For in the second tome against the blasphemies of Nestorius, Cyril wrote as follows: CYRIL: "Stop dividing the natures after the union; for to know that the divine and human nature are distinct, I say, is appropriate and necessary for prudent men—for they differ from each other with immeasurable distinctions—but once you have brought them together into the true and hypostatic union of our Savior Christ, reject all division; for in this way you will confess one Christ and Son and Lord." Behold how he instructs Nestorius himself to bring those [natures] together in union; and it is evident that, once he has joined them together in thought, he is to reject all separation or division made as if in the mind. It is clear, therefore, that this phrase "Stop dividing the natures after the union" is addressed to the one who contemplates the mystery of the dispensation of the incarnation—that is, after the mental consideration of the union. Moreover, that "not dividing the natures after the union" does not mean "to say there are two natures" but rather "to confess one incarnate nature," Cyril again plainly signified in the same tome as follows: CYRIL: "One nature, namely the incarnate nature of the Word Himself, just as even concerning us it is fittingly understood. For man is truly one, composed of dissimilar things—of soul, I say, and body. Furthermore, we must now also note that we say the body which was united to the Word of God was animated by a rational soul." And in his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, he most clearly showed that, according to the thought of the ineffable, true, and natural union—and up to the point that human understanding rises in thought and contemplation, solely to recognize the difference between natures—it is said: "Stop dividing the natures after the union." His words are as follows: CYRIL: "There is one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as if we are grasping this in the contemplation of the union. We say that two natures are united; but after the union, with the division into two now removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son—as of one who is truly incarnate and made man." And again, shortly afterward: "When the manner of the incarnation is diligently examined, the intellect of man clearly sees two things—joined together ineffably and without confusion according to the union; yet, when they have been united, it no longer separates them in any way, but believes and admits without confusion that He who is from both is one, and that He is God and Son and Christ and Lord."
To whom, then, is it not evident that the phrase is addressed to human understanding—that same mind which examines and scrutinizes, and, as it were, separates only in thought and sees those two which have been ineffably and unconfusedly joined—and that in those same thoughts, what has been distinguished in contemplation is joined together again? Thus, it is said that after the union and after this contemplation, the division into two—which had been made by reflection—is removed, because now one hypostasis and one nature of the incarnate Word is seen, and not again two natures after the union. But if, proceeding, anyone should show that Saint Cyril ever said anywhere: "Thus, after the union, we say that Christ exists in two natures or substances hypostatically united," as the Grammarian claims—yet this cannot be shown. For everywhere after the union, Cyril presents this assertion: that there is one incarnate nature of the Son Himself. How then can these foolish men, bold even against what is clearly evident, not understand that the use of the term "two" is a sign of division and separation, and that he who has been compacted by composition into indivisible singularity and exists in one hypostasis and nature—such as a man like ourselves—is never called "two" even in thought by anyone who has not divided him in contemplation? And again, one may readily hear the cry of Saint Cyril's voice. For in his second letter to Succensus, when some object with the difficult sophism and serious problem, "How can we not grant that two natures subsist undivided after the union?" he writes thus: CYRIL: "That proposition is again in opposition, and no less so, to those who say that the incarnate nature of the Son is one, and desiring to show this as absurd, they try everywhere to demonstrate that two natures subsist. But they fail to grasp that things which are not usually separated except in contemplation are thereby entirely distinguished and individually removed from one another. But let a man like us again serve as an example. For we understand two natures even in him—one of the soul, the other of the body. Yet by mere thoughts and subtle contemplations or intellectual phantasms, we apprehend the difference, but we do not place the natures apart, nor do we allow the full force of separation to divide them, but we understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together complete one living being."
Therefore, O Grammarian, if you had followed Saint Cyril and not been filled with a mind of impiety, but had listened to him saying: CYRIL: "For 'one' is said not only of those things which are simple by nature, but also of those which are gathered into one by composition," and that such things are only separated in contemplation, but after the thought of union, "as the division into two is now removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one who is truly incarnate and made man," and crying out clearly: "so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together complete one living being"—then you surely would not have dared to foolishly and wickedly ask the following: GRAMMARIAN: "Does it happen, as if the union had been undone and dissolved—according to the impious doctrine of those who corrupt the Scriptures and say that God the Word laid aside the flesh after His ascension into heaven? For truly, according to such madmen, with the one nature that existed formerly in union now rejected after the union, it follows that one nature remains after the union." Or perhaps they will fear that statement, dreading that they might be reproached as those who strip the Word of God of flesh, and will say instead that the union indeed remains, but that one nature results? But we will respond to these things: while the union remains, the two natures also remain in the union; otherwise, there is no union at all. Behold now, by comparing the words of the wise mystagogue with your polluted words, it has become clear to all that you are not fighting against us, but against him. For those things from which one Christ has perfectly and without deficiency subsisted according to composition cannot otherwise be called "two," unless someone separates them only in contemplation, so that, after the thought of the union, those things which appeared as two in subtle thoughts are no longer two, but we see in both the one hypostasis and incarnate nature of the Word completed.
Therefore, you who say "two natures" after the union—even though you say "undivided and united"—as if dissolving that one indissoluble unity by composition and wickedly persisting in a separation made in the intellect and perfectly dividing, listen to Saint Cyril saying: CYRIL: "That proposition is again in opposition, and no less so, to those who say that the incarnate nature of the Son is one, and desiring to show this as absurd, they try everywhere to demonstrate that two natures subsist." For they do not subsist, as we have often said, in their own proper singularities of subsistence, but rather in composition, since they have not indeed lost what they were, but are forbidden to subsist in duality because of the union, which from both shows forth one nature of the incarnate Word of God. Therefore, you ignorantly scorn wise Cyril, who says: "so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together complete one living being," O impious one, or rather you do it deliberately, writing: GRAMMARIAN: "For if truly one nature, which was formerly in union, falls away, it would be fitting for one nature to remain after the union," and you fight for impiety, saying: "while the union remains, the two natures also entirely remain; otherwise the union does not exist." And you do not realize that this foolishness is turned back upon your own head, which we now express against you—though nothing of it is ours—but the words of Saint Cyril in defense of the tenth anathema against the objections of the impious Theodoret, which are as follows: CYRIL: "For if the union is true, then there are not absolutely two, but from both one and only one Christ is understood"; and again, in the letter to Acacius: "but after the union, as the division into two is now removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one, truly made man and incarnate"; and in the second letter to Succensus: "so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together complete one living being." For union is had from two or more things; but that which is completed from it is one, not two or more—for that would mean nothing else than that the one is dissolved into those from which it was compacted. For if Christ were to be recognized as subsisting in two natures or substances, as you contentiously and impiously say, what need would there be to divide him in thought or in subtle contemplations, he who would already be separated by duality and who, though seemingly presented without division, would wear the form of true union yet deny its power, as the Apostle says somewhere (2 Tim 3:5)?
CHAPTER—THIRTY-TWO
Nestorius too accused the confession of one nature of dissolution and destruction, and in vain do his zealots, polluting their own blasphemy, claim they speak of one Christ not with two hypostases, but with two substances; and that the doctors of the Church have called the hypostatic union also a union according to substance.
But the evil spirit that drove Nestorius mad and now speaks in you says similar things against those who confess the incarnate Word of God as one nature and consequently refuse to speak of two natures after the union; listen to what this impious one wrote against Saint Cyril in the memorandum he falsely claimed to be composed at Ephesus: NESTORIUS: "He confuses the hypostasis of the Word of God with the mutability of the fleshly hypostasis, since he says the substance of the Son's divinity and the flesh is one, so that He appears wholly either uncreated or created, and he entirely abolishes the confession of one nature, whether of the uncreated nature of the divinity which assumed our humanity or of the created humanity which was assumed." And in his book titled "Against the Theopaschites, or Cyrillians," written in the form of a question and answer, he wrote: NESTORIUS: "Theopaschite. And how are we accused of composition or duality of natures, we who say Christ is one nature of God incarnate?" — Orthodox replies: "Do you think your excuse is that of those you accuse? For you yourself have confessed that Christ is one nature from incorporeality and body, and a hypostasis with one nature of the theosarkosis (God-incarnation). But this is the confusion of two natures, which strips the natures of their proper hypostases when they are mixed." Attend then, O Grammarian, how you follow the traces of this one's madness: He says against the wise Cyril, NESTORIUS: "He confuses the hypostasis of the Word of God with the mutability of the fleshly hypostasis, saying the substance of divinity and flesh is one"; you also said against me, GRAMMARIAN: "What of this one?
He does not abandon one substance, but utterly disturbs and confuses it," and at the beginning of your foolish little book likewise: "How then in one substance is the Son of God after the incarnation?" Nestorius also said, accusing Cyril of dissolving the one nature: NESTORIUS: "He completely abolishes the confession of one nature"; and you, like your lying father, offer a similar accusation, saying: GRAMMARIAN: "And so one nature results after the union." Again, after escaping the accusation of confusion and of dissolving the one nature, Nestorius also accused us of saying that the incarnate Word of God was one nature composed from divinity and humanity, saying: "You assert that Christ is from incorporeality and body, and a hypostasis of one nature of the theosarkosis; but this is confusion of two natures, stripping them of their proper hypostases when they are mixed." You also, like him, have turned to the same kind of accusation, bearing the image of your impious father and saying: GRAMMARIAN: "We say that one nature is completed." But we say in reply: while the union remains, the two natures also remain in the union; otherwise, no union exists. You might say, O Grammarian, that Nestorius, as he himself said, did not want the natures to be stripped of their hypostases, but you understand natures not as hypostases, but as substances. But know that your substitution of terms will not help you at all, for Nestorius too knew how to name natures "substances," as we have already shown. Yet we will add another testimony of his, found in a letter written against the second letter of Saint Cyril; in it, Nestorius says: "Because he was about to speak of death, lest anyone think the Word of God to be passible, he adds the name 'Christ,' as an appellation signifying in one singular person the impassible and passible, so that he may be called Christ without danger: impassible according to divinity, passible according to the nature of the body." And he who understands natures as "substances," like you, also confesses them to be "united," again like you. For in his homily titled, "When it was read: 'How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?'" he wrote: NESTORIUS: "I, that is, the person of the Church, say the same before all, calling Christ perfect God and perfect man, the natures not mixed but united."
How then, O thrice-unhappy one, do you think to justify your senseless words, saying you confess two substances and inseparable natures, while denying two hypostases only in name, and writing: GRAMMARIAN: "If then the flesh was not proper to the Word of God and did not exist before assumption, how shall I say it is in two proper hypostases, and how shall I call that flesh another hypostasis, which neither existed separately nor had existence in any way, but always subsisted in the Word of God? And that the flesh did not subsist apart from the Word of God is testified by Athanasius, who in his epistle to Jovinian on the orthodox faith wrote: 'For the flesh at the same time was, at the same time the Word's flesh, at the same time rational animated flesh, at the same time the rational animated flesh of the Word: for even its subsistence was in Him.'" Therefore, explain to us, O excellent one—your subtle arguments lead us to inquire of your wisdom—if you call that particular flesh which the Word united to Himself not a hypostasis because it did not subsist separately, lest you say Christ is in two hypostases, how do you call that same flesh a "substance" and say Christ is "in two substances," unless by "substance" you mean the general nature of humanity, and unite it to the divine substance as something preexisting before the incarnation, and thus confess Christ "in two united substances"? But this is manifest madness and grave insanity, as has often been shown; for the divine substance, that is, the Holy Trinity, was not incarnate in the general nature of humanity; such a statement would be ridiculed as impious. But if, as you have admitted above, the hypostasis of the Word of God was incarnate in one particular flesh, and you call that flesh a "substance," do not separate it from the Word with a duality, if it pleases you to say that it did not exist before the union with the Word, for just as it did not subsist individually and separately without the Word, so also it neither was nor existed according to substance; for to be and to exist according to substance is the same as to subsist, and in this regard these terms differ in nothing.
Therefore, that union which Saint Cyril called "hypostatic" was called by Gregory the Theologian a "union according to substance" in his letter to Cledonius, writing: "If anyone says that the Word worked in Christ as in a prophet by grace, and not that the humanity adhered to the divinity according to substance and was co-formed with it, let him be without the higher power, or rather full of the opposite." And the venerable bishops who gathered for the deposition of Paul of Samosata and, having deposed him, composed a circular letter, wrote the same as Gregory concerning the union of the Word of God, who is the Wisdom and Power of the Father, with the flesh, expanding Paul's error thus: SYNOD: "But he conceives the adhesion to Wisdom otherwise, as by institution and participation, not however according to substance." For just as "hypostatic union" signifies that in the union with the Word of God that flesh subsists, so too "union according to substance" signifies that in the union with the Word of God that flesh, endowed with soul and mind, came to be and entered existence. And just as we say that the flesh did not subsist before its union with the Word, so too we say it neither was nor existed before its union with the Word. Therefore, if you say you do not proclaim Christ in two hypostases because the flesh did not subsist before the assumption and union, and you truly avoid impiety, neither will you say that Christ is "in two substances"; for both formulas lead to the same impiety, since before the assumption and union the flesh neither was nor existed. For you have unwillingly confessed that to say "two" after their union is the formula of those who claim the flesh existed before the union and assumption, and that an infant was first formed in the Virgin and then God entered into him and dwelt in him, as Diodorus, Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret say—who also say that the one Christ is two natures, two substances, and two hypostases, as their words show. Why then, O excellent one, do you attack hypostases with such injustice, calling them separated and showing their division, while cherishing and protecting natures and substances, calling them indivisible and united, acting as a judge of iniquity and suppressor of truth, and thus not escaping reproach? And you are defiled in your wicked inheritance, and even more defiled in your deluded madness, as you think, who claim to proclaim a true and natural hypostatic union and dare with your polluted mouth to invoke divine Athanasius and Cyril, while you also confess the duality of natures, substances, hypostases, and persons, the offspring of relational union, and, like a harlot, disguise yourself with the paint of rightful names. Therefore, hear the prophet Jeremiah, or rather God speaking in him, who says: "Though you clothe yourself in scarlet and adorn yourself with gold ornaments, and though you enlarge your eyes with paint, in vain is your adornment" (Jer 4:30).
CHAPTER—THIRTY-THREE
What is said is not only impious but also entirely unlearned and a mark of ignorant innovation, namely: "Because we say Christ is consubstantial with God the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, therefore we confess Him in two substances, but by no means in two hypostases, since we say He is neither co-hypostatic with the Father nor with us."
Behold, the folly of impiety overflows from your mouth like mud in great abundance, hiding your deceitful schemes and falsehoods, which I will briefly refute because of their foul stench, since all alike show the extent of their blasphemy and foolishness; but lest anything be hidden from those who hear the verbose repetition of your words, I am compelled to refute again what has already been refuted, repeating your words, in which you seem not only to promote blasphemous doctrines but also invent novel names, writing: GRAMMARIAN: "Perhaps those who understand nothing rightly will say: 'If you say "in two natures," you certainly also say Christ is "in two hypostases."' To which it is not hard for us to respond; for, following the voices of the Fathers, since we learned from them to say Christ is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, we say He is in two natures, that is, substances. So, if among the Fathers there is found any teacher who taught them to say the Son is co-hypostatic with the Father and again with us, let Severus reveal his excellent doctrines and not hide his face. For he speaks as though orthodox to the simple, while gathering such statements from the teachings of heresiarchs. For the claim that the Son is co-hypostatic with the Father resembles the view of Sabellius, and the idea that Christ is co-hypostatic with us is a thing no one has dreamed of saying. Therefore, because we say Christ is consubstantial with the Father and with us, we say He exists in two substances; but we avoid saying He is in two marked hypostases, for no one has called Him co-hypostatic with the Father."
And who does not see, O most foolish of men, blind in impiety and wholly ignorant of what you say, that substance and hypostasis, as they are and subsist, are the same? For the one is called "from being" and the other "from subsisting"; but to be and to subsist is to exist; and we cited the wise Athanasius writing to the bishops of Africa: ATHANASIUS: "For hypostasis and substance are existence: for it is and exists" (cf. Col 1:17); and you yourself cited this in your lamentable booklet. Nor will you deny that substance and hypostasis, participating in being and existence, cannot be separated or removed from each other by a great distance, since substance signifies the general and common nature, and hypostasis a particular species subject to the genus. And we previously cited Saint Basil writing: BASIL: "Substance and hypostasis differ as what is common differs from what is individual, as animal differs from this man"; and the wise Cyril, in the form of question and answer, says: CYRIL: "B. Then substance and hypostasis are different? — A. Yes, they are different, since substance includes all hypostases"; and again: "Therefore, substance pertains to every man, as expressing the common nature of the genus, while hypostasis is more properly understood of the individual."
Where then do the Fathers—whom you claim to follow, though you wander far from their teaching—say Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and with us according to humanity, because He is immutably and indivisibly one from both, from the divinity of the Word and from one human flesh, born of Mary, rationally ensouled and possessing a mind, confessing the kinship of the substances and genera to which Emmanuel is related, who, composed without confusion from things diverse in substance, as the wise Cyril also wrote to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: "We say that the dispensation and ineffable union was truly made of things dissimilar in an indivisible union"; just as the man Peter, composed of things diverse in substance, namely, of one soul and one body—his soul being consubstantial with other rational human souls, and his body consubstantial with mortal human bodies—is therefore not said to be composed of substances and genera, but, subsisting from one soul and one body, is one composite nature and hypostasis, consubstantial with rational souls in rationality, capable of intellect and knowledge, and consubstantial with human bodies in mortality, so that Peter is one and the same, rational and mortal—so also Emmanuel, being from the one hypostasis of God the Word and one rationally ensouled flesh, and being one and the same from both and one incarnate nature of the Word, is not to be ignorantly and impiously thought composed of generic substances simply because He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit according to the substance of divinity, and with us according to the substance of humanity (cf. Phil 2:7; Heb 2:14; Jh 1:14). For no one has his own hypostasis through those with whom he is related, but existing as distinct and separate according to hypostasis, he is joined with homogeneous hypostases according to the reason of genus and consubstantiality; indeed, each of us, subsisting from two things—namely, from his own body and his own soul—is not considered to subsist from other homogeneous men or from the total substance of rational souls and human bodies, nor is he said to have his hypostasis in two substances and two genera, according to your impious, improbable, and impossible babbling. The term "substance," used in its common meaning, and likewise the term "consubstantial," indicating kinship, is clearly taught by the wise John, bishop of Constantinople, in his seventy-fourth homily on the Gospel of John, writing: JOHN: "It was enough for you, hearing of the Father and the Son, to seek nothing more for showing kinship according to substance. But if that is not enough for you to show equality of honor and consubstantiality, learn also from the works" (cf. Jh 14:10-11); and again, in the seventy-fifth homily, he similarly writes: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that is, another of the same kind as I. Let those be ashamed who suffer from the disease of Sabellius and those who have an improper view of the Spirit. For even the miracle of the phrase is such that it casts down opposing heresies with one blow. For in saying 'another,' He shows the difference of hypostasis; in saying 'Comforter,' He shows the kinship of substance" (cf. Jh 14:16).
And the excellent interpreter of divine dogma, Cyril, likewise shows this in the defense of the eleventh anathema, responding to the objections of Andrew, saying: CYRIL: "Just as the body of each one of us is said to be proper to each of us, so also concerning the one Christ it is to be understood. For although Christ's body is homogeneous and consubstantial with our bodies—since He was born of a woman—it is understood and said to be proper to Him" (cf. Gal 4:4). Therefore, since Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate for us, unchangeably and perfectly made man, is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit according to substance and the common and generic property of divinity, and likewise became and remains consubstantial with us according to the substance and common genus of humanity, how then do you so improperly and ignorantly deduce absurdity from names indicating kinship, saying: "If Christ is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, then He is in two substances"? For Christ, from one hypostasis of the Word of God and one rationally animated flesh, is one and the same from both, O wise one, not from substances which merely share kinship, from which He is compacted. For it is foolish even to say that Christ subsists in generic substances, when He subsists in one hypostasis, namely the hypostasis of the Word, incarnate in flesh from Mary, endowed with soul and mind. Nor is He divided into generic substances to which He is related and from which He is composed; for it is one thing and very different to confess from what Christ is, and another to know with which things Christ is homogeneous and consubstantial. For from one hypostasis of the Word of God and from rationally animated flesh, He is composed by a natural union; and of these, one refers to the generic substance of divinity and is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, the other refers to the generic substance of humanity and is homogeneous and consubstantial with us all: and so He, one and the same Christ, as the Word, is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit; as having truly and immutably become man, without departing from what He was, He is likewise consubstantial with us.
How then, using the snares—not to say cunning—of heretical madness, do you not confess the things from which Christ is, but instead bring forward those with which He is homogeneous, and with blasphemous and unlearned speech, while referring your ignorance and impiety to the holy Fathers, say: GRAMMARIAN: "Adhering to the words of the holy Fathers, since we learned from them to say that Christ is consubstantial with God and the Father and consubstantial with us, we say that He is in two natures, that is, in two substances," and thus, having confused and inverted the order of things and substituted one for another, you add the most absurd statement, injuring both things and names according to your own whim and tyrannical distortion? For who would not marvel at your wisdom, when you say: "Because no one said that the Son is cohypostatic with the Father and again with us according to form, we avoid saying two distinct hypostases"? But it is easy to reply: your first conclusion was already absurd, since from the fact that the term "consubstantial" indicates kinship, you concluded that Christ exists in two substances understood according to common meaning and generic property; the second point too you introduce very foolishly and absurdly by force, namely, that the term "hypostasis" should be used apart from its proper meaning and rule. For it is certain that the term "hypostasis" does not signify commonality or kinship, but rather refers to a single person or thing which is subject to and under a genus—for example, John can be said to fall under the substance and genus of humanity, or a single soul of someone under the genus of rational and human souls, or one body under the genus and substance of human bodies. So, if "hypostasis" had the meaning of genus and commonality, one might call Peter cohypostatic with Paul; but since it is a term referring to a single person and such a specific entity, how could one, according to your foolishness, say that Peter is "homoprosopon" with Paul, or that God the Father is with God the Word and Son and Only-Begotten? For it does not follow that the same name used for generic substance can be applied equally and similarly to a singular hypostasis. Just as the things designated by these terms differ and are distinct from one another, so also the names designating them must differ and not be affixed similarly.
Since "substance" holds the place of genus and includes in itself all hypostases subject to it—e.g., the substance of humanity includes Peter, Paul, and John, and all men who are under that genus will be called accordingly consubstantial and homogeneous—whereas a "hypostasis" includes only one person and such a specific entity and comprehends no other, to whom would it be cohypostatic? It would remain that someone might be cohypostatic with himself, which is the height of foolishness. Nor would anyone, unless out of his mind, say that Peter, because he is called consubstantial and homogeneous with Paul, should also be called cohypostatic and "homoprosopon" with him. He would rightly hear from us: Just as the suppositum of substance is not the same as that of hypostasis—substance refers to what is common, the genus of men; hypostasis refers to the particular and individual man—so it follows that, according to the difference of supposita, the names should also be different, and certainly not all be equally and similarly expressed with the same term. And since these distinctions are so clearly and distinctly held, and no one perversely establishes otherwise—as we already said—that, just as Peter's soul is consubstantial and homogeneous with rational souls but not cohypostatic with them, and likewise Peter's body is consubstantial and homogeneous with human bodies but not cohypostatic with them, so Peter should be said to exist in two substances, not in two hypostases, one would rightly respond that both statements are false. For since Peter is composed of one soul and one body into one nature and one hypostasis, he is neither mingled nor confused with human bodies and rational souls so as to be called cohypostatic with them; and again, though he is homogeneous and consubstantial with them in soul and body, he is not thereby divided into two substances and two genera—for he is not composed of generic substances, but, as said, of one soul and one body, which are related to different substances, yet for this reason he is not divided along with those substances or genera. Therefore, to what kind of assent of necessity or persuasion will your implausible and unlearned syllogism attract your interlocutor: "Because, indeed, the Son is not said to be cohypostatic with the Father, nor with us, I do not say that he exists in two hypostases"? What foundation does such a statement have, or what stability?
Which of the heresiarchs, as you said, has ever uttered this term, which does not even preserve consistency according to a superficial understanding—let alone when impiety is now set aside and passed over in silence? For Sabellius said that the Trinity is a single hypostasis with three names, which at one time acts and speaks and rules as the person of the Father, at another as the Son, and again as the Holy Spirit. But he never said that this one and the same hypostasis is cohypostatic—since no one is called cohypostatic with himself. For just as "consubstantial" is said of another who shares the same substance and kinship, so "cohypostatic" would also be said in relation to another, if hypostasis were not of one, but comprehended many subsisting persons. But because Sabellius posited one hypostasis represented under different persons and triply varied, he was not seen to say "cohypostatic." And hear the wise Basil teaching these things in his letter to Terentius: BASIL: "What calumny could be more serious than this and more effective at disturbing many, than if some among us appear to say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one hypostasis; who, even if they clearly teach the distinction of persons—because this was first taken up by Sabellius, who said namely that God is one according to hypostasis, but is represented in Scripture under different persons according to the property of the usage occurring at times, and who now applies paternal words to himself when that person is at hand, then the words fitting the Son when he descends to care for us or for other certain dispensations, then again takes on the person of the Spirit when the occasion requires words to be spoken as from such a person—if any among us seem to say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in subject, yet confess three perfect persons, how shall they not be thought to bring forth a clear and unmistakable demonstration of the truth of what is said about us?" And in the canonical letter, which we already mentioned above, speaking about the term "consubstantial," Basil wrote: BASIL: "This term corrects even Sabellius's depravity: for it removes the identity of hypostasis and introduces a perfect notion of persons. For nothing is consubstantial with itself, but one is with another."
From this, therefore, learn that about one and the same hypostasis no one says that it is cohypostatic with itself, because, just as nothing is consubstantial with itself but one with another, so also it is with hypostasis. Since the holy Trinity is clearly defined and maintains itself without confusion according to the diversity of persons, and the Father is Father—not the Son or the Spirit—and the Son is the Son—not transformed into the Father or the Spirit—and the Spirit is the Spirit—not tending to become the Father or the Son—it is rightly said that each of the eternal hypostases is consubstantial on account of what is common and the identity of the divine substance. But if, as the impious Sabellius says, there is one and the same hypostasis figured under three names and falsely pretending a distinction of persons without actual hypostases and only in name, how can this one hypostasis be called cohypostatic with itself? In the letter to Amphilochius, concerning the error of Sabellius, we find the holy Basil writing: BASIL: "Those who say that substance and hypostasis are the same are forced to confess only a difference of persons, and while they avoid saying 'three hypostases,' they are found not to escape Sabellius's malice; who also, in many places, while he confuses the concept, tries to separate the persons, when he says that the same hypostasis is represented according to the usage always occurring." And writing to the monks subject to him, living in Euroba and Chalanes, he says: BASIL: "For we equally avoid and anathematize both those who suffer from Sabellius's disease and those who teach the doctrines of Arius, as impious. If anyone says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same, establishing one multi-named reality and one hypostasis named under three titles: we consider such a one among the Jews. Similarly, if anyone says the Son is of a substance unlike the Father or reduces the Holy Spirit to a creature, we anathematize him and consider him close to the error of paganism." And Gregory the Theologian wrote this in his apologetic oration: GREGORY: "lest, in joining the discourse into one hypostasis because of fear of polytheism, the names be left empty for those who believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same... nor let us fall into Sabellius's delusion from this new resolution or composition."
Where then, O grammarian, did you get these things, which by nature are abominable and not even contrived by heretics, as they are the most foolish and found outside of common expressions? But you, indeed, make new decrees and assign names at your own whim, and, according to apostolic rebuke, teach otherwise and do not consent to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrines of righteousness, but are puffed up and know nothing (1 Tim 6:3–4), yet you come forward as if instructed in divine dogmas and write: GRAMMARIAN: "For that expression which says the Son is cohypostatic with the Father is in the likeness of Sabellius." Then show us where Sabellius ever said that this one hypostasis was cohypostatic. For he who says there is one hypostasis of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—how could he say it is cohypostatic with itself? These things are truly ridiculous and full of madness. And perhaps, because the profane stories which you profess to deliver to your disciples speak of such beings as figments, and because one is even named ἱππαλεκτρυών along with certain deer, you thought it permissible for you also to fabricate those as cohypostatic and to rise in the holy Church like a prelude to a comic play and command divine things to dance. And who, having any sense—not to say spiritual and lofty and exalted, but even modest and natural prudence—would not weep rather than laugh, seeing you, a stranger to these names and meanings, boldly mock sacred dogmas? Yet once more now Jeremiah will grieve with the Church and mystically lament, as if from her person, saying: "The nations have entered her sanctuary, whom you commanded not to enter your Church" (Lam 1:10), and again: "Therefore our eyes are darkened on Mount Zion, because it is laid waste; foxes have passed through it" (Lam 5:18).
For relying on these presumptions—foreign, profane, unusual, impossible, spoken by no one, contrary to the nature of things and refuted—you say: "I do not say Christ is in two hypostases, but in two natures, that is, substances, because no one has called Christ cohypostatic with the Father and with us," falsely attributing the phrase "the Son is cohypostatic with the Father" to the madness of Sabellius, not knowing what you say, as your speech shows, while claiming that the phrase "Christ is cohypostatic with us" has never been said by anyone. Why then, from things no one has ever said, do you construct principles of presumption, placing on sand an abominable foundation (Mt 7:26–27), as if you were building insecure doctrines of impiety on firm ground? We condemn you not for these impossible cohypostatic claims—whence you got them, we do not know—but because you divide the one Christ, saying that the two natures are individual and separate after the union, and again you object to holy Cyril by repeating what was objected in the second letter to Succensus, crying out with those who opposed him: "How can we not concede that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union?"—not listening to him saying: CYRIL: "The proposition again opposes those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son, and in wishing to show that such is absurd, everywhere they try to demonstrate two subsisting natures." And fleeing from correction, you hide yourself in substances, like ravenous beasts hiding in thick reeds or shady forests, of whom David the prophet sings to the God of all: "Rebuke the wild beasts of the reeds" (Ps 68:31), calling them "beasts of the reeds" who secretly and serpentine-like write with the pens of heretics, whom only the pious doctors can hunt, tame, and convert to gentleness after correction, who with the apostles hear through the voice of Jeremiah: "Behold, I will send many fishermen, says the Lord, and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks" (Jer 16:16). For you say: GRAMMARIAN: "We have learned from them to say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and God and consubstantial with us, and therefore we say he is in two natures, that is, substances." And you clearly show that from these terms, which indicate homogeneity, you constitute the one Christ as existing in two substances—each having the place of genera and comprehending many hypostases—so that you gather this absurd and impious result: namely, that the holy Trinity has been incarnate in the whole of humanity.
And to these statements—so impious, absurd, and irrational—you add this further shamelessness, equal in madness to the former, wishing to confirm it: "I do not say Christ is in two hypostases, because I cannot call Him cohypostatic with the Father, as Sabellius said, nor cohypostatic with us, which no one has said. But since the expression 'consubstantial with God and the Father' and 'consubstantial with us' is used, therefore I say He is in two natures, that is, substances." What then could anyone say to this, which advances not only with impiety but even beyond all prudence, which observes malice, and does not even maintain logical consistency? It is not mine—indeed it is not any man's—to say what fits such madness. Let Christ Himself come forward, He who gathers through the wisdom of the typical Solomon, the true and spiritual Solomon and gatherer, the pacific one—for that is what the name Solomon means in Hebrew—and let Him speak powerfully as God and say: "The lips of the fool will swallow him up; the beginning of the words of his mouth is folly, and the end of his talk is evil madness" (Eccl 10:12–13). For how could it not be error, which can be grounded nowhere, but shifts now this way, now that, with various changes in falsehood? For he who says: GRAMMARIAN: "Because we have learned to say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and God and consubstantial with us, we say He is in two natures, that is, substances," and does not add "the same" consubstantial with the Father and "the same" consubstantial with us—this too should be noted—and defines Christ as being in substances according to a general signification understood as genera—since he did not say that the one Christ subsists—but later says: "If therefore the flesh of God the Word was proper to no other, and it did not exist before the conception, how then shall I say He is in two individual hypostases, and call the one which did not subsist, nor finally existed separately, but only in God the Word, another hypostasis?"—to this it is fitting to ask him: What then? Because you say Christ is in two substances, do you say the substance of the flesh first subsisted, before conception and union with the Word? And what do you call the substance of the flesh? The human race? But God the Word did not hypostatically unite to Himself a genus, but one body endowed with soul and mind, which is homogeneous and consubstantial with the substance of men, that is, with the whole race.
But if you call that very one body, which you called proper flesh—clearly a body animated by a rational soul—"substance," using the common name of "substance" in place of hypostasis and proper designation, then just as you do not say "two hypostases" because the flesh did not subsist before assumption and union, so neither should you say "two substances," because before union with God the Word the flesh neither came to substance nor to existence, that is, did not come into being. Know therefore that by saying two substances, you are also saying two hypostases, even if you wish to conceal it. But it belongs to those who posit a subsisting flesh and shape an infant before union with God the Word, to say both two natures and two substances and two hypostases after the union, and consequently two persons and two sons and two Christs. For to natures which are separated according to duality, or to substances or hypostases each having proper subsistence, a distinct person is individually assigned—even if a person is adorned by borrowing the authority and name and equality of will—and for that reason both are called one Christ and Son. But whoever, according to the apostolic teachings of the holy Fathers, confesses the hypostatic union and acknowledges that God the Word shared with us in blood and flesh animated by a rational soul, and confesses Emmanuel as from two natures or hypostases or substances—namely from the nature of God the Word and from one flesh rationally animated, assumed from the God-bearing Virgin through the conjunction of natural union—that one rightly says one nature and one hypostasis of God the Word incarnate, and one person and one Christ and Son. For we showed above how the holy and eminent mystagogues of the Church have often called the hypostasis of God the Word also "substance," and again have called the flesh endowed with soul and mind and born of Mary, which He united to Himself by true union, both substance and hypostasis. And again we showed all the doctrines of the eminent Fathers, who accept the hypostatic union and separate in contemplation only the elements from which Christ is, and acknowledge their difference, because they are united without confusion or diminution. Since the notions of union do not indicate two natures—for those things which do not subsist in their own subsistence nor in divided individualities, but are seen in composition and resolve into one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God—how could one count or speak of them as two? Therefore in all things, careful inquiry and discussion show that in what you have impiously written, Grammarian, you mention the hypostatic union only as an illusion, but deny the one who is constituted from it, insofar as these two things, which appear through separation in contemplation, are after the conception of union no longer two, but both subsist as one, according to the voice of the wise Cyril.
CHAPTER—THIRTY-FOUR
The lie is the word of the impious Grammarian who claims that he has not been refuted or contradicted in Theodoret, who confesses two natures in the one Christ after the ineffable union, because Saint Cyril, as he says, kept silence about the naming of the duality of natures.
But since you entirely favor the opponents and love duality—the offspring of their pseudonymous and habitual union—and attack Cyril, the teacher of the true faith (which you pretend to have adopted under a false identity), flattering everyone with splendid words, while assisting Theodoret, the hater of Cyril and enemy of truth, you confessed this when you added these flattering words to the blasphemous ones you wrote: GRAMMATICUS: "Who persuaded him? He was building a defense for Theodoret's reproaches and, as if in a kind of wrestling arena, sought holds to seize the opponent. When the latter gave rise to suspicion of the accusation of the error of two persons, Cyril reproved and kindly dissuaded him; but when Theodoret named two natures, Cyril was silent and agreed, having nothing to say. For one must not say that Cyril was a man of few words or unwilling to strike back at one who had hurled weapons at him; he prepared for both, burning with zeal for the faith; but he hated only one thing—vainly slandering like you do, and overturning what he had built." You have well and more than well staged a contest and, as if trainers, you have brought into the arena the excellent Cyril—mighty in piety, anointed by the Holy Spirit, and trained from his infancy—and Theodoret, untrained in the fight for piety, suffering in impiety and cast down; and you even intervene in their battle, you, the unjust and impious judge, and say: "When Theodoret named two natures, Saint Cyril was silent and agreed." Therefore, according to your judgment, when the impious Theodoret said that the one Christ had two natures, he found the wise Cyril silent and agreeing—then he spoke laudably; but if Cyril had contradicted him, he would not have.
Yet to him who spoke laudably of two natures—against which Cyril had nothing to say, though he had plenty to say if he had wished to oppose—clearly and without controversy, you adhere to the laudable side. For how could one avoid those whom he praises? So let us hear those praiseworthy words we quoted above, which are found in the refutation of the third chapter or anathema: THEODORET: "To confess one person and one Son and Christ is indeed pious; but to say two hypostases or natures united is not absurd, but consistent with the cause." And he who had said it was pious to confess one Son and Christ, one person in two natures and hypostases, immediately turned the very natures into two persons, namely, into God, older than the ages, and the man assumed at the end of days, by writing: THEODORET: "How does he attribute impiety to those who distinguish the properties of the natures—of God, who exists before the ages, and of the man assumed at the end of days—he who teaches mixture by other names?" But the recognition of two natures, God existing before the ages and man assumed at the end of days, is the division of one Christ and Son and Lord into two Sons, as the wise Cyril wrote—whom Theodoret accused of mixture, and whom you, O Grammarian, claimed to have remained silent—defending the anathema thus: CYRIL: "Therefore, diligently investigating in the same way the union that is understood to have occurred in Christ, we say that it was truly made, in contemplation, according to the union of divinity and humanity, not ignorant that the Word of God, according to nature, is something else beyond the flesh, and that the flesh, according to its own nature, is again something else beyond Him." (cf. Jn 1:1,14; Phil 2:6–8). Once united, it is not safe to separate, nor again to divide the one Christ and Son and Lord into two sons, as reason, aligned with righteousness and the divinely inspired Holy Scripture, does not permit us (cf. Gal 3:16). But the one who boasts in lies and expertly arranges slanders, having little grasp of the truth of doctrine and despising knowledge of both what is beneficial and what is harmful, let him hear from us: "Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? Your tongue plots destruction like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit" (Ps 52:1–2).
Does he seem to you to have been silent, he who wrote against the one who said, THEODORET: "To say two hypostases or natures is not absurd, but consistent with the cause," and converted those natures into persons by saying: "How does he attribute impiety to those who distinguish the properties of the natures, of God who is before the ages, and of the man assumed at the end of days?" Does he, who clearly showed that this man of great impiety, through the duplicity of natures, divided the one Christ into two sons, seem to you to have said nothing about the natures? Theodoret, in his rebuttal of the first anathema, appears not to speak of two sons or two persons in those words, but instead clearly says: "To confess one person and one Son and Christ is pious." So then, shall we say he was falsely accused by Saint Cyril, who charged him with dividing into two sons? Listen then to this: CYRIL: "He has altogether little regard for the reasoning of true doctrine." He was not falsely accused, for in the entire rebuttal—that is, in his opposing speech—he blasphemously converted the two natures into God who assumed and the man who was assumed. At one point, against Saint Cyril, he says (beyond what has already been quoted): THEODORET: "How then does he say the hypostases or natures ought not to be divided?" and again says it is pious "to recognize all the more the properties of the natures of God who assumed and of man who was assumed." Yet, in the defense against the rebuttal of the tenth anathema, we find Cyril—whom you, Grammarian, claim was silent about the naming of the natures and had nothing to say—rising and saying that Theodoret is a sharply drawn image and likeness of the noxious Nestorius, since he calls the human nature, with deceptive speech, a distinct person and another Christ: CYRIL: "The excellent imitator of that execrable Nestorius, I say Theodoret, was not ashamed to say that the Word assumed human nature and set it above ordinary high priests, as Paul says: 'Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God... because he himself is beset with weakness; and so he must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people'" (Heb 5:1–3). Has not Theodoret, according to his view, made Emmanuel into a mere man like any other? Do not his statements resemble those we have just cited and bring forth equal blasphemy? Tell me, do you fear the priesthood of Christ our Savior?
And do you deem it inappropriate for the Word of God to perform priestly functions as a man, because of the economy? Then cast off your masked person and deny the incarnation of the Word without fear (cf. Jn 1:14; Phil 2:6–8). Is this how Saint Cyril honored Theodoret's mention of two natures—with silence? Is this the uncontroversial agreement and contention-free consent? Is this the lack of rebuttal, having nothing to say? Yet, let us grant, as you say, that this was so—that he was silent when the two natures were mentioned, he who cried out and reproached and did not cease to shout loudly in writing. Let us also grant that Theodoret spoke excellently on the two natures in his rebuttals to the chapters, saying: "How then does he say the hypostases or natures ought not to be divided?" and again: "To say two hypostases or natures united is not absurd, but consistent with the cause"; and again: "How does he attribute impiety to those who distinguish the properties of the natures, of God existing before the ages and of the man assumed at the end of days, he who teaches mixture under other names?" Yet you, while boldly agreeing with him who has spoken well, him who was not [contradicted] by Saint Cyril, him who [in all his rebuttals to the chapters] plainly declared that Christ exists in two natures and hypostases, why do you then bring in impiety by saying: GRAMMATICUS: "We say that Christ is in two natures or substances"; and again: "We say that Christ is in two substances, but we avoid saying he is in two hypostases distinctly marked"? How do you judge the struggle of this man, victorious and crowned, as something to flee, and pretending to use syllogisms, you write thus: "If therefore the flesh was not the proper flesh of the Word of God, and it did not exist before the assumption, how shall I say there are two proper hypostases and call that flesh another hypostasis, which neither existed separately nor had any existence at all but always subsisted in the Word of God"? So you fail to notice that you say this against the one who rightly confessed Christ to be in two natures?
Against the one who won, you raise disputes, while you yourself flee the battle; against him who triumphed in the contest over two natures—indeed was crowned—you speak, and against the wise Cyril, with an indisputable verdict: namely, Cyril's own "silence." Consider, I ask, how Theodoret first posits flesh before its union with the Word and forms the infant, assuming from this the deduction of two natures and hypostases and thus two persons—God and man—separately and properly; indeed, in his refutation of the first chapter or anathematism, reproaching as usual the idea of change and using as his basis the refusal to believe that God the Word began to be from Mary what He is—namely God—he wrote thus: THEODORET: "It is clear then from what has been said that the form of God was not changed into the form of a servant, but remaining what it was, it assumed the form of a servant. If therefore the Word of God did not become flesh, but assumed living flesh endowed with reason, then He who is before the ages, who is God, and is with God, and is adored and known with the Father, was not conceived, born, formed, or shaped from the Virgin according to nature, nor did He begin to exist from then; rather, after having formed for Himself a temple in the Virgin's womb, He was with the one formed and conceived and born. Therefore we also call the holy Virgin Theotokos, not as if she gave birth to God according to nature, but to man united to God, who had formed him." AND SHORTLY AFTER: "We call the Virgin not only mother of man but also mother of God, attributing the former title to the forming and shaping, the latter to the union." Here are the dreadful seeds of two natures: namely, a temple being formed, shaped, and born in the Virgin's womb, while the Word of God is alien to the conception according to the flesh, formation, and birth. For "we call," he says, "the Virgin mother of man and mother of God, assigning the former to the forming, the latter to the union." Thus the forming and shaping of the temple are divided, and then follows the union, which is merely indwelling; hence, even the names are divided, "mother of man" for the forming and shaping, and "mother of God" for the union: THEODORET: "We call the holy Virgin mother of God not as if she gave birth to God according to nature, but to man united to God, who had formed him."
For this reason, this God-hating and impure blasphemer dared to speak against the voice of John the Evangelist and Theologian, saying, "If therefore the Word of God did not become flesh," although he might have said, "If the Word was not changed into flesh," which is the claim he falsely attributes to Cyril, yet he did not add this, but instead advanced it to support his own blasphemy, revealing his refusal to confess the truth of the Gospel, namely, that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jh 1:14), nor did he learn to say with Paul, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16), instead preaching another Jesus than the apostles did, a man formed and shaped, and thus united to God who formed him. This Nestorius also had written in the sermon titled "On the saying: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a wedding feast for his son and sent his servants to call those invited to the feast' and on the divine incarnation," beginning: "And the trumpet of the Gospel reading is both terrifying and joyful," and said: NESTORIUS: "Just as the clear voice which the Angel said—'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you' (Lk 1:28)—with your childbirth, O Virgin, God is with you, but He is not the offspring of your childbirth; with your childbirth, He is not Himself formed. So how shall I change the Angel's voice and say: 'The Lord from you,' instead of: 'The Lord with you'?" But in opposition to these foolish, absurd, and Jewish statements, the apostolic teachers of the whole Church under heaven believed and taught otherwise. For Peter, bishop of Alexandria and holy martyr of Christ, in his book "On the Divinity"—which we previously recalled—wrote: PETER: "Therefore the evangelist affirms the truth saying: 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us' (Jh 1:14), surely from when the angel greeted the Virgin and said: 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you' (Lk 1:28). For the phrase 'the Lord is with you' now heard from Gabriel is as though to say 'God the Word is with you'; for this means both to be conceived in the womb and to become flesh, as it is written: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one born from you will be called holy, the Son of God' (Lk 1:35)." AND AGAIN, AFTER OTHER THINGS: "But God the Word, with no man present, became flesh in the Virgin's womb through the power of God who can do all things, without needing a man's action or presence.
Rather, the power of God accomplished more than any man's action, overshadowing the Virgin with the Holy Spirit who came." Gregory the Theologian also wrote similarly in his letter to Cledonius: GREGORY: "If anyone says that a man was formed and that God later dwelt in him, let him be anathema. For this is not God's generation, but a fleeing from generation." Therefore, when impious Theodoret, O Grammarian, first posits and forms the flesh, then says "a man united to God who formed him," and says: "How then does he say that hypostases or natures should not be divided?", and: "It is not absurd to speak of two hypostases or natures united, but consistent with reason," and: "How does he accuse of impiety those who distinguish the properties of the natures, of God existing before the ages and of man assumed at the end of days?", and: "The Word assumed human nature and set it above the common priests,"—and since you have declared and said that Theodoret, in the refutations of the chapters, spoke irreproachably about the two natures, so that even Saint Cyril, according to your lamentable fables, remained silent and agreed, and had nothing to say—clearly you are shown to be a follower of Theodoret, who spoke commendably of the two natures. For how could you oppose him to whom wise Cyril remained silent and had nothing to say? Thus, just as he, you confess "two natures and hypostases united" according to a deceptive union that divides through duplicity, and your perverse cunning amounts to nothing, by which you say: GRAMMARIAN: "We say Christ is in two natures, that is, substances," and again: "We say Christ is in two substances, but we avoid saying he is in two distinct hypostases," and again: "If therefore the flesh was not the proper possession of the Word of God, and did not exist before conception, how shall I say it was in two proper hypostases, and call that flesh another hypostasis, which neither subsisted separately nor in any way existed, but always subsisted in the Word of God?" Even if you pretend causes for these statements, you will never appear orthodox. Nor is there any need to ask whether you are on our side or among the adversaries: you are entirely of the adversaries, even if you imitate the changes of Euripus, wishing now to appear one thing, now another, by changing your words. For you, indeed, pretexting causes, as I said, ask: GRAMMARIAN: "How can I say in two hypostases?"; but Theodoret answers you: THEODORET: "It is not absurd to say two hypostases or natures united, but according to reason," and boldly attacks wise Cyril: "How then does he say hypostases or natures should not be divided?", namely Cyril, who, as you yourself testify, "was kind and, when Theodoret named two natures, remained silent and agreed and had nothing to say."
CHAPTER—THIRTY-FIVE
The wise Cyril refutes Theodoret for changing natures into persons under the name of "forms."
However, if you are pleased, let us most thoroughly and completely examine the silence of Cyril, which seemed to you to be gracious. For when he used the name "form" in place of "nature" concerning the divine incarnation, writing to the most pious queens, he said: CYRIL: "Therefore, the Word was made flesh, not as formerly, bare and without flesh, as it was in the beginning, but in a form and nature like ours." Let us see whether Theodoret, under the name "form," again calls "natures" persons, in what he wrote in the refutations of the anathematisms or chapters. Thus, in the refutation of the fourth chapter, he speaks these blasphemies: THEODORET: "But if truth does not lie, nor did the Word of God flee from the day which He Himself made and determined, in which He will judge the world, but possesses the knowledge of the Father as the unchangeable image: then ignorance is not of the Word of God, but of the form of a servant, who knew so much at each time as the indwelling divinity revealed." And again: "Therefore, those things said and done in a divine manner, we ascribe to God; but the things said and done humbly, we attribute to the form of a servant, lest we fall into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius." But let us show how Cyril, in defending against this refutation, honored these statements not with silence of consent, nor with lack of a contrary word: CYRIL: "Therefore, all things belong to the one Christ, both the divine and the human. For if the Word, which is from God the Father, did not become man, let Him not speak humanly as we do.
But if it is true that He partook of blood and flesh like us and was made like His brothers in all things (cf. Heb 2:14,17), why do they foolishly object to the wise plan of salvation, unable to bear a human voice, and try to refer what is humble in His words, because of the dispensation, to another distinct Son, to the form of a servant, as they say? It is altogether foolish to pretend to fear the ravings of heretics, and yet by their own reasoning to depart from the tradition of the true faith. Rather, I would say it is better and more learned to ascribe human expressions not to another person, understood properly and separately as the Son, to the form of a servant, as they are accustomed to say, but rather to the measures of His humanity. For since He is both God and man, it was fitting for Him to speak both ways." AND LATER: "Whoever claims that revelation was given to the form of a servant by the indwelling God, and that it was measured, presents to us a prophet Emmanuel and a god-bearing man, and nothing more. Yet he imagines he says something wise and invincible. For if it was the Word of God who cried out: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me' (Mt 26:39), then at first He disagrees with the Father, and improperly refuses to drink the cup, even though, they say, He knew His passion would bring salvation to the world. Therefore, they say, these words are not from the Word. So, he who swims in such abominable thoughts will also hear from us: Since it seems to you that such words must be removed from the Word of God and adapted only to the form of a servant, do you not once again divide the one Son into two, and who among the rightly believing is unaware of this?" Yet with these things brought forward, I wish to turn and direct my speech to the holy Cyril himself, — and may the divine and sacred soul of the Doctor allow it and make God favorable to us —: What are you doing, O wisest of all the Church's teachers throughout the world? Why do you deny natures and forms? Why do you expose the duality of sons and of christs? Why do you harshly accuse him who laudably preaches two natures and forms, and say that "he presents to us a prophet Emmanuel and a god-bearing man and nothing more"? Hold back your accusation, if it pleases you; do not turn aside from the judgment and crowns and wondrous honors of the Grammarian. You are among the candid silent ones: I greatly fear that now you are being reckoned with the scoffers, slanderers, and those who destroy what they once built.
CHAPTER—THIRTY-SIX
That through these things, by which this impious man maliciously praised Theodoret for his opinion on two natures or two forms, he did not conceal his support for the defense of Leo's Tome, which likewise divides the one Christ into forms and natures through the following blasphemy.
Indeed, it is not unrelated that the Grammarian, who crowned you with the crowns of silence—that is, of failure, which confesses defeat—also crowned Theodoret with the crowns of an excellent and unwavering opinion about the two natures and forms, while he also prefaced and established this same opinion and praise in the impious Tome of Leo, which the Council of Chalcedon declared in agreement with the confession of the Apostle Peter and called a pillar of orthodoxy. And it is easy to see that Leo's words are not different from the things just cited from Theodoret, as these words of Leo show: LEO: "For each of the forms performs with the participation of the other what is proper to itself, the Word indeed doing what pertains to the Word, and the body accomplishing what pertains to the body; and the one indeed shines with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." And again: "It is not of the same nature to say, 'I and the Father are one' (Jn 10:30), and to say, 'The Father is greater than I' (Jn 14:28)."