In Defence of the Three Chapters 66

But let us now bring forward some things also from the sayings of blessed Cyril, so that from this too the reader may understand whether it ought to be accepted that, in prejudice of the Synod of Chalcedon, they allege certain writings of Theodore to have been censured as Nestorian after his death. And that it may appear that we have brought forward few testimonies out of many from the Fathers mentioned above, of this man—who was both the condemner of Nestorius, and whom they have made out to have censured the writings of Diodore and Theodore—we will bring forward double, that is, ten, and these too few out of many. For in the book which he entitled Scholia, under the seventh heading, 'What we call the union':

'The soul,' he says, 'reckons as its own all the things that are of the body, although by its proper nature it is free from the passions of the body—both the natural ones and those that befall from without. For the body is moved into natural desires, and the soul consents, in no way indeed being made a partaker of the desire, yet at the outcome it derives its own delight. And if perchance it be depressed or tormented by its own body, it does indeed grieve at what its body suffers, but it itself in its own nature suffers no torment at all. Yet above these things also we say there is a union, which was effected in Emmanuel. For it was necessary that the soul, united to its body, should grieve, so that, fearing the passions, it might submit its bowed neck to God.'

If the Eutychians found that Theodore had said these things, just as we suppose, they would ventilate every point one by one, saying first: How is the soul free from the passions of the body, if it consents when the body is moved into natural desires? Or how, again, consenting to natural desires, is it in no way made a partaker of the desire, yet at the outcome derives its own delight? Or how is desire attributed rather to the body, since the soul can desire even without the body, but the body cannot? For when it is said, The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh (Gal.

5:17), nothing else is understood except that the carnal, earthly affection of the soul lusts against the good affection which it has from the divine Spirit; just as that affection also, which is given by the gift of the Spirit, lusts against the carnal. Then, on what ground is it said that, when it is depressed or tormented by its own body, it indeed grieves at what its body suffers, but it itself in its own nature suffers no torment at all? For if it suffers no torment at all, how is it tormented by its own body? Or how does it grieve without its own torment, since no one grieves except one who suffers pain? Or is it indeed tormented and feels pain, but not in its own nature? And what is found among things, which is tormented outside its own nature, so that it feels pain?

But so far is the nature of the soul not alien to passions, that we often suffer many torments—even if for the sake of our body, yet not from our body—that is, of anxiety, fear, sadness, weariness, jealousy, and the rest. And above these too, that rich man who had no pity on Lazarus is tormented in hell without his body. But, these things omitted, I rather wish to consider this: how great an odium the Acephali would stir up against the Synod of Chalcedon, if Theodore had said: Above these things also we say there is a union, which was effected in Emmanuel: for it was necessary that the soul, united to its body, should grieve, so that, fearing the passions, it might submit its bowed neck to God?

If therefore Theodore had said these things, how would they cry out with the greatest odium and detestation, saying: Behold him whose praises—in the letter that contains them—the Synod of Chalcedon pronounced orthodox, who so far did not believe Christ to be God and the Son of God, that he reckoned that what He suffered was necessary, not for the taking away of our griefs by whose wound we have been healed, but rather for Himself, that He might not be lifted up by fear of the passions, but might submit His bowed neck to God! This too they would say, that he did not even believe Christ to be a man of perfect virtue, since he thought Him restrained by fear from the elation of temporal passions, by which virtue is wont to be exercised. For if those are imperfect—

those who are restrained by fear of eternal punishment—the apostle John saying of such persons too, There is no fear in charity, but perfect charity casteth out fear, because fear hath torment; and he who feareth is not perfect in charity (1 John 4:18)—much less those whom fear of present afflictions draws back from sins. But if anyone, against such complaints of the Eutychians, should bring forward other writings of the same Theodore—of which we recalled very few above—in which he confessed that Christ is by nature God before the ages, and ever equal to the Father who begot Him; they would at once reply in turn and say:

It would have been more tolerable that he should not believe Christ to be God by nature and ever equal to the Father—which even the apostles themselves did not at one time believe—than that he should believe Him whom he believed to be everlasting God to have been restrained from elation by fear of the passions. But again, in the same book, under the tenth heading, let us note what he said, or what the heading alone presents at first sight. For he promised that he would show this in it, saying: That, with God the Word united to true humanity, the unconfused subsistences nevertheless remained; and to prove this he added these words: 'The holy tabernacle was erected according to the will of God throughout the desert, and in it Emmanuel was figured in many ways.' And after other things:

'But that the natures or subsistences remained unconfused, we know from this. For the gold laid upon the wood remained what it was; and the wood was indeed adorned with the beauty of the gold, yet it did not cease to be wood. But that the ark may be taken in the image of Christ, can be declared by many proofs.' Let the reader therefore consider how it is asserted that in Christ, with the natures remaining unconfused, the subsistences also remained—which never existed; since that humanity always pertained to the subsistence of God the Word, and never subsisted by itself as in its own person, having obtained the subsistence of the One assuming it, and passing into it by being born, or being born by passing over—for which the cause of arising, and the whole of what it is that arose, was the assumption itself.

And likewise to Acacius of Melitene: 'But in what manner,' he says, 'He was incarnate and made man, if anyone should search it out, he will contemplate God the Word from God, and that He took the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, according to that which is written; and according to this alone will the difference of the natures or subsistences be considered. Here too, just as of two natures, so also of subsistences, he teaches that the difference must be considered.' Again, interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says in book II: 'When we have said that the Word was made flesh, He communicated with the flesh according to subsistence, ineffably, and in a manner that cannot even be understood.

For then indeed, then too the person of each subsistence, received in the understanding, concurs together with the natures into unity.' Who, knowing that Cyril preached that God the Word so communicated with the flesh that in that mystery not only two natures concurred into unity, but also two subsistences and persons, would not marvel when he hears that he censured the writings of Diodore and Theodore as though Nestorian, and did not rather, as an imitator of his predecessor Athanasius, strive to excuse the writings of all who rest in the peace of the Church? He who afterward, in the same work, in the fourth book:

'Therefore,' he says, 'the man of Christ the Savior of us all flowered again and was as it were reborn, as though from a second root, and through the ages he prevailed unto incorruption and unto the power of the things that follow.' If anyone wishes to slander, let this objection be brought against him too: as though he had believed in one Savior Christ and in another man belonging to that Savior Christ himself; for he does not say 'and he was as it were reborn, as though from a second root, the Savior of us all,' but 'the man of Christ the Savior of us all.' And let them add furthermore, saying: If Christ, that is, the Anointed, is a man, since nothing was anointed in him save the human nature, who again is that man who is called Christ's?

For it was not said 'the man of God the Word,' but 'the man of Christ,' who is so believed to be God that he is also believed to be man. Likewise in the fourth book of his exposition of the prophet Isaiah he speaks thus: 'Therefore, as far as concerns the bitterness of the unbelievers and the contradiction foolishly devised by them, the Savior labored in vain, and to no purpose and for nothing did he give his strength. For stubborn Israel did not sustain, as I said just now, his holy preachings, nor honored his labor. For it was labor to the Word that he should become according to us and bear human littleness. But my judgment, he says, is with the Lord, and my labor before my God. For the Father knew for whom the labors were spent for their salvation; for this reason judgment also was pronounced by him.'

Behold God the Word, of whom Gregory, as we recalled above, says that he established the whole world without labor; while Cyril says that he labored to become according to us and to bear human littleness: as though his impassible divinity suffered constraint in a human body — a constraint which not even our soul suffers from the littleness of the body, but rather from the law of sin which is in our members, warring against the law of the mind; for the life to come will suffer no constraint in the incorruptible body. Likewise also in his commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, second book: 'When Christ was baptized,' he says, 'then he is said to be led by the Spirit, that is, to dwell spiritually, or to lead a spiritual life.' And after a little:

'Accustoming his own temple to the spiritual life — the temple in which God the Word now dwells — and transforming the things that are ours into a certain unwonted and incomposite mode of life, and reforming them into a newness of life that had not before been known, he keeps a fast so long.' Could it be that before Christ was baptized he did not lead a spiritual life, or that he had need of John's baptism, so that, consecrated by it, he might be instructed also to live spiritually — when not even those who were baptized by the apostles in the name of our same Lord Jesus Christ had need to be consecrated by John's baptism? How then is it said that when Christ had been baptized he lived spiritually, and that what is written — 'Then Jesus was led by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil' (Matt.

IV, 1) — is believed to have signified that he should dwell spiritually and lead a spiritual life? And likewise it is said: 'Accustoming his own temple, now, to the spiritual life — the temple in which God the Word dwells' — as though previously there had been in that same temple a custom of carnal life, which, being conceived of the Holy Spirit, could not have been anything other than a life that is spiritual. How then is he said to be accustomed to the spiritual life, when he was ordained to it not by zeal but by nature? — he to whom nothing was ever lacking for the perfection and bounty of virtue, since it is written of him: 'For God gives not the Spirit by measure' (John III, 34). And again: 'Of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace' (John I, 16).

Expounding also the Gospel according to John, in the first book he speaks thus: 'We are shown to be gods and sons of God through faith. For he who according to nature is Son and God has dwelt in us. Therefore also in his Spirit we cry: Abba, Father. But the Word dwells, as in all, so also in the one temple which for our sake and from us he was to assume, that, holding all in himself, he might reconcile all also in one body unto the Father.' If the teachers of the Church are to be judged by the sounds of their words and not by their intention, what shall we think of this man who said: 'But the Word of God dwells, as in all, so also in the one temple which for our sake and from us was assumed'?

What then? Do we believe that Cyril, the condemner of Nestorius, meant this — that God the Word so dwells in the one temple, which for our sake and from us was assumed, in the same way as he commonly dwells in all — and not rather that there might be one person of the indwelling God the Word and of the temple? — when Theodore, who is condemned as it were the author of the Nestorian error, as we recalled in the third book, says: 'Indwelt indeed by God the Word from the very forming in the mother's womb; yet indwelt not according to the common indwelling, nor according to that grace which is understood in many, but according to a certain excellent one, according to which we also say that the two natures are united, and that one person was effected by the union.'

'Therefore let the Eutychians and their abettors learn either to interpret better the writings of the ancient preachers of the Church, or to leave them to be interpreted by better men, lest they be forced to call the blessed Cyril worse than Theodore — who, they say, was much worse than Nestorius. He must not be believed to have said 'But the Word dwells, as in all, so also in the one temple which for our sake and from us was assumed' as though there were not one person of God the Word and of the temple, but rather because his divinity remained unchangeable in its own temple. For in this mystery of the incarnation two things must be understood and confessed: namely, both that there is one person of God and man, and that the two natures remained unconfused.'

As far as concerns the unity of person, God the Word is in the one temple, which for our sake and from us was assumed, just as in all; but as far as concerns that whereby the two natures are introduced without confusion, God the Word dwells in the one temple, which for our sake and from us was assumed, just as in all — because, as in all his unchangeable divinity remains while dwelling in them, so also in the one temple, which for our sake and from us was assumed, his unchangeable divinity remained. Let us therefore believe that it was said with this intention, so that we neither disapprove of him who said it, nor approve the error.

We could give a not contemptible account of his other words among those that have been recalled, and without doubt more learned men could do so concerning more of them. For this reason, therefore, judgment must not be rashly passed upon the dead. He also says this in the person of the Lord, in the same work, fourth book, on 'Father, if it be possible': 'I cannot by death obtain life for those who had fallen into it, if death dies when I die. But it is certain that he speaks according to the flesh: Let the cup pass. Nevertheless, because it cannot, he says, be otherwise — not as I will, but as thou wilt.'

'Consider how the failing human nature, as far as it itself is concerned, is again raised up through the Word united to it, and is taught unto a divine boldness and a youthful wisdom, so that he should do what seemed good not by his own wills, but should rather follow the divine intention.' For this reason they said that Theodore blasphemed worse than the demons, because he said that the Lord feared the passion. But if we accept this, we shall be compelled to say that Cyril too blasphemed worse than the demons, who admonishes us to consider how the failing human nature, as far as it itself is concerned, is raised up through the Word united to it unto a divine boldness.

And this which he added — 'and is taught unto a youthful wisdom, so that he should do what seemed good not by his own wills' — let the teachers interpret together with certain of the things recalled above, if indeed the Eutychians and their accomplices are willing to admit it. For when Athanasius, who purged the writings of his predecessor Dionysius, is found to have said something of the sort which could offend a reader; or when Basil, who defended the sayings of Gregory the Great; or Hilary, who defended the decrees of the council gathered against Paul of Samosata, and those of Sirmium —

it is by no means lawful to think ill of men of such great piety, who, judging others from themselves, strove to excuse the sayings of their elders, and believed that those things, in the manner in which they themselves could have said them, were also so set forth by those elders and received by the Church, so that they remained bishops in her. But also whatever other venerable Fathers, whom we do not read to have excused the sayings of their predecessors, said anything of the sort, they are without doubt not to be censured, since they too are believed to have been of the same piety. But when the Eutychians with their satellites speak of blessed Cyril in order to demolish the synod of Chalcedon — claiming that not by chance through some occasion arising, but deliberately and in a work undertaken for this very purpose, he censured the sayings of Theodore, who was extolled by so great Fathers —

what else follows but that he himself, in the things we have recalled and others like them, should be judged inexcusable? For the Truth says: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you' (Matt. VII, 1, 2). If therefore they spare even blessed Cyril himself, if they wish him to be excused in such matters, let them no longer speak against the Council of Chalcedon, as though, not sparing the dead, it had accused men of distinguished testimony and full of days, who died in the highest dignity of the Church.

They ought indeed to attend in this sentence — when he says that the human nature is raised up through the Word united to it, so that he should do what seemed good not by his own wills, but should rather follow the divine intention — that he teaches two wills, if indeed only two, since he said that there were wills not proper to but proper of the human nature alone, which, as he himself spoke, Christ was taught not to do, and another will of the divine intention, which he was taught to follow. But what again, in the same work and in the same book, he says concerning the two wills of Christ — concerning which we have shown that blessed Athanasius too treats, in our third book — let the reader take note. 'What was voluntary and not voluntary to Christ?' he says.

'The dishonor from the Jews, the disparagements, the injuries, the blows, and over and above these the slanders also, and what in all things is last — the death of the body. But if it had been possible that, not suffering, he should obtain what he sought in us, he would not have willed to suffer. But since the Jews were going utterly and inexcusably to presume what was done in him, he undertook to suffer, and made voluntary what was not voluntary, for the sake of the benefit that came from the passion.'

Let them therefore attend how blessed Cyril, even if not in the same words as holy Athanasius, nevertheless teaches that there were two wills in Christ, when he says that what he suffered was both voluntary and not voluntary, and that what for our sake he willingly suffered he would not have willed to suffer, and that he made voluntary what was not voluntary — yet he is not for this to be believed to have preached two Christs or sons. But if it is said that this 'voluntary' — namely, that for our sake Christ willingly suffered these things — and the 'not voluntary' to Christ, or that he willingly suffered what he would not have willed to suffer, do not show two wills of the divine and human nature, but only of the human, on account of one thing and another, one and another will —

which does not befit the divine nature, that it should at once will and not will the same thing — then it remains that, besides these wills, there was in Christ yet another will, the same as in the Father and the Holy Spirit, the will of the divine nature, to which this and that cannot be applicable. Accordingly we await this from the abettors of the Eutychians or Semi-Eutychians: that in condemning the doctrine of Theodore they should not also condemn the doctrine of blessed Cyril for these and other things of this kind. But if they deem it a sacrilege to condemn blessed Cyril, neither let them blame Theodore, to the prejudice of the holy council, as though he were the author of the Nestorian error.

But now, if even after the Nestorian controversy had arisen and been noised abroad, blessed Cyril spoke such things or in such a manner, what wonder if Theodore, while Nestorius was not yet contradicting, incurred the slander or suspicion of an unsuspected error? But you know from the things we have recalled, most merciful Emperor, that the truly most wise John of Antioch, writing with the Eastern council to blessed Cyril, lest certain excerpts from the sayings of Theodore should be condemned under anathema, adds and says: 'For we find things similar to these excerpts in the blessed and noble Athanasius, some also in blessed Basil, some in each Gregory, and many indeed, and oftener said, in Amphilochius;

and not a few also in our common Father, the blessed Theophilus. For there are things which your Holiness so confesses as to hold the same understanding concerning them.' Admonished therefore by these things, let us judge the sayings of all who rest in the peace of the Church not by the arbitrary opinion of heretics or of any who understand less, but rather according to the intention of those who said them; since these things, in whatever way we seem to be offended as readers, they wrote not separating themselves against the Church, but on behalf of the Church against the heretics.

For can anyone prove that they said such things against those who believed that by the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation one person was made of God the Word and of man, and not rather against those who denied that two natures remained in the one person of Christ? If anyone therefore should say that at that time, when the Church was not assailed by the same heretical questions as we are, these things were both necessary against other heretics and harmless to Catholics; but that now, when the Nestorians seek a simple occasion of deceiving, the faithful, and especially the little ones, must be kept from the reading of such writings — to what sound and prudent person could this sound and prudent counsel be displeasing?

— so that, since the enemies whom we now endure are armed in a different way against the Church, her faithful and defenders should also exercise themselves with other arms; and thus, without bringing infamy upon the ancient preachers of the Church, the slanders against her arising from the snares of heretics might be averted. Nor will it seem to insult the dead, or to display ourselves as more religious or wiser in censuring others, and to seek glory from the dishonor of the dead — which blessed Gregory thus notes in his Apologetic: 'We all,' he says, 'wish to seem learned and Catholic on this account, if we censure others and judge them impious.'

Since therefore the Eutychians and their accomplices boasted that they were learned and Catholic, on account of the censure not of Theodore alone, but of the great synod of Chalcedon, I judged that they were more fittingly to be restrained by the similar sayings of those Fathers whom they dare not blame as heretics — not that I wish those same Fathers to seem censurable, as they wish Theodore to seem censurable in order to evacuate the authority of the great synod; but that I might show them that, without these Fathers whom they dare not blame, they cannot blame Theodore for similar things, nor the same synod for not having condemned him.

So the Lord, when he passed through the cornfields on the Sabbath, and his disciples, being hungry, began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat — when the Pharisees blamed them and said: 'Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful for them to do on the Sabbath' — answered: 'Have ye not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are without fault?' (Matt. XII, 2-5)

As therefore the Lord, answering thus to the Pharisees who blamed the apostles, did not wish the prophet David and those who were with him, nor the priests, to seem censurable, but rather that the Pharisees themselves, restrained by the example of holy persons of undoubted authority, should not blame the innocent disciples: so it has not pleased us to give offense to the venerable Fathers, but to check the presumption of the Eutychians and their satellites by the objection of such examples; to whom we say this — that if these sayings of Eustathius, Athanasius, Amphilochius, Gregory, John, and Cyril which we have recalled can be better interpreted, let them deign to interpret Theodore's better too; if not, and they leave them to more learned men, let them likewise leave Theodore's.

But if, thinking that the sayings of the aforesaid Fathers cannot be better interpreted, they nevertheless judge that their laudable doctrine ought not to be condemned on the basis of those things which were put forth less carefully examined, while the Nestorian controversy was not yet pressing — let them not allege that the holy synod judged thus concerning the doctrine of Theodore. For because it is not ignorance but obstinacy that makes a heretic, we have already said many things in the foregoing, and shall say somewhat in the following book.