An Orthodox Christological Examination of Cyril's Letters: Letter 44

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Examination of Letter 44

To Eulogius (Priest)

At the very end of Par. 1 Cyril writes the case of Nestorius, that being similar to

the case of the Dyophysites as we read in the following:

“Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the

difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature, and the

nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do.”

Notice how Cyril says that this is Orthodox, but not in the way Nestorius

confesses the union. He explains exactly what the Orthodox meaning is in regards to

the Hypostatic union, see the very next Paragraph:

“For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same

Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate physis of God. It is possible to say something

such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and

of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we

get one human physis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one

Christ into two.”

There can be no other interpretation of this, Cyril is showing that the division is

not two natures that subsist in reality, but rather, one nature of the Logos,

divine-human, that can be made distinct through the mind.

Cyril continues on these statements as he writes in Par. 5 something

similar. He doubles down on the fact there is One Incarnate Nature of the Word and

two don't subsist in reality:

“Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer

separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his physis is one as the Word made

flesh.”

There is no way that anyone can say “He means ‘Hypostasis’ or even convince

themselves of such lies, once they know the context in which he says this. The entire

letter pertains to the nature of the Logos, we can not assume that he means anything

other than the nature of the Logos.