Whether the Virgin Mary, who was the mother of Christ, could be called the mother of God? Whether Christ were two persons, or only one? Whether Christ was every where present, in his human, as in his divine nature ? Whether one Person of the Trinity could be said to suffer for us? Whether the whole Trinity could be said to suffer for us? Whether in Christ there were three substances, or only two? These questions produced altercation and strife, and then anathematisms, and then fightings and murders. "The opposite heresies of Nestorius and of Eutyches caused great disorders, through the spirit of contention which possessed the divines of those days. If we compare with attention and without prejudice the sentiments of these two men, and accurately examine their expressions, we shall find that at the bottom they were of the same opinion, but that the heat of disputing had so perplexed and confounded them, that they thought themselves to be of different sentiments, because they made use of different expressions. To shew that this was the case, they should be examined apart; and from their own concessions it would have appeared that they were in reality of the same mind. Nestorius should have been asked whether he thought there was such a difference between the natures of Jesus Christ, that it was impossible they should constitute one Christ, and whether he imagined that there was one Christ who was God, and another Christ who was man. He would have replied, No; for Dd 2 * See Fleury, ix. 78. that that these two natures were so intimately united, that they constituted one single Messias, and one Redeemer; though no man could form to himself a clear and distinct idea of that union; and that the divine nature remained such as it was before, as the humanity remained humanity, after its union with the divinity. Conformably to this, he said that of the two natures the divinity only was eternal, and that one could not say that it had been conceived in the Virgin Mary, or born of her, properly speaking, although Jesus Christ was born, and died, and rose again, with relation to his humanity. Eutyches could not deny this; but then he pretended that the two natures were so intimately united, that one might say, God was born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again. This was speaking very improperly, and without any necessity, since these phrases are not to be found in the Scriptures. We may see the expressions used by Nestorius and by Eutyches, in the Dogmata Theologica of Petavius, who hath carefully collected them; and who, for the honour of the council of Ephesus [and of Constantinople] was obliged to censure both these men with much asperity, that he might find more difference between them and the Orthodox than there really was. If we reflect seriously on these furious contentions, we shall see that the Christians of those times had a much stronger desire to dispute and quarrel, than to discover truth. Cyril of Alexandria hath so explained himself on the union of the two natures, as to suppose it right to say that God was born of a Virgin, whom he called Otorinos, mother of God, and that he died on the cross. But properly speaking, the divinity divinity cannot be born or die: it is the humanity, to which the former was united, that was born and died. They who have read Cyril, the sworn enemy of Nestorius, know that he hath exaggerated things, and confounded together expressions which he ought to have distinguished. The zeal of Petavius drove him into the same excess. How much better would it have been to have adhered to the expressions which are found in Scripture, without introducing new terms!" Eutyches, the enemy of Nestorius, was accused of teaching that the two natures of Christ were so united as to become one nature; and was † condemned by the council of Constantinople. The Eutychians were supposed to hold that the two natures coalesced, and that the human nature was absorbed in the divine. Eutyches had persecuted Nestorius. His own turn came next, and he was condemned, being seventy years old. The second council of Ephesus, which is called Latrocinium Ephesinum ‡, restored Eutyches, and edposed the bishops who had deposed him. Afterwards the old man was again condemned and banished but the mild and charitable Pope Leo obtained of the Emperor Marcian that he might be removed, and sent to some remoter and worse place. It is to be supposed that grief and fatigue, and poverty, and ill usage, and old age, for he was then seventy-six, soon put an end to him §. Nestorius Nestorius in one of his sermons defied the Egyptian, so he called Cyril, to a fair combat and trial of skill, and accused him of fighting with golden arrows, or of bribery. Cyril said the same of Nestorius ; and probably both of them said no more than was true. In the council of Ephesus, the prelates of the opposite factions represented each other as mere rioters and ruffians. In this also there was probably too much truth. Some of these prelates, says Fleury, subscribed by the hand of a presbyter; one because he had a lame wrist, another because he was sick; others, I suppose, because they had bones and joints in all their fingers. Theodoret and Acasius say that things were carried on against Nestorius by bribery; and the bishops who sided with Nestorius complained that Cyril prevailed by flatteries and by presents. Even Fleury * owns that Cyril bestowed large gifts upon the courtiers, so that the church of Alexandria was impoverished by those expences; and Tillemont †, though partial and too favourable to him, condemns this part of his conduct. A. D. 428. Theodorus Mopsuestenus was accused of Pelagianism; and not altogether without cause, for he certainly, as well as other Greek fathers, held most of the tenets which were called Pelagian. He also was accused of Nestorianism. He is highly commended by Chrysostom, by Theodoret, and by the Greeks in general, both as a good prelate, and as a learned and valuable writer. But the general council of Constantinople + condemned the memory and vi. 178. Basnage, iii. 360. + H. E. xiv. 541. the A. 553. the books of Theodorus; and in this sentence, says Valesius, the Universal Church hath at length acquiesced. But, notwithstanding this formidable decision of a general council, Theodorus will for ever be held in esteem by all candid and competent judges. As to the universal church, that bugbear which Valesius sets up to scare us, it only means the Roman-Catholic Church; that is, the Particular-Universal-Church*. Theodorus wrote a book, levelled against Jerom, in the opinion of Cave. †, which he supports by very probable reasons. Although, after his death, he was accused of many pernicious errors, yet they who have considered the extracts from his works, made by Photius, will be grieved that those works are either lost, or only extant in the Syriac language amongst the Nestorians. His Commentaries are said to be in their hands, and for many reasons deserve to be made public. He and Theodoret were men of great learning and abilities. Theodorus not only wrote a treatise concerning allegories and history, in opposition to Origen, but in his Commentaries on the Old Testament adventured to explain the prophecies, by the help of ancient history, in a literal manner; which method of interpretation in all probability exposed him to envy and censure, no less than his other doctrines. His example however was and is followed by the Nestorians, who preserve his writings with great care, and account him a saint of the first rank ±.” A. D. 429. Germanus was sent to England, to stop the progress of Pelagianism. I have elsewhere Dd 4 * See Theodoret, v. 40. Basnage, iii. 322. Mosheim, p. 208, 211, 212. given + i. 387. |