Following those who were armed for battle against error, the impious Tome of Leo—which the Council of Chalcedon called the pillar of orthodoxy—also emulated these leaders in the fight, and under the pretext of opposing the impious Eutyches, it brought forth not weapons of piety but of anthropolatry (the worship of man) against the adversary. Outwardly, it seemed to aim its arrows at him, but in truth, its strategy was directed against the truth; it was thought to attack that man, but secretly it launched its weapons against the orthodox faith. And what is most astonishing: while it claimed to fight against the doctrine of illusion (phantasia), in fact, it sought nothing else but to introduce into the holy churches the impious doctrine of anthropolatry, and to divide the one and indivisible Christ into two natures and two forms—thus subtly operating a duplicity of persons, who act, speak, and function without failure, each retaining their own properties separately. In this way, it dissects the indivisibility of the divine economy more than those who divided the garments of our crucified God and Savior but could not divide the seamless tunic woven from above—which is a type of the Church's body, and which these men do not tremble to tear apart, striving only to fortify their own opinion and human invention, while, as far as it lies in their power, they uproot from its foundations that doctrine upon which the Church is founded—a foundation that is divine and firm.
But this deceit—the abominable stratagem of Leo's Tome, which armed the bishops gathered at Chalcedon—was not overlooked by the most vigilant shepherd, Cyril, but was beforehand exposed, as the Holy Spirit played upon his mind like a lyre. For he wrote, in the works composed against Diodore, as follows: CYRIL: "Therefore, I too say that the heresy of the Phantasiasts is vain and utterly cold, and it must be shown as such—but not by those statements which reduce the entire mystery of piety to nothing, and through which accusations of worshiping a man are incurred, causing harm to those who, called from the error of polytheism to the true knowledge of God through Jesus Christ, have been taught by the incarnate Only-Begotten, who alone is the true Son of God the Father."
Had you, Grammaticus, also walked this path of the Fathers and followed in their footsteps—and truly aimed to be an advocate for those assembled at Chalcedon, as you claimed—you would not have abandoned their defense in the very beginning of your treatise, nor would you have brought the charge of the Synousiasts against us. Instead, you artfully wove the error you were contending against with the opposite error, so that as much as the one side is rejected, you yourself retreat into the opposing cliff of heresy, twisting perversity into its contrary, and dividing Emmanuel by a severing of the two natures.
HERE ENDS THE FIRST ORATION.