Letters (first part: Migne letters 1-55) 46–49

Another memorandum written by him in answer to our questions.

The truth shows itself plainly to those who love it, but it hides, I think, and tries to escape the notice of the minds of the tortuous; for they do not show themselves worthy to see it with bright eyes. The lovers of the blameless faith seek the Lord in simplicity of heart, as it is written; but those who go along crooked paths and have a twisted heart, as is said in the Psalms, gather for themselves tangled pretexts of perverse thoughts, so as to pervert the straight ways of the Lord and lead the souls of the simpler to think what is not lawful. I say this having read your Holiness's memoranda, and having found in them certain things put forward unsafely by people who have somehow come to love the perversity of knowledge falsely so called. They were these.

1. “If Emmanuel,” it says, “was brought together from two natures, and after the union one nature of the Word, incarnate, is understood, it will certainly follow that we must say he suffered in his own nature.”

The blessed fathers who defined the venerable symbol of faith said that the very Word from God the Father, from his substance, the only-begotten, through whom are all things, was made flesh and became man. And we certainly do not say that those holy men did not know that the body united to the Word was animated with an intelligent soul. So if anyone says that the Word was made flesh, he does not confess that the flesh united to him was without an intelligent soul. For so, I think, or rather as one may say with confidence, the all-wise evangelist John too said that the Word became flesh: not as united to soulless flesh, God forbid, nor as having undergone change or alteration; for he remained what he was, that is, God by nature. But having taken on also being man, that is, becoming like us of a woman according to the flesh, he again remained one Son; yet not fleshless, as formerly, that is, before the times of the incarnation, but having put on, as it were, our nature as well. And although the body united to him, in which there is an intelligent soul, is not consubstantial with the Word who sprang from God the Father, yet, while the mind perceives the difference of nature between the things united, we confess one Son and Christ and Lord, since the Word has become flesh. And when we say “flesh,” we mean “man.”

What necessity is there, then, that he suffered in his own nature, if after the union one nature of the Son, incarnate, is spoken of? If there were not, among the elements of the dispensation, something that by nature can undergo suffering, they would have spoken rightly, that, since there was nothing able by nature to suffer, the suffering would of necessity befall the nature of the Word. But if in saying “incarnate” the whole account of the dispensation with the flesh is brought in (for he was made flesh in no other way than by taking hold of the seed of Abraham, and he was made like his brothers in every respect and took the form of a servant), then those who say that it follows that he must certainly have suffered in his own nature have talked idle nonsense; for the flesh is there as the subject to which suffering would rightly be understood to belong, the Word being impassible. Yet we do not on this account say that he is beyond being said to have suffered. For as the body became his own, so all that belongs to the body, sin alone excepted, may no less be said to be his, by the appropriation proper to the dispensation.

But our opponents will say:

2. “If there was one nature of the Word, incarnate,” it says, “it is wholly necessary to say that a blending and mixing took place, the nature of man being, as it were, diminished and stolen away in him.”

Those who pervert what is right are again unaware that there is in truth one nature of the Word, incarnate. For if the Word from God the Father, ineffably begotten, is by nature and truly one Son, and then, by the assumption of flesh, not soulless but animated with an intelligent soul, came forth a man from a woman, he will not for this reason be divided into two persons and sons, but has remained one; yet not fleshless or outside a body, but having it as his own in an unbreakable union. Whoever says this by no means signifies blending or confusion or anything else of the kind; nor will this follow from any necessity of the argument. For even if the only-begotten Son of God, incarnate and made man, is said by us to be one, he has not for that reason been blended, as they think; nor has the nature of the Word passed over into the nature of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into his. But each remaining and being understood in the property that belongs to it by nature, according to the account we have just given, he, ineffably and inexpressibly united, has shown us one nature of the Son; yet, as I said, incarnate. For “one” is said truly not only of things simple by nature, but also of things brought together by composition, such as man is, being of soul and body. Such things are of different kinds and not consubstantial with each other, yet when united they make up one nature of man, even though in the principle of the composition there is present the difference in nature of the things brought into unity. Those who say, then, that if there is one nature of the Word, incarnate, it would certainly follow that a blending and mixing took place, as though the nature of man were diminished and stolen away, are talking to no purpose. For it has neither been diminished nor, as he says, stolen away; for to say that he has been made flesh suffices for the most complete indication that he became man. If we had kept silent about this, their slander would have had some room. But since “incarnate” has necessarily been added, where is the manner of diminution or theft?

3. “If Christ,” it says, “is understood to be perfect God and the same perfect man, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead and consubstantial with us according to the manhood, where is the perfection, if the nature of man no longer subsists? And where is the consubstantiality with us, if the substance, which is our nature, no longer subsists?”

The solution, or defence, given to the preceding heading suffices to make this clear too. If, having said one nature of the Word, we had kept silent and not added “incarnate,” but had, as it were, set the dispensation outside, their argument would perhaps not have been implausible, when they pretend to ask, “Where is the perfection in manhood, or how does our substance subsist?” But since the perfection in manhood and the indication of our substance have been brought in by saying “incarnate,” let them stop leaning on a staff of reed. For it would be right to charge with depriving the Son of perfect manhood one who throws out the dispensation and denies the incarnation. But if, as I said, in saying that he has been made flesh there is a clear and unambiguous confession that he became man, nothing any longer prevents us from understanding that Christ, being one and only Son, is himself God and man, perfect in Godhead as in manhood.

Your Perfection has set out the account of the saving suffering most correctly and very wisely, affirming that the only-begotten Son of God himself, inasmuch as he is understood to be and is God, did not suffer in his own nature the things of the body, but rather suffered in his earthly nature. For both had of necessity to be preserved for the one and true Son: not suffering divinely, and being said to have suffered humanly; for his flesh suffered. But they again think that we are bringing in by this what they call “theopaschism”; and they do not understand the dispensation, but most maliciously try to transfer the suffering to a man specially, unwisely cultivating a harmful piety, so that the Word of God may not be confessed as Saviour, as having given his own blood for us, but rather that a man specially, understood as a Son by himself, may be said to have accomplished this. To think so shakes the whole account of the dispensation with the flesh, and they will quite plainly turn our divine mystery into a matter of worshipping a man. They do not understand that the blessed Paul said that the one who is from the Jews according to the flesh, that is, from the seed of Abraham, Jesse, and David, is Christ, Lord of glory, and God blessed for ever and over all, showing the body nailed to the wood to be the Word's own, and for this reason ascribing the cross to him.

4. I learn that there is another question besides. “Whoever says that the Lord suffered in bare flesh makes the suffering irrational and involuntary. But if one says that he suffered with an intelligent soul, so that the suffering might be voluntary, nothing prevents us from saying that he suffered in the nature of the manhood. And if this is true, how shall we not grant that the two natures subsist after the union, undivided? So, if anyone says, ‘Christ, then, having suffered for us in the flesh,’ he is saying nothing else than ‘Christ, then, having suffered for us in our nature.’”

This problem too is no less an attack on those who say that the nature of the Son is one, incarnate; wishing to show this to be idle, they contend everywhere to show two subsisting natures. But they did not know that things which are not divided in contemplation only must certainly go apart from one another, wholly and specially, into separate otherness. Let our own human being serve again as an example. In him we understand two natures, one of the soul and another of the body. But dividing them in bare thoughts, and receiving the difference as in subtle contemplations or images of the mind, we do not set the natures apart, nor do we allow them the force of a division all the way through; but we understand them to belong to one, so that the two are no longer two, but through both the one living being is completed. So even if they speak of a nature of manhood and of Godhead in Emmanuel, yet the manhood has become the Word's own, and one Son is understood together with it. Since the divinely inspired Scripture says that he suffered in the flesh, it is better for us too to speak so, rather than “in the nature of the manhood”; even though, if it is not said perversely by some, this would do no wrong to the account of the mystery. For what else is the nature of manhood than flesh animated with an intelligent soul, in which we say the Lord suffered in the flesh? So they say “he suffered in the nature of the manhood” with excessive curiosity, as though separating it from the Word and setting it outside, specially, so that two may be understood, and no longer one, the Word from God the Father, incarnate and made man. And the word “undivided” added by them seems to us, in a way, to signify right belief. But they do not understand it so; for with them “undivided” is taken in another way, according to the empty talk of Nestorius. For they say that the man in whom he dwelt is undivided from God the Word by equality of honour, identity of will, and authority. So they do not put forward the words simply, but with some guile and malice.

John to my lord the most God-beloved and most holy fellow minister Cyril: greeting in the Lord.

We have received one another back, my lord, by the good pleasure of God and through the mediation of my lord bishop Paul, most God-fearing in all things toward us both, a man who has disregarded all his own concerns so that the disturbances in the churches of God might be laid to rest and the union pleasing to God might come about. He returns, then, in peace, and all the duties proper to friendship have been fulfilled by us toward your Reverence without omission; we made small changes among ourselves to what your Holiness dictated, differing not in force but in the handling of the arrangement. For I wish, and rather pray, to join not only myself but also all my lords the most God-beloved bishops of the East to the head that is dear and honoured to me, I mean that of your Sincerity, which I held in the highest regard. A short time interrupted it; then again, God willing, we returned to one another, extinguishing everything painful and leaving among us nothing at all worth strife or contention. This has not happened without God, but with God presiding over it and the Christ-loving and most God-fearing emperors acting as befits them.

Let your Reverence receive, then, the most reverent Cassius and Ammonius, who yielded to us, not in order to disobey you, but so that what you had built might be brought to confirmation and a most excellent end. We are grateful for this also to my lord the most admirable and distinguished tribune and notary Aristolaus, who saw from the affairs that were stirring among us that it was better for us to agree with one another firmly and securely, at the cost of a few syllables. Receive, then, I beg you, what comes from us, well and rightly arranged and sent, having every force for your full assurance; and let no thought enter your mind that we have done anything craftily in the matters before us. For our conscience knows, and calls the One above to witness, that we did not wish to weaken what is yours, but to arrange our own affairs for the benefit of the churches of Christ. The same most reverent deacons will tell you the manner of the arrangement. For everything has been done by us without omission, so that no one can find fault with the agreement that has been made. Receive, then, I beg you, gladly the brothers who bring you the good things of peace, and let your Holiness pray that the affairs of the churches of Christ may go forward auspiciously. For just as we have given ourselves to you, carried by the law of affection, so we are eager and wish, or rather pray, to leave no one among us who does not think the same as we do; we are anxious to bring along gradually, with patience and by careful management, those who still need from us a little encouragement, or rather guidance, for the good of the catholic church and its affairs. Know well, then, that we are the same as you knew us before, with the same disposition, and keep sending us letters and receiving ours. For this will both adorn us and crown your Holiness. We greet all the brotherhood with you warmly.

To my lord, beloved brother and fellow minister Donatus, Cyril: greeting in the Lord.

I thought I should make known to your Reverence what has followed concerning the peace of the churches. My lord the most admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus came to Antioch bringing an imperial letter, which ordered the most reverent bishop of the church of Antioch, John, to anathematize the foul doctrines of Nestorius, to vote for his deposition in the same way as the holy synod, and so to seek communion with us. This was the force of what was written. But some of the bishops of the East, perhaps not yet condemning Nestorius, or even giving him their patronage, grieve our right faith and offend no little against the glory of Christ, the Saviour of us all; and they arranged for the most God-fearing and holy bishop of Beroea, Acacius, to write me some idle things, as though they were asking that everything we wrote against Nestorius be annulled and thrown out as void, and that we agree only to the symbol of faith defined by the holy fathers at the city of Nicaea. Your Holiness knows that such were their proposals long ago at the city of Ephesus. I wrote in reply that they were asking for something impossible; for what we wrote we wrote rightly, defending the right and blameless faith, and we deny nothing at all of our own. For nothing was said carelessly, as they claim, but everything holds wholly and everywhere to correctness and runs with the force of the truth. Rather, they ought not to use such evasions and delays, nor to stray outside what is necessary, but, as was judged right by the most God-fearing and God-beloved emperor himself and by the holy synod, to anathematize the prattle of Nestorius and the blasphemies uttered against Christ, to confess his deposition, and to agree to the ordination of the most holy and God-fearing bishop Maximian. Such letters I did not accept.

When this letter of mine had been sent to them, they saw that they would not obtain communion unless what they had to do was carried through, and they sent to Alexandria the most reverent and God-beloved bishop of Emesa, Paul, bringing me letters of communion, but dictated in a not very fitting manner. For they made a show of bringing complaints too, as though some things had not been rightly said and done at the holy synod. But I said, “Those who ought even to ask pardon for what has gone before, how do they add second insults?” When the said most God-fearing bishop apologized and affirmed on oath that they had had no such aim, but had come to write the letter out of simplicity, I accepted this too for love's sake. But I did not consent to join with him in the services until he gave a document in writing, anathematized the doctrines of Nestorius, confessed that he holds him deposed, and agreed to the ordination of the most reverent bishop Maximian. He asked that, since he had given such a document on behalf of all the most God-fearing bishops in the East, we should demand nothing further. But I by no means put up with that; instead I sent, together with my lord the most admirable tribune and notary Aristolaus, two of our clerics to Antioch, handing them a document and saying, “If the most God-fearing bishop of Antioch, John, signs it and accepts it, then hand over the letters of communion.” For the most admirable tribune Aristolaus was annoyed at the delay. So when the most God-fearing bishop John and the more prominent of those with him had signed, anathematized the doctrines of Nestorius, confessed that they hold him deposed, and agreed to the ordination of the most reverent and God-fearing bishop Maximian, we gave back communion. For these things had been put to them by the holy synod at the metropolis of Ephesus too.

Let your Holiness know this also: the most reverent and God-beloved bishop Paul at first pressed hard, with many entreaties, on behalf of the deposed, Palladius, Eutherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus, and asked that the sentences against them be suspended, insisting that the peace of the churches could not otherwise be brought to completion unless this were added. But I said that he was attempting something impossible, and that this would never be done by us. They have remained, then, in the schism in which they now are, and no mention of them was made in the terms of the peace of the holy churches. They have written the same letter they sent me also to the most God-fearing and most holy bishops Xystus of great Rome and Maximian of the holy church of Constantinople. It was necessary that your Perfection be informed of this exactly, so that some who are accustomed to prattle one thing in place of another may not trouble any of the brothers, as though we had denied what we wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius. I have also sent copies of the letters, the one I wrote to the most reverent bishop of Antioch, John, and the one he wrote to me about the anathema on the blasphemies of Nestorius and his deposition, for your Perfection's exact information. And let no one bring forward other letters besides these. Greet the brotherhood with you. The brotherhood with us greets you in Christ.

To my most holy and most sacred lord, archbishop and father Maximian, Cyril: greeting in the Lord.

There was no doubt that the prayers of your Holiness would prevail entirely and in every way; for the Saviour of us all readily grants the requests of those who love him; so that each of us, rejoicing at this and leaping for joy, may say, “He heard my voice from his holy temple, and my cry before him will enter his ears.” For see, see, the members of the body of the church that had been torn apart have been joined to one another again; nothing divides into discord those who minister the gospel of Christ as priests; and we are all crowned with one faith, having driven the inventor of unholy things, Nestorius, out of the sacred enclosures and removed the false shepherd from the noble flock. This too has been one of the achievements of your prayers.

Since the peace of the churches has become a necessary concern of the most pious emperors as well, and we ourselves pray that what walls us off and cuts us apart into difference may be removed from our midst, and that peace, most dear to God, may shine out like light, now that the most God-beloved and God-fearing John of the church of Antioch and the most reverent bishops with him have confessed in writing that they hold Nestorius deposed and anathematize his unholy blasphemies, I have sent letters of communion to his Reverence and to the other bishops; and we have been joined in concord, your Holiness and all the others who made up the fullness of the holy synod concurring in this. For strife and contention do not prevail among us; we have all had one aim, looking toward peace. And if those who disagreed with us from the beginning and cut themselves off from us had been willing, there would have been no strife or difference among the churches at all. But blessed be the Saviour, who has stilled the storm and spread over us the calm of unanimity, through the prayers and intercessions of your Holiness and of all the others who, holding a right and sincere faith, offer him worship and service in spirit and in truth.