736 
N E S 
chiefly known is a “ Chronicle,” containing, after a fliort 
introdudtory account of the early ftate of the world, taken 
from the Byzantine writers, a geographical defcription of 
Rulfia, and the adjoining countries; an account of the 
Sclavonian nations, their emigrations, difperlion, and final 
fettlement; and laftly, a chronological feriesof the Ruffian 
annals from 858 to about 1113. This work lay in ob- 
fcurity, till Peter the Great ordered a tranfcript to be 
made of a copy of it found in the library of Koniglberg. 
ProfefFor Muller, in 1732, publifhed a German tranflation 
of the firft part; but Jte erroneoufly afcribed it to one 
Theodofius. It was publifhed at Peterfburg in the year 
1767, and is valued as the earlieft monument of Ruflian 
hiftory. The ftyle of this work is fitnple and unadorned, 
fuch as fuits a.mere recorder of fadts 5 but his chronological 
exadtnefs contributes to afcertain the era and authenticity 
of the events which he relates. We may add further, on 
the authority of Mr. Coxe, that Neftor was followed 
fucceflively by three annalifts: the firfl was Sylvefter, abbot 
of the convent of St. Michael at Kiof, and bifhop of Periflaf, 
who commences his chronicle from 1115, two years pof- 
terior to that of Neftor, and continues it to the year 1123; 
from which period a monk, whofe name has not come 
down to us, carries the hiftory to 1157; and another, 
equally unknown, to 1204. With refpedt to thefe per¬ 
formances, M. Muller informs us, that the labours of 
Neftor and his three continuators have produced a con- 
nedted feries of the Ruffian hiftory fo complete, that no 
nation can boaft of a fimilar treafure for fo long and un¬ 
broken a period. See Coxe’s Travels, vol- iii. 
NESTO'RE, a river which runs into the Tiber ten 
miles fouth of Perugia. 
NESTO'R I AN,/.'One of the followers of Neftorius, whole 
herefy was founded in the fifth century, and whofe diftin- 
guifhing tenet Hooker notices in the following example. 
•—To gather therefore into one fum all that hath hitherto 
been fpoken touching this point, there are but fourthings 
which concur to make complete the whole ftate of our 
Lord Jefus Chrift; his deity, his manhood, the conjunction 
of both, and the diftindtion of the one from the other, 
being joined in one. Four principal herefies there are, 
which have in thofe things withftood the truth : Arians, 
by bending themfelves againft the deity of Chrift; Apol- 
linarians, by maiming and mifinterpreting that which 
belongeth to his human nature; Neftorians, by renting 
Chrift afunder, and dividing him into two perfons; the 
followers of Eutyches, by confounding in his perfon thofe 
natures which they fhould diftinguifh. Hooker's Eccl. 
Pol. v. § 54. 
NESTO'RIANISM, ft The dodtrine or tenets of the 
Neftorians. 
NESTO'RIUS, a celebrated bifhop of Conftantinople 
in the fifth century, after whom his followers were called 
Neftorians, was a Syrian by nation, and born at Germa- 
nicia towards the clofe of the preceding century. He was 
educated in the monaftery of St. Euprepius, in the fuburbs 
of his native city, and became a difciple of the famous 
Theodore of Mopfueftia. Afterwards he was ordained 
prefbyter of the church of Antioch, and acquired a high 
charafter for learning, eloquence, and piety. With thefe 
qualities was connected an abundant portion of zeal and 
intolerance againft all oppugners of the catholic doCtrine 
of the trinity. In the year 428, on the recommendation 
of the emperor Theodofius, he was chofen to fill the 
vacant fee of Conftantinople. On the day of his ordina¬ 
tion, when he delivered his firft fermon before the emperor 
and the people of his diocefe, he declared his refolution 
vigoroufly to make war upon all heretics. “ Give me,” 
faid he, “ O emperor, the earth free from heretics, and 
I in return will give you heaven.” To this fpiritual 
motive, he added one, which, though carnal, he poflibly 
judged of equal force: “ Conquer the heretics with me, 
and I will aflift you in conquering the Perfians.” Al¬ 
though this declaration was highly acceptable to the mafs 
of tiie people, who hated the heretics; yet, fays Socrates 
N E S 
the hiftorian, the wifer fort condemned his pride and 
arrogance, and exprefled their furprife, that a man who 
had fcarcely “ tailed the water of the city,” fliould avow 
his determination to perfecute thofe who were not of his 
own opinion. Within five days after his ordination he 
began to execute his threatenings, and reduced the Arians 
to fuch defpair, by attempting to deprive them of the 
place in which they held their private afiemblies, that 
they fet fire to it themfelves, and many of the neighbour¬ 
ing lioufes were confumed along with it. From thiscir- 
cumftance he generally obtained the name of the incendiary. 
He next endeavoured to fupprefs the Novatians, from the 
jealoufy, lays Socrates, which he entertained of Paul, 
their bilhop, who was eminent for fandlity of manners ; 
but the emperor reftrained his violence. He alfo carried 
on a perfecution againft the Quartodecimans, in Afia, 
Lycia, and Caria; in confequence of which a fedition was 
excited at Miletus and Sardis, that occafioned the lofs of 
many lives. He fo greatly harrafled the Macedonians, 
by means of his inftrument Antonius, bilhop of Germa, 
that, out of revenge, they confpired againft that prelate, 
and put him to death. Neftorius, having obtained this 
advantage againft them, prevailed upon the emperor to 
deprive them of all their churches at Conftantinople, 
Cyzicum, and the villages about the Hellefpont. The 
Manichseans, likewife, and the Pelagians, fuffered under 
his perfecuting hand. Thefe rigorous proceedings againft 
heretics, might have fecured to him in the orthodox 
calendar the title of faint, had he not become involved 
in a difpute with fome of his catholic brethren about 
morels, which produced as much animofity and as great 
divilions in the catholic church, as if it had related tq 
the molt intelligible and the moll important of things. 
When Neftorius came from Antioch to Conftantinople, 
he brought with him one of his fellow-prelbyters, and a 
particular friend, named Anaftafius. This prefbyter, in 
one of his public difeourfes, declaimed warmly againft 
the title of Mother of God, which began now to be com¬ 
monly given to the Virgin Mary; faying, that it was more 
proper to call her the Mother of Chrift, fince the Deity 
can neither be born nor die, and, of confequence, the fan 
of man alone could derive his birth frc-m an earthly 
parent. Complaint of what Anaftafius had faid being 
brought to Neftorius, he applauded the fentiments which 
the prefbyter had advanced, and openly explained and 
defended them in feveral difeourfes. But both he and 
his friend Anaftafius were keenly oppofed by certain 
monks at Conftantinople, who maintained that the fon 
of Mary was God incarnate, and excited the zeal and fury 
of the populace to fupport this doctrine againft Neftorius. 
Notwithftanding all this, the difeourfes of the latter were 
extremely well received in many places, and had the 
majority on their fide. As foon as this controverfy came 
to the knowledge of Cyril, who at this time prefided over 
the fee of Alexandria, and was at enmity with Neftorius, 
he cenfured him in letters which he wrote to him on the 
fubjedl. Upon this, Neftorius was delirous of explaining 
his- meaning; but the haughty and turbulent Cyril would 
hearken to no explanations. He peremptorily required 
Neftorius to acknowledge and confefs the Virgin Mary to 
be the Mother of God, without any diftindtion or expla¬ 
nation ; and, becaufe he would not comply, he defamed 
him all over the Eaft, as a reviver of the herefy of Paul of 
Samofata, denying the real union between the divine and 
human nature in the perfon of Chrift. He likewife ex¬ 
cited the people at Conftantinople againft him, and fpared 
no pains to diferedit him with the emperor, and other 
great perfons at court. Neftorius, being now fenfible 
that Cyril was determined to keep no mealures with him, 
refolved, in his turn, to keep none with one, who, out of 
a jealoufy of his power and authority, was endeavouring 
to ruin him. He therefore aflembled a council at Con¬ 
ftantinople, in which, with the unanimous confent of the 
bilhops prefent, he folemnly excommunicated the laymen, 
and depofed the ecclefiaftics, who rejected his dodtrine. 
