[Note: pagination of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition preserved]
This file contains the translation of the acts, various documents, canons, and commentaries on the canons as presented in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol XIV edition by H.R. Percival. It is lightly HTMLized. If you want to volunteer to do a more complex HTML version, please contact the Medieval Sourcebook editor.
192
A.D. 431
Emperors.--THEODOSIUS II. AND VALENTINIAN III.
Pope.--CELESTINE I.
Elenchus.
Historical Introduction.
Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod.
Extracts from the Acts, Session I.
St. Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, Intelligo quos dam.
Continuation of Session I.
Historical Introduction to Cyril's Anathematisms.
The Canonical Epistle of St. Cyril, Gum Salvator noster.
The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril, and Nestorius's Counter-anathematisms, with Notes.
Excursus to Anath. I., On the word
Excursus to Anath. IX,, On how our Lord worked Miracles, with Theodoret's Counter-statement.
Extracts from the Acts, Session I. continued.
Decree against Nestorius, with Notes.
Extracts from the Acts, Session II.
St. Celestine's Letter to the Synod.
Continuation of Session II.
Session III.
The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome, and Notes.
Excursus to Canon j., On the Conciliabulum of John of Antioch.
Excursus to Canon iv., On Pelagianism.
Excursus to Canon vii., On the words
A Letter from the Synod to the Synod in Pamphylia.
The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine.
The Definition against the Messalians, with Notes.
The Decree re Euprepius and Cyril.
(Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall., Lib. vij., Cap. ix. et seqq. Abridged.Translation by Allies.)
The innovation of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, isknown; how he divided into two the person of Christ. Pope St.Celestine, watchful, according to his office, over the affairsof the Church, had charged the blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria,to send him a certain report of the doctrine of Nestorius, alreadyin bad repute. Cyril declares this in his letter to Nestorius;and so he writes to Celestine a complete account, and sets forththe doctrines of Nestorius and his own; he sends him two lettersfrom him self to Nestorius, who likewise, by his own letters andexplanations, endeavoured to draw Celestine to his side. Thusthe holy Pontiff, having been most fully informed by letters fromboth sides, is thus inquired of by Cyril. "We have not confidentlyabstained from Communion with him (Nestorius) before informingyou of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, thatwe may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him whocherishes such erroneous doctrine." And he adds, that hisjudgment should be written to the other Bishops also, "thatall with one mind may hold firm in one sentence." Here isthe Apostolic See manifestly consulted by so great a man, presidingover the second, or at least the third, Patriarchal See, and itsjudgment awaited; and nothing remained but that Celestine, beingduly consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. But how hedid this, the Acts have shewn. In those Acts he not only approvesthe letters and doctrine of Cyril, but disapproves, too, the perversedogma of Nestorius, and that distinctly, because he was unwillingto call the blessed Virgin Mother of God: and he decrees thathe should be deprived of the Episcopate and Communion unless,within ten days from the date of the announcing of the sentence,he openly rejects this faithless innovation, which endeavoursto separate what Scripture joineth together--that is, the Personof Christ. Here is the doctrine of Nestorius expressly disapproved,and a sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a matter of Faith mostclearly pronounced under threat of deposition and excommunication:then, that nothing be wanting, the holy Pope commits his authorityto Cyril to carry into execution that sentence "associating,"he saith to Cyril, "the authority of our See, and using ourperson, and place, with power." So to Cyril; so to Nestoriushimself; so to the clergy of Constantinople; so to John of Antioch,then the Bishop of the third or fourth Patriarchal See; so toJuvenal, Bishop of the Holy City, whom the Council of Nice hadordered to be especially honoured: so he writes to the other Bishopsalso, that the sentence given may be duly and in order made knownto all. Cyril proceeds to execute his office, and performs allthat he had been commanded. He promulgates and executes the decreesof Celestine; declares to Nestorius. that after the ten days prescribedand set forth by Celestine, he would have no portion, intercourse,or place with the priesthood. Nothing evidently is wanting tothe Apostolical authority being most fully exercised.
But Nestorius, bishop of the royal city, possessed such influence,had deceived men's minds with such an appearance of piety, hadgained so many bishops and enjoyed such favour with the youngerTheodosius and the great men, that he could easily throw everythinginto commotion; and thus there was need of an Ecumenical Council,the question being most important, and the person of the highestdignity; because many bishops, amongst these almost all of theEast--that is, of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the PatriarchJohn himself--were ill disposed to Cyril, and seemed to favourNestorius: because men's feelings were divided, and the wholeempire of the East seemed to fluctuate between Cyril and Nestorius.Such was the need of an Ecumenical Council.
The Emperor, moved by these and other reasons, wrote to Cyril,--"Itis our will that the
193
holy doctrine be discussed and examined in a sacred Synod, andthat be ratified which appeareth agreeable to the fight faith,whether the wrong party be pardoned by the Fathers or no."
Here we see three things: First, after the judgment of St.Celestine, another is still required, that of the Council; secondly,that these two things would rest with the Fathers, to judge ofdoctrine and of persons; thirdly, that the judgment of the Councilwould be decisive and final. He adds, "those who everywherepreside over the Priesthood, and through whom we ourselves areand shall be professing the truth, must be judges of this matter."See on whose; faith we rest. See in whose judgment is the finaland irreversible authority.
Both the Emperor affirmed, and the bishops confessed, thatthis was done according to the Ecclesiastical Canons. And so all,and Celestine himself, prepared themselves for the Council. Cyrildoes no more, though named by Celestine to execute the pontificaldecree, Nestorius remained in his original rank; the sentenceof the universal Council is awaited; and the Emperor had expresslydecreed, "that before the assembling and common sentenceof the most holy Council, no change should be made in any matterat all, on any private authority." Rightly, and in order;for this was demanded by the majesty of an universal Council.Wherefore, both Cyril obeyed and the bishops rested. And it wasestablished, that although the sentence of the Roman Pontiff onmatters of Faith, and on persons judged for violation of the Faith,had been passed and promulged, all was suspended, while the authorityof the universal Council was awaited.
Having gone over what preceded the Council, we review theacts of the Council itself, and begin with the first course ofproceeding. After, therefore, the bishops and Nestorius himselfwere come to Ephesus, the universal Council began, Cyril beingpresident, and representing Celestine, as being appointed by thePontiff himself to execute his sentence. In the first course ofproceeding this was done. First, the above-mentioned letter ofthe Emperor was read, that an Ecumenical Council should be held,and all proceedings in the mean time be suspended; this letter,I say, was read, and placed on the Acts, and it was up-provedby the Fathers, that all the decrees of Celestine in the matterof Nestorius had been suspended until the holy Council shouldgive its sentence. You will ask if it was the will of the Councilmerely that the Emperor should be allowed to prohibit, in theinterim, effect being given to the sentence of the Apostolic See.Not so, according to the Acts; but rather, by the interventionof a General Council's authority (the convocation of which, accordingto the discipline of those times, was left to the Emperor), theCouncil itself understood that all proceedings were of coursesuspended, and depended on the sentence of the Council. Wherefore,though the decree of the Pontiff had been promulged and notified,and the ten days had long been past, Nestorius was held by theCouncil itself to be a bishop, and called by the name of mostreligious bishop, and by that name, too, thrice cited and summonedto take his seat with the other bishops in the holy Council; forthis expression, "to take his seat," is distinctly written;and it is added, "in order to answer to what was chargedagainst him." For it was their full purpose that he shouldrecognise in whatever way, the Ecumenical Council, as he wouldthen afterwards be, beyond doubt, answerable to it; but he refusedto come, and chose to have his doors besieged with an armed force,that no one might approach him.
Thereupon, as the Emperor commanded, and the Canons required,the rule of Faith was set forth, and the Nicene Creed read, asthe standard to which all should be referred, and then the lettersof Cyril and Nestorius were examined in order. The letter of Cyrilwas first brought before the judgment of the Council. That letter,I mean, concerning the Faith, to Nestorius, so expressly approvedby Pope Celestine, of which he had declared to Cyril, "We
194
see that you hold and maintain all that we hold and maintain";which, by the decree against Nestorius, published to all Churches,he had approved, and wishes to be considered as a canonical monitionagainst Nestorius: that letter, I repeat, was examine, at theproposition of Cyril himself, in these words: "I am persuadedthat I have in nothing departed from the orthodox Faith, or theNicene Creed; wherefore I beseech your Holiness to set forth openlywhether I have written this correctly, blamelessly, and in accordancewith that holy Council."
And are there those who say that questions concerning theFaith, once judged by the Roman Pontiff on his Apostolical authority,are examined in general Councils, in order to understand theircontents, but, not to decide on their substance, as being stilla matter of question? Let them hear Cyril, the President of theCouncil; let them attend to what he proposes for the inquiry ofthe Council; and though he were conscious of no error in himselfyet, not to trust himself, he asked for the sentence of the Councilin these words-"whether I have written correctly and blamelessly,or not." This Cyril, the chief of the Council, proposes fortheir consideration. Who ever even heard it whispered that, aftera final and irreversible judgment of the Church on a matter ofFaith, any such inquiry or question was made? It was never done,for that would be to doubt about the Faith itself, when declaredand discussed. But this was done after the judgment of Pope Celestine;neither Cyril, nor anyone else, thought of any other course: that,therefore, was not a final and irreversible judgment.
In answer to this question the Fathers in order give theirjudgment --" that the Nicene Creed, and the letter of Cyril,in all things agree and harmonise." Here is inquiry and examination,and then judgment. The Acts speak for themselves -- we say nothere a word.
Next that letter of Nestorius was produced, which Celestinehad pronounced blasphemous and impious. It is read: then at theinstance of Cyril it is examined, "whether this, too, beagreeable to the Faith set forth by the holy Council of the NiceneFathers, or not." It is precisely the same form accordingto which Cyril's letter was examined. The Fathers, in order, givejudgment that it disagreed from the Nicene Creed, and was, therefore,censurable. The letter of Nestorius is disapproved in the samemanner, by the same rule, by which that of Cyril was approved.Here, twice in the same proceeding of the Council of Ephesus,a judgment of the Roman Pontiff concerning the Catholic Faith,uttered and published, is reconsidered. What he had approved,and what he had disapproved, is equally examined, and, only afterexamination, confirmed.
In the mean time, the bishops Arcadius and Projectus, andthe presbyter Philip, had been chosen by Celestine to be presentat the Council of Ephesus, with a special commission from theApostolic See, and the whole Council of the West. So they comefrom Rome to Ephesus, and appear at the holy Council, and herethe second procedure commences.
After reading the letter of Celestine, the Legates, in pursuance,say to the bishops: "Let your Holiness consider the formof the letters of the holy and venerable Pope Celestine the Bishop,who hath exhorted your Holiness, not as instructing those whoare ignorant, but as reminding those who are aware: in order thatyou may command to be completely and finally settled accordingto the Canon of our common Faith, and the utility of the CatholicChurch, what he has before determined, and has now the goodnessto remind you of." This is the advantage of a Council; afterwhose sentence there is no new discussion, or new judgment, butmerely execution. And this the Legates request to be commandedby the Council, in which they recognise that supreme authority.
It behoved, also, that the Legates, sent to the Council ona special mission, should understand whether the proceedings againstNestorius had been pursued according to the requisition of theCanons, and due respect to the Apostolic See. This we have alreadyoften
195
said. Wherefore, with reason, they require the Acts to be communicated,"that we, too," say they, "may confirm them."The proceedings themselves will declare what that confirmationmeans. After that, at the request of the Legates, the Acts againstNestorius were given them, they thus report about them at thethird procedure: "We have found all things judged canonically,and according to the Church's discipline." Therefore judgmentsof the Apostolic See are canonically and, according to the Church'sdiscipline, reconsidered, after deliberation, in a General Council,and judgment passed upon them. After the Legates had approvedthe Acts against Nestorius communicated to them, they requestthat all which had been read and done at, Ephesus from the beginning,should be read afresh in public Session, "in order,"they say, "that obeying the form of the most holy Pope Celestine,who hath committed this care to us, we may be enabled to confirmthe judgment also of your Holiness." After these all hadbeen read afresh, and the Legates agreed to them, Cyril proposesto the holy Council, "That the Legates, by their signature,as was customary, should make plain and manifest their canonicalagreement with the Council." To this question of Cyril theCouncil thus answers, and decrees that the Legates, by their subscription,confirm the Acts; by which place tiffs confirmation, spoken ofby the Council, is clearly nothing else but to make their assentplain and manifest, as Cyril proposed.
Finally, Celestine himself, after the conclusion of the wholematter, sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which hethus begins: "At length we must rejoice at the conclusionof evils." The learned reader understands where he recognizesthe conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of Nestorius bythe infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz., of thewhole Catholic Church. He proceeds: "We see, that you, withus, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted."All decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment.Whence Celestine adds, "We have been informed of a just deposition,and a still juster exaltation:" the deposition of Nestorius,begun, indeed, by the Roman See, but brought to a conclusion bythe sentence of the Council; to a full and complete settlement,as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, who was substitutedin place of Nestorius immediately after the Ephesine decrees;this is the conclusion of the question. Even Celestine himselfrecognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination andjudgment, but in that of an Ecumenical Council. And this was donein that Council in which it is admitted that the authority ofthe Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by words,but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ,. At least theHoly Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true andmagnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the ApostolicSee, and "Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundationof the Catholic Church, and by Christ's authority administeringthe keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment,in his successors." This, he says, after having seen allthe Acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so thatwe may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter andthe Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council,and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon mattersof Faith held after the Apostolic See.
(Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 43.)
Candidian is to take no immediate part in the discussionson contested points of faith, for it is not becoming that onewho does not belong to the number of the bishops should mix himselfup in the examination and decision of theological controversies.On the contrary, Candidian was to remove from the city the monksand laymen who had come or should afterwards come to Ephesus outof curiosity, so that disorder and confusion should not be causedby those who were in no way needed for the examination of thesacred doctrines. He was, besides, to watch lest the discussionsamong the members of the Synod themselves should degenerate intoviolent disputes and hinder the more exact investigation of truth;and, on the contrary, see that every statement should be heardwith attention, and that every one put forward in view, or hisobjections, without let or hindrance, so that at last an unanimousdecision might be arrived at in peace by the holy Synod. But aboveall, Candidian was to take care that no member of the Synod shouldattempt, before the close of the transactions, to go home, orto the court, or elsewhere. Moreover, he was not to allow thatany other matter of controversy should be taken into considerationbefore the settlement of the principal point of doctrine beforethe Council.
SESSION I. [Before the arrival of the Papal Legates.] (Labbe andCossart, Concilia Tom. III., col. 459 et seqq.)
The Nicene Synod set forth this faith: We believe in one God,etc.
When this creed had been recited, Peter the Presbyter of Alexandria,and primicerius of the notaries said:
We have in our hands the letter of the most holy and mostreverend archbishop Cyril, which he wrote to the most reverendNestorius, filled with counsel and advice, on account of his aberrationfrom the right faith. I will read this if your holiness [i.e.,the holy Synod] so orders. The letter began as follows:
Intelligo quosdam meae, etc.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 315; Migne,Patr. Groec., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril., Opera, Tom. X.]; Epist. iv.,co]. 43.)
To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow ministerNestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in whichI hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especiallyat the times that meetings are held of those in authority. Andperchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable toyou, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injusticeat my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit;this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as onewho wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole,in collusion with his waiting maid, another's money, and had alwayslaboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one wouldwish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with.' I takelittle reckoning of the words of such people, for the discipleis not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of mynarrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of lifeone pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of thewicked, whose months are full of cursing and bitterness, and whoat the last must give an account to the Judge of all.
But I return to the point which especially I had in mind.And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the wordof teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy tothe people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to oneeven of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a bodyto the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligenceand skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved isso great, so that we may administer the healing word of truthto them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellentlyif we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealousto obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in thefaith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughtsto their upright and it-reprehensible teaching.
The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begottenSon, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of veryGod, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, camedown, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and roseagain the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words andthese decrees we ought to follow, considering what is me. antby the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do notsay that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh,or that it was
198
converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but ratherthat the Word having personally united to himself flesh animatedby a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable mannerbecome man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willingor being pleased to be so called, neither on account of takingto himself a person, but because the two natures being broughttogether in a true union, there is of both one Christ and oneSon; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by theunion, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect forus the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressibleunion. So then he who had an existence before all ages and wasborn of the Father, is said to have been born according to theflesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received itsbeginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not anysecond generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurdand foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternalwith the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), butsince, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himselfan human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way saidto be born after the flesh; for the was not first born a commonman of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and enteredinto him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is saidto endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birthof his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered androse again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own naturestripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, forthe Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it isincorporeal, but since that which had become his own body sufferedin this way, lie is also said to suffer for us; for he who isin himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body. Inthe same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for theWord of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and lifeand life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says,by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is saidto have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experienceof death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say orthink this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasteddeath. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spokenof as his resurrection, not as if tie had fallen into corruption(God forbid), but because his own body was raised again. We, therefore,confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping. a man with theWord (lest this expression "with the Word" should suggestto the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as oneand the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which hesits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself,not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the unionwith the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossibleor unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons,for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he whowas properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, andthat he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both thename and the reality of Sonship. We must not, therefore, dividethe one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at allavail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, an union of persons;for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himselfthe person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression,however, "the Word was made flesh," can mean nothingelse but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he madeour body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not castingoff his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father,but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. Thisthe declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. Thiswas the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they venturedto call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the natureof the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin,but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul,to which the Word being personally united is said to be born accordingto the flesh. These things, therefore, I now write unto you forthe love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifyingto you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would boththink and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churchesmay be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbrokenamongst the Priests of God.
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.
SESSION I. (CONTINUED).
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 462.)
And after the letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria,said: This holy and great Synod has heard what I wrote to themost religious Nestorius, defending the right faith. I think thatI have in no respect departed from the true statement of the faith,that is from the creed set forth by the holy and great synod formerlyassembled at Nice. Wherefore I desire your holiness [i.e. theCouncil] to say whether rightly and blamelessly and in accordancewith that holy synod I have written these things or no.
[A number of bishops then gave their opinion, all favourableto Cyril; after these individual opinions the Acts continue (col.491):]
And all the rest of the bishops in the order of their rankdeposed to the same things, and so believed, according as theFathers had set forth, and as the Epistle of the most holy ArchbishopCyril to Nestorius the bishop declared.
Palladius, the bishop of Amused, said, The next thing to bedone is to read the letter of the most reverend Nestorius, ofwhich the most religious presbyter Peter made mention; so thatwe may understand whether or no it agrees with the expositionof the Nicene fathers. ...
And after this letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria,said, What seems good to this holy and great synod with regardto the letter just read? Does it also seem to be consonant tothe faith set forth by the holy Synod assembled in the city ofNice?
[The bishops, then as before, individually express their opinion,and at last the Acts continue (col. 502):]
All the bishops cried out together: Whoever does not anathematizeNestorius let him be anathema. Such an one the right faith anathematizes;such an one the holy Synod anathematizes. Whoever communicateswith Nestorius let him be anathema! We anathematize all the apostlesof Nestorius: we all anathematize Nestorius as a heretic: letall such as communicate with Nestorius be anathema, etc., etc.
Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem said: Let the letter of themost holy and reverend Coelestine, archbishop of the Church ofRome, be read, which he wrote concerning the faith.
[The letter of Coelestine was read and no opinion expressed.]
Peter the presbyter of Alexandria, and primicerius of thenotaries said: Altogether in agreement with the things just readare those which his holiness Cyril our most pious bishop wrote,which I now have at hand, and will read if your piety so shallorder.
[The letter was read which begins thus:]
T
Cum Salvator noster, etc.
There has been some difference of opinion among the learnedas to whether St. Cyril's Synodal letter which has at its endthe anathemas against Nestorius, which hereafter follow, was formallyapproved at the Council of Ephesus. The matter is one only ofarcheological and historical interest for from a theological pointof view the question is entirely uninteresting, since there isno possible doubt that the synod endorsed St. Cyril's teachingand for that express reason proceeded at their first session toexcommunicate Nestorius. Further there is no one that disputesthat the anathematisms were received at the next General Council.i.e., of Chalcedon, only twenty years later, and that Theodoretwas condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council because he wroteagainst these very Anathemas. This being
200
the case, to those who value the decrees of Ecumenical Councilsbecause of their ecumenical character, it is quite immaterialwhether these anathematisms were received and approved by thethird Council or no, provided, which is indisputably the case,they have been approved by some one council of ecumenical authority,so as to become thereby part and parcel of the ecumenical faithof the Church.
But the historical question is one of some interest, and Ishall very briefly consider it. We have indeed the "Acta"of this council, but I cannot but agree with the very learnedJesuit Petavius and the Gallican Tillemont in thinking them ina very unsatisfactory condition. I am fully aware of the temerityof making such a suggestion, but I cannot help feeling that inthe remarks of the Roman representatives, especially in thoseof the presbyter-legate, there is some anachronism. Be this asit may, it is a fact that the Acts do not recite that this letterof Cyril's was read, nor do they state that the Anathemas werereceived. I would suggest, however, that for those who defendJohn of Antioch, and criticise the action of St. Cyril, it isthe height of inconsistency to deny that the Council adopted theAnathemas. If it was the bitterly partisan assembly that theywould have us believe, absolutely under the control of Cyril,there is nothing that,
Bishop Hefele was at first of opinion that the letter wasmerely read, being led to this conclusion by the silence of theActs with regard to any acceptance of it, and indeed at firstwrote on that side, but he afterwards saw grounds to change hismind and expresses them with his usual clearness, in the followingwords:
(Hefele, Hist. of Councils. Vol. III., p. 48, note 2.)
We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms wereread at Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardlyanything on the subject in the Acts. But in the Fifth EcumenicalCouncil (collatio vj.) it is said: "The holy Council at Chalcedonapproved this teaching of Cyril of blessed memory, and receivedhis Synodical letters, to one of which are appended the xij. anathemas"(Mansi, t. ix., p. 341; Hardouin, t. iij., p. 167). If, however,the anathematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon,there was even more reason for doing so at Ephesus. And Ibas,in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that the Synodof Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the samewas asserted even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letterto the Emperor.
From all these considerations it would seem that Tillemont's(1)conclusion is well rounded that the Synod certainly discussedthe anathemas of Cyril in detail, but that here, as in many otherplaces, there are parts of the Acts lacking. I shall add the opinionof Petavius.
(Petavius, De Incarnatione, Lib. VI., cap. xvij.)
The Acts do not tell us what judgment the Synod of Ephesusgave with respect to the third letter of Cyril, and with regardto the anathemas attached to it. But the Acts in other respectsalso have not come down to us in their integrity. That that thirdletter was received and approved by the Ephesine Council therecan be no doubt, and this the Catholics shewed in their disputewith the Acephali in the Collation held at Constantinople underthe Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 811. For at that memorablemeeting some-tiring was shewn forth concerning this letter andits anathemas, which has a connexion with the matter in hand,and therefore must not be omitted. At that meeting the Opposers,that is the Acephali, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon,made this objection against that
201
Council: "The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is insertedin the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to besynodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it?" etc., etc.
From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, thenas now, was that the Twelve Anathemas were defined as part ofthe faith by the Council of Ephesus. Perhaps I may close thistreatment of the subject in the words of Denziger, being the captionhe gives the xij. Anathematisms in his Enchiridion, under "Decreesof the Third Ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus." "TheThird Synod received these anathematisms; the Fourth Synod placedthem in its Acts and styled the Epistles of Cyril 'Canonical';the Fifth Synod defended them."
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 395; Migne,Parr. Groec., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.], col. 105 etseqq.)
To the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius,Cyril and the synod assembled in Alexandria, of the Egyptian Province,Greeting in the Lord.
When our Saviour says clearly: "He that loveth fatheror mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that lovethson or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," what isto become of us, from whom your Holiness requires that we loveyou more than Christ the Saviour of us all? Who can help us inthe day of judgment, or what kind of excuse shall we find forthus keeping silence so long, with regard to the blasphemies madeby you against him? If you injured yourself alone, by teachingand holding such things, perhaps it would be less matter; butyou have greatly scandalized the whole Church, and have cast amongthe people the leaven of a strange and new heresy. And not tothose there [i.e. at Constantinople] on]y; but also to those everywhere[the books of your explanation were sent]. How can we any longer,under these circumstances, make a defence for our silence, orhow shall we not be forced to remember that Christ said: "Thinknot that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to sendpeace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance againsthis father, and the daughter against her mother." For iffaith be injured, let there be lost the honour due to parents,as stale and tottering, let even the law of tender love towardschildren and brothers be silenced, let death be better to thepious than living; "that they might obtain a better resurrection,"as it is written.
Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod whichmet in great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverendbrother and fellow-minister, Celestine the Bishop, also testifyby this third letter to you, and counsel you to abstain from thesemischievous and distorted dogmas, which you hold arid teach, andto receive the right faith, handed down to the churches from thebeginning through the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who "wereeye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word." And if your holinesshave not a mind to this according to the limits defined in thewritings of our brother of blessed memory and most reverend fellow-ministerCelestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, be well assured thenthat you have no lot with us, nor place or standing (
But it would not be sufficient for your reverence to confesswith us only tile sym-
202
bol of the faith set out some time ago by the Holy Ghost at thegreat and holy synod convened in Nice: for you have not held andinterpreted it rightly, but rather perversely; even though youconfess with your voice the form of words. But in addition, inwriting and by oath, you must confess that you also anathematizethose polluted and unholy dogmas of yours, and that you will holdand teach that which we all, bishops, teachers, and leaders ofthe people both East and West, hold. The holy synod of Rome andwe all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from theAlexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We have addedto these our own letters and that which it is necessary for youto hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Nowthis is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to whichall Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker ofall things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is,of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, VeryGod of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance withthe Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heavenand those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation,came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, androse again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thencehe shall come to judge both the quick and tile dead. And in theHoly Ghost: But those that say, There was a time when he was not,and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made ofthat which previously was not, or that he was of some other substanceor essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration;those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."
Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fatherswhich they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and followingthe scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royalway, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten ofthe same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Lightfrom Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heavenand the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, makinghimself of no reputation (
Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh accordingto substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do notdivide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as thoughthe two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharingof dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else),neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christand the same name separately to a different one born of a woman;but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father withhis own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us, although itis he himself who gives the Spirit to those who are worthy andnot in measure, according to the saying of the blessed EvangelistJohn.
But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as ina common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought ofas a God-bearing man; for although the Word tabernacled amongus, it is also said that in Christ "dwelt all the fulnessof the Godhead bodily"; but we understand that be becameflesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we definethat that tabernacling in him was according to equality (
203
ing in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does inhis own body.
One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a manhad attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in aunity(1) of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equalityof honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who wereof equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holydisciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one.Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition,for this does not suffice for natural oneness (
We are careful also how we say about Christ: "I worshipthe One clothed on account of the One clothing him, and on accountof the Unseen, I worship the Seen." It is horrible to sayin this connexion as follows: "The assumed as well as theassuming have the name of God."
For the saying of this divides again Christ into two, and putsthe man separately by himself and God also by himself. For thissaying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshippedin the other, nor does God exist together with the other; butJesus Christ is considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to behonoured with one adoration together with his own flesh.
We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father,and Only-begotten God; and although according to his own naturehe was not subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in theflesh according to the Scriptures, and although impassible, yetin his Crucified Body he made his own the sufferings of his ownflesh; and by the grace of God he tasted death for all: he gavehis own Body thereto, although he was by nature himself the lifeand the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down deathby his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might becomethe first born from the dead, and the first-fruits of them thatslept. And that he might make a way for the nature of man to attainincorruption, by the grace of God (as we just now said), he tasteddeath for every man, and after three days rose again, having despoiledhell. So although it is said that the resurrection of the deadwas through man, yet we understand that man to have been the Wordof God, and the power of death was loosed through him, and heshall come in the fulness of time as the One Son and Lord, inthe glory of the Father, in order to judge the world in righteousness,as it is written.
We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death,according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, thatis Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, andhis ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice inthe churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, andare sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the PreciousBlood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common fleshdo we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or ashaving a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and veryflesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to hisnature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he madeit also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily,I say unto
204
you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for howcan the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?) but ashaving become truly the very own of him who for us both becameand was called Son of Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Savioursaid of himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons.For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of asdouble, although of two (
For when as God he speaks about himself: "He who hathseen me hath seen the Father," and "I and my Fatherare one," we consider his ineffable divine nature accordingto which he is One with his Father through the identity of essence--"Theimage and impress and brightness of his glory." But whennot scorning the measure of his humanity, he said to the Jews:"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you thetruth." Again no less than before we recognize that he isthe Word of God from his identity and likeness to the Father andfrom the circumstances of his humanity. For if it is necessaryto believe that being by nature God, he became flesh, that is,a man endowed with a reasonable soul, what reason can certainones have to be ashamed of this language about him, which is suitableto him as man? For if he should reject the words suitable to himas man, who compelled him to become man like us? And as he humbledhimself to a voluntary abasement (
205
unto you." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wiseand powerful through some sharing with another; for he is allperfect and in need of no good thing. Since, therefore, he isthe Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father (that is, ofthe Son), he is evidently Wisdom and Power.
And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God madeone with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also callher Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginningof its existence from the flesh.
For "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word wasGod, and the Word was with God," and he is the Maker of theages, coeternal with the Father, and Creator of all; but, as wehave already said, since he united to himself hypostatically humannature from her womb, also he subjected himself to birth as man,not as needing necessarily in his own nature birth in time andin these last times of the world, but in order that he might blessthe beginning of our existence, and that that which sent the earthlybodies of our whole race to death, might lose its power for thefuture by his being born of a woman in the flesh. And this: "Insorrow thou shalt bring forth children," being removed throughhim, he showed the truth of that spoken by the prophet,"Strong death swallowed them up, and again God hath wiped awayevery tear from off all faces."(1) For this cause also wesay that he attended, having been called, and also blessed, themarriage in Cana of Galilee, with his holy Apostles in accordancewith the economy. We have been taught to hold these things bythe holy Apostles and Evangelists, and all the God-inspired Scriptures,and in the true confessions of the blessed Fathers.
To all these your reverence also should agree, and give heed,without any guile. And what it is necessary your reverence shouldanathematize we have subjoined to our epistle.(2)
(Found in St. Cyril's Opera. Migne, Pat. Graec, Tom. LXXVII.,Col. 119; and the Concilia.)
I.
IF anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God,and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (
NOTES.
THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE HERETIC NESTORIUS AGAINST CYRIL.
(Found best in Migne's edition of Marius Mercator.)
I.
If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not ratherGod with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like naturewith ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt init; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and notrather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains thatGod the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he onlyassumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be foundin form as a man, let him be anathema.
PETAVIUS.(1)
(De Incarnatione, Lib. vj. cap. xvij.)
In this anathematism certain words are found in the Greekcopy of Dionysius which are lacking in the ordinary copies, viz."according as it is written, 'And the Word was made flesh';"unless forsooth Dionysius supplied them of his own authority.For in the Lateran Synod in the time of Martin I. this anathematismwas quoted without the appended words.
This anathematism breaks to pieces the chief strength of theNestorian impiety For it sets forth two facts. The one that theEmmanuel, that is he who was born of a woman and dwelt with us,is God: the other, that Mary who bare such an one is Mother ofGod. That Christ is God is clearly proved from the Nicene Creed,and he shews that the same that was in the beginning the Son ofGod, afterwards took flesh and was born of Mary, without any changeor confusion of natures.
St. Cyril explains that by
Theodoret misunderstood St. Cyril to teach in this first anathematismthat the Word was changed into the flesh he assumed. But Cyrilrightly treated this whole accusation as a foolish calumny.
EXCURSUS ON THE WORD
There have been some who have tried to reduce all the greattheological controversies on the Trinity and on the Incarnationto mere logomachies, and have jeered at those who could wastetheir time and energies over such trivialities. For example, ithas been said that the
207
real difference between Arius and Athanasius was nothing morenor less than an iota, and that even Athanasius himself, in hismore placid, and therefore presumably more rational moods, waswilling to hold communion with those who differed from him andwho still rejected the homousion. But however catching and brilliantsuch remarks may be, they lack all solid foundation in truth.It is perfectly manifest that a person so entirely lacking indiscrimination as not to see the enormous difference between identityand likeness is not one whose opinion on such a point can be ofmuch value. A brilliant historian is not necessarily an accuratehistorian, far less need he be a safe guide in matters of theologicaldefinition.(1)
A similar attempt to reduce to a logomachy the differencebetween the Catholic faith and Nestorianism has been made by somewriters of undoubted learning among Protestants, notably by Fuchsand Schrockh. But as in the case of the homousios so, too, inthe case of the theotocos the word expresses a great, necessary,and fundamental doctrine of the Catholic faith. It is not a matterof words, but of things, and the mind most unskilled in theologycannot fail to grasp the enormous difference there is betweenaffirming, as does Nestorianism, that a God indwelt a man witha human personality of his own distinct from the personality ofthe indwelling god; and that God assumed to himself human nature,that is a human body and a human soul, but without human personality.
(Wm. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarnation, pp. 160, 161.)
It is, then, clear that the question raised by the wide circulationof the discourses of Nestorius as archbishop of Constantinoplewas not verbal, but vital. Much of his language was irrelevant,and indicated some confusedness of thought: much would, of itself,admit of an orthodox construction; in one of the latest of hissermons, which Garnier dates on Sunday, December 14, 430, he grantsthat "Theotocos" might be used as signifying that "thetemple which was formed in Mary by the Holy Spirit was unitedto the Godhead;" but it was impossible not to ask whetherby "the temple" he meant the body of Jesus, or Jesushimself regarded as a human individual existing
It is no part of my duty to defend the truth of either theCatholic or Nestorian proposition--each has found many adherentsin most ages since it was first started, and probably what isvirtually Nestorianism is to-day far more widely held among personsdeemed to be orthodox than is commonly supposed. Be this as itmay, Nestorianism is clearly subversive of the whole CatholicDoctrine of the Incarnation, and therefore the importance of theword
208
I shall treat the word Theotocos under two heads;(1) Its history(2)its meaning, first however quoting Bp. Pearson's words on itsConciliar authority. (Pearson, Exp. of the Creed, Art. III., n.37). "It is plain that the Council of Ephesus which condemnedNestorius confirmed this title
(1) History of Word
It has not been unfrequently assumed that the word Theotocoswas coined to express the peculiar view of the Incarnation heldby St. Cyril. Such however, is an entire mistake. It was an oldterm of Catholic Theology, and the very word was used by bishopAlexander in a letter from the synod held at Alexandria in A.D.320,(1) to condemn the Arian heresy (more than a hundred yearsbefore the meeting of the Council of Ephesus); "After this,we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, ofwhich Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; who borea body in truth, not in semblance, which be derived from Marythe Mother of God (
In fact Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first to object to it,so far as we know, writing as follows: "Mary bare Jesus,not the Word, for the Word was and remained omnipresent, althoughfrom the beginning he dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner. ThusMary is properly the Mother of Christ (Christotocos) but not themother of God (Theotocos). Only figuratively, per anaphoram, canshe be called Theotocos also, because God was in Christ in a remarkablemanner. Properly she bare a man, in whom the union with the Wordwas begun, but was still so little completed, that he was notyet called the Son of God." And in another place he says:"It is madness to say that God is born of the Virgin. ...Not God, but
the temple in which God dwelt, is born of Mary."(4) How farTheodore had departed from the teaching of the Apostolic daysmay be seen by the following quotations from St. Ignatius. "Thereis one only physician, of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate,God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and of God, firstpassible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."(5)Further on in the same epistle he says: "For our God, Jesusthe Christ, was borne in the womb by Mary etc."(6) With thefirst of these passages Bp. Light-foot very aptly compares thefollowing from Melito. "Since he was incorporeal, he fashioneda body for himself of our likeness ... he was carried by Maryand clothed by his Father, he trod the earth and he filled theheavens."(7)
Theodore was forced by the exigencies of his position to denythe doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum which had already atthat early date come to be well understood, at least so far aspractice is concerned.
209
(Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. iii., p. 8.)
This doctrine, as is well known is predicating the same propertiesof the two natures in Christ, not in abstracto (Godhead and manhood),but in concreto (God and man). Christ. himself had declared inSt. John iii., 16: "God ... gave his only begotten Son"(namely, to death), and similarly St. Peter declared (Acts iii.,15): "ye ... killed the Prince of Life," when in factthe being given up and being killed is a property
It is, however, to be remarked that the properties of theone nature were never transferred to the other nature in itself,but always to the Person who is at the same time both man andGod. Human attributes were not ascribed to the Godhead, but toGod, and vice versa.
For a full treatment of the figure of speech called the communicatioidiomatum the reader is referred to the great works on Theologywhere it will be found set forth at large, with its restrictionsspecified and with examples of its use. A brief but interestingnote on it will be found in St. John Damascene's famous treatiseDe Fide Orthodoxa, Book III, iij. (Migne's Pat. Groec., col. 994).
(2) Meaning of the Word
We pass now to the meaning of the word, having sufficientlytraced the history of its use. Bishop Pearson says: "Thisname was first in use in the Greek Church, who, delighting inthe happy compositions of that language, called the blessed VirginTheotocos. From whence the Latins in imitation styled her VirginemDeiparam et Deigenitricem."(1) In the passage to which thewords just quoted are a portion of a footnote, he says: "Whereforefrom these three, a true conception, nutrition, and parturition,we must acknowledge that the blessed Virgin was truly and properlythe Mother of our Saviour. And so is she frequently styled theMother of Jesus in the language of the Evangelists, and by Elizabethparticularly the 'Mother of her Lord,' as also by the generalconsent of the Church (because he which was so born of her wasGod,) the Deipara; which being a compound title begun in the GreekChurch, was resolved into its parts by the Latins and so the Virginwas plainly named the Mother of God."
Pearson is mistaken in supposing that the resolution of thecompound Theotocos into
Throughout this volume I have translated it "Mother ofGod," and I propose giving my
210
reasons for considering this the only accurate translation ofthe word, both from a lexico-graphical and from a theologicalpoint of view.
(a) It is evident that the word is a composite formed of
Another suggestion is that it be rendered "the bringerforth of God." Again I object that, from a rhetorical standpoint,the expression is very open to criticism; and from a lexicographicalpoint of view it is entirely inadequate, for while indeed theparturition does necessarily involve in the course of nature theprevious conception and nutrition, it certainly does not expressit.
Now the word Mother does necessarily express all three ofthese when used in relation to her child. The reader will rememberthat the question I am discussing is not whether Mary can properlybe called the Mother of God; this Nestorius denied and many inancient and modern times have been found to agree with him. Thequestion I am considering is what the Greek word Theotocos meansin English. I do not think anyone would hesitate to translateNestorius's Christotocos by "Mother of Christ" and surelythe expressions are identical from a lexicographical point ofview.
Liddell and Scott in their Lexicon insert the word
(b) It only remains to consider whether there is from a theologicalpoint of view any objection to the translation, "Mother ofGod." It is true that some persons have thought that sucha rendering implied that the Godhead has its origin in Mary, butthis was the very objection which Nestorius and his followersurged against the word Theotocos, and this being the case, itconstitutes a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of therendering. Of course the answer to the objection in each caseis the same, it is not of the Godhead that Mary is the Mother,but of the Incarnate Son, who is God. "Mother" expressesexactly the relation to the incarnate Son which St. Cyril, theCouncil of Ephesus, and all succeeding, not to say also preceding,ages of Catholics, rightly or wrongly, ascribe to Mary. All thatevery child derives from its Mother that God the Son derived fromMary, and this without the co-operation of any man, but by thedirect operation of the Holy Ghost, so that in a fuller, truer,and more perfect sense, Mary is the Mother of God the Son in hisincarnation, than any other earthly mother is of her son.
I therefore consider it certain that no scholar who can andwill divest himself of theological bias, can doubt that "Motherof God" is the most accurate translation of the term Theotocos.
II.
IF anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Fatheris united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh ofhis own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time:let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
II.
If any one asserts that, at the union of the Logos with theflesh, the divine Essence moved from one place to another; orsays that the flesh is capable of receiving the divine nature,and that it has been partially united with the flesh; or ascribesto the flesh,
211
by reason of its reception of God, an extension to the infiniteand boundless, and says that God and man are one and the samein nature; let him be anathema.
III.
IF anyone shah after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostasesin the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, whichhappens according to worthiness, or even authority and power,and not rather by a coming together (
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
III.
If any one says that Christ, who is also Emmanuel, is One,not [merely] in consequence of connection, but [also] in nature,and does not acknowledge the connection (
HEFELE.
(Hist. of the Coucn., Vol. III., p. 7.)
Theodore [of Mopsuestia, and in this he was followed by Nestorius,](and here is his fundamental error,) not merely maintained theexistence of two natures in Christ, but of two persons, as, hesays himself, no subsistence can be thought of as perfect withoutpersonality. As however, he did not ignore the fact that the consciousnessof the Church rejected such a double personality in Christ. heendeavoured to get rid of the difficulty, and he repeatedly saysexpressly: "The two natures united together make only onePerson, as man and wife are only one flesh. ... If we considerthe natures in their distinction, we should define the natureof the Logos as perfect and complete, and so also his Person,and again the nature and the person of the man as perfect andcomplete. If, on the other hand, we have regard to the union (
IV.
IF anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistencesthose expressions (
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
IV.
If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and Apostolicletters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one onlyof those natures, and even ascribes suffering to the divine Word,both in the flesh and in the Godhead; let him be anathema.
ST. CYRIL.
( Apol. contra Orientales.)
For we neither teach the division of the hypostases afterthe union, nor do we say that the nature of the Deity needs increaseand growth; but this rather we hold, that by way of an economicalappropriation (
212
properties of the flesh, as having become flesh.
(Quod unus eat Christus.)
For the wise Evangelist, introducing the Word as become flesh,shows him economically submitting himself to his own flesh andgoing through the laws of his own nature. But it belongs to humanityto increase in stature and in wisdom, and, I might add, in grace,intelligence keeping pace with the measure of the body, and differingaccording to age. For it was not impossible for the Word bornof the Father to have raised the body united to himself to itsfull height from the very swaddling-clothes. I would say also,that in the babe a wonderful wisdom might easily have appeared.But that would have approached the thaumaturgical, and would havebeen incongruous to the laws of the economy. For the mystery wasaccomplished noiselessly. Therefore he economically allowed themeasures of humanity to have power over himself.
A. B. BRUCE.
(The Humiliation of Christ. Appendix to Lect. II.)
The accommodation to the laws of the economy, according tothis passage, consisted in this--in stature, real growth; in wisdom,apparent growth. The wonderful wisdom was there from the first,but it was not allowed to appear (
ST. CYRIL.
(Adversus Nestorium.)
Therefore there would have been shown to all an unwonted andstrange thing, if, being yet an infant, he had made a demonstrationof his wisdom worthy of God; but expanding it gradually and inproportion to the age of the body, and (in this gradual manner)making it manifest to all, he might be said to increase (in wisdom)very appropriately.
(Ad Reginas de recta fide, Orat. II., cap. xvi.)
"But the boy increased and waxed strong in spirit, beingfilled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." Andagain: "Jesus increased in stature and wisdom, and in favourwith God and men." In affirming our Lord Jesus Christ tobe one, and assigning to him both divine and human properties,we truly assert that it was congruous to the measures of the kenosis,on the one hand, that he should receive bodily increase and growstrong, the parts of the body gradually attaining their full development;and, on the other hand, that he should seem to be filled withwisdom, in so far as the manifestation of the wisdom dwellingwithin him proceeded, as by addition, most congruously to thestature of the body; and this, as I said, agreed with the economyof the Incarnation, and the measures of the state of humiliation.
(Apol. contra Theod., ad Anath. iv.)
And if he is one and the same in virtue of the true unityof natures, and is not one and another (two persons) disjunctivelyand partitively, to him will belong both to know and to seem notto know. Therefore he knows on the divine side as the Wisdom ofthe Father. But since he subjected himself to the measure of humanity,he economically appropriates this also with the rest, although,as I said a little ago, being ignorant of nothing, but knowingall things with the Father.
V.
IF anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus[that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God,as an only Son through nature, because "the Word was madeflesh," and "hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:"let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
V.
If any one ventures to say that, even after the assumptionof human nature, there is only one Son of God, namely, he whois so in nature (naturaliter filius=Logos), while he (Since theassumption of the flesh) is certainly Emmanuel; let him be anathema.
PETAVIUS.
It is manifest that this anathematism is directed againstthe blasphemy of Nestorius, by which he said that Christ was inthis sense Emmanuel, that a man was united and associated withGod, just as God had been said to have been with the Prophetsand other holy men, and to have had his abode in them;
213
so that they were properly styled
Nestorius [in his Counter Anathematism] displays the hiddenmeaning of his heresy, when he says, that the Son of God is notone after the assumption of the humanity; for he who denied thathe was one, no doubt thought that he was two.
Thedoret in his criticism of this Anathematism remarks thatmany of the Ancients, including St. Basil had used this very word,
VI.
IF anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father isthe God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not ratherconfess him as at the same time both God and Man, since accordingto the Scriptures, "The Word was made flesh": let himbe anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
VI.
If anyone, after the Incarnation calls another than Christthe Word, and ventures to say that the form of a servant is equallywith the Word of God, without beginning and uncreated, and notrather that it is made by him as its natural Lord and Creatorand God, and that he has promised to raise it again in the words:"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it upagain"; let him be anathema.
HEFELE.
This [statement of Nestorius's that any should call "anotherthan Christ the Word"] has no reference to Cyril; but isa hyper-Nes-torianism, which Nestorius here rejects. This [that"the form of a servant is without beginning and uncreated"]was asserted by some Apollinarists; and Nestorius accused St.Cyril of Apollinarianism.
PETAVIUS.
As Nestorius believed that in Christ there were two distinctentities (re ipsa duos) that is to say two persons joined together;it was natural that he should hold that the Word was the God andLord of the other, that is of the man. Cyril contradicts this,and since he taught that there was, not two, but one of two natures,that is one person or suppositum, therefore he denied that theWord was the God or Lord of the man; since no one should be calledthe Lord of himself.
Theodoret in his answer shuffles as usual, and points outthat Christ is styled a servant by the Prophet Isaiah, becauseof the form of a servant which he had received. But to this Cyrilanswers; that although Christ, inasmuch as he was man, is calledthe servant of the Father, as of a person distinct from himself;yet he denies that the same person can be his own lord or servant,lest a separation of the person be introduced.
VII.
IF anyone shah say that Jesus as man is only energized bythe Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributedto him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
VII.
If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virginis the Only-begotten, who was born from the bosom of the Father,before the morning star was (Ps. cix., 3)(1), and does not ratherconfess that he has obtained the desig-
214
nation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with himwho in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father; and besides,if any one calls another than the Emmanuel Christ let him be anathema.
ST. CYRIL.
(Declaratio Septima.)
When the blessed Gabriel announced to the holy Virgin thegeneration of the only-begotten Son of God according to the flesh,he said, "Thou shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call hisname Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."But he was named also Christ, because that according to his humannature he was anointed with us, according to the words of thePsalmist: "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity:therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil ofgladness above thy fellows." For although he was the giverof the Holy Spirit, neither did he give it by measure to themthat were worthy (for he was full of the Holy Ghost, and of hisfulness have we all received, as it is written), neverthelessas he is man he was called anointed economically, the Holy Spiritresting upon him spiritually (
VIII.
IF anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
VIII.
If any one says that the form of a servant should, for itsown sake, that is, in reference to its own nature, be reverenced,and that it is the ruler of all things, and not rather. that [merely]on account of its connection with the holy and in itself universally-rulingnature of the Only-begotten, it is to be reverenced; let him beanathema.
HEFELE.
On this point [made by Nestorius, that "the form of aservant is the ruler of all things"] Marius Mercator hasalready remarked with justice, that no Catholic had ever assertedanything of the kind.
Petavius notes that the version of Dionysius Exiguus is defective.
PETAVIUS.
Nestorius captiously and maliciously interpreted this as ifthe "form of a servant" according to its very nature(ratio) was to be adored, that is should receive divine worship.But this is nefarious and far removed from the mind of Cyril.Since to such an extent only the human nature of Christ is onesuppositum with the divine, that he declares that each is theobject of one and an undivided adoration; lest if a double anddissimilar cultus be attributed to each one, the divine personshould be divided into two adorable Sons and Christs, as we haveheard Cyril often complaining.
IX.
IF any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorifiedby the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not hisown and from him received power against unclean spirits and powerto work miracles before men and shall not rather con-
215
fess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked thesedivine signs; let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
IX.
If anyone says that the form of a servant is of like naturewith the Holy Ghost, and not rather that it owes its union withthe Word which has existed since the conception, to his mediation,by which it works miraculous healings among men, and possessesthe power of expelling demons; let him be anathema.
PETAVIUS.
The scope of this anathematism is to shew that the Word ofGod, when he assumed flesh remaining what he was, and lackingnothing which the Father possessed except only paternity, hadas his own the Holy Spirit which is from him and substantiallyabides in him. From this it follows that through him, as througha power and strength which was his own, and not one alien or adventitious,he wrought his wonders and cast forth devils, but he did not receivethat Holy Spirit and his power as formerly the Prophets had done,or as afterwards his disciples did, as a kind of gift (beneficiiloco).
The Orientals objected that St. Cyril here contradicts himself,for here he says that Christ did not work his wonders by the HolyGhost and in another place he frankly confesses that he did sowork them. But the whole point is what is intended by workingthrough the Holy Ghost. For the Apostles worked miracles throughthe Holy Ghost but as by a power external to themselves, but notso Christ. When Christ worked wonders through the Holy Ghost,he was working through a power which was his own, viz.: the ThirdPerson of the Holy Trinity; from whom he never was and never couldbe separated, ever abiding with him and the Eternal Father inthe Divine Unity.
The Westerns have always pointed to this anathematism as shewingthat St. Cyril recognized the eternal relation of the Holy Spiritas being from the Son.
In view of the fact that many are now presenting as if somethingnewly discovered, and as the latest results of biblical study,the interpretations of the early heretics with regard to our Lord'spowers and to his relation to the Holy Ghost, I have here setdown in full Theo-doret's Counter-statement to the faith acceptedby tile Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
THEODORET.
(Counter Statement to Anath. IX. of Cyril.)
Here he has plainly had the hardihood to anathematize notonly those who at the present time hold pious opinions, but alsothose who were in former days heralds of truth; aye even the writersof the divine Gospels, the band of the holy Apostles, and, inaddition to these, Gabriel the archangel. For he indeed it waswho first, even before the conception, announced the birth ofthe Christ according to the flesh; saying in reply to Mary whenshe asked, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? "TheHoly Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shallovershadow thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall beborn of thee shall be called the Son of God." And to Josephhe said, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for thatwhich is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." And theEvangelist says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused toJoseph ... she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Andthe Lord himself when he had come into the synagogue of the Jewsand had taken the prophet Isaiah, after reading the passage inwhich he says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me becausehe hath anointed me" and so on, added, "This day isthis scripture fulfilled in your ears." And the blessed Peterin his sermon to the Jews said, "God anointed Jesus of Nazarethwith the Holy Ghost." And Isaiah many ages before had predicted"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem
216
of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; and the Spiritof the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding,the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and ofthe fear of the Lord"; and again, "Behold my servantwhom I uphold, my beloved in whom my soul delighteth. I will putmy Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."This testimony the Evangelist too has inserted in his own writings.And the Lord himself in the Gospels says to the Jews, "IfI with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdomof God is come upon you." And John says, "He that sentme to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thoushalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the sameis he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." So this exactexaminer of the divine decrees has not only anathematized prophets,apostles, and even the archangel Gabriel, but has suffered hisblasphemy to reach even the Saviour of the world himself. Forwe have shewn that the Lord himself after reading the passage"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he had anointedme," said to the Jews, "This day is this scripture fulfilledin your ears." And to those who said that he was castingout devils by Beelzebub he replied that he was casting them outby the Spirit of God. But we maintain that it was not God theWord, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that wasformed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature whichwas assumed by him at the end of days. We shall confess that theSpirit of the Son was his own if he spoke of it as of the samenature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expressionas consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spiritas being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son weshall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For webelieve the Lord when he says, "The spirit which proceedethfrom the Father"; and likewise the very divine Paul saying,"We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spiritwhich is of God."
In the foregoing will be found the very same arguments usedand the same texts cited against the Catholic faith as are urgedand cited by the Rev. A. J. Mason. The Conditions of Our Lord'sLife on Earth, and by several other recent writers.
X.
WHOSOEVER shall say that it is not the divine Word himself,when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but anotherthan he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
x.
If any one maintains that the Word, who is from the beginning,has become the high priest and apostle of our confession, andhas offered himself for us, and does not rather say that it isthe work of Emmanuel to be an apostle; and if any one in sucha manner divides the sacrifice between him who united [the Word]and him who was united [the manhood] referring it to a commonsonship, that is, not giving to God that which is God's, and toman that which is man's; let him be anathema.
ST. CYRIL.
(Declaratio decima.)
But I do not know how those who think otherwise contend thatthe very Word of God made man, was not the apostle and high-priestof our profession, but a man different from him; who was bornof the holy Virgin, was called our apostle and high-priest, andcame to this gradually; and that not only for us did he offerhimself a sacrifice to God and the Father, but also for himself.A statement which is wholly contrary to the right and undefiledfaith, for he did no sin, but was supe-
217
rior to fault and altogether free from sin, and needed no sacrificefor himself. Since those who think differently were again unreasonably hinking of two sons, this anathematism became necessary thattheir impiety might appear.
XI.
WHOSOEVER shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord givethlife and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as hisvery own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another personwho is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour,and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall notrather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life becauseit is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS. XI.
If any one maintains that the flesh which is united with Godthe Word is by the power of its own nature life-giving, whereasthe Lord himself says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth;the flesh profiteth nothing" (St. John vi. 61), let him beanathema. [He adds, "God is a Spirit" (St. John iv.24). If, then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a carnalmanner, in his substance, become flesh, and persists in this withreference to the Lord Christ; who himself after his resurrectionsaid to his disciples, "Handle me and see; for a spirit hathnot flesh and bones, as ye behold me having" (St. Luke xxiv.39); let him be anathema.]
HEFELE.
The part enclosed in brackets is certainly a spurious additionand is wanting in many manuscripts. Cf. Marius Mercator [ed. Migne],p. 919.
ST. CYRIL.
(Declaratio undecima.)
We perform in the churches the holy, lifegiving, and unbloodysacrifice; the body, as also the precious blood, which is exhibitedwe believe not to be that of a common man and of any one likeunto us, but receiving it rather as his own body and as the bloodof the Word which gives all things life. For common flesh cannotgive life. And this our Saviour himself testified when he said:"The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that givethlife." For since the flesh became the very own of the Word,therefore we understand that it is lifegiving, as the Saviourhimself said: "As the living Father hath sent me, and I liveby the Father; so he that eateth me shall live by me." Sincetherefore Nestorius and those who think with him rashly dissolvethe power of this mystery; therefore it was convenient that thisanathematism should be put forth.
XII.
WHOSOEVER shall not recognize that the Word of God sufferedin the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewisein that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begottenof the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he thatgiveth life: let him be anathema.
NOTES.
NESTORIUS.
XII.
If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, ascribesthese also to the Word of God as to the flesh in which he appeared,and thus does not distinguish the dignity of the natures; lethim be anathema.
ST. CYRIL.
(Adv. Orientales, ad XII. Quoting Athanasius.)
For if the body is of another, to him also must the sufferingsbe ascribed. But if the flesh is the Word's (for "The Wordwas made flesh")it is necessary that the sufferings of theflesh be called his also whose is the flesh. But whose are thesufferings, such especially as condemnation, flagellation, thirst,the cross, death, and other such like infirmities of the body,his also is the merit and the grace. Therefore rightly and properlyto none other are these sufferings attributed than to the Lord,as also the grace is from him; and we shall not be guilty of idolatry,but be the true
218
worshippers of God, for we invoke him who is no creature nor anycommon man, but the natural and true Son of God, made man, andyet the same Lord and God and Saviour.
As I think, these quotations will suffice to the learned forthe proof of the propositions advanced, the Divine Law plainlysaying that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses everyword shall be established." But if after this any one wouldstill seem to be contentious, we would say to him: "Go thineown way. We however shall follow the divine Scriptures and thefaith of the Holy Fathers."
The student should read at full length all Cyril's defenceof his anathematisms, also his answers to the criticisms of Theodoret,and to those of the Orientals, all of which will be found in hisworks, and in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., 811 et seqq.
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I.
(Continued). (L. and C., Cone., Tom. III., Col. 503.)
[No action is recorded in the Acts as having been taken. A verbalreport was made by certain who had seen Nestorius during the pastthree days, that they were hopeless of any repentance on his part.On the motion of Flavian, bishop of Philippi, a number of passagesfrom the Fathers were read; and after that some selections fromthe writings of Nestorius. A letter from Capreolus, Archbishopof Carthage, was next read, excusing his absence; after the readingof the letter, which makes no direct reference to Nestorius whatever,but prays the Synod to see to it that no novelties be tolerated,the Acts proceed. (Col. 534).]
Cyril, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, said: As thisletter of the most reverend and pious Capreolus, bishop of Carthage,which has been read, contains a most lucid expression of opinion,let it be inserted in the Acts. For it wishes that the ancientdogmas of the faith should be confirmed, and that novelties, absurdlyconceived and impiously brought forth, should be reprobated andproscribed.
All the bishops at the same time cried out: These are thesentiments (
[Immediately follows the sentence of deposition and the subscriptions.It seems almost certain that something has dropped out here, mostprobably the whole discussion of Cyril's XII. Anathematisms.]
(Found in all the Concilia in Greek with Latin Versions.)
As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius hasnot obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishopswho were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodlydoctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impiousdoctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourseswhich he delivered in this city, and which have been testifiedto. Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (
NOTES.
The words for which I have given the original Greek, are notmentioned by Canon Bright in his Article on St. Cyril in Smithand Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography; nor by Ffoulkesin his article on the Council of Ephesus in Smith and Cheetham'sDictionary of Christian Antiquities. They do not appear in CanonRobertsons History of the Church.
219
And strangest of all, Dean Milman cites the Sentence in Englishin the text and in Greek in a note but in each case omits allmention of the letter of the Pope, marking however in the Greekthat there is an omission. (Lat. Chr., Bk. II., Chap. III.)(1)I also note that the translation in the English edition of Hefele'sHistory of the Councils (Vol. III., p. 51) is misleading and inaccurate,"Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter etc."The participle by itself might mean nothing more than "urged"(vide Liddell and Scott on this verb and also
Hefele for the "canons" refers to canon number lxxiv.of the Apostolic Canons; which orders an absent bishop to be summonedthrice before sentence be given against him.
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 609.)
The most pious and God-beloved bishops, Arcadius and Projectus,as also the most beloved-of-God Philip, a presbyter and legateof the Apostolic See, then entered and took their seats.(2)
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness hasbeen deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod. For a long timeago (
Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Mayit please your blessedness to give order that the letters l ofthe holy and ever-to-be-mentioned-with-veneration Pope Coelestine,bishop of the Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, beread, from which your reverence will be able to see what carehe has for all the Churches.
Projectus, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said,May it please, etc. [The same as Arcadius had said verbatim!]
And afterwards the most holy and beloved-of-God Cyril, bishopof the Church of Alexandria, spoke as is next in order contained;Siricius, notary of the holy Catholic (
Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: Let the letter receivedfrom the most holy and altogether most blessed Coelestine, bishopof the Apostolic See of Rome be read to the holy Synod with fittinghonour.
Siricius, notary of the holy Catholic (
And after it was read in Latin, Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalemsaid: Let the writings of the most holy and blessed bishop ofgreat Rome which have just been Toad, be entered on the minutes.
And all the most reverend bishops prayed that the lettermight be translated and read.
Philip, the presbyter of the Apostolic See and Legate said:The custom has been sufficiently complied with, that the writings of the Apostolic See should first be read in Latin.(3) But nowsince your holiness has
220
demanded that they be read in Greek also, it is necessary thatyour holiness's desire should be satisfied; We have taken carethat this be done, and that the Latin be turned into Greek. Giveorder therefore that it be received and read in your holy hearing.
Arcadius and Projectus, bishops and legates said, As yourblessedness ordered that the writings which we brought shouldbe brought to the knowledge of all, for of our holy brethren bishopsthere are not a few who do not understand Latin, therefore theletter has been translated into Greek and if you so command letit be read.
Flavian, the bishop of Philippi said: Let the translationof the letter of the most holy and beloved of God, bishop of theRoman Church be received and read.
Peter, the presbyter of Alexandria and primicerius of thenotaries read as follows:
THE LETTER OF POPE COELESTINE TO THE SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 613. Also Migne,Pat. Lat., Tom. L, col. 505.(1))
Coelestine the bishop to the holy Synod assembled at Ephesus,brethren beloved and most longed for, greeting in the Lord.
A Synod of priests gives witness to the presence of the HolySpirit. For true is that which we read, since the Truth cannotlie, to wit, the promise of the Gospel; "Where two or threeare gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."And since tiffs is so, if the Holy Spirit is not absent from sosmall a number how much more may we believe he is present whenso great a multitude of holy ones are assembled together! Everycouncil is holy on account of a peculiar veneration which is itsdue; for in every such council the reverence which should be paidto that most famous council of the Apostles of which we read isto be had regard to. Never was the Master, whom they had receivedto preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master;and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. Forhe that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commandedwhat was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms thathe himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This dutyof preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common,for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude,whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in theirstead for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations."You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a generalcommand: for he wills that all of us should perform that office,which he titus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We mustneeds follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake theirlabours, since we are the successors in their honour. And we shewforth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that theytaught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle,we are forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping whatis committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handingit down.
They sowed the seed of the faith. This shall be our care thatthe coming of our great father of the family, to whom alone assuredlythis fulness of the Apostles is assigned, may find fruit uncorruptand many fold. For the vase of election tells us that it is notsufficient to plant and to water unless God gives the increase.We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which hascome down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession. Forwe are expected to walk according to the Apostle. For now notour appearance (species) but our faith is called in question.Spiritual weapons are those we must take, because the war is oneof minds, and the weapons are words; so shall we be strong inthe faith of our King. Now the Blessed Apostle Paul admonishesthat all should remain in that place in which he bid Timothy remain.The same place therefore, the same cause, lays upon us the sameduty. Let us now also do and study
221
that which he then commanded him to do. And let no one think otherwise,and let no one pay heed to over strange fables, as he himselfordered. Let us be unanimous thinking the same thing, for thisis expedient: let us do nothing out of contention, nothing outof vain glory: let us be in all things of one mind, of one heart,when the faith which is one, is attacked. Let the whole body grieveand mourn in common with us. He who is to judge the world is calledinto judgment; he who is to criticise all, is himself made theobject of criticism, he who redeemed us is made to suffer calumny.Dear Brethren, gird ye with the armour of God. Ye know what helmetmust protect our head, what breast-plate our breast. For thisis not the first time the ecclesiastical camps have received youas their rulers. Let no one doubt that by the favour of the Lordwho maketh twain to be one, there will be peace, and that armswill be laid aside since the very cause defends itself.
Let us look once again at these words of our Doctor, whichhe uses with express reference to bishops, saying, "Takeheed to yourselves and to the whole flock, over which the HolyGhost has placed you as bishop, that ye rule the church of God,which he hath purchased with his blood."
We read that they who heard this at Ephesus, the same placeat which your holiness is come together, were called thence. Tothem therefore to whom this preaching of the faith was known,to them also let your defence of the same faith also be known.Let us shew them the constancy of our mind with that reverencewhich is due to matters of great importance; which things peacehas guarded for a long time with pious understanding.
Let there be announced by you what things have been preservedintact from the Apostles; for the words of tyrannical oppositionare never admitted against the King of Kings, nor can the businessof truth be oppressed by falsehood.
I exhort you, most blessed brethren, that love alone be regardedin which we ought to remain, according to the voice of John theApostle whose reliques we venerate in this city. Let common prayerbe offered to the Lord. For we can form some idea of what willbe the power of the divine presence at the united intercessionof such a multitude of priests, by considering how the very placewas moved where, as we read, the Twelve made together their supplication.And what was the purport of that prayer of the Apostles? It wasthat they might receive grace to speak the word of God with confidence,and to act through its power, both of which they received by the favour of Christ our God. And now what else is to be askedfor by your holy council, except that ye may speak the Word ofthe Lord with confidence? What else than that he would give yougrace to preserve that which he has given you to preach? thatbeing filled with the Holy Ghost, as it is written, ye may setforth that one truth which the Spirit himself has taught you,although with divers voices.
Animated, in brief, by all these considerations (for, asthe Apostle says: "I speak to them that know the law, andI speak wisdom among them that are perfect"), stand fastby the Catholic faith, and defend the peace of the Churches, forso it is said, both to those past, present, and future, askingand preserving "those things which belong to the peace ofJerusalem."
Out of our solicitude, we have sent our holy brethren andfellow priests, who are at one with us and are most approved men,Arcedius, and Projectus, the bishops, and our presbyter, Philip,that they may be present at what is done and may carry out whatthings have been already decreed be us (quoe a nobis anted statutasunt, exequa tur).
To the performing of which we have no doubt that your holinesswill assent when it is seen that what has been decreed is forthe security of the whole church. Given the viij of the Ides ofMay, in the consulate of Bassus and Antiochus.
222
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II. (Continued.) (Labbe and Cossart,Concilia, Tom. III., col. 617.)
And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out.This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul To Cyril anew Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestineof one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offersits thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod!One faith of the world!
Projectus, the most reverend bishop and legate, said: Letyour holiness consider the form (
Firmus, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: The Apostolicand holy see of the most holy bishop Coelestine, hath previouslygiven a decision and type (
Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate, said: Althoughour sailing was slow, and contrary winds hindered us especially,so that we did not know whether we should arrive at the destinedplace, as we had hoped, nevertheless by God's good providence... Wherefore we desire to ask your blessedness, that you commandthat we be taught what has been already decreed by your holiness.
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: Weoffer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when thewritings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, theholy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselvesto the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednessis not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head ofthe Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now ourmediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, hasarrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before uswhat things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; inorder that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and ofthis present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.
Theodotus, the bishop of Ancyra said: The God of the wholeworld has made manifest the justice of the judgment pronouncedby the holy Synod by the writings of the most religious bishopCoelestine, and by the coming of your holiness. For ye have mademanifest the zeal of the most holy and reverend bishop Coelestine,and his care for the pious faith. And since very reasonably yourreverence is desirous of learning what has been done from theminutes of the acts concerning the deposition of Nestorius yourreverence will be fully convinced of the justice of the sentence,and of the zeal of the holy Synod, and the symphony of the faithwhich the most pious and holy bishop Coelestine has
223
proclaimed with a great voice, of course after your full conviction,the rest shall be added to the present action.
[In the Acts follow two short letters from Coelestine, one tothe Emperor and the other to Cyril, but nothing is said aboutthem, or how they got there, and thus abruptly ends the accountof this session.]
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION III. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia,Tom. III., col. 621.)
Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem said to Arcadius and Projectusthe most reverend bishops, and to Philip the most reverend presbyter;Yesterday while this holy and great synod was in session, whenyour holiness was present, you demanded after the reading of theletter of the most holy and blessed bishop of Great Rome, Coelestine,that the minutes made in the Acts with regard to the depositionof Nestorius the heretic should be read. And thereupon the Synodordered this to be done. Your holiness will be good enough toinform us whether you have read them and understand their power.
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:From reading the Acts we have found what things have been donein your holy synod with regard to Nestorius. We have found fromthe minutes that all things have been decided in accordance withthe canons and with ecclesiastical discipline. And now also weseek from your honour, although it may be useless, that what thingshave been read in your synod, the same should now again be readto us also; so that we may follow the formula (
[Arcadius having seconded Philip's motion, Memnon directedthe acts to be read which was done by the primicerius of the notaries.]
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages,that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (
race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and bindingsins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judgesin his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine,according to due order, is his successor and holds his place,and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which themost humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble,bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolicdoctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humanegrandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time,etc.
[There is no further reference in the speech to the papalprerogatives.]
Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the ApostolicSee said: Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow.. . . And sinceof his own accord he hath made himself an alien and an exile fromus, we following the sanctions handed down from the beginningby the holy Apostles, and by the Catholic Church (for they taughtwhat they had received from our Lord Jesus Christ), also followingthe types (
Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Mostclearly from the reading, etc, . . . Moreover I also, by my authorityas legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethrenan executor (
224
enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty ofthe things of which he was accused, has been removed from thegrade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion ofall orthodox priests.
Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions whichhave been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and piousbishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of theRoman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they havemade their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and ofthe whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishopsof the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined bythe most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried intoeffect, and the vote east against Nestorius the heretic, by theholy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed touniversally; for this purpose let there be added to the alreadyprepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and letthem be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscriptionaccording to custom, their canonical agreement with all of usmay be manifest.
Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the RomanChurch, said: According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarilyconfirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.
The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the mostreverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, thepresbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that theyare of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeemtheir promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, andthen let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them.
[The three then signed.]
(Critical Annotations on the text will be found in Dr. Routh'sScriptorum Eccl. Opusc.
Tom. II. [Ed. III.] p. 85.)
The holy and ecumenical Synod, gathered together in Ephesusby the decree of our most religious Emperors, to the bishops,presbyters, deacons, and all the people in every province andcity:
When we had assembled, according to the religious decree [ofthe Emperors], in the Metropolis of Ephesus, certain persons,a little more than thirty in number, withdrew from amongst us,having for the leader of their schism John, Bishop of Antioch.Their names are as follows: first, the said John of Antioch inSyria, John of Damascus, Alexander of Apamea, Alexander of Hierapolis,Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea, Helladius of Tarsus,Maximin of Anazarbus, Theodore of Marcianopolis, Peter of Trajanopolis,Paul of Emissa, Polychronius of Heracleopolis, Euthyrius of Tyana,Meletius of Neocaesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcedon,Macarius of Laodicea Magna, Zosys of Esbus, Sallust of Corycusin Cilicia, Hesychius of Castabala in Cilicia, Valentine of Mutloblaca,Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip of Theodosia, and Daniel, andDexianus, and Julian, and Cyril, and Olympius, and Diegenes, Polius,Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajan of Augusta, Aurelius of Irenepolis,Mysaeus of Aradus, Helladius of Ptolemais. These men, having noprivilege of ecclesiastical communion on the ground of a priestlyauthority, by which they could injure or benefit any persons;since some of them had already been deposed; and since from theirrefusing to join in our decree against Nestorius, it was manifestlyevident to all men that they were all promoting the opinions ofNestorius and Celestius; the Holy Synod, by one common decree,deposed them from all ecclesiastical communion, and deprived themof all their priestly power by which they might injure or profitany persons.
CANON I.
WHEREAS it is needful that they who were detained from theholy Synod and remained in their own district or city, for anyreason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant ofthe matters which were thereby decreed; we, therefore, notifyyour holiness and charity that if any Metropolitan of a Province,forsaking the holy and Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assemblyof the apostates, or shall join the same hereafter; or, if hehas adopted, or shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines of Celestius,he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to thebishops of the province, since he is already cast forth from allecclesiastical communion and made incapable of exercising hisministry; but he shall himself be subject in all things to thosevery bishops of the province and to the neighbouring orthodoxmetropolitans, and shah be degraded from his episcopal rank.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.
If a metropolitan, having deserted his synod, adheres or shalladhere to Celestine, let him be cast out.
NICHOLAS HYDRUNTINUS.
Scholion concerning Celestine and Celestius. Whose finds atthe end of the fourth canon of the Holy Synod of Ephesus [andthe
same is true of this first canon. Ed.] "Clerics who shallhave consented to Celestine or Nestorius, should be deposed,"let him not read "Celestine" with an "n,"but "Celestius" without the "n." For Celestinewas the holy and orthodox Pope of Rome, Celestius was the heretic.
It is perfectly certain that this was no ac-
226
cident on the part of Aristenus, for in his commentary on CanonV., he expressly says that "Celestine was Bishop of Rome"and goes on to affirm that, "The Holy Synod decreed thatthey who embraced the opinions of Nestorius and Celestine,"etc. What perhaps is equally astonishing is that Nicholas Hydruntinus,while correcting the name, still is of opinion that Celestiuswas a pope of Rome and begins his scholion with the title.
Simeon the Logothete adds to this epitome the words,
EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM OF JOHN OF ANTIOCH.
The assembly referred to in this canon is one held by Johnof Antioch who had delayed his coming so as to hamper the meetingof the synod. John was a friend of Nestorius and made many fruitlessattempts to induce him to accept the orthodox faith. It will benoticed that the conciliabulum was absolutely silent with respectto Nestorius and his doctrine and contented itself with attackingSt. Cyril and the orthodox Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus. St.Cyril and his friends did indeed accuse the Antiochenes of beingadherents of Nestorius, and in a negative way they certainly wereso, and were in open opposition to the defenders of the orthodoxfaith; but, as Tillemont (1) has welI pointed out, they did nottheologically agree with the heresy of Nestorius, gladly acceptedthe orthodox watchword "Mother of God," and subsequentlyagreed to his deposition.
The first session of the Council of Ephesus had already takenplace on June 22, and it was only on June 26th or 27th, that Johnof Antioch arrived at last at Ephesus.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 55 et scqq.)
The Synod immediately sent a deputation to meet him, consistingof several bishops and clerics, to show him proper respect, andat the same time to make him acquainted with the deposition ofNestorius, so that he might not be drawn into any intercoursewith him. The soldiers who surrounded Archbishop John preventedthe deputation from speaking to him in the street; consequentlythey accompanied him to his abode, but were compelled to waithere for several hours, exposed to the insults of the soldiers,and at last, when they had discharged their commission, were drivenhome, ill-treated and beaten. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius,had suggested this treatment, and approved of it. The envoys immediatelyinformed the Synod of what had happened, and showed the woundswhich they had received, which called forth great indignationagainst John of Antioch. According to the representation of Memnon,excommunication was for this reason pronounced against him; butwe shall see further on that this did not take place until afterwards,and it is clear that Memnon, in his brief narrative, has passedover an intermediate portion -- the threefold invitation of John.In the meantime, Candidian had gone still further in his oppositionto the members of the synod, causing them to be annoyed and insultedby his soldiers, and even cutting off their supply of food, whilehe provided Nestorius with a regular body-guard of armed peasants.John of Antioch, immediately after his arrival, while still dustyfrom the journey, and at the time when he was allowing the envoysof the synod to wait, held at his town residence a Conciliabulumwith his adherents, at which, first of all Count Candidian relatedhow Cyril and his friends, in spite of all warnings, and in oppositionto the imperial decrees, had held a session five days before,had contested his (the count's) right to be present, had dismissedthe bishops sent by Nestorius, and had paid no attention to theletters of
227
others. Before he proceeded further, John of Antioch requestedthat the Emperor's edict of convocation should be read, whereuponCandidian went on with his account of what had taken place, andin answer to a fresh question of John's declared that Nestoriushad been condemned unheard. John found this quite in keeping withthe disposition of the synod since, instead of receiving him andhis companions in a friendly manner, they had rushed upon themtumultuously (it was thus that he described what had happened).But the holy Synod, which was now assembled, would decide whatwas proper with respect to them. And this synod, of which Johnspeaks in such grandiloquent terms, numbered only forty-threemembers, including himself, while on the other side there weremore than two hundred.
John then proposed the question [as to] what was to be decidedrespecting Cyril and his adherents; and several who were not particularlypronounced Nestorian bishops came forward to relate how Cyriland Memnon of Ephesus had, from the beginning, maltreated theNestorians, had allowed them no church, and even on the festivalof Pentecost had permitted them to hold no service. Besides Memnonhad sent his clerics into the residences of the bishops, and hadordered them with threats to take part in his council. And inthis way he and Cyril had confused everything, so that their ownheresies might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian, theApollinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in thelast letter of Cyril [to Nestorius, along with the anathematisms].It was therefore John's duty to see to it that the heads of theseheresies (Cyril and Memnon) should be suitably punished for suchgrave offences, and that the bishops who had been misguided bythem should be subjected to ecclesiastical penalties.
To these impudent and false accusations John replied withhypocritical meekness "that he had certainly wished thathe should not be compelled to exclude from the Church any onewho had been received into the sacred priesthood, but diseasedmembers must certainly be cut off in order to save the whole body;and for this reason Cyril and Memnon deserved to be deposed, becausethey had given occasion to disorders, and had acted in oppositionto the commands of the Emperors, and besides, were in the chaptersmentioned [the anathematisms] guilty of heresy. All who had beenmisled by them were to be excommunicated until they confessedtheir error, anathematized the heretical propositions of Cyril,adhered strictly to the creed of Nice, without any foreign addition,and joined the synod of John."
The assembly approved of this proposal, and John then announcedthe sentence in the following manner:--
"The holy Synod, assembled in Ephesus, by the grace ofGod and the command of the pious Emperors, declares: We shouldindeed have wished to be able to hold a Synod in peace, but becauseyou held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinatedisposition, although we were already in the neighbourhood, andhave filled both the city and the holy Synod with confusion, inorder to prevent tire examination of your Apollinarian, Arian,and Eunomian heresies, and have not waited for the arrival ofthe holy bishops of all regions, and have also disregarded thewarnings and admonitions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyrilof Alexandria, and you Memnon of this place, know that you aredeposed and dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originatorsof the whole disorder, etc. You others, who gave your consent,are excommunicated, until you acknowledge your fault and reform,accept anew the Nicene faith [as if they had surrendered it!]without foreign addition, anathematize the heretical propositionsof Cyril, and in all things comply with the command of the Emperors,who require a peaceful and more accurate consideration of thedogma."
This decree was subscribed by all the forty-three members of theConciliabulum:
The Conciliabulum then, in very one-sided letters informed theEmperor, the imperial
228
ladies (the wife and sister of the Emperor Theodosius II.), theclergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople, of all thathad taken place, and a little later once more required the membersof the genuine Synod, in writing, no longer to delay the timefor repentance and conversion, and to separate themselves fromCyril and Memnon, etc., otherwise they would very soon be forcedto lament their own folly.
On Saturday evening the Conciliabulum asked Count Candidianto take care that neither Cyril nor Memnon, nor any one of their(excommunicated) adherents should hold divine service on Sunday.Candidian now wished that no member of either synodal party shouldofficiate, but only the ordinary clergy of the city; but Memnondeclared that he would in no way submit to John and his synod,and Cyril and his adherents held divine service. All the effortsof John to appoint by force another bishop of Ephesus in the placeof Memnon were frustrated by the opposition of the orthodox inhabitants.
CANON II.
IF any provincial bishops were not present at the holy Synodand have joined or attempted to join the apostacy; or if, aftersubscribing the deposition of Nestorius, they went back into theassembly of apostates; these men, according to the decree of theholy Synod, are to be deposed from the priesthood and degradedfrom their rank.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
If any bishop assents to or favours Nestorius, let him bedischarged.
It was not unnatural that when it was seen that the Imperialauthority was in favour of the Antiochene party that some of theclergy should have been weak enough to vacillate in their course,the more so as the Conciliabulum was not either avowedly, norreally, a Nestorian assembly, but one made up of those not sympathizingwith Nestorius's heresy, yet friendly to the heretic himself,and disapproving of what they looked upon as the uncalled-forharshness and precipitancy of Cyril's course.
CANON III.
IF any of the city or country clergy have been inhibited byNestorius or his followers from the exercise of the priesthood,on account of their orthodoxy, we have declared it just that theseshould be restored to their proper rank. And in general we forbidall the clergy who adhere to the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synodin any way to submit to the bishops who have already apostatizedor shall hereafter apostatize.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
To whom Nestorius forbids the priesthood, he is most worthy;but whom he approves is profane.
It would seem from this canon that any bishop who had becomea member of the Conciliabulum of John, was considered as eo ipsohaving lost all jurisdiction. Also it would seem that the clergywere to disregard the inhibition of Nestorian prelates or at leastthese inhibitions were by some one to be removed. This principle,if generally applied, would seem to be somewhat revolutionary.
LIGHTFOOT.
(Apos. Fath. Ign. Ad Rom. i., Vol. II., Sec. I., p. 191.)
The words
229
former being the metals themselves, the latter the metals workedup into bullion or coins or plate or trinkets or images, e.g.Macar. Magn. Apocr. iii. 42 (p. 147).
CANON IV.
IF any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privatelypresume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, itis declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
If any of the clergy shall consent to Celestine (1) or Nestorius,let them be deposed.
EXCURSUS ON PELAGIANISM.
The only point which is material to the main object of this volumeis that Pelagius and his fellow heretic Celestius were condemnedby the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy. On thispoint there can be no possible doubt. And further than this theSeventh Council by ratifying the Canons of Trullo received theCanons of the African Code which include those of the Carthaginianconciliar condemnations of the Pelagian heresy to which the attentionof the reader is particularly drawn. The condemnation of theseheretics at Ephesus is said to have been due chiefly to the energyof St. Augustine, assisted very materially by a layman livingin Constantinople by the name of Marius Mercator. Pelagius andhis heresy have a sad interest to us as he is said to have beenborn in Britain. He was a monk and preached at Rome with greatapplause in the early years of the fifth century. But in his extremehorror of Manichaeism and Gnosticism he fell into the oppositeextreme; and from the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent evilnessof humanity he fell into the error of denying the necessity ofgrace. Pelagius's doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam'ssin injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as originalsin. Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children ofwrath, but are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to beknit into Christ, not "for the remission of sins" asis declared in the creed. Further he taught that man could livewithout committing any sin at all. And for this there was no needof grace; indeed grace was not possible, according to his teaching.The only "grace," which he would admit the existenceof, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of Christ,the teaching of his ministers, and the like. Petavius (2) indeedthinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to illuminethe intellect, but this seems quite doubtful. Pelagius's writingshave come down to us in a more or less -- generally the latter-- pure form. There are fourteen books on the Epistles of St.Paul, also a letter to Demetrius and his Libellus fidei ad Innocentium. In the writings of St. Augustine are found fragments of Pelagius'swritings on free will. It would be absurd to attempt in the limitspossible to this volume to give any, even the most sketchy, treatmentof the doctrine involved in the Pelagian controversy: the readermust be referred to the great theologians for this and to aidhim I append a bibliographical table on the subject. St. Augustine.St. Jerome. Marius Mercator, Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii.Vossius, G. J., Histor. de controv. quas Pel. ejusque reliquioemoverunt.
230
Noris. Historia Pelagiana.
Garnier, J. Dissertat. in Pelag. in Opera Mar. Mercator.
Quesnel, Dissert. de conc. Africanis in Pelag. causa celebratisetc.
Fuchs, G. D., Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen.
Horn, De sentent. Pat. de peccato orig.
Habert, P. L., Theologioe Groecorum Patrum vindicatoe circa univers.materiam gratioe. Petavius, De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag. (1)
The English works on the subject are so well known to the Englishreader as to need no mention. As it is impossible to treat thetheological question here, so too is it impossible to treat thehistorical question. However I may remind the reader that Nestoriusand his heresy were defended by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and thathe and Celestius were declared by Pope Zosimus to be innocentin the year 417, a decision which was entirely disregarded bythe rest of the world, a Carthaginian Synod subsequently anathematizinghim. Finally the Pope retracted his former decision, and in 418anathematized him and his fellow, and gave notice of this in his"epistola tractoria" to the bishops. Eighteen Italianbishops, who had followed the Pope in his former decision of atwelve month before, refused to change their minds at his biddingnow, and were accordingly deposed, among them Julian of Eclanum.After this Pelagius and Celestius found a fitting harbour of refugewith Nestorius of Constantinople, and so all three were condemnedtogether by the council of Ephesus, he that denied the incarnationof the Word, and they twain that denied the necessity of thatincarnation and of the grace purchased thereby.
CANON V.
IF any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod,or by their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination,Nestorius (or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafterattempt, uncanonically to restore such persons to communion andto their former rank, we have declared that they shall not beprofited thereby, but shall remain deposed nevertheless.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
If one condemned by his bishop is received by Nestorius it shallprofit him nothing.
This canon is interesting as shewing that thus early in the historyof the Church, it was not unusual for those disciplined for theirfaults in one communion to go to another and there be welcomedand restored, to the overthrow of discipline and to the loweringof the moral sense of the people to whom they minister.
CANON VI.
LIKEWISE, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the ordersin each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synoddecrees that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutelyforfeit their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
If any layman shall resist the Synod, let him be excommunicated.But if it be a cleric let him be discharged.
How courageous the passing of this canon was can only be justlyappreciated by those who are familiar with the weight of the imperialauthority at that day in ecclesiastical matters and who will rememberthat at the very time this canon was passed it was extremely difficultto say whether the Emperor would support Cyril's or John's synod.
231
OBSERVATION OF THE ROMAN EDITORS (Ed:1608).
In the Vatican books and in some others only these six canonsare found; but in certain texts there is added, under the nameof Canon VII., the definition of the same holy Synod put forthafter the Presbyter Charisius had stated his case, and for CanonVIII. another decree of the synod concerning the bishops of Cyprus.
OBSERVATION OF PHILIP LABBE, S.J.P.
In the Collections of John Zonaras and of Theodore Balsamon, alsoin the "Code of the Universal Church" which has JohnTilius, Bishop of St. Brieuc and Christopher Justellus for itseditors, are found eight canons of the Ephesine council, to witthe six which are appended to the foregoing epistle and two others:but it is altogether a subject of wonder that in the Codex ofCanons, made for the Roman Church by Dionysius Exiguus, none ofthese canons are found at all. I suppose that the reason of thisis that the Latins saw that they were not decrees affecting theUniversal Church, but that the Canons set forth by the Ephesinefathers dealt merely with the peculiar and private matters ofNestorius and of his followers.
The Decree of the same holy Synod, pronounced after hearing theExposition [of the Faith] by the Three hundred and eighteen holyand blessed Fathers in the city of Nice, and the impious formulacomposed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and given to the same holySynod at Ephesus by the Presbyter Charisius, of Philadelphia:
CANON VII.
WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that itis unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to composea different (
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduceor offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgmentof the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or fromany heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops orclergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from theclergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen,should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines containedin the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerningthe Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominableand profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, theyshall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenicalSynod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from hisbishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewisebe stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall beanathematized, as has been afore said.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shallbe an alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be castout.
The heading is that found in the ordinary Greek texts. The canonitself is found verbatim in the Acts -- Actio VI. (Labbe and Cossart,Concilia, Tom. III., col. 689.)
BEVERIDGE.
"When these things had been read." Balsamon here makesan egregious mistake, for it was not after the reading of thedecree of this council and of the Nicene Creed, that this canonwas set forth, as Balsamon affirms; but after the reading of thelibellum of Charisius, and of the Nestorian Creed, as is abundantlyevident from what we read in the Acts of the
232
council. From this it is clear that Balsamon had never seen theActs of this council, or at least had never carefully studiedthem, else he could not have written such a comment.
[With regard to Charisius, Balsamon] makes another mistake. Fornot only did this presbyter not follow the evil opinions of Nestorius,but as a matter of fact exhibited to the synod his libellum writtenagainst Nestorius; in which so far from asserting that Nestoriuswas orthodox, he distinctly calls him
Photius has included this canon in his Nomocanons, Title I., cap.j.
It has been held by some and was urged by the Greeks at the Councilof Florence, (1) and often before and since, as well as by PopeLeo III., in answer to the ambassadors of Charlemagne, that theprohibition of the Council of Ephesus to make, hold, or teachany other faith than that of Nice forbade anyone, even a subsequentGeneral Council, to add anything to the creed. This interpretationseems to be shewn to be incorrect from the following circumstances.
1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediatelyafter it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved,and on the strength of which it had received its author, and afterthe reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From thisit seems clear that
(E. B. Pusey, On the Clause "and the Son," p. 81.)
St. Cyril ought to understand the canon, which he probably himselfframed, as presiding over the Council of Ephesus, as Archbishopof Alexandria and representative of Celestine, Bishop of Rome.His signature immediately succeeds the Canon. We can hardly thinkthat we understand it better than he who probably framed it, naywho presided over the Council which passed it. He, however, explainedthat what was not against the Creed was not beside it. The Orientalshad proposed to him, as terms of communion, that he should "doaway with all he had written in epistles, tomes, or books, andagree with that only faith which had been defined by our holyFathers at Nice." But, St. Cyril wrote back: "We allfollow that exposition of faith which was defined by the holyfathers in the city of Nice, sapping absolutely nothing of thethings contained in it. For they are all right and unexceptionable;and anything curious, after it, is not safe. But what I have rightlywritten against the blasphemies of Nestorius no words will persuademe to say that they were not done well:" and against theimputation that he "had received an exposition of faith ornew Creed, as dishonouring that old and venerable Creed,"he says:
"Neither have we demanded of any an exposition of faith,nor have we received one newly framed by others. For Divine Scripturesuffices us, and the prudence of the holy fathers, and the symbolof faith, framed perfectly as to all right doctrine. But sincethe most holy Eastern Bishops differed from us as to that of Ephesusand were somehow suspected of being entangled in the meshes ofNestorius, therefore they very wisely made a defence, to freethemselves from blame, and eager to satisfy the lovers of theblameless faith that they were minded to have no share in hisimpiety; and the thing is far from all note of blame. If Nestoriushimself, when we all held out to him that he ought to condemnhis own dogmas and choose the truth instead thereof, had madea written confession thereon, who would say that he framed forus a new exposition of faith? Why then do they calumniate theassent of the most holy Bishops of Phoenicia, calling it a newsetting forth of the Creed, whereas they made it for a good andnecessary end, to defend themselves and soothe those
233
who thought that they followed the innovations of Nestorius? Forthe holy Ecumenical Synod gathered at Ephesus provided, of necessity,that no other exposition of faith besides that which existed,which the most blessed fathers, speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined,should be brought into the Churches of God. But they who at onetime, I know not how, differed from it, and were suspected ofnot being right-minded, following the Apostolic and Evangelicdoctrines, how should they free themselves from this ill-report?by silence? or rather by self-defence, and by manifesting thepower of the faith which was in them? The divine disciple wrote,"be ready always to give an answer to every one who askethyou an account of the hope which is in you." But he who willethto do this, innovates in nothing, nor doth he frame any new expositionof faith, but rather maketh plain to those who ask him, what faithhe hath concerning Christ." (1)
2. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice,are authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. For theyrenewed the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to "adduceany other faith," but, in "the faith" which isnot to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds of Niceand Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedonitself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because freshcontradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing thatboth Creeds should be read, the Council says, "This wiseand saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the fullknowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughlythe perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presentsto those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord."Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies were confuted byit, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up.
"These things being framed by us with all accuracy and careon every side, the holy and ecumenical Synod defines, that itshall be lawful for no one to produce or compose, or put together,or hold, or teach others another faith, and those who venture,etc." (as in the Council of Ephesus).
The Council of Chalcedon enlarged greatly the terms although notthe substance of the faith contained in the Nicene Creed; andthat, in view of the heresies, which had since arisen; and yetrenewed in terms the prohibition of the Canon of Ephesus and thepenalties annexed to its infringement. It shewed, then, in practice,that it did not hold the enlargement of the things proposed asderide to be prohibited, but only the producing of things contradictoryto the faith once delivered to the saints. Its prohibition, moreover,to "hold" another faith shews the more that they meantonly to prohibit any contradictory statement of faith. For ifthey had prohibited any additional statement not being a contradictionof its truth, then (as Cardinal Julian acutely argued in the Councilof Florence), any one would fall under its anathema, who held(as all must) anything not expressed in set terms in the NiceneCreed; such as that God is eternal or incomprehensible.
It may not be amiss to remember that the argument that
234
4. The Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Second of Constantinople,received both the creeds of Nice and that of Constantinople, aswell of the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and yet at theend of the fourth Session we find in the acts that the fatherscried out, with respect to the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia:"This creed Satan composed. Anathema to him that composedthis creed! The First Council of Ephesus anathematized this creedand its author. We know only one symbol of faith, that which theholy fathers of Nice set forth and handed down. This also thethree holy Synods handed down. Into this we were baptized, andinto this we baptize, etc., etc." (1)
From this it is clearer than day that these fathers looked uponthe creed of Constantinople, with its additions, to be yet thesame creed as that of Nice.
(Le Quien, Diss. Dam., n. 37.)
In the Sixth Council also, no one objecting, Peter of Nicomedia,Theodore, and other bishops, clerks, and monks, who had embracedthe Monothelite heresy, openly recited a Creed longer and fullerthan the Nicene.
In the Seventh Synod also, another was read written by Theodoreof Jerusalem: and again, Basil of Ancyra, and the other Bishops,who had embraced the errors of the Iconoclasts, again offeredanother, although the Canon of Ephesus pronounced, that "itshould not be lawful to offer to heretics, who wished to be convertedto the Church, any other creed than the Nicene." In thissame Synod, was read another profession of faith, which Tarasiushad sent to the Patriarchs of the Eastern sees. It contains theNicene, or Constantinopolitan Creed, variously enlarged and interpolated.But of the Holy Spirit it has specifically this: "And inthe Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, which proceedethfrom the Father through the Son." But since the Greeks atthe Council of Florence said, that these were individual, notcommon, formulae of faith, here are others, which are plainlycommon and solemn, which are contained in their own rituals. Theydo not baptize a Hebrew or a Jew, until he have pronounced a professionof Christian Faith, altogether different from the Creed of Constantinople,as may be seen in the Euchologion. In the consecration of a Bishop,the Bishop elect is first bidden to recite the Creed of Constantinople;and then, as if this did not suffice, a second and a third aredemanded of him; of which the last contains that aforesaid symbol,intermingled with various declarations. Nay, Photius himself ispointed out to be the author of this interpolated symbol. (2)I pass by other formulae, which the Greeks have framed for thosewho return to the Church from divers heresies or sects, althoughthe terms of the Canon of Ephesus are, that "it is unlawfulto propose any other faith to those who wish to be converted tothe Church, from heathenism, or Judaism, or any heresy whatever."
The Judgment of the same Holy Synod, pronounced on the petitionpresented to it by the Bishops of Cyprus:
CANON VIII.
OUR brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellowbeloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province ofCyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introducedcontrary to the ecclessiastical constitutions and the Canons ofthe Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore,since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as theycause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressionsof an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who havepetitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth
235
that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations inCyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shallenjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of theblessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing forthemselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The samerule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere,so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control ofany province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning,been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if anyone has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall giveit up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or thevanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacredoffice; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, theliberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men,hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed thatin every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning,have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to theold prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitanhaving permission to take, for his own security, a copy of theseacts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to whatis hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimouslydecrees that it shall be of no effect.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
Let the rights of each province be preserved pure and inviolate.No attempt to introduce any form contrary to these shall be ofany avail.
The caption is the one given in the ordinary Greek texts.The canon is found word for word in the VII Session of the Council,with the heading, "A decree of the same holy Synod."(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 802.)
I have followed in reading "the Canons of the Holy Apostles"the reading in Balsamon and Zonaras, and that of Elias EhingerusAugustanus (so says Beveridge) in his edition of the Greek canons,A.D. 1614. But the Bodleian MS, and John of Antioch in his collectionof the Canons, and the Codex edited by Christopher Justellus read"of the Holy Fathers" instead of "of the Holy Apostles."Beveridge is of opinion that this is the truer reading, for whileno doubt the Ephesine Fathers had in mind the Apostolic Canons,yet they seem to have more particularly referred in this placeto the canons of Nice. And this seems to be intimated in the libellumof the Bishops of Cyprus, who gave rise to this very decree,in which the condemned practice is said to be "contrary
to the Apostolic Canons and to the definitions of the most holyCouncil of Nice."
This canon Photius does not recognize, for in the Prefaceto his Nomocanon he distinctly writes that there were but sevencanons adopted by the Ephesine Synod, and in the first chapterof the first title he cites the pre- ceding canon as the seventh,that is the last. John of Antioch likewise says that there are but seven canons of Ephesus, but reckons this present canon asthe seventh, from which Beveridge concludes that he rejects theCanon concerning Charisius (vii).
BEVERIDGE.
Concerning the present canon, of rather decree, the Bishopof Antioch, who had given occasion to the six former canons, gavealso occasion for the enacting of this, by arrogating to himselfthe right of ordaining in the Island of Cyprus, in violation offormer usage. After the bishops of that island, who are mentionedin the canon, had presented their statements (libellum) to theSynod, the present decree was set forth, in which warning wasgiven that no innovation should be tolerated in Ecclesiasticaladministration, whether in Cyprus or elsewhere; but that in allDioceses and Provinces their ancient rights and privileges shouldbe preserved.
THE LETTER OF THE SAME HOLY SYNOD OF EPHESUS, TO THE SACRED SYNODIN PAMPHYLIA CONCERNING EUSTATHIUS WHO HAD BEEN THEIR METROPOLITAN.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tome III., col. 806.)
Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, "Doall things with vice," (1) it is especially their duty whohave had the priestly ministry allotted to them to examine withall diligence whatever matters are to be transacted. For to thosewho will so spend their lives, it comes to pass both that theyare established in [the enjoyment of] an honest hope concerningwhat belongs to them, and that they are borne along, as by a favouringbreeze, in things that they desire: so that, in truth, the saying[of the Scripture] has much reason [to commend it]. But thereare times when bitter and intolerable grief swoops down upon themind, and has the effect of cruelly beclouding it, so as to carryit away from the pursuit of what is needful, and persuade it toconsider that to be of service which is in its [very] nature mischievous.Something of this kind we have seen endured by that most excellentand most religious Bishop Eustathius. For it is in evidence thathe has been ordained canonically; but having been much disturbed,as he declares, by certain parties, and having entered upon circumstanceshe had not foreseen, therefore, though fully able to repel theslanders of his persecutors, he nevertheless, through an extraordinaryinexperience of affairs, declined to battle with the difficultieswhich beset him, and in some way that we know not set forth anact of resignation. Yet it behooved him, when he had been onceen-trusted with the priestly care, to cling to it with spiritualenergy, and, as it were, to strip himself to strive against thetroubles and gladly to endure the sweat for which he had bargained.But inasmuch as he proved himself to be deficient in practicalcapacity, having met with this misfortune rather from inexperiencethan from cowardice and sloth, your holiness has of necessityordained our most excellent and most religious brother and fellow-bishop,Theodore, as the overseer of the Church; for it
was not reasonable that it should remain in widowhood, and thatthe Saviour's sheep should pass their time without a shepherd.But when he came to us weeping, not contending with the aforenamedmost religious Bishop Theodore for his See or Church, but in themeantime seeking only for his rank and title as a bishop, we allsuffered with the old man in his grief, and considering his weepingas our own, we hastened to discover whether the aforenamed [Eustathius]had been subjected to a legal deposition, or whether, forsooth,he had been convicted on any of the absurd charges alleged bycertain parties who had poured forth idle gossip against his reputation.And indeed we learned that nothing of such a kind had taken place,but rather that his resignation had been counted against the saidEustathins instead of a [regular] indictment. Wherefore, we didby no means blame your holiness for being compelled to ordaininto his place the aforenamed most excellent Bishop Theodore.But forasmuch as it was not seemly to contend much against theunpractical character of the man, while it was rather necessaryto have pity on the eider who, at so advanced an age, was nowso far away from the city which had given him birth, and fromthe dwelling-places of his fathers, we have judicially pronouncedand decreed without any opposition, that he shall have both thename, and the rank, and the communion of the episcopate. On thiscondition, however, only, that he shall not ordain, and that heshall not take and minister to a Church of his own individualauthority; but that [he shall do so only] if taken as an assistant,or when appointed, if it should so chance, by a brother and fellow-bishop,in accordance with the ordinance and the love which is in Christ.If, however, ye shall determine anything more favourable towardshim, either now or hereafter, this also will be pleasing to theHoly Synod.
THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD TO POPE CELESTINE.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 659; also inMigne, Pat. Lat. [reprinted from Galland., Vett. Patr., Tom. ix.],Tom. L., Ep. xx., col. 511.)
THE RELATION WHICH THE HOLY COUNCIL OF EPHESUS SENT TO POPE CELESTINE;IN WHICH ARE EXPLAINED WHAT THINGS WERE DONE IN THAT HOLY ANDGREAT COUNCIL.
The Holy Synod which by the grace of God was assembled atEphesus the Metropolis to the most holy and our fellow-ministerCoelestine, health in the Lord.
The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your care for the rightfaith, so grateful and highly pleasing to God the Saviour of usall, are worthy of all admiration. For it is your custom in suchgreat matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmationof the Churches you have made your own care. But since it is rightthat all things which have taken place should be brought to theknowledge of your holiness, we are writing of necessity [to informyou] that, by the will of Christ the Saviour of us all, and inaccordance with the orders of the most pious and Christ-lovingEmperors, we assembled together in the Metropolis of the Ephesiansfrom many and far scattered regions, being in all over two hundredbishops. Then, in accordance with the decrees of the Christ-lovingEmperors by whom we were assembled, we fixed the date of the meetingof the holy Synod as the Feast of the Holy Pentecost, all agreeingthereto, especially as it was contained in the letters of theEmperors that if anyone did not arrive at the appointed time,he was absent with no good conscience, and was inexcusable bothbefore God and man. The most reverend John bishop of Antioch stoppedbehind; not in singleness of heart, nor because the length ofthe journey made the impediment, but hiding in his mind his planand his thought (which was so displeasing to God,) [a plan andthought] which he made clear when not long afterwards he arrivedat Ephesus.
Therefore we put off the assembling [of the council] after theappointed day of the Holy Pentecost for sixteen whole days; in
the meanwhile many of the bishops and clerics were overtaken withillness, and much burdened by the expense, and some even died.A great injury was thus being done to the great Synod, as yourholiness easily perceives. For he used perversely such long delaythat many from much greater distances arrived before him.
Nevertheless after sixteen days had passed, certain of thebishops who were with him, to wit, two Metropolitans, the oneAlexander of Apamea, and the other Alexander of Hierapolis, arrivedbefore him. And when we complained of the tardy coming of themost reverend bishop John, not once, but often, we were told,"He gave us command to announce to your reverence, that ifanything should happen to delay him, not to put off the Synod,but to do what was right." After having received this message,--andas it was manifest, as well from his delay as from the announcementsjust made to us, that he refused to attend the Council, whetherout of friendship to Nestorius, or because he had been a clericof a church under his sway, or out of regard to petitions madeby some in his favour,--the Holy Council sat in the great churchof Ephesus, which bears the name of Mary.
But when all with zeal had come together, Nestorius alonewas found missing from the council, thereupon the holy Synod senthim admonition in accordance with the canons by bishops, a first,second, and third time. But he surrounding his house with soldiers,set himself up against the ecclesiastical laws, neither did heshew himself, nor give any satisfaction for his iniquitous blasphemies.
After this the letters were read which were written to himby the most holy and most reverend bishop of the Church of Alexandria,Cyril, which the Holy Synod approved as being orthodox and withoutfault (
238
sometime ago at Nice in Bithynia, as your holiness also rightlyhaving examined this has given witness.
On the other hand there was read the letter of Nestorius,which was written to the already mentioned most holy and reverendbrother of ours and fellow-minister, Cyril, and the Holy Synodwas of opinion that those things which were taught in it werewholly alien from the Apostolic and Evangelical faith, sick withmany and strange blasphemies.
His most impious expositions were likewise read, and alsothe letter written to him by your holiness, in which he was properlycondemned as one who had written blasphemy and had inserted irreligiousviews (
Therefore as an impious and most pestilent heresy, which pervertsour most pure religion (
For as soon as he was come to Ephesus, before he had evenshaken off the dust of the journey, or changed his travellingdress, he assembled those who had sided with
Nestorius and who had uttered blasphemies against their head,and only not derided the glory of Christ, and gathering as a collegeto himself, I suppose, thirty men, having the name of bishops(some of whom were without sees, wandering about and having nodioceses, others others again had for many years been deposedfor serious causes from their metropolises, and with these werePelagians and the followers of Celestius, and some of those whowere turned out of Thessaly),he had the presumption to commita piece of iniquity no man had ever done before. For all by himselfhe drew up a paper which he called a deposition, and reviled andreproached the most holy and reverend Cyril, bishop of Alexandria,and the most reverend Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, our brother,and fellow-minister, none of us knowing anything about it, andnot even those who were thus reviling knew what was being done,nor for what reason they had presumed to do this. But ignoringthe anger of God for such behaviour, and unheeding the ecclesiasticalcanons, and forgetting that they were hastening to destructionby such a course of action, under the name of an excommunication,they then reviled the whole Synod. And placing these acts of theirson the public bulletin boards, they exposed them to be read bysuch as chose to do so, having posted them on the outside of thetheatres, that they might make a spectacle of their impiety. Butnot even was this the limit of their audacity; but as if theyhad done something in accordance with the canons, they dared tobring what they had done to the ears of the most pious and Christ-lovingEmperors. Things being in this condition, the most holy and reverendCyril, bishop of Alexandria and the most reverend Memnon bishopof the city of Ephesus, offered some books composed by themselvesand accusing the most reverend Bishop John and those who withhim had done this thing, and conjuring our holy Synod that Johnand those with him should be summoned according to the canons,so that they might apologize for their dating acts, and if theyhad any complaints to make they might speak and prove them, forin their written deposition, or rather sheet of abuse, they madethis statement as a pretext, "They are Apollinarians, andArians, and Eunomians, and therefore they have been deposed byus."
239
When, therefore, those who had endured their reviling were present,we again necessarily assembled in the great church, being morethan two hundred bishops, and by a first, second, and third callon two days, we summoned John and his companions to the Synod,in order that they might examine those who had been reviled, andmight make explanations, and tell the causes which led them todraw up the sentence of deposition; but he (1) did not dare to come.
But it was right that he, if he could truly prove the before-mentionedholy men to be heretics, both should come and prove the truthof that which, accepted as a true and indubitable crime, inducedthe temerarious sentence against them. But being condemned byhis own conscience he did not come. Now what he had planned wasthis. For he thought that when that foundation-less and most unjustreviling was done away, the just vote of the Synod which it castagainst the heretic Nestorius would likewise be dissolved. Beingjustly vexed, therefore, we determined to inflict according tolaw the same penalty upon him and those who were with him, whichhe contrary to law had pronounced against those who had been convictedof no fault. But although most justly and in accordance with lawhe would have suffered this punishment yet in the hope that byour patience his temerity might be conquered, we have reservedthis to the decision of your holiness. In the meanwhile, we havedeprived them of communion and have taken from them all priestlypower, so that they may not be able to do any harm by their opinions.For those who thus ferociously, and cruelly, and uncanonicallyare wont to rush to such frightful and most wicked things, howwas it not necessary that they should be stripped of the powerswhich [as a matter of fact] they did not possess, (2) of beingable to do harm.
With our brethren and fellow-ministers, both Cyril the bishopand Memnon, who had endured reproval at their hands, we are allin communion, and after the rashness [of their accusers] we bothhave and do perform the liturgy in common, all together celebrating the Synaxis,having made of none effect their play in writing, and having thusshewn that it lacked all validity and effect. For it was merereviling and nothing else. For what kind of a synod could thirtymen hold, some of whom were marked with the stamp of heresy, andsome without sees and ejected [from their dioceses]? Or what strengthcould it have in opposition to a synod gathered from all the wholeworld? For there were sitting with us the most reverend bishopsArcadius and Projectus, and with them the most holy presbyterPhilip, all of whom were sent by your holiness, who gave to usyour presence and filled the place of the Apostolic See (
When there had been read in the holy Synod what had been donetouching the deposition of the most irreligious Pelagians andCoelestines, of Coelestius, and Pelagius, and Julian, and Praesidius,and Florus, and Marcellian, and Orontius, and those inclined tolike errors, we also deemed it right (
240
THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD OFEPHESUS AGAINST THE IMPIOUS MESSALIANS WHO ARE ALSOCALLED EUCHETAE ANDENTHUSIASTS.
(Found in Latin only. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III.,col. 809.)
When the most pious and religious bishops, Valerian and Amphilochiushad come to us, they proposed that we should consider in commonthe case of the Messalians, that is the Euchetes or Enthusiasts,who were flourishing in Pamphylia, or by what other name thismost contaminating heresy is called. And when we were consideringthe question, the most pious and religious bishop Valerian, presentedto us a synodical schedule which had been drawn up concerningthem in the great city of Constantinople, under Sisinnius of blessedmemory: What we read therein was ap-proved by all, as well composedand as a due presentation of the case. And it seemed good to usall, and to the most pious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius andto all the most pious bishops of the provinces of Pamphylia andLycaonia, that all things contained in that Synodical chart shouldbe confirmed and in no way rescinded; also that the action takenat Alexandria might also be made firm, so that all, those whothroughout the whole province are of the Messalian or Enthusiasticheresy, or suspected of being tainted with that heresy, whetherclerics or laymen, may come together; and if they shall anathematizein writing, according to the decrees pronounced in the aforesaidsynod [their errors], if they are clergymen they may remain such;and if laymen they may be admitted to communion. But if they refuseto anathematize, if they were presbyters or deacons or in anyother ecclesiastical grade, let them be cast out of the clergyand from their grade, and also from communion; if they be lay-menlet them be anathematized.
Furthermore those convicted of this heresy are no more tobe permitted to have the rule of our monasteries, lest tares besown and increase. And we give command that the most pious bishopsValerian and Amphilochius, and the rest of the most reverend bishopsof the whole province shall pay attention that this decree becarried into effect. In addition to this it seemed good that thefilthy book of this heresy, which is called the "Asceticon,"should be anathematized, as composed by heretics, a copy of whichthe most religious and pious Valerian brought with him. Likewiseanything savouring of their impiety which may be found among thepeople, let it be anathema.
Moreover when they come together, let there be commended bythem in writing such things as are useful and necessary for concord,and communion, and arrangement (dispositionem vel dispensationem).But should any question arise in connexion with the present business,and if it should prove to be difficult and ambiguous, what isnot approved by the most pious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius,and the other bishops throughout the province, they ought to discussall things by reference to what is written. And if the most piousbishops of the Lycians or of the Lycaonians shall have been passedover; nevertheless let not a Metropolitan be left out of whateverprovince he may be. And let these things be inserted in the Actsso that if any have need of them they would find how also to expoundthese things more diligently to others.
NOTE ON THE MESSALIANS OR MASSALIANS.
(Tillemont, Memoires, Tom. VIII., Seconde Partie. Condensed.)
St. Epiphanius distinguishes two sorts of persons who werecalled by the name of Messalians, the one and the more ancientwere heathen, the other were Christian in name.
The Messalians who bore the Christian name had no beginning,nor end, nor chief, nor fixed faith. Their first writers wereDadoes, Sabas, Adelphus, Hermes, Simeon and some
241
others. Adelphus was neither monk nor clerk, but a layman. Sabashad taken the habit of an anchorite and was surnamed "theEunuch," because he had mutilated himself. Adelphus was ofMesopotamia and was considered their leader, so that they aresometimes called "Adelphians." They are also called"Eustathians." "Euchites" is the Greek equivalentof "Messalians" in Hebrew. They were also called "Enthusiasts"or "Corentes" because of the agitation the devils causedthem, which they attributed to the Holy Spirit.
St. Epiphanius thought that these heretics sprang up in thetime of Constance, although Theodoret does not put them down untilthe days of Valentinian. They came from Mesopotamia, but spreadas far as Antioch by the year 376.
They pretended to renounce the world, and to give up theirpossessions, and under the habit of monks they taught Manichaeanimpieties, and others still more detestable.
Their principal tenet was that everyone inherited from hisancestors a demon, who had possession of his soul from the momentof his birth, and always led it to evil. That baptism cut awaythe outside branches of sin, but could not free the soul of thisdemon, and that therefore its reception was useless. That onlyconstant prayer could drive out this demon. That when it was expelled,the Holy Spirit descended and gave visible and sensible marksof his presence, and delivered the body from all the uprisingsof passion, and the soul from the inclination to evil, so thatafterwards there was no need of fasting, nor of controlling lustby the precepts of the Gospel.
Besides this chief dogma, gross errors, contrary to the firstprinciples of religion, were attributed to them. That the divinitychanged itself in different manners to unite itself to their souls.They held that the body of Christ was infinite like his divinenature; they did not hesitate to say that his body was at firstfull of devils which were driven out when the Word took it uponhim.(1) They claimed that they possessed clear knowledge of thestate of souls after death, read the hearts and desires of man,the secrets of the future and saw the Holy Trinity with theirbodily eyes. They affirmed that man could not only attain perfectionbut equal the deity in virtue and knowledge.
They never fasted, slept men and women together, in warm weatherin the open streets. But certain say that before attaining tothis liberty of license three years of mortification were required,
The most well-known point of their discipline is that theyforbade all manual labour as evil, and unworthy of the spiritual.
Harmenopulus in his Basilicoe (Tom. I. Lib. ix.) says thatthey held the Cross in horror, that they refused to honour theHoly Virgin, or St. John the Baptist, or any of the Saints unlessthey were Martyrs; that they mutilated themselves at will, thatthey dissolved marriages, that they foreswore and perjured themselveswithout scruple, that women were appointed as mistresses of thesect to instruct and govern men, even priests.
Although so opposed to the faith of the Church, yet for allthis the Messalians did not separate themselves from her communion.They did not believe in the Communion as a mystery which sanctifiesus, which must be approached with fear and faith, but only cameto the holy Table to hide themselves and to pass for Catholics,for this was one of their artifices. When asked, they had no hesitationin denying all that they believed, and were willing to anathematizethose who thought with them. And all this they did without fear,because they were taught they had attained perfection, that isimpassibility.
Vide Theodoret, H. E., Lib. iv., cap. xi.
Photius tells us that John of Antioch wrote against these heretics.
St. Maximus the Abbot speaks of this heresy as still existingin the VIIth Century, and as practising the most abominable infamies.Photius bears witness of its resuscitation
242
in his days in Cappadocia with its wonted corruptions. Harmenopulusremarks that a certain Eleutherius of Paphlagonia had added toit new crimes, and that in part it became the source of the sectof the Bogomiles, so well known in the decadence of the Greekempire.
DECREE OF THE SYNOD IN THE MATTER OF EUPREPIUS AND CYRIL.
(Found in Latin only. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III.,col. 810.)
The petition of the most pious bishops Euprepius and Cyril,which is set forth in the papers they offered, is honest. Thereforefrom the holy canons and the external laws, which have from ancientcustom the force of law,(1) let no innovation be made in the citiesof Europa, but according to the ancient custom they shall be governedby the bishops by whom they have been formerly governed. For sincethere never was a metropolitan who had power otherwise, so neitherhereafter shall there be any departure from the ancient custom.
NOTE.
(Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 77.)
Two Thracian bishops, Euprepius of Biza (Bizya) and Cyrilof Coele, gave occasion for a decree, praying for protection againsttheir Metropolitan, Fritilas of Heraclea, who had gone over tothe party of John of Antioch, and at the same time for the confirmationof the previous practice of holding two bishoprics at the sametime. The Synod granted both.
fromThe Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, pp. 192-242
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Feb 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
