evidence of this book, some scholars maintain that Nestorius was not
really guilty of the heresy attributed to him, and that he accepted the decrees
of Chalcedon as confirming his position.
This is a purely historical
question about which scholars will probably argue till the end of time.
It
seems that Nestorius had not the learning or judgment to decide such a question,
that he was by no means a deliberate rebel like Arius, and that his opponents,
being moved by personal hostility, did not give him a fair trial.
But whether Nestorius was a Nestorian or not,
there is no doubt that the Council of Ephesus was right in condemning Nestorianism.
top
VIII. Why the Definition was Necessary
Our Lord Jesus Christ was God from the first moment of His existence as
Man.
It was the Eternal Word of whom He spoke when He said "I am".
It was God incarnate who was born of the Virgin,
and she is therefore rightly called Theot?os.
If He who was born of her had not been the Word of God,
the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,
it would not be true that the Word became flesh.
O wonder of wonders, which none can unfold!
The Ancient of Days is an hour or two old.
The Maker of all things is laid on the earth:
Man is worshiped by angels, and God comes to birth.
H. R. Bramley: English Hymnal, No. 29.
Moreover, unless Jesus Christ had been God,
and not merely a man united with God,
He could not have redeemed us.
Our redemption was the work of God who,
by taking human nature,
brought a new element into our fallen human race.
If He had merely been a man united with God,
there would have been no new element.
top
IX. Nestorianism and Pelagianism
It is here that Nestorianism is connected with Pelagianism.
Pelagius, who lived at the same time as Nestorius, taught, as we shall see,
that man is born free from stain or defect, that he is consequently able
to resist sin without the help of Divine grace, and that he does not necessarily
need redemption.
It has been well said that the Nestorian Christ is a fit saviour for the
Pelagian man;
and so the followers of Pelagius, condemned in the West,
were welcomed at Constantinople by Nestorius,
but were condemned by the Council of Ephesus. (See pp.154-7.)
top
X. Modern Nestorianism
Nestorianism is by no means dead.
It makes a strong appeal to those who regard Jesus Christ as a Leader to
be followed rather than as God to be worshiped, and who think that the
active service of mankind is enough without the adoration of God or repentance
for sin [See p.92.].
Nestorianism
is a rationalistic form of Christianity from which the mystical element
has been excluded;
and the Calvinist tradition of opposition to the place
of honour given by most Christians to the Lord's Mother encourages dislike
of the necessary term Theoticos.
top
XI. The So-called Nestorian Church
But the Church commonly called Nestorian is not closely connected with the
Nestorian controversy.
Beyond the patriarchate of Antioch, which as we have seen, was brought into
agreement with the decrees of Ephesus, partly by the explanations given by
Cyril and partly by the pressure exercised by the Roman Government at Constantinople,
there was an independent patriarchate in the kingdom of Persia, with its
headquarters at Seleucia-Ctesiphon on the Tigris.
The Church of the
East, as it was and still is officially called, was outside the Roman Empire
and had no close relations with the Church inside the Empire, though in full
communion with it.
The language of the Church of the East was Syriac,
and the teaching of the School of Antioch, and especially of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, was dominant in it.
It used to be thought that the Church of the East rejected the Council of
Ephesus, and from that moment ceased to be in communion with the rest of
the Church.
This has now been shown to be a complete misapprehension.
The
Church of the East was outside Greek controversies.
It did not receive
the decrees of Nicea (325) until 410, and the Council of Ephesus was never
brought to its official knowledge at all.
But Mgr. Chabot, in his edition
of the Synodicon Orientale, shows that the Church of the East accepted
both the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo (from which it might be
argued that the Church of the East indirectly accepts the decrees of Ephesus
which were confirmed at Chalcedon); and Dr. Wigram has shown that there was
no formal schism between the Orthodox Greek churches and the Church of the
East till a much later period (W. A. Wigram, History of the Assyrian Church).
On
the other hand, the Church of the East, probably without fully understanding
the point at issue, canonized Nestorius and condemned Cyril, rejected the
phrase "Yaldath Alaha" (which was the usual translation of Theoticos,
though it is not an exact equivalent),
[Modern Assyrians
are apparently quite content with the phrase "Mother of God the Word".]
and
declared its belief in Two Kiani (natures), Two Qnumi, and
one Parsopa (Person).
The exact meaning of the word Qnuma is
discussed at length by Dr. Wigram (op. cit., ch. 13), who decides
that it does not correspond to the Greek "Hypostasis".
The
real point at issue seems to have been that the bishops of the Church of
the East objected strongly to the way in which Nestorius had been treated,
and to the condemnation, long after their death, of Diodore, Theodore, and
Theodoret (the Three Chapters), by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), and
were also not sorry to be able to tell their King, when he accused them of
being, as Christians, in sympathy with the Roman Empire, that they were quite
a different kind of Christians from his political enemies, the "Romans"!
The Church of the East, which in the thirteenth century included twenty-five
provinces, and extended to China and India, is now represented by the scattered
remnant commonly known as the Assyrian Church, under its patriarch, Mar Shimun
XI.
The teaching of this church was declared to be quite orthodox by
a commission appointed by the Lambeth Conference of 1908.
top