standard of these decisions, the christology of Nestorius is to be called heterodox. It was the main purpose of all the anathematisms of the council to show the Nestorian understanding of the evwois, of the ev πρόσωπον, and of the θεοτόκος, to be heretical.

And these decisions remained valid. The sixth ecumenical council, it is true, in opposition to the Greeks, who were drawing back gradually and too openly from the formulas of Chalcedon, sanctioned the Dyotheletism, asserting, under the strong influence of the western church, the difference between the natures of Christ also as regards the évépyeial and the voiκà Oελýμara1, but it left the Cyrillian interpretation of the Chalcedonian creed untouched and even gave to the dyotheletic statement a look suited to the Cyrillian tradition; for it said that the human will became in the same sense the real will of the Logos as the human flesh became his flesh, the human soul his soul, the human intellect his intellect2, and that the Logos had his being also in the human ἐνεργεῖν and θέλειν. Even if some other parts were added to the apparatus of flesh, soul, intellect, energy, will, which was regarded as composing the human nature, it would not have mattered, since the Cyrillian doctrine had won the

1 Comp. the creed of the council (approved the 16th of September 861), Mansi, x1, 631-640, the main section of which is to be found also in Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole etc., 3rd edition, pp. 172–174.

2 Mansi, x1, 637 CD.

3 1. c. XI, 637 E sq.

victory, and since there existed now in the East a theology which was able to master difficult formulas by means of scholastic distinctions and arguments.

Also the Occident, as far as it belonged to the EastRoman Empire, Rome included, had had to accept the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy of the council of 553; and Rome led the young nations of the mediaeval world in the same direction. When in the Adoptianism of Spain old western tradition, not consistent with the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, emerged once again, the Carolingian theologians with the agreement of Rome rejected them, and Alcuin in conformity with the Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy contended: in assumptione carnis a deo persona perit hominis, non

natura1.

There cannot, therefore, be the least doubt, that Nestorius was an exponent of a doctrine which even if not through the decree of Chalcedon, at least through the decisions of later time, was condemned by the church. Hence, measured by the standard of churchorthodoxy, Nestorius-in spite of all Professor BethuneBaker's attempts to save him-must be regarded as a heretic.

Nevertheless his doctrine has more historical right than the Cyrillian orthodoxy. That is what remains for me to show.

Nestorius was a pupil of the Antiochian school; all

1 adv. Felicem 2, 12, Migne, ser. latina 101, 156 a.

Antiochian theologians were at first on his side. He seems to have endeavoured more earnestly than the greatest teachers of his school, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ. An absolute decision is not possible in this case, as the chief dogmatic works of Diodore and Theodore are lost. But even if appearance speak the truth-I shall return to this question later1—it is nevertheless without doubt, that the fundamental ideas and the decisive formulas which we find in Nestorius were part of the traditional teaching of his school.

It was not Diodore or even Theodore who first created these formulas; they had already been used by Eustathius bishop of Antioch (who was deposed in 330). We are able to observe this, although only small fragments of his works are preserved. It is proved not only by the idea, that it was not the Logos who was born, who suffered, but the man, whom he joined with

1 See below p. 126.

|--

2 The only book of Eustathius which is preserved intact (De Engastrimytho, Migne, ser. graeca 18, 613–676) is of little value here. The fragments of other works were first collected by J. A. Fabricius (Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles IX, 1804, pp. 136–149)these fragments (about 35 in number) are the most important ones—; in Migne (18, 676-696) the number of fragments is enlarged to about 50; and a collection of 86 fragments (of which those, which were formerly known, for the most part are not given in full text) is to be found in S. Eustathii, episcopi Antiocheni, in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia christologica (which is spurious)...edita cum commentario de fragmentis eustathianis opera et studio Ferdinandi Cavallera, Paris, 1905.

him1, whom he resuscitated from the dead2, and who then became his σύνθρονος, and also not only by phrases as ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐφόρησεν, οι ἀνθρώπινον ὄργανον or κατοικοῦσα ἐν αὐτῷ (viz. τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ) θεότης οι ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος" or ναὸς τῆς θεότητος, but we find

1 De engastrim. 17, p. 652 Δ: ὁ λόγος...ἀρετῇ τῆς θεότητος ἁπανταχοῦ πάρεστιν ἀθρόως. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἔκκριτον αὐτοῦ ναὸν ἐπέτρεψε λυθῆναι, τριήμερον μὲν αὐτίκα πάλιν ἀνήγειρε (comp. 18, p. 653: θεότητος ἀρετῇ... πάντα πληροί)—; Cavallera, 15, p. 72= Migne, p. 685 c: οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ...ἀλλ ̓ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγειρόμενος ὑψοῦται; Migne, p. 681 c (Cav. 30): ἀπαθὲς τὸ θεῖον τοῦ Χριστοῦ πνεῦμα—; Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 73): Si in Christo plenitudo divinitatis inhabitat, aliud...inhabitatur; si vero naturaliter differunt ab alterutris, neque mortis passionem, neque cibi appetitum...plenitudini divinitatis coexistere fas est..., homini vero haec applicanda sunt proprie, qui ex anima constat et corpore-; Migne, p. 691 (Cav. 65): hominem causa salutis hominum Verbo coaptavit (συνήψεν)—; Migne, p. 684 A (Cav. 27): τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα...ἐσταυροῦτο, τὸ δὲ θεῖον τῆς σοφίας πνεῦμα καὶ τοῦ σώματος εἴσω διητᾶτο καὶ τοῖς οὐρανίοις ἐπεβάτευε καὶ πᾶσαν περιείχε τὴν γῆν—; comp. Migne, 681 B (Cav. 29), p. 684 c (Cav. 28), Cav. 55, p. 90 Migne, p. 689 в, Cav. 83, p. 99 etc.

2 Cav. 16, p. 72= Migne, p. 685 c: τοῦ λόγου τε καὶ θεοῦ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ναὸν ἀξιοπρεπῶς ἀναστήσαντος—; comp. Cav. 13, p. 71 and Migne, 677 B (Cav. 25): Joh. 2, 19; Migne, p. 681 c (Cav. 30) and the preceding note.

3 Cav. 14, p. 71 f. = Migne, p. 685 Β: σύνθρονος ἀποδέδεικται τῷ θειοτάτῳ πνεύματι διὰ τὸν οἰκοῦντα θεὸν ἐν αὐτῷ διηνεκῶς.

4 Migne, p. 677 c (Cav. 26), p. 677 c (Cav. 21).

5 Migne, p. 680 c (Cav. 20).

6 Cav. 12, p. 69=Migne, 688 Β: θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθεὶς ὁ χρίσας, ὁ δὲ χρισθεὶς ἐπίκτητον εἴληφεν ἀρετήν, ἐκκρίτῳ ναουργίᾳ κοσμηθεὶς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κατοικοῦντος ἐν αὐτῷ θεότητος, comp. note 3.

7 Migne, p. 693 (Cav. 77 and 78): deiferum hominem; homo deum ferens.

8 Migne, p. 677 Β (Cav. 25): ναὸς γὰρ κυρίως ὁ καθαρὸς καὶ ἄχραντος ἡ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπόν ἐστι περὶ τὸν λόγον σκηνή, ἔνθα προφανῶς

him also, however sharply he distinguished between the Logos and the man in Christ, asserting the oneness of the πρόσωπον, the μοναδικὸν πρόσωπον, in contrast to the oneness of the natures which was taught by the Arians1. He, too, spoke of the Logos (or of the preexistent son of God) as the image of God, and of Christ as the image of the son of God or the image of the archetype of the image of God2; he too-only to mention one further line of thought common to him and Nestorius-dealt with Melchisedek as a type of Christ, in order to refute by means of Hebrews vii. 3 (аπáτшρ, ȧμÝτшp) the idea, that the Logos was born3. The theological tradition followed by Nestorius can thus be traced at least to Eustathius.

But it dates from a still earlier period. To prove this, I will start by pointing to the fact that Nestorius himself found in Leo's letter views which agreed with

σκηνώσας ᾤκησεν ὁ θεός—; Migne, p. 634 c (Cav. 28): πάσχει μὲν O ves; comp. p. 109 notes 1, 2 and 6.

1 Cavallera, 7, p. 67 : μοναδικὸν τὸ πρόσωπον· οὐκ εἶπον μοναδικὴν τὴν φύσιν, ἀλλ ̓ εἶπον ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν τῷ διαφόρῳ τῶν φύσεων γνωριζόμενον—; comp. Cav. 82, p. 98.

2 Migne, p. 677 co (Cav. 21): củ vào Elter • Haô\os (Rom. 8, 29) συμμόρφους τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ· ἄλλο μέν τι δεικνύων τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι, ἄλλο δὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸς...εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ πατρός..., ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐφόρεσεν, εἰκών ÈσTɩ TOû Vioû—; comp. p. 693 (Cav. 70) and Cavallera 452 p. 85: Tò γοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα ἀδόλωτον ἔχοντες πρὸς τὸ τῆς (υἱότητος?) πρωτότυπον καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος μόρφωμα προσβλέποντες δοξάζομεν τὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ȧрXÉTUTOν, comp. Cav. 82, p. 98, where Baruch 3, 36-38 is quoted. 3 Cavallera, 3, p. 63.