John of Antioch to Firmus of Caesarea (CPG 6313/8659)
| Reference: | CPG 6313/8659 |
| Incipit: | Affectus qui secundum deum est |
| Date: | late December, 430 |
| Latin Text: | ACO 1.4:7-8 |
| English Translations: | FCC ; CE 25 |
This letter, preserved only in Latin, was written after John had received a response from Nestorius (CPG 5671/8657) to his own letter (CPG 6316/8654), and after he had received word of the impending great council. This places it in the final weeks or even days of December, 430. To learn more about the broader historical context, click here.
The Latin text below is from the ACO (see above). The English translation below was produced by TJM for FCC
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
| Latin | English |
| Incipit epistula Iohannis Antiocheni episcopi ad Firmum Cresarere Cappadocire episcopum | Here begins the letter of John, Bishop of Antich, to Firmus, Biship of Caesarea and Cappadocia. |
| 1. Affectus qui secundum deum est, tempore nescit extingui nec potest quomodocumque corrumpi, unde tuæ religiositatis memores permaneamus, qui paruo quidem tempore in Constantinopolim tuis amicitiis fruebamur, uirtutis uero tuæ experimentum tempore prolixius sumpsimus. Præter alias enim in cohabitationibus es suauis et uidentibus te utilitatem cum suauitate præstas; dum uero humilitatem secteris, excelsas habes cogitationes. sed de his quidem hactenus habes et dictum sit; excedit enim stili epistularis mensuram uirtutum tuarum dinumeratio. | Affection that is according to God cannot be extinguished by time nor corrupted in any way; therefore, let us remain mindful of your holiness, we who for a short time enjoyed your friendship in Constantinople, but experienced your virtue over a much longer period. For besides other qualities, you are pleasant in fellowship, and you provide usefulness combined with pleasantness to those who encounter you; yet while you pursue humility, you possess lofty thoughts. But concerning these matters, enough has been said thus far; for the enumeration of your virtues exceeds the proper limits of a letter. |
| 2. quod autem nunc instat, hoc tuæ deoamabilitati significo quoniam per dei gratiam perturbatio quæ erat in Constantinopolim, iam quieuit de quæstione dispensationis piæ susceptione sententiæ, non quod pœnitentia uel correctio sit secuta, sed quia sana intellegentia etiam nomen dei genetricis conpetenter accepit. sapiebat siquidem sic prius sanctissimus episcopus Nestorius, sicut res ipsæ docuerunt, cauebat uero nomen, ueluti dare posset, ut diximus, unde nos sequaces hæretici Apollinarii reprehenderent. quia uero sic et ante sapuerit, inde conicimus, quia et cito consensit. ammonentibus enim nobis, sicut a propriis fit, et ipsum nomen accepit et in duobus sermonibus sanam fidei expositionem et inreprehensibilem. | But what now presses upon us, I report to Your Reverence: that by God’s grace, the disturbance in Constantinople has already been quieted regarding the question of the pious dispensation through the acceptance of this teaching. This has happened not because of repentance or correction that has followed, but because sound understanding has appropriately accepted the name “God -bearer.”1 For indeed, the most holy Bishop Nestorius understood this beforehand, as the facts themselves have shown, though he was cautious about using the name, lest it give, as we have said, grounds by which the followers of the heretic Apollinarius might criticize us. But since he understood this even earlier, we infer from the fact the he also quickly consented. For when we adminished him, as ones own people do, he both accepted the name itself, and delivered in two sermons a sound and irreproachable exposition of the faith. |
| 3. transmisit autem nobis et capitula quædam siue propositiones, quæ circumferuntur in regia ciuitate ad læsionem communis ecclesiæ, tamquam quæ religiosissimi episcopi sint Cyrilli; quæ quidem eius esse non credo eo quod ipsa conpositio ab eius discrepet charactere multumque sint peregrina ab his qui piam doctrinam discendo nutriti sunt. consonant enim, magis uero sunt eadem his propter quæ Apollinarius a Christi est disruptus ecclesia, in unaquaque antiquarum synodorum esse hæreticus iudicatus, quin etiam condemnatus. intendunt namque ista capitula sicuti licet tibi legenti cognoscere, corpus illud quod deus uerbum de sancta uirgine assumpsit, eiusdem cuius diuinitas, esse naturæ, diuinitate permutationem, sicut nosti, non ualente suscipere. unitionem namque summam et coniunctionem dicere pium est, identitatem uero naturæ dicere nimis illicitum est; quod præsumpserunt quondam Apollinariani et dicere et sapere, licet ipsi quoque qui hoc ad interemptionem reppererunt fidei, suam tamen nuper hanc perfidiam denegabant. at uero eorum qui nunc sunt, quidam hoc ipsum cum fiducia docent atque pernicie, unam dicentes et eandem <humanitatis> diuinitatisque esse naturam. | However, he also transmitted to us certain chapters of propositions that are being circulated in the imperial city to the harm of the universal Church, supposedly written by the most religious Bishop Cyril. I do not believe these are actually his, since the composition itself differs from his characteristic style, and are utterly foreign to those who have been nourished by learning pious doctrine. For these teachings harmonize with, indeed, they are identical to, those very doctrines for which Apollinaris was separated from the Church of Christ, having been judges a heretic and condemned in every one of the ancient synods. For these chapters assert, as you who are reading may discern, that the body which God the Word assumed from the holy Virgin is of the same nature as the divinity itself, even though the divinity cannot undergo change, as you well know. For to speak of the supreme union and conjunction is pious, but to speak of an identity of nature is utterly forbidden. That is what the Apollinarians once presumed both to say and to believe, although those very people who inverted this doctrine for the destruction of the faith and recently denied their own faithlessness. But among those who are Apollinarians today, certain ones teach this very thing with confidence and to destructive effect, claiming that there is one and the same nature of humanity and divinity. |
| 4. Quod ne patiamur et nos, rogo tuam religiositatem, si hæc capitula in Pontica sunt diocesi uulgata, dignare hæc ipsa inspicere et cognoscens incongruitatem quæ in eis est, abiura ea apud omnes deoamicissimos episcopos qui eadem sentiunt, innominato auctore seu patre uerborum, quem neque nouimus neque credimus, si discamus. uerbum enim caro factum est, non permutatione naturæ, absit (inmutabile est enim quod diuinum est), sed quia in forma dei existens, euacuauit semet ipsum, formam serui accipiens, id est perfectum hominem sumens. inuenies uero in his sapientibus propositionibus siue capitulis et alteras quasdam uocum nouitates, quæ omnino ab ecclesiastico charactere ac fide quæ nobis est, aliena sunt. | That we too might not suffer from this error, I ask Your Holiness: if these chapters have been published in the Pontic diocese, please deign to examine them carefully, and recognizing the inconsistency within them, denounce them before all of the most God-loving bishops who share our views, leaving unnamed the author or originator of these words, whom we neither know nor would believe even if we learned his identity. For the Word became flesh, not by any change of nature, far be it, (For what is divine is immutable), but because, while existing in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that is, assuming complete humanity. Moreover, you will find in these so-called “wise” propositions or chapters, certain other novel expressions that are entirely alien to the ecclesiastical tradition and to the faith that we hold. |
| 5. ego quidem hæc uelut in breui capitulo nuntiaui, hoc tantum interim studens, ut ego nota hæc tuæ deoamabilitati tantummodo facerem; tua uero diligentia ubique astruat, ut si illic fuerint ubicumque prolata, minime approbentur, ut fidem paternam seruare incommobiliter ualeamus, quam nos defendere conuenit ac tutari, etiamsi uitam nos oporteat ponere, ualedicentes Apollinarii malæ credulitati. | I have indeed reported these matters briefly, striving only for this in the meantime: to make these things known to Your Reverence alone. But may your diligence work everywhere to ensure that if these teachings have been brought forth anywhere, they receive no approval whatsoever, so that we may preserve immovably the faith of the fathers, which we must defend and protect even if it becomes necessary to lay down our lives, bidding farewell to the evil credulity of Apollinaris. |
Back to Documents from Drawing Sides and Calling the Council (September-December, 430)
Created 9/29/2026 by JSW
No Responses yet
