CHAPTER II

HERESY OF NESTORIUS DISCOVERED AND CONDEMNED

SINCE, then, Nestorius, that God-assaulting tongue, that second conclave of Caiaphas, that workshop of blasphemy, in whose case Christ is again made a subject of bargain and sale, by having His natures divided and torn asunder—He of whom not a single bone was broken even on the cross, according to Scripture, and whose seamless vest suffered no rending at the hands of God-slaying men—since, then, he thrust aside and rejected the term, Mother of God, which had been already wrought by the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of many chosen fathers, and substituted a spurious one of his own coining—Mother of Christ; and further filled the Church with innumerable wars, deluging it with kindred blood, I think that I shall not be at a loss for a well-judged arrangement of my history, nor miss its end, if, with the aid of Christ, who is God over all, I preface it with the impious blasphemy of Nestorius. The war of the churches took its rise from the following circumstances. A certain presbyter named Anastasius, a man of corrupt opinions, and a warm admirer of Nestorius and his Jewish sentiments, who also accompanied him when setting out from his country to take possession of his bishoprick; at which time Nestorius, having met with Theodore at Mopsuestia, was perverted by his teaching from godly doctrine, as Theodulus writes in an epistle upon this subject—this Anastasius, in discoursing to the Christ-loving people in the church of Constantinople, dared to say, without any reserve, “Let no one style Mary the Mother of God; for Mary was human, and it is impossible for God to be born of a human being.” When the Christ-loving people were disgusted, and with reason regarded his discourse as blasphemous, Nestorius, the real teacher of the blasphemy, so far from restraining him and upholding the true doctrine, on the contrary, imparted to the teaching of Anastasius the impulse it acquired, by urging on the question with more than ordinary pugnacity. And further, by mingling with it notions of his own, and thus vomiting forth the venom of his soul, he endeavoured to inculcate opinions still more blasphemous, proceeding so far as thus to avouch, upon his own peril, “I could never be induced to call that God which admitted of being two months old or three months old.” These circumstances rest on the distinct authority of Socrates, and the former synod at Ephesus.