his sword upon his mother, and a third for having stolen money, with a maid-servant for an accomplice, and as having always borne such a character as no one would wish his worst enemy to bear.

But I make no great account of these matters lest I should stretch the measure of my littleness beyond my Lord and Master, or even beyond the Fathers. For it is impossible to escape the perverseness of bad men, however one may order one's life. But they, having their mouth full of cursing and bitterness, shall give account to the Judge of all.

But I return to what specially concerns myself, and admonish thee as a brother in the Lord, to use all possible circumspection in teaching the people, and in setting forth the doctrine of the faith, bearing in mind that to offend even one of these little ones who believe in Christ, subjects the person guilty of it to intolerable punishment. And if so great numbers of persons have been thus injured how do we not need all possible care and study that we may do away the offences, and rightly expound the doctrine of the faith to those who are seeking the truth! And in this we shall succeed, if, betaking ourselves to the statements of the holy Fathers, we are careful to esteem them highly, and, proving ourselves whether we be in the faith, as it is written, thoroughly conform our own beliefs to their sound and unexceptionable doctrines.

The holy and great Council then affirmed that the very only-begotten Son," naturally "begotten of the Father,' very God of very God," "Light of Light," by whom the Father made all things, "came down, became incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven." These words and these formulæ it behoves us also to adhere to, considering what is meant when it is said that the Word which is of God "became incarnate and was made man."

For we do not affirm that the nature of the Word underwent a change and became flesh, or that it was transformed into a whole or perfect man consisting of soul and body; but we say that the Word, having in an ineffable and inconceivable manner personally united to Himself flesh instinct with a living soul, became man and was called the

Son of Man, yet not of mere will or favour, nor again by the simple taking to Himself of a person (i. e. of a human person to His divine person), and that while the natures which were brought together into this true unity were diverse there was of both one Christ and one Son: not as though the diverseness of the natures were done away by this union, but rather the Godhead and Manhood completed for us the one Lord and Christ and Son by their unutterable and unspeakable concurrence and unity. And thus, although He subsisted and was begotten of the Father before the worlds, He is spoken of as having been born also after the flesh of a woman: not that His divine nature had its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, or needed of necessity on its own account a second generation after its generation from the Father, for it is foolish and absurd to say that He who subsisted before all worlds, and was co-eternal with the Father, stood in need of a second beginning of existence, but forasmuch as the Word having "for us and for our salvation," personally united to Himself human nature, came forth of a woman, for this reason He is said to have been born after the flesh. For He was not first born an ordinary man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon Him, but having been made one with the flesh from the very womb itself, He is said to have submitted to a birth according to the flesh, as appropriating and making His own the birth of His own flesh.

In like manner we say that He "suffered" and "rose again." Not as though God the Word suffered in His own divine nature either stripes or the piercing of nails, or the other wounds inflicted on Him, for the Godhead is impassible because It is incorporeal. But forasmuch as that which had become His own body suffered these things, therefore again He Himself is said to have suffered them for us. For the Impassible was in the suffering body.

So likewise of His death. For the Word of God is by nature both incorruptible, and Life, and Life-giving, but forasmuch as His own body by the grace of God, as Paul says, tasted death for every man, therefore once more He Himself is said to have suffered death for us. Not as though He experienced death as regards His own (divine)

nature-to say or hold which is madness-but that, as I said just now, His flesh tasted death.

So likewise when His flesh was raised, the resurrection again is spoken of as His resurrection, not as though He had seen corruption, God forbid, but because once more it was His own body that was raised.

Thus we confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man conjointly with the Word, that there may not through this phrase "conjointly" be insinuated the semblance of division (as though we were dividing the one Christ into two Persons)—but as worshipping one and the same Person, because the body of the Lord is not alien from the Lord, with which body also He sits with the Father Himself: not again as though two sons do sit with the Father, but one united to His own flesh. But if we reject this hypostatic union either as impossible or unmeet, we fall into the error of making two sons. For in that case we must needs distinguish and speak of the man severally (the human person) dignified with the appellation of Son, and again of the Word which is of God severally (the divine Person) possessing naturally the Sonship, both name and thing; (i.e. if we reject a union of substances or natures in the one Person, we make two several Sons, and must perforce distinguishspeaking of the One, as merely dignified with the title of Son, the other as Son in reality as well as in name).

We must not then divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons. To hold this will nowise contribute to soundness of faith, even though some make a show of acknowledging a union of persons. For Scripture does not say that The Word united to Himself the person of a man, but that "He became flesh." But this expression "the Word became flesh" is nothing else than that He became partaker of flesh and blood, just as we do, and made our body His own, and was born a man of a woman, not casting aside the being God, and the having been begotten of God the Father, but even when taking to Himself flesh still remaining what He was. This is the doctrine which strict orthodoxy everywhere prescribes (literally, gives the place of honour to). Thus shall we find the holy Fathers to have held. So did they make bold to call the holy Virgin "the Mother of God." Not as though the nature of the Word or His

Godhead had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but forasmuch as His holy Body, endued with a rational soul, was born of her, to which Body also the Word was personally united (i. e. the two substances united in one Person, in opposition to the union of two Persons), on this account. He is said to have been born after the flesh.

Thus, writing out of the love which I have in Christ, I entreat thee as a brother, and charge thee before Christ and the elect angels, to hold and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved, and that the bond of harmony and love between the priests of God may remain unbroken.-C. A. Heurtley, On the Faith and the Creed, 156–61.

No. 194. The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, November 430

From Cyril, Ep. xvii. (Op. x. 67–77; P.G. lxxvii. 105-22). I. When our Saviour says in plain terms, "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me," what should be our feelings who are asked by thy religiousness to love thee more than Christ, our common Saviour? Who shall be able to succour us in the day of judgment, or what apology shall we find for our so long silence under thy blasphemies against Him? If indeed it were only thyself whom thou wast injuring in holding and teaching such things, it would be of less consequence, but seeing that thou hast given offence to the universal Church, and hast cast the leaven of a novel and strange heresy among the lay people, and not the lay people of Constantinople only (for copies of thy sermons have been circulated everywhere), what satisfactory account can any longer be given of our silence, or how are we not bound to remember Christ's words, "Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I am not come to send peace but a sword: for I am come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother." For when the faith is being tampered with, perish reverence for parents, as a thing unseasonable and pregnant with mischief, and let the law of natural affection to children and brethren be set

aside, and let religious men count death better than life, that, as it is written, they may obtain a better resurrection.

II. Take notice then that in conjunction with the holy synod which was assembled in the elder Rome, under the presidency of our most pious and religious fellow-minister, Bishop Celestine, we conjure and counsel thee, in this third. letter also, to abstain from these mischievous and perverse doctrines, which thou dost both hold and teach, and to adopt in place of them the orthodox faith delivered to the Churches from the beginning by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who were both eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word. And unless thou do this by the time prescribed in the Epistle of our aforementioned, most pious and religious brother and fellow-minister, Celestine, bishop of the Church of the Romans, know that thou hast neither part nor lot with us, nor place nor account among the priests and bishops of God. For it is impossible that we should bear to see the Churches thus thrown into confusion, and the lay people scandalized, and the orthodox faith set aside, and the flocks scattered abroad by thee who oughtest rather to preserve them in safety, if thou wert, as we, a lover of sound doctrine, treading in the religious footsteps. of the holy Fathers. But with all, both laity and clergy, who have been excommunicated or deposed for faith's sake by thy religiousness, we all are in communion. For it is not just that those who hold the true faith should be wronged by thy sentence, for having rightly withstood thee. For this same thing thou didst signify in thy letter to our most holy fellow-bishop Celestine, bishop of the elder Rome.

But it will not be enough for thee merely to join with us in acknowledging the Symbol of the faith, which was sometime put forth in the Holy Ghost by the holy and great Council assembled at Nicæa. For thou hast put a wrong sense and interpretation upon it, or rather thou hast wrested its meaning even while acknowledging it verbally in the letter. But it behoved thee, if thou wert consistent, to confess in writing and on oath, that thou dost anathematize those abominable and profane doctrines of thine, and will hold and teach what we all do-the bishops and doctors and rulers of the people throughout both East and West. Moreover the holy synod held at Rome, and we all