The Judgment of Nestorius

As we have already seen, it was not long after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy that it was proposed to hold an Ecumenical Council for its settlement, and this was expressly demanded both by the orthodox and by Nestorius. In his third letter to Pope Celestine, Nestorius spoke of this (see above, p. 28); and, in like manner, the letter of the monks of Constantinople to the Emperor, in which they complained of the ill-treatment which they had received from Nestorius, contains a loudly-expressed desire for the application of this ecclesiastical remedy. In fact, the Emperor Theodosius II., so early as November 19, 430, and thus a few days before the anathematisms of Cyril arrived at Constantinople, issued a circular letter, bearing also the name of his Western colleague, Valentinian III, addressed to all the metropolitans, in which he summoned them, for the Pentecost of the following year, to an Ecumenical Synod at Ephesus. He added that each of them should bring with him from his province some able suffragan bishops, and that whoever should arrive too late should be gravely responsible before God and the Emperor. Theodosius was in this visibly anxious that he should not allow that prepossession for Nestorius, which he had already betrayed on several occasions, to appear in this important document; and therefore this feeling showed itself the more openly in his letter (Sacra imperatoria), already referred to (see above, p. 23), addressed to Cyril, in which he accuses him of having disturbed the peace, of having given forth rash utterances, of not having acted openly and honourably, and of having brought everything to confusion. Particularly he blamed him for having communicated in writing with the Augusta (co-Empress) Pulcheria, and the consort of the Emperor, Eudocia, and for having most improperly endeavoured, by means of this letter, in an underhand way, to work out a malicious design of sowing discord even in the imperial family. Still he would forgive him what was past; and he added that on the subject of the contested doctrinal propositions the future Synod would decide, and that what they should decide must be universally accepted. It would be especially a duty for Cyril to appear at the Council, for the Emperor would not endure that any one should only be a ruler, and not take common counsel with others, nor allow himself to be taught by them. The conclusion of the letter contains some further bitter remarks of a similar character.

The Emperor had dispatched a peculiarly respectful letter to Augustine, on account of his great celebrity, inviting him to come to the Synod at Ephesus, and had expressly entrusted an official of the name of Ebagnius with the delivery of the letter. But Augustine was already (August 22 [28], 430) dead, and thus the bearer of the letter could only bring back to Constantinople the news of his death.

Cyril, on his part, now found it necessary to ask of Pope Celestine whether Nestorius should be allowed to appear at the proposed Synod as a member, or whether the sentence of deposition pronounced against him, after the period of time allowed for recanting had elapsed, should now still have effect. We no longer possess this letter itself, but we have the answer of the Pope, dated May 7, 431, which gives a beautiful proof of his peace-loving disposition, and in which he says, God willeth not the death of the sinner, but his conversion, and that Cyril should do everything in order to restore the peace of the Church and to win Nestorius to the truth. If the latter is quite determined against this, then he must reap what, with the help of the devil, he has sown. A second letter was addressed by the Pope, May 15, 431, to the Emperor Theodosius, saying that he could not personally be present at the Synod, but that he would take part in it by commissioners. The Emperor should allow no innovations, and no disturbance of the peace of the Church. He should even regard the interests of the Faith as higher than those of the State, and the peace of the Church as more important than the peace of the nations. As his legates at the Synod, the Pope appointed the two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, and gave them a commission to hold strictly by Cyril, but at the same time to preserve the dignity of the Apostolic See. They were to take part in the assemblies, but not themselves to mix in the discussions (between the Nestorians and their opponents), but to give judgment on the views of others. After the close of the Synod an inquiry should be instituted, requirendum est, qualiter fuerint res finitae. If the old faith triumphed, and Cyril went to the Emperor at Constantinople, they were also to go there and deliver to the Prince the papal briefs. If, however, no peaceful decision were arrived at, they were to consider with Cyril what must be done. The papal letter, which they had to lay before the Synod, dated May 8, 431, first explains with much eloquence the duty of the bishops to preserve the true faith, and then, at the close, goes on: "The legates are to be present at the transactions of the Synod, and will give effect to that which the Pope has long ago decided with respect to Nestorius, for he does not doubt that the assembled bishops will agree with this”….

In accordance with the imperial command, the Synod was to begin at Pentecost (June 7) in the year 431, and Nestorius, with his sixteen bishops, was among the first who arrived at Ephesus. As though going to battle, he was accompanied by a large number of men in armour. Soon afterwards, four or five days before Pentecost, Cyril arrived, with fifty bishops, about one-half of his suffragans ; and we still possess two short letters from him to his Church, of which the one was written on the journey at Rhodes, and the other immediately after his arrival at Ephesus. In the latter he says particularly that he looks forward with longing to the actual opening of the Synod. Some days after Pentecost, Juvenal of Jerusalem and Flavian of Thessalonica appeared with their bishops; Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus, too, had assembled around him forty of his suffragans and twelve bishops from Pamphylia. While they were waiting for the arrival of the others, there was already a good deal of preliminary conversation on the point in question, and particularly Cyril endeavoured to drive Nestorius into a corner by acute arguments, and to gain friends for the true doctrine. It was then that Nestorius allowed himself to break out into the exclamation: " Never will I call a child, two or three months old, God; and I will have no more communication with you;” and at the same time showed clearly the nature of his heresy, which, up to this time, he had endeavoured in various ways to disguise, and also his obstinacy, which left no hope of his submission to the decision of a Synod…

Cyril and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate opening of the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th day of the Egyptian month Payni (= June 22) 431, in the cathedral of Ephesus, which, with great suitableness for that assembly, was dedicated to the God-hearer, and named after her. On the day before, several bishops received a commission to go to Nestorius and invite him to the session, in order to give an account of his statements and doctrines. At first he replied, "I will consider it." When, however, a second deputation, sent on the 22nd of June by the Synod, then opening, came to him, his residence was, by command of Candidian, surrounded with troops, who prevented the bishops, by threats of blows, from entering, and Nestorius sent them word that "he would appear as soon as all the bishops were assembled."[As the author explains, some were delayed.] The Synod now, for the third time, sent off some bishops to him; but these received no further answer, and were treated with insolence by the soldiers on guard in and around the house…

As Nestorius decidedly declined to appear, they proceeded, on the motion of Juvenal, to an examination of the point of doctrine in question, and began by reading the Nicene Creed. They next proceeded to the reading of the second letter which Cyril, as we saw, had a long time before addressed to Nestorius, in which he had explained the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ (see above, p. 21). To the question of Cyril, whether this letter of his agreed with the contents of the Nicene Creed, all the bishops present answered, and among them 126 in short speeches still preserved (explanatory of their votes), in a manner entirely affirmative and consentient, and for the most part full of commendation for Cyril. It then came to the turn to read the letter which Nestorius had sent in answer to the letter of Cyril just mentioned (see above, p. 21), and after thirty-four bishops, in explaining their votes, had declared emphatically its non-agreement with the Nicene faith, all the bishops cried out together: "If any one does not anathematize Nestorius, let him be himself anathema; the true faith anathematizes him, the holy Synod anathematizes him. If any one has communion with Nestorius, let him be anathema. We all anathematize the letter and the doctrines of Nestorius. We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine. We all anathematize the impious Nestorius," and so forth.

Afterwards there were two other documents read, namely, the letter of Celestine and the Roman Synod (p. 25 f.), and that of S. Cyril and of the Alexandrian Synod to Nestorius; and the four clerics whom Cyril had sent to deliver that document to Nestorius were examined as to the result of their mission. They gave the information, with which we are already acquainted (see above, p. 34), that Nestorius had given them no answer at all. In order, however, to be quite clear as to whether he still persisted in his error, two bishops, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene, who were personal friends of Nestorius, and had during the last three days been in habitual intercourse with him, and had endeavoured to convert him from his error, were questioned on oath respecting the matter. They announced that, unfortunately, all their efforts with him had been in vain.

In order, however, to submit the doctrinal point in question to a thorough investigation, and in the light of patristic testimony, at the suggestion of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, a number of passages from the writings of the Fathers of the Church were now read, in which the ancient faith respecting the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ was expressed. These were statements of the opinions of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (+311), of Athanasius, Pope Julius I (+352), Pope Felix I (+274), Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria (+412), of Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople (+426), and Amphilochius of Iconium (+394)…

In opposition to these patristic passages there were next read twenty passages, some longer and some shorter, from the writings of Nestorius, in which his fundamental views, which we have presented above connectedly, were expressed in separate parts and in concreto.

The last document which was produced at this first session was the letter of Capreolus, Archbishop of Carthage, in which he asks them, on account of the war in Africa (consequent upon the invasion of the Vandals), to excuse his own inability to be present, or to send any of his suffragan bishops… He (the archbishop) therefore sent only his deacon Bessula, and prayed the Synod to tolerate no novelties whatever in matters of religion. In this he does not refer expressly to Nestorius, but he unmistakeably indicates that he reckons his doctrines among the unauthorized novelties. The Synod gave its approval to this letter of the African bishop, and proceeded at once (the intermediate speeches are not known to us) to the condemnation of Nestorius. The sentence is as follows: "As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Urged by the canons (c. 74, Apostol.), and in accordance with the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion."

(…)

On the next day the sentence which had been pronounced was sent to Nestorius himself in a very laconic edict. In the superscription he is called a new Judas, and in the text it is said briefly: "He must know that, on account of his impious doctrines and his disobedience to the canons (because he had not appeared in answer to the citations), he had been, on the 22nd of June, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws, deposed by the holy Synod, and expelled from the body of the clergy."

 

Source: A History of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents, by Charles Joseph Hefele, Vol. 3, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883, Chapter II.