Thus far the wonderful Grammarian has produced example and testimony; therefore I have also placed marks by which the testimonies of the orthodox Fathers are usually recognized, and obelisks besides those marks, so that those who come across them may know that those words of the Grammarian are abominable and unjust, and were found in the writing as lamentable as possible. For often these very words are variously appended by him, indeed somewhere even inverted; such words do not injure the integrity of the master's doctrine when thus brought forward, but only show that he himself is unlearned and lacks knowledge of the genuine text. This, which happened to him by chance, the author here wrote as best he could and thus showed, according to the apostolic saying, that he neither knows what he says nor understands what he affirms. This is evident to those who read from the very words of the example which I have placed above intact. Therefore, it must now be answered to him: Return to those things which the master wrote, good man, and see how he said that it is common to us and to Nestorius to say or name two natures so far as we acknowledge the difference of the Word of God and the flesh; for that is different from the other according to natural quality and the heterogeneity of substance, and indeed as different as the uncreated and unmade is from the made and created. Certainly those who follow the opinions of Nestorius will from this admit to the doctrine itself, and nothing prevents or forbids; but they will attack, as you do, Saint Cyril and say, "He says that Nestorius said two natures and admits that he tolerates this." But he will answer them and you at the same time, showing what remains to separate our confession from the doctrine of Nestorius, saying: CYRIL: "Yet the union is not with us."
For we, uniting these, confess one Christ, one and the same Son, one Lord, and moreover one nature of the incarnate Son. Something similar can be said of any human being; for he consists of different natures, namely body and soul; and reason and contemplation recognize the difference, but when these are united, we make one nature of man. Therefore, to acknowledge the difference of natures is not to divide one Christ into two.
Again, therefore, we use to you the same words: Show what separates sound faith and Nestor's madness, found in the definition of the Chalcedonian Synod and in Leo's Tome, namely that the union is made from different natures; for "from different" indicates "from two." Bring forward whether the Synod or Leo recognizes the difference of those things united according to contemplation alone, and therefore after they have united, and after the consideration of union, with the distinction of diversity, do not refuse to acknowledge one nature of the incarnate Son; but if they do not say this, they will be placed with Nestorius, and to them Saint Cyril will say: "But you do not confess the union with us." Also show, if you please, what is yours, which you said again in the words of the master you recited: GRAMMATICUS: "Behold, here manifestly only the hypostatic union is sought; nor does he refuse to say two natures: for one is the nature of the Word, the other the nature of the flesh; and, speaking very briefly, one nature of the incarnate Word of God."
You know very well what even the wise Cyril requires, namely that it is necessary to confess the hypostatic union and one nature of the incarnate Word of God; but you do not concede that the Chalcedonian Synod and Leo's Tome have fulfilled what is demanded when repeated. Where, I ask, have they confessed the hypostatic union? Nowhere; indeed, quite the opposite, in that place they inveigh against the union, namely of the "habitude," which is understood according to dignity, and the common glory and consequently the equality of honor, which they also called the union of the person. Did not the letter, like a confession worthy of God's apostle Peter, clearly proclaim this to us? LEO: "And there is no falsehood in this unity, while both humility of the man and greatness of the deity are mutually present. For just as God in mercy does not undergo change, so the man is not consumed by the greatness of divine dignity" (2 Cor 13:14). AGAIN: "Although in our Lord Jesus Christ the God and man are one person most certainly, yet it is different from where the common disgrace in both comes and from where the common glory is. For the humanity of the Son is lesser than the Father from us, but from the Father He has divinity equal to the Father.
Therefore, because of this unity of person to be understood in both natures, we read that the Son of man descended from heaven."
But in bringing this up again here, I have spent a little time needlessly, since I have already thoroughly explained and carefully examined these things before all eyes. But show the hypostatic union and one nature of the incarnate Word of God in these. Yet you cannot, for Leo sets forth the union of the person, which is to be understood in both natures, by which indeed God does not change in mercy, and the man is not consumed by the greatness of the power of divine dignity, and in our Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, and from one there is common disgrace, but from the other common glory. Therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ there is God and man, not that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man at the same time, that is, God unincarnate. Hence, according to this babbling and this impious foolishness, a Christ different from the things that are in Him, God and man, is found, for the name Christ is common to both, and each, like the lion's skin and the sheep's fleece, puts on a homonymy and is comprehended under one name; and thus in our Lord Christ of God and man there is one person.
For Nestorius also wrote in the oration on the incarnation: "Therefore both natures are encompassed in one appellation of Christ, lest one be understood without the other." Again, in the letter he wrote to the second synodal letter of Saint Cyril: "Because he was about to undergo death, lest anyone think that the Word of God was passible, he subjoins the name 'Christ,' which is an appellation designating both the impassible and passible substance in one person, so that Christ may be called impassible and passible without danger; indeed impassible in divinity, but passible in the nature of the body." Again, in the oration against the Theopaschites or Cyrillians: "And why, pray, is it more rightly feared? Whether to mix the nature of divinity assumed and the nature of humanity assumed among themselves, or to bind both by the dignity of one filiation?"
These things the marvelous Leo defines with those just quoted, adding also in the same Tome: "but we confess one Son of God and Word and flesh."
As I said before, these things have already been thoroughly presented and refuted; now, however, out of necessity, we have merely touched on their mention. Therefore, why, O empty one, while defending this impiety—which is not only baseless but also opposed to the words of the wise Cyril—do you not fear ridicule when you present the master's words and doctrines and foolishly write: "Here he explicitly demands only the hypostatic union; nor does he refuse to say two natures: for the nature of the Word is one, the nature of the flesh another; and, to speak briefly, one nature of the Word incarnate"? Once again you will hear from us: the wise Cyril indeed demands this, but what the Chalcedonian Synod ought to have said and did not say, you have clearly shown. You have done as if someone who takes on the patronage of a debtor's loan says that the debtor has paid nothing of the principal or interest, but only reads the bond of debt and exposes the injustice of the debtor. "But," you say, "the most illustrious Cyril does not refuse to name two natures: for the nature of the Word is one, the nature of the flesh another, endowed with soul and reason." I say this with you as well. For whoever confesses the hypostatic union also says that one Christ is composed from two natures, and from this believes that one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word is accomplished. And, by mere contemplation separating them, he knows that the natural union of two natures, different and not consubstantial with each other, is not made; but when, after the separation of contemplation, he apprehends the inseparable thought of union, he no longer says two after the union, that is, after the thought of union; for one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate and unincarnate Son is accomplished from both.
The master does not cease to cry out differently to you, especially in the letter to Eulogius, which you have in your hands; yet you close your eyes and refuse to see those things that remove you from your error and prevent you from deducing from the difference of natures, from which one Christ exists, a total division, so that even after the union you say there are two natures. If you had wished to see, you would not have cut off, when you set the example, what is as follows: Cyril said, "The same is said of any human being. For he consists of different natures, namely body and soul; and reason and contemplation recognize the difference, but when these are united, then we make one nature of man. Therefore, to acknowledge the difference of natures is not to divide one Christ into two." And similarly in the letter to Acacius—I will not cease to apply the same remedies often to you and to surround your various errors, using the same word opportunely concerning what you have impudently produced, which vainly revolves and seeks access to the sacred words of holy Cyril so that your shameless mouth may be closed. For the book of Proverbs says that the mouth of the wicked is a deep pit, and David the prophet wisely sings, "All iniquity will shut its mouth" (Pr 22:14; Ps 140:3). But how will someone block a deep pit unless he frequently throws into it the same? Cyril: "Therefore, those from whom is one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as if in thought apprehending, say that two natures are united; but after the union, as if the division has been removed, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, as one, truly unhuman and incarnate." And again: "When the mode of incarnation is diligently sought, the human intellect sees two ineffably and unconfusedly gathered together according to the union; nevertheless, it does not divide what is united, but believes and firmly admits that God and Son and Christ and Lord are one from both. But the madness of Nestorius is entirely different from this doctrine."
What distinguishes and clearly removes from true faith the madness of Nestorius is the confession "from two" that there is one Christ, and one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word.
For it belongs to sound faith to separate with the mind alone and clearly see that those things which are gathered into one are two and substantially different, but after the thought of the union to acknowledge that those things united are by no means separate, because Christ is one from the two and, as if the division into two is removed, the nature and hypostasis of the Son is one, truly unhuman and incarnate. But the madness of Nestorius is to separate in thought and contemplation up to the difference according to substance those things from which the ineffable union is made, yet always to remain in duality and to refuse to say that one nature and hypostasis of the unhuman Son exists from the two, and now, with the natures separated according to hypostases, to affix a division arising from dignity, homonymy, and unity of person: which manifestly introduces two Christs and two Sons.
Therefore, we will not cease to say: let someone show that the Council of Chalcedon or the Tome of Leo confessed hypostatic union, or natural conjunction, or one Christ from two, or one nature of the incarnate Word of God; and then we will acknowledge them, like the wise Cyril, discerning by contemplation alone the substantial diversity of those things ineffably united into one, knowing that the nature of the Word is one and that of the flesh is another, and perceiving with the mind two things united without confusion, but by no means separated. But if indeed they neither mentioned hypostatic union, that is, natural union, nor confessed one nature of the incarnate Word of God, but forbade the formula "from two," and everywhere from Leo is heard the union according to dignity and person, that the union is not false, and also that one Son of God is proclaimed Word and flesh, how is it not evident that they remain like Nestorius in the duality of natures and separate them into natures which subsist singly and separately, since they do not admit one from the two, and by separating in fact, they blush to say it with their tongue when they do not refuse to say "not separated natures" just like Nestorius himself? For whose is the union of person, and the union according to dignity, and also the formula "one Son of God is proclaimed Word and flesh," is known; certainly it is that of Nestorius and his sect, but not of those who rightly understand. Yet one hears them to deceive the unlearned, saying: "Nestorius says 'I separate the natures'; but we say two natures indivisible and united."
Do you not then write foolishly, O Grammaticus, about Saint Cyril: "He does not refuse to say two natures: one is of the Word, the other of the flesh"? For here you clearly see how far the assertions of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, whose apology you introduce, differ from the doctrines of the wise Cyril. Moreover, you who so often review the second letter to Succensus ignore how the master spoke against those who, like you, took the difference of natures—which is discerned only in contemplation—as a pretext for total division and said against him, "How will we not allow two natures to subsist indivisibly after the union?" Cyril replies: "The proposition is opposed again to those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature; and wishing to show this as absurd, they everywhere try to show two natures subsisting. But they miss what is not only separated by mere contemplation, but also entirely and distinctly recede from each other mutually. Let us again have as an example a man like ourselves. For we understand two natures even in him, one indeed of the soul, the other of the body. But discerning the difference with mere thoughts and subtle contemplations or phantasms of the intellect, we do not place the natures apart, nor again allow the power of division in them perfectly, but understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal."
Because that which arises as one from composition and from two—namely, the nature of the Word incarnate—is separated only by contemplation, and as if to recognize the difference of those things joined into one, that is, to know that one is uncreated, the other created, one divinity, the other humanity, and even to the essential quality that distinguishes one from the other—since divinity and humanity are not the same according to substance—cease, O Grammaticus, to dissect into diversity that which is found in composition, and to try to show two natures subsisting, and boldly say with those who once fought against Saint Cyril: "How will we not allow two natures to subsist indivisibly after the union?" and also oppose those who say that the Son incarnate has one nature.
For in composition, without defect or confusion, the natures from which one Christ is formed subsist, but not in singular and proper subsistence, so that it can be said two natures subsist. Just so also with a man like ourselves; since one nature is both nature and hypostasis, which consists of soul and body, according to the word of the master, when by mere thoughts and subtle contemplations or phantasms of the intellect we separate, we understand two natures from him also, one of the soul and one of the body, from which one man is formed. Therefore Cyril said, "We understand two natures," and we do not say, "Two natures subsist," for neither one of the natures subsists in its own subsistence, for one nature and hypostasis is held from each. When by distinction and thought we apprehend difference, and consider those two united things to be heterogeneous and minimally consubstantial, here we restrain diversity, nor because they are different according to substance, from which one is formed, is the diversity of hypostases and natures split; for one from two is the nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word.
The words of the master also clearly proclaim this to those who do not willingly close their ears, saying: "But by mere thoughts discerning, and as by subtle contemplations or phantasms of the intellect apprehending difference, we do not place the natures separately, nor again allow a perfect power of division in them, but understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal." Just as here he said "we understand two natures," so also, when the Orientals said "a union has been made of two natures," Cyril, in his letter to Eulogius, contracting this statement even to the separation which is made only by thought and subtle contemplation, says: "And those who say two natures so understand it." Afterwards, prohibiting total division, lest those things which were recognized as two in contemplation be again conceived after the thought of union as subsisting as two, he jointly added: "However, now that the union has been asserted, those things which are united no longer separate from each other, but now one Son exists, and one nature of him, namely of the Word incarnate. The Orientals have confessed this, although they have been for a little while overshadowed by darkness concerning this very formula" (Jh 1:14).
Indeed, the darkness truly lay in this, that although they said there was a union of two natures, namely a true and hypostatic union, to which the wise and spiritual hunter had led them, by admitting "although the difference of natures is recognized, from which we say an ineffable union has been made," they remained in duality after such a union, dissolving the union, stumbling as if blinded into themselves, and thus making the same both united and dissolved by division. But the middle and master destroyed such dizziness. For when he received those who had said a union of two natures was made, and had not dared to add anything from those things which pertain to the conjunction of relation or the bestowal of divine power, nor unity of person, or homonymy, or "one according to filiation," he led the said union to a natural, true, and hypostatic union, introducing the formula "from two," from which it is made that the one nature of the Word incarnate exists, so that by mere contemplation we recognize two certain things different according to substance which concurred in union, but do not thereafter separate that which is from both, one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Son, nor say two natures not separated after the union, as those who boast in folly; for to oppose the assertion of two natures after the union, to the confession of one nature of the Word incarnate, said the master.
Thus, after what had been ambiguously said by the Orientals about the union made of two natures was healed by addition and wise explanations from him, he then contrasts with their confession the nonsense of Nestorius and says: "But truly the madness of Nestorius is entirely different from this doctrine."
Again, when the Eastern bishops said, "But we know evangelical and apostolic voices about the Lord, men theologians, some indeed making common, as pertaining to one person, others dividing, as pertaining to two natures, and those which are suitable to God to the divinity of Christ, the humble to his humanity," he himself, through his wise instruction, applied that remedy discovered by him, because he introduced "from two" one Christ, destroying after the ineffable union the division of the duplicity of natures, and at the same time destroying the division of voices and explaining the difference to be a difference of voices, which was said by them to be separation, not division so that each of the natures would receive its own voice separately and speak as according to the duality of sons. For one is the hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word, which receives and speaks diverse voices, divine and human, and those which bear both divine and human nature indivisibly in itself. Nor does it lose sublimity, for it remains in what it was; nor does it despise humility because of the dispensation that happens to it, for it emptied itself voluntarily out of kindness toward men, not being forced by anyone to this (Phil 2:7).
Therefore, also in the letter to Acacius, those words from which the Grammarian is completely distant and alien were written thus: CYRILLUS: "However, we did not remove the difference of voices in any way, although we shun dividing them as if the Son were separate, the Word who is from God and the Father, and again as a man, who is from a woman, the Son understood separately. For certainly the nature of the Son is one; we know it to be incarnate and inhumanate, as I said before." Let the Chalcedonian synod then show that it said it acknowledges the difference of voices and abhors dividing them, confessing one nature of the incarnate Word. But if it did not confess one nature of the Son inhumanate, but through the Tome of Leo introduces two natures speaking their own proper voices and showing the appearance of individuality by dignity and homonymy of filiation, as we previously proved in the extended refutation, how then did the eminent Grammarian dare to write: "But the letter to Acacius, which is great and full of praises of our doctrines, which those who wished to approach it cannot even look upon, I leave to them"? How did he boldly and sacrilegiously assign the voices of the Orientals, stripped by salutary and doctrinal explanations, to his own harmful and doctrinally unworthy sentence?
CHAPTER—TEN
It is also clearly evident from the writings of the impious Theodoret that the expressions of the Orientals, which were ambiguous and could provide pretexts for heretics, were corrected by Saint Cyril with doctrinal and salutary additions, and that he expressly wrote that he had condescended to them; it is also proved by many testimonies that they, even after this condescension, were sick at heart and grieved over the defiled doctrines of Nestorius.
I would wish to question the unclean Grammarian, knowing nothing except to write whatever falsely, and thinking in such great impiety that he is hidden, while displaying a show of piety: How is it that, after you brought forward these stripped words of the Orientals, "We know that the evangelical and apostolic sayings about the Lord some theologians make common, as pertaining to one person, but others divide, as pertaining to two natures," you stopped here and said of Saint Cyril: GRAMMARIAN: "Thus the great god-bearing man rejoiced in the writing and acknowledged it as his own, so that he marveled and praised it," when you can in no way show where these are found in his writings? And how he healed them with explanations and medicinal as well as didactic additions you concealed; yet the dry words, stripped of healing, you attribute to him and call his own what is not his. And see: what shall we do when Theodoret himself turns these to his own impiety, to whom you have given a splendid testimony in the matter of the two natures, and he says, as we have already transcribed: THEODORET: "We have found them plainly contrary to the Twelve Chapters; against which until now, he says, as being alien to piety, we fight. For they asserted that the Word, which is from God, was carnally made flesh, and the hypostatic union and the conjunction according to the natural union, and that God the Word was made the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18), but rejected the division of the sayings spoken concerning the Lord."
Must we not necessarily return, in order to refute this heretical slander, to the medicinal and didactic words of Cyril, which, as I said, introduce the formula "from two," which demonstrates the hypostatic union and makes clear that there is one nature of God the Word incarnate, and shows that the sayings spoken concerning the Lord, even the human ones, are recognized not as divided but as distinct? And when you ought to have added the clear words of the master, which say: "We have by no means removed the distinction of the sayings, although we abhor their being divided, as if to the Son separately, the Word which is from God and the Father, and again as to a man, the Son understood separately, who is from a woman. For one most certainly is the nature of the Word; and we know it to have been incarnate and made man" (Jn 1:14), these you keep silent about and do not write in your lamentable little book, but rather conceal them deceitfully as much as you can. The words of those who, as to the formula, were in darkness, you bring forward, stripped of the medicinal remedy and didactic explanation, and from these you deceitfully reproach us and call us crafty, because we said that, as an excellent and most skillful physician, Cyril by this saving method received the Orientals.
Explain to us, then, whether those who were in darkness regarding the formula had no need of a man who, like a physician, would remove the film from their eyes and, like a teacher, would guide those stumbling in the dark. But how is it, when you see Theodoret, suffering from grievous and incurable diseases, an ungrateful and impious disciple, turning to blame Cyril—who, like a teacher, approached the Orientals and lisped with them—by attributing to him voluntary and dispensational lisping, and writing impiously of him: THEODORET: "We praised him who heals stammering tongues and changes a misshapen word into a sweet voice," that you reproach me for having used the figure of a teacher and said that Cyril wisely condescended to the Orientals and lisped with them, as with little children, to lead them to a clear voice? Be ashamed, then, O most shameless and unlearned one, of the truth which on every side fights against you and restrains the impudence of your mouth and your ignorance, and by the testimony of adversaries themselves shows that Cyril, as to little ones imperfect in speech and in darkness concerning the utterance of the formula, wisely humbled himself to the Orientals like a physician and a teacher; he to whom this was committed by God, that in judgment, as it is written (Prov 16:23), he should arrange words, and brought them to confess the union from two, and to confess one nature of the Word incarnate, and not two after the union.
But since you are entirely a Jew, and have an uncircumcised heart, and fix your eye on the letter like them, and these so manifest arguments are not enough for you, but you wish to hear the very word "condescension," I will also bring forth on this again a most fitting, abundant, and full statement from the most celebrated Cyril. He therefore wrote to Rufus, then bishop of Thessalonica, in this way: CYRIL: "For the peace of the churches, and lest they be separated from one another into dissensions, condescensions are not useless. For perhaps some, not having been received into communion, out of weariness will turn, even unwillingly, to something else. For either heresies are begotten, and schisms follow (1 Cor 11:18), or even continual tumults, when they no longer endure being repelled more than usual."
Considering this, I was filled with the greatest joy at the Orientals coming eagerly and seeking communion, and especially because a most fitting opportunity presented itself, since the most pious and God-loving emperor wrote about this matter. For it was necessary for His Serenity to care for the concord of the churches. Keeping this in view, Your Perfection also should ensure that what is fitting be done, as well as all things that pertain to the benefit of the churches of God existing there. I therefore wrote concerning the matter, aiming at its benefit; and it is the duty of Your Holiness to bring the matter to completion. For it is better to receive them when repentant than to have them, hardened, join the party of the followers of Nestorius (Lk 15:7).
Behold, he taught that the benefit of condescension was the cause of concord and union with the Orientals, lest, being rejected and not received, they should incline to complete schism and, being entirely hardened, join those who shamelessly favor the impious, foolish, and old-womanish notions of Nestorius. But perhaps even after you have heard all this, as it is written, you will justify your error and will even say, "It will be well with me, for I walk in the error of my heart" (Jer 23:17), and, lifting your voice quite loudly, will read from your vain-talking and impious little book these unlearned and foolish words: GRAMMARIAN: "But the hucksters of faith and money-changers of doctrines of yesterday and today say that Saint Cyril used condescension. To this, who would not close his ears? For they truly strive to show us that the father of orthodox doctrines was changeable, different at different times, and an overturner of his own edifice. For who is seized with such impiety that, for sparing others or rather for bringing them harm, he would throw himself also into a pit and transfer faith from faith? Who of those who think rightly has advanced to such arrogance that, to have union with men, he would separate himself from God?"
Thus, in all these statements, drunk with ignorance and impiety, you condemn the wise Cyril because he openly professes that he condescended not without benefit, and that, like a teacher, he directed, and like a physician, he healed those who were in darkness concerning the formula, and because, in your judgment, he was found changeable, grasping at human glory, and transferring faith from faith. But if we, who affirm that he condescended, according to your unlearned follies, were to call him changeable and a seeker of human favor, changing the word of faith as by the throw of dice, yet he himself proclaims that he condescended and acknowledges that condescensions occurred not without benefit, but gained this—that those who had approached should not be entirely hardened and turn back and fall to the opposite side—then it would follow that he condemns himself by his own voice and aligns himself with your opinion, which so bitterly, and indeed unlearnedly and ignorantly, condemns condescension. Then let us consider what faith the teacher changed by condescending. None at all, and nowhere! But when the Orientals wished to repel from themselves the Nestorian mark by writings of retraction, and had said therein that "a union of two natures had been made," he, restraining the excess of duality and directing like a teacher, wrote back to them: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of the natures is recognized, from which we say the ineffable union has been made" (Phil 2:6–7), so that, with Christ now proclaimed as "from two," they might know that the composite is separated only in thought, and shows two different in substance only up to contemplation; but after the thought of union, the division into two being now removed, they might show one Christ subsisting from two, and one hypostasis and nature of the Word incarnate.
And this he taught not, as you said, after becoming changeable, but already before the condescension to the Orientals he was everywhere engaged in the same doctrines and words, diligently refined. To this diligence he also raised the less accurately spoken word of the Orientals by his own addition, and, as I said, restrained and healed the excess of duality through the formula "from two," and explained that the distinction of the sayings is a difference, not a division. And you may see him at once, in the prosphonetic oration to the most pious Emperor Theodosius, saying these things: CYRIL: "In no way, therefore, should it be determined that after the union two should rather be spoken of and each understood separately; but it should be known that the mind indeed sees some difference of the natures—for divinity is not the same as humanity—yet it perceives, along with the thought concerning these, also the concurrence of both into one. Thus he was begotten of God the Father as God, and of a virgin as man.
For that Word, which was ineffably and beyond comprehension begotten of God the Father, is also said to have been born of a woman, when he descended to humanity and humbled himself to that which he was not, not that he should remain emptied, but that he should be believed to be God even when he appeared on earth in our form; not as one dwelling in a man, but as himself, according to nature, having become man, while also preserving his own glory. For also the blessed Paul, gathering into one according to the dispensation the divinity and the humanity—which are far removed from mutual consubstantiality and differ from each other by an immense difference—and marking from both one Christ and Son and God, said, 'Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness'" (Rom 1:1–4). Behold, he clearly says that he was set apart for the gospel of God, although he plainly wrote: "We do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord" (2 Cor 4:5), and again: "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). Did he not clearly write this also, and in the very words, in the letters to Acacius, to Succensus, to Valerian, and to Eulogius, which he composed after the condescension to the Orientals—that is, that, separating only in thought, we see the difference of the natures, yet in no way determine that two should be spoken of after the union, and that, when the mind perceives along with the thought of difference the concurrence of both into one, and connects what is far removed from mutual consubstantiality, it confesses one Christ subsisting from both, and one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate and made man? And is not this also found in the Scholia? In the scholion entitled "How one ought to understand: 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us'; and how the Word, being God, was sent; and how the body is said to be his own," he wrote thus: CYRIL: "The difference of the nature of the Word and of humanity is signified to us only by the diversity which is between them; for one Christ is understood from both." Likewise, in the second book against the blasphemies of Nestorius: "For one nature is now conceived after the union, namely, the incarnate nature of the Word, just as we also rightly understand concerning ourselves. For man is truly one, composed of dissimilar things, of soul, I say, and body.
Furthermore, this is now also to be noted—that we say that the body which was united to God the Word was animated by a rational soul. And we will also suitably add this: the flesh itself, according to the reason of its own nature, is other than the nature of the Word according to his substance. But although the things spoken of are understood to be different and to recede from each other into natural difference, nevertheless one Christ is conceived from both, the divinity and the humanity being united to each other according to a true union." And again: "Cease to divide the natures after the union; for to know indeed that the divine and human nature are different is fitting and necessary for prudent men—for they differ from each other, and that by immeasurable differences—but when concerning our Savior Christ you have brought in the true and hypostatic union, refuse the division."
Where, then, are the traces of changeableness in Saint Cyril? And how does it not appear the same, that he took that equivocal statement of the Orientals, "a union of two natures has been made," and brought it to the formula "from two natures"—for this is the hypostatic union—and, up to the diversity according to substance perceived in contemplation, allowed a division in thought of those things which have been brought together into one; but after the thought of union, as the separation made in thought was now removed, he showed to those who did not understand and were in darkness regarding the formula that one nature of the incarnate Son must be proclaimed? For the most accurate principle of truth would have required that the Orientals in their own words confess that from two there is one Son and Lord and God and Christ, and that the union of God the Word with humanity was made according to hypostasis, beyond all thought and word and comprehension, and that there is one nature and hypostasis of the one Son incarnate and made man.
But since they were ailing and, when questioned, drew back, and had scarcely put forth an ambiguous statement free from the vain talk of Nestorius, and said indeed that a union of two natures had been made, but did not add "union according to dignity" or "according to identity of name" or "of love and goodwill," Cyril, as a minister of the word of righteousness and a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), used condescension; from his own views he neither changed nor diminished anything, but to the imperfect he added what was lacking, and, like a physician and teacher, gently deceived the sense of the sick and did not at once apply the saving remedies. And when he wrote to them, he wisely inserted: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of the natures is recognized, from which we say the ineffable union has been made" (Phil 2:6–7); but in other letters he unfolded the power of this statement, for in the formula "from two" all things hang, and from it is effected both the hypostatic union, and the truth that there is one nature of the Word incarnate, and that the two diverse and heterogeneous elements from which the union was made are to be understood as distinct only in thought, and that after the thought of union they are no longer to be spoken of as two.
After he had done this, and had received the imperfection of the sick and added his own words, when the unjust Theodoret and others like him opposed, saying "He received our Symbol," but did not submit themselves to the healing, he was compelled to appease the zeal of the orthodox and wrote these things to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: CYRIL: "But because the most holy Oriental bishops differed from us at Ephesus and were suspected as if they were ensnared and held by the traps of the blasphemies of Nestorius, therefore, and very prudently, freeing themselves from this crime and striving to satisfy lovers of the blameless faith, because they knew themselves to be free from that impurity, they composed a confession."
And indeed he wrote thus to him; but to those who again ran to the same sickness, he spoke gravely and severely.
For to John, bishop of Antioch, in a letter beginning, "My most religious lord bishop Beronicianus sent a letter to me, which was sent by your Piety," he wrote thus: CYRIL: "For some chaste monks came to me from Antioch and reported that certain of the most religious bishops of Phoenicia were speaking foolish words in the churches, words which bring to them the mark of Nestorius' madness. I exhorted them that, while they anathematize the suspect Nestorius and the heresies of Nestorius and do not think otherwise, this would be sufficient for them" (Tit 3:10). And moreover: "It may happen that peace prevails, and those who have anathematized the heresies or impure words of Nestorius will no longer speak such things in the church, lest some be scandalized. But indeed it is apparent even to Your Holiness how great madness it is that though Scripture anathematizes these things, nevertheless they feel and speak not only against those subject to them, but also against others from various cities who are found in sacred assemblies. Therefore, Your Holiness would deign to remove the cause of scandal and by a catholic letter admonish all the most religious bishops subject to you."
In another letter beginning, "Peace indeed is pleasant to all men," he wrote to him: "The magnificent count Longinus and his most noble wife wrote to me that the churches of Isauria are troubled because the most religious bishops and clergy there dare without fear to speak the doctrines of Nestorius in gatherings and to spread his vain babblings" (2 Tim 2:16). Again to him, in a letter beginning, "I have just now received the office of Christian charity from your Holiness's writings," he wrote thus: CYRIL: "Many bishops and monks coming from various places bring letters and all, as with one voice, accuse the pure bishops of Cilicia not only of departing from the peace which, with Christ's help, happened in the holy churches, but also of expelling from communion and disgracing with excommunications priests, deacons, and archimandrites when they speak some word for the faith in Christ. But I have not ceased to exhort those who come to be silent and rather to endure, and by no means to seek that the disturbance raised in the churches be settled very quickly, but rather to await gradually the restoration of things, which they say will be by the help of God and is not far off" (1 Pet 5:10). And to Dalmatios, presbyter and abbot residing in the royal city, he wrote in a letter beginning, "My holy and most religious lord John, bishop of Antioch," thus: CYRIL: "Moreover, those who have been seized by the madness of Nestorius, when gradually they have been taught, will hasten to what is right; but if anyone contends against them, they will mostly remain in what they are involved in."
All these things clearly show how the most wise spiritual steward, dispenser, and physician Cyril approached the ailing Orientals, and how he did only that which many had done in condemning Nestorius and his vain babblings, completing what was lacking in himself, and also how, arranging his speeches in judgment as was written, he appropriately approached according to the measure of each person, nowhere disturbing what was right, but gradually leading the imperfect to it and advising the perfect not to bear the dispensation of condescension harshly, while considering the benefits of the bond of peace and the gathering of the members of the body of Christ.
CHAPTER—ELEVEN
This is also what Basil, Gregory, and the synod of one hundred and fifty Fathers did, just like the wise Cyril, using condescension with intact faithfulness and precision of terms, guiding the imperfect and healing the sick, not falsely assuming the appearance of a physician as heretics do; and what that impure one erred in was that, from impiety, he called condescension mutability, and from ignorance, dispensation theology.
This, however, is an excellent rule of prudent instruction and apostolic governance: not to attack those who misunderstand immediately but to correct them slowly and lead them to perfection, not to mutability and bargaining as the ignorant Grammaticus' word of accusation insists, as the testimonies of the Fathers confirm. For Gregory the Theologian wrote in his Pentecost sermon: "They are insulting and very bad servants of evil who despise authority and rise against it to make free what should be a servant. Those who acknowledge God with a divine and excellent mind are wise; those who call Him so among the good are sublime, but among the lowly, they are foolish, for they cast pearls before swine, thunderous sounds to the weak ear, the sun to blind eyes, and solid food to those who still drink milk, while it is fitting to gradually promote them further by giving light to the light and truth to the truth."
And with these words, he himself begins to apply such dispensation and healing, granting the word "God" to the Holy Spirit and continuing in the same discourse saying: Gregory: "Let us strive for brotherly rather than proper love. Give force to divinity and we will give you permission for the word. Confess the nature to others which you approve more, and as we will heal the weak, we grant you some things gladly." Therefore, is it not absurd and completely ignorant to bring forth these harsh accusations against this Father and Theologian, who said "as we will heal the weak," and indeed healed them, as Basil wrote to the monks in Eurobines and Chalana living at the time of changing circumstances, and thus wrote: Basil:
"But they have a cunning way to explain their changes, namely that they use the words of faith like doctors use medicines according to the time, adapting themselves to the raging diseases. It is not fitting for me to refute the weakness of this sophism, but you should understand; the Lord will give you understanding to know what is the true word and what is distorted and perverse. For if at other times it is fitting to write other confessions of faith and to change them with the times, the saying 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism' is false" (Eph 4:5).
But if you were not unlearned, utterly lacking in the taste for divine matters, and trampling them with unclean feet like a swine that treads on pearls, you would know that Basil wrote those things not to despise the image of the physician, but rather against adversaries who adulterated the power of that image, and who did not apply the care of physicians to restore others who were sick to health, but who changed one disease into another in those who were variously ill, defining and writing at different times various and detestable confessions of faith in synods, and after many and diverse changes, sometimes even fleeing to the one and only definition of the 318 holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea, and again despising it when the power of the times inclined toward some other.
For you see how he said: BASIL: "For if it is fitting to write one faith at different times and to change it with the times," and shortly before he gave an example in the same letter: "Therefore they even detract from the Nicene faith and call us homoousians," and again: "But the Nicene faith was brought from the West by them, which they handed down to the Council of Tyana, from which they also received it." He mocks this more extensively even in the letter he wrote to the Thasians, saying: "The faith among us is not different at Seleucia, another at Constantinople, another at Zelis, another at Lampsacus, and another at Rome, nor is it now different from the earlier one, but one and the same; just as we received from the Lord, so we are baptized; just as we are baptized, so we believe; just as we believe, so we also glorify" (Mt 28:19; 1Co 12:13).
What then did Gregory and Cyril do, who said they condescended and healed? Or how, like those reproved by the wise Basil for falsely assuming the physician's role, did they behave? Did they depart in any way from their soundness or write different definitions of the faith? Not at all; rather, as often as he breathed, Basil called the Holy Spirit God, and allowed the lame in this confession to rightly confess equality of the Spirit's dignity with the Father and the Son by other words until they were gradually led to perfection. He also said to them in the same oration: GREGORY: "Do not accuse us on account of a loftier voice—for there is no envy in the ascent—nor do we bring you reproach for a path open to you, so long as you also come to the same home by another way. For we do not seek to conquer, but to receive our brothers, whose separation we mourn." He easily departed from his own formulas, whether from proclaiming one Christ from two natures, or from preaching the conjunction according to the natural union of divinity and humanity, from which Emmanuel and the same union is called hypostatic, or from confessing one nature of the incarnate Word. Therefore, he led the Easterners, who had said the union was made of two natures, to those formulas, teaching them to recognize and separate by the mind in contemplation two things different according to substance, those which are joined, but after the thought of union, as if the division into two were removed and not confused, from which the union is made, without ceasing the difference according to substance, to confess one nature of the incarnate and unincarnate Son. He tolerated the infirmity of the lame and did not require them to profess perfect terms, lest they flee from healing; but with salutary reason, he led that imperfection of their ambiguous confession to that which he cared for (Jh 1:1; Col 2:9; Heb 1:3).
But this belongs to teachers, not to evil innkeepers, as the Grammarian, who is barbarous and alien to the laws of the City of God, that is, the Church, judged; this is also confirmed by the wise John, bishop of Constantinople, who wrote in his thirty-first homily on the Gospel of John: JOHN: "But I say this so that we do not neglect those things found in Scripture, but also consider the purpose of the speaker and the weakness of the hearers and many other things found therein. For not all teachers speak as they themselves would wish, but as the condition of the sick demands. Therefore, Paul also said: 'I could not speak to you as to spiritual people.' I wanted to, indeed, but I could not; not because he was not able, but because they were not able to hear" (1 Cor 3:1; Heb 5:11).
But even the holy Basil himself, whose words you thought were wielded against us, O unlearned one, who call the condescension and salutary dispensation of the wise Cyril mutability and the action of an innkeeper, seems to have used this very method of dispensation and, on account of the weakness of the hearers, refrained from pronouncing the word "God" of the Holy Spirit, yet prepared and showed the doctrine of consubstantiality and equality of dignity of the Holy Trinity by other words of equal value; nor was he an innkeeper or fickle who did this. Concerning him, Gregory the Theologian said in his funeral oration: GREGORY: "He considered it necessary to arrange his words with judgment, using the divine David as counselor on this matter, and to retreat briefly from the time of war and violence of the heretics until a time of liberty and serenity would come and freedom of speech would be granted. For they sought to seize from the Spirit the bare word that He is God — which indeed, though true, seemed impious to them and to the perverse founder of impiety — so that they might drive Him out with theological civility into exile, while they themselves occupied the church and made it a stronghold of their wickedness, then as if from some fortress plunder whatever was left. But he, by other scriptural words and undeniable testimonies, and necessary syllogisms of equal value, so restrained the adversaries that they could in no way resist but were constrained by their own words, which is the greatest power of speech and prudence.
This will also be shown by that oration which he wrote on this argument, as if moving the pen of the Spirit from the inkpot; meanwhile, however, he abstained from his own word, asking this grace from the Spirit Himself and from His sincere defenders, lest they be offended by the dispensation, nor lose everything out of insatiable desire while carefully guarding the concern for one word, at a time already distracted by piety. For no harm comes to them by changing words for a short time, and teaching the same things by other words; for our salvation does not consist in words more than in things. For even the people of the Jews would not be rejected if they consented to apply to us the word "Anointed" instead of the word "Christ," yet great harm would be done to the community if the church were occupied by heretics. And that the Spirit Himself recognized better than anyone else that He is God is evident from the fact that He openly preached this often, when the time allowed, and privately to those who asked Him, He confessed it eagerly; but He said it more openly in his talks with me, to whom he openly spoke about these matters and hid nothing. Nor did he say this simply but, which he had often not done before, imprecated a most dreadful thing upon himself, that the Spirit would depart from him if he did not worship the Spirit with the Father and the Son, as consubstantial and equal in honor."
The testimony of Gregory the Theologian is confirmed when he clearly shows in his book of syllogisms against Eunomius that he acknowledges the Holy Trinity as consubstantial and confesses the Holy Spirit as God. Basil wrote: "What is common to the Father and the Son is also common to the Spirit, because the same attributes by which God the Father and the Son are designated in Scripture are also applied to the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that the Spirit is of the same divinity as the Father. Since those things which belong to the Father and the Son alone as God belong also solely to the Spirit, and not to the creature, just as names and things which are not shared with the creature are common only to the Trinity, it follows that the Trinity is consubstantial." And elsewhere: "Therefore, if no one but God alone has the power to forgive sins, and the Holy Spirit forgives sins through the apostles, then the Holy Spirit is God and of the same power as the Father and the Son" (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14).
He who spoke and wrote these things theologically and precisely, when the matter required, gave more to condescension than to exactness in words, and arranged his discourse in a dispensatory, salutary, and prudent manner; with this in mind, he wrote in a letter to Presbyter Evagrius: BASILIUS: "Indeed, we would be the most absurd of all men if we delighted in the schisms and divisions of the Church, nor did we regard the union of the members of the body of Christ as the greatest of goods. But know that as much as desire is in us, so much virtue is lacking. Your perfect Prudence is not unaware of evils that, strengthened over time, first require correction in due time, and afterwards strong and firm treatment if anyone wishes to reach the end, so as to uproot the diseases of the sick at the root."
And what wonder that Basilius, at the time when heretics prevailed, openly attacking and plotting, used a dispensatory mode of action toward them, preferring a humble, dispensatory, and condescending speech, abstaining from exactness and awaiting suitable liberty, when one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, who formed the entire synod, after the heretical darkness and great disturbance had passed with the coming of serenity and the appearance of just majesty, gave the Church the opportunity to preach all things without any fear, yet preferred condescension and humility to exactness? And because some remained weak, who held sound beliefs about the Holy Spirit in mind, neither calling Him a creature nor dissimilar, and certainly acknowledging adoration with the Father and the Son, and that He is of the same substance and divinity; for whoever is other according to substance does not share in divine glory, as God declares by the prophet, "I will not give my glory to another" (Is 42:8).
But for those who were disturbed by the exactness of words, the wise Fathers came to this salutary and gentle treatment of the illness, by which the whole Church would learn, through gradual approaches of recognition, to confess the Holy Spirit as God consubstantial with the Father and the Son; and though they were reluctant to confess that God or consubstantiality, the Fathers indulged their weakness without harming piety, and took upon themselves the imperfection by condescension, and gained; and indeed, on no other point did the definition of faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers try to enlarge without change except concerning the declaration about the Holy Spirit, against whom the wicked Macedonius blasphemously raged with words like the madness of Arius against the Son. For, using words of equal value, they said: "We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified," but did not say "God," nor "consubstantial," lest they turn away weak hearing. Yet He is the Lord and partaker of the same dominion and glory and adoration with the Father and the Son, and is certainly of the same substance and divinity; for whoever is other according to substance does not partake in divine glory, as God declares by the prophet, "I will not give my glory to another" (Is 42:8). But for those disturbed by the exactness of words, the wise Fathers came to this salutary and gentle treatment of the illness, by which the whole Church would learn, through gradual approaches of recognition, to confess the Holy Spirit as God consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
But Grammaticus, who arrogantly abounds in ignorance, struck on the head with great pride and as if from the Delphic tripod giving oracles to his own arbiter, boldly and vainly using the sacred Scriptures—like his father the devil, the author of lies—toward the end of his lamentable little book, adding to what he had already babbled about condescension, and imposing a vain and childish zeal as a fitting end to his ignorance, says: "We say these things not rejecting everywhere the business of condescension, but where doctrines concerning the Trinity and the incarnation of the Word are involved. Behold Peter, namesake of the rock, and the other apostles who were of the circumcision, conceded to observe briefly the precepts of the Law, making use of condescension toward the Jews, receiving no harm from this in preaching." But he calls blasphemy by the name of condescension in theology. And this, indeed, I judge sufficient to reveal his madness, for I have depicted the evil beast from his claws. Truly, I pass over investigating his assertions in detail, since I do not deem it necessary; for it is written, "Give the wise a chance and he will become wiser; teach the just and he will increase learning" (Sir 8:6).
They blasphemed, therefore, according to your decrees, the saints Basil and Gregory, as well as the synod of one hundred and fifty Fathers, who preferred a manner of condescension in theology concerning the Holy Spirit and through it healed the sick and, by a circuit of comprehensible words, finally raised to the height of accuracy those who until then were unequal, although they neither said the Spirit was a creature nor dissimilar to the Father. How then, O senseless one, did they blaspheme by condescending, healing, and using dispensation? But how did the excellent Cyril sin against the incarnation of the Word? He explains that he used condescension toward the Orientals, who were in darkness concerning the formula of the dogma and needed a leader and physician; and he also led and raised them to the truth, that is, to confessing from two one Lord and God and Son Jesus Christ, which the Chalcedonian synod rejected. How have you not noticed that you speak foolishly and all words without consideration? For after you reproached me above and below as if I had said badly that Cyril used condescension toward the Orientals, you absolved the reproach, saying: "But he calls blasphemy by the name of condescension in theology." But indeed, O blasphemer and idiot, between the wise Cyril and the Orientals it was not theology but dispensation that was the matter of division, for the doctors of the holy Church call the incarnation and inhumanation of the Only-Begotten dispensation, not theology (1 Cor 9:22).
Gregory the Theologian testifies, who, having digressed slightly from his subject in the discourse on the nativity, spoke of divinity and wrote: "Let these things now be philosophically said about God; for the time is not for more, since theology is not our proposed argument, but dispensation." For the word concerning the nativity of the Lord according to the flesh is dispensation, not theology, although it is always about Christ or the incarnate God, because whatever He was He remained, even after becoming man; therefore He also works those things which naturally belong to God alone. Thus the great Paul, sending a letter to the Ephesians, wrote: "To me, the least of all the saints, was given this grace—to evangelize among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to illuminate all what is the dispensation of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things" (Eph 3:8-9).
It was therefore necessary for you to say, O unlearned one, if I have spoken ill of the eminent Cyril's use of condescension toward the Orientals, and if that seemed blasphemy to you: "He indeed calls blasphemy that which is dispensation by the name of condescension." How then, when you are so utterly unlearned and miserable not only about these minor matters but also in the impiety of doctrines, do you arrogantly and vainly boast, saying that I have portrayed you, the evil beast, from your nails? For who will not mock the weakness of your fables, which burst forth like bubbles from your unlearned mouth and turn again into a rebuke of one who speaks in vain? Who will not grieve for you, who, after becoming the prey of demons and ensnared by the Jewish nets of madness, caught in the snare of the devil according to Paul's word (2 Tim 2:26), think yourself set outside the snares and boast to be a hunter yourself? Most of all, O good one, you have helped us greatly by revealing your mockeries and delivering them in a book, so that all may learn this entire artifice of your thoughts, from which there is no escape, and also with what words those who support the Council of Chalcedon trust.
CHAPTER—TWELVE
He shows himself to be an impious adversary by saying that condescension should not be called a union with the Orientals and at the same time asserting that they were in darkness and unwilling to confess the one incarnate nature of the Word. Yet, with his corrupted words, he depicts holy Cyril as changeable, as if we were doing this wrongfully, and, while boldly misinterpreting the letter to Eulogius, he throws the cause of division into two by the difference of the substance of natures from which there is one Christ.
Behold, just as those who rush headlong are thrown here and there, after you decreed that holy Cyril did not condescend to the Orientals, you wrote that the Orientals refused to say that the Word of God had one incarnate nature, and therefore they were in darkness, as wise Cyril wrote to Eulogius. It pleases your misery to add nonsense; it is fitting for me to gather those things which are scattered, which oppose and fight among themselves and often revolve but never stand firm: "But perhaps they will say: 'Behold, as to the formula, they were said to be blinded by darkness.' Indeed, if it were right to say Christ is in two natures, he would not say they were blinded by darkness; rather, from such one ought to beware more than receive. It must be seen from what is present how they always tear apart the meaning of words and seize brief expressions which are removed from the purpose of those who said them. For he does not say they were in darkness because they confessed two natures—for it would be madness, both great praise and blame—but because the Orientals, proclaiming two natures in Christ, did not consent to say one incarnate nature but contended long and rejected the formula, so much so that blessed Cyril bore much weariness and supported and illuminated the formula, as he indicates in the second letter to Succensus. Therefore, seeing their dispute, he said they were in darkness, not because of their confession as has been said, but because they did not know how to say one incarnate nature of the Word. And rightly he predicates this formula as his own and of the same power, saying: 'But now there is one Son and one nature of the Word, as incarnate. These the Orientals confessed, although as to the formula they were for a little while blinded by darkness' (2 Cor 4:4). They confessed our sentiments and came to the same mind, though using different words and were blinded by darkness and did not understand our formula as they themselves wished. Therefore, he does not reject the assertion of two natures but the confession of one incarnate nature, endowed with flesh, soul, and rational mind. But you still and now are blinded by darkness, while the Orientals have been enlightened and equally and rightly confess both formulas."
Therefore, you confessed with us that the Orientals were then in darkness because they refused to confess that the one incarnate nature of the Word of God exists. For this reason, when they established the symbol lacking this formula, wise Cyril tolerated it. How then did he not condescend by doing this to guide those blinded by darkness, indeed, according to your own words, to heal the blinded? How did he not appear as a careless and changeable innkeeper when he received their symbol lacking this principal term? Indeed, you wrote in this impious little book these things: "For in this letter blessed Cyril fights only against those who do not agree to say one incarnate nature of the Word of God, but only receive the formula 'in two natures,' which is an indication of a bad confession if the other confession is lacking, as has been shown" and again: "Boldness of the opponents to the pope! For if we were to say two natures and did not proclaim the other formula, namely that the Word is incarnate in one nature, they would have cause for their accusations" and again: "Therefore blessed Cyril received those who say two natures of Emmanuel, since he avoided the Apollinarian heresies and again professed the assertion of one incarnate nature of the Word of God, because of the division of Nestorius. For when both are proclaimed there is an indication of the right opinion; but when one confession is rejected, a bad suspicion of heresy arises."
Therefore, as you said, madness is marked in the letter of the Orientals, which is lacking the confession that proclaims one incarnate nature of the Word of God; it was also contaminated by the suspicion of bad heresy, as you said. Why then did he receive this mad letter? And if it is mad, how have you not caught yourself contradicting, who wrote saying, "The wise Cyril recognized their words as his own"? Remember these splendid words of yours: "Thus that great man rejoiced in their writings, and recognized them as his own, so that marveling he praised them and made that beginning worthy of hearing, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad.'" Truly he rejoiced in the truth but did not know how to indulge his joy (Ps 96:11).