But now something clever has been found out as he thinks by him and thus again says he:
"Remember by all means what I have full often said to you, refusing two-fold natures in our Lord Christ, two-fold in nature, single in dignity: for the sway of the natures is for the connection's sake, one, the natures abiding ever in their own order, but the dignity connected as I said before unto a single sway." |119
§6. Yea apt at learning wert thou, who hast chosen to follow the God-inspired Scripture, which says One Lord Jesus Christ and does not put apart Him Who is out of the seed of Abraham and the Word out of God the Father. And besides one must consider this too: for one thing indeed is Godhead, another, manhood like ours, according to the inherent nature of things; but by coalescence unto true union, One Christ out of both, as we have full often said. But when the hypostases, as YOU say, have been severed into two and are conceived of as existing separately and apart, how will there be a coalescence in one Person, except one be conceived of as the property of the other: just as of a man's soul his body will be conceived of as the property, albeit of other nature than it, for not the same things are soul and body?
But (one may perchance say) how is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished into Three Hypostases, yet issues in One Nature of Godhead? Because (I would say) the identity of Essence following of necessity upon the difference of .... , carries up the mind of believers unto One Nature of Godhead: but in respect to Emmanuel, since Godhead is something other than manhood, unless we say that the Body of the Word became His own by true Union, how will One Person be effected, when either hypostasis, apart by itself, brings before us the property of both? And except the assumed have been made the own of the assumer, connection by concurrence simply in dignity alone and sway will not suffice to effect One Only Christ, the Same God Alike and Man. For then, then, in very sooth, [it will behove not ] to turn aside from the faith unto Himward, even though He be conceived of as out of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. But if you say that He is one and other and then affirm that our faith must be put in him that is out of the seed of Abraham, be well assured that you are |120 pouring down upon your own head the charge of man-worship, albeit you repudiate and rightly the repute of being a man-worshipper.
Yea and thinking it too little to deem aright, he slanders in another way too the great Mystery of godliness. For he subjoins forthwith,
"For he was sent to us, the blessing being promised out of the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of his body for himself alike and his race."
Was Christ then Himself too made under sin? He through whom sin's mouth against us is stopped, according to the Psalmist's voice? did the darkness of accursed crime touch the Very Light Himself? needed then with us He through Whom is all redemption and hope of salvation a redeemer and Saviour? it will befit him (it seems) with us to offer thanksgiving, when God in His Clemency says, I am He That blotteth out thy sins and I will not remember them ; him too even as we will the father of sin accuse. And then how will he not speak falsely saying, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me he shall find nothing? The presidents of the synagogue of the Jews once blasphemed against Him, for when they were worn out by the darts of envy, at seeing the blind from his birth in unwonted manner healed, they impiously said. Give glory to God, WE know that this man is a sinner, but our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of unbridled utterance said plainly, Which of you convicteth Me of sin? and if I say the truth, why do YE not believe Me? Hence, if He have offered sacrifice, both for us and moreover for Himself too, He surely hath needed it, even as we too who are under the yoke of sin: convict Him therefore of sin; if He hath offered sacrifice with us, shew Him co-sinner with us. Being the Good Shepherd, for whom hath He laid down His Life, for Himself rather or for the sheep? I hear Him saying of us, For their sakes do I sanctify Myself, and as the Divine-speaking Paul saith, By the grace of God for every man tasted He death, and again, He was delivered up because of our transgressions and was raised because of our |121 justification, and as the Prophet Esaias saith, The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, with His stripes were WE healed, not Himself has been healed by the suffering of His own Flesh. He was delivered up because of our transgressions (not because of His own, far from it, for confessedly has the nature of man been borne down by the transgression in Adam unto curse and death, it is moreover sick of proneness to sin in the flesh), in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in its who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For therefore was He also named the last Adam, not enduring to be sick of the things of the first one, but rather ridding in Himself first the nature of man from the blame of that ancient transgression. For it was condemned in Adam, but in Christ was seen most approved and worthy of wonder. Earthy therefore is he, but Christ heavenly. And it was put to shame in the first, borne down to disobedience which is sin, but in Christ hath it preserved untransgression, and as in a second firstfruits of the race, was seen both unwounded by sins, and superior to curse and doom and death and decay. And the most wise Paul confirms us herein, thus writing, For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so too by its obedience of one shall the many be made righteous. Every one who has become guilty of sin needs therefore sacrifice for his own transgressions: and Christ hath offered Himself for His kin according to the flesh, i. e., for us; but for Himself not a whit, being superior to sin, as God. For if He have been sacrificed for Himself, not WE alone have been bought by His Blood according to the Scriptures but Himself too will have been co-bought with us, no longer according to Isaiah's voice did the Lord give Him up for our sins, but He has been given rather for His own. For where is at all sacrifice and offering, there surely is also remission of sins. The Divine-uttering Paul therefore hath beguiled those throughout all under heaven by writing regarding Him, For such an High Priest became us, holy harmless undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens, Who needeth not daily as the high priests to |122 offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins then for the people's, for this He did once when He offered up Himself: for the Law maketh men high priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore. How therefore is Christ an holy High Priest? or in what way harmless and undefiled? And if He need with us sacrifice, having made His offering for remission of transgressions and for justification of them that have sinned, how has He been separated from sinners, if He be justified along with them, the sacrifice having been offered for none else than these very persons? But I marvel that whereas Paul hath cried aloud and that full clearly that He is not like those who have been bidden to offer for their own transgressions, and then for the people's, thou wert not afraid to put forth the contrary to what he said, and durst say that after the likeness of them who were made priests according to the Law, He too offered up sacrifice for Himself. And if it be true that the Law maketh men High Priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore, why makest thou connumerate with those who are used to infirmity Him Who has been removed from their multitude; and possesses the perfection which is above the Law, of His own and by Nature, if so be He be Son of a truth and therefore God?
But let us see from the legal and more ancient scripture too in what manner and for whom, Emmanuel hath offered Himself for an odour of a sweet smell unto God the Father. For a shadow confessedly was the Law, yet hath it the outline of the mystery Christ-ward and travails with the form of the Truth. And indeed Christ said somewhere when conversing with the Jews, Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed Me, for of Me he wrote. How therefore did they of the blood of Israel when about to depart out of the Land of the Egyptians sacrifice the Lamb? for their own selves alone or for the Lamb's sake too? whom did it redeem by its blood? was it them who were under the |123 yoke of bondage, and were enduring the oppression hard to bear of the Egyptians, or itself too? whose destroyer did it scare away? to whom said the God of all, And I will see the blood and will shelter you? was it to those who needed His shelter or to the Lamb itself too?
For God the Father was representing the sacrifices that were to be made for sins, in the Law as on a tablet, outlining yet the mystery of Christ, and thus He said to the hierophant Moses, If the whole congregation of the children of Israel sin unwillingly and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done, and have transgressed and the sin be known to them which they have sinned therein, the congregation shall offer a young bullock without blemish from among the herd for the sin. And having fully gone through how the details of the sacrifice should be done, He adds and says, And the priest shall make an atonement for them and the sin shall be forgiven them. Observe then that the bullock was offered as a type of Christ the All-Pure and That hath no spot, and they who offer and not surely the bullock were set free from their guilt. For He has been sacrificed not rather for Himself, as THOU sayest, but for the infirm, for whom the high priest according to the Law used to make supplication, that you may again understand Him That was made an Advocate for us, a High Priest undefiled and holy, separated from sinners.
Since therefore our opponent is on all sides sick of uncomeliness of speech, we say that the Word out of God the Father was made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession when He was made Man, abasing Himself unto emptiness and in our condition: in order that having offered Himself to the Father for an odour of sweet smell in behalf of all, He might win all under Heaven, might remove the ancient guilt, might justify by grace through faith, might render superior to death and decay, holy and hallowed |124 and full well versed in every kind of virtue, confessing Him their Saviour and Redeemer, through Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for evermore. Amen.
[A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references, follows]
1. S. Cyril in his Thesaurus, written chiefly against, the error of those who tried to make it seem that the SON was less than the FATHER, had said (cap. 21. pp. 213 d e 214 a b), "Not setting forth the Nature of the Word, but the Economy with flesh, does the Apostle say this. For when has He been made the High Priest of our confession? when Apostle? when faithful to Him who made Him? was it not when for our sakes and in our behalf He was made man and, as John says, the Word was made flesh? then became He faithful to Him who made Him, as man fulfilling His work, as Himself said : then was He made Apostle, sent in our behalf and for our sakes: then was He made High Priest of our confession, offering the Confession of our faith to the Father and presenting His own Body as a spotless sacrifice in order that He might cleanse all us through Him. If therefore it be said of the Son that He hath been made faithful, hath been made an Apostle, hath been made an High Priest, let not the expression be referred to His Being but to the quality of affairs. For Paul too being a man and existing already has been made an Apostle (not then beginning to be when he was called to the apostolate for existing previously, he was made an Apostle [these few words are supplied from the Munich MS. cited above p. 57 note y]): and Moses likewise has been made faithful in all his house, Aaron too has been made High Priest, outlining in himself too the Saviour. For as Aaron was not born High Priest but became so many years after, when he put on the long garment and the ephod and the rest of the priestly raiment, which was women's work: just so as to Christ also. For He was the Word in the beginning, but long time after He became High Priest for us, taking on Him as some long robe the man out of woman, or the Temple, in order that by His own Blood He might cleanse the people, offering Himself to God as a spotless Lamb: for He did not sin nor was guile found in His mouth. "
2. This passage is given in full by Mercator p. 111 Bal. immediately after the foregoing, which had been from the eighth quire: a few words are also given before the council of Ephesus, from the sixth quire, p. 206 Bal.
3. "The sacred writers . . . acknowledged two senses of the word faithful in Scripture, first believing, then trustworthy, of which the former belongs to man, the latter to God. Thus Abraham was faithful because he believed God's word; and God faithful, for, as David says in the psalm, The Lord is faithful in all His words, or is trustworthy and cannot lie. Again, If any faithful woman have widows, she is so called from her right faith; but, It is a faithful saying, because what He hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is true and is not otherwise. Accordingly the words, who is faithful to Him That made Him, implies no parallel with others, nor means that by having faith He became well-pleasing: but that, being Son of the True God, He too is faithful and ought to be believed in all He says and does, Himself remaining unalterable and not changed by His human economy and fleshly presence." S. Athanasius against the Arians ii. C. p. 289 O.T. " Faithful because Onely (...) and lasting and trusty unto the faith of His Promises." S. Cyril de recta fide to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, § 5, p. 135 d. "He is called faithful because He is able to save always them who approach through Him to God, and the Father too has been called faithful." Ib. §18, p. 148 fin.
4. or, reduced to emptiness, ... cf. Jer. ii. 5. ..., have become vain, have walked after empty gods and become themselves emptied out: so we too if our Mediator were but man, should have been reduced to utter emptiness.
5. See S.Ath. agst. Ar.i. §47.p.248 O.T. and note b.
6. Most of this is cited before the Council of Ephesus, from the sixth quire, p. 208 Bal. and in the concilia. A few words are added at the beginning, " Since he was saying of Christ that He had been sent to proclaim remission to the captives, as an Apostle he adds this too and says, This is he &c," as Mercator, or, from the sixth quire, speaking of Christ. " That He was sent to preach remission to the captives. As the Apostle adds and says, This is he &c," as the Greek Edd.
7. So too against the Arians who affirmed that the Son was exalted because man, S. Cyril, following S. Athanasius, says, "And what accession of honour has there been to Him Who is in the form of God, yet has put on the servant's form? how will H e not rather with reason seem to have been minished Who left the greater and took up the less? Being God He hath been made man in order to find----what reward? or how was He glorified Who hath descended from glory to dishonour? how hath He been made high Who disregarding the Dignity of Godhead came down even unto manhood? how hath He Who came down, been made above ? what advance hath abasement? what betterment He Who from what is better hath come into the inferior? If, God Most High, and dwelling in high places, He is said to he exalted, whither (I pray) after the Nature of God will that yet mount up which is exalted? how was He low which is in the Bosom of the Most High Father? what accession did God need? if He have therefore come down in order to be exalted, what was the need of the coming down? if He therefore abased Himself in order to be exalted, what was the need of the abasement? how is not he unwise who seeks with toil what he could have without toil ? how received He the Name which is above every name, Who was ever worshipped in it?" Thes. cap. 20 init. pp. 194,195, see S. Ath. against Ar. i. § 40. p. 237 O.T.
8. In S. Cyril's very famous 16th Paschal homily written at the beginning of previous year, A.D. 430, and cited by Andrew of Samosata in his objection to S. Cyril's fourth chapter and more fully by S. Cyril in his reply to that objection p. 172 e, he says, " And though thou hear that Jesus was progressing in stature and wisdom and grace, deem not that the Word of God became wise by accession but rather remember the Divine Paul writing on this wise, Christ God's Power and God's Wisdom : nor dare idly to say that we shall allot to the man the progress in stature and wisdom and grace (for this I ween is nought else than to sever into two the One Christ), but (as I said before) the Son being Eternal, is in the last times of the world said to have been declared Son of God (Rom. i. 4), Economically making His own the birth of His proper flesh : so too being the Wisdom of Him Who begat Him, He is said to progress in wisdom albeit All-Perfect as God, reasonably receiving into Himself the properties of the human nature on account of the completeness of the union ( διὰ τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν )." Pasch. Hom. p. 230 a b. Before this date S. Cyril had said, " And as for our sakes He abased Himself, so too for our sakes He admits progress, in order that WE again in Him might advance in wisdom who of old were made beasts by reason of sin, might advance in favour too, who of old have been hated because of the transgression in Adam. For all of ours for our sakes did Christ take into Himself that He might transform all things unto the better and might become the beginning of every good to the race of man." Thes. cap. 28 p. 251 a. In a treatise written at about the same date as the Books against Nestorius, S. Cyril says, "For the mode and plan of the economy with flesh knows that He is both as we and above us; surpassing the measure of the creation as God, and (so to speak) inferior to Himself in that He is man. For where is the abasement which He voluntarily underwent, if He refuse what is human? Yet not in these is the nature of the Word conceived to lie, but He rather makes them His own together with His own flesh, just as He does hunger and thirst and the being said to be wearied with the journey. When then thou hearest, The little one waxed and was strengthened, filled with wisdom, admit in reply the mystery of the economy with flesh. For that He was God in flesh, the blessed Evangelist will himself assure, saying, the grace of God was on it. For not as though He had grace from another God is He said to have the grace of God, but because the little one had grace which beseems God. For the Word was and is God even when He is seen in flesh, i.e. man like us. And if He be said to have grace or to advance in favour (grace) with both. God and men, it is not a whit incongruous, if even the Father Himself accepted the economy and the Son making His own what pertains to flesh because of what alike befits the mystery and is serviceable." de recta fide to the Empresses § 10 p. 139 b c d.
9. cited before council of Ephesus, from seventh quire, p. 209, Bal. &c.
10. The text here gives φύσεων natures, in the MS. another hand has written over, ὑποστάσεων . The Roman Editors conjecture, προσώπων ἢ ὑποστάσεων , Persons or Hypostases: but see Dr. Newman's S. Athanasius against Arians p. 155 O.T. note f.
11. I have supplied these words from the expression used by S. Cyril at the beginning of this section. There seems to be an ellipse in the MS.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode .