By saying "from two natures," not "two natures" after the union. Again, we have heard him say: "Stop dividing the natures after the union." And in that same prosphonetical oration, he says: CYRIL: "One thing, brought forth ineffably from two realities into one according to the most exalted union, not, however, according to a conversion of nature." For everywhere he proclaims Emmanuel to be "from two natures," and in no place as being "in two natures"—a matter precisely and definitively settled by the Chalcedonian fathers: "These," it says, "are they who separate themselves, natural men, not having the Spirit," as one of the apostles also writes. But if you deny this, O most learned of grammarians, show where the eminent Cyril—who was profoundly versed in this controversy and refuted the sophistries which dissect the one Christ—ever defined Him as "in two natures." He consistently offered the formula "from two natures," as one that dissolves duality and brings about recognition of the one incarnate nature of the Word of God, the one hypostasis and one person. How then, in your lamentable little book, do you so obsessively twist that formula as if it were affirmed, misrepresenting even Saint Cyril, thus frightening the simpler souls, and declaring of him the following: GRAMMARIAN: "There is no harm in asserting the difference, whether one says the one incarnate nature of the Word of God or confesses Emmanuel in two inseparably united natures"? Show, then, O supremely audacious and unlearned man, that Cyril ever defined Emmanuel as "in two natures." Otherwise, know that you clearly fall under the reproach of the Apostle Paul, who, writing to Timothy, said: "Understanding neither what they say, nor the things about which they confidently affirm." And let this not escape your notice: the Nestorians—your followers, who even after the ineffable union labour under the disease of duality—have violently and with guile composed a book against the truth, filled with deceit and artifice, supposing that it would support their wicked doctrine.
This book they divided into 244 chapters, drawing excerpts from all of Saint Cyril's writings and impiously fragmenting them, wherein they are proven to have fraudulently inserted the phrase "in two natures" into the Doctor's words, being utterly devoid of evidence and thus resorting to fabrications and shameless slanders, just as you now falsely claim that the phrase belongs to Cyril, though it is not his. The corrupted chapter taken from the prosphonetical oration to the most pious Emperor Theodosius reads thus: CYRIL: "And just as He is perfect in divinity, so also in humanity—not composed of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ, Son, and Lord, but united in one and the same from two perfect things—namely, divinity and humanity." Therefore, the forgery of those who corrupted the passage in defense and promotion of the "in two" formula is exposed, crying out, as it were, and exposing the impiety and ignorance of those who forcibly composed the forgery. I undertook this defense not because I believed Saint Cyril to need any defense, but to arm his words against the falsifiers and slanderers who have distorted the meaning and structure of his discourse—so much so that even those wishing to find a genuine book in the royal city at that time found it difficult. What I have written in response to that chapter reads as follows: FROM PHILALETHES. DEFENSE OF THIS CHAPTER: "Here again they have manifestly altered the genuine book. For the words 'from two perfect things' have been changed to 'in two perfect things.' First, nearly all the books that have escaped the hands of this falsifier and his ilk condemn the deception, because even the structure of the discourse itself rises up against the slanderer. For had it read 'in two perfect things,' Cyril would not have said, 'not composed of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ and Lord and Son,' but rather 'in divinity and flesh alone.' The word 'composed' plainly presents one from two; but the formula 'in two' points to two things subsisting individually and separately. The slander is further refuted by the subsequent words of Saint Cyril from that very same prosphonetical oration: CYRIL: 'And indeed, divine Paul, bringing together into one, according to the dispensation, those things which are vastly distant from consubstantiality and separated from one another by an immense difference—namely, divinity and humanity—and signifying from both one Christ and Son and God, says: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God."'
But those who aid the impiety of Nestorius oppose the formula "from two," as if it signified the hypostatic union but destroyed the separation into two—those who claim, merely in pretense, a union of two natures so that they may adopt a union of affection—this becomes clear from the unclean words of Nestorius: FROM THE IMPIETY OF NESTORIUS, IN A LETTER TO THEODORETUS, IN WHICH HE REJECTS THE THINGS WRITTEN BY SAINT CYRIL TO THE EASTERNERS: "For what does he say? 'Though the difference of natures is not unknown, from which we say that the ineffable union was made.' That phrase 'from which,' as if concerning corresponding parts, he says about the Lord's natures, which became one. For he should have said not 'from which' but 'of which' the ineffable union was made. For the ineffable union is not of the natures, but belongs to the very natures themselves." All of this I once wrote in defense against those who fabricated and slandered in a similar way as you do now; and now I write the same things against your own lies and unlearned boldness, which clearly show your party never ceases, having the spirit of error, to leap this way and that like scorpions, injecting the venomous sting of slander into sound words and divine dogmas. But you will not in any way harm those who are well-taught and not ignorant of the things that pertain to divine doctrine.
CHAPTER—TWELVE
A demonstration showing that the confession "Christ, after the union, is of two natures indivisibly" is opposed to the confession "One is the incarnate nature of the Son," and a refutation of the corrupt and impious interpretation of the words of the wise Cyril.
How did you dare, after mixing the cup of slanderous ignorance—or rather, having drunk unmixed the wine of bold impiety—to write such things about Saint Cyril: "But he clearly teaches that there is no difference at all, whether one says 'one incarnate nature of the Word of God,' or confesses Emmanuel in two inseparably united natures," when the very Doctor you slander wrote more clearly than the sun itself, in his second letter to Succensus, directly opposing the expression "two indivisible natures" to the confession "one incarnate nature of the Word of God"? For in that very letter, quoting the position of heretics who think as you do, he presents their irrational chatter thus: "Moreover, I find that another matter is under discussion. For he who says that the Lord suffered in mere flesh makes the passion irrational and involuntary. But if one says that He suffered with a rational soul, so that the passion is voluntary, nothing prevents him from saying that He suffered according to the nature of humanity. If this is true, how shall we not concede that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union? Therefore, if one says, 'Christ suffered for us in the flesh,' he says nothing other than 'Christ suffered for us in our nature.'" See how plainly the heretical proposition asserts that two natures subsist without division, and that Christ suffered in our nature, and thus Cyril shows that the phrase "in two indivisible natures" is in direct opposition to the confession "one incarnate nature of the Word," calling those who repeat such things fools. He does not cease from repeating this, even saying: "The proposition also opposes those who say that the incarnate nature of the Son is one, and who, wishing to show this to be foolish, everywhere strive to show that two natures subsist."
But the Grammaticus, quoting this very line near the end of his miserable little book, and seeking to shield his impiety under an invented gloss, writes: "For Cyril says: 'They strive everywhere to show that two natures subsist'—clearly, two that are separate,"—who would not mourn such audacity? He plunges into voluntary madness for which there is no remission, since Cyril had introduced the claim of those who say "two indivisible natures subsist" and refuted them by saying they strive to show that two natures subsist; yet the Grammaticus twists this into meaning "two separate natures." O marvel of interpretation! In the same way, you distort my words to Nephalios: "We are one thing, and one nature encompasses both of us—soul and body—for this is man, one by nature, that is, by hypostasis, who is likewise known according to substance," yet you twisted them violently and foolishly. And even though Saint Cyril plainly described those who say "How shall we not concede that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union?" as opposed to those who confess "one incarnate nature of the Son," and who "strive everywhere to show that two natures subsist," you now falsely claim he wrote this against those who divide the natures, erasing what is written with a lawless gloss on what is not written. Rightly, then, does Is cry: "The fool speaks folly, and his heart works iniquity… to speak error against the Lord" (Is 32:6), and again: "The interpretation of a fool is like a burden on the road" (Sir 22:15), and: "Weep for the dead—for he has lost the light; but weep more for the fool—for he has lost wisdom" (Sir 22:11). For who would not weep that those who spent their lives teaching schoolboys Homer's anger—perhaps not even well—now intrude with ignorant boldness into divine mysteries, misinterpreting them, falsely attributing to the saints what they never wrote, and omitting what they did say—indeed, not merely omitting but replacing it with shameless and slanderous inventions? As the proverb says: "Strike a fool in the midst of the assembly, and you will not drive out his folly" (Prov 27:22). So also when the wise Doctor declares that the phrase "two indivisible natures" stands opposed to the confession "one incarnate nature of the Word," the Grammaticus, like some new interpreter or reconciler, falsifies the very truth he pretends to uphold.
CHAPTER—THIRTEEN
Nestorius too, though he said "two natures," was caught confessing a union of love—the product of which is duality—whereas the effect of true union is a composite one, namely one nature and one hypostasis of the Incarnate Word.
For Nestorius, though he used the phrase "two natures," did not shy away from adding "united," as may be seen in a sermon of his entitled "When it was read: 'How often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?' and another bishop had just spoken before him on patience", which begins: "What the previous teacher explained was beautiful." Nestorius says: "I myself, that is, the person of Elsaios, speak and say to all: I call Christ perfect God and perfect man, the natures not mingled but united." Herein lies the distinction between our orthodox faith and his madness. We, by contemplation alone, consider the elements from which Christ is composed, and thus perceive two natures which have converged into an indivisible union; but once the union is rightly considered, we no longer deem it proper to speak of "two natures," since they do not subsist in their proper individualities, but from both there results one hypostasis and one nature—the nature of the Incarnate Word. He, however, confessing a union of affection, says that the Word of God, by a movement of love and friendship, appropriated to Himself the child formed separately in Mary's womb, bestowing upon him a homonymous sonship and authority, and a shared will along with equal honor and power; and so, even after such a so-called union, he confesses "two united natures." For the result of a true and hypostatic union—by which the Word, without change, became flesh (that is, became man) while still remaining God—is that one Person composed of both, one nature of the Word made flesh, is proclaimed. But the result of a union of affection and artifice is that two natures continue to be spoken of—so that from the fruit of such claims, one may discern which union is being confessed: the real and hypostatic one, or the counterfeit.
For the term "union" is used by both us and our adversaries, and the conjunction of two natures is acknowledged by both. Yet by what results from that union—as I said—the opposition of doctrines is known: for the one who confesses "one incarnate nature of the Word of God" proclaims the confession of a true union; but the one who says "two natures" even after the union, corrupts the name of union and actually implies separation, not union. This too the wise Cyril teaches when, in his letter to Eulogius, he writes: "Not everything the heretics say must be rejected; for many things they profess are also confessed by us. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, should we therefore reject such a confession? So also with Nestorius: although he says 'two natures,' expressing the difference between the flesh and the Word of God—for the nature of the Word and the nature of the flesh are different—yet he still does not confess union with us. For we, uniting those things, confess one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord, and moreover one nature of the Son incarnate." Pay attention, then, O you subtle-minded Grammaticus, how the one who does not say "one incarnate nature of the Word of God" does not confess union with us. For it is not as you say—that anyone who does not confess both phrases, namely "one incarnate nature of the Word of God" and "two united natures," fails to confess union with us. For the former is the consummation of the true union; the latter belongs to the union of affection, which Nestorius confessed. It is characteristic of those who confess the hypostatic union to see—as if by contemplation alone—the things from which Christ is, and to apprehend by intuition that the two natures are united incomprehensibly; but not, after considering the union, to continue speaking of the two things which in hypostasis are no longer two. For to speak of "two" even after the union and the kindred bond arising therefrom dissolves the union and denies the one hypostasis, the one Son, the one Christ, the one Savior and Lord—bringing in instead duality in all things, separating each part, and effectively proclaiming two hypostases, two sons, two lords, two christs.
Concerning this, Cyril wrote in his first letter to Succensus: "So far as mere reflection and the contemplation of the soul's eyes go, on how the Only-Begotten became man, we say there are two natures united; but we confess one Christ, one Lord, one Son, the Word of God made man and incarnate." Therefore, if someone persists in speaking of "two" even after the things which came together in union have been considered, he no longer sees with the soul's eyes alone the subtle union of the two, as the wise Doctor taught, but rather separates them hypostatically, and does not permit the one Christ and Lord, the Word of God made man and incarnate, to be rightly understood. For if it were lawful to speak of "two united natures" even after the union, it would have been superfluous for Cyril to mark the boundary by saying "so far as contemplation and the soul's vision go." But because the hypostatic union destroys any division into two, he allowed only contemplation to distinguish the components of the union. He says the same again in his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: "Therefore, as if apprehending by thought alone the elements from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is constituted, we say that two natures are united; but after the union, since division into two has been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son—as of one, yet made man and incarnate." Where then will you hide, you who boast of your wisdom, when wise Cyril himself plainly says that two united natures are to be spoken of only as if by thought alone, but after the union, division into two is removed and one nature is to be confessed of the incarnate and inhumanated Son? For if we say "two united natures" only as if by mental contemplation, and after reflection on the union we confess one nature of the incarnate Son, it cannot be allowed to speak of "two individual and united natures" after the union—for by then, the division into two has vanished.
CHAPTER—FOURTEEN
That what is separated in thought and contemplation does not suit those who say "two natures after the union"; and that true and false union are known by their effects.
How then, in this little book—corrupted under the guise of truth—do you, while boasting that you explain the wise Cyril, write as follows: "The grammarian says: 'In those words he refers to one who, wishing to name the natures by a separation in thought, is not far from the orthodox faith. For he also knew that Basil had said: "But in thought we conceive the nature of each of them," and likewise Gregory the Theologian: "An argument by which the natures are separated in thought."'" Your diligence is commendable, even more so your goodwill and your appeal to harmony with the holy Fathers! So now, go on yourself as far as separating in thought, to understand the difference of those things which have been united without confusion. Do not say "two" after the union! For thus also did Saint Cyril, who separated in thought and adhered—as you testified—to the earlier Fathers and teachers, say: "But separating merely in thought and apprehending the difference through subtle contemplations or intellectual imaginations, we do not set apart the natures, nor do we allow a perfect division into them, but we understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together form one living being." This is the mark of those who divide in thought only—that what appears in thought or contemplation to be two is no longer called two after the union. For you clearly heard Cyril say, "so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together form one living being." But if you persist in saying "two natures" after the union, you are setting them apart and introducing real division—not merely acknowledging a difference through contemplation, as you falsely claim.
You have turned the one hypostasis into two hypostases by pretending to confess one, thereby making God the Word and the human being truly and separately distinct—united only by will, by equality of honor, and by authority, according to the filthy nonsense of Nestorius. And now, you are caught in your own words: for after those empty words quoted earlier from your wondrous book, you added this: "Therefore Cyril anathematizes only those who present God and the human separately, united by identity of will and equality of honor according to authority—for this is the madness of Nestorius." But how then did he not turn his face away from that very distinction made only in contemplation, following Basil and Gregory? How do you claim that those who say the two natures are visible in the hypostatic union should be anathematized by you? Do you not see, from what was just demonstrated, that you have pronounced anathema on yourself? For it has been shown that you do not separate the natures only in contemplation, nor do you merely acknowledge their difference without asserting them as two after the union—which is the position of those who accept a real division and place the natures separately, calling them "united" only through the foul fiction of Nestorius' words, by equality of honor and individual unity. And you say: "I confess a hypostatic union." Then show the effect of this union, so that you no longer call the two natures "two," but rather affirm that both form one, as the wise Cyril said. But you do not consent! That's why you passed over these words with eyes closed, while arrogantly interpreting those words from the letter to Succensus, which you claimed support your view. But when you say "two natures after the union," you introduce the offspring of Nestorian union and slander the mother—the hypostatic union—which is not the source of two natures, but of one nature, the incarnate Word of God. As if from a human conception a centaur or a warhorse were born—things not even imagined in false fables—or as if, in the words of cursed Job the philosopher, he reaps thorns instead of wheat and brambles instead of barley (Job 31:40). Why then do you present the hypostatic union, but bring forth the twin offspring of a false and relational union? If you remain silent, I will state the reason—and anyone who sees through your foolish words will too: because you deliberately strive to appear orthodox in opinion, while actually being a Nestorian—in appearance one of us, but inwardly emulating them.
For if you truly confessed the hypostatic union—not hypocritically—then cease to say "two natures after the union," and confess the one nature of the incarnate Word of God. But if you still declare two distinct and united natures after the union, why do you call Nestorius a madman, and criticize union by equality of honor and identity of will, when you support its offspring—namely, the "two natures after the union"? For true and individual union—namely, the hypostatic one—has as its very property the production of one nature and one hypostasis of the incarnate Word. Thus, the very word "individual" signifies right faith. But to say "two natures," while adding "individual and united," merely imitates the appearance of orthodoxy and decorates the one who is really divided with the persuasive label of unity. For after the union, there is inseparably one nature—not two—even though formed from two without confusion. But to say "two" after the union is to divide according to hypostasis, and such a union is false and misleading. For if the union is true, there are no longer two, but one Christ is understood from both. Where there are still "two," even if called "individual," Saint Cyril himself returns and exposes the deceit, crying out in his second letter to Succensus: "That word 'inseparably' which they themselves added may seem to signify the right faith among us; but they do not understand it so. Rather, 'inseparably,' according to the idle talk of Nestorius, means something else. For they say that God the Word is inseparable from the man in whom He dwelled, by equality of honor, identity of will, and authority. Therefore, they do not speak simply, but with some trick and malice." Do not think, O wise man, that it is enough merely to say, "I confess the hypostatic union; but I reject the one conceived through equality of honor or relation," to be counted among the orthodox. Rather, it is by the effect that we recognize which union you truly hold—this one or that—for we judge by realities, not by names.
For if you confess one nature of the incarnate Word of God, and with subtle intellect distinguish the components of the union—recognizing a natural union without confusion between the divinity of the only-begotten Word and humanity, without going further into full division, and instead keeping and restraining it within the thought of union, so that after the union "those two natures are no longer two, but both together form one living being"—then you are seen to truly hold the hypostatic union in mind. But if you confess two natures after the union, then seek some other kind of union! The true union is not acceptable to you, for it does not allow what is compacted from two into an indivisible and immutable unity to be called "two" again after the union. Therefore, you must admit that your union is the one based on equality of honor and identity of will, and return to the very thing from which you falsely claim to turn away. You are doing the same as the vipers, which, according to experts, are said to gnaw through the wombs that bore them in order to be born: you strive by force to make the double nature destroy the union that begot it, and in your ingratitude, you insult the mother that bore the child you so desired. For if you were truly orthodox, you would hate both the offspring and the mother equally. So know clearly that we do not pronounce anathema on those who separate in thought or through subtle contemplations and intellectual imaginations the elements that constitute Christ, and understand their difference—but only on those who say "two natures after the union," and with blasphemy fight against the mystagogical theologians who proclaim and testify—silencing the double-tongued mouths of the dividers—that "those two natures are no longer two, but both together form one living being," drawing the example from us and demonstrating the ineffable union of Emmanuel. And if, still full of vain talk, you say again: "I affirm both the one incarnate nature and two individual and united natures," then we too will again meet you with the same medicines and incantations, if only you will hear the healing voice and be cured by the wise and saving remedy—as the prophet sings (Ps 107:20). And who is the wise one? Cyril—the true physician of such diseases—who, in his second letter to Succensus, brings forward an objection posed by someone asking, "How can we not admit that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union?"
and answers that such a proposition opposes the right understanding and contradicts it, writing: "This proposition also opposes those who say that the nature of the Son incarnate is one, for those who wish to show this is absurd always strive to demonstrate two subsisting natures." So then, O good man, how do you say things that contradict each other? How do you not perceive that, by saying both what we say and what is opposed to us, and claiming both 'two' and 'one' as the same, you are caught in the words Gregory the Theologian wrote to Cledonius about those who followed the impious doctrines of Apollinaris: "If only they knew how to be consistent and not to say their own things and also those of their opponents. Such is the nature of foolishness and opposition to the truth, that they neither understand nor are ashamed of what is laid upon them." It is clear from these rebukes that your "wisdom" is subject to them, for you impose on us their errors—like shameless harlots in a brothel who expose and sell their hidden shame and impose their disgrace on the modest. But it is not hidden from those who listen wisely and know the bitterness and malice of heresy, to whom these things apply and why you introduce opposing statements, trying to be a peacemaker to us, even while ignoring the Apostle who said, "What fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14)—and boldly imitating the deeds of your fathers.
CHAPTER—FIFTEEN
Heretics, under the guise of peace and as if by agreement, are eager to say, "Let us use both our expressions and those customary among the orthodox"—but this, the word of truth will never approve. Thus, it cannot be said, after an ineffable union, that there are both two individual natures and one incarnate nature.
For Nestorius, the father of your error, worked cunningly with many tricks to attack the phrase proclaiming the Virgin as Mother of God; and when he did not prevail, he ultimately offered the "peace of sinners" and a pact not from the Spirit of God [cf. Is 28:15], as first said by David and later by Isaiah, declaring: "Let her be called both God-bearer and man-bearer, and I assent." Heretics carefully strive either to impose their teaching in full or, if unable to do so completely, to slyly and persuasively mingle some heretical notions with sound doctrine. Listen, then, to how Nestorius himself relates this very idea in his sermon titled On the Divine Incarnation, delivered after another spoke of love, and which begins: "The sweet teacher has laid before us the table of love": NESTORIUS: "I say Theotokos and I add Anthropotokos. For the heretic does not approve this, because of the separation that arises from the confession of natures and terms. Therefore, I advise that we also overcome their controversy through piety. Let us proclaim both expressions. For wise Paul also knew how to heal those things that gave rise to scandals and divisions among the disciples" [cf. 1 Cor 1:10–13]. AND A LITTLE LATER: "Confess what is said by all the orthodox. This is proper to those who rightly use the term Theotokos, namely, that not only Theotokos but also Anthropotokos be proclaimed of the Virgin." AND AGAIN: "For the perfect confession of right doctrine is this: to proclaim with the word Theotokos also the word Anthropotokos." And this is indeed Nestorius!
Now consider also your own words and show your listeners the perfect resemblance and clear image of the wicked counterfeit of your fathers, as I said: THE GRAMMARIAN: "Wherefore blessed Cyril received even those who spoke of two natures in Emmanuel, fleeing the heresy of Apollinaris, and again professed the statement of one nature of the incarnate Word of God, because of the division of Nestorius. For when both are proclaimed, it indicates correct judgment; but when only one confession is uttered, there arises an evil suspicion of heresy." O vile imitation! How much do the words and judgments of the son imitate the words and judgments of the father! Nestorius said: "Let us proclaim both expressions; for the perfect confession according to right doctrine is this: to proclaim with the word Theotokos also the word Anthropotokos," and the Grammarian says: "For when both are proclaimed, it indicates sound judgment." Again, Nestorius vomited this filth: "To the word Theotokos I also add the word Anthropotokos. For the heretic does not approve this," and the Grammarian sucked in and spewed out the filth of his father: "But when only one of these words is uttered, there arises some evil suspicion of heresy." What then will heretics devise in regard to such unstable pacts and most unpeaceful peaces, and unblended blends of opposing words, to show possible what is unthinkable and impossible? The warrior of the Divine Spirit, Saint Cyril, who cried out with Koheleth against them: "A time for war, and not a time for peace" (Eccl 3:8), wrote against Nestorius in his sermon On the Incarnation, rejecting his mixture, as follows: CYRIL: "For we say that the Word of God became man unchangeably. And as for the nature of the flesh, the holy Virgin gave birth to a body consubstantial with us and with herself: but when we say Theotokos, this also implies this reality: for the holy Virgin did not give birth to mere divinity, but to the Word of God united with flesh. Nor could the title Theotokos be understood in any other way. Thus, the confession of the Incarnation always precedes, and so it is true that the holy Virgin became Theotokos, who miraculously gave birth to the one Christ, partaker of our flesh and blood, consubstantial with us according to humanity, so that the flesh is from the Virgin Mary. For she did not give birth to someone merely like us in substance, as some heretics have thought, but to one consubstantial with us—that is, from our substance. For Scripture says: 'He took on the seed of Abraham' [Heb 2:16].
But 'like in substance' does not mean a real man, but the likeness of the son of man, as Daniel says [Dan 7:13]. The Apostle did not teach likeness, but says: 'The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim 2:5–6). And the same is consubstantial with God and the Father in divinity, as also the fathers confessed, saying He is consubstantial with the Father, not merely like in substance. Therefore, it is superfluous and unnecessary, after we have said Theotokos, to add Anthropotokos. The former term suffices, as I said, since it contains the entire confession of our mystery and gives no occasion for those who wish to slander the truth. For it is the custom of heretics to twist right words into a corrupt meaning: which we do not marvel at, since they err also in misinterpreting the divine Scriptures." Against the Grammarian, who says we must confess, after the union, both two individual natures and one nature of the incarnate Word of God, Cyril contended, as we often noted, in his second letter to Succensus, writing thus: CYRIL: "This statement also contradicts those who say there is one nature of the incarnate Son, for wanting to show this as absurd, they try everywhere to demonstrate two subsisting natures." AND A LITTLE LATER: "So that, as a result, these two natures are no longer two, but together form one living being." Again, he wrote to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: "Truly, after the union, the division into two having already been abolished, we believe there is one nature of the Son—as one, but incarnate and made man." For duality is the division and separation of the one. Thus also, when in thought we consider those things from which the one is formed in a natural union, and we see that they are two things that came together, we say we separate them in contemplation only insofar as we consider them as two. But if even after the thought of union we persist in saying there are two, we separate them also according to hypostasis, so that there are not one, but two hypostases and two natures, to which we in vain apply the term union and inseparability, like some artificial and deceitful name. Therefore, do not bring duality—which destroys and separates the one Christ—into the discussion as if it were the same as the terms and doctrine that stand in opposition to it, proceeding, as I said, as an unconvincing reconciler.
For Saint Cyril rejects your pacts! For when Nahash the Ammonite armed himself against some of Israel, he hinted to them that he would make peace, saying: "On this condition I will make a covenant with you: that I may thrust out all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel" (1 Sam 11:2). But they did not agree to these terms, because they were Israelites; and when they wept over the insult and reproach of the barbarian, they prayed to the Lord and prevailed. So neither will we, insofar as we are Israel—rightly thinking, seeing God with a pure mind (for "Israel" means "understanding that sees God")—accept your Ammonite pacts; otherwise we would be no different from those whose right eye is gouged out, if we armed duality—under the guise of affection, but truly hostile—against the expression "one nature of the Word of God incarnate," claiming that it is its opposite, as the investigation of previous matters has shown. From this it appears that you are a heretic and follow the malice of your fathers, as one who is eager to mix perverse things with the right and sound. Indeed, Nestorius received from Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, the idea of adding Anthropotokos to Theotokos. Saint Cyril also cited him writing such things in his booklet against Theodore: THEODORE: "So when they ask: 'Is Mary Anthropotokos or Theotokos?' let us say both: the former, according to the nature of the matter; the latter, according to relation. For she is man-bearer by nature, because the man in her womb was human and came forth from there; she is God-bearer, because God was in the man who was born—not enclosed in him by nature, but present in him by the affection of will." To this, after a few other points, Cyril wisely responds to these old wives' tales and Jewish fables: CYRIL: "Therefore, with greater the holy Virgin is called Theotokos rather than Anthropotokos, even though she gave birth to Christ according to the flesh. For when someone calls her Anthropotokos, he shares the title common with other mothers, who bore others according to the law of humanity. But whoever calls her Theotokos immediately raises the hearers' understanding by the power of the mystery. For how could a woman be Theotokos?
One will truly inquire and understand: because the Word was God and became flesh [Jh 1:14], and came forth as a man, having undergone the birth from a woman by divine dispensation. This we call a true and mysterious and indeed ineffable union: for it shows us one who is by nature and truth God, Son, and Lord, the Savior and Deliverer of all." Therefore, just as the term Theotokos is perfect and needs no heretical addition by those who also wish to say Anthropotokos, thereby dividing the one Christ into a separate man and an individual God—so too the formula by which we confess "one nature of the Word of God incarnate" is perfect and complete, and by no means requires that "two individual and united natures" be proclaimed after the union, "the division into two having already been abolished, so that the two natures are no longer two, but together form one." Indeed, I will cry out to you the very words of Saint Cyril repeatedly, if perchance you will hear and understand, O good man, as one of the prophets once said to an ear slow to hear [cf. Isa 6:10].
CHAPTER—SIXTEEN
That each of the two formulas—by which we both confess Christ as being from two natures and declare one nature of God the Word incarnate—has its own proper and complete meaning, for which it was also adopted; and that to reject one of these formulations as heretical, unless it is paired with the other, undermines the faith.
For if anyone rightly considers, as is possible, the elements from which Emmanuel is constituted, he will see with the eyes of the intellect that the union took place from two natures, namely divinity and humanity. But after contemplating the union, one finds the result to be one hypostasis and one nature of the Word incarnate (not two hypostases, not two natures, not two persons). For if duality is admitted after the union, then everything must also be "two." Therefore, the confession "Christ is from two natures" refers to the mode of the dispensation, as if examined in the subtle reflections of the mind, and leads us to recognize and confess one nature of God the Word incarnate—after the contemplation of the perfect and radiant union, which rejects all duality of speech. This was made clear to us in the very words and vision of the holy Cyril, apostolic herald of the divine incarnation, when he wrote in his first letter to Succensus: "Considering the manner of the incarnation, we see two natures coming together in an indivisible union without confusion or change: for flesh is flesh and not divinity, though it became God's own flesh; and likewise the Word is God and not flesh, though by dispensation He made flesh His own." Therefore, when we contemplate this, we do not deny the convergence into unity—which we affirm occurred from two natures—but we do not separate the natures after the union, nor do we divide the one and indivisible Son into two, but say there is one Son and, as the Fathers declared, one nature of the Word incarnate.
So, since both confessions achieve their intended purpose and fully express the reality for which they were formed—from two natures describing the process of the union, and one nature of the Word incarnate marvelously expressing the result—it is reckless and foolish, even heretical, to claim that the latter is suspect unless it is paired with the former. This suspicion is born from the treasury of the Nestorians, from the dark caves whence they even thought to attack blessed Cyril, deleting that very phrase. Their objection, as found in Cyril's second letter to Succensus—"If there is one nature of the Word incarnate, then confusion and mingling must have occurred, and the human nature was diminished or absorbed"—is absurd and full of madness. Did the wise Doctor (Cyril) say, as you do, "I confess both one nature and two natures in Emmanuel"? Not at all. Rather, he attested to the perfection and inspiration of that one phrase. He wrote: "They speak in vain who say that if there is one nature of the Word incarnate, then confusion or mingling must follow, as if the human nature were diminished or lost. For it was neither diminished nor lost; to say was made flesh (Jn 1:14) is enough to fully show that He became man." In his homily That Christ is One, he likewise affirms the sufficiency and perfection of that phrase, never saying, as your foolishness suggests, that it must be paired with "in two natures." Instead, he chastises those who, pretending to confess unity, in fact divide Christ into two and mix in impiety beneath pious-sounding words. Such are like the Samaritans of old who sought to build with Israel, saying, "We too seek your God" (Ezr 4:2), but were rightly rejected: "It is not for you and us to build a house for our God" (Ezr 4:3). So also we say to those who claim Christ is one but confess two natures after the union: it is not ours together to confess the hypostatic union, for your duality undoes what your words pretend to uphold. The result of the union is the one nature of the Word incarnate—not two. Your assertion of both one and two natures mimics the Samaritan delusion, of whom Scripture says: "They feared the Lord and served their own gods" (2 Kgs 17:33), and again: "They feared the Lord and served their graven images" (2 Kgs 17:41). The prophet Elijah rebuked such hypocrisy: "How long will you limp between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him!" (1 Kgs 18:21). So also Cyril rebukes the heretics who pretend to confess "union" and "one Christ" but actually conceive two: let them hear, "How long will you limp between two opinions?"
Better to walk straight with pure faith than to stagger in foolish double-mindedness. These words, borrowed from the wise Doctor, expose the schemes of those who divide the one Christ under the guise of sound phrases, while secretly holding impiety. That grammarian too, seeing his frail wall of "two natures" shattered—like unbaked bricks—follows Samaritan and God-hating counsel, imagining he can build a tower upon the Jerusalem which is the Church immovable and faith founded on Christ the Rock (Eph 2:20; Mt 16:18). But Isaiah warns against such arrogance: "The bricks have fallen, but we will build with hewn stone…," yet God will destroy those who rise against Jerusalem and Zion (Is 9:10–11). For who can fight against the spiritual Jerusalem, whose name means "vision of peace," or against Mount Zion, the lofty tower representing the sublime mystery of faith? Any such tower collapses upon its builder's proud head: "He who casts a stone upward casts it upon his own head" (Sir 27:25). To oppose spiritual Jerusalem and Zion is to oppose God Himself (Zec 12:9). Let us now examine the base materials with which this grammarian dares to build his tower and hide his impiety under darkened phrases.
CHAPTER—SEVENTEEN
Refutation of the malice of heretics who think that impiety can be hidden by changing words and who say that the phrase "in two natures" must be understood as "in two substances."
This zealous sophist, born not by day but truly by night, one might say—he who speaks the language of darkness—claims that he confesses one Christ in two united natures, understanding "natures" not as hypostases but as substances, so that Christ is acknowledged as existing in two substances, that is, in generic concepts: in the collective divinity and in the common essence of all humanity. He says this is why Christ is proclaimed consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity. For this too, he placed a discussion of substance, hypostasis, and nature at the beginning of his treatise, and said: GRAMMATICUS: "Substance signifies that which is common, for example, the one divinity of the Holy Trinity and the humanity common to us. Hypostasis, however, signifies the single person of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, or again of Peter or John or any man whatsoever. Nature, on the other hand, is sometimes understood and used in place of substance, sometimes in place of hypostasis." Now, for this we too previously laid out a detailed reflection on these terms, following the inspired instruction of the Church's mystagogues, and we prepared the listener for the investigation of what was to be examined. But let us hear the man's very words and terms, if it pleases, so we may learn how this zealous fellow, who quite in youthful fashion puffs up his cheeks and boasts that he speaks the words of the holy Fathers, confesses Christ in two natures—that is, in two substances. GRAMMATICUS: "Therefore, when the Fathers say 'nature' in the singular, without adding 'of the Word of God,' then they mean substance; and they say there are two natures in Christ, knowing that He is consubstantial with the Father in one respect, and with us in another."
And again: "Therefore, when he said 'one nature of the Word of God,' he means the one of the Trinity, the hypostatic person of the Word, who is consubstantial with the Father, possessing the same substance as His begetter. But when he added 'incarnate with flesh, soul, and mind,' he teaches that in the Word of God is found what is common to the whole substance of mankind—not a particular man nor a distinct person, but that which appears commonly in every man, namely substance. For every man is flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul. Therefore, he places the salvation of all men in the one person of the Holy Trinity, which is the Word of God, by union. Thus, in two natures, that is, in two substances, the Word of God incarnate is acknowledged: for in Him is the substance of divinity, and in Him is also the substance of humanity." Who, knowing the mystical labor of Jeremiah, would not weep at such madness and such stupidity? Who would not mourn over these lifeless ones? As if the rational nature alone were not sufficient to mourn as is fitting, let him even say: "O walls of Zion, let your tears flow like a torrent day and night" (Lam 2:18). And if one wishes to understand deeply and nobly, the "walls" of the Church, of spiritual Zion, are the souls of men who have lived well and proclaimed the word of godliness—whom Paul calls pillars (Gal 2:9); or again, they are incorporeal virtues, whose task it is to guard those who know God, as David the prophet sings: "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him" (Ps 34:7). And so, calling these "walls" of the Church, that is, of Zion, to participate in lamentation, since just as we learn from the Gospel that there is joy among the heavenly powers over one sinner who repents (Lk 15:7), so too, without controversy, they suffer and share grief with those who fear God, especially over blasphemy against God. Let Micah also cry out with words similar to those of Jeremiah, and, as it were, summon valleys and hills to testify against the impiety of these fools and impious ones who have fallen into stupidity—as if they could understand better than these men: "Hear, O hills, the judgment of the Lord, and you strong foundations of the earth, for the Lord has a controversy with His people" (Mic 6:2). But with what ears can anyone receive such blasphemy, so far beyond measure?
Namely, that because the Word is consubstantial with the Father—possessing the very same substance as His begetter—and also consubstantial with us, as incarnate in flesh, soul, and mind, the Word of God is conceived as incarnate in two natures, that is, in two substances: for He possesses the substance of divinity and also the substance of humanity! For he adds this as he continues—for all his words must be cited and gathered together, so that the scattered shadows of his impiety may be collected into one place: GRAMMATICUS: "Indeed, adhering to the words of the holy Fathers, because we have learned from them to say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and God, and consubstantial with us, we say that He exists in two natures, that is, in two substances." And again: "Thus in Christ a union of two substances was made." Consider, therefore, how your word flees from the Holy Scriptures and falls into vanity. For if you introduce to us a union of substances, O noble one, and you said that these substances are "that which appears commonly in all,"—I use your own words—then that which appears commonly in all, with respect to the Holy Trinity, is divinity (for one and the same divinity is in the three hypostases), and with respect to us, it is flesh animated rationally (for this is one and the same in the whole human race). But if, furthermore, the mystagogues of the Church declare the union of the incarnation to be the joining of flesh, clearly rationally animated, to the Word of God, following the inspired voice of the Gospel that plainly proclaims it: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:14)—this union is also called incarnation, inhumanation, and composition, inasmuch as God the Word, one hypostasis, united to Himself hypostatically a particular flesh, animated reasonably and wisely, born of the God-bearer Mary—while the Father and the Holy Spirit were neither composed with flesh nor inhumanated; and finally, if someone is the subject of incarnation, inhumanation, and composition, then clearly the union also belongs to that one: therefore, the union did not take place between substances, but rather between the one hypostasis of God the Word and the particular flesh, endowed with a rational and intelligent soul, born from the Virgin, the God-bearer.
And listen to Athanasius, the star of orthodox doctrine, who makes the pure light of teaching shine for us on the matter at hand—words which you too have cited in that lamentable little book of yours, though you clearly did not understand them: for had you understood them, you would not have fallen into such error. These are his words: ATHANASIUS: "And from this 'how?' and 'in what manner?' and 'with what consequence?' they too have fallen into infidelity; and they substituted indwelling for incarnation, and human efficacy for union and composition, and instead of one hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, they imagined two hypostases and persons, and instead of the Holy Trinity they indecently and wickedly posit a quaternity." Is it not evident to all that the composition is the hypostatic union of God the Word to particular flesh, and by no means a union of substances considered according to generic signification or commonality? For it is not because the Father and the Holy Spirit are united in substance with the incarnate Word that we ought to think the Father and the Spirit composed with the flesh born of Mary. Nor again, because that body—endowed with soul and mind—which was united to the Word, is homogeneous and consubstantial with the bodies of all humans, must we therefore conclude that the entire humanity was involved and composed with the Word. Indeed, this union, which occurs through inhumanation, is called incarnation and composition. Let us therefore examine what the union and incarnation are made of. It is clear that they are composed of one hypostasis of God the Word and of a perfectly constituted particular humanity—that is, of flesh animated with a rational and intelligent soul; and from these very natures, which are not homogeneous or consubstantial among themselves, but which came together and were ineffably composed, we confess one Christ and one hypostasis, and one incarnate nature of God the Word. This is clearly confirmed by the distinguished teacher Cyril in his "Prosphonetical Oration" addressed to the most pious Emperor Theodosius, where he writes thus: CYRIL: "We say that the mediator of God and men, as it is written, is composed of a humanity like ours, perfectly constituted according to its proper nature, and of the Son, who appeared from the Father according to nature, that is, the Only-Begotten.
We affirm that a certain joining and concurrence has occurred, surpassing all speech, into a union of natures dissimilar and unlike one another; yet we recognize one Christ and Lord and Son, who is both and is conceived as God and man simultaneously." Likewise, in the fourth book "On the Adoration in Spirit," CYRIL says: "Incense is also a composite; for the knowledge of Christ is composed of two things, since He is at once God and man; nevertheless, He is one Son and Christ from both, to whom it is said somewhere—and indeed by ourselves—'Your name is poured out like ointment.'" And again, in the ninth book: CYRIL: "For though He was God the Word, He became flesh. And Emmanuel was composed with us, with divine nature and humanity brought together ineffably by a union surpassing all speech." But if you say, O good sir, that you assert one Christ to be "two united and individual natures," that is, two substances according to generic signification and, as you said, according to what is commonly found in all humans—for I always recall your words so that you may not escape censure; and if by one nature you understand the whole divinity in common, which appears in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (for that is the community), and again consider one nature to be the whole humanity generically taken; and finally, if incarnation and composition are the union through inhumanation: how will you escape both ridicule and impiety that surpass all sense, namely the conclusion to be drawn from these absurd words and thoughts—that the entire Holy Trinity is incarnate with all humanity? For you say—and are not ashamed to twist it back and forth, or rather, are yourself twisted by foolish thoughts—"In two united and individual substances I acknowledge and seek one Christ," although you admit that natures are substances according to the common understanding shared by all. You also added this, rebuking those who contradict you and, as you said, deprive you of your good and precise confessions: GRAMMARIAN: "For when we say 'two natures hypostatically united,' they are willingly deaf; they erase from our confession this phrase 'hypostatically united,' and use against us an insistence that greatly deviates from our confession." And who is there who could strip you or divest you of such things, which expose you to much ridicule?
Let us pray for you, then, that you may not become so intoxicated and proud, nor think beyond what ought to be thought, as Paul also says somewhere in writing to certain people: "But we pray to God that you do no evil" (2 Cor 13:7). But since you are so incurable, one who dares by your schemes to hide the snares of perdition for the corruption of the simple, we shall be far from cutting out anything from your words; rather, we will even bring them together with you. For you elevate the duality of natures—which cuts the one Christ into two—to the level of substances understood according to common signification, and you say that these are united according to hypostasis, or, to use your own term, "hypostatically." Therefore, explain to us how these substances—I speak of that which is common to divinity, and that which is common to humanity—are united hypostatically, and how they are composed with each other and form a single hypostasis, as you have previously defined, saying: GRAMMARIAN: "Therefore, when the Fathers place 'nature' in the singular without adding 'of the Word of God,' they mean substance." Again, in what precedes, and right after the introductory words of your astonishing little book, you said similar things: GRAMMARIAN: "Thus, when Saint Cyril uses 'nature' in the singular without adding 'of the Word of God,' he means the common substance of divinity." Therefore, by following your clever definitions, we understand your words and are by no means willingly deaf. But when you say absolutely, without any addition, that your two natures are united hypostatically, we understand, as you instructed, that this means what is common to the substances. Again, we ask your prudence: how is that which is common to divinity, which is recognized in the Trinity, composed with that which is common to and encompasses the whole substance of humanity? For composition is the union found in inhumanation, which is also called incarnation. For you have written: GRAMMARIAN: "When we say 'two natures hypostatically united,' they are willingly deaf, erasing from our confession this phrase 'hypostatically united.'"
Behold, we have heard your words with open ears and have accepted that the natures, when proclaimed indefinitely, signify the substances and what is commonly signified, which, in the case of divinity, is the Holy Trinity, and in the case of humanity, the entire human race. You are also caught in your own snares, as we wrote in a letter to Maron in these words: SEVERUS: "They would not proceed to such madness as to say that they use the term 'natures' with generic signification—that is, with the signification of substance. For if, as is thereby acknowledged, one nature is the Holy Trinity and one nature is all of humanity, then the Holy Trinity would be found—and let me say something that will be greatly mocked—to have been inhumanated into all humanity, that is, into the human race. But the sacred Scriptures teach us otherwise: they teach that the Word of God, only one of the three hypostases, was incarnate and inhumanated. For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'" (Jn 1:14). Having read these things, O good sir, how did you not avoid ridicule? How did you not shudder at such impiety, but instead say that the hypostatic union is of two substances according to common and generic signification? And so far from turning away from your evil and insane opinion, you even proposed it again in the manner of an objection and tried to resolve it with the help of your most false syllogisms, which you improperly constructed, and rely again without hesitation on those arguments which have already been refuted. Therefore, let us present the objection and also your vigorous solution in the style of subtle scholarship: GRAMMARIAN: "If, however, you say that there are two substances in Christ, it must also be said that the Father and the Spirit and, to put it briefly, the entire Holy Trinity has been incarnated into all humanity—that is, into the human race. These are the objections of our opponents. For they suppose that the substance of divinity is subject to division, and that part of it appears in the Father, part in the Son, and part in the Holy Spirit, so that each hypostasis is conceived as having a part, not all the properties proper to divinity. But we do not descend to such impiety as to think there is division or section in the divine substance. Rather, we say that every marked hypostasis possesses all the qualities of divinity without diminishment—namely, goodness, power, and all the things that belong to the uncreated nature.
In this way we say that the Trinity is consubstantial, insofar as the same substance is perfectly recognized in three persons. For the Father has the perfect substance of divinity, and likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God. Their defender is Paul, the herald of truth, saying: 'For in him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily'" (Col 2:9). He does not say that the Father was incarnate, but that the entire divinity, in three hypostases without diminishment, is in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, since in each hypostasis it exists perfectly, according to the word of our Savior, who says: "All things that the Father has are mine" (Jn 16:15)—that is, all the properties that belong to the substance of the Father also belong to the Word of God, even when He was incarnate; not as if the Father is the Son or the Son is the Father, for these names signify mutual relationship. How, then, shall we not say that the substance of divinity, without diminishment, is in Christ, since we call Him perfect God? And how, since we confess Him to be perfect man, shall we not confess the whole substance of humanity to be in Him? For He did not, as Apollinarius says, assume only a part of that humanity—that is, flesh without a rational soul—but He assumed the whole substance, which is flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul. This indeed, since it is commonly and perfectly found in each human being, is rightly called substance. For individual human beings, each existing separately, are distinguished not by substance, but by their own appropriate properties—such as size, color, and, to speak more generally, the personal characteristics of individuals.
In response, we say this: the Holy Trinity is subject neither to the bounds of nature nor to the limits of our mental precedence, since its essence remains unknown—it is beyond all things and transcends every sense, and is not apprehended even by the movements of our thoughts, but rather exceeds and escapes every intellectual imagination by its incomprehensibility and elusiveness. As Gregory, who bears the very name "Theologian," says in his second theological oration: "For even the capacity to be circumscribed is a form of comprehension." Therefore, the most subtle and deeply contemplative minds elevate the Trinity above both substance and nature. The same Gregory, in his oration on monastic unity, writes that "God is the best and highest of all things, unless one prefers to say that He is beyond essence altogether, or the totality of being in Him, from whom it came to all else." And in another oration entitled To Those Who Have Come from Egypt, he says, "I recognize two primary distinctions among existing things: namely, lordship and servitude—not as established among us by tyranny or poverty, but as separated by nature itself—if it be fitting even to speak of nature in this case, since that which is first is even beyond nature." Therefore, the Trinity, which is prior to and far more exalted than all things, is beyond both substance and nature, and cannot be subject to these names. Yet, as the same Doctor says in the theological oration, "our mind struggles to depart from bodily things and cleave to the incorporeal alone, as long as it contemplates, amid its own weakness, those things which surpass its capacity." Thus, compelled by necessity, we dare to approach divine concepts using the terms and notions of our poverty, so that from these we might receive some inkling of the mysteries that lie almost beyond all comprehension. From this necessity, even when speaking of the Holy Trinity—who is incomprehensible and inaccessible to all—we have used names like "nature," "substance," and "hypostasis," as well as other similar and related terms. We have accepted the term "substance" as indicative of the generic meaning with reference to the Holy Trinity, and we have said that there is one substance in the three hypostases of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—that is, one divinity. For God is the Father, God also the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, just as someone might say that Peter, Paul, and John are one humanity. For humans are alike with respect to genus and substance, but are distinguished by the particular characteristics of their hypostases. Each hypostasis, existing under the genus and substance and under the common signification—this common signification being the substance that comprehends many hypostases—shares equally in all the things that appear within the common genus.