with those of Cyril, which overflow with so-called piety, and even with some of the letters of John of Antioch[1], we are agreeably impressed by observing that Nestorius did not wrap up his thoughts in pious phrases. It is also deserving of mention that Nestorius, where he had confidence, showed nothing of narrow-minded sensitiveness. His answer to the above-mentioned letter of John of Antioch is proof enough of this[2]. I think he was also sincere when he asked Cyril the reproachful question: Why did you not write me a friendly letter and inform me of the troubles in Egypt, their cause and the manner of settling them, instead of writing to the monks about my doctrine[3]?
And it would be quite wrong to presume that Nestorius had also in his intellect something rough and blunt. He is, on the contrary, acute in his thinking, not without ability in his polemics, and here and there, by the use of fitting images, he shows that he was capable of fine observation[4].
The reproach that he was proud is still less well grounded. He seems to have had an exalted idea of the bishop's position to which he was called[5]. This will
- ↑ Comp. e.g. his letter to Cyril, mentioned above p. 47, Mansi, iv, 1121.
- ↑ ep. vii, Nestoriana, pp. 163–186.
- ↑ Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, p. 158 f.; Nau, p. 96.
- ↑ Comp. Liber Heracl., Bedjan, p. 188, Nau, p. 113 (cuttlefishes), B. p. 189 = N. 114 (fights with children), p. 204 = 123 (timid dogs), p. 338 = 217 (drowsy men), p. 438 = 280 f. (wounded snakes).
- ↑ I do not point here to the famous apostrophe, which, according
