How then is there one Christ and Son and Lord, if it befits both, as you said, to be so named and to be truly so, since they are not united according to the union of hypostasis, but are united according to dignity, authority, or power?" Again, in the same tome, recognizing the natures from which Emmanuel is, not as substances according to generic signification, but as hypostases, and calling them both hypostases and natures, which, when divided into duality, are understood in two persons, but appearing in natural and true union, they complete one nature and hypostasis: the nature and hypostasis of the Son incarnate and inhumanated, he says: CYRIL: "Cease dividing the natures after the union. For though it is fitting and necessary for prudent men to know that the divine and human nature are different—they differ by immeasurable differences—yet, when you bring in the true and hypostatic union concerning our Savior Christ, refuse division: for thus you will confess one Christ and Son and Lord." And again, after other things: "It was fitting, then, if he were wise and discerning, to say that the body was from the woman, and again to confess that this body, united to the Word by hypostatic union, completed one Christ and Son and Lord, the same God and man." And again, in the third tome, he says: CYRIL: "Therefore, with the hypostases, as you say, divided into two and understood to exist separately and privately, how will the union into one person occur, unless one is said to be proper to the other, as the body is considered proper to the soul of a man, though it is of a different nature from it? For the soul and the body are not the same." Therefore, it must also be noted how, with regard to the hypostases themselves, which Nestorius, by dividing them, makes two persons, Saint Cyril says that if we understand them as naturally united in the same way the soul is united to its proper body, though of different nature, then it becomes possible to name from both one completed person, as also one hypostasis and nature of the Word incarnate. Thus, by all these things, it has been most clearly shown that the natural union occurred between particular hypostases—namely, the hypostasis of the Word of God and that one flesh born of the Virgin Theotokos, animated by a rational soul—not of substances according to the common meaning, which includes many hypostases.
Where then, O most shameless, impious, and audaciously ignorant Grammarian, shall we place your interpretation, which says: "For that God-bearing man, who continuously fought against the blasphemies of Nestorius, would not have named hypostases in one Christ, if he had not understood those hypostases as substances"? For you have plainly heard him, as he contended against Nestorius, say: "Therefore, to the hypostases, as you say," and he demanded that Nestorius confess their natural union, and he did not say: "Why, O Nestorius, by confessing not the union of substances but of hypostases, do you divide one Christ?" as you, Grammarian, claim that the union of hypostases is false and habitual, while the union of substances is true and hypostatic. But nowhere does Cyril appear to speak in such a way, and therefore he never said this. For he knew that the natural union occurred not between substances in the generic sense, but between the one hypostasis of the Word and one flesh endowed with soul and mind. And hear him again, writing this in the fourth tome: CYRIL: "And although the Word dwelt in all the saints and still dwells, yet once He was made among us and communicated to one flesh according to hypostasis, in which He is believed to have died and risen again for us" (cf. Rm 6:9). Who, then, will overlook things so clear and proceeding from such evident arguments, and pay attention to you babbling such impieties like a young calf, and claim that a union was made of substances according to the common meaning?
CHAPTER—TWENTY-FIVE
Since this impious man claimed that the union of Emmanuel was one of substances according to the common meaning, he failed, out of ignorance, to realize that he was slipping into a habitual union instead of a natural one.
For if, by the common meaning, the substance of divinity includes the three hypostases of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the substance of humanity includes the hypostases of all humans, and you say a union of substances took place, then you are found choosing a habitual union in place of a hypostatic one, and introducing it to us through the drunkenness of sophistry. Know, clearly know—and now awaken, drunk not with wine, as the prophet said (Is 29:9)—that because the only-begotten Son of God was made consubstantial with us and hypostatically united to one flesh rationally animated, the entire human substance and the whole human race, according to relation, was united to the divine nature, which was previously opposed to it, and thus, as it is written, we were made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4), restored to our original peace and enriched as it were by the participation in divine goods and even immortality, from which we had fallen through Adam's transgression. The excellent Doctor likewise teaches this in his third tome against Nestorius' blasphemies: CYRIL: "However, how was it not better to say—or even more preferable to believe—that he was sent and made consubstantial with us, that is, became man, but remained consubstantial with God the Father, by whom he was conceived and is and remains God? For he remains what he was, even when he assumed humanity, having identity of substance with the Father who is in heaven, and wisely assumed also our likeness; and he was made a mediator, uniting in himself by habitual union things that were utterly separated by nature.
For being by nature God, he truly became man, so that we might be named a race not of the first man, the earthly one, to whom God said: 'You are dust, and to dust you shall return' (Gn 3:19), who also passes into death, but of the second man, who is from above and from heaven, that is, Christ, who elevates us to unchangeable life and shows that which was held by death to be incorruptible, and liberates that which was entangled in the snares of sin." Thus elsewhere the Father himself says to the Son: "Behold, I have made you a covenant of the people, a light of the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and those who sit in darkness from the prison" (Is 42:6–7); and again through the voice of Isaiah: "The beasts of the field will honor me, the jackals and ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness and rivers in the dry land to give drink to my chosen people, the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise" (Is 43:20–21). And in the fifth tome, he shows the same in the same way: CYRIL: "We have been shown to be partakers of the divine nature through him, and those who were once far off have been brought near through him, united with the Father according to relation, and also among ourselves in one faith and concord of spirit, because we have become partakers of one Spirit, as he himself affirms, saying to the heavenly Father: 'I do not pray for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one: I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one'" (Jn 17:20–23). Athanasius, the star of truth, wrote consistently in his fourth oration against the Arians: ATHANASIUS: "Therefore, since the flesh was born of the Virgin Mary, he is said to be born who gives birth to others, so that he might transfer our birth into himself, and we, no longer being of earth alone, should not return to earth, but, being united to the heavenly Word, might be raised by him." Therefore, since these wise mystagogues teach us thus, it is evident that the Word of God, one of the three hypostases, hypostatically or naturally united to himself flesh endowed with soul and mind; whereas the substance of all humanity, understood according to the common meaning—that is, the whole human race—acquired a connection to the divine substance or nature according to relation, as in the second origin of our race, namely in Christ, this was accomplished.
How, then, do you, deceiver and plunderer of the Holy Scriptures, who are no better than those men assessed at three obols, playing dice in the streets and deceiving the eyes of spectators with tricks or sleights of hand, confuse all things and mix the chalice of false blending to give drink to the unlearned like yourself, who, as the prophetic word says, do not know the foul downfall (Is 28:8)? You present the singular union of the Word of God with one flesh endowed with soul and mind, which he hypostatically united to himself, as if it were that relational and common union by which we all and that which is common to human substance were joined to the divine substance through the incarnation of the Word, and thus, as it is written, we were made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4). For you have written, mixing the two, in this way: GRAMMARIAN: "Therefore, in one person of the Trinity, who is the Word of God, he places the salvation of all men through union. Thus, in two natures or substances, the inhumanated Word of God is recognized: for there is in him the substance of divinity; and there is in him also the substance of humanity." But this one person of the Trinity, the Word of God, is a hypostasis—not, as you said, a substance according to the common meaning; and the hypostasis of the Word, which has the substance of divinity, as you say, is one of the three hypostases who are found in the substance of divinity and likewise participate in that substance fully and without deficiency. Yet a hypostasis, because it participates in the substance, is not itself the substance. Therefore, it is not in two substances that the inhumanated Word of God is recognized, as you irrationally claim. Being one hypostasis, he united to himself one flesh animated by a rational soul through a union which is according to natural union, and through this natural union the substance of all humans and the entire race acquired a participation and relational union with the divine substance and nature, which we would not have acquired if the Word of God had not hypostatically united human nature to himself—that is, one flesh possessing an intellectual soul, and certainly not the entire human race. That very point is also made in the passage you ignorantly cited, found in the work addressed to the most religious queens, from which you believe your erroneous opinion to be confirmed.
It reads as follows: CYRIL: "For God and the Father has raised us up together in Christ and made us sit with him in the heavenly places, as it is written (Eph 2:6). But we would never have attained this unless he who was rich as God had clothed himself with our poor nature" (cf. 2 Cor 8:9). But what this means—"he clothed himself with our poor nature"—he explains in his own words. For already we have cited him, writing in his fourth tome against the blasphemies of Nestorius concerning the Word of God: CYRIL: "And although once he was made among us and communicated to one flesh according to hypostasis, in which he is believed to have died and risen again for us: for he willingly suffered in the flesh." Therefore, do not, you deceitfully clever one, exchange the singular union of the Word of God with the human body endowed with soul and mind for our common union, and the natural union for the relational one, and the union of hypostases for one of substances. For it is the hypostasis of the Word of God itself that is united, naturally, with one flesh rationally animated; and it is the human race and the entire human substance that is united to the divine substance and nature according to relation and, as it were, through participation and grace, on account of kinship with the Word, who was immutably incarnate in flesh consubstantial with us. For behold, as it is written in the book of Jeremiah: "Because of the multitude of your iniquities, your skirts have been uncovered and your heels treated with contempt" (Jer 13:22). For following the paths of your erroneous words, we have also examined the footsteps of the wickedness of your heels. We have found you deceitfully hiding in various unions, and pretending to hold the hypostatic union under the false appearance and semblance of piety, but departing toward a union of relation, and dividing the one Lord and God Jesus Christ after the union by a duality of natures, while hiding those natures under the name of substances as with a skin—not to deceive men, but, more truly, to deceive God, against whom you employ deceit, as He reproved those who contrived similar things through the prophet Malachi, saying: "Will man deceive God, as you are deceiving me?" (Mal 3:8), according to which the wise Paul also said: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked" (Gal 6:7), who has also exposed and mocked your heels, that is, he has revealed them and derided them.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-SIX
The interpretation of impudence, distorted by many arguments, seeks to claim that the natural union of hypostases is a union of substances according to the common meaning.
But now look again—since we will again examine and expand the consideration of what you have babbled—how, as the impious Theodoret says in refutation of the third anathema: THEODORET: "Why then does he say it is not proper to divide the hypostases or natures? And that knowing that the hypostasis of the Word of God was perfect before the ages, and also the form of a servant, which was assumed by Him, was perfect. Therefore he said hypostases, not hypostasis." Saint Cyril says that those hypostases which were boldly divided by him have come into a natural union, so that one Christ is acknowledged from both, but by no means does Cyril say there are two hypostases separated and subsisting in their own subsistence, and to each of which a person is individually attributed. In the defense of his third anathema he says: CYRIL: "Why then does the lie, as if an invincible and impregnable wall, oppose us and treat such weak arguments, and upon hearing that a natural union occurred—that is, a true union of hypostases, completely without confusion and without conversion—it tries to overturn the power of the statements so that it may be judged that it was not rightly done." AND AGAIN, A FEW LINES LATER: "Therefore we say that the hypostases were united, and that the Word was made man and incarnate, and thus the union is called natural by us, which excludes that false and relational union which we had through faith and sanctification, because we also became partakers of the divine nature and, as Paul said, 'he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit' (1 Cor 6:17), yet it does not subject the impassible and free Word of God to natural necessities and commands."
And writing a defense of the third anathema against the reprehension of the abominable Andrew, he says: CYRIL: "Although the body is different in nature from the Word, which is from God the Father, still one is Christ and Son and God and Lord, even though the flesh was made. And it is no small error to dissolve the mode of true incarnation by separating two hypostases from each other so that they stand properly and separately, having only an external adhesion as in a rank of dignity. But if we say natural union, we say true union, since this is the custom of the inspired Scripture to use the word in this way. For somewhere the blessed Paul writes of some: 'We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest' (Eph 2:3)." Again, in the defense of the sixth anathema: CYRIL: "Therefore, from what has been written, we will not appear ignorant of the economy fitting to each word, but rather not allowing beasts and those without spirit to understand or say two Sons while they divide the hypostases among themselves after the indivisible union." AND A FEW LINES LATER: "For we do not proclaim a division of hypostases after the union." Nor only in the defenses of the anathemas, which he composed against the impious slanderers Andrew and Theodoret, but also in the explanations of those same anathemas he proceeds in the same words. Thus he wrote in the explanation of the third anathema: CYRIL: "Following the mystery of the dispensation of the Only-Begotten with the flesh, we say that the Word from God the Father was wonderfully and ineffably united to the holy body having a rational soul; and we understand that He is one Son, just as also in our case one can see that body and soul, though of different natures, are yet composed into one living being." But some do not think the matter to be so; for they separate the man distinctly and properly, and say that he adhered to the Word begotten of God the Father only according to dignity or authority, not by natural—that is, true—union, as we believe. For divine Scripture also says somewhere: "We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest" (Eph 2:3), taking "by nature" to mean "truly." Therefore, those who divide the hypostases after the union and set each one separately—namely, the man and the God—and fabricate between them only an adherence according to dignity, establish two Sons entirely, even though inspired Scripture declares one Son and Lord.
Therefore, after the ineffable union, whether you name Emmanuel as God, we understand the Word from God the Father to be incarnate and made man; or whether you call Him man, we nonetheless recognize the very same as brought down into human limits through the dispensation. And we say that He who is impalpable became palpable, He who is invisible became visible; for the body united to Him, which we say was palpable and visible, was not foreign to Him. But those who do not so believe, and who divide the hypostases after the union and place between them only a connection of dignity, as I said, are rendered strangers by the above-stated anathema to those who are accustomed to think rightly. Do we not clearly see with our eyes, as though standing before us, the most illustrious warrior—I speak of Saint Cyril, armed with the words of the Holy Spirit—now condemning and casting out the blasphemous tongue of Nestorius; now intercepting the weak arrows of those who attacked the anathemas and repelling them with strong defense, and striking them again with a heavy blow; now explaining those very anathemas to the children of the holy Church; now illustrating the doctrines of Scripture in the Scholia; and everywhere demanding of those impious ones, who by dividing the hypostases present them as two persons, two sons, and two Christs, that they confess the union which is according to the natural conjunction, so that from both there be confessed one Christ and Son and one hypostasis and the incarnate nature of the Word—just as one may see man composed of two, soul and body, like us? Why then, O most excellent grammarian, have you neglected this perfect and comprehensive instruction, and in the very words and sentences do you dangerously fabricate what proceeds from your own heart and attempt to interpret otherwise the most clear words of the Doctor, not even trembling at the curse written by the prophet Ezekiel, which is thus spoken: "Thus says the Lord: Woe to those who prophesy from their own heart and have seen nothing" (Ez 13:3)?
You say that the assertion "Christ is from two natures" or hypostases—namely, from the hypostasis of the Word of God and from the hypostasis of one flesh animated by a rational soul—is not to be understood in that way, but rather that it must be confessed that He is in two substances, since you affirm a hypostatic union of substances, because Saint Cyril used the term "hypostases" to mean "substances," and indeed according to their common meaning: this common meaning understands substance as comprehending many hypostases, just as the substance of divinity signifies together the three hypostases of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and likewise, the substance of humanity comprehends each individual man. From this, you will conclude that he must be deemed blasphemous, for teaching what we have often stated—namely, that the holy Trinity has become incarnate into the whole of humanity and composed with our entire race: for composition is the incarnation, and the hypostatic union and natural union, according to which also the soul of man like us is composed and united with its proper body. Or else, you must be drawn from the same madness to a relational union, according to which we all, as men, have been made partakers of the divine nature through the incomprehensible and ineffable incarnation of the Word of God. But to call a hypostasis, simply because it participates in substance—for example, because Peter partakes of the substance of humanity—a "substance according to common meaning" is the height of impiety and ignorance. For Peter, that one hypostasis, is not therefore considered to be the substance of all humanity, which comprehends all the hypostases of all men. Nor again will we suppose the Word of God, just because He partakes of the same substance with the Father and the Spirit, to be the very substance of divinity that comprehends the three hypostases. This point, which our extended discussion has demonstrated, we repeat often so that what we have written may become clearer to those who encounter it, and so that through these refutations the darkness of your impiety may be exposed—since you teach that the hypostatic union is of two substances according to the common meaning, from which you likewise conclude that Christ must be defined as one in two natures, that is, in two substances.
Therefore, I have already cited Saint Athanasius above, where I said, as in a kind of preliminary consideration before dissolving your impious assertions with refutations, that he explained what is meant by substance, hypostasis, nature, and person, writing to the bishops settled in Africa, that by substance and hypostasis is meant "that which is and subsists," and "that which exists," and from there both substance and hypostasis were named "existent" to strike fear into the impious Arians, who scorned these terms as if delivered without any testimony and unused in Scripture. But I am pleased to insert the Doctor's fuller demonstration on this matter, which is as follows: ATHANASIUS: "From this it may be observed, brothers, that those who were present at Nicaea breathed the words of Scripture. For God says in Exodus: 'I am He who is' (Ex 3:14); and through Jeremiah: 'Who has stood in His subsistence and seen His word?' (Jer 23:18), and a little later: 'If they had stood in My hypostasis, they would have heard My words' (Jer 23:22)." Hypostasis, moreover, is substance, and has no other meaning than this very thing which is—that which Jeremiah calls existence, saying: "They did not hear the voice of His existence" (Jer 2:20); for hypostasis and substance are existence—they are and subsist. This also Paul understood when he wrote to the Hebrews: "Who is the brightness of glory and the express image of His hypostasis" (Heb 1:3). But those who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, because they do not wish to speak of hypostasis in God—indeed, this they wrote at Ariminum and in their other synods—who are not justly deposed, are saying also in their heart, like the fool: "There is no God" (Ps 14:1). For he teaches that substance and hypostasis are also existence; for what is, and what subsists, none think to be other than what exists, and with respect to this, there is no difference between these names. Therefore, since substance, if compared with hypostasis, has the distinction—taught by the godly Basil—that it holds the place of genus and is comprehensive of many hypostases, whereas hypostasis indicates and signifies only that which subsists individually in such a species, as the wise Cyril teaches in his work composed by question and answer on the Holy Trinity, and since the only difference from hypostasis is this: how, O Grammarian—for now I also ask you—do you say that Saint Cyril judged and declared the union of hypostases to be a natural conjunction of substances?
Nay, it is superfluous for me to ask you: for throughout the entire volume of this lamentable book, you confess Christ to be "of two united natures" and "in two united natures," and you understand "natures" as substances in the common meaning! Since this common meaning presents to us a substance comprehending many and homogeneous hypostases, your impious verbosity introduces to us that insane notion from which you claim to flee—namely, that the substance of divinity, that is, the Holy Trinity, is incarnate in the whole substance and race of humanity; or, instead of the natural and hypostatic union of Emmanuel, you posit a relational adherence, according to which we all, as men, have become partakers of the divine nature and have obtained participation in divine grace and indwelling, so that through this confused babbling of yours, the indwelling of love itself is deemed incarnation, according to what the Lord said in the Gospel: "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him" (Jn 14:23). For by saying that a union of substances has taken place, you wrote that the entire substance of divinity is in Christ, and the entire substance of humanity is in Him, as we examined above when we quoted your tomes verbatim; where we also said that the Word of God was perfectly and without defect a partaker of human substance and subject to the substance and race of humanity: but not for this reason is He deemed to have united to Himself the entire substance of humanity hypostatically; and likewise, though He is perfect according to divinity, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit, He is not, just because He partakes perfectly and fully and without defect of the substance with them, to be considered—as you thought and also wrote—to be the entire divine substance that comprehends the three hypostases: for this is the opinion of those who confuse hypostases and, like you, do not know what they are saying, and once again corrupt the understanding of the inhumanation. That expression, left undefined—"the whole or entire substance or nature of divinity"—was shown by the wise Cyril to comprehend the three hypostases, who in his eighty-eighth homily on the Gospel of Luke wrote: CYRIL: "But by Spirit here He means not only the Holy [Spirit], but the whole nature of divinity, as it is perceived in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, the Savior in one place also said that the Spirit is God. Therefore, blasphemy against the Spirit is committed against the whole supreme substance: for there is one, as I said, nature of divinity which is understood in the holy and adorable Trinity." Therefore, as Proverbs says, "let us set a gate to our tongue and a bar" (cf. Prv 4:24), asking from the Most High and saying: "Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch at the door of my lips. Do not let my heart incline to any evil words" (Ps 141:3–4). For evil words are those spoken against God. Thus, you are found to be corrupting the ineffable incarnation and inhumanation of the Word even in what you said: GRAMMARIAN: "Therefore, in the one person of the Holy Trinity, which is the person of the Word of God, he places the salvation of all men through union. Accordingly, the Word of God incarnate is recognized in two natures or in two substances: for it possesses the substance of divinity, and again, it possesses the substance of humanity." For not because the Word united to itself by natural union flesh endowed with a soul and mind, and thus became the second firstfruit of our race, and called it to newness of life to destroy death—which had entered through sin from the first of the firstfruits, namely from Adam—and because all men who believed in Him received benefit from that redemption accomplished by a dispensation worthy of God, will it therefore be understood, as you claim, that the whole of humanity, and the whole substance and entire race, was hypostatically united to the Word, and thus to be in Him, as you have dared to say. Nor again, because the Word is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, will it be considered itself to be the whole divine substance, as you madly asserted. And so, now quietly and without noise, as one might say, and stealthily deceiving the simple hearer, you deduce the absurd conclusion, saying: "For in Him is contained the substance of divinity; and in Him also is contained the substance of humanity," so that from this it is reckoned that the Holy Trinity and the substance of divinity is hypostatically united to the whole substance and race of humanity. For if the Word of God is one person, how can it be the whole divinity, comprehending the three persons of the Father, the Word Himself, and the Holy Spirit? And if one flesh rationally animated is united to the Word by natural union, how can it again be foolishly considered to be the entire substance of humanity? But I seem to be, as the saying goes, led around by the small cords you twisted from sand, and while I unravel their weaving, I revolve in the same circle and unwillingly speak the same things.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-SEVEN
This same thing, Nestorius also, drunk with the same impiety, dared to say—that the very Trinity was incarnate—and accused the orthodox of dividing the divine substance.
But those who dissect the one Christ by the duality of natures and prefer a relational and feigned union over the true and natural one, are known for this error: that they, becoming divergent through manifold heresy, have turned the divine incarnation of the Word into a claim that the whole Trinity was incarnate and made man, as testified by Nestorius, who considered himself the leader in this deadly and deceptive error. For in the Ephesian record of events concerning him, the venerable Acacius, bishop of Melitene, wrote: ACACIUS MELITENENSIS: "At first, he compelled those answering with absurd questioning either to deny altogether that the divinity of the Only-Begotten was made man, or to confess—which would be impious—that the divinity of the Father and of the Holy Spirit was incarnate with the Word: a proposition thoroughly polluted and one that drives out the orthodox faith. Later, when the question was raised again, one of his accompanying bishops defended the view, asserting that the Son who suffered was different from the Word of God. Unable to bear this blasphemy, I departed." When the God-loving Acacius exposed this madness, which, by implication of the error, claimed the holy Trinity to be incarnate, Nestorius tried to overturn it in the memoirs he composed, narrating theatrically and forging words falsely as if written at Ephesus, again accusing Acacius—because he rejected Nestorius's foolish question—of dividing the divinity of the one Godhead in the Trinity, writing: NESTORIUS: "When he was pressed by this irrefutable refutation, he defined the Son as a part of the one divinity, and that this part was united with the temple (the human nature). But when all trembled at this blasphemy, he immediately withdrew. Acacius now calls our question madness."
Since Nestorius said this, let us consider whether the Grammarian does not proceed by similar words, driven by the same spirit of error, accusing us too of dividing the one divinity in the Trinity. But we do not admit, as he says, the hypostatic union of the whole divine substance and of the whole human substance. This he himself wrote in his lamentable book—what one may rightly call, according to divine Scripture, a "book of removal," since it separates and removes from God those caught in its snares: GRAMMARIAN: "These are the objections of our adversaries. For they suppose that the substance of divinity is subject to division, and that one part is in the Father, another in the Son, and another in the Holy Spirit, so that each hypostasis is considered in a part, not in all the things proper to divinity. But we have not rushed into such impiety as to assert a division or section in the divine substance." Therefore, the agreement between the heretical accusations and the opinions and words is evident to all; but we have already refuted those considered, where we clearly showed that it is "not to divide or cut the unity and identity of the divine substance," namely, to think and say that the three hypostases are distinct only by properties, and in no way different in divinity, in goodness, in eternity, in royal majesty, in glory, in power, and in all other things proper to God, yet not to confuse or mix the hypostases with one another. These things, therefore, have now been examined and added, bringing forward the deceitful and impure words of Nestorius, for no other reason than that you may know, O Grammarian, from what seeds the offshoots of your so-called wisdom have grown. Therefore, follow indeed this diverse path you have made for yourself, claiming that you confess a hypostatic union, but after the union confessing a duality of natures and calling it a duality of substances, and secretly introducing a relational union, by which all men have become partakers of the divine nature through the inhumanation of the Word (cf. 2 Pt 1:4).
CHAPTER—TWENTY-EIGHT
When the Doctors call the hypostasis of the Word of God and the flesh born of Mary—which He naturally united to Himself—"substances," "natures," and "hypostases," they do not consider these to be generic substances in the common sense from which one Christ is understood to exist.
We acknowledge the Son and Word, preexistent before the ages, incorporeal, impassible, and eternal as the Word, begotten of the Father, to be one hypostasis; and if we find Him called "substance" by deifying Fathers and mystagogues of the holy Church, we recognize that they used the name "substance" in place of "hypostasis." Nor, because the name "substance" properly denotes a generic concept encompassing many hypostases, do we infer that the hypostasis of the Only Begotten is not one, or that it is a substance comprehending three hypostases, simply because it is sometimes called "substance"; for it must be understood according to the subject and usage and combination of terms. Thus I have cited above Saint Basil, in the first of his discourses against the impious Eunomius, who calls the hypostasis of the Son "one substance" in these words: "But since it is one according to the subject, and one simple and least compounded substance, it calls itself by various names, adapting the names to different thoughts" (Basil, Contra Eun. I, p. 219). And again in the second discourse: "But [He is] a living and active substance, and the radiance of the glory of God; thus He reveals the Father entirely within Himself, resplendent with His whole glory" (ibid.). The wise John, who flourished on the throne of orthodoxy in Constantinople, in his fourth homily on the Gospel of John, says: "This Word is a hypostatic substance, which proceeded from the Father without passion; for, as I said earlier, he indicated this through the name 'Word'" (John Chrysostom, In Joann. Hom. 4).
Likewise, even if we hear that the one flesh, animated by a rational soul and united to God the Word in natural union, is called "substance" by the Doctors, we do not therefore assign the name "substance," which properly comprehends many hypostases, to its generic meaning, nor do we consider that this flesh composed with the Word, which is united to Him unconfusedly and inseparably, is a substance comprehending many such ensouled bodies. For even though one flesh with a rational soul is called "substance" instead of "hypostasis," it does not cease to be a hypostasis, nor is it thus regarded according to the common signification of the whole genus as comprehending many hypostases. And so we find Cyril, eminent among divine mystagogues, saying that the union was made from hypostases—namely, that of the Word of God and one flesh animated by a rational soul—calling Christ's humanity "substance" (Cyril, Ep. 2 ad Succensum, p. 220): "For if, after saying 'one nature of the Word,' we had remained silent and not added 'incarnate,' as if excluding the dispensation, then perhaps they might rightly object and say: Where is the perfection of humanity, or how does a substance like ours subsist? But since the perfection in humanity and the indication of our substance were expressed by the addition of 'incarnate,' let them cease leaning on a reed" (ibid.). And the holy John, bishop of Constantinople, in the eleventh homily on the Gospel of John, calls those hypostases from which one Christ is, "substances," writing: "So when you hear, 'The Word became flesh' (Jn 1:14), do not be troubled or fall. For substance did not fall into flesh—that would be utter impiety—but remaining what it was, He took on the form of a servant" (ibid.). Here he immediately called the hypostasis of the Word "substance," for it is that which also became incarnate—not by falling into flesh, but remaining what it was, it took on the form of a servant; for to think or say otherwise belongs to those who err in impiety or drunkenness. And later, again in the same homily, he said: "What does it mean that he adds: 'And dwelt among us' (Jn 1:14)? He meant: Do not suspect anything absurd in the word 'became.' I did not speak of a change in the immutable nature, but of dwelling in a tent and indwelling. He who dwells in a tent is not the same as the tent he dwells in; rather, one dwells in the other as in a tent; otherwise, there is no indwelling, for nothing dwells in itself as in a tent.
I also said 'another' according to substance; for by union and adherence God the Word and the flesh are one, without confusion or removal of the substances, but in an ineffable and true union which He alone knows" (ibid., p. 221). Again, then, observe how he proclaimed the ineffable union of the Word of God and the flesh, which are one in union, without confusion of "substances." Therefore the hypostasis of the Word—He who was incarnate—is clearly and indisputably called "substance," and that one flesh born of the God-bearing Mary, animated by soul and mind—He and He alone became incarnate—is likewise clearly and without controversy called "substance." Thus, since one hypostasis of God the Word and one flesh, evidently animated by a rational soul and united to Him in a natural union, have been called nature, hypostasis, and substance clearly and without controversy by these eminent Doctors, we and all the children of orthodoxy say that Christ Himself is from two natures, two hypostases, and two substances, acknowledging no difference among these terms. For from those things from which the natural and true and ineffable union is held, from them Emmanuel—formed from the union—is one Lord, one Son, one Christ, one person, one hypostasis, one nature of the Word of God incarnate and perfectly made human, not two natures, nor two hypostases, nor two substances, nor two persons, for there are not two Lords, nor two sons, nor two Christs, because these substances or hypostases or natures do not subsist separately or individually in their own existence, but are recognized in composition without confusion or defect, and from both the incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word is completed; so that those things from which one Christ is are separated only in contemplation, and their difference appears, but after the thought of union, the separation of duality vanishes, as we have fully explained earlier. But if anyone understands "substances" according to their common signification and generic concept—as the substance of the divinity comprehends the three hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the substance of humanity comprehends all human hypostases—and says that one Christ is composed from these substances, he will incur the condemnation of madness and ultimate impiety.
Moreover, you, O Grammarian, fall into the absurdity of that ridiculous opinion, which, after your unlearned impiety, degenerates and most wrongly judges that the entire Trinity became incarnate in the whole human race and in the entire human substance according to the generic notion and common signification. For from one hypostasis of the Word of God and again from one flesh, born of the God-bearing Mary and animated by rational soul, was made a hypostatic union, from which Emmanuel is known and said to be one. And not because the hypostasis of the Word exists in the substance and common signification of the divinity—which He fully and perfectly and without defect shares with the Father and the Spirit, and by which He is consubstantial with them—do we say that the hypostases which share the substance and kinship of divinity with the hypostasis of the Son (namely, the Father's and the Spirit's) have also become incarnate with the flesh, so as to be considered incarnate themselves. Nor again because the flesh born of Mary, animated by soul and mind, which is hypostatically united to the Word, is in the substance and generic signification of humanity and fully shares that with other human bodies to which it is consubstantial, do we therefore possess what is united to the Word, because we are united to the flesh of Christ through the kinship of human substance and common definition. For the substances according to the generic signification—namely, divinity (the Holy Trinity) and humanity (the whole human race)—are absolutely distinct and separated, and are not composed together; but Christ is not composed of generic substances, but from one hypostasis of the Word of God and from one flesh, born of the Virgin and animated rationally, and is one from two: as God the Word, He is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, as incarnate, consubstantial with us, having shared our substance.
Nor, because the generic substances—divinity and humanity—are absolutely distinct and far removed by nature's definitions, is Christ Himself also divided along with those substances, from which He is not composed; for the generic substance of the divinity, comprehending three hypostases, is not composed with the generic substance of humanity or the whole human race to form one Christ; but one hypostasis of the Word received an ineffable composition with one flesh, animated with soul and mind, and is called Emmanuel. Thus also one may see in the constitution of each man: for example, Paul is composed of one rational soul and one body, which are of different species and not consubstantial. But just because Paul's soul belongs to the genus and substance of all rational souls, and his body to that of all human bodies, we do not therefore consider Paul to be composed of those genera or comprehensive substances; nor, conversely, because the genus and substance of rational souls and that of human bodies are divided by definitions of nature, do we therefore divide Paul, composed of one soul and one body without separation, and being one nature and one hypostasis, from the generic substances? For the composition of one man and one hypostasis—i.e., Paul—subsists from things of different substance, namely soul and body; yet, because the soul belongs to the substance and genus of rational souls, and the body to that of human bodies, we do not on that account separate his hypostasis according to the diversity of genera and substances from which he subsists, even though these differ completely, as sense differs from intellect. Thus also Saint Cyril, in the second letter to Succensus, wrote: "A man is composed of soul and body, which are of different species and not consubstantial; but when united, they form one human nature, although in the manner of composition there remains a difference according to the nature of the things united" (Cyril, Ep. 2 ad Succensum).
CHAPTER—TWENTY-NINE
Refutation two of the dispute already addressed in the previous chapter against the impious and foolish question, which says: "If you say that Christ is consubstantial with God the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, you are forced to say he exists in two substances."
So then, O Grammarian, according to your obvious and gross and impious ignorance, because Paul has a soul consubstantial with our souls, and likewise a body consubstantial with human and like bodies, will Paul be cut into two consubstantial beings, as you like to say, he who exists from two things—namely, soul and body—which are of different kinds and by no means consubstantial with each other? Or will Emmanuel, who is compacted from the one hypostasis of God the Word and from one flesh born of the God-bearing Mary and rationally animated, into an indivisible and ineffable union, and who from the natural conjunction of things differing in substances is one, be subjected to similar division and split into two consubstantial beings—he who is one from two, that one person, that one hypostasis, that one nature of the incarnate Word of God? And do you dare to say such unlearned things, surpassing all mental stupor, about those who think rightly? GRAMMARIAN: "How then do they declare Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and with us after the union, and indeed confess two consubstantial beings, yet deny two substances?" And how, ridiculous one, will we say that the one Lord God Jesus Christ is two, according to your impiety, and not from two—namely, from divinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, and from humanity, consubstantial with us, humans? And how does one who says this declare two consubstantial beings? Or did you think it is the same to impiously say two as to say from two? But neither the logic of common notions nor the teaching of the holy Fathers agrees with this madness! For duality indicates separation, while the formula "from two" indicates composition and an unconfused union.
Because indeed Christ is one from two, namely, from divinity and humanity, he is therefore necessarily and consequently seen to be consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and the same consubstantial with us according to humanity, so that he is also the same Son of God and the same Son of man, not therefore two sons, but one and the same Son. For man also, similar to us, consists of a mortal body and an immortal and rational soul; and the same is called mortal and also called rational, and the natural and different significance of soul and body does not divide the composition, nor does it make two men from the one man who is from two—man being one hypostasis, one nature, one person, not simple but composite. Most fittingly, and as befits you preparing calumny, you wrote of us: GRAMMARIAN: "How then do they declare Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and with us after the union," yet you did not add "the same Christ." And indeed, if he is not the same, but one consubstantial with the Father and another consubstantial with us, united by name and will only, and thus both called and conceived as one Christ, then also two natures and two hypostases and two substances have a place. I greatly admired the power of truth, how it compels you, even though you say two natures and so divide the one Christ, and simulate using correct terms out of deception and sheer trickery, and hide the divided Christ under the appearance of saying "one and the same," yet truth itself so often drives you to forget the veil of your lie and to clearly show your impiety. For behold, it has forced you too to show from the treasures of your heart where you believe and say that "two substances" are one Christ. It is certain from the fact that you do not confess the same Christ to be consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and the same with us according to humanity, but one indeed consubstantial with the Father and another with us, that you call Christ, composed of two substances, one—and that is the loud accusation you proclaim against us: GRAMMARIAN: "How then do they declare Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and with us after the union, and confess two consubstantial beings, yet deny two substances?"
Know, then, from what you have written, and, as the holy Job says, "from your own hand is your correction" (Job 5:18). For we do not say that Christ is two substances, precisely because we confess him to be consubstantial with the Father from divinity and with men from humanity—one person, one hypostasis, one incarnate nature of the Word of God, consubstantial with the Father in divinity and with us in humanity. But if you remove from your confession the word "same," as the statement of your accusation does, then consequently you generate the offspring of such separation: two substances and two natures and two hypostases and two persons, and now follow two Christs and two sons; and to the natures and substances, a person is fittingly attributed, taken from individual and united natures and substances, but the two persons and two sons put on the one and same Christ. For one who does not say Emmanuel is from two, nor denies duality after the union, does not know that Jesus Christ is one and the same—God and man, the former existing eternally, the latter for our sake immutably and truly, remaining what he was, made at last. Which has also been clearly shown by the words of Saint Cyril, in the things considered and brought forth, which cry out more clearly than any trumpet—sometimes these: CYRIL: "Truly, after the union, as the division into two is now removed, we believe the nature of the Son to be one, as of one who is truly incarnate and made man," and sometimes again by the example of the common man like us: "so that the two natures are no longer two, but each fulfills one living being." Therefore we do not deny those things from which Christ is one and alone, but we do not tolerate calling those two things "two" after the union, since we have learned from the voice of Saint Cyril and theologians like him that the hypostatic union is destructive of duality, just as conversely duality is the division of the union. Therefore, we confess Christ from two natures, but we do not say that he is two natures; and we say he is from two substances—that is, from two hypostases: the Word of God and one flesh animated by a rational soul, which are joined also by the union of natural conjunction—but we do not say he is two substances, nor two hypostases, nor two persons.
But if anyone understands "substances" in the common sense, which encompasses many hypostases and holds the place of genus, we throw back such foolishness and impiety upon you, O Grammarian, because such pleases you; and as the prophet Isaiah says, "this is your portion and your lot" (Is 17:14). For Christ is not composed of generic substances, so that the Trinity might be found incarnate in the entire human race. Which we shall not cease to say often, "if perhaps you will hear, if perhaps you will be restrained" (Ez 3:27); for I also take this word from the prophet Ezekiel, while I expose the sophistical and contentious nature of your impiety.
CHAPTER—THIRTY
What is ridiculous is what these impious ones say, namely that they declare Christ to be "in two natures" lest they be caught saying, like Nestorius, that Christ is in two hypostases; for Nestorius himself said that Christ subsisted both in two substances and in two natures.
You, who think that by dealing in the manipulations of words you remain outside Nestor's madness, even call impious the father of your own impieties and the teacher of this adulterated doctrine, and you say, as if you had discovered some wise statement, that the flesh animated with a rational soul, united to the Word of God, is called by you a "substance" but not a "hypostasis," because hypostasis designates a person, and that the notion of a "person united to the Word" belongs to Nestorius—this you contrive vainly and deceitfully against yourself. For behold, Nestorius himself calls the rationally animated flesh united to the Word a "substance" in his treatise Against the Theopaschites, thus: NESTORIUS: "By the words 'Christ,' 'Only-Begotten,' 'Jesus,' or 'Son,' or other such names, we proclaim union; but by the word 'man,' the substance assumed; and by the word 'God the Word,' the property of the hypostasis that was incarnate, and, to speak briefly, the words by which we proclaim our Lord Christ to the world are of multiple meaning." AND LATER: "But what is proper, He hides in both natures. And He showed Himself emptied of all the dignity that belongs to divinity and the divine body. He was made lowly in both: to divinity, which is beyond form, He imposed the formed appearance of the members' substance; and in the flesh conceived without seed, sinless and of equal dignity with divine power, He bore mortality for all."
And again, in his discourse titled Exposition of the Faith, which begins "We confess the dogma: consubstantial," in the fifteenth chapter he says: NESTORIUS: "Therefore, we expect in two natures the one Son and judge of us all, simultaneously visible and invisible; but visible insofar as He took our visible substance and deemed it worthy to be inseparably united to Himself forever, and invisible according to the divine substance, according to which 'no one has seen God nor can see Him' (1Tm 6:16), as the divine Apostle said." When you hear this, will you think you have discovered something new, you who have turned the formula "in two natures" into "in two substances"? For you clearly see that Nestorius said, as the Council of Chalcedon did, that the one Son is in two natures and that he used the term "nature" as synonymous with "substance," just as you do. And that the natures in which you say Christ exists are also called hypostases by the Jewish faction of those who share Nestorius's views is easily learned—not from the many, but from a few clear words. For the impious Theodoret wrote, in his refutation of the third chapter or anathema of Saint Cyril, these things: THEODORET: "To confess one person and one Son and Christ is pious; but to speak of two hypostases or natures united is not absurd, but according to reason." And he who said that the two natures are two hypostases, and pretended to confess one person, toward the end of the refutation turned the revered natures and hypostases into two persons, saying: "How does he attribute impiety to those who divide the properties of the natures, namely of God, who is before the ages, and of the man assumed at the end of days, he who teaches us a mixture through other names?" Who, then, even among those with duller minds, would not clearly understand them to be refuted for saying that natures, substances, hypostases, and persons are the same? For this one person, this one Son and Christ, whom he says it is pious to confess, is dissolved into God, who is before the ages, and into the man assumed in the end times, with two natures and two hypostases afterward asserted; and what glue binds them? The reason for this assertion is thought cautious, but is in fact foolish and easily refuted and reveals a serious accusation of division into two through the charge of mixture. For he who said such absurd and impious things—namely, the excellent Theodoret—says of Saint Cyril: "He who teaches us a mixture through other names."
But in defense of the same anathema, wisely exposing the revelation of Theodoret's impiety, Cyril showed that thus to dissect what is united is to divide the one Christ into two sons, writing thus: CYRIL: "To say that Christ and the Son and Lord is one, to some the rule of righteousness permits, as Holy Scripture taught us for this purpose. But it has scarcely any reason of truth in doctrine, and scorns greatly to know anything of what is necessary for edification, just as of those things which are born for harm; and he glories, it seems, in a lie; and arranging the art of slander most skillfully, let him hear from us: 'Why do you glory in malice, O mighty man? Your tongue devises injustice all day long' (Ps 52:3)." Know therefore, O Grammarian, that while you entangle your feet in the snares of Nestorius, duality after the union—even if you wish to call it by the name of "natures" or "substances"—will end in two hypostases and persons. For it is proper to hypostatic union, as Saint Cyril says, to consider, as if in subtle contemplation and only with the eyes of the soul, those things from which Christ is, and to see without confusion and without diminution the concurrence of two natures, or substances, or hypostases, and to apprehend the absence of division in the union, according to which we understand them to be in composition, not in their proper subsistence, and, after considering the union, we no longer conceive of a division into two, so that what appeared as two by mere intellectual fantasy is no longer two, and in both we perceive the one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word to be absolute. For these are manifestly the very words of the teachings of wise Cyril, indeed the doctrine of the apostolic Church, as we have presented already in many previously considered places.
CHAPTER—THIRTY-ONE
That these impious ones mockingly deride the statement—out of vain ignorance—by which we confess one incarnate nature of the Word of God after the union, as though before the union there had been two natures and after the union one of them had been abolished.
So then, where will you hide yourself, you who write—against the inspired words of this eminent mystagogue (St. Cyril)—these things, full of madness, stupidity, and impiety of mind? GRAMMARIAN: "But perhaps the adversaries will say that before the union there is a distinction, but after the union, not at all." Of such people I rather grieve, as for those who hold Nestorius' doctrines in mind. For Nestorius likewise claims that a man was first made, and then the Word of God dwelt in him (cf. Jh 1:14); which is exactly what today's calumniators, just like the followers of Nestorius, also affirm. But perhaps changing only the wording, they will say: "In the union we say there are two, but after the union, one." We will ask such people: "Do you think the expressions 'after the union' and 'in the union' mean something different or the same?" If they say they mean something different, let them explain in what way. Is it, then, that the union has already been undone and dissolved—according to their impious doctrine, they who corrupt the Scriptures and claim that the Word of God laid aside the flesh after ascending into heaven (cf. Acts 1:9)? For in truth, according to these madmen, once the one nature that previously existed in the union is rejected after the union, then it results that one nature emerges after the union. Or else, perhaps fearing to be refuted as those who strip the Word of God of His flesh, they will say that the union is stable, but still assert that from it only one nature is completed? But we will respond to this: as long as the union remains, so too do the two natures remain entirely in the union; if not, then there is no union at all. Therefore, tell me: that you say you grieve over us—is it really so astonishing, when you are drunk with incurable drunkenness and rage with such insanity, needing great sorrow, tears, and lamentation?
For such are those who are drunk not only with wine but also with madness caused by various sources—who, in their despair and dizziness, think that those standing near them are grieved, even though they often are not moved at all. But explain to us clearly, O valiant one: when the wise Cyril fights against Nestorius and, in the second tome against his blasphemies, says, "Stop dividing the natures after the union," do you interpret that phrase "after the union" as a temporal comparison and then say that before the union there were two natures of Christ, which you then divide? Will you then argue against the Doctor and say to him: "Because you said 'Stop dividing the natures after the union,' you imply by comparison that even before the union those natures existed and were divided"? And who is so mad and unlearned as to say such things? For before the union and incarnation, the Word was simple and free from flesh and composition; but when, in His mercy and for the sake of the economy, He willed to become man immutably—remaining also what He was—He was then called both Christ and Emmanuel (cf. Mt 1:23), taking the name from reality and becoming with us, when He united to Himself hypostatically flesh consubstantial with us and endowed with a rational soul and mind, which did not previously subsist nor was previously formed, but came to exist precisely in the ineffable union with the Word, so that the conception, formation, growth, gradual development, and birth belonged to the very incarnate Word. For He assumed a natural union with a fleshly nature suitable for being conceived, formed, growing, and being born—though He showed that this flesh transcended the limits of nature, in that it was born of a Virgin without seed and by the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35), and because the virginity of the mother was not dissolved in birth. Therefore, whoever says "Christ" absolutely refers to Him considered after the union. For indeed even Saint Cyril, in the first tome against the blasphemies of Nestorius, wrote: CYRIL: "Then He was called 'Christ Jesus' when He was the Son, although He was the Word of God, and Wisdom, and Life, and Light (cf. Jh 1:1; 1 Cor 1:24; Jh 8:12). Therefore, it is clear that the time of this very name ['Christ'] has its corresponding generation with it—that generation, I mean, which took place through the holy Virgin (cf. Lk 1:35)."
And again, in the second book, he similarly says: "But in no way does the name and reality of 'Christ' properly apply to the Word who is from God the Father, when we understand Him as existing nakedly and in Himself, outside the flesh." How then is it not altogether an act of foolishness—one that exceeds all ignorance—when the Word of God, after His union with rationally-ensouled flesh, is called Christ, to consider before the union those things from which Christ is constituted, even though the Word existed before all ages (cf. Jh 1:1)? For it is the same as if someone, out of their mind, would say that before the incarnation, the Word had already been incarnate. For the name "Christ" is indicative of the union. Unless the One who, by nature, was without flesh had become incarnate through the dispensation and humbled Himself to such an emptying (cf. Phil 2:7), it would not be fitting that He be anointed; for He is anointed by His own Spirit—being God—because He became man, the very One who ought not to be anointed, so that, as the firstfruits of the human race, He might send to us the grace of anointing, anointed not for Himself but for our sake. Therefore, it is entirely foolish and full of wickedness if someone, in delusion, imagines that before the union of the incarnation, the flesh of the Incarnate Word existed, and dreams of two natures existing before the union—as if in a fantasy. For such things belong to the mocking talk of those who try to falsely accuse the voice of Saint Cyril, which has been carefully crafted and states: "Stop dividing the natures after the union." For since we distinguish in thought alone, and in a kind of subtle contemplation, the things from which Christ is constituted, and we perceive the natural conjunction of two realities—divinity and humanity—there also simultaneously enters the concept of union, which as it were cries out: Know this difference according to nature, and then do not persist in it any longer. For once we have considered the union, the division into two is abolished, even though those realities from which the union was made remain without diminishment and unchanged; they subsist not as isolated individuals but as components in composition, so that they may even be counted as two. Yet from these two, one nature and hypostasis is completed:
namely, the incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word. For "one" is not only said of simple things but also of those united according to composition. That "one," in its compositional sense, is customarily distinguished only in contemplation, so that the elements from which it is composed may be recognized; yet in hypostasis it is not separated, nor does it dissolve into two, ceasing to be one. For after contemplating the union, those which in reflection seemed to be two natures and hypostases are no longer two, because from both a single compositional unity is completed. Therefore, the phrase "Stop dividing the natures after the union" is not said according to some temporal distinction—as though one wrongly assumes there are two natures before the union and incarnation—but rather according to the understanding of those who examine and wish to learn, as far as possible, the inconfused and inseparable character of the union. For you have seen, he says, as though in contemplation, the natural distinction and considered divinity and humanity as if different from each other, from which one Christ is constituted; and you have separated what was considered in reflection, and have acknowledged that no change or confusion has occurred between them. But once you understand the union, stop dividing the natures after this contemplation of the union—for by the very contemplation in which you separate, in that same moment, once you unite the realities from which Christ exists, you find one hypostasis and the incarnate nature of the Word of God, and no longer two natures; for two natures are the result of division, not of union. Now, so that it may be clear that these things are not my own but are confirmed by the very words of Saint Cyril himself—which plainly affirm what has been said, and in fact show that what was said is also taken from his very words, with only the arrangement of the expression supplied by us—I will present his own testimonies.