Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fragments)

Opening

§ opening›

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fragments of book 1), LFC 47 (1881) pp. 320-336.

CYRIL

FROM HIS TREATISE AGAINST DIODORE BISHOP OF TARSUS 1

[Translated by P. E. Pusey]

of which the beginning is

Nought shall be ranked before the Truth by them at least who love it and are well skilled in uttering what pertains to it.

1.

His words from the treatises against Diodore and Theodore: the beginning of the Treatise.

Nothing is valued before the Truth by them who love it and are skilful in speaking what pertains thereto : yet is it right (I say) that they who are thus minded and are zealous rightly to walk in the holy doctrines of the Church, should both guilelessly give heed to any who think and speak aright and not again, holden by reverence and love, commit themselves to those who write not without blame, in order that they be not blamed as calling evil good and good evil, sweet bitter and bitter sweet, and putting darkness for light, and light for darkness : but accomplishing rather that which is consonant to the Divine law (for Judge, it says, righteous judgement), consonant too to the wise Paul, Be ye wise hankers, prove all things : may accept that which is excellent, and keep far from what is not so. For it is absurd that irrational animals, should be instructed by the laws of nature, to know well what is good for them and what is not so: so that they make their food of those things in the field which have no harm in them, and leave those which do harm; and that WE who have understanding and right reason (for nature is wise and has perfectly the power of well examining each thing) should not rightly and without error examine the force of things written or spoken that we may honour with praise the things which are blameless, and turn aside from all which are unduly spoken and which step outside of the doctrines of the truth.

2.

Albeit how ought not one who wanted to shew the difference of the properties, I mean of flesh and Godhead, to advance to this very point by such thoughts and words as were meet? For not the same as regards the quality which is inherent in each of the things named, are Body and the Unembodied, the flesh taken of human lump and the Word which beamed forth from the Essence of God the Father. Yet we must not therefore sever into two christs and sons the One Lord JESUS CHRIST.

3.

But that we say that the Flesh of the Lord has been ensouled with reasonable soul, has been full often told by us, and now too no less do we affirm that it is no otherwise.

4.

Let Diodore hear now from us too, If you say that He is flesh whom you call a Nazarene or an assumed man, shew thyself to us apart from all disguise and mask, tell (I pray) clearly what you deem good to think, and do not, simply speaking of flesh without soul, attempt to carry away the hearers. Since WE ourselves say that according to the plan of proper nature, the flesh will surely be of other nature than the Word which sprang out of God the Father, yet hath it become His by Union which may not be plucked asunder.

5.

He is rather One and the Same Son, so as to be conceived of as both out of the Essence of God the Father Divinely and out of us humanly, or out of the seed of David. He was called a Prophet as Moses. And we do not disbelieve the title, seeing that we know the might of the Economy with flesh. Not Himself was the Temple nor yet in His own Nature in that He is conceived of as God did He admit the undoing of it: yet was that His own which was undone, just as of each of us his body is his own.

6.

Hence His is Divinely the Essence which is before the worlds, His in like wise and not another's that in the last times He should be born in the flesh. For the birth from the holy Virgin was found to the Word, not a way to His Being but unto His manifestation with flesh : and He is in no wise mortal out of mortals but rather Life as out of Life the FATHER.

Yet hath the Body mortal out of mortals and subject unto death become the own of Life, in order that through it contending with death and raised from the dead He might reform unto incorruption and prove superior to death that which has been mastered of death, as regards its own nature: for death falling on the body of Life, became impotent.

7.

For that the Word of God endures not to suffer a shadow of turning, nor yet does the flesh letting go what it is, change into the Nature of the Word united to It, every one of them who think aright will (I suppose) say.

8.

For withdrawing some little (if you please) the investigation from the person of Christ the Saviour of us all, when we examine one of the things which has been named, as to its nature, itself by itself, one and other in all respects is the bondman's form and the Lord's, or human and Divine, lamb and High Priest, Maker and made.

9.

But haply you will say, 'Hath not then in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily?' This too is true and one will not deny what has been written; yet we say that not in another's body do we conceive that the Godhead of the Son hath dwelt, but rather as in His own Temple : just as the soul of man too, being other than 2 the flesh yet together with the flesh makes up the person of a single man, as Peter or Paul.

Yet Christ is conceived of as above this too : for we say that not the Word of God became to the body in place of a soul, as some most absurdly imagine 3; but we affirm rather that His holy and spotless Body has been ensouled with reasonable soul.

10.

All-Perfect confessedly and without increase is the Word of God (for He has been begotten out of the Perfect Father, Wisdom out of Wisdom and Might out of Might), but since Unchangeableness by Nature is His, in nothing wronged by being in a Temple, He hath remained the Same, i. e., All-Perfect and Wisdom and Might. And the flesh ripening advanced by degrees according to the law of its nature, the Word united to it made a declaration by little and little of His own Wisdom, keeping pace so to say with the increase and advance of His Body and one not inharmonious with the size of His stature. Thus He was regarded by them who saw Him, as being gradually advanced to the successive attainment of the above-named things.

11.

Hence He hath partaken like us in blood and flesh, in order that in His own flesh combating with death and bringing it to nought, He might achieve incorruption for our mortal bodies and stay the law that rages in our members from its tyranny over us. For it was not possible in any other way to mingle life with death, except He had used a mortal Body; neither could the sting of natural pleasures have been blunted in us too, except that which was taken from our lump had been made the own body of the Word.

12.

Not soulless, excellent sir, do we say that the flesh forth of the seed of David, united to God the Word is, nor yet will any imagine, if he have a mind not corrupted, that He was to the holy Temple instead of mind and soul 4; yet we are not accustomed to call man, that which is forth of the seed of David, son apart and separate 5.

13.

Yet, wise sir, would I say, soul and body combine unto a man's birth and the one does not precede the other : but God the Word, albeit He was before all worlds as God, was pleased in the latter times to be united to flesh having a reasonable soul, and to be born man, yet keep even so the glory that was His own: for He spurned not the preeminence over all which is inherent in Him, but is worshipped even thus as One and Only Son by us and by the holy angels.

14.

The 6 same from his discourse against Diodore beginning,
We set nothing before the truth.

For he who is minded to conceive aright, when one names Him who is of the seed of David, understands at once the Word which sprang from God the Father, Who was Incarnate and made in our likeness: but thou sayest that he was the dwelling-place of the Word, surpassing indeed the holy Prophets and in more exalted place, not that He is God of God even though He was made flesh, in incomparable divergence exalted above our human condition; but that when he was formed, the Word came to him, crowning him with surpassing grace and putting in him Its own Wisdom and Glory, in order that he might become partaker of God and not be himself conceived of as God, the Only-Begotten Word of God, because He was pleased to take our likeness and to be of the seed of Divine David.

15.

7 Holy and without sin is the body of Christ our God and Saviour, and in this respect is incorruptible from the womb, and herein He hath ever no participation or likeness with us, because He was made like unto us in everything except sin, and in like manner with us did He take part in blood and flesh, as said the Apostle.

in his Discourse against the wicked Diodore wrote thus,

Excellent sir, (say I) thou art belching forth foolish words and sick with much absurdity : for from Mary was the Holy Body, yet at the beginning of its formation or subsistence in the womb, was it holy as being the body of Christ, and there is not an instant in which it was not His,8 but was rather simple flesh, as thou saidst, and in equality with other flesh.

16.

the 9 wise Cyril finding fault with this craftiness writes thus against Diodore,

Fearing therefore lest we should downright say Man openly, in his craft he calls Him flesh: else why in the world is it that we do not say that the flesh is the Son of God, but rather call it the flesh of Him Who is in truth and by Nature Son? in order that we may conceive of and say One Christ and Son and Lord.

17.

wrote against Diodore thus,

Let him know then that the body which was born at Bethlehem, even though in its natural qualities it is not the same, so to say, with the Word which is from forth God the Father, yet is His and does not belong to another son apart from Him, seeing that the Word Incarnate and made Man is conceived of as One Son and Christ and Lord.

and after this he again adds these too,

Since we too say that in regard of its own property the flesh is of a truth of other nature than the Word Which was born from the Father, yet is it His own in Union inseverable : just as also the Word Which sprang from the Essence of God the Father, will be called seed of Abraham after the flesh, the Economy calling Him thereto and in no wise injuring Him, in regard to His being what He is, for being God by Nature He became of a truth Son of man too, and He is Son of God the Father, not alien nor falsely so called, but He it is Who ineffably and incomprehensibly begat Him of Himself, even though He be not conceived of apart from flesh after the Union 10.

and again after a little,

Hence, even though no one call Him seed of David, Who proceeded forth of the Essence of God the Father, as neither does one so call the Only-Begotten, yet the force of the Union which is without confusion and without change, undoes severance. And again, because neither is the Only-Begotten in regard of His natural quality flesh nor again the Word flesh, he severs them not aright, putting them as though one and another and confessing two sons, to whom he gives barely the connection of affection.

Or haply there are some (I ween) who rave because they do not bring the flesh by change to the nature of the Word, nor yet again bring down the Word unto Consubstantiality with the flesh united thereto.

and after more,

Yet is it wholly unreasonable that thou durst blame them who hold the right faith and art not ashamed to withstand them who confess the Union without confusion; and thou art wholly jumbling up everything and demonstrating that the flesh is of other nature, I mean in respect of God the Word : and if one confess this with thee, keeping clear of the unlearning of the Synousiasts, thou forthwith severest the One into two.

18.

and as S. Cyril in his book against Diodore, blaming such falsehood, writes,

If He be full surely a prophet as thou affirmest and confidently sayest, Who received the gift of the SPIRIT, and foretold the things to come, and again ministered the SPIRIT, and it appears to thee not right that the Word Who is forth of God the Father should be called a prophet; who is it that received the gift of the SPIRIT and ministered the revelation of the things to come? Perchance thou sayest, He that is of the seed of David, or as thou callest him, The man of Nazareth. He is then a prophet and nothing else, and just a little exalted above our condition : for He is in no wise Equal, I mean in greatness and in glory to God the Word, if the One be the Giver of the Spirit, the other the minister of the gift from the Spirit. And lo how does the God-inspired Scripture call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Jesus? for they wished (it says) to go into Bithynia and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.

19.

For so says S. Cyril when writing against Diodore,

That the Word out of God the Father was not by any called Christ or Jesus as long as He was not yet man, is evident: Christ indicates anointing, Jesus clearly came through Angel's voice, and before His conception in the holy Virgin was put upon Him Who was born of her after the flesh.

20.

. . . what wise Cyril put forth against Diodore and wrote thus,

DIODORE. "For while the Lord was in the bowels of the Virgin and of her essence, He had not the honour of sonship; but when He was fashioned and became a temple for God the Word, in that He received the Only-Begotten, He took the honour of the name and was participant with Him in the honour."

to these the Saint mighty in the SPIRIT blaming him said,

CYRIL. Therefore according to thee, Emmanuel was not God nor Son at all, but a common man and one as we, but because on His birth the Only-Begotten came to Him, therefore He became too the Temple of God, and was vouchsafed the sonship and the Dignity: undoubtedly therefore He has the honour as something added to Him.

again he brings forward Diodore varying and contradicting himself and writing thus,

DIODORE. "But he who was of the seed of David, as created, had the Word for his God, and when created he became of God the Word : for with us first a temple is prepared, and then He Who dwelleth enters it; in the womb of the Virgin He Who dwelleth fashioned Himself a Temple and removed not from the Temple but filled it with His glory and His Wisdom : nor as in the case of the Prophets, was there ignorance with Him until the Spirit made revelation."

and again he cites him saying the opposite, after this wise,

"For the Godhead did not immediately on his creation or birth, infuse all His Wisdom within him, but by little and little gave it to the body."

against these things therefore, forthwith did he who wisely exposed them, add,

CYRIL. But it is meet before other things to say this: against what he says and wishes to hold, himself advances the contrary; for he affirms that the Godhead of the Son did not as soon as he was born, put all His wisdom within him, albeit he wrote in what is a little above [Diodorus cited by Cyril] "For with us first———but filled it with His glory and His wisdom" (as above).

21.

for he wrote against Diodore thus,

CYRIL. But WE, wise sir, believing that so to think is stupidity, say that the Word took flesh of the holy Virgin and proceeded man, and He was not in a man nor is He seen to take upon Him a man; but He is rather One and the Same Son; in order that He maybe conceived to be of the Essence of God the Father Divinely, and of us humanly, that is, of the seed of David.

and again citing Diodore who says,

"The Perfect Likeness of God the Word, the perfect likeness of the bondman whom He took upon Him,"

Cyril says,

In place of, He was made, or was born according to the flesh of a woman and proceeded man, he oftentimes puts the word took and the word received, in order that he may shew that he is a man who has a connection of affection, I mean with God the Word, and that he may not confess with us that He Who is in truth Lord became man.

22.

for he cites Diodore wickedly writing thus,

DIODORE. "But how do ye introduce one worship? is it as to the soul and body of kings? for the soul reigns not by itself and the body reigns not by itself, but God the Word was King before flesh; not therefore as to soul and body, so to God the Word and to flesh [is the worship paid]."

against these things again he answering said,

CYRIL. Of diverse kind then is the worship, and hence it is not One worship from us (for this is what thy word bids us) : but where a difference in worship and honour is paid to the things named, and to each is accurately given what befits it, there full surely inequality of power follows : but inequality and difference in power, in regard to less and greater, comes to Two Hypostases and Persons. Union therefore flees away, the depth of the Mystery departs to nothing, for it is not right, he says, that as to the soul and body of kings should worship be paid, albeit how were it not better that this should be the type? for as out of soul and body is one man, albeit the properties of each have great diversity one to another, I mean as to their mode of being (for the soul is other than the body): so will you understand concerning Christ too the Saviour of us all. For the Word Which was made flesh, i. e., was seen in human likeness, is God: in order that He may be confessed to be and may be in truth, God alike and man, One and Onely All-Perfect Son. But he is saying I know not what, in trifling and childish imaginations daring to sport himself against the Truth.

23.

thus S. Cyril cites Diodore as writing,

DIODORE. "A prophet shall the Lord God raise up to you out of your brethren, like one. Was the Prophet at all inferior to Moses? was he not Perfect man? Therefore neither is he of Nazareth less than a man, who is of the seed of David. But Perfect God out of Perfect God took perfect man:" and again, "For the Godhead did not, immediately on his formation or birth, put all His Wisdom within him, but by little and little gave it to the body."

to him who blasphemously utters these and such like lies, amid his blame the righteous accuser of the wickedness says,

CYRIL. It results that He is no longer God, but a God-clad man rather and in equal measure with these others, in whom God manifestly dwelt.

24.

and he introduces Diodore wickedly saying,

DIODORE. "The 11 Son of God and that not by reason of ought (for He is so by Nature): the flesh is son by reason of the Son."

as to whom he also draws out his speech and says,

CYRIL. And how (tell me) by reason of the Son is the flesh by itself son? or of whom is it son at all? the Son's? and how dost thou not fall from hence, when thou hast brought the absurdity to this point? well then, is it the son of God the Father, in like manner as He too Who is by Nature and truly of His Essence? Two therefore unquestionably sons of God there are: and lo whither goes Paul who says, One God the Father of Whom everything and WE of Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom everything and WE through Him?

25.

Cyril examining as to Emmanuel too, in these against Diodore wrote thus,

CYRIL. But when we are conceiving of the Only-Begotten Word, as united to His flesh, we do not take it as being like a garment nor do we say that He cast it upon Him like cloaks which are external, as though it were alien : but it is rather a demonstration of the declaration that He was made flesh, i. e. man. The Word therefore had a natural presence in the body which was united to Him and is His, just as also the soul of man is his, albeit the nature is alien.

26.

and against Diodore thus,

For we who hold the Right and Immaculate Faith, and ever cleave to the Divine Scriptures, and follow the tracks of the Faith of the Fathers, when we hear 'JESUS,' we understand the Only-Begotten Word made Man.

27.

seeing that Diodore too who takes occasion and speaks against them who confound the Matures, i.e. who mingle the flesh of the Lord and foolishly say that it changed into the Essence of God the Word, and became the opposite of what it was before, says that they call One Christ two sons, the wise Cyril cries out on him and says,

CYRIL. Therefore let us give the crown to Paul of Samosata too, who more accurately than thou, did contend against the Synousiasts; for that more than thou did he sever the Mystery of the Economy.

28.

striving 12 against Diodore, the all-wise Cyril says thus,

He dared clothe in form of Lord, him who (as he says) is man from Mary, who at the beginning no way surpassed us, but hardly was counted worthy of the name and honour of Son and of God, after he had come forth of the womb. Christ then verily is, as I said, two sons and a new god, and has been crowned by God with supernatural honour in some small degree above the creatures, that together with a mere man He might be worshipped who at last gained the glory, i. e., the complement of the Holy Consubstantial Trinity.

29.

for 13 S. Cyril writing against Diodore says thus of the definition of a man,

This, my friend, is the definition of human nature which is also called a substance, that it is a rational animal, mortal, recipient of mind and learning.

—-

The 14 same Cyril against Diodore,

We have already often said, when we were making our Defence of all the Chapters, that not because the natures came together unto union, must duality be admitted 15. For as a man although compounded out of reasonable soul and body, is one and is not divided into two and this whole is called an animal rational and mortal, albeit really mortal in one part, rational in the other part: thus too Immanuel, being One, of Godhead and manhood, whereof each is perfect in itself, is the Same God and man, mortal and Immortal, in time and before all ages, Palpable and Impalpable, Visible and Invisible. For had He Immortal in His own Nature taken nothing from mortal nature, i. e. from the seed of Abraham, WE had not been renewed and lifted up to immortality, vain had been our faith and we had still lain in our sins.

The same Cyril against Diodore,

For as, suffering pains in the flesh He yet remained Impassible in the Nature of His own Godhead : so I say that even while He was growing He was All-Perfect. And while His wisdom was believed to be increasing, He was even then the overflowing fountain of wisdom whence all others draw their wisdom.

[Running titles of the pages]

320 Truth before all; we must be heedful.

God teaches animals to discern harmful and healthful. 321

322 Natures wholly different united make One CHRIST.

His Body His whereby He fought with death. 323

324 The Body His United and one with Him. One worship.

The Son manifested wisdom with His Body's growth. 325

326 His Body and Soul and Godhead.

Him of the seed of David God Incarnate. Holy the Body. 327

328 The flesh not the Son, but His.

Union without confusion, not severance. 320

330 JESUS CHRIST GOD the SON Incarnate,

made man not entering man. 331

332 Made man and born and receives one worship.

God and Man, One Perfect Son. 333

334 Natural Presence of the Son in His own Body.

Paul of Samosata. True real Union or Two sons. 335

336 Union of opposites seen in man too.

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fragments of book 2), LFC 47 (1881) pp.337-349.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

FROM HIS SECOND BOOK AGAINST THE WORDS OF THEODORE 1

[Translated by P. E. Pusey]

of which the beginning is

They who with clear eye of the understanding view closely the holy and God-inspired Scripture 2.

1. 3

He said to His disciples, Call not any teacher on the earth, for one is your Leader, Christ. For He did not, when He was commanding the Apostles this, distinguish His proper Godhead from His visible body, nor when He affirmed that He was Christ did He distinguish Himself from soul and flesh, being thus both God and man, bondman visible and Lord acknowledged, veiling the height of His Godhead with the low estate of the Incarnation, lifting up the low estate of the visible body by the operation of His Godhead.

2. 4

Let not men deceive nor be deceived admitting as "man of the Lord," as they call Him, a man without a mind, but rather our Lord and God: for neither do we sunder the man from the Godhead but we declare Him One and the Same, erst not man but God and Son only and before the ages, unmingled with body and what belong to body; at the end Man too assumed for our salvation, suffering in flesh, Impassible in Godhead, circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in Godhead, the Same earthly and Heavenly, seen and conceived of, contained in space and boundless, in order that the whole man which fell under sin might be re-formed by the Same, Whole Man and God.

3.

For since the Only-Begotten Word of God being Life by Nature was made flesh, the nature of man re-bloomed unto life: for He has become first among all. And for this reason the Life-giving Word of God made His own flesh which was subject to death, in order that manifesting it superior to both death and decay, He might transmit the grace to us too. For as in Adam we were brought down unto death, so in Christ thrusting aside the tyranny of death, are we re-formed unto immortality.

4.

The same from the first book against Theodore 5.

For as out of soul and body are one man, albeit the properties pertaining to each have the vastest possible difference one to another in respect (I mean) of their being such (for the soul is other than the body): thus will it be conceived of also as to Christ the Saviour of us all.

5.

S. Cyril from his first book against Theodore from the last quire 6,

GOD was He Who suffered in the flesh (wise sir), the Lord of Glory, Who by the grace of God tasted death for every man, not in the Nature of His Godhead but in His Proper Body.

6.

for this in that too against Theodore of Mopsuestia in the first book wrote S. Cyril,

CYRIL. But we make use of necessary examples, everywhere keeping undivided the Union and repelling thy severance. The example of the sun however, none of them who think aright brings to the establishment of union, knowing that we follow the Divine Scriptures, which have it that the Word of God (as we have said) should partake in like wise as we in blood and flesh ensouled with a reasonable soul, and not on the contrary that it is man who by participation and mere affection, is illuminated by the Divine Economy as if from a ray of the sun.

7.

and in the first book of those which he wrote against Theodore of Mopsuestia on this wise,

CYRIL. But Jesus Christ is not conceived of alone and by Himself; or again as without flesh and bare of the likeness usward, but rather as the Word of God, incarnate and made man.

8.

Cyril therefore treating of the 318 holy Fathers in his first book wrote these things too against Theodore,

Lo with all clearness do the initiators of all under heaven and the champions of the truth, men elect and spirit-clad, tracking the Divine Words and the Tradition of the Saints and Apostles and Evangelists, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, bid us believe, not in Two sons, but in One Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, Begotten from forth the Father. The name Christ is indicative of anointing, and that of Jesus was conferred, not on the bare Word, conceived of apart from flesh, but rather when He was born of a woman in the flesh: yet even so do they say that One is the Only-Begotten, Who was begotten by Nature of the Father, and they affirm that He is God and Consubstantial with the Father; saying that through Him were made all things which are in Heaven and upon earth, and in plain terms they confess, that "for us men and for our salvation He came down, and was both made flesh and made man, and suffered and died and rose the third day and ascended into heaven."

[It is not said to which book the following belong.]

9.

and see the all-wise Cyril, justly objecting this to Theodore and writing thus,

Chicanery then is the Mystery of Christ and there is nought true therein; but thus he says, that the glory of God was spread upon him, i.e. the appellation of God, as some tint, was anointed on a man like us; we refuse to be man-worshippers, who worship the creature rather than the Creator.

10.

S. Cyril from his Book against Theodore of Mopsuestia 7.

For being God by Nature and truly Son of God the Father, He was made in likeness of men and made His own the flesh which is of the holy Virgin and it is the flesh of God and full of God-befitting might: wherefore it is also life-giving and repels infirmities and works the undoing of death.

11.

S. Athanasius from his work upon the Incarnation of the Word: Cyril cited it in his books against Theodore 8.

We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One [Nature] worshipped the other unworshipped, but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate 9, worshipped with His flesh with One worship 10: nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are.

and reiterating these matters of faith, .... he defines thus 11,

Him anathematizes the holy Catholic Church, obeying the Divine Apostle who says, If any one preach to you beside that ye received let him be accursed.

12.

for S. Cyril cites Theodore who was Archbishop of Mopsuestia, in what he wrote against him who wickedly cried out thus 12,

Theodore. "But yea (he says), for as albeit He was of Bethlehem, He was called a Nazarene because of His abidance and growing up there: so [is He called] man 13 too, because He sojourned in man."

and S. Cyril against these things says thus

Silly and childish and old womanish is the speech, for not as from a city one is called citizen or countryman, so by reason of dwelling in a man, is the Word being God called man.

13.

as also Theodore Archbishop of Mopsuestia who in his craft had done this, the wise Cyril blaming, in his book against him thus wrote,

CYRIL. But he thinks that he has said something clever, for he affirms that it is right that the body should be honoured, i. e. the man, for he (I suppose) blushes to call it by the appellation of Son, and to call the Word by that of Body. The Union therefore consists in titles, and an assemblage of mere names: but in truth the Mystery is utterly repudiated.

—-

The 14 same Cyril against Theodore.

But he with mouth wide open and reins of blasphemy let loose says that Christ's holiness was imperfect, and did not reach its height ere the Spirit in the form of a dove had come down upon Him.15 Why was He not Perfect? full surely one who is imperfect cannot be without sin, yea one who is believed to be in part holy is thought to be in another part infirm. Besides what is that defect which (as the opponent asserts) the Holy Ghost supplied, that the other part too might be perfect and might break the devil's onset? Yea and not only is He Holy and verily most perfect but also endued with full power who used to heal sorrows and every sort of infirmity.

—-

Cyril of holy memory from the first book of what he wrote against Theodore 16.

THEODORE.

"If any like to call both God the Word Son of God son of David in an improper sense on account of God the Word's temple which is forth of David, let him name him too which is of the seed of David, Son of God; let him so style him by grace not by nature, not ignorant of his natural ancestors, nor perverting order and calling Him Who is Unembodied a body also; and Him that is before the ages forth of God forth of David too, and that He suffered and is Impassible 17. A body is not incorporeal, what is from below is not from above, what is before the ages is not out of the seed of David, what suffered is not Impassible, nor are those things directed to the same understanding: what belong to the Body are not God's the Word, and what are God's the "Word have not the body as their seat. Let us confess the natures and not deny the economies."

S. CYRIL.

He who says that the economies must not be denied, utterly uproots the mystery of the human nature: for he dares to say that neither was the Only-Begotten Word of God made man, nor did He appear from forth the seed of holy David, but openly introduces to us a pair of sons, a nature uneven and false in its name. For that it is said to be in an improper sense, wholly shews that it is not truly what it is said to be, for it borrows the other's name. Hence if the Word of God be called man in an improper sense, He clearly was not made man. If he who is out of the seed of David is in an improper sense Son and God, he is by nature and in truth neither God nor Son. False then is the name in either case and the fact is really understood to be that each is called what it is not.

From the same book.

THEODORE.

"And it is convenient that they who view aright, should, when we are looking for natural forefathers, call neither God the Word son of David or Abraham but their Maker: nor the body before the ages out of the Father but the seed of Abraham and David born from Mary. And 18 when the consideration is of natural births, neither is God the Word deemed to be Mary's son: for mortal bears what is mortal by nature and a body like itself. God the Word underwent not two births, one before the ages, the other in the last times, but out of the Father was He begotten by Nature, and the temple which was born of Mary He fashioned to Himself out of the very womb."

Then going on a little and something intervening, he said again,

"But when the consideration is of the saving economy, let both God be called man (not because He became so, but because He assumed it), and man God, not as though he had become uncircumscribed nor every where existent, for the body was subject to touch even after the resurrection, and so was taken up into Heaven and so will come as it was taken up."

CYRIL.

Lo plainly and manifestly is he borne against the Divine Scripture, he repudiates the mystery of Christ and as it were chides God the Word Who for us was pleased to suffer emptiness, and seems to grieve that He was made man. For he utterly takes away the Incarnation and lifts himself against the Unspeakable Wisdom, all-but saying in Jewish mode to Christ the Saviour of us all, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy, that THOU, a man, makest Thyself God. Let him hear Him then saying openly, If therefore I do not the works of My Father believe Me not, if I do though ye believe not Me believe My Works. For while he knows that the Word of God used Divine Might and Power even when He appeared as man, he denies that He is God and says that He rather dwelt in a man, in order that the Word of God might set forth to us a man to be worshipped and who is honoured with the mere name of Godhead; he is convicted therefore of being utterly ignorant of the might of Christ's Mystery.

Theodore from the same book.

" ' 19 But if (he says) it were flesh which was crucified, how does the sun turn away his rays, and darkness and earthquakes overpower the whole earth and were the rocks rent and the dead arose?' What then do they say of the darkness that happened in Egypt in the time of Moses, not for three hours but for three days? what of the other miracles which were wrought through Moses and through Jesus the son of Nave who made the sun stand, which sun under king Ezechias even went back against nature? and of the remains of Eliseus which raised a dead man? For if what things befell in the time of the Cross shew that God the Word suffered, and they allow not that the things were wrought for the sake of a man: the things too which happened in the time of Moses for the sake of Abraham's race and those in the time of Jesus son of Nave and of king Ezechias will not be. But if those miracles were wrought for the sake of the people of the Jews, much more those on the cross for the sake of God the Word's temple."

CYRIL.

The 20 heaven is astonished for this and has quaked exceeding vehemently, saith the Lord. O wickedness past endurance! o tongue that speaks iniquity against God and mind that lifteth up its horn on high! seems it little to thee that the Lord of glory is fixed to the wood? Whom THOU sayest is neither true Son nor God, but WE believe that He is truly Son and G od, Creator and Maker of all things. For neither was God the Word Which is out of God the Father man simply but in human form, not suffering translation or change into flesh, but rather united thereto according to the faith of the holy Scriptures. He it is Who suffered in the flesh and hung on the wood, wrought miracles in Egypt, manifesting His glory through the all-wise Moses.

Theodore from the same book.

"Son 21 by grace he who is man out of Mary, by Nature God the Word. But what is by grace is not by nature and what is by nature is not by grace. There are not two sons. Be these enough for the body which is of us, sonship by grace, glory, immortality, whereby it is made the Temple of God the Word; be it not raised above its nature and let not God the Word in place of the thanksgiving due from us be wronged. And what is the wrong? to combine Him with a body and to suppose that He needed a body for perfect sonship. Nor does God the Word Himself please that He should be David's son, but lord; but that the body should be called son of David, He not only does not grudge but even came for this very end." 22

CYRIL.

Hence since what is by grace is not by nature and what is by nature is not by grace, there are not two sons, according to thy mode of reasoning. He indeed who is son by grace and not by nature is not truly son, it remains that the glory of true Sonship exist in Him Who is so by Nature not by grace, that is, in God the Word Who is forth of God the Father. Driven out therefore (as I said) from being and being called Son of God is Christ Jesus through Whom too we have been saved, declaring His Death and confessing His Resurrection. For the Word of faith which we preach, brings us to that confession. Hence our faith is in a man and not in Him Who is both by Nature and truly Son of God. For if he is true who says that he obtained the sonship by grace, he will be counted among the multitude of sons, i. e., ourselves, to whom the grace that is from above gives the sonship whereto we were called through Jesus Christ Who is forth of the seed of David according to the flesh. And the Divine Evangelist will assure thee, saying, But they who received Him He gave them authority to become the sons of God, to them that believe on His Name. Then how does he who has obtained the rank of sonship given him by another, avail to give us too a grace not his but acquired and from without?

And after a little. The SON gave Himself unto emptying and, Perfect in all things, was pleased to suffer abasement and to undergo birth according to the flesh of a woman, and was called Son of Abraham and David. Thou marvellest not at so comely a plan of the Economy, yea rather thou findest fault with the Mystery: saying that the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten was a wrong, thou chidest the counsel of God the Father, thou criest out too against the Son Himself Who was pleased to suffer emptying for thy sake. When therefore thou hearest Him saying to God the Father in Heaven, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, whole burnt sacrifices and for sin Thou requiredst not but a Body Thou completedst for Me; then I said, Lo I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, o God: I delight to do it; you will say that the Son haply thought not aright of His glory. For He chose completion of the Body and that made not for other but for Himself, according to His own words, for He says, A Body Thou completedst for Me. Albeit thou hear Paul saying of God the Word, Therefore because the sons partook of blood and flesh, He too likewise was made partaker of the same; and thus the wise John writes, And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled in us, rise thou up against them crying out, "Be He not, in place of the thanksgiving due from from us, wronged. God the Word was not made flesh, God the Word was not truly partaker of blood and flesh; He was not born as we of a woman after the flesh, He was not called son of David. For this which is both too petty for Him to be called and not according to His Will, how would He have suffered?" But WE, wise sir, are wont to glorify God the Father because He completed a Body for the Son: and we say that the Son Himself truly made flesh, i.e. man, suffered indeed emptying for our sakes, and underwent the low estate of our poverty, yet remained even thus God and Very Son of God the Father. How then did He not please to be called son of David if He were made man and that not against His will?

From the first Book of Cyril of holy memory that Christ is One against Theodore.

For there are, there are who deny their Redeemer and Lord and say that He is not true Son of God the Father Who in the last times of the age endured for our sakes birth of a woman after the flesh; but rather that a new and late god appeared to the earth, having the glory of sonship acquired from without just like us and boasting as it were in honours not his own, so that it is just man-worship and nothing else, and some man is worshipped together with the Holy TRINITY by us and by the holy angels. These things indeed they, exceeding haughty and much-wise in the knowledge of the Divine Scriptures have inserted in their writings, and as the Lord of all says through one of the holy Prophets, He set a snare to corrupt men. For what else than a snare and a stumbling-block, is a tongue uttering perverse things and counter to the sacred Scriptures and shamelessly resisting the Tradition of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists? We must therefore repudiate them who are obnoxious to such evil charges whether they are among the living or not: for from that which injures it is necessary to withdraw, and not to look to person but to what pleases God.

[Page running titles]

Theodore. 337

ܤ 337

338 CHRIST erst GOD only, now, GOD and Man: hath renewed us.

One, suffered in the Body, Union undivided. 339

340 Nicene Fathers, following Bible tell of Christ, Man yet GOD.

His flesh the flesh of God. One Son, one Nature, one worship. 341

342 The WORD GOD and man:

Holy and healeth. 343

344 In an improper sense, denies Incarnation.

The Son emptied though some chide. Indwelling. 345

346 The Son united to flesh as the Bible says.

Christ Son, Who saved us, or our faith in a man. 347

348 God the Son chose to have a Body, some chide.

Scripture says so: Angels and we worship. 349

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fragments of book 3), LFC 47 (1881) pp.350-362.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

FROM THE THIRD BOOK AGAINST THEODORE BISHOP OF MOPSUESTIA

[Translated by P. E. Pusey]

which begins

For burdensome, I suppose, are our words.

1. 1

Hear therefore from us too. Understand, O man, the depth of the Mystery, go along the straight way of the aim of the sacred Scriptures. For one thing and another is Godhead and flesh or manhood, as far as regards the plan of their properties. Since 2 how has the Word being God been made as we, albeit abiding what He was? Yet grant Him His flesh by a Union inseverable, bare Him not of the Veil, for thus will you worship One Son, consubstantial with the Father Divinely, the Same consubstantial to us too humanly. To them who chuse thus to think will Christ turn the knowledge of the Mystery Him ward.

2.

For the nature of man which was in Christ was both honoured and hallowed. For that in regard to His Being He would neither be in need of Baptism nor of partaking the Holy Ghost, the fact that He is Bestower of the Spirit will be sufficient to prove.

3.

S. Cyril in his second Book against Theodore of Mopsuestia,

But I think that this, viz. that of Christ alone the Saviour of all is it said by the God-inspired Scripture that He was born in the flesh, shews that being God He was made in our likeness. I mean something of this sort: For no one receives one who would say either of the all-wise Moses, or of one of the Saints that he was born in the flesh of the Jews, or of a woman: for no one has any other birth, for of flesh is flesh mother. But if Christ be said to be in the flesh of the Jews, i. e., of a woman, the addition of in the flesh has some wise meaning and replete with declarations of things necessary for the hearers. For in order that we may not suppose that the Nature of the Word, that is, His Godhead, had a beginning of being that It was in the flesh and of flesh, the phrase in the flesh must be taken cautiously and in its necessary meaning. For being God by Nature, and Very Son of God the Father, He was made in likeness of men and made His own the flesh which was of the holy Virgin.

4.

for he wrote thus in his second book against Theodore,

But I would fain ask him what he says that unity of Person is. For if he says that the Only-Begotten God the Word Incarnate is One Son, One will be the Person of the Son: but if he altogether distinguish and say that One is said to be and is Son in truth, and one by grace, and to the One gives the glory and the appellation of Godhead and the bare name alone of sonship: but to the other that he receives it as from Another and a Superior, and One so exalted and in Excellency, as is God above man, what room will there be for unity of person, a thing that I know not how it is put forth by him?

5.

S. Cyril patriarch of Alexandria against Theodore.

Since then 'it has become the own body of the Word which quickeneth all,' it too is quickening: has it not therefore ascended up above the definitions of its nature? for the Word out of God the Father has largely placed in His Body the operation of His quickening might, so that it should have power to quicken the dead and to heal the sick: just as fire approaching a vessel of brass or of other matter, changes it to its own might and working.

The same Cyril from his second book.

The words of Theodore. "What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Let us consider then who the man is in regard to whom he is astonished and marvels that the Only-Begotten has deigned to be mindful of and visit. Yet that it is not said of every one, has been shewn above; that it is not of any one you please, this too is certain. To omit all things, let us take the Apostle's witness which is more trustworthy than all 3. The Apostle therefore writes to the Hebrews telling of Christ and, confirming His Person which was not well received among them, thus says, But a certain one somewhere testified on this wise saying, what is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him? Thou loweredst him a little below the angels, with glory and honour Thou crownedst him and didst set him over the works of Thy hands; Thou didst put all things under his feet. And having spoken the testimony he interpreting it proceeded, But in subjecting all things He left nothing not subject: yet we see not at present all things subjected to him. And teaching us who the man is, since it was doubtful in the words put in blessed David, he added, But we see Jesus lowered a little below the angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour. If therefore we are taught out of the Gospels that it was to the Lord that blessed David said all that are in the psalm &c, both that Thou art mindful, and Thou visitest and Thou loweredst and Thou subjectedst; and out of the Apostle learn that it was Jesus of Whom David speaking says both that He is mindful of Him and that He visited Him, yea also that He subjected all things to Him, when He had lowered Him a little below the Angels; cease ye now at last from your shamelessness, knowing what is right. For 4 ye see (O most wicked of men) how vast the difference of natures in that the one is astounded for that He deigns to be mindful of man and to visit him and to make him partaker of the other things whereof He made him partaker; the other on the contrary marvels, that he hath been vouchsafed to be a partaker of so great things above his nature: and the one is marvelled at as bestowing a kindness and giving great things and above the nature of him who obtains it; the other, obtaining the kindness and receiving from Him greater things than he is."

S. CYRIL.

Be ye sober from your wine, may one cry to them who are thus astray. Put, o man, a door and bolt on thy tongue, cease lifting up your horn on high and speaking unrighteousness against God. How long dost thou insult Christ who endures it? Keep in mind what is written by Divine Paul, Thus sinning against the brethren and smiting their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. And to say something out of the prophetic books, Sodom was justified by thee: thou hast surpassed the talk of the pagans, which they made against Christ, deeming the Cross foolishness, thou hast shewn the charges against Jewish pride to be a nothing. Thou presumest to lower and (as far as pertains to thee) thou draggest down to dishonour Him Who sitteth in the Thrones above and together with God the Father hath the same seat. For Him Who rose from the dead is it that the most wise Paul says is sitting on the Thrones of Godhead. For he said, We have such an High Priest Who sitteth on the Right Hand of the Throne of Majesty in the highest, Who is above all princedom and power and lordship and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that to come: for to Him every knee boweth and every tongue confesseth that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. And who is He Who is in this case as being God? The same again explaineth who is the priest of His Mysteries: for he said that He emptied Himself, was made in likeness of man and found in fashion as a man and abased Himself made obedient unto death, yea the death of the Cross. Every knee therefore of heavenly and earthly and neath the earth bendeth to Him Who bare the Cross: Whom the adversary casting into the mere and alone measures of the human nature, says was accounted worthy of mindfulness and visiting from God the Word, when surely he ought to know and mind that God the Word was not another Son apart and by Himself from Him who is (as he says) man of the seed of David; but God the Word Himself out of God the Father was made as we, i. e. man, did not rather deem worthy of visiting and mindfulness some other than He.

And out of the same book.

THEODORE.

"Will they now cease from their shameless contest? will they give over empty contention blushing before the proof of what has been said? for he said, Bringing many sons unto glory. Lo therefore the Apostle co-numbering in the rank of sonship with the rest the man that was assumed not for that he partakes of sonship in like manner as they, but in regard that he assumed in like manner the grace of sonship, the Godhead alone possessing sonship by Nature 5. For it is certain that the glory of sonship is in him specially beyond others on account of the Unity that he has with Him. Whence in the very word too that means Son, he too is in like manner included. But they 6 argue with us, If ye say two things perfect, we shall surely be also saying Two sons. But lo he is called son too by himself in the divine Scripture, without the Godhead, co-numbered with the rest of men, and we do not say Two sons. But One Son there rightly is in our confession, seeing that division of natures must needs remain and union of person be kept indissoluble."

CYRIL.

Fie the madness! He knew not the manifold depth of the mystery of Christ who has trusted in words so cold and childish. But that he no wise understandeth the force of the Scripture proposed, but leaveth the right way and goes off again to the wicked aim put forth by himself, we forthwith teach. For that before all things his aim is, to want to prove that a mere man is co-seated with the Father and to be worshipped as God by every creature, himself shall come in as witness. For numbering Him with those who are sons by grace and the multitude of men, he argues that the. Godhead of the Word has alone the glory of true sonship, all but finding fault with Him Who for our sakes was pleased to suffer emptying: or haply even casting his own base madness on the disciple who says, And the Word was made flesh. We must know therefore that although he somewhere says one and not rather two sons, casting out altogether him who (as he says) is of the seed of David from being God and Son, he refers the glory of true sonship to only God the Word Who is forth of God the Father. This is nought else (as I said) than not to take on Him the measure of human nature, but utterly to destroy the Economy whereby we were both saved and have passed from death and sin and have laid down the yoke of the devil's oppression.

Theodore from the same book.

"Let none be deceived by the craft of the questionings. For it were a wicked thing to put down so great a crowd of witnesses (as the Apostle said) and, deceived by cunning questionings, to join the side of the opponents. But what are the questions which they artfully ask? 'Is Mary mother of man or God's mother?' and, 'Is He Who was crucified, God or man?' But of that there has been a clear solution in these things which we have said before in the replies which were made to the questions: nevertheless let that be said even now which one ought to briefly reply in order that no occasion be left them for their cunning. When 7 therefore they ask, 'Is Mary mother of man or God's mother?' let answer be made them, Both; one from the nature of the thing, the other by reference. For she is mother of man by nature, because he was man in the womb of Mary, who also proceeded thence: but mother of God because God was in the man who was born, not circumscribed within him by Nature, but in him in the affection of the will. Hence it is right to reply, Both, but not in like wise. For not as man took in the womb a beginning of his being, did God the Word too, for He was before every creature. Hence it is right that both be said, each according to their proper notion.

"The same answer is to be made if they ask, 'Was God crucified or man? Both, but not in like wise: for the one was crucified, as both undergoing the Passion and fastened to the wood and holden of the Jews; the other because He was with him after the reason given above."

And forthwith he goes on adding hereto that man having God indwelling him was crucified.

S. CYRIL.

What are you saying, o mighty man? was the holy Virgin mother of God because God was in what was born of her, indwelling in mere good-pleasure of the will? dost thou call that union? then when the Word being God makes His habitation in ourselves too (for He dwells in the souls of the saints through the Holy Ghost), dost thou confess that in like wise ourselves too have union with Him? Where then will any one see the marvel of the mystery of Christ? For so long as God the Word is believed to have been made man as we, truly marvellous is the Mystery and one will wonder at it deservedly and intensely 8; but if He be said to dwell in a man in mere good-pleasure of the will, the fact of the economy has another plan. For we have been vouchsafed, as I said, grace of this kind, who are resplendent with the faith Him-ward. For no one, I suppose, will say that not of His own will is He within us; rather of His own will, i. e. after His own inherent will had He good-pleasure towards us.

Yet neither do we say that God the Word Who is con-substantial with the Father, has the beginning of His Being from the flesh of the holy Virgin 9 (for with Him was He ever existent), but rather we know that He was made man as we.

Therefore rightly will the holy Virgin be called by us Mother of God rather than mother of man, since surely 'she hath borne Christ according to the flesh.'

And after more. For when this was put forth for explanation, viz. When He bringeth in the First-Begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him,, he writes again thus,

THEODORE.

"Who then is He Who is brought in into the world and commences His reign, wherefrom it results that He is also worshipped by the Angels? For one will not madly say that God the Word was brought in Who made all things when they were not, bestowing on them through His unspeakable might that they should be."

S. CYRIL.

Callest thou it then madness, to chuse to think aright and to keep in mind the true and right and unmixed Faith? since surely one would say and that deservedly that they are words full of impiety which deny that the Only-Begotten Word of God was brought in by God the Father into the world when He was made man. For He Who by Nature and diversity is superior to all, seeing He is their Creator and is Essentially as greatly superior to them, as is the thing made less than its Maker, entered into the world when He was made a part of it 10, in that He appeared man.

And after a little. But I marvel that the opponent should have written that Jesus too would never have been accounted worthy of connection with God the Word had He not first been rendered spotless through the anointing. For first of all he is openly severing and distinguishing, saying outright Two sons: next let him say, when He was (as he terms it) made spotless and attained connection with God the Word, was it from the very womb, or when, in His thirtieth year, He came to the Jordan and sought John's baptism? If He were holy from the womb, how does he say that He was made holy and not rather that He was so? For in that He is said to be made so, it is quite necessary to understand that He was not what He was made. But if He were holy always, and was not so made in time, how does he say that the SPIRIT soared down upon Him and shewed that He was worthy of the connection and added to Him what He lacked? For this too he has put in his other books. For what was it that was at all lacking to Him unto sanctification from the very womb, yea rather and before Birth after the flesh, to Him Who is holy and spotless and sanctifieth the creature? When therefore he says that Jesus would not have been counted worthy of connection with God the Word except He had first been rendered spotless, he is indicting very many accusations against his empty talk. For first of all he unbecomingly says, been counted worthy: next he severs into another son apart Him Who is forth of the seed of David, whom he shamelessly maintains is called JESUS apart by Himself. Further, to say that He was made spotless, as if at one time He were not so, this too has very great blasphemy. For God the Word united from the very womb to His own flesh was One Son and thus also spotless, the Holy of holies, and giving of His fulness the SPIRIT not only to men but also to the rational powers above and in Heaven.

And after a little,

THEODORE.

"Manifoldly and in many modes of old spake God to the fathers in the Prophets, in these last days He spake to us in His Son. For through the Son He spake to us: and it is clear that he is speaking of the man 11 who was assumed. For to which of the Angels ever said He, My Son THOU art, I to day begat thee? None, he says, hath He made partaker of the Son's dignity. For in this that He said, I begat Thee, He gave as it were through it a participation of sonship, yet this which has been said is openly shewn to have nothing at all to do with God the Word."

S. CYRIL.

Verily in his discourses too which he made to them who were to be baptized, the same Theodore again said, "But this testimony we found not out of our ownselves, but were taught it out of the Divine Scripture, seeing that blessed Paul thus saith, Forth of whom is Christ after the flesh Who is God over all, not that He is forth of the Jews and according to the flesh Who is God over all, but he used the one term to point out the human nature, which he knew was of the stock of Israel, the other to shew the Divine Nature which he knew was over all and king of all 12."

Hear ye deaf and see ye blind, cried aloud one of the saints to them of the blood of Israel: but I think, and deservedly, that this belongs to them who have not, or who will not understand aright the mystery of Christ. For the god of this world hath blinded the understandings of the unbelievers, and they, not having the Divine and intellectual light in heart and mind, have deservedly gone astray. But if some who are somehow or other holden in like diseases, have been enlightened, yea rather even co-numbered with the Doctors, what else will one cry to them than this which has been said by God through one of the holy Prophets, For ye are become a snare of a watchtower in your visitation and as nets spread out in a prop 13 which the hunters have pierced through? For they who ought to be of the greatest profit to those under them, they have been a snare and a net and a stumbling block and pitfall of hades. And thus I say marvelling exceedingly and unable to see whereunto tends the opponent's aim. For he confessed in plain terms that God the Father spake to us through the Son, yet says that that Son is the man who was assumed, who has no share with God the Word in regard to what was said. How therefore is not the slander against the blessed Paul, yea rather the accusal of the Truth itself manifest to all? for not thus did the Apostle who has the Holy Ghost understand it. But the opponent is again turning aside right doctrine to his own pleasure.

From the second book of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria that One is Christ against Theodore.

That the ungodly Nestorius desired to follow the doctrines of Theodore, does not acquit him, rather it will thence work a deeper charge against him. For when he might have taken hold of the right words and spotless discourses of the holy Fathers on the Godhead, he thinks fit to prefer a lie to the truth. For he let alone what was theirs, he chose rather to cleave to what was base and to delight him in such perverted words. That this man therefore who hath such aim and madness, should have leapt down hereto, one may I think blame him and deservedly. For ho ought, he ought to have remembered the most holy Paul who clearly writes to us, Be ye wise money-changers, prove all things, hold fast that which is good, keep ye from every kind of evil. Which thing we, won t to do and hastening to imitate assayers of coin, repudiate those base and counterfeit doctrines, and receive full-gladly all which shine forth with the clear beauty of truth. But again let our argument turn the way befitting it and set before it. There have been writ therefore by good Theodore against the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians about twenty books or more; besides others interpreting the Gospel and Apostolic books: toils which none would have wished to find fault with, yea rather would have honoured the zeal with his approval, if soundness of doctrine had been in them 14. But if one walk outside of the appointed road, and leaving the right way of truth, go a crooked path and wound the hearts of the more simple, casting therein seeds of perverted understanding, then it will not be without damage for them who are over the people to rest herein, but they will have their reward and gain if they withstand [him]. Hence since in these books or writings which we mentioned above of the man spoken of, have been found certain things full of the uttermost impiety, how would it bo congruous to choose to be silent? for he severs the inseverable Christ and, in place of One Son, he honours a duality falling away from truth and as it were tinted with false names. For he says that God the Word Who is forth of God the Father was called man, yet not that He was so made in truth: the man, Him who is of Mary (as he speaks) whom too he in many places cleverly calls flesh l, he says was called indeed God and Son of God, not that He is so in truth.

But 15 Paul a workman exceeding wise to bring in the Divine Mysteries sometimes brings in to manifest the Mystery of Christ even things which are said by some in Divine Scripture, of other people. Yet he does not separate them from the persons of whom we know that they were said, nor yet does he transfer all that is theirs 16 to Christ, but sometimes takes even some very little bit, which he can without risk skilfully transfer to his purpose.

[Page running titles]

350 Incarnate Son Consubstantial to Father and to us.

Born in the flesh, implies GOD. Unity of Person. 351

352 The Body quickens, because the Body of the WORD.

Peril of heedless speech. 353

354 Christ crucified enthroned worshipped.

God made-man. 355

356 Reference says One Son, makes Two.

Indwelling ours, the WORD incarnate God the Son. 357

358 God the Son brought into the world.

GOD the Son Incarnate, JESUS, one Son. 359

360 Some baptized, yea even teachers, have gone astray.

Nestorius followed Theodore amiss, Theodore's writings. 361

362 Silence wrong when people hurt. S. Paul's skill.

Cyril of Alexandria, Against the Synousiasts (fragments),
LFC 47 (1881) pp.363-377.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

FROM HIS TREATISE 1 AGAINST THE SYNOUSIASTS 2

[Translated by P. E. Pusey]

of which the beginning is

A long discourse has already been made by us.

1.

A 3 long exposition has already been wrought out by us, who desire to strive for the doctrines of the truth. For it everywhere sets forth One Lord Jesus Christ, Who proceeded forth God the Word out of God the Father Divinely, out of a woman humanly and after the flesh. And let no one say, who has a mind witting how to view each several thing, that I have been borne savagely down on them who have not such faith, seeing that a sort of sorrow sometimes invites hereto, sorrow I mean in regard to them whom we have contradicted. For the fact itself has its proof 4, not an idle excuse. For they 5 indeed are already dead and departing from human affairs, have gone to another life; and it is utter folly in enmity to insult not the living but them who are now dead. Nevertheless since the Truth is dear to the lovers of right doctrine, and it needs befits them to say the truth and to be practised in the power of resisting them who are wont to utter vain things, I thought I ought, seeing that a countless multitude of brethren have suffered no slight harm from what Diodore Bishop of Tarsus and he who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, the most eloquent Theodore, have written of Christ the Lord and Saviour of us all, to say some few things on what they said and to point out to readers the hideousness of the track of both.

2.

Since then some stumble and imagine to themselves a change of the Word into blood and flesh, let them be laughed at as beside themselves and let us say to them, Wake up ye drunkards from their wine, and let us examine of what kind is the nature of the flesh, and be ye diligent to think, of what kind again is that of God Who is over all. For unbounded is the interval, and with reason may one say that to venture to compare them at all is not free from responsibility. For the One is by Nature God and Lord of all, Light and Life and Glory and moreover Power, the other is what every body who lives among men knows. When then any affirm that there has taken place a change of the Word into this earthly body, or that the Word being God framed to Himself out of His own Essence, a body of the same nature as our bodies, let them confess first that He ceased to be what He is (He was, as I said, God and Creator, Life and Light, Glory and Power) and let them moreover affirm that to endure the liability to slip that belongs to things generate is nob alien to Him and that to be conversant with a worse condition than that wherein He is, is not untried by Him.

Yet I think one ought to investigate what it is that thrust Him down hereto: was it some necessity and tyranny of passion falling on Him? yet how is it not distraction that any should suppose this so to be? for where is the greater than He and that is able to overpass His Nature c? since how is God the Name that is above every name and Lord of Hosts? But it is not necessity (they will haply say) but that a change of His own choice invited Him hereto. But it were impossible that He should suffer this too: for how should the Divine and Untaint Nature make ought that befitted Him not, His choice?

3.

But haply they will say in their folly that the Word being God changed into flesh yet not the whole nor altogether: albeit how is it not an evident proof of utter madness, to think and say that these things are so? for first of all to say that not wholly nor yet altogether did He change or undergo turning pertains to those who mete Him and represent Him as quantitied and no longer incorporeal, yea and capable of being conceived of as in space and as become circumscribed. Next how must not the opponents consider this too, that whatever a part of a body subject to the Word suffer, this full surely the whole too will in possibility suffer? (for suffering would not befall one of the parts, unless the nature of the whole body were susceptible of suffering). Hence seeing that the test of their ideas compels us even against our wills to advance to words we would not, beseeching the Word of God to pardon us we say this: that if it is true that He possesseth not the being beyond turning neither is the suffering it impossible to Him, the force of the blasphemy will full surely reach both to the Father Himself and to the Holy Ghost, for Consubstantial is the Holy and untaint Trinity. And then what stability look we for in God as to our own case if He too is weak as we and undergoes commotion unto what is not lawful to say, albeit we heard Him say in plain terms, Behold I am and have not been changed, the Divinely-uttering Psalmist too says that the Heavens are the works of Thy Hands: they shall perish but Thou abidest and all of them shall wax old as a garment and as a covering shalt Thou fold them and they shall be changed, but Thou art the Same and Thy years shall not fail? Consider therefore that he who in spirit speaketh mysteries and is God-taught flings turning to the nature of things generate, saying by way of illustration or demonstration that the heavens shall wax old, and hath reserved Immutability to the God Who is over all, for he hath testified to Him Ever-being and unchangeableness.

And as it has been believed to be impossible that the Nature of the Word should change into what it was not, so can it not be that the generate pass into the nature of Godhead, lest many of Its attributes be seen to be accidents, which if it advanced so far as idea alone would have the charge of blasphemy indelible. For if ought of things generate at all change into the Godhead by Nature, one would not miss of right reasoning if one should chuse to say that It out of things that are not comes into existence and obtains that which is not its, as a sort of material of Its being, and that the body became the substance of incorporeal Essence, tangible and visible of the Invisible and Untangible. And if the Father's Only-Begotten Word is by Nature Life as being of the Father Who is Life, and by change hath admitted unto consubstantiality (as they say) that which, is of the human lump, there is great fear lest we say that He is not unmixed life, for He is not unmingled with what is apt to decay.

In another way too does the opinion of the deceived ones battle with the Economy with flesh: how, we will say. The Lord being God appeared to us that He might destroy the decay which lorded it over us, not that Himself might exhibit His own Nature partaker with decay by immingling with Himself flesh subject to death.

The charge therefore is of equal force, whether one say that the Word of God have been turned into the nature of body or whether that the flesh again is transformed into consubstantiality with God. It is fit therefore that we keep away from both one and other, seeing that it is not without peril to chuse to think beside what one ought to think.

4.

That we may believe that even though His holy and all-pure Body be of same nature with our bodies, it is nevertheless august and Divine and far above our measures, as having been made His own, for He hath wrought through it, therefore was it called also bread of life, yea verily it is said both to have come down from Heaven and to give life to the world because of the Word that came down from above and out of Heaven, whose very own too the flesh has been made. Hence Divine it is (as I said), yet may one not surmise if indeed he have a mind well-established and that is versed in skill of dogma, that it has changed into the nature of the Godhead. For to the Nature that is Supreme and above all must be rigidly preserved Simplicity and absence of blending with other and of any appearance of being compounded in what belongs to It or of lacking any addition and coming into fellowship of sameness of nature or consubstantiality with ought unconnatural to It.

For come let us with acute eye of the understanding investigate the idea of the confusers. They say that His Flesh has been changed (I know not how) into consubstantiality with God the Word. Why? or what is it that brings it thereto? For of its own self it has not the impulse that would bring it thereto, and of its natural motions to admit such desires is foreign to it. It remains then to say this, that it was brought hereto by the will of God the Word. Did He then cast away the Economy which He clearly deemed worthy of all account by reason of His inherent Clemency and the Pleasure of His Father? for one may hear Him say clearly through the psalmist's voice, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, whole burnt-offerings and for sin Thou delightedst not in, but a Body Thou perfectedst Me, then I said, Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it has been written of Me) to do, O God, Thy Will: I delight to do it. The sacrifices therefore (those I mean according to the Law of Moses) were unwilled by the Father, the Incarnation of the Word or His being made Man, was rather His Choice inasmuch as it brings in the grace that is through faith to those beneath the sky, His Clemency and God-befitting gentleness making a marvellous demonstration of Itself.

What plea will there be for daring to say that He cast off (as I just now said) the august and saving Economy, if so be it be true that He put off from Him the being flesh, having changed it into the Nature of Godhead, albeit the all-wise Paul hath written of His holy Body, For wherein He hath suffered He is able to succour the tempted? But if we take away that wherein He hath suffered, with it surely will go too the means of succour given to us. For the saying that the flesh changed into the Essence of Deity, belongs to those who take from it the being what it is; which if it be admitted to be true, no longer will it be thought or said to be flesh. Since what is the change, if it have remained what it is? What profit therefore is there to our bodies from being partakers of the Mystic and holy offering? or what is the benefit therefrom? for if the Word who is united thereto willed to transform it into His own Nature, why is He found saying to us, I am the bread of Life which came down from Heaven and giveth life to the world and the bread which I will give is My Flesh which I will give for the life of the world, and again, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him?

Hence if the flesh have passed into what it was not, darting up or borne up by the Will of the Word into a position above its own nature, it is time (it seems) that we ourselves too should make after other sort the power of the mystery and follows what pleases him [who thus teaches].

5.

Therefore you have the confession of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, from which also our faith is True. But if (as our opponents say) the Word united thereto, put off His Flesh, changing it into His own Nature, the change of the Flesh and the confession of our saving Faith will (it seems) come to an end together, and with it surely cease the justification too that is through it, we are yet in our sins, the filth of our old offences is still not cast away.

6.

If He have ceased from being as we, i.e. man, together with being also above us Divinely, the foundation of our salvation has been shaken, we unawares returned (it seems) to have to be again lorded over by death and sins. For as when the nethermost foundations of house (it may be) or wall have been shaken, the superincumbent parts too will surely subside with them: thus if the Economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten be not firm, our condition surely has tottered with it and grown weak at last; and how, we will say. For if they say that the Flesh of the Word have been changed into the Nature of the Godhead, there is every need to conceive that He has otherwise departed from His will to be son of man: then how does the all-wise Paul say, For there is one God, One Mediator too of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus Who gave Himself a ransom for us? For He mediates as being the Same, God alike and Man, reconciling us to God the Father through Himself and in Him and conjoining as it were unto union things by their own nature parted unto generic difference by a boundless parting, yet in Christ did they come together unto an union without confusion and that cannot be plucked asunder: for He has been connected Divinely with the Father, and He was connected with us too humanly. Thus is the Man Christ Jesus conceived to be and is our Mediator. But if the Flesh has been really (as he says) cast away by Him, He is gone surely away from mediating between us and His own Father: how therefore do we yet approach Him? who any longer brings us or mediates? For the Divine Paul said that the Mediator is Man: we remember Christ also Himself saying, No man cometh to the Father except through Me. Idle talk therefore and words full of distraction are the inventions of the Synousiasts.

7.

The Son of man when He cometh shall He find Faith on the earth 6? For come let us ask our opponents what sort of faith the Son of man when He comes down out of Heaven would find in them who are on the earth, or how He would have us minded regarding Him: that He has left willing to be son of man, or that He has remained in the likeness usward? though how can one doubt that if it were displeasing to Him to be conceived of as being yet as we are, how were it meet to say, The Son of man when He comes shall He find Faith on the earth, and not rather The Word of God bare and without flesh when He comes, will He find of such sort the faith concerning Him among them on the earth? But since He clearly and manifestly calls Himself Son of man even at the time of His arrival from Heaven, it is I suppose clear that not having changed His Flesh into ought else but rather having it glorified, incorruptible and spotless and adorned with light unapproachable [will He come]: for He will come down out of Heaven, not in His former low estate (whence should He?) but in the glory of His Father with the Holy Angels.

8.

If, His Flesh changed into the Nature of the Godhead, He ceased to be Son of man too, clear would it be to every one henceforth that we too have lost the boast of sonship, as no longer having a First-born among many brethren.

9.

He is seen not trans-elementing into the Nature of Godhead that which is unalterably and without confusion flesh, but rather will He rightly be conceived of as adorning it with His own glory and filling it with God-befitting dignities: thus will He be seen in His season by them who are on the whole earth, on His return from Heaven. And verily when having accomplished full well the mystery of the Economy with flesh, He had gone up into Heaven, even though they who saw it had wondered at the thing (for a cloud received Him, as it is written): to them who then marvelled one of the holy Angels addressed him, Men of Galilee why stand ye looking into Heaven? this Man Who was received up from you into Heaven shall thus come again as ye saw Him go into Heaven. Did therefore they who were addressed see the very Word apart from the flesh going up to the Father? or [did they see Him] having cast away the likeness to us and not in a tangible and visible but transfashioned rather into one intangible and invisible? who dares to say this? If He shall so come as He also went up, how is it not true to say that He shall come again embodied and not bare and fleshless Word?

10.

The all-wise Paul hath written of Christ, Who shall transfashion the body of our low estate conformed to the body of His glory. Then what will they say to this who say that His flesh changed into the Nature of the Word? will the bodies of the saints too pass by a change into the Nature of Godhead that they too may become conformed to the body of His glory? yet how is this not a frigid speech replete with the uttermost unlearning? for when the flesh is wholly changed (as he says) into the Nature of Godhead, what body will the Word being God use? For somewhat un-embodied is Godhead, and it is true that No one hath ever seen God.

11.

But haply they will say that the Flesh did not wholly depart from being what it was, but that it was as it were immingled with God the Word unto a natural oneness. And what do we say to this? First of all, sirs, there is full much difficulty, the reasoning hereon will be weak if ye decide to retain to the Nature of the Word Its unchangeable Being and unalterable Existence (for in no wise will it change unto what it was not): either when it has suffered this It has been shaken from Its God-befitting stability and from the settledness that is inherent in it by Nature, or howsoever one calls it: but I think that it is wise that we should in no wise be able to conceive that ought of things that are could abide in the Nature of the Godhead: for this too is likewise impossible.

Yet if they are well off in examples that can persuade that in commingling and mixture of things mentioned the inherent property of either will be wholly imparticipate of the quality of the other, let them bring forward their examples: for we say that the name corn-mixture will in no wise harm the force of the truth. But if they say that flesh and Word are mixed after the manner of liquids, how do they not know that liquids mixed one with other, say wine and honey, are no longer simply what they were, but are changed into something else by the addition of a quality of a different species?

Hence if they say that the Flesh has been commingled with the Word, there is every need of saying that each of the above-mentioned leaves being what it was, and makes up of both some one intermediate thing, of a different nature full surely from what each was individually and as yet unmingled one with other. Then what results? I would fain ask of our opponents whither matters will proceed, since they say that the Nature of God is henceforth mingled with flesh (for it hath not remained in identity, if their mixture, as has been said, is true). Either therefore they will say that He has this advance for the better, or else a sinking down to the baser, according to reasonable understanding of things. If then they say that He has been displayed superior to Himself, they have given the vote of superiority to the flesh by reason of which He is perceived to have sprung up to the higher: if they say that this was not so but rather that He sank into the worse: the flesh verily did Him too wrong even as it does to ourselves, although we say that He let Himself down to emptiness and entered into the likeness us ward, not in order that Himself might be seen suffering somewhat in His own Nature, but that He might render us who are in flesh and blood superior to flesh and might make us, beyond the measures of human nature, sons of God.

But if as the perverted ones say He have been commingled with flesh, borne aside unto what He was not, how they say that He has not been wronged I cannot conceive 7; haply He is found to have lost in addition, the very being the Form of the Father, the Likeness and Impress of His Person and to be no longer in equality with Him but rather in a depression and abasement of both Nature and glory.

12.

It were therefore nothing hard to add very many discordant things to what have been said; but I think that one ought gladly to withdraw from thoughts tending to absurdity. We must therefore eschew commixture, for thus shall wo escape the mischiefs too that come thence. But some other argument (as they say) as to these things finds its way in. For the Divine Paul is found to have written, But if we have also known Christ after the flesh yet now no more do we know Him. Hence if ye know not Christ after the flesh (they say), one must needs say that the flesh changes, so that it is the Nature of the Word Himself: as God is He known 8.

But I suppose one would say straightway to this, 'When therefore he says of us too, But they which are in the flesh cannot please God, but YE are not in the flesh but in the spirit:——does he know that we are bare of flesh and blood? does he utter such things as though to disembodied spirits?' Yet how is it not jugglery to conceive or say this?

In regard to us then he calls by the name of flesh, the unreasonable and not irreprehensible passions of the flesh: but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, Who is All-Pure and knows not to transgress (for He did no sin), in other way beseems it that After the flesh be conceived of; for no longer is He in the infirmities of the flesh.

13.

He 9 has fasted, He hungered, He waxed weary from long wayfaring, yet more He was crucified and died: He conceded that He should suffer these things, not to the Nature of the Godhead (for the Divine and Supreme Nature is conceived of as beyond suffering) but rather to His own Flesh. But when He rose again having trampled on Death and trans-elemented the nature of man in Himself unto incorruption and life: He is at length seen wholly without share in fleshly infirmity. Therefore with reason does the minister of His mysteries say that no more is He known after the flesh, i. e. in fleshly weakness.

14.

Having tasted death in the flesh for our sakes He rose again in His body. And verily, this very thing He had fore-signified to the people of the Jews saying, Undo this Temple and in three days I will raise it, for that has been raised which was dissolved, but we say that the flesh and not the Nature of the Word was dissolved: for that were impossible.

15.

Christ therefore Himself the Saviour of us all giving proof to His disciples that He rose from the dead, with flesh and hands and feet and declaring in plain words that He is not a Spirit: how will one doubt that the flesh did not change into the Nature of Godhead, either before the Passion (for He suffered in the flesh of His will) nor when having trampled on death He arose the third day and was thus seen of His disciples?

16.

Who of the holy prophets is seen uttering afore things thus hard and impracticable and impossible? who of the holy Apostles or Evangelists spake to them of these things?

No one whatever. Let them therefore, speaking out of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is written, be ashamed. For WE, whose care is orthodoxy and who makest a special aim zealously to follow the right words of the holy Fathers, not the unbridled mouth and empty-speakings void of understanding of some, will not be minded otherwise than we ought to be minded, but ever going the straight way of the truth and having our mind filled with the holy Scriptures we both say that the Flesh of our LORD was ensouled with reasonable soul and believe that it is Divine and Spotless and glorified and moreover both life-giving and sanctifying, inasmuch as it became the own Flesh of the Word out of God the Father and affirm that it is not (as some have thought fit to think) of a son other than He, nor yet that it is changed into the Nature of Godhead.

17.

S. Cyril against Diodore and Theodore in his Book against the Synousiasts wrote thus 10,

But perchance to these things some one will say, 'What then, if when contending with some of the heretics or withstanding them who confuse the Natures 11, they made a discourse grosser than should be?'

I suppose that one would say that if the fault were in a single word, the hearers would forgive what was not far off from what is right. For that in some slight degree they sometimes err even against their will, who apply themselves to subtilty and exactitude of idea, they have some just reason for apology. But if in works thus extensive and in their whole writings so to say, they have attacked the Truth blow upon blow, every where confessing Two sons, what excuse will be sufficient for them?

18.

12 these things too taught S. Cyril in his discourse against those who confuse the Natures, after this sort,

Receiving as a rule of right and undistorted Faith the Holy and God-inspired Scripture we say that when the Only-Begotten Word of God became First-born for us, He ceased not from being what He was and He is called, along with the title of Very God, also Son of Man: and He is not seen to have changed the Nature of the Godhead into flesh, which without change and without confusion was united to Him that He might adorn it with His own Glory: rather we must know that He filled it with God-befitting authority. Thus for a season was He seen of those in all the earth when He came from Heaven.

[Running headers for the pages]

Liberatus. S. Athanasius. S. Gregory of Nazianzum. 363

364 Strive for the Truth, sorrow for the strayed.

Word not changed into body, nor forms body out of Himself. 365

366 If Son can change, Father and Holy Ghost can.

Nought generate can become GOD. 367

368 His Body Divine, His own, in its proper nature.

If It were changed, It would not profit us. 369

370 Christ not a Mediator unless both God and Man,

nor the Son of Man, nor we sons of God. 371

372 He will come again as He ascended.

The Flesh and the Word not commingled. 373

374 By 'after the flesh' S. Paul means

'in the weakness of the Flesh,' in which He suffered. 375

376 The Flesh of the Word Divine, yet not confounded.

Christ both Very God and Very Man. 377