Digital Logos Edition
Cyril of Alexandria famously took up the debate against Nestorius on the theological interpretation of the deity of Christ, a number of which are addressed in these volumes. This fifth-century Christological controversey comprises most of the teaching of these letters, notably even letters not addressed to Nestorius. The conflict with Nestorius eventually brought Nestorius to condemnation after the Council of Ephesus in 431, in which Cyril presides at the request of Pope Celestine. Almost the entire collection here has to do with the controversy surrounding the Council of Ephesus and the schism of bishops on either side of the theological controversy.
“Thus we will confess one Christ and Lord, not that we worship a man together with the Word in order that an appearance of division may not be introduced by saying with. But we adore one and the same Lord since his body is not foreign to the Word, in union with which he sits by his Father’s side.7 We do not state that two sons sit beside the Father, but that one does through unity with his own flesh.” (Page 40)
“But when he was visible, and still remained an infant in swaddling clothes, and in the bosom of the Virgin who bore him, he filled the whole of creation as God, and was coruler with the one who begot him. For the divine is both without quantity and without magnitude, and does not admit of limitation.” (Page 83)
“For some have come close to refusing to confess any longer that Christ is God, but rather an instrument and a tool of divinity, and a man bearing God.” (Page 34)
“You thought that they had said that the Word, who is coeternal with the Father, is able to suffer.” (Page 44)
“But since for our sake and for our salvation he united a human nature to himself hypostatically and was born from a woman, in this manner, he is said to have been born according to the flesh. For an ordinary man was not born of the Holy Virgin and then the Word descended into him, but, united with flesh in her womb, the Word is said to have endured birth according to the flesh, so as to claim as his own the birth of his own flesh.” (Page 40)