6. hom. 7. p. 87 init.
7. hom. 1. 3 c. 4 a.
8. pp. 174 d e 175, 176.
9. "With chapter 7 compare S. Greg. Nazianzen's very similar Anathema directed against Appollinarius' teaching, in his Letter to Cledonius.
10. p. 263.
11. [Had he sent the Epistle, John must have known them to have been S. Cyril's.]
12. Synod. c. 4.
13. [Passages from Theodoret's reply to the first, second, fourth and tenth anathematism and from his letter to the monks were read in the 5th General Council before the condemnation of his writings against S. Cyril. Also from allocutions in behalf of Nestorius from Chalcedon after his condemnation at Ephesus; from a letter to Andrew of Samosata, in which he speaks of Egypt [i.e. S. Cyril and the Egyptian bishops] being 'again mad against God,' but owns that those of Egypt, Palestine, Pontus, Asia, and with them the West are against him, and that the greatest part of the world has taken the disease; a letter of sympathy with Nestorius after the reunion of the Easterns with S. Cyril, declaring that, if his two hands were cut off, he would never agree to what had been done against Nestorius, (which however he did when required by the Bishops at Chalcedon); a letter to John of Antioch still condemning the Anathematisms, although accepting the subsequent explanation. Apart from the 'atrocious letter' full of conceits which it is inconceivable how any one could have written, Mercator, a contemporary, says it was one of the charges against Archbishop Domnus, that he had been present when Theodoret preached a sermon, exulting in the peace which would ensue from S. Cyril's death. 'No one now compels to blaspheme. Where are they who say, that He Who was crucified is God?' Mercator from, Gesta quae contra Domnum Antioch. Ep. conscripta sunt p. 276. ed. Garn.]
14. ° There is extant a very careful letter of Theodoret on the Incarnation, written to Eusebius scholasticus, in which Theodoret says, "Nevertheless we do not deny the properties of the Matures, but as we deem those ungodly who divide into Two sons the One Lord Jesus Christ, so do we call them enemies of the Truth who attempt to confuse the natures: for we believe that an union without confusion has taken place and we know what are the properties of the human nature, what of the Godhead." Then after mentioning the two natures of a man which do not part him into two, "thus do we know that our Lord and God, I mean the Son of God the Lord Christ, is One Son after His Incarnation too; for the Union is inseverable even as without confusion." Ep. 21. p. 1085.
15. Ep. 151.
16. See bel. p. 20 n. k; p. 24 n. 9; p. 243 n. i.
17. Ep. 147.
18. Hom. Pasch. vii. 102 d.
19. Thes. Dial. i. p. 398 c. quoted p. 192 n. i.
20. Hab. iii. 2, 550 d.
21. Ep. 1 ad Nest. Epp. 20 b.
22. Ep. 1 ad Monach. Epp. 3. a b.
23. See S. Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, Epp. pp. 19 e 20 a.
24. Nestorius alludes to this, in the sermon which he preached on the Saturday after he had received S. Celestine's final Letter. Mercat. Opp. p. 76 Bal.
25. see his sermon just quoted, p. 78 Bal.
26. Conc. Eph. P. i. c. 16.
27. Ib. c. 17.
28. Ib. i. 9.
29. Epist. v. in Garn. Diss. v. ap. Theodoret Opp. T. v. p. 625 ed. Schulz.
30. The passage occurs, just as Nestorius accused S. Cyril of garbling it, in Book ii. § 4 p. 54. "We do not possess the complete sermon from which this extract is taken: we do possess in Mercator's translation four sermons on the subject of the Incarnation, from the second of which S. Cyril has several extracts. In the case of this sermon the context leaves no doubt that Nestorius spoke of our Lord's manhood as a separate man, whom our Lord had indefinitely connected with Himself. This long extract of Nestorius has been given in full as matter of candour. The thing itself we have not the means of explaining. Although he makes S. Cyril's extracts from his writings the cause of S. Celestine's belief that his teaching was heretical. S. Celestine, in his letter to himself, says expressly, that his conviction came from his own letters.