150. ζηλωτὴν .
151. Ep. 7. p. 31. Neither the date of the Epistle nor the person to whom it was written is known. It must have been written before the heresy of Nestorius had become so plain.
152. as ab. p. lxiv.
153. As translated by Mercator. Opp. T. 2. pp. 53, 54. § xix-xxi. ed. Garn.
154. Common. i. 42.
155. Apol. ad Imp. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 13.
156. Socr. vii. 34.
157. Ten Bishops signed with him "the relation of Nestorius and the Bishops with him to the Emperor concerning the things done in the holy Synod &c." Conc. Eph. Act. i. n. 6. In Baluzii Conc. nova coll. p. 699. six names are added, one omitted.
158. Ep. ad Alex. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 34.
159. Synodicon c. 15.
160. S. Cyril has been criticised, because words of Apollinarius were quoted among the authorities as from S. Julius. The words themselves, in their simple meaning, express the truth, and contradict Apollinarianism. Leontius (A.D. 590), who first detected the forgery by use of MSS. says, it contains nothing 'quod nobis adversetur,' i.e. to the Catholic Faith. (de sectis Act. 8.) The words are, 'perfectus Deus in carne et perfectus homo in Spiritu.' Vitalis confessed that 'Christ was a perfect man,' but explained it to mean, 'We say so far that Christ was a perfect man, that we ascribe Divinity to Him instead of a mind.' S. Epiph. Haer. 77. n. 23. See Coustant. Epp. Rom. Pont. App. p. 71. sqq.
161. The language which Mr. Neale censures [Hist. of the Holy-Eastern Church B. ii. s. 2. p. 237.] occurs in a Homily utterly unlike S. Cyril's style, which Aubert admitted among his homilies, [T. v. 2. p. 279] but not the Editors of the Councils. [See further Dr. Bright's Hist. of the Church, p. 330. n. o.] Of the homilies delivered at Ephesus, the οἱ τοῖς ἱεροῖς [Aub. p. 350] is said in the collection of Baluzius [pp. 546-551] to have been delivered after the deposition of Nestorius. So is the 2nd τῆς μὲν τῶν ἁγίων Aub. p. 352. These have no allusion to him, nor has the ὁ μακάριος προφήτης p. 354. The φαιδρόν ὁρῶ τὸ σύστημα [Aub. p. 354 also in the Acta Conc. Eph. Act. 1. n. 13. upon which the homily quoted by Mr. Neale seems to be founded] speaks of the condemnation of Nestorius as past, σεαυτὸν ἐξήλειφας , p. 357. ὁ Θεὸς καθεῖλέ σε καὶ ἐξέτιλε . p. 358. The homily, ἒδει μἐν ἀρκεῖσθαι placed by both after the deposition [Aub. p. 358. Bal. p. 548.] scarcely alludes to Nestorius.
162. Conc. Eph. Act. 1. A Bishop, among his associates, justified the Jews, as having only slain a man.
163. Ep. ad Cyrill. in Conc. Eph. Act. 2. n. 3.
164. See Baronius H. E. A. 431. n. 7. sqq. and Pagi. Ib.
165. Relat. Conc. Eph. ad Imper. Act. iii. n. 1.
166. Conc. Eph. Act. iii. init.
167. Synodicon c. 24. The report mentioned by the delegates of John's party that Nestorius 'was sent from Ephesus, to go where he liked' [Epist. Schismat. ad suos. in Eph. Conciliab. n. 12] was accordingly inaccurate.
168. Synod. c. 25.
169. Synodicon c. 26.
170. In a writing, which Evagrius had seen. Evagr. i. 7.
171. S. Celest. Ep. ad Theodos. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 21.
172. l. c.
173. Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 34.
174. Relatio Synodi ad Imp. Conc. Eph. Act. l. n. 7.