A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

NESTORIUS.

NESTORIUS born at Germanicia a City of Syria, brought up and baptized at Anti∣och, withdrew himself into the Monastery of Euprepius, which was in the Suburbs of that * 1.1 City. He was ordain'd Priest by Theodorus, and in a little time acquired a very great Repu∣tation by his way of living and by his Sermons. Sisinnius Archbishop of Constantinople being dead in 4••7. the Ambition which the Clergy of that City had to obtain the Government of that Church, made the Emperour resolve not to suffer any of them to be chosen Bishops, and to cause a Clergy-man of some other Church to be chosen, notwithstanding the Pains that were taken to procure it by some, for Philip [of Sida], and by others, for Proclus. He cast his Eyes upon Nestorius, chose him * 1.2 by common consent, caused him to come from Antioch, and 3 Months after his Election he was ordained, and put in possession of the See of Constan∣tinople in the Month of April in the year † 1.3 428.

In his first Sermon, which he made in the presence of the Emperour, he declared the design he had to make War with the Hereticks, speaking boldly to the Emperour; Sir, Free the Earth from Hereticks, and I will give you Heaven; joyn in the War against them with me, and I will assist you against the Persians. Altho' the hatred which many of the People had for the Hereticks, made them approve of this Discourse; yet the wiser sort, saith Socrates, condem∣ned the Pride and Fierceness of it, and were amazed to see a Man before he had tasted, as he says, the Water of the City, declare, That he would persecute those who were not of his Opi∣nion. These Threatnings were followed with a suitable effect; for 5 days after his Conse∣cration, he attempted to demolish the Church where the Arians, tho' secretly, celebrated their Assemblies, and reduced them to so great despair, that they set it on F•••••• themselves, which being consumed, the Flame took the Neighbouring Houses. This Fire stirred up an unusual Disorder, and from that time he was called, An Incendiary. He did all he could to vex the Novatians, but the Emperour stopt his Fury. He exercised also so great Severities against those People of Asia, Lydia and Caria, who kept the Feast of Easter upon the xiv day of the Moon, that many Murthers happened by them at Miletum and Sardis. He persecuted also the Macedonians, and took their Churches from them. He did not spare so much as the Pela∣gians; but at length prevailed with the Emperour to make a Law against all Hereticks. He brought the Memory of S. Chrysostom into Veneration. He lived in a very regular and strict manner, and applyed himself diligently to the Duties of his Ministry. In a word, he might have passed for a great Saint, if he had not engaged himself to maintain an Opinion, which made him condemned as an Heretick. Which came this way to pass.

He had brought from Antioch a Priest called Anastasius, for whom he had a very particular esteem, and whom he made use of in all Affairs of Importance. This Anastasius preaching one day in the Church, ventured to say, Let no Man call Mary the Mother of God; Mary w•••• a Woman, and God cannot be born of a Woman. This Proposition gave great offence among the People, who accused this Priest of Impiety. A Bishop called Dorotheus confirmed the Opi∣nion of Anastasius, by saying Anathema to all that call the Virgin the Mother of God; and Nestorius himself, discoursing upon this Question in his Sermons, took his Priest's part, and al∣ways rejected the Name of the Mother of God.

The People being accustomed to hear this Expression, were much inflamed against their Bi∣shop, being perswaded. That he revived the Error of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and believed, That Jesus Christ was a meer Man. The Monks declared themselves openly a∣gainst him, and separated themselves from his Communion. The People, and some more, considering Men followed their Example, insomuch that in a short time the Church of Con∣stantinople

was in a strange confusion; a Monk preached against his Bishop, Eusebius, after∣ward Bishop of Dorylaeum, made a solemn protestation against his Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum did preach 3 Sermons against him; and all the ancient Clergy of Constantinople op∣posed Nestorius; yet he still maintain'd what he had delivered, and made several Sermons more upon that Subject. His Party made a Collection of them, and sent them into Aegypt, which falling into the Hands of the Monks of those Parts, raised Disputes among them. This obliged S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, to write a large Letter to them, in which, having ac∣knowledged, That he had much rather not meddle with such subtle Questions, which are above the reach of humane Understanding, he declares against Nestorius's Opinion; and shews, by several Reasons, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius having seen this Writing of S. Cyril's, which was dispersed up and down Constantinople, and much con∣firmed his adverse Party, complained greatly of this carriage of S. Cyril. But he excused himself in a Letter written to Nestorius, exhorting him to confess, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius answered him with much Civility, but did not approve of that Term. S. Cyril wrote a second Letter to him, to which Nestorius returned an Answer, but did not fully approve of S. Cyril's Expressions about the Incarnation. He like∣wise wrote against the Letter, which S. Cyril had sent to the Monks of Aegypt, altho' Anasta∣sius declared at Constantinople, That he held nothing which was not in that writing of S. Cyril; since he himself owned, That no Council had used the Term of the Mother of God. I will not in this place relate what passed in the Consequence of this Business; how it was carryed to the Council of Ephesus; after what manner Nestorius behaved himself there; how he was condemned, and what was the Conclusion; because I shall be obliged to do this in speaking of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. I shall content my self to observe, That after the sentence of this Council, Nestorius never durst return to Constantinople, but hid himself in his ancient Monastery at Antioch, from whence he was taken four years after, in 435. by the Emperor's Order, and banished to Oasit. But the Barbarians having taken and destroyed that City, he was obliged to go into Thebais to the City of Panopolis, where he was not suffered to remain long; yea, he was so often removed from place to place, that he died in his Journey, being mortally bruised by a fall. Evagrius, who relates these Accidents, tells us, that he met with an Author who assured him, That before Nestorius died, his Tongue was eaten with Worms, as a punishment of the Blasphemies which it had uttered. But he brings no confirmation of this Circumstance, which may well be thought an invention of this Anony∣mous Author, because it was commonly supposed, That all Hereticks had a Tragical end.

Nestorius had a great freedom of Speech, and Gennadius assures us, That he had composed a great number of Treatises and Discourses before he came to Constantinople. We have none of these first; but there remain a great number of Fragments of his Sermons preached at Constantinople, and some whole Sermons also, with some Letters and other Works; of which this is the Catalogue.

A Fragment of his first Sermon that he preached at Constantinople, recited by Socrates, lib. 7. chap. 29. of his History.

Some Latin Fragments of 4 Sermons preached at Constantinople before Julian and the other Pelagian Bishops, in which he delivers Principles contrary to their Errors. These Fragments are recited in Latin by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, Part 1. pag. 73. and in M. Ba∣luzius's, pag. 119. The third is perfect in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom, Tom. 7. of Savil's Edition, p. 301. and with a Latin Translation in M. Mercator by F. Garner, pag. 85. Part 1.

The first Sermon which he made to maintain what Anastasius the Priest had asserted, is tran∣slated whole almost by M. Mercator, and confuted by Cassian.

He preached several other Sermons upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, of which a Colle∣ction was made at the same time. Out of this Collection the Orthodox took several Extracts to discover his Doctrine. And for this reason it is that when they cite them, they ordinarily set down the Sheet. We have 4 Collections of these Extracts. The 1st. is that which was presented to the Council of Ephesus by Petrus Diaconus, Act. 1. Conc. tom. 3. p. 520. The 2d. is M. Mercator's, where the Extracts are only in Latin in Baluzius's Edition, p. 109. The 3d. is taken out of S. Cyril's Books of Contradictions against Nestorius; and the last is com∣posed of the Extracts of Nestorius, recited in the other Works of S. Cyril. F. Garner hath taken the pains to have these Collections printed in the 2d. part of his Edition of M. Merca∣tor from p. 95. to p. 112. He hath also attempted to restore these Sermons by putting these Extracts together, and by adding other Fragments to them, to bring them into their natural Order.

After the Sermon of Providence he hath put that De Theognosia or of the knowledge of God, which he frames out of several Passages quoted by S. Cyril, and in the Council of Ephesus, Part 2. pag. 8. These follow.

Some Fragments of a Sermon against the Macedonians and Arians, taken out of the Books of S. Cyril and the Extracts of the Council of Ephesus. This Sermon is cited by Arnobius Junior, in his Dispute against Serapion, which may convince F. Garner that he hath put two Sermons into one. So hard is it to put these Fragments exactly together.

A Sermon of the Incarnation against Prechis. It is recited in Latin by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Garn. par. 2. pag. 26. of Baluz. p. 70.

Another Sermon against the same Person taken out of the Extracts of S. Cyril, and of the Council of Ephesus, by F. Garn. p. 29.

Another Sermon upon these words, Consider Jesus Christ the Apostle and High-priest of our Profession, ibid. p. 30.

A Sermon against those, who upon the account of the Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ do render the God-head Mortal, or the Manhood Divine. This is a large Treatise re∣hearsed entire in Latin by M. Mercator, of which also we have some Extracts in S. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, in F. Garn. Edit. p. 34. Baluz. p. 56.

A Fragment of a Sermon upon Judas against the Hereticks taken out of S. Cyril's Books against Nestorius, and M. Mercator's Collection of Fragments, by F. Garn. p. 65.

A Fragment of a Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ in S. Matth. c. 5. v. 23. If thou hast ought against thy Brother; taken out of the Council of Ephesus and M. Mercator's Col∣lection, p. 66. ibid.

A Fragment of a Sermon against the Macedonians, recited in the Council of Ephesus, and translated by M. Mercator, ibid. p. 67.

Another Fragment of Sermons recited in the Council of Ephesus and by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 68. of Baluz. 109. &c.

A Sermon of Nestorius when he had received S. Coelestine's Letter, and the Bill of Com∣plaint which was made by S. Cyril, translated and recited entire by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Farn, p. 85. and of Baluz. p. 74.

Another Sermon preached the next Sunday, recited also in Latin by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 93. of Baluz. p. 87.

The Fragments of two Sermons taken out of the Collection, Intituled, Of the Illustrious In∣stitution, recited in the 6th. Council, Tom. 6. of the Councils, pag. 318.

These are all his Sermons. His others Works are,

His first Letter to S. Cyril in Greek and Latin in the Council of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 7. pag. 316.

The second Letter to S. Cyril, ibid. ch. 9. p. 321.

Two Latin Letters to S. Coelestine, ibid. ch. 16, and 17. pag. 349, and 351. and in M. Mer∣cator of F. Garner's Edit. part 1. pag. 65.

A Letter to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, of which there is a Fragment in the 6th. Coun∣cil, pag. 319.

A Consolatory Letter in Latin to Coelestius related by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, part 1. pag. 71. Baluz. p. 65.

The Anathematisms of Nestorius opposed to those of S. Cyril in the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 29. p. 424.

The Letter of Nestorius to John Bishop of Antioch before the Council of Ephesus, in Lupus's Collection, p. 15. with a Sermon at the same time, ibid. p. 17.

The Declaration of Nestorius, wherein he puts a good sence upon what he had delivered in his Sermons, ibid. p. 23.

His Letter to the Emperour concerning what passed at Ephesus in the beginning of the Council, ibid pag. 30.

A Letter of Nestorius to Scholasticus the Emperor's Eunuch, written from Ephesus, ibid. 43. These 4 last Letters are also in M. Baluzius's new Collection of Councils, and in the last Tome of Theodoret of F. Garner's Edition.

A Letter to the Praefectus-Praetorio of Antioch, about the order he had received, command∣ing him to retire into his Monastery, ibid. pag. 68.

Three Letters of Nestorius written in his Banishment, of which Evagrius recites some Frag∣ments in lib. 1. of his History, ch. 7.

If we enquire diligently into these Writings, to know what was Nestorius's Doctrine about the Incarnation, we shall find, 1. That he rejected the Error of Ebion, Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and elegantly condemns the Error of those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ was but a meer Man. 2. He maintains in express Terms, That the Word was united to the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and that this Union was most intimate and strict. 3. That these two Natures being united together make but one Christ, one Son only, and likewise one Person only made up of two Natures. 4. That the Properties of the Humane and Di∣vine Nature may be attributed to this Person; and that it may be said, That Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that he suffered and died; but he always denied that it might be said, That God was born, suffered or died; and herein consisted his Errour, for by reason of the Hypo∣statick Union of the Divine and Humane Nature, the Properties of the two Natures, of which it is compounded, may not only be affirmed of the Person, but it may also be said, That God is born, hath suffered and is dead; and that the Man ought to be adored, is become immor∣tal, impassible, &c. altho' it cannot be said, That the Divinity is born, is dead, or hath suf∣fered; or that the Manhood may be worshipped, is immortal or impassible.

Nestorius did not only reject the last Expressions, used by the Eutychians and Apollinarists, but he rejected the first, which usage had introduced into the Church, and would not own that

it might be said upon the Account of the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Jesus Christ that God is born, hath suffered or is dead. From this Principle it follows, That he must reject the Term of the Mother of God; for if it may not be said, That God is born, it can't be said, That the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. He owned, That she might be called the Mother of Christ, i. e. of the Person made up of the two Natures, but he could not understand, how she could be called the Mother of God.

This Term, as we have seen, was the original of the Quarrel. It was in use in the Church, and all the World was offended to hear it condemned by Nestorius and his Followers. The People immediately believe••▪ That he did not acknowledge the Godhead in Jesus Christ, since he would not endure that his Mother should be called the Mother of God. But the more Learn∣ed knew well enough, That his Error consisted not in that Point, but in this; That by con∣demning this Expression, he destroyed the Union of the two Natures in one Person only, and seemed to allow of a moral Union only between them. The comparisons which he made use of, did incline them to believe that he was of that Opinion; for he said, That the Humanity was in Jesus Christ, the Temple, the Habit, the Veil of the Divinity; and compared the Union of the two Natures to the Union of Husband and Wife. Whence they concluded, That he allowed of no other Union between the two Natures, but an Union of Operation and Will, and not a real, substantial Union, notwithstanding the Protestations he made, That there was but one Christ, and but one Person. It is true, That Nestorius's obstinacy in rejecting the term of the Mother of God, and other Expressions of like Nature, which are consequent upon the substantial Union of the Two Natures, made Men think that he did not acknowledge the Hypostatick Union of the Two Natures, although he never durst affirm but that there were Two Persons really distinct in Jesus Christ, nor openly discover that he allowed only a Moral Union between the Two Natures. He likewise declared, That the Terms of the Mother of God disturbed him, upon no other account, but because he believed that they established the Error of Arius and Apollinarius, who confounded the Two Natures. But in that he was mistaken, and his Obstinacy in refusing to approve an innocent Term, and to receive the Expressions which confirmed the Union of the Two Natures in one Person, were a lawful and a sufficient ground tocondemn him, and a Proof of his evil Intention. This his Friend, John Bishop of Antioch, confesses in the Letter, in which he exhorts him to receive the Term of The Mother of God: Where he tells him, That though he was persuaded that his Doctrine was Orthodox, his obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Virgin is the Mother of God, might give cause to suspect that he was in an Error. Nor can we doubt but this Bishop did at length acknowledge that Nestorius was in an Error, and that his Obsti∣nacy deserved Punishment, since he forsook him, and would not suffer him in his Diocess. Theodorct defended him a long time, but he was at last forced to condemn him, as we shall see in the sequel: And indeed what possibility was there to defend him, when his most intimate Friends acknowledged him to be blame-worthy.

The Fragments of Nestorius's Works confirm the Judgment which the Ancients have given of his Style and Disposition. It appears, by what we have said, that he spake with Freedom and Elegancy; but that his Genius was mean, which had little Loftiness or Nobleness of Wit. All the Grace of his Sermons consisted in Descriptions, Metaphors and Apostrophe's, which are dry and insipid. In sum, they are very good Sence, and the Notions seem very rational, his Error excepted. He had but little Learning or Knowledge, but what he knew he set it out to the greatest Advantage.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Nestorius.
• * 1.2

  It seems ab••urd, when 'tis said, the People desi∣red others. And S••crates says, That Sisinnius was chosen by consent orall but not Ne∣storius; for he was cho∣sen rather a∣gainst, than by the con∣sent of all.
• † 1.3

  A great Mistake in Chronology for Atticus died Octob. 427. Sisinni∣us was Arch-bishop al∣most 2 years as Socrates tells us, l. 7. c. 28. Ne∣storius was ordained 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Months after Sisin∣nius's death, so that he could not be in possession of the Patri∣archate till near 430. and yet Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ag•…•…s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Du••in.