Cyrilli Apologeticus Adversus Theodoretum

OF SAINT CYRIL, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, AN APOLOGY AGAINST THEODORETUS, OR A REPLY TO THE THINGS WHICH THEODORETUS SAID AGAINST THE ANATHEMATISMS.

Cyril to the most reverend and most beloved brother and fellow bishop Evoptius, greeting in the Lord.

I have read the things which were sent to me some time ago by your holiness, and I marveled at your affection and the sincerity of your love in Christ; but I judge that even now I ought most fittingly to cry out what is written in the book of Proverbs: A brother helped by a brother is like a well-fortified city (Prov. 18:19). And indeed it seems to me that love has been most greatly honored with the praises of divine Scripture, and rightly so, since it possesses in itself the fullness of the law (Rom. 13:10), and is to be preferred to the other virtues, and appears wonderful to the souls of the saints; that love, I mean, which we say is fulfilled not by bare and mere words, but which has testimony from the things themselves. For just as the most precious stones, which they say are Indian, are not to be admired by the eyes of onlookers if someone merely speaks of their beauty, but if they themselves are beautiful; so from the examples themselves the glorious splendor of love appears, being made evident to all by comparison.

Your reverence greatly values this, always to follow in the footsteps of the saints and to pursue the praises of their most approved life. I have therefore received, so that I might now also recognize the affection of your holiness, the volume sent, which Theodoretus of Cyrus—for so I hear that town is named—is said to have composed against the anathematisms. Having read it through, I gave the greatest thanks to God and did not cease to say: Lord, deliver my soul from unjust lips and from a deceitful tongue (Ps 119:2).

For I have found that everywhere and in individual chapters calumnies are being brought against me. I therefore wondered that a man not unacquainted with letters, as certain people have reported of him, and perhaps endowed with no mediocre knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, should have been so ignorant of the force of the chapters, that a suspicion arose in me that he had gratified the desires of others by a feigned ignorance—namely, lest he seem to be disparaging us rashly and without any pretext; especially since there is nothing at all arduous, nothing obscure in our statements, unless my opinion deceives me, nothing in what he says that is difficult once understood. But since it has become necessary—although we have already written about these matters before—to respond to him also in a few words, lest anyone believe that we kept silent because we were convicted, I shall undertake the response, as far as the matter permits, preserving brevity.

It would indeed have been most fitting for him, since he possesses knowledge of the divine Scriptures, when he wished to dispute with us concerning the sacred mysteries, to have made mention only of the sacred writings, and not to bring forward curious and sordid fables. For he deigns to liken my words to the evil of discord, and perhaps he thinks this is a proof of his own teaching. Whence we too have marveled at this excessive knowledge of his; for it appears that he, on account of his deep and mighty learning, did not know the evil of discord—nor Paris, the son of Priam.

For in the letter, after other things: Moreover, he himself not only asserted these things, but even dared to anathematize those unwilling to obey his blasphemies. If, however, these things are his own inventions, and not rather some enemy of the truth who, as though written by him, thrust them into public view—like that evil of discord which, as in the fables, kindles a flame.

But let us set these matters aside for now and press on with our proposed task.

FIRST ANATHEMA.

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

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETICS.

But we who follow the evangelical tradition do not say that the Word of God is a flesh made by nature, or that God was changed into flesh; for God is unchangeable and immutable, of whom also the prophet David says: But you are the same, and your years shall not fail (Ps. 101:28). Paul, the greatest preacher of the truth, asserted that this was said of the Son in the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:11); and elsewhere God says through the prophet: I am, I am, and I am not changed (Mal. 3:6). Therefore, if God is unchangeable and immutable, he cannot undergo change or alteration; and if it is impossible for the unchangeable to be changed, then God the Word was not touched and changed into flesh, but he took flesh and dwelt among us, according to the words of the Gospels. And the divine Paul himself, explaining this in the epistle to the Philippians, says: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:5).

It is clear, then, even from what has been said, that the form of God was not turned into the form of a servant, but that remaining what it was, it took the form of a servant. Therefore, if God the Word was not made flesh, but assumed a living and rational flesh, then he was not himself born of the Virgin by nature, conceived, fashioned, formed, and receiving from there the beginning of his existence—he who is before the ages, and God, and always with God, and adhering to the Father, and to be known and adored with the Father—when he had fashioned for himself a temple in the virgin's womb, he adhered to what was fashioned, conceived, formed, and born. For this reason we also call the holy Virgin [Mother of God], not because she gave birth to God by nature, but because she brought forth a man united to God, who had formed him.

This entire paragraph is cited in the Fifth Synod among the statements of Theodoret against Saint Cyril, which were condemned by anathema; but his crime is that he contradicts Saint Cyril in that part in which the substance of the faith lay, namely that the blessed Virgin gave birth to the Word made flesh, and not merely to a man united to God.

But if the one formed in the Virgin's womb is not a man, but God the Word, who is before the ages, then God the Word is a making of the Holy Spirit. For what has been born in her, says Gabriel, is of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20). But if the only-begotten Word of God is uncreated and of the same substance as the Father, [and coeternal with the Father], he is not a making of the Holy Spirit. If, however, the Spirit did not form God the Word in the Virgin's womb, it remains that we understand the form of a servant to have been both formed and fashioned by nature.

But since there was not only the form of a servant, but a temple having God the Word as its inhabitant, according to Paul's word: For it pleased him that in him all the fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily (Col. 1:19); we call the Virgin not only such, but also holy, because of the fashioning and formation; calling her so on account of these things; and therefore the child who was born was called Emmanuel; neither is God separated from human nature, nor is man stripped of deity. For Emmanuel signifies that God is with us, according to the words of the Gospels; and God with us signifies both him who was assumed from us for us, and shows the God the Word who assumed him. Therefore the child is Emmanuel on account of the God who assumed him; and the Virgin is so on account of the conjunction of God with the form of a servant; nor was God the Word turned into flesh, but the form of God received the form of a servant.

THE ORTHODOX ONE'S REPLY.

We have very often and at length censured those who refuse to confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and that the holy Virgin is [truly the Mother of God], because she bore according to the flesh the Word of God, when it was made flesh, that is, man. But this man, who so rightly accuses what we have said, if he does not know that Emmanuel is truly God; if the Word of God was not born carnally from the holy Virgin and made flesh, according to the Scriptures; why did he not rather cry out openly: What are you doing, good man? You utter unspeakable words, you trample on the teachings of the truth. Emmanuel is not truly God, nor is the Virgin holy—so that we too, crying out these things to him and saying them, wisely setting against him the things spoken by divine Scripture, and bringing forward the tradition of the apostolic and evangelical faith, and the confession of the holy Fathers who in their time were gathered at Nicaea, might persuade him that he attempts to accuse what we have said neither rightly nor honorably; indeed, that he rather hastens to strive against divine Scripture. But the prudent and clever disputant, having passed over the things which it befitted and behooved him to say, and having touched on none of these, betook himself altogether to another path: for he immediately set about saying that the Word of God is stronger by conversion, and that it was not transformed into the nature of flesh—as if, were this true, he either feels or affirms an anathema.

Let him therefore hear this, who does not know how to meet another's argument: you engage in empty words without cause, O man, and you struggle against an opinion—or rather one hateful to us. For we too know that that divine and excellent nature undergoes not even a shadow of change, and that the Word of God did not pass over into the nature of the flesh, laying aside the Godhead.

But when he mentions that the form of a servant was assumed from the form of God, let him teach us whether the forms alone, without substances, and by themselves, came together with one another. But that, I think, he himself will also confess is not so: for not merely species without substances, and forms, came together with one another through the dispensation; but a coming together of the things themselves, or substances, was brought about, so that the account of the incarnation may be believed to have truly taken place. Therefore, even if we say that the Word of God was made flesh, we do not say that confusion, nor mixture, nor again change or alteration happened to it; but that it was itself joined, by a hidden and ineffable reason, to the holy body having a rational soul: for whatever is said to be united is not confused, but rather assumes another thing to itself.

We affirm therefore that the Word of God the Father assumed for himself holy and animate flesh, and that he was truly and without confusion, from that very womb, united, and that he came forth indeed as a man, yet remained true God even so; and for this reason the Virgin is also holy. But I think it superfluous that she be called even this. For if there were some so bereft of mind as to say that the nature of the Word had from the flesh, as it were, the source of its origin, and that its existence took its beginning from there, perhaps they would seem to do so not without some reason, who would show that it ought to be called this. But since an opinion of this kind is hateful to all, and holy Virginity cannot be understood otherwise unless one first believes that what was born is flesh, that is, that the Word of God the Father became man (for the Virgin did not give birth to bare divinity), what profit from this contention will they bring us, who strive that it be called this as well?

But, as far as appears, they have devised for themselves an occasion for speaking against Christ; for they do not endure either to think or to say that the very Word of God the Father, who was the Son before the ages, was in the last times united without confusion and without change, from the womb, to flesh having a rational soul, and that he thus became a man like us. But just as they relate that one of the saints had God dwelling in him, so they also stir up others to think the same way: not considering that God, who is over all, dwells in us too through the Holy Spirit, as in holy temples. For it is written: Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone therefore corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him; for the temple of God is holy, which you are (1 Cor. 3:16). But even if we have been called temples, having God dwelling in us through the Spirit, yet we know another manner of the mystery, according to Christ: for we say that the flesh, namely having a rational soul, was truly united to God the Word.

But I would gladly ask him whether he truly confesses that the unity of God the Word and of the humanity, that is, of the holy body rationally animated, has been made; or whether he too, following the example of certain people, understands it through a conjunction of the servile form and the form with the divine form, or in some other way, through mere sonship and equality of dignity; or whether any other mode of conjunction is understood? But perhaps I am troubling myself without cause, and questioning unnecessarily; for I have his own words, and a most open confession; for in this first chapter he said: Therefore the child born is called Emmanuel, and God is not separated from human nature, nor is man naked of divinity. He ought indeed to have taken care for a subtle and polished exposition from these words; but this at least must be noted. For behold, he himself, explaining the unity, denies that God is separated by unity from human nature, and confesses the same to be at once God and man: why, then, does he not blush to censure our words?

ANATHEMATISM TWO.

If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father has been united to the flesh according to substance, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, the same being at once God and man, let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETIC.

We confess indeed one Christ, obeying the divine traditions of the apostles, and we name the same both God and man. But "according to substance" we utterly ignore, as a novelty and alien to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who interpreted them.

And here too this whole passage has been cited and condemned in the Fifth Synod, for the reason that it rejected that whose confession alone is the sure, undoubted, and fraud-free rule of right thinking. Hence by canon anathema is pronounced against him who has defended the impious writings of Theodoret, which he set forth against the right faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and all that he wrote in defense of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and for others who held the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety, and on this account calling the doctors of the Church impious, who confess the unity of the Word of God with the flesh according to subsistence, etc.

But if he who has discovered these things wishes to say that the commingling of divinity and flesh was made through substance, we will contradict him with all readiness and convict the blasphemy. For confusion must necessarily follow commingling; and confusion, once it has followed, takes away the property of nature. For things that are mixed do not preserve what they were before; but to say this of God the Word and of the seed of David is most shameful. But we ought to obey the Lord, who demonstrates two natures and says to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19). But if a commingling had been made, neither would God have remained God, nor would the temple have been recognized as a temple, but both would God be the temple and the temple God; for the rationale of commingling demands this; and the Lord would not have rightly said to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. For he ought to have spoken thus: Destroy me, and in three days I will rise again; if indeed a commingling and confusion had truly been made. But as it is, he shows both that the temple was to be destroyed and that God would raise it up.

Therefore they use "through substance" superfluously, as a term for commingling, in my opinion; but it is enough to say what both shows the properties of the natures and commands that Christ be adored as one.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Behold, again this noble barbarian, seizing an occasion for slander from the smallest causes, criticizes the expression because we said "through substance," and declares that it is unusual, and affirms that it was made by us in a new manner; nor does he consider that the force of expressions, opposing truth to the quibblings of the impious heretics, tears away what seems to stand in opposition.

Since Nestorius everywhere empties out the generation of God the Word according to the flesh, and establishes for us only a unity of dignities, and says that the man joined to God was honored with the title of sonship, it was necessary that we, acting against his words, should say that it was made through substance. But this expression signifies nothing else than this alone: that the nature or substance of the Word, that is, the Word himself, truly united to human nature, without any conversion and confusion, as we have often said, is understood as one, and is Christ, himself God and man.

These words of Cyril must be carefully noted: etc. We say the union was made according to; but this word signifies nothing else than this alone, that the nature or hypostasis of the Word, that is, the Word himself, was truly united to human nature, etc. For from this is understood that famous sentence of Athanasius and Cyril: After the union there is one incarnate nature of God the Word. For "nature" has been put in place of "hypostasis"; nor is that peculiar to the catholics alone. Nestorius himself too, if we believe the Fathers of the Fifth Synod, used "natures" in place of "hypostases," when he said: Because of him who put it on, I adore him who was put on; because of him who is hidden, I adore him who appears. God is inseparable from him who appears; therefore I do not separate the honor of him who is inseparable, I separate the natures, but the union is in adoration (Serm. 7, no. 37). But Theodoret confused one word with the other in his criticism of the following anathema, when he said:

But this, as I think, seems right to Theodoretus himself when he says that God was not separated from human nature, nor is the humanity understood apart from the deity. Therefore we say neither that the forms of the servant and of God are conjoined apart from their substances, nor do we define that a common man, honored by equality of dignity alone, was conjoined to the Word; but the only-begotten Son of God himself, as I said above, who truly took flesh that had a rational soul, was made man, yet in such a way that he remained also God.

But that man, vehement in speech and most sharp in thought, defines that a mixture is signified by this kind of expression, and dares to say it, and brings forward in public those things which result from the mixture of natures, as if we did not know—or perhaps by some insolence he boasts, and thinks that no one besides himself can extend a speech as far as he wishes; if only he has proposed to himself, as truly said, what has been said by no one, so that he may seem to be something among those who do not know how to discern who are the vain talkers and liars, and who hold the straight way of truth and exercise prudent and necessary words.

I thought indeed, I confess, from the beginning, that he had by no means been ignorant of the force of the chapters, but was feigning ignorance and in this was gratifying certain people; yet now I have discovered that he truly was ignorant.

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 convention that has been made through a natural [union], let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

Obscure indeed and dark is the meaning of his words; but their madness is plain to the pious. For to whom is it not clear that conjunction and convention differ in nothing? For convention is also of those things which were previously divided. But the most prudent begetter of words of this kind set down words that agree with one another as if they were contrary: For one ought not, he says, to join the substances by conjunction, but by a complexión and natural convention, either perhaps not knowing what he says, or knowingly blaspheming.

For nature is a certain imperious thing, and one that compels certain things to be done, not by will. What I say is of this sort: by nature we hunger, not suffering this by will, but by necessity; and if it were not so, the poor would be freed from beggary, having it in their own will not to hunger; by nature we feel, by nature we sleep, by nature we draw breath. But all these things, as I said, do not come about by will; for if anyone should not admit any one of these, he will necessarily experience the end of life. Therefore, if the natural conjunction to the servile form has been made, with a certain necessity compelling it, then God the Word was not joined to the servile form by his own clemency, and thus he will be found to be a lawgiver serving necessary laws. But the blessed Paul did not teach us so, but rather the contrary: that he indeed emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6); by saying he emptied himself, he signifies the will. If, therefore, he was joined by his own judgment and will to the nature assumed from us, the expression "natural conjunction" is superfluous; for to confess is sufficient. Further, it is taken concerning things divided, for if there be no division, it will never come about, and he who admits, admits also a preceding division.

Why, then, does he say that the substances or natures ought not to be divided, especially since he knows that the substance of God the Word was perfect, and that the form of a servant assumed by him was perfect, and that for this reason he spoke of substances, and not of substance? Therefore, if each nature is perfect, and both have come together into one—the form of God, that is, assuming the form of a servant—then the reasoning of piety demands that we confess one person, and one Son and Christ likewise; but to speak of two united substances or natures is not absurd, but rather more consistent.

For if in one man we divide the natures, and call the mortal part body, and the immortal part soul, but both together man, much more does it befit us to distinguish the properties of the natures of the assuming God and the assumed man. We find even the blessed Paul dividing one and the same man into two men, and at one time saying: As much as the outer man is corrupted, so much the inner is renewed (II Cor. 4:16); at another: For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man (Rom. 7:22); and immediately: That Christ may dwell in the inner man (Eph. 3:17). If, therefore, the Apostle divides the natural conjunction of the natures of the same time, why does he charge with impiety those who divide the properties of the natures, of the eternal God and of that man who was assumed in the last times? He charges them, I say—he who teaches us mixture under other names.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Notice how that wise man first of all falsely claims that our statements are obscure, and though he himself has a dark and clouded mind, he says that a discourse so plain to the wise and so very evident is obscure.

But he has supposed that our discourse asserts that it should be called a convention, and not rather a conjunction. Then, wishing to display his cleverness, he says that we mean one and the same thing, whether we say that a convention or a conjunction was made. But I in this passage too would marvel at the sharpness of his mind: for perhaps he alone has learned what no one has ever been ignorant of; and what has been so trampled underfoot that it seems most familiar even to those who are entirely strangers to secular learning and letters; indeed even to those who have arrived at a slight and uncertain knowledge only from hearing tales.

Therefore, marveling at his teaching, I say this to him: Wake up, even a little, as if from drunkenness or sleep, you who strive to open so great a mouth against us; and observe subtly and keenly the mystery of the unity that is spoken of concerning Christ. Certain people raise a calumny against this unity

into the foulness, transferring the sentences of the sacred Scriptures into whatever pleases them; for they say that the natures are divided from one another and separated from one another, and that each is apart and in its own part; but they contend that the man is conjoined to God according to dignity alone, or authority, and according to sonship. The anathema is at variance with this opinion, and struggles against such profane novelties of words. For it affirms that the Word was united by nature—that is, not [in appearance] but in truth—to the flesh having a rational soul; and that it ought in no way to be divided, lest we understand two sons, dividing the indivisible. But he, not understanding what finally natural union is—that is, true union, which neither confounds the natures nor makes a mixture, so that each begins to be something other than what it was—takes up something childish and frivolous for the proof of those things which he has judged to be well with themselves.

Finally he says: If the union was natural, then the emptying of the Word was not voluntary, but as it were from necessity and compulsion; for nature is a thing of command. To this anyone might say to him: Hunger, thirst, and the rest, as you said, are natural infirmities of the flesh, and have their motion even in ourselves; because, namely, we have a nature subject to passions. But the divine and secret nature of the Word is not capable of necessity or passion, and is altogether compelled by no one, not even by itself, to become flesh against its will, or to assume the measure of humanity and take hold of the seed of Abraham.

That this argument of his is greatly ill-considered, it is not difficult for those who wish to discover; for he says absolutely and without doubt that all natural things are subject to the laws of necessity; and as proof of this he brought forward that we hunger and thirst against our will, nature urging us to this, even if someone is unwilling (but it belonged to a learned man and one practiced in these matters to see other, more solid causes of things, which are worthy to be sought by a greater discourse): unless perhaps it is false that man is rational by nature. Therefore he was compelled against his will to be rational. Then, tell me, is not God almighty God by nature? Is he not by nature holy, just, good, life, light, wisdom, and virtue? Is he himself also against his will, and compelled, that is, to be what he is?

But to think so is the surest proof of a mad and stupid folly.

What, then, does he hold out to us as a lie, as though it were an impregnable and invincible bulwark? And why does he use such feeble arguments that, on hearing that the union was made natural—that is, true, free of change, and an altogether unconfused coming-together of substances—he tries to twist the force of the statements so that they may be believed to have been set down incorrectly? Nor does the vigorous man shudder at recalling that the nature of the Word is subject to inevitable necessity. He emptied himself, not against his will, but the Only-begotten became man voluntarily; but not, as you say, did he assume a man, granting him conjunction and honoring him with the benefit of sonship, according to us.

Therefore, even if we understand that the substances were united, and that the Word of God was made man and became incarnate, and for this reason we seem in some way to say that the union is natural—which would exclude that union which is not true, but which we too had through faith and sanctification, because we were made partakers of the divine nature; for as Paul says: He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor 6:17)—nevertheless we do not subject the impassible and free Word of God to natural necessity and violence.

But that after the union we do not wish the things that have been united to be separated from one another—unless I am mistaken, this is not at all criminal, nor does it seem blameworthy, especially since that distinguished man Theodoret himself, offering one man from among us as an example, does not allow him to be divided into two; although as far as pertains to the man, he can be capable of division, namely in that we understand that the soul is one thing by nature, and the flesh another thing by its own nature. Therefore by a similar reasoning, inquiring more carefully, we say that the union which is understood to have been made in Christ, according to the true coming-together of divinity and humanity, has been made: not being ignorant that the Word of God is indeed one thing apart from the flesh, and the flesh another according to its own nature, apart from the Word. But once united, to divide is criminal; nor does right reason permit one Christ, both Son and Lord, to be separated into two Sons: for the holy and divine Scripture leads us to this knowledge.

But he has no care at all for the truth of doctrines, nor does he strive to learn anything necessary, or that could profit him even moderately, but only what can harm. Yet since he glories in falsehood and boasts that he has skill in slander, let him hear from us: Why do you glory in malice, you who are mighty in iniquity? Your tongue has devised injustice all day long (Ps. 2:3).

FOURTH ANATHEMATISM.

If anyone divides the words that are in the evangelical or apostolic Scriptures, and those that are said either about Christ by the saints or by him about himself, between two persons or two substances, and assigns some of them, as to a man who is understood separately apart from the Word, but others, as divine, to God the Word alone: let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

These things too are akin to those mentioned above; for he wishes, as though a mixture had been made, that there be no distinction of the words that were spoken in the holy Gospels or the apostolic books; especially since he boasts that he is an enemy of Arius, and Eunomius, and the other authors of heresies.

Let him therefore say—that most expert teacher of the divine dogmas—how he can refute the blasphemy of the heretics, who assign to God the Word the lowly words and those befitting a servant's form. For by doing this they assert that the Son of God is lesser, and a creature, and a made thing, and a servant, and made out of nothing.

To whom, then, are we—who think differently from them, and who confess the Son to be coeternal in the same substance with God the Father, the maker of all things, and creator, and orderer, and governor, and most wise judge, and almighty, indeed very power itself, life itself, wisdom itself—to whom, I say, are we to assign these words: "God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And that: "Father, if it can be done, let this cup pass from me"; and: "Father, save me from this hour"; and that: "No one knows that hour, not even the Son of Man," and the rest which were spoken humbly by him and written about him by the holy apostles? To whom shall we ascribe hunger? To whom weariness and sleep? To whom ignorance and fear? Who is it that needed the help of angels? If these things belong to the Word of God, how did Wisdom not know? Or how is that called Wisdom which has the defect of ignorance? Or how will he be seen to have spoken truly, when he recalls that he has all things of the Father, if he does not have the Father's knowledge? For, he says, the Father alone knows that day.

Or how is he the most similar image of the Begetter, if he does not have all things of the Begetter? If he does not lie when he says he does not know, who would have judged these things concerning him? But if he does know the day, and, wishing to conceal it, says he does not know, you see what kind of blasphemy follows from this—namely, that the Truth lies. But what is called truth, if it has the contrary of truth? If the Truth does not lie, neither does God the Word not know the day which he himself appointed, on which he will judge the world, but he has the Father's knowledge, as being the most similar image. Therefore the ignorance is not of God the Word, but of the servant's form, which knew those times as much as the indwelling deity revealed.

And that also, almost the whole of what is contained in the paragraph, was reported at the fifth synod as infected with the Nestorian error concerning two sons, which Cyril notes.

This can be said of other similar things. For what reason is there in saying to the Father, of God the Word: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as you will? For from this again many irrational things result; and first, that the Father and the Son disagree, and that the Father wills other things, and the Son other things—for he says: Yet not as I will, but as you will. Then again we shall see that there is great ignorance in the Son; for he is found to say, as one ignorant: If it is possible, let the cup pass.

But to say this of God the Word is impious and full of blasphemy; for he knew most certainly—he who came for this cause, who voluntarily assumed our nature, who emptied himself—the outcome of the mystery of the dispensation, for which he was proclaiming to the holy apostles: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, and shall be scourged, and crucified, and on the third day he shall rise again (Matthew 20:1). He, therefore, who declared these things, and who rebuked Peter when he begged that it not happen—how would he have begged that it not happen, if he clearly knew all that was to come? But how is it not absurd that Abraham indeed saw his day many ages beforehand and rejoiced; and Isaiah likewise foretold the saving passions, and Jeremiah, and Daniel, and Zechariah, and the whole chorus of the prophets; but that he himself both did not know and asked for deliverance and prayed against that which was going to profit the salvation of the world? Therefore these are not the words of God the Word, but of the form of a servant, which was afraid of death, because death had not yet been dissolved; but God the Word permitted these things to be said, giving place to timidity, so that the nature of the begotten one might appear, and lest we think that what was made from Abraham and David was so, on account of the profane heretics [that is, the Manichaeans], whose faction produced such blasphemy.

Therefore let us ascribe the things that were divinely said or done to God the Word; but the things that were said humbly let us fit to the form of a servant, lest we emulate the blasphemies of Arius and Eunomius.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Would it not, I ask, have been far better to examine the very force of the words, keeping the mind free from hatred and prejudice? But he deigns to do this not at all; for he turns everything to his own judgment, and says: These things are akin to those mentioned above; for he wishes, as though a mixing had been made, that there be no difference of words, which are written in the holy Gospels or the apostolic sayings; especially since he boasts that he is an enemy to Arius, and Eunomius, and the other authors of heresies. So much for him; but I am as far from saying that the natures were confused among themselves, and received confusion, commixture, and change, as he is far from thinking rightly.

But neither have we done away with the difference of words; for we know that some things were done divinely, but others humanly; and that the former befit the most excellent glory, while the latter are more suited to the measure of the emptying. But we assert that they ought not to be assigned to two persons wholly divided from one another; for if there is one Lord Jesus Christ, one faith in him, and one baptism (Ephes. iv, 5), there will rightly be also one person of the one same.

And if He Himself will be both God and man at once, it certainly befits Him both to act divinely and to speak humanly; since neither does His divine and secret nature become in any part inferior to the majesty of the Father, and that dispensation with the flesh must be believed, namely that although He is God, He is also said to have become man according to us.

Therefore all things belong to the one Christ, both divine and human: for if the Word of God the Father did not become man, then certainly He would not speak humanly according to us; but if it is true that He shared in blood and flesh similarly to us, making Himself like his brethren in all things—that is, to us—why do they most foolishly reproach the perfectly correct account of the dispensation, who cannot endure a human word, and who hasten to assign the lowliness of speech, made on account of the dispensation, as though to another, separately from the Son, to the form of a servant, as they themselves say?

But it is absurd for them to say that they shudder at the malice of the heretics, yet to be unwilling to follow the tradition of the right faith; but it would be preferable, and far more learned, to fit human words not to another person, by which the Son is understood separately, and to the form of a servant, as they themselves are accustomed to say, but rather to assign them to the measure of His humanity: for it was fitting that, since He was both God and man at once, He should proceed through both kinds of speech.

But I am amazed that he too pretends to confess that there is one Christ, namely the same God at once and man; and then, as if he had slipped into forgetfulness of the things he judged to be correct, he divides the one again into two. For he sets down the voice of the Savior saying: But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, except the Father (Mark 13:32). Then, affirming that the Word of God the Father is wisdom and foreknows all things to come, he adds and says: Therefore it is not the ignorance of the Word of God, but of the form of a servant, which knew such great things at that time; and these things can be said also concerning other similar matters. Therefore, if you do not falsely say that there is one Christ, and the Son of God, the same God at once and man: why do you divide, and why are you not ashamed to speak of two Sons, unless perhaps they do not at all seem to be two—the one who has a predetermined knowledge, and the one who knows all things; and the one who receives a particular revelation, and the one who is perfect in wisdom and knows as great things as the Father also knows?

If, however, he is one and the same, by reason of the most true union, and not one and another separately and divisively, it belongs to him altogether both to know and to appear not to know. Therefore he knows indeed divinely, as being the Wisdom of the Father. But since in a dispensatory manner he submits to the measure of human ignorance, he also makes this common with others; although, as we said recently, he is entirely ignorant of nothing, but knows all things with the Father.

For what reason, then, is he said to have hungered, and to have been wearied from his journey, when he is life and life-giving, as being God, and when he is himself the living bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world, and he himself is the same Lord of hosts? Namely, so that he may be truly believed to have become man, he reckons human things as familiar, never exceeding the goods of his nature; but keeping those things unmoved in which he always was, and is, and will be.

But he who recalls that revelation was given to the form of a servant by the indwelling God, and that it was foreordained, shows to us the Prophet Emmanuel, and a man, and nothing else.

But he thinks he is saying something clever and unassailable: "For if," he says, "it is the Word of God who cried out, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me (Matthew 26:39)." First of all, indeed, he sets him at variance with the Father, and he does not rightly refuse to drink the cup, since he knows, he says, that the passion was going to be salutary for the world; therefore, he says, such utterances are not those of the Word of God. Let him therefore hear from us in reply concerning this matter as well, he who toters and staggers on such weak arguments. Since, then, it seems to you that such utterances ought to be removed from God the Word and assigned to the servile form alone, do you not divide the one into two sons, and that too when this seems obscure to the wise? For someone might perhaps say, following your reasoning, that it is neither plausible nor reasonable for the form of a servant to refuse the passion and to be at variance with the Father and with the Word who had dwelt in him, when it knew that the passion would be salutary for the world and the cause of life for those who had been conquered by death. It was necessary, then, he says, that this very thing be seen to be superior to cowardice and obedient to the divine commands. Do you not therefore perceive that you are babbling in vain? Whence this vulgar invention of opinions

Therefore, that all human things seem small and slight to God the Word, I indeed confess; but I ask whose emptying it is understood to have been made, and who willingly endured it. For if, as they themselves say, it was the form of a servant, or that which was from the seed of David, how and by what reason was it emptied, when it was assumed by God? But if the Word himself, who was in the form and equality of God and the Father, is said to have emptied himself, how again or by what reason was he emptied, if he refuses the emptying? But the emptying of God the Word, who knows not to suffer change, is to do or say something of human things, on account of the dispensational union with the flesh.

But even if he was made man, the reason of that mystery in no way violates his nature: for he remained what he was, even if for the salvation of the world and for life he descended to humanity. Therefore we will assign the evangelical and apostolic voices not to two persons, but to one Christ, the Son and God; neither making his divine nature and glory lesser on account of the human, nor denying the dispensation; but believing that it was made for our sake by the Word himself.

ANATHEMATISM THE FIFTH.

If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man, and not rather truly God, as being one Son by nature, on the ground that the Word was made flesh and partook like us of flesh and blood, let him be anathema.

REBUTTAL OF THE HERETIC.

That God the Word partook like us of blood and flesh, and of the immortal soul, we confess, since these have been united to him. But that God the Word was made flesh by conversion, we do not say; rather, we charge those who say it with impiety. How contrary this is to what has already been said can be seen: for if the Word was converted into flesh, he certainly did not partake of flesh and blood; but if he partook of flesh and blood, he partook as one other than these; and if the flesh is something other than he, he was not converted into flesh. Therefore, using the term "partaking," we adore indeed one Son, both him who assumed and him who was assumed; yet we recognize the difference of natures.

But "God-bearing," that is, to call him so, as he has been called by many holy Fathers, we do not refuse; one of whom was that great Basil, in his oration to Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit, who used this name, and in his interpretation of the fifty-ninth psalm. But we call him so, not as one receiving some particular divine grace, but as having the whole united divinity of the Son; for explaining this, blessed Paul said: "See that no one deceive you through philosophy and empty glory, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ; for in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:8).

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Here too it is no effort to show that he is engaged in empty fables; for we assert that no one ought to call a man Christ, lest he be understood to have been one of the saints individually; but rather that the true God became man, and the Word of God was incarnate.

But he again censures what has been rightly said, and deceives in various ways, and lies. He says that we claim the Word of God was changed into the nature of flesh, and he brings up arguments from on high by which he strives to prove that the Word of God is not changeable. But what I have said more often, I shall now say again as necessary: since there is no one who says that the divine and immortal nature of the Word was changed into earthly flesh, but all confess that it is unchangeable. Stop now, then, from expending empty labors, so that you may be able to show to those who have been deceived in nothing that the Word of God is both changeable by nature and mutable. For who is so stupid, or so deprived of mind, as to wish to think and say things so shameful and abominable even, perhaps, to the foolish themselves?

But I am greatly astonished that, although he everywhere affirms that God is Emmanuel, he is convicted of having assigned to the Prophet a measure in these matters: for he says that he himself is a man, so that he may appear to be like us, who have God dwelling in us through the Holy Spirit; for he dwells in our hearts, and we are temples of God. But it is by no means the same thing to say that the Word became man and that God dwells in a man; for although the voice of blessed Paul is true: "For it pleased him that all the fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily" (Col. 2:8), that is, not; yet he says that there is one Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.

Let someone then say that Christ also dwells in a man, and that his spirit does so, and that it is written concerning certain ones: "But they dwell in houses of clay" (Job 4:19); of which clay we too are, from the same clay. Yet he is understood as one, and he is a man by composition, from flesh and from a rational soul inhabiting the flesh. Why, then, does he not cease to disturb the right and stable account of the faith? For at one moment he says that Christ is one, and Son, and Lord, the same both God and man; at another he places him among the prophets, calling him a man, perhaps not knowing that he equates him with himself, or even with us, if indeed he is not truly God, but rather a temple in which the Word dwells, just as also in us. But that these things are not so, divine Scripture has thoroughly taught: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14); lest anyone suppose that he himself was converted by a turning and change into the nature of flesh. But he who was made flesh, or man, is not a man, but rather God, who submitted himself to a voluntary emptying, and made his own flesh from a woman—flesh, however, not lifeless and without sense, but animated and rational.

But we remember that he also called his own body a temple; otherwise he did not make a dwelling, as also in us, through the Spirit; but Christ, and the Son, and the Lord, is understood as one through union.

SIXTH ANATHEMATISM.

If anyone says that the God or Lord of Christ is the Word of God the Father, and does not rather confess that the same is both God and man, because the Word was made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

Indeed, blessed Paul calls that which was assumed by God the Word the form of a servant. But since the assumption was before the union; and blessed Paul, disputing concerning the assumption, called the assumed nature the form of a servant: therefore, once the union has been made, the name of servitude has no place at all; for if blessed Paul, writing to those who believed in him, said: "So now he is not a servant but a son" (Gal 4:7); and the Lord further to his disciples: "I will no longer call you servants, but friends" (Jn 15:15); much more will the firstfruits of our nature, through which we too have merited the grace of adoption, be freed from the appellation of servitude,

We confess, therefore, that God is the form of a servant, on account of the form of God united to it, and we agree with the Prophet when he calls the child Emmanuel, and the messenger of great counsel, and a wonder, and a counselor, and mighty God, and ruler, and prince of peace, and father of the age to come (Isa. 7:14; 9:6). But the same prophet also, after the union, proclaiming the nature of the one assumed, calls that which is from the seed of Abraham a servant, saying thus: You are my servant, Israel, and in you I will be glorified (Isa. 49:3); and again: Thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb as a servant for himself (Ibid. 5). And a little later: Behold, I have given you as a covenant of the race, as a light of the nations, that you might be for salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa. 42:7; 49:6). But what was formed in the womb is not God the Word, but the form of a servant; for God the Word was not turned and made flesh, but assumed flesh having a rational soul,

THE ORTHODOX REPLY

The mystery of the dispensation of the Only-Begotten, which was accomplished with the flesh, will now no less confirm our words and most easily demonstrate that they have been held not unreasonably. For he who is in the form of God and is the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, who in all things is equal to the Begetter, who shares the same glory and is free, taking the form of a servant, was called the brother of those who bear the yoke of servitude, that is, of us. And so, as one of us, he paid the didrachma to the tax collectors, and as a man he was made under the law, who as God is the lawgiver; he taught his disciples then that he is truly both the Son and, on account of the flesh, in the form of a servant, and that although by his own nature he is free, as being from God and God, nevertheless, having his own form of a servant, on account of the measure of the emptying he paid the tax to the collectors.

Therefore even if someone should say that he was named a servant by the voice of the holy prophets, no one ought in any way to take scandal at it. For they knew, with the Holy Spirit revealing it, that the Word made man, who is from God the Father, was indeed also a free Son; yet he did not cast off the measure of the most wise emptying, taking a form like that of us who are under the yoke of servitude. Thus he also calls God himself Father, although by nature he is God and is from the Father, and in no part is he inferior to the majesty of the Father.

Since, therefore, Nestorius writes thus concerning Christ: "He who suffered, then, is that merciful high priest, not God his vivifier—he who suffered, with the Word of Christ naming God"—and adds these things: "For he himself was also the child, and the Lord of the child" (Serm. (?), no. 6): we vehemently affirm that these statements were spoken neither rightly nor in a fitting manner, but impiously. For if the God of Christ is the Word of God and of the Father, then there must altogether and without doubt be two. But in what manner is the same one to be understood as both the child and the Lord of the child? Therefore he is not to be called both his own God and the Lord Emmanuel, since he is the same one, both God and man at once, as though the Word of God became man and was incarnate. But that the divinity is indeed one thing by its nature, and the humanity another, no one can doubt; otherwise, Christ is from both, from divinity and humanity, according to the dispensational union.

ANATHEMA SEVEN.

If anyone says that Christ, as a man, was aided by the operation of God the Word, and assigns to him the glory of the Only-Begotten as to another besides him, let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

If the nature of man is mortal, and the Word of God, being life and life-giving, raised up the temple that was dissolved by the Jews and lifted it into the heavens, how is the form of the servant not glorified through the form of God? For if that which is a mortal nature has been made immortal, on account of its union with the Word and God, it received what it did not have; and receiving what it did not have, it was also glorified, and was glorified by him who gave it; on account of which the Apostle cries out: According to the working of the power of his might, which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead (Eph. 1:20).

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Those who name Christ designate to their hearers not a common man like us, but the Word of God made man and incarnate. Therefore, even if he is said to have accomplished some of his marvelous and divine works through his body, which offered him the service of an instrument, nevertheless he himself is the one who works, the Lord Christ of the powers, not granting the principality to another so that he might work; just as, to be sure, he gave the blessed disciples power against unclean spirits, that they might cast them out and heal every disease and every infirmity among the people.

Hence the blessed Paul said: For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:18). The blessed disciples too came to Christ at times rejoicing and saying: Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name (Luke 10:17).

We say, then, that the saints were aided through Christ in the Spirit, as though they were others besides him. Do we not in the same way and for the same reason understand that Jesus himself was aided by the Word in the Spirit, as though he were another Son besides the Only-Begotten Son of God? For the union shows him to us as one, and we refuse to divide him into two; for even if the Word became flesh, according to the Scriptures, yet he is even so the Only-Begotten Son, according to the true union, which no one can grasp with the thought of the mind.

He himself, therefore, is the one and only Christ Jesus, who through his own body, as through an instrument, worked divine signs. Nor do we say that Christ himself was aided by an operation, after the example of the saints; for this is impious and greatly blameworthy. But if he raised his own body from the dead, as being himself life and the life-giver, and glorified it, demonstrating that it is his life-giving nature, he did not give this glory to some other besides himself. Indeed he said to the heavenly Father: Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was (John

xv, 5); although he was also God, and from God by nature, and the Lord of glory. In what way, then, does he ask back, as though destitute of glory, the glory which he had before the world? For after he became man, even through his own flesh: By the grace of God he tasted death for all (Heb. 2:9), as the blessed Paul says. Thence, refusing the insult of injuries, he foretells the resurrection, through which it is known that he is both life and life-giver, as being God, and in that way too he is believed by us.

He glorified, therefore, not some other person, but himself, designating the temple truly united to himself more powerfully by death; but we believe that the body which is united to him is not soulless, nor without sense and mind [Baluze omits "and mind"].

EIGHTH ANATHEMA.

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

REPREHENSION OF THE HERETIC.

We offer, as I have often said, one glorification to the Lord Christ, and we confess the same to be both God and man; for the principle of union has taught us this, but we do not refuse to state the properties of the natures. For neither was God the Word converted into flesh; nor again did the man lose what he was and is transformed into the nature of God; therefore, stating the property of each nature, we adore Christ the Lord.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

But we, accustomed to think better and truer things, and treating of subtler meanings for a surer explanation and a more correct understanding of the mystery, according to the precepts of the sacred Scriptures and according to the custom of the holy Fathers, do not say that a man was assumed by God the Word and joined to him, to be understood in an extrinsic sense; but we define rather that he himself became man. For this reason, those who dare to say that a man was assumed, we judge to be outside the boundaries of the doctrines of piety, since they affirm that he, as one with another, ought to be adored together with the Son of God: for if he is the same God and at the same time man, he is adored rather as one, with one adoration, and is not co-adored and co-named God, lest Emmanuel be believed to be a merely ordinary man and like us, made a partaker of divine glory by a benefit: for he is believed rather to be God in the flesh, who for our sake truly became man, not by a conversion of nature or a change, but by a dispensation of union.

NINTH ANATHEMATISM.

If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit by a power belonging to another, as if by an alien force, and that he received from the Spirit the ability to work against unclean spirits and to perform divine signs, and does not rather hold that the Spirit is his own, by whom he performed divine signs: let him be anathema.

REPREHENSION OF THE HERETIC.

This man has plainly dared to anathematize not only those who preserve piety in this present age, but also those who came before, the preachers of the truth, and the very writers of the divine Gospels, and the choir of the holy apostles; and besides these, even the archangel Gabriel. For he was the first, before the conception, to foretell to Mary that Christ would be made according to the flesh from the Holy Spirit; and after the conception he taught Joseph, saying to Mary when she asked, How shall this be to me, since I know not a man (Luke 1:35)?: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy one that is born shall be called the Son of God. And to Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for what is born in her is from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20). And the Evangelist says: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to have in her womb from the Holy Spirit (Ibid., 18).

And the Lord himself also, having entered the synagogue of the Jews, when he had received the prophet Isaiah and had read that passage in which it says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which cause he has anointed me" (Luke 4:18), and what follows, he added: "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears" (Ibid., 21). And the blessed Peter also, when he spoke to the Jews, said: "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38); and Isaiah, many ages beforehand, foretold: "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from his root, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety; the spirit of the fear of God shall fill him" (Isa. 11:1). And again: "Behold my son whom I have loved; my beloved, in whom my soul has been well pleased. I will place my Spirit upon him, and he shall announce judgment to the nations" (Matt. 12:18). And the Evangelist also placed this testimony in his writings; but the Lord himself said to the Jews in the Gospels: "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then surely the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). And John: "He who sent me," he says, "to baptize in water, he himself said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33).

Therefore that most diligent examiner of the divine doctrines anathematized not only the prophets and apostles, nor only Gabriel the archangel; but he even extends his blasphemy against the Savior of all himself. For we have shown that Christ himself also, at one time to the Jews, after he had read aloud, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which cause he has anointed me," said, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:18); at another time to those who had said that he casts out demons by Beelzebub, he said that he casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Luke 11:20).

But we do not say that the Word of God, who is with his Spirit of the same substance and coeternal, was formed by the Holy Spirit and anointed; rather, it was the human nature which was assumed by him in these last times.

But if he said that the Spirit is proper to the Son because he is of the same nature and proceeds from the Father, we will agree and accept it as a pious utterance; but if because he has his existence [substance] from the Son, or through the Son, we will reject it as blasphemy and impiety. For we believe the Lord saying: "The Spirit who proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26); and likewise the divine Paul saying: "But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from the Father" (1 Corinthians 2:12).

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

I have already said before that the force of the chapters strongly opposes the vanities of Nestorius—indeed his blasphemies—and the things uttered by him in a very unpolished manner. For when he says of the Holy Spirit (Sermon 2): "This one who bestowed such great glory on Christ, who made him terrible to demons, who granted him assumption into the heavens"; and when he prattles these things about Christ as though about some common man like ourselves, the anathema has necessarily been made. Not against those who say that Jesus was glorified by the Holy Spirit, that is, that the Word of God became man; but rather against those who shamelessly declare that he used the power of the Holy Spirit as something alien. For we remember him saying clearly of the Holy Spirit: "He will glorify me" (John 18:14). We know besides that by the operation of the Holy Spirit he crushes the unclean and malignant spirits.

But we do not say that he used the power of the Holy Spirit as something alien, like one of the prophets; for the Holy Spirit was and is his own, just as he is also the Father's. The divine Paul most clearly indicated this to us, writing thus: "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God; but you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his" (Rom 4:9).

For the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, according to the Savior's word, but is not alien to the Son: for he has all things with the Father. And he himself showed this concerning the Holy Spirit: All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said to you that he will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you (John 16:15). The Holy Spirit therefore glorified Jesus as he worked wonders; yet as his own Spirit, neither by an alien power nor as better than himself, in that he is understood to be God.

We have not therefore blasphemed against the holy angels, nor against the prophets, as he dared to say, who has learned only to curse. But since it is still his purpose, and that of those like him, to divide the one Christ into two—namely into him who is glorified and him who assists the working—they foolishly reject every account of piety that could recall them from so depraved an opinion.

Finally, making mention of the blessed Gabriel, the accuser says: He who according to the flesh was made Christ from the Holy Spirit, that first one foretold even before conception. Another, therefore, is the Christ who is according to the flesh; and another, specifically, is the Christ who is the Word from God the Father. Where, then, is the union? And what benefit will there be if there are two Christs, and each is understood and called separately?

Although, therefore, fashioning for themselves the face and person of piety, they say that Christ is one, yet let them hear from us, as we believe that there are two: How long will you halt on both feet (1 Kings 18:21)? For it is better to walk with upright steps, keeping the right and stable faith, and not wavering with foolish thoughts.

TENTH ANATHEMA.

Divine Scripture records that Christ was made high priest and apostle of our confession. For he offered himself for us as a sweet-smelling odor to God and the Father. If anyone, therefore, says that our high priest and apostle was made such not as the very Word of God, namely when he was made flesh and man like us, but as another man, distinct from him, born of a woman; or if anyone says that he offered the oblation for himself, and not rather for us alone—for he had no need of sacrifice, who knew no sin—let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

The nature that cannot be changed was not changed into the nature of flesh; but he assumed human nature, and set it over the common high priests, as the blessed Paul teaches, saying: For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in those things that are toward God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, who can have compassion on those who are ignorant and go astray. Since he himself also is compassed with infirmity, therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins (Heb. 5:1). And soon, explaining this very thing: As Aaron, so also Christ (Ibid., 5). Then, showing the infirmity of the nature he assumed, he says: Who in the days of his flesh, offering up prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears to him who was able to save him from death, was heard for his piety. And indeed, though he was the Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, and being made perfect, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, being called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech (Ibid., 7).

Who then was consummated by labors of virtue, when he was not perfect by nature? Who is it that learned obedience by experience, which before experience he did not know? Who is it that lived with reverence? Who, offering supplications with loud crying and tears, and not able to save himself, but beseeching him who could save, and seeking deliverance from death? Not the Word of God, who is immortal, impassible, incorporeal: whose remembrance, according to the Prophet, is gladness and the lifting away of tears; for he himself will wipe away every tear from every face (Isa. 25:9, according to the LXX). And again the Prophet says: I remembered God (Ps. 76:4), and I rejoiced, because he crowns the illustrious with piety (Dan. 13:2); because he possesses all things of the Father (John 16:15); because he is the most like image of the begetter (Col. 1:15, 39); because in himself he showed the Father (John 14:10): but rather, that which had been assumed by God from the seed of David, mortal and passible; which he fed unto death, although he himself afterward destroyed the empire of death, on account of the divinity of the one assuming; which walked through all righteousness; which said to John: Suffer it now, for it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15); which received the name of high priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:10): for it bore the infirmity of nature, not so the omnipotent God the Word.

Therefore also the blessed Paul had said before: For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in all things in likeness, without sin (Heb. 4:15).

Almost this entire passage is read in the fifth synod as a collation: Theodore and Cyril contend in this place with great force of arguments, but with greater zeal of party; for the matter at issue is, as I have warned more than once, the cause of Proclus, whom Theodore held hateful, as being a noble adversary of Nestorius; Cyril held him dear, as a leader of those fighting for the faith at Constantinople. Theodore objects to Cyril the conversion of the Word into flesh; Cyril, on the other hand, reproaches him with a lamentable madness, ignorance of the mystery in question, assertion, agreement with Nestorius, impiety, and contradiction. This entire oration of Cyril can fix a great cross upon the patrons of Theodore.

But that nature which was assumed from us for us experienced our passions, without sin; not he who assumed it for our salvation. And at the beginning of this chapter he again teaches: Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, faithful to him who made him, as also Moses in all his house (Heb. 3:1).

But who, thinking rightly, would ever say that the created thing is the uncreated God the Word, coeternal with the Father; rather than that he who was from the seed of David, who, free from all sin, was our high priest, offering himself as a victim to God for us, having in himself the Word of God certainly united to himself and inseparably conjoined?

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

When the prophet Jeremiah had offended God with Israel and provoked him to anger, being grieved he said: Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes, that I may be able to weep for this people day and night (Jer. 9:1)? And I think that voices of this kind apply more to those who have a mouth always open and petulant against Christ than to Israel: who also speak evil of the ineffable glory, bold and petulant (2 Pet. 2:10), according as it is written. But those are most worthy of weeping and lamentation, who, through infinite madness, neglecting the straight and blameless path of piety in Christ, follow a distorted track and winding ways, and defile the beauty of the truth with the depraved inventions of their thoughts.

Therefore let those hear who hold views hateful to all, who wander in the knowledge of the Scriptures and do not know the great and venerable mystery of the Incarnation: for the divine Scriptures proclaim that Emmanuel was made a man like us, and shared in flesh and blood, just as we do, being the Word of God and of the Father. They affirm also that he was made flesh, that is, man; not by conversion or by change, but by the power of a mysterious union, and for this reason we say that Jesus Christ the Lord is one, and one faith, and likewise one holy baptism.

But these men, abhorring right doctrines and opposing a hard and insolent understanding to the sacred writings, look only to that which seems good to themselves, and they mention the man assumed by God the Word, perhaps according to that which was said by one of the prophets: I was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but I was a herdsman plucking sycamore figs; and God took me from the sheep; or perhaps, as blessed David says: The Lord takes up the meek; that is, according to the spiritual kinship and familiarity which we ourselves also have by will, and grace, and sanctification: for adhering to the Lord, we are one spirit, according to what is written.

But this by no means signifies that God became a man, nor that he partook of flesh and blood in the same way as we do, but rather that he assumed a man, in no other manner than that in which the apostles, the prophets, and all other saints are said to have been assumed.

Does the divine Paul deceive those sanctified through faith, when he says most evidently of the Only-begotten that, though he was rich, he became poor (2 Cor 8:9)? Far be it. For the greatest preacher of truth will never lie. But who it is that is rich, and how he became poor, let us now examine more diligently. For if, as they are confident to say and hold, a man was assumed by God, how is he who was assumed by God made poor, when he has been illumined with the more sublime dignities of his nature? For he has been glorified. But if this is not true, the assumption itself will be censured by them, inasmuch as it has cast him down to a lower and more inglorious measure of humanity. But to think thus is absurd. Therefore it is not he who was assumed that became poor; it remains, then, for us to say that God the Word, when he was rich, came down to our poverty.

But how was he made poor? Come, let us attend as is necessary: he is undoubtedly by nature incapable of change, nor did he, abandoning what was his own, pass over into the nature of flesh; for he remained that which he was, that is, God. Where, then, shall we see the lowliness of his poverty? In this alone, that God assumed one like unto us, as the parasites of Nestorius' impiety have dared to say? And what manner of poverty and emptying was there for him? In this alone, that he perhaps wished to honor some man like unto us? But by no means is God almighty violated by bestowing benefits: how, then, was he made poor? Because, though he was God by nature, and the Son of God and of the Father, he was made man from the seed of David; he was born according to the flesh, and submitted to the servile measure, that is, the human measure, he who is the maker of all things: for having been made man, he does not blush to submit to the measure of humanity. For he who did not refuse to be like unto us, how would he refuse those things through which he could show that he had truly been made a man like unto us? If, therefore, we remove him from human things, and deeds, and words, we differ in no way from those who, if it could be done, would even strip him of his flesh; who do not believe the divine Scripture, utterly overthrowing the mystery of the Incarnation, the salvation of the world, the hope, the faith, the resurrection.

Let someone say that it is scarcely fitting for God the Word, and in no way appropriate, to weep, to fear death, to refuse the cup, to undertake the office of priest. I too would very gladly agree that these things are least fitting for the divine nature and glory. Yet in these things I see the poverty which he willingly endured for our sake. If the indignity of his self-emptying seems burdensome to you, marvel all the more at the love of the Son toward us; for what you call so shameful and small, God made lovable to himself for your sake.

He wept in the manner of men, so that he might himself check your tears. He was afraid, allowing in his dispensation the flesh sometimes to suffer what is its own, so that we might be made most confident. He refused the cup, so that the cross might convict the impiety of the Jews. He is said to have been weakened according to his humanity, so that he might free you from weaknesses. He offered prayers and supplications, so that he might make his ear readily open to your supplications as well, so that you might learn not to slumber in temptations, but to direct your mind rather to prayers. And therefore he rebuked the holy apostles as they slept, saying: So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation.

But as it were offering a reformation of the blessed life, he benefited the world; therefore he made the infirmities of humanity his own, so that he might also be believed to have truly become man, while nevertheless remaining what he was, that is, God.

But I do not know how these men, who pretend to call Christ one, and Son, and Lord, and the same both God and man, say that it was not God the Word who was named high priest and apostle of our confession, when he became man; but they affirm that either some other man, I know not whom, separately, himself by himself, who was from the seed of David, was called to this: perhaps fearing lest, if they thought rightly, they might seem to have defected from the impiety of Nestorius. For he speaks in this way (the third Sermon against Proclus): This one, who was made faithful high priest toward God; for he was made, and had not always been; this one, who advanced gradually to the dignity of high priest—heretically. Then, as he himself thinks, desiring to confirm the truth of his own words, he says: Of whom also Luke in the Gospels proclaimed: But Jesus advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace. And again: But since this one alone is our high priest, compassionate, and kinsman, and sure, let us not be seduced from his nature: for he was sent to us from the promised blessing and the seed of Abraham, bringing with him a victim for himself and for his own kind of body.

As an excellent emulator of that madness, the good man Theodoret does not blush to say: He assumed human nature and set it above the common high priests, just as Paul also says: For every high priest, taken from among men, is appointed on behalf of men in those things that pertain to God, so that he may have compassion on those who are ignorant and go astray, since he himself is also surrounded with infirmity; and for this reason he ought, just as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Did not Emmanuel, as far as pertains to himself, make himself a man common to us? Are not these also genuine sentiments, in agreement with the things mentioned above, giving birth to the same blasphemy? What do you say? Do you fear the measure of the priesthood in Christ, the Savior of all; and does it not seem fitting to God the Word to minister in human fashion, on account of the dispensation? Uncover your face, lay aside the mask, and openly deny the incarnation of God the Word, on account of which he was also named high priest. Do you behold him sacrificing, as to another and greater God, the Father? Have you contemplated him offering sacrifices, after the example of those who are taken from among men and who can have compassion on the ignorant and erring, because they themselves are also in our infirmities? Or did you not consider that he consecrates the faith of all, or the confession of faith, both to the Spirit and to the Father? Is this the manner of human ministry, to demand faith from those who have been offered in the odor of sweetness in the spirit?

Consider in how different a manner, though he is God, he is said to minister, albeit in a human way, on account of the dispensation: for he sits beside God and the Father, and is seen on the high thrones.

Does it frighten you that he is of humanity, and does it not free you from fear that he is of divinity? Do you not allow yourself to discern from the things themselves that Emmanuel is at once God and man; but so wantonly and inconsiderately, indeed running beyond the bounds of all impiety, you say that he was made perfect through labors, and in virtue, and advanced gradually to the dignity of high priest. If he advanced, where is his emptying, and where is it that he became poor? If he was made perfect through virtue, then certainly from an imperfect state, and in time, he became perfect. But whatever is not perfect in virtue is contained in fault and vice; and what is contained in vice is in sin. How then is it written of him that he did not commit sin (1 Pet. 2:22)?

He dared to say what is written below: Who then has been made a priest? Who has been perfected in power, when he was not perfect by nature? Who learned obedience through temptations, which he did not know before the temptations? Who lived with reverence, and with a loud cry weeping and offering supplications, when he could not save himself, but imploring the one who could save? O most audacious and most wicked voice! What tears of the faithful, however impiously shed, will be able to abolish sins? If you assent to the union, how did you fail to understand what you say of God, who was made man? He humbled himself for your sake, and you impiously exclaim: Be propitious, Lord, this shall never be to you. Therefore you will hear him saying: Get behind me, Satan; you are a scandal to me (Matt. 16:22).

But indeed in the conclusion of his statements he said: Therefore he who is from the seed of David is a priest, having in himself, namely, God the Word united to him and inseparably conjoined. And how does he say that what is from the seed of David is united to God the Word, if he assigned the priesthood to him alone who is from the seed of David? For if the union is true, they are not two altogether, but one, and only one, who is understood as Christ from both.

It is certain, therefore, that they confess the union in pretense, assailing the minds of the simpler sort; for they believe a conjunction, and one made externally, which we too have had, when we were made partakers of his divine nature through the Spirit. We must not, therefore, cling to their vanities, but to the right and blameless faith, and to the evangelical and apostolic sanctions.

ELEVENTH ANATHEMATISM.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and proper to the very Word of God, but as though it were another's, joined to him indeed by dignity, or by mere indwelling; and not rather life-giving, as I said before, because it is proper to the Word, who is able to give life to all things; let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

As far as appears, he studies obscurity, so as to hide his impiety, since he thinks the same things as the heretics; but nothing is stronger than truth, which by its rays can reveal the darkness of falsehood. Illuminated by it, let us make his manifest error plain. First indeed, he nowhere makes mention of rational flesh, nor has he confessed the perfect man who was assumed; but everywhere he says "flesh," following the doctrines of Apollinaris. Then, the opinion of mixture, bringing it forth under other words, he sprinkles through his discourses; for hence he openly says the Lord's flesh is inanimate, when he says: If anyone confesses that the Lord's flesh is not proper to the very Word of God himself, but as though it were another's besides him, let him be anathema.

From this it is clear that he does not confess that God the Word assumed a soul, but only flesh; and that he himself was in place of a soul to the flesh. But we say that the Lord's flesh is life-giving, animated, and rational, because of the life-giving divinity united to it.

He himself also confesses, though unwillingly, the difference of natures, naming the flesh and God the Word, and saying that the flesh was his own; therefore God the Word was not changed into the nature of flesh, but has his own flesh, that is, the nature he assumed, and by the union he made it life-giving.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

Those who through ignorance have fallen from right and true thoughts almost even say: We have made falsehood our hope, and with falsehood we shall be covered (Isa. 28:15). For against whomever they please, they bring forth their judgment rashly; nor do they remember the divine Scripture that says: Judge a just judgment (Zech. 7:9). And again: A false witness shall not go unpunished (Prov. 19:5). For we say that the holy body of Christ, the Savior of all, is life-giving. For it is not simply like one of us men and common; rather it is truly the own body of the Word, which gives life to all things. And it is his own in such a way that, if it should be said, each one of us has his own body.

But this fine fellow has left no manner of his verbosity against us untried, although he agrees with our statements. He again brands us with the infamy of Apollinaris' impiety, and is not ashamed, mentioning me by other words and phrases, to conceal the matter of mixture or confusion, and to say that flesh without a soul was joined to the Word. But someone might perhaps say to him: O excellent man, by the same charges you will also accuse blessed John; for he says: The Word was made flesh. Come then, be insolent with him too, and say that he did not remember the rational soul, but says that the Lord's flesh was without a soul. What if you also hear Christ the Savior of all say: Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. And again: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. And again: But the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Insult, if it seems good, even the Word himself: for he names only flesh, and nowhere in these words does he make mention of a rational soul.

But you, if you were shrewd and wise, would not be ignorant that very often even by the mere mention of flesh the living being that consists of soul and body is designated, that is, man. For it is written: that all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Isa. 40:5). Therefore he who says that the Word was made flesh is not at all unaware that he is also making mention of the rational soul. But, as I said at the beginning, failing in his proofs, he has found for himself a lie as a covering, and he tries to slander, so that he may seem to say something.

But that a man was assumed by God does not seem so to the holy Fathers; for they never believed thus, but said rather that God the Word himself was made man, and was united to flesh having a rational soul. But the union is without confusion and altogether without conversion; for the Word of God is inconvertible, and so we believe.

TWELFTH ANATHEMATISM.

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, as God, he gives life and is life-giving, let him be anathema.

REBUKE OF THE HERETIC.

Sufferings belong to a nature that is capable of suffering; the impassible nature is above sufferings. Therefore the form of the servant suffered, since the form of God itself was also joined to it, and indeed permitted it to suffer for the sake of the salvation that was to come about through sufferings; but it is the servant form that calls its own sufferings its own, because of the union, saying: therefore it was not God who suffered, but the man who was assumed by God from among us. For this reason also the blessed Isaiah, foretelling it beforehand, cries out: A man in affliction, and knowing how to bear infirmity. And the Lord Christ himself said to the Jews: Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you? For it is not life itself that is killed, but the one who has a mortal nature. And teaching this elsewhere, the Lord said to the Jews: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Therefore the one who is from David was destroyed; but God the Word, the only-begotten, who was born impassibly from the Father before the ages, raised up the one who was destroyed.

RESPONSE OF THE ORTHODOX.

The nature of the Word is undoubtedly impassible, and, as I think, this is uncertain to no man. For no one would sink to such insane folly as to say that that mysterious nature, superior to sufferings, is held [Baluz.: contained] by our infirmities. But since the passion that was to come was to be salutary for the world, and it was impossible that the Word, God, should suffer anything in his own nature, he wisely underwent the dispensation: for he made his own body, which could suffer, so that, with the body suffering, he himself might be said to have suffered, although he himself had remained impassible through his own nature.

But because he suffered willingly in the flesh, therefore he is and is named the Savior of all. For as Paul says: By the grace of God he tasted death for all (Heb. 2:9). The divine Peter also testifies, saying most wisely: Since Christ therefore suffered for us (1 Pet. 4:1). Not, of course, in the nature of the deity, but in the flesh. Finally, in what way is the Lord of glory said to have been crucified? And in what way is he through whom all things exist, and in whom all things have been ordered (1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 2:10), as the blessed Paul says, given by God and the Father as head of the body, the Church, made the firstborn from the dead? Namely, he suffered the passions of the flesh in a familiar way; but the Lord of glory was by no means a man similar to and common with us.

But perhaps you will say that unity is sufficient to prove that Christ the Lord who was crucified is one. Therefore let all things be said to be his, and let it be believed that the Word of God is the Savior, remaining indeed impassible according to the nature of the deity, but having suffered in the flesh, according to what Peter said: for it was his own body through true union that tasted death. Finally, how is it that Christ according to the flesh is from the Jews, and God over all, and blessed forever, amen (Rom. 9:5)? In whose death have we been baptized? Confessing whose resurrection are we justified? Is it that of some common man? Or, what is truer, do we proclaim the death of God made man and having suffered for us in the flesh, and confessing his resurrection, do we cast off the burden of sins? For we were bought with a price, not with corruptible silver or gold, but with the precious blood, as of a pure and spotless lamb, of Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:19).

To recount indeed many other points besides these, and to set forth examples of the holy Fathers, is in no way difficult; but I think these will be sufficient for the more teachable; for it is written: Give an occasion to a wise man, and he will be wiser; announce to the just, and he will add to perceiving (Prov. 9:9).

These words, "He suffered willingly," Eutherius attacked in his discourse, just as also these: "The Word suffered in the flesh." Moreover, so great is the affinity between Eranistes and the reproaches of the chapters, whether of sentiments or of words, that they show not only the same author, whom no one fails to recognize, but also the same adversary, whom few notice to be Cyril—which nevertheless we shall demonstrate, I think, in the supplement to the works of Theodoret which we are preparing, to be sent to press very soon, if it be God's will; for in that place, after the life of Theodoret distinguished by his own acts, after his faith has been discussed, judgment concerning each of his works will be instituted in such a way that many things, a part of which Mercator gave, are proved to be missing in the Sirmond edition, and the history of each—that is, the time, the causes, and the character—will be narrated.