CYRILLUS

CYRILLUS

767

them for having already contended, for thatfaith in Christ’s true Godhead of which “ Theo-tocos” was the recognised expression (Mansi,iv. 1094). Four bishops were sent from Alex-andria, as bearers of the Synodal documentsto Constantinople, and deliver the anathema-tisms to Nestorius in his palace, after the con-clusion of the Eucharistic service, either onSunday Nov. 30, or on Sunday Dec. 7. Hemet the denunciations of the Alexandrian Synodby enlisting several Eastern bishops in his cause,including John of Antioch, and Theodoret, whoaccused Cyril of Apollinarianism; by preachingin an orthodox strain to his own people, and byframing twelve anathematisms of his own, someof which betrayed confusion of thought, whilesome tended directly to confirm the imputationscurrent against his teaching: for instance hewould not allow Emmanuel to be called veryGod. Theodoret, whose views on the subjectwere not as yet clear or consistent, composed areply to Cyril. Andrew of Samosata, in the nameof the “ Eastern ” bishops properly so called,also entered the lists of controversy against thegreat theologian of Egypt, who answered both hisnew antagonists by composing an Apology for thetwelve articles (Mansi, v. 19) and a Defence ofthem against Theodoret’s objections. These trea-tises, the latter of which was addressed to a bishopnamed Euoptius (Mansi, v. 81), threw light on thestate of mind to which Cyril’s anathematismshad seemed so offensive. The Easterns, orAndrew speaking in their name, exhibit someremarkable misconceptions of Cyril’s meaning,e.g. when they tax him with denying Christ’sflesh to be of real human derivation; but theyabsolutely disclaim the view which would makeJesus merely a pre-eminent saint, and they speakof worship being due to the One Son. Theodoretuses a good deal of language which is prima facieNestorian; his objections are pervaded by anignoratio elenchi , and Ms language is repeatedlyillogical and inconsistent; but he and Cyril wereessentially nearer to each other in belief than,at the time, they would have admitted (Hooker,v. 53. 4), for Theodoret virtually owns the per-sonal oneness, and explains the phrase “ Godassumed man,” by “ He assumed manhood.”Both writers speak severely of each other:Theodoret calls Cyril a wolf, and Cyril treatsTheodoret as a calumniator. Cyril in his “ Replyto the Easterns ” and in his letter to Euoptiusearnestly disclaims both forms of Apollinarianism•—the notion of a mindless manhood in Christ, andthe notion of a body formed out of Godhead. Asto the latter, John i. 14, he says, excludes it. Inthe reply (on art. 4), he admits “ the languageappropriate to each nature.” He points out theconfusions of thought which had misled Theo-doret as to “God” and “Godhead”; he insiststhat the eternal Son Himself, retaining Hisdivine dignity and perfections, condescended toassume the limitations of manhood ; and so{ad Euopt, 4, as in ad Begin . ii. 17, &c.) heexplains Mark xii. 32, and so says, with a touchof devotional tenderness which amid the clashof polemics is particularly refreshing, “ He weptas man, that He might stop thee from weeping.He is said to have been weak as to His manhood,that he might put an end to thy weakness ” {adEuopt, 10). He adhered with characteristicdefiniteness to the point really involved—the

question was, he felt, whether Jesus were ahuman individual (to be viewed iSi/c<vr, as herepeatedly says) or whether He were the DivineSon Himself appearing in human form andoccupying, without prejudice to His inalienableand pre-existent majesty, a human sphere oiexistence. In the former case, the Son of Marymust be regarded simply as a very highly-favoured saint; in the latter case, as a DivineRedeemer. In the former case, Christianity ap-peared, to Cyril’s mind, to lose its distinctivepower and preciousness; in the latter case itshone forth in its Divine reality, as a Gospelworthy of the name. To quote from the lastsection of the long letter to Euoptius : “Let usall acknowledge as Saviour the Word of God,who remained impassible in the nature of theGodhead, but suffered, as Peter said, in theflesh. For, by a true union, that body whichtasted death was His very own. Else, how was“ Christ from the Jews according to the flesh,”and “ God over all, and blessed for ever, amen ?”and into whose death we have been baptized, andby confessing whose resurrection are we justi-fied ? . . . . The death of a mere man,” &c. “ ordo we, as is indeed the case, proclaim the death orGod who became man and suffered for us in flesh,and confessing His resurrection, put away theburden of sin ?” To this same period may beassigned Cyril’s five books “ Against Nestorius,”unless we place them in the preceding year. Inthese he comments on passages in Nestorius’ssermons, and by all forms of argument and illus-tration sets forth the question really at stake—Had the Divine Son Himself become incarnate,or had He closely allied Himself to a man ?

But we must now look back to that memo-rable November of 430. Before the Egyptiandeputies could reach Constantinople, Theodosiusissued letters to the metropolitans of his empire,summoning them to meet at Ephesus in thePentecost of the following year, with suchbishops as each might select, for the purpose ofholding a General Council. This resolution,taken at the instance of Nestorius, had the effectof suspending all hostile action on the partof any individual bishop or provincial synod.Theodosius, who was prejudiced against Cyril,wrote sharply to him, censuring his “ meddle-someness ” and “ rashness,” and complaining o.»his having written separately to the princesses. Incompliance with the imperial order, Cyril arrivedat Ephesus with fifty bishops, about June 2,431.He had already written from Rhodes to his ownclergy and laity {Ep. 81) as “present with themin spirit, though absent in body,” entreatingthe aid of their prayers, and exhorting themduring his absence to persevere in their reli-gious duties. The details of the history of theEphesine Council, or Third Oecumenical Synod,will be found elsewhere. [Ephesus, Councilsof, in Diet. Chr, Ant.'] Here it is enough tospecify the occasions on which Cyril came pro-minently forward. A fortnight elapsed beforethe council was opened: Cyril, like other pre-lates, employed himself in strengthening thecause which he had at heart by earnest addresses:but the “encomium” on the Virgin, includedamong his works as delivered at this time, isperhaps spurious. Another discourse, evidentlygenuine, speaks of Nestorius with move modera-tion. Cyril wrote another letter to the Ale*-