must in my opinion be explained otherwise[1]. Hence I believe that the monophysitic stories asserting that Nestorius had been invited to the council of Chalcedon, but died a dreadful death on the journey thither[2] are right in so far that Nestorius did not live to see the opening of the council in October 451. But he saw the beginning of the reaction which followed the so-called robber-synod of Ephesus in 449. He even read the famous letter of Pope Leo to Flavian of Constantinople, which was of such decisive importance for the determination of Chalcedon and was acknowledged as a norm of doctrine by this council. What was his judgment about this letter of Leo's? Many times in the Treatise of Heraclides he declares that Leo and Flavian taught the truth and that their opinion was exactly the same as his[3]. He even tells that he was begged by friends to write to Leo of Rome, but he did not do it, lest—so he says—through the prejudice existing against him he should hinder him (i.e. Leo) who was running a right course[4].
Because of all this, Professor Bethune-Baker, in his above-mentioned book, Nestorius and his teaching,
- ↑ Comp. Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie, xxiv, 241, 36 ff.
- ↑ Comp. F. Nau, Nestorius d'après les sources orientales, Paris, 1911, p. 51 ff.; Evagrius, h. e. 2, 2, ed. Bidez and Parmentier, p. 39, 17 ff.
- ↑ Bedjan, pp. 466, 474, 495, 514, 519; Nau, pp. 298, 303, 316, 327, 330.
- ↑ Bedjan, p. 519; Nau, p. 330.
