The many heresies that assailed Christ’s Church in the early centuries, though multifarious in nature, can roughly be classified as belonging to one of two general tendencies: the first, which encompassed the Judaizers and Arians, attacked the fullness of Christ’s divinity; the second, which included the Gnostics, Docetists, Manichaeans, and Apollinarians, impugned the fullness of Christ’s humanity. The Orthodox doctrine, as is seemly, strikes a perfect balance between these two extremes, asserting that Christ is “both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God.” (1)
Following the triumph of Orthodoxy over Arianism in the late fourth century, the devil stirred up a novel controversy in an attempt to divide the Church, one which would haunt it for two hundred and fifty years and would succeed in tearing countless souls away from its bosom. The immediate occasion for this controversy was the promotion, in the year 428, of the Syrian monk Nestorius to the position of Patriarch of Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius II. Shortly after his arrival to the capital city, Nestorius began preaching that the Blessed Virgin should not be referred to by her popular title of ‘Theotokos’ (Mother of God) but only as ‘Christotokos’ (Mother of Christ), for she was the Mother of Christ only according to His humanity and not according to His divinity. Nestorius further asserted that during the Incarnation, the Word had not only assumed human flesh, but a distinct human person. These comments sparked outrage among the flock and reached the ears of Pope Celestine of Rome (d. 432) and Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), a brilliant scriptural exegete and one of the greatest theologians the Church has ever produced. Through the latter’s initiative, an ecumenical council was called in 431 to defend the Church’s true doctrine; Nestorius was forthwith condemned and sent into exile. (2)
Yet no sooner was this scandal extinguished than another one shortly rose up in its stead: a presbyter of Constantinople named Eutyches, flying to the polar opposite of Nestorius’ error, gained notoriety for teaching that Christ was not only one person, but also had but a single nature. Consequently, another ecumenical council was convened in the city of Chalcedon in the year 451 to address this new heresy, bringing together over six hundred Holy Fathers from the various corners of the Empire. In response to Eutyches, the council established the now-classic formula that Christ is “one person in two natures, undivided and unconfused.”
There were many Christians, particularly in the Eastern provinces, however, who saw in this formula of “two natures” a concession to Nestorianism and a betrayal of the memory of Saint Cyril. Eventually, after repeated attempts at reunion failed, these individuals broke off from the Church entirely and formed the so-called ‘Monophysite’ communion, represented in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia, and India. To this day, these churches maintain that there is but “one nature” in Christ and that they are the true heirs to Saint Cyril’s theology. But is this really so?
As Saint Cyril had already reposed by 451, it is a matter of speculation as to whether he would have signed on to Chalcedon. Nevertheless, a careful reading of his extant writings reveals that he fully adhered to the theology of the Chalcedonian formula.
The chief points on which the Monophysites accuse the Council of Chalcedon are, firstly, that it taught that Christ continued to have “two natures” after the Incarnation and, secondly, that He is not only “from” two natures but “in” two natures, expressions which they claim are un-patristic and un-Cyrillian. In truth, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny. There are in fact several prominent instances in which Saint Cyril used this exact language. For instance, in his Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, written between 412 and 423, many years before the Nestorian controversy exploded, Cyril states:
Now observe clearly how the whole mystery of our Saviour and the cleansing that comes through holy baptism is present in these matters: for it prescribes that two living birds which are clean should be taken [Lev. 14:4], so that through these birds you may understand Him Who is at once both heavenly man and God, divided into two natures (εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις διαιρούμενον) as far as pertains to the principle proper to each. (3)
In his Eighth Festal Epistle, delivered on April 18, 420, Cyril elaborates on this idea, explaining that even after the perfect union, the principle of each nature continues to subsist:
And we shall not annul (οὐκ ἀναιρήσομεν) the things that are dissimilar by nature (τὰ ἀνόμοια κατὰ τὴν φύσιν) because of what unites them to the highest degree [i.e. the Incarnation]: the radiance of the Father existing according to its own principle, and, on the other hand, the flesh from the earth or a perfect man, according to another (principle). (4)
In another treatise, he states:
Since, then, that which lies in the middle of two things touches both by its own extremities, holding together into unity the things that are separated, and Christ is “mediator between God and men” [1 Tim. 2:5], it is clear that He by nature (φυσικῶς) touches God as God, and men as man. (5)
Thus, Christ is naturally (φυσικῶς) God and naturally (φυσικῶς) man. It is by virtue of this participation in both natures that He is said to be a “mediator.” If He possessed only “one nature,” He could not be a mediator.
Even the expression “in two” is attested in Cyril’s writings on at least two occasions:
Τhe Law, consequently, was a delineation and typification of (other) realities, gestating the truth. Therefore, even if necessity required two goats [Lev. 16:5] to illustrate the mystery of Christ, and even if there were two birds [Lev. 14:4], He Who was in both was One (εἷς ἦν ὁ ἐν ἀμφοῖν), both in suffering and beyond suffering, both in death and over death, and ascending into the heavens as a second first-fruits of humanity renewed in incorruption. (6)
And again, Christ is in both (ἐν ἀμφοῖν): in the bull (destined) for the burnt-offering, wholly pure, and bearing, as a spiritual fragrance on our behalf to God the Father, the joy and happiness of the hopeful life of the saints…but also as the bull which is consumed in the fire for (our) sins. For according to the Scriptures, “by His stripes are we healed” [Is. 53:5]. Notice also that the perfect bull is burnt while the yearly bullock is slaughtered, so that you might at the same time recognize the One through the two (διὰ δυοῖν τὸν ἕνα): intellectually, the most fragrant one in the perfection of the virtues; and as a slaughtered (one) in simplicity and innocence. (7)
To these statements, the more subtle among the Monophysites will respond that Saint Cyril is not speaking here of two “natures” but only of two natural “principles” or “properties.” As Severus of Antioch, their chief theologian, wrote in his Letter to Oecumenius: “We therefore anathematize not those who confess the properties of the natures of which the one Christ consists, but those who separate the properties, and apportion them to each nature apart.” (8)
Apart from the fact that it is quite absurd to speak of “natural properties” without also acknowledging an underlying “nature” that grounds them, (9) Severus’ statement is contradicted by Saint Cyril himself, who did in fact “apportion” the properties to different natures after the union. For instance, in his Thesaurus on the Consubstantial Trinity, composed between 423 and 425, Cyril writes:
Since, then, “the Word became flesh,” as it is written [John 1:14], it was necessary for Him to appear as a man; and as it was not possible for this to be apparent other than in the blameless passions and sayings of the flesh, He necessarily did and said those things that were proper to men, that He might thus demonstrate that He was also a man. Both (ἀμφότερα), then, can be seen in Him equally: for He asked in a human fashion where Lazarus had been laid [John 11:34], but He raised Him up as God (ὡς Θεός); and His mother who said, “They have no wine” [John 2:3], He rebuked as a man (ὡς ἄνθρωπος), but He straightway transformed the water into wine. For He was true God in the flesh, and truly flesh in God. Therefore, He acted divinely in those things wherein it behoved Him to be known as God, and wherein it was necessary to be seen truly as man, these He did and said, dispensing the truth in the mystery. Accordingly, let what is due to God be ascribed to God (Θεῷ) and let what is proper and due to humanity (τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι) be ascribed to it, and thus will he who believes in Him be free of any scandal and error. (10)
As one can see, Saint Cyril in no way shied away from ascribing particular actions to Christ’s respective natures after the Incarnation. In his Letter 39 to Patriarch John of Antioch, he states this even more forcefully:
As for the evangelical and apostolic sayings about the Lord, we are aware that theologians take some as common, as pertaining to one person, but distinguish others as pertaining to two natures (ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων); and that they refer those proper to God to the divinity of Christ (κατὰ τὴν θεότητα), and the lowly ones to His humanity (κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα). On reading these holy words of Yours and thereby finding that we too think in this way, “for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph. 4:5], we gave glory to God the Saviour of all. (11)
The Severians have no response to this evidence other than to say that Cyril was speaking “diplomatically” for the sake of reconciling with the Antiochenes. (12) If this was so, however, it is impossible to explain why the Saint would have used the exact same language in his own exegetical works years before the Nestorian controversy had even arisen. And, further, this objection does not take into account the fact that Saint Cyril in his own day defended the language he had used in Letter 39 as being perfectly orthodox:
For we have not been so foolish as to anathematize our own writings. We abide by what we have written and what we think. Our beliefs are correct and blameless, and in accord with the Holy Scriptures and the faith set forth by our Holy Fathers. (13)
Lastly, when, in 435, Bishop Proclus of Constantinople — a fellow opponent of Nestorius, considered a saint among the Monophysites — composed his celebrated Tome to the Armenians, Cyril read it and praised its orthodoxy, referring to its author as “our most holy and God-fearing brother and fellow bishop” who “rightly expound[ed] the word of truth.” (14) Now, among the statements Proclus makes in this Tome is the following passage:
If the swaddling clothes and the reclining in the manger and the increase of the flesh over the years and the sleeping in the ship and being weary from walking and hungry after fasting, and all the other things which occurred to Him Who was made a true man prove a cause of scandal to some, these should know that in ridiculing the passions they deny the nature (τὴν φύσιν), and in denying the nature they do not believe in the economy, and in not believing in the economy they do damage to the salvation.
For if, from the beginning of the world, a man has ever been cast into this life having walked another path than that of this nature, let these contentious ones show it, and then let them weave their own absurdities; but if the beginning was that of the common nature (κοινῆς φύσεως), and God the Word in truth became man, why do they, confessing the nature together with us, mock the passions? Let them choose one of two (options): if they be ashamed of the passions, let them deny the nature and, believing as the Manichaeans do, let them be counted among the impious; otherwise, if they admit the benefit of the Incarnation, confessing the nature (ὁμολογοῦντες τὴν φύσιν), let them not be ashamed of the passions which occur in the nature (τῇ φύσει). (15)
Saint Proclus does not speak of Christ’s humanity as a mere constitutive “element” of the union, but as an abiding reality after the Incarnation. He is also very clear that the passions occur in Christ’s human “nature”. Not only did Saint Cyril not reproach Proclus for this “heretical” claim, but he praised him for “rightly expound[ing] the word of truth!” (16) It should be evident, then, to any impartial observer, that Saint Cyril was not a Monophysite, but an Orthodox Father who fully agreed with the faith expressed at Chalcedon.
Notes
(1) Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. 2.
(2) For an excellent summary of this history drawing on primary sources, see John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts, Brill: 1994.
(3) Patrologia graeca (PG) 69: 576B. For the order of composition of Cyril’s written works, see Gregory K. Hillis, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Vol. I, Catholic University of America Press: 2018, p. 9.
(4) Festal Epistle VIII, sec. 5. PG 77: 569C-D; Sources Chrétiennes 392, p. 98.
(5) Thesaurus on the Consubstantial Trinity, ch. 32. PG 75: 504B-C.
(6) Epistle 41, To Acacius of Melitene. PG 77: 220C.
(7) On Worship in Spirit and in Truth, Book XI. PG 68: 780A-B.
(8) Epistle to Oecumenicus, trans. E.W. Brooks, Patrologia orientalis 12.2 (1919), pp. 179-180. See also his First Epistle to Sergius, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 120, ed. J. Lebon, pp. 74-77.
(9) Saint Gregory of Nyssa categorically states that an energy “has no independent existence” (Contra Eunomium 2.12). Saint John Chrysostom writes: “And how do you say that [Christ] was an energy? For it is written, ‘The form of God took the form of a servant’ [Phil. 2:6-7]. The form of a servant, is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature (φύσις) of a servant. Thus too the form of God is the nature (φύσις) of God, and therefore not an energy.” Homily 6 on Philippians, PG 62: 219. [Editorial note: The word “energy” (ἐνέργεια) in Greek — used in an infallible definition of the Third Council of Constantinople — is commonly translated “operatio” in Latin and “operation” in Western theology. —BAM]
(10) Thesaurus, ch. 23. PG 75.388D-389B.
(11) Epistle 39, sec. 5-6. PG 77: 177Α-Β; McGuckin, p. 345 (translation modified).
(12) “When the holy Cyril came upon these statements as it were in a net, he readily made peace with them and wisely took charge of the net for himself. For he also demanded of them that they consent to the degradation of Nestorius, and that they declare anathema the vanity of the unclean terminology…Now when they had thus acknowledged these things, he accepted from them on as being without danger these phrases which featured in bungling fashion in the document of reconciliation, as if they were words of children who prattle, so that by way of prattling along with them he might elevate them to purer modes of expression.” Severus of Antioch, Philalethes, ch. 8. Trans. by Pauline Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch, Routledge: 2004, p. 72.
(13) Epistle 37, To Theognostus, in: St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters, trans. John I. McEnerney, Catholic University of America Press: 1987, Volume 76, p. 143.
(14) Cyril, Epistle 67, To John of Antioch and his Synod. McEnerney, Volume 77, p. 63.
(15) Tome to the Armenians, sec. 9. PG 65: 864C-865A; Schwarz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (ACO) IV.2, p. 191.
(16) Incidentally, the 6th-7th century Syriac (Monophysite) translation of Proclus’ Tome to the Armenians consistently excised almost all reference to “nature” from this passage, replacing it with the word “economy” (see the apparatus criticus of Schwarz’s ACO IV.2, p. 191). It also omitted the reference to the Manichaeans, which was probably seen as too shocking to the translator’s ears: Proclus is saying that if one does not acknowledge Christ’s human nature after the Incarnation, he is a Manichaean! [Editorial note: Concerning “economy” (οἰκονομία), see CCC 236: “The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). ‘Theology’ refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and ‘economy’ to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.” —BAM]
