Nestorius and Nestorianism

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The heresiarch

Nestorius, who gave his name to the Nestorianheresy, was born atGermanicia, inSyria Euphoratensis (date unknown); died in theThebaid, Egypt, c. 451. He was living as apriest andmonk in themonastery of Euprepius near the walls, when he was chosen by the Emperor Theodosius II to bePatriarch of Constantinople in succession to Sisinnius. He had a high reputation for eloquence, and the popularity ofSt. Chrysostom's memory among the people of the imperial city may have influenced the Emperor's choice of anotherpriest from Antioch to be courtbishop. He wasconsecrated in April, 428, and seems to have made an excellent impression. He lost no time in showing hiszeal againstheretics. Within a few days of hisconsecration Nestorius had anArianchapel destroyed, and he persuadedTheodosius to issue a severe edict againstheresy in the following month. He had the churches of the Macedonians in the Hellespont seized, and took measures against the Quartodecimans who remained inAsia Minor. He also attacked theNovatians, in spite of the good reputation of theirbishop.Pelagian refugees from the West, however, he did not expel, not being well acquainted with their condemnation ten years earlier. He twice wrote toPope St. Celestine I for information on the subject. He received no reply, but Marius Mercator, a disciple ofSt. Augustine, published a memoir on the subject at Constantinople, and presented it to the emperor, who duly proscribed theheretics. At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the wordTheotokos, and detailed his Antiochiandoctrine of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it wasEusebius, alayman, afterwardsBishop ofDorylaeum and the accuser ofEutyches. Twopriests of the city, Philip and Proclus, who had both been unsuccessful candidates for thepatriarchate, preached against Nestorius. Philip, known as Sidetes, from Side, his birthplace, author of a vast and discursive history now lost, accused the patriarch ofheresy. Proclus (who was to succeed later in his candidature) preached a flowery, but perfectlyorthodox, sermon, yet extant, to which Nestorius replied in an extempore discourse, which we also possess. All this naturally caused great excitement at Constantinople, especially among theclergy, who were clearly not well disposed towards the stranger from Antioch. St. Celestine immediately condemned thedoctrine. Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. He now hastened it on, and the summons had been issued topatriarchs andmetropolitans on 19 Nov., before thepope's sentence, delivered thoughCyril of Alexandria, had been served on Nestorius (6 Dec.). At the council Nestorius was condemned, and the emperor, after much delay and hesitation, ratified its finding. It was confirmed byPope Sixtus III.

The lot of Nestorius was a hard one. He had been handed over by thepope to the tender mercies of his rival, Cyril; he had been summoned to accept within ten days under pain of deposition, not apapal definition, but a series ofanathemas drawn up at Alexandria under the influence ofApollinarian forgeries. The whole council had not condemned him, but only a portion, which had not awaited the arrival of thebishops from Antioch. He had refused to recognize thejurisdiction of this incomplete number, and had consequently refused to appear or put in any defence. He was not thrust out of hissee by a change of mind on the part of the feeble emperor. But Nestorius was proud: he showed no sign of yielding or of coming to terms; he put in no plea of appeal toRome. He retired to hismonastery at Antioch with dignity and apparent relief. His friends,John of Antioch, and his party, deserted him, and at the wish of the Emperor, at the beginning of 433, joined hands with Cyril, and Theodoret later did the same. Thebishops who were suspected of being favourable to Nestorius were deposed. An edict of Theodosius II, 30 July, 435, condemned his writings to be burnt. A few years later Nestorius was dragged from his retirement and banished to the Oasis. He was at one time carried off by the Nubians (not the Blemmyes) in a raid, and was restored to theThebaid with his hand and one rib broken. He gave himself up to the governor in order not to be accused of having fled.

The recent discovery of a Syriac version of the (lost) Greek apology for Nestorius by himself has awakened new interest in the question of his personalorthodoxy. The (mutilated)manuscript, about 800 years old, known as the "Bazaar of Heraclides", and recently edited as the "Liber Heraclidis" by P. Bedjan (Paris, 1910), reveals the persistent odium attached to the name of Nestorius, since at the end of his life he wasobliged to substitute for it a pseudonym. In this work he claims that hisfaith is that of the celebrated "Tome", or letter ofLeo the Great toFlavian, and excuses his failure to appeal toRome by the general prejudice of which he was the victim. A fine passage on the Eucharistic Sacrifice which occurs in the "Bazaar" may be cited here: "There is something amiss with you which I want to put before you in a few words, in order to induce you to amend it, for you are quick to see what is seemly. What then is this fault? Presently the mysteries are set before the faithful like the mess granted to his soldiers by the king. Yet the army of the faithful is nowhere to be seen, but they are blown away together with thecatechumens like chaff by the wind of indifference. And Christ is crucified in the symbol [kata ton tupon], sacrificed by the sword of theprayer of the Priest; but, as when He was upon the Cross, He finds His disciples have already fled. Terrible is this fault,--a betrayal of Christ when there is nopersecution, a desertion by the faithful of their Master's Body when there is nowar" (Loofs, "Nestoriana", Halls, 1905, p. 341).

The writings of Nestorius were originally very numerous. As stated above, the "Bazaar" has newly been published (Paris, 1910) in the Syriac translation in which alone it survives. The rest of the fragments of Nestorius have been most minutely examined, pieced together and edited by Loofs. His sermons show a real eloquence, but very little remains in the original Greek. The Latin translations by Marius Mercator are very poor in style and the text is ill preserved. Batiffol has attributed to Nestorius many sermons which have come down to us under the names of other authors; three ofAthanasius, one ofHippolytus, three of Amphilochius, thirty-eight of Basil of Selleucia, seven ofSt. Chrysostom; but Loofs and Baker do not accept the ascription. Mercati has pointed out four fragments in a writing of Innocent,Bishop ofMaronia (ed. Amelli in "Spicil. Cassin.", I, 1887), andArmenian fragments have been published by Ludtke.

The heresy

Nestorius was a disciple of theschool of Antioch, and hisChristology was essentially that ofDiodorus of Tarsus andTheodore of Mopsuestia, both Cilicianbishops and great opponents ofArianism. Both died in theCatholicChurch. Diodorus was a holy man, muchvenerated bySt. John Chrysostom. Theodore, however, was condemned in person as well as in his writings by the Fifth General Council, in 553. In opposition to many of theArians, who taught that in the Incarnation theSon of God assumed a human body in which His Divine Nature took the place ofsoul, and to the followers of Apollinarius ofLaodicea, who held that the Divine Nature supplied the functions of the higher orintellectualsoul, the Antiochenes insisted upon the completeness of the humanity which the Word assumed. Unfortunately, they represented thishumannature as a complete man, and represented the Incarnation as the assumption of a man by the Word. The same way of speaking was common enough in Latin writers (assumere hominem, homo assumptus) and was meant by them in anorthodox sense; we still sing in theTe Deum: "Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem", where we must understand "ad liberandum hominem, humanam naturam suscepisti". But the Antiochene writers did not mean that the "man assumed" (ho lephtheis anthropos) was taken up into one hypostasis with the Second Person of theHoly Trinity. They preferred to speak ofsynapheia, "junction", rather thanenosis, "unification", and said that the two were oneperson in dignity and power, and must be worshipped together. The wordperson in its Greek formprosopon might stand for a juridical or fictitious unity; it does not necessarily imply what the wordperson implies to us, that is, the unity of the subject of consciousness and of all the internal and external activities. Hence we are not surprised to find that Diodorus admitted two Sons, and that Theodore practically made two Christs, and yet that they cannot beproved to have really made two subjects in Christ. Two things are certain: first, that, whether or no they believed in the unity of the subject in the Incarnate Word, at least they explained that unity wrongly; secondly, that they used most unfortunate and misleading language when they spoke of the union of the manhood with theGodhead — language which is objectivelyheretical, even were the intention of its authors good.

Nestorius, as well as Theodore, repeatedly insisted that he did not admit two Christs or two Sons, and he frequently asserted the unity of theprosopon. On arriving atConstantinople he came to the conclusion that the very differenttheology which he found rife there was a form ofArian orApollinarianerror. In this he was not wholly wrong, as the outbreak ofEutychianism twenty years later may be held to prove. In the first months of his pontificate he was implored by thePelagianJulian of Eclanum and other expelledbishops of his party to recognize theirorthodoxy and obtain their restoration He wrote at least three letters to thepope,St. Celestine I, to inquire whether these petitioners had been duly condemned or not, but he received no reply, not (as has been too often repeated) because thepope imagined he did not respect the condemnation of thePelagians by himself and by the Western emperor, but because he added in his letters, which are extant, denunciations of the supposedArians andApollinarians of Constantinople, and in so doing gave clear signs of the Antiocheneerrors soon to be known as Nestorian. In particular he denounced those who employed the wordTheotokos, though he was ready to admit the use of it in a certain sense: "Ferri tamen potest hoc vocabulum proper ipsum considerationem, quod solum nominetur de virgine hoc verbum hoc propter inseparable templum Dei Verbi ex ipsa, non quia mater sit Dei Verbi; nemo enim antiquiorem se parit." Such an admission is worse than useless, for it involves the wholeerror that theBlessed Virgin is not the mother of the Second Person of theHoly Trinity. It is therefore unfortunate that Loofs and others who defend Nestorius should appeal to the frequency with which he repeated that he should accept theTheotokos if only it was properly understood. In the same letter he speaks quite correctly of the "two Natures which are adored in the onePerson of the Only-begotten by a perfect and unconfused conjunction", but this could not palliate his mistake that theBlessed Virgin is mother of one nature, not of theperson (a son is necessarily aperson, not a nature), nor the fallacy: "No one can bring forth a son older than herself." Thedeacon Leo, who was twenty years later aspope to define the wholedoctrine, gave these letters to John Cassian ofMarseilles, who at once wrote against Nestorius his seven books, "De incarnatione Christi". Before he had completed the work he had further obtained some sermons of Nestorius, from which he quotes in the later books. He misunderstands and exaggerates the teaching of his opponent, but his treatise is important because it stereotyped once for all adoctrine which the Western world was to accept as Nestorianism. After explaining that the newheresy was a renewal ofPelagianism andEbionitism, Cassian represents the Constantinoplitan patriarch as teaching that Christ is a mere man (homo solitarius) who merited union with the Divinity as the reward of HisPassion. Cassian himself brings out quite clearly both the unity ofperson and the distinction of the twonatures, yet the formula "Two Natures and one Person" is less plainly enunciated by him than by Nestorius himself, and the discussion is wanting in clear-cut distinctions and definitions.

Meanwhile Nestorius was being attacked by his ownclergy and simultaneously by St. Cyril,Patriarch ofAlexandria, who first denounced him, though without giving a name, in an epistle to all themonks ofEgypt, then remonstrated with him personally by letter, and finally wrote to thepope. Loofs is of the opinion that Nestorius would never have been disturbed but for St. Cyril. But there is no reason to connect St. Cyril with the opposition to the heresiarch at Constantinople and atRome. His rivals Philip of Side and Proclus and thelaymanEusebius (afterwardsBishop ofDorylaeum), as well as the Roman Leo, seem to have acted without any impulse from Alexandria. It might have been expected that Pope Celestine would specify certainheresies of Nestorius and condemn them, or issue a definition of the traditionalfaith which was being endangered. Unfortunately he did nothing of the kind. St. Cyril had sent toRome his correspondence with Nestorius, a collection of that Patriarch's sermons, and a work of his own which he had just composed, consisting of five books "Contra Nestorium". Thepope had them translated into Latin, and then, after assembling the customary council, contented himself with giving a general condemnation ofNestorius and a general approval of St. Cyril's conduct, whilst he delivered the execution of this vaguedecree to Cyril, who asPatriarch ofAlexandria was the hereditary enemy both of the Antiochenetheologian and the Constantinoplitanbishop. Nestorius was to be summoned to recant within ten days. The sentence was as harsh as can well be imagined. St. Cyril saw himselfobliged to draw up a form for the recantation. With the help of anEgyptian council he formulated a set of twelveanathematisms which simply epitomize theerrors he had pointed out in his five books "Against Nestorius", for thepope appeared to have agreed with thedoctrine of that work. It is most important to notice that up to this point St. Cyril had not rested his case uponApollinarian documents and had not adopted theApollinarian formulamia physis sesarkomene from Pseudo-Athanasius. He does not teach in so many words "two natures after the union", but his work against Nestorius, with the depth and precision ofSt. Leo, is an admirable exposition ofCatholic doctrine, worthy of aDoctor of the Church, and far surpassing the treatise of Cassian. The twelveanathematisms are lesshappy, for St. Cyril was always a diffuse writer, and his solitary attempt at brevity needs to be read in connection with the work which it summarizes.

TheAnathematisms were at once attacked, on behalf of John,Patriarch ofAntioch, in defence of the Antiochene School, by Andrew ofSamosata and the greatTheodoret of Cyrus. The former wrote atAntioch; his objections were adopted by asynod held there, and were sent to Cyril as the official view of all the Orientalbishops. St. Cyril published separate replies to these two antagonists, treating Andrew with more respect than Theodoret, to whom he is contemptuous and sarcastic. The latter was doubtless the superior of the Alexandrian in talent and learning, but at this time he was no match for him as atheologian. Both Andrew and Theodoret show themselves captious and unfair; at best they sometimes prove that St. Cyril's wording is ambiguous and ill-chosen. They uphold the objectionable Antiochene phraseology, and they respect thehypostatic union (enosis kath hypostasin) as well as thephysike enosis as unorthodox and unscriptural. The latter expression is indeed unsuitable, and may be misleading. Cyril had to explain that he was not summarizing or defining thefaith about the Incarnation, but simply putting together the principalerrors of Nestorius in theheretic's own words. In his books against Nestorius he had occasionally misrepresented him, but in the twelveanathematisms he gave a perfectly faithful picture of Nestorius's view, for in fact Nestorius did not disown the propositions, nor did Andrew ofSamosata or Theodoret refuse to patronize any of them. Theanathematisms were certainly in a general way approved by the Council of Ephesus, but they have never been formally adopted by theChurch. Nestorius for his part replied by a set of twelve contra-anathematisms. Some of them are directed against St. Cyril's teaching, others attackerrors which St. Cyril did not dream of teaching, for example thatChrist's Human Nature became through the union uncreated and without beginning, a silly conclusion which was later ascribed to thesect ofMonophysites called Actistetae. On the whole, Nestorius's new programme emphasized his old position, as also did the violent sermons which he preached against St. Cyril on Saturday and Sunday, 13 and 14 December, 430. We have no difficulty in defining thedoctrine of Nestorius so far as words are concerned: Mary did not bring forth theGodhead as such (true) nor theWord of God (false), but the organ, the temple of theGodhead. The manJesus Christ is this temple, "the animated purple of the King", as he expresses it in a passage of sustained eloquence. The IncarnateGod did not suffer nor die, but raised up from the dead him in whom He was incarnate. The Word and the Man are to be worshipped together, and he adds:dia ton phorounta ton phoroumenon sebo (Through Him that bears I worship Him Who is borne). IfSt. Paul speaks of the Lord of Glory being crucified, he means the man by "the Lord of Glory". There are twonatures, he says, and oneperson; but the two natures are regularly spoken of as though they were twopersons, and the sayings of Scripture about Christ are to be appropriated some of the Man, some to the Word. If Mary is called the Mother ofGod, she will be made into a goddess, and theGentiles will bescandalized.

This is all bad enough as far as words go. But did not Nestorius mean better than his words? The Orientalbishops were certainly not all disbelievers in the unity of subject in the Incarnate Christ, and in fact St. Cyril made peace with them in 433. One may point to the fact that Nestorius emphatically declared that there is one Christ and one Son, and St. Cyril himself has preserved for us some passages from hissermons which thesaint admits to be perfectlyorthodox, and therefore wholly inconsistent with the rest. For example: "Great is the mystery of the gifts! For this visible infant, who seems so young, who needs swaddling clothes for His body, who in the substance which wesee is newly born, is the Eternal Son, as it is written, the Son who is the Maker of all, the Son who binds together in the swathing-bands of His assisting power the whole creation which would otherwise be dissolved." And again: "Even the infant is the all-powerfulGod, so far, O Arius, isGod the Word from being subject toGod." And: "We recognize the humanity of the infant, and His Divinity; the unity of His Sonship we guard in the nature of humanity and divinity." It will probably be only just to Nestorius to admit that he fully intended to safeguard the unity of subject in Christ. But he gave wrong explanations as to the unity, and his teachinglogically led to two Christs, though he would not have admitted the fact. Not only his words are misleading, but thedoctrine which underlies his words is misleading, and tends to destroy the whole meaning of the Incarnation. It is impossible to deny that teaching as well as wording which leads to such consequences asheresy. He was therefore unavoidably condemned. He reiterated the same view twenty years later in the "Bazaar of Heraclides", which shows no real change of opinion, although he declares his adherence to the Tome of St. Leo.

After the council of 431 had been made into law by the emperor, the Antiochene party would not at once give way. But the council was confirmed byPope Sixtus III, who had succeeded St. Celestine, and it was received by the whole West. Antioch was thus isolated, and at the same time St. Cyril showed himself ready to make explanations. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria agreed upon a "creed of union" in 433 (seeE). Andrew ofSamosata, and some others would not accept it, but declared the word "Theotokos" to beheretical. Theodoret held a council at Zeuguma which refused toanathematize Nestorius. But the prudentbishop of Cyrus after a time perceived that in the "creed of union" Antioch gained more than did Alexandria; so he accepted the somewhat hollow compromise. He says himself that he commended theperson of Nestorius whilst heanathematized hisdoctrine. A new state of things arose when the death of St. Cyril, in 444, took away his restraining hand from his intemperate followers. The friend of Nestorius, CountIrenaeus had becomeBishop ofTyre, and he waspersecuted by the Cyrillian party, as wasIbas,Bishop ofEdessa, who had been a great teacher in that city. Thesebishops, together with Theodoret and Domnus, the nephew and successor ofJohn of Antioch, were deposed byDioscorus of Alexandria in theRobber Council of Ephesus (449). Ibas was full of Antiochenetheology, but in his famous letter to Maris the Persian he disapproves of Nestorius as well as of Cyril, and at theCouncil of Chalcedon he was willing to cry a thousandanathemas to Nestorius. He and Theodoret were both restored by that council, and both seem to have taken the view that St. Leo's Tome was a rehabilitation of the Antiochenetheology. The same view was taken by theMonophysites, who looked uponSt. Leo as the opponent of St. Cyril's teaching. Nestorius in his exile rejoiced at this reversal of Roman policy, as he thought it. Loofs, followed by many writers even amongCatholics, is of the same opinion. ButSt. Leo himself believed that he was completing and not undoing the work of the Council of Ephesus, and as a fact his teaching is but a clearer form of St. Cyril's earlierdoctrine as exposed in the five books against Nestorius. But it istrue that St. Cyril's later phraseology, of which the two letters to Succensus are the type, is based upon the formula which he felt himself bound to adopt from anApollinarian treatise believed to be by his great predecessorAthanasius:mia physis ton Theou Logou sesarkomene. St. Cyril found this formula an awkward one, as his treatment of it shows, and it became in fact the watchword ofheresy. But St. Cyril does his best to understand it in a right sense, and goes out of his way to admit two natures even after the unionen theoria, an admission which was to save Severus himself from a good part of thisheresy.

That Loofs or Harnack should fail to perceive the vital difference between the Antiochenes andSt. Leo, is easily explicable by their notbelieving theCatholic doctrine of the twonatures, and therefore not catching the perfectly simple explanation given bySt. Leo. Just as some writers declare that theMonophysites always tookphysis in the sense ofhypostasis, so Loofs and others hold that Nestorius tookhypostasis always in the sense ofphysis, and meant no more bytwo hypostases than he meant bytwo natures. But the words seem to have had perfectly definite meanings with all thetheologians of the period. That theMonophysites distinguished them, is probable (seeM M), and all admit they unquestionably meant byhypostasis a subsistent nature. That Nestorius cannot, on the contrary, have takennature to mean the same ashypostasis and both to meanessence is obvious enough, for three plain reasons: first, he cannot have meant anything so absolutely opposed to the meaning given to the wordhypostasis by theMonophysites; secondly, if he meantnature byhypostasis he had no word at all left for "subsistence" (for he certainly usedousia to mean "essence" rather than "subsistence"); thirdly, the wholedoctrine ofTheodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius's own refusal to admit almost any form of thecommunicatio idiomatum, force us to take his "two natures" in the sense of subsistent natures.

The modern critics also consider that theorthodoxdoctrine of the Greeks againstMonophysitism — in fact the Chalcedoniandoctrine as defended for many years — was practically the Antiochene or Nestoriandoctrine, until Leontius modified it in the direction of conciliation. This theory is wholly gratuitous, for from Chalcedon onwards there is noorthodox controversialist who has left us any considerable remains in Greek by which we might be enabled to judge how far Leontius was an innovator. At all events weknow, from the attacks made by theMonophysites themselves, that, though they professed to regard theirCatholic opponents as Crypto-Nestorians, in so doing they distinguished them from thetrue Nestorians who openly professed two hypostases and condemned the wordTheotokos. In fact we may say that, afterJohn of Antioch and Theodoret had made peace with St. Cyril, no more was heard in the Greek world of the Antiochenetheology. Theschool had been distinguished, but small. In Antioch itself, inSyria, and in Palestine, themonks, who were exceedingly influential, were Cyrillians, and a large proportion of them were to becomeMonophysites. It was beyond the Greek world that Nestorianism was to have its development. There was atEdessa a famousschool forPersians, which had probably been founded in the days of St. Ephrem, when Nisibis had ceased to belong to the Roman Empire in 363. TheChristians inPersia had suffered terriblepersecution, and RomanEdessa had attractedPersians for peaceful study. Under the direction of Ibas the Persianschool ofEdessa imbibed the Antiochenetheology. But the famousBishop ofEdessa,Rabbûla, though he had stood apart from St. Cyril's council at Ephesus together with thebishops of the Antiochenepatriarchate, became after the council a convinced, and even a violent, Cyrillian, and he did his best against theschool of thePersians. Ibas himself became his successor. But at the death of his protector, in 457, thePersians were driven out ofEdessa by theMonophysites, who made themselves all-powerful.Syria then becomesMonophysite and produces its Philoxenus and many another writer.Persia simultaneously becomes Nestorian. Of the exiles fromEdessa into their own country nine becamebishops, including Barsumas, or Barsaûma, ofNisibis and Acacius of Beit Aramage. Theschool atEdessa was finally closed in 489.

At this time theChurch inPersia was autonomous, having renounced all subjection to Antioch and the "Western"bishops at the Council ofSeleucia in 410. Theecclesiastical superior of the whole was theBishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who had assumed the rank ofcatholicos. Thisprelate was Babaeus or Babowai (457-84) at the time of the arrival of the Nestorian professors fromEdessa. He appears to have received them with open arms. But Barsaûma, having becomeBishop ofNisibis, the nearest great city toEdessa, broke with the weakcatholicos, and, at a council which he held at Beit Lapat in April, 484, pronounced his deposition. In the same year Babowai was accused before the king of conspiring with Constantinople and cruellyput to death, being hung up by his ring-finger and also, it is said, crucified and scourged. There is not sufficient evidence for the story which makes Barsaûma his accuser. TheBishop ofNisibis was at all events in high favour with King Peroz (457-84) and had been able to persuade him that it would be agood thing for the Persian kingdom if theChristians in it were all of a different complexion from those of the Empire, and had no tendency to gravitate towards Antioch and Constantinople, which were not officially under the sway of the"Henoticon" of Zeno. Consequently allChristians who were not Nestorians were driven fromPersia. But the story of thispersecution as told in the letter of Simeon of Beit Arsam is not generally considered trustworthy, and the alleged number of 7700Monophysitemartyrs is quite incredible. The town of Tagrit alone remainedMonophysite. But theArmenians were not gained over, and in 491 they condemned at Valarsapat theCouncil of Chalcedon,St. Leo, and Barsaûma. Peroz died in 484, soon after havingmurdered Babowai, and the energeticBishop ofNisibis had evidently less to hope from his successor, Balash. Though Barsaûma at first opposed the newcatholicos, Acacius in August, 485, he had an interview with him, and made his submission, acknowledging the necessity for subjection to Seleucia. However, he excused himself from being present at Acacius's council in 484 atSeleucia, where twelvebishops were present. At this assembly, the AntiocheneChristology was affirmed and a canon of Beit Lapat permitting the marriage of theclergy was repeated. The synod declared that they despised vainglory, and felt bound tohumble themselves in order to put an end to the horribleclericalscandals which disedified the Persian Magians as well as the faithful; they therefore enacted that theclergy should make avow of chastity;deacons may marry, and for the future no one is to beordainedpriest except adeacon who has a lawful wife and children. Though no permission is given topriests orbishops to marry (for this was contrary to the canons of theEastern Church), yet the practice appears to have been winked at, possibly for the regularization of illicit unions. Barsaûma himself is said to have married anun named Mamoé; but according to Mare, this was at the inspiration of King Peroz, and was only a nominal marriage, intended to ensure the preservation of the lady's fortune from confiscation.

The Persian Church was now organized, if not thoroughly united, and was formally committed to thetheology of Antioch. But Acacius, when sent by the king as envoy to Constantinople, wasobliged to accept theanathema against Nestorius in order to be received to Communion there. After his return he bitterly complained of being called a Nestorian by theMonophysite Philoxenus, declaring that he "knew nothing" of Nestorius. Nevertheless Nestorius has always beenvenerated as a saint by the Persian Church. One thing more was needed for the Nestorian Church; it wantedtheologicalschools of its own, in order that itsclergy might be able to hold their own intheological argument, without being tempted to study in theorthodox centres of the East or in the numerous and brilliantschools which the monophysites were now establishing. Barsaûma opened aschool atNisibis, which was to become more famous than its parent atEdessa. Therector was Narses the Leprous, a most prolific writer, of whom little has been preserved. Thisuniversity consisted of a single college, with the regular life of amonastery. Its rules are still preserved (seeN). At one time we hear of 800 students. Their great doctor wasTheodore of Mopsuestia. His commentaries were studied in the translation made by Ibas and were treated almost asinfallible. Theodore's Canon of Scripture was adopted, as we learn from "De Partibus Divinae Legis" of Junilius, (P.L., LXVIII, and ed. By Kihn), a work which is a translation and adaptation of the published lectures of a certain Paul, professor atNisibis. The method isAristotelean, and must be connected with the Aristotelean revival which in the Greek world is associated chiefly with the name of Philoponus, and in the West with that ofBoethius. The fame of thistheologicalseminary was so great thatPope Agapetus andCassiodorus wished to found one inItaly of a similar kind. The attempt was impossible in those troublous times; butCassiodorus'smonastery at Vivarium was inspired by the example ofNisibis. There were other less importantschools atSeleucia and elsewhere, even in small towns.

Barsaûma died between 492 and 495, Acacius in 496 or 497. Narses seems to have lived longer. The Nestorian Church which they founded, though cut off from theCatholicChurch by political exigencies, never intended to do more than practise an autonomy like that of the Easternpatriarchates. Itsheresy consisted mainly in its refusal to accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is interesting to note that neither Junilius norCassiodorus speaks of theschool ofNisibis asheretical. They were probably aware that it was not quiteorthodox, but thePersians who appeared at the Holy Places aspilgrims or at Constantinople must have seemed likeCatholics on account of theirhatred to theMonophysites, who were the great enemy in the East. The official teaching of the Nestorian Church in the time of King Chosroes (Khusran) II (died 628) is well presented to us in the treatise "De unione" composed by the energeticmonk Babai the Great, preserved in amanuscript From which Labourt has made extracts (pp. 280-87). Babai denies thathypostasis andperson have the same meaning. A hypostasis is a singular essence (ousia) subsisting in its independent being, numerically one, separate from others by its accidents. Aperson is thatproperty of a hypostasis which distinguishes it from others (this seems to be rather "personality" than "person") as being itself and no other, so that Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul. As hypostases Peter and Paul are not distinguished, for they have the same specific qualities, but they are distinguished by their particular qualities, their wisdom or otherwise, their height or their temperament, etc. And, as the singularproperty which the hypostasis possesses is not the hypostasis itself, the singularproperty which distinguishes it is called "person".

It would seem that Babai means that "a man" (individuum vagum) is the hypostasis, but not theperson, until we add the individual characteristics by which he is known to be Peter or Paul. This is not by any means the same as the distinction between nature and hypostasis, nor can it be asserted that byhypostasis Babai meant what we should callspecific nature, and byperson what we should callhypostasis. The theory seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to justify the traditional Nestorian formula: two hypostases in oneperson. As to the nature of the union, Babai falls on the Antiochene saying that it is ineffable, and prefers the usual metaphors — assumption, inhabitation, temple, vesture, junction—to any definition of the union. He rejects thecommunicatio idiomatum as involving confusion of the natures, but allows a certain "interchange of names", which he explains with great care.

The PersianChristians were called "Orientals", or "Nestorians", by their neighbours on the west. They gave to themselves the nameChaldeans; but this denomination is usually reserved at the present day for the large portion of the existing remnant which has been united to theCatholicChurch. The present condition of these Uniats, as well as the branch inIndia known as "Malabar Christians", is described underCHALDEAN CHRISTIANS. The history of the Nestorian Church must be looked for underPERSIA. The Nestorians also penetrated intoChina andMongolia and left behind them an inscribed stone, set up in Feb., 781, which describes the introduction ofChristianity intoChina fromPersia in the reign of T'ai-tsong (627-49). The stone is at Chou-Chih, fifty miles southwest of Sai-an Fu, which was in the seventh century the capital ofChina. It is known as "the Nestorian Monument".

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT