簡史 第 11 章

Cyril therefore wrote to them, in defense of the Oriental bishops, and on behalf of the two natures of the one Christ. And I think it not superfluous to insert into this work some things from those very letters, to the confusion of the Alexandrian Phantasiasts or Corrupticolae, who boast of Cyril as their father and author. Cyril therefore admonishes his presbyter Eulogius, and says: 'Certain men find fault with the exposition which the Orientals made, and say: Why did the bishop of Alexandria allow himself to hear them naming two natures, or even praise them? But others say that Nestorius said the same thing, and they say that he too holds this view, secretly insinuating their subtlety to those who do not know.

For it behooves us to teach those who blame us, that it is not fitting to flee or refute everything that heretics say. For they confess many things just as we also confess. As the Arians, when they say 'the Father, who is the Creator and Lord of all' — is it on this account a consequence that such confessions are to be fled? So in the case of Nestorius, although he asserts two natures, signifying the diversity of the flesh and the Word (for one is the nature of the Word, another that of the flesh), yet he by no means confesses the unity with us; but we, uniting these things, confess one Christ, one Son, the same one God (third part of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 57).' And again:

'Nestorius therefore, in his expositions, pretends to say ONE SON, ONE LORD, but he refers the sonship to the Word of God alone. But when he comes to the dispensation, he again speaks of another Lord, who is of the woman, separately a man, conjoined by an equal honor of dignity, because he has a conjunction with Christ. How is it not evident that he speaks of two Christs, if Christ has a conjunction with Christ, one with another? But those who are from the East say nothing of the sort; they only divide the utterances:

and they divide them in this manner, so that they say some are befitting God, others human, and others made common, as belonging at once both to that which befits Christ as God and to that which is human — yet uttered nonetheless by one and the same Christ. And not, as Nestorius does, attributing some separately to God the Word, and others to him who is of the woman, as to another Son.' Likewise, writing to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, he says among other things: 'For Nestorius says that Christ is named separately the Word of God, but has a continuous conjunction with Christ: do you think, then, that he is not most plainly speaking of two Christs?

But the Orientals confess that they adore one Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord, the same of the Father according to divinity, and the same of the holy Virgin according to humanity: for they say that a union of two natures has been made; yet they openly confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord made (Ibid., ch. 34).' And in what follows, Cyril, agreeing to some extent with the tome of Pope Leo, says thus: 'There are some utterances most especially befitting God, others again thus befitting man; but others hold a certain order, showing the Son to be at once God existing and man.' And in the same place: 'For when he says to Philip, Have I been so long a time with you, and have you not known me?

Philip, do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? He who sees me, sees also the Father (John XIV, 9); and I and the Father are one (John X, 30) — we affirm a most befitting-to-God utterance. But when he rebukes the Jewish people, saying that: If you were sons of Abraham, you would surely do the works of Abraham; but now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you: this Abraham did not do (John VIII, 39-40) — we say these things are fittingly spoken of a man.' What follows in this letter contains a commendable exposition of the two natures; yet, for the sake of brevity in this work, we have refrained from setting down all its necessary documents. But to Valerian of Iconium he wrote back thus:

«All the bishops of the East, together with my most religious lord John, bishop of the Antiochenes, by a written and manifest declaration, make it clear to all that they do indeed condemn the polluted novelties of Nestorius and, together with us, anathematize them, and never in any way deem them worthy even of a word; but they follow the evangelical and apostolic teachings, and in no way grieve the confession of the Fathers:

for they too have confessed with us that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), and have not added that she is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), as those say who cherish the wretched and detestable little notions of Nestorius; but they openly declare that Christ is one, and Son, and God from God, the Word of God begotten ineffably of the Father before every age, while in the last times this very same one was also born of a woman according to the flesh, so that he himself is at once both God and man, the very same one perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, and that there is one person, in no way dividing him into two sons, or Christs, or lords.

«If therefore certain men lyingly say that they hold some other view besides these, let them not be believed, but, as impostors and deceivers following after their father the devil, let them be cast out, that they may not disturb those who desire to walk uprightly. And if certain men also carry about letters composed by themselves, as though from the person of illustrious men, one ought by no means to presume anything from these. For those who have once confessed the faith in writing, how could they write another thing, as though recalled by repentance, so as to be unwilling to think rightly? Greet the brotherhood that is with you; those who are with us greet you in the Lord (Ibid., c. 40).» From this conclusion of his letter, in which Cyril says:

«But if certain men carry about letters composed by themselves,» etc.—Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, in the conference which he undertook against the Acephali by command of the emperor Justinian, with Strategius the count of the sacred largesses presiding, in that place of the palace called Heptaconchos, proved that Cyril here made mention of a letter written to Maris the Persian, which Cyril neither judged to be condemned, nor noted in his own letter that it was Nestorian. And these are the things which Cyril wrote in defense of the Eastern bishops on behalf of the two natures of the one Christ; and whoever then by no means received this teaching, these, I think, are the authors of the Acephali, who have neither Cyril for a head, nor anyone whom they may follow, as they show.

Then also Evoptius, bishop of Ptolemais in the region of the Pentapolis, receiving a copy of the writings of Theodoret—who had written against the twelve chapters of Cyril—sent it to Cyril, that he might reply to them and set forth his own chapters. Receiving this most gladly, Cyril made an interpretation of his twelve chapters, adding expositions by which he might be seen to render a full account on their behalf. And so, with Cyril upholding and defending the faith of the Eastern bishops and expounding his own chapters, peace and unity were restored to the Churches. While the Church rejoiced in this peace, the enemy of peace, the rival of unity, did not cease to stir up his vessels against her and to oversow tares. Concerning the letters of Cyril.

This whole chapter—of which there was no great need, at least one so prolix and so crammed with select testimonies of Cyril—the defender of the Three Chapters deliberately set down, that he might conclude, with Cyril himself as witness: first, that the doctrine of the two natures is catholic; next, that Cyril retracted his own opinion concerning one nature of the incarnate Word after the union; finally, that Theodore and Theodoret, and even Ibas, are free of guilt—since, as it indeed seemed to him, neither Theodoret nor Ibas inveighed against Cyril except when he followed his former error, nor did Theodore teach anything against the Apollinarists other than the two natures of Christ.

Of the Alexandrian Phantasiasts and Corrupticolae.] The former drew their origin at Alexandria from Gaianus, the latter from Theodosius, around the year 537. The Phantasiasts are the same as those who were also called Aphthartodocetae and Schematici. For while they made the body of Christ incorruptible, they asserted that it was similar to ours only in appearance and semblance, but in reality dissimilar; concerning them see Anastasius the Sinaite, and Photius, codex 162. Each faction falsely claimed Cyril as its parent, by the same fraud whereby Eutyches also and the rest of the defenders of one nature did. They confess the unity with us.] Namely that which—whose confession we have shown, in Dissertation 1 on the second part of the works of M. Mercator—was the single, undoubted rule of faith in this question;

for whatever else besides you might have said, it could be twisted by the obstinate into a heterodox sense. Nestorius therefore in his expositions.] The words of Nestorius which he cites are taken from Sermon 2, which consult in the second part of the works of M. Mercator. Cyril cites these same words in his letter to Acacius of Melitene. If therefore certain lying men.] He arraigns Theodoret without naming him; for he had boasted that the faith of the Easterners and of Nestorius was the same, and that thus Cyril, when he agreed with the Easterners, had gone over to the party of Nestorius. See the letter of Cyril to Acacius of Melitene, and the letter of Theodoret to Andrew the monk of Constantinople, in which are these words: «Behold, indeed, those who in

by a pious reasoning had confounded the natures of Christ the Savior, and had dared to preach one nature, and to attach the divine passions thereto, and on that account had even insulted the most holy and venerable pontiff of the Most High God, Nestorius—as if by a certain muzzle and bridle, according to the Prophet, with their jaws altogether crushed, and being led back from crooked things to right ones, they have learned the truth anew, making use of the assertion of him who endured wars for the truth's sake.

For instead of one nature they now confess two, anathematizing those who preach a mingling or confusion, and they venerate the deity of Christ as impassible, and they explain that the sufferings are of the flesh, and they distinguish the evangelical sayings, ascribing the sublime and God-worthy ones to the deity, but assigning the humble ones to the humanity: for such are the things now brought in writing from Egypt.» And if certain men also carry about letters.] Cyril understands the forged letters—forged in the name of John of Antioch, in the name of Philip presbyter of the Roman Church, and even in his own name, as though he had recanted his former opinion. Hypatius proves.] Hypatius was without doubt deceived;

for Cyril could not have spoken of the letter of Ibas to Maris, but of some other which he was said to have written, before he had in fact written to Valerian; and yet he wrote to Valerian in the year 433, at which time Ibas was neither an illustrious man, but some obscure presbyter; nor had he in fact written to Maris, since in the letter to him he mentions the disturbances which were stirred up on occasion of Diodore after the year 455, in which year the emperor Theodosius issued a decree concerning the burning of the books of Nestorius; for then first the great contention arose concerning Diodore, when by that faction his books were substituted for the Nestorian ones. But on this matter, in the Dissertation. In the conference.

] It was held at Constantinople in the year 533, by the command of the emperor Justinian, in the seven-shelled dining-hall of the palace, with Hypatius bishop of Ephesus contending together with four other catholics, and Sergius bishop of Cyrus together with five other Severians, Strategius the master of offices acting as examiner: the acts are found in volume IV of the latest collection of the general councils. The authors of the Acephali.] This is not to be passed over without observation, for it makes Theodoret the leader of a certain faction of men who were called Acephali, on the ground that, since they did not accept Cyril's defense on behalf of the Easterners, they had neither Cyril for a head, nor John of Antioch, who nevertheless were the two chiefs of the contending parties:

then moreover the name of the Acephali was perhaps first heard, which, having clung to certain defenders of the two natures, afterward passed over to the Monophysites, and was branded upon them. Observe that in the Arabic Chronicle of Eutychius the Acephali are called Jacobites, the orthodox Melchites. Then Evoptius of Ptolemais, etc.] He errs by an anachronism of at least two years; for before the council of Ephesus Cyril replied to Theodoret, as has been demonstrated by us in part 2 of the works of M. Mercator, book II.