On the Correct Faith, to Emperor Theodosius

BY THE SAME HOLY CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, TO THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR THEODOSIUS. ADDRESS. Concerning the right faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

^A 1. The highest point of glory among men, standing apart and preeminent over all others by incomparable distinctions, is yours, O Christ-loving Emperors; and a singular and fitting lot has descended to you from God, in virtue of that superiority which He possesses over all things; for it is right that an image of His excellence should exist upon the earth. For every knee bends to Him, and Thrones and Principalities, Lordships and Powers, bowing their necks as a servant, honor Him with fitting doxologies and declare that Heaven and earth are full of His glory. One may see in your own serenity, too, the clear and manifest archetype of this glory, so illustrious and supreme above all others. For you are the fountains of those dignities that fall to the lot of men, and are beyond all preeminence, and the beginning and origin of human prosperity. ^B And by the gentlest nods of your power, all that is ever subject to the thrones of the empire is steered into a life that is lawful, admirable, and worthy of song. But those who do not endure the yoke fall easily, overcome by your inherent strength. And even if the Emperor’s shield merely flashes, those men's vain fancies are gone, and, straightway withdrawing their own minds from the madness that possesses them, they fall into

^A seeking mercy at your knees. Thus, the most warlike and experienced in battle, and ever-victorious multitude of your guards, holds sway over the heavens. You are the theme of song and lyre, and every expression of praise, for the East and West. Those who dwell toward the South, and indeed those who live in the North, never cease to crown you with songs of thanksgiving. But the unshakeable foundation of your most pious and holy empire is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. ^B For through Him, as it is written, “Kings reign and princes decree justice” (Prov. VIII, 15). For His will is all-powerful, and in His mere nodding is the fullness of every good. He distributes most readily to those who love Him the most exceptional of all things that are desirable and admirable. And what I have said is sufficiently proven by the gifts bestowed upon your power, and those yet to be given, as we trust. That the piety towards God is the unshakeable foundation for the honors of kings, I shall endeavor to prove—as briefly as possible—from the holy and divinely inspired Scripture itself.

II. There have been, without dispute, many ^C in times past who have administered the province of Judea and held the reins of its government. But as many of them as impiously neglected the worship and reverence due to God, and deemed as nothing the law that is the mistress of justice, and considered it permissible to indulge freely in their own pride and passions—all these wretched and wicked men have perished miserably and wickedly. For it is a most dangerous thing to commit any offense against God, and by trampling upon equity, to fall in any way into His displeasure. On the other hand, whoever have declared themselves godly before Him, and have labored with all their might to perform what they believed would be pleasing to Him, have conquered their enemies without toil and ^D dust, and, with the foe defeated and overthrown, have sung a triumph. Of such kind among others was that Josiah, who by burning with fire the worshippers of idols together with their very shrines and altars, and by removing every manner of sorcery and false divination, and by overthrowing the vanities of demonic imposture, made his own kingdom noble in every way, and left it worthy of praise and admiration even to this day, at least among those who know how to honor things in which the divine mind might delight. But these things have all been very well accomplished by your ancestors and by yourselves. I shall, however, profitably recall also what was done in times past by the most wise Hezekiah; for the power of these words will provide no small benefit to your most pious excellence.

^C III. There was a man from the Persian Babylon, whose name was Rabshakeh. After he had all but occupied the entire province of the Jews, and had hostiley ravaged Samaria along with it, he readied himself to attack Jerusalem as well, surrounded by countless troops. He brought with him cavalry forces not easily overcome, or rather, irresistible, along with an infantry that was almost as numerous as the sands of the sea. Then, having surrounded the walls with siege engines and all the other equipment of war, and being haughty beyond measure in his barbarian madness, he boasted that he would capture by force the holy city itself, just as he had the others. He grew arrogant against its unspeakable glory, and let forth blasphemies, unleashing an unrestrained and unbridled tongue against God. For he said that even if He wished to save them, those who placed their hope in Him would find the grace of such assistance to be of no avail. When those who brought word to the king of his insane attempts and the words puffed up with Persian pride arrived, [the king], bearing with the utmost difficulty only the insults turned against God, and prudently considering that these were the pretext for the city’s capture, suddenly rent his garments and went up to the house of God, humbly seeking to avert the divine wrath, and clearing himself of the charges regarding those blasphemies. And what was the outcome? He rendered the Lord of Hosts gracious and propitious to him; he conquered the Assyrian—not by arming horses for battle, not by the accuracy of archers, not by the thrusts of spears, nor by using the tactical skills of those under his command, but rather by the decree from God, who determined in a single night the death of the Assyrian army. "For," it says, "the angel of the Lord went out and slew in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand. And rising in the morning they found all the bodies to be dead." These are the fruits of piety toward God, and the reward of those who will not tolerate a voice [raised] against His divine glory.

^D IV. I believe, however, that nothing that is blasphemous against God ought to be brought to the pious ears of princes; but only that which, placed beyond all reproach and censure, might in every respect make for the praise and glory which, by the highest of rights, are owed to that supreme Divinity. Since, therefore, I have found this to be the best and most appropriate course, I am necessarily moved to present the canon of the right faith, handed down by the apostles, and briefly comprised in this little treatise, as a kind of spiritual gift, both to your majesty and to those truly god-fearing queens themselves, who shine together with your serenity. For the one, rejoicing in the offspring you so much desired and bringing hopes of eternal endurance to your scepters; and the other, flourishing with virginal shoots,

^A possesses with you the concerns of your most illustrious kingdom. Therefore, just as Indian pearls adorn venerable heads, so too does a right, sincere, and blameless faith in God become an adornment of the spiritual soul and mind. Since I am fully confident that you will preserve this faith, I offer this present writing as a kind of firmament for the mind, a light for the soul, and a crown for the heart. For it is written: “Better is wisdom than precious stones; and every desirable thing cannot be compared to it” (Prov. VIII, 11).

I will therefore attempt to speak briefly concerning the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, and to articulate as clearly as possible what exactly the mystery concerning Him is, at least to the extent allowed to those who see in a mirror and in a riddle, and who know in part, according to the measure of the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit, as the divine Paul writes: “For no one says ‘Lord Jesus’ except by the Holy Spirit; and no one says ‘Anathema’ to Jesus, except in Beelzebul” (1 Cor. XII, 3; ibid. 3).

^B V. Someone might perhaps say: “Since you have chosen to descend into the arena for the sake of this matter, and to undertake labor so difficult and arduous, come, if it pleases you, explain the mystery of Christ in a discourse that is not at all contrived for show, but is true, sincere, and free from every stain and vice.” For certain people, intoxicated by various opinions, distort the oracles concerning this matter, which occur throughout the New and Old Scripture, away from their true and genuine sense into an inverted meaning. It does not escape us, indeed, that there is nothing so absurd that the foolish do not attempt it; but they run headlong into the depth of hell, as it is written, and into the snares of death, “not understanding either what they say or about what they assert” (1 Tim. I, 7). It is useful, however, to know what these trifles and pedantic fables of theirs are.

VI. For some have dared to think and say ^C that the Word born of God the Father appeared in the form of a man, but they deny that He took on flesh from the holy and Theotokos Virgin, and they falsely claim that the whole mystery consisted only in an external appearance. Others, again, considering it shameful and disgraceful if they should seem to worship a man, and refusing to bestow the highest honor upon earthly flesh—suffering from this foul disease of ignorance and from a perverse and adulterated religion—assert that the Word born of God was changed into the nature of bones, nerves, and flesh. And so these wretches, making a mockery of the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin, judge that most excellent and divine economy to be unseemly. There are also those who believe that the Word, co-eternal with God the Father, was born late, that is, that He came into being only when He was brought forth into light according to the flesh. And there are some who, even toward this, ^D [are driven by] ungodly madness.

so that they say the Word of God is anhypostaton—that is, possessing no subsistence (of such a nature is that which only exists and is understood while it is uttered by the mouth)—and they contend that such a Word came into being in man. These truly are Marcellus and Photinus.

Others are found who, even if they do not deny that the only-begotten Word of God truly became man and was incarnated, nonetheless cannot be brought to believe that the flesh which He assumed was fully animated and endowed with a soul which possessed reason and a mind similar to our own. For, joining the Word who is from the Father and the temple which arose from the holy Virgin into one perfect unity, they imagine that the Word dwelt in it, and that He made the assumed body His own, while He Himself filled the place of the rational and intelligent soul.

^B There are others again who, while upholding opinions contrary to those of these men and opposing their sentiments, constantly assert that Emmanuel was composed and woven together from the Word of God and an intelligent soul and body—that is, from a completely perfect human nature. Yet they do not maintain a doctrine that is entirely sound and free from all defect. For they divide the one Christ into two, and introducing as it were a coarse division between them, they demonstrate each of them as standing separately and, so to speak, of himself. They contend that one is the man perfectly born of the Virgin, and the other, again, is the Word of God the Father Himself. They do not distinguish [only] what the nature of God is and what the nature of the flesh is, nor do they wish to occupy themselves only with the differences between these. For they would not have missed the mark of ^C true understanding in this, since the nature of the flesh and the nature of the Godhead are not the same. But they place this one as man separately and apart, and the other they name as God by nature and in truth, even though they wish to be Christians. And indeed, having written certain little treatises about these matters, they have dared to say in these very words: "The one, indeed, is the Word from God the Father, by nature and in truth the Son; the other, however, is Son only homonymously with the Son." And after other things, again: "The flesh is not the Word of God, but He assumed a man." "The one, indeed, the Only-begotten, is primarily and by Himself the Son of God, the Creator of all; but the man whom He assumed, not being God by nature, is called Son of God homonymously with Him, on account of Him who assumed him and is truly the Son of God." For that which is said, "No one knows who the Son is, except the Father" (Luke x, 22), ^D reveals the one who is by nature perfect and in truth the Son from the Father. But that which was proclaimed by Gabriel, "Do not fear, Mary, for you have found grace before God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (Luke i, 30), applies to the man.

But these things are theirs. We, however, shall not think in this way. For the argument will in no way persuade those who have abandoned the straight path to run along another which is outside the mark and distorted.

^A

VII. But if anyone were to choose to make a long discourse upon each of these opinions, and to institute a just and accurate examination, he would spend an incalculable amount of time; and having endured an arduous and hardly surmountable labor, he would scarcely accomplish anything worthy of praise. Letting go, therefore, of the need to think that we must weary ourselves with long and excessively tedious talk, and applying a very brief judgment to each point, let us say, and first of all to the Docetae: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the great mystery of godliness, that is to say, Christ, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory." ^B It is necessary, I think, for those who hold the contrary opinion to cast the most shameful charge upon the ancient writers, and to convict the teachers of the inhabited world, whom Christ himself commanded, saying, "Go, teach all nations," of falsehood; or, at the very least, if they shrink from doing this, they should embrace the right opinion concerning Christ and bid farewell to their own ignorances, and, clinging tenaciously to the divine Scriptures, and having entered upon the safe and errorless path of the saints, strive straight toward the truth itself.

VIII. For that mystery of godliness is, I think, nothing other than the Word of God the Father himself, who was manifested in the flesh: for he took the form of a servant and was born of the holy Virgin and Theotokos. He was seen also by angels, for they venerated him even as a newborn, ^C and uttered that doxology: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men." And even those same ones announced to the shepherds that the Word of God had come in the flesh for our sake: "Behold," they say, "there is born to you this day a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be the sign unto you: You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger." Since, therefore, such was the birth of God through the Virgin, and such his manifestation in the flesh, how is it not great vanity and sheer temerity, or rather, how is it not open insanity and mere delirium, to give the name of "appearance" to an economy so glorious and so evident? For if the incarnation of the Word is a shadow or a merely imaginary thing, ^D and the Virgin did not truly give birth, then neither did the Word, who proceeded from God the Father, take hold of the seed of Abraham, nor was he made like unto his brethren. For those things which are seen in us are not a type, nor a shadow, nor a specter, but truth and the reality itself. For we live in bodies which can be both touched and seen; and, clothed in earthly flesh, we are subject to decay and other passions.

IX. Therefore, if the Word of God did not become flesh, and since he was not tested in that which he endured, he cannot...

provide aid to those who are tempted. For truly, no passion can fall upon a shadow, and thus all things that were done for the sake of our salvation would truly vanish into nothingness. ^B For what back, I ask, did he provide to be scourged for us? Or what cheeks did he present to those who struck him, or how did he endure the beatings of the Jews? In what way could one believe that he who did not possess flesh had his hands and feet pierced with nails? Or what side, tell me, was it that the soldiers of Pilate pierced, showing to those who looked on the precious blood flowing together with water? And if one must speak of what follows such things: neither did Christ the Lord die for us, nor was he raised from the dead. If this is admitted, our faith utterly vanishes; further, the cross, which is the salvation and life of the world, perishes; and finally, all the hope of those who have fallen asleep in the faith is destroyed. For it seemed to the blessed Paul that this was indeed the case; for he says: "For I delivered to you first of all, which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve: after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James; then by all the apostles. And last of all he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." ^C And after other things, again: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." Tell me, if he were a shadow, in what way could he die? How then did the Father raise Christ, if he were a shadow and a phantom, and not subject to the bonds of death? Let that vomit of theirs therefore be gone, and let us consider their words as myths and mere offscourings of an unholy purpose. For the disciple of the Savior forewarns us of such men, writing: "That many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh ^D is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." For if he has not been born as man, nor ascended in the flesh to the Father and God in heaven, neither will he return from heaven as man, clearly, and in the flesh.

^A X. Furthermore, to imagine—as some people most foolishly imagine and proclaim—that the Word begotten of God rejected his birth from the holy Virgin and, despising the logic of our nature, was changed into earthly flesh, is nothing other than to blaspheme openly the mystery of the dispensation and to insult rashly the divine counsels. For the Creator of the universe, and the Word of God, who is rich in mercy, because of us became man, and was born of a woman; "in order that, since the children," that is, we, "shared in flesh and blood, he himself might in like manner participate in the same; that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who, through fear of death, were all their life subject to bondage." And this, indeed, is what the holy Scripture has said. Yet they brand such a wholesome and fitting counsel with the mark of indecency, and, as if possessed of greater wisdom, they criticize the decrees of Wisdom itself. For they say that it is not fitting for us to maintain that the Only-begotten was born of a woman with the pains of childbirth; they think rather that the nature of the Word was changed into this frail and earth-born body, and they imagine a change of him who knows no change. For the nature of God is established ^B in its own goods, and it possesses an unshakable state in those things in which it exists. For a created nature, being brought forth into existence in time, could indeed suffer alteration—and this would not be inconsistent with the logic of what is proper and true; for whatever has had a beginning of its existence in any way, already at the same time possesses a necessity for change. But God, who is beyond all mind, and nature, and generation, and corruption, having an existence that is transcendent and preeminent, will be above any change. And just as by the logic of his own nature he stands above and transcends everything inclined toward generation, and does so by incomparable differences, so too will he stand above suffering those things which are accustomed to happen to things brought into existence through him—not knowing that which is naturally prone to suffer harm. Therefore, the divine is immutable in its goods; but the things of creation are involved in alteration and changes, and have corruption close at hand. ^C And the prophet Jeremiah, by no means ignorant of this matter, but philosophizing most excellently, calls out to God: "You indeed remain unto the age; but we perish along with the age." For the divine sits as if on its own throne, always reigning and exercising authority over all, and is not tyrannized by any passions; but we, having a nature that is most easily led and quite prone to alteration and change, perish along with the age—that is, in every time and moment, we live a life subject to vicissitude and destruction. Therefore, the divinity could never be in a state of turning away from its own stability, being driven out by the

^A propulsion beyond the limits of its own stability; nor will a corruptible and alterable nature—that is, the created nature—ever obtain an essential immutability; nor will any creature be completely crowned with the goods of the divine nature as if they were its own. For it will hear, and with good reason: "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). But that the nature of the Word is entirely unchangeable and immutable, and that every created thing is entirely mutable, one may perceive, ^B even with the greatest ease, as the blessed David sings in the Spirit: "The heavens will perish, but you remain; and all will grow old like a garment, and like a mantle you will roll them up, and they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not fail" (Ps. 101:27, 28). Where, then, does the Word from God remain the same any longer, if it is true to say that, having left behind that which holds firm and unshakable, he has descended into that which he was not, and has been changed into the nature of flesh, and into that which is by nature subject to decay? Are these things not, then, already trifles and madness? And yet, how could one doubt it? This is exactly what it is to be born destined to corruption. Are these not, I beg you, mere delusions? Are they not, then, open insanity? They are indeed beyond any controversy.

XI. Otherwise, it remains for us to say, if we oppose their stupidity with something even more stupid, that it is not absurd that earthly flesh should also be able to be converted at some time into the nature of the divinity and become the supreme substance of all things (1). For if the divine nature itself, according to their stupid thinking, has passed over into the nature of flesh, nothing, as it seems, prevents the flesh from transcending its own lower nature and being transformed also into divinity and into the supreme essence. But we are not so foolish, nor of such levity ^C as to set aside the letters of holy Scripture and so lightly subscribe to their insane opinions, when the prophet clearly asks: "Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel" (Isa. 7:14); and the blessed angel of the Lord, Gabriel, confirming the oracle of the prophet and explaining the heavenly decree to the Virgin, thus proclaims: "Do not fear, Mary: for behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus" (Luke 1:30). We believe, therefore, that Emmanuel was truly born of a woman, and we will not disdain that brilliant and most admirable glory of our own nature, if we are truly wise. For the Only-Begotten did not ^D take on his own nature (for in this way, nothing more would have accrued to our own state for the better), nor did he take on that of the angels; but, as it is written, "he took hold of the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). For only in this way, and not otherwise, could the human race, which had slipped into decay, be restored.

XII. What then? Is it not, I ask, worthy of the highest admiration that some, while their own mind...

^A gives itself up to the divinely inspired Scripture, and while they fill their own mind, through a spirit of error, with such folly and childish ^B stupidity as to suppose that the Creator of the ages, the God-Word, co-eternal with God and the Father, received the beginning of His existence through His birth in the flesh, and imagine that He who is beyond all age and time was born only now? Or that God became a Father only at the last and tardy times of the Incarnation? Or that He through whom all things exist and in whom all things subsist, received the beginning of His existence along with the temple which the Virgin brought forth? Have those who, oppressed by the stupor of their mind, so readily cling to such a carnal and execrable fable, not indeed reached the highest pinnacle of evil? "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." 36 For it must necessarily be understood that He through whom all things exist, existed before all things. What else could they say, when John writes: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made"? 37 And again: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and we proclaim to you the life eternal which was with the Father and was manifested to us." 38 And Christ Himself, who signifies to the Jews the invisible antiquity of His own essence. For since they said: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" they clearly heard in reply: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." 39 Since that substantial word, *was*, and *am*, are used here absolutely, in such a way that nothing at all is added to them, what beginning of His generation, I pray, could anyone imagine here? Or by what reasoning can it come to pass that He who, in the beginning, was beyond all mind and perception, should have been inclined to subsist in time? But if anyone should wish to linger a little longer on this discussion, it would not be difficult, by bringing forward testimonies of the divine Scriptures, to repel the shafts of this insanity. True, I consider it superfluous to care at all about those things which labor under such patent baseness and can be ^C refuted with such great ease. Wherefore, let us now turn our speech to that which is akin to these condemned opinions.

XIII. There are some, therefore, who obscure the beauty of the truth, adulterating it just as one would a coin, and lifting up the horn on high, speaking iniquity against God, as it is written 41, against the non-existent

^A and specifically non-subsistent ^A do they imagine the Only-begotten. And they say that he is not in an individual subsistence, but is a word merely, and a speech brought forth from God by pronunciation alone. And even in man, these wretches say, he dwelt. And having thus composed Jesus, they say that he is holier than the holy ones, but not however God. Therefore, as the disciple of the Savior writes, "Who is the liar, if it is not he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." For both are known by both, and each is in each, both by us and by the holy angels. For no one could learn what the Father is, unless he should receive into his mind a Son who subsists and is begotten. Nor again could one learn what the Son is, unless he should clearly understand that the Father has begotten him. Therefore, I believe it is necessary and safe to say that if the Son does not subsist, we would not even understand the Father to be a Father in truth. For where is a father, if he has not truly begotten? Or if he has begotten that which does not subsist, and which does not exist at all, that which is begotten will be nothing. For that which does not subsist is equal to nothing, or rather, it is absolutely nothing; then God will be the Father of nothing.

XIV. To the Teachers of Such Doctrines

XV. Regarding Philip's Question

^A no one could behold him who subsists in one who does not subsist; nor could one ever conceive that which exists and that which does not exist to be one and the same. But how will the Father be in the Son, and the Son in his turn in the Father? Is it not ready to answer that, if the Word is destitute of a proper subsistence, the Father himself will also be brought into peril, as one who has in himself that which is nothing, and is thus understood to be nothing at all? For that which is not at all ought to be understood as nothing. These things are, indeed, most thorny and full of many and great absurdities. Yet the dogma of the adversaries urges them into all these absurdities. One may well and deservedly wonder by what reason the Father, through the Son, created all things that are seen in this universe of things, if he never attained any hypostasis. But if anyone were asked whether it is a good thing for those things which exist to be, or perhaps not to be, he will immediately, without doubt, answer that it is better to exist than not to exist; whence that Artificer of things, who imparted existence to those things which once were not, is called and is most good. But if this is the case, as it indeed is, it follows that creatures are in a better condition than he himself through whom all things were created: since he is denied to exist, while they do exist and are known to have attained a nature of their own. O absurd thoughts! Begone with these insulting words. "For the Word of God is living and efficacious," as it is written. ^B Therefore the Lord himself also was saying, "I am the life." But if he does not subsist, how can he be called or thought of as life? Moreover, life is life by its own nature, for it lies in no way. Whence, whoever despoils the Word, who is born of God, of subsistence, they utter the most putrid lie and vomit forth the dregs of the most foolish minds. For to Moses himself he said, "I am who I am." But how can that which truly is by itself, and is preserved in a subsistence of its own, ever be thought of as not subsisting? Therefore, we shall rightly judge those who have thought in this way to be in the depth of ignorance.

^C

XVI.

^A nature being united by nature to the Word, while they account the tradition of the faith that is from above and of most ancient standing as worth almost no consideration at all. Instead, they have ignorantly chosen to follow only the judgment of their own will and human reasonings, and to think truly not as they ought to think. And what is the rationale for this dogma of theirs? I will say. We affirm, according to the Scriptures, that the Mediator of God and of men, that is, Christ, is composed of our humanity, which is perfect according to its own rationale, and of the Son who has appeared from God by nature, that is, the Only-Begotten. We assert that a certain union, and a coming-together beyond speech, has been wrought into one of natures that are unequal and dissimilar. Yet we recognize one Christ, and Lord Jesus, and Son, who is named, ^B subsisting at once as both God and man, and so understood. We are accustomed to maintain the union as absolutely inseparable, believing the same to be both Only-Begotten and Firstborn: Only-Begotten, as the Word of God the Father, and having appeared from His essence; but Firstborn, in that He has become man, and is among many brethren. For just as there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, so also there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. For we recognize that He through whom are all things is God by nature, the Word, even if He has become flesh, that is, man.

XVII. ^C But their opinions by no means highly accord with ours regarding this matter. For they themselves, indeed, confessedly acknowledge Jesus Christ as one, and they highly execrate, as most impious, the dividing of Emmanuel into two, as a thing conjoined with the greatest impiety. Yet, in the meantime, they preach that the Word from God is united to flesh, that is, human [flesh] which is stripped and destitute of an intellectual soul; and they maintain that they have found a rationale for this that is quite plausible, in their view. For they say that things which run together by composition for the constitution of one perfect being, are seen to be parts and to possess the mode of imperfect ^D things; while that which is perfect by itself, and as in its own nature, has no need to come to a partial composition. Therefore, they say, one must reasonably refrain from attributing a perfect man—the temple that was united to the Word—lest the union, whatever one might conceive it to be in the case of Christ, should fail to preserve for its part a precise and unassailable rationale. Moreover, they might add this too, as I suppose, again: If we say that Emmanuel consists of a perfect man, they say, and of the Word who is from the Father, the danger is not small, but rather it appears henceforth as something inescapable, that we would be compelled, even against our will, both to think and to say two sons and two Christs. Then what shall we answer to these men? First, that the [mode] of the faith so...

^A ancient, and which came down to us from the holy apostles themselves, it is not right to subvert by excessive subtleties, nor, indeed, to subject things which are above the mind to extreme scrutiny, nor even to bring them forth into the arena like certain definitions, and rashly say that one thing is right, and another thing is otherwise. It was surely necessary, and indeed it would have been much better, to entrust rather to the all-wise God the path of his own counsels, and not unholily to criticize those things which have been approved as good by him. For we shall hear him clearly saying: “For my counsels are not as your counsels, nor are my ways as your ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so is my way far from your ways, and your thoughts from my thought.” ^B

XVIII. Therefore, although we do indeed believe that the temple which was united to the Word is a human soul, perfected and informed, nevertheless we do not worship two sons, nor do we acknowledge two Christs. For just as, according to what seems good to them, even if one were to say that [the Savior] is composed only of flesh and of the Word emerged from God the Father, in accordance with the opinion which they hold—yet they would in no way allow themselves to be driven to this point, that by setting the flesh apart and the Unigenitor apart, they should confess two Christs—so we too, although we affirm that the Word of God was united in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner to our humanity, being totally and perfectly united to it according to the rationale of his own nature, yet we do not conceive in our minds a duality of sons, ^C but one and the same [person], who by nature is God, and has emerged from the very substance of God and the Father; but who in the last times of the age became man, and was born of the holy and Theotokos Virgin, and is worshipped and adored both by us ourselves and by the holy angels, according to the Scriptures.

XIX. But if they should say that our race was in need only of the arrival of the Unigenitor, and that since he wished to be seen by those who dwell on earth, and to converse amicably with men, and to point out to us the path of the angelic way of life, he merely put on flesh similar to us by a certain economy (for the Divine according to its own nature does not fall under sight)—they clearly show that they are ignorant of the goal of the incarnation, and do not at all understand that great mystery of piety. For if the incarnation, or rather the becoming man, has only the procuring of the Unigenitor to be seen by those ^D on earth as its reason, and nothing else was added to the human nature, why should it not be better for us also, in some way, and more “wise” to agree with the opinion of the Docetae, who, stripping the Word of flesh and of an earthy body, create a myth—wretches that they are—that he appeared on earth as a man

in the likeness of a man but not in human nature? But ^A how much these wretches stray from the mark of truth can be shown with little effort. If, I say, the Word of God, even though he became flesh, brought no other benefit to human nature, would it not be more correctly established that he should have completely abstained from the defilement of the flesh, while still choosing to use an earthy body, and in this way accomplished what he had decreed? But if anyone should perhaps ask us what the purpose of his coming was, or what the mode of the incarnation, or for whose sake it was accomplished; let him have this in place of an answer: Come, the divine Scripture shall reveal this to you. Go, therefore, and consult the sacred Letters, and fix the eye of your mind upon the voices of the holy apostles; and that which is sought, you shall see clearly herein. Therefore, the most wise apostle Paul, who had Christ speaking within him, discourses in this manner: “Since therefore the children shared in flesh and blood, he himself in the same way partook of the same, so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.” And indeed, explaining the manner to us elsewhere, he says, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.”

^B XX. Is it not, I ask, most manifest, and to no one existing is it obscure, that the Only-begotten Son of God became like us, that is, a perfect man, so that he might deliver this earthy body of ours—by infusing into it his own life through the economic union—from the corruption that had been introduced; and that, having again made the human soul his own, through the firmness and immutability of his own nature, he might, just as a dye colors wool, declare it superior to sin? For I believe that there is need of examples in these matters which, being in themselves somewhat obscure, might illustrate them; since we see divine mysteries, which exceed the sense of the human mind, only in a mirror and in a riddle. And I think it would not be out of place, for the matter itself bears within it the likely, or rather the true, reasoning. Just as, therefore, since it has become the flesh of the Word who gives life to all things, it rises above the power of corruption and death; ^C in the same way, I suppose, since it has become the soul of one who knows not how to sin, it possesses from then on a fixed state in all that is good, made unchangeable, and far more powerful than the sin which formerly reigned over us tyrannically. For Christ is the first and only man on earth who “did not sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” As a root, therefore, and a beginning established for all those who are being reformed into the newness of life in the Spirit, he will transmit both the incorruptibility of the body and the safety of the divinity, fixed as by participation and by grace, even unto all the human race. And

^A know this, the inspired Paul writes: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." For by the "image of the earthy," he meant our instability toward sin and the death cast upon us from it; but by the "image of the heavenly"—that is, of Christ—he designated stability in holiness, and the recovery and restoration from death and corruption unto incorruptibility and life.

XXI. We assert, therefore, that the Word of God is united in His entirety to our entire human nature. For one must not think that having neglected the better part of us—that is, the soul—he would have deigned to bestow only upon the flesh the sufferings of his sojourn. Rather, the mystery of the Economy was accomplished well through both parts: he used his flesh as an instrument for works of the flesh, for natural infirmities, and for all those things that are far from sin; and he used his own soul for human and blameless passions. For it is said that he hungered, that he endured the labors of long journeys, and fears and anxieties, and sorrow, and anguish, and finally even that death upon the cross. For under no compulsion, he laid down his own soul for our sake, so that he might hold dominion over both the dead and the living. Indeed, he paid his own flesh, without controversy, as the price of liberation for the flesh of all; and he offered his soul as an exactly equivalent price for the souls of all mankind, even if he did resume the life he had laid down—for he was life by nature, as God. Hence the divine Peter says: "Men and brethren, let it be permitted to speak with boldness to you concerning the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his soul left in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption." For it is not fitting to say that the flesh united to the Word could ever be corrupted, or that his divine soul could be detained within the gates of hell. For, as the divine Peter says, his soul was not left in hell. Nor, indeed, shall we say that that Nature which can neither be comprehended by the mind nor in any way captured by death—that is, the divinity of the Only-Begotten—emerged again from those subterranean dens; since it would indeed be worthy of no wonder if the Word of God, relying upon the power of his divinity and its efficacy, had not remained among the dead, when he is present in an admirable way to all, and fills all things. For the Divinity is superior to every place, to spatial circumscription, and to measurable magnitude, and can be contained or comprehended by nothing.

XXII. ^A It ought, in truth, to seem marvelous that a body which was by its own nature subject to decay and death should return again to life: for that was a property of the immortal Word. Thus, also, the soul, which had been joined and united with Him, descended to the lower world and, using divine power and authority, showed itself to the spirits who were held captive there. For to those who were bound there by chains, He said: "Come forth"; and to those who were covered by darkness: "Be revealed." And it seems to me that the great Peter, when he speaks in this manner concerning the Word of God and His soul according to the economy of union, looked to this very thing: "For it is better, if it be the will of God, that you suffer for doing good than for doing evil; because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; being put to death indeed in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit, in which," he says, "He also went and preached to the spirits who were in prison, who sometimes were disobedient." For neither, I think, would they say that the divinity of the Only-Begotten, being in itself completely invisible—for the Divine is always ^B superior to being seen—descended alone to the lower world and preached to the spirits there. Nor shall we concede that it was transformed into the appearance of a soul by way of mere semblance; for the fabrication of such an external phantom must be altogether rejected. But just as the Only-Begotten, while He was yet living in His body, dwelt among those who were upon the earth, so also, bearing His own vessel—the soul that was united to Him—He preached to the spirits who were held in the lower world.

XXIII. ^C The mode of the incarnation is indeed truly profound and unspeakable, and such that it exceeds the narrow limits of our thoughts and comprehension in many respects. Wherefore it behooves us to ponder this again and again: just as it is not free from danger to inquire too curiously into things that are not human, so it is the height of madness to attempt to submit things that transcend the edge of our mind to the scales of human judgment, or to struggle to force into the understanding of things that can in no way be grasped by our intelligence. Do you not know that this profound mystery, which is more sublime than all human sense, is honored by us through faith, remote from all curious investigation? Wherefore, leaving that foolish question, "How can these things be?" to Nicodemus and those like him, let us without any hesitation receive the oracles of the Holy Spirit, ^D and let us have faith in Christ Himself speaking of Himself: "Amen, amen, I say to you, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen." Away, then, with all nonsense, and idle fables, and false opinions, and the imposture of ornate words; for we admit nothing that is wont to bring harm, even if adversaries should assail us with the most trained and bitter arguments. For our divine mystery is not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit.

^A XXIV. The Only-Begotten, therefore, who is God and Lord of all according to the Scriptures, has appeared to us; for He was seen upon the earth and shone upon those who were in darkness, having become man—not in phantasm, Heaven forbid! For to think or say this is plainly madness. Nor, again, was He transformed into flesh by way of change or mutation; for the Word of God is ever immutable, existing in one and the same way. Nor did He receive a substance coeval with the flesh; for He Himself is the Creator of the ages. Nor is He lacking in hypostasis, as a mere word or simple speech that might have dwelt in a man; for He who calls things that are not into existence and being must necessarily pre-exist; for He Himself is Life, having shone forth from the Life of God the Father, existing and being understood in His own proper hypostasis. But neither did He assume flesh destitute of a rational soul; for He who is living and existing, the God Word, coeternal with God the Father, was truly born of a woman and appeared as man, having taken the form of a servant. And as He is perfect in divinity, so is He also perfect in humanity; not composed of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ and Lord and Son, but combined in a wondrous way into one and the same [person] from two perfections, I mean humanity and divinity.

^B XXV. But here someone will perhaps inquire: "Whom, then, did the holy Virgin bring forth? The man, or the Word who is from God?" To which we answer: such an inquiry is nothing else than to be in error and to be led away from what is true and honorable. Let no one imagine a division for me after the union; nor, by partitioning Emmanuel into man separately and God separately, should he fashion for us two persons, lest someone justly brand us with a mark, as if we instituted nothing that is right, but only that which has been condemned by the divine Scriptures. For one of the disciples of Christ says: "But you, beloved, be mindful of the words which were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who told you that in the last time there will come scoffers, walking according to their own desires in ungodliness. These are they who separate, sensual, not having the Spirit." ^C It is therefore in no way lawful to grant a separation, even if after the union the two must appear, and each is to be understood distinctly. One must know, therefore, that while the mind perceives a certain difference of natures (for the nature of divinity and of humanity is nowhere the same), it will at the same time accept, along with the concepts regarding them, their concurrence into unity. Thus, then, God is from the Father as God, and man from the Virgin. For He who is from God the Father ^D and Son and Christ in a wondrous way.

^A and above the capacity of the mind is said to have been born of a woman, having descended into humanity and submitted Himself to that which He was not. This was not in order that He might remain emptied, but that He might be believed to be God, even appearing on earth in the form of one of us; not as though He inhabited a man, but as having truly become man Himself, while yet preserving His own glory intact.

Wherefore, the divine Paul, bringing together into one through the economy those things which are by nature far apart and separated by an immeasurable difference—namely, divinity and humanity—and signifying that from both there is one Christ and Son and God, says: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which He promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures ^B concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness” (Rom. 1, 1-4). Behold, therefore, he clearly says that he was separated unto the Gospel of God, even though he writes openly: “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus” (2 Cor. 4, 5); and again: “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2, 2).

XXVI. On the Son of God and His birth from the seed of David

XXVI. Moreover, when he names Him the Son of God, and declares Him born of the seed of David, and confirms that He has been declared Son of God, tell me then, I pray you, in what way is He God who was born from the seed of David? And again, He who before the ages was begotten eternally by the Father as Son, in what way was He *declared* the Son of God, as though He had received a beginning of existence ^C at that time? For He says of Himself: “The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2, 7). Yet the word "today" does not at all denote to us a past time, but rather the present time. Deep is the mystery, but to those who divide and separate it, it is indeed difficult to reach and truly inexplicable. To those, however, who bind the Emmanuel into unity, the unadulterated knowledge of sacred dogmas is near at hand and very easy to grasp. For the Son, coeternal with Him who begat Him and existing before all ages, when He descended into human nature—not having slipped from being God, but having assumed the human—may reasonably be thought to have been born also from the seed of David ^D and to have had a most recent birth in humanity. Thus, that which was assumed is not foreign to Him, but truly His own. It is accounted, therefore, as being toward Him, just as anyone might observe in the composition of a human being; for the nature is woven together from unlikes—I mean, of course, from soul and body—but nonetheless the compound is understood to be one man, just as sometimes the living creature is named from the flesh alone,

and sometimes named from the soul, that which is formed from both is not infrequently understood. In exactly the same manner, those things which are spoken of Christ must be received. For there is one Son, and one Lord Jesus Christ, both before the flesh and when He has appeared as man. ^A For when the soul is named, the combination is to be understood.

XXVII. And although that same Redeemer of ours is sometimes intimated to us through the properties of human nature and the conditions of the emptying, we shall not on that account deny the Lord who redeemed us. Our Lord Jesus Christ indeed speaks thus to the Jews: “If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth: this Abraham did not do.” ^B Paul also writes concerning Him: “Who in the days of his flesh, offering up prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears unto him that could save him from death, was heard for his reverence; and whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” Shall we therefore judge this same Christ to be a mere man, in no respect more excellent than others? God forbid! Shall we grant that the wisdom and power of God cast itself into such weakness that it feared death and sought to be saved by the Father? Shall we deny that Emmanuel is Life by nature? Or shall we not rather, by referring whatever lowly things are said of Him to humanity and to the humility of our nature, deport ourselves laudably, if from those things by which He is recognized to be God, we acknowledge His supreme majesty, understanding Him to be the same God and man, that is to say, God having become man? ^C But let that most approved apostle Paul come forward into our midst, crying out and saying in these words: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which none of the men, nay rather, which none of the princes of this world knew. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” And again in another place: “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” ^D Yet to be and to be called the Lord of glory, does this not leave behind by an immense space all that is created and fashioned? I pass over human things (for these are of very little account), but I ask, I beseech you, whoever may have intellect and wisdom, whether someone should enumerate Angels, or Principalities, and Thrones, and Dominions, and—to say something even greater—if he should mention even the highest Seraphic spirits, he would confess that they fall behind such transcendent glory, if he has a mind to

contemplate it, or whether he will not admit that they are in many respects inferior to that majesty which is so excellent? For I say that the most excellent honor is to be attributed only to the Prince of all nature. How then could the Lord of glory be one who was crucified? Yet he is reported to have “become more excellent than the angels, as the radiance of the Father and the stamp of his substance, bearing all things by the word of his power” ^A — perhaps, as I think, having received this diminution when he appeared as a man. For it is written: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” Shall we, then, cast out the Word who shone forth from God the Father from that essential transcendence befitting him, and from the exact likeness to him, just because we see him—in view of what is considered in the economy—rendered lower than the glory of the angels? Not at all. For I think it is necessary neither to strip the Word of God of human things entirely after his union with the flesh, nor, on the other hand, to deprive the human nature of the glory befitting God, if it is thought of and spoken of in Christ; neither should the glory that befits God be denied to it, if it is considered in the humanity, as it is in Christ.

XXVIII. Further considerations on the identity of Christ

XXVIII. I have not been ignorant, however, that some will ask: “Come now, who is truly Jesus Christ? Is he the man born of a woman, or is he the Word begotten of God?” It is utter folly to contend with superfluous words and to ^B reply with idle, old-wives' tales. But I say that it is both dangerous and pernicious to divide them into two and to set them apart—man and Word—since the mystery of the economy does not admit such a separation, and divine Scripture besides declares clearly that there is but one Christ. For I affirm that it is not right to name as Christ Jesus either the Word of God without humanity, or, again, the temple born of a woman as not having been united to the Word. For the Word of God, having been ineffably united to humanity according to an economical union, is understood as Christ. He is higher than humanity, as he is by nature God and Son; yet he does not think it degrading to appear in a state of subjection, because of the human element. Thus, at one time he used to say: ^C “He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one.” And at another time, in turn: “The Father is greater than I.” For not being less than the Father in regard to equality in substance, or in any other respect whatsoever, he says that he is in a lesser state because of the human element.

XXIX. Indeed, it is also proclaimed through the sacred Writings, sometimes as being entirely man, with his divinity being economically passed over in silence; at other times, in turn, as God, with his humanity being passed over in silence. Yet he is in no way wronged, because of the gathering of both into a unity. And thus, ^D the blessed Paul, who...

^A was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and of the tribe of Benjamin, and a called apostle, writes in this way to those who had been justified by faith and had mortified the members of the flesh (I mean fornication, and passion, and evil desire, and covetousness): "For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." Christ himself also prayed thus regarding his own disciples: "Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; and I guarded them, and none of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves." Do you understand, then, how in these passages he appears to be indicated solely by his humanity, in our manner? For it is not permitted to conclude from these that the Word had hidden himself anywhere, or had departed from this world: it is certain that he has clearly discoursed elsewhere: "Amen, amen, I say to you, where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And again: "Behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the world." ^B You may also see the most holy Paul himself frequently and in many places designating him somewhat hesitantly by the name of "man": "Paul," he says, "an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ." And again, in addition to this: "But I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ." And indeed he says in another place: "If we have even known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know him no longer." Who, then, is that Jesus Christ who illuminated the apostle with the knowledge of divine mysteries in a hidden, sure, and divine manner? Is it not the Word, who for our sake did not refuse to become man and to be born of a woman? And is this not, I ask, true? Indeed, it is most true. For we remember that Gabriel addressed the holy Virgin with such words: ^C "Do not fear, Mary; for behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you will bear a Son, and you will call his name Jesus." This name, I think, was given as a new name to the Word by the Father through the voice of the angel. For a prophetic oracle had cried out long before: "And a new name shall be called upon you, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." Since, therefore, the only-begotten Son, who existed coeternal with the Father before all ages, became man in the last times, and was born of a woman, and was designated as Son of God, and has been called the firstborn, and has been numbered among many brethren; then the one who is Father by nature also imposes the name, following, if we may so speak, the laws of paternity. ^D

^A 30. The same being is, therefore, both Only-begotten and firstborn: Only-begotten indeed as God, but firstborn in that, according to the economic union, He has conversed as man among us and among many brethren, so that we too might be made sons of God in Him and through Him, both by nature and by grace—by nature, as being in Him and in Him alone; but by participation, and by grace, we through Him in the Spirit. Just as, therefore, it became proper to the humanity of Christ, because it is joined to the Word according to the bond of the dispensation, to be and to be called the Only-begotten, so it became proper to the Word, because He is united to the flesh, to be and to be called the firstborn among many brethren. Since the nature of God, therefore, is stable, immobile, and free from all change, God the Word never ceased to be what He was. Nor indeed, when He was made man, did He lose the crown of that supreme majesty and glory by which He far surpasses all others. Wherefore that holy and most blessed multitude of heavenly spirits received the command to adore Him, just as we did. For they could have, observing only the lowliness and abjection of the humanity, and indeed with right and justice, refused such adoration, and have hesitated to bestow the cult of honor, and have denied glorification to Him who for our sake became like us, lest they be ensnared by some error—for that mystery of Christ was not yet known to them—but the Spirit revealed it to them, so that those most holy creatures might not fall into such impiety. Hence that saying of Paul: "And when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says: And let all the angels of God adore Him." For He who in the property of His nature is more sublime than the entire world of the earth, and who, as He is conceived of in the mind as God, is outside of it, entered into it as man and became a part of the world; yet, for that reason, He suffered no loss of divine glory. For He is adored as the Only-begotten, even if He be called the firstborn, which appellation certainly suits the measures of humanity most excellently.

^D 31. Shall we therefore adore Immanuel as man alone? By no means! For that would be nothing else than to err, to be led into deceit, and to rave. For in this way we would differ in nothing from those who, in place of the Maker and Creator, have adored a creature, and "have turned the truth," as it is written, "into a lie." If, therefore, we were to accede to their opinion, we would altogether hear with them also that of the Apostle: "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things." What? Shall we not ourselves also be judged to do and to feel things similar to those we have just mentioned, as ones who turn the glory of God into a lie and into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, if we offer adoration to Immanuel as if to a mere man and to one of those like us?

^A Will not that celestial host of angels also be numbered among those who have fallen into such madness? Indeed, I suspect there will be no reason for us to condemn the flock of the heathens, nor will it be easy to wash away the guilt of ancient sins. For as it wandered in the past, so it wanders even now, and is ignorant of the path that leads to truth; nor does the blessed Paul rebuke the Galatians without good reason. For he says: "At that time, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now, having known God, or rather having been known by God, how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be enslaved?" For what God have they known, if Christ, in whom they have believed, is not God by nature? And if they have served a man, they are still held fast in the snares of ancient error. Or do I not speak the truth? I speak it indeed. Observe then, O Christ-loving Emperor, how, led by necessary reasonings, we are almost compelled to adore with prudence—as God by nature—the Word who sprang from God the Father, and who appeared in the form that is ours; since the union of the two natures is quite sufficient to remove any suspicion regarding mere humanity that might occasionally trouble us. For the nature of the Word, in taking on the human nature, is not mere humanity; rather, it excels the assumed nature with its own glory and majesty, and remaining unshaken and immutable, it suffered no loss whatsoever of that divine excellence. ^B The disciples of Christ, not ignorant of this fact, adored Him, saying: "Truly You are the Son of God," even though they saw Him walking, and in the flesh just as we are—for He walked strangely upon the crest of the waves as God.

XXXII.

^A the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in the same way, I think, and by the same reasoning, there is one worship of the Father, and of the Son who was made man, and of the Holy Spirit. For the Only-Begotten will nowhere be thrust aside from the necessity of being worshipped by us and by the holy angels, even if He has become flesh and dwelt among us, and has been called the firstborn among many brethren. For what then could be the standard of the faith that is in Him? How, then, is it not worthy to be seen? For I do not think they would say, if indeed they chose to think rightly, that we have believed in the Word born of God the Father, stripping Him of the flesh. Nor, on the other hand, shall we pass over this, for it will be mentioned: for our faith is not directed toward one of us, nor even toward a man, but toward God who is by nature and truly in the person of Christ. And the wise Paul, writing, will help our argument: "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For it is God who said that light should shine out of darkness, who has shone into our hearts, for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Look now, clearly and evidently, the illumination of the knowledge of God and Father has shone forth in the person of Christ. Therefore He also said: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father. I and the Father are one." ^B

XXXIII. But the divine character is not corporeal, but is placed in the supreme virtue and glory that befits God. And this was exactly and clearly rendered in Christ. For He wished that He should not be known only through these words, but He wished that His hearers should ascend to the knowledge of Him through the excellence of His works; for the body that was seen was gradually, among the undiscerning, diminishing His authority. He says, therefore: "For if I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do, even if you do not believe me, believe the works." And I think that Christ said these things at that time, knowing the benefit they would bring. For since some thought that He who for our sake became man was not God by nature, but a mere man simply like us, and on that account claimed that faith in Him was not to be admitted; by necessity, cutting off the cause for fear and hesitation, and taking up the Paternal person, He attributed faith not to human abjection but to the divine nature; for He said: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me; and he who sees me, sees Him who sent me." Is it not, then, equivalent to saying: "O you who hear my words, do not think small and lowly things about me; but know that by granting the faith that is in me, whom you behold in flesh, you will not have believed simply in a man, but in the Father Himself through me, since the Son is in every way equal and unchanged from Him, having indeed been made flesh for your sake, and having taken on the meager covering of humanity; yet in His nature and power, and in identity ^C

^A with Him, he is in no way divided or separated.

XXXIV. Let anyone also observe in another way that He did not in the least reject faith in Himself, even though He had become man; but rather, without any section or distinction whatsoever, He admitted it into His own person. For when He had healed the man who was blind from birth, and had bestowed upon him the sweet and unfamiliar light to behold, He was rightfully an object of great admiration among all. But he who had been delivered from the malady was being examined by the Jews, and he confessed his physician. For when Christ, happening upon him, asked: “Do you believe in the Son of God?” he indeed cried out in return: “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” He received this answer: “You have both seen Him, and it is He who is speaking with you.” And he said: “I believe, Lord.” And he worshipped Him. But who does not know that the divine and most exalted nature is entirely invisible? ^B For as it is written, “No one has seen God at any time.” If, therefore, He were separating the humanity from Himself, as if demanding faith in the Word of God alone and naked, why did He not command the one who had obtained healing not to cast the eyes of his mind upon Himself, but rather upon the divine nature? Why did He show Himself clothed in the bodily form, and displayed to the very eyes of men? For He said: “You have both seen Him, and it is He who is speaking with you.” Or shall we say that He was showing His flesh? Then how could He Himself be the flesh, unless it be understood through union, as being His own? ^C Exactly the same thing may be observed in us. For no one wishes to designate a man composed of soul and body by showing him dividedly or in part, even if he points to the flesh alone, but rather as a whole.

XXXV. The evangelist John also writes concerning this matter: “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” One may likewise admire the divine Peter in this passage, for he speaks to the Jews fearlessly and ^D clearly with words of this kind: “Rulers of the people and elders, if we this day are judged for the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he has been made whole, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.” And after other things, again: “Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved.” Who, then, I pray, is He who both underwent death and was raised from the dead in triumph, and Na-

- ^A zarenus was called, if not Christ Jesus, that is, that One who was begotten of God the Father in an inexplicable manner before all ages, and in this last time, as the age draws to its close, was also born corporally of a woman? Wherefore, he who has embraced faith in Him shall receive from it an outstanding reward and glory; for he shall be called a son of God. For it is written in the holy Gospel of John: “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” For in order that He Himself might possess the primacy in all things, as it is written, He chose to be born of a woman. ^B

XXXVI. Concerning the fact that He is the first-fruits of the new creation.

Since He is the first-fruits of the creation that is reformed through sanctification toward God, He is shown to have been born of the Spirit before all others, as one brought into the light without the union of man and woman. And yet, He did not thereby intend to brand nature with any mark of ignominy (for marriage is honorable, and He who formed all things in the beginning made them male and female), but rather He intended to dignify human nature with a far more excellent and superior honor; for He willed that we should henceforth be children of the Spirit, not of men. And thus it is that He says, “Do not call any one your father on earth; for one is your Father, who is in heaven, and all you are brothers.” To believe in Him, therefore, is entirely blameless; nay, it is honored with the oblivion, that is, the forgiveness, of sins. The distinguished Apostle Paul writes to this effect: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified in Him.”

I shall not hesitate at all—as I have already said—to repeat that Christ Jesus is not understood as the Word of God naked and considered by Himself, but that He obtained that name only when He took upon Himself the human reality and was inconfusibly united to flesh. Being thus affected and visible, and appearing in a form like our own, the heavenly Father pointed Him out to the holy apostles when a voice was sent down from above saying: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him.” ^C Observe, then, how He does not say, “In this is My Son,” lest He be understood as one within another, separately; but that, according to the oeconomical union, one and the same Person should be understood simply. ^D Moreover, how full of blame and, indeed, how dangerous it is to resist this, John clearly demonstrates, writing thus: “For this is the testimony of God, that He has testified concerning His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself; he who does not believe [in] the Son has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning His Son.” And He has testified that He who is with the flesh, and in the

form of a servant, is uniquely and properly and truly His own Son. Furthermore, we shall necessarily confess that that illustrious grace of holy baptism, and the vivification which is joined to it, and the participation in God through sanctification in the Spirit, come to us through Jesus Christ. ^A For we remember John saying, “He who is coming after me is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Tell me, then, do we say that it is the work of our human nature to be able to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire? And how could that be? Yet, while calling Him a man who was soon to appear and be seen, he said that He baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit, not indeed bestowing upon the baptized a spirit that is foreign to Him, in the manner of a servant or minister, but, as God by nature, with supreme authority, bestowing that which is from Him and is His own; through whom also the divine character ^B is impressed upon us. For we are reformed, as into a divine image, into Christ Jesus, not undergoing any bodily transformation (for it would be complete folly to think such things), but rather, by becoming participants in the Holy Spirit, we possess Christ Himself within us, so that we may now joyfully sing that prophetic saying, “Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He has clothed me with a garment of salvation, and with a robe of gladness.” — “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”

XXXVII. But if anyone approach and ask further: “Are we then baptized into a man?” We shall say that this also is true, and he will hear in return from us: “Hush, man! What are you doing, you who drag our hope down to the earth?” For we have not been baptized into a man simply, but into a God having become man, and ^C who releases those who were awaiting their faith in Him—or rather, who have embraced it—from punishment and from ancient transgressions. Whence the divine Peter thus addresses the Jews: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” For by releasing from sins those who cleave to Him, He forthwith anoints them with His own Spirit, which He Himself sends forth as the Word of God the Father, and pours into us from His own nature as from a fountain. And having made this gift common, on account of the union and the economy of the incarnation, He also, as a man, breathed corporally; for He breathed upon the holy apostles, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And ^D He does not give the Spirit “by measure,” according to the voice of John, but He Himself sends Him forth from Himself, just as the Father does. Hence the great Paul, removing this entire controversy from the midst, is seen at one time attributing the Spirit to God and the Father, and at another time back to the Son Himself. For he writes thus: “But you are not in the flesh,

but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His. But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.” It is evident, therefore, that the Spirit is also proper to the Son, and not only in that, as the Word, He is revealed from the Father, but also if He be thought of as having become man according to us, ^A He is not lacking in the properties of the divinity which correspond to His own nature. For even though, as man, He is sometimes said to be vivified just as we are, nevertheless, because of that ineffable generation from the living Father, He exists as the life of all. It is possible, therefore, to see Him imparting the glory of His divine-fitting power to His own flesh, and conversely, making the flesh His own and, as it were, through the economy of union, attributing to His own nature the things that belong to the flesh. ^B

XXXVIII.

^A in accord with the providential dispensation that the properties of the natures are collected into one, is seen by us in a myriad of arguments. For to Nicodemus, who did not understand the mystery but cried out ignorantly, “How can these things be?” he replies, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man.” And to the Jews again, who were suffering from the same ignorance as he, and who—I know not how—chose to mock him, because he said his own body was life-giving and had come down from heaven, he said: “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?” But do we not say that Emmanuel was born of a woman? Where, then, was He before, or by what reasoning does He assert that He ascended where He was before, though we confess that the body united to Him was born of the holy Virgin? And do we not also acknowledge that the flesh, which is from the earth, is, so far as its own nature is concerned, ineffective for life-giving? How then, tell me, is the flesh life-giving, or how could that which is from the earth be understood as having come down from heaven? Clearly, in accordance with the union; I mean the union with the Word, who is living and from heaven. For we shall think in this way, which is most correct and consistent with the sacred Words. For there is one and the same divine Creator, even when clothed in flesh. ^B

XXXIX. That divine teacher of heavenly wisdom, the Apostle Paul, also supports this doctrine. He writes in these words: “Giving thanks to God and the Father, who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light; who has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation: for by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Behold here again it is clearly set forth that through Him and in Him all things were created; and again that He exists before all things, and that all things consist in Him; and he also proclaims Him to be the firstborn from the dead, who has made peace through the blood of His cross, both those things in heaven and those on the earth. ^C But who, I ask, is the firstborn from the dead ^D

if not Christ Jesus—that is to say, the Word in the flesh and with the flesh? For the Word, being God, could in no way die in that which pertains to His own nature; nor could He be understood as the Creator of all things, being a man like us, unless He had created them as God, even if He is not conceived apart from the flesh after the union. He is called "firstborn from the dead" in so far as He appeared as man, not having cast off His being God through the incarnation.

^A XL. You might see that those moved by the Divine Spirit sometimes use similar sentiments elsewhere. For John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made" (John 1:1-3). And Paul again: "One God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (1 Cor. 8:6). But if, after the Word was united to the flesh, there were some intermediate factor dividing and distracting them into diversity—a duality of sons, as it seems to some—how can it be truly asserted that all things were created through Jesus Christ? Yet it is certain that all things were created through Him. It is clear, therefore, that all things which properly and naturally belong to the Word born of the Father were preserved for Him even when He became man. It is therefore dangerous to introduce any division; for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the Father created all things. Hence He is creator as God, and vivifier as Life, composed into one single, intermediate nature through human and superhuman properties. For He is the mediator between God and men, according to the Scriptures, existing by nature as God—and not apart from flesh—yet truly man, and not a mere man like us, but remaining what He was, even if He became flesh. For it is written, "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever" (Heb. 13:8).

^B XLI. Do we not say and believe that Emmanuel was born of the holy and Theotokos Virgin in the last times of the age? Certainly; and that does not fall into question. But since "yesterday and today" signify the past time and the present, how, most Christ-loving emperor, can the same one be spoken of in the past time if He was not yet begotten according to the flesh? The Word was, without any controversy, in the beginning, and as He has appeared from the eternal and immutable God and Father, He himself possesses in His own nature eternity and immutability. Or is the name "Jesus Christ" not something entirely new, having attached itself to the Word at the times of the incarnation? Indeed, this has already been shown by us through many arguments. Understand, therefore, that it is Christ Jesus—and not the Word in one form only—whom He says is the same yesterday and today and forever. ^C But how can the human nature, which

^A is subject to change, and especially to that transition from non-existence to existence and life, obtain immutability and stability in its identity? Has the Holy Scripture, therefore, wandered from the mark of truth, while it commemorates him as pre-existing who yesterday was not? Far be it from me to say such a thing (for Christ Jesus is the same yesterday, and today, and unto the ages), nor would I hesitate to proclaim the Word—even though He has become flesh—to be most ancient and immutable. For I believe that the same Person is signified even after the union with His own flesh, as existing yesterday and pre-existing. For when the insane Jew was execrating Christ and attempted to overwhelm Him with stones, rejecting the faith (for when he saw a man like ourselves, he was indignant because He arrogated to Himself an age greater than human), He spoke such testimony about Himself as God: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." To which those men answered: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" ^B And John also says thus: "This is He of whom I said to you: After me comes a man who has been made before me, because He was prior to me." But how, when he knows and names the man Emmanuel, does he say that He who was born later and after him exists before him and was made first? But perhaps someone will say that he means He was before him and made first in terms of glory, as it occurs to me to think; but indeed, that thinking this is corrupt and full of ignorance, no long argument will teach us. For if we accept "before" as meaning "better in glory," by the same logic we shall say that "after" signifies "second in fame." It will therefore happen that we are forced by necessity to admit—absurdly—that Christ is inferior to John, and that He ran after him, if we speak unwisely. For he says: "After me comes a man." O the absurdity! For we shall not think it is so, having rightly understood that which is written in the Psalms: "Who among the clouds shall be equal to the Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?" ^C Therefore, the most ancient status must be attributed even to Him according to the flesh, as God by nature united to flesh, and customed to communicate the goods of His own nature to the body which He assumed. ^D XLII. That this is so, and is rightly said, you may easily learn from other testimonies also, if you wish. For God speaks somewhere through one of the holy prophets concerning Christ, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, you are not the least among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth for Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." And regarding the sons of Israel, the most holy Paul writes thus: "All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the Rock..."

they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. ^B Observe, therefore, how in Christ Jesus the pre-existence of the Word is shown, specifically in accordance with the economic union. Is this statement not clear? For he declares, with good reason, that he who was born of a woman in Bethlehem as a man had his goings forth from the beginning of time. For the Word of God, who became man, existed in the beginning and before all ages. And He Himself was the Rock, who inebriated the thirsting people of Israel with unexpected and unimaginable streams of water. Even though, in the final times of the age, He was born according to the flesh and human nature, and was anointed by God the Father for His mission into this world—for He was named Christ for no other reason than this—yet Christ was the Rock according to the Law and the blessed Paul. ^C The wise John also contends and joins his testimony to this, as it were, gathering the natures into one and binding into a single union the power of the properties belonging to each. For see what he says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and we announce to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us." See how he clearly asserts that He who was from the beginning was seen and was also touched. For Thomas cried out, "My Lord and my God," having measured with his finger the side of the body and the nail-prints. The divine Luke also says that the holy apostles were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word; ^D for He who was without body became visible, and He who could not be touched became tangible. He did not have the flesh from the earth as some alien covering, but putting it on as His own temple, and in it and with it being known as God and Lord. You know that the most holy Paul also wrote somewhere: "For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He might have dominion over both the dead and the living."

XLIII. It is truly established, therefore, that He who is not for the sake of any other—but for this alone—having suffered death and risen again, has truly become the Lord of the dead and the living. Whom, then, do we say it is who underwent death and rose again, if not the Son? But that it is the Son, no one, I suppose, would disagree. What then shall we say? Is the Word of God the Father mortal and subject to corruption, or is He rather beyond death and superior to corruption, as Life? Yet how is it not evident to all that as Life, He is superior to death? How then, according to the Scriptures, did He become free among the dead? For the Word cannot die by Himself. We say...

therefore, that because His flesh died, He Himself is said to have suffered this. ^A Consequently, it was not apart from the flesh, but rather with it and in it, that He received the glory of lordship—He who by the law of flesh and by the nature common to us died, and was raised. Dying is a human affection, but to come to life again displays a divine operation, so that through both He might be known: at once according to our nature, and above us as God, and seen as Lord of all, just as He reigned even before the flesh with His own Father. Recognizing Him in this way, Nathanael said: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” But He Himself said to His own disciples: “You call me, He says, Master and Lord, and you speak well; for I am.” ^B And proving this by deed itself, He forgave sins, and gave authority over unclean spirits to the apostles, so that they might cast them out and heal every disease and every infirmity among the people. For in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the man who had been crippled in his feet and sitting at the Beautiful Gate was healed. And Aeneas, having been ill for so long, shook off his disease, and escaped a sickness that was almost incurable, when the great Peter addressed him with this statement: “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you.”

XLIV.

XLV.

CYRIL ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ADDRESS TO THE MOST PIOUS QUEENS. A LIBER DEDICATED TO THE MOST RELIGIOUS QUEENS.

^A One might call you, most pious and God-beloved queens, an ecumenical ornament and the glory of the holy Churches of our common Savior Jesus Christ, and very justly so—you, his holy and most pure brides, in whom the variegated beauty of virtue shines forth, agreeable and most recognizable to the eyes of the Godhead. This beauty has been achieved through exercise and zeal, or rather it is already accomplished, and you excel in the orthodox faith, in no way wavering.

The most wise, and rightly so named, Paul, who ministered the mystery of Christ to the Gentiles, writes somewhere: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord." ^B For wherever the orthodox and blameless faith is in very good agreement with the glory of good works, and possesses a contribution running in equal pace with them, there, by all means, would be the perfection of every good thing and the state that is perfectly ordered toward sanctification.

Every speech of mine, then, comes after the glory that dwells in you, and admits its defeat, feeling no shame; and it would be worthy of pardon if it fears to praise things the worthiness of which it could not attain. For if it had the power to accomplish the desired end, it would be condemned for suffering greatly from incapacity. And let no one of those who make accusations of sloth attribute the delay to this: why, when it was possible to adorn those whom it was proper to adorn with praises for virtue, did it choose to be silent, thereby causing grief? If it is weak and afraid, and confesses its defeat, should we not attribute the causes not to it, but to you, who are so illustrious, and who, by the superiority of your own noble deeds, have shown the words that are accustomed to adorn everyone to be nothing at all? For the royal blood has come to you from above and from long ages ^C and extends even to this present time, and still, as we have believed. But lo, indeed, since we have already previously complained of our own infirmity in speaking, and of our fear, and have declared ourselves unequal to so great a burden; you will rather bear the blame of this silence, you who are so illustrious and so conspicuous,