St. Cyril of Alexandria
On the Unity of Christ
Dialogue
Dialogue between speakers A and B, including reported objections and their answers; quoted opponents are not endorsements. Translation: P. E. Pusey, 1881.
B. The Son by Nature from forth God the Father, i. e., the Only-Begotten.
A. Yet does the priest to us of the Divine Mysteries say that through Jesus Christ were all things brought to being, and that He is One and Only. I will recall that when investigating the name Christ we said that it introduces to us the declaration of anointing: for on account of having been anointed would any be called christ [30]. Either therefore let them say that the Word from forth God the Father has been anointed in His proper Nature and that He was in need of sanctification through the Spirit and of participation from Him, or let them teach how He is to be conceived of as Christ Who has never been anointed, and how the Only-Begotten Word of God will be called separately Jesus, although blessed Gabriel says to the holy Virgin, Fear not Mary, for lo thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bear a Son and shalt call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.
B. Do we then say that all things have been made through a man and that he who in the last times of the world hath birth of a woman is Creator of heaven and earth and in short of all things that are in them?
A. Do thou too say, for I will ask: Has not the Word been made flesh? has He not been called son of man? took He not bondman's form? emptied He not Himself, made in likeness of men and found in fashion as man? If therefore they deny the Economy, the Divine Disciples will withstand them saying, And WE saw and testify that the Father hath sent the Son Saviour of the world: whoso shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God abideth in him and he in God, and again, Herein is known [31] the Spirit of God, every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not from God. Besides what sense has it, to conceive of a man that he has come in flesh? to one who is external to flesh and who is of Nature not ours, will rather belong the being made in flesh also and therewith coming into this world together with remaining what He is. Hence even though He have been made man, there is nothing to hinder our conceiving that through Him were all things brought into being, in that He is conceived of as God and co-eternal with the Father. For the Word being God has not been changed, even though He have assumed flesh ensouled with a reasonable soul, not connecting a man with Himself, as they say who innovate the Faith, but Himself made flesh as I said, i. e., man: for thus will the having been anointed befit Him nor meet with any objection; and He will be called Jesus too, being Himself in truth He Who underwent birth in the flesh from forth a woman. For thus hath He saved His own people, not as a man connected with God but as God made in the likeness of the imperilled, in order that in Him first the human race might be re-formed to what it was in the beginning: for all things were new in Him.
B. Hence we must refuse to think or to say that a man has been connected with God the Word and been made partaker of His Dignity and that he possesses the sonship as a grace.
A. Most entirely: for the sense of the sacred Scriptures acknowledges it not, but it is the invention rather of a mind loving novelty and feeble and weak and unable to see the depth of the mystery: for where has anything of this kind been said by the holy Scripture? for the Divine Paul stating full clearly the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, says, For since the little ones have partaken of blood and flesh, He too likewise partook of the same in order that through death He might bring to nought him that has the power of death, i. e. the devil, and elsewhere, For the impossibility of the law wherein it was weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. But we say that there has partaken of blood and flesh according to the mind befitting the inspired writers----not he who is in flesh and blood of his proper nature and cannot be otherwise but----He Who is not so and is of other Nature than ours; and that He has been made both from forth a woman and in likeness of flesh of sin Who is for our sakes as we together with being above us too in that He is conceived of as God. For the Word has been made flesh, yet not flesh of sin: but in likeness of flesh of sin did He converse with them on the earth as man and has been made in likeness as we, yet not along with us under sin but removed from knowing transgression (for the Same was God alike and Man): but they who bear away (I know not how) from the Only-Begotten the so august and admirable Economy, connect with Him a man by way of accident, embellished with honours from without and adorned with glory not his; and no true God but partner and partaker with God, and son falsely so named, saviour that is himself saved, redeemer who is redeemed: albeit the blessed Paul has written thus, For the saving grace of God appeared to all men, in order that denying impiety and worldly lusts we might live soberly and religiously in the present life, awaiting the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
B. Yea, they say: for seeing that He was altogether vouchsafed connection with God the Word, he too was called great God albeit made of the seed of David.
A. For shame, what madness: affirming that they are wise they became foolish, as it is written. For they transform (as I said) the force of the mystery of Christ into all that is opposite; and their saying that he has been vouchsafed will be nought else than declaring that he is mere man and in ill counsel severing him into an utter diversity, so that a pair of sons be conceived of, to be worshipped, whereof One is so by Nature and truly, the other adopted and bastard and having nothing that is his own, that to him too along with ourselves it may be said, For what hast thou that thou receivedst not: and then whither will the all-wise Paul go who says, For the Son of God Christ Jesus Who was preached among you through me and Silvanus and Timothy was not Yes and No but in Him was Yes? For how was He not Yes and No, if He is said to be God and is not God? if the names SON and LORD are falsely attributed to Him? and if He be thus as they say, it will belong to Him to have to say, But by the grace of God I am what I am. For that which belongs not by nature but is from without and introduced and given by another, will not belong to the recipient but to Him who imparts it and bestows it. And how did He also say, I am the Truth, if there is nothing true about Him? haply too He was comprehended by the darkness, if He lies. But He did not sin neither was guile found in His mouth, as it is written. b. No surely.
A. And where is the emptiness? and of whom will it be conceived to have happened? for one cannot see any one emptied but on the contrary being filled albeit he has not fulness in his own nature: for he would not have needed what was another's and it would have been superfluous to him to have received, if he had had, of his own, self-completeness and sufficiency unto every thing, but of Christ's fulness did all WE receive, and the preaching of the inspired will not lie. For full is Christ and nothing whatever is given to Him so far as He is conceived of as, and is, God, even though to receive have been made His by reason of the measure of the manhood and in that He became as we, to whom it will be said full rightly, For what hast thou that thou receivedst not?
B. Yea, he says, the Word from forth God the Father is One Christ and Son and Lord, he who is forth of David's seed being connected with Him.
A. But, most excellent sirs, may one say to them, he who has another connected with him will not be conceived of as one, how could he? but as one with one, i.e. with another, and these are full surely two. But He will be conceived to be in truth One Son, if we say that the Same is God the Word Divinely begotten from God, and in marvellous manner man and from a woman after the flesh.
But if setting apart and severing him that is from the seed of David, they dismiss him from being in truth God and Son and say rather that he is partner in sonship and partaker of glory not his own, not idly (as I suppose) shall we find the accusations against Him by the Jews to have been made. For they said, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy because THOU being man makest Thyself God.
Translator’s notes (P. E. Pusey; selected by the electronic edition)
[30] p See above p. 252 and Scholia § 1 above p. 185, What is Christ. In both passages are mentioned those who were called christs from having been anointed: we have translated, anointed, reserving the Greek word Christ, for the Name of our Master.
[31] q γινώσκεται, is known, instead of γινώσκετε, ye know. The interchange of the vowel's e and ai, having the same sound, is so common, that it does not in general amount to a difference of reading. In the treatise de recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius, both MSS. give γινώσκετε, while in S. Cyril's second publication of it as the seventh of these Dialogues γινώσκεται remains. In S. Cyril's Treatise de recta fide (p. 94 c) to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, γινώσκεται is read, and in this place not only does the one MS. which has preserved us the treatise give γινώσκεται but also it was so translated in the Syriac version of this treatise, the British Museum MS. Add. 17149 fol. 58 init. written in the sixth century, i. e. in the century immediately following S. Cyril.
Source: On the Unity of Christ (Tertullian.org)