Introduction
Nestorius, who had
been condemned in a council at Rome on 11 August 430, asked the emperor
Theodosius II to summon this council. The emperor therefore decided to summon
it together with his co-emperor Valentinian III and with the agreement of Pope
Celestine I. Theodosius's letter of 19 November 430 requested all those who
had been summoned to be present at Ephesus on 7 June 431, the feast of
Pentecost.
On 22 June, however,
*before the arrival either of the Roman legates or the eastern bishops
led by John of Antioch,
*Cyril of Alexandria began the council.
*Nestorius was summoned three times but did not come.
*His teaching was examined and judgment passed upon it, which 197 bishops
subscribed at once and others later accepted.
Shortly afterwards John of Antioch and the easterners arrived: they
refused communion with Cyril and set up another council. The Roman
legates (the bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip), on
arriving, joined Cyril and confirmed the sentence against
Nestorius. Then the council in its fifth session on 17 July excommunicated John
and his party.
The documents of the Cyrilline council, the only one which is
ecumenical, are included below and are as follows.
- The central dogmatic
act of the council is its judgment about whether the second letter of
Cyril to Nestorius, or Nestorius's second letter to Cyril, was in
conformity with the Nicene creed which was recited at the opening of the
council's proceedings.
- Cyril's
letter was declared by the fathers to be in
agreement with Nicaea,
- Nestorius's was condemned
Both are here printed. Mention is made of
Cyril's letter in the definition of Chalcedon.
- The 12
anathemas and the preceding
explanatory letter, which had been produced by Cyriland
the synod of Alexandria in 430 and sent to Nestorius, were
read at Ephesus and included in the proceedings.
- The decision about Nestorius.
- The letter of
the council advising all the bishops, clergy and people about the
condemnation of John of Antioch; and some paragraphs dealing with the
discipline of the Nestorian party.
- A decree on
the faith, approved in the sixth session on 22 July, which confirmed the
Nicene creed, ordered adherence to that alone and forbade the production
of new creeds.
- A definition
against the Messalians.
- A decree about
the autonomy of the church of Cyprus.
Both councils sent legates to the emperor Theodosius, who approved
neither and sent the bishops away. Nestorius had already been given permission
to revisit his monastery at Antioch, and on 25 October 431 Maximianus was
ordained patriarch at Constantinople. The decrees of the council were
approved by Pope Sixtus III shortly after his own ordination on 31
July 432.
The reconciliation between the Cyrilline party and the eastern bishops
was not easy. In the end, on 23 April 433, Cyril and John of Antioch made
peace. John's profession of faith was accepted by Cyril and became the doctrinal formula
of union. It
is included here, together with Cyril's letter in which he at some length praises
John's profession and accepts it, adding to it some explanation about his own
expressions; this letter is mentioned in the
definition of Chalcedon. Shortly afterwards, probably in 436, Nestorius was definitely sent
into exile by the emperor .
The English translation is from the Greek text, which is the more
authoritative version.
Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius
[Declared by the council of Ephesus to be in agreement with Nicaea]
Cyril sends greeting in the Lord to the most religious and reverend
fellow-minister Nestorius
I 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.
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.
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.
* 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.
* 2. 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.
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.
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
[condemned by the council of Ephesus]
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 ?
"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."
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.
"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.
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."
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".
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.
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.
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".
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Declaration of Mary as Theotokos
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 thathe 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.
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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 against Nestorius
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.
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 (et al.)
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.
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]
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.
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 anymetropolitan 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [6th
session 22 July 431]
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]
It 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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 --
- not by way of addition
but in the manner of a full statement, even as we have received and possess
it from of old from
- the 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.
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.
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
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
thetradition 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.
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".
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".
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.
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" .
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".
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.
Since therefore we have learnt that even the letter of our glorious
father Athanasius to the blessedEpictetus, 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.
Excerpt from the Council of Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon
"has accepted the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the
church in Alexandria, to Nestorius and to the Orientals, as being well-suited to
refuting Nestorius's mad folly and to providing an interpretation for those who
in their religious zeal might desire understanding of the saving creed.".
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário