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.

Of the I. Council of Ephesus.

And of the other Assemblies of Bishops touching the Affair * 1.1 of Nestorius, which were precedent to, or followed after this Council.

ABout the end of the Year 428, Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, having permitted his * 1.2 Priest Anastasius, and Dorothaeus a Bishop to Preach arrogantly, That the Virgin Mary ought not to be called the Mother of God, and having himself maintained the same Opinion in several of his Sermons, brought a great deal of trouble into his Church. The People being much offended at this Doctrine rose against their Bishop; Eusebius afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum, and some others of the Clergy published a Protestation against him, wherein they declared him an Heretick, and accused him of reviving the Error of Paulus Samosatenus; the Priests also taught the Contrary Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum Preach'd against Nesto∣rius's Opinions, but without naming him. Lastly, The Clergy, the Monks, and People combined against Nestorius; but on the other-side Nestorius and his party stoutly maintained what they had asserted, and still preach'd the same Doctrine; and being upheld by the Authority of the Prince, they cruelly handled those that opposed their Designs.

This Dispute soon spread it self into Aegypt, whither Nestorius's Party had sent a Collection of his Sermons. The Monks of Aegypt were the first that moved these subtile questions, and debated them among themselves. St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who was of the Contrary Judgment, percei∣ving * 1.3 that several of them defended the Party of Nestorius, wrote a large Letter to these Monks, in which having admonished them, that it were much better not to meddle with such abstracted Questions, which cannot be of any advantage; he declares himself against the Doctrine of Nesto∣rius without naming him, proving by several Reasons, that the Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God. This Letter being seen at Constantinople anger'd Nestorius, who order'd a certain Person named Photius to answer it, and gave out a Report that St. Cyril governed his Church badly, that he affected a Tyrannical Power, stirred up Sedition against the Emperor's Officers, and was a Maintainer of the Manichees.

Nestorius's Letters were carried to Rome. St. Caelestine, and the Bishops of Italy wrote to Saint Cyril, to know whether they were Nestorius's or not. Nestorius seeing, that St. Cyril declared himself openly against him, complained much of his Carriage, and resolved to have no Com∣merce * 1.4 with him for the future. St. Cyril to pacify him, wrote a Letter to him, wherein he tells that he was grieved to hear, that he was angry with him for the Letter, which he wrote to the Monks of Aegypt; but he ought to consider, that it was not that Letter, that had raised such di∣sturbances in the Church, but the Papers which went about under his Name, that had caused so great a Scandal; that some Persons would not call Jesus Christ God, but the Organ and Instru∣ment of the Divinity; that it was this that obliged him to write; That he had been sent to from Rome, to know, who was the Author of those Writings; that all the West was in an Uproar a∣bout them; that he might appease the disturbances by explaining himself, and retracting what was attributed to him; that he ought not to refuse to give the Virgin Mary the title of the Mo∣ther of God, because by this means he would restore the Churches Peace.

This Letter was carried to Nestorius by one of S. Cyril's Priests, who was very urgent with him for an answer to it. He gave him one, but without an Explication of his Doctrine, and telling * 1.5 St. Cyril, that though he had acted contrary to the Rules of Brotherly Charity, yet he would for∣get it, and did by this Letter give him the tokens of Union and Peace.

Saint Cyril having informed Nestorius, that his Writings were carried as far as Rome, and that they met with an unwelcome reception there, Nestorius thought it his Duty to write to St. Cae∣lestine about it. And to do it the more handsomely, he took an Occasion to write to him about four Pelagian Bishops, Julian, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, who had fled to Constantinople, and had pre∣sented their Petitions to the Emperor, in which they complained of the ill usage they had recei∣ved in the West. He assures the Pope, that he had answered them according to his Office and * 1.6 Duty, although he was not informed of their Case; but that he ought to make it clear, that they may have no cause to importunt the Emperor. and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him up 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have compassion on them; for if it be true, that they were Condemned f•••• endeavouring to ma•…•… a new Sect, they deserved no manner of Pity. He adds, that having found at Constantinople some Persons who corrupted the Orthodox Faith, he laboured to recover them by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 means, although their Heresie came very near Arius and Apollinar•…•…s, for they confounded and mixed the two Natures in Jesus Christ, making the Divine Nature to be born of Mary, and the Flesh of Jesus Christ to be changed into his Godhead; that upon this ground they gave the Virgin the Mother of Christ, the Title of the Mother of God; that this term, although it be improper, might be endured upon the account of the Union of the Word with the Manhood, if it be not understood of the Divine Nature, and if we do not suppose, that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Word of God, which is intolle∣rable. He sent this Letter with the Copies of his Sermons by Antiochus.

Saint Cyril not being satisfied with Nestorius's answer, wrote another Letter to him, wherein he delivers to him his own and the Churches Doctrine. And to gain the greater Credit to his * 1.7 Explication, he grounded it upon the Creed made by the Nicene Council, where it is said, That the only Son of God begotten of his Father from all Eternity, came down from Heaven, was made Man, suffered, rose again from the Dead, and is ascended into Heaven. He says that we ought to be con∣tented with this Decision, and believe, that the Word of God was Incarnate, and was made Man; That he saith not, that the Nature of the Word was changed into Flesh, nor the Flesh into the Nature of the Word, but that the Word was United by an Hypostatick Union to the Manhood; insomuch, that the same Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and Son of Man, yet without any confusion of the Natures; That it may not be said, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, into whom the Godhead is since descended; but that from the instant of his Conception the Godhead was United to the Manhood; insomuch, that it may be said, that God is born according to the Flesh, and in the same sense that he hath suffered, and is dead, not as though the Word hath suffered in him, but because the Body, which he assumed, hath suffered, and was laid in the Sepulchre. In fine, that it is in this sense that we say, that the Virgin is the Mother of God, because she brought into the World the Body of Jesus Christ, to which the Godhead is Hypostatically United. Saint Cyril having thus explain'd himself, ex∣horts Nestorius to embrace these Sentiments, that he may preserve the Peace of the Church, and an uninterrupted Union among the Bishops.

This Letter raised the Dispute. Nestorius was highly offended, and in his answer to it accu∣ses * 1.8 St. Cyril of putting a false interpretation upon the words of the Council of Nice, and broach∣ing several Errors. He says, that he Explains the Council of Nice ill, because this Council doth not say, that the Word was born, suffered or is Dead, but it says this of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, words which equally agree to the Humanity and Divinity. He commends St. Cyril for acknowledging the distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; but he accuses him of destroying this truth consequentially, and making the Godhead passible and mortal. He owns the Union of the two Natures, but he holds, that upon the account of that Union we may not attribute to either of them the Qualities that belong to the other only; and he affirms, that as often as the Scripture speaks of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ, it appropriates them to the Humane, and never to the Divine Nature. Lastly, He tells him, that he hath been sur∣prized by the Clergy, infected with the Heresie of the Manichees, who were at Constantinople, and had been deposed in a Synod for it.

Upon this occasion it was, that the Adherents of Nestorius published the Book, which Photius wrote against St. Cyril's Letters to the Monks, with another Piece bearing this Title, Against those, who upon the Account of the Union debase the Godhead of the Son by Deifying the Manhood. These Writings were sent to St. Cyril by Buphas Martyrius a Deacon of Alexandria, and Saint Cy∣ril's Agent at Constantinople.

Nevertheless Anastasius the Priest pretended not to disapprove wholly of St. Cyril's Letter to the Monks, and alledged this Reason, that he confessed in that Letter that no Council had mentioned * 1.9 the term of the Mother of God. Saint Cyril being afraid that those of his Party who were at Con∣stantinople, should be ensnared by this Artifice, wrote a large Letter upon that subject, wherein he labours to prove that Nestorius and his party divided Jesus Christ into two Persons. He ad∣vises them to give this reply to those that accuse them of troubling the Church, and not submit∣ting to their Bishop. That 'tis their Bishop that is the cause of this trouble and scandal, because he teaches strange Doctrine. In the next place he complains of his behaviour towards him, and of the Calumnies they made use of to defame him. He says, that he is ready to defend himself before any Judicature, but yet he was not against Peace, provided the Orthodox Faith be se∣cured. Lastly, He tells them that he had sent them again the Petition, which they had sent to him, but he had changed and mollified the terms, lest Nestorius should say that he had accused

him before the Emperor; That in that which he had framed, he had rejected Nestorius, as being his Enemy; He desires them to present this Petition if need be, and says, that it Nestorius goes on still to persecute him, he will send some Wise and Prudent Persons to de••end his own and the Churches cause, being resolved to suffer the utmost rather than abandon it. He wrote also at the same time two Letters to justifie himself, that he had engaged in this affair against Nestorius, because he thought himself obliged to do it for the defence of the Faith. He says, that 'twas not * 1.10 he, but Nestorius that was the Cause of the trouble, and that 'twas not he, but Nestorius that had hindred, that Peace was not again restored to the Church.

Nestorius not receiving an Answer from Pope Caelestine, wrote another Letter to him, in which he earnestly desires him to give him an answer about the Case of those Bishops, of whom he wrote to him. He speaks also of those pretended Hereticks, who confounded the two Natures in Je∣sus Christ, and attributed to the Manhood that which agrees only to the Divine Nature, and to the Godhead that which belongs to the humane Nature only. This Letter was carried to Rome by Count Valerius.

Caelestine had not returned an Answer to Nestorius's first Letter, because he thought it necessary to Translate and Examine the Sermons, which he sent him. It is probable, that this task was imposed upon Cassian, and indeed, the Books of this Author against Nestorius were made about this time and are written as we have observed, against one of Nestorius's first Sermons. Saint Cyril suspecting that Nestorius might have written to Rome, sent Possidonius thither with a Letter, * 1.11 in which he relates all that had passed to that time in the business of Nestorius. About the end of the Letter, he tells S. Caelestine, that he did wait for his Judgment to determine, whether he should receive Nestorius to Communion, which for that reason he had neither hitherto granted him, nor absolutely refused. Lastly, He exhorts him to let them know his Opinion in the East, that all the Churches might be United, and joyn together in one and the same Doctrine.

With this Letter he sent some Papers, which contain'd the principal heads of Nestorius's Do∣ctrine. Besides this he gave Possidonius a Paper of Instructions, which is published by M. Balu∣gius, in which he lays down Nestorius' Doctrine after this manner. The Doctrine, or rather the * 1.12 Heresie of Nestorius is, to believe, That the Word of God foreseeing, that the Person, who was to be Born of Mary, should be Holy and Great, did therefore make choice of him to make him to be born of a Virgin, and bestowed such Graces upon him, as that he was rightly called the Son of God, Our Lord, and Christ; that he made him Dye for us, and then raised him from the Dead; that this word was Incarnate, because he always was with the Man, as he also had been with the Prophets, but in a more special manner. That Nestorius confessed, that he was with him in the Womb of the Virgin, but he will not acknowledge that he was a God by Nature, but he was called so upon the account of the extraordinary favour which God had always shewed him, and that it was the Man that died and rose again. After this manner S. Cyril delivers Nosto∣rius's Doctrine; which being done, he thus explains his own. We believe and confess, that the Word of God is Immortal, yea Life it self; but he became Flesh, and being united with a Body, * 1.13 animated with a Rational Soul, suffered in the Flesh, as the Scripture says, and because his Body suffered, we say, that he hath suffered, although he be of a Nature * 1.14 incapable of suffer∣ings; and because his Body is risen, we say, He is risen. But Nestorius is not of that Judgment, for he says, that it is the Man, who is raised, and that it is the body of the Man, which is of∣fered to Us in the Holy Sacrament. We believe on the Contrary, that it is the Flesh and Blood of the Word, that giveth life to all things. He says afterward, that Nestorius had suborned Cae∣lestius to accuse Philip of being a Manichee, but Caelestius not daring to appear, Nestorius had found out another pretence, and Deposed Philip for having Celebrated the Sacrament in his House, al∣though all the Clergy of Constantinople said, that it was a thing ordinarily done, as often as oc∣casion required.

Possidonius departed to go to Rome with these Instructions, but had order not to deliver Saint Cyril's Letter to the Pope, unless he understood, that Nestorius's Letter was come to his Hands.

Before Passidonius was arrived at Rome S. Cyril wrote to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that his Friend * 1.15 Nestorius had given Scandal to all the Church, by suffering Dorotheus to deny, that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and maintaining that Doctrine. And that because he would not abet that error, Nestorius had declared himself against him, and filled the World with Calumnies a∣gainst his Reputation. He tells Acacius, that he was sorry that such a subtle and difficult Que∣stion had e'er been started and Preached to the People, for which Moral Discourses and Instru∣ctions were much more suitable. Acacius answered, that he approved of this Judgment of Saint Cyril, and that he was as throughly persuaded as himself, that such things ought not to be dispu∣ted; but he advised him not to reprove, with so much passion, a word, which Dorotheus had * 1.16 spoken unawares and inconsiderately, for fear of embroyling the Church, and desires him to ap∣pease this Quarrel by his Silence, intimating to him, that it was the Opinion also of John Bi∣shop of Antioch.

Possidonius being arrived at Rome, Pope Caelestine who had received Instructions from both sides, * 1.17 had assembled a Council in August, Anno. 430, in which after they had read, and examined Nestorius's Writings, his Letters, and S. Cyril's; they disapproved Nestorius's, and approved Saint Cyril's Doctrine. We have a fragment of the Acts of this Council, related in Arnobius's con••e∣••erence with Serapion, which contains some part of St. Caelestine's Judgment, where some Passa∣ges

of St. Ambrose, St. Hilary and D•…•…sus are cited to prove, that it may be said, that the Son of God was born of a Virgin, that God was made Man; and that there is but one Son of God. They did not think it ••••t in this Council to condemn Nestorius presently; They order'd, that it should be signified to him, that if within ten days after Notice of this Sentence he did not condemn the New Doctrine, which he had introduced, and did not approve the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, yea, of the Universal Church, he should be Deposed and Deprived of the Communion of the Church; and they also declared, that all the Clergy and Laity, who had separated from Nestorius, since he taught this Doctrine, were not Excommunicate.

In order to the Execution of the Decree of this Synod, Pope Caelestine wrote to S. Cyril, and by his Letter gave him Commission to Execute in his stead, as having his Authority, and being his place, the Sentence given against Nestorius. He wrote also a Letter to Nestorius, in which he opposes his Doctrine; tells him, that the Bishops of whom he spake in his Letter, are Pelagians, * 1.18 who were condemned because they would not acknowledge Original Sin, and gives him Notice of the Judgment given against him, declaring to him at the same time that he had commissioned S. Cyril to execute it in his Name. He also certified the Clergy of Constantinople of it, as also the Bishops of the Chief Sees, as John Bishop of Antioch, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and Flavian Bishop or Philipopolis, to whom he sent a Circular Letter. These Let∣ters * 1.19 are all dated Aug. 17. Anno. 430. * 1.20

Saint Cyril before he would do any thing against Nestorius wrote a Letter to John Bishop of An∣tioch, and John Bishop of Jerusalem, to let them know how things had passed in the West, and exhorting them to joyn with him either to make Nestorius change his Opinion, or execute the * 1.21 Judgment passed against him by the Western Bishop, if he persisted in it.

John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril and Caelestine's Letters, and having communica∣ted them to six Bishops, which were then present with him, of whom Theodoret was one, foresee∣ing the trouble which Nestorius would raise, exhorted him by a Letter which he wrote on purpose, giving him all the marks of Friendship, not to wonder at S. Caelestine's and S. Cyril's Letters, but yet not to slight this affair, and advised him not to reject the term of the Mother of God, which several Holy Men had already made use of; and so much the rather, because this Dispute had al∣ready * 1.22 created great disturbances in the Church, and was likely to make greater, because he saw, that the West, Aegypt, and perhaps Macedonia, were determined to separate themselves, unless they were satisfied about it; That heretofore Theodorus of Mopsuesta had recanted the way of Expressi∣ons which he had used publickly, that he might not give an occasion of Scandal. Lastly, He says, that he did not invite him to make a shameful Retractation, but knowing that several Persons had heard him say, that he did not reject the Good Sense which might be given to this term, The Mother of God, and that he would willingly call her by that Name, if some Persons of Autho∣rity in the Church were of that Judgment; He exhorts him to use it, since no Ecclesiastical Au∣thor had condemned it, and several had used it. Nestorius answered John Bishop of Antioch, that * 1.23 many abusing the term of the Mother of God, and others not being willing to call the Virgin by any other term than the Mother of Man, he thought it safest to choose the term of the Mother of Christ.

Notwithstanding this, Saint Cyril called a Council in November, Anno. 430. in Aegypt. In it they resolved upon the Execution of the Judgment pronounced by the Western Bishops against * 1.24 Nestorius, and they deputed four of them to signifie it to him, with a Synodical Letter, that in case he did not revoke his Errors, and profess the Doctrine of the Church within the time pre∣scribed by S. Caelestine's Letter, he should be degraded from his Priesthood. This Letter is dated Nov. 3. Anno. 430. Saint Cyril joyned to it a Confession of Faith, which he would have him make, and his twelve famous Anathema's.

The Confession of Faith, which he propounded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him, was that of the Council of Nice, to which he added an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation more at large, to this Effect, That the Son of God was made Man, and born of a Virgin, yet without any change of the Natures, either of the Flesh into the Godhead, or of the Divine Nature into the Manhood, without any alteration or mixture; yet so, as that the Word being united with the Manhood by an Hypostatick Union, makes but one Christ; That we may not divide the two Natures, nor look upon them as united merely by an Union of Dignity, Authority, or Af∣fection; That we may not say, that he dwells in the Son of Mary as in another Man, nor call Jesus Christ a Man carrying a God; nor use these Expressions, nor any like them, I honour him who is invested with the Divine Nature, for his sake, who hath invested him with it; I adore the Invisible because of the Visible, &c. But we must acknowledge, that the Son of God hath suffered in his Visible Flesh, that he is Sacrificed for us, is Dead; and Lastly, That the Virgin having brought forth a God hypostatically United with the Manhood, ought to be Called the Mother of God. This long Confession of Faith (for the Articles which we have mentioned, are laid down at large) is attended with twelve Anathema's. * 1.25

The First is against him that doth not confess, that the Person, who in Isaiah is called Emanuel, i. e. Jesus Christ, is a true God, and that the Virgin is upon that account the Mother of God; because she brought into the World the Word incarnate according to the Flesh.

The Second is against him that doth not acknowledge, that the Word of the Father being hypo∣statically United to the Flesh makes one Jesus Christ with his Flesh, and that he is altogether God and Man.

The Third is against him, that divideth the Natures after the Union, or allows them only an Uni∣on of Dignity, Authority, and Power, and not a natural Union.

The Fourth is against those, who attribute that which is spoken of Christ in Holy Scripture, to God or Man separately.

The Fifth is against him, who calls Jesus Christ, a Man bearing-God, and not a true God, and the Natural Son of God, because being Incarnate he partakes of the same Flesh and Blood with us.

The Sixth is against him that asserts, that the Word of God is the God of Christ.

The Seventh is against him, who says, that Jesus Christ, as he was Man, was moved by the Word, and was cloathed with his Glory, as being a Person distinct from him.

The Eighth is against him who asserts, that we ought to Worship the Manhood with the Word, and will not give the same Adoration to Immanuel, i. e. to the Word Incarnate.

The Ninth is against him who says, that Jesus Christ did Miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by his own.

The Tenth is against him, who affirms, that it is not the Word that is our High-Priest and Apo∣stle, who was Sacrificed for us, but it is the Man, who dyed for himself, and for us.

The Eleventh is against him who denies, that the Flesh was the Living Flesh of the Word, but the Flesh of the Man united with the Godhead by a Moral Union, because it dwells, and inhabits in it.

The Twelfth is against him, who will not say, that the Word hath suffered truly in his Flesh, and that he dyed, and rose again according to the Flesh.

About this time also S. Cyril wrote his three Treatises about the Incarnation. One of which he dedicated to the Emperor, and the other two to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, in which * 1.26 he explains, and proves his Doctrine at large.

Before the Sentence of Caelestine, and S. Cyrill's Letter were signified to Nestorius, he fore-seeing the Storm, which was about to fall upon him, desired Theodosius, that he would call a Council. And since his Anger against the Monks of Constantinople, who were not of his Party, increased * 1.27 every Day more and more, they also petitioned, That a Council might be assembled, and in the sequel addressed the Emperor, praying him, That the Governor of Constantinople would restrain the Outrages committed against them, till the Matter were determined by a Council. Theodosius seeing, that a Council was desired by both sides, and believing it necessary to appease the Trou∣bles of the Church, appointed it at Ephesus on Pentecost in the following Year. The Circular Let∣ter, which he wrote to invite the Chief Metropolitans to it, bears date Nov. 19. Anno 430. In it * 1.28 he says, that it was his Duty to provide for the Peace and Welfare of the Church, to hinder, that it be not troubled with Schisms and Divisions, to provide that Religion be preserved in its Puri∣ty, and that the Clergy and Bishop live an unblameable Life. In this Letter he doth not alledge any particular Reason, which he called this Council, but only tells the Bishops, That it was for the Good of the Church, and that they that did not come to it, could not be excused neither before God nor Men.

The Fame of S. Austin induced the Emperor to require him in particular; and for that end wrote to him, although he was a Bishop but of a small City: But the Emperor's Letters not be∣ing received in Africa till about Easter, Anno 431. S. Austin was then dead, and the other African Bishop being encompassed with so many Enemies, could not come to the Council.

The Emperor wrote a Letter particularly to S. Cyril, to tell him, That he looked upon him as * 1.29 the Author of this Trouble, and therefore commanded him peremptorily to be present at the Council. He also particularly blamed him for disturbing the Church, creating Divisions in the Royal Family by writing to the Empresses severally, for meddling with an Affair that nothing concerned him; for acting imperiously, and imprudently.

Nestorius also wrote to S. Caelestine against S. Cyril, and informs him, That Theodosius had ap∣pointed * 1.30 a General Council, and prays him to accommodate the Differences which were between those, who called the Virgin the Mother of God, and those who would give her no other Title than the Mother of a Man, by calling her the Mother of Christ.

In the mean while the four Bishops, deputed by the Council of Alexandria to signifie to Nestorius the Judgment passed against him by the Synod of Rome, arrived at Constantinople, and delivered the Letter of the Council into his own Hands in the presence of his Clergy, Decemb. 7. Anno 430. which was the Lords-Day. He put off their Answer till the next Day; but when he saw what it contain'd, he would see them no more, but still continued to Preach after the same manner as he had done before. He sent John Bishop of Antioch a Copy of the Letter, Confession of Faith, and 12 Anathema's of S. Cyril's, and desired him to set some Person to write against them, and himself opposed 12 other Anathema's to them.

In the First, he pronounces Anathema against him that says, That he that is called Immanuel in Scripture, is a God only, and not a God dwelling with us; that is to say, United to our Nature, which he took of Mary, against him that calls the Virgin the Mother of God, and not of Immanuel, or that says, That the Word is changed into Flesh.

The Second, i•• against them that said, That by the Union of the Word and Flesh, the Godhead hath received some alteration or that it is united to the Flesh in part only; or that saith, That the Godhead and Manhood in Jesus Christ are of the same Nature.

The Third, is against those who said, That Jesus Christ is one Son only made of two Natures, without any Mixture.

The Fourth, is against them who take that which is spoken concerning the Person of Jesus Christ in Scripture, as agreeing to one Nature only, and so attribute the Sufferings to the Word of God.

The Fifth, is against those who dare affirm, That there is but one Jesus Christ according to Na∣ture.

The Sixth, is against him who gives the Word, who was Incarnate, any other Name than that of Christ, or who makes the Nature of Man to be Uncreated, as that of the Word is.

The Seventh, is against him that saith, That the Person, who was born of Mary, is the only Son of God, and are not contented to say, That he became the Son of God by an Union with the only Son of God.

The Eighth, is against him who believes, That we must honour the Form of a Servant for it self, and not because it is United with the Nature of the Word.

The Ninth, is against him that saith, That the Form of a Man in Jesus Christ, is Consubstantial with the Holy Spirit; and, That it had not the Power of doing Miracles by the Union that it had with the Word.

The Tenth, is against them who affirm, That the Word was sacrificed, and suffered for us, and not Immanuel.

The Eleventh, is against them who said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is enlivening of its own Nature as it is Flesh.

The Twelfth, is against them, who attribute to the Word the Sufferings of the Flesh of Jesus Christ.

These Anathema's of Nestorius being published at Constantinople, were confuted by Marius Mer∣cator, * 1.31 and John Bishop of Antioch caused Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret to write against S. Cyril's. He wrote also himself Circular Letters to condemn them.

The time for the assembling of the Council drawing nigh, the Bishops began their Journey to present themselves at Ephesus. S. Cyril went with almost 50 Bishops of Aegypt; and being landed at Rhodes, he wrote the News of it to his Clergy and People. He arrived at Ephesus five or six * 1.32 Days before Pentecost, which was that Year upon June 7. Nestorius also came about the same time with 10 Bishops. Juvenal also arrived with some Bishops of Palestine. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was obliged to assemble his Bishops to Antioch, who were almost 12 Days Journey distant from thence, and had above 30 Days Journey by the Land thither, could not get there so soon. He * 1.33 wrote a Letter of Excuse to S. Cyril, and assured him, that he would be at Ephesus within five or six Days.

The Emperor sent Count Candidian to the Council, that he might assist at it in his stead; not to meddle with Questions or Controversies, which concerned the Faith, but to drive away the Monks and Laity, which came to Ephesus in throngs, and might raise Disturbances there; To maintain the Order and Freedom of the Council without suffering any Heats or Contests; To hinder the Bishops from going from Ephesus to Court, or elsewhere; And to oblige them to define and determine the Questions in debate before they started any others. And this did the Letter * 1.34 sent to the Council declare to be the substance of his Commission, wherein 'tis also said, that shall not bring any Criminal, or Pecuniary against the Bishops of the Council, neither in the Council, nor before the Judges of Ephesus; And that he hath permitted Count Irenaeus, Nestorius's Friend, to accompany him, nevertheless without allowing him any Share in the Commission granted to Candidian.

Fifteen Days being past from the Day appointed for the Synod, the Eastern Bishops having * 1.35 also sent two Bishops, who had assured them, that the rest would soon be there, and that they would not take it ill, if the Council began without them. Saint Cyril, and Juvenal Bishop of Je∣rusalem, and the Bishops of Aegypt and Asia, met in the Great Church of S. Mary, Ju. 22. althô the Legats of the Holy See were not yet come; and notwithstanding the Opposition of 68 Bi∣shops, who required them to stay till the arrival of the Eastern and Western Bishops. Saint * 1.36 Cyril was President of this Council. We shall examine by and by, whether it was in his own, or in the Pope's Name. The Number of Bishops, if we may believe what they have written them∣selves, was near 200. The Orientals count but 50 out of Aegypt, 30 Asian Bishops, and some others. The Subscriptions make it * 1.37 evident, that there were 160 who signed it, because there were some of those, who at first opposed the holding of the Council, who did nevertheless joyn in it.

After Peter the Chief Notary had in a few Words declared the Cause of the calling of this Council, they made him read the Emperor's Circular Letter sent to the Metropolitans. After∣ward * 1.38 Memnon having observed, that there had sixteen Days passed since the day fixed by the Em∣perors Letter; Saint Cyril said, that it was high time to begin the Council, and required that such Papers should be read as were useful for that end, and chiefly, Candidian's Commission, which he had already perused; 'tis true, but he said after, that he did it against his Will, and to

know the Emperor's mind only, and not to begin the Council. But he demanded, that they should stay till the Eastern Bishops were arrived, saying, that it was the Emperor's design to make it a general † 1.39 Council, and not a particular and separate Assembly. But because they had no re∣gard to his advise, he retreated, and immediately entred his Protestation against the Council.

Saint Cyril and the other Bishops did not give over their Proceedings; and Theodorus Bishop of Ancyra having represented it as a thing necessary, to * 1.40 call Nestorius before they read any thing, three Bishops arose, and said, That Yesterday they had been with Nestorius, and the six or seven Bishops which were with him, and that they had advised them to come to the Council; but they could get no other answer from them, but this, That they would think of it, and would come to it, if they judged it convenient: Wherefore they sent others with a Summons in Writing to cite him to the Council. Florentius the Tribune, being accompanied with a Clerk of Nestorius's answered them, That he will come to the Council when all the Bishops are met. These Bishops having reported this answer to the Council, they sent other Bishops to cite him the third time, according to the Canons, but they were not suffered to enter into Nestorius's House, and they could get no other reason from the Guards that were at his Gate, but this, That they had Order to keep any Person from entring that came from the Synod. This being reported to the Coun∣cil, they began to enter upon the Discussion of their business. And after they had rehearsed the Nicene Creed, they read S. Cyril's second Letter to Nestorius, which was unanimously approved by them; The answer of Nestorius to it being also read, was rejected, and they pronounced an Anathema against it, and the Author of in They caused also S. Caelestine's Letter, S. Cyril's third Letter, and his Anathema's to be read. Then they heard the Testimony of Theodotus of Ancyra, who deposed, that since he was at Ephesus, he had heard Nestorius say, That it was an Impious Assertion, to say, That a God could be an Infant of two or three Months Old. Acacius also, Bishop of Melitina, averred that he heard one of the Bishops, which were of Nestorius's company say, That be that suffered for us, was a distinct Person from the Word. After these Testimonies, they produced many passages of the ancient Fathers, and several pieces of Nestorius's Writings. They also read the Letter of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, brought by Bessulas his Deacon; wherein he tells the Council, that the state of the African Church was such, that he could not call a Synod to choose Deputies for the Council; and that they were so beset with their Enemies, that it was impossible for them to get to it; That the Emperor's Letter came not to them till Easter, and if they had had free passage, they could not have got to the Council so soon; so that he was contented to send his Deacon Bessulas with a Letter of Excuse, but did conjure them not to suffer any Novelty to Creep into the Church, and to confirm the ancient Doctrine, and the Catholick Faith.

The Council judging Nestorius sufficiently convicted by these Records, which they had read, pronounced Sentence against him in these words:

The Most Impious Heretick Nestorius refusing to appear at our Citation, and not suffering the Holy Bishops, which we sent to him, to enter into his House, we were obliged to examine his Cause; and having convicted him of dispersing and teaching an Impious Doctrine, as hath been proved, as well by his Letters, and other Writings, as by the Sermons which he hath Preached in this Metropolis, which hath been con∣firmed by sufficient. Testimonies, we have been forced, according to the Letter of S. Caelestine Bishop of Rome, to pronounce against him this heavy Sentence, which we cannot do but with grief; Our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom Nestorius hath Blasphemed, declares him by this Synod deprived of his Episcopal Dignity, and separated from the Communion of the * 1.41 Episcopal Order.

So that Nestorius was cited twice in one Day, his Cause examined, his Letters and Writings read and rejected, the Letters and Writings of S. Cyril approved, Witnesses heard, and the Con∣demnation of Nestorius pronounced by 200 Bishops, or thereabouts, at one Session only. It is true, it lasted a long time, for S. Cyril observes in a Letter, that they met very early in the Morning, and made an end very late by Candle-light.

The next day the Sentence pronounced against Nestorius by the Synod was signified to him, by * 1.42 a Letter from the Council. In the Direction of it he is called, Another Judas. As soon as this was done, they wrote in the name of the Synod to the Emperor, and Clergy of Constantinople. Saint Cyril wrote also in his own Name to the Clergy of Constantinople, and Alexandria, and sent the Emperor the Acts of the Council.

Nestorius was not idle on his part, but wrote a Letter to the Emperor in his own Name, and in the Name of 16 Bishops, who signed his Letter, that being come to Ephesus, according to the Orders of the Emperor to be present at the Council, he waited for the Bishops, who were to come thither from all parts, and particularly for the Bishop of Antioch, and the Metropolitans of his Diocese; as also for the Bishops that were come out of Italy and Sicily. But perceiving that the Aegyptians were very impatient under this delay, believing that they did it out of design, they had offered to come to the Synod, if Count Candidian would cite them to it, but he would not do it, because he had heard that John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops would soon come. Nevertheless the Bishops of Aegypt and Asia, would hold a Council alone, and had filled the City with trouble; That Memnon Bishop of this City had granted them the Great Church for this tumultuous Assembly to meet in, although he had denied them the Licence to go into S. John's Church. He desires the Emperor to give Orders, that they be not wronged and abused, and that they Celebrate a Lawful Council, not allowing any Monk or Lay-man, nor any Bishop not Sum∣moned to be present at it, but only two of the most Eminent and Learned, chosen out of every

Province, or if he did not think it 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to permit them to return 〈◊〉〈◊〉 again 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Candidian al∣so sent the Emperor a Relation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had passed, much like the Account Nestorius had given him; He also gave the Council Notice, that be had written to him, and made his Declaration against the meeting of the Council•• and Ordered, that they should wait for the arrival of John Bishop of Antioch.

Five days after the Deposition of Nestorius, John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bi∣shops arrived. They were but 26, which being joyned with the 10 Bishops which were with * 1.43 Nestorius, made but 36 in all, if we believe S. Cyril's Relation. Nevertheless in the Subscrip∣tions of their Letters we find more than 50 set down by their Names, and the Names of their Cities. The Council sent some Bishops to meet John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him not to Communicate with Nestorius, who was deposed. But John Bishop of Antioch was so far from harkening to them, that as soon as he arrived, he held a Council * 1.44 in the place of his Abode. Here Candidian declared, that he had done all he could to hinder the Bishops, who were assem∣bled with Cyril and Memnon, from doing any thing before the coming of the Eastern Bishops; That they had required of him, that they might read the Emperor's Letters, saying, They knew not the Emperor's Orders that he had done it against his Will merely to prevent any Se∣dition, but at his departure he had admonished them to do nothing rashly; but not having re∣gard to his advise, they had done what they pleased; after they had driven him out of the Coun∣cil, and refused to hear the Bishops which Nestorius had sent to them. He then read the Emperor's Letter, and when that was done, John Bishop of Antioch demandad, if he done any thing more. He said, That they had Deposed Nestorius, and had published and fastened up his Deposition. John Bishop of Antioch went on, and asked him, If it were done regularly; if Nestorius were pre∣sent, and Convected; or whether he was Condemned without being heard. Candidian answered, that it was all transacted without Examination, and contrary to the Rules. Candidian having given this Testimony, he went out. The Bishops accused Memnon of shutting up the Churches against them, and S. Cyril of reviving the Error of Arius and Nestorius in his twelve Chapters. Upon this Accusation they pronounce the Sentence of Deposition against S. Cyril and Memnon; and Excommunicated all those who had Communion with them, till they should confess the Faith of the Council of Nice without adding any thing to it; pronouncing Anathema against S. Cyril's Chapters, and obeying the Emperor's Orders, who Commanded them to examine this Question without tumult and noise. This Sentence was signified to the Bishops, against whom it was gi∣ven; and because they minded it not, they protested against Cyril and Memnon, because they still held a Council after they were deposed, and contrary to the prohibition of Candidian. These Bishops immediately sent the Emperor word by Writing what they had done. There were two remarkable Circumstances in this Letter. The first, That S. Cyril had written to John Bishop of Antioch two days before the beginning of the Synod, that he would stay till he came. The Second, That they could not get thither sooner, because of the length and tiresomness of the Voyage, which they were forced to make by Land. They wrote also to the Clergy, Senate, and People of Constantinople, to the Empresses, and to the People of Hierapolis.

The Relation of Candidian being received at Constantinople first, Theodosius ordered, that all that had been done by S. Cyril's Synod, should be looked upon as Null and Void, and that the whole Council should proceed to a new Judgment; forbidding the Bishops to go from Ephesus, till he had sent some of his Officers to the Synod to know how things had passed there. This is the Subject of the Emperor's Letter, dated June 19, brought to Ephesus by Palladius. This was sig∣nified to the Bishops of both sides. Saint Cyril, and the Bishops of his Party answered, that Can∣didian had not given a true Relation of things to the Emperor, and desired him to send for him to Constantinople with five Bishops of the Council, that he might be informed of the truth of all their Proceedings. This Letter was not subscribed by all the Bishops, because Palladius, who was to carrry it, was very urgent to be gone.

John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party wrote also by this Palladius to the Empe∣ror; and having related all that had passed a second time, they prayed him, that only two Bi∣shops out of every Province should be allowed to be at the Synod with their Metropolitan. They also complained, that the Church of S. John had been shut against them; insomuch that they were forced to pray abroad, and had been abused in their return. Lastly, They humbly implore the Emperor to remove Cyril and Memnon, the heads of this Persecution from Ephesus. A little after they sent Count Irenaeus, to whom they give another Relation against Saint Cyril, concerning the Violence, which they pretend he had done them, by keeping them out of S. Paul's Church, by throwing of Stones at them. They also gave him Letters to the Governor of Con∣stantinople, and to the Officers of the Emperor, that they would maintain their Cause. Nestorius wrote also in his own Name to an Eunuch of the Emperor, that he did not refuse to call the Virgin Mary, The Mother of God, provided that they would condemn the Error of Apollinaris, which is maintained by S. Cyril.

July 10. Philip and Arcadius Legats of the Church of Rome, arrived at Ephesus, and joyning themselves with S. Cyril and his Synod, according to their Instructions, by which they were or∣dered * 1.45 to act in conjunction with him, they held a Session the same Day, in which they read S. Coelestine's Letter, dated May 8. first in Latin, and after in Greek, which shews us, that 'twas the Custom to read the Letters of the Holy See in the Tongue wherein they were written. The

Substance of it was this, that the Holy Spirit is present in Synods, and all Bishops being the Apo∣stles Successors are obliged to maintain and defend the Doctrine, which they have received from them, and to imitate the Zeal and Vigilance of their Predecessors; that they ought to have the same Spirit as they have but one Faith; that the Question in hand obliges them to arm themselves with a fresh Zeal, because the Person of Jesus Christ is endangered by it; That he hopes, that He, who hath united the Synagogue, and the Church, will re-unite the Minds of Christians, re∣store the Churches Peace, and make the Truth and Ancient Faith to Triumph; He exhorts them to continue in that Love so much commended by S. John, whose Reliques they have among them; that they Ought to pray to God with one Heart and Voice, that he would direct them by the Light of his Holy Spirit, and give them Courage to defend the Word of God zealously, and procure the Peace of the Church. Lastly, He tells them, that he sent them the Bishops Ar∣cadius and Projectus, and Philip a Priest, to be present at all the transactions of the Council, and put in execution what he had already ordained. After this Letter was read, the Legats of S. Cae∣lestine demanded, that they would communicate to them the Acts of what was already done, which was granted them. We find at the end of this Act two other Letters of S. Caelestine's, the one of which is directed to Theodosius, and the other to S. Cyril. He exhorts the former to pro∣tect the ancient Faith, and he answers to the Latter who had consulted him, whether he might still receive Nestorius, the time which he had fixed for his Retractation, being passed; He an∣swers him, I say, That We must always receive a Sinner, whensoever he returns, and that We must endeavour to appease the troubles raised in the Church. He tells him likewise, that he earnestly desired, that Nestorius might repent, and that he may be again received. These two Letters bear date, the one May 7. and the other May 15.

The next day they met, to read over again the Acts of the first Session of Council to Caelestine's * 1.46 Legats. When they heard them, they approved them, gave their Judgment against Nestorius, and subscribed his Condemnation. When this was done, they framed a Letter to the Emperor, wherein they tell him, that the Legats of the Bishop of Rome had assured them, that all the We∣stern Churches agreed with them in their Doctrine, and had condemned with them the Doctrine and Person of Nestorius. So that this Matter being thus ended as the Emperor desired it for the benefit of the Church, and of the Faith, they desired him to give them leave to withdraw, to secure them from the Persecution they were threatned with, and suffer them to ordain a Bishop at Constantinople in the room of Nestorius. They wrote at the same time to the Clergy and Peo∣ple of Constantinople, to exhort them to put some Person into the See of Constantinople in the place of Nestorius, lately Deposed by the Council for his Impious Doctrine.

The Judgment of Nestorius being thus finished, Cyril and Memnon cast about them how they * 1.47 might provide against the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against them by the Eastern Bishops. The Council therefore being assembled the fourth time, on July 16th Cyril and Memnon presented a Petition against John Bishop of Antioch, wherein they say, That the Council being assembled in the City of Ephesus to confirm the Faith of the Church, and to condemn the Heresie lately invented by Nestorius, had acted Regularly, and in the usual forms; That they had cited Nesto∣rius three times to render a Reason of his Doctrine; but this Heretick refusing to appear, the Council had attentively examined his Writings, and had Condemned him according to the Rules of the Church-discipline; That after this Judgment given, and an Account of it sent to the Em∣peror, John Bishop of Antioch had come to Ephesus, where he Assembled himself with the Bishops of Nestorius's Opinion, of whom some were Deposed, and others were Bishops only in Name, having no See, and that in this Assembly, which had no Authority to judge any Man, he deli∣berately pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, although he could not do it, the Bi∣shop, whom he principally pretended to judge, being in a See Superior to his own. But yet al∣though he might have undertaken this Judgment, yet he ought to have followed the Canons and Rules of the Church, to have admonished them, and cited them before the Council; but con∣temning all these Rules, he had rashly and inconsiderately, pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, immediately after his arrival, without letting them know for what reason he con∣demned them; That it was a matter of consequence not to suffer the Laws of the Church to be despised; That one Bishop dared to do such things to another, who ought to have the precedence; That he would not dare to attempt the like against the meanest Person of the Clergy; These Considerations forced them to desite the Council to Summon John and his Associates, to give an Account of their behaviour before the Synod. Hesychius, Juvenal's Deacon read this Petition, and Juvenal presided upon this Occasion, because S. Cyril taking upon him the Person of an Accuser, could not preside in it, nor his Notary give his Opinion in it.

The Synod having respect to the Demand of S. Cyril and Memnon, sent twice some Bishops to John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party, but they were not suffered to enter; and the only Answer which was made them, was, that they would not have any thing to do with Persons which they had Excommunicated. Then the Council pronounced, that all that had been done against Cyril and Memnon, was Null, and ordered, that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited a third time, and if he did not appear, he should be condemned.

The same Day John caused an Abusive Libel to be fastned in a publick Place, not only against Cyril and Memnon, but also against all the Bishops of their Council, declaring Cyril and Memnon Deposed for Heresie, and the other Bishops Excommunicate for favouring them, till they should forsake them, and re-unite themselves with the Eastern Bishops.

The next Day the Council being assembled again, S. Cyril made his Report concerning the Li∣bel of John Bishop of Antioch, and declared that he Condemned Arius, Apollinaris, and the other Hereticks, as well as Nestorius, and the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius. Whereupon he re∣quired that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited the third time. And they sent three Bishops and a Notary to him. John Bishop of Antioch received them by his Arch-Deacon, who would, have given them a Paper as from the Council, but they declared that they came not to receive any * 1.48 Paper, but to cite John Bishop of Antioch. This Arch-Deacon went to tell his Bishop so, and be∣ing returned, presented them again with his Paper; and because they would not receive it, he said to them, Let No body come from you, and we will send No body from our side; we have sent our Resolutions to the Emperor, and we wait his Orders, to know what we shall do. The Bishop in∣sisting upon it, and desiring him to hear what the Synod had given them in Charge to say, He answered, You have refused to receive the Paper which I have tendered to you, and I will not hear the Orders of your Synod. This being said, he withdrew himself. The Bishops told Asphalius and Alexander the Priest the Reason of their coming, and then returned to give the Synod a Relation of the whole Matter, who declared John Bishop of Antioch, and the 36 Bishops his Adherents to be separated from the Communion of the Church, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what they had done, praying him to confirm it by his Authority, and consent to all that they had done. They also wrote a Synodical Letter to S. Caelestine, in which they relate all that had passed at Ephesus; and tell him, That they had read and approved his Synodical Decrees against the Paelagians and Caelestians in the Council. He sent him also a Copy of the Acts of the Council. This Act was concluded with a Sermon preached by S. Cyril at Ephesus, against John Bishop of Antioch.

The Eastern Bishops on their side wrote to the Emperor, that Cyril and Memnon having been Deposed by their Synod, could not be absolved by Bishops Excommunicated; and they prayed the Emperor to send for them to Constantinople, or at lest to Nicomedia, and not to permit any Metropolitan to bring more than two Bishops of his Province, because a great Multitude is only fit to cause disturbance; That their Adversaries had brought with them a great number of Bi∣shops, contrary to the Intentions and Orders of the Emperor; That as for themselves they had obeyed them exactly, by bringing only three Bishops out of each Province, and had sent no Bi∣shop to Court, as their adversaries had done, but contented themselves with writing to him, be∣cause they would not disobey his Orders. They sent this Letter by Count Ireraeus.

The 6th Session of the Council was held July 22. Because the Eastern Bishops accused the Bi∣shops of the Council of introducing another Creed, besides that of the Council of Nice, they read * 1.49 it in this Session, declared their approbation of it in general, and owned that it contained a Sound and Orthodox Doctrine. But they added, that several Persons, who pretended to acknowledge it, putting false Interpretations upon it, they had been forced to produce the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, to discover the true meaning of it. Then they read over again the Testimonies of the Fathers, which they had quoted already at the Condemnation of Nestorius. This done, that they might fasten the Reproach which was laid upon them, upon their Adversaries themselves, they caused Charisius a Priest, and a Steward of the Church of Philadelphia, to present a Petition a∣painst one James a Priest, a Friend of Nestorius, accusing him for making the Quartodecimans, who returned to the Communion of the Church, to sign a Confession of Faith different from the Nicene Creed, and full of Heresie. He alledged that form of Faith, which M. Mercator attri∣butes to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, although there be not the least word spoken of it in that Session, that, among other things, maintains, That the Holy Spirit hath not derived his Subsistence from the Son, that we Adore the Son of Man in Jesus Christ, because of its inseparable Union with the Word; That there is but one Son, which is the Word, to whom the Manhood being insepa∣rably joyned, partakes of his Dignity, and is called God, and Lord after a particular manner. This Creed, and the Names of those that signed it being read, the Council made this famous Declaration.

That it is not allowable to any Person whatsoever, to Alledge, Write, or make a Different Creed from that which was made by the Holy Fathers Assembled at Nice; and that all those, who are so audacious as to make, or alledge, or offer any other to be signed by such, as turn themselves, or are converted to the Church, whether they be Jews, Pagans, or Here∣ticks, if they be Bishops or Clergy-men, they shall be degraded from their Dignity; and if they are Lay-men, they shall be accursed.

Then they read the Extracts of Nestorius, and Peter the Chief-Notary observed, that he owned, that he was the first that had spoken in that manner. This Act concluded with a Sermon of S. Cyril.

The Council having nothing more to regulate concerning Doctrine. In the 7th Action, which was held July ult. (It is in the Acts Pridie Calendarum Sept. but it ought to be read Pridic Ca∣lend. * 1.50 Aug. for this day was past before Count John arrived, and S. Cyril was seized) they dis∣cussed matters of Discipline. Rheginus, Zeno, and Evagrius Bishops of Cyprus presented a Petition to the Council against the Bishops of Antioch, complaining that the Bishops of Antioch endeavoured to make the Bishops of the Isle of Cyprus subject to their Jurisdiction, and that the Bishop of Con∣stantia, Metropolitan of Cyprus, being lately Dead, the Bishop of Antioch had obtain'd Letters from Dionysius the Prefect, directed to Theodorus Governor of the Isle, prohibiting them from Ordaining a Bishop in that City without the Permission of the Council of Ephesus. These two Letters were read, and the Bishops of Cyprus having shewn, that it was the design of John Bishop of Antioch, to Ordain the Bishop of Constantia, they asked them if it were the Custom; and being answered,

that it was never practised, the Synod ordered, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, the Bishops of Cyprus should enjoy their Ancient Rights, and Ordan the Bishop of Constan∣tia, according to their Ancient Custom.

On the occasion of this business they made this gene∣ral Rule, That the Ancient Custom should be observed in all the Provinces, and that no Bishop should attempt to bring under his Jurisdiction, a Province which hath not heretofore been sub∣ject to him, nor his Predecessors, and that if any one hath endeavoured it, or hath kept any Province by force, he shall be forced to resign it, and restore it to him to whom it belongs, that the Canons be not Violated, and Haughtiness of Worldly Power may not creep into the Church, under the pretence of the Priesthood, and so we lose the Liberty, which Jesus Christ hath pur∣chased for us by his Blood; He who is the Saviour of all Men.

In this Act they also made six Canons, which contain nothing extraordinary concerning Disci∣pline. In them they order only, That the Bishops which are, or shall be joyned to Nestorius, shall be Deposed. They Decree the same Punishment against those that embrace the Doctrine of Ne∣storius or Caelestius, or that Communicate with Persons Excommunicated or Deposed, or who shall Contemn or Abuse that which is done by the Synod. On the otherside, they restored them who have been Excommunicated or Deposed by Nestorius: And they enjoyned all the Clergy, not to obey those Bishops who have or shall embrace the Nestorian Party.

The Synod also in this Act granted a Letter in favour of Eustatius, who having been Ordained Metropolitan of Pamphylia; and finding himself oppressed with troubles, was brought by some Cunning Intrigue to give a Writing, wherein he renounced it. The Council ordered, that althô Theodorus had been Ordained in his place, yet he should enjoy the Name and Dignity of a Bishop. Nevertheless with this Charge, that he should not Ordain, nor Administer Sacraments by his own Authority in any Church.

In the same Act they confirmed the Synodical Decree of Sisinnius, against the Messalians or Eu∣chitae, and Ordain'd, that they who would not Subscribe the Form of the Faith composed by this Synod, should be Excommunicated or Deposed. They also defend their Book, concerning an Ascetiek or Monastick Life.

Lastly, Euprepius of Byza, and Arcadiople, and Cyril Bishop of Cele, desired them to preserve the Antient Custom of the Province of Europe, in which one Bishop had several Cities in his Diocese. The Council Ordain'd, that there should be no Innovations in this Case, but the Churches should still be Governed as they were heretofore.

While these things were transacting at Ephesus, it was strongly debated at Constantinople, what they should do, about what had passed on both sides there. The Lot of all was, as I may say, in the Emperor's hands, and the Success of the Council depended upon the Resolutions taken at Court. The Council sent three Bishops to him, the Eastern Bishops contented themselves to send Count Irenaeus only. He arrived there but three days after the Deputies of the Council, who had prepared their minds to favour them. But when Irenaeus was come, he appeared before the Emperor in the presence of the Deputies of the Council, and did so much that he had almost persuaded the Emperor to think, that the Synod held by S. Cyril ought not to be accounted a Lawful Council; so that he had almost confirmed the Decrees of the Eastern Bishops, and Ba∣nished S. Cyril. But John, the Emperor's Physician, and a Friend of S. Cyril being come in, quite changed the state of things by engaging the greatest part of the Ministers, some of whom were of an Opinion, that what was done on both sides, was Lawful; others thought, that it was ne∣cessary to declare all Null, and to send for some Bishops, who were unconcerned, to examine the Matters of Faith, and all that passed at Ephesus. In this difficulty Theodosius took their part who approved of the Deposition of Nestorius, as also of S. Cyril and Memnon; upon the account of Factious Combining, and conspiring one against another; being persuaded, that as to what con∣cerned the Faith, that had all Orthodox Sentiments, and all agreed in the Doctrine of the Ni∣cene Council. In this he followed the Judgment of Acacius of Beraea, who wrote it to the Sy∣nod. The Emperor being thus determined, he wrote to the Bishops of the Council, and sent Count John to put this Order in Execution; and to re-unite all the Bishops in one Council, ha∣ving removed Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon.

John was no sooner come to Ephesus, but he commanded the Bishops of both Parties to come to him at his Inn. John, Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius came thither, accompanied with the Bi∣shops of his Party, and S. Cyril with his. There was none but Memnon who was missing. Imme∣diately there arose a contest among them. The Aegytian Bishops maintain'd that Nestorius ought not to be present at the Reading of the Emperor's Letter, and that S. Cyril ought, but John Bi∣shop of Antioch, and his Party held the contrary. This Dispute having continued a long time, Count John compelled Nestorius and S. Cyril to withdraw: And then he read the Emperor's Let∣ter to the other Bishops; and told them, that it was the Emperor's Will, that Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon should be Deposed. John Bishop of Antioch's Party consented to it, but the others maintained, that S. Cyril and Memnon ought not to be looked upon as Deposed. Count John to prevent the trouble that was likely to ensue, committed Nestorius to the Custody of Count Can∣didian, and S. Cyril to Count James's, and sent Memnon word of his Sentence of Deposition; and having sent for him, also put him in Custody to Count James, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what he had done; telling him, That the Minds of the Bishops seemed so much ex∣asperated one against another, that he could find no means to reconcile them.

The Eastern Bishops gave Count John a Letter to send to the Emperor. In it they desired; that he would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Cyril's 12 Chapters, and that he would be contented to have the Ni∣cene Creed without any Additions signed by them. They wwrote also to Acacius, and sent a Sy∣nodical Letter to the Clergy and People of Antioch, wherein they bragged that it was reported, that all they had done was confirmed by the Emperor's Authority. These Letters are in Lupus's Collection, Chapt. 17, 18, and 19.

The Bishops of the Council on their part wrote also to the Emperor, to complain of his Sen∣tence, and to assure him, that they wondered at his Religion, who was persuaded that S. Cyril and Memnon had been justly Condemned. They told him at the same time, that they would not communicate with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius, and earnestly besought him to release S. Cyril and Memnon; and that he would get information of the whole affair from Persons unsuspected. They wrote also to the Bishops which were at Constantinople, and to the Clergy of that Church, complaining of the ill Usage they met withal, and that they underwent many hardships by being kept at Ephesus. Wherefore they desired them to pray the Emperor to free them from that Prison, and to remove them to Constantinople, or send them home to their own Churches again. They represent the sad condition that they were in, in the Me∣moir, which they sent to the Abbot Dalmatius. Saint Cyril also wrote himself to the Clergy, and People of Constantinople, and to the three Aegyptian Bishops residing there. The Letter of the Council with the Relation was carried by * 1.51 a Beggar in † 1.52 his Staff; this was delivered to Dalma∣tius, who was an Abbot in great reputation for Sanctity, who presented it to the Emperor, to whom he was well known. He also read the Letter of the Council to the People of Constantinople, and the People cryed out Anathema to Nestorius. The Clergy of Constantinople presented a Petition to the Emperor, in the behalf of S. Cyril and Memnon. Dalmatius, and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, gave the Council an Account of what they had done by Letter. In fine, the Emperor resolved, and Ordered. That they should send some Bishops of both sides to Constantinople, that the Affair might be terminated by the cognizance of the Cause. There were eight Deputed by each side. On the Councils side, Philip a Priest, the Pope's Legat, with these Bishops, Arcadius, who was also a Legat for the Holy See, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Phillippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. The Commission which the Council gave them, was, That they should de∣mand the Restauration of S. Cyril and Memnon; and that they should not re unite with John, and the Bishops of his Party, till they had Subscribed the Condemnation of Nestorius, begged Par∣don for what they had done, and S. Cyril and Memnon were restored. With these Instructions the Council gave them a Letter to the Emperor, for the justification of S. Cyril and the Council. The Eastern Bishops sent also eight Deputies, viz. John Bishop of Antioch, John Bishop of Da∣mascus, Himerius Bishop of Nicomedia, Paul Bishop of Emesa, Macarius Bishop of Laodicea, Aprin∣gius Bishop of Chalcis, and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, † 1.53 They were left at Liberty to act as they saw convenient, but they recommended it to them to endeavour to make S. Cyril's twelve Chap∣ters should be rejected as Heretical. The Emperor, a little after, gave a Second Order, com∣manding, That Nestorius should withdraw into his Monastry, and that Cyril and Memnon should continue in restraint till their Cause was examined. The Praefect wrote to Nestorius, that he might retire to his Monastry, and that he had taken Order, that he should be furnished with Carriages. Nestorius received this Order with a seeming Joy, and told the Praefect, That he ac∣counted this Order of the Emperor a Kindness, believing nothing more honourable than to be forced to retreat for the defence of Religion; but he pray'd him to take effectual care, that the Emperor do condemn S. Cyril's Chapters by his Publick Letters. This Retirement of Nestorius discovered, that there was no hopes of his Restauration, as that the Cause of the others was yet dubious.

The Deputies arrived at Chalcedon about the end of August, where they received an Order to stay, for they could not come to Constantinople because of the disturbances which the Monks raised. From hence the Deputies of the Eastern Bishops sent a Petition to the Emperor, wherein they desired, that he would not allow any other Confession of Faith, but that of the Council of Nice; and that he would be Judge of the Contests between them, and that they might set down their Reasons on both sides in Writing; Or at least, if he were not at leisure to examine this af∣fair, that he would dismiss all the Bishops to their Dioceses. They complained also, in this Memoir, of the attempts of Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, upon Phaenicia and Arabia. But they said, that they would not have any thing done against him for Peace sake, and for fear of troubling the Church with Personal Contests.

The Emperor a little after came to his Country-House near Chalcedon, and sent for the Depu∣ties * 1.54 to him, and heard them with an abundance of Patience. The Legats for the Eastern Bishops thought they had an Advantage: And therefore spake against S. Cyril's Chapters, and accused Acacius of having said, that the Godhead was passible; and did so much by their Insinuations, that the Emperor and his Council seemed favourable to them. The Bishops of S. Cyril's Party spake more modestly, and contented themselves to intreat the Emperor to send for S. Cyril, that he may give an Account himself both of his Faith and Conduct. The Emperor propounding it to both sides, to deliver him their Judgment in Writing, the Deputies for the Eastern Bishops said, That they had no other Confession of Faith, but that of the Nicene Council, wherefore they

Signed that, and presented it to him. They wrote all that had passed to the Bishops of their Party, who in their Answer shew the great Joy that they had for the good Success they were likely to have; telling them, that their Adversaries domineered as before, Judged, Caused, sent their Sentences of Deposition every where, Ordained Bishops, and disturbed the Churches. They exhort their Deputies to oppose Novel Opinions courageously, and to insist upon the Condemna∣tion of S. Cyril's Chapters. They joyned to this Letter a Petition to the Emperor in which they give him thanks for his favourable reception of their Deputies, and implore him not to suffer them, who are Condemned for nothing but rejecting S, Cyril's Heretical Chapters, to remain un∣der Condemnation.

While both Parties waited for the Success of this Affair, Men's minds were much divided at Constantinople; the People heard the Eastern Bishops very favourably; They Preached and Prayed not in the Churches, for they could not be admitted into them, but in an House; On the con∣trary, the Clergy and Monks were very much exasperated against them. The Emperor, who had at first favoured them, began by little and little to be disaffected to them. He propounded it to them to receive Cyril and Memnon, but they would not agree to that Proposition; and when they attempted to speak to him of Nestorius, he would not suffer them: His Council was absolutely engaged. Acacius Bishop of Beraea in a Letter Printed in Lupus's Collection, Ch. 41, accuses Saint Cyril of changing the Judgment of the Court, by bribing the Eunuch Scholasticus with Money; and says, That this Eunuch being Dead, and having left a great deal of Money, the Emperor found an Account of several Sums of Gold received of S. Cyril, which were conveyed to him by Paul S. Cyril's Nephew. But we have little reason to believe what Acacius Bishop of Beraea says, because he was none of S. Cyril's Friend: But 'tis ever manifest, that the Emperor changed his mind in a very short time, and resolved all on the sudden to have another Bishop Ordained at Constantinople. Wherefore he carried the Deputies of the Council along with him to Constantino∣ple, that they might Ordain a Bishop. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops hearing this, sent a Petition to the Emperor, in which having accused their Adversaries of Rebelling always against the Orders of the Emperor; they tell him, that being Summoned to Chalcedon, they had requested first of all, that they would keep close to the Nicene Creed, and reject the Heretical Chapters of S. Cyril; that being cited a second time, they were ordered to discourse of those things that were in Controversie; and as they prepared themselves for this Dispute, they heard, that his Majesty was returned, and had carried along with him to Constantinople the Deposed and Ex∣communicated Bishops, to make them celebrate the Sacraments, and Ordain a Bishop, and had left them at Chalcedon, them, who had never attempted any thing but for the defence of the Faith; That they thought themselves obliged to tell him, that if he allowed Hereticks to Ordain a Bishop at Constantinople, before their Doctrines were Examined, he would infallibly create a Schism, be∣cause it will never be endured; That Communion be kept with Hereticks, and that not only the Eastern, but also all the Churches of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thracia, Illyria, and Italy, will never admit of the Heretical Doctrine of Cyril.

The only answer that the Emperor gave them, was, That he permitted them, and the other Bishops that were at Ephesus, to return to their Dioceses. As soon as they received this Order, they presented a third Petition, in which they speak with a great deal of Freedom. They com∣plain, That having been cited to confirm the Faith of their Ancestors, they were kept at Chalce∣don, and sent back again without doing any thing; that he had favoured them who had ever been rebellious against his Orders, and so had raised these Troubles; That he ought to think, that the Eastern Bishops are his Subjects as well as others; That he ought to protect the Faith into which he had been Baptized, and for which the Martyrs have poured out their Blood; That Faith, with which he had conquered the Barbarians, and which was necessary to subdue Africk; That the Church would be rent in pieces, if he suffered S. Cyril's Doctrine to be setled; That they were obliged to put him in mind, how much he would offend God, if he suffered persons of Heretical Opinions to perform the Offices of Priests; That they were much troubled to see, that the great∣est part of the People, who are now of Orthodox Sentiments, will by this means be infected with Heresie; That their Duty obliged them to admonish him of these things; and to pray him earnest∣ly to put them in order; That if he did it not, they had discharged their Conscience, and do pro∣test against them that this fault may not fall upon them. This Petition did not change the Empe∣rors mind, insomuch that they were forced to beg of him themselves that he would permit them to withdraw, which they obtain'd. At their departure they wrote to the Eastern Bishops, how things had passed.

The Result of the Emperors Judgment was, That Nestorius was justly deposed; That S. Cyril and Memnon should keep their Sees; That all the Bishops should return again to their Churches; That neither of them both are Hereticks; And that they should be exhorted to reunite. These are the Contents of the Emperors Letter to the Bishops assembled at Ephesus, published by M. Cote∣lerius, and put by M. Baluzius into his Collection of Councils. The Emperor tells them, That desiring nothing so much as the Peace of the Church, he had done his utmost endeavour to hinder their Disagreement, and to reunite them again; but not being able to bring that about, nor to make them hold a Conference about the Doctrines of Faith, he had ordered, that the Eastern Bishops should return into their own Country, that S. Cyril should go to Alexandria again, and that Memnon should remain at Ephesus; and that as long as he lived, he would not condemn the

Eastern Bishops, they not being convicted of any Errour, and no Body caring to enter the Lists with them. That if they desired Peace, they might write to him; but if they yet stood out; they had nothing to do but to return home. Thus the Council of Ephesus ended. S. Cyril re∣turned to Alexandria; and arrived there Octob. 30. Nestorius retired into the Monastry of Eu∣prepius at Antioch; and Octob. 25. Maximian was Ordain'd in his place by the Bishops, which were at Constantinople, four Months after the Deposition of Nestorius. This Maximian was a Monk, who was thought worthy to be made a Priest, and was accounted a very pious Man, though not learned. The Synod which Ordain'd him, communicated it to the Bishops of Epirus, to S. Caele∣stine and S. Cyril. He wrote also himself to these two last. The Emperor wrote for him to the Pope. S. Cyril returned an Answer to the Synod, and Maximian. Caelestine wrote four Letters, the first to the Emperor, the second to the Synod that Ordained Maximian, the third to Maxi∣mian, and the last to the Clergy of Constantinople. He shewed much Joy that Nestorius was con∣demned, and said that he earnestly desired that Peace might be restored. He prays the Emperor chiefly to endeavour it. These Letters are dated March 25. Anno 432.

The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops, who were at Chalcedon, wrote also before their depar∣ture to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, to engage Illyria. This Bishop was not at the Council of Ephe∣sus, but on the one side Flavian Bishop of Philippi had assumed the Title of his Deputy, so on the part of the Eastern Bishops Julian Bishop of Sardica sate in the Council, and had received a Letter from Rufus, who recommended the defence of the Faith of the Council of Nice to him, and not to suffer any Novelty to be introduced. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops made use of this Op∣portunity to write to Rufus, that they have resisted the Doctrine of S. Cyril's Chapters, and would not consent that any thing should be added to the Nicene Creed: That they had for this Reason condemned S. Cyril and Memnon; the one as an Heretick, and the other as a Favourer of Heresie, and have Excommunicated those, who defend them till they should condemn S. Cyril's Chapters, and profess the Faith of the Nicene Council: That all the Lenity, which they had used, could do no good with them, but still these Bishops continued to maintain these Heretical Doctrines, and therefore had made themselves subject to the punishment inflicted by the Canons, and particularly by the fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch. Then they accused S. Cyril for being of the Judg∣ment of Arius and Apollinaris, and attributing that to the Godhead of Jesus Christ, which is said of his Humane Nature. As for themselves, they say, that they are resolved to hold to the Do∣ctrine of the Council of Nice, and to follow the Faith of the Holy Fathers: That this is the Judg∣ment not only of the Eastern Bishops, but also of the Asian Churches, and it is not to be doubted but that the Italians will oppose the Novelties, which they endeavour to bring in. They also ac∣cuse S. Cyril and Memnon for breaking the Canons by Communicating with Excommunicated Per∣sons, and with the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius, and the Euchitae, or Enthusiasts. They pray them therefore not to receive S. Cyril and his Adherents to his Communion, nor to receive their Letter.

The end of the Council did not at all conduce to the Peace of the Church, but on the contrary the Minds of Men appeared more discontented than ever, and the Eastern Bishops, who had had the worst of it, sought to revenge themselves. In their return they wrote to Theodotus Bishop of * 1.55 Ancyra against the Letters of the Bishops of the Council. At Tarsus they confirmed what they had done, and deposed not only S. Cyril and Memnon, but also six of the Deputies of the Council of Ephesus, viz. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Philippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Miletene, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. After∣ward being come into the East, they met again at Antioch, confirmed what they had done a se∣cond time, and from thence wrote to the Emperor, That they held no other Faith than that of the Nicene Council; That they abhorred S. Cyril's Chapters, and earnestly besought him to pro∣vide, that they be not taught in any of the Churches. Theodoret wrote also in his own Name to the People of Constantinople, which were well affected to their Party, to confirm them in the Opi∣nions which he had heretofore taught them, and to prove themselves innocent from the Errours laid to their charge, by professing that there is but One Christ, and by opposing S. Cyril's Senti∣ments, as being the same with the Apollinarians. There was in the farthest part of the East a certain Bishop, who was of S. Cyril's Judgment: It was Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, whose Zeal car∣ried him so far, that he not only condemned Nestorius, but also publickly pronounced Anathema against Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and all that were not of S. Cyril's Judgment. Being of these Prin∣ciples, he persecuted those, who would not come over to his Opinion, who fled to the other Bi∣shops. Andrew Bishop of Samosata hereupon consulted with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and * 1.56 shewed him, that it was necessary to declare himself. This was the reason that made John Bishop of Antioch, and some other of the Eastern Bishops, to write to the Bishop of Osroene, that they should not communicate with Rabulas, till being summoned before them, they had pardoned him upon his making Satisfaction, or he had been punished according to the Rigour of the Laws.

But as the Party of Cyril were ill used in the East, so those of the Nestorian Party, and the Ea∣stern Bishops met with no better usage in Asia, Cappadocia and Thrasia. Maximian chosen Bishop of Constantinople, who began already to exercise his Jurisdiction over the Churches of those Diocesses, would have himself acknowledged by all the Bishops, and deprived them, who would not com∣municate with him. Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, came to Tyana, and Ordain'd a Bishop in the place of Eutherius; but he getting some help, forced

him, whom Firmus had Ordain'd, to renounce his Ordination. They also attempted to depose Dorotheus Metropolitan of Martianople, and Ordain Saturninus in his place. They also endeavour∣ed to deprive Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, because he would not put the Name of Maximian into the Dypticks. Lastly, All places were full of Deposed and Exiled Bishops, and the Church was in terrible Trouble and Confusion. * 1.57

The Emperor Theodosius being desirous to remedy these Disorders, which increased daily, wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, That he might put an end to these by signing the Condemnation of Ne∣storius, and pronouncing Anathema to his Doctrine, and by this means all this Trouble would cease: That S. Cyril, S. Caelestine, and the other Bishops would communicate with him; and that this may be brought to pass, he commanded him to come to Nicomedia with some of his Clergy only, assuring him, that S. Cyril had also Orders to be there, and that he had told them, that they should not come to Court, till they were reconciled; and had procured Peace to the Church by their Re-union. He forbids them in the mean while to attempt either to dispossess, or ordain any Bishop. The Emperor wrote to S. Symeon Stylites, and Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that the one * 1.58 should labour to procure the Peace of the Church by his Prayers, and the other by his Care. This Letter was written in the beginning of the Year 432. The Count Aristolaus was sent to execute these Orders, and wrote to John Bishop of Antioch to come to Nicomedia. John suspected that the design was to carry him from thence to Constantinople, and therefore being unwilling to do any thing without the advice of his Brethren, he wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, That if * 1.59 it were in his Power to go, or not, it was necessary to deliberate together, what they should an∣swer; and if he were carried away by force, he ought at least to take his leave: That he was too weak to undertake so great a Journey: That he was afraid they would make some attempt upon his Life by the way. Then he desires Alexander to come to the Synod, which was shortly to meet at Cyrus, according to the Custom, that they might take Resolutions together what they should do. He adds, That the Propositions which they had brought, were more impious; That S. Cyril's Chapters had some appearance at least of Errour, but at present they demanded no more than to condemn them that taught that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ.

Aristolaus used no compulsion to carry John Bishop of Antioch: But finding him inclinable to * 1.60 Peace, suffered him to call a Synod, which was held at Antioch, where they declared that they would remain stedfast to the Faith of the Council of Nice, which needed no Explication; That they understood it in the sense, in which S. Athanasius had explained it in his Letter to Epictetus, and that they rejected the Letters, Chapters, and other Decisions lately made, as being only fit to raise Disturbances.

They made also five other Propositions, but this was the principal, and all the Eastern Bishops resolved for the Peace of the Church to receive S. Cyril to their Communion, if he did approve this Proposition, provided that they were not obliged to subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius. This was the Judgment not only of John Bishop of Antioch, but also of Alexander Bishop of Hie∣rapolis, * 1.61 Theodoret, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and other Zealous Defenders of the Nestorian Party. Acacius Bishop of Beraea was commissioned to make this Proposition to Aristoläus, that he might communicate it to S. Cyril. This Count went immediately to Alexandria, and made this Propo∣sition to S. Cyril, who would not accept the Proposition of the Eastern Bishops, but on the con∣trary in his Letter to Acacius insisted upon it, That he not only could never reject that, which had been done at Ephesus against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, but likewise that he could not unite again with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius and his Doctrine, and treat him with disgrace as an Heretick. Nevertheless to give the Eastern Bishops some Satisfaction, he pronounced Anathema against the Errours of Arius and Apollinaris, and declares that he believes That the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with a Rational Soul; That he allows not of any Confu∣sion, Conversion or Mixture between the two Natures of Jesus Christ; That he confesses, that the Godhead is impassible, but holds, That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, hath suffered according to the Flesh for us. He adds, That his twelve Chapters were only designed to oppose Nestorius's Errors; and when the Peace is made, he will easily satisfie any Objections, which they can form against them.

This Letter being delivered to Acacius of Beraea, with another from Aristoläus, which was brought by Maximus, sent on purpose from Alexandria about this Affair, Acacius also having af∣terward received two other Letters from S. Cyril, and one from the Bishop of Rome, as also a se∣cond * 1.62 Letter from the Emperor, all which exhorted him to further the Peace of the Church; he sent to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, a Copy of S. Cyril's Letter; and wrote to them at the same time, That he thought that they ought to be contented with this Explication, which was very exact, and conformable to their Sentiments, and that he prayed them to approve the Answer which John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Bishops assembled at Antioch, gave S. Cy∣ril, and the Conditions of Peace to which they would agree. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, were of different Judgments about the Letters of S. Cyril, yet they both agreed that they ought not to conclude a Peace upon this Condition alone. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis took no∣tice, * 1.63 that the Letter of S. Cyril contained also some Errours, and maintained that the Word ought to be thought only to have suffered according to the Flesh. Theodoret on the contrary believed it Orthodox, and looked upon it as a tacit Retractation of the Doctrine of the twelve Chapters, al∣though there were some terms intricate and obscure: But he much disapproved S. Cyril's Conduct in rejecting the Proposition, which had been offered by the Bishops of the Council of Antioch, and

he thought it impossible to make any Peace so long as S. Cyril would oblige them to sign the Con∣demnation of Nestorius. He was very willing, that they should condemn those in general, who affirm, that Jesus Christ is a mere Man, who divide Jesus Christ into two Sons, or deny his Godhead; but he could not endure to condemn a Person, whom he thought to be of Orthodox Sentiments, at the same time, that he approved of sound Doctrine. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Maximus Bishop of Anazarbum, Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, were of the * 1.64 same Judgment with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis; and although they were averse from the Proposition of Peace made by S. Cyril, yet they would not agree to Theodoret's. This is seen by the Letters which these Bishops wrote one to another, and to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, Mediator of the Peace.

John Bishop of Antioch, who earnestly desired a Peace, being troubled to see these impediments on both sides, thought, that the best way to remove them, was to send a Bishop, being per∣suaded, that things would be cleared by a conference, and that an accommodation might more easily be effected vivâ voee, than by Writing; besides, by this means the more Zealous would not be obliged to Subscribe any thing, and yet would be comprehended in the Peace. There∣fore he chose Paul Bishop of Emesa, who had Subscribed for Acacius Bishop of Beraea in their Council of Ephesus, to undergo this Charge. He wrote also at the same time to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that he ought to yield; That the Objections which he made were very subtle; That it was not a time to dispute Philosophically, but to redress the troubles of the Church, and the pressing dangers with which it was threatned; That Archilaus Bishop of Euphratesia was likely to be condemned to bear a great Fine.

Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, could not agree to this Proposition, and took that very ill which John had written to him. Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople approved of their sending Paul Bishop * 1.65 of Emesa; but he particularly recommended it to them, that they should oblige them to Sub∣scribe, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, without Confusion or Mixture.

John Bishop of Antioch gave Paul Bishop of Emesa a Letter for S. Cyril, in which he tells him, That his Twelve Chapters were the Sourse and Original of the Division; but his Letter to Aca∣cius * 1.66 had made them clear, and corrected, what was amiss in them; That it needed no further Explication, and that if the Peace were once concluded, they might explain themselves better. He was pleased, that S. Cyril approved of S. Athanasius's Letter to Epictetus, and says, That that alone was sufficient to discover the true Sense of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice.

Paul Bishop of Emesa being come to Alexandria, having had one conference with S. Cyril about what passed at Ephesus, delivered the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch to him, who was much displeased with him for it; because it revived the complaints, which were made against the twelve Chapters, and reflected upon what was done in the Council of Nice. Nevertheless the Emperor was intent upon a Peace, and resolved to have one at any rare. Paul Bishop of Emesa, a Subtle and Prudent Man, excused the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and said, That he had no design to offend S. Cyril, and that it ought not to be any hindrance to the Union. Saint Cy∣ril insisted upon the Condemnation of Nestorius, and Paul Bishop of Emesa satisfied him by ac∣knowledging that Nestorius had been justly Deposed, and that Maximian was a Lawful Bishop, * 1.67 and giving him a Declaration of it in Writing. Paul Bishop of Emesa having Subscribed it, re∣quested, that he would be contented with his Subscription, as done in the name of all the Eastern Bishops. But S. Cyril required, that John also should Subscribe a certain Writing, which he would send him. Paul Bishop of Emesa demanded also, That the Bishops deposed by Maximian should be restored, viz. Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Do∣rotheus of Martianople, but S. Cyril would not give his consent to it. * 1.68

Nevertheless the common report at Constantinople was, That S. Cyril had retracted his Opini∣ons, and done all that the Eastern Bishops required of him; Insomuch that S. Cyril was obliged to relate the whole transaction to his Legats; How he had obliged Paul to sign the Condemna∣tion of Nestorius, before he communicated with him, and how he had not sent a Letter of Com∣munion to John Bishop of Antioch, but upon condition, that before it be given him he should sign a Writing, which he did send him, containing the Condemnation of Nestorius.

John Bishop of Antioch deferring his answer for some time, S. Cyril was something troubled, fearing lest his Deputies should have given his Letter of Communion to John Bishop of Antioch, * 1.69 before he had Signed the Condemnation of Nestorius. Epiphanius the Arch-Deacon, and Coad∣jutor of S. Cyril, wrote about it to Maximian, and earnestly intreated him to see that their design be put in Execution, and to persuade the Emperor to compel John Bishop of Antioch to Subscribe against Nestorius, and command, that no mention be made of him for the future.

John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril's Letter, returned him an answer, and changing something in the form of Faith, which S. Cyril had sent him, said,

That without adding any * 1.70 thing to the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice, unless by way of Explication and Declaration; He confessed, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, was perfect God and perfect Man, having a Body, and a reasonable Soul, born of his Father from all Eternity, according to his Godhead, born of the Virgin in time according to his Manhood, consubstantial with the Father according to the * 1.71 Divinity; because he hath united the two Natures after such a manner, as that they are but One Christ, One Son, One Lord. And in this Sense of the Union without mixture it may be said, That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because

the Word was Incarnate, was made Flesh, and was United in the Moment of his Conception to the Body, which he took from her. And as to the terms attributed to Our Lord in the Gos∣pels and Writings of the Apostles; some of which, Divines make common, as agreeing to the Person only, and others they apply separately upon the account of the distinction of the two Natures, and apply some to the Divine, and others to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.

Having given his approbation of this Faith, he declares, that for Peace sake, and to take away all occasion of Scandal, he did acknowledge that Nestorius was justly Deposed; That he con∣demned the Novel-Expressions, which they endeavoured to introduce; That he approved the Ordination of Maximian, and he Communicated with all the Orthodox Bishops.

This Letter being carried to Alexandria, S. Cyril did readily unite himself with John Bishop of Antioch; and to satisfie John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops for his part, he wrote them a Letter, in which having declared how joyful he was at this Re-union, and approved their Confession of Faith; He condemns the Errors they had accused him of, and acknowledged, that there is not either Mixture, or Confusion, or Conversion of the two Natures; That the Nature of the Word is neither diminished, nor become passible. He approves of Athanasius's Opinion, but he observes, that there are two Editions, wherein the Letter to Epictetus hath been Corrupted. Paul Bishop of Emesa, and S. Cyril, being thus agreed in the main, Paul Bishop of Emesa made a Ser∣mon * 1.72 Dec. 25. 432. in which having explained his Doctrine about the Incarnation, and confessed that he believed the Virgin the Mother of God, he was interrupted by the Acclamations of the People; So that he Preached the remaining part on Jan. 1. following, and S. Cyril approved Paul Bishop of Emesa's Discourse in a short Sermon.

John Bishop of Antioch having received this News with this Letter of S. Cyril, he wrote Cir∣cular * 1.73 Letters to the Eastern Bishops; in which he tells them, That S. Cyril had made a plain Confession of the Orthodox Faith, approved the form of Faith which he had sent him, and had freed himself from the Errors with which he was accused, and had removed all Objections against him; That by this means, all the Churches were again United in one Communion. He ex∣horts all the Bishops to joyn in this Peace, and says, That they that stand out, will discover, that they have acted not through Zeal for the Faith, but through Passion. He sent them with this Letter a Copy of his Letter to S. Cyril, and of S. Cyril's to him. John Bishop of Antioch * 1.74 wrote also particularly to Theodoret, before Paul Bishop of Emesa was returned. Lastly, He sent a Letter of Communion in his own Name, and in the Name of the Eastern Bishops, to S. Sixtus, * 1.75 S. Cyril, and Maximian, in which he assures them, that he approved of the Deposition of Nesto∣rius, condemned his Impious Doctrine, and consented to the Ordination of Maximian; and S. Cyril on his part wrote to Maximian, S. Sixtus, and John Bishop of Antioch. While these things passed in the East, S. Sixtus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded S. Caelestine, had ordered things in the same manner almost at Rome, having approved of what the Council had done against Nestorius, yet without coming to any disagreement with John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, and exhorting S. Cyril to endeavour after Peace, and to receive them, if they would ap∣prove of the Orthodox Faith.

Since there were always some Persons, who carried themselves with Passion, or indiscreet Zeal, this Peace was not generally approved. Saint Cyril was accused by some of being too re∣miss; insomuch, that he was forced to justifie himself by several Letters, and to demonstrate, that the Confession of the Eastern Bishops was Orthodox. This is the Subject of his Letters to Acacius Bishop of Melitine, to Eulogius, to Donatus, and Maximus, who refused to communicate with John, and the other Eastern Bishops.

This Agreement of John Bishop of Antioch displeased a great many of his Brethren. Theodoret, who was one of the most moderate of that Party, did not at first disapprove the Conditions of the Peace, not knowing, that they exacted the Condemnation of Nestorius, but he wrote to John * 1.76 Bishop of Antioch, that he ought not to conclude a Peace, till those who had been deprived were restored. He wrote also the same to Theosebus, and several other Bishops. John Bishop of Anti∣och wrote about it to the Emperor, to satisfie him. But Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Melitus Bishop of Mopsuesta, declared from the beginning, That they disap∣proved of this Peace, and reproved two things chiefly in it, viz. The Condemnation of Nesto∣rius, and the approbation of the term, The Mother of God without any Explication. Theodoret likewise knowing, that he had condemned Nestorius, disallowed the Agreement, and joyned with Andrew of Samosata, and Alexander of Hierapolis. He invited them to come to Zeugma to deli∣berate about what was fit for them to do, Alexander would not go, but answered, That such a Meeting was needless; That 'twas evident, that S. Cyril was more to be blamed than ever; That he required that Nestorius should be peremptorily condemned, but would not condemn the three Chapters. He complains of the proceedings of John Bishop of Antioch, and accuses him of having betrayed his Faith, and condemned an Innocent Person. Andrew Bishop of Samosata was more * 1.77 moderate, and advised Alexander to agree, without requiring S. Cyril to condemn his twelve Chapters, since it sufficeth, That he hath made profession of the Orthodox Faith, and we must use some condescension for the benefit of Peace. But Alexander absolutely refused, and declared, That he would not communicate with S. Cyril, nor with those who joyned with him. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and John Bishop of Germanicia had much ado to bring him to any accommo∣dation, * 1.78 for he told them, he took this Proposition ill, and condemned their carriage. Maximian

Bishop of Anazarbus told them. That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was also very much surprized at their proceedings. The∣doret was willing to come to an Agreement, for he thought S. Cyril's Confession was Orthodox, but he would not give up Ne•…•…. He wrote his Opinion to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, and the People of Constantinople. Helladius Bishop of Ta••••us, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and the Bishops of Cilicia met at 〈◊〉〈◊〉; there they confirmed the Condemnation of S. Cyril, and Excommuni∣cated those who had received him to their Communion, till he should condemn his Chapters, as * 1.79 they had agreed the first time they were Assembled. After they had taken these Resolutions they wrote to S. Sixtus, that S. Cyril hath taught the Heresie of Apollinaris in his twelve Chapters, * 1.80 which was condemned at Rome by Pope D••••asus; that he hath condemned Nestorius at Ephesus unjustly, and on the contrary S. Cyril and Me•…•… were justly Deposed; that the Emperor ha∣ving convened the Bishops of both Parties, their Adversaries would not enter into a Conference with them about the points of Faith; that they taught Errors, and falsly imposed them upon those that were not of their Judgment; That John Bishop of Antioch had himself condemned S. Cyril's Chapters, but hath since prevaricated by receiving S. Cyril and Mamnon to Communion; that he alone hath absolved them from the Anathema pronounced against them by several Bishops; and not content with this, he condemned Nestorius, and all that he hath asserted, as Impious, without marking any particular. They pray the Pope to inform himself of these things, and to assist them; That they would pour out floods of Tears at his Feet, if the fear of those Wolves, which are ready to enter into their Flocks, did not constrain them to continue with them, and watch over them.

It was to no purpose for them to think to engage the Pope to them, for knowing the Peace he had approved the Conditions, Sept. 15. 433, and had written about them to S. Cyril, and John Bishop of Antioch.

John Bishop of Antioch being angry, because Alexander and some other Bishops of the East and Asia, not only refused to be included in the Peace, but separated themselves from him upon that * 1.81 Account; after he had written to them several times, he implored the help of the Imperial Au∣thority, to force them to submit to his Will. Proclus having been Ordain'd Bishop of Constanti∣nople in the room of Maximian, in the beginning of the Year 434, he took that occasion, writing about that Ordination to the Prefect Taurus, to desire him to assist him with his Authority against the Bishops, who refused to joyn in Communion with him. He sent also to Constantinople one named Verius, who obtain'd an Edict against them from the Emperor, directed to Domitian the * 1.82 Questor. John Bishop of Antioch certified Alexander in particular of the Emperor's will, telling him, that he would not allow any of the Bishops to come to Constantinople. The Letter was delivered to Alexander by one of the Emperor's Officers, but he would not receive it; but hearing It read on∣ly he promised to obey the Emperor's Orders. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and the Bishops of Euphratesia, whose Metropolitan he was, wrote a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of Syria, the * 1.83 two Cilicia's and of Cappadocia Secunda, in which they complain of John Bishop of Antioch, as well because he hath condemned Nestorius, as because of the troubles he involved them in, and his daily attempts against them. Alexander in signing this Letter, discovers, that it was a year since he communicated with him, which shews, that it was written in 434. Helladius Bishop of * 1.84 Tarsus, Metropolitan of the upper Cilicia, and four Bishops of the same Province answered them, That they had a design to call a Synod, but being hindred by the approaching Festival, they comforted them by advising them to have recourse to their Prayers. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, * 1.85 and the Bishops of the Lower Cilicia comforted them also by a Letter, and exhorted them to re∣main stedfast. But Alexander Bishop of Apimaea wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that * 1.86 he desired to speak with him, certainly that he might persuade him to the Peace; but not being able to come to Hierapolis by reason of the Feast, he prayed him to come to some Monastry half way to meet him. All these Writings would not keep them from persecuting the Bishops, who would not communicate with John Bishop of Antioch. Theodoret complains in a Letter written to the Governor of his Countrey, That they had stirred up Tumults in his Diocese, that they had * 1.87 thrust out Abibus Bishop of Dolechia, and had ordained in his place a Priest called Athanasius, who had been heretofore convicted of a Wicked Life; that they had also Ordained in another Church one Named Marinian known to be a Debauched Man, and that this Ordination had been made contrary to the Canons, without the Authority of the Metropolitan, by strange Bishops. That they had hindred Athanasius from entring the Church of Dolechia, and made him promise upon Oath, that he would not accept of it, but that he had not long after possessed himself of it, with∣out any regard had to his Oaths.

Abibus being thus deprived, presented a Petition to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and to The∣odorus, a Bishop of his Province, wherein he complains that he had been driven out of his See by * 1.88 force, and declared, That he had never voluntarily quitted his Bishoprick, as they had divulged. These Bishops wrote to the Empresses against those violences, which John Bishop of Antioch used against those that would not be of his Judgment. They complain, that he had ordain'd two Bi∣shops in their Provinc•• contrary to the Canons; and that he had put one into a Church which was in the Diocese of Hierapolis. They implore these Princes to obtain of the Emperor to forbid these Ordinations contrary to the rules, and allow the Bishops in their Province to Celebrate them according to their Custom, and to leave the Church of S. Sergius to depend upon the Bi∣shoprick of Hierapolis

Nevertheless, there came a second Order from the Court to Titus a Count and Imperial Vicar, and sent in the Emperor's Name by Count Dionysius, Master of the Horse, who enjoyned him to bid Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Maximian Bishop of Anazarbum, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, to return to the Communion of John Bishop of Antioch, upon the penalty of being immediately deprived of their Churches. Helladius wrote about it to Melitius Bishop of Mopsuesta, * 1.89 and desired to know what he should do; Melitius answered him, That he ought to remain stedfast. Theodoret also wrote about it to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and tells him, That as for himself, he was not afraid of his Menaces, and that he was willing to retire; but his Monks had much disturbed him, by representing it to him as his Duty not to be against the Peace, and that they had proposed it to him to go to Gindarus, where they would procure John Bishop of Antioch that they might discourse of an Agreement; That he had yielded to this Proposition, but had refused to go to Antioch.

Alexander answered him, That he was resolved never to communicate with Cyril: That what had been commanded since from Constantinople, confirmed him in that Resolution: That though all the Dead should rise to persuade him the contrary, he would do nothing: That he was ready to leave his Bishoprick, and had already done it, had not he feared he should pass for a Deserter, and a Coward for forsaking his Flock. Theodoret answered, That he seemed to be acted with too much passion: That he ought to con∣descend * 1.90 so far as he might safely without approving any thing that is not true. That he ought to examine the Synodical Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and S. Cyril; and if they found it Orthodox, they might communicate with S. Cyril, nevertheless not approving what had been done at Ephesus: That he had heard, that he brought this Proposition out of the East: That Proclus Bishop of Constantinople was of sound Principles: That Hilladius and Eutherius had told him so: That he could wish, that they could meet with John Bishop of Antioch at some distance from Antioch, on condition, that those whom he hath unduly Ordained, should be excluded: That he was troubled that John Bishop of Antioch having in his Letter made Confession of the Orthodox Faith, had condenmed Nestorius, who had no other Opi∣nions than those which John did explain: That that which comforted him, was, That he had not absolutely condemned his Doctrine, but particular all that he had said, or written against the Doctrine of the Apostles.

Alexander replied, That he did not separate from John Bishop of Antioch upon the account of the Ordinations, which that Patriarch had unfitly made, but because he hath betrayed his Faith, and com∣municated with an Heretick: That he was resolved not to communicate with any of those, who held Com∣munion with S. Cyril, although they should condemn his Chapters. And to shew to what an height the * 1.91 Bishop of Constantinople had driven things, he sent him the beginning of his Synodical Letter, where he speaks of the Seditions which sprung from the corrupt Seeds of Nestorius's Doctrine.

Theodoret did not yield to this Counsel, but on the contrary he thought himself obliged to ad∣monish * 1.92 his Metropolitan Alexander friendly, That it was necessary to consider upon a Peace; That he saw the Churches would certainly be ruined; That their Flocks would become a Prey to Wolves; That he was afraid that they must give an Account to God for being backward to it; That by comparing the Ad∣vantage of Peace with the Disadvantages that might redound to the Church, he found it would lose more by holding out, than by a small Compliance.

But Alexander, who was never to be wrought upon, gave him an angry Answer, That he would * 1.93 not have him write any more to him about it. And for an Answer to Theodoret's Maxim, he told him, That the only way to compare the Benefit and Damage that might be done, is to chuse the part that Truth is on: That Deprivation, Banishment, Death, and Disgraceful Revilings of Men, are nothing to Eter∣nal Torments: That he did not wonder that Theodoret inclined to a Peace, being persuaded that S. Cy∣ril was Orthodox; But as for him, who thought him an Heretick, he could not communicate with him. Whereupon he cites the Examples of Meletius Bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, of Barsus, and of many other Bishops, who have been deposed because they would not communi∣cate with Hereticks. He sent him a Letter from Parthenius a Priest, who assured him, that Ne∣storius's Adversaries had not at all altered their Mind.

Theodoret seeing that there was no way to change the Resolution of his Metropolitan, consulted * 1.94 his own Affairs alone; and going to Antioch, entred into Communion with John, but without any Subscription, or Approbation of the Condemnation of Nestorius, to whom he wrote a Letter to excuse himself, as also to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus. The Bishops of Cilicia Secunda followed his * 1.95 Example, and wrote a Synodical Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which they acknowledged, That his Letter to S. Cyril was Orthodox; That they had separated themselves from him out of a suspi∣cion that S. Cyril's Chapters were Heretical, but their fear was taken away by that Exposition of Faith. The Bishops of Cilicia Prima and Isauna yielded also, but they could never alter the inflexible Resolution of Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret himself wrote again to him, and to his Friends, to persuade him, but he answered his Letters with anger, and sharp Reflections, shew∣ing always an unconquerable Resolution and Obstinacy. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta was the only Man of the Cilician Bishops that imitated him. John Bishop of Antioch deposed, and ordain∣ed in his place Chromatius, and presented a Petition to the Emperor to persuade him to remove * 1.96 him from his See.

But they behaved themselves better towards Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret having done what he could to bring him over, even by desiring Nestorius to write to him, interceded for him to John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him to let him alone, shewing him, that it would be of no ill consequence, nor prejudice his Cause, because he would be quiet, whereas if he provo∣ked

him, 'twould cause more trouble. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was resolved to make all the Eastern Bishops subject to him, wrote to Alexander by Count Titus, and Dionysius Master of the Horse, That they had born patiently hitherto in respect to him; but if he did still continue in his Resolution not to communicate with John of Antioch, they could not wait any longer, nor dissemble. He answered with his ordinary stiffness, That he could not communicate with a Bishop who had received Hereticks to his Communion, and that he was willing to go without any noise or stir whether they pleased. * 1.97 After this, Titus gave Orders to Libianus Judge of Euphratesia to expel Alexander, if he still re∣main'd in his Resolution, and to put in his place such a Person as the Synod of Bishops should Or∣dain. This Order being made known to Alexander, he retreated, and Libianus telling Titus, that * 1.98 he had executed his Orders, represents to him, and John Bishop of Antioch, the Affliction that the Church of Hierapolis was in, having lost their Bishop, and prayed them to have some regard to it.

John Bishop of Antioch wrote hereupon to the Clergy, and People of Hierapolis. That he had * 1.99 used all manner of ways to convert their Bishop Alexander; That he had prayed, and sollicited him seve∣ral times not to hinder the Peace by his obstiuate refusal; And that he was yet willing to receive him, if he would comply, and enter into Communion with him. Lastly, They thrust out, and banished all the Bishops, which refused to communicate with John of Antioch. Irenaens hath given us a Catalogue * 1.100 of them, after he hath related the Order, which was given against him, and against another called Photius, Adherents of Nestorius: Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, banished to Phamosis in Egypt, where there are Mines: Abibus Bishop of Dolochia, who was one of the first that was driven out of his Diocess, and another ordain'd in his place by John Bishop of Antioch: Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople, Metropolitan of Moesia, who was sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia: Valeanius and Eudo∣cius, Bishops of the Province of Moesia, subject to the Metropolis of Dorotheus, who withdrew themselves voluntarily from the Churches: Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, Bishop of Cilicia Secun∣da, banished to Melitina, a City of Armenia, where Acacius Bishop of that City made him suffer much: Zenobius Bishop of Zaphyria in Cilicia Prima, who left his Church in the same manner, and was afterward banished to Tiberias, from whom he was also driven: Anastasius Bishop of Te∣nedos, Pausianus Bishop of Hypate, Basil Metropolitan of Larissa in Thessalia, Julian Bishop of Sardica, who retreated themselves, and suffered much: Theosebus Bishop of Chios, who died in his own Church, and would never communicate with those who had received S. Cyril: Acilinus Bishop of Barbalissa, who was expelled from his Bishoprick for refusing to communicate with John, but he was after re-united to him without the condemning of Nestorius: Maximinus Bishop of Deme∣trias in Thessaly, who separated himself immediately after the Condemnation of Nestorius. Thus ended the long and boisterous Contest between the Eastern Bishops, which lasted two Years com∣pleat after the Peace made between B. of Antioch and S. Cyril. Lastly, Nestorius, who was the Author and Subject of all these Troubles, was himself last of all sacrificed to it, being removed from his Monastery, and banished to Oasis by the Emperors Edict published in 435. and by ano∣ther Edict in August in the same Year: His Books were condemned to be burnt, and all Persons forbid to read them.

Peace seemed by this means to be restored to the Church, all the Bishops being of the same Communion, but there still remained some Seeds of Division in Mens Minds. The Eastern Bi∣shops * 1.101 had a secret Grudge against the Egyptian, and the Egyptians could not endure the Eastern. They suspected one another guilty of Heresie, the one were always persuaded that S. Cyril's Chap∣ters were Heretical, and the others thought them Orthodox. Besides, several Eastern Bishops had not condemned Nestorius, and were not inclined to condemn him, thinking him innocent. Nevertheless one of the Conditions of the Peace was, That they should curse Nestorius. Lastly, Some of those who Signed the Deposition of Nestorius, would not add any thing against his Do∣ctrine, saying, That the Emperor exacted no more of them, and to communicate with the Patri∣archs. Thus the Bishops of Cilicia Prima explained themselves in the Letter that they wrote to the Emperor in the presence of Aristolaus. But this did not content S. Cyril, and therefore he sent Beronicianus Bishop of Tyre to beg of the Emperor, That he would by his Edict force all the Bishops not only to condemn the Person of Nestorius, but also to condemn his Impious Doctrines, and at the same time to confess that there is but one Son only, who ought not to be divided in∣to * 1.102 two, born of God after an ineffable manner before all time, and born of the Virgin in time according to the Flesh. That in this sense she is the Mother of God, because one and the same Person is God and Man both, the Word being Incarnate without Confusion, or mixture; and that this Word is passible in the Humane Nature, although he be impassible in the Divine. This Edict was sent to Aristolaus, who presented it to the Bishops of Cilicia Prima, and the Ea∣stern Bishops. Acacius Bishop of Meletine having heard that S. Cyril obtain'd this Edict, congra∣tulated him for it by a Letter, and advised him to send some zealous and faithful Persons with Aristolaus, who might compel all the Bishops to condemn the Doctrines of Nestorius, and Theodo∣rus, and those who affirm, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, which act distinctly, and that plainly, and without Ambiguities, because he had seen some Nostorians in Germanicia, who by asserting. That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, introduced two Persons, and two Sons, se∣parating the two Natures, and making them to act distinctly.

At the same time S. Cyril wrote a Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which he tells him, That it was said, That some Eastern Bishops, who seemed to condemn Nestorius, and to curse his Do∣ctrine, did yet revive his Errours. He assures him, That he did not believe it, but he pray'd him, That if there were any such, he should take notice of them, and confute them. He thought, that it was not sufficient for all that to condemn Nestorius, and his Doctrines, because they might evade it, by saying, That they condemned him for nothing but because he would not * 1.103 give the Virgin Mary the Name of the Mother of God; but when they curse Nestorius and his Do∣ctrine, they must profess the Faith contain'd in the Edict before-mentioned. He wrote also to Aristolaus not to permit those, who do not confess this Faith, to continue in the Priesthood, and Clergy. He wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, and Aristolaus, particularly against Theodoret, ha∣ving heard by a Priest named Daniel, that he had not condemned the Person or Doctrine of Ne∣storius. He tells another Bishop also named Mosaeus, that the Abbot Maximus accused him of ha∣ving asserted the Blasphemies of Nestorius.

John Bishop of Antioch having received this Edict of the Emperor, was surprized, that the Ea∣stern * 1.104 Bishops having so manifestly condemned Nestorius and his Doctrine, and given so great proofs of the soundness of their Faith, should yet be suspected, and a new Confession of Faith be exact∣of them. He wrote to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, That this was very unjust dealing; That they would neither add any thing, nor take from the Nicene Creed; That they understood it as the Fathers of both the Eastern and Western Churches had explained it; That they rejected the Hereticks that had corrupted it; That this may suffice for their Justification, although it was needless, having done four Years since all that was desired of them, at the time when Paul Bishop of Emosa came out of Egypt. That he could not imagine for what reason they sought out new mat∣ter of quarrel; That the Bishops of the Provinces adjoyning to the Sea, of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Ara∣bia, Mesopotamia, Osroëne, Euphratesia, and the Lower Syria, are of the same Judgment, and have approved what they have done; That he prayed him to prevent those new Troubles, and to suf∣fer the Eastern and Asian Churches to have some respite, and to protect them against the Heathens, Jews, and some Nestorians of Cilicia, who yet held out their Opposition. He wrote the same thing to S. Cyril, who replyed to his Letter, That he rejoyced to see him in so good a Mind, and * 1.105 that he desired nothing so much as to see Union and Peace in the Church, and to see those Scan∣dals to cease, which John Bishop of Antioch had once suppressed, and he would endeavour fully to extinguish for the future.

By this he seemed to let the Eastern Bishops to be quiet hereafter, but there were some trou∣blesome unquiet Spirits, who raised a new contest, which troubled the Church a long time. Some of the Clergy and Monks of Antioch seeing that they could not create any further Distur∣bances to the Bishops about the business of Nestorius, because there was no discourse of him or his Writings, which had been plainly condemned, noised it abroad, that they revived the same Er∣rours under the Name of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, whose Writings they in∣tended to publish. Hereupon they wrote a large Letter, which they sent to S. Cyril. At the * 1.106 same time the Abbot Maximus, who dwelt at Antioch, disgraced the Eastern Bishops, saying, That they were all Nestorians; that they pretended to approve of the Nicene Creed, but they put what sense they pleased upon it. Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Rabulas * 1.107 Bishop of Edessa, who were the most Zealous against the Nestorians, declared themselves first against the Writings of Theodotus Bishop of Mopsuesta. Rabulas and Acacius wrote a Circular Let∣ter to the Bishops of Armenia, to oblige them to reject the Books of Theodorus, which they had translated into their own Language. The Bishops of Armenia being met upon that account, ad∣dressed themselves to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, to know what they should do upon the oc∣casion, and sent two Priests with the Letters of Acacius and Rabulas, and the Books of Theodorus. Proclus having received these Pieces, composed a Writing, entituled, An Epistle to the Armenians, in which he explains the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation, affirming, That to avoid all Ambiguities, we ought to confess, that One Person of the Holy Trinity was Incarnate. To this Writing he joyned such Propositions as he thought Heretical, or at least suspected of He∣resie, which were extracted out of Theodorus's Books, but he did not name him. He sent this Writing to John Bishop of Antioch by his Deacon Theodotus. The Bishops of the East being met at Antioch, read this Work of Proclus there, approved it, subscribed it, and sent it to him, but did not condemn the Extracts of Theodorus's Books. S. Cyril having received this Piece of Proclus by Basilius the Deacon, the Letter of the Bishops of Armenia, and the Extracts of Theodorus's Books, declared himself openly against the Works of the Latter, and wrote to the Emperor, Not to suf∣fer them to be approved; and to John Bishop of Antioch, That he should condemn them. Acacius Bishop of Melitina wrote also to John Bishop of Antioch, against the Writings of Theodorus. The Abbot Maximus, who was the principal Author of these new Broils, had put the Name of Theo∣dorus Bishop of Mopsuesta, and Diodorus, at the Head of those Extracts which S. Proclus had annexed to his Letter, and would have the Eastern Bishops to curse Theodorus. The Monks of Armenia took the pains to dispose these Extracts over all the Eastern parts; and going from City to City, boldly declared. That they ought to condemn them, and curse the Author of them.

John Bishop of Antioch complained of this first to Proclus and S. Cyril; assuring them, that the Eastern Bishops would rather separate than condemn the Memory of Theodorus. Whereupon S. Cyril wrote to Proclus, That though he believed the Works of Theodorus to be full of Impieties

and Blasphemies, yet he thought it more convenient for Peace sake, and to prevent a separation of the Eastern Bishops not to speak of him, chiefly because he dyed in the Communion of the Church. Proclus wrote on his part to Maximus, that he disapproved his Carriage, that he ought to be obedient to his Bishop, and not trouble the East; and that he would send his Dea∣con back again, when his Writing is Signed, and the Propositions annexed at the end of it, be rejected.

John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, could not hold their Peace, seeing the Memory of a Bishop who was of so great reputation among them to be assaulted. Being assembled there∣fore at Antioch in 436, or 437, they wrote three Letters for the defence of Theodorus, the one to the Emperor Theodosius, the other to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, and the third to S. Cyril.

In the Letter to Theodosius; they humbly represent to this Emperor; that it is unjust and pre∣judicial to the Church to quarrel at the Writings or Memory of Theodorus; that this great Man * 1.108 for five years together was a professed Enemy and Opposer of Heresie; That he was commended, admired by all the World, and highly esteemed by Theodosius the Great; That he was the Scho∣lar of Flavian and S. Chrysostom; That having Written a great deal, it is likely he may have * 1.109 some Expressions which may give some ground for the Accusations brought against him; That the Ancient Fathers have used the same Modes of speaking, which are reproved in the Works of Theodorus. Lastly, That those, who bring this Accusation are troublesome Persons, who are de∣lighted in nothing but disturbances and confusion.

In the Letter to Proclus they commend his Book, blame those that were the Authors of the Division, who accuse their Bishops, and not content to raise Sedition against the Living, desire to do it against the Dead, and make their attempts to condemn Theodorus. Theodorus, who in his Life-time never received any reproof, who was always commended, and esteemed by the Empe∣ror and Bishops, who ever opposed himself against the Heresies, and wrote 10000 Volumes to confute them. They conclude this Letter by maintaining, that we may find an infinite number of such like passages, as those of Theodorus, in Ignatius, Eustathius, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, Flavian, Di∣odorus, S. John, Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Atticus. From whence they infer, that if we con∣demn Theodorus, we must also do the same to them, because there is none of them out of which the like passages may not be taken, especially, if we sever them from what goes before, and follows after, as they have done in those that are extracted from the Writings of Theodorus.

Lastly, in the Letter to S. Cyril they say, that being Assembled upon the account of Proclus's Letter, they thought it needless to enter into a new contest concerning the Writings of Theodorus, * 1.110 all things being at peace; That it is possible that there may be in the Works of that Author some places, which are capable of an ill sense; but there were others, where he delivers his Judgment plainly in a very Orthodox manner; That we may meet with the like Expressions in the Holy Fathers; particularly in S. Athanasius, Theophilus. and Proclus's Letter; That it is very dangerous to blemish the Memory of a Man, who served and defended the Church for several Years; and so much the more, because by condemning him we must involve several of the Fa∣thers in the same Fate; That 'twas this that made the Defenders or Nestorius so victorious, who were amazed to see themselves cursed with the such Bishops as dyed in the Communion of the Church, and in so great esteem; That Theodorus having opposed the Hereticks was obliged to reject their Errors more plainly; and to make use of such terms, as might seem to favour the Opposite Errors.

The Emperor made answer to John and his Synod, That he had heard by Proclus what a stir some Persons began to make in the East, and exhorts him to provide for the Peace, and encoun∣ter * 1.111 those who are the promoters of the Disturbance; That his Intention is, that all those that are under his Gouernment, should live in Peace, and chiefly the Church; That they might be confident of this, and therefore be more active to further and secure the Peace of the Church.

Proclus also gave them a very civil Answer, declaring to them, That when he wrote his Book, he had no design to condemn Theodorus; That his Deacon Theodorus had no Order to do it, and * 1.112 that he was contented to reject these Propositions, which seemed to him False or Erroneous, without naming the Authors.

Lastly, Although S. Cyril openly declared himself against the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsu∣esta, yet he wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, as he had before done to Proclus; That he appro∣ved, that for the Peace of the Church, they should content themselves to condemn the false Pro∣positions taken out of the Books of Theodorus, without meddling with his Memory. This Letter is recited in the Fifth Council, where it is accused of Falshood, because they pretend, that it doth not * 1.113 agree with the other Letters of S. Cyril; but if they consider them well, they are not contrary to this. In it he condemns the Writings of Theodorus and Diodorus, and reproves those that commend the Doctrine of these Authors, but he doth not pronounce Anathema against their Persons; on the contrary, in his Letter to Proclus, he is of the same Opinion as in this. It cannot be proved, that he changed his Judgment, or that he ever was against the Peace, in which he had engaged himself.

We would here make an end of the Council of Ephesus, but before we pass to the History of the Council of Chalcedon, it is necessary to add something by way of Illustration upon such points of the History, as do admit of some difficulty.

And first, It is demanded, who it was, that called the Council of Ephesus? It is evident, that it was Theodosius the Younger. The Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine both agree in this, but

they pretend that this Emperor did it by the Pope's Authority, and following his Judgment and Advice. This supposition is groundless, and indeed it is easie to prove by the course of the History, that it was impossible, that the Emperor should take the Pope's Advice, when he called the Council. Saint Caelestine having examined the Cause of Nestorius referred to his Council by both Parties, wrote to S. Cyril, that he should certifie Nestorius, That if he did not change his Opinion, within ten Days after the Declaration of this Sentence to him, that he was Exccommu∣nicated and Deposed, and that they would put another Person in his place. This Letter is dated Aug. 11. Anno. 430. The Pope speaks nothing here of celebrating a Council, but on the con∣trary he supposeth it needless to call one, and that it was not yet mentioned.

The Pope's Letter was carried to Alexandria by Possidonius. Saint Cyril called a Council of Bishops there, to signifie the Pope's Judgment to Nestorius. The Letter of the Synod is dated Novem. 3. of the same year. The Letter for the assembling the Council of Ephesus bears date Nov. 19. By this 'tis evident that the Emperor had not resolved to call this Council, till he knew what the Synod of Alexandria had decreed. Now it is manifest, that it was not possible in so small a time as passed between the holding of this Council, and the Date of his Letter, to write to Rome, and receive Advice from thence. Therefore the Council of Ephesus was called by the Emperor, and the Pope knew nothing of it, the Pope having passed his Judgment before. Yea, moreover it seems, that the Emperor's design in calling the Council was to weaken or rectifie the Pope's Sentence. Lastly, the Pope was called to it, as other Bishops, and he acknowledges in his Letter written to Theodosius, That it was the Emperor who ordered the calling of a Synod.

The Question concerning the Presidency is of greater difficulty. It is beyond Controversie that S. Cyril did preside in this Council, but some enquire, whether it was in the quality of Le∣gat of the Holy See, or in his own Name. It is certain, that the Pope had entrusted him wholly with the Execution of the Sentence which he had given against Nestorius; but it doth not ap∣pear in the least, that he had any Commission to assist at, or Preside over the Council of Ephe∣sus in his Name; but on the contrary, he sent his Legats on purpose to it, who had strict or∣ders to do nothing but with the concurrence of S. Cyril; but he doth not say, that S. Cyril shall assist with them at the Council in his Name, nor that he continues the same power to him, which he lately gave for this purpose. And indeed, in the relation which the Council gives the Empe∣ror, the time, which went before the Council is distingui••hed from that which followed; and it is said, that S. Caelestine had Commissioned S. Cyril before the Council, but after he sent the Bi∣shops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Deacon Philip, on purpose to supply his place in the Council.

Nevertheless S. Cyril in the Subscriptions of the First, Second, and Third Action, takes the Title of The Deputy of Caelestine. Liberatus and Evagrius gives him also the same Title. Some pretend, that it hath been added to the Subscription by some Scribe, or that it ought to be un∣derstood of the time which went before the Council. I rather believe, that S. Cyril having born that title before the Council, held it in the Council it self, though he had it not then; but it doth not follow from thence that he presided in the Pope's Name, or in the Quality of his De∣puty, for if he had presided under that Title, it is certain, that upon his default the other Legats of the Pope ought to have presided in his place, and had the first Seat. Now 'tis evident, That not they, but Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem presided in the Fourth and Fifth Action, in which Saint Cyril became a Petitioner. Wherefore 'twas not under the Title of Legat to the Pope, that S. Cyril presided, since in his absence Juvenal was preferred before the Pope's Legats; 'Twas be∣cause he was the first of the Patriarchs, who were present in Person at the Council.

There are several Objections made against the Nature of this Council, and the management of it. Some say, that it ought to be accounted no better than a tumultuous and rash Assembly, where all things were carried by passion and noise, and not for an Oecumenical Council. That S. Cyril held it against the consent of the Commissioners, whom the Emperor sent to call them together; That not only Nestorius and his Party, but also several other Orthodox Bishops oppo∣sed it; That he scorned to wait for the Eastern Bishops, who would have soon arrived, and who desired him to wait for them; That he did not stay for the Legats of the Holy See, nor any of the Western Bishops; That his Synod was made up of the Aegyptian Bishops, and some Bishops of Asia, who were wholly devoted to his Will; That it was he that did all, and ordered all in the Council. Although he was Nestorius's Enemy, and one whom he had objected against for his Judge, because he looked upon him as his Enemy; Had not Nestorius therefore the same rea∣son to Object against him? The manner in which he acted against Nestorius, and the rashness he was guilty of in condemning him, make it Credible, that he was animated by nothing but Passion. He caused Nestorius to be Summoned twice in a day. Nestorius Answered, That he was ready to appear when the Eastern and Western Bishops were come, and the Council was full; That they refused not to be Judged, but he would not be judged by his Enemies only; These excuses appeared Reasonable. St. Chrysostom alledged the like to exempt him from appearing before the Synod of Theophilus. Nevertheless S. Cyril imitating his Uncle and Predecessor Theo∣philus, accepted the Accusation, proceeded against him, and was the first that gave his Voice a∣gainst him, and caused him to be Condemned. This S. Isidore of Damaita reproved S. Cyril for telling him,

That several Persons laughed at him, and at the Tragedy which he had Acted at

Ephesus; That it was said openly that he sought nothing but revenge upon his Enemy; That in this he imitated his Uncle Theophilus; and although there was a great deal of difference be∣tween the Person accused, the carriage of the Accusers was much the same; That he had bet∣ter have been quiet, and not revenged his private quarrels at the expence of the Church, and so raise an eternal discord among Christians, under a pretence of Piety.

These are the very words of Isidore, which he speaks to him in kindness. Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople com∣pares this conduct of S. Cyril's to Theophilus's, and calls him the second Scourge of Alexandria. The Proceedings in the Judgment seem to prove it more clearly, that S. Cyril and the Bishops of his Party were hurried by Passion; That they greatly aimed at the Condemnation of Nestorius, and were afraid of nothing more than of the coming of the Eastern Bishops, for fear they should not be able to do what they pleased; for in their first Session they cited Nestorius twice, read the Testimonies of the Fathers, S. Cyril's Letters and twelve Chapters, Nestorius's Writings, and all gave their Judgments. Was ever any business concluded with so much haste; The least matter of this nature require an whole Session. How could they throughly examine S. Cyril's 12 Propositions in so small a time, which need so much Explication, and have caused so many disputes? How could they compare so many passages of Nestorius's Sermons, with what went before and came after to find the true Sense? How could they be sure of the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers in so short a time? All these things required a long and serious Examination for several days together; but the Bishops of the Council were afraid that they should not finish it at one Session, and therefore sat close to it from Morning to Night, to judge this matter only for fear that things should happen otherwise, if they should stay till to morrow. The Sentence which they caused to be delivered to Nestorius, was made up of such Words, which discover the Passion they were in. To Nestorius another Judas. Was it not enough to Condemn and Depose him, but they must insult over him with abusive Words. Lastly, This Council was so far from bringing Peace, that it brought nothing but trouble, divisions, and scandals, in to the Church of Jesus Christ, so that that may be said of this Council with a great deal more truth, which S. Gregory of Nazianzene said of the Councils of his time.

That he never saw an Assembly of of Bishops that had a good and happy Conclusion; That they always increased the Distemper rather than cured it; That the obstinate Contests, and the ambition of Overcoming and Domi∣neering, which ordinarily reigns among them, renders them prejudicial, and ordinarily they, who are concerned to judge others are moved thereto by ill-will, rather than by a design to restrain the faults of others.

This seems to agree to the Council of Ephesus better than any other Assembly of Bishops. The History of the Troubles that followed this Council, makes this suffi∣ciently evident, and we may say, that these Troubles were not appeased, but because the Trans∣actions of this Council were buried in silence, These are the Objections which may be made against the form of the Council of Ephesus: I have neither dissembled them, nor weakned them, that I may shew, that nothing which can be said on this Argument is unanswerable. At present I shall offer these Answers to the former Objections, viz.

The Council of Ephesus was called in the Usual forms. The Bishops of all Countrys of the Roman Empire were summoned to it. The Days appointed being come, the Bishops who were come to the City, where it was to be held, waited some days after; They did not begin it, till they knew, that the Men whom they waited for, would soon arrive, and that they were willing that the Council should be begun without them; That though several Bishops were not at first of that Opinion, and therefore opposed it, yet they yielded at last, and were present at the Council; That there remained no more than ten with Nestorius; That the Emperor's Commissi∣oner having read the Letter for the Calling of the Council, had done his Duty, and after that was free for the Bishops to meet; That though the Pope's Legats were not come, yet it was Lawful to begin the Council without them, since the day appointed for the beginning of it was over; That these Legats having read what was done in their absence had approved it; That John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops ought to have come to the Council according to their Summons; That they might have Read and Examined a New what had passed, and ought not to have made a Schism, or separated upon that account; That though they did judge Nestorius at one Session, and in one Day, he must blame himself for it, because he would not appear; That he deserved to be Condemned for his Obstinacy; That it was evident, that he had denied, that the Virgin Mary might be called The Mother of God, and that he used such Ex∣pressions as seemed to divide the Person of Jesus Christ into two; That he was cited three times according to the Order of the Canons; That it was not necessary by the Laws of the Church to perform these Citations on several days; That it was Zeal and not Passion that made Saint Cyril to act so; That although he had had some differences with Nestorius, that was no just im∣pediment, that he might not be his Judge in the Council, especially discussing a matter of Faith; That in the business of S. Chrysostom there was nothing meddled with that concerned the Faith; That it was not a General Council, but a private Synod called together by the contentious hu∣mour of Theophilus; That S. Isidore and Gennadius were mistaken through the false Reports that S. Cyril's Enemies had spread abroad of him; That afterward they themselves acknowledged the Falshood of them; That there were in the Council many Bishops of Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thracia, and Thessaly, which could not be said to be devoted to the Egyptian Faction; That Ju∣venal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the other Bishops of Palestine could not be suspected of holding

Intelligence with them; That it is not credible that Memnon was so much Master of the Asian Bi∣shops as to make them to yield to his Will against Justice and Innocence; That Judgment was pronounced after cognizance of the Cause; That they read the Nicene Creed, and examined the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers of the Church; to which, because Nestorius's Opinions were evidently contrary, they Condemned him; That it is very rare to find a longer time allowed in any of the Ancient Council for the Examination of a single point of Faith; That they did neither approve nor examine S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, because the Question was not about them; but only to inquire whether Nestorius had Preached any Errors, and whether he deserved to be Condemned; That they never after meddled with it; That on the Contrary his Condemnation was approved by almost all Orthodox Bishops; That the Doctrine which the Council condem∣ned as his was unanimously rejected by all the World; That the troubles which followed the Council, proceeded from nothing but the Headiness of the Eastern Bishops, who would at first right or wrong maintain their bad proceedings; That they have been happily appeased by the Peace, in which they have followed the Judgment of the Council, concerning the Person and Doctrine of Nestorius. Lastly, That the following Councils, and the Universal Church have re∣ceived the Council of Ephesus, and have acknowledge it for a General Council.

From the Form let us come to the Matter it self. Was Nestorius in an Error? Had S. Cyril delivered nothing contrary to the truth? Did not his twelve Chapters contain in them the Errors of Arius, or Apollinaris? or at least, the same Error which was after maintained by Eutyches? Were not the Eastern Bishops of Nestorius's Judgment? If John Bishop of Antioch were not, yet were not Theodoret, Andrew of Samosata, Hilladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and above all, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and all the Bishops who were Expelled and Deposed with him, because they would not Subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius? Lastly, Was there none of S. Cyril's side in the Error opposite to Nestorius's? As for Nestorius, we have already shewn wherein his Error consisted, and proved, that there was a lawful ground of Condemning him, because though he pretended to acknowledge the intimate Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, yet he would not consent to the true Consequences, which followed from that Union, and made use himself of such comparisons and expressions, as did plainly intimate a Moral Union only. His obstinate rejection of the term of The Mother of God, and other expressions commonly used in the Church, as for Example. That God was born, suffered, and dyed, &c. His way in which he Explained the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, saying, That God inhabited in Man as in a Temple, that he was Cloathed with the Manhood, that he was joyned to the Man, that he beheld himself in the Manhood, as in a Looking-glass; The comparisons that he made of the Union of the Humane and Divine Nature in Jesus Christ, to the Union of Man and Wife, of the Spirit and Soul in a Righteous Man, and several other ways of speaking of the like nature, to which he was so much addicted, that he shewed an aversion for those that signified the Natu∣ral and Substantial Union of the two Natures, were evidences that he not sincerely allow of such an Union. And although there had been no other reason besides the Scandal which he gave by speaking after such manner as might make Men believe, that he was in the Error of Photinus, or Paulus Samosatenus, that had been enough to condemn him, if he would not change those Expressi∣ons, and conform to those of the Church. Now it was so in this case; for when they speak to the People, who were accustomed to hear these Words, God was born, God is dead, &c. when they discoursed of Jesus Christ, and told them that these Propositions were false and unsufferable, they immediately imagined that they denied Jesus Christ to be God, and by this means it was that the Nestorian Preachers, and their Friends, raised so great a Scandal among the Faithful at Constantinople. At first they thought him of the Opinion of Paulus Samosatenus; but the thing being better examined, they knew, that his Error was more subtle. Saint Cyril himself acknow∣ledged it, and owned that it were better not to meddle with this Question. But because Nesto∣rius persisted still to give offence to the People, and to speak in a way contrary to the Church, and would not change it, they were forced to condemn him. John Bishop of Antioch, and his best Friends, who thought him of Orthodox sentiments disapproved his manner of speaking, and advised him to alter them, and own, that the Virgin might be called the Mother of God. He would not do it at first, but at last he did it, but too slowly, and after such a manner as shewed that he did it not heartily. He was therefore justly Condemned? But did not his Adversary also deserve the same Fate? Was not he of Arius and Apollinaris's Opinion, or at least of Euty∣ches's? Did not his twelve famous Chapters contain some Errors? Had not the Eastern Bishops reason to reject them? Did the Council of Ephesus do well to approve them?

As to the Opinions of S. Cyril, he hath explain'd himself too clearly to be suspected as guilty of the Errors of Arius and Apollinaris. He hath so often expresly rejected them, and hath remo∣ved the Accusation so fully, that it can't be said, that he hath approved the Errors of these two Hereticks, by denying with the one of them, that Jesus Christ hath a Soul, and with the other, that his Soul was destitute of Understanding and Reason. Nor can we with greater truth say, that he hath confounded the two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ; or that he allows of a change of one Nature into another, since he hath always distinguished the two Natures, and re∣jected the Error of those, who say, That they are changed, or confounded, or mixed. He di∣stinguishes them so elegantly in his Second Letter to Nestorius, that ••e was forced to own in his Answer to him, that he allows a distinction of the two Natures, that he acknowledged, that

the Word had not his Original from the Virgin, and that it was not possible that the Word should suffer. He always confessed this Doctrine, when the dispute was at the hottest. Lastly, When he made Peace with the Eastern Bishops, he made no scruple to acknowledge the two Na∣tures in Jesus Christ, united in one Person; insomuch that John Bishop of Antioch, Theodoret, and almost all the Eastern Bishops, have owned, that his Letter and Doctrine were Orthodox. But although it is manifest that S. Cyril was of Orthodox Sentiments, yet we must own, that it hath happened to him, as it hath to all others almost who suffer themselves to be transported with Pas∣sion in Disputes, that is to say, by opposing an Errour so earnestly, he seems to incline to the con∣trary; for having opposed those Persons, who divided the two Natures, he used such Expressi∣ons to denote the Union, as gave occasion to believe, that they were confounded. This Facundus Bishop of Hermianum wisely observes.

S. Cyril, saith he, having undertaken to oppose Nesto∣rius, who divided Jesus Christ into two, that he might reject this Errour more fully and plain∣ly, made choice of all such terms, as are most proper to express the Union of the two Natures whereas the Ancient Fathers, writing against Apollinaris, who confounded them, laboured most to express their distinction. But we ought not to think for all that, that S. Cyril disowns the difference of the two Natures, or that the Ancients denyed the Unity of the Person.

The difference of the Contests made them speak differently. The Expressions, which comes nearest the Opinion of the Eutychians, and which is chiefly urged, is this, One Incarnate Nature. S. Cyril uses it often, and they affirm, That he is the first of the Fathers that hath mentioned it: For though it is said, that he took it out of S. Athanasius, yet it is very probable, that the Wri∣tings attributed to Athanasius, out of which S. Cyril is pretended to have taken it, is rather Apolli∣naris's than this Father's, as the Orthodox have since found out, and maintained against the Se∣verians. This Expression seems directly contrary to the Faith of the Church, which believes two Natures in Jesus Christ, and was displeased not only with the Eastern Bishops, but with S. Isidore of Damiata, who wrote to S. Cyril, that he ought not to use it, because by saying One Nature, he excludes the Two. Nevertheless, S. Cyril and Egyptions used it commonly, and preferred it be∣fore others. Eutyches and his Friends have since looked upon it as the Foundation of their Do∣ctrine, and Flavian himself comes near it in his Apologitical Letter to the Emperor. The Coun∣cil of Chalcedon would not make use of it, and the Eastern Bishops rejected it. But the Egyptian Bishops having shewed them that it was S. Cyril's, they dare not condemn it. Several Greek Au∣thors have used it since, but it is seldom found in the Latin Fathers, and there are very few Di∣vines which have approved of it. There are divers senses given to this Expression: Some say, that S. Cyril means by this word Nature, the Person, and that he uses these terms promiscuously, as it appears in his Defence of his eighth Chapter, where he says, That Jesus Christ is one Person, or Nature; that is, One Hypostasis. In this sense, there is no difficulty in this Proposition, but the true sense of S. Cyril is not, that there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ, but that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate: For he never says plainly, That there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ; but, that there is but One Nature of the Word which is Incarnate; and having said that, he explains how it being Incarnate was united to the Manhood. Thus S. Cyril explains himself in several places, but chiefly in his Letters to Succosius and Acacius. He acknowledges indeed that the Hu∣mane and Divine Nature are distinct in the Person of Jesus Christ; but for fear that distin∣ction should be abused, and they should divide these two Natures into two Persons, he af∣fected to use a term which signified this Union without denoting any division; which he did, not only to oppose the Nestorians the most strongly, but to satisfie the most zealous of his own Party, who could not endure to hear of two Natures in Jesus Christ, and who were displeased that it was approved in the Confession of Faith made by the Western Bishops.

As to the Chapters of S. Cyril, which made so much noise, we must own, that these twelve Propositions were very subtil, and that some of them might be badly construed. This S. Cyril himself was convinced of; but 'tis not true, that they are not as well capable of a good sense. He explain'd them in such a manner, as might satisfie the Eastern Bishops. They were read in the Council of Ephesus, but they were approved by Name, as his second Letter to Nestorius was. When the Peace was concluded, the Eastern Bishops were not obliged to subscribe nor approve them, nor did they require it of S. Cyril to retract them. They were not spoken of in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, nor was Theodoret obliged to recant what he had written against S. Cyril's Chap∣ters. They read also in this Council Ibas's Letter, where it is said, That the Eastern Bishops be∣lieved S. Cyril an Heretick, before he had explain'd his Chapters. All this proves, that the twelve Chapters of S. Cyril were never made a part of the Faith of the Church, and that the Eastern Bishops are not to be condemned for opposing and rejecting them. Nor can we reasonably believe them guilty of any Errours in their carriage as to Nestorius. It is evident, that they thought him of Or∣thodox Sentiments, and at the very time when they stuck closest to him, they plainly rejected the Errours that were attributed to him. They also advised him from the very first to approve the term of the Mother of God; and shewed him, that in one sense it might be said, That the Son of God, who was born before all Ages, was also born of Mary. But nothing better proves, that the Ea∣stern Bishops never departed from the Orthodox Truth, than the Objections which they made against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters; for though they condemned the Expression of this Father, they acknowledged, That there was but one Person in Jesus Christ, and owned that the two Natures are united in a very strict Union, and cannot be divided or separated, but they oppose any con∣fusion,

mixture or change of the two Natures, Errours which they thought to lie couched in S. Cyril's twelve Chapters. They always professed the same Doctrine both in and after the Coun∣cil of Ephesus. They always protested that they acknowledged but one Christ, perfect God, and perfect Man, and that the two Natures were united in one Person. When the Peace was making, there was no Controversie about the Confession of Faith, they agreed without any trouble with S. Cyril in that, who acknowledged that they never were in Nestorius's Errours, though they had been before accused of it. Theodoret himself, who was one of the most furious against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, had no sooner seen his first Letter, but he owned it to be Orthodox. All the difficulty which can be raised here, is as to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Eutherius Bishop of Ty∣ana, and some other Bishops who would not be comprehended in the Peace, or yielded to it only by force. But we must own, that these Bishops themselves did seemingly profess the Orthodox Faith; and though they found fault with S. Cyril's Exposition of the Faith, 'twas not because they denied the Union of the two Natures in one Person, but because they were afraid that there was some term which made it suspectous, that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. They never defended the Doctrine attributed to Nestorius, but maintained that Nestorius had no other than what they thought Orthodox. 'Twas a Question of Fact, and not of Right, that divided them. But their Obstinacy and Separation gave occasion to suspect, that they were of Nestorius's Opini∣on, or at least was sufficient to make them to be condemned as Disturbers of the Peace, and Schis∣maticks.

Lastly, The chief Subject of these Contests which were raised between the Egyptian and Ea∣stern Bishops at this Juncture, may be said to proceed from hence, that they attributed the quality of the Divine and Humane Natures, which were in the Person of Jesus Christ after different manners: For the Eastern Bishops could hardly understand, how the Qualities of the Humane Na∣ture could be attributed to the Divine, and the Properties of the Divine Nature to the Humane; and the Egyptians urged this Communication of Terms to an excess, as has not since been fol∣lowed.

'Tis for this Reason, that the Eastern Bishops being desirous to take away all matter of Con∣test, have annexed to the end of their Confession of Faith:

We know, that as to those Qualities which Holy Scripture attributes to our Lord, there are some, which great Divines have made common to both Natures, as agreeing to one and the same Person; and there are others which they attribute to the two Natures severally, referring to the Divinity of Jesus Christ those, which are more sublime, and to the Humanity of those, that are more mean, and unworthy of the Di∣vine Nature.

We have seen that Nestorius would never allow it to be said, that God is born, dead, or hath suffered, but would suffer them to be said of Christ. The Eastern Bishops also would very hardly * 1.114 allow these Expressions, and desired that some softer terms might be added to explain them. S. Cyril and the Egyptians used them upon all Occasions; they scrupled not to say, The Immortal is dead, Life is dead, God is crucified, Humane Flesh is become the Giver of Life, and to be adored: Yea, some of them, as Acacius Bishop of Melitina, maintained this Expression, That the Word was born, died, hath suffered, and applyed it to the Divinity, or Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. This was the Original of the greatest part of the Disputes, which reigned in this Age, which we are now speaking of, and in the next. This was the Cause of the misunderstanding between the Ea∣stern and Egyptian Bishops, The pretence of their Division, and the Subject of their Contests.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The first Council of Ephesus.
• * 1.2

  Cyril Ep. ad Caelest. 1. p. Con. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 32. In Mar. Mercator and in the Acts of the Coun∣cil.
• * 1.3

  Act. conc. p. 1. c. 33. Act. conc. p. 1. c. 2. 1. p. of the Con. c. 12.
• * 1.4

  Conc. p. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.5

  p. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.6

  p. 1. c. 16.
• * 1.7

  p. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.8

  p. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.9

  Act 1. p. c. 12.
• * 1.10

  p. 1. c. 10. 11.
• * 1.11

  p. 1. c. ••4.
• * 1.12

  Nov. Col. Conc. tom. 1. p. 378.
• * 1.13

  enlive∣ned.
• * 1.14

  impossi∣ble.
• * 1.15

  p. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.16

  Ibid c. 23.
• * 1.17

  1. A Council at Rome.
• * 1.18

  Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 15. Ibid. c. 18.
• * 1.19

  Ibid. c. 19
• * 1.20

  Ibid. c. 20
• * 1.21

  Ibid. c. 21. 24.
• * 1.22

  Ibid. c. 25.
• * 1.23

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 3.
• * 1.24

  2. A Council in Aegypt.
• * 1.25

  S. Cyril's twelve Anathe∣ma's.
• * 1.26

  1. p. Act. Conc. c. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.27

  Ibid. c. 20.
• * 1.28

  Ibid. c. 31.
• * 1.29

  Ibid. c. 31. (32.)
• * 1.30

  In Marius Mercator.
• * 1.31

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 4.
• * 1.32

  Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 33. and 34.
• * 1.33

  Ibid. c. 36
• * 1.34

  Ibid. c. 35
• * 1.35

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.
• * 1.36

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.
• * 1.37

  Credible.
• * 1.38

  Act. I.
• † 1.39

  Coll. of Lupus. c. 9
• * 1.40

  Cite.
• * 1.41

  Sacrado∣tal, or Priestly.
• * 1.42

  Sancta Synodus. In Ephe∣so coacta. Nestorio, Novo Ju∣dae.
• * 1.43

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 15. 28.
• * 1.44

  In his Inn.
• * 1.45

  Act. 11.
• * 1.46

  Act. III.
• * 1.47

  Act IV.
• * 1.48

  Act V.
• * 1.49

  Act VI.
• * 1.50

  Act VII.
• * 1.51

  A trusty Person in the Habit of a Beg∣gar.
• † 1.52

  Which was made of an Hal∣low Read.
• † 1.53

  Hella∣dius Bi∣shop of Tarsus was, per∣haps, the 8th Bishop for the Eastern.
• * 1.54

  Sept. 4.
• * 1.55

  Collect. Lupus, c. 38. ibid. c. 66, 136, 141, 174, 201. Ibid. & Socr. l. 7. c. 34. Liberat. in brov. c. 6. Coll. of Lupus, c. 39.
• * 1.56

  Ibid. c. 43. Ibid. c. 44.
• * 1.57

  Ibid. c. 45. Ibid. c. 46. Ibid. c. 48. Ibid. c. 49. 3 Part of the Counc. of Ephe∣sus, c. 24.
• * 1.58

  C. 25. Ib. Collect. of Lupus, c. 51. 52.
• * 1.59

  Ibid. 50.
• * 1.60

  Ibid. c. 53. c. 58. c. 62.
• * 1.61

  C. 58. 62.
• * 1.62

  P. 3. c. 26.
• * 1.63

  C. 57, 58, 59, 60.
• * 1.64

  c. 60, 61. In Lupus's Collection from c. 54 to c. 74.
• * 1.65

  c. 77. 138 c. 78.
• * 1.66

  c. 80.
• * 1.67

  Act of the Counc. 3. p. c. 82.
• * 1.68

  c. 85.
• * 1.69

  c. 202, 203.
• * 1.70

  p. 3. Act. of the Counc. 30.
• * 1.71

  N. B.
• * 1.72

  Act. of the Conc. p. 3. c. 31. 32.
• * 1.73

  Coll. of Lupus. c. 2.
• * 1.74

  c. 86.
• * 1.75

  3. p. Act of the Cou. c. 27.
• * 1.76

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 87. & 88. c. 91, 95. c. 90, 92, 94, 95. c. 96. c. 97. c. 95. c. 97.
• * 1.77

  c. 100. c. 101.
• * 1.78

  c. 105, 106.
• * 1.79

  c. 110.
• * 1.80

  c. 111, 112, 113 c. 114.
• * 1.81

  c. 123.
• * 1.82

  c. 123, 124. c. 140. c. 126.
• * 1.83

  c. 127.
• * 1.84

  c. 130.
• * 1.85

  c. 131.
• * 1.86

  c. 132.
• * 1.87

  c. 133.
• * 1.88

  c. 135.
• * 1.89

  C. 142. C. 143. C. 144. C. 145. C. 146.
• * 1.90

  C. 148.
• * 1.91

  C. 149.
• * 1.92

  C. 151.
• * 1.93

  C. 151.
• * 1.94

  C. 157. 159.
• * 1.95

  C. 163. C. 160. &c.
• * 1.96

  C. 176.
• * 1.97

  C. 180. &c.
• * 1.98

  C. 185.
• * 1.99

  C. 186.
• * 1.100

  C. 190.
• * 1.101

  C. 192.
• * 1.102

  C. 194.
• * 1.103

  C. 165. C. 209. and 210.
• * 1.104

  C. 169.
• * 1.105

  Collect. of Lupus, C. 207.
• * 1.106

  C. 206.
• * 1.107

  Collect. of Lupus, C. 199, 200.
• * 1.108

  Facund. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.109

  Ibid. l. 8. c. 3, 5. l. 11. c. 14.
• * 1.110

  Fac. l. 1. c. 1. l. 8. c. 4, 5. l. 11. c. 1. 8.
• * 1.111

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 29.
• * 1.112

  Facund. l. 8. c. 22.
• * 1.113

  Act Conc. 5. Coll. 5.
• * 1.114

  Admit of.