Anastos - Nestorius Was Orthodox

8/9/2019 Anastos - Nestorius Was Orthodox

1/25

Nestorius Was Orthodox

Milton V. Anastos

Dumbarton Oaks Papers , Vol. 16. (1962), pp. 117-140.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-7546%281962%2916%3C117%3ANWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Dumbarton Oaks Papers is currently published by Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/doaks.html .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgTue Jul 17 16:35:45 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-7546%281962%2916%3C117%3ANWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/doaks.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/doaks.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-7546%281962%2916%3C117%3ANWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6


2/25

N E S T O R I U S W A S O R T H O D O X

MILTON V ANASTOS


3/25

Dedicated to th e memo ry of my mother Stella Anastos whodied on January 26 1962.

Afov ia i vvfivq


4/25

JUST as all thinking people are said to be either Platonists or Aristotelians,most theologians favor either Nestorius or Cyril. Both have theiradmirers, who usually assume, with championship of one of the two, an

intense dislike for the other. Tradition and the Church (except, of course, forthe Nestorians) have handed down a judgment adverse to Nestorius. This isunfortunate, not because Nestorius was always right, as he was not, but ratherbecause both he and Cyril, when measured by the standard of the FourthOecumenical Council (held at Chalcedon in 451) and its Creed, which is themajor criterion of Christological orthodoxy, have similar-or reciprocal defects.

I t should be noted carefully t hat my dogmatic definitions and the case forNestorius are based upon the Chalcedonian Symbol and Cyril's Second Letterto Nestorius. Except for a brief reference (a t note infra), I do not discussthe question of the relationship between Nestorius' Christology and that ofCyril's Third Letter (with its Twelve Anathemas), which did not achieve oecu-

1 had completed this article before reading Aloys Grillmeier's admirable paper (see i n f r a ) , withwhich I am in essential agreement. The major difference between us is th a t I tak e Nestorius to havebeen complete ly orthodox, whether judged on the criterion of the Chalcedonian Symbol or from thepoi nt of view of s peculative theology, whereas he has some reservations. Excellent also is th e book (seei n f r a ) of R . V Sellers, who argues th at Nestorius a nd Cyril were in reali ty seeking the same theologicalgoals. His results are very similar t o mine except t ha t m y method and purpose differ from his.

For the earlier bibliography on Nestorius, see Johannes Quasten, Pa t ro logy, 3, T h e Golden Age ofGreek Patrist ic Literat ure from the Cou ncil of N icae a to the Co unc il of Chalce don (Utrecht-Antwerp-Westmins ter, 1960), 514-19; Berthold Altaner, Patrologie, 5th ed. (Frei burg im Breisgau, 1958), 72;Eng . transl., H ilda C. Graef ( ib id . , 1960). See especially Aloys Grillmeier, Das Scandalu m oecumeni-cum des Nestorius in kirchlich-dogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht, Scho las t ik , 36 (1961),321-56; Helmut Risto w, Der Begriff rrp6aw rrov in der Theologie des Nestorius, A u s dev byzan t in i s t i -schen Arbeit dev deutschen demokrat ischen Repub l ik (Ber l ine r byzant in is t ische Arbei ten ,5 [Berlin, 19571)~218-36, who makes litt le use of th e B a z a a r ; Luigi I. Scipioni, Ricerche sulla Cristologia del Lib vo d iEvaclide di Nestor io (Pa vad osis , I I [Freiburg, Switzerland, 19561)) s ecclesiastically committed t o th etraditional condemnation of N., though his approach to N.'s metaphysics is fresh and original;Chrysostom us Bau r, Drei unedierte Festpredigten aus der Zeit der nestorianischen Streiti gkeiten,T v a d i t i o , 9 (1953), 101-26: text s with an Antiochene Christology ; Tho mas Camelot, De Nestorius

Eutyches, D a s K o n z i l c o n C h a l k e d o n ,edd. Aloys Grillmeier an d Heinrich B acht, I (SVurzburg, 19j 1),213-42; He nry Chadwick, Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy, Journal ofTheological Stud ies , N . S . ( I Q ~ I ) , 45-64; Aubrey R. Vine, A n A p p r o a ch to C h r i s to l o g y ( L on d o n ,1948);G L. Prestige, Fathers and Hevetics (Lon don , 1940), 120-79; R. V Sellers, T w o Anczen t Chr is to log ies(London, 1940); E. Amann, Nestorius, Dictionnaive de the'ologie catholique, 11, I (Paris, 1931),76-157; F riedr ich Loofs, Nes to r ius and Hi s P lace in the Hi sto ry of Ch ristia n Doctvine (Cambridge, 1914)J . F Bethune-Baker, N e s t o ri u s a n d H i s Te a c h in g (Cambridge, 1908). On the philosophical implicatio nsof Nestorianism , see Ha rr y A. Wolfson, T h e Phi loso ph y of the Church Fathers , I (Cambridge, Mass.,1956), 451-63. See special note a t t he bott om of p. 140.

The sources on which this paper is based are: P aul B edjan, ed., Xestoviu s , L e Livre d 'He 'raclide deD a m a s (Le ipzig-Pa ri s, I ~ I O ) , critical edition of t he Syriac version, agains t which I h ave verified t heprincipal texts quoted i n f r a ; all of t he English translatio ns have been taken verb atim from G. R. Driverand Leonard Hodgson, Nestor iu s , the Bazaa r of Heracle ides , n e d y tvansla ted front the Sy r ia c (Oxford,

1925). Cf. I? Nau, Nestorius d'aprks les sources orientales (Pari s, 1911); Friedrich Loofs, Xes to r i ana , DieFragmente des lVestorius (Halle a. S. , 190 and the immensely learned, extremely detailed, bu t massivelyunusable work of Ig naz Rucker, Stud ien zunz Conc i l iun t Ephes inum, A Orient ierende Quel lenkunde;B Z u v Dogmengeschichte na ch dent syr ischen Liber Heracl idis , ed . Bedja n,1910 (1930-3j), outlined bythe au thor in B, IV, a, b, c, Da s Dognza uon dev Pet /sonl ichkei t Chris t i (Oxenbronn bei Gunzburg a. D.,1934 )~nd idenz, A, 111, Ephes in i sche Ko nz i l sak ten i n sy ri sche r Uber l ie ferung ( ib id . ,1935).


5/25


6/25

N E S T O R I U S WA S O RT H O D O X

completed in exile ca. 45 Unfortunately, the Greek text of this work hasdisappeared, but there is a Syriac translation dating from the sixth centurywhich seems to be reliable, notwithstanding an initial error of the translator,who misunderstood the word n p a y c l a ~ ~ i a"treatise") in the original title , andincorrectly rendered it by Bazaar. The Heracleides in question was a man ofhigh repute, whose name Nestorius deliberately substituted for his own, as welearn from the preface to the Syriac version, in order to att ract readers, since, hefeared, the pious would have been repelled by t hat of a notoriously hereticalauthor.

I t may be, as some object, that the Bazaar represents a Nestorius who hadhad twenty years since his condemnation in 431 to repent of his errors andmake essential emendations. Even if this be true , it remains legitimate to allowhim to be judged by his own latest and most mature efforts.

Theodore of Mopsuestia,3 the leading theologian of the School of Antioch,vigorously attacked the Apollinarian formula, one incarnate nature of God theWo r d ; and his antipathy for this description of th e relation of th e two naturesin Jesus Christ was shared by Nestorius, who had been transferred to Con-stantinople in 428, the year of Theodore's death. Nestorius first provoked4 theire of conservative theologians when he espoused the view of a Constantino-

politan presbyter by the name of Anastasius that Mary the Virgin should not bedescribed as O E O T ~ K O S"she who bore God" or "Mother of God"). I t was properto speak of Mary as X p ~ m o ~ b ~ o s"Mother of Christ"), or, with the appropriatereservations, as Av 0 p w n o ~ 6 ~ o s"Mother of man"), or even possibly as O~o66xos("God-receiving"), Nestorius said, but impious to suggest that a mortal womancould have been the Mother of God.

The designation Theotokos for Mary had been current at least since thebeginning of the fourth centuryj5 and meant th at Mary, the mother of Jesus

On Theodore of Mopsuestia, see the works cited in notes ~ upva , s.v. I n my paper, "The I m-

mut abi lit y of Christ, and Justi nian 's Condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia," D u m b a v t o n O a k sP a p e r s , 6 (1951 )~ 25-60, I show th at Theodore's Christology was heretical because of his misuse of theterm T ~ E T T ~ ~s defined by t he F irs t Council of Si cae a in 325. This seems to me to be a simpler andmore decisive solution of t he problem of Theodore's Christology th an t he erudite bu t complicatedanalyses to be found in the numerous books and monographs tha t have been written on this subject.Th e litera ture i s collected by Luise Abramowski, "Zur Theologie Theodors von Mopsuestia," Zei tschvif tfur Kirchengeschichte , 4.F. 1 72 (1961), 263-93; Quast en, hl ta ne r, etc., op. cit . , S.V.

Socrates, H E., 7, 32, P.G., 67, 808ff.; cf . note 6 i n f v a .First occurence, ed. Hans-Georg Opitz, A t h a n a s i u s We v k e , 3, I, I (Berlin-Leipzig, 19 34 )~ 8.15f.

(P. G. 18, j68C) a letter wri tten i n 324 by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to t he homonymous bishopof Thessalonike. Socrates, H. E . , 7, 32, 17, says th a t Origen wrote a long dissertation o n the sui tabil ityof th is designati on for Mary in his C o m m e n t a v y o n R o m a n s ,bu t the term cannot be found in the ext anttex t or in t he other early autho rs who are often cited (see works listed i n f r a ) .

On the Virgin Mary, see Georges Jouassard, "Marie9

traver s la patristique," ed. Hu ber t du Manoir,M av ia , e tudes sur la sa in te Vievge, I (Paris , 194 9) ~ 0ff., n.b. 8jf f.i Antoine Wenger, "Foi et pii.tCmariales 9 Byzance," i b id . , (19 58 )~ 23-81; i d e m , L a s s o m p t i o n d e l a T S . Vievge duns l a t r adi tio lzb y za n ti n e d u v i e a u s ii cl e (Pa ris , 1955) Carlo Cecchelli, Matev Chvis t i , 4 vols. (Rome, 1946-j4,) ;Mauricius Gordillo, Maviologia or ienta l is (O rienta l ia Chvis t ian a Aqzalecta , 141 [Rome, 19j 4j) ; MartinJugie, L i~~zt?zaczcle eon ce pt io ~ uns I Ecr i tuve Sai nte e t duns la t radi t io n or ienta le(Rome, 1952) ; i d e m ,L a ~viov tet l a s s o ~ ~ z p t i o ne la S a i ~ t e i ev ge (S tu di e Testi, 114 [Vatic an City, 19441); V. Schweitzer,


7/25

M I LTO N V. A N A S TO S

Christ, was in a strict sense the mother of the humanity of Jesus, which hadbeen united in her womb with the divine nature of the eternal Logos. No oneever suggested th at Mary was the mother of the divine nature, but only th atthe divine Logos had joined himself to the human nature of Jesus at the momentof conception, and th at , by reason of the closeness of the union between the divineand human natures in Christ (the co.lrz.lrzunicatio idiomatum, on which seenotes 56-70 infra), she might then be called the Mother of God (see note 65 infra).For, all agreed, the flesh to which she gave birth was that of the divine Logos,and the Jesus Christ she bore was God as well as man.

Nestorius concedes that th e epithet Theotokos was innocuous if properlyexplained in this fa~hion.~ ut, with rare exceptions, he refuses to use it byitself, as Cyril constantly did, without adequate qualification. Even apart fromhis strictures on this term, however, which was sanctioned by the universalChurch at the Fourth Oecumenical Council in 451 (see note g infra), Nestoriuswas accused of other theological irregularities, and stands officially condemnedas a heretic.

But he still has his champions.' The Christians of Persia, who seceded fromthe Byzantine imperial Church in 424, before the Nestorian question had arisen,and their descendants, the "Nestorians" of later times, revere his authority.In addition, a host of modern writers have taken up the cudgels in his defence.

"Alter des Titels ~ E O T O K O S , Dev Ka tho l ik , Ser . 3, 27 (1903), 97-113. Cf. also Georges Jouassard, "Deu xchefs de file en thkologie ma riale d ans la seconde moitiC du ivkme sibcle: sai nt E pip han e e t sai nt Am-broise," Gvegorianum, 42 (1961), 5-36; Daniel Sti ernon , "Bulletin de thkologie mariale byzantine, "Revu e des e tudes byza nt ines , 17 (19 59 )~ 01-50; L e x i k o n d e v M a v i e n k u n d e ,edd. Iionrad Algermissen,Ludwig Boer, Georg Engelh ardt, Michael Schmaus, Julius Tyciak (Regensburg, 1957-); Ren6Laurentin, Co ur t tvaite de the ologie ma via le, 4t h ed. (Pa ris, 1959) ; Sergius S. Fedyniak, Mavio logza apudP p o vi en ta le s ( B a s i l i u m M . , G v eg ov iu m N a z . , G v e g o v iu m N y s . )(Rome, 1958).

My references to the Baz aav of Hevacleidesare to th e pages of th e transla tion of Driver an d Hodgson.See on this point pp. ggf., 148ff., 185, 193f., 293f., 29jff., 387 (fr. 271); Loofs, Nes to r i ana , index C,s.vv. d t v e p w. r r o - r 6 ~ 0 ~ X ~ I O T O T ~ K O SMaria (p . 402), 8 ~ 0 6 6 x 0 ~ .K. b. 177.11f., 263.12, 276.3-5, 277.20;Nestorius' Second hom i ly on the tempta t ions of J e s us ,ed. Kau, op . c i t . (note s u p r a ) , 345.7f. , inwhich he uses 8 ~ 0 ~ 6 ~ 0 5 272.13-273.1.ithout exegesis; cf. Loofs, op. c i t . , 191.6, ~ g f . ,

See especially in note s u p v a : Grillmeier, Vine, Sellers, Loofs, Bethune-Baker, 0 9 . c i t . Of these,Sellers is th e most favorable to Kestorius . On the Persia n Council of 424, see J . B. Chabot, S y n o d i c o nor ienta le ou recueil de synodes nes toviens (Not ices e t ext ra i t s des manu scvi ts de la B ibl io thique Nat io naleet autves bibliothiques,37 [Paris, 1902j), 43-53, 285-98. Cf. Ignacio Ortiz de Urb ina , "Storia e cause delloscisma della Chiesa di Persia," Ovienta l ia Chvis t iana Peviodica , 3 (1937), 456-85; J . Labo urt, L echvis t ianisme d un s l empive perse sous l a dynas t ie sassanide , 224-632 (Pa ri s, ~ g o q ) , 21-25.

On the Westorians, see J. Joseph, T h e N e s t or i a n s a n d t h e ir M u s l i m N e ig h b or s (Princ eton , 1961)(modern only) ; Berto ld Spuler, "Die nestorianische Kirche," Han dbuch der Ov ien ta l i st i k , I. A bt., Bd. 8,Abschn. 2 (Leiden, 1961), 120-69; Raymo nd Jan in, Le s t iglises orientaleset les ri tesorie ?ztaux ,4thed. (Paris,1955 ), 409-29; IVilhelm de Vries, Dev Kivchenbegvig der von R o m getrennten Syve v (Ovienta l ia Chr is t ianaAna lec ta , 145 [Rome, 19 551) ; id em , Sakramententheologie bei den Nestovianevn (O vienta l ia Chvis t ianaAna lec ta , 133 [Rome, 19471); A . C. Moule, Nestovians n C h i n a (London, 19 40); Aubrey R. Vine,Th e Nesto vian Chuvches , a Concise His tor y of N estovia n Clzr is t iani ty f rom the Pevs ian Sc hi sm to theM o d e r n A s s y r i a n s (London, 1937): a popular s urvey ; Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmat ica chr is t iano-r u m ov ien ta l ium ab ecc le si a ca tho l ica d i s s id en t ium , 5 (Paris, 1935), 9-347; E. Tisserant, "L'Cglise

nestorienne," Dic tion nai re de the ologie catholique, 11, (Pa ris , 1931), 157-323; Iconrad Liibeck, D i ea l tpe r si sche Miss ionsk i r che (Abha nd lun gen aus Miss io nsku nde un d Miss ionsgesch ich te , [Aachen,19191) has references to sources. Cf. also Ju an N ateos , Le lya -Sa pva , essa i d in tevpve ta t ion des mat ine schalde ennes (Ovienta l ia Chr is t iana Anale cta , 156 [Rome, 19591) H enr i Bernar d, L a de couverte de nestorien smong ols a u x Ordos et l h is toi re ancienne d u C hris t ia nism e eqz Extrdme-Orient(Tientsin, 1935); GeorgeP. Badger, T h e N e s t o r ia n s a n d T h e i r R i t u a l s , vols. (Lon don, 18 52) erudi te travelogue with t ran s-lations fro m the liturgy.
http:///reader/full/345.7f.http:///reader/full/345.7f.


8/25

123E S T O R I U S WA S O RT H O D O X

Some argue th at the action of the Council of Ephesus in 431 was ambiguous andcannot be regarded as a valid oecumenical condemnation of Nestorius. Theypoint out, also, th at the Letter of Cyril (the Third) most damaging to Nestorius,was not approved by the Church until 553 8 Others contend, in a variety ofways, that Nestorius has been misrepresented or misunderstood and never wasguilty of the dogmatic lapses that have been attr ibu ted to him.

But in general not even the most favorably disposed among his defendershave said much more in his behalf than that he was almost or nearly orthodox.In dogmatic theology, however, such an apologia is meaningless, and is verymuch like saying of an egg th at it is partly fresh or th at par ts of it areexcellent. A doctrine is either heretical or it is not, and only a slight defect, nolarger tha n the letter iota, which was all tha t separated the orthodox from theheretics in the mat ter of 6cloorjo1os, is sufficient to invalidate an entire system.

My own thesis is that Nestorius was not only thoroughly and indubitablyorthodox, but also in many respects the profoundest and most brillianttheologian of the fifth century. I t must be admitted th at his style is often turgidand confusing. The repetitiousness of his great theological treatise,the Bazaarof Heracleides, is frustrat ing, wearisome, and painful. I t would have been vastlymore effective if some expert rhetorician had pruned it of tautology, eliminatedcontradictions, added the necessary logical definitions, which Nestorius un-happily eschewed, and reduced it s length by a half or three quarters. Still, evenin a morass of verbiage, the Bazaar is a document that merits careful consider-

ation. The first book, which is devoted to a metaphysical analysis of Nestorius'first principles, is altogether unique, and constitutes the subtlest and most pene-trat ing study of the mystery of the incarnation in the whole of patristicliterature.

Nestorius fell into disrepute primarily because of his theory of the elementsth at made up the person of Jesus Christ, who was both perfect God and perfectman . The view authorized a t Chalcedon in 5 was that in Jesus Christ there

C f . n o t e 2 s u p ra . T h e C o un c il o f E p h e s u s d e l i b e r a t e l y, i t s e e m s , w i t h h e l d a p p r o v a l f r o m C y r i l 'sTh ird Letter to Nestor ius: AC O (see no te2 s u p r a ) , I , I , I (Ber l in -Le ipz ig , 1927-30) , 33-42 ; ib id ., I , z( i b i d ., 1 9 2 5 -2 6 ) , 4 5 - 51 : I ,3 ( i b i d . ,1 92 9) , 26 -3 5; P. G . , 77 , ~ o j f f .S J o s e p h H e f e l e - H . L ec l er c q , H i s to i redes conciles, 2 I ( P a r i s, 1 9 0 8 ) , 3 0 1 n o t e 2 s a y, t h e r e i s n o r e co rd t h a t t h e l e t t e r w a s a c cl ai m ed o ra p p ro v e d a t E p h e s u s . A c co rd in g t o A C O , I ,2 , 5 1 . 3 4 , i t w a s m e r e l y i n c o rp o r at e d i n t o t h e A c t a . B i s h o pH y p a t i u s o f E p h e s u s p o in te d o u t a t a c o n f e r en c e h el d i n C o n st a n ti n o pl e i n j 32 , t h a t t h e C ou nc il o fCha lcedo n had express ly wi thhe ld approva l f r om Cyr i l 's Twelzle ana the lnas (wh ich fo rm a n appen dixt o t h e T h i r d L et te r) A C O , 4 , 2 , 1 6 9- 8 4 ; n . b . 1 7 3 . 1 8 f f . ,21-29 ; 175 .33-38 ; 177 .10-17 . O n Hy pa t iu s , seeCharles Moel le r, L e cha lckdonisme e t l e nko-cha lcCdonisme en Or ien t de 4 j 1 l a f in d u v i e s ikcle,Das Konz i l von Cha lkedon , I ( c i t ed i n n o t e I sup ra) , 66 1 ; Marcel Rich ard, L e nCo-chalckdonisme,Me'langes de science religieuse, 3 (1946),1 5 8 f .F or t h e l i t e r at u r e o n t h e t w e l v e a n a t h e m a s , se e Q u a s t e n ,P a t ro l o gy, 3 , 1 34 . J e a n G o ui l la r d , H y p a t i o s d 1 8 p h b s e o u d u P s e u d o -D e n y s T h k o d o r e S t u di te ,

Revue des e'tudes byzan t ines , 19 (Me ' langes Ray mo nd Ja n i n) (Par i s , 1 9 6 1 ) ~3-75 , a nd th e l i t e ra tu ret h e r e c i te d d e al w i t h o t h e r a s p ec t s o f H y p a t i u s ' a c t i v i t y, n o t w i t h t h e p r o bl e m a t i ss u e h e r e.D i e p e n , D o uz e d ia lo gu es ( s e e n o t e 6 6 i n f r a ) , 4 9 - 12 6 , m a k e s a v a l i a n t b u t u n s u c c e s sf u l a t t e m p t t o

p r o v e , a g a i n s t j u st a b o u t a ll o f t h e m a j o r a u t h o r i ti e s , t h a t t h e Tw el ve d n a t h e m a s ( a n d C y r il 's T h i r dLe tter to Nesto r ius as a who le ) had received oecumenica l endo rsement a t Ephe sus and Cha lcedon . H eh a s f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e p ri or t o 5 53 w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s e t e x t s w e re u s ed a s o e c u m e n i ca l l y va l idc r i t er i a o f Chr is tolog ica l o r tho do xy .


9/25

MILTON V. A N A S TO S

were two natures, one divine and one human, which together formed onehypostasis or person ( p r o s ~ p o n ) . ~ estorius granted tha t there were two naturesin Christ. But he held that each nature (physis) implied an oiroia (substance or

essence), an ir~6crra01s(hypostasis),1 and a prosopon, so th at there were in Christtwo natures, two substances (or essences), two hypostases (which he often omits) ,and two prosopa.ll Cyril and his school admitted that each nature involved asubstance, for hese termswere synonymous in theChristological usage of the fifthcentury;12 and they agreed that each nature had an hypostasis and a prosopon.

The text of the Creed of 451 is to be found in A C O , 2, I, 2, 129 [32j]f.; J . B. Mansi, S a c r o r u mconc ilioru m nova et am pli ssi ma collectio,7 (Florence, I 762), I I ~ A B C , r in any of the numerous editionsof H. Denzinger-I. B. Umberg, Enchir idion symbolorurn, e.g., ed. 28 (Freibu rg im Br ., 19 47 )~ o. 148,p. jo f.; T. Herbert Bindley, Th e Oecumenical Docume nts of the Fai th , 4th ed. by F. W. Green (London,~ g j o ) ,183-99, with introdu ction, translation, and notes. For commen tary, see J . N D. Kelly, E a r l yChristian doctrines, 2nd ed . (London, 1960), 338-43; R. V. Sellers, T h e Council of Chalcedon (London,

1953) Aloys Grillmeier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Formelvon Chalkedon," Das Konz i l von Cha lkedon ,I (cited in note I s u p r a ) , I , 5-202; Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina,"Das Symbol von Chalkedon, sein Tex t, sein Werden, seine dogmatische Bedeutung," ib id . , I, 389-418;Wilhelm de Vries, "Die syrisch-nestorianische H al tun g zu Chalkedon," ib id . , I, 603-35. I n the textwhich follows I reproduce Schwartz's edition, loc. cit., except tha t a fte r the second 6uooiru1ovI readTOV alj-rbv i]uivinstead of q u i vTOV a h 6 v.

'E-rr6u~vo1~ oi vu v o i ~ rrccrpau~v va ~ a i a h b v 6uoAoydv vibvT ~ Vy io ~ s ~ b v K ~ P I O ViuQv ' IquoGv XPIOT~VUVucpCbVwsUTTUVTES ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ u K O ~ E V ,~ ~ E I O V a i r ~ b vEV ~ E ~ T ~ T I ~ ~ E I O V &bV V & v ~ ~ C ~ T ~ T ~ T I ,~ V KC(\ T ~ V 8 ~ b v

airr6v, EK+JVXijs KO(\ UC~~CCTOS,Aqe& K a i av ep w ~ ov&Aqe&T ~ V ~ O Y I K ~ ~ S 6p 00 6U l0 ~ @ TCi7piKC& T ~ V E ~ T T ) T U ,~ a i T ~ V & V ~ P W T ~ T T ) T U , b po ~o v p iv x w p i ~cu ap ~i as pO aicjvwv~ O O ~ U I O V a \ j ~ b v]uiv ma T ~ V ma - r r av~a~ K TOG lTC7Tpb~Y E V V ~ ~ ~ ~ V T U ~ E ~ T ~ T U ,q a ~ w v ~ i]u~pQ v d ~ b v K U ~61& T ~ ) vC C T ~T ~ V TT' 6t T V T ~ V 81' j u 6 ~f i p ~ ~ i p a v ~ a p e i v o v ~ E O T ~ K O V T ~ V ~ a i a h b v X ~ I U T ~ V ,w ~ q p i a vEK Mapias T ~ S T ~ S ~ m h & ve p w ~ 6 ~ q ~ a , E v a~ b vui6v, ~b pl ov , ovoyevq, Iv 660 cpb u~u ~v, &-rpi.rrrw ~, ?q w p im w ~ vwpll6pevov. oir6auoGu u y ~ i r - r w ~ , & 6 1 a 1 p i ~ w ~ ,

~ i j ~ ~ V

& vq pq ~i vq ~ ~vwolv, c$lop ivq~6; p6AAov ~ i j ~ E~ccripas~ ~ U E W S

pbu~wv 1a qo pB ~ 61aT ~ V ~ ~ I ~ T ~ T O S KO(\

5 ?VT T ~ O U W T TO V ~ a i U V V T ~ E X O ~ U ~ S ,60 ~rp6uw-rra E ~ I ~ ~ ~ E V O V &Ah'iav r j- rr ou ~a u~ v o h i ~ I ~ I P O ~ ~ E V O V ,gva ~ a iO V a h b v vibv ~ O V O Y E V ~ ~ ~ d a - r r ~ p m p i~ b vA6yov ~6p1ovIquoSv X ~ I U T ~ V , &vw&v oi n p o c p q ~ a ~air-roG ~ a ih b s f i p 6 ~IquoG~X p l o ~ b s ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E U U E VO TBV~ c n k p w v]uiv 1 ~ a p a 6 i 6 w ~ ~a i u6upoAov.

lo Nestorius uses this term less frequently than he does the others, but he links it with them:B a z a a r, 163, 208, 218f., 228.

l Ibid . . 163, I 70, 218f.. 262.l2 On the histor y and development of th is technical vocabulary, see Erns t Hammerschmidt, "Ur-

sprung philosophisch-theologischer Termini und deren ~ b e r n a h m e n die altkirchl iche Theologie," Ost-kirchl iche Studien, 8 ( ~ g j g ) , 02-20; i d e m , "Eine Definition von 'Hypostasis' und 'Ousia' wahrend des7. allgemeinen Konzils: Nikaia I1 787," ib id . , (1956), 52-55; i d e m , "Hypostasis und venvandte Be-griffe in den Bekenntnisschriften des Gennadios 11. von Konstantinopel und des Metrophanes Krito-pulos," Oriens Chr i s t i anus , 40 4. S. 4 (1956)~ 8-93; i d e m , "Die Begriffsentwicklung in der alt -kirchlichen Theologie zwischen dem ersten allgemeinen Konzil von Nizaa (325) und dem zweitenallgemeinen Konzil von Konstantinopel (381)," Theologische Revue, 51 ( ~ g j j ) , 45-54; idem, "Einigephilosophisch-theologische Grundbegriffe bei Leontios von Byzanz, Johannes von Damaskus undTheodor Abi3 Qurra," Ostkirchliche Studien, 4 (19 j ) , 78-93 Heinrich Dorrie, H y p o s t a s i s , Wo r t - u n dBedeutungsgeschichte , Nachrichten, Gottingen, I, Philologisch-hist. K1. (19 5). Nr. 3 : concentrates onancient, but does not neglect Christian, usage; contains references to texts but not to literature;G. L. Prestige, God n Pat r i s t i c Thought , 2nd ed. (London, 1952). see index; Ju an L . Oreja, "Termino-logia patristica de la Encarnacibn," Helmant ica , (Sal amanca , 1g51), 129-60; M. Nkdoncelle, "Proso-pon et persona dans l'antiquitk classique," Revue des sciences religieuses, (1948). 77-99; MarcelRichard , "L'introduction du mo t 'hypostase' dan s la thkologie de l'incarnation," Me'langes de sciencereligieuse, 2 (19 45) ~ -32, 243-70; A. Grandsire, "Xa ture et hypostases divines dans s aint Basile,"Recherches de science religieuse, 13 (1923), 130-52; A. Michel, "Hypostase ," Dictionnaire de thtologiecatholique, 7, I (Pa ris, 1921), 369-43 7 Louis Rougier, "Le sens des termes oiruia, rj-rr6mau1~t -rrp6u~-rrovdans les controverses trinitaires post-nickennes," Revue de l 'histoire des religions, 74 ( I~ IO) , 8-63;133-89; J . Tixeron t, "Essais et notices: des concepts d e 'nat ure ' e t de 'personne' dan s les PBres et lesCcrivains ecclksiastiques des v e et vie sikcles," Revue d'histoire et de li t t trature religieuses, 8 (1go3),582-92; T. B. Strong, "The History of the Theological Term 'Substance'," Jo ur na l of TheologicalS tud ies , 2 ( I ~ o I ) ,24-3 5 ; 3 (1902), 22-40; 4 (1go3), 28-45.

On the L ati n use of these t erms, c f. my "Some Aspects of Byzant ine Influence on Lat in Thought,"Twel f th Cen tury Europe and the Founda t ion s of Moder n Soc ie ty,edd. Marshall Clagett, Gaines Post,and Rober t H . Reynolds (Madison, 1961), 133, 165 note 11, 182 note 97.


10/25

125E S T O R I U S W S O R T H O D O X

But they differed radically from Nestorius in the Christological formula towhich this logic led them, and att acked him because they thought th at , whenhe spoke of two natu res, he divided Christ in to two, and was accordingly makingthe monstrous error of introducing a fourth member in to the Trinity. Therefore,they felt bound t o deny, not without equivocation, th at there were two naturesin Jesus Christ, and taught that there was only one incarnate nature [orhypostasis] of God the Iliord. In so doing, they were making physis theequivalent of what th e Chalcedonian Symbol called a prosopon or hypostasis,and alleged th at this one incarnate nature of God the IVord necessarilyimplied the two natures. Nestorius was puzzled by this terminology for manyreasons, bu t in par t because he himself followed the fathers of the Niceneperiod, who had treated hypostasis, usia, and physis as synonyms.

As stated su pra, Nestorius' Christology appears to be diametrically opposedto Cyril's. But we shall not be able to evaluate it without determining carefullywhat Nestorius meant by the terminology he used. It should be noted at theoutset t ha t, in the first Book of the Bazaar, and frequently therea fter, hedenounces the Jews, the Manichaeans, the Arians, the Sabellians, and theApollinarians. In addition, he expressly condemns Paul of Samosata and thenotion that there were two sons.

He based his theological system on the hypothesis that every independentlyexisting object , thing, animal, or person, including man and God the Logos, hasa substance or essence (usia)13 f its own, as the indispensable underlying factor,from which it derives life or existence. The usia, which is invisible, is what theobject is in itself, in its inmost being, apar t from being perceived. Each usia, intu rn , he thought, has a distinctive nature (physis), .e., the tota lity of qualities,features, at tributes, and peculiarities (both positive and negative) which give itits individual st am p or character. Every na ture is founded upon its omrn usia;there is no nature without an usia; and no usia without a nature. Thus, usia andna ture are correlative terms, each of which implies and requires the other.

But neither the usia nor the nature is fully present or effective without ath ird equally indispensable element, the prosopon. None of the three can be

l For t he definition of th ese terms, see B a z a a r, 10-86. I am greatly indebted to -4. R. Vine's A rzApp roac h to Christology and to Luigi I. Scipioni's Ricerche (cited in note s u p r a for valuable assistancein th e st udy of Nestorius' terminology. T he lat ter is prevented on ecclesiastical grounds from rehabili-tat ing Nestorius. T he former comes closer to m y position, altho ugh he is convinced t h at N estorius wasnot really orthodo x. Vine would hav e exerted a greater influence had it no t been for th e occasionalausteri ty of his style in passages like ( p . 171): The quasi-prosopon of the s yn ta x in th e case of avoluntary syntactic unity which includes a dominating animate nature is necessarily identical withthe allogenous prosopon of t ha t dominating animate natur e. I n the case of t he sy ntax Jesus Christ thedomin ating anima te natu re is God th e Word. Jesus Christ, then, is the allogenous prosopon of God the'Cl'ord, an d holds a place in the con tinui ty of H is dura tiv e prosopon. Indeed , during the dur ation of thesynta x Jesus Christ, God th e Word remained continuously in th at synt ax, so th at for th at entire periodHis prosopon was a n allogenous prosopon, t he quasi-prosopon of t he sy nta x Jesus Christ. J esus Christ,therefore, may be regarded as a s yn ta x with a quasi-prosopon, or as th e allogenous prosopon of God theWord durin g a certain period. A nythi ng or anyone of which God th e Word made use as an allogenousprosopon would similarly be a syntax with a quasi-prosopon which was also the allogenous prosopon ofthe God the Word .


11/25

126 M I LTO N V A N A S TO S

separated from the other two, nor can the usia and the nature be recognizedexternally apart from the prosopon (see 5 infra which reveals them.l* Noordinary enti ty or individual being has more th an one each of these threecomponents, nor does any one of th e three have more tha n one each of th eother two.

From this metaphysical structure, which may have been influenced in partby Stoicism, presumably via the Cappadocian fathers,15 Nestorius derives hisfundamental presupposition that the substance of God the Word and th at of themanhood of Christ were both complete in themselves. They were wholenatures, because the human could have become man by the creative power ofGod, without union with the divinity, and the la tter was altogether independentof the former. On this account, he rejects Cyril's comparison of the union ofGod and ma n in Christ with t ha t of body and soul in man. For soul and bodyare brought together in man, Nestorius says, by constraint, by an act of divinecreation, whereas God and man in Christ joined in a union tha t was voluntaryon the part of both participants. On the other hand, when body and soul areunited , each is complemented by the other, since the body has need of the soulth at it may live, fo r it lives not of itself, and the soul has need of th e body t hatit may perceive. 16

I t is not improbable , of course, that th e tension between Nestorius and Cyrilaffected the former's attitude in this matter to some extent. Nevertheless,Nestorius' definition of usia and physis lay at th e foundation of his Christologicaltheorem th at neither God the Word nor the human n ature of Christ wascombined with the other in its own nature or usia. They were mutually exclusive,or alien to one another, 17 so tha t neither could have served as the basis ofunion for the other. Hence, it was impossible for them to be joined togetherexcept through a third medium, the prosopon. For, according to him, this wasth e only vehicle of union1* that was capable of preserving th e properties of th etwo usiai and natures of Christ inviolate. This was for him essential, sinceotherwise Christ could not have been both perfect God and perfect man.

His proof of the unsuitabili ty of the two natures (or usiai) as centers for th e

union illustrates the theory t ha t lay behind his doctrine of the prosopic union.Natures (or usiai) cannot be combined, or changed in any way, he claims,without serious damagelg to one or the other of them. For , either the one will be

l B a z a a r, 158. There is no external prosopon which lacks an us ia an d an at ur e of it s own: i b id . , 208f.,220, 24j-247, 228, 231; ~ 163, 170, 174, 216, 218f., 261f., 309, 322.

Grillmeier, Das Scandalum, cited in note I s u p r a , 339ff., would trace the Stoic elements inhTestorius' metaphysics to th e Cappadocians. See also Scipioni, Ricerche (note I s u p r a ) , 15-24, 31-44,98-109, 133-37 En dr e IvBnka , Hellenisches u nd chvist l iches m fri ihbyzantinischen Geistesleben (Vienna,1948), 84 f f R. Arnou, Nestorianisme et nCoplatonisme, Gregorianurn, I 7 (1936), I 16-3 I .

l azaar, 304, 161. On th e union between the divine and hu man as voluntary, see i b id . , 37f., 47,

8 j , 90f., 163, 179, 182, 184, 304. For Cyril's comparison of t he incarnation to t he union of body andsoul in ma n, see P. G. , 77, 225 B ; cf. Hubert du hlanoir de juaye , Dogme et spi r i tual i t8 chez sa int Cyri l led ' i l l e x a n d r i e (Paris, I 944), I 38 ff.

l7 B a z a a r, 298f.l I b i d . , 23, 53f ., 89, 143f., 145. 17f., 147, Ij7 -59, 160f., 166 f. , 170, 174, 189-91, 196, 206f., 214-16,

219-20, 231, 240f., 246f., 262, 299, 308f., j ~ o f . , 13 f. , 319-20. Cf. 33ff., 37-39.I s I b i d . , 27.6-8, 28-36.


12/25

127ESTORI CTS WA S O RT H O D O X

absorbed by the other, or the result of their combination will be some thirdnature th at is different from both of them.

If , for example, God should take flesh into his own usia, he would not trulybecome man because he is not of the nature of men. 20 Still worse, since theGodhead is characterized by lack of body or flesh, if God were to adm it fleshor body into his usia, he \vould cease to be God.Z1 Similarly, if Christ's manhoodwere to take God into its usia, there would be no incarnation of God,22 butrather the obliteration of the human nature, the deification of man, and theaddition of alien matter to the Tr inity. That is, as he puts i t , things which arechanged from their original usia possess only the nature into which they havebeen changed, and cease to be what they formerly had been.23 He enunciatesthis principle also in dealing with Noses' miracle of changing the water of theNile into blood. I n th at case, he was of the opinion that the Nile had becomeblood in usia for the Egyptians, but had been changed back into water for theHebrews when they used it.24

Normally, however, and especially with regard to the divine and the humanusiai in Christ, he took such changes of usia to be impossible since there areno means whereby the usia which was should cease to be, nor whereby thatwhich was made should become unmade, nor again whereby a nature whichwas not should come into being, nor whereby th at which is not eternal shouldbecome eternal either by a change of nature or by confusion or by mixture; orwhereby from the usia of the eternal should come into being that which is not

eternal. 25 Therefore, he concludes, the uncreated God the Word, who iseternal, cannot be transformed into th at which is created (body), nor can thehuman body of Christ be changed into the usia of God the Word. On thesepremises, also, he rejects Cyril's formula of a natural union or hypostaticunion in Christ, both of which, in his estimation, involved a mixture andconfusion of natures or hypostases, and consequently an impairment of theirintegrity t hat would have been fatal to bo th the divine and human natures ofChrist (cf. notes ~ g f f 46f.).

So, when he says that God the Word became man, he means that themanhood of Jesus formed a distinct usia alongside the usia of God, and th at thetwo were joined together in the p r o ~ o p o n . ~ ~ ut he never even suggested thatthere were two persons in Christ, as his enemies allege, and, hence, four (aquaternity) in what tradition called a Trinity. This charge he spiritedlyrepudiates, and reiterates many times that

20I b i d . ,

20-23 .2 I b i d . , 14 .22 Ib id . , 2 3 - 2 6 ; c f . note 2 5 i u j v a .

S I b i d . , 1 7 f .24 I b i d . , 1 8 f .

5 Ib id . , 2 6 f . , 3 6 f . , 8 o f . , 1 8 2 , 2 2 0 .6 Ib id . , I , I 27 and 29 , cf. 1 8 , pp 20 , z ~ f . , 2 f . , 1 5 ; 5 5 , 1 6 6 , 2 1 0 , 2 3 3 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 7 .


13/25

128 M I LTO N V. A N A S TO S

"no one else tha n he who was in the bosom of his Father came and becameflesh and dwelt among us; and he is in the bosom of his Father and withus, in that he is what the Father is, and he has expounded unto us what heis in the bosom of his Father. . . .

Such texts abound and, he confesses, in conformity with the Creed of 451,

"in one Christ two natures without confusion. By one nature on the onehand, that is [by that] of the divinity, he was born of God the Fath er ; bythe other, on the other hand, tha t is, [by that] of the humanity, [he wasborn] of the holy virgin."28

I n view of these express and unambiguous declarations, there can be nodoubt th at Nestorius firmly believed "that there is of the divinity and of the

humanity one Christ and one Lord and one Son . ..,

and that "there bothexists and is named one Christ, the two of them [i.e., the natures] being united,he who was born of the Father in th e divinity, and of the holy virgin in thehumanity, for there was a union of the two natures."29

He frequently refers to this union of the two natures30 in the one prosopon ofJesus Christ, and denies that it should be described as a union of p r ~ s o p a . ~ ~Most significantly of all, he envisaged this union in impeccably orthodox fashion.What he says32 s that the human Jesus "received his prosopon as somethingcreated, in such wise as not originally to be man but at the same time Man-Godby the incarnation [ivav%pcj-rrqo~s] f God . . . . This is an extremely subtledescription of the oneness of Jesus Christ, and shows that Nestorius conceivedthe Man-God to have been the divine Logos, plus what would have become theseparate individual man Jesus, if th e Logos had not been united with him fromthe moment of conception. For the child born of the Virgin was at no time,Nestorius states, a separate man bu t "at the same time Man-God."

In addition, in the very next sentence he adds, "He [i.e., the Man-God] indeedwas the Maker of all, the law-giver, . . . the glory, the honour and the power; hewas also the second man [the 'New Adam , as in Romans 5 : 14 ff. ; I Cor. 15 : 22and 45, i.e. , Jesus] with qualities complete and whole, so th at God was hisprosopon while he was in God." This is a favorite subject with him, and herepeatedly gives utterance to his conviction tha t in Jesus Christ God andman were one (cf notes 27f. , 34, 41, 43)) as when he argues th at the "child [thehuman Jesus] and the Lord of the child [the divine Logos] are the same."33

2 7 I b i d . 50; cf. 53, 1g2f.Ibid 296.

9 I b i d . 29 jf . Nestorius' meaning is more clearly expressed in the tra nsla tion by Nau, o p . czt .note I supra 262 : "I1 y a et on reconnait un seul Christ, les deux (natures) &a nt unies, lequel est ni. duPbre selon la diviniti. et de la Vierge sainte selon l'humaniti., car il y a eu union des deux natures."

3 I b i d . 58, 79f. , 89, 143, 148, 156f., 161, 163, 172, 182, q j f f . , 300-302, 308, 310, 314f.3

I b i d . 156, 172, 224.3 I b i d . I , I , 64, p. 60; cf. 92.1f., 237, 304. Although Nestorius frequ ently refers to w hat seems tobe the assumptus h o m o (as i b id . 237f.), the te xts cited show th at he understood b y the "man assumed"nothing more th an t he hu man n atu re of Chr ist. See also following note .

33 I b i d . 230ff. N b. 4 j ("he who judges an d is judged is the judge . . . . Who is it who has acceptedthe offering for all men, when i t is he who acce pts an d he who is offered ? ) ; 2 ("he who descended isthe same whom the Fa ther has sanctified and s ent into th e world") ; 207 (th e "taker" an d th e "taken"


14/25

NESTORIUS W A S ORTHODOX 129

Such text s are re-inforced by his sta tement, "We say not one and another,for there is one prosopon of both natures," by which Nestorius gives sanctionto the orthodox doctrine tha t the divine and human in Jesus Christ should notbe taken to be masculine in gender, Ah05 ~ a iirhhos, or T ~ O Su a i E T E ~ O Soralius and alius, as of two separate persons, bu t neuter, tirAAo and tirhho, or aliudand aliud, of the two separate "things," i.e., natures or usiai, which were unitedin Jesus Christ.

Had his critics taken these passages into account, they could not havepersisted in denouncing him as a heretic, especially in the face of his oft -repeated and passionate that there were two Sons or Lords or Christs.Nor could they have accused him of having been committed to the doctrinethat the human prosopon assumed by the divine Logos constituted a separateman, the assumptus homo, who lived by the side of the Logos during theincarnation-and therefore amounted to a second Son and a "fourth memberof the Trinity."

Nevertheless, in order to do full justice to both sides, let us examine theobjections that have been made against Nestorius, even if they must beregarded as deprived of all substance not only by the text quoted above butalso by the emphasis he lays upon the union of the two natures and the onenessof Jesus Christ, as at notes 27-29 above and elsewhere.

Hostility towards Nestorius arises because, although he describes the unionas taking place only in the prosopon, which he defines innumerable times as one

in number (see note 43), he also makes reference to two prosopa (tha t of thedivine nature and th at of the human) and occasionally also to a "union of thep r ~ s o p a . " ~ ~ven when he does so, however, he immediately explains, in thesame context, th at the latter "took place for the prosopon" and that there wasonly "one prosopon of the two natures."

Such explanations demonstrate both tha t Nestorius did not conceive of thetwo prosopa which he mentions as in any way compromising the unity or onenessof Jesus Christ, and that he uses the word prosopon in two different senses.According to one usage (sense A ) , prosopon-i.e., what may be called thenatural or external prosopon, means the exterior aspect or appearance of athing, not opposed to its genuine character, but , in the words of a moderncritic, "as an objectively real element in its being. without which, or if i twere other than it is, the thing would not be what it is."36 This is the moregeneral significance of the word (see notes 12 and 14 supra). When applied tothe two natures in Jesus Christ it indicates, not that each nature had a separate,

are one, not two ) 233. Nestorius' denial th a t there were in Christ "one a nd ano ther" (masculine) is to befound i b i d . , 200 201 (n.b. th e Greek text Nestorius ha d in mind in quo ting these words), 209, 224,237. On th e ortho dox affirmation of t he same principle, see Edua rd Weigl, Christologie vo m To de des

Atha nas iu s b i s zu m Au sbruch des nes to r ian i schen S t re i te s ,373-429 (Mu nchen er S tud ien z u r h i sto ri schenTheologie , 4 [Munich, 1925]), 45, 47, 57f., 108f. , 112, 152; J . N. D. Kelly, Ea rly Chris t ia n doctrines, 297;Sellers, T w o Anc ie n t Chr is to log ies ,72f. ; cf. my "Some aspects of Byzantineinfluence on Lat in thought,"Tw e l f t h C e n t u r y E u r o p e (see note 12 s u p r a ) , 161 f.

4 Bazaar, 47-50, 146, 160, 189-91, 196, zogf ., 215, 224 f., 227, 237f., 295-302, 314, 317.5 Ib id . , 218-20; cf. 163, 246, 252, 261f., 302, 309; an d no te 40 i n f r a .6 Ibid . , 414-16. Cf. the t ext s cited in notes 11 and 14 supra .


15/25

M I LTO N V A N A S T O S

independent existence (as a person), but th at each had a substantive reality,recognizable in it s distinctive qualities, which remained undiminished after theunion. Hence, prosopon in sense A is to be understood as nothing but anotheraspect of physis or usia, to which, as we have seen (notes 12-14 supra), it isinextricably bound.

The other kind of prosopon (sense B) is an approximate equivalent of ourword "person" and occurs in the Bazaar of Heracleides as the designation forJesus Christ, "the common prosopon of the two natures."37

Let us now see how Nestorius applies these definitions to the union. "Man,"he says, taking prosopon in sense A as above defined, "is known by the humanprosopon, th at is, by the schema [outward form] of the body and by the likeness,but God by the name which is more excellent tha n all names, and by theadoration of all creation and by th e confession [of him] as God."38 That is,every individual man is identified as such and distinguished from his fellows bythe physical characteristics of his appearance. These constitute his prosopon(sense A). But the prosopon (sense A) of God, who is invisible, is recognized in adifferent way-by his glorious name and by the fact that he is acknowledgedto be God. More specifically, to refer to one of the most significant paragraphsi n the Bazaar (see note 32 supra), the prosopon of the divine nature (sense A)was God the Logos himself.

On th e basis of these definitions, Nestorius maintains t hat, as a result of th eunion, a transfer of at tr ibutes (communicatio idiomatum: see 6 infra) tookplace. God th e Logos (understood as the prosopon in sense of the divinenature) became the prosopon of Jesus ~ h r i s t ' s uman nature (note 32 supra).Nestorius sets forth the same idea somewhat differently when he says, citingPhilippians 2 9-11, that the divine Word of God gave the human nature ofJesus Christ his name so th at, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bowwhich is in heaven and on the ear th, and ever; tongue should confess tha tJesus is the Lord."39 Likewise as a consequence of the union, the Logosunited with his divine nature the flesh-the body and appearance (i.e., theprosopon in sense A of the human nature). Or, to adopt one of Nestorius'favorite expressions, "the divinity makes use of the prosopon of the humanity,and the humani ty of that of the divinity."40

These two prosopa (sense A), which, it will be remembered, were intimatelyconnected, but not identical, with the two natures themselves, fulfilled thefunctions assigned them by Nestorius (see notes 14 and 36 supra). For theywere the characteristic or visible elements by which the divine and humannatures, respectively, were made apparent to the observer in all of theiraspects. Hence, Nestorius was enabled to define the union of the two naturesin the one prosopon (sense B) of Jesus Christ, the incarnate divine Logos,

7 I b i d . 319, 58, 148, 166, 170f., 2 2 08 I b i d . I, I, 66, p. 61; i b i d . 64f., 67, p p 60-62. Cf. pp . 55, 58 f., 70, 89, 165-67, 246-49, 312-15.

Hodgson, i b i d . 415f., ingeniously explains t h a t th e union of t he prosopa is of tw o natures an d usiai,"which nevertheless are identical in appearance," so tha t th e "appearances overlap." Bu t this wouldbe an illusion, not t he t ru e union which Nestorius had in mind.

9 I b i d . I, I, 65, p. 61.4 I b i d . 58, 207, 220, 240f. (quotation).


16/25


in terms of their external revelation through their prosopa (sense A . Inaddition, the two prosopa (sense A served as media for the communicatioidiomatum. But in no respect did they connote a division or bifurcation intotwo separate persons. For Nestorius carefully adds (see note 40) so as to avoid

Nestorian implications: and thu s we say one prosoyon [i.e. , in sense ] inboth of them. Thus God appears whole, since his nature is not damaged inaught owing to the union; and thus , too, man [is] whole, falling short of naughtof the activity and of the sufferings of his own nature owing to the union.

The last sentence indicates that Nestorius had not fallen into the error ofsupposing th at the union of God and man in Jesus Christ, the one commonprosopon (in sense B), which unites the two usiai and natures, was in any wayillusory or involved a diminution of the fullness and perfection of either thedivine or the human nature. This is a point to which he frequently returns, aswhen he says41 of Jesus Christ, He is truly God, in naught falling short ofthe nature of the Fa th er ; and we confess th at the man is truly man, completelyin his nature, in naught falling short of the nature of men, neither in body nor insoul nor in intelligence . . . Likewise, he adds elsewhere, God indeed re-mained God and was made man, and man remained man and was made God ; forthey took the prosopon of one another, and not the natures.

Similarly (cf. notes 27-32 supra), n the language of the Creed of 325 Nestoriusunequivocally identifies th e one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son ofGod, th at is, from the ousia of God the Father. God from God and Light

of Light, Very God of Very God, born and not made, consubstantial withthe Fa ther, by whom all th at is in heaven and in earth was made, with thesame one Lord Jesus Christ, who on account of us men and on account of oursalvation came down and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the T7irginMary, who also was made man. . , suffered and rose on the third day andascended into heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead --he whois consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with the mother, oneLord Jesus Christ .

At the same time, the quotations a t notes 32-34, 37-40 show th at Nestorius

kept well within the permissible limits of orthodox theology in describing thedifference between the two natures in Christ. The incarnation is a mystery, andcannot be made comprehensible in purely logical terms. But it would bedifficult to conceive of a description t h a t is, under the circumstances, moreexplicit or more orthodox than ~estorius'

This point can best be proved by a brief review of his analysis of the unity ofthe two natures and usiai in one prosopon, the prosopon of union (sense B),Jesus Christ,42 to the oneness of which he testifies uncompromisingly.43 Theprosopon of the human nature (sense A was th e visible manhood of Jesus, notmerely his outward physical features, and signified the whole of his humanindividuality, with all the qualities that go to make up a perfect man. The

4 Ib id . 233 220. For Nestorius' treatm ent of th e Nicene Creed, see ib id . 144f . ; cf. note 70 infra .4 I b i d . 23 53 55 58 64 66 89 143 145-49 156-59 161 164 f. 166 f. 174 182f. 189 196 Z O I ~ .

207 214 216 2 2 0 227 230ff. 23 5f. 246 f. 252ff. 258 260ff. zgg 301 308ff. 3 13f . 315 318. 319.43 I b i d . 58 148 166 170f. 2 2 0 236 240 246 252 310 319.


17/25

M I LT O N V. A N A S T O S

prosopon of the manhood, thus understood, revealed by Christ's miracles theinvisible divine nature of the eternal God the Word, who has neither physicalform nor shape, but was fully present in the common prosopon (sense B) JesusChrist, and manifested himself behind the cloak of flesh through his prosopon(in sense A) , by the exertion of divine power.

Consequently, in Nestorius' system, the prosopon (sense A) of the divinenature , which was actually God the Logos himself, as we have seen, was rec-ognized by the performance of divine acts and the manifestation of omni-potence, as we should say, or as he himself expresses it (note 38f .) , by the nameof God, the adoration of all creation, and confession of him as God. Thislanguage was intended, it would seem, to emphasize the immateriali ty of Godand to explain how the divine Logos could be united with the humanity ofJesus without any objection able duality of person. But , it must be emphasized,this is only Nestorius' way of defining the indefinable prosopon of God the Logosin Christ, whom he represents consistently (see supra, notes 27-29, 4 infra,51 ff.) as no mere external power or spirit, but truly the divine, eternal Logos,who descended from heaven and was joined with the human nature in thewomb of the Virgin.

Thus, to the one p r o ~ o p o n , ~ ~ he common prosopon of our Lord Jesus Christ,the only-begotten Son of God, Nestorius referred all the [properties] of Godthe Word whose nature is impassible and is immortal and eternal, and all the[properties] of the humanity, which are a nature mortal and passible andcreated, and those of the union and of the incarnation. . . . For45 n Jesus Christ

the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible, the limited and theunlimitable are the same. These formulations, which vie with the OecumenicalCreeds in lucidity and exacti tude, can apply only to what we should call a singleperson, the God-Man Jesus Christ, who is simultaneously perfect God andperfect man-the divine Logos, who became man and was known on earththrough the prosopa (sense A) described supra.

According to Nestorius, therefore, Jesus Christ was the divine Logos in-carnate , the Son of God in the flesh,45a he Lord whom his disciples knew asa man but recognized to be God. The unity of his personality was furtherguaranteed by the fact that it was the Logos who both gave his prosopon(sense A) to the human nature and took that of the human for his own.Moreover, the human will of Christ (see notes 51-55 infra) was always obedientto the divine, so tha t there never was any conflict or division between the two.

This analysis is a legitimate summary of Nestorius' Christology, which hehimself, however, never presents systematically. Nor does he ever differentiatethe common prosopon of Jesus Christ from the two prosopa (sense A) ,except by his constant emphasis upon its oneness or indivisibility and uponits having been the vehicle of the union of the two natures or the commonprosopon of the two natures'' (supra , notes 30f., 37,42 . . He obviously felt that

I b i d . 171.5 I b i d . . zqof.

5a Ib id . 60f., 191, 193, 196-8, 200-1, 237. On th e Logos' giving and taking, see ib id . 55, 6169, 165, 225.


18/25

N E S T O R I U S WA S O RT H O D O X

these distinctions were in themselves decisive, and he would have been as-tounded by the hypersubtlety of the scholars (cf. note 3 supra) who havetried to speak for him in this matter-in language th at he would have found

utterly incomprehensible.I t is hardly necessary to add tha t his failure to a ttempt a more fully artic-ulated metaphysical analysis of the common prosopon of Jesus ChristJJ(sense B) is neither surprising nor in the slightest degree heretical. The Chal-cedonian Symbol (see note g supra) merely affirms the oneness of the prosoponor hypostasis and denies that it was divided into two. Nestorius is far moreexplicit than his contemporaries, none of whom expounds the incarnation sofully as he does, or lays greater stress upon the oneness and unity of JesusChrist.

Nestorius' deep personal commitment to the unity of Christ is demonstratedalso by his acceptance of the Cyrillian idea of the hypostatic union, if hypostasisbe defined as a synonym for prosopon and not for ~ s i a . ~ G n this basis he couldindorse the Cappadocian Trinitarian formula, one usia in three hypostases,although he himself preferred to speak of one usia in three p r ~ s o p a . ~ ~

In addition, the quotation at note 32 above constitutes a powerful refutationof the Cyrillian taunt th at Nestorius had an inadequate conception of the unionof the two natures in Christ, and separated the one from the other spatially.Scorning Nestorius' specific denials that he ever divided or isolated the naturesfrom each other, cyr il attacks him for saying, I separate the natures but unitethe adoration,JJ48 s if Nestorius meant that, notwithstanding the absence of areal union of the natures, the separate man Jesus deserved to be worshippedbecause of his close association with the Logos. The verb separateJ ' (xopilo),which Cyril finds offensive, was banned a t Chalcedon. But Nestorius repliesthat he intended it to refer to the distinction between the two natures, sinceone was divine and the other human, not to any physical or spatial sepa-ration between them. Never, Nestorius protests, did he distinguish God theWord from him that is ~i sib le , 4~ .e., he never made a division in Jesus Christas if between the Logos and the man Jesus. Nor did he say tha t there were two

adorations, as if the divine Logos and the human nature of Jesus formed separatepersons, and each received worship of his own. On the contrary,50 he contends,the adoration in question, like the prosopon of Jesus Christ, was singular innumber, though i t was quite proper t o conceive of the human nature (not aseparate man) as being adored together with the divine, with which it wasjoined in the one prosopon of Jesus Christ.

It was the unity of Christ, furthermore, which made i t possible for Nestoriusto understand how it was that the will and purpose of Jesus Christ's human

6 Ibid., 156f but cf. 208, 218.7 Ibid., 247.

Ibid 311 f f See also the t ext s cited in notes 49-55 infva. Cf Sellers, op. cit. (note sup ra) , 91-95,190-200.

4D Ibid., 314.5 Ibid., 188f., 196, 202, 207, 227, 237f., 314. For proof of th e orthodoxy of Nestorius' doctrine of th e

adoration of the human natu re of Jesus together with t he Word, see Pau l Galtier, De incarnutione etredemptione (Paris, 1947)~ 288ff.


19/25

134 MILTON V ANASTOS

nature were identical with those of God the Word.51 This identity might haveled to the Nestorian or adoptionist interpretation that the divinity of JesusChrist consisted of nothing but his extraordinary submission to the divine will,

which won for him the title of Son of God by way of reward or honor, and thatthe divine in Christ was comparable to the indwelling of God in Moses, theprophets, and the saints.

But Nestorius was not attracted by these notions, and insists that the unionin Christ was not merely moral but truly metaphysical (see note 5 5 He doesnot fai l on this account, however, to record the human traits52 of Christ asrecorded in the Gospels: his birth, low estate , swaddling clothes, increase instature and in wisdom with God and with men, suffering, death , and resur-rection. Throughout, stress is laid on the Son's obedience, despite travail andtempta tion, and on his freedom of the But Nestorius refrains fromdrawing Nestorian conclusions therefrom, rejects the notion that Christachieved Sonship as a consequence of moral progress or by degrees (byadoption after proving his merit)54 and traces the identity between the willof Christ's humanity and that of God the Logos to the union of their natures,that is, as he expressly states, to the very moment of Christ's conception.55

These pronouncements of Nestorius deserve close scrutiny. He understoodby the identity of the divine and human wills in Christ, it should be noted,that the two were in complete harmony with each other, not that the twonatures had only a slngle will between them or that the one had absorbed orobliterated the other. There were two wills, bu t they made identical decisions.The human will, despite its independence of the divine will, was alwaysactively and deliberately obedient to it, through every trial and vicissitude.Nestorius argues (whether rightly or wrongly it is not my purpose to deter-mine in th is paper) that Cyril's treatment of this topic was unsatisfactory.The la tt er does not, of course, deny that the humanity of Jesus Christ wasperfect, and included a human rational faculty, which was endowed withfreedom of the will. But, Nestorius charges,55a Cyril ascribes Christ's moraland spiri tual victories to the act ivity and power of the divine Logos, ratherthan to the free exercize of his human volition. Unless his human will hadfaced a real moral choice, Nestorius holds, and had responded thereto in genu-inely human fashion, Christ could not have had a truly human nature. Norcould his humanity have otherwise been the model, vehicle, and assurance ofimmortali ty for all mankind. This conception was basic for Nestorius' soteri-

l On iden tity of t he wills: Bazaa r, 57 (end ), 59, 62-68, 70, 163; God was t r u l y in Christ, not just asin t he sa in ts : 44-46, 203-6, 227; cf. notes 48-55, especially note 50.

s I b i d . , 91 ff., 205 f. , and pass im.5S Ib id . , 62-66, 93f.5 Ib id . , 57 (end) f., 59f., 72, 25zf., cf. 314.

Ib id . , 60.3ff., 314; cf. 72 ( end) an d not e 50 supra .a Ib id . , g ~ f f . , 10-12, 240, 247f. For the argu ment of Cyril reprehended b y Nestorius, see Sanc t i

P a t r i s N o s t r i C y r i l l i A rc h i ep i sc o p i A l e x a n d r i n i in D J o a n n i s E v a n g e l i u m , ed. Philip E . Pusey, I(Oxford, 1872), 487. 16-23 (on John 6 :3 8 f. ); b id . , 2 (Oxford, 1872), 316-8-317.7. 320.13-23 (on Jo hn12:27f.); P G., 73. 532 AB; P G. 74, 88D-8gA, 92D. Cf. Sellers, op. cit . (note I s u p r a , 104ff. Thelatte r of th ese tex ts is deemed no t to have been wri tten b y Cyril: LiBbaert, o f . c i t. (note 66 i n f r a ,131-37.


20/25


ology. I t also serves to illustrate his understanding of the unity of Christ'spersonality, which, according to him, never experienced dissension or discordsince the human will always followed the divine.

6. THEOTOKOS X D THE Co~nrnunicatio diomatum

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we are justified in clearing Nestoriusof the charge of Nestorianism, and can pronounce his theology to be un-objectionable when measured by Chalcedonian criteria. But, some urge, hisunwillingness to designate Mary the Virgin as Theotokos without qualificationindicates that he failed to comprehend fully the implications of the communicatioidiornatum (dtvri6oo1~ GVi 6 1 o y k r ~ ~r 6voyb~ov).

This phenomenon, the transfer or exchange of att ributes, as defined by theCouncil of Chalcedon, notably in the Tome of Bishop Leo I (440-61) of Rome(see note 71 infra), is exhibited by the two natures of Jesus Christ (the divineand the human). According to orthodox doctrine, these natures are united

without confusion, change, separation, or division (see note g supra), andretain all of their properties, which in the union of God and man are distinct fromeach other but not separate. The difference between the natures had given riseto two appellations of Jesus Christ, who, on account of his divine nature, is Sonof God (the divine Logos) and also, at the same time, by virtue of his human

nature, the Son of man (Jesus). Whatever the designation, reference is alwaysto one and the same person, Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, the divine charac-teristics are attributable to the divine nature and the human to the human.Nevertheless, as a result of the union of the two in one person, it is deemedpossible to ascribe the experiences of Jesus Christ in respect of his divinenature to the Son of man, and those which Jesus Christ underwent becauseof his human nature to the Son of God. Consequently, it was theologicallypermissible to teach that the Son of God (see note 65f. infra for furtherextension of this idea) underwent death, to which the divine nature was not

subject, and that the Son of man received worship, which is accorded onlyto God.Neither the Council of Chalcedon nor Bishop Leo of Rome was less ambiguous

or more positive about this doctrine than Nestorius. Like them, he says,56 wename the man God indeed on account of the union of the divinity but man inna ture ; yet similarly once more also God the Word is God indeed in nature, butwe call God man by reason of the union of the prosopon of the humanity.

In support of this proposition, he cites Athanasius5' approvingly to the sameeffect Now that the Word has become man and has made the properties of theflesh his own, the same are no longer imputed to the body because the Word hascome to be in it. From this, like Athanasius, he concludes that in the unionthe Logos acquired the characteristics of man, and the human in Christ, in turn,

6 I b i d . 2 4 8 ; cf 180 2 2 8 , 2 3 3 .7 I b i d . . 2 2 1 .


21/25

MILTON V ANASTOS

those of God. He specifically states58 that he agrees with the orthodox whoassign "the [properties] of the humanity to the divinity and those of thedivinity to the humanity, and this is said of the one and that of the other, asconcerning natures whole and united, united indeed without confusion andmaking use of the prosopa of one another."

He does not mean of course that such an exchange was actually effected be-tween the two natures, but rather between God the Logos and the human inChrist, through their prosopa. His formula for this transfer is the sentence, "thedivinity makes use of the prosopon of the humanity and the humanity of thatof the divinity," which recurs repeatedly in the Bazaar, in one form or another,and must be ranked high among patristic attempts to define this centralmystery of the incarnation.

This was his way of safeguarding the divinity and integrity of the divinenature of the Logos. For it enabled him to at tach Jesus Christ's human ex-periences and agony, which God the Word assumed,59 not to the divine nature,but to the human prosopon sense A which the Logos "used." Hence, in thekenosis60 (the "emptingy" by which God humiliated himself and took onhuman form Philippians z 6-11), the Logos endured "death upon the cross,in that he made use of the prosopon of him who died and was crucified as hisown prosopon, and [i.e., as a consequence] in his own prosopon he made useof the things which appertained unto him who died and was crucified and wasexalted."

Accordingly, he does not question the validity of such traditional affirmationsas "God suffered" and "God died," if correctly understood as applying to thehuman prosopon the divine Logos took, not to his nature. Thus, he recognizesJesus Christ's two generations (note 28f. supra) and confesses61 of the Logos that"nothing is his own apart from the human humiliation; but while remainingGod in all things, [he is] that which the man was by his nature in sufferings,even in impassibility." Or, in other words, the Logos "is impassible in apassible body"62 and " truly . .came to be in the body and was not distinguishedfrom the body."

He was, however, far more persistent than Cyril in pointing out that God theLogos did not undergo the human process in his own nature. For, he shows,63in the NewTestament death and suffering are never associated with God but onlywithChrist, the Son, or theLord, since these names are "indicative of two natures

58 Ib id . , 2 4 o f . ; ee a lso 81 , 174, 182f . , 191 , 233. For Nes tor ius ' fo rm ula fo r th e communica tio id ioma-t ur n , s ee i bi d. , 2 40 , 1 9 0 , 2 0 7 , z ~ g f . ,3 3 ( " t h e o n e i s t h e o t h e r a nd t h e o t h e r t h e o n e " ) , 2 3 8 ; c f . 6 6 , 6 9 , 8 1 ,159, 163 , 167, 172, 183, 252, 261, 320.

O Ib id . , 174 .6 I b id . , 5 8 ; c f . 13 8 ( " t h e O n l y - b e g o t te n S o n o f G o d c r ea te d a n d w a s c r e a t e d; t h e S o n o f G o d

s u f f er e d a n d s u f f e r e d n o t , t h e s a m e b u t n o t i n t h e s a m e [ o u s i a ]; o r [s o m e ] o f th e s e t h i n g s a re i n t h en a t u r e o f t h e d i v i n i t y a n d [ o th e rs ]o f t h e m i n t h e n a tu r e o f t h e h u m a n i t y . H e s u ff er e d all h u m a n t h in g sin t h e h u m a n i t y, a n d a ll d i v in e t h i n g s i n t h e d i v i n i t y . . ), 165 , 170 , 179 , 191 , 193 , 2 2 1 O n t h ekenos is , see Paul H en ry , "K6nose," Dict ionnaive de la Bible , Suppl& ment , 5 (Pa r is , 195 7) , 7-161.

N b t h a t N e s to r iu s ' a n a ly s is o n t h i s p o in t ( c f .n o t e 6 3 i n f r a ) w a s a c c e p te d b y C y r il a n d the Counci lo Chalcedon ( no te 72" in f ra ) .

B a z a a r, 7 0 .z Ibid . , 237.

6 Ib id . , 256f .


22/25

N E S T O R I U S WA S O RT H O D OX

and indicate sometimes the divinity, but sometimes the humanity and some-times both of them." Cyril was to be censured, therefore, he felt,64 or failingto appreciate adequately the impassibility of the divine nature.

Basically, as Nestorius in part understood, Cyril really was in agreement withhim on for example, whichhis point. In his Second Letter to Nesto~ius,~~received oecumenical indorsement a t the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,Cyril declared that the Logos, though begotten of the Father before the agesand in no need of a second bir th, is said ( A k y ~ ~ a l )o have been born in the flesh( o a p ~ 1 ~ 6 s )ecause he had united himself with human nature. In this sense, theVirgin Mary, who was in no wise, Cyril concedes, the mother or source of Godthe Word himself or his divine nature, could be regarded as Theotokos, sinceshe gave birth to the flesh to which the Logos was joined in hypostatic union.Likewise, the Logos, who is in his own nature incorporeal, impassible, incor-ruptible, and immortal, is said to have suffered, died, and risen from the dead,because of his union with a human body which underwent these experiences.By this process of reasoning, Cyril evolved a formula,66 ccording to which theLogos submitted t o bir th, suffering, and death in the flesh ( o a p ~ i )or according tothe flesh ( ~ a ~ asirp~a) .His treatment of the Word's relation to passibility iseminently reasonable, and closely resembles what Nestorius has to say on thissubject (see note 72 infra).

Unhappily, the lat ter , out of the same contrariety which led Cyril to contra-dict him at every turn, repudiates6' Cyril's solution of the problem, and objects@

th at Cyril referred the qualities of both the human and the divine natures tothe eternal Logos but failed to at tr ibute those of God the Word to Christ's man-hood. As a consequence, he complains, Cyril was guilty of th e Manichaean errorof reducing Christ's flesh to an illusion. This is not the place to analyze Cyril'sposition on these matters. But Nestorius' animadversions, however unjustified,prove once again that he thoroughly understood the communicatio idiornatum,and realized that there could have been no true union of the divine Logos and

6 Ib id . , 91-94, 136ff., 141-51, 174, 176, 181ff., 188, 191-206, 247, 252-62, 295 ff., 32.3, 362, 364 ff .,367f.

6 Nestorius insists th at Cyril a t times agrees with him on th e impassibility of t he divine natu re:ib id . , 145, 150, 174, 191, 195, 221f., 232 252, 260, 262, 265f., 296f. Fo r th e te xt of Cyril's Second Let te rto Nestorius, see A C O , I, I , I, 25. 23-28. 26; P.G., 77, 44ff.; Bindley, op. cit . (note 9 s u p r a ) , 94 ff.,209 f f

See previous n ote and Cyril's Thi rd Letter to Nestovius , ACO ,I , I I, 33-42; P .G. , 77, 105-21; ed .and trans. with commentary by Bindley, op. cit., (note g s u p r a ) , 106-37, 212-19; n.b. 111.149, 165f .;113.253-70, and t he twel fth an ath ema in this let ter. On Cyril's view of t he communicat io idiornatum,see Georges Jouassa rd, "ImpassibilitC d u Logos et impassibilitk de 1'8me hum ain e chez sai nt Cyrilled'hlexandrie," Recherches de scier~ce eligieuse, 45 (1957), 209-44, and oth er articles by him, listed inQuasten, Patrology, 3, 141. A warm a nd e rudite defense of Cyril, along with an a tta ck on th e theologyof the assumptus homo, is made by H. M . Diepen, Douze dialogu es de chvistologie ancienne (Rome, 1960)id em , L a the ologie de 1 Emmanu el (n. p., 1960); ide m, A u x or igines de l anthropologie de saint Cyri l led d l e x a n d r i e (n. p., 1957), who directs his fire mostly ag ainst DCodat de Basly (see my "Immut abili ty"[note 3 s u p r a ] , 138, note 52). Cf. Paul Galtier, "Saint Cyrille et Apollinaire," Gregorianum, 37 (1956),584-609; Jouassard, Zoc. cit. and Jacques LiCbaert, L a doctrine christologique de saint Cyrille dlAZe xandr ieav an t la querelle nestovier~ ne M6 mo ir es et tra va ux publie s par les pvofesseurs des faculte s catholiques deLil le , 58 [Lille, 195 I] ), wit h all three of whom I agree again st Diepen. A precise summary of Cyril's positionis to be found in Hubert du Manoir de Juaye, op. cit . (note 16 s u p r a ) , 145-50.

6 7 Bazaar, 15of.68 Ib id . , 146, 219, 225, 239, 24of ., 245-48, 260.


23/25

MILTON V. ANASTOS

the human nature in Jesus Christ unless the qualities of the one were deemedapplicable to the other and vice versa.

Actually, the fundamental difference between Nestorius and Cyril in inter-preting the results of the communicatio idiomatum stems from their disagree-ment concerning the subject of the God-man's career and experience. Cyril, asNestorius remark~,~g referred to begin with the divine Logos ("the maker ofthe natures"), and habitually speaks of the Logos as saying, doing, suffering,dying, and rising from the dead. Nestorius, on the other hand, associates allthese activities with "the prosopon of the union" (the Jesus Christ of theGospels). In defence of his position, he appeals to the New Testament (see note63 supra) and the Creed of Ni ~a ea .~ O he latter , he contends, in a rebuttal ofCyril, ascribes the incarnation, death, and resurrection to Jesus Christ, not tothe divine Logos. I t should be added, also, that the Symbol of Chalcedonfollows the same pattern (see note g supra), and qualifies the terrestrialgeneration of Jesus Christ exactly as Nestorius does, stating th at he "was bornof Mary the Virgin Theotokos, according to the manhood." LVe cannot censurehim for expressing himself with similar circumspection, and there is no doubtthat he would have subscribed unreservedly to this Creed and to the Tome ofLeo, as one of his followers claims.71

9 I b i d . , 143-146, 153 an d p a s s i m .O I b i d . , 141ff., 144ff., and pass im. For t he t ex t of t he Creed of 325, see A C O , 2, I, 2, 79 [275] 16ff.

Oth er versions a nd t he so-called Creed of 381 : A C O , I , I, I, 12.32-13. j , 35.1-11; A C O , I , I, Z , I Z . ~ ~ - 1 3 . 7 ;A C O , I, I, 3, 39.1-11; A C O , I , I , 7 , 65 f ; A C O , 2, I, I, 90.30ff.; A C O , 2, I, 2, 127 [323]f.; A C O , 3,4.24-5. ; Mansi, op. c i t . (note 9 s u p r a ) , 7, 10-12. Apart from minor variants in punctuation, I reproduceth e te xt of A C O , 2, I, 2, 79.16, except for KTIUTOV in the last sentence, which occurs in Athanasius'recension an d seems to be an essential element of t he Creed: De dec re t i s N icaenae Synod i , 37, 2, ed.Hans-Georg Opitz, A t h a n a s i u s We r k e , 2, (Berlin-Leipzig, 19 35 )~ 6.33-37.2. F or th e formation andmeaning of the Creed, see J . N. D. Kelly, Ear ly Chr i s t i an Creeds (London, 1951)~ ~ ~ j f f . ,nd theliterature set forth in D u m b a r t on O a k s P a p e r s , 6 (1951), 141 not e 60.

~ T I U T E ~ ~ O ~ E VEIS -rrmipa nav- ro~ph opa, 6pmQv TE ~ a iva 8 ~ b v -r ra v~ wv &opdCTwv T T O I ~ T ~ V .~ a i h a ~ i rp lov'IquoGv X P I ~ ~ V , uibv TOG ~EoO, EK~ i j ~ TOG -r rmp6~,~ V y~vvqeiv-raEKTOG nmpbs povoy~vi j, o v r i m l v 06o ia~8abv EK~EoG,965 EK e ~ b v hqelvbv EK~ E O G 06 ~ ~ o l q e i v ~ a , -rrmpiaW T ~ S &hqelvofi, y ~ v v q e i v ~ a 6pooiru10v T61 05 ~a n&v-ra EY~VETO,~a TE T&EV~ f i 61' jp&< TOGS&vt3pCj-rrou~ 61h ~ f i vv T@ o\jpav@ ~ a i yij T ~ V ~ a i j p ~ ~ i p a vu w ~ qp i a v~ m ~ h e 6 v ~ aa p ~ o e i v ~ a Evavepw-rrjoav~a, & 6 v ~ a a i ~ f i (pip?, &v~h96v-raa i ~ a i & v a u ~ a v ~ a~ p i ~ qEIS 06pavoir5, ~ a i ZQv-ra~ ~ a i ~ a i ~b & y ~ o v va3pa. -robs 61 Ai yov~as , iv TOTEO ~ S tpx6pevov ~ p i v a ~ ve~poir~.~ T Eo i r ~ r p i v y~vv qei jval fiv, ~ a i i t o i r ~ v ~ w v y i v ~ ~ o ,iv, ~ a i O ~ K 8 ~ 1 4 i t hi pas ir-rroo-cauaw~ o6oias Tau-Kov-ras ~' l v a~ , KTIOT~V 4 ~ p ~ ~ r r b v T ~ V K&O~IK$ ~ a idi hholw~ bv uibv TOG OEOG T O ~ O U S ] &V&EM~~ZEI &no-o-cohl~fiE ~ ~ h q u i a .

Th e so-called Creed of 381, which first app ear s as such in th e Acts of th e Council of Chalcedon istaken from A C O , 2, I , 2, 80 [2 761:

l l ~ o - c ~ i r o p ~ v T T O I ~ T ~ ~ V yijs 6pmQv TE T T ~ V T O V~ a iopa~wv.i s Eva 9~bv mip pa ~ ~ a v ~ o ~ p h o p a , 06pavoG ~ a i~ a iEIS uIbv TOO ~ E O G M O V O Y E V ~ ,T ~ V TOG xm pbs ~ E V V ~ ~ ~ J T Urr&v~wvva ~ i rp lovIquoGv Xpto-c6v, T ~ V T ~ V ~ ~ p bT ~ aiC;)vwv, 965 ~ e ~ b v rhqelvbv EK~ E O O~ ~ 6 5 , &hqelvoG, yav vqe iv~ a 6 -rrolqeiv-ra, 6pooiro1ov T@ nm pi ,61' 05 ~a -rr&v-ra EY~VETO,T ~ V T O ~ S ~ a i u ~~ q p i a v ~ m ~ he 6 v - r a 06pavQv1' j p & ~ &v~pC; )-rrou~ 61a-rfiv j p ~ ~ i p a v ~ K T Q V~ a ia p ~ w e i v ~ a~ T T V E ~ ~ C ~ ~ O S Mapias ~ i j s Evavepw-rrjoav-ra, m cc vp oe iv ~a E bnip jpQvxyiou ~ a i napeivou ~ a iE-rri l ov r i o ~lthdt-rou, Kai - r r d 6v ~a Ta~iv-ra, Kai &vao-c&v~a ~ p i ~ q as ypaqas, ~ a ia i ~ i j fipipa ~ m h & v ~ A 8 6 v ~ a

~ ST O ~ S 06pavoirs, ~ a i ndihlv Ep~6p~vovE [ ~ ~ E V O V Cv 6~(1g TOG -rrmp6s, ~ a i pa-ra 66(q5 ~p i v al Qv~as a ive~poirs. 6 ~ i j ~aotA~iaso h a l i h os . ai ais ~b nv~Gpa ~ a ib &ylov, ~b ~ 6 p l o v Iwo-rrot6v, ~b EKTOG nm pb s~ K ~ O ~ E U ~ ~ E V O V ,b ubv n m p i ~ a i i e avp-rrpou~uvo~p~vov U U V ~ O ~ ~ Z ~ ~ E V O V ,a i ~b hahijoav 61a TQV TPOT~TQV-ais piav txyiav ~ & o h l ~ j v &-rroo-rohl~fiv i ~ ~ hq u i a v .a i 6pohoyoOp~v EVPdtmlupa ais &TEUIV &pap-rlQv -rrpoo6o-~Gjpev&v am ao ~v a~pGjv ~ a iwfiv TOO pihhov-ro~ iljvos.

7 B a z a a r, frag. 308, p. 38 8f., cf. i b i d . , ix f. , xxi xf. , 241, 369ff., 374f.. 378. For th e te xt of th e Tome ofLeo (E p. 28), see A C O , 2, 2, I, 24-33 (L at in ); 2, I, I , 10-20 (Greek version); C Silva-Tarouca, S .L e o n i s M a g n i To m u s ad F l a v i a n u m E p i s c . C o n s ta n t i no p o l i ta n u m ( T e x t u s et do c um e n ta ,Series theo-logica, 9 [Rome, 19321). For exegesis, etc. : Hugo Ra hner, "Leo der Grosse, der Pap st des Konzils," D a sKo nz i l z lon Cha lkedon , (see note I) , 323-39; Pau l Galtier, "Sain t Cyrille dJAlexandrie et Saint LCon le


24/25

N E S T O R I U S WAS O R T H O D O X 139

Still, since Cyril is universally esteemed in the Church as a Chalcedonianbefore Chalcedon, the Christology of Nestorius, if orthodox, should be re-concilable, notwithstanding angry denials on both sides, with Cyril's. In tr uth,it must be admitted, the line which separates them on this, as on all otherissues, is either very thin or nonexistent. Both agreed that the qualities of thetwo natures were referable to the one person, Jesus Christ. They defined thisentity somewhat differently, bu t it is obvious th at Cyril's one prosopon, . .the one incarnate hypostasis of God the Logos, 72 and Nestorius' one prosoponof Jesus ChristJJ notes 37, 42f.) were both intended to define the Jesus Christof the Gospels. Moreover, Cyril's characteristic notion th at the Logos sufferedin the flesh is theologically the exact equivalent of Nestorius' dogma that theLogos suffered in the prosopon of the manhood which he took for his own. For,as we have seen (note 38 .) , the prosopon of the manhood is the schema or th eflesh and body of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, Nestorius was always offended by Cyril's constant preoc-cupation with the paradox that God the Logos suffered, died, and was raisedfrom the dead-in the fZesh-although he recognized (notes 57-62) the validityof the proposition stated in this form. His unwillingness to do so without thenecessary restrictions, however, and his insistence that the human experiencesshould in a strict sense be attributed to Jesus Christ, or to his human nature(or, as he preferred to put it , to the human prosopon [sense A] which the Logosappropriated for himself), rather than to the divine nature of the Logos, are

by no means to be regarded as idiosyncrasies of Nestorianism. On the con-trary, Cyril himself made similar qualifications, as in his letter to John ofAntioch, in which he quotes with approval the compromise Creed of 433.A passage in this document, whose orthodoxy received oecumenical confirma-tion at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, corresponds exactly with what Nesto-rius had to say on the same topic (see quotations in notes 6 and 63 sufira):

With regard to the evangelical and apostolic texts concerning the Lord, weknow that the theologians make some common as referring to one person, anddistinguish others, as referring to two natures, assigning those appropriate

to God to the divinity of Christ, and the humble ones to his humanity. 72At the same time, granting Nestorius to have been technically correct on all

these matters , we can be sure tha t the Chalcedonians would have been bewilderedby his strange view73 that God only passed through the holy virgin, theGrand ChalcCdoine, ib id . , I, 345-87; Trevor Jalla nd, Th e Lif e and Ti me s of S t . Leo the Great(London,1941 )~ jI f f . , the best general book on Leo. Cf. Altaner, Patvologie, 78,11 for further bibliography.

i ACO I, I, I , 38.21 ff . ; Bindley, op. cit., (note 9 s u p v a , 112.20j-7; P.G ., 77, 116 C: iv i ~o1yapoGvs r p o a c j ~ ~ q ~~ SV TO S ~ O V S , ~ ? j6ayyEhio l s i raua~ V U ~ E T ~ O V ~~IT OIS T UE ~ TOG A6you oeuap~wpivq .K b p l o ~y h p E'IS IqaoGs Xp1m 6s, ~ m h y p a ~ a s .Cf. du Manoir de Juaye, loc, cit . (note 66 s u p r a .h s

ACO I , I , 4, 17. 17-20; P.G. , 77, 177 AB: Bindley, op . cit. (note g s u p r a , 142.61 ff. 7 h ~ i~ 6 cr yy aA 1 ~h sa iITOUTO~IK~S TOG Kupfou cpovks, iapav ~ o b s p8v ~ o lv o ~ r o ~ o O v r a ~ ,~ p i 8 ~oA 6yo us v6pas, ~ h s 519 6Vbs I T ~ o u ~ ~ I T o u S 8 6lUlpoGvTa ~,CbS EITi 6b0 ~ ~ U E W V U l Ths ~ i v K a ~ h ~ E ~ T T ) T U~0-irpEITEi~ T ~ V TOG Xp1070G,-r s 68 T U - ~ ~ E ~ V ~ SU T ~ v 8 p w - i r 6 ~ q ~ a~ V ~ r a p a 6 t 6 6 v ~ a 5 .

Approval by Chalcedon: ACO 2 I, 2, 81 [277]. 1-13. When t he Ill yria n and Pa lesti nian bishopsexpressed doubt s as to the orthod oxy of expressions of th is sort, ot he r passages were quoted fromCyril's writings to the same effect: ibid., 82 [z78]. 4-36; Mansi, 6, 972D. See Galtier, loc. cit. (note 50s u p r a , 355f .; Sellers, op. cit . (note I s u p r a , 90-95; Nestorius, Bazaar, 3 1 4 f f

i Bazaav, 296. Gregory of Nazianzus had opposed this view: P.G., 37, 177Cf.


25/25

140 MILTON V ANASTOS

'mother of Christ', but was not born of her. They agreed with him that Goddid not derive the origin of his being from Mary, but they expressed this ideadifferently (see the Creed of 451 in note g supra). In strict justice, Nestorius canbe vindicated on this point also, and he definitely avoided the Gnostic andManichaean implications of this peculiar description of the relation of theGodhead to Mary. For the Gnostic doctrine that Jesus passed through Marylike water through a pipe 74 was directed against Christ's assumption of a trulyhuman nature, which Nestorius always championed.

I t is not correct, however, to say, as many do, tha t he was primarily con-cerned with the human nature of Jesus. He does, of course, lay great stressupon Christ's manhood. But he by no means neglects the divine nature. Indeed,his theory tha t neither of the two usiai could be mixed with the other orcombined with it in its own usia was intended, among other things, to preservethe impassibility of the divine nature (see notes 59-64 supra). Actually,Nestorius' Christology is not characterized by preoccupation with either one ofthe two natures to the exclusion or detriment of the other, but rather byuncompromising insistence upon the union of both of them in Christ, in theirfull totality, and unimpaired.

He was the dyophysite par excellence, and, more than any other theologian,except possibly Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 466),75 his friend and ally, devoted hisenergies to demonstrating that Jesus Christ was equally and in full measureboth God and man, both human and divine. No one else championed thisprinciple more vigorously than he, or was more forceful in denouncing theslightest deviation from it.

In view of the great merit of his theological ideas, it is all the more regrettablethat he was not able to present them more skilfully. The obscurity and prolixityof his style are major defects, from which he cannot be exculpated, and explainin part why he failed to hold the favor of Emperor Theodosius I1 (408-so), andspent the last years of his life (from 431-ca. 4 5 1 ) ~ ~ n agonizing exile.

7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies , 3 11, 8, ed. W. W. Harvey, Sanc ti Irena ei episcopi lugdu elasis l ibrosquinque adversus haereses, 2 (Cambridge, 1857), 42.

75 On Theodoret, see Quasten, Patrology, 3, 536-54; Altaner, Patrologie, 73.7 6 For t he chronology, see, in addition to t he works ci

Documents

Anastos - Nestorius Was Orthodox