CYRILLUS

CYBILLUS

771

natural distinctness (cf. p. 143), and that thehuman nature was neither diminished nor sub-tracted. Further on he repeated the phrase,“ one nature, hut that incarnate/’ in the sense(as the context shews) of “ one who in His ori-ginal nature was God, by incarnation becomingman.” In another letter, addressed to a priestnamed Eulogius, he gave a similar account ofthe phraso; it is obvious that he viewed it asguarding the truth of the Personal Union (Ep.p. 133). In another, which is addressed to abishop named Valerian (and is remarkable, amongother things, for the emphasis with which theDivinity of Christ is exhibited as bearing onHis Atonement), the word “ nature,” in thisconnexion, is evidently used as synonymouswith “ person ” or hypostasis: and as if he werespecially anxious to exclude all possible mis-conception, he used suoh language as the fol-lowing : “ He, being by nature God, becameflesh, that is, perfect man. ... As man He waspartaker of our nature.” This language agreeswith that of his 17th Paschal Homily (Cyr. v. ii.226). We may also compare his words in Adv.Nest. ii. tom. vi. 50, to the effect that while thedivine and the human natures are different things,as all right-thinking men must know, yet afterthe Incarnation they must not be divided, forthere is but one Christ. Again, ib. p. 45, thatChrist is not twofold is explained by the contextto mean that Christ before and since the Incar-nation is one and the same Person; and, ib. p. 48,the reason jfor calling Christ’s Godhead the$u<ns is explained by the consideration that Hewas originally God, while in the fifth book of thesame treatise (ib. p. 139) He is said to have givenup His body to the laws of its own nature (tt}slS(as (pvtxecos). In the ninth book ‘ de S. Trini-tate ’ (dial, quod unus est Christus) he denies alltransmutation or confusion of the natures, admitsor rather asserts the distinctness of Godhead andManhood, and in reply to the objection, “ If wesay there is one nature of the Son, even thoughHe be viewed as incarnate, there must needs besupposed an absorption of the human nature,”he answers, “ Nothing of the kind: oi'&e pta irphsyH&p a!fio\6yT}To </>d<ns, <ys<faoK<cfA€Vov re naltj'TivdpcpTr'OKSTos,” adding that “ the bush burningyet unconsumed was a type of the non-consump-tion of the Manhood of Christ in its contact withHis Divinity ” (cf. Scholia , 2, 9).

To return to the history. Maximian dyingin April 434, was succeeded by Proclus, whoseglowing sermon on the Incarnation had beenamong the earliest expressions of orthodox zealagainst the Nestorian theory, and who deservesto be remembered as a very signal example ofthe compatibility of orthodox zeal with chari-table tenderness (Soc. vii. 41). Soon after hisaccession, the imperial court resolved to enforceon all Eastern bishops the acceptance of theconcordat, so to call it, which had reconciledJohn with Cyril, upon pain of expulsion fromtheir dioceses. The Nestorians, on their side,were indefatigable in circulating the works ofTheodore of Mopsuestia, who had formed thetheological mind of Nestorius : and Cyril, whowas informed of this during a visit which hepaid to Jerusalem, was stirred to new energy bythe evident vitality of the theory which he soearnestly abhorred. He wrote to the “ tribune ”Aristolaus, and to John of Antioch, complaining

that, as he was informed, some bishops were re-pudiating Nestorianism insincerely or inade-quately, and were declaring that its author hadbeen condemned merely for denying the “ Theo-tocos ” (Mansi, v. 996, cf. ib. 970). He urgedthat the bishops should be required to anathe-matise Nestorianism in detail. John interposed,requesting that no new test should be imposed;and Cyril found that he had gone too far (Mansi,v. 969, 972, 996). He was much annoyed atTheodoret’s pertinacious refusal to anathematiseNestorius—a refusal in which we may add,Theodoret persisted until the eighth session ofthe council of Chalcedon (ib. v. 997). As theNestorinuisers professed entire adhesion to theNicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition of it(Ep. p. 174, Mansi, v. 383, cf. ib. 975) addressedto certain “ fathers of monks,” in which heurged the incompatibility of that “ venerableand oecumenical symbol of faith ” with thedenial of the personal unity of the Saviour. Iuthis tract, a copy of which he sent to Theodosius,he disclaimed, as usual, any “ fusion, commix-ture, or so-called consubstantiation ” (trvvov-<rl(ti(riv) of the Godhead with the flesh. Hedrew up a short treatise in three books to provethat Mary was Theotocos, that Christ was oneand not two, and that while He was impassibleas God, He suffered for us in flesh that was Hisown. This he intended as an antidote to theNestorian arguments which, as he learned, wererife in Syria (Mansi, v. 995).

The name of Theodore was at this time awatchword of eager controversy. Proclus ofConstantinople, in his “ Tome ” addressed to theArmenian clergy, in which he spoke of “ one in-carnate person” (not “nature”) of God theWord, had condemned Theodore’s opinions with-out naming him (Mansi, v. 421): the messen-gers who carried this document to John ofAntioch inserted Theodore’s name, withoutauthority from Proclus, as the author of certainpassages selected for censure. John and hissuffragans accepted the Tome, but. declined tocondemn Theodore by name. Proclus rejoinedthat he had never wished them to go beyoud acondemnation of the extracts. Cyvil was so farfrom feeling any tenderness towards Theodore,that he traced Nestorianism to his teaching,and to that of Diodore of Tarsus (Mansi, v. 974),and wrote vigorously in support of this thesis(ib. 992). A synodal letter from John and hissuffragans, stating their objections to the pro-posal that Theodore’s name should be anathe-matised on the score of some expressions which,as they urged, wflre capable of being taken in asense accordant with the language of eminentfathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat in-dignant reply. Theodore, he said (Ep. p. 195),had “ borne down full sail against the glory ofChrist”; it was intolerable that any parallelshould be drawn between his language and thatof Athanasius or Basil: he insisted that no oneshould be allowed to preach Theodore’s opinions;but at the same time, he did not urge any con-demnation of his memory, and even dwelt oilthe duty of welcoming all converts from Nes-torianism without a word of reproach as to thepast. He saw that it would be imprudent tcproceed publicly against the memory of a theo-logian so highly esteemed that the people criedout in some Eastern churches, “ We believe as3 D 2