The Nestorian Controversy The Co


The Council of Ephesus was called to settle the dispute which had arisen

between Cyril and the Alexandrians and Nestorius, archbishop of

Constantinople, and the Antiochians. Several councils had been held

previously, and much acrimonious debate. Both parties desired a council to

adjust the dispute. The Emperor Theodosius II, in an edict of November 19,

430, called a council to be held on the following Whitsunday at Ephesus.
<
r /> The council was opened by Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, June 22, a

few days after the date assigned. This opening of the synod was opposed by

the imperial commissioner and the party of Nestorius, because many of the

Antiochians had not yet arrived. Cyril and Memnon, who had undertaken to

bring about the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, forced through

their programme. On June 26 or 27 the Antiochians arrived, and, under the

presidency of John of Antioch, and with the approval of the imperial

commissioner, they held a council attended by about fifty bishops, while

two hundred attended the rival council under Cyril. This smaller council

deposed Cyril and Memnon. Both synods appealed to the Emperor and were

confirmed by him. But shortly after Cyril and Memnon were restored. The

Antiochians now violently attacked the successful Alexandrians but, having

abandoned Nestorius, patched up a union with the Alexandrians, by which

Cyril subscribed in 433 to a creed drawn up by the Antiochians, probably

by Theodoret of Cyrus. Accordingly, the council of Cyril was now

recognized by the Antiochians, as well as by the imperial authority, and

became known as the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.





Additional source material: Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 29-34;

Theodoret, Epistulae in PNF, ser. II, vol. III, and his counter

propositions to the Anathemas of Cyril, ibid., pp. 27-31;

Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF).





(a) Cyril of Alexandria, Anathematisms. Hahn, § 219.





Condemnation of the position of Nestorius.





Cyril held a council at Alexandria in 430, in which he set forth

the teaching of Nestorius, as he understood it, in the form of

anathemas against any who held the opinions which he set forth in

order. Nestorius immediately replied by corresponding

anathematisms. They may be found translated PNF, ser. II, vol.

XIV, p. 206, where they are placed alongside of Cyril's. In the

meantime, Celestine of Rome had called upon Nestorius to retract,

though as a matter of fact the Nestorian or Antiochian position

was more in harmony with the position held in Rome, e.g.,

compare Anath. IV with the language of Nestorius and Leo, see

Tome of Leo in § 90. A Greek text of these Anathematisms of

Cyril may be found also in Denziger, n. 113, as they were

described in the Fifth General Council as part of the acts of the

Council of Ephesus A. D. 431; the Latin version (the Greek is

lost) of the Anathematisms of Nestorius, as given by Marius

Mercator are in Kirch, nn. 724-736.





I. If any one shall not confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and

that therefore the holy Virgin is Theotokos, inasmuch as according to the

flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema.



II. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united

according to hypostasis to flesh, and that with the flesh of His own He is

one Christ, the same manifestly God and man at the same time; let him be

anathema.



III. If any one after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ,

joining them by a connection only, which is according to worthiness, or

even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is

made by a union according to nature; let him be anathema.



IV. If any one divide between the two persons or hypostases the

expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or which have been

said concerning Christ by the saints, or by Himself concerning Himself,

and shall apply some to Him as to a man regarded separately apart from the

Word of God, and shall apply others, as appropriate to God only, to the

Word of God the Father; let him be anathema.



V. If any one dare to say that the Christ is a god-bearing man, and not

rather that He is in truth God, as an only Son by nature, because "The

Word was made flesh," and hath share in flesh and blood as we have; let

him be anathema.



VI. If any one shall dare to say that the Word of God the Father is the

God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess Him as

at the same time both God and man, since according to the Scriptures the

Word became flesh; let him be anathema.



VII. If any one say that Jesus is, as a man, energized by the Word of God,

and that the glory of the Only begotten is attributed to Him as being

something else than His own; let him be anathema.



VIII. If any one say that the man assumed ought to be worshipped together

with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and recognized

together with Him as God, as one being with another (for this phrase

"together with" is added to convey this meaning) and shall not rather with

one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay Him one glorification, because

"the Word was made flesh"; let him be anathema.



IX. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by

the Spirit, so that He used through Him a power not His own, and from Him

received power against unclean spirits, and power to perform divine signs

before men, and shall not rather confess that it was His own spirit,

through which He worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.



X. The divine Scriptures say that Christ was made the high priest and

apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1], and that for our sakes He offered

Himself as a sweet odor to God the Father. If then any one say that it is

not the divine Word himself, when He was made flesh and had become man as

we are, but another than He, a man born of a woman, yet different from Him

who has become our high priest and apostle; or if any one say that He

offered Himself as an offering for Himself, and not rather for us,

whereas, being without sin, He had no need of offering; let him be

anathema.



XI. If any one shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord is

life-giving, and belongs to the Word of God the Father as His very own,

but shall pretend that it belongs to another who is united to Him

according to worthiness, and who has served as only a dwelling for the

Divinity; and shall not rather confess that that flesh is life-giving, as

we say, because it has been made the possession of the Word who is able to

give life to all; let him be anathema.



XII. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God suffered in the

flesh, and that He was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise He tasted

death in the flesh, and that He is become the first-born from the dead

[Col. 1:18], for as God He is the life and life-giving; let him be

anathema.





(b) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. Condemnation of Nestorius. Mansi,

IV, 1211.





The text may also be found in Hefele, § 134, under the First

Session of the Council.





The holy synod says: Since in addition to other things the impious

Nestorius has not obeyed our Citation and did not receive the most holy

and God-fearing bishops who were sent to him by us, we were compelled to

proceed to the examination of his impieties. And, discovering from his

letters and treatises and from the discourses recently delivered by him in

this metropolis, which have been testified to, that he has held and

published impious doctrines, and being compelled thereto by the canons and

by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the

Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence

against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he has blasphemed, decrees through

the present most holy synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal

dignity and from all priestly communion.





(c) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Ep. ad Celestinum. Mansi, IV,

1330-1338.





The letter is very long and gives an almost complete history of

the council. It may be found complete in PNF, loc. cit., p. 237.

It is of special importance in connection with the Pelagian

controversy, as it states that the Council of Ephesus had

confirmed the Western deposition of the Pelagians.





The letters were read which were written to him [Nestorius] by the most

holy and reverend bishop of the church of Alexandria, Cyril, which the

holy synod approved as being orthodox and without fault, and in no point

out of agreement, either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with

the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod by the holy Fathers

who were assembled some time ago at Nicaea, as your holiness, also rightly

having examined this, has given witness.



When there had been read in the holy synod what had been done touching the

deposition of the irreligious Pelagians and Celestinians, of Celestius,

Pelagius, Julianus, Praesidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and Orontius, and

those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the

determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and

firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed.





(d) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Canons, Bruns, I, 24.





The text may be found also in Hefele, § 141.





Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy synod and

remained in their own district or city for any reason, ecclesiastical or

personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were decreed by the

synod; we therefore notify your holiness and charity that----



I. If any metropolitan of a province, forsaking the holy and ecumenical

synod, has joined the assembly of apostasy [the council under John of

Antioch], or shall join the same hereafter; or if he has adopted, or shall

adopt, the doctrines of Celestius,(185) he has no power in any way to do

anything in opposition to the bishops of the province because he is

already cast forth by the synod from all ecclesiastical communion, and is

without authority; but he shall be subjected to the same bishops of the

province and to the neighboring bishops who hold the orthodox doctrines,

to be degraded completely from his episcopal rank.



II. If any provincial bishops were not present at the holy synod, and have

joined or attempted to join the apostasy; or if, after subscribing to the

deposition of Nestorius, they went back to the assembly of apostasy,

these, according to the decree of the holy synod, are to be deposed

completely from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.





(e) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Manifesto of John of Antioch and his

council against Cyril and his council. Mansi, IV, 1271.





The holy synod assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and at the

command of the pious emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to

be able to hold a synod in peace, according to the canons of the holy

Fathers and the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors; but

because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and

obstinate disposition, although, according to the letters of our most

pious emperors, we were in the neighborhood, and because you have filled

both the city and the holy synod with every sort of confusion, in order to

prevent the examination of points agreeing with the Apollinarian, Arian,

and Eunomian heresies and impieties, and have not waited for the arrival

of the most religious bishops summoned from all regions by our pious

emperors, and when the most magnificent Count Candidianus warned you and

admonished you in writing and verbally that you should not hear such a

matter, but await the common judgment of all the most holy bishops;

therefore know thou, O Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and thou, O Memnon,

bishop of this city, that ye are dismissed and deposed from all sacerdotal

functions as the originators and leaders of all this disorder and

lawlessness, and those who have violated the canons of the Fathers and the

imperial decrees. And all ye others who seditiously and wickedly, and

contrary to all ecclesiastical sanctions and the royal decrees, gave your

consent are excommunicated until you acknowledge your fault and reform and

accept anew the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, adding to it

nothing foreign or different, and until ye anathematize the heretical

propositions of Cyril, which are plainly repugnant to evangelical and

apostolic doctrine, and in all things comply with the letters of our most

pious and Christ-loving emperors, who require a peaceful and accurate

consideration of the dogma.





(f) Creed of Antioch A. D. 433. Hahn, § 170.





This creed was probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus, and was

sent by Count Johannes to the Emperor Theodosius in 431 as

expressing the teaching of the Antiochian party. The bitterest

period of the Nestorian controversy was after the council which is

commonly regarded as having settled it. The Antiochians and the

Alexandrians attacked each other vigorously. At last, in 433,

John, bishop of Antioch, sent the creed given below to Cyril of

Alexandria, who signed it. The creed expresses accurately the

position of Nestorius. In this way a union was patched up between

the contending parties. But the irreconcilable Nestorians left the

Church permanently. This creed in the form in which it had been

presented to the Emperor was at the beginning and the end worded

somewhat differently, cf. Hahn, loc. cit., note.





We therefore acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only

begotten, complete God and complete man, of a rational soul and body;

begotten of the Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in

the last days for us and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, according

to the manhood; that He is of the same nature as the Father according to

His godhead, and of the same nature with us according to His manhood; for

a union of the two natures has been made; therefore we confess one Christ,

one Son, one Lord. According to this conception of the unconfused union,

we confess that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, because God the Word was

made flesh and became man, and from her conception united with Himself the

temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical and apostolic

utterances concerning the Lord, making common, as in one person, the

divine and the human characteristics, but distinguishing them as in two

natures; and teaching that the godlike traits are according to the godhead

of Christ, and the humble traits according to His manhood.



More

;