And how could he rejoice in betrayal of the faith and adulteration of words, as you said? For we both reproach him and bring the charge with your own words. For how did he accept the writing of the Orientals, in which, as you said, a mark of madness is found because it lacks the confession of one incarnate nature of the Word, and from which arises the evil suspicion of heresy, namely Nestorian division, whose cause, as you said, was the confession of one incarnate nature of the Word? Why then do you present him rejoicing, when he ought to have been ashamed? Therefore, most fittingly, your words will be turned back upon your foolish head; we will say against you these words: "Truly unstable and at different times various, and a destroyer of his own building, you strive to show us the father of orthodox dogmas. For who is seized with such impiety as to spare others or rather to inflict harm, and cast himself into the pit, and transfer faith from faith? Who among those who rightly understand has advanced to such pride that, to have union with men, he separates himself from God?"
Do you notice how you are foolish and how your lamentable and imprudent babbling slips away into madness?
Therefore, accept confusion yourself, and rightly so; but Cyril, wise in the Spirit, who did not receive his office nor sell the faith for human favor, was a wise physician and teacher who rejoiced in the confession of the Orientals that they confessed one and the same Son of God, Christ Jesus, and the holy Virgin Mother of God, and did not add the mother of a man, as Theodoret, suffering the same errors as Nestorius, contested, as did those who communicated with him in his reproaches against the twelve chapters marked by slanderous infamy. I say Cyril rejoiced and was glad because they said, "For the union is made of two natures," not "according to homonymy," nor "according to equality of honor," nor "one person and one filiation." Yet, since they left the confession of union ambiguous, they gave him occasion to bring it to true and hypostatic union, inserting in what he wrote to them the formula "of two," and openly preaching: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of natures is recognized, from whom we say an ineffable union has been made" (Col 2:9). From this it follows that there is one incarnate and un-impeded nature of the Son, so that only by subtle contemplation and separation according to thought and as if by subtle fantasies of the intellect we perceive the union made of two natures, but after the thought of union, as if the division into two according to thought is removed and ended, their difference is not confused, for in composition and not in their own subsistence they subsist; one who from two, God and Son and Christ and Lord, we firmly believe to be, and what remains after the confession of true union, the thought even in duality belongs to those who are overwhelmed by darkness, who say it is united and not united.
And to hear the master is to hear him clearly proclaiming in his letter to Eulogius: Cyril said, "Incite them to pay attention to the reading of the letter of the blessed Pope Athanasius. For some there dispute and say that the Word of God transformed its own nature into a body; he asserts by every reason that the body is not consubstantial with the Word; and if it is not consubstantial, it has an altogether different nature, from which one and only Christ is conceived.
Let them not be ignorant that wherever union is named, it does not mean the conjunction of one thing, but of two or more things differing from each other according to nature. Therefore, if we say union, we confess the union of flesh endowed with a rational soul and the Word, and those who say two natures understand it thus. However, once the union is asserted, what is united is no longer separated by itself, but now there exists one Son and one nature of the Word as incarnate. The Orientals confessed these things, although with regard to the very formula they were for a time overwhelmed by darkness" (Col 2:9; Jn 1:14). Who among those who are either most wise or most shameless is not aware of these manifest and well-known notes, namely that what is joined is something different and something alone, conceived only according to the difference of substance, and that the heterogeneous and by no means consubstantial things that came together in one; and again, not because each subsists individually and in its own subsistence are they said to be different if Christ is one from both? For the master clearly said, restraining perfect and all kinds of diversity, even to difference according to substance: "The body is not consubstantial with the Word; and if it is not consubstantial, it has an altogether different nature, from which one and only Christ is understood" (Col 2:9). Thus I also brought him forward above in the scholia saying, "Therefore the difference of the nature of the Word and humanity signifies only to us the diversity which is between them; for Christ is understood as one out of both."
Since those gathered at Chalcedon rejected the formula "one Christ out of two," which alone restrains all division, where then, O Grammaticus, do you find boldness to bring in something different to say two natures after the union, and to assume difference according to substance as the cause to divide into two one who subsists from two, thus falling into a duality of sons and Christs? For we have also heard Gregory the Theologian write to Cledonius that what Christ is made of are two different things.
But if we break down the formula "out of which" to mean two natures after the ineffable union, subsisting separately and individually, we would introduce two natures no longer "different things out of which" but rather different things, one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate and unconfused Son, but others found as God and man separated according to hypostases. Thus the wise Cyril rises against Diodorus, who made the diversity of the natures united in one Emmanuel the cause of absolute diversity and perfect division, saying: "But these, because the flesh according to the quality of natural reason is the Only-Begotten, and the Word was not changed into flesh, erroneously divide and suppose them to be different and confess two sons, to whom scarcely any connection of relation is attributed. Or perhaps they suspect some might err, since neither do they lead the flesh by change to the nature of the Word, nor on the other hand do they bring the Word down to consubstantiality with the flesh united to it" (Col 2:9; Jn 1:14). And elsewhere: "But it is not unknown to you to dare to rebuke those who hold the true faith, and while rising up against those who confess the union without confusion, you do not blush to shake all things up, and to show that the flesh is of a different nature, I say, from the God-Word. But if anyone has confessed this with you, while departing from the ignorance of the Synousiast, you immediately divide one Christ into two."
How then, most miserable one, do you draw the difference according to substance and that which is separated according to the nature of quality—those heterogeneous things which have ineffably come together into one—to one of the two, the nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word, attributing proper diversity and saying there are two natures after the union? And you write about Saint Cyril as if you were saying something valid, yet ignorantly: "He does not refuse to say two natures; for the nature of the Word is one, and that of the flesh is another" (Jn 1:14). So far is he from rejecting the naming of two natures that he even says: union is not the joining of two things only, but of several that differ from each other according to nature; and those who say what I have said, and the Orientals, understand the union made of two natures thus.
For when what is composite is separated by the mind alone, it gives the understanding of two from which one is formed; but once the union is asserted, we no longer separate what is united, nor say there are two; otherwise, we fall into darkness, defining the same as both united and separated according to hypostasis. This happened to the Orientals, who were clouded in darkness as to the formula, and indeed confessed the union of two natures, but left that union covered in obscurity. This obscurity is of the formula, which Cyril dissolves by writing to them: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, although a difference of natures is recognized, out of which we say the ineffable union is made" (Col 2:9; Jn 1:14); but the term "out of two" is proper to the hypostatic union, while the term of this union is that there is one nature of the incarnate Word.
If Cyril had wished, as Grammaticus says, that we confess two natures united and not separated after the inexplicable union, he would have had to say: "But once the union is asserted, those things which are united are no longer separated from each other, but there is now one Son, and his two natures are united and not separated" (Mt 28:19). But now he did not say this at all, but rather, as if the division after the union were already removed, he said: "Nevertheless, once the union is asserted, those things which are united are no longer separated from each other, but there is now one Son, and one nature of him, as of the incarnate Word" (Jn 1:14). And, as I have often said, nowhere can it be shown that Saint Cyril wrote: "Therefore after the union we say two natures are united," but everywhere he says that two are recognized only by the mind and separated according to contemplation, and that those things which are joined differ according to substance; but after the contemplation of the union, the nature of the incarnate Word is one and absolute and subsisting, or one Christ and Son and Lord from both divinity and humanity.
Grammaticus, who considers himself skilled and difficult to refute, turns his impiety by twisting the very things well said into a false form of contradiction and says: "But perhaps they will say: Behold, as to the formula they were veiled in darkness. But if it were right to say Christ is in two natures, he would not say they were veiled in darkness" (2 Cor 4:4). Show then, O worst and knowing nothing else but to act impiously and clearly to err and lie, that the Orientals said "in two natures" Christ is recognized, as the Chalcedonian synod defined. But no one can show this; for they only said "a union was made of two natures," whence the teacher said Christ is one from two, not, as the Chalcedonian synod, recognized "in two natures."
CHAPTER—THIRTEEN
When the impious one said that the Orientals were enlightened by the wise Cyril to say there is one nature of the Word incarnate, and that he who asserts Christ is recognized in two natures but does not confess at the same time one nature of the Word incarnate, he himself by his own words shows the Chalcedonian synod both heretical and not enlightened, which in its definition from Leo's Tome wrote Christ is in two natures, and mentioned Cyril's letters for deception, but from them did not establish that there is one nature of the Word incarnate, and cut off Emmanuel as from two natures, so that, like Nestorius, by introducing the difference of natures, he caused division of duality after the union.
I greatly wonder at you who wrote that the blessed Cyril endured much weariness supporting the formula and illustrating it, as he shows in his second letter to Succensus, yet you do not notice where these empty words tend; why then did those gathered at Chalcedon not confess the formula, which with great sweat and labor was established and of which Cyril became the patron, as you said? That formula should have been placed often, if not always, in their definition, since it was attacked but, upheld by Saint Cyril, overcame its opponents. If they did not place it, then direct your words against them who, unlike the enlightened Orientals, remain in darkness, for those who did not say the union is made of two natures, indeed rejected it; this formula brings about one nature of the Word incarnate. Therefore, the two formulas are connected, and whoever rejects one also rejects the other; but whoever confesses the first also firmly receives the other.
The most wise Cyril likewise taught in his first letter to Succensus, writing: "When therefore we understand this, we do not harm the unity made from two natures; but after the union, we do not separate the natures nor cut him into two sons, but say one Son and, as the Fathers said, one nature of the Word incarnate."
Since this union is proclaimed indissoluble, natural, and hypostatic, and one Christ is absolved from two, and one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate, it is proper and right to say that we discern the union made of two natures according to thought; but after the thought of the union, we confess one from two as the Word incarnate. Thus, Saint Cyril, in the same first letter to Succensus, after saying that the union of two natures must be proclaimed, and one nature of the Word incarnate, immediately adds: "Therefore, as much as it pertains to thought and contemplation by the eyes of the soul how the Only-begotten was incarnate, we say there are two natures united, but one Christ and Lord and Son, the Word incarnate and unincarnate." Also in the letter to Acacius: "Therefore, considering what the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is made of, as if apprehended in thoughts, we say there is a union of two natures; but after the union, as if the division into two is removed, we believe one nature of the Son, as one, truly unincarnate and incarnate." Again: "When therefore the manner of the incarnation is diligently examined, the human intellect sees two ineffably and immutably joined according to the union; yet where they are united, it does not separate them at all, but believes one who is from two, both God and Son and Christ and Lord, and admits this without doubt."
From these things, those who gathered at Chalcedon wrote neither "natural union," nor "hypostatic," nor "from two natures," nor "one nature of the incarnate Word of God"; but only by the name of the letter of the wise Cyril, to deceive the simple, are they named, while truly mute, as the marvelous words of Leo are inscribed in the definition like a lofty pillar. For when he wrote about the Savior Christ of us all: Leo said, "Therefore, because of this unity of person, it must be understood in both natures," and again, "that the property of the divine and human nature remains indivisible in him," those adhering to him defined and said: The Chalcedonian Synod: "One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, in two natures acknowledged without confusion, without change, without division, without separation," and to these words they added, tearing apart the verse written in the second letter of Saint Cyril to Nestorius in this way: "not as if the difference of natures is abolished because of the union," cutting off what precedes together and says that from both there is one Christ, so that it is clearly recognized that those who cut Cyril's words are thieves and sacrilegious, who tear apart intact and attack that which we confess, that from two natures an inexplicable union is made, by which it is brought about that there is one nature of the incarnate Word of God. The passage stands thus: Cyril said, "Indeed, the natures are different but truly gathered into unity, and there is one Christ and Son from both, not as if the difference of natures is abolished because of the union, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ and Son is made one by divinity and humanity through an inexplicable and ineffable concurrence into unity" (Jn 1:14). Those who cut off the words "from both" and wrote only "not as if the difference of natures is abolished because of the union" are detected as thinking and doing the same as Nestorius; for although he names two natures and signifies difference, he does not confess the union with us, because he did not say "from two natures," nor "one nature of the incarnate Word of God."
The wise Cyril is produced as witness to this matter and says what the Grammaticus indeed brought from the letter to Eulogius but never truly heard with ears of understanding: Cyril states, "Not all that heretics say must be avoided and rejected; for many things they profess, we also profess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we should reject such a confession? Similarly, about Nestorius: although he says two natures, signifying the difference of flesh and the Word of God— for the nature of the Word is one thing and that of the flesh another—yet he does not confess the union with us. For we confess those united, one Christ, one Son, the same, one Lord, and the one nature of the incarnate Son. Something similar can be said of any man; for it is evident from different natures, namely body and soul, and reason and contemplation recognize the difference, but when we unite these, we then make one nature of man. Therefore, to acknowledge the difference of natures is not to dissect one Christ into two" (Jn 1:14). Again: "The body is not consubstantial with the Word; and if it is not consubstantial, it is altogether a different nature from that from which the one and only Christ is understood" (Phil 2:6–7).
But those who gathered at Chalcedon indeed bring forth from Cyril's words what Nestorius confesses with us, namely that there are two natures and, according to substance, distinct divinity and humanity; yet those things which expel and cast out Nestorius's division remain with them silently and his letters are concealed; not only concealed but also cut off—saying "one Christ from two" and "one nature of the incarnate Word" being removed. For when these are proclaimed, to acknowledge the difference of natures from which the one Lord and God and Son and Christ is constituted is not to divide that one into two. Such things were already borne by the Jewish crowd before he departed hence and was with God, a strenuous athlete of truth, when that crowd slandered him with twelve chapters and filthy accusations against those things, and plotted that his writings, which refuted Nestorius's impiety, be suppressed in silence. They twisted every rope, so to speak, to deprive him even of speech if it had been permitted. About these things he also wrote to Acacius, bishop of Aleppo, truly just and one who never ceased, as the book of Proverbs says, but fought unceasingly for the truth: Cyril says, "They openly want us to be speechless, proclaiming his silence with blasphemies to all."
What then do you toil in vain, O Grammaticus, murmuring in your little book like the song of cantharides in your throat "one nature of the incarnate Word," and you write: GRAMMATICUS: "Blessed Cyril endured much fatigue, taking up the patronage of that formula and illuminating it"? Among those who are not enlightened, the Chalcedonian synod will be placed, which did not confess the illuminating formula, and through these things you prepare confusion to adorn it with another's feathers. But it is no wonder. For there are indeed some who imitate your kind of grammarians' art, ignoble and unlearned flatterers, who strive to please the great and flatter the rich. And very often they call a certain man utterly ignorant of what contest is, what battle or battle line is, indeed perhaps even paralyzed or afflicted with gout, according to the consequence of their counterfeit grading of words, a horseman, armor-bearer, warrior, and very fervent; and another they call a mercenary and leaning for one quarter of a pound of judgment, an equitable judge bearing just judgments. Nor do they so much adorn with praises those who are to be praised as they recall to their memory the gifts with which they are destitute, and those against which they contend, and those for which it would be more fitting for them themselves to grieve than to rejoice.
Thus, in agreement with these, you also have written, praising the hypostatic union and that from two there is said to be one Christ and that one nature of the Word of God incarnate is proclaimed. But as for the Chalcedonian synod, which is deprived of these things, as the facts themselves show—for it says nothing at all of this kind, but even deceitfully cuts away what it ought to say and write—it is fitting to grieve over the deprivation, silence, and cutting off of the words of the true faith, which you outwardly praise while becoming a patron to that synod which cast them out and despised them, and at last refused to write them in its definition. Nor is it hardly superfluous that from your own words we may declare against it a sentence of condemnation; for since it defined that Christ is to be acknowledged in two natures, but did not confess that there is one nature of the Word of God incarnate, it is by you attributed to heretics; indeed, you have also said that this is an indication of madness and brings upon them suspicion of evil heresy, that someone should confess in two natures one Christ, but again not confess that there is one nature of the Word of God incarnate.
Hear then your own statements, for the matter itself brings them forth against me again: GRAMMATICUS says, "In this letter, the blessed Cyril fights only against those who do not agree to say one nature of the Word of God incarnate, but rather accept the formula 'in two natures,' which is a sign of madness if the other confession is lacking, as has been shown." And later: "Shame on the audacity of the adversaries! For if we said only two natures but again do not confess the other confession, namely that one nature of the Word of God incarnate, the cause for their accusation would exist." And after a few words: "Therefore, the blessed Cyril accepted those who say two natures of Emmanuel, since he avoided the heresies of Apollinarius, and again professed the assertion of one nature of the Word incarnate because of Nestorius's division. For when both are proclaimed, it is a sign of the correct doctrine; but when one confession is rejected, a bad suspicion of heresy arises." To you, who wrote these things and want to mix by a certain wicked fraud what cannot be mixed, and who entangle yourself with your own words as with snares, the holy book of Proverbs rightly cries out: "He who is reckless with his lips stumbles and falls," and again, "The mouth of fools is their ruin; their lips are a snare to their soul" (Pr 5:23; 18:7). For as I have just said, when the Chalcedonians rejected confessing Christ from two natures, they could not confess one nature of the Word of God incarnate.
CHAPTER—FOURTEEN
That the Chalcedonians anathematized those who confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, or say that Christ is one nature, that is, one hypostasis, without confusion from two, from divinity and humanity, using the same artifices as both Nestorius and those who wrote against Saint Cyril, deleting the words "incarnate" and "from two," and slanderously asserting that by "one nature" and "one hypostasis" he meant "one substance," and accusing him of change, confusion, and theopaschism, and of imagining two natures before the union but only one after the union.
And why do I say this? For they also attacked this formula with the same fictions as Nestorius; for in the definition composed by their synod they wrote these things, testifying: CHALCEDONIAN SYNOD: "And against those who introduce a mixing and confusion of the two natures of Christ, the synod rises up; and it rejects those who foolishly think that the form of a servant assumed from us is heavenly or 'from another substance'; and it anathematizes those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union but form only one after the union" (cf. Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6-7); yet let them explain to us why, after rejecting both those who think there is mixing and confusion, and those who impiously suppose the flesh of the Lord to be heavenly or from another matter rather than from our substance, and I add also those who, according to any vile opinion, mix and confuse into one substance the things from which Christ is, they did not add that it is fitting to confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, or that the one nature and hypostasis is one Christ from two, divinity and humanity, perfect according to their own reasoning.
Thus we have also brought forward Julius, the spiritual and unshaken tower of the Church of the Romans, writing in the discourse entitled On the Union in Christ, that is, of the Body to the Divinity of the Word: JULIUS: "It is proclaimed in Him that this indeed is created in the union of the uncreated, and that the uncreated is in the conjunction of the created, one nature subsisting from both parts" (cf. Jn 1:14). Likewise, we have brought forward the wise Cyril, writing in the discourse That Christ is One: CYRIL: "But who would be so foolish and unlearned as to think that either the divine nature of the Word was changed into what it was not, or that the flesh was transferred, in the manner of change, into the nature of the Word? By no means can this happen; but we say that there is one Son and one nature of Him, even if He is acknowledged to have been made, in the assumption of flesh having a rational soul. For, as I said, His humanity became His own; and we conceive of Him in no other way than as now God and man at the same time" (cf. Phil 2:6-8). And again, in the defense of the eighth anathema against the objections of Andrew: "For when speech, inquiring diligently concerning one person and nature or one hypostasis, adds the preposition with (σύν) or after (μετά) to the things from which He is or is composed according to nature, it still maintains that He is one according to composition, and in no way divides or separates into two. But when, the hypostases having first been divided into two, and in order that each may be conceived separately and individually, the preposition with (σύν) or after (μετά) is used, then we say the preposition signifies two or more, not one according to composition" (cf. Col 2:9).
It was indeed necessary that, in every passage cited, the teachers who said that Christ is one nature also added the phrases "from two," "from which He is composed according to nature," "He is one according to composition," and "having been made in the assumption of flesh possessing a rational soul," lest anyone falsely claim that "one nature" meant one substance from confusion which the vigorous Grammaticus also sought to do.
Therefore, even in the first letter to Succensus, the wise and careful master, in no way liable to the accusations of slanderers, wrote: CYRIL: "For if we remove this—that from two different natures there is one and only Christ, existing indivisible even after the union—those who oppose the right doctrine will say: If the whole is one nature, how then has He been made man and made the flesh His own?" (cf. Jn 1:14). Thus he taught that the one who says one nature of Christ must confess Him to be from two different natures, so that it may be clear we say "one nature" of Him who is from two, likewise "one hypostasis" and "one person," as he himself added, saying, "Concerning one person and one nature or one hypostasis." And in the second letter to Succensus, he again teaches that the one who says "one nature of the Word" must absolutely confess "incarnate," to indicate Emmanuel, that is, the Son and Only-Begotten Word of God the Father made man for us: CYRIL: "For if, after saying 'one nature of the Word,' we had kept silent and not added 'incarnate,' the dispensation being excluded, there might perhaps have been a plausible argument for them to ask deceitfully: Where is the perfection of humanity, or where does the substance like ours subsist? But because both the perfection in humanity and the indication of our substance have been brought in by our saying 'incarnate,' let them cease to lean on a reed staff."
These are the things that the mystagogues of truth believed and taught; but no one of those who think rightly ever imagined two natures before the union. For before the union and incarnation, the Word of God was simple and without flesh, as to His substance without figure, form, or body, and coeternal with the Father and the Spirit. But when, for our sake, He deigned immutably to become man while remaining God, when—ineffably—He overshadowed, as it is written, the Virgin Theotokos, from her and from the Holy Spirit He united to Himself a flesh consubstantial with us, endowed with soul and mind, by a natural union. For this reason we also call it a hypostatic union, because in that union the flesh, which did not exist before the Word, who is older than the ages, came into existence and obtained union with the very subsistence itself, so that thus also from two, indivisibly, from divinity and humanity, Emmanuel is understood to be one, conceived and born in the flesh, just as the soul of any man is born with his body, which according to substance is other than it, but from both one nature and hypostasis is completed.
In a similar way, the Word of God, as it is written, "partook of flesh and blood" (Heb 2:14) and "was made in all things like us, without sin" (Heb 4:15). If, therefore, before the union and incarnation the Word was simple and without body, but after the incarnation was one from two, where are those who imagine two natures before the union? But I find the followers of Nestorius, who imagine two natures before that union which they themselves acknowledge; for if the Word, more ancient than the ages, existed in His own nature and hypostasis, and the infant from Mary first subsisted and was created separately and afterwards was joined to the Word and united according to affectionate will and benevolence, and partook of the name and dignity of Son, then before this fabricated and falsely-named union there were surely two natures and hypostases—the infant from Mary and the Word from God—whose duality not even that fictitious "person of the union" abolished. Why, then, did those gathered at Chalcedon, after they had first rejected those unclean opinions—namely, confusion, mixture, the notion that Christ's body was heavenly or of some other matter and not of our substance, and likewise the notion that we imagine two natures of the Lord before the union but one after the union, and had anathematized those who so think—not also add that it should be said: "One nature of God the Word incarnate," or "from two different natures one Christ, one person, one nature and hypostasis from two," as the holy Fathers Athanasius, Julius, and Cyril said?
But it is clear that the Chalcedonians, by keeping silent about the legitimate expressions, have falsely ascribed to these formulas the fault of mixture and confusion, and the foolishness of imagining two natures before the union. For they seem to have understood—as if by a comparison of times—that which Saint Cyril said to Nestorius: "Cease to divide the natures after the union," and again elsewhere: "But after the union, as the division into two has already been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one who is truly made man and incarnate."
Yet this statement is not to be compared—according to the blasphemous rebuke of the impious—to the time before the incarnation, as if, before the Word of God was united to flesh endowed with a rational soul, there had been two natures and hypostases of Christ. For the very words themselves show that this would be the greatest impiety and madness. Rather, the meaning is as if one were considering the thought of someone carefully inquiring into the distinction of the natures from which the one Christ is constituted—someone who indeed contemplates as two, in thought and reflection, those things which came together into the union, but, after thinking of the union, can no longer call them two, because from the two there is now one hypostasis and one nature of the incarnate and made-man Word. And that the matter stands thus, clearer than the sun, is shown by the plain and manifest voice of Saint Cyril, which has already been cited above, now brought forward again from his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, where he proclaims: CYRIL: "Wherefore, considering in thought the things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, we say that two natures have been united; but after the union, as the division into two has already been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one, truly incarnate and made man." AGAIN: "Therefore, when the manner of the incarnation is carefully inquired into, the human intellect plainly sees two things ineffably and without confusion joined together according to the union; yet, when they have been united, it in no way separates them, but firmly believes and holds that the one who is from two is God and Son and Christ and Lord."
We have already said this at length above; but those who gathered at Chalcedon, wishing to pervert the legitimate formula of the holy Fathers—namely, "that one nature and hypostasis from two, from divinity and humanity, is to be acknowledged as one Christ," or "one nature of God the Word incarnate"—added to it this invention, "that before the union and incarnation there are two natures," together with the notions of confusion and change, and thus they anathematized it; for unless this had been their intention, they too would have confessed the formulas "from two" and "one nature of God the Word incarnate"; indeed, according to those themselves who speak of two natures after the supposed and falsely named union, it is necessary that before the union there also be two natures, and they rightly deem it a fiction to say that before such a union there were two natures and to feign one after the union; thus the hypostatic union is utterly removed from this lying fiction which the impious, from their foul opinion, dared to append; for the simple and fleshless One before the union, together with flesh endowed with soul and mind, and before the perfect becoming-man, even when He became man, shows that the one who is from two—divinity and humanity—exists perfectly, and is separated only in thought and subtle contemplation; for thus is the composite, that with the sharp eye of the mind we see the union of two certain things, diverse and in no way consubstantial with each other, yet at the same time it retains the indivisibility of the union, so that after the thought of the union we no longer say two; for from two there is one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word, which is brought to completion and subsists beyond all admiration.
That to these legitimate words the same false reproaches were added—which also the council of Chalcedon did—the unclean company of Nestorius, when fighting against Saint Cyril, will be clearly shown by the following; for immediately Nestorius himself, in the memoranda forged by him at Ephesus, to which he gave the title, "On the things which happened at the Ephesian synod, and on the cause for which it was convened," said: NESTORIUS: "Was this not devised by some follower of Apollinaris or Arius, just as these also mix the duality of natures into one nature?" And in the discourse entitled "On the Faith," or "Exposition of the Faith," whose beginning is "We confess the dogma: consubstantial," he wrote: "But if these theopaschites, confirming the sect of Apollinaris, should say, 'After the union one nature appeared,' we must with great indignation turn our face from them, because from such mixing and confusion they impiously remove each nature from its own properties, and in their view allow neither the divine nor the human nature any longer to remain, since through the mixing and confusion each has fallen away from its own substance and has passed perfectly into the other; but if they say that the natures were neither mixed nor confused, then of necessity there is not one nature, but they are forced to concede that Christ has two natures, the impassible and the passible, and the dogma stands affirming that Christ is consubstantial with the Trinity according to the divinity."
The Chalcedonians also, making the same claim and speaking in words that matched his, as though champions of the impassibility of the divinity, said thus: SYNOD OF CHALCEDON: "But those who introduce confusion and mixing, and who foolishly pretend that the nature of the flesh and of the divinity is one, and who falsely say by mixing that the divine nature of the Only-Begotten is passible." Yet they would have done well indeed to safeguard the immutability and impassibility of the divinity, and we would have recognized that they spoke these things against those who confuse into one substance the things from which Christ is, if they themselves had confessed that the nature of the Word of God made flesh is one, and had not plainly rejected the statement that from two natures there is one Christ.
No one is unaware that they were armed against these formulas. For Nestorius himself reveals the whole pretense and shows that all their struggle is against those who confess the one nature of the Word of God made flesh. For in the work entitled Against the Theopaschites or Cyrillians, composed in the form of a dialogue, he wrote, as already cited: NESTORIUS: "Theopaschite says: And how shall we feign the compounding of the duality of natures, who say that Christ is one nature of God incarnate? — Orthodox says: Do you consider that the very excuse of those whom you accuse, which you argue against? For you yourselves have confessed that Christ is one nature from incorporeal and corporeal and one hypostasis of the God-flesh. But this is the confusion of two natures, because these natures are robbed of the hypostases which they individually possessed, when they are mixed together." Moreover, as his foolish commentary demands, he introduces the Theopaschite as saying: "Therefore the nature of the flesh is passible and mutable and newly created, yet still proper to the divinity so that both subsist in one and the same nature." Saint Cyril also, in the fifth volume Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, presents this unjust writing of him: NESTORIUS: "I would wish here to learn from the heretics, who mix the nature of divinity and of humanity into one substance, who is this one who is handed over by the traitor to the Jews. For if the mixture of both has been made, both are simultaneously held by the Jews, both God the Word and the nature of humanity."
Behold, they construct the entire slander of commixture and confusion against those who confess the one nature of the Word of God incarnate, and they falsely assert that one nature—namely, one hypostasis from two, unconfused—is called one substance, as if divinity and humanity, from which Emmanuel is, had been confused and commingled into a single identity of substance. Following the same path as Nestorius, the impious Theodoretus, after receiving Saint Cyril in communion with the Orientals, wrote to the Nestorians in Constantinople: THEODORETUS: "For now the plan of deceit has been refuted, and the power of truth has been revealed. Behold, those who had impiously confused the natures of our Savior Christ and dared to proclaim one nature, and therefore fought against the most holy and religious pontiff Nestorius, like a bridle and bit, as the prophet said, broken in their jaws, now praise the opposed, as a pedagogue of truth, who upheld the fight for truth. For they now confess two natures for the one nature and anathematize those who introduce commixture or confusion, venerate the divinity of Christ in impassibility, teach that the flesh experiences passions, separate the evangelical statements, ascribing sublime and God-worthy acts to the divinity, and humble acts to humanity. Such are the writings, which came recently from Egypt." Similarly, he wrote to Theosebius, bishop of Cius: "And now those who confessed doctrines contrary to the apostolic teaching, and taught that the one nature of Christ was made of two natures, and introduced commixture and confusion, have been compelled to learn from the evangelical truth. Hence they are now persuaded to confess two natures, rejecting change and confusion from the doctrines of the Church, proclaiming the unconfused natures with a loud voice, and saying that the divine nature is impassible." And he wrote to Domnus, at that time bishop of Antioch, successor to John: "For those who are from other dioceses do not know the venom hidden in the twelve chapters, but, attending to the clarity of the one who wrote them, suspect nothing evil." And again after a short time: "Nor did we first communicate with him who wrote these things, until he assented to the doctrine presented to him, accommodating his teaching to it, making no mention of any of those chapters."
Is there any need for divination or conjecture regarding what is plainly proclaimed? For when those anthropolaters opposed Saint Cyril, or rather opposed the very truth, they refrained from the formula "from two" and cut off the word "incarnate," thereby bringing the slander of change and confusion against the confession of one nature. Behold, he who wrote those reprehensions declared in twelve chapters that such a crime is venomous. And who among the devout would not shudder at such audacious falsehood? Where, in those twelve chapters, is there any suspicion of change, confusion, or commixture of substances? Where, in his individual writings, is it not plainly excluded, except even in the third epistle to Nestorius, beneath which the wise father wrote those twelve chapters? But indeed, the impious slanderer, who in those chapters stripped "one nature" of that which is proclaimed "from two, not consubstantial with each other, ineffably united into one" and "incarnate," openly and boldly manifested his deceitful impiety in his filthy discourse, barking like a dog: THEODORETUS: "And how is the giver of life, who is mortal? How does he give life to the dead, who was delivered to death? But before others, you will say, he rose. This also pertains to change! Thus he underwent a second change: indeed he was made dead by God, and again God from the dead." And elsewhere: "They find, however, a certain new escape against the doctrines of truth; for we believe, they say, in one incarnate nature."
Alexander, who was bishop of Mabug, and like Theodoret raged with the same madness, wrote to Acacius, bishop of Aleppo, who had received all the writings full of orthodoxy from Saint Cyril, as follows: ALEXANDER: "With God present, I speak, and I fear no one: Cyril is a heretic, preaching one nature of Christ and attributing to it all sufferings and even death. And although any reader, with love of truth, may find in the chapters, in the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in various letters, festal writings, and all other works of his, that he says one nature of God and man, and that the Word of God became flesh in this sense, and was dead in the flesh, and buried in the flesh, and revived in the flesh, and that the firstborn from the dead was made the Word of God in the flesh; yet he has cast down the name of incarnation after the confession of one nature." And shortly after: "It pleases him who wishes to understand. For when he said by a deceptive word that the Word of God is impassible, immutable, unchangeable, possessing unshaken permanence, he afterward joins both natures into one, attributing all previously said to the divinity of the Only-Begotten. Therefore, he did not hesitate, in his explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to say: 'The Word of God has revived in the flesh.' But this, from his other writings, especially from his recent letter to your holiness, scholars of doctrine can carefully learn; saying that the Word of God is unchangeable and incapable of any passion according to his nature, yet subtly introducing passion, saying that the Word of God became flesh, not that he assumed flesh. For he sets this in all his chapters, saying everywhere that the Word of God became flesh, so that before the dispensation he is impassible, but after the dispensation passible. For he says that according to himself he is impassible, but when he became flesh or man, he underwent passion. But if he openly confessed two natures, he would free himself from heretical understanding."
The impious Andreas, who, like Theodoret, dared to write unjustly and contemptuously against the twelve chapters, wrote in a letter to the venerable Rabulas, then bishop of Edessa, who had reproved him for his audacious and rash opposition, as follows: ANDREAS: "If in this, which is said by the followers of Apollinaris or Cyril, namely that after the union the natures in Christ are not to be divided, we should not make two sons from it, your holiness is in peril; with your peace I will advise your holiness to hear. It is the most foolish and absurd trick! First, this very phrase 'after the union' lacks reason. For the human Lord is not conceived before the divine union, nor was that blessed nature ever absent from him, for 'Wisdom has built herself a house,' and indeed it is not removed from the temple in which it dwells. Therefore it is inept and foolish to say 'after the union,' as if he had first been constituted a man, and only afterward some conjunction occurred. Furthermore, when they say God and man are the same, nevertheless they confess two natures, unless the divine and human nature are the same, or unless some commingling or confusion of both has taken place." And shortly after: "And fleeing with simulated fear from the confession of two natures, they indeed remove one Christ from the midst, and unwillingly speak of a strange commingling and confusion, or of God having been wholly changed into flesh and suffered."
Nestorius and the adherents of his impure Judaizing doctrine wove these slanders against Saint Cyril, who confessed Emmanuel as existing from two natures and preached the one incarnate nature of the Word of God: namely, that "he teaches change and confusion, makes the Word of God passible, indeed establishes two natures before the union, but after the union makes one nature by commingling, and mixes and confuses the natures." The Chalcedonian Synod likewise applied these accusations in its own words, for while it clearly rejected that Christ is proclaimed from two natures, it in no way sustained writing in the definition that there is one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Indeed, it shares in the calumny insofar as it openly records their reproaches in what had been promulgated; yet it removed itself from the full confession of the wise Cyril, which dismisses the emptiness of their criticisms. Sometimes it rejected the formula "from two natures," sometimes it cut it out, and indeed, when mentioning the letters of Saint Cyril, it did so to deceive and mislead the simple—a matter of remarkable cunning, but to the prudent, highly reprehensible.
CHAPTER—FIFTEEN
It is shown that those who contended with the errors of Nestorius, among whom Andreas was also one, falsely attributed their own impiety to Saint Cyril, claiming that he taught two natures before the union and one after; the Chalcedonians themselves also accused him of this. Numerous testimonies from all students of Nestorius' doctrines demonstrate that he was understood to mean Christ in two individual natures, which they divided into two Christs while pretending to speak of one and the same.
It is indeed remarkable how the lamentable Andreas denied his own doctrine by saying, "For the Lordly man is not conceived before the divine union," as if to falsely attribute to Saint Cyril the claim that there were two natures before the union, precisely because he rejected the confession of two natures after the union. Those who attentively and wisely consider what Saint Cyril presented regarding Diodorus will surely recall that it was the deceitful opinion of the Jewish factions. For Cyril wrote: Diodorus: "When he was in the womb of the Virgin and belonged to her substance, he did not possess the dignity of sonship. But when he was conformed and made the temple for God the Word, receiving the Only-Begotten, he attained the dignity of the name and shared in that dignity." To this, the leader of the army of the Holy Spirit, refuting him, said: Cyril: "Therefore he was not Emmanuel, nor finally the Son, but a common man like us. But when he was born, the Only-Begotten already came upon him, and then he was made the temple of God and dignified with sonship and honor. Hence this honor is added to him."
Again he brings forward Diodorus, changed and opposing himself while writing these things: Diodorus: "He who was from the seed of David, from whom he was created, had the Word of God; but when he was created, he belonged to the Word of God. For with us indeed, first the temple is built, and then he who inhabits it enters into it.
But in the womb of the Virgin, he himself who inhabits fashioned for himself the temple, and was not far from the temple, but filled it with his glory and wisdom; unlike with the prophets, ignorance was present concerning what the Spirit revealed." And again he presents him saying the opposite: "For the divinity, as soon as he was created or born, did not place all his wisdom in him, but gradually gave it to the body." Against these things, he who wisely explains them immediately adds: Cyril: "It is fitting first of all also to say this; since he proceeded contrary to what he says and orders us to believe. For he asserts that the divinity of the Son, as soon as he was born, did not place all his wisdom in him, although he wrote a little above: 'For with us indeed, first the temple is built, and then he who inhabits it enters into it. But in the womb of the Virgin, he himself who inhabits fashioned for himself the temple, and was not far from the temple, but filled it with his glory and wisdom.'"
But a more ridiculous solution to this absurd opposition is given by Theodorus, who at that time presided over the church of Mopsuestia in a Judaic manner. For he says that according to foreknowledge, the Word of God was united from the beginning, even when the infant was being created, and afterwards was deemed worthy of this union and granted it. For the eminent Cyril produces him, who rambles foolishly about these things, in his second oration against him, speaking thus: Theodorus: "For he who was assumed was united to the Word of God even from the beginning, according to foreknowledge, having obtained the principle of union in the very formation in the womb. But immediately, as he was deemed worthy of the union, he obtained all that was fitting to be given to man united to the Only-Begotten and Lord of all, granted with greater gifts than to others because the union that had already occurred for him was higher."
Moved by these impious doctrines of diversity, Andreas, both profane and ignorant, says: "For the Lord's man is not conceived before the divine union," as if it were evident that by predestination he was considered united and inhabited from the beginning, but once formed, he gradually, as if by participation, received wisdom and fully obtained it, thus being perfectly inhabited. Hence, like a harlot, that audacious man wished to impose his confusion on Saint Cyril, criticizing his statement, which teaches: "Truly, after the union, as now no longer divided into two, we believe the Son has one nature, as one, truly unhumanized and incarnate," and his words directed to Nestorius, shouting: "Cease to divide the natures after the union," as if the wise doctor, by saying that the natures are not to be divided after the union but that one incarnate nature is to be proclaimed, insinuated from a temporal comparison that there were two natures before the union; which indeed is the proper doctrine of their Jewish faction, as I have said, which forms the infant before the indwelling, which they also wish to call a union.
Joining itself to these, the Council of Chalcedon set forth all the insults which had been directed against Saint Cyril by these men, in order and collectively, so to speak, saying of itself: The Council of Chalcedon: "And against those who invent a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ it rises; and it rejects those who foolishly think that the heavenly form or the form of a servant assumed by us comes from another substance; and it anathematizes those who indeed mix the two natures of the Lord before the union, but form one after the union." Yet it did not add that Emmanuel is to be recognized "from two natures" and "one incarnate nature of the Word," so that those who confess these might also fall under the anathema pronounced by it. It further immediately defined that it is to be said: The Council of Chalcedon: "One and the same Christ, the Son and Only-begotten Lord, is acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, indivisible, inseparably."
What had been harshly devised word for word against Saint Cyril is again shown by the heretical voice of those who had long prepared it.
For the wicked Alexander, who was the leader of the Mabugenses and the instrument of the raging and insane tongue of Theodoret, writing to John, then bishop of Antioch, impiously contending against the wise Cyril, wrote this: Alexander: "…when I see him with all diligence and fortitude everywhere, in the first, in the middle, and in the last, making use of them, through which he has manifestly proclaimed that the Word of God was made the firstfruits from the dead, and that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was revived as the Word of God, and sustained natural conjunction and hypostatic union, and came to one nature. And for these things he contends as if they are rightly and orthodoxly held, and consonant with the divine Scriptures." And elsewhere: "If therefore the Egyptian persists in the same, and does not deny the chapters, yet confesses Christ, from whom the holy Virgin was evangelized by the angel, to be God and man, the same evidently the Son of God according to the nature of the Word of God and the Son of man according to the nature, which is from the seed of Abraham and David, that is, the same Lord David according to divinity and the son of David according to humanity, with God the Word raising the temple from the dead according to the teaching of our Lord Christ, and through all ages two natures are acknowledged in one Lord and Son and Christ without confusion and indivisibly, we have no communion with him."
Does this in any way differ from what was defined by the Chalcedonian Fathers: SYNODUS CHALCEDONENSIS: "One and the same Christ, the Son, the Only-Begotten Lord, is acknowledged in two natures immutably, without confusion, indivisibly, inseparably"? Did not Leo also write: LEO: "On account of this unity of the person it is to be understood in both natures," and again: "So that the properties of the divine and human nature are recognized to remain indivisible in him"? Thus we have already brought forth Nestorius saying: "The same one who is seen in the uncreated and in the created nature," and again: "One nature is not held, but they are compelled to concede that two natures exist in Christ." Likewise Theodoret, On the Inhumanation of the Lord: THEODORET: "But in both natures we will worship one Son," and again: "For we worship both natures as one Son; and one is joined to the other, called Christ."
It is therefore manifest that the Word of God, who raises the temple, is different from our Lord Christ, who said this. Those who define him in two natures speak in vain of Christ as "one and the same." For if Alexander had acknowledged him as "one and the same," he would have said: "With God the Word raising the temple from the dead," for he himself said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," calling his body a temple, as the holy evangelist said. But if he who raised it hypostatically united himself to the body raised, he is rightly said to have raised himself; for what belonged to the body became properly the works of the Word, because of the ineffable union, without any detriment to his most sublime substance. Therefore, for heretics who divide the one Christ, care was taken in the formula "Christ is understood in two natures"; thus also the Chalcedonian Synod carefully defined him, rejecting the formula "from two natures," and defending against the heretical fiction of one nature of the incarnate Word of God, as the investigation of truth has shown.
CHAPTER—SIXTEEN
The investigation of those things written in the second epistle to Succensus by the wise Cyril shows that when the unlearned Grammaticus cut them off and explained them otherwise, he claimed that Cyril did not forbid us from confessing two individual natures after the union; indeed, he taught that this aligns with the blasphemous assertion of one nature of the incarnate Word, even though the master clearly proclaims that those who speak of two natures oppose those who say one incarnate nature, and that even when they speak of individual natures, according to the nonsense of Nestorius, they say this. For individuality signifies only the correct doctrine and the hypostatic union, the term of which is that the nature of the Word incarnate is one, not two.
The most sagacious Grammaticus, knowing nothing of these matters except what he mistakes for great learning in divine things, asserts that to speak of two individual natures is to confess one Christ after the inexplicable union as the same as one incarnate nature of the Word of God; he affirms that Saint Cyril teaches this and says of him: "He endured much fatigue, taking up the patronage of the formula and illuminating it, as he indicates in the second epistle to Succensus." Therefore, if it pleases, let us resume that point, although it has already been considered in what was previously said. For that good man will be refuted who attacks the light and wishes to mix with darkness the voice he claims is illuminated, believing least of all the Gospel saying: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." For Paul likewise proclaims that there is no fellowship of light with darkness.
The wise master therefore explicitly sets forth the very proposition of those who confess two individual natures after the union, saying: CYRIL: "I also discover another matter to be inquired. For he who says the Lord suffered in mere flesh makes the passion irrational and not spontaneous. But if anyone says he suffered with an intelligent soul, so that the passion is spontaneous, nothing prevents him from saying that he suffered in the nature of humanity. If this is true, how can we refuse to concede two natures subsisting indivisibly after the union? Therefore, if anyone says 'Christ therefore suffered for us in the flesh,' he says nothing else than 'Christ therefore suffered for us in our nature.' Behold how manifestly the proposition confesses two individual natures after the union. Moreover, directing and arranging the solution toward that and giving the answer more clearly, he proclaims loudly: CYRIL: 'The proposition is again opposed, and nevertheless to those who say the incarnate Son has one nature, and, wishing to show this ineptly, they everywhere attempt to demonstrate two subsisting natures.' Afterwards he gives the cause of the error, saying that one incarnate nature of the Word of God is separated by thought. For something composite can only be separated by contemplation, to recognize the difference according to the substances from which it is naturally composed; likewise two distinct and heterogeneous things, scarcely consubstantial, joined into one and no longer subsisting individually, apart and in their own subsistence, so that they are removed into complete and perfect diversity between them, and after contemplation of union, two things are said which do not subsist in duality. For one of the two is the hypostasis, and the incarnate nature of the Word, just as a human being similar to ours, existing from soul and body, is composed of two differing in substantial diversity, yet one nature and one hypostasis arise from both."
If anyone should perhaps bring forward Gabriel speaking in the revelation to Zachariah, and then wish to consider who is according to nature and who according to hypostasis, he will find there not only that both can be separated in contemplation, by existing differently in what is seen in the angel and in the man, but also that they are entirely distinct from each other according to hypostases and appear and subsist in duality.
For Gabriel is not composed with Zachariah; rather, those things that are composed can only be separated in contemplation, to show the difference of what is united in the hypostatic union, completing one nature from the two. For when writing to Eulogium, he says thus: CYRIL: "As is the case with any human being. For he consists of different natures, I mean body and soul. And reason indeed and contemplation recognize the difference; but when we unite them, we make one human nature. Therefore, to recognize the difference of natures is not to divide one Christ into two." Here too he says this against those who insist on one Christ alone and ask us, "How can we not concede two natures to subsist indivisibly after the union?" opposing those who say the incarnate Son has one nature, deceived by the grievous error of thinking that the one incarnate nature of the Word of God is not only separated in contemplation to recognize the difference according to the substance from which it subsists, but also subsists in singular diversity and is entirely apart from each other. For he again clearly and manifestly proclaims: CYRIL: "But all those things escape them, which are not only separated in contemplation, but recede entirely and individually from one another into distinct diversity."
Tell me then, what could be clearer than this? For he said those who confess that two individual natures subsist after the union oppose those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature. He said they attempt to show two natures as subsisting in order to present as vain and foolish the confession of the one incarnate nature of the Word. Furthermore, he said that they are mistaken, claiming that by speaking of two individual natures after the union, they divide into distinct and absolutely separate diversity the one who is ineffably composed according to hypostasis and is separable only in thought.
But that ridiculous Grammaticus, as we have already silently noted, of his own accord and freshly from the earth, like one of the fabulous giants, wrote as an interpreter, explaining the words of Saint Cyril as follows: GRAMMATICUS: "For he says 'They attempt everywhere to show two subsisting natures,' evidently meaning two separate natures." Who will rightly lament that audacious impiety?
For when those who insisted asked, "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the indivisible union?" the master, condemning the impiety, said that those who confess this oppose those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature, while "they attempt everywhere to show two subsisting natures." But this vigorous Grammaticus, rising against written texts without a text, asserts that this is said by the wise Cyril against those who claim two divided natures, and foolishly claims that this is made clear from what follows, when indeed the following passages strike a sharper sword of correction against him. For when those who insisted had said—indeed, we often take this against such enormous disgrace—"How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" the master said they "did not know," yet it is entirely inconsistent to say this about the one incarnate nature of the Word of God, which is "separable according to thought alone," whereas it must be said of those natures which are not "separable according to thought alone," but also in reality, "recede entirely and individually into a distinct diversity from each other."
But, driven upwards and downwards by the incessant surge of impious thoughts, Grammaticus also produces these words, which contradict his own blasphemy: GRAMMATICUS: "He signifies that if anyone wishes to call separation according to thought with regard to natures, this person will not be removed from the true faith." Very well! Perfectly follow the master of divine dogmas, and if you accept the separation of natures, from which the one incarnate nature of the Word of God is absolved, according to mere imagination and contemplation alone, do not recite the formula of those who entirely and into distinct and individual diversity divide them: "How can we not say that two natures subsist after the indivisible union?" For Cyril says that those oppose those who declare that the incarnate Son has one nature; that those attempt everywhere to show two subsisting natures; that those did not know how to separate according to thought alone, but to lead to singular and absolute diversity! And do not think you are speaking in vain! And you slander the master and write about him: GRAMMATICUS: "But he plainly teaches that no difference exists at all, whether anyone says one incarnate nature of the Word of God, or confesses it inseparably united in two natures as Emmanuel." And you repeat these same words often, ignorantly and impiously, while Cyril himself proclaims far more strongly than any trumpet that those who assert two natures subsisting after the union oppose those who say that the Son has one nature.