On the Unity of Christ

B. They say that the reference must be taken in some such manner as this: viewing God the Word inseverably connected to him of the seed of David we worship him as God.

A. Suffices it then in order to his duly taking the glory that befits God and to his being borne above the measures of creation, that he should be only connected with Him, and will this render him that is not God an object of worship? Yet I find one saying to God through the Psalmist's lyre, My soul is fast joined [14] after Thee: blessed Paul too writes, He that is fast joined to the Lord is one spirit. Shall we then (tell me) worship those too in reference to God as having been fast joined to Him? Yet the word fast-joining has I suppose a greater and more forcible significance than the word connected, if it be true to say that what is fast-joined to any has its connection most strait.

B. It seems so.

A. Why now dropping union, though a word in wonted use amongst us, yea rather that has come down to us from the holy Fathers, do they call it connection? though the term union by no means confounds them whereof it is said, but rather shews the concurrence into one of the things conceived of as united: and not (full surely) will that which is simple and of one kind be alone said to be One [15], but those too which are compounded out of two or more and out of diverse kinds. For so they think to be right who are skilled in these matters.

Most mischievously therefore do they, severing into two the One and by Nature and Truly SON Incarnate and made Man, reject the Union and call it connection, which any one else too may have with God, being almost tied to Him by virtue and holiness, according to that which is by one of the Prophets rightly said to them who fall back into carelessness, Be ye gathered together and tied together, o undisciplined nation, ere ye become as a flower that passeth away: a disciple too may be connected with his teacher by means of love of learning, and ourselves, one with another, not in one way but in many. Or perchance he too who is an assistant in any work will be reasonably conceived as not unconnected in point of good-will with him who took him to that service. And this rather is what the word connection appears to signify to us on the part of the innovators. For you learnt that they unlearnedly maintain that God the Word taking a man, as some son other than Himself, set him forth, as a sort of minister of His Will, so as to make trial of death, and live again, and ascending into the very heaven, sit on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead! For is he not through these words full surely seen to be altogether other than the by Nature and truly Son?

B. I admit it.

A. But since they have slipped down to this depth of unlearning, as to think and say that not the Only-Begotten Word of God Himself was made as we, but that He took a man; in what way do they want the assumption to be conceived by us? is it as fore-ordained by Him for the accomplishment of somewhat that He willed, just as one of the holy Prophets says, I was not a prophet nor son of a prophet but I was a goatherd and dressing mulberries, and the Lord took me from the sheep and said to me, Go, prophesy to My people Israel? A goatherd, He set him to be a prophet and appointed him minister of His Pleasure.

B. They will say perhaps that not of this kind was the taking, but just as taking bondman's form is conceived of by us.

A. Hence that which is taken will with reason be conceived of as the own of the Taker by an inseverable Union; so that Jesus is both God and Son, One and Only, of Very God, as being Word from forth of God the Father, begotten Divinely before every age and time, and in the last times of the world, the same after the flesh forth of a woman: for not any one's else, but His has the bondman's form been made.

B. How do you mean?

A. Will (tell me) that which is by nature bond be said not incongruously to take bondman's form, or that which is truly free and is Essentially above the measures of bondage?

B. The free I suppose: for how will it be made what it was by nature?

A. Consider then that the Only-Begotten Word of God albeit made as we and having entered on the measures of bondage according to the human nature, hath witnessed to Himself freedom by Nature, saying in His joint-contribution [16] of the didrachma, Surely free are the sons. He receives therefore bondman's form, making His own the results of the emptying [17] and not spurning the likeness to usward: for it were not possible otherwise to honour the bond unless that which befitteth the bond had been made His that it might be made illustrious by the glory that is from Him: for that which excelleth ever hath the pre-eminence and the shame from our bondage was wiped out by us. For He Who is above us has been made as we and the Free by Nature was in the measure of the servants. Hence the dignity hath passed unto us too: for WE too have been called sons of God and inscribed as our Father Him Who is properly His Father; for our human things have been made His also.

Therefore in saying that He took bondman's form, is the whole mystery of the Economy with flesh. But if confessing One Son and Lord, the Word from forth of God the Father, they say that a man, him who is forth of the seed of David has been simply connected with Him, a partaker of His Sonship and of His glory, time is it that we in friendly grief over them who choose thus to think should say, Who will give to my head water and to my eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep this people day and night? for they are turned aside to a reprobate mind, denying the Lord Who bought them. For a pair of sons unequal in nature is proclaimed to us, and the bond is crowned with God-befitting glory, and some supposititious son is glorified with equal excellencies with the by Nature and truly Son, albeit God says plainly, My glory I will not give to another: for how is he not other and apart from the by Nature and truly Son, who has been honoured with mere and sole connection and taken as an assistant and vouchsafed sonship even as we ourselves are, and has partaken of glory from another and attained thereto by gift and grace?

B. We must not therefore sever Emmanuel into man severally and into God the Word.

A. By no means: I affirm that we must say that He is God Incarnate, and that He is in the Same both One and Other. For neither hath He, made man, ceased from being God, nor doth He hold the Economy unacceptable, despising the measure of the emptying.

B. Therefore (they say) consubstantial with the Word was His body, for thus and no otherwise will He be deemed One Only Son.

A. Yet how is not this now raving and clear proof of a mind wandering? for how can one behold in sameness of essence things so far removed one from another in respect of their nature? for one thing is Godhead, and another manhood. For of what do we say that the Union was made? for a person will not say that the things united are one in number, but either (it may be) two or more.

B. We must therefore sever (they say) the things named.

A. We must not sever (as I said) into a several diversity, in regard I mean to their being away from each other and apart, but must rather bring them together into an indissoluble union. For the Word has been made flesh, as John saith.

B. Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?

A. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.

B. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man?

A. Godhead and manhood are one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without confusion and turning [18]. But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union.

B. And how out of two things, Godhead and manhood, will One Christ be conceived of?

A. In no other wise (I suppose) than that whereby the things brought together one to another unto a union indissoluble and above comprehension will be One.

B. As for example?

A. Do we not say that a man like us is One and his nature one, although he has not simpleness [of nature] but is compounded out of two, I mean soul and body?

[14] ^u see above, p. 79 note d.

[15] ^y see above, p. 41 note c.

[16] ^z συνεισφορᾷ, as the contribution in which He ordered that S. Peter's share ' should be paid along with His own. This is a very favourite passage of S. Cyril, he has commented on it in his commentary on S. John iv. 22, p. 189 c (p. 217 O.T.) xiv. 11 p.791 a b; in his treatise on the right faith to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina p. 82 c d: on Isaiah p. 661 e, in his twelfth paschal homily p. 181 e, in Hom. 88 on S. Luke and at the close of a fragment of a Homily That Christ is One (published at the end of commentaries on S. John iii. p. 458): see too Glaph. 328 a b.

[17] ^a but emptied Himself, Phil. ii. 7.

[18] ^b τροπῆς: comp. S. James i. 17.