The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril
of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity
of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against
Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.
Introduction
Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius
Second letter of Nestorius to Cyril
Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius
Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and accepted by the Council of
Ephesus
The judgment against Nestorius
Synodical letter about the expulsion of the eastern bishops
Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July
431]
Definition against the impious Messalians or Euchites
Resolution : that the bishops of Cyprus may themselves conduct
ordinations
Formula of union between Cyrill and John of Antioch
Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about peace
Excerpt from the Council of Chalcedon
INTRODUCTIONTHE OCCASION AND
PREPARATION FOR THE COUNCIL
1 The idea of this great council seems to have
been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril, Patriarch of
Alexandria, had accused him to Pope St. Celestine of heresy, and the pope had
replied on 11 August, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice
in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving
this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed. The
summons was served on Nestorius on a Sunday, 30 November, or 7 December, by four bishops
sent by Cyril. But Nestorius was evidently well informed of what he was to expect. He regarded
himself as having been calumniated to the pope, and he did not choose to be given
over into the hands of Cyril. The latter was, in his opinion, not merely a personal enemy,
but a dangerous theologian, who was reviving to some extent the errors of Apollinarius. Nestorius
had influence over the Emperor of the East, Theodosius II, whom he induced to summon a
general council to judge of the difference between the Patriarch of Alexandria and himself,
and he worked so well that the letters of convocation were issued by the emperor to all
metropolitans on 19 November, some days before the messengers of Cyril arrived. The
emperor was able to take this course without seeming to favour Nestorius too much, because
the monks of the capital, whom Nestorius had excommunicated for their opposition to his
heretical teaching, had also appealed to him to call together a council.
Nestorius, therefore, paid no attention to the pope's ultimatum, and refused to be guided
by the advice to submit which his friend John, the Patriarch of Antioch, volunteered.
2 The pope was pleased that the whole
East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius
and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip,
as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not
being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the
Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take
part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that
Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be
technically presidents at an ecumenical council, and this was henceforth looked
upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case
at Nicaea.
3 The emperor was anxious for the presence of
the most venerated prelate of the whole world, Augustine, and sent a special messenger to
that great man with a letter in honourable terms. But the saint had died during the siege
of Hippo in the preceding August, though the troubles of Africa had prevented news from
reaching Constantinople.
4 Theodosius wrote an angry letter to Cyril,
and a temperate one to the council. The tone of the latter epistle and of the instructions
given to the imperial commander, Count Candidian, to be absolutely impartial, are ascribed
by the Coptic Acts to the influence exercised on the emperor by the Abbot Victor, who had
been sent to Constantinople by Cyril to act as his agent at the Court on account of the
veneration and friendship which Theodosius was known to feel for the holy man.
ARRIVAL OF THE PARTICIPANTS
AT EPHESUS
5 Nestorius, with sixteen bishops, and Cyril,
with fifty, arrived before Pentecost at Ephesus. The Coptic tells us that the two parties
arrived on the same day, and that in the evening Nestorius proposed that all should join
in the Vesper service together. The other bishops refused. Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, was
afraid of violence, and sent his clergy only to the church. The mention of a Flavian, who
seems to be the Bishop of Philippi, casts some doubt on this story, for that bishop did
not arrive till later. Memnon of Ephesus had forty suffragans present, not counting twelve
from Pamphylia (whom John of Antioch calls heretics). Juvenal of Jerusalem, with the
neighbouring bishops whom he looked upon as his suffragans, and Flavian of Philippi, with
a contingent from the countries which looked to Thessalonica as their metropolis, arrived
soon after Pentecost. The Patriarch of Antioch, John, an old friend of Nestorius, wrote to
explain that his suffragans had not been able to start till after the Octave of Easter.
(The Coptic Acts say that there was a famine at Antioch.) The journey of thirty days had
been lengthened by the death of some horses; he would accomplish the last five or six
stages at leisure. But he did not arrive, and it was said that he was loitering because he
did not wish to join in condemning Nestorius. Meanwhile the heat was great. Many bishops
were ill. Two or three died. Two of John's metropolitans, those of Apamea and Hierapolis,
arrived and declared that John did not wish the opening of the council to be deferred on
account of his delay. However, these two bishops and Theodoret of Cyrus, with sixty-five
others, wrote a memorial addressed to St. Cyril and Juvenal of Jerusalem, begging that the
arrival of John should be awaited. Count Candidian arrived, with the imperial decree, and
he took the same view.
THE COUNCIL
6 But Cyril and the majority determined to
open the council on 22 June, sixteen days having passed since John had announced his
arrival in five or six. It was clear to the majority that this delay was intentional, and
they were probably right. Yet it is regrettable that all possible allowance was not made,
especially as no news had yet come from Rome. For Cyril had written to the pope with
regard to an important question of procedure. Nestorius had not recanted within the ten
days fixed by the pope, and he was consequently treated as excommunicate by the majority
of the bishops. Was he to be allowed a fresh trial, although the pope had already
condemned him? Or, on the other hand, was he to be merely given the opportunity of
explaining or excusing his contumacy? One might have presumed that Pope Celestine, in
approving of the council, intended that Nestorius should have a full trial, and in fact
this was declared in his letter which was still on the way. But as no reply had come to
Cyril, that saint considered that he had no right to treat the pope's sentence as a matter
for further discussion, and no doubt he had not much wish to do so.
First Session (June 22)
7 The council assembled on 22 June, and St.
Cyril assumed the presidency both as Patriarch of Alexandria and "as filling the
place of the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the Roman Church, Celestine", in
order to carry out his original commission, which he considered, in the absence of any
reply from Rome, to be still in force.
8 In the morning 160 bishops were present, and
by evening 198 had assembled. The session began by a justification of the decision to
delay no longer. Nestorius had been on the previous day invited to attend. He had replied
that he would come if he chose. To a second summons, which was now dispatched, he sent a
message from his house, which was surrounded with armed men, that he would appear when all
the bishops had come together. Indeed only some twenty of the sixty-eight who had demanded
a delay had rallied to Cyril, and Nestorius's own suffragans had also stayed away. To a
third summons he gave no answer. This attitude corresponds with his original attitude to
the ultimatum sent by Cyril. He would not acknowledge Cyril as a judge, and he looked upon
the opening of the council before the arrival of his friends from Antioch as a flagrant
injustice.
The session proceeded.
1. The Nicene Creed was read, and
then
2. The Second
Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, on which the bishops at Cyril's desire, severally gave
their judgment that it was in accordance with the Nicene faith, 126 speaking in turn.
3. Next the Reply of Nestorius was read. All then
cried Anathema to Nestorius.
4. Then Pope Celestine's letter to
St. Cyril was read, and after it the
5. Third
Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, with the anathematisms which the heretic was to accept.
The bishops who had served this ultimatum on Nestorius deposed that they had given him the
letter. He had promised his answer on the morrow, but had not given any, and did not even
admit them.
9 Then two friends of Nestorius, Theodotus of
Ancyra and Acacius of Mitylene, were invited by Cyril to give an account of their
conversations at Ephesus with Nestorius. Acacius said that Nestorius had repeatedly
declared dimeniaion e trimeniaion me dein legesthai Theon. Nestorius's own account
of this conversation in his "Apology" (Bethune-Baker, p. 71) shows that this
phrase is to be translated thus: "We must not say that God is two or three months
old." This is not so shocking as the meaning which has usually been ascribed to the
words in modern as well as ancient times (e.g. by Socrates, VII, xxxiv): "A baby of
two or three months old ought not to be called God." The former sense agrees with the
accusation of Acacius that Nestorius declared "one must either deny the Godhead (theotes)
of the Only-begotten to have become man, or else admit the same of the Father and of the
Holy Ghost." (Nestorius means that the Divine Nature is numerically one; and if
Nestorius really said theotes, and not hypostasis, he was right, and Acacius
was wrong.)
10 Acacius further accused him
of uttering the heresy that the Son who died is to be distinguished from the
Word of God. A series of extracts from the holy Fathers was then read, Peter I and Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius
and Felix of Rome (but these papal letters were Apollinarian forgeries), Theophilus,
Cyril's uncle, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus,
Amphilochius. After these, contrasted passages from the writings of Nestorius were read.
These were of course pièces justificatives brought forward by Cyril, and necessary
to inform the council as to the question at issue. Hefele has wrongly understood that the
bishops were examining the doctrine of Nestorius afresh, without accepting the
condemnation of the pope as necessarily correct. A fine letter from Capreolus, Bishop of
Carthage, and primate of a greater number of bishops than any of the Eastern patriarchs,
was next produced. He writes in the midst of the devastation of Africa by the Vandals, and
naturally could neither hold any synod nor send any bishops. No discussion followed (and
Hefele is wrong in suggesting an omission in the Acts, which are already of extraordinary
length for a single day), but the bishops accepted with acclamation the words of Capreolus
against novelty and in praise of ancient faith, and all proceeded to sign the sentence against Nestorius. As the excommunication by St. Celestine
was still in force, and as Nestorius had contumaciously refused to answer the threefold
summons enjoined by the canons, the sentence was worded as follows:
The holy synod said: "Since in addition
to the rest the most impious Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our citation, nor
to receive the most holy and god-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily
betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and, having apprehended from his
letters and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis which have
been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily impelled
thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most
holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have
arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who has
been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded
from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops.
11 This sentence received 198 signatures, and
some more were afterwards added. A brief notification addressed to "the new
Judas" was sent to Nestorius. The Coptic Acts tell us that, as he would not receive
it, it was affixed to his door. The whole business had been concluded in a single long
session, and it was evening when the result was known. The people of Ephesus, full of
rejoicing, escorted the fathers to their houses with torches and incense. Count Candidian,
on the other hand, had the notices of the deposition torn down, and silenced the cries in
the streets. The council wrote at once to the emperor and to the people and clergy of
Constantinople, though the Acts had not yet been written out in full. In a letter to the
Egyptian bishops in the same city and to the Abbot Dalmatius (the Coptic substitutes Abbot
Victor), Cyril asks for their vigilance, as Candidian was sending false reports. Sermons
were preached by Cyril and his friends, and the people of Ephesus were much excited. Even
before this, Nestorius, writing, with ten bishops, to the emperor to complain that the
council was to begin without waiting for the Antiochenes and the Westerns, had spoken of
the violence of the people, egged on by their bishop Memnon who had shut the churches to
him and threatened him with death.
Arrival of John of Antioch (June 27)
12 Five days after the first session John of
Antioch arrived. The party of Cyril sent a deputation to meet him honourably, but John was
surrounded by soldiers, and complained that the bishops were creating a disturbance.
Before he would speak to them, he held an assembly which he designated "the holy
synod". Candidian deposed that he had disapproved of the assembling of the bishops
before John's arrival; he had attended the session and read the emperor's letter. John
accused Memnon of violence, and Cyril of Arian, Apollinarian, and Eunomian heresy. These
two were deposed by forty-three bishops present; the members of the council were to be
forgiven, provided they would condemn the twelve anathematisms of Cyril. This was absurd,
for most of these could not be understood in anything but a Catholic sense. But John, who
was not a bad man, was in a bad temper. It is noticeable that not a word was said in
favour of Nestorius at this assembly. The party of Cyril was now complaining of Count
Candidian and his soldiers, as the other side did of Memnon and the populace. Both parties
sent their report to Rome. The emperor was much distressed at the division, and wrote that
a collective session must be held, and the matter begun afresh. The official named
Palladius who brought this epistle took back with him many letters from both sides. Cyril
proposed that the emperor should send for him and five bishops, to render an exact
account.
Second Session (10 July)
13 At last on 10 July the papal envoys arrived.
The second session assembled in the episcopal residence. The legate Philip opened the
proceedings by saying that the former letter of St. Celestine had been already read, in
which he had decided the present question; the pope had now sent another letter. This was
read. It contained a general exhortation to the council, and concluded by saying that the
legates had instructions to carry out what the pope had formerly decided; doubtless the
council would agree. The Fathers then cried:
This is a just judgment. To Celestine the
new Paul! To the new Paul Cyril! To Celestine, the guardian of the Faith! To Celestine
agreeing to the Synod! The Synod gives thanks to Cyril. One Celestine, one Cyril!
14 The legate Projectus then says that the
letter enjoins on the council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the
sentence which the pope had pronounced. Hefele wrongly interprets this: "That is,
that all the bishops should accede to the Papal sentence" (vol. III, 136). Firmus,
the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent
to the Bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Antioch, had
long since given his sentence and decision; and the synod -- the ten days having passed,
and also a much longer period -- having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the
emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope, and, as Nestorius did not appear,
had executed upon him the papal sentence, having inflicted the canonical and Apostolic
judgment upon him. This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required
had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the
sentence; canonical refers to the words of the sentence, "necessarily obliged
by the canons", and Apostolic to the words "and by the letter of the
bishop of Rome". The legate Arcadius expressed his regret for the late arrival of his
party, on account of storms, and asked to see the decrees of the council. Philip, the
pope's personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their acclamations as
holy members to their holy head -- "For your blessedness is not unaware that the
Apostle Peter is the head of the Faith and of the Apostles." The Metropolitan of
Ancyra declared that God had shown the justice of the synod's sentence by the coming of
St. Celestine's letter and of the legates. The session closed with the reading of the
pope's letter to the emperor.
Third Session (July 11)
15 On the following day, 11 July, the third
session took place. The legates had read the Acts of the first session and now demanded
only that the condemnation of Nestorius should be formally read in their presence. When
this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a confirmation in the pope's
name. The exordium of the speech of Philip is celebrated:
It is doubtful to none, nay it has been
known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the
column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to
him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives
and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and
most blessed Pope Celestine. . .
16 It was with words such as these
before their eyes that Greek Fathers and councils spoke of the Council of Ephesus as
celebrated "by Celestine and Cyril". A translation of these speeches
was read, for Cyril then rose and said that the synod had understood them clearly; and now
the Acts of all three sessions must be presented to the legates for their signature.
Arcadius replied that they were of course willing. The synod ordered that the Acts should
be set before them, and they signed them. A letter was sent to the emperor, telling him
how St. Celestine had held a synod at Rome and had sent his legates, representing himself
and the whole of the West. The whole world has therefore agreed; Theodosius should
allow the bishops to go home, for many suffered from being at Ephesus, and their dioceses
also must suffer. Only a few friends of Nestorius held out against the world's judgment. A
new bishop must be appointed for Constantinople.
Fourth session (July 16)
17 On 16 July a more solemn session was held,
like the first, in the cathedral of the Theotokos. Cyril and Memnon presented a written
protest against the conciliabulum of John of Antioch. He was cited to appear, but
would not even admit the envoys.
Fifth Session (July 17)
18 Next day the fifth session was held in the
same church. John had set up a placard in the city accusing the synod of the Apollinarian
heresy. He is again cited, and this is counted as the third canonical summons. He would
pay no attention. In consequence the council suspended and excommunicated him, together
with thirty-four bishops of his party, but refrained from deposing them. Some of John's
party had already deserted him, and he had gained only a few. In the letters to the
emperor and the pope which were then dispatched, the synod described itself as now
consisting of 210 bishops. The long letter to Celestine gives a full account of the
council, and mentions that the pope's decrees against the Pelagians had been read and
confirmed.
Sixth Session
19 At the end of the sixth session,
which dealt only with the case of two Nestorianizing priests, was made the famous
declaration that no one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter,
"beyond" -- "contrary to"?) the Nicene, and that anyone who should
propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be
deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman. This decision became later a
fruitful source of objections to the decrees of later synods and to the addition of the filioque to the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed; but that creed itself would be
abolished by this decree if it is taken too literally. We know of several matters
connected with Pamphylia and Thrace which were treated by the council, which are not found
in the Acts. St. Leo tells us that Cyril reported to the pope the intrigues by which
Juvenal of Jerusalem tried at Ephesus to carve himself a patriarchate out of that of
Antioch, in which his see lay. He was to succeed in this twenty years later, at
Chalcedon.
Seventh Session (July 31)
20 In the seventh and last session on 31
Julythe bishops of Cyprus (it seems) persuaded the council to approve their claim of
having been anciently and rightly exempt from the jurisdiction of Antioch. Six canons were
also passed against the adherents and supporters of Nestorius.
IMPERIAL AND PAPAL
CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNCIL
21 The history of the intrigues by which both
parties tried to get the emperor on their side need not be detailed here. The orthodox
were triumphant at Ephesus by their numbers and by the agreement of the papal legates. The
population of Ephesus was on their side. The people of Constantinople rejoiced at the
deposition of their heretical bishop. But Count Candidian and his troops were on
the side of Nestorius, whose friend, Count Irenaeus, was also at Ephesus, working
for him. The emperor had always championed Nestorius, but had been somewhat shaken
by the reports of the council. Communication with Constantinople was impeded both
by the friends of Nestorius there and by Candidian at Ephesus. A letter was taken to
Constantinople at last in a hollow cane, by a messenger disguised as a beggar, in which
the miserable condition of the bishops at Ephesus was described, scarce a day passing
without a funeral, and entreaty was made that they might be allowed to send
representatives to the emperor. The holy abbot, St. Dalmatius, to whom the letter was
addressed, as well as to the emperor, clergy, and people of Constantinople, left his
monastery in obedience to a Divine voice and, at the head of the many thousand monks of
the city, all chanting and carrying tapers, made his way through enthusiastic crowds to
the palace. They passed back right through the city, after the abbot Dalmatius had
interviewed the emperor, and the letter was read to the people in the church of St.
Mocius. All shouted "Anathema to Nestorius!"
22 Eventually the pious and
well-meaning emperor arrived at the extraordinary decision that he should ratify the
depositions decreed by both councils. He therefore declared that Cyril, Memnon,
and John were all deposed. Memnon and Cyril were kept in close confinement. But in spite
of all the exertions of the Antiochan party, the representatives of the envoys whom the
council was eventually allowed to send, with the legate Philip, to the Court, persuaded
the emperor to accept the great council as the true one. Nestorius anticipated
his fate by requesting permission to retire to his former monastery. The synod was
dissolved about the beginning of October, and Cyril arrived amid much joy at Alexandria on
30 October. St. Celestine was now dead, but his successor, St. Sixtus III,
confirmed the council.
JOHN CHAPMAN
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc.
END INTRODUCTION
AFTER THE CREED
IS PRAYED BY ALL THE SECOND LETTER OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS IS READ
Second
Letter of Cyril to Nestorius
Cyril sends greeting in the Lord to the most
religious and reverend fellow-minister Nestorius
23 understand that there are some who are
talking rashly of the reputation in which I hold your reverence, and that this is
frequently the case when meetings of people in authority give them an opportunity. I think
they hope in this way to delight your ears and so they spread abroad uncontrolled
expressions. They are people who have suffered no wrong, but have been exposed by me for
their own profit, one because he oppressed the blind and the poor, a second because he
drew a sword on his mother, a third because he stole someone else's money in collusion
with a maidservant and since then has lived with such a reputation as one would hardly
wish for one's worst enemy. For the rest I do not intend to spend more words on this
subject in order not to vaunt my own mediocrity above my teacher and master or above the
fathers. For however one may try to live, it is impossible to escape the malice of evil
people, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness and who will have to defend
themselves before the judge of all.
24 But I turn to a subject more fitting to
myself and remind you as a brother in Christ always to be very careful about what you say
to the people in matters of teaching and of your thought on the faith. You should bear in
mind that to scandalise even one of these little ones that believe in Christ lays you open
to unendurable wrath. If the number of those who are distressed is very large, then surely
we should use every skill and care to remove scandals and to expound the healthy word of
faith to those who seek the truth. The most effective way to achieve this end will be
zealously to occupy ourselves with the words of the holy fathers, to esteem their words,
to examine our words to see if we are holding to their faith as it is written, to conform
our thoughts to their correct and irreproachable teaching.
25 The holy and great synod, therefore, stated
that 1. the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God
from true God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things,
came down, became incarnate, became man, 2. suffered, rose on the third day and
ascended to heaven.
26 1. We too ought to follow these words and
these teachings and consider what is meant by saying that the Word from God took flesh and
became man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh,
nor that he was turned into a whole man made of body and soul. Rather do we claim that the
Word in an unspeakable, inconceivable manner united to himself hypostatically flesh
enlivened by a rational soul, and so became man and was called son of man, not by God's
will alone or good pleasure, nor by the assumption of a person alone. Rather did two
different natures come together to form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son.
It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but
divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together
marvellously and mysteriously combining to form a unity. So he who existed and was
begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have been begotten according to the
flesh of a woman, without the divine nature either beginning to exist in the holy virgin,
or needing of itself a second begetting after that from his Father. (For it is absurd and
stupid to speak of the one who existed before every age and is coeternal with the Father,
needing a second beginning so as to exist.) The Word is said to have been begotten
according to the flesh, because for us and for our salvation he united what was human to
himself hypostatically and came forth from a woman. For he was not first begotten of the
holy virgin, a man like us, and then the Word descended upon him; but from the very womb
of his mother he was so united and then underwent begetting according to the flesh, making
his own the begetting of his own flesh.
27. In a similar way we say that he suffered
and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any
other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of
suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to
have suffered them for us. For he was without suffering, while his body suffered.
Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself
immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but since on the other hand his own
body by God's grace, as the apostle says, tasted death for all, the Word is said to have
suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature
was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because, as I have
just said, his flesh tasted death. So too, when his flesh was raised to life, we refer to
this again as his resurrection, not as though he had fallen into corruption--God
forbid--but because his body had been raised again.
28 So we shall confess one Christ and one Lord.
We do not adore the man along with the Word, so as to avoid any appearance of division by
using the word "with". But we adore him as one and the same, because the body is
not other than the Word, and takes its seat with him beside the Father, again not as
though there were two sons seated together but only one, united with his own flesh. If,
however, we reject the hypostatic union as being either impossible or too unlovely for the
Word, we fall into the fallacy of speaking of two sons. We shall have to distinguish and
speak both of the man as honoured with the title of son, and of the Word of God as by
nature possessing the name and reality of sonship, each in his own way. We ought not,
therefore, to split into two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ. Such a way of presenting a
correct account of the faith will be quite unhelpful, even though some do speak of a union
of persons. For scripture does not say that the Word united the person of a man to
himself, but that he became flesh. The Word's becoming flesh means nothing else than that
he partook of flesh and blood like us; he made our body his own, and came forth a man from
woman without casting aside his deity, or his generation from God the Father, but rather
in his assumption of flesh remaining what he was.
29 This is the account of the true faith
everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. So have they dared
to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his
godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was
born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically
united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh. These things I write out of love in
Christ exhorting you as a brother and calling upon you before Christ and the elect angels,
to hold and teach these things with us, in order to preserve the peace of the churches and
that the priests of God may remain in an unbroken bond of concord and love.
Second Letter of Nestorius to Cyril
30 Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord to the
most religious and reverend fellow-minister Cyril. I pass over the insults against us
contained in your extraordinary letter. They will, I think, be cured by my patience and by
the answer which events will offer in the course of time. On one matter, however, I cannot
be silent, as silence would in that case be very dangerous. On that point, therefore
avoiding longwindedness as far as I can, I shall attempt a brief discussion and try to be
as free as possible from repelling obscurity and undigestible prolixity. I shall begin
from the wise utterances of your reverence, setting them down word for word. What then are
the words in which your remarkable teaching finds expression ?
31 "The holy and great synod states that
the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God from true
God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down,
became incarnate, became man, suffered, rose."
32 These are the words of your reverence and
you may recognise them. Now listen to what we say, which takes the form of a brotherly
exhortation to piety of the type of which the great apostle Paul gave an example in
addressing his beloved Timothy: "Attend to the public reading of scripture, to
preaching, to teaching. For by so doing you will save both yourself and your
hearers". Tell me, what does "attend" mean? By reading in a superficial way
the tradition of those holy men (you were guilty of a pardonable ignorance), you concluded
that they said that the Word who is coeternal with the Father was passible. Please look
more closely at their language and you will find out that that divine choir of fathers
never said that the consubstantial godhead was capable of suffering, or that the whole
being that was coeternal with the Father was recently born, or that it rose again, seeing
that it had itself been the cause of resurrection of the destroyed temple. If you apply my
words as fraternal medicine, I shall set the words of the holy fathers before you and
shall free them from the slander against them and through them against the holy
scriptures.
33 "I believe", they say, "also
in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son". See how they first lay as
foundations "Lord" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "only
begotten" and "Son", the names which belong jointly to the divinity and
humanity. Then they build on that foundation the tradition of the incarnation and
resurrection and passion. In this way, by prefixing the names which are common to each
nature, they intend to avoid separating expressions applicable to sonship and lordship and
at the same time escape the danger of destroying the distinctive character of the natures
by absorbing them into the one title of "Son". In this Paul was their teacher
who, when he remembers the divine becoming man and then wishes to introduce the suffering,
first mentions "Christ", which, as I have just said, is the common name of both
natures and then adds an expression which is appropriate to both of the natures. For what
does he say ? "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who
though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped", and so on until, "he became obedient unto death, even death on a
cross". For when he was about to mention the death, to prevent anyone supposing that
God the Word suffered, he says "Christ", which is a title that expresses in one
person both the impassible and the passible natures, in order that Christ might be called
without impropriety both impassible and passible impassible in godhead, passible in the
nature of his body.
34 I could say much on this subject and first
of all that those holy fathers, when they discuss the economy, speak not of the generation
but of the Son becoming man. But I recall the promise of brevity that I made at the
beginning and that both restrains my discourse and moves me on to the second subject of
your reverence. In that I applaud your division of natures into manhood and godhead and
their conjunction in one person. I also applaud your statement that God the Word needed no
second generation from a woman, and your confession that the godhead is incapable of
suffering. Such statements are truly orthodox and equally opposed to the evil opinions of
all heretics about the Lord's natures. If the remainder was an attempt to introduce some
hidden and incomprehensible wisdom to the ears of the readers, it is for your sharpness to
decide. In my view these subsequent views seemed to subvert what came first. They
suggested that he who had at the beginning been proclaimed as impassible and incapable of
a second generation had somehow become capable of suffering and freshly created, as though
what belonged to God the Word by nature had been destroyed by his conjunction with his
temple or as though people considered it not enough that the sinless temple, which is
inseparable from the divine nature, should have endured birth and death for sinners, or
finally as though the Lord's voice was not deserving of credence when it cried out to the
Jews: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'' He did not say,
"Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up."
35 Again I should like to expand on this but am
restrained by the memory of my promise. I must speak therefore but with brevity. Holy
scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not
of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately
termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these words that the gospels proclaim:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It
is clear that God the Word was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you
will: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
the Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus
Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was
found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would ever consider that the
godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the Spirit? Why do we need to mention:
"the mother of Jesus was there"? And again what of: "with Mary the mother
of Jesus"; or "that which is conceived in her is of the holy Spirit"; and
"Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt"; and "concerning his Son,
who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"? Again, scripture says when
speaking of his passion: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh"; and again "Christ died for our
sins" and "Christ having suffered in the flesh"; and "This is",
not "my godhead", but "my body, broken for you".
36 Ten thousand other expressions witness to
the human race that they should not think that it was the godhead of the Son that was
recently killed but the flesh which was joined to the nature of the godhead. (Hence also
Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: " 'What do you think of the Christ ?
Whose son is he ?' They said to him, 'The son of David.' Jesus answered and said to them,
'How is it then that David inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, "The Lord
said to my Lord, sit at my right hand"?'". He said this as being indeed son of
David according to the flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore
is the temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and divine
conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the body as its own. Such a
confession is noble and worthy of the gospel traditions. But to use the expression
"accept as its own" as a way of diminishing the properties of the conjoined
flesh, birth, suffering and entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray, my
brother, by Greek thinking or are sick with the lunacy of Apollinarius and Arius or the
other heresies or rather something more serious than these.
37 For it is necessary for such as are
attracted by the name "propriety" to make God the Word share, because of this
same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his
passion and in need of angelical assistance. I make no mention of circumcision and
sacrifice and sweat and hunger, which all belong to the flesh and are adorable as having
taken place for our sake. But it would be false to apply such ideas to the deity and would
involve us in just accusation because of our calumny.
38 These are the traditions of the holy
fathers. These are the precepts of the holy scriptures. In this way does someone write in
a godly way about the divine mercy and power, "Practise these duties, devote yourself
to them, so that all may see your progress''. This is what Paul says to all. The care you
take in labouring for those who have been scandalised is well taken and we are grateful to
you both for the thought you devote to things divine and for the concern you have even for
those who live here. But you should realise that you have been misled either by some here
who have been deposed by the holy synod for Manichaeism or by clergy of your own
persuasion. In fact the church daily progresses here and through the grace of Christ there
is such an increase among the people that those who behold it cry out with the words of
the prophet, "The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the water
covers the sea". As for our sovereigns, they are in great joy as the light of
doctrine is spread abroad and, to be brief, because of the state of all the heresies that
fight against God and of the orthodoxy of the church, one might find that verse fulfilled
"The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker and the house of David grew stronger and
stronger".
39 This is our advice from a brother to a
brother. "If anyone is disposed to be contentious", Paul will cry out through us
to such a one, "we recognize no other practice, neither do the churches of God".
I and those with me greet all the brotherhood with you in Christ. May you remain strong
and continue praying for us, most honoured and reverent lord.
Third Letter of Cyril
to Nestorius
[Read at the council of Ephesus and included
in the proceedings . We omit the preface of the letter]
We believe in one God . . .[Nicene Creed]
40 Following in all points the confessions of
the holy fathers, which they made with the holy Spirit speaking in them, and following the
direction of their opinions and going as it were in the royal way, we say that the
only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten from the very essence of the Father, true God
from true God, the light from the light and the one through whom all things in heaven and
earth were made, for our salvation came down and emptying himself he became incarnate and
was made man. This means that he took flesh from the holy virgin and made it his
own, undergoing a birth like ours from her womb and coming forth a man from a woman.
He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he
remained what he was, God in nature and truth. We do not say that his flesh was turned
into the nature of the godhead or that the unspeakable Word of God was changed into the
nature of the flesh. For he (the Word) is unalterable and absolutely unchangeable and
remains always the same as the scriptures say. For although visible as a child and in
swaddling cloths, even while he was in the bosom of the virgin that bore him, as God he
filled the whole of creation and was fellow ruler with him who begot him. For the divine
is without quantity and dimension and cannot be subject to circumscription.
41 We confess the Word to have been made one
with the flesh hypostatically, and we adore one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ. We do not
divide him into parts and separate man and God in him, as though the two natures were
mutually united only through a unity of dignity and authority; that would be an empty
expression and nothing more. Nor do we give the name Christ in one sense to the Word of
God and in another to him who was born of woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word
from God the Father with his own flesh. As man he was anointed with us, even though he
himself gives the Spirit to those who are worthy to receive it and not in measure, as the
blessed evangelist John says.
42 But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt
as in an ordinary man born of the holy virgin, in order that Christ may not be thought of
as a God-bearing man. For even though "the Word dwelt among us", and it is also
said that in Christ dwelt "all the fullness of the godhead bodily", we
understand that, having become flesh, the manner of his indwelling is not defined in the
same way as he is said to dwell among the saints, he was united by nature and not turned
into flesh and he made his indwelling in such a way as we may say that the soul of man
does in his own body.
43 There is therefore one Christ and Son and
Lord, but not with the sort of conjunction that a man might have with God as unity of
dignity or authority. Equality of honour by itself is unable to unite natures. For Peter
and John were equal in honour to each other, being both of them apostles and holy
disciples, but they were two, not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction
to be one of juxtaposition for this is not enough for natural union. Nor yet is it a
question of relative participation, as we ourselves, being united to the Lord, are as it
is written in the words of scripture "one spirit with him". Rather do we
deprecate the term "conjunction" as being inadequate to express the idea of
union.
44 Nor do we call the Word from God the Father,
the God or Lord of Christ. To speak in that way would appear to split into two the one
Christ and Son and Lord and we might in this way fall under the charge of blasphemy,
making him the God and Lord of himself. For, as we have already said, the Word of God was
united hypostatically with the flesh and is God of all and Lord of the universe, but is
neither his own slave or master. For it is foolish or rather impious to think or to speak
in this way. It is true that he called the Father "God" even though he was
himself God by nature and of his being, we are not ignorant of the fact that at the same
time as he was God he also became man, and so was subject to God according to the law that
is suitable to the nature of manhood. But how should he become God or Lord of himself?
Consequently as man and as far as it was fitting for him within the limits of his
self-emptying it is said that he was subject to God like ourselves. So he came to be under
the law while at the same time himself speaking the law and being a lawgiver like God.
45 When speaking of Christ we avoid the
expression: "I worship him who is carried because of the one who carries him; because
of him who is unseen, I worship the one who is seen." It is shocking to say in this
connexion: "The assumed shares the name of God with him who assumes." To speak
in this way once again divides into two Christs and puts the man separately by himself and
God likewise by himself. This saying denies openly the union, according to which one is
not worshipped alongside the other, nor do both share in the title "God", but
Jesus Christ is considered as one, the only begotten Son, honoured with one worship,
together with his own flesh.
46 We also confess that the only begotten Son
born of God the Father, although according to his own nature he was not subject to
suffering, suffered in the flesh for us according to the scriptures, and was in his
crucified body, and without himself suffering made his own the sufferings of his own
flesh, for "by the grace of God he tasted death for all". For that purpose he
gave his own body to death though he was by nature life and the resurrection, in order
that, having trodden down death by his own unspeakable power, he might first in his own
flesh become the firstborn from the dead and "the first fruits of them that
sleep". And that he might make a way for human nature to return to incorruption by
the grace of God, as we have just said, "he tasted death for all" and on the
third day he returned to life, having robbed the underworld. Accordingly, even though it
is said that "through man came the resurrection of the dead", yet we understand
that man to have been the Word which came from God, through whom the power of death was
overcome. At the right time he will come as one Son and Lord in the glory of the Father,
to judge the world in justice, as it is written.
47 We will necessarily add this also.
Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is
Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into
heaven, we offer the unbloody worship [sacrificii servitutem] in the churches and so
proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh
[corpus] and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as
ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to
the Word by union of honour, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving
and real flesh of the Word [ut vere vivificatricem et ipsius Verbi propriam factam.]. For
being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be
life-giving, as also he said to us: "Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of man and drink his blood" . For we must not think that it is the flesh of a
man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?), but as being
made the true flesh [vere proprium eius factam] of the one who for our sake became the son
of man and was called so.
48 For we do not divide up the words of our
Saviour in the gospels among two hypostases or persons. For the one and only Christ is not
dual, even though he be considered to be from two distinct realities, brought together
into an unbreakable union. In the same sort of way a human being, though he be composed of
soul and body, is considered to be not dual, but rather one out of two. Therefore, in
thinking rightly, we refer both the human and divine expressions to the same person. For
when he speaks about himself in a divine manner as "he that sees me sees the
Father", and "I and the Father are one", we think of his divine and
unspeakable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through identity of
nature and is the "image and impress and brightness of his glory". But when, not
dishonouring the measure of his humanity, he says to the Jews: "But now you seek to
kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you", again no less than before, we
recognise that he who, because of his equality and likeness to God the Father is God the
Word, is also within the limits of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that
being God by nature he became flesh, that is man ensouled with a rational soul, whatever
reason should anyone have for being ashamed at the expressions uttered by him should they
happen to be suitable to him as man ? For if he should reject words suitable to him as
man, who was it that forced him to become a man like us? Why should he who submitted
himself to voluntary self-emptying for our sake, reject expressions that are suitable for
such self-emptying? All the expressions, therefore, that occur in the gospels are to be
referred to one person, the one enfleshed hypostasis of the Word. For there is one Lord
Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures.
49 Even though he is called "the apostle
and high priest of our confession", as offering to the God and Father the confession
of faith we make to him and through him to the God and Father and also to the holy Spirit,
again we say that he is the natural and only-begotten Son of God and we shall not assign
to another man apart from him the name and reality of priesthood. For he became the
"mediator between God and humanity" and the establisher of peace between them,
offering himself for an odour of sweetness to the God and Father. Therefore also he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body you have prepared for me; [in burnt
offerings and sacrifice for sin you have no pleasure]. Then I said, 'Behold I come to do
your will, O God', as it is written of me in the volume of the book". For our sake
and not for his own he brought forward his own body in the odour of sweetness. Indeed, of
what offering or sacrifice for himself would he have been in need, being as God superior
to all manner of sin? For though "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God", and so we are prone to disorder and human nature has fallen into the weakness
of sin, he is not so and consequently we are behind him in glory. How then can there be
any further doubt that the true lamb was sacrificed for us and on our behalf? The
suggestion that he offered himself for himself as well as for us is impossible to separate
from the charge of impiety. For he never committed a fault at all, nor did he sin in any
way. What sort of offering would he need then since there was no sin for which offering
might rightly be made?
50 When he says of the Spirit, "he will
glorify me", the correct understanding of this is not to say that the one Christ and
Son was in need of glory from another and that he took glory from the holy Spirit, for his
Spirit is not better than he nor above him. But because he used his own Spirit to display
his godhead through his mighty works, he says that he has been glorified by him, just as
if any one of us should perhaps say for example of his inherent strength or his knowledge
of anything that they glorify him. For even though the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis
and is thought of on his own, as being Spirit and not as Son, even so he is not alien to
the Son. He has been called "the Spirit of truth", and Christ is the truth, and
the Spirit was poured forth by the Son, as indeed the Son was poured forth from the God
and Father. Accordingly the Spirit worked many strange things through the hand of the holy
apostles and so glorified him after the ascension of our lord Jesus Christ into heaven.
For it was believed that he is God by nature and works through his own Spirit. For this
reason also he said: "He (the Spirit) will take what is mine and declare it to
you". But we do not say that the Spirit is wise and powerful through some sharing
with another, for he is all perfect and in need of no good thing. Since he is the Spirit
of the power and wisdom of the Father, that is the Son, he is himself, evidently, wisdom
and power.
51 Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in
the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her
mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence
from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word
was with God", and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of
all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human
and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb. This was not as though he
needed necessarily or for his own nature a birth in time and in the last times of this
age, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, in order that seeing
that it was a woman that had given birth to him united to the flesh, the curse against the
whole race should thereafter cease which was consigning all our earthy bodies to death,
and in order that the removal through him of the curse, "In sorrow thou shalt bring
forth children", should demonstrate the truth of the words of the prophet:
"Strong death swallowed them Up", and again, "God has wiped every tear away
from all face". It is for this cause that we say that in his economy he blessed
marriage and, when invited, went down to Cana in Galilee with his holy apostles.
52 We have been taught to hold these things by
the holy apostles and evangelists and by all the divinely inspired scriptures
and by the true confession of the blessed fathers.
To all these your reverence ought to agree
and subscribe without any deceit. What is required for your reverence to anathematise we
subjoin to this epistle.
Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril
and Accepted by the Council of Ephesus
53. If anyone does not
confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of
God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
54. If anyone does not
confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and
is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be
anathema.
55. If anyone divides in the
one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity
or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him
be anathema.
56. If anyone distributes
between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the
apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about
himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from
God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be
anathema.
57. If anyone dares to say
that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son,
even as "the Word became flesh", and is made partaker of blood and flesh
precisely like us, let him be anathema.
58. If anyone says that the
Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the
same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, according to the scriptures, let him
be anathema.
59. If anyone says that as
man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the
Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema.
60. If anyone dares to say
that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine
Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of
"with" must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship
Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as "the Word
became flesh", let him be anathema.
61. If anyone says that the
one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that
worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and
to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper
Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.
62. The divine scripture
says Christ became "the high priest and apostle of our confession"; he offered
himself to God the Father in an odour of sweetness for our sake. If anyone, therefore,
says that it was not the very Word from God who became our high priest and apostle, when
he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another who was separate from him, in
particular a man from a woman, or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice also for
himself and not rather for us alone (for he who knew no sin needed no offering), let him
be anathema.
63. If anyone does not
confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word from God the
Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides him, united with him in dignity
or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said, since
it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life, let
him be anathema.
64. If anyone does not
confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and
tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is
life and life-giving, let him be anathema.
The Judgment Aagainst Nestorius
65 The holy synod said: As, in addition to all
else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the
holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon an
investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking in an impious
fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read out, and from the things
that he has recently said in this metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and
as a result we have been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the
letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of the
Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do so with many tears.
66 Our lord Jesus Christ, who has been
blasphemed by him, has determined through this most holy synod that the same Nestorius
should be stripped of his episcopal dignity and removed from the college of priests.
Synodical
Letter About the Expulsion of the Eastern Bishops
67 The holy and ecumenical synod, gathered
together in Ephesus at the behest of the most pious princes, [sends greeting] to the
bishops, priests, deacons and the whole people in every province and city.
68 When we had gathered together in accordance
with the pious decree in the metropolis of Ephesus, some separated themselves from us, a
little more than thirty in number. The leader of this apostasy was John, bishop of
Antioch, and their names are as follows: First the same John, bishop of Antioch in Syria,
[the names of 33 other eastern bishops follow]
69 These men, despite the fact that they were
members of the ecclesiastical community, had no licence either to do harm through their
priestly dignity or to do good, because some among their number had already been deposed.
Their support of the views of Nestorius and Celestius was clearly shown by their refusal
to condemn Nestorius together with us. By a common decree the sacred synod has expelled
them from ecclesiastical communion and deprived them of the exercise of their priestly
office, through which they have been able to harm some and help others.
70 Since it is necessary that those who were
absent from the synod and remained in the country or the city, on account of their own
church affairs or because of their health, should not be ignorant of the decisions
formulated concerning these matters, we make it known to your holinesses that if any
metropolitan of a province dissents from the holy and ecumenical synod and attaches
himself to the assembly of the revolters, or should do so later, or should he have adopted
the opinions of Celestius, or do so in the future, such a one is deprived of all power to
take steps against the bishops of his province. He is thereby cast out by the synod from
all ecclesiastical communion and is deprived of all ecclesiastical authority. Instead he
is to be subjected to the bishops of his own province and the surrounding metropolitans,
provided they be orthodox, even to the extent of being completely deposed from the rank of
bishop.
71 If any provincial bishops have absented
themselves from the holy synod and have either attached themselves or attempted to attach
themselves to the apostasy, or after subscribing the deposition of Nestorius have returned
to the assembly of apostates, these, according to the decision of the holy synod, are to
be deprived of the priesthood and deposed from their rank.
72 If any clerics either in city or country
have been suspended by Nestorius and those with him from their priesthood because of their
orthodoxy, we have thought it right that these should regain their proper rank; and in
general we decree that those clerics who are in agreement with the orthodox and ecumenical
synod should in no way be subject to those bishops who have revolted or may revolt from
it. If any clerics should apostatise and in private or in public dare to hold the views of
Nestorius or Celestius, it is thought right that such should stand deposed by the holy
synod.
73 Whoever have been condemned of improper
practices by the holy synod or by their own bishops, and have been uncanonically restored
to communion and rank by Nestorius or his sympathisers, with their habitual lack of
discrimination, such persons we have decreed gain nothing by this and are to remain
deposed as before.
74 Similarly if anyone should wish in any way
to upset the decisions in each point taken in the holy synod of Ephesus, the holy synod
decides that if they are bishops or clerics they should be completely deprived of their
own rank and if they are laity they should be excommunicated.
Definition
of the Faith at Nicaea
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We
believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]
75 seems fitting that all should assent to
this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some
pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its
expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and
children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and
orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their
courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand,
interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the
holy synod decreed the following.
76. It is not permitted to produce or write
or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were
gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. 2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth
or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or
Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics
they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be
anathematised. 3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or
laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius
about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views
of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this
holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and
deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised,
as was said before.
Definition Against
the Impious Messalians or Euchites
77 The most pious and religious bishops
Valerian and Amphilochius came together to us and made a joint enquiry about the so called
Messalians or Euchites or Enthusiasts, or whatever name this appalling heresy goes under,
who dwell in the region of Pamphylia. We made investigation and the god-fearing and
reverent Valerian produced a synodical document concerning these people, which had been
drawn up in great Constantinople in the time of Sisinnius of blessed memory. When this had
been read out in the presence of all, it was agreed that it had been well made and was
correct. We all agreed, as did the most religious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius and
all the pious bishops of the provinces of Pamphylia and Lycaonia, that what had been
inscribed in the synodical document should be confirmed and in no way disobeyed, clearly
without prejudice to the acts of Alexandria. Consequently those anywhere in that province
who subscribed to the heresy of the Messalians or Enthusiasts, or who were suspected of
the disease, whether clerical or lay, are to come together; if they sign the anathemas
according to what was promulgated in the aforementioned synod, should they be clergy they
should remain such and if laity they are to remain in communion. But if they decline and
do not anathematise, if they are presbyters or deacons or hold any other rank in the
church, they are to forfeit their clerical status and grade and communion, and if they are
laity let them be anathematised.
78 In addition, those who have been condemned
are not to be permitted to govern monasteries, lest tares be sown and increase. The
vigorous and zealous execution of all these decrees is enjoined upon the reverent bishops
Valerian and Amphilochius and the other reverent bishops throughout the whole province.
Furthermore it seemed good that the filthy book of this heresy, which has been published
and is called by them Asceticon, should be anathematised, as being composed by heretics, a
copy of which the most pious and religious Valerian brought with him. Any other production
savouring of the like impiety which is found anywhere is to be treated similarly.
79 In addition, when they come together, they
should commit clearly to writing whatever conduces to the creation of concord, communion
and order. But if any discussion should arise in connexion with the present business among
the most godly bishops Valerian, Amphilochius and the other reverent bishops in the
province, and if something difficult or ambiguous crops up, then in such a case it seems
good that the godly bishops of Lycia and Lycaonia should be brought in, and the
metropolitan of whatever province these choose should not be left out. In this way the
disputed questions should through their means be brought to an appropriate solution.
Resolution : That the Bishops of Cyprus May Themselves Conduct Ordinations.
The holy synod declared:
80 The most reverent bishop Rheginus and with
him Zenon and Evagrius, revered bishops of the province of Cyprus, have brought forward
what is both an innovation against the ecclesiastical customs and the canons of the holy
fathers and concerns the freedom of all. Therefore, since common diseases need more
healing as they bring greater harm with them, if it has not been a continuous ancient
custom for the bishop of Antioch to hold ordinations in Cyprus--as it is asserted in
memorials and orally by the religious men who have come before the synod -- the prelates
of the holy churches of Cyprus shall, free from molestation and violence, use their right
to perform by themselves the ordination of reverent bishops for their island, according to
the canons of the holy fathers and the ancient custom.
81 The same principle will be observed for
other dioceses and provinces everywhere. None of the reverent bishops is to take
possession of another province which has not been under his authority from the first or
under that of his predecessors. Any one who has thus seized upon and subjected a province
is to restore it, lest the canons of the fathers be transgressed and the arrogance of
secular power effect an entry through the cover of priestly office. We must avoid bit by
bit destroying the freedom which our lord Jesus Christ the liberator of all people, gave
us through his own blood. It is therefore the pleasure of the holy and ecumenical synod to
secure intact and inviolate the rights belonging to each province from the first,
according to the custom which has been in force from of old. Each metropolitan has the
right to take a copy of the proceedings for his own security. If any one produces a
version which is at variance with what is here decided, the holy and ecumenical synod
unanimously decrees it to be of no avail.
Formula of
Union Between Cyrill and John of Antioch
82 We will state briefly what we are convinced
of and profess about the God-bearing virgin and the manner of the incarnation
of the only begotten Son of God --
83he holy
scriptures and from the tradition of the holy fathers, adding nothing at all
to the creed put forward by the holy fathers at Nicaea.
84 For, as we have just said, that creed is
sufficient both for the knowledge of godliness and for the repudiation of all heretical
false teaching. We shall speak not presuming to approach the unapproachable; but we
confess our own weakness and so shut out those who would reproach us for investigating
things beyond the human mind.
85 We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body,
begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us
and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the
same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for
a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.
According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be
the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very
conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and
apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of
one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones
in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity.
Letter of
Cyril to John of Antioch About Peace
86 Having read these holy phrases and finding
ourselves in agreement (for "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism"), we
have given glory to God who is the saviour of all and rejoice together that our churches
and yours are at one in professing the same faith as the inspired scriptures and the
tradition of our holy fathers. But since I discovered that there are some always eager to
find fault, who buzz around like angry wasps and spit forth evil words against me, to the
effect that I say that the holy body of Christ came down from heaven and not from the holy
virgin, I thought it necessary in answer to them to say a little about this matter to you.
87 O fools, whose only competence is in
slander! How did you become so perverted in thought and fall into such a sickness of
idiocy? For you must surely know that almost all our fight for the faith arose in
connexion with our insistence that the holy virgin is the mother of God. But if we claim
that the holy body of our common saviour Christ is born from heaven and was not of her,
why should she still be considered God-bearer? For whom indeed did she bear, if it is
untrue that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh? It is rather they who speak such
nonsense against me who deserve to be ridiculed. For the holy prophet Isaiah does not lie
when he says, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call his
name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us". Again the holy Gabriel speaks total
truth when he says to the blessed virgin: "Do not fear, Mary. You have found favour
with God, and behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you will call his
name Jesus . For he will save his people from their sins".
88 But when we say that our lord Jesus Christ
came from heaven and above, we do not apply such expressions as "from above" and
"from heaven" to his holy flesh. Rather do we follow the divine Paul who clearly
proclaimed: "The first man was of the earth, earthly, the second man is the Lord from
heaven".
89 We also recall our Saviour who said:
"No one has gone up into heaven except him who came down from heaven, the son of
man". Yet he was born, as I have just said, from the holy virgin according to the
flesh.
99 But since God the Word, who came down from
above and from heaven, "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave", and was
called son of man though all the while he remained what he was, that is God (for he is
unchangeable and immutable by nature), he is said to have come down from heaven, since he
is now understood to be one with his own flesh, and he has therefore been designated the
man from heaven, being both perfect in godhead and perfect in humanity and thought of as
in one person. For there is one lord Jesus Christ, even though we do not ignore the
difference of natures, out of which we say that the ineffable union was effected. As for
those who say that there was a mixture or confusion or blending of God the Word with the
flesh, let your holiness see fit to stop their mouths. For it is quite likely that some
should spread it abroad that I have thought or said such things. But I am so far from
thinking anything of the kind that I think that those are quite mad who suppose that
"a shadow of change" is conceivable in connexion with the divine nature of the
Word. For he remains what he is always and never changes, nor could he ever change or be
susceptible of it. Furthermore we all confess that the Word of God is impassible though in
his all-wise economy of the mystery he is seen to attribute to himself the sufferings
undergone by his own flesh. So the all-wise Peter speaks of "Christ suffering for us
in the flesh" and not in the nature of his unspeakable godhead. For in order that he
might be believed to be the saviour of all, in accordance with our economic appropriation,
as I said, he refers to himself the sufferings of his own flesh, in much the same way as
is suggested through the voice of the prophet coming as it were from him in advance:
"I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to blows; I hid not my face from shame
and spitting" .
100 Let your holiness be persuaded and let no
one else cherish any doubt, that we everywhere follow the opinions of the holy fathers
especially those of our blessed and glorious father Athanasius, with whose opinions we
differ not in the slightest. I would have added many of their testimonies, proving my
opinions from theirs, had I not feared that the length of the letter would be made tedious
thereby. We do not permit anyone in any way to upset the defined faith or the creed drawn
up by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea as the times demanded. We give neither
ourselves nor them the licence to alter any expression there or to change a single
syllable, remembering the words: "Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers
have set".
101 For it was not they that spoke, but the
Spirit of God the Father, who proceeds from him and who is not distinct from the Son in
essence. We are further confirmed in our view by the words of our holy spiritual teachers.
For in the Acts of the Apostles it is written: "When they came to Mysia, they tried
to go to Bithynia and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them". And the divine Paul
writes as follows: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in
the flesh, you are in the spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. And anyone
who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him". When, therefore, any
of those who love to upset sound doctrine pervert my words to their way of thinking, your
holiness should not be surprised at this, but should remember that the followers of every
heresy extract from inspired scripture the occasion of their error, and that all heretics
corrupt the true expressions of the holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw
down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.
102 Since therefore we have learnt that even the
letter of our glorious father Athanasius to the blessed Epictetus, which is completely
orthodox, has been corrupted and circulated by some, with the result that many have been
injured therefore, thinking it both useful and necessary for the brethren, we have
despatched to your holiness accurate copies of the original, unadulterated writings which
we have.
. |
