Instruction given by His Holiness Bishop Cyril to Posidonius, whom he sent to Rome on the matter of Nestorius

Letters to St. Cyril of Alexandria relates to the emergence and development of the Nestorian dispute, the Third Ecumenical Council, negotiations with Antioch and the achievement of peace, the controversy regarding Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc. In the “Instruction given by His Holiness Bishop Cyril to Posidonius, whom he sent to Rome on the matter of Nestorius” (6 chapters, 430), the saint briefly outlines the main provisions of the heresy of Nestorius in comparison with Orthodox teaching. He criticizes Nestorius for calling Jesus Christ only a named God, and not the true one, and denied the divine nature in suffering and resurrection, attributing them only to man. The epistle also reveals the actions of Nestorius in persecuting opponents, for example, accusing the presbyter Philip of heresy and deposing him. I. The faith of Nestorius, or rather, his evil teaching, in its main features is as follows. He says that God the Word, who knew in advance that he who was born of the holy Virgin would be holy and great (Luke 1:35.32), chose him for this purpose and arranged it so that he was born of the Virgin without (the seed of) a husband, allowed him to be called by His own names and (finally) raised him (from the dead). Therefore, although the Only Begotten Word of God is called made man, it is only in the sense that He always abided with that holy man who was born of the Virgin; - just as It stayed with the prophets, so It stayed, according to Nestorius, with this man - only in even closer contact (κατὰ μείζονα συνάϕειαν). Therefore, he (Nestorius) everywhere avoids the term “union” (τὴν ἕ νωσιν), but uses the term “contact” (συνάϕειαν), when It (the Word) remains external (for the one born of the Virgin) and, as it were, says (It) to Jesus: “As I walked with Moses, so will I be with you” (Joshua 1:5). However, hiding his wickedness, he (Nestorius) says that (the Word) was with him (born of the Virgin) from his (mother’s) womb. II. Therefore, he (Nestorius) considers Him (Jesus Christ) not to be true God, but only called so by the good pleasure of God. As for the fact that He was called Lord, again (Nestorius) wants to understand this name in the same way, that it pleased God the Word to give Him (Jesus Christ) this name too. III. He (Nestorius) does not say, as we do, that the Son of God died and rose for us, but says: a man died and a man rose again; and he does not attribute anything like that to the Word of God. IV. After all, we also confess that the Word of God is immortal and is life; but we believe that It “was made flesh” (John 1:14), that is, having united with itself the flesh along with the rational soul, it suffered in the flesh, according to the Scriptures; and when His body suffered, it is said that Itself (the Word) suffered, although by nature It is impassive; and when His body was resurrected - for “His flesh saw no corruption” (cf. Psalm 15:10; Acts 2:27.31) - it is said that the Word Himself rose for the dead. But he (Nestorius) does not think so, but argues that suffering and resurrection belonged to man and that the human body is offered in the sacraments. We believe that the flesh of the Word has life-giving power because both flesh and blood belonged to the Word that gives life to everything. V. Unable to bear such expressions, he (Nestorius) instructed Celestius 1 to draw up a written complaint against the presbyter Philip 2, who denounced him and no longer wanted to have communication with him (συναϕθῆναι) because of his heresy. And in that written complaint the accusation was that he (Philip) was a Manichaean. Then (Nestorius) called that man (Philip) to the council. He, fulfilling the canonical requirement, came there, ready to justify himself. After Celestius could not prove anything, he (Celestius) disappeared and did not come (more) to the council. VI. Having failed on this side, he (Nestorius) resorted to another pretext. It was he who asked (Philip): “Why did you hold private meetings and make a (liturgical) offering in an (ordinary) house?” But since almost the entire clergy began to say: “and each of us, according to need, when it happens, does this,” he (Nestorius) made a decision to depose this man (Philip). These are for you (Posidonius) the points containing the most important of Nestorius’s blasphemies. Wed. in Mari Mercator's Liber subnotationum in verba Juliani I, 4 words: Migne, lat. ser. t. XLVIII, col. 112 sqq.; see also ibid., col. 285. See y Socrates, Ecclesiastical History VII, 26, 27 and 29. Or “mandate” (ὑπομνηστικόν), instruction (commonitorium), “mandate”, memo. This document is placed at the end of the 11th (9th) letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope Celestine I (Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXVII, col. 85. 88. 89). You might be interested in: