ss. and T. V.-Account of this controversy by Ibas, bishop of Edessa, in the enist. ad Marin Persam (mostly contained in the Actis Conc. Chalced. Act. x. ap. Mansi, vii. p. 241 ss.`.-Liberatus's (archdeacon in Carthage about 553) breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (ed. Jo. Garnerius, Paris 1675, 8, ap. Mansi, ix. p. 659, and in Gallandii bibl. PP. xii. p. 119)-Besides Socrates, vii. c. 29 ss. Evagrius, i. c. 7, ss.

Walch's Ketzerhistorie, v. 289. Wundemann's Gesch. d. Glaubenslehre, ii. 265. Münscher's Dogmengeschichte, iv. 53. Neander's Kirchengesch. ii. iii. 927. Baur's Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtl. Entwickelung, i. 693.

In the Arian controversy the doctrine concerning Christ's person had been touched upon, but without being fully developed. When the Arians inferred from the catholic doctrine of one human soul in Christ that there were two persons,' the Orientals indeed could not be led astray by this means from holding fast the human in Christ, as long as they remained true to their historico-exegetical principles; but the Nicenians in Egypt and the west began to give strong prominence to the unity of the Divine person, for the purpose of obviating that Arian objection, and to consider Christ accordingly in all relations as God.

1 See § 83, note 28.

2 So Eusebius of Emesa (§ 84, note 18) in the fragments in Theodoreti Eranistes, dial. iii. (Opp. ed. Schulze, iv. 258,) and in the work de fide adv. Sabellium, in so far as we can venture to ascribe this work to him. See Thilo über die Schriften des Euseb. v. Alex. u. des Euseb. v. Emisa, s. 75.

3 Athanas. de incarnat. verbi (opp. ed. Montfaucon, ii. 1, ap. Mansi, iv. 689): Ομολογοῦμεν καὶ εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον· ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην, καὶ προσκυνουμένην μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ μιᾷ προσκυνήσει. Since Cyril, a follower of Athanasius, appeals to this passage (lib. de recta fide ad Imperatrices, § 9), it has by this means the most important external testimony in its favour. Several writings were assigned to the Romish bishop Julius I. in which the unity existing in Christ was strongly expressed. There are still extant the epist. ad. Dionysium (ap. Mansi, ii. 1191. A. Maji scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 144), cited as genuine by Gennadius (about 490), in which the uía púois is expressly and plainly asserted; the epist. ad Prosdocium (ex. cod. Oxon. ed. J. G. Ehrlich, Lips. 1750, 4), regarded as genuine by the council of Ephesus, by Cyril, Marius Mercator, Facundus, and Ephraem bishop of Antioch about 526 (Photii, cod. 229), which rejects the phrase ἄνθρωπος ὑπὸ θεοῦ προσληφθείς, and three fragments lately published by Majus, 1. c. vii. i. 165, the first and third of which are mentioned by Ephraem, 1. c. How strongly also Hilary was inclined to the doctrine of one nature may be seon in Münscher's Dogmengesch. iv. 16. Baur's Dreieinigkeit, i. 681. By this means the mode of expres sion in the writings of Julius is rendered more intelligible from the ge

When Apollinaris, following this tendency still farther, denied to Christ a reasonable human soul, his opponents, it is true, were united in asserting that Christ is perfect God and man in one person, but in the east they were now accustomed to distinguish the two natures, and the expressions used concerning them, with greater care; and the two most eminent men of the Antiochenineral tendency of the west at that time.-After Eutyches and the later Monophysites continually appealed to Athanasius, the Romish bishop Felix (270-275), and Julius (337-352), and to Gregory Thaumaturgus, as unam naturam Dei verbi decernentes post unitionem, whose testimonia Cyrillus, in libb. adv. Diodorum et Theodorum, has put together. See Collatio Catholicorum cum Severianis, A.D. 531, Mansi, viii. 820; a Jacobite collection of this kind translated from the Arabic, see spicilegium Rom. iii. 694), many Catholics began to assert that these testimonies have been interpolated by Apollinarists (see Collatio, 1. c. p. 821. Leontius de sectis act. viii. Justinianus Imp. contra Monophys. in Maji scriptt. vett. nov. coll. vii. i. 302), notwithstanding Ephraem bishop of Antioch about 526 (Photii, cod. 229), and Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria about 580 (Phot. cod. 230), admit the genuineness of the passage of Athanasius, and of the ep. Julii ad Prosdocium. Leontius (contra Monophys. ap. Majus, vii. i. 143 s.) appeals to the testimony of Polemon, a disciple of Apollinaris, as proof that the passage ascribed to Athanasius belongs to Apollinaris. The place in question in Polemon may be completely put together from the two quotations, p. 143, and p. 16, but it says something quite different. Polemon speaks against the inconsistency of those who asserted μίαν φύσιν τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην, and yet assums in Christ θεὸν τέλειον and ἄνθρωπον τέλειον, while Apollinaris had rightly rejected the two natures, and taught καὶ εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (as above in the passage of Athanasius). In short, Polemon meant to say, Athanasius had borrowed that doctrine from Apollinaris, but fell into an inconsistency with himself in so doing. Ap. Majus, 1. c. p. 16, there is also a fragment of Apollinarii epist. ad Jovian, in which that passage has been interpolated word for word as above; but it does not at all suit the construction, a sign that it has been inserted. The moderns, however, especially Catholic writers, have retained the view that all those writings proceeded from Apollinaris. It has been defended in reference to the letters of Julius, particularly by Muratori anecdota graeca, p. 341 ss.; and with regard to all those passages above named by Le Quien dissert. Damasc. ii. prefixed to his edition of Joannes Damasc. T. i. p. xxxii. ss. Comp. on the other side Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. Guelpherbyt. 1723, p. 112 ss. p. 365 ss.

Thus Mary is called coróκos by Eusebius, de vita Const. iii. 43. Cyrillus, Hieros. catech. x. p. 146. Athanasius, orat. iii. contra Arian. c. 14, 33. Didymus, de trin. i. 31, 94; ii. 4, 133, and Gregory of Nazianzum goes so far as to declare the man godless who will not employ this appellation. Hesychius, presbyter in Jerusalem († 343), calls David Oεоnάтwр (Photius, cod. 275). In many apocryphal writings James is called ¿dexpóleos (see Thilo Acta Thomae in the notit. über. p. x. ss. cf. Photius, cod. 112).

an school Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, and Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, confirmed the accuracy of this distinction by their writings, which were still highly esteemed in the whole east, while in Egypt the formula of Athanasius respecting a Divine nature made flesh was maintained. On the other hand, Ambrose and Augustine in the west endeavoured, after the exam

5

Comp. § 84, note 22. See the fragments, ap. Leontius contra Eutychianos et Nestorianos, in Canisii thesaur. monum. eccl. ed. Basnage, i. 591). * See § 84, note 24. In Theodore's confession of Faith (Act. Conc. Ephesini, Act. vi. ap. Mansi, T. iv. p. 1347, in latin in Marius Marcator, see Walch, bibl. symb. vetus, p. 203 ss.):—Χρὴ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς οἰκονομίας, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν οἰκονομίᾳ ὁ δεσπότης ἐξετέλεσε θεὸς, εἰδέναι, ὅτι ὁ δεσπότης θεὸς λόγος ἄνθρωπον εἴληφε τέλειον, ἐκ σπέρματος ὄντα ̓Αβραὰμ καὶ Δαυίδ,—ἐκ ψυχῆς τε νοερᾶς καὶ σαρκὸς συνεστῶτα ἀνθρωπίνης. ὃν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα καθ' ἡμᾶς τὴν φήσιν, πνεύματος ἁγίου δυνάμει ἐν τῇ τῆς παρθένου μήτρᾳ διαπλασθέντα, γενόμενον ὑπὸ γυναικὸς καὶ γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον—ἀποῤῥήτως συνῆψεν ἑαυτῷ. θανάτου μὲν αὐτὸν κατὰ νόμον ἀνθρώπων πειρασθῆναι κατασκευάσας, ἐγείρας δὲ ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ἀναγαγὼν εἰς οὐρανὸν, καὶ καθίσας ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅθεν δὴ ὑπεράνω πάσης ὑπάρχων ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας τὴν παρὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως δέχεται προσκύνησιν, ὡς ἀχώριστον πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ θεοῦ καὶ ἐννοίᾳ πάσης αὐτῷ τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονεμούσης. Καὶ οὔτε δύο φαμὲν υἱοὺς, οὔτε δύο κυρίους. ἐπειδὴ εἰς θεὸς κατ ̓ οὐσίαν ὁ θεὸς γόγος, ᾧπερ οὗτος συνημμένος τε καὶ μετέχων θεότητος κοινωνεῖ τῆς υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τε καὶ τιμῆς· καὶ κύριος κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ θεὸς λόγος, ᾧ συνημμένος οὗτος κοινωνεί τῆς τιμῆς.—Ενα τοίνυν τὸν κύριόν φαμεν καὶ κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο· πρωτοτύπως μὲν τὸν θεὸν λόγον νοοῦντες, τὸν κατ ̓ οὐσίαν υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ κύριον, συνεπινοοῦντες δὲ τὸ ληφθὲν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ, δν ἔχρισεν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει, ὡς ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν λόγον συναφείᾳ υἱότητός τε μετέχοντα καὶ κυριότητος. Ὃς καὶ δεύτερος ̓Αδάμ κατὰ τὸν μακάριον καλεῖται Παῦλον κ. τ. λ. Comp. the fragments of this confession in the acts of the fifth general council at Constantinople, A.D. 553, ap. Mansi, ix. 203, and in Leontii contra Eutych. et Nestor. libb. iii. ap. Canisins-Basnage, i. 585. The latter fragments, published only in Latin by Canisius, were published in the Greek original by Majus, scriptt. vett. nova coll. vi. 300.

7 Münscher's Dogmengesch. iv. 32. Baur's Dreieinigkeit, i. 653. 8 Comp. especially the fragments in Theodoreti, dial. ii. (ed. Schulze, iv. 139).

9 Augustini, ep. 169 ad Evodium, § 7 : homo—in unitatem personae Verbi Dei-coaptatus est, permanente tamen Verbo in sua natura incommutabiliter. § 8: sicut in homine-anima et corpus una persona est, ita in Christo Verbum et homo una persona est. Et sicut homo, verbi gratia, philosophus non utique nisi secundum animam dicitur, nec ideo tamen absurde dicimus philosophum caesum, philosophum mortuum-cum totum secundum carnem accidat, non secundum illud, quod est philosophus: ita Christus Deus-et tamen recte dicitur Deus crucifixus, hoc eum secundum carnem passum esse, non secundum illud,

ple of the two Gregorys, to avoid the two rocks of his doctrine, viz. the division into two persons, and the mistaking of two natures; and thus the Gallic monk Leporius, in Africa, (about 426), occasioned the prelude of the Nestorian controversy, while forced to retract assertions by which the unity of Christ's person appeared to be endangered.10

Nestorius, a presbyter of Antioch, by his elevation to the see of Constantinople, came into a difficult position (428,) as far as he had both to contend against envious rivals, and was also obliged by his extraction and position," to undertake the task of completing the incipient restoration of Chrysostom's honour, which Cyril, the nephew and worthy successor of Theophilus,13

quo Dominus gloriae est, non habeatur incertum. Ep. 137 ad Volusianum, § 9: ita inter Deum et homines mediator apparuit, ut in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis, et insolita solitis temperaret. § 11: Ergo persona hominis mixtura est animae et corporis: persona autem Christi mixtura est Dei et hominis. Enchiridion ad Laur. c. 34, 36.

10 Comp. Epistola Episcop. Africae ad Episc. Galliae, and Leporii libellus emendationis (prim. ed. Jac. Sirmond, Paris 1630. Mansi, iv. 517). In the latter it is said: Tametsi Christum filium Dei tunc etiam natum de sancta Maria non negaremus, sicut ipsi recordamini; sed minime attendentes ad mysterium fidei, non ipsum Deum hominem natum, sed perfectum cum Deo natum hominem dicebamus; pertimescentes scilicet, ne divinitati conditionem adsignaremus humanam. His present faith: Confitemur dominum ac Deum nostrum Jesum Christum unicum filium Dei, qui ante saecula natus ex patre est, novissimo tempore de Spiritu sancto et Maria semper virgine factum hominem, Deum natum : et confitentes utramque substantiam carnis et Verbi, unum eundemque Deum atque hominem inseparabilem pia fide credulitate suscepimus; et ex tempore susceptae carnis sic omnia dicimus, quae erant Dei, transisse in hominem, ut omnia, quae erant hominis, in Deum venirent; ut hac intelligentia verbum factum sit caro, non ut conversione aut mutabilitate aliqua coeperit esse quod non erat, sed ut potentia divinae dispensationis Verbum patris, nunquam a patre discedens, homo proprie fieri dignaretur, incarnatusque sit unigenitus secreto illo mysterio, quod ipse novit. Nostrum namque est credere, illius nosse. Ac sic, ut ipse Deus Verbum, totum suscipiens quod est hominis, homo sit, et adsumtus homo, totum accipiendo quod est Dei, aliud quam Deus esse non possit. Cf. Cassianus de incarnatione Christi, i. 5.

11 Thus for instance against Proclus and Philip, presbyters in Constantinople, both of whom had expectations of being raised to the episcopate. Socrates, vii. 26, 29.

12 His writings: Commentaries of no value. Adv. Nestorium, lib. 5. New controversial works against Nestorius in Maji nova coll. viii. ii. 59. Contra Julianum, libb. 10. Homiliae (among others paschales 30). Epistolae 61, &c. Opp. ed. Jo. Aubert, Paris 1638, T. vii. fol.

bishop of Alexandria, († 444) considered derogatory to the honour of his see.14 He soon gave an opportunity to the malevolent watcher of his proceedings by denying the propriety of calling Mary θεοτόκος,15 A bitter but fruitless correspondence took

13 The admonition addressed to him by the pious Isidore, abbot of Pelusium, serves to characterise him (lib. i. ep. 370:) Tavσov тàs épidas' μὴ [add. εἰς οἰκείας ὕβρεως ἄμυναν, ἣν παρὰ θνητῶν κεχρεώστησαι, ζῶσαν ἐκκλησίαν μεθόδευε, καὶ αἰώνιον αὐτῇ διχόνοιαν ἐν προχήματι εὐσεβείας κατασκεύαζε. It may refer to that affair of Chrysostom, or to the commencement of the controversy with Nestorius.

14 The bishop of Constantinople, Atticus, about 420, had been obliged to introduce Chrysostom's name with the Diptychs, after the example of Antioch, and at the pressing request of the people, and invited Cyril to do the same (Attici ep. ad Cyrillum, in Cyrilli op. v. iii. 201). The latter, however, refused to comply with the demand, desiring that the sentence pronounced on Chrysostom should be righteously maintained (1. c. p. 204). However, immediately after Nestor's elevation, new demonstrations of honour were added, Marcellinus Comes (about 534) in Chronico ad ann. 428 (Chronica medii aevi, ed. Roesler, i. 262): Beatissimi Joannis Episcopi dudum malorum Episcoporum invidia exulati apud Comitatum (at the imperial court) coepit memoria celebrari mense Sept. d. xxvi. That Cyril continued to regard the condemnation of Chrysostom as a righteous measure is shown by his epistola ad Acacium (ap. Mansi, v. 833. Theodereti, opp. ed. Schulze, v. 699).

15 Extracts from Nestor's discourses, in the Greek original, are given in the Actis Syn. Ephesin. b. Mansi, iv. 1197. Nestorii sermones in a Latin version, ap. Marius Mercator (ed. Baluz. p. 53 ss). From the first address: OCOTÓкos i. e. puerpera Dei s. genitrix Dei Maria, an autem ȧvOрwπоTÓкоs i. e. hominis genitrix? Habet matrem Deus? Ergo excusabilis gentilitas matres diis subintroducens. Paulus ergo mendax de

Christi deitate dicens ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἄνευ γενεαλογίας (Hebr. vii. 3). Non peperit creatura increabilem, sed peperit hominem deitatis instrumentum. Non creavit Deum Verbum Spiritus sanctus-sed Deo verbo templum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine (according to Joh. ii. 21). Est, et non est mortuus incarnatus Deus, sed illum, in quo incarnatus est, suscitavit: inclinatus est elevare, quod ruerat, ipse vero non cecidit. Si jacentem elevare volueris, nonne continges corpus corpore, et te ipsum illi conjungendo elisum eriges, atque ita illi conjunctus ipse manes quod eras? Sic et illud incarnationis aestima sacramentum. Propter utentem illud indumentum, quod utitur, colo, propter absconditum adorans quod foris videtur: inseparabilis ab eo, qui oculis paret, est Deus. Divido naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam. Dominicam itaque incarnationem intremiscamus, τὴν θεοδόχον τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ συνθεολογῶμεν μορφὴν i. e. susceptricem Dei formam una ac pari qua Deum Verbum deitatis ratione veneremur, tanquam divinitatis vere inseparabilis simulacrum, tanquam imaginem absconditi judicis. Duplicem confiteamur, et adoremus ut unum: duplum enim naturarum unum est propter unitatem. Sermo iii (ib. p. 71): Ego natum et mortuum Deum et sepultum adorare Qui natus est et per partes incrementorum temporibus eguit,

non queo.