CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nestorius and Nestorianism</title><script src="https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/js/cmp/cleanmediacmp.js?ver=0104" async="true"></script><script defer data-domain="newadvent.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content="Biography of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and examination of the unacceptable implications of his doctrine"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.newadvent.org/bestoftheweb?format=xml"><link rel="icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><meta name="robots" content="noodp"><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../utility/screen6.css" media="screen"></head> <body class="cathen" id="10755a.htm">  <br/> <div id="capitalcity"><table summary="Logo" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="left"><a href="../"><img height=36 width=153 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></td><td align="right"> <form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0"/> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9"/>  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label> <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel"/>  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label> <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel"/> </form> <table summary="Spacer" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td height="2"></td></tr></table> <table summary="Tabs" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../"> Home </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_white_on_color" href="../cathen/index.html"> Encyclopedia </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../summa/index.html"> Summa </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../fathers/index.html"> Fathers </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../bible/gen001.htm"> Bible </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../library/index.html"> Library </a></td> </tr></table> </td> </tr></table><table summary="Alphabetical index" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"> <a href="../cathen/a.htm"> A </a><a href="../cathen/b.htm"> B </a><a href="../cathen/c.htm"> C </a><a href="../cathen/d.htm"> D </a><a href="../cathen/e.htm"> E </a><a href="../cathen/f.htm"> F </a><a href="../cathen/g.htm"> G </a><a href="../cathen/h.htm"> H </a><a href="../cathen/i.htm"> I </a><a href="../cathen/j.htm"> J </a><a href="../cathen/k.htm"> K </a><a href="../cathen/l.htm"> L </a><a href="../cathen/m.htm"> M </a><a href="../cathen/n.htm"> N </a><a href="../cathen/o.htm"> O </a><a href="../cathen/p.htm"> P </a><a href="../cathen/q.htm"> Q </a><a href="../cathen/r.htm"> R </a><a href="../cathen/s.htm"> S </a><a href="../cathen/t.htm"> T </a><a href="../cathen/u.htm"> U </a><a href="../cathen/v.htm"> V </a><a href="../cathen/w.htm"> W </a><a href="../cathen/x.htm"> X </a><a href="../cathen/y.htm"> Y </a><a href="../cathen/z.htm"> Z </a> </td></tr></table></div> <div id="mobilecity" style="text-align: center; "><a href="../"><img height=24 width=102 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></div>  <div id="mi5"><span class="breadcrumbs"><a href="../">Home</a> > <a href="../cathen">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> > <a href="../cathen/n.htm">N</a> > Nestorius and Nestorianism</span></div> <div id="springfield2"> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-top' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <h1>Nestorius and Nestorianism</h1> <p><em><a href="https://gumroad.com/l/na2"><strong>Please help support the mission of New Advent</strong> and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more  all for only $19.99...</a></em></p> <h2 id="section1">The heresiarch</h2> <p>Nestorius, who gave his name to the Nestorian <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, was born at <a href="../cathen/06475a.htm">Germanicia</a>, in <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a> Euphoratensis (date unknown); died in the <a href="../cathen/14561a.htm">Thebaid, Egypt</a>, c. 451. He was living as a <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> and <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monk</a> in the <a href="../cathen/04340c.htm">monastery</a> of Euprepius near the walls, when he was chosen by the Emperor Theodosius II to be <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of Constantinople in succession to Sisinnius. He had a high reputation for eloquence, and the popularity of <a href="../cathen/08452b.htm">St. Chrysostom's</a> memory among the people of the imperial city may have influenced the Emperor's choice of another <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> from Antioch to be court <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. He was <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecrated</a> in April, 428, and seems to have made an excellent impression. He lost no time in showing his <a href="../cathen/15753a.htm">zeal</a> against <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a>. Within a few days of his <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecration</a> Nestorius had an <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> <a href="../cathen/03574b.htm">chapel</a> destroyed, and he persuaded <a href="../cathen/14577d.htm">Theodosius</a> to issue a severe edict against <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> in the following month. He had the churches of the Macedonians in the Hellespont seized, and took measures against the Quartodecimans who remained in <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a>. He also attacked the <a href="../cathen/11138a.htm">Novatians</a>, in spite of the good reputation of their <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. <a href="../cathen/11604a.htm">Pelagian</a> refugees from the West, however, he did not expel, not being well acquainted with their condemnation ten years earlier. He twice wrote to <a href="../cathen/03477c.htm">Pope St. Celestine I</a> for information on the subject. He received no reply, but Marius Mercator, a disciple of <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a>, published a memoir on the subject at Constantinople, and presented it to the emperor, who duly proscribed the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a>. At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word <em>Theotokos</em>, and detailed his Antiochian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it was <a href="../cathen/05622a.htm">Eusebius</a>, a <a href="../cathen/08748a.htm">layman</a>, afterwards <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/05136b.htm">Dorylaeum</a> and the accuser of <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>. Two <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a> of the city, Philip and Proclus, who had both been unsuccessful candidates for the <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchate</a>, preached against Nestorius. Philip, known as Sidetes, from Side, his birthplace, author of a vast and discursive history now lost, accused the patriarch of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>. Proclus (who was to succeed later in his candidature) preached a flowery, but perfectly <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a>, sermon, yet extant, to which Nestorius replied in an extempore discourse, which we also possess. All this naturally caused great excitement at Constantinople, especially among the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a>, who were clearly not well disposed towards the stranger from Antioch. St. Celestine immediately condemned the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. He now hastened it on, and the summons had been issued to <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchs</a> and <a href="../cathen/10244c.htm">metropolitans</a> on 19 Nov., before the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope's</a> sentence, delivered though <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, had been served on Nestorius (6 Dec.). At the council Nestorius was condemned, and the emperor, after much delay and hesitation, ratified its finding. It was confirmed by <a href="../cathen/14032a.htm">Pope Sixtus III</a>.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>The lot of Nestorius was a hard one. He had been handed over by the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> to the tender mercies of his rival, Cyril; he had been summoned to accept within ten days under pain of deposition, not a <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">papal</a> definition, but a series of <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathemas</a> drawn up at Alexandria under the influence of <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarian</a> forgeries. The whole council had not condemned him, but only a portion, which had not awaited the arrival of the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> from Antioch. He had refused to recognize the <a href="../cathen/08567a.htm">jurisdiction</a> of this incomplete number, and had consequently refused to appear or put in any defence. He was not thrust out of his <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">see</a> by a change of mind on the part of the feeble emperor. But Nestorius was proud: he showed no sign of yielding or of coming to terms; he put in no plea of appeal to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. He retired to his <a href="../cathen/04340c.htm">monastery</a> at Antioch with dignity and apparent relief. His friends, <a href="../cathen/08468a.htm">John of Antioch</a>, and his party, deserted him, and at the wish of the Emperor, at the beginning of 433, joined hands with Cyril, and Theodoret later did the same. The <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> who were suspected of being favourable to Nestorius were deposed. An edict of Theodosius II, 30 July, 435, condemned his writings to be burnt. A few years later Nestorius was dragged from his retirement and banished to the Oasis. He was at one time carried off by the Nubians (not the Blemmyes) in a raid, and was restored to the <a href="../cathen/14561a.htm">Thebaid</a> with his hand and one rib broken. He gave himself up to the governor in order not to be accused of having fled.</p> <p>The recent discovery of a Syriac version of the (lost) Greek apology for Nestorius by himself has awakened new interest in the question of his personal <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a>. The (mutilated) <a href="../cathen/09614b.htm">manuscript</a>, about 800 years old, known as the "Bazaar of Heraclides", and recently edited as the "Liber Heraclidis" by P. Bedjan (Paris, 1910), reveals the persistent odium attached to the name of Nestorius, since at the end of his life he was <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obliged</a> to substitute for it a pseudonym. In this work he claims that his <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> is that of the celebrated "Tome", or letter of <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">Leo the Great</a> to <a href="../cathen/06098c.htm">Flavian</a>, and excuses his failure to appeal to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> by the general prejudice of which he was the victim. A fine passage on the Eucharistic Sacrifice which occurs in the "Bazaar" may be cited here: "There is something amiss with you which I want to put before you in a few words, in order to induce you to amend it, for you are quick to see what is seemly. What then is this fault? Presently the mysteries are set before the faithful like the mess granted to his soldiers by the king. Yet the army of the faithful is nowhere to be seen, but they are blown away together with the <a href="../cathen/03430b.htm">catechumens</a> like chaff by the wind of indifference. And Christ is crucified in the symbol [kata ton tupon], sacrificed by the sword of the <a href="../cathen/12345b.htm">prayer</a> of the Priest; but, as when He was upon the Cross, He finds His disciples have already fled. Terrible is this fault,--a betrayal of Christ when there is no <a href="../cathen/11703a.htm">persecution</a>, a desertion by the faithful of their Master's Body when there is no <a href="../cathen/15546c.htm">war</a>" (Loofs, "Nestoriana", Halls, 1905, p. 341).</p> <p>The writings of Nestorius were originally very numerous. As stated above, the "Bazaar" has newly been published (Paris, 1910) in the Syriac translation in which alone it survives. The rest of the fragments of Nestorius have been most minutely examined, pieced together and edited by Loofs. His sermons show a real eloquence, but very little remains in the original Greek. The Latin translations by Marius Mercator are very poor in style and the text is ill preserved. Batiffol has attributed to Nestorius many sermons which have come down to us under the names of other authors; three of <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, one of <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">Hippolytus</a>, three of Amphilochius, thirty-eight of Basil of Selleucia, seven of <a href="../cathen/08452b.htm">St. Chrysostom</a>; but Loofs and Baker do not accept the ascription. Mercati has pointed out four fragments in a writing of Innocent, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/09683b.htm">Maronia</a> (ed. Amelli in "Spicil. Cassin.", I, 1887), and <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">Armenian</a> fragments have been published by Ludtke.</p> <h2 id="section2">The heresy</h2> <p>Nestorius was a disciple of the <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> of Antioch, and his <a href="../cathen/14597a.htm">Christology</a> was essentially that of <a href="../cathen/05008a.htm">Diodorus of Tarsus</a> and <a href="../cathen/14571b.htm">Theodore of Mopsuestia</a>, both Cilician <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> and great opponents of <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arianism</a>. Both died in the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. Diodorus was a holy man, much <a href="../cathen/05188b.htm">venerated</a> by <a href="../cathen/08452b.htm">St. John Chrysostom</a>. Theodore, however, was condemned in person as well as in his writings by the Fifth General Council, in 553. In opposition to many of the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arians</a>, who taught that in the Incarnation the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son of God</a> assumed a human body in which His Divine Nature took the place of <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>, and to the followers of Apollinarius of <a href="../cathen/08794a.htm">Laodicea</a>, who held that the Divine Nature supplied the functions of the higher or <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>, the Antiochenes insisted upon the completeness of the humanity which the Word assumed. Unfortunately, they represented this <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> as a complete man, and represented the Incarnation as the assumption of a man by the Word. The same way of speaking was common enough in Latin writers (<em>assumere hominem, homo assumptus</em>) and was meant by them in an <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> sense; we still sing in the <a href="../cathen/14468c.htm">Te Deum</a>: "Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem", where we must understand "ad liberandum hominem, humanam naturam suscepisti". But the Antiochene writers did not mean that the "man assumed" (<em>ho lephtheis anthropos</em>) was taken up into one hypostasis with the Second Person of the <a href="../cathen/15047a.htm">Holy Trinity</a>. They preferred to speak of <em>synapheia</em>, "junction", rather than <em>enosis</em>, "unification", and said that the two were one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> in dignity and power, and must be worshipped together. The word <em>person</em> in its Greek form <em>prosopon</em> might stand for a juridical or fictitious unity; it does not necessarily imply what the word <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> implies to us, that is, the unity of the subject of consciousness and of all the internal and external activities. Hence we are not surprised to find that Diodorus admitted two Sons, and that Theodore practically made two Christs, and yet that they cannot be <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proved</a> to have really made two subjects in Christ. Two things are certain: first, that, whether or no they believed in the unity of the subject in the Incarnate Word, at least they explained that unity wrongly; secondly, that they used most unfortunate and misleading language when they spoke of the union of the manhood with the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>  language which is objectively <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a>, even were the intention of its authors good.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>Nestorius, as well as Theodore, repeatedly insisted that he did not admit two Christs or two Sons, and he frequently asserted the unity of the <em>prosopon</em>. On arriving at <a href="../cathen/04301a.htm">Constantinople</a> he came to the conclusion that the very different <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> which he found rife there was a form of <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> or <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarian</a> <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>. In this he was not wholly wrong, as the outbreak of <a href="../cathen/05633a.htm">Eutychianism</a> twenty years later may be held to prove. In the first months of his pontificate he was implored by the <a href="../cathen/11604a.htm">Pelagian</a> <a href="../cathen/08557b.htm">Julian of Eclanum</a> and other expelled <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of his party to recognize their <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> and obtain their restoration He wrote at least three letters to the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a>, <a href="../cathen/03477c.htm">St. Celestine I</a>, to inquire whether these petitioners had been duly condemned or not, but he received no reply, not (as has been too often repeated) because the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> imagined he did not respect the condemnation of the <a href="../cathen/11604a.htm">Pelagians</a> by himself and by the Western emperor, but because he added in his letters, which are extant, denunciations of the supposed <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arians</a> and <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarians</a> of Constantinople, and in so doing gave clear signs of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> soon to be known as Nestorian. In particular he denounced those who employed the word <em>Theotokos</em>, though he was ready to admit the use of it in a certain sense: "Ferri tamen potest hoc vocabulum proper ipsum considerationem, quod solum nominetur de virgine hoc verbum hoc propter inseparable templum Dei Verbi ex ipsa, non quia mater sit Dei Verbi; nemo enim antiquiorem se parit." Such an admission is worse than useless, for it involves the whole <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> that the <a href="../cathen/15464b.htm">Blessed Virgin</a> is not the mother of the Second Person of the <a href="../cathen/15047a.htm">Holy Trinity</a>. It is therefore unfortunate that Loofs and others who defend Nestorius should appeal to the frequency with which he repeated that he should accept the <em>Theotokos</em> if only it was properly understood. In the same letter he speaks quite correctly of the "two Natures which are adored in the one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> of the Only-begotten by a perfect and unconfused conjunction", but this could not palliate his mistake that the <a href="../cathen/15464b.htm">Blessed Virgin</a> is mother of one nature, not of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> (a son is necessarily a <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>, not a nature), nor the fallacy: "No one can bring forth a son older than herself." The <a href="../cathen/04647c.htm">deacon</a> Leo, who was twenty years later as <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> to define the whole <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>, gave these letters to John Cassian of <a href="../cathen/09715b.htm">Marseilles</a>, who at once wrote against Nestorius his seven books, "De incarnatione Christi". Before he had completed the work he had further obtained some sermons of Nestorius, from which he quotes in the later books. He misunderstands and exaggerates the teaching of his opponent, but his treatise is important because it stereotyped once for all a <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> which the Western world was to accept as Nestorianism. After explaining that the new <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> was a renewal of <a href="../cathen/11604a.htm">Pelagianism</a> and <a href="../cathen/05242c.htm">Ebionitism</a>, Cassian represents the Constantinoplitan patriarch as teaching that Christ is a mere man (<em>homo solitarius</em>) who merited union with the Divinity as the reward of His <a href="../cathen/11527b.htm">Passion</a>. Cassian himself brings out quite clearly both the unity of <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> and the distinction of the two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, yet the formula "Two Natures and one Person" is less plainly enunciated by him than by Nestorius himself, and the discussion is wanting in clear-cut distinctions and definitions.</p> <p>Meanwhile Nestorius was being attacked by his own <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> and simultaneously by St. Cyril, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>, who first denounced him, though without giving a name, in an epistle to all the <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a> of <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a>, then remonstrated with him personally by letter, and finally wrote to the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a>. Loofs is of the opinion that Nestorius would never have been disturbed but for St. Cyril. But there is no reason to connect St. Cyril with the opposition to the heresiarch at Constantinople and at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>. His rivals Philip of Side and Proclus and the <a href="../cathen/08748a.htm">layman</a> <a href="../cathen/05622a.htm">Eusebius</a> (afterwards <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/05136b.htm">Dorylaeum</a>), as well as the Roman Leo, seem to have acted without any impulse from Alexandria. It might have been expected that Pope Celestine would specify certain <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresies</a> of Nestorius and condemn them, or issue a definition of the traditional <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> which was being endangered. Unfortunately he did nothing of the kind. St. Cyril had sent to <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> his correspondence with Nestorius, a collection of that Patriarch's sermons, and a work of his own which he had just composed, consisting of five books "Contra Nestorium". The <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> had them translated into Latin, and then, after assembling the customary council, contented himself with giving a general condemnation of <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorius</a> and a general approval of St. Cyril's conduct, whilst he delivered the execution of this vague <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a> to Cyril, who as <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a> was the hereditary enemy both of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologian</a> and the Constantinoplitan <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>. Nestorius was to be summoned to recant within ten days. The sentence was as harsh as can well be imagined. St. Cyril saw himself <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obliged</a> to draw up a form for the recantation. With the help of an <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egyptian</a> council he formulated a set of twelve <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematisms</a> which simply epitomize the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> he had pointed out in his five books "Against Nestorius", for the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> appeared to have agreed with the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of that work. It is most important to notice that up to this point St. Cyril had not rested his case upon <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarian</a> documents and had not adopted the <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarian</a> formula <em>mia physis sesarkomene</em> from Pseudo-Athanasius. He does not teach in so many words "two natures after the union", but his work against Nestorius, with the depth and precision of <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>, is an admirable exposition of <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a>, worthy of a <a href="../cathen/05075a.htm">Doctor of the Church</a>, and far surpassing the treatise of Cassian. The twelve <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematisms</a> are less <a href="../cathen/07131b.htm">happy</a>, for St. Cyril was always a diffuse writer, and his solitary attempt at brevity needs to be read in connection with the work which it summarizes.</p> <p>The <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">Anathematisms</a> were at once attacked, on behalf of John, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a>, in defence of the Antiochene School, by Andrew of <a href="../cathen/13422a.htm">Samosata</a> and the great <a href="../cathen/14574b.htm">Theodoret of Cyrus</a>. The former wrote at <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a>; his objections were adopted by a <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synod</a> held there, and were sent to Cyril as the official view of all the Oriental <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. St. Cyril published separate replies to these two antagonists, treating Andrew with more respect than Theodoret, to whom he is contemptuous and sarcastic. The latter was doubtless the superior of the Alexandrian in talent and learning, but at this time he was no match for him as a <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theologian</a>. Both Andrew and Theodoret show themselves captious and unfair; at best they sometimes prove that St. Cyril's wording is ambiguous and ill-chosen. They uphold the objectionable Antiochene phraseology, and they respect the <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">hypostatic union</a> (<em>enosis kath hypostasin</em>) as well as the <em>physike enosis</em> as unorthodox and unscriptural. The latter expression is indeed unsuitable, and may be misleading. Cyril had to explain that he was not summarizing or defining the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> about the Incarnation, but simply putting together the principal <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> of Nestorius in the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretic's</a> own words. In his books against Nestorius he had occasionally misrepresented him, but in the twelve <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematisms</a> he gave a perfectly faithful picture of Nestorius's view, for in fact Nestorius did not disown the propositions, nor did Andrew of <a href="../cathen/13422a.htm">Samosata</a> or Theodoret refuse to patronize any of them. The <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematisms</a> were certainly in a general way approved by the Council of Ephesus, but they have never been formally adopted by the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. Nestorius for his part replied by a set of twelve contra-anathematisms. Some of them are directed against St. Cyril's teaching, others attack <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> which St. Cyril did not dream of teaching, for example that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> Human Nature became through the union uncreated and without beginning, a silly conclusion which was later ascribed to the <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> of <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> called Actistetae. On the whole, Nestorius's new programme emphasized his old position, as also did the violent sermons which he preached against St. Cyril on Saturday and Sunday, 13 and 14 December, 430. We have no difficulty in defining the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of Nestorius so far as words are concerned: Mary did not bring forth the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> as such (<a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a>) nor the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word of God</a> (false), but the organ, the temple of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>. The man <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> is this temple, "the animated purple of the King", as he expresses it in a passage of sustained eloquence. The Incarnate <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> did not suffer nor die, but raised up from the dead him in whom He was incarnate. The Word and the Man are to be worshipped together, and he adds: <em>dia ton phorounta ton phoroumenon sebo</em> (Through Him that bears I worship Him Who is borne). If <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a> speaks of the Lord of Glory being crucified, he means the man by "the Lord of Glory". There are two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, he says, and one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>; but the two natures are regularly spoken of as though they were two <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">persons</a>, and the sayings of Scripture about Christ are to be appropriated some of the Man, some to the Word. If Mary is called the Mother of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, she will be made into a goddess, and the <a href="../cathen/06422a.htm">Gentiles</a> will be <a href="../cathen/13506d.htm">scandalized</a>.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>This is all bad enough as far as words go. But did not Nestorius mean better than his words? The Oriental <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> were certainly not all disbelievers in the unity of subject in the Incarnate Christ, and in fact St. Cyril made peace with them in 433. One may point to the fact that Nestorius emphatically declared that there is one Christ and one Son, and St. Cyril himself has preserved for us some passages from his <a href="../cathen/07448a.htm">sermons</a> which the <a href="../cathen/04171a.htm">saint</a> admits to be perfectly <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a>, and therefore wholly inconsistent with the rest. For example: "Great is the mystery of the gifts! For this visible infant, who seems so young, who needs swaddling clothes for His body, who in the substance which we <a href="../cathen/05001a.htm">see</a> is newly born, is the Eternal Son, as it is written, the Son who is the Maker of all, the Son who binds together in the swathing-bands of His assisting power the whole creation which would otherwise be dissolved." And again: "Even the infant is the all-powerful <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, so far, O Arius, is <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">God the Word</a> from being subject to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>." And: "We recognize the humanity of the infant, and His Divinity; the unity of His Sonship we guard in the nature of humanity and divinity." It will probably be only just to Nestorius to admit that he fully intended to safeguard the unity of subject in Christ. But he gave wrong explanations as to the unity, and his teaching <a href="../cathen/09324a.htm">logically</a> led to two Christs, though he would not have admitted the fact. Not only his words are misleading, but the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> which underlies his words is misleading, and tends to destroy the whole meaning of the Incarnation. It is impossible to deny that teaching as well as wording which leads to such consequences as <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>. He was therefore unavoidably condemned. He reiterated the same view twenty years later in the "Bazaar of Heraclides", which shows no real change of opinion, although he declares his adherence to the Tome of St. Leo.</p> <p>After the council of 431 had been made into law by the emperor, the Antiochene party would not at once give way. But the council was confirmed by <a href="../cathen/14032a.htm">Pope Sixtus III</a>, who had succeeded St. Celestine, and it was received by the whole West. Antioch was thus isolated, and at the same time St. Cyril showed himself ready to make explanations. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria agreed upon a "creed of union" in 433 (<em>see</em> <a href="../cathen/05633a.htm">E<font size=-2>UTYCHIANISM</font></a>). Andrew of <a href="../cathen/13422a.htm">Samosata</a>, and some others would not accept it, but declared the word "Theotokos" to be <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a>. Theodoret held a council at Zeuguma which refused to <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematize</a> Nestorius. But the prudent <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> of Cyrus after a time perceived that in the "creed of union" Antioch gained more than did Alexandria; so he accepted the somewhat hollow compromise. He says himself that he commended the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> of Nestorius whilst he <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematized</a> his <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. A new state of things arose when the death of St. Cyril, in 444, took away his restraining hand from his intemperate followers. The friend of Nestorius, Count <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> had become <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/15109a.htm">Tyre</a>, and he was <a href="../cathen/11703a.htm">persecuted</a> by the Cyrillian party, as was <a href="../cathen/07614a.htm">Ibas</a>, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>, who had been a great teacher in that city. These <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, together with Theodoret and Domnus, the nephew and successor of <a href="../cathen/08468a.htm">John of Antioch</a>, were deposed by <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscorus of Alexandria</a> in the <a href="../cathen/05495a.htm">Robber Council of Ephesus</a> (449). Ibas was full of Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>, but in his famous letter to Maris the Persian he disapproves of Nestorius as well as of Cyril, and at the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a> he was willing to cry a thousand <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathemas</a> to Nestorius. He and Theodoret were both restored by that council, and both seem to have taken the view that St. Leo's Tome was a rehabilitation of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. The same view was taken by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>, who looked upon <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> as the opponent of St. Cyril's teaching. Nestorius in his exile rejoiced at this reversal of Roman policy, as he thought it. Loofs, followed by many writers even among <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a>, is of the same opinion. But <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> himself believed that he was completing and not undoing the work of the Council of Ephesus, and as a fact his teaching is but a clearer form of St. Cyril's earlier <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> as exposed in the five books against Nestorius. But it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> that St. Cyril's later phraseology, of which the two letters to Succensus are the type, is based upon the formula which he felt himself bound to adopt from an <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarian</a> treatise believed to be by his great predecessor <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>: <em>mia physis ton Theou Logou sesarkomene</em>. St. Cyril found this formula an awkward one, as his treatment of it shows, and it became in fact the watchword of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>. But St. Cyril does his best to understand it in a right sense, and goes out of his way to admit two natures even after the union <em>en theoria</em>, an admission which was to save Severus himself from a good part of this <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>.</p> <p>That Loofs or Harnack should fail to perceive the vital difference between the Antiochenes and <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>, is easily explicable by their not <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believing</a> the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a> of the two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, and therefore not catching the perfectly simple explanation given by <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>. Just as some writers declare that the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> always took <em>physis</em> in the sense of <em>hypostasis</em>, so Loofs and others hold that Nestorius took <em>hypostasis</em> always in the sense of <em>physis</em>, and meant no more by <em>two hypostases</em> than he meant by <em>two natures</em>. But the words seem to have had perfectly definite meanings with all the <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> of the period. That the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> distinguished them, is probable (<em>see</em> <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">M<font size=-2>ONOPHYSITES AND</font> M<font size=-2>ONOPHYSITISM</font></a>), and all admit they unquestionably meant by <em>hypostasis</em> a subsistent nature. That Nestorius cannot, on the contrary, have taken <em>nature</em> to mean the same as <em>hypostasis</em> and both to mean <em>essence</em> is obvious enough, for three plain reasons: first, he cannot have meant anything so absolutely opposed to the meaning given to the word <em>hypostasis</em> by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>; secondly, if he meant <em>nature</em> by <em>hypostasis</em> he had no word at all left for "subsistence" (for he certainly used <em>ousia</em> to mean "essence" rather than "subsistence"); thirdly, the whole <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of <a href="../cathen/14571b.htm">Theodore of Mopsuestia</a>, and Nestorius's own refusal to admit almost any form of the <em>communicatio idiomatum</em>, force us to take his "two natures" in the sense of subsistent natures.</p> <p>The modern critics also consider that the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Greeks against <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a>  in fact the Chalcedonian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> as defended for many years  was practically the Antiochene or Nestorian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>, until Leontius modified it in the direction of conciliation. This theory is wholly gratuitous, for from Chalcedon onwards there is no <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> controversialist who has left us any considerable remains in Greek by which we might be enabled to judge how far Leontius was an innovator. At all events we <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a>, from the attacks made by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> themselves, that, though they professed to regard their <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> opponents as Crypto-Nestorians, in so doing they distinguished them from the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> Nestorians who openly professed two hypostases and condemned the word <em>Theotokos</em>. In fact we may say that, after <a href="../cathen/08468a.htm">John of Antioch</a> and Theodoret had made peace with St. Cyril, no more was heard in the Greek world of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. The <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> had been distinguished, but small. In Antioch itself, in <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a>, and in Palestine, the <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a>, who were exceedingly influential, were Cyrillians, and a large proportion of them were to become <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>. It was beyond the Greek world that Nestorianism was to have its development. There was at <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> a famous <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> for <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persians</a>, which had probably been founded in the days of St. Ephrem, when Nisibis had ceased to belong to the Roman Empire in 363. The <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> in <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persia</a> had suffered terrible <a href="../cathen/11703a.htm">persecution</a>, and Roman <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> had attracted <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persians</a> for peaceful study. Under the direction of Ibas the Persian <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> of <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> imbibed the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. But the famous <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>, <a href="../cathen/12619a.htm">Rabbûla</a>, though he had stood apart from St. Cyril's council at Ephesus together with the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchate</a>, became after the council a convinced, and even a violent, Cyrillian, and he did his best against the <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> of the <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persians</a>. Ibas himself became his successor. But at the death of his protector, in 457, the <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persians</a> were driven out of <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>, who made themselves all-powerful. <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a> then becomes <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> and produces its Philoxenus and many another writer. <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persia</a> simultaneously becomes Nestorian. Of the exiles from <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> into their own country nine became <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, including Barsumas, or Barsaûma, of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a> and Acacius of Beit Aramage. The <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> at <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a> was finally closed in 489.</p> <p>At this time the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> in <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persia</a> was autonomous, having renounced all subjection to Antioch and the "Western" <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> at the Council of <a href="../cathen/13689b.htm">Seleucia</a> in 410. The <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> superior of the whole was the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who had assumed the rank of <a href="../cathen/03454a.htm">catholicos</a>. This <a href="../cathen/12386b.htm">prelate</a> was Babaeus or Babowai (457-84) at the time of the arrival of the Nestorian professors from <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>. He appears to have received them with open arms. But Barsaûma, having become <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a>, the nearest great city to <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>, broke with the weak <a href="../cathen/03454a.htm">catholicos</a>, and, at a council which he held at Beit Lapat in April, 484, pronounced his deposition. In the same year Babowai was accused before the king of conspiring with Constantinople and cruelly <a href="../cathen/12565a.htm">put to death</a>, being hung up by his ring-finger and also, it is said, crucified and scourged. There is not sufficient evidence for the story which makes Barsaûma his accuser. The <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a> was at all events in high favour with King Peroz (457-84) and had been able to persuade him that it would be a <a href="../cathen/06636b.htm">good</a> thing for the Persian kingdom if the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> in it were all of a different complexion from those of the Empire, and had no tendency to gravitate towards Antioch and Constantinople, which were not officially under the sway of the <a href="../cathen/07218b.htm">"Henoticon"</a> of Zeno. Consequently all <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> who were not Nestorians were driven from <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persia</a>. But the story of this <a href="../cathen/11703a.htm">persecution</a> as told in the letter of Simeon of Beit Arsam is not generally considered trustworthy, and the alleged number of 7700 <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> <a href="../cathen/09736b.htm">martyrs</a> is quite incredible. The town of Tagrit alone remained <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>. But the <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">Armenians</a> were not gained over, and in 491 they condemned at Valarsapat the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a>, <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>, and Barsaûma. Peroz died in 484, soon after having <a href="../cathen/07441a.htm">murdered</a> Babowai, and the energetic <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a> had evidently less to hope from his successor, Balash. Though Barsaûma at first opposed the new <a href="../cathen/03454a.htm">catholicos</a>, Acacius in August, 485, he had an interview with him, and made his submission, acknowledging the necessity for subjection to Seleucia. However, he excused himself from being present at Acacius's council in 484 at <a href="../cathen/13689b.htm">Seleucia</a>, where twelve <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> were present. At this assembly, the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/14597a.htm">Christology</a> was affirmed and a canon of Beit Lapat permitting the marriage of the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> was repeated. The synod declared that they despised vainglory, and felt bound to <a href="../cathen/07543b.htm">humble</a> themselves in order to put an end to the horrible <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clerical</a> <a href="../cathen/13506d.htm">scandals</a> which disedified the Persian Magians as well as the faithful; they therefore enacted that the <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> should make a <a href="../cathen/15511a.htm">vow</a> of chastity; <a href="../cathen/04647c.htm">deacons</a> may marry, and for the future no one is to be <a href="../cathen/11279a.htm">ordained</a> <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> except a <a href="../cathen/04647c.htm">deacon</a> who has a lawful wife and children. Though no permission is given to <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a> or <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> to marry (for this was contrary to the canons of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Eastern Church</a>), yet the practice appears to have been winked at, possibly for the regularization of illicit unions. Barsaûma himself is said to have married a <a href="../cathen/11164a.htm">nun</a> named Mamoé; but according to Mare, this was at the inspiration of King Peroz, and was only a nominal marriage, intended to ensure the preservation of the lady's fortune from confiscation.</p> <p>The Persian Church was now organized, if not thoroughly united, and was formally committed to the <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> of Antioch. But Acacius, when sent by the king as envoy to Constantinople, was <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obliged</a> to accept the <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathema</a> against Nestorius in order to be received to Communion there. After his return he bitterly complained of being called a Nestorian by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> Philoxenus, declaring that he "knew nothing" of Nestorius. Nevertheless Nestorius has always been <a href="../cathen/05188b.htm">venerated</a> as a saint by the Persian Church. One thing more was needed for the Nestorian Church; it wanted <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a> of its own, in order that its <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> might be able to hold their own in <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> argument, without being tempted to study in the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> centres of the East or in the numerous and brilliant <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a> which the monophysites were now establishing. Barsaûma opened a <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> at <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a>, which was to become more famous than its parent at <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>. The <a href="../cathen/12676c.htm">rector</a> was Narses the Leprous, a most prolific writer, of whom little has been preserved. This <a href="../cathen/15188a.htm">university</a> consisted of a single college, with the regular life of a <a href="../cathen/04340c.htm">monastery</a>. Its rules are still preserved (<em>see</em> <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">N<font size=-2>ISIBIS</font></a>). At one time we hear of 800 students. Their great doctor was <a href="../cathen/14571b.htm">Theodore of Mopsuestia</a>. His commentaries were studied in the translation made by Ibas and were treated almost as <a href="../cathen/07790a.htm">infallible</a>. Theodore's Canon of Scripture was adopted, as we learn from "De Partibus Divinae Legis" of Junilius, (P.L., LXVIII, and ed. By Kihn), a work which is a translation and adaptation of the published lectures of a certain Paul, professor at <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a>. The method is <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotelean</a>, and must be connected with the Aristotelean revival which in the Greek world is associated chiefly with the name of Philoponus, and in the West with that of <a href="../cathen/02610b.htm">Boethius</a>. The fame of this <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> <a href="../cathen/13694a.htm">seminary</a> was so great that <a href="../cathen/01202c.htm">Pope Agapetus</a> and <a href="../cathen/03405c.htm">Cassiodorus</a> wished to found one in <a href="../cathen/08208a.htm">Italy</a> of a similar kind. The attempt was impossible in those troublous times; but <a href="../cathen/03405c.htm">Cassiodorus's</a> <a href="../cathen/04340c.htm">monastery</a> at Vivarium was inspired by the example of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a>. There were other less important <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a> at <a href="../cathen/13689b.htm">Seleucia</a> and elsewhere, even in small towns.</p> <p>Barsaûma died between 492 and 495, Acacius in 496 or 497. Narses seems to have lived longer. The Nestorian Church which they founded, though cut off from the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> by political exigencies, never intended to do more than practise an autonomy like that of the Eastern <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchates</a>. Its <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> consisted mainly in its refusal to accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is interesting to note that neither Junilius nor <a href="../cathen/03405c.htm">Cassiodorus</a> speaks of the <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">school</a> of <a href="../cathen/11084c.htm">Nisibis</a> as <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a>. They were probably aware that it was not quite <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a>, but the <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persians</a> who appeared at the Holy Places as <a href="../cathen/12085a.htm">pilgrims</a> or at Constantinople must have seemed like <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a> on account of their <a href="../cathen/07149b.htm">hatred</a> to the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>, who were the great enemy in the East. The official teaching of the Nestorian Church in the time of King Chosroes (Khusran) II (died 628) is well presented to us in the treatise "De unione" composed by the energetic <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monk</a> Babai the Great, preserved in a <a href="../cathen/09614b.htm">manuscript</a> From which Labourt has made extracts (pp. 280-87). Babai denies that <em>hypostasis</em> and <em>person</em> have the same meaning. A hypostasis is a singular essence (ousia) subsisting in its independent being, numerically one, separate from others by its accidents. A <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> is that <a href="../cathen/12462a.htm">property</a> of a hypostasis which distinguishes it from others (this seems to be rather "personality" than "person") as being itself and no other, so that Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul. As hypostases Peter and Paul are not distinguished, for they have the same specific qualities, but they are distinguished by their particular qualities, their wisdom or otherwise, their height or their temperament, etc. And, as the singular <a href="../cathen/12462a.htm">property</a> which the hypostasis possesses is not the hypostasis itself, the singular <a href="../cathen/12462a.htm">property</a> which distinguishes it is called "person".</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>It would seem that Babai means that "a man" (<em>individuum vagum</em>) is the hypostasis, but not the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>, until we add the individual characteristics by which he is known to be Peter or Paul. This is not by any means the same as the distinction between nature and hypostasis, nor can it be asserted that by <em>hypostasis</em> Babai meant what we should call <em>specific nature</em>, and by <em>person</em> what we should call <em>hypostasis</em>. The theory seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to justify the traditional Nestorian formula: two hypostases in one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>. As to the nature of the union, Babai falls on the Antiochene saying that it is ineffable, and prefers the usual metaphors  assumption, inhabitation, temple, vesture, junction—to any definition of the union. He rejects the <em>communicatio idiomatum</em> as involving confusion of the natures, but allows a certain "interchange of names", which he explains with great care.</p> <p>The Persian <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> were called "Orientals", or "Nestorians", by their neighbours on the west. They gave to themselves the name <em>Chaldeans</em>; but this denomination is usually reserved at the present day for the large portion of the existing remnant which has been united to the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. The present condition of these Uniats, as well as the branch in <a href="../cathen/07722a.htm">India</a> known as "Malabar Christians", is described under <a href="../cathen/03559a.htm">CHALDEAN CHRISTIANS</a>. The history of the Nestorian Church must be looked for under <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">PERSIA</a>. The Nestorians also penetrated into <a href="../cathen/03663b.htm">China</a> and <a href="../cathen/10479b.htm">Mongolia</a> and left behind them an inscribed stone, set up in Feb., 781, which describes the introduction of <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christianity</a> into <a href="../cathen/03663b.htm">China</a> from <a href="../cathen/11712a.htm">Persia</a> in the reign of T'ai-tsong (627-49). The stone is at Chou-Chih, fifty miles southwest of Sai-an Fu, which was in the seventh century the capital of <a href="../cathen/03663b.htm">China</a>. It is known as "the Nestorian Monument".</p> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-bottom' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <div class="cenotes"><h2>Sources</h2><p class="cenotes">For bibliography see CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA; EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF; DIOSCURUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. Here may be added, on I: GARNIER, Opera Marii Mercatoris, II (Paris, 1673); P.L., XLVII, 669; TILLEMONT, Mémoires, XIV; ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orient., III, pt 2 (Rome, 1728); LOOFS in Realencyklopadie, s.v. Nestorius; FENDT, Die Christologie des Nestorius (Munich, 1910); BATIFFOL in Revue Biblique, IX (1900), 329-53; MERCATI in Theolog. Revue VI (1907), 63; LUDTKE in Zeitschr. Fur Kirchengesch. XXIX (1909), 385.</p><p class="cenotes">On the early struggle with Nestorianism: ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orentalis, III, parts 1 and 2 (Rome, 1728); DOUCIN, Histoire du Nestorianisme (1689).</p><p class="cenotes">On the Persian Nestorians: the Monophysite historians MICHAEL SYRUS, ed. CHABOT (Paris, 1899) and BARHEBRAEUS, edd. ABBELOOS AND LAMY (Paris, 1872-77); the Mohammedan SAHRASTANI, ed. CURETON (London, 1842); and especially the rich information in the Nestorian texts themselves; GISMONDI, Maris Amri et Slibae de patriarchis Nestoranis commentaria, e codd. Vat.; the Liber Turris (Arabic and Latin, 4 parts, Rome, (1896-99); BEDJAN, Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha (1317), patriarche, et de Raban Saumo (2nd ed., Paris, 1895); Synodicon of Ebedjesu in MAI, Scriptorum vett. Nova. Coll., X (1838); BRAUN, Das Buch der Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900); CHABOT, Synodicon Orientale, ou recueil de Synodes Nestoriens in Notes of Extraits, Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900); Chabot Synodicon Orentale, ou recueil de Synodes Nestoriens in Notes et Extraits, XXXVII (Paris, 1902); GUIDI, Ostsyrische bischofe und Bischofsitze in Zeitschrift der Morgen landl. Gesellsch., (1889), XLII, 388; IDEM, Gli statuti della scuola di Nisibi (Syriac text) in Giornaale della Soc. Asiatica Ital., IV; ADDAI SCHER, Chronique de Seert, histoire Nestorienne (Arabic and French), and Cause de la fondation des ecoles (Edessa and Nisibis) in Patrologia Orentalis, IV (Paris, 1908). -See also PETERMANN AND KESSLER in Realencyklop., s.v. Nestorianer; FUNK in Kirchenlex., s.v. Nestorius und die Nestorianer; DUCHESNE, Hist. Ancienne de l'église, III (Paris, 1910). -On the "Nestorian Monument", see PARKER in Dublin review, CXXXI (1902), 2, p. 3880; CARUS AND HOLM, The Nestorian Monument (London, 1910).</p></div> <div class="pub"><h2>About this page</h2><p id="apa"><strong>APA citation.</strong> <span id="apaauthor">Chapman, J.</span> <span id="apayear">(1911).</span> <span id="apaarticle">Nestorius and Nestorianism.</span> In <span id="apawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="apapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company.</span> <span id="apaurl">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm</span></p><p id="mla"><strong>MLA citation.</strong> <span id="mlaauthor">Chapman, John.</span> <span id="mlaarticle">"Nestorius and Nestorianism."</span> <span id="mlawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="mlavolume">Vol. 10.</span> <span id="mlapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company,</span> <span id="mlayear">1911.</span> <span id="mlaurl"><http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm>.</span></p><p id="transcription"><strong>Transcription.</strong> <span id="transcriber">This article was transcribed for New Advent by John Looby.</span> <span id="dedication"></span></p><p id="approbation"><strong>Ecclesiastical approbation.</strong> <span id="nihil"><em>Nihil Obstat.</em> October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.</span> <span id="imprimatur"><em>Imprimatur.</em> +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.</span></p><p id="contactus"><strong>Contact information.</strong> The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster <em>at</em> newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.</p></div> </div> <div id="ogdenville"><table summary="Bottom bar" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"><center><strong>Copyright © 2023 by <a href="../utility/contactus.htm">New Advent LLC</a>. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.</strong></center></td></tr></table><p align="center"><a href="../utility/contactus.htm">CONTACT US</a> | <a href="https://cleanmedia.net/p/?psid=491-308-20180429T2217479770">ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT</a></p></div> <ins class="CANBMDDisplayAD" data-bmd-ad-unit="30849120210203T1734389107AB67D35C03D4A318731A4F337F60B3E" style="display:block"></ins> <script src="https://secureaddisplay.com/au/bmd/"></script>  <ins class="CMAdExcludeArticles"></ins> </body> </html>