That the Virgin is Theotokos

is superior to every passion, an impassible thing. Moreover, the passible is the flesh and the mortal human nature. ^A

CYR. We also confess that the Godhead is impassible; but that it accepted passion in the flesh. Whence that saying: "Christ having suffered for us in the flesh," and "Christ" is a name not foreign to God; for the apostle Paul says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

OF THE SAME SAINT CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, A DISCOURSE AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE UNWILLING TO CONFESS THE HOLY VIRGIN TO BE THEOTOKOS

1. Physicians know of remedies that prevent diseases; for by their forethought they avert impending damage, and by the composition of various medicines they overcome the savagery of illnesses. Pilots also often foresee the changes of the winds ^B by being taught through experience, and by taking counsel suitable for the time, they preserve the ship immune from shipwreck with the help of God. Bearing an equal care for our souls, God predicts to us the danger of temptations, so that, having learned of the damage before the experience itself, we may safely avoid the peril arising from it. For God knows all things before they come into being, not by conjecture, as these men think to be useful, but by a foresight worthy of God, knowing things that are to come. Thus he also showed us beforehand the punishments of the judgment, so that, instructed by the fear of evils, we might easily flee from their suffering. ^C Nor indeed otherwise than what was said before, did Christ predict the future

^A that there would be antichrists and false teachers who would introduce destructive heresies, denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ; and many will follow their licentiousness, because of whom the glory of truth will be blasphemed—[this He foretold] so that when these things come to pass, we might in no way be deceived, falling into their ruinous snares.

2. And the work of the prophecy has been fulfilled; for many heresies have arisen at various times in the Church of God, attempting in many ways to dissolve the right faith, among which one has dared to say that the Word of God is entirely alien to the Father's substance, another has not acknowledged the dignity of the Spirit, and another has denied the truth of the coming of the Word. Finally, like the dregs ^B of all evils, the present blasphemy has appeared, which says that the Word did not become man, but dwelled in a man born of a woman; whence it follows that the one Christ is therefore divided into two, I mean into God and man. But this is alien to apostolic teaching, and is rather an invention of diabolical ingenuity. For the divine word announces to us that the Word of God was made man at the end of the ages, not indeed that He changed Himself into the nature of man, but that He assumed this to Himself; for the Word is immutable and unchangeable. But if, as they say, God supervened upon a man born of a woman, this same thing happened to all the prophets equally: and it would be absolutely necessary, if the matter were so, that the confessions of each one be found separately in divine Scripture; and that one should be lauded separately by Himself as the Word of God, and the other should be glorified ^C as a man and one of our own number with words that befit a man.

3. But the apostles did not preach the straight gospel to us in this way; rather, they handed down one Christ, God and man at the same time. And the theologian John clearly teaches this in the Gospels, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," then adding: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." The holy herald Paul also writes in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." Do you hear how the one said that the Word was made flesh, and the other said that He again took part of the same? But if Jesus was born as a man from a woman, and after that the visitation of the Word upon him occurred, it would be necessary, as has been said, that two entirely separate confessions be found in all respects: now, on the contrary, since the divinely inspired Scripture sets forth together both the things that naturally befit the deity and the things that befit the nature of ^D man, the economy of the union is found to be clear. Whenever

^A you hear the Apostle saying, "awaiting our blessed hope, and the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ," are you not ashamed to separate Jesus from the Word? For he did not say, "of the great God in Jesus Christ," but he proclaimed the same Person to be both God and Jesus; wherefore he also spoke of a single appearing.

4. There are times, however, when the divine Scripture ascribes to the appellation of God those things which are proper to human nature; for since the saving passion can in no wise be understood to belong to the nature of the deity, and since the passions were brought to pass solely in the body, yet because the deity is with it in an inseparable adunation, "If they had known," says the Apostle, "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." ^B Do you see how the discourse, for the sake of the union, makes the confession regarding Christ in the apostolic doctrine common? For Jesus was never a mere man before the communion and union of God with him, but the Word Himself, coming into the blessed Virgin herself, took for Himself a temple of His own from the substance of the Virgin, and went forth from her a man viewed on the outside, yet existing as true God within; wherefore even after the birth, he kept his mother a virgin, which has happened in the case of no other of the saints. For since those others were men by nature, they all obtained a human and like birth. But He, because He was God by nature, having assumed humanity also in the last times, presented a birth strange beyond all others. Therefore, this blessed one is rightly and justly to be called both Deipara and virgin mother; for the Jesus whom she brought forth was not a mere man.

5. For how could that be, seeing that the divine Scripture attributes to His operation and power even those things which were done before the advent? Behold, the blessed disciple Jude cries out this faith to us with a loud voice. For making mention of things that were done many ages before the birth from the Virgin, he speaks thus: "I wish to remind you, though you know all things, that Jesus ^C having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe; and the angels who did not keep their own principality, but left their own dwelling, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day." But if the blessed Virgin brought forth a mere man, Jesus, and if the disciple says that this Person liberated Israel from the hand of the Egyptians, and led the people through the desert, and who also performed the miracles—

^A seeing that those marvels done before His birth from the Virgin were accomplished so long before, where will they concede that He existed in those times? Or from whence did He derive the origin of His birth? For reason itself will not permit them to say that He took the beginning of His existence from the Virgin. Let the inventors of these evil dogmas ^B demonstrate, therefore, from where this man had the beginning of his origin, and where or in what places he spent so many years. But now, no man in his right mind will say that He is merely a man, who also in the past decreed punishments for those who sinned and abandoned their own dwelling, and gloriously rescued Israel from the hand of the Egyptians. If, therefore, according to their own admission, Jesus can neither be believed to be God the Word, because of His birth from the Virgin, nor, on the other hand, can he be a man who performed such miracles (for the things previously mentioned are foreign to the nature and power of man), what substance and order will they finally be able to devise for Him?

6.

7.

^A founded her, the Most High." For what could this be, if not that He Himself is God, and man? For he confessed the same one to be man and Most High and Founder. And none the less, in another psalm, while preserving the inseparable nature of the union, the Word is found attributing the properties of the man unto Himself, the Word of God, not indeed introducing a confusion of substances, but understanding the reason of the union of the substances. He says, therefore, as follows in the forty-fourth psalm: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of rectitude is the scepter of Thy kingdom; Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." ^B Do you see how, while calling the Word of God God, and confessing Him to be King, yet without dividing Him nor introducing another person into Him, he nonetheless says that He was anointed? Let them explain to us, therefore, what this saying is; and how the Word, being God, was anointed, if not entirely because He Himself was the One who had put on the form of a servant, to whom even this receiving of the anointing would be most fitting? For even if they say that by reason of the indwelling in the man—as they themselves are deceived—the anointing is said of the person of the Word, let them learn that "indwelling" is not spoken of Christ, but is spoken of the prophets and the other saints, and that which is said [of Christ] vastly exceeds the limits or force of "indwelling." ^C For indeed, even if God dwells in all the saints, and these are sanctified and anointed, yet no one is declared to be sanctified and anointed in the same way as He [is]. If, therefore, they say that God dwelt in Christ also after the likeness of the saints, the irreligion of their opinion will be evident to all, and utterly estranged from the apostolic doctrine.

8. For Paul, discoursing concerning the prophets and Christ, taught us the incomparable difference of the latter from the former, I mean of Him who is said to be anointed. For the one he named Son and splendor of the Father and image of His substance; but the others, prophets. And the marvelous thing is that, among such sublime things, he also makes mention of the anointing: "For having in many parts and in many ways spoken of old to the fathers by the prophets, God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He made the ages; who, being the splendor of His glory and the image of His substance, ^D and upholding all things by the word of His power, having made a cleansing of sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high." And after a little he says: "And to the angels indeed He says: Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire; but to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of rectitude is the scepter of Thy kingdom; Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."

^A You see how alien to Christ is this definition of inhabitation? But if they say that this is not an inhabitation such as exists in the saints, but one that occurred from the conjunction of the Word with the man born of the Virgin, we reply that it is not permissible to posit any conjunction after the birth, except that which occurs by grace and participation in God—the same kind, I say again, that the saints have had with God.

9. But if they say that the inhabitation here is a conjunction, not one that took place within the Virgin, but after Jesus was born of her, come, let us submit even this to the scales. If they say that the anointing is predicated of the person of the Word because—as they themselves claim—the Word was joined and united to the man, they will be forced by necessity to say that He was anointed after the conjunction. For the prophet, and indeed the Apostle as well, in theologizing, clearly ascribed the anointing to Him, the God Word. Therefore, if the saints attribute that which is human to the Word on account of the conjunction and His co-existence with the man, they will necessarily concede that the anointing itself took place after the conjunction. But if He was anointed after the conjunction, and they refuse to speak of a conjunction before He was born of the Virgin, it follows that they will not even confess the Virgin to be Christotokos. For if she is Christotokos, she is by all means also Theotokos; and if she is not Theotokos, she is not Christotokos either. ^B For if the anointing is after the conjunction, and it is for this reason that it is said to belong to the person of the Word, yet they say the conjunction took place after the birth from the Virgin, then one will no longer find her to be Christotokos; yet if she is Christotokos, she is also Theotokos. Since the anointing cannot be conceived of before the conjunction, if the Virgin is Christotokos, with the conjunction having taken place in her, she would justly be called Theotokos for having given birth, not to a man, as they say, but to the Word united [to flesh]—if indeed, as has been said before, they speak of a true union and not one such as exists in the saints. We say this because it is impossible to speak of a true union after the birth. For we know that Christ is not a man united to God, but God who assumed human things—I mean body, soul, and mind—having perfectly united them to Himself in the holy Virgin. For this reason, even if you hear Christ called a man, do not forget that He has also become God. The blessed Paul, well aware of this, would sometimes proclaim Him as God: ^C “Remember,” he says, “that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead.” And again: “God, who raised the Lord, will also raise us up by His power.” Do you hear Him clearly proclaimed as being of the seed of David and as raised from the dead?

10. Since, therefore, it has been clearly demonstrated that it is not a man, as they think, but the eternal Word of God

^A becoming man who has come forth from the Virgin, let them depart from their error and cease from the Jewish madness. "For if they do not turn, the Lord will sharpen His sword against them."(Ps. VII, 13) And that He will not bear with those who blaspheme them forever, and that even now He still bears with those who blaspheme on account of His long-suffering, hear what He says through the blessed prophet, showing the vengeance brought upon those who persist in wickedness due to His forbearance: "I kept silent," He says, "but shall I also keep silent always, and endure? I have patiently waited as a woman in labor; I will lay waste and dry up at once, and I will desolate mountains and hills, and I will dry up all their grass; and I will make rivers into islands, and I will make swamps dry."(Isa. XLII, 14, 15) No less does the most divine Hymn-writer teach also the swift destruction of the ungodly, even if they flourish for a little while on account of the long-suffering of God: "For I have seen the ungodly being highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed by, and lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found."(Ps. XXXVI, 35, 36)

11. For these things and others of this kind are common to all who attempt to scatter the fold of piety, just as the end of the aforementioned heresies showed. For what profit did the error of the impious Arius bring? What did that of Eunomius, and of those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and the madness of Paul of Samosata, and of the so-called Apollinarius, bring? For all these have met with a most disgraceful end even in the present life, and were thrust out of the ecclesiastical enclosures, and shall be cast out from the Church of the firstborn ^C in the heavens; for they were blotted out of the book of the living, and shall not be written with the just. The same end awaits them, unless perhaps, quickly taking sense of their folly, they shall strive to return whence they fell, especially those who were the first authors of the depraved opinions. For each of them shall hear the Savior saying to them almost: "As a garment stained with blood shall not be clean, so neither shall you be clean; because you have laid waste My land and killed My people, you shall not remain for an age of time."(Isa. VIII, 8-10) But we, who have built our faith upon the unshakable and stable rock, let us preserve the true piety even to the end, in no way troubled by the adversaries, but having love toward the Lord as an invincible armor, in Him let us boast ^D always, singing the words of the prophet and deriding the ignobility of the adversaries: "God is with us. Know, O nations, and be beaten, you who have prevailed; be beaten. For if you prevail again, you shall be defeated again; and if you deliberate, the Lord shall scatter the counsel; and the word which you speak shall not remain in you, because God is with us."(Isa. VIII, 8-10)

12. But behold, they say, the Apostle openly confessed Him to be a man. For writing to Timothy he speaks thus: "The man Christ Jesus."(1 Tim. II, 5) This while

^A they say, seems to disturb the minds of the simpler folk. But if anyone intelligently considers the apostolic utterance, he will, by means of this very saying, condemn their impiety. Surely, this locution is not to be accepted by us as if it were a mutilation; rather, being mindful of what the Apostle said a little before, we shall be able to understand from that point the correct confession of the incarnation. What, then, does the blessed Paul say? "One God," he says, concerning the Father; and let that be. Concerning the Son: "One also, the Mediator of God and men." For even if, he says, He has become man, we ought not for this reason think that He is two. For just as the Word was God before His advent, so also, having become man and acting as mediator for human nature, He is still one. For this reason He called Him the Mediator of God and men, as being one [constituted] from both substances; for that which stands between certain things always shares in both parts. ^B Therefore, He is the Mediator of God, inasmuch as He is of the same substance as the Father; and He is also the Mediator of men, inasmuch as He also perfectly partakes of human nature without sin. When, therefore, the Apostle calls Christ Jesus a man, let them not take scandal because of this, but let them reflect that He is also called Lord and God, and that He is at the same time called Christ and Jesus. For let them hear the same Apostle openly preaching this: "Awaiting," he says, "the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us."

^C 13. Do you see how there he calls Christ Jesus a man, who gave Himself for all, but here he calls Christ Jesus the great God, who again gave Himself for us? For a twofold proof—or rather, one for their own sake, if they would repent—is made here against them, since he speaks of Jesus as both God and Lord, whom he had called a man in that other place, and since in both passages he signifies that He had voluntarily given Himself for us. "For there is one," he says, "man, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all." And again: "Awaiting the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse for Himself a peculiar people, ^D zealous of good works." But if, according to them, Christ Jesus is only a man who gave Himself for us and acquired us as a peculiar people for Himself, then we worship a man in a manner similar to the heathens, and we henceforth attribute the Lord’s authority to a creature. But it is not so; God forbid! But we acknowledge Christ [as Lord and God; for He who is the Word of God indeed became man for our sake, partaking of human nature, and was born out of philanthropy...]

^A from the holy and undefiled Virgin; yet in this way He also was by nature God and Son of God. For this reason, therefore, He is called both man and is called God, being one and the same Christ in either appellation.]

14. For hear the Apostle in his Epistle to the Corinthians preaching that Paul did not proclaim Christ as a mere man, as these people mythologize, saying: *For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.* ^B Do you see the definition of the apostolic intent? "Jesus Christ," he says, "the Lord, and ourselves your servants we preach." And again, writing to the Romans, he says thus: *Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.* But if he had regarded Christ as a man, he ought to have said: "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, in whom is God who is over all." But now he did not say this; rather, he has loudly proclaimed Christ to be God over all. [Furthermore, let us consider this, that if the divine Apostle had not regarded Christ as being at once God and man, he would not have said "according to the flesh;" for this is said ^C manifestly concerning Him who is not only man, but who also subsists according to some other mode of substance, just as he actually added: "who is over all, God." For he has provided here a twofold confession concerning our Savior, both demonstrating what He is according to the flesh, and proclaiming Him as God.] For just as an earthly king, if at any time he should wish to appear in the guise of a consul, does not therefore cease to be king, nor does he lose his former authority, but is one and the same person, possessing the consular dignity in addition to the royal; and if someone calls him king, he knows that he is the same person who is also clothed in the garb ^D of a consul; and conversely, if he should call him consul, he does not ignore that he is the same person who is king: so our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed always the Son of God, truly existing as God, but having assumed in the latter times also the human nature, He is one and the same, whether He be called God, or man, or Jesus.

15. Since these things are so, come, let us also bring forward the Lord’s own utterance, for the sake of which our adversaries press upon us more audaciously, namely, because in the evangelical preachings He confessed Himself to be a man, saying: *Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth?* But if any seeker of truth applies himself to the evangelical passages, where

^A the Savior has thus spoken, he will greatly condemn the malicious opinion of his adversaries, and will justly call them contentious and sycophants. For He had spoken such and so great things before this utterance, declaring Himself to be God and the Son of God, that the Jews of that time, because they bore the eye of their mind blinded, for this very reason especially wished to kill Him. But those excellent adversaries, passing over all those things in silence, seize upon this one expression, behaving themselves no otherwise than the Pharisees of old. For they too attended to the Savior as He taught, not because they wished to believe or to be instructed, but because they desired to catch something from His mouth, as the evangelist narrates. Thus, therefore, these men also now read—or rather, curiously investigate—the divine Scriptures, so that they may find some handle to accuse Him who laid down His soul for them.

16. What He said before this utterance, let us observe: *My Father,* He says, *works even until now, and I work.* He calls God His own Father, making Himself equal to God, as He who creates all the same things in a similar manner to the Father. *For whatever He does, those things the Son also does in like manner.* And, *That the Father has given all judgment to Him, that all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.* And, *The hour comes, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who have heard shall live.* Then, lest those hearing these things worthy of God should take offense because of the flesh, because He being seen as a man said such things, He adds immediately after a little, and says that He is the Son of man. Do not wonder at this, for even of this previously spoken utterance, *that those who hear shall live*; *The hour comes when all who are in the tombs shall hear, and those who have done good shall come forth into the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil into the resurrection of judgment.* For the former thing said, *that the hour comes, and now is,* and the fact that *those who heard shall live,* was said concerning those who had risen from the dead at that time; but the words, *all who are in the tombs,* signify the day of the general resurrection and of the glorious appearance of Christ. And after a little He says again, *I am the bread of life.* But all these things, as if they do not hear, or rather professing a voluntary deafness, they pass over; but this one little word which says, *But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you,* they carry about to disturb the minds of the more simple. Yet it behooved them, if they were upright, to consider this: that He who had said the aforementioned things is the selfsame One who uttered this word also, and that it is not right, because of this, to forget all those many and great things, and be offended. For the Jews too, seeing a man, and not enduring to hear words worthy of God, said: *Is not this the son of Joseph, of whom we know the father and mother?* And again, they approached Him saying, *Whom do you make yourself?* And again: *You are not yet fifty years

old, and have you seen Abraham?* ^A And it would have been right to be satisfied with what has already been said, and to seek nothing further; for those who strive to have sound judgment concerning the hearing of the divine Scriptures will piously say that it is nothing strange for God, being also man, when He has spoken, to be named sometimes God and sometimes man, while neither of these appellations in any way destroys the other.

17. Moreover, it is possible to see from other sources that Christ is by no means to be understood as man in such a way as the opinion of those people suggests. After the Jews had committed that deed for which the Lord now expostulates with them—I mean the saving Passion—if they had been condemned as being the murderers of a man, then there would have been some sense in what they said. But since they were condemned for having slain their Lord and Master, it becomes clear that our opponents have fashioned for themselves a foolish opinion, when they think He is a mere man, even if they say that the Word dwells in Him. Certainly the blessed Paul, speaking of those who crucified Him, clearly presents them as "Lord-killers," using these words: *For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.* ^B And the Lord Himself also, in the parable of the vineyard, says that the master of the house sent his servants to the husbandmen. But these, He says, beat one, killed another, and stoned another—meaning the husbandmen. Finally, He says that he sent his Son, whom the husbandmen upon seeing said among themselves: *This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance; and they took him, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him.* If therefore the Apostle confesses that He who was crucified is the Lord of glory, and the Savior Himself teaches that the prophets were sent as servants, but that He Himself is the Son of the Master of those servants, who would still dare to say that it was a man who said, *But now you seek to kill me,* and not rather God made man? Especially when He says that works worthy of God are to come to pass, though announced under the title of man. *For the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and those who hear will live*; and: *When the Son of Man comes,* He says, *in His kingdom, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, rendering a just judgment to all*; and: *No one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man.*

18. ^C Do you hear clearly the God Word being named by the appellation of man because of His union with the flesh? For who else is to be thought of as having descended from heaven? Do not, therefore, suffer scandal any longer when He says: *But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth*; but pondering the mystery of the incarnation, piously accept what is said. For by these [things] ^D

^A the economy is especially demonstrated: and that even if he is called man, he ought not to be designated as man apart from the divinity, individually and by himself. For who would dare to call him a man, when he is to perform these things previously mentioned? I mean his future coming from heaven, and the just judgment upon all; especially when the psalmist David sings: *To you is due hymn, O God, in Sion, and to you shall prayer be rendered in Jerusalem. Hearken to prayer; to you all flesh shall come.* For what else is this, but that which we have learned the Son of Man will do? *For then*, he says, *he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him.* Do you see how, when David says to God, *To you all flesh shall come*, it is demonstrated that this is destined to be fulfilled in the Son of Man? Therefore, He who was born of Mary is God incarnate, the divine Scriptures clearly showing this through a multitude of proofs. And this distinguished Virgin is ^B entirely the Theotokos, however much these men may wish otherwise; for if Jesus Christ who came forth from her were a man, how could Paul, writing to the Galatians, have written: *Paul an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ?* It is evident that he is not a man alone, but God incarnate. Therefore let not the uninstructed be scandalized by such expressions, but let them learn the economy of the divine mystery, and henceforth let them also worship Christ with the angels. *For when*, he says, *he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him*; and, *In the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.* Let them remember that Christ Jesus is confessed as Lord, ^C and let them not be troubled when they hear him called man on account of the economy.

19. In this same way let them also understand what is said about him for some need or economy; such as that which is said by the apostle Peter: *For Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God unto you*, Peter said when addressing the Jews. For it behooves one who occupies himself with the divine Scriptures to consider the persons, and the time, and to ponder for what cause each thing is said; for thus will one be able, with the grace of the Spirit, to apply the proper interpretation to each saying. Since, therefore, those men set forth this passage also for the confirmation of their own impiety, let us see why Peter, wishing to manage the economy, spoke in this way; or rather, let us ask him to tell us the cause for which he was led to speak so. What do you say, O blessed one? Do you ^D preach Christ as a man, and persuade us to believe in him, so that you might teach us to worship a creature? And yet another apostle rebukes those who wish to offer worship to the creature. Besides

how is it that you yourself, when questioned by him, "Who do you think the Son of man is?" answered, "You are the Son of the living God"? And yet at that time, ^A the questioning, for those who did not sufficiently know the mystery of the dispensation, could perhaps have caused some such thought—I mean, to consider him a man. "For who," he said, "do men say that the Son of man is?" And at that time, hearing him as the Son of man, you declared him to be the Son of God; but now, after having seen the power of so many other signs, after having been a witness to his blessed resurrection and his ascension into heaven, do you say that he is a man?

20. Nor let anyone think that he could even then speak of him as a man, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," since holy men are also called sons of God. For he did not say simply, "You are a Son of God," but, "You are the Son of God." For the addition of the article (in Greek) shows that Peter confessed the one and only true Son. ^B To these objections, blessed Peter himself seems to me to reply in these words: Do not think that I spoke in such a way as if Christ were a man, one of us. I do not say that, but I reveal a wonderful and unexpected thing with prudent speech. And what is this? Having heard the sounding of the Spirit as it descended, the multitude of the Jews ran together to us. Having found, then, a suitable time for fishing for men, yet being unable to preach Christ as God in plain and direct language, because they had crucified him a little while before, and such a matter would have seemed burdensome to them, I hide, he says, the hook of the word, as one does with bait for fish, under the humility of these words. I name Jesus the Nazarene ^C and the crucified one, and that God raised him from the dead; and thus, not without a veil and not without a certain art, I bring in his theology, and this with a certain skill. For I recall to their minds the words of David, since they received the oracles of that man with less suspicion; and through them, I again attribute everything to the power of God, so that I might thus gradually make them receive the saving doctrine. This having been done, and they having been brought to compunction, I then demonstrate him more clearly as God through the command to confer this baptism in his name, teaching at the same time that remission of sins is granted to them through the power of this.

21. Moreover, note the apostolic prudence. ^D "Jesus," he says, "the Nazarene, a man approved by God among you by deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst." And he speaks of him as "approved by God," and that God did these things through him, so that by mentioning the Father, he might persuade them to accept both Jesus himself and his works, as if the One—that is, the Father—were doing these things through the Son: "Which God," he says, "did through him." Then, having mentioned the cross, he brings in the resurrection, and he...

brings this in as having been accomplished again by the Father, so that through this he might make them willing to accept the cross as well. ^A And then, thereafter, he introduces the theology to them as if in a veiled manner; for having said, "Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death," he adds: "Because it was not possible for him to be held by it." No longer, then, does he speak of this as if of a man; for if he were a man, he certainly could have been held by death. But having said this, he quickly takes refuge in the prophetic testimony, so that, hearing no longer as if from him, but rather as from the prophet, they might receive what is said more readily. And he says: "For David says concerning him: 'I foresaw the Lord always before my face,'" and the rest. Observe with what skill he introduced the theology concerning the Lord to them. ^B Then, having finished the testimony, again checking their reasoning—since he had spoken more openly about his divinity—he transfers the statement again to the Father, and says: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." And when those men afterwards asked what they ought to do, he ordered them to be baptized in his name, and to receive the remission of sins through him; causing them to conceive of his lordship through the remission of sins, and through the saying, "God has made," excluding their contradiction.

^C 22. For that the Father did not make the Lord a recent creation for us, I think no one of sound mind would deny. For he did not speak thus in the way that some foolishly understand the statement as referring to the divinity of the Son; for the purpose of the Apostle was not to discuss his existence, but rather the glory after the resurrection. Therefore the words, "He made him Lord," are for, "He has bestowed upon him lordship and the glory of Christ": not that the Son received an acquired glory, but addressing them according to the aforementioned dispensation, he spoke thus, because they ought to have believed in him as approaching him as Christ and Lord. For that Jesus the Nazarene, who consented that his own blood be shed for us, was not a man born according to our manner without the union of the Word, hear the Apostle Paul clearly and openly setting this forth to the teachers of the Ephesians: "Take heed," he says, "to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to shepherd the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood." ^D Do you hear God openly proclaimed as crucified by the Apostle? For he says to shepherd the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood—not that he suffered in the nature of his divinity, but because the sufferings of his flesh are referred to him, for the reason that this is not the flesh of just any man, but the very own flesh of the Word himself. If, therefore, the blood is called God’s blood, it is clear that he was God, clothed in flesh.

^A

23. But if they persist in saying, "Where is the Virgin called 'Deipara' [Mother of God] in Scripture?", let them hear this clearly proclaimed by the angel to the shepherds, when he says: "For unto you is born this day a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." He does not say, "Who shall be the Lord," or "In whom the Lord shall dwell," but, "Who is the Lord." Therefore, the angel manifestly announces that the one who was born is the Lord. Then, as if providing them with a sign to look for in order to perceive the Lord, he says: "Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger." Peter also, preaching things similar to the angel when he came to Cornelius, said: "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: he is Lord of all." Do you see how he says that the word was sent for the sake of the saving proclamation through Jesus Christ? And showing them who Jesus Christ was, he said, "He is Lord of all." Do you see the babe being called Lord both by the angel and by Peter? Therefore, she who gave birth to the Lord is absolutely the Mother of God. Thus, the mother of the blessed Baptist also, moved by the Holy Spirit, addressed her: "For the Scripture says, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she cried out: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" ^B Who is now so insane that he would refuse, along with the Gospels, to call the holy Virgin the Mother of God? Let them not, therefore, trouble the ears of the simpler-minded by calling him a boy and an infant, lest by degrees they also deny his whole advent. For he was named an infant by the angel, but at the same time, he is the Lord.

24. Nor let them murmur again at this point, objecting because of the passion and the resurrection, and the fact that God raised him up; for the rationale of the dispensation ^C has already been demonstrated in what preceded. But if they happen to wish to learn more clearly who that crucified one was, let them hear the teacher of the world, writing thus to the Corinthians: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread," and what follows. Do you see him who suffered for our sake clearly proclaimed as Lord? But if the words, "God raised him from the dead," are a stumbling-block to men, as being spoken of a man, let them hear the same Apostle further dispelling this suspicion; for such things are spoken in the holy Scriptures ^D according to the rationale of the dispensation. For that the Lord was the one who in the flesh suffered and rose again, and not, as they say, a man having the Word dwelling within him, let them hear Paul writing thus with confidence to the Romans concerning Abraham: "For it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from

the dead." You have heard that he who was raised is called Lord; let, therefore, things said according to the dispensation no longer be a scandal to you.

^A 25. But it is necessary to add this also to what has been said, lest anyone suspect that he, too, like us, is called God and Lord and Son by grace. For even if we are called gods, we nevertheless hear the measure of our own infirmity. "For I said," says the Psalmist, "ye are gods, and sons of the Most High"; but he immediately adds: "but ye shall die as men." And it is clear that we obtained this appellation by grace; but he is not such, but holds this appellation together with glory worthy of God. For he is called not simply God, but "God over all, and blessed for ever." He is called, moreover, not just by name as we are, but Lord of glory and Lord of all, as Peter taught. And being called Son, he is not even this simply as we are sons, but the only Son, and true by essence, as John says: "And we are in the true God, in his Son; this is the true God, and eternal life." ^B And the Apostle Paul distinguishes him more clearly from the many as the only and true Son. For he speaks thus: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many),"—again, for you to understand—"but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things." Do you see how he is not named Lord or God with everyone else, but is glorified alone with the Father, as existing naturally from him?

26. It is time, therefore, to bring forward also the other testimony of the Apostle, which shows this true God the Son to be the man who was born of the noble Virgin. It is as follows: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman." Let no one be ashamed to say this; for this brings no injury to the Word, but rather his benevolence shines forth, and his glory which is infinite and immeasurable. For as to the fact that the Word received no detriment from this, being intangible by his very nature, impassible, and uncircumscribed, but accomplished the matter through his ineffable benevolence toward men, hear again Paul teaching this: "Jesus Christ," he says, "the same yesterday, ^C and today, and for ever." By saying "yesterday," he signifies his pre-eternal glory; but "today" signifies the present time. And because he was never changed, but remained the same even when he became flesh, and shall be for ever, he added, "the same for ever." Since matters stand thus, he demonstrated his love toward us with great benevolence, and shared in our nature, that he might relieve it and withdraw it from the servitude of the devil. Let no one, therefore, be ashamed, when he sees the child ^D and sees that he has partaken of our nature, to raise it up and to [deliver it] from the under the devil...

and has shared in our nature, in order that he might raise ^A it up and deliver it from the slavery under the devil. Let no one, therefore, be ashamed when he hears of a child and an infant, and whatever else is written about him in a more human way; for he endured all things not for his own sake, but for ours, everywhere preserving what is becoming to human nature, so that the dispensation might not be thought of as an illusion.

27. Therefore, even if you hear that the blessed Joseph takes him and flees into Egypt, do not think this is a disgrace, but rather consider the dispensation. For it was not only then that this was written about him, but also when he reached his thirtieth year and began to preach and teach, and to perform the power of miracles, we find these same things written about him again. For it says: "Having heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee." And other such things can be found; but he did not do this out of fear, neither then nor later, but because he was awaiting the appropriate time for the saving passion. For it was necessary ^B for the preaching to shine forth first, and for all that he had decreed to be accomplished, and then finally to come to the saving passion; and this is exactly what happened. That this was not done out of fear or cowardice is evident from what he did when he did not wish to be delivered up; for when the Jews then wished to throw him down a precipice, "He himself," says the evangelist, "passing through the midst of them, went his way." And at another time when they wished to seize him, "No one," he says, "laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come." But although he was otherwise invincible as God, he nevertheless withdrew on account of his humanity, so that he might appear as having truly become man. But if someone says, "Why did he not then also, since he was a little child, avoid the snares by himself, but by the warning of an angel?" let him know that even then his work was involved; but so as not to subvert the reason for the dispensation on account of his age, for that reason he accomplished the matter through an angel.

28. That, however, in wishing to preserve what is appropriate, he did all things according to the norm of the dispensation and allowed the flesh to demonstrate its own properties, Christ himself will again persuade you. For when the blessed Baptist said to him, "I have need to be baptized by you," he answered him: "Permit it now; for thus it is fitting to fulfill all righteousness." Do you see that he accepted both ^C baptism and all such offices by a prudent dispensation? Whenever, therefore, you hear of a "child" and an "infant," and whatever else is written about him in a more human way, as has been said before, never suppose that he is without his divinity; for even when he is called man, he is demonstrated to be God, as has been frequently proven by us. The blessed Baptist will also bear witness to these things, speaking thus about him: "After me comes a man who has been made before me, because he was before me; and I did not know him." How then, while calling him a man, does he say that he is prior to himself? If indeed, in terms of the time of the dispensation, the blessed Baptist himself is found to have been born first. For when, of the holy Theotokos Mary, his immaculate ^D

^A conception was announced, Gabriel said that Elizabeth was already in her sixth month of having conceived the Baptist. How then, calling him a man, did he say that he was before him, unless he knew him clearly to be God who had become man? "For after me," he says, "comes a man who has been before me, because he was before me." How then, if he were indeed before him, did he become posterior? By manifestation, namely, and by the knowledge of him among the people. For before he came to preaching, he was not very well known to the many; but the Baptist was already both preaching and baptizing before him. But when the Lord finally began also to preach and to perform miracles, he held the primacy—that is, he was before, or rather, more than the Baptist. And that this is the meaning of "before," hear what his own disciples said to John: "Rabbi, he who was with you at the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, behold, he is baptizing, and all are coming to him." Do you see how he proclaimed him both a man and first?

20. ^B If those who have been led astray are so benumbed by the preceding error that even now they delay believing the truth, come, let us bring into the middle for them that testimony against which not even the Jews themselves, who held the same opinions as they do and thought him to be a mere man, could any longer contradict. And what is this? The Lord himself once questioned the Pharisees, saying: "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" When they answered, "David's," he 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, until I put your enemies as a footstool for your feet? If, therefore, David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" Do you see clearly ^C how he demonstrated himself to be David's Lord? How then could he who was of the seed of David be his Lord, and a co-sitter on the Father's throne, unless because he was God clothed in humanity? For he demonstrated that the son of David and Lord—him who was born of the Virgin, that is, himself—is such. But they, having heard this testimony, were confounded and ceased from contradicting, as the evangelist records: "For no one," he says, "was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone dare from that hour to question him any more."

30. Would that these our adversaries, however late, might stand apart from their folly and recognize the proclamation of true religion! As for us, let us cling to this faith at all times, beloved; let us hold it in our mind, and let us proclaim it with our tongue openly and with boldness, enduring everything for its sake willingly. For this is the prediction of the prophets, the preaching of the apostles, and the provider of the kingdom of heaven; this is the guide to eternal life, this is the rich patrimony of the fathers, this is our own true ^D treasure, for the sake of which it is right to sell and cast away everything. If anyone should wish to despoil us of this treasure, let us turn away from him as an adversary of Christ,

^A and an enemy of our own salvation, obeying the Apostle who says: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." 3

SCHOLION

The error by which the title of *Deipara* [Theotokos] is denied to the Blessed Mary is still clung to stubbornly by the miserable Chaldeans, whom we commonly call Nestorians; although they themselves bear it ill that the name of Nestorians is imposed upon them, because they think that Nestorius rather derived his doctrine from the Orientals or Chaldeans. Certainly Ebediesu the Chaldean, a metropolitan of Soba in the fourteenth century, in his Syriac work *On the Truth of the Christian Religion* (Tractate III, Chapter 4), explains this controversy lucidly, as may be read in the edition prepared by us (Syr.-Lat., *Script. vet.*, Vol. X). For, having divided Christians into three sects, the third of which he says is the Nestorians, he willingly admits that the first two sects (which are much more numerous and learned) accepted the term *Deipara*, which is excluded only by the Nestorians. The same man, being greatly addicted to the Nestorian error, in Chapter 6 (which we have omitted there as inept and invidious) attacks this dogma with cold and futile arguments. 1. Because if Mary is *Deipara*, she would seem to be the mother of the entire Trinity, in which God simply consists. 2. Because God in Christ would seem to have died, been resurrected, etc. 3. Finally, because, as Christ is, according to Peter, the Son of the living God, Mary as *Deipara* would seem to be the mother of God the Father, and the mother of Christ would be sought in vain. Who does not see that the true theology regarding the incarnation of Christ, and the communion of idioms in that same Christ, which orthodox Fathers—and especially Cyril—have most brilliantly expounded in entire volumes, is entirely ignored by the Nestorian Ebediesu? But indeed, many other cavils of the Nestorians against this dogma are dissolved in the entire sixth book of the polemical work against those heretics by Leontius of Jerusalem, whom we have likewise edited as an author in *Script. vet.*, Vol. IX. Furthermore, Photius (Cod. 228, p. 775) notes that Ephræmius, Patriarch of Antioch, a man of paramount orthodoxy, observed that St. Leo I, Roman Pontiff, was the first in his dogmatic epistles to call Mary the Mother of God by a proper and explicit expression (*ἰδικῶς αὐταῖς λέξεσι*: "in those very words," as *she is the Mother of God, the holy Theotokos*); which the Greeks, for this reason, used to call *Deipara* in a theological sense, so that we might understand that, contrary to the blasphemy of Nestorius—which Cyril always attacked—the hypostatic union of the divine Word with human nature had occurred in the womb of the Blessed Mary, and not afterwards. That expression of Pope Leo exists in the epistle to Leo Augustus, edited by Cacciari (Ep. 138), and edited by Ballerini (Ep. 165), where Nestorius is anathematized for having believed the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother not of God, but of a man only.

Moreover, I cannot be silent about the fact that Suicer (*Thesaur. eccles.*, v. *Deotoxos*) denies, against the testimony of Ephræmius, that our Leo was the first of all to call the Blessed Mary the Mother of God, because, as he says, more ancient Fathers had done so. And Petavius, following Suicer, expounds and approves this denial more copiously in *De incarn.*, Book V, Chapter 15. And yet, if I see anything at all, both Suicer and Petavius deviate from the true and accurate sense of the words of Ephræmius. For the question is not about the dogma, but about the words by which Pope Leo designated it before others. Certainly many Greek Fathers had said *Theotokos*, and among them Cyril, whom Ephræmius had close at hand, just as he was not ignorant that others even older had spoken similarly. Besides, the Greeks, although they are mostly somewhat more recent, say *Theometora*, *Theogennetora*, *Metrtheon*. All correctly. But yet, by no one, as Ephræmius asserts, had the Blessed Mary been called by this explicit phrase *μήτηρ Θεοῦ*, as is done by Leo in the aforementioned epistle, which Ephræmius was reading in the Greek translation, in which language he finally published it—the same one edited among us by Cacciari from the Vatican codex 1431. (From which same codex we quite happily brought forth that *panu* treatise of Cyril on the Deipara, which Cacciari had carelessly left unobserved, being intent solely upon Leo.) Therefore, those other terms, even if they contain the dogmatic sense equally, are nevertheless adjectives rather than substantives, and certainly differ materially from the more proper expression *μήτηρ Θεοῦ*. It remains therefore, as I hope, notwithstanding the aforementioned theologians who contradict it, that the glory of our Leo stands, in that he surely was the first, as Ephræmius indicated, to have called the Blessed Mary by this explicit phrase *μήτηρ Θεοῦ*, or, as it is written in the original Latin epistle: *Dei Genitricem*.

EXPLANATION OF THE TWELVE CHAPTERS

PRONOUNCED AT EPHESUS BY CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, The holy Synod having requested a clearer explanation of them.

^A "All are plain to those who understand, and right to those who find knowledge," as it is written. For those who read the words of sacred Scripture with a sharp and pure eye of the mind store up the profit found in them in their own souls, like a kind of divine and heavenly treasure. But those who have a mind inclined toward falsehood, and subservient to the empty chatter ^B of certain men, being lovers of profane knowledge, will be reckoned as associates of those of whom blessed Paul writes: "In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ." For they are blind, and leaders of the blind; and thus they fall into the pits of destruction. For as the Savior Himself says somewhere: "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

There are, therefore, some who babble against the doctrines of the truth, and having filled their own minds with diabolical perversity, they hasten to corrupt the mystery of the truth, and they inveigh not moderately against the economy of the Only-Begotten made flesh, "neither understanding what they are saying nor the things about which they make assertions," as it is written. Now there have been many inventors of such impiety even in times past; but now Nestorius and those with him, yielding in no part to their wickedness, rise up against Christ after the example of those ancient Pharisees, and brazenly cry out: "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" It was therefore necessary for us to gird ourselves against their words.