Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/558

 EPHESUS

492

EPHESUS

Patriarch of Alexandria and himself, and he worked so well that the letters of convocation were issued by the emperor to all metropolitans on 19 November, some days before the messengers of CjtU arrived. The em- peror was able to take this course without seeming to favour Nestorius too much, because the monks of the capital, whom Nestorius had excommunicated for their opposition to his heretical teaching, had also appealed to him to call together a council. Nestorius, therefore, paid no attention to the pope's ultimatum, and refused to be guided by the advice to submit which his friend John, the Patriarch of Antioeh, vol- unteered.

Tlie pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bish- ops. Arcadius and Project us, to represent himself and his Roman covmcil, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discus- sions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presi- dents at an oecumenical council, and this was hence- forth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed tliat it must have been the case at Nicca.

The emperor was anxious for the presence of the most venerated prelate of the whole world, Augustine, and sent a special messenger to that great man with a letter in honourable terms. But the saint had died during the siege of Hippo in the preceding August, though the troubles of Africa had prevented news from reaching Constantinople. Theodosius wrote an angrj- letter to Cyril, and a temperate one to the coun- cilTThe tone of the latter epistle and of the instruc- tions given to the imperial commissioner. Count Candi- dian, to be absolutely impartial, are ascribed by the Coptic Acts to the influence exercised on the emperor by the Abbot Victor, who had been sent to Constanti- nople by CjtU to act as his agent at the Court on ac- count of the veneration and friendship which Theodo- sius was known to feel for the holy man. Nestorius, with sLxteen bishops, and Cyril, with fifty, arrived liefore Pentecost at Ephesus. The Coptic tells us that the two parties arrived on the same day, and that in the evening Nestorius proposed that all should join in the Vesper service together. The other bishops re- fused. Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, was afraid of violence, and sent his clergy only to the church. The mention of a Flavian, who seems to be the Bishop of Philippi, casts some doubt on this storj', for that bishop did not arrive till later. Memnon of Ephesus had forty suffragans pre-sent, not counting twelve from Pamphylia (whom John of Antioeh calls heretics). Juvenal of Jerusalem, with the neighbouring bishops whom he looked upon as his suffragans, and Flavian of Philippi, with a contingent from the countries which looked to Thessalonica as their metropolis, arrived soon after Pentecost. The Patriarch of Antioeh, John, an old friend of Nestorius, wrote to explain that his suTragans had not been able to start till after the Octave of Easter. (The Coptic Acts say that there was a famine at .\ntioch.) The journey of thirty days had been lengthened by the death of some horses; he would accomplish the last five or six stages at leisure. But he did not arrive, and it was said that he was loitering because he did not wi.sh to join in condemn- ing Nestorius. Meanwhile the heat was great. Many bishops were ill. Two or three died. Two of John's metropolitans, those of Apamea and Hierapolis, ar- rived and declared that John did not wish the opening of the council to be deferred on account of his delay. However, these two bishops and Theodoret of Cyrus, with sixty-five others, wrote a memorial addressed to

St. CjtU and Juvenal of Jerusalem, begging that the arrival of John should be awaited. Count Candidian arrived, with the imperial decree, and he took the same view. But Cyril and the majority determined to open the council on 22 June, sLxteen days having passed since John had announced his arrival in five or six. It was clear to the majority that this delay was intentional, and they were probably right. Vet it is regrettable that all possible allowance was not made, especially as no news had yet come from Rome.

For CjTil had written to the pope with regard to an important question of procedure. Nestorius had not recanted within the ten days fixed by the pope, and he was consequently treated as excommunicate bj- the majority of the bishops. Was he to be allowed a fresh trial, although the pope had already condemned him? Or, on the other hand, was he to be merely given the opportimity of e.xplaining or excusing his contumacy? One miglit have presumed that Pope Celestine, in ap- proving of the council, intended that Nestorius should have a full trial, and in fact this was declared in his letter which was still on the way. But as no reply had come to Cyril, that saint considered that he had no right to treat the pope's sentence as a matter for fur- ther discussion, and no doubt he had not much wish to do so. The coimcU assembled on 22 June, and St. CyrU assumed the presidency both as Patriarch of Alexandria and " as filling the place of the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the Roman Church, Celes- tme", in order to carrj- out his original commission, which he considered, in the absence of any reply from Rome, to be still in force. In the morning one hun- dretl and si.xty bishops were present, and by evening one hundred and ninety-eight had assembled. The session began by a justification of the decision to delay no longer. Nestorius had been on the previous day invited to attend. He had replied that he would come if he chose. To a second summons, which was now dispatched, he sent a message from his house, which was surrounded with armed men. that he would appear when all the bishops had come together. Indeed only some twenty of the sixty-eight w-ho had demanded a delay had rallied to CyrU, and Nestorius's own suffra- gans" had also stayed away. To a third summons he gave no answer. This attitude corresponds with his original attitude to the ultimatum sent by Cyril. He would not acknowledge Cyril as a judge, and he looked upon the opening of the coimcil before the arrival of his friends from Antioeh as a fla£;rant injustice.

The session proceeded. The Nicene Creed was read, and then the second letter of CjtU to Nestorius, on which the bishops at CjTil's desire, severally gave their judgement that it was in accordance with the Nicene faith, one hundred and twenty-six speaking in turn. Next the reply of Nestorius was read. All then cried Anathema to Nestorius. Then Pope Celestine's letter to St. Cyril was read, and after it the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, with the anathematisms which the heretic was to accept. The bishops who had served this ultimatum on Nestorius deposed that they had given him the letter. He had promised his answer on the morrow, but had not given any, and did not even admit them. Then two friends of Nestorius,_ Theo- dotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Mitylene, were invited by Cyril to give an account of their conversations at Ephesus with Nestorius. Acacius said that Nestorius had repeatedly declared Si^Tjwaioi' rj Tpiixrtviaiov fii) SeTv X^e<r»ai GcAi'. Nestorius's own account of this conversation in his "Apology" (Bethvme-Baker, p. 71) shows that this phrase is to be tran.slated thus: "We must not say that God is two or three months old." This is not so shocking as the meaning which lias usually been ascribed to the words in modern as well as ancient times (e. g. by Socrates, VII, xxxiv): "A baby of two or three months old ought not to be called God." The former sense agrees with the accu- sation of Acacius that Nestorius declared "one must