"most high," which hints at the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, the expression teaching us periphrastically that He is God Himself, and exists as such. For "most high" is nothing else than God essentially and in every respect. Since, therefore, this renaming was granted by God to the patriarch, there is clearly found, pre-described and pre-manifested, the most ineffable and mystical dogma of the Holy Trinity—the appellation of Abraham clearly manifesting, signifying, and instructing us, by the very name, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, according to the clearest naming, enumeration, and tradition of our Christ and Savior regarding theology. B
AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT SACRIFICE SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR THE DEAD
The most wise Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, in his discourse entitled, "Against those who dare to say that it is not fitting to offer for those who have fallen asleep in the faith," which begins, "Those who direct the eye of their own mind," says: C
We say to them, therefore, not unkindly: Set your mind to thinking about the Lord. Put an end to opposing the dogmas of truth with a bold and lying tongue. Cease rashly accusing the rites of the Church. For they say, "Is it not necessary that we, going to their very tombs, should pour out prayers for those who have fallen asleep, and offer them, and—with a mind intent—to Christ, as though He were present, through the holy and mystical sacrifice?" And a little further on: "What, then, would be the absurdity, if Christ were present in body, for Him to accept supplications for those who have fallen asleep in the faith? For if it is of no benefit, and is truly vain and useless to make them worthy of our oblation, then it should have no place even in our simple prayers. If someone so wishes, let him then purge away the superfluity of the sacrifice performed for them. But if, D trampling upon the laws of charity, you hold them in no estimation, and leave them as if they are to be suffocated in every way, you are shown to be hard and inhuman stones without any hesitation. What prevents us, while pouring out prayers for them, from bringing together with them the sacrifice, and that those who have chosen to do this may help their souls with the offered aids?" And again: "Since, therefore, we offer sacrifices and prayers for the dead, let no one cast a crime upon us. While we supplicate, we endeavor to do what is best for them, through which the Father will become more ready to show mercy. Death itself is also abolished." And again: "For although the souls of the dead have been removed from earthly bodies, nevertheless they are still considered to be living.
A unto God. Who would refuse to assert this? And further on: From these good and wise sentiments, therefore, anyone will discover that those have not wandered far from the mark who try to deprive the departed of both the mystical sacrifice and that heavenly mercy. For they live, as I said, the life which is lived in the image of God, and they are ever to live together with Christ. And further on, having set forth the sacrifice of Job on behalf of his children—for he says that "Job was sending and purifying them, rising early and offering for them sacrifices according to their number"—he adds, saying: "Therefore, to offer sacrifices for others is not rejected by God, for He permits it to be done without blame." He praises it, then, as not being useless.
Then, again, having explained the history and the miracle contained in the Gospel according to Luke concerning the paralytic and those who let him down through the tiles, he adds, and says: B "Christ did not leave the faith of those who brought him without wonder." And he received the remedy for his pains in abundance, and that which was another’s, he transformed into a bright love of God, and gained for himself the favor of Christ, who delivers simultaneously from both sins and infirmities. And again, having mentioned the centurion whose history is narrated in the Gospel according to Matthew, saying: "Lord, my servant lies at home paralyzed, and is terribly tormented," and He says to him: "I will come and heal him." And the centurion answering, said: "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed." And Jesus, hearing this, he says, marveled, and said to those following Him: "Amen, I say to you, I have found no such faith in Israel." Then to him: "Go, and as you have believed, let it be done to you." And the servant was healed in that hour. C And he adds, and says: "See even in this instance the absent one healed through the faith of another."
Why, then, do they impiously charge us with greed, those who know nothing, or why do we strive to provide heavenly mercy to those who have fallen asleep in faith, performing the holy and mystical sacrifice for them? We have obtained mercy, and the very power of death has fallen, and the hope of unending life has shone forth in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Striving with combatant spirit, the wise and most excellent Father presents this argument, rebuking and driving far away into the distance of error those who have chosen not to think rightly. Then, having enriched the argument from the divine oracles and from the miracles which Christ, the God over all, performed, and having accepted the intercessions D and sacrifices and offerings brought to Him by some on behalf of others with faith, he teaches those who still set themselves in opposition and resist the custom—that is, the practice and the right dogma of the Catholic and Apostolic Church—to keep silent, and he persuades them in the future to perform prayers and offerings for the dead more frequently, since they clearly know that for those offered to God and the Father, the greatest benefit redounds to the dead from this.
III. FROM THE BOOK AGAINST THE SYNUSIASTS (1)
How long will some continue to maintain in their writings, or rather to dream, of a conversion of the Word into flesh and blood, babbling like madmen? To these we say, “Awake, you who are drunk with your own wine!” For what is your view or concept regarding the nature of flesh, or how do you scrutinize the inscrutable nature of God? Who indeed would dare to measure an immeasurable thing? Surely no one will say this; no one can define without error what sort of nature God, the Lord of all, possesses—He who is light, life, glory, and power, He who knows the nature of all things, and embraces in His own knowledge whatever is in man. How long will some persist in asserting that a change of the Word into this earthly body took place, that is, that God the Word made for Himself a body out of His own substance, which is consubstantial with ours? They confess, clearly, in the first place, that the Word has departed from Himself, that is, that He is no longer God—as I have said—the Creator, life, glory, and power; and they also teach that He is susceptible to the error to which creatures are subject, and attribute to Him other such things, which are utterly base and unworthy of Him. Indeed, I think it must be asked of him who brought forth this opinion: was it necessary for the ignominy of the passions to fall upon the Word? And is not this opinion of some people a mad one? Truly, nothing more insane can be conceived than to afflict the nature of the Word with such contumely. Otherwise, how could the name of God be higher than any other name, and He Himself be the Lord of hosts? But perhaps someone will say that this was not exactly necessary, but that He changed Himself voluntarily so as to be subject to inevitable passion. Yet I A know that the nature of God is inconvertible, and that He would surely not have wished to do something unworthy of Himself. B But perhaps these people, in their opinion, will say that God the Word was indeed converted into flesh, but not entirely, nor in every way, nor in all things. But would someone not be evidently insane if he wished to say or believe such things? In the first place, they say that the Word did not undergo a total change or conversion: then they circumscribe Him with boundaries, saying that He is contained by quantity, held by place, falls under a definition, and is numbered with other things. But how do these adversaries remain ignorant that a body, being capable of division, always suffers in all things what its individual parts suffer? For it would not happen that one of the members should suffer unless the entire nature of the body were subject to suffering. Meanwhile, they force us to descend even to words that are by no means spontaneous to us; but having first asked pardon from the Word of God, we say that if, perchance, changeability were not alien to Him, and if the suffering of that thing were not impossible for Him, then the force of this blasphemy would extend also to the Father and the Holy Spirit; for the Most Holy Trinity is entirely consubstantial and immutable. What strength, indeed, could we obtain for our infirmity, if God were as infirm as we are, and could be converted into that which it is not permitted for us to speak of, even if we hear it spoken clearly by others? But “See me,” says the Scripture, “for I am, and I have not changed.” C Then also the divine Psalmist sings elsewhere: “The works of thy hands are the heavens; they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they shall all wax old as a garment, and as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Observe, therefore, how the Prophet, instructed by God, assigns mutability to the nature of created things, an argument of which [index: entries preserved]
A he recites in order, saying that the heavens shall grow old; but he preserves immutability for the supreme God, testifying that He is always the same and immutable. But just as we are not to believe that there is any matter so necessary that it could convert the nature of the Word into that which it is not in reality, so, conversely, no creature can migrate into the nature of the Godhead, lest many absurdities subsequently happen to it, which would truly be an insufferable blasphemy. Certainly, if any creature passed naturally into the state of the Godhead, no one would now seem to stray from a right opinion if he perchance said that it had been made from nothing, but that it had taken to itself a particle of matter in order to exist: for then a body would at some time have existed in a non-corporeal substance; and a thing visible and subject to touch would subsequently become invisible and perceptible to no touch; and finally, that body would have had life by the power of its own nature, just as the Word received life from the Father. Moreover, they claim that in that change it had attained consubstantiality with our nature, lest anyone perchance explicitly say that life was not in it; nor is that which can perish free from confusion. Then they oppose the flesh of the dispensation with their opinions. Now what am I to say? The Lord God appeared to us that He might destroy the corruption rebelling against us, not in order to show that His own nature had become a participant in corruption: but He demonstrated that that flesh, which had been abandoned to death, had become His own. But will anyone ever justly contend that God the Word was changed into a corporeal nature, or conversely that the flesh migrated into the nature of God, so as to become consubstantial with Him? Ought we to believe those things which are not to be believed at all?
3. The same Cyril in the same book. The Word is said to have descended from heaven, and He whose own flesh it became is truly said to have arrived from heaven and to have conferred life upon the world. The flesh is therefore divine, as I have already said: yet no one endowed with right reason and understanding will therefore persuade himself that the Word was changed into flesh. For it is necessary that the most sublime nature of all should retain a pure state—that is, a simple one without the commixture of another—lest it appear composite, or in need of increase, or a participant in any thing that would by no means befit its nature B while it runs toward unity of nature, or consubstantiality. Now let us scrutinize with the eye of a sharp intellect the opinion of the Confusioneans, who claim that the flesh was changed in an ineffable way, so that it turned out to be consubstantial with God the Word. Why, I ask, or to what C end? Surely flesh is not borne to that of its own accord, nor does it seek it, being driven by natural impulses. Therefore, it would be falsely said that the flesh had arrived at that end by the command of God the Word. Or has He truly devised an abominable plan of dispensation, so as to demonstrate that He had raised the flesh to a dignity greater than the Word Himself, and so that it might appear as a display? And the Psalmist is to be heard: “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; my ears thou hast opened; burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God.” Therefore, the sacrifices of the Mosaic law are not required by the Father's will, but rather the incarnation of the Word is required, namely, His humanization, that He might perfect those who are under heaven in grace through faith: which thing He did for the sake of mercy and peace, as is worthy of God. How could anyone dare to say that that dispensation, which is so venerable and wholesome, was made abominable by Him? That which would have happened in reality if the nature of the Godhead had been changed and had passed into the carnal. Paul indeed, most wise, writes: “His holy body, in which He suffered, when He entered into temptation, that He might bring aid to those who were to be tempted.” If we delete those words, “in which He suffered,” the sum of the matter is deleted, and also the purpose of the aid provided to us. But if, as those who suppress those words wish, the flesh is said to have passed into the substance of the Godhead, so that what was not became, then the flesh itself no longer occurs to our mind: for otherwise, what would be the reason for the change if what was had remained in its state? What utility would accrue to our body from the mystical and holy sacrifice of which it has become a participant in the receiving? What other fruit of that matter would there have been, except that the Word had wanted to change into His own nature? Why would He Himself have said to us: “I am the bread of life which descended from heaven, and gives eternal life to the world. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Therefore, if the flesh was changed into what it was not, and passed to a higher degree than its own nature, that is, if the Word’s will made it higher, we shall also be allowed to derive the power of this mystery and the matters pertaining to it in another way.
4. The same Cyril in the same book. Therefore, the dogma of the incarnation is believed with clear and true faith. But if, as the adversaries say, the flesh was cast aside and changed into the nature of the Word, because it conjoined itself to Him, then the one along with the change of the flesh would also turn out vain.
A from whom He is about to return from heaven. From this it is clear that the flesh was not changed by Him into anything else, but remains glorious with Him, incorruptible, without spot, and shining with that light to which no one can approach. Furthermore, He will not descend with that meager splendor, as at the first.
7. The same Cyril in the same book. If His flesh had passed over into the nature of the Godhead itself, He would now cease to be the Son of man; and it would become manifest to all that the glory of adoption is lost to us, as if we no longer had a firstborn among many brethren.
8. The same Cyril in the same book. It does not appear that the Word changed the flesh, which is joined to Him inconvertibly and without confusion in the nature of the Godhead. Rather, we observe that He rightly magnified it with His own glory, and heaped upon it the honors due to God: and thus in its own time the dispensatory substance of the flesh also [shall descend from heaven]: which, when they saw it, they were struck with admiration. The eye has indeed seen this, as it is written. For one of the holy angels said to those who were marveling: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This Jesus, who is taken up from you, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Are you going to say that He was seen by them leaping to the Father without flesh? That is, that our form was indignantly cast aside, that He was no longer in a visible body, and therefore had changed Himself into an invisible and incorruptible nature? Who, I ask, would dare to say these things? But if, on the contrary, He is to come just as He ascended, why is it not truly said that the Word is to come with the same body, and not in nature simple and without flesh?
9. The same Cyril in the same book. The most wise Paul also wrote concerning Christ: "Who shall change the body of our lowliness, that it may be made like unto the body of His glory." What will those who say that the flesh was changed into the nature of the Word say to these things? Are the bodies of the saints therefore changed into the nature of the Godhead, because they too are made conformable to the body of His glory? Are these not mere trifles, these words of theirs, which teem with ignorance? If the flesh has passed to the nature of the Godhead, as they say, in what body, then, does God the Word dwell? For the Godhead is incorporeal, and we most truly say that God is visible to no one.
10. The same Cyril in the same book. But perhaps they will say that the flesh has not altogether lost its own substance; but that it has mingled itself with God the Word by a certain natural union. Indeed, how am I to counter these things, especially since human reasoning is sluggish in these matters, and [cannot]—as one might say, properly—
ever conceive that any created thing could ascend to the nature of Deity? That, I say, must be numbered among the impossibilities. But if they perchance find suitable arguments to persuade [us] that, in a mixing and insertion of natures, the properties of the one are so preserved that they are not communicated to the other, and the perfect definition of each remains, then let them surely use these arguments; for then we shall concede that by such a mixing, not every force of truth is destroyed. A
(1) Nevertheless, if they perhaps say that flesh and the Word are mixed with each other in the way that liquid humors are wont to be, how are they ignorant that liquids which are tempered together—take wine, for instance, and honey—no longer remain pure as they were, but by the assumption of a foreign substance are transmuted into something else? If, therefore, they say that the flesh was concreted with the Word, it must necessarily be said that both of the things mentioned have departed from their former state, and that a middle something has been fashioned from both, endowed with a nature altogether different from what each of the things was individually before.
Now, I would like to question my adversaries: to what state do they think the nature of the Word has passed while it was mixed with the flesh? Since it certainly did not remain in its former state, did the commixture drive the Word from its own condition, and by its virtue diminish it, dragging it down to lower things? If they say that one or the other appeared more perfect, they would have to attribute this perfection rather to the flesh; for it would be clear that it had been elevated to a more sublime state. But if it is otherwise, and the Word rather inclined once to the lesser thing, did the flesh harm the Word, just as our nature weighs us down? We, meanwhile, rightly say that the Word lowered Himself to emptying, and assumed our form, not indeed to demonstrate anything in His own nature as having suffered it, but so that He might lift us up out of the flesh—we who are compacted of flesh and blood—and, having elevated us from the human condition, might make us children of God. B But if, on the contrary, as these innovators say, the Word mixed Himself with the flesh, and what had not been was brought into being, I do not understand how they could, with any justice, deny that He Himself was diminished in His own dignity. Or indeed, while He affects the likeness of God, did He lose His own person, and not retain His former equality with Him, but, having been depressed to a humbler place, suffer a diminution of His own nature and glory?
11. The same Cyril in the same book.
It is most troublesome to tolerate any of the many things these worst of men say; wherefore it seems to me that one must depart from these absurd opinions. Are we therefore shunning commixture? We certainly avoid the harm equally flowing from it. They will also bring forward another argument, namely, that the divine Paul writes thus: « Even if we have known Christ in the flesh, now we no longer know him so. » [14] If, therefore, we say that Christ is no longer known in the flesh, we necessarily affirm that the flesh has been changed into the nature of the Word, so that it may be known as the flesh of God. But perhaps someone would immediately respond to these things: when Paul was saying of us: « Those who are in the flesh cannot please God; but you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, » [15] did he, I ask, know us to lack flesh and blood? Therefore, he said this concerning incorporeal spirits. Furthermore, why should it not be a stupid and detestable thing if someone attributes flesh—that is, the passions of the flesh—to the Lord? For Christ, the Savior of all, is immaculate, and lacks every faculty of sinning. When, however, it is said that He is not known in the flesh, it is to be understood that He is no longer known in the infirmities of the flesh.
12. The same Cyril in the same book.
He fasted, therefore, He hungered, He was wearied by a long journey, and He died crucified: and He suffered all these things, yet not in the nature of His Deity (for it is not permitted to imagine the divine nature to be passible), but rather in His flesh. C Now, since He Himself is Life and has trodden down death, He has renewed human nature for us unto incorruptibility and life. He Himself is now seen to lack every human infirmity, just as it was rightly said: namely, that He is not known in the flesh—that is, in the infirmity of the flesh, as the minister of His mysteries says.
13. The same Cyril in the same book.
But when He had tasted death for our sake, in the flesh, He ascended together with His body. And when He had predicted to the crowd of Jews: « Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, » [16] in truth that which had been destroyed was restored. We say that the flesh was destroyed, not the nature of the Word, which cannot happen.
14. The same Cyril in the same book.
Now since our Savior Christ Himself, with the apostles, D [14] II Cor. v, 16. [15] Rom. viii, 8. [16] John ii, 19.
the dead, having flesh, feet, and hands, and manifestly demonstrated that He was not a spirit; why then would anyone suspect that the flesh had been changed into the nature of the deity, and that it had suffered nothing, and had not undergone death, when He returned to life after the third day and showed Himself to be visible to His disciples? Which of the holy Fathers predicted such harsh and impossible things, which possess not a grain of truth? Which of the apostles or evangelists brought forth words of this kind? Certainly no one. Let those, therefore, be confounded who speak from their own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written. 17 But we, being subject to the laws of orthodoxy, which was so diligently established, let us devote ourselves to following the right doctrine of the holy Fathers; and let us not listen to the vain utterances of some who understand nothing, lest we harbor opinions that are wholly unbefitting; but adhering everywhere to the truth, and fixing our minds upon the oracles of the holy Scriptures, let us say that the Lord's flesh was informed by an intelligent soul, and let us believe it to be divine, immaculate, and glorious, and for that reason also life-giving and sanctifying others, inasmuch as it was the flesh proper to the Word, who was begotten by God the Father and not from elsewhere; and let us never affirm that the flesh was changed into the nature of the deity.
16. St. Cyril in his book *Against the Bishop Diodorus*, which begins: "Truth is before all things, which nothing refutes, and we ourselves know how to speak rightly of it." Why was it not rather necessary for him to demonstrate what is the difference between the attributes of the flesh and the deity? I say, therefore, in each of the things recently mentioned, whether bodily or otherwise, that the flesh is what was taken from human form; but the Word is what proceeded from the Father's substance. Yet, for this reason, that unique Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, is not to be divided into two.
17. The same Cyril in the same book. We say that the Lord's flesh is animated by an intelligent soul. We have often said this, and now, too, we affirm again that the matter stands thus.
18. The same Cyril in the same book. But let us also listen to Diodorus. If, however, you say this concerning the Nazarene—that is, if you call the one who was assumed a man—show us, disguising nothing, an external person; and set forth your opinion clearly, and do not call the flesh inanimate. But although you think that you deceive your hearers, because we have consistently affirmed that the flesh, by its own reason and nature, differs from the Word who was born of God the Father—yet this was His own proper flesh on account of the inseparable conjunction. B
19. The same Cyril in the same book. Nay, rather, He is one and the same Son, as is clearly recognized, of the substance of God the Father according to the divinity, and of us according to the humanity. Indeed, He was also called prophet, just as Moses was, and likewise of the lineage of David. Nor should we remove His other designations; for we sufficiently know the power and the rationale of His dispensation. Nor was it properly a temple, so far as His nature is concerned; for it appears that He is God. But if He permitted the separation of the soul from His body, it nevertheless belonged to Him while separated, no differently than each of our own bodies is proper to us.
20. The same Cyril in the same book. (This passage exists also in Severus of Antioch, in an unpublished work which is titled *Philalethes*.) It is therefore proper to the divine nature that it should exist before all ages. Likewise, it was peculiar to the same Word that in the last times He should be born endowed with flesh. Moreover, His birth from the Virgin was not the cause of the Word's existing, but of His manifestation in the flesh. The Word is not mortal from a mortal, but is the living One from the living Father: and it became His own, He who is Life, to have a mortal body born of a mortal and subject to death: so that in it, battling against death and rising from the dead, He might vindicate it into incorruptibility, and demonstrate that He is superior to death, even if, by its own nature, it was in the grasp of death. Death, however, was weakened from the moment it engaged in battle with the body of Life.
21. The same Cyril in the same book. Now briefly, if you please, moving on to the consideration...
A of the person of our Savior Christ, we discover that the nature, which has been imposed upon it, is distinct. Meanwhile, He Himself is the hypostatic and absolute person, humanity and divinity; and He is called the high priest, the maker and the made.
22. The same Cyril in the same book. But perhaps you say: Therefore, the whole fullness of divinity did not dwell in Him in a corporeal manner. This, I say, is true; and no one contradicts the Holy Scriptures. We, however, say that the divinity of the Son did not dwell in a foreign body, but rather in His own temple, just as a soul dwells in a man, which, although differing from the flesh, nevertheless perfects the nature of man along with the flesh, such that it is Peter or Paul. Indeed, this is even more evident in Christ. Nor, for that reason, do we say that the Word of God performed the office of a soul in the body—which is the worst opinion of some—but we say that His holy body was animated by an intelligent soul.
23. The same Cyril in the same book. The Word of God is truly perfect in all things and lacks no increase. He is, however, the perfect begotten from the Father, wisdom from wisdom, power from power. And because nature is immutable, the temple in which He stood did no harm to Him, but He retained perfect wisdom, B power, and all other things. Truly, the flesh grew, increasing little by little in strength, as the laws of human nature dictate. But the Word, united to the flesh, manifested His wisdom little by little, which accompanied the growth of the body and accommodated itself exactly to the stature of the body. Therefore, in the likeness of us, He was a partaker of flesh and blood. And when He had applied death to His own flesh, and had destroyed death itself, He directed our mortal bodies toward incorruptibility, so that He might cast down the rebellious law of the fleshly members by the tyranny with which it pressed upon us. For otherwise, life would not have dominated death, unless the Word had been a partaker of a mortal body: nor similarly would the stimulus of natural appetites have been blunted, unless the body of the Word had been assumed from our human nature.
25. The same Cyril in the same book. We do not say that that flesh which is of the seed of David, united to the Word, is inanimate. Nor to anyone is it permissible to opine that the Word was to His holy temple as a soul and intellect. Nor, finally, are we accustomed to call Him, who is of the seed [of David], the Son by Himself alone. [IV.]
FROM THE BOOKS AGAINST THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA AND DIODORE OF TARSUS
1. Of holy memory Cyril, from the first book of those which he wrote against Theodore. THEODORE. If anyone wishes to call the Son of God, God the Word, the son of David abusively, on account of the temple of the Word of God which is from David, let him call both Him who is of the seed of David, the Son of God, by grace and not by nature, not being ignorant of natural fathers, nor subverting the order: nor calling Him who is incorporeal, a body; and [claiming He is] before the ages from God, and from David, and that He suffered, and is impassible; the body is not incorporeal; what is below is not from above; what is before the ages is not from the seed of David; what has suffered is not impassible. For these things are not turned to the same understanding: the things which are of the body are not of the Word of God: and the things which are proper to the Word of God do not have a body. Let us confess the natures, and not deny the dispensations.
CYRIL. He who says that the dispensations ought not to be denied, utterly eradicates the mystery of the humanity. For he presumes to say that the only-begotten Word of God was neither made man, nor appeared from the seed of the holy David: but he openly introduces a duality of sons, an unequal nature, and a false name. For this which is said abusively, shows in every way that what is said is not truly this, for it borrows the appellation of another. Therefore, if C the Word is called man abusively, he is not manifest as man. If the Son and that God who is from the seed of David is called [Son] abusively, He is neither God nor Son by nature and in truth. Therefore, this appellation is false in both cases, and the thing itself is deservedly understood: for each is called that which he is not.
2. From the same book. THEODORE. And it is fitting for those who are wise, since we seek natural fathers, not to call God the Word the son of David or Abraham, but the maker: nor to call the body, which existed before the ages from the Father, the seed of Abraham and David born of Mary. And when the debate is about natural births, let not the Son of Mary be thought to be God the Word. For a mortal generates a mortal according to nature, and a body which is like to himself. God the Word did not endure two births, one indeed before the ages, the other however in the last times: but He was born of the Father by nature, while the temple which was born of Mary, He fashioned for Himself from the very womb.
CYRIL. 3. Then proceeding briefly, and with some things interposed, he said again: THEODORE. When, however, the argument is moved concerning the salutary dispensation, and God is called man, not because He was made this, but [because He assumed it]; and the man is called God, not
as being neither true Son nor God: but we believe that He is truly Son and God, the creator and fashioner of all things. For He was not man simply, but [He who is] in human form, who is God the Word from God the Father: not having suffered a translation or change in the flesh, but rather having been united to it according to the faith of the sacred Scriptures. This same One who suffered in the flesh, and was hung upon the wood, performed the miracles in Egypt, manifesting His own glory in all things through the wise Moses. B
5. From the same book.
THEODORE.—He who is man from Mary is Son by grace, but God the Word is Son by nature. But that which is by grace is not by nature, and that which is by nature is not by grace; there are not two sons. Let it suffice to the body which is of us, that according to grace there is sonship, glory, and immortality, whereby it has been made the temple of God the Word: let it not be exalted above its nature, and let not God the Word be injured in return for the thanksgiving owed to Him by us. And what is the injury? To compound Him with the body, and to think Him in need of the perfect sonship of the body. Nor does God the Word Himself wish to be the Son of David, but Lord: while as for the body being called the Son of David, He not only does not grudge it, but even for this cause He came.
CYRIL.—Therefore, since that which is by grace is not by nature, and that which is by nature is not by grace, there are not two sons according to your reasoning. He who is Son by grace and not by nature is not truly a son, but it remains that the glory of true sonship must stand in Him who is by nature and not by grace, that is, in God the Word who is from God the Father. Expelled, therefore, as I said, is the being and being called "Son of God" for Christ Jesus, through whom we also have been saved, announcing His death and confessing His resurrection. For the word of faith which we preach leads us to this confession. Therefore, faith is in a man, and not in Him who is both by nature and truly the Son of God. For if it is true, as he says, that He obtained sonship by grace, He will be numbered among the multitude of sons—that is, among us, to whom heavenly grace grants sonship, "to which we have been called through Jesus Christ, who is from the seed of David according to the flesh." C And may he make you certain, saying as the divine evangelist does: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." Then how is it that He who obtained the dignity of sonship given by another, and for us ourselves to bestow, was not bestowing His own, rather than that grace acquired by Him from without? D And after a few words: The Son gave Himself for examination, and although He was perfect in all things, He willed to suffer humiliation, and according to the flesh from a woman
A to endure birth, and was called the son of Abraham and David. You do not wonder at so good an artifice of the dispensation, but rather you blame the mystery, saying that the incarnation of the Only-begotten is an injury; you rebuke the counsel of God and the Father; you even cry out against the Son Himself, who willed to suffer humiliation for your sake. When, therefore, you hear Him saying to the heavenly Father and God: "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, burnt offerings and for sin Thou didst not require, but a body Thou hast prepared for me; then I said, Behold I come—in the volume of the book it is written of me—to do Thy will, O God, I have willed," you will perhaps say that the Son thinks wrongly concerning His own glory. For He chose the perfection of a body, and not one made for another, but for Himself according to His own words, "A body Thou hast prepared for me," He says; although you may hear Paul saying concerning the God Word: "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of blood and flesh, He also Himself likewise partook of the same"; and so the wise John writes: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"; rise up against them, crying out: "God the Word shall not be injured by us for the debt of thanksgiving; God the Word was not made flesh; God the Word was not truly a partaker of blood and flesh; similarly, He was not born of a woman according to the flesh; He was not called the son of David." For if this—that He be named thus—is an injury, and not in accordance with His own will, how could He have willed to suffer it? But we, O wise man, have been accustomed to glorify God and the Father because He prepared a body for the Son; and we truly say that the Son was made flesh, that is, man, and that He indeed suffered humiliation for our sake and underwent the lowliness of our poverty, but also that He remained God, and the true Son of God and the Father. How, therefore, did the Son not will to be named David, if He was made man, and this not against His will?
6. From the first book of St. Cyril, on the fact that Christ is one, against Theodore. B
For there are those who deny their Redeemer and Lord, and do not say that He is the true Son of God the Father, who in the last times of the age underwent birth according to the flesh from a woman for our sake, but rather that God appeared to the world of lands, recent and later, having the glory of sonship acquired from without, just as we have, and boasting as if in some counterfeit honors, so that now it is nothing but anthropolatry, and some man is worshipped with the holy Trinity by us as well as by the holy angels: these things some, very proud and wise in the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, have inserted into their writings; and as the Lord of all says through one of the holy prophets: "He has set a snare for the corrupting of men." For what else could it be but a snare and a scandal: a tongue speaking perverted things, and abhorrent to the sacred Letters, and to the tradition of the C holy apostles and evangelists, to resist impudently? We must, therefore, reject those who are guilty of such wicked sins, whether they are among the living or not. For it is necessary to depart from that which harms; and one must not look to the person, but consider what is well-pleasing to God.
THEODORUS.
"What is man that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?" Let us consider, therefore, who the man is, at whom He is astonished and wonders, that the Only-begotten deigned to pay him a visit of remembrance. But that this was not said of everyone, was demonstrated in the foregoing; that it is not of any one individual, this also is certain. But that we may pass over all things, let us take the apostolic testimony, which is more credible than all. The Apostle writes, therefore, to the Hebrews, narrating concerning Christ, and confirming that His person was not unacceptable among them; he speaks thus; for he testified somewhere, saying: "What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? Thou didst make him a little lower than the angels, Thou didst crown him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands; all things Thou didst put under his feet"; and when he had cited the testimony, interpreting it, he added: "For in that He put all things under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him." And who is this man, teaching us, since there was ambiguity D in the words placed before the blessed David, he added: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor." If, therefore, we are instructed from the Gospels that the blessed David said to the Lord all those things which are in the psalm, and the rest, and that "Thou art mindful," and "Thou visitest," and "Thou didst make lower," and "Thou didst put under," and from the Apostle we learn that it is Jesus of whom David speaks, saying that He is mindful of Him, and that He visited Him, but also that He put all things under Him, when He had made Him a little lower than the angels, cease, if at least you can ever cease from your impudence, recognizing what is right. For you see, most wicked of men, how great the difference of natures is, since he (the Psalmist) is indeed astonished that He deigns even to be mindful of man, and to visit him, and to make him a partaker of the rest of those things of which He made him a partaker: he, however, on the contrary, wonders that he merited to be a partaker of such great things above his nature: and this one is marveled at as one bestowing a benefit, and performing great things, and above the nature of him who receives the benefit: the other, however, as one receiving a benefit, and receiving from Him greater things than he is.
CYRIL.
"Be sober." Let one declaim against such erring ones, intoxicated by their wine: "Check, O man, thy tongue."
A door and a bolt: "Cease, thou that liftest up thy horn on high and speakest iniquity against God." How long wilt thou insult the suffering Christ? Keep in mind what is written by the divine Paul: "But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." And that I may also speak something from the prophetic books: "Sodom has been justified by thee; thou hast surpassed the verbosity of the pagans, whom they made against Christ, thinking the Cross to be foolishness; thou hast shown nothing to be the crimes of Jewish pride." Thou presumest to diminish, and as far as it pertains to thee, thou drawest into infamy Him who grants the heavenly seats, and who has the same seat together with God and the Father. For the most wise Paul says that He who rose from the dead sits in the seats of the Godhead. For he said B that "we have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," who is "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." For every knee bows to Him, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. And who is it that is in these things as God? The same one, who is the priest of His mysteries, has explained it again. For he said that "He emptied Himself, and was made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man: He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Therefore, every knee of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth bows to Him who endured the cross: whom the adversary, casting into pure and sole measures of humanity, says that He deserved remembrance and visitation from God the Word, when certainly it behooves one to know and to understand that the God Word was not someone else apart from that Son, separately and in part, who is from the seed of David, as he says, a man: but He was Himself from God the Father, the Word God, made according to us—a man, clearly—and vouchsafing visitation and remembrance to no other than Himself.
8. From the same book. THEODORE.
Will they now cease from their impudent fight? Will they desist from their vain contention, blushing at the evidence of the words? For he says, "bringing many sons unto glory." Behold, therefore, the Apostle appears to number the assumed man among the rest in the account of sonship, not according to how he is in like manner a partaker of sonship, but according to how he similarly assumed the grace of sonship, the Godhead alone possessing natural sonship. For this is certain, that the glory of sonship exists in Him, beyond other men, specifically through the unity which is with Him. Whence also, in the very word signifying the Son, he is likewise included. But they argue with us: "If you say that two are perfect in every way, and C say two sons?" But behold, the Son is also said in divine Scripture to be numbered with the rest of men by Himself, divinity excepted, and we no longer say two sons. Whence, however, the Son is justly in the confession, since the division of the natures must necessarily remain, and the unity of the person be preserved unbreakably.
CYRIL.
Oh, the madness of the Pope! He has ignored the manifold height of the mystery of Christ, who put his trust in such cold and childish words. But that he does not at all understand the virtue of the cited writing, but rather shuns the right path and is transferred again into the wicked intention proposed for himself, we shall immediately demonstrate. For that his study above all things is to wish to demonstrate to us a man who is pure, a common-seat occupant with the Father, and to be worshipped by the whole creation as God, he himself shall enter as a witness. For to those who are sons by grace, and numbering Him with the human multitude, he contends that the Godhead of the Word alone has the glory of true sonship, almost even rebuking Him who for our sake willed to suffer the emptying: or perhaps even objecting his own dishonest dementia to the disciple saying: "And the Word was made flesh." It must be known, therefore, that although he says "one" somewhere, and not really "two sons," casting out altogether that He is God and the Son who, as he himself says, is of the seed of David; he refers the glory of the true sonship to God the Word alone, who is from God the Father. But this, as I have said, is nothing other than not accepting the mode of humanity: but altogether destroying the dispensation through which we have both been saved, and have passed over death and sin, and have laid aside the yoke of diabolical avarice. D
9. From the same book. THEODORE.
Let no one be deceived by the artifice of questions. For it is a disgraceful thing to lay aside so great a cloud of witnesses, according to what the Apostle said, but by crafty questions to be deceived and joined to the party of the adversaries. But what are they, which they ask with art? Is Mary the mother of man, or the mother of God? And, he who was crucified, is he God, or man? But for these things, indeed, the solution is certain and from those things which we have said above in the responses which were made to the questions: nevertheless, let it be said even now, what it behooves to answer concisely, so that no occasion of craftiness may be left to them. When, therefore, they ask, is Mary the mother of man or the mother of God? let it be said by us, Both: one indeed by the nature of the thing, the other indeed by relation. For she is the mother of man naturally, since it was a man in the womb of Mary, who also proceeded from thence: but the mother of God, since God was in the man who was born, not circumscribed in him according to
A nature, but as he is in him according to the affection of the will. Accordingly, it is just to say both, though not according to a similar reasoning. For the Word of God did not receive a beginning as a man did in the womb, so that he should exist. For he was before every creature. And so it is just to call both these things [names], and each of them according to its proper reasoning. The same answer must be given if they ask, "Is God crucified, or man?" Namely, that both are true, but not according to a similar reasoning. For the latter was crucified, as one who received passion, and was fastened to the wood, and detained by the Jews: but the former, because he was with him according to the aforementioned cause.
CYRIL. In addition to these, he immediately makes the progression by claiming that the one who was crucified was a man B having God dwelling within him.
Again from Cyril: What are you saying, O bold man, that the holy Virgin was the mother of God, because God was within the one born of her, dwelling there only according to the affection of the will? Do you affirm this to be the union? Therefore, since God, existing as the Word, also makes a dwelling within us ourselves (for he inhabits the souls of the saints through the Holy Spirit), will you confess that we ourselves also have a union with him in a similar way? Where, then, would anyone look upon the miracle of the mystery of Christ? For since it is believed according to us that the Word of God becomes man, the mystery is truly wonderful, and one would surely marvel at this deservedly and vehemently. But if he is said to dwell in a man according to the affection of the will, the matter of the dispensation has a different reasoning. For we have attained such a grace, who have shone by the faith which is in him. For let no one say that he is not present in us voluntarily: rather, he had made an affection in us voluntarily, or according to a will implanted in him toward us. But we do not say that the Word of God, who is consubstantial with the Father, had the starting point of his essence from the flesh of the holy Virgin: for he was always existing as one with him; rather, we know that he became man according to us. And so, the holy Virgin is as justly called Mother of God by us, as she is called mother of a man, since she certainly had brought forth Christ according to the flesh.
And after other things: since it is proposed for explanation that [the text says]: "When he introduces the firstborn into the world, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him," he writes again thus: "Who is it then who is introduced into the world, and begins [perhaps: receives] his dominion, concerning which it is acquired for him to be worshipped also by the angels? For not even a madman would say that the Word of God is introduced, he who made all things that were not, granting them to exist by his ineffable power." C
CYRIL. Do you say that it is insanity to wish to think rightly, and to have in one's mind a true and correct and unadulterated faith? When he certainly calls the sermons of those who deny that the only-begotten Word of God was introduced by God and the Father into the world when he was made man to be full of insanity? And with good reason! For he who is above all others according to nature and difference, since he is their creator, and is so much substantially superior to them, is superposed as much as the handiwork is inferior to the maker; [he who] entered into the world when he was called a part of it, according to his appearing as a man.
And after a few words: I truly marvel that the adversary would have written that Jesus would never have merited a conjunction with the Word of God, unless he had first been made immaculate through anointing. For in the first place he clearly disjoins and distinguishes, openly speaking of two sons. Then let him say, when he says he was "made immaculate" and merited a conjunction with the Word of God, whether [it was] from the womb itself, or when he was in his thirtieth year. He arrived indeed at the Jordan, but he also sought the baptism of John. If he were holy even from the womb, how does he say he was made holy, and not rather that he was [holy]? For what is said to be "made," it is absolutely necessary to understand as that which was not what it was made. But if he was always holy, and this was not made in time, how does he say that the Spirit flew down upon him and demonstrated him worthy of conjunction, and added to him what was lacking? For he has set this down in his other books as well. For what was there at all that was lacking to him from the womb for sanctification, or rather even before, according to his birth in the flesh, to the holy and immaculate One, and the One who sanctifies the creation? When, therefore, he says that Jesus would not have merited a conjunction with the Word of God unless he had first been made immaculate, he writes many idle words as accusations against his own [logic]. For in the first place he says "merited" indecorously: then he disjoins into another, a separate Son, who is from the seed of David, whom he impudently maintains must be called Jesus, separately, by himself. To these things, D to say he was made immaculate, as if he did not have this, contains much blasphemy. For the Word of God, united from the womb itself to his own flesh, was one, and thus also the immaculate Son, the Holy of Holies, and from his own fullness giving the Spirit not only to men, but even above, to the rational virtues in heaven.
11. And after a few words. THEODORUS.
Certainly, in the addresses which he made to those being baptized, the same Theodorus said again: "We did not discover this testimony from ourselves, but were instructed by divine Scripture, since the blessed Paul also says: *From whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all* (Rom. IX, 5), not that he who is from the Jews and according to the flesh is God over all; but he said the former to signify the human nature, which he knew to be from the Israelite race, while the latter to show the divine nature, which he knew to be above all and ruling over all." *O ye deaf, hear, and ye blind, look and see* (Isa. XLII, 18), cried out one of the saints to those who were of the blood of Israel. But I think, and very deservedly, that this is fitting for those who do not have, or are not willing to have, a right understanding of the mystery of Christ. For *the God of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving* (II Cor. IV, 4), and not having understanding in mind and heart, they have wandered A off course. But if some are illuminated, and indeed even numbered among teachers, who are somehow detained by similar diseases, what else should one shout to them than that which was said by God through one of the holy prophets: *For you have become a snare for the watchtower, and like a net spread out in the standing place, which those who hunt have fastened* (Osce V, 1)? For those who ought rather to produce the greatest utility for their subjects have become for them both a snare and a net and an occasion of scandal and a pitfall of hell. And I say this wondering greatly, and unable to see toward what the intention of the adversary looks. For he confessed indeed evidently that *it is God and the Father who spoke to us through the Son* (Hebr. I, 1, 2), but he says that this was the assumed man, while the Word of God has no communion with this saying. How, therefore, is the calumny against the blessed Paul not manifest to all, and indeed the accusation against the truth itself? For the Apostle, having the Holy Spirit, did not understand it in this way. Yet the adversary again twists the propriety of the dogmas to his own pleasure.
12. *From the second book of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, on the fact that Christ is one, against Theodorus.*
That which the impious Nestorius wished B to follow of Theodorus’s dogmas does not result in his acquittal of the accusations; rather, it will operate toward a greater condemnation against him. For while it was permitted to him to possess the straight words of the holy Fathers and the unblemished discourses concerning the Deity, he is known to have preferred falsehood to the truth. For he bypassed those things which belong to them; he chose rather to adhere to shameful and distorted discourses. And that one who has such a will and such madness should be blamed by someone for having fallen into this, I consider and most deservedly. For it was necessary to have the memory of the most holy Paul, plainly writing to us: *Be prudent money-changers: test all things; hold fast what is good: abstain from every form of evil* (I Thess. V, 21, 22). Which we, being accustomed to doing, and hastening to imitate those who test gold coins, indeed reject those things which are base and reprobate dogmas, but we receive and very willingly all things which shine with the clear beauty of the truth. Again, however, the argument for us will be turned toward the path that is decent and proposed for him. There were therefore written by the good Theodorus against the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians almost twenty or more books, and not only those, but also others, interpreting the evangelical and apostolic books: which labors, indeed, no one would wish to criticize, but rather would honor the study by decree, if there were in them a rectitude of dogmas. But if anyone walks outside the intended path, and leaving the straight path of truth, goes through a C distorted one, and wounds the hearts of the simpler ones, casting upon them seeds of adulterated intellects, then it will not be without blame for those who preside over the peoples to remain quiet, but they will have reward and profit if they resist. Therefore, since in these books or the writings of the aforementioned man which we have just named, there have been found certain things full of ultimate impiety, how was it consistent to wish to remain silent? For he divides the indivisible Christ and worships a duality for the one Son, falling away from the truth, and colored as if by false names. For he says that the Word of God, who is from God the Father, is called man, although he does not say this has come about according to the truth; but he calls him who is from Mary—whom he also cunningly names for us as flesh in many places—both God and the Son of God, not, however, that this is so according to truth. D
13. *Saint Cyril in his second book against Theodorus, which begins: "Those who have examined the sacred book with a pure eye of the intellect."*
He said to the disciples: *Do not call anyone master on earth; for one is your teacher, Christ* (Matth. XXIII, 10). While he was thus exhorting the apostles, he certainly did not separate the Deity from the visible body; nor did Christ himself deem himself divided from soul and flesh. Thus, therefore, [index: entries preserved]
while he was God and man—that is, a servant in visible form—he concealed the excellence of his divinity under the humble sense of humanity, and conversely, in the humiliation of his visible body, he manifested the efficacy of his divinity. A
ANNOTATION OF JOHN OF CAESAREA The passage produced by Cyril above against the doctrine of Theodore has as its author Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. Cyril, in another sentiment of the same book against the doctrine of Theodore—a fragment which exists in the first epistle of Gregory Nazianzen to Cledonius. The fragment begins: "Lest these men deceive others." It ends: "Let the whole man be left fallen into sin." "When the Only-Begotten became incarnate, he who is Life by his own nature, the nature of man returned to life. For he himself is the head of all, and therefore the life-giving Word of the Father assumed as his own the flesh which was in the bondage of death, so that while he might render it superior to death and corruption, he might impart the same gift to us. And as we fell into the power of death through Adam, so through Christ, having been liberated from the cruelty of death, we tend again toward immortality." 15. The same in the third book against Theodore of Mopsuestia, which begins: "Our words, perhaps, are harsh." Hear us, therefore, and understand, O man, the depth of the mystery, which agrees with the orthodoxy and purpose of the sacred books. The Deity differs from flesh—that is, from human nature—according to the proper reason of each. C Otherwise, how would he have become like to us, since the Word of God remained entirely in his own state? But if you attribute an inseparable union to his flesh, and do not strip it of its garment, you will then adore the one Son, consubstantial with the Father in divinity and likewise consubstantial with us in humanity. Moreover, to those who thus resolve to think, Christ furnishes light for the understanding of his mystery. 16. The same in the same book. The nature of man that is in Christ is indeed honored and sanctified; but in so far as he is God, he was not in need of baptism nor of the gift of the Holy Spirit, since he himself bestows the Spirit.
FROM THE UNPUBLISHED PHILALETHES OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH IN THE SYRIAC VATICAN CODEX. 17. Diodorus of Tarsus, the teacher of the impious Nestorius [wrote thus]. "While that flesh still belonged to Mary, and had not yet been assumed, it was earthly and did not differ in any way from other flesh: but at birth, at last, it was honored. As the Lord, while he was in the Virgin's womb, and still pertained to her substance, lacked the honor of the Son. But when he was formed, and became the temple of the Word of God, having received the Only-Begotten, he acquired the honor of the name, from which glory accrued to him." Most excellently! I say that words which no one ever taught, but which are publicly proclaimed by you, are defiled by the gravest filth. That holy flesh which was Mary's was holy from the very first moment of conception, or existence in the womb, as being the body of Christ: and no one allows even a slight moment of time in which it was common and similar to other flesh, as has been said by you, and not rather the flesh of the Word.
B FROM THE APOLOGY OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH FOR HIS WORK WHICH IS INSCRIBED *PHILALETHES*, IN THE SYRIAC VATICAN CODEX. 19. The same Cyril against Diodorus. Just as the same Word, begotten of the Father's substance, caught hold of the seed of Abraham in the flesh, and that through the mystery of the dispensation, without detriment to his own substance. For when he was God by nature, he also truly became the Son of Man: and he who is the Son to God the Father is not a stranger to him, nor does he bear a false name of Son: for he is born thereof ineffably and in an arcane manner, although he is only recognized in the flesh after the union. You, therefore, while you admit only his transmutation into inanimate flesh devoid of intellect, divide the unique one into two sons, impiously rejecting this truth, that there is one Son.
FROM THE SAME APOLOGY OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH IN THE SAME CODEX. 20. The same Cyril against Diodorus. We have often said, at the time when we made an apology for all the chapters, that we ought not on that account, because they approached the union, to admit a duality (in Christ). For just as man, although composed of a rational soul and body, is one and is not divided into two, and the whole is called a rational and mortal animal, although in reality it is in one part mortal and in another rational; so also Emmanuel, although he is one, consisting of D divinity and humanity, both of which are perfect in themselves, is the same God and man, mortal and immortal, temporal and prior to all ages, palpable and impalpable, visible and invisible. For if he, being immortal by his nature, had assumed nothing from a mortal nature, that is, the seed of Abraham, we would not have been renewed and raised to immortality; and our faith would be vain, and we would still lie in our sins.
1451 S. CYRILLI FRAGMENTA DOGMATICA. 1452
From the Questions of Severus of Antioch against the heretics, in another Syriac Vatican codex.
21. The same Cyril against Diodorus.
For the body of Christ, our God and Savior, is holy and without sin: and as far as fault is concerned, it was incorruptible from the very first moment of the incarnation, and in that quality there is no communion or likeness between it and us; for in every other thing it is like us, except for sin. Otherwise, he shared in the same flesh and the same blood as we do, as the Apostle says. Oh, you reverend one, who utter foolish and most shameful words; that holy body, indeed, taken from Mary, was subject to infirmity, but yet from the very beginning of its formation, and in the womb of subsistence, it was always holy, because it was the body of Christ, and there was no interval of time in which it did not possess this. Moreover, it is, as you say, simple when compared to other flesh. B
22. The same Cyril in the Apologetic against Julian of Halicarnassus, in a Syriac Vatican codex.
He participated, therefore, equally with us in flesh and blood, so that in his flesh he might fight against the demon, and having defeated him, might transfer our mortal bodies to immortality, and withdraw them from the yoke of the law which had prevailed against the members of the flesh. He could not have engaged life and death in battle with each other, unless he had used a mortal body, nor could he have blunted the sting of our desires, unless he had taken a body from our own substance.
From the books of Severus against Julian of Halicarnassus, in a Syriac Vatican codex.
23. The same Cyril against Diodorus.
This is, O our comrade, the definition of human nature, which is called an animal, rational, and mortal substance.
24. The same Cyril against Theodore.
But he, with his mouth widened and the reins of blasphemy slackened, said that Christ’s holiness was imperfect, and that it had not reached its peak before the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove. But why was he not perfect? Surely, he who is A imperfect cannot be without sin; for if he is believed to be holy in one part, he is thought to be infirm in another. Otherwise, what was this defect which the Holy Spirit compensated for in him, so that the other part, too, might become perfect and break the devil’s attack, as the adversary asserts? Furthermore, he was not only holy, and indeed most perfectly so, but he was also possessed of full power, who cured pains and every kind of infirmity. Since he was God by his own nature, and the true Son of God the Father, he put on the human form for himself, making his own that flesh which he took from the holy Virgin, which is truly the flesh of God, and powerful with divine authority. Therefore, Christ was also life-giving, and the healer of infirmities, and the destroyer of death. B
25. The same Cyril against Diodorus.
You even dare to clothe with base forms him who, as you say, is a man from Mary, and who at the beginning was in no way different from us or superior, but afterwards by much exertion merited the name of Son and divine glory, after, that is, he had come out of the womb. Therefore, according to your opinion, there are two sons; and Christ is a new God, who was endowed by God with supernatural honor, somewhat more than other creatures; so that with the simple man, he who in the lapse of time, and not until the end, possessed glory, and became the complement of the Trinity, is adored, being equal in nature.
26. The same Cyril against Diodorus.
For just as he suffered pains in the flesh, yet nonetheless remained impassible in the nature of his divinity; so I say, that even while he was growing, he was altogether perfect. And when he was believed to be increasing in wisdom, then he himself was the overflowing fountain of wisdom, from which all others draw wisdom. C
27.
By Cyril of Alexandria from the work against Diodorus.
But, O wise one, I would say, the soul and the body pertain to the origin of a human being, and neither one precedes the other.
From the work against the Pneumatomachs (1).
Of holy Cyril from the antirrhetic discourses against the Pneumatomachs (2).
Scripture is accustomed to call the Holy Spirit the finger of God, just as Christ said: "If I by the finger of God cast out demons," which another evangelist called, "by the Spirit of God." Likewise D