Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/44

32 nothing to say against it—only do not make a Goddess of the virgin. And even before the letter of John of Antioch mentioned above Nestorius came to an understanding with his clergy about the necessary use and meaning of the term.

How under these circumstances was such a passionate controversy as that which followed, possible? What was it that deprived Nestorius of the undivided affection of his parish which he enjoyed at the beginning?

First it may be noted that the enemies of Nestorius were persuaded that bad heresies lurked behind his opposition to the term. As early as the spring of 429 Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum, accused Nestorius by means of a public placard of thinking as Paul of Samosata. Even at that time Nestorius was reproached for regarding Jesus as a mere man. This reproach however was still more groundless than the indignation about his opposition to the term. Hence this reproach, too, cannot be the first and the true cause of the controversy.

Nestorius declares in the above-quoted passage of the Treatise of Heraclides—and this is the third point