Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, known by the Nestorians as the Interpreter' on account of his exegetical work) are sound common sense and a rational presentment of the historical position of the author commented on. The disadvantages of Theodore's method, as summed up by H. B. Swete, are:

Want of insight into the deeper movements of Scriptural thought; a tendency to read his own theology into the words of his author; a lack of spiritual force, an almost entire absence of devotional fervour' (Patristic Study, London, 1902, p. 100). In their Christology the Antiochene writers emphasized our Lord's real humanity, in opposition to Apollinarius. The two authors of this school in the pre-Nestorian period who are most important for our present investigation are Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and his pupil, Theodore of Mop. suestia, already mentioned. Both dwell especially on the real humanity of our Lord, but in both there is a tendency, which in Diodorus (to judge by the scanty fragments that remain of his works) was scarcely more than latent, unduly to separate the natures of Christ, and to make of Him two Persons. Theodore goes much farther than his master, and in him has been seen both by ancient and by

modern writers the real founder of Nestorianism.

This is the view of the contemporary layman, Marius Mercator, to whose curiosity and diligence, when he was staying for the purposes of his business in Constantinople, we owe the preservation, in a Latin version, of several sermons and other

writings of Nestorius. Marius emphatically fathers the error on Theodore (PL xlviii. 110).

A very brief summary of Theodore's teaching must here suffice (for further particulars see Swete's art. Theodorus of Mopsuestia,' in DCB iv., esp. p. 944 f.). Theodore affirmed the true humanity of our Lord and its perfect sinlessness; this was due, he said, to His union with the Person of the Divine Word which He had received as a reward

for His foreseen sinlessness. The Word dwelt in the man Christ. He united the assumed man entirely to Himself and fitted Him to be a partaker with Him of all the honour of which the indwelling Person who is Son by nature partakes.' Theodore rejected the word vous for the union of God and man in Christ, and used rather σvvápela ('connexion'); he disliked the term @FOTÓKOS (below, §§ 2, 4), but allowed that it might be used in a certain sense. Mary was both ȧveρwоTÓKOS (* man-bearer') and OEOTOKOS ('God-bearer'). She was mother of the man, but in that man, when she gave Him birth, there was already the indwelling of God. Theodore was felix opportunitate mortis. He died in 428, a few months after Nestorius went to Constantinople (below, § 2). Had he lived longer, there can be little doubt that he would have been condemned for the teaching which was in reality his own, though it was popularized by Nestorius and therefore named after him. Theodore's doctrines were formally condemned at the Fifth General Council, held at Constantinople in 553. It was against such teaching that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (431 and 451) affirmed that our Lord was one Person only; and the approved doctrine may be summed up in the admirable and careful words of Hooker:

'The Son of God did not assume a man's person unto his own, but a man's nature to his own person' (Ecclesiastical Polity, v. 52).

2. Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus.-The present generation has had the opportunity of learning something more of the history and a great deal more of the teaching of Nestorius than its predecessors, owing to recent discoveries and investigations. Before we go farther we may try to estimate the value of our most important, though by no means our most voluminous, authority, the historian Socrates; for from the accounts of the avowed

enemies of Nestorius we shall be inclined to make considerable deductions.

Socrates was a layman of Constantinople, orthodox (for there is no good reason for calling him a Novatian), but not violently

opposed to Nestorius, willing to put the best construction on his words, and evidently not at all predisposed to favour Cyril or Alexandrian teaching (HE vii. 15, 34). He was specially interested in the affairs of his native city, and a searcher after truth, so that he dwells most on what he himself saw (v. 23). He was specially devoted to unity and peace (vii. 48), and greatly disliked persecution for religious belief (see below). He sees good in the Novatians, whose bishop at Constantinople he praises. On the whole, his disposition, ability, and opportunity for observation being what they were, great reliance may be placed on his comparatively brief record of the Nestorian controversy. He wrote in 439. For his conclusions on the subject see below, § 6. It may be added here that Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus or Cyrus in Syria, does not bring his Ecclesiastical History down to the outbreak of the controversy, but ends it with the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia, although he seems to have written with a purpose, as he was one of those Antiochenes who afterit a good many years later. Probably this omission was made wards took an undecided line, though eventually he agreed to the union. We must also notice that Sozomen, whose Ecclesias tical History covers the same period as that of Socrates, does not mention Nestorius except in a very indirect allusion (ix. 1). His silence is instructive, and probably shows that the controversy did not excite quite such a universal interest as one might have supposed. Much of what follows is taken from Socrates. vii. 29), a native of Germanicia, a city in the east Nestorius was, as Socrates expressly says (HE Persian origin; but it appears to be due to a of Cilicia. A Syriac tradition describes him as of desire to connect him with the later 'Nestorians' of the Persian empire; and the historical references of the later Syriac writers are so full of fable and ridiculous statements that it is impossible to put any trust in their unsupported averments. Nestorius became a monk of the monastery of Euprepius, near Antioch, and was famous for his eloquence as a preacher, and, according to some, Gennadius, de Vir. illustr. 54). The see of Confor the austerity of his life (Socrates, loc. cit.; stantinople becoming vacant in December 427, and the ecclesiastics of the city having displayed ambitious rivalry, a bishop was sought for from outside its limits; and, by the influence of the emperor Theodosius II., Nestorius was appointed, and was consecrated on 10th April 428. Theodosius hoped to bring from Antioch a second Chrysostom, whose eloquence would greatly further the cause of religion.

Nestorius's first act, a few days after his consecration, was to make a fierce attack on heresy; he promised the emperor heaven as a recompense, and also assistance in conquering the Persians, if he would purge the earth of heretics. Nestorius immediately proceeded to the destruction of the chapel of the Arians in the city, and persecuted the Novatians, whose 'bishop Paul was everywhere respected for his piety' (Soc. loc. cit.), and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, and Caria; also the Godhead of the Holy Ghost), and others. He the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi' (who denied is with some reason blamed by Socrates as a furious persecutor.

The first outbreak of the Nestorian controversy was due to a presbyter named Anastasius, brought by Nestorius from Antioch (Soc. HE vii. 32). He preached in Constantinople against the popular name Theotokos (see below, § 4). The presbyter exclaimed: 'Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was but a woman, and it is impossible that God should be born of a woman'; and his sermon gave great offence. Thereupon Nestorius delivered a course of sermons supporting Anastasius. Several of these have been preserved by Marius Mercator (above, § 1).

Socrates passes over the events which happened during the next three years. But before the Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical) was held, in 431, Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, entered into controversy with Nestorius because of his teaching. Cœlestine, bishop of Rome, held a

synod in that city in 430, and the synod declared Nestorius a heretic. Shortly afterwards a synod at Alexandria under Cyril did the same thing. Cyril drew up twelve anathematisms' (below, § 5), and Nestorius replied with twelve counteranathematisms. Finally, the emperor summoned a General Council, to meet at Ephesus on Whitsunday (June 7) 431. In the meantime the bishops of the province of Antioch, whose metropolitan was John, examined Cyril's anathematisms, and found them unsatisfactory. The Antiochenes were by the traditions of their school inclined to favour Nestorius and to oppose Alexandrian teaching. And, whatever was the reason, whether from a desire to oppose Cyril, or from a wish that Nestorius should not be condemned in their presence (for they were a small minority), or, as some say, from accidental causes, they delayed their | arrival at Ephesus till 26th or 27th June.

6

The first to arrive was Nestorius, who came soon after Easter with a great crowd of his adherents' (Soc. vii. 34). Cyril arrived just before Pentecost, others a few days later. After waiting more than a fortnight after the day fixed for the Council, and after receiving a friendly letter from John of Antioch and then (as he himself declares) a message requesting him to proceed without him, Cyril held the first meeting of the Council on 22nd June, 198 bishops being present. The letter of the Council to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio, iv. 1235 ff.) expressly says that John sent before him two bishops, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis, to tell the Council to go on without him. Nestorius declined to be present at this meeting, or to send any explanations of his teaching. The bishops, after investigating his sermons and writings, on the same day condemned him to deposition. In these proceedings no one appears to any great advantage. Cyril showed himself more of a prosecutor than of a president or judge; and, late as the Antiochenes were, he ought to have waited for them a little longer. Nestorius put himself out of court by his absence and by his unconciliatory and provocative language during the time of waiting; and the excuses offered in his lately-discovered Apology' (see below) do not exonerate him. The emperor comes out of the affair very badly, for he openly favoured the accused, just as later he openly favoured Eutyches, whose doctrines were the exact opposite of those of Nestorius; and the imperial commissioner, Candidian, outstepped all propriety in endeavouring to support Nestorius. Equally unsatisfactory was the part played by the Antiochenes, whose tardiness in arriving can with difficulty be believed to have been accidental. When they did arrive, they held a rival Council, attended by a small minority of 43 bishops, and deposed both Cyril and his supporter Memnon, bishop of Ephesus. They did not refer to the case of Nestorius on its merits at all, but only said that Cyril's Council had no right to depose Nestorius before their arrival.

The emperor thereupon showed much vacillation. He ordered the arrest of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon alike. But eventually public opinion forced him to release Cyril and Memnon and to banish Nestorius, first to his old monastery, then (at John of Antioch's own request) to Arabia, and finally (perhaps before the last arrangement was carried into effect) to the Oasis (of Ptolemais) in Egypt, where he still remained when Socrates wrote (A.D. 439). The emperor also summoned several bishops of the Ephesine majority to Constantinople to arrange for the filling of the vacant see there, and Maximian succeeded Nestorius. Socrates calls Maximian rude in speech' but 'inclined to live a quiet life' (vii. 35). He was

soon after succeeded by Proclus, and under these two peaceful bishops quiet reigned in the capital. Till a few years ago little of Nestorius's later life was known. But the newly-discovered Book of Heraclides, the Apology' of Nestorius, shows us his life in exile. It was written in Greek, under the pseudonym of Heraclides of Damascus,' by Nestorius after his deposition. There is little doubt that Heraclides is a fictitious personage; and, once we get to the book itself, there is no veiling of the fact that Nestorius is the author; a pseudonym was necessary to prevent the book from being burned unread by those who hated the very name of the writer; for he retained very few friends, even among the Antiochenes, in his later life. The book has been preserved to our own day in a Syriac version, in the library of the E. Syrian (Nestorian) Catholicos, at Qochanes in the mountains of Kurdistan. Only one MS has survived, and that was unknown to European scholars; but it has lately been several times copied, and the book was published in 1910 by P. Bedjan in Syriac and by F. Nau in a French translation of the Syriac. Already, however, J. F. Bethune-Baker, in Nestorius and his Teaching, had given copious extracts from it in English. The Apology' (which will be cited in this art. as Heraclides) begins with a lengthy introduction, in 93 chapters, on heresies, proceeds to a history of the Council of Ephesus, following the order of the acts of that Council, and quotes numerous documents. A valuable appendix deals with events which followed the Council; it mentions the Robber Synod (Latrocinium) of. Ephesus (A.D. 449), and also the Tome' of Leo the Great (the Dogmatic Epistle to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, Ep. xxviii., A.D. 449), which Nestorius praises greatly, and looks upon as supporting his own position. Nestorius died probably just before the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which was held at Chalcedon (opposite Constantinople) in 451. The later Monophysite and Nestorian accounts of his death, as one might expect, differ considerably in detail. They are both quite untrustworthy. For the Monophysite account and for authorities for Nestorius's later life see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xlvii. n. 55; but the discovery of Heraclides has corrected our previous knowledge on the subject. Cyril had died in 444, some seven years before his antagonist.

The Apology' is called in the Syriac the Tegurta' of Heraclides, and Bethune-Baker translates this The Bazaar of Heraclides, suggesting that the original Greek had európiov. But Nau (p. xviii), with much more probability, urges that the original was payuareía, which may mean either trade' or 'a treatise.' It seems that the Syriac translator blundered, and gave the word the former meaning when he should have given it the latter. That payuareía meant 'a treatise' in Nestorius's own day is clear from the account in Socrates, who uses this word when he says that Nestorius had very little acquaintance with the treatises' ("payμareías) of the ancients. Audishu (Ebedjesus, † A.D. 1818), the learned Nestorian writer, mentions among Nestorius's writings 'the book of Nestorius.' This favours Nau's argument. For a further confirmation see E. W. Brooks, in JThSt xvi. [1915] 263.

After the Council of Ephesus there remained for some time a schism between the Antiochenes and the rest of Christendom. This was less on account of Nestorius-for even Theodoret later on, in his book on heresies (DCB iv. 9176), speaks strongly against him-than because of Cyril's anathematisms, which the Antiochenes greatly resented. Socrates merely mentions the schism (vii. 34), but we have many documents bearing on the subject, and these are collected in Mansi's great work on the councils (vol. v.). Eventually, however, union was restored, largely through the efforts of Paul of Emesa, who acted as intermediary between Antioch and Alexandria. The Antiochenes propounded a perfectly orthodox creed, containing the expression Theotokos,' and this was fully accepted by Cyril (for the text see below, § 5); they also agreed to the

condemnation of Nestorius. Cyril, on the other hand, explained (in a letter to Acacius, bishop of Bercea and one of the Antiochene party) the language of his anathematisms in a manner satisfactory to John of Antioch and to most of the bishops of that party (below, § 5). This was in 433. There were, indeed, opponents on both sides. Of Cyril's adherents some, the progenitors of the Monophysites of the next generation, blamed Cyril severely. Of John's adherents some were definitely Nestorian, some (like Theodoret) were still doubtful about Cyril's orthodoxy, even after his explanations; and these all blamed John. But at last all the Antiochenes except fifteen (for whose names see Hefele, iii. 152 f.) agreed to the union, and the dissentients were deprived of their sees. For the after history of Nestorianism see § 8 below. 3. Change of meaning of certain technical words. In order to understand the doctrines taught by or imputed to Nestorius, it is necessary that we should investigate the meaning of the expressions substantia, ovola, inboтaois, persona, TроowTov, and puois, as used by Christian writers of the pre-Nestorian period. These words, except the last, were during that period chiefly discussed with reference to the Holy Trinity, in consequence of the Arian controversy. But some of them were used in more than one sense, and, as is usually the case in similar circumstances, violent disputes arose, owing to a lack of proper definition, between theologians who meant the same thing, but expressed it in different words. It is the duty of the conscientious historical student to endeavour to get behind words, and to discriminate between the two cases of essential difference between writers who use similar phraseology, and of essential identity between those who use different expressions.

(a) Substantia and ovola.-We need not here consider the pre-Christian use of ovcía (for this see A. Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius [Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers'], Oxford, 1892, p. xxxif., and T. B. Strong, as below). The word was used by Greek Christian writers, though not quite exclusively (see below), to express that which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the divine 'essence'; and the Latin equivalent was substantia. Thus the divine ovoía is spoken of by Justin Martyr (Dial. 128) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 2); and Tertullian (adv. Prax. 2) says that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are unius substantiæ.' Hence the Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is 'homoousios' ('of one substance' or 'consubstantial') with the Father; and very shortly afterwards the same expression is used of the Holy Ghost, as in the Testament of our Lord (i. 41, c. A.D. 350); and Athanasius's Council held at Alexandria in 361 (Soc. HE iii. 7; Soz. HE v. 12), and some versions of the baptismal creed in the Egyptian Church Order, in the middle of or early in the 4th cent., speak of the consubstantial Trinity' (Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, Cambridge, 1910, p. 115; another version and the Ethiopic Church Order have Trinity equal in Godhead'). It is rather remarkable that the word 'homoousios' is not applied to the Holy Ghost in the enlarged Nicene Creed which we use at the present day (known as theConstantinople Creed'); but it is so applied in the confession of Charisius read at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, iv. 1347). The word is an instance of a technical phrase changing its meaning, for in another sense it is said to have been repudiated by the orthodox at Antioch in the 3rd cent., when used by Paul of Samosata (Hefele, i. 123; T. B. Strong, in JThSt iii. 292). For a detailed examination of the word 'substance' see Strong in JThSt ii. 224, iii. 22.

(b) Taboraσis, persona, πрóσжTov.-The Church

had some difficulty in fixing on a proper phrase for expressing the distinctions in the Holy Trinity; and all these three words show at different periods considerable variation in meaning. The word

...

boraσis (lit. 'foundation' or 'support'), which, as Socrates tells us (HE iii. 7), was not a term approved by Greek grammarians and philosophers, was first used by the Christians in the sense of 'substance,' ovola; this, Socrates says, was the usage of many 'moderns.' And this sense of the word is frequent; it is found in He 13 (see Westcott's note, Com., London, 1906), also in Gregory Thaumaturgus (quoted by Basil, Ep. ccx. 5), usually, but not always, in Athanasius (see Robertson, pp. 90, 482), and in the anathema attached to the Nicene Creed: "Those who say. that [Jesus] is of another hypostasis (ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως) οι ousia [than the Father]. · the Catholic Church anathematizes.' On this anathema see J. H. Newman's excursus revised by Robertson (p. 77 ff.) ; it is disputed whether óraois and ovola are here meant to be identical; Newman and Robertson assert the affirmative, the well-known theologian Bishop Bull (1634-1710), following St. Basil, the negative. If, as is probable, the books against Apollinarius contained in the works of Athanasius were written by that Father, he denies the propriety of the expression hypostatic union,' which became in the 5th cent. the approved method of expressing the union of our Lord's two natures (see below, § 5). But Athanasius here understands the phrase to mean 'union of substance' (see Hefele, iii. 3, and below (c)).

This sense of inboraσis gradually died out except among the Nestorians, and the word came to be used to express the distinctions in the Godhead. It would be pure Arianism to speak of 'three hypostases' in the Godhead, in the earlier sense of the word; but the sense changed and men came (not without much hesitation) to speak of 'one ousia, three hypostases' as denoting the Unity in Trinity. In the 3rd cent. Origen already uses vóσTaσis in this sense, keeping ouoia for 'substance' (c. Cels. viii. 12, etc.). In the 4th cent. Gregory of Nazianzus (Órat. xxi. 35, On the great Athanasius') says that ovoía denotes the nature (pois) of the Godhead, Toσráσes the 'properties' (¿dibrηres) of the Three.

Some of the Greeks, however, used рóσwwоv, as the Latins used persona, to denote the distinctions in the Godhead. Persona properly means 'an actor's mask,' hence a character' on the stage, and so it is often used of 'a feigned character.' But it came to mean 'an individual,' 'a person,' a personage.' Similarly πрóσwπov, which properly means a face,' came in classical Greek to mean 'an actor's mask,' and in later Greek 'a person.' In a theological sense Tertullian already uses persona of the Holy Trinity (adv. Prax. 7, 12); and he has been followed by Western theologians to the present day, who have with one consent spoken of una substantia, tres personæ.' Some of the Greek writers followed suit and used póowπα to denote the 'persons' of the Holy Trinity, as Hippolytus early in the 3rd cent. (c. Hær. Noeti, 7, 14), Basil in the 4th (loc. cit.), and others. Thus, in later days imóσraois and Tрóσwo were used in the same sense, only that the latter was sometimes looked upon with suspicion as being capable of a Sabellian meaning, as if it meant

appearance,' 'aspect' only; Sabellius had said that there were three poowwa in the Godhead, but he meant that the Son and the Holy Ghost were the Father under different aspects (c. A.D. 200). Gregory of Nazianzus, in the 4th cent. (Orat. xxxix. 11, 'On the holy lights '), allows both terms, ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον, though he prefers the former.

say that the Godhead died' or was born.' The fact that Apollinarius delighted in expressions such as the above was doubtless one element in setting Nestorius against them.

The watchword of the Nestorian controversy was "Theotokos' (EOTÓKOS, 'God-bearer,' Lat. deipara). It had been long in use, and was the popular name of the Blessed Mother; and, as we have seen (above, § 2), the prohibition of its use by Nestorius roused the fiercest opposition. It can only mean bearer of Him who is God,' and not, as Nestorius supposed, 'bearer of the Godhead.' It enshrined the vitally important doctrine that the same He who was born of Mary was from all eternity God the Son, and not only one who was inseparably connected with Him. It ought to be added that OEOTÓKOS is not designed to honour Mary, but rather to explain the position of her Child. It is perhaps unfortunate that it frequently gave place to the expression mother of God' (unrnp Ocoû, Dei genetrix'), which has not quite the same connotation, and may be liable to suggest Monophysite ideas, which the original OEOTÓKOS does not do. Cyril himself uses, but very rarely, unrпp Oeoû for corókos. It must also be observed that the question is not whether Theotokos' is a suitable name to use (on that matter opinion may legitimately vary), but whether the doctrine underlying the title, that He whom the Virgin bore is the same person as the Word of God, is true. The title was approved at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Hefele, iii. 347).

Some instances of the communicatio idiomatum in very early times may be mentioned. In Ac 315 ('ye killed the Prince of life') we have such an instance: the Prince of life' is a title of our Lord's Godhead, but St. Luke is speaking of His death. A striking instance would be Ac 2028 (the church of God which he purchased with his own blood"), but we are not quite certain of the text; 'God' is a better supported reading than the Lord,' but it has been suggested by Hort that originally the text ran with the blood of his own Son.' Other early examples are: Barnabas, 7 (the Son of God... suffered'); Clement of Rome, Cor. 2 (His sufferings'; 'God' having preceded, according to Lightfoot and Harnack); Ignatius, Eph. 1 ('blood of God'), Rom. 6 (suffering of my God'); Tatian, Address to the Greeks, 13 ('suffering God'); Tertullian, ad Uxor. ii. 3 (blood

of God').

The word 'Theotokos' had been used in the 3rd cent. by Origen, who in his commentary on Romans gave an ample exposition' of the term (Soc. HE vii. 32); by Gregory Thaumaturgus, Hom. 1, 'On the Annunciation' (Eng. tr. in AnteNicene Chr. Lib.' xx. 134 ff.); and by Archelaus of Kashkar, Disputation with Manes, 34 (ib. p. 348); in the 4th cent. by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria at the time of the Nicene Council (quoted by Theodoret, HE i. 3); Eusebius, Vit. Const. iii. 43; Athanasius, Orat. c. Arian. iv. 32; Basil, Ep. ccclx., 'Of the Holy Trinity'; Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. ci., 'ad Cledonium'; and by others.

The title was no real difficulty to the Antiochenes, who recognized its antiquity and its meaning; and it did not stand in the way of union. Even Nestorius, when all went against him (for, as we have seen, the Antiochenes were much less for him than against Cyril) exclaimed: 'Let Mary be called Theotokos if you will, and let all disputing cease' (Soc. HE vii. 34). In a Greek fragment quoted by Loofs (Nestoriana, p. 353) he is willing to tolerate the term 'as long as the Virgin is not made a goddess'; in a sermon (Loofs, p. 276) he suggests Deodoxos (one who receives God') rather than Θεοτόκος. He wished, like Theodore (see above, §1), to introduce the term ȧv@рwотóKOS ('manbearer') as a complement to OEOTÓKOS, but he preferred xpLTOTÓKOs (Christ-bearer'). Yet up to the end of his life, as we see again and again in Heraclides, he attacked the term OcоTÓкos. (For two elaborate notes on this term see Pearson, Expos. of the Creed, art. iii., p. 318, notes 36, 37.)

་

(d) Favourite expressions of Nestorius. - He always speaks of two hypostases' in Christ. It seems fairly clear that he uses the word vooraσis in its earlier sense of substance,' and that he means by 'two hypostases' our Lord's two natures.

But he causes some confusion by talking of the two hypostases and their two characteristics' or 'natures' (pureis). His persistent refusal to see any other possible sense of urbσraois, though another sense had become common long before his day (above, § 3), is a justification of Socrates' opinion (HE vii. 32) that he was ignorant (see below, § 6). A little later the Council of Chalcedon fixed the terminology by affirming that in our Lord there was one ὑπόστασις, one πρόσωπον, two natures, without confusion, without change, without rending, without separation' (doVYXÚTWS, ÅTPÉTTWS, ddiaipéтws, dxwplows [Hefele, iii. 350]).

In many passages of Nestorius a man' is used where it is charitable to suppose that 'manhood' is meant (see above (c)). The use of this particular concrete for this particular abstract is found in older writers, such as Athanasius, who uses the phrase 'the Man from Mary' when he is speaking of our Lord's humanity (Orat. c. Arian. iv. 35; so i. 45, etc.). Also in the Exposition of Faith (Ex@cois) Athanasius three times uses the expression ó Kupiakos aveρwros for 'the Lord's humanity' (also elsewhere); and subsequent writers followed him, Latins translating it by Homo Dominicus. But Augustine, who had used this phrase, later disapproved of it (Retract. I. xix. 8). Robertson remarks (p. 83) that Athanasius did not employ 'man' for manhood' carelessly, nor in an ambiguous context, and that there is no doubt of his meaning. But, had he lived a century later, Athanasius would probably have used different language. In this connexion it should be added that certain NT expressions like 1 Ti 25 ('one mediator [himself] man, Christ Jesus') and 1 Co 157 ('the second man is of heaven ') are not relevant to the present subject. In these man is not used for 'mankind.' But it is quite Biblical to speak of our Lord as 'a man' (cf. Jn 840, Ac 222 1731).

6

The metaphors 'temple,' 'veil,' 'vesture,' and 'instrument (8pyavov) are very common in Nestorius, as they had been in Theodore of Mopsuestia. In themselves they are unobjectionable; their context must determine whether they are suitable. If it is the manhood' that is the temple, or vesture, etc., the phrases are perfectly orthodox. But, if ‘a man' is the temple, etc., they may reasonably be objected to as erroneous. A few examples out of a great number are the following:

The

Mary did not bear the Godhead but a man (hominem), the inseparable instrument of the Divinity' (Loofs, p. 205). manhood (arepwórηra), the instrument of the Godhead of God the Word' (p. 247). The Creature did not bear the Creator, but bore a man (aveρwπov), the instrument of [the] Godhead' (p. 252). "The Lord was clothed with our nature. . . the

vesture of [the] Godhead, the inseparable clothing of the divine substance' (p. 298). 'I said that the temple was passible, and not God who quickens the temple which has suffered' (Heraclides [Bedjan, p. 318; Nau, p. 202]).

It is much more difficult to find an orthodox sense for the expression ovvápela ('connexion'), by which the union effected by the Incarnation is expressed by Nestorius and Theodore. This is symptomatic of the whole trend of their teaching, towards the conception of two distinct beings joined together, though joined inseparably. They objected to the expression evwots (union'), holding that it conveyed the idea of a confusion of the human and divine natures. But the main objection to ovvápela was that it spoke of a conjunction of the Word with a man, not of human nature with the Word.

Nestorius also frequently uses the word πρόσω TOV. But he uses it very ambiguously. Thus he several times speaks in Heraclides of the πрóσшжоν of the Godhead and the póowоv of the manhood (Bedjan, p. 289; Nau, p. 183, etc.); and so he says in a passage of a sermon which we have only in Latin (Loofs, p. 255): 'Christ took the person