Christology


St. Athanasius – Against the Arians
For what ought He, when made man, to say ? ” In the beginning I was man ? ” This were neither suitable to Him nor true ; and as it beseemed not to say this, so it is natural and proper in the case of man to say,
He created and He made Him…on the other hand, when He signifies absolutely His generation from the Father, straightway He adds, Before all the hilts He begets Me ; but He does not add the ” wherefore,” as in the case of He created, when He says, for the works, but He says absolutely. He begets Me, as in the passage. In the beginning was the Word. 

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians
And now I come to that further truth which is implied in His being ” beginning of ways.” When He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and First-born. For though it was after us that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the First-born of us, because, all men being lost according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word’s Body ; and henceforth we, becoming incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians
He sends His own Son, who becomes Son of Man by taking created flesh; that, since all men were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body; and that henceforth, all having died in Him, the word of that sentence might be accomplished, (for all died in Christ,) and that all through Him might thereupon become free from sin and from the curse which came upon sin, and might truly abide for ever, risen from the dead and clothed in immortality and incorruption.

St. Athanasius – Letter To Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor
So then, beloved and most longed-for, let what I have said put in mind those who love the Lord, while as to those who have imitated the behaviour of Judas, and deserted the Lord to join Caiaphas, let them by these things be taught better, if maybe they are willing, if maybe they are ashamed. And let them know that in worshipping the Lord in the flesh we do not worship a creature, but, as we said above, the Creator Who has put on the created body. 

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians (Discourse II)
Such then being the difference between ‘created’ and ‘begat me,’ and between ‘beginning of ways’ and ‘before all,’ God, being first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes Father of men, because of His Word dwelling in them. But in the case of the Word the reverse; for God, being His Father by nature, becomes afterwards both His Creator and Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh which was created and made, and becomes man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the Son, become children through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself puts on the flesh of man, then is said both to be created and to have been made. If then we are by nature sons, then is He by nature creature and work; but if we become sons by adoption and grace, then has the Word also, when in grace towards us He became man, said, ‘The Lord created me.’ And in the next place, when He put on a created nature and became like us in body, reasonably was He therefore called both our Brother and ‘Firstborn.’ For though it was after us that He was made man for us, and our brother by similitude of body, still He is therefore called and is the ‘First-born’ of us, because, all men being lost, according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh before all others was saved and liberated, as being the Word’s body

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Second Letter to Succensus
They have also said: ‘If the same one is understood to be perfect God and perfect man, and consubstantial with the Father in the deity, and consubstantial with us in the manhood, then how can there be a perfection if the nature of man no longer endures? and how can there be consubstantiality with us if our essence, that is our nature, no longer subsists?’ The explanation or response contained in the preceding section adequately answers these points. For if we had said that there was one nature of the Word and had kept silent and not added that it was ‘incarnate’, as if we were excluding the economy, they might perhaps have had a point when they pretended to ask where was the perfection in the humanity or how did our human essence endure. But since both the perfection in the humanity and the assertion of our human essence is implied by the word ‘incarnate’ then let them stop leaning on this broken staff (Is.36.6). For if anyone took away from the Son his perfect humanity he could rightly be accused of throwing the economy overboard, and of denying the incarnation. But if, as I have said, when we say that he was incarnated this is a clear and unambiguous confession of the fact that he became man, then there is nothing at all to prevent us from thinking that the same Christ, the One and Only Son, is both God and man, as perfect in humanity as he is in deity. Your Perfection expounds the rationale of the salvific Passion most correctly and very learnedly when you assert that the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own nature, but suffered rather in his earthly nature…

I understand that another query has been raised in regard to these matters, as follows: ‘So, anyone who says that the Lord suffered only at the level of the flesh, makes that suffering mindless and involuntary. But if anyone says that he suffered with a rational soul, so that the suffering might be voluntary, then there is nothing to prevent one from saying that he suffered in the nature of the manhood, and if this is the case then how can we deny that the two natures endured after the union? So, even if one says: ‘Christ, therefore, having suffered for us in the flesh’ (1 Pet.4.1), this is no different from saying: ‘Christ having suffered for us in our nature’.

This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. And so, even if one attributes the nature of manhood and Godhead to the Emmanuel, still the manhood has become the personal property of the Word and we understand there is One Son together with it. The God-inspired scripture tells us that he suffered in the flesh (1 Pet. 4.1) and it would be better for us to speak this way rather than [say he suffered] in the nature of the manhood, even though such a statement (unless it is said uncompromisingly by certain people) does not damage the sense of the mystery. For what else is the nature of manhood except the flesh with a rational soul? We maintain, therefore, that the Lord suffered in the flesh. And so they are simply splitting hairs when they talk about him suffering in the nature of the manhood, which serves only to separate it from the Word and set it apart on its own so that one is led to think of him as two and no longer the one Word of God the Father now incarnated and made man. To add the qualification ‘inseparably’ seems to indicate that they share the orthodox opinion along with us, but this is not how they really think, for they understand the word ‘inseparable’ in the same empty sense as Nestorius. They say that the man in whom the Word took his dwelling was inseparable from him in terms of equality of honour, identity of will, and authority, all of which means that they do not use the words straightforwardly but with a certain amount of trickery and deceit.



Liturgy of St. Gregory Nazianzen – Prayer of 
Reconciliation
You, who are, who were, who continue unto the age, the self-existent, consubstantial, co-enthroned and co-creator with the Father. Who for goodness alone, brought man into being from what was not. And You placed him in the paradise of joy. But after he had fallen by the guile of the enemy, and the disobedience toward Your holy commandment and when You willed to renew him, and restore him to his original rank. Neither an angel nor an archangel nor a patriarch nor a prophet did You entrust with our salvation. But You Yourself, without change, took flesh and became man, and resembled us in everything except sin alone

St. Cyril of Alexandria – On the Unity of Christ
Full surely: for thus WAS He MADE in likeness to us in everything except sin…For God the Father hath begotten of His own Self the Son by a single generation, yet did it please Him in Him to save the human race by the means of Incarnation or being made man, which must full surely take place through birth of a woman, in order that by the likeness to us of the Word that is born from God, the law of sin in the members of our flesh might be condemned, death be brought to nought in the likeness of the death of Him Who knows not death: for if we have been co-planted (it says) in the likeness of His death so shall we be also in the likeness of His Resurrection. Hence needs has He Who is and Who existeth been born after the flesh, transferring ours into Himself in order that the offspring of flesh, that is we, corruptible and perishing, might abide in Him Who at length has ours for His own in order that WE too may have His. For for our sakes became He poor who is Rich in order that WE by His Poverty might be rich.

St. Ambrose – Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter VII
Hereby we are brought to understand that the prophecy of the Incarnation, “The Lord ceated me the beginning of His ways for His works,” means that the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the redeeming of the Father’s works. Truly, we cannot doubt that this is spoken of the mystery of the Incarnation, forasmuch as the Lord took upon Him our flesh, in order to save the works of His hands from the slavery of corruption, so that He might, by the sufferings of His own body, overthrow him who had the power of death. For Christ’s flesh is for the sake of things created, but His Godhead existed before them, seeing that He is before all things, whilst all things exist together in Him.

St. Athanasius – Against Appolinarius
Therefore the Word, being God, and the Maker of the first man, came that He might become Man, in order to give life to man, and to overthrow the unrighteous enemy, and was born of a woman, having restored in Himself the form of man as at first created”, by an ” exhibition” of flesh without carnal desires and human thoughts, as a representative of renewal. For the will belonged to the Godhead only , since the whole nature of the Word (was present) under the exhibition of the human form and visible flesh of the second Adam, not by a division of per sons, but by the real existence of Godhead and Manhood. For on this account did the devil draw near to Jesus, as to a man, but not finding in him a token of the old “seed sown” [Matthew 13:23] in man, nor any success of his immediate attempt, he was defeated, and gave way in confusion, and being enfeebled, said, “Who is this that comes from Edom” [Isaiah 63:1], that is, from the land of men, walking “with force and strength”? Therefore also the Lord said, “The prince of this world comes and finds nothing in me” [John 14:30]. And yet we are taught that the second Adam had both a soul, and a body, and the whole of the first Adam. For if the word “nothing” had referred to the real being of man, how came he to find the visible body of him who said “nothing”? But he did not find in him the things which he himself had produced in the first Adam; and thus was sin destroyed by Christ. Therefore also the Scripture testifies, “Who did no sin, neither was guilt found in his mouth” [Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22].

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, BOOK IV 
Be no wise offended then, O man, when thou hearest Him say, I have come down from Heaven, not to do Mine own Will, but the Will of Him that sent Me. For what we said at the beginning, this we will say again. Christ said this of a definite and plain matter. For He saith these words, teaching that He willed to die for all because the Divine Nature had so counselled, but willed it not by reason of the Sufferings on the Cross, and as far as pertained to the flesh which deprecates death. And we have already expended many words: but it is convenient that we should see from the very nature of things that the suffering on the Cross was unwilled by Christ, in that He was Man. We say then that it was a work of Jewish folly, that Christ should be crucified at all, and this was immediately to happen from them, who were not unpractised in boldness hereunto by means of what they had already done both to the holy Prophets, and the saints who were at that time. But since no otherwise was it possible to raise again unto life that which had fallen into death, unless the Only Begotten Word of God became Man, and it was wholly needful that made Man, He should suffer; He made what He willed not, His Will, the Divine Nature having permitted this from Love to us.

St. John Chrysostom – Homilies on Epistle to the Hebrews
Is it then Angels only? No; for hear what follows: “And of His Angels He saith, Which maketh His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire: but unto the Son, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Behold, the greatest difference! that they are created, but He uncreated. While of His angels He saith, who “maketh”; wherefore of the Son did He not say “Who maketh”? Although he might have expressed the difference as follows:“Of His Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, but of the Son, ‘The Lord created Me’: ‘God hath made Him Lord and Christ.’” ( Prov. viii. 22; Acts ii. 36.) But neither was the one spoken concerning the Son, nor the other concerning God The Word, but concerning the flesh. For when he desired to express the true difference, he no longer included angels only, but the whole ministering power above. Seest thou how he distinguishes, and with how great clearness, between creatures and Creator, ministers and Lord, the Heir and true Son, and slaves?

St. Gregory the Theologian – Oration XXX
In their eyes the following is only too ready to hand “The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways with a view to His works.” How shall we meet this?…What among all things that exist is unoriginate?  The Godhead.  For no one can tell the origin of God, that otherwise would be older than God.  But what is the cause of the Manhood, which for our sake God assumed?  It was surely our Salvation.  What else could it be?  Since then we find here clearly both the Created and the Begetteth Me, the argument is simple.  Whatever we find joined with a cause we are to refer to the Manhood, but all that is absolute and unoriginate we are to reckon to the account of His Godhead.  Well, then, is not this “Created” said in connection with a cause?  He created Me, it so says, as the beginning of His ways, with a view to his works. Now, the Works of His Hands are verity and judgment; for whose sake He was anointed with Godhead; for this anointing is of the Manhood; but the “He begetteth Me” is not connected with a cause; or it is for you to shew the adjunct.  What argument then will disprove that Wisdom is called a creature, in connection with the lower generation, but Begotten in respect of the first and more incomprehensible?

St. Athanasius – Statement of Faith
For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable. However, the body which He wore for our sakes is a creature: concerning which Jeremiah says, according to the edition of the seventy translators (Jeremiah 31:22): ‘The Lord created for us for a planting a new salvation, in which salvation men shall go about:’ but according to Aquila the same text runs: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman.’ Now the salvation created for us for a planting, which is new, not old, and for us, not before us, is Jesus, Who in respect of the Saviour was made man, and whose name is translated in one place Salvation, in another Saviour. But salvation proceeds from the Saviour, just as illumination does from the light. The salvation, then, which was from the Saviour, being created new, did, as Jeremiah says, ‘create for us a new salvation,’ and as Aquila renders: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman,’ that is in Mary. For nothing new was created in woman, save the Lord’s body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus: ‘The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works’ (Proverbs 8:22). Now He does not say, ‘created me before His works,’ lest any should take the text of the deity of the Word

St. Athanasius – Letter to the Bishops of Egypt
But it is written, say they, ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works.’ O untaught and insensate that ye are! He is called also in the Scriptures, ‘servant,’ and ‘son of a handmaid,’ and ‘lamb,’ and ‘sheep,’ and it is said that He suffered toil, and thirst, and was beaten, and has suffered pain. But there is plainly a reasonable ground and cause, why such representations as these are given of Him in the Scriptures; and it is because He became man and the Son of man, and took upon Him the form of a servant, which is the human flesh: for ‘the Word,’ says John, ‘was made flesh.’ And since He became man, no one ought to be offended at such expressions; for it is proper to man to be created, and born, and formed, to suffer toil and pain, to die and to rise again from the dead. And as, being Word and Wisdom of the Father, He has all the attributes of the Father, His eternity, and His unchangeableness, and the being like Him in all respects and in all things, and is neither before nor after, but co-existent with the Father, and is the very form of the Godhead, and is the Creator, and is not created: (for since He is in essence like the Father, He cannot be a creature, but must be the Creator, as Himself hath said, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:’) so being made man, and bearing our flesh, He is necessarily said to be created and made, and that is proper to all flesh; however, these men, like Jewish vintners, who mix their wine with water, debase the Word, and subject His Godhead to their notions of created things.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians (Discourse I)
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;’ but for our sakes afterwards the ‘Word was made flesh.’ And the term in question, ‘highly exalted,’ does not signify that the essence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever and is ‘equal to God,’ but the exaltation is of the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word became flesh; that it might be plain that ‘humbled’ and ‘exalted’ are spoken of His human nature; for where there is humble estate, there too may be exaltation; and if because of His taking flesh ‘humbled’ is written, it is clear that ‘highly exalted’ is also said because of it. For of this was man’s nature in want, because of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took the form of the servant, and as man underwent for us death in His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death we all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we might be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and ascending into heaven, ‘whither the forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

St. Alexander of Alexandria – Epistles on Arianism
And since He was God, why was He made man? Why did He who was reigning in heaven come down to earth? Who compelled God to come down to earth, to take flesh of the holy Virgin, to be wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger, to be nourished with milk, to be baptized in the Jordan, to be mocked of the people, to be nailed to the tree, to be buried in the bosom of the earth, and the third day to rise again from the dead; in the cause of redemption to give life for life, blood for blood, to undergo death for death? For Christ, by dying, has discharged the debt of death to which man was obnoxious. Oh, the new and ineffable mystery! The Judge was judged. He who absolves from sin was bound; He was mocked who once framed the world; He was stretched upon the cross who stretched out the heavens; He was fed with gall who gave the manna to be bread; He died who gives life. He was given up to the tomb who raises the dead. The powers were astonished, the angels wondered, the elements trembled, the whole created universe was shaken, the earth quaked, and its foundations rocked; the sun fled away, the elements were subverted, the light of day receded; because they could not bear to look upon their crucified Lord. The creature, in amazement, said, What is this novel mystery? The judge is judged and is silent; the invisible is seen and is not confounded; the incomprehensible is grasped and is not indignant at it; the immeasurable is contained in a measure and makes no opposition; the impassable suffers and does not avenge its own injury; the immortal dies and complains not; the celestial is buried and bears it with an equal mind.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome II
But the inventor of the most recent impiety, albeit making feint of saying One Christ, ever divides the Natures and sets Each by itself, saying that they did not truly come together; but making excuses in sins, as it is written, devises some mode of connection, of merely (as I said) equality of rank, as shall be shewn from his own words: and he makes the Word out of God indwell by participation, as in a common man, and distributes the sayings in the Gospels, so as one while to attribute certain to the Word alone and by Himself, other while to him that is born from forth a woman separately. Yet how is it not obvious to all that the Only-Begotten being God by Nature has been made man, not by connection simply (as he says) considered as external or accidental, but by true union, ineffable and passing understanding. And thus He is conceived of as One and Only, and every thing said befits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the Incarnate Nature of the Word Himself is after the Union now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived in regard to ourselves too, for man is really One, compounded of unlike things, soul I mean and body. But it is necessary now too to notify that we say that the Body united to God the Word is ensouled with a reasonable Soul. And I will for profit’s sake add this too: other than the Word out of God is the flesh, in regard to its proper nature, other again Essentially the Nature of the Word Itself. But even though the things named be conceived of as diverse and sundered in diverseness of nature, yet is Christ conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together one to another in true union.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – To Eulogius the Priest (Letter 44)
And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also. Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his phusis is one as the Word made flesh. The bishops from the East confess these doctrines, even though they are somewhat obscure concerning the expression. For since they confess that the only begotten Word begotten of God the Father was himself also begotten of a woman according to flesh, that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, that his person is one, and that there are not two sons, or two christs, but one, how do they agree with the teachings of Nestorius? For Nestorius in his expositions pretends to say that the Son is one and the Lord is one but he refers the sonship and the lordship only to the Word of God, but when he comes to the dispensation of the Incarnation, again he says that the man born of woman is separately another Lord conjoined to the first by worthiness or equality of honor. But how is saying that in this way God the Word is named Christ because he has the conjoining with Christ not clearly stating that there are two christs, if a christ has a conjoining with a christ as one with another? But the bishops from the East have said no such thing; they only separate the sayings. And they separate them in this manner. Some are proper to his divinity, others are human, and others have a position in common as being both proper to his divinity and his humanity. Yet they are sayings concerning him, one and the same, and not as Nestorius ascribes some to God the Word taken separately, and others to him born of woman as to another son. For it is one thing to know the difference of the sayings and another to distribute them to two persons as if to one and then to another.

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 AD – 270AD) – A Sectional Confession of the Faith, Chapter 15
Further, we acknowledge that the Son of God was made a Son of man, having taken to Himself the flesh from the Virgin Mary, not in name, but in reality; and that He is both the perfect Son of God, and the (perfect) Son of man, — that the Person is but one, and that there is one worship for the Word and the flesh that He assumed. And we anathematize those who constitute different worships, one for the divine and another for the human, and who worship the man born of Mary as though He were another than the God of God. For we know that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And we worship Him who was made man on account of our salvation, not indeed as made perfectly like in the like body, but as the Lord who has taken to Himself the form of the servant. We acknowledge the passion of the Lord in the flesh, the resurrection in the power of His divinity, the ascension to heaven, and His glorious appearing when He comes for the judgment of the living and the dead, and for the eternal life of the saints.

St. Athanasius – Letter To Maximus
But if they are in doubt whether He is God at all, let them reverence Thomas, who handled the Crucified and pronounced Him Lord and God.
Or let them fear the Lord Himself, who said, after washing the feet of the disciples: ‘Ye call Me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for so I am.’ But in the same body in which He was when he washed their feet, He also carried up our sins to the Tree. And He was witnessed to as Master of Creation, in that the Sun withdrew his beams and the earth trembled and the rocks were rent, and the executioners recognized that the Crucified was truly Son of God. For the Body they beheld was not that of some man, but of God, being in which, even when being crucified, He raised the dead. Accordingly it is no good venture of theirs to say that the Word of God came into a certain holy man; for this was true of each of the prophets and of the other saints, and on that assumption He would clearly be born and die in the case of each one of them. But this is not so, far be the thought. But once for all ‘at the consummation of the ages, to put away sin’ ‘the Word was made flesh’ and proceeded forth from Mary the Virgin, Man after our likeness, as also He said to the Jews, ‘Wherefore seek ye to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth?’ And we are deified not by partaking of the body of some man, but by receiving the Body of the Word Himself.

St. Athanasius – Letter To Epictetus
For this reason they also will henceforth keep silence, who once said that He who proceeded from Mary is not very Christ, or Lord, or God. For if He were not God in the Body, how came He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called ‘Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us?’ Why again, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans ‘of whom is Christ after the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever. Amen?’ Let them therefore confess, even they who previously denied that the Crucified was God, that they have erred; for the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing upon Him the print of the nails, cried out ‘My Lord and my God!’ For the Son, being God, and Lord of glory, was in the Body which was ingloriously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body, while it suffered, being pierced on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side, yet because it was a temple of the Word was filled full of the Godhead. For this reason it was that the sun, seeing its creator suffering in His outraged body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself being of mortal nature, beyond its own nature rose again by reason of the Word which was in it; and it has ceased from natural corruption, and, having put on the Word which is above man, has become incorruptible…For what that Body suffered is said to have been suffered by the Word. And while we are merely told of the others that they were born, and begotten, it is said in the case of the Son of Mary alone that ‘The Word was made Flesh.’


 

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 AD – 270AD) – Twelve Topics on the Faith
If any one affirms that the Son of God who is before the ages is one, and He who has appeared in these last times is another, and refuses to acknowledge that He who is before the ages is the same with Him who appeared in these last times, even as it is written, let him be anathema. If any one affirms that He who suffered is one, and that He who suffered not is another, and refuses to acknowledge that the Word, who is Himself the impassable and unchangeable God, suffered in the flesh which He had assumed really, yet without mutation, even as it is written, let him be anathema.

Explication: How could it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead;” and again, “When ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father;” and again, “When the Son of man cometh in the glory of His Father?”


Pope Damasus I ( 305 AD- 384 AD) – Synodical Letter to Paullinus Bishop of Antioch
We anathematize those who assert that the Logos, or Word, was instead of a reasonable soul in the human body of Christ. For the Very Word of God was not in the place of a reasonable and intellectual soul in Christ ; but the Eternal Word assumed a human soul—that is, a reasonable and intellectual soul—and has retained it in union with Himself. If any one says that the Word of God suffered in His Godhead and not in His flesh and reasonable soul, which He took in the form of a servant as the Scriptures teach, let him be anathema. If any one does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and died, and became the first begotten from the dead, being the Life, and Author of Life, as God, let him be anathema.”

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians (Discourse IV)
as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, ‘Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument, He became man for our sakes.’ And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God’s. And well has the Prophet said ‘carried;’ and has not said, ‘He remedied our infirmities,’ lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no hurt


Pope Dioscorus- FROM A LETTER OF THE BLESSED DIOSCORUS THE
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WRIT’I’EN FROM EXILE
1N GANGRA, TO THE MONKS OF THE HENNATON
I am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving drink, as God. They saw Him stoned by the Jews, as Man, and they saw Him worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him tempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the Devils, as God. And similarly of many (other) things. But in order not to make much din (trouble) in writing, I will leave the matter for the purpose of collecting testimonies of everyone of the heads together; and I mean to collect them, by the help of God, when a convenient opportunity bids me to it.

But we leave the absurdity of those who hold opposite notions, and we confess One and the Same to be the Redeemer the Lord and God, although we see Him to have become by Economy Man. Hold to the Confession, therefore, of the fathers and do not listen to the soul destroying words of Heretics, nor hold intercourse with those who divide into Two Him Who is One; for, One is our Redeemer, as I said, although out of compassion for us He became Man.

Sufficiently indeed, as I consider, to the great confusion of Heretics, the Teachings of Holy Bishops and Orthodox Archbishops have proved the fatuity of the Affirmations of Heretics and shewn at the same time that it is an Impiety to speak of Two Natures in God The Word Incarnate; for, they have excommunicated those who hold this Doctrine, and they have banished from The Hope of Christians those who do not confess God The Word to be Consubstantial with the Father, because He became Consubstantial with Man, taking Flesh, although He remained unchangeably what He was before; as they had done (excommunicated and banished) with the rest of the Heretics.

But to persuade more and more those who build their foundation upon the Immoveable Rock of the Orthodox Faith and to confute more and more the Heresies mentioned above, I adduce testimonies from the Divine New Testament written under the Spirit, along with the Expositions of the Holy Fathers, by whose aid it is possible manifestly to condemn the Heresies alluded to above and to hold to the Immoveable and Blessings bringing Orthodox Faith Which was transmitted by the Holy Apostles and by our Blessed and Learned Father. Perhaps, they who have fallen from and denied the Lord will hear and will repent, as said the Prophet, and turn to the Lord with confession and abound in tears of Repentance, in order that they may be healed ; for, God does continually take care of, and gives His hand to, those driven from him far off, calling them to Him.

And after testimonies from the Scriptures. These things, then, refer to those who will not repent and turn to The Lord, whom The Lord Jesus Christ bought with His Own blood. For, He is Very God and the Eternal Life of the World, as says John; for, One is The Lord Jesus Christ, for ever and ever. Amen.


St. Gregory the Theologian – To Cledonius
Do not let men deceive or be deceived, accepting that the ‘man of the Lord’, as they call him, who is rather our Lord and God, is a man without a mind. For we do not separate the man from the Godhead, but we teach as a doctrine that he is one and the same, who was formerly not man but God, and the only and pre-eternal Son, unmingled with body and the things of the body, but who finally [became] a man, assumed for our salvation, passible in the flesh, impassible in the Godhead, circumscribed in the body, uncircumscribed in the spirit, the same both earthly and heavenly, seen and mentally apprehended, comprehensible and incomprehensible, so that by the same [person], who was both complete man and also God, the complete man who had succumbed to sin might be fashioned anew.  If anyone does not hold that Mary is Theotokos, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone [should hold] that he passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not formed in her at once divinely and humanly (divinely because without a man, humanly because in accordance with the laws of gestation), or if anyone should say that the man was formed and afterwards put on God, he is to be condemned, for this would not be a generation of God but an avoidance of generation. If anyone introduces two sons, one from the God and Father and the second from the mother, but not one and the same, may he be deprived of the adoption promised to those who believe correctly. For God and man are two natures, since also soul and body are; but there are not two sons or two Gods; for neither are there two men here, even if Paul spoke in this way of that which is within a man and that which is outside him. And, if one must speak concisely, there are indeed different elements that make up the Saviour, if indeed the invisible is not the same as the visible nor the timeless with that which is subject to time; yet there is no difference of person (God forbid!), for the two are one by the combination, the Godhead having become man and the man having been ‘deified’ or however one should express it. And I say different elements, which is the opposite of what is the case as regards the Trinity; for there [we acknowledge] different persons so as not to confound the hypostases, but not different elements, for the three are one and the same in Godhead. If anyone says that he worked in him by grace as in a prophet but was not and is not conjoined and moulded with him in essence, let him be empty of the higher operation, or rather full of the opposite. If anyone does not worship the crucified one, let him be anathema and be numbered among the murderers of God. If anyone says that he was made perfect by works, or that after his baptism or after his resurrection from the dead he was counted worthy of an adoptive sonship, as the pagans introduce interpolated [gods], let him be anathema. For that which began, or progresses, or is made perfect, is not God, even if it is spoken of in this way according to a gradual growth.

St. Theophilus of Alexandria (Sixth Paschal Letter)
Just as the best artists not only display their art on precious materials to general amazement but often take cheap clay and soluble wax to display the power of their skill and gain far greater praise, so the supreme artist of all, the living and active Word of God, beautifying the universe with the harmony of order, did not come to us through taking a heavenly body as a precious material, but displayed the greatness of his art in clay, transforming man who was fashioned out of clay. He came forth as man from the Virgin in a novel manner, changing the mode of generation and having resolved not to shun likeness to us in all respects save sin; being born, wrapped in swaddling clothes, and suckled, and lying as a baby in the cradle, he accepted for the reasons given the weakness of our nature. But while still a baby he confounded the enemy and his host, drawing the Magi to repentance and making them ignore the king who had sent them.

St. Severus of Antioch – Letter to Maron
Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: «For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature»: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: «Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’». But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Third Letter to Nestorius
But of necessity we shall add this also. Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his Resurrection from the dead and his Ascension into heaven, we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and we thus approach the spiritual blessings and are made holy, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and of the precious blood of Christ, the Savior of us all. And we do this, not as men receiving common flesh, far from it, nor truly the flesh of a man sanctified and conjoined to the Word according to a unity of dignity, or as one having had a divine indwelling, but as the truly life-giving and very own flesh of the Word himself. For, being life according to nature as God, when he was made one with his own flesh, He proclaimed it life-giving. Wherefore even if he may say to us, “Amen, I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,” we shall not conclude that his flesh is of some one as of a man who is one of us, (for how will the flesh of a man be life-giving according to its own nature?), but as being truly the very flesh of the Son who was both made man and named man for us. Moreover, we do not allocate the statements of our Savior in the Gospels either to two hupostaseis or indeed to two persons, for the one and only Christ is not twofold, even if he be considered as from two entities and they different, which had been made into an inseparable unity, just as, of course, man also is considered to be of soul and body yet is not twofold, but rather one from both. But, because we think rightly, we shall maintain that the statements as man and also the statements as God have been made by one person.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium (Letter 50)
How would they apply the name firstborn to the only begotten unless he was incarnate? For if the saying is true, “firstborn among many brethren” then rightly is he known to be the firstborn, since he descended unto brotherhood, which is obviously brotherhood with us, since he became man as we are, having been made like his brethren in all things, sin alone excepted. This consideration and thought would be enough for our piety that the flesh of God, the begetter of life in regard to everything, having come into being, has his life-giving power and force, and it enriches his unspeakable and unapproachable glory.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea (Letter 45)
But since your excellency is inquiring whether it is proper to speak of two natures in Christ or not, I thought I ought to speak on this matter. A certain Diodore, a sometime contender of the Holy Spirit, as they say, at one time was in communion with the church of the true faith. After he had put aside, as he thought, the blot of the Macedonian heresy, he fell into another sickness. For he thought and he wrote that there is one son separately begotten of the seed of David from the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God, and again another Son begotten separately, the Word of God the Father. As if concealing the wolf in a fleece of a sheep, he pretended to say that there is one Christ, by referring the name Christ just to the only begotten Son, the Word begotten of God the Father, since he allots the name to him in the order of grace, as he says himself, and he calls him the son of the seed of David as one united, he says, to the one who is truly the Son, united, however, not as we glorify him, but only according to dignity and according to authority and according to equality of honor.  Nestorius became the disciple of this Diodore, and then with mind darkened by his books he pretends to confess one Christ, Son and Lord, but he himself also divides the one into two, saying that the undivided man was connected to God the Word by the same name, by the same honor, and by dignity. And so he separates the sayings made about Christ in the evangelical and apostolic proclamations and says that some ought to be attributed to the man, obviously the statements proper to the humanity, and others alone are suited to God the Word, obviously those proper to divinity. And since in many places he divides and successively regards the one begotten from the Holy Virgin as man separately, and likewise separately and successively the Son, the Word of God the Father, for this reason he says that the Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God, but rather the mother of a man….
But since some people bind upon us the opinions of Apollinaris and say, “If you speak of one Son according to a perfect and commingled union, who is the Word of God the Father made man and incarnate, at once without doubt you seem to think and you knew you thought that a mixture, or a blending, or a confusion of the Word took place with his body, or else a change of his body into the nature of divinity.” For this reason and very wisely we say in answer to this calumny that the Word of God the Father incomprehensibly and in a manner which cannot be expressed united to himself a body animated by a rational soul and came forth a man from a woman, having become like unto us, not by a change of his nature but rather by the goodwill of the dispensation of his Incarnation. For he chose to become man without losing what he was as God by nature. But even if he descended unto the limitations which we have and has possessed “the form of a slave,” although being so, he remained in the preeminence of his divinity and in his natural lordship.
Accordingly when we assert the union of the Word of God the Father to his holy body which has a rational soul, a union which is ineffable and beyond thought and which took place without blending, without change, without alteration, we confess one Christ, Son and Lord, the Word of God the Father, the same God and man, not one and another, but one and the same, being, and known to be, God and man. Therefore sometimes he speaks as man according to the dispensation and according to his humanity, and sometimes as God he makes statements by the authority of his divinity. And we make the following assertions also. While skillfully examining the manner of his dispensation with flesh and finely probing the mystery, we see that the Word of God the Father was made man and was made flesh and that he has not fashioned that holy body from his divine nature but rather took it from the Virgin Mary. Since how did he become man, if he has not possessed a body like ours? Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying that he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one phusis of the Word [of God] made flesh.
Therefore, as far as concerns our understanding and only the contemplation by the eyes of the soul in what manner the only begotten became man, we say that there are two natures which are united, but that Christ the Son and Lord is one, the Word of God the Father made man and incarnate. And, if it seems best, let us accept as an example the composition in our own selves by which we are men. For we are composed of soul and body and we see two natures, the one being the nature of the body and the other the nature of the soul, but there is one from both in unity, a man. And because man is composed of two natures, this does not make two men be one, but one and the same man through the composition, as I said, of soul and body. For if we should deny that the one and only Christ is from two different natures, and that he is indivisible after the union, those who are fighting against the true faith will say, “If the whole is one phusis, how was he made man or what kind of body did he make his own?”…

And again: ‘Since the children have a fellowship of flesh and blood, he too shared in flesh and blood so that by death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is the devil, and might liberate all those who throughout their lives were held in bondage by the fear of death. He did not take to himself descent from angels but from the line of Abraham, which is why it was necessary for him to be made like his brethren in all things’ (Heb.2.14-17)…
He did not assume a man as Nestorius thinks. The scripture says that he was wearied from the journey, experienced sleepiness, anxiety, pain, and all the blameless human passions (cf. Jn.4.6; M l8.24; Mt.26.38 et passim) for this very reason that we might believe that he did become man, even though he remained what he was, that is God by nature.
And again, in order that he might give assurance to those seeing him that in addition to being man he is also true God, he worked signs of his divinity by rebuking the waves, by raising the dead, and performing other marvelous deeds. And he endured the cross also in order that by suffering death in his flesh and not in the nature of his divinity he might become “the first-born from the dead”! and might open up the road to immortality for the nature of man and by despoiling Hades might free the souls confined there. After the Resurrection it was the same body which had suffered except it no longer had the human infirmities in it. For we assert that it was no longer receptive of hunger, or of weariness, or of anything else of such a kind, but was thereafter incorruptible, and not only this but also life-giving, for it is the body of life, that is, the body of the only begotten, for it has been made resplendent with the glory most proper to his divinity and is known to be the body of God. Therefore, even if some might say that it is divine, just as, of course, it is the human body of a man, he would not err from proper reasoning. Whence I think that the very wise Paul said, “And even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.” For being God’s own body, as I said, it transcends all human bodies. But it is not admissible that a body from earth underwent a change into the nature of divinity, for it is impossible, and, if we admit it, we are dishonoring divinity as something coming into being and as adding to itself something which was not proper to it according to nature. For as a statement of absurdity it is the same thing to say that the body was transformed into the nature of divinity, and to say this, that the Word was transformed into the nature of flesh, by saying that the divinity had changed itself into the nature of flesh. And just as the latter is impossible, for he is unchanged and unaltered, so also is the former impossible. For it is unattainable that any creature change into the essence or nature of divinity, and flesh is a creature. Therefore, on the one hand, we say that the body of Christ is divine, since it is the body of God, and we say that it is resplendent with ineffable glory, incorruptible, holy and life-giving, but, on the other hand, none of the holy Fathers has either thought or said that it was changed into the nature of divinity, nor are we of this opinion either.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Melitene
But perhaps those on the opposite side might say: Behold, those who fashion the confession of the true faith clearly name two natures, but maintain that the expressions of those inspired by God are divided according to the difference of the two natures. Then, how are these assertions not opposite to yours? For you do not allow the attributing of expressions to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis. But, my dear friends, I would say, I have written in the propositions:

If anyone attributes to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis, the sayings and ascribes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, and ascribes others, as proper to God, only to the Word of God the Father, let him be condemned.

But in no way have we removed the distinctions between the sayings, even if we have made a worthless thing of separating them as attributed to the Son considered apart as the Word of God the Father, and to the Son again considered apart as a man from a woman. For confessedly there is one nature of the Word but we know that he has been made flesh and was made man, as I already said. If anyone would thoroughly inquire as to the manner in which he was made flesh and was made man, let him ponder on the Word, God of God, “having taken the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men,” as it is written. And according to this and only this is the difference of natures, that is, of hupostaseis, to be understood, for divinity and humanity are doubtless not the same in natural quality. Otherwise how has the Word, being God, emptied himself having lowered himself in lesser things, that is, to our condition? Accordingly, whenever the manner of the Incarnation is closely considered, the human mind doubtless sees the two ineffably and unconfusedly joined to each other in a union; but the mind in no wise divides them after they have been united, but believes and admits strongly that the one from both is God and Son and Christ and Lord.
But the heresy of Nestorius is completely different from this. For he pretends to confess that the Word, while being God, was incarnate and became man; but, not having known the meaning of the Incarnation, he names two natures but separates them from one another, putting God apart and likewise man in turn, conjoined to God by an external relationship only according to the equality of honor or at least sovereign power. For he says as follows, “God is inseparable from the one who is visible; because of this, I do not separate the honor of the one not separated; I separate the natures; but I unite the adoration.”
But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, 1 mean both the divinity and the humanity…
Therefore, is it not clear to all that they [of the East] do not separate into two the one Lord Jesus Christ, when they say that it is necessary to apply the sayings proper to God to his divinity, and again the human ones to his humanity? They affirm, as I said, that he is the Word of God the Father, begotten before ages, and was born “in recent days” according to the flesh from the Holy Virgin. They add that he was begotten according to the flesh through the ineffable and unconfused union, and they believe that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God and clearly confess one Son and Christ and Lord. It is completely incredible that they intend to say that he is one and yet divide the one into two. They have not come to such a state of insanity that they themselves would reinstate the transgressors by imprudently rebuilding what they rightly had torn down. If they agree with the opinions of Nestorius, how do they anathematize them as profane and loathsome?
But I think it is necessary to tell the reasons why those [of the East] came to such a degree of subtlety. For the supporters of the impiety of Arius, wickedly adulterating the meaning of the truth, say that the Word of God became man but that he availed himself of a body without a soul, and they do this out of a love of maliciousness in order that, by assigning to him the human sayings, they might show to those being led astray by them that he is in a lesser position than the excellence of the Father and declare him to be of a different nature from the Father. Because of this the bishops of the East, fearing that the glory and the nature of God the Word might be belittled on account of the things said about him humanly through the Incarnation, separate the sayings, not cutting into two persons, as I said, the one Son and Lord, but applying some sayings to his divinity and again others to his humanity; yet entirely all to one.

St. Athanasius – Letter To Epictetus
What lower region has vomited the statement that the Body born of Mary is coessential with the Godhead of the Word? or that the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body, and altered from its own nature? Or who ever heard in a Church, or even from Christians, that the Lord wore a body putatively, not in nature; or who ever went so far in impiety as to say and hold, that this Godhead, which is coessential with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect instead of perfect; and that what hung upon the tree was not the body, but the very creative Essence and Wisdom? Or who that hears that the Word transformed for Himself a passible body, not of Mary, but of His own Essence, could call him who said this a Christian? Or who devised this abominable impiety, for it to enter even his imagination, and for him to say that to pronounce the Lord’s Body to be of Mary is to hold a Tetrad instead of a Triad in the Godhead? Those who think thus, saying that the Body of the Saviour which He put on from Mary, is of the Essence of the Triad. Or whence again have certain vomited an impiety as great as those already mentioned; saying namely, that the body is not newer than the Godhead of the Word, but was coeternal with it always, since it was compounded of the Essence of Wisdom. Or how did men called Christians venture even to doubt whether the Lord, Who proceeded from Mary, while Son of God by Essence and Nature, is of the seed of David according to the flesh, and of the flesh of the Holy Mary? Or who have been so venturesome as to say that Christ Who suffered in the flesh and was crucified is not Lord, Saviour, God, and Son of the Father? Or how can they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word has descended upon a holy man as upon one of the prophets, and has not Himself become man, taking the body from Mary; but that Christ is one person, while the Word of God, Who before Mary and before the ages was Son of the Father, is another? Or how can they be Christians who say that the Son is one, and the Word of God another?…For if the Word is coessential with the Body, the commemoration and the work of Mary are superfluous, inasmuch as the body could have existed before Mary, just as the Word also is eternal: if, that is, it is as you say co-essential with the Body. Or what need was there even of the Word coming among us, to put on what was coessential with Himself, or to change His own nature and become a body? For the Deity does not take hold of itself, so as to put on what is of its own Essence, any more than the Word sinned, in that it ransoms the sins of others, in order that changing into a body it should offer itself a sacrifice for itself, and ransom itself. But this is not so, far be the thought. For he ‘takes hold of the seed of Abraham,’ as the apostle said; whence it behoved Him to be made like His brethren in all things, and to take a Body like us. This is why Mary is truly presupposed, in order that He may take it from her, and offer it for us as His own…That then which was born of Mary was according to the divine Scriptures human by nature, and the Body of the Lord was a true one; but it was this, because it was the same as our body, for Mary was our sister inasmuch as we all are from Adam…As then this is the sense of the above text, they all will reasonably condemn themselves who have thought that the flesh derived from Mary existed before her, and that the Word, prior to her, had a human soul, and existed in it always even before His coming. And they too will cease who have said that the Flesh was not accessible to death, but belonged to the immortal Nature.   

St. Athanasius (Discourses Against the Arians)
“…but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, ‘Thou shalt not leave My soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.’”

When St. Athanasius explains that He “permitted” it to weep, hunger, and even die, is not evidence that the Lord’s flesh was immortal. Rather, it is merely evidence of His authority and power over His own flesh.

For they are given to see, how He who did the works is the same as He who shewed that His body was passible by His permitting it to weep and hunger, and to shew other properties of a body. For while by means of such He made it known that, though God impassible, He had taken a passible flesh; yet from the works He shewed Himself the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. — St. Athanasius (Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse III)

St. Athanasius (Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II)
To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil, the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His incarnate presence. For otherwise a resurrection had not been, unless there had been death; and how had death been, unless He had had a mortal body? This the Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth, ‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

St. Cyril – Letter to Bishop Valerian of Iconium (Letter 50)
Therefore, the Word is impassible when he is considered God by nature, yet the sufferings of his flesh are known to be his according to the economy of the dispensation. For in what way would he who is “the firstborn of every creature” through whom have come to be principalities and powers, thrones and dominations, in whom all things hold together, have become “the firstborn of the dead,” and “the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep,” unless the Word, being God, made his own the body born to suffer? But just as he was “born from a woman” according to the flesh and made his own a birth like unto us in his human nature, although he has his own begetting from his Father, so also it is stated that he suffered in his flesh and in his human nature like unto us, although impassibility was his by nature in so far as he is considered God. Thus is he known to be Christ, thus is he also seated with his Father, not as a man honored by the indwelling of God the Word, but as the Son in truth even when he became man. For the dignity of his essential, preeminent excellence is preserved for him, even if he has appeared in “the form of a slave” according to the dispensation. Therefore, as I say, even if he was partaker of our nature as man, still he was at the same time above all creation as God.

St. Cyril – Commentary on Luke
As therefore I just now said, even when He became flesh, that is, perfect man, He was not earthy, not made of clay as we are, but heavenly and superior to things worldly in respect of that wherein He is perceived to be God. We may see, then, in the birds (offered at the cleansing of the leper), Christ suffering indeed in the flesh according to the Scriptures, but remaining also beyond the power of suffering; and dying in His human nature, but living in His divine; for the Word is Life. Yea, too, the very wise disciple said, “that He was put to death in the flesh, but made to live in the spirit.” But though the Word could not possibly admit the suffering of death into His own nature, yet He appropriates to  Himself that which His flesh suffered: for the living bird was baptized in the blood of the dead one; and thus stained with blood, and all but made partaker of the passion, it was sent forth into the wilderness. And so did the Only-begotten Word of God return unto the heavens, with the flesh united unto Him. And strange was the sight in heaven, yea, the throng of angels marvelled when they saw in form like unto us the King of earth, and Lord of might: moreover they said, “Who is This that cometh from Edom?—-meaning thereby the earth:—-the redness of “His garments is from Bosor:” the interpretation of which is flesh, as being a narrowing and pressing. Then too they inquired, “Are such the wounds in the middle of Thy hands?” and He answered, “With these was I wounded in the house of My beloved.”

St. Cyril – Commentary on Luke
Let us behold therefore the skilfulncss of His wrestlings; how He overthrows the devil’s wickedness. When forty days had been spent in fasting, “He afterwards hungered.” But He it is Who gives food to the hungry, and is Himself the bread that came down from heaven, and gives life to the world, as
being That whereby all things consist. But because, on the other hand, it was necessary that He Who refused not our poverty should withdraw from nothing whatsoever that belongs to man’s condition, He consented for His flesh to require its natural supplies; and hence the words, “He hungered.” It was not however till He had fasted sufficiently, and by His Godlike power had kept His flesh unwasted, though abstaining from meat and drink, that scarcely at length He permitted it to feel its natural sensations: for it says, that He hungered. And for what reason? That skilfully by means of the two, He Who is at once God and Man, might be recognised as such in one and the same person, both as superior to us in His divine nature, and in His human nature as our equal.

St. Athanasius – On the Incarnation of the Word
Invisible in Himself, He is known from the works of creation; so also, when His Godhead is veiled in human nature, His bodily acts still declare Him to be not man only, but the Power and Word of God. To speak authoritatively to evil spirits, for instance, and to drive them out, is not human but divine; and who could see-Him curing all the diseases to which mankind is prone, and still deem Him mere man and not also God? He cleansed lepers, He made the lame to walk, He opened the ears of the deaf and the eyes of the blind, there was no sickness or weakness that He did not drive away. Even the most casual observer can see that these were acts of God. The healing of the man born blind, for instance, who but the Father and Artificer of man, the Controller of his whole being, could thus have restored the faculty denied at birth? He Who did thus must surely be Himself the Lord of birth. This is proved also at the outset of His becoming Man. He formed His own body from the virgin; and that is no small proof of His Godhead, since He Who made that was the Maker of all else. And would not anyone infer from the fact of that body being begotten of a virgin only, without human father, that He Who appeared in it was also the Maker and Lord of all beside?

St. Cyril of Alexandria – That Christ is One
For the mystery of Christ is in peril of being disbelieved by reason of the intensity of its marvellousness: GOD was in human nature, and in our estate He that is over all creation; the Invisible, visible by reason of flesh; He that is out of Heaven and from above in likeness of things earthy; the Impalpable subject to touch; He that is in His own Nature Free in bondman’s form; He Who blesseth the creation WAS MADE subject to curse, among the transgressors All-Righteousness, and in guise of death Life. For the Body which tasted death, was not another man’s but His who is by Nature Son.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book X
But I will now pass this by, and will not lay much stress on their demented folly. But I say that we ought rather to go on to the following considerations. For He thought perhaps when comparing His Incarnate Nature with His Divine, they could not help making profit out of the inquiry, when we say that the Son was emptied of His glory when He became a Man. Is it not so? How could it be otherwise? But speaking of His Divine glory, in contrast with His place as a servant, and His position of subjection, we say that the Son was inferior to the Father, in so far as He was human; but that He was reinstated into His equality with the Father after His sojourn here, not endued with any new, or adventitious, or unaccustomed glory, but rather restored to that state in which He was at the beginning with the Father. And indeed, the inspired writer who initiates us into mysteries, I mean Paul, no longer attributing to Him the humiliation belonging to man’s estate after His resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven, exhorts us saying: Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more…But how is it that he says he knew Him not in the flesh? Did he then, tell me, deny the Master that bought him? God forbid; for he is rightminded. For when the period of the actual humiliation or degradation of the Only-begotten had been accomplished, and come to an end, He makes haste to proclaim Himself and to gain recognition, not in the character which He presented when emptied of His glory, but of His natural attributes of God. For when it had once been known and admitted that He was human, He was bound to instruct believers in Him that He was also God by nature; and for this reason He chooses to speak of His divinity, rather than anything else.

st. Gregory Nazianzen
XV.  He was sent, but as man, for He was of a twofold Nature; for He was wearied, and hungered, and was thirsty, and was in an agony, and shed tears, according to the nature of a corporeal being.  And if the expression be also used of Him as God, the meaning is that the Father’s good pleasure is to be considered a Mission, for to this He refers all that concerns Himself; both that He may honour the Eternal Principle, and because He will not be taken to be an antagonistic God.  And whereas it is written both that He was betrayed, and also that He gave Himself up and that He was raised up by the Father, and taken up into heaven; and on the other hand, that He raised Himself and went up; the former statement of each pair refers to the good pleasure of the Father, the latter to His own Power.  Are you then to be allowed to dwell upon all that humiliates Him, while passing over all that exalts Him, and to count on your side the fact that He suffered, but to leave out of the account the fact that it was of His own will?  See what even now the Word has to suffer.  By one set He is honoured as God, but is confused with the Father, by another He is dishonoured as mere flesh and severed from the Godhead.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem – Catechetical Lectures
Nurslings of purity and disciples of chastity, raise we our hymn to the Virgin-born God with lips full of purity. Deemed worthy to partake of the flesh of the Spiritual Lamb, let us take the head together with the feet, the Deity being understood as the head, and the Manhood taken as the feet.  Hearers of the Holy Gospels, let us listen to John the Divine.  For he who said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, went on to say, and the Word was made flesh.  For neither is it holy to worship the mere man, nor religious to say that He is God only without the Manhood. For if Christ is God, as indeed He is, but took not human nature upon Him, we are strangers to salvation.  Let us then worship Him as God, but believe that He also was made Man.  For neither is there any profit in calling Him man without Godhead nor any salvation in refusing to confess the Manhood together with the Godhead.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book XI, Chapter VII
He humbled Himself therefore willingly for our sakes, for we should never have been called His sons and God’s, if the Only-begotten had not undergone humiliation for us and on our account; to Whose Likeness we are conformed by participation in the Spirit, and so become children of God, and God’s. Whenever, therefore, in His sayings, He blends together in some way the human with the Divine, do not be therefore offended, nor lightly relinquish the admiration you ought to feel at the incomparable art displayed in His sayings, skilfully preserving for us in divers ways their twofold character, so that we can see at the same time the God and the Man speaking truly in His Nature, marvellously combining the humiliation of His Humanity with the glory of His ineffable Divinity; preserving wholly blameless and irreproachable the harmonious fusion of the two. And how is it that, when we say this, we do not affirm that the Nature of the Word is degraded from its original majesty? To think this would indeed display the greatest ignorance; for that which is Divine is altogether and wholly changeless, and endureth no shadow of turning but rather ever remaineth on one stay. We rather make such a statement because the manner of His voluntary degradation, as by necessary inference investing Him with the form of humiliation, causes the Only-begotten, Who is coequal with, and in the Likeness of, the Father, and in Him and proceeding from Him, to be apparently in an inferior position to Him. Be not astonished at hearing this, if the Son appear to fall short of the Father’s majesty because of His Humanity, when for this very reason Paul declared that He was thus inferior even to the angels, in the following words: Him Who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, though the holy angels were bidden to worship Him, for when, He says, He bringeth in the Firstborn into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him, as well as also the Holy Seraphim, who stood around and fulfilled the office of servants when He appeared unto the prophet sitting on a high and lofty throne. Then, so far as His being begotten and proceeding from God the Father is concerned, His Humanity is not proper to the Son; but it is proper to Him in so far as He is Incarnate Man, and remaineth ever what He was and is, and will be such for evermore, and debaseth Himself to what He was not of old for our sakes.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book VI
Still, when the inspired Scripture proclaims the Son and Christ to be One, are they not full of all impiety who sever into two Him Who is truly and indeed One Son? For inasmuch as He is God the Word, He is thought of as distinct from the flesh; and inasmuch as He is flesh, He is thought of as distinct from the Word: but inasmuch as the Word of God the Father was made flesh, the two will cease to be distinct through their ineffable union and conjunction. For the Son is One and only One, both before His conjunction with flesh, and when He came with flesh; and by flesh we denote man in his integrity, I mean as consisting of soul and body.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Five Tomes Against Nestorius
For not because the Word out of God the Father having taken flesh, proceeded forth man as we, will He for this reason be called also twofold,
for One and that not without flesh is He Who is in His proper Nature external to flesh and body. For as, were one to kill a man such as we are, he would not with reason be accused of having wronged two men but one alone, even though the man be conceived of as being of soul and body, and the nature of the things that have been brought together be not the same, but diverse: so again must we conceive of Christ, for He is not twofold, but One and Only Lord and Son is the Word from forth God the Father, not without flesh.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – On the Unity of Christ
If the flesh that is united to him. ineffably and in a way that transcends thought or speech. did not become the very flesh of the Word directly, then how could it be understand as life-giving? He himself says: “I am the living bread which has come down from heaven and gives life to the world. If anyone should eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51,33) But if it is the flesh of a different son than him, someone appropriated by him in a conjunction of relationship, called to an equality of honor as a grace. then how can he call this his own flesh if He is ignorant of all deceit? And how could the flesh of anyone else ever give life to the world if it has not become the very flesh of Life, that is of him who is the Word of God the Father? The divine said of him: “And we know that the Son of God has Come and has given us understanding that we might know him, and we are in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God. and life everlasting” (1 Jn 5:20).

St. Gregory Nazianzen – To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius
For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods.  For neither in this life are there two manhoods; though Paul speaks in some such language of the inner and outer man.  And (if I am to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons.  God forbid!  For both natures are one by the combination, the Deity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should express it.  And I say different Elements, because it is the reverse of what is the case in the Trinity; for There we acknowledge different Persons so as not to confound the persons; but not different Elements, for the Three are One and the same in Godhead.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus – Five Theological Orations
§ 14. In the ninth place, they cite this text: [Christ] always lives to make intercession for us. How good and truly mystical and generous to humans! For to intercede does not imply, as it ordinarily does for most mortals, to seek vengeance – there would be a hint of inferiority in that – but it is to act as a representative for us by virtue of His mediation, just as the Spirit also is said to intercede for us. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human. For He still pleads even now as human being for my salvation; for He still has the body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His incarnation, even though He is no longer known according to the flesh – I mean, the passions which belong to the body, the same as ours, except for sin. Likewise, we have an advocate, Jesus Christ, not in the sense that he prostrates Himself for us before the Father and falls at the Father’s feet like a slave – away with a notion so truly slavish and unworthy of the Spirit! For the Father does not require this, nor does the Son submit to it. Has anyone the right to think such a thing of God? But by what He suffered as human being, He as the Word and the Counsellor persuades me to endure. I think this is the meaning of His advocacy.

St. Gregory Nazianzen – Second Oration on Easter
And that was that the Word of God Himself, Who is before all worlds, the Invisible, the Incomprehensible, the Bodiless, the Beginning of beginning, the Light of Light, the Source of Life and Immortality, the Image of the Archetype, the Immovable Seal, the Unchangeable Image, the Father’s Definition and Word, came to His own Image, and took on Him Flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made Man; conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost, for it was needful both That Child-bearing should be honoured and that Virginity should receive a higher honour.  He came forth then, as God, with That which He had assumed; one Person in two natures, flesh and Spirit, of which the latter deified the former.  O new commingling; O strange conjunction! the Self-existent comes into Being, the Uncreated is created, That which cannot be contained is contained by the intervention of an intellectual soul mediating between the Deity and the corporeity of the flesh.  And He who gives riches becomes poor; for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may assume the riches of His Godhead.  He that is full empties Himself; for He empties Himself of His Glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness.  What is the riches of His Goodness?  What is this mystery that is around me?  I had a share in the Image and I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the Image and make the flesh immortal. 

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians, Discourse IV
This passage has the same meaning as ‘the Father that sent Me,’ and ‘I came not of Myself, but the Father sent Me.’ For he has given the name of mission to the uniting with the Man, with Whom the Invisible nature might be known to men, through the visible. For God changes not place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion of our littleness He displays Himself in His existence in the flesh; for how should He, who fills the heaven and the earth? but on account of the presence in the flesh the just have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ but One and the Same; He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from the Virgin; invisible before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the operation of the Godhead through the human body and whole Man, which He has renewed by its appropriation to Himself. To Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians
For ‘Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace;’ and, if we may speak what is explanatory as well as true, He advanced in Himself; for ‘Wisdom builded herself an house,’ and in herself she gave the house advancement. (What moreover is this advance that is spoken of, but, as I said before, the deifying and grace imparted from Wisdom to men, sin being obliterated in them and their inward corruption, according to their likeness and relationship to the flesh of the Word?) For thus, the body increasing in stature, there developed in it the manifestation of the Godhead also, and to all was it displayed that the body was God’s Temple, and that God was in the body. And if they urge, that ‘The Word become flesh’ is called Jesus, and refer to Him the term ‘advanced,’ they must be told that neither does this impair the Father’s Light, which is the Son, but that it still shews that the Word has become man, and bore true flesh. And as we said that He suffered in the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the flesh, so also reasonably may He be said to have advanced in the flesh; for neither did the advance, such as we have described it, take place with the Word external to the flesh, for in Him was the flesh which advanced and His is it called, and that as before, that man’s advance might abide and fail not, because of the Word which is with it. Neither then was the advance the Word’s, nor was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. Therefore, as we have already said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom, advanced in respect of Itself; but the manhood advanced in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human nature, and being deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the organ of Wisdom for the operation and the shining forth of the Godhead. Wherefore neither said he, ‘The Word advanced,’ but Jesus, by which Name the Lord was called when He became man; so that the advance is of the human nature in such wise as we explained above.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians, Chapter XXVI
And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word’s nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; ‘Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh.’ Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case ‘Christ then hungering and thirsting “for us in the flesh;”’ and saying ‘He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling “for us in the flesh;”’ and ‘being exalted too, and born, and growing “in the flesh;”’ and ‘fearing and hiding “in the flesh;”’ and ‘saying, “If it be possible let this cup pass from Me,” and being beaten, and receiving, “for us in the flesh;”’ and in a word all such things ‘for us in the flesh.’ For on this account has the Apostle himself said, ‘Christ then having suffered,’ not in His Godhead, but ‘for us in the flesh,’ that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh. Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians, Chapter XXVI
These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument of His own body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One, we are right in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word’s presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner, mixing water with the wine, shall account the Cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians
When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence, ‘Power is given to Me,’ and, ‘Glorify Thy Son,’ and Peter says, ‘Power is given unto Him,’ we understand all these passages in the same sense, that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men, therefore He Himself appropriates the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, ‘Glorify Me,’ who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians, Chapter XXVIII
Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, ‘Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son,’ it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour’s love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say ‘I know not,’ that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. And therefore He said not, ‘no, not the Son of God knows,’ lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, ‘no, not the Son,’ that the ignorance might be the Son’s as born from among men…And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is written, when He went upon the Angels, ascending as man, and carrying up to heaven the flesh which He bore, on the disciples seeing this, and again asking, ‘When shall the end be, and when wilt Thou be present?’ He said to them more clearly, ‘It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power.’ And He did not then say, ‘No, not the Son,’ as He said before humanly, but, ‘It is not for you to know.’ For now the flesh had risen and put off its mortality and been deified; and no longer did it become Him to answer after the flesh when He was going into the heavens; but henceforth to teach after a divine manner, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father hath put in His own power; but ye shall receive Power.

St. Athanasius (296 – 373 AD) – Ser. II, Vol. IV, On Luke x. 22. (Illud Omnia, &c.)
“And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter said not that the Essence of the Son was made, but spoke of His Lordship over us, which ‘became’ when He became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross, became Lord of all and King.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria – On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten
But in good truth it is so (says he), for we find that thou also dost the same, for thou confessest that He suffered, in that thou attributest to Him the sufferings of the flesh, albeit thou keepest Him impassible as God. But WE, good sirs, (shall I say) having first united to the Word the human, have to the flesh allotted the sufferings, have kept Him impassible as God: for though He hath become as we, yet are we cognizant of His God-befitting Excellence and of His Supreme Endowments. Hence first putting the Union as a basis and foundation to the Faith, we confess that He suffered in the flesh, that He remained again superior to suffering in that He possesses Impassibility in His own Nature. But if we are diligent to put apart God and Man, severing the Natures one from another, and then say that in reference only does the Word of God make His own what have befallen His Body; He That is born of the holy Virgin, Emmanuel, which is, interpreted, With us is God, will haply have but the measure of Moses and Aaron. Thus even though He say through the holy Prophets, My Back have I given to scourges, My Cheeks to blows, My Face I turned not from the shame of spittings, and again, They dug My Hands and My Feet, they told all My Bones, and again, They gave for My meat gall and for My thirst they gave Me to drink vinegar: we shall allot all these things to the Only-Begotten Himself, Who suffered Economically in the flesh according to the Scriptures (for with His wheal were WE healed, and Himself hath been weakened because of our sins), yet do we know that He is Impassible by Nature. For if (as I just said) Himself is Man alike and God, with reason do the Sufferings belong to His Manhood, His own as God is it to be conceived of as superior to suffering.

St Athanasius – De Decretis (Defense of the Nice Definition), Chapter III
Wishing to annul our death, He took on Himself a body from the Virgin Mary; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our life through subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:15 And as to the character, it is indeed the Saviour’s, but is said of Him when He took a body and said, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works Proverbs 8:22.’ For as it properly belongs to God’s Son to be everlasting. and in the Father’s bosom, so on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, ‘The Lord created me.’ For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again. And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, ‘The Lord created,’ and ‘Servant,’ and ‘He suffered,’ we shall justly ascribe this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other’s than the Word’s. And if we wish to know the advantages we attain by this, we shall find them to be as follows: that the Word was made flesh, not only to offer up this body for all, but that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be made gods, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body; for hence we derive our name of “men of God” and “men in Christ.” And as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten
Nevertheless above this too do we say that the union is in the case of Emmanuel. For it were necessary that the soul united thereto should grieve along with its own body, that so, fleeing the disgrace, it might submit a tractable neck to God. But of God the Word, it were absurd to say that He were co-percipient of the contumelies (for free from passion is the Godhead and not in our condition), yet has He been united to flesh possessed of a reasonable soul, and when it suffered, He was impassibly in cognizance of what befell it and brought to naught as God the infirmities of the flesh, yet made them His own as belonging to His own Body: thus is He said both to hunger and be weary and suffer for us. Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. For as the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another’s: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick…Natheless one may see in the coal, as in an image, the Word of God united to the human nature, yet not losing the being what He is, but rather trans-elementing what He had taken, or united, unto His own glory and operation. For as fire having to do with wood and entering into it, seizes hold of it, and removes it not from being wood, but transmutes it rather into the appearance and force of fire, and inworks all its own property therein, and it is now reckoned one with it, so shall you conceive of Christ too. For God united ineffably with the manhood, hath kept it what we say that it is, and Himself hath remained what He was; but once united, is accounted one with it, making His own what is its, and Himself too introducing into it the operation of His own Nature. That the flesh having a reasonable soul hath become the Body of the unembodied Godhead, and that by severing them one from another, we shall wholly and surely undo the plan of the economy in Christ. In the Song of Songs our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has been introduced to us saying, I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the vallies. As then the smell is something unembodied, for it uses as its own body that wherein it is, yet is the lily conceived of as one out of both, and the failing of one utterly destroys the plan thereof, for in the object is the smell and the object is its body; so shall we conceive of the Nature of the Godhead in Christ too, that it sheds forth on the world the savour of His own more than earthly Excellence, as in the object His human Nature, and that the unembodied by Nature became by economic union all-but embodied also, because It willed to be recognized through the Body; for It hath wrought therein things God-befitting. Hence will the Unembodied be rightly conceived of as in His own Body, even as in the flower too, the object, is the scent, yet both together is called lily.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letters 1-50 (Letter 4 to Nestorius)
Thus we say that he also suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered in his own nature, or received blows, or was pierced, or received the other wounds, for the divine cannot suffer since it is incorporeal. But since his own body, which had been born, suffered these things, he himself is said to have suffered them for our sake. For he was the one, incapable of suffering, in the body which suffered. In the same fashion, we also think of his death. For the Word of God is immortal by nature and incorruptible, being both life and life-giving. But because by the grace of God his own body tasted death for all, as Paul says, he himself is said to have suffered death for our sake. As far as the nature of the Word was concerned, he did not experience death, for it would be madness to say or think that, but, as I said, his flesh tasted death. This, too, when his flesh was resuscitated, it is again called his Resurrection; not as if he fell into corruption, God forbid, but that his body rose again.

St. Athanasius – COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA
Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only, the God and Father (Joh. xx.17) of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully. Nor again in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one only God, the only Ingenerate ; do we therefore deny that Christ also is God before ages : as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance made God, from being by nature a mere man. For we acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God according to nature perfect and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, yet never having ceased to be God.’

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letters 1-50 (Second Letter to Succesnsus)
For not only in the case of those which are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but when united they produce one phusis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exists according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate phusis of the Word, in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man. For neither has it been lessened, nor is it taken away, as the question says. For to say that he has been made flesh is sufficient for the most complete statement of his becoming man. For if there had been silence about this on our part there would have been some room for their calumny. But since the statement that he was made flesh has been necessarily adduced, where is there a way of lessening or subtraction?…Let a man like unto us be an example  for us again. For we know that there are two natures in him, one the nature of the soul and the other the nature of the body. But when we divide him merely in thought and conceive the difference in subtle speculations or the presentations of thought to the mind, we do not posit the natures one apart from the other, nor indeed do we at all impute to them virtual existence through the division, but we conceive of them as the natures of one man, so that the two no longer are two, but through them both the one living being is produced. Accordingly, even though they would speak of the nature of humanity and the nature of divinity in Emmanuel, still the humanity became the Word’s own, and one Son is meant with his humanity.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letters 1-50 (Letter 5 to Nestorius)
Everywhere in Sacred Scripture whenever it makes mention of the ‘economy’ of the Lord, the birth for our sake and the Passion are ascribed, not to the divinity, but to the humanity of Christ. So according to the most precise appellation, the Holy Virgin is called the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God. Listen to these words of the Gospels that say, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” It is plain that God the Word was not the son of David…And again concerning his Passion, “Since God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and concerning sin he has condemned sin in the flesh” and again, “Christ died for our sins”  and, “since Christ suffered in the flesh” and, “This is (not my divinity, but) my body, which is broken for you.” And heed the countless other voices testifying to the human race that they should not think that the divinity of the Son was recent, or capable of receiving bodily suffering, but that the flesh was, which was joined to the nature of the divinity. Wherefore, also, Christ calls himself both David’s Lord and Son, for he says, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They say to him, “David’s.” Jesus answered and said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand,’ “as he is the Son of David by all means according to the flesh, but his Lord according to his divinity. Therefore, it is right and worthy of the Gospel traditions to confess that the body is the temple of the Son’s divinity and a temple joined to the divinity according to a certain sublime and divine union, and that his divine nature makes his own the things of his body. But in the name of this relationship to attribute also to his divinity the properties of the united flesh, I mean birth, suffering, and death, is, my brother, the act of a mind truly led astray like the pagans or diseased like the minds of that mad Apollinaris, Arius, and the other heresies, but rather more grievously than they.  For it is necessary that such as are dragged into error by the word relationship make the Word God partake of the nourishment of milk through the relationship, and have a share in growing, little by little, and of fear at the time of his Passion, and be in need of angelic assistance. And I pass over in silence that circumcision, sacrificing, sweat, hunger, and thirst, which happened to his body on account of us, are worshipfully united to the divinity. If these are taken with reference to the divinity, and falsely, there is a cause for just condemnation against us as slanderers.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letters 1-50 (Letter 46 to ‘The same Succesnsus’)
For it was necessary and proper to maintain with reference to the one true Son both that he did not suffer in his divinity and that it is affirmed that he suffered in his humanity, for his flesh suffered. But they again think that we are thereby introducing what is called by them theopatheia [God-suffering], and they do not understand the dispensation, but most maliciously attempt to transfer the suffering to man separately, stupidly practicing a harmful reverence, so that the Word of God would not be confessed the Savior, as the one who gave his own blood for our sakes, but rather so that a man, considered separately and by himself, Jesus, might be said to set this aright. But thinking thus overthrows the entire plan of the dispensation with flesh and transforms our divine mystery with no uncertainty virtually into anthropolatreia [man-worship], and they do not understand that the blessed Paul said that the one who is of the Jews according to the flesh, that is, the Christ of the seed of Abraham and Jesse and David is, “the Lord of glory” and “God blessed forever” and “over all things,” showing that the body of the Word is his own body, the one which was nailed to the wood, and attributing the cross to him through this.

The Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil – Fraction from Syrian Orthodox Tradition
It is indeed true that The LOGOS suffered in the flesh, He was slain and humiliated through the Cross. His (Human) Spirit was separated from His Body, But His Divinity was NEVER separated from either His Body NOR from His (Human) Spirit. 
After He was pierced by the spear in His Side; Water and Blood gushed from His Body, granting forgiveness to the whole World. His (Human) Spirit came back and reunited with His Body. So The Son died in place of the sin which surrounded the World, transferring us from the Left care to the Right. He secured with the Blood of His Cross the union between the celestial and the terrestial, the heavenly and the earthly, between the Nation and the nations and between the body and the spirit. One is Emmanuel, and is not divisible after the incarnation and is not divided to separate Natures. This is our belief and our faith, that This Body is for This Blood and that This Blood is for This Body. You are Our Lord Christ Who was stabbed in the Side on the Golgotha at Jerusalem for our sake. You are The Lamb of God Who bears the sin of the whole world. We beseech You forgive our iniquities, leave behind our sins and place us At Your Right Hand. O’ God The Father of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is blessed by the Seraphim and exalted by the Cherubim, and glorified from ten thousand upon ten thousand of the heavenly uttering servants. Who bless and perfects the oblations and complements the offerings of the fruits which is raised to you as a sweet aroma, sanctify also our bodies, souls and spirits, that with a pure heart and unashamed face we call to You O’ God the Heavenly Father praying: Our Father ….

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, § 11
“The holy Tabernacle was reared by the will of God in the wilderness and in it was manifoldly typified Emmanuel. The God of all said therefore to the divine Moses, And thou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood, two cubits and a half its length, and a cubit and half its breadth and a cubit and a half its height, and thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it. But the wood that will not rot will be a type of the incorruptible Body (for cedar does not rot); gold as matter surpassing all others will indicate to us the Excellence of the Divine Essence. But observe how the whole ark was overlaid with pure gold within and without. For God the Word was united to the holy Flesh, and this (I deem) is it that the ark was overlaid without. But that He made His own the reasonable Soul also that was within the Body, will this shew, viz., that He bade that it should be overlaid within also. And that the Natures or Hypostases have remained unconfused, shall we see hence. For the gold that was spread upon the wood, remained what it was, and the wood was rich in the glory of the gold; yet it ceased not from being wood. But that the ark is taken as a type of Christ one may be assured of through many proofs.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria – That Christ is One
Therefore even though He be said to have suffered in the flesh, freedom from suffering even thus is kept to Him  in that He is conceived of as God. Therefore the Divine Peter too says that Christ once for our sins died for us, the Righteous for the unrighteous, in order that He might bring us to God, put to death in the flesh, quickened in the Spirit. For why, might one I suppose say, did the Spirit-clad say not simply or indefinitely that He suffered, but added, in the flesh? for he knew, he knew that of God was he speaking. Therefore he hath allotted to Him impassibility in that He is conceived of as God, most skillfully adding, in the flesh, in respect to which suffering exists…Yet, good sir, the matter was salvation to the whole world: and since He for this cause willed to suffer Who is beyond the power of suffering because He is God by Nature, He put about Him flesh recipient of suffering and made it His own, that His too might the suffering be called, because it was no one’s else’s but His own Body which hath suffered. Hence, for that the mode of the Economy gives Him without blame, both to be pleased to suffer in the flesh, and in the Godhead not to suffer (for He was God alike and Man in the Same) the opponents speak idly, and most unwisely debasing the force of the mystery haply deem that they have made a contention replete with praise.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – That Christ is One
By suffering in His own flesh and not in the Nature of Godhead.
And wholly ineffable is the plan of these things and no mind can attain ideas so subtil and exalted: yet following reasonings which tend to right belief and viewing the plan of what is fit, we neither alienate Him from being said to suffer, lest we first say that the Birth too after the flesh is not His but another’s, nor do we define that the things pertaining to the flesh have been wrought upon His Divine and Supremest Nature: but He will be conceived of (as I said) as suffering in His own flesh, albeit not suffering in His Godhead after some such mode as this. And every force of illustration is feeble and comes behind the truth, yet it sends into the mind a subtil imagination of the reality and as it were from what is before it, brings it up unto the height which is beyond the reach of words. For as iron or other such matter in contact with the onset of fire gives it admission and travails with the flame: and if now it chance to be struck by ought, the matter [struck] admits of injury, but the nature of the fire is in nought damaged by that which strikes; thus will you conceive in regard of the Son being said to suffer in the flesh, not to suffer in His Godhead. And petty (as I said) is the force of the illustration, but it bears nigh to the truth them who choose not to disbelieve the holy Scriptures.

St. Severus of Antioch  – A Collection of Letters, LXV
As, when iron or another similar substance is abundantly warmed by fire, and is heated by flame, we know that, while the iron does not pass out of its own nature, the iron which has passed into a complete flame, and has been made to hiss and to glow by it, it appears to be all fire, and, while it is in this state, blows are applied to it, it being smitten by a hammer or by means of other kinds of strokes, but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter, so must we also understand the mystery concerning Christ also, even although all the power of speech shrinks, from the glory of the fact. He was hypostatically united to a body with a rational and intelligent soul, but he permitted it to suffer naturally from the blows of pains, I mean on the cross, when he might have deadened these also as God, but he was not desirous of this, for it was not for himself, but for our race, that he was purchasing the successes of victory. Therefore he permitted his body to suffer, while even he himself also was not alien from suffering, for he was united to a suffering body, and, as it is his body, so also it is called his suffering; nevertheless as God he remained without suffering, for God is not touched by suffering.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome V
That in naming Christ Jesus, they did not indicate two several sons, having a common name, Christ Jesus, but rather the Word out of God made Man, I think no one that deems aright will gainsay, and I think it superfluous for us to yet array many words on this matter besides what have been already said. Yet if thou be not persuaded by our words to think that though we say that the Word of God hath suffered in the Flesh for our sakes, we hold Him even thus Impassible as God, at least allow to thine own words that they appear to have been rightly framed. For just as he who said man, indicated the soul together with the body although it be of other nature than it; and even though such an one’s body were said to be dead, the whole person would reasonably be held to have suffered this, albeit he possess a soul which is not recipient of death: so of Christ too the Saviour of us all. For since the Word out of God the Father (as we have repeatedly said) hath partaken of blood and flesh in like manner as we, and made His own the Body that is of the holy Virgin and has thus been called Son of man too; for this reason when His Flesh died, the plan of true union attributes the suffering to Him, yet knows that He hath remained apart from suffering because He is both God by Nature and Life

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Third Letter to Nestorius
And of necessity will we add this too: Declaring the Death in the Flesh of the Only-Begotten Son of God, that is, JESUS CHRIST, and confessing His living again from the dead and His Assumption into Heaven, we celebrate the Unbloody Service in the churches and thus approach to the Mystic Blessings, and are sanctified, rendered partakers of the Holy Flesh and Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as though we were receiving common flesh (God forbid) nor yet that of a man sanctified and connected with the Word by unity of dignity, or as having a Divine Indwelling, but as truly quickening and the own Flesh of the Word Himself. For being by Nature Life as God, since He became One with His own Flesh, He rendered it Lifegiving. So that even though He say to us, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, we shall not account it also as that of one of us (for how will a man’s flesh be life-giving in its own nature?) but as having truly become the own Flesh of Him Who for our sakes both became and was called Son of Man. 

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Third Letter to Nestorius
And the words of our Saviour in the Gospels we apportion neither to two Hypostases nor Persons (for neither is the One and Onely Christ two-fold, even though He be conceived to have been out of two diverse things gathered unto an inseverable Unity just as Man too is conceived of as of soul and body, and is not two-fold but one out of both)
but thinking aright we shall maintain that both the human and besides the Divine expressions have been said by One. For when He says in God-befitting manner of Himself, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and, I and the Father are One, we conceive of His Divine and Ineffable Nature, wherein He is even One with His own Father by reason of Identity of Essence, and the Image and Impress and Brightness of His Glory; but when despising not the measure of the human nature, He addresses the Jews, Now are ye seeking to slay Me, a Man which have told you the truth, we recognize no less the Very God the Word in the Equality and Likeness of the Father, even by the measures of His Manhood. For if it be needful to believe that being God by Nature He have been made Flesh, or Man ensouled with a reasonable soul, what excuse will any one’s being ashamed of his words, if they are made in man-befitting manner, have? For if He should refuse words befitting man, who compelled Him to become Man as we? And He Who abased Himself for our sakes unto voluntary emptiness, why should He refuse the words befitting that emptiness? To one Person therefore must we attribute all the words in the Gospels, to One Incarnate Hypostasis of the Word: for there is One Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.

John of Damascus – An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III
And we confess also that there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, expressing by the word “incarnate” the essence of the flesh, according to the blessed Cyril. And so the Word was made flesh and yet did not abandon His own proper immateriality: He became wholly flesh and yet remained wholly uncircumscribed. So far as He is body He is diminished and contracted into narrow limits, but inasmuch as He is God He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being coextensive with His uncircumscribed divinity.

Fr. Tadros Malaty – A Panoramic View of Patristics, Chapter 10
The non-Chalcedonian side had wished to discard Nestorianism by confirming the doctrine of the one nature of God the Word incarnate, of two natures without intermixing or fusion or change. The expression ‘the one nature’ is the truest expression on ‘the natural union’ which St Cyril had taught in his Third Letter to Nestorius, and which was approved by both the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian side wished to discard Eutychianism by confirming the doctrine and expression of the two natures, non-separated, or nonpartitioned, in order to affirm the continuance of the existence of the two natures and that they were not annihilated in the union, and to affirm the non-annihilation of the distinction in the attributes of the two natures due to the union. Perhaps each of the two sides was complementary to the other in its expression of the one truth. For those who professed one incarnate nature of two natures had added “without mixture or change” in order to refute Eutychianism. And those who professed two natures added “without separation or partition” in order to refute Nestorianism. Both sides spoke of one truth that the Lord Jesus Christ is one divine-human being, i.e. they spoke of one being of two essences united in the one Christ. Those who used the expression ‘one incarnate nature’ had meant to express the state of existence; those who used the expression ‘two natures’ had meant to express the reality of the continuance of the existence of the two natures. In other words, some have spoken about the state of existence, and some have spoken about the reality of the existence, and because they both used the same word ‘nature,’ they clashed.

Fr. Peter Farrington – A Collection of Essays
At Chalcedon the terminology of St Cyril was abandoned, and the phrase ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’ was not used. Theodoret, the opponent of St Cyril, and a constant supporter of Nestorius since 431 AD, was not only received at the council but was asked to draft a statement of faith. The anti-Cyrilline letter of Ibas was received as Orthodox. The Tome was accepted, though it seemed in direct contradiction of the Twelve Anathemas which were received at Ephesus some twenty years previous. Subsequent history also supported the negative view of the anti-Chalcedonians. There were supporters of Ibas, Theodore and Theodoret throughout the Chalcedonian communion.

St. Severus of Antioch – A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts 
When we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letters 1-50 (Letter 39 to John of Antioch)
Therefore we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body, begotten before ages from the Father according to his divinity, and that, in recent days, he himself for us and for our salvation was born from the Virgin Mary according to his humanity, consubstantial to the Father himself according to divinity and consubstantial to us according to his humanity, for a union was made of his two natures. We confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. With this understanding of a union without fusion we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because God the Word was made flesh and was made man, and from his very conception he united to himself a temple taken from her. And we know that theologians regard some of the evangelical and apostolic sayings regarding the Lord as common, that is, as pertaining to one person, and that theologians divide others of the sayings as pertaining to two natures, and refer those proper to God to the divinity of Christ, but the lowly ones to his humanity. Having read these holy words of yours and finding that we thought thus also, for there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” we glorified God, the Savior of all, congratulating one another because the churches with us and those with you have the faith corresponding to the divinely inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers.

John of Damascus
And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture, or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches and Severus, and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate; holding that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence.

St. John Chrysostom – On the Gospel of St. John
The Evangelist spake not so that he might be supposed to utter riddles, but to make it plain that He shows proofs both of His Godhead and His Manhood. For when he saith, that “He had not power,” he speaks of Him as a man, doing many things after the manner of men; but when he saith, that He stood in the midst of them, and they seized Him not, he shows to us the power of the Godhead, (as man He fled, as God He appeared,) and in both cases he speaks truly…

St. John Chrysostom – On the Epistle to the Hebrews
For,” he says, “in that He hath suffered Himself being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.” This is altogether low and mean, and unworthy of God. “For in that He hath suffered Himself,” he says. It is of Him who was made flesh that he here speaks, and it was said for the full assurance of the hearers, and on account of their weakness. That is (he would say) He went through the very experience of the things which we have suffered; “now” He is not ignorant of our sufferings; not only does He know them as God, but as man also He has known them, by the trial wherewith He was tried; He suffered much, He knows how to sympathize. And yet God is incapable of suffering: but he describes here what belongs to the Incarnation, as if he had said, Even the very flesh of Christ suffered many terrible things. He knows what tribulation is; He knows what temptation is, not less than we who have suffered, for He Himself also has suffered.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Third Letter to Nestorious
Therefore Christ is one, both Son and Lord, not by reason of a man having simply a conjoining to God, as God, by a unity of dignity or indeed of authority. For the equality of honor does not unite the natures, and indeed Peter and John were equal in honor to each other, insofar as they were both
apostles and holy disciples, except that the two were not one. Neither indeed do we think that the manner of the ‘conjoining’ is according to a juxtaposition’, for this is not sufficient for a personal union, nor indeed according to a nonessential participation, as we also, who cleave to the Lord according to the Scripture, are one spirit with him, but rather we reject the term ‘conjoining’ as not being sufficient to signify the union. Neither do we speak of the Word of God the Father as the God or Lord of the Christ, in order that we may not again openly cut into two the one Christ, the Son and Lord, and may not fall foul of the charge of blasphemy by making him his own God and Lord. The Word of God united, as we already said before, to flesh according to hupostasis is God of all and is Lord of all, and neither is he servant of himself nor master of himself. To think and say this is absurd and rather impious as well. He said God is his Father, although he is God by nature and of his Father’s substance. But we have not failed to perceive that, while he continued to be God, he also became man under God according to the law proper to the nature of the humanity. But how might he become God or master of himself? Therefore, as man, and as far as concerns what is proper to the limits of the emptying of himself, he says that he himself is under God as we are. Thus he also was “born under the law,” although he proclaims the law and is the lawgiver as God.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians, Discouse III
Know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered as Word, has said ‘I know not,’ for He knows, but as shewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, ‘I know not.’…For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must have said, ‘Watch therefore, for I know not,’ and, ‘In an hour when I think not;’ but in fact this hath He not said; but by saying ‘Ye know not’ and ‘When ye think not,’ He has signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said ‘No, not the Son knows,’ for He knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Acacius of Melitene
But if a letter is carried around by some people, as if written by me, to the effect that I changed my mind on the things which we have done at Ephesus, let this also be ridiculed. For we are, through the grace of the Savior, in good health of mind, nor have we come to the end of the proper use of reason.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten
He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and He sanctifies those who come near to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost: how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizes and is baptized ? Again after one manner and another for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized but He sanctifies Divinely, baptizes also in the Holy Ghost. Himself raising the dead, was raised from the dead ; and being Life by Nature is said to be quickened. And how this? Again after one thing and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer, after one manner and another: for He suffers humanly as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God. He hath adored with us, for Ye worship (He says) what ye know not, WE worship what we know : yet is He to be adored also, for to Him every knee bows : and this again after one manner and another. For He worships as having assumed the nature that pays worship, He again the Same is worshiped as surpassing the nature that worships so far forth as He is conceived of as God. 

St. Severus of Antioch – OF THE SAME 1 A LETTER TO OECUMENIUS 2 THE COUNT 3, ABOUT PROPERTIES
AND OPERATIONS, WHICH IS OF THOSE WRITTEN BEFORE EPISCOPACY. [508-12 AD]
We therefore anathematize not those who confess the properties of the natures of which the one Christ consists, but those who separate the properties, and apportion them to each nature apart. When the one Christ has once been divided (and he is divided by the fact that they speak of two natures after the union), with the natures which have been cut asunder into a duality and separated into a distinct diversity go the operations and properties which are the offspring of this division, as the words of Leo’s impious letter state in what he said: “For each of the forms effects in partnership with the other that which belongs to itself, the Word doing that which belongs to the Word, and the body performing the things which belong to the body” Against these things it is well to set the much-honoured words of the holy Cyril which refute impiety. In the Scholion about the coal he speaks as follows: “Nevertheless we may see in the coal as in a figure that God the Word was united to the manhood, but has not cast off being that which he is, but rather changed what had been assumed or united into his glory and operation. For, as fire when it takes hold of wood and is introduced into it, prevails over it, and does not make it cease being wood, but rather changes it into the appearance and force of fire, and performs all its own acts in it, and is already reckoned as one with it, so understand in the case of Christ also. For, since God was ineffably united with manhood, he has preserved it as what we say it is, and he himself also has remained what he was. But, after he has once been united, he is reckoned as one with it, appropriating its qualities to himself, but he himself also carried on the operation of his nature in it” If then the Word changed the manhood which he had hypostatically united to him, not into his nature, for he remained that which he was, but into his glory and operation, and things which manifestly belong to the flesh have come to belong to the Word himself, how shall we allow that each of the forms performs its own acts? But we must anathematize those who confine the one Christ in two natures and say that each of the natures performs its own acts. Between the things performed and done by the one Christ the difference is great. Some of them are acts befitting the divinity, while others are human. For example, to walk and travel in bodily form upon the earth is without contention human; but to bestow on those who are maimed in the feet and cannot walk upon the ground at all the power of walking like sound persons is God-befitting. Yet the one Word incarnate performed the latter and the former, and the one nature did not perform the one, and the other the other; nor, because the things performed are different, shall we on this account rightly define two natures or forms as operating. Again the Tome of Leo says: “For each of the natures preserves its own property without diminution” distributing the properties to the two natures severally, as one who divides the one and only Christ into two natures. For the property of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, which is shown in the natural characteristics, continues constant and fixed, as the holy Cyril also says in the second letter to Succensus: “But, while each of them both remains and is perceived in the property which is by nature, according to the principle which has just been enunciated by us, the ineffable and incomprehensible union has shown us one nature of the Son, yet, as I have said, an incarnate nature”

Fr. Tadros Malaty – A Panaormaic View of Patristics
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANTIOCHIAN AND ALEXANDRIAN TRADITIONS
Pope Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith “one incarnate nature of God the Word” was received from St Athanasius [and confirmed by St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus 431]. This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the “single nature.” The Alexandrian theology, as scholars confirm, was by no means docetic neither Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and Antiochian theology. At Chalcedon, Pope Dioscorus refused to affirm the “in two natures” or “two natures exist” after the union but insisted upon the “one incarnate nature of God the Word” or to say “from two natures.” Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them. The point of the dispute between Dioscorus and the Council of Chalcedon, then, was this: was Chalcedon justified in ignoring the theological tradition built up by Alexandrian fathers like St Cyril on the strength of the council of 431 and sanctioning the Antiochian phrase ‘two natures after the union’ merely on the authority of Pope Leo of Rome [i.e. the Tome of Leo].  The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St Cyril: “one nature of God the Word the Incarnate.” The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula.

St. Severus of Antioch explains that when the Oriental Orthodox speak of the “one incarnate nature” of the Word, by “nature”, they do not mean “essence”, but the hypostasis of the Word of God. But if those who use the word “nature” really mean “essence” and not “hypostasis”, and since the Word is of the same essence/nature as the Father and Holy Spirit, this would mean that the Holy Trinity would have become incarnate, and this is absurd.

St. Severus of Antioch – FROM THE LETTER TO MARON [513-8 (?).] 
Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: “For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature”: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: “Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God'”. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding ‘one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis. But the very men who blasphemously call the one Christ two natures use the name ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, saying that the Word of God is one nature, and the man as they say from Mary another. For they do not reach such a height of fatuity as to say that they are using the name ‘natures’ in place of ‘general designation’, I mean in the same sense as essence: for, if the Holy Trinity is one nature, and all mankind one nature, in the same sense as anything which is shown to be so on this principle, the Holy Trinity will be found (to say a very absurd thing) to have become incarnate in all mankind, that is the human race.

The Ark overlaid, roundabout with gold, that was made, with wood that would not decay. It foretold the sign, of the God the Word, who became man, without separation. One nature out of two, a Holy divinity, coessential with the Father, an incorruptible. A Holy Humanity, begotten without seed, co-essential with us, according to the economy. This which He has taken, from you O undefiled, He made one with Him, as a hypostasis. Wherefore everyone, magnifies you, O my lady the Mother of God, the Ever Holy.

St. Severus of Antioch explained the “one incarnate nature” of God the Word as “the unmixed union of the Incarnation, and the composition out of two elements, the Godhead and the manhood”– one hypostasis (Person). St. Severus further explained that Nestorius and his men falsely charged the Alexandrians of saying that the body was changed into the divine essence when they spoke of the “one incarnate nature of God the Word”:

St. Severus of Antioch – Letter to the EMESENES“…We confess that flesh possessing an intelligent soul was taken by God the Word, and he united this to him hypostatically, but not so that anything should be added to his divine essence, as if it were deficient (for he is truly complete in everything), but that from the unmixed union of the Incarnation, and the composition out of two elements, the Godhead and the manhood, Emmanuel should be made up, who in one hypostasis is ineffably composite; not simple, but composite: as the soul of a man like us, which by nature is bodiless and rational, which is naturally intertwined with the body, remains in its suprasensual and bodiless nature, but by reason of the composition with the body makes up one composite animal, man. Accordingly the assumption of the body makes no addition to the essence of the soul, but makes up the composite animal, as it is reasonable to understand with regard to the theory of Emmanuel also. The Word did not take the flesh intelligently possessed of a soul in order to complete his being God, as we have said, but that one hypostasis might be wonderfully and immutably made up out of two elements, the Godhead we mean and the manhood, and the one incarnate nature of the Word himself, and one person...because, as the man who was composed of soul and body is known to be one, so also now he is acknowledged to be one Son and Lord. For one nature and hypostasis of a man is acknowledged, though he is known to be made of diverse and heterogeneous elements: for the body is truly different in nature from the soul; but it belongs to it, and with it makes up the hypostasis of the one man…Wherefore also one may see that Nestorius and those who like Jews hold his opinions wish to reject the absence of change of the hypostatic union, and to put confusion into the minds of the believers, while they are everywhere making this charge, that we confess that the body was changed into the divine essence, and thereby hold one incarnate nature of God the Word”

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Succensus, Letter 46, Paragraphs 6 and 7
Those who pervert what is right have not known that there is in truth one incarnate nature of the Word. For if there is one Son, who by nature and in truth is the Word of God the Father, the ineffably begotten of Him, who then according to an assumption of flesh, not without a soul but endowed with a rational soul, came forth a man from a woman, he shall not be for this reason divided into two persons and two sons but he has remained one, yet not without flesh nor outside union. He who says this does not in any way or in any manner signify confusion, or a blending, or anything else of such a kind, nor indeed will this follow as it from some necessary reasoning or other. For even if it is stated by us that the Only-Begotten Son of God is one, incarnate and made man, He is not mixed together because of this, as it seems to them. The nature of the Word has not passed over into the nature of the flesh. Neither has the nature of the flesh passed over into the nature of the Word, but remaining and being considered in the propriety according to the nature of each ineffably and inexplicably united, in accordance with the reasoning just given by us, this has shown forth for us the one phusis of the Son; but as I said, incarnate.
For not only in the case of those which are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but when united they produce one phusis of man, even though in considerations of the synthesis the difference exists according to the nature of those which have been brought together into unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate phusis of the Word, in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man. For neither has it been lessened, nor is it taken away, as the question says. For to say that He has been made flesh is sufficient for the most complete statement of His becoming man. For if there had been silence about this on part there would have been some room for their defamation. But since the statement that He was made flesh has been necessarily cited, where is there a way of lessening or subtraction?

St. Athanasius – Discourses Against the Arians
Hence, when made man, He said , ‘If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that you may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him.’ And thus when there was need to raise Peter’s wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth ; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another’s, to that other too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word’s (for the Word became flesh,) of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the bodily affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him, and that we may become, not worshipers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no creature, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from Clod, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Savior.

St. Athanasius – Against the Arians?
For human were the sayings, ‘Let the cup pass,’ and ‘Why have You forsaken Me?‘ and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, ‘Now is My soul troubled;’ and He said divinely, ‘I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again.’ For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life and take it again, when He will, was no property of men but of the Word’s power. For man dies, not by his own power, but by necessity of nature and against his will; but the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become separate from the body and to take it again, when He would. Concerning this too speaks David in the Psalm, ‘You shall not leave My soul in hades, neither shall Thou suffer Your Holy One to see corruption.’ “

Anatolius had always in his heart agreed with the views of Dioscurus–further attempted to set up a doctrinal formula in which the distinction between the two natures was made one in thought only, and which made it possible to speak of one nature after the Incarnation, and that three statements particularly, in the third and fourth chapters of Leo’s letter to Flavian, (see above) appeared to the bishops to be intolerably Nestorian; that the bishops abandoned their proposed formula only after the most violent threats on the part of the Emperor, among which too was a threat to transfer the Council to Italy, and that they outwardly reconciled themselves to the statements of Leo with which they had found fault by deluding themselves with the false idea that Cyril said very much what Leo said and that both were in agreement; that the new doctrinal formula would nevertheless not have been carried through if it had not finally been established under severe pressure at a secret commission, and that this formula is so far lacking in veracity in that it is intended to contain the genuine doctrine of Cyril and recognises the resolution of the Cyrillian Council of 431, while it gives it the go-bye in so far as it sets aside the unity and union of the natures…The henosis phusike, the natural union, was not mentioned; no one could any longer unhesitatingly teach that the God-Logos had taken up the human nature into the unity of his unique substance and made it the perfect organ of His deity. The construction of a Christology based on the God-Logos was severely shaken; the “two hypostases” (duo hupostaseis) were not expressly condemned…The proposition, however, which was now to pass for orthodox, “each nature in communion with the other does what is proper to it,” (agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est) actually makes two subjects out of one and betokens a lapse from the ancient faith. That the view we have here expressed is correct is attested by the previous history of the formula of the two natures and the one person. Up to this time scarcely anything had been known in the East of a “nature without hypostasis” (phusis anupostatos), although the Antiochians had distinguished between phusis and prosopon. – Adolf Harnack (History Of Dogma (Completed), the Eutychian Controversy)

Anatolius had always in his heart agreed with the views of Dioscurus–further attempted to set up a doctrinal formula in which the distinction between the two natures was made one in thought only, and which made it possible to speak of one nature after the Incarnation, and that three statements particularly, in the third and fourth chapters of Leo’s letter to Flavian, (see above) appeared to the bishops to be intolerably Nestorian; that the bishops abandoned their proposed formula only after the most violent threats on the part of the Emperor, among which too was a threat to transfer the Council to Italy, and that they outwardly reconciled themselves to the statements of Leo with which they had found fault by deluding themselves with the false idea that Cyril said very much what Leo said and that both were in agreement; that the new doctrinal formula would nevertheless not have been carried through if it had not finally been established under severe pressure at a secret commission, and that this formula is so far lacking in veracity in that it is intended to contain the genuine doctrine of Cyril and recognises the resolution of the Cyrillian Council of 431, while it gives it the go-bye in so far as it sets aside the unity and union of the natures…The henosis phusike, the natural union, was not mentioned; no one could any longer unhesitatingly teach that the God-Logos had taken up the human nature into the unity of his unique substance and made it the perfect organ of His deity. The construction of a Christology based on the God-Logos was severely shaken; the “two hypostases” (duo hupostaseis) were not expressly condemned…The proposition, however, which was now to pass for orthodox, “each nature in communion with the other does what is proper to it,” (agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est) actually makes two subjects out of one and betokens a lapse from the ancient faith. That the view we have here expressed is correct is attested by the previous history of the formula of the two natures and the one person. Up to this time scarcely anything had been known in the East of a “nature without hypostasis” (phusis anupostatos), although the Antiochians had distinguished between phusis and prosopon. – Adolf Harnack (History Of Dogma (Completed), the Eutychian Controversy)

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Five Tomes Against Nestorius (Tome V)
And verily when the time was now at hand in which He must endure the Cross for us, He went away and prayed saying, Father if it he possihle, let this cup pass from Me, but added hereto at the close of His Prayer, Nevertheless not as I will but as THOU. But since He albeit Word and God all-Powerful, has once been held to be in weakness like we, He giving the cause of this most economically, says, The spirit indeed is willing, the flesh weak. Consider therefore how He though Himself letting go nought, nor yet suffering weakness in His own Nature, permitted His Flesh to go after its own laws, and this thing is said to be His, because His Body is His own. Hence the being weak according to the Flesh proved to us that He was Man, the not enduring death and scaring away decay from His own Body that He is God Who knows not to be weak: for He is the Life and Might of the Father. For that the weakness herein unwonted and unwilled by Him, He made voluntary in the good-pleasure of God the Father, to save all under Heaven…

St. Cyril of Alexandria – Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book IV
He says, If it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me. If it may be (He says) Father, that I, without suffering death, may gain life for them that have fallen thereinto if death may die without My dying, in the Flesh that is, let this cup (He says) pass from Me; but since it will not take place (He says) otherwise, not as I will, but as THOU. Thou seest how powerless human nature is found, even in Christ Himself, as far as it is concerned: but it is brought back through the Word united with it unto God-befitting undauntedness and is re-trained to noble purpose, so as not to commit itself to what seems good to its own will, but rather to follow the Divine Aim, and readily to run to whatever the Law of its Creator calls us. That we say these things truly, you may learn from that too which is subjoined, For the spirit indeed (He saith) is willing, but the flesh is weak.

St. Athanasius – Discourses Against the Arians, Chapter XXIX
Therefore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to have advanced, because the body was His own, so also what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense…But these affections were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected was the Word, O Christ’s enemies and unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the flesh; but when the ‘Word became flesh,’ and has become man, then is it written that He said this, that is, humanly…Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body suffering, and weeping, and toiling, these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word, who wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood. And that the words ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell’s gates shuddered and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people…And as to His saying, ‘If it be possible, let the cup pass,’ observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked Peter, saying, ‘Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’ For He willed what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness, that destroying this affection He might in turn make man undaunted in face of death. Behold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ’s enemies impute words of terror, He by that so-called tenor renders men undaunted and fearless…For human were the sayings, ‘Let the cup pass,’ and ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, ‘Now is My soul troubled;’ and He said divinely, ‘I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again.’ For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life and take it again, when He will, was no property of men but of the Word’s power.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN
But since it has BEEN MADE the body of Him Who knows not transgression, therefore with reason did it shake off the despotism of sin and is rich in the Property of the Word which is Ineffably and in mode unutterable united with it, and is holy and life-giving and replete with God befitting operation. And as in Christ our first-fruits, we too are trans-elemented into being superior to both decay and sin. And it is true that according to the voice of blessed Paul, As we bare the image of the earthy we shall bear the image too of the heavenly, i. e. of Christ. Christ is called an heavenly man, not as though He brought down to us His flesh from above and from Heaven, but because the Word being God hath come down from Heaven, and entering our likeness, that is, undergoing birth after the flesh from out a woman, hath remained what He was, i. e. above and out of Heaven and above all as God even with flesh.

St. Cyril of Alexandria – SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN
For in no other way was it possible that flesh should become life-giving, albeit of its own nature subjected to the need of decaying, except it have become the Proper flesh of the Word Which quickeneth all things; for thus it inworks what is His, replete with His Lifegiving Power. And no marvel. For if it is true that fire having intercourse with matter, renders it warm, though not warm of its own nature (for it puts into it full richly the operation of its inherent power): how does not rather the Word being God put His own Life-giving Power and Operation into His Proper flesh, united to it and making it His own, without confusion, without turning and in mode as Himself knoweth?

S. Cyril patriarch of Alexandria against Theodore.
Since then ‘it has become the own body of the Word which quickeneth all’ it too is quickening: has it not therefore ascended up above the definitions of its nature ? for the Word out of God the Father has largely placed in His Body the operation of His quickening might, so that it should have power to quicken the dead and to heal the sick : just as fire approaching a vessel of brass or of other matter, changes it to its own might and working.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (Against Theodore Bishop of Mopsuestia)
But I would fain ask him what he says that unity of Person is. For if he says that the Only-Begotten God the Word Incarnate is One SON, One will be the Person of the SON: but if he altogether distinguish and say that One is said to be and is Son in truth, and one by grace, and to the One gives the glory and the appellation of Godhead and the bare name alone of sonship: but to the other that he receives it as from Another and a Superior, and One so exalted and in Excellency, as is God above man, what room will there be for unity of person, a thing that I know not how it is put forth by him?

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John
For He is Life by Nature, inasmuch as He was begotten of a Living Father: no less quickening is His Holy Body also, being in a manner gathered and ineffably united with the all-quickening Word. Wherefore It is accounted His, and is conceived of as One with Him. For, since the Incarnation, it is inseparable; except as regards the knowledge that the Word Which came from God the Father, and the temple from the Virgin, are not indeed the same in nature (for the Body is not consubstantial with the Word from God), yet are they One by that coming-together and ineffable concurrence. And since the Flesh of the Saviour hath become life-giving (as being united to That which is by Nature Life, the Word from God), when we taste It, then have we life in ourselves, we too united to It, as It to the indwelling Word. For this cause also, when He raised the dead, the Saviour is found to have operated, not by word only, or God-befitting commands, but He laid a stress on employing His Holy Flesh as a sort of co-operator unto this, that He might shew that It had the power to give life, and was already made one with Him. For it was in truth His Own Body, and not another’s. And verily when He was raising the little daughter of the chief of the Synagogue saying, Maid, arise, He laid hold of her hand, as it is written, giving life, as God, by His All-Powerful command, and again, giving life through the touch of His Holy Flesh, He shews that there was one kindred operation  through both. Yea and when He went into the city called Nain, and one was being carried out dead, the only son of his mother, again He touched the bier, saying, Young man, to thee I say, Arise. And not only to His Word gives He power to give life to the dead, but that He might shew that His Own Body was life-giving (as I have said already), He touches the dead, thereby also infusing life into those already decayed. And if by the touch alone of His Holy Flesh, He giveth life to that which is decayed, how shall we not profit yet more richly by the life-giving Blessing when we also taste It? For It will surely transform into Its own good, i. e., immortality, those who partake of It. And wonder not hereat, nor ask thyself in Jewish manner, How? but rather consider that water is cold by nature, but when it is poured into a kettle and brought to the fire, then it all but forgets its own nature, and goes away unto the operation of that which has mastered it. We too then in the same way, even though we be corruptible through the nature of our flesh, yet forsaking our own infirmity by the immingling of life, are trans-elemented to Its property, that is, life. For it needed, it needed that not only should the soul be re-created through the Holy Ghost into newness of life, but also that this gross and earthly body should by the grosser and kindred participation be sanctified and called to incorruption.

THE ALEXANDRIAN HYPOSTATIC UNION
St Cyril, in his struggle against Nestorius explained the “hypostatic union” as a “natural union” and “real unification.” The Word of God united our nature to Himself and made it His own, that is, in Him is effected a real unification of Godhead and manhood. In other words this theory does not ignore the difference of natures, but it insisted on the oneness of Christ by declaring His one incarnate nature of two, without confusion of natures or separation. It conserves at least two ideas:
1. Manhood was not an independent hypostasis over and against the Logos.
2. The union of the natures was inward and real.
For “hypostasis” is the entire “ousia” which has come into concrete existence, while “prosopic union” signifies the external aspect of the object or person, whereby one hypostasis of a class is distinguished from another. St Cyril rejected the Antiochian theory of “indwelling,” that is, the Godhead of Christ dwelt in a man and that there are two persons in Christ, or the theory of “conjunction” or “close participation” as insufficient to reveal the real unification, but permits the division of natures of Christ as Nestorius taught. Cyril refused the term “prosopic union.” In his Second Letter to Nestorius (Ep. iv. 7) he said, “For the Scriptures has not said that the Word united the person [the union of persons] of a man to Himself, but that He became flesh.” The term hypostasis for St Cyril always meant the personalized nature i.e. the person together with the nature he possessed. The term hypostatic union for him always meant the union of natures in one single person (prosopon). This is why to speak about “hypostatic union” is automatically speaking about “natural union” (physical union). For the same reason, St Cyril used both the expressions (Mia physis tou Theo Logou sesarkomene and (Mia hypostasis tou Theo Logou sesarkomene), since hypostatic union for him always meant natural union. The Incarnate Logos is co-essential in Godhead with the Father and co-essential with us in manhood without sin. Two natures for St Cyril continued to exist in the union and are distinguished in thought alone.

St. Basil the Great – On Prov. vii. 22. The Lord created Me (LXX.)
Now proverbs are figures of other things, not the actual things which are uttered. If it was God the Son Who said, ‘The Lord created me,’ He would rather have said, ‘The Father created me.’ Nowhere did He call Him Lord, but always Father. The word ‘begot,’ then, must be understood in reference to God the Son, and the word created, in reference to Him who took on Him the form of a servant. In all these cases we do not mention two, God apart and man apart (for He was One), but in thought we take into account the nature of each. Peter had not two in his mind when he said, ‘Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.’ If, they argue, the Son is a thing begotten and not a thing made, how does Scripture say, ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, Whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ’? We must also say here that this was spoken according to the flesh about the Son of Man; just as the angel who announced the glad tidings to the shepherds says, ‘To you is born to-day a Saviour, Who is Christ the Lord.’ The word ‘to-day’ could never be understood of Him Who was before the ages. This is more clearly shewn by what comes afterwards where it is said, ‘That same Jesus whom ye have crucified.’ If when the Son was born He was then made wisdom, it is untrue that He was ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God.’ His wisdom did not come into being, but existed always. And so, as though of the Father, it is said by David, ‘Be thou, God, my defender,’ and again, ‘thou art become my salvation, and so Paul, ‘Let God be true, but every man a liar.’ Thus the Lord ‘of God is made unto us wisdom and sanctification and redemption.’

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John
Herein too ought we specially to admire the holy Evangelist openly crying, And the Word was made Flesh. For he shrank not from saying, not that He was made in Flesh, but that He was made Flesh, that he might shew the Union. And we do not say either that God the Word, of the Father, was transformed into the nature of the Flesh, or that the flesh passed into the Word (for Each remaineth that which it is by nature, and One Christ of Both); but in a manner unspeakable and passing human understanding, the Word united to His Own Flesh, and having, as it were, transformed It all into Himself (according to the operation which lieth in His power of quickening things lacking life) drave forth of our nature the corruption, and dislodged too death which of old prevailed by means of sin. He therefore that eateth the Holy Flesh of Christ, hath eternal life: for the Flesh hath in Itself the Word Which is |421 by Nature Life. Wherefore He saith, I will raise him up at the last day. Instead of saying, My Body shall raise him up, i. e., him that eateth It, He hath put I: not as though He were other than His Own Flesh (and not wholly so by nature), for after the Union He cannot at all be severed into a pair of sons. I therefore (He saith) Who am become in him,  through Mine Own Flesh, that is, will raise up him who eateth thereof, in the last day. For it were indeed even impossible that He Which is by Nature Life, should not surely overcome decay, and master death.

St. Gregory Nazianzen – To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius
For the words, The Second Man is the Lord from Heaven; and, As is the Heavenly, such are they that are Heavenly; and, No man hath ascended up into Heaven save He which came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven; and the like, are to be understood as said on account of the Union with the heavenly; just as that All Things were made by Christ, and that Christ dwelleth in your hearts is said, not of the visible nature which belongs to God, but of what is perceived by the mind, the names being mingled like the natures, and flowing into one another, according to the law of their intimate union.

J. Tixeront (History of Dogma, Volume 3, Page 88)
Theodoret, whom the Egyptians had first greeted with outbursts of fury, was, in the eighth session, declared orthodox and restored to his see; but he was required to anathematize Nestorius, which till then he had refused to do. He submitted rather grudgingly to this demand. The case of Ibas was more complicated. Besides some misgivings about his faith, there were several charges regarding the administration of his diocese, charges that had been already examined in synods at Tyre and Beyrouth. Among the official records of the previous trials, there was a letter which Ibas had sent to Maris of Ardaschir, and which was condemned later on by the fifth general Council. The Fathers of Chalcedon held that the charges against Ibas were not proved, and that his letter to Maris rather proved his orthodoxy: ” After the reading of the documents,” the legates declared, “we have learned, from the sentence of the venerable bishops (Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Beyrouth), that Ibas is innocent; for, upon his letter being read, we have seen that he is orthodox “ (avayvwOuoyp yap rip iTrurro\rp ovtov, iirtyviapev avrov uirap^eiv op0d8o£ov). The Council accepted this conclusion and restored Ibas to his see ; but he was required to anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches.

J. Tixeront (History of Dogma, Volume 3, Page 138)
Lastly, passing on to Ibas, the Constitutum points out that at the Council of Chalcedon the legates Paschasinus and Lucentius declared that “after hearing the letter of Ibas read (before them), they had acknowledged its orthodoxy ” ; that Anatolius of Constantinople asserted that, from the reading of the preceding documents (among them, the letter to Maris), it was evident that Ibas was innocent; and that Maximus of Antioch affirmed that that letter proved that the faith, the dictatio (v vrrayopla) of the Bishop of Edessa, was orthodox. These declarations, Vigilius went on to say, far from being challenged, were confirmed by the other members of the Council.

Fr. Tadros Malaty – A Panormaic View of Patristics
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, began to attempt spreading the Nestorian teachings in the East and, in 447, he published his book Eranistes, a book intended to distort and ridicule the teaching of the Alexandrian fathers, and especially the great St Cyril.  This aroused so much opposition, that on 18 April 448, imperial edict was published, proscribing Nestorius, his writings, and his supporters, and Theodoret himself was ordered to remain confined to his see of Cyrus. Also Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, aroused a great deal of reaction because of his letter to Maris, Bishop of Ardaschir in Persia, against the teachings of Saint Cyril the Great.

Fr. Peter Farrington – A Proposal towards the Oriental Orthodox receiving the texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD
Justinian was the first to suggest that the letter had not  been received, and that it was not by Ibas. Vigilius, the Pope of Rome, and the whole of the North African and most of the Western European Church were convinced that it was a letter of Ibas and that it had been received as Orthodox, and that therefore to condemn it was to condemn Chalcedon. Those who rejected Chalcedon on this very basis, and were non-Chalcedonian agreed entirely. It is problematic to have history revised by a simple Imperial statement.

Fr. Peter Farrington – A Proposal towards the Oriental Orthodox receiving the texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD
Paschasinus and Lucentius, with Boniface, speak first on behalf of Leo of Rome. We have already seen that Leo considered that he had the authority to make binding decisions for the whole Church. They speak with his authority and say, “from the reading of his letter we have found him to be Orthodox.” This is an important judgement. The representative of the Roman See, giving a judgement on behalf of Leo, and concerning which Leo never shows any objection, say that they have read Ibas’ letter to Maris the Persian and after having read it they conclude that he is Orthodox! Anatolius, archbishop of Constantinople, speaks next and says, “the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him.” Then Maximus of Antioch speaks, and he also states clearly that he has heard what has been read, including his letter to Maris, and, “from what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be Orthodox.”...What does that mean in terms of the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon? Surely it requires that all of the statements of that council be read with the Christology of the letter to Maris in mind. The letter which considers the Christology of Cyril to be heresy, and the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia to be Orthodox. Even at this point in the session there were still bishops who were not convinced by this very impressive display of support for the erstwhile bishop of Edessa. They cried out demanding that he anathematise Nestorius. Of course we already know that Ibas is happy to anathematise Nestorius, even while he remains a disciple of Theodore. Nothing has changed. The anathema against Nestorius has no value if it is made by one who continues to follow Theodore. Worse than that, at the same time he also anathematises all those who say ‘one nature’, and the council accepts this statement, and the one against Nestorius as being enough to prove his Orthodoxy. But if we turn briefly and for a final time to the letter to Maris, which has just been read at Chalcedon, then we find that the anathema against those who speak of ‘one nature’ includes Cyril and his Christology. For Ibas had written, “Cyril wrote the Twelve Chapters..asserting that there is one nature of the Godhead and manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ… No one now dares to say that there is one nature of Godhead and manhood but they profess belief in the temple, and the one who dwells in it.” It is clear that Ibas, in this final jibe at the session which exonerated him, has in mind not only Eutyches but Cyril himself.

Fr. Peter Farrington – A Proposal towards the Oriental Orthodox receiving the texts of the Council of Constantinople 553 AD
Finally, the sixth anathema addresses explicitly the
use of the ‘in two natures’ terminology by the council. It
could hardly avoid being considered Nestorian. If the phrase
‘one incarnate nature’ was the watchword of St Cyril, then
‘in two natures’ described the tradition of Diodore and
Theodore, as received by Nestorius. Ibas had used the phrase in his letter to Maris, the
letter which the 5th council found to be filled with impiety.
Nestorius himself had repeatedly spoken of Christ as being
two natures. He had written,


H.H. Pope Shenouda III – Contemplations on the Resurrection
He was in a nature liable to feel pain. Through the body He suffered pain. He experienced the pains of beating, flogging and crucifixion. Many a time He fell under the cross when He carried it, that Simon, from Cyrene, carried it for Him. His nature was liable to death, so, He died on behalf of us and redeemed us while the glorified body did not feel pain and did not die. Thus, He was born with a human nature liable to pain and death, to suffering and sorrow. In this way, this human nature could accomplish the act of redemption, then, it was glorified in the resurrection…This unity lessened nothing of His human nature. It did not nullify the weaknesses of the body as hunger, thirst, weariness and death. Otherwise redemption would have lost its nature and its value. His pains were true, so was His redemption. He made Himself nothing in order that He, in His resurrection, might bestow glory on us. Because He made Himself nothing from glory, He, before the crucifixion, said to God “Father glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You.” “O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17 :1-5)


Theodore of Mospsuestia

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed
The one who assumed is not the same as the one who was assumed nor is the one who was assumed the same as the one who assumed, but the one who assumed is God while the one who was assumed is a man. The one who assumed is by nature that which God the Father is by nature, as He is God with God, and He is that which the one with whom He was, is, while the one who was assumed is by nature that which David and Abraham, whose son and from whose seed He is, are by nature. This is the reason why He is both Lord and Son of David: Son of David because of His nature, and Lord because of the honour that came to Him. And He is high above David His father because of the nature that assumed Him…We ought, therefore, to know the natures of both, the one who assumed and the one who was assumed, and realise that the former is God and the latter is the form of a servant, and that it is God who dwells and man is His temple which He built and constituted as His dwelling. This is the reason why He said: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” which the evangelist interpreted and said: “For He spake of the temple of His body.”He called the man who was assumed His temple while showing that He Himself was dwelling in that temple, and through His dwelling He clearly showed us His power when He delivered it (His dwelling) to the destruction of death, according to His desire, and then raised it by the greatness of His might


Nestorius Quotes

Likewise, by the same, Quaternion 6
Look at what follows this immediately: it says, ‘so that he
might become a merciful and faithful high priest in relation to
God, for because he himself was tried and suffered, he is able to
help those who are tempted.’452 Therefore the one who suffered is
a merciful high priest; it is the temple that was passible, not the
life-giving God of the one who suffered.

Likewise, by the same, Quaternion 16
(14) Speaking about Jesus – This is he who says, ‘My God, my
God, why have you forsaken me?’457 This is he who underwent a
three-day death. I worship him with the Godhead as sharing the
divine authority.
(15) And further on – I venerate the one borne for the sake of the
bearer; I worship the one who appears for the sake of the one who is hidden. God is inseparable from the one who appears; therefore
I do not separate the honour of the one who is not separated. I
separate the natures, but I unite the worship.458 That which was
formed in the womb is not in itself God; that which was created by
the Spirit is not in itself God; that which was buried in the tomb is
not in itself God; for if it were, we would be unmistakable
worshippers of man and worshippers of the dead. But since God is
in the one assumed, so the one assumed, as conjoined to the one
who assumed, is also reckoned as God, because of the one who
assumed.

Nestorius – Quaternion 15, on Doctrine
And so too we call Christ according to the flesh God because of his conjunction with God the Word, while knowing the appearance to be man. Listen to Paul preaching both: ‘From the Jews’, he says, ‘is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.’ He first acknowledges the man and then speaks of the appearance as God in virtue of the conjunction with God, lest anyone should suspect Christianity of worshipping a man.

Nestorius – Quaternion 27 
But just as we have said that God is the creator of all things and that Moses is God (for it says, ‘I made you God over Pharaoh’),440 and that Israel is the son of God (for it says, ‘my first-born son Israel’),441 and just as we have said that Saul is the Christ (for it says, ‘I shall not place my hand on him because he is the Christ of the Lord’),442 and Cyrus likewise (it says, ‘Thus says the Lord to Cyrus my Christ’),443 and that the Babylonian is holy (for it says, ‘I shall command them; they are sanctified and I myself lead them’),444 so too we say that Christ the Lord is God and Son and holy and Christ.445 But although the sharing of the names is similar, there is not the same dignity.

Nestorius – Quaternion 15
‘Have this mind among yourselves which is also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.’446 It did not say, ‘Have this mind among yourselves which is also in God the Word, who, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant’, but taking ‘Christ’ as the name that indicates the two natures, it calls him without danger both ‘the form of a servant’, which he took, and ‘God’, the statements being assigned severally beyond our comprehension to the duality of the natures.

Nestorius – Quaternion 16
‘So that at the name of Jesus’, it says, ‘every knee should bend of those above the heavens, on the earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.’ I venerate the one borne for the sake of the bearer; I worship the one who appears for the sake of the one who is hidden. God is inseparable from the one who appears; therefore I do not separate the honour of the one who is not separated. I separate the natures, but I unite the worship.

Likewise, by the same, Quaternion 17, on doctrine
(9) For even before the incarnation God the Word was Son and
God and companion of the Father, but he took in the last times the
form of the servant. But being, and being called, Son even before
this, he cannot after the assumption [of the human nature] be
called a separate son, lest we teach two sons; but since he was
conjoined to the one who was Son in the beginning and is
conjoined to him, it is impossible to accept distinction as regards
the dignity of sonship – I say as regards the dignity of sonship, not
as regards the natures.450 This is why God the Word is also called
Christ, since he enjoys constant conjunction with Christ.

Likewise, by the same, Quaternion 27
(12) So that you may learn, it means, how great was the
conjunction of the Godhead, which was seen even in the babyhood
of the Lord’s flesh.454 For the same was both a baby and the lord of
the baby. You praised the saying, but do not applaud it without
examination. For I said: the same was a baby and dwelt in a baby.

Abraham’s seed is He Who was yesterday and to-day, according to the voice of Paul, not He Who saith, Before Abraham was, I am. Like to His brethren in all things, He Who assumed brotherhood
of human soul and body, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, He was sent Who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, for the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, wherefore He anointed Me.

Therefore I would have you hold fast with all assurance: there is no severance of the connection of the dignity of the sonship, there is no severance of his being Christ, of the Godhead and Manhood there is a severance; Christ is indivisible, in that He is Christ, for we have not two christs nor two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second, nor yet other and other, nor again another son and another again; but the One is Himself twofold, not in rank but in nature.

This man alone 9 therefore being our High Priest, feeling and kin and sure, turn ye not away from the faith Him-ward; for He was sent, the blessing which was proraised us out of the seed of Abraham, as offering the sacrifice of His Body for Himself alike and His race.

“Here I would gladly enquire of the heretics who mix up into one essence the Nature of the Godhead and of the Manhood, who he is here who is by the traitor betrayed to the Jews: for if there have been a mixture of both, both were together holden of the Jews, both God the Word and the nature of the manhood: which is it that endured the slaughter? I am obliged to use meaner words that what I say may be plain to all. To whom (tell me) befell this deed? for if the Nature of the Godhead, how darest thou commingle both? God hath both remained unholden of the Jews and hath not shared with the flesh in its slaughter: whence (tell me) dost thou get in the mixture?

When therefore the Divine Scripture is about to speak of either the birth of Christ which was forth of the blessed Virgin, or His Death, it is never seen to put God, but either Christ or Son or Lord, seeing that these three are significant of the two natures, one while of this, other while of that, other while of this and that. As for example when the Scripture declares to us the Generation out of man, what says it? God sent forth His Son; it did not say, God sent forth God the Word , but it takes the name which indicates the two natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, Sent forth His Son made from out a woman, that when you hear the word made out of a woman, then you may see the name put forth which indicates the two natures, that you may call the Birth from forth the blessed Virgin, the Son’s Birth, for the Virgin mother of Christ too bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is two-fold in His Natures, she bare indeed the Son of God, but bare the manhood which is son by reason of the connected Son.” 

“When therefore the Divine Scripture is about to speak of either the birth of Christ which was forth of the blessed Virgin, or His Death, it is never seen to put God, but either Christ or Son or Lord, seeing that these three are significant of the two natures, one while of this, other while of that, other while of this and that. As for example when the Scripture declares to us the Generation out of man, what says it? God sent forth His Son; it did not say, God sent forth God the Word 8, but it takes |49 the name which indicates the two natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, Sent forth His Son made from out a woman, that when you hear the word made out of a woman, then you may see the name put forth which indicates the two natures, that you may call the Birth from forth the blessed Virgin, the Son’s Birth, for the Virgin mother of Christ too bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is two-fold in His Natures, she bare indeed the Son of God, but bare the manhood which is son by reason of the connected Son.”


Ibas

Regarding the “Letter to Maris” which was read at Chalcedon and used to Exonerate Ibas at  Chalcedon, the editors of “Acts of the Council of Chalcedon” wrote that the letter “reveals his personal loyalties in his enthusiastic enomium of Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was arguably the father of Nestorianism)”. They also wrote: Even though Chalcedon likewise condemned miaphysite language (V. 34), the fathers consistently treated Cyril with immense respect”:

The Letter to Mari the Persian and the Three Chapters controversy A document read out at this session was to be of great importance in the subsequent history of the reputation of Chalcedon – the letter from Ibas to Mari the Persian, written soon after the compromise agreement between Cyril of Alexandria and the Syrian bishops expressed in the Formula of Reunion of 433. Although many modern historians would give an account of the First Council of Ephesus and its aftermath as critical as that in the letter, and speak with similar disrespect of the character and motives of Cyril of Alexandria, Ibas reveals his personal loyalties in his enthusiastic encomium of Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was arguably the father of Nestorianism), in his criticisms of Ephesus I, and in his highly tendentious account of the reconciliation between the warring factions in 433: he ignores the confirmation of the deposition of Nestorius, and interprets Cyril’s acceptance of the Formula of Reunion as a capitulation which implied that he condemned his own Twelve Chapters and his teaching that there is one nature in Christ. Even though Chalcedon likewise condemned miaphysite language(V. 34), the fathers consistently treated Cyril with immense respect, confirmed the proceedings of Ephesus I, and treated the Formula of Reunion as a valid expression of Cyril’s own theology. They must therefore have found the Letter to Mari hugely embarrassing; yet, by restoring Ibas to his see immediately after a reading of the letter, they seemed to imply approval of it. This was often adduced by anti-Chalcedonians in the subsequent period as evidence that the bishops had in effect rejected Cyril and approved Nestorianism. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS)

The discussion proceeded to the charge that Ibas had accused Cyril of Alexandria of heresy (119); he replied that what he had said was that he, with the other Syrian bishops, would have considered Cyril a heretic, had he not ‘explained’ his Twelve Chapters (by agreeing to the Formula of Reunion). At this point his opponents produced his Letter to Mari the Persian (138), which revealed that even after the reunion he had expressed strong criticism of Cyril. After the text of this letter the minutes, as preserved in the Acts of Chalcedon, break off abruptly. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Volume Two, Session X)

Judgement on Ibas had now to be given. The first verdict was delivered by the Roman delegate Paschasinus, who chose to interpret the adjudication pronounced at Tyre on 25 February 449 as a ringing endorsement of Ibas’ innocence and the Letter to Mari as further proof of his orthodoxy (161). Since it was customary for the judges who spoke subsequently to endorse the verdict of the bishop who spoke first, this created an awkward situation. The ice was broken when Juvenal of Jerusalem declared that Ibas should be treated leniently ‘because he is elderly’ (164). This gave the bishops who spoke next the courage to say that he should be reinstated on the more judicious grounds that his judges at Tyre had not deposed him and he had anathematized Nestorius. No one asked whether he had in fact carried out his promise at Tyre to anathematize Nestorius and declare his acceptance of the full authority of the Council of Ephesus of 431 which he had derided in his Letter to Mari; since he had been unable to return to Edessa after the hearings at Berytus and Tyre, we can only suppose that he had not done so. It is indicative of the unreality of the proceedings that only in the episcopal acclamations that followed the individual verdicts of 18 bishops was the obvious demand made that he renew on the spot his anathematization of Nestorius (179). This he promptly did, at which the chairman endorsed the decision of the bishops to reinstate him (180–81). It is evident that the desire to undo the work of Ephesus II took priority over the rights and wrongs of this particular case.Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Volume Two, Session X, Page 270)

Ibas of Idessa was excommunicated by Ephesus II, based on the below letter he wrote to the Patriarch of Persia. Ironically, based on the same letter, He was exonerated as “Orthodox” by Chalcedon. The 5th Council then turned around and condemned this same letter (used to exonerate Ibas as “Orthodox” at Chalcedon) as heretical. I’ve emphasized in bold parts of the letter where Ibas:
1. Condemns St. Cyril’s Christology as “Appollinarian”
2. Condemns the 12 Anathemas (Chapters) of Ephesus I
3. Reveals his Nestorian Christology by speaking of Christ as “the Temple and Him who dwells in it”
4. Praises the Nestorian Theodore (who was also condemned by the 5th Council for being Nestorian) Ibas of Edessa (Letter to Maris)
But we have taken pains to make known, in a brief manner, to that clear discernment of yours which recognizes great things through small ones, the events that have so lately taken place here. Besides, we know that, when we write to your Piety, what interests us is brought to the knowledge of those who dwell in your country, through your indefatigable efforts. Now, those Scriptures which have been granted (to us) by God have not suffered the least alteration. So, I make beginning of my account by those Words in which you are fully conversant, (those of Scripture).
A controversy has arisen, since your Piety was here, between those two men—Nestorius and Cyril ——who have written against each other blasphemous statements, occasioning scandal to those who hear them. For, Nestorius stated, in his discourses, as also your Piety well knows, that “the Blessed Mary “is not the Mother of God.” Accordingly, many have considered him as belonging to the Heresy of Paul of Samosata, who affirmed that Christ was a mere man. Cyril, however, while aiming to refute the affirmations of Nestorius, has been found to fall into the Dogma of Appollinarius, seeing that he himself has written in a similar way, (affirming) that “ God, the Word, became Man,” so that there could (in that case) be no distinction between The “ Temple and Him Who dwells in it.” For, he has written Twelve Chapters, as also, I think, your Piety knows, in which (he says) “there is One Nature constituting the Divinity and the Humanity “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and that “we ought “not, (so he says), to distinguish between expressions “ which our Lord made in reference to Himself and “those which the Evangelists (made) in reference to “Him.” But, how impious such statements are, your Piety will, even before we can declare it, have been quite persuaded. For, how can this—“ In the ” beginning was The Word”*—be taken to refer to The Temple which was born of Mary? or, this—“ Thou hast made Him a little lower than the Angels”’—be spoken of the Divinity of the Only Begotten? It is thus that the Church expresses her self, as your Piety, also, has from the beginning, taught, and has allowed yourself to be confirmed by the definition of the Blessed Fathers in Her Divine teaching—Two Natures,—One Power,—One Person, —the Same Who is the Only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In consequence of this controversy, the Victorious and Gracious Emperors gave order to the Archbishops to (proceed to, and) assemble (in Synod) at, the City of Ephesus, and that, before them all, the controversy of Nestorius and Cyril should be adjudicated upon. Before, however, all the Bishops, who were summoned to assemble, could reach Ephesus, Cyril arrived first; and, having previously gained the ear of them all, he preoccupied them with poison that is wont to blind the minds of (even) the wise. But he took-occasion, from the hatred (entertained) by him towards Nestorius, to do so: and, be fore the God-loving Archbishop John could arrive at the Synod, they deposed Nestorius from the Episcopate, without a trial and without an investigation. But, after two days from this Deposition, we arrived at Ephesus; and, as soon as we learnt that, in the act of Deposition,‘ which was decreed by them, they adopted, and confirmed, and assented to, the Twelve Chapters written by Cyril. just as if they were consonant with, while they are in reality adverse to, The True Faith, all the Bishops of the East deposed Cyril, and decreed Excommunication against those other Bishops who‘ assented to the Chapters After this breach of (Canonical) order, each returned to his own City. Nestorius, however, by reason of the hatred entertained to wards him by his own City and its Magnates, was unable to return thither; and the Synod of the East, remained, excommunicating the Bishops who communicated with Cyril. Consequently, there was much bitterness among both parties, and Bishops were in contention with Bishops, and people with people; and that which is written, in fact, received its fulfillment—“A man’s enemies “ will be those of his own household.” Hence, too, arose many detracting remarks against us, among the unbelievers and the heretics; for, none ventured either to go from City to City, or from one country to another; but each pursued his neighbor as his enemy. Many persons, likewise, who had not God before their eyes, assuming, as a pretext, zeal on be half of the Churches, eagerly took the opportunity to manifest by act that hatred they secretly entertained in their hearts. Such was, for instance, the TYRANT of our Metropolis, a person not unknown to you, who, under pretext of the Faith, not only wreaked his revenge on the living, but on those likewise who had departed to the Lord, amongst whom is the Blessed Theodore; that preacher of the Truth, that Doctor of the Church, who, not in his life-time only, stopped the mouth of Heretics with The True Faith, but (has done so), also after his death, by leaving to the Sons of the Church spiritual armoury in his writings. (Now) he, who exceeds everybody in audacity, has openly in the Church dared to anathematize him (Theodore) who, out of zeal for God, not only led back his own City from Error to The Truth, but who has also instructed by his teaching Churches that are afar off and, as regards his writings, there was everywhere a great search for them, not on account of their being alien and adverse to The True Faith, (for, certainly, whilst he (Theodore) was living, he constantly eulogized him, and used to read his writings), but because of the enmity he had secretly entertained towards him on his having reprehended him in Synod openly. While all this mischief was going on between them, and each one “ walking in his own way,”* as it is written, our adorable God, Who, in His mercy, is at all times solicitous for His Holy Churches, stirred up the heart of our faithful Emperor to send a great and distinguished man of his own Palace, in order to oblige the Holy ‘and God-loving Bishop of the East Mar John, to be reconciled to Cyril, whom he had deposed from the Episcopate. Then, after having received the letters of the Emperor, he (John) despatched the revered and God~loving Paul, Bishop of Emesa, with letters to Alexandria, sending by him, at the same time, (a Confession of) the True Faith, and commanding him to communicate with Cyril, if Cyril should assent to This Faith and anathematize those who affirm that the Divinity suffered, as well as those who affirm that there is (Only) One Nature of the Divinity and of the Humanity. But the Lord, Who is ever concerned for His Holy Church which was redeemed (purchased) by His Blood had willed the subduing the heart of the Egyptian,” so that he might be able, without trouble or objection, to assent to and receive The Faith and anathematize all those whose belief is at variance with That Faith. So, after they (John and Cyril) had communicated together, the controversy disappeared and peace arose upon the Church, and now the schism has ceased in it and peace reigns as heretofore. Now, what the God-fearing Archbishop (John) wrote, and the reply which he received from Cyril—these letters 1 have attached to this one, which I dispatch to your Piety, so that, when you have read them, you can make known to all those our Brethren whom you consider lovers of peace, that the controversy is composed and the middle wall of enmity broken through, and those who so inordinately exalted themselves against the quick and dead, have become abashed, apologizing for their folly and teaching the very opposite to their former Doctrine. For, no man ventures (now) to affirm that there is One Nature (only) of the Divinity and the Humanity (of Christ), but men (Openly) avow The Temple and Him Who dwells in it to be the One (Only) Son Jesus Christ. Now this Letter I have written to your Piety out of the great affection I have for you, being well assured that your Holiness, by night and by day, occupies yourself in the Doctrine of God (Divine Learning), in order that you may be of service to the Community.

 


Letter to Mari – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Volume Two, Session X)Session X, Pages 295-298)
In brief we have endeavoured to make known to your lucid understanding, which by means of little discerns much, what happened before this and what has happened here now, knowing, in writing this to your religiousness, that through your pains there will become known to all those there our message that the scriptures given by God have not suffered any distortion. I shall begin my account with matters that you yourself know well.
Since the time your religiousness was here, a controversy arose between those two men, Nestorius and Cyril, and they wrote harmful tracts against each other, which were a snare to those who heard them. For Nestorius asserted in his tracts, as your religiousness knows, that the blessed Mary is not Theotokos, with the result that he was thought by most people to share the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ was a mere man. Meanwhile Cyril, in his desire to refute the tracts of Nestorius, slipped up and was found falling into the teaching of Apollinarius: for like him he also wrote that the very God the Word became man in such a way that there is no distinction between the temple and the one who dwells in it. He wrote the Twelve Chapters, as I think your religiousness knows, asserting that there is one nature of the Godhead and the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is wrong, he said, to divide the sayings that were uttered, whether those spoken by the Lord about himself or by the evangelists about him. How packed this is with every form of impiety, your holiness will know even before we say it. For how is it possible that ‘In the beginning was the Word’ be taken to refer to the temple born from Mary, or that ‘You have made him a little less than the angels’ should be said of the Godhead of the Only-begotten? What the church says, as your religiousness knows, and what has been taught from the beginning and confirmed by the divine teaching of the writings of the blessed fathers is this: two natures, one power, one person, who is the one Son and Lord Jesus Christ.
Because of this controversy the victorious and pious emperors ordered the senior bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus, so that the writings of Nestorius and Cyril could be judged in the presence of all. But before all the bishops who had been ordered to assemble had reached Ephesus, Cyril acted prematurely and pre-empted the hearing of all with a spell that could blind the eyes of the wise; he had as his motive his hatred for Nestorius. Even before the most holy and God-beloved Archbishop John arrived at the council, they deposed Nestorius from the episcopate, without there being a trial and investigation. Two days after his deposition we arrived at Ephesus. When we learnt that on the occasion of the deposition of Nestorius, carried out by them, they had also proclaimed and confirmed the Twelve Chapters composed by Cyril, which are contrary to the true faith, and expressed agreement with them as if they were in harmony with the true faith, all the bishops of the Orient deposed Cyril himself, and decreed a sentence of excommunication on the other bishops who had endorsed the Chapters. And after this chaos each returned to his own city; but Nestorius, since he was hated by his city and by the great men in it, was not able to return there.
The council of the Orient continued to refuse communion to those bishops who were in communion with Cyril. As a result there was much resentment among them, with bishops contending against bishops and congregations against congregations. The event fulfilled the words of scripture that ‘the foes of the man’ were ‘those of his own household’. As a result much abuse was directed at us by both pagans and heretics; no one dared to travel from city to city or from region to region, but everyone persecuted his neighbour as if he were an enemy. Many who did not have the fear of God before their eyes, under the pretext of zeal for the churches, hastened to put into action the hidden hatred they had in their hearts. One of these happened to be the tyrant of our city, who is not unknown to you, who on the pretext of the faith avenged himself not only on the living but also on those who had formerly departed to the Lord. One of these was the blessed Theodore, the herald of the truth and teacher of the church, who not only in his lifetime compelled the heretics to accept his true faith but also after his death bequeathed to the children of the church a spiritual weapon in his writings, as your religiousness discovered from meeting him and became convinced on the basis of his writings. But the one of limitless effrontery had the effrontery to anathematize publicly in church the man who, out of zeal for God, not only converted his own city from error to the truth but also instructed far distant churches by his teaching. A great search was made everywhere for his books, not because they are contrary to the true faith – indeed, while he was alive, he constantly praised him and read his books –, but out of the secret hatred he had towards him, because he had publicly reproved him at the council.
While these evils were taking place, with each person, as it is written, wandering off on his own, the God we must worship, who in his mercy at all times looks after the church, moved the heart of our most faithful and victorious emperor to send a great and notable man from his palace to require the lord John the most holy archbishop of the Orient to be reconciled with Cyril, who had been deposed by him from the episcopate. After receiving the emperor’s letter, he sent the most holy and God-beloved Paul bishop of Emesa, recording through him the true faith, and instructing him to enter into communion with Cyril if he assented to this faith and anathematized those who say that the Godhead suffered and those who say that there is one nature of Godhead and manhood. And the Lord, who at all times looks after his church, which is redeemed by his blood, chose to soften even the heart of the Egyptian, with the result that he assented to the faith without trouble and accepted it, and anathematized all those whose beliefs are contrary to it. Now that they were in communion with each other, controversy was removed from their midst, and peace returned to the church; no longer is there schism in it, but peace as before.

As for what are the words written by the most holy and God-beloved Archbishop John and the reply he received from Cyril, I have attached the letters themselves to this one to your religiousness and sent them to your sacredness, so that when you read them you may discover, and inform all our brethren who love peace, that controversy has now ceased, the dividing wall of enmity has been demolished, and that those who lawlessly assailed the living and the dead are shamefaced, apologizing for their errors and teaching the opposite of their previous teaching; for no one now dares to say that there is one nature of Godhead and manhood, but they profess belief in the temple and the one who dwells in it, who is the one Son Jesus Christ. This I have written to your religiousness out of the great affection I have for you, confident that your holiness exercises yourself day and night in the teaching of God, in order to benefit many.


He Whom the Scriptures declare to suffer
on behalf of all is called not merely man but Life of all, although in point of fact He did share
our human nature. “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes,” they say, and “Who
shall declare of what lineage He comes?”
Sunday Theotokia (Midnight Praises) 
One nature out of two, a Holy divinity, co‐essential with the Father, an incorruptible.  Holy Humanity, begotten without seed, consubstantial with us, according to the economy. 
St. Cyril of Alexandria – Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Tome III
Why therefore (I pray) are you ashamed at the measures of the emptiness, albeit every one (I suppose) who both holds the right faith and examines accurately the aim of the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God the Father was both Incarnate and made Man? He therefore Who is consubstantial with us, in that He has been made Man, and to the Father Himself, in that He hath remained God even in human nature, was sent preaching remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to heal the broken in heart, and to call the acceptable year of the Lord
St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Emperor Theodosius
ACCORDINGLY WE confess that the only begotten Son of “ God is perfect God, consubstantial to the Father according to divinity, and that the same [Son] is consubstantial to us according to humanity. For there was a union of two natures. Wherefore, we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And, if it seems proper, let us point out as an example the composition in us ourselves according to which we are men. For we are composed of soul and body, and we see two natures, the one of the body and the other of the soul, but one man from both according to a union, and the composition of two natures does not make two men be considered as one, but one man.
St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to Acacius of Melitene
They add, signifying who he might be, that he is perfect as God and perfect as man, who was begotten before ages from the Father according to divinity and “in recent days” for us and for our salvation was begotten of Mary, the Holy Virgin, according to his humanity, that the same one is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity…For how might he be thought to be consubstantial with us according to his humanity and yet begotten of the Father according to his divinity, I say, unless the same one is thought to be and said to be God and man as well?
St. Cyril of Alexandria – Letter to John of Antioch
“We confess therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten, Perfect God and Perfect Man of reasonable Soul and Body, Begotten before the ages of His Father according to His Godhead, the Same in the last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary according to the Manhood: Consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead and Consubstantial with us according to the Manhood: for an Union hath taken place of two natures, wherefore we confess one Christ, One Son, One Lord.
Mar Timothy Bishop of Alexandria – Against the Synod of Chalcedon

On the fact that one must assert as one our Lord and God Jesus Christ with His flesh and must assign everything to Him, what is divine and what is human, and that He became co-essential with us according to the body but also remained God, and that it is godless to separate Him into two [natures]’…

Fr. Tadros Malaty – A Panoramic View of Patristics
The Incarnate Logos is co-essential in Godhead with the Father and co-essential with us in manhood without sin. Two natures for St Cyril continued to exist in the union and are distinguished in thought alone th/| qewri,a| mo,nh|.

H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy – Deifying Energy and Grace
St. Cyril the Great wrote: “The same one is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity.” It is well known that humanity is composed of two essences and natures; the human body and the human soul, together they form the one human nature and essence. The Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial to us according to his humanity without sin. The natural union leads necessarily to a union according to essence. It is well known that humanity is composed of two essences and natures; the human body and the human soul, together they form the one human nature and essence. The Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial to us according to his humanity without sin. 

Theodoret

St. Cyril of Alexandria – To John of Antioch (Letters 51-110, Letter 63)
Cyril, to john of Antioch against Theodoret.
I PRESUMED THAT the most pious Theodoret along with the other God-fearing bishops had wiped from his hands the stain of the innovations of Nestorius. For I was of the opinion that, once he had written and embraced the peace, and accepted in reply my letter addressed to him, he himself had put out of the way by agreement whatever seemed to stand as an obstacle. But as the most pious priest, Daniel, imparts to me, he exerted himself this far without changing the opinions he held in the beginning, but he holds the blasphemies of that Nestorius, and he plainly is as if he neither anathematized him, nor came forth to sign his deposition. (2) And let your holiness grant me freedom to speak since I speak out of love; for what reason are some so stiff-necked as not to follow the admirable aim of your reverence, not even in matters of charity, but are like those who forsake the herd and are firm in what seems best to them alone? And yet, if what I learned is true, the most God-fearing man mentioned above ought to gain the experience of the spurs of your reverence.

Name the author of the below quote (Theodoret):

Thus, it was the form of the servant that suffered, the form of God of course being together with it, and permitting it to suffer on account of the salvation brought forth out of the sufferings, and making the sufferings its own through the union. Therefore it was not God who suffered, but the man taken of us by God. Wherefore also the blessed Isaiah exclaims by foretelling, ‘Being a man in pain and acquainted with the bearing of sickness’ (Isa. 53:3). Yet even the Ruler Christ himself told the Jews, ‘Why do you seek to kill me, a man who had told you the truth?’ (John 8:40).

Eran.—He is by nature immortal, but He became man and suffered.
Orth.—Therefore He underwent change, for how otherwise could He being immortal submit to death? But we have agreed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable. Having therefore a nature superior to change, He by no means shared death.
Eran.The divine Peter says “Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.”
Orth.—This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the rule of dogmas from
the divine Scripture.
Eran.How then can you deny that God the Word suffered in the flesh?
Orth.—Because we have not found this expression in the divine Scripture.
Eran.—But I have just quoted you the utterance of the great Peter.
Orth.You seem to ignore the distinction of the terms.
Eran.—What terms? Do you not regard the Lord Christ as God the Word?
Orth.The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us, both God and man, but the term “God the Word” so said signifies the simple nature before the world, superior to time, and incorporeal. Wherefore the Holy Ghost that spake through the holy Apostles nowhere attributes passion or death to this name.
Eran.—If the passion is attributed to the Christ, and God the Word after being made man was called Christ, I hold that he who states God the Word to have suffered in the flesh is in no way unreasonable.
Orth.Hazardous and rash in the extreme is such an attempt.

Theodoret – To Domnus, Bishop of Antioch (Letter 112, 449 A.D.)
As I look back on what happened then, and look forward to similar events in the future, my wretched spirit sighs and wails, for I see no prospect of good. The men of the other dioceses do not know the poison which lies in the Twelve Chapters; having regard to the celebrity of the writer of them, they suspect no mischief, and his successor in the see is I think adopting every means to confirm them in a second synod. For supposing he who lately wrote them at command, and anathematized all who did not wish to abide by them, were presiding over an ecumenical council, what could he not effect? And be well assured, my lord, that no one who knows the heresy they contain will brook to accept them, though twice as many men of this sort decree them. Before now, though a larger number have rashly confirmed them, I resisted at Ephesus, and refused to communicate with the writer of them till he had agreed to the points laid down by me, and had harmonized his teaching with them, without making any mention of the Chapters. This your holiness can ascertain without any difficulty if you order the acts of the synod to be investigated; for they are preserved as is customary with the synodical signatures, and there are extant more than fifty synodic acts showing the accusation of the Twelve Chapters. For before the journey to Ephesus the blessed John had written to the very godly bishops Eutherius of Tyana, Firmus of Cæsarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, denouncing these Chapters as Apollinarian. And at Ephesus the exposition and confirmation of these Chapters was the cause of our deposition of the Alexandrian and of the Ephesian.


Aphthartodocetism (Julianism)

Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus in Caria having fled to Egypt when Justin I became emperor, a controversy arose between them as to what was to be thought of the corruptibility of Christ’s body. We must notice that this word meant, not only a tendency to decomposition, but, in a more general sense, passibility, i.e., capability of suffering pain and even natural needs, such as hunger and thirst, and of experiencing the impulse of honest passions, such as fear, joy, etc. Severus declared himself in favor of the theory of the corruptibility; whereas Julian upheld that of the incorruptibility of the Savior’s body. As a consequence of its union with Christ, he said, and from the first moment of that union, Christ’s humanity had been raised above the laws to which our humanity is subject and had received properties different from those which befit ours. It was absolutely and radically incorruptible…Since Christ’s humanity, they said, was innocent, born of a virgin and united to the Word, it must have been like that of Adam before the fall and such as ours shall be after the glorious resurrection, i.e., by nature impassible and immortal. Christ, then, suffered, not through a necessity of His nature, but by divine decree; not because the condition of His body demanded it, but because He so willed; in fact, His sufferings were miracles. It was this teaching, though somewhat extenuated, which Justinian embraced towards the end of his life (about 565) – J. Tixeront (History of Dogmas, Volume 3)

Regarding Julian who denied the natural passiblility of the body of Christ, St. Severus wrote:

St. Severus of Antioch – Syriac Chronicle (of Zachariah of Mitylene, regarding Julian)
“This foolish man, who confesses the passions with his lips only, hiding his impiety, wrote thus: ‘ Incorruptibility was always attached to the body of our Lord, which was passible of His own will for the sake of others.’ And in brotherly love I wrote and asked him : ‘ What do you mean by ” incorruptible,” and ” suffered of His own will for the sake of others,” and ” was attached to the body of our Lord,” if without any falsehood you confess it to be by nature passible? For, if by the incorruptibility possessed by it you mean holiness without sin, we all confess this with you, that the holy body from the womb which He united to Himself originally by the Holy Spirit of the pure Virgin, the Theotokos, was conceived and born in the flesh without sin and conversed with us men, because ” He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,”  according to the testimony of the Scriptures. But, if you call impassibility and immortality incorruptibility, and say that the body which suffered in the flesh on our behalf was not one that was capable of suffering with voluntary passions and dying in the flesh, you reduce the saving passions on our behalf to a phantasy; for a thing which does not suffer also does not die, and it is a thing incapable of suffering.’  And upon receiving such remarks as these from me he openly refused to call the holy body of Emmanuel passible in respect of voluntary passions; and therefore he did not hesitate to write thus, without shame and openly: ‘ We do not call Him of our nature in respect of passions, but in respect of essence. Therefore, even if He is impassible, and even if He is incorruptible, yet He is of our nature in respect of nature.’

Regarding the above,

Their leader, Julian of Halicarnassus who was opposed by the Severians, developed the doctrine of the one nature into the doctrine of the identity of the substance and properties of the divinity and the humanity in Christ. The hypothesis of the indestructibleness of the body of Christ from the moment of the assumptio, became the shibloleth of the “Julianists” or Gaians, who, now nicknamed Aphthartodoketæ and Phantasiasts by the Severians, retorted with the word “Phthartolatry”. The Julianists, whose point of view was determined solely by the thought of redemption, did not shrink from maintaining the perfect glorification of the body of Christ from the very first, and in accordance with this saw in the emotions and sufferings of Christ not the natural–though in reference to the Godhead the voluntary–states consequent on the human nature, but the acceptance of states kata charin, which were regarded as having no inner connection with the nature of the Redeemer as that of the God-man. This nature being entirely free from all sin was also supposed to have nothing in common with suffering and death. In opposition to this view the Severians laid so much stress on the relation of the sufferings of Christ to the human side of Christ’s nature in order to rid them of anything doketic, that no Western could have more effectively attacked doketism than they did. We find in general amongst the Severians such a determined rejection of all doctrinal extravagances–though these are not to be regarded as absurdities, but as signs of the settled nature of the belief in redemption–that we are glad to be able clearly to see how unnecessary it was in the East to adopt the Chalcedonian Creed, and to replace the mia phusis of Cyril by the doubtful doctrine of the two natures. – Adolf Harnack (History of Dogma)


Chalcedon

Rev. István Pásztori-Kupán writes the following in his book “Theodoret of Cyrus”:

Pulcheria, the new empress, quickly married senator Marcian, who thus became emperor. The imperial couple approached Pope Leo with the plan of summoning a new council. The pope – fearing the repetition of the scandal – was reluctant to accept a synod gathering in the East, hoping to convene it in Italy. Nevertheless, through the emperor’s insistence, he finally agreed, and a council was convoked for 1 September 451 to Nicaea of Bythinia. The conditions of the pope (who wisely refrained from attending despite the emperor’s repeated requests) were the following:

• The Tome was to be read aloud and accepted as the measure of
orthodoxy without dispute.
• The papal legates were to take part only in the sessions held in the
emperor’s presence and to preside over the assembly.
• Dioscorus was not to participate at the sessions of the council.

Although some of the bishops claimed that in conformity with Cyril’s Ephesian council nothing should be added to the Nicene Creed, at the emperor’s firm request a Definition was drawn up, the text of which is constructed upon Theodoret’s Formula…Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas, which were not voted upon in Chalcedon, did not become properly recognised theological standards until 553.”

Nothing could be more indicative of the mood of the council than the fact that even Theodoret had to defend the Tome by appealing to the authority of Cyril. His own attitude was far more critical: he had strongly attacked Cyril’s Twelve Chapters back in the pamphlet war in early 431 and had been very reluctant to accept Nestorius’ subsequent condemnation. But he clearly recognized that it would be disastrous to argue that there was something valuable in the Tome of Leo that was lacking in Cyril; instead, he played along with the conviction of the majority that Cyril provided the yardstick of orthodoxy — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Volume II, page 66)

Ibas reveals his personal loyalties in his enthusiastic encomium of Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was arguably the father of Nestorianism), in his criticisms of Ephesus I, and in his highly tendentious account of the reconciliation between the warring factions in 433: he ignores the confirmation of the deposition of Nestorius, and interprets Cyril’s acceptance of the Formula of Reunion as a capitulation which implied that he condemned his own Twelve Chapters and his teaching that there is one nature in Christ. Even though Chalcedon likewise condemned miaphysite language (V. 34), the fathers consistently treated Cyril with immense respect, confirmed the proceedings of Ephesus I, and treated the Formula of Reunion as a valid expression of Cyril’s own theology. They must therefore have found the Letter to Mari hugely embarrassing; yet, by restoring Ibas to his see immediately after a reading of the letter, they seemed to imply approval of it. This was often adduced by anti-Chalcedonians in the subsequent period as evidence that the bishops had in effect rejected Cyril and approved Nestorianism. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Volume II, page 270)

We have seen how the Definition [of Chalcedon] took as its basis the Formula of Reunion; this was in origin an Antiochene document, dyophysite in structure as well as in details of wording. We noted also how, in the final revision, pressures from Rome and the emperor imposed the inclusion in the Definition of an unambiguously dyophysite formula (‘in two natures’). The work of the editorial committee in making this material serve as an expression of Cyrillian Christology was brilliant but artificial. There is something defective in a conciliar document that requires such nicety of exegesis as we have attempted above. The assertion of two natures and the avoidance of theopaschite expressions were open, as we have shown, to a perfectly Cyrillian interpretation. But the fact that they were accompanied in the work of the council by the condemnation of Dioscorus and reinstatement of Theodoret (and his controversial ally Ibas) gave plausibility to the charge that the Definition, while pretending to honour Cyril, had in fact betrayed him. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Introduction, V. The Theology of Chalcedon, Page 73)

In April 449, a series of hearings was held at Constantinople to investigate claims by Eutyches that the Acts of the synod misrepresented him and that Flavian had treated him unjustly; their minutes were read out, in whole or in part, at the first session of Ephesus II and consequently at Chalcedon as well (I. 555–849). Most of the record covers the meeting held on 13 April and chaired by the patrician Florentius to investigate a complaint from Eutyches that the minutes of the Home Synod of 448 had been falsified. A minute investigation revealed that the envoys sent by the synod had attributed to Eutyches some statements of uncertain authenticity, but it cannot be said that the claim that his doctrine had been distorted was made good. But some distortion in the record did indeed emerge. In the published account of the dramatic confrontation when Eutyches finally appeared at the synod (511–45) Archbishop Flavian demanded of Eutyches no stronger dyophysite (two-nature) formula than acknowledgement that Christ is ‘from two natures’ (513), a formula taken from Cyril of Alexandria. But, according to a number of witnesses at the hearing of 449 (773, 788, 791, 804, 811), Flavian had in fact pressed Eutyches to accept the stronger dyophysite formula, rejected by Cyril, of two natures after the union. The absence of this from the official minutes shows that they were doctored to protect Flavian (unavailingly as it turned out) from accusations of Nestorianism. Basil of Seleucia had tried to help Eutyches by suggesting a sound miaphysite (one-nature) formula and that this had led to an angry exchange with Eutyches’ accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, an uncompromising dyophysite. None of this appears in the minutes, which represent the synod fathers as united in their support of Flavian and Eusebius. The tendency for minutes to gloss over disagreements by omitting ‘incidental’ remarks (for which see a notary’s admission at 792) is not surprising but needs to be constantly remembered. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Pages 116,117)

Footnote: 10 At the first session of Ephesus II were read the minutes of a session of Ephesus I which condemned Nestorius for requiring repentant heretics to subscribe to an expanded creed (921, 943). This provided a precedent for condemning the Home Synod of 448 for the doctrinal demands it made on Eutyches. See our note at 943. for the ambiguity between ‘adding to’ and ‘contravening’ the creed. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Footnote 10 on Page 117)

‘Chalcedon’, remarked Norman Baynes, ‘came not to bring peace but a
sword.’187 It became immediately apparent that the council, far from securing
a doctrinal consensus, was itself becoming a source of further controversy.
Most opponents of the council did not necessarily support Eutyches. They
did, however, regard Chalcedon as at best an unnecessary innovation upon
Nicaea and at worst as doctrinally unsound, fearing that both Leo’s Tome
and the convoluted Definition of Faith came dangerously close to a
‘Nestorian’ division of Christ into two persons.188 Many of the bishops of
the east had either approved the Definition themselves or had it approved on
their behalf, and as late as 457/8 the vast majority of metropolitans
responded to the Emperor Leo’s encyclical letter by claiming their con-
tinued support for Chalcedon.189 The earliest opposition to the council came
from among lower clergy and especially monastic leaders who considered
Chalcedon a betrayal of the true faith and were not afraid to defy their
bishops. The first target of their wrath was Juvenal, who had dramatically
abandoned Dioscorus and switched sides during the first session, and who
upon his return to Palestine was greeted by angry protests that soon esca-
lated into violent insurrection. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(General Inroduction, IV. Chalcedon’s Legacy, page 51)


259. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Why did you receive Eutyches into communion, who contradicted these doctrines, while deposing Flavian of holy memory and the most devout Bishop Eusebius, who upheld them?’

260. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The minutes will reveal the truth.’ Veronicianus the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same document:

(Ephesus II)
261. Eustathius bishop of Berytus said: ‘Now that these previously written letters have been read, it is necessary to make clear to your holiness that God ordained for our father Cyril archbishop of Alexandria, most blessed and sacred in memory, that some of the things that he wrote were disputed in his lifetime by those who did not understand correctly what he had put so well. In consequence, with his all-wise and instructive utterance he explained his well-composed writings to those who wanted to distort them, and persuaded everyone to follow his pious doctrine. But when certain other people used the letters that have just been read to dispute the doctrine of this most blessed and sacred man, he felt the necessity, or rather the desire (for he devoted all his time to this work of piety), to explain himself and show and present his meaning clearly to all by means of the letters which he wrote to the then bishops of blessed and sacred memory Acacius of Melitene, Valerian of Iconium and Succensus of Diocaesarea in the province of Isauria;185 these explain how one should understand the letters which have just been read and the mystery of the coming of our Saviour. The letters to those blessed men state among other things, “One should not conceive of two natures but of one incarnate nature of the Word”, and he confirmed this statement of his by the testimony of the most blessed Athanasius.’186
(Chalcedon)
262. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Eutyches says this. Dioscorus says this.’
263. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture.’

266. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Bishop Eustathius has spoken well. The orthodox one has spoken well. To the revered and devout one! The memory of Cyril is everlasting.’
267. Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus said: ‘The letter of Cyril of sacred memory goes as follows.’ – And he recited by heart the letter containing among other statements the following: ‘One should therefore not conceive of two natures but of one incarnate nature of the Word.’

— Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Pages 184, 185)



38 Leo is commenting on I. 522. Reasoning from Eutyches’ rejection of two natures after
the union and his evident reluctance to admit that Christ’s body is consubstantial with ours (I.
516), he deduced mistakenly that Eutyches held that the manhood of Christ was not taken from
the Virgin but came into being as a result of a change within the Godhead itself (Leo, ep. 124,
ACO 2.4 p.160. 2–3).


185 Cyril, epp. 40, 50, 45–6 respectively. Some of Cyril’s supporters were disconcerted by his acceptance of the Formula of Reunion, and he wrote a series of letters to reassure them, giving the formula a heavily Alexandrian gloss.

It is manifest from the minutes of the synod that he rejected the dual consubstantiality, which even Cyril had accepted, not because he doubted the reality of Christ’s human nature but because he feared that the expression undermined Christ’s uniqueness as the Son of God (522).6 His rejection of two natures after the union was shared by the whole Alexandrian school; it meant not that he doubted the presence in Christ of two sets of attributes, one divine and one human, but that he refused to call them ‘two natures’, which, in the language of the time, implied that they were two distinct entities. The demand by the synod that Eutyches should affirm two natures after the union breached the terms of the accord of 433, since the Formula of Reunion was ambiguous on this point: it stated, ‘There has occurred a union of two natures’, which left it ambiguous whether after the union there are two natures or one. Flavian of Constantinople chose to accuse Eutyches, however, first of asserting one nature after the union, not in the sense in which Cyril had used the phrase but in a way that implied the formation of a new compound in which the characteristics of the two natures are not simply united but assimilated to each other, and secondly of holding that the Lord’s body is not of human essence and is consubstantial neither with Mary nor with us.7 Pope Leo likewise, when he read the Acts, misunderstood Eutyches to deny the humanity of Christ; the whole of his famous Tome is vitiated by this mistake. There is no excuse for parroting Flavian’s misrepresentation and Leo’s misunderstanding today. One may agree with Henry Chadwick, writing on Eutyches’ vindication at Ephesus II: ‘Eutyches was declared orthodox. That verdict, when Cyril’s Anathemas and his Eucharistic doctrine were adopted as [the] criterion was justifiable – much more so than later estimates of Eutyches were to allow.’ — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Pages 115, 116)

8 Chadwick 2001, 561. See also Draguet 1931. Note, however, that already at the first session of Chalcedon (168) Dioscorus insisted that his concern was not to defend Eutyches but the faith; and from his exile in Gangra after the council, according to Timothy Aelurus, he anathematized those Eutychians who held that the Lord’s body was in any way different from our body (Ebied and Wickham 1970, 360). Even if Eutyches’ rejection of the dual consubstantiality was capable of an orthodox interpretation, it was still a mistake.

 

But according to testimony later given at Chalcedon, Dioscorus’ notaries at Ephesus deliberately excluded dissenting voices and even used violence to prevent any other scribes from making an independent record. Chalcedon would feature numerous examples of bishops disowning or repudiating statements attributed to them in the record from Ephesus, or instead claiming that those statements had been extracted by force.115 But while two years later many sought to evade responsibility by pinning sole responsibility on Dioscorus, a close reading of the record suggests that a substantial majority of the bishops present went along willingly or even enthusiastically.116

116 I. 62: Opponents of Dioscorus complained, ‘We were one hundred and thirty-five in all; forty-two were ordered to keep silent; the rest were Dioscorus and Juvenal and the disorderly mob; that left only fifteen of us. What could we do?’ — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(General Introduction, Page 32)


The Second Council of Ephesus concluded with Dioscorus and Alexandria effectively dominating the whole church of the eastern empire and enforcing a firmly one-nature Cyrillian Christology, in concert with Juvenal – who took the fall of Domnus as an opportunity to expand his own patriarchal jurisdiction – and with the full blessing of the emperor. Pope Leo, though safe in Italy, was left marginalizedThe next year brought an abrupt reminder of just how decisively the condition of the church depended upon the disposition of the emperor. Although emperors rarely presumed overtly to dictate the content of theology, when the bishops themselves were divided over doctrine then the government’s support of one side could easily tilt the balance – and withdrawal of that support could lead to dramatic reversals. On 26 July 450, the emperor Theodosius II was thrown from his horse while hunting and died soon after. His sister Pulcheria assumed effective power, and within the space of a few months executed the eunuch Chrysaphius, announced her marriage to the elderly Thracian general Marcian, arranged his acclamation as the new emperor, and in short order set about undoing the work of Dioscorus. The new regime immediately reached out to Leo, who demanded acceptance of his Tome as a condition for re-establishing communion…Discussion quickly turned to the possibility of a new council. In order to avoid a repeat of Ephesus II, Leo insisted that any such council be held in Italy where he could control the agenda. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(General Introduction, III. The Council of Chalcedon, Pages 38-39)

Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘In his constant declarations that he follows the definition of faith of the council at Nicaea and the acts of the previous great and holy council at Ephesus, I have found him most orthodox in his statements. It is my sentence and my wish that he serve in his monastery and in his rank.’ The holy council said: ‘This judgement is just.’…Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘Flavian and Eusebius have shown themselves to have no part in priesthood and episcopal rank by attempting to add to or subtract from the faith defined at the holy council at Nicaea and confirmed by the holy and ecumenical council that met previously in this city of Ephesus, with the effect that those who dare to add to or subtract from the faith are excluded from the priesthood, especially when they have caused such turmoil. In consequence, I give the same judgement as the holy and ecumenical council and the holy and most God-beloved Archbishop Dioscorus, and exclude them from episcopal dignity.’ —  Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS, Session I, Pages 273, 345)

Gradually and dramatically Dioscorus’ support melted away as former allies, including most notably Juvenal, got up and crossed the aisle to sit with the easterners. Of the 150 bishops at Ephesus II, 124 were also present or represented at Chalcedon. While the vast majority of these bishops had been complicit in the decisions of the council, by the time of Chalcedon most of them were only too willing to evade responsibility by pointing blame solely at Dioscorus, disavowing statements they had made at Ephesus by claiming coercion or falsification. At the conclusion of the first session the imperial commissioners pronounced a provisional sentence of deposition against six bishops, but in the course of the fourth session, all but Dioscorus would be rehabilitated and seated again. — Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(General Introduction, III. The Council of Chalcedon, Page 45)

The Council of Nicaea (325) had drawn up a creed which by the time of Chalcedon was considered irreplaceable and therefore set no precedent for the drawing up of fresh creeds; the production of new creeds had, in fact, been explicitly forbidden in Canon 7 of the First Council of Ephesus (read
out at I. 943). The two councils of Ephesus of 431 and 449 had sought to confirm the faith by approving certain already existent documents and by condemning certain individuals. Therefore the bishops assembled at Chalcedon would have expected to settle the doctrinal issue in the same two ways – in this case by solemnly ratifying the Tome of Leo, which Marcian
had from his accession treated as the key document in the controversy, and
by disciplining Dioscorus and other opponents of Leo. Not only did the
bishops not expect a new definition, but few if any of them had any desire for
one, while the stance of the Roman delegates was that the task of the council
was simply to approve the Tome of Leo as the definitive Christological
statement. It therefore came as a shock to the bishops when at the beginning
of this second session the patrician Anatolius, as the chairman and the
emperor’s representative,4 told them to ‘produce a pure exposition of the
faith’ (II. 2), in other words to compose a new credal statement.5
The bishops protested vigorously: it was not permissible to issue a new
creed, and nothing was needed to protect orthodoxy beyond approval of the
Tome of Leo (3–5). The chairman ignored their objections and proposed the
setting up of a select committee to ‘deliberate in common about the faith’
(6). The bishops maintained their opposition. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Volume II, Introducion, Session II, page 3)

Their first attempt at a definition, which seems to have contained a compromise formula based on ek duo phuseon (‘from two natures’) that was acceptable to the vast majority, was not enough to satisfy the papal legates. Tellingly, the text of that draft creed was not recorded in the minutes. Theology was apparently too important to be left to 300 bishops, so when they were commanded to revise the formula, the task was entrusted to a select committee of leading churchmen who met behind closed doors. No records were kept of their deliberations, and the definition they finally produced was offered to the council as a finished product – faith should not be seen to be subject to debate or discussion…In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus. In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(General Introduction, III. The Council of Chalcedon, Page 46, 91)

Dioscorus defended himself by pointing out that he had but obeyed imperial orders and that he was no more answerable for the proceedings of the council than the other bishops who had co-chaired it (18, 53). The bishops admitted that not everything could be laid at Dioscorus’ door and that they bore a share of responsibility (181–4); they effectively abandoned the claim that Dioscorus had got his way through intimidation alone. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 120)


Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Your clemency has heard that our divine emperor did not entrust judgement to me alone but gave responsibility for the council to the most religious Bishop Juvenal and the most sacred Bishop Thalassius as well. We pronounced judgement accordingly, and the whole council gave its assent. Why are these people singling me out for attack? Responsibility was given to the three of us equally, and the whole council, as I have said, concurred with our judgement: it uttered its own sentence, it signed, and the matter was referred to the most pious emperor Theodosius of blessed memory, who confirmed all the judgements of the holy and ecumenical council by a general law.’

62. Theodore the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria said:…The council had been ordered by the master of the world to judge the case of Flavian first. But they held many sessions together; without signing or giving notice of their resolutions, or reading them out to anyone, with some of us not knowing [what was happening], they brought us blank sheets – Dioscorus and Juvenal – accompanied by a mob of disorderly people, with a mass of them shouting and making a tumult and disrupting the council. We were one hundred and thirty-five in all;86 forty-two were ordered to keep silent; the rest were Dioscorus and Juvenal and the disorderly mob; that left only fifteen of us. What could we do? They made sport of our lives. They, the heretics, all spoke with one voice. They terrified us. They said we were heretics, and we were excluded as heretics.’

63. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We all agree. That is how it was.’

64. The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘A Christian fears no one. An orthodox fears no one. Bring fire, and we shall learn. If they had feared men, there would never have been martyrs.’ 

65. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Since they say that they didn’t hear the sentences and decrees but simply signed a blank sheet passed to them, it was quite improper of them to sign without being assured about the pronouncements of the council, especially since matters of faith were at stake. Since they are making accusation that they were given a blank sheet to sign, who then composed their declarations? I ask your magnificence to make them answer.’ –

…134. Acacius the most devout bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We signed a blank sheet, under compulsion and duress and after countless outrages. We subscribed not voluntarily but as the victims of despotism. They kept us shut up in the church till evening, and when we felt indisposed they would not let us recuperate or withdraw or come to ourselves, but set on us soldiers with clubs and swords, as well as monks, and in this way made us subscribe.’

…177. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘If your teaching was so orthodox, why did you sign the deposition of Flavian of sacred memory?’

178. Basil the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘Because I was delivered for judgement to one hundred and twenty or thirty bishops, and forced to submit to their decisions.’

179. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘This fulfils the words of scripture, “From your own mouth you will be justified, and from your own mouth you will be condemned.” Have you, out of respect for human beings, transgressed what is correct and rejected the faith? Have you not heard the words, “Do not be put to shame to your downfall”?’

180. Basil the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘If I had been up before secular officials, I would have borne witness; after all, I displayed boldness of speech at Constantinople. But if one is judged by one’s father, one cannot defend oneself. Death to a child who defends himself against his father!’

181. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We all sinned, we all beg forgiveness.’
182. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Yet you declared earlier that you were forced by violence and compulsion to sign the deposition of Flavian of sacred memory on a blank sheet.’
183. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We all sinned, we all beg forgiveness.’
184. Thalassius, Eustathius and Eusebius the most devout bishops said: ‘We all sinned, we all beg forgiveness.’

…After reciting the aforesaid letter the same Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus said: ‘Anathema to whoever says one nature in such a way as to abolish Christ’s flesh that is consubstantial with us, and anathema to whoever says two natures in such a way as to divide the Son of God. I want to speak on behalf of the blessed Flavian: the blessed Flavian took precisely these words and sent them to the most pious emperor. Have his autograph letter read, so that the whole council may say that it was accepted deservedly.’

268. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Why then did you depose Flavian of devout memory?’
269. Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus said: ‘I erred.’

Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Pages 140-143, 161, 185, 186)


(Ephesus II)

[Eutyches’ plaint, continued] 164. Like your religiousness I have held all the holy fathers to be ortho-
dox and faithful, and have adopted them as my teachers. I anathematize
Mani, Valentinus, Apollinarius and Nestorius, and all the heretics since
Simon Magus, including those who say that the flesh of our Lord and
God Jesus Christ came down from heaven.116


Eutyches’s defense at Ephesus II regarding his condemnation by his accusers Eusebius bishop of Dorylaeum and Flavian – at the “Home Synod”:

When in response to an order to make a personal profession of faith I declared that my beliefs accorded with the decree issued by the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and confirmed at the holy council of Ephesus, he required me to make certain statements that went beyond the definitions at Nicaea and at the previous council at Ephesus. Out of fear of transgressing the decree of the holy council formerly convened here by the will of God and the definition of faith of the holy fathers who met at Nicaea, I demanded that my case be referred to your holy council, since I am ready to abide by your judgement; but while I was speaking, they suddenly read out the condemnation against me which had been composed long before in accordance with his wishes.  Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 163)


(Ephesus II)
…146. The holy council said: ‘We all say the same: “Let whoever revises
them be anathema. Let whoever invalidates them be expelled.”’
147. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘No one decrees what has
already been decreed.’
148. The holy council said: ‘These are the sayings of the Holy Spirit. To
the guardian of the canons! The fathers live through you. To the guardian
of the faith!’

(Chalcedon)
149. During the reading Theodore the most devout bishop of Claudio-
polis said: ‘No one said this.’
150. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘They want
to deny everything that is agreed. Let them also say, “We were not there.”’


Footnote:
190 Flavian’s profession of faith is based on the Formula of Reunion, contained in the letter of Cyril of Alexandria read at 246. The distinction that Flavian makes between ‘two natures’ and ‘one hypostasis’ was novel (since hitherto the two terms had not been distinguished in this way) and was adopted in the Chalcedonian Definition (V. 34). Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 187)


299. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the +union. But I have quotations from the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but of one incarnate nature of the Word. I am being cast out together with the fathers. I stand by the doctrines of the fathers, and do not transgress in any respect. And I have these quotations not indiscriminately or in a haphazard form but in books. As all have asked, I too request that the rest be read.’ Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 190)


Bishop Aetherichus who signed Eutychs’s condemnation at the Home Synod and approved the expression “in two natures” later denied this at Ephesus II. When Pope Dioscorous confronted him at Chalcedon, he alleged he didn’t know what he was signing:

323. During the reading Aetherichus the most devout bishop of Smyrna stood up and said: ‘Originally I simply agreed and signed. I went off [to Ephesus]. Dioscorus the most devout bishop suddenly collared me and said, Why did you sign Eutyches’ condemnation?” I replied, “I signed along with all our fathers. If there is anything else, tell me.” He said, “Why did you sign?” I said, “I signed what they brought to me: ‘Anathema to whoever does not believe with the 318 and as did those at Ephesus; let him be anathema.’ What they wrote after that I don’t know.” I said this in front of everyone.’ Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 193)


486. The most holy archbishop said: ‘His present assent will not prejudice your position. For the proceedings that have already taken place have their own validity.’
487. Bishop Eusebius said: ‘Does he assent to what has just been read of the blessed Cyril and acknowledge that there has occurred a union of two natures in one person and one hypostasis, or does he not?’
488. The most holy archbishop said: ‘You have heard, presbyter Eutyches, what your accuser says. Say then whether you acknowledge a union from two natures.’
489. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Yes, from two natures.’
490. Bishop Eusebius said: ‘Do you acknowledge, lord archimandrite, two natures after the incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us in respect of the flesh or not?’
498. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I did not come here to discuss, but I came to inform your sacredness of what I hold. What I hold has been recorded in this document. Give orders for it be read.’
499. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Read it yourself.’
500. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I am not able to.’
501. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Why? Is it really your exposition, or someone else’s? If it is yours, read it yourself.’
502. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘The declaration is mine, but the
declaration of the holy fathers is the same.’
503. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Which fathers? Speak for
yourself. Why do you need a document?’
505. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘This is what I believe: I worship
the Father with the Son, the Son with the Father, and the Holy Spirit
with the Father and the Son; I acknowledge that his coming in the
flesh was from the flesh of the Holy Virgin, and that he became man
perfectly for our salvation. This I confess before the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit and before your holiness.’
(Ephesus II)
506. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We accept this declaration.’
507. The holy synod said: ‘This is the faith of the fathers.’
508. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘When your religiousness
says that this is the faith of the fathers, whose faith do you mean? Who expounded it?’
509. The holy synod said: ‘Eutyches. For Eusebius is impious.’
510. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘You have heard the faith of Eutyches the archimandrite. Note how his meaning has become clear to you all.’
(Constantinople)
511. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you acknowledge that the same one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with his Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial with his mother in respect of the manhood?’
512. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘When I presented myself to your holiness, I said what I hold about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do not examine me on anything else.’
513. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you now acknowledge “from two natures”?’
514. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Since I acknowledge my God and my Lord as Lord of heaven and earth, I have not till today allowed myself to inquire into his nature. But although up till now I have not described him as consubstantial with us, I now acknowledge it.’
515. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you not say that he is consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood?’
516. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Till today I have not said that the body of our Lord and God is consubstantial with us, but I acknowledge that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that our God was enfleshed from her.’
517. The most holy archbishop said: ‘So the Virgin from whom Christ the Lord was enfleshed is consubstantial with us?’
518. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have said that the Virgin is
consubstantial with us.’
519. The most God-beloved Bishop Basil said: ‘If his mother is consubstantial with us, so is he; for he was called son of man. If then his mother is consubstantial with us, then he too is consubstantial with us in respect of the flesh.’
520. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Since you now say so, I agree with it all.’
521. The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Since the mother is consubstantial with us, then most certainly the son too is consubstantial with us.’
522. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Till today I did not say this. Because I acknowledge it to be the body of God – are you attending? –, I did not say that the body of God is the body of a man, but that the body is human and that the Lord was enfleshed from the Virgin. If one must say that he is from the Virgin and so consubstantial with us, then I say this also, my lord, with the reservation that he is the only-begotten Son of God, Lord of heaven and earth, ruling and reigning with the Father, with whom he is also enthroned and glorified; for I do not say “consubstantial” in such a way as to deny that he is the Son of God. Before I did not say this of him; I am saying to you what, I think, I did not say originally. But now, since your sacredness has said it, I say it.’
523. The most holy archbishop said: ‘So you confess the true faith out of compulsion rather than conviction?’
524. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘For the time being, my lord, be satisfied with this. Up till this hour I was afraid to say this, since I acknowledge the Lord our God, and I did not allow myself to inquire into his nature. But since your sacredness enjoins it and teaches it, I say it.’
525. The most holy archbishop said: ‘We are not making an innovation, but the fathers defined this. And since our faith accords with the faith they defined, we wish everyone to be abide by it and no one to innovate.’
526. The most magnificent and glorious patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you say, or not, that our Lord who is from the Virgin is consubstantial [with us] and from two natures after the incarnation?’
527. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I acknowledge that our Lord came into being from two natures before the union; but after the union I acknowledge one nature.’

(Constantinople)
534. The holy synod said: ‘You must make a clear confession of faith and anathematize everything contrary to the doctrines that have been read.’
535. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have said to your sacredness that I did not say this before; but now, since your sacredness teaches it, I say it and follow the fathers. But I have not found it clearly stated in the scriptures, nor did all the fathers say it. If I anathematize, woe is me, because I anathematize my fathers.’
536. The holy synod rose and exclaimed: ‘Anathema to him!’
537. After this the most holy archbishop said: ‘Let the holy synod say what is deserved by a defendant who neither confesses the orthodox faith clearly nor is prepared to accede to the doctrine of the present holy synod, but persists in his twisted and wicked perversity.’
538. Seleucus the most God-beloved bishop of Amaseia said: ‘He deserves to be deposed, but it depends solely on the mercy of your holiness.’
539. The most holy archbishop said: ‘If he were to acknowledge his fault and consent to anathematize his doctrine and to agree with us who follow the definitions of the holy fathers, then he would reasonably deserve forgiveness. But since he persists in his lawlessness, he will incur the penalties of the canons.’
540. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I say these things, since you have now ordered it, but I am not ready to anathematize. What I am saying, I am saying in accordance with the truth.’
541. The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you affirm “two natures” and “consubstantial with us”. Speak!’
542. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have read in the blessed Cyril, in the holy fathers and in Saint Athanasius that they said “from two natures” before the union, but after the union and the incarnation they no longer affirmed two natures but one.’
543. The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you acknowledge two natures after the union? Speak! If you do not, you will be deposed.’
544. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Have the writings of Saint Athanasius read. Then you will discover that he says nothing of the kind.’
545. The most God-beloved Bishop Basil said: ‘If you do not affirm two natures after the incarnation, you imply mixture and confusion.’

(Constantinople)
549. The most magnificent and glorious Florentius said: ‘He who does not say “from two natures” and “two natures” is not orthodox in his beliefs.’
550. All the holy synod rose and exclaimed: ‘Faith under compulsion is not faith. Many years to the emperors! To the orthodox emperors many years! Your faith is always victorious. He does not assent; why try to persuade him?’
551. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Eutyches, formerly presbyter and archimandrite, is revealed in every way, by both his past actions and his present testimony, to be riddled with the heresies of Valentinus and Apollinarius and to be incorrigible in following their blasphemies. Scorning our exhortation and teaching, he has refused to assent to the orthodox doctrines. For this reason, as we
moan and weep for his total perdition, we have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, that he is deprived of all sacerdotal rank, of communion with us, and of the headship of a monastery. All persons who in future speak with him or visit him are informed that they too will incur the penalty of excommunication for failing to avoid his company.’


(Ephesus II)
850. After the reading of the minutes Basil bishop of Seleucia in Isauria
said: ‘I adhere to the faith of the holy fathers at Nicaea and those of
Ephesus who again confirmed it, and I repudiate those whose beliefs
contradict in any way the decrees of Nicaea or Ephesus. I anathematize
those who divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two natures or hypo-
stases or persons after the union. I criticize and impugn the declaration I
made about the two natures in the minutes of the proceedings in the
imperial city, and I worship the one nature of the Godhead of the Only-
begotten made man and enfleshed.’308
(Chalcedon)
851. While this was being read, Basil the most devout bishop of Seleucia
in Isauria said: ‘I do not need other witnesses. Through the blessed Bishop
John I asked my declaration to be corrected, because I feared you, most
devout Dioscorus; for you then applied great pressure on us, partly external
and partly in what you said.309 Armed soldiers burst into the church, and
there were arrayed Barsaumas and his monks, parabalani,310 and a great
miscellaneous mob. Let everyone testify on oath, let the Egyptian bishop
Auxonius testify on oath, let Athanasius testify on oath, if I did not say, “No,
lord, do not destroy the good repute of the whole world.”’ Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS(Session I, Page 269)


The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘On the question of the orthodox and catholic faith we decree that a more exact examination must take place more completely when the council meets tomorrow. But since the injustice of the deposition of Flavian of devout memory and of the most devout Bishop Eusebius has been proved by the scrutiny of the proceedings that have been read and the spoken testimony of some of the leaders at the then council, who have confessed that they erred and that they had no reason to depose them since they had not erred in the faith, it appears right to us according to the will of God, if it please our most divine and pious master, that Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius the most devout bishop of Ancyra, Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus, and Basil the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had authority at that council and directed it, should receive the same penalty from the sacred council and be excluded from the episcopal dignity in accordance with the canons. All these developments are to be reported to the divine head.’ . The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘This judgement is just.’ . The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them said: ‘We have all erred. Let us all be granted forgiveness.’Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Session I, Page 364)


The bishops protested vigorously: it was not permissible to issue a new creed, and nothing was needed to protect orthodoxy beyond approval of the Tome of Leo (3–5). The chairman ignored their objections and proposed the setting up of a select committee to ‘deliberate in common about the faith’. The bishops maintained their opposition…There followed a reading of three more documents (17–22) – Cyril of Alexandria’s Second Letter to Nestorius, his Letter to John of Antioch (both of which had been read out at the first session, I. 240 and 246, as contained in the minutes of the Home Synod of 448), and a document already referred o but not yet read out, the Tome of Leo. The letters of Cyril were greeted, predictably, with acclamations of unanimous approval…At the end of the reading the Tome was greeted with acclamations of approval  that can scarcely have been unanimous. One bishop asked for Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius to be taken into account as well: this Third Letter contained the controversial Twelve Chapters and was regularly ignored by moderate followers of Cyril; there was no further mention of it in the public sessions of the council.9

Footnote: 9 The letter had been inserted into the Acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431: see de Halleux 1992. But it was not counted at Chalcedon among the ‘conciliar’ letters of Cyril. For Chalcedon’s preference for the ‘moderate’ Cyril of the two approved letters over the ‘uncompromising’ Cyril of the ChaptersActs of the Council of Chalcedon (Introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session II, Page 4)


Regarding the condemnation of Pope Dioscorus at Chalcedon, there was no specific charge against him, other than failure to appear after 3 summons. However, according to the Council acts, Pope Dioscorous said he tried to appear but was prevented by his guards:

Aetius archdeacon and protonotary said: ‘As you [Paschasinus] ordered, already before the session the deacons Domninus and Cyriacus went from here to the most devout Bishop Dioscorus as to all the other most sacred bishops, and bade him come here in person. But he declared that, although he wished to attend, his guards, so he claimed, would not let him…
19. Constantine bishop of the metropolis of Bostra said to Bishop Dioscorus: ‘The holy council invites your holiness to present yourself before it. It is assembled in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed magistriani but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’
Atticus bishop of Zela said: ‘A plaint against your holiness has been presented just now to the holy and ecumenical council by the most God-beloved Bishop Eusebius. The great and holy council has informed your holiness through us that you should appear and make a defence against the charges.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have said once already that I too have an intention to go to the holy and ecumenical council, but as your Godbelovedness can see, I am prevented by the hallowed magistriani and scholarii.’ Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 43)

Nevertheless, even in case of failure to appear, excommunication still requires a real and actual accusation that warrants it. No one knew what that accusation was, and it certainly was not heresy:

The procedure by which the verdict of condemnation was delivered also deserves analysis. After Dioscorus had failed to heed the third summons, Bishop Paschasinus, as chairman, invited the judgement of the council fathers, who condemned Dioscorus by acclamation. The chairman was then asked by two of the bishops to pronounce his verdict (91, 93). His verdict of condemnation and deposition, delivered in the name of Pope Leo (94), was followed by similar verdicts of condemnation uttered in turn by around 190 other bishops or their representatives (95–6). Note how, when delivering their verdicts, all the bishops follow Paschasinus’ lead in referring to Dioscorus as ‘formerly bishop’: once the chairman had spoken, the sentence took immediate effect. Bishop Leontius of Magnesia delivered his verdict in the following terms: ‘It is a pious rule that one must obey the holy fathers and follow their judgements. Observing this rule in the present case of the verdicts relating to Dioscorus, I too agree with the sentence and deprive him of all priestly dignity’ (96.43). The bishops had no option but to follow the lead of their chairman. Those who were unwilling to condemn Dioscorus simply absented themselves from the session. The implication of this strict conformism is that open disagreement could not be tolerated because there would have been no clear way of resolving it. There was clearly no principle of decision by majority vote: conciliar decisions were made by consensus, and consensus was understood to require the agreement of all the bishops present. The chairman would take account of the views of the bishops; but once he had pronounced his verdict, the role of the council fathers was simply to confirm it. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 35)


 

“With hindsight the church historian is bound to judge the production of a definition a tragedy for Christian unity, leading as it did to the schism between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches that has continued to this day. At the same time, the emperor and his representatives were surely right to insist that the definition, if there was to be one, had to be acceptable to Rome. To have approved the draft definition would have been to repeat the disastrous outcome of Ephesus II; it would have initiated the great schism between east and west six centuries before it actually took place.” – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session V, Page 191)

The session opened with an address by Marcian, delivered first in Latin (2) and then in Greek (4), in which he cited Constantine as his precedent for an emperor appearing at a church council. The text of the new definition was then read out. There follow the signatures of 457 bishops who subscribed the definition (9); the number was inflated by the inclusion of 114 names of absent bishops (9. 342–450) provided in block lists by their metropolitans. The actual signing will have taken place partly before the session and partly at its close, with some bishops adding their signatures later still. The pressure on bishops to sign is illustrated by the case of two leaders of the opposition, Amphilochius of Side and Eustathius of Berytus, both of whom signed the definition under duress (9. 21, 65 with our notes). Apart from the Egyptian bishops, whose refusal to take any further part in the council after Dioscorus’ disgrace had been reluctantly accepted (IV. 60), all the bishops at the council were clearly required to signThe council had proved obedient in yielding to imperial demands over the definition; the emperor was happy to continue to employ it as the agent of his wishes. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session VI, Page 207, 208)


The Definition certainly affirms Theotokos, and is equally insistent that Christ is one and not two, but it does not assert explicitly that the subject of the passion was the eternal Word. Now the Antiochenes had directly attacked ‘theopaschite’ expressions – that is, expressions that attribute the passion on the cross to the Godhead: they insisted that it was the manhood alone that suffered. While agreeing with the Antiochenes about the impassibility of the Godhead, Cyril insisted nonetheless that we must at the same time profess that God the Word is the one who suffered, albeit not in his own nature but in the human nature he had made his own; as he wrote in the Third Letter to Nestorius:

We profess that the very Son begotten of God the Father and Only-begotten God, although in his own nature he is impassible, suffered in flesh for us according to the scriptures, and that he was in the crucified body, appropriating impassibly the sufferings of his own flesh.

– Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume I, General Introduction, V. The Theology of Chalcedon, Page 72)


Twelve Chapters Cyril of Alexandria’s ‘Twelve Chapters’ (or ‘Twelve Anathemas’) were appended to his Third Letter to Nestorius (of November 430). They summed up Cyril’s Christology in a series of anathematizations that treated it as revealed truth that no one had a right to dissent from. They were ignored at Chalcedon, although, as the Council of Constantinople of 553 demonstrated, they could be reconciled with the Definition. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume III, Glossary)


If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety:  let him be anathema. – Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (XIII)


Footnote 187: Consistently in the Acts of Chalcedon by Cyril’s ‘canonical’ or ‘conciliar’ letters are meant the two letters just read, the Second Letter to Nestorius and the Letter to John of Antioch. The phrase does not include the more controversial Third Letter to Nestorius, containing the Twelve Chapters, which were mentioned by a bishop in the second session (II. 29) but were generally ignored at Chalcedon and received no official recognition. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume I, Session I, Page 185)


When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor


 After hearing the transcript from the inquiry held at Tyre and Berytus in early 449, which had, in less than resounding terms, acquitted Ibas of the heresy and misconduct charges against him, the imperial commissioners called for a reading of the minutes from Ephesus II relating to Ibas. But it must have become clear at this point that reopening the Acts of the Latrocinium could only embarrass the more than 100 bishops who had then cheered the condemnations of those now being restored. The papal  envoys quickly objected, with Anatolius, Juvenal and other leading bishops following suit, declaring that Ephesus II and all its decisions were nullified as ‘lawless’. Thus the proceedings of that council’s second session were never read back at Chalcedon and did not make it into the official record.

The accord at Chambésy of 1990 between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox condemned the ‘crypto-
Nestorianism’ of Theodoret; de Halleux 1991, 344–5 contrasts this to the ‘proclamation’ of
Theodoret at Chalcedon as ‘orthodox teacher’ (VIII. 15), but it is manifest from the rest of the
session that this acclamation did not express a general view.

The council proceeded to hear the terms imposed at Tyre (7), which were interpreted by the Roman delegates as an acquittal of Ibas (6, 9); it was clearly hoped that the bishops would squash Ibas’ condemnation at Ephesus II and accept in its place the compromise worked out at Tyre. The bishops, however, maintained a stony silence (13); they were evidently reluctant to let off an alleged Nestorian so easily and wished to hear a fuller presentation of the evidence. Accordingly the case was adjourned until the tenth session on the following day.

Taking into account the evasive summary of the proceedings by Photius (22, 24) and the evidence in the Syriac Acts of Ephesus II, which confirms the impression that the judges did what they could to hamper the prosecution, it is clear that they were concerned to hush up the scandal of a bishop being accused by his clergy rather than to ascertain the truth. It is significant that Uranius was effectively dropped from the bench of judges (as is clear from IX. 7), ostensibly because of his ignorance of Greek (33) but really, we may suspect, because he was hostile to Ibas (4)

Footnote: 8 The Syriac Acts reveal that the judges cooperated with Ibas in frustrating the hearing of witnesses (Syriac Acts, trans. Perry, 98–9) and declined to condemn Daniel of Carrhae on the grounds that the conviction of a bishop on charges relating to morality would scandalize the pagans (Perry, 156–9). Schwartz (ACO 2.1.3 p. xxvii) even suggests that the chronological confusion in two of the documents (and also the omission of the consular date at X. 27) was a deliberate attempt in the editing of the record in the time of Marcian to obscure the true course of events in order to protect the reputation of Photius as a competent and impartial judge. But surely in the context of Ibas’ acquittal at Chalcedon Photius’ bias in his favour and imperfect execution of the mandate from Theodosius II (X. 27) was no longer an embarrassment.

Back in Tyre on 25 February Photius and Eustathius issued a compromise decision that took the form not of a judicial verdict but of a gentlemen’s agreement between the parties (IX. 7). It left Ibas securely in his see, but at the same time required him to mend his ways, in a tacit acknowledgement that the charges against him were not without substance: he was told to anathematize Nestorius and accept the decrees of Ephesus I, which included the deposition of Nestorius and the endorsement of the conciliar letters of Cyril of Alexandria; in addition he had to agree to put the finances of his see into the hands of administrators, and finally had to swear not to take revenge on those of his clergy who had brought charges against him. This compromise broke down almost immediately: hostility towards Ibas in Edessa remained so intense that he could not return to the city, and as early as 12–16 April his accusers again presented accusations against him before Chaereas the governor of Osrhoene (resident at Edessa). The report of the latter to Constantinople was critical of the bishop, and on 27 June he was deposed by imperial mandate.

The proceedings at Ephesus relating to Ibas had con-
tained the same charges as those read out at Chalcedon, but had concluded
with a judgement by which he was unanimously condemned for heresy and
blasphemy; most of the bishops who had delivered this judgement also
attended Chalcedon. The decision to annul the verdict of Ephesus without
reading it out saved them from considerable embarrassment.

After a year of exile and imprisonment (X. 1) the accession of Marcian enabled Ibas to appeal with effect against his deposition, and the emperor entrusted the case to the Council of Chalcedon. Some of his clergy were allowed to come before the council as his accusers (9–10); they insisted on a reading out of the minutes of the inconclusive hearing at Berytus (28–138), which contained the charges against him, including the Letter to Mari.12 After the reading he produced a testimonial in his support signed by 65 of his clergy; at Berytus, however, his opponents had claimed all too plausibly plausibly that he had used terror tactics on an earlier occasion against those reluctant to sign a testimonial in his support (106, 109). “

Footnote: 12 It is notable that, while at Ephesus II the evidence had been presented in the form of the hearing before the governor Chaereas, it was presented at Chalcedon in the form of the more inconclusive hearing at Berytus. This choice was made by Ibas’ accusers (14), but was doubtless in response to guidance from officials concerned to assist Ibas.

24. Photius the most devout bishop said: ‘No, but three associates of the
clerics who were abusing, dishonouring and opposing him said they had
come to give evidence, but we said that associates of his enemies were not
acceptable as witnesses.38 So we made them friends: he and the presbyters
received the holy gifts upstairs in the episcopal palace in communion with
each other.’

Footnote: 38 For the three witnesses produced, see 91–5; for the principle that three witnesses are
necessary and sufficient, see 91 and 101. The syntax in the Greek sentence is odd, and puzzled
the Latin translators, who rendered the beginning of the sentence, ‘but they said that there had
come three associates of the clerics who …’ That the judges refused to accept the three
witnesses was one of the grounds for the subsequent appeal by Ibas’ accusers; see Syriac Acts,
trans. Perry, 98–9 and ACO 2.1.3 p. xxv.

Footnote: 51 Ibas had doubtless excommunicated them in order to prevent their being admitted as plaintiffs, since the excommunicate could not appear in a church court (as laid down in Canon 6 of the Council of Constantinople of 382); cf. Syriac Acts, trans. Perry, 98, for his recourse to the same ploy at Berytus. For a similar attempt to misuse church discipline to suppress inconvenient plaintiffs, compare Anatolius of Constantinople at IV. 69–71.

(12) He is a Nestorian, and calls the blessed Bishop Cyril a heretic.
(13) Bishop Daniel has ordained as clerics some of his partners in
depravity.

The most religious Bishop Ibas said: ‘Our most holy and sacred
archbishop went to Hierapolis for the enthronement of the lord Stephen
the most religious bishop.85 We wanted to do what is customary and go
to Hierapolis to present our compliments. We were just setting out when
we heard that Samuel and Cyrus had gone off to accuse us, taking the
signed declarations of certain clerics. This I acknowledge: I summoned the clergy and said, “I have heard that Samuel and Cyrus have gone off
to accuse me. But to you I say: if anyone in writing has joined them in
their plaint, he is not to take communion, until he knows how the matter
is concluded.” The others, stung by conscience, excluded themselves.’
111. The most God-beloved bishops said: ‘How many were those who
excluded themselves?’

132. Maras said: ‘A year ago he said, “I held him to be a heretic until he
anathematized the chapters”.’
133. The most religious Bishop Ibas said: ‘Until he whispered in the
ears of the most blessed John and received from him the written
confession of faith which he sent by the most blessed Paul, we all held
him to be a heretic; but after he accepted it, we were in communion: he
communicated with us and we with him.’
134. Samuel said: ‘The most devout bishop says this now in an attempt
to correct his error. It is for us to prove that he called Cyril a heretic, and
afterwards corrected himself and said, “Until he anathematized his
chapters, he was a heretic”.’
135. The most religious Bishop Ibas said: ‘I have no memory of an
anathema; I followed the council of the Orient. Do you want written
testimony? Produce written testimony. Do you want oral testimony?
Produce oral testimony.’

Maximus the most devout bishop of the city of Antioch said: ‘From what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be orthodox.

Ibas the most devout bishop said: ‘I have already in writing anathematized Nestorius and his doctrine, and now I anathematize him countless times. For what has been done once with conviction, even if it be done countless times, does no harm. Anathema to him, and to Eutyches, and to whoever says one nature. And I anathematize everyone who does not believe as this holy council believes.’


(Ephesus II)
866. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘It is false.’321
867. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘If the most God-beloved
Bishop Flavian knows anything that supports his supposition, let it be
stated in writing.’
868. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘You have barred me from
making any plea in defence.’
869. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The present holy synod
knows if I have barred you from anything. If you know anything that
supports your case, say it.’
870. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘I am not permitted to speak.’
871. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘No one has prevented you,
as the holy synod knows.’
872. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘The second act contains no
forgery, as my lord Thalassius knows and my lord Eusebius knows.’322
873. Thalassius bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: ‘No one has
prevented your sacredness from speaking. If you have anything to say in
support, say it.’
874. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Lord Eusebius, tell me:
have I prevented him from speaking?’
875. Eusebius bishop of Ancyra in Galatia said: ‘As God knows, we
wish you to speak.’
876. Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘Speak even now, if you want to.’
877. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘The session was held
before the lord Thalassius and the lord Eusebius and in the presence of
Magnus the silentiary, an investigation was made, and no such thing was
proved. Each of the bishops then present has affirmed as before God
what he heard, and they spoke the truth.’
878. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Lord Bishop Stephen, say if
I have prevented him.’
879. Stephen bishop of Ephesus said: ‘Well, where is he? If you have
prevented him, let him say so.’
880. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I ask you all to say if I have
prevented him.’
881. The holy synod said: ‘We have not prevented him.’
882. Flavian bishop of Constantinople said: ‘I declare by God that
nothing in the proceedings affects me, for I have never held a different
view or opinion, nor shall I in future.’323
883. Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Now that the proceedings are
known, let each of the holy bishops present say what he thinks about the
faith of the archimandrite Eutyches, and what is his sentence on him.’
884. (1) Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘In his constant declarations
that he follows the definition of faith of the council at Nicaea and the
acts of the previous great and holy council at Ephesus, I have found
him most orthodox in his statements. It is my sentence and my wish
that he serve in his monastery and in his rank.’
The holy council said: ‘This judgement is just.
– Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume I, Session I, Pages 272-273)


The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘On the
question of the orthodox and catholic faith we decree that a more exact
examination must take place more completely when the council meets
tomorrow. But since the injustice of the deposition of Flavian of devout
memory and of the most devout Bishop Eusebius has been proved by the
scrutiny of the proceedings that have been read and the spoken testimony of
some of the leaders at the then council, who have confessed that they erred
and that they had no reason to depose them since they had not erred in the
faith, it appears right to us according to the will of God, if it please our most
divine and pious master, that Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexan-
dria, Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most
devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius the most devout bishop
of Ancyra, Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus, and Basil the most
devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had authority at that council and
directed it, should receive the same penalty from the sacred council and be
excluded from the episcopal dignity in accordance with the canons. All
these developments are to be reported to the divine head.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume I, Session I, Page 364)

Footnote: 515 Dioscorus was immediately placed under arrest (III. 19), as presumably were the other
suspended bishops


40. The clerics of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘Dioscorus into exile!
{The heretic into exile!} God has deposed Dioscorus.’
41. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘We have all sinned, forgive us all. [Restore] Dioscorus to the council.
[Restore] Dioscorus to the churches. May no misfortune occur in your time.
{May no misfortune occur in your reign. May there be no division in your
reign.}’
42. The clerics of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘He who is in communion
with Dioscorus is a Jew.’
43. The most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘The Egyptian into exile! The heretic into exile!’
44. The most devout Illyrian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘[Restore] the fathers to the council.’
45. The most magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate
said: ‘The proposals will be put into effect.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session II, Page 28)


Compare the case of Bishop Athanasius of Perrhe, examined in Session XIV. He had first been tried and
deposed at Hierapolis for ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 76), but a
fresh trial was allowed at Antioch, when he was again condemned after
ignoring a threefold summons (XIV. 123–36); yet at Chalcedon the imperial
representatives ordered a fresh retrial (XIV. 162): so ignoring a summons
was not necessarily fatal for a defendant. Accordingly, at the trial of
Dioscorus the chairman Paschasinus, who gave his verdict first (94), spelled
out a number of specific crimes, as well as referring vaguely to the existence
of others, and these (sometimes specifically, at others with vague references
to ‘crimes’ and ‘misdeeds’) recur in the letters that then went out in the name
of the council to the emperors and to the churches. A few of the bishops
when uttering their individual verdicts referred likewise to Dioscorus’
offences. Let us take them in turn, setting out where and how often they were
expressed in the verdicts and letters. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 32)


19. Constantine bishop of the metropolis of Bostra said to Bishop
Dioscorus: ‘The holy council invites your holiness to present yourself before
it. It is assembled in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr
Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if
I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed
magistriani48 but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair
to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy
and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’
Atticus bishop of Zela said: ‘A plaint against your holiness has been
presented just now to the holy and ecumenical council by the most God-beloved Bishop Eusebius. The great and holy council has informed your
holiness through us that you should appear and make a defence against the
charges.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have said once already that I too
have an intention to go to the holy and ecumenical council, but as your God-
belovedness can see, I am prevented by the hallowed magistriani and
scholarii.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 44-45)


Notes from the notary Himerius after first summons:
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Having collected myself and
considered what is advantageous, I make this reply. At the previous meeting
of the council the most magnificent officials who were in session took certain
decisions after a full discussion of each point. Since a second meeting of the
council summons me to a revision of the aforesaid, I request that the great
officials and the sacred senate, who attended the council previously, should
also attend now, so that these same decisions can be reconsidered in their
presence.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘The holy and great council hasn’t
summoned your holiness with the intention of revising any of the trans-
actions in the presence of the great and glorious officials and the sacred
senate, but it has sent us to tell your sacredness to repair to the assembly and
not absent yourself from it.’
Bishop Dioscorus said: ‘You have now said to me, “Eusebius has pre-
sented a plaint against your religiousness.” I again request that his case be
examined in the presence of the officials and the sacred senate.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 45)


Second Summons to Pope Dioscorus
The holy and ecumenical council to Dioscorus the most God-beloved bishop of Alexandria. The rulers of all lately decreed that the case between your religiousness and the most devout Bishop Eusebius should be examined in the presence of the most magnificent and glorious officials and the sacred and glorious senate and in our presence; and now it has been decreed that this great holy council now in session, possessing apostolic authority, without reversing the earlier transactions in your regard in that divine session, should conduct an examination of certain other charges that have now been presented in a plaint by the same most God-beloved Bishop Eusebius. Without evasion, therefore, let your religiousness appear before us to make your defence, as the order of the canons requires. Note that we have [now] made a second canonical summons to your religiousness, sending our most God-beloved brothers and fellow bishops Pergamius, Cecropius and Rufinus; they have the duty of bidding your religiousness to appear before us without delay to answer the charges. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 47)


Notes from the notary Hypatius after second summons
Bishop Dioscorus said: ‘I have once for all requested from the most pious and Christ-loving emperor that the other bishops should appear along with me. For Eusebius’ case is not a private one against me as an individual but a general one relating to the actions of us all.’ Bishop Pergamius said: ‘According to the citation that the most God-beloved fellow Bishop Cecropius delivered to your God-belovedness, the accusation brought by the most God-beloved Bishop Eusebius, being made against your religiousness, is directed at your person. This is why it is your religiousness that the council summoned at that time, and summons [now], appropriately and canonically.’ Bishop Dioscorus said: ‘I have said what I said once for all, and, in brief, I have nothing further to say.’


General references to crimes (beyond, that is, not heeding a threefold
summons) or to Dioscorus having betrayed a bad conscience (which implies
crimes) occur frequently – in a good number of the bishops’ verdicts and in
all the conciliar letters.
Specific crimes also receive some, though less frequent, mention:
1. Receiving Eutyches back into communion even before Ephesus II had
revoked the decisions of the Home Synod of 448 was brought up by
Paschasinus, by one of the other bishops (96.13), and in the letter to
Marcian.
2. The allegedly unjust condemnation of Flavian at Ephesus was
mentioned by several bishops (89–91; 96. 65, 114, 137).
3. Dioscorus’ not permitting the reading of Leo’s Tome at Ephesus was
specified as a crime in Paschasinus’ verdict and in the letters to Marcian and
Pulcheria.
4. Dioscorus’ excommunication of Pope Leo just before Chalcedon was
mentioned by Paschasinus and in the letter to Marcian.
5. His maltreatment of Eusebius of Dorylaeum was mentioned by one
bishop and also in the letter to Marcian.
6. His reinstatement of bishops condemned by provincial councils is
mentioned, without any particulars, by Paschasinus (see 94n.).
In all, it is clear that Dioscorus was condemned for certain specific
crimes, not just for ignoring a threefold summons. Charges against him had
also been considered in the first session, leading to his suspension: the
emphasis then was on his maltreatment of Flavian at Ephesus, an offence
that, oddly, receded into the background in the third session. The crimes
stressed in this session were Dioscorus’ reception of Eutyches back into
communion, his suppression of Leo’s Tome, and his excommunication of
Leo; curiously, none of these charges was mentioned in the session until the
bishops began to pronounce judgement. One matter that remained undefined
was the status of the other charges: all we have are repeated references in the
verdicts and letters to unspecified offences.
A question of particular interest is whether Dioscorus was condemned
only for misconduct or also for heresy. There is no mention of heresy in
Paschasinus’ verdict or in the letter to Marcian. So the answer may appear to
be no. But there are some grounds for giving the opposite answer:
1. The principal plaintiff was Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and his plaint
concentrated on the charge of heresy, specifically that of sharing the heresy
of Eutyches – a charge that was taken up and repeated by one of the bishops
delivering a verdict (96.63).
2. Vague and unsubstantiated charges of blasphemy against the doctrine
of the Trinity were included in all the four plaints from the plaintiffs from
Alexandria (47, 51, 57, 64).
3. The letter to Pulcheria (103) contains extended, though vague, refer-
ences to heresy.
4. Finally, the letter that Marcian addressed to the monks of Alexandria
in 454 (Documents after the Council 14) describes Dioscorus as an adherent
of Eutychianism.
The issue came sharply to the fore some days later at the fifth session
when the wording of the definition of faith was under discussion. The
chairman insisted that the formula that Christ is ‘from two natures’ was
unacceptable because it was favoured by Dioscorus (V. 13). Bishop Anato-
lius of Constantinople immediately objected, ‘Dioscorus was not deposed
on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord
Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is
why he was deposed.’ The chairman, however, ignored this intervention,
and continued to speak as if Dioscorus’ teaching has been condemned, and
the bishops weakly concurred…In all, the bishops who pronounced Dioscorus’ condemnation, or signed
it subsequently, agreed, explicitly or implicitly, that he had committed
offences that merited the severe penalties of deposition and excommunication.
They did not, however, express a common mind as to which of Dioscorus’
offences were proved and deserved this penalty. The injustice of a judicial
procedure where the precise charges on which someone is condemned are left undefined needs no underlining. – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Pages 32-34)


Subsequently, the bishops, including many who had not been present at the session, signed his condemnation. It was completed by the sending, in the name of the council, of a series of letters – to the emperor Marcian (98), to Dioscorus himself (99), to the clergy of Alexandria (100), and to the empress Pulcheria (103).


(63) Jovian bishop of Deultum said: ‘I too concur that Dioscorus, formerly bishop of the great city of Alexandria, who has been accused of many and various crimes and in addition followed the heresy of Eutyches, has been justly condemned by the holy and great synod, and deem him deprived of all episcopal ministry.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session III, Page 80)


34. All {the most devout bishops} exclaimed: ‘Publicly anathematize the doctrine of Eutyches. Whoever refuses to sign the letter approved by the holy council is a heretic. Anathema to Dioscorus and his friends! If their beliefs are not orthodox, how can they elect a bishop?’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, Session IV, Page 150)


Below is regarding a petition from monks to support the demand for the reinstatement of Dioscorus:  
After this a petition presented and those with him was read.After the reading Aetius the archdeacon said: ‘Your holy, great and ecumenical council has heard the petition presented to our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, appointed by Christ the Lord, by the most devout monks Carosus and Dorotheus and those with them, who are limping as regards the faith, in that, acting recklessly, they have had the effrontery to give the title of bishop to Dioscorus, who was deposed by the holy and ecumenical council, and to request the most pious and God-beloved emperors to let him attend this holy council and speak for the faith with full freedom as if he were not under censure. They have, therefore, been detected not only espousing heresy in this respect but also championing those who have been deposed. Since the divine canons lay down certain rules about clerics and monks who offend in this way, we shall read them, if you give the order, especially since they seem for a long time to have separated themselves from the most holy and catholic church and from their own bishop. In the plaints they have presented they have made their views clear.’ – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated with introduction and notes by RICHARD PRICE and MICHAEL GADDIS (Volume II, SESSION ON CAROSUS AND DOROTHEUS. Page 167)


13. All exclaimed: ‘This is worthy of your reign. This is proper to your reign. This is the achievement of your reign, you [Marcian] who are worthy of the faith, worthy of Christ, worthy of reign and of religion. Through this the world is at peace. This is worthy of your reign. Through you orthodoxy has been confirmed, because of you there is no heresy. Heavenly King, protect the one on earth; the faith is secure through you. Heavenly King, protect the Augusta; the faith is secure through you. It is the one God who has done this. Heavenly King, protect the Augusta. You [two] are worthy of peace. It is you [Pulcheria] who drove out the heretics. Anathema to Nestorius and Eutyches, anathema also to Dioscorus! Through you [two] is the faith, through you is peace. This is the prayer of the churches, this is the prayer of the pastors. To Nestorius, Eutyches and Dioscorus anathema!’…All exclaimed: ‘Many years to the emperor! To the Christ-loving emperor many years! To the pious one, to the Christian one! You have set right the churches, you have confirmed orthodoxy. To the Augusta many years, to her who is pious and Christ-loving! God will protect your reign. It is you [two] who expelled the heretics. To Nestorius, Eutyches and Dioscorus anathema! The Trinity condemned those three. The Trinity expelled those three. May your reign last for ever.’  – Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Volume II, SESSION  VI, page 241)


The final document we include is a letter Marcian sent towards the end of 454 to ‘the monks of Alexandria’ (Document 14). This letter was evidently elicited by the strong opposition throughout Egypt to the Chalcedonian decrees, particularly to the deposition of Dioscorus. It makes the claims that the Definition simply restated the faith of Nicaea, that it was faithful to the teaching of the great bishops of Alexandria (Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril), and that Dioscorus, in giving his support to Eutyches, had been guilty of Apollinarianism. This latter claim is particularly significant in view of the ambiguity at Chalcedon itself as to whether Dioscorus was condemned for heresy or only for offences against canonical order. The way in which this letter clarifies the alleged heresy of Dioscorus and stresses the loyalty of the Chalcedonian Definition both to the Nicene Creed and to the Alexandrian tradition makes it an important text that can fitly conclude our selection of post-conciliar documents relating to Chalcedon.

But if there really are some people, which we do not suppose, who do not conform to the intention of the clemency innate in us, we wish again that through this our divine letter they be accurately persuaded that the most holy and catholic council has defined everything in accordance with the teaching of the sacred fathers and has destroyed the impiety of Eutyches, which was followed by Dioscorus and certain others, who have not hesitated to scatter the books of Apollinarius among the multitude, inscribing on them the names of most holy orthodox fathers, so as to reduce the minds of the more naive to utter slavery to falsehood. – MARCIAN TO THE MONKS OF ALEXANDRIA


Leo to the holy council held at Chalcedon.
I do not doubt that all your brotherhood knows that I embraced wholeheartedly the decrees of the holy council that was held in the city of Chalcedon to confirm the faith, since there was no reason for me, who lamented that the unity of the catholic faith had been disrupted by heretics, not to rejoice exultantly at its restoration to integrity. This you could have ascertained not only from the fact of the achievement of most blessed unanimity but also from the letter which after the return of my representatives I sent to the bishop of the city of Constantinople – if he had been willing to show you the reply of the apostolic see. Therefore, lest through malign interpretation it might appear uncertain whether I approve what was decreed about the faith at the council of Chalcedon through your unanimity, I have sent this letter to all our brethren and fellow bishops who attended the aforesaid council – [a letter] which the most glorious and clement prince, as I have requested, will out of love for the catholic faith deign to bring to your notice, so that both the whole brotherhood and the hearts of all the faithful may know that I, not only through the brethren who represented me but also through approving the conciliar proceedings, have joined my own judgement to yours, in the case evidently of the faith alone (which needs to be constantly repeated) for the sake of which it was decided by decree of the Christian emperors and the consent of the apostolic see to summon a general council, so that through the condemnation of the heretics who refused to be corrected, no doubt at all should remain about the true incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if anyone ever dares to support the faithlessness of Nestorius or defend the impious teaching of Eutyches and Dioscorus, let him be cut off from catholic communion, and let him have no share in that body whose reality he denies, most beloved brethren. – POPE LEO TO THE COUNCIL FATHERS (21 MARCH 453)


One major issue where the application of imperial pressure is clearly visible is the decision to consider a new definition of faith. The need for a new Creed was raised by the presiding imperial commissioners as the major item of business for the second session on 13 October, but this provoked fierce opposition from the bishops: ‘This is what we all say. What has already been expounded is sufficient. It is not permissible to produce another exposition’ and ‘We will not produce a written exposition. There is a canon which declares that what has already been expounded is sufficient. The canon forbids the making of another exposition. Let the work of the fathers prevail’—in each case the chant was a collective one from ‘the most devout bishops’ – Geoffrey de ste. Croix (Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, Page 284)

My overall thesis is that the Council of Chalcedon was every bit as much an engine of coercion as the ‘Robber’ Council of Second Ephesus, and that the machinery of compulsion was actually far  more powerful at Chalcedon, so much so that actual force did not need to be used, or even visibly threatened, because everyone knew that resistance to the imperial will would result in his ruin: the loss of episcopal office, and perhaps excommunication and exile to a distant part of the empire, as happened to the one determined opponent, Dioscorus. This should not surprise anyone, as it only provides one more among many examples of the very high degree of control that a Roman emperor could exercise (if he wished) over the Christian churches in the area over which he ruled, even in the sphere ofdoctrine. It was easiest to enforce a particular set of theological views by summoning a general Council of the Church, which the emperor alone had the power to do. Even Pope Leo the Great, who had the most exalted idea of the importance of his own Apostolic See, had to admit throughout his correspondence with Theodosius II, Pulcheria, and Marcian, which fortunately survives, that it was the emperor and the emperor alone who decided whether, when, and where to summon a general council. Leo changed his own view about the desirability of a general council more than once between 449 and 451in the light of changing circumstances, but was unable to impose his wishes. In the end he had to be content withhaving his doctrinal letter to Flavian of Constantinople, which is commonly referred to as the Tome of Leo, endorsed at Chalcedon as the best statement of the true faith. – Geoffrey de ste. Croix (Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, Page 273-274)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *