OF OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLES
EPISTLES OF S. P. N. CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, AND OF VARIOUS PERSONS TO HIM
EPISTOLA I. CYRIL TO THE MONKS OF EGYPT.
He demonstrates first, from the authority of St. Athanasius and other reasons, that the Blessed Virgin ought to be called Theotokos, since she gave birth to Christ the Lord; and he proves that Christ is indeed God, partly from the Nicene Creed, partly from the testimonies of Scripture, and that one most especially: *The Word was made flesh*; finally, he explains the manner of the union between the Word and human nature, and arms the monks against the various subtleties of Nestorius and his associates.
A Cyril, to the presbyters, deacons, fathers who are monks, and those with you who cultivate the solitary life, and who persevere constantly in the faith of God, beloved and most longed for, greeting in the Lord.
Some of those who live with you came to Alexandria, according to custom. When I asked and inquired with much diligence whether you were striving to excel in a right and blameless faith by following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, and whether you were laboring earnestly in the pursuits of a life of virtue, and whether you held the labors of monastic exercise to be your chief delights, esteeming them truly as a pleasure if you should bear such labors for the sake of virtue with a brave and willing spirit: they responded that you are indeed so disposed; and they added that you struggle energetically with the noble virtues of those who have gone before you. I could not, therefore, but rejoice, and exult for joy in my own soul, since I account the glory of my children as my own, and this B by the best of rights. For it would be absurd for trainers of youth to be cheered by the strength of the young, even if
some honor from their art were to redound A to them, and for them to place this upon their own heads as if it were a crown, and to share in the boasts of their prowess; while we, who are spiritual fathers, and who anoint you with teachings that lead to noble boldness, so that you may have conquered the stirrings of the flesh, and avoided falling into sin, and further, having been tempted by Satan, may be found not to have been overcome, but may bear away the prize, should not rather be filled with a certain godly joy of mind more than they are.
Therefore, as the disciple of the Savior says: "Having brought into play all diligence, supply in your faith virtue, and in virtue knowledge, and in knowledge self-control, and in self-control patience, and in patience piety, and in piety brotherly love, and in brotherly love charity." For if these things are present and abounding in you, they will render you neither idle nor unfruitful B in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For I say that those who would choose to lead the glorious and desirable life understood in Christ must, firstly, be adorned with a faith that is simple and unadulterated; and to the integrity of such faith, they must also attach the pursuit of virtue; and when this has been laid as a foundation, it is necessary that they enrich themselves with the knowledge of the mystery concerning Christ, and advance well toward the most perfect understanding. For this, I think, is to "attain unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." With the sobriety, then, that befits monks, having your loins well girded, show yourselves men against the perturbations of souls and bodies alike. For thus you will be C brilliant and approved, and in good hope of that which is prepared for the saints. Above all things, let the faith in you be right and unadulterated, and possessing that which is utterly beyond reproach. For thus, yes, thus, I say, you also, following in the same footsteps of the piety of the holy Fathers, shall dwell with them in those mansions above, and shall inhabit the tabernacles that are in heaven, of which the divine Isaiah also makes mention, saying: "Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem, a rich city, tabernacles that shall not be shaken."
That your life is indeed manifest and worthy of admiration, and that a faith integral and incorrupt is established within you, I am not unaware; D yet I am troubled not a little nor moderately, having heard that certain pernicious rumors have been sown among you, and that some are wandering about, seeking to demolish your simple faith and belching forth a throng of empty words, daring to call into controversy whether or not it is proper to name the holy Virgin Mary *Theotokos*. And it would be better for you than such men...
A to abstain entirely from questions of such a kind, and not to inquire into those matters which are of a more abstruse consideration, and which can hardly be perceived—even by those who possess soundness of judgment and firmness of mind—except as it were in a mirror and in a riddle. For the more subtle theorems surpass the grasp of the simpler-minded. But because you have not remained ignorant of such contentions, and it is probable that some contentious persons will not be lacking, who, having once swallowed the poison, will attempt, as if they were arrows, to fix it in the minds of the weaker ones, I thought it worth the effort B to speak a few things to you regarding these matters; not indeed with the intention that I might inflame you for lawsuits and battles of words, but so that, if any persons henceforth might set upon you, by opposing the truth to their futile arguments, you may both yourselves escape the ruin of error, and by fitting arguments may lead others, as brethren, to hold fast constantly to the faith long ago delivered to the Churches by the holy apostles, just as a precious pearl inserted into their souls.
I am astonished, therefore, in the highest degree, that there are some who C doubt at all whether the holy Virgin should be called *Theotokos* or not. For if the Lord Jesus Christ is God, how, pray, is the holy Virgin who brought Him forth not *Theotokos*? For the divine disciples have delivered this faith to us, even if they have not made mention of the specific word. In this manner we have been instructed by the holy Fathers. Indeed, our Father of celebrated memory, Athanasius, who adorned the throne of the Church of the Alexandrians for forty-six years in number, and who resisted the inventions of the unholy heretics D with an invincible and apostolic wisdom, and who, as if with a most fragrant ointment, wonderfully refreshed the whole world with his own writings, and to whom all bear witness concerning the absolute integrity of his dogmas and the rectitude of his faith—in the book which he composed regarding the holy and consubstantial Trinity, in his third discourse, he calls the holy Virgin *Theotokos* in many places. I am compelled, therefore, necessarily to use his own words, which stand in this fashion: "The scope and character, then, of the divine Scripture, as we have often said, is such as to declare both things concerning our Christ and Savior: that He is God, and that He existed as such never not-being, as He who is the Word of the Father, and His radiance and wisdom*; and that later, for our sake, having taken flesh from the Virgin Mary, the *Theotokos*, He became man.” And after some other things, again: “Many, indeed, have been the saints, and pure from all sin. For Jeremiah was sanctified even from his mother's womb, and John, even while still being carried in the womb, leapt with joy at the voice of Mary, the *Theotokos*." The man is worthy of belief, and it is fitting to be confident, as he would not have said anything that is not in agreement with the sacred words. For how could he who is so brilliant and famous—and in that very holy and great synod, at Nicaea I mean—err from the truth?
A For although at that time he did not yet sustain the office of bishop, but still lived among the clergy, yet because of his excellent character, his remarkable integrity of life, and his keen and incomparable mental sagacity, he was taken along to the synod by the bishop of blessed memory, Alexander. He moved with the elder as a son with his father, guiding him in all things that were useful and demonstrating the way for whatever needed to be done most efficiently. B Verily, he was admired by all.
Since it is likely that there will be some here who will think that the argument established by us on these matters must be corroborated from the very sacred and divinely inspired Scripture, and who will add further that that holy and great synod neither called the Mother of the Lord "Theotokos," nor indeed defined anything of the sort at all: come then, let us also now demonstrate, as far as possible, the mystery of the Economy in Christ, as it has been proclaimed to us by the divine Scripture, and let us explain what the Fathers themselves said when they set forth the canon of the blameless faith, being prompted by the truth of the holy Spirit; for it was not they who were speaking, according to the voice of the Savior, but "the Spirit of the God and Father who was speaking in them." For once it has been proved that He who was born of the holy Virgin is God by nature, I believe that no one will hesitate at all to think, and indeed to say, that she would most reasonably be called Theotokos. The symbol of our faith stands as follows:
I believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; C through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose on the third day; and ascended into heaven; who is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.
For the inventors of heresies, opening a pit of destruction both for themselves and for others, have fallen into such madness and vanity of opinion as to think and publicly assert that the Son of God is recent, and that He was brought forth by God the Father just like all other things. And these wretches do not blush to circumscribe with a beginning in time Him who existed before all time and eternity, or rather, Him who created all eternity and time. And while the glory and equality which [He possesses with]
the Father and God are theirs to give, they scarcely concede that He is pre-existent; rather, they say He is a middle [being] between God and men, having attained glory that neither reaches the fullness of divine excellence nor is contained within the limits of created things. Who, I ask, is this being who falls short of divine excellence and is distanced from the bounds of creation? The matter is completely inconceivable, for no place or logical ground is seen between the Creator and the creature. Therefore, dragging Him down, at least so far as their own notions are concerned, from the seats of divinity, they name Him Son and God and think He ought to be worshipped, even though the Law cries out openly: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." And furthermore, God also says through the voice of David to those from Israel: "There shall be no new god in you, neither shall you worship a foreign god."
But they, having left the royal and well-trodden path of truth, are rushing into pits and onto rocks, and, as the Wise Man says: "They have gone astray in the paths of their own field, and gather un-fruitfulness with their hands." But we, upon whose minds the divine light has shone, having chosen to think sanely and beyond comparison, and following the faith of the holy Fathers, profess that the Son was truly born from the essence of God and the Father in a manner befitting God and ineffable; and [we believe] that He is to be understood in His own B hypostasis, yet is united to the Begetter in the identity of essence, and is in Him, just as the Father, in turn, is in Him. We confess Him to be Light from Light, God from God by nature, equal in glory and coworker, the stamp and radiance, and in every respect possessing equality, and in no way falling short. For when the Holy Spirit is counted along with Them, that holy and consubstantial Trinity is united into one nature of divinity.
C But the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word of God became flesh, which is to say, He was united to a flesh possessing a rational soul. And the holy and great synod, adhering to the evangelical preachings, declared that He Himself—the Only-Begotten, who was born from the essence of God the Father, and through whom and in whom all things consist—for us men and for our salvation, descended from heaven, was incarnate and became man, suffered, and rose again; and that He will come at the appointed times as judge; and it named the Word from God as one Lord Jesus Christ. Mark well, therefore, how, while calling Him one Son, and naming Him Lord and Christ Jesus, they say He was born D of God and the Father, and that He is the Only-Begotten, and God from God, and Light from Light, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.
A But someone might say: this name, "Christ," does not apply solely to Emmanuel, but we find that it is also applied to others. For God somewhere gives a caution concerning the elect and those sanctified in the Spirit: "Do not touch my christs, and do not act wickedly toward my prophets." B And indeed, the divine David, having been anointed king by God through the hand of Samuel, used to call Saul the "christ of the Lord." And why do I say this? Even though it is easy for those who wish to see that all who have been justified by faith in Christ, and sanctified in the Spirit, are honored by such a title. And so, the prophet Habakkuk, proclaiming the mystery concerning Christ and the salvation that was to come through Him, burst forth in these words: "You went forth for the salvation of your people, to save your christs." Therefore, the name "christ" likely belongs not solely and exclusively, as I said, to Emmanuel, but also to all others who might be anointed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the word is derived from the thing itself, and from being anointed [they are called] "christs." And that we ourselves are truly enriched with such a glorious and enviable grace, the wise John confirms, saying: "And you have an anointing from the Holy One"; C and again: "You have no need that anyone should teach you, but His anointing teaches you." And it is written also concerning Emmanuel: "Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power." And indeed, the divine David says to Him: "You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." What, then, would one see as the preeminence in the holy Virgin over others, even if it were said that she gave birth to Emmanuel? For there would be nothing absurd if someone were even to choose to call the mother of each of the anointed ones a "Christ-bearer."
But there is a great interval between them, and by incomparable differences the glory and excellence of our Savior separate Him from us. D For we are servants, but He is Lord and God by nature, even if He has been among us and assumed our nature in the economy of salvation. Therefore the blessed Paul also called Him both Christ and God, saying thus: "For know this, understanding that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Therefore, all others, as I said, might indeed very reasonably be called "christs" because of having been anointed, but only Emmanuel is Christ as also being true God. And he would not err from the truth who might choose to say that the mothers of the others are "Christ-bearers," but in no way "Theotokos." For she alone among the rest, the holy Virgin, is understood and called both Christ-bearer and Theotokos at once; for she has given birth not
A not to a mere man, as we are, but rather to the Word of God the Father, who has been incarnate and made man. For we indeed are also called gods by grace, but the Son is not God in this way; for He is God by nature and in truth, even if He has become flesh.
But perhaps you will say this: "Tell me, therefore, has the Virgin become the mother of the divinity?" To this we say that the living and subsisting Word of God is indeed acknowledged to have been B begotten of the very essence of God the Father, and possesses an existence without beginning in time, always co-existing with the One who begat Him, and in Him and with Him co-existing and co-understood. But in the last times of the age, since He became flesh—that is to say, was united to a flesh possessing a rational soul—He is said to have been born also according to the flesh through a woman.
The mystery in His case resembles in some way our own manner of birth. For the mothers of those on earth, serving nature for the purpose of generation, bear in the womb C flesh that is knit together little by little, and advancing and reaching perfection into the human form by certain ineffable operations of God; and God infuses the spirit into the living creature in a way that He knows. "For He fashions the spirit of man within him," according to the voice of the prophet. And the principle of the flesh is one, and likewise the principle of the soul is another. But even if these are only mothers of earthly bodies, they are nevertheless said to bring forth the whole living creature—I mean that which is composed of soul and body—they are not said to bring forth only a part. Nor would anyone say, for example, D that Elizabeth brought forth flesh, but yet was not a mother of a soul; for she brought forth the Baptist, who was ensouled, and the man, as one out of two—I mean of soul and body. We will accept that something of this kind also occurred in the birth of Emmanuel.
For the Only-begotten Word of God the Father has been born, as I said, from the essence of God the Father; but because, having taken flesh and made it His own, He has also been designated Son of man and has become as we are, I think there is nothing absurd—or rather, it is even necessary—to confess that He was born according to the flesh through a woman, just as, indeed, the soul of a man is born together with its own body and is reckoned with it, although its nature is understood and exists as distinct from it, according to its own individual principle. And if anyone should wish to say that the mother of this or that person is a "flesh-bearer," but not also a "soul-bearer," he shows himself to be very foolish. For, as I said, she brings forth the living creature, skillfully composed of things which are not the same, and from two, nonetheless one human being, with each remaining what it is, yet having run together as it were into a natural unity, and as it were intermingling with one another, whatever might be appropriate to each.
A
That such a union of natures must necessarily be established in Christ is easy and completely effortless to see, and this through many other proofs. Come then, if you please, let us examine with some attention the expressions of the blessed Paul, applying to them the most accurate judgment of mind that we can. He writes thus concerning the Only-Begotten Son of God: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man, He humbled Himself,” etc. Who, I ask, is that “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God?” Or how has He been emptied? Or by what reasoning has He finally been cast down to humility and the form of a servant? Those who rend the one Lord Jesus Christ into two—into a man, that is to say, and the Word born of God the Father—and who claim that He who draws His birth from the holy Virgin endured the emptying, while the Word who is born of the Father did not (as though they were to separate Him entirely from it), let them show us how this one could be understood and exist in the form and equality of the Father, so that He might also be able to endure the manner of the emptying, having not yet descended to that state. But there is nothing among created things which, if considered according to its own nature, possesses the equality of the Father. Who, therefore, is this one who has been emptied, who, being a mere man by his own nature, was born from a woman after the manner of men? From what pre-eminence, I ask, which might excel the common nature of man, did he descend so that he might become man? Or in what sense, finally, is he said to have assumed the form of a servant, which he did not possess in the beginning, he who by nature is ranked among servants and is pressed under the yoke of slavery? B
They respond that He who is by nature and truly the free Son and the Word of the Father, and who existed in the form of the Begetter and was equal to Him, dwelt in the man whom a woman brought forth into the light; and that whatever is said anywhere regarding the emptying or the humiliation or the assumption of the form of a servant tends toward this. But, my good men, whoever you may be, do you yourself consider that alone—inhabitation of the divine Word in man—to be sufficient to establish that emptying? And do you consider there to be no danger if it is laid down that the Word assumed the servant form in this one way alone, and endured such a manner of humiliation? Yet I hear the Lord addressing the holy apostles with this speech: “If any man love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Do you hear how He promises that even the Father Himself will inhabit along with Him those who love Him? Shall we therefore grant that He too has been emptied, and has undergone a similar emptying to the Son, and has taken up the form of a servant, because He makes the holy souls of those who love Him His own dwelling places? C And what is the holy— D
Spirit who dwells in us? Are we to say that He too fulfilled the economy of the incarnation, which we declare was accomplished by the Son alone for the sake of the salvation and life of all men? Away with such utterly redundant and senseless folly. A Since then the Word, who exists in the form and equality of God the Father, humbled Himself when He became flesh, as John says, and was born of a woman—having His birth from God the Father—He also endured our human birth for our sake. For they ought to teach us in what manner the Word from God the Father is to be thought of and called Christ by us. If He is called Christ from being anointed, whom, I ask, did the Father anoint with the oil of gladness, that is, with the Holy Spirit? If they say that it is B the Word of God alone, begotten of Him, and that this is true, they do not know how they are insulting the nature of the Only-Begotten and misrepresenting the mystery of the dispensation in the flesh. For if the Word, being God, is anointed with the Holy Spirit, He would altogether stand in need of sanctification; and they will not willingly confess that He existed in times past, during which, not yet having been anointed, He was still lacking the gift afterwards given to Him. But that which is lacking in sanctification is by nature unstable, and could not be considered as entirely devoid of sin, or of the potential to transgress. C Therefore, the Word would have undergone a change for the better. How then is He the same, and not subject to variation? And if, being God the Word and in the form and equality of the Father, He was being anointed and sanctified, someone might perhaps be carried away by the matter into strange ideas, thinking that perhaps the Father Himself might be in need of sanctification; or rather, that the Son has now appeared greater than Him, if He was sanctified, being His equal in form before the sanctification, while the Father has remained in those goods in which He always was, is, and shall be, not having received a progress toward the better through being sanctified, D according to the likeness of the Son. And the Spirit who sanctifies them both is seen to be greater than both, if it is beyond contention, as it is without any contradiction, that the lesser is blessed by the greater. But these things are nonsense, and babbling, and accusations of mental derangement. For the consubstantial Trinity is holy by nature. The Father is holy, and the Son is holy in essence in the same manner; and likewise also the Spirit. Therefore, as far as His own nature is concerned, the Word of God the Father is not sanctified by Himself alone. But if anyone should think that He who was born of the holy Virgin was alone anointed and sanctified—that is, the one subsisting in His own hypostasis—and that [alt-version omitted]
A the anointing is sufficient to show the one who is anointed to be equal in glory and equal in power and majesty to the God who is above all things: if he grants that this is sufficient, they will say that this is true, for we too have been anointed. And the divine John will testify, saying: “And you have an anointing from the Holy One.” We shall perhaps then be in some measure equal to God ourselves, B and I suppose there is nothing to prevent us from sitting with Him, just as Emmanuel Himself clearly does. For it was said to Him: “Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Let the holy multitude of the heavenly spirits also worship us. For when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.” But we, although we have been anointed with the Holy Spirit and have been enriched with the grace of adoption and have even been called gods, yet we do not ignore the measure C of our own nature. For we are from the earth and are numbered among the servants; but He is not in the condition we are, but is by nature and in truth the Son, and Lord of all, and come down from heaven.
Nor do we say—those of us who have chosen to think correctly—that God has become the father of flesh, nor again that the nature of the Godhead was born through a woman before it had clothed itself with human nature; but, bringing to unity the Word who is by nature from God and the man who was perfectly born into this light from the holy Virgin, we will worship one Christ, Jesus and Lord, neither casting Him outside the bounds of the Godhead because of the flesh, D nor again confining Him within the limits of human nature alone because of the likeness which He has in common with us. Having established this, you will easily understand in what way the Word begotten of God endured the voluntary emptying, and in what way He who was free by His own nature humbled Himself, having taken the form of a servant; and in what way the Word of God "laid hold of the seed of Abraham" and became a partaker of blood and flesh. For if He is thought of as a mere man, like us, how did He naturally lay hold of the seed of Abraham, which was other than Himself? And how is He said to have partaken of His own flesh, so that He might be made like His brothers in all things? For that which is said to be made like to some things proceeds from something unlike towards the necessity of being made like.
The Word of God therefore laid hold of the seed of Abraham, and became a partaker of blood and flesh, having fashioned for Himself a body from a woman, so that, not only existing as God, but also having now become man, He might be perceived according to us through the union. Therefore, Emmanuel is confessedly from two things, Godhead and manhood. Yet there is one Lord Jesus Christ, one and truly the Son, God simultaneously and man; not a man deified after the manner of those who are...
A by the grace of the divine nature made participants, but true God, who for the sake of our salvation appeared in human form, as Paul the divinely-inspired also testifies, saying: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Who then, I ask, is this who is sent under the law and, as he said, born of a woman, if not that same One who, while being above the law as God, since He took the name of having become man, also became under the law, that B in all things He might be made like to His brethren? And so, He pays the didrachma along with Peter according to the Law of Moses. But that He is free as Son, and greater than the law as God, even if He was made under the law as man, He taught, saying: "From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes? From their sons or from strangers?" And when Peter replied: "From strangers," He added: "Then the sons are free." Since it is clear, therefore, that the Word of God, severed from the flesh and, as it were, existing separately by Himself, cannot rightly be called Christ, but that this name belongs to Him only insofar as He has become man, come, let us show by arguments drawn from the records of the holy Scriptures that He is God by nature, even if He is joined in unity to His own flesh. For when this has been made manifest, it will at once be clear that the holy Virgin is by the best of rights called by us Theotokos.
C Therefore the prophet Isaiah, all but demonstrating the Son as already having become man and as one who would be present before long, says: "Strengthen the weak hands and the feeble knees; be of good courage, you who are of a fearful heart; be strong, do not fear. Behold, our God will recompense judgment; He Himself will come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless shall be clear." Observe, therefore, how he calls Him Lord and names Him God, as speaking in the Spirit; for he understood Emmanuel to be not simply a man 'deifer' [God-bearing], nor as one taken in the rank of an instrument, but truly God and incarnate. For then, yes then, were the eyes of the blind opened, and the ears of the deaf heard, and the lame leaped like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless became clear. D In this way the Holy Spirit commanded the holy evangelists to proclaim Him, saying: "Go up into the high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem; lift it up, do not be afraid. Say to the cities of Judah: Behold your God! Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and His arm with power; behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him." As
A our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared to us, possessing power befitting God, and an arm with dominion—that is, equipped with authority and lordship. Hence He says to the leper: "I will: be clean." He touched also the bier, and raised the dead son of the widow.
He gathered together also the lambs: for He is the good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep. Whence He also says: "As the Father knows Me, I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Add to these that great Baptist John, who, when he began his preaching about Christ, did not call Him a mere instrument of the Godhead, or simply a man bearing God, as it pleases some to prattle, nor did he announce Him as such to those who lived throughout all Judea, but as God incarnate, that is, made man; for he cries out: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight His paths." But whose ways, I ask, did he bid them prepare? Is it not Christ’s, that is, the Word manifested in the form of man? B And what? Could not the testimony of Paul alone be sufficient to establish faith in this matter? He writes in this manner: "What shall we then say? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" Here I now ask you, how is He who was born of the holy Virgin called the own Son of God? For just as that which is naturally born of any man or of any other living creature is rightly said to be his own, so C that which is begotten of the substance of God might be thought of and called His own. By what reasoning then is Christ named the own Son of God, He who is also proclaimed as having been offered by God the Father as the cause of salvation and life for all? "For He was delivered for our offenses, and He Himself, according to the voice of the prophet, bore the iniquities of many in His body upon the tree." It is manifest, then, that looking to the union of natures, he defines Emmanuel, who was born of the holy Virgin, as the Son of God: since the body that was born of her was not of any other of us men, but was rather the own body of the Word Himself, who was born of the Father.
D If, however, anyone assigns to Him nothing more than the bare status of an instrument, he will, even against his will, take away from Him the true standing of a Son. Let there be proposed, for the sake of argument, some man who has a son skilled in playing the lyre and highly practiced in singing; will such a man count the lyre and the other instruments of music in the rank of a son along with his
son? And yet, how is this matter not extremely absurd? For the lyre was taken up for the exhibition of an art, while he A who is born of a parent, even without any instrument, does not cease to be his son. But if they should say that he who was born of a woman was taken up for a ministry, so that miracles might be performed through him, and the preaching of the evangelical oracles might be proclaimed, let every one of the holy prophets also be called an instrument of the Godhead, and before all others, B the most holy Moses! For he, having raised his rod, turned the rivers into blood; and dividing the sea itself, he ordered those from Israel to pass through the midst of the waves; and bringing it against the rocks, he made them mothers of waters, and showed the flinty rock to be a fountain; and he became a mediator between God and men, and he was a minister of the law, and he led the peoples. Therefore, there is nothing surplus in Christ, nor has he in any way gained an advantage over those who lived before him, if he also is taken up in the same manner as the rank and need of instruments. But then, as is to be expected, the divine David also spoke nonsense by saying: "Who in the clouds will be likened to the Lord? And who will be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?"
B But the most wise Paul excludes Moses from the household, while he calls Him who was born of a woman by divine dispensation, that is to say, Christ, God C and Lord. For he wrote thus: "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to Him who made Him, as also was Moses in all His house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who has built the house has more honor than it. For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken; but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are." Consider, then, how he has both preserved the measure of His humanity, and D assigns the preeminence of the highest glory and God-befitting dignity. For having called Him high priest and apostle, and indeed strongly asserting that He became faithful to Him who made Him, he says that He has been honored more than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. Then he proceeds: "For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God." Therefore, the divine Moses is ranked among the objects made and the structures, but the Creator of all these is God; although it is said that God built all things. Therefore, He is God and true without doubt. "And Moses indeed as a servant was faithful in all His house, but Christ as a Son over His own house; whose house we are"; although God says through the voice of the prophets: "That I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and"
I shall be their God, and they shall be my people 64."
Someone might perhaps ask: Who could discern this difference between Christ and Moses, A seeing that both were born of a woman? How is the one a servant, and faithful as in a house, but the other is by nature Lord, as a Son over His own house—that is to say, over us? But I am of the opinion that this matter is clear to everyone, if he is in good mental health and possesses "the mind of Christ," in the words of the blessed Paul. For the one was a man, and pressed under the yoke of servitude; B but the other was by nature free, as God, and the Creator of all things, and He endured a voluntary emptying for our sake. Yet this self-emptying will by no means divest Him of His God-befitting glory, nor will it push Him away from that supreme excellence which He possesses over all creatures in any respect. For just as we, having been enriched with His Spirit (for He has dwelt in our hearts), are numbered among the children of God, yet we have not for this reason ceased to be what we are by nature—for we are men by nature, even though we say to God, "Abba, Father" 68—so also the Word of God Himself, who has ineffably shone forth from the essence of God and the Father, having taken upon Himself the human condition, has indeed honored that nature, but He has not fallen outside of His own excellence, and He has remained God even while clothed in humanity. We do not, therefore, say that the temple taken from the holy Virgin is received in the manner of an instrument; C but following rather the faith of the holy Scriptures and the utterances of the holy Fathers, we shall maintain that the Word became flesh, according to the methods already explained to us many times. This is the One who also laid down His soul for us. For since His death was the salvation of the world, He endured the cross, despising the shame, even though He was Life by nature, as God. How then is Life said to have died? By suffering death in His own flesh, so that He might appear as Life, making it alive again.
For let us also examine the nature of death as it pertains to our own selves. There is no one, I believe, who is in his right mind who would say that human souls are destroyed together with D the bodies that are from the earth. But this, I think, is something that is in doubt for no one among existing beings; rather, it is called the death of the man, because it is an accident. In the same way, you should also understand it in the case of Emmanuel. For the Word was as in His own body in that which was taken from the woman; and He gave it over to death at the appointed time, while He Himself suffered nothing in His own nature—for He is life and the life-giver—but making the things of the flesh His own, so that the suffering might be said to be His, He, the One who is for all, having risen, having died for all, redeems with His own blood those under heaven, and wins for God and the Father those who are across every land.
A And the blessed prophet Isaiah proclaims this as the truth, saying in the Spirit: “Therefore He shall inherit the many, and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because His soul was delivered up to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bore the sins of many, and was delivered up for their iniquities.”
One, therefore, the most worthy of all, laid down His own soul for all, and economically permitted the flesh to be humbled for a little while by death. But He raised it up again as Life, for His own nature did not endure to suffer what is contrary to nature, so that corruption might be weakened in the bodies of all, and the power of death might be dissolved. For just as in Adam we all die, so also in Christ shall we all be brought to life. For if He had not suffered humanly on our behalf, He would not have acted divinely for our salvation. For we say that He first died as a man, but rose again after this, because He is God by nature. If, then, He did not suffer by dying in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, neither was He brought to life in the Spirit—that is, He did not rise again. And if this is true, our faith is vain; we are still in our sins. For we have been baptized into His death, according to the words of the blessed Paul, and we have obtained the remission of sins through His blood.
C But if Christ is neither truly the Son, nor God by nature, but is a mere man like us, and an instrument of divinity, we have not been saved by God at all, but rather we have been saved by one like us who died for our sake and was raised by the power and authority of another. How then is death still said to have been abolished through Christ? And yet I hear Him speaking clearly concerning His own soul: “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.” For He who knew not death descended with us into death through His own flesh, so that we too might rise with Him to life. For He rose having despoiled Hades, not as a man like us, but as God in the flesh with us and for our sake. And nature was enriched, as it were, in Him, its first-fruits, with incorruption, and death was crushed, having launched an assault like an enemy upon the body which was the source of life. For just as it conquered in Adam, so it has fallen in Christ. And so, the divine Melodist, seeing Him ascending for us and on our behalf to the Father and God in heaven, so that He might make heaven accessible to those on earth, struck up the songs of victory, saying: “God has gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Sing praises to our God, sing praises to [our King, sing praises, sing praises with understanding. God has reigned over the nations.]
for your king, sing praises with understanding. God has reigned over the nations." A And the blessed Paul also speaks concerning Him somewhere, saying: "He who descended is the very one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things."
Since, therefore, He is truly God by nature, and also a true King, and the Lord of glory is proclaimed as having been crucified, who can doubt that the holy Virgin must be called Theotokos? Worship Him as one; do not divide Him into two after the union. Then the senseless Jew will laugh in vain; then he will truly be guilty of the death of the Lord; then it will be evident that he did not rage impiously and wickedly against some ordinary man like us, but against the Saviour and God of all. B And he will hear, even against his will: "Woe to a sinful nation, a people full of sins, a wicked seed, and lawless children; you have forsaken the Lord, and provoked the Holy One of Israel." The people of the nations will not be able to mock the faith of the Christians on any grounds whatsoever. For they will recognize that we do not offer divine worship to any mere man—far be it—but rather to Him who is God by nature, not being ignorant of His glory, even though He has been made as we are, while remaining what He was, that is, God. Through Him and with Him, to God and the Father be glory with the holy and life-giving Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
LETTER II. OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS
C To the most holy and God-fearing bishop and fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril, bishop, sends greeting in the Lord.
Certain men, worthy of reverence and trustworthy in their faith, have arrived in Alexandria. They have reported to me that your piety is greatly provoked and is leaving no stone unturned to cause me distress. When I desired to learn whence your piety had fallen into this malaise, they answered that certain persons from Alexandria are circulating that letter which I sent to the holy monks, and that this thing is the cause of your hatred and offense. Truly, I have marveled greatly that your piety did not rather weigh and consider with itself that these troubles regarding the faith were not stirred up because of this letter which I wrote, D but rather out of certain sayings of your piety, or of another. Moreover, since certain papers, or rather explanations, are in circulation, we are laboring, wishing to correct those who are perverted. For there have been some who have reached the point of no longer enduring to confess that...
Christ is God; but rather, they speak of him as an organ and instrument of the Godhead, and a man bearing God. And indeed, why should I not speak of matters beyond these? Was our indignation, then, concerning what your piety has or has not said? For I do not place much faith in the papers in circulation. How, then, is it possible to be silent when the faith is being wronged and so many are perverted? Shall we not stand before the judgment seat of Christ? Shall we not render an account for ill-timed silence, even though we have been appointed by Him A to say what is necessary? But what shall I do now? For I must take counsel with your piety, since the most devout and most God-beloved bishop of Rome, Celestine, and the most God-beloved bishops who are with him, are inquiring about the papers that were brought there—I know not how—asking whether they are your piety's or not. For they write as those who are deeply scandalized. And how shall we heal those who come here from all the Churches of the East and who grumble about these papers? Or does your piety perhaps imagine that the disturbance that has arisen in the Churches from such homilies is small? We are all in trials and struggles, bringing back to the truth those who, I know not how, have been persuaded to think otherwise. Since, therefore, your piety is the one who has brought upon everyone the necessity of grumbling, how are you justly offended? Why do you cry out against me in vain? And why do you not reform your own preaching, so as to end a universal scandal? For even if a word has slipped out, as it were, while racing before the people, yet let it be corrected by revisions; and deign to grant a word to those who are scandalized, by naming the holy Virgin "Theotokos," so that by healing those who have been grieved, and holding an opinion that is correct in the sight of all, we may celebrate the assemblies of the nations in peace and unity of mind. But let your piety not doubt that we are ready to suffer everything for the sake of the faith in Christ, even to come to the trial of prisons and of death itself. And B in truth I say that, while Atticus of blessed memory was still living, I composed a book concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, in which I added some things concerning the incarnation of the Only-Begotten that are in agreement with what I have now written; and I read it to him, and to bishops, and to clergymen, and to the more studious among the people; yet I have not hitherto given a copy of it to anyone. It is probable, therefore, that upon the publication of this little work, there will not be lacking those who will accuse me, even though I composed this little discourse before the bishopric of the church of Constantinople was committed to your piety. C D
A To the most God-beloved and holy fellow-minister Cyril, Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord.
Nothing is truly more powerful than Christian integrity. It is this which has compelled us, at the present time, to write through the most devout presbyter Lampon. For when he spoke much to us about your piety, and heard much in return, he finally made no end to his pressing until he had obtained these letters from us; wherefore we have yielded to the man’s importunity. For, to confess the truth of the matter, the integrity of any Christian man whatsoever (in whose breast God dwells) is wont to bring me no small fear. Therefore, as far as concerns ourselves, although not a few things have been designed B by your piety that are little in harmony with brotherly love (for one must speak modestly), we write while preserving an evenness of mind and fulfilling the office of greeting with affection through these letters. As to what fruit that vehement impulse of the most devout presbyter Lampon will bring us, experience itself will demonstrate. I, and those who are with me, desire that all the brotherhood which is with you be greeted.
EPISTLE IV
CYRIL TO NESTORIUS
He repels the injuries brought against him, and at the same time explains in what sense, according to the Nicene Synod and the holy Fathers, the Word is said to be made flesh, and God to be born, to have suffered, to have died, and the B. Virgin Mary to be called Theotokos.To the most devout and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
I understand that some are falsely disparaging my reputation before your piety, and rashly babbling much; and this they do frequently, and especially when the authorities are gathered—perhaps also imagining that by this means they are bringing some pleasure to your ears—men who have never been affected by any injury from me, but have been convicted only for their own health. One of them for having injured the blind and the needy; another for having drawn a sword against his mother; C another for having stolen another's gold with the help of a maidservant, and having always labored under a suspicion of such wickedness, as even the most bitter enemies would not wish anyone to labor under. But I do not care much for such people, or for others who are of the same stamp, lest I seem to extend the measure of my own insignificance beyond the Master and Lord, or even beyond our predecessors. For it is hardly possible, whatever manner of life you may choose to enter, to escape the teeth of wicked and slanderous men. But they indeed, having a mouth full of cursing and bitterness, will answer to the judge of all. D I, however, shall turn again to that which is most fitting for myself; and I shall admonish you now, as a brother in the Lord, concerning the word of doctrine and that which is in God.
A For those who are about to plead their cause are going to speak. But I, turning back to this matter again, which I consider to be above all fitting for me, will not be reluctant to admonish you, as a brother in the Lord, that you should propose the sermon of doctrine and the teaching of faith to the people with all caution, and reflect seriously that if those who scandalize even one of the least of those who believe in Christ provoke God exceedingly, then how great diligence and how great skill is needed if a whole multitude should be more seriously offended, so that, by prudently cutting away the scandals, we may bring a sound sense of faith and the sermon of truth to those who are eager for it? And this will be done very rightly if, by encountering the discourses of the holy Fathers, we strive to make much of them, and, by testing ourselves whether we are in the faith, as it is written, we may fitly conform our own thoughts to their correct and irreprehensible opinions.
B Therefore, that holy and great synod teaches that the only-begotten Son of God himself, born naturally of God the Father, true God from true God, light from light, through whom the Father created all things, descended, and was incarnate, and became man, suffered, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven. We too ought to stand fast by these words and these dogmas, pondering with a diligent mind what it means for the Word of God to be incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that it was transformed into a whole human being consisting of soul and body; but rather we assert that the Word, having united to himself according to hypostasis flesh animated by a rational soul, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner became man and was named Son of man, not by will alone or by good pleasure, nor indeed as if by the assumption of a person only; and that although the natures which have been brought together into true unity are different, yet from both there is one Christ and Son; not as if the difference of the natures had been done away with because of the union, but rather that the divinity and humanity, by an ineffable and secret coming-together into unity, have constituted for us one Lord Jesus Christ and Son. In this way it is said that he who exists before all ages, and was begotten of the Father, was also born according to the flesh of a woman, not as if his divine nature took the beginning of its existence in the holy Virgin, nor that it necessarily required for itself a second generation after the one from the Father. For it is both foolish and C ignorant to say that he who exists before all ages and is coeternal with the Father needed a second generation in order to be able to exist; but that for us and for our salvation, having united to himself according to hypostasis the human nature, he was born of a woman: hence it is that he is preached as born according to the flesh. For it is not the case that some ordinary man was first born of the Virgin, into whom the Word of God afterward descended; but, united to flesh in the very womb, he is said to have undergone a fleshly birth, as he made the birth of his own flesh his own.
- A tura et ad se ipsam referens. Thus we say that He also suffered and rose again, not as though the Word of God had suffered in His own nature—or experienced blows, or the piercing of nails, or other such wounds—for the Divine, being incorporeal, is impassible; but because the body which had become His own suffered these things, He Himself is said to have suffered for our sake. For the impassible One was in the suffering body. We conceive of His death in the same manner; for the Word of God is by nature immortal, B incorruptible, life, and the life-giver. But because His own body, by the grace of God, as Paul says, tasted death for everyone, He is said to have Himself suffered the death that was for us—not as having come to experience death in what pertains to His own nature (for to say or think this is madness), but because, as I just said, His flesh tasted of death. In the same way, because His flesh has been raised, His resurrection also is spoken of—not as if He had fallen into corruption (far be it!), but because His body has been raised again. Thus we confess one Christ and Lord; we do not worship a man together with the Word, C lest the mere saying of "with" should suggest the phantasy of a division, but we worship one and the same [Lord], because His body is not foreign to the Word, with whom He also sits at the right hand of the Father; not as two sons sitting there, but as one, according to the union with His own flesh. If we reject the union according to hypostasis as either unattainable or unseemly, we fall into saying there are two sons. For it is absolutely necessary to distinguish and call the man, one who is honored by the title of Son, and the Word from God, another, who naturally possesses both the name D and the reality of sonship. We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons. It would profit the right reason of faith in no way to hold these things, even if some speak of a "union of persons." For Scripture does not say that the Word united a person of a man to Himself, but that He became flesh. But the Word becoming flesh is nothing other than that He partook of blood and flesh in a manner similar to us. He made our body His own, and came forth as a man from a woman, not having cast off His being God and His being begotten from God the Father; but He remained what He was, even in the assumption of flesh. This is what the doctrine of the accurate faith everywhere declares; this is what we shall find the holy Fathers to have believed; thus they were emboldened to call the holy Virgin Theotokos—not that the nature of the Word, or His divinity, received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that the holy body was born from her, having been animated intellectually, to which the Word was united according to hypostasis, and is thus said to have been born according to the flesh. These things I write to you now out of the love that is in Christ, exhorting you as a brother and protesting before God and His elect angels...
of these things, both to think and to teach along with us, so that the peace of the Churches may be preserved, and the bond of concord and love may remain unbroken for the priests of God. Salute the brotherhood that is with you. Those who are with us salute you in the Lord.
Letter V NESTORII AD CYRILLUM
*Cyrilli consilia respuit, et apertius etiam suam impietatem prodit.*
B To our most reverend and most God-beloved fellow-minister Cyril, Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord.
The insults in your admirable letters, which you cast upon us, I pass over, as worthy of a medical patience and an answer in due time through the things themselves. But that which cannot be passed over in silence without great danger, I shall endeavor—so far as I am able, and not stretching out into prolixity, avoiding the nausea caused by obscure and indigestible long-windedness—to set forth in as brief a discourse as possible. I shall begin, however, from the all-wise words of your charity, reciting them word for word. What, then, are those words of the teaching of your admirable letters? "The holy and great synod," you say, "delivered that He who was naturally begotten of God the Father, the Only-Begotten Son, the true God of true God, the light of light, through whom the Father made all things, descended, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again." These are the words of your piety; and perhaps you do not ignore that they are your own. Hear, then, also from us a brotherly admonition for the sake of piety, and that which that great Paul testified to his beloved Timothy: "Attend to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine; for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." But what is it for me that "Attend" means? That by reading those holy words superficially, you have drawn in an ignorance worthy of pardon; for you have supposed that the Word co-eternal with the Father was declared by them to be passible. Look more closely, if you please, into the expressions, and you will find that that divine chorus of the Fathers never said C that the consubstantial Godhead is passible; nor—
that that which is coeternal with the Father is of recent birth; nor that the One who raised the destroyed temple was Himself raised up. If you but offer me your ears for the sake of brotherly healing, I will set before you the very voices of those holy men, and I will deliver you from that calumny directed against them, and through them, against the divine Scriptures. A We believe, therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son. Observe here how they first lay down the names—Lord, Jesus, Christ, Only-Begotten, and Son—names which apply equally to both the divine and human nature, acting as it were like foundations; and then they build upon them the tradition of the incarnation, of the passion, and of the resurrection. By first proposing certain common names that signify both natures, they ensure that neither the things belonging to sonship and lordship are severed, nor that those things belonging to the natures are put in danger of disappearing through confusion in the singular unity of the Sonship. Paul himself, B the teacher of this, has acted in this way; for when he makes mention of the divine incarnation, and is about to proceed to things pertaining to the passion, he first sets down the name "Christ"—which, as I said a little before, is a name common to both natures—and then brings forth his discourse in a way that is fitting for both natures. For what does he say? "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but" (for it is not necessary to go through everything one by one) "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Because he was about to make mention of death, lest anyone should thence conclude that God the Word is passible, he adds the name, "Christ," which denotes in a single person both the passible and the impassible nature; so that the same Christ may be conceived as both passible and impassible without any danger to the faith—the former according to the human nature, the latter according to the divine. Moreover, although I could say much upon this matter, and especially touching the fact that those holy Fathers, when speaking of the economy of Christ, did not intend to hinder the brevity of speech which I promised at the very outset, I feel myself hurried toward the second chapter of your love. C In it, you rightly commend the distinction of natures according to the reason of divinity and humanity, and their conjunction in one single person; and you rightly affirm that God the Word had no need of a second birth from a woman, and you expressly declare that the Godhead cannot suffer. For all these things are truly orthodox and are as opposed as possible to the vain opinions of all heretics concerning the natures of the Lord. But as to whether the remaining parts bring to the ears of the readers some hidden and incomprehensible wisdom, that shall be for your sagacity to judge. To me, indeed, they seem to so little cohere with what precedes as to appear to overturn it entirely. D
A For him whom you previously declared to be neither passible nor capable of B a second generation, you now assert to be passible and recently produced by I know not what fashion: as if those things which naturally pertain to the Word were abolished by the conjunction of the temple; or as if that temple, which was never contaminated by any sin and is inseparable from the divine nature, ought to be held of little value among men because it was born and died for the sake of our sins; or finally, as if the Lord, when addressing the Jews with such an utterance C as "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," ought not to be believed. Observe, He does not say, "Destroy my divinity, and in three days it will be raised up." Again, wishing to enlarge upon this point, I am restrained by the memory of the promise I made. Something must be said, however, using brevity.
Everywhere in the divine Scripture, whenever it makes mention of the Lord’s dispensation, the birth and passion are attributed not to the divinity, but to the human nature of Christ. Wherefore, if we consider the matter more diligently, the holy Virgin should be called Christotokos, not Theotokos. Hear how the Gospels proclaim this: "The book," it says, "of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Now, it is evident that God the Word was not the son of David. Receive also another testimony, if you please: "Jacob," it says, "begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." B Consider again another voice bearing witness to us: "Now the generation of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." Now, who would suppose the divinity of the Only-Begotten to be a creature of the Spirit? What need is there to mention that, "The mother of Jesus was there"? And again, "With Mary the mother of Jesus," etc., and that, "That which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit"? And that, "Take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt"? And that, "Concerning his Son who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"? And again, regarding the passion, that "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh"? And again, "Christ died for our sins"; and, "Christ having suffered in the flesh"; and, "This is (not my divinity, but) my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins." C And there are ten thousand other voices testifying to the human race not to believe the divinity of the Son to be recent, or capable of bodily passion, but that the flesh which is joined to the nature of the divinity is what is meant. Wherefore Christ himself also names himself both Lord and Son of David: "What think you," he says, "of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, Of David. Jesus answered, and" D
A said to them: "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand?" He is, therefore, the Son of David according to the flesh, but according to the divinity, he is the Lord of the same. That one should confess the body of the Son to be a temple of the divinity, and that it is joined to him by a most sublime, divine, and admirable bond, so that the divine nature is said to claim for itself those things which are otherwise proper to the body, is an upright thing, and worthy of the evangelical traditions. But to attribute to the divine Word, by using the term of appropriation, the properties of the flesh joined to him—I mean birth, passion, and death—is, my brother, the mark truly of a mind wandering after the fashion of the Greeks, or the mark of the frenzied Apollinarius, and Arius, and those of other sickly heresies; or rather, it is even worse than theirs. For those who are led astray by the term of appropriation are necessarily forced to make the God Word a partaker of lactation, and capable of a gradual increase, and, by reason of the fear of passion declared at the time, in need of angelic assistance. And I pass over in silence the circumcision, the sacrifice, the sweats, the hunger, and the thirst, which happened to the flesh, as having occurred for our sakes, and which are adored as being joined to it. But applied to the divinity, these things are taken as false, and for us, as for calumniators, they are causes of just condemnation. Such are the traditions of the holy Fathers; such are the declarations of the holy Scriptures. In this manner should a theologian discourse concerning the divine clemency and the majesty of God: "Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things, that thy progress may be manifest to all and toward all," as Paul says. B
As for your concern regarding those who have been scandalized, you do well to occupy yourself with it, and I give thanks to your soul, which meditates zealously on the things of God and bears an anxious care for our own affairs. Know, however, that you have been led astray by those who, perhaps, are of your own disposition, the clerics who have been deposed C by the holy synod here, as those who were infected with the heresy of the Manichaeans. D
A of those who think rightly. For the affairs of the Church thrive daily, and the gathering of the peoples is gaining such success by the grace of God that those who behold the multitude cannot but exclaim with the prophet: "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as water covers the seas." Furthermore, the affairs of the Emperors, in their overflowing joy, are illuminated by the doctrine. And to conclude my letter briefly: regarding all the God-opposing heresies and the orthodoxy of the Church, you may find that day by day, as one among us might say, the voice is fulfilled: "The house of Saul proceeded, and grew weak; and the house of David proceeded, and grew stronger." These are the counsels offered by us as brothers to a brother. If any man seems to be contentious, he shall hear through us the blessed Paul calling out to such a one: "We have no such custom, nor the Churches of God." We, and those who are with me, send many greetings to all the brotherhood that is with you. Fare well, and continue to pray for us, most honorable and most God-beloved.
NOTICE
Eusebius Renaudot, who edited the following letters of Cyril to Nestorius in the *History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria* (Paris, 1713, 4°), notes that both letters exist in Arabic manuscripts in the places where those which are read in Greek and Latin appear in the ancient manuscripts of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.
EPISTLES VI-VII
CYRIL TO NESTORIUS
He admonishes him not to delay in retracting what he has impiously uttered.B To my brother and fellow-minister. I did not believe it to be true what was said of you before; nor did I think the letter brought to me in your name was written by you, since I found in it most false sentiments and such as are full of blasphemy attributed to the saints. I admonish you, therefore, to desist from such blasphemies and contentions; for you do not possess such power that you can fight against God, who truly was crucified for us and died in the flesh, but lives through the power of His divinity. He it is who sits at the right hand of the Father, and whom angels, principalities, and powers adore; He is the eternal King, to whom the Father has given all things into His hands; He is the Creator of all C against whom you rise or whom you attempt to fight. Nor is there need for me to recall to your memory what befell the Jews, His enemies, since these things are well known to you, or what befell the heretics, Simon Magus, the Emperor Julian, and Arius. Behold, the just Job says: "See my plague; fear and praise God." I, however, denounce to you that the Church shall not suffer your impudence against its God; and that very Church is that against which the gates of hell shall not be able to prevail. You yourself also know how many temptations it has endured, yet in such a way that none has prevailed against it, because it is founded upon the rock of faith. See, therefore, what you are about to do, and fare well.
Nestorius replied arrogantly to this letter, and his missive contained blasphemies similar to the former. When Cyril had received them, he wrote back sharply in these words:
Unless you were a bishop, no one would have known you except your household and kinsmen. But now, because you sit D upon the throne of the Son of God, everyone knows you for the dignity of the Church over which you preside. But now, acknowledging the Lord...
and who in the Gospel of John is called the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. Matthew the evangelist also says that he is Emmanuel, of which the interpretation is, "God with us," as Isaiah had said in his prophecy.
You go on with words of blasphemy which you can neither explain nor prove. But when you have searched the Scriptures of both Testaments, Old and New, you will not find in them that Christ is called a mere man, as you imagine. Furthermore, you seem to think that you can resist God your Creator, who redeemed you with his own blood, who is God the Son of God.
Various other testimonies of Scripture are subjoined for proving the divinity of Christ. When Nestorius had read these letters, he did not admit to himself those who had brought them, although they had waited for a whole month according to the instructions of Cyril until they might be admitted; but neither did he reply to them.
Letter 8 (formerly 6)
BCyril to those by whose letters he had been noted, because, persuaded solely by the rumor of the crowd, he had not kept silent that the impious doctrine of Nestorius was creeping toward the worse.
Since your piety writes to me that the most religious Nestorius has received great annoyance from those letters which I had written to those living the monastic life, wishing to recall those who had been offended by the rumors that had been disseminated, I am forced to admit that this distress, whatever it is, has arisen not so much from me as from his own religiousness. For I, on account of men who were offended by his expositions, set forth the doctrine of the right faith; but he, in the catholic church and in that of the orthodox, permitted the good bishop Dorotheus to say openly: "If anyone says that Mary is the Mother of God C (Theotokos), let him be anathema." And not only did he remain silent when he heard him saying these things, but he even immediately admitted the same man to the mystical communion and made him a participant in the mysteries. Behold, therefore, we were anathematized under his presidency—I will not say, at the meantime, by his own pronouncement; for that man would not have spoken such things in the church against his own will. Therefore, we ourselves who still remain in life, and the bishops throughout the whole world, and our Fathers who have already long ago departed to God, have been struck with anathema. What, then, prevented us also from writing the opposite with his own words, and saying: "If anyone does not say that Mary is the Mother of God, anathema"? But I have not done this, for his sake up to now, D so that there may not be those who say that the bishop of Alexandria or the Egyptian synod passed a sentence of anathema against Nestorius. But if the most religious bishops of the West and East learn that they have been anathematized by me—even if all (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is the Mother of God)—how then will they be disposed? Or how will they not all be grieved, if not for their own sakes, then at least for the sake of the holy Fathers, in whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary always called Theotokos? And if it had not appeared burdensome to be the one who would do it, I would have sent many books of many holy Fathers, in which it is possible to find, not once but very often, the term laid down.
... A in which they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is the Mother of God [Theotokos].
EPISTLE IX
(formerly VII) CYRIL TO A CERTAIN SUPPORTER OF NESTORIUS. *No other cause than an ardent zeal for the true faith imposes upon him the grave necessity of opposing Nestorius.*I know the sincerity of your love, and I am not ignorant of your zeal. If I were writing to someone who did not know my character, I would have used many words to persuade him that I am a man greatly devoted to peace, and entirely averse to strife and contentiousness; in short, one who prays to love everyone and to be loved by all in return. But since I am writing to someone to whom my habits are known, I will give you one brief thought: namely, that if it were possible to heal a brother’s illness by sacrificing property or money, I would most readily make that sacrifice, so as not to appear to value anything above love.
B But because it is a matter of the faith, and because all the Churches throughout the Roman Empire—so to speak—have been scandalized (for there is no one who comes from any city or region who does not ask: "What are these rumors? What is this strange teaching being introduced into the Churches?"), what shall we do, we to whom the word of the mystery has been entrusted by God, we before whom those who are initiated will surely stand at the day of judgment? For they will say that they preserved the faith as they were initiated into it by us. If we have done this rightly, we shall receive a reward and shall also obtain praise; but if we have done so otherwise and perversely, what flames will be sufficient for us? For we shall hear this said: "You have destroyed my land, and you have slain my people," C as it is written. And while each of the laity will give an account only of his own life, we who are burdened with the duties of the priesthood shall be called to account not only for ourselves, but for all those who believe in Christ.
Therefore, I have no concern—none—no grief, no vexation, no resentment over the great amount of calumny that certain disreputable persons have heaped upon me. Let all these things be consigned to oblivion. God will judge those who have spoken such trifles. Let only the faith remain whole and intact; for I am a friend and a lover [of peace], and I yield to no man in my desire to love the most pious Bishop Nestorius more greatly, whom I desire—I call God to witness—in Christ to be well-regarded by all, and to wash away the stain contracted by what he has previously done, D and to demonstrate that the things rumored by some concerning his faith are mere calumny, not truth. For if we are urged by the command of Christ to love our enemies, how is it not entirely consistent to do this same thing for our brethren and fellow priests? For if the faith is being subverted by some, we will not betray our own souls—even if it is set before us to suffer and—
with priestly zeal and benevolence? But if some should arise who seek to tear down the faith, let no one doubt that we will not betray our own souls, even if death itself should hang over our heads. For if we are afraid to preach the truth for the glory of God, lest we fall into any hardship, with what face, I ask, shall we extol with praises before the people the struggles and triumphs of the holy martyrs, whom we celebrate principally with this one title, that they fulfilled what is written: "Strive even unto death for the truth"? A
EPISTLE X (fol. VIII)
CYRIL TO HIS CLERGY ESTABLISHED AT CONSTANTINOPLE
*He testifies that he is a lover of peace, provided the Catholic faith remains secure, that he can easily wash away the calumnies cast upon him, and instructs them in what manner they should treat the followers of Nestorius, who were then feigning a desire for peace.*
Having read through the commentary you sent, I discovered that Anastasius the presbyter, in the sermon he gave among you, feigned a desire for peace and friendship, and said among other things: "This very thing that he [namely, Cyril] wrote to those living the solitary life, we also believe." Soon, however, focusing on his own goal, he added these things about me: "For he himself also acknowledges that the holy synod made no mention anywhere of this term, I refer to 'Theotokos'." But I have written as follows: "Even if the synod did not mention this term, it did not therefore fail to perform its duty; for at that time B nothing of the sort was being brought into controversy. And so there was no need to bring into the middle things that were not being questioned." Although, if one chooses to weigh the force of the doctrines, it by no means concealed that the holy Virgin is Theotokos; for it asserts that he who was born of God the Father, through whom all things were made, was incarnate, became man, suffered, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is destined to come as judge of the living and the dead. Not that the Word of God, who is by nature born of God, died in himself or was pierced by a lance in his side. For tell me, what sort of side can that which is incorporeal possess? Or how could Life itself die? But because he united himself to the flesh, and since it was suffering, as if his own body were undergoing torture, he transfers the suffering to himself as his own. Truly, those who say these things are deceiving and cheating themselves. C
Furthermore, that they are practicing imposture, and that they carry poison hidden in their breasts, one may infer from this: that they sent two papers to the deacon Buphas Martyrius, who is in charge of ecclesiastical affairs—one produced by Photius, or some other man of his stamp, against D the clergy of Constantinople, who are embroiled in mutual strife.
A And it exists in the form of a quaternion, bearing a strange inscription. It is as follows: "Against those who, on account of the union, either diminish the divinity of the Only-begotten or deify his humanity." B The introduction inveighs against the insults of the heretics, as if they had been directed at harsh people. Indeed, he attempts to show that it is the body that has suffered, and not God the Word; as if there were some who say that the impassible Word of God is passible. But no one is so insane. As we have often said, the holy synod stated that the Word himself, through whom all things were made, suffered; he suffered in the flesh, according to the Scriptures. For when his body suffers, he himself is said to suffer, just as the soul of a man, although it undergoes no passion in its own nature, is said to suffer when the body which it informs suffers.
But since their goal is to speak of two Christs and two sons, and to posit one as man in his own right and another as God in his own right, and to admit only a conjunction of persons between them, for this reason they act deviously, and "frame excuses in sins" (Ps. CXL, 4), as it is written. Therefore, when you encounter them, say this: "You are acting wrongly in suborning certain people to speak ill of your bishop, and in cherishing and supporting them, and making them instruments of your own malice." C Yet this is not the cause of the distress; indeed, your bishop is not at all offended by the one who is operating there. But it troubles all the bishops of the East and the West that the doctrine concerning Christ is not being handed down purely, but perversely.
And for the proof and refutation of them, it is sufficient that such things have never been spoken by anyone in the churches, as, for instance, what is found in his own explanations. Nestorius says as follows: "I do not judge the affection toward me by the acclamations of the masses, but by their desire for doctrines, and by their remembrance of the Lord’s divinity and humanity at once." And after a few words: "And I observe our people possessing much piety and the warmest devotion, yet filled with ignorance regarding the knowledge of the doctrine of God. And this is not a crime of the people; but how, to speak aptly, can I say that the teachers have had no time to set before you any of the deeper doctrines?" How so? Had those before him no time? D Is he more eloquent than John? Is he equal or wiser than the blessed Atticus? What is this arrogance? Or rather, why did he not openly acknowledge that he has introduced a strange and unusual doctrine, and one unknown to those before him, because of its absurdity, being neither in the assembly of the faithful nor in the holy churches?
For my part, I have no argument with him for now regarding these matters. Would that he might rather repent and confess the right faith; and may he answer to God for the things he has done to provoke, and for inciting enemies against me. Nor is it any wonder if he treats us badly.
A What the dregs of the city—Chæremon, Victor, Sophronas, and the little boy of that scoundrel Flavian—say is of no account; for they have always been wicked towards themselves and towards everyone else. Let him who armed them against us know that we neither fear a long journey away from home nor shrink from a public trial, should the opportunity arise. For it often happens that the providence of our Saviour, through small and very trivial matters, convenes a council so that he may purify his Church, which holds the noble faith unblemished and unconfused. Let that wretch not expect that, even if many and significant people go to accuse us through his efforts, he will be the judge of our affairs, even if this should be brought about by the Amphictyons. For we shall refuse to do so when we arrive there; and, to speak with God’s help, he shall render an account for his blasphemies. B We do not reject peace in the least; rather, we grasp it with both hands, provided that the right faith is confessed and they stop saying such things, which, by preaching strange doctrines, they only call down death upon themselves. For the booklet of his blasphemies that was sent contains such distortion that even the person reading it is defiled.
Since he cavils that the holy synod used an unusual term when it called the holy Virgin Theotokos, let him and his followers be asked in turn where they have found "Christotokos" or "Theodochos" written anywhere. For besides other things, he also inserts this word for word: "Let us not agree in theology with the Virgin being Theodochos," not knowing what he is saying. C For if she did not give birth to God, and did not have in her womb Christ who is God, how is she still "Theodochos"? And he even calls the Father himself "Theotokos." Where he has read these terms, I do not know. Furthermore, the rest of the stains that are gathered from his expositions, which are not few in number, will be reserved for the proper time, unless some repentance should follow. I have received and read the petition sent by you to me, which is to be presented to the emperor, though not without our opinion. But because it inveighs at length against the one who is acting there—whether he should be considered as a brother or by any other name—I have kept it suppressed until now, lest he, rising up against us, should cavil that he has been reported to the emperor by us for heresy. D Therefore, we have drafted it in other words, rejecting him also as our judge, in a distinct manner of estrangement, and requesting that the present controversy be transferred to another forum if they persist in being altogether importunate. When, therefore, you have read through the petition, hand it over if necessity requires; and if you see that he persists in these treacheries and is contriving everything against us, write urgently. And having selected men who are pious and prudent, both bishops and monks, I will send them at the first opportunity. For truly I will not give sleep, according to the writing, to my eyes nor to my eyelids.
A And when you have noticed this, write back diligently. For I will choose men who are pious and prudent, both bishops and monks, whom I will send to you at the first opportunity. For I will not give sleep, as it is written, to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids, nor rest to my temples, until I have finished the struggle for the salvation of all. Wherefore, now that you have learned my resolution, act with manhood: for as soon as letters are prepared by me—such as are necessary, and to those to whom they are necessary—I will send them. For I have determined, for the sake of faith in Christ, to undergo any labor, and to endure any torments—even those that are considered the most grievous among punishments—until I shall have finally undergone death, undertaken for this cause, as something pleasant to me.
THE SAME EPISTLE AS TRANSLATED BY MARIUS MERCATOR
(1) E P I S T L E of St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to his own clergy set in Constantinople; translated from the Greek language by Marius Mercator.
1. I have read the letters sent to you, the contents of which I have learned. Among the epistles of Saint Cyril that pertain to the Council of Ephesus, some are historical, some dogmatic, and some mixed: I call them historical which shed light upon the events that took place; dogmatic, which expound the faith; mixed, which are of both kinds. This one is almost entirely historical. Nor is this surprising: for it has the form of a formal instruction given to faithful men, for business to be handled in the royal city according to the time and place.
Yet it is wonderful how much it differs, as it reads translated here by Mercator, from that which is found in both versions of the Council of Ephesus—namely the Peltan and the Roman—and which exists in the edition of the Works of Cyril, both the old Latin and the more recent Greek-Latin; so that anyone might imagine it to be a different letter, were it not that the first and greater part, with very few changes, is the same. Whence I can hardly be brought to believe that the Greek, as it is now held, is not corrupted and in need of correction from the version of Marius Mercator. The Marian version certainly brings far more light to history than the vulgate, and has less confusion, as will become clear from the following observations. GARNIER.
(2) In the vulgate edition of the Council of Ephesus, it is inscribed: *To the Constantinopolitan clergy in mutual dissension struggling.* Whether this title is false, or that one, makes for not insignificant conjectures on both sides.
In favor of the vulgate is, first, that it is found in all the Greek codices, whether those which Peltanus consulted or those which Aubertus used in preparing the Greek-Latin edition of the Works of Cyril. Next, that it can be conjectured from the very beginning of the epistle that the Constantinopolitan clergy had complained to Cyril about Nestorius, and no other reply than this appears. Then, that where there is speech about Nestorius, the bishop of those to whom he is writing is named twice. Finally, that mention is made of a certain petition against Nestorius composed by those to whom he is writing, to be offered to the emperors. Now, someone might believe this to be the same as that which is said to have been offered by the Constantinopolitans (1st part, Council of Ephesus, c. 3).
But there are far more and graver weightier reasons for restoring to the place of the other, which has crept in, the Marian title: 1) Cyril always had his own apocrisiaries, or agents in the affairs of the Egyptian diocese, in the royal city, and he especially needed during those turbulent times faithful and industrious men who would prudently explore the inclinations of affairs and by what method they might decline the arts of Nestorius, who was plotting ruin for not only Cyril but also the faith. 2) The epistle has the form of a formal instruction, and it corresponds clearly to what Cyril gave to Eulogius his priest, who was staying in the city after the completion of the council (2nd part, Council of Ephesus, c. 37). It exceeds all belief that a formal instruction, and indeed even a proxy, would be given by a foreign bishop to the clergy of another Church, and especially one that labored under envy toward the Alexandrian, in which certainly many still existed who were attached to Chrysostom, whose name Cyril had scarcely yet received. 3) Concerning his Alexandrian calumniators, Cyril speaks just as he does of men who are well known to those to whom he writes. But would the Alexandrians be so well known to men living far away that they could be indicated by a word? 4) Although many epistles of Cyril to the Constantinopolitan clergy exist, yet no other has the form of a reply, as this one does which was written in the year 430, around autumn, after the Alexandrian council (1st part, Council of Ephesus, c. 27); nor indeed could any other be of this kind, since this very one, of which we just made mention, seems to say that the complaints of the clergy of the royal city had not been answered by Cyril up to that point. But this one which we have in hand was sent a full year before. 5) In this very epistle, as it is read translated by Mercator, it is so far from being said that Nestorius is the bishop of those to whom he was writing that, in one place, Cyril speaks plainly of himself and calls himself the bishop of those to whom he is writing. 6) No petition of the clergy of the royal city is read as having been offered to the emperor; but rather one from the monks, the leader of whom was Basil the archimandrite. Wherefore, if there were any necessity to acknowledge that the epistle was written by Cyril to those who were about to offer the petition, it would have to be acknowledged that it was written not to the Constantinopolitan clergy—by which general term either the whole clergy or at least the better part is understood—but to the monks, among whom were some who were deacons and others who were readers. Finally, the Greek codices, having been transcribed a long time after, deserve less credit than Marius Mercator.
A because our detractors, upon meeting you, feigned that they were seeking peace and friendship, and were saying—just as I wrote to the monks—that they held to the same faith: but then, considering their own intentions, they said that those same people were claiming that I myself had said that the holy council did not remember that expression 3 which is Theotokos.
2. But I wrote that even if the council did not place this little word, it acted fittingly; for nothing of those matters had been stirred up then, nor was there any need to bring into the middle that which was not in the least being sought at that time. Nevertheless, by the power and force of intellect, I judge that the Mother of God, that is, Theotokos, was called B the holy Virgin by him; for he himself says: "Who was born of God the Father, through whom all things were made, incarnate, made man, suffered, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is also to come as judge."
3. Now, that the Word, who is begotten of God according to nature, should be believed to have died, or to have been wounded by a lance in his side—(for what side does an incorporeal nature have? or in what manner is the life of lives dead?) 4—but because this Word is united to flesh, therefore, as that flesh suffers, he calls back into himself this passion, as if it were his own body.
4. Therefore they deceive themselves, and lie with their senses when they say they want peace: for it is easy to understand from that which is in their hearts that they possess their own poison. They sent to this deacon, who manages the care of ecclesiastical affairs, two documents: one composed by 5 Photius, or by some other person, against my book which I published to the monks; 6 and another, as it were in the form of a notebook, having also an inconvenient title, in this way: Against those who C on account of the conjunction, or the divinity of the Son, do mortify, or [do] humanity—
[Regarding the letter above] and interpreted it then almost while it was being written. The time of its composition is easily understood from this. In it mention is made, and [reports] spread in the city, of Cyril’s letter to the monks of Egypt, and of the provocation of Nestorius caused thereby, and of the response published by Photius to that letter, and of the libels presented to Nestorius by the Alexandrian calumniators against Cyril, and of the sermon held by Nestorius, the beginning of which is: "Contumelies," etc. It is necessary, therefore, that this had been written after those things, and thus not before the month of February in the year 430, since matters had proceeded that far; indeed, since it contains the same argument as Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, yet makes no mention of it, when it would have been necessary to do so if the truth allowed it, it ought, in fact, to have been written either before it or with that second one. But Cyril warned Nestorius by letter at the beginning of the year 430, in the month of Mechir, or February; therefore it pertains to this time which we have mentioned before. GARN.
D if there is any faith in the Greek historians: for Cyril wishes it to be understood that this blasphemy was pronounced by Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis, in the presence of Nestorius, who did not disapprove. The dispute can be resolved in any way if Anastasius is said to have been the first to deny that the Virgin is the Mother of God, [and] Dorotheus the first to have pronounced anathema against those who asserted it.
[Regarding the letter] which is almost entirely concerned with explaining dogma, was the holy prelate’s first labor against Nestorius: the occasion for which he undertook it is handed down by himself both in the second part of this letter, and elsewhere in various places, but most especially in the earlier monitorial letters to Nestorius. For since the exegeses of Nestorius, and especially the first sermon on the virginal birth, had come into the hands of the monks of Egypt, and had so perverted the minds of some that they boldly affirmed that the Virgin was not the Mother of God, nor Christ God, but [only] an instrument of God or a man-bearer [theophoron]; in order that Cyril might counter this evil, he refutes the sermon on the virginal birth in such a way as to show, first by the authority of Athanasius and by reason, that the Virgin ought to be called Mother of God, provided that she bore Christ who is God; next, that he proved Christ to be God, partly from the Nicene symbol, partly from the testimonies of Scripture, and most especially from that: "The Word was made flesh" (John 1, 14); then he responded to the cavils of the heretics, and explained the mode of union between the Word and human nature; finally, he satisfied many questions so as to instruct the more experienced of the monks against the sophistries of the heretics, [while] ordering the simpler ones to abstain from subtler inquiry. ID.
A on account of the conjunction, or the divinity [Baluz: divinity or association], they deaden [Baluz: deadened] the Son, or transfer humanity into God. But the preface is thus: "Contumelies indeed against me from the heretics, etc."
5. Then they attempt to show that the body could suffer, and not God the Word, as if—either to us or to anyone else saying [that]—this Word, which is impassible, could have been capable of passibility. There is absolutely no one who is so insane; but, as we have often said, the holy council said that the Word himself, through whom all things were made, suffered in his own flesh, according to the Scriptures: for since his body suffers, he himself is said to have suffered, just as the soul of a man, while it suffers nothing in its own substance and nature, is yet said to suffer itself when its body is suffering.
6. But because their intention is to introduce two sons and two Christs: one, truly, specifically a man, and the other properly God; they create [Baluz adds here: or feel] unity only in the persons, not wishing [that] God the Word be properly and substantially united to the man born and the man assumed: therefore they also tergiversate, and, as is written, "fashion excuses in sins."
7. We, therefore, being gathered with them, say this: Make them do evil, (1) in that they introduce certain glib and garrulous men against us, and by favoring and defending them, they cause [Baluz: become the cause] of their own malignity.
8. But let this not be the cause of my own injury. Say to him who dwells there (2) and presides, that I am not his enemy; but that because of this, [to be] so [disposed] toward the East, or to transfer [the matter] into God—this in no way differs from the fourth sermon against Proclus, whose beginning is: "Contumelies indeed, etc." Garn.
B They chatter, as I hear, some people about my reputation regarding your piety, and this frequently, seizing the opportune times of processions or assemblies, and perhaps thinking them the more pleasing to your ears, they utter unschooled voices against us. They who are harmed in nothing, but having been rebuked by us often, yet this gently; one of them, because he was harassing the blind and the poor with injury; another, because he had unsheathed his sword against his mother; a third, because he had stolen someone else's property with a slave girl, and because he has always had such a reputation as no one would wish to happen even to his most grievous enemies. (Supra col. 43 C.) ID.
C ...as the Westerners, the venerable bishops, that the right word regarding Christ’s doctrine is not [being] made, but entirely perverse.
9. But this argument is sufficient to refute them, that never by anyone has such a thing been said in the Churches, such as is contained in his expositions, which is thus: (5) "I do not approve of your zeal for me with clamor, but I praise your desire concerning the dogmas, in which you have remembered the divinity and humanity of the Lord." And after a few words: "And I behold the multitudes indeed possessing much reverence and most prudent piety, but blinded by ignorance of the dogma; this, however, is not a crime of the common people, but, to speak modestly or decently, (4) because the teachers have not had time to add something for you even regarding the dogmas more clearly and plainly."
10. I ask, let it be said how his predecessors did not have time to teach? Is he more eloquent than John, or to be compared to the blessed Atticus? Or is he found equal to them, or wiser? (5) What is more arrogant than this? [Baluz: What is this haughtiness?] Or how does he not evidently confess, by saying these things, that he is bringing in a new and unaccustomed doctrine, and one entirely unknown to his predecessors, and that this very thing—a sacrilegious thing—he wishes to introduce into the Church?
11. For me, there is no argument against him for other reasons: but if it happens that he repents, and at some time confesses the faith; concerning those things which (6) he plots against me, irritating and provoking my enemies, he will satisfy God.
12. But it is not a surprise (7) if he speaks evil of us—are you more excellent? Are you more approved than Nectarius? Are you more distinguished than John and all the priests of the Oriental cities?
It behooves Cassian to have seen this epistle, seeing [that it was] sent by Cyril to Celestine through Posidonium with other papers of the same business; or [that] Nestorius—which I more believe—had sent his second sermon to Celestine through Antiochus. ID.
(3) Nestorius is accused by Socrates, but at the same time of ignorance. For he writes thus (lib. VII, c. 32): "While I read the books published by Nestorius, I find the man unskilled and utterly devoid of doctrine." And after a few words: "He draws back from this word, Theotokos, as if fearing a mask, and this happened to him out of remarkable lack of skill and ignorance. For although he was of a naturally eloquent tongue, and was therefore thought learned, yet in reality he was unskilled: indeed, he even disdained to study the writings of the old interpreters. For, insolently puffing himself up with the fluency and elegance of his tongue, he not only neglected the ancients, but he also thought himself to excel everyone." ID.
(6) They agree with what is in the third epistle of Nestorius to Celestine concerning the libels given against Cyril. "I have learned," he says, "that the most honorable Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, on account of the libels offered to us against him, being terrified and seeking cover for himself, in order to avoid the sacred synod which was to happen because of these very libels, is meanwhile contriving certain other thoughts of words, etc." ID. D
As for the sweepings of the city, Chæremon, and Victor, A and Sophronas, and the chattel of that spendthrift Flavian; for they were always base both around themselves and toward others. However, let him who provokes them know that we have never feared to undertake a journey, nor yet to answer their accusations, if this time demands it. For it may happen, by the dispensation of our Savior, that even for slight and most trifling causes, a council may be ordered to be convened for the purging of the Church. B
13. Therefore, let the miserable man not hope, even if still more and more trustworthy men accuse us, that he will be our judge; for even if one were commanded to appear before him, we shall refuse his hearing, and by God's favor we shall clarify matters more fully, insofar as he must provide satisfaction for his own blasphemies.
14. Neither, therefore, do we flee from peace, but we wish for it, if the true faith shall have been announced and professed, or if he shall at last cease to preach such things. For that pamphlet of his holds such perversity C that it is rightly said of those who wrote it that they hold the primacy in blasphemy.
15. Because he causes a grievance for the unwonted expression, "Bearer of God," that is, Theotokos, holy Virgin, which neither Scripture nor the holy synod has set forth; let him himself tell us, being questioned: where does Scripture speak of "Bearer of Christ," that is, Christotokos? Or is there any episcopal D council which has named Christ Theodochos, that is, a form capable of or receiving the deity?
16. For in that pamphlet which he sent, and which deeply offends us, it is thus: "Let us not theologize together with the God Word the Theodochos form," that is, the form of God-receiver, as one and equal, by which we revere God the Word by reason of his deity. Similarly, regarding that venerable, ever-Virgin, he placed it thus: "Let us not theologize together with God the Theodochos Virgin," that is, the Virgin who receives the deity, with God, for we do not exalt divine things.
17. He does not know what he says. For if she is a Virgin, as he wishes, she did not give birth to God, nor is she Theotokos, nor could she receive God in her womb, who is Christ; how then is he at all Theodochos, that he might please them again?
18. What, in his sayings, does he mean by the Father being called Theotokos? He is the fourth one against Proclus, in which are these words: "For there is one, as I say according to them, the Father God, Theotokos," that is, the begetter of God, who has this name imposed upon him.
A whom it would have been more correct and appropriate to proclaim as Theogennetor (which the Latins would call "Begetter of God")? Let him tell us, then, where he read these words, or from whom he heard them. There are many crimes in his expositions, but they shall be kept and brought forth at the opportune time, unless perchance some repentance follows.
19. (1) It behooves me, however, to make my own position manifest to you, and therefore I write again, that although I am by nature peaceful and quite unacquainted with lawsuits, yet I desire the Churches to have peace, and the priests of God dwelling in peace to be mindful of us, according to the saying of the Savior of all, our Lord Jesus Christ: "My peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you." B Indeed, it is true that these things have proceeded from those who would harm us; but there will be peace when he ceases to teach such things, or to hold such opinions: for when the faith is injured, it stirs up enmities, and indeed it aggravates them.
20. (2) In our colloquies, therefore, learn this, because many things [have proceeded] from them that would harm us; however, there will be peace when he ceases to teach such things, or to think them: for when the faith is injured, it stirs up enmities; indeed, it even makes them worse.
21. If he professes the correct faith, there will be full and firm peace, which if he desires with a sincere wish, let him write down the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria: if these things are written from the affection of an inmost heart, I am prepared also, to the best of my strength, to write similar things, and to edit a book, and to C think, as much the better as they are more suitable to the series of the discourse and the more explanatory of the matters stated. But the reason why Cyril prefers that the Father be called Theogennetor rather than Theotokos is ready at hand; for *tiktein*, which is to give birth, is more frequently said of the mother than of the father, whose proper characteristic is *gennan*, or to begetting. But the excellent principle of the beginning, which pertains to the first person, commands that we transfer the appellation from the Father rather than from the mother to the divine person; although Scripture itself does not always speak so scrupulously on this matter; for it introduces the eternal Father saying to the Son: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee" (Ps. CIX, 3). GARN.
Regarding the Greek material, for which some things are read concerning the supplicatory document which was to be offered to the Emperor Theodosius, which Cyril is said to have read and corrected, and sent back with instructions that, if necessity did not compel its use, it should be suppressed; but if Nestorius continued to act insanely, it should be offered. Now I believe some have said that it was to be offered in Cyril's name, because in it Cyril seemed to ask the Emperor not to have Nestorius as a judge in the matter of the documents which his accusers had submitted. ID.
But that I may reveal what I think about this whole matter, I assert first that they are mistaken in their opinion, whether those who think this document is the same as the protestation set forth at Constantinople, concerning Nestorius's agreement with the Samosatene; or those who make Cyril the author of the protestation; for that was published almost a year before the letter we are discussing was written, by Eusebius, later Bishop of Dorylæum, to publicly accuse Nestorius of heresy. Although Cyril says in the Greek text that he suppressed the document, as it had been composed by others, and had dictated it emended in other words, so that Nestorius might not complain that he was being accused of heresy before the Emperor; what of the fact that the protestation neither has any appearance of a supplicatory document to a prince, nor was it offered to the Emperor, but was set forth openly to all those living in the royal city?
I further assert that this whole history of the document seems to be suspect to not a few, nor without reason, since mention of it is made in no other place: for what comes to mind to some, that it should all be understood of the petition of Basil and other monks given to Theodosius, has no semblance of truth; inasmuch as in the document it is cautioned that Nestorius not appear to be accused of heresy before the Emperor, but in the petition he is openly accused. In the document, Cyril refuses the judgment of Nestorius by an express method of enmities; none of these things is read in the petition. In the document, Cyril was to speak in his own name; in the petition, the monks act on his behalf.
If, however, anyone thinks that all that is written about the document pertains to the petition of the monks, let him say that it seemed that the emendation of Cyril should be omitted by those at Constantinople, on account of the insanity of Nestorius, and his persistence both in spreading error and in harassing his adversaries, for which he ought openly to be called to account for the crime of heresy. D Let him also say that the request for an ecumenical council was a suitable way of declining to plead the case before Nestorius, and that it was of singular prudence, not only to request a judgment in the name of the monks, and not in the name of Cyril; but also to count Cyril among the witnesses of the faith of the Fathers, by which he would be declared an adversary of Nestorius, and thus subject to the judgment of another. And the fact that he is addressed without the magnificent, yet customary, titles, will perhaps seem to be no doubtful indication that the petition had been seen by Cyril, but had been, as it were, purged of its own praises out of modesty.
Finally, I think, and not without reason, that the letter was written by Cyril in the very same way that it was translated into Latin by Mercator; but that the Greek supplement is nothing other than a *commonitorium* or schedule which, as is wont to happen, Cyril had joined to the same document when he sent it back, and which someone not very intelligent had believed to be part of the letter, from which, so that it might not have two endings, he removed the proper one in order to insert the alien one. ID.
[alt-version omitted]
... because truly I say that thus I wish for myself health, and that I be found upright before God, just as also all the bishops), in the colloquies, etc.
[...the final portion of the previous page's translation.]
EPISTLE XI. CYRIL TO POPE CELESTINE I.
Cyril explains how pestilential the doctrine of Nestorius is, and what he has done thus far to recall him to the true faith; he explains that he has not yet openly withdrawn from his communion, until he learns from Celestine what action he ought to take, so that Celestine might, by sending letters as soon as possible to the bishops of the East and Macedonia, make his judgment on this matter known. At the end, certain chapters are appended in which the whole doctrine of Nestorius is explained.
To the most holy and God-beloved Father Celestine, Cyril, greeting in the Lord. B
1. If it were possible to remain silent, and not to acquaint your God-fearing self with all that is taking place without incurring blame or the fear of sinister suspicion, especially in matters so necessary where even the right faith is being endangered to some extent by certain persons, I would have said to myself: "Silence is honorable and free from danger, and to remain quiet is better than to be disturbed." But since even God requires of us alertness in these matters, and the long-established custom of the Churches persuades us to communicate such things to your Holiness, I write again out of necessity, declaring that Satan is now confusing all things and raging against the Churches of God, and is attempting to subvert the peoples everywhere who walk in the right faith. For that most wicked and unrestrained beast does not cease from his pursuit of impiety. C I had, indeed, kept deep silence for some time past; and I had written nothing at all to your God-fearing self concerning him who now administers the Church in Constantinople, nor to any other of our fellow-ministers, believing that haste in such matters is not free from fault. But because we have arrived at the very brink of evils, I have deemed it necessary to break my silence and to relate all that has occurred.
2. For the aforementioned [Nestorius], having been ordained, and when he ought, by means of exhortations, to have been inciting to good both his own peoples and the strangers—who are very many, and indeed for the most part flock thither from every city and region—strove to preach certain absurdities and things alien to reason, which are far removed from the apostolic and evangelical faith, which the Fathers have always guarded with great constancy and handed down to us as a precious pearl. And as for the homilies which he has frequently delivered in church, and...
which he does not cease to urge, I have sent them to your holiness as an accurate report. I, for my part, confess that although I wished to make it clear to him through a synodical letter that we cannot communicate with one who says and thinks such things, I have not done so. Reasoning, however, that it is necessary to extend a hand to those who have slipped and to raise up those who have fallen, as brothers, I advised him by letter to desist from such error. But we gained nothing. And since he has learned that we are so far from thinking in the same way as he, that we even rebuke him and urge him to depart from his inventions—for I would not call them dogmas—he has set in motion every kind of plot, B and he does not cease, even now, to cause disturbance. When we expected that he would be healed and would desist from these dogmas against Christ, we learned that we had been deceived in our hope, for something of this sort occurred.
There was in Constantinople a bishop by the name of Dorotheus, who thought the same as he—a man given to sycophancy for the sake of gain, and prompt in his speech toward rashness, as it is written. He, in a public assembly, while the most reverend Nestorius was sitting on the throne of the church of Constantinople, stood up and dared to cry out with a loud voice: "If anyone says that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema." And a great cry and commotion arose from the whole people. For they were no longer willing to have communion with those who thought such things; so much so that even now the people of Constantinople, with the exception of a few weaker ones and those who flatter him, abstain from the assembly. C And almost all the monasteries and their archimandrites, and many of the senate, do not assemble there, fearing lest they receive some detriment to the faith, since both he and those whom he brought with him when he came up from Antioch, all speak distorted things.
Since, when his homilies were brought to Egypt, I learned that some of the lighter-headed ones had been snatched away and, in doubt, were asking one another, "Does he speak rightly? Or has he been deceived?"—fearing lest the contagion of the disease might take deeper root in the minds of the simpler ones, I wrote a general letter to the monasteries in Egypt, confirming them in the right faith. And then some took the same [letter] to Constantinople, and those who read it were very much helped, so much so that most of those in authority even wrote to thank me. But this became for him fodder for his anger against me, and he fights against me as an enemy, D having nothing else to accuse me of, except only that I do not...
A hold the same opinions as he, but rather have corrected the many, instructing them to believe what we received from the Fathers and what we learned from holy Scripture, and to accept it as true. Nevertheless, disregarding the machinations he has devised against me, and committing all things to God who knows and is powerful in all things, I have again written another letter to the aforementioned [man], containing a summary of the right faith, at once exhorting and adjuring him to think and speak in this way. But I did not benefit him at all. He clings even now to the things he devised from the beginning, and does not cease to speak perverse things.
5. Let your piety know this also, that B what is said is in agreement with all the bishops in the East; all are offended and grieved, and especially the most devout bishops of Macedonia. And yet knowing this, he thinks that he is wiser than all, and that he alone knows the aim of the divinely inspired Scripture and the mystery of Christ. And yet how should he not have been more assured by the fact that since all orthodox bishops and laymen constituted throughout the whole world confess Christ to be God, and the Virgin who bore him to be the Theotokos, he alone who denies this is in error? But he is puffed up with pride, and thinks that by abusing the power of his throne to lay snares for all, he will persuade both us and all others to hold the same views as himself.
6. What then shall we do, when we can neither persuade him to return to his senses, nor induce him to desist from such sermons, while the people of Constantinople are corrupted more and more day by day, C although they bear these things indignantly and look for help from the orthodox teachers? Our discourse is not about common matters, nor is our silence free from danger. For if Christ is insulted, how shall we be silent, especially when Paul writes: «For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if unwillingly, I have been entrusted with a stewardship?» We then, to whom the stewardship of the Word and the custody of the faith have been entrusted, what shall we say on the day of judgment if we hold our peace regarding these things?
7. We do not separate ourselves from communion with him with boldness D before we have made these things known to your piety. Deign, therefore, to declare to us what seems best to you, and whether it is ever right to communicate with him, or whether we should henceforth declare with boldness that no one communicates with him who thinks and teaches such things.
A It is necessary, therefore, that the purpose of your piety regarding this matter be made manifest by letters both to the most pious and God-beloved bishops in Macedonia, and to all those in the East. For, as they are eager, we shall provide them with the opportunity that all may stand with one soul and one mind, and strive together for the right faith which is being attacked. For as far as concerns him, both our great and wonderful and approved Fathers, who said the holy Virgin is Theotokos, have been anathematized, and we who are still living with them have been as well. And since he was unwilling to do this with his own voice, he put forward another, the aforementioned Dorotheus, and induced him to say this while he himself was sitting by and listening; with whom he also, immediately descending from the cathedra, communicated after having celebrated the divine mysteries.
C 9. But in order that your holiness may know clearly what he says and thinks, and what our blessed and great Fathers [think], I have sent volumes containing certain excerpted chapters. These, as much as was possible, I have seen to be rendered into Latin by those who reside at Alexandria. The letters written by me I have also handed to the beloved Posidonius, charging him to offer them to your holiness.
Memorandum of the most holy Bishop Cyril, which he gave to Posidonius when he was sending him to Rome on account of the business of Nestorius.
Nestorius's faith, or rather his impiety, has this force. He says that God the Word, having foreseen that he who was to be born from the holy Virgin would be holy and great, for this reason chose him, and arranged for him to be born without a man from the Virgin, and bestowed upon him the grace to be called by His own names, and finally raised him from the dead. Wherefore, when the only-begotten Word of God is said to be incarnate, it is said to be incarnate because He was always with that holy man who was born of the Virgin; and just as He was with the prophets, so, he says, He was with him according to a greater conjunction. For this reason he avoids saying "union" everywhere, but calls it a "conjunction," such as exists from without, and as if he were to say to Jesus, that "As He was with Moses, so will I be with you." While concealing his impiety...
A he says he was with Him from the womb. B For this reason, he does not say that He is the true God, but that He is called so by the favor of God; and even if He is called Lord, he wishes Him to be Lord again in this same way, as if God the Word had granted to Him the right to be so called. He says, "Do not say what we say, that the Son of God died for us and rose again; but the man died, and the man rose; and this has nothing to do with the Word of God."
For our part, we indeed confess that the Word of God is also immortal and is Life; but we believe that He became flesh, that is, by uniting to Himself flesh with a rational soul, He suffered in the flesh, according to the Scriptures; and since His body suffered, He is Himself said to suffer, though in His nature He is impassible; and since His body rose again, for His flesh did not see corruption, it is said that He Himself rose from the dead. But he [Nestorius ] does not think these things, but says that the passion is a man's, and the resurrection is a man's, and that it is a man's body that is presented in the mysteries. But we believe that the flesh of the Word has the power to give life for this reason, that it has become the flesh and blood of the Word who gives life to all things.
When he could no longer bear to hear this, he had Coelestius deliver complaints against Philippus the presbyter, who was refuting D him and was no longer willing…
...to unite with him because of his heresy. Now in these libels there was a certain accusation that he was a Manichaean. Then he summoned the man to the council. He came, acting according to the canons, to state his case. But Celestius, since he had nothing to prove, secretly withdrew and did not go to the council.
6. Having failed to find that pretext, he moved on to another. For he said, "Why did you conduct private assemblies, and offer the oblation in a house?" And though almost the entire clergy said that each of us does this when time and necessity demand it, he brought forth a sentence of deposition against the man.
Behold, you have the volumes containing the chapters of the blasphemies of Nestorius.
Letter XII (formerly X)
OF CELESTINE, POPE, TO CYRIL, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
Celestine praises the zeal of Cyril in defending the faith, and condemns the heresy of Nestorius, and, unless he be corrected, he commands Cyril, with his own authority delegated to him, to remove him from the communion of the Church and to provide another shepherd for that Church.
A To his dearest brother Cyril, Celestine.
B The letters sent to our gloom by your holiness through our son Posidonius the deacon have returned gladness, and we have exchanged joy for sorrow. For when we look back upon and review what he has said who attempts to disturb the Church of Constantinople with perverse teachings, our mind, struck with no small pain, was vexed with various goads of thought as to how we might assist the people to persist in the faith. But when we turned our mind to the writings of your fraternity, we found a remedy already prepared by which the pestilential disease might be avoided with a healthy cure; namely, the liquor of a pure fountain flowing from the discourse of your charity, which would cleanse all the filth of the ill-flowing stream, and open to all what they ought to believe concerning our faith. Just as we therefore blame and censure that man, so we have embraced your holiness in the Lord’s charity, as if you were present in your letters, since we see that we think one and the same thing about the Lord. Nor is it a wonder that the most provident priest of the Lord should fight for the love of the faith with such virtue, so that he may resist the wicked audacity of adversaries, and confirm those entrusted to him by this admonition. Therefore, as those things were bitter to us, so these are sweet; as those were filthy, so these are pure. We congratulate your holiness that there is such vigilance in you, so that you, like your predecessors who...
those who preceded you, have already conquered the examples of those who were always themselves defenders of the orthodox dogma. The gospel testimony truly fits you, which says, "The good shepherd lays down his life for his own sheep." B But just as you are a good shepherd, so that man is not even to be accused as a bad hireling—who is not blamed because he abandons his sheep, but because he is found to be tearing them apart himself.
2. We would add something, most beloved brother, if we did not see that you hold the same views as we do on all matters, and if we had not already proven you C a most powerful defender in your own assertion of the faith. For everything regarding this matter that your holiness wrote has been delivered to us in order by our son, Posidonius the deacon. You have laid bare all the snares of his crafty preaching, and you have so fortified the faith that the hearts of those who believe in Christ our God cannot be drawn in another direction. This is a great triumph for our faith: to have asserted our position so strongly, and to have thus defeated the opposition through the testimony of the holy Scriptures. What will he do now? Whither will he turn himself, he who, as a lover of impious novelty, while he wishes to serve his own intellect rather than Christ, intended to infect the people entrusted to him with the poison of his own preaching? Whereas he ought to have read and held that one must avoid, rather than pursue, perverse questions which do not contribute to salvation, but tend toward the ruin of souls.
3. But we ought, if we can, to recall one rushing toward precipices—or rather, one who already stands D on the very edge from which he will fall—so that we may not hasten his ruin if we fail to help him. Christ our God, concerning whose own birth the question is raised, taught us to labor for one sheep, wishing it to be brought back upon His own shoulders, so that it might not lie exposed as prey to the rapacious wolf. And if He taught us to run for the salvation of one sheep, how much does He wish us to labor for the shepherd of the sheep themselves, who, forgetful of his office and name, has turned himself into the rapaciousness of a wolf, desiring to destroy the flock which he ought to have guarded? We must remove him from the sheepfold of the lambs, if we cannot correct him as we wish. May there be hope of pardon for him if he corrects himself; for we prefer that he return and live, provided he does not destroy the life of those committed to him. Let there be an open sentence for him who persists; for if...
we wish, let us provide correction. We hope that he may A return and live, unless he himself should destroy the life of those entrusted to him. Let there be some manifest sentence against him if he persists; for such a wound must be cut away, by which not one member is harmed, but the entire body of the Church is wounded. For what does he do with those who are in agreement with one another, he who, thinking himself alone to be wise, dissents from our faith? Therefore, let those remain in communion whom he, because they opposed him, removed from communion; and let him know that he shall not be able to have our communion, if he persists in this path of perversity, acting contrary to the apostolic teaching.
Having joined to you, therefore, the authority of our throne, and using our representative, you shall execute this sentence with precise rigor, so that either within ten days, counted from the day of this notification, he shall condemn his own wicked preachings by a written profession, and shall guarantee that he holds this faith concerning the birth of Christ our God, which the Church of the Romans and the Church of your Holiness, and the universal devotion holds; or, if he does not do this, your Holiness, having provided for that Church, shall immediately B see to it that he is by all means removed from our body, he who neither wished to admit the healing of those who provide a cure, and has wickedly hastened to the destruction of both himself and all those entrusted to him, like a pestilence.
We have written the same things to our holy brothers and co-bishops John, Rufus, Juvenal, and Flavian; so that our sentence, or rather the divine sentence of our Christ, concerning him may be manifest. Given on the 13th day of August, under the consulate of Theodosius (the 13th) and Valentinian (the 3rd).
EPISTOLA XIII (ol. XI). CYRIL TO JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH. He signifies what was done against Nestorius in the Roman synod.
The most disturbed state of the holy Church of Constantinople, and by what reason not a few… are troubled, but rather commending those who have suffered these things. Among those whom Nestorius had removed, the foremost to be esteemed is Philip the presbyter, of whom it was spoken in the Commonitorium to Posidonius, no. 5.
A Your piety has undoubtedly learned from many sources that the present state of affairs is one of great disturbance, and that many—even of those who are most earnest and moderate—remain separated from the assembly, suffering no small trouble in their faith on account of the things said in the church by the most reverend Bishop Nestorius. I advised him by letter to abandon such perverse and twisted questions and to follow the faith of the holy Fathers. But he, thinking that I wrote these things out of malice, was so far from paying heed to one who had written to his piety out of love, that, thinking and speaking in this way, he hoped further to undermine and prejudice the ears of the Romans. For he wrote certain absurd things in a long letter composed to my lord and most pious Bishop of the Roman Church, Celestinus, and included in these same letters to him B some things against those who dissent from him, saying that they do not shudder to call the holy Virgin the Mother of God (Theotokos). Furthermore, he sent some quaternions of his own expositions, which, when the most pious bishops found in the great city of Rome had read, and after many sessions and consultations had been held, they hissed at their author with no small indignation, openly asserting that he had innovated a most grievous heresy, one never discovered by any of those who had lived before.
Since, therefore, Nestorius had written these things thither, I was compelled to disclose everything that had passed between me and him, and to send C copies of those letters which I had written to him by Posidonius, the beloved deacon of the Alexandrian Church. Moreover, when his expositions and, most especially, the letters—in which there was no room for quibbling because they bore his own signature—were read in the council, the holy Roman synod immediately passed a formal judgment against him; and it has written to your piety regarding this matter. Therefore, this decree must be obeyed in every way by those who do not wish to be cut off D from the communion of the whole West. For they have written and sent copies of the formulated sentence both to the most pious Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and to certain other most religious bishops in Macedonia who are always in agreement with his decisions. They have written no less also to the most pious Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem. It is for your piety, therefore, to consider what is for the best. For we have decided to follow the judgments passed by them, fearing to fall away from the communion of such great men, who are not indignant for any other reason, nor were they moved by matters of small moment when they passed this sentence, but for the sake of the faith itself, and the Churches that have been disturbed throughout the entire world. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; those who are with me greet you in the Lord.
LETTER XIV (ol. XII). CYRIL TO ACACIUS OF BEROEA.
A Those who are deeply sorrowful, and who have a heart pierced by cares, find no small comfort when they can relate the things that distress them to those who are of the same mind. Such a person have I also become; therefore, I thought it necessary to write to your perfection concerning the causes for which I am reasonably—or rather, am still—grieved. For it was not enough for the most reverend Bishop Nestorius to say things in church that caused scandal in the Church and undermined the faith in Christ, the Savior of us all; but he even tolerated a certain Bishop Dorotheus who dared to say openly in church during the sacred rites: "If anyone says that Mary is the Theotokos, let him be anathema." What then? Are we to launch anathemas in an orthodox church against the holy Fathers? B For I find in the writings that Bishop Athanasius, of blessed memory, very often called her Theotokos; and likewise our blessed Father Theophilus, and many other holy bishops of the time: Basil, Gregory, and the blessed Atticus himself. And I believe no one among the orthodox fears to call her Theotokos, since it is true that Immanuel is God. Therefore, are the holy Fathers, who have long since flown to God, to be placed under anathema, along with all others who have confessed Christ to be God and followed the straight dogmas of the truth? Nor did the evil stop at these limits; but it has now perverted the minds of the people. C For I understand, and indeed not without tears, that some have fallen into such perfidy and ignorance that they explicitly deny that Christ is God; while others so bestow the appellation of God upon Him that they still think nothing right about Him, supposing that He was raised to that dignity by the benevolent will and grace of God, just like one of us. Are these things not fit to be pursued with tears and lamentation? To what purpose, I ask, was it necessary to bring such subtle and hidden matters into the open? Why do we not rather instruct the people with moral expositions, if we are not entirely suited for the precise treatment of dogmas? D As for the fact that I set forth the doctrine of the right faith to those who live the solitary life throughout Egypt and Alexandria, and who had been disturbed by the reading of such expositions, he has turned into a bitter enemy against me, and gathers certain charlatans and condemned men, and prepares them to lie against me before many. And perhaps justly. For if we had zeal for God, and were imitators of the piety of the Fathers toward God, we would long ago have been against those who have dared to prattle against Christ and to anathematize us who are living, and those who...
already holy Fathers, having brought forth a holy judgment, by which it was likely that even those of the peoples who had been harmed in the faith might be healed. Salute the fraternity that is with you; the one that is with me salutes you in the Lord. B
EPISTLE XV (former XIII).
ACACIUS, BISHOP OF BEROEA, TO CYRIL.
He signifies that judgment ought to be passed more kindly upon the error of Nestorius and his associates, and that one should not act too severely toward them; and that John of Antioch holds the same opinion.
To my lord, in all things most holy and most beloved of God, Bishop Cyril, Acacius sends greeting in the Lord.
I have lately read the letters of your Piety which were brought to us, filled with unhappy tears and lamentations because of the rumors and tumults stirred up in the city of Constantinople, in which the depth of the Christian faith shines forth, while they contain also this among other things, that it was superfluous to bring these matters forward in the first place. For what utility did that signal disputer, Apollinaris of Laodicea, bring into the Church, while he fought as one of the princes for the right faith against the enemies of the faith? C Did he not, while trusting too much in his own wisdom, and while he strove to introduce certain passages and, as it were, ways into the uncontaminated and simple faith of Christ from places that are impassable and altogether impenetrable, achieve by his endeavor nothing other than to be considered among the schismatics by the universal Catholic Church? And was it not said by one of the bishops of old with an upright sense and perfect intelligence of mind, when he wished to restrain those who were well-disposed, lest they should too curiously investigate things that exceed human comprehension: "How the Father begat the Only-Begotten," he says, "let it be honored with silence"? And in the progress of his discourse he adds: The investigation of this matter exceeds almost all the heavenly powers, much more men or the thoughts of men. How then is that admonition of the divine Scriptures not necessary and fitting, which teaches: "Seek not things deeper than yourself, and do not scrutinize things stronger than you. What has been commanded to you, consider these things. For it is not necessary for you to see with your eyes the things that are hidden"? D But those who seek—by what reason they might excuse those who labor to know and utter these things—they say that they have suffered something similar to what is recorded to have happened to the blessed Bishop Paulinus (2). For although he refused to speak openly of three hypostases, in reality and in power he did not depart from the sentiment and faith of those who professed this. He followed the God-beloved bishops of the West, because the Latin language was constrained, and they were unable to speak of three hypostases in our Greek mode of expression.
B Verily, it is necessary for all of us who are able to grieve and suffer with the Church of God to make every effort and show every zeal to suppress the expression that has unhappily slipped out, so that no opportunity may be given to those who are ready to tear apart and divide the Church of God. Wherefore, if anything of this sort has initially escaped, which justly binds and disturbs many religious and pious people, your integrity and absolutely perfect prudence ought to strive to allay this movement at once, although, as I have already said, many who have come to Antioch and to us from the city of Constantinople, both of the clergy and of the laity, seem to defend what was said. They claim that in its meaning it contains nothing that is contrary to apostolic doctrine or that conflicts with the faith defined by the holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea to establish the co-essential (homousion), and which was delivered to the entire Catholic Church. C Since the time calls for it, pray labor, with all the prudence and compassion you possess, to show this; do not be reluctant to suppress the fallen word through your holiness and the authority of your priesthood, for the sake of those who have taken it up and have been divided by it, in such a way that you may seem now to meditate upon and strive for that which you can, while the Catholic Church is gravely shaken at this time and almost submerged by the increasingly swelling waves; and therefore, using the voice of the Lord, rebuking the spiritual sea which is seen to be turbulent at this moment, utter this: "Peace, be still."
I caused the letter of your God-fearing self to be read to the most holy bishop John of Antioch, and he, having listened with much fellow-feeling and compassion, desires the same as we do, though he is of a mature age in the priesthood, having recently come to the episcopate—he who, by the grace of God, flourishes in the prizes that belong to the episcopacy, so that all the bishops of the East pride themselves and boast of him. D He also, acting as requested, begs your God-fearing self that your holiness, using the prudence in which you excel, may deal with that word which has slipped out and ought not to be tolerated, in such a way that, through what you will say and through what you will do, the occasion now provoking it, that apostolic saying may shine forth: "If," he says, "I wish to use the authority which God has given us for edification, and not for destruction, I shall not be ashamed." As for this most beloved bearer of our letters, who has been a faithful Christian since the time of his ancestors, deign to receive him in accordance with the kindness that is clearly inherent in you; and if in anything he should need your help, I pray that you do not fail him in your providence. The entire brotherhood that is with you, I and those who are with me, greet most warmly.
EPISTLE XVI (formerly XIV).
CYRIL TO JUVENAL, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
He announces that Nestorius has been condemned in the Roman synod; he sends the letters of Pope Celestine.
To my most desired brother and fellow-minister, Lord Juvenal, Cyril, bishop, sends greeting in the Lord.
I would have wished, indeed, that the most reverend bishop Nestorius, clinging to the footsteps of upright men, might follow the doctrine of the right faith. For who of sound mind would not desire that those who have been appointed over the flock of the Savior should be men
as I thought, to stir up by those letters a certain pious zeal, toward which your own piety is by nature already inclined, so that with unanimous consent and strenuous effort we might gird ourselves with the love which is in Christ, and procure salvation for a people exposed to no small dangers, and finally establish the Church, which is so conspicuous and illustrious. B This we shall achieve if, being in harmony one with another according to the defined formula, we write both to him and to the people. For if we accomplish this—that is, if we lead him away from the things he has hitherto held and turn him to the truth—we shall gain a brother and save a pastor for the Church. But if this counsel of ours is undertaken in vain, having ascribed to himself whatever may eventually happen, he shall eat the fruit of his own labors. It will be necessary, moreover, that letters be sent to the most Christian and most pious emperor and to the others constituted in authority, persuading them, on the one hand, not to prefer any man over piety toward Christ, and on the other, to secure for the world the stability of the true faith and to deliver the sheep from an evil pastor, unless he himself should be so disposed as to wish to comply with the counsel of all. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; that which is with us greets you in the Lord.
LETTER XVII (ol. XV)
CYRIL TO NESTORIUS ON EXCOMMUNICATION
Cyrilli et synodi Alexandrinæ Patrum Expositio fidei catholicæ de Incarnationis mysterio, cujus hæc summa: Unitum carni Verbum secundum personam (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν) confitemur. Subjunguntur duodecim anathematismi in quibus præcipui errores veræ Incarnationis doctrinæ oppositi condemnantur; ac tandem ipsum Nestorium a sua communione segregandum denuntiant, nisi intra tempus juxta Cœlestini litteras simul transmissas præfinitum veram fidem hic propositam confiteatur, errores autem indicatos anathematizet.C Cyrillus et synodus ex Ægypti provincia Alexandriæ congregata Nestorio religiosissimo piissimoque sacrorum comministro in Domino salutem.
Cum Salvator noster diserte pronuntiet (Matth. x, 37): « Qui amat patrem aut matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus; et qui amat filium aut filiam plus quam me, non est me dignus; » quid nobis fiet, a quibus tua pietas supra Christum omnium Salvatorem diligi postulat? D Quis in die judicii nobis patrocinabitur, aut qualem tunc excusationem inveniemus, qui tanto tempore silentio utentes, tua illa maledicta, quibus in eum invasisti, dissimulavimus? Quod si, dum hæc sentis et doces, teipsum tantummodo læderes, fortassis minor nos sollicitudo teneret; at quia totam Ecclesiam graviter offendisti, ac non iis modo qui Constantinopoli versantur, novæ insolitæque hæreseos fermentum, sed omnibus ubivis locorum degentibus objecisti (circumferuntur enim passim tuarum exegeseon libelli), quæ, obsecro, oratio silentio nostro defendendo satis idonea reperietur, aut quomodo non erit necesse meminisse Christi dicentis: « Ne putetis,
inquit, « quod pacem venerim mittere super terram, sed gladium. Veni enim dividere hominem contra patrem suum, et filiam contra matrem suam. » Certes, if the faith is violated, let every reverence toward parents be accounted as vain and dangerous; let that law of love toward children and brothers vanish: because it is certainly better for the pious to die than to live, that they may, as it is written, "obtain a better resurrection." A Behold, therefore, together with the holy synod which has gathered in the great city of Rome, under the presidency of our most holy and most godly brother and fellow-minister, the bishop Celestine, we bear witness to you for this third time by these letters, and we adjure you to follow our counsel and abstain from those foolish and absurd dogmas which you hold and teach publicly, and to embrace with reverence the right faith which was delivered to the Churches from the beginning by the holy apostles and evangelists, who were both eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. B And if your holiness does not do this within the time-limit specified in the letters of the aforementioned most holy and most godly brother and fellow-minister of ours, the bishop of the Roman Church, Celestine, know that you will henceforth have no share with us, nor any place or standing among the priests and bishops of God. For it is not possible for us to overlook Churches so troubled, peoples scandalized, the right faith subverted, and the flock of Christ, which you ought to have preserved, miserably scattered by you—a flock which, had you desired to pursue the doctrine of the right faith and emulate the piety of the holy Fathers as we do, you would have saved. C Therefore, we have entered into communion with all, both clerics and laymen alike, whom you have excommunicated or removed from their rank on account of the faith. For it was not just that those who chose to hold the right faith should suffer any injury because of your iniquitous judgment, merely because they who hold right views refused to assent to your doctrine. Indeed, mention of this deprivation is also made in the letter which you wrote to our most holy fellow-bishop of great Rome, Celestine. D However, it will not be enough at all if your holiness merely confesses with us the symbol of faith which was set forth by that great synod that once assembled in the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea. For although you may profess it with your lips, you neither understand it rightly, nor do you interpret it sincerely, but rather in a perverse and completely preposterous way. But beyond this, you must add a written and sworn affirmation that you further anathematize the wicked and profane things you have held until now, and that you promise that henceforth you will hold and teach those things which we and all other bishops, teachers, and leaders of the people who live in the West and in the East hold and teach. Furthermore, as concerns the letters which the Alexandrian Church addressed to your holiness...
A, that you may know that they were judged by the holy Roman synod, and by us all as well, to be free from all error and fault. To these letters of ours we have appended both what it is fitting for you to understand and teach, and conversely those things from which it is proper for you to abstain. For the faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which all the orthodox bishops of the West and the East agree, is as follows:
C We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: "There was once when he was not," and "Before he was begotten he was not," and that he was made out of things that were not, or who assert that he is of another hypostasis or substance, and that the Son of God is mutable or alterable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.
Following everywhere the confessions of the holy Fathers, which they issued while the Holy Spirit spoke within them, and tracing out the aim and sense which they maintained, and walking as if on a royal road, we say that the only-begotten Word of God himself, born of the very substance of the Father, God from true God, true God, light from light, through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth, for the sake of our salvation came down, and emptied himself D and was incarnate and was made man; that is, taking flesh from the holy Virgin, and making it his own from the womb, he endured the birth according to us, and proceeded as man from a woman, not casting off what he was, but even if he became man in his assumption of flesh and blood, he remained nonetheless what he was: God, that is, by nature and in truth. Neither do we say that the flesh was turned into the nature of the Godhead, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was changed or turned into the nature of the flesh; for it is immutable and unalterable, remaining altogether the same as he always is, according to the Scriptures. Though seen as an infant still remaining in swaddling clothes, and nestled in the bosom of the Virgin who bore him, he was filling all creation as God, and was seated with Him who begat him. For the divine is devoid of size and magnitude, and does not brook limitation.
Though we confess the Word to be united to flesh according to hypostasis, we worship one Son and Lord Jesus Christ; neither do we divide and separate human and God, nor as if [they were] connected...
A to one another by a unity of dignity and authority (for this is a novelty of words, and nothing else), nor do we call the Word from God Christ in a specific sense, and similarly in a distinct sense call another Christ, the one from woman; but knowing only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own flesh. For then he was anointed humanly with us, although he himself gives the Spirit to those worthy, and not by measure, as the blessed evangelist John says. But we do not say that the Word from God dwelt in the son of the holy Virgin as in a common man, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man. For although the Word indeed dwelt among us, and it is said that in Christ dwelt the whole B fullness of the Godhead bodily, yet we understand that, having become flesh, he did not inhabit [it] in the same way as he is said to inhabit in the saints, nor do we define the indwelling in him as being in the same manner. But united according to nature, and not changed into flesh, he made such an indwelling as the soul of a man might be said to have toward its own body.
71 Therefore, Christ and Son and Lord is one, not as if man had obtained a conjunction with God C just as [merely] a connection, existing in a unity of dignity, or authority, which the man has toward God. For equality of honor does not unite natures; and indeed Peter and John, while equal in honor to one another, in as much as they were apostles and holy disciples, nevertheless are not one [person], but two. Nor, again, do we understand the manner of conjunction by juxtaposition; for this is not sufficient to constitute a natural union, nor [is it] according to a relative participation, as even we, being joined to the Lord, according to what is written, are one spirit with him; nay, rather, we reject the term "conjunction," as not having the power to sufficiently signify the union. But neither do we call the Word from God the Father the God or Master of Christ, lest we manifestly divide the one Christ, the Son and Lord, into two again, and fall into the crime of blasphemy, by making him his own God and master. For the Word of God, as we have often admonished, being united to flesh according to hypostasis, D is both God and Master of all creatures; but he is neither master nor servant of himself. For to think or say so would be nothing other than to be impiously foolish. He does indeed call the Father his own God, although he is God by nature, and begotten from the Father's substance. We are not ignorant, however, that with this very fact—that he is God—he also became man, and therefore, according to the law of human nature befitting [that state], he is subject to God. Meanwhile, that he could be his own God or master, this cannot be in any way. As man, therefore, and in regard to the condition of the emptying, he confesses that he is subject to God just as we are. In this way, he also was made under the law, even though, as God, he himself gave and promulgated the law.
A We also avoid speaking of Christ in this way: "Because of the one who clothes, I venerate the one clothed; and because of the invisible, I adore the visible." Furthermore, it is also said not without horror: "The one taken exists alongside the one who takes as God." For those who speak in this way divide the one Christ again into two, placing the man by himself and the God likewise by himself, and by this reasoning they most openly deny the union. According to this [view], one is not worshipped together with the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but one and the same Christ Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son of God, is conceived, who is honored with one adoration together with his own flesh.
We confess also that the same Only-Begotten Son of God, born of God the Father, although according to his own nature he is impassible, yet for our sake suffered death in the flesh, according to the Scriptures; and in the body that was crucified, B he took to himself the sufferings of his own flesh impassibly; for by the grace of God he tasted death for every one, giving his own body to it, although by nature he exists as Life and is himself the Resurrection. For in order that by ineffable power he might trample death, as in his own primordial flesh, he might become the first-born from the dead and the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep; and might blaze a path for human nature for its return to incorruption by the grace of God, just as we said just now, he tasted death for every one, and after three days he rose again, having despoiled Hades. So even if the resurrection of the dead is said to have come about through man, yet we understand that man to be the Word who was begotten of God, and that through him the power of death was destroyed; C and he will come in due time, as one Son and Lord, in the glory of the Father, to judge the world in righteousness, as it is written.
We must also necessarily add this: for while proclaiming the death of the Only-Begotten Son of God, that is, Jesus Christ, according to the flesh, and confessing his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we perform in the Churches the unbloody sacrifice, and thus we approach the mystical blessings and are sanctified, having become partakers of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ, the Savior of us all. And we do not receive it as common flesh—far be it!—nor as that of a man who D has been sanctified and joined to the Word by an equality of dignity, or as one who has had a divine indwelling, but as truly life-giving and belonging to the Word himself. For since he is Life by nature as God, after he had become one with his own flesh, he bestowed upon it the power of giving life. Therefore, even if he says to us: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood," not as the flesh of a man...
of our condition are we to believe that this flesh is to be esteemed—for how could the flesh of a man be life-giving by its own nature?—but as having truly become the own flesh of him who for our sake both was and is called the Son of man.
A Furthermore, we do not at all attribute the words which our Savior uses when speaking of himself throughout the Gospels to two subsistences or persons; for Christ, one and alone, is not dual, even if he is thought of as coming from two different things into an indivisible unity, just as, of course, a man is conceived of as consisting of soul and body, and is not for that reason dual, but one from both. We, therefore, thinking correctly, and using a right mind, shall interpret both the human and, in addition to these, the divine words as having been spoken by one [person]. For when he says in a way befitting God about himself: "He who sees me, sees the Father," and, "I and the Father are one," we understand his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through the identity of substance, being the image and character and brightness of his glory. B But when, not dishonoring the measure of his humanity, he speaks thus to the Jews: "But now you seek to kill me, a man, who have told you the truth," we recognize none the less, even through the measures of his humanity, the very Word of God who exists in the equality and likeness of the Father. For if it is necessary to believe that, being God by nature, he became flesh, that is to say, a man endowed with a rational soul, what reason could one have to be ashamed of the words that came from him, if they have been spoken in a manner befitting a man? For if he were to reject the words appropriate to man, who forced him to become man for our sake? Since, therefore, he humbled himself for our sake into a voluntary emptying, for what reason would he reject the words appropriate to that emptying? It is necessary, then, to attribute all the words in the Gospels to one person; to one subsistence, that of the Word incarnate. For the Lord Jesus Christ is one, according to the Scriptures.
C And if he should be called the apostle and high priest of our confession, as one who offers to God the Father the confession of faith which we offer to him and through him to God the Father, and indeed also to the Holy Spirit, we affirm again that he is the only-begotten Son of God by nature. And we do not ascribe the name or the reality of the priesthood to some other man distinct from him; for he alone, while offering himself to God and Father as an odor of sweetness, became the mediator of God and men and a reconciler for peace. And it is to this that he tends when he says: "Sacrifice and"
A offering you did not desire; but a body you have prepared for me. In whole burnt offerings and for sin you took no pleasure. Then I said: Behold, I come. In the scroll of the book it is written of me, to do your will, O God." For he offered his own body for us as an odor of sweetness, and not for himself. For what oblation or sacrifice would he need for himself, being superior to every sin as God? For if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, inasmuch as we were made prone to transgression, and human nature has become sick with sin, while he is not so, and on this account we fall short of his glory; how could it any longer be in doubt that the true Lamb was sacrificed for us and on our behalf? And to say B that he offered himself for himself and for us, would by no means be free from the charge of impiety. For he has sinned in no way, nor did he commit sin. What oblation, then, did he need, when there was no sin for which he should offer it? And this most reasonably.
But when he says regarding the Spirit: "He shall glorify me," those who understand correctly do not say that the one Christ and Son, as if he were in need of glory from another, received glory from the holy Spirit; for the Spirit is not better than he, nor even greater than he. But since he used the holy Spirit for the demonstration of his own divinity, for the performance of great works, he says he was glorified by him, just as if one of those C among us, regarding the strength or wisdom present in him for whatever matter, were to say: "My virtue or science shall glorify me." For although the Spirit subsists in his own person, and is indeed considered by himself, insofar as he is Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not alien to him; for he is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth; and therefore he also proceeds from him, just as he does from God and Father. When, therefore, after our Lord Jesus Christ had ascended into heaven, the holy Spirit performed stupendous prodigies through the hands of the holy apostles, he glorified him. For it was believed that he was God by nature, working again through his own Spirit. On this account also he said: "Because he shall take of mine, D and will announce it to you." And we do not say anywhere that the Spirit is wise and powerful by participation; for he is altogether perfect and in need of no good thing. But because he is the Spirit of the power and wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, he is wisdom and power itself.
And because the holy Virgin gave birth after the flesh to God united to flesh according to hypostasis, for this reason we also call her Theotokos, not as if the nature of the Word had its beginning of existence from the flesh: "For the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the
He himself is the maker of the ages, co-eternal with the Father, and creator of all things; but, as we have already said, because He united human nature to Himself according to substance, and underwent birth in the flesh from her womb: not as if He were in need—by necessity, that is, or because of His own nature—of a birth in time and in the last days of the age; but in order that He might also bless the very beginning of our existence, and, by the fact that a woman gave birth to Him, united as He was to flesh, might thenceforth cause the curse against the whole of our race, which sends our bodies from the earth to death, to cease, and might prove the utterance of the Prophet to be true, by which the text "In pain shall you bring forth children" is rendered void by Him, namely: "Death has swallowed them up in victory," and again: "God has taken away every tear from every face." B For this very reason, we affirm that, in the dispensation of the economy, He also blessed the marriage and, being invited, went to Cana in Galilee with the holy Apostles. We have been taught to believe these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, by the whole of the sacred and divine Scripture, and by the true confession of the blessed Fathers. To all these things, it is necessary for your Reverence also to give your assent and to agree without any deceit. But the things which it is necessary for your Reverence to anathematize are subjoined to this our letter in this manner.
1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is in truth God, and therefore that the holy Virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in the flesh the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema.
II. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father was united to flesh according to substance, and that Christ is one with His own flesh, being clearly the same as God and man together, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone in the one Christ divides the substances after the union, connecting them only by a conjunction of dignity, that is, of authority or power, and not rather by a union according to nature, let him be anathema.
IV. If anyone distributes to two persons or substances C the words which occur in the evangelical and apostolic Scriptures, or which are spoken of Christ by the holy men, or by Christ Himself concerning Himself, and ascribes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, while he accommodates others as worthy of reverence to the Word alone who is from God the Father, let him be anathema.
V. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man bearing God and not rather that He is God in truth, as being the one and natural Son, inasmuch as the Word was made flesh and has shared equally with us in blood and flesh, let him be anathema.
A VI. If anyone shall say that the Word of God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be God together and man, inasmuch as the Word was made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.
VII. If anyone says that Jesus was moved by God the Word as a man, and that he was invested with the glory of the Only-Begotten as if he were another existing apart from him, let him be anathema.
VIII. If anyone shall dare to say that the man who was assumed must be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and called God together with him, as one in another (for the particle "together with," being perpetually and necessarily added, compels one to think this), and does not rather honor Emmanuel with one worship and render him one glorification, in that the Word was made flesh, let him be anathema.
IX. If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified B by the Spirit, as using a power alien to him—that which is through him—and as having received from him the ability to work against unclean spirits and to perform divine signs among men, and does not rather say that the Spirit is his own, through whom he has indeed worked those divine signs, let him be anathema.
X. The divine Scripture says that Christ became the high priest and apostle of our confession, and that he offered himself for us as a sweet-smelling savor to God and the Father. If anyone therefore says that our high priest and apostle is not the Word of God himself, when he was made flesh and man like us, but as some other different man born of a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the sacrifice for himself also, and not rather for us alone (for he who had known no sin would have had no need of an offering), C let him be anathema.
XI. If anyone does not acknowledge the Lord’s flesh to be life-giving and the own flesh of the Word himself, who is from God the Father, but speaks of it as [belonging to] some other, joined to him in dignity, that is, as having possessed only a divine indwelling; and does not rather confess it to be life-giving, as we have said, because it has become the own flesh of the Word who has the power to give life to all, let him be anathema.
XII. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and became the firstborn from the dead, D inasmuch as he is life and life-giving as God, let him be anathema.
LETTER XVIII (ol. XVI)
CYRILLI AD CLERUM POPULUMQUE CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM
A The same epistle of Cyril to the clergy and people of Constantinople: in it he writes that they should not attend to the impious doctrine of the heretic Nestorius, nor share in communion with him if he remains a wolf instead of a shepherd; but rather that they should act manfully in the Lord, and keep their own faith unshaken. Furthermore, he writes that they should be in communion with those who have been cast out by Nestorius because they spoke against his doctrine.
To the most beloved and most desired brethren, presbyters, deacons, and the people of Constantinople, Cyril the bishop, and the synod which has gathered at Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, greeting in the Lord.
We have arrived—late, and with difficulty—at the point to which we ought to have come at the beginning: namely, to take up the care of the salvation of you all, and not to permit you to be shaken by turmoil regarding the faith. As for your complaints, we reply that we have spent the time past not without grief and tears, expecting that the venerable Bishop Nestorius, moved both by ecclesiastical counsels and admonitions and by the reproofs of all of you, would depart from those perverse and absurd dogmas of his, and that he would worship and embrace, together with us, the faith handed down to the Churches by the holy apostles and evangelists, and likewise by the entire priestly order, and confirmed by the voices and oracles of the holy prophets, lest it suffer any detriment. But since, partly from those things which he ceases not to set forth publicly before you in the assembly, and partly again from the expositions published by him, we have discovered him to be grievously misled and ensnared by no common perfidy and impiety, we have been driven to the necessity of testifying to him by synodical letters: that unless he very quickly—that is, within the period of days fixed by the most holy Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church—abstains from the novelties of his doctrine, and anathematizes by his own hand those things which he has spoken among you and inserted into books, or has caused to be inserted (which are also found among us), he shall have no place of communion with the priests of God, but shall be altogether alien from the society of all.
D Let no one blame this delay in us. For we have not been asleep while so great a flock—nay, rather, while all the peoples and Churches that are scattered everywhere—are being troubled; but we have imitated the industry of skilled physicians in this matter. For they do not immediately subject the diseases and wounds arising in the human body to the necessity of fire or iron, but first soothe them with mild medicines, wait
...they treat them atrociously, but after having first soothed the wound with milder remedies, they await the time opportune for burning and cauterization. Therefore, men, be strong in Christ, and having kept the faith which you once received steadfastly, strive to be pleasing to Christ, the one and only and true Son of God; mindful of our holy Fathers, who served as priests among you holily and blamelessly, and who, while they lived, called the holy Virgin the Mother of God. For she gave birth to Emmanuel, who is truly God. For the Word was made flesh, and was born in the flesh from a woman, so that we might become brothers of Him who is above every creature, who was born according to the flesh of a woman. A They did not preach among you two Christs, but one only; that is to say, the same being true God, and again man born according to the flesh from a woman: not a man naked and joined to God only by that union which is seen in mere equality of dignity or authority; for these are the cold, useless, and old-womanish dogmas of Nestorius. They further added to these: that He Himself suffered death for our sake according to the flesh, and, having trampled the power of death by divine virtue, rose again from the dead, and will one day come as Judge of all. Constantly rekindling this faith within yourselves, keep yourselves spotless and blameless, having no commerce at all with the aforementioned Nestorius, nor lending your ears to him, if he continues to be a wolf instead of a shepherd, and if, after this our admonition directed at him, he does not cease to think perverse things. B Finally, with those clergy and laymen also, who for the sake of the right faith have been excommunicated or removed from their rank by him, we freely communicate, not at all approving his unjust sentence, but rather commending those who have suffered such things, and saying to them: "If you are reproached for the sake of the Lord, you are blessed; because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."
EPISTLE XIX (formerly XVII). CYRIL AND THE SYNOD ASSEMBLED WITH HIM TO THE MONKS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
C To the most devout and beloved of God Fathers of the monasteries, who are in Constantinople, Cyril and the holy synod gathered at Alexandria, send greeting in the Lord.
We have learned precisely of the zeal of your piety, which you have manifested for Christ, who is being blasphemed, and this in the church of the orthodox, and we have greatly praised your love for Christ and devotion to His name, as was just. But we continue in tears and mourning, and we beseech Christ, the Savior of all, that even now at last, the snares of the devil having been shattered, He may cut away the scandals from the Churches, and restrain those who pursue His glory with curses. D Because He is long-suffering, He has granted an ample time for repentance to the most devout bishop Nestorius, while all meant the while held their peace and waited for what was the prayer of all: that he might depart from his profane and novel teaching, and might think with us...
sound, and in accord with the divinely inspired Scriptures, and to A choose the faith delivered from above to the Churches by the holy apostles and evangelists, who also became genuine stewards of the mysteries of Christ, and were appointed to perform the sacred service of His Gospel to those throughout the whole world. But since he has remained in the same errors, and perhaps has even turned to worse ones, piling blasphemy upon blasphemy, and explaining doctrines that are strange and entirely foreign, which the holy Catholic Church does not know at all, we have deemed it right to have him admonished for a third time, by this letter which has been sent both by us and by our most holy and most pious brother and fellow-minister Celestine, the bishop of the great city of Rome.
The gist of the admonition is this: if he chooses to repent, and to wash away with tears what he has said, and to condemn in writing the doctrines that he has falsely proposed, and finally to acknowledge the true and blameless faith of the Catholic Church, he shall be granted forgiveness, if he seeks it, and shall be allowed to be taught what is necessary. But if he chooses not to do these things, he must understand that he is alien and estranged from the assembly of bishops and from the dignity of the teaching office. For it is not safe to admit a dangerous wolf into the flocks of the Savior under the guise of a shepherd. Therefore, conduct yourselves like men, as befits servants of God, and take care of your own souls, doing everything for the glory of Christ, and so that the faith in Him may be proclaimed as true and sincere everywhere. For this will both free you from future dangers and will prepare you to be deemed worthy of crowns before the divine tribunal, since Christ, the Savior of us all, will praise and reward you for your love toward Him. B "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the brethren who are with me greet you." I pray that you may fare well in Christ, beloved and most dearly cherished brothers. C
EPISTLE XX
OF CYRIL TO THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF ALEXANDRIA. WRITTEN FROM RHODES BEFORE THE SYNOD.
That they may assist his efforts with continuous prayers for the faith which is in peril.
Cyril to the presbyters, and deacons, and to the people of Alexandria, beloved and most dearly cherished in the Lord, greeting.
By the grace and kindness of Christ our Savior, we have crossed over the wide and great sea, having enjoyed such gentleness and prosperity of winds that we have completed that whole voyage without any fear or danger to life. D Therefore, glorifying God and rendering due thanks to Him, we have broken forth into these words with the Psalmist: "You rule the power of the sea, and You calm the motion of its waves." And since it was necessary that, while absent in body, we should be present in spirit, to embrace you through a letter as children, I thought it proper to...
in the spirit, to embrace you by a letter, as children, I thought I ought to write these things to you for now, and to make it clear. For I believe that God will add the rest, being entreated by the prayers of you all. Show, therefore, especially at the present time, as a fruit of love, your prayers for us (for I also do not cease to do this), so that God, who crushes all wars, the Lord of hosts, having settled the intermediate matters, and having broken every war, may restore us to you, rejoicing as you rejoice, as to his children. For He can do all things, according to what is written: to Him absolutely nothing is impossible. And hold fast to the moderation which is natural and becoming to you. For this will prove you to be most highly approved, since both in the absence and presence of your spiritual father, you follow a praiseworthy manner of life. B "Greet one another with a holy kiss." The brothers who are with me greet you. I desire that you fare well in the Lord, most beloved and most longed-for.
LETTER XXI (ol. XIX). TO THE SAME.
Ejusdem cum præcedente argumenti. CCyril, to the presbyters, and deacons, and to the people of Alexandria, beloved and most longed-for, greeting in the Lord.
To me, desiring to greet your moderation again, time and place have provided a suitable opportunity for writing. We are, therefore, in the city of the Ephesians, staying in good health through the prayers of you all, and we have the time of the synod soon at hand. We trust, however, that Christ, the Savior of all, will show His own Churches to be pure from perverted thoughts, and will restore the right faith to be most manifest; so that all who are in every place, being pure and blameless, and having it unadulterated by sale, may lift up holy hands for prayers, D saying that which is by the voice of the blessed David: "May my prayer be directed as incense before Thee; the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice." For that restless beast, the wicked one, wanders about, plotting against the glory of Christ; but he is entirely powerless, his perversity being idle and his malice ineffective. For he plots not against a common man, nor against one like us, as those inventors of new dogmas think, but against the God who is powerful in all things. Therefore, let him hear from everyone who loves Christ: "It is hard for thee to kick against the goads." For the wretch strikes himself, and together with his own children per-
and with his children will rush to destruction. For those who pervert the right dogmas of the holy Churches belong to his portion, A nor shall they escape the judgment of God. Pray, therefore, for us, that God, the Savior of all, may grant us to be restored again, rejoicing with those who rejoice. For He can do all things, and nothing at all is impossible for Him. "Greet one another with a holy kiss." The brethren who are with me greet you. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord, beloved and most cherished brothers.
LETTER XXII (ol. XX)
LETTER OF JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, TO CYRIL
That he has not yet arrived at the synod, he blames the length and difficulty of the journey.
B To my most religious and most holy fellow-minister, Cyril, John wishes health in the Lord.
It tortures me not a little that, after your holiness began to be present in Ephesus, I have been absent these few days. For the yearning for your holiness, even more than the object itself, stimulates me to complete this journey as quickly as possible. At last, therefore, after many hardships of travel endured, and aided by your holiness's prayers, I am at the gates. For thirty whole days (for so much does the extent of the space require) I have been traveling without stopping, allowing myself no rest whatsoever; meanwhile, many of the most religious bishops have been grievously afflicted by the difficulty of the journey, and not a few animals have perished from the continuous labor of the trek. Pray, therefore, master, I implore you, that we may travel these five or six days of the journey without difficulty, and that it may be granted us to embrace and kiss your sacred and holy head with joy. My lords, the most dear to God bishops John, Paul, and Macarius, and the rest who are with me, greet your holiness. I also, with my attendants, extend a most hearty greeting to the entire brotherhood that is with you. Fare well, and continue to pray for us, most pious and holy master.
LETTER XXIII (ol. XXI)
CYRIL TO CERTAIN ONES OF THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CLERGY
That the plots of Candidianus and Nestorius may be frustrated, he narrates what has been done at Ephesus.
D Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to Comarius and Potamon, bishops, and to the lord Dalmatius, archimandrite of the monasteries, and to Timothy and Eulogius, presbyters, most beloved and cherished, and sanctified in Christ, wishes much health.
We were expecting the honorable Nestorius to arrive, and to be led by repentance for those things which, after he was ordained...
he uttered with blasphemous mouth, to seek pardon from the holy synod; although it was extremely dangerous to grant him pardon. For it was not fitting to grant pardon to a man who had preached such things (for he subverted the whole world and undermined the faith piously preserved and cultivated by the Churches). For if he who dared to utter even one impious word against our most pious and Christ-loving emperors deservedly endures the indignation of the laws, how much more justly should he experience it, that utterly impious man who attempted to overturn the sacrosanct mystery of the incarnation, and to abolish the dispensation which the holy and benevolent Son of the Father, the Only-begotten, fulfilled for our sake, not disdaining to be made man, so that He might save us all and deliver the world under heaven from sin and death? But we marveled at the hardness of heart of the man. For he did not repent, nor did he wash away with tears the things he had dared to say A against the glory of the Savior of us all, Christ. But even when he arrived at Ephesus, he made use of the same words as before, and again showed himself to be of a perverse mind; so that when certain prominent metropolitans and most pious bishops brought charges against him justly, and then refuted him through the divinely inspired Scripture, and taught that He who was born of the holy Virgin according to the flesh is God, he used an impious phrase, saying: "I do not call a two-month or three-month-old God"; and he added many other things besides these, utterly removing from the midst the incarnation of the Only-begotten.
B The deadline given to the holy synod by our most devout emperors was the holy day of Pentecost. For the first letter, by which we were summoned, contained this instruction. We arrived at the city of the Ephesians before the appointed day; for it was not right to disregard the imperial decrees. But after we heard that the most devout and most God-loving bishop of the Antiochenes, John, was coming, we waited for sixteen days, although the whole synod was crying out and saying that he did not wish to sit in council; for it seemed that he feared lest the most honorable Nestorius, who was taken from his Church, might suffer deposition, and perhaps he was ashamed of the matter. And experience truly showed this for the rest; for he delayed his coming. For some of the most devout bishops who were with him from the East C had come ahead and said: "The Lord Bishop John instructed us to say to your piety, that 'If I am delayed, do what you are going to do'." The holy synod, therefore, having gathered on the twenty-eighth day of the month of Pauni, as the Alexandrians call it, in the great church which is called Saint Mary, summoned him, having sent most devout bishops, so that he might come and present himself, D and make a defense concerning those things which he taught and wrote. But he made his first answer, saying that I am
A considering and looking. He was therefore summoned by a second citation through certain most holy bishops, sent to him again by the holy synod. And he committed a deed which was thoroughly unworthy; for, having received soldiers from the most magnificent Count Candidianus, he stationed them before the house in which he was dwelling, with clubs, to keep back any who might by chance wish to go in to him. But when the most holy bishops who had been sent remained, asserting this one thing, that they were not present to say or hear anything harsh, but to summon him according to the command of the holy synod, he made use of various excuses, as one who, being convicted by his own conscience, did not wish to come. We then used a third citation, and with bishops of different provinces sent to him again, he once more employed the violence of soldiers and would not come. When, therefore, the holy synod had sat down, and, insisting upon the sanctions of the Church, had read his letters and expositions, and found them full of blasphemies; and since, moreover, certain distinguished and most pious metropolitan bishops testified that in the very city of the Ephesians, debating with them, he openly denied that Jesus is God; B it deposed him and passed a just and lawful sentence against him.
Since, however, it is necessary that your piety, having learned these very things, should also inform those who ought most of all to know them, lest either he himself or others who favor him should beguile anyone with fair words, I have thought it worth the effort to signify these things. We also have a letter written to him by the most pious and most religious bishop John, by which he sharply reproves him, as one who has brought new and impious dogmas into the Churches, and overturns the doctrine of the holy evangelists and apostles delivered to the Churches. But because he can bring forward nothing for the defense of his own blasphemies, seeking a veil for his guilt, he says: "I asked for a delay of four days, until the bishop of the Antiochians should come, and they would not grant it," although the aforementioned most holy bishop John had refused to come. For if he had wished to be present, to what purpose did he signify through his own bishops: "If I delay, do what you are going to do"? For he did not wish, as I have said, to be present, C knowing that the holy synod would by all means pass the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, who had uttered impious and blasphemous words against the Savior of us all, Christ. Since, therefore, as I have learned, reports have been carried by the most magnificent Count Candidianus, be cautious and vigilant, and teach them that the minutes of the proceedings in the deposition of Nestorius have not yet been perfectly written out in parchment; wherefore we have not yet been able to send the report which ought to be sent to our religious and victorious emperors: but, God favoring us, the report will arrive along with the minutes, if in the meantime they have not been hindered for us.
be allowed to send it, provided it is permitted to us to send someone who can convey it. But if the series of commentaries and of the report is delayed, know that we are prevented from sending them. Farewell.
LETTER XXIV (formerly XXII).
OF CYRIL TO THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF ALEXANDRIA.
Concerning the deposition of Nestorius.
A Cyril to the presbyters, and deacons, and the people of Alexandria, most beloved and most desired, greeting in the Lord.
Although what has been done ought to have been explained to your piety more fully, nevertheless, because the letter-carriers were in a hurry, I have used brevity in writing. Know, therefore, that on the twenty-eighth of the month Pauni, the holy synod was held in Ephesus in the great church of the city, which is called St. Mary Theotokos. After we had spent the entire day there, B at length we subjected the blasphemous Nestorius, who had been condemned and had not dared to approach the holy synod, to a sentence of deposition, and removed him from the episcopal rank. The bishops who assembled were about two hundred, more or less. But the whole people of the city, from the first rising of the day until evening, awaited the judgment of the holy synod. And when it was heard that that author of blasphemies had been stripped of his dignity, all with one voice began to praise the holy synod and to glorify God, because the enemy of the faith had fallen. When we departed from the church, they escorted us with torches C and lamps as far as the lodging; for it was already evening. And there was great rejoicing, and many lights were kindled in the city, so that even some women, carrying censers, preceded us. And thus the Savior showed to those who sought to defame his glory that he can do all things. We, therefore, as soon as we have completed the records of the events during his deposition, will hasten to you, God willing. We are all, through the grace of our Savior, living in joy and enjoying good health. I pray that you, beloved and most desired, may fare well in the Lord.
LETTER XXV (ol. XXIII).
TO THE SAME.
Of the same argument as the former.
D Cyril to the presbyters, and deacons, and the people of Alexandria, most beloved and most desired, greeting in the Lord.
The brilliant and great works of virtue are not accomplished without labor. For the matter is altogether so arranged that for every benefit, its own sweat must necessarily precede it. Nor is it, indeed, wonderful if in great matters
as we see happen, when even common and inferior things are found to be obtained by no one without labor, nor without troubles and cares. But in the midst of these labors we have learned to say: "Act manfully, and let your heart take courage, and wait for the Lord." B For we are indeed convinced that those who strive for virtue will obtain a glorious fruit, and that we shall find, as a reward for spiritual fortitude, the gift which is rendered by God. Therefore, that most impure heresy, which had already attempted to exalt itself against the whole world, and with horn raised on high was speaking iniquity against God, God himself has demolished; and like some flame desiring to consume the correct dogmas of the Church, the only-begotten Word of God has extinguished it, and by the sentence of the holy synod has cast down and enervated its very inventor and author, removing him from the priesthood; and so we can now joyfully say: "The Lord has done great things for us, we have become joyful." C For let the teachers and leaders of the people rejoice, that the right faith has been confirmed, and that the Savior and God of all is celebrated everywhere, now that Satan has been crushed, the scandals which he had stirred up removed, and the dogmas of truth have gained the victory against falsehood, so that we all may now with one mouth and one voice say: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." These things I write now as to children, recounting the wonderful works of our Savior, so that you may pour forth more unremitting prayers to God, that by his favor we may finally be restored to you, safe and rejoicing with you in your rejoicing. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord.
EPISTLE XXVI (old XXIV)
FROM EPHESUS TO THE FATHERS OF THE MONKS. Of the same subject.To the most religious and most pious Fathers of the monks, and to the others who exercise the monastic life with you and persevere constantly in the faith of God, beloved and most dear, Cyril, D sendeth greeting in the Lord.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, when he endured the outrages from the unholy Jews, being mocked, struck with blows and scourged, and finally, for our sake and on our behalf, nailed to the cross, seeing all who were offending against him and shaking their heads wickedly at him, said: "And I looked for one who would grieve together with me, but there was none: and for one to comfort me, and I found none." We see that something of the same kind has happened now. Or rather, that I may not insult the sincere zeal of the faithful, he had very many who were grieved together with him on account of the blasphemies of Nestorius, although this was not the sentiment of all. For, among those also who perform the functions of the priesthood, some have been found who deserted his cause, seeing that they were [alt-version omitted] with a heretical man
will Christ annul their ignorance, or rather He has already annulled it. For the blasphemous mouth has ceased, and the most filthy tongue has been silenced, no longer uttering blasphemies against Christ A in a position of teaching and episcopal authority. And those who valued friendship with him more than the love which is for Christ, have their faces full of shame; for this was their due. But even if the enemy is now defeated, and we are left with the remnants of this anxiety, we still have need of your prayers to God; and it is necessary for you, as those who have dedicated your own lives to God, to lift up holy hands to Him, and frequently to do this on our behalf. For consider that when Jesus, son of Nun, was contending with the Amalekites alongside the chosen ones of Israel, B the blessed Moses, by lifting up his hands to heaven, sought from God the ability to be victorious over those against whom they were fighting. Let your piety therefore act manfully in prayer, and as true children, assist your Fathers who have cut away the false doctrine of Nestorius like a pestilential disease, so that, holding a faith stainless, irreproachable, and in no way open to censure, we may be able to please Christ, who endured all things for us and for our sake. Gladden us also by means of letters; for we shall receive the matter as a most sufficient consolation. I pray that you be well, beloved and most longed-for brothers.
LETTER XXVII (formerly XXV). TO THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Narrates what was done at Ephesus after the arrival of the count Joannes by the emperor’s command, and what is now being prepared.
The holy synod was greatly troubled upon hearing that the most magnificent and glorious Count Joannes had not reported all things correctly, such that those there were even devising plans for our exile, as if the holy synod had accepted the uncanonical and lawless deposition C brought about by Joannes and the heretics with him. Behold, therefore, another report has been made by the holy synod, indicating that it is grieved by the letters of the prince, and that we did not accept the depositions of the three; but above all, it declares that it holds as void what was impiously and unlawfully performed by those men, and as firm and valid what was done by us. For they had taught also through a first report D that they had rescinded what had been done by others contrary to the prescription of the canons, and that they regard us as partners in communion and fellow-bishops, and that they do not change such an opinion. But although the aforementioned most magnificent man has left nothing untried, in order that Joannes and those with him might be received into the communion of the holy synod, even to this day they have not endured even to hear such a request; rather, they all stand fast, saying
but they entirely oppose it, saying: It is impossible for us to come to this, unless what has been done by them contrary to the law is dissolved, and they fall as suppliants before the synod as those who have done wrong, and they also anathematize his dogmas in writing; and in these things consists the whole insistence of the synod. But when that magnificent man whom we mentioned had been frustrated in this hope, he devised another thing, and requested the synod to deliver to him an exposition of the faith in writing, so that he might produce those other men to agree and sign it, and might return, saying that he had brought them into friendship, although they were harboring human grievances against one another. The holy synod, perceiving this, again rose up to a man, saying that we do not wish to inflict such an indignity upon ourselves. For we were not called as heretics, but we came to establish the faith that was being set aside, which we have indeed established; and the B emperor has no need to learn the faith now, since he knows it, and was baptized in it. Therefore, not even this succeeded with the Easterners. Furthermore, know this also, that when they composed an exposition of the faith, they strove against one another, and they are still engaged in that contention. For some of them admit that the holy Virgin is to be called Theotokos, while also calling her the mother of the man; but others reject it entirely, and say they are ready to have their hands cut off rather than subscribe to such a phrase. They behave shamefully everywhere, showing themselves to be heretics. Let all, and especially the most pious and holy archimandrites, learn these things from your piety, lest the aforementioned person, having returned, might soothe the ears of some and say or teach one thing instead of another. And may your piety not grow weary, nor be exhausted while insisting on the labor for our sake, knowing that in this way it commends itself to God and to men. For here even the most pious bishops, who had never known us before, through the grace of the Savior are ready to lay down their souls for us, and come to us with tears, saying they have it in their prayers to share our exile and even our death. We are all encompassed by great affliction, both because we are being guarded by soldiers—who even sleep before our chambers—and most especially we ourselves. The rest of the whole synod is exhausted and weary. And a number have died; already C the rest are selling their own belongings, because they are destitute of funds.
LETTER XXVIII
CYRIL TO THE BISHOPS THEOPEMPTUS, POTAMON, AND DANIEL
Copy of an epistle written by Archbishop Cyril to the most reverend bishops Theopemptus, Potamon, and Daniel, who were acting in Constantinople, in which he explains the troubles he had suffered on account of the judgment passed against Nestorius and John.
Cyril to Theopemptus, Daniel, and Potamon, beloved fellow-ministers, greeting in the Lord.
Many calumnies have been stirred up against us there; D
in part as if many from the Alexandrian baths had followed us, and in part as if they had gone out with us as canonical; but as it is reported, it has been said by calumniators that it was by my contrivance, and not by the intention of the holy synod, that Nestorius underwent deposition. But blessed be the Savior, who refuted those who say such things. For when my lord, the most magnificent and glorious count of the sacred largesses, John, arrived at Ephesus, and found that nothing of them rested on truth, he condemned those who had brayed such nonsense. Moreover, he recognized that the holy synod had contended for the sake of the faith out of its own zeal, neither doing a favor to me nor to any other, but moved by divine zeal, and because it could not bear his blasphemies, it passed judgment against him. But after the letter of the most pious and Christ-loving emperors was read, by which it was said that the depositions of the three were to be accepted, we were placed under guard, and are still guarded, being entirely ignorant as to how this matter will eventually turn out. Nevertheless, we give thanks to God that we are deemed worthy, for the sake of his name, not only to be bound in chains, but also to suffer all other things; for the matter is not without its rewards. But the synod could not be induced to hold communion with John, but resisted, saying: Behold the bodies, behold the churches, behold the cities; you have the power: but as for us, it is in no way possible to communicate with the Orientals before the things which were concocted by their calumny against our fellow ministers are dissolved, and they also confess the right faith. For they are convicted of saying, thinking, and confessing the dogmas of Nestorius. The entire contention, therefore, lies in these things. Let all the orthodox pray for us. For as the blessed David says: «But I am ready for scourges.» C
Letter 29 (formerly 27). From Alypius, presbyter of the Apostles, to Cyril. He extols his constancy with the highest praise.
To the most holy and God-beloved Archbishop Cyril, Alypius, presbyter of the Apostles, greeting in the Lord.
Blessed is the man whom God first deems worthy to behold with the eyes of love thy God-beloved and holy head, which wears the crown of martyrdom of confession. D For thou, most holy Father, with a watchful eye, hast walked the path of the holy Fathers, and thou hast taught those who were limping on both knees to walk straight toward the truth; thou hast put on the confidence of Elias; thou alone hast taken up the zeal of Phinees; thou hast stopped the impious mouth of the venomous dragon; thou hast overthrown the voracious Bel; and thou hast [shattered] his empty hope, that is, his rule and presidency purchased with money, [thou hast shaken and repressed].
you have rendered powerless and destroyed the apparatus of the golden image. And what mouth, filled with spiritual ointments, shall be able to utter the praises of your zeal, since you have become equal to the blessed Theophilus, your uncle, as his imitator; nay, you have even been crowned with the martyrdom of that blessed Athanasius? For just as he, by his prayers, avoided the contrivances of the wicked heretics as he would have avoided reefs, having warded them off, so too has your holiness calmed the contrivances of the wicked one, as if they were weak squalls, by the purity of your life and conscience. For thus also the blessed Athanasius, after he had refuted the many and false charges which the heretics laid against him, and had patiently endured the exile decreed by those who were then in power and who were responsible for that very thing occurring, attained to this: that he emerged always the purer and more illustrious by his long-suffering, shining the more brightly in these prerogatives the more those impure mouths aimed false accusations against him. And weaving for himself in these struggles the crown of martyrdom, he established the consubstantiality, trampled underfoot the perverse doctrine of Arius, raised up Orthodoxy again, and exalted the see of the holy evangelist Mark: B using these same means, you too have diligently followed in the footsteps of that saint. I pray, therefore, most holy Father, that I may one day be deemed worthy to see your holy face in person, to embrace your knees, and to enjoy the sight of a martyr who, in a time of peace, has taken up the crowns. As to the whole state of our affairs, and how we have acted with confidence, relying on your prayers and those of the holy Fathers, and all that we have done, the beloved deacon Candidianus, who delivers the letters of my insignificance to your holiness, will explain in person. I greet the whole holy synod together with your holiness, all adorned with the crown of martyrdom. May God grant you to us in health and joy, honored in the Lord, struggling for the sake of the truth. C
Letter 30 (formerly 28). From Maximianus, created bishop of Constantinople, to Cyril.
Sanctum Christi confessorem pro meritis laudat, petitque tanti præsulis sive precibus juvari, sive consiliis informari, sive perpetuo charitatis vinculo devinciri.
Religiosissimo et reverendissimo comministro Cyrillo, Maximianus episcopus, in Domino salutem.
Expletum est desiderium tuum, Deo devotissime; perfectum est quod religionis causa susceperas; ad finem perductum est pietatis tuæ votum. SpectaDtum est.
and made a spectacle to angels, and to men, and to all the priests of Christ. You have not only believed in Christ, but you have also suffered for His sake. You alone were deemed worthy of the sufferings of Christ, having been granted the privilege to bear His stigmata in your own body. You confessed Him before men; you were confessed by Him before the Father in the sight of the holy angels. You were crowned with the crowns that are due to those who contend for piety; you were able to do all things in Christ, who strengthened you; you humbled Satan through your patience; you laughed at torments; you trampled upon the fury of rulers; you despised hunger. For you had the bread that came down from heaven, which has given life to men, that bread from above. B Since, therefore, we ourselves have not been absent from these things—being instructed here through the senses, and having heard by report of your afflictions, which you endured while resisting principalities and powers, the world-rulers of this darkness, and the spirits of wickedness—and since we have been promoted to the archbishopric of this great city, deign, most God-beloved, both to support us with your prayers, and to instruct us with your counsel, and to pursue us with all good will, so that the scriptural phrase may be fulfilled also in our case: “A brother helped by a brother is as a strong city.” For truly, C spiritual love is a fortified city, which cannot be fought against, nor besieged by the devil, neither by mines nor by scaling ladders. For it does not yield to the siege engines of Satan, seeing that it is guarded by Christ the Lord: Christ, surely, who both overcame this world and has prepared eternal goods for you, who said: “He who does not take up his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me.” Since, therefore, you have turned out to be worthy of Christ the Lord, because you have borne your cross and followed Him, do not cease to pray to Christ for us, considering the ornaments of fraternal virtue to be your own prerogatives. Fare well in the Lord, and pray for me, most God-beloved and most holy brother and fellow-minister. D
Letter 31 (formerly 29). From Cyril to Maximianus, Bishop of Constantinople. He proposes that the true faith concerning the Incarnation must be carefully guarded, and at the same time encourages him to fulfill the duties of his new office diligently.
To the most reverend and God-beloved fellow-minister Maximianus, Cyril, greeting in the Lord.
Opportune, as I think, and fitting at this time, now that your integrity has obtained that much-desired priesthood, to speak with the Prophet and say: “Let heaven rejoice from above; and let all the
earth exult,” A and let it cry out with joy, according to the voice of the Prophet. For that mouth which spoke great things is no longer lifted up against the glory of our Savior; nor does he who was accustomed to do this lift up his horn on high, nor speak iniquity against God, denying the Lord who redeemed us. For Jesus Christ, the one and only and true Son of God the Father, has redeemed us, not with corruptible silver or gold, but by rather laying down his own soul for us, and offering himself as an immaculate sacrifice to God and the Father for an odor of sweetness, and giving his own blood as a ransom for the life of all. For he was more precious than all, or rather, even above the whole creation, although the only-begotten Word of God became perfect man, similar to us, yet having undergone no change, B or alteration, or that confusion or mixture bruited about in the speech of many, nor has he been changed into that which he was not; but rather he remained in our nature what he was before. For he is believed to be, and truly is, the living and subsisting Word of God the Father. Come, then, as if with one tongue and a God-loving mind, let us offer to him the confession of the right faith, saying with the blessed Baruch: “This is our God; none other shall be accounted besides him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel who was loved by him. And after these things he appeared on the earth, and conversed with men.” For it was not one Son of God the Father who was C before all age and time, through whom all things were brought into birth, and another again who in the last times of the age was born according to the flesh of the holy Virgin; but rather the same one who took hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the voice of the blessed Paul, and in a manner similar to us partook of blood and flesh, and was made like his brothers—that is to say, like us—in all things, sin alone excepted. We confess that the body united to him in truth is endowed with a rational soul. For we do not cling to the dogmas of the insane Apollinarius. But, thinking rightly, we anathematize Apollinarius, and Arius, and Eunomius, and together with them Nestorius. For we have the faith that was delivered to us from above D as an anchor of the soul, safe and secure, according as it is written. Therefore we confess, as I was saying, one, and only, and true Son of God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ; knowing the same to be both God and Word from the Father, and man from a woman; and above the law as God, and under the law by reason of his humanity; in the dignity of the Lord according to his nature, and in the form of a servant by reason of the dispensation of the incarnation. This tradition has been handed down to us by the Mosaic words, and the prophetic foretellings, and in addition to these, by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and.
A ministers of the Word, and indeed also by the holy Fathers who lived before us; who have also become lights in the world, holding the word of life, whose manner of life we gaze upon and imitate their faith—that is, we occupy ourselves in thinking and speaking the same things as them, and in no way do we tolerate being carried off the path of piety. For we remember the divinely inspired Scripture crying out: "Make straight paths for thy feet, and direct thy ways" (Prov. IV, 26). For those who honor straight paths run toward the goal, to the prize of the upward calling in Christ (Philipp. III, 14); but those who have disregarded the apostolic and evangelical tradition, and honor the novel, useless, and truly ridiculous discovery of their own intellect, let them hear from all: "Do not move the ancient boundaries which thy fathers have set" (Prov. XXII, 28). For the way of such men is not pleasant; rather, their paths are crooked and lead down B into the throat of the abyss and the snare of death (cf. Prov. II, 15). And it seems to me that Solomon, being exceedingly wise, gave to an immodest woman the mask of every heresy, and then spoke concerning her, how one must renounce and flee from such a woman, who is a trap, and "her heart is a snare, and bonds are in her hands" (Eccl. VII, 27). "He who is good before the face of God shall be delivered from her; but the sinner shall be taken in her." But we have been delivered from the insatiable snare of this hunter; we have been saved through Christ, the Savior of us all. Believing Him to be God, and professing the one who gave birth to Him according to the flesh to be Theotokos, we draw near to Him, C saying: "You will give us life, and we shall not depart from You; and we shall confess to Your name forever" (cf. Ps. LXXIX, 19). Of all these most longed-for blessings, the cause and mediator for us has been that divine and ineffable decree from above, and the will of the most pious and Christ-loving king, which acts in concert with those heavenly promptings. For it behooved His Serenity not only to overcome visible enemies, but also, in addition to this, invisible ones; and not only to crush barbarian phalanxes, but also to render powerless the perversity of the devil, and finally, through your piety, to provide for the security of those who believe in Christ. For he who was babbling recklessly in the Church, opening his mouth with unbridled blasphemies against Christ, has been removed from the sacred and divine courts; D and in his place has sprouted and blossomed your integrity, as a plant of peace, according to the writing. This too is a brilliant gift of a pious king, with the heavenly decree, as I said, taking the lead. We therefore rejoice with you, who hold the right and blameless faith. For there has arisen a minister of sacred things, whom you know, and a long time has recommended him to you, and the very experience of events has crowned him; a man who, with good intentions toward you...
for you has consumed much time and has produced such a venerable whiteness of hair. It was necessary, yes, it was necessary that a wise and knowledgeable shepherd be given to the chosen flocks of our Savior, one who has a mind filled with pastoral skill, who knows how to feed them in good pasture and in a fertile land; and who, in brief, has been proven by his deeds as a faithful and sincere steward. For those who are accustomed to living in this way, Christ accepts them and considers them worthy of every honor; but those who are disposed otherwise, He casts out from the ministry which He had entrusted to them. B You may easily recognize that what we say is true from the Holy Scriptures themselves. For God says somewhere to the blessed prophet Isaiah: "Go into the storehouse to Sobna the steward, and say to him: What are you doing here, and what is it that you have here? Behold the Lord of Hosts will cast out and destroy the man, and He will take away your robe, and your glorious crown; and He will cast you into a land both wide and vast, and there you shall die, and you shall be taken away from your stewardship and from your rank. And it shall be in that day, I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with your robe, and your crown I will give to him, and your stewardship I will give into his hands; and he shall be as a father to all the inhabitants in Jerusalem and to those who dwell in Juda. And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to contradict; and I will establish him as a ruler in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory in the house of his father; and everyone who is glorious in the house of his father, from the smallest to the greatest, shall have confidence in him, and they shall hang upon him in that day. These things saith the Lord of Hosts: The man who is confirmed in a sure place shall be moved, and he shall fall, and the glory which is upon him shall be taken away, because the Lord hath spoken." C God, the Lord of all, therefore loves the truly faithful and sincere steward; but him who is not such, He turns away from as profane. May He, as we hope, bring help to Your Holiness, and may He exhilarate the same with an opulent hand through heavenly gifts, so that by rightly handling the word of truth and by following as if in the footsteps of the faith of the holy Fathers, you may remain praiseworthy through the mercy and benevolence of Christ our Savior of all: through whom and with whom, to God and the Father with the Holy Spirit, be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; the one that is with me greets you in the Lord. I pray that you be well and mindful of us in the Lord, most reverend and God-beloved brother. D
LETTER XXXII (formerly XXX)
CYRILLI AD JUVENALEM EPISCOPUM ET CÆTEROS CONCILII LEGATOS CONSTANTINOPOLIM MISSOS. Gratulatur de triumpho veritatis, suumque factæ electioni et ordinationi assensum præbet.To the desirable lords and worshippers of God and fellow ministers Juvenal, Flavian, Arcadius, Projectus, Firmus, Theodoret, Acacius, and Philip the presbyter, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord.
Satisfied as we are again, and from experience itself we have learned, that the truth lives and conquers, according to the voice of the saint; and since nothing resists it at all: and it is so powerful that it rises up against all enemies and loosens the strength of those who resist it. For see, see for those who spoke falsely the mouth is obstructed, and the gloom of illicit blasphemies has ceased; but the beauty of the dogmas of truth has shone forth, now that there has been ordained, according to the decree of God and the council, through Your Holiness, the most religious and God-fearing Maximian, whom even old age has adorned, not established in sloth and delights, but in labors and virtue; and he who is adorned with the care of many things for the truth and for pious dogmas. Rejoicing therefore with all the Churches and the peoples established there, I shall deservedly proclaim: "Blessed be the Lord, for He has visited and wrought redemption for His people" (Luke I, 68). For such a good shepherd could not sleep, so that He might even lay down His life for the sheep (John X, 15); and knowing always how to save, He has driven away the wicked beast from the sacred and divine sheepfold, and has chosen a most wise teacher, renowned for all virtue, whom we also believe to be adorned with every good thing, and possessing venerable and exceeding virtue, to govern the people placed beneath his hand. May you be safe in the Lord, and mindful of us, we pray, most beloved and most longed for.
EPISTLE XXXIII. TO ACACIUS, BISHOP OF BEROEA
The Emperor Theodosius, having already been warned by Pope Celestine, had sent the tribune Aristolaus to secure peace for the Church, who, insisting on the decrees of the Ephesian synod, might urge on the work of union between Antioch and Alexandria. John, having received the instructions, first convenes a synod at Antioch, then at Beroea, before Bishop Acacius, who in the name of the whole synod had demanded of Cyril that, while acknowledging the Nicene Creed alone as the rule of faith, he should retract his writings published against Nestorius. But to these things Cyril was unwilling to acquiesce, and responding to Acacius, he complains of the whole manner of proceeding by the Orientals, fully clears his own faith, and as a condition for the peace to be entered into, demands that they hold the deposition of Nestorius as valid and condemn his dogmas.
ATo my most beloved brother and fellow-minister Acacius, in the Lord, Cyril, greeting.
Your Holiness has once again undertaken a care worthy of you. For it is your intention, according to the good will of the Savior of us all, God, that the Churches might be joined together, and that a certain pusillanimity be removed from the midst, and that those who ought to be of one mind be persuaded, and that everything which causes grief be taken away, and that those things which have been disrupted be bound together with the bonds of charity. But, as it seems, some of those who are there appear to be thought to clearly attach themselves to the intention of your perfection, while they are either secretly hiding the thing itself, or they act as though they are striving to conceal themselves. For they seek to do things that cannot be done. What else is this but to protest by the very facts that they have no will for peace to be made? And I say this while rereading the letter sent by your perfection, through which I learned that they demand that every writing and every letter which was performed before the synod ought to be adjudicated or renounced by us, but that we should consent to the creed of the right faith which was defined according to the time by the holy Fathers in the great Nicene synod. But I, since that holy creed is indeed sufficient for all good knowledge, and there is nothing at all from it, I will certainly say and consent, even if to some others I may seem to know or say this in the least degree. Truly, I have admired that thing. For since Nestorius was belching forth those twisted and most abominable words against the Savior of us all, Christ, and this before the Church, we wrote what we wrote, contradicting, indeed, and B producing contrary truth to the novelties of his words. And by the grace of God, those who attended to them, many indeed wondered, and with sound intellect honored what was said by us against him. But I do not know why those who now ought to anathematize his polluted dogmas and make themselves strange to his impiety, turning themselves toward every contrary effort, seek to have those things which were written against him exterminated. What reason, I ask, does this have? For your holiness understands how great an incongruity this has, if we should renounce what we wrote for the right faith, because they are our own; nay, rather, if we should accuse the pious faith. Therefore, if those things against Nestorius are not right, or those which were written against his perverse dogmas, then without cause he was deposed; nay, more, perhaps even he himself is thinking rightly. But we have erred, not by consenting to him, but rather who have already written contrary to what he said. And certainly many copies of Nestorius are carried about, confounding all things and disturbing the Churches. Then how shall we delete those things which were written against him, which perhaps have happened to provide help to some or a brief solace? Your perfection, therefore, which is full of all wisdom, foresees that they are seeking an impossible thing and are so far from the will to mitigate the intervening discord that they are leading it back to the beginning of that contention which cannot be told. For why not rather, coming to the Ephesian metropolis, did they bring forth with the synod one decree against him who preached such and so great impieties? For if they had delayed even a little, what hindered that...
those who were looking at the commentaries of the proceedings should be satisfied by them, and that they should consent, as I said, to the correct and irreproachable decree of all? But on the contrary, neither mindful of the Lord, nor the cause for which they were gathered (for the discourse was not about any common cause, but about the faith through which God and the Father saved the world), they displayed in us all cruelty and all fraternal hatred, insulting so holy and universal a synod with excommunication, and this without trial, while also, as if dipping a sword of cruelty B in their right hand, they turned it against me and the most reverend bishop Memnon. Let us suppose, indeed, that in truth something escaped us that pertained to the correctness of the dogmas, or that we were subject to some faults or sins in other ways; would it not have been fitting to have been deemed worthy of a conversation first? Yet, while we certainly tolerated Nestorius for a long time, while he spent a three-year period in blaspheming, and while your holiness and the entire council were with us, we did indeed cause him to be led away from them, but rather to be transformed towards those dogmas which look toward the correctness of truth. But while he persisted, and slipped into much worse words against the glory of Christ, even in the metropolis of the Ephesians itself, the holy synod removed him from the priesthood as one held by an incurable malady. But I wish to recall to your holiness something useful that pertains to the present time. For when your holy synod was gathered in great Constantinople, at the time when John was accused, and then many written commentaries were made concerning him, when the decree was about to be brought forth against him, and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness say thus to the holy synod: 'That if I knew now that if we granted pardon to John, he would become better than himself, and would depart from the hardness and bitterness which is in him, I would have asked you all for his sake.' Your holiness was therefore judged admirable in this also, inasmuch as you spoke the truth. What, then, was the holy synod to do, which found him impenitent and so stubborn, he who fought against the C right faith? Since he truly says that one ought to consent only to the Creed, or at least to the exposition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen, I also say to these things that the intention of the holy and universal synod which was gathered in the Ephesian metropolis was to confirm the Creed, so that all might thus confess and believe and teach, neither adding anything nor taking anything away. For it is not permitted to add to it, nor is it permitted to take away from it. For this reason, it decreed against Nestorius as one who did not persuade it, but rather removed and obliterated it, and in no way followed it; and because he insanely sounded in the ears of the people other things alien to the dogmas of the Church. The business was therefore done in Ephesus regarding this special investigation of the proceedings, the synod confirming the faith exposed by our three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea. And I have directed this to your holiness that you might know it well. For that it remains correct and irreproachable, the very reading of it clearly teaches. We have also added the testimonies of the holy and blessed Fathers, that those who approach might know how those understood the symbol of the faith who also imbued us ourselves with the mysteries. Seeing then that this was done by all long ago, why do they not also consent? For if what pleased all be confirmed by all, peace will prevail entirely, since it has been contradicted by no one. Therefore, even if many things and very bad things have been done against us by them, and every sort of adversity against humanity has been attempted, yet considering that it is pleasing to God and to the most pious emperor, the friend of Christ, and that it is useful to the Churches, and having with all reverence the admonitions of your holiness, we consequently forgive as brothers the things which they have committed against us. But we seek rather that which seems to all to be good and right. It pleases also God and the emperor, the friend of Christ, that they consent to the deposition of Nestorius, anathematizing his blasphemies and polluted dogmas. And nothing further remains for contention to be removed from the midst. For the Churches will receive one another again, Christ bestowing upon them the reward of peace. Nor indeed do those who are alien and inconsiderate vomit up words against us, slandering me as holding the things that are of Apollinarius D or Arius or Eunomius, as they wrote at Ephesus. I, through the grace of the Savior, have always been orthodox, and I have been nourished even at the hands of orthodox fathers. And neither have I ever held the things that are of Apollinarius—far be it!—nor those of any other heretic. Indeed, I anathematize them. For I do not say that the body of Christ is inanimate. But I confess that it is animated by a rational soul. And I do not confirm that confusion or mixing or fusion has taken place, as some say; but I know the Word of God to subsist according to the nature of God, and to be insusceptible to all passion according to his own nature. For that which is divine is impassible, and does not in the least suffer the shadow of conversion. But rather he rests in his own goods. These things, however, he has as inconvertible, in which is his existence. But I say that one and the same Christ and Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, himself suffered for us.
in the flesh according to the Scriptures, or according to the voice of the blessed Peter. A The power of the Chapters, however, is written only against the dogmas of Nestorius. For they cast out the very things which he did wrongly say and write. But those who anathematize and deny his insanity will cease to blame what has been written by us. For they will see that the sense of the Chapters is contrary only to his blasphemies. Once communion has been restored and peace made between the Churches, when it shall be permitted to write back without suspicion, either to those who are there from us, or to them again unto us, then we shall also satisfy them most easily. Whatever of what has been written by us is not rightly understood by some, these things also shall be clarified. For we shall satisfy them, God favoring, not now as those resisting, but as brothers, because they may have all things rightly. And of those things which we have written, impugning the dogmas of Nestorius, there is absolutely nothing that is dissonant either with the holy Scriptures or certainly with the definition of the faith which has been set forth by the holy Fathers: I mean those who were gathered in Nicaea in their own time. Therefore our intention toward peace is not to assail what has been defined, in such a way, that is, if they be willing to consent to the deposition of Nestorius and to anathematize his tainted dogmas and to communicate and to come to concord, with Christ aiding to the same, who is our peace according to the Scriptures. Truly, no one will acquiesce to those who say that it is necessary to cast out those things which we have written against the polluted dogmas of Nestorius. For most clearly they wish us to be speechless before his blasphemies, trading upon the silence of all. Or perhaps they even reckon that we must be persuaded to think those things which are his, if we negate our own, which rightfully and immaculately exist and stand against the novelties of his words. But if some of those who are there, according to what seems to them, detract from certain things, turning the sense of them to things which are not fitting, let them know that, besides all those who are in the whole world, only these persons who commit such things are wise. For all have consented to those things which have been done by us, and are consenting, and those who are rightly disposed, and B from those sayings, which certainly are subtle searchers of divine dogmas. But let your religiousness also consider this, that it is necessary for the peace of the God-beloved bishops to be so composed that it displeases none of those who are throughout the whole Roman principate, and that it may become universal, lest the smallest schism make many other great ones. For they will not consent at all if anything such has been done as would not appear consistent. And this especially ought to be considered. For since all were pressing in Ephesus, and were not acquiescing to communicate with those who are from the East, suggesting indeed that this will not be before they have received the deposition of Nestorius and have anathematized his dogmas with us, how, unless this has been done, will those things which pertain to communion stand? And who would not cry out against us, while we have ruined our souls, and have denied the right faith, and have cast out things which, rightly spoken, pleased all, as if they were not rightly spoken? Is it not necessary, once peace has been made, for us to send letters to those who everywhere take precedence over other most religious bishops, so that they too, having been made concordant, may render communion to them? Then who is there who may persuade them if anything has been done contrary to what pleases all, and in which all had insisted, that it behooved Nestorius to be held deposed and to anathematize his most insane doctrine, or rather his verbosity against our common Savior Jesus Christ? But my most admirable lord the tribune Aristolaus so mitigated those who were too much saddened and intolerably grieving on account of those things which were done against me by the Orientals, as well from the clergy of Alexandria as all the most religious bishops of the Egyptian diocese, that he even rendered for me a most gentle path for making peace, and all came into such a will. And I confess that I owe very much to his admirableness, because he is helping me in all things now and has abolished with competent reasons the things which were distressing. Greet the fraternity which is with you. The fraternity which is with us greets you in the Lord.
Letter XXXIV.
TO RABBULAS, BISHOP OF EDESSA.
He announces that he does not at all receive the propositions which have been sent by John of Antioch.The most pious and Christ-loving emperor directing D my most religious lord and best old man, my most admirable lord the tribune and notary Aristolaus, a Christian man, and one contending greatly for the right faith, so that he might couple the Churches to peace, and writing clearly that the Antiochene ought first to subscribe indeed to the condemnation of Nestorius, to anathematize his wicked dogmas, and then to seek our communion, Bishop Acacius wrote a certain incongruous proposition, as if from the bishops of the East, but rather, if one ought to speak the truth, from those who were of a mind with what belongs to Nestorius: for while it behooved them to follow what is fitting, and (according to) the intention of the most pious prince and of all the orthodox, to anathematize the wicked dogmas of Nestorius, on the contrary they seek to be excused
all the things which have been written by us, whether in tomes or in writings; and thus, they say, will the Churches communicate with one another. But this is to say clearly that we ought to deny the right faith and consent to the blasphemies of Nestorius. For if we destroy our own [writings], which stand well and irreproachably assert the truth and fight for the right faith, we shall be admiring his madness. But we have understood their proposition. For they were saddened that, while Nestorius was blaspheming, sermons and letters were written against him by the orthodox. But what kind of things we also have written, your perfection will know when you have read the like of them. Indeed, for this reason I directed those things to your religiosity.
LETTER XXXV (formerly XXXI)
OF JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, AND THE OTHERS WHO WERE WITH HIM, TO XYSTUS THE ROMAN BISHOP, CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, AND MAXIMIANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
They declare they approve the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius by the holy synod, and they anathematize his blasphemous doctrines, and they consent to the ordination of Maximianus.
To the most holy and God-beloved brothers and fellow-ministers Xystus, Cyril, and Maximianus, John and all the others who are with me, greeting in the Lord. B 1. To all those who have been allotted the priesthood and have been entrusted with the divine ministry of the episcopate by the Savior of us all, Christ, it ought to be the study and purpose that they excel in the right faith and teach the peoples subjected to them. Since, then, matters are thus, last year, by the decree of the most religious and Christ-loving emperors, a holy synod of God-beloved bishops was gathered in the metropolis of the Ephesians on account of the affair concerning Nestorius; and they, having sat in council together with the legates sent by Celestine of blessed memory, the one who was bishop of the holy Church of the Romans, by a vote of deposition cast out the aforementioned Nestorius, as one who employed profane doctrine, and had scandalized many, and did not walk rightly in regard to the faith. C But we also, having hastened thither and found the matter finished, were grieved. For this cause, when a controversy had arisen between us and the holy synod, and many things had been said and done back and forth, we returned to our own Churches and cities, and we did not at that time consent to the holy synod in such a way as to subscribe to the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius. 2. When the Churches had fallen into grave discords, whereas it behooved all to take the greatest care of this—how, with all dissension of spirits removed, they might be brought to concord—and since the most religious and God-loving kings had commanded that this very thing be done, and for this reason had sent the admirable tribune and notary Aristo- D
laum misissent; we ourselves also, that all contention might be removed from our midst and peace be restored to the Churches of God, have decreed to assent to the sentence of the holy synod pronounced against Nestorius, and to hold him as deposed, and to anathematize his blasphemous doctrines: for the reason that our Churches, just as your holiness, have always held the right and sincere faith, and have always kept it and delivered it to the peoples. We also assent to the ordination of the most holy and most religious Maximian, bishop of the holy Church of Constantinople, and we communicate with all the most religious bishops of the whole world, whosoever hold and keep the orthodox and immaculate faith.
LETTER XXXVI (ol. XXXII)
A Libellus, which Paul, bishop of Emesa, offered to archbishop Cyril, having been sent by John, bishop of Antioch.To my lord, in all things most holy and most sacred archbishop Cyril, Paul, bishop, in the Lord greeting.
The most religious and invincible emperors, our masters, demonstrating the care and solicitude which they have cherished from the beginning regarding their subjects, and especially regarding the holy Churches of God, and the pious and sincere and right faith which they received from their ancestors—demonstrating, I say, that they themselves possess this faith pious and in no way adulterated—have sent letters by the hand of the B illustrious tribune and notary Aristolaus, both to your holiness, and to the most holy and most reverend bishop John, and to the most holy and most reverend Father our Acacius, the bishop of Berrhoea, commanding that, by meeting together either in person or by statement of opinion, we might provide a solution to the disputes that have arisen between the most God-beloved bishops who came together in the city of Ephesus and us ourselves, and might procure for the holy Churches of God the peace that is pleasing to God, and might calm the disturbances daily raging in the holy Churches of God, and might consent to the deposition of Nestorius, and anathematize his base doctrine. C When, therefore, the aforementioned holy John and the most holy bishop Acacius received these pious and truly Christian letters, reflecting that there are many things which require your personal encounter, so that much time might not be consumed in this matter, they sent me to your holiness, that we might together examine and deliberate by what reason and way a firm peace may be established, and to this present excellent matter a fitting and useful outcome may be imposed. Having come up here, and D
having met and conversed, I found your holiness also benevolently disposed and, as became a bishop, inclined to handle the matter peacefully. Wherefore your holiness offered us the writing A which embraces the immaculate and correct faith, such as we have received it preached by our ancestors: which was above all worthy of labor and study. But because those things also which pertain to Nestorius must be confirmed according to the constitution set forth by you, I offer these present letters to your present holiness, by which I confess that we accept the ordination of the most holy and most pious bishop Maximianus; and that we hold Nestorius, who had been bishop of the great city of Constantinople before him, as deposed; and furthermore, we anathematize all those things which stand as impiously preached in his doctrine: and we finally embrace pure and sincere communion with you, according to the exposition on the incarnation of the Word of God shortly set forth by us and delivered to your holiness, which you yourself also praised, and received as your own faith: a copy of which is also inserted into these letters. And thus at length, by this sincere communion, we bring to an end all those things which in the meantime have occurred on both sides not without some tumult, and by the grace of God we return B to the former peace and tranquility of the Churches.
LETTER XXXVII (ol. XL). CYRIL TO THE PRESBYTERS THEOGNOSTUS AND CHARMOSYNUS, AND THE DEACON LEONTIUS, RESIDING IN CONSTANTINOPLE AND HIS APOCRISIARIES.
Cyril to the presbyters Theognostus and Charmosynus, and to the deacon Leontius, greeting in the Lord. C We write to you concerning all these matters: yet you write as if ignorant of everything, and fill us with tumult. I certainly know that I wrote that the most aged and most pious Acacius, bishop of Berrhoea, a man of venerable grey hair and singular piety, urged by certain of the most religious bishops of the East, had sent letters to me through my lord the most magnificent Aristolaus, in which he signified that everything contained in our books and letters ought to be obliterated, and that we should insist only upon the symbol which was set forth in the holy synod at Nicaea. I, however, wrote a very long letter to him regarding these things, which you yourselves surely received. For the beloved presbyter Eulogius informed us of this. But now, with the arrival of the most religious Paul of Emesa in this city, all things have been arranged rightly, D tranquilly, securely, and as was fitting. For we have neither accepted those who were deposed by the most pious bishop Maximianus, nor have we allowed letters of communion to be given to them.
for they are righteous and blameless, and they accord with the divine Scriptures and the faith which was set forth by our holy Fathers. A We did not at all give to the aforementioned Paul a singular and peculiar communion, unless he had first presented a document in which he professed that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos, and that he anathematizes the dogmas of Nestorius; and furthermore, that he had said in the church with a loud voice: "We confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, and we anathematize those who do not say this; and that there is one Son and Christ and Lord, not two." But since he did not bring a document wherein John anathematized the dogmas of Nestorius and confessed that he holds him to be deposed, but his letters contained absolutely nothing to the point, I said that I could not restore communion to him before he had done these things. But when I saw that they were acting carelessly in this matter, and that the most religious Bishop Paul himself, as well as the lord and most magnificent tribune and notary Aristolaus, were intent on concluding the business—and so that it might not be thought that we were refusing peace with procrastinating excuses—we wrote the letters of communion. A document was also dictated, as seemed fit, to the most religious Bishop Paul, which the Bishop of Antioch must also sign; and I sent two B clerics with the most illustrious Aristolaus, so that if John subscribes to the deposition of Nestorius and anathematizes his dogmas, they might give him the letters of communion; but if not, they are to withhold them, for the most illustrious Aristolaus has confirmed with an oath that the document shall not be given before this is accomplished. He also confirmed that if John should be unwilling to sign, he would proceed directly to Constantinople, to instruct our most pious emperor that it does not stand by the Church of Alexandria, but that the Bishop of Antioch does not love peace. Wherefore, suffer no one to lose heart. For we have not become so foolish as to abrogate our own words; rather, we remain in what we have written and what we believe.
LETTER XXXVIII (ol. XXXIII)
OF JOHN OF ANTIOCH TO CYRIL
With a few changes in the formula sent by Cyril, the pardon for which he sought through private letters sent to Cyril (see below, epist. 47), he subscribes to the three conditions of peace.
D To my lord, the most religious and most holy fellow-minister Cyril, John, greeting in the Lord.
By the edict of our most pious emperors, a synod of most religious bishops was long ago ordered to assemble at the metropolis of the Ephesians, for the sake both of ecclesiastical matters and controversies, and of the right faith. But when we had arrived at the aforementioned city, and had departed thence again without mutual conversation (it is superfluous now, in a time of peace, to recount the causes of the dissension); and seeing that the Churches had in this way fallen into grievous discord; since it was the duty of all to be concerned for this,
A and since the most religious and Christ-loving kings decreed that this very thing should be done, and for this purpose sent my most illustrious and spectable tribune and notary, Aristolaus, bringing their pious letters which requested us to come together and remove the scandals from the midst and appease every disturbance and offense: we, being willing to comply with these pious letters, immediately decided to send my lord, the most beloved of God in all things and most holy bishop, Paul. This plan was approved by our most holy and most pious Father Acacius, and by the other most God-beloved bishops who were with us. We did this for the sake of greater speed, as we could not ourselves come together in one place to bring to completion the things decreed by our most religious emperors. We instructed him to establish in our stead, for us, and in our name, those things which make for peace; this being the primary purpose of this embassy; and at the same time to present to your Piety the exposition concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which has been edited by us in concord. We have therefore sent this to your Piety by the aforementioned most pious man, and it is as follows:
Regarding the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, concerning what we think and say, and regarding the manner of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, we shall speak briefly and of necessity—not as by way of addition, but by way of assurance—as we have received it from the beginning from the divine Scriptures and the tradition of the holy Fathers, adding nothing at all to the faith exposited by the holy Fathers at Nicaea. For that, as we have said before, is fully sufficient for all knowledge of piety and for the uprooting of every heretical perverted doctrine. Nor shall we boldly approach those things which we cannot grasp; but by the confession of our own infirmity, we shall exclude those who wish to attack us in those matters in which we consider things that exceed human comprehension.
We acknowledge, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, to be perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity, but in the latter days, the same for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary according to the humanity; the same being consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity. For there has been an union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because God the Word was made flesh and incarnate, and from her very conception united to Himself the temple that had been taken from her. The evangelical... B C D
as regarding the Lord, A we know that sound theologians sometimes make the evangelical and apostolic utterances common, as relating to one person; at other times, on account of the diversity of the two natures, they mention them separately: referring those things that befit God to the divinity of Christ, and the humble ones to his humanity.
This faith having been accepted, it pleased us, for the removal of all contention and for the sake of awarding peace to God's holy Churches throughout the world, and that the scandals which have sprung up might be removed from the way, that we should hold Nestorius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, as B deposed; and we anathematize his base and profane novelties of expression, because the holy Churches of God that are among us hold, maintain, and deliver to the people the correct and sound faith, just as your holiness also does. We also agree to the ordination of the most holy and most God-beloved bishop Maximian of the holy Church of God in Constantinople; and we are in communion with all the most God-fearing bishops throughout the world, as many as hold and D preach the correct and blameless faith. Farewell, most pious and most holy lord, and brother most sincere to me; and continue to pray for us.
EPISTLE XXXIX (formerly XXXIV)
CYRIL TO JOHN, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, SENT BY PAUL, BISHOP OF EMESA.
He refutes certain calumnies of his adversaries, who alleged that he had made these assertions: that the body of Christ was not taken from the Blessed Virgin Mary, but brought down from heaven; also that there occurred a concretion, or confusion, or mixture of the Word of God with flesh; finally, that the divinity is passible. He discloses his mind concerning these dogmas, asserting that he firmly adheres to the Council of Nicaea and the Holy Fathers, namely St. Athanasius.To my lord, my beloved brother and fellow-minister John, Cyril, greeting in the Lord.
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad" (Ps. xcv, 11). For the "middle wall of the partition" has been broken down (Ephes. ii, 14), and that which brought sorrow has ceased, and every kind of dissension is removed, while the Saviour of us all, Christ, bestows peace upon His own Churches; and our most religious and God-beloved emperors, who have proved themselves the best emulators of ancestral piety, have called us to this. They guard the correct faith in their own souls, firm and immovable: they also bestow singular care upon the holy Churches, so that they may obtain most celebrated glory for all time and may establish their own kingdom most flourishingly: to whom the Lord Christ, the Lord of powers, Himself with a generous hand distributes good things, and gives them power to prevail over their enemies, and grants them victory. For He does not lie, when saying:
A *“As I live, says the Lord, for those who glorify Me I will glorify.”* When, therefore, my lord, the most religious fellow-minister and brother, Paul, had arrived in Alexandria, we were filled with joy, and very reasonably so, since such a man was acting as mediator, and had dared to undertake labors beyond his strength in order to overcome the envy of the devil, to join together those things that had been divided, and, having removed the scandals that had in the meantime been scattered about, to crown with concord and peace both our churches and yours. For to recount the causes for which they began to dissent is superfluous. I judge it more appropriate, if we are of the same mind, to speak of those things which befit a time of peace. We were, therefore, delighted by the meeting with the aforementioned most pious man—who perhaps expected that he would have to undergo no small struggles to persuade us that it was necessary for the churches to be joined together in concord and peace, and for the mockery of those who think otherwise to be removed, and furthermore, for the sting of the devil’s wickedness to be blunted. Yet he found us so ready for this matter B that he did not have to undergo any labor at all. For we are mindful of our Savior saying: *“My peace I give to you, My peace I leave with you.”* We have also been taught to say in our prayers: *“O Lord our God, give peace to us; for You have rendered all things to us.”* Whoever, therefore, is a partaker of the peace that is bestowed by God will be in need of no good thing. And that the dissension of the churches was thoroughly superfluous and happened without any just cause, we have now been most fully assured, since my lord, the most religious Bishop Paul, brought a document containing an irreproachable confession of faith, and asserted that this had been composed both by your holiness and by the most religious bishops there. The text is as follows, and it has been inserted word for word into this letter of ours:
Concerning the Theotokos
Concerning the Theotokos Virgin, how we think and speak, and concerning the manner of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, C necessarily—not by way of addition, but by way of full assurance—as we have received from of old from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the holy Fathers, we shall speak briefly, adding nothing at all to the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea. For that, as has been said before by us, is sufficient for all knowledge of piety and for the refutation of all heretical wickedness. We shall speak, however, not as if attacking things which exceed our understanding, but by the confession of our own infirmity, excluding those who wish to assail us when we meditate upon things that surpass human intelligence. D We therefore confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect man, out of a rational soul
and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to his divinity, and in the last days, the same for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity; the same consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and consubstantial with us according to his humanity. For a union of two natures has been made; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this notion of an unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos [God-bearer], because God the Word was made flesh and became man, and from the very conception united to himself the temple taken from her. And as for the A evangelical and apostolic sayings concerning the Lord, we know that the theologians make some common, as referring to one person, while they distinguish others, as referring to two natures; and they deliver those worthy of God according to the divinity of Christ, but the lowly ones according to his humanity.
When we read these your sacred words and found that we ourselves thought likewise (for B there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism), we glorified God, the Savior of all, congratulating one another that our Churches and yours hold a faith consonant with the divine Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers.
But because I have learned that certain men, who are accustomed to being quarrelsome, buzz about like wild wasps and belch forth wicked words against me, as if I said that the holy body of Christ was brought down from heaven and not from the holy Virgin, I thought it worth the effort to say a few things to them about this. O foolish men, skilled only in slandering, how have you been led into such a frame of mind, and how have you fallen into such a disease of folly? C For you ought surely to have understood that almost our entire struggle for the faith has been undertaken on the basis of our firmly affirming that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos. But if we affirm that the holy body of our Savior Christ of all was not born of the Virgin, but brought from heaven, how can she any longer be thought to be the Theotokos? For whom, after all, has she brought forth, if it is not true that she has given birth according to the flesh to Emmanuel?
Therefore, let those who have prattled these things about me be laughed to scorn. For the blessed prophet Isaiah does not lie when he says: « Behold, the virgin shall be in the womb and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, » which is being interpreted, « God with us. » D The holy Gabriel also speaks entirely the truth when he addressed the blessed Virgin saying: « Fear not, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a Son, and shall call his name Jesus; he shall save his people from their sins. » But when we say that our Lord Jesus Christ is from heaven and from above, we do not [mean] that as if from above and from heaven he descended.
A nor do we intend to signify that his holy flesh was brought down from above and from heaven, but rather we follow the blessed Paul, who clearly proclaims: "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." We also remember the Savior himself saying: "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, even the Son of man." For although, as I just said, he was born according to the flesh from the holy Virgin, nevertheless, because God the Word descended from above and from the heavens, and having taken the form of a servant, he emptied himself and was called the Son of man, while remaining what he was—that is, God (for he is immutable and unalterable according to his own nature)—he is said to have descended from heaven, as one now considered together with his own flesh. He is also named a man from heaven, because he is perfect in divinity, and the same one is perfect in humanity, and is considered as in one person. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even if the difference between the natures be not ignored, B from which we say that ineffable union was brought about. May your holiness deign to stop the mouths of those who say that a concretion, or confusion, or commixtion of God the Word with the flesh took place. For it is likely that there are some who spread such things about me to the crowd, as if I had thought or said such things. But I am so far from thinking anything of the kind that I even consider them insane who suspect that even a shadow of change can happen to the nature of God the Word. For it remains what it is always, and has not been altered; nor will it ever be altered, and it will not be capable of any mutation. Furthermore, we all confess that the Word of C God himself is impassible, even if he, in his own admirable wisdom dispensing this mystery, is seen to attribute to himself the sufferings which happened to his own flesh. Hence also the all-wise Peter says: "Christ," he says, "having suffered in the flesh," and not in the nature of his ineffable divinity. For in order that he himself may be believed to be the Savior of all, he refers the sufferings of his own flesh to himself—as I have said—by a dispensatory appropriation, as if they were his own. Of such kind is that which is predicted somewhere by the voice of the prophet as if from his person: "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks D to blows, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting." That we follow the opinions of the holy Fathers everywhere, and especially those of our blessed and most famous Father Athanasius, and take care not to swerve in the slightest matter therefrom, let your holiness be certainly persuaded, and let no one else doubt it. I would have added many testimonies of theirs, confirming this discourse of mine with them, had I not feared that the length of the letter might somehow make it tiresome. Furthermore, in no way do we tolerate that the defined faith, or the creed of the faith, by our holy Fathers who met at Nicaea from time to time, be shaken by anyone. Nor do we permit ourselves, or others, to change…
from changing any of the things laid down there, or A even from altering a single syllable, mindful of him who said: "Do not move the ancient boundaries which your fathers set." For they were not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of God and of the Father himself who speaks; who proceeds indeed from Him, but is not alien to the Son according to the rationale of essence; and the words of the holy mystagogues confirm this for us. For it is written in the Acts of the Apostles: "And having come to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them." And the divine Paul writes: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his." But whenever some of those accustomed to perverting what is right twist my words to what seems good to them, let your B Holiness not be surprised at this, knowing that even the followers of every heresy from divine Scripture collect occasions for their own error, corrupting with their own evil thoughts the things rightly spoken through the Holy Spirit, and upon their own heads pouring out the unquenchable flame. Since, however, we have learned that some, having corrupted the letter of our most renowned Father Athanasius to the blessed Epictetus, which is orthodox, have published it, so that many are gravely harmed thereby, for this reason, devising something useful and necessary for the brethren, we have sent from ancient copies, which are here with us and read simply, an exact duplicate to your Holiness. Farewell.
EPISTLE XL (formerly XXXV).
CYRIL TO ACACIUS, BISHOP OF MELITENE.
C Since some from among the Catholics, among whom was Acacius of Melitene, were criticizing Cyril as if he had yielded too much to the Orientals in the matter of reconciliation, he writes back to Acacius regarding all that was done with John of Antioch and the other Oriental bishops in accordance with the emperor's instructions; and why, moreover, he received into communion Paul of Emesa, who was sent by John after he had anathematized Nestorius. He demonstrates that the profession of faith of these same Orientals is Catholic and entirely foreign to the heresy of Nestorius, whose impious words he cites.
To my lord, beloved brother and fellow minister Acacius, Cyril, greeting in the Lord.
A friendly greeting is indeed a sweet and D praiseworthy thing for brothers, and one to be valued most highly by the truly prudent: and for those who are of the same mind and faith, when nothing else occurs to hinder or stop this fervent desire or impulse, I judge that they should strive to offer it assiduously. But it happens very often, even against our will, that either the great length of the distances between us, or the scarcity of letter-carriers, blocks this good [endeavor].
But when the time offers an opportunity for greeting, it is fitting to consider the matter as a welcome discovery and to apply oneself gladly to those who are so very much to be desired. Since I was exceedingly delighted at the things sent by your perfection, and wondered at the disposition of your soul, I thought it necessary to explain the manner of the peace of the Churches to your integrity, and to indicate each thing as it has taken place. B
The most religious and Christ-loving emperor, exercising the greatest and most necessary care for the holy Churches, judged the dissension between them to be intolerable. Therefore, summoning the most reverend and most pious bishop of the holy Church of Constantinople, Maximianus, and many others who were found there at the time, he consulted with them seriously as to how the dissension of the Churches might be removed from the midst, and how the ministers of the divine mysteries might be brought to concord and peace. They declared that this could never happen in any other way, nor would those who were the object of the discussion ever come to concord with one another, unless the bond of unanimity and of consubstantial faith were to shine before them and, as it were, be set out for them: and they said that it was necessary that the most pious John, bishop of Antioch, should anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius, and in writing approve his deposition. And when this had been obtained from him, the bishop of Alexandria would consign to oblivion his private offenses and would consider as nothing the insults, although they were the most grave and greatest, which he had suffered at Ephesus, on account of charity. C Since, therefore, the most religious emperor agreed with these men, and derived great pleasure from this counsel, there was sent to accomplish this very thing my lord, the most illustrious tribune and notary, Aristolaus.
But after the royal decree was exposed to the Orientals, and as though it had been done according to the opinion of those bishops who were present at Constantinople; meeting, I know not by what counsel, at the home of the most holy and most pious bishop of Berrhoea, Acacius, they took care to write to me that the manner of the convention—that is, of the peace of the holy Churches—should not be done in any other way than what they themselves should prescribe. But this request was grave and troublesome. For they wished all things which I had published either in epistles, or in tomes, or in books to be abolished, and that I should consent only to that faith which was published by our holy Fathers at Nicaea. D I, however, wrote in response to these things: That we all cling to the exposition of the faith which was defined by the holy Fathers at the city of Nicaea, in no way whatsoever undermining the things contained in it: for all those things have been rightly and blamelessly handed down, and it is not safe, after that edition of the faith, to treat of anything else more curiously. But as for the things which we have rightly written against the blasphemies of Nestorius, they are of such a kind that no argument could persuade us to deny that they were rightly written. It is, therefore, more necessary that they themselves, according to the decree of the most pious and Christ-loving emperor, and of the holy synod of Ephesus...
would declare as outcast him who had fought against the glory of the Savior, and would anathematize his impious blasphemies, and consent to his deposition, and agree to the ordination of the most holy and most pious bishop Maximianus. These letters having been delivered to them, they sent to Alexandria the most devout and most God-loving bishop Paul of Emesa, with whom I discoursed for a long time and much about those matters which, at Ephesus, had been said and done beyond right and duty. But because it seemed that, having consigned these things to oblivion, one should rather occupy oneself with cares of greater moment and weight, I asked whether he had brought letters from the most pious bishop John. Then he handed me a letter that did not contain what it ought to have, but was rather dictated in a manner that was not at all appropriate; for it contained more the power of irritation than of exhortation. I did not accept this, B even though they ought, with some apology, to have soothed my distress—which I felt on account of what had preceded and what had been done by them at Ephesus—as they were far from doing this, and actually claimed that they, too, had been rightly angered at me for the sake of zeal for the sacred dogmas. But they heard from me that it was neither divine zeal that moved them, nor was it because they were fighting for the dogmas of the truth that they drew up a battle line against me, but because they yielded to the flatteries of men, and were grabbing for themselves the friendships of those who, at that time, seemed to be powerful. C Nevertheless, since the most pious bishop Paul said he was ready to anathematize the blasphemies of Nestorius, and to consent in writing to his deposition, and that he did this on behalf of all and as if in the person of all the most pious bishops of the East, I countered, saying that the document produced by him on this matter would suffice for him alone for the purpose of receiving communion from us all. But I asserted that it was necessary in every way that the most devout and most pious bishop of Antioch, John, issue a written confession regarding these things. And this has indeed happened; and that which was dividing the Churches and tearing them asunder from one another has ceased. But it was in no way doubtful that the proponents of the blasphemies of Nestorius would wither with envy as soon as the peace of the holy Churches was restored. D It appears to me that they are experiencing something like that which usually happens to those who do not know how to swim, yet have unexpectedly fallen out of a ship. For when they begin to sink, they toss their feet and hands wildly here and there in a disorderly fashion, and, in their desire to hold onto life, the wretches rashly grab hold of whatever happens to come to hand. Or is it not truly said that they are greatly disturbed and dismayed, because they notice that they are desolate and cast outside those Churches which they hoped would be of help to them? What? Do they not bear it most indignantly when they see those whom they had seduced...
A by their profane innovations of words, as if intoxicated, pulling themselves back and now returning to the sobriety of the truth? Yet it could be very opportunely objected to them, that which is brought forward by the prophetic voice: "Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired, before you become as a passing flower." For why have they become parasites of the vomit of others, and are they not ashamed to defile their own hearts with the filth of another? "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that you may see. Think of the Lord in goodness, and in simplicity of heart seek Him." For what use is there to you of manifold inventions and perverse opinions? Why, while you revile the straight path, do you make your own tracks crooked? "Break up new ground for yourselves, and do not sow among thorns." B Since, therefore, as I said, they are vehemently troubled on account of the peace of the holy Churches, they most maliciously lacerate those who do not wish to think the same things as themselves; and they bitterly speak against the apology of the holy bishops—I mean those of the East—and then, twisting it toward what is pleasing and friendly to themselves, and not thinking rightly, they say that it is not incongruous with the novelties of Nestorius. They also find fault with us as well, as if we had thought contrary to the things which we have already written. But I understand that they also object this to us, namely, that we have received an exposition of faith, or a new symbol, as if we had spurned that ancient and venerable one. "But the fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will meditate vanity." C We say just this: that we have neither demanded a new exposition of faith from anyone, nor have we accepted one innovated by others. For the divine Scripture suffices for us, as does the judgment of the holy Fathers, and the symbol of faith, aptly and rightly composed for all right dogmas. But because the most holy bishops of the East, when they were at Ephesus, were at variance with us, and on that account were held to be under suspicion, as if caught in the snares of the blasphemies of Nestorius, for this reason, very prudently, as if freeing themselves from the charge concerning these things, and as if hastening to assure the lovers of the blameless faith that they had understood themselves to be free from his filth, they composed an apology; and the matter is very far from any blame or reproach at all. D For what if Nestorius himself, at that time when it was proposed to him by all of us that he ought to condemn his own dogmas and embrace the truth, had exhibited a written confession concerning these things—was anyone going to say that he had written a new symbol of faith for us? Why, therefore, do they rashly attack with insults the most holy bishops of Phoenicia, calling their consensus a new symbol, which they published usefully and necessarily in order, forsooth, to purge themselves, and that they...
A might soften those who had imagined that they were following the vain utterances introduced by Nestorius? For the holy and ecumenical council which had gathered at the city of Ephesus necessarily provided that it was not fitting to introduce into the Churches of God any other exposition of faith than that which already existed, which our most blessed Fathers, speaking in the Holy Spirit, had defined. If, however, those who had once—I know not how—dissented from it, and had been brought under suspicion because they neither thought rightly nor adhered to the apostolic and evangelical dogmas, had held their peace, would they have been freed from the ignominious mark cast upon them by this, or rather [would they not have done better] by making satisfaction and declaring their own opinion? And yet the divine disciple of Christ left it written: “Always prepared for a defense [satisfaction] to everyone who asks you for an account of the hope that is in you [* I Petr. III, 15.].” Whoever, therefore, wishes to do this is certainly plotting nothing new, nor is he found to be innovating in the exposition of faith; but rather, he renders the faith which he has concerning Christ clear to those who ask him. I heard, moreover, that the enemies of the truth bear the concord of the most pious bishops with great difficulty, and that they turn all things upside down and boast that the confession which those men published—concerning the true faith, innovating nothing, as I said, that is, adding nothing to that which was formerly established, but rather adhering to the blameless dogmas of the holy Fathers—corresponds in its sense and force with their own impious inventions. But in order that we may openly expose their lies, let us bring into the midst the trifles of Nestorius C and their opinions. For by this method, and by no other, will verified truth be made manifest. Nestorius, therefore, is found to be removing entirely the birth of the only-begotten Son of God according to the flesh; for he denies that He was born of a woman according to the Scriptures. His words are as follows: “That God proceeded from the Christ-bearing Virgin, I have been taught by divine Scripture; but that God was born from her, nowhere have I been taught.” And in another exposition again: “Therefore, nowhere does divine Scripture say that God was born from the Christ-bearing Virgin, but [it says] Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Lord.” Now, that in saying these things he divides the one into two sons, and states that one is, separately and specifically, the Son and Christ and the Lord, who is the Word begotten of God the Father, and again another, separately and specifically, the Son and Christ and the Lord, who was born of the holy Virgin—who could doubt this, when he himself is practically shouting it aloud? But they name the holy Virgin *Theotokos*, and they proclaim that there is one Son and Christ and the Lord, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, inasmuch as His flesh was ensouled with an intelligent soul. For that they do not say that the Son is one—the Word from God the Father—and another again—the one from the holy Virgin, D as...
A to Nestorius it seems, but rather one and the same, is very easily perceived from what follows. For in explaining who he is, they add that he is perfect as God, and perfect also as man: the one born before the ages from the Father according to his divinity, and in the last days for us and for our salvation from the holy Virgin according to his humanity: the same one is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and co-essential with us according to his humanity. They, therefore, by no means divide the one Son, and Christ, and Lord Jesus into two; but they say that he is the same one—the one before the ages and the one in the last times—it being manifest that he is the one from God the Father as God, and from a woman according to the flesh as man. For how could he be conceived as co-essential with us according to his humanity, even though he was born from the Father—I mean, according to his divinity—unless the same one is also conceived and spoken of as being God and man together? But B to Nestorius these things do not seem to be so; rather, his aim has turned toward the exact opposite. For he said, expounding in the church: "For this reason also the God-Word is called Christ, because he has a perpetual conjunction with Christ." And again: "Let us therefore maintain the unconfused conjunction of the natures; let us confess God in man; let us worship the man who, on account of the divine conjunction with the omnipotent God, is worshipped together with him." Do you see, then, how much resonance his discourse has? For it is filled with the utmost impiety. For he teaches that the Word of God is named God separately by himself, but has a perpetual conjunction with Christ. Does he not, therefore, most openly speak of two Christs? Does he not confess that he worships a C man to be worshipped together with God, I know not how? Do these things not appear related to those position set forth by the Orientals? Do they not clash in their sentiments? For he clearly posits two Christs; but they confess that they worship one only Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord: the same one from the Father according to divinity, and from the holy Virgin according to humanity. For although we preach that a union of two natures has taken place, yet we clearly profess one Christ, and one Son, and one Lord. For "the Word was made flesh," according to the D Scriptures (John i, 14), and by a dispensatory and truly ineffable union, we confess that there has been made an indivisible union of dissimilar things. For we shall not think, as did certain ancient heretics, that the Word of God constructed a body for himself from his own nature—that is, from the divine nature—but, adhering everywhere to the divine Scriptures, we firmly affirm that he received flesh from the holy Virgin. Wherefore, those things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, when we grasp them in our thoughts, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, as the division into two has now been destroyed, we believe the nature of the Son to be one.
But since it is said that God, being the Word, became incarnate and became man, let every suspicion of change be cast far away (for He remained what He was), and let the union be acknowledged by us as being utterly without confusion. But perhaps those who are of the opposing side might say: "Behold, clearly those who make a confession of the right faith name two natures, and maintain that the voices of the theologians are divided, according to the distinction between them. How then is this not contrary to what you say? For you do not even tolerate distributing the voices to two persons, that is, to subsistences." But, O most excellent ones, I would say, we have written in the chapters: "If anyone distributes the voices to two persons, or rather subsistences, and assigns some as to a man, understood individually apart from the Word who is from God the Father, and others as befitting God to the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema." We have by no means abolished the differences of the voices; even though we have deemed it B rejectable to divide them, as though one were to attribute some solely to the Word who is from the Father, and others to the Son who is born of a woman, considered as man alone. For the nature of the Word is confessedly one; but we know that He has been incarnate and has become man, just as I have already said. But if anyone should curiously inquire into the manner in which He was incarnate and became man, he would fall into condemnation, since the Word who is God from God took the form of a servant and became in the likeness of men, as it is written. And according to this alone could the difference of the natures, or rather subsistences, be understood; for divinity and humanity are surely not the same in natural quality. Since how has the Word, being God, emptied Himself, having brought Himself down into diminution, that is, into the conditions of our nature? When, therefore, the manner of the incarnation is curiously investigated, the human mind beholds two things that have been ineffably and without confusion united to one another in union; yet it does not in any way disjoin those that have been united, but believes and firmly accepts that one from both is God, and Son, and Christ, and Lord.
C But the false doctrine of Nestorius is utterly different from this. For he pretends to confess that the Word, being God, became incarnate and became man, but not knowing the power of the incarnation, he names two natures and divides them from one another, positing God by Himself, and likewise man by himself, conjoined to God only relatively, by equality of honor alone, or authority. For he spoke thus: "That which is seen is inseparable from God; therefore I do not separate the honor of Him who is not separated; I separate the natures, but I unite the adoration." But the brothers at Antioch, embracing only by simple thought D those things from which Christ is understood to be constituted, have spoken of a difference of natures (for they do not say, as I said before, that they are the same in quality of nature).
A yet they acknowledge one Son, and Christ, and Lord; and just as He truly is one, they say that there is only one person of the same; and those things which are united among themselves, they in no way tear asunder. Nor, indeed, do they admit any natural division, as it pleased the author of those wretched inventions to think; but they contend that only the expressions which are spoken concerning Christ are to be distinguished. They assert, however, that these do not apply—some to the Word of God the Father, as if He were a Son set apart by Himself, and others to Him who was born of woman, as if to another distinct son—but that some pertain to His divinity, and others, in turn, to His humanity. For the same One is both God and man. B They add, nonetheless, that there are certain expressions which are in a way common, and which look, as it were, at both natures—I mean divinity and humanity.
What I mean is of this sort: some expressions are most especially fitting to the divinity, others apply more to the humanity; and finally, others, as if they were intermediate, declare the Son to be God and man, simultaneously and in the same One. For when He says to Philip: "So long time have I been with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. I and the Father are one" (John xiv, 9; x, 30), we affirm that He is uttering a statement most highly fitting for the divinity. But when He reproves the host of the Jews, saying: "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth: this did not Abraham" (John viii, 39, 40), we say that such things were spoken in a manner fitting for humanity. C Nevertheless, both those that befit the divinity, and again those that pertain to the humanity, are ascribed to the one Son alone. For when He was God, He became man, not by losing the fact that He is God, but rather by having assumed flesh and blood. And since the Son is one, and God, and Lord, let us, as well as they, acknowledge only one person.
We assert that those intermediate expressions exist, as when the blessed Paul writes: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb. xiii, 8); and again: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (I Cor. viii, 5, 6); and elsewhere again: D "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. ix, 3-5). Behold, for by naming Christ Jesus, he asserts that He is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever; and says that all things were made through Him; and he names Him who is of the Jews according to the flesh as God over all; and indeed, declares Him to be blessed for ever.
A Do not, therefore, divide the expressions concerning the Lord in these passages; for they contain both what is proper to God and what is human in the same subject; but rather apply them as to one Son, that is, to the Word of God incarnate. It is one thing, therefore, to divide the natures, and that too after the union, and to say that a man is joined to God by equality of honor alone, and it is a different thing to acknowledge a difference in the expressions. Where, then, do the things of those men agree with the new-fangled expressions of Nestorius? For even if to some the arrangement of the words and the pronunciation of the thoughts seem to fall short of a more subtle precision, it is nothing to be wondered at; for such things are very difficult to express. For this reason, the divine Paul also sought from God the word in the opening of his mouth. For that they do not divide the one Jesus Christ into two, saying that the expressions must be applied, the God-befitting ones to His divinity, and the human ones again to His humanity, how is this not manifest to all? For they assert, as I said, that the Word Himself from God the Father, begotten before the ages, was also in the last times begotten according to the flesh from the holy Virgin. And they add that, on account of the ineffable and unconfused union, they believe the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos; and they confess clearly one Son and Christ and Lord. But it is entirely improbable to think that they, while saying He is one, nevertheless divide that one into two. For they would not have progressed to such a degree of madness as to constitute themselves transgressors, B by rebuilding inadvisedly those things which they rightly tore down. For if they agree with the opinions of Nestorius, how do they anathematize them as profane and abominable?
I think, however, that the causes should also be stated, on account of which they proceeded to such C subtle speaking. For since the champions of the Arian impiety, impiously adulterating the power of the truth, say that the Word of God was made man, but pretend that He assumed an inanimate body (and they do this maliciously, so that while they attribute human expressions to Him, they may show to those whom they have led into error that He is inferior to the excellence of the Father, and persuade them that He is not of the same substance as the Father), for this reason they of the East, fearing lest in any way the glory and nature of the Word of God might suffer impairment on account of those things which are spoken of Him in a human manner because of the dispensation with the flesh, distinguish the expressions—not, as I said, dividing the one Son and Lord into two, but assigning some to His divinity, and others again to His humanity; yet referring them all to one and the same person. I heard, however, that the most reverend and most pious Bishop John has written to some of his acquaintances, as if I clearly... D
taught and openly proclaimed the difference of natures, yet distinguish the expressions according to the appropriateness of the natures; and that some are seriously offended at this very thing. It was therefore necessary for me to speak regarding this matter as well. Your integrity knows that all those who have branded my letters with the mark of Apollinarian doctrine have supposed that I say the holy body of Christ is inanimate, and that a blending, or confusion, or mixture, or mutation of God the Word into flesh has occurred, or indeed a transformation of the flesh into the nature of divinity, so that nothing remains purely preserved, nor is it what it is. They have also supposed, moreover, that I agree with the blasphemies of Arius, for the reason that I am unwilling to acknowledge a difference of terms, or to say that some belong to the divinity and others to the humanity, as I am unwilling to affirm that things which pertain rather to the incarnation in the flesh [should be separated]. But that I am immune to such errors, your integrity can easily testify to others. Nevertheless, it was necessary to satisfy those who had been offended. I wrote, therefore, to his piety that I have never held the views of Arius or of Apollinarius, nor have I ever said that the Word of God was changed into flesh, or, conversely, that flesh was transformed into the divine nature, because the Word of God is immutable and unalterable; and the other case is impossible. Nor have I ever denied the B differences of expressions, as I know that the Lord speaks at once in a manner befitting God and in a manner befitting man, since he is at the same time both God and man. Wishing, therefore, to signify this very thing, he wrote that he taught [that we must] confess the difference of the natures, and distinguish the expressions appropriately according to the natures. But these sorts of discourses are not mine, but were pronounced by him.
C I think it also necessary to add this to what has been said. The most religious Bishop Paul of Emesa came to me; then, when we had conversed for some time concerning the right and blameless faith, he asked me—and indeed urgently—whether I agreed with those things which our most blessed Father of celebrated memory, Athanasius, had once written to Epictetus, bishop of the Corinthians. I answered that I agreed with them absolutely and in all respects, provided, however, that the text is preserved uncorrupted among you; for many things in it have been depraved by the enemies of the truth. Then he said that he also had that epistle with him: but that he wished to know from the copies which were with us whether their books were corrupted or otherwise. Moreover, when he had received the ancient copies and had compared them with those which he had brought with him, he found them to be adulterated; and he requested to copy D from the books that were with us, so that he might transmit them to the Church of Antioch; and this was done. And this is what the most reverend and most pious Bishop John wrote to Carenius concerning me.
regarding me; that he has set forth matters concerning the incarnation, having woven into it for us the tradition of the Fathers, which was in danger, if I may so say, of being almost blotted out from the minds of men. A If, however, some bring forward a letter as if written by the most reverend presbyter of the Roman Church, Philip, sounding as though the most holy bishop Xystus had taken the deposition of Nestorius ill and had brought him aid, let not your holiness believe this. For he has written in accordance with the holy synod, and has confirmed all that was done by it, and he is of one mind with us. If, moreover, any letter should be brought around by some as if written by me, as though I were repenting of the things we did in the city of Ephesus, let this, too, be treated with contempt. For by the grace of our Savior we are of sound mind, and we have not lost the use of our reason. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; that which is with us greets you in the Lord.
LETTER XLI (formerly XXXVI).
TO THE SAME.
Copy of a letter written by the same Cyril to bishop Acacius, concerning the scapegoat.
Having read the letters which your holiness recently sent to me, I was overjoyed, and I all but embraced and kissed them. B For I was carried by the thought of my mind to the point that I seemed in some way to be present in person: since the greetings of sincere friends have such power that they easily produce such an affection. This was the state of my mind; yet I am persuaded that your piety is also affected no differently. But since you have deemed it worth mentioning that I ought to speak a few words concerning the scapegoat, through which the mystery that lies hidden in it might become clear, it is necessary to preface this: since your prudence is sufficiently endowed with talent, and possesses a distinguished and admirable knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, it is perhaps superfluous for anyone else to speak on this question. However, because there is nothing to prevent one from saying C what also comes to my mind, we have written—for it was not permissible to refuse what was enjoined by you; but if we happen to deviate somewhat from that exact investigation, you will grant pardon. For those things which are difficult to contemplate are difficult to explain, and are not easily understood. Nevertheless, we are held by good hope that through the prayers of your holiness, Christ will guide us in this matter too—He who reveals deep things out of darkness, and illuminates the blind, and gives the word to the wise, as it is written. D
It is written, therefore, in Leviticus concerning the scapegoat in this manner: “And he shall take the two goats, and he shall set
A them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony; and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and one lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the lot of the Lord fell, and offer it for sin; and the goat upon which the lot of the scapegoat fell, he shall set it alive before the Lord, to make atonement over it, so as to send it away into the scapegoat mission. He shall dismiss it into the wilderness.” And after other words: “And he shall slaughter the goat that is for sin, which is for the people, before the Lord; and he shall bring in of its blood within the veil, and shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the calf; and he shall sprinkle its blood upon the mercy seat, towards the face of the mercy seat, and he shall make atonement for the sanctuary from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and from their injustices for all their sins. And thus shall he do for the tabernacle of testimony, which is built among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” And these things indeed concern the slaughtered goat and the sanctifying of the holy tabernacle with its blood. Regarding the living and emissary goat, it says again B thus: “And he shall bring the living goat; and Aaron shall lay his hands upon the head of the living goat, and shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their injustices, and all their sins; and he shall lay them upon the head of the living goat, and shall send it away by the hand of a man who is ready into the wilderness; and the goat shall take upon itself their iniquities into an inaccessible land; and he shall send the goat away into the wilderness.” Every Scripture, therefore, is divinely inspired and useful. For whatever God has spoken, this whole cannot but be useful and salutary. Indeed, to those who are able to contemplate the power of the truth, its beauty presents itself like a certain flashing light, C and illumines the mind to the knowledge of the mystery of Christ: but to those whose mind does not walk firmly, but still limps in a certain way and is of childish understanding, to such the sublime speculations of the Scriptures sometimes seem even reprehensible and blameworthy. And I say this, having read without lack of attention the things which your piety had written. For some of those who dwell there have perhaps thought that one of the goats was assigned to God, who is over all, for sacrifice and offering; but that the other was sent away into the desert to some execrable, evil, and unclean demon; and this very thing by a sacred hand and the decree of the law. But this in itself is altogether foolish and ridiculous, and one might deservedly say to those who are held by such an opinion: D Why do you not rather consider this? For how could the Creator of all, who exceeds every mind and word, and is alone by nature God and Lord, have admitted Satan the apostate as if a partner and associate of his kingdom and glory? Whereas you might have heard him clearly declaring him through one of the holy prophets...
"My glory I will not give to another." But if the law given through the all-wise Moses commanded that whatever one might wish to offer must be offered to God alone, and then He who gave the law himself decreed in a manifest oracle that the glory which is most fitting for Him alone should be offered to unclean spirits, how can he not be clearly caught contradicting his own words, since he commands that very thing which he had forbidden? Truly it would be far most absurd to think that God, who holds dominion over all things, takes no care for the honor and glory owed to Him, and wishes to share them with others, when through Moses He clearly declares: "The Lord your God you shall worship, and Him only shall you serve," and, "There shall be no other gods for you besides me." B Therefore, the divine Moses, aligning himself with the commandments from above and from God, speaks thus to those of the blood of Israel: "And these are the precepts and judgments which you shall observe to do in the land which the Lord God of our fathers is to give to you by lot as a possession all the days that you shall live upon the earth. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations you dispossess worshipped their gods, upon the high mountains and the hills and under every leafy tree. And you shall tear down their altars, and break their pillars, and cut down their groves, and burn with fire the graven images of their gods, and you shall destroy their name from that place." C How, then, is it credible that He who through Moses commanded those brought from the error of gentilism to the light of truth that idols together with their temples should be burned, and that their altars should be overthrown and their groves cut down, so that no remnant of their abominations should remain, would wish to share His glory with them, as I was just saying? Or that He would arrive at such a purpose as to command that even the very animals destined for sacrifice to Him should be sacrificed to them, and that the other goat should be sent into the wilderness? Indeed, He most severely accused Israel because they had set up a calf in the wilderness, and said to the wonderful Moses: "Go, descend quickly; your people, whom you led out of the land of Egypt, have sinned; they have made for themselves an idol." D Moreover, against those who had been initiated to Beelphegor, when they joined themselves with the women of Moab, having been ensnared by the beauty of their forms to apostasy, He is seen inflicting bitter punishment; for not a few of them perished by reason of this cause. For, indeed, that divine and blameless will would be not a little culpable if, after He had removed from the midst those who had worshipped alien gods, God himself—who had been angry with his own deserters—had then commanded that that wicked and adversarial power should be honored with gifts and sacrifices: which adversarial power...
B some, perhaps, might call "the emissary," not seeing the power of the holy Scriptures with the eyes of the mind hidden within. We, however, applying our mind to the divine oracles, not in a negligent or slothful manner, but diligently and as watchfully as possible, will strive to hunt down the admirable beauty of the truth.
We say, therefore, that God, the Lord of all, when He gave His law to those of old through Moses for the overthrow of the polytheistic error and for the enlightenment of those who sat in darkness, would never have allowed Himself—who is the Way and the Door, or rather the Teacher and Master—to be the reason that impure demons were honored. Therefore, if we examine more accurately the things that are hidden in the divine Letters, we shall find the hidden truth. C But, having looked upon the legal shadows, it is right to say what was well said by one of the prophets: "Who is wise, and shall understand these things? or who is prudent, and shall know them?" (Osee XIV, 10). "For the law has a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things," as it is written (Hebr. X, 1). Yet, the shadows travail with the truth, even if they are not entirely the truth itself. For this reason, also, the divine Moses put a veil over his face, and thus spoke to the children of Israel, as if crying out by this very act: that the beauty of the legal decrees is not to be seen in the outward forms, but in the inner, hidden contemplations. Come then, having removed the shadowing D of the law, and having taken away from the face of Moses the covering that shades him outwardly, let us behold the naked truth. For He commanded that two goats be brought, and that two lots be inscribed upon them: He wished, however, that one of them should be named "Lord," and the other "emissary." Therefore, names were imposed upon the goats: Lord and emissary (Levit. XVI, 5 sqq.). But by both is signified the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ. And we shall indicate in what way this is so, applying our mind to the subtlety of the contemplation as much as possible. A goat, therefore, or a kid, was the sacrifice for sin, if you look at the rule of the law; since holy Scripture commonly compares the just man to a sheep, but the sinner to a goat. Why so? Because a just man, since he abounds in the glory of virtues, is rightly considered fruit-bearing: but sheep are wool-bearing; and therefore, the just are rightly compared to them. But you would see the soul of the wicked as naked, sterile, and destitute of all ornament of good works. Its figure, therefore, is the goat: for it is an unfruitful and sterile animal, and of lower value than a sheep. And for this reason, our Lord Jesus Christ also said: "When the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his glory..."
and shall set the sheep indeed on his right hand, but the goats on the left." A And to those on the right, inasmuch as they possess the fruits of righteousness, he restores the kingdom prepared for them, but to those on the left he will bring fire, and punishment, and the penalties befitting the devil. Therefore, a goat was immolated for sin; and you shall learn this, the Law saying clearly: "But if any ruler shall sin, and shall do one of all the commandments of the Lord his God which ought not to be done, and shall sin and transgress, and his sin shall be known to him wherein he hath sinned, he shall offer his gift, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish." And God himself, who is over all, said somewhere concerning those who had been allotted the legal priesthood: "They shall eat the sins of my people," B that is, the sacrifices offered for sins. For according to what is written, the portion and lot of the priests was the burnt offering of the Lord. Christ, therefore, according to the Scriptures, became a sacrifice for our sins; and for this reason we say that he is named sin. The all-wise Paul writes, therefore, that: "Him who knew no sin, he made to be sin for us," C that is, God and the Father. For we do not say that Christ became a sinner; God forbid; but being righteous, or rather, righteousness itself—for he does not know how to sin—the Father made him a victim for the sins of the world. "And he was numbered with the transgressors," having endured the sentence most befitting the transgressors. And the inspired prophet Isaiah gives faith to this matter, saying: "All we like sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his own way; and the Lord hath delivered him up for our iniquities; and he suffers for our sake, and by his bruise we are healed." The all-wise Peter also writes, saying: "Who bore our sins in his own body upon the tree." D Therefore, that lot hung over those who were on earth, that it was necessary to suffer death, both on account of the transgression in Adam, and the sin which from him extended its tyranny to us. But the Word of the God and Father, who is abundant in gentleness and philanthropy, became flesh, that is, man, conformed to us who are under sin, and underwent our lot. For as the all-excellent Paul writes: "By the grace of God he tasted death for every man," and he made his own soul a substitute for the life of all; he died for all, "that all might live unto God," being sanctified and quickened through his blood, and justified freely by his grace. For as the blessed evangelist John says: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin." Therefore, the name given to the immolated goat was "Lord"; and it was slaughtered by lot, and was a holy and sacred victim in type of Christ, who did not die for himself, but, as I said, for
us, and sanctified the Church with his own blood. A For it says: "He shall slaughter the goat for sin, which is for the people, before the Lord: and he shall bring of its blood within the veil, and shall sprinkle its blood upon the mercy-seat, against the face of the mercy-seat; and he shall make atonement for the sanctuary from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions, concerning all their sins. And thus shall he do for the tabernacle of witness, which is constructed among them, in the midst of their uncleanness." For Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, having found eternal redemption, and sanctifying, as I have said, that truer tabernacle, which is the Church, and all who are in it. B The blessed Paul therefore writes in one place: "Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate"; and elsewhere again: "Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved us, and gave himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell."
It must therefore be considered that in the immolated goat we see Emmanuel undergoing death according to the flesh, and indeed for the destruction of death and sin. For he was free among the dead, that is to say, unconquered by sins, and not liable, as we are, to the sentence of death. Let us also contemplate him in the other, living and sent-away goat, and see how, in that which he suffers according to human nature, he does not suffer according to the divine; and that while he dies in the flesh, he emerges the victor over death; nor, according to the madness of the Jews, did he remain with us in the tomb, nor was he held together with the others within the gates of hell. C For as his disciple asserts: "Neither was his soul left in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption." For he revived, having despoiled hell, and said to those bound: "Go forth"; and to those in darkness: "Be revealed." And he ascended to the Father, who is above and in the heavens, to a place indeed inaccessible to men, having taken our sins upon himself, and becoming a propitiation for them. The blessed John therefore writes to those who believed in him: "My little children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin. And if any one shall sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." D I think, however, that it will not be beside the point if, for the sake of reminding the listener, I also recount here some of the legal scriptures. They are to this effect: "And he shall bring the live goat, and Aaron shall lay his hands upon the head of the live goat, and shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions, and all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the live goat, and shall send it away by the hand of a man ready in the wilderness." A Observe then, O reader, how although the first goat had been sacrificed, the Law continues to call the other "the live one." For, as I have said, in both was depicted the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as one who suffered in his own flesh yet remained impassible, and as one who was subject to death yet was above death. For the Word of God lived even while his holy flesh was tasting death, and he remained impassible, even though he appropriated to himself the suffering of his own body and referred it to his own person.
One may also see this deep and great mystery depicted for us in a different way in Leviticus. For the Law given through Moses declares the leper to be unclean, and orders him to be excluded from the camp as one polluted. If, however, the disease should happen to cease, then and only then does it order him to be admitted. And it says indeed: "This is the law for the leper: On the day he is cleansed, he shall be brought to the priest; and the priest shall go out of the camp, and shall look, and behold, the plague of leprosy is healed from the leper. And the priest shall command, and they shall take for him who is being purified two live clean birds; and the priest shall command, and they shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over living water; B and he shall take the live bird, and shall dip it in the blood of the bird that was killed over living water; and he shall sprinkle him who has been cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and he shall be clean. And he shall let the live bird go into the field."
There were then two birds, and they were unblemished—that is to say, clean and having no reproach, I mean according to the law. One was sacrificed over living water, while the other, remaining free from the slaughter and then being dipped in the blood of the one that had died over the living water, was sent off into the wilderness in the same manner as the goat. And this type, again, signifies to us that great and venerable mystery of our Savior.
For the Word had come from above—that is to say, from the Father and from heaven; wherefore he is very aptly compared to a bird. He descended, however, by the dispensation of the flesh, to our likeness, and took the form of a servant; C yet he was from above even in this. And indeed he said clearly, speaking to the Jews: "You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world." And again: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man." For as I have just said, even after he had become flesh—that is, a perfect human being—he was not earthly or of the dust, as we are, but heavenly and supramundane, in so far as he is conceived as God.
Nevertheless, one may see in the birds, just as in the goats, that the Word suffered in the flesh according to the Scriptures, yet remained above suffering; and that though he died D humanly, he remained alive divinely; for the Word was life. Wherefore also the most wise disciple
said that he was put to death in the flesh, but brought to life in the spirit. Yet, even if the Word, according to his own nature, was devoid of experiencing death, nevertheless he appropriates the suffering of his own flesh, as I have already said. For the living bird was dipped in the blood of the one that had been killed; and being stained with its blood, and thus having partaken, as it were, of the suffering, it was sent forth into the wilderness. For the Only-begotten Word of God had returned to the heavens along with the flesh united to him; and this was a strange spectacle in the heavens. B For the multitude of the holy angels was astonished, beholding in our form the King of glory and the Lord of hosts. And indeed they said, “Who is this that comes from Edom (that is, from the earth), the redness of his garments from Bosor?” Bosor is interpreted as meaning flesh, or rather straitness and tribulation. Then they further inquired, “What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands?” And he, responding to them, said, “Those with which I was smitten in the house of my beloved.” For just as, for the sake of Thomas who hesitated—not without a singular dispensation of God—he showed, after his resurrection from the dead, his hands and the marks of the nails in them, and also ordered him to touch the wounds in his side; so too, having arrived in the heavens, he gave full assurance to the holy angels that the beloved Israel had justly been cast out and had fallen from his friendship with them. On this account he showed his garment stained with blood, and the wounds in his hands—not that he could not cast them off (for, having been raised from the dead, he stripped off corruption and all things that were of it), but so that, as I have said, the multiform wisdom of God, which he displayed in Christ according to the eternal C purpose, might now be made known through the Church to the principalities and powers in the supercelestial places. For thus the most holy Paul writes to some. As, therefore, in the two goats the mystery of Christ was clearly delineated, so also in the two birds. But perhaps someone will say: How do you say that the Son and Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, when two goats and two birds have been brought forward? Does the Law by this clearly show that there are entirely two Sons and Christs? And indeed some have already fallen into this impiety, such that they say and believe that Christ is one thing specifically—the Word who is from God the Father—and yet another, in turn, is he who arose from the seed of David. But we say to those who have supposed these things to be so out of ignorance, as the inspired Paul writes, that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Therefore, if they say there are two Sons, there must also D necessarily be two lords, and two faiths, and just as many baptisms. He, therefore, who has in himself, as he says himself, Christ speaking, will be found to be lying. But it is not so; God forbid.
A For we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the only-begotten Word of God, having become man and having been incarnate. For this reason we are also baptized into his death, and we acknowledge Him alone as Lord, inasmuch as He is God, not setting man and God apart, but—as I said—asserting that the Word from God the Father is He who became man while remaining God; for He is immutable and unchangeable by nature. For let them speak, those who hold the contrary view, if they assert that there are two Sons: one, specifically, he who is from the seed of David, and another, conversely, and distinctly, the Word from God the Father. Is not the Word from God the Father better by nature than he who is from the seed of David, and that by incomparable differences? For what is the nature of man, when compared to the divine and supreme nature? But I suppose that, even unwillingly, they will say that the Word who is from God the Father is better by nature. What, therefore, shall we do, seeing that the goats are not of a different nature from one another, but are rather of the same species, and in nothing differ from one another in that they are goats? B The same logic applies to the two birds. Let them concede, therefore, because of the identical species of the goats or, indeed, the birds, that the Word of God in no way differs from man. But they will not concede, as I suppose, to such a line of reasoning; for there is a very great distance between divinity and humanity. Examples, therefore, must be accepted according to the reasoning that is appropriate to them. For they are far inferior to the true realities, and they indicate only some part of those things of which they are types. We assert that the law was a shadow and a type, and as it were a painting set out for those who behold the real things. Now the shadows are the first sketches of those who paint on boards, to which, if the flowers of the colors are added, then truly, then the beauty of the painting shines forth. It was necessary, therefore, that the law given through Moses, wishing to delineate clearly the mystery of Christ, should not propose Him to be seen simultaneously dead and living in one of the goats, or likewise the birds, C lest the action performed appear to be some kind of theatrical monstrosity; but it allowed the slaughter to be suffered as in one, and showed the same one living and released in the other. And I shall think it right not to step outside the bounds of probability when I set forth the reasoning for this, and when I add another example to those I have already mentioned. It is written, then, in the book of the creation of the world: "And it came to pass after these words, that God tempted Abraham, and said to him: Abraham, Abraham. And he said: Behold, I am here. And He said: Take thy beloved son, whom thou lovest, Isaac; and go into the high land, and offer him there for a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains which I will show thee. And rising up in the morning, he saddled his ass D
A and he took with him two servants, and Isaac his son. And having split wood for a burnt offering, he arose and went; and he came to the place which God told him, on the third day. And Abraham looking up with his eyes, saw the place from afar, and Abraham said to his servants: Sit here with the ass, and I and the lad will go across up to there, and having worshipped we will return to you. And he took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son. And he took in his hands the fire and the sword; and the two went together. And after other things: And Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood upon it. And having bound Isaac his son, he laid him upon the altar atop the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand to take the sword to slaughter his son.
Now if any one of us desired to see the history regarding Abraham depicted on a tablet, in what manner, I ask, would the painter portray him? Would he delineate him doing all the aforementioned things at once, or rather by parts, differently and in another way, that is to say, under a different form, portraying the same man many times? For instance: now sitting upon the ass, with the lad taken along, and the servants following; and again, at another time, with the ass left below in the plain with the servants, loading the wood upon Isaac, and holding in his hands the sword and the fire; and finally, in another place, the same person in yet another figure, binding the youth upon the pile of wood, and arming his right hand with the sword so as to B bring about the slaughter? Yet it was not a different Abraham, and then another, although he is seen at many points in a different fashion; but it is the same everywhere, with the painter's skill accommodating itself everywhere to the needs of the narrative. For it was not possible, or consistent, that he should be shown fulfilling all these things that have been spoken of at once. The Law, therefore, was a sort of painting, and bearing in its womb the truth through types of things. Although, therefore, the need might demand that two goats and likewise two sparrows be introduced to express the mystery of Christ, yet one Christ was contained in both, on the one hand as bound to passion, but on the other as established outside passion: here again subject to death, but there superior to death and ascending the heavens, as a kind of first-fruits of a second humanity restored to incorruption. For he himself renewed for us the path to the things above, and when the time comes, C we shall follow him: "For I go," he says, "to prepare a place for you; and I will come again, and I will receive you unto myself, that where I am, there you may be also." And we have these true hopes.
I for my part have written what I knew, but it will be for your piety to apply a more exact test to these writings, so that if anything better happens to be found, it may benefit both us and the peoples who are there. For Christ is the one revealing deep and hidden things.
hidden, and who imparts understanding to hearts. For in him and from him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. Through him and with him be to God the Father and the Holy Spirit glory and power, unto ages of ages. Amen.
EPISTOLA XLII. TO RUFUS, BISHOP OF THESSALONICA. HE INFORMS HIM OF THE PEACE ENTERED INTO WITH THE ORIENTALS.
It is fitting that whatever concerns the Churches B or emerges day by day—as the saying goes—should be made known to your holiness, so that certain whisperers, saying one thing instead of another, may not disturb the most God-fearing bishops there. The Orientals have therefore written, asking for communion and setting forth their faith clearly, saying openly that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos, and that there is one Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before every age was ineffably begotten of the Father, and in the last times the same [who was] man, [born] of a woman; and that his person is one, not two. Then, proceeding further, they add something which has disturbed some of those who are not able to understand very acutely, so that they suspected that they were not entirely free from the nonsense of Nestorius. My lord, the most God-fearing bishop Acacius of Melitene, wrote these things to me. And it was necessary for a longer letter to be composed, and to explain the terminology of those from the East at which some were scandalized. I have therefore sent a copy of the letter itself, so that if any there have perchance taken up this opinion, upon inspecting it they might recognize the truth. Although I feel that I am doing this superfluously, since your holiness is thoroughly sufficient to declare all things and to bestow the benefit of your wisdom upon those who are ignorant.
EPISTOLA XLIII. TO THE SAME. THAT ONE SHOULD DEAL MORE MILDLY WITH REPENTANT HERETICS. HE TRANSMITS HIS BOOKS "ON THE INCARNATION" AND "AGAINST THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS."
For the sake of the peace of the Churches, and so that they may not be severed from one another on account of a disagreement in opinion, it is not useless D
condescensions. It is likely, indeed, that some who are not received into communion, when they see themselves neglected, might inconsiderately turn to something else. For either heresies are born, and schisms follow from this, or else there arise perpetual tumults, since they are not accustomed to bear being rebuked for long. Considering this, I A have greatly rejoiced that the Orientals have come running and seeking communion; especially since this has happened most opportunely, because the most pious and God-beloved Emperor has sent letters concerning this matter. For the concord of the Churches is a necessary concern for his serenity. Your Holiness, looking to this, will also take care to do what is fitting for yourself, whatever, that is, shall contribute to the utility of the Churches of God in those parts. I have therefore written concerning this matter, considering the benefit that will follow; but it will be the task of your Holiness to bring the matter to a conclusion. For it is better to receive those who repent than that they, through hardened impudence, should join the party of those who have chosen to hold the opinions of Nestorius. And because, wise and most perfect as you are, you have commanded that something of my little works be sent to you, and since you, though my utterance is stammering, tolerate it, I have dared to send four books, which contain much discussion concerning the oikonomia of our Savior, taken from the Old Testament. I have also added what I wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius; your Holiness can truly and excellently assist both us and others dwelling there, since I have acted in this way B led by charity alone. Having read these, and corrected them if anything should need it, you will deign to share them with the other brothers. The books are these: one book on Genesis, two books on Adoration in Spirit and Truth, the chapters against Theodorus and Andreas, and one book on the Incarnation against the blasphemies of Nestorius.
EPISTLE XLIV (formerly XXXVII.)
TO EULOGIUS, PRESBYTER OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
He sets forth the confession of faith and demonstrates that it is very far removed from the impiety of Apollinaris and Nestorius.
Memorandum sent by Archbishop Cyril to Eulogius, a presbyter residing in Constantinople. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to Eulogius, greeting. Some take exception to the exposition which the Orientals have made...
and they say: Why did the bishop of Alexandria tolerate them, and even praise them, when they spoke of two natures? But those who follow Nestorius maintain that he holds the same view, and they carry off with them those who do not understand the exact truth. It is necessary to say to those who find fault with this that not everything which heretics say should be immediately avoided and rejected; for many things they confess which we also confess. For example, when the Arians say that God the Father is the creator of all things and Lord, is it therefore necessary for us to avoid these professions? Thus, also in the case of Nestorius: even if he says there are two natures, signifying the difference between the flesh and the Word of God—for the nature of the Word is one thing, and the nature of the flesh is another—yet he does not confess the union with us. For we, by uniting these, confess one and the same Son, one Lord, and finally we speak of one incarnate nature of God the Word. A This is also the case regarding the common man; for he consists of different natures, namely, body and soul. For although reason and contemplation do not ignore the difference between them, yet after we have joined them together, we make one nature of a man. Therefore, to acknowledge the difference of the natures is not to divide the one Christ into two. Since, however, all the Orientals believe that we orthodox follow the opinions of Apollinarius, and believe that a commixture or confusion took place (for they themselves use such terms), as though God the Word had been changed B into the nature of flesh, and the flesh had been turned into the nature of divinity, we have granted to them—not that they should divide the one Christ into two, God forbid!—but only that they should confess that neither confusion nor commixture took place, but that the flesh was flesh, as taken from a woman, and the Word was Word, as begotten of the Father; yet there is one Christ, and Son, and Lord, according to the voice of John, as the Word was made flesh. They should be prepared, however, to attend to the reading of the epistle of the blessed Pope Athanasius. C For when in his time some struggled and said that God the Word had transformed his own nature into a body for himself, he strove by every argument to confirm that the body of Christ is not consubstantial with the Word; and if it is not consubstantial with the Word, it must necessarily be of another nature, from which one and only Christ is understood to be constituted. And let them not be ignorant of this: wherever union is mentioned, it signifies not the conjunction of one thing, but of two, or more, and those differing from one another according to nature. If, therefore, we speak of union, we confess that it is the union of flesh endowed with a rational soul and of the Word; and those who D speak of two natures understand it in this way. Yet, the union being once asserted, those things which have been united are no longer separated from each other; but there is only one Son, one nature of him, as the Word has been made flesh. These things the Orientals have confessed, even if they were slightly darkened concerning the term. For those who confess that he who was born of God the Father...
there now exists but one Christ, and one nature of him, that is, of the Word incarnate. The Orientals have confessed these things, although they have used somewhat obscure words. For those who confess that the only-begotten Word A born of God the Father is the same one also born of a woman according to the flesh; and that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos; and that there is one person of Christ, and not two Sons, nor two Christs, but one only: how do they agree with the opinions of Nestorius? For Nestorius, in his own expositions, pretends to say that there is one Son and one Lord; but he refers the sonship and the lordship to the Word of God alone. But when he comes to the mystery of the dispensation, he speaks again, as if of another Lord, of a man born of a woman separately, who is joined to the Word by the dignity of equal honor alone. For as to saying that the Word of God is on that account named Christ because he has a conjunction with Christ, what is this other than clearly to assert that there are two Christs, if Christ has a conjunction with Christ, as one with another? But the Orientals say nothing of the kind; they only distinguish the expressions. They distinguish, however, in this manner: in that they say some are appropriate to divinity, others to humanity, and others are common to both, as possessing together that which befits both God and man, yet so that all are spoken of one and the same person. But not so Nestorius, who B assigns some things specifically to the Word of God, and others to him who was born of a woman, as to a different Son. It is one thing to recognize the difference in expressions, and another, in turn, to distribute them to two persons, as to one and to another. The letter to Acacius in particular, whose beginning is: "A friendly greeting is a thing indeed sweet and worthy of all admiration to brothers," fully satisfies regarding all these matters. You have also very many letters in the case, which you ought to deliver with care: offer also to the most magnificent prefect the two books which I sent to him: one written against the blasphemies of Nestorius, and another containing the acts of the synod against Nestorius and his followers, and the refutations which I wrote against those who wrote C against the chapters; for there are two bishops, Andrew and Theodoret. The same book also contains at the end some brief expositions regarding the dispensation concerning Christ, very good and profitable. Deliver to him in like manner from those that are bound in leather, five letters: one of the blessed Pope Athanasius to Epictetus; another, mine, that is to say, the one which I wrote to John; again two of mine, which I sent to Nestorius, one small and one long; and finally that which is to Acacius. For he requested all these from us.
LETTER XLV (ol. XXXVIII). AD SUCCENSUM EPISCOPUM.
D The letter of the same Cyril to Succensus, bishop of Diocesarea of the province of Isauria. On the faith.
I have read the memorandum which was sent by your holiness, and I was very glad that, although he himself
A is able to benefit both us and others from his great love of learning, he also deems it worth while to exhort us; and we conceive that you think as we do, and that you have written these things. We hold, therefore, regarding the dispensation of our Savior, the same things that the holy Fathers before us held. For, having read their labors, we regulate our own mind so as to follow in their footsteps, and not to introduce any novelty into the uprightness of the doctrines. But because your perfection inquires whether it is necessary to speak of two natures in Christ, or not, we have thought it necessary to speak on this. A certain Diodorus, who was a champion against the Spirit B at times, as they say, communicated with the Church of the orthodox. Having put off, as he thought, the stain of the Macedonian heresy, he fell into the power of another malady. For he thought and wrote that the son who was born from the seed of David from the holy Virgin and mother of God is one, and another, again, privately, the Word who is from God the Father. Covering the wolf with the fleece of a sheep, as it were, he pretends to speak of one Christ; while he refers the name solely to the Word born from God the Father as the only-begotten Son, he assigns to him, as it were, the son from the seed of David in the order of grace, as he himself says; and he calls him son, as having been C united, he says, to the Son by truth; but united, not as we believe, but according to rank only, and according to authority, and according to equality of honor. Of this man Nestorius became a disciple, and, being darkened by his books, he also pretends to confess one Christ, and Son, and Lord, but he himself divides the one into two, and separately, saying that man is joined to God the Word by homonymy, by equality of honor, [by order], and by dignity. And so, he distinguishes the expressions located in the evangelical and apostolic preachings concerning Christ, and says that some must be applied to the man, namely the human ones, and others belong singularly to God the Word, namely the divine ones. And because he divides in many ways, and puts separately, as man properly, him who was D born of the holy Virgin, and likewise separately, and as a part, the Word who is from God the Father as Son, for this reason he says that the holy Virgin is not Theotokos [Mother of God], but rather Anthropotokos [Mother of man]. We, however, are not disposed to have these things so, but we have been taught by the divine Scripture and the holy Fathers to confess one Son and Christ and Lord, that is, the Word from God the Father, born indeed from Him before the ages, divinely and ineffably; but in the last times of the age, the same one born for us according to the flesh from the holy Virgin. And because she brought forth God having become man and having been incarnate, for this reason we also call her Theotokos. There is, therefore, one Son, one Lord Jesus Christ, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation. For the Word from God the Father was not one Son, and that one born of the holy Virgin another again; but he is the same who was before the ages, and is believed to have been born of a woman according to the flesh; not as
in the sense that his divinity received a beginning of being, or was called to the beginning of existence through the holy Virgin, but rather that, as I said, being the Word before the ages, he is said to have been born of her according to the flesh. For that flesh was his own, just as for each of us our own body is our own. A Since, however, some implicate us in the errors of Apollinarius and say: "If you speak of one Son according to an accurate and commingled unity, that the Word from God the Father was made human and incarnate, you must surely also believe and hold the opinion that a commixture, or confusion, or blending of the Word with the body has taken place, or certainly a changing of the body into the nature of the divinity." Because of this, we very wisely, in order to repel the calumny, say that the Word from God the Father, in a way that can neither be understood nor expressed in words, united to himself a body animated by an intellectual soul, and proceeded as a human being from a woman, not having become like us by a change of nature, B but rather by the dispensation of the will. For he willed to become human, not losing his being as God by nature. But even if he descended into the measures that are ours, and put on the form of a servant, he nevertheless remained in the excellences of his divinity and in his natural lordship. Therefore, while we unite to the holy flesh, which possesses an intellectual soul, the Word from God the Father, in an ineffable way and beyond the power of the mind, we confess one Christ and Son and Lord, without confusion, without change, without mutation, the same being God and human, not one and another, but one and the same who is and is understood to be both this and that. C And so, sometimes he speaks as a human being in the manner of the dispensation and in a human way, and at other times he utters words as God with the authority that befits God. We further assert this—carefully investigating the manner of the dispensation with the flesh, and keenly surveying this mystery—that we understand the Word from God the Father to have been made human and incarnate, not because he formed that sacred body from his own divine nature, but rather that he took it from the Virgin Mary. Or else, how did he become a human being if he did not carry our body? Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of the humanization, we see that two natures came together according to an inseparable union, without confusion and without change; for the flesh is flesh, and not divinity, D even if it has become the flesh of God; and in the same way, the Word is God, and not flesh, even if he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation. When, therefore, we consider this, we do no wrong to the concurrence into unity when we say that it came about from two natures; after the union, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two Sons, but we state that he is one Son, and as the Fathers have said, one nature of the Word of God incarnate. Therefore, in so far as it comes to understanding, and to acting solely by the eyes of the soul, in what way the Only-Begotten became...
A man, we say that there are two natures united, but we acknowledge one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God the Father, having become man and incarnate. And, if you please, let us take as an example our own composition, according to which we are human beings. For we are composed of soul and body, and we perceive two natures: one, that of the body; another, that of the soul. But man is one from both, through union. And not because man is composed of two natures must we think there are two men, but one and the same person according to composition, as I said, who consists of soul and body. For if we should deny that Christ is one and alone from two and different natures, being indivisible even after the union, those who wage war with the right faith will say: "If the whole is one nature, how did He become man, or what kind of flesh did He make His own?"
Since, however, I found in the memorandum a certain expression of this kind of speech, namely, that after the resurrection that holy body of the Savior of us all, Christ, has passed B into the divine nature, so that the whole is only divinity, I thought it necessary to respond to this as well. The blessed Paul, explaining the causes of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, writes at one time: "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 righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. viii, 3, 4). And at another time, again: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren" (Heb. ii, 14-17).
We declare, therefore, that from the transgression of Adam, human nature fell into corruption, and since our mind was oppressed by the tyrannical dominion of the pleasures of the flesh, that is, of the innate movements, it became necessary for our salvation, for us who dwell on earth, that the Word of God become man, so that He might make C human flesh that was subject to corruption and suffering under the craving for pleasure His own; and since He is life and the life-giver, He might abolish the corruption that had invaded it, and might also restrain the innate movements, those, that is, leading to the craving for pleasure. For in this way, the sin that was in it could be mortified. We remember also that the blessed Paul called "the law of sin" the movement innate in us (Rom. vii, 23). Therefore, since human flesh has become the flesh of the Word, the being carried away by corruption has ceased; and since He did not commit sin as God, having made D that His own...
as I said, it has also ceased to be subject to the cravings of pleasure. Nor did the only-begotten Word of God acquire this for Himself (for He is always what He is), but undoubtedly for us. For if, because of the transgression in Adam, we have become liable to evils, then the goods that are in Christ—that is, incorruption and the mortification of sin—must surely extend to us as well. A He became man, therefore, and did not “assume a man,” as Nestorius thinks. And so that it might be believed that He who remained what He was—namely, God by nature—had become man, for this reason He is said to have hungered, to have become weary from travel, and to have endured sleep, distress, grief, and other human and blameless passions. But in order to assure those who saw Him that, while He was man, He was also true God, He performed divine miracles, rebuking the sea, raising the dead, and accomplishing other wondrous works. He even endured the cross so that, having suffered death in the flesh and not in the nature of the Godhead, He might become the firstborn from the dead and might open to human nature the path to incorruption; and, having despoiled Hades, He might liberate the souls held captive there. After the resurrection, it was indeed the very same body that had suffered, yet it no longer possessed human weaknesses within itself. For we do not say that it was still capable of hunger, or fatigue, or any other such thing beyond this, but rather that it was now incorruptible, and not only this, but also life-giving—for it is the body of Life, that is, of the Only-begotten; it was also radiant with most God-befitting glory, and is understood to be the body of God. B Therefore, even if someone were to call it “divine"—just as, surely, one calls the human element of man “human”—he would not be deviating from the proper reasoning. Hence, I think, the most wise Paul also said: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him no longer." For, as I said, being the proper body of God, it has transcended all human things. Furthermore, it is not possible for a body from the earth to undergo conversion into the nature of the Godhead; for that cannot happen, since we would then be accusing the Godhead of being originated, and of having acquired something into itself that is not proper to it by nature. For it is equally absurd to say that the body was changed into the nature of the Godhead, and to say that the Divinity was changed into the nature of the flesh. But just as the latter is impossible, because the nature of the Godhead is immutable and unchangeable, C so too the former cannot come to pass. Nor is it possible for any creature to be converted into the essence or nature of the Godhead; and the flesh is a creature. Therefore, we affirm the body of Christ to be divine, since it is the body of God, and adorned with ineffable glory, incorruptible, holy, and life-giving; but that it has been changed into the nature of the Godhead, neither has any of the holy Fathers thought or said, nor are we so disposed. Let your Holiness also not be ignorant of this: that our Father of blessed memory, Athanasius, who was at times bishop of the Alexandrians, when certain people were stirred up at that time, wrote a letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, D for he is also unchangeable, and so likewise is the other. It is not within the reach of those who attain to the essence or nature of the Godhead that any of the creatures could change, [index: entries preserved]
full of all orthodoxy. But when Nestorius himself, and those who agree with the right faith, were convicted by it, and those reading it would put to shame those who wished to think the same things as him, they, being utterly defeated by the refutations arising from it, devised something wicked and worthy of heretical impiety. For they corrupted the letter, and by removing some things and adding others, they published it; so that it might appear that even that blessed man thought in harmony with Nestorius and those around him. It was therefore necessary, in order that no one there, too, should demonstrate the letter to be corrupted, to take a copy from the exemplars we have and send it to your devoutness. For indeed the most pious and devout bishop of the Emesenes, Paul, having come to Alexandria, raised a discussion about this, and it was found that he possessed a copy of the letter, but it was corrupted and falsified by the heretics; so that he even requested that a copy from our exemplars be sent to those in Antioch, and we have accordingly sent it. Following everywhere the orthodoxies of the holy Fathers, we have written a book against the dogmas of Nestorius; and another one besides, as some were impugning the force of the Chapters; and these I have sent to your devoutness, so that if there should be any others among our brethren of the same faith and of one mind with us, who have been snatched away by the babblings of some and think that we have changed our mind regarding what was said about Nestorius, they may be refuted by the reading, and learn that we rightly and correctly rebuked him as one who had wandered; and that now we are no less occupied everywhere fighting against his blasphemies. May your perfection, being able to perceive even greater things, aid us both by writing and by praying.
EPISTLE XLVI (formerly XXXIX). EPISTLE II TO SUCCENSUS.
Another memorandum, written in reply to the questions put to us by him.
Truth presents itself to those who love it, but it is concealed, I think, and strives to hide itself from the thoughts of crafty men. For they do not show themselves to be such as to merit looking upon it with clear eyes. And those who are lovers of the immaculate faith pray to the Lord in the simplicity of heart, as it is written. But those who walk in crooked paths, and have a perverse heart, as it is said in the Psalms, gather for themselves manifold occasions of perverse thoughts, in order that they may pervert the straight ways of the Lord, and seduce the souls of the simpler ones, so that they may think those things which
A it is not lawful to think. And I say this, having encountered the reminders sent by your holiness; and having found in them certain things not safely proposed, by those who, I know not how, have loved the perversion of the falsely named knowledge. They were of this kind:
I. If, he says, Emmanuel is composed of two natures, and after the union one nature of the Word incarnate is understood, it will follow altogether that we must say he suffered in his own nature.
Blessed are our Fathers, who defined the venerable Symbol of faith, saying that the Word himself is from God the Father, himself from his essence, B himself the Only-begotten, himself through whom are all things, that he was incarnate and made man: nor is it to be thought in any way that those holy men were ignorant that that body united to the Word was animated by an intelligent soul. Whoever therefore says the Word was incarnate, confesses the flesh united to him not to be without an intelligent soul. For so, as I think, or rather as it actually is, I confidently affirm, even the most blessed evangelist John said that the Word became flesh*, not as if he were united to inanimate flesh, far be it: nor indeed as if he underwent change or variation; for he remained what he was, that is, by nature God: but when he assumed also to be man, that is, to become like us from a woman according to the flesh, again he remained one Son, C yet not devoid of flesh, as he had been before, that is, before the times of the incarnation, but having put on as it were our nature itself. Although the body united to the Word begotten of God the Father is not consubstantial with him, even though it be endowed with an intelligent soul, yet our intellect perceives the difference of the united natures; still we confess one Son and Christ and Lord, seeing that the Word has become flesh. When, however, we say flesh, it is the same as if we said man. What necessity, therefore, compels us to say that after the union there is one incarnate nature of the Son, such that it follows that he suffered in his own nature? For if in the reason of that dispensation there were nothing that could receive passion, D perhaps it would have been rightly said by them: for with the subject of suffering removed, it would be absolutely necessary for passion to fall upon the nature of the Word. But if, by the addition of the word "incarnate," the whole reason for his dispensation with the flesh is brought in (for he was not incarnate in some other way, but by taking hold of the seed of Abraham**, and being made like his brothers in all things***, while he took the form of a servant****), they talk nonsense in vain who say it is absolutely necessary that he should have undergone passion in his own nature, since the flesh holds the place of the subject, concerning which it might rightly be understood that the passion happened, while the Word remains impassible. Yet we do not on that account exclude him from being said to have suffered. For as his body became his own, so all things that belong to the body, except only
sin, can nonetheless be said to be his own by a certain dispensatory conjunction. But the adversaries will say:
B II. If it be one nature of the Word incarnate, it is absolutely necessary to say that a commingling and confusion has taken place, the nature of man being in a way diminished and subducted in him. Again, those who pervert the right path are ignorant that there is, in truth, one nature of the Word incarnate. For if the Son is one, he the one who is by nature and truly the Word from God the Father, ineffably begotten, who then by the assumption of flesh—not inanimate, but endowed with an intellectual soul—proceeded as man from a woman, he will not on that account be divided into two persons or two sons, but has remained one, yet not fleshless nor outside a body, but having his own body through a conjunction that cannot be rent. But he who says this does not signify, in any way or at all, a commingling, a confusion, or anything of that sort; nor, indeed, will this follow from the argument as a necessity from any quarter. For even if we speak of the one only-begotten Son of God as incarnate and made man, he is not on that account commingled, as they suppose, nor has the nature of the Word passed into the nature of the flesh, nor, again, that of the flesh into his; but with each continuing and being conceived in its own natural property, according to the argument just now given to us, when they were ineffably and inexplicably united, he showed us one nature of the Son, yet, as I said, incarnate. For the term "one" is not truly said only of those things which are simple by nature, but also of those things which are joined by composition, such as man, who consists of soul and body. For things of this sort are of different kinds, and not consubstantial with one another, yet when united, they complete one nature of man; even if there exists in the rationale of the composition a difference according to the nature of the elements that have been brought together into unity. They talk nonsense, therefore, who say that if there be one nature of the Word incarnate, it would follow, through and through, that there was a commingling and confusion, as if the nature of man were diminished and subducted. For it is neither diminished nor, as they say, subducted; for it is sufficient for the most perfect declaration that he was made man, to say that he was incarnate. For if this had been passed over in silence by us, their calumny would have had some room. But since it has been necessarily added that he has been incarnate, where is the mode of any diminution or subduction left?
C III. If Christ, he says, is understood to be perfect God and the same as perfect man, and consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, but consubstantial with us according to humanity, where is the perfection, if the nature of man no longer subsists? And where is that which is consubstantial with us, if that essence does not now subsist which is our nature? It is sufficient for the declaration of these things also that which was said before.
A for if, having said that there is one nature of the Word, we had remained silent and not added "incarnate," but had, as it were, set the dispensation aside, perhaps their argument, in which they pretend to inquire, "Where is the perfection in humanity, or how does that essence which is ours subsist?" would not be entirely unpersuasive. But since both the perfection in humanity and the declaration of our own essence have been brought in through the saying "incarnate," let them cease from leaning upon a staff of reed. For whosoever would exclude the mystery of the dispensation and deny the incarnation could justly be rebuked as one who takes away complete humanity from the Son. But if, as I have said, in the fact that we call Him incarnate, there is contained a clear and certain confession whereby we profess also that He has become man, then nothing any longer prevents us from understanding that Christ, being one and the only Son, is Himself both God and man, as perfect in deity so also in humanity.
Most correctly and very wisely did your perfection set forth the account concerning the saving passion: for it does not maintain that the only-begotten Son of God, insofar as He is understood and is God, suffered the passions of the body in His own nature, but that He suffered rather by the earthly nature. For it was necessary that both things should be preserved in the one and true Son: both that He does not suffer divinely, and that He is said to suffer humanly; for it is His own flesh that has suffered. But they imagine, in turn, that through this we are bringing in that which is called by them "Theopathy"—that is, the passion of God—and they do not understand the mystery of the dispensation, but very maliciously attempt to shift the passion to a man taken separately. They foolishly affect a harmful piety, so that we might not confess the Word of God Himself to be the Savior, as having given His own blood for us, but rather that a man, considered properly and separately as Son, might be said to have accomplished this. But those who feel this way overturn the entire reason for His dispensation with the flesh, and they turn our divine mystery toward the worship of a man not obscurely. And they do not consider that the blessed Paul asserted B that He who is from the Jews according to the flesh—that is, the Christ from the seed of Abraham and Jesse and David—is the Lord of glory, and God blessed unto the ages, and over all, declaring His body to be the very own (ἴδιον) body of the Word that was nailed to the wood, and for this reason attributing the cross to the Word Himself. C
IV. I have learned, moreover, that there is something else besides these things that is being asked. For he who says that our Lord suffered with flesh alone, and bare flesh, declares His passion to be irrational and involuntary. But if one should say that He suffered with a rational soul, so that the passion might be voluntary, there is nothing to prevent us from saying that He suffered in the nature of humanity. But if this is true, how can it be denied that we must grant that the two natures subsist indivisibly after the union? Therefore, if any man says, "Christ therefore suffered for us in the flesh," he says nothing other than that Christ therefore suffered for us in our nature. D
A This problem once again struggles against those who say that there is one nature of the Son incarnate, and wishing as it were to show this to be absurd, they strive everywhere to declare that two natures subsist. But they are ignorant that whatever does not delight in being distinguished merely by contemplation, these altogether and in every way and specifically would depart into a distinct diversity from one another. Let there be for us as an example again the man who is like us. For we understand two natures in him, one of the soul, the other of the body. But when we have distinguished them by bare notions, and as it were in subtle contemplations, B or by the imaginations of the mind, we have accepted the difference, we do not place the natures apart; nor yet do we yield the faculty to them entirely through division, but we understand them to be of one, so that the two, no longer being two, but through both, the one animal is completed. Therefore, even if they were to speak of the nature of humanity and of divinity in Emmanuel, yet the humanity has become proper to the Word, and one Son is understood together with it. Yet since the divinely inspired Scripture says that He Himself suffered in the flesh, it is better for us also to say so, that is, in the nature of humanity; C even if in the highest degree, if this were not said captiously by some, it might not injure the discourse of the mystery. For what else is the nature of humanity, unless it be flesh animated by an intelligent soul, in which we confess the Lord to have suffered in the flesh? They speak, therefore, too deliberately, when they say that He suffered in the nature of humanity; as if they were separating it from the Word, and distinguishing it properly, so that two might be understood, and no longer one incarnate and become man, that Word from God the Father. But the word, "indivisibly," having been added by them, seems in some way to have the signification of right doctrine among us. But they do not understand it so; for the "indivisible," among them, D according to the empty utterances of Nestorius, is accepted in another manner. For they say that because of equality of honor, because of the same will, because of authority, that man in whom the Word dwelt is indivisible from God the Word. So they do not offer the words simply, but with a certain guile and wickedness. For he says that Christ is properly called the Word of God, but that He has a perpetual conjunction with Christ. Does he not therefore most clearly say that there are two Christs? Does he not confess to worship, in a way I know not, a man worshipped together with God? Do these things, therefore, appear kin to the things which are said by those of the East? Do they not fight among themselves in their opinions?
Letter 47
For Nestorius clearly asserts two, but those of Antioch truly [assert] one Christ and Son and God, and the rest.LETTER XLVII (ol. XLI) JOANNIS EPISCOPI ANTIOCHIAE AD CYRILLUM
ATo my most pious and holy fellow-minister Cyril, John, greeting in the Lord.
We have been restored to one another, Lord, by the will of God, or rather through the mediation of the most religious Lord Bishop Paul, for whom nothing was more urgent or ancient than that the disturbances in the Churches of God should be quelled, and that a concord pleasing to God should return. With his mediation he returns in peace, A and all the private rights of friendship towards your piety have been preserved, with but a few things added in return to those dictated by your holiness, which do not differ in force or meaning, but rather contain a moderation of the matter. For I desire and pray most of all, not only to join myself, but also all the lords, most religious bishops of the East, to the dear and venerable head of your sincerity, which I have always held in high regard. A short time parted us; then, by the will of God, we have returned to friendship B once again, with all conflicts extinguished, and no material for contention or discord at all remaining among us. This has not happened without divine agency, but with God as the author and by the power of the most pious emperors. Therefore let your piety receive the most religious Cassius and Ammonius, who have obeyed us, not in order to resist you, but that those things which have been built up by you may be led to firmness and the best outcome. B We also give thanks for this to my most venerable and illustrious lord Aristolaus, the tribune and notary, who, observing the course of our affairs, understood that it is better, with the exception of a few syllables, C that we should be joined firmly and constantly with one another. Therefore, I beg you, receive also those things from us, written rightly and in order, and be fully persuaded that they are composed for the sake of equity and moderation; and do not think that we have acted craftily in the matters proposed. For we are conscious, and we call God as our witness, that we did not wish to undermine your position, but to moderate our own affairs for the utility of the Churches. The same most religious deacons will explain the manner of this moderation. For we have performed all things abundantly, so that no one can repudiate the concord which has been made. Therefore, I beseech you, receive with a willing mind the brothers who bring to you the goods of peace, and may your holiness pray that the affairs of the Churches of Christ may proceed D prosperously. For just as by the law of affection we have been handed over to you, so we also take care and desire, and so wish, that no one at all of those who are with us should think otherwise than we do, since it is a matter of primary concern to us that each one be led by equity and moderation, as those to whom a small exhortation, or rather guidance
[249] A your holiness that matters are proceeding propitiously for the Churches of Christ. For just as we have committed ourselves to you, acting according to the law of our disposition, so we strive and desire, and even pray, that no one among us be left out who does not think the same things as we do, while we are anxious to bear patiently and economically, item by item, with those who still have need of some small consolation, or rather guidance, from us for the benefit of the Catholic Church and the affairs within it. Know then that we are the same as you knew us to be before, with the same disposition, both in sending and receiving our letters. For this will both adorn us and crown your holiness. We send very many greetings to all the brotherhood with you.
LETTER XLVIII (ol. XLII.)
CYRIL TO DONATUS, BISHOP OF OLD NICOPOLIS IN EPIRUS
Announces the restoration of the unity of the Church, accurately explaining the matter.To my beloved brother and fellow-minister Donatus, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
I believed it worth the effort to inform your piety regarding the matters that have occurred for the establishment of peace among the Churches. My lord, the most admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus, therefore came to Antioch, carrying with him royal letters, which instructed the most devout John, bishop of the Church of Antioch, to anathematize the wicked dogmas of Nestorius and, together with his holy synod, to pass a sentence of deposition against him, and thus to seek our communion. B And this was the purport of those letters. However, some of the bishops in the East—who, perhaps, have not yet condemned Nestorius, or even favor him—grieve our orthodox faith and not a little oppose the glory of Christ, the Savior of us all. They have induced the most holy and pious Acacius, bishop of Beroea, to write me some absurd things, as if they themselves were requesting that all we have written against Nestorius should be abolished and rejected as void, and that we should admit only the Creed of the faith defined by the holy Fathers in the city of Nicaea. C Your holiness knows that such were their proposals long ago at the time of the city of Ephesus. But I have written in reply to these things that they are requesting a thing that cannot possibly be done, because whatever we have written, we have written correctly, inasmuch as we are defending the correct and blameless faith; and we can deny nothing at all of what has been written by us. For nothing at all has been said rashly, as they say, but only things that throughout cohere with the rectitude of the faith and in all respects consent to the truth. And it is much more equitable that they, having laid aside those ambiguities and delays which they were employing, and not stretching beyond what necessity demands, D should...
A satisfy the most pious and God-beloved emperor himself, and the holy synod, by anathematizing the babblings of Nestorius and the blasphemies uttered against Christ, and by acknowledging his deposition, and by consenting to the ordination of the most holy and God-fearing bishop Maximianus.
When, therefore, these my letters had been sent to them, they, perceiving that they could not receive communion unless they had first fulfilled what they were obliged to do, sent to Alexandria the most devout and God-beloved bishop of the Emisenes, Paul, bringing to me a letter which indeed concerned the restoration of communion, but which was not very properly phrased. For they made a pretense of bringing complaints against us, as if certain things had been neither rightly said nor rightly done in the holy synod. But I did not accept such letters; rather, I said, how can they dare to inflict new insults when they ought to be humbly asking pardon for those past? But when the aforementioned most God-fearing bishop apologized, and affirmed under oath that this was not their intention, but that they had proceeded to write in that manner out of mere simplicity of heart, I accepted his apology for the sake of charity.
However, I did not receive him to communion before he had given a document in writing in which he anathematized the dogmas of Nestorius, and confessed that he considered him deposed, and agreed to the ordination of the most devout bishop Maximianus. Moreover, he requested that, since these documents were offered by him on behalf of all the most God-fearing bishops throughout the East, I should demand nothing further; this I did not allow to be done by any means. Instead, B together with my lord the most illustrious tribune and notary Aristolaus, I sent two of our clergy to Antioch, and I handed over a document, saying, "If John, the most reverend bishop of the Church of Antioch, signs and accepts this, then at last deliver the letters of communion." For the aforementioned most illustrious tribune Aristolaus was bearing the delay with difficulty. When, therefore, the most pious John had signed, and the others who were of note with him had done likewise, and they had anathematized the dogmas of Nestorius, and had professed that they considered him deposed, and had consented to the ordination of the most devout and God-fearing bishop Maximianus, we restored the communion. For the holy synod at Ephesus C required only this from them.
Let your holiness also know this: that at the beginning, the most devout and God-fearing bishop Paul insisted much concerning the deposed Helladius, Eutherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus, and asked vehemently that the decrees issued against them should be abrogated. For he affirmed that the peace of the Churches could not be brought to completion in any other way unless this also were added. I, however, replied that he was attempting an utterly impossible thing, because we would never permit that. They have therefore remained in the same state of D schism in which they still are
division; and no mention of them was made in the A conditions concerning the peace of the holy Churches. They have sent the same letter, which they wrote to me, to the most pious and most holy bishops, Xystus of great Rome, and Maximianus of the holy Church of Constantinople. It was necessary for your integrity to know this clearly, lest by chance some people, who are accustomed to babbling one thing instead of another, should disturb some of the brethren, as if we had retracted those things which we wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius. I have also sent copies of the letters, both of that which I wrote to the most pious bishop of Antioch, John, and of that which he wrote in return to me concerning the anathema of the blasphemies of Nestorius and his deposition, for the clear information of your integrity. And let no one produce other letters besides these. Greet the brotherhood that is with you. Those of us who are in the Lord greet you.
LETTER XLIX (ol. XLIII).
TO MAXIMIANUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Of the same subject as the former.
C To the most holy and most sacred lord, my archbishop and Father Maximianus, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
There was no doubt that the prayers of your holiness would be altogether and always effectual; for the Saviour of us all readily and D gladly complies with the wishes of those who love him, so that on this account anyone can say with joy and exultation: "He heard my voice from his holy temple, and my cry in his sight entered into his ears." For behold, behold, the torn-asunder limbs of the body of the Church have been knit together again; and there is now nothing remaining to separate the ministers of the Gospel of Christ through discord. But we all are adorned by one faith, since we have driven Nestorius, the inventor of impieties, out of the sacred enclosures, and have removed the false shepherd from the noble flock. And this, too, has been accomplished as a brilliant achievement of your prayers. Since, therefore, the most pious emperors have taken up the most necessary care for the peace of the Churches, and we ourselves have been beseeching with the highest prayers that that which divided us and held us in discord might pass from the midst, and that peace, most pleasing to God, might shine forth like light; and since the most holy and God-beloved John, bishop of Antioch, and the rest of the most reverend bishops who were with him, have confessed in writing that they consider the deposition of Nestorius valid, and anathematize his impious
and to anathematize his blasphemies; I have sent letters of communion, both to your holiness and to the other bishops: and thus, with your holiness and all the others who constitute the perfect body of the holy synod consenting and concurring, we have been led back restored to our former concord. For neither does contention or strife reign among us, but we all have one aim set before us, looking toward peace. And if only those who at the beginning departed from us through discord, and separated themselves from us, had been willing, no contention or discord of the Churches would ever have existed. Nevertheless, blessed be our Savior, who has calmed this storm and restored the tranquility of concord, and this through the prayers and intercessions of your holiness, and of all others who, possessing the right and sincere faith, offer Him adoration and service in spirit and in truth. B
EPISTLE L (fol. XLIV)
TO VALERIANUS, BISHOP OF ICONIUM.
Exegesis on the Incarnation of the Word.
The same to Valerianus, the most religious bishop, against those who think according to the dogmas of Nestorius.
It has sufficient power, I think—nay, rather, as the very nature of truth itself possesses—even the vigilance and prudence of your holiness in this matter, so that you may manfully oppose the certain truth to the vain babblings of some. For many chatter like old women, turning everything upside down, and pretending to inquire keenly and subtly into the mystery of the incarnate Only-begotten and Lord; yet they do not understand it, but easily deflect into what is not permitted, and think perverse things. C But what is most dangerous in this matter is that, while they pretend to wish to think what is right, and while they conciliate to themselves a reputation for such an inclination, acting as if they were putting on a mask, they pour the poison of Nestorian impiety into the souls of the simpler folk. For men of this sort are not unlike physicians of human bodies. For these are accustomed to mix honey with unpleasant medicines, that by the quality of the sweetness they may deceive the perception of them, which by their own nature induce sadness and nausea. But we, having the mind of Christ, according to the most wise sentiment of the wise Paul, do not ignore their thoughts. For if anyone were to say that the only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten from God and the Father in an arcana and inexplicable manner, and who is the Creator of the ages themselves, had the beginning of His subsistence from the holy Virgin, it would seem they were not aiming wide of the mark in saying, "If the Word of God is spirit by nature, how could He be born of flesh, when the Lord says: 'That which is born of the flesh, D
A flesh is'? » But because the doctrine of the mystery concerning Christ follows another path, that is to say, a straight one, devoid of error and possessing nothing perverse; why do they thoughtlessly and in vain talk nonsense, «not understanding either what they say or the matters about which they make assertions?» We, therefore, maintain that the very same only-begotten Word of God, who being spirit as God, according to the Scriptures, was for the salvation of men incarnate and made man: not because He transmuted His own nature into a body for Himself, nor because He departed from what He was, or underwent conversion or alteration; but because He took from the holy Virgin an immaculate body endowed with an intelligent soul, and by a union incomprehensible, inconfused, and altogether ineffable, He made it His own, so that it is understood to be not of some other person, but His very own. In this way the only-begotten Son of God entered into the world as B first-born; and He became among many brethren, He who as God is not reckoned among creatures. Wherefore when it is said that He was born, and from a woman, "according to the flesh" is necessarily added, lest anyone should think that He took the beginning of His existence from the holy Virgin. For although the God-Word exists before every age, co-eternal with His own Father, always co-existing with Him, yet when by the good pleasure of the Father He willed to take the form of a servant, then He is said to have undergone even for our sake the birth from a woman according to the flesh. Therefore, that which is born of flesh is confessedly flesh, and that which is of God is God. Yet both are the same Christ, being one Son and Lord together with His own flesh, not (as I said) inanimate, but endowed with an intelligent soul. Let them not, then, divide the one Son for us, setting the Word apart, and again another son separately, the man who was born of a woman, as they themselves say; but let them consider that the God-Word was not conjoined to a man, but is Himself said to have been made man,1 having taken hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the Scriptures, and having been made like in all things to the brethren, sin alone excepted. Now this complete likeness would reasonably include, and before all other things, the birth from a woman; which birth is considered among us in a human manner and according to us, but in the Only-Begotten it is above our manner; for it was God who was becoming incarnate. Wherefore the holy Virgin is also called Theotokos. But if they say that God and man coming together at the same point constituted one Christ, while the hypostasis of each is preserved inconfusedly, but is divided by reason, one can easily see that they have no accurate understanding or speech regarding this. For, as they say, it is not that God and man coming together constituted one Christ, but, as I have said, being C already God, the Word partook in like manner with us of blood and flesh, in order that He might be understood to have become human as God, and having taken our flesh, and having made it His own, that, just as the man according to us is understood to be from . . . D
exist as one, both Son and Lord. For it is confessed that there is one nature of man, and one hypostasis, even if it be considered as from differing things and things of different kind. For while the body is admittedly of a different nature from the soul, yet it is its own, and contributes to the realization of the hypostasis of the one man. And by mind and contemplation, the difference of the things named is not obscure, yet the union, or concurrence—since it is indivisible—constitutes the man—that B is, the living being—one. Therefore, the Only-begotten Word of God, though He did not come forth as man by having assumed a man, but, though He had an ineffable generation from God the Father, having created a temple for Himself through the Holy and consubstantial Spirit, became man. Therefore, He is also conceived as one, even if, in the contemplation according to reason, His body was of a different nature from Him. But let it be confessed everywhere, that it was not inanimate, but animated by a rational soul. [alt-version omitted]
I have, however, heard that some have fallen into such madness B that they do not blush to say that the Word of God dwelt in that man born of the Virgin, as in one of the sons, and deified him. But this, most excellent men, I would say to them, is not the Word of God becoming incarnate or becoming man; but rather [it implies He] merely dwelt in a man, just as, for example, He dwelt in one of the holy prophets. But the reason of the mystery according to us, as has been slightly indicated above, teaches that the Word of God the Father Himself became flesh, according to the Scriptures, not that He underwent any natural change or alteration, C so as to be turned into flesh, but that He made for Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, and He Himself went forth as man, not having been joined to a man, nor having dwelt in a man, as they say. But to say that the one in whom He dwelt was deified, as they assert (for we consider this to be utterly to be rejected), how does this not carry the sign of the greatest folly? For it fights against the goal of the divine Scripture. For the inspired Paul says that the Word of God, being in the form and D equality with God the Father in all respects, did not count it a prize to be equal to God, but rather emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men as a man, and humbled Himself. But they, twisting the nature of things to the very opposite, and impiously adulterating the power of the truth, say that the man was deified. Then who is it that emptied Himself, O most excellent men, and how has He been humbled? What, tell me, is the form of a servant that He took? For the doctrine from them introduces to us, as it seems, a man being exalted from our lowliness, and from the...
A kenosis corresponding to us, ascending to the fullness of the Godhead, and being transferred from the form of a servant into the Lordly form. How then, I ask, do they say that the Only-begotten has been emptied, or how do they say He endured our humiliation? I cannot conceive, unless perhaps they say He emptied Himself because He honored man with His own glory. And if, in honoring, He is wronged, and by glorifying He is emptied, how would it not be better for someone to say that He ought neither to honor Him nor give any glory to any? For He would have remained in His own excellences, neither having honored nor having glorified the man who, as they themselves say, was made appropriate to Him. B Is it not the case that what they have decided to think and what they dare to speak will appear to everyone to be worthy of laughter and full of the most extreme stupidity? But the word of truth would never suspect that He had ever been emptied, if He were not full according to His own nature; nor would it conceive of any being humbled if it were not already and absolutely placed on high and in the loftiest position, and then having descended into that which it was not. And he who took the form of a servant will surely recognize that He had before it the freedom according to nature; and he does not know that the one who became man existed as this before he was made. Since, therefore, the holy and divinely inspired Scripture calls it a C kenosis, and a form of a servant, and furthermore humanity, and says that the One who willingly endured these things is the Word from God the Father, why do they themselves distort the ingenious character of this so-admired dispensation toward the opposite, by saying that a man has been deified, so that Christians no longer differ at all from those who have worshipped the creature besides the Creator? D Or perhaps they will concede that, together with us, the very holy angels have also been led astray, who, as the sacred Scripture says, were commanded to worship the Firstborn having been brought into the world. How, indeed, could we adapt the name "Firstborn" to the Only-begotten who has not become man? For if that saying is true, "as among many brethren," then he is reasonably understood as Firstborn when He descended to brotherhood—that is to say, toward us—when He became man like us, having been made like in all things, save for sin alone. It is sufficient for us for piety to consider and understand that the flesh of Him who gives life to all things possesses the life-giving power and operation of the Word Himself; it has also attained an ineffable and unapproachable glory. There is nothing unreasonable about those who have decided to think these things also bringing other calumnies against the sacred dogmas, removing from the person of the Only-begotten the insults He endured at the hands of the Jews, and the death according to the flesh itself, and assigning these instead, as to a son, to another, a separate man born of a woman. For it seems to them, I know not how, that through this road, which is not straight toward piety, they are leaping down into the precipice of Hades, and into the bottom of Hades, according to that which is written. For the divine nature is admittedly impassable and completely untouched—for it is not according to a body, but is beyond every creature, both visible and intelligible...
A and in an incorporeal, and immaculate, and intangible, and incomprehensible nature. But because the only-begotten Word of God, having taken a body from the holy and Theotokos Virgin, and having—as I have already said many times—made it His own, offered Himself for us to God and the Father as an immaculate sacrifice in an odor of sweetness B, for this reason it is said that He endured those things which happened to His flesh. For to whom the body belongs as His own, to him would the things of that body rightly be ascribed, and all things pertaining to it, sin alone excepted. Therefore, since the Word of God became man, He indeed remained impassable according to His divine nature, but necessarily appropriating the things of His own flesh, He is said to have suffered according to the flesh, even though He is C untried by suffering, insofar as He is understood as God.
A pretense of piety therefore leads them away from the truth, because they do not reflect that, while the impassability is preserved to Him insofar as He is and exists as God, there is also ascribed to Him the suffering for us according to the flesh, insofar as, being God by nature, He became flesh, that is, a perfect man. For who, I ask, was He who said to the Father and God in heaven: "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire, but a body Thou hast prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure. Then I said: Behold, I come to do Thy will, O God"? D For He who is without a body, as God, affirms that a body was prepared for Him, so that, by offering this for us, He might heal us all by His own stripe, according to the voice of the prophet. But how, if He alone is worth the price of all, can He have died for all, if the passion is considered as that of just any man? If, however, He suffered humanly, as one appropriating the passions of His own flesh, then, and only then, do we say, and most rightly, that His death according to the flesh is considered to be worth the life of all—not as though He were one of us, even if He became as we are, but because, being God by nature, He was incarnate and made man according to the confession of the holy Fathers.
If, however, some remove the passion according to the flesh from the Only-Begotten, as though it were unseemly, unfitting, and foreign to Him, let them likewise remove also His birth according to the flesh from the holy Virgin. For if it is among the things foreign to Him to be said to have suffered in the flesh, why, prior to this, is not the first thing—that is, the birth according to the flesh—or, simply to say it, the very manner of His incarnation, also [foreign]? The mystery of the Christians thereby perishes, and the hope of our salvation is henceforth rendered vain.
But, you may say, "How, then, could He suffer, who is subject to no passion?" The Word of God, as I have said, is undoubtedly impassable according to His own nature; yet He is said to have suffered in His own flesh, according to the Scriptures; for He Himself was in
A that suffering body. And the blessed Peter will confirm this for you, writing concerning Him: "Who bore our sins in His own body upon the tree." Therefore, while the Word is impassable, insofar as He is understood to be God by nature, yet the sufferings of His flesh are truly considered to be His own, by way of a dispensatory appropriation. For otherwise, how could the firstborn of every creature, He through whom Principalities, Powers, Thrones, and Dominions were made, and in whom all things consist, become the firstborn from the dead and the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, if God the Word did not make the body which was born capable of suffering His own? Just as He was born of a woman according to the flesh, appropriating to Himself the birth after our manner, though He possessed His own birth from the Father, so He is also said to suffer in the flesh according to us and in a human way, although, insofar as He is understood to be God, impassibility belongs to Him by nature. B For it is in this way that Christ is understood; in this way He also sits with the Father, not as a man honored by the indwelling of the Word of God, but as the Son in truth, even when He had become man. For the dignity of the eminence that exists in Him by essence has remained intact for Him, even if, according to the dispensation, He appeared in the form of a servant. Therefore, as I have said, although He was a partaker of our nature as a man, yet with this He was also above every creature as God.
Furthermore, I have heard someone who, when explaining the cause of His ascension into heaven, said that He had gone back to a place that was safe and exposed to no violence, and that He had also attained the dignity and prerogative of sitting with the Father; where, he says, the enemy of our nature cannot draw near to Him and plot against Him again. Has heaven, then, tell me, become for Him a fortress, and is His departure from us rather a flight, and not an ascension, that on which we boast? For was He afraid, as one might suppose, lest the wicked one should perhaps set a second snare for Him? And if He had not gone up, would He have been plotted against, as it seems, even after the resurrection? Who would not flee far from such vomit? Or who would not recoil from such shameful monstrosity of speech, bidding a long farewell to those who dare to think, or to say, such things? Away with such most loathsome and groveling thought. Nothing, I suppose, is more characteristic of old wives' tales or more ignorant than this. For the matter of their thoughts reaches such a degree of vulgarity that nothing could be more shameful. For when Christ had completed the dispensation concerning us, and had trampled down Satan, and had shaken off all his power, and had destroyed the power of death itself, He inaugurated for us a new and living way, C ascending into heaven, and appearing on our behalf before the face of God and the Father, as it is written.
A And He is seated with Him even in the flesh, not as a man considered separately, nor as a Son other than His own Word, nor as one who has Him as an inhabitant, but as the Son, truly one and the only one existing, even when He became man. He is seated, therefore, as God with God, and Lord with Lord, and Son with the Father in truth, possessing this by nature, even if He is considered in the flesh. And perhaps it would not have been difficult to demonstrate at greater length the abyss of their ignorance; but to refute such jejune follies with a more elaborate discourse might perhaps be to share the ignorance of those who have trifled with such things. I think it necessary, however, to add to what has been said something through which they think they can strike terror into the congregation of the Lord, according to what is written, and shoot in the dark at the upright in heart, that is, those who have chosen to live in simplicity of mind, and who, having received the tradition of the faith like some deposit stored in their minds, keep it holy and incorrupt. For those who are skilled in deception, and who, by means of inventions of thoughts woven in a complex way, lead the more simple-minded away from the pursuit of the truth, imitating the malice of other heretics, foolishly put forward what is their habit, not understanding what is written: "Woe to those who give their neighbor a turbid subversion to drink." For the defenders of the impiety of Arius say that the Only-begotten Word of God is of a different essence, and they place Him in the second rank after Him who begot Him; they contend that He is created and made, and they rank B Him among creatures—He through whom are all things, and in whom are all things. Then, curiously inquiring into the mystery of the dispensation of the Only-begotten in the flesh, they most wickedly corrupt the power of the truth; and, while themselves laboring under the guilt of the opinion of Apollinaris, they insist that the Word of God took flesh, but indeed not one endowed with an intelligent soul—rather that the Word Himself fulfills the functions of mind and soul in the assumed body. And as I have said, they are caught doing this with the utmost craftiness. For that we might not think the human utterances of the Lord to have been spoken by way of dispensation, and in accordance with the measure befitting humanity since He became man, they stealthily deprive the flesh of the intelligent soul that dwells within it. Thus they also degrade Him, and say that He is essentially inferior to the Father, impiously gleaning the pretexts for their slander against Him from the sacred Scriptures. But behold, even now the zealots of their ignorance, bitter against those who do not accept the profane novelties of words of Nestorius, C are attacking us, and are besieging the right and blameless faith, gathering together heaps of empty notions. For they say that the divine Paul said concerning the Savior of us all, Christ, that "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man; He humbled..."
Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name which is above every name." And indeed elsewhere he says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself"; A and again, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." They also adapt to their own purposes the words of Peter, saying at one time: "Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him"; and again: "The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead."
Having set forth these passages, along with those things which are spoken in another manner according to His humanity, they immediately inquire with malicious intent, spinning out bitter arguments from their evil conceptions: To whom did God and the Father give the name which is above every name? Was it to His own Word? And how, they say, is that not a thing altogether absurd? For He was always God, begotten of Him according to nature. And this name "which is above every name"—how could it be rightly understood? For what is there above God by nature? Or whom did He anoint with the Holy Spirit, or with whom was God? Bringing forward other things along with these, they throw into great confusion and fill with turmoil the minds of the simpler folk B. But everywhere they attempt to divide—for they are "sensual, not having the Spirit"—and they are caught by their own arguments attempting to distinguish the one Christ, and Son, and Lord, into two sons. For they pretend to confess one Christ and Son, and say that His person is one; but by dividing Him again into two hypostases, separated and estranged from one another, they completely distort the doctrine of the mystery. For they say that the one born of a woman, or rather the form of a servant, received by Himself and alone the name which is above every name, and that He underwent the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and that He always keeps with Him the God who is alongside, that is to say, the Word born of God the Father; and they openly belch forth words that reek of the most extreme folly. For being evil, they could not speak good things, according to the voice of the Savior. C For He who was confessedly, and is always, God and Lord, who has the birth from God the Father as both ineffable and beyond inquiry, because He became man of a woman according to the flesh—yet paradoxically and above us—through the visitation of the Holy Spirit and the overshadowing of the power of God, having indeed submitted to the birth such as ours (for so He is said to have emptied Himself, and to have humbled Himself, and to have become in obedience to the...
A death and the cross), for this reason, and very rightly, He is said to have received the name that is above every name, and at His name every knee bows, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth; and every tongue will confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. For the rational nature did not ignore that He who became man was God. For even if He has come to be in circumstances such as ours, and in a similar fashion has partaken with us of blood and flesh, yet He has not departed from being God, nor has He cast away that which He was; for He has remained to be worshipped to the glory of God the Father. For it is His glory to have His own Son, reigning and worshipped together with Him; even if He has become man by dispensation, that He might save that which is under heaven.
B When therefore, both by the holy angels and by us who dwell on earth, He is believed to be God in nature and truth, even while wearing flesh, then He is understood to have received that name which is above every name; not as though He had obtained the matter as an addition (for how could He, who was and is and will be always, receive it as one who did not have it?), but rather because God and the Father illumined the minds of all, and did not permit it to be ignored that the incarnate Word is God by nature. For, "No one," He says, "can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him." In a similar way, His anointing also concerned the human nature. For whereas the Only-Begotten, who is begotten of the Father, was holy by nature no less than the Father, He is said to be anointed according to us—that is, sanctified by the Father—inasmuch as He appeared as a man. On which account the most wise Paul writes C concerning both Him and us: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: 'I will proclaim your name to my brothers.'" Since, therefore, the Only-Begotten is holy by nature, and is the one who sanctifies the creation, yet when He was made our brother, then according to the human nature He is said to be anointed with us, not having spurned the measure befitting and appropriate to the human nature, by reason of the dispensation. For thus He says somewhere to the blessed Baptist: "For it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." But if God be said to be with Him also, how do those acute sophists not understand that the Father is naturally always with the Son D, and is Himself in Him, and has Him in Himself? Or do they not remember what Christ says: "Have I been with you so long, and have you not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?" And He said also el-
-Asewhere, addressing the disciples: "The hour comes, and is now here, that you will be scattered each to your own, and will leave me alone; and I am not alone, because the Father is with me." For it is not the case—as those who are foolishly filled with the vomit of others imagine—that the Word, who was God, being one Son, became with another Son, the one who was taken from man (for this is a severance and a division, introducing a duality of sons); but the God and Father was with the Son, that is, with the God the Word who was incarnate and become man; for the Father is inseparable from the Son.
B And if God is indeed to judge the world in the man whom He has established, no sensible person would think that the holy Scripture affirms that the Only-begotten of God, as a Son considered separately in a man, that is to say, in the one from a woman, will judge the world. We assert, rather, that it is pious to understand what Christ said: "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." For the God the Word, having become man, and having been numbered among men—that is, having been named thus among us—will be none the less Judge, as God and Lord, and as one Son, since the God and Father is also in Him. For He has, as I said, the One who begat Him abiding in Himself; and He Himself, in turn, is in the Father. And just as there is one God and Father, from whom all things are, so also there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are. C Yet they none the less pervert to a base meaning what was rightly said through the voice of the blessed Paul. For he said, and very rightly, that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself." But they, again, by bringing a division upon the one Christ and Son, tear the God the Word away entirely, and assert that He resides in some other Christ as if considered separately, so that He might be understood to have dwelt in a man D rather than to have assumed flesh. But I call upon you, O wise men, the aim of the divine Scriptures does not permit these things to be so. For you confound the reading, dragging the power of the concepts to where it is not fitting; although we ought to take every thought captive into the obedience of Christ, as it is written. For God was in Him, reconciling the world in Christ. For being reconciled to Christ, we are brought into reconciliation with God and the Father, because the God the Word, who is from the Father, is not another beside Him—at least as far as identity of essence is concerned—being in no way harmed, in so far as it is to be by nature the Son, even if He has become man; for He was this even after the flesh. And as to the fact that we have received the reconciliation in Christ, and that He Himself is our peace, who would dare to say
otherwise? For He is the door, and the way; and in Him all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily.
But again, that man, keen in observation and vehement in calumny, pricks up his ears and says: If the one who dwells is one, and he who is said to be dwelt in is another in similar fashion, what reason is there why we must not divide the hypostases, and say that each subsists separately? Tell me then, where at last will there be one person? For although they pretend to posit a single person, yet with two hypostases placed separately and by themselves, there will surely be two persons as well. Truly, they enter in like legislators, holding that whatever seems right to them is absolutely valid. For by separating the hypostases, they say, we unite the person. And how is this not incredible, foolish, and impossible? For as far as contemplation and reason are concerned, as I have said, anyone can easily understand that the flesh is of a different substance from the Word that is joined to it. But because the divine B Scriptures have handed down to us one Son, one Lord, and one Christ, and the tradition of the faith stands thus and not otherwise, therefore we, joining the Word of God the Father by an indissociable union with His flesh, which is endowed with an intelligent soul, confess that there is one Christ and Son. And just as there is one Son, so we assert that there is only one person of Him, following everywhere the divine and holy preaching, and those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. But those who are accustomed to think anything different from this, and who deflect their course toward matters they ought not, through the inventions of senseless syllogisms, we shall cast out from our communion, saying: "Walk in the light of your fire and in the flame which you have kindled."
But since I hear that certain foolish men are going about and saying that the perverse doctrine of Nestorius has prevailed among all the most pious C bishops of the East, and that it is deemed correct by them, and that it is thought better to follow it, I have judged it necessary to indicate this also: for the most religious bishops throughout the whole East, together with my lord the most religious John, bishop of the Church of Antioch, have made it plain to all by a written and clear confession that they condemn and anathematize the profane innovations of the words of Nestorius just as we do, and that they have never in any place held them; but that they have followed the evangelical and apostolic dogmas, and in no way oppose the confession of the holy Fathers. For they professed, just as we do, that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and they did not add that she is the Mother of Christ or the Mother of a man, as they say who D cherish the wretched and detestable opinions of Nestorius. But they even stated clearly that there is one Christ, and Son, and Lord, the one from God [the Father...]
those who defend the opinions of Nestorius. They have asserted in plain words, that there is one Son, one Lord, one Christ; namely, the Word of God, begotten of God the Father in an ineffable manner before all ages, and the same one born of a woman according to the flesh in these latter times: so that the same one is God and man together, perfect in deity and perfect again in humanity. A They believe, finally, that his person is one, and they do not in any way divide him into two sons, or two Christs, or two lords. If, therefore, there are any who falsely claim that they think otherwise than this, they should not be believed; but as impostors and liars, they should be dismissed after the manner of their father, the devil, so that they may not disturb those who desire to walk uprightly. If any, moreover, circulate letters written by themselves as if composed by men of greater reputation, they should not be emboldened. For those who have once confessed the faith in writing, how can they write otherwise, as if turned away from repentance so as no longer to wish to think correctly? Greet the brotherhood with you; the brotherhood with us greets you in the Lord. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord. B
172 (1) EPISTLE LI (ol. XLV)
OF POPE XYSTUS TO CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, AFTER PEACE WAS MADE BETWEEN CYRIL HIMSELF AND JOHN.
That he had made known the report of this matter in the assembly of bishops. How great the joy of the Church is from this. That the outcome of Cyril’s labors was happy, and that they were found acceptable by him and his council in all respects.
Xystus, bishop, to Cyril, bishop of Alexandria.
1. We are filled with great joy and eagerness, because, as we read, the Orient from on high has visited us (Luke 1:78). For indeed, to us who were anxious, because we did not wish anyone to perish, your holiness indicated that the body of the Church had been restored by your letters. As its joints return to their own members, we see no one wandering outside anymore, because one faith bears witness to all who are placed within. We rejoice that the one who caused this work has been removed from our midst; for now he believes in himself alone when he does not believe that which, as we profess, has benefited all. C
2. But it is fitting for us to pass from sad things to joyful ones, because He, concerning whom the question had been raised, having removed the grief of the universal Church, granted us a time of joy. Our God, Christ, has shown how truly it was His own cause, when He deigned to govern things in such a way as to preserve the judgment of such a matter and such a cause for the assembly of His priests. The apostles, gathered into one, often discussed the faith: into one, He who understands perceived that it had been harmful, he who struggled against this (4) and he whom we profess to have benefited all.
But it is fitting for us to pass from sad things to joyful ones, because He, concerning whom the question had been raised, having removed the grief of the universal Church, granted us a time of joy. Our God, Christ, has shown how truly it was His own cause, when He deigned to govern things in such a way as to preserve the D indication of such a matter and such a cause for the assembly of His priests. The apostles, gathered into one, often discussed the faith: into one
A assembly come together, and now those apostolic men rejoice concerning his victory. O report worthy of him who sends it, worthy of those assembled! The sign of heavenly joy deserved to have such witnesses. And because the matter and the cause demand it, it is fitting that the place should not be passed over in silence.
3. The whole brotherhood gathers at the blessed apostle Peter: behold an auditorium suitable for the hearers, suitable for those who are to be heard. Our co-bishops have had him as that witness of congratulation, whom we have as the beginning of our honor; for as for the holy and venerable synod, which the day of my birth, by the favor of the Lord, gathered, because it must be believed that He Himself presided over it, since it is proven that He was absent neither in spirit nor in body. He who did not fail in the struggle was present for the victory; he aided the vows of our souls, he who sees B the symbol first delivered among the apostles being disparaged: He did not suffer the impious head to enjoy comforts, nor did He long permit the purity of that clear fountain to be disturbed by a muddy whirlpool. The brothers have returned to us, to us, I say, who, pursuing the disease with common zeal, have cared for the health of souls.
4. If our holy brother John added anything, he is not deceived by the blasphemous preaching of that man; for, as the outcome of events teaches, he suspended his judgment, he did not deny the faith. For what else could he judge concerning the inventor of evils, except C that which is proven to be his own sentiment by his priests who were gathered at the synod of Ephesus? It had surely established this concerning the deserter of our camp, that it should be judged as perfidy by the leaders of the faith. He would never have separated himself from our number, into which he was able to return.
5. Exult, dearest brother, and, with the brothers collected to us, exult as a victor. The Church was seeking those whom she has received. For if we do not wish any of the little ones to perish, how much more should we rejoice at the health of the righteous ones? We read how much joy one sheep brought back; and therefore it must be understood what praise there is in having recalled so many shepherds. The flocks are breathed upon in individuals; nor is the cause of one person being treated here, as often as the health of many comes into question. We rejoice D here that we did nothing immaturely, when we congratulate ourselves on the fruit of our decision. We sustained the brothers, certain that they were not to produce thorns, but grapes. The vintage of our joys is evident, which filled the holy synod with the abundance of rejoicing. That shepherd, whom the prophet David testifies neither slumbers nor sleeps when guarding the house of Israel, has cared for His vineyard. He received the branch that was unfruitful to our Christ, nor bearing fruit, into the fire. But as we see this happening to the condemned man, so it is fitting to say concerning the brothers who returned to us, that the planting which the Father had planted could not be eradicated by the devil. Therefore, let that man to himself
A make the truth; and therefore it is now time to insult falsehood, since nothing could perish before the truth.
7. We await, therefore, the clerics of our aforementioned brother John, and we desire them to come, and to make reply for your honor and labor. You are not, B as we have often written to our brother and fellow bishop Maximian, even he himself being difficult to open the door to those returning, so that, in truth, unless it be the son of perdition, no one may be lost; and may he have a greater cause for mourning, because he alone deserved to be excluded. This the holy fraternity with me writes to your veneration, approving C and confirming your labors in all things: which, however, could not be heavy or bitter, because they are spent for Him, whose light burden and sweet yoke we bear. Given on the 17th of the Kalends of October, in the consulship of Theodosius (the 13th time) and Maximus. D
LETTER LII (formerly XLVI)
POPE XYSTUS III TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH
The joy of the Church at John’s return. The justice of the sentence passed against Nestorius. The constancy of the Roman Church in preserving the faith, and the zeal of the emperors for the sake of that same faith. How suitable Maximianus is to remedy the evils brought about by Nestorius.Xystus, Bishop, to John, Bishop of Antioch.
If your affection were to consider the glory of the ecclesiastical body, it would surely not seek an interpreter for our joy. For the facts themselves speak most evidently, that our grief has been converted into joy by the sudden sermon of our holy brother Cyril. It delights us, therefore, that we have escaped this great anxiety of ours, since your health—your repentance—has been restored to the criminal of our faith. A
2. Now indeed he feels himself an exile. Thorns abound for him in the desert, because the grape is lacking which he might gather. Such are the fruits for him who refused to cultivate the vineyard of our Lord. I believe that the course and order of events have reached your affection, as to how we wished to aid him with our admonition. We held him back as he was rushing headlong, he who was about to be sunk into the depths by the weight of his blasphemies. If we weigh the nature of the business on a fair scale, to none will it appear that Nestorius was condemned too late. He B will have been the due speech of the past. Let us now enjoy the present good things, nor let us linger long in the sorrows which the Lord has permitted us to cease from.
3. The entire brotherhood has heard of the day which had reached me for my anniversary, how, for the good of the human race, the apostolic see under my presidency... Although these matters exceed my merit and I recognize that they are beyond me, I nonetheless accept the beginning of your sermon with gratitude, because you have no controversy to bear forward, you who confess Christ our Lord as having been born for the good of the human race. Subsequently, you add that the Church is a light-bearer (lucifer) and shining everywhere. But even now we, or rather all of us who bear the sign of that light on our forehead, confess ourselves to be light-bearers. Therefore, may all priests preaching the faith of the Lord be light-bearers and shining everywhere. C
4. And that Nestorius is the light-bearer of whom it is written: “The light-bearer that rose in the morning has fallen.” He fell, but he fell while prideful; he fell, but he was crushed when attempting to ascend. D
disposes in heaven, and to place his throne above the stars, and promises that he would be like the Most High. He fashioned himself after the likeness of the Most High; he sought to call the Most High into his own likeness. For he proclaimed that he was merely a man born, taking away the mystery of the incarnation, and rendering it void, nay rather attacking it, upon which our faith and salvation according to the creed rest. It is no longer a time for contention, once the enemy has been prostrate: we must pass on from those things that incited wars; it is inopportune in a time of victory to still dispute about battles.
5. What greater proof of things can there be here, what greater reason, than the palm? Let us enjoy, with the Lord as author, this good and pleasant thing, because we have begun again to dwell together as brothers. We wish your Holiness to proclaim these things which you write. You have experienced, from the outcome of the present business, what it is to think with us. The blessed apostle Peter handed down in his successors that which he received. Who would wish to separate himself from the doctrine of him whom the Teacher himself instructed as the first among the apostles? Not hearing through another, not a read sermon instructed him: he was taught with the others by the mouth of the Teacher. He suffered no question of scriptures or of writers; he received an absolute and simple faith, and one that would have no controversy, which we certainly ought always to meditate upon and remain in, so that, following the apostles with a pure mind, we may deserve to be among the apostolic ones. Not a little burden, not a little labor lies upon us, that the Church of the Lord might be without spot or wrinkle. B
6. But for that which, as the Apostle says, there is one faith, and which C overcame victoriously, let us say that it must be believed, and let us say that it must be held. Let nothing further be permitted to novelty, because it is fitting that nothing be added to antiquity. Let the clear belief of our ancestors not be muddied by any admixture of mire. He has proven to us the man, our brother and fellow-bishop Maximian, a priest of the Constantinopolitan Church, consecrated there by divine judgment, so that the disease of the infirmity which the poisons of intrigue alone had poured in, may be overcome by the sweetness of simplicity succeeding it; for he will not be able to preach anything there other than what we believe, except what he heard frequently while he was placed with us by my predecessors. Given on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of October, in the consulship of Theodosius (fourteenth time) and Maximus.
LETTER LIII.
CYRILLUS TO THE HOLY POPE XYSTUS
(Fragment.)I for my part am not convicted of having at any time entertained any opinion other than what appears to the truth, nor have I ever said that the divine nature of the Word is susceptible to passion. And shortly after: But I know also that the nature of God is impassible and D unchangeable and immutable, even in the nature of humanity, and one in both and e...
unchanging and unalterable, even in the nature of his humanity, and [that he is] one Christ in both and from both.
EPISTLE LIV CYRIL TO EUSEBIUS THE PRESBYTER
He informs Eusebius, who was distressed that the peace of the Church had been initiated as if it had been entered into in a manner other than reason demanded, about everything: namely, upon what condition he restored communion to John of Antioch; that he had forgiven the insults directed against himself for the sake of the good of peace; and that the adversaries had confessed in writing that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and that there are two natures in Christ with unity of person.
B I have read the letter of your reverence, and since I perceived that it was grieving, as if the peace of the Churches had been composed not according to reason, I concluded that your gentleness was moved by charity, although it did not seem to have been accurately informed about what had been decided. For as I learn, some are circulating letters as if written to me by the most reverend and pious bishop John; yet it is likely that these are either forged or contain certain additions quite pleasing to those who hold the opinions of Nestorius. For, according to what seemed right to the holy synod in the metropolis of the Ephesians, I did not restore communion to him before he had anathematized in writing the dogmas of Nestorius, and had confessed that he holds him to be deposed, and had consented to the ordination of the most reverend and pious bishop Maximian. C But when the most pious bishop of the Emesenes, Paul, had suffered infinite things from those who had been deposed—I mean Helladius and Eutherius and Dorotheus and Himerius—and asked that the hypothesis, along with the peace of the Churches, should have its form according to their model, I answered that I took no account of those who had been deposed, but that they must remain in that state in which all others are. Nevertheless, I pardoned the insults with which they had treated me. For it was not fitting that, for this cause alone, the Churches should be split into opposing opinions, while that which was most necessary had already been brought to an end—namely, that the tenets of Nestorius should be anathematized, and that those who had long refused to do this should acknowledge and approve his deposition.
D They confessed in writing that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and that he himself, who before all time was born of the Father as the only-begotten Son, was in the last times of the age born according to the flesh from a woman; and that there is one person of the Son, and that those who handle divine matters apply the apostolic and evangelic utterances aptly, using some concerning his divinity and others, again, concerning his humanity. For Nestorius indeed, dividing the one Son and Christ and Lord into two, placed the man separately and the Son separately; and the Word from God separately, and another Son separately. And he used to say that some of these utterances were of the man, and others of the Word of God. But the [doctrine] rightly [concerning] Chri...
knowledge of the Word of God, it is not so. For we acknowledge one Son and Christ and Lord, the same being God and man; and we say that His divinity is His, and likewise His humanity. For He speaks sometimes as God, as it befits God, and sometimes the same one as man, as it befits man. Since, therefore, those men had confessed these things, how was it not superfluous for those who were unwilling that a schism should prevail, and that the Eastern Churches should incline toward heresy, to continue to strive further? Would that all the others were also disposed in the same way! B For Helladius of Tarsus and some others, even if they do not think rightly, this matters nothing to those who prefer to think rightly. For let two or three depart, if they wish, while all the Churches everywhere hold one and the same faith. Nor let your holiness be ignorant of this: for when the aforementioned Paul, bishop of Emesa, had come to Alexandria, he said that some had lied about your reverence, as if you said that the nature of the divinity is passible, and that the Word brought down His own flesh from heaven, and that afterward He suffered in the nature of flesh. It was necessary, therefore, that the errors of the false speakers should be made manifest to the simpler folk, so that they might not be scandalized by those who noise these things abroad. For this reason, writing to the most religious John, bishop of the Antiochenes, I laughed at their calumnies. For I have not come to think this way through any change C of mind, nor in any tome, or epistle, or book am I found to have ever said anything of the sort. But as for the name of co-essentiality, we do not know at all what it signifies. It is likely that those who write such things there, while striving to purge themselves of the rash daring which they used against us at Ephesus, babble certain such things, so that they may not appear to have been moved in vain. For their conscience convicts them. Let your reverence, therefore, answer those who speak falsehoods instead of the truth; for all things have been done safely and securely. The beloved deacon Casius, one of those who went to Antioch, can also say how many days he spent there, not giving him the letters of communion D unless he first wrote a document concerning all these things.
Epistle LV (formerly XLVII)
Since Cyril had discovered from faithful friends that some of the Orientals were abusing even the Nicene Creed itself to cover over and secretly disseminate a perverse meaning, he set out to interpret that true and catholic sense in order to exclude their deceitful interpretations.
Of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, on the Holy Creed
To the beloved and most longed-for Anastasius, Alexander, Martinian, John, Paregorius the presbyter, and Maximus the deacon, and the rest of the fathers of the orthodox faith of the monks, and to those with you who lead a
A solitary life, and are established in the faith of God, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.
I am able, even now, to commend the love of learning and the diligence of your charity, not indifferently, but I say that it is highly to be esteemed. For who would not greatly admire one who desires divine doctrines, and who is fond of pursuing the correctness of sacred dogmas? For this is the provider of an endless and blessed life, and the zeal expended on these things will not be unrewarded. For our Lord Jesus Christ says to the Father and God in heaven: “And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John XVII, 3). For a right and irreprehensible faith, having as its companion the brightness that comes from good works, fills us with every good thing, and shows us to have attained a distinguished glory. But the brightness of works, if it should appear to be lacking in right dogmas and an unblamable faith, would, I think, in no way profit the soul of man. For just as faith without works is dead (Jac. II, 20), so we say that it is true, also, that the reverse is the case. Therefore, let the integrity of faith also shine forth together with the glories of an honest life. For thus shall we be perfect, according to the law of the most wise Moses: “Thou shalt be perfect,” he says, B “before the Lord thy God” (Deut. XVIII, 13).
But those who out of foolishness have despised having a right faith, although they adorn themselves with an honest life, are in a way compared to men who have indeed an ingenuous shape of face, but whose eyes are wandering and distorted; and therefore that which was said by the Lord through the voice of Jeremiah to Jerusalem, the mother of the Jews, is appropriate to them: “Behold, thine eyes are not right, nor is thy heart good” (Jerem. XXII, 17, as per the LXX reading). It behooves you, therefore, above all, to possess a sound mind in yourselves, and to be mindful of the holy Scripture, which addresses you and says: “Let thine eyes look aright” (Prov. IV, 25). The right vision, however, of the eyes C hidden within is to be able, as far as it is permitted, to see subtly and accurately whatever discourses are made concerning God. For we see in a mirror and in an enigma, and we know in part (I Cor. XIII, 12); but He who reveals deep things out of darkness (Job XII, 22) pours the light of truth into those who wish to grasp a right knowledge of Him. We must, therefore, fall down before God, saying: “Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep in death” (Psal. XII, 4); for to fall away from the correctness of sacred dogmas is nothing else than to sleep manifestly in death; and we fall away from this correctness when we do not follow the divinely inspired Scriptures, but incline the inclinations of our own mind, either D toward preconceived and unpraiseworthy opinions, or through zeal and propensity toward those who do not walk rightly concerning the faith, and we are convicted of harming our own souls above all others. Therefore, one must assent to those who diligently examine the right faith according to the sense of the sacred preachings, through which they have been handed down by the Holy Spirit.
by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. A Their footsteps were also zealously followed by our most celebrated Fathers, who defined the venerable and universal Symbol of faith when they were gathered at Nicaea in times past. Christ himself sat with them, saying: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." For how is it permitted to doubt that Christ was invisibly the president of that holy and great synod? For a basis and a firm and unshakable foundation was being laid—or rather, cast—across the whole world, namely that confession of a sincere and irreprehensible faith. B If this is so, how could Christ be absent, when he himself is the foundation, according to the voice of the most wise Paul? "For other foundation," he says, "can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Therefore, those who followed them—holy Fathers, shepherds of the people, luminaries of the Churches, and most skilled teachers of mysteries—have preserved the faith set forth and defined by them in a manner beyond reproach.
No reader of the confessions (that is, the expositions) which the Fathers have made concerning the right and unadulterated faith could find anything at all missing, or overlooked that is necessary for benefit. These were crafted for the refutation and overthrow of every heresy and impious blasphemy, and for the strengthening and security of those who walk rightly in the faith—those to whom the brilliant morning star has risen, and to whom the day has dawned, as the Scriptures say, C and D the grace of holy baptism sends forth the light of truth.
Since your piety has written that some are distorting what is contained in the Symbol to where it does not belong, either not understanding the power of the words of the Symbol correctly, or else, because they are devoted to the writings of certain others, have been carried away into a reprobate sense, I thought it necessary that I too should discuss these very things with you and interpret clearly the meaning of the exposition; I have decided to speak cursorily of the things that come to mind. But following in all things the confession and sentiment of the holy Fathers, we shall examine correctly and with an uninclined mind the things said by them. For already, the holy synod D—that one, I mean, gathered in Ephesus according to the will of God—when it passed its holy and accurate judgment against the perverted opinion of Nestorius, at the same time and with an equal sentence condemned the novelties of words of others, as many as might exist after him, or had existed before him, who held the same views as he and dared to speak or write them. For it was consistent that, when a man had been condemned once for such profane novelties of words, not just one person should be struck, but, so to speak, their entire heresy and
A calumny, which they fabricate against the pious dogmas of the Church, while they preach two sons and divide the indivisible, and accuse of the crime of man-worship those who worship heaven and earth. For the holy multitude of the spirits above worships with us the one Lord Jesus Christ. But that the power of the Symbol, which holds authority in all the holy Churches of God and has been proclaimed, might not be unknown to some, I have inserted the opinions of the holy Fathers—that is, the expositions made in the commentaries there—so that those who read them might know how it is fitting to understand the exposition of the holy Fathers, that is, the sincere Symbol of the right faith. I think, moreover, that your charity has also come upon the book which we have written concerning these same matters. And now, as I have said, having set forth the Symbol itself word for word, I will, with God’s help, immediately turn to interpreting clearly the individual points that are handed down in it. For I know that most blessed Peter wrote: « Being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. » B
The Nicene Symbol.
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of His substance; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth: who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven; and is coming to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when He was not; and before He was begotten He was not; and that He was made out of things that were not, or from another substance or essence; or who say that the Son of God is mutable or convertible: these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. CThey said they believe in one God, as if to cast down to the foundations the opinions of the Gentiles themselves: « Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed animals, and of reptiles. » But they worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and served the elements of this world, thinking that many and innumerable gods exist. Therefore, to subvert the error which hands down many gods, they name one God, so that they might fully agree with the sacred Scriptures and make known the beauty of the truth to all who are in the whole world. D This same thing the all-wise Moses also clearly declared:
A “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” And the Creator and Master of all things himself says somewhere: “There shall be no other gods for you besides me.” And indeed, through the voice of the holy prophets: “I am the Lord first, and I am hereafter, and there is no one besides me.”
Most excellently, therefore, did the all-praised Fathers, in laying the foundation for the faith, define that we ought to think and say that there is one only God by nature and in truth, and they confessed their belief in one God. They also designate Him as “Father Almighty,” so that with the Father the declaration of the Son might be brought in—the One because of whom He is Father—as simultaneously subsisting and always co-existing. For the Father did not come into being in time, but what He is, He always is, that is to say, Father, existing beyond every created thing and in the highest of heights. For surely, to rule and be Master of all brings Him such a brilliant and incomparable glory. Furthermore, they say that all things—both those in heaven and those on earth—were created by Him, so that from this, his uncompounded nature toward all creation might be understood. For there is an incomparable difference between the Maker and the made, between the unbegotten and the begotten, and between a nature placed under the yoke of servitude and that which is adorned with the dignity of dominion and has attained to a glory befitting God and higher than the world. B
Moreover, when they made mention of the Son, lest they should appear to be attributing to Him a common name—which might perhaps be applied even to us ourselves (for we too have been called sons)—they most prudently added those points through which it is possible to see the dignity of the natural glory that is in Him, which is above every creature. For they say that He was begotten and not made, understanding that, in the fact that He was not made, He is essentially not to be reckoned in the order of creatures, but asserting that He sprang from the very essence of God the Father, timelessly and incomprehensibly: “For the Word was in the beginning.” Then, to express well the genuineness of the birth (and let this too be said in a human manner for the sake of utility), they declared the Son to be God begotten of God. For where there is a true birth in every respect, there it must necessarily follow that one should think and say that what is begotten is not alien to the essence of the One who begat it, but proper to it, because it is also from it, according to a reason that is fitting and congruent to it. For the incorporeal does not beget as a body does, but rather as light from light; so that in the shining light, the luminosity that has shone forth may be understood as light, and as being from Him according to an ineffable and unspeakable procession, and in Him according to union and natural identity. C For in this way we say that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. For the Son depicts His own Begetter in His own nature and glory. And indeed He said clearly to one of the holy disciples (this was Philip): “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? He who has seen me, has seen the Father. I and the Father are one.” Therefore, the Son is consubstantial with the Father. And thus, D even the true God from
A the true God is believed to have been begotten. We will find that the name of generation has been applied even to creatures, as, for instance, when God said concerning those who were of the blood of Israel, “I have begotten and exalted sons.” But the creature acquires such a title by way of grace. However, concerning the natural Son, nothing of this kind is said by way of abuse, but all things are true; and for this reason alone, out of all others, He says, “I am the truth.” Therefore, if anyone should speak of generation or sonship concerning Him, he would in no way be uttering a falsehood; for He Himself is the truth. The most renowned sacred teachers, therefore, guard our souls, everywhere naming Father and Son and generation, and saying that the true God shone forth from the true God, and light from light, so that the generation might possess both incorporeality and simplicity, and might hold the notion of one proceeding from Him and remaining in Him, and that each may be understood to exist in his own person. For the Father is the Father, and not the Son; and the Son is the One begotten, and not the Father; and in the identity of nature, it is proper to each to be what he is.
B When, moreover, they have proclaimed the Father as the maker of all things, both visible and invisible, they say that all things were created through the Son—not as though they were assigning Him a lesser glory, as if it were a lot befitting Him; far from it. For where in the identity of substance can there be seen anything at all less or greater? But rather, because it is innate to God and the Father to perform nothing and to call nothing into existence in any other way than through the Son in the Spirit, as through His own power and wisdom. For it is written, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were fixed, and by the spirit of His mouth all their power.” And indeed, also the all-wise John, when he said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” added necessarily, “All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing.”
C Having, therefore, demonstrated the Son to be consubstantial, of equal glory, and of equal efficacy in operation with the Father, they appropriately commemorate His having become man, and they set forth the mystery of the dispensation in the flesh, most rightly discerning that this is the most perfect tradition of the faith. For it is not sufficient for those who believe in Him merely to be persuaded and to hold that, as God, He has been begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with Him, and is the character of His substance; but it is also necessary to know, in addition to these things, that for the sake of the salvation and life of all, He humbled Himself to emptying, having taken the form of a servant, D and proceeded as a man, born according to the flesh of a woman. On account of this they say: “Who for us men and for our salvation came down, was incarnate, and was made man.” Observe, then, how in the fitting order and in the becoming arrangement
A the discourse of these men proceeds. For they said that he descended, so that through this we might understand that the Lord is above all things both by nature and by glory, and that the same one again descended for us men, in order to show that he willingly, I say, took on our likeness and shone forth upon the world with flesh. For it is written in the book of Psalms: “God shall come manifest, our God, and shall not keep silence.” And one may understand, if one chooses, the descent also in another way, namely, from heaven and from on high, or even from the Father himself. For it is the custom of the holy Scriptures to signify even those things which transcend understanding by words that are familiar to us. And thus he said, while conversing with his holy disciples: “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father,” and again: “You are from below; I am from above,” and besides these: “I went forth from the Father and have come.” And the divine John also writes: “He who comes from above is above all.” For although he was in the highest exaltation, and above all things essentially with his own Father, inasmuch as he is also crowned in identity of nature with him, he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and being found in habit as a man, he humbled himself.” For since the Word, who was God, put on our flesh, yet remained God even so, for this reason the most holy Paul says that God was made in the likeness of men and was found as a man in appearance. For he was God, as I said, in our form, and did not take on soulless flesh, as some of the heretics have seen fit to think, but rather flesh endowed with an intelligent soul. Therefore, the Fathers said that the Word himself, who went forth from the substance of the Father, and who is the only-begotten Son, the true God from true God, the light from light, he through whom all things were made, descended and was incarnate and became man—that is, he endured generation according to the flesh from a woman, and came forth in a form like our own; for this is what it means to be made man. B There is, then, one Lord Jesus Christ, the same only-begotten Word of the Father having become man, not having cast away what he was; for he remained God even in his humanity, and Lord even in the form of a servant, and in our emptying he possessed the fullness of divinity, and in the weakness of the flesh he was the Lord of powers, and in the measures of humanity he possessed as his own that which is above every creature. For what he was before the flesh, he possesses inalienably; for he was God, and the true Son, and only-begotten, and light, and life, and power. But what he was not, these things he is seen to have assumed on account of the dispensation; for he made the things of the flesh his own. For the flesh that was ineffably and inexpressibly united to him was not of someone else, but was rather his own. Thus also the wise John
A says: "The Word was made flesh." But he was made flesh not by changing, or turning, or altering his nature into the nature of the flesh; nor did he undergo any commingling, or blending, or that "consubstantiality" B often prated of by some (for this is impossible, since by nature he possesses a state that is immutable and inconvertible). Rather, he took flesh endowed with a rational soul from a virginal and undefiled body, and made it his own.
It is the custom of divinely inspired Scripture, C sometimes to denote the entire human being by the flesh alone: "For I will pour out," it says, "of my Spirit upon all flesh." For God did not promise that he would pour out his Spirit upon flesh not endowed with a rational soul, but rather upon human beings, who are composed of soul and body. Therefore, the Word did not depart from being what he was when he became man, but while appearing in a form like ours, he remained the Word. And Christ is not understood first as man, who then progressed so as to be God; but the Word, being God, became man, so that in the same one he might be understood as being both God and man.
But those who divide him into two sons, and who dare to say that God the Word joined to himself a man from the seed of Abraham, and communicated to him dignity, and honor, and the excellence of the status of sonship, and prepared him to endure the cross, to die, and to rise again, and to ascend into heaven, and to sit at the right hand of the Father, so that he might be worshipped by every creature, receiving honors by relation to God: such men first of all proclaim two sons, and then they ignorantly distort the power of the mystery. For Christ was not made God from a man, as I said, but the Word, being God, became flesh, that is to say, man. D He is said to have been emptied, because before the emptying he possessed the fullness in his own nature, in so far as he is understood as God. For he did not ascend from being empty to fullness, but rather humbled himself from divine heights and ineffable glory; he was not a humble man who was exalted by receiving glory. He took the form of a servant as the free one; he did not ascend to the glory of freedom while being a slave. He who was in the form and equality of the Father was made in the likeness of men; he was not a man who attained, by participation, to be made in the likeness of God.
Why, then, do they distort the words concerning the dispensation and adulterate the truth, rising up against all the divinely inspired Scriptures, which know that the Son is God who became man, and everywhere name him as one? Wherefore in the book of the creation of the world, Moses [*] wrote that the divine Jacob sent his children across the torrent of Jabbok, and remained alone; and a man wrestled with him until morning. And Jacob called the name of that place "The Appearance of God": "For I have seen," he says, "God face to face, and my soul has been saved." And the sun rose for him when the appearance of God had passed by; and Jacob was limping on his thigh.
A For God was showing in advance to the patriarch that his only-begotten Word would at some time become man, and that he would have Israel as an adversary, and that they would not walk uprightly around him, but would limp as it were, just as he himself says through the lyre of the Psalmist: "Strange children have lied to me; strange children have grown old and have limped from their paths." For I believe this denotes exactly what it means for Jacob to limp on his thigh.
Observe that singular detail: although a man had wrestled with him, he says that he has seen God face to face, and he calls him the appearance of God. For the Word of God remained, even after having become man, in the form of the Father—that is, I mean, in the intellectual image and in that which is in every respect unchanging. And this is why he said to Philip, showing himself to be the character of the Father’s substance even while in the flesh: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." And when he had met in the Temple a certain man who was blind from birth, whom he had healed, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" When that man said in response to this, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" he answered, saying, "You have both seen him, and it is he who is speaking with you." B And the blind man saw him not stripped or without flesh, but rather in a form similar to our own; and he believed in him whom he saw, not as a Son joined to another son, but as one who by nature and in truth shone forth upon those on earth, not without flesh.
Furthermore, the inspired Moses says in the blessings: "Give to Levi his manifestation and his truth to the holy man, whom they tested in temptation and reviled at the water of contradiction. Who says to his father and mother, ‘I have not seen you,’ and does not recognize his brethren." For the God of all had commanded that the high priestly robe be woven in various ways; this attire was becoming only to the high priesthood and was assigned to it. And upon the chest of the high priest were hanging certain stones, twelve in number, in the middle of which were arranged "manifestation and truth," two other stones. Now, through them, the choir of the holy apostles was enigmatically demonstrated, as if circling Emmanuel, who is "manifestation and truth"—for he has manifested the truth to us, bringing to an end the worship that was in shadows and types. C And as for the fact that the only-begotten Word of God became our high priest when he also became man, how can this be doubted, when the inspired Paul writes in this manner: "Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to him who made him"? For the dignity of the priesthood may rightly be understood to accord with the measures of humanity; and though it is lesser than what befits the nature and glory of the Word of God, it is not unbecoming to the economy performed in the flesh, for human things have become his own. D
A Therefore, he says, "Give to Levi"—that is, to the priest—"manifestation and truth." And by what Levi—that is, priest—he means, he cleared up by saying, "To the holy man." For our Lord Jesus Christ did not commit sin. 80 Whence Paul writes concerning him: "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." 81 "They tempted him in temptation: they strove against him at the waters of contradiction." O admirable matter! While calling him a man, he immediately declared him to be God, whom Israel provoked and tempted both in the wilderness and at the water of contradiction. And the Psalmist will confirm the fact, saying: "He clave the rock in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths. And he brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers." 82 And what after this? "And they tempted," he says, "him in their heart; and spake against God, and said: Can God furnish a table in the wilderness, because he smote the rock, and the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed? Can he give bread also, or can he provide table for his people?" 83 Consider, therefore, how they strove against God, who performs wonders, whom Moses truly calls a man. B For the inspired Paul, understanding it in this way, writes: "For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ." 84 Therefore, the man against whom they strove was that same one who, not yet incarnate, was tempted by the Israelites. For there was not one Son before the flesh, and another different from him from the seed of David, as some dare to say; but one and the same, before the incarnation indeed still the naked Word, but after the birth from the holy Virgin, incarnated and made man, as those holy and divine Fathers have written. Moses confirmed this by another sign as well. For, as if someone were asking and desiring to learn of what man he had made mention—him whom he said was both tempted and insulted C by the Israelites—he almost points to Jesus with a finger stretched out and says: "Who says unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen thee; neither did he acknowledge his brethren." 85 We remember, moreover, that one of the holy evangelists wrote that when Christ was once teaching and instructing some people, his mother and brethren stood there; then, when one of the disciples came running and said, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee," stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said: "My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." 86 This, I think, D is what Moses said: "Who says unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen thee; neither did he acknowledge his brethren." Furthermore, the wisest Daniel also refers to himself in the form of our likeness.
A For he said he saw the Ancient of days sitting upon a throne, and ten thousand times ten thousand standing by, and thousands of thousands ministering to him; and after inserting something between, he adds to these: "I was watching in the vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like a Son of man, and he reached as far as the Ancient of days, and he was brought before him, and to him was given the honor and the kingdom; and all tribes and tongues shall serve him." B Behold indeed, once again, visibly and clearly, he has beheld Emmanuel ascending to the Father and God who is in the heavens. For a cloud received him, whom he calls not simply a man, but as a Son of man. For the Word was God, having become in the likeness toward us. Understanding this, the most wise Paul also says that He appeared in the likeness of men, and was found as a man in habit, and in the likeness of sinful flesh was seen by those who were upon the earth. But if He had been a man, honored as God on account of his union with God, the prophet would have said that he saw the one coming with the clouds as God, or as the Son of God: but he does not say this, but rather that, "as a Son of man." C He knows, therefore, that He is God, and the Son who became man, that is, who came to be in the likeness of man, according to the voice of Paul. Yet, even appearing in the flesh, "He reached as far as the Ancient of days." That is, He has returned to the throne of the eternal Father; "And to him was given the honor and the kingdom; and all tribes and tongues shall serve him." And this was, then, that which was said by Him: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." D That the incarnate Word of God sits as a co-assessor, and is of equal glory with God and the Father, even with the flesh, as one existing Son, even when He became man, the most wise Paul makes clear by writing: "We have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens." And furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, when the Jews asked him if he himself were truly the Christ: "If I tell you," he says, "you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be sitting at the right hand of the power of God." Therefore, in the seats of the Godhead, the choir of the holy prophets beheld the Son even after He became man. Let us also look at the heralds of the New Testament, the mystagogues of the world under the sun, to whom Christ himself said: "It is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who is speaking in you." We shall find, therefore, the divine Baptist saying: "After me comes a man who was made before me, because he was prior to me." But how did he who went after him come to be prior to him? For Christ surely, according to time...
A with respect to the flesh, comes after John; how is this not evident to all? What then could one say to these things? The Savior himself has solved for us what is sought. For he said, speaking to the Jews: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." For he was indeed even before Abraham according to his divinity, but he is understood as after him in that he appeared as a man. Then, with God and Father crying out openly: "I will not give my glory to another" (for there is no other God besides him), Christ said to us: "When the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." And as the Son of man is expected to descend from the heavens, the all-wise Paul writes again: "For the grace of God our Savior has appeared to all men, that we, renouncing impiety and worldly desires, should live soberly, justly, and piously in the present age, B awaiting the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." He also said elsewhere, speaking of those who are of the blood of Israel, that "Theirs are the promises, and the legislation, and the covenant, and from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Therefore, following in the footsteps of the confession of the Fathers, and not turning aside, we say that this same Word, born of God the Father, the Only-begotten Son of God, was incarnate and made man, suffered, died, and on the third day rose again from the dead. For the Word of God is confessedly impassible so far as touches his own nature; and no one is so thunderstruck as to be able to think that the nature which is above all is capable of suffering. But because he has been made man, and has made the flesh C taken from the holy Virgin his own, therefore, following the principles of the dispensation, we affirm that he who is beyond all suffering, as God, suffered humanly in his own flesh. For if, being God, he became man, and yet has not in any way ceased to be God; if he became a part of the creation, and remained above the creation; if, being the Lawgiver as God, he came under the law, and was still the Lawgiver; and being Lord by divinity, he donned the form of a servant, and keeps an inseparable dignity of lordship; if, being the Only-begotten, he became the firstborn among many brethren, and is still the Only-begotten: what is the wonder if, having suffered humanly in the flesh, he is still understood as impassible according to his divinity? And D so the all-wise Paul says that the Word who was in the form and equality of God and the Father, the same one became subject, even unto death, and the death of the cross. But in another of his own Epistles he says concerning him: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for in him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth; and he is before all, and all things consist in him."
And he says that he has been given as head to the Church, and that he has become the firstfruits of those who are asleep, and the firstborn from the dead. And yet, the Word who is from God the Father is Life and the Life-giver, inasmuch as he has sprung forth from the Life—that is, from the one who begat him. Then how has he become the firstborn from the dead, and the firstfruits of those who are asleep? B Because, since he made his own the flesh capable of death, he, "by the grace of God," as the all-wise Paul says, "tasted death for everyone," C in the flesh that was capable of suffering, without himself casting off his being Life. Therefore, even if it be said that he suffered in the flesh, he will not receive the suffering by the nature of his divinity, but, as I said just now, by his own flesh, which is capable of suffering. And thus the blessed prophet Isaiah, recognizing him as God having become man, who suffered in the flesh, said somewhere concerning him: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and his generation who shall recount? For his life is taken from the earth." And yet, if someone were a man, and understood as a son separately, but joined to God—as the authors of unholy dogmas say—how would it any longer be difficult to find someone who could recount his generation? For he was born from the seed of Jesse and David. But who can tell of the generation of the Word of God, or rather, the manner of his generation? "For his life is taken from the earth," that is, his existence; for he has put "life" instead of "existence." But he rises and is lifted on high, and is exalted above all who are on the earth. For the Word concerning that ineffable nature is incomprehensible, and altogether inaccessible to the minds of men. I will add to what has been said this, too: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," as the most holy Paul says. Since, therefore, there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism, who is the Lord, and into whom have we believed and been baptized? But perhaps someone would say that it is most fitting that the lordship and the faith provided by us—and in him also is the saving baptism performed—belong to the Word who is from God the Father. For thus he commanded the holy apostles, saying: "Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit." D Now the divinely inspired Paul makes manifest the glory of the lordship, and the confession of the faith, and the power of the holy baptism, saying: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who shall ascend into heaven?'—that is, to bring Christ down; or, 'Who shall descend into the abyss?'—that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does the Scripture say? The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart. That if you shall say, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." And he writes again: "Do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus, into his death we were baptized?" Behold
A how he skillfully restricts both the confession of lordship and of faith, and even the grace of holy baptism itself, to him who suffered death and rose from the dead. Are we, then, to believe in two sons? Shall we pass over the Word who shone forth from God the Father, and ascribe the glory of lordship and the confession of faith itself, and the heavenly baptism, to him who suffered, as if to another son different from him? But how could it not be foolish, or rather, beyond doubt impious, to think or speak in this way? What, then, shall we say? "One Lord truly, one faith, and one baptism." For there is indeed one Son and Lord, and the Word did not take upon himself a man by conjunction, nor make him a partaker of his own dignities, nor communicate to him sonship and lordship, as certain delirious men say and have written; but it is the Word himself from God, that light from light, who became incarnate and became human. We have been baptized into His death, who indeed suffered in His own flesh according to humanity, but remained impassible according to his divinity, and lives forever. For He is life from life, from God the Father. Thus death—which dared to leap upon the body of Life—is conquered; thus also corruption in us is destroyed, and the empire of death itself is weakened. B Indeed, Christ said: "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." The holy body and blood of Christ are therefore life-giving. For the body, as I said, is not that of some man who is a partaker of life; rather, it is the property of Him who is life by nature, namely, of the Only-begotten. This noble chorus of the holy Fathers, who love Christ, agrees with us, as does he who now adorns the throne of the holy Church of the Constantinopolitans, the most holy and most godly brother and co-bishop, Proclus. For he, too, wrote to the most godly bishops of the East in these words: "The One who is without form is incarnate without change; the One who is without beginning is born according to the flesh; the One who is naturally most perfect progresses in age according to the body; and the One who is superior to sufferings endures sufferings—not in that which He was does He endure insults, but in that which He has become, He accepts the passions of the body." The treachery of men who think or write differently from these things is therefore refuted, because it is everywhere infected with profanity and is dissonant with the dogmas of the truth.
C After the most blessed Fathers had concluded their discourse concerning Christ, they make mention of the Holy Spirit. For they said that they believed in Him, in the same way, clearly, as in the Father and the Son. For He is consubstantial with them; and He is poured forth, that is, He proceeds as from a fountain, from God the Father, but is dispensed to the creation through the Son. Whence he breathed upon the holy apostles, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit."
A Therefore, the Spirit is from God and is God, and is not alien to the substance that is supreme over all, but is from it, and in it, and proper to it. This then is the straight and most unerring faith of the holy Fathers, or rather, the confession of the faith. But as Paul says: "The god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should not shine unto them." B Therefore, some abandoning the straight path of truth, fall upon rocks, "understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." For by restricting the glory of sonship to the Word alone, who was born of God the Father, they say that the one who existed from the seed of Jesse and David is another son, joined to Him and partaking of sonship and divine glory and the indwelling of the Word Himself, and that he has received everything from Him, but possesses nothing of his own at all. Concerning such persons, as I think, the disciples of the Saviour wrote: "There have crept in certain men, who were of old written down unto this judgment, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ." But Jesus Christ is rightly named when the Word appears in human form. For let the adversaries answer those who ask them, who, out of great folly, do not fear to think and speak according to the comments of Nestorius and Theodore: "Do you not admit that He who was born of the holy Virgin is God and the true Son of God and the Father? And to Him alone do you attribute the passions, and remove Him from God the Word, lest God be said to be passible?" For these are the findings of their pretended precision and the vulgarity of their concepts. Therefore, let not the Word from God the Father be named Christ, specifically and by Himself. For just as suffering is foreign to Him when understood apart from the flesh, so also anointing is something incongruous and foreign to Him. "For God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit." But the Word from God is in every way self-perfect, and would have had no need of the anointing which is given through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, deny the dispensation; turn the Only-begotten away from His love for the world, so that He may not be named Christ by you. C Or is it a small thing to Him that He was made according to our measures? Therefore, since this also is foreign to Him, let no one confess that He became man; so that He may also say to them: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Therefore, regarding those who have chosen to think thus as enemies of the truth, let us flee from their pernicious novelties of expression, D and let us rather follow the thoughts of the holy Fathers, and the tradition of the holy apostles and evangelists. For the Word having become man,
it was that which spoke in them; through whom and with whom, to God and the Father, honor, glory, and dominion together with the Holy Spirit, now and always, and for ages of ages. Amen.
LETTER LVI (ol. XLVIII)
CYRIL TO GENNADIUS THE PRESBYTER AND ARCHIMANDRITE.
That one should connive at some departure from the rigor of the law, for the sake of a greater benefit.
A Your intention toward reverence, which you possess regarding divine worship, I have not only recognized now, but have known for a long time; and I praise it vehemently, as you wish to live with such diligent strictness. But the dispensations B of matters sometimes compel some to depart a little from what is due, so that they may gain something greater. For just as those who sail the sea, with a storm pressing and the ship in danger, being anxious, cast some things overboard in order to save the rest: so also do we in these matters, when it is not possible to preserve perfectly what is strictly required, overlook some things, lest we suffer the loss of the whole. And I write this having learned that your piety is saddened at the most holy and God-fearing brother and our fellow-minister Bishop Proclus, because he admitted into communion the bishop of Aelia—whom the laws of the Church do not recognize as leader of Palestine. But empty love of glory, having a bitter end, excites a reckless desire for the matter. Therefore, let not your piety shun the communion C of the most holy and God-beloved Bishop Proclus; for one and the same was the care for me and for his holiness, and the mode of dispensation pleased no one among the wise.
Letter LVII (ol. XLIX)
CYRIL TO MAXIMUS, DEACON OF ANTIOCH.
On account of the secret connivance of John, Bishop of Antioch, with the Nestorians, the more fervent Catholics, among whom is Maximus, Deacon and Archimandrite of the Church of Antioch, had separated themselves from his communion, bringing on the danger of a new schism. This Cyril by no means approves, warning the deacon to return to the communion of his patriarch, since the matter requires great moderation.I learned from the beloved monk Paul that your piety refuses until this day communion with the most devout Bishop John, because there are some in the Church of Antioch who either still think as Nestorius does, or had thought so, but perhaps now abstain from him. Let your equity therefore weigh whether those who are said to assemble D openly and impudently think the things of Nestorius and speak them to others, or whether they had at one time a cauterized conscience, but now assemble because they have repented of the errors into which they were dragged, yet are perhaps ashamed to confess their lapse. For such a thing is wont to happen to those who have been deceived. But if you see them now running to the right faith, do not hold a grudge regarding those
past. For we prefer to see them denying rather than defending the vices of Nestorius; and, that we may not seem to be lovers of contention, let us embrace communion with the most reverend bishop John, indulging him and, that moderation may properly be maintained in these matters, not inquiring too strictly into those who repent. For the matter, as I have said, stands in need of much moderation. A
LETTER LVIII. AD EUNDEM.
Of the same subject as the former.
(1) Again, letters from your piety have been brought by the beloved monk Paul, and I was greatly pleased upon reading them, recognizing the zeal—which you have always had for the right faith, and now still retain, and will preserve for all time to come—to be fervent even now. For it is written: “He who began a good work in you will perfect it.” B Now that the most reverend presbyter Presentinus has arrived here and related certain things, I have written what was proper to the most pious and religious bishop John, and to the archimandrites whom he wished; and your reverence will know the content of what was written when you read the letters themselves.
However, I will say this: it was indeed the duty of your reverence to receive into communion or into the charity which is in Christ no one of those who were wavering in their minds. C But the nature of present events sometimes forces us, even against our will, to allow things contrary to our intention and desire. For I also see that the most reverend bishop John himself needs much moderation, in order to win over those who are refractory. For harsh and frequent collisions drive many to impudence; and it is better to bear with those who resist in a gentle manner than to create trouble for them by the severity of the law. For just as, if their body were ill, they would have to be handled with care, so too must a suffering soul be helped by D a certain moderation, applied like a remedy. For step by step they too will arrive at a sincere state of mind; and these are the "helps" and "governments" which the blessed Paul names. Let not your piety, then, be troubled even if you do not see affairs being handled with great severity, especially at the present time. For we do not wish to cut off, but to bind up, obeying the words of the Savior: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick,” he says. Since, as he himself says again: “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
EPISTLE LIX
At the urging of Cyril, Emperor Theodosius sent Aristolaus, who, traveling through the Eastern churches and meeting with John himself, compelled everyone to agree to the conditions of peace established long ago. Cyril advises him on how the bishops ought to condemn the dogmas of Nestorius one by one, and acknowledge the Ephesine Synod as legitimate, so that every suspicion may be removed.
My esteemed master, Bishop Beronicianus, wrote to me that the pious decree of our God-loving princes has been delivered to your Excellency, by which it is commanded that all the most religious bishops of the Orient anathematize the impious Nestorius and all his blasphemies against Christ, A declaring them to be the Simonian or Nestorian heresy. This is, I believe, nothing else. He signaled, however, that all are prepared to free their judgments or opinions from such a suspicion, for the reason that they are in every way free from his blasphemies. For my part, wishing to strengthen the peace which has been granted to the Churches through Christ, I indeed pray that all may hold this intention and be clean from the novelties of Nestorius’ words. But since they say that we ought to demand nothing more than what the imperial and pious letters contain, and they seek this from your virtue, do deign—by assisting everyone’s opinion—to prepare them to anathematize Nestorius and his polluted dogmas, and to consider him deposed, believing our one Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, even His only-begotten Word B made human and incarnate, not to be divided into two sons, but the same one begotten of God ineffably before all time, and in the last times of the age the same one born of a woman according to the flesh, so that His person is also one. For thus do we understand the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because it is the same God who is at once man, inasmuch as the Only-Begotten is incarnate and made human inconvertibly and unconfusedly, and even though He is passible in the nature of humanity, He suffers in the nature of divinity, as He suffers in His own flesh according to the Scriptures. For if these things are joined to the anathema against Nestorius, all accusation will henceforth be removed, as I believe, and the conscience of men will be clean, so that neither will the people who are in the cities contend further against one another, nor will there be anything scandalous in the masters, while confessing that all of us maintain in ourselves the right and blameless faith. For I have written C these things to my master Bishop Beronicianus. I believe, indeed, that the power of the imperial decrees looks to the same end, and we have added nothing to these things which have been commanded.
EPISTLE LX
TO THE SAME
He complains that among the Orientals, some anathematize Nestorius only in word, while they dare to think and speak the things that are his. He sets forth the doctrine of Nestorius in summary.
The power of the pious sanctions which were recently transmitted to your Excellency has been learned by all, as much by those who are zealous in great Alexandria as by those who are most religious bishops throughout all Egypt; and in turn, we have offered most intent prayers for the gifts given by God for the victory and persistence of the friends of Christ and our most religious princes, C whom it would be fitting to be glorified against enemies and to be strengthened against every hand of those resisting, so that we may all be in peace and joy. And this, indeed, is worthy of your Excellency’s zeal. For it was fitting that this also be entrusted to you, who are such a man, and who greatly intend what is pious, and who have a fervent zeal—I speak, that is, for piety and the immaculate faith.
the sons of reverence, but into one Christ, that is, the only-begotten Word of God, becoming man and incarnate; so that the same one is God and man at once: as born of God the Father, the only-begotten God, and of the holy Virgin the same according to the flesh. Therefore let not your Eminence suffer those who think otherwise and babble in vain about this. For, as I have said, there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and one is his person, the one who became man, the one who by nature and in truth is the Son. We say indeed that the selfsame is impassible according to his divinity, but that he suffered in his own flesh according to the Scriptures. For whose the body is, of him are the sufferings that happened to his flesh said to be. Subsisting, therefore, as impassible according to his divinity, he endured in his own flesh for us and on our behalf. And so all things are spoken of, so that, with the life-giving God having united to himself the flesh which is his own, we also may be made stronger than death and corruption in him. But if they indeed anathematize with voice and tongue, yet think otherwise, let them see the danger hanging over them from God, and the sentence passed by the universal council that was gathered at Ephesus. For it defined that those who speak or think the things of Nestorius, whether they be bishops or clerics, be cast out from the priesthood; so that they may not say that they are unaware of the synod gathered in Ephesus; lest we also repudiate them, as though not knowing them to be bishops.
EPISTOLA LXI. CYRIL TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH
BThe letter of Cyril to John of Antioch, by which he complains that the Orientals had indeed anathematized Nestorius, but were preaching the same things that he did. Furthermore, he sets forth how henceforth an anathema should be required.
To desire peace is the highest and chiefest good. And I say that it is necessary that those who desire to think the things that are pleasing to Christ should apply their own efforts to this—not remissly, but stoutly. Nevertheless, one should not for this reason despise the virtue of piety in C Christ. We could, indeed, in another way desire peace and be exceedingly amazed at the blessings that result from it, while yet not bringing into the center of the discussion those things by which it is strengthened and made unshakable, but rather those things which undermine and overturn it, and which do not allow that which has been established to remain. I write these things being very grieved. For it is said that some of the most religious bishops there are indeed anathematizing the impious Nestorius and his most insane dogmas, but are attempting in turn, as if changing sides, to think and speak the things that are his, and are dissolving the conscience of the brothers for whom Christ died. But I marvel how, while they are wise, it escapes them that if they think the dogmas which they cast out, they are themselves anathematizing D themselves. For it is said, and this for the sake of the truth, though it seems burdensome, that there are those who I know not how dare to speak clearly the things of Nestorius. I have not presumed this. For I wish to be slow to credit such things because of the magnitude of the wickedness. But your Sanctity, if there are indeed any such persons at all, should deign to warn and confound them, and make those who speak the novelties of Nestorius hold their peace. For how do they anathematize these, or how do they desire peace to endure, while they oppose it and overturn it as if it were unjust? It was indeed sufficient in the case of those under suspicion to anathematize only the impious Nestorius and his dogmas, or rather the blasphemies against Christ. But since it is likely that some are trifling with this matter, saying: "He was cast out solely for this reason, that he would not confess the Theotokos, and for nothing else," I think it must be said that this was not the only cause of his deposition, but also many others, raising their spur against the dogmas of truth. It is necessary, therefore,
A that they who honor what is better, or at least now finally, cease to contend against the truth, and, having shaken off the wordy baggage of Nestorius, resume the straight and immaculate word of faith.
And these who have been called to this formerly have filled us with the greatest joy, as I have said. But may God, through the prayers of your perfection, grant both instruction and that, being brought to gentleness, they may know what is useful. But if some contend fiercely, they shall not blame the Church for her gentleness, but, having brought upon themselves what they are to suffer, they shall hear from you: "Walk in the light of your fire and the flame which you have kindled." For it is not fitting now to encounter the perverse with gentleness. B
LETTER LXIII
TO THE SAME
*On the report of Daniel the presbyter, he complains of the calumnies of Theodoret and his unbridled spirit toward him, and advises that the reckless impulses of this most headstrong man be restrained.*I, for my part, along with the other most religious bishops, thought that the most reverend Theodoret had wiped away the stain of the empty new-fangled terms of Nestorius. For I was disposed to believe that since he had written once, and had embraced peace, and had received my precautions in return—concerning that which seemed to be an obstacle to the result—he himself had also removed it from the midst. But as the most reverend presbyter Daniel has informed me, he continues up to this point; he does not relinquish those former things; he clings to that man’s blasphemies. C This is clear from the fact that he has neither pronounced anathema nor brought himself to subscribe to his deposition. And may your holiness grant me freedom of speech as I say this out of charity: For what reason are some so stiff-necked that they do not yield to the admirable purpose of your piety—not even in ecumenical matters—but, as though they were peevish and fastidious men, follow only what seems right to them alone? And if what I have learned is true, the aforementioned most religious man ought to experience the goads of your holiness. D
LETTER LXIV
AGAINST THE HIDDEN SUPPORTERS OF NESTORIUS
*He sends the book "On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten" to be read by the orthodox.*The zeal of your religiousness is indeed excellent, and your study is full of every praise. For you are zealous for God, as it is written, so that you are not now dishonored by those who follow the things that belong to Nestorius.
because: "I have looked for someone to grieve with me, and found no one; and for one to console me, and found none." And these men, who oppose the dogmas of religion or the worship of God, kick against the goads and harm their own souls, offending against Christ and taking pleasure in calumnies against Him. But it is foreign to the soul of a priest, and one who has been allotted to preside over the people, to anathematize with his tongue the polluted and contaminating dogmas of Nestorius, while in fact having his mind filled with them, and overturning the souls of those brothers for whom Christ died. I therefore wrote to my lord, the most admirable tribune and notary, Aristolaus, who is indeed your holiness. I also wrote to certain others. Knowing this also from the most reverend presbyter and archimandrite Adamantius, whose character, manner of life, and discipline, along with his B intelligence and uprightness concerning the faith, I have admired—and I looked upon them all as if present at once. For since many of the orthodox and most religious bishops have written to me regarding the things opposed to themselves or to the peoples who are under their authority by the senseless Nestorians, I have collected them and written a short book on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten, condensing the entire discussion of the faith into three chapters. The first, indeed, is that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God. The second, that Christ is one, and not two. The third, indeed, that the Word of God, remaining impassible, suffered in His own flesh for us. Therefore, let your holiness prepare it to be read by the orthodox. For it will be pleasing, as I think, since it contains a refutation of almost all their excuses. As for me, do not be weary of offering prayers. For the gathering of matters, pouring in from everywhere like waves, holds an intolerable conflict. But I believe that even through the prayers of your holiness there will again be tranquility and peace. A
EPISTOLA LXV. TO MOSÆUS, BISHOP OF ANTARADUS. Of the same subject.
I have indeed never ceased to write to your religiosity, and to receive letters sent from you. But the things that have been set in motion between these times have been caused by silence, both for me and for you; and may God grant that they fall down to the root and be done away with from the midst. Certain people wish for thorns, which they erect as a hedge and a disruption between us, whereby our affections are unable to meet one another. For they have troubled me entirely, those who write regarding the most reverend archimandrite Maximus, writing certain things which pertain to the height of blasphemy, and saying that those things are from your religiosity to them. But it behooves us, just as we approach God—who knows the hearts—above all else, to do so purely, and not that we should confess with the tongue the contradiction of the polluted dogmas C of Nestorius, while in our soul we hold something else. And I write this, not because I strongly believe the things that have been said, but wishing to fortify the opinion of your religiosity. I have indeed been greatly delighted looking upon those things which have been written by your religiosity, and through my lord, your most desirable son, Thomas.
EPISTOLA LXVI (ol. L). OF JOHN OF ANTIOCH AND THE SYNOD TO CYRIL. Concerning not condemning Theodore of Mopsuestia.
To the most God-beloved and holy bishop Cyril, John of Antioch, and the God-beloved bishops with him who are gathered from every province that is in the East, by the grace of God, to the city beloved of Christ, Antioch, on account of the letters of the most holy bishop Proclus. The beginning is wanting.
Now, however, the same men, rising as if from sleep, have proceeded to the royal city, and by troubling it, they have, as much as in them lies, troubled the ecclesiastical peace. For the most holy bishop Pro- D clus, sending us the tome—which indeed rightly and piously holds the faith—which he wrote to the Armenians, and seeking our consent, everything has been done by us, and we have failed in nothing. But this was also superfluous at the present time, for the reason that already, by the grace of God, all men everywhere hold one and the same pious understanding. For sometimes things which seem as if they were necessary, unless they are done opportunely, are accustomed to receive an increase of perturbation. There is also another evil in this haste, with hands outstretched (1)..... and another tome having certain excerpts of Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and in those things which he in...
the books, it seems, wishing to bring an anathema upon them. For this reason, we ask that you apply your mind to us more studiously than in other matters, and deign to consider that this is an evil work, unless you labor to extinguish it by common consent. For God has given you, above the will, the power also, so that you may benefit all in common. There are in that tome certain uncertain things, and things capable of being understood otherwise than they were said. We confess this even ourselves; but we see most of them are clear, and right without any ambiguity. But as for those B which are thought to be obscure, we find many things similar [to them], said by many of his predecessors and glorious Fathers. And a danger, not slight, hangs from this, lest in these we also undo those, rejecting the sayings of that man who, while he finished his life in the episcopate, was nevertheless adorned everywhere throughout his whole life by his struggles against the Arians and other heretics by the tens of thousands. If this should happen, we will also have to retract and reject many things clearly said by other holy Fathers. For from excerpts we find certain things similar in thrice-blessed and noble Athanasius, certain things also in blessed Basil, certain in both of the Gregories, and many indeed, and often stated, in Amphilochius; and not a few, indeed, in our common Father, blessed Theophilus. For there are things which your holiness confesses in the same way, and has the same understanding regarding them. Certain things [are found] even in the God-beloved Proclus himself, in that same tome which he sent to the Armenians, which coincides in many senses with those parts that have been excerpted. And the day would fail us, in reviewing blessed Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, who was [present] for the right faith at the Council of Nicaea, and your great and famous Alexander. But also after those most holy bishops, Meletius and Flavian, by whom many things were said in harmony with these. What, then, shall I say of those in the West who have been adorned according to the same doctrine and the same confession, whom your holiness knows even better? Attend, therefore, I pray, to the precipice to which those are driving us who contend with words for no utility. What full measure of injury, or corruption, and confusion C will not be generated from this, if the door is opened to those who wish to overturn the statements of those who have passed on? What non-obvious harm will it be, not only to refute statements, but even to anathematize them? For while it is one thing for something to please one person and not another, in the sayings of some—whether ancient, or later, or not our own—the reason is different. But to impose an anathema upon them, we think is bold and harsh, even if the persons were not anathematized along with the statements. For who of us would hope not to die, or from whom has something not been said that could move another? Or which of these does not always provide an occasion for the people to be perturbed? And this, indeed, is wont to happen both to the living and to those who have passed on: which we say not to one who does not know this, but to one who is able to consider more than we all the magnitude of this absurdity. But what do we not provide from this, desirable to the defenders of Nestorius? For who will not honor him, if he were anathematized along with this man and others who have laid down their lives in the episcopate? Or where would his opinion not receive an increase through this? And who of the deceived men, taking an occasion from these things, would not call him a confessor, as if he had suffered on their account what he has suffered—things which even those who have shone in the Church have suffered? Who, moreover, of those having a mind does not know that the things which were said strictly by Theodore, he said under compulsion of necessity? For the whole East in common set him forth among those who were before us, as one possessing much virtue of doctrine against the heresies, against which, fighting and struggling, he used a certain great division, not coming from a depraved intellect, but judging it D more effective to use that manner against the heretics, and not knowing or denying the supreme truth; far from it: for all his books are full of such things, but he was dividing the properties of natures more broadly, as the fight which he had against the heretics dictated that he should do. Your religiousness also clearly dispensed this in your former letters for the satisfaction of certain venerable fellow bishops of ours. And this itself is proper to your virtue and your wisdom.
EPISTLE LXVII (old CLI). CYRIL TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH AND THE SYNOD ASSEMBLED AT ANTIOCH.
He rejects the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, strongly rebuking those who would not fear to say they harmonize with the writings of the holy Fathers, and at the same time exhorting the Orientals at least to condemn the blasphemies of Theodore and to show themselves free from such suspicion; then he admonishes John for the establishing of genuine peace, that while he must not be overly difficult in dealing with those who, having left the parties of Nestorius, return to the Church, he must nevertheless watchfully ensure that those who return hold nothing but the true faith.
The dragon, that deserter, does not rest, that truly troublesome and God-fighting beast; nor has he ever ceased from the wickedness that is in him, note: original-script column: see facsimile║
A bearing and bringing forth within himself envy against the holy Churches, he has dared to incite against the doctrines of the truth the unrestrained tongues of unholy and profane men, men who have their conscience seared. But he has been apprehended everywhere and defeated, our Savior Christ, who is Savior of us all, rendering his wickedness and the power of his schemes ineffectual. Many, therefore, before us, who fought against our holy Fathers and moved the weapons of their own loose-tongued impudence against that ineffable glory, have been confounded, shown to be bold and ignorant and empty-talking—or rather [they were shown] not to have known anything in truth of all the things that are testified of by the truth itself, [doctrines] which are shown to be correct and blameless and far removed from all calumny. B Since, however, in addition to them, he who is the inventor and teacher of all impiety has stirred up for us the new-fangled utterances of Nestorius, behold now, all of us, by the grace of God and the understanding given to us by Him, with one voice anathematize the apostate, imitating the glorious zeal of the Fathers, and conducting ourselves manfully against the enemies of the cross of Christ, and preaching the true faith, and teaching in the churches not to be added to the impieties of those who speak of two Christs and sons—one indeed natural and true, namely the Word from God the Father, but the other by adoption and grace, that one from the seed of David—but rather, C according to the sincere and irreprohensible faith which has descended to us from the beginning, to preach one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God the Father, namely, who became man and took flesh, according to the confession of the Holy Fathers; so that the same person is and is called [One] from God the Father divinely, as His Word, and proceeding naturally from His essence, and [One] from the seed of David according to the flesh, that is, born of the holy and Theotokos Mary. For they did not hand down to us, as I have said, "one and another" [person], just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word; but [they handed down] one and the same, God at once and man, only-begotten and first-born; so that He might have the one [nature] divinely, D and the other humanly; because He became among many brothers, having undergone the likeness towards us, and not having joined another man to Himself, as it seemed good to some to think, but having become a man in reality, and not ceasing to be what He was. For being God by nature and impassible, for this reason He suffered willingly in His own flesh. For He did not give the body of some other person for us, but the only-begotten Word of God Himself, having become man, offered Himself to God and the Father as a spotless sacrifice. It was therefore necessary for us to celebrate a bright feast over these things, with the perversity of Nestorius’s erroneous opinions—and any voice whatsoever, if it happens to agree with his false speech—having been expelled. For it goes out against all those who think the same as him, or even those who once thought so, the
A anathematizing of those who say there are two sons, and two Christs. For one, as I have said, is proclaimed by us and by you: Christ, and Son, and Lord, the only-begotten Word of God, who came to be in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man, according to the voice of the most wise Paul. That we say the flesh of the Lord is animated by an intelligent soul has been demonstrated many times before; and in the Epistle to the Armenians, our most holy and most religious brother and co-bishop Proclus—a man pious and well-practiced in wrestling against those who pervert right things, and wont to carry off the victory by asserting the truth—rightly steering the word of truth, openly proclaimed this.
But as for the infamous opinions of Diodorus, I say, and Theodore, or indeed of certain others whom it were better not to praise—lest I say something harsher—because they are carried, as it were, with full sails against the glory of Christ, let no one, I beseech you, attribute them to our holy and orthodox Fathers, I mean Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Theophilus, and the rest, B lest in any way this matter become an occasion of scandal to some, who might think that the guardians of the entire right faith truly thought and taught such things, and who left behind books written against the perverse opinions not only of Nestorius, but also of others who have thought and written prior to him the same things that Nestorius did.
We desire that all should attend to their own affairs, and not stir up troubles for the Churches, which have already, by the grace of Christ and the vigilance of the teachers throughout the world, been quieted, nor cause trouble again for themselves or others. Moreover, those who once thought with Nestorius, but now truly repenting from their heart, depart from his trifles, and—having changed their will—propose to embrace the right and whole faith, ought to be received peacefully, and no one should reproach them for past things, lest in any way an occasion be provided for some to be more hesitant in hastening toward better things. For if we desire those who are held by bodily diseases to be freed from them, and rejoice when this happens for them, how should we not much more rejoice if one who had been led astray is converted and runs with a good conscience to the light of true knowledge? For that the angels themselves are accustomed to celebrate feasts over such matters, C your holiness nothing doubts, as you are wont to teach these things and expound them in all the Churches, and are not ignorant of the words of our Savior.
One thing, however, we beseech you, as brothers and partners in the magisterium, that you instruct your clergy not to speak otherwise—especially in the churches—than those things which are true and proven and judged to be well-stated; but rather that they hold to the confession of the right faith.
confession of the orthodox faith; and especially not to run hastily to speeches about these matters. But if any necessity should arise, because some need to be instructed in the mysteries of the faith, they must by no means allow any discourse regarding the faith to deviate from A the rectitude of the faith. Since, however, the occasions for disturbances must be cut off through the vigilance of your holiness, for this reason we have written what we judged to be useful. If, therefore, it is alleged by some against any of the clergy or monks that, while they share communion with the Church, they still hold to the opinions of the impious Nestorius, let a hearing be proposed for them in the Churches rather, and before you who govern them; and let their statements be accurately examined. For it is likely that those who wish to accuse such persons, as if no one would tolerate hearing their words, will cause a tumult before non-ecclesiastical tribunals. But it is much better and more just that ecclesiastical questions be agitated and decided in the Churches, rather than before others for whom the judgment of such matters is B altogether inappropriate. Greet the brotherhood that is with you. Those who are with us greet you in the Lord.
Letter LXVIII
CYRIL TO ACACIUS, BISHOP OF MELITENE
He informs him of what he had written in the previous letter to John of Antioch regarding the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia.Your holiness ought not to C have been unaware that all the religious bishops of the East came to Antioch, my most holy brother-bishop Proclus having sent to them a tome filled with good sentiments and correct dogmas. For there was much and lengthy discourse concerning the dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He also appended some chapters excerpted from the books of Theodore, which have a sense consistent with the evil thoughts of Nestorius, and exhorted them to anathematize these. They, however, did not allow it. Then they wrote to me, D saying that if it should come to pass that the writings of Theodore are anathematized, this stain would altogether run through to our holy Fathers—I mean Athanasius, and Basil, and Gregory, and Theophilus, and the rest. For they say, "They themselves also wrote certain things consonant with Theodore." It was necessary to write, and not just anything, to them: the reverend presbyter Daniel, who is sailing to Alexandria to arrive, will make these things known to your holiness, and he knows in their entirety the individual matters that have been set in motion.
Letter LXIX (ol. LII)
TO THE SAME
He again signifies to Acacius with great sorrow of soul the evil arts of the adversaries of the faith, adding what he himself has done for the defense of the truth.The most reverend and most religious deacon and archimandrite Maximus has arrived at my presence, and such
A a man I have beheld, as was fitting for one who has long desired to see him. I have beheld both his zeal and uprightness, and the spur of piety that he possesses in Christ. He is, however, so saddened, and possesses a mind so full of anxiety, that he is willing to undergo every labor, insofar as he might root out the perfidy of Nestorius from the regions of the East. I have also read the letter of your holiness written to the most religious and most reverend bishop of Antioch, John, which is full of much confidence and at the same time love of God. I myself have also written such letters to him; but, as it seems, the worse things prevail. For while feigning to hate the things of Nestorius, they introduce them again in another way, admiring the things of Theodore, even though they possess an impiety equal to, or rather, far worse than his. For Theodore was not the disciple of Nestorius, but the latter of the former: and they speak as if from one mouth, and vomit forth from their heart the one poison of evil doctrine. B The Orientals, therefore, have written to me that the things of Theodore ought not to be accused, lest, as they say, the words of the blessed Athanasius, and Theophilus, and Basil, and Gregory should also be accused: for the same things that Theodore spoke, those also did they speak. I, indeed, did not endure those who were writing such things, but I said with confidence that Theodore truly possessed both a blasphemous tongue and a pen serving it, whereas those others have been teachers of all orthodoxy, and have shone forth in it. But they have so persuaded the Orientals that exclamations were made in the churches by the people: "Let the faith of Theodore flourish; we believe even as Theodore believes"—though they had once stoned him in his own church for daring to utter some small thing. But as the teacher wills, so the flock thinks. I, for my part, have neither ceased reproving the things they have written, nor shall I cease. Since, however, there also needed to be written C contradictions among them, having examined the books of Theodore and Diodorus—which they wrote not concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten, but rather against the incarnation—I have set down some chapters, and I have contradicted them in whatever way I could, declaring everywhere that their sect is full of abomination. When, moreover, the aforementioned most religious deacon and archimandrite Maximus exhorted me to interpret the Symbol of the faith, which was set forth by the holy Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, I applied myself to this. For he asserts craftily that some feign to hold and recite it, and to follow it, while not having right thoughts, but rather twisting those things which have been said rightly and firmly toward what seems best to them. Lest your holiness, however, be ignorant of these D things, we have sent the book and the tome. When you have read these, may you deign to pour out the customary prayers for me.
LETTER LXX (al. LIII). CYRIL TO THE CLERGY AND LAMPON THE PRIEST.
A When I was staying in Aelia, a certain man of those who serve nobly in the palace brought me a long and substantial letter, sealed, which he said he had received from the orthodox in Antioch. There were signatures in it of very many clerics, monks, and laymen. They accused the bishops of the East, claiming that they indeed kept silent the name of Nestorius, and pretended to turn away from him, but were leaping over to the books of Theodore concerning the incarnation, in which are contained things far worse than the blasphemies of Nestorius. For he was the father of the perfidy of Nestorius, and by speaking his evils, the impious one became what he is now in these matters. And I wrote indeed to the most reverend bishop of Antioch, that no one should speak the impious dogmas of Theodore in the Church.
B But the most reverend deacon and archimandrite Maximus, upon coming to Alexandria, cried out many things, saying that the orthodox have no place there, nor any freedom to speak of the true faith. He said indeed that they pretend to confess the Symbol set forth at Nicaea by the holy Fathers, but they misinterpret it. And he urged me to interpret the entire exposition of the Nicene synod clearly, so that they might not ensnare some by explaining things one way instead of another; which I have done. He therefore carries the tomes, so that they may be offered both to the most pious queens and to the most Christian and pious lord. For I have had the tome written on parchment. With his counsel, therefore, as you shall perceive is fitting, offer it at an opportune time. C For it behooves us to fight everywhere for the true faith, and to hasten to root out from our midst, as much as is possible, the impiety that has arisen against Christ.
LETTER LXXI. AD THEODOSIUM IMPERATOREM.
Against those who, while saying "anathema" to Nestorius, harbor the very same sentiments as he, in that they admire the writings of Theodore and Diodorus. He transmits his own interpretation of the Nicene Symbol.
To provide eternal life from the earth to God and the Father who is in heaven is blameless, as He says: “And this is the eternal life, that they may know D You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” * But I do not know how some pretend to walk with straight feet regarding this while—
* John XVII, 3.
...and deserting the way of truth, they turn to men. For they have written whatever sort of things [pertain] to the destruction and perdition which leads [to evil]. For they cling to prohibited writings of certain men. And that I may state the nature of the matter clearly (since it is written: "And I spoke of thy testimonies before kings, and was not confounded" [Ps. cxviii, 46]), there was a certain Theodore, and before him Diodorus, a bishop—the latter of Tarsus, the former of Mopsuestia. These A were the fathers of the blasphemy of Nestorius. For in the books which they composed, they used a rustic madness against our Savior Christ, being ignorant of his mystery. The impious Nestorius therefore wished to bring these things of theirs into the public eye, and he was deprived of the divine hall. But while some bishops of the East had anathematized the things that are his, they again introduced these same things in another way, while they admire the things that are of Theodore, and say that he thought rightly and in harmony with our Fathers, I mean Athanasius and Gregory and Basil. But they lie against the saints B who are of a mind contrary to the evils of Nestorius. Since, therefore, I have learned that they bring certain things of these matters to your pious ears, I ask that you keep your souls entirely untouched and undefiled by the impieties of Theodore and Diodorus. For as I said above, Nestorius spoke the things that are theirs, and for this reason, as an impious man, he was condemned by the universal synod gathered at Ephesus according to the will of God. But since they do indeed simulate that they confess the symbol which was set forth in the great and ancient synod of Nicaea, but turn aside its power by a false interpretation, the orthodox archimandrites of the East requested that I interpret the same symbol; which was also interpreted. And it was necessary that this work should reach your pious and Christ-loving ears. For your tranquillity possesses, among other good things, this also: that you desire to take delight without ceasing in discourses on the right faith.
EPISTLE LXXII (formerly LIV). TO PROCLUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Cyril to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, regarding Theodore of Mopsuestia, the latter requesting of him that he would not permit him to be anathematized, because this would be a cause of tumult.
With difficulty and with many labors did your holiness and the holy synod gathered at Ephesus reject the empty talk of Nestorius throughout all the Churches of God C. But certain of the Orientals are greatly distressed on this account, not only of the laity, but even of those who are appointed to the priesthood. For just as more long-standing diseases are more difficult to cure, or perhaps even entirely refuse this, so also a soul grown sick with the rot of perverted thoughts and dogmas possesses a passion difficult to cast off. Nevertheless, by the grace of God, whether by pretext or in truth, they speak and preach the one Christ, and have anathematized the impious verbosity of Nestorius. And in the meantime there is much tranquillity there, and even those who formerly doubted are daily being confirmed in the faith. But now, as my lord the most holy bishop John of Antioch D has written to me, the beginning of another storm has arisen among them, and there is very great fear lest perhaps some unstable persons might return to their former [state]. For they say that certain persons have reached that great city, and then have appealed to the most pious and Christ-loving emperors, and have requested through their divine sanction that the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia be anathematized, and the man himself who has been mentioned. Great indeed is his name throughout the East, and his writings are admired exceedingly. And as they say, all are saddened that a man noble and deceased...
A in the communion of the Churches is now being anathematized. That we find in his writings certain things stated absurdly and full of sheer blasphemy is doubtful to none who are accustomed to think rightly. But let your holiness know that, when the exposition composed by him, which had been produced before the holy synod—as those who brought it forward claimed—was found to have nothing sound, the holy synod rejected it, as being full of perverse notions and, as it were, pouring forth the impiety of Nestorius. But while it condemned those who think in such a way, it made no mention of the man B by way of dispensation, nor did it subject the man himself by name to anathema, on account of that dispensation, lest some, looking to the reputation of the man, should separate themselves from the Churches. And dispensation in these matters is an excellent and wise thing. For if he were still among the living, and were a supporter of the blasphemies of Nestorius, or were willing to defend the things which he himself wrote, he would have undergone the anathema in his own person as well. But since he has departed to God, it suffices, as I think, that the things written by him absurdly are rejected by those who think rightly; since for those who encounter his books, to go further sometimes creates opportunities for disturbances. And indeed, in another way, with the blasphemies of Nestorius being anathematized and cast out, those things of his C which have the greatest affinity with these have been cast out along with them. If, therefore, some in the East were doing this without delay, and there were no disturbance to be expected from it, I would say that there would be no obstacle, even now, to demanding that they do this also in writing. But if, as my lord the most holy bishop of Antioch, John, writes, they would choose rather to be burned than to do anything of the sort, why do we stir up a flame that has been lulled to sleep, and untimelily provoke disturbances which have been settled, lest perhaps the last state should be found worse than the first? And I say these things while vehemently rebuking what the aforementioned Theodore wrote, but fearing the disturbances that might arise from some over this matter, lest perhaps, under a pretext, some might begin to mourn the things of Nestorius, according to that saying D of the poet among the Greeks, where each one mourned her own calamities under the pretext of Patroclus. If, therefore, these things are pleasing to your holiness, deign to give notice, so that they may be settled by a common letter. For it is possible to explain the dispensation of the matter to those who requested these things, and to persuade them to choose to remain quiet, rather than to provide an occasion for scandal to the Churches. I have also sent a copy of the things which were written to me by my lord the most holy bishop John. When your holiness has read it, you will surely receive the occasion for the subject itself.
EPISTLE LXXIII
OF RABBULA, BISHOP OF EDESSA, TO CYRIL
Rabbula, who some years before had anathematized the errors of Theodore, reiterates this condemnation.
*The beginning is wanting.* A Now, certain men renounce in every way the union according to subsistence. For a certain latent disease has become inveterate in the Orient, consuming the body of the Church like an incurable wound; and while it remained hidden from many, it was secretly honored among those who pose as learned and those who raise their eyebrows in erudition. For a certain bishop of the province of the Cilicians, Theodore, a man plausible in speech and persuasive, used to say some things immediately upon the tribunal of the church for the pleasure of the people, but he placed other snares of perdition in his writings, which, in the beginnings of some of his codices, he would surround with anathema so as not to reveal those writings to others. First, he set forth that the holy Virgin is not truly the Mother of God, as if the God-Word did not accept the birth as it pertains to us. This, which was hitherto hidden, Nestorius—forgetting the judgment of God and acting as the author of a new schism—published abroad, lest it be thought more firmly confirmed by being kept longer in silence. And that which follows this is A concerning the humanation: for they do not say that the man was united to the God-Word according to essence, or according to subsistence; but by a certain good pleasure, as if the divine nature did not accept another mode of union because of its being circumscribed by nothing. This man also said that our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be worshipped as Lord, but, by a relation to God, be honored as a kind of image; or rather, it is more manifest among them to say that it is like something sitting by relation to a demon. This man also declared that the flesh of the Lord profits nothing at all, dissipating the voice of the Lord which says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." This man also says that the Apostle did not know Christ as He was God, but that the Church was built upon the faith which is in man. It is not safe to signify by letter their reasonings here concerning Gehenna. B These are the treasures of their impiety, which they have long secretly enjoyed, and they wish, if possible, even until the end, to obscure the pious ears of the people who fear God.
EPISTLE LXXIV (old LV)
OF CYRIL TO RABBULA, BISHOP OF EDESSA
He extols his fervor in the cause of the faith with many praises.
The most wise Paul excites our souls to a certain incomparable alacrity and an impregnable confidence, writing thus: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?" For nothing is intolerable to those who firmly determine within themselves to run the race of faith, to finish the course, and to keep the faith, so that they may also merit the crown of incorruption. Just as he declares those most approved for governing the flock not by navigating in calm weather, but by being able to save the ship in a storm: so also, a serenity of circumstances does not prove those who have been allotted to preside over the Churches to be illustrious; but rather their skill in tribulations, and fortitude, and patience, and boldly resisting the unstable speeches of heretics. Your holiness has always C shone forth, but especially now, having become to all the Orientals a pillar and foundation of the truth, and like one expelling a certain pestilential disease, the blasphemy of the new and abominable heresy of Nestorius. For this impiety proceeds indeed from another root (I speak of him who was from Cilicia): but he supposed that he would hold the world because of a power given to him, I know not how. For he seized the most powerful see, and became food for the dragon having many heads: and he himself hoped to devour the holy Churches of God, and to seize them all; and had not the almighty God saved us, he would have prevailed, as far as his power and the wicked conspiracies of those who support him are concerned.
EPISTLE LXXV (old LVI)
OF ATTICUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO CYRIL
He denotes that he has ordered the name of John Chrysostom to be inserted into the diptychs, his innocence having been recognized.
Atticus to Cyril, greeting.
We have fallen into that which we had not intended: D and we are forced [index: entries preserved]
A to carry out that which is not in accordance with our own judgment, preferring the utility of justice, and leaning toward the concord of the peoples in our thoughts, in such a way that while we do not injure the canons of the Fathers, we set the peace of the world before the exact precision of words. For I know indeed that the blessed Paul, when laying down constitutions for the Churches, wisely managed the matters at hand. I know also that your father among the saints, the apostolic Theophilus, in the midst of the confusion and tumult stirred up by those devoted to Greek superstition, set peace before exact precision for a short time. For the greatest cities, being like a sea agitated by waves B according to the minds of their inhabitants, are not so much naturally disposed to be persuaded by firm laws and ordinances as by easily handled decisions looking toward peace and harmony. But learn the reason why I am putting forth this letter. Your holiness knows, or rather beholds with those very eyes with which our Father among the saints, Theophilus, beheld, what a great and vast tumult seized the great city; and how the pious faith was in danger of being shaken from its foundations, so that the people themselves, being divided into a greater part, assembled outside the walls, and priests and fellow-bishops were rent asunder from communion with one another, having nearly torn apart the good planting of the Lord Christ—I mean the blessing of peace. Wherefore, through much labor, and much sweat, and dangers full C of despair, the more numerous and important things were calmed by the prayers and the harmony of our common Fathers, and moreover by your own godliness. And harmony and calm now hold the Churches throughout the world. But since some desired that only the name of the blessed John should be written in the mystical tablets, so that even the blessed bishop Alexander—I mean him of Antioch—coming to the Great City, spoke many bold words, and sought to rouse the people, so that, even against our will, he was forced to have the name of the one mentioned written down. All these things the servants of God, the most pious deacons Peter and Aedesius, surely explained to your godliness with all accuracy. A long time having passed, and we being pushed by the necessity which comes from popular government, and D not at all turning toward the remnants of the schism, the most god-esteemed bishop Acacius wrote to us from the East that the most pious bishop of Antioch, Theodotus, had been forced by the populace to write the name of John, and he asked us to grant pardon for that which he had done under necessity. When that noble presbyter, the bearer of the letters, made haste to scatter the report among the multitude of the Great City for the sake of the matter for which he arrived, and conveyed the intent of the letters addressed to us to the people, so that the entire crowd was nearly filled with confusion. Then indeed, then I, having been troubled and suspecting danger for the greatest matters, and having betaken myself to the most pious emperor, concerning
perturbed, and fearing the risk in the most important matters, I approached the most pious emperor, and with him I discussed the status of peace and tranquility. And he answered that there was no danger or inconvenience if the name of the deceased man were inscribed for the sake of tranquility, peace, and the concord of the people. Therefore, persuaded by this—for how could I not have been, anticipated by necessity?—lest the affairs of our religion come to depend upon the judgment of the multitude by permitting this one example, and lest we habituate the city itself to popular administration, I ordered the name to be entered into the register; wherefore, as I indeed believe, I have neither committed an offense against the sacred canons, nor done violence to the judgment of the Fathers. For mention is made among the deceased not only of bishops, but also of presbyters, and deacons, and of the laity themselves, and of women, with all of whom we have no communion of priesthood, nor participation in those things which are mystically performed at the holy table. For there is a great A difference between the deceased and the living, such that the books are also distinguished on account of the differing state of those whose memory is preserved. For the honorable burial of Saul did not harm David at all, nor did Eudoxius, the follower of the impiety of Arius, harm the apostles by being placed under the same holier altar of sacrifice; nor did Paulinus and Evagrius, who were leaders of the schism and dissension in the Church of Antioch, harm the Church because, after their death—many years since—they were inscribed in the mystical diptychs for the sake of the peace and concord of the people. For this reason, do you also command the Churches in Egypt to inscribe the name of that deceased man, for the sake of the peace of the universal Church: for thus you will both not transgress the canons of the Fathers, and you will greatly value the concord of all the Churches together. But I am persuaded that you will write back to us what is fitting, looking toward our common consensus and fraternity. The entire fraternity that is with you, I and those who are with me, greet.
LETTER LXXVI (formerly LVII)
CYRIL TO ATTICUS
He rebukes Atticus for the insertion of the name of John Chrysostom into the diptychs.
D Having read the letters which were sent to me by your piety, I understood that the name of John had been inscribed in the sacred tables B. But when I questioned those who came from there to us, I heard that it had been inscribed not in the register of the laity, but in that of the bishops. Reflecting upon this, and considering in my own mind whether those who did this follow the decrees of the Nicene Fathers, and having directed the eyes of my mind a little toward that great synod, I behold the entire college of those holy Fathers, as if with my own eyes, rejecting and with their strength
A preventing us from running into an agreement on this matter. For how shall he be ranked with the priests of God, or how shall he share in their lot, whose priestly dignity has been abrogated? And how shall he be in the catalogues of ministers, who has been cast out from the ecclesiastical precincts? For it is unworthy B for us either to say that the name of the priesthood is nothing, and that the thing itself is common to all, when it has been reserved only for those called to it; or, if there is a great barrier between the priesthood and the laity, we should not mix what cannot be mixed, but keep each of those things mentioned in its own proper order, and deem it worthy of the honor that befits it. How, then, can there be a layman among bishops, or how can he who is not such stand among those who are genuine? Honor, I implore you, those who have been testified to by great and splendid achievements, and do not insult the holy college of the Fathers. Consider those who still remain in this life, how they would be disposed toward what has occurred. Would they not rightly say that they have been filled with every grief, if he who has been deposed is brought back into the same order as them? But I believe that your piety is also convinced of this. Wherefore, wipe away the cause of bitterness for them and for us. Remove the grounds for everyone’s sadness. For to arrange and manage matters that happen contrary to expectation easily and expeditiously, is something I would call the mark of a good and wise man: but only then, when it brings no harm. C For we do not, even though we are eager to propagate the flock of Christ and make it more numerous, receive the swarms of heretics if they do not repudiate their error. And therefore we ought not to embrace peace with them by some overly ready dispensation, against whom it is better to fight. A dispensation is indeed a praiseworthy work if, whenever we may seem to deviate from the due path, we do so in order to avoid a detriment to what is useful and beneficial. Thus also the blessed Paul became all things to all men, not so that he might gain some small thing but suffer the loss of a part, but that he might gain all. Let us see, therefore, as we investigate these matters, whether the harm in this proposal does not outweigh the good it is thought to possess. D So many years have now passed since your piety took up the throne, and there is no one who avoids your assemblies in the Church. And even if from the beginning some, out of a love of dissension, separated themselves from them, yet they too have been recalled by the power and grace of Christ. For who among the magistrates is not obedient to the words of your piety? Who is there who, for this very reason, remains outside the Church? There is truly no one. For God forbid. Whom, therefore, in recalling to salvation or leading back to the legitimate assemblies in the Church, are you not rather casting out entirely from the precincts of the Church, along with Egypt, the Augustal region, Arcadia, Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis,
A in such an extent does your God-fearing mind suppose us to be drowsy, that we do not endeavor to learn diligently regarding your own successes, and how the flocks of the Savior are being guided? For the concern for the priests is one, even if we are divided by location. But that I may not seem to be too insistent on this, or to hold views contrary to what your reverence thinks; let there be some few who are entirely seditious, still hazarding themselves for that man's wickedness, but there are so many Churches among us that insist that what was decreed concerning him must hold. To whom, then, is it just to assign the vote? Whom does it better please God to gladden? Those who defend him who committed such acts, or those who have had regard for that honor to which he attaches no importance? If, therefore, to preserve the concord of the Churches does not seem a thing to be despised, I pray you, resolve this bond that rends it. Place the sword back into its sheath. Command that the name of John be removed from the list of bishops. For if we count this as nothing, let not the traitor who is ranked among them pain the choir of the apostles; but if the name of Judas is inserted, in what place then shall Matthias be set for us? If, therefore, no one, having cast out Matthias, would write in Judas into the choir of the apostles, let there remain and be kept, I urge you, after Nectarius of famous memory, the second rank of the most praised Arsaces, B so that no memory of that blessed man be driven out by what was forced in violently and unlawfully. But perhaps a few may take this ill; yet permit me to speak freely what I wish. I truly would wish all to be saved. But if anyone, out of his own ignorance, separates himself and resists the constitutions of the Church, what is the loss incurred by such a man? Or did not the Savior himself, teaching us this and setting the pattern in all things, speak what was profitable to those who approached him, but allowed the disobedient and those who drew back to depart? And he was so far from having any regard for such men, that he even said to the disciples themselves: "Do you also wish to go away?" C It is indeed just that we should bestow much care upon those who are obedient. But let the adversary and disobedient blame his own ill will, since he holds the medicine in hatred. He shall indeed hear from the just Judge, saying: "Because I have spoken, and you did not obey; and I stretched out my words, and you did not pay heed," and what follows. For us, who teach by what means one may prepare for himself praise before God, it is fitting to do and institute this with great zeal, and to say with Paul to those who resist: "We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God," D and to commit the disobedient from now on to the power of God, saying: "We healed Babylon, and she was not healed; we have forsaken her, because her judgment reached unto heaven." It is not consistent, therefore, for the sake of some people’s objections—if indeed there be any at all—to tear down as if from the foundations the institutions of the Church, with a layman being ranked with those who have distinguished themselves in the priesthood, and entering in with an equal measure of honor. For should not...
A some people call this peace ecumenical, rather let them call it a cutting asunder. For I maintain that the name and the reality of peace are then confirmed, when we do not set ourselves against the opinions of the saints, nor do we oppose their decrees. For if the blessed Alexander, being indeed a man of rash speech, has deceived some of the most devout brethren and fellow-bishops of the East, contrary to the word of your holiness, and has caught them up and drawn them into an agreement on this matter, it does not for that reason necessarily follow that this malady must prevail and feed upon the souls of all. Rather, it is like some film dimming the eye of the Church, which must be purged away by you, so that, looking straight once more toward the decrees of the Fathers, it may justly hear regarding Christ: "Your eyes are dove's eyes" (Cant. 1, 14).
I have therefore received a letter from the most aged and devout Acacius, in which he asserts that the most devout bishop of Antioch was forced by certain people to commemorate John, and that he was greatly grieved at this, and sought to find some release from these rash actions, and desired to obtain letters regarding this from us and from your holiness, clearly declaring that he should not be led along by certain people, nor yield to those who counsel such things. But we, who have been called to exercise care and provide medicine (for grant me leave to speak with boldness, as I am pained in my soul), let us not become an addition to his wounds, B so that we may also avoid being considered an accessory to the rashness of others. I wonder too at this, that if the aforementioned Alexander—being such a one as he is in his wordiness, and having spent no small amount of time there—appears not to have been able to persuade anyone to this end, how a single letter-bearer could have managed, as rumor has it, to stir up the crowd so much and to revive a matter that had been put to rest for a long time; which is utterly incredible. But let this even be so, and let it be believed that it happened. Yet I know that your holiness is preeminent in speech. You will surely teach those who have been stirred up what is fitting. You possess C the grace of the holy proclamation in abundance. You will persuade, I know, even the most devout emperors to love, as is their habit, that which is in accordance with the canons. For being devout and lovers of Christ, they will permit the Churches to be governed by their own laws, and being zealous for the virtue of their fathers, they will imitate their examples.
Let not, therefore, the cast-out Jechonias be set alongside David and Samuel the prophets, nor, if it has seemed right to some unjustly that the remains of Eudoxius be deposited in those places, may we for that reason bring in the unholy as if he were holy. For it was surely necessary that D that act be sought to be corrected by us, not that it should be imitated as a precedent. And we say these things not because we overstep the bounds, for God forbid, nor because we gloat, as it is written, over the misfortunes of others—for this is not the goal of Christians—but because of our sympathy for man, acting for the interest of the Church, and considering nothing to be of more importance than its canons. If it were possible to harm nothing by these things, but to place [it] in...
they will imitate. Lest therefore Jechonias A be reckoned as rejected along with David and Samuel the prophets: and neither, if it has pleased some unfairly that they should place the relics of Eudoxius in the place you wrote of, should we therefore also record the profane as sacred in the register. For it was fitting for us to correct his affairs, not for him to prescribe to us, and to establish what has been done since him. And we say this, not because we insult him who is fallen and dead: for God forbid that this should be, nor that we should rejoice in the evils of others, as it is written [II Cor. x, 15]: for this is not the counsel and principle of Christians: but we grieve for the man, and contribute to the utility of the Church, judging nothing to be more excellent than its canons. For if it were permitted to preserve those things intact, and to count a deposed man among the bishops, then certainly those who prevented this from being done would rightly be called cruel and harsh. But since, when one holds the see, it is necessary that another cannot remain, the sanctions of the Church must prevail: and he who is not a minister of sacred things must be removed from the sacred catalogue. For this binds the Churches together to maintain peace: this completes the entire consent of spirits. And so, allow this to us, that we may be able to conduct assemblies purely and to communicate with your piety: and that you may have the love of that one deceased man, after the affection for those who are still living, and rather after the sanctions of the Church.
EPISTLE LXXVII
TO DOMNUS
*That he may grant a hearing through his own letters to the unruly clerics of Bishop Athanasius, and if they are found guilty, forbid them from sacred duties.*To my most beloved brother and fellow-minister, B Domnus, Cyril, greeting in the Lord.
It is necessary for us to sympathize with our brothers when some of our fellow-ministers affirm that they have suffered anything, and this from their own clerics, whom it was necessary to submit their neck as to fathers, and to be subject according to the pleasure of God and the rules of the Church determining such things. This, therefore, to be presumed, is in every way most shameful. For the most reverend Bishop Athanasius says that he has suffered such things that even the synod gathered in the royal city was moved to tears. For he says that some of the clerics who are under him have leapt into such great audacity, as far as the power of their undertaking is concerned, that they even expelled him from the priesthood, and brought a sentence of deposition against him. For they wish to eject the stewards of the Church, or at least the dispensers of ecclesiastical goods, and to appoint others for themselves by their own authority; and beyond these things, even to remove his name from the sacred diptychs, and to commit other absurd things, full of wickedness, which the substance of the submitted petitions is known to contain. Since, however, it is most incongruous that such things should be presumed by clerics against their own bishops, and it is impossible for us to overlook them, may your holiness deign (if the city whose governance the aforementioned most religious Bishop Athanasius has obtained is far from Antioch)
bishop Athanasius, to delegate the hearing to certain persons by letters of his own, so that those who are accused, once summoned, may offer their defense, and if they are found guilty of the charges, they may be removed from the sacred ministry. For what they themselves have dared against their own father, this they should justly suffer, having disregarded all order and transgressed every law, and accounted it as nothing to dishonor a father. They are said not only to have begun to be such in recent times, but to have been already convicted and guilty of many B even worse and harsher undertakings. He asserts, however, that he is suspicious of the one who now holds the metropolitan right of the province from which he comes; and, as I said, there is nothing troublesome in not allowing those who are suspect to him to judge him. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; the one that is with me greets you in the Lord.
LETTER LXXVIII (ol. LIX).
The canonical letter of the same Cyril.
Every matter of ours, when it proceeds according to canonical order, causes no turmoil among us, and frees us from the slander of some, or rather wins for us the praise of those who are wise. For who would not receive with open arms, as they say, a decision pronounced on certain matters which leans neither to this side nor that? Or how would it not be beyond all reproach, or rather greatly praiseworthy, if it be judged rightly and justly?
And these things I write now to your piety, which in the letters sent to me and to our most holy and most godly brother and co-bishop Proclus, indeed calls the most devout and most God-loving Peter a bishop; C yet he himself laments, and says that he has been unjustly ejected from the Church assigned to him. But it would have been consistent for him to have the name of the priesthood along with the reality, or, if he were not worthy to preside at the divine altar, he should not even be considered worthy of the very title of the episcopate. But perhaps that which I say will appear to your godliness to be harsh and devoid of charity. But in truth it is not so. For we think that we surely show mercy to the old man if we leave him only the name; but it would have been much better to consider the other side as well. For he says that he is able to prove his own case, but that no time for defense was given to him, nor was any canonical hearing granted to him. But if any such thing had happened, the very production of the records would have convicted him as guilty of the crimes laid against him, nor would there be any reason for him to complain that he had been treated unjustly; or, certainly, declaring him acquitted, it would have allowed him D again to preside over the Church which was subject to him. Since, however, nothing of the sort has been done, he complains loudly about the matter, and says that he has received an intolerable injury,
and to have been iniquitously cast out, adding that all his private property had been taken from him.
A Your Holiness, therefore, considering both what is sanctioned by divine canons and what is fitting for the Church and for those who have been initiated into the sacred ministry, and furthermore taking into account our own letter, should stay the old man’s tears. And if he should choose to contend in judgment with those who bring charges against him, let him litigate before your Holiness according to custom, with the most religious bishops who are under your authority attending, unless he rejects any as suspect. For we do not believe that any of the most religious bishops bears a hostile mind toward a brother. B Yet, so that this pretext does not become a reason to dissolve the coming judgment concerning him, making it appear as if it were not conducted lawfully, it is no hardship for those who are under suspicion to be absent from the assembly.
As for the money that was unjustly taken from him, it is just that it be restored to him for two reasons. First, because such a thing ought not to have happened at all; and because it causes great harm and fills the most religious bishops everywhere in the world with the deepest distress that they should be required to render an account of the administration of the expenses that come their way, C whether from ecclesiastical revenues or from the produce of other sources. For each of us shall give an account of our own deeds to the Judge of all. For it is right that precious vessels and immovable possessions be preserved for the Churches; but that the administration of incidental expenses be securely entrusted to the bishops who at that time are administering the divine priesthood.
Moreover, as for the letters of resignation, he says that he did not deliver them of his own free will, but as if by force and fear and the threats of some. And it is another matter, one which does not please the custom of the Church, for some of the ministers to present letters of resignation. D For if they are worthy to celebrate the holy mysteries, let them remain in them; but if they are unworthy, they should not go out by means of a resignation, but rather be condemned for deeds, concerning which anyone might have complained as wandering from the straight path. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; that which is with us greets you in the Lord.
LETTER LXXIX (old LXX).
CYRIL TO THE BISHOPS WHO ARE IN LIBYA AND PENTAPOLIS.
Concerning the monks living in the Thebaid.
Every matter which is useful and necessary for the edification of the peoples, and which contributes also to the reputation of the holy Churches, ought to be cared for. For it is written: "Sanctify the children of Israel." Therefore, let the Fathers of the monasteries that are in the Thebaid...
province, men pious and holy, and possessing a rather remarkable form of life and institutional practice, when they came to Alexandria, being questioned by me regarding the state of the monasteries there, taught [me] that many are scandalized by such a cause. Some who have recently married, and have as it were just emerged from the nuptial chambers, take hold of some of the most God-beloved bishops, and, with perhaps no one here informing [the bishops] of their affairs, are ordained as clerics, that is to say, presbyters. Others, moreover, from these same monasteries, having been cast out as unruly and insolent, again seek out ordinations; and becoming clerics, enter into these same monasteries from which they were cast out, and wish to perform the oblation, and to do all things that are the custom for clerics, so that some of those who know them even avoid the synaxes, and do not endure to communicate with those who are ministering. C Since, therefore, for the edification of the peoples, as I said, all things must be done by us, may your holiness observe these things; and if anyone is to be ordained a cleric, let him examine his life, and whether he has a wife or not, and how and when he took her, and if he is not one of those who have been cast out by another most God-beloved bishop, or from a monastery, and then let him ordain him, [provided he is] found to be blameless. For we shall thus keep our own conscience pure, and the holy and venerable mystery blameless. If, however, any who have been disciplined on account of transgressions endure separation, and then are about to die while they are catechumens, let them be baptized, and let them not depart from human affairs destitute of grace, that is to say, lacking communion. For this also seems to adhere to the custom of the Church. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; the [brotherhood] that is with us greets you in the Lord.
LETTER LXXX. AD OPTIMUM EPISCOPUM.
On the words: "Everyone who kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance."D And especially pleasing to me was the sight of the good sons, both on account of their stability of character beyond their age, and on account of their relationship to your holiness, from which it is possible to expect something great from them. Since I saw them approaching me with your letters, I doubled the feeling of love toward them. But when I had read the letter, and had seen therein both your providential care for the Churches, and your diligence regarding the reading of the divine Scriptures, I gave thanks to the Lord, and I prayed for good things for those who conveyed such letters to us, and before them, for the one who wrote [them] to us. You asked about that much-heralded saying, which is bandied about by everyone everywhere, what solution it has: "Everyone who kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance"? And by means of this, for now...
A you have commended yourself specifically by having carefully observed that which Paul [a] had handed down to Timothy to be kept; for it is evident that you are devoting yourself to reading. Furthermore, you have also stirred us, who are advanced in years and already broken by age, by the infirmity of the body, and by a multitude of troubles (for the great abundance of evils that has been set in motion against us has almost crushed our life), and you have refreshed and enlivened us with the fervor of your spirit, just like deep-burrowing animals, stirring us to wakefulness and to the reception of the vigor of life. The statement, therefore, can be understood in a simple sense as the words sound, and it can also admit of a varied interpretation. The explanation, then, that can be readily available to anyone is this: that Cain must pay a sevenfold penalty for the things in which he sinned. For it is not the role of a righteous judge to exact equal punishments for equal sins; rather, it is necessary for him to afflict the author of the offense with heavier penalties, so that he may both be corrected himself and make others slower to commit sin by his example. Therefore, since it was decreed that Cain should pay a sevenfold penalty for his crimes, he says that whoever kills Cain will release him from this very penalty decreed for him by the divine judgment. This is the sense that occurs first in this passage of the reading. But since the mind of the studious is accustomed to investigate the causes of things more deeply, it seeks to understand the justice of it: how is satisfaction given to it through a sevenfold penalty? Is the offense sevenfold, or is the fault simple and single, while the punishment for the one offense is sevenfold? The law of Divine Scripture always defines the number for the remission of sins by the septenary. "How many times," he says, "will my brother sin against me, and I shall forgive him—if he sins B against me" (the words are Peter’s to the Lord), "up to seven times?" Then the Lord answers: "I do not say to you up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." For the Lord did not move to another number, but by multiplying the seven, He fixed the limit in it, and as it were, established the boundary of remission. And in the seventh year, the Hebrew was granted liberty. Seven weeks of years made that jubilee most celebrated among the ancients, in which the earth rested, the names of debts were rescinded, servitude was removed, and a new way of life, as it were, was established anew in the fiftieth year, with the prior and old way having been brought, as it were, to an end. All these things foreshadowed this age of ours, which circles around us in the orbit of seven days, in which the punishments for human faults are exacted for our sake, in accordance with the merciful care of our good God, lest we be condemned to eternal punishments for all eternity. The "sevenfold," therefore, is mentioned because of people’s closeness or affection toward this world, so that those who love the world more than is right may receive the greatest damages from the very debtors for whose sake they chose to sin. Furthermore, if you explain the offenses C of Cain to anyone, you will find seven; if you take those D ordained for him by the Judge, you will also not miss the meaning.
A First, the sin that Cain himself performed is envy, in that he felt Abel had been preferred before him by God. The second crime is fraud or deceit, with which he beguiled his brother, when he said: "Let us go out into the field." The third is murder. The fourth is an increase or completion of his crime, in that he slew his brother, and this increase makes the parricide a greater wickedness. The fifth is that Cain stood forth as the first murderer, and handed down a most evil example to posterity. The sixth offense is that he brought heavy grief upon his parents. The seventh is that he lied to God Himself. For when he was asked where his brother was, he said, "I do not know." Therefore, seven crimes in the murder by Cain were punished by seven penalties.
For the Lord said: "Cursed shall you be upon the earth which has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother, and you shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth." And Cain said: "If you cast me out today from the earth, and I shall be hidden from your face, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth, then everyone who finds me will kill me." To this the Lord replies: "Not so; but everyone who kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold." B Since, therefore, Cain believed he would be easily taken by anyone, because he knew of no protection on earth, since the earth was cursed by him, nor did he look for help from God, who was angry with him on account of the murder, in such a way that, deserted by the hope and help of heaven and earth, he was excluded and said: "Everyone who finds me will kill me," the Word corrects his error, saying: "Not so," that is to say, "You shall not be killed." But he not only covers the wound, he also adds another to the murder, while he weaves a lie and says: "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" From here, then, God begins to count the penalties. "Cursed shall the earth be because of you." This is the first penalty. "Work the earth." This is the second. For a certain unspeakable necessity was fastened to him, which so urged him to the work of the earth that it was not permitted to him even if he wished it to take C any part of rest, but it pressed him most assiduously; the earth was hostile and inimical to him, which he had made execrable to himself when he had defiled it with fraternal blood. For it is a bitter kind of punishment to live with those who hate you, and to retain an enemy within one's own house, and to nurse eternal hatred. "Work the earth," that is to say, "Relax at no time from the sweat of tilling and digging the earth, so that you recover from labor neither by night nor by day, but that, with an ultimate necessity which surpasses all servile servitude forcing you, you are always urged to work, and yet by your assiduous cultivation you do not make it better." For although continuous work has some fruit of labor from time to time, yet the labor itself brings immense trouble and torment to one who is always stretched tight, always occupied, and never ceasing from work. But you, with immense labor, will achieve nothing, nor will you make anything worth the effort, nor D
ment; you will carry that back with you. Moreover, "groaning and trembling A you shall be upon the earth." He added two other punishments: incessant sighs and the trembling of the body, having lost the strength and vigor which the limbs previously received. For since he had abused the strength of his body, its tension was taken away, so that he was made to shake and tremble, unable either to convey bread to his mouth safely or to bring drink to it with his impious hand following his murderous deed, his body being no longer permitted to perform its necessary functions. There is another punishment, which Cain revealed when he said: "If you cast me out today from the face of the earth, and from your face I shall be hidden." The most grievous punishment in the eyes of the wise is rejection from the face and sight of God. "And it will be, he says, that everyone who finds me will kill me." He conjectures that other punishments will follow from the previous ones. If You cast me out from the face of the earth, if You drive me from Your face, what remains but that, being proscribed, I can be taken away by anyone? What then does the Lord say? "Not so," but He set a sign upon him; this is the seventh punishment. But that the retribution should not be hidden, but proclaimed by an open sign, that this is the architect of wicked deeds (for to those who reason rightly, it is B the most grievous disgrace among punishments), is something we have also learned concerning the judgment, when these will rise to eternal life, and those to everlasting shame and reproach. There follows annexed to this a question regarding what Lamech said to his wives: "For I have killed a man for a wound, and a young man for a bruise." Therefore, a wound is one thing, and a bruise is another; and a man is one thing, and a youth is another. For if for Cain a sevenfold punishment was decreed, from the killing by Lamech four hundred and ninety punishments are to be exacted. If Cain was impious, if God's judgment regarding Cain was pious and just, so that a sevenfold punishment was inflicted, then he indeed designed murder with no example before him, but this latter one saw even the parricide undergoing punishment. Yet I, always seeing before my eyes the groaning and trembling Cain and the magnitude of the wrath and fury of God, have not learned from the example to be wise; whence I am worthy of four hundred and ninety stripes. Some, however, have advanced a line of reasoning of this kind, which is by no means foreign to ecclesiastical doctrine: namely, that from Cain until the flood seven generations passed. And immediately the punishment was brought upon the earth because of the great deluge of sin that had occurred. But the sin of Lamech did not require the cataclysm for its healing, but Him who takes away the sin of the world. C
EPISTLE LXXXI. (Fragments.)
To the monks established in Phua. Against those who affirm that the resurrection of bodies does not exist.
They say, therefore, that there are some among you who deny the resurrection of human bodies, which is a part of our confession, which we make when approaching the saving baptism.For when we profess the faith, we add that we believe also in the resurrection of the flesh. If we take this away, and do not believe that Christ has risen from the dead so that he might resurrect us with himself, we have a limping faith, and abandoning the royal road, we walk along one that is twisted. A Such an impious opinion is from the madness of Origen, whom our Fathers also, as a corrupter of the truth, have rejected and anathematized. For he did not think like a Christian, but having followed the foolishness and trifles of the Greeks, he has fallen into error. And the beginning of the disease happened to him from this: he says that souls pre-exist bodies, and that from holiness they were led away into base desires, and departed from God; and on account of this cause he judged them, and embodied them, and they are as in a prison in the flesh.
From the same, from the letter to the monks who were in Phua
.The Church, however, following the divinely inspired Scriptures, knows not the soul as pre-existing before bodies, nor even as having sinned before them. For how could that which did not yet exist be able to sin? We say, rather, that the Creator of all things fashioned the body from the earth, and ensouled it with a rational soul. And this is the structure of man. And after other things: That the soul of man was not condemned for prior sins, as they say, B and sent into this world, the all-wise Paul also testifies, writing: "For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body, according to what he has done, whether good or evil." Why then does he say that we must be manifested only for the things done through the body, and not rather for those done even before the body, if he knew the soul to be pre-existing and to have sinned beforehand? C But if we are judged only for the things done through the body, we clearly have no sin older than the body: for the soul of man did not exist at all before it. The power of the legal letter also confirms us in this. For if, as the deluded Origen says, the soul received the body for the sake of punishment or vengeance for previous sins, for what reason did it threaten death to those who sin? For it should rather have been the case that good and just men should die, so that they might be freed from bonds and punishment, D and that the wicked should live, so that they might be punished without being freed from their bonds.
EPISTLE LXXXII
TO AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF SIDE A *On the Massalian heretics. With them one must act moderately and prudently.*I know indeed, most wise friend, that your reverence will consider nothing better than charity and brotherly love. But you will also think it the mark of your prudence to employ the best method in all matters. Therefore I write to your piety what I believe to be fitting, and I ask what is effective; for it is clear that one must not deal with excessive rigor toward those who wish to repent and to abandon the most unholy heresy of the Massalians, or Euchites, and to embrace the true doctrines of the Church. For it is sufficient that those who have undertaken this resolution profess as follows: "I anathematize the heresy of the Massalians, or Euchites." Whoever treats them with too much precision, and sometimes even offers to them texts from books to be recited, causes confusion for the one who does not possess great sharpness of mind; for the many are simple folk, and are not able to understand in such a way as to condemn explicitly everything that ought to be condemned. B It is sufficient, therefore, that they themselves anathematize the heresy, and that names are not forced upon them individually, lest the contentious spirit of some, born of ignorance, should turn them away from the desire to believe rightly. And I write these things not to grant a favor to anyone, but because I know well that the best policy in these matters is moderation; for extreme legalism, for the most part, disturbs many, even those who seem the most wise.
EPISTLE LXXXIII
CYRIL TO CALOSYRIUS. *He rebukes the erroneous opinion and sloth of certain monks of Egypt who attribute a human body to God, on the pretext that man was created in the image of God; he asserts that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist remains perpetually, and strictly forbids communion with heretics. It is placed before the book Contra Anthropomorphitas, although it has little connection with it. See vol. IX of this edition.*EPISTLE LXXXIV
CYRIL TO EUOPTIUS. *It is placed as a preface to the treatise of St. Cyril in defense of the twelve chapters against Theodoret.*EPISTLE LXXXV (formerly LXI).
CYRIL TO AURELIUS, VALENTINUS, AND THE OTHERS WHO HAD ASSEMBLED IN THE AFRICAN SYNOD. *He transmits the authentic copies of the Nicene Council; he announces that Easter is to be celebrated at Alexandria this year on the 17th of the Kalends of May.*Cyril, to the most honorable and holy lords and brothers and fellow-bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, and to the entire C holy synod assembled in Carthage, greetings in the Lord.
to the most holy synod assembled in Carthage, Cyril, greeting in the Lord to your love.
The writings from your reverences, containing much piety, I received with all joy through our son, the presbyter Innocentius. Since these were hoped for by us, that from the archives of our Church we might send to your love the most truthful copies of the authentic synod which was held at Nicaea, which is a city of Bithynia, containing those things defined and confirmed by the holy Fathers concerning the confession of our faith, I judged it necessary, most honored lords and brothers, first of all with a greeting, to send to your love through our same son, the presbyter Innocentius, the most faithful copies of the authentic synod held in the city of Nicaea in Bithynia; which you will also find upon consulting ecclesiastical history. Regarding Easter, moreover, as you wrote, we announce to you that we shall celebrate it on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of May in the coming indiction. The subscription. May God and our Lord guard your holy synod, which we pray, most honored brothers.
NOTICE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING FRAGMENT.
Synopsis of the Admonition prefaced by the Ballerini to the fragment of the Epistle of St. Cyril concerning Easter of the year 444. (Mansi, Concil., vol. V, p. 1217, from the Works of Leo the Great, ed. Ballerin. vol. I, 606.)Num. 1. It is certain that St. Leo wrote at least two letters during the controversy over the Easter of the year 444, although both have perished. The response of Paschasinus of Lilybaeum to the second of these remains. The Ballerini set out to demonstrate (num. 2) that a fragment of a reply epistle of Cyril of Alexandria, to whom the other was directed, still survives, and that it is a portion of the Easter epistle of Cyril which Petavius and others published. It is indeed a unique piece, but it was conflated by some unskilled hand from fragments of two Easter letters, and with a few changes (as is clear from a collation of the earlier fragment preserved by Dionysius Exiguus), it was adapted to designate one and the same Easter (num. 3). But the matter is otherwise; for the earlier fragment is best documented in Dionysius as being addressed to Aurelius, etc., in the synod gathered in the year 419, and it designates the Easter of the year 420. And the reading in Dionysius that Easter was to be celebrated on the 17th day before the Kalends of May is erroneous (num. 4). For this error must be reformed so that it is placed as the 14th day before the Kalends of May; for in the epistle of Cyril, where he is read in the same Dionysius as having been sent to Boniface after the consulship of Honorius for the 10th time and Theodosius for the 8th time, that is, in the year 419, he speaks concerning this Easter of a future indiction, that is, of the following year. The second fragment (num. 5) expresses the Easter of the year 444, to be celebrated by the Alexandrians on the 9th day before the Kalends of May, on account of the system of the embolism of the year, while among the Latins it was destined to be celebrated on the 7th day before the Kalends of April, at the 22nd moon, so that they made a common year out of an embolismic one: all which indicators designate the year. This fragment (num. 6) Joannes Vander Haagen, in his book entitled *Observations on the prologues and Easter epistles of the ancient Fathers and pontiffs*, published at Amsterdam in 1734, defends as being from the epistle of Cyril to Saint Leo, and draws this from Bede in his book *On the arguments of the moon*, where these things are read: "Thus it is read in the epistle which blessed Cyril wrote to Pope Leo; for I will indicate to you what Bacumius (Pachomius) the monk..."—all of which are indeed read in the fragment in question.
A Pascha, which we have spoken of in this year, must be guarded against in such a way that we do not celebrate the Pascha of an embolismic year in a common year, nor that of a common year in an embolismic one. For we must investigate the lunar epacts [(5)] in the months of the entire year, so that we may celebrate Pascha [(6)] on the moon of the first month, at the beginning of the year after the start of spring.
B ...sixteen, it had to be deferred to the following Sunday, the 26th of March, the 22nd moon.
[(3)] It must be observed that it is a Saturday, not a Sunday, as is clear from all the Latin cycles. Whether you attribute this slip to the scribe or, as others suspect, to Cyril, it makes no difference. Furthermore, in the Anonymous cycle in Norisius at the 63rd year of the cycle, in which the year of Christ 444 falls, and also in the ancient cycle in Muratori, Vol. III of the *Anecdota Latina*, p. 204 et seqq., at the year 62, which through the author’s slip corresponds to the year 63, as can be seen in Joannes Vander Haagen, the author of the *Observationes in Anonymi cyclum* edited by Muratori, p. 278. In these, I say, the Kalends of January are noted as Saturday, that is, the day of Saturn or the Sabbath, or the seventh ferial day, and the moon as the 28th, not the 26th. But these Latin cycles of eighty-four years were constructed at the time when a lunar leap was admitted every twelfth year, bringing five lunar leaps from the beginning of the cycle to the year 63. However, in the time of Leo, with Prosper making corrections, it had been introduced that the lunar leap should be admitted every fourteenth year, as the aforementioned Vander Haagen proved on p. 217 et seqq. of his *Observationes in Chronicon Prosperi*: whence only four lunar leaps occurred from the beginning of the cycle to the year 63. But each leap adds one day to the age of the moon. Therefore, in those cycles that established five leaps, one day was added to the age of the moon up to the year 63, in contrast to the cycle that, from the correction of Prosper, received only four leaps: and for this reason, in those cycles, on the Kalends of January of the year 63, the age of the moon was the 28th; but in the cycle accepted in the time of Leo, it was the 27th. The very lunar renewal, or paschal new moon, which the author in this year places on the Nones of March, just as in the Kalends of March, he also requires the 27th age of the moon for the Kalends of January. Here, however, it must be noted that Cardinal Norisius, in the *Diagramma* of the 84-year cycle, in which he noted for the year 63, on the Kalends of January, the 27th age of the moon from the *Fasti*, wrongly marked the paschal new moon of the same year on the 5th of March or the 1st of the Nones, since in the hypothesis of the 28th age of the moon appended by the old style to the *Fasti*, the new moon fell on the 4th of March or the 4th of the Nones of March. He was led to this by certain proofs compelling him from the day of Pascha of the year 444, and from the cycle appended to his own *Fasti*, which he presumed to have held in the same year: and in order to reconcile these things, he introduced an arbitrary system of full moons, which he would have himself likewise repudiated if he had suspected the correction of the cycle introduced before his own year, just as he later doubted it because of the Pascha of the year 454.
C ...the age of the moon was called. But lunar epacts are named in the months of the whole year, that is, not annual, but monthly, because their investigation is necessary so that the legitimate time of Pascha may be found.
D ...highly to be observed, Joannes Vander Haagen, p. 103 of his *Observationes in Cyrilli epistolam*, explains very accurately. The first month of the sacred Hebrew lunar year is understood to be at the beginning of the natural tropical solar year, beginning from the vernal equinox after the start of spring, which is soon fixed to the day of his Kalends of April. This accords with Cyril’s prologue, where the vernal equinox and the start of spring are similarly set at the 12th of the Kalends of April, that is, March 21, or the 25th of the month of Pharmuthi. This day is of the greatest importance in the Paschal... [alt-version omitted]
A calculation: and when it is said that Easter is to be celebrated after the beginning of spring, it is indicated by the rules of the Alexandrians that it could not be celebrated on the very day of the vernal equinox. For since Easter cannot be celebrated on the fourteenth moon of the first month, but must be celebrated on the Sunday which follows that fourteenth moon, the Paschal celebration must occur after the beginning of spring, or after the vernal equinox; and among the Alexandrians it could have fallen sooner on the fifteenth moon, if this moon were a Sunday, and the twenty-fourth moon coincided with the day of the equinox.
For the sun itself is daily closed off alike by land and sea at the end of the day, and is opened at the beginning of the day. And the sun finishes the course of the whole year on the 12th of the Kalends of April, and the fullness or waning of the lunar globe is foreseen by the movement of the fingers, by the mastery of reason, and by some calculation of numbers: so that we may count only eleven moons according to the legal calculation B of the Hebrews in a common year, and thirteen in an embolismic year according to the computation of days.
I will indicate to you, however, that Pachomius, a man distinguished for apostolic grace, and an outstanding founder of the monasteries of Egypt, issued to the monastery which in the language of the Egyptians is called Panum, letters which he had received at the dictation of an angel, so that they would not fall into error in the method of the Paschal solemnity, and would know the moon of the first month in a common year, and in an embolismic one. Most beloved lords, keep in mind what was established regarding the first Passover in Egypt for a reminder, that the sons of Israel should eat the lamb in the type of the true Lamb on the moon of the first month. Later, however, the Passover was made for a commemoration, in which manna descended, which shows that the shadowy lamb was to recede when the true manna had descended. But our Lord Jesus Christ joined in one day the lamb of the Jews and the true manna, when He blessed the bread and wine, saying: "This is my body, and my blood," on the moon of the first month, at the beginning of the year. Therefore, let us remember, and let us be mindful to offer what Jesus offered for us in the first month. For the Lord Jesus said: "As often as you do this, you shall do it in remembrance and memory of me." And inquire most diligently into what the Nicene synod ordained, the fourteenth C moon of all years according to the nineteen-year cycle.
so that we may not be led astray regarding the fourteenth day of the moon, along with the Jews and the heretics who are called the Quartodecimans. And it has been established in all the synods, except for the synod of Gangra and that of Caesarea, that no Church, nor city, nor any region, should act in contradiction to those things which have been determined regarding Easter in the Nicene Council.
Believe me that if the Nicene synod had not written a lunar cycle for the first month, the cycle of the Selenite stone in Persia would suffice as an example of the paschal calculation, whose internal brightness increases and decreases with the moon of the first month. Therefore, I have notified you of all these things because you doubted regarding the moon of the first month in this year. Therefore, I command you not to celebrate Easter in the month of March in an embolismic year, but on the ninth before the Kalends of May, in the unity of the Catholic Church. But let us eat the lamb of the true Israelite, which is immaculate and without spot, because it has been commanded to Israel that we may eat the yearling lamb in one house. And concerning this lamb, it is most truly commanded that it is immaculate: “You shall not kill the lamb in the milk of its mother,” which means on the approaching Easter of its conception in the womb of its mother. Therefore, Joseph wished to put away Mary, who was pregnant, secretly, lest she be stoned as one defiled and an adulteress. But in order that the lamb should not be killed in the milk of its mother, Joseph fled with her into Egypt at the next Easter of its birth, as the angel commanded, in the month of March, in the returning year—that same month in which Cain led Abel the just into the field, so that he might kill him in the manner of Christ being lead to the praetorium of Pilate on the Friday, because on that same day He was conceived in the womb, and He died on the cross when on Friday Adam died in his soul for sin in paradise, and on that same day he died in the body. The answer is, as I believe, for all who have questioned me.
MONITION ON THE PROLOGUE OF S. CYRIL ON THE CALCULATION OF THE PASCHAL FEAST
This prologue is brilliant, but it is not without errors, and we have had only a single manuscript, says Bucherius in *De doctrina temporum*, p. 484. We present it restored with the aid of an ancient codex, marked n. 609, of parchment, in-8, which was once of the library of S. Martial of Limoges and is now preserved in the Imperial Library in Paris. Abbot Lebeuf, as it seems, attached a leaf at the beginning, in which he determines the age of the codex, and he lists the writings it contains as follows: This codex appears to have been written in the 9th century. In it are contained: fol. 1, Exposition of various names of Sacred Scripture; fol. 11, On diverse interpretations; fol. 13, Preface to the nineteen-year cycle of the Nicene Council, edited by the 325 Fathers; fol. 44, Preface of Cyril; fol. 54, Preface of Martin of Dumio, On the time of the beginning of the world; fol. 59, Order of the paschal computation; fol. 66, Exposition of the bissextile years of the common year of Siricius, etc.; fol. 97, Table of the beginning of Lent from the year 812; fol. 28, Fragment on the generations of the gentiles and of Barlaam, which seems to have been written in the 10th or 11th century. This manuscript book seems to me to be that precious book on computation which is written to have been given by Charles son of Robert the king to S. Martial of Limoges. See Labbe, *Bibl. mss.*, t. II, p. 164. LEBOEUF, 1738.
EPISTLE LXXXVII OR PROLOGUE
AWritten for the cycle of 95 years, which Cyril began with the vulgar year of Christ 437, of Diocletian 153.
1. The holy mystery of Easter and its solemnity, if it had been observed as it was handed down by our Savior to the apostles, would have remained intact; if the perversity of some had not in the least violated, in other sacraments of the faith, those things which were established. Even those who attempted to answer their depravity and instituted the 84-year paschal cycle would have kept the circle of perfect calculation, if they had been able to follow not a human, but a divine tradition in the computation of months or years. Hence they are involved in the darkness of such great ignorance that both before the fourteenth moon, which the vulgar believe to be the sixteenth, when it has not yet completed the circuit of its sphere before the evening of the Sabbath, and by celebrating Easter before the month of new things, they are frequently taught to have erred against the precept of the Lord. Others, foreseeing and reproving this, and as it were desiring to amend it—because they were not illuminated by divine revelation but were puffed up by the presumption of human science—have added something worse. And just as the former did by six periods of fourteen years, so these also did by seven periods of sixteen years B C D.
A regarding the regulations of dimensions, 1 registering doubled or multiplied numbers and monograms, they have endeavored to write of different and inextricable circles. 2 Because of the narrow difficulties and infinite controversies of these—by which they contend against one another—some have been so offended that, abandoning all observations and caring not, so to speak, on what moon or day of the week it fell, they have chosen to celebrate not the Pasch of the Lord (which is the solemnity of the Resurrection occurring on the day of the fullness of light and the fellowship of the eternal Sun), but merely the birth of the world, irrationally. But why should anyone superfluously extend human ingenuity and possess an elaborate tongue, unless his understanding is directed toward true wisdom by Him who made the wisdom of this world appear foolish?
2. Since, therefore, the paschal rule was being disturbed throughout the whole world by these and similar dissensions, it was decreed by the consensus of a synod of holy men of the whole world that, since such a Church had been found at Alexandria as was distinguished by the perfection of this knowledge, 3 it should inform the Roman Church by letter each year on which Kalends or Ides, and on what moon, the Pasch should rightly 4 be celebrated; whence, by apostolic authority, the universal Church throughout the world might know the defined day of the Pasch without any dispute. But when they had observed this together for many centuries, and no one believed the scriptures at all—since that 5 question was solved there, and sometimes it would occur that on the Sabbath of the Pasch 6 the moon was the 21st (which to them was the 21st) [d]—they feared to celebrate the Pasch from the fifteenth of the Kalends of May 7 up to the eighth, as if in the second month; 8 and there was great confusion in every Church, praetorium, or palace. The most religious Emperor Theodosius, who strove to please God not only in human but also in divine laws, requested holy Theophilus, 9 bishop of the city of Alexandria, by his letters, that he should discourse 10 with the most evident reasoning concerning the sacrament of the Pasch and deign to send it to him. B Submitting to his most holy commands, he instituted the paschal circle and, calculating from the first year of his consulship up to one hundred, he sent to his subjects in his own letters on what Kalends or Ides and on what moon the Pasch ought to be celebrated, and he faithfully and briefly 12 outlined 11 the manifest truth in his own booklet. In it, with the Lord revealing it to him, he opened up the order of perfect reason, and vanquished and dissolved all errors and superfluous questions more clearly than light.
3. But because those various cycles disseminated through the whole world had possessed even our minds unshaken, this one, which recently was published, could scarcely reach a few. When I perceived that its excessive profundity exceeded almost all understanding, I asked for the revelation of the Lord: and I have presumptuously 13 set forth in this booklet what I was worthy to draw from the very fountain; which I learned that even those among whom I saw that very cycle had not understood. And lest the infinite heap of four hundred and eighteen years should bring to some either weariness of learning or sloth in transcribing, I have abbreviated the same cycle into ninety-five years, which I have known to revolve through those years without any difference. I have given warning that only one as is to be added—or rather, omitted—in certain years, because of the reasons of the bissextile, which could not occur until that highest, final year of the cycle, which returns to the beginning.
4. But he added 18 from the eleventh 15 of the Kalends of April up to the seventh 16 of the Kalends of May, through thirty-five days, which make five weeks, confirming that the holy Pasch is to be celebrated, 17 and to the month of the "new ones," of which it is already manifest that it has two days of that same week, he added the remaining five [f] days, so that, because of the Lord's Day, he might extend it from the fourteenth moon to the twenty-first, as is commanded. Which moon indeed is made the fourteenth from the twelfth day of the Kalends of April up to the fourteenth day of the Kalends of May: and therefore [he meant] to extend these five days.
LETTER LXXXVII
LETTER LXXXVII
I did not have the slightest doubt that the moon itself at the seventh day of the Kalends of May extends beyond the term of the first month and is born and made full according to the computation of the Hebrews, for whom the Pascha was commanded in prefiguration of Christ. Afterward, an embolismic year occurs; that it has thirteen lunar months, that is, three hundred and eighty-four days, was divinely revealed to holy Moses. Whence it is evident that these five days added to the month of the new moons do not belong to the second month, but to the first; even if they were of the second, on account of the Lord's Resurrection and the fullness A of the Church, it would not be without merit that they appear to be added. Those also who lived further away, or had been unclean in soul, were ordered to celebrate the Pascha in the second month: which is understood as a type of the holy Church: which, when it had fornicated with all demons, seemed unclean in soul; but, cleansed by a healthy confession, it is commanded to pass over to the second birth, as if to a second month. Moreover, before the month of the new moons, there is the last month, in which the true Pascha is utterly forbidden to be celebrated.
5. But I shall state briefly what is diverse in their computation; the moon, which they improperly call the third, or the sixteenth, or the twenty-third, Saint Theophilus confirms as the first, or the fourteenth, or the twenty-first, with heaven itself demonstrating it. Moreover, as to the Pascha, which they fear to celebrate beyond the twelfth day of the Kalends of May, Saint Theophilus does not doubt to defer it until the seventh day of the Kalends of May. In the order of those years, some added one day to the lunar increments in the fourteenth year, some in the sixteenth; Saint Theophilus adds this in the nineteenth. Whence their computation, because it is inconvenient and diverse, hastens on; but his, because it is supported by truth, prevails, and persists forever. For Theophilus wishes the fourteenth moon to be seen in the sky in such a way that it rises with the full circle of its orb at the same moment the sun sets; and the same night having passed, as the moon sets, the sun rises. Whence it clearly appears that although they fear to celebrate the Pascha on the Sabbath on the twenty-third moon B, he, affirming the twenty-first, without any trepidation believes that the holy Pascha should be celebrated; and whereas they anticipate by measuring the fifteenth on the past Sabbath, he, pointing out the thirteenth—not contending that they do not celebrate rightly—does not doubt to defer to the twenty-first.
6. Moreover, it is manifest that twenty-nine and a half days make up the moon, which doubled produce fifty-nine: to which one day is added beyond those two halves, so that they may appear to be filled to sixty, and the legitimate lunar saltus is effected: so that if, for example, it is the fifth moon, the next day is not called the sixth, but the seventh; and no calculator is ignorant that the thirtieth moon has a middle belonging to the waning and a middle belonging to the waxing, which is called the thirtieth, and which is also the first. Such, therefore, the twenty-ninth moon ought to appear at daybreak, just as the first does the next day at evening. Moreover, the thirtieth moon cannot be seen at all, because at the final end it is consumed in the very middle of the thirtieth day, and is conjoined to the sun, and at the same moment is reborn, and slowly receding from it, and through the remainder of that thirtieth day, waxing until the other day, which is called the first, it is seen after the sun’s setting, just as (as I said before) it was discerned the day before at the twenty-ninth day at daybreak. What blindness of mind, therefore, or madness is it that, when the thirtieth day cannot be seen, it is considered as still waning, but C is called the first, sometimes even the second? And so they lie through the whole order. For just as they call the second instead of the thirtieth, and the third instead of the first, so they are compelled to call the sixteenth instead of the fourteenth, and the twenty-third instead of the twenty-first; just as that little man who is said to have invented the bissextile day and the course of the moon from the whole, so that through this fallacy the devil may hunt for Christian souls amidst the very sacraments of faith.
7. He clearly sets forth this by example, that our Savior performed the Pascha with his disciples on the fourteenth moon, on the fifth day of the week; and he commanded that it should always be done so. Which is celebrated today just as it was handed down, and the holy chrism is prepared, and the Lord's supper is completed with annual solemnity, which is D
the perfect and greatest sacrament: as the holy Apostle boasts that it was delivered to him, and that so he delivered it to the Corinthians. Delivered on the fourteenth, suffered on the fifteenth, and rose between the sixteenth and the seventeenth: namely, on that moon which, with no interjecting darkness, is joined to the light of the sun at dawn, even according to the common reckoning. For this is the indication of true salvation, that, leaving behind the darkness of all wickedness, we may enjoy that eternal light of the sun. A If you had left out this B superfluous five days of the lunar month according to the calculation usually added; but if you add that day from the lunar increments over nineteen years—and not fourteen or sixteen—you will recognize the whole force and reason for the truth of this mystery. Now the moon, which is called the third by these [people], is even today called the first by the Jews and the Greeks; and it is deservedly regarded as being in the evening, because it already possesses half of the thirtieth day, which is likewise considered the first. B which our Savior celebrated with His disciples. Since, therefore, I believe a competent reason has been rendered, we shall now reveal in order the days of the Paschal feast for sixty-six years, on which Kalends or Ides and on what moon it occurs.
EPISTLE LXXXVIII
HYPATIA TO CYRIL
A copy from Hypatia, C who taught philosophy in Alexandria, to the blessed Archbishop Cyril in the diptychs.
Reading the histories of the times, I found that Christ's presence occurred one hundred and forty years ago. There were indeed disciples of His who were later named apostles, who, after His assumption into the heavens, preached the Christian doctrine; they taught it more simply and without any superfluous curiosity, in such a way that most of the gentiles, in their malevolent understanding and false wisdom, found a place to attack this doctrine and call it unstable. For what the evangelist said, "No one has ever seen God," they ask: "How, then, do you say that God was crucified?" And they say: "If He was not seen, how was He fixed to a cross? How was He dead and buried?" Nestorius, therefore, who is now C living in exile, has set forth the preachings of the apostles. For learning long ago that he himself confessed that two natures exist in Christ, I said to him who had said these things: "The questions of the gentiles are resolved." I say, therefore, that your Holiness has acted wrongly in thinking contrary to him, and in preparing a synod to assemble and for his deposition to take place without conflict. I, indeed, having examined the expositions of the same man for a few days, and comparing them with the preachings of the apostles, and reflecting within myself that it would be good for me to become a Christian, hope to be made worthy of the baptismal generation of the Lord.