Main Heretics and Heresies of the First Six Centuries

OF

T HE F IRST S IX C ENTURIES

• HERESIES HERESY REMARKS One of the names applied to Jewish Christians by the Some say that Ebionites (or Poor Ones) were

• 1 Church Fathers. founded by the heretical leader Ebion (Ebion in Their Doctrines Hebrew means ‘beggar’).

• EBIONITES Rejection of St. Paul as an apostate from the law. St. Jerome wrote to St. Augustine , Ep. CXII. Use only of Matthew’s Gospel. A.D. 404: Veneration of Jerusalem. The matter in debate, therefore, or I should rather say your opinion regarding it, is Observance of circumcision, the law, and a Jewish way of life is needed for salvation. summed up in this: that since the preaching of

• Rejection of the virgin birth. the Gospel of Christ, the believing Jews do well Unusual exposition of the prophets. in observing the precepts of the Law…If this be Possibly the use of water in the Eucharist.¹ true, we fall into the heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion, who, though believing in Christ, were

• They looked toward imminent Millenium. anathematized by the fathers for this one error

• “Ebionites” was just one appellation (among others, that they mixed up the ceremonies of the Law

• particularly “Nazoraeans”) of Jewish Christians. with the Gospel of Christ, and professed their

• Ebionism presents itself under two principal types: faith in that which was new, without letting go

• 1. An earlier, proper or pharisaic Ebionism. what was old. Why do I speak of the Ebionites,

• 2. The latter, Essence or Gnostic. who make pretension to the name of a

• Other types of Jewish Christianity are: Cerinthians, Christian? In our own day there exists a sect

• Symmachians, Elkesaites, Nazaoraeans, Hemerobaptists, among the Jews throughout all the synagogues

• and other baptizing sects inhabiting the Jordan and of the East, which is called the sect of the Minei

• Transjordan areas. Certain of these groups existed until and even now condemned by the Pharisees. The

• 4th and 5th centuries but disappeared in the Transjordan adherents to this sect are known as Nazarenes .

• thereafter. They believe in Christ the Son of God, born of

• The Ebionites were known by other names such as: the Virgin Mary; they say that He who suffered

• Other types of Jewish Christianity are: Cerinthians, Symmachians, Elkesaites, Nazaoraeans, Hemerobaptists, and other baptizing sects inhabiting the Jordan and Transjordan areas. Certain of these groups existed until 4th and 5th centuries but disappeared in the Transjordan thereafter.

• The Ebionites were known by other names such as: “Homuncionites” (Greek “Anthropians” or

Gnostics / Millenarians / Docetists

Gnostics / Millenarians / Docetists

• Literal Millenium in the View of the Early Church⁴

• St. Augustine wrote :

• The Jews have their own materialist thinking. Therefore, they did not accept Christ as their Lord because of His refusal of the earthly reign.

There will be no coming of Jesus before His last appearance for judgment, for His coming is actually happening now in the Church and in her members. As for the first resurrection in the book of Revelation, it is metaphoric, and points to the interpretation of what happens to those who die in sin, then rise for a new life through repentance. So the millennium has indeed began, for Christ has conquered death and won on the cross, and now we His saints rule with Him, and through Him.⁹ Is it then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy, and it is of this first resurrection in the present life that the Apocalypse speaks…For, after saying that the devil is bound a thousand years and is afterwards loosed for a short season, it goes on to give a sketch of what the Church does or of what is done in the Church in those days, in the words, “And I saw seats and them that sat upon them, and judgment was given.” It is not supposed that this refers to the last judgment, but to the seats of the rulers and to the rulers themselves by whom the Church is now governed. And no better interpretation of judgment being given can be produced than that which we have in the words, “What ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 18:18).

-

• Unfortunately up to this day, they are still waiting for the Messiah who have an earthly reign, and will give them dominion over the world. This thinking was introduced into the Church in the beginning of its institutions through two ways:

• Firstly, by the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, and with them some of their materialistic imaginations were introduced.⁵ They diffused some of these thoughts haphazardly among Church writings and sermons. We find in the writings of Papias examples of this trend. Eusebius says,⁶ that Papias came to his materialistic way of thinking because of his misunderstanding of the apostolic writings, not being aware that their sayings were metaphoric (spiritual). And he drove many of the Church Fathers to embrace the same views, after him. Eusebius called the matter “superstition.”

• Secondly, on reading the dialogue between Justin and Trypo the Jew,⁷ we realize that Justin was so enthusiastic and full of zeal to assure that all what the Jews had, as promises and blessings, were totally and completely transferred to the Church of the New Testament. Thereby, he tried to confirm that what was written in Isaiah 65:1725 and Micah. 4:1-7 will be realized only for Christians.

• After Papias, declined Ireneaus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinos, Justin, Melito, and Methodius; and Augustine at the start, who later on realized he was mistaken.

• The Montanism movement was founded on the conviction that the millenarian age had already begun and that the heavenly Jerusalem had descended in the Phrygian town of Pepuza.

• The decisive reaction against Millenarianism came from

Gnostics / Millenarians / Docetists

the Alexandrians who propounded a much more spiritual “And the souls,” says John, “of those who conception of Christian eschatology. were slain for the testimony of Jesus and for In the second half of the 3rd century, the spread of the word of God,” – understanding what he Alexandrian culture marked the end of millenarian ideas afterwards says, “reigned with Christ a in the East: Dionysius of Alexandria had to argue hard thousand years,” (Rev 20:4) – that is, the souls against Egyptian communities with Millenarian of the martyrs not yet restored to their bodies. convictions (in Euseb., HE VII, 24-25); but at the end of For the souls of the pious dead are not the century such convictions were still defended by separated from the church, which even now is Methodius (Symp. 9, 1.5), who reworked them in a the kingdom of Christ…Therefore, while these spiritualistic sense. thousand years run on, their souls reign with In the West: Commodian (mid 3rd century) took up the Him, though not yet in conjunction with their theme of the 7,000 years, the last of which is the bodies…The Church, then, begins its reign with millennium (Inst. II35, 8ff). Christ now in the living and in the dead. For, Victorinus of Pettau too (late 3rd century) presents the as the apostle says, Christ died that He might theme of 7, 000 years in a millenarian sense. be Lord of both of the living and of the dead.” Lactantius describes the millennium in the colors of the (Rom 14:9). But he mentioned the souls of the golden age of pagan poetry ( Inst . VII, 24). martyrs only, because they who have contended Ambrose no longer presents the division of world history even to death for the truth, themselves into seven millennia. principally reign after death; but, taking the Augustine took up the theme of the seven ages of the part for the whole, we understand the words of world, but detached it from the length of 1,000 years per all others who belong to the Church, which is age and from any Millenarian influence. the kingdom of Christ .¹⁰ Today, people generally take one of three positions: Schaff summarized Augustine’s understanding 1. Amillenial: The thousand years symbolize Christ’s as follows: “ The apocalyptic millennium he present rule from heaven. understood to be the present reign of Christ in 2. Postmillennial: The thousand years represent the the Catholic [universal] Church, and the first spiritual victory of the Gospel over forces of evil in resurrection, the translation of the martyrs and our world. Christ will come after that spiritual victory saints to heaven, where they participate in is won. i.e. those who put the Second Advent after the Christ’s reign .”¹¹ millennium. Millennialism was not a belief standing by 3. Premillenial: Christ will appear again before the itself, nor was given great attention, but quickly millennium when He will return to set up His kingdom the School of Alexandria noticed the for a literal 1,000-year period, during which Old seriousness of the matter. She seemed to have Testament prophecies, such as Isa. 11:3-9, Jer. 33, and looked with far sight at how this false belief Zech. 14 will be fulfilled on earth. would present itself in the 20th Century.¹²

• In the second half of the 3rd century, the spread of Alexandrian culture marked the end of millenarian ideas in the East: Dionysius of Alexandria had to argue hard against Egyptian communities with Millenarian convictions (in Euseb., HE VII, 24-25); but at the end of the century such convictions were still defended by Methodius (Symp. 9, 1.5), who reworked them in a spiritualistic sense.

• In the West: Commodian (mid 3rd century) took up the theme of the 7,000 years, the last of which is the millennium (Inst. II35, 8ff).

• Victorinus of Pettau too (late 3rd century) presents the theme of 7, 000 years in a millenarian sense.

• Lactantius describes the millennium in the colors of the golden age of pagan poetry ( Inst . VII, 24).

• Ambrose no longer presents the division of world history into seven millennia.

• Augustine took up the theme of the seven ages of the world, but detached it from the length of 1,000 years per age and from any Millenarian influence.

• Today, people generally take one of three positions: 1. Amillenial: The thousand years symbolize Christ’s present rule from heaven.

Docetists/ Marcionists

Marcionists/Montanists

Marcionists/Montanists

Montanists / Origenists

Origenists

Origenists

Origenists

Little by little and individually the correction and the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night .” purification will be accomplished. Some will lead the way Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.311. and climb to the heights with swifter progress, others “ Did He not previously ordain eternal following hard upon them; yet others will be far behind. punishments for those who deny Him, and Thus multitudes of individuals and countless orders will saving rewards for those who confess Him ?” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.439 . advance and reconcile themselves to God. [ De Principiis , III. VI. 6].²⁸ 3. Pre-Existence of Souls 3. Pre-Existence of Souls Origen taught that pre-existent human souls are spirits This is the influence of Plato (428-346 B.C) who fell away from God and committed sins in the who held that the soul is immortal, pre-existent preceding world, and therefore as punishment are now and post-existent. Origen’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls enclosed in material bodies; see De Principiis , II, IX. 2. is intimately connected with his idea of a and many other passages. universal restoration. He held that the sins On the pre-existence of souls, St. Epiphanius wrote of committed by the soul in the preceding world Origen: “ He proposes fables as well on the same subjects explain the different measure of the graces for he says that the soul receives its name from its having which God bestows on everyone and the ” been cooled in coming down. (cf. psyche, “soul” and diversity of men here on earth. Pope Peter (the Seal of Martyrs) wrote two pyschoun, “cool”).²⁹ books directed against the Origenistic doctrine of the soul’s pre-existence and its imprisonment in the body for a sin formerly committed.³⁵ 4. Christology 4. Christology He introduces the concept of the soul of Jesus and regards Nestorius in the 5th century held that the this pre-existent soul as the connecting link between the Divine nature united with the man Jesus infinite Logos and the finite body of Christ. through his rational soul because Divinity does “ This substance of a soul, then, being intermediate not unite with human nature directly but between God and the flesh – it being impossible for the through a mediator (the soul). nature of God to intermingle with a body without an intermediate instrument – the God-man ( Qea,nqrwpoj ) is See also Nestorians , p. 210. born, as we have said, that substance being the intermediary to whose nature is not contrary to assume a body .” [ De Principiis , II. VI. 3 ANF].³⁰

Origenists

Origenists

Origenists

Monarchians/Manichaeans

Manichaeans / Novatians

Novatians / Donatists

Donatists

Donatists

• Donatists regarded themselves as the suffering people of Augustine on the same occasion, “is Christ, my God, destined to undergo persecution and martyrdom for root is Christ, my head is Christ. The seed, of the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Christian which I was born, is the word of God, which I community. The point is made by one of their leading must obey even though the preacher himself bishops, Petilian of Constantine, ca. 400: “ Therefore I say practice not what he preaches. I believe not in that He [Christ] ordained that we should undergo death the minister by whom I am baptized, but in for the faith, which each man should do for the Christ, who alone justifies the sinner and can communion of the church. For Christianity makes forgive guilt” ( Contra literas Petiliani , l.i.c.7 : progress by the deaths of its followers ” (quoted by Opera, tom. ix. p. 209).[⁴⁸] Augustine, C. Litt. Petil. 2.89.196). In regard to church discipline, the opponents of

• The Donatists were the one Christian movement that the Donatists agreed with them in considering attempted to change the social conditions of the empire. it wholesome and necessary, but would keep it Although not in itself a political movement, its more within the limits fixed for it by the extreme adherents in Numidia and Mauretania took the circumstances of the time and the fallibility of law into their own hands from ca. 340 onward carried out men. A perfect separation of sinners from attacks on landowners, forcing them to cancel debts and saints is impracticable before the final change places with their slaves (Optatus 3.4) or to judgement. “ Man”, says St. Augustine, “should perform slave labor (Augustine, ep. 184.4.15). punish in the spirit of love, until either the

• The terrorism extended to attacks on clergy (Augustine, discipline and correction come from above, or C. Cresc. 3.43.47; Ep . 108; 111). These Circumcellions, the tares are pulled up in the universal harvest ” as they were known although armed with heavy clubs ( Aug. Contra Epitolam Parmeniani , 1. iii. c.2, (“Israels”), regarded themselves primarily as men and 10-15).[⁴⁹] women dedicated to holiness, and ultimately to Augustine repelled the Donatists’ charge of martyrdom, and their war cry was Deo Laudes (“Praise to making two churches. In his view it is one and God”). (Augustine, Ep. 108.5.14; In Ps . 132.6). the same Church, which is now mixed with the

• The Circumcellions were a sort of Donatist mendicant ungodly, and will hereafter be pure, as it is the monks, who wandered about the country among the same Christ who once died, and now lives cottages of the peasantry, carried on plunder, arson, and forever, and the same believers, who are now murder, in conjunction with mutinous peasants and slaves, mortal and will one day put on immortality. and in crazy zeal for the martyr’s crown, as genuine ( Greviculus Collationis cum Donatists, Dies soldiers of Christ, rushed into fire and water, and threw tertius, cap. 10, 19 & 12).⁵⁰ themselves down from rocks.⁴⁷ It was in his campaign against the Donatists

• Between 399 and 415, St. Augustine wrote a series of between 399-415 that St. Augustine formulated tracts attacking the Donatists as schismatics for being out his characteristic doctrines concerning the of communion with the churches in the rest of the empire nature of the Church and its sacraments.⁵¹

Augustine on the same occasion, “is Christ, my root is Christ, my head is Christ. The seed, of which I was born, is the word of God, which I must obey even though the preacher himself practice not what he preaches. I believe not in the minister by whom I am baptized, but in Christ, who alone justifies the sinner and can forgive guilt” ( Contra literas Petiliani , l.i.c.7 : Opera, tom. ix. p. 209).[⁴⁸] In regard to church discipline, the opponents of the Donatists agreed with them in considering it wholesome and necessary, but would keep it within the limits fixed for it by the circumstances of the time and the fallibility of men. A perfect separation of sinners from saints is impracticable before the final judgement. “ Man”, says St. Augustine, “should punish in the spirit of love, until either the discipline and correction come from above, or the tares are pulled up in the universal harvest ” ( Aug. Contra Epitolam Parmeniani , 1. iii. c.2, 10-15).[⁴⁹]

Donatists

Arians

Messalians / Priscillians / Pelagians

Messalians / Priscillians / Pelagians

Messalians / Priscillians / Pelagians

Pelagians

the scene and declared that without original sin there need not be a redeemer, and since humans were sufficient unto themselves, they did not need prayer.

before going on to Palestine. While in Palestine, Pelagius wrote, among other things, his treatise De natura , to which St. Augustine responded with On Nature and Grace .

• The position taken by the Pelagians was one that did away with the grace and freedom of the human person. Their chief error was in asserting that they could obtain salvation by themselves .[⁵⁷]

with the grace and freedom of the human person. Their Pelagius had already earned the enmity of St chief error was in asserting that they could obtain Jerome, and this increased when, in 415, St salvation by themselves .[⁵⁷] Augustine informed St. Jerome of his The Pelagian controversy turns upon the mighty antithesis differences with Pelagius. St. Jerome, in turn, of sin and grace. It embraces the whole cycle of doctrine wrote his Dialogues against the Pelagians, respecting the ethical and religious relation of man to interpreting their teaching on the possibility of God, and includes, therefore, the doctrines of human sinlessness as the apatheia of Stoicism. freedom, of the primitive state, of the fall, of regeneration The possibility of sinlessness was the focus of a and conversion, of the eternal purpose of redemption, and synod held in 415 at Diospolis in Palestine to of the nature and operation of the grace of God. adjudicate charges against Pelagius and It comes at last to the question, whether redemption is Celestius. Pelagius satisfied the synod of his chiefly a work of God or of man; whether man needs to be Orthodoxy, and both he and Celestius were born anew, or merely improved. The soul of the Pelagian declared in communion with the Church. system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian St. Augustine and the African bishops launched is divine grace . a successful counter-appeal to Rome, which Pelagius was a simple monk, born about the middle of the resulted in Innocent I’s excommunication of 4th century in Britain. He studied the Greek theology, Pelagius and Celestius (Jan 417). Innocent, especially that of the Antiochian school, and early showed however, died in March 417, and the letters the great zeal for the improvement of himself and of the two accused had written in their own defense world. But his morality was not so much the rich, deep were received by the new Roman bishop, life of faith, as it was the external legalism, the ascetic Zosimus. self-discipline and self-righteousness. Less sympathetic to the African cause, Zosimus It was characteristic, that, even before the controversy, he reinstated Pelagius and Celestius and rebuked took great offence at the well-known saying of St those who had brought the charges against Augustine: “ Give what You command, and command what them. But before his decision reached North You will .” He could not conceive, that the power to obey Africa, pressure had been brought to bear on the commandment must come from the same source as the the imperial court at Ravenna, and the commandment itself. Faith, with him, was hardly more pendulum swung again. than a theoretical belief; the main thing in religion was In April 418, the Roman emperor, Honorius, moral action, the keeping of the commandments of God issued a condemnatory rescript, to be followed by one’s own strength. two months later by the Tractoria of Zosimus,

Pelagians

Apollonarians / Nestorians

• Apollinaris bishop of Laodicea, Syria (315-392). He was Sts. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the

• 21 born ca. 310-15, and died ca. 390-92. Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of

• APOLLINARIANS Apollinaris was one of the most fertile and versatile Nyssa, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Severus of ecclesiastical writers of his days, he fought side by side Antioch wrote refutations, and totally with Sts. Athanasius and Basil the Great against the condemned this heresy. Arians, only to be condemned in the end as a heretic Against Apollinarianism St. Gregory of himself. Nazianzus Archbishop of Constantinople

• As an outstanding champion and vigorous advocate of the (380/1) wrote in Ep . ci : Nicene doctrine against the Arians, the received doctrine If any one has put his trust in Him as a man of the School of Antioch did not satisfy him and he without a human mind ( a;noun ), he himself is wanted by a better solution to exclude any mistaken devoid of mind and unworthy of salvation. For tendency to interpret the close union of the divinity and what He has not assumed He has not healed; humanity in Christ as a double personality. it is what is united to His Deity that is

• In his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double saved …Let them not grudge us our entire personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of His salvation, or endue the Savior only with the true humanity. bones and nerves and appearance of humanity.

• According to him, in Christ were to be found the human But, he urges, he could not contain two body and irrational soul but not the human spirit or complete natures. Certainly not, if you are rational soul, the latter being replaced by the Divine thinking of him physically. A bushel measure Logos. Thus He possessed perfect Godhead but not will not hold two bushels…But if you will complete manhood . consider the mental and the incorporeal, bear

• He said that Christ could not have a complete humanity in mind that in my one personality I can for two reasons: contain soul, reason, mind, and Holy Spirit…If

• 1. The metaphysical reason is that two beings already they rely on the text 'The Word was made perfect, God and man, cannot produce unity, but only a flesh'…they do not realize that such hybrid. Two wholes cannot be in one whole, for expressions are used by synecdoche, whereby Apollinaris the union of full Divinity and full humanity in the part stands for the whole .⁶² one person is an absurdity. He also wrote in the same epistle:

• 2. The psychological reason is that the rational soul But, says such an one, the Godhead took the constitutes the seat and centre of the power of self- place of the human intellect. How does this determination for good or evil, which would attribute the touch me? For Godhead joined to flesh ( savrx ) possibility of sin to Christ. But the Savior must be alone is not man, nor to soul ( yuch, ) alone, nor without sin, if redemption is to be accomplished. to both apart from intellect ( nou/j ), which is the

• A complete “nature” was to him the same thing as a most essential part of man. Keep then the “person.” whole man, and mingle Godhead therewith,

Apollonarians / Nestorians

Nestorians

natures and persons. ⁶⁶ Him, but having been made one with the flesh He was a student of the Theological School of Antioch from the very womb itself, He is said to have (see pp. 71ff) submitted to a birth according to the flesh, as appropriating and making His own the birth of Nestorius in his Episcopal sermons asserted that: His own flesh. In like manner we say that He 1. There are two persons in Christ , a divine person, the “suffered” and “rose again.” Logos, dwelling in a human person, the man Jesus. (Ep. IV) [Op. X.22-5; P.G. IXXVII. 44-50]⁷⁶ 2. The Blessed Virgin Mary could not be called St. Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria (328-73 ) Theotokos ; Mother of God. lived before the time of Nestorianism, but we 3. Nestorius was also accused of reviving the find in his theology and writings the Orthodox adoptianism of Paul of Samosata, in that he had belief against Nestorianism. conceived the union of man and God in Christ as solely external katV euvdoki,an - kat’ eudokian meaning St. Athanasius wrote: ‘out of courtesy.’ He was the Word and nothing contained Him; rather He Himself contained all things. He is St. Cyril refuted this doctrine in his Paschal letter in 429. in the whole creation, yet in His essential being From the time of his ordination (10 April, 428) Nestorius He is distinct from it all…So when He was in showed great fondness for the work of preaching, and the human body He Himself gave that body life, much zeal against heretics. and at the same time He was of course giving In his very first sermon he addressed the Emperor life to the whole universe, and was present in Theodosius the younger with the words: “ Give me, O all things; and yet distinct from and outside the Emperor, the earth cleansed from heretics, and I will for universe . ( De Incarnatione , 17)⁷⁷ that give thee heaven; help me to make war against He became man, and did not come into a heretics, and I will help thee in the war against the man . We must be clear about this, to avoid the Persians .”⁶⁷ notion…that the Word dwelt in a man, hallowing him and displaying Himself in him, Socrates relates that “the priest Anastasius, a friend of as in earlier times the Word came to each of Nestorius, whom he brought to Constantinople with him, the saints…But in fact the Word of God, one day warned his hearers, in a sermon, that no one through whom all things came into being, should call Mary the God-bearer (Qeoto,koj - Theotokos), endured to become also Son of man, and for Mary was a human being and God could not be born ‘humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant’ of a human being” This attack on a hitherto accepted (Phil. II.7f); and for this reason the cross of ecclesiastical term and ancient belief caused great Christ is ‘a scandal to the Jews, but to us disturbance among clergy and laity, and Nestorius himself Christ is God’s power and God’s came forward and defended the discourse of his friend in wisdom.’…For “The Word became flesh” as

Nestorians

• several sermons. One party agreed with him, another John says (John 1:14), and in Scripture “flesh” opposed him.⁶⁸ is commonly used for ‘man’ [Cf. Joel II.28] ( Contra Arianos , III. 30).⁷⁸

• The sermons he delivered on this subject, are still partially Though He was God He had a body for His preserved for us, and are fully sufficient to disprove the own, and using it as an instrument He has inaccurate assertion of many, that Nestorius in fact taught become man for our sakes. Thus it is that the nothing of a heterodox character. In his very first properties of the flesh are said to be His, since discourse he exclaims pathetically: He was in that flesh; hunger, thirst, pain, They ask whether Mary may be called God-bearer. weariness, and the like, to which the flesh is But has God, then, a mother? In that case we must liable: while the works belonging to the Word excuse heathenism, which spoke of mothers of the Himself (raising the dead, restoring sight to the gods; but Paul is no liar when he said of the Godhead blind, curing the woman’s hemorrhage) He of Christ (Heb. vii. 3) that it is without father, without Himself did through His own body…the body mother, and without genealogy. No, my friends, Mary was God’s. In the case of “the man born did not bear God...the creature did not bear the blind” (John IX. 6f) the spittle from His Creator, but the Man, who is the Instrument of the material body was human, but the opening of Godhead. The Holy Ghost did not place the Logos, but the eyes by means of the clay was a divine ac t. He provided for Him, from the blessed Virgin, a ( Contra Arianos , III. 31-32).⁷⁹ temple which He might inhabit...This garment of They all occurred inseparably conjoined, and which He makes use I honor for the sake of Him who the Lord, who marvelously performed those is hidden within it, and is inseparable from it...I acts (he means Divine acts and human acts) by separate the natures and unite the reverence. His grace, was one . ( Ep . ad Serap . IV. 14).⁸⁰ Consider what this means. He who was formed in the St. Cyril also wrote in his Second Letter to womb of Mary was not God Himself, but God assumed Nestorius , Feb. 430: Him, and because of Him who assumes, He who is Thus we confess one Christ and Lord, not as assumed is also named God.”⁶⁹ worshipping a man conjointly with the Word, that there may not through this phrase

• It is easy to see that Nestorius occupied the point of view “conjointly” be insinuated the semblance of of his teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia. division (as though we were dividing the one Christ into two persons) – but as worshipping

• The fragment of another sermon⁷⁰ is directed entirely one and the same Person, because the body of against the communicatio idiomatum , (inter-change the Lord is not alien from the Lord, with which between the divine and human titles of Christ the Lord body also He sits with the Father Himself: not when referring to His human and divine attributes) again as though two sons do sit with the particularly against the expression “the Logos suffered.” Father, but one united to his own flesh. But if

Nestorians

• But his fourth discourse which was against Proclus [bishop of Cyzicus] is the most important, containing these words:

we reject this hypostatic union [see p. 74] either as impossible or unmeet, we fall into the error of making two sons…We must not then divide one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons. To hold this will nowise contribute to soundness of faith, even though some make a show of acknowledging a union of persons. For Scripture does not say that the Word united to Himself the person of a man, but that “He became flesh”…Thus shall we find the holy fathers to have held. So did they make bold to call the holy virgin “ the Mother of God .” Not as though the nature of the Word of His Godhead had its beginning from the holy virgin, but forasmuch as His holy Body, endued with a rational soul, was born of her, to which Body also the Word was personally united (i.e. the two substances [essences] united in one Person), on this account He is said to have been born after the flesh ( Ep . IV).⁸¹

The life-giving Godhead they call mortal, and dare to draw down the Logos to the level of the fables of the theatre, as though He (as a child) was wrapped in faith, even though swaddling-clothes and afterwards died...Pilate did not acknowledging a kill the Godhead, but the garment of the Godhead; Scripture does not say and it was not the Logos which was wrapped in a Himself the person linen cloth by Joseph of Arimathea and buried...He became flesh”…Thus did not die who gives life, for who would then raise fathers to have held. Him who died?...In order to make satisfaction for call the holy virgin “ men, Christ assumed the person of the guilty nature as though the nature (of humanity)...And this man I worship along with the Godhead had its Godhead…as the instrumentum of the goodness of the Lord...as the living purple garment of the King... That with a rational soul, which was formed in the womb of Mary is not God Body also the Word Himself ...but because God dwells in Him whom He the two substances has assumed, therefore also He who is assumed is Person), on this called God because of Him who assumes Him. And it been born after the flesh is not God who has suffered, but God was conjoined Again St. Cyril wrote : with the crucified flesh...We will therefore call the But I think we need holy Virgin qeodo,coj (theodokhos, the vessel of God), Himself said to the but not qeoto,koj (theotokos, God-bearer), for only you think of Christ? God the Father is the qeoto,koj but we will honor that 22:42). And if they nature which is the garment of God along with Him son,” then we will who makes use of this garment, we will separate the David, in the Spirit, natures and unite the honor, we will acknowledge a said: The Lord double person and worship it as one.”⁷¹

• But I think we need to tell them what Christ Himself said to the Jewish teachers: “What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Mt 22:42). And if they should answer, “David’s son,” then we will tell them: “How then did David, in the Spirit, call him Lord, when he said: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet? If David, therefore, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, then how can he be his son?” (Mt 22:43-45). Tell me, does one who is not truly and naturally the Son sit alongside God on the same throne as him who rules over all things? This is what our opponents are saying.

• From all this we see that Nestorius…instead of uniting the human nature with the divine person, he always assumes the union of a human person with the Godhead... He can never rise to the abstract idea, nor think of human nature without personality, nor gain an idea of the union of the

Nestorians

merely human nature with the divine Person. Therefore he says quite decidedly, Christ has assumed the person of guilty humanity, and he can unite the Godhead and manhood in Christ only externally, because he regards manhood in Christ as person, as shown by all the figures and similes which he employs.

Nestorius’ Writings

1. Treatises

• Bazar of Heraclides of Damascus :

• The only treatise extant in its entirety; it was composed in his last years.

• ‘Heraclides of Damascus’ is a pseudonym which the exiled and condemned Nestorius used as the only way of getting his book published.

• In the form of a dialogue with the Egyptian Sophronius, Nestorius gives a defense of his teaching and a history of his life.

• He severely criticizes the decisions of Ephesus and the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria, claiming that his own belief was identical with that of Pope Leo I and Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, so that it would be hard to charge him, on the basis of this treatise, with willful heresy.

• It seems that in this book he tried to exonerate himself, but ended up to the opposite, asserting his commonly known heresy through his conviction that the person of Jesus Christ is not the same person of the Son of God, the Logos; i.e., believing in the external conjoining of two persons, an external union only in image.

• This destructs the whole concept of redemption, as, accordingly, God the Word would not be, Himself, the crucified redeemer and savior of the world.

• This would make meaningless the everlasting words of John the Evangelist “ For God so loved the world, that He

-

But, as the all-wise Paul says, the Father “Has never said to any of the angels: You are my Son (Heb 1:5), nor has he said: Sit on my right” (Heb1:13). How, then, can a man born of a woman be in these supreme honors, on the very throne of the Godhead, and “above every Principality, Dominion, Throne, and Authority, and every name that can be named” (Eph 1:21)? Notice how the Lord says: “If David, therefore, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, then how can he be his son?” This persuades all who want to search out the truth to maintain that the Word, even when he came to participate in flesh and blood, has even so remained one Son. He bears witness that he is God from a divine pre-eminence and dominion, and how well he indicates that he has become man by also being called the Son of David .⁸² We had become accursed through Adam’s transgression and had fallen into the trap of death, abandoned by God. Yet all things were made new in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and our condition was restored to what it was in the beginning. It was entirely necessary that the Second Adam, who is from heaven (1 Cor 15:45) and superior to all sin, that is Christ, the pure and immaculate first-fruits of our race, should free that nature of man from judgment, and once again call down upon it the heavenly graciousness of the Father. He would undo our abandonment by his obedience and complete submission: “For he did no sin” (1 Pet 2:22) but the nature of man was made rich in all blamelessness and innocence in Him, so that it could now cry out with boldness: “My

Nestorians

gave his Only-Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life ” (John 3:16). How then would the words that the Lord said through his prophet Isaiah be fulfilled: “ I, even I, am the Lord; and beside Me there is no savior ” (Is. 43:11).

• Texts that were attributed to Nestorius in the book ‘ Bazar of Heraclides’ :

• “ Two are the prosopa , the prosopon of He who has clothed and the prosopon of he who is clothed.”⁷²

• “Therefore the image of God is the perfect expression of God to men. The image of God, understood in this sense, can be thought of as the divine Prosopon. God dwells in Christ and perfectly reveals Himself to men through him. Yet the two prosopa are really one image of God.”⁷³

• “We must not forget that the two natures involve with him two distinct hypostases and two persons (prosopons) united together by simple loan and exchange.”⁷⁴

• The Twelve Counter-Anathemas : Written to answer the Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril; they are preserved in a Latin translation.

• Tragedy : A work in which Nestorius seems to have given a presentation of his case; it was probably written after the Council of Ephesus and before his exile to Egypt.

• Theopaschites : A refutation of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the form of a dialogue.

2. Sermons There must have been a considerable number of sermons extant before they were committed to flames in 435.

3. Letters

• Of the 15 letters we are aware of, only ten survive.

God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46). Understand that in becoming man, the Only Begotten spoke these words as one of us and on behalf of all our nature. It was as if he were saying this: “The first man has transgresses. He slipped into disobedience… and then it was entirely right that he became subject to corruption and fell under judgment. But you Lord have made me a second beginning for all on the earth, and I am called the Second Adam. In me you see the nature of man made clean, its faults corrected, made holy and pure. Now give me the good things of your kindness, undo the abandonment, rebuke corruption and set a limit on your anger. I have conquered Satan himself who ruled of old, for he found in me absolutely nothing of what was his.” In my opinion this is the sense of the Savior’s words. He did not invoke the Father’s graciousness upon himself, but rather upon us. The effects of God’s anger passed into the whole of the human nature as from the original rootstock, that is Adam…In the same way, however, the effects of our new first-fruits, that is Christ, shall again pass into the entire human race…And again: “as all men die in Adam, so shall be made alive in Christ” (1 Cor 15:22) .⁸³ After a fruitless exchange of letters between Nestorius and St. Cyril both appealed to Pope Celestine, who held a synod at Rome in 430 condemned Nestorius and approved of St. Cyril’s theology. Later on in 431, an ecumenical council was held at Ephesus, attended by about 200 bishops, in which

Nestorians

Eutychians

extreme teaching emerged in defense of the belief in the ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word,’ which Saint Cyril the great had professed and taught, through Eutyches, the abbot of the Monastery of Job in Constantinople. Eutyches, a friend of Pope Cyril, claimed to have received from the great Alexandrian theologian a copy of the decisions of the Council of Ephesus 431 and to have cherished it ever since. He was an indefatigable supporter of the Alexandrian cause at the capital. As the abbot of the monastery of Job in the seventh quarter of the city, he had directed more than three hundred monks for over thirty years. Through his godson and nephew Chrysaphius, the grand chamberlain of the emperor, he had direct access to the court. At a time when the ecclesiastical atmosphere in the East had been vitiated by the rivalry between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian sides, Eutyches’ undue zeal for the former may well have elicited opposition from the latter, and thus added to further tension.⁸⁶

• Eutyches started defending the faith of the one nature but then fell into the heresy attributed to him, i.e. the humanity (of Christ) dissolved in the divinity as a drop of vinegar would dissolve in the ocean; or, in other words, that the two natures had been intermixed into one nature. From here came the appellation ‘monophysites’ ( monofusi,thj) because the phrase ‘moni physis’ ( monh, fu,sij) means ‘only nature’ and not ‘one nature,’ which is ‘mia physis’ ( mi,a fu,sij ) .⁸⁷

• Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, visited Eutyches in his monastery at Constantinople many times and found out that the faith he maintains was unorthodox, for he believed that the two natures were intermixed into one.

• The Home Synod of Constantinople (8-22 November, 448) It was presided over by Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, and attended by 32 bishops. In this synod

teachings of the great St. Cyril about the one incarnate nature of God the Word. The Home Synod of Constantinople (448) had demanded from Eutyches to anathematize all who do not say ‘in two natures after the union,’ but he refused and said, “ if I anathematize, woe unto me that I condemn my fathers (as Saint Cyril the Great).”⁹²

• Having Eutyches’ (deceptive) written confession, that he rejected those who say ‘ that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ had come down from heaven’ …‘ For He who is the Word of God came down from heaven without flesh and was made flesh from the very flesh of the Virgin unchangeably and inconvertibly, in a way He Himself knew and willed. And He who is always perfect God before the ages was also made perfect man in the end of days for us and for our salvation .’⁹³

• Pope Dioscorus sensed that Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, had joined the Nestorian trend present in the East when Eutyches was demanded by the Home Synod of Constantinople (448) to anathematize all who do not confess two natures after the union. The truth was that Pope Dioscorus sought to fight Nestorianism by rejecting the phrase “ in two natures after the union,” and Bishop Eusebius was urging Patriarch Flavian to fight Eutychianism by asserting the phrase “ in two natures after the union.” Hence the misunderstanding occurred between the two sides, and had later developed into the Chalcedonian dispute.

Eutychians

Eutyches was condemned, deposed and excommunicated upon a libel that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, presented against him and also the testimonies of Presbyter John and Deacon Andrew, whom the Synod had sent to summon Eutyches , because he insisted that the flesh which our Lord Jesus Christ took from the Virgin Mary was not ‘co-essential with us’ and he hesitated in clarifying his point of view when he attended the Synod, and submitted a written confession of faith which he refused to read himself.⁸⁸ The condemnation against Eutyches was signed by 30 bishops and 23 archimandrites. For the first time, the following statement was, affirmed: that Christ the Lord ‘was in two natures after the union.’ Many troubles and a very tense situation prevailed in Constantinople. Eutyches raised an appeal against the Home Synod to the emperor, who then wrote to Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria summoning him to preside over a council to be held on the first of August at Ephesus, and required of Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to be co-presidents with him. An imperial mandate was sent to Pope Dioscorus asking him to permit Barsaumas, an archimandrite from Syria on the Alexandrian side, to participate in the council.

The Second Council of Ephesus in 449

• The first session was held on 8 August 449, attended by 150 bishops, presided by Pope Dioscorus, in the presence of Bishop Julius, the representative of the Pope of Rome, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Council of Chalcedon

• In the first session, Pope Dioscorus was questioned about the teaching of Eutyches whom the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 had exonerated. He said: ‘ If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever .’⁹⁴ He also stated: “ I accept the phrase from two natures after the union .” Thus in his affirmation of the one incarnate nature of God the Word he wanted to prove the indivisibility of the two natures after the union, and in his acceptance of the phrase ‘from two natures after the union’⁹⁵ he wanted to confirm what St. Cyril had affirmed. i.e. the continuity of the existence of two natures in the union , without intermixture or confusion. Accurate research proves that Pope Dioscorus was not Eutychian, this is why the Council of Chalcedon did not condemn him for any erroneous belief on his part, as Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople and president of the Council at its meeting of the 22 October 451 had stated. Also, Patriarch Flavian and Bishop Eusebius were not Nestorian.⁹⁶

• The Council of Chalcedon approved the synodical letters of the great St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Tome of Leo after revising it on the twelve anathemas of St. Cyril.

• After examining the proceedings of the First Council of The sentences resulting were: to Ephesus in 431 and the Home Synod of Constantinople in excommunicate, condemn and depose 448, and reading a written confession of the Orthodox Eutyches, to annul most of the decisions of the faith which Eutyches had (deceitfully) submitted to this Second Council of Ephesus 449, to depose

Eutychians

council, and after hearing deliberations from those who Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria for were present, the Council decreed its condemnation and administrative and legal reasons, and to restore deposition of Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas of Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, acquitted Eutyches and Edessa, after they both agreed to anathematize restored him to his clerical post. The Council also Nestorius and his teachings. However, the condemned and deposed Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, Council did not judge the writings of Theodoret Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and others.⁸⁹ It proclaimed and Ibas which are against the teaching of the that Diodorus of Tarsus was a Nestorian. The letter of great St. Cyril, neither did it judge Theodore of Pope Leo I to that Council, which is known as the Tome of Mopsuestia, the theological master of Leo, was not read.⁹⁰ Nestorius, or his teachings.⁹⁷

1 E Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity , Garland Publishing, New York, 1992, p. 287.

2 DD Wace & WC Piercy., eds, A Dictionary of Christian Biography , Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1994, p.284.

3 BJ Kidd, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church , vol. 1, Macmillan, New York, 1932, pp. 265, 266.

4 Fr TY Malaty, The Book of Revelation , trans., V &R Malaty, St. George’s Coptic Orthodox Church Sporting, Alexandria, 1996, pp. 223-225. 5 St. Justin: Dialogue with Trypho 80-81 quoted in Malaty, op. cit., p. 224.

6 Fr Pishoy Kamel, The Millenium, (Our Orthodox Church Faith, no. 3) in Malaty, op. cit., p. 224. 7 Eusebius H.E, 3:39 in Malaty, op. cit., p. 224.

8 H W House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine , Zonderman Publishing House, 1992, Michigan, p. 133. 9 The City of God, 20:6,7 in Malaty, op. cit., p.223. 10 De Civit. Dei, XX. 6-10 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, vol. 2, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 430-1.

11 P Schaff, History of the Christian Church , vol. 2, Eerdmans Publishing, Michigan, 1910, p. 619.

12 See Appendix 3: Contemporary Influence of Millennianism Appearing in Some Current Protestant Denominations , p. 271. 13 Wace & Piercy, op. cit., p. 271. 14 ibid., p. 273.

15 DW Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs , Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998, p. 308.

16 H Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church , 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York, 1963, p. 74. 17 ibid., p. 35.

18 J Quasten, Patrology , vol. 1, Christian Classics, Maryland, 1950, p. 268. 19 ibid., p. 269; Bercot, op. cit., p. 419. 20 Bercot, op. cit., 419.

21 PR Amidon, trans., ed., The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages , Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, p. 146. 22 Bettenson op. cit., 1963, p. 78. 23 ibid., pp. 77.

24 Origen calls the Logos ‘a second God’ in two other places in Contra Celsum , VI. 61, and VII 57.

25 H Bettenson, ed. trans., The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius , Oxford University Press, London, 1956, p. 334. 26 House, op. cit., pp. 109-10. 27 Bettenson, op. cit., 1956, p. 354. 28 ibid., pp. 355-356.

Notes

29 Amidon, op. cit., p. 215. 30 J Quasten, Patrology , vol. 2, Christian Classics, Maryland, 1950, p. 80. 31 House, op. cit., p. 110. 32 Bettenson, op. cit., 1956, p. 271. 33 House, op. cit., pp. 109-10. 34 Bercot, op. cit., pp. 242, 243, 248, 249. 35 Quasten, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 115. 36 House, op. cit., p. 110. 37 Bercot, op. cit., p. 552-553. 38 ibid., p. 249. 39 A Di Berardino, ed., Encyclopedia of the Early Church , Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, p. 728. 40 Wace & Piercy, op. cit. p. 52. 41 Bettenson, op. cit., 1963, p. 38. 42 Bettenson. op. cit., 1956, pp. 410, 411. 43 EM Blaiklock, trans., The Confessions of St. Augustine , Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983, pp. 104, 110-11. 44 Ferguson, op. cit., p. 654. 45 Bettenson, op. cit., 1956, pp. 373-374. 46 P Schaff, History of the Christian Church , vol. 3, Eerdmans Publishing, Michigan, 1910, p. 360. 47 ibid., pp. 362-363. 48 ibid., p. 367. 49 ibid., p. 368. 50 ibid., p. 369. 51 Ferguson, op. cit., p. 274. 52 J Quasten, Patrology , vol. 3, Christian Classics, Maryland, pp. 67, 68. 53 St. Athanasius so nicknames the party who were commonly called Pneumatomachi apparently because they explained away all passages of Scripture which did not suit their views as mere figures of speech, or ‘tropes.’ (Bettenson, op. cit., 1956, p. 405). 54 Bettenson, op. cit., 1956, p. 406. 55 Di Berardino, op. cit., p. 556; Ferguson, op. cit., p. 595. 56 Wace & Piercy, op. cit., p. 860. 57 The Catholic Encyclopedia , Revised and Updated Edition, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp. 260, 446 58 Schaff, op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 785-792. 59 J Quasten, Patrology , vol. 4, Christian Classics, Maryland, p. 476. 60 BJ Kidd, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church , vol. 2, Macmillan, New York, 1932, pp. 169-170. 61 Wace & Piercy, op. cit. p. 34. 62 From Gregory of Nazianzus 390 Ep . ci (Op. III, 85 sqq; P.G. XXXVII. 177. sqq) in Bettenson, op. cit., 1963, p. 45; Kidd, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 110. 63 Kidd, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 111. 64 (Op. II. 6-6-8; P.G. XXVI. 799-806) The Council of Alex, 362 in ibid., p. 79. 65 JD Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church , rev. edn, Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1978, p. 55. 66 Bettenson, op. cit., 1963, p.46. 67 CJ Hefele, p. 10, quoting Socrat. Hist. Eccl. vii. 29 quoted in Metropolitan Bishoy, A Documentary on the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East , The Diocese of Damiette, Kafr El Sheikh, and Barray The Monastery of St. Demiana, Cairo, 2004, p. 24.

Notes

• 68 According to Cyril of Alexandria see (Ep. vi. P.30, Ep. ix. P.37, Opp. t.v. ed. Aubert; and in Mansi, t.iv. p. 1014), in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., pp. 24-25.

• 69 Hefele, pp. 12-13, quoting Marius Mercator Ed. Gamier-Migne, p. 757 sqq in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

• 70 Hefele, p. 15, quoting Marius Merc. l.c. p. 787 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 26.

• 71 Hefele, pp. 15-16, quoting Marius Merc. l.c. pp. 789-80 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., pp. 26-27.

• 72 Bazar of Heraclides (LH 193), quoted by Bernard Dupuy, OP, ‘The Christology of Nestorius’ published in Pro Oriente, Syriac Dialogue , First Non-Official Consultation

• on Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition , Hofburg Marschallstiege II A-1010 Vienna, June 1994, p. 113 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 28.

• 73 Rowan Greer: ‘ The Image of God and the Prosopic Union in Nestorius’ Bazar of Heracleides in Lux in Lumine, Essays to Honor W. Norman Pittenger, edited by R A Morris jr., New York, 1996, p. 50; quoted by Metropolitan Aprem G. Mooken in his paper “ Was Nestorius a Nestorian? ” published in Pro Oriente, Syriac Dialogue , First Non-Official Consultation , Vienna 1994, p. 223 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 28.

• 74 R Nau, Paris 1910, ed. Letouzey et Ane, Le Livre d’Heraclide de Damas (L.H.); p. 28 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 28.

• 75 A Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition , vol 2: part 4, Mowbray, London, 1996, p. 177.

• 76 Kidd, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 252, 253.

• 77 Bettenson, op. cit. 1956, p. 397.

• 78 ibid., p. 396.

• 79 ibid., pp. 397-398. 80 ibid., pp. 398-399.

• 81 [Op. X.22-5; P.G. IXXVII] in Kidd, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 254-255. 82 JA McGuckin, trans., St Cyril of Alexandria on the Unity of Christ , St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1995, pp. 82-83. 83 ibid., pp. 105-106.

• 84 Grillmeier, op. cit., p. 176. 85 ibid.

86 VC Samuel, pp. 14-15 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 79.

• 87 See Chapter Ten: Monophysite Vs Miaphysite.

88 Samuel, pp. 17-19 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 80.

89 Samuel, pp. 29-35 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 82.

90 JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5 th rev. edn., A & C Black, London, 1977, p. 302 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit.,p. 82. 91 Samuel, pp. 19, 20, 24 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., pp. 80-81.

• 92 Samuel, p. 22 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 81.

• 93 Samuel, pp. 30, 31 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p.81.

• 94 Samuel, p. 51 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 83.

• 95 Samuel, p. 55 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 83.

• 96 Samuel, p. 69 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., pp. 81-82.

• 97 Hefele, p. 345 in Metropolitan Bishoy, op. cit., p. 84.

Monophysites vs Miaphysites