Explanation of the Twelve Chapters

^A and to anathematize their impure and profane dogmas, mindful of God speaking through the voice of the prophet: "Hear, O priests, and testify to the house of Jacob, says the Lord Almighty." And again: "Enter through my gates, and remove the stones from the way." For it is necessary for us, who contend for the dogma of the truth, to remove stumbling blocks from the midst, so that people may not in any way trip over them, but as if advancing along a level path toward those sacred and divine courtyards, they might almost say at every gate: "This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter into it." Since, therefore, Nestorius had inserted a crowd of foreign and impious blasphemies into his own ^B books, we could not—having care for the salvation of those who were to read them—fail to compose anathematisms. We did not insert just anything indiscriminately that happened to come into our minds into the hortatory letter which we wrote to him; but, as we said just now, we pointed out that the fruits of his own madness were foreign and entirely alien to the dogmas of piety. llbracketC Perhaps some may find what we have written grievous—either because they do not truly grasp the meaning of what has been written, or because they are defenders of the impious heresy of Nestorius, and are partakers in his impiety, and think the same things as he does. Yet, in the meantime, the truth is not hidden from of any of those accustomed to think correctly. But since it is likely that some, led astray by the sophistries of those men, do not understand how or in what manner [the anathematisms] were composed, I thought it worthwhile to explain each one briefly, and to teach their meaning as clearly as possible. For I believe that this effort will provide no small use and benefit to the readers. ^D

ANATHEMATISM I

First Declaration

For he has been born according to the flesh from the holy Virgin, and has become man such as we are, not having slipped away from being God—God forbid!—but remaining what he was, and abiding in the nature and glory of the Godhead. We say, therefore, that he has been made man, not having undergone a change into that which he was not, nor an alteration; for he is always the same, and admits no shadow of turning. But neither do we define that a mingling, or a pouring out, or a combination of his essence with the flesh has taken place; rather, we assert that the Word was united to meat that had a rational soul, in a manner surpassing mind and ineffable, even as He alone knows. Consequently, he has remained God even in the assumption of flesh; and there is one Son of God and the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ; the same [is] even before every age and time, in so far as he is understood as Word and the character of his substance, and in the last times [he] has become man for our sake by way of dispensation. ^B Since, however, some destroy his birth according to the flesh, which took place from the holy Virgin for the salvation of all—not calling him to a beginning of being, but in order that, having become such as we are, he might deliver us from death and corruption—for this reason our first anathema cries out against their perverted belief, while it confesses what is rightly held, saying that Emmanuel is truly God, and for this reason [calls] the holy Virgin Theotokos.

ANATHEMA II

If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father is united to flesh according to subsistence, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, the same being clearly both God and man, let him be anathema.

Explanation II

The divine Paul, that minister of the divine mysteries, writes thus: "Great indeed is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory." What then is it that he says, "Manifest in the flesh"? It is this: the Word from God the Father became flesh, not through any change or turning of his own nature transmuted ^C into flesh, as we have already said, but rather because he made the flesh taken from the holy Virgin his own, being one and the same Son; before the incarnation, indeed, [he was] still the Word without flesh, but after the incarnation, the same [is] also in the body. For this reason we say that the same is God and man at once, not dividing the contemplation concerning him into a man set apart by himself, and into the Word of God separately, so that we may not think of two sons, but...

confessing one and the selfsame Christ, ^A and Son, and Lord. Those, however, who do not think so, or who wish not to believe so, but divide the one into two sons and separate from each other things that are truly united, and say that the union of man to God has come about by dignity only, that is, by authority, we say are estranged from the right and irreprehensible faith. Therefore, even if he is named ‘apostle,’ and declared to be ‘anointed,’ and ‘marked out as Son of God,’ we are not ashamed of the dispensation. We assert that the Word of God the Father was indeed named ‘apostle’ and ‘anointed’ with us according to his humanity, only when he became man like us. For he who became like us, although he remained what he was, does not reject what is ours; nay, rather, because of the dispensation, he accepts along with the measures of humanity all things that pertain to human nature, yet he suffers therefrom no detriment to his own nature or glory, for even in this way he is still God and Lord of all.

ANATHEMATISM III.

Third Explanation.

^A brought down economically to the measures of humanity. We say, then, that he who is intangible has become tangible, and he who is invisible has become visible. For the body that was united to him was not foreign to him, which we also call tangible and visible. But as for those who do not believe this, but separate the subsistence after the union, as I was saying, and think up for them a mere conjunction consisting only in dignity, that is to say, in authority, the proposed anathema judges them to be aliens to those who are accustomed to think rightly.

ANATHEMA IV

Explanation four

^A his dispensation with flesh, and the divine [things] on account of his ineffable generation from God the Father. But those who divide him and separate him into man individually, as if he were another Son apart from the Word who is from God, and into God individually, as if he were another son, asserting two sons, are justly subject to the power of the proposed anathematism.

ANATHEMATISM V

Fifth Declaration

ANATHEMATISM VI.

Declaration six.

ANATHEMATISM VII.

Declaration seven.

^A anathematism they fall into punishment.

Anathematism VIII

If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed must be co-worshipped with the Word of God, and co-glorified, and likewise called God as one being another—for the particle "with," being always added, will necessitate this perception—and does not rather honor Emmanuel with one worship and attribute to him one glorification, insofar as the Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.

Eighth Declaration

We have been baptized into one God, the Father almighty, and into one Son, and indeed also into one Holy Spirit. "Do you not know, brothers," says the blessed Paul, "that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death; in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." We have believed, therefore, and have been baptized into one, as I said, Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Word ^B of God the Father incarnate and made man; and we have been taught to worship him as being one and God, together with the powers above. For it is written: "And when he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says: 'And let all the angels of God worship him.'" The Only-Begotten became the firstborn when he appeared as a man like us; for then he was also named a brother of those who love him. If anyone, therefore, says that he is to be co-worshipped as a man separately ^C as another distinct from the Word of God the Father, and does not, by uniting him according to a true union into one Christ, and Son, and Lord, honor him with a single worship, he is justly subject to the power of this anathematism.

Anathematism IX

If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit as using a power alien to his own, and that he received from him the ability to work against unclean spirits and to perform divine ^D wonders among men, and does not rather confess that the Spirit through whom he performed divine signs was his own: let him be anathema.

Ninth Declaration

And if the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man, he nevertheless remained God, having all things in common with the Father except only the fatherhood; and having as his own the Holy Spirit, who is from him and essentially indwells in him, he performed divine signs.

But those who say that he, as one of us, or like one of the saints, was glorified by the operation of the Spirit, not as his own power, but rather as one foreign and unbecoming to God, and that he received his ascension into heaven from the Spirit by way of grace, shall justly be subject to the power of this anathema. ^A

ANATHEMATISM X

The divine Scripture teaches that Christ has become the high priest and apostle of our confession, having offered himself for us to God and the Father as a sweet-smelling fragrance. If, therefore, anyone says that he who has become our high priest and apostle is not the Word of God himself, when he became flesh and man like us, but as another apart from him, specifically a man born of a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice for himself as well, and not rather for us alone—for he who did not know sin would not have had need of an offering—let him be anathema. ^B

Explanation Ten

The things human are, indeed, confessedly small for the Word who is begotten of God the Father. Yet they are not to be rejected on account of the dispensation. For being Lord of all by nature, he humbled himself to the things that are ours, having taken the form of a servant; and he has been named our high priest and apostle by the conditions of human nature calling him to this. "He offered himself for us to God the Father in a sweet-smelling fragrance, for by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified," as it is written. But I do not know how those who think otherwise do not insist that it was the Word of God himself who became man, and was named the apostle and high priest of our confession, but contend that ^C it was a different man apart from him, born of the holy Virgin, who was named apostle and high priest, and that he arrived at this through progress; and that he offered himself as a sacrifice to God and the Father not for us alone, but also for himself—a thing which is entirely alien to the upright and blameless faith. For he committed no sin; and he who was superior to trespassing, and entirely lacking in sin, would have had no need of a sacrifice for himself. Since, however, those who think otherwise, turning aside from what is likely, imagine two sons once again, this anathema was ^D necessarily made, rendering their impiety manifest.

ANATHEMATISM XI

If anyone does not acknowledge the flesh of the Lord to be life-giving, and of the Word himself,

which is from God the Father, but speaks of it as though it belonged to another distinct from him, joined to him in dignity, or as having possessed only a divine indwelling, and has not rather said that it is life-giving, as we have said, because it has become the proper flesh of the Word who has power to make all things alive; let him be anathema.

Explanation XI

We perform the holy, life-giving, and unbloody sacrifice in the churches, not believing that the body which is set forth, and likewise the precious blood, is that of one of us, or of any common man, but rather receiving it as having become the proper body and also the blood of the Word who gives life to all things. For common flesh cannot give life. And of this, the Savior himself is witness, saying: "The flesh profits nothing; it is the spirit that gives life" (John 6:64). For because it has become the proper flesh of the Word, it is on this account understood to be and is life-giving, as the Savior himself says: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will also live because of me" (John 6:58). Since therefore Nestorius and those who think with him ignorantly dissolve the power of this mystery, for this reason, and very appropriately, this anathematism was issued. ^B

ANATHEMATISM XII

If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and has become the firstborn from the dead, inasmuch as He is life and life-giving, as God; let him be anathema.

Explanation XII

The Word from God the Father is impassible and immortal, for the divine and incorruptible nature is superior to suffering; and it makes all things alive, and is above corruption and everything that is accustomed to bring grief. But, although the Word from God the Father is this by nature, nevertheless He made for Himself flesh capable of death, that by taking upon Himself the sufferings accustomed to befall us, for our sake and on our behalf, He might deliver us all from death and corruption, having made His own body alive as God, and having become the first-fruits of those who are asleep, and the firstborn from the dead. ^C For the one who endured the precious cross for our sake and tasted death was not a common man, considered as separate and apart from the Word who is from God the Father; but the Lord of glory himself suffered in the flesh according to the Scriptures. Since, however, those who desire to mix empty and impious dogmas with the upright and blameless faith say that a common man endured the cross for us, this anathematism was necessarily constituted, revealing the magnitude of the impiety contained in them. ^D

ADMONITION ON BOTH APOLOGETIC TREATISES OF SAINT CYRIL

NAMELY: On the Twelve Chapters against the Orientals, and against Theodoret.

^ATo his third letter to Nestorius, Cyril had appended twelve chapters of errors, which, because each carries an anathema as its subject, are commonly called "anathematisms," although the ancients preferred to call them "chapters." When Nestorius received these, he immediately sent them to Antioch to Bishop John, asking that they be refuted by two of the most eminent men of his diocese, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and that the errors of Apollinaris and Arius contained therein be condemned.

Both did as they were asked, and each issued a writing, bitter and acrimonious: Andrew in the name of the Orientals, and Theodoret in his own name; for the former wrote from Antioch, the latter from Cyrrhus. The synod of John approved Andrew’s objections, and I believe he sent them to Alexandria via the deacon Possidonius himself, who had brought the letters of Celestine and Cyril to John. Theodoret distributed his own refutations throughout Phoenicia and the neighboring regions, and indeed sent them to the imperial city to flatter his friend Nestorius. When Eupolius, bishop of the region of Pentapolis in Ptolemais, received these, he sent them to Cyril.

Both wrote before the Council of Ephesus, a fact to which Theodoret himself testifies in the preface to his *Pentalogus*. Cyril replied to both before the council—a fact evident from the circumstance that he nowhere mentions them as having been condemned by the synod, even though such a judgment of the Church would have been of great importance to his cause.

At that time, Andrew was famous among the Orientals for the reputation of his learning and piety. Three letters of Theodoret to him survive: the first is numbered twenty-fourth among those published by Sirmond; the second is found in the acts of the Fifth Synod; the third is that which, through the translation of Marius Mercator, is now published for the first time. From the first it is understood how high an opinion he had created of himself among all; from the second, that he did not come to the Council of Ephesus due to ill health; from the third, that he stubbornly adhered to Nestorius, and never consented to his condemnation, even when Theodosius compelled him through the tribune Aristolaus.

It is truly strange that Baronius writes (Ad ann. 431, num. 183) that Andrew was spurred by John of Antioch, after the council had dissolved, to write against Cyril’s chapters, and that he accepted as the reward for this impiety that he should become bishop of Samosata from being a monk of Constantinople: for initially that monk of Constantinople, after the peace of the Churches, was still a monk when Theodoret wrote to him. Secondly, Liberatus relates that immediately upon receiving Cyril’s letters, Nestorius asked John to see to it that the chapters were refuted by his followers, and Baronius himself cites this from Liberatus (Ad ann. 430). Finally, Theodoret testified that he wrote before the council, and we have shown that Cyril replied to both before that same council. Cyril certainly replied to Theodoret as to an unknown man; but what would he have been after the council, when Theodoret promoted the cause of the schismatics, either alone or among the first? Finally, Theodoret corresponded by letter with Andrew—now a bishop, and indeed only recently made one—from Ephesus.

It is uncertain how long he prolonged his life, for that which Theodore the Reader holds—that Rabbulas, bishop of Edessa, was blind; and that Andrew of Samosata accused him because he had written against Theodoret’s twelve chapters (Lib. 1 Collectaneorum, t. II Bibliotheca Patrum)—can contribute nothing to the chronology, since nothing in this man's *Collectanea* is more confused. He certainly did not survive until the year 451, in which the Council of Chalcedon was held. For in the records of that council, the name of Rufinus of Samosata is read, who, having delivered his opinion in the one hundred and twenty-first place among more than six hundred bishops, must have taken charge of the Church of Samosata not long before, since it is credible that the Fathers were listed in order of their ordination. Wherefore I believe Andrew barely prolonged his life until the year 440.

The method, moreover, which Theodoret follows in this work is approximately this: he argues against Cyril not so much that he is in error, but that he has spoken contradictory things; that he uses ill-considered and ambiguous words; and that he perhaps maliciously conceals some latent error. He culls arguments from merely two of Cyril’s works to oppose these anathematisms, namely, from the letter to the monks of Egypt and from the 17th Paschal Homily; the former he calls by the name of the first volume, the latter by that of the second.

[315] For these two things were open signs, as it were the first indications of the dissension with Nestorius, and like war-trumpets, and they were most well-known everywhere in the world, both because of the common sharing of the homily, and especially because of the dissemination of the letter made deliberately through the cities, and most of all in Constantinople, to which Andrew was writing. ^A One must observe at the end, that very few things are asserted by Andrew which cannot bear a good sense: wherefore he does not so much differ from Cyril, but that he could easily be reconciled, if the zeal for contention were absent: I say "asserted," because he frequently sets forth the opinion of the Orientals as if attacked by the anathemas in the name of Nestorius, so that this work might seem not so much an impugning of any individual, as either a defense and judgment of the Oriental synod, or an opinion concerning the anathemas, as if they were contradictory to themselves. And this was the reason why Cyril, although sometimes he grows angry, because of the importunity of his detractors, treats with Andrew, however, more mildly than with Theodoret; for in the former he looked upon one whole province, in the latter a single individual, and one indeed unknown to him.

OF SAINT CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, APOLOGETICUS FOR THE TWELVE CAPITULA, AGAINST THE ORIENTAL BISHOPS.

Those who have dedicated their own mind to the most holy God, and have chosen to champion the dogmas of the truth, ^A beware of the profane vaniloquence of irreligious heretics; and fixing the internal and hidden eye of the heart upon Scripture divinely inspired, and thus filling it abundantly with good thoughts, they struggle most strenuously against those who pervert the right, as if saying: "With zeal have I been zealous for the Lord." (III Reg. xix, 14). Therefore, when Nestorius was pouring out many and diverse blasphemies against Christ our Savior of all, and in a way was utterly removing the venerable and great sacrament of the incarnation, not being unaware that to wish to be silent in the face of these things is dangerous, and since we had very often advised him ^B to cease from such blasphemies, and had profited absolutely nothing, we were compelled at last to come forward to defend the dogmas of piety, and having selected certain

^A of his blasphemous headings, we have usefully anathematized them—that is, those who wish to hold such views—obeying the blessed Paul who says: "If anyone preaches a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a Gospel other than that which you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1, 8, 9). But I do not know how it is that some have taken this very ill, whether because they are of the same mind and opinion as he, or because they pretend to avoid association with his view, while attempting by all means to assist him and to make odious those who wish to defend the Savior Christ. Yet they ought to have considered that to rebuke those who teach differently would have reconciled to themselves the sincerity of love for Christ. But now they have done what should have been done; but in what way? They have become most hostile toward those whose imitators they would have been, had they been crowned with them with the crown of immortality. ^B Therefore, they criticize the anathemas as if they were not correctly formulated; and indeed, having appended to each their own mental inventions in writing, and certain foolish and frivolous fables, they imagine they will deceive those who read them and those who encounter their arguments without examination. It was therefore necessary for us also to set forth the truth in opposition, and to refute their gainsaying, and to show those who oppose the truth to be lovers of quibbling, that is, seekers of arguments against the truth. Having, therefore, placed each of the anathemas before us, and then having set alongside them what was composed by them, we have appended our own, employing those who are skilled in the divine Scriptures as judges, as it were, and seeking a right and blameless verdict ^C from those who know the truth.

ANATHEMA I

Opposition of the Orientals

those indications—a carnal birth, or one befitting God? And otherwise, if we were to fall into his expressions without examination and judgment, we would imagine a conversion and change of the Word into flesh, and thus we would suppose that He himself had become sin ^A and a curse (II Cor. 5, 21; Gal. 3, 13), if we did not attend to the subsequent or preceding parts of the text of the discourse, and to the very custom of Scripture. But as for "the Word was made flesh," we rightly explain it, according to the mind of the Gospels, as a dwelling in the flesh.

Cyril's Defense

The most wise John declares the mystery of the dispensation of the only-begotten Son of God in the flesh, writing: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (Joan. 1, 14). Understanding these things rightly, the blessed Fathers, who were once gathered at Nicaea, said that the Word Himself, born of God the Father, through whom the Father made all things, light from light, true God from true God, was incarnate and made man—that is to say, united to flesh possessing a rational soul, and became man while also remaining God. But that the business of the union was accomplished without conversion and confusion, with the Word of God remaining, as I said, that which He is, even though He was made flesh (for He is immutable according to nature), is doubtful to no one. For what is called being incarnate is not turned into the nature of flesh, but is understood as something other than it, and united to it. Holding these sentiments, the blessed Fathers named the holy Virgin Theotokos. For they believed that she gave birth to that Son who was incarnate and made man, through whom the Father made all things.

^B But Nestorius, the inventor of novel blasphemies, fighting against this opinion, indeed disapproves of this expression, "Theotokos," as if it were not truly said; he spoke, however, in this way: "I have often asked them," he says, "Do you say that the Divinity was born of the blessed Virgin?" They recoil immediately at this expression. "And who," he says, "suffers from such a disease of blasphemy as to say that He who was born of the Spirit into the temple that she brought forth, is God?" Then, when we interpose: "What absurdity, then, do we say, advising that this expression be avoided, and that one should go to the common designation of both natures?" ^C at that time they think what is said is blasphemous. "Either confess plainly that the deity was born of the blessed Mary, or, if you avoid this blasphemous expression, why, when you say the same things, do you pretend not to say it?"

Therefore, with him urging—nay, rather, impiously insisting—that those who call the holy Virgin Theotokos should be forced to confess that the nature of the deity was a mere fruit of flesh, set apart by itself, and that the Word of God had the beginning of His subsistence from a woman ^D, wishing to prove that we are altogether estranged from this opinion (for we are not so delirious as to wish to understand anything other than what is appropriate to understand),—the Virgin gave birth to...

^A the Word of God, who had become flesh according to the Scriptures, that is, a man; but we said she gave birth to Him carnally, that is, according to the flesh. For God the Father begat divinely from Himself the Son, who is God. But since that which is born of the flesh is flesh, the Virgin, being as she is flesh, gave birth carnally. Now to speak of "carnally" does not mean that one is abolishing the miracle of the birth, nor that one is overturning the operation of the Holy Spirit, through whom He fashioned the offspring in the womb; rather, it teaches that just as God begets divinely, that is, in a manner worthy of God according to His own nature, so too does a human being beget humanly—that is to say, flesh begets carnally. But the Word, being God by nature—that is, having become flesh—proceeded in a manner worthy of God, that is, as would befit Him who is truly God. For He alone had a mother who knew not marriage, and He kept her a virgin who gave birth to Him according to the flesh. Yet I marvel that, while they are hesitant to call the holy Virgin Theotokos, they affirm that He was born in a manner worthy of God ^B. For a common man is not born in a manner worthy of God. They say that the gifts brought by the Magi were offered both to Him who is understood and to Him who is seen, thus dividing again, after the union, our Lord Jesus Christ into two. For He who is understood became visible, not through a change of nature, but through union with the body that was seen. And, indeed, that the holy apostles themselves were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, the holy Scripture declares ^C; yet to whom is it not entirely clear that the Word from God the Father is incorporeal, intangible, and invisible? But I find some saying that the holy apostles [say]: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, which we beheld with our eyes, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life." The gifts, therefore, were offered to the one, that is, to Christ; for He is at once both God and human being, the selfsame. For this reason, when He was born, there were choirs of holy angels and hosts of spirits, calling Him Savior and Redeemer. But since the evangelist says, "The Word became flesh," they say they are afraid lest the term "became" should preserve its own proper meaning, and some change be understood to have occurred in the divine nature of the Word. I praise their fear, but I marvel that, while they shun the expression, they also shun the true and necessary meaning, and claim the Word became flesh just as one might say [He] became a curse or sin ^D. Then how do they not see—if they are endowed with understanding—that the blessed evangelist, in using the word "became," removes every suspicion of change by immediately adding: "And dwelt among us"? But it is absurd for another reason if anyone ventures to say that thus it has become

^A flesh, just as it is said to have become a curse and sin. For it did not become curse or sin in its own nature, but, being righteous, it was reckoned among the wicked that it might abolish sin; and he who blesses the creation was called accursed, that he might loosen the curse against us and deliver those who believe in him from judgment. Therefore, it did not become a curse and sin in truth, but was called these names so that it might abolish curse and sin. If, then, it thus became flesh, it has abolished flesh, just as it did the curse and sin; and it has neither become man nor been incarnated in truth; but the mystery exists only in supposition, and the manner of the incarnation is found only in empty names. Further, the hope of the resurrection is entirely taken away. In whose death, therefore, were we baptized? Where is the word of faith which we preach? For we believe that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead, and we are saved. Is our faith, then, in one who is like us and a common man, and do we no longer worship the Word who appeared in human form for our sake? Did he not take the form of a servant, he who is free as God? Did he not humble himself, he who is conspicuous for the excellence of his divinity? ^B He who is in the form and equality of the Father, did he not empty himself, although he distributes good things to the creation from his own fullness? Away with that evil counsel! The blessed Fathers taught us otherwise; they said that the Word of God the Father was incarnated and made man in truth, without change and without confusion. Moreover, the manner of the dispensation is altogether ineffable. And the words of the blessed Fathers themselves shall be witnesses to what has been said.

Petri martyris episcopi Alexandriæ. (Of Peter, martyr and bishop of Alexandria.) Whence also the evangelist speaks truly, saying: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"; then, clearly, from the time when the angel greeted the Virgin, saying: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." That which Gabriel says, "The Lord is with thee," is said for this, "The Lord Word is with thee," for it signifies that he is being born in the womb and becoming flesh, as it is written: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God." ^C

Athanasii episcopi Alexandriæ. (Of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.) Whence also, when the flesh was born from Mary, the Theotokos, he who provides for others the birth [that leads] to existence is himself said to have been born, that he might transfer our birth into himself.

Ejusdem ex epistola ad Epictetum. (From the same, from his epistle to Epictetus.) How, then, have those who are called Christians dared even to doubt, if the Lord who came forth from Mary is Son in essence and by nature of the...

God, but according to the flesh is of the seed of David and of the flesh of the holy Mary? ^A Who, then, have become so bold as to say that Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, is not the Lord and Savior and God and Son of the Father? Or how do those who say that the Word came into a holy man, as into one of the prophets, and did not Himself become man, taking a body from Mary, but that Christ is one and the Word of God, who was before Mary and before the ages the Son of the Father, is another—how do they wish to be called Christians? Or how can those who say that the Son is one and the Word of God is another be Christians?

These are the opinions of the holy Fathers which we follow. But if anyone teaches otherwise and thinks otherwise, he is carried outside the straight and royal road. That to say Christ was born "carnally" is not unusual for the holy Fathers, but is rather a word well-worn by others, the words subjoined below—which to us are none the less true—demonstrate. They are as follows:

From Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.

ANATHEMATISM III.

Objection of the Orientals.

^A The divine Paul, making clear to all as a faithful steward of the mysteries of God, and having Christ himself speaking within him, how the only-begotten Word of God became man, says: “For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God.” We, crowning this statement with our own votes for orthodoxy, and following everywhere the divinely inspired Scriptures, and esteeming the voices of the theologians worthy of all wonder—nay, rather, holding them as divine laws—do not say that the Word from God the Father took hold of either the holy angels or his own nature. We believe, rather, that, according to what seems right to the holy Scriptures, having overshadowed the holy Virgin, inasmuch as He is the power of the Most High Father, He fashioned for Himself the body from her, yet through the operation of the Holy Spirit. And He became man, and was named Son of Abraham and of David; not having bartered away, on account of the human, his being in truth the Son of God and the Father, but rather remaining—even if He has become flesh—in the nature, excellence, and glory of the Godhead; for He is immutable and superior to change, as He is God. There is, therefore, one and the same Son and Lord, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation. To divide the one into two sons, and to undo the work of true union by distinguishing them apart and positing separately a man and separately a God, is a crime of the highest impiety. ^{B C} Furthermore, Nestorius, caring little for these things, has dared to say in these very words: “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” He did not say, “Let this mind be in you which was in the Word of God, who, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant,” but having taken [the name] Christ, as a appellation significant of the two natures, he says without danger that He both took the form of a servant and names Him God; while the things said [by Him] are divided without reprehension into two natures. In another exposition, again, he says: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” I reverence that which is borne because of the Bearer; I adore that which appears because of the Hidden One. God is inseparable from that which is seen; because of this, I do not divide the honor of Him who is not divided. I separate the natures, but I unite the adoration. ^D (And again in another exposition: Say of Him who took, that He is God. Add the one who was taken, that He is the form of a servant; append thereafter the dignity of the connection, that the authority of the two will be common, because the dignity of the two is the same; with the natures remaining, confess the unity of the dignity.)

^A You see how he everywhere separates the natures from one another, yet unites, as he says, the adoration, and names a common authority, and solely the unity of dignity. But that which is common is not common to one, if it be common, but to two at the very least, or to more when viewed individually and in part. Why then do they make such a great declamation against the writing that rightly anathematizes such things? What is absurd if, in opposing pious dogmas to the loathsome and most repulsive words of Nestorius, we have taken the necessary care for the salvation of our brethren? Since they say that my words fight against them, and bring forward for demonstration a part of the letter which I wrote to the holy monks, I thought it necessary to say what is appropriate in regard to this as well; for they say that I myself also named "two ^B subsistences," and that this will suffice for them for a refutation, in that we ourselves did not refuse to say the same thing—for those who indeed think this very thing. Having therefore necessarily set forth that part of the letter, I will subjoin after these things those by which they may be shown to wish to talk nonsense everywhere. It stands thus: "Therefore, so far as concerns His own nature, the Word of God the Father has not been sanctified separately. But if anyone should think that He who was born of the holy Virgin was alone anointed and sanctified, and for this reason named Christ, let him come forward and say whether the anointing is sufficient for this, to make that which is anointed equal in glory and majesty to Him who is God over all." For because the inventor of the new blasphemies against us, Nestorius, ^C asserts persistently that the Word of God is named Christ separately; and separately another Christ, who was born of the holy Virgin: in order that we might mark this opinion as reprehensible and rash, and alien from the truth, we affirm neither that the Word of God the Father, considered separately, has been anointed with the oil of gladness, nor separately and privately as a man, and another Son besides Him who is the Word from God, the one who was born of the holy Virgin. But we rather insist that all ought to confess one Christ, the Only-begotten Word of God, having been incarnate and made man: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." ^D Therefore it is not obscure to anyone accustomed to think rightly that they corrupt the sense of those things written by me, and calumniate the truth even in this. But in another way also, it would be free from blame and every reproach, and that deservedly, to know, perhaps, that the flesh is indeed one thing according to its own nature, distinct from the Word born of God the Father, and the Only-begotten is again another according to the reasoning of His own nature. But to know these things is not to divide the natures after the union. Now if anyone should wish to consider the virtue of the sacrament with the exact eye of the mind, he will see indeed that (as I said in the beginning) not His own nature

^A did God the Word take hold of, but the seed of Abraham; and the holy body from the seed of Abraham, which He took from the blessed Virgin, is not consubstantial with the Word begotten of God, having come forth as man, so that He might be made like to His brothers, and the Only-Begotten might be called the First-Born. But even if the body is of a different nature from the Word of God the Father, yet nonetheless there is one Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord, even if He has become flesh. And it is not without loss to dissolve the mode of true union, and to divide the subsistences by separating them from one another into two sons, so that they exist privately and separately, having only an external connection and one of dignity in order. But if we say that the union is natural, we understand it as true. For the divinely inspired Scripture has this custom, of using this expression in this sense. For the divine Paul writes to some: "And we were by nature children of wrath, even as others"; and certainly no one would say that divine wrath exists by nature, so that those who sin are its offspring; otherwise we would altogether and in every way agree with those suffering from the insanity of the Manichaeans. But there, "by nature" means "truly." Therefore, we do not confuse the natures, nor mix them with one another, as the adversaries say, when we say that ^B the union took place naturally; but we affirm everywhere that from two things that are unlike, I mean Deity and humanity, one Christ, and Son, and Lord has been made. But we have absolutely no part in the dogmas of Apollinarius; for those who have once been condemned as adulterating the truth ought to be shunned.

ANATHEMA IV

If anyone distributes the expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or those spoken by the saints about Christ, or by Christ Himself about Himself, to two persons or subsistences, and attaches some to the man as considered separately from God the Word, but assigns the others as divine to the Word of God the Father alone; let him be anathema.

The Opposition of the Orientals

It follows here that his own decrees should also be suggested to him. For he said: "Although you hear that He progressed in age and wisdom and grace, do not think that the Word of God became wise by increase; nor again dare to say ^C frivolously that we should attribute the progressing in age, and wisdom, and grace to the man." (But even if he denies here the testimony of Scripture, by which we are taught that the progress happened according to the nature of the flesh of the Lord which was seen; yet this is not the time to refute ^D

^A them, for we are hurrying toward the intended chapter. For in order to show that he speaks of two hypostases, and is contradictory to himself, we have set out the things that were formerly said by him. But one ought not to apply the expressions as if dividing the union—that is, the one Son—into two persons, or two hypostases, or two sons; for the supreme union is indivisible and inseparable; and the one Son is one in all respects, both in word, and manner, and conception. While the supreme union is preserved, and one Son, Christ, and Lord is confessed, the things spoken ought to be understood as being about one and the same Son. Nevertheless, it is fitting to apply what is said to the one Son according to the power of the united natures. ^B But not to distinguish the expressions that are in the Gospels, or those spoken by the Lord Himself about Himself, or those found in the apostolic writings—what excess of blasphemy does this not surpass? For if we do not distinguish the expressions, how shall we oppose Arius and Eunomius, who confound everything as if spoken of one nature, and impiously attribute the humble things of humanity to the most high nature of the impassible Godhead? Or how shall we understand the Lord’s expressions, which He spoke because of the nature of the visible flesh: "I have not come to do My own will" (John vi, 38); and, "I have received a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak" (John xii, 49); and, "I do nothing of Myself" (John viii, 28); and, "I am going to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God" (John xx, 17); and others such as these? For if the expressions ^C remain undivided, just as the natures do, then according to him, God the Father will be the God of the Only-begotten, and the Son will be a minister and servant of the Father’s commands according to His divinity. And if we take the humble things into the nature of the Godhead, to whom shall we apply that which says, "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30); and that He works in like manner to the Father; and that, "As the Father raises the dead, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills" (John v, 21), and not to whom He is commanded? But it is correctly understood, according to the Lord’s own word, that the Father is Father and God. God indeed of Him who in the last times came forth from the seed of David according to the flesh, but Father of the God-Word who was born of Him impassibly and eternally, that we might preserve and confess the sonship within the rule of the unity. But how shall we understand the words, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John viii, 58); and that, "All things were made through Him" (John i, 3)? ^D If the expressions remain indistinct, shall we attribute to that nature which in the last times came to be from the seed of David the fact that He existed before Abraham and David, and that all things were made through Him? Or shall we say piously, while the natures remain unconfused and the union is confessed as indivisible, that these expressions are indeed to be fitted according to the

potential of the united natures, as has been said before, into one Son, and Lord, and Christ, but not by gathering all things into one nature? So that from one name of the natures, both may be understood on account of the consummate height of the union, which is also incomprehensible to us; as is that which is said, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven"; and, "If then you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before," do we not, from the designation of the Son of Man, understand also Him who is unconfusedly and inseparably united to Him? For although He named Himself Son of Man because of the nature of the assumed and visible flesh, yet by the things that were done by Him, He demonstrated Himself to be God. And again: "Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." And again: "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same, and forever." If yesterday and today, how are all things through Him? But if all things are through Him, how yesterday and today? But it is certain both that "all things are through Him," and that "yesterday and today" must be received by faith, and "the same forever" is true, if we apply the expressions according to the distinctness of the natures, [which are] unconfusedly and inseparably united, understanding according to the visible indeed: "Yesterday and today," but according to the intelligible: "Forever"; but according to the unity of the sonship: "One and the same."

Cyril's Defense

As it appears, for those who imprudently wish to criticize the anathematisms most usefully and necessarily made by us, that single goal is theirs: that they should neither perceive nor speak anything true, and they declare themselves occupied solely with a desire for calumny. For if they allowed themselves to apply their minds studiously and diligently to the writings, they would not have been ignorant that by their own opinions and the arguments they make, they establish the anathematism, and in no way show it to have been composed unskillfully. And I shall say how. The honest Nestorius said such a thing, expounding it in church. But that I may say it more manifestly, and so that everyone may grasp it more easily: it was the zeal of Arius, and Eunomius, and Apollinarius, and all the choirs of that faction, to introduce this name, "Theotokos," so that a commixture might come to pass, and the natures not being divided, ^D nothing of the lowly things might be accepted as belonging to the humanity, and they might thenceforth have room against the divinity, as if all things which are said were said of one. Since these things are spoken in this way, we have most usefully made the anathematism, not permitting the one Lord Jesus Christ to be divided into two persons and subsistences. That they themselves also agree with our own arguments is manifest.

^A from what they have written, and they have recognized the need to think correctly; it stands thus: "As for those who divide the union by two persons, or two subsistences, or two sons—that is the one Son—it is not fitting to apply the sayings [to them separately]; for the supreme union is indivisible and inseparable, and the Son is one in respect of every reason, mode, and conception. While the supreme union is preserved, and one Son, Christ, and Lord is confessed, it is necessary to take the sayings as applying to one and the same Son; nevertheless, one must adapt the sayings to the one Son according to the power of the united natures."

Therefore, while the supreme union is preserved, what infiltration of the fantasy of a division could still find room? And how is he who dares to divide [them] not wandering off the straight path, and departing entirely from the dogmas of piety? What then does the anathematism say? "If anyone divides the sayings in this manner, and applies some as if to a man understood separately from the Word from God, and others as if worthy of God to the Word from God alone, let him be anathema." If, then, those who dissociate and divide—into a man specifically and separately, and into the Word of God specifically and separately—do not divide the one Christ, and do not speak of two sons, let our accusers be indignant against us. But if to think in this way is a cutting and a division, in what manner do they find fault with our arguments, although ^B they themselves, as they say, confess that Emmanuel is one and indivisible according to a supreme union? I, for my part, would praise the prudent understanding of each saying—even if perhaps it was spoken by Him—and I think everyone who is accustomed to think rightly would also do so; for some [sayings] are worthy of God, while others are more appropriate to the economy with the flesh. Since He is one and the same, God and man at once, by this [reason] He speaks now divinely, now humanly, and does this very rightly; nevertheless, we insist that these and those sayings belong to the one Jesus Christ, neither stripping the temple [born] of the holy Virgin of divinity, nor thinking of the Word of God the Father as without flesh after the ineffable union.

But I marvel that, although they are excessively meddlesome and, as they think, examine my epistles precisely, they willingly pass over whatever in them is useful and necessary for the demonstration of the rightness and accuracy of the dogmas, but they pounce very swiftly upon anything that seems to them to provide even the slightest conjecture, by which they might weave calumnies against us. I shall recall my own words. ^C For I wrote thus in the epistle to Nestorius: "We do not distribute the sayings of our Savior in the Gospels to two subsistences, nor certainly to two persons (for the one and only Christ is not double, even if he is understood to be co-joined into an indivisible unity out of two and diverse things; just as, of course, a man is understood to be [composed of] soul and"

body, and not double, but rather one from both. But we shall be rightly disposed, thinking that both the human and, on top of this, the divine [utterances] are spoken by ^A one. For when he speaks of himself in a manner befitting God: “He who has seen me, has seen the Father,” and, “I and the Father are one,” we understand his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is, by reason of the identity of substance, the image and impress of his Father, and the radiance of his glory. But when, observing the measure of humanity, he speaks to the Jews: “Now, however, you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you,” we recognize ^B him again in the equality and likeness of the Father, as God the Word, even from the measures of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that, being God by nature, he became flesh, that is, man, with the flesh animated by a rational soul, what reason would there be for anyone to be ashamed of his words, if they were made in a manner befitting man? For if he were to reject the words that befit men, who forced him to become a man like us? But he who humbled himself for our sake into a voluntary emptying, for what reason would he reject the words befitting that emptying? ^C Therefore, all the words in the Gospels are to be attributed to one person, to one subsistence, I say, of the Word incarnate (for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures). Therefore, as far as what has already been written is concerned, we are not found to have been ignorant of the dispensation and the words proper to each nature, but rather we are found not to permit natural, soulless men, who do not have the Spirit, to think or speak of two Sons, so as to divide the subsistences from one another after the indivisible ^D union. But because they took a small part from our epistle and placed it at the beginning of their own arguments, threatening to refute us in due time, as if we had sinned not insignificantly against the Word from God the Father, and had most foolishly attributed to his very nature the growth and advancement that pertains to the flesh: come then, let us speak fittingly to this as well, by adding the whole part of the epistle. For they themselves, fearing the truth and deceiving the hearers, have placed a certain part, that which seemed most useful to them to the end that they might be able and seem to justly construct calumnies against us. But what is said stands thus: “And if you hear that Jesus increased in age and wisdom and grace, do not think that the Word of God became wise through advancement.” I will rather recall what the divine Paul wrote: “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Nor, on the other hand, dare to foolishly say that we attribute advancing in age and wisdom and grace to the man: for this, as I believe, is nothing other than to divide the one Christ into two; but, as I said a little before, the Son, who is

^A pre-eternal, is said to be defined as the Son of God in the last times of the age, appropriating to Himself the birth of His own flesh in a way consistent with the economy. And so, being the wisdom of Him who begat Him, He is said to advance in wisdom, although He is most perfect as God, having naturally taken unto Himself the properties of humanity because of the union to the uttermost. Why then, when God says, "Judge a righteous judgment," do they falsify the truth? For we do not teach a division of the subsistences after the union, nor do we say that the nature of the Godhead had need of growth and advancement; but rather this, that by an economic appropriation He made the properties of the flesh His own, as having become flesh according to the Scriptures. And that the choir of the holy Fathers harmonizes with this faith and opinion, I shall endeavor to show, having set forth for confirmation a part of an exposition made in times past by Atticus of blessed memory. It is as follows: ^B

Of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople.

That to divide the subsistences after the union is not without fault, but is rather a subversion of the venerable mystery of the incarnation, we shall learn no less by encountering the statements of Julius and Felix, who once presided over the Roman Church. ^D

Of Julius, Bishop of Rome.

^A

Of Felix, the most holy bishop of Rome and martyr.

ANATHEMA VII. If any one says that Jesus was moved by the Word of God as a man, and that the glory of the Only-begotten was attributed to him as to another existing beside him, let him be anathema. ^B

Objection of the Orientals.

Cyril's defense.

^A He was performing wonders: on the one hand, rebuking demons and crushing Satan [i]; and on the other, granting light to the blind, raising the dead [ii], and calming the turbulent sea with a single word [iii]. He did not cause himself to be glorified as some mere man or as another existing separately—just as, for instance, one might glorify one of the holy prophets or apostles—but he was procuring glory for himself, so that he might be believed by all to be God by nature, even if he had become man.

It would, therefore, be most absurd to tolerate Nestorius saying: "For the operations of the Trinity are common, having distinction only in the subsistences," or, "the glory of the Only-begotten is sometimes ascribed to the Father, sometimes to the Spirit, and sometimes to the power of Christ." ^B Therefore, let those who wish to reproach us either point out to us another Christ who exists and is understood in a private and separate manner, to whom the Only-begotten Word of God has applied his own power, as if the Son were something separate from him; or, if he is not another and another, but one and the same—the Only-begotten from the Father and man from a woman according to the flesh—how could there be any room for silence, and should not the power of truth rather be opposed to his trifles, as they corrupt the beautiful dogmas of piety?

The Son was and is indeed God. But since he once underwent the measure of humanity and deemed the dispensation not to be rejected, and for our sake voluntarily endured all things on account of his kenosis, for this reason, although he is Life by nature, he is said to be vivified by the Father; and although he is the Lord of glory [iv], he is said to have received glory. Hence the Hebrew of Hebrews, truly learned in the Law, and of the tribe of Benjamin, said: ^C "Paul, an apostle not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" [v] and "gave him glory" [vi]. But although he is said to have received glory from the Father, since this matter reaches to the measure of his humanity, he nevertheless knows that he himself possesses a dignity beyond creation, according to that in which he is understood and is God. He therefore said: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is, except the Father; and no one knows who the Father is, except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him" [vii].

But perhaps one of the more studious will ask: "If all things were delivered to you by the Father—as if you were in need of glory, and as if you were required to receive the power over all things because of your humanity—how do you say that it is impossible for human minds to know you, just as they know the Father?" ^D "Indeed," he says, "my knowledge is not restricted to what is seen. For I am God in flesh and blood; and while I am known according to the flesh, according to the nature and glory of the divinity, I have an equal measure to that of God and the Father, [surpassing] the mind of all and..."

and transcends speech. Therefore (for I return to the sentiment of the proposed matter), we do not take away the apostolic utterances, God forbid! Nor, while thinking or speaking other things less consonant, do we contend against the rational accounts of the Incarnation. But we follow the sacred Scriptures everywhere, and by conceding the highest authority to the voices of the theologians, we stand against only those who distort the correct dogmas of the Church. Moreover, that the Father is said to have raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead—that work being performed, of course, upon His ^A flesh—there is no one who would doubt. But He Himself, being life, and the vivifier, and the effective power of the Father, was vivifying His own temple, according to that word: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Therefore, that which was being vivified was not something foreign, nor one of the men who are like us, but the proper body of the Word Himself.

ANATHEMATISM VIII

Opposition of the Orientals

Defense of Cyril

it may stray from the straight path and have its motion deviating from the doctrines of the truth, yet it always hesitates and fears to some extent to fix the absurdity of its own thoughts. But it will very easily correct itself if it has examined the labors of the holy Fathers, who are celebrated by all for the rectitude and certainty of their doctrines, ^A then it will explore its own true faith. For all who have an upright heart strive to follow their opinions: because they also, having filled their own mind with the apostolic and evangelical tradition, and having handled the words of the faith rightly and blamelessly from the holy Scriptures, were luminaries in the world, holding fast the word of life, as it is written. Therefore, our Father and Bishop of eternal memory, Athanasius, writes concerning Christ the Savior of us all in his books On the Incarnation: "We confess also that He is the Son of God, and God according to the Spirit, and Son of man according to the flesh; not two natures in one Son, one to be worshipped and one not to be worshipped, but one nature of God the Word made flesh, and worshipped with His flesh in one worship; ^B nor two sons, one the true Son of God who is worshipped, and another the man from Mary who is not worshipped, but has become a Son of God by grace, even as men [do]." And after other things, again: "Therefore, He who was born of the Virgin Mary is Son of God by nature, and God true, and not by grace and participation, but [He is] man only according to the flesh, which is from Mary; but according to the Spirit, He is Himself Son of God and God." And again: "If anyone teaches otherwise than these things from the divine Scriptures, saying there is one Son of God, and another [Son] from Mary, adopted by grace as we are, so as to be two sons, one the Son of God by nature who is from God, and one the man from Mary by grace; ^C or if anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is from above and not from the Virgin Mary; or that the divinity was changed into flesh, or confused, or altered, or that the Lord's divinity is passible; or that the flesh of our Lord is not to be worshipped as [the flesh of] a man, and not to be worshipped as the flesh of the Lord and God—this man the holy and catholic Church anathematizes, obeying the divine Apostle who says: 'If anyone preaches a gospel to you besides what you have received, let him be anathema.'" While this man thought and wrote these things to us, Nestorius, choosing to war against the glory of Christ, and letting loose his unbridled tongue, says somewhere again: "We confess God in man; we worship the man co-worshipped with God the Word by divine conjunction." ^D Does he not here manifestly term Christ a God-bearing man, and speak of the conjunction of man with God simply, according to that, perhaps, which is a

^A saying of Paul's: "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit?" And yet, how is it not true that the same person is both God and man at once, and not some man understood apart and individually, and having a relative conjunction with God? For after the ineffable union, even if anyone calls Emmanuel, who has become man and been incarnate, a "man," it is the Word of God that must be understood; and if he names him "man," yet we know that with him there is also the Word of the Father. It is, therefore, one thing to speak of the one Son—the Word from God the Father—together with the flesh united to him, and likewise another thing to speak of God being in a man, just as, to be sure, he was in the prophets, or else even in us ourselves through the Holy Spirit.

But safely and unassailably, ^B as I think, one might say that the incarnate Word of God, as being one Son, is to be worshipped not apart from his own flesh, but rather together with it. Just as, indeed, the soul of a man is honored along with its own body, and the thing consisting of both is signified by one name, as one living creature. When, therefore, you, being ready to discourse about Christ, the Savior of us all, divide the one into two, and declare that the man is to be understood privately and separately, and then dare to say that this man is to be co-worshipped and co-named God, as if he were another existence alongside Christ, who is the Son from God by nature; who could endure this, and let pass in silence such an obvious ^C absurdity against him? For it ought rather to have been said: "We worship the Word of God, who became man, and is called God, and is worshipped in his humanity, because he is God by nature, and has appeared from God the Father."

But, indeed, the adversaries say, "You will surely be caught, having yourself written in a letter that the Son sat with the Father together with his own flesh. How then do you rebuke one who says that the man ought to be worshipped with the God-Word, and at the same time called God? For it is the same thing to say 'with' [σὺν] and 'together with' [μετά]." Accordingly, let us convict them of being ignorant of the power of the words and of not looking into the nature of the things. For when the discourse, ^D diligently examining the things out of which anything exists—that is, naturally consists—on the basis of one person and one nature (or rather, subsistence), adds the preposition "with" [σὺν] or "together with" [μετά], it preserves in the thing signified that it is one according to composition, and does not distinguish it into two. But when the preposition is spoken in advance of subsistences that are divided into two, and such that each is understood separately and privately, then we say that it signifies two or even more, and not one according to composition. For example, if we should happen to say that the soul of a man is co-honored along with its own body, if some honor were certainly being offered by someone toward one man, who is composed of both: that is,

if one says that the one living being is the same as its own body, he does not entirely divide the one into two men; rather, he appears to be one who has not been ignorant of the things from which it is composed, that is, that it is naturally composite. ^A But when I say, "Peter and John are called men," or again, "John was going up into the temple with Peter," the "with" or the "and" no longer signifies a single thing. For Peter is not composed with John, nor do both together fulfill the constitution of a single man. Why therefore do they trifle against the truth, ignorantly dividing the one Christ into two? But if they suppose that by saying that the Son sits with the Fatherพร้อม along with His own body, we have granted that two Sons are to be understood, let them inquire whether we say that one Son is honored by a single sitting, and not by two; so that one is not dispensed ^B privately to the body, and another again privately to the Word. But they would not be able to show this; for how, or whence? For we maintain that being one Son with His own flesh, the same Son who is God and man together, He is distinguished by a single sitting with the Father. To say, however, that a man is co-worshiped with God, and is co-called God, is surely to confess that there are two who are worshiped, or even that they are co-called in relation to one another. But such a discourse is very foolish, and entirely alien to thoughts concerning rectitude and truth. An anathema, therefore, has been made against those who divide Emmanuel in every way into a man separately, and God separately. For the discourse of the ^C theologians, and the unadulterated knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, have proclaimed Him to us as one and the same.

ANATHEMA IX

Opposition of the Orientals

^A ejicio daemonia." But we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished signs both by his own power and by the operation of the Spirit. For we do not say that he makes use of the power of the Holy Spirit as if he lacked his own power; rather, to deny that the Holy Spirit is present with him is, as I think, to deny the Holy Scriptures. For even if Scripture says somewhere that the Father accomplishes the works of miracles, when it says: "The Father who abides in me, he does the works which I do," yet it is the Son who does all the works of the Father; and even if it speaks of the works of the Son as being done by the Spirit, when it says: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons," it is the Lord who is acting in the Spirit. For the Son is not estranged from the Father, nor from the Spirit; nor are the operations of the Trinity separate and divided apart, but the operation which is spoken of in Scripture as being of each subsistence is the own operation of the Trinity. Just as ^B Scripture sometimes calls all creation the work of the Son, saying: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens established," and at other times tells that it is of the Spirit, when it adds: "And by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." But it is not because the Father cannot do all things that the Son also creates; nor again, because the Son would be powerless in creation, is the Spirit taken in to assist (for the expression "All things were made through him" is true); but it is so that he may set before us the consubstantiality, the equal honor, and the equal power of the Trinity, saying that the same things were done sometimes by the Father, sometimes by the Son, and sometimes by the Holy Spirit. For in this way we understand that all things depend upon one divine substance. For just as the Only-Begotten, as the essential and subsistent Word, was begotten of Him without passion, and the Holy Spirit also, proceeding from Him, exists ^C in his own subsistence; so that one substance is marked out in three subsistences, and none of them is considered to be alienated in the rationale of substance, but they are understood to be distinct from one another only by characteristic, or rather distinguishing, properties. How then will there be a "proper" operation for those whose essence, power, and will are one? For those to whom these are common, their operation is absolutely one.

Cyril’s Defense

^D Will I have need of the voice of witnesses to demonstrate that our adversaries wish to speak vainly and to use blasphemies recklessly against us? But their own discourse alone, I think, will make this clear. For in the proposed anathematism we have manifested that we hold the Holy Spirit to be the Son's own, and that He accomplished divine signs through Him. But they, although they often assert that I have forgotten my own words, proceed into such stupidity, nay rather...

^B madness, as to think that I say Jesus does not cast out demons through the Spirit. Is this not a manifest calumny? For if they refuse to acknowledge that the casting out of demons is a category of divine signs, let them say what they wish and ascribe it to me as a crime, accusing me of not having stated this clearly and of passing over divine signs in silence. But if, among other things, the casting out of demons is a manner—and one not unworthy of admiration—of a divine sign, why then, having abandoned as unprofitable the choice to speak more correctly and having rejected as stale the duty to speak the truth, have they prized the ^A matter of railing against us, and considered it no small account to be so refuted before God and men? But they seem to me to have forgotten Christ saying: "How will you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me cast the speck out of your eye,' when there is a log in your own eye? Hypocrite, cast the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see to cast the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt. vii, 4, 5). For that the holy Trinity is of the same substance, same power, and same operation, we have not learned through your discourse, but have been taught rather from holy Scripture. That the proposed ^B anathematism in no way hinders the arguments of the right faith, but rather profits them, is easy to see without labor. For it does not allow those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ, and divide him—as we have already said very often—into a man separately and into God the Word separately, so that two ^C persons and substances are thought of, separated from one another, to do this; nor does it permit one to say that Jesus was moved as one common man by the Holy Spirit, so as to be able to accomplish divine signs; since in no way would He differ from the holy apostles or prophets, who, being filled through the grace from above with divine gifts, could ^D rightly say: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. xv, 10). But while this expression would rightly befit holy men, in whom the distribution of gifts from God excels, it does not befit Christ. For the Holy Spirit is His own, just as He is also God and Father's; and He operates just as the Father through the Spirit, so also does He Himself. And so, although He says to the Jews: "Many good works I have shown you from My Father" (John x, 32); and, "I do not speak from Myself; but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works" (John xiv, 10); yet He said elsewhere again: "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God" (Matt. xii, 28), referring the operation through the Spirit to Himself and to the Father because of the identity of substance. And many and long would be the discourse concerning these matters; but there would be need of a convenient time for those wishing to expand upon it, as I think. Therefore, we do not say that Emmanuel was moved by the Spirit as if by an alien power, but rather [we say that it was] done in a divine manner

and that he has as his own the power of the consubstantial Spirit. For the blessed disciples, when working signs, used to say, "Men, why do you look at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made this man who sat at the Beautiful Gate walk?" But the Spirit of Christ is his own. To those, however, who wish to scrutinize our words, we say this: If it does not displease their minds to divide the indivisible, and to speak of Jesus as having received the impulse to work through the Spirit, as if he were a common man, the argument ^B for those thus disposed is indeed vast. But if they confess Christ to be one, both Son and Lord, and believe with us that the same one is at once God and man, then let them believe that he does not work as if receiving the faculty of action from a power better than himself and alien, but rather he works divine signs as through his own Spirit, in whom is all the power of created things. For thus they will cease to mock us in vain, and to gnash at us with the teeth of envy.

ANATHEMATISM X

The divine Scripture teaches that Christ has become the high priest and apostle of our confession, and also that he offered himself for us to God the Father as a fragrance of sweet aroma. If, therefore, anyone says that our high priest and apostle is not the Word of God himself, after he became flesh and man like us, but [says it is] someone else besides him, [an] individual man from a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice for himself also, and not rather for us alone (for he who did ^C not know sin would not have had need of an offering): let him be anathema.

Objection of the Orientals

If God the Word is the high priest, to which of his own Gods, or in what manner, does he offer his ministry? But [the objector] has forgotten the blessed Paul who says: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all things after our likeness, without sin." Who, then, is this one who has been tested? Is it God the Word, or the human nature, the seed of David? And again: "No one takes the honor upon himself, ^D but [is one] called by God, just as Aaron was: so also Christ did not glorify himself to become high priest." Who, then, is he who is compared to Aaron himself according to the dignity of the priesthood, and who does not take the honor from himself, but is called by God, and ascends to the dignity of the priesthood? Is it the divine na-

- ^A ture, which is coeternal with the Father, to which all things of the Father are proper, and to what greater dignity does it ascend? Shall we say that the priesthood is more worthy than the divine nature, to which it ascends, being called by God—not of itself, but through it—and is glorified through it; or is it the nature which came into being from the seed of David and was marked out, to which God also swore, according to the Psalmist, that He would give the priesthood forever? “For the Lord swore,” he says, “and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.” ^B Did the godhead of the Only-Begotten receive promises with an oath from God, that it would take upon itself the priesthood forever, and be glorified by it? And who among us would endure those who say or think such things, and not despise us for introducing a God who is ordained as high priest, and who receives promises under oath, and is called to the dignity of the priesthood, and who does not take the honor for Himself, but is called to it, and is compared to the first one who received the priesthood? And again he says, as he also says in another place: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.” And who again has been likened to Melchisedech himself according to the priesthood? Is it permissible to suppose that this is God, or rather the flesh assumed from us, which has been united inseparably and at once conjoined without confusion? And again it says: “Who in the days ^C of his flesh, having offered up both prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death, with a loud cry and tears, was heard for his reverence.” Did I then say that God the Word offered prayers and supplications, and with a loud cry to someone who could save Him, and was heard for His reverence, and learned obedience from the things which He suffered? If, therefore, God the Word is high priest, and learned from the things He suffered, and was made perfect, let not your mind be troubled, hearing concerning Him who suffered: “Although He was a Son.” For we do not posit two sons, the one who suffered and the one who remained impassible; for He who is from the seed of David is not named Son separately and exclusively of the godhead, just as the godhead is not called Son after the union ^D without the visible flesh; for the sonship after the union is one to both natures, since they are not separated from one another. For after the union no separation took place; for the union remains eternal. But even in the sufferings of the flesh, the godhead was inseparable, remaining impassible; and the things that are becoming to God were performed through the flesh: whence we confess one and the same Son, the natures remaining unconfused; not saying one and another, God forbid, but one and the same. Therefore, [we proclaim] our high priest and apostle Jesus Christ according to the divine Scriptures

yet not as a man separated individually from the Word of God the Father, born of a woman, so that that which is from the seed of David is joined unconfusedly, ineffably, and inseparably to the Word begotten of the Father, being a high priest tested in all things without sin, and having learned obedience from the things which he suffered; who offered his own flesh to God and the Father not for himself, but for us alone. For we shall not be speaking ignorantly when we say that the Word of God is high priest, and that he offered himself to God and the Father: for the Father is not God of the godhead of the Only-begotten, but Father.

Cyril's Defense

Again, we shall opportunely say to our adversaries: “How long will you limp on both your legs?” For it behooves you to have a mind sound and whole for the accurate understanding of the dogmas of the right faith, not limping on account of double-mindedness, and being very infirm, and not able to walk aright: “For the double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways, and shall receive nothing from the Lord.” And I say this, greatly wondering that our adversaries so shamelessly and rashly wish to criticize even now the proposed anathema. And there is nothing absurd if they do not wish the Word of God the Father to be named by us the apostle and high priest of our confession, since he became man. For those who altogether attempt to calumniate his birth according to the flesh, and dare to reject it as if it were not true, and who do not endure that the holy Virgin be called Mother of God, how will they not also reject the modes of the dispensation? Let them hear, therefore, what Isaiah said: “Unless you believe, you shall not understand.” For the divine evangelist John thundered something great and unusual to those under heaven, saying that the Word was made flesh. But those who steal away the power of the truth say that he was made flesh in such a way as he is understood to have been made a curse and sin. And concerning these we have already spoken, by which it was fitting to show such false and vain arguments. But against the calumniators we say this for the present: Learn to listen, you who are straitened; receive the foundation of the mystery according to Christ, the first beginnings of the dispensation, and, if I may so say, the very entry: believe with us, or rather, [believe] the holy Scriptures; give, give the vote of truth, confessing that the Only-begotten Word of God himself, who is in the bosom of the Father, through whom all things [are], and in whom all things [consist], became flesh, not having suffered conversion or commixtion, but always existing as this according to nature, which he was, and is, and shall be. Moreover, he was made flesh, bearing his birth from the holy Virgin,

I mean the birth according to the flesh; and he has been called Son of Man, and in like manner to us he partook of blood and flesh. To those who are so disposed, and who have embraced such a venerable and most true faith, all things that follow will appear passable and smooth, and there will be nothing steep or rough. For it is written that all things are plain to those who understand, and right to those who find ^A knowledge. I think it necessary even now that we should declare the reason for which the anathema was made. For Nestorius, who stirred up everything, and confounded all things both above and below, said something like this concerning the Savior of us all, Christ: "He was sent to preach liberty to the captives, this one who was made a faithful high priest to God. For he was made, not being so from eternity: this one who gradually progressed to the dignity of high priest, heretically." And he adds many other things to these, bringing forth an impiety that gives birth to its own sister. Who then, having ^B heard such shameful words, would not choose to suffer all things rather than cherish a silence hateful to God? Christ died for us, having despised shame; he endured the cross and death according to the flesh, and shall we not even repay our Benefactor with the service of words in a grateful spirit, but instead sit quietly, listening to such absurd blasphemies, or perhaps even become participants in the crime of a tongue stirred up against him? What are you saying, O man? Did he progress to high priest gradually? And yet the Word, ^C being God, emptied himself; the one who is free according to nature took the form of a servant; the one who is beyond every created thing, and shines with the glories of divinity, humbled himself. If, however, he progressed, in what manner was he emptied? Or how did he lower himself to humiliation? Would anyone then say that this emptying was a means of gaining for him honor and glory? But then how is his emptying still a preliminary matter? But yes, he says, if the Word himself from God the Father became high priest, who then is greater than he, and whom does ^D he serve by his priestly ministry? Therefore I will say again: Believe that although he was God by nature, and the Son in the form of the Father, he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. If, therefore, he was made man, and took the form of a servant, how will it be judged small, and incongruous with the reasons of the dispensation, to be called and to be both apostle and high priest? And how would he, who did not despise the measure of our humanity, count human things as things to be rejected? And it would perhaps be not at all difficult to continue with more words, and to prolong the account for this purpose. But having left this aside for the present, I shall bring forward their own statements. For they have written thus: "But let not your mind be disturbed, hearing about him who suffered:

...

^A although he is the Son." For we do not speak of two sons, the one who suffered, and the one who remained impassible. For the Son from the seed of David is not named Son separately and apart from the Deity; just as neither is the Deity, after the union, called Son without the visible flesh. And again: "Whence we confess one and the same Son, the natures remaining unconfused, not saying one and another—far be it!—but one and the same." That our Lord Jesus Christ has become our High Priest and Apostle according to the divine Scriptures, no one would fail to confess, who does not separate the man from the woman from the Word of God the Father. Therefore, if they say there is one Son, in no way dividing him into two—the one from the seed of David and the other the Word from God the Father—how do they not injure the mystery, partitioning the dispensation between God and man, instead of saying ^B rather that the one and the same is both God and man, so that all things are his, both the divine things and the human? For whenever anything that most especially teaches of God is said about him, we say that this is also entirely true; for we know him to be God. And if some human thing is spoken, we will admit this too; for we confess that he is God in flesh and blood, and we recognize the measure of humanity through human things. For thousands of thousands of holy angels minister to him, and the Seraphim stand around his divine throne. But when he became man, he was also called high priest; not that he might offer sacrifice to a greater God, but because he was procuring ^C for himself and for the Father the confession of our faith. Do you blush to hear that he is called priest because of his humanity? Then how have you not marvelled that he did not perform the mode of sacrifice to another, as is the custom of priests, but rather to himself and to the Father, as I said? When you say it is unworthy of God to offer sacrifice, I too agree. But if the Word were alone and without flesh, you would speak rightly; but since he has become flesh, see both him who offers sacrifice because of his humanity, and him who is in dignities beyond the creature, as God; for he sits with God and the Father. Therefore, see him both offering sacrifice according to his humanity, and sitting as God. For what does the blessed Paul say? "We have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. viii, 1). Knowing, therefore, that being God he has become man, and ^D that it is one and the same Son, we shall attribute all things to him as to one; and we shall not be ignorant of the modes of the dispensation, ever prudently and wisely turning the force of our thoughts toward obedience to him.

ANATHEMISM XI. If any one shall deny that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and the proper flesh of the Word himself who is from God the Father;

but [shall say that it belongs to] some other one beside him, joined to him in dignity, or as having only a divine indwelling, and not rather life-giving, as we have said, in that it has become the proper flesh of the Word who has power to make all things alive; let him be anathema.

Opposition of the Orientals.

It is well to confess that the Lord’s flesh has become the proper [flesh] of the Word through the union, provided, however, that one understands it to have been assumed from among us. But it is superfluous to add: "And not of any other person beside him," unless perhaps he denies that it was assumed from among us. For to say "proper" frequently is characteristic of one who denies that the Lord’s flesh is of our nature. And where then is our boasting? "Through whom," says Paul, "did he raise us up and seat us together?" For whose other man’s flesh is that of any individual? Does not each one of us have flesh common to everyone else by the principle of consubstantiality, yet proper in that what belongs to each person is not of another, except for the one whose flesh it is? What then does he mean by saying "proper," as if saying something other [than this]? For if he understands the Lord’s flesh to have been taken from our nature, and understands that the flesh of any individual is the proper flesh of the one whose flesh it is, and not of another, why does he call it "proper" in such a way that it is not of a stranger? Or is it manifest that under a veil of words he does not mean that it was taken from our nature, as he says more clearly in his first tome: "And the infant," he says, "was not according to us—that is, not in simple and mere similarity to us, but [in] humanity because of the flesh, yet divine as being above us and from heaven"? And again in his second tome he says: "For his body was not that of any other of those like us, but rather the proper body of the Word himself who is from the Father, born of her." For who ever said that the Lord’s flesh was made from any other of the men from of old, such as Abel, or Noah, or Elijah, or any of the men from of old? We are defining regarding the Lord’s flesh not only that it was not made for any other of the men from of old, but is the proper and only [flesh] of the Lord himself, which has been inconfusedly and inseparably united to God the Word; but neither is the flesh of each one of us ever, as we said, that of any other, except for the one whose flesh it is. This, then, being acknowledged by all the children of the Church, what does he mean by constantly calling it "proper," unless perhaps he excludes it from being of our nature? And how does he even forbid it to be said that it is joined to him according to dignity and authority, ^D when he himself says in his first tome: "For thus we also have been enriched by his poverty, human nature in him being raised to a dignity becoming to God"? But let us say to him, who is at odds even with himself: If, therefore, the natures remain unconfused, and the union also remains; and we say that those...

^A adorations, and powers, and dignities, and authorities are to be offered as to one Son, the natures remaining unconfused in the union: what other thing remains, or more precisely characterizes the union, other than what we shall grant and agree to, outside of the confusion of the natures? But it is evident that nothing suffices him for the supreme union, unless he confuses the natures. But we, on the other hand, shall preserve the natures as being unconfused, and shall confess the union to be supreme, and divine, and incomprehensible to us, offering all things for glorification as to God and one Son, and saying to him the voice of the blessed Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Cyril's Defense

The crowds of the Jews were sometimes stirred to wicked wrath, having their minds wounded by the shafts of envy. ^B Since, however, upon these things they were also bringing impious hands upon the Savior of us all, Christ, he urged them to speak the reasons for such audacity, saying: "Many good works I have shown you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?" But they were brought to such a rashness and impiety of thoughts that they even attempted to bind him with accusations of blasphemy. For they said: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." But the Savior said to them: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, ^C do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" We, however, diligently examining the manner of the mission, concerning which it is spoken of here in the divine Scriptures, gather knowledge of this matter. Therefore, he himself says through the voice of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind." And we say that the Son was sent by the Father, having become man; for the name and the reality of the mission correspond ^D extremely well and quite rightly to the measures of the emptying. He was sent, as I said, not as a Word from God the Father stripped and without flesh, but rather having undergone the birth according to the flesh, that is, having taken a body from the holy Virgin, and having united this to himself ineffably and unconfusedly, as we have said many times, "The Lord God has appeared to us," according to the Scriptures. We say, therefore, that the body became the Word's own, and not that of any man separately and apart, as if Christ and the Son were understood as some other person besides him. And just as the body of each one of us is called our own, which properly belongs to him, so also in the one Christ it is to be understood. For

although it is related ^A to our bodies, that is, is consubstantial (for it was born of a woman), it is understood and called his own, as I said. But because the Word who is from God the Father is life by nature, he made his own flesh life-giving; and for this reason, it has become a life-giving blessing for us. And so Christ said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the living bread that came down from heaven, and giving life to the world"; and again: "And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world"; and again: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Observe, therefore, how everywhere he calls the body that was taken from the woman his own, because of the ultimate union.

Since this is the principle of the mystery, Nestorius again says in his exposition: (Listen, he says, attending to the words: "He who eats, he says, my flesh." Remember that the discourse is about flesh, and that the name of flesh was not added by me, lest I seem to them to interpret perversely: "He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood." Did he say: He who eats my divinity, and drinks my divinity? "He who eats my flesh, says he, and drinks my blood, he abides in me and I in him." Remember that what is said is about the flesh. But sometimes I interpret perversely. Let us hear from what follows: "As the living Father sent me." He says the divinity, I the humanity. Let us see who is interpreting perversely: "As the living Father sent me." The heretic says the divinity here. But does he say: "The living Father sent me, God the Word, as they think, and I, God the Word, live on account of the Father"? Then after this, and again: "And he who eats me, he also will live." What are we eating? The divinity or the flesh?)

Now, a long discourse has already been held by us concerning such absurdities and the trifles so rashly uttered by him. But what he may mean ^C when he says that God the Word was not sent, having been incarnate and made man; and again, what is visible, as he himself says, he places separately and dividedly; I cannot say, or rather, it is already a manifest quibble. For he destroys the mode of union, so that the body of Christ is found to be common, no longer truly the own body of the Word who has the power to make all things live. ^D Undoubtably, all human things are indeed small for God the Word; but because he deigned for our sake to endure the saving emptying for the world, even if he be said to be sent to preach release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, he is glorified all the more as one who brought with him the lowliness of the dispensation in the flesh; and no one, I suppose, who is wise, would reproach him for having humbled himself among us on our account. Or is it that he asserts this visible one to be some other Son and Christ besides that Word from God, to whom alone the mission and the apostolate

have been allotted, he does not turn our mystery into anthropophagy, ^A nor does he impiously represent the mind of the believers as leading to obsolete conceptions, nor does he attempt to subject it to human reasonings, which are apprehended only by faith, all curiosity being set aside? For one should not say that, because the nature of the Godhead is not eaten, for this reason the holy body of Christ is common. It is necessary to know that, as we have said before, it is the own body of the Word who vivifies all things; and because it is the body of life, it is vivifying. For this reason it infuses life into our mortal bodies, and thus also destroys the power of death. But the holy Spirit of Christ also vivifies us in an equal manner; for the Spirit is that which vivifies, ^B according to the voice of the Savior himself. It will not, however, be troublesome—lest I appear to be alone in calling it the own body of the Word—to also adduce the sentiments of the holy Fathers, so that our adversaries may know that they declaim in vain against us, since we follow their voices everywhere. Our most celebrated Father and bishop Athanasius says, therefore, in his discourse on the holy Trinity: "And it was shown that he possessed a body, not in appearance, but truly. For it was fitting that the Lord, clothing himself in human flesh, should clothe himself in this entirely with its own passions; so that, just as we say the body is his own, so also the passions of the body may be said to be his own alone, even though they did not touch his Godhead." ^C And again: "These things we have necessarily examined beforehand, so that if we see him acting or speaking divinely through his own body as through an instrument, we may know that it is God who is working these things." And these things are from our blessed Father Athanasius. However, even if the body is called the Word's own, it is nevertheless from a woman and akin to us, insofar as it is understood as flesh. Indeed, the blessed Paul says: "The first man is from the earth, earthly; the second is from heaven." And Christ himself: "No one has ascended into heaven," he says, "except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man." ^D Yet we assert that the Word does not say these things as if bringing with him from heaven the body that was united to him; but rather, since he exists from above and from heaven, he made the body that was united to him—ineffably and incomprehensibly, immutably and without confusion—his own. For this reason, he says he is from heaven, even when he has become the Son of man. Since, therefore, our argument is upright and blameless, what cause for fault-finding will those who wish to disparage us have, if our anathema resists the blasphemies of certain people, setting truth against a lie? I think, for my part, that I have in no way departed from the right path by having said that Christ is above us. For although the Word of God has become man, he is yet, even so, not merely above us humans, but

the same one is again God from above, and from heaven.

Anathematism XII

Opposition of the Orientals

and indeed into a state of undergoing its own passion. ^A Moreover, the divine will desires what is fitting for it. And what, he says, is more fitting than to save the human race? And how was the human race to be fully saved, if it were itself to pass into impassibility, or [if it were to] drag down the divine and impassible nature into passion? For in every way, as the stronger, it [the divine] would have changed the impassible into its own passibility. And what benefit is there for that which is passible, if even the impassible becomes passible? But the salvation of the passible nature is not the association of the impassible with it in passion; for this would be an increase of evil rather than its removal; for one thing is not removed by that which is similar, but increased. What then is the salvation of the passible? As we have said, it is not the association of the impassible with it in passion, but the transition of it [the passible nature] toward the impassible: which the Master Christ has also accomplished, not by being cast down himself in his divinity to passion, but by raising up all humanity through his holy flesh to a height, drawing that which was lying on the ground up into the heavens, ^B and deigning to give [to it] the adoption of sons, which it formerly lacked. And who was it that was entirely a debtor to [owe] the death which is from disobedience? Human nature, of course, not the divine. To whom, therefore, was it logical to pay the death from disobedience? To the human [nature], not the divine.

Cyril’s Defense.

The power of truth is truly wonderful, and experience is its witness. For there is no need for me to use a long speech for my defense, that is, to persuade those who have been deceived—thinking that we say the divine nature of the Word is passible—since our adversaries ^C have themselves once and for all voluntarily confessed, and that quite clearly, that we are alien to such charges and are far from those things attributed to us. But since they have put forward an ungrounded assumption, as they please, without foresight, and by using bitter inventions of their thoughts, they try to demonstrate the sharpness of their own sagacity, and reinforce very vehemently that the Word of God is impassible by his own nature; let them hear from us, with no one opposing them on our part, that they are boxing in vain and beating the air, while no one even thinks the opposite. Why, then, do they toil in vain and contend to no purpose? Who is so thunderstruck as to define the most eminent substance of all as passible, and to dare to thrust down that which is beyond every created being, and is incorporeal, into the infirmity of the passions? ^D But because the account of the mystery recognizes the Son, who is by nature the Only-begotten from God the Father, as having been made man from a woman by dispensation, and affirms that the holy body taken from the blessed Virgin is his own; for this reason we say with the best right that the passions of the flesh are his by way of a dispensatory appropriation, while his nature remains impassible everywhere.

^A For he is God from God. When, therefore, it is said that he suffered in the flesh, it is not understood that he suffered in his own nature, in which he is God, but rather that he appropriates the suffering to himself; for the body that was united to him became his own, as I just said. For this reason, also, the divine Paul says that the very one through whom and in whom the Father made all things became the firstborn from the dead. He writes as follows: "Giving thanks to the Father, who has made us fit to share in the inheritance of the saints in light; who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and all things consist in him, and he is the head of the body of the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might have the primacy. For it has pleased [the Father] that in him all the fullness of the divinity should dwell bodily, and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." ^B Observe, then, how, while he says that all things were created through him, visible and invisible, thrones and powers, he affirms that he was given as head to the Church and became the firstborn from the dead, and that all things were reconciled through him unto himself, and pacified through the blood of his cross, whether they be things on earth or things in heaven. Does anyone, therefore, still doubt after this, and fear in vain, lest the discourse on the mystery should declare the Son's nature to be passible when it is said that he suffered in the flesh? For he makes, as I said, the sufferings of his own body his own. It seemed good to the holy Peter to think this when he said: "Christ, therefore, having suffered in the flesh for us." For it is one thing to say that he suffered in the flesh, and quite another to say likewise that he suffered in the nature of his divinity. ^C For since the same is both God and man at once, impassible indeed insofar as it pertains to the nature of his divinity, but passible according to his humanity, what is absurd here, if he is said to suffer in that which is apt to suffer, while he remained impassible in that which cannot suffer? That the chorus of holy Fathers also excelled in such faith, we shall learn from what they themselves have written, keeping the commandment of the Savior. For they remembered him saying: "Freely you have received, freely give."

Of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa

"Let this mind be in you," he says, "which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, did not ^D

^A count equality with God a matter to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." What can be said that is more abject than the form of a servant upon God? What is more lowly regarding the King of all, than that He should voluntarily come into communion with our poor nature? The King of kings, and the Lord of lords, is clothed in the form of a servant; the Judge of all becomes subject to those in power; the Lord of creation is brought low in a cave; He who holds all things in the palm of His hand finds no place in the inn, but is laid in a manger of brute animals; the pure and unpolluted One does not turn away from the filth of human nature, and having passed through all our poverty, He proceeds even to the experience of death. Behold the measure of this voluntary poverty! Life tastes of death; the Judge is led to the tribunal; the Lord of the life of all beings is subjected to the sentence of one who sits in judgment; the King of all the supercelestial powers does not disdain the hands of executioners. To this, he says, let the measure of your humility look as an example.

Of Basil, Bishop of Caesarea

For not so much do heaven and earth, and the expanses of the seas, and the living creatures that dwell in the lands and in the waters, and plants, and stars, and air, and the times of the year, and the varied adornment of the whole universe, demonstrate the excellence of His power, as does the ability of God, the immense and infinite One, to be impassibly ^B joined through the flesh to death, that He might bestow upon us, by His own passion, impassibility.

Of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

And it was demonstrated that He had a body not in appearance, but in truth. For it was fitting that the Lord, clothing Himself with this human flesh, should together with it put on its totality with its own passions, so that as we call the body His own, so also the passions of the body might be called His alone, even if they did not touch His divinity. For if the body were another’s, the passions would be said to be that other’s as well; but if the flesh is the Word’s—for "the Word became flesh" (John 1, 14)—it is necessary that the passions of the flesh also be said to be His, whose flesh it is. For of whom the passions are spoken—such as are ^C primarily being condemned, being scourged, thirsting, and the cross, and death, and other infirmities of the body—of Him also is the merit and the grace. Therefore, it is rightly and fittingly said that such passions belong not to another, but to the Lord, so that both the grace may be from Him, and we may not become idolaters, but may be true worshippers of God, because we invoke no creature, nor some common man, but the natural and true Son of God, who became man, yet is nonetheless the same Lord and God and Savior.

It is sufficient, then, for assurance, as I think, to those who are wise, that the proposed texts be set before them, since the divine law declares explicitly: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." ^A If, however, anyone wishes to contend further even after this, let him hear from us: "Go your way on your own path"; but we shall follow the divine Scriptures and the faith of the holy Fathers. For thus shall we gain the prize of the upward calling in Christ, through whom, and with whom, to God and the Father, be glory with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

OF SAINT CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

LETTER TO EUOPTIUS

Against the refutation of the twelve chapters edited by Theodoret

^B Cyril to the most reverend and most beloved brother and fellow-minister Euoptius, greeting in the Lord.

I have read the letters sent by your piety, and I have admired both the affection and the sincerity of your love in ^C Christ; and therefore I think that what is said in the book of Proverbs must indeed be said even now as having been truly written: "A brother helped by a brother is like a fortified city." And it seems to me that the possession of love is held in the highest regard in the divinely inspired Scriptures, and with very good reason: for it contains the fullness of the Law, and it excels the other virtues, and it is held in great wonder among the souls of the saints. We say, however, that it is fulfilled not in bare and mere utterances of words, but when it is confirmed by the testimony of deeds. For just as the most precious of stones, which they say are also Indian, are admired by those who see them not from what might be said about them, but from what they are, in the same way, I think, the splendor of love ^D

^A is revealed through the very good works ^B attested to by all. Your Piety makes much of this, proceeding in the footsteps of the saints’ state of mind, and weaving the glory of their manner of life into your own ^C as a source of pride. I have also now received, for the assurance of the disposition that is in your Piety, the volume which has been sent, which Theodoret of Cyrrhus ^D is said to have composed against the anathemas—for this is how they say the small city is called. Upon having perused the contents, I offered to God hymns of thanksgiving, nor have I ceased saying this: “O Lord, deliver my soul from unjust lips, and from a deceitful tongue.” 63 For I find myself slandered everywhere, and enduring this in the case of every one of the chapters. I have, however, reflected that although, as some of our acquaintances say, the man is not without experience in so far as one might speak of discourse, and perhaps having gathered no small knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, he has wandered so far from understanding the power of the chapters that I am now led to think and believe that he feigns ignorance to indulge the desires of certain people, so that he might not appear to have used insults against us unseasonably and superfluously, but rather opportunely and appropriately; although there is nothing at all difficult or steep, as I think, in the things said by us, nor does it have an inaccessible meaning. Since, however, it was necessary, even though we have already written about these things, to say a few words toward him as well—lest anyone think that I have chosen silence as one who has been condemned—I shall make my defense, using as much brevity of speech as possible. He ought, indeed, since he is exercised in the Holy Scriptures, if his intention was at all to deal with us concerning the divine mysteries, to make mention only of the Holy Scriptures, and to weave his exposition religiously, and not to bring forward and introduce to us ancient and rotten fables. For he compares my words to the apple of discord, perhaps to display by that means how much wisdom he has acquired for himself. Whence even we, regarding the things pertinent to him, proceed with the greatest admiration; for he declares himself to be most eloquent and multifariously learned, inasmuch as he is not ignorant of the apple of discord, nor of Priam’s son, Paris. But, having set these things aside for the present, we shall rather apply ourselves to the subject at hand.

THE EPISTLE OF THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRRHUS, TO JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH

^A I was deeply grieved when I read the anathemas that you sent, in which you commanded us to refute them in writing and to lay bare their heretical meaning to all. I was grieved that a man who has been allotted the office of shepherding and who has been entrusted with such a flock, and who has been commanded to attend to the infirmities of the sheep, should be sick himself, and very severely so, yet should attempt to infect the lambs with his disease, and makes those he is shepherding more wretched than wild beasts. For while they tear apart and devour those which are scattered and separated from the flock, he, being in the midst of it, and reputed to be a savior and guardian, introduces a hidden error to those who obey him. For that which openly makes war is easily guarded against, but that which offers its treachery under the guise of friendship finds the one against whom it makes war off-guard, and easily inflicts injury upon him; hence those who fight from within are more wicked than those who fight from without.

This saddened me all the more, that one who stands in the name and guise of piety, and holds the office of a shepherd, should erupt into heretical and blasphemous expressions, and should renew the long-extinguished, vain, and impious doctrine of Apollinarius. ^B Furthermore, that he should not only hold such views, but also presume to anathematize those who do not consent to his blasphemies; if, indeed, these are truly his own offspring, and not that some enemy of the truth, having composed these as if from him, has cast them into our midst—like the fabled apple of discord—raising the flame to a great height. I, therefore, whether it be he or some other who has composed these as if from his person, having used the light of the most Holy Spirit as a fellow-worker for the investigation of the heretical error, have, according to the measure of the power granted to me, refuted them as much as I was able; and I have set against them the evangelical and apostolic doctrines, and have shown the absurdity of the dogma; and I have made manifest how much it differs from the divine dogmas, by weighing them against the utterances of the Holy Spirit, and teaching how they are inconsistent and ^C alien to the things of God.

Regarding the audacity of the anathema, however, I will say only this: that Paul, the most resonant herald of the truth, dared to anathematize even angels if they had corrupted the evangelical and apostolical teachings, but he did not do so to those who remain in the decrees handed down by the theologians; for such ones—even if they [the angels] themselves...

he fortified with blessings, saying: “As many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. vi, 16). Let the author of such words, therefore, reap from the apostolic curse the rewards of his own labors, and the sheaves of heretical seeds; but we shall remain in the doctrine of the holy Fathers. Moreover, I have appended to this epistle the refutations that have been made, so that, having read and examined them, you may see if we have ^B strenuously solved the heretical problems. And having set forth each of the anathemas by itself, I have brought forward the refutation, so that understanding may be easy for those who encounter it, and the exposure of the doctrines may be clear.

OF CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.

Against those who dare to champion the doctrines of Nestorius as though they were right, TWELVE CHAPTERS.

ANATHEMA I.

The reproach of the twelve chapters by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus.

who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” It is evident, therefore, from what has been said, that the form of God was not changed into the form of a servant, but remaining what it was, it took the form of a servant. Therefore, the Word of God did not become flesh, but assumed flesh that was living and endowed with reason; he himself was not naturally conceived, formed, and fashioned by the Virgin, and did not take from thence the beginning of existence—he who is before the ages, and is God, and is with God, and is with the Father, and is acknowledged and worshipped with the Father; but, forming a temple for himself in the virginal womb, he dwelt with that which was formed and born. For which reason we also call that holy Virgin ^B Theotokos, not as having given birth to God by nature, but as having given birth to the human being united to the God who formed him. But if the one formed in the womb of the Virgin is not a human being, but the Word of God, who is before the ages, then the Word of God is a product of the Spirit. For, says Gabriel, “That which is born of her is of the Holy Spirit.” But if the only-begotten Word of God is uncreated, and consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, he is no longer a product or creature of the Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit did not form the Word of God in the womb of the Virgin, it remains to understand the form of the servant as having been formed, and fashioned, and conceived, and born by nature. Since, however, it was not naked of the form of God, but was a temple having the Word of God as an inhabitant, according to the voice of Paul: ^C “For in him,” he says, “it pleased all the fullness of the godhead to dwell bodily,” we call the Virgin not Anthropotokos, but Theotokos, giving the name to the one because of the forming, and fashioning, and union, and to the other because of the union. For this reason also the child born is called Emmanuel, neither God separated from human nature, nor a human being stripped of divinity; for Emmanuel is interpreted as “God with us,” according to the voice of the Gospels; and the phrase, “God with us,” signifies both the one taken from us for our sake, and proclaims the Word of God who has assumed him. Therefore, the child is Emmanuel because of the God who has assumed him, and the Virgin is Theotokos because of the union of the form of God to the form of the servant that was conceived; for the Word of God was not turned into flesh, but the form of God took the form of a servant. ^D

Cyril's Defense

^A who became flesh, that is, man. But the accuser of these things, which are so rightly said, if he does not know Emmanuel to be truly God, if he does not know that the Word of God became flesh according to the Scriptures and was born according to the flesh from the holy Virgin, why did he not rather say clearly: "What are you doing, most noble sir? You are vomiting forth absurd and contrary voices; why do you childishly insult the dogmas of the truth? Emmanuel is not God in truth, nor is the holy Virgin the Mother of God"? So that we, resisting the one shouting and saying these things, might prudently draw upon the divinely inspired Scripture, and bring forward against him the tradition of the apostolic and evangelical faith and the confession of the Fathers who were long ago gathered at Nicaea, ^B and thus convince him that the attack he attempts against our statements is neither correct nor honorable, but rather that he is impudently fighting against the divine Scriptures. But this wise and astute interpreter passes over those things which were fitting and necessary to say, and, not thinking at all of such things, he heads down another path. For he turns immediately to the necessity of arguing that the Word of God is above conversion, and that He was not transformed into the nature of flesh—as if the anathema confirmed this, and he wished to show it. Let him therefore hear—he who knows not at all how to meet those things against which he argues: "You speak superfluously, O man, and you set yourself against a doctrine that is hateful even to us. For we know that the divine and supreme nature does not suffer the shadow of conversion, nor did the Word of God, ceasing to be what He is, pass into the nature of flesh." ^C But since he says that the form of a servant was assumed from the form of God, let him come forward and teach us if the forms, apart from subsistences, came together with each other solely and by themselves. But, I think, he will immediately overthrow himself by this; for it is not just non-subsistent likenesses and forms that came together with one another through the dispensational union, but a concurrence of things, that is, of subsistences, took place, so that the reason for the incarnation might be believed to have truly occurred. Therefore, if we say that the Word became flesh, we do not say that confusion, commingling, conversion, or alteration occurred around Him, but rather that He was united ineffably and inexpressibly to a body having an intellectual soul. But that which is said to be united is not immediately confused; instead, it rather assumes another. We affirm, therefore, that the Word who is from God the Father assumed holy and ensouled flesh, ^D and, having been united in truth without confusion, He proceeded from her womb as man, yet remained even so true God; and for this reason the holy Virgin is Mother of God. But I consider it superfluous to imagine that she should also be called mother of a man. For if there were some, out of great insanity, saying that the nature of the Word had flesh as a kind of fountain and principle of His own existence, perhaps there would have been some argument, not absurd or to be despised, for those wishing to call her mother of man also.

^A Since however such an opinion is abominable and hateful to all, and the holy Virgin is understood to be the Mother of God in no other way than if one accepts the faith that the Word from God the Father became flesh, that is, man—for the holy Virgin did not, as I have said, give birth to a naked divinity—what is the use of the objection of those who say that she ought to be called Mother of Man as well? But, as it seems, some poisonous machination has been invented by them against Christ. For they cannot endure to think or say that He who is the Son before the ages from God and the Father was, in the last times of the age, united inconfusedly and immutably from the womb to flesh having a rational soul, and thus became man like us; but they hasten to proclaim Him as having God inhabiting Him like one of the saints, and seek to persuade others to think this, not considering that the God of all is in us also through the Spirit, ^B as in holy temples. For it is written: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is holy, which you are." But even if we are called temples of God, having God inhabiting us through the Spirit, yet we know another mode of the mystery concerning Christ; for we assert that the flesh was united to the Word of God in truth, clearly having a rational soul within it. I would gladly inquire of him: does he say that the union of the Word to the human part, or rather to the holy body, which was also endowed with an intelligent soul, was truly accomplished, or does he, along with others, say that it was by a relative conjunction of a servile and non-subsistent form to a subsistent and divine form, ^C or in another manner, according to the mere homonymy of sonship and according to an equality of honors? If indeed any other such mode of connection is thought of. But in truth, as it seems, I am vexed in vain; I have made the inquiry superfluously, having his own words and clear confession. For in the first chapter he says in these very words: "For this reason, the infant born is called Emmanuel, neither God separated from human nature, nor man stripped of divinity." He ought, of course, to have been fond of making an accurate and polished explanation concerning these matters. Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out this much for now: for see, here and most clearly, he himself, interpreting the union, asserts that God was not separated from human nature; he also confesses ^D that he knows Christ to be one according to the economic union, being, that is to say, the same One who is both God and man at once. How then does he not blush, when he criticizes the things we have said?

ANATHEMA II

Theodoret’s Refutation

Cyril’s Defense

By this term, we declare nothing else than that the nature of the Word alone—that is, the hypostasis, which is the Word himself—was truly united to human nature without any conversion or confusion, as we have said many times; so that one Christ is understood and is [truly] the same God and man. This, as I suppose, appears correct even to Theodoret himself, who says that God is not separated from human nature, nor can the human be understood apart from the Godhead. Therefore, we do not say that the form of a servant and the form of God were united apart from the hypostases, nor do we define that a common man, honored only by an equality of dignities, was joined to the Word by a relative [external] connection. Rather, as I said, we say that the only-begotten Son of God himself, having truly become man in the assumption of the flesh united to him—which possesses a rational soul—remained also God.

But that man, skilled in speech and practiced in speculation, chooses to define the word as signifying a "mixture," and dares to say and bring forward the absurdities that follow from such a "mixture," as if we were ignorant of them; or perhaps he likes to please himself and delights in the abundance and ornamentation of his words. Perhaps he thinks of nothing else but the reputation that he can speak at length; and, taking as true what has been said by no one, he wishes to appear to those who do not know how to judge correctly as one who distinguishes who is speaking rashly and lying, and who is traveling the straight path of truth and using wise and necessary arguments. ^B In the beginning, I confess, I thought that he did not actually ignore the meaning of the chapters, but—as I said—that he only pretended to be ignorant, in order to please certain people; but I find now that he is truly ignorant of them.

ANATHEMA III

Theodoret’s Refutation

^A We are thirsty by nature, we sleep by nature, we breathe the air by nature; all these are among the things not subject to our will, as I have said; for he who does not admit any of these, must necessarily meet the end of life. If, therefore, the union of the form of God and the form of a servant has become natural, then it was by some necessity that God the Word was constrained—not by acting out of loving-kindness—to be joined to the form of a servant; and thus the Lawgiver of all would be found following the laws of necessity. But the blessed Paul did not teach us these things, but quite the contrary, that he emptied himself, having taken the form of a servant; and that "he emptied himself" [Ps. CXVII, 20 indicates footnote, but omitted as per instructions] demonstrates ^B a voluntary act. If, therefore, by plan and will he was united to the nature assumed from us, the addition of the word "natural" is redundant; for it suffices to confess the union. But union is perceived within things that are distinct; for a union can never be understood unless there was division. Therefore, he who accepts a union, presupposes division. How then does he say that one must not divide the subsistences, or natures? And this, knowing that the perfect subsistence of God the Word existed before the ages, and from it the perfect form of a servant was assumed; for this reason he said "subsistences," and not "a subsistence." If, therefore, each nature has perfection, and yet both have come together into the same—the form of God, that is, having taken to itself the form of a servant—it is pious to confess one person ^C and one Son and Christ, yet to speak of the two united subsistences, or natures, is not absurd, but follows from the cause. For if in one human being we divide the natures, and call the one the mortal body and the other the immortal soul, and yet call both "man," much more is it reasonable to recognize the properties of the natures of the God who assumes and the man who is assumed. We find, moreover, that the blessed Paul also divides the one man into two men, saying at one time: "As the outward man is corrupted, so the inward is renewed" [II Cor. IV, 16.], and at another: "I delight in the law of God after the inward man" [Rom. VII, 22.], and again: "That Christ may dwell in the inward man" [Ephes. III, 17.]. But if the Apostle divides the natural combination of coeval natures, how does he—the one who teaches us of the union by other names—accuse of impiety those who divide the properties of the natures of the pre-eternal God and of the man assumed in these last days? ^D

Cyril's Defense

wishes to be ^A understood as a most clear account. Moreover, he erroneously imagines that our argument insists that it should be called a "concourse" and not rather a "copulation." Then, displaying his own cleverness, he declares to us that the meaning in the things signified is one and the same, even if one were to say that a concourse or a copulation had taken place. I, however, in this also admire his keenness of mind and counsel; for he alone, it seems, knows what is unknown to no one anywhere, and it is so trite that it is evident even to those who are altogether lacking in worldly wisdom, and practiced speaking, and that knowledge which is gathered only mediocrely and with little diligence from imperfect hearing. Having therefore admired his scholarship, I say this: ^B O you who open your mouth wide against us, awaken a little, as if from sleep and drunkenness, and behold the mystery subtly. Some slander the union which is in Christ, twisting it aside into what is unseemly and into what seems to them contrary to the purpose of the holy Scriptures. For they say that the natures are divided from one another and are in every way separated and distinct, each being by itself and in part; they argue that man is thus joined to God relatively, according to dignity alone, that is, authority, or according to the mere name of sonship. This opinion the anathema destroys, and it stands against such detestable empty utterances. For it asserts that the Word was united according to nature—that is, not relatively, but in truth—to the holy flesh possessing a rational soul, and that he must in no way be divided, ^C so that we do not imagine two sons, partitioning the indivisible. But he, not understanding what a natural union is—that is, a true one, not confusing the natures, nor mixing them so that each must be otherwise than it is—takes up a certain puerile and cold argument to prove things he assumes to be sound, and he says: If the union has taken place naturally, the emptying of the Word was not voluntary, but as if by force and necessity; for nature is wont to compel. And to this one might say to him: Hunger and thirst and the rest, as you yourself said, would be natural infirmities of the flesh, and they have their motion within us because we possess a nature subject to passions. But the divine and ineffable nature of the Word of God, being altogether ^D incapable of passion and necessity, has not been constrained by anyone, nor by itself, to the end that it should involuntarily become flesh, that is, appropriate to itself the measure of humanity, and take hold of the seed of Abraham. That his argument has become utterly reckless is not difficult for those who wish to see it. For he said that in all ways and entirely, things that are according to nature will be subject to the laws of necessity; and he brought forward as a demonstration that against our will we hunger and

^A receive thirst, because nature calls us to this, even if one should be unwilling. But it became a man who is learned, and who has a mind sharpened for these things, to see even the solid substance of matters, which would deservedly be deemed worthy of greater discourse. For if it is not true that a human being is rational by nature, then it follows that he is rational against his will and by necessity. What then? Tell me, is the God of all not God by nature? Is He not holy, just, good, life, light, wisdom, and power by nature? Is He, therefore, also what He is against His will and as if by necessity? But, I suppose, to choose to think in such a way would not be a non-apparent sign of a mind that has arrived at the limit of madness. Why then does he set up a lie for us as an impregnable and invincible bulwark, and why does he fasten upon such flimsy problems, and when he hears that the union has happened naturally—that is, in a true manner, and free from change, and ^B a completely unconfused coming-together of substances—he attempts to overturn the force of what has been said, so that it appears not to have been done rightly, but according to the likeness which is in us? The bold man is not afraid to subject the nature of the Word to inescapable necessities. He emptied Himself not against His will, but the Only-Begotten became man voluntarily; and he did not, as you say, take up a man, gifting him with a relational union and crowning him with the grace of sonship, as is the case with us. Thus, even if we are given to understand that the substances are made one, and that the Word has become man and been made flesh, and though the union might in some way seem to be called by us "natural"—in order to cast out that which is not true and is only relational, which we have obtained through faith and sanctification, because we have become partakers of the divine nature, ^C just as Paul says: "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit"—yet he does not subject the impassible and free Word of God to natural necessities and constraints. But not to want the united things to be separated into two after the union, and to flow into one another, would be, as it seems to me, entirely blameless and far from fault, especially since the excellent Theodoret himself, having taken as an example the one man who is also understood as such according to us, does not allow him to be cut in two; although the contemplation regarding him does not find the, so to speak, incision and division unacceptable, as far as knowledge is concerned, I say—in that the soul is one thing by nature, and the flesh is another thing according to its own nature. Following the same logic, therefore, as we diligently search out the union which is understood to have taken place in Christ, while contemplating ^D the coming-together of divinity and humanity, we say that a true union has been formed, not ignorant of the fact that the Word from God is one thing by nature according to the flesh, and the flesh is another thing again according to its own nature. But it is not safe to dissect things once they have been united, nor to divide into two sons the one Christ and Son and Lord.

^A And yet the word of truth allows some to distribute the sons—one Christ and Son and Lord—while the holy and divinely inspired Scripture instructs us to this effect. But for his part, he has very little concern indeed for the doctrines of truth; and he studiously avoids, with no little zeal, understanding any of those things which are necessary for profit, just as he avoids those which can cause harm. Rather, as seems likely, he delights in falsehood, and, being well-instructed in calumny, let him hear from us: "Why do you boast in malice, O mighty one? Your tongue has devised iniquity all day long, injustice." ^B

ANATHEMATISM IV.

If anyone attributes to two persons or hypostases the expressions that occur throughout the Evangelical and Apostolic Scriptures, or those spoken by the saints concerning Christ, or by Christ himself concerning himself; and assigns some of these to the Word of God the Father by considering him separately as man, while adapting others as befitting God only to the Word from God the Father: let him be anathema.

Theodoret’s Retaliation.

These things also are related and similar to those already spoken; for he wishes—as if a blending had taken place—that there be no difference in the words spoken in the holy Gospels and the apostolic writings, and he prides himself, perhaps, that he is warring against Arius and Eunomius and the other heresiarchs. Let that most diligent teacher of divine dogmas say, then, how he would refute the blasphemy of the heretics while he attaches to the Word of God those things that are said humbly and appropriately ^C by the form of a servant. For they, by doing this, teach that the Son of God is lesser, and a creature, and a work, and a servant, and from non-existence. To whom, then, are we—who think the contrary to them, and who confess that the Son is consubstantial and coeternal with God and the Father, and who acknowledge him as the creator of all things, and maker, and adorner, and governor, and ruler, and all-wise, and omnipotent, or rather, power itself, and life itself, and wisdom itself—to whom, I say, shall we attribute that saying: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and that: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and that: "Father, save me from this hour," and that: "Of that hour no one knows, not even the Son of man," and all the other things that have been said and written humbly by him and by the holy apostles concerning him? To whom shall we attach hunger and thirst? To whom weariness ^D and sleep? To whom ignorance and fear? Who was it that stood in need of angelic assistance? If these things belong to the Word of God, how did wisdom ignore? How could it be called wisdom, the one that has the passion of ignorance? How would he who says...

he has all that belongs to the Father, not possess the knowledge of the Father? ^A “For the Father alone,” he says, “knows that day” (Matt. xxiv, 36). But how would he be the unchangeable image of the One who begot him, if he did not possess all that the Begetter possesses? If, then, he is truthful in saying that he does not know, these things might be supposed about him. But if he knows the day, and by wishing to conceal it, says he is ignorant—see into what blasphemy that conclusion leads! For the Truth would be lying, which could not reasonably be called truth if it had in it anything contrary to the truth. But if the Truth does not lie, nor does God the Word ignore the day which he himself made, which he himself ^B appointed, and in which he is about to judge the world (Acts xvii, 31), but possesses the knowledge of the Father as an unchangeable image, then this ignorance is not the Word of God’s, but that of the form of the servant, which knew as much at that time as the indwelling deity revealed.

These things must also be said concerning other similar passages. For how can it be reasonable to say that God the Word said to the Father: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. xxvi, 39)? For many absurdities arise again from this. And first, that the Father and the Son would be discordant, and that the Father would will one thing and the Son another. For he said: ^C “Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Then, again, we shall see great ignorance in the Son. For he would be found ignorant as to whether or not it was possible for the cup to pass. But to say this of God the Word would be impious and full of blasphemy. He knew full well—he who had come for this very purpose, who had willingly assumed our nature, who had emptied himself—what the end of the mystery of the dispensation would be. Whence he also foretold to the holy apostles: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, to be mocked, and to be scourged, and to be crucified; and the third day he will rise again” (Matt. xx, 18-19). He, therefore, who foretold these things beforehand, ^D and rebuked Peter when he prayed that it might not happen, how does he himself pray that it might not happen, when he clearly knew all that was to come to pass? And how is it not absurd that Abraham, so many generations before, should have seen his day and rejoiced (John viii, 56), and that Isaiah likewise should have foretold his saving passions, and Jeremiah, and Daniel, and Zechariah, and the entire chorus of the prophets, while he himself should be ignorant, and seek deliverance, and pray against what was to be for the salvation of the world? Therefore, these words do not belong to God the Word, but to the form of the servant, which feared death because death had not yet been destroyed; to this form, God the Word permitted these words to be spoken, granting space to the fear, so that the nature of the one born might appear, and that we might not suppose that he who descended from Abraham and David was a phantom.

^C Accordingly, we shall attribute what has been said and done in a manner befitting God to the Word of God; but what has been said and done in a humble manner, we shall adapt to the form of a servant, so that we may not be infected with the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius.

Cyril’s Defense

^D How much better would it be, my friend, if your mind were free from hatred and prejudice, and were to examine the force of what has been said! But you do not care to do this; rather, you force these things back to what pleases you. For you say: "These things, too, are similar to what was already said." You wish, as if a commixtion had taken place, for there to be no difference in the words spoken in the holy Gospels or in the apostolic writings—and this, perhaps, while you boast that you are fighting against Arius and Eunomius and the rest of the heresiarchs. But so much for him. For my part, I am as far from saying that the natures have been mingled together and have undergone commixtion, confusion, and change, as he himself is far from thinking correctly. Nor have we abolished the difference in the words; for we know that some of them were said in a manner befitting God, and others in a human manner; and some of them befit the supreme glory, while others are more appropriate to the measures of the kenosis. We say, however, that they must not be assigned to two persons divided from each other in all respects; for if our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and there is one faith into him, and one baptism, his person will also necessarily be one, as of one being. And since the same one is both God and man at once, it would be fitting for him, without any reproach, to utter the same words, whether they be worthy of God or human; nor is his divine and ineffable nature diminished in any way at all from the excellence of the Father by the fact that he speaks things that taste of humanity, nor is the dispensation with the flesh made void, when he is proclaimed to have become man like us while being God. Therefore, all things belong to the one Christ, both those that befit God and those that relate to humanity. For if the Word who is from God the Father did not become man, let him not speak as a man according to us. But if it is true that he was in like manner a partaker of blood and flesh, and was made like his brothers in all things, that is, like us, why do they most foolishly disparage the artistry of the dispensation, not enduring the human voice, and striving to assign that which is lowly in the words, on account of the dispensation, to another distinct Son, to the form of a servant, as they themselves say? It is, moreover, entirely foolish to pretend that one fears the perverse ways of heretics, and then to carry the tradition of the true faith outside the bounds of proper discourse. I would say it is better, and...

far more learned, to attribute human expressions not to some other person—who might be understood separately and distinctly as the Son, and, as they are accustomed to say, as the form of a servant—but rather to the measures of his humanity. For since he is at once God and man, it is fitting that he should admit of both types of speech. Yet I am amazed at how he himself pretends to confess that Christ is one, that is, the same one who is at once God and man, and yet, as if having fallen into oblivion of the things he deemed to be sound, he divides the one into two again. For he presents the voice of the Savior saying: ^A "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." [Matt. XIII, 32] Then, asserting that the Word born of God the Father is wisdom, and knows all things that shall come to pass, he adds and says: "Therefore, the ignorance is not of the Word of God, but of the form of a servant, which knew at that time only as much as the indwelling divinity revealed." The same thing must be said of other similar matters. ^B Therefore, if you do not lie when you say that there is one Lord and Christ Jesus, himself being clearly both God and man, why do you divide him, and why are you not ashamed to speak of two sons? Or would they not clearly be two, if the one who has a measured knowledge is not the same as the one who knows all things? And if the one receiving a partial revelation is not the one who is perfect in wisdom, and who knows as much as the Father? And if he is one and the same because of the true union, and not one and then another, dividedly and separately, then the knowing, and indeed the appearing not to know, must belong entirely to him. ^C Therefore, he himself knows divinely, as the wisdom of the Father. But because he underwent the measure of an ignorant humanity, he economically appropriates this together with the other things, although, as I said just now, he was ignorant of nothing, but knew all things with the Father. For what reason is he said to hunger, [Matt. IV, 2] and to be wearied from his journey, [John IV, 6] although he is life and the life-giver as God, and is himself the living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world, [John VI, 33] and is likewise the Lord of the powers? But it is so that he might be believed to have truly become man; he appropriates human things to himself, while dwelling stably in the goods of his own nature and unchangeably retaining those things in which he always was, and is, and shall be forever. ^D Moreover, he who says that a revelation was given to the form of a servant by the indwelling God, and that this was measured, makes Emmanuel out to be a prophet for us, and a God-bearing man, and nothing more. But he thinks he is saying something acute and unassailable: "For if it is the Word of God," he says, "who cried out, 'Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me,' [Matt. XXVI, 39] then firstly he disagrees with the Father, and secondly, he does not rightly pray against drinking the cup." And—

to the world, he says, that His passion would bring salvation. Therefore, he says, such voices of the God-Word would not exist. ^B He who is swimming in such spurious thoughts will therefore hear in return from us also: Since then it seems to you that such utterances must be removed from the God-Word and applied solely to the form of a servant, do you not again divide the One into two sons? And who among the wise does not perceive this clearly? For someone might perhaps say, following your thoughts, my good man, that it is neither credible nor consonant with reason for the form of a servant to avoid the passion, and to seem to be at variance with the Father, and indeed with the Word who dwells within it. For it knew, I suppose, that its passion would be a source of salvation to those under heaven, and a provider of life to those who had been conquered by death. It was right, he says, to appear also superior to fear, and prepared to follow divine beckonings. Come, do you not then perceive that you have been talking nonsense rashly? What is this inept levity of ideas? I, for my part, would without any hesitation say that all human things are small for the Word born of God. But I ask, whose emptying is it thought to be, and who took this upon himself voluntarily? For if, as they say, the form of a servant, or he who is of the seed of David, ^C how, or in what manner, has he been emptied, if he was assumed by God? But if the Word himself, who exists in the form and equality of God and the Father, is said to have emptied himself, how then again, or in what manner, has he been emptied, if he avoided the emptying? But the emptying for the God-Word, who knows not change or passion, is to do and to say something human because of the dispensational encounter with the flesh. Although he has become man, the rationale of the sacrament harmed his nature in no way: for he remained what he was, even while lowering himself into humanity for the salvation and life of the world. Therefore, not to two persons, but as to one Christ, and Son, and God, shall we attribute the evangelical and holy apostolic voices, neither diminishing his divine nature and glory because of human things, nor indeed denying the dispensation, but believing that the incarnation of the Word himself was for our sake.

ANATHEMA V

^D If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man bearing God, and not rather that he is God in truth, and one Son, and by nature, in so far as the Word has become flesh and has partaken of blood and flesh in like manner to us; let him be anathema.

Theodoret's rebuttal. We say that the God-Word has partaken, as we have, of blood and flesh and an immortal soul because of the union with these, but the flesh we do not call God-Word,

nor do we say that it has been made ^A by some conversion; not only do we not say this, but we accuse those who do say it of impiety. For this appears to contradict the very statements made. For if the Word was converted into flesh, He did not partake of blood and flesh with us; but if He partook of blood and flesh, He has partaken as one other than these; and if the flesh is something other than Him, He was not Himself converted into flesh. Therefore, using the name of communion, we worship as one Son both Him who assumed and that which was assumed. But we recognize the difference of the natures, and we do not refuse to call Him a "God-bearing man," as has been said by many of the holy Fathers, one of whom is the great Basil in his discourse to Amphilochius concerning the Holy Spirit, where he used this term, as well as in his explanation of the fifty-ninth Psalm. We call Him a God-bearing man, not because He has received some particular divine grace, but because He has the entire Godhead of the Son united to Him. For the blessed Paul, interpreting this, said: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." ^B

Cyril’s Defense[d] It is very easy to show how vainly he prattles here again. For we say that Christ ought not to be named "God-bearing man" by anyone, so that He may not be thought of as one of the saints, but rather as the true God, the Word of God, who has become man and been made flesh. But this man again attacks what has been correctly said, and in various ways speaks monstrously and falsely; for he says that we claim the Word of God was converted into the nature of flesh, and he digs up arguments by which he has striven to show that the Word of God is not convertible. But I, who have said this very often, will now necessarily say it again: Since there is no one who says that the divine and incorruptible nature of the Word has been transformed into earthly flesh, and since all with one consent testify that it is ^C inconvertible, cease from enduring vain labors to convince those who are in no way deceived that the Word of God is by nature inconvertible and immutable. For who is so stupid or insane as to choose to think and say such base things, which might perhaps be rejected even by the foolish themselves? I am astonished, however, that while he asserts everywhere that Emmanuel is God, he is found in these passages to assign a prophetic measure to Him. For he says that He is a God-bearing man, so that He may be seen as similar to us, who have ^D God, the Lord of all, dwelling within us through the Holy Spirit.

^A For He dwells in our hearts, and we are temples of the living God. Nor is it the same thing to say that the Word became man, and to think that God dwells in man. For even if the voice of the blessed Paul is true, that "in Him it pleased all the fullness of the godhead to dwell bodily," that is, not by way of a relationship; yet he says there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. Furthermore, one might say that His Spirit also dwells in man. And indeed it is written concerning some: "But those who inhabit clay houses," from which we ourselves are of the same clay; yet one is understood, and exists according to a composition—a man consisting of both flesh and the rational spirit dwelling within it. Why then does he not cease to pervert the right and undistorted word of the ^B faith? For at one time he calls Him one Christ, and Son, and Lord, the same being both God and man together, and at other times attributes to Him the measure of the prophets, calling Him a God-bearing man. He is perhaps unaware that he is putting Him on an equal footing with us, if He is not truly God, but a temple rather, inasmuch as the Word dwells in Him, just as in us. But the God-inspired Scripture says these things are not so: "For the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," so that no one might think that by change and alteration He was transformed into the nature of His own flesh. But He who became flesh, that is, man, is not a God-bearing man, but rather God, having lowered Himself into a voluntary emptying (κένωσιν), and having made His own the flesh from [the] woman—flesh, I say, not soulless, nor mindless, but ensouled and rational. We are not unmindful that He also called His own body a temple; but He did not make the indwelling relative, ^C as He did also in us through the Spirit, but one Christ, and Son, and Lord is understood according to union.

ANATHEMA VI

If anyone says that the Word of God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be God and man together, inasmuch as the Word became flesh according to the Scriptures; let him be anathema.

Theodoret's Refutation

The blessed Paul calls what was assumed by the Word of God the "form of a servant." But since the assumption preceded the union, and the blessed Paul, discoursing concerning the assumption, called the assumed nature the "form of a servant," it no longer has place, the union having been brought about, the name of servitude. For if the same Apostle, writing to those who had believed in Him, said: "So that you are no longer a servant, but a son" ^D and...

^A by whom we also have been deemed worthy of the gift of adoption, may our nature's first-fruits be freed from the appellation of "servant." We confess, therefore, that even the form of a servant is God, on account of the form of God united to it; and we believe the prophet who calls the infant Emmanuel, and the child who is born "the angel of great counsel," and "wonderful counselor," and "mighty God," and "possessing authority," and "prince of peace," and "Father of the age to come." Yet the same prophet, even after the union, preaching the nature of Him who was assumed, calls Him who is of the seed of Abraham a servant, saying thus: "You are my servant, O Israel, and in you I will be glorified;" and again: "So says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be his servant;" and a little later: "Behold, I have given you as a covenant to a people, as a light to the nations, that you may be for salvation unto the end of the earth." But that which was formed from the womb is not God the Word, but the form of a servant. For God the Word was not turned into flesh, but He assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul.

Cyrill's Defense

The mystery of the dispensation of the Only-begotten with the flesh will also confirm the preceding arguments, and will show them—and that most easily—to have been appropriate and reasonable for those who have come to us. ^B For the one existing in the form of God, and only-begotten Son of the Father, who is in all things equal in measure to the One who begat Him, equal in glory, and free, having assumed the form of a servant, has been styled the brother of those who were under the yoke of servitude, that is to say, of us. And so, as one of us, He paid the didrachma to those who collected the tax, and ^C "became under the law as a man," though as God He is the Lawgiver; but He was teaching His own disciples that He is truly the Son, and also in the form of a servant on account of the flesh. Yet, by His own nature, He is free, as being from God, and God. Nevertheless, as having the form of a servant as His own on account of the measure of the emptying, He was subject to the tax collectors. Therefore, if anyone says that He was called a servant through the voice of the holy prophets, he ought not to be offended in any way; for they knew, through the Holy Spirit revealing it to them, that the Word who is from God the Father—having become man—was indeed, even so, free as Son, but did not for that reason reject the measure of the wise ^D emptying, being configured to us who are subject to the yoke of servitude. Thus He also calls the Father His own God, though being God by nature, and from Him, in no way inferior to the eminence of the Begetter. Since, therefore, Nestorius writes thus concerning Christ: "And so the merciful high priest, having suffered, [is] not the life-giving God of Him who suffered; and..."

naming the Word of God as the God of Christ, adding thereto: 'And He was Himself both an infant, and the Lord of the infant;' we assert that these expressions of his are not only indecorous but also most impious. For if the Word which is from God the Father is the God of Christ, they will be two, by all means and indubitably. How, then, can the same ^A person be understood to be both an infant and the Lord of the infant? Therefore, Emmanuel will not be called both His own God and Lord, since He is the same person, at once God and man, after the Word of God became man and was incarnate. But that deity is one thing according to its own nature, and humanity is another according to its own nature, who could doubt? Nevertheless, Christ is one from both the natures of deity and humanity, according to the dispensation of the union.

ANATHEMA VII

If anyone says that Jesus, as a man, was moved to act by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten accrued to Him as to another person apart from the Word Himself, let him be anathema.

Theodoret's Refutation

If the nature of man is mortal, but the Word of God is life and life-giving, and He raised up the temple which had been destroyed by the Jews, and raised it into the heavens, how is the form of the slave not glorified by the form of God? For if, though it was mortal by nature, it became immortal because of the union with the Word of God, it received what it did not have; and if it received what it did not have, and has been glorified, it has been glorified by Him who gave it. Therefore, the Apostle also cries out: "According to the working of the might of His strength, ^C which He wrought in Christ, raising Him from the dead."

Cyril's Defense

Those who name Christ do not signify some one of the common men like us, but the Word born of God, having been made man and incarnate, to those who hear them. And so, if anything that is most fitting for God is said to have been done through His own body, which provided a ministry to Him as an organ, nevertheless, the Lord of powers, Christ Himself, is the one working, not granting to another the ability to work; just as, indeed, He gave power to the holy apostles against unclean spirits, so as to cast them out and to heal every disease and every infirmity among the people. And thus the divine Paul says: "For I dare not speak of anything ^D of those things which Christ has not wrought through me in word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." Being joyful, the blessed disciples also once approached...

^A Christ, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name." For we say that holy men are moved to work through Christ in the Spirit, as being other than Him. But we do not say that Jesus himself was moved by the Word in the Spirit ^B in the same way, as if He were another Son besides the Only-Begotten from God. For the union has shown Him to be one, and we shrink from dividing Him into two. For although the Word became flesh according to the Scriptures, yet He is still the Only-Begotten Son, according to the true union which surpasses mind and word. Therefore, this one and only Christ Jesus, as through an instrument of His own body, worked the divine signs. And we do not say that He was moved to work according to the likeness of the saints; for this would be impious and utterly discordant. But if He raised His own body from the dead, inasmuch as He is life and vivifier, He is seen glorifying Himself, having shown His own nature to be vivifying, and did not grant the glory of performing this work to any other than Himself. And so, He said to the Father in heaven and God: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was." ^C And yet He is God, and from God by nature, and Lord of glory. How then, as if in need of glory, does He ask for His pre-cosmic glory? Because He became man, and "by the grace of God He tasted death for everyone," [Hebr. II, 9] as the blessed Paul says, avoiding the, reproach of the ignominy that would follow, He proclaims in advance the resurrection, through which, because He is also life and vivifier as God, He is clearly known, and thus believed in by us. He therefore glorified not someone else, but Himself, having shown the temple united to Him to be truly superior to death. Furthermore, that we believe the body united to Him is not devoid of soul or mind, but has both soul and mind, we have said many times.

ANATHEMA VIII

If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed must be worshipped together with the God Word, and glorified together with Him, and named God together with Him, as one beside another (for the particle "together with" always compels one to think this), and does not rather honor Emmanuel with a single adoration and attribute to Him a single glorification, ^D insofar as the Word became flesh, let him be anathema.

THEODORET’S REFUTATION

We offer a single glorification, as I have often said, to the Lord Christ, and we confess Him to be God and man together; for this the principle of the union has taught us, but we shall not shrink from speaking of the properties of the natures. For neither did the God Word [undergo] change into flesh...

nor, on the other hand, did man lose what he was and change into the nature of God. Therefore, while speaking of the properties of each nature, we adore the Lord Christ.

Cyril's Defense

But we, excellent sir, being accustomed to believe what is better and most true, and reaching for subtler insights for an accurate manifestation and knowledge of this mystery, as it seems consistent with the holy Scriptures and the equitable interpretations of the holy Fathers, do not say that a man was assumed by the God Word and joined to Him according to some externally devised habit, but we define Him rather to have become man. And for this reason we say that those who dare to say the man was "assumed," and assert that the man must be adored with the Son of God, as one being with another, have fallen away from the piety of the dogmas. For if the same ^B One is God and man at once, He is adored as one, with one adoration, and is not "co-adored" and simultaneously called God; [we say this] so that Emmanuel might not be believed to be a man simply and commonly like us, and a participant in divine glory by grace; but rather let us confess Him to be God in the flesh for our sake—that is, truly rendered man, not by a change of nature according to alteration and conversion, but by the dispensation of union.

Anathematism IX

If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified ^C by the Spirit, as using a power alien to Him, as if it were His own, and that He received from Him the ability to act against unclean spirits and to perform divine signs among men, and does not rather confess that the Spirit through whom He performed divine signs was His own: let him be anathema.

Theodoret's Reprehension

Here he clearly presumed to anathematize not only those who now have pious sentiments, but also those who were once the heralds of the truth, and even the writers of the divine Gospels themselves, and the choir of the holy apostles, and in addition to these, the archangel ^D Gabriel. For that first one preached that Christ, who is according to the flesh, was born of the Holy Spirit, and this even before the conception; and after the conception he taught Joseph. To Mary, asking, "How shall this be, since I do not know a man?" he said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the holy thing which is to be born will be called the Son of God." And to Joseph he says: "Do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."

^A And the Evangelist says, "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." And the Lord himself, having entered the synagogue of the Jews and taken the prophet Isaiah, and having read the passage in which he says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me," and the rest, added: "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears." This is also what blessed Peter, discoursing with the Jews, said: "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit." And Isaiah, long before many generations, prophesied such things: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from the root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him." And again: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him; he shall proclaim judgment to the nations." This testimony the Evangelist also set down in his own writings. And the Lord himself in the Gospels said to the Jews: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." And John says: "He who sent me to baptize with water, he said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." ^B Therefore, this subtle examiner of divine dogmas anathematized not only the prophets and the apostles, nor Gabriel the archangel alone, but he extended his blasphemy to the Saviour of all himself. For we have shown the Lord himself, now indeed to the Jews after that reading: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me," saying: "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears"; now, however, to those who said that he casts out demons by Beelzebul, saying that he casts out demons by the Spirit of God. We do not say that God the Word, who is consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, was formed and united by the Holy Spirit, but rather the human nature ^C assumed by him in the last days. But as for the Spirit being the proper Spirit of the Son, if indeed he said it as being of the same nature as him, and proceeding from the Father, we shall at once acknowledge this, and we shall receive the voice as pious. But if he has his existence as from the Son, or through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord who says: "The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father," and likewise the most divine Paul who says: "But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is of God the Father." ^D And we shall acknowledge the expression as he said that he proceeds from the Father, and we shall receive it as pious. But if [anyone posits it] as from the Son, or as having his existence through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious.

^A I have said before that the power of the Chapters provides a defense against the trifles, or rather the blasphemies, of Nestorius, and against his highly reckless statements. For when he spoke thus of the Holy Spirit: "He who conferred such great glory upon Christ, who made him terrifying to the demons, and granted him the ascension into the heavens"—speaking these things as if of some common man like one of us—the anathema was rendered necessary; not indeed against those who say that Jesus (that is, the Word of God having become man) was glorified by the Holy Spirit, but rather against those who shamelessly claim that he used the power of the Spirit as something foreign to himself. We remember, moreover, that He said clearly concerning the Holy Spirit: "He shall glorify me." ^B We know, furthermore, that the Holy Spirit, by his operation, crushes the wicked and unclean powers; but we do not say that He uses the power of the Holy Spirit as something foreign, as one might say of any of the saints. For the Spirit was and is His, just as it is, assuredly, the Father's. The divine Paul will explain this to us very clearly, writing: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If, however, anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him." For the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father, according to the voice of the Savior, but He is not alien to the Son; for He has all things with the Father, and He Himself taught this, saying concerning the Holy Spirit: ^C "All things that the Father has are mine. Therefore I said to you, that he shall take from what is mine, and shall announce it to you." Therefore, the Holy Spirit did indeed glorify Jesus, by performing miracles; yet [He did so] as His own Spirit, and not as a foreign power or one superior to Him according to which He is understood as God. We have not, therefore, blasphemed against the holy angels, nor against the prophets, as he who knows only how to accuse has presumed to say. But since his aim, and that of his associates, is to divide the one Christ into two, and to say that the one is being glorified and operated upon, while the other is he who glorifies and operates, they foolishly carp at every pious discourse that would turn them away from such a perverse opinion. And so, this fault-finder, making an argument concerning the blessed Gabriel, says: ^D "For he was the first, even before his formation, to announce that the Christ according to the flesh was born of the Holy Spirit." Is there, then, one Christ according to the flesh, and another again, specifically, the Christ who is the Word, who is from God the Father? Where, then, is the union? And what is the use of it, if there are two Christs, and each is understood and preached separately and dividedly? Therefore, although [he might seem] to be...

covering themselves with the mask of piety, saying "one Christ," [yet] in truth they hold there are two. Let them hear from us: "How long will you limp upon both your shins?" For it is better to walk uprightly, holding a faith that is pure and firm, and not limping because of foolish notions. ^A

ANATHEMA X

That Christ has been made the high priest and apostle of our confession, the divine Scripture teaches, 40 and that He offered Himself for us to God and the Father as an odor of sweetness. 50 If, therefore, anyone says that our high priest and apostle is not the Word of God Himself, after He became flesh and man like us, but [says it is] that man who was born of a woman 51 as if he were another person distinct from Him; or if anyone says that He offered the sacrifice for Himself also, and not rather for us alone (for He did not need an offering, He who knew no sin 52), let him be anathema.

Theodoret's Refutation

The unchangeable nature was not turned into the nature of flesh, but He assumed human nature, and established this [nature] above common high priests, ^B as the blessed Paul teaches, saying: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, being able to sympathize with those who are ignorant and wandering, since he himself is also encompassed with infirmity. And because of this he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." 53 And a little later, interpreting this, he says: "So also Christ." 54 Then, showing the infirmity of the assumed nature, he says: "Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered; and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek." 55 Who, therefore, is he who is perfected by the labors of virtue, and not ^C existing perfect by nature? Who is he who learned obedience, and was ignorant of it before the experience? Who is he who lived with godly fear, and offered up supplications with a vehement cry and tears, and could not save Himself, but besought Him who was able to save Him, and asked for deliverance from death? It is not God the Word, who is immortal, impassible, and incorporeal, whose memory, according to the prophet, is joy, and liberation from tears; for He Himself has taken away every tear ^D

from every face; and again the prophet: "I remembered," he says, "God, and was delighted," He who crowns those living ^A with religion; He who knows all things before they come into being; He who has all things that are the Father’s, and exists as the immutable image of the Begetter; He who shows the Father in Himself. But that which was taken from the seed of David by Him—the mortal, the passible, that which feared death—even if this itself afterwards destroyed the power of death because of the union with the God who assumed it; that which walked through all righteousness, and said to John: "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness"—this received the title of high priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek; for this was invested with the weakness of nature, and not the omnipotent God the Word. Whence also, a little before, the blessed ^B Paul said: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one tempted in all things, and according to likeness, without sin." But the nature taken from us on our behalf came to be in the experience of our sufferings without sin, not He who assumed this for the sake of our salvation. But also in the beginning of this chapter he teaches such things again: "Consider," he says, "the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, being faithful to Him who made Him, as also Moses was in all His house." But no one who cultivates the right faith would call the uncreated, and unmade, and co-eternal God the Word with the Father a "creature"; but rather Him who is from the seed of David, who, existing free from all sin, became our high priest and sacrifice; ^C He who offered Himself for us to God, having within Himself, of course, the God the Word from God united to Him, and inseparably conjoined.

Cyril’s Defense

The prophet Jeremiah, to Israel having offended and provoking to anger the God of all, spoke gloomily: "Who will give to my head water, and to my eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep for this people day and night?" I myself think that such voices as these do not befit or befit them [the Israelites] so much as those who have an unbridled and incontinent mouth against Christ; who ^D "obloquy against the ineffable glory, being bold," and "self-willed," according to what is written. Truly, they would indeed be worthy of lamentation and groaning, who, from excessive and great folly, leaving the straight and irreproachable path of piety toward Christ, make for themselves perverse paths, and with corrupted inventions of the mind adulterate the beauty of the truth. Therefore, let those who have chosen to think things to be spurned by all hear: "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures," and the venerable and great ineffable

^A mystery of the Incarnation. For the inspired Scriptures proclaim that God, the Emmanuel, has become man for us, and that the Word of God and the Father has partaken of flesh and blood in a manner similar to us, and has become flesh—that is, man—not by conversion or change, but by the power of an ineffable union. Therefore, we speak of one Lord Jesus Christ, and one faith, and one holy baptism. ^B But those who turn away from such correct dogmas, and who set their minds in a harsh and arrogant manner against the sacred Scriptures, look only to that which seems right to them. They say that a man was assumed by the Word of God, perhaps after the manner of that which was spoken through one of the holy prophets: "I was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but I was a herdsman nipping sycamore fruit, and the Lord took me from the sheep," or as the blessed David says: "The Lord takes up the meek." They mean, of course, by a relationship and spiritual familiarity, which exists indeed in will and grace and sanctification; just as we ourselves, by cleaving to the Lord, "are one spirit," according to what is written. But this is not what it means for God to be incarnate. Nor indeed is it to partake of blood and flesh in the same way as us, but rather to make a man familiar to Himself, and not in any other mode than that in which a prophet, or an apostle, or all other saints might be spoken of. But has the divine Paul deceived those who are sanctified by faith, saying most clearly concerning the Only-Begotten: "For though he was rich, he became poor for our sakes"? Far be it! For the herald of truth speaks that which is entirely true. ^C But let our discourse examine even now, who is the rich one, and in what manner he became poor. For if, as they themselves presume both to think and to say, a man was assumed by God, how did the one who was assumed become poor, when he was adorned with honors that surpass nature? For he has been glorified. But if this is not true, then the [notion of] assumption will be maligned by them as dragging man down to a lesser and more base condition of humanity. But it is absurd to think this; therefore, the one who was assumed did not become poor. It remains, therefore, to say that he who is rich as God has come to be in our poverty. ^D How, then, did he become poor? Come now, let us consider it as is necessary. For he is unchangeable by nature, as is confessed. He has not crossed over into the nature of flesh, abandoning his own; for he remained what he was, that is, God. Where, then, shall we see the abasement of his poverty? Do you think it consists in his assumption of someone like us, as the parasites of Nestorius' impiety have dared to say? And what manner of poverty and exinanition could it be for him, if it were only in his will to honor some man like us? For he who does good in all things is in no way harmed [by doing so.]

God by nature, and Son of God the Father, he became man, and was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and underwent the servile measure, that is, the human one; he who was in the form of God and the Father, through whom are all things, and in whom are all things, and who is the Creator of all; yet having become man, he is not ashamed of the measure of humanity. For he who did not count the very fact of becoming like us as something to be rejected, how could he decline those things through which he could be seen as having truly become man for our sake and in our likeness? If, therefore, we remove him from human things—both deeds and words—we shall in no way be distinguished from those who, if it were possible, would almost strip him of his flesh, and who do not believe the inspired Scripture, but overthrow ^B the entire mystery of the incarnation, the salvation of the world, our hope, and our resurrection. But perhaps someone will say that it is small for the Word of God, and quite unworthy, that he should fear death, refuse the cup, or be a high priest. Indeed, I myself would say that to the divine and supreme nature and glory these things are small; but in them we observe the poverty which he willingly endured for our sake. When the vileness of the exinanition seems burdensome to you, marvel all the more at the love of the Son for us. For what you say is small, he made voluntary for your sake. He wept as a human, that he might restrain your tear; he feared in his dispensation, allowing the flesh to suffer at times what is proper to it, that he might render us more courageous. He refused the cup, that the cross might accuse the impiety of the Jews. He is said to have been weak according to ^C humanity, that you might cease to be weak through him. He offered prayers and supplications, that he might render the ears of the Father accessible to your own petitions. He grew drowsy, that you might learn not to grow drowsy in temptations, but to be more intent toward prayer. And indeed, rebuking certain of the holy apostles who were dozing, he spoke thus: "Could you not watch one hour with me? Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation." For by setting forth his own actions as a model of a holy life, he benefited the world under heaven; he made the infirmities of humanity his own. For what reason? That he might be believed to have truly become man, even while remaining what he was—that is, God. But I do not know how those who pretend to call Christ one, and Son, and Lord, ^D and the same one God and man, do not say that the Word born of God is called the high priest and apostle of our confession, at the time that he became man. But they strive to maintain that it is some other, singular man, born of the seed of David, who is called to this office; perhaps fearing that, if they were to neglect the perverse opinion of Nestorius, they might be detected as thinking correctly. For he, that man, says thus: "This one, having been made faithful to God, became high priest; for this one was made, he was not eternally what he was, who a little…

^A by little advanced to the dignity of high priest," you heretic. Then, as he thinks, confirming his own words in truth, he brings forth and says: "Concerning whom John also says in the Gospels: 'Jesus was advancing in age, and wisdom, and grace.'" And again: "Since this one is for us the sole high priest who is compassionate, and kin, and stable, do not fall away from the faith in him. For he himself was sent to us for the promised blessing from the seed of Abraham, as if about to offer the sacrifice of his body for himself and for his race." But that excellent imitator of his ^B execrableness, this noble Theodoret, does not blush to say that he assumed human nature and set this above the common high priests, just as Paul also says: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, able to feel compassion for the ignorant and erring; since he himself also is surrounded by weakness, and because of it he ought, just as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." Do you think he did not make Emmanuel a common man to us, as far as his own view is concerned? Do those whom we recently named not entertain similar ideas, and bring forth the same blasphemy? Tell me, do you fear the manner of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of us all? Do you say it is incongruous for God the Word to minister a human sacrifice because of the dispensation? Therefore, take away the person; deny not dissemblingly the inhumanation of the Word, on account of which he is named high priest. Do you see him offering sacrifice to the Father as to one who is another and a superior God? Have you seen him sacrificing victims after the manner of those who are taken from among men, and who can feel compassion for the ignorant and the erring, from the fact that they themselves also are in our infirmities? Have you not understood that he consecrates to himself, and to the all-holy Spirit, the faith from all, or rather the confession of faith? Tell me, do you think it is the manner of a human priestly service to seek faith from those who have offered themselves as an odor of sweetness in the Spirit? But behold him as being God in another way, even if he were said to perform his priesthood humanly because of the dispensation; for he sits with God the Father, ^C and appears glorious on the highest thrones. Does the human alarm you? Does that which is God-befitting not absolve you from fears? Do you not suffer yourself to see through these very things Emmanuel, who is both God and man at the same time, but do you run thus shamelessly and harshly, even beyond all impiety, and say that he was perfected according to virtue in labors, and advanced little by little to the dignity of high priest? If he advanced, how was he emptied, and how did he become poor? If he is perfected through virtue, he was certainly made perfect from an imperfect state and in time; but everything which is imperfect as to virtue is under vice; and what is under vice, is under sin. How, therefore, is it written of him that "He committed no sin"? You have presumed ^D

^A to say these things which have been put forward! Who, then, is the priest, he says? Is it he who has been perfected by the labors of virtue, and not one who was perfect by nature? Who is he who learned obedience by trial, and was ignorant of it before the trial? Who is he who lived with reverence, and with strong crying and tears offered up supplications, and was unable to save himself, but entreated him who was able to save him? O what a most bold and most foul voice! What tears will suffice to wash away the sin of those who choose to think such things? If you accept the union, how have you failed to know that you were speaking of God become man? He humbled himself for your sake, and you wickedly exclaim: "Mercy on you, ^B Lord; this shall never be to you." Therefore you shall hear him saying: "Get behind me, Satan; you are a scandal to me." But, indeed, at the end of his own words he says: "Therefore he who is from the seed of David is a pontiff, having certainly in himself united and inseparably conjoined the Word which is from God." How, then, do you say that the Word of God is united to him who is from the seed of David, if you assign the priesthood solely to him who is from the seed of David? For if the union is true, they are not two at all, but Christ is understood as one and the same from both. It is manifest, therefore, that while they pretend to confess the union, bypassing the opinions ^C of the simpler folk, they conceive of a conjunction that is external and relative—such as we too have possessed, having been shown to be partakers of his holy nature through the Spirit. One ought not, therefore, to attend to the babblings of those men, but to the right and immaculate faith, and to the evangelical and apostolic decrees.

ANATHEMA XI

If anyone does not confess the flesh of the Lord to be life-giving, and the proper flesh of the Word who is of God the Father, but speaks of it as though it belonged to some other besides him, conjoined to him by dignity, or as though it had only obtained a divine inhabitation, and does not rather say that it is life-giving, as we have said, because it has become the proper flesh of the Word who has the power to make all things alive: let him be anathema.

Theodoret's Rebuttal

He seems, as I think, to be concerned for the truth, so that by this way, covering his false doctrine, he might not be seen to be teaching the same things as the heretics. But there is nothing stronger ^D than the truth, which with its own rays strips away the darkness of falsehood. Illuminated by this, we shall make his heterodox faith manifest. For, in the first place, he makes no mention anywhere of an intelligent flesh, nor has he confessed that a perfect man was assumed, but everywhere he speaks of "flesh," following the dogmas of Apollinarius; then he introduces into his discourses, under other names, the notion of a mixing; hence he openly...

asserts that the flesh united to the Word is inanimate. ^A If, he says, anyone does not say that the Lord's flesh is the very own flesh of the Word from God the Father, but speaks of it as of another besides Him, let him be anathema. From these words it is clear that he does not confess that the Word of God took on a soul, but only flesh, and that the Word Himself served as the soul for the flesh. We, however, say that the Lord's flesh is life-giving, ensouled, and rational, on account of the life-giving divinity united to it. He himself, though unwillingly, acknowledges the difference between the two natures by speaking of "flesh" and "Word God," and calling the flesh His own. Therefore, God the Word was not turned into the nature of flesh, but has His own flesh—that is, the nature that was assumed—and by the union He has made it life-giving.

Cyril's Defense

^B Those who, through ignorance, have slipped away from correct and true opinions, and who practically say, "We have made a lie our hope, and by a lie we shall be hidden," pronounce these things rashly, unmindful of the divinely inspired Scripture which says, "Judge a righteous judgment," and again, "A false witness shall not go unpunished." For we say that the holy body of our common Savior Christ is life-giving: for it is not simply that of one ordinary man of our own number, but is truly the own body of the Word who gives life to all; it is His own, indeed, just as one might say that everyone’s body is his own. ^C But this virtuous man, leaving no kind of calumny against us untried, although he assents to what I have said, yet brands us again with the blemish of the false opinion of Apollinarius, and he is not ashamed to say that I hide the matter of a tempering, or rather confusion, under other names, and that I assert the flesh united to the Word is inanimate. But, O excellent man, one might rightly ask, will you then bring the same accusations against the blessed evangelist John? For he said, "The Word became flesh," and will you arrogantly attack him too, and say that he did not mention a rational soul, and that he says the Lord's flesh is inanimate? ^D And what, when you hear Christ Himself, our common Savior, saying, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves"? And again, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"? And again, "And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world"? Reprehend these words, if you will. For He names only the flesh, and has made absolutely no mention of a rational soul in these passages. Yet, if you had been wise and sharp-witted, you would not have been ignorant that sometimes, by "flesh" alone, the whole living being consisting of soul and body—that is, man—is signified. For it says, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." Since

is a living being, that is to say, a man; for he said: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." ^A He therefore did not fail to know, when he spoke of the Word becoming flesh, that it also possesses an intelligent soul. But as I said at the beginning, since he has nothing that he can contradict, he betakes himself to falsehood and endeavors to slander, so that he might appear to say something. But it is not the opinion of the holy Fathers that a man [by himself] was assumed by God; for they have not thought in this way. Rather, they say that the Word of God the Father himself became man, having been united to flesh possessing an intelligent soul. This union is entirely without confusion and free from change; for the Word of God is unchangeable: and so we believe.

ANATHEMA XII

^B If anyone does not confess that the Word of God has suffered in the flesh, and has been crucified in the flesh, and has tasted death in the flesh, and has become the firstborn from the dead, inasmuch as He is life and life-giving as God: let him be anathema.

The Reprehension of Theodoret

Passions are proper to that which is passible; for the impassible is higher than the capacity to suffer. Therefore, the form of the slave suffered, while the form of God was clearly present with it, and allowed it to suffer for the sake of the salvation wrought through sufferings, yet claimed the sufferings for itself on account of the union. ^C Therefore, it is not Christ who suffered, but rather the man taken from us by the Word. Hence the blessed Isaiah, prophesying, cries out: "A man in a wound, and knowing how to bear infirmity." And the Lord Christ himself said to the Jews: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth?" Now it is not Life itself that is killed, but he who possesses a mortal nature. And the Lord, teaching this in another place, said to the Jews: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Therefore, he who was of David was destroyed, but He who was begotten of the Father impassibly before the ages, the only-begotten Word of God, raised up this one who was destroyed.

The Defense of Cyril

The nature of the Word of God is indeed and by common confession impassible; and this, I think, is not hidden from any living thing; nor would anyone reach such a degree of insanity ^D as to say that an ineffable nature, which is above nature and too sublime to be able to suffer anything, is held by our infirmities. But because it was salutary for the world to suffer, and again, because it was impossible for the Word begotten of God to suffer in His own nature, He skillfully makes use of the dispensation. He made for Himself a body capable of suffering, so that while remaining impassible by His own nature, He might be said to suffer in that which is by nature capable of suffering. Since, therefore, He suffered in the flesh willingly,

for this reason He is and is called the Savior of all. For as Paul says, "By the grace of God He tasted death for all," and the blessed Peter will also bear witness, saying most wisely: "Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh," not rather in the nature of the divinity. ^A For how is the Lord of glory said to have been crucified? And how is He, "through whom all things were made," as the blessed Paul says, given by God the Father as head of the body, the Church, and became the "firstborn from the dead"? Clearly, by rightfully claiming for Himself the sufferings that belonged to His own flesh. For the Lord of glory could not be a common man, such as we are.

But perhaps you will say this: that the union is sufficient, and more than sufficient, for us to call Christ one and the Lord, who was crucified. Let all things, then, be said of Him; let all confess the Word of God as Savior: who indeed remained impassible according to the nature of His divinity, but suffered in the flesh, as Peter said. For the body that tasted death was His own possession according to the true union. For how is Christ "from the Jews according to the flesh, and God over all, and blessed forever, amen"? In whose death have we been baptized? Whose resurrection do we confess and thereby are justified? Although, according to His own nature, the Word of God cannot die—nay, He is life itself. ^B Have we, therefore, been baptized into the death of a common man, and are we justified by believing in him? Or is it not rather, as is true, that we proclaim the death of God incarnate and suffering in the flesh for us, and by confessing the resurrection, we cast off the burden of sin? "For you were bought with a price," not "with corruptible things, with silver or gold, but with the precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, Christ."

And there were very many other things that could be said besides these; nor would it be difficult to produce the authorities of the holy Fathers, but I think these things are sufficient for those who are more teachable. For it is written: "Give an opportunity to a wise man, and he will be wiser; instruct a righteous man, and he will receive more."

OF SAINT CYRIL, APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE TO THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR THEODOSIUS

SAINT CYRIL’S APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE TO THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR THEODOSIUS

To the most religious and most God-beloved and Christ-loving emperor, our Emperor Theodosius, ^A always victorious, Augustus, Cyril, greeting in the Lord.

The divine and incorrupt nature, which governs all things and dwells in inaccessible light, and occupies the highest throne—itself alone befitting it—to which stand by the principalities, dominations, and powers, and even the holy seraphim themselves; and, as the sacred Scripture says, all things that were made ^B shudder at its majesty and tremble. Yet, though it is thus glorified, and, proceeding to the acme of all wonder, has, in the greatness of its superiority and its ineffable power, a kindness equal to it. For created nature could not bear that most powerful and transcendent force and authority, unless it were tempered by a certain gentleness and clemency. Wherefore, the blessed prophet David, pouring forth prayers for himself and all those dwelling on earth, says at one time: "Remember, Lord, that we are dust"; at another time again: "If you, O Lord, should mark transgressions, O Lord, who shall stand?" ^C And indeed, the most excellent Job also, being tempted by the devil and held fast by bitter and unbearable tortures, cried out to God: "Why have you not made an oblivion of my transgression, and a cleansing of my sin? You have sealed my transgressions in a bag, and have marked if I have transgressed even involuntarily." But, I suppose, someone might immediately say in response to this: "What then, O most noble of athletes, do you then charge as a crime to God that He does not show mercy? If you have sinned, do you blame the Lawgiver Himself because He remembers your transgressions?" Yes, he says. For since He is a merciful one ^D

^A by nature and does not thereby obtain common glory, why is He not seen to be such toward me? For if it is possible for the human mind to slide in no way whatsoever, then let the judge be extremely pedantic, let him seal up iniquities as in a purse, let him refuse to grant oblivion to those who have offended, even unexpectedly at times. But if we all stumble in many things, and being blameless in every respect is fitting for Him and Him alone, then let Him show a forgiving, ungrudging spirit to those who are accustomed to being weak. It is fitting, therefore, for the highest ^B excellencies to possess a serene and gentle disposition. This kind of mildness and serenity of mind is present in a singular way in that divine and supreme nature, but after its example, it is present also in your Majesty, oh Christ-loving Emperors; for you are a certain reflection and earthly imitation of the kingdom in the heavens. And indeed, having obtained the sole rule over all, you preserve your subjects with fear and gentleness, spreading, as it were, a brilliant and peaceful calm over the entire world under heaven. Wherefore I, too, was necessarily prompted to appease your saddened piety with a fitting defense. But that which I, desiring to accomplish this, thought to be primarily useful and necessary, I omit—and indeed unwillingly—on account of the reverence which is rightfully due to your Majesty from all. For if I were to say that I had not been of such rashness or madness, or that I had not been so forgetful of all propriety as to have committed some offense, and that against you, perhaps I would not say it with impunity; for I fear, and not without cause, to oppose your judgments, lest I experience something like that which they say befell Israel. For he was not altogether ^C exempt from at times committing an offense (for we all stumble in many things, and human nature suffers from this propensity to slip), and yet, as a diligent guardian of the law, he was persuaded that in no way had he ever offended God. But he soon heard Him saying to him: "Behold, I enter into judgment with you, because you say: I have not sinned." It is better and wiser, therefore, to yield to those in power and to ask for pardon for one’s offenses. For your Majesty, as I have said, possesses from divine imitation the trait of forgetting offenses. ^D I have written, therefore, both to your piety and also to the illustrious queens, doing so most rightly, not in order to stir up any discord or disturbance in your most holy courts; far from it! For I am not so senseless or devoid of reason. Rather, I know that those who have been appointed to sacrifice to the most holy God ought to be sober and vigilant, and to look to that which is pleasing to Him, and not to neglect [the following:

Apologeticus ad piissimum imperatorem Theodosium

impending destruction, if they should in any way or at all fall into sluggishness. For we must strengthen in the faith those who have already believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, whom He acquired with His own blood and made His own true worshippers, and called a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a peculiar people, that they may declare the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. And so, concerning those who have been allotted the priesthood, He lays down the law, speaking thus to the blessed prophet Ezekiel: "Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say to them: If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one of their men and set him to them for a watchman, and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns my people, and anyone hearing the sound of the trumpet does not take heed, and the sword comes and overtakes him, his blood shall be upon his own head, because he heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take heed; his blood shall be upon himself, but he who took heed saved his soul. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people do not take heed, and the sword comes and takes a soul from among them, that soul is taken away because of its own iniquity, but I will require its blood at the hand of the watchman." ^B It is worth our while, I think, not to leave the force of these words unexamined; for it will be of no small profit if their hidden meaning is brought more broadly into the open. ^C When, therefore, some barbarian invasion is expected against a city, those who govern it and have the care of it place certain men upon watch-towers or very lofty turrets, who, with a direct view over the fields, move their eyes incessantly this way and that, watching with wakeful zeal that no enemy may break in. If they give timely warning to the city of the incursion, they are deemed worthy of no small honor; but if, through their sloth, the city is captured or suffers any hostile attack, they themselves pay the penalty with their own heads and undergo the ultimate punishments. In the same way, I think, each of the priests (since he has been appointed by God as a watchman), if he announces to the peoples committed to his care the harm that is wont to injure them, will gain for himself a crown through his vigilance. But if he is silent, ^D he will fall into the evils that are wont to be inflicted by the anger of God, inasmuch as he has, by his silence, harmed not a little those whom he ought to have directed to the right path by his own voice. The war, therefore, was not against any common man similar to us, but was rather waged against our common Savior Christ. It is written indeed

^A that "no one says 'Anathema Jesus' except in Beelzebub," meaning that no one denies Christ unless he has Satan inciting him to this; and there is no one who would call this into doubt. Therefore, that apostate dragon, that is, Satan, having found a priest who was not guarded—or rather, one whose mind was led astray—and having obtained a tongue that was reckless and most prompt to slander the dogmas of the truth inconsiderately, and to detract from the glory of our Savior (for it was petulant, and with unbridled force it would hotly seize upon anything at all that was most offensive), he filled all the Churches with confusion and sedition. But as the true faith was being besieged in this manner, dissensions arose everywhere, and even those who had already believed were troubled with great anxiety, wondering if perhaps they had been led astray, having truly believed Christ to be God. And what followed from this? A sort of pestilential ^B plague was consuming the whole world, having its origin indeed in a lie, but its father being Satan. Since, therefore, we have been appointed by God as watchmen and guardians of the people, how was it not incumbent upon us, most alacritously, to take up the sacred and ecclesiastical trumpet and reveal to those who desire to preserve piety the invasion of the devil's snare? For what punishment has God prepared for those who are silent? "His blood," He says, "I will seek from your hand." But your heart, most pious king, was safe and immovable—indeed, I myself confess this; or rather, the facts themselves cry this out, and the long course of time further testifies, during which, with the approval of all, because you have cultivated piety, you vie with the glory of your ancestors. And since it is glorious for them even to be surpassed by your serenity, I might perhaps rightly say, having shown nothing else, that you have formed a better and ^C more excellent judgment in this matter. I know the immovability of the faith that is in you, and the firmness of your love for Christ. I wrote, however, not uselessly, but to the end that you yourselves might bring aid to others, or rather, to all the troubled Churches; for it is your custom to save. As, therefore, the trumpet that announces the incursions of barbarians reminds the most robust and pugnacious man only of the valor that becomes him, but renders the timid and the novice cautious, so that he may not in any way fall by imprudence into the enemy’s ranks and become a prey to their cruelty: so, too, the writings I produced concerning Christ stirred up the goads of your piety against the snares of the devil, while they rendered the others, who are of a light and easily swayed mind, cautious and stable in the faith. The mystery of Christ is not so ^D easily grasped by many; for His doctrine is very profound, and even for those who are most powerful in mind and who have accurately searched the divine Scriptures, it is known only with difficulty, as in a riddle and as in a mirror. And as the most holy

^A Paul said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (I Cor. xv. 33); and, according to the saying of Solomon, “A dripping drop hollows out stone” (Job xiv. 19); if those harmful words fall bit by bit into the human mind like a dripping drop, it happens that they bring not a moderate, but often a very great damage. Therefore, this warning from me has been usefully and necessarily made, both to thwart him who, contrary to all expectation, has waged war against Christ, and also to confirm and instruct others who, since they did not hold the knowledge of this mystery very accurately, were tempest-tossed not a little by the words of the seducer. That I wrote of necessity, the very nature of the case will confirm. For in the times from above and from past ages, human affairs were at variance with God (for the whole earth was wandering, and as the blessed David sings, “All have turned aside; together they have become useless: there is none who does good, not even one” (Ps. xiii. 4); but “the Dayspring from on high visited us” (Luke i. 78); the only-begotten Word of God appeared to us and dwelt with those who live upon the earth, having become man similar to us while remaining God by nature; and he united us to God and the Father by himself, having removed that which stood between, and having unrememberingly freed us from the sin that separated us, and justified us by faith. For he himself is our peace, according to the Scriptures (Ephes. ii. 8). Therefore, the bond of our peace toward God was about to be broken, as faith was being dissolved; the way of justice was about to be hidden from our minds, that I may not say anything more grievous. For we are justified through holy baptism, announcing the death of Christ ^B and confessing also his resurrection (I Cor. xi. 26). But we do not announce the death of an ordinary man, O Christ-loving king, but of God who became man and who suffered for us in the flesh, as it is written, while living as God and remaining impassible according to his own nature. Since, therefore, the hope of the Christians was in danger, in so far as it concerned the words of the seducer and his unskilled and unbridled tongue, it was somehow necessary and unavoidable, O king, that we, having the truth as our weapon, should defend those who hold the right faith. Now, that which especially spurred us to come to this, is the following. For here our blessed ^C Fathers, having taken heart from God, set the priesthood against the perversities of heresies at their respective times, and especially against the perversity of the unholy Arians; even though at that time those who were in control of human affairs did not know the truth, but favored their side more, and

gnashed their teeth against the teachers of the Churches. ^A But those men, having overcome all fear, fearlessly proclaimed the right and irreprehensible doctrine of the faith. For they knew that our Lord Jesus Christ had said: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Since, therefore, they—although they had as their most bitter enemies those who at that time held universal sway over all things—nevertheless did not keep silent, so that they might defend the glory of our Saviour from insult, how was it not necessary that we too should follow the tracks of their probity and sincerity towards Christ? How was the truth not to be opposed to his blasphemous words? I knew, as I said, the stability of your piety in the faith; I was certainly persuaded that he was no more pleasing to you than to me: what thing, then, persuaded silence? Hesitation almost moved me from the decorum of my duty, and led me to offend God. But I said thus to myself: "Listen, you, your silence cannot be excused (nay, if you remain silent, you will incur ^B grave harm before both God and men): pious and a lover of Christ is he whom God has adorned with royal glory: but also the noble pair of Augustas is seen to shine with equal praises: the venerable and admirable sprouts of virginity also agree; then the others, who in order and excellence of dignities approach these most closely, and are adorned with a right and blameless faith, they too are affected with no common sorrow on account of the mocked glory of our Saviour. Why, therefore, do you not boldly execute what you understand to be pleasing to God? Is not that sailor to be considered sluggish who would not want to sail when favorable winds fill the sails? Would not a man be condemned as a coward and ^C unwarlike who, placed in the ranks of battle and assisted by the hand of the bravest soldiers, when he could obtain victory, were fearful and threw away his shield?" Sharpening myself with such thoughts, and relying on the piety of your Majesty, I fearlessly came forward, thinking it necessary to take up the cause of Christ, who was being subjected to unworthy insult. But in addition to what has been said thus far, I think this also should be added. Nestorius was chosen as though he were exercised in apostolic and evangelical doctrines, ^D a craftsman of promoting piety, and one who held a right and altogether blameless faith, and your pious Majesty also desired such a man to be his, as did all those who preside over the holy Churches, and I myself. And indeed, when letters regarding his ordination were sent by the most devout bishops who had brought him to this office, I replied without delay, rejoicing, praising, and praying for him as for a brother and fellow-minister, that he might possess all the most excellent of goods through the vote from above. But not of our...

^A charges that followed this, or rather not of his own perversity. For he was chosen as a sheep, but was found to be a wolf; as a faithful and genuine servant, but he loved the contrary; as a vine rich in grapes, but, as it is written, it brought forth thorns; as a skillful husbandman, but he plotted against the field; as a good shepherd, but he turned out to be fiercer than wild beasts. Then, having become sick, I know not how, with heresy, he has been admonished repeatedly, and this by many. Was he therefore helped by being admonished? Was his mind pricked by being reproved? Did he change his counsel for the better? Did he conceive anything good in his mind? Did he hate the lie? Did he love the truth? Did he reject the darkness of his ignorance? Did he seek the light? Did he cease from his foul language against Christ? Was he made ashamed by the multitude of those who spoke against him? Did he spare the many and innumerable people whom he saw being scandalized? Has he been grieved—that pricking goad—to see the Church of those who believe? Not at all, as the very outcome of the ^B events would proclaim. For since our holy synod had gathered from everywhere to the metropolis of the Ephesians according to the decree of your Sovereignty, and he himself also arrived, then indeed, then, although he ought to have lamented and wept over those things that had already passed, as if no one at all were indignant at the things he had dared to say, while still spending his time in that great city, he added worse things. He uttered the most foul things and grew bold against the glory of our Savior, deeming the charge of the blasphemy against Him to be of very little account, or rather of none at all. For it is better to be silent about what he dared to say; and this while conversing with holy bishops, who have the most becoming vote and reputation in all kinds of virtue. And they were ^C very experienced and knowledgeable in the holy Scriptures, who were also deeply pained by the blasphemies against Christ and, having detested his unrestrained and unbridled tongue, and having washed their hands of him, they reported these things to the synod with tears, not in a corner or secretly, but having taken courage in the faith itself to speak of the proceedings, and being ready to convict him of that which it is not even lawful to conceive, which he had spoken against Christ. And they did this, fearing the judgment before the divine tribunal. For they were not unloving, but rather lovers of God, and genuine guardians of the love toward Christ. For just as those who are under the scepter of your pious empire, whether they be noble generals, or even others of those in dignity and high place, are shown by your kindness to be bright and most dear to you if, indeed, some should move a lewd and licentious tongue against your Sovereignty, or might choose to do something beyond speech and reason; so also the divine minister, worthy of all praise... ^D

before God and the angels, performs a work [pleasing] to God and the angels ^A in not tolerating anyone who speaks trifles against the divine glory, but rather holds all such men as the greatest of enemies. Furthermore, the blessed David, considering this a shining glory for himself, cried out: "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and do I not pine away over your enemies? I hated them with a perfect hatred; they became my enemies to me." If, then, those who blaspheme Christ love Him, surely those who oppose them depart from right reason. But if they openly hate Christ, and the matter is in no way in doubt, how can those who oppose the abominable dogmas of such men with an effective and pious discourse not be worthy of admiration and beloved of God?

^B There was also another reason why it was useful and necessary for your Empire that he who had defiled the divine altars should be driven away from them. If you ask the cause, I will tell you, bringing forward from the divine Scriptures those things which confirm the matter. The Israelites once, making light of those things that had been established by the all-wise Moses, and despising the commandment which they had received, turned aside to apostasy from God, "and worshipped idols and the host of heaven," as it is written. And those wretches had already reached such a point of impiety that they even defiled the divine temple itself. God was angry at these things and delivered them into the hands of their enemies.

But after Ezechias, a holy and good man, had obtained the kingdom, he amended those things in which there had been sin, and having purified the divine temple, he offered to the almighty God what was suitable. ^C It is written concerning him in this manner: "And Ezechias began to reign when he was twenty-five years of age; and he addressed the Levites, saying: 'Men, Levites, hear me. Now purify yourselves, and purify the house of the Lord God of our fathers, and cast out all uncleanness from the holy place; for our fathers have rebelled and done evil in the sight of the Lord, and have forsaken Him.'" And when he had added to these some other things profitable to his hearers, he further brought in: "And now do not delay; for the Lord has chosen you to stand before Him to minister, and to be for Him ministers and to offer incense." ^D "The Levites arose," he says, "and gathered their brethren, and they purified themselves according to the commandment of the king, by the precept of the Lord, to cleanse the house of the Lord; and the priests entered within into the house of the Lord, and cast out all the uncleanness that was found in the house of the Lord, and into the court of the house of the Lord." Then the holy Scripture says: "And on the sixteenth day of the first month they finished, and entered within to Ezechias the king..."

and said to him: We have purified all things which are in the house of the Lord." ^A Then it is added here again: "And Ezechias the king arose early, and gathered the princes of the city, and went up into the house of the Lord, and offered seven calves and seven he-goats for sin, for the kingdom, for the saints, and for Israel." Understand from this, O Christ-loving King, that although the most excellent and holy Ezechias intended to sacrifice to God, he did not enter the temple of God, nor did he perform the things which he had in his vows, before he had commanded the priests of God to purge the house of the Lord and to cast out from it every uncleanness. When this had been done, he offered incense ^B brightly and rejoiced, and very rightly so, as one who had now brought a sacrifice acceptable to God, because he had essentially rid the temple of the uncleanness that was in it. Something of this kind has been done also by your Majesty for the glory of God. For it is your custom to offer incense in the churches, and with a most generous hand always to offer those things which are for the glory of God. But it was necessary first to purify the temple, and to rid it of every blemish and defilement, and thus to sacrifice at the appropriate time. Moreover, blasphemy against Christ is beyond every crime of wickedness. But you commanded the priests, who, as I just said, purified the temple for you and sanctified it, restraining the ignorant and impious tongue, so that you by this means might be more commended before God, and angels, and men.

The holy and ecumenical synod, then, being grateful to Christ the Saviour of us all, and ^C eager to defend the faith which is in him, and—not saying it in so many words, but almost saying—“I have been very zealous for the Lord,” as it is written—made provision that the occasion of the scandal should be removed from the midst. But those who it was to be expected—or rather, it was necessary—would vigorously stand with those who were laboring, and strive promptly and eagerly, and share with us the rewards of the bravery undertaken for Christ, taking up the same zeal as you, and filling their own mind with godly courage—these men have turned out hard-hearted and pitiless, and in no way less than the perversity of that blasphemer. Being pained and grieved, not so much for the glory of Christ, but for him who had impiously prattled many things against Christ, they went to war against the genuine combatants, and set themselves ^D against those who wished to think the things of Christ, by the deeds which they have dared to do, as if crying out: "Why have you restrained the wanton and unbridled tongue, and why, having stripped off the sheep's wool, have you made the ravening wolf known to all men everywhere?" For to be pained at the things for which he was convicted is nothing else, as I think, but this very thing which now

I was saying, to proclaim. For he who presides over the Church of Antioch, having been ordered by your majesty to be present at the appointed day, absented himself from the holy synod. For he lingered on the journey with purpose, so that by that delay he might gratify the wickedness of him who had babbled against Christ; or even (which is likely, or rather true and indubitable) because he held the same opinions as he. For when the sixteenth day had already passed, the leaders of those who were with him (for they were metropolitans) at last arrived, and in his name announced to the holy synod that his arrival should by no means be awaited, but that they should rather hasten to accomplish the decrees. Then at last, therefore, the sacred synod, gathered in the holy church which is called Mary, constituted Christ as confession-bearer and as head: for the venerable Gospel was placed upon a holy throne, sounding in the ears of the holy priests as if it were calling out: "Judge just judgment" (Zech. vii, 9); settle the dispute between the holy evangelists and the voices of Nestorius. And so, by the common vote of all, his dogmas were condemned, while the purity and beauty of the apostolic and evangelical tradition was demonstrated: and thus the power of the truth prevailed. For all affirmed the right and unassailable faith; following also, O most Christian kings, your judgment. For your every aim looks toward that which pleases God and is joined with piety. For you have never preferred anything to the truth. But John, who had obtained the prelacy of the Church of Antioch, negligent indeed, and slothful, and patient when Christ is insulted, but sharp and rigid when he is condemned who had opened a slanderous tongue against Christ himself; when he first came flying to Ephesus like a bird, just as if it were permitted to him by private authority to do whatever he pleased, with no one at all accusing him, as if the ecclesiastical laws were entirely abolished, and God did not care at all for human affairs; acting with folly rather than prudence, indulgent to rage more than allowing sober reason to rule, when he had scarcely leapt from his carriage and entered his chamber, while still dusty, he issued a rotten and most unlawful sentence, together with those who thought the same as he (these men of his faction were exiles, deposed Coelestians, and satellites of the Nestorian madness, and not less, out of a certain great stupidity, participants with him in the crime of blasphemy against Christ), and he studied to afflict the entire synod with signal contumely, insomuch as to involve in the title of excommunication as many as had come to Ephesus from the entire world—men celebrated, most known to your majesty, and praised in every kind of virtue: but toward me, and the minister of the Ephesians, he cast a more burdensome injury, speaking falsely, and saying that I held the opinions of the impious Apollinarius.

and assented to the abominable and unholy dogmas of Arius and Eunomius. He did this, as I said, ^A moving every stone under the impulse of implacable anger, and giving full rein to his impious fury and arrogant motions. This is something I truly wonder at. For he who was always a friend and beloved, who never once chided my words, who wrote gladly and received my letters, who, even before the very gates of Ephesus, almost embraced me with words of love, and inserted into his own letters these words: "To my most pious and most holy fellow-minister Cyrill, John sends greeting in the Lord. It troubles me not a little that, since your holiness has arrived at Ephesus, these few days of my journey remain to me. For the longing for your holiness urges me more to complete this journey quickly than any other necessity." And after other things: "Pray, therefore, lord, that we may pass these five or six remaining days without trouble, and, meeting together, may embrace your holy and divine head. My lord, the most religious bishop John, Paul, and Macarius, greet your holiness. All the brotherhood that is with you, I and those with me greet very much. Farewell, and continue to pray for us, most pious and holy lord." ^B How, then, could he who called me a fellow-minister and brother suddenly become an enemy, having been injured in nothing? I hear, however, that he thinks he is saying something clever to deflect the charges of the crime committed against me, claiming that he was writing while concealing his enmity, intending to bring it to light at the proper time. But then, if I were a heretic and a companion in the wickedness of the impious Apollinarius, Arius, and Eunomius, why did he call me a fellow-minister? And why did he call my head holy, and furthermore, sacred? Is it not manifest to all that if anyone were to choose to favor the barbarians, he would assuredly be an enemy of your most holy kingdom? But he was concealing the enmity, he says; and he was sweet in speech, but had a heart filled with deceit and bitterness. Then who would dare to praise one who is accustomed to living in this manner? Does he perhaps wish for us to examine the chosen ones among the Greeks? ^C But even they have hated the man who is double-tongued and of a different mind. Let us examine the aim of divinely inspired Scripture. But we have heard God clearly speaking about those of like mind with him: "Their tongue is a wounding arrow; the words of their mouth are deceitful: he speaks peaceably to his neighbor, but in his own heart he has enmity. Shall I not punish them for these things? says the Lord; or in a nation of this kind shall my soul not take vengeance?" For deceit, and guile, and hidden bitterness have been hated. ^D

^A by God; and to speak peaceably, while harboring ill-will, is considered by Him an intolerable thing. Wherefore He threatens that He will be the avenger of these things also. But that energetic reviler and cunning calumniator, "finding excuses for sins," as it is written, putting forward something in these matters—perhaps not unskillfully, as he himself thinks—will answer and say: "I too have been zealous for the Lord, just as the holy synod has; but since you were heretics, my sentence has grieved you." But while he says these things, he shows himself to be like those whom the prophet Isaiah introduces, saying: "We have made a lie our hope, and by a lie we shall be protected." And even if no one were to say this, the facts themselves will cry out. For, in the first place, he will be found to be proud and arrogant, since he has cast insult upon the ^B holy ministers of God throughout the whole world, and striking them with one rod, has ordered them to be excommunicated, not so much grieving them thereby, as placing himself outside of communion with them. For it is common, in a way, for the more foolish, when they attempt things that are impious, to think they are hurting others when they are actually hurting themselves more, in the very things they thought they were inflicting upon others. Furthermore, how can it be deemed done in order and correctly to impose penalties upon one’s superiors, and imprudently to leap upon men who have attained a higher order, and to desert the discipline of the ecclesiastical laws, which is the conciliator of peace, failing even to imitate the prudence of those who live in the world? Indeed, your pious majesty has fixed a measure to dignities. For each of those who have attained any honor, not being ignorant of his own order and station, gives place to one who is more excellent, and does not contend to have equal standing with them. ^C But this man, neglecting this as a trifle, and despising every principle of decorum, rushes against everyone with an unbridled and reckless impulse; and having deprived himself of communion with everyone, he nevertheless imagines that he has conducted his own affairs excellently. But if he knew for certain that I and the bishop of the Ephesians were infected with heresy, what prevented him, before he arrived at the city of the Ephesians, from accusing us by letter and making manifest those things concerning which he had a dispute with us? And after he had arrived at Ephesus, what prevented him from meeting us, accusing us freely, bringing the charges into the midst, taking his seat with the holy synod, calling us to a defense, and thus, together ^D with the others, either clearing us of the charge if we were indeed thinking and speaking rightly, or else subjecting us to a just condemnation if we were willing to hold opinions alien to the ecclesiastical dogmas? But because he knew that he was accusing us in vain, and that he had sacrilegiously constructed a calumny against the orthodox, and was gifting to his own side, out of reverence and friendship for Nestorius, grievances against us, he was secretly doing injury; and like one shooting in a night battle, not being seen, and having composed a scroll full of false accusations, he has dared to bring it to your pious ears, nor has that been forgotten.

^A No lying word shall be spoken to the king, as it is written in the divine Scriptures (Prov. xxiv, 23, LXX). Having learned this, we presented a written petition to the holy and ecumenical synod, confessing the correct and undefiled faith of the Church, and anathematizing those who hold the dogmas of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius. We also requested that, according to the laws of the Church, he come into our midst to substantiate his own words and to refute us. What we did was, I think, in accordance with the law. But he fell into such ignorance, or rather, into such cowardice and despair, that he shrank from appearing and did not even dare to look upon the holy synod. Yet he ought certainly to have stood firm with youthful spirit, and not waiting for the summons, to have run to us of his own accord, to refute us clearly, to declare us condemned, and to contend for his own judgment. But being conscious of his own evil, he did not do this; and he so feared the presence of the holy synod that he dared not go out of his own house. ^B Yet how was it likely that those chosen priests, mindful of their priestly office, mindful of God who says: "Judge righteous judgment" (Deut. i, 16), and, "Thou shalt not respect persons in judgment, for the judgment is God’s" (Deut. i, 17), would have totally subjected us to a sentence of condemnation, had they found us infected with heresy? For it was necessary that a report of the proceedings also be compiled, and that these things be made manifest to you. For throughout every region and great city, by the nod of your imperial power, one judge is appointed to whom the trials of capital cases are entrusted; he fears you, the legislators, and is directed by your decrees to the investigation of justice. Since these things are so, how is it credible that men chosen by God for the priesthood, and so great in number, who were possessed of an admirable reputation for the splendor of their lives, would have feared us more than the divine commandment? ^C That his mind was utterly unrestrained toward pride and arrogance, it is very easy to perceive from other things as well. For now for nearly three whole years, since the inventor of new dogmas, Nestorius, did not cease to vomit his blasphemies into the Church; and after he even made the disease of his own mind manifest through his own letters to the most holy bishop of the Roman Church, Celestine, he did not at once receive a harsh and severe sentence, but was admonished rather to reject that depraved opinion from which he suffered, and to embrace the correct and blameless faith. ^D He was admonished not once, but many times. Yet he, the discerning investigator, as he deems himself, of divine dogmas—not to say anything burdensome—he who thinks highly of his own knowledge of divine laws, never having reminded those he had wronged, nor shared a word, nor indeed even established...

his own rashness—has nevertheless inflicted insults upon them with an impious judgment; and perhaps he prides himself greatly on this, so that he may even hear the blessed David saying, or rather the Holy Spirit through the voice of David: ^A “Why do you boast in malice, you who are powerful in iniquity? All day long your tongue has devised injustice; like a sharpened razor, you have wrought deceit. You have loved malice more than goodness, iniquity more than speaking righteousness. You have loved all words of ruin, O deceitful tongue. Therefore God will destroy you forever, he will pluck you up, and will remove you from your tabernacle, and your root from the land of the living” (Ps. LI, 3-7).

I understand, moreover, that there are not lacking those who attempt to absolve him of the offense committed against us, asserting that he was justly incensed at us because the council against the blasphemous Nestorius was held while he was still absent. But these people would do far better if, refraining from casting ^B blame upon us, they were instead to accuse their own tardiness in this matter. Furthermore, those who preceded his arrival and announced to the holy synod that he was not to be expected, and that they had not come of their own volition but were bearing his mandates—why did he not rather hold them in hatred as liars and seducers, instead of regarding them as his most intimate friends? But let it be so: perhaps he was offended. Was it necessary on that account for him to spurn divine laws and forget God, who says: “You shall not kill the innocent and the just” (Exod. XXIII, 7)? Was he to condemn those who had been convicted of no crime ^C? Was he to attack his brethren with the sword of impiety, to contemn ecclesiastical laws, to slander, to lie, and to do this before your most pious ears? Was he to count the right faith as nothing, and to choose to think things that have no stain of falsehood whatsoever, and meanwhile to act as an advocate for him who has poured out blasphemies against Christ, and to seek out falsehood, and to establish and overturn the truth? Would anyone claim that these are the fruits of a holy mind? That these are the inventions of sacerdotal counsel? And yet I hear God saying: ^D “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth” (Malach. II, 7). It is clear, therefore, that through the very things by which he thinks to ward off the charge of the madness he has used against us, he is more openly detected as having acted impiously. For my part, O Christ-loving king, I was indeed rejoicing when I departed from my homeland, leaving behind your Alexandria, and even though a great force of wind was pouring into the sails, and struck the ship like thunder, and waves lifted it on high and roared around the helm, yet I was of a cheerful and calm spirit, and I disregarded the danger of the storm, so that I might reach your most desired

^A sight of your majesty. And indeed, when those who had been chosen by the holy synod to defend what had been done by it were leaving the city of the Ephesians and setting out for that splendid city, I desired to be numbered among those men, first of all to see your majesty, and then, in addition to this, that I might argue in your presence against the bishop of Antioch, and openly show that he had slandered me and had lawlessly caused me pain, and had been overcome by unbridled madness, because I had anathematized the heads of the blasphemies of Nestorius. For the Roman Church has testified to the rectitude of my faith, as has also the holy synod, ^B which was gathered from the whole world under heaven, so to speak. For that I have in no way departed from the apostolic and evangelical tradition, but rather follow the straight and undisturbed path of the holy dogmas, they have all testified by unanimous vote, and this in writing, by the records of the faith, when the letters I had written to Nestorius were read. I desired, however, not only for these reasons to go there, but also to show that the slanders of others against me and my own were false. For the champions of Nestorius’s dogmas, bending the bow of envy and jealousy against me, and in manifold ways brewing the fruits of their unrestrained madness, hiring men and setting them up as accusers—men ^C “whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame,” as the blessed Paul says—were preparing them to become a nuisance to your majesty, and that very frequently; although they had received no harm at all from me, for there was absolutely no discourse of any kind between them and me. But having, as I said, sold their own tongue-wasting to those who were plotting against me, they prattled in vain, leaving nothing untried. For there is nothing these men would not dare; for they have an inveterate malice. Wherefore they even count it as nothing if they are caught in the crime of slandering, and they lie most frequently against whomsoever they wish, even if they do not know those whom they ^D accuse. But all who inhabit your Alexandria know that they are such, and that they have entered upon such a way of life. They spoke evil, therefore, offering this to those who had incited them to it, and, as it were, displaying their rash tongue against me as the price of the gifts they had received. I indeed bore these things with great distress. For how could I not bear it so? Yet I remembered the words of the Savior of us all: “Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven; for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” For when

the father of iniquity, that is to say, Satan, plots to set snares for the Churches and for those who hold the true faith, and attempts to corrupt the tradition of the apostolic and evangelical faith through his own satellites and ministers, then when the guardians of the true faith oppose the truth to him and resist those who pervert right doctrine—having as their ally in battle Christ Himself, who is the Truth—then, indeed, the father of lies immediately raises up many who will lie; and immediately that savage multitude of calumniators rises up against those who choose to live piously. We find that the holy prophets themselves suffered this. For the blessed Amos once prophesied, and he severely rebuked those from Israel because they had held their love for God as nothing and had neglected the laws given to them; but immediately there came forward and resisted him Pashur [or Amasias], who was both a false prophet and a worshiper of demons. He then denounced the truly holy man and prophet to the king of Israel, accusing him in this manner: “Amos is conspiring against you; the land will not be able to bear all his words.” In like manner, the blessed prophet Jeremiah also commanded the sinning people of Israel to correct their ways; yet there were not wanting those who would calumniate him. For they stirred up Zedekiah against him, who then occupied the royal throne. This ^B matter was truly burdensome and indeed grievous to the saints; yet, knowing that which was pleasing and acceptable to God, and preferring it to their own lives, they persisted steadfastly in the work they had undertaken, recollecting what is written: “The heart of kings is in the hand of God: whithersoever He wills, He shall incline it.” For He made those who held the reins of Jewish affairs gentle and merciful, even though they were often sorely provoked. But let us pass over what happened to them, as it is known to all: let us recall to mind our most renowned and thrice-blessed father Athanasius, who was once the bishop of your Alexandria. He indeed fought against the perverse opinion of Arius. But the hangers-on of that man’s filth ^C continued to calumniate him; they loosed against him a licentious and unbridled tongue, and, as if their lies were not enough, they cut off the hand of a man, and carrying it about, they exhibited a terrifying spectacle to those who saw it. They declared that Athanasius had cut it off, and they insisted that a certain man named Arsenius had suffered this. For a long time they persisted in deceiving the ignorant, until at length that Arsenius, who had hitherto been hidden, was found to be yet alive: and thus, with difficulty, the ^D enterprise of their wickedness was finally exposed at that late hour. It is, therefore, an unbearable and exceedingly bitter thing to souls that are free and pure—presenting a terrifying spectacle to the beholders—to [be thus treated]...

the attempts of their wickedness have been exposed. Sane, calumny is indeed grievous and exceedingly bitter to those who are free in spirit and possess a good conscience; and those whose minds undergo such things are agitated with great vehemence. It is, moreover, a most heavy burden to endure such molestations and intrigues gratuitously and without cause from those by whom they had never been wronged in anything. Yet that such things would befall those who serve the truth, holy Scripture had already foretold. For it says: "Strive for the truth unto death, and the Lord will fight for you." ^A And surely our Lord Jesus Christ himself, training his disciples to possess good confidence and urging them to despise every lie and every hardship of persecution, said: "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more his domestics?" ^B And he exhorts them, and most usefully, by adding furthermore: "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord." For if they spoke against Christ himself, what consideration is to be had for us? And if calumnies have been devised against every holy man, how should we, who are the least of all, escape them? The tongue is indeed petulant toward holy men; it is borne along as if down a precipice, yet it is accursed and hated by God. The blessed prophet David sings: "May the Lord destroy all deceitful lips, ^C and ^D the tongue that speaks proud things."

The beloved solitary, Victor, has also had experience of the darts of an unbridled tongue along with me. For certain of those who are accustomed to lie spread the rumor concerning him that he too had uttered some absurd nonsense against me, so that even when he arrived at Ephesus to meet me, some from the holy synod did very much accuse him; or rather, all of them treated him with aversion, as if they had loathed him as one of the impious. They persisted in calling him a parricide, a fratricide, and everything of a like nature. But when that old man understood this, with very many holy bishops standing about him, he lifted his hands to heaven and, in a manner unusual for him, swore by the holy baptism and the venerable mysteries of Christ that he was conscious of none of these crimes. And finally, though I and he alike strove, with great difficulty, to appease the minds of those who were offended, and although very many desired to lie and set upon us in vain—or rather, were even incited to this by the partisans of Nestorius—yet the grace of our Savior and the hatred-of-evil of your piety sufficed to bring us aid. For as if snatched from a burning furnace, you saved us by your most gentle nods, so that, together with the other holy bishops and monks who are spread throughout your whole Egypt, we may continually, for the empire

victory, and stability, offer thanks to the most holy Christ. Through whom, and with whom, to God and the Father be glory, with the Holy Spirit, ^A unto the ages of ages. Amen.

TEN BOOKS OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AGAINST THE EMPEROR JULIAN, TRANSLATED BY NICOLAS BOURBON AND JEAN AUBERT.

Newly reviewed and edited by Ezechiel Spanheim, Leipzig 1676, folio.

FROM THE PREFACE OF EZECHIEL SPANHEIM.

With what design these ten books of Cyril against Julian appear here, with me as the author of this endeavor, will, I think, require little explanation for many. It might perhaps be more of a matter for wonder why they were paid no attention by previous editors of Julian, and especially by Petavius, who devoted himself most specifically, and for a long time and with great diligence, to hunting down and publishing all of Julian's works; especially since the mention of those books which that *apostate* ^A emperor had written against the Christian religion was by no means unknown to him, appearing in the writers of that ancient age, both among the Gentiles and the Christians. To be sure, Petavius touches upon this only in passing in his Preface, by way of refuting that outstanding man who had spoken rather freely against the ancient doctors of the Church by whom Julian had been criticized: namely, that there are altogether only two Greek Fathers whose orations against this same Julian survive: Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril; one of whom, namely Cyril, lived and wrote not a few years after Julian. Yet, while other such works still exist—a fact which did not escape him, as he mentions them in passing elsewhere—of those Greek Fathers, such as the orations or sermons of Chrysostom on Saint Babylas, and the one on the two martyrs under Julian, Juventius and Maximinus, in which that *golden-mouthed* one inveighs, quite bitterly yet not undeservedly, against that prince, his impiety, his superstition, his nefarious arts, and his cruelty toward the Christians. ^B Add to this that the method of the writings against Julian by the theologian Nazianzen and the Alexandrian bishop was not a little different; since by the latter, that is, Cyril, there were not written so much *invective* orations against him, such as those by the former which are still read today, but these ten books, specifically *For the Holy Religion of the Christians, Against the Books of the Impious Julian*, in which he proposed, as the common saying goes, to refute them *step by step* with a most grave disputation. Now, to which books of Julian did Libanius, a Gentile and a friend to this emperor, refer in his funeral oration for him: *Many are the enactments of laws, and the compositions of books aiding the gods*, that is, the sanctions of many laws and indeed the writings of books, assisting the gods; and the same by Christian writers, as I just mentioned, by Nazianzen; who, near the beginning of his first *Philippic* against this *apostate*, touches upon *his impious words and babblings*, ^C referring to his impious and nefarious books and sermons.