Cyril's Admissions
Cyril Against Nestorius: Various Blasphemies and Heresies (429 CE)
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

Blashemies and Heresies of Nestorius according to Cyril (429 CE)

Introduction

The following extracts have been taken from the complete work of the nefarious Bishop Cyril of Alexandria published c.429 CE, against the tracts written by the ex-archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople, who had been deposed of his position and had been hiding in Egypt. The work is entitled FIVE-BOOK CONTRADICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS, available in full from www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_01_book1.htm.

In this article have extracted a number of these "blasphemies and heresies" as disclosed by the author Cyril, as having been presented in the works of Nestorius. Until the late 19th century, only the works of Cyril had been preserved, and the phenomenom known as the Nestorian Controversy of the fifth century had thus only been presented by the authodoxy in the writings of Cyril. Discoveries of Syriac texts later published in the 20th century included some of the writings of Nestorius, such as the document known as The Bazaar of Heracleides . In this document, Nestorius essentially made a systematic review of the field of all active herecies, which he attempts to explain in a straightforward manner. In August 435 imperial edicts forbade the meetings of Nestorians and decreed heavy penalties against all who should copy, preserve, or read the writings of their master, which were ordered to be burned. For some reason the christian regime did not approve of the writings of Nestorius, and the bulk of his greek writings were torched. It appears likely that the authodox (represented in Cyril) did not want to have any evidence of these open beliefs, and so condemned the open review of Nestorius.

Cyril's Disembling Preamble

CYRIL, THE MOST HOLY ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
FIVE-BOOK CONTRADICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS 

Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius.  Oxford (1881) 
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_01_book1.htm




And this I say having met with a certain book compiled by some one, 
having a large collection of homilies, orderly and systematically arranged 
and in no wise lacking in due appliances for the reader. 

And if ought had been said by its author, 
which by passing into forgetfulness should come to nought, 
I would have deemed it a duty both myself to hold my peace 
and to counsel others to do the same; 
lest things so unmeetly and unheedfully said 
should become known to many others, 
and to those after us. 

But since a multitude of blasphemies 
has been heaped into this book 
and some great accusation has been made, 
baying against the doctrines of the truth, 
how was it not necessary that we in turn 
]should (so to say) strip for combat 
and should fight in behalf of its readers, 
that they may not take harm thence, 
but may rather know how to repulse bravely 
the damage from what is unrightly said?





For he writes again after this manner; 
his discourse was made touching the Arians:

"Yet  though they prate that God the Word 
is junior to the greater Godhead, 
these make Him second to the blessed Mary, 
and over the Godhead, Creator of times, 

they set a mother born in time, 
yea rather they do not even allow that 
she who bare Christ is mother of Christ. 

For if not the nature of man but God the Word was, 
as these say, that which is of her, 
she that bare was no mother of that which was born. 

For how will any one be mother of him 
who is alien from her nature? 

But if she be called mother by them, 
that which is born is manhood not Godhead, 
for it is the property of every mother 
to bear what is consubstantial [with her]. 

Either then she will not be mother, 
not bearing what is consubstantial with herself, 
or being called mother by them, 
she bare that which was in essence like to herself."



§9. How deep the matter of his cogitations! 
dread and hard to escape is clearly 
the compulsion resulting from the reasonings 
of him who hath compiled such things! 

Whence comes he having gathered into the midst unto us such fables? 
or who ever sank down to this extent of unlearning 
in his conceptions, as to think or say that ...




****************
Book 2


Our Lord Jesus Christ again 
likens Himself to a Pearl, saying, 
The kingdom of heaven is like unto 
a merchant man seeking goodly pearls, 
who when he had found one Pearl of great price 
hath gone and sold all that he had 
and bought it. 


       See the Nag Hammadi Text NHC 6.1: "TAOPATTA"
       otherwise known as The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
       in which is presented an entire story about the enigmatic
       Lithargoel, travelling Pearl Merchant and citizen of 
       the city of nine gates, a physician and healer
       and the knower of the ascetic path and Road that
       leads from Habitation and Endurance to the city
       of the Pearl of great price.
 



****************


But he has invented something clever 
in his defence, for he subjoins:


"Not  by itself God is that which was formed in the womb, 
not by itself God that which was formed forth of the Spirit, 
not by itself God that which was buried in the tomb; 
for so should we have been man-worshippers 
and very worshippers of the dead. 

But since God is in that which is assumed, 
from that which assumeth 
is the assumed co-named God, 
as connected with the assumer."




*******************
for we are a sweet savour of Christ, as it is written. 
But this noble person again affirms that these things 
have been wrought in no fit order, and all but smiles 
at those who conceive that these things were so, 
and impiously finding fault with the Divine purposes, 
says thus:


"For they hearing the name of Apostle, 
deem that God the Word was Apostle; 
reading the name High Priest, 
they fancy that the Godhead was High Priest, 
by a species of paradoxical craziness: 
for who learning of the ministry of an Apostle, 
would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? 

who on hearing the appellation of High Priest, 
would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High Priest? 
for if the Godhead be High Priest, who is he 
who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? 

if God be the Offerer, there is none 
to whom offering is made: 
for what is there worthy of Godhead 
that as less It should offer to the greater?" 


And hereto he adds, 


"Whence then is God supposed by them 
to have been now called High Priest 
Who needeth not sacrifices 
for His own advancement like the high priests? 

Is the possessor of Godhead, taken from among men, 
ordained for men in things God-ward?"


*********************


"I will speak the words too of offence. 

Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them; 
Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man 
and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you: 

the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said, 
they imagined of their unlearning 
that He was bringing in cannibalism."



*********
Book 5

JEWISH OPINION:

But (I know not how) the advocate of the Jews' unlearning 
is indignant at our words, for he said again,


"That therefore the divine Scripture puts, Son, 
of the birth from the Virgin, Mother of Christ, 
we have shewn. 

Hear of His death also, 
whether God is any where put, 
so as we might bring in a passible God: 
Being enemies, it says, 
we were reconciled to God 
through the death of His Son, 
it said not, 
Through the death of God the Word."


§1. Therefore dost thou say that 
the Word of God has not been even 
sent into the world? 





************************


But severing again into a pair of sons 
the One Lord Jesus Christ, 
he says after this wise:

"Hear their other testimony also; 
for had they known, they would not have 
crucified the Lord of glory. 

Lo he says the Lord of glory, he calls 
not so the manhood but the Godhead. 
But this belongs to those who pluck asunder 
the accurate connection, for when thou sayest, 
This is not Lord, but the other is, 
THOU makest Christ a mere man. 

What then dost thou say, 
o heretic in clerical form? 
is the man too Lord or not? 
if then he be Lord, the things said agree; 
if he be not Lord, do not THOU 
making Christ a mere man, 
fasten the reproach of it on me." 

Then he says, 

"Hear we the blessed Paul openly crying out 
who He is who is crucified. 
Hear then most plainly the voice, 
For (says he) He was crucified out of weakness, 
yet He liveth out of the Power of God. 

If He were crucified out of weakness, 
who was it who was weak, heretic? 
God the Word?"



§2. He is carried away unto absurd thoughts 
and unto a reprobate mind, in no wise 
understanding the force of the mystery, 
as seems to me, but rather every way 
following his own devices and haply afraid, 
lest he should be caught either thinking 
or saying ought that pertains to Tightness or truth. 
For he arrays against himself, as he supposes, 
the words of the orthodox.





********************

JEWS 2

But this man again essaying to gather to himself 
from all quarters occasions of severing into two the One, 
arrays himself to no purpose against those who exist not at all, 
and makes accusal of certain as though they spake against the truth 
and desired to adulterate the plan of the mystery, and says,

"Here  I would gladly enquire of the heretics 
who mix up into one essence the Nature 
of the Godhead and of the Manhood, 
who he is here who is by the traitor 
betrayed to the Jews: 

for if there have been a mixture of both, 
both were together holden of the Jews, 
both God the Word and the nature of the manhood: 
which is it that endured the slaughter? 

I am obliged to use meaner words that 
what I say may be plain to all. 
To whom (tell me) befell this deed? 
for if the Nature of the Godhead, 
how darest thou commingle both? 

God hath both remained unholden of the Jews 
and hath not shared with the flesh in its slaughter: 
whence (tell me) dost thou get in the mixture?

Thesis | Mountain Man