On the Unity of Christ

B. We do not say (say they) that the man is Son of God, lest we should speak of two sons by Nature. For as the Word Who came down from Heaven is not by nature son of David, thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David, Son of God by Nature [24].

A. They will therefore sever into two sons, and both of them will be proved to be falsely so called, and I think one may say that the mystery of Christ is idle trickery if it is thus as our opponents foolishly say. Where then is the Union and in regard to what do they say that it has been wrought? or haply this that the Word was made flesh is found to be untrue and to have been superfluously brought in, if the Word from forth God the Father have not been called son of David by reason of His being made from forth his seed after the flesh. But I think that they ought to hear from us too what was said by Christ Himself to the chiefs of the Jews, What think ye of Christ? whose son is He? and should they say, David's, they will hear from us, How therefore does David in spirit call Him. Lord saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right Hand until I put Thine enemies the footstool of Thy Feet? if therefore David in spirit [25] call Him Lord, how is He his Son? does he who is not by Nature and truly Son (as our opponents say) co-sit with God, and is he co-Throned (tell me) with Him Who ruleth all things? albeit, as saith the all-wise Paul, to no one of the angels hath the Father at any time said, My Son art THOU, nor yet, Sit on My Right Hand. How then is he who is forth of a woman in supremest dignity and on the seat of the Godhead and beyond all Rule and Lordship, Thrones and Authority and every name that is named?

And note how the Lord saying, If therefore David in spirit call Him Lord how is He his Son, induces those who would be searchers of the truth, to hold that the Word when in participation of flesh and blood hath remained even thus One Son: witnessed to that He is God from God-befitting Excellency and Lordship, while His being called also Son of David signifieth full well that He is Man.

B. Perhaps they will say to this (for I am pointing out [their reply]), "Are we then to admit that he too who is forth of the seed of David is forth of the Essence of God the Father?,,

A. Yet how hath not such a question exceeding worthlessness? and it is incongruous to the might of the mystery and to them who delight in the truth.

B. Tell me how.

A. Do not divide, saying that he who is forth of the seed of David is other than the One Christ and Son and Lord: for right utterance wills that the Only-Begotten Son Who hath His Being forth of God the Father is Himself, and none other, him who is forth of David after the flesh. Let them not therefore of their boundless stupidity say that as the Word Who came down out of heaven is not by nature David's Son, thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David Son of God by Nature. For the Word Who by Nature and in truth beamed forth of the Father, having assumed flesh and blood, as I just now said, hath remained the Same, that is, by Nature and truly Son of the Father, being One Only and not as if one with another, that His Person may be conceived of as One. For thus gathering unto union true and above mind and speech things which by the count of their nature had been sundered unto unlikeness, we shall advance on the unerring path of the faith. For we say that One and the Same Christ Jesus is forth of God the Father as God the Word, forth of the seed of Divine David after the flesh. Do not I seem to you to have most rightly considered these things?

B. Surely.

A. I will ask the opponents something else too.

B. What is that?

A. Are they not assured that the Only-Begotten God the Word hath His Being from forth God the Father and do they not affirm that the man taken (as they say) by connection is made from forth the seed of Divine David?

B. So they say.

A. The Word therefore being God will most assuredly surpass both in Nature and in glory him who is forth of the seed of David and will overpass to the extent of the difference of the natures. Or if it be not as I say, why do they sever and allot to the one the right to the glory, and bring in the other as recipient, and as gaining what he is by way of a prize and in the light of a largess? but less full surely and inferior is the receiver to the giver and to him who gives the glory that which is participant of the glory from him.

B. I suppose that they too would say that most vast is the difference between God and men.

A. Then how does the all-wise Paul, the priest of the Divine mysteries, he that hath indwelling Him Who is preached, and who speaketh in the Spirit: how does he both call Him that after the flesh is of the Jews, God and say that He is blessed for ever, amen? what is there above God Who is over all? what will a man behold in the Word Who is forth of the Father greater than he is who after the flesh is of the Jews if he be a son other than He and separate and not truly so?

B. But he who is forth of the seed of David was admitted (they say) by connection and, seeing that the Word being God indwelt him, he shares His Dignity and His Honour: and this the most holy Paul will teach writing of him that he was made subject to the Father unto death, yea the death of the cross, wherefore God also super-exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name: and this name is God.

A. Do they then say that to him that is of the seed of David separately and as to another son apart by himself has been given by God the name which is above every name?

B. Yea (they say), for to the Only-Begotten Who is God and forth of God by Nature, how could that be given which He hath?

A. Therefore, if the receiving is not put respecting Him, let accurate investigation be made from what the Divine Paul himself hath written: For let each one of yourselves be of the mind which was also in Christ Jesus Who being in the form of God held not the being Equal to God a thing to seize [26], yet did He empty Himself taking bondman's form, made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man He abased Himself made subject unto death, yea the death of the cross: wherefore God also super-exalted Him and gave Him the [27] name which is above every name. If [28] therefore it is, according to them, the man that is forth of the seed of David conceived of separately and by himself who received the name that is above all, let them shew him pre-existing in the Form of God, and not holding the being equal to God a matter for robbery and moreover taking bondman's form, as though that is he had it not and was not so ere he took it: albeit as themselves say and choose to think, himself is the bondman's form. Then how can he take it as though he had it not? how too will a man be conceived of as made in likeness of men, and be found in fashion as a man? The force of the ideas then will turn them round even against their will to know the truth.

B. What truth?

A. God the Word Who is in the Form of God the Father, the Impress of His Person, Who is in all Equal to Him Who begat Him, hath emptied Himself.

B. And what is the emptying [29]?

A. The being in assumption of flesh and in bondman's form, the likeness to us of Him Who is not as we in His own Nature but is over the whole creation. Thus hath He abased Himself, lowering Himself economically into the measures of the human nature; yet was He even so God, as having not by gift That which comes to Him by Nature. Therefore He also said to God the Father Which is in Heaven, Father glorify Me with the glory which I had before the world was, with Thee. For I do not suppose that they will say that he is asking for the glory which was before the world as being his own, he [I mean] who in the last times of the world was born of the seed of David, if so be he is son by himself other than He Who is so by Nature and truly: but this utterance will rather be a most God-befitting one. For it needed, it needed that He should be co-fashioned in the measures of the manhood and should have the Excellence of the God-befitting Dignity Unimpaired and Essentially in Himself just as it is in the Father too. For how will that be true, There shall he in thee no new god, if according to them a man is made god by connection with the Word and is declared co-enthroned and sharer of the Father's Dignity? b. You say well.

A. How is one to conceive of that which is wisely spoken by voice of Paul, For even though there be many gods both in heaven and on earth yet to us is One God the Father from Whom are all things and we from Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things and we through Him? For there being One Lord Jesus Christ and Paul having full well affirmed that through Him all things have been brought to their birth, what shall we do, noble sirs, when ye distinguish from the assumed man as ye call him, the Word from forth God the Father? which are we to say was the Creator of all?

[24] ⁱ Compare the fragments of Theodore as cited before the fifth general council, at the end of this volume.

[25] ^k The syriac translation of this treatise has also the words in spirit here.

[26] ^l See above p. 165 note j.

[27] ^m The codices A.B.C. of the New Testament insert the article, the Name. Among the different quotations of this text by S. Cyril there is variation of MSS., but the article frequently occurs: and in the Thesaurus the very good xth century Ms. Cod. Monac. 331 has it.

[28] ⁿ See this passage carefully explained in S. Cyril's Treatise to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia on the right Faith, cap. 13 pp. 141 e 142.

[29] ° "He was God forth of God, Only out of Only, and Ineffably Begotten: but when He was made as we, then then will He at last be classed with His brethren through being called First-born. For where is the emptying, except in His being made First-born out of Only-Begotten, and among creatures with us as man Who is above all creation? where at all became He poor being Rich, except He is seen assuming what is alien to Him, through which also He became poor?" Dial. 4 p. 510 c d. Against the Arians who argued from the name above every name that the Son was exalted in consequence of His humiliation S. Cyril writes, " Therefore (for I will say something) deeming for the moment below what is fitting for need sake: let the Only-Begotten have the greatest thank to the falls of those on the earth and to our sins, let Him know that the sins of human nature are to Him the cause of God-making glory. For had we not sinned He had not been made as we, had He not been made as we, neither had He endured the cross, and had He not died neither had He obtained the obligation of being worshipped by ourselves and the holy angels." Dial. 5 p. 567 fin. See also above p. 57 note y.