[FIRST PART OF THE THIRD ORATION]
[THIRD ORATION]
CHAPTER—ONE
........................... he fell ill, says the inspired Scripture; and he heard God, at one moment rejecting him with these words of Isaiah, inspired by the Spirit to write for our instruction: "You said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne" (Is 14:13); and again with these words of Ezekiel saying: "Your heart was lifted up in your strength, and from the day you were created, I placed you with the Cherub on the holy mountain of God; you were in the midst of the stones of fire; you were without blemish in your days from the day you were created, until iniquity was found in you" (Ez 28:14–15). Looking toward that aforementioned tribe, even the prophet Hosea declares, saying: "Ephraim is a trained heifer that loved to thresh" (Hos 10:11); and again: "But Ephraim, an evil spirit, chased the wind; all day he multiplied vanities and emptiness" (Hos 12:1).
For it is also written in the book of Judges that when Gideon had conquered and by force subdued the Midianites, a barbarian people who had oppressed Israel for seven full years, the sons of Ephraim, coming at the end of the victory, captured the fleeing leaders of the barbarians, and afterward quarreled with [Gideon], who had won, saying: "What is this word you have done to us, that you would not call us when you went to fight the Midianites?" And they challenged him vehemently with strife. And he said to them: "What have I done now like you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer? Into your hands God delivered the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb—what was I able to do like you?" Then he appeased their spirit toward him when he had spoken this word (Jgs 8:1–3). And the wisdom of the leader and prince of the people and judge extinguished the spark of civil war, which had begun to flare up from the shameless boastfulness of those men, by a humble spirit.
For he said of himself and those who had taken up arms with him that they had indeed harvested many clusters of battle against the barbarians, but he confessed himself to have been overcome by the final cluster of Ephraim, which had seized and held the princes of Midian. Thus, mad pride is easily deceived and swells with the multitude of praises and external show and glory given by many. For who will ever consider a single cluster superior to all the bunches which, while the vintager gathers with a generous and diligent hand, he fills the winepresses and makes the jars overflow with wine, and fills pitchers with drinkable, sweet, abundant, and health-giving wine? Therefore, these proud ones, too, whom deceit ensnared, were likened to a single cluster but thought they held superiority, and believed that he who by this cry "has harvested" had managed things less successfully than they themselves. Nor did they even grasp the difference in the very names of bunch and cluster, and they came to a consciousness of their own smallness. Thus, a little [boy], who thinks high thoughts: when a certain warrior man playfully ............ to him lofty things, but because the thought of great things ................, he becomes prouder and more stubborn, and he needs someone to strike his head .... so that he may recover from the passion.
Again, men from the tribe of Ephraim rose up against Jephthah, who had conquered .......... the Ammonites, who had subjected the sons of Israel for eighteen years, with the same pride ..................., and they said—when it would have suited them to rejoice with him for the victory: "Why did you go to fight the sons of Ammon and did not call us to go with you? We will burn your house over you with fire" (Jgs 12:1). And when Jephthah rebuked their vanity with fitting words and showed that they acquired a faint-hearted and unwarriorlike pride, and that they had remained quiet during the enemy's attack, and did not even want to be called upon for help ...........
with his fellow citizens, but only labored with envy over the victories of others; when they could not be induced by him to remain quiet, henceforth he did not instruct them to do this, but, with the armed men of his own tribe, the men of the land of Gilead, he attacked these arrogant ones, and committed many slaughters and put the survivors to flight; moreover, by occupying the fords of the Jordan, he cut off their escape, so that the Ephraimites themselves, foolishly ........... after so great a disaster ............ now denied that they were from the tribe of Ephraim. But the men of Gilead, refuting their denial, demanded that they provide a sign or some indication to show that they were not from the tribe of Ephraim; and since they could not respond fittingly to the request, they were confuted. But it is good also to hear the very word of the inspired Scripture itself, which goes like this: "And the men of Gilead seized the fords of the Jordan before Ephraim. And it happened that when the survivors of Ephraim said, 'Let us cross,' the men of Gilead said to them, 'Are you from Ephraim?' And they said, 'We are not.' And they said to them, 'Say Shibboleth.' And they were not able to pronounce it correctly. Then they seized them and killed them at the fords of the Jordan. And there fell at that time from Ephraim forty-two thousand" (Jgs 12:5–6).
Thus, just as the tribe of Ephraim—breathing contempt and base boasting, and plotting against victory of righteous faith—rose in envy, and by duplicity of natures after the ineffable union wickedly dissected the one Lord and God Jesus Christ, denies that he assents to the desires of Nestorius, claiming that he confesses two natures united and that it is the same to say both two natures indivisible and one incarnate nature; and by this he attempts, like the men of the tribe of Ephraim, to cross the Jordan under a false guise and be counted among the orthodox. But the Jordan is inaccessible and impassable to those who wear a false persona and lack the spirit of truth. Behold, holy Cyril, intercepting its fords, asks the deceitful and lying one, who flees from correction of impiety and wears only a deceptive person of piety, according to the words brought forth from divine Scripture: Say śeblē, and he cannot speak thus. For how will the assertion two φύσεις ἀδιάῑρατοι coexist with that confession μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη? Indeed, in the second letter to Succensus, after Cyril laid forth the rhetorical device which objectionably opposes and questions: RETORSIO HAERETICA: "How shall we not allow two natures to subsist after the union indivisibly?" Cyril responds: "Again, this retort opposes those who say that one nature of the Son is incarnate; and foolishly seeking to show that, they contend everywhere to demonstrate two subsisting natures!" That and the impious Nestorius we have previously cited saying: NESTORIUS: "I, that is, the person of the Church, speak the same to all, calling Christ perfect God and perfect man, not with mingled natures but united."
Therefore, since the Grammarian was unequal when he said śeblē, and his speech was not whole as the word of orthodoxy desires, in the fords of the Jordan, before he crossed, the spirit of Cyril killed him. And again, shamelessly, he uses the same hypocrisy, saying: "I am not a follower of Nestorius," just as those Ephraimites after defeat said falsely they were not of the tribe of Ephraim. He says: "I confess Christ in δύο φύσεις ἀδιαιρέτοις," that is, in two natures united according to generic notion and common signification, lest I be caught speaking the very words of Nestorius, nor should I be prevented from crossing the Jordan. Again, when asked by wise Cyril the same petition: Say śeblē, since he cannot speak thus, Cyril, handing over the sound word, teaches: not from essences under common signification, which include many hypostases, is Emmanuel, but from one hypostasis, namely of the Word of God, and flesh, indeed animated with rational soul, which flesh is also from Mary and subsists in that very union to the Word of God, and unconfused and indivisibly made perfect one Christ, one Lord, one hypostasis and nature—namely of the Word, incarnate and ineffably made man; for not the essence of divinity under the common signification, which is the Holy Trinity, is incarnate by union with the species or entire genus of humanity: for this is the greatest impiety and madness. Outside the waters of the Jordan stands the Grammarian, in no way able to cross, because he lacks the faculty to say śeblē and to find the word of response from correct statements; he calls down upon himself, by his impotence in speech, the slaughter into which he thrusts himself, standing in the fords of the Jordan, that shore blocking the polluted words of Cyril, a zealot like Phinehas holding the priestly spear, and promptly repelling him among the adulterers. And clearly, against the essences under common signification, manufactured by the Grammarian, Cyril wrote, in chapter three, when he wrote to Nestorius, these words: CYRILLUS: "Whoever divides hypostases in one Christ after the union, and only joins them by a conjunction that is by dignity or power, not rather by union that is natural—let him be anathema!"
Having thus slain him, he again moves to another mode of speaking under pretence, and says he confesses the hypostatic union, the perfection of which is to confess μίαν φύσιν του Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην and yet embraces the offspring of the union according to love and goodwill, as they say who practice in Judaism, namely the duality of natures. And again, he is stripped and cannot say śeblē; the spiritual waters of the Jordan rise up high, and his bosom does not expand while trying under pretence to cross, but they stir up a tempest, threatening him with sinking and ultimate thrusting down if ever he dares to proceed. Meanwhile, the exceptional Cyril stands on the banks of the river and casts him into a new death, crying out: CYRILLUS: "But after the union, since the severance into two has now been removed, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, the true inhumanated and incarnate one." And elsewhere: "Therefore, those two natures are no longer two, but each of the two is resolved into one animal."
Moreover, he dared to say that when the impious Theodoret, in his refutations of the chapters, had made mention of two natures well and undeniably, holy Cyril remained silent and consented and had nothing to say. Theodoret indeed impiously cried out: THEODORET: "We utterly ignore hypostatic union, as something foreign and alien to divine Scriptures and to the Fathers who expounded them." Cyril, wise and prudent doctor, cried out more clearly than any trumpet and rebuked the falsehood chosen before hypostatic, natural, and true union, accusing it of lying, saying this: CYRILLUS: "He emptied himself, not involuntarily, but the Only-Begotten willingly became man—not, as you say, assuming man, granting him a habitual conjunction, and crowning him by the grace of adoption of sons like us. Therefore, although we understand unity to be of the hypostasis, and we say the Word to be made man and incarnate, and natural union may seem to us to be, rather than the true union, a habitual one which rejects union that we acquire through faith and sanctification—for we also have become sharers of the divine nature, and as Paul said: 'He who abides in the Lord is one spirit,' yet He does not subject to these necessities and natural commands the impassible and free Word of God." But it would be long and moreover superfluous to recite the doctrines polluted by this relative which have been refuted in earlier disputations; with which the Grammarian, clad in the persona of piety and advocate of Theodoret, dared to cross the Jordan—worthy indeed that he, like the one who sat by the rivers of Babylon, should read the wretched and unclean book of his abominable doctrine.
CHAPTER—TWO
Refutation of the impious one who claimed, by a certain false opinion, that the Easterners were separated from Saint Cyril and from the holy synod of Ephesus.
Nevertheless, it is fitting that we also examine the other things uttered by him and add them now to those already investigated. When all matters concerning the infamous Nestorius were examined in the city of Ephesus, the holy synod of venerable bishops, having scrutinised his blasphemies and found them clearly opposed to divine Scripture, rejected them and rightly condemned him, the assailant of God, with the sentence of deposition. At that time, only the bishops of the East separated themselves from the unity of all and offered aid to the impious one, miserably and irreligiously infected with the itch for his base opinions—except for one or two who were sound in mind but largely carried along by the leaders of the East. They were so devoted to evil and so puffed up with pride that they placed themselves in the opposing camp and even proposed in Ephesus a document pronouncing a sentence of deposition against the venerable Cyril and the God-loving Memnon, while calling the universal synod heretical and unlawfully issuing a decree of excommunication against it, boldly and contrary to every ecclesiastical law. They were the ones guilty of the crime while fleeing it, who, on the predetermined day on which they were to assemble, were the last to arrive among the holy bishops gathered from all sides, evidently showing malicious intent and attempting through delay to contrive a way to rescue Nestorius from the sentence that condemned him.
But lest it be thought that I invented this myself, I will present the very document of those who dared such mad audacity. From the libel of impious accusation which the Eastern bishops proposed at Ephesus: "The holy synod assembled at Ephesus by the grace of God, according to the decrees of the pious and Christ-loving emperors, declares what is written below.
We indeed desired that the synod proceed peacefully according to the canons of the holy Fathers and the decrees of the pious emperors. But since you, indulging heretical thought, held a session by yourselves—although we were already nearby as the imperial documents show—and filled the city and holy synod with confusion, and did not examine the chapters concordant with the impiety of Apollinaris, Arius, and Eunomius, nor awaited the arrival of the bishops summoned from all directions by the pious emperors—and although the noble Count Candidianus forbade such actions both in writing and orally and ordered that you await the general gathering of all the holy bishops—therefore, know that you are deposed and removed from the episcopate, you, Cyril of Alexandria, and you, Memnon, bishop of this city, and excluded from every ecclesiastical ministry as authors and leaders of all this disturbance and injustice, because through you the canons of the Fathers and the commands of the emperors were disregarded. And all others who agreed with them in acting disorderly and unjustly against the canons and imperial commands are excluded from communion until, acknowledging your offenses, you repent and accept the faith of our holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, adding nothing foreign to it and anathematizing the heretical chapters written by Cyril of Alexandria which oppose the apostolic doctrine of the gospel and obey the decree of the pious and Christ-loving emperors commanding that matters concerning the faith be examined peacefully and carefully (Prv 22:28)."
Similar foolish and impious things they also dared to write to the pious emperor Theodosius, from whose impudent document I will quote a portion for inquiry: From the same Eastern bishops' shameless libel sent to Emperor Theodosius: "Thus it is necessary for us also to render an account to your Majesty regarding what we were compelled to reject and condemn in the city of Ephesus—those who from the beginning trampled your commands underfoot and, disturbed in conscience, sought to confirm and renew the doctrines of Apollinaris and Arius through the chapters with anathemas once sent from the bishop of Alexandria to the imperial city."
With such lustful tyranny and impiety, they dragged the East away, dividing, as far as was in them, the indivisible body of the Church, just as they also divide, by doctrines resembling Judaism, our one Lord and God Jesus Christ. Later, when Nestorius was sent into exile and the pious emperor had agreed to his deposition pronounced by the holy and universal synod, and Saint Maximian had lawfully obtained the throne of the Constantinopolitan episcopate by divine and heavenly will, and some time had passed, and those who governed the churches of the East at that time still remained in impiety, the noble tribune and notary Aristolaus was sent by imperial concern and piety to establish peace and unite those who had been madly separated against all priestly reasoning and order. So entangled were they in Nestorius' unclean doctrines that they neither wished to subscribe to his deposition nor to accept the installation and ordination of Saint Maximian, bishop of the royal city, and wickedly raised the same questions to invalidate all the chapters and writings inspiredly composed by Saint Cyril against Nestorius—in other words, to nullify every pious word that dispersed Nestorius' perverse teaching, and to prevent us from confessing that God is truly Emmanuel, the Word of God immutably and not in appearance incarnate and made man, and that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, for this is the first of Cyril's chapters, which are perfectly pure with exact diligence. For they, through the chaste Acacius, bishop of Beroea, requested of Saint Cyril thus: Impious address of the Eastern bishops to Saint Cyril and his companions: "Thus, with all matters raised and proceeding from both sides—before, during, and after the synod of Ephesus, whether by letters, libels, or anathemas—completely abolished, and with only the faith expounded by the holy Fathers at the holy and universal synod of Nicaea remaining, as that which perfectly encompasses the economy of the Lord in the flesh, we will all assent."
10 In the final letter, Acacius also writes the same in the manner of a joint exposition from all the Eastern bishops: "For full persuasion and agreement of both parties, it has pleased us to include in our letter this request for the instruction of your Piety. We assent to the faith of those holy Fathers who gathered at Nicaea, as containing the evangelical and apostolic doctrine and needing no addition. Its meaning is also clearly shown by the holy and blessed Athanasius, bishop of the city of the Alexandrians and confessor, in his letter to the God-loving and blessed Epictetus, bishop of Corinth. We also assent to that, as accurately interpreting the aforementioned faith. But the doctrines recently introduced, whether by writings or by chapters, as disturbing what is common, we reject, since the ancient rule of the Fathers suffices for us, and we obey Him who said, 'Do not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set' (Prv 22:28)."
Therefore, to these things the wise stabilizer of the churches and steward of the mysteries of God, Cyril, responding to Acacius, wrote as follows: Cyril: "Therefore, although there are many and very evil things that have been done against us by them, and every form of cruelty has been attempted, yet, considering what is pleasing to God and acceptable to the pious and Christ-loving emperor, and what is profitable to the churches, and also holding your Holiness's admonitions as worthy of all reverence, we rightly forgive, as to our brothers, the things that have been done against us; we rather seek what seems good and right to all. Moreover, the most pious and Christ-loving emperor himself desires that they agree to the deposition of Nestorius, anathematising his blasphemies and defiled doctrines. And nothing further remains to prevent the removal of the schism; for the churches will receive one another, Christ granting His peace to them." And after other things: "The power of the chapters fights only against the doctrines of Nestorius, for it casts out what he wrongly said and thought.
But those who anathematise and deny his madness will cease to reproach us; for they will see that the statements delivered in the chapters are opposed solely to his blasphemies." And again, after a few words: "As for those who say that what we have written against the defiled doctrines of Nestorius should be rejected, no one will agree. For they clearly want to render us mute, buying the silence of all at the price of his blasphemies. Or perhaps they think they can persuade us to adopt his views if we deny our own, which are right and pure and fight against his vain words. But if some among them, as they please, detract from certain things, turning to incongruous opinions, let them know that they alone, apart from all the most pious bishops in the world, are found acting in this way. For all have agreed and do agree with what we have written, as being rightly held and spoken, even though they are the most diligent examiners of divine doctrines."
Therefore, when such empty petitions and weak weapons had fallen and been cast down, deflected and repelled by the shield of the Mighty One, and this madness had turned to foam, they ceased to demand what is contrary to sound faith and overturns the walls of Jerusalem, that is, the writings of Saint Cyril, which shut the unclean mouth of Nestorius. Indeed, they anathematized the enemy of God together with his impious doctrines, subscribed to his deposition, and confessed the holy Virgin to be Theotokos, not adding also that she should be called anthropotokos, as pleased Nestorius and Theodoret; they proclaimed one Emmanuel, the same God and man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us the same according to humanity, without in any way speaking of filiation according to homonymy or of a union by dignity; and they declared one Christ, using a strategy in this. And when the vain words of Nestorius had been altogether rejected with anathema, and the sacred and mocking writings composed against them remained firm, Saint Cyril ran to union with them and to the bond of communion, counting as nothing the harsher words of their confession; indeed, through the things he replied and wrote in various ways, he healed them, as the very consideration of the facts clearly shows.
But the Grammarian, ignorant of divine matters, just as if nothing at all had come between the schismatic Easterners and the holy synod of Ephesus and Saint Cyril, turned his foolish back on all these proofs of truth, as one of the prophets said, and turned his face and shamelessly fixed it on falsehood alone. He dared to write these things: Grammarian: "For the greatest thing, and the one upon which all cleverness of words becomes useless: when the Easterners had been separated by a certain false opinion, God, who joins the separated, brought those who held the same opinion to concord." Tell me, are all these things a fictitious opinion, which by all these written testimonies show how the Easterners fought for the impiety of Nestorius, what petitions they made and promises they gave? They wished to overwhelm the writings of Saint Cyril with malice and bury them in the rock of silence, indeed to undermine the foundations of the Church and utterly overthrow them and cast down all its fortifications to the ground. But what your lack of learning brings forth is neither more persuasive nor stronger than written testimonies, you who ignorantly assert whatever you please. But because the separation was not a fictitious opinion, as you said, after their inventions were reduced to nothing and all their impious petitions turned back on their own heads, then he received them into communion.
And when he wrote to John, bishop of the city of the Antiochenes, he began with these words of joy for the union of those who had been deprived of soundness and estranged: Cyril: "Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth exult (Ps 96:11). For the middle wall has been broken down and that which brought sadness has ceased, and every kind of dissension has been removed, Christ the Savior of us all granting peace to His Church."
But let us hear him himself asserting the very things for which he rejoiced and was glad, many and great things having been corrected. For he wrote these things to Valerian, bishop of Iconium: Cyril: "But since I find that certain foolish people are going around saying that the vain talk of Nestorius has prevailed among all the most pious bishops of the East, and that it seems to them to be rightly held, and that I have judged it right to adhere to him, it is necessary that I show this also as something different. For all the most pious bishops in the East, together with my lord the most pious bishop John of the city of the Antiochenes, have clearly shown in writing and public confession that they condemn and anathematize all the defiled and vain words of Nestorius with us, and that they never accepted them in any place, but rather adhere to the evangelical and apostolic doctrines, and in no way disturb the confession of the Fathers. For they also confessed with us that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, nor did they add Christotokos or anthropotokos, as those say who support the lamentable and detestable opinions of Nestorius. They also plainly declared that Christ is one and the Son and Lord, the Word of God begotten ineffably from God the Father before the ages, and in the last times the same born from a woman according to the flesh, so that the same is both God and man, perfect in divinity, perfect also in humanity, and they believe His person to be one, in no way dividing Him into two sons or Christs or Lords."
These are the things for which, when he wrote to John and the other bishops of the East, he brought forth those words of thanksgiving from the beginning: Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth exult (Ps 96:11). Moreover, he added also these other words: Cyril: "And since we have found that we feel the same, for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5), we glorified our Savior God, congratulating one another that in our churches and yours a faith is held that is in harmony with the inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers."
CHAPTER—THREE
The Grammarian lies in the same way when he says that Saint Cyril acknowledged as his own the words he included from the apology of the Orientals. The proof of this claim is that even those things which had been imperfectly stated by them were corrected by this Doctor, when he presented them, writing in response that union is to be proclaimed from two natures—a formula which Nestorius and the Chalcedonians opposed, choosing instead the formula "in two natures." The letter to Acacius is contrary to this and in no way agrees with the Chalcedonians, as that ignorant man falsely claimed.
But the Grammarian, a lover of truth, after quoting those joyful and clear words of Saint Cyril which loudly proclaim the matters for which he rejoiced in union with the Orientals, dares to slander the wise governor, weaving an impiety unsupported by evidence. He selected only those words from the confession of the Orientals in which, because they were rougher, Cyril had shown indulgence, and those which, once they had received wise and saving interpretation from him, he corrected—claiming that Cyril acknowledged them as his own and rejoiced over them, exulted because of them, and was pleased with them. Yet this same man, who repeatedly secured destruction for himself, wrote as follows—while the sacred Word, through the prophet, sings to the God of all: "You will destroy all who speak a lie" and "In your truth you will destroy them" (Ps 5:7; Ps 54:7)—GRAMMARIAN: "What is most important, and by which all rhetorical cleverness becomes useless, is this: the Orientals, then separated by a certain false opinion, were brought to concord by God, who joins those who are divided, and who led those of the same mind to unity; and the Orientals sent writings to the bishop of the city of the Alexandrians, professing their faith and writing thus: 'But the evangelical sayings about the Lord we know the theologians to sometimes apply as common to one person, and sometimes to distinguish as pertaining to two natures.'" Thus, that great man of God rejoiced in their writings and acknowledged them as his own, so that he praised them in wonder, beginning aloud: "Let the heavens rejoice and the earth exult" (Ps 95:11). He truly rejoiced in what was said and did not know how to restrain his delight.
Whom then do you want us to follow? You, who lie and foolishly err and rise up with senseless rashness against written testimonies? Or the writings of the great Cyril, whom you call a man of God? For if, as you say, he acknowledged as his own those things you added, and praised them in wonder, then why, when writing to Valerian, did he omit those things by which he ought to have been adorned, glorified, and considered worthy of all praise? According to you, he should have said: I acknowledged these as my own; they used my words when they said, "But the evangelical sayings about the Lord we know the theologians to sometimes apply as common to one person, and sometimes to distinguish as pertaining to two natures." But he is not seen to have written anything of the sort, neither to Valerian nor to anyone else. Nowhere did he say—as it pleased you alone to say—"I acknowledged these words as my own." How then can you call his those things which he knew needed correction, and which he converted to a correct sense by wise explanations, unless you show that these words are found in one of Saint Cyril's writings, and we are defeated?
But those things which led him to union with the Orientals, those which he corrected as great and marvelous, and those with which he agreed with them, he clearly lists when writing to Valerian: CYRIL: "They anathematized the empty and defiled words of Nestorius; … they confessed the holy Virgin as Theotokos, and did not add that she was also anthropotokos; … they confessed one Christ, the same one, that is … the same God and man." He says the same things in his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, showing what things were restored through that union: CYRIL: "They wished, indeed, to abolish all that had been written by me, either in letters or in tomes and books, but we all adhere to the faith alone which was set forth at Nicaea by our holy Fathers. I wrote in response to this: We all adhere to the exposition of faith set forth by the holy Fathers in the city of Nicaea, changing none of the things contained in it; for all things in it are rightly and irreproachably stated, and nothing beyond it is safe. But those things which we rightly wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius, no reason will persuade us to say they are not good. Rather, it ought to be that, as was also pleasing to the most pious and Christ-loving emperor and to the holy synod assembled in Ephesus, they should expel him who fought against the glory of our Saviour, anathematise his impious blasphemies, profess his deposition, and approve the episcopal ordination of the venerable and pious bishop Maximian."
And to Aristolaus the tribune, in a letter titled "My most religious lord, Bishop of Beronicia," he wrote those things which show the obstinacy and contentious spirit of the Orientals, who were afflicted with the disease of Nestorius, as follows: CYRIL: "Because they say that we ought to ask nothing more than what is found in the imperial and pious decree, and request this of your Excellency, deign, by supporting the common opinion, to lead them to anathematize Nestorius and his defiled doctrines and to consider him subject to deposition." In another letter beginning "The force of the pious commands, which were recently sent to your Excellency, has been made known to all," he wrote to this same tribune as follows: CYRIL: "I prayed that all in the East, the most pious bishops, might from the beginning avoid even the suspicion of Nestorius's madness and possess a pure and completely untainted belief and heart. For thus rightly handling the word of truth, they would weave the crown with which they ought to be adorned. But, as I hear, some anathematise the foolish Nestorius in word and speech, yet again dare to think and speak his doctrines. It is truly incredible that such men exist among those who have received the priesthood. Because the rumour is widespread, and the persons testifying are not contemptible but rather worthy of all reverence and trust, may your Excellency, commending herself to God, apply greater diligence so that those who are chiefly under suspicion may anathematise the unclean Nestorius for his many blasphemies." AND AFTER OTHER THINGS: "But if some anathematise in word and speech, yet think otherwise, and later dare to speak, let them consider the danger hanging over them from God and the definition proclaimed by the universal synod assembled in Ephesus. For it defined that those who speak or think the doctrines of Nestorius—even if they are bishops or clergy—are to be removed from their priesthood. Let them not say, 'We do not know that a synod was assembled in Ephesus,' lest we too deny them, not knowing them to be bishops."
With these opposing words, through effort and labor, he sometimes rebuked him, sometimes withheld blame, limiting reproof to certain persons, saying: CYRIL: "But, as I hear, some …," again: "… so that those who are chiefly under suspicion may anathematize the unclean Nestorius," and sometimes even threatened and held forth fear of the canons, saying: CYRIL: "Let them not say, 'We do not know that a synod was assembled in Ephesus,' lest we too deny them, not knowing them to be bishops." At last, the matter was brought about when John, bishop of the Antiochians, and his followers wrote that, if their confession—which they had issued as an apology concerning the faith—were received, then Nestorius would also be deposed by them, and his defiled doctrines anathematised along with him. Now, the writings attached to that confession are as follows: WORDS OF THE ORIENTALS: "With this faith having been received, it pleased us, for the abolition of all contention and for universal peace to be given in the churches of God, and for the scandals that have arisen to be removed, to depose Nestorius, formerly bishop of Constantinople. We anathematise his vain, perverse, and defiled speeches, because the churches of God among us possess the right and sound faith, and preserve and hand it on to the people, just as your Holiness does. We also agree to the episcopal ordination of the venerable Maximian, bishop of the church of God in Constantinople, and we communicate with all the most religious bishops of the whole world who hold and preserve the right faith."
After the champion of orthodoxy restored these things, he sang a song of victory and joy, writing in response: CYRIL: "Let the heavens rejoice and the earth exult.
For the middle wall has been broken down" (Ps 95:11; Eph 2:14). Therefore, he used indulgence regarding the rougher words, which were moderate in tone and brought to a proper sense through explanation given by him and skillfully adapted. For when they had said: BISHOPS OF THE EAST: "A union of two natures has taken place," without adding what kind of union it was and leaving it vague, and had remained silent about the false kind of union which is conceived by authority and equality of honor and similarity of name, and about the union of sonship which is established, as Nestorius's foolish words suggest, by a common name—and again, when they did not mention a natural and true, that is, hypostatic, union, by which the Word of God, like us, shared in blood and flesh and a soul possessing reason—the wise doctor lifted them up like babbling children to plain speech.
But I will not depart from the example, granted to me by truth so that I may use it, even if you burst, O most foolish of all the foolish grammarians who have ever existed, and as it teaches that we are to understand the union from two natures, from which it follows that we confess one and the same Christ, God and man, one person and one hypostasis and nature, namely of the Word, incarnate. For what does he write to John, bishop of Antioch, and the bishops subject to him? CYRIL: "For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of the natures is acknowledged, from which we say an ineffable union has been made." Are these not teachings which instruct the imperfect toward a perfect and legitimate confession? Is this not the evident medicine which brings the sick to health through salutary remedies? If you do not believe these, believe the testimony of adversaries. See Nestorius, as if seized by madness and trying to break the physician's bonds, lest he suffer a profitable incision or cautery or any other sharp remedy by which whatever produces disease is removed. For he wrote from exile to Theodoret, reproaching the things written by Saint Cyril to the Eastern bishops—as we have already presented in previous inquiries—thus: NESTORIUS: "For what does he say: 'Although the difference of the natures is acknowledged, from which we say an ineffable union has been made'? That phrase 'from which' (ἐξ ὧν) refers to parts responding to each other regarding the Lord's natures, which have come into one. For he ought to have said not 'from which' but 'of which' (ὧν), for the ineffable union is not from the natures, but of the natures themselves."
By this word "from" (ἐξ), the most discerning Cyril healed the somewhat imprecise confession of the Orientals; and this word Nestorius attacked, as we have heard—and even the Council of Chalcedon attacked it, which armed itself against this word, rejected the definition formed from it, which asserts that Christ is to be confessed from two natures (ἐκ δύο φύσεων), and introduced in its place another which established a formula opposed κατ᾽ ἀντιπαράθεσιν, namely that Christ is to be confessed in two natures (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν), with the venerable qualification "indivisibly and inseparably," so that they appear to speak and confess the same things as Nestorius himself, who wrote in this way about Christ, as I have shown: NESTORIUS: "... but one and the same, who is seen in the uncreated and created nature." And again, in another speech titled "On the Faith," or "Exposition of Faith," whose beginning is "We confess the dogma: ὁμοούσιος": NESTORIUS: "... so that in all things the two natures themselves, perfect and unconfused and undivided in our Lord Christ, may be seen, and each nature may be recognized in its own kind." And again: "... from which it appears one Son, from two natures (ἐκ δύο φύσεσιν), divine and human, visible and invisible, is to render judgment in the future. Therefore, just as in each nature there is one judge, so also in each nature there is one Son, because, according to the sentence of the Apostles, the invisible God the Word in the visible man, whom he also raised from the dead, will execute judgment, and there is one judge in each nature, just as one Son in each nature" (cf. Acts 17:31; Jn 5:22).
Therefore, there is again no doubt that those who defend the Chalcedonians oppose indeed the statements of Saint Cyril but support the views of Nestorius. Surely they bring forward words taken from the confession of the Orientals, but they do this only after those words have been explained by the wise physician and doctor. But this is not in dispute with anyone—indeed, it is most manifest and set before the eyes of all. For in that very healing, using didactic speech, the Doctor also wrote in his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, the following: CYRIL: "Therefore, when the mode of the incarnation is carefully examined, human understanding truly sees two things joined together ineffably and without confusion according to union; nevertheless, once they are united, it does not separate them at all, but believes and firmly admits one who is from two, and is God and Son and Christ and Lord." Behold, we have clearly learned how we ought to explain the words of the Orientals and how to understand the union ἐκ δύο. Human understanding, he says, carefully inquiring into the mode of the incarnation, sees two things joined ineffably and without confusion according to union. But those which are conceived only in the mind and discerned, as it were, by thought, after the thought of union, one may no longer say "two," because they do not subsist in individual and proper hypostases, but, while subsisting in composition without any diminution or change, they complete one hypostasis and nature of the Son, incarnate and made man.
And again hear him saying this in the same letter to Acacius: CYRIL: "Therefore, apprehending those things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, as it were in thought, we say two natures were united; but after the union, as the separation into two has now been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one, but made man and incarnate." But what does "after the union the separation into two is removed" mean? He again explains himself, writing to Succensus and teaching similar things, as has been explained many times earlier: CYRIL: "Let again, for example, be a man like us. For we understand two natures also in him, one of the soul, the other of the body. But separating them by mere thoughts and grasping the difference with certain subtle contemplations or mental intiution, we do not place the natures apart, nor do we fully allow the force of separation into them, but we understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but both together form one living being."
Therefore, for what words or sentence of the letter, O deceiver and one fully of all impiety and recklessness, did you dare to write: GRAMMARIAN: "But the letter to Acacius, which is great and full of praise for our doctrines, which they cannot even bear to look at—I leave to those who wish to approach it"? For what of those things found in the letter to Acacius, which we have just quoted, appears in the definition of the Chalcedonians and in the Tome of Leo? What of those things? That we confess one Christ ἐκ δύο? But this is clearly not only not found in them, but is even excluded by them. If not, they would have surely said: "After the union, separation into two is taken away, so that the two are no longer two, but both complete one living being." But neither did they say this, rather they defined the opposite—that Christ is to be acknowledged in two natures, inseparable and indivisible—just as Nestorius, with whom they agree in all things, both by rejecting the confession of Emmanuel "ἐκ δύο φύσεων" as hostile, and by choosing and proclaiming that which pleased Nestorius himself, and by dividing Christ into two natures after the union, the Christ who is indivisible—in this, the indication is apt. Otherwise, can you show that those who gathered at Chalcedon preached the formula "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ἐνσαρκωθείσα καὶ σεσαρκωμένη," which is found in the letter to Acacius? By no means. Therefore, if the Chalcedonians lack the words and doctrines of that very letter, which are indicative of orthodoxy, by which the wise physician and doctor healed and taught those who were found worthy of his condescension and are devoid of all those things, how are you not to be greatly mocked, rather pitied for your stupidity by those who have understanding, when you say: GRAMMARIAN: "But the letter to Acacius, which is great and full of praise for our doctrines, which they cannot even bear to look at—I leave to those who wish to approach it"?
CHAPTER—FOUR
Again, a complete demonstrative refutation from the letter to Acacius, which clearly shows that Saint Cyril explicitly said that those words were not his, which the impious Grammarian claimed he had acknowledged as his own—for that shameful statement, reportedly made by the Orientals themselves, namely that the utterances concerning Christ must be divided, Cyril, healing it in the manner of a physician and teacher, says that the recognition of the difference of the utterances is present in order that we may understand which expressions are fitting for God and which for the humanity, but that there is by no means any division such that the divine nature speaks some and the human others, but rather that the one Christ, who is constituted from both natures, speaks all things indivisibly.
Note, moreover, that you also produce other statements, stripped of the Doctor's explanation and the healing remedy—for when the Orientals had written: ORIENTAL BISHOPS: "But the evangelical and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, we know that the God-bearing men sometimes treat as common, as pertaining to one person, and sometimes distinguish, as pertaining to two natures," the wise fisherman, having once already laid the foundation of union by explanation, and again by what he said: "... although the difference of natures is acknowledged, from which we say the ineffable union has been made,"—since that ex duabus indeed results in there being one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God, and not two after the thought of union—accordingly, he does not understand the very separation of utterances as division, according to the manner of those who hold the opinions of Nestorius, but as difference and distinction, because some utterances are fitting to the divinity, others are fitting to the humanity, and some finally present what is worthy both of God and of man in common and together. For since the one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate subsists, through the ineffable concurrence of divinity and humanity in union and in one person and one Christ and Lord, how will that one, who is also the same, divide the utterances, and shall we not rather say that they all indivisibly belong to the same, and ascribe them to him? But truly, if two natures are proclaimed after the union, then necessarily, along with the duality of natures, the utterances are also separated, and thus each of those natures will assign to itself the things that befit it, and will speak.
And this is easily seen clearly from what Saint Cyril writes in the second book against the blasphemies of Nestorius, where he quotes this wicked man writing: NESTORIUS: "All the factions of such a sect—of Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinaris—strive to introduce Theotokos, so that, once a mixture is made and the two natures are not separated, nothing lowly may be ascribed to the humanity, and thus a path is opened against the divinity, as though all the sayings come from one, not according to dignity by adhesion, but according to nature." Against these words, Cyril wisely constructs a refutation: "But this inventor of the most recent faith, although he pretends to confess one Christ, divides everywhere the natures and sets each apart, not truly asserting that they are united to each other; and using sinful pretexts, as it is written (Ps 140:4), he devises a kind of adhesion which is, as I said, only according to equality of dignity, as will be shown also from his own words; and he has the Word from God dwell by participation, as in any man, but divides the evangelical utterances, sometimes attributing certain of them to the Word alone, considered in itself, and at other times separately to the one born of woman. Yet how is it not clear to all that the Only-Begotten, being God by nature, became man, not by an adhesion merely contrived externally or emotionally, as he says, but by a true union, ineffable and incomprehensible? And thus he is conceived as one and only; and every saying applies to him, and all are spoken as from one person; for one nature is now conceived after the union, namely, the nature of the Word incarnate, just as even concerning ourselves, it is rightly conceived: for man is truly one, composed of dissimilar things, of soul and body. Furthermore, it must now be noted that the body which was united to the Word is said by us to be animated by a rational soul; and we shall also usefully add this other point: for the flesh, according to the reason of its nature, is other than the Word who is from God, and the nature of the Word himself is other according to essence. But although the things said are understood as distinct and naturally different and separate, yet one Christ is understood from both, according to a true union, with divinity and humanity united to each other."
It must be considered how, while Cyril blames Nestorius for the division of natures and the adhesion based on dignity, he likewise reproves and subjects to the same blame the separation, distribution, and division of the sayings according to the natures; for there is absolutely no place for the division of sayings, since two natures do not subsist. Let us also consider this other point: how Nestorius says, NESTORIUS: "... so that, once a mixture has been made and the two natures are not separated, nothing lowly may be ascribed to the humanity." He did not add, "and thus a path is opened as though all the things said were from one nature concerning the divinity," but he said, "as though all things said were from one." For their custom is to posit the natures first, but only later arrive at the person of God and man. Wherefore, even the excellent Cyril, after saying: CYRIL: "He divides everywhere the natures and sets each apart," he continued: "He also divides the evangelical sayings, so that at one time he attributes some properly to the Word alone, and at another separately to him who is from woman." Likewise, later in this same second book, he says this: CYRIL: "But this man, babbling up and down, says: 'One Son, not one and another, nor again first Christ and second Christ,'" yet he contradicts his own words, dividing the sayings both of the theologians and of Christ himself between two persons and proper hypostases. But teaching wisely what it means not to divide the natures, so as also to destroy the division of the natures, Cyril said: CYRIL: "Thus, he is conceived as one and only, and every saying applies to him, and all things will be spoken as from one person: for one nature is now conceived after the union, namely the nature of the Word incarnate."
However, if it were permitted to say there are two after the consideration of the union, and not merely to separate in thought and contemplation those things from which the union was made and perceive them as different according to the distinction of essence, and not because they subsist individually and by their own existence—for how could things that are in composition so subsist?—then surely Cyril would say: "Two natures are now conceived after the union, united and undivided." But nowhere is the teacher found saying this. Therefore, he also says: CYRIL: "But although the things spoken of are understood as different and separated by natural distinction, still one Christ is understood from both according to true union, with divinity and humanity united with each other." Thus, when the Orientals said: "For a union was made of two natures," Cyril allows us, by contemplation of the intellect and imagination only, to consider two; but according to reality, he commands us to confess one nature from the two, namely the incarnate nature of the Word, while Nestorius, even according to reality, speaks of two natures subsisting individually after the so-called union of name—that is, after the adhesion based on dignity and equality of honor. For true union destroys duality, so that the things which appear as two in the contemplation of the mind are no longer two, but from both one is completed.
Let us also listen again, if it pleases, to the same matters more fully set forth, which are found in the letter to Acacius, which the Grammaticus, among other lies, claimed to be full of praises for his dogmas and his unclean opinion, being ignorant both of the things from which he suffers and of those that manifest his disease. CYRIL: "When, therefore, the human mind marvels and sees two things ineffably and without confusion joined together according to union, where they are united, it by no means separates them, but believes and firmly admits that the one who is from both is God and Son and Christ and Lord."
And after he wrote those things from his own exposition—namely, that the things seen are only seen by the mind and distinguished subtly according to contemplation, and that the contemplation of the union itself introduces the one Christ who is from two—these things, indeed, the Orientals had not said, but, being a teacher and using condescension toward the sick and those speaking imperfectly, he allowed them the form of instruction and the mode of apostolic economy in order to enlighten them. Then he continued: CYRIL: "A different and unstable doctrine is the madness of Nestorius. He certainly pretends to confess that the Word, being God, was incarnate and became man; but, ignorant of the power of the incarnation, he names two natures and tears them apart from each other, placing God separately and likewise man separately, joined to God by a kind of relation according only to equality of honor or authority. For he said thus: [NESTORIUS, AS BROUGHT BY CYRIL]: 'God is inseparable from the visible; therefore, I do not separate the honour of the inseparable; I separate the natures, but union is for worship.' [CYRIL]: But the Antiochene brothers, understanding those things from which Christ is said to be constituted as if in thoughts, spoke of the difference of natures—because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same according to natural quality—but they say that the Son and Christ and Lord is one, and, as truly one existing person, that there is one person of Him." Behold, he clearly indicated that two natures are to be recognised only in the contemplation of the mind and as if separated by subtle thought, but according to reality, the one Christ is to be proclaimed, who is from the two, as one nature and one hypostasis, namely the incarnate Word.
The dogmas of Nestorius are opposed, who says there are two natures according to reality, such that we must also necessarily separate them from one another, and place God separately and man individually; therefore, he and the Council of Chalcedon fought against the confession of Christ as "from two."
See how clearly and in sequence Cyril wrote what we have said, bringing a refutation in order when he had already encountered this objection, saying: [CYRIL]: "But I say, O good men: We wrote in the chapters that whoever divides the voices into two persons or hypostases, assigning some as if to a man understood apart from the Word of God, and others, as worthy of God, to the Word alone, who is from God the Father—let him be subject to condemnation. But we have by no means abolished the difference of voices, though we abhor dividing them as if to the Son separately, the Word from God the Father, and again as if to the man born of a woman, understood separately. For the nature of the Word is most certainly one; and we know it to have been incarnate and made man, as we have said before." For where Christ is proclaimed as one from two, and the nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate is one, a distinction of voices is understood, not division or separation. To whom, indeed, would they be divided, as we said before, when one person, one hypostasis and nature of the Son incarnate and made man speaks them all, and all the voices, both divine and human, are attributed to Him? But where two natures emerge after the union, each of the natures receives and speaks the fitting voices from its own person—the nature of God the divine, and of man the human—separately, according to the Tome of Leo, in which the following is found: [LEO]: "It is not of the same nature to say: 'I and the Father are one' (Jh 10:30), and to say: 'The Father is greater than I' (Jh 14:28)." Behold, he clearly assigns the words to each nature and says that one says this and the other that; but this is division and separation of voices. If, however, he confessed the one Christ who is from two, and acknowledged only a difference of voices, he would say that it is worthy of God to say: "I and the Father are one" (Jh 10:30), and human to say: "The Father is greater than I" (Jh 14:28), or that the former fits the divine nature, and the latter the human nature, yet that the one Jesus Christ, who is constituted from both—namely, divinity and humanity—speaks both; for He was at once truly God and man, not divided by the diversity of voices.
To refer the voices to each of the natures belongs to those who divide Emmanuel and who, along with the natures, also divide the voices.
Thus impious Theodoret, in his criticism of the tenth among the chapters which are the anathemas, wrote: [THEODORET]: "But that which was assumed from the seed of David by Him, which is mortal, which is passible, which feared death—although He later destroyed the power of death because of the union with the assuming God—that which walked in all righteousness and said to John: 'Permit it now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness' (Mt 3:15)." Is this division of voices not evident, if that which is from the seed of David takes on a singular voice and says to John, "Permit it now"? And if it is united to the Word, and the same one is from God divinely and from the seed of David humanly, why does that which is from the seed of David speak in the property of its own person and separately utter its proper words? For that which is from the seed of David, obscurely spoken by that Theodoret and his associates, is the man born of Mary, as these wretched ones wish to say; and as Saint Cyril, in his oration against Diodore, reproving this falsehood, wrote: [CYRIL]: "If he is entirely and absolutely a prophet, as you assert and do not hesitate to say, he who receives the gift of the Spirit and foretells future things, and again ministers the Spirit, but you are pleased not to call the Word, which is from God the Father, a prophet—who then is he who received the gift of the Spirit and ministered it through the revelation of future things? But perhaps you will say: that which is from the seed of David, or, as you said, the Nazarene man. He is therefore a prophet and nothing more, a little loftier than us, but by no means, I say in greatness and glory, equal to God the Word, since the Word is the giver of the Spirit, but this one is the minister of the gift that is bestowed by the Spirit. But how, then, did the inspired Scripture call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Jesus? For it says: 'They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them' (Acts 16:7)."
But indeed Nestorius, dividing the one Christ through the duality of natures after the union, recognises the separation of voices as division, not as distinction, while attributing to each of the natures the utterance of voices suitable to itself, just as Leo and Theodoret do. For in the homily titled When it had been read: "How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?"
(Mt 18:21), and after the bishop had spoken previously about longsuffering, which begins "Beautiful is what the teacher has said," Nestorius said: [NESTORIUS]: "He who said: 'My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?' (Mt 27:46) was of human nature, O wise one." See here again, after having first used the masculine "he who said," he continues with the feminine "human nature." Thus, they are accustomed to call the man whom they separate from God the Word, according to their will, the "nature of humanity," and again call the divine nature "the Word"; and the veil of man and of God, and of the two sons and christs, are the two natures. But when the eminent Cyril reproached this division of voices—namely, that we attribute each of the voices to each of the natures or forms, and bring them forth as speaking in the singularity of person, and do not recognize that though certain voices universally pertain to humanity, and others to divinity, yet one Christ Jesus, Lord and God, who is constituted from both divinity and humanity, speaks both these and those—he wrote against the reproaches of Theodoret in the apology for the fourth chapter: [CYRILLUS]: "Both divine and human. For if the Word, who is from the Father, did not become man, let Him not speak humanly according to us. But if it is true that He partook of blood and flesh as we do and was made like His brethren in all things (Heb 2:14,17), that is, like us, why then do they so foolishly criticize the wisdom of the economy, not tolerating the human voice, and what is considered lowly in the utterances on account of the economy, attempting to refer it to another Son existing separately, to the form of a servant, as they say? But it is entirely foolish to pretend they fear the madness of heretics, yet then lead themselves away from the tradition of the true faith into an unreasonable position. Rather, I would say, it is far better and more learned to refer the human voices not to another person who is understood properly and separately as the Son, to the form of a servant, as they are accustomed to say, but rather to attribute them to the measures of His humanity. For it was necessary that He, being both God and man, should speak through both."
With this uprightness of doctrine, always remaining the same and never altering the sound reasoning of the faith, but leading those who are otherwise disposed toward the truth, he indeed acknowledges the distinction of voices, yet never a division by which these voices would be attributed to one nature and those to another; rather, he asserts that all are spoken by the one and only Christ, that is, by the one hypostasis and nature, namely the incarnate Word. What had been said poorly by the Easterners, he, in the manner of a teacher, corrected, interpreting the separation they had named as a distinction, not as division or separation. For where in his response to them he once said: "... through which we say an ineffable union has been effected," and introduced the confession that Emmanuel is "from two," which was rejected by both the Council of Chalcedon and Nestorius as destructive to the duality of natures after the union, he at the same time introduced the destruction of the division of voices, because there do not subsist two hypostases or natures in their own existence, which would allow them to claim or speak these voices separately; rather, the distinction between them is to be known solely to discern which belong to the divinity and which to the humanity, and which simultaneously bear what pertains to both divinity and humanity, and thus cannot be divided and separated or attributed as voices either divine or human in mode, since they promiscuously express something proper to both God and man. Moreover, it must be known that all those voices are spoken alike and indivisibly by one Christ, that is, by the one incarnate Word, speaking divinely and humanly, and proceeding through the form of both kinds of utterances, because the same, though by nature God, for our sake became man in an economic and immutable way. Some of the utterances indeed belong to his divinity, others again to his humanity, yet not in such a way that the divinity speaks the former and the humanity the latter, but the one Christ Jesus, who is from both divinity and humanity, speaks all; nor is it proper to say that one nature says: "I and the Father are one" (Jh 10:30), and the other in turn: "The Father is greater than I" (Jh 14:28), as the Tome of Leo claims.
But let us hear the Doctor at length in his letter to Acacius, explaining how he received what was said by the Orientals, namely, that the voices written about Christ must be separated. CYRILLUS: "But the Antiochian brethren, embracing those things from which it is understood that one Christ is constituted, as if only in subtle thoughts, indeed said the distinction of natures, because divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality; but they say that there is one Son and Christ and Lord, and one person of him, as truly one existing, but in no way do they divide what is united, nor do they accept a natural separation, as it pleased the introducer of unhappy inventions to think. But they assert that only the voices spoken of Christ are separated, and say that these correspond not otherwise as to the Son placed apart, the Word who is from God the Father, and another Son who is from a woman, but rather some to his divinity and others again to his humanity: for he is both God and man; and they say that some voices are given in a certain way common and as it were to both divinity and humanity. What I say is of this kind: some voices especially suit divinity, others again suit humanity, and some hold a certain middle order, showing that the Son of God is both God and man. For when he says to Philip: 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father' (Jh 14:9), we say this voice befits God himself. But when reproving the crowds of Jews, he says: 'If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth; Abraham did not do this' (Jh 8:39), we say these words suit humanity. Nevertheless, the Son's words are both those that befit God and those of humanity; for though he was God, he became man, not by ceasing to be God, but by the assumption of flesh and blood. Because the Son is one and God and Lord, we say also that his person is one, and both we and they agree. But we say that some of the intermediate voices are such as, for example, when blessed Paul writes: 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever' (Hb 13:8), and again: 'Though there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth...