1. Adversus Nestorii blasphemias, iii.1; Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. By Eduard Schwartz (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1914ff.), I,1,6, p.53Google Scholar; hereafter abbreviated A.C.O. Here as elsewhere the translation is my own, unless otherwise noted. For similar statements of Cyril cf. Ep. 1 (PG 77, 13b-c; A. C.O., I,1,1,10–11); Ep. 39 (PG 77, 176d; A. C.O., I,1,4,17).

2. A. C.O. I,5,1, P. 26; Loofs, Friedrich, Nestoriana (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1905), pp. 250ffGoogle Scholar. In a letter to Cyril Nestorius frequently appealed to the “traditions of the Fathers,” and at one place to the “traditions of the Gospels” in support of his rejection of the theotokos (Ep. 5 inter epistolas Cyrilli, PG 77, 49–57, esp. col. 56a-b; Loofs 174ff.).

3. A. C.O. I,1,1,33–42. It is generally agreed today that the anathemas were not accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. For literature discussing this problem see Quasten, Johannes, Patrology (Westminister, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1960), III, 134.Google Scholar

4. Liébaert, Jacques, La Doctrine Christologique de Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la Querelle Nestorienne (Lille, 1951)Google Scholar. In his recent article, “Das Scandalum oecumenicum des Nestorius in kirehlich-dogmatischer und theologiegesehichtlicher Sicht,” Scholastik, XXXVI (1961), 327Google Scholar, Grillmeier points to Cyril's claim (Ep. 2, A. C.O., I,1,1,24) that Nestorius' teaching created an “ecumenical scandal.” But this, it seems, can only be conceded if one chooses to side with Alexandria.

5. At least since Origen; see Lampe, G.W.H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 639–671Google Scholar; cf. also Camelot, P.-Th., Éphèse et Chalcédoine (Paris: Editions de l'Orante, 1961), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

6. “C'est done à la piété et à la foi traditionnelles que s'opposait Nestorius,” writes Camelot, p. 14.

7. For the classical political interpretation see Schwartz, Eduard, Cyril und der Mönch Viktor (“Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,” Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Band 208, Abhandlung 4: Vienna, 1928).Google Scholar

8. Once again see Camelot: “Une chose du moins paraît certaine. Quels qu'aient Pu être les défauts de son caractère, saint Cyrille n'a étè mù que par le souci de la vérité et le zèle de la foi,” p. 35.

9. Mommsen, Th. and Meyer, Paul (eds.), Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis (Berlin, 1905), xvi.5, pp. 855–880Google Scholar; cf. in particular 5, 11 (383 A.D.); 5,17 (388); 5,23 (394); 5,34 (398); 5,49 (410); 5,59 (423); 5,64 (428), et al.

10. Socrates, , Historia Ecciesiastica, v, 13. 20Google Scholar; vi, 8; vii, 29; Sozomen, H.E. viii 8. Socrates also tells of two Arian leaders, learned in Greek literature and the Scriptures and eloquent in speech. He expresses surprise they continue to confess Arian doctrine (vii, 6).

11. Lietzmann, Hans, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (“Texte und Untersuchungen von Hans Lietzmann, Vol. I; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1904), pp. 26ffGoogle Scholar; see also Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, I, 520.Google Scholar

12. PG, 59; see also his Homilies on the Incomprehensible Nature of God (PG 48, 701–812).

13. PG, 29, 671–774; PG, 39, 269–992.

14. Of the treatise against Eunomius only fragments remain. Voste, J. M. (ed.), Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarias in evangelium Johannis Apostoli; Text: CSCO, 115; Translation into Latin, CSCO 116 (Louvain, 1940)Google Scholar. See also his Commentary on Psalm 2 (Devreesse, R., Studi e Testi, Vol. 93; “Pubblicazioni della Biblioteca Vaticana,” Rome, 1939), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

15. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (PG 75, 9–656) De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (PG 75, 657–1124); Commentary on John (PG 73 & 74, 9–756); better edition of this commentary by Pusey, P. E., Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in d. Joannis evangelium (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872; 3 Vols.).Google Scholar

16. Interestingly, Nestorius was initially attacked as a heretic on Trinitarian grounds (Socrates, , H.E. vii, 32)Google Scholar; cf. also the Obtestatio publice proposita of Eusebius of Dorylaeum (A. C.O., I, 1,1, 101–2). Marius Mercator, Nesterins' western critic also made the same charge in his Comparatio dogmatum Pauli Samosateni et Nestorii (PL, 48, 753ff., A. C.O., I,5, 5–70ff.).

17. Grillmeier, Aloys, Scholastik, XXXVI (1961), 329.Google Scholar

18. Hahn, August. Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 3rd Ed. By Hahn, Ludwig (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962Google Scholar; photographic reprint of 1897 ed.), p. 262. Cf. also Cyril of Alexandria's paraphrase of the Arian reaction to the account of Jesus' Baptism in the Gospels: They jump up, he says, with a “big laugh” and say: “What argument will you bring against what is written The evangelist says the Spirit descends on the Son; he is annointed by the Father; he received that which lie does not have.” (PG 73, 196b-c; Pusey, I, 175).

19. Sullivan, Francis, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Rome: Gregorian University, 1956), pp. 158ff.Google Scholar

20. For a brief account of how these questions influenced the exegesis of the Gospel of John, cf. Wiles, Maurice, The Spiritual Gospel; The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: The University Press, 1960), pp. 112–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. PG, 26, 385a.

22. Ibid., 436a.

23. See the statement of Eustathius: “Si enim in Christo, iuquit, plenitudo divinitatis inhabit, primum quidem aliud est quod inhabit, aliud autem quod inhabitatur. Si autem natura differunt ab alterutris, neque mortis passionem neque eibi appetitum neque poculorum desiderium, non somnum, non tristitiam, non fatigationem, non lacrimarum fluxus, non aliam qiamlibet mutationem plenitudini divinitatis eoexistere fas est, cum sit inconvertibilis per naturam. Homini haec adplicanda seorsim sunt, qui ex anima constat et corpore.” (Fragment 47); see also fragments 18, 27, 28, 41, 47, 48 in Spannuet, M., Recherches sur les écrits d'Eustathe d'Antioche avec une édition nouvelle des fragments dogmatiqnes et éxégetiques (Lille, 1948).Google Scholar

24. Cf., for example, the use of pronouns in the following passage: “Deus Verburn, qui me assumpsit sibique conjunxit, dat mihi cum fiducia victoriam iudicii. Me enim semel pro semper fecit suum, quando assumpsit me; atque evidens est eum me (!) non dereliaquere ne temere agam.” (Voste, CSCO, 116, p. 174). For other examples see Camelot, T.. “De Nestorius à Eutyehes,” in Grillmeier, A. and Bacht, H., Das Konzil von Chalkedon (Wuerzburg: Echter Verlag, 1951), I, 217ff.Google Scholar

25. Loofs, pp. 230–242. Text also in Beeher, W.T.M., Joannis Chrysostomi Homiliae (Leipzig, 1839)Google Scholar; reprinted in PG 64, cols. 479–492. Concerning the homily Loofs says (p. 107): “Der Text der Predigt bei Becher zeigt nicht die geringsten dogmatischen Korrekturen, erweist sich, an den Fragmenten gemessen, überall als intakt. Es liegt also in dieser Predigt der eiuzig in der Originalsprache vollständig erhaltene Sermon des Nestorius vor.” See also Haidacher, Sebastian, “Rede des Nestorius über Hebr. 3.1, überliefert unter dem Namen des heiligen Chrysostomus,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, XXIX (1905), 192–95.Google Scholar

26. It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of Nestorius' Christology, but to show how the exegesis of the sermon conforms to the pattern of Antiochene anti-Arian exegesis. For Nestorius' Christology, especially its dogmatic and philosophical aspects see Grillmeier, , “Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon,” Chalkedon, I, 144ffGoogle Scholar, and Scholastik, XXXVI, 321–56Google Scholar; Scipioni, Luigi, Ricerche sulla Christologia del ‘Libro di Eraelido’ di Nestorio (“Paradosis: Studi di letteratura e teologia antica,” Vol. XI: Freiburg, 1956)Google Scholar; Camelot, T., “De Nestorius à Eutyches,” Chalkedon, I, 213–229Google Scholar. The recent article By Braaten, Carl, “Modern Interpretations of Nestorius,” Church History, XXXII (1963), 251–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is a helpful survey of the older literature; its usefulness is, however, limited, since it does not discuss these more recent works.

27. Loofs, p. 231.

28. Oratio II Contra Arianos, 1–10 (PG, 26, 145–168).

29. See the fragments in Staab, Karl, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (“Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen,” XV Band: Münster: Aschendorff Verlagshuchhandlung, 1933), pp. 204–5Google Scholar; unfortunately we do not possess fragments of Diodore of Tarsus on Hebrews.

30. A. C.O., I,1,6,137. It is interesting that Theodoret in his more mature and less polemically oriented work, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, is more restrained in his comments. Here, in the exposition of Heb. 3:1, he assigns the passage to “christos,” which title he calls the mēnuma tōn duo physeōn (PG, 82, 697b). Similarly John Chrysostom's exegesis of this section of Hebrews does not conform so rigidly to the Antiochene pattern: see his Commentary on Hebrews (PG, 63, pp. 45ff.).

31. A. C.O. I,1, 6, 137 (14–19).

32. Loofs, p. 232 (8–11).

33. Ibid., pp. 232 (14)-233(4).

34. Ibid., p. 234 (14–16).

35. Ibid., p. 235 (5–6).

36. Ibid., 236 (7ff).

37. Ibid., p. 238 (8–31).

38. Cf. Nestorius, Ep. V inter epistolas Cyrilli (PG 77, 49–51; Loofs, 174–5). Nestorius argues that the term theotokos is not only unbiblical, but it suggests the Logos is passible (pathēton). This is, of course, said in light of the Arians and the support the term would give to their contentions. At the end of the epistle he explicitly mentions the Arians and links Apollinarism with Arianism. Both heresies, said Nesterins, made the Logos subject, according to his own nature, to human affections; and this, according to Arian logic, showed be was not God. This linking of Arianism and Apollinarism is characteristic of Nestorius and significant for understanding the Antiochene position vis-a-vis Alexandria. Cf. the numerous places where Nestorins lumps them together: Loofs, 166, 19; 170,30; 179,4; 181,18; 182,8; 184,15; 185,12; 194,10; 208,16; 267, 15; 273,7.

39. Socrates' description of Nestorius' phlegmatic and incautious character has become classic: see H.E. vii, 32.Google Scholar

40. Ep. I (PG, 77, 9–40; A. C.O., I,1,1, 10–23). The literature on Cyril's Christology is extensive. See the bibliography in Quasten, , Patrology, III, 140–141Google Scholar. The most extensive recent work is Liébaert, La doctrine Christologique…; but see also Grillmeier, , Chalkedon, I, 160–93Google Scholar; Jouassard, G., “Une intuition fondamentale de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie en christologie dans lea premières années de son épiscopat,” Revue des Études Byzantines, XI (1953), 175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the discussion in the recent edition of two works of Cyril by de Durand, G. M., Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux Dialogues Christologiques (“Sources Chrétiennes,” No. 97; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1964), pp. 81–150.Google Scholar

41. Ep. 1 (PG, 77, 13b; A. C.O., I,1,1, 10).

42. ibid.

43. Ibid., 13c; A. C.O., I,1,1,11). The citation comes from Oratio III Contra Arianos, 29 (PG 26,385a).

44. Ibid., 13d; A. C.O., I,1,1,11).

45. Ibid., 16d; A. C.O., I,1,1,13).

46. A. C.O., I,1,1,40–42.

47. ibid.

48. A. C.O., I,1,1,41; Bindley, T. Herbert, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. 4th Ed. (London: Methuen & Co., 1950), p. 218.Google Scholar

49. PG, 26, 152c-153a.

50. Ibid., 153c.

51. Ibid., 161b.

52. Ibid., 161d-164a.

53. Ibid., 169a-b.

54. A. C.O. I,1,1,41; Bindley, p. 219.

55. Cyril had already discussed Hebrews 3 in his Thesaurus (PG 75, 361–3); here he was interested solely in the Trinitarian question and assigns the passage, following Athanasius, to the Incarnate Logos: “The Apostle is not explaining the nature of the Word, but the economy with flesh” (361b).

56. Ep. 17 (PG, 77, 117a; A. C.O., I,1,1 38).

57. A. C.O., I,1,7,65ff.; It is, I believe, important to note that Cyril's conception of the priestly work of Christ is not a hasty formulation shaped soley in response to Nestorius' sermon. Many of the concepts expressed in this work—blameless priest, spotless lamb, second Adam—were worked out in some detail in Cyril's commentaries before the controversy began. For the second Adam cf. his Commentary on John i.9 (PG, 73, 157ff.; Pusey, I, 138ff.)Google Scholar; ii.1 (PG, 73, 196bc; Pusey, I, 175); concerning priesthood, note the following discussions of terms and phrases which appear in the anathema: “sacrifice of God's Son,” In Joannem xi.12 (PG, 74, 585b: Pusey, III. 20–21)Google Scholar; “blameless sacrifice,” Ibid., xi.10 (PG, 74, 545d: Pusey, 724); “offering for mankind, but not for himself,” ibid. x.8 (PG, 74, 508c-d; Pusey, II, 689); ibid. ix (PG, 74, col. 153a; Pusey, II, 378).

58. A. C.O. I,1,6,121. The felicitous phrase “exact professor” comes from the NPNF translator; the Greek itself is more prosaic though not without a touch of sarcasm: ho tōn theiōn dogmatōn didaskalos akribēs.

59. ibid.

60. Ibid., 122.

61. He had to write a book, De Sententia Dionysii, to show that his use of homoousios—a term Dionysius rejected in the third century—was faithful to authentic Christian tradition as well as responsive to the present problem (PG, 25, 479.522).

62. Elert, Werner, Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957), p.24Google Scholar On the general practice of citing the fathers as authorities, see Grant, Robert M., “The Appeal to the Early Fathers,” Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., IX (1960), 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar: in particular see de Juaye, Hubert du Manoir, “L'argumentation patristique dans la controverse nestorienne,” Dogme et Spiritualité chez Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie (“Études de Théologie et d'Histoire de in Spiritualité,” ed. By Gilson, Etienne and Combes, Andre, No. 11; Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1944), 454–490Google Scholar; Manoir correctly observes that the practice of citing extensive lists (florilegia) of quotations first begins with Cyril; at the same time he shows that the use of florilegia is of a piece with the earlier argument from tradition. Though I have not entered into a discussion of the intricacies of the new form of appealing to tradition, the intention of my remarks should be plain: the new development of undergirding one's theology by lists of citations of earlier fathers presupposes a view of tradition which has become unworkable by the ecclesiastical and theological situation of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. For further literature, see Richard, Marcel, “Lea florilèges diphysites du Ve et du VI siècle,” Chalkedon, I, 721–748.Google Scholar