yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him' (1 Cor 8:5–6), and again: 'I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, and the promises, whose are the fathers and from whom Christ is according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen' (Rm 9:3–5). Naming Christ Jesus, he says he is the same yesterday and today and forever, and that all things were made through him, and calls him who is according to the flesh of the Jews God over all and again blessed forever. Therefore, do not divide in these the voices spoken of the Lord; for they have at once what belongs to God and what is human; but rather adapt them to the one Son, that is, to the incarnate Word of God."
Behold, the meaning is well known to all from the words of Saint Cyril explaining how he received the separation of voices, bringing the roughness of the words to a sound meaning, namely only to recognize the difference of these voices which ones suit God, which ones suit humanity, and which finally remain inseparable because they have no difference among themselves but bear at once both a divine and human nature. Let us therefore consider whether he understood separation as division, and, following the impious babblings of Nestorius, Theodoret, and the Tome of Leo, said that some voices speak the divine nature and others the human. But we do not find this; on the contrary, he says: CYRILLUS: "It is one thing to separate natures, and that after the union, and to assert according to the equality of honour only that man adhered to God; and another to recognise the difference of voices. How then do their words agree with the babblings of Nestorius?" And when in the earlier part of the same letter he had already removed division, establishing that there are not two natures after the union but one nature of the incarnate Word of God, he likewise removed the division of voices; for he said: CYRILLUS: "But the difference of voices we do not in any way remove, although we abhor those that divide them, as if the Son were separate, the Word who is from the Father, and again as if the man, who is from a woman, were a separate Son.
For the nature of the Word is certainly one; and we know that it is incarnate and un-incarnate." Again: "Nevertheless, the voices that suit God and those that suit humanity are of the one Son", and again: "But rather adapt them to the one Son, that is, the incarnate Word of God." Again: "They separate the voices, not into two persons, as I said, dividing one Son and Lord, but assign some indeed to his divinity, others again to his humanity, but all declaring them to be of one, so that these voices indeed speak by one nature, and the others by the other."
The wise doctor himself confesses and acknowledges that he used condescension concerning the coarseness of the Oriental words because of the reasons previously mentioned; from what he wrote, we learn this. Indeed, he subtly defends those who attained spiritual healing with these words: CYRILLUS: "For if it seems to some that the structure of words and the expression of sentences greatly depart from subtle diligence, it is no wonder, for such things are very difficult to express in words." When John, bishop of the city of Antioch, persisted in the same coarseness of words and wrote to one of his familiars words similar to those found in the confession of the Orientals, saying: "The bishop of the Alexandrian city taught us to divide voices according to what suits the natures," he also offered an apology in this regard through explanation, excusing even the Orientals by saying that to separate voices is to distinguish difference and to recognize what suits divinity and what suits humanity, but not to divide those voices to each nature so that some would speak with divine nature or form and others with human nature, according to the reasoning seen by us, but one Christ Jesus who is from both. While delivering this explanation, he clearly denies that these words are his own, saying that they belong to those who attained the medicine and institution.
And again let us hear him in the very letter to Acacius saying: CYRILLUS: "I have heard that one of his own familiars, the chaste and most pious bishop John, taught clearly and plainly that I profess the difference of natures and separate the voices according to what is fitting to the natures, and for this reason some are scandalized. It is therefore necessary to speak on this matter as well. Your integrity knows that those spreading the stain of Apollinarian opinion in my letters have thought that I even say the holy body of Christ is inanimate, and that a mixture or confusion or commingling or change has been made of the Word of God into flesh, or that the flesh has been changed into the nature of divinity, so that nothing remains pure and it is the same thing which it is. They have also thought that I assent to the blasphemies of Arius, because I do not acknowledge the difference of voices and say that some are fitting to God, others human and more suitable to the economy with the flesh. But your integrity can testify before others that I am free from such errors. Nevertheless, it was necessary to give a reason to those who were scandalised. Therefore, to his piety, I wrote that I never held the opinion of either Arius or Apollinaris, nor that the Word of God was changed into flesh, nor that the flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, because the Word of God is immutable and unchangeable. It is impossible to commit either crime, for I never removed the difference of voices, but I know that the Lord, who is fittingly both God and man, spoke in this manner because He is both God and man. Wishing to signify this, I wrote that I taught to confess the difference of natures and to separate the voices according to what is fitting to the natures; but such words of mine are not mine, but spoken by Him Himself" (Jh 1:14; Mt 27:46; Jn 10:30).
These things also are clearer than sunlight; they clearly show how he explained what was said by John, bishop of the Antiochenes, and again by all the Easterners, that "to separate the voices" is to be understood only with regard to difference, not to division. For he said: CYRILLUS: "But I know that the Lord spoke in the manner befitting both God and man, because He is both God and man." They also show how clearly he rejected these expressions and denied that they were his, saying: CYRILLUS: "Such words are not mine, but spoken by him." But the Grammarian, opponent of truth and not ashamed to twist the Scriptures, while the one who healed the disease of the sick exclaims, "These words are not mine, but spoken by him," with great audacity cries out against him and says to the Doctor: "These are your words," writing: "Thus the great and God-bearing man rejoiced in the writings and acknowledged them as his," after he wrote only those things which agreed with the condescension of instruction and received such an explanation as would bring them to a sound understanding, which I set forth. But if, as the Easterners assert: "And the voices of the Gospel concerning Christ we know that theologians make some common, as pertaining to one person, but others they separate, as spoken of two natures," then according to the shameless stupidity of your words, O unlearned one, "Cyril acknowledged such words as his, so that he praised them in amazement," why, when John wrote together with them and asserted that he teaches us to separate the voices according to what is fitting to the natures, did he recoil, deny it, and plainly say: "Such words are not mine, but spoken by him"? And rightly so: for a teacher does not call his own speech the stammering of children—he stammered with them not because he himself suffered that weakness, but because he raised their imperfection to clear speech—just as one does not attribute to a physician the disease of the sick person, but rather his healing. Why then, O worker of all iniquity, attacker of nature, of the order of things, and of what is written, and in all things hostile to God, do you ascribe the words of the sick to the physician, and make the sayings of those who spoke imperfectly to be the words of the very Doctor, while you keep silent about the words of healing and secretly conceal those that hand down perfect instruction? (Jh 1:14; Heb 13:8).
CHAPTER—FIVE
That, imitating the blasphemer Theodoret, the Grammarian falsely claimed the words of the Easterners—stripped of their healing remedy—to be those of Saint Cyril, so that the distinction of voices might become a division, with each nature speaking its own words, and these being attributed as proper to it alone: which is foreign to the hypostatic union, but proper rather to a union of relation, according to which man would have been assumed by the Word as if illuminated and moved by a ray of the sun, all while disguising the blasphemy of separate christs and sons speaking in two natures and forms (Jh 1:14).
Nor is it surprising: for in this also it is evident that you have imitated your fathers, and you harshly promote the teachings of Theodoret. For he too calls this condescension and the hesitation of the doctor's tongue while stammering with them the infirmity of the doctor himself, while he himself remains in that illness and does not receive healing, but thinks that the physician is sick along with him because he approached the sickness of the sick and applied effective remedies for healing. For that wretch wrote to John, bishop of Antioch, concerning the writings sent to the Easterners by Saint Cyril, these things: THEODORET: "God, who wisely governs all things and foresees our concord and cares for the salvation of the people, has arranged that we come together and has shown that the minds of all of us are in agreement. For when we read together the Egyptian writings and diligently examined their meaning, we found that those things sent from there agreed with ours, and were openly contrary to the twelve chapters, against which we have until now fought as being foreign to piety. For they claimed that the Word which is from God became flesh carnally, and spoke of a hypostatic union, and a natural union made by agreement, and that the Word of God became the firstborn from the dead; but they rejected the separation of the sayings concerning the Lord, and further contained things alien from the apostolic seed, and rather the shoots of the tares of heretics. But the things now written are adorned with every evangelical nobility.
For in them our Lord Jesus Christ is called perfect God and perfect man, and two natures are acknowledged, and their difference, and a union without confusion, not according to mixture or composition, but made in a certain ineffable and divine manner, preserving unconfused the properties of the natures; and the Word of God is said to be impassible and immutable, while the temple is passible and delivered to death for a short time and raised again by the power of God united to him; and the Holy Spirit is said not to have existence from the Son nor through the Son, but to proceed from the Father, and to be properly the Son's because he is consubstantial with him. Having considered this rightness in the writings and finding them diametrically opposed to those previously written, we praised him who heals stammering tongues and changes a deformed word into a pleasant voice" (Jh 1:14; Heb 4:15; Rom 1:4; Mt 13:25).
From that impudent and most ungodly source, senseless Grammarian, you bring forward the bare words of the Easterners, stripping them of the salutary and instructive correction, and you claim that Saint Cyril acknowledged them as his own, and you ascribe the imperfection of those stammering ones, to whom he condescended, to him who condescended, as if it were proper to him. And Theodoret is not ashamed to cry the same, saying: THEODORET: "We praised him who heals stammering tongues and changes a deformed word into a pleasant voice" (Is 35:6). But he concealed the saving remedy which the doctor secretly applied to them, writing: "For there is one Lord our Jesus Christ, although the difference of the natures from which we say the ineffable union was made is acknowledged" (Eph 4:5). For to proclaim Emmanuel from both or from two natures is a demonstration of the hypostatic union and the conjunction according to natural union, from which it results that there is truly one person of Christ and one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word of God, by which also the division of voices disappears and the distinction is revealed in this. For if our Savior Christ is not divided in a duality of natures after the ineffable union, to whom, then, are the voices to be divided?
Surely, it is absolutely necessary that they be spoken indivisibly and all be ascribed to him, because there is one Christ Jesus the Lord, who is constituted from two — that is, from divinity and humanity — each perfect according to its own account, and he speaks in diverse voices, both divine and human, divinely and humanly. Wherefore, also writing to Acacius, rightly and consistently, as one knowing by what judgment he would bring the coarse speech of the Easterners to a fitting form, he wrote: CYRILLUS: "But we have by no means removed the difference of voices, although we abhor the idea of their being divided as if spoken by the Son separately, the Word who is from God the Father, and again as if by a man born of a woman, the Son understood separately. For there is most certainly one nature of the Word; but we know that it has been incarnated and made human, as we said before" (Jh 1:14; Gal 4:4). Therefore, just as the division of voices vanishes with the one nature of the incarnate Word of God subsisting, so where they dissect Emmanuel into two natures after the ineffable union, utterly and absolutely the voices too are divided as between two sons.
These are the words of healing, these are the words of the wise explanation by which he uncovered those who were in error. These the Grammarian concealed; these Theodoret likewise neglected, understanding the distinction of voices as division and separation, as one who had already once divided Christ into two natures. For in the discourse which he titled "On the Exposition of the Faith," which begins: "Having sufficiently offered refutation against the Jews and against the Gentiles, we now proceed to expound the sound account of the faith" (1Pt 3:15), speaking of the Word of God and the holy Virgin, he said thus: THEODORET: "And entering her womb ineffably, like a certain divine seed, he forms for himself a temple, a perfect man, having taken some part from her nature for the formation of the temple. And clothing himself with it, and according to the supreme union, the Son of God came forth, existing as both in regard to the natures — for from then he is God and man — and thus fulfilled the economy concerning us" (Gal 4:4).
AND A LITTLE LATER: "When, therefore, you hear different voices concerning the one Son, properly divide the things said according to the natures: if anything great and divine, attribute that to the divine nature; if anything small and human, assign it to the human. For thus you will avoid the discrepancy of voices, with each nature receiving what is appropriate to itself, and you will confess one Son, both the pre-eternal and the recent, as it is written" (Heb 13:8). In the same discourse, he says the union is like the illumination of a sunbeam by divine power into the man who is from Mary, or into the temple, just as also in anyone among the saints by the purity adhering to him, although he says here that the perfect and entire illumination was comprehended. And so he wrote: THEODORET: "It does not shine less on one, or more on another, but it sends forth its common power to all of us equally. But if anyone has healthy vision, he receives more from its ray, not because the sun itself extends more to him than to others, but because of the full strength of the eyes; but one who has weak sight will not even be able to look upon the brightness of the light, because of the weakness of his eyes. Think the same, then, of the sun of righteousness, who is equally present to all in essence as God; but we all, as eyes weak and bleary with the filth of sins, are unequal in receiving the light; but the proper temple, like a pure eye capable of receiving the brightness of the whole light, because it was formed from the Holy Spirit and entirely removed from sin. For just as the sun, sending forth its power equally to all, is not equally received by all, so also the Word is present to all in essence, but not equally to all and to his own proper temple" (Mal 4:2).
Since he thought that this was the union—namely, the illumination and efficacy of the Word of God in a man—and divided Emmanuel according to his own judgment into God separately and man individually, and understood the distinction of voices as a division, and gave as a pretext for their diversity the cause of separation, he wrote against Saint Cyril to John, bishop of the Antiochenes, those things which had been said by the Orientals, writing them to him stripped of doctrinal clarification, just as also the Grammarian himself did, and said: THEODORET: "We found those things that had been written from there to be in agreement with ours, and plainly contrary to the twelve chapters, against which we have thus far fought as things foreign to piety. For those writings declared that the Word which is from God had become flesh carnally, and spoke of a hypostatic union, and of a conjunction according to natural union, and that the Word of God had become the firstborn from the dead; but they rejected the separation of voices spoken concerning the Lord, and furthermore contained things alien to apostolic seeds, but rather the sprouts of the tares of heretics. But the things now sent are adorned with evangelical nobility. For in them our Lord Jesus Christ is named perfect God and perfect man, and two natures are acknowledged, and their difference, and the unconfused union" (Jh 1:14; Col 1:18). It is manifest, therefore, from these that he who brings forward the words of the Orientals stripped of the wise explanation of the most discerning Cyril—who said, "although the difference of the natures is acknowledged, from which we say an ineffable union has been made" (Phil 2:7)—which both Nestorius and the Council of Chalcedon rejected and expelled, fights against the twelve chapters as if they were foreign to right piety, denies the true and hypostatic union, does not confess the Word of God as begotten from the Father divinely as the only Son before the ages, and the same one, through the birth according to the flesh from the Virgin and a resurrection befitting God, also as firstborn from the dead, and divides the voices which are written concerning the Lord into two natures, that is, to man and to God (Lk 24:39; Rom 1:4).
For we have just now heard Theodoret openly saying and dividing the one whom he confesses to be Christ into man and God, whom he called two natures in this way: THEODORET: "For in those writings, our Lord Jesus Christ is called perfect God and perfect man, and two natures" (Jh 1:14; Col 2:9); nor did he add "the same one," although even this he has very often said according to a homonymy of sonship and equality of honor, just like Nestorius.
But they are accustomed to speak confidently, or from the abundance of the heart, as the Lord said (Mt 12:34), shamelessly declaring the things they think, and forgetting the person of piety. This is the same Theodoret, O Grammarian, crowned by your endorsement, about whom it pleased you to write, claiming that when he named two natures, he remained silent and followed the custom of wise Cyril, and had nothing to say, and that he aroused the suspicion of the crime of two persons. Therefore you see also here how plainly he has named two natures. And how could he escape the suspicion of two persons—he who attacks the twelve chapters and expels the hypostatic union; who dares to call those chapters seeds of heretical tares (Mt 13:25); who chooses in place of true union the participation of divine efficacy, as though it were sunlight received in a man, and thus presents Christ to us as a God-bearing man, not as God naturally incarnate and perfectly made human without any fantasy or change (Heb 2:14; Phil 2:7)?
That most abominable opinion was rejected along with others by the eminent Cyril. For in the Scholia, in the scholium titled How one ought to understand: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and how the Word was sent, although He is God, and how the body is said to be His own, he wrote thus: CYRIL: "For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9), that is, not by participation and simple relation, like light that illuminates or fire that sends out its native heat to things brought near, but, so to speak, the very divine and immortal nature itself, whatever is conceived to be of it, made a dwelling through true union, as I said, in the temple formed from the Virgin; for thus is Christ Jesus both understood and truly is one" (Jh 1:14). With these words, therefore, he refutes the evil doctrine of Theodoret and of those who think like him, who distort the true union into a different sense, by means of participation and efficacy of divine light and grace. Again, just above in the same scholium, he teaches according to the tradition of inspired Scripture what the true union is, taking as an example for argument the image of the constitution of our human being and following Paul who said, "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same" (Heb 2:14): CYRIL: "But if it is necessary to say something, looking as in a mirror, the human intellect supposes that the Word was united to a body having a rational soul just as the soul of a man is united to his body; it indeed is different by nature, but has obtained communion and union with it such that it is no longer considered another in relation to it, because from the composition of both one living being results, though it remains, as I said, in its own nature. Therefore, we do not say that the Word of God became man by change or conversion, nor again that He ceased thereafter to be God, but that, having assumed flesh from a woman and being united to it, He went forth from the womb as man, and is the same God" (Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6–7).
Similar things Cyril said also in the fourth volume of his writings on the Epistle to the Hebrews: CYRIL: "Therefore, there is one Son and Lord, since by hypostatic union the Word was joined with humanity and shared in flesh and blood, and thus was made like in all things to His brethren" (Heb 2:14–17). Behold, this is to follow the traces of apostolic tradition—namely, to apply to the divine union of the incarnation the example of our constitution and subsistence, in the manner by which the Word of God shared in blood and flesh endowed with a rational soul. This also the holy Cyril wrote in his first discourse against Theodore of Mopsuestia: CYRIL: "We use the benefit of example, always preserving the union without division, and rejecting your division. But none of those who think rightly offers the example of the sun to confirm the union, knowing he is adhering to the divine Scriptures, which will that the Word of God, as we have said, share in blood and flesh animated by a rational soul, and not the contrary—that is, that man, by participation and simple relation, is illuminated by the divine efficacy like a ray of the sun." To another use of the image of the sun we find the eminent Cyril turning, against the objection of the impious Julian, who more than all former kings was devoted to the worship of demons and supposed the Word of God to have been limited by the incarnation and thereby defiled or stained.
For Cyril first sets out the objection in his eighth oration of the second book of his work against Julian: CYRIL, SPEAKING AS EMPEROR JULIAN: "But the human body is narrow and full of filth." CYRIL AGAINST JULIAN: "That is true, I will not deny it. But consider this: He was made, as I said, in the likeness of men, as it is written (Phil 2:7), and truly in our form. Yet we do not say that He who cannot be contained was confined or encompassed by bodily measure. For it is indeed foolish and utterly absurd to say such a thing about the natural and true God. For being the one and only Son and entirely beyond all bodily imagination, He is wholly present by participation in all and everywhere and in each individually by relation, not divided, not cut into parts, but by nature beyond all things and in all as God. In that most pure and holy body, the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily (Col 2:9), as it is written, and was as in His own flesh, and yet thus also He filled all things. Just as the ray of the sun, if it falls into mud or other filth, suffers no harm at all, so also the uncontaminated and immortal nature, though perhaps dwelling with earthly bodies, rather benefits them, and nothing at all of what is born to bring harm adheres to it. And I think this should be added and stated: our bodies are overcome by passions and easily fall into the pursuit of pleasures, and they suffer under the law of sin. But in the divine and holy body of Christ we say that none of these things was stirred; all shameful passions had vanished, and as it had become the proper possession of the indwelling Word to whom it was united, that body was enriched with holiness; for it was the holy temple of Him who sanctifies every other creature also."
What "dwelt bodily" means, the wise teacher again explains in his oration to the most religious queens, which begins: "To those who administer the divine and heavenly preaching," writing thus: CYRIL: "But we, believing that the Word was made flesh not by conversion or change, but rather because it dwelt in us and made the body its own temple, which was truly united to it, having a rational soul, rightly say that when the divine Paul speaks of the indwelling of the Word in the holy flesh, that is, of the true union, he says that in it all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt, not by participation or by relation or as a gift of grace, but bodily, that is, substantially, just as His own spirit is said to dwell in man, since it is not other than Himself" (Col 2:9).
Thus, each example fulfills its purpose and is assumed only for the reason of the argument, while differences are rejected. For not all likeness is preserved in everything; for that would be the thing itself rather than its example. And it is easy to see Saint John, bishop of Constantinople, teaching this in his explanation of the epistle to the Romans: JOHN: "And this must be observed everywhere, that examples are not to be taken universally, but that from them what is chosen is that which by use pertains to the thing for which they are taken, and all others are to be neglected. Thus, when it says: 'Lying down he slept like a lion,' which is invincible and terrible, we take it not as something wild nor anything proper to a lion; and again when it says: 'I will meet them like a bear watching,' which pertains to chastisement we understand; and when it says: 'For our God is a consuming fire,' it means consumption from punishment; so also here clay, potter, and vessels are to be understood" (Rom 15:4). Similarly, Gregory the Theologian, concerning examples taken differently to demonstrate some point about the Holy Trinity, wrote in his oration on the Holy Spirit: GREGORY: "In short, there is nothing that confirms my opinion when I consider these examples, except perhaps if one, taking one thing from the image, prudently rejects the rest" (2 Cor 3:18).
Thus, with regard to the present argument, the constitution of our human nature is taken as the example of the hypostatic union, because in the same way the Word communicated to blood and flesh an animated rational soul; but as for that which it did not communicate, any defilements, He who willingly descended to such abasement rather sanctified what was assumed, remaining immutable in what it was, so the example of the ray of the sun is taken—not to show Christ as a man like one of us, in whom, through participation, as from the illumination of light, divine efficacy was made, as the impious Theodoret wished to say, dividing that one indivisible one by a duality of natures after the inexplicable union and dividing voices and actions between them. This is also written in another of his books, On the Theology of the Holy Trinity and the Economy, as he says. Before this book, composing a prologue, he began thus: THEODORET: "All writing requires leisure and tranquility and a mind freed from cares"; beginning also he said: THEODORET: "Indeed, all who boast in the name of our Savior and glory as sheep of the shepherd who laid down His life for us must hear the voice of the shepherd" (Heb 13:20-21). To the same impious and profane dogmas he came in the twenty-second chapter of his second oration, which he titled On the Economy or On the Inhumanation; in that chapter he wrote thus: THEODORET: "A demonstration from the Epistle to the Hebrews of the separation of natures and the union of the person. But let anyone more clearly see in the Epistle to the Hebrews the divine nature and the human nature indeed divided in operations, but the person joined and unity and one Son demonstrated" (Heb 1:3). And shortly after: "For He who is the brightness of glory and the figure of substance was not made better than the angels, but He is not only better than the angels, but also their author and lord. But if it is contrary to 'to be' to 'become,' by that indeed we understand the eternally existing, but by this, what is taken from us and made better than the angels because of union with the one assuming" (Heb 1:3-4). And again shortly after: "Therefore, it is contrary for a king to be ruled by a king because of love of justice and hatred of iniquity; the reward of labor is such a kingdom. Therefore, we understand that God, whose throne is forever and ever, exists eternally; but Him who afterward was anointed because of hatred of iniquity and beloved righteousness by Him, we understand that which was taken from us, which is from David, which is from Abraham, having participants to whom He grants unction, having received in Himself all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But in both natures we will worship one Son" (Heb 1:8-12).
Behold, it also appears from these things how two truly separated natures are confessed in unity through the artifice of the union of one person, and how that which was taken from David is said to have obtained as the reward of labor to reign with the Son who is before the ages, and because of this equality of honor and this unique kingdom, they teach one Son in two natures, as defined by Chalcedon. For he who wrote these things just cited and blasphemously introduced a different man, who from the seed of David, after saying that he received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit in himself, added: THEODORET: "But in both natures we will worship one Son" (Heb 1:3); and again added and joined miserably: "Again, the blessed Paul, calling David to witness, who said: 'Lord, what is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you visit him? You made him a little lower than the angels; with glory and honor you crowned him'" (Ps 8:4-5), he added: "But we see Him who was made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone" (Heb 2:9). This most clearly shows the perfection of the assumed man; for "Lord," he says, "what is man that you are mindful of him?" He did not say "what is flesh that you are mindful of it," nor "what is body that you are mindful of it," but "what is man," embracing the whole nature, and calling the Lord the God Word dwelling within, who was mindful of His own image, who by ineffable mercy called man the temple assumed from us, which He visited by His coming and joined to Himself, and by union wrought salvation.
Therefore, it was not the Lord Himself who became man, but He who visited was the Lord, and he who was visited was man and not Lord. How then are not two plainly manifest? He adds again shortly after—words repeated also in the eleventh chapter of St. Cyril's works: THEODORET: "Who then is he who prayed and offered supplications with loud crying and tears? Who, who lived with reverence and persuaded him whom he asked? Who, who learned obedience from what he suffered and accepted temptation as a teacher, yet was unaware of this before the trial? Who, who gradually attained perfection?
Not the divine Word, perfect and knowing all things before they happen, certainly not learning by temptation, possessing all His own worship; and He who worships no one, removing tears from every face, not weeping Himself, impassible, immortal, not fearing death nor crying out with loud cries to be delivered from death. These things, therefore, are proper to the assumed humanity, which feared death and offered prayers, with the divinity dwelling within permitting the fear, so that the nature assumed might be shown through the passions" (Heb 5:7). And again, in the twenty-first chapter: "Thus also the blessed Paul throughout the epistle proclaims both the properties of the natures and the union of the person" (Heb 1:3). Again, in the thirty-fourth chapter: "But we know the nature of the Word of God and recognize the substance of the form of a servant; we truly worship both natures as one Son, for Christ is named by the union of the two, neither the form of God alone nor the bare form of a servant stripped of divinity has ever been called so by the teachers of piety" (Phil 2:6-7). And shortly after: "Rejecting mixture, we use the names of union, adhesion, and communion, teaching the separation of the natures but the union of the person. Thus, we refute the blasphemy of Apollinarius and Eunomius, humbly applying to the form of a servant what was spoken by our Saviour Christ, while attributing to the sublime divinity that is great and worthy of God and beyond all sense" (Col 2:9).
Thus, it is clearly shown how, with the separation of the forms and natures, the voices are also separated and divided, each nature speaking in its own person. For we hear how he said: THEODORETUS: "These things are proper to the assumed humanity, which feared death and offered prayers" (Heb 5:7). Therefore, it was the man who prayed, offered supplications, and spoke separately; for before, he asked teachingly: THEODORETUS: "Who then is he who prayed and offered supplications with loud crying and tears?" And he answered and determined, saying: THEODORETUS: "Not the divine Word, impassible and immortal, but the one who feared death and cried out to be saved from death" (Phil 2:7-8). Thus, according to them, there is no difference whether they call the praying or speaking nature the humanity or the man. Therefore, wise Cyril shows the injustice of Nestorius in the third volume of his writings against his blasphemies, saying: NESTORIUS: "He is the seed of Abraham who 'yesterday and today' according to Paul, not the one who said 'Before Abraham was, I am' (Jn 8:58); 'He was made like his brothers in all things,' who took on the brotherhood of the human soul and flesh, not who said: 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' (Jn 14:9); the Apostle, who is consubstantial, anointed and proclaiming the remission to captives and sight to the blind. For 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' he says, 'therefore he has anointed me' (Lk 4:18); and it is the humanity, not the divinity, that is anointed, heretically!" And he who said up and down, "who says" and "who announces," dividing one Christ into God and man separately, stood in the humanity and wrote: NESTORIUS: "Therefore it is the humanity, not the divinity, that is anointed, heretically." And elsewhere he again said, as I placed above: "He who said 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Mt 27:46) was the human nature, O wise one."
Following this, Leo also introduces each of the natures as speaking separately with a voice fitting to itself, and writes: LEO: "It is not of the same nature to say 'I and my Father are one' (Jn 10:30) and to say 'My Father is greater than I' (Jn 14:28). Since one Christ is divided by the duplicity of natures, it is entirely necessary, as we said before, that the voices be divided with the natures; which the impious Nestorius is said to have babbled in some of his homilies in Ephesus, in the church according to custom, thus: 'Those things said are irreproachably divided into the duplicity of natures.'"
CHAPTER—SIX
The comprehensive teaching of the holy Fathers shows the truth against the blasphemies of Theodoret and Leo mentioned above, and it demonstrates that to the duality of natures after the union they also attach a division of voices, whereas to the one nature of the incarnate Word they recognize indeed a distinction of actions and voices, divine and human, but maintain these indivisible, since it is one who acts and speaks, God incarnate, whose humiliation—though it endured many accusations—was, for our redemption, exalted above the heavens and silenced those detractors.
Since, therefore, the incarnate Word subsists as one person and one hypostasis and nature, there enters indeed a difference of voices, but not a division; and we acknowledge only which voices arise from the flesh and the voluntary self-emptying, and which from divine majesty; yet in no way are they said to be spoken separately by one or the other nature, but by the whole, that is, by God immutably incarnate and made man. And consider, I pray, the blessed Julius, once bishop of the Roman Church, who in the oration titled On the union in Christ of the body with the divinity of the Word, says and teaches: JULIUS: "And when He says, 'Glorify me,' it is a voice from the body, and the glorification concerns the body, and it is said of the whole, because the whole is one. Again, when He adds, 'with the glory I had with you before the world was' (Jh 17:5), He indicates the divinity always glorious; and although this properly pertains to the divinity, yet it is said commonly of the whole. Thus He is consubstantial with God according to the invisible spirit, while also the flesh is included in that name, because it is united to Him who is consubstantial with God; and again He is consubstantial with men, with the divinity being included along with the body, because it is united to what is consubstantial with us, without the nature of the body being changed in the union with the consubstantial God, just as the divine nature is not changed in the communion with human flesh and in the naming of the flesh consubstantial with us."
Behold, this is to acknowledge the difference of voices, not to confuse the elements of which Emmanuel consists, nor to divide them, but to understand that the whole is one composite, who has neither transformed, changed, nor converted the elements from which He is composed, and who jointly and perfectly takes upon Himself and speaks the voices and appellations fitting either to humanity or to divinity, without being divided by the difference of voices in such a way as to say that these are spoken by the divine nature and those by the human. The reason why the voices, though diverse—divine and human—are preserved indivisibly, is that the one Christ is formed from two, and there is one nature of the incarnate Word. For Julius the Theologian previously taught and in that same oration gave this anchor, writing thus: "It is proclaimed of Him that this indeed is created in the union with the uncreated, and that uncreated in the conjunction with the created, with one nature subsisting from both sides."
In agreement with this, St. Cyril in the fifth book of his expository commentary on the Gospel of Matthew writes: CYRIL: "He confesses Nazareth to be His city, having received measurement because of the body, and being measured solely in the flesh, although by nature He is immeasurable as God. For since He is both God and man, now indeed, insofar as He is the Word shining from the Father, He is understood wholly with the flesh; and again, insofar as He is made flesh, even though He is by nature the Word and firmly stands in the identity of His nature, He is again understood as wholly man, so that both the divine properties are naturally applied to Him as to one who has the flesh, and the human properties are applied to Him as one who does not have the divine attributes by nature, even though He is God by nature. Therefore, insofar as He is understood to be God, He has no place of rest, for He is beyond place, limitation, measure, and form; but insofar as He is understood as man like us, that is, with the flesh, He is said to be in places and to have had a proper city."
Thus it is clear that even if He speaks human things as man and divine things as God, and even if the sacred Gospels and apostolic writings say some things of Him now as if of a mere man, and again as of a simple God not involved with the flesh—even so, all these things are said indivisibly by the Word of God made man and referred to Him. We do not separate them, that is, we do not divide the two natures or hypostases, but we distinguish the voices and acknowledge which have their cause from the humanity and as it were proceed from it, and which from the loftiness fitting to God, since it is the one incarnate God who speaks all voices. This is also seen in ourselves, for our intellect speaks all things through the tongue as from one person and indivisibly, both those things that relate to the rational disposition of the soul and those that pertain to the flesh; and when it says "I thought this," or "I am rational, made in the image of God" (Gn 1:27), we recognize the voice as having its cause from the rational soul and refer it to the soul, deeming it fitting to it; when it says "I am formed, and dust and clay," or "I hungered," or "I was wounded," we discern the voice to have its cause from the flesh and refer it to the flesh; yet we believe that the whole man, consisting of soul and body, spoke all the voices, governed by the primacy of the intellect, without drawing the difference of voices into a division, or foolishly thinking that these are spoken by the soul and those by the body. So also with Emmanuel: although when we consider what fits each of the voices we recognize a difference, discerning where the cause lies—whether from the loftiness of the divinity or the humility of the humanity—yet we by no means introduce a division into the voices on account of the difference, so as to say that these are spoken separately by the divinity, those separately by the humanity; for the one who is from both, namely God made man, speaks both.
Again, St. Cyril sets forth this teaching in the second book of the Treasury, saying: CYRIL: "Paul says of the Son of God: 'Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant and was found in fashion as a man' (Phil 2:6–7).
Therefore, the Word of God became man, not coming into a man as He was in the prophets, but truly becoming what we are, except for sin. Thus, He is God insofar as He is the Word of the Father and of His substance, and man insofar as He became flesh, as it is written, and put on our flesh." When faith has this definition about our Savior Christ, the voices spoken about Him should be distinguished according to proper reason. If you hear "I and the Father are one" (Jh 10:30), see the one divinity of the Son and the Father, and understand the Son as God from the substance of the Father; but if again you hear that He wept, grieved, feared, and began to be sorrowful, understand again that He is man in addition to being God, and assign to the humanity what belongs to it. For since He assumed a mortal and corruptible body subject to such sufferings, He necessarily also made the sufferings proper to Himself along with the flesh; and since the flesh suffers, the Word is said to suffer. Thus we say that He was crucified and died, with the flesh suffering these things, not the Word separately and by itself—for it is impassible and immortal. Therefore, we will accept the statements rightly, assigning what is worthy of God to the divinity, and referring to the flesh what is said of it and as from it, through the natural internal motions which, when perceived by the mind, cause the tongue to express what was silently murmured in the depths. Let us note how, through the whole doctrine, he acknowledges the one and the same person as the one who speaks divine and human things, God made man, the same one who said, "I and the Father are one" (Jh 10:30), and who, being sorrowful, said, "My soul is sorrowful unto death" (Mt 26:38); nor did he say that the divine nature said one thing and the human another, or that this was said by one nature and that by the other. Therefore, he said the voices are to be distinguished, not divided, to understand which belong to the divinity and which to the humanity. For some things were spoken in a human manner because He became man, and some voices were worthy of God because He was also God by nature. The teacher confirms this with an example when he shows through an image the clear individuality of the speaker. For what does he say?
CYRIL: "We shall refer to the flesh those things said of it and as from it through the natural impulses planted in us, which, when perceived by the mind, cause the tongue to speak what is secretly and silently whispered in the depths." Therefore, just as in the constitution of the whole man, it is the mind that speaks, even if it utters words as from the flesh, so also in the divine incarnation it is God the Word who speaks and to whom the suffering is attributed, even if in the flesh, endowed with soul and mind, the suffering appears and the words seem to come from and about the flesh. For this reason, the teacher wisely added: CYRIL: "Thus we say that He was crucified and died, with the flesh suffering, not the Word separately and by itself." For he clearly showed that it is not permitted to refer the suffering to the Word separately and by itself; but rather, we refer it wisely to the incarnate Word, since in His nature nothing is harmed although He is said to suffer, because He is naturally united to flesh that is capable of suffering. Therefore, even if someone says, understanding it thus, that the flesh suffered, he does not say so by separating the Word hypostatically united to the flesh. For the flesh of the Word suffered; thus we rightly say it was the Word's suffering, even though as God He remained impassible. So also, the voices said of and as from the flesh He spoke, although it would not be fitting for Him to speak thus if conceived as God apart from and outside the flesh. He adds also another reason for the humble and economic words: our instruction and the training of the whole human nature—for, as he says, since He bore all of us in Himself as firstfruits, He was teaching, in general, all humanity, strengthened by the divine incarnation, to think above fear and to choose what is pleasing to God rather than what inspires fear. And so, as a man He said, "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26:39), leaving a model for all, one that fills the athletes of piety with strength and courage to feel and speak thus.
Cyril writes that the Word of God became man for no other reason than to strengthen human nature by mixing and tempering all that is His with our weaknesses, leading it to His own strength; therefore, when He appears afraid of death and says, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Mt 26:39), one must consider that the flesh which feared death was no longer able to bear it because it was carried by the Word of God. He said to the Father, "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26:39), not fearing death as God the Word, but hastening to fulfill the divine plan, which was the will of the Father. His rejection of death is proper to flesh, which naturally avoids it; thus He taught humanity to seek God's will rather than its own, saying as man, "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26:39), and added, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt 26:41).
This shows clearly that He, as God, did not fear death, but as man accepted even the unwillingness to die, allowing His flesh to suffer natural passion, not because Emmanuel was divided against Himself, which would be absurd, but to set Himself forth as a model of virtue, encouraging all humanity to fight bravely for piety. Thus, the Word became man to strengthen human nature, mixing His with our weakness, and says, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Mt 26:39), and again, "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26:39), teaching that humanity must not pursue its own inclinations, but the will of God. He never said it was the human nature speaking, nor did he divide the words in the unity of person, but showed one and the same who speaks both loftily and humbly, taking on our measure. In "That Christ is One," he writes that humanity is made perfect and blameless in Him, so that He can confidently cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46). Think of the Only-Begotten made man as one of us, uttering such words for all human nature.
Similarly, in his twelfth commentary on Matthew, Cyril says, "When darkness extended until the ninth hour, the Only-Begotten uttered a human voice, saying, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (Mt 27:46). No sensible person will think He, who is naturally God and the power of the Father, said this as weakened or needing help; He said it for us, that we might learn what pertains to our nature through Him.
Since human nature had lost confidence before God due to original sin and its propensity to evil (Gn 8:21), it could not freely cry out to God; but because Christ appeared perfectly blameless — for "He committed no sin" (1 Pt 2:22) — He prayed for God to be His helper. Saying "My God, my God" (Mt 27:46) shows great confidence, since God says to sinners, "You are not my people, and I am not your God" (Hos 1:9). Therefore, there is no scandal if the Only-Begotten, though by nature God, says, "My God, my God" (Mt 27:46); He loses nothing, nor is His glory diminished, when He speaks as man to the Father in heaven. We, too, call God our Father and God, though we are created beings and naturally servants. Just as our adoptive sonship does not remove our created status, so too the Son is not reduced to a creature or servant by speaking as man. Even when He took the form of a servant, He did not despise or avoid lowly words, for He voluntarily became incarnate, and retained His divine majesty unchanged.
In Thesaurus Book II, Cyril adds that Christ was crucified for us, to destroy death in us and raise us with Him. He had to appear truly human at the time of the Passion and not merely seem to be, and so He spoke words fitting for man — "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46), "Let this cup pass from me" (Mt 26:39) — but through His works He showed Himself God incarnate. He darkened the sun, split rocks and the temple veil, and worked other miracles, so that even the centurion confessed, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Mt 27:54). In his second commentary on John, Cyril says that the Son became our example in humility, though He is equal to the Father (Phil 2:6), descending voluntarily, showing humility by words and actions beneath His dignity. How could He be said to descend if He experienced nothing below His nature? He who "was in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7) had to imitate what is fitting to men — such as worship, which as man He gave to God, while being always worshiped as God.
In Book V, he says that just as the Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, is not diminished when the Father says, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7), but rather that humanity is adopted in Him, so too the Spirit is said to be given to the Son, not for Himself — it is His — but for our sake, because He assumed human nature. Thus, in the Only-Begotten, who is immutable and divine, human nature is reestablished. He became man to firmly restore grace to humanity, lending His immutability to our changeable nature, condemned in Adam. As death entered all through Adam's fall, so also divine gifts are restored to all in Christ. Therefore, the Word, remaining divine, became man without division after the union, performing and speaking all human things for our sake — not because He needed them, but because He assumed all of human nature. He who voluntarily emptied Himself did not reject humble words or deeds, nor should He be divided into two natures post-union to avoid attribution of lowliness, as though He had not emptied Himself. This is the error of those who divide Christ and ascribe all lowly things to "the man," the "form of a servant" (Phil 2:7), "the human nature," or "the one from David" (Rom 1:3), but not so Scripture, tradition, or the true interpreters. For how can the divine nature be said to have emptied itself, if it is excluded from the very things that constitute that emptying — its words and actions? If only the human nature acts and speaks separately, then what remains of divine condescension?
Again St. Cyril proceeds and fights against this polluted and blasphemous opinion, in the seventh book of his commentary on the Gospel of John, saying thus: CYRIL: "The Son is perfect in all things and needs nothing of the good, since He is begotten from the substance of God the Father, and is full of power and glory befitting God, and has all things under His feet. There is nothing His power cannot do; for He can do all things, according to the holy word. Yet, although He has all power, He is said to ask the Father and receive the peoples and ends of the earth, like a noble inheritance (Ps 2:8). But how or when He receives must be inquired, for it is truly useful and necessary to examine the times of these things and to consider the moments and to institute a subtle investigation of the persons. Thus, after He became man, after He emptied Himself, as it is written (Phil 2:7), after He descended to the likeness of those to whom it was fitting to pray, then He does and speaks what befits man, and these things are said to be accomplished for Him by the Father. For where did He show the form of humility, or how did His emptying appear clearly, unless because He willingly bore something beneath His dignity, when He emptied Himself for us? Just as He was wearied by the journey (Jn 4:6), though He is the Lord of hosts, and as He needed food, though He is the bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world (Jn 6:33), and as He suffered death in the flesh, though He is He in whom we move and have our being (Acts 17:28), so He is said to have prayed, though He is the Lord of all. But to show that the Only-Begotten was not then first called to royal dignity when He became man is plain, and to dispute much about it borders on ignorance. Therefore, we rather say this about what you said: you think the Lord prayed because of Lazarus and thus restored him to life. But you would never have thought so, if you had remembered the rest. For He did not only say 'Father, I thank you that you have heard me' (Jn 11:41), but added, 'I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me' (Jn 11:42). From this you clearly see the reason for the prayer. For the Jews were acting impiously and slandering when the Lord performed miracles, saying that He did divine works by Beelzebub; rightly, therefore, repelling this suspicion and showing that He works all things with the Father as God, and not as some false prophets who came from themselves and spoke what did not befit God by their own will, He says: 'I said this on account of the people... ' (Jn 11:42). Unless, then, it had been necessary to correct the opinion of the bystanders by making it appear that He obtained the miracle concerning Lazarus from the Father above, He would not at all have said, 'Father, I thank you that you have heard me' (Jn 11:41). For since He is both the will and word and judgment of the Father over all good things, what judgment would He seek, or what will, or what word of His Begetter to obtain any of the works?
Since He has the Father in Himself by nature and He Himself is in the Father by identity of substance (Jn 10:38), how would He ask the Father as if separated from Him? Or how would He not have been able to cast out death from one body, He who from the beginning formed man from insensible matter and gave him soul and mind?
Let us therefore accept the genuine word of faith, not from those who speak unlearnedly, but from inspired Scripture, in which there is nothing perverse or depraved (Prv 8:8).
Similarly, in the twelfth book on Matthew he wrote: 'And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives' (Mt 26:30). After they had given due to the needs and usefulness of the body through the things which occurred by nature, having eaten, they at once turned to thanksgiving and formed a holy assembly to God, with Him who receives thanks standing among them and giving thanks with them. For they, as men and having received the nature of servants, glorify the Creator of all, and God, and Savior as Lord, and pay Him due praise; but He, although by nature the Son and under no obligation of duty to God and the Father, rather with Him receives thanks and praises, yet because He became man, fulfills what is fitting for man, and in this also preserves the form of a servant (Phil 2:7). And a little after: 'So also here He gives thanks with them, conceding this according to the dispensation with the flesh.' Thus, if we are eager to understand all things said humanly about Him and preserve the place fitting to the Lord for the Son, we shall not disgrace the mystery of the dispensation done for us unlearnedly.
But it would be too much and beyond just measure to bring all the instructions of St. Cyril which pertain to this; for what has been brought forth already teaches us abundantly and perfectly, handing down that the difference of the Lord's words is to be recognized, namely, that some are worthy of God, others of man, and others mixed with both meanings, but all said by one, namely, God made man. Nor is it necessary, like the Tome of Leo, to divide Emmanuel into two natures after the union, and assign each word to one nature, saying: LEO: '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)'; nor, like Nestorius, to say: NESTORIUS: 'He who said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (Mt 27:46), was of the nature of humanity, O wise one'; nor again, like Theodoret, to write: THEODORET: 'That from the seed of David... that which spoke to John, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt 3:15)'; or to ask and divide and speak as of two: THEODORET: 'Who then prayed and offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears?' (Heb 5:7), and to say in denial: 'Not God the Word', and add: 'Therefore, these are proper to the assumed humanity, which feared death and offered prayer'; and again: 'When therefore you hear opposite words about the one Son, rightly divide them according to the natures.'
But opposing all these and acknowledging one Christ indivisible as God incarnate, Cyril also acknowledges the words as indivisible and wishes them to be distinguished only, saying 'Let the words be distinguished', not 'divided'. For by distinction the difference is known, because He who is by nature God became man for us without fantasy and without change, so that the same speaks both as God and as man. For He was not ashamed to speak humanly, just as He was not ashamed to be incarnate and made man; for mercy and universal salvation are the cause of these things, and as much as He descended out of compassion for us, enduring the cross, despising the shame (Heb 12:2), so much have the things of His glory been exalted, for He worked a marvelous salvation, suitable to Him alone and powerful for those whose hope was cut off and who were incurable and fallen into the depths of evils, from which they had no means to rise. For not a delegate, not an angel, but the Lord Himself saved us (Is 63:9); therefore, His majesty is exalted above the heavens because of His enemies, to destroy the enemy and the avenger (Ps 8:2); this the prophet David sang beforehand mystically. But when was the enemy and avenger destroyed, if not when the cross was raised and the Lamb of God ascended as a victim who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29), and death was trampled by the resurrection, and He ascended to the heavens who, according to substance, is incorporeal, and because of the dispensation, is corporeal? He who was crucified and sacrificed and suffered according to His incarnation, and according to what He is, remained impassible; who was buried and descended to the lower regions; who was made in all things as we are, except sin (Heb 4:15), so that He left not even one place to the enemy and avenger. And who is this, if not the devil who, as an enemy, led us into the fall when we were keeping the commandment and doing good, and through deceit dragged us into the sweetness of lusts, and after deceiving us, urges us with the reproach of conscience and drives us to despair, and brings the transgression before the sinner's face, like a certain avenger of the divine law?