« ForrigeFortsett »
we all believe; thus does the pope Leo believe; thus did Cyril believe; thus has the pope expounded."
Another interlocution was then issued, that the form set forth by the hundred and fifty fathers should also be read: which was accordingly done; and the members of the synod exclaimed, "This is the faith of all; this is the faith of the orthodox; thus do we all believe !"
Then Aetius, the archdeacon, said that he held in his hand the epistle of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which all who were assembled at Ephesus had ratified by their individual subscriptions ; as also another epistle of the same Cyril addressed to John of Antioch, which had itself also been confirmed. These he earnestly prayed might be read. Agreeably with an interlocution on the point, both were then read; a portion of the former being precisely as follows. Cyril to our most reverend fellow minister Nestorius. Certain persons, as I am informed, treat my rebuke with levity in the presence of your Holiness, and that, too, repeatedly, taking especial occasion for that purpose of the meetings of the authorities; perhaps also with the idea of gratifying your own ears." Afterwards it proceeds: "The declaration, then, of the holy and great synod was this that the only begotten Son, begotten naturally of God the Father, very God of very God, light of light, by whose agency the Father made all things, descended, was incarnate, assumed humanity, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven. This declaration we, too, ought to follow, carefully considering what is signified by the expression that the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity. For we do not affirm that the nature of the Word by undergoing a change became flesh, nor yet was even converted into a complete human being, consisting of soul and body; but this we rather maintain, that the Word, by uniting personally with himself flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and bore the title of the Son of Man, not in respect of mere will or pleasure, nor even, as it were, in an assumption of person merely; and, further, that the natures which conspired to the true unity, were different,' but from both is one Christ and Son; not as though
For the Divine and human nature being joined together, have constituted to us one Christ and Lord. And so that is true which Cyril says,
the difference of the natures had been done away for the sake of the union, but they had rather consummated for us the one Lord and Christ and Son, from both the Godhead and the manhood, by their ineffable and mysterious coalition for unity." And presently the epistle proceeds. "But since, for our sakes and for our salvation, having personally united humanity with himself, he came forth from a woman; in this respect he is said also to have been born carnally. For he was not born in the first instance an ordinary man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him: but the Word, having been united from the very womb, is said to have undergone a carnal nativity, as it were, by an assumption of the nativity of his own flesh. In this manner we say that He suffered and rose again; not as though the Word of God had endured, as regards his own nature, stripes or piercings of nails, or the other wounds, for the Deity is impassible, as being incorporeal. Since, however, his own body underwent these circumstances, Himself is said, on the other hand, to have suffered them on our behalf, inasmuch as the impassible being was in the suffering body."
The greater part of the other epistle has been inserted in the preceding portion of this history. It contains, however, a passage to the following effect, which John, bishop of Antioch, wrote, and Cyril entirely approved. "We confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because from her the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity, and from the very conception united with himself the temple which was derived from her. With respect, however, to the evangelical and apostolical language concerning our Lord, we know that the expressions of the divinely inspired men are sometimes comprehensive, as in respect of a single person; sometimes distinctive, as in respect of two natures; and that they deliver such as are of divine import, in reference to the Godhead of Christ, and those which are humble, in reference to His manhood." Cyril then subjoins the following words :-" On read
viz. that two natures diverse amongst themselves, have come together into a true unity. Not that of two natures one is made, in such manner as Eutyches asserted; but, that of two natures one Christ hath existed. And thus Cyril has explained the true doctrine in these words, "by an ineffable, mystical, and secret concourse to an unity." Vales.
See above, b. i. ch. 6.
ing these your sacred expressions, we find that we ourselves hold the same opinion: for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. We accordingly glorify God, the Saviour of all, rejoicing mutually, because both our churches and yours hold a faith which is in accordance with the inspired Scriptures, and the tradition of our holy fathers."
After the reading of these epistles, the members of the synod exclaimed in these words: "Thus do we all believe; thus does the pope Leo believe. Anathema to him that divides and to him that confounds! This is the faith of Leo the archbishop. Thus does Leo believe. Thus do Leo and Anatolius believe. Thus do we all believe. As Cyril believed, so do we. Eternal be the memory of Cyril! Agreeably with the epistles of Cyril do we also think. Thus did we believe; thus do we now believe. Leo the archbishop thus thinks, thus believes, thus has written."
An interlocution having been given to that effect, the epistle of Leo was also read, in a translation, and is inserted in the Acts; the bishops at its conclusion exclaiming, "This is the faith of the fathers: this is the faith of the apostles. Thus do we all believe: thus do the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has uttered these words through Leo. Thus have the apostles taught. Leo has taught truly and piously: thus has Cyril taught. The teaching of Leo and Cyril is the same. Anathema to him who does not thus believe! This is the true faith. Thus do the orthodox think. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was not this read at Ephesus? This did Dioscorus withhold."
It is contained in the Acts that, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed some hesitation, after the following passage of the epistle had been read: "In order to the discharge of the debt of our natural state, the Divine nature was united to the passible, that one and the same person, the man Christ Jesus, being the Mediator between God and man, might be enabled from the one part to die, but incapable of decease from the other, such being the process adapted to our cure ;"-that upon this Aetius, archdeacon of the most holy church of Constantinople, produced a passage from Cyril to the following purport: Since, however, His own body by the grace of God, as says the apostle Paul, tasted death for
every man,' Himself is said to have suffered the death on our behalf; not that he experienced death to the extent of his own nature, for it would be madness to say or think this, but because, as I said before, his flesh tasted death."
Again, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed their hesitation at the following passage of the epistle of Leo:-"For there operates in each form its peculiar property, in union with what belongs to the other; the Word working that which pertains to the Word, and the body discharging that which pertains to the body; and the one shines forth by the miracles, the other was subjected to the insults;" upon this the said Aetius read a passage of Cyril as follows: "The rest of the expressions are especially appropriate to Deity; others, again, are equally suited to manhood; and some hold, as it were, an intermediate place, presenting the Son of God as being God and man at the same time." Afterwards, when the same bishops hesitated at another part of the epistle of Leo, which is as follows:-" Although in our Lord Jesus Christ there is altogether one person, of God and man, yet the one part from which was derived to the other a community of ignominy, is distinct from that from which proceeded a community of glory; for from us was derived the manhood, which is inferior to the Father, and from the Father the Godhead, which partakes equality with the Father:" Theodoret said, to adjust the point, that the blessed Cyril had also expressed himself thus:-" That He both became man, and at the same time did not lay aside His proper nature; for the latter continued as before, though dwelling in what was different from it; namely, the Divine nature in conjunction with humanity." Afterwards, when the illustrious magistrates asked whether any one still hesitated, all replied that they no longer entertained any doubt.
Atticus, bishop of Nicopolis, then begged a respite of a few days, in order that a formulary might be framed of the matters which were approved by God and the holy fathers. He also prayed that they might have the epistle which was addressed by Cyril to Nestorius, in which he exhorts him to assent to his twelve chapters.2 All expressed their concurrence in these
'Heb. ii. 9.
2 There is an ambiguity in these words. For they may as well be referred to Cyril's twelve heads, of which he speaks just before, as to the
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EVAGRIUS. [B. II. C. 18.
has no othe enffort the 80 is affored
to them by such
requests; and when the magistrates had ruled that a respite
At the next meeting, when the senators had ruled that the
The fathers, for whom the bishops entreat, that they may be restored to the synod, are Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius, of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basil; who had been deposed in the first Act together with Dioscorus, by an interlocution of the judges and senators. On account therefore of this deposition, which the bishops had approved of by their suffrages, these five bishops were present neither at the second nor third Act, as it is apparent from the catalogue of the bishops which is prefixed before those Acts. Besides, in the third Act, when the legates of the apostolic see had pronounced the sentence of deposition against Dioscorus, the rest of the bishops confirmed it by their own subscriptions, excepting these five, as Evagrius has truly observed above.