St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius I

St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print

Icon of the Christ and New Testament Reader

This Part: 115 Pages

Page 48

It closed the collection laid before the Council of Chalcedon [252] and then ensued the acclamations, 'Eternal be the memory of Cyril.----Leo and Cyril taught alike.' It is quoted even by Theodoret [253] with sayings of 19 other fathers, in proof that 'Saints distinguished the Natures after the Union.' He alleges three places from it [254], two from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [255], one from the Epistle to Nestorius [256], one from the defence against the Easterns [257], and two more not identified. The Scholia are quoted also by Facundus [258], Leontius of Byzantium [259], and S. Ephrem of Antioch repeatedly [260]. They not only quote it as S. Cyril's, but confirm the faith by testimonies from it.

It was translated into Latin by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator. It is extant also in a Syriac translation, from which my son, here and there, corrected or explained the Latin text of Mercator.

Garnier remarks upon the careful arrangement which S. Cyril employed in its construction. 'He first explains single words; what is Christ; what, Emmanuel; what, Jesus; what, One; what, Union. Then, he turns to the propositions, commonly used herein, and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel, One; Jesus, One; i.e. One Lord, &c. Further, how the Word is said to have been 'emptied,' united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not therefore changed, or ceasing to be God. Thence, how Christ is not a man Θεοφόρος, [bearing God,] or inspired by God, but is really man-God [better, God-Man]; then, in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos. Lastly, that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh is called God and Man; how He suffered: in which last he refutes those who suppose, that things belonging to man can be spoken of God, relatively only. I have already said, that almost every chapter is full of distinctions useful in turning aside the objections of heretics.' Photius divides it into ten heads; '[261] These things,' he said, 'are clearly explained in it; What is Christ; in what way the word 'Emmanuel' is to be understood, and what is 'Jesus the Christ;' and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we say is the Union, and about the coal which Elias saw, and other things like these.'

iii. That Christ is One. The treatise must have been written after the condemnation of Nestorius, since he is refuted by name in it. It must, however, have been written not later than A. D. 441, since it is quoted by Andrew of Samosata. It is quoted with praise by S. Eulogius [262] and Leontius of Byzantium [263]. . . The Père Garnier says of it; '[264] Eo nihil exactius elucubratiusque ad historiam dogmatis Cyrillus scripsit, ut videatur opus artificis praecedentibus laboribus absolute eruditi.'

252. [n] Conc. Chalc. Act. ii. fin. The passages quoted are from c. 4. init., below p. 189. and c. 13. p. 201.

253. [o] Dial. ii. fin.

254. [p] § 4 init. bel. p. 189. § 13. bel. pp. 200, 201. § 27. bel. p. 215.

255. [q] See my son's S. Cyrilli Comm. in D. Joann. T. iii. App. pp. 420, 421.

256. [r] S. Cyr. Opp. T. v. P. ii. p. 23. Aub.

257. [s] Ib. T. vi. p. 157 sq.

258. [t] pro defens. 3 Capp. L. vi. 3. xi. 7.

259. [u] c. Nest. et Eutych. L i. quoting c. 35 bel. p. 224.

260. [x] in Photius cod. 229.

261. [y] Cod. 169.

262. [z] in Photius Cod. 230. p. 272 Bekk.

263. [a] Act, 10. p. 329. d. e.