Extracts from the Acts.

 The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius.

 Extracts from the Acts.

 The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII. Anathematisms.

 The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against…

 The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius.

 Excursus on the Word Θεοτόκος .

 II.

 III.

 IV.

 V.

 VI.

 VII.

 VIII.

 IX.

 Excursus on How Our Lord Worked Miracles.

 X.

 XI.

 XII.

 Extracts from the Acts.

 Decree of the Council Against Nestorius.

 Extracts from the Acts.

 The Letter of Pope Cœlestine to the Synod of Ephesus.

 Extracts from the Acts.

 Extracts from the Acts.

 The Canons of the Two Hundred Holy and Blessed…

  The Canons of the Two Hundred Holy and Blessed Fathers Who Met at Ephesus. 

 Canon I.

 Excursus on the Conciliabulum of John of Antioch.

 Canon II.

 Canon III.

 Canon IV.

 Excursus on Pelagianism.

 Canon V.

 Canon VI.

 Canon VII.

 Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑπέραν

 Canon VIII.

 The Letter of the Same Holy Synod of Ephesus, to the Sacred Synod in Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius Who Had Been Their Metropolitan.

 The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine.

 The Definition of the Holy and Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus Against the Impious Messalians Who are Also Called Euchetæ and Enthusiasts.

 Note on the Messalians or Massalians.

 Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril.

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 made flesh,” 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 assumption of human nature, there is only one Son of God, namely, he who is so in nature (  naturaliter filius = Logos), while he (since the assumption of the flesh) is certainly Emmanuel; let him be anathema.

Petavius.

It is manifest that this anathematism is directed against the blasphemy of Nestorius, by which he said that Christ was in this sense Emmanuel, that a man was united and associated with God, just as God had been said to have been with the Prophets and other holy men, and to have had his abode in them; so that they were properly styled Θεοφόροι, because, as it were, they carried God about with them; but there was no one made of the two. But he held that our Lord as man was bound and united with God only by a communion of dignity.

Nestorius [in his Counter Anathematism] displays the hidden meaning of his heresy, when he says, that the Son of God is not one after the assumption of the humanity; for he who denied that he was one, no doubt thought that he was two.

Theodoret in his criticism of this Anathematism remarks that many of the Ancients, including St. Basil had used this very word, Θεοφόρος, for the Lord; but the objection has no real foundation, for the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of such a word must be determined by the context in which it is used, and also by the known opinions of him that uses it. Expressions which are in a loose sense orthodox and quite excusable before a heresy arises, may become afterwards the very distinctive marks and shibboleths of error. Petavius has pointed out how far from orthodox many of the earliest Christian writers were, at least verbally, and Bp. Bull defended them by the same line of argument I have just used and which Petavius himself employs in this very connection.