Cyrilli Apologeticus Pro XII Capitibus Adversus Orientales Episcopos

THE APOLOGETIC OF SAINT CYRIL, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, FOR THE TWELVE CHAPTERS AGAINST THE ORIENTAL BISHOPS,

in whose name Andreas of Samosata had written objections.

Translated by Marius Mercator.

Those who hasten to devote their mind to the thrice-holy God, and desire to cleave to the doctrines of truth, indeed spurn the profane and empty speeches of the wicked heretics; but fixing the inward and hidden eye of the mind upon the divine Scripture, and arming it from there with good opinions, they stand firm against those who pervert what is right, almost crying out: With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord (3 Kings xix, 10).

Since Nestorius, then, was pouring out many and various blasphemies against Christ the Savior of all, and as it were utterly overthrowing the great and venerable mystery of the incarnation, we judged it to be a great danger to keep silent about such great and such matters; and so we often admonished him to refrain from blasphemies of this kind. But after we had accomplished nothing at all, we necessarily took care to defend the doctrines of piety. We therefore marked out certain chapters from his blasphemies, and usefully anathematized them, that is, those who hold the same opinions as he does; obeying the blessed Paul who says: If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema (Gal. i, 9).

But I do not know how certain persons have taken this badly—whether companions of the same madness and of like character, or men who indeed dissemble that they think the same as he does, but assist him by every means—and who try to make those who wish to speak for Christ worthy of hatred. But it would have been fitting for them to consider this: that if they had rather rebuked evil teachers, that very thing would have procured for them the love and goodwill of Christ. But as it is, they have done what it was least fitting for them to do; for they have declared those men to be hostile to themselves whose imitators, had they been, they would have wreathed their own heads with the crown of everlasting glory together with them.

They have therefore censured the anathematisms as though they were not rightly made; then against each one they have set the inventions of their own mind, and certain absurdities I know not of, hoping that they could steal upon the unskilled and those who receive their words carelessly.

It was necessary, therefore, that we too set the truth against them, drive back their utterly empty accusation, and prove that they are slanderers and fault-finders rather than searchers of the whole truth. Therefore, having set out each anathema in turn, with the objections they raised also appended, we have added our own replies, making judges of them who are skilled in the Holy Scripture, and seeking the upright verdict of those who possess the knowledge of the truth.

FIRST ANATHEMA.

If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that for this reason the holy Virgin is [a virgin], for she gave birth carnally to the Word of God made flesh, let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETICS.

Who would confess that the Word of God made flesh was born carnally? For if the mother gave birth carnally, how is she now a virgin? Then where shall we place that saying: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35); since, according to him, the holy Virgin gave birth carnally and not in a divine manner? And how did the star, appearing in wondrous ways, point him out? How did the Magi from Persia, with the star as their guide, come seeking him who had been born, and, having found him, offer gifts suited to both the intelligible and the visible (Matt. 2:11-12)? How did angels descending from heaven, mingling with the shepherds, sing of his birth, saying: Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace to men of good will (Luke 2:14)?

Are these the marks of a carnal generation, or rather of a divine one?

Otherwise, if we receive these very words carelessly and without consideration, we shall imagine that a conversion of the Word took place, and a change into flesh, and thus we shall suppose that he himself was made both sin and a curse—unless we examine both what follows and what precedes in the books, and the very custom of Scripture, and understand that the Word was born carnally, and that the indwelling in the flesh is to be taken according to the sense of the Gospels.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

The most wise John clearly showed the mystery of the carnal dispensation of the only-begotten Son of God, saying: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Understanding these things rightly, the most blessed Fathers who in their time were gathered at Nicaea said that the very Word was born of God the Father, through whom and with whom the Father made all things, light from light, true God from true God, incarnate and made man—that is, joined to flesh having a rational soul—and made man, yet remaining God.

But that this union was made without change and without confusion, no one can doubt, since the Word of God remained what it had been before, although it was made flesh. For what is said to be incarnate is not converted into the nature of flesh, but is understood as something other than flesh, yet joined to flesh.

Understanding this, the blessed Fathers named her the holy Virgin; for they believed that she bore the Son incarnate and made man, through whom the Father made all things. But Nestorius, the inventor of new blasphemies against us, opposes this opinion and censures it as though it ought not truly to be said; indeed he says: I have often asked them: Do you say that the Deity was born of the holy Virgin? They immediately flee from answering. And who, they say, is so great a blasphemer as to say that God was created by the Spirit in her who bore the temple? Then, when I add: What then do we do that is absurd, persuading them to avoid this expression and rather to come to the common signification of the two natures? Then what I say seems to them to be blasphemy: Either therefore confess openly that the Deity was born of the holy Virgin; or if you flee this expression as blasphemous, why, thinking the same as I do, do you pretend not to think so (Cyril's Letter to Acacius of Beroea, Sermon 5)?

Since he therefore was violently pressing (or rather, wickedly soliciting) those who call the holy Virgin [Mother of God] to confess that the Divinity was the offspring of the flesh, and that God the Word had the beginning of his existence from a woman, we, wishing to prove that we utterly abhor such an opinion (for we are not so foolish as to hold such an impious view), have said that the Virgin gave birth to the Word of God made flesh, that is, to a man, according to the Scriptures; but she gave birth carnally, that is, according to the flesh; for God the Father also begot God the Son from himself in a divine manner. But since what is born of the flesh is flesh (John 3:6), the Virgin gave birth, as it were, as flesh, carnally. Nor do I abolish the miracle of the generation, nor do I deny the operation of the Holy Spirit, through which he formed in the womb what was born; but rather I show that just as God begets divinely, and as befits God, according to his nature, so also man [begets] humanly, and the flesh carnally.

Since therefore the Word is God by nature, even though he was made flesh, he came forth in a divine manner, and as was fitting for true God; for he alone had an unwedded mother, and he kept her a virgin, who had borne him in the flesh. And this I marvel at, that although they themselves are ashamed to call the holy Virgin [Mother of God], they assert that she gave birth in a divine manner; for a common man is not born divinely.

Then they say that the gifts offered by the magi were suited both to the intelligible and to the visible; therefore they again divide into two, after the union, the one Lord Jesus Christ; for the intelligible became visible, not by a change of nature, but by the union of the body, which is visible. And certainly the sacred Scriptures have taught that the holy apostles themselves were spectators and ministers of the Word; since it is plain to all that the Word of God the Father is incorporeal and intangible. But I hear the holy disciples saying: What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen, what we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life (1 John 1:1). The gifts therefore were suited to one, that is, to Christ; for in one there is at once God and man; and therefore, when he was born, choirs of angels and hosts of spirits cried out that he was the Savior and Deliverer.

But since, as the Evangelist says, "The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14), they say they fear that, if it keeps its own meaning, some conversion may be understood to have taken place in the divine nature of the Word. I indeed praise the fear, but I marvel at this, that taking up the expression and its true and necessary meaning, they say the Word was made flesh in the same way that it is said he was made a curse and sin (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). Then why, when they seem to themselves to be most sagacious, do they not see that the blessed Evangelist, by saying this, abolishes every notion of conversion, immediately adding: "And dwelt among us"?

Moreover, it is absurd to dare to say that the Word was made flesh in the same way that he is said to have been made a curse and sin; for he was not truly and properly made a curse and sin, but so that he might destroy sin, and he who blesses creation was called a curse, so that he might dissolve our curse and free from punishment those who believe in him. He was therefore not truly a curse and sin, but he was called both, so that he might destroy the curse and sin.

If, then, He was made flesh in a similar way, He also destroyed the flesh, as being curse and sin; and neither was He made man, nor was He truly incarnated, but the meaning and manner of the Incarnation will be found to consist only in a great mystery and in bare words.

But the hope of the resurrection is also utterly taken away. In whose death, then, were we baptized (Rom 6:3)? Where is the word of faith which we preach? For confessing that Jesus is Lord, and believing that God raised Him from the dead, we are saved (Rom 10:8). Or is our faith in a man like us and common to all? Do we not rather adore the Word made in human form for our sake? He did not, then, take the form of a servant (Phil 2:7), who is free, that is, God. He did not humble Himself, who is conspicuous by the heights of dignity, and who is in equality and form with the Father. He did not cast Himself into emptiness, who from His own fullness distributes all good things to creation.

Away with that madness; the most blessed Fathers taught us otherwise. For they said that the Word of God the Father was truly incarnate and made man, incorruptibly and without confusion. But the manner of the hidden and ineffable dispensation is a mystery; and as witnesses of my words I will call upon their own sermons.

OF PETER MARTYR, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.

The Evangelist, speaking the truth: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Namely, from that time when the Angel greeted the Virgin, saying: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (Luke 1:28). For Gabriel said, "The Lord is with thee," in place of "God the Word is with thee"; for he signifies that He is born in the womb and will become flesh, according to what is written: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; therefore the holy thing that shall be born shall be called the Son of God (ibid., 35).

OF ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.

Hence also, when his own flesh was born of Mary, he himself is said to have been born, who grants that others be born, so as to transfer our generation into himself.

From the same author, from the Letter to Epictetus.

But how have those who are said to be Christians dared even to doubt whether the Lord who came forth from Mary is indeed Son of God in substance and nature, but according to the flesh from the seed of David and from the flesh of holy Mary? Furthermore, how have they been so bold as to say that the Christ who suffered and was crucified in the flesh is not the Lord, and Savior, and God, and Son of the Father? Or how do they wish to be called Christians, who say that the Word came upon a holy man, as upon one of the prophets, and not rather that he himself became man, having taken a body from Mary; or that Christ is one thing and the Word another, who was Son of the Father before Mary and before the ages? Or how can they be Christians, who say that the Son is one thing and the Word of God another?

We follow this opinion and faith of the holy Fathers; but if there is anyone who teaches differently and introduces novel expressions, he is seen to wander outside the straight and well-trodden path. But that it is not unusual nor unfamiliar for the holy Fathers to say that he was born carnally, but rather that this expression is frequent and more often employed—nevertheless the words written below will show this, which are as follows.

OF AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF ICONIUM.

For unless he had been begotten carnally, you would never have been recreated spiritually; and unless he had endured the form of a servant, you would never have obtained the glory of adoption. Here too "carnally" is put in place of "according to the flesh," just as also "divinely," that is, "according to the divinity."

The objection of the Orientals to the second anathematism, and Cyril's response, is nowhere found in the codices, whether published or manuscript, that I at least have seen; yet that there was some, is evident even from this, that in the objection to the third anathematism Andreas says that he is again raising something against Cyril from his own very words, whereas from that source he opposed nothing at all in the objection to the first anathematism. What of the fact that in the second anathematism the hinge of the whole matter turned, since the discussion concerned the principle, that is, the beginning, which once granted, the whole heresy of Nestorius was overthrown and the catholic faith stood firm.

But it is not at all credible that nothing was said by the man who had taken up the patronage of Nestorius concerning the sum of the whole matter.

THIRD ANATHEMATISM.

If anyone divides the substances in the one Christ, after the union, and joins them by conjunction alone according to dignity, or authority, or dominion, and not rather by a certain agreement which has been made through a natural [union]: let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETICS.

Again we shall remind him of his own words, convicting him of having said that there are two substances in what he wrote in the first tome, in this way: Therefore, as far as pertains to his own nature, the Word of God the Father was not sanctified by himself alone; but if there is one who believes that he who was born of the holy Virgin was anointed and sanctified, himself alone by himself, and for this reason was named Christ, etc. How then, forgetful of his own words, does he contract into one substance, confounding the natures, calling the divine [nature] natural?

And who would ever accept a natural divine [power] in the mystery of the dispensation? For if it is natural, where is grace? Where is the divine mystery? For natures, as we have been taught, once established by God, serve necessary laws. Or will the rationale of the dispensation again come about through the law of nature, according to those fabulous things, that is, the thousand years, invented by Apollinarius?

The heresiologists Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, Theodoret, and the author of the Praedestinatus made no mention of Apollinarius; yet three most weighty writers did—Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome, whose words concerning Papias are these: "He is said to have published a Jewish [doctrine] of the thousand years, which Irenaeus and Apollinarius followed, who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints" (De Script. Eccl. c. 28). Indeed, when Dionysius of Alexandria had written against Irenaeus, who was implicated in this error, Jerome testifies (Prooem. ad c. lxv Isa.) that Apollinarius responded in two volumes.

THE ORTHODOX REPLY.

The divine Paul, making plain to all how the only-begotten Word of God became man, as a steward of the mysteries of God and having Christ himself speaking within him, says: For he did not take hold of angels, but he took hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before the Lord (Heb. 2:16). But we, crowning that saying with right approval, following holy Scripture everywhere, and admiring the voices of the divine teachers—indeed, judging them to be most holy laws—do not say that the Word of God and of the Father took hold of the holy angels, nor of his own nature; but, as is pleasing to the divine writings, we believe that he overshadowed the holy Virgin, inasmuch as he is the power of the Most High Father, and formed a body for himself from her, yet by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and became man, and was called the son of Abraham and David; since he had not ceased to be truly the Son of God and of the Father, but had remained in his own nature, and majesty, and glory of deity, although he became flesh: for God is unchangeable, and mightier than every change.

Therefore there is one and the same Son and Lord, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation. And to divide the one into two, and to undermine the true, and to separate into parts, and to speak of the man separately and God separately, is the crime of a great impiety.

He calls it true, which I have learned elsewhere: for nothing is true except that which joins the things themselves, and not merely the qualities of things. For every [union] out of many makes one something; but that, if it be something substantial, is true and simply so called; if it be some quality, or anything else besides substance, it is not true, but only, indeed, as the Philosopher says, substance as it is being, so also. Wherefore every [union] which is not, as they say in the schools, into a unity of substance—whether substance be taken for nature or for hypostasis—is not, according to Cyril, but only. Hence in this matter these terms are synonymous, just as from the opposite, etc. Hence, what is more wonderful, in Cyril, where there is discussion of , it is taken for : but this will be explained afterwards.

But despising all these things, Nestorius dared to utter these words: "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." He did not say: "Have this mind in you, which was also in God the Word, who, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant." But where he said "Christ," as though it were an appellation of the two natures, he named him without danger both the form of a servant which he took and God; since these things are said without sin of the twofold and separable account of the natures. And again in another treatise: "That at the name," he says, "of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Because of him who bore, I worship him who was borne; because of the invisible one, I venerate the one who appears; God is never separated from him who appears: therefore neither do I separate the honor. I separate the natures, but I make the veneration one. And again in another treatise: "Call him who assumed, because he is God; call him who was assumed, because he is a servant. Then add the dignity of the conjunction, because the authority of the two is common; because the dignity of the two is the same, while the natures remain, confess the unity of the dignity.

You see that he separates the natures everywhere; but he makes one, as he himself says, the veneration, and calls the authority common, and that of dignity alone. But whatever is common cannot be common to one, but either certainly to two, or to more, understood separately and apart. For what cause, then, have they accused the discourse in which we anathematize these things? What great crime have we committed, if, opposing the dogmas of piety to the profane and novel fables of Nestorius, we have kept a fitting account of the protection of the brethren?

But since they say that I contradict my own discourses, and in proof of this matter they recite a part of my epistle which was written to the holy monks, I have thought it proper to respond to this also with fitting words; for they say that I have also spoken of two substances, and they think this suffices for their proof. Therefore, having set out the part of the epistle, I shall presently bring in those things by which they may be convicted as liars everywhere and vain talkers.

Epistle: Therefore, as far as pertains to his own nature, the very Word of God was not sanctified by himself alone; but if there is anyone who thinks that he who was born of the holy Virgin was anointed and sanctified, himself alone by himself, and that for this reason he was named Christ, let him come forward and prove that anointing alone suffices to declare the one who is anointed to be like the glory of the Father and to be of the same throne with God, who is more eminent than all.

For Nestorius, the inventor of new blasphemies against us, asserts that the Word of God is separately named Christ; but separately and apart, another Christ, who was born of the Virgin. We censure this opinion of his as unsuitable, incongruous, and placed outside the boundaries of truth; and we affirm neither that the Word of God the Father, himself alone by himself and separately, was anointed with the oil of gladness, nor further that separately and alone, himself by himself, he is man, and that the Son, the Word of God the Father, is another besides him who was born of the Virgin; but rather we affirm that one Christ must be named by all, the incarnate and man-made only-begotten Word of God: For one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Therefore it is unclear to no one who wishes to think rightly that they corrupt the meaning of what has been written by me, and here also bring a false accusation against the truth.

But this is also right for another reason, and is removed far from all blame: for we know, of course, that the flesh by the property of its own nature is one thing apart from the Word who was born of the Father; and the only-begotten Word of God is another thing by the reckoning of his own nature: to know truly that this is so is not to divide the natures after the union.

He set down "natures" in place of "hypostases," which must be carefully observed; but by this name he understands nothing other than what in the schools is called a thing of nature, and is opposed, as they say, to a moral entity, or even to an accident. Wherefore that word, according as it is determined by the circumstances, obtains various meanings, and thus in Cyril it is the very same thing as the hypostasis of the Word; on the other hand, it is the common divinity of the persons, equally in human affairs; it is indeed the singularity of the one himself, as they say; it is the common nature, etc.

But if anyone wishes to gaze upon the force of the mystery with the keen eye of the mind, let him easily understand even from this very thing what we said at the beginning: that God the Word did not take hold of his own nature, but of the seed of Abraham; from which, taken from the blessed Virgin, a man came forth, that he might be made like to his brethren, and be called the firstborn, who is the only-begotten.

But although the body is of another nature, apart from the Word of God the Father, nevertheless he is one, both Christ and Son and God and Lord, even though he was made flesh; and it is dangerous to undermine the principle of true unity, and to divide the substances into two sons [Baluzius: into two parts], and to say that they are indeed different from one another and separated by their own property, but have only an extrinsic and honorary conjunction.

But if we say "natural," we shall be saying "true"; especially since divine Scripture uses this term so frequently. Blessed Paul writes somewhere: And we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest (Eph 2:3). But no one says that divine wrath has a substance by nature, so that even sinners are called its children; for if we said so, we would surely be like the fury of the Manichaeans; but "nature" he put for that which is "in truth."

Therefore, not confounding the natures, nor, as the adversaries relate, mixing them together, we say that he was made natural; but from two dissimilar things, that is, from divinity and humanity, we affirm everywhere that one Christ was made, Son and Lord. But the dogmas of Apollinaris are of no concern to us at all; for it is fitting to shun those who have been condemned as corrupters of the truth.

From two, as they say, dissimilar natures, one hypostasis has been made, and one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one, I say, substantially, and not merely one morally.

FOURTH ANATHEMA.

If anyone divides between two persons or two substances the sayings that are in the Gospel or apostolic writings, whether those spoken of Christ by the saints or those spoken by him of himself, and assigns these indeed to the man who is understood separately apart from the Word of God, but those to God the Word alone, let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETICS.

Here too it is fitting to remind him of his own doctrines, in which he says (Homily 17, for Pascha): And if you have heard that he advanced in age and wisdom and grace, do not think that the Word of God was wise by advancement; but not even that should you dare to say, that we assign advancement of age, wisdom, and grace to the man. But even if he denies the testimony of Scripture, teaching that the advancement took place according to the visible flesh of the Lord, nevertheless it is not the time now to convict him, since we are hastening to the chapter proposed; for in order to prove that he says there are two substances, and that he contradicts himself, we have set down the things he said earlier.

But to divide between two persons, or two substances, or two sons, and not to fit the words to the one Son, is unfitting; for that sum is indivisible and inseparable, and there is one Son, by every account and in every way. Therefore, since unity has been preserved, and one Son and Christ and Lord has been shown, the things that are said must be fitted to the one and the same Son. But not to divide the Gospel words, whether those spoken by the Lord himself about himself or those set down in the apostolic writings, is [a mark] of great madness.

For if we do not divide the words, with what eyes shall we look upon the Eunomians, or the Arians, who are accustomed to refer everything that is said to one nature, and to bring the lowly words of the humanity up to the height of the divinity? Or how shall we understand the words of the Lord, who on account of the visible nature of the flesh said: I have not come to do my own will (John 6:38). And that: I received a commandment what I should say and what I should speak (John 12:49). And: I do nothing of myself (John 8:28). And: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God (John 20:17), and other things of this kind?

For if the words are indivisible, as the nature also is, then God the Father will be his own Father of the only-begotten God per se; but the Son, according to the deity, will be a servant and a messenger of the Father's commandments. And if we refer the lowly words to the nature of the deity, to whom shall we ascribe: I and the Father are one (John 10:30); and: That he does the same things which the Father does. And: For just as the Father raises the dead, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills (John 5:19, 21)? But certainly, according to the Lord's word, he is from the Father, and the Father is both his and his God: God indeed of him who in the last times was made from the seed of David according to the flesh; but Father of the Word, which from him eternally, impassibly, and always has been born, with the sonship preserved and manifest in one way. For how shall we receive: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58); and: All things were made through him (John 1:3); if the words are indivisible? Shall we ascribe the word to the nature of that one which in the last times was made from the seed of David, saying, to be sure, that before Abraham was, and before David was, it existed, and that all things were made through it?

Or rather, out of regard for piety, with the natures remaining unconfused and the unity undivided, should we not attribute the expressions according to the force of the conjoined natures, as was said above, referring all things to one Son, and Lord, and Christ, not to one nature? So that from one name we may understand both natures, because of the supreme and to us incomprehensible [union]: as, No one has ascended into the assembly, except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven (John 3:13); and further: If you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before (John 6:63); do we not, from the appellation "Son of Man," receive also him who is conjoined to him unconfusedly and inseparably? For even if he called himself the Son of Man because of the nature of the assumed and visible flesh, he nevertheless showed himself to be God by his deeds, and further, Jesus Christ through whom are all things (Heb 2:10), and further, Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same himself and forever (Heb 13:8). If yesterday and today, how through him are all things? And if through him are all things, how yesterday and today? But both that all things are through him is true, and that [he is] yesterday and today is to be believed, and that [he is] the same and forever is most certain, if according to the diversity of the natures unconfusedly and inseparably conjoined we fit the expressions, understanding, according to what is visible, yesterday and today; according to what is intelligible, forever; but according to the conjunction of sonship, one and the same.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Evidently this is the intent of those who contend that the anathematisms which we issued so usefully and necessarily should be censured inconsiderately and rashly, so that they can neither think nor say anything right, but only show themselves to be slanderers and detractors. For if they had wished to direct the eye of their mind carefully to the writings, they would certainly recognize that they rather approve the anathematism by their votes, and from the very things which they themselves accuse they clearly show that what we did was not done unskillfully; and how they do this, I will say.

The good man Nestorius, when he was preaching in the Church, said this (Sermon 5, which is against Proclus): "So that this may become more evident and clearer to all—both to the Arians and Eunomians and Apollinarists and all who are of the same flock—it is their endeavor to say that, as if by some mixture made and with the natures not at all divided, the lowly expressions were not received of the humanity, and they might find a place against the deity, as though all things that are said are said of one and the same." With these things thus said, the anathematism was most fittingly made by us, not conceding that one Lord Jesus Christ is divided into two persons or into two substances.

But that they themselves also assent to our statements is clear from the things which they both thought and took pains to write, which are as follows: It is not fitting to apply the terms "two persons," or "two substances," or "two sons" (dividing the unity, or [positing] one son). For that sum is indivisible and inseparable, and there is one Son, by every account and in every way. Therefore, since the supreme unity is preserved, and one Son and Christ and Lord is demonstrated, one must apply the things that are said to one and the same Son. Otherwise, according to the force of the united natures, one must apply what is said to the one Son. Therefore, if that sum must be preserved, what ground for division could break in? And if anyone should dare to divide, he seems to wander far from the right path and to be at odds with the doctrines of piety.

What then does the anathematism say? If anyone divides the terms in such a way as to assign some of them as to a man who is understood separately apart from the Word of God, but others as divine, to God the Word alone, let him be anathema. Therefore, if these men who divide and separate into a man separately and into the Word of God separately do not divide the one Christ, nor call him two sons, they are right to be angry with me, their rebuker; but if they think this way, it is plainly a division—for which reason they have rebuked my words; especially since they themselves also, from what they say, confess that Emmanuel is indivisible and one through the supreme unity.

I both approve and assent, praising the individual expressions that have been spoken either about Christ or by Him, that they are to be understood prudently and wisely, as do all who are accustomed to think rightly; for some are divine, others more suited to the dispensation of the flesh. But since He is one and the same God and man at once, therefore He now speaks divinely, now humanly; yet we affirm that both these and those utterances are of the one Jesus Christ, neither stripping the temple, which was born of the virgin, of its divinity, nor saying that the Word of God and the Father is without flesh, after the hidden and ineffable unity.

But this I marvel at, that whereas they seem to search curiously into my writings and, as they themselves think, subtly scrutinize my letters, those things in them which are useful and necessary and pertain to the proof of right doctrines, they deliberately pass over. But they rush in quite nimbly and eagerly if anything has seemed to them to carry even the slightest suspicion by which they might bring a calumny against us. But I shall remember my own words; for I wrote in the letter to Nestorius in this manner: But the utterances of our Savior which are in the Gospels, we divide neither into two substances nor into two persons.

For He is not twofold, but one and only Christ, although He is understood to have been brought together from two different things into one inseparable unity, just as man also, although he is understood to consist of soul and body, is not therefore twofold, but one from both. But we most rightly confess that both human utterances and also divine ones were brought forth by Him. For where, as God, He teaches concerning Himself: "He who sees me sees also my Father" (John 14:9); and: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30); we understand His divine and hidden nature, through which He is one with His Father, on account of the substance; for He is the image and figure, and the light of His glory. But where, not dishonoring the measure of His humanity, He addresses the Jews: "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you" (John 7:1); nonetheless we recognize Him, who is in equality and likeness of the Father, as God the Word from the other conditions of His humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that, although He is God by nature, He was made flesh, or man, animated flesh with a rational soul; why should anyone be ashamed of His utterances, if they were spoken in a human manner? For if one shrinks from the words that seem to befit a man, who compelled Him to become a man like us? But He who for our sake sent Himself into a voluntary emptying, for what reason should He shrink from words befitting that emptying?

Therefore all the voices of the Gospel are to be spoken of one person, and of one substance of the incarnate Word: for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. We are not, then, shown to be ignorant of the dispensation—which voice belongs to each—but rather not to permit even those who do not have the Spirit to name two sons, or to say, dividing the substances from one another, after the inseparable unity.

But since they have placed the briefest part of our letter at the beginning of their own statements, threatening that they will at some time convict us, as though we were not moderately offending against the Word of God and of the Father, and most rashly ascribing to His nature that growth which belongs to the flesh—come, let us also say what must be answered concerning this as well, setting out that entire part of the letter. For they, fearing the truth and hastening to creep in among their hearers, have set out only that part which seemed useful to themselves, through which they might bring against us a calumny colored with reason. But the writing stands thus: And if you have heard that Jesus advanced in age, and grace, and wisdom, do not think that the Word of God was wise from progress; but rather remember the most blessed Paul writing thus: Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

But neither should you have rashly dared to say that we assign to the man advancement of age and wisdom and grace: for that is nothing other than to divide the one Christ into two parts. But, as I said a little while ago, since the Son exists before the ages, in the last times the Son is said to have been of God, making the generation of his flesh his own by dispensation: so too, since he is the wisdom of the Begetter, he is said to advance in wisdom, who is most perfect, inasmuch as he is God, taking upon himself familiarly the things proper to humanity because of the highest. For what reason, then, when God commands: Judge a just judgment (Deut. 1:16), do they themselves corrupt the truth? For we do not assert a division of substances afterward; nor do we say that the nature of the deity needed increase and advancement: but rather this, that through dispensation he did the things that are proper to the flesh, inasmuch as he was made flesh, according to the Scripture.

He calls the paschal homily by the name of an epistle, not because it is not a discourse—and indeed a lengthy and elaborate one—but because it was truly to be sent into nearly the whole world, and especially into the Eastern empire, to all the greater [bishops] and sees, from which it might flow down to the lesser, and might indicate the day for celebrating Pascha.

But that the chorus of the holy Fathers also assents to such faith and opinion, I shall prove by appending a suitable portion of the treatise of Atticus of blessed memory, which reads as follows.

OF ATTICUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

Today Christ the Lord received the generation of clemency; for he had already possessed that which belongs to divine dignity. And he added further: The Word of clemency is emptied, which by nature is incapable of being emptied—for he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7); being without flesh [incapable of incarnation], he becomes in the flesh, for the Word was made flesh (John 1:14); he who cannot be handled because of his incorporeal nature is touched; he who has no beginning submits to a bodily beginning; being perfect, he grows; being immutable, he advances; being rich, he is laid in a shelter [in an upper room]; he who encompasses the heavens with clouds is wrapped in swaddling clothes; the King is laid in a manger.

But that to divide the substances after the unity is a great sin—let man rather overturn the venerable mystery of the Incarnation—we shall nonetheless know, if we examine the words set down below of Julius and Felix, who presided over the Roman Church.

OF JULIUS, BISHOP OF ROME.

But it is preached unto the consummation of the faith, and the Son of God was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, who dwelt in us, not in a man did He work: for this has its place in the prophets and apostles; perfect God in the flesh, perfect man in the spirit, not two sons, but one; not one indeed a natural son, who assumed a man, and another a mortal one assumed by God, but one only-begotten in heaven, and only-begotten in earth, God.

OF FELIX, MOST HOLY BISHOP OF ROME AND MARTYR.

Concerning the incarnation of the Word and the faith. We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary: for this is the eternal Son of God, and the Word, and not a man assumed by God, so that there be another besides Him; but since He was perfect God, He was made at the same time perfect man, incarnate of the Virgin.

Concerning the letters of Julius and Felix, supreme pontiffs, see the most learned Petavius, not so much his discussion as his doubt, tome IV of Dogmatic Theology, book iv, chapter 6.

a THE SEVENTH ANATHEMA.

If anyone says that Jesus, as a man, was aided by the operation of God the Word [Baluze adds: the Son], and assigns the glory of the Only-Begotten to others besides him, let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETICS.

That our Lord Jesus Christ was aided by the operation of the Spirit, as a man simply, or as a prophet, or as an apostle, there is no one who confesses; yet the apostolic utterances spoken concerning him, on account of the visible nature of the flesh, we can neither deny nor erase, as long as they say: According to the operation of the might of his power, which he wrought in Christ, raising him from the dead (Eph. 1:19). And again: Whom God raised from the dead, loosing the pains of death (Acts 2:24). And again: Exalted by the power of God (Ibid., 33), and the like to these.

But although these things are said thus, on account of what appears; nevertheless let no one think that he was helped by operation merely as a man, or as a saint, or as a prophet, or as an apostle: therefore we neither destroy nor deny the divine voices, nor do we ignorantly or blasphemously anathematize the words spoken and set down on account of the visible nature of the flesh; nor do we say that he was helped by operation merely as a man, or as a saint, or as a prophet, or as an apostle. For he did not say: Thus says the Lord; but as the Son, a lawgiver: I have said to you (Matt. 5:32).

Observe that Andrew speaks so perplexedly that he seems to follow the error of Nestorius, that the Incarnation is merely the dwelling of the Word in a man; for although he asserts that the Holy Spirit, about whom certainly the question did not turn, or rather the Word, did not operate in the same way as in other men; nevertheless he does not set forth the different manner, and so in word he does not sufficiently depart from Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ was indeed a pure man, but one in whom God operated in a special way. And indeed Cyril objected to the Orientals, up to the time of the peace that was begun, that they really thought with Nestorius, even if they covered their mind with ambiguous words. These last words: For he did not say: Thus says the Lord; but as the Son, a lawgiver: I have said to you; although they seem to some to absolve the Orientals, move suspicion in me: for what else do they signify than either, or.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Now too we must answer with the same words and the same reasoning, no less than before. For there is certainly one Lord Jesus Christ, who is believed to be both the Word, who is eternal from God the Father and before the ages, and man, who was made in the last times of the age, and who had a singular and inestimable generation according to the flesh; but the one Son, and God, and Lord, worked signs and powers beyond man, demonstrating that, although he was made flesh, he was nonetheless also true God and the power of the Father; for having been made man he did not cease to be what he had been.

In short, he performed wonders, now rebuking demons, now crushing Satan, now sending light into the blind, raising the dead, calming the raging sea with a single word, not as if glorifying some man or another Christ besides himself, the way he glorified one of the prophets and apostles, but procuring glory for himself, so that he might be believed by all to be God by nature, although he was made man.

Is it not therefore utterly shameful to tolerate Nestorius saying: "The operations of the Trinity are common, and are to be divided only by their substances; but the glorious glory of the Only-begotten has sometimes been assigned to the Father, sometimes to the Spirit, sometimes to the power of Christ"? Either, then, let the objectors prove that there is another Christ, distinct and to be understood separately, upon whom the Only-begotten Word of God imposed his own power, as though there were another son apart from himself; or, if there is not another, but one and the same, both Only-begotten from the Father and man from a woman according to the flesh—for what reason would it have been better for us to keep silent, and not rather to oppose the force of truth to his ravings, and to declare the splendor of the truth of the doctrines?

He was indeed, and is, God the Son; but since he once took up the measure of humanity, he did not dishonor the dispensation, and for the sake of his emptying he voluntarily endured all things for our sake. Therefore, since according to his own nature he is himself life, he is said to be made alive by the Father; and since he is the Lord of glory, he is said to have received glory; for he says—the Hebrew from Hebrews, truly a teacher of the law, and from the tribe of Benjamin—the Apostle Paul: not from men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, giving glory to him.

But even if it is said that he received glory from the Father, since this pertains to the measure of the Incarnation, yet he knows that, in that he is God, he has a dignity that transcends the measure of all creation; for he says: All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him (Matt. 11:27).

Let someone say, desiring to learn: If all things have been handed over to you by the Father, as though you lacked glory and ought to have dominion over all things because of your humanity, how do you say that it is impossible for human minds to know you, as also the Father? No, he says, the knowledge of me is not contained in visible things alone; for I am God in flesh and blood, to be known according to the flesh; according to the nature and glory of divinity, I am equal and like to God the Father, and I fly above every thought and word.

Therefore, to return to the matter at hand, we do not do away with the apostolic voices—far be it—nor, thinking otherwise than we ought, do we oppose reason; but rather, following the sacred Scriptures everywhere and confirming the sayings of the divine teachers, we rise against those who pervert the right doctrines of the Church.

But that the Father is said to have raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead—namely, that this was fulfilled with respect to his flesh—can be doubted by no one; but he himself, since he is the life-giving and efficacious power of the Father, was giving life to his own temple, according to that saying: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19). Therefore that body which was to be given life was not foreign, nor that of one of men like us, but the own body of the Word himself.

EIGHTH ANATHEMA.

If anyone dares to say that the assumed man ought to be co-adored with God, and co-glorified, and co-named God as one thing with another; and not rather that Emmanuel is honored with one veneration, and that he assigns one glorification to him, because the Word was made flesh (John 1:14); let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE MADMAN.

We do not speak of co-adoration and co-glorification as if of persons, or of substances, or of two sons—as though veneration were given to the flesh in one way and to God the Word in another—but rather we offer one veneration, and the rest, as to one Son, and so also what has been set down. Just as he himself also says in the other volume (the Paschal Homily): For since he sat, as the Word, with his Father, and is from him and in him by nature, he nevertheless heard even with the flesh the one saying: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet; so also we say that he is adored, both by us and by the holy angels.

To these things, therefore, we say that he very ignorantly and unskillfully rebuked those who wish the one and the same Son to be adored with the flesh, as though those things were far different from one another—both what he himself set down, as was mentioned above, saying that he ought to be adored with the flesh, and his denial that the flesh is co-adored with the deity.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

The divine Paul made us most sharp-sighted, saying: Test yourselves, whether you are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). For the human mind, even if by some boastfulness and self-love it is carried outside the right path, and has a movement abhorring the doctrines of truth, itself fears to perceive its own new and foolish thoughts; yet it will most easily correct itself if it has searched the labors and writings of the holy Fathers, who on account of the most correct knowledge of doctrines are memorably praised by all, and then it will well prove its faith. For it is the purpose of all who are sound of mind to follow the opinions of those men; since they too, fulfilling their own understanding of the apostolic and evangelical tradition, and conceiving the reason of the faith rightly and irreprehensibly from the sacred Scriptures, were lights in the world, holding fast the word of life (Phil 2:16), as it is written.

Therefore our Father, the bishop Athanasius of eternal memory, writes concerning Christ, the Savior of all (Book on the Incarnation of the Word, vol. II): We confess that the same is the Son of God, and God according to the spirit, and the son of man according to the flesh; not two natures making one son, one to be adored and the other not to be adored; but one nature of the Word incarnate, and adored together with his own flesh, with one veneration; nor two sons, one indeed the true and adorable Son of God, but the other from Mary, a man not to be adored, made a son of God by grace, as men are. Further, after other things: He therefore who was born of the Virgin Mary is by nature the Son of God, and truly God, not by grace, nor by participation; according to the flesh he was born a man from Mary, but according to the spirit he himself is the Son of God and God. And again. But if anyone teaches contrary to these things, as though from sacred Scripture, saying that one is the Son of God and another is he who was born of Mary, made a son by grace, as we are; and that there are two sons, one by nature the Son of God, from God, and one by grace a man from Mary; or if anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is from above, and not from the Virgin Mary, or that the Godhead was turned into flesh, or confused, or changed, or passible, of the Lord

of our [God] here and below—either the divinity, or the Lord’s flesh as not to be adored as of a man, or as not to be adored as the flesh of the Lord and God—him the holy and catholic Church anathematizes, obeying the divine Apostle who says: If anyone has preached to you a gospel other than what you received, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:9).

Since he thought and wrote these things to us, the enemy of Christ’s glory and the rebel Nestorius, loosening an unbridled tongue against him, speaks thus (Sermon, near the end): Let us confess him who is God in the man. Let us worship, by divine conjunction with God the Word, the man to be co-adored. Does he not plainly call Christ a man? Does he not say that only a conjunction of a man with God was made, according to that which was recalled by the voice of Paul, He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17)?

And yet this is true, that Christ was one and the same, both God and man, and not some man to be understood separately and apart, and merely adhering to God by conjunction. For after that ineffable union, whether one calls God-made-man Emmanuel, the Word of God made man and incarnate, one must accept it; or whether one names him man, we nevertheless know that the Word of the Father is also with him. It is one thing, therefore, to say that the Word of God the Father is one with the flesh joined to him, and another to say that God is in the man, just as he was also in the prophets, or in us ourselves through the Holy Spirit.

Without danger, then, and blamelessly, as I think, you will have said this: that the incarnate Word of God, since He is one Son, is to be adored not without His own flesh, but with it; just as every soul is honored in its own body, and by one designation that which is from two is named as one living being. Since you, therefore, when making a discourse about Christ the Savior of all, divide Him who is one into two, and declare that the man is to be understood separately and apart, and then dare to say that He is to be co-adored and co-named God, as though the Son of God were another besides Him—who can bear it, and pass over such petulance of tongue in silence? For you ought rather to have said: Let us worship God the Word, who was made man and is named God and is adored in His humanity, because He is God by nature and was born of God the Father.

But perhaps those who oppose us will say: You too will be guilty, since you write in your letter that the Son has sat down with the Father with His own flesh; and then you criticize the one who says that the man ought to be co-adored with God the Word, and co-named God. For to say this and to say that is the same thing. Let us refute them, since they do not understand the force of the statements and do not at all perceive the nature of things. For whenever, in one person and in one nature or substance, the discourse explaining the things of which it is naturally composed adds "with," or "with," it preserves the meaning of unity and declares that it is not divided into two parts. But whenever, with the substances already divided into two parts, it is said to signify each separately and apart, then certainly the meaning is of two or more, and not of one by composition—as if I were to say that the soul of a man is co-honored with his body, when honor has been conferred on the man who is composed of both; or if someone were to say that the soul is one living being with its body, he certainly does not divide the one into two men, but it appears rather that he has not been ignorant of the things of which man either consists or is composed.

But if I say, "Peter and John are jointly called men," or if I say, "With Peter, John was going up into the temple," then "with" no longer has the meaning of "one," for Peter is not composed with John; nor are the two reckoned as one man.

Why, then, do they corrupt the truth, dividing the one Christ into two through ignorance? Or if they think that we, in saying that the Son has sat down with the Father with His own body, have granted that two sons are meant, let them inquire more carefully whether we, in saying "one Son," also say that He is to be honored with one session, and not with two—so that one session is assigned separately to the body, and another again to the Word. But they will never prove this; for we assert that the one Son with His own flesh, God and man at once, the same is to be honored with the Father in one session. But to say that God is co-honored and jointly named is plainly to confess that there are two who are to be co-honored and jointly named—which is full of madness and alien to the right doctrines of truth.

An anathema was therefore pronounced against those who in every way and by all means divide Emmanuel, separately into the man and separately into God the Word; for the teachers of divine things proclaimed him to us as one and the same, both by the sincere and uncorrupt knowledge of the sacred Scriptures.

NINTH ANATHEMA.

If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit as by a power alien to himself, and that it was from the Spirit that he received the ability to work against unclean spirits and to accomplish divine signs in men, and does not rather hold that the Spirit by whom he worked divine signs is his own proper Spirit, let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETICS.

Let us again bring forward into the midst the things which he himself said earlier, and remind him, perhaps forgetful of his own words; for he did not say only that the Lord accomplished signs in the Spirit, but also that he himself, when dead, was made alive through the Spirit; for he says in the first tome (Epistle to the Monks, ch. 25): If therefore he did not suffer, in that he died in the flesh according to the Scriptures, neither was he made alive in the Spirit. But it is fitting to consider how contrary to himself he speaks in his own anathemas, denying that the Lord cast out demons and performed other signs in the Spirit of God, and making false that voice of the Lord which is set down in the Gospels, where he says: But if I cast out demons in the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28).

But we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ works wonders both by his own power and by the operation of the Spirit—not that he does not himself have his own power, so as to need the power of the Holy Spirit.

But whoever says that the Holy Spirit is not present denies the sacred Scriptures; for even if divine Scripture says in some place that the Father works the works of wonders, as it says: The Father who remains in me, he does the works that I do (John 14:10)—yet it is the Son who does them, for all things that are the Father's are the Son's; and if it says that the Spirit does them, as it says: But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28)—yet it is the Lord who does them in the Spirit; for the Son is not alien from the Father or the Spirit; nor are the operations of the Trinity divided or set apart; but the operation of each substance that is mentioned in Scripture belongs to the Trinity; just as Scripture records that every creature was made sometimes by the work of the Son, saying: By the word of the Lord the heavens were established (Psalm 33:6); sometimes by the Holy Spirit—for it adds: and by the spirit of his mouth all their power (ibid.). But it is not because the Father cannot do all things that the Son also works; nor likewise because the Son is weak to create is the Spirit brought in; for it is true that all things were made through him (John

...but so that Scripture might express to us the same substance, the same honor, and the same power of the Trinity, it says at one time that things were made by the Father, at another by the Son, at another by the Holy Spirit; for in this way we understand that all things depend on one divine substance. For just as the only-begotten Word was born impassibly from that same substance, so the Spirit proceeded from it, who is himself also in his own substance; so that one substance is designated in three, and none is known to be alien from itself according to the principle of substance; but only by their properties and distinctions is each substance declared. In what way, then, is the operation proper to those whose substance, power, and will are common? For those who share these things certainly have one operation.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Will I need the voices of witnesses to prove that our adversaries wish to practice frivolous and silly fables, and recklessly tear us apart with curses? But I think their own words alone can show it.

In the anathematism under discussion we affirmed that the Holy Spirit is plainly the Son's own, and that the Son performs divine signs through him; but our opponents, who so often remind me that I forget my own words, have themselves fallen into such stupidity and madness as to think that I say the Son does not cast out demons through the Spirit. Is this not, then, an open slander? For if they do not deign to confess that the casting out of demons is reckoned among the divine signs, let them say whatever they wish and accuse me in every way, as though I had not said that these are not divine signs. But if among other wonders the casting out of demons is also to be counted, why do they, as though it were some great loss, shunning the truth, set the disease of their loquacity in the highest honor, and do not rather reject a thing hateful both before God and before men? But they seem to me to have forgotten Christ saying: How do you say to your brother, Brother, let me cast out the speck from your eye, and behold, you do not see the beam in your eye: cast out first the beam from your eye, and then you will see to cast out the speck from your brother's eye (Matthew 7:3 and 5).

That the divine Trinity is indeed one substance, with equal power and operation, we do not learn from your discourse; but we believe it to be so rather from the divine Scripture. But that the proposed anathematism is no obstacle to right faith, but rather an advantage, it is no effort to see: for those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ and separate him, as we have often said, apart into a man and apart into God the Word, so that two persons are understood to be, and two substances divided from each other—this it does not permit them to do; nor does it allow them to say that, as it were, one common man was aided by the operation of the Spirit so that the Son could perform wonders. For if this were so, he differs in nothing from the holy apostles or prophets, who, filled with divine gifts through God's kindness, said, namely: We are what we are by grace (1 Cor 4:10). But to holy men, in whom the distribution of divine gifts shines forth, that saying rightly applies; to Christ, however, not at all: for the Holy Spirit is his own, just as he is also God the Father's; and just as the Father works through the Spirit, so he too works through the Spirit. Finally, when he said to the Jews: Many good works I have shown you from my Father (John 10:32); and: I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works (John 14:28); he also said again: But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God (Matt

For he ascribes the operation through the Spirit both to himself and to the Father, on account of the same and like substance. And indeed a vast and very long treatise could be made concerning these things, but it would be more fitting for another time to set these matters forth more fully.

Therefore we say that Emmanuel was not helped by the Spirit as by an alien power, but rather that he used it as his own divinely, and that the consubstantial Spirit has his own power; for the blessed disciple, when performing signs, said: Men, brothers, why do you gaze at us, as though we had made this lame man walk by our own power or authority, the man sitting at the Beautiful Gate? But Christ's own Spirit is his own.

Yet to those who hasten to censure our words I will say this: if it does not seem horrible to their mind to divide the indivisible Son, and to say that Jesus is helped by the Spirit as a common man, then we abhor those who so believe. But if in truth they confess Christ to be one, both Son and Lord, and the same to be God and man at once, let them believe with us that he is not helped as by a spirit alien to him and of superior power, but that he himself rather works divine signs through his own Spirit, in whom is also the power of all things that come to be. For in this way they will at last cease to slander us without cause, and to gnash their teeth against us in envy.

TENTH ANATHEMA.

The divine Scripture records that Christ became high priest and apostle of our confession, and that he also offered himself for us to God the Father as a sweet-smelling odor. If anyone therefore says that it was not the very Word of God who became our high priest and apostle—namely when he became flesh and man like us—but another man apart from him, born of a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the offerings for himself, and not rather for us only (for he had no need of sacrifice, who knew no sin), let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETICS.

If God the Word is a high priest, to whom as his God, or what sacrifice, does he offer? But they have forgotten the blessed Paul, who says: For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in all things without sin (Heb. 4:15). Who then was tempted? God the Word, or rather the human nature, the seed of David? And again: No one takes the honor for himself, but he who is called by God, as was Aaron; so also Christ did not glorify himself to be high priest (Heb. 5:4). Who is it, then, who is compared with Aaron in the dignity of the priesthood, and with him who does not take honor for himself but is called by God, and with him who ascends to the rank of the priesthood? Is it the divine nature, which is coeternal with the Father, which has as its own all things that are the Father's? And to what dignity, higher than itself, would it ascend?

Shall we say that the divine nature is more glorious in its priesthood, into which he ascended not by himself but being called by God, as that one did, and was glorified through it? Or rather that nature which was made from the seed of David and was foreordained? To which God even swore, according to the Psalmist, that he would give him an eternal priesthood: For the Lord, he says, has sworn, and he will not repent; you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps. 109:4). Was the Divinity of the Only-Begotten receiving promises with an oath from God, that it would receive an eternal priesthood, and through it would be glorious?

Who would endure us, either thinking these things or saying them, and would not rather blame those who recall that God was ordained a high priest, and received promises with an oath, and was called to the dignity of the priesthood, and did not receive honor by himself, but was called to it and compared with him who first received the priesthood? And further: As also elsewhere, he says, it was said: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb. 5:7). Who then is he who was made like to the priesthood of Melchisedech? Does the reasoning of piety demand this, that we should think it is God the Word; or rather the flesh, which was assumed from us, which was joined to him inseparably and without confusion? And further he says: Who in the days of his flesh, offering up prayers and supplications to him who was able to raise him from death, with a loud cry and tears, was heard, etc.

Is God the Word, then, the one who offered prayers and supplications with loud crying to someone else, to the one who is able to save him, and was heard because of his piety, and learned from the things he himself suffered, and was made perfect? If, therefore, God the Word is the high priest, he certainly learned from the things he suffered in himself, and was also made perfect.

But let not your mind be terrified at hearing of him who suffered: And indeed, though he was the Son. For we do not posit two sons—the one who suffered and the one who remained impassible; for neither was that which is from the seed of David named Son separately and apart, just as neither was the divinity, after the union, called Son without the visible flesh. For the sonship is common to both natures, since they are not to be separated from each other; for there is no separation after the union, but that union remains eternal.

Likewise even in the sufferings of the flesh the deity was inseparable, but remained impassible, and through the flesh fulfilled divine signs. Therefore we confess one and the same Son, the natures remaining unconfused, not one and another—far be it—but saying one and the same: that our Lord Jesus Christ was made our high priest and apostle according to the divine Scriptures, no one is who does not confess; yet not a man separated off by himself from the woman, apart from the Word of God the Father, such that that which was made from the seed of David, joined unconfusedly and inseparably to God the Word, should be the high priest tempted in all things without sin, taught obedience from the things he suffered; offering, however, not for himself, but only for us, his own flesh to God and the Father; for the Father is not God of the only-begotten deity, but Father.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Again let it be said by us to the adversaries at the opportune moment: How long will you limp on both feet? For you ought to bring a sound and right understanding to the knowledge of Scripture, and not, as it were, limping with a double soul, and [too] weak in mind, refuse to walk in straight paths (1 Kings 18:21). For all who are double-tongued and inconstant in all their ways are troubled, and they will obtain nothing from the Lord (James 1:8).

But I say this, marveling greatly at the adversaries, that they so shamelessly and wantonly attack even this anathematism; for they do this, unwilling that the Word of God and the Father be called by us apostle and high priest of our confession (Hebrews 3:1), however much He was made man. For those who attempt to slander His generation according to the flesh, and who dare to reject it as something new, and shrink from calling the holy Virgin [Mother of God], how will they not easily deny the plan of the dispensation? Let them therefore hear the voice of Isaiah: Unless you believe, you will not understand (Isaiah 7:9).

The divine John the Evangelist indeed cried out something great and preeminent to the whole world, saying that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). But those who steal away the force of the truth say that he himself was made flesh in the same way that a curse and sin are said to have been made (Galatians 3:13); concerning these matters we have already said enough beforehand, which could prove that their discourse about these things is most weak.

But to the fault-finders we say at present: Learn to listen, groaning in distress; grasp the foundation of the mystery which is according to Christ, and the principal causes of the dispensation, and, so to speak, his very advent—believe with us; or rather, give your support to the sacred writings of the truth, confessing that the only-begotten Word of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, through whom are all things and in whom are all things, was made flesh, not undergoing conversion or confusion, but rather always remaining by nature that which he was, and is, and will be. But he was made flesh, undergoing generation from the holy Virgin (I mean according to the flesh), and was called the Son of Man. And in like manner as we, he shared in flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14). For those who believe this and hold the venerable and most true faith, all the things that follow will be most plain, and nothing among them will seem difficult or obscure; for it is written: All things are plain to those who understand, and right to those who find knowledge (Proverbs 8:8).

I consider it necessary, however, to set forth the reasons for which the anathema was issued. For he who confounded the lowest with the highest, who threw everything into confusion, Nestorius, said something of this sort somewhere (in his Sermon on Proclus) concerning Christ the Savior of all: "He was sent to proclaim remission to captives, who was made a faithful high priest unto God; for he was made this, he did not always exist—this one who little by little, and by grace, O heretic, advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood." To this he added many other things indicating the same impiety of his and his genuine audacity. Who, then, upon hearing words of this kind, would not rather deem everything else more endurable than to keep a silence hateful to God in these matters? Christ died for us, with all injury despised, and endured the cross and death according to the flesh; and shall we render no recompense to our Savior, not even that of words, but sleep in deep silence while hearing such abominable blasphemies? Or shall we not rather ourselves also become partakers of crimes of this sort?

What are you saying: "He was gradually advancing to the high priesthood"? But although he was God, he emptied himself and took the form of a servant—he who is free by nature; he humbled himself—he who transcends all created things and glories in the heights of deity. If he was advancing when he was emptied, how did he humble himself? Shall we say that the emptying was the cause of honor and glory for him? Then how could he now have been emptied?

If, he says, the very Word of God the Father became high priest, who then is greater than he, and who is to be honored with the service of the priesthood? Therefore I will say further: Believe that, although he is God by nature and the Son in the form of the Father, he did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant; thus he became man, and thus he took the form of a servant, not considering it base or unfitting for the dispensation that he should even be called apostle and high priest. He who did not disdain the measure of our humanity, how would he disdain human things?

It is indeed not hard for us, nor difficult, to proceed with more words and to set forth the arguments for this matter in a more extended treatment; but, leaving this aside for now, I will set out the words that they themselves have spoken. For they have written in this way: "But let not your mind be frightened for the moment, upon hearing of him who suffered: 'And indeed, since he was the Son.' For we do not say there are two sons—the one who suffered and the one who remained impassible; for that which is from the seed of David, and which was named Son, is not separately and apart from the divinity, just as neither is the divinity afterward, without the visible flesh, called Son. Furthermore: Therefore we confess one and the same Son, with the natures remaining unconfused, not saying one and another—far be it—but that one and the same Lord Jesus Christ became our High Priest and Apostle, according to the divine Scriptures, no one is there who does not confess; yet not the man from a woman separated apart from the Word of God the Father.

If, therefore, they say that the Son is one, not dividing into two him who is from the seed of David and him who is the Word of God the Father, how do they not injure the mystery, dividing the dispensation between God and man? Why do they not rather say that the same one is both God and man, so that all things are his, both divine and human alike? For if whatever is said of his divinity is said concerning his Godhead, we believe that this is altogether most true; for we know that he is God, even if what is human has been spoken. To this likewise we shall assent: for we confess that God is in flesh and blood, and we recognize the measure of his humanity through human things; for a thousand thousands of angels minister to him, and the Seraphim surround his divine throne. But when he became man, he was also called high priest; not that he might offer sacrifice to a greater lord, but to himself and to the Father, and procure the confession of our faith. If you say that it is not worthy of God to minister in the priesthood, I say this too, and if the Word were only and apart from flesh, you would say rightly; but since he has become man, consider him both ministering because of his humanity, and in dignities above creation, as God: for he sits with God and the Father. Therefore see him sacrificing, as man; and sitting together, as God. For what does blessed Paul say: We have such a high priest, who sat at the right hand of the throne of majesty on high.

Knowing, therefore, that though he is God, he was made flesh (and he is one and the same), we shall ascribe all things to him as to one, and we shall not be ignorant of the modes of the dispensation, wisely and skillfully referring the force of the statements to obedience to him always.

I have warned rather often that the whole question concerning the high priest of God arose from the panegyric homily of Proclus; for his statement, that the womb of the Virgin was a temple in which God was made a priest, Nestorius bore so impatiently that he at once openly attacked it in an extemporaneous speech, and afterward vehemently condemned it in an entire sermon. Cyril defended Proclus spiritedly, though without naming him, both in the book of Contradictions and in the synodical letter and in the defense of the tenth anathema. That question, moreover, since it had arisen from the particular zeal of certain persons, did not become public or rather common, but was abandoned by other disputants. Why, however, Nestorius attacked the word of Proclus with such zeal, and Cyril defended it, there was no other cause than the disposition of mind, whether of Nestorius rejecting it or of Cyril esteeming Proclus. For Nestorius regarded him as a professed enemy, Cyril as a defender of the faith and a leader of the catholic clergy of Constantinople.

ANATHEMATISM ELEVEN.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and is the own flesh of God the Word himself, and not of any other besides him, though joined to him either by dignity or by divine indwelling alone; and that it is not rather life-giving, as I said before, because it was the own flesh of the Word, who can give life to all things; let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETICS.

It must be confessed that the Lord's flesh was the Word's own; yet it must be known that it was assumed from us. But it is superfluous to add: And not of any other besides him; unless perhaps he denies that it was assumed from us: for to say "own" so frequently is the mark of one who denies. The Lord's flesh is of our nature. And where is our boasting? Through whom does Paul say: He raised us up together, and made us sit together (Eph. 2:6)? For to what man is his own flesh another's? Is it not that each one of us has flesh in common with any other whatsoever, by reason of a like substance; but has it as his own, in that each one's flesh is not another's, but his whose it is? What, then, does he mean by saying "own," as if he were not saying one and the same thing? For if he understands that the Lord's flesh was assumed from our flesh, and understands that each one's flesh is his own whose it is, and not another's, what does he say that is, as it were, new, when he recalls that it was his own?

Does he then deny, by way of an assertion, that it was assumed from our nature, as he says more clearly in his second tome (Homily 17)? "And the child," he says, "was not according to us, that is, not in bare and mere likeness to us, but in humanity indeed on account of the flesh; but divine, as it were above us, and from heaven." And likewise in the other tome (Letter to the Monks) he says: "For it was a body, not of another according to us, but rather the own body of God the Word himself, which was born from her."

For who ever said that the Lord's flesh was the own flesh of any man, either of Abel, or of Noah, or of Eli, or of some other of those above whom I know not? And we say that the Lord's flesh was not only not the own flesh of any other of the men above, but rather the own flesh of the Lord himself, and joined with God the Word without confusion and inseparably. But neither has the flesh of any one of us ever become, as we said above, the flesh of any other, except of him whose flesh it becomes. Since this is confirmed by the tradition of the Church, why does he so often say "own," unless perhaps he denies that it is of our nature?

But why does he forbid one to state this: "conjoined to him according to dignity and authority," when he himself says in his second tome (Homily 17): "For so by his poverty we have been made rich, since the human nature in him has been taken up into the divine nature"? But let us also say to him the opposite of what he himself posits. If the natures remain unconfused—and they do remain—we say that veneration, power, dignity, and authority ought to be offered to the one Son while the natures remain unconfused. Show what else is lacking that could prove this, and we shall agree and grant it, yet without confusion of the natures. But of course, for the proof of the sum, nothing is enough for him unless it confuses the natures. Yet we keep the natures unconfused, and we confess the divine sum and unity, and one incomprehensible to us, offering all things to his glorification, as to God and the one Son, and saying to him with the voice of blessed Peter: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16).

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

At one time the most wretched Jews were stirred up into impious frenzies, their minds wounded by the darts of envy; but when they even laid their criminal hands upon Christ, the Savior of all, he commanded them to give the reasons for their great audacity and deeds, saying: "I do many good works for you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?" (John 10:32). But they came to such great recklessness and impiety of thought that they even attempted to bring against him charges of blasphemy, saying: "It is not for a good work that we stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (ibid., v. 33). But the Savior said to them: "Is it not written in your law: I said, You are gods?" (Psalm 81:6). If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken—the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, do you say that he blasphemes, because I said: I am the Son of God? (John 10 and following).

But we, inquiring into the manner of the apostolate, by which it is said to have come to us, seek understanding from the sacred writings. For He Himself said through the voice of Isaiah: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me; He has sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind (Isa. 61:1). But we say that the Son was sent by God and the Father, having become man; for the principle of the apostolate and its name most rightly accord with the measure of the emptying. Therefore, as I said before, it was not the bare Word of God the Father, without flesh, that was sent, but the one who suffered generation according to the flesh, or who received a body from holy Mary, and joined it to Himself ineffably and without confusion, as has been said very often: God the Lord has shone upon us, according to the Scriptures (Ps. 118:27).

We say, therefore, that the body was the Word's own, not that of some man, I know not who, specifically and separately another, who is understood as Christ and Son apart from Him; but just as each one of us's body is said to be specifically his whose it is, so also must it be understood concerning the one body of Christ; for although it is very like and akin to our bodies, inasmuch as it was made from a woman, yet it is both understood and called His own, as we said before. But since [Baluz.

Since the Word of God the Father is naturally life, He made His own flesh life-giving, and in this way He became for us a life-giving blessing; and therefore Christ said: Amen, amen I say to you: I am the living bread that came down from heaven, giving life to the world (John 6:38). And further: If anyone eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he remains in me, and I in him (Ibid., v. 33). Notice how everywhere He calls His own body [the body] from the woman, on account of the highest [mystery].

Since the reason of the mystery stands thus, Nestorius again in his treatise (Sermon 9) says: Hear, and attend diligently to what is written: He who eats my flesh. Remember that what is said concerns the flesh, and that the name of flesh is not invented by me, lest I seem to interpret one thing in place of another: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood. Does He perhaps say: He who eats my divinity, and drinks my divinity? But he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Remember that what is said concerns the flesh: As the living Father sent me; me, who appear. But perhaps I interpret one thing in place of another. Let us hear what follows: As the living Father sent me. He spoke of divinity, I speak of humanity. Let us see who is the corrupt interpreter: As the living Father sent me. The heretic says that He speaks of divinity here, that is: The living Father sent me, God the Word, according to them, and I, God the Word, live on account of the Father; then he adds: He who eats me, he also will live. What do we eat?

Is it the Deity or the flesh? But concerning these things which he said so shamefully and wantonly, we have certainly had a longer discussion. But what it is that he wishes to understand—that God the Word was not sent, saying that He was incarnate and became man, setting apart on one side and separately, as he himself says, the one who appears—I cannot see, or rather it is more evident and plainly manifest: for he undermines the reasoning, so that the body of Christ seems to be common, and not truly His own who is able to give life to all things.

That longer discussion is the fourth book of the Contradictions, in the fourth chapter of which these very words of Nestorius are reported and treated at length. Hence it is clear that the work of the Contradictions was composed before Cyril replied to the Orientals; and from this the statement in the Preface on page xxii receives light.

Small indeed and very slight do all human things seem to God the Word. But after He deigned for our sake to endure the emptying that is most salutary for the world, even if He is said to have been sent to proclaim remission to captives and the recovery of sight to the blind, yet in this He is glorified, as having endured the lowliness of the carnal dispensation. Nor let any of the wise reproach Him, that He endured this for our sake.

Does he not therefore affirm that there is another Son and Christ besides God the Word—namely, the one who appears, to whom alone he also assigns the office of apostleship and the name—and say that our mystery belongs to him, and wickedly turn the minds of his hearers to pernicious thoughts, subjecting to human reasonings those things which are believed by faith alone and without inquiry? For it is not because the Deity is not eaten that you would therefore call the holy body of Christ common.

But it must be known, as we have often said, that the body is the own body of the Word who gives life to all things. And since it is the body of life, it is life-giving; for through it the Son imparts life to our mortal bodies and destroys the dominion of death. And in like manner the Holy Spirit of Christ also gives us life; for it is the Spirit who gives life, according to the voice of the Savior himself.

Nothing, however, prevents examples of the holy Fathers also from being brought forward, so that I not seem alone in saying that the body is the Word's own—so that the adversaries may recognize that they have cried out against us without cause, we who everywhere follow the voices of the Fathers. Therefore our most renowned Father and bishop Athanasius says, in the book On the Holy Trinity: And it was shown that he has a body not through phantasy, but truly; for it was fitting that the Lord, putting on human flesh, should put on the whole of it together with its sufferings, so that just as we say the body was his own, so also the sufferings of the body may be said to be his own, and on account of the deity the sufferings themselves did not touch him. And again: We have necessarily discussed these things beforehand, so that if we see him, through his own body as through an instrument, acting or speaking divinely, we may recognize that, as God, he performs these things. And these things indeed are from our blessed Father Athanasius.

Furthermore, although it is called the Word's own body, yet it is from a woman, inasmuch as it is understood to be flesh. Indeed, blessed Paul says: The first man was from the earth, from the dust; the second from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). But Christ himself says: No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man (John 3:13). But we say that the Word does not say these things as though bringing down with him a body joined to himself from heaven, but that, existing from above and from heaven, he made the body joined to himself ineffably, inestimably, unchangeably, without confusion; and therefore he says that he is from heaven even at the time when he was made the Son of Man.

Since, therefore, our discourse has rightly and without any fault been held—the discourse that was an occasion of cursing for the fault-finders—if the anathema of certain persons opposes their blasphemies, setting truth against falsehood; and I think that I have erred in nothing if I have said that Christ is born above us. For even if God the Word was made man, yet in this way too he is not only above us, but also above every creature; for he is not understood to be merely a man like us, but the same is also from above and from heaven.

THE TWELFTH ANATHEMA.

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 was made the firstborn from the dead, in that He is as God, both life and life-giving; let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETICS.

Again we remind his own followers now also, that he said the divine nature is altogether impassible in the first tome (in the letter to the monks). For he says thus: One therefore, who is worthier and more excellent than all, laid down his own soul for all, and in the manner of dispensation permitted the flesh to be brought low for a little while by death, and destroyed death, inasmuch as he is life; not suffering anything contrary to his nature. Let us therefore say to him who says things contrary to himself: How is it that he who permits the flesh to be brought low for a little while by death, and who destroys death inasmuch as he is life, not suffering anything contrary to his nature, now, as you yourself say, suffers in the flesh?

But God, joined to the flesh, did not suffer; rather it was the flesh, which was joined to God the Word, that by His concession suffered the things that are its own. For in no way, unless He Himself conceded it, would either death or suffering have befallen Him; for if, when the soul is present, death cannot intervene, how, when God is present—and not merely present in a simple way, but joined by a certain supreme conjunction known to Himself alone—could either death or suffering disturb His temple, except by His concession? The deity joined to the flesh did not suffer, but by the deity's concession the flesh suffered the things that are its own.

That he maliciously wrote "suffered in the flesh," and for the deception of the simpler sort, can be understood from this: for he who said "suffered in the flesh" would not have preserved the impassibility of the divine nature; for he who says "suffered in the flesh" plainly says that He Himself suffered with the flesh. Although therefore He suffered with the flesh, He is nevertheless shown to be passible. For either, since He could suffer, He suffered according to His own nature, or contrary to nature. If He suffered according to nature, then the Father also will be passible, who is like the Son; for it is necessary that all things that are in Him who was begotten be in the Begetter. Or we shall confess that He Himself indeed suffered, having a nature capable of suffering, but that the Father cannot suffer. But if we say this, we shall think the same as the heretics who say that the deity of the Only-begotten is passible, but that the Father cannot suffer; whence they also say that He is of another substance.

If, however, he says that it suffered contrary to nature, we shall say: What passion of the divine nature could be stronger, such as to press down into itself Him who is impassible by nature? He will say: This is of His own will. We shall say: His will is impassible. But we seek something passible that has transferred the impassible nature into its own passibility; otherwise the divine will also wills the things that befit it.

And what, he says, is more fitting than to preserve the human race? But how could the human race be preserved, if He transfers it to impassibility—He who has transferred even the divine and impassible nature into passion? For certainly, as the stronger, He transferred into His own passible [state] that which was impassible. And what will be the benefit to the passible, if that which is impassible has also become passible? For this addition is rather of evil than a removal [of it]; for nothing is taken away when a like thing is added to it, but it is increased.

What, then, is the salvation of a passible nature, as we have said? Certainly there is no communion of the impassible with the passible, but a migration of the passible to the impassible. This the Lord Christ also did, who was not Himself led into passion according to the deity, but through the holy flesh raised all humanity into the height, and lifted up to heaven what lay prostrate on the ground, and deigned to bring what was subject to servitude into adoption. But who owed death on account of disobedience? Human nature, surely, not the divine. What death, then, was it fitting to render or pay for disobedience?

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX

Great indeed and wonderful is the power of truth, which experience itself attests. For I shall not need a longer discourse that can satisfy those who have been deceived and have supposed that we said the divine nature of the Word is passible, since the adversaries themselves have willingly conceded and most plainly confessed that we are very far removed from charges of this kind.

But since they set forth the matter without any argument, through madness, as it pleased them, and using sharp inventions of the senses, they strive to prove their own sagacity and acuteness; and they act quite shrewdly when they say that the Word of God is impassible according to his nature; let them hear from us that they fight without cause and beat the air, since no one struggles from the opposite side, nor feels things contrary or different. Why, then, do they toil in vain? Why do they contend without cause? Who is so stupid, who so stunned, as to say that the most excellent nature of all is passible, and to dare to place it among the infirmities of a creature that is incorporeal and superior to every creature?

But since the reason of the mystery knows that the only-begotten Son of God was made man by dispensation, we affirm that the holy body assumed from blessed Mary is properly his own; therefore rightly, on account of the dispensational propriety, we say that the passions of the flesh are his, while everywhere preserving the impassibility of his nature: for he is God who was born of God.

Therefore, as often as he is said to have suffered, he is understood to have suffered in the flesh, not in his nature; but he makes his own the sufferings of the flesh [of himself], for the body which is conjoined to him was made his own, as I said a little while ago; and for this reason the divine Paul says that he through whom and in whom the Father made all things was the firstborn from the dead, when he wrote thus: We give thanks to the Father, who has made us worthy to share the lot of the saints in light, who has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because in him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities. All things were created through him and in him; and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him; and he is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that in all things he himself holds the primacy; because it pleased him that all fullness should dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Col. 1 and following).

Consider how he recalls that all things were made through him, visible and invisible, thrones and principalities; he says that he himself was given as head of the Church, and affirms that he was the firstborn from the dead; that all things were reconciled through him, that he made peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Who, then, could doubt any further? Or who would fear that the reason of the mystery might show the nature of the Son to be passible, if he is said to have suffered in the flesh? For he reckons the sufferings of his own body, as I said before, to be his own sufferings.

Blessed Peter was pleased to hold this view, saying: Since Christ therefore suffered for us in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1). But it is one thing for us to say that he suffered in the flesh, and another to say that he suffered in the nature of the Godhead; for when the same one is both man and God at once, he is impassible indeed as far as pertains to the nature of the Godhead, but passible in his humanity. What evil or strange thing is it, if he is said to have suffered in that part which could suffer, when in that which could not suffer he remained impassible?

That such a chorus of the blessed Fathers shone forth, we shall again recognize from what they themselves wrote, following the command of the Savior; for they remembered that he had said: Freely you have received, freely give (Matthew 10:8).

OF GREGORY, MOST BLESSED BISHOP OF NYSSA.

He says: Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Philippians 2:5). What is poorer than the form of a servant in God? What is more humble than a king, than to have come voluntarily to a participation in our most impoverished nature? The King of kings and Lord of lords pays the tax; the Lord of creation is led into a cave; he who comprehends all things finds no place in the upper room, but is cast into the manger of dumb animals; the pure and undefiled one suffers the filth of human nature, and passing through all our poverty, he comes even to the experience of death. You see the measure of his voluntary poverty; life deigns to taste death; the judge is brought to the judgment of life; the lord of all submits to the verdict of the one who judges; the king of the heavenly principalities does not repel the hands of the executioners.

OF BASIL, MOST HOLY BISHOP OF CAESAREA.

Neither can heaven and earth, and the depth of the seas, and the things that live in the waters, nor terrestrial animals, nor the stars, nor the trees, nor the air, nor the hours of the seasons, and the varied and diverse ordering of the elements, prove the majesty of his virtue itself, as much as the fact that God, who cannot be comprehended, being impassible, was able to be joined through the flesh to death, so that by his passion he might grant us impassibility.

OF ATHANASIUS, MOST BLESSED BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.

And it was shown that he had a body not through phantasy, but truly; and it was fitting that the Lord, putting on human flesh, should put it on wholly with its passions, so that just as we call it his own body, so also the passions of the body should be said to be his own, even if on account of his divinity the passions did not touch him. But if the body is another's, let the passion also be said to be another's; but if the flesh is the Word's—for the Word was made flesh (John 1:14)—it is necessary that the passions of the flesh be said to be his whose the flesh also is. For whose are the passions—condemnation, scourging, thirst, the gibbet, death, and the other passions of the body—his also are the victory and the grace.

It is therefore right and fitting that such sufferings be said to be not another's but the Lord's own, so that the grace also be his own, and that we not seem to worship one in place of another, but to be worshippers in true religion: since we pray not to a common man, but to the Son who is truly and by nature God, and who became man; nonetheless also to God our Savior.

I think, then, that what has been added is sufficient for the satisfaction of the prudent, especially since the divine law openly declares: In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand (Matt. 18:16). If therefore there is anyone who wishes to contend further, let him hear from us: Go your own way. But we, who are devoted to the truth, will follow the sacred Scriptures and the faith of the holy Fathers: for thus we shall obtain the palm of the heavenly calling in Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to God the Father, with the Holy Spirit, for ages of ages. Amen.

While these things are being sent to the press, I happened by chance upon the book of Anastasius of Sinai, who is called the Guide, and to one who was looking for something else there occurred the twenty-second chapter, in which mention is made of Andrew of Samosata, and a certain mediocre fragment, from a work pertaining to the anathematisms, is transcribed. I thought that this should be compared in this place, whether on account of the kinship of the argument or for the sake of the author, from whom some greater knowledge can be had than from the preceding work. Since, therefore, Anastasius wished to prove many things subsequently substituted for the holy Fathers, and that many things which they piously said are twisted by heretics into false meanings, and—what is more remarkable—by various people into opposite ones, he gives an example in Andrew of Samosata, who strives to accomplish a thing plainly astounding!—that holy Cyril patronizes Nestorius, and he brings forward words by which he seems to confess in Christ both two natures and two hypostases, since the Eutychians, utterly opposed to the Nestorians, were drawing him to their own side. Thus, therefore, Anastasius.

Against the Gaianites and Theodosians, and the Eutychianists who toss Cyril back and forth, as though he says there is one nature in Christ, Andreas of Samosata contends in his writing that Cyril rather favors Nestorius, even if he does so unknowingly, and he is caught in the snare that he himself set; by this very fact, that from the beginning of the fourth chapter written by the blessed Cyril he cites these words: If anyone divides Christ into two persons or hypostases, let him be anathema.

To these words Andreas responds thus: How splendid a judgment! How pious is this exposition of Cyril concerning the doctrines! Behold, after the manner of the Fathers, and especially of the Synods, he hands down that hypostases are persons, following the Fathers of the Nicene council, who say that there are three hypostases or persons in the most sacred and consubstantial Trinity. If, therefore, he rightly asserts that hypostases are persons, by what reasoning does he himself in almost all his works call natures hypostases? For when he calls natures hypostases, and hypostases persons, what else does he profess but distinct persons in Christ? As when he says that the natures, or hypostases, remained unconfused.

Whose hypostases, O excellent Cyril? It is clear that they are Christ's, since you so define hypostases. If this definition—that persons are hypostases—had not come from you, perhaps someone could have said, in order to defend you, that Cyril does not understand "hypostasis" to mean persons, but certain subsistences of substantial things. But since you yourself have brought forward that definition against yourself, no room for defense is left to you hereafter. Therefore, when you say that the natures, or hypostases, of Christ remained unconfused, you say nothing other than that the hypostases, or persons, remained unconfused.

Hence, from this law laid down by you—namely, that natures are hypostases or persons—it follows that there are three natures in the three most holy persons of the Trinity, as the Arians contend; and two persons in the two natures of the only-begotten Son. And so, when you say in the treatise On Adoration in Spirit that the ark was a figure of the two natures, or hypostases, of Christ; and elsewhere in these very words, that Christ is constituted of two natures, or hypostases, or persons, it is not obscure that you are confessing that the body of Christ first existed and was formed in the womb of the Virgin, and only afterwards was finally joined with the person of the divine Word. This you also affirm in the third chapter in this manner: If anyone, after the ineffable union, divides the hypostases.

And since in countless other places you call natures hypostases, in the books to Hermias you contradict yourself and disagree with yourself, asserting that nature is one thing and hypostasis, or person, another.

And how is it that, when Theodoret undertook to refute your twelve chapters, you never defended what you assert about hypostases of this kind in the third chapter? For this reason, inconstant as you are, you fight against yourself and beat your own vineyards; at one time indeed asserting one nature of Christ, at another two persons.

For indeed in your scholia too, when interpreting the stater that Peter found in the mouth of the fish, you write thus: Therefore the true stater is Christ. For he himself is the twofold character; great grace to the most eloquent Cyril, who everywhere confesses diverse characters and hypostases in Christ.

You have heard, brothers, the reproaches of that most wicked dragon Andrew, which from a heart most full of Nestorian poison he belched out against the most wise teacher Cyril, because he said that natures are hypostases.

From this fragment it can be understood, 1st, that Andrew was most devoted to Nestorius; for this reason he is both called accursed by Anastasius and named a most wicked dragon. 2nd, that the chapters were attacked by him in a book written which is distinct from the Objections; for this whole fragment is not found in the Objections, nor indeed ever existed there. For how would Cyril not have responded to the objections, certainly serious ones, who refuted even the most minute details? 3rd, that this book was written after the reproaches of Theodoret had been confuted by Cyril, and therefore after the response to the Objections of the Orientals; for mention is made both of the confutation, in part iv of the fragment, and of the response to the objections, in the preface of the confutation. 4th, that the book seems to have been written by Andrew either near the end of the Council of Ephesus, after letters had been received from Theodoret about the state of Nestorius' affairs, or after the dissolution of the council, when the schismatics who had returned to the East confirmed in a synod the sentence of deposition passed against Cyril, which synod Liberatus mentions; for then nothing was not permitted to the Orientals against the twelve chapters, which were not approved even by all catholics; the supporters of Nestorius dared nothing less, out of impatience at their afflicted cause, which still had its patrons at court.

5° That the Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten were published by Cyril before the Council of Ephesus, if what Andrew writes is true: for he speaks of them as of a work already long since widely known; although what he adduces concerning the stater is not found in the Scholia such as they are now had. Whence it must be that either Anastasius, his memory having slipped, called another work by the name of the Scholia, or that those things which had been written concerning the stater are missing from them. 6° Finally, that throughout this whole fragment the saying of Cyril in his third anathema is assailed: If anyone in the one Christ after the union divides the hypostases, and connects them to one another only by conjunction, which is according to dignity, etc. For the hypostases seem to have been put for the natures: for only the natures are connected, and if there be two natures, it follows that two hypostases are said by Cyril to be in Christ, which is Nestorian; but if there are not two, it follows that the one has passed over into the other, which is Arian. But Andrew is deceived by his own reasoning, for Cyril wants nothing other than that, the natures being united without confusion and without change, no longer should two hypostases be admitted (for this is what is meant), which are joined by union alone.