THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS.

THE Council of Ephesus was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius the younger, A. D. 431, to settle the contentions which had been raised in the Church by the doctrines of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. The beginning of these contentions was owing to the conduct of Anastasius, a Presbyter, and friend of Nestorius, whom Nestorius had brought with him from Antioch. He, whilst teaching publicly in the Church of Constantinople, and in the presence of Nestorius, affirmed that the Blessed Virgin Mary ought not to be called Theotocos (1), which title had been long given her in the Church, as expressing the true divinity of the incarnate Son, who was brought forth by her. Anastasius, however, denied that this title should be given to her, using these words, "Let no man call Mary Theotocos, for Mary was a mere woman, and it is impossible that God should be brought forth of a woman." The Clergy and the people present immediately exclaimed at these words; but Nestorius supported his Presbyter, and approved his words; and a certain Bishop, named Dorotheus, pronounced an anathema upon all who should assert the contrary, saying, "If any one calls Mary Theotocos, let him be anathema." These assertions produced

great indignation throughout the Church, but Nestorius maintained his opinions, and affirmed that the Blessed Virgin could not properly be called Theotocos, but Christotocos, and he charged his opponents with gross errors, and heretical doctrines. His most active opponents were Cyril of Alexandria, and Celestine of Rome, both of whom condemned him in provincial Councils, A. D. 430 but the tumults still continuing, Theodosius directed the assembling of a General Council at Ephesus, A. D. 431. In this Council Cyril presided, and Nes ́torius was summoned to attend, and explain his opinions; but although he came to Ephesus, he under various pretences refused to appear before the Council, and therefore the assembled Bishops, after sending some of their number three times to his house, according to the form prescribed in the Canons of the Church (Apost. Can. 74), to require his attendance, proceeded in his absence to examine his opinions, which they condemned as heretical, and therefore deposed him from his Bishopric. The whole account of these proceedings, and the passages from the works of Nestorius which were produced and considered, are to be found at length in the Acts of the Council, which contain much interesting matter, not only relating to the Council itself, but also to the schismatical Council which was assembled in opposition to it by John of Antioch, who for a time supported Nestorius, believing him to be orthodox, but afterwards agreed to the decisions of the Ecumenical Council.

The peculiar tenets of Nestorius, and the manner in which they differed from the orthodox faith, are fully discussed in the various writings and addresses which are contained in the Acts of the Council; a short but clear statement of them is given by Hooker, b. v. c. 52. where after noticing the errors of the Arians and the

Apollinarians, and their condemnation by the two first Councils, he proceeds, "Thus in Christ the verity of God and the complete substance of man were with full agreement established throughout the world, till such time as the heresy of Nestorius broached itself, dividing Christ into two persons, the Son of God and the son of man; the one a Person begotten of God before all worlds, the other also a person born of the Virgin Mary, and in special favor chosen to be made entire to the Son of God above all men, so that whosoever will honor God, must together honor Christ, with whose Person God hath vouchsafed to join himself in so high a degree of gracious respect and favor. But that the self-same Person, which verily is man, should properly be God also, and that, by reason not of two Persons linked in amity, but of two natures human and divine, conjoined in one and the same person, the God of glory may be said as well to have suffered death as to have raised the dead from their graves: the Son of man as well to have made as to have redeemed the world, Nestorius would in no case admit." The necessary consequence of these opinions was, that God the word and Christ being thus, according to Nestorius, two distinct Persons, the Virgin Mary could only properly be called Christotocos, the bringer forth of Christ, and not Theotocos, the bringer forth of God.

The Synod, however, in condemning the doctrines of Nestorius, did not promulgate any new creed or confession of faith, but only confirmed that which was made at Nice, and forbade the making of any other. And as the Synodal letters to the Emperor and the Church of Constantinople contain little more than a summary account of the proceedings of the Council, similar to that which has been already given, it is not necessary to

translate them.

Other matters discussed at this Council will be noticed in the notes to the 7th and 8th Canons. In addition to these, it may be as well to notice here three other decrees which occur in the Acts of the Council. Part ii. Act 7.

The first is addressed to the holy Synod in Pamphylia, and relates to Eustathius, who had been elected Metropolitan of that Province, but who being an old man, and finding himself, as he stated, unequal to some unexpected difficulties of his situation, had abdicated his authority, in consequence of which the Synod of Pamphylia had elected Theodorus as his successor; Eustathius afterwards appeared before the Ephesian Synod, and earnestly requested, not that he should be restored to his office, but that he might retain the Episcopal title and rank; and the Synod, in consideration of his age and grief, recommended the Synod of Pamphylia to allow him this honorary privilege, without however any power of ordaining, or even of officiating in the Church, except by the permission of Theodorus.

The second decree relates to certain heretics in Pamphylia, who were of the sect of the Messalians, who were also called Euchitæ, and Enthusiastæ. The tenets of these heretics are thus stated by Mosheim. "These fanatics, who lived after the Monkish fashion, and withdrew from all commerce and society with their fellowcreatures, seem to have derived their name (of Euchitæ) from their habit of continual prayer. They imagined that the mind of every man was inhabited by an evil demon, whom it was impossible to expel by any other means than by constant prayer and singing of hymns: and that when this malignant spirit was cast out, the pure mind returned to God, and was again united to the Divine essence from which it had been separated. To

this leading tenet they added many other enormous opinions, which have a manifest resemblance of the Manichæan doctrine, and are evidently drawn from the same sources from whence the Manichæans derived their errors, the oriental philosophy." Mosh. cent. iv. The Ephesine Fathers decreed, that all those who were infected with this heresy in the Province of Pamphylia and Lycaonia should be assembled together, and if they would anathematize their errors, they should, if Clergymen, be allowed to remain in the Clergy, and if Laymen, be received to communion; but if they refused to do so, they should, if Clergymen, be deposed and excommunicated, and if Laymen, anathematized. The Synod also condemned a particular book of these heretics, called Asceticon.

The third decree relates to certain Bishops of the Province of Europe, which was the part of the Thracian Diocese in which Constantinople was situated. These Bishops represented to the Council that they had enjoyed of old time certain privileges, which they feared might be wrested from them now that Fritilas, the Bishop of Heraclea, was condemned by the Council as a Nestorian. The Synod therefore decreed that these privileges should be preserved to them inviolate.

NOTES.

1. Theotocos.] The word Theotocos, which properly signifies the bringer forth of God, was originally introduced, not as a title of honor to the Blessed Virgin, but in order to assert the true and proper divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that fundamental doctrine of our faith, that "undoubtedly even the nature of God itself in the only person of the Son is incarnate, and hath