Letters (first part: Migne letters 1-55) 40
Greek text: PG 77.English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0).
Chapter 40
40PG 77 77:181
Τῷ κυρίῳ μου, ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῶ, καὶ συλλειτουργῷ ᾿Ακακίῳ, Κύριλλος, ἐν Κυρίῳ χαίρειν. Χρῆμα μὲν ἀδελφοῖς ἡ πρόσρησις γλυκύ τε καὶ ἀξιάγαστον, καὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον λόγου, παρά γε τοῖς ἀρτίφροσιν ἀληθῶς· χρῆναι δέ φημι, τοὺς ὁμοπίστους τε καὶ ὁμοψύχους, ἀδιαλείπτως ἐπείγεσθαι τοῦτο δρᾶν, οὐδενὸς ὄντος ἐμποδὼν, οὔτε μὴν ἀνακόπτοντος τὴν εἴς γε τοῦτο θερμὴν ἔφεσίν τε καὶ προθυμίαν. ᾿Αλλ' ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε βασκαίνει καὶ οὐχ ἑκοῦσιν ἡμῖν ἢ τῶν τοῦ μεταξύ διαστημάτων ὰ τὸ μῆκος, ἢ τῶν τοῦ γράμματος διακομιστῶν ἡ σπάνις. Καιροῦ δὲ τὸ δύνασθαι προσειπεῖν εἰσφέροντος, εὔρεμα προσηνὲς ποιεῖσθαι προσήκει τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ · τοῖς οὕτω τριποθήτοις ἀσμένως ἐπιπηδᾷν. Ἡσθεὶς δὴ οὖν ἄγαν ἐπὶ τοῖς παρὰ τῆς σῆς τελειότητος ἀπεσταλμένοις, καὶ τεθαυμακὼς τὴν διάθεσιν, δεῖν ᾠήθην τῆς τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης καταμηνύσαι τὸν τρόπον· ἕκαστά τε, ὅπως γέγονε, διειπεῖν. Ὁ εὐσεβέστατος καὶ φιλόχριστος βασιλεὺς, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁγίων Ἐκκλησιῶν φροντίδα πλείστην ὅσην καὶ ἀναγκαίαν ποιούμενος, οὐ φορητὴν ἡγεῖτο τὴν τούτων διχόνοιαν. Μεταπεμψάμενος τοίνυν τὸν εὐλαβέστατον καὶ θεοσεβέστατον ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ἁγίας Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν Ἐκκλησίας Μαξιμιανὸν, καὶ ἑτέρους δὲ πλείστους τῶν αὐτόθι κατειλημμένων, τίνα δὴ τρό πον ἐκ μέσου μὲν γένοιτ' ἂν τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ διαφορά, κεκλήσονται δὲ πρὸς εἰρήνην οἱ τῶν θείων ἱερουργοί μυστηρίων, διεσκέπτετο. Οἱ δὲ ἔφασκον ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως γένοιτο τοῦτό ποτε, οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἰς ὁμοψυχίαν ἔλθοιεν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ περὶ ὧν ὁ λόγος, μὴ προανατείλαντος αὐτοῖς, καὶ οἱονεὶ προεισκεκομισμένου τοῦ συνδέσμου τῆς ὁμοψυχίας καὶ ὁμοπιστίας· ἔφασκόν τε ὅτι τὸν τῆς θεοσεβείας ἔμπλεον ἐπίσκοπον Ἰωάννην, τὸν ᾿Αντιοχείας, ἀναθεματίσαι δεῖ τὰ Νεστορίου δόγματα, καὶ ἐγγράφως ὁμολογῆσαι τὴν καθαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ. Καὶ, τό γε ἦχον εἰς λύπας ἰδίας, ὁ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπος ἀμνη - μονήσει τε διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, καὶ παρ᾿ οὐδὲν ἡγήσεται τὸ ὑβρίσθαι κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων· καίτοι παγχά-λεπόν τε καὶ δύσοιστον ὄν. Συναινέσαντος τοίνυν καὶ ἡσθέντος ἄγαν ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου βασι- βα λέως, ἀπεστάλη αὐτὸ τοῦτο κατορθώσων ὁ κύριός μου, ὁ θαυμασιώτατος τριβοῦνος καὶ νοτάριος ᾿Αριστόλαος. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἐῴαν τὸ βασιλικὸν ἐφανίσθη θέσπισμα, καὶ ὡς μετὰ γνώμης γεγονὸς τῶν εὑρεθέντων ἐπισκόπων κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην Κωνσταντινούπολιν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι σκοπήσαντες, συνήχθησαν μὲν πρὸς τὸν ὁσιώτατον καὶ θεοσεβέστατον τῆς Βεῤῥοιέων ἐπίσκοπον ᾿Ακάκιον, γράψαι τε πρός με παρεσκεύασαν ὅτι τὸν τῆς συμβάσεως τρόπον, ἤτοι τὸν τῆς εἰρήνης τῶν ἁγίων Ἐκκλησιῶν, οὐχ ἑτέρως γενέσθαι προσήκει, εἰ μὴ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῖς δοκοῦν. Ην δὲ δὴ ἄρα τοῦτο φορτικὸν, καὶ βαρὺ τὸ αἴτημα. Ἤθελον γὰρ, ἀργῆσαι μὲν σύμπαντα τὰ παρ' ἐμοῦ ) γραφέντα ἔν τε ἐπιστολαῖς, καὶ τόμοις, καὶ βιβλίοις, μόνῃ δὲ ἐκείνῃ συνθέσθαι τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἡμῶν Πατέρων ὀρισθείσῃ πίστει. Ἐγὼ δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα γέγραφα ὅτι Τῇ μὲν ἐκθέσει τῆς πίστεως, στε τῇ ὁρισθείσῃ παρὰ τῶν ἀἁγίων Πατέρων κατὰ τὴν Νικαέων πόλιν, ἑπόμεθα πάντες, οὐδὲν τὸ παράπαν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ κειμένων παρασαλεύοντες 8. ἔχει γὰρ πάντα ὀρθῶς, καὶ ἀλήπτως· καὶ τὸ περίερ γον ἔτι μετ' ἐκείνην, οὐκ ἀσφαλές. "Α δὲ γεγράφαμεν ὀρθῶς κατὰ τῶν τοῦ Νεστορίου δυσφημιῶν, οὐδεὶς ἡμᾶς ἀναπείσει λόγος 4, ὡς οὐκ εὖ γεγόνασιν, εἰπεῖν· χρῆναι δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς, κατά γε τὸ δόξαν καὶ τῷ εὐσεβεστάτῳ καὶ φιλοχρίστῳ βασιλεῖ, καὶ αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ, τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν συναγηγερμένῃ, ποιῆσαι : μὲν ἀποκήρυκτον τὸν τῇ τοῦ Σωτῆρος δόξῃ μεμαχημένον, ἀναθεματίσαι δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀνοσίους αὐτοῦ δυσφημίας, ὁμολογῆσαί τε τὴν καθαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ συναινέσαι τῇ χειροτονίᾳ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου καὶ θεοσεβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Μαξιμιανοῦ. Τούτων τοίνυν αὐτοῖς τῶν γραμμάτων ἀπος δοθέντων, πεπόμφασιν εἰς τὴν ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν τὸν εὐλαβέστατον καὶ θεοφιλέστατον ἐπίσκοπον Παῦλον τῆς Ἐμησηνῶν· πρὸς ὃν πλεῖστοι μὲν ὅσοι, καὶ μακροὶ γεγόνασι λόγοι περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων ἀνόμως ὁ καὶ οὐ καθηκόντως εἰρημένων τε καὶ πε· πραγμένων. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τούτων ἀμνημονήσαντας, τῶν ἀναγκαιοτέρων ἔχεσθαι μᾶλλον ἐχρῆν σπουδα - σμάτων, ἠρώτων, εἰ ἐπικομίζεται γράμματα τοῦ θεοσεβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Ἰωάννου· εἶτα ἐμοὶ προεχόμισεν ἐπιστολὴν, ἃ μὲν ἐχρῆν ἔχειν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν, ὑπαγορευθεῖσαν δὲ μᾶλλον, οὐ καθ' ὃν ἔδει τρόπον· παροξυσμοῦ γὰρ, οὐ παρακλήσεως, εἶχε δύναμιν. Καὶ ταύτην οὐ προσηκάμην· καίτοι γε δέον, ταῖς ἀπολογίαις τὴν ἐμὴν καταγοητεῦσαι λύπην, τὴν ἐπί γε τοῖς φθάσασι, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν γεγονόσι κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων· καὶ εὐαφόρμως ἔφασκον παροξυνθῆναι κατ' ἐμοῦ, διὰ τοι τὸν ζῆλον τὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱερῶν δογμάτων. Ἀλλ᾽ ἤκουον, ὅτι οὔτε ὁ ζῆλος αὐτοὺς κεκίνηκεν ὁ θεῖος, οὔτε τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας δογμάτων ὑπερμαχόμενοι, συνετάττοντο κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἀνθρώπων εἴξαντες κολακείαις, καὶ τὰς τῶν ἰσχυόντων τὸ τηνικάδε φιλίας ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἁρπάζοντες. Ὅμως τοῦ θεοσεβεστάτου Παύλου ἐπισκόπου φάσκοντος, ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, ἀναθεματίζειν τὰς Νεστορίου δυσφημίας, καὶ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν καθαίρεσιν ἐγγράφως, καὶ τοῦτο δρᾷν ὑπὲρ πάντων, καὶ ὡς ἐκ προσώπου πάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ανατολὴν θεοσεβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων, ἀντενήνεγμαι κ, λέγων τὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ προκομιζόμενον χάρτην περὶ τούτου, ἀρκέσειν αὐτῷ μόνῳ πρὸς τὸ χρῆναι τυχεῖν τῆς παρὰ πάντων ἡμῶν κοινωνίας. Διεβεβαιούμην δὲ, ὅτι πάντως τε καὶ πάντη ἔγγραφον ὁμολογίαν περὶ τούτων ἐκθέσθαι προσήκει τὸν εὐλαβέστατον καὶ θεοσεβέστατον τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐπίσκοπον Ἰωάννην. Ο δὴ καὶ γέγονε· καὶ πέπαυται τὸ μεσολαβοῦν, καὶ ἀναφοιτᾷν ἀλλήλων ἀναπεῖθον τὰς Ἐκκλησίας. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἦν οὐδαμόθεν ἀμφίβολον, ὅτι τῶν Νεστορίου δυσφημιῶν τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς κατατήξειν ἔμελλε τῶν ἁγίων Ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ εἰρήνη. Καί μοι δοκοῦσι τοιοῦτόν τι παθεῖν, ὁποῖόν τι συμβαίνειν ἔθος τοῖς νήχεσθαι μὲν οὐκ εἰδύσι, νεώς 1 γε μὴν ἀδοκήτως ἀπολισθήσασιν. Οἱ ἐπειδὰν καταπνίγωνται, πόδας τε καὶ χεῖρας ὧδε κἀκεῖσε διαῤῥιπτοῦντες ἀτάκτως, τοῦ παρατυχόντος ἁπλῶς ἐπιδράττονται, φιλοψυχοῦντες οἱ δείλαιοι. Η οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὡς τεθορύβηνται λίαν, ἐκπεσόντες, καὶ μεμονωμένοι, καὶ ἔξω γεγονότες τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν, ὡς ἐνόμιζον ἔσεσθαι πρὸς ἐπικουρίαν αὐτοῖς; Ἡ οὐκ ἀσχάλλουσι, καὶ τοῦτο οὐ φορητῶς, ἀποπηδῶντας αὐτῶν τοὺς ἡπατημένους ὁρῶντες, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀνανήφοντας εἰς ἀλήθειαν τοὺς ταῖς παρ᾿ αὐτῶν βεβήλοις καινοφωνίαις οἱονεί πως ἐκμεμεθυσμένους; Καίτοι φαίη τις ἂν αὐτοῖς, καὶ λίαν ἐπὶ καιροῦ, τὸ διὰ τῆς τοῦ προφήτου φωνῆς· « Συνάχθητε, καὶ συνδέθητε, τὸ ἔθνος τὸ ἀπαίδευτον, πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ὡσεὶ ἄνθος παραπορευόμενον. » Διὰ τί γὰρ γεγόνασιν ἀλλοτρίων ἐμέτων παράσιτοι, οὐκ αἰσχύνονται δὲ τοῖς ἑτέρου βορβόροις τὰς ἑαυτῶν καρδίας καταμιαίνοντες ; « Οἱ κωφοὶ, ἀκούσατε, καὶ οἱ τυφλοὶ, ἀναβλέψατε ἰδεῖν. Φρονήσατε περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀληθῆ· καὶ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας ζητήσατε αὐτόν. Ποία γὰρ χρεία πολυπλόκων ὑμῖν εὑρεμάτων καὶ λόγων διεστραμμένων; τί τὴν ἐπ᾿ εὐθὺ περιυβρίζον τες τρίβον, καμπύλας ποιεῖτε τὰς ἑαυτῶν τροχιάς; « Νεώσατε ἑαυτοῖς νεώματα, καὶ μὴ σπείρετε ἐπ' ἀκάνθαις. » ᾿Αλύοντες γὰρ, ὡς ἔφην, ἐπὶ τῇ εἰρήνῃ τῶν ἁγίων Ἐκκλησιῶν, τοὺς μὴ ἀνασχομένους τὰ ἴσα φρονεῖν αὐτοῖς, κακουργότατα διασύρουσι· καὶ καταγορεύουσι πικρῶς τῆς ἀπολογίας τῶν ἁγίων ἐπισκόπων, τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑῴας φημί· εἶτα περιέλ κοντες αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτοῖς ἡδύ τε καὶ φίλον, καὶ νοοῦντες οὐκ ὀρθῶς, οὐκ ἀπᾳδόντως γενέσθαι φασὶ ταῖς Νεστορίου κενοφωνίαις Συγκαταψέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς ὡς οἷς ἤδη γεγράφαμεν, πεφρονηκότας τὰ έναντια. Μανθάνω δὲ, ὅτι κἀκεῖνό φασιν ὅτι πίστεως ἔκθεσιν, ἤτοι σύμβολον καινὸν, ἀρτίως κατεδεξάμεθα, τάχα που τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐκεῖνο, καὶ σεπτὸν ἀτιμάσαντες. Καὶ « ὁ μὲν μωρὸς μωρά λαλήσει· καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ μάταια νοήσει. » Πλὴν ἐκεῖνό φαμεν· οὐ πίστεως ἔκθεσιν ἐξῄτηνται παρ' ἡμῶν τινες, ἤγουν η καινοτομηθεῖσαν παρ' ἑτέρων κατεδεξάμεθα. Ἀπόχρη γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ θεόπνευστος Γραφή, καὶ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ἡ νῆψις, καὶ τὸ πρὸς πανοτιοῦν τῶν ἐχόντων ὀρθῶς ἐκτετορνευμένον τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἦσαν οἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ανατολὴν ὁσιώτατοι ἐπίσκοποι διχονοήσαντες πρὸς ἡμᾶς κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἐφεσίων, καὶ γεγόνασί πως ἐν ὑποψίᾳ τοῦ καὶ ἐναλῶναι βρόχοις τῶν Νεστορίου δυσφημιῶν, ταύτῃ τοι, καὶ μάλα ἐμφρόνως, ὡς ἀπαλλάττοντες ἑαυτοὺς τῆς ἐπὶ τούτοις αἰτίας, καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως ἑραστὰς πληροφορεῖν σπουδάζοντες, ὅτι τῆς ἐκείνου βδελυρίας ἀμοιρεῖν ἐγνώκασι, πεποίηνται τὴν ἀπολογίαν· καὶ τὸ χρῆμά ἐστι λόγου τε παντὸς καὶ –μώμου μακράν. Αρα γὰρ εἰ καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Νεστόριος κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ, καθ' ὃν αὐτῷ προετείνετο παρὰ πάντων ἡμῶν τὸ χρῆναι καταψηφίσασθαι τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δογμάτων, καὶ ἀνθελέσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἔγγραφον ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁμολογίαν, καὶ αὐτὸν ἄν τις ἔφη πίστεως ἡμῖν καινοτομῆσαι σύμβολον; Τ τοίνυν διαλοιδοροῦνται μάτην ἔκθεσιν συμβόλου, καινὴν ὀνομάζοντες τὴν συναίνεσιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φοινίκην θεοσεβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων, ἣν πεποίηνται χρησίμως τε καὶ ἀναγκαίως, ἀπολογούμενοί τε καὶ θεραπεύοντες τοὺς οἰηθέντας, ὅτι ταῖς Νεστορίου ἀχολουθοῦσι καινοφωνίαις Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἁγία καὶ οἱκουμενική σύνοδος, ἡ κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν συνειλεγμένη, προενόησεν ἀναγκαίως τοῦ μὴ δεῖν, ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ πίστεως ἔκθεσιν ἑτέραν εἰσκρίνεσθαι παρά γε τὴν οὖσαν· ἣν οἱ τρισμακάριοι Πατέρες, ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι λαλοῦντες, ὡρίσαντο. Οἱ γε μὴν ἅπαξ, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως, πρὸς αὐτὴν διχο. νοήσαντες, γεγονότες δὲ καὶ ἐν ὑποψίαις τοῦ μὴ ὀρθῶς ἑλέσθαι φρονεῖν, μήτε μὴν τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς τε καὶ εὐαγγελικοῖς ἔπεσθαι δόγμασιν, ἆρα σιωπῶντες, ἀπηλλάγησαν ἂν τῆς ἐπὶ τούτῳ δυσκλείας, ἢ μᾶλλον ἀπολογούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐνούσης αὐτοῖς δόξης τὴν δύναμιν ἐμφανίζοντες; Καίτοι γέγραφεν ὁ θεσπέσιος μαθητής· « Ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος. » Ὁ δὲ 4 τοῦτο δρᾶν ᾑρημένος, καινουργεῖ μὲν οὐδὲν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ πίστεως ἔκθεσιν ὁρᾶται καινοτομῶν· ἐναργῆ δὲ μᾶλλον καθίστησι τοῖς ἐρομένοις αὐτὸν, ἣν ἂν ἔχοι πίστιν περὶ Χριστοῦ. Ἐπυθόμην δὲ πρὸς τούτοις, ὅτι ταῖς τῶν θεοσεβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ὁμοψυχίαις οὐ μετρίως ἐπιστυγνάζοντες οἱ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροὶ, ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω διακυκῶσι τὰ πάντα, καὶ τοῖς ἀνοσίοις ἑαυτῶν εὑρήμασι συμβῆναί φασι τῆς παρ᾿ αὐτῶν γεγενημένης ὁμολογίας τὴν δύναμιν· ἣν ἐπὶ τῇ ὀρθῇ πεποίηνται πίστει, καινοτομοῦντες μὲν, ὡς ἔφην, ἤγουν προσεπάγοντες τοῖς πάλαι διωρισμένοις, τὸ σύμπαν οὐδὲν, ἑπόμενοι δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ἀνεπιπλήκτοις δόγμασιν. Ἵνα δὲ ψευδοεποῦντας ἐλέγχωμεν, φέρε, παραγάγωμεν εἰς μέσον τὰς Νεστορίου - φλυαρίας, καὶ τὰς τούτων φωνάς. Ἐκδείξει γὰρ ε ὠδε, καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρως, τὸ ἀληθὲς ἡ βάσανος. Οὐκοῦν Νεστόριος μὲν ἀναιρῶν εἰς ἅπαν εὑρίσκεται τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν· οὐ γάρ τοι τετέχθαι φησὶν αὐτὸν ἐκ γυναικὸς, κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Ἔφη γὰρ οὕτω· Τὸ προελθεῖν τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Χριστοτόκου Παρθένου, παρὰ τῆς θείας ἐδιδάχθην Γραφῆς· τὸ δὲ γεννήθῆναι Θεὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς, οὐδαμοῦ ἐδιδάχθην. Ἐν ἑτέρᾳ δὲ πάλιν ἐξηγήσει· Οὐδαμοῦ τοίνυν ἡ θεία Γραφὴ Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Χριστοτόκου Παρθένου λέγει γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, Υἱὸν, καὶ Κύριον. Ὅτι δὲ ταῦτα λέγων, εἰς υἱοὺς δύο μερίζει τὸν ἕνα, καὶ ἕτερον μὲν ἰδικῶς εἶναί φησιν Υἱὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον, τὸν ἐκ ) Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα Λόγον, ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν ἀνὰ μέρος τε καὶ ἰδικῶς Υἱὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον, τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Παρθένου, πῶς ἂν ἐνδοιάσειέ τις, αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο σαφῶς μονονουχὶ βοῶντος ἐκείνου; Οἱ δὲ Θεοτόκον ὀνομάζουσι τὴν ἁγίαν Παρθένον, ἕνα τε εἶναί φασιν Υἱὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον, τέλειον · ἐν θεότητι, τέλειον ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, ἅτε δὴ καὶ ἐψυχωμένης αὐτοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς ψυχῇ νοερᾷ. Ὅτι γὰρ οὐχ ἕτερόν φασιν εἶναι Υἱὸν τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Παοθένου, καθά κατακολουθοῦσι κενοφωνίαις. Νεστορίῳ δοκεῖ, ἕνα δὲ μᾶλλον, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν, σαφὲς πραγμάτων εἰς ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον. Οὐ γάρ τοι, ἂν γένοιτο, καὶ μάλα ῥᾳδίως, διά γε τῶν ἐφεξῆς. Προσεπάγουσι γὰρ, τίς ἂν εἴη, σημαίνοντες· ὅτι τέλειος, ὡς Θεὸς, τέλειος δὲ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος· τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς ἁγίας Παρθένου, κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. Οὐκοῦν ἤκιστα μὲν εἰ, δύο διαιροῦσι τὸν ἕνα Υἱὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον Ἰησοῦν· τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναί φασι τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων, καὶ ἐν ἐσχάτοις, δῆλον δὲ, ὅτι τὸν ᾿ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς Θεὸν, καὶ ἐκ γυναικὸς κατὰ σάρκα, ὡς ἄνθρωπον. Πῶς γὰρ ἂν νοοῖτο πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁμοούσιος εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, καίτοι γεννηθεὶς ἐκ Πατρὸς κατά γε, φημὶ, τὴν θεότητα, εἰ μὴ νοοῖτο καὶ λέγοιτο Θεός τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός; ᾿Αλλ' οὐχ ὧδε ταῦτ᾽ ἔχειν Νεστορίῳ δοκεῖ · τέτραπται δὲ μᾶλλον ὁ σκοπὸς αὐτῷ πρὸς πᾶν τοῦναντίον. Ἔφη γοῦν, ἐπ᾿ ἐκκλησίας ἐξηγούμενος · Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος ὀνομάζεται, ἐπειδήπερ ἔχει τὴν συνάφειαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν διηνεκή. Καὶ πάλιν· Ασύγχυτον τοίνυν τὴν τῶν φύσεων τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν· ὁμολογῶμεν τὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεόν· σέβωμεν τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παντοκράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον. Ὁρᾶς οὖν ὅσον ἔχει τὸ ἀπηχὲς ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ; Δυσσεβείας γὰρ τῆς ἀνωτάτω μεμέστωται. Θεὸν μὲν · ἰδικῶς × ὀνομάζεσθαί φησι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον, ἔχειν δὲ τὴν συνάφειαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν διηνεκή. Αρ' οὖν οὐ δύο Χριστοὺς ἐναργέστατα λέγει; Οὐκ ἄνθρωπον Θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον σέβειν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως, ὁμολογεῖ; Ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἀδελφὰ τοῖς παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ὁρᾶται; Οὐκ ἀντεξάγουσαν ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἐννοιῶν τὴν δύναμιν ; Ὁ μὲν γὰρ δύο φησὶν ἐναργῶς, οἱ δὲ Χριστὸν ἕνα, καὶ Υἱὸν, καὶ Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον ὁμολογοῦσι προσκυνεῖν, τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ Πατρὸς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Παρθένου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. Δύο μὲν γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσιν γενέσθαι φαμέν· πλὴν ἕνα Χριστὸν, καὶ ἕνα Υἱὸν, καὶ ἕνα Κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν σαφῶς. Γέγονε γὰρ σάρξ ὁ Λόγος, κατὰ τὰς Γραφὰς καὶ σύμβασιν οἰκονομικὴν, καὶ ἀπόῤῥητον, ἀληθῶς πεπράχθαι φαμὲν ἀνομοίων κατά τινας τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων αἱρετικῶν, ἐξ ἰδίας λαβόντα φύσεως, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τῆς θεϊκῆς, ἑαυτῷ κατασκευάσαι τὸ σῶμα τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον ὑπονοήσομεν· ἑπόμενοι δὲ πανταχῆ ταῖς θεοπνεύστοις Γραφαῖς, ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Παρθένου λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τὴν σάρκα, διαβεβαιούμεθα. Ταύτῃ τοι τὰ, ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ εἷς καὶ μόνος Υἱὸς, καὶ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὡς ἐν ἐννοίαις δεχόμενοι, δύο μὲν φύσεις ἡνῶσθαί φαμεν, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἕνωσιν, ὡς ἀνῃρημένης ἤδη τῆς εἰς δύο διατομής, μίαν εἶναι πιστεύομεν τὴν τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσιν, ὡς ἑνὸς, πλὴν ἐνανθρωπήσαντος, και σεσαρχωμένου. Εἰ δὲ δὴ λέγοιτο σαρκωθῆναι, καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι θεὸς ὧν ὁ Λόγος, διεῤῥίφθω που μακρὰν τροπῆς ὑποψία (μεμένηκε γὰρ ὅπερ ἦν), ὁμολογείσθω δὲ πρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἀσύγχυτος παντελῶς ἡ ἕνωσις. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἴσως φαῖεν ἂν οἱ δι᾽ ἐναντίας· Ἰδοὺ δὴ σαφῶς οἱ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως τὴν ὁμολογίαν ποιούμενοι, δύο μὲν ὀνομάζουσι φύσεις, διῃρῆσθαι δὲ τὰς τῶν θεηγόρων φωνὰς διατείνονται, κατά γε τὴν διαφορὰν αὐτῶν. Εἶτα πῶς οὐκ ἐναντία ταῦτα τοῖς σοῖς; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀνέχῃ προσώποις δυσὶν, ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι, τὰς φωνὰς διανέμειν. ᾿Αλλ', ὦ βέλτιστοι, φαίην ἂν, γεγράφαμεν ἐν τοῖς κεφαλαίοις· Εἴ τις προσώποις δυσὶν, ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι, διανέμει τὰς φωνάς, καὶ τὰς μὲν, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ, παρὰ τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Λόγον ἰδικῶς νοουμένῳ, προσάπτει, τὰς δὲ, ὡς θεοπρεπεῖς, μόνῳ τῷ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγῳ, οὗτος ἔστω κατάκριτος. Φωνῶν δὲ διαφορὰς κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον άνῃρήκαμεν· εἰ καὶ ἀπόβλητον πεποιήμεθα τὸ μερίζειν αὐτὰς, ὡς Υἱῷ καταμόνας, τῷ ἐκ Πατρὸς Λόγῳ, καὶ, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ καταμόνας πάλιν Υἱῷ νοουμένῳ, τῷ ἐκ γυναικός. Μία γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ἡ τοῦ Λόγου φύσις· ἴσμεν δὲ, ὅτι σεσάρκωταί τε καὶ ἐνηνθρώπησε, καθάπερ ἤδη προεῖπον. Τὸν δὲ τρόπον, ὃν ἐσαρκώθη τε καὶ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, εἰ περιεργάζοιτό τις, καταθρήσειεν ἂν τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεὸν Λόγον δούλου τε λαβόντα μορφὴν, καὶ ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον, καθὰ γέγραπται. Καὶ κατ᾿ αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο καὶ μόνον νοηθείη ἂν ἡ τῶν φύσεων, ἤγουν ὑποστάσεων, διαφορά · οὐ ·· οὐ γάρ που ταυτὸν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ θεότης καὶ ἀνθρωπότης. Ἐπεὶ πῶς κεκένωται Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος, καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν ἐν μειώσει, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς; Ὅταν τοίνυν ὁ τῆς σαρκώσεως πολυπραγμονῆται τρόπος, δύο τὰ ἀλλήλοις ἀποῤῥήτως τε καὶ ἀσυγχύτως συνηνεγμένα καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν, ὁρᾷ δὴ πάντως ὁ ἀνθρώπινος νοῦς, ἑνωθέντα γε μὴν, διίστησιν οὐδαμῶς· ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα τὸν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, καὶ Θεὸν, καὶ Υῖὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον εἶναί τε καὶ · πιστεύει, καὶ ἀραρότως εἰσδέχεται Ἑτέρᾳ δὲ παντελῶς παρὰ ταύτην ἡ Νεστορίου κακοδοξία. Ὑποκρίνεται μὲν γὰρ ὁμολογεῖν, ὅτι καὶ ἐσαρκώθη, καὶ ἐνηνθρώπησε Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος, τὴν δὲ γε τοῦ σεσαρκῶσθαι δύναμιν οὐκ εἰδὼς, δύο μὲν ὀνομάζει φύσεις, ἀποδιαιρεῖ ὁ δὲ ἀλλήλων αὐτὰς, Θεὸν ἰδίᾳ τιθεὶς, καὶ ὁμοίως ἄνθρωπον ἀνὰ μέρος, συναφθέντα Θεῷ σχετικῶς, κατὰ μόνην τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν, ἤγουν, αὐθεντίαν. Ἔφη γὰρ οὕτως· Αχώριστος τοῦ φαινομένου Θεός · διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ μὴ χωριζομένου τὴν τιμὴν οὐ χωρίζω· χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις· ἀλλ' ἐνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. Οἱ δὲ γε κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἀδελφοὶ, τὰ μὲν ἐξ ὧν νοεῖται Χριστὸς, ὡς ἐν ψιλαῖς καὶ μόναις ἐννοίαις δεχόμενοι, φύσεων μὲν εἰρήκασι διαφορὰν ( ὅτι μὴ ταυτὸν, ὡς ἔφην, ἐν ποιότητι φυδὲ θεοπρεπείς. - εἶναι, καί. σικῇ θεότης καὶ ἀνθρωπότης), ἕνα γε μὴν Υἱὸν, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Κύριον, καὶ ὡς ἑνὸς ὄντος ἀληθῶς, ἓν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον εἶναί φασιν· μερίζουσι δὲ κατ᾿ οὐδένα τρόπον τὰ ἡνωμένα. Οὔτε μὴν φυσικὴν παραδέχονται τὴν διαίρεσιν, καθὰ φρονεῖν ἔδοξε τῷ τῶν ἀθλίων εὑρεμάτων εἰσηγητῇ· διαιρεῖσθαι δὲ μόνας διατείνονται τὰς ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ φωνὰς πρέπειν τέ φασιν αὐτὰς, οὐ τὰς μὲν, ὡς Υἱῷ καταμόνας τῷ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγῳ, τὰς δὲ, καὶ ὡς ἑτέρῳ πάλιν νἱῷ, τῷ ἐκ γυναικός· ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν τῇ θεότητι αὐτοῦ, τὰς δὲ πάλιν τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι αὐτοῦ. Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Εἶναι δέ φασι καὶ ἑτέρας κοινοποιηθείσας τρόπον τινὰ, καὶ οἷον ἐπ᾿ ἄμφω βλεπούσας, θεότητα καὶ ἀνθρωπότητα λέγω. Οἷον δή τί φημι. Αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσι τῶν φωνῶν ὅτι μάλιστα θεοπρεπεῖς· αἱ δὲ οὕτω πάλιν ἀνθρωποπρεπεῖς· αἱ δὲ ὅτι μάλιστα μέσην τινὰ τάξιν ἐπέχουσιν, ἐμφανίζουσαι τὸν Υἱὸν Θεὸν ὄντα καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἐν ταυτῷ. Ὅταν μὲν γὰρ τῷ Φιλίππῳ λέγῃ· « Τοσ οῦτον χρόνον μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; Οὐ · πιστεύεις, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· ὁ θεοπρεπεστάτην εἶναι διαβεβαιούμεθα τὴν φωνήν. Ὅταν δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίων ἐπιπλήττῃ δήμοις, ἐκεῖνο λέγων· Εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἦτε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ ἐποιεῖτε ἄν· νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα · τοῦτο ᾿Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἐποίησεν· · ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς εἰρῆσθαι τοιαῦτά φα";» Ο γενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα· οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλίται, μεν. Πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς Υἱοῦ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς, καὶ μὲν τοι τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας. Θεὸς γὰρ ὢν γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, οὐ τὸ εἶναι Θεὸς ἀφείς· ἐν προσλήψει δὲ μᾶλλον σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος γεγονώς. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἷς ἐστιν Υἱὸς, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Κύριος, ἓν αὐτοῦ καὶ πρόσωπον εἶναί φαμεν, ἡμεῖς τε κἀκεῖνοι. Μέσας δὲ εἶναι φωνὰς ἐκείνας διαβεβαιούμεθα· οἷον ὅταν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος γράφῃ· « Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς χθὲς, καὶ σήμερον, ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· · καὶ πάλιν · « Είπερ εἰσὶ θεοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοὶ ἔν τε τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ 4· ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ· · καὶ πάλιν· « Ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ, ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, των συγὧν ἐστιν ἡ υἱοθεσία, καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, καὶ ἡ διαθήκη, καὶ δόξα· ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα Χριστὸς, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Αμήν. » Ἰδοὺ γὰρ, ἰδοὺ, Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὀνομάσας, χθὲς, καὶ σήμερον τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναί φησι, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τὰ πάντα· καὶ τὸν κατὰ σάρκα ἐξ Ἰουδαίων, ἐπὶ πάντων ὀνομάζει Θεόν· καὶ μὴν καὶ εὐλογητὸν εἶναί φησιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. με, Φίλιππε. Ού. · ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Μὴ τοίνυν διέλῃς ἐν τούτοις ἐ τὰς ἐπὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ φωνάς· ἔχουσι γὰρ ἐν ταυτῷ τὸ θεοπρεπὲς καὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον· ἐφάρμοσον δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτὰς, ὡς ἑνὶ, τῷ Υἱῷ, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ σεσαρκωμένῳ. Ετερον τοίνυν ἐστὶ τὸ διαιρεῖν τὰς φύσεις, καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, καὶ κατὰ μόνην ἰσοτιμίαν συνῆφθαι λέγειν ἄνθρωπον Θεῷ, καὶ ὁμοίως ἕτερον τὸ φωνῶν εἰδέναι διαφοράν. Ποῦ τοιγαροῦν ταῖς Νεστορίου καινοφωνίαις 8 τὰ ἐκείνων συντρέχει; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τισι δοκεῖ τῶν λέξεων ἡ συνθήκη, καὶ τῶν νοημάτων ἡ προφορὰ ὡ, τῆς ἰσχνῆς ἄγαν ἀκριβείας ἀπολιμπάνεσθαι, θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν· δυσεκφώνητα γὰρ τὰ τοιάδε λίαν. Ταύτῃ τοι καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ἐζήτει παρὰ Θεοῦ λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. Ὅτι γὰρ οὐ μερίζουσιν εἰς δύο τὸν ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, χρῆναι λέγοντες ἐφαρμόζεσθαι τὰς φωνὰς, τῇ μὲν θεότητι αὐτοῦ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς, τῇ δὲ ἀνθρωπότητι πάλιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας, πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές; Διαβεβαιοῦνται γὰρ, ὡς ἔφην, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγος, γεννηθεὶς πρὸ αἰώνων, καὶ ἐν ἐσχάτοις καιροῖς ἐγγεννήθη κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Παρθένου. Προσεπάγουσι δὲ ὅτι, διὰ τὴν ἄφραστον καὶ ἀσύγχυτον ἕνωσιν, καὶ Θεοτόκον εἶναι πιστεύουσι τὴν ἁγίαν Παρθένον· καὶ ἕνα Υἱὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ Κύριον ὁμολογοῦσι σαφῶς. ᾿Απίθανον δὲ παντελῶς τὸ, καὶ ἕνα λέγειν, καὶ διατέμνειν εἰς δύο τὸν ἕνα, νομίζειν αὐτούς. Οὐ γὰρ ἱ ἂν εἰς τοῦτο προῆλθον ἀποπληξίας, ὡς παραβάτὰς ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνειν, ἃ κατέλυσαν ὀρθῶς, οἰκοδομοῦντες ἀβούλως. Εἰ γὰρ ταῖς Νεστορίου συμφέρονται δόξαις, πῶς αὐτὰς ἀναθεματίζουσιν, ὡς βεβήλους καὶ μυσαράς; Οἶμαι δὲ δεῖν καὶ τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν, δι᾽ ἂς εἰς τοῦτο προῆλθον ἰσχνοφωνίας ⅰ. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οἱ τῆς ᾿Αρείου δυσσεβείας ὑπασπισταὶ, τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν δύναμιν ἀνοσίως· ἐκκαπηλεύοντες, τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ φασι Λόγον γενέσθαι μὲν ἄνθρωπον, πλὴν ἀψύχῳ προσχρήσασθαι σώματι (πράττουσι δὲ τοῦτο φιλοκακούργως, ἵνα τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας φωνὰς αὐτῷ προσνέμοντες, ὡς ἐν μείοσιν ὄντα τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπεροχῆς τοῖς παρ᾿ αὐτῶν πλανωμένοις ἐπιδεικνύωσιν, ἑτεροφυᾶ τε αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγωσι), ταύτῃ τοι δεδιότες οἱ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ανατολῆς, μὴ ἄρα πως ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου κατασμικρύνοιτο δόξα τε καὶ φύσις, ἀπό γε τῶν ἀνθρωπίνως εἰρημένων διὰ τὴν μετὰ σαρκὸς οἰκονομίαν, διορίζουσι τὰς φωνὰς, οὐκ εἰς δύο τέμνοντες, ὡς ἔφην, τὸν ἕνα Υἱὸν καὶ Κύριον, ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν τῇ θεότητι αὐτοῦ προσνέμοντες, τὰς δὲ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι πάλιν τῇ αὐτοῦ· πλὴν τὰς ἀπάσας ἑνί. Ἐπυθόμην δὲ, ὅτι γέγραφε τισι τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ὁ εὐλαβέστατος καὶ θεοσεβέστατος Ἰωάννης ἐπίσκοπος, ὡσανεὶ ἐμοῦ σαφῶς διδάξαντος, καὶ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ, ὁμολογεῖν μὲν τῶν φύσεων τὸ διάφορον, διαιρεῖν δὲ τὰς φωνάς καταλλήλως ταῖς φύσεσι· καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ δὴ τούτῳ σκανδαλί ζονταί τινες. Ἦν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον, καὶ πρὸς γε τοῦτο ἡμᾶς εἰπεῖν. Οὐκ ἠγνόηκεν ἡ σὴ τελειότης, ὅτι τῆς Απολιναρίου δόξης τὸν μῶμον τῶν ἐμῶν καταχέοντες ἐπιστολῶν, ψήθησαν ὅτι καὶ ἄψυχον εἶναί φημι τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα Χριστοῦ· καὶ ὅτι κρᾶσις ἢ σύγχυσις, ἢ φυρμός, ἢ μεταβολὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου γέγονεν εἰς τὴν σάρκα, ἤγουν 1 τῆς σαρκὸς μεταφοίτησις εἰς φύσιν θεότητος, ὡς μηδὲν ἔτι σώζεσθαι καθαρῶς, μήτε μὴν εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν. Ὠήθησαν δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ ταῖς Αρείου με συμφέρεσθαι δυσφημίαις, διά τοι τὸ μὴ ἐθέλειν διαφορὰν εἰδέναι φωνῶν, καὶ τὰς μὲν εἶναι λέγειν θεοπρεπεῖς, τὰς δὲ ἀνθρωπίνας, καὶ πρεπού - σας μᾶλλον τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῇ μετὰ σαρκός. Ἐγὼ δὲ, ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων ἀπήλλαγμαι, μαρτυρήσειεν ἂν ἐτέροις ἡ σὴ τελειότης. Πλὴν ἔδει σκανδαλισθεῖσιν ἀπολογήσασθαι. Ταύτῃ τοι γέγραφα πρὸς τὴν θεοσέβειαν αὐτοῦ, ὡς οὔτε πεφρόνηκά ποτε τὰ ᾿Αρείου, καὶ ᾿Απολιναρίου, οὔτε μὴν μεταπεποιῆσθαι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον εἰς σάρκα φημὶ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἰς φύσιν θεότητος μεταφῦναι η τὴν σάρκα, διὰ τὸ ἄτρεπτον εἶναι καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον· ἀνέφικτον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἕτερον· οὔτε μὴν ἀνῄρηκά ποτε φωνῶν διαφοράς · ἀλλ᾽ οἶδα τὸν Κύριον θεοπρεπῶς τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνως ἅμα διαλεγόμενον· ἐπείπερ ἐστὶν ἐν ταυτῷ Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Οὐκοῦν αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο κατασημῆναι θέλων, γέγραφεν ὅτι ἐδίδαξεν ὁμολογεῖν η τῶν φύσεων τὸ διάφορον, καὶ διαιρεῖν τὰς φωνὰς καταλλήλως ταῖς φύσεσιν. Αἱ δὲ τοιαῦται διαλέξεις ἐκαὶ μὲν οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἐξεφωνήθησαν δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Κἀκεῖνο δὲ οἶμαι τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσεπενεγκεῖν ἀναγκαῖον °. ᾿Αφίκετο γὰρ πρός με ὁ θεοσεβέστατος ἐπίσκοπος Παῦλος τῆς Ἐμισηνῶν· εἶτα λόγου κεκινημένου περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ ἀμωμήτου πίστεως, διεπυνθάνετό μου, καὶ μάλα ἐσπουδασμένως, εἰ συναινῶ τοῖς Ρ γραφεῖσι παρὰ τοῦ τῆς ἀοιδίμου μνήμης, καὶ τρισμακαρίου Πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Αθανασίου πρὸς Ἐπίκτητον ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Κορινθίων. Ἐγὼ δὲ ἔφην ὅτι, εἰ σώζεται παρ' ὑμῖν οὐ νενοθευμένον τὸ γράμμα, παραπεποίηται γὰρ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ πολλὰ παρὰ τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρῶν, συναινέσαιμι ἂν Η πάντη τε καὶ πάντως. Ὁ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφασκεν ἔχειν μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, βούλεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀντιγράφων πληροφορηθῆναι, καὶ μαθεῖν, πότερόν ποτε τὰ αὐτῶν βιβλία παρεποιήθη, ἢ μή. Καὶ δὴ καὶ λαβὼν ἀντίγραφα παλαιὰ, καὶ οἷς ἐπεφέρετο συμβαλών, ηὕρισκε ταῦτα νενοθευμένα - καὶ προέτρεψεν ἐκ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν βιβλίων ἴσα ποιῆσαι, πέμψαι τε τῇ Ἀντιοχέων Ἐκκλησίᾳ· ὃ δὴ καὶ γέγονε. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὃ γέγραφεν ὁ εὐλαβέστατος καὶ θεοφιλέστατος ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης τῷ Καρήνψα περὶ ἐμοῦ· ὅτι ἐξέθετο τὰ περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως, συνυφάνας ἡμῖν καὶ τὴν πατρώαν παράδοσιν, μικροῦ καὶ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, γενέσθαι κινδυνεύουσαν Γ. Ἐὰν δὲ περικομίζωσί· τινες ἐπιστολὴν, ὡς γραφεῖσαν παρὰ τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου πρεσβυτέρου τῆς Ῥωμαίων Ἐκκλησίας Φιλίππου, ὡσανεὶ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου ἐπισκόπου Ξύστου χαλεπήναντος ἐπὶ τῇ Νεστορίου καθαιρέσει, καὶ ἀρήξαντος · αὐτῷ, μὴ πιστευέτω τοῦτο ἡ σὴ ὁσιότης. Σύμφωνα γὰρ τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ γέγραφε, καὶ πάντα ἐβεβαίωσε τὰ παρ' αὐτῆς πραχθέντα, καὶ ἔστιν ὁμόφρων η ἡμῖν. Εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ ὡς παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ γραφεῖσα παρακομίζοιτο πρός τινων ἐπιστολὴ, ὡς μετανοοῦντος ἐφ᾿ οἷς πεπράχαμεν κατὰ τὴν Ἐφεσίων πόλιν, γελάσθω καὶ τοῦτο. Ἐσμὲν γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος χάριν ἐν καλῷ φρενὸς, καὶ τοῦ εἰκότος οὐκ ἐκπεφορήμεθα λογισμοῦ. Πρόσειπε τὴν παρὰ σοὶ ἀδελφότητα· σὲ ἡ σὺν ἡμῖν ἐν Κυρίῳ προσαγορεύει.
Tǭ kyriǭ mou, agapētǭ adelphō, kai sylleitourgǭ ᾿Akakiǭ, Kyrillos, en Kyriǭ chairein. Chrēma men adelphois hē prosrēsis glyky te kai axiagaston, kai tou pantos axion logou, para ge tois artiphrosin alēthōs; chrēnai de phēmi, tous homopistous te kai homopsychous, adialeiptōs epeigesthai touto dran, oudenos ontos empodōn, oute mēn anakoptontos tēn eis ge touto thermēn ephesin te kai prothymian. ᾿All' esth᾽ hote baskainei kai ouch hekousin hēmin ē tōn tou metaxy diastēmatōn a to mēkos, ē tōn tou grammatos diakomistōn hē spanis. Kairou de to dynasthai proseipein eispherontos, eurema prosēnes poieisthai prosēkei to pragma, kai ; tois houtō tripothētois asmenōs epipēdąn. Hēstheis dē oun agan epi tois para tēs sēs teleiotētos apestalmenois, kai tethaumakōs tēn diathesin, dein ǭēthēn tēs tōn Ekklēsiōn eirēnēs katamēnysai ton tropon; hekasta te, hopōs gegone, dieipein. Ho eusebestatos kai philochristos basileus, tēn hyper tōn hagiōn Ekklēsiōn phrontida pleistēn hosēn kai anankaian poioumenos, ou phorētēn hēgeito tēn toutōn dichonoian. Metapempsamenos toinyn ton eulabestaton kai theosebestaton episkopon tēs hagias Kōnstantinoupolitōn Ekklēsias Maximianon, kai heterous de pleistous tōn autothi kateilēmmenōn, tina dē tro pon ek mesou men genoit' an tōn Ekklēsiōn hē diaphora, keklēsontai de pros eirēnēn hoi tōn theiōn hierourgoi mystēriōn, dieskepteto. Hoi de ephaskon hōs ouk an heterōs genoito touto pote, oud᾽ an eis homopsychian elthoien tēn pros allēlous hoi peri hōn ho logos, mē proanateilantos autois, kai hoionei proeiskekomismenou tou syndesmou tēs homopsychias kai homopistias; ephaskon te hoti ton tēs theosebeias empleon episkopon Iōannēn, ton ᾿Antiocheias, anathematisai dei ta Nestoriou dogmata, kai engraphōs homologēsai tēn kathairesin autou. Kai, to ge ēchon eis lypas idias, ho tēs ᾿Alexandreias episkopos amnē - monēsei te dia tēn agapēn, kai par᾿ ouden hēgēsetai to hybristhai kata tēn Ephesiōn; kaitoi pancha-lepon te kai dysoiston on. Synainesantos toinyn kai hēsthentos agan epi toutois tou eusebestatou basi- ba leōs, apestalē auto touto katorthōsōn ho kyrios mou, ho thaumasiōtatos tribounos kai notarios ᾿Aristolaos. Epeidē de tois kata tēn eǭan to basilikon ephanisthē thespisma, kai hōs meta gnōmēs gegonos tōn heurethentōn episkopōn kata tēn megalēn Kōnstantinoupolin, ouk oid᾽ ho ti skopēsantes, synēchthēsan men pros ton hosiōtaton kai theosebestaton tēs Berrhoieōn episkopon ᾿Akakion, grapsai te pros me pareskeuasan hoti ton tēs symbaseōs tropon, ētoi ton tēs eirēnēs tōn hagiōn Ekklēsiōn, ouch heterōs genesthai prosēkei, ei mē kata to autois dokoun. Ēn de dē ara touto phortikon, kai bary to aitēma. Ēthelon gar, argēsai men sympanta ta par' emou ) graphenta en te epistolais, kai tomois, kai bibliois, monę̄ de ekeinę̄ synthesthai tę̄ en Nikaią para tōn hagiōn hēmōn Paterōn oristheisę̄ pistei. Egō de pros tauta gegrapha hoti Tę̄ men ekthesei tēs pisteōs, ste tę̄ horistheisę̄ para tōn haagiōn Paterōn kata tēn Nikaeōn polin, hepometha pantes, ouden to parapan tōn en autę̄ keimenōn parasaleuontes 8. echei gar panta orthōs, kai alēptōs; kai to perier gon eti met' ekeinēn, ouk asphales. "A de gegraphamen orthōs kata tōn tou Nestoriou dysphēmiōn, oudeis hēmas anapeisei logos 4, hōs ouk eu gegonasin, eipein; chrēnai de mallon autous, kata ge to doxan kai tǭ eusebestatǭ kai philochristǭ basilei, kai autę̄ de tę̄ hagią synodǭ, tę̄ kata tēn Ephesiōn polin synagēgermenę̄, poiēsai : men apokērykton ton tę̄ tou Sōtēros doxę̄ memachēmenon, anathematisai de kai tas anosious autou dysphēmias, homologēsai te tēn kathairesin autou, kai synainesai tę̄ cheirotonią tou hosiōtatou kai theosebestatou episkopou Maximianou. Toutōn toinyn autois tōn grammatōn apos dothentōn, pepomphasin eis tēn ᾿Alexandreian ton eulabestaton kai theophilestaton episkopon Paulon tēs Emēsēnōn; pros hon pleistoi men hosoi, kai makroi gegonasi logoi peri tōn kata tēn Ephesiōn anomōs ho kai ou kathēkontōs eirēmenōn te kai pe; pragmenōn. Epeidē de toutōn amnēmonēsantas, tōn anankaioterōn echesthai mallon echrēn spouda - smatōn, ērōtōn, ei epikomizetai grammata tou theosebestatou episkopou Iōannou; eita emoi proechomisen epistolēn, ha men echrēn echein, ouk echousan, hypagoreutheisan de mallon, ou kath' hon edei tropon; paroxysmou gar, ou paraklēseōs, eiche dynamin. Kai tautēn ou prosēkamēn; kaitoi ge deon, tais apologiais tēn emēn katagoēteusai lypēn, tēn epi ge tois phthasasi, kai par᾿ autōn gegonosi kata tēn Ephesiōn; kai euaphormōs ephaskon paroxynthēnai kat' emou, dia toi ton zēlon ton hyper tōn hierōn dogmatōn. All᾽ ēkouon, hoti oute ho zēlos autous kekinēken ho theios, oute tōn tēs alētheias dogmatōn hypermachomenoi, synetattonto kat᾿ emou, alla tais anthrōpōn eixantes kolakeiais, kai tas tōn ischyontōn to tēnikade philias eph᾽ heautous harpazontes. Homōs tou theosebestatou Paulou episkopou phaskontos, hetoimōs echein, anathematizein tas Nestoriou dysphēmias, kai homologein autou tēn kathairesin engraphōs, kai touto drąn hyper pantōn, kai hōs ek prosōpou pantōn tōn kata tēn ᾿Anatolēn theosebestatōn episkopōn, antenēnegmai k, legōn ton par' autou prokomizomenon chartēn peri toutou, arkesein autǭ monǭ pros to chrēnai tychein tēs para pantōn hēmōn koinōnias. Diebebaioumēn de, hoti pantōs te kai pantē engraphon homologian peri toutōn ekthesthai prosēkei ton eulabestaton kai theosebestaton tēs ᾿Antiocheōn episkopon Iōannēn. O dē kai gegone; kai pepautai to mesolaboun, kai anaphoitąn allēlōn anapeithon tas Ekklēsias. ᾿All᾽ ēn oudamothen amphibolon, hoti tōn Nestoriou dysphēmiōn tous hypaspistas katatēxein emelle tōn hagiōn Ekklēsiōn hē eirēnē. Kai moi dokousi toiouton ti pathein, hopoion ti symbainein ethos tois nēchesthai men ouk eidysi, neōs 1 ge mēn adokētōs apolisthēsasin. Hoi epeidan katapnigōntai, podas te kai cheiras hōde kakeise diarrhiptountes ataktōs, tou paratychontos haplōs epidrattontai, philopsychountes hoi deilaioi. Ē ouk alēthes eipein, hōs tethorybēntai lian, ekpesontes, kai memonōmenoi, kai exō gegonotes tōn Ekklēsiōn, hōs enomizon esesthai pros epikourian autois? Hē ouk aschallousi, kai touto ou phorētōs, apopēdōntas autōn tous hēpatēmenous horōntes, kai loipon ananēphontas eis alētheian tous tais par᾿ autōn bebēlois kainophōniais hoionei pōs ekmemethysmenous? Kaitoi phaiē tis an autois, kai lian epi kairou, to dia tēs tou prophētou phōnēs; « Synachthēte, kai syndethēte, to ethnos to apaideuton, pro tou genesthai hymas hōsei anthos paraporeuomenon. » Dia ti gar gegonasin allotriōn emetōn parasitoi, ouk aischynontai de tois heterou borborois tas heautōn kardias katamiainontes ? « Hoi kōphoi, akousate, kai hoi typhloi, anablepsate idein. Phronēsate peri tou Kyriou alēthē; kai en haplotēti kardias zētēsate auton. Poia gar chreia polyplokōn hymin heurematōn kai logōn diestrammenōn? ti tēn ep᾿ euthy periybrizon tes tribon, kampylas poieite tas heautōn trochias? « Neōsate heautois neōmata, kai mē speirete ep' akanthais. » ᾿Alyontes gar, hōs ephēn, epi tę̄ eirēnę̄ tōn hagiōn Ekklēsiōn, tous mē anaschomenous ta isa phronein autois, kakourgotata diasyrousi; kai katagoreuousi pikrōs tēs apologias tōn hagiōn episkopōn, tōn apo tēs heǭas phēmi; eita periel kontes autēn pros to heautois hēdy te kai philon, kai noountes ouk orthōs, ouk apądontōs genesthai phasi tais Nestoriou kenophōniais Synkatapsegousi de kai hēmas hōs hois ēdē gegraphamen, pephronēkotas ta enantia. Manthanō de, hoti kakeino phasin hoti pisteōs ekthesin, ētoi symbolon kainon, artiōs katedexametha, tacha pou to archaion ekeino, kai septon atimasantes. Kai « ho men mōros mōra lalēsei; kai hē kardia autou mataia noēsei. » Plēn ekeino phamen; ou pisteōs ekthesin exę̄tēntai par' hēmōn tines, ēgoun ē kainotomētheisan par' heterōn katedexametha. Apochrē gar hēmin hē theopneustos Graphē, kai tōn hagiōn Paterōn hē nēpsis, kai to pros panotioun tōn echontōn orthōs ektetorneumenon tēs pisteōs symbolon. Epeidē de ēsan hoi kata tēn ᾿Anatolēn hosiōtatoi episkopoi dichonoēsantes pros hēmas kata tēn tōn Ephesiōn, kai gegonasi pōs en hypopsią tou kai enalōnai brochois tōn Nestoriou dysphēmiōn, tautę̄ toi, kai mala emphronōs, hōs apallattontes heautous tēs epi toutois aitias, kai tous tēs amōmētou pisteōs herastas plērophorein spoudazontes, hoti tēs ekeinou bdelyrias amoirein egnōkasi, pepoiēntai tēn apologian; kai to chrēma esti logou te pantos kai –mōmou makran. Ara gar ei kai ho autos Nestorios kat' ekeino kairou, kath' hon autǭ proeteineto para pantōn hēmōn to chrēnai katapsēphisasthai tōn heautou dogmatōn, kai anthelesthai tēn alētheian, engraphon epoiēsato tēn epi toutois homologian, kai auton an tis ephē pisteōs hēmin kainotomēsai symbolon? T toinyn dialoidorountai matēn ekthesin symbolou, kainēn onomazontes tēn synainesin tōn kata tēn Phoinikēn theosebestatōn episkopōn, hēn pepoiēntai chrēsimōs te kai anankaiōs, apologoumenoi te kai therapeuontes tous oiēthentas, hoti tais Nestoriou acholouthousi kainophōniais Hē men gar hagia kai hoikoumenikē synodos, hē kata tēn Ephesiōn polin syneilegmenē, proenoēsen anankaiōs tou mē dein, tais Ekklēsiais tou Theou pisteōs ekthesin heteran eiskrinesthai para ge tēn ousan; hēn hoi trismakarioi Pateres, en hagiǭ Pneumati lalountes, hōrisanto. Hoi ge mēn hapax, ouk oid᾽ hopōs, pros autēn dicho. noēsantes, gegonotes de kai en hypopsiais tou mē orthōs helesthai phronein, mēte mēn tois apostolikois te kai euangelikois epesthai dogmasin, ara siōpōntes, apēllagēsan an tēs epi toutǭ dyskleias, ē mallon apologoumenoi, kai tēs enousēs autois doxēs tēn dynamin emphanizontes? Kaitoi gegraphen ho thespesios mathētēs; « Hetoimoi aei pros apologian panti tǭ aitounti hymas logon peri tēs en hymin elpidos. » Ho de 4 touto dran hę̄rēmenos, kainourgei men ouden, all᾽ oude pisteōs ekthesin horatai kainotomōn; enargē de mallon kathistēsi tois eromenois auton, hēn an echoi pistin peri Christou. Epythomēn de pros toutois, hoti tais tōn theosebestatōn episkopōn homopsychiais ou metriōs epistygnazontes hoi tēs alētheias echthroi, anō te kai katō diakykōsi ta panta, kai tois anosiois heautōn heurēmasi symbēnai phasi tēs par᾿ autōn gegenēmenēs homologias tēn dynamin; hēn epi tę̄ orthę̄ pepoiēntai pistei, kainotomountes men, hōs ephēn, ēgoun prosepagontes tois palai diōrismenois, to sympan ouden, hepomenoi de mallon tois tōn hagiōn Paterōn anepiplēktois dogmasin. Hina de pseudoepountas elenchōmen, phere, paragagōmen eis meson tas Nestoriou - phlyarias, kai tas toutōn phōnas. Ekdeixei gar e ōde, kai ouch heterōs, to alēthes hē basanos. Oukoun Nestorios men anairōn eis hapan heurisketai tou monogenous Huiou tou Theou tēn kata sarka gennēsin; ou gar toi tetechthai phēsin auton ek gynaikos, kata tas Graphas. Ephē gar houtō; To proelthein ton Theon ek tēs Christotokou Parthenou, para tēs theias edidachthēn Graphēs; to de gennēthēnai Theon ex autēs, oudamou edidachthēn. En heterą de palin exēgēsei; Oudamou toinyn hē theia Graphē Theon ek tēs Christotokou Parthenou legei gegennēsthai, alla Christon Iēsoun, Huion, kai Kyrion. Hoti de tauta legōn, eis huious dyo merizei ton hena, kai heteron men idikōs einai phēsin Huion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion, ton ek ) Theou Patros gennēthenta Logon, heteron de palin ana meros te kai idikōs Huion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion, ton ek tēs hagias Parthenou, pōs an endoiaseie tis, auto dē touto saphōs mononouchi boōntos ekeinou? Hoi de Theotokon onomazousi tēn hagian Parthenon, hena te einai phasin Huion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion, teleion ; en theotēti, teleion en anthrōpotēti, hate dē kai epsychōmenēs autou tēs sarkos psychę̄ noerą. Hoti gar ouch heteron phasin einai Huion ton ek Theou Patros Logon, heteron de palin ton ek tēs hagias Paothenou, katha katakolouthousi kenophōniais. Nestoriǭ dokei, hena de mallon, kai ton auton, saphes pragmatōn eis henōsin adiaspaston. Ou gar toi, an genoito, kai mala rhądiōs, dia ge tōn ephexēs. Prosepagousi gar, tis an eiē, sēmainontes; hoti teleios, hōs Theos, teleios de kai hōs anthrōpos; ton pro aiōnōn men ek tou Patros gennēthenta, kata tēn theotēta, ep᾿ eschatōn de tōn hēmerōn di᾽ hēmas, kai dia tēn hēmeteran sōtērian, ek Marias tēs hagias Parthenou, kata tēn anthrōpotēta; homoousion tǭ Patri ton auton kata tēn theotēta, kai homoousion hēmin kata tēn anthrōpotēta. Oukoun ēkista men ei, dyo diairousi ton hena Huion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion Iēsoun; ton auton de einai phasi ton pro aiōnōn, kai en eschatois, dēlon de, hoti ton ᾿ ek Theou Patros, hōs Theon, kai ek gynaikos kata sarka, hōs anthrōpon. Pōs gar an nooito pros hēmas homoousios einai kata tēn anthrōpotēta, kaitoi gennētheis ek Patros kata ge, phēmi, tēn theotēta, ei mē nooito kai legoito Theos te homou kai anthrōpos ho autos? ᾿All' ouch hōde taut᾽ echein Nestoriǭ dokei ; tetraptai de mallon ho skopos autǭ pros pan tounantion. Ephē goun, ep᾿ ekklēsias exēgoumenos ; Dia touto kai Christos ho Theos Logos onomazetai, epeidēper echei tēn synapheian tēn pros ton Christon diēnekē. Kai palin; Asynchyton toinyn tēn tōn physeōn tērōmen synapheian; homologōmen ton en anthrōpǭ Theon; sebōmen ton tę̄ theią synapheią tǭ pantokratori Theǭ symproskynoumenon anthrōpon. Horas oun hoson echei to apēches ho logos autǭ? Dyssebeias gar tēs anōtatō memestōtai. Theon men ; idikōs × onomazesthai phēsi ton tou Theou Logon, echein de tēn synapheian tēn pros ton Christon diēnekē. Ar' oun ou dyo Christous enargestata legei? Ouk anthrōpon Theǭ symproskynoumenon sebein, ouk oid᾽ hopōs, homologei? Taut᾽ ouk adelpha tois par᾽ ekeinōn horatai? Ouk antexagousan echei pros allēla tōn ennoiōn tēn dynamin ? Ho men gar dyo phēsin enargōs, hoi de Christon hena, kai Huion, kai Theon, kai Kyrion homologousi proskynein, ton auton ek Patros kata tēn theotēta, kai ek tēs hagias Parthenou kata tēn anthrōpotēta. Dyo men gar physeōn henōsin genesthai phamen; plēn hena Christon, kai hena Huion, kai hena Kyrion homologoumen saphōs. Gegone gar sarx ho Logos, kata tas Graphas kai symbasin oikonomikēn, kai aporrhēton, alēthōs peprachthai phamen anomoiōn kata tinas tōn archaioterōn hairetikōn, ex idias labonta physeōs, tout᾽ esti, tēs theïkēs, heautǭ kataskeuasai to sōma ton tou Theou Logon hyponoēsomen; hepomenoi de pantachē tais theopneustois Graphais, ek tēs hagias Parthenou labein auton tēn sarka, diabebaioumetha. Tautę̄ toi ta, ex hōn estin ho heis kai monos Huios, kai Kyrios Iēsous Christos, hōs en ennoiais dechomenoi, dyo men physeis hēnōsthai phamen, meta de ge tēn henōsin, hōs anę̄rēmenēs ēdē tēs eis dyo diatomēs, mian einai pisteuomen tēn tou Huiou physin, hōs henos, plēn enanthrōpēsantos, kai sesarchōmenou. Ei de dē legoito sarkōthēnai, kai enanthrōpēsai theos hōn ho Logos, dierrhiphthō pou makran tropēs hypopsia (memenēke gar hoper ēn), homologeisthō de pros hēmōn kai asynchytos pantelōs hē henōsis. Alla gar isōs phaien an hoi di᾽ enantias; Idou dē saphōs hoi tēs orthēs pisteōs tēn homologian poioumenoi, dyo men onomazousi physeis, dię̄rēsthai de tas tōn theēgorōn phōnas diateinontai, kata ge tēn diaphoran autōn. Eita pōs ouk enantia tauta tois sois? Oude gar anechę̄ prosōpois dysin, ēgoun hypostasesi, tas phōnas dianemein. ᾿All', ō beltistoi, phaiēn an, gegraphamen en tois kephalaiois; Ei tis prosōpois dysin, ēgoun hypostasesi, dianemei tas phōnas, kai tas men, hōs anthrōpǭ, para ton ek Theou Logon idikōs nooumenǭ, prosaptei, tas de, hōs theoprepeis, monǭ tǭ ek Theou Patros Logǭ, houtos estō katakritos. Phōnōn de diaphoras kat' oudena tropon anę̄rēkamen; ei kai apoblēton pepoiēmetha to merizein autas, hōs Huiǭ katamonas, tǭ ek Patros Logǭ, kai, hōs anthrōpǭ katamonas palin Huiǭ nooumenǭ, tǭ ek gynaikos. Mia gar homologoumenōs hē tou Logou physis; ismen de, hoti sesarkōtai te kai enēnthrōpēse, kathaper ēdē proeipon. Ton de tropon, hon esarkōthē te kai enēnthrōpēsen, ei periergazoito tis, katathrēseien an ton ek Theou Theon Logon doulou te labonta morphēn, kai en homoiōmati anthrōpōn genomenon, katha gegraptai. Kai kat᾿ auto dē touto kai monon noētheiē an hē tōn physeōn, ēgoun hypostaseōn, diaphora ; ou ;; ou gar pou tauton en poiotēti physikę̄ theotēs kai anthrōpotēs. Epei pōs kekenōtai Theos ōn ho Logos, katheis heauton en meiōsei, tout᾽ estin, en tois kath' hēmas? Hotan toinyn ho tēs sarkōseōs polypragmonētai tropos, dyo ta allēlois aporrhētōs te kai asynchytōs synēnegmena kath᾿ henōsin, horą dē pantōs ho anthrōpinos nous, henōthenta ge mēn, diistēsin oudamōs; all᾽ hena ton ex amphoin, kai Theon, kai Uion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion einai te kai ; pisteuei, kai ararotōs eisdechetai Heterą de pantelōs para tautēn hē Nestoriou kakodoxia. Hypokrinetai men gar homologein, hoti kai esarkōthē, kai enēnthrōpēse Theos ōn ho Logos, tēn de ge tou sesarkōsthai dynamin ouk eidōs, dyo men onomazei physeis, apodiairei ho de allēlōn autas, Theon idią titheis, kai homoiōs anthrōpon ana meros, synaphthenta Theǭ schetikōs, kata monēn tēn isotimian, ēgoun, authentian. Ephē gar houtōs; Achōristos tou phainomenou Theos ; dia touto tou mē chōrizomenou tēn timēn ou chōrizō; chōrizō tas physeis; all' enō tēn proskynēsin. Hoi de ge kata tēn ᾿Antiocheian adelphoi, ta men ex hōn noeitai Christos, hōs en psilais kai monais ennoiais dechomenoi, physeōn men eirēkasi diaphoran ( hoti mē tauton, hōs ephēn, en poiotēti phyde theoprepeis. - einai, kai. sikę̄ theotēs kai anthrōpotēs), hena ge mēn Huion, kai Christon, kai Kyrion, kai hōs henos ontos alēthōs, hen autou kai to prosōpon einai phasin; merizousi de kat᾿ oudena tropon ta hēnōmena. Oute mēn physikēn paradechontai tēn diairesin, katha phronein edoxe tǭ tōn athliōn heurematōn eisēgētę̄; diaireisthai de monas diateinontai tas epi tǭ Kyriǭ phōnas prepein te phasin autas, ou tas men, hōs Huiǭ katamonas tǭ ek Theou Patros Logǭ, tas de, kai hōs heterǭ palin niǭ, tǭ ek gynaikos; alla tas men tę̄ theotēti autou, tas de palin tę̄ anthrōpotēti autou. Theos gar estin ho autos kai anthrōpos. Einai de phasi kai heteras koinopoiētheisas tropon tina, kai hoion ep᾿ amphō blepousas, theotēta kai anthrōpotēta legō. Hoion dē ti phēmi. Hai men gar eisi tōn phōnōn hoti malista theoprepeis; hai de houtō palin anthrōpoprepeis; hai de hoti malista mesēn tina taxin epechousin, emphanizousai ton Huion Theon onta kai anthrōpon, homou te kai en tautǭ. Hotan men gar tǭ Philippǭ legę̄; « Tos outon chronon meth' hymōn eimi, kai ouk egnōkas me, Philippe? Ou ; pisteueis, hoti egō en tǭ Patri, kai ho Patēr en emoi estin? Ho heōrakōs eme, heōrake ton Patera. Egō kai ho Patēr hen esmen; ho theoprepestatēn einai diabebaioumetha tēn phōnēn. Hotan de tois Ioudaiōn epiplēttę̄ dēmois, ekeino legōn; Ei tekna tou Abraam ēte, ta erga tou ᾿Abraam epoieite an; nyn de zēteite me apokteinai, anthrōpon hos tēn alētheian hymin lelalēka ; touto ᾿Abraam ouk epoiēsen; ; anthrōpoprepōs eirēsthai toiauta pha"?» O genōn mou kata sarka; hoitines eisin Israēlitai, men. Plēn tou henos Huiou tas theoprepeis, kai men toi tas anthrōpinas. Theos gar ōn gegonen anthrōpos, ou to einai Theos apheis; en proslēpsei de mallon sarkos kai haimatos gegonōs. Epeidē de heis estin Huios, kai Theos, kai Kyrios, hen autou kai prosōpon einai phamen, hēmeis te kakeinoi. Mesas de einai phōnas ekeinas diabebaioumetha; hoion hotan ho makarios Paulos graphę̄; « Iēsous Christos chthes, kai sēmeron, ho autos kai eis tous aiōnas; ; kai palin ; « Eiper eisi theoi kai kyrioi polloi en te tǭ ouranǭ kai en tę̄ gę̄ 4; all᾽ hēmin heis Theos ho ho Patēr, ex hou ta panta, kai hēmeis ex autou; kai heis Kyrios Iēsous Christos, di' hou ta panta, kai hēmeis di᾿ autou; ; kai palin; « Ēuchomēn gar autos egō, anathema einai apo tou Christou hyper tōn adelphōn mou, tōn sygōn estin hē huiothesia, kai hē nomothesia, kai hē diathēkē, kai doxa; hōn hoi pateres, kai ex hōn to kata sarka Christos, ho ōn epi pantōn Theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas. Amēn. » Idou gar, idou, Christon Iēsoun onomasas, chthes, kai sēmeron ton auton einai phēsi, kai eis tous aiōnas, kai di᾿ autou genesthai ta panta; kai ton kata sarka ex Ioudaiōn, epi pantōn onomazei Theon; kai mēn kai eulogēton einai phēsin eis tous aiōnas. me, Philippe. Ou. ; epi tēs gēs Mē toinyn dielę̄s en toutois e tas epi tǭ Kyriǭ phōnas; echousi gar en tautǭ to theoprepes kai to anthrōpinon; epharmoson de mallon autas, hōs heni, tǭ Huiǭ, tout᾽ estin, tǭ Theǭ Logǭ sesarkōmenǭ. Eteron toinyn esti to diairein tas physeis, kai touto meta tēn henōsin, kai kata monēn isotimian synēphthai legein anthrōpon Theǭ, kai homoiōs heteron to phōnōn eidenai diaphoran. Pou toigaroun tais Nestoriou kainophōniais 8 ta ekeinōn syntrechei? Ei gar kai tisi dokei tōn lexeōn hē synthēkē, kai tōn noēmatōn hē prophora hō, tēs ischnēs agan akribeias apolimpanesthai, thaumaston ouden; dysekphōnēta gar ta toiade lian. Tautę̄ toi kai ho thespesios Paulos ezētei para Theou logon en anoixei tou stomatos autou. Hoti gar ou merizousin eis dyo ton hena Iēsoun Christon, chrēnai legontes epharmozesthai tas phōnas, tę̄ men theotēti autou tas theoprepeis, tę̄ de anthrōpotēti palin autou tas anthrōpinas, pōs ouch hapasin enarges? Diabebaiountai gar, hōs ephēn, hoti autos ho ek Theou Patros Logos, gennētheis pro aiōnōn, kai en eschatois kairois engennēthē kata sarka ek tēs hagias Parthenou. Prosepagousi de hoti, dia tēn aphraston kai asynchyton henōsin, kai Theotokon einai pisteuousi tēn hagian Parthenon; kai hena Huion kai Christon kai Kyrion homologousi saphōs. ᾿Apithanon de pantelōs to, kai hena legein, kai diatemnein eis dyo ton hena, nomizein autous. Ou gar hi an eis touto proēlthon apoplēxias, hōs parabatas heautous synistanein, ha katelysan orthōs, oikodomountes aboulōs. Ei gar tais Nestoriou sympherontai doxais, pōs autas anathematizousin, hōs bebēlous kai mysaras? Oimai de dein kai tas aitias eipein, di᾽ as eis touto proēlthon ischnophōnias ⅰ. Epeidē gar hoi tēs ᾿Areiou dyssebeias hypaspistai, tēs alētheias tēn dynamin anosiōs; ekkapēleuontes, ton ek Theou phasi Logon genesthai men anthrōpon, plēn apsychǭ proschrēsasthai sōmati (prattousi de touto philokakourgōs, hina tas anthrōpinas phōnas autǭ prosnemontes, hōs en meiosin onta tēs tou Patros hyperochēs tois par᾿ autōn planōmenois epideiknyōsin, heterophya te auton einai legōsi), tautę̄ toi dediotes hoi ek tēs ᾿Anatolēs, mē ara pōs hē tou Theou Logou katasmikrynoito doxa te kai physis, apo ge tōn anthrōpinōs eirēmenōn dia tēn meta sarkos oikonomian, diorizousi tas phōnas, ouk eis dyo temnontes, hōs ephēn, ton hena Huion kai Kyrion, alla tas men tę̄ theotēti autou prosnemontes, tas de tę̄ anthrōpotēti palin tę̄ autou; plēn tas apasas heni. Epythomēn de, hoti gegraphe tisi tōn epitēdeiōn ho eulabestatos kai theosebestatos Iōannēs episkopos, hōsanei emou saphōs didaxantos, kai lamprą tę̄ phōnę̄, homologein men tōn physeōn to diaphoron, diairein de tas phōnas katallēlōs tais physesi; kai ep᾿ autǭ dē toutǭ skandali zontai tines. Ēn oun anankaion, kai pros ge touto hēmas eipein. Ouk ēgnoēken hē sē teleiotēs, hoti tēs Apolinariou doxēs ton mōmon tōn emōn katacheontes epistolōn, psēthēsan hoti kai apsychon einai phēmi to hagion sōma Christou; kai hoti krasis ē synchysis, ē phyrmos, ē metabolē tou Theou Logou gegonen eis tēn sarka, ēgoun 1 tēs sarkos metaphoitēsis eis physin theotētos, hōs mēden eti sōzesthai katharōs, mēte mēn einai ho estin. Ōēthēsan de pros toutǭ kai tais Areiou me sympheresthai dysphēmiais, dia toi to mē ethelein diaphoran eidenai phōnōn, kai tas men einai legein theoprepeis, tas de anthrōpinas, kai prepou - sas mallon tę̄ oikonomią tę̄ meta sarkos. Egō de, hoti tōn toioutōn apēllagmai, martyrēseien an eterois hē sē teleiotēs. Plēn edei skandalistheisin apologēsasthai. Tautę̄ toi gegrapha pros tēn theosebeian autou, hōs oute pephronēka pote ta ᾿Areiou, kai ᾿Apolinariou, oute mēn metapepoiēsthai ton tou Theou Logon eis sarka phēmi, all᾽ oude eis physin theotētos metaphynai ē tēn sarka, dia to atrepton einai kai analloiōton ton tou Theou Logon; anephikton de kai to heteron; oute mēn anę̄rēka pote phōnōn diaphoras ; all᾽ oida ton Kyrion theoprepōs te kai anthrōpinōs hama dialegomenon; epeiper estin en tautǭ Theos kai anthrōpos. Oukoun auto dē touto katasēmēnai thelōn, gegraphen hoti edidaxen homologein ē tōn physeōn to diaphoron, kai diairein tas phōnas katallēlōs tais physesin. Hai de toiautai dialexeis ekai men ouk eisin, exephōnēthēsan de par᾽ autou. Kakeino de oimai tois eirēmenois prosepenenkein anankaion °. ᾿Aphiketo gar pros me ho theosebestatos episkopos Paulos tēs Emisēnōn; eita logou kekinēmenou peri tēs orthēs kai amōmētou pisteōs, diepynthaneto mou, kai mala espoudasmenōs, ei synainō tois R grapheisi para tou tēs aoidimou mnēmēs, kai trismakariou Patros hēmōn ᾿Athanasiou pros Epiktēton episkopon tēs Korinthiōn. Egō de ephēn hoti, ei sōzetai par' hymin ou nenotheumenon to gramma, parapepoiētai gar tōn en autǭ polla para tōn tēs alētheias echthrōn, synainesaimi an Ē pantē te kai pantōs. Ho de pros touto ephasken echein men kai autos tēn epistolēn, boulesthai de kai ek tōn par᾿ hēmin antigraphōn plērophorēthēnai, kai mathein, poteron pote ta autōn biblia parepoiēthē, ē mē. Kai dē kai labōn antigrapha palaia, kai hois epephereto symbalōn, hēuriske tauta nenotheumena - kai proetrepsen ek tōn par᾿ hēmin bibliōn isa poiēsai, pempsai te tę̄ Antiocheōn Ekklēsią; ho dē kai gegone. Kai touto estin, ho gegraphen ho eulabestatos kai theophilestatos episkopos Iōannēs tǭ Karēnpsa peri emou; hoti exetheto ta peri tēs enanthrōpēseōs, synyphanas hēmin kai tēn patrōan paradosin, mikrou kai ex anthrōpōn, hin᾿ houtōs eipō, genesthai kindyneuousan G. Ean de perikomizōsi; tines epistolēn, hōs grapheisan para tou eulabestatou presbyterou tēs Rhōmaiōn Ekklēsias Philippou, hōsanei tou hosiōtatou episkopou Xystou chalepēnantos epi tę̄ Nestoriou kathairesei, kai arēxantos ; autǭ, mē pisteuetō touto hē sē hosiotēs. Symphōna gar tę̄ hagią synodǭ gegraphe, kai panta ebebaiōse ta par' autēs prachthenta, kai estin homophrōn ē hēmin. Ei de dē kai hōs par᾿ emou grapheisa parakomizoito pros tinōn epistolē, hōs metanoountos eph᾿ hois peprachamen kata tēn Ephesiōn polin, gelasthō kai touto. Esmen gar dia tēn tou Sōtēros charin en kalǭ phrenos, kai tou eikotos ouk ekpephorēmetha logismou. Proseipe tēn para soi adelphotēta; se hē syn hēmin en Kyriǭ prosagoreuei.
To my lord, beloved brother and fellow minister Acacius, Cyril: greeting in the Lord.
Greeting one another is a sweet and admirable thing for brothers, worth every word to those who are truly sound of mind; and I say that those of one faith and one soul should hasten to do it unceasingly, when nothing stands in the way or checks the warm desire and eagerness for it. But sometimes, against our will, either the length of the distance between us or the scarcity of letter-carriers begrudges it. When the occasion offers the chance to greet one another, one should count it a pleasant find and leap gladly at what is so much desired. Being greatly delighted, then, by what your Perfection sent, and admiring your disposition, I thought I should make known the manner of the churches' peace and recount everything as it happened.
The most pious and Christ-loving emperor, taking the greatest and most necessary care for the holy churches, considered their discord intolerable. So he summoned the most reverent and God-fearing bishop of the holy church of Constantinople, Maximian, and very many others who were staying there, and considered in what way the difference among the churches might be removed and the ministers of the divine mysteries called to peace. They said that this could never come about otherwise, nor could the parties concerned come to unanimity with one another, unless the bond of unanimity and of one faith first dawned on them and was, as it were, brought in first; and they said that John, bishop of Antioch, full of piety as he is, must anathematize the doctrines of Nestorius and confess his deposition in writing; and that the bishop of Alexandria, as far as his own griefs were concerned, would forget them for love's sake and count as nothing the insults at Ephesus, grievous and hard to bear though they were. The most pious emperor agreed and was greatly pleased with this, and my lord the most admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus was sent to accomplish this very thing.
But when the imperial decree was made known to those in the East, and as having been issued with the consent of the bishops present in great Constantinople, they, with what aim I do not know, gathered with the most holy and God-fearing bishop of Beroea, Acacius, and arranged for him to write to me that the manner of the agreement, that is, of the peace of the holy churches, must come about in no other way than as they saw fit. And this demand was burdensome and heavy. For they wanted everything I had written, in letters, treatises, and books, to be made void, and that we should agree only to the faith defined at Nicaea by our holy fathers. I wrote in reply: “We all follow the exposition of the faith defined by the holy fathers at the city of Nicaea, disturbing nothing at all of what it contains; for it is all right and irreproachable, and further curiosity after it is not safe. But what we have rightly written against the blasphemies of Nestorius no argument will persuade us to say was not well done. Rather, they must, as was decided by the most pious and Christ-loving emperor and by the holy synod gathered at the city of Ephesus itself, disown the one who has fought against the glory of the Saviour, anathematize his unholy blasphemies, confess his deposition, and agree to the ordination of the most holy and God-fearing bishop Maximian.”
When this letter had been delivered to them, they sent to Alexandria the most reverent and God-beloved bishop Paul of Emesa. Very many and long discussions took place with him about what was said and done at Ephesus unlawfully and improperly. But since we ought to forget these things and hold rather to more necessary concerns, I asked whether he brought a letter from the most God-fearing bishop John. He then presented me with a letter that did not contain what it should have, but rather had been dictated not in the proper manner, for it had the force of provocation, not of entreaty. I did not accept it, though it ought to have soothed with apologies my grief over what they had done before at Ephesus. They said that they had been provoked against me with good reason, because of their zeal for the sacred doctrines. But I heard that it was neither divine zeal that moved them nor defence of the doctrines of truth that ranged them against me, but that they had yielded to men's flatteries and were snatching for themselves the friendship of those who were powerful at that time. Nevertheless, when the most God-fearing bishop Paul said he was ready to anathematize the blasphemies of Nestorius and to confess his deposition in writing, and to do this on behalf of all and as in the person of all the most God-fearing bishops of the East, I objected, saying that the document he offered on this matter would suffice for him alone to obtain communion from all of us; and I insisted that the most reverent and God-fearing bishop of Antioch, John, must by all means and in every way set out a written confession about these things. This has indeed been done; what stood between us has ceased, and the churches have been persuaded to return to one another.
But there was no doubt at all that the peace of the holy churches would waste away the defenders of Nestorius's blasphemies. And they seem to me to have suffered something like what usually happens to those who cannot swim but have unexpectedly slipped off a ship. When they are drowning, they throw their feet and hands about in disorder and grab at whatever comes to hand, the wretches, clinging to life. Or is it not true to say that they are greatly troubled, having fallen away, left alone, and outside the churches which they thought would be their support? Are they not intolerably vexed, seeing those they deceived springing away from them, and those who had been, as it were, made drunk by their profane novelties of speech now sobering up to the truth? Yet one might say to them, quite seasonably, the words of the prophet: “Gather yourselves together and be bound together, you undisciplined nation, before you become like a flower that passes away.” For why have they become parasites of other men's vomit, and are not ashamed to defile their own hearts with another's filth? “Hear, you deaf, and look up to see, you blind.” “Think of the Lord truthfully, and seek him in simplicity of heart.” What need have you of tangled inventions and perverse words? Why do you insult the straight road and make your paths crooked? “Break up your fallow ground, and do not sow among thorns.”
For, being distraught, as I said, at the peace of the holy churches, they malign most maliciously those who would not think as they do. They denounce bitterly the defence made by the holy bishops, I mean those of the East; then, dragging it to what is pleasant and dear to them, and understanding it wrongly, they say it is not out of tune with the empty talk of Nestorius. And they blame us too, as having thought the opposite of what we had already written. I learn that they also say that we have just now accepted an exposition of faith, that is, a new symbol, perhaps having dishonoured that ancient and venerable one. “The fool will speak folly, and his heart will think vain things.” But we say this: we have not demanded an exposition of faith from anyone, nor have we accepted one newly devised by others. For the divinely inspired Scripture suffices us, and the sobriety of the holy fathers, and the symbol of faith, finely turned to express everything that is right. But since the most holy bishops of the East had disagreed with us at Ephesus, and had in some way come under suspicion of being caught in the nooses of Nestorius's blasphemies, they therefore very wisely, freeing themselves from the charge on this account and eager to assure the lovers of the blameless faith that they had resolved to have no part in his abomination, made their defence; and the thing is far from any reproach. For if Nestorius himself, at the time when all of us urged him to condemn his own doctrines and choose the truth instead, had made a written confession about these matters, would anyone have said that he had devised a new symbol of faith for us? Why, then, do they vainly revile as an exposition of a symbol, calling it new, the assent of the most God-fearing bishops of Phoenicia, which they made usefully and necessarily, defending themselves and reassuring those who thought they followed the novelties of speech of Nestorius?
The holy and ecumenical synod gathered at the city of Ephesus provided, necessarily, that no other exposition of faith should be introduced into the churches of God besides the existing one, which the thrice-blessed fathers, speaking in the Holy Spirit, defined. But those who once, I know not how, disagreed with it, and came under suspicion of not having chosen to think rightly or to follow the apostolic and evangelical doctrines, would they have freed themselves from the disgrace of this by keeping silent, or rather by making a defence and showing the force of the belief that is in them? Yet the divine disciple wrote, “Always be ready to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” Whoever chooses to do this innovates nothing, nor is he seen to devise a new exposition of faith; rather, he makes plain to those who ask him what faith he has concerning Christ.
I have also learned that the enemies of the truth, more than moderately gloomy at the unanimity of the most God-fearing bishops, are stirring everything up and down and saying that the force of the confession they made agrees with their own unholy inventions; the confession which they made about the right faith, innovating nothing, as I said, and adding nothing at all to what was defined long ago, but rather following the irreproachable doctrines of the holy fathers. To refute these liars, come, let us bring Nestorius's prattle and his very words into the open. For examination will show the truth in this way and no other. Nestorius is found abolishing altogether the birth according to the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God; for he says that he was not born of a woman according to the Scriptures. He said this: “That God came forth from the Virgin Mother of Christ I have been taught by divine Scripture; that God was born of her I have nowhere been taught.” And again in another exposition: “Nowhere, then, does divine Scripture say that God was born of the Virgin Mother of Christ, but Jesus Christ, Son, and Lord.” That by saying this he divides the one into two sons, and says that one is specially Son, Christ, and Lord, the Word begotten of God the Father, and another again, separately and specially, Son, Christ, and Lord, the one from the holy Virgin, who could doubt, when he all but cries this out plainly?
But they name the holy Virgin Mother of God and say that there is one Son, Christ, and Lord, perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, since his flesh was animated with an intelligent soul. That they do not say, as Nestorius thinks, that the Word from God the Father is one Son and the one from the holy Virgin another, but rather one and the same, would be very easily clear from what follows. For they add, indicating who he is, that he is perfect as God and also perfect as man: “begotten before the ages from the Father according to the Godhead, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, from Mary the holy Virgin according to the manhood; the same one consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead and consubstantial with us according to the manhood.” So they by no means divide the one Son and Christ and Lord Jesus into two; they say that the same one is before the ages and in the last times, clearly meaning that he is from God the Father as God, and from a woman according to the flesh as man. For how could he be understood to be consubstantial with us according to the manhood, though begotten of the Father, I mean according to the Godhead, unless the same one were understood and said to be God and man at once?
But Nestorius does not think so; his aim has rather turned to the exact opposite. He said, at least, expounding in church: “For this reason God the Word is also named Christ, because he has continual conjunction with Christ.” And again: “Let us, then, keep the conjunction of the natures unconfused; let us confess the God in man; let us revere the man who is worshipped together with almighty God by the divine conjunction.” Do you see how discordant his language is? It is full of the utmost impiety. He says that the Word of God is specially named God, but has continual conjunction with Christ. Is he not then most plainly speaking of two Christs? Does he not confess that he reveres, I know not how, a man worshipped together with God? Are these things seen to be akin to what those men say? Do they not have opposing force of meaning? He plainly says two; they confess that they worship one Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord, the same one from the Father according to the Godhead and from the holy Virgin according to the manhood.
For we say that a union of two natures took place, yet we plainly confess one Christ, one Son, and one Lord. For the Word became flesh, according to the Scriptures; and we say that a dispensational and ineffable coming together of unlike realities into an unbreakable union has truly taken place. For we shall not suppose, as some of the older heretics did, that the Word of God, taking from his own nature, that is, the divine, made the body for himself; but, following the divinely inspired Scriptures everywhere, we affirm that he took the flesh from the holy Virgin. Therefore, receiving as in our thoughts the elements of which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, we say that two natures were united; but after the union, the division into two being now removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one, but made man and incarnate. And if God the Word is said to have been made flesh and to have become man, let all suspicion of change be cast far away (for he remained what he was), and let the union be confessed by us as wholly unconfused.
But perhaps our opponents will say: “See, those who make confession of the right faith plainly name two natures, and insist that the sayings of the theologians are divided according to their difference. How then are these things not contrary to yours? For you do not allow the sayings to be distributed to two persons or hypostases.” But, my good friends, I would say, we wrote in the chapters: “If anyone distributes the sayings to two persons or hypostases, and attaches some, as to a man, to one understood specially apart from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to the Word from God the Father alone, let him be condemned.” We have in no way abolished the differences of the sayings, even though we have rejected dividing them up as to a Son by himself, the Word from the Father, and again as to a Son understood by himself as a man, the one from the woman. For the nature of the Word is, as all agree, one; but we know that it has been made flesh and become man, as I have already said. If anyone inquires into the manner in which he was made flesh and became man, he will see that God the Word from God took the form of a servant and came to be in the likeness of men, as it is written. And in this respect alone could the difference of the natures, or hypostases, be understood; for Godhead and manhood are not the same in natural quality. Otherwise how was the Word, being God, emptied, letting himself down into lowliness, that is, into our condition? When, then, the manner of the incarnation is examined, the human mind certainly sees two things brought together ineffably and unconfusedly into union; but it in no way separates them once united, but believes and firmly accepts that the one from both is one God and Son and Christ and Lord.
Quite different from this is the false doctrine of Nestorius. He pretends to confess that the Word, being God, was made flesh and became man; but, not knowing the force of having been made flesh, he names two natures and divides them from each other, setting God apart and likewise man separately, joined to God by relation, only by equality of honour, that is, of authority. For he said this: “God is inseparable from the one who appears; therefore I do not separate the honour of the one who is not separated. I separate the natures, but I unite the worship.” But the brothers at Antioch, receiving as in bare and mere thoughts the elements from which Christ is understood, have spoken of a difference of natures (because, as I said, Godhead and manhood are not the same in natural quality), yet they say that there is one Son, and Christ, and Lord, and, since he is truly one, that his person too is one; and they in no way divide what has been united. Nor do they accept a natural division, as the introducer of those wretched inventions saw fit to hold; they insist only that the sayings about the Lord are divided, and they say that these befit, not some the Word from God the Father as a Son by himself and others another son from the woman, but some his Godhead and others again his manhood. For the same one is God and man. And they say that there are other sayings made common in a way, and looking, as it were, to both, I mean Godhead and manhood.
I mean something like this. Some of the sayings are especially befitting God, others likewise befitting man, while others hold, as it were, a middle place, showing the Son to be God and man at once and in the same. When he says to Philip, “Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one,” we affirm the saying to be most befitting God. When he rebukes the crowds of the Jews, saying, “If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham; but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth; this Abraham did not do,” we say such things are spoken in a manner befitting man. Yet the sayings befitting God and the human ones alike belong to the one Son. For being God he became man, not letting go of being God, but rather having come to be in the assumption of flesh and blood. And since he is one Son, and God, and Lord, we say, both we and they, that his person too is one. We affirm those sayings to be middle ones, as when the blessed Paul writes, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever”; and again, “For although there are many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him”; and again, “For I myself could wish to be accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the giving of the law, the covenant, and the glory; whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.” See, see: having named Christ Jesus, he says that the same one is yesterday and today and for ever, and that all things came to be through him; and he names the one who is from the Jews according to the flesh God over all, and says that he is blessed for ever. Do not, then, divide the sayings about the Lord in these passages; for they hold together in the same thing what befits God and what is human. Rather, fit them to one, to the Son, that is, to God the Word made flesh.
It is one thing, then, to divide the natures, and that after the union, and to say that a man was joined to God by equality of honour alone; and quite another to know the difference of the sayings. Where, then, do their views run together with Nestorius's novelties? Even if to some the arrangement of the words and the expression of the thoughts seem to fall short of the finest precision, it is no wonder; for such things are very hard to put into words. For this reason the divine Paul too asked God for utterance in the opening of his mouth. That they do not divide the one Jesus Christ into two by saying the sayings must be fitted, those befitting God to his Godhead and the human ones to his manhood, how is this not plain to all? For they affirm, as I said, that the very Word from God the Father, begotten before the ages, was also born in the last times according to the flesh of the holy Virgin. And they add that, because of the inexpressible and unconfused union, they believe the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; and they plainly confess one Son and Christ and Lord. It is wholly implausible to think that they both say one and cut the one into two. For they would not have come to such madness as to make themselves transgressors by rashly building up again what they rightly tore down. For if they agree with Nestorius's opinions, how do they anathematize them as profane and foul?
I think I should also state the reasons why they have come to such subtlety of expression. Since the defenders of Arius's impiety, unholily adulterating the force of the truth, say that the Word from God became man but made use of a soulless body (and they do this with evil intent, so that by assigning the human sayings to him they may show those they lead astray that he is lower than the Father's supremacy, and may say that he is of another nature), for this reason those from the East, fearing that the glory and nature of God the Word might be diminished by what was said in a human manner because of the dispensation with the flesh, distinguish the sayings: not cutting the one Son and Lord into two, as I said, but assigning some to his Godhead and others to his manhood; yet all to one.
I have learned that the most reverent and God-fearing bishop John has written to some of his friends as though I had taught clearly and in so many words to confess the difference of the natures and to divide the sayings in correspondence with the natures; and some are scandalized at this very thing. It was necessary, then, for us to say something about this too. Your Perfection is not unaware that, pouring on my letters the blame of Apollinarius's opinion, they thought that I say the holy body of Christ is soulless, and that a mixing, confusion, blending, or change of God the Word into the flesh took place, or a passing of the flesh into the nature of Godhead, so that nothing any longer remains pure, nor is what it is. Besides this they thought that I agree with the blasphemies of Arius, because I would not acknowledge a difference of sayings and say that some befit God and others are human and rather befit the dispensation with the flesh. That I am free of such things your Perfection could bear witness to others. Yet it was necessary to make a defence for those who were scandalized. So I wrote to his Reverence that I have never thought the views of Arius and Apollinarius, nor do I say that the Word of God was changed into flesh, nor that the flesh was transformed into the nature of Godhead, because the Word of God is unchangeable and unalterable, and the other is impossible; nor have I ever abolished the differences of the sayings, but I know that the Lord speaks both in a manner befitting God and in a human manner, since he is God and man in the same. Wishing to indicate this very thing, he wrote that I taught to confess the difference of the natures and to divide the sayings correspondingly to the natures. Such expressions are not mine, but were uttered by him.
I think it necessary to add this too to what has been said. The most God-fearing bishop Paul of Emesa came to me; then, when discussion had begun about the right and blameless faith, he asked me very earnestly whether I agree with what was written by our father of celebrated memory, the thrice-blessed Athanasius, to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth. I said: “If the letter is preserved with you unadulterated (for many things in it have been falsified by the enemies of the truth), I would agree with it altogether and in every respect.” He replied that he himself had the letter but wished also to be assured from our copies and to learn whether their books had been falsified or not. And taking old copies and comparing them with the ones he brought, he found theirs adulterated, and he urged that copies be made from our books and sent to the church of Antioch; which was done. And this is what the most reverent and God-beloved bishop John wrote about me to Carenus: that I had set out the doctrine of the incarnation, weaving in for us also the fathers' tradition, which had all but been in danger, so to speak, of disappearing from among men.
If some are circulating a letter supposedly written by the most reverent presbyter of the church of the Romans, Philip, as though the most holy bishop Xystus were angry at the deposition of Nestorius and had come to his help, let your Holiness not believe it. For he has written in agreement with the holy synod, has confirmed all that it did, and is of one mind with us. And if some are also passing round a letter as written by me, as though I repented of what we did at the city of Ephesus, let this too be laughed at. For by the Saviour's grace we are of sound mind and have not been carried away from reasonable thinking. Greet the brotherhood with you. The brotherhood with us greets you in the Lord.
Zeph 2:1–2 (quotation, high confidence) · Prov 26:11 (echo, low confidence) · Isa 42:18 (quotation, high confidence) · Jer 4:3 (quotation, high confidence) · Isa 32:6 (quotation, high confidence) · 1 Pet 3:15 (quotation, high confidence) · John 1:14 (allusion, high confidence) · Phil 2:7 (allusion, high confidence) · John 14:9–10 (quotation, high confidence) · John 10:30 (quotation, high confidence) · John 8:39–40 (quotation, high confidence) · Heb 13:8 (quotation, high confidence) · 1 Cor 8:5–6 (quotation, high confidence) · Rom 9:3–5 (quotation, high confidence) · Eph 6:19 (allusion, high confidence) · Gal 2:18 (allusion, high confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Cyril explains to Acacius of Melitene how the reunion of 433 came about, defends the Antiochene confession as no new creed and not Nestorian, and sets out his own teaching of one incarnate nature of the Word, the union of two natures, and the right way to distinguish Christ's sayings.
- Written in 433 to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, who was uneasy about the reunion. Several lines are out of place in the edition: in the paragraph beginning “But they name the holy Virgin” the words “of unlike realities into an unbreakable union. For we shall not” are printed earlier than their sentence, and part of Rom 9:3 (“my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites”) and stray words from the notes are printed in the middle of the paragraph on Christ's sayings; all are translated where the sense requires. The quotation “The fool will speak folly” is Isa 32:6; “Think of the Lord truthfully … simplicity of heart” is Wis 1:1. The phrase “the nature of the Son is one, as of one, but made man and incarnate” is Cyril's “one nature” formula, translated literally. “Carenus” renders an uncertain name in the edition (Καρήνψα). Athanasius's letter to Epictetus is his Letter 59.
Extrabiblical texts: Wis 1:1 (Wisdom of Solomon [in RC, EO, ETH canons]; quotation); Athanasius, Ep. Epict. 1 (To Epictetus; allusion); Conc. Nic. 0 (Creed and Canons of the Council of Nicaea (325); allusion)
Topics: Christology, Heresy
Cite (SBL): Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 40 (PG 77 77:181; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/cyril-alexandria-epistulae/40). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/cyril-alexandria-epistulae/40
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-cyril-alexandria-epistulae-40) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude (Opus) from the Greek as printed in Migne PG 77 (Bavarian State Library OCR); letters 4, 17 and 39 compared with NPNF² 14; the rest re-read against the Greek.