770

CYRILLUS

CYRILLUS

influence to bear upon John, and to separatehim definitely and finally from Nestorius (Mansi,v. 988). These letters were backed up by pre-sents which were euphemistically called “ bless-ings ” (eulogiae) and which were employed byCyril as a matter of course, for he knew butlittle of delicacy and scrupulosity as to themeans to be used in gaining over a court tothe church’s interests. He also assured Theo-gnostus, Charmosynus, and Leontius, his “apo-erisiarii” or church agents at Constantinople(Ep. p. 152) thaft this peace with John impliedno retractation of his old principles.

It was in the spring of 433 that John of An-tioch wrote to Cyril, reciting the formulary ofre-union, abandoning Nestorius, and condemningNestorianism (Mansi, v. 290). In another letter,written in a tone of warm friendship, John en-treated Cyril to believe that he was “ the samethat he had known in former days ” (Ep. p. 154).On April 23 (Pharmuthi 8) Cyril announced thisreconciliation in a sermon (Mansi, v. 310, 289),and replied to John in a letter beginning, “ Letthe heavens rejoice and the earth be glad ” (Ep.p. 104; Mansi, v. 301). In this letter (afterwardsapproved by the council of Chalcedon) he citedthe text, “ One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” asexpressing the happiness ofthe restored peace; andadded his usual disclaimers of all opinions incon-sistent with the reality of Christ’s manhood. Hecommented on John iii. 13, 1 Cor. xv. 47,1 Peteriv. 1. He also sent to John a copy of the genuinetext of Athanasius’s ‘ Letter to Epictetus/ Johnhimself became an object of suspicion and animo-sity to the thoroughgoing Nestorianisers, and evenTheodoret, though he admitted that Cyril’s recentlanguage was orthodox, would not abandon Nes-torius’s cause. In another direction, doubts andanxieties were excited by the language now sanc-tioned by Cyril. Isidore, to whom Cyril hadalways allowed great freedom of admonitoryspeech, and who had blamed him heretofore forunyieldingness, now expressed a fear that he hadmade too great concessions (Ep. i. 324). Otherfriends of his were scandalised by his acceptanceof the phrase “Two Natures.” Was not this, theybegan to ask, equivalent to a sanction of Nesto-rianism ? Cyril found himself once more obligedto vindicate himself on a point of orthodoxy. Hewrote a long letter to Acacius of Melitene (Ep.p. 109 ; Mansi, v. 309), who had signified to himthat some disquietude was felt. In this letter henarrated the recent transactions; and then, afterinsisting that the formulary was not (as somehad represented it) a new creed, but simply astatement called forth by a special emergency(inasmuch as those who signed it had been accusedof rejecting the Nicene faith, and were thereforeconstrained to clear themselves of such an im-putation), he proceeded to exhibit the essentialdifference between the formulary and the Nes-torian error. Nestorius, in fact, asserted twoChrists: the formulary confessed one, both divineand human. And then Cyril added that the twonatures which had been spoken of in the formu-lary were indeed separate in mental conception,i. e. considered apart from Christ, but that“after their union” in Chidst “the nature ofthe Son was but one f as belonging to one, butto One as made man and incarnate: ” again,“The nature of the Word is confessedly one,but has become incarnate,” for “ the Word took

the form of a servant,” and “in this senseonly could a diversity of natures be recognised,for Godhead and Manhood are not the same iLnatural quality.” Thus, in regard to the Incar-nation, “ the mind sees two things united withoutconfusion, and nowise regards them, when thusunited, as separable, but confesses Him who isfrom both, God, Son, and Christ, to be one.”“ Two natures,” in Nestorius’s mouth, meant twonatures existing separately, in one who was Godand in one who was Man; John of Antioch andhis brethren, while admitting that Godhead andManhood in Christ might be regarded as intrin-sically different, yet unequivocally acknowledgedHis Person to be one.

The phrase, “ one incarnate nature ” of Godthe Word, or “ one nature, but that incarnate,”had been already (ad Regin. i. 9) quoted by Cyrilas Athanasian: although there is, to say theleast, great doubt whether the short tract 4 Onthe Incarnation of God the Word/ in which it isfound, was really written by Athanasius. But,as now used by Cyril in his vindication of theformulary from Nestorianism, it became in afterdays a stumblingblock, and was quoted in sup-port of Monophysitism (Hooker, v. 52. 4). Thequestion then arises, Did Cyril in fact hold whatwas condemned in 451 by the council of Chal-cedon ? Would he have denied the distinct co-existence of Godhead and Manhood in the oneincarnate Saviour ? and were the fathers of Chal-cedon wrong when they proclaimed Cyril andLeo to be essentially one in faith? What hasbeen already quoted from this letter to Acaciusought, it should seem, to warrant a negativeanswer to this question. What Cyril meant by“ one nature incarnate ” was simply, “ Christ isone.” He was referring to “ nature ” as existingin Christ’s single Divine Personality (cf. Adv.Nest. ii.: compare note in Athan. Treatises, Lib.Fath. i. 155). When he denounced the idea oftheseparation of the natures after the union, he wasin fact denouncing the idea of a mere connexionor association between a human individual Jesusand the Divine Word. Therefore, when he main-tained the nature to be one, he was speaking ina sense quite distinct from the Eutychian heresy,and quite consistent with the theology of Chal-cedon.

Other letters, written by Cyril under the samecircumstances, throw light on his true meaning.Successus, an Isaurian bishop, had asked himwhether the phrase “ two natures ” were admis-sible (Ep. p. 135; Mansi, v. 999). Cyril wrotetwo letters to him in reply: in the first, afterstrongly asserting the unity of the Son both be-fore and since the Incarnation, he quoted the“ one nature incarnate ” as a phrase of theFathers, and employed the illustration from souland body, “ two natures,” being united in oneman, in order to set forth the combination of God-head and Manhood in one Christ (compare hisScholia de Inc. 8). There was, he added, neithera conversion of Godhead into flesh, nor a changeof flesh into Godhead. In other words, Christ’sbody, though glorified, and existing as God’s body,was not deprived of its human reality. In thesecond letter, written in express reply to ob-jections taken by Successus to statements in thefirst, Cyril fully admitted that Christ “arrayedHimself with our nature,” so that in Him bothGodhead and Manhood, in Christ, retained thei: