a "union" (ἕνωσις) between the divinity and humanity, and would only allow a "conjunction" (συνάφεια)[1] between God and man. He taught that the man Jesus was only the organ, instrument, temple, vessel, garment, of the Son of God.[2] His counter-anathemas to Cyril (p. 63) are quite enough to show his heresy; for instance, No. VII: "If anyone say that the man who was created from the Virgin is himself the Only-begotten who was born of the Father before the day-star, instead of confessing that he has a share in this name of Only-begotten only because of his being united to him who is by nature the Only-begotten of the Father … let him be anathema."[3] At the beginning of the Council of Ephesus, during the preliminary discussions, Nestorius said: "Never will I call a child two or three months old God; because of this I will not communicate with you (Cyril)."[4]
Now, the Book of Heraklides only confirms all this. M. Jugie says it is one of the dullest books that ever came from the hand of man.[5] In reading F. Nau's excellent French version I did not find it so: indeed, it produces a good deal of sympathy with Nestorius. He protests with dignity against the way he had been treated; one has the impression of a respectable, well-meaning man, plainly always in good faith, who had been hardly used. The haste with which he was condemned and deposed at Ephesus, before his friend John of Antioch arrived, certainly seems regrettable. His keen interest in the later developments is curious. He is strongly in favour of his successor St. Flavian, and rightly indignant against the Monophysite Robber-Synod at Ephesus in 449 (see p. 173). Perhaps he might have accepted the decrees of Chalcedon and so have rehabilitated himself, had he lived. But meanwhile, in his Heraklides Book, in spite of all this, Nestorius is still emphatically a Nestorian. Throughout he assumes that hypostasis, person (πρόσωπον), and nature (individual and concrete nature) are exactly the same thing. If you start from
- ↑ See the text in Hefele-Leclercq, ii. i. p. 239–240.
- ↑ Loofs: Nestoriana, pp. 168, 175, 205, 303, etc.
- ↑ Hefele-Leclercq: ib. p. 282 ; but see the whole list.
- ↑ Ib. p. 293. Mr. Bethune Baker says that in this sentence θεόν is the subject, and tries to excuse Nestorius, not, I think, with much success (Nestorius and his Teaching, pp. 79–80).
- ↑ Échos d'Orient, 1911 (xiv.), p. 65.
