VOLUME ONE OF THE BOOK OF SAINT MAR SEVERUS, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, AGAINST THE GRAMMARIAN
A book written by Saint Severus, Patriarch and Archbishop of Antioch, addressed to the one who revealed the things that had been impiously and ignorantly babbled by the blasphemous Grammarian; a book which he began while still in that very city, and completed after departing from it due to the persecution that arose against the Church on account of the true faith.
[FIRST ORATION]
CHAPTER—ONE
Praise of the one who revealed the hidden book of impiety; and that to burn with zeal for such matters is not without reward before God.
The souls of men who love God—such as yours—are indeed called to grieve, to sorrow deeply, and to mourn for the sake of lofty and supreme glory, when they hear of some who sharpen and arm their blasphemous mouths against heaven, speaking iniquity in high places, going about the earth with their tongues, creeping over it and rolling themselves about in vain. For what path could there be for those who utter such words? That man is the father of lies, the inventor and origin of sin, concerning whom the Lord decreed, saying: "above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life." (Gen 3:14). Therefore, it is impossible for the divine sentence to be changed, even if the Satan—the head of evil—transforms himself into an angel of light, as Paul says (2 Cor 11:14); and even if, as Isaiah wrote about him, he exalts himself and says: "I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God" (Isa 14:13), he swells in vain and perhaps only terrifies those who do not trust in the Lord. But he does not depart from the earth: he walks upon it, inhabits it, and feeds on it. So also do the sons of this serpent, through blasphemy and enmity against God, imitating their father's malice, become nothing other than serpents themselves, and are called by this very name in divine speech: "' You serpents, you brood of vipers" (Mt 23:33); and the reason is added: "'You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil?" (Mt 12:34). Often they dare, under the guise of piety, to involve themselves in theological matters and to crawl upon the spiritual rock, which is Christ (1 Cor 10:4); but when they fall from its subtlety and incomprehensibility—for such is the nature of the truth—and, through the scales (that is, the wicked forms of their blasphemies), are unable to grasp either bend or hollow or, more generally, to take hold of anything twisted upon it, they fall back to the earth; for the word of righteousness, which is even and simple on all sides, is not walkable for them. Yet even while beneath it, they wish to be regarded as walking upon the rock, and with deceitful words, they pretend to speak divine things while mixing in their own, seeking to conceal their falsehood by blending it persuasively with the truth, and thereby casting their poison upon those who are healthy. I believe this is the meaning of what was said allegorically by the author of the Book of Proverbs, who wisely illuminated the innocent conduct of the children of piety: "I do not understand: the way of a serpent on a rock" (Prov 30:19). In saying "I do not understand," and thus adopting the persona of those newly arrived and being instructed in the disciplines that introduce to the proverbs, he indicated that such a thing cannot be known by those without spiritual understanding. Yet it can be understood by those who, through the inspired teaching of Paul, possess the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), and who can say of the apostate dragon and those born of him: "For we are not ignorant of his designs" (2 Cor 2:11).
What wonder is it, then, if you—who have been trained in the divine Scriptures, who have dedicated your life to God, who have applied yourself to the essential and the primary things, and who meditate on seeking the things above, where Christ is, setting your mind on things above, not on the things of the earth [Col 3:1–2]—when you took into your hands that foul book, recognized those deceitful and serpentine paths which pretend to lead upward to the Rock, since they appear to confess the one Lord Jesus Christ and not two, yet with a false mask of piety, they immediately divide Him by the duality of natures and cast those who were misled by them into the foolishness of human worship, persuading them not to walk with firm conviction? You said that you even wept over them, and thus your sorrow was doubled at this blasphemy against God, and your heart is consumed with zeal, and you utter the words which were indeed sung prophetically by David, and brought to fulfillment in Christ, and now offer us an example in similar matters: "For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me." [Ps 69:9; Jn 2:17]. For every soul that fears God recognizes the One who created it; it rightly turns to Him and regards as its own the reproaches spoken against God and the insults hurled against the Church—which is the house of God, founded upon the confession of orthodoxy and in faith; and for this faith, the blessed and foremost among the apostles was declared and called the Rock [Mt 16:18]. Therefore, your zeal has its reward written in heaven—all the more so because you also brought that unlearned and impious tract to our lowliness and urged us to draw the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God [Eph 6:17], and to destroy arguments and every lofty thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God [2 Cor 10:4-5]. For this reason, I believe you will draw upon yourself also the blessing of the Levites, those who armed their hands against those who acted impiously in the wilderness and "exchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass." as David the prophet said, mocking their foolishness [Ps 106:20]. And what is that blessing? Precisely what Moses cried out to them, saying: "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day." [Ex 32:29]. Therefore, to you also—modifying the phrase slightly—we fittingly say: "You have today ordained your tongue for the Lord," and we shall add, "and your hand as well," since through your pen you gave us the signal for battle for the glory of God, "so that a blessing may be given upon you."
CHAPTER—TWO
What is written in any way against the word of truth must be carefully and thoroughly refuted, and we must also investigate who it is, and what kind of person, that has written the impiety.
Having now said and written these things, you clearly understand that I profess myself deeply indebted to you. Indeed, I had wished to refute that ungodly tome immediately and, as it is written [Isa 11:8], to lift my hand over the hole of the asp, to search out the den of its offspring and expose their lairs, to tread upon them and crush their heads by the power of Him who said to the apostles and to those who would believe in Him through them: "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you." [Lk 10:19]. This very thing Isaiah also prophesied, promising abundantly even to infants and those still in need of milk: "The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." [Isa 11:8–9]. But what could I have done when I was overwhelmed with numerous ecclesiastical matters, which surpassed my strength and allowed me not even a breath, and again in those days my ears rang with the uproars of the people, and I was often alone in bearing the assaults that resulted, since some, out of their own malice, had stirred up all kinds of troubles in this great city, which dearly loves Christ?
But now, since—by the grace of Him who said "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you;" [Jn 14:27]—the state of the city has returned to calm with the people's agitation quieted, and we are now drawn only from one direction, namely, from the cares of the Church, and are no longer, as it is said, being pressed on both sides while swimming in the sea, we have diligently seized the opportunity you presented. And so, standing on the holy mountain of truth, we are not afraid of those sayings and assertions that breathe poison and crawl along the earth. We have confidence in the One who said: would not the prophet, if we were to invoke such things for help, add with apt rebuke: "should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn."? [Isa 8:19–20]. For we also, as Peter said, and before him Moses—and indeed the One who appeared to him—are "a chosen race and a holy nation" [1 Pet 2:9; Ex 19:6], and we shall look only to Christ our God, who has also been invoked over us [Jer 14:9], and we shall not seek these dead, weak, human things from the living words of the Spirit. For thus Stephen, the first and chief of the martyrs, also says to the Jews concerning Moses: "he received living oracles to give to us." [Acts 7:38]. So the prophet, through a question that serves as a rebuke, says: "Should not a people seek their God?"—that is, should not God's own people approach their God? Why then do they question the dead concerning the living, when God gave the law as an aid, so that those who receive it, obey it, and partake of the help it provides might also say: "Not like this word"? For the divine word and the living, effective Spirit of the law surpasses all things, because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword," [Heb 4:12]. Is it not for this reason that the disciples were given this great promise: "Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict." [Lk 21:14–15]?
Therefore, I too, though small, place my whole hope in this unconquerable aid, and I shall bring forward those words which were spoken to the apostles and to those who inherited both the name and the truth of their teaching and stood firm in the holy Church: words that bear witness to what is rightly held and reject what has been foreignly introduced by the adversary—many times from his heart, not from the mouth of the Lord—as one of the prophets has said [Jer 23:16].
CHAPTER THREE
It is characteristic of heretics to fabricate motives and to assume the appearance of one defending himself.
At the outset, the Grammarian constructed a sort of prologue directed at certain monks leading an immaterial life, not involving themselves in the affairs of those engaged in the world. He supposes that these monks, who lead such a life and profess to meditate on the law of God day and night (Ps 1:2), are in need of his art and teaching. Secondly, he claims that he suffers persecution for the sake of piety and fears the threats of those persecuting him. To these imaginary monks, concocted through a false account (Ps 119:69), I would say what Elijah the Tishbite said to the Israelites, who had so strayed from the service of God that they even deified a fly and consulted it for oracles and revelations: "'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Ba′al-ze′bub, the god of Ekron?'" (2 Kgs 1:3). So then, as Paul said (1 Cor 6:5), is there not even one wise man among you who can discern what the true faith is, so that he may reject the foreign doctrine?
Must you depend on a grammarian as your helper, as though he were an interpreter of doctrines? As for his excuse, in which he claims he fears and trembles at threats and writes in fear—a claim he repeats poorly throughout the whole book—he relies on petty insults and is lifted up with arrogance, boasting, and the boldness of blasphemy. What shall we say but this: That deceit and simulation are native to heretics, who always strive to assume the posture of the persecuted, that by a show of humility they might ensnare the listener. What does he say, then? GRAMMATICUS: "The sons of heretics attack us most boldly, and now we even fear to name them; they are so full of audacity, not only against us but also against the orthodox faith." Does not Saint Basil similarly rebuke the impious Eunomius for invoking empty fear as a pretence in such nonsense? EUNOMIUS:
"In addition, do not judge us harshly, if we do not care about selfconceit and fear, seeing that we value indemnity in the world to come more highly than present favor or security, and we deem the punishments determined for the impious a cause for more fear than any earthly misery or temporal death, and so we expound the truth stripped of every covering." Likewise, this noble Grammarian says that he fears not only for himself but for the threats directed at the orthodox faith itself—clearly introducing this idea. For Eunomius, too, said that, having despised fear and temporal death and all other things listed, he would prefer to write the truth openly, without a veil, and declared that the threats from the impious, which are ordained by God, are especially to be feared.
Mourn, then, O listeners, with him who shifts the threats directed at the faith onto himself and wishes, as far as he can, to fight on its behalf. So declare them, O valiant man, declare these threats, and you will find many listeners who will mourn with you.
St. Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 87
CHAPTER—FOUR
That he has falsely claimed, without writing or demonstration, that we—who confess one incarnate nature of the Word of God—confuse and reduce flesh and divinity into one substance.
The Grammarian falsely claims—without document and without proof—that we, who confess the one nature of God the Word incarnate, confuse and reduce the flesh and the divinity into one substance. He say: "They zealously anathematise the holy Synod of Chalcedon so as to bring forward into our very altar Eutyches and those who emulate his doctrines, and they proclaim, without veil, Christ's divinity and flesh as one substance and one nature. Nor are they ashamed to oppose Gregory the Wonderworker, who says in his eleventh anathema: "If anyone says that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with the divinity, and does not confess that He was in the form of God, existing before the ages, and emptied Himself and took the form of a servant when He became incarnate, as it is written, let him be anathema" (Greg. Thaum., Anath. 11). Nor do they revere Athanasius, the star of the Alexandrian city, who wrote similarly to the words of the Wonderworker in his epistle to Epictetus: "What infernal pit has spewed forth the claim, the body from Mary is same-in-substance with the divinity of the Word? Or that the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body?"" What an accusation! How subtle, how cunning, how fortified with testimonies of the Fathers! Can you then say, O Grammarian—for your entire discourse plainly targets me, as you confess in many places of your little book—that I have stated with those very words that the body taken from the Virgin Mary, animated by a rational soul, and hypostatically united to the Word, is consubstantial with God the Word? Indeed, "I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;" (Isa 45:19), as the prophet Isaiah said—or rather He who spoke through him—exposing the shame of the one bold and blind to what is manifest. Bring forward and show what you have found in me of your accusation.
Take judges for your accusation—true judges are those who, with love of truth, examine what you have assembled against us. Shall I not now say to you what Jacob said to Laban: "What is my offense? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued me? Although you have felt through all my goods, what have you found of all your household goods? Set it here before my kinsmen and your kinsmen, that they may decide between us two." (Gen 31:36–37). For the vessels of your house are those things which are wholly foreign to my house—namely, to say that the holy body assumed from Mary is consubstantial with God the Word, or to say that the immutable and uncreated divinity of the Only-Begotten was changed into flesh, or again that flesh was changed into the substance of the divinity—things which the holy Synods have rejected and condemned as heresy, and anathematized those who think such things, with whole mind and whole mouth. This very point the venerable Synod of Egypt not only once or twice but often expressed and received in written form from the Eastern Synod: both sides unanimously proclaimed Christ, the Word of God, truly made man and incarnate, having assumed flesh consubstantial with us, animated by a rational soul, and made like us in all things except sin, so that He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, and remains so forever—He who will come again clothed in the body with divine and exalted glory, who before and beyond the ages was without body (Heb 4:15; Acts 1:11). He is the one Son, one Lord Jesus Christ, one person, one hypostasis, one nature of God the Word incarnate, and so will judge the world in righteousness and be seen by those who pierced Him (Acts 17:31; Rev 1:7), as sacred Scripture cries.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistle to Epictetus, in The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings, Volume 3: Christ - Through the Nestorian Controversy, trans. Mark DelCogliano (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 280-281
Was it hidden from you alone that they taught and wrote these things in their synodal letters—as the whole world under heaven bears witness? For they everywhere taught what was written. "For this was not done in a corner," as Paul said to King Agrippa (Acts 26:26). Do you then think that, because they anathematize the Chalcedonian Synod, they favor the impious opinions of Eutyches, or that they assign the same substance to the body taken from Mary and to God the Word, whose own body by the incarnation became homogeneous with us and consubstantial? Would they sacrilegiously carry such unclean things into the sacred mysteries and the altar? But against you speak the many writings of those Fathers, and severely rebuke you and your kind—vainly rash and insolent.
Therefore, do not ask, as blessed Athanasius did, what infernal pit has spewed forth such impious and blasphemous things—but look to yourself, if you will, and you will clearly see that your throat alone has belched these upon us. And read the word written by David that strikes you: "their throat is an open sepulchre, they flatter with their tongue. Make them bear their guilt, O God;" (Ps 5:9-10). For how would you not be guilty before the judgment of God, who have written this accusation against two holy Synods without presenting any argument—for you had nothing to say—but fled immediately, and having dropped the mask of the accuser, as your artful style tends, modestly again assumed the persona of one fleeing, after you rushed to accuse like a lizard, yet took on the cunning of a fox? For you said, turning to that bold and stealthy shift: GRAMMATICUS: "But now is not the time to refute their impious doctrines. I think it will suffice for me to be a defender of what is rightly stated by the holy Fathers assembled at Chalcedon." If then you stepped forward to be a defender and build a defense, you ought from the start to have undertaken a defense, and not to begin, like a destitute widow, with an accusation and slyly abandon it, only to prepare it again toward the end of your little book with the deceit that suits you, but in whose nets none will be caught unless he be a creature wholly deprived of intellect.
CHAPTER—FIVE
A clear refutation of the accusation—first abandoned by him without argument, then later reaffirmed—wherein it is shown that this man falsely claims that we, in saying "one nature" (that is, one hypostasis), mean "one substance," and that he himself, blasphemously, calls the composition made without change a mixing, although it is in fact the formation of one hypostasis from two things of different substances.
For from a small excerpt of what I once wrote to the wretched Nephalios, he thinks I am liable to the charge of confusing and mixing substances. But I will immediately transcribe that very little sentence, which he violently tore out of the fuller context of the discourse, and I will set it apart so that whoever encounters it may know that even taken on its own, it stands far removed from the accusation. For when I was speaking about the constitution of man, I said: "The two together (τὸ συναμφότερον)—soul and body—is one nature." How then could someone who held any thought of confusion admit that the two together is one nature? For if from confusion they had been turned into something simple and one, how would the "two together" appear in the one? For the "two together" is indicative of composition without confusion in singularity—that is, in one hypostasis—and not at all of something simple. Such indeed is the human being like us: one nature and hypostasis from soul and body. Cyril: "For not only in the case of those which are simple by nature is the term 'one' truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but when united they produce one phusis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exists according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity." Are these not the very words of Saint Cyril, which you recite with your mouth—as if in pretence, to seem like one who speaks rightly—while in your mind you do not hold them at all? For unless you had maliciously thought that "one in nature and hypostasis" means the same as "one in substance," you would not unjustly slander those who make a true confession, by transferring that composition without change into something simple that has arisen from confusion.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Second Letter to Succensus, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 201
CHAPTER—SIX
That Saint Cyril also repelled, with the same doctrines and concordant words, the vain slander of those who accused him of acting like the Jews in mixing natures.
For just as the heretics then, so now you too are greatly concerned that the "one nature" proclaimed by the orthodox be distorted into an equality of substance, as if to twist what is rightly stated. Listen to Saint Cyril, who shares in the same slander with me, and plainly repels it. For in the oration On the Unity of Christ, after first introducing the person of his interlocutor—namely, the one with whom he was conversing and disputing-he says the following: CYRIL: "B. In that case both natures must have been confused, and have become one. A. But who would be so misguided and stupid as to think that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not? or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself? This is impossible. We say that there is one Son, and that he has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, he has made the human element his own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man." Behold, Saint Cyril himself said that Christ is one nature, understanding "nature" not, as you and the demand of the impious do, as one and simple—that is, identical according to substance—but as one hypostasis, arising from the non-confused composition of things that are not consubstantial with each other. Will you, then again, by removing a single sentence from the connected context of the discourse—that is, the sentences that follow and precede and are found throughout the entire structure of the oration—slander the wise Doctor?
Will you acknowledge indeed that he said, "We say that the Son is one, and that His nature is one," but then also twist even his very words against him and turn his authority into a point of accusation? Will you say that he himself also wrote, when he sent his second letter to Succensus: CYRIL: "For if in saying "the one phusis of the Word" we had been silent by not mentioning "incarnate," but, as it were, setting aside the dispensation of his Incarnation, doubtless their statement would not have been incredible to them, as they pretend to ask, "where is the perfection in the humanity or how has the essence like to us subsisted?" Why then, you ask, did he now omit "incarnate" and state baldly: "We say the Son is one and His nature is one," without adding "incarnate"? But your slander is repelled and your impudent and unlearned mouth is shut by the words that precede and follow in the passage you've excerpted—where he repels and removes any idea of change, and confesses the assumption of flesh animated by a rational soul. For he also added: CYRIL: "Of a rational soul having. For, as I said, His humanity has become His own," after he had already removed the suspicion of change and said in the preceding: "But who would be so misguided and stupid as to think that the divine nature of the Word had changed into something which formerly it was not? or that the flesh was changed by some kind of transformation into the nature of the Word himself? This is impossible." Therefore, if we hear God and our Lord Jesus in the Gospel saying, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment," let us also consider the sentences that follow my excerpt and how the passage is concluded. For in the writings addressed to Nephalios, I quoted the passage of the God-bearing Athanasius, which is found in the Life of Antony, the head of monastic life and true philosophy, written in the form of a narrative, where he recounts his struggle with the Accuser and the subsequent victory, saying this: ATHANASIUS: "Indeed, he who had thought he was like to God," was here made a fool of by a stripling of a man. He who in his conceit disdained flesh and blood, was now routed by a man in the flesh.
B is the interlocutor
A is St. Cyril
St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. John A. McGuckin, Popular Patristics Series 13 (US: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), 77
Verily, the Lord worked with this man—He who for our sakes took on flesh and gave to his body victory over the Devil." Afterwards, I added these words of holy Athanasius: "Behold how Athanasius has spoken both of the man like us and of the Lord: 'He took flesh.' For just as we, who are said to be clothed in flesh, are one thing, one nature—both soul and body—yet not one who wears and another that is worn, so also the Lord with His own flesh—clearly animated with a rational soul—was likewise made one without change." Why did you remove these and only transcribe one dissected sentence? Are you just? Do you rejoice in the truth, and are you a zealous defender of the faith? For when you hear us proclaim that the union of the Word of God with humanity is immutable, you bring the charge of change, and in your ignorant booklet, you question me, saying: GRAMMARIAN: "Which doctor of the Church taught you this, O man? Was it Cyril? And yet he teaches and writes such things to presbyters, deacons, and fathers of monks: namely, that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, just as the soul of man is generated with its own body and is considered as one thing with it, although by nature it is understood to be different and is so according to its own principle." But hear the same Cyril speaking—unless you are only able to hear part of his teaching—that the soul and the body of man, though understood and indeed being different according to nature, result in one nature through their mutual composition and the natural union of immutable concurrence. For he wrote in a letter to Valerian: CYRIL: "The nature of man is admitted to be one, one to be one hupostasis." Then say also to him, struck by the madness of ignorance and uselessly stinging me: GRAMMARIAN: "If you say the soul of man is different according to nature from its own body, how can there be one nature and constitution of man? And are you not ashamed to assert that the soul and the body are the same?" For this was plainly what you also babbled at us. But Cyril answers you, and quite easily: "Madman, do you think you go unnoticed while you deceitfully or ignorantly equate the name of nature with that of substance, and understand 'one nature'—that is, hypostasis—as if it meant one and the same substance?
ibid St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Second Letter to Succensus, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 201-202
St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. John A. McGuckin, Popular Patristics Series 13 (US: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), 77
For when I said that the soul of man is different in nature from the body, I proclaimed that the two are neither connatural nor consubstantial. But when I said, 'The nature of man is admitted to be one,' I meant that through immutable composition and natural union, one nature and hypostasis is formed. Or did you not hear me when I wrote to Succensus, saying: [CYRIL]: ' For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but when united they produce one phusis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exists according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity.'" And although we confess that one absolute nature also exists through the union of soul and body into one hypostasis of the living being, let us by no means speak of equality of substance or confusion, but rather of one hypostasis from both together, as the writings to Valerian show: CYRIL: "For the nature of man is admitted to be one, and to be one hupostasis, even if it is known to be of different realities of diverse kinds. For the body is admittedly is of a different nature relative to the soul, but it is the soul's own body, and helps to complete the one hupostasis of the one man." Therefore, when you hear that one absolute nature exists through the natural union of soul and body, understand rightly that one hypostasis is being indicated. Listen to the wise Doctor, who said that the body is proper to the soul and that together they perfect the one hypostasis of the one man. But do not, by twisting what is rightly said into a perverse understanding, accuse us of saying "one nature" as if it meant "one substance," as though the things different in species and not consubstantial, from which the union was formed, had been confused into an equality of substance. Nor should you shamelessly rebuke, boldly and ignorantly turning the argument against me and saying: GRAMMARIAN: "Are you not ashamed to say that we are indeed clothed in flesh, and yet to posit that soul and body are the same substance?" Hey, you, where have you hidden, you who are sought out by those who judge rightly, so that you may show from my very words the truth of your accusation?
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Saint Antony, trans. Robert T. Meyer, Ancient Christian Writers (United Kingdom: Newman Press, 1950), 23
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Letter to Valerian, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 214
Explain where in my words I said that the substance of the soul and body is the same. Show that the meaning of what I said aligns with your accusation so that the judges may rule in your favour. But you cannot do so—unless, as usual, you lie. And once again, you are proven to be lying.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Second Letter to Succensus, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 201-202
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Letter to Valerian, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 214
CHAPTER—SEVEN
On how he cunningly abandoned the proof of his accusation right from the beginning, and only finally tried to reattach it.
For indeed, when you began in this zealous little book of yours, you sharply and arrogantly reproached us as if we were transgressing the doctrines of Gregory the Wonderworker and the great Athanasius, because Gregory said, GREGORY: "If anyone says that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with the divinity, let him be anathema," and Athanasius likewise said, ATHANASIUS: "What infernal pit has spewed forth the claim, the body from Mary is same-in-substance with the divinity of the Word? Or that the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body?" But since you could not show that I ever said the body taken from Mary, the Mother of God, is consubstantial with God the Word, or that God the Word was transformed into flesh, you, as the saying goes, dropped anchor and abandoned your accusation, saying, GRAMMARIAN: "But now is not the time to refute their impious doctrines." In truth, you feared to attach a false charge and match it with the words of the holy Fathers, lest, when examined side by side, they bring you great shame. For if the Fathers indeed rejected such things—namely, the blasphemous claim that the body taken from the holy Virgin is consubstantial with God the Word, or that God the Word underwent transformation into flesh—yet your accusation could not show that we have ever said any such thing, what else would you achieve but provoke great laughter against yourself, when the laws of the Fathers demonstrate that your slander is baseless and contains nothing of what they abhor?
And this slander, although you cleverly deferred it, I have bound to the canons of the Fathers, so that they may refute it directly and proclaim: "Show that the one you condemn has said what we have condemned; show that he has said the body is consubstantial with God the Word; prove that he ever wrote that God the Word was changed or transformed, that the incorporeal nature was turned into a body. But if you cannot prove this, then you are the one sinning against us, not the one who is falsely accused." Perhaps, however, you foolishly thought that we would become false witnesses and accomplices of your lie, forgetful of the divine words whose interpreters we are, which say: "A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he who kindles wrath shall perish by that fire."
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistle to Epictetus, in The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings, Volume 3: Christ - Through the Nestorian Controversy, trans. Mark DelCogliano (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 280-281
And indeed, the ministers of the Holy Spirit—Gregory and Athanasius—and their laws rise up against your head because of your slander, and all this day they cry out, and they shall cry out for all time to come.
CHAPTER—EIGHT
A clear refutation of the accusation added at the end, exposing its falsification and bold slander, which he foolishly invents in vain against many genuine statements.
You, however, do not cease to "inflame malice" against the divine words, and you pile vanity upon vanity, as the blessed Job once said, and absurdly wallow in the same lies. Again, you say of me, GRAMMARIAN: "But also consider the interpreter of impiety. For he did not utter such things mockingly and arrogantly for no reason; rather, just as he says that the soul and body are one substance, so too he claims the Lord became one thing with His own flesh—clearly one according to substance, and not at all according to person, as is evident from a passage taken from his own words." Someone might rightly respond to this most excellent writer with the words of one of the prophets: "O city of blood, full of lies and wickedness." For just as we clearly showed that what I said was that the soul and body form one nature and hypostasis in a human being—not, as he falsely claims, that they are one and the same in substance—so now he says that I likewise asserted the Lord became one with His own flesh in the same way, even though he secretly removed the phrase "without change" and cut out the words "clearly animated by a rational soul," and after this brazen theft and mutilation, he proclaims to his listeners that I said the Lord was made one according to substance and not according to person. I appear to have gained an excellent interpreter of my mind, who by deleting and removing phrases, twisting meanings, and altering senses, fabricates explanations of my words! But what I actually wrote is as follows, and I will present it again in full, to cast light for those who come across it and to refute the opponent's slander and theft, even though it was cited earlier: "Behold how Athanasius uses the phrase σύστασις μία both for a man like us and for the Lord.
For just as we, who are said to be composed of soul and body, are one being and one nature, the soul and body being united—yet not one as if the speaker were one and the spoken of were another—so also the Lord became one with His own flesh, without change, clearly animated by a rational soul." These are the words that this marvel of a man tried to censure, secretly removing "without change" and "clearly animated by a rational soul," and so, as I said, he makes himself the interpreter of my mind and accuses me of saying that the Lord became one not according to person and hypostasis but through confusion and transformation according to substance. By what sentence of condemnation would such a man not be struck, were he to tamper with or remove a word from documents under judicial review? Would not both his hands and his very tongue be cut off? But since the matter pertains to divine doctrines and to the faith—than which nothing is more precious for the faithful and those who know the truth—he dared to do this, and so the judgment should not be declared by men, but we entrust it to Him who said: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." It is truly remarkable, as wise Paul said, how the minds of unbelievers are darkened. For he has gone mad to such a degree that he even steals words and commits the act of a forger, and he imagines that this alone is his error—thinking that by removing that one part in which he believed himself to be refuted, he has not needed to falsify the rest, though the entire speech I wrote to Nephalion contains a thorough refutation of his slander. I cited a passage from the letter of St. Cyril to the monks—for the sake of brevity, I will recall just a few parts from among many to pursue the complete proof of the truth—where he says, CYRIL: "For his only begotten Word, as I said, was begotten from the substance of God the Father. But after the Word assumed flesh and made it his own, he also bears the name Son of man and became like us. It is in no way absurd to say, I think, but rather necessary to confess also that he was born according to the flesh from a woman, just as, of course, the soul of a man is generated together with its own body and is considered as one with it, even though in nature it is known in comparison with the body to be different and existing by itself according to its own logos. And if someone wished to say that the mother of someone is the mother of a body but not the one who brought a soul into the world, he is thinking extremely foolishly.
For a living being is born, as I said, skillfully composed of unlike principles, from two, indeed, but one man results, each principle remaining that which it is, both brought together as if into one natural unity and so joined with each other that each communicates to the other what is proper to itself." After I cited this, I added: "You see that he teaches that from two things there is to be understood one being, as he likens the incarnation of our Savior to the constitution of every human being, and he does not allow a division into two, but preserves a union without confusion, saying: 'since each remains what it is, yet they have come together into a natural unity.'" Since these words of the wise Cyril—which, if anyone called them the scales of doctrine, would not err—were included in my discourse to Nephalion and were rightly understood by me, as shown by the citations you just heard, this wise and prudent man, with eyes closed and his mind darkened by the heavy stone of heretical stupor, ignored these and presented the same to me as if I were unaware of them, saying, GRAMMARIAN: "Which of the Church Fathers taught you these things, O man? Was it Cyril? But he teaches such things in his writings to the presbyters, deacons, and monastic Fathers, saying that the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, gave birth just as the human soul is generated with its own body and considered as one thing with it, though it is different in nature and has its own principle." So, how, after you failed to emulate such teaching, do you lead us down another path, a path of destruction unknown to the Fathers and common sense, and are not ashamed to assert that, while we bear flesh, soul and body are of the same substance and have no difference? Again, to you and your mad and pointless accusation, I must apply the words of Job: "There is no flavour in vain words, nor is tasteless bread to be eaten; for the mind tests words as the mouth tastes food." Your mind, good sir, has never truly reasoned or judged rightly, but in great madness, you force yourself to eat tasteless bread. For the words of St. Cyril which I cited, you now unlearnedly cite against me as if they contradict me, though you do not understand them.
After I showed the true meaning of this wise teacher's instruction, I said: "You see that he teaches that from two things there is to be understood one being, as he likens the incarnation of our Savior to the constitution of every human being, and he does not allow a division into two, but preserves a union without confusion, saying: 'since each remains what it is, yet they have come together into a natural unity.'" And now, with audacity and ignorance, you criticise me, saying, GRAMMARIAN: "Are you not ashamed, though we bear flesh, to say that the soul and body are of the same substance, with no distinction between them?" Truly, do you not see that difference is acknowledged and yet that the division you proclaim is removed by these words: "each remains what it is, yet they have come together into a natural unity"? Consider then who should be ashamed: you, who lie so blatantly and oppose even written arguments and rebukes, or we, who by many arguments are shown to be free of your accusation? But since you have the face of a harlot, as Jeremiah said, and you have acted shamelessly in all things and continue to do so, you say of me, GRAMMARIAN: "This man does not abandon the notion of one substance, but confuses and perturbs everything; he is entirely flesh and has lost his rational soul." And again, mocking me by twisting the words of the prophets, you say: "This man is foolish and unwise." But to bring reproach upon you, we quote the Apostle: "We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ," and we remind you of His words: "When he lies, he speaks from his own resources." For how could what I never said be considered "mine," as has now clearly been shown? The wise, according to Proverbs, do not turn away from the mouth of the Lord; and what is the mouth of the Lord if not the truth, which formerly He spoke through the prophets in many and various ways, and in these last days has spoken to us in truth and through truth, not merely through types? That is why He said: "He who speaks, speaks what he has seen" and "I am the truth." As for the boldness that continually recycles itself, casting off discipline and refusing shame or reflection on the path its words lead it toward and what end they bring—it is written: "The wicked man, when he comes into the depths of sin, has no fear; but the prudent man considers his path." And so we add to you once more other sayings that strongly rebuke your slander against us, even though you have neglected and rightly despised them, because you did not wish the truth to appear.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1–50, Letter to monks in Egypt, trans. John I. McEnerney, Fathers of the Church 76 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 21-22
Indeed, in the discourse addressed to Nephalius, beyond that portion from which you attempted to stitch together your accusation and your fraudulent composition, the very words run thus: "But adhering without wavering to the doctrines of the God-bearing Fathers, by the grace of God we are of sound mind and stand upon the rock, confessing that God the Word was incarnate from the holy Mother of God, ever-virgin Mary, and from the Holy Spirit, in flesh consubstantial with us, animated by a rational and intelligent soul—for consubstantial with us is the Virgin, from whom the Holy Spirit formed this holy body; for it was not of human seed—perish the thought. Therefore, we confess the same one as consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and the same one as consubstantial with us according to the incarnation; we speak of the same, not another and another—for the things from which our Saviour is composed are one thing and another [ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον], but He is not another and another [ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος]. For we believe Him to be one from two natures, that is, from perfect divinity and perfect humanity without sin, without change, without confusion, no confusion or mixture having occurred, as we said above." And again, shortly after: "If anyone says that the flesh of the Lord descended from heaven, or that it passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and does not say that it was formed from her according to the law of conception, though without a man, let him be anathema. For neither the conception nor the birth from Mary, nor the life among men, nor the cross, nor the burial, nor the resurrection from the dead, nor the ascension into heaven occurred in mere appearance, but all in truth, for we who truly sinned truly needed healing. Therefore, we also expect Christ to come in truth, in that very body in which He bore the saving passion of the cross; for thus shall He be seen by those who pierced Him. For neither do we entertain the notion of a theopaschitism in error—perish the thought—but we say, as it is written, 'the Lord of glory was crucified in the flesh.' For though it is proper to the body to suffer, the impassible Word was united to a body capable of suffering; and because the body was His own, the passion also is said to be His. Nor do we believe in an incarnation without soul or mind, but rather believe that the Lord's incarnation was endowed with both soul and mind and understanding. For we anathematise the fantasy of Eutyches and Valentinus, the impiety of the Manichaeans, the madness of Apollinaris, and the evil division of the economy taught by Nestorius."
These things are written in the discourse to Nephalius, against which you raised your accusation, while you did not open your untutored ears to them. And you presume to teach that the body taken from the Virgin is not consubstantial with God the Word—He who spoke these things so fully and in such weighty words. Do you not perceive, O Grammarian, who illumines Minerva—or those who sing, explaining the tomes of Homer: "I bring some new teaching"—Phaedimus or Hippodamus or Polymetes? Nay rather—if I may add a touch of my own, scorning your mythologies—you, a foreigner, presume to teach the Israelites how to pray saying: "Adonai, Lord, Elohim Sabaoth," or to teach the apostles how to work signs and wonders in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Nevertheless, since you also appear to have read the letter I wrote to Maron—indeed, you indicate this in your vile pamphlet, in which you recollect a passage placed therein that a later part of this discourse will take up in due time—I shall quote a few words from that letter and manifestly show to the hearers that you, despite being refuted by many, have despised wisdom and said in your heart what the prophetic word declares concerning those who act with audacious impiety: "The Lord has forsaken the earth, He does not see it." But to this a certain wise man responds, saying: "Do not say, 'I shall be hidden from the Lord, and who from on high shall remember me?'" (Sir 16:17); and again: "The man who is diminished in heart thinks such things, and the imprudent and erring man devises falsehoods." Therefore hear this and understand what you, refusing to understand, have surrendered yourself entirely to—rushing headlong into calumny, and, as the prophet Jeremiah says, have been seized by your own desire (Jer 2:24). I wrote thus to Maron concerning the constitution of every human being: "Just as the soul of man exists perfectly in accordance with its own nature—for the soul did not assume the body to complete its being—so also, after its separation from the body, it appears in its own hypostasis.
For we ought to believe Paul, who speaks of the souls of the righteous as 'the spirits of the just made perfect' and 'the Church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven' (Heb 12:23); and Peter, who wrote of those who lived in sin: 'In which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared' (1 Pet 3:19–20). Therefore, if the soul, which is of incorporeal nature, is believed to be a part of man's constitution when naturally united to the body, and if, being perfect as soul, it does not suffer the confusion that comes from mixture, how then—when we hear that God the Word was hypostatically united to flesh—do we hesitate and declare such a union to be impossible, offering such excuses? For man also—by which I mean a being composed of soul and body—is perfect as man, though a part of the whole creation, and nothing possesses perfection by nature except God alone. Yet the One who is perfect in all things deigned without change to become a part of creation, neither abandoning nor diminishing His own perfection, but maintaining full integrity and remaining above creation. And this is again clearly taught by Saint Cyril in his letter to the monks beginning 'Diligence and zeal,' where he writes: 'For if being God, He became man, He in no way ceased to be God; if He became a part of creation, He remained above creation; if, as God, He was the lawgiver, yet was made subject to the Law, He remains still the Lawgiver; and if, as Lord according to His divinity, He took on the form of a servant, He did not cast aside the dignity by which He is Lord; if being the Only-Begotten, He became the firstborn among many brothers, He still remains the Only-Begotten: then what wonder is it, if suffering in the flesh as man, He is also understood to be impassible as God?' But if you call it an insult that the Perfect One became part of creation, then you must be prepared to despise the entire dispensation of the economy, through which He made all things His own, gave me a share in His glory, and revealed Himself to me in His very deeds—having in His self-emptying, perfection, and in His humiliation, exaltation." If you had read these things and understood them, and not rejected them out of malice or ignorance, then in your absurd tract you would not have foolishly fought against shadows, nor, like madmen striking stones with your fists, imagined that those whom you strike are being struck by you, nor would you compose ridiculous syllogisms against those things which are certain to all the wise, nor would you say…
This text of St Cyril did not match to the translations of the Letter I can access.
CHAPTER—NINE
It is demonstrated that the term "one nature" signifies not only the substance which, in its generic sense, includes many hypostases, but also refers to one person and one hypostasis composed without confusion from elements differing in species and not consubstantial.
The Grammarian says: "For man is not called one in his inner and outer parts because the soul and body are of the same substance; we recognise the singularity of the person—even if you are unwilling to admit it—yet we do not dare to say that soul and body are of the same substance." And again: "If soul and body are of the same substance, and consubstantial things share the same nature, and the body is corruptible, then the soul too must be corruptible, and to call the soul immortal appears false." O, subtle theories! O inventions of the most wise intellect! O soul trained, as the Proverbs say, in the deceits of words, from which there is no escape! I would gladly ask your wisdom whether you produced these thoughts after a long vigil, or if they sprang forth in a single moment's time. Indeed, the whole world might have gone astray had you not revealed that the body is mortal and the soul immortal. But since we already knew this even without your help, we also understand—apart from you—that the unity and conjunction of soul and body produce one nature and hypostasis, not equality of substance, which you mistakenly imagined to destroy the difference of the things united. And since the testimony of Saint Cyril cited earlier clearly teaches that what is singular in composition is also one person, one hypostasis, and one nature, let him again be brought forward to show this. For when he stated in his eighth chapter or anathema that we ought not say the man assumed is co-adored and co-glorified with the Word, but rather that Emmanuel is to be honored with one worship, as one Lord, God, Son, and Christ, he was rebuked by the impious Andrew, who said: "But look here, we have caught him writing in his own letter that the Son sits together with his Father even with his own flesh.
How can that be any different from saying that the man is to be worshiped together with God the Word and given the name of God in common with him? For the expressions 'together with' and 'with' mean just the same thing." But Cyril defended himself, saying: "Well, my riposte would be that they have no idea about the meanings of these words and no grasp on the real issues that are at stake here. When the discussion has considered closely what elements have come together to become, or to compose, the single person and nature, or concrete existence, then it may use either of the terms, "together with" or "with," because it has already secured what it denotes and has thereby defined it as a single composite entity rather than dividing it into a duality. But once the concrete existences (natures or hypostases) have already been split into two, and then, as well as understanding each of them as a separate individual, one goes on to use these expressions, "together with" or "with," then they would in effect indicate at least two entities, if not more, rather than a single composite entity. It would be like saying that a man's soul is to be honored "together with his own body," if some of its honor belonged to the one man, who derives from both elements; that is, if someone were to say that his soul is a single creature "with his body," then he would not thereby be dividing the single man into a duality in any way at all. On the contrary, he would be demonstrating that he knew full well which elements he was derived from, or which composed his nature. When, for instance, you say, "Peter is designated as a man together with John," or that "John went up to the temple with Peter," you are not using terms such as "together with" or "with" to denote a single entity, since Peter and John are not a composite entity and the pair of them do not go to make up a single man. Why, then, are they so playing around with the truth by dividing the single Christ into two?" These things clearly mean that Emmanuel, composed ineffably and without confusion from divinity and humanity, which are perfectly themselves, is conceived and spoken of as one hypostasis, one nature, and one person—just as every man, such as Peter or John, composed of soul and body, is one person, one nature, and one hypostasis. He who does not confess this, according to the word of the God-bearing teacher just cited, invents falsehoods against the truth and ignorantly divides the one Christ into two.
How then do you not blush, who bring forward what is trite and publicly proclaimed by all as if to distort the truth? Perhaps you think you are speaking to your own students, the young men you train, and so you turn their objections against yourself, solving problems that were never bound, but posed by you as if with fictitious knots. Why do you introduce a straw-man opponent who asks: "How can you call human nature itself one nature?" And you respond, as if revealing some hidden and ineffable mystery, unknown to all mortals, that when you call human nature "one nature" in the ordinary sense, you refer to the whole human race. But know this, O most wise and sharpest of grammarians: that the term "nature" is also used to mean the hypostasis of an individual, as Saint Cyril—more knowledgeable than you and not ignorant like you of the meaning of nature—has shown in the citations just given. For sometimes it denotes the genus, and other times the species, as the very term "humanity" shows. For when we hear the Psalmist say, "Man, like grass, are his days" (Ps 103:15), we understand this name to refer to the whole human race, since the word applies to the entire nature that flourishes like grass and quickly withers. But in another psalm, when the psalmist says: "Behold, the man who did not place God as his helper, but trusted in the abundance of his riches" (Ps 51:9), he refers to a single hypostasis of a single person—namely, the wicked man, Doeg the Edomite or Syrian, to whom the psalm's title refers. And this specific, not generic, meaning is also indicated by what is written in Luke about the man with the withered hand: "And looking around at them all, He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand'" (Lk 6:10); and in Acts, where Agrippa says of Paul: "This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar" (Acts 26:32). It would be lengthy and improper to gather many such clear examples from divine Scripture. Thus, the word "nature" itself can at times indicate a genus, and at other times, a species.
Andrew of Samosata, quoted in St. Cyril of Alexandria, Three Christological Treatises, A Defense of the Twelve (Eighth) Anathemas Against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, trans. Daniel King, Fathers of the Church 129 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 158
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Three Christological Treatises, A Defense of the Twelve (Eighth) Anathemas Against the Bishops of the Diocese of Oriens, trans. Daniel King, Fathers of the Church 129 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 158-159
CHAPTER—TEN
That when "the composite" (τὸ συναμφότερον) is spoken of in reference to one nature or hypostasis, it indicates those elements from which that one nature has been constituted without change.
On this point, the above statements suffice; indeed, more need not be said for those who are prudent. That the term συναμφότερον is also commonly used for a unified composite—one that arises ἐκ συναμφοτέρου, from both parts without confusion or division—this too is testified by Saint Cyril, the all-accomplished and wise teacher. For he wrote in his Scholia as follows: CYRIL: "In the Song of Songs our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has been introduced to us saying, I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the vallies. As then the smell is something unembodied, for it uses as its own body that wherein it is, yet is the lily conceived of as one out of both, and the failing of one utterly destroys the plan thereof, for in the object is the smell and the object is its body: so shall we conceive of the Nature of the Godhead in Christ too, that it sheds forth on the world the savour of His own more than earthly Excellence, as in the object His human Nature, and that the unembodied by Nature became by economic union all-but embodied also, because It willed to be recognized through the Body; for It hath wrought therein things God-befitting. Hence will the Unembodied be rightly conceived of as in His own Body, even as in the flower too, the object, is the scent, yet both together is called [τὸ συναμφότερον] lily." Desist, then, from such vain and foolish verbosity, knowing that we proclaim one incarnate nature of the Word of God, and one person and one hypostasis, just as we speak of any man, Peter or John. For I recall the words of Saint Cyril: that a single person, hypostasis, and nature is composed of a rational soul and a body. And do not think that "one nature" in this context is to be understood generically, for you hear also "one hypostasis" and "one person." Nor again foolishly suppose that "one nature and hypostasis" means the same as "one substance," when you well know that, without any change, the natural union of soul and body has brought about one man, reckoned as τὸ συναμφότερον, the composite.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, trans. P.E. Pusey, LFC 47 (Oxford 1881), 195-196
CHAPTER—ELEVEN
That, like the earlier heretics who divided the one Christ in a Judaizing manner, this man also falsely imputes to us the charge of change and confusion.
But if, even after learning all this, you still bring against us the charge of mixture because of the natures from which the one Christ is constituted, I will expose both the impudence and boldness of your accusation. Just so your father Theodoret, the leader of the Council of Chalcedon, because he persisted in the same vain charges and incessantly criticized "mixture" in order to introduce division, heard from the wise Cyril, in his defense of the fourth anathematism, the same things I too shall now say to you—and not untimely so. These are his words: CYRIL: "But in fact I am as far from suggesting that the natures are mixed with one another or that they undergo combination, confusion, or change, as he is from getting anything right at all!" And again, in defence of the fifth anathematism: "So I have to say yet again what I have already said so often, namely, that since no one is suggesting that the Word's divine and pure nature was transformed into earthly flesh, and everyone agrees that his nature is unchangeable, it is a total waste of effort to feel obliged to deal with such fraudulent claims that arise from nothing, because God the Word is naturally unchangeable and unalterable. After all, who would be so utterly senseless as willfully to think or say such shocking things that even the most mindless idiot would throw out with the trash?" Therefore, it is no secret to those who, inspired by faithful understanding, read the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers, from what mindset you invent accusations that do not stand. Indeed, what you do amounts to crying out to the orthodox: "You confess, O men, change, confusion, and corruption of substances; you believe in illusion in the great and divine mystery of the true Incarnation.
Think what you ought not; fall into reprobate understanding; be transferred into that which opposes our error. Give occasion for a clash; for we too wish to stand against you in battle: against confusion we shall uphold separation, against conversion duality, and against illusion, worship of man. Grant us a fight, under the guise and pretext of piety. Do not say that Emmanuel is from two natures, divinity and humanity, each existing perfectly according to its own logos; do not say that He is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity; do not say there is one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word of God. Say something else! Go on, announce to us a new heresy; lead us away from the right path; take away from us that road and remove from us the word of Israel." But if you will not do this yourselves, shall we not find ourselves a beginning and pretext to do it? We shall slander you, accusing you of claiming that the body assumed from Mary is consubstantial with the Word of God; or we shall invent some other charge, such as that you assent to the conversion of the flesh and its transformation into the divine nature. Thus shall we war against you, adorned in pious appearance, so that for the sake of right doctrine you will be forced to accept our definition, which, from the opposite error, we will impose on you by force and, as it is said, by every possible means. Is this not precisely the way Diodore, the teacher of Nestorius, acted? For though he claimed to fight against the followers of Apollinaris and the Polemonians or Synousiasts—whether in name or in truth—he in fact attacked the truth with Judaizing doctrines and divided the one Christ into two. And he heard the wise Cyril say to him—even though he was already dead—these words: CYRIL: "Against which heresy do you fight, O Diodore, who have said these things? Against what walls do you bring your siege engines? Against what cities do you aim your arrows? Is it against those who wish to cling to Apollinaris' teachings that you so eagerly rise up? Or is it against those called Polemonians or Synousiasts?"
Ibid, 107
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Three Christological Treatises, A Defense of the Twelve (Fourth) Anathemas Against Theodoret, trans. Daniel King, Fathers of the Church 129 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 102
And again, shortly after: "Though piety is the motive for the struggle against them, he boldly attacks even those in whom right and immaculate faith is found, daring to cast down what has been proven and established. He likewise rebuked Theodore, who had crafted the same excuse, and who held impious views akin to Diodore's. In the writings directed against him, Cyril says: "He wrote a book against those called Synousiasts; and although he ought to have criticized their ignorance and rebuked those among them who thought that the flesh was changed into the nature of the Word, or that the Word was transformed into the nature of flesh, for some reason, this so-called wise man omitted that entirely and directed all his attack toward slandering the truth, daring even to mock the true and sincere doctrine of the holy Fathers concerning Christ. And Nestorius, who often seized upon the same excuse to justify his errors and made war against the truth on that basis, Cyril, wise in the Spirit, confronts in the same way—laying bare his pretenses everywhere, but especially in the fifth volume against that miserable blasphemer, saying: CYRIL: "But if every one who is educated in the Holy Scriptures holds it repugnant to so much as hear that any change was wrought in the Only-Begotten, why dost thou admitting as true and really spoken things so disgraceful and condemned by one voice by all and utterly rejected, essay to sever the Indivisible and that after the Union?"
I was unable to find this quote in the surviving fragments and subsequent ones; it is more probable they are preserved mainly because they were quoted in this and other treatises of St. Severus himself.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius, Book Five, trans. P.E. Pusey, LFC 47 (Oxford 1881), 172-173
CHAPTER—TWELVE
That the impious Tome of Leo is composed after the same model of heretical deceit, since under the pretence of opposing the impious illusion of Eutyches, it actually attacks true piety.