And again you come forward, forgetful of this contradiction, and say: "I know the separation of natures as according to imagination and contemplation." Therefore, receive yet another example of impious audacity! For the master opposes this and establishes by example what the power of separation according to contemplation is, thus: CYRILLUS: "Let there again be for us a man similar to ourselves. For from him we also understand two natures, one of the soul, the other of the body. But by separating them in mere thoughts and in a certain subtle way through contemplations or phantasms of the intellect, apprehending the difference, we do not set the natures apart, nor do we allow the full power of division in them, but we understand them to be one, so that these two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal."
Behold, you have plainly heard: he who is composed in the individual union, and is one according to hypostasis, when someone separates, sees two joined elements from which he is naturally composed; and absolute duality is preceded by separation, and no one understands two without separating them. But when, in mere thoughts and in a certain subtle way through contemplations or phantasms of the intellect, he separates so far as to apprehend the difference according to the substance of those things joined into one, he is further prohibited from separating, because he sees that from the absolute union there is one of the two natures and hypostasis, namely the incarnate Word of God, just as a man similar to ourselves is composed of soul and body. Therefore, those two, perceived through the separation of contemplation, are no longer called two, because they do not subsist in duality nor properly in singular existences.
For the master proclaims, showing the individuation of the union by the example of man: "Therefore these two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal." What then do you boldly say—that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union—when you hear: "Therefore these two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal"? Truly, it is madness to call two that which does not subsist as two. The entire discourse regards him who insists, saying: "How can we not admit that two natures subsist after the indivisible union?" And observe the precision of the master. For he did not say, "so that these two natures no longer exist," which would be perfect confusion and the destruction of the natures from which the hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Son are composed and not humanized, but he said, "they are not two." For they do not subsist as two, because each of the natures is not constituted separately and properly; yet when they are in composition, without any change or diminution, they ineffably constitute Christ as one from the two.
But that good Grammaticus, after presenting those utterances of the wise Cyril, and having spewed forth his absurd and filthy explanations upon the words ineptly and weakly, and, as the prophet Isaiah said, having given his spirit to be drunk with error and being simultaneously intoxicated and vomiting, writes concerning us: "Those who rely as if upon very strong arguments, as if the blessed Cyril were saying that the assertion of two natures hypostatically united is contrary to the assertion of one incarnate nature of the Word, are unaware of the vigilance regarding the divine dispensation of the wise master, who turns himself away from the separation and from the idea that the two natures subsist in their own proper being, as is evident from his discourse to those who are not wholly blinded, according to the prophecy which says: 'They shall feel the wall as if blind, and as if they had no eyes they shall feel.'"
But we, blind, as you are pleased to say, feeling the wall of your impiety and instructed by Him who teaches the blind, have found you fixing the eye of ignorance upon the Jewish middle wall, which, as is written, was loosed from Emmanuel for the faithful, not for those who, like you, remain in Judaism and have a veil over their heart, and think they see, and even today, concerning what was once written in the Gospel, say to Him: "Are we also blind?"; to whom He responds, saying that there is light and power and wisdom of God: "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now, because you say: We see, your sin remains." Which He also proclaimed through the prophet Isaiah, saying: "Hear, O deaf, and look, O blind, to see. And who is blind, except My servants, and deaf, except those who rule over them? And My servants are blinded. You have seen many times and have not kept your ears open, and have not heard." Therefore, if you had not fallen from sense, if you were not like those in darkness, and while boasting thought to be reckoned among the servants of God and to see, yet, being subject and held in impiety, thought yourself free again like the Jews, who did not perceive the servitude in sins and said: "We are the seed of Abraham and have never served anyone," you would pray, as the holy Daniel says, to Him who "gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who understand prudence, and reveals the deep and hidden, and knows what is in darkness," and you would supplicate, saying: "Illuminate my eyes, lest I sleep in death," and "Reveal my eyes that I may see Your wonders of Your law."
But not so you, by no means! "For he cannot acquire wisdom who has no heart," says the sacred Book of Proverbs. For he who shuts his hearing and does not obey the divine words, tearing away his heart, as it were, is deprived of the perception of thoughts, by which it happens that one blushes, submits to correction, receives words of chastisement, and is instructed in what is fitting; for it is known that the intellect is the moderator of the bodily senses, to hear and see what is appropriate, namely, it is itself that through those senses hears and sees, and does other things likewise. A true and indubitable witness of this is the prophet Jeremiah, who moreover declares: he who speaks therein. For he said to the children of Israel: "Hear now these things, O foolish people and without heart: they have eyes, and do not see; they have ears, and do not hear." Having said this, he more clearly illustrates the statement by adding, interposing other words: "To this people the heart has become unteachable and unbelieving." Therefore, he is without heart whose heart is unbelieving, insensible, and hard.
Whose heart is unbelieving, insensible, and hard. Why then, O Grammaticus, who imagines yourself to see and therefore are without heart, did you cut off and in your lamentable little book omit the proposition to which the wise Cyrillus directs his discourse, and from which do you think you will escape correction? For those who say that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union— which you toss about as if confessing above and below— the master clearly condemned as opposing those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature, and as dissecting into distinct and altogether separate diversity, and into hypostases mutually removed in their own subsistence, the natures from which Emmanuel exists. What then is this proposition? Once again we recite it because of your audacity: HERETICS: "How shall we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" But how does the wise one respond in divine matters? CYRILLUS: "He again opposes the proposition to those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature, and, wishing to demonstrate it inappropriately, everywhere attempt to show two natures subsisting. But all that flees from them, which is not separated by contemplation alone, utterly recedes into distinct diversity, completely and individually from each other."
Therefore, if you had not cut off the proposition, you would have known that those who confess two individual natures after the union are condemned by Saint Cyrillus, because they say that those natures subsist according to their own proper subsistence and are in every way perfectly removed from each other, and, not lacking sense, you would have again directed your speech against me writing: GRAMMATICUS: "But he says: Reflecting on the madness of the Nestorians, blessed Cyrillus, even in the second epistle to Succensus, does not allow one to say two natures after the union. Why then do you mix in open matters, O man? In what part of the epistle does he reject saying Emmanuel is in two natures united? But you cannot show such a thing, however cunning a sophist you may be! For in this epistle, blessed Cyrillus fights against only those who do not consent to say that the incarnate Son of God has one nature, but only receive the formula 'in two natures,' which is a mark of a wicked opinion if it is abandoned by the other confession, as has been shown."
Correctly, O vigorous one, it seems you have fabricated for yourself what you cut off. Therefore, if you ask: GRAMMATICUS: "In what part does he reject saying Emmanuel is in two natures united?" I promptly and firmly answer: in that part which you most impiously and ignorantly cut off, because you thought thereby to avoid correction. For write in your unlearned little book the proposition of those who agree with your opinions, and you will see an open rejection of impiety. What then is this proposition? It pleases against your audacity, which is vainly circulated, always to say, so that you may appear more unfairly obstinate: "How shall we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" And what then is the rejection? "He again opposes the proposition to those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature."
What does this rejection make more evident? It shows the opponents, those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature, and those who confess two individual natures after the union. Tell me, then, are these cunning sophistries? What then? Is not the invincible power of truth, which clearly demonstrates the very things themselves? But do you think there is any difference between saying "the natures are individual after the union" and that "one confesses their unity"? Yet you yourself have used these formulas indiscriminately throughout your little book! At one time you call them "individual," at another "unity"! And regarding the Council of Chalcedon, which defined "in two individual natures," you wrote: GRAMMATICUS: "For from the depths Eutyches' madness, who does not finally confess our nature in Emmanuel, uproots it, saying two natures 'unity'." Thus nothing seems to differ to you, whether you say "individual" or "unity"; for if you had thought there was a difference, when the Chalcedonians wrote "individual natures," you would not have said that they wrote "unity." Similarly, we also cited Nestorius, who wrote: NESTORIUS: "I, that is, the person of the Church, to whomever I speak, declare the same before all, calling Christ perfect God and perfect man, the natures not mixed but united." Likewise, Andreas wrote: "And, fleeing in simulated fear from confessing the two united natures, they utterly destroy one nature."
How then have you not perceived all audacity and impiety, exceeding, who not only reject the rejection of Cyril, which refuses to say that there are two natures after the union, condemning those who confess this as opponents of those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature, but affirm that the master's intention was to bring these statements into harmony with each other, so that those who said Christ is in two individual natures would also agree to say that he has one incarnate nature of the Word of God? For if this had been his intention, the most expert shepherd of divine matters, addressing those who pressed the question, "How do we not concede that two natures subsist indivisibly after the union?", would have said: "Thus also agree to say that the Son has one incarnate nature." But because he knew that the assertion of two natures after the union was contrary to and repugnant to the confession of the one incarnate nature of the Word of God, he proclaimed the opposition and said: "The proposition also opposes those who say that the Son has one nature."
But again you come forward with new words and doctrines, saying: "Let us say that the two natures are one." Show, then, that Saint Cyril anywhere in his writings said: "Thus after the union we say that the two natures hypostatically are one, that is, indivisible." But nowhere does he seem to say this, because he teaches that such a thing is unlearned, absurd, and impossible. On the contrary, everywhere, with the prior separation according to thought and only the contemplation of the difference according to substance, he says: CYRIL: "Therefore, apprehending in our thoughts the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, we indeed say that the two natures are one; but after the union, as if already separated into two sections, we believe that the Son has one nature, as one, truly both unhumanized and incarnate." And again: "When, therefore, the manner of the incarnation is carefully inquired into, the human intellect sees two things ineffably and inseparably united according to the union; yet where they are united, it separates them in no way, but believes and firmly admits one who is from the two, God and the Son and Christ and the Lord." And elsewhere: "Therefore, as far as the intellect and contemplation by the eyes of the soul only are concerned, we say that the only-begotten, unhumanized, has two natures which are united, but one Christ and Lord and Son, the Word of God, unhumanized and incarnate. And, if it pleases, let us take as an example our own composition, according to which we are human. For we are composed of soul and body, and we see two natures, one of the body, the other of the soul; yet one man from both according to union." And again: "Let us take as an example a man like ourselves. For we also understand two natures in him, one of the soul, the other of the body. But separating them in mere thoughts and subtle contemplations or phantasms of the intellect apprehending the difference, we do not place the natures apart, nor again allow the whole power of division into them, but we understand them to be one, so that the two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one individual." And elsewhere: "For one nature is already conceived after the union, namely the incarnate nature of the Word, as is also conveniently understood of ourselves. For one man is indeed, composed of dissimilar things, of soul, I say, and body."
Behold, it is clear to anyone to see in what the master wisely explains: through separation according to thought alone and the contemplation of the difference according to the substance of those from whom Christ is composed, we perceive that the two natures are one, and unless one separates Him, who is ineffably and inseparably composed, one cannot see or say the two natures. But after the union, he says that the incarnate Son has one nature, one who is from the two, God and Lord and Son and Christ. Nor did he anywhere say, as your ignorant license claims: "Truly, after the union I say that the two natures are hypostatically one." And those very ones, who were gathered at Chalcedon, whom you boast to be their advocate, and upon whom you impose as a fitting punishment the ignorance and impurity of your apology, did not write that the two natures are hypostatically one, as you say, but confess two individual natures; which was also confessed by those who repeated the proposition against the mystagogue of divine things, Cyril: "How do we not allow the two natures to subsist indivisibly after the union?" yet they heard themselves, in saying this, to confess the union according to the vain words of Nestorius, whose principle is duality, and by no means the true and indivisible union, which is hypostatic, whose term is "one from the two": CYRIL: "Therefore those two are no longer two, but from both is constituted one person, one hypostasis, one incarnate and unhumanized nature of the Son."
Therefore, expanding their accursed cunning, he proclaimed: CYRIL: "That 'inseparably' is indeed considered by us a sign of the right faith; but they do not understand it thus. For 'inseparably' among them, according to the vain words of Nestorius, is taken otherwise. For they say that man is inseparable from God the Word in honor's equality, identity of will, and authority, in whom He dwelt. Thus they do not speak words simply, but with deceit and a certain malice." As is already known from what has been considered above, from the term itself it is recognized what union is false and what is true, individual and hypostatic. For to say that the two natures exist after the union is a sign of a false and relative union and a complement of the false usurpation of the name of union, and verbally it persuades that the natures are individual in equality of honor and benevolence, which are divided by duality. But to confess one incarnate nature of the Word of God, and one who is from the two—Lord and God and Son and Christ—just as a human being similar to ours consists of soul and body, so that those which in contemplation of the difference of substance seem two are no longer two, but are resolved into one animal from both, is a sign and complement of hypostatic, natural, and true union, whose proper name is "inseparable" and "sign of the right faith."
Which the wise Cyril indicates in the second volume against the blasphemies of Nestorius: CYRIL: "Explain to me again what you mean by inseparable union. Do you mean the unity, namely the hypostatic one which we ourselves confess, contending for the dogmas of truth, or rather that which is understood according to apposition or some kind of proximity to something? For so also Scripture takes the word. For he said to the most sacred Moses, speaking of that ancient tabernacle: 'And make fifty clasps of gold and attach the curtains to one another with the clasps.' Thus he calls the hypostatic union indeed individual, but him who is resolved in the union, one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Nowhere did he say that after the union two individual natures hypostatically united must be proclaimed, as you, grammarian, foolishly and ignorantly dared to decree. For those who said 'How do we not allow the two natures to subsist indivisibly after the union?' the master manifestly condemned, saying: 'That "inseparably" added by them is indeed considered by us to be a sign of the right faith; but they do not understand it thus. For "inseparably" among them, according to the vain words of Nestorius, is taken otherwise.'"
Either someone, while speaking of two natures subsisting after the union, indeed calls them individual, attributing this opinion to the vain words of Nestorius, or, while confessing the hypostatic union, adheres to the wise Cyril and believes, saying: "For after the union one nature is already conceived, namely the incarnate nature of the Word." For it is the audacity of impiety to confess the duality of natures, which is the origin of the habitual union, yet to say "I perceive and confess the hypostatic union." For from the origin the mother is fully recognized; it is generated, that is, resolved, from that true, natural, individual, and hypostatic union into "one out of two," not into "two." The wise master proclaims, after providing, to illustrate the absence of division regarding Emmanuel, the example of a man like ourselves: "Therefore those two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one animal." For in mere contemplation they are wont to be separated, and in observing and inspecting the union, they show according to the most subtle possible understanding what each is according to substance, from which the whole is naturally and without any confusion composed. But after the consideration of difference enters, the thought of union restrains separation and prevents that those things which appeared as two in contemplation are still called two after the union, because from both is resolved and subsists one nature and hypostasis, and no one of the natures is removed separately into its own subsistence.
CHAPTER—SEVENTEEN
Because, guided by the instructions of Saint Cyril, we understand without deceit the words of Saints Julius and Ambrose, opposed to the Manifest Tome of Leo, which the Grammarian and the Scythopolitan, having become advocates of impiety, altered—[words] which were read in the holy and universal Council of Ephesus—a complete account of their fabrication, worthy of heretics.
Adhering to the excellent and clear words and instructions of Saint Cyril, we can also, without error or deceit, understand the words of the earlier holy Fathers and Doctors. For he himself, writing to monks, said: CYRIL: "Thus have we been taught to think by the holy Fathers," and writing to Nestorius he said: "Following everywhere the confessions of the holy Fathers, which they issued with the Holy Spirit speaking in them, and diligently seeking the aim of their teaching, and proceeding as if on the royal road, etc." Therefore, reading the statement of Saint Julius, who was bishop of the Roman Church, uttered in the discourse entitled "On the Union in Christ of the Body to the Divinity of the Word," which we have already cited once and again: JULIUS: "It is proclaimed that in Him this indeed is created in the union with the uncreated, but that uncreated is in conjunction with the created, one nature subsisting from both sides," and being guided by the wise exposition of Cyril, we understand it thus. And by separating in mere thought, or by mental conceptions apprehending the distinction of understanding, we perceive in Him two natures—one created, the other uncreated. For otherwise we could not clearly see the two unless a separation in mere thought had preceded. Yet apprehending together with the mental separation the indissolubility of the union, as though the division into two had now been removed, after the thought of union we behold one nature and hypostasis of the Word made flesh, complete from the two.
In the same sense we understand and receive the words of the most celebrated Father Ambrose, who was bishop of Milan, which the wise Cyril brought forward against Nestorius in the acts of Ephesus, as follows: AMBROSE: "If they do not believe me, let them believe the Apostle, who said: 'But when the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.' He says 'His Son,' not one among many, not a contemporary, but by the word 'His' He signified the eternity of His eternal offspring. He then adds that this one was 'made of a woman'; this 'made' must not be attributed to the divinity, but to the body assumed. Made of a woman: through the flesh assumed. Made under the law: through observance of the law; for His divine generation was before the law, this after the law." And again: "Let empty disputes about words cease, for the kingdom of God, as it is written, is not in the persuasion of human words, but in the demonstration of power. Let us maintain the reading of the divinity and the flesh. One and the same speaks in both, the Son of God, because in Him are both natures. The same speaks, yet not always in the same way. Mark in Him now the glory of God, now the sufferings of man; for as God He teaches divine things, because He is the Word, but as man He speaks human things, because He was speaking in my substance. This is the living bread which came down from heaven; this bread is His flesh, as He Himself said: 'The bread that I will give is my flesh'; this is He who came down; this is He whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. Nor does Scripture teach us that His divinity needed sanctification, but His flesh."
Together with these are set the words of Julius, and the words of each doctor are compared with one another. Ambrose said: "Because in Him are both natures." Julius said: "It is proclaimed that in Him this indeed is created in the union with the uncreated, but that uncreated is in conjunction with the created." By these is established a separation according to thought and mere contemplation, which provides an understanding of the distinction according to the substance of those things which are united without confusion. But what is it that is completed from the union? One from the two.
This also the blessed Julius taught, adding conjointly: JULIUS: "One nature subsisting from both parts, the Word also fulfilling the particular operation of each in its entirety together with the divine perfection; as with a common man: from two imperfect parts one nature is perfected and designated by one name." With these let us compare Cyril, their disciple and interpreter of clear exactness. What then did Ambrose write? "Because in Him are both natures." And what again did Julius say? "It is proclaimed that in Him this indeed is created in the union with the uncreated, but that uncreated is in conjunction with the created." And what does Cyril say together with them? "Let us again take as an example a man like ourselves. For we also understand in him two natures, one indeed of the soul, and the other of the body. But when by mere thoughts we have separated them, and by subtle contemplations or mental notions we have apprehended the distinction, we do not set the natures apart, nor again allow the full force of the division to rest upon them, but we understand them to be one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but both are completed into one living being."
Why then do those who say that two individual natures subsist after the union, and who reject confessing one Christ from two, force the teachings of the holy Fathers into a contrary sense as they please, and in no way follow Saint Cyril, who says: "So that those two natures are no longer two, but both are completed into one"? Why also do they attempt to make that which is composite, and which is separated only in thought so that in a certain subtle contemplation the difference according to the substance of those things which have come together into one through a union according to natural unity is recognized, to be also separate according to subsistence, and to show two subsisting natures, and to oppose those who say there is one incarnate nature of the Son? For behold, Ambrose, worthy of perpetual remembrance, knew separation only up to the difference according to substance in subtle contemplation, not, however, a division that completely and in every way separates the duality of natures after the union of Him who is ineffably perfected through an individual union. He said that it is the same Son of God who speaks in both ways: as God indeed He teaches divine things, because He is the Word, but as man the same one suffers and speaks human things, because when He appeared in our substance and truly became man, He spoke humanly. For, as Paul teaches, we have heard that He, being God, was manifested in the flesh.
Nor did the blessed Ambrose, as the Tome of Leo did, need to distribute the sayings to each nature and say: LEO: "It is not of the same nature to say, 'I and the Father are one,' and to say, 'The Father is greater than I.'" But knowing that the one and the same is God and man, not divided by a duality of natures after the union, he does not divide the sayings according to the natures, but recognizes their difference: some indeed are worthy of God, others are human; yet all were spoken by one and the same Christ, God made man, who also took upon Himself our need and is said to have been sanctified according to the flesh, that He might impart grace to us as the beginning of our race, being Himself the giver of holiness, and not that some sayings were spoken by the divine nature and others by the human nature. What then does he also say? AMBROSE: "One and the same Son of God speaks in both, because in Him are both natures. The same speaks, yet not always in the same manner. Mark in Him now indeed the glory of God, now the sufferings of man; for as God He teaches divine things, because He is the Word, but as man He speaks human things, because He was speaking in my substance. For He did not speak humanly except because, as he says, He was manifested in the flesh."
With these let us again compare the words of Saint Cyril, showing the agreement of interpreters of the right faith, who with one spirit contend against those who say that two individual natures subsist after the union and divide the sayings between each nature.
For in the Apology against the criticism of Theodoret concerning the fourth of the chapters—which are the anathemas—he wrote thus: CYRIL: "But I would rather say, and far more learnedly, that human words should not be referred to another person, as though there were properly and separately a Son in the form of a servant, as they are accustomed to say, but rather that they should be attributed to the measures of His humanity. For it was necessary for Him, since He is God and man at the same time, to proceed through both kinds of speech." And again, a little later: "Therefore, in turn, he shall also hear from us, who swims in such adulterated thoughts: Since it seems to you that such sayings should be removed from God the Word and referred only to the form of a servant, do you not again divide the one into two sons? And to which of those who think rightly is this not evident?" For indeed, the duplicity—after the union—of forms or natures, which is clearly a division, shows each nature in its own person when it assigns to each the sayings proper to it; which is nothing other than impiously tearing apart Emmanuel and making two sons.
Since the words of Saint Ambrose were as stated, and the wise Cyril had brought them forward without deceit, and they had been read in the memoranda before the holy and universal council assembled at Ephesus, the Grammarian, a forger and sacrilegious man, dared to alter the passage and insert the altered form into his blasphemous and lamentable booklet, though he gained no advantage from the falsification, since what was deceitfully altered is refuted by the genuine part. Nevertheless, committing the forgery and thinking the falsehood would serve his purpose, he fraudulently set it down thus: GRAMMARIAN: "Let us keep the difference of the flesh and the divinity. For one God the Son speaks in both, because both natures speak in Him; and He Himself speaks, but not always in the same way. For you see in Him now indeed the glory of God, now the sufferings of man. As God He speaks divine things, because He is the Word; as man He speaks human things, because in this nature He speaks." Thus anyone who compares and examines the adulterated and genuine texts will recognize the alteration by the mere reading. But what he thought would serve his impiety was this: namely, that whereas the genuine statement had the form "Let us keep the reading of the divinity and the flesh," he changed it and wrote "Let us keep the difference of the flesh and the divinity," and the wretched man thought that the difference according to the substance of the flesh and the divinity would also bring with it division; otherwise, unless by his own device he could obtain this, what profit would the falsehood have brought him?
Nor is this my own criticism, but that of the eminent Cyril, who condemned the entire machination of this impiety, and wrote thus to Diodorus: CYRIL: "Therefore, although no one says that the seed of David was born from the very substance of God and the Father, as also the Only-Begotten Himself, nevertheless the power of the union, made without confusion and immutably, removes division. But he, since according to the reason of natural quality the flesh is not the Only-Begotten, nor the Word flesh, wrongly divides and posits them as distinct, confessing two sons, and assigns to them a relative conjunction, and scarcely, or perhaps nowhere, does he think any err; for they do not transfer the flesh mutably to the nature of the Word, nor in turn cast the Word down to the consubstantiality of the flesh united with it." And further: "And against those who confess the unconfused union, rising up, you do not hesitate to disturb everything up and down; and you show that the flesh is of another nature, as far as I speak of God the Word; and if anyone confesses this with you, retreating from the ignorance of the Synousiasts, you immediately divide the one into two."
Acting in this ignorance, that good Grammaticus, thinking that division into two could be induced from the difference, altered the text and for the words "Servemus τήν ανάγνωσιν carnis et divinitatis" invented the words "Servemus τήν διαφοράν carnis et divinitatis." Again, when the text reads "είς έν έκατέρω λαλεΐ ό του θεού υίός," he changed it to "Unus enim Filius Dei έν εκατέρα λαλεϊ," and thought thence that each nature spoke as if from its own person. Yet this fiction cannot even prove itself; for he did not invent "άμφότεραι φύσεις λαλοϋσι," nor "έκατέρα φύσις λαλεϊ," but "είς λαλεϊ ό του θεού υίός." Therefore, the work of falsification is already in vain. For if the one who speaks both divinely and humanly is by nature the Son of God, who is the same God and man, that is, God unincarnate, how can I profit by commenting or thinking otherwise? And if indeed one of the natures is the divinity of the Word, and the other undoubtedly humanity, how foolish and incongruous it is, both in word and in thought, not to say that the Son of God speaks with divinity. One may well say that the Son of God speaks in a divine manner as God, and in a human manner through economy, remaining God even as He speaks in human fashion.
Therefore, Saint Ambrose also added, "The same one speaks, and does not always speak in the same way." Hence, that which was said above, "The one Son of God speaks in both," is clearly illustrated; he says "in both ways" and gives the reason, "because in him, he says, both natures are present." Indeed, "it is proclaimed in him," according to the words of Saint Julius, "this indeed is created in the union of the uncreated, that however is uncreated in conjunction with the created, one nature subsisting from both parts." Therefore, also, "as God he teaches divine things, because he is the Word; as man, however, he speaks humanly, because he spoke in my substance." For when he was manifested in the flesh, according to the words of Paul, and truly became man in our substance, not merely appearing in imagination, he speaks humanly.
Thus, the Grammaticus so boldly carried out his work of falsification. Indeed, John of Scythopolis, seized by the same madness, wrote an apology for the Council of Chalcedon in a very long book, which he even wished to conceal, fearing refutation; and he did hand it over to his own, yet took no small care that it should not fall into our hands. Again and again I obtained parts of it, some secretly copied by a few diligent students.
But since I could not obtain it entirely, while I had found the Grammaticus' book complete and had noticed it was infected with the same ferment of impiety, yielding only in loquaciousness but equal in virtue, so that the two writers were considered one, I thought I ought to make a refutation against the book that had come into my hands whole, and to draw the sword of reproof and truth against both. Now, however, a certain person kindly transcribed for me a complete copy of this book and gave it to me. When I received it, at the very moment I was writing these things—God hearing me, I speak—and had opened it, I found the place of God's most loving Ambrose set there with the very adulteration which even the Grammaticus dared to bring. And indeed the folly and fault of the falsification are equal, for they proceeded from the same madness; yet what was fabricated by both does not altogether agree but differs in some points. For Scythopolitanus wrote thus concerning heretics in Ambrose: "The same one, writing to Emperor Gratian, brings forward this passage, which also Saint Cyril in his apology for his anathemas against Nestorius cited, saying thus: 'The one Son of God speaks in both, because in him both natures are present. The same one speaks, not always, however, in the same way. Consider in him now indeed the glory of God, who speaks, now the human passions: as God he speaks divine things, because he is the Word; but as man he speaks human things, because he speaks in my nature.'"
First, it escapes the unlearned and those arrogantly exalting impiety as if they knew something, that this venerable passage of Ambrose was not brought by Saint Cyril in the apologies he composed for his anathemas to Andrew and Theodoret, who had shamefully reviled him, but was brought at Ephesus and found in those writings composed against Nestorius, commended by the judgment of the universal synod. Secondly, one will marvel at the greatest of his impudence and inclination toward impiety. For after he mentioned Cyril and called him divine, he did not bring the passage from the voice of this divine man, but from his impious commentary. For whereas in the genuine book it reads, "The one Son of God speaks in both," he, like the Grammaticus, changed it and wrote, "The one Son of God speaks in each." Again, whereas the genuine and sincere tradition testifies, "For in him each nature is," he changed it and wrote, "For in him both natures are." And what could be more ridiculous and foolish than this change?
For the formulas "each nature is" and "both natures are" differ in no sense whatsoever. Yet he, and all who labor under the same disease, raging in impiety, are intoxicated by the enunciation of the plurality of natures and think it useful for their impiety if they change a singular reading into a plural one, which they care for so diligently. And again, whereas in the genuine book it reads, "Consider in him now indeed the glory of God," he wrote from his false adulteration, "Consider in him now indeed the glory of God, who speaks," and thought thereby to assign the voice of the divine nature individually to Ambrose, so that he also imagined the human nature to speak separately on its own. Yet he reveals the entire fiction as vain in what is interposed: "The same one speaks, and not always in the same way."
Therefore, the divine law declaring, "You shall not add to it, nor take from it," shows that even if there were no evil intention in the commentary, this audacity would still be filled with every wickedness. And that which Saint Cyril mentioned as bringing the words of the venerable Ambrose, by skipping over his writing in which the judgment is found, as well as the testimony of the universal synod, and which all participants in the same adulteration also acknowledge as taken from elsewhere, how clear is the reprehension of their impiety? Moreover, the fact that even the adulterators themselves did not consistently transmit their own commentary, nor were they in agreement among themselves, clearly shows that they are worthy of no trust nor capable of speaking the truth. For if they were not afraid to alter the passage about which the testimony of the universal synod is held, how did they think to present another unadulterated one? Hence the illustrious and good Scythopolitanus also brought passages from that Oration on the Faith composed by the Nestorians, but which is said to be by Ambrose in title and name—an oration found under the title "Interpretation of the Symbol of Faith and on the Divine Inhumanation"—which others, in order to reconcile their commentary with the council, contrived the title "Interpretation," so that it would be thought they had translated from the Roman language into Greek what was in the commentary.
Thus, among the passages brought from that oration by the unlearned Scythopolitanus, this is also found: HERETICS: "But, coeternal with His Father, He deigned to unite the firstfruits of our nature to Himself because of great goodness, not mixed, but in each essence one and the same manifest." Rejoicing in this commentary, as if agreeing with the Chalcedonians who defined that Christ is recognized in two natures, this clever man, vaunting himself as orthodox, passed over what is found in the oration and clearly shows it to be the commentary of those who favor the madness of Nestorius, which is as follows: HERETICS: "Therefore, after God the Word raised His temple and worked in it the resurrection and renewal of our nature, our Lord Christ also, after His resurrection from the dead, showed it to His disciples, saying: 'Touch me and see, for the spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.' He did not say 'as you see me to be' but 'to have,' so that considering Him as having and the thing had, you perceive that it was not a mixing, nor a change, nor a conversion, but a union made." And who, hearing "having" and "the thing had," does not immediately perceive two sons to be proclaimed, nor clearly see that this statement "in two substances or natures Christ is recognized" introduces for us a duality of sons and Christs?
Thus, when the impious Andreas wrote in his critique of the first chapter: ANDREAS: "But the Magi, having been led from Persia by that star, came seeking the newborn, and when they found him, they offered suitable gifts both to him who was understood and to him who was seen," Saint Cyril, rebuking his impiety, said: CYRILLUS: "The gifts, indeed, are said to have been brought by the Magi, both to him who was understood and to him who was seen, suitable, again dividing into two after the union the one Lord Jesus Christ." But this same Andreas, behaving so impiously, cloaked in the guise of piety, in the critiques of the fourth chapter, simulates saying this: ANDREAS: "For the supreme union is inseparable and indivisible, and the Son is one in every respect, manner, and thought. Indeed, with the supreme union preserved, and the one Son proclaimed both Christ and Lord, those things which are said must be received of the one same Son. Yet, according to the virtue of the united natures, it is fitting to adapt to the one Son those things which are said." And again, in the critique of the eleventh chapter, against the wise Cyril rebuking a wolf hidden in sheep's clothing, he also falsely says: ANDREAS: "But it is evident that nothing suffices to the supreme unity where natures are not confused. We, however, shall preserve the natures existing unconfused, and confess the supreme and divine unity, incomprehensible to us, offering all things to glorification as to God and the one Son, and saying to him the voice of blessed Peter: 'You are the Christ, the Son of God.'"
Who, then, will not see from this also that the commentary attributed to Saint Ambrose is tainted with the ferment of Nestorius? For it says: HERETICS: "Therefore, after God the Word raised his temple, and in it worked the resurrection and renewal of our nature, our Lord Christ also, showing it to his disciples, said: 'Touch me and see, for the spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have.'" Truly, the incarnate Word, existing indivisible from his flesh, raised that which is his temple, and therefore is said and believed to have resurrected it, and also showed himself to his disciples, saying: "Touch me and see, for the spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have." But, marvelously, this fabricator says: "God the Word indeed raised his temple, having worked the renewal of our nature; but our Lord Christ, rising from the dead, showed it to his disciples." Thus, our Lord Christ is distinct from God the Word who raised his temple. And the temple that was raised is Christ; but the one who raised the temple is the Word of God. And Christ indeed was showing himself to his disciples; yet God the Word spoke in his person through him as through a man, saying, "Touch me and see, for the spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have," so that we might recognize the one having and the one possessed, who are the two Christs, just as Saint Cyril presents Nestorius in the second volume against his blasphemies, saying: NESTORIUS: "Christ is therefore also called God the Word, because he has perpetual union with Christ." And again: "But because God is in the assumed, from the one assumed he, as joined to the assumed, is simultaneously called God." Just as Nestorius said "assuming" and "assumed," so also the one who attributes the commentary to the most loving God Ambrose wrote "having" and "possessed"; and when he completed the commentary, he anathematized those who say that Christ is a simple man, not even appearing to assent to Nestorius' doctrines, but to snatch away those who do not know the variety of error. For wise Cyril also presented Nestorius in the same volume, saying: NESTORIUS: "Christ is truly not a simple man, O slanderer, but man and God simultaneously." For the wicked one, by joining God and man according to the identity of the name, thought he would escape the suspicion of asserting that Christ is a simple man. But what those who labor so greatly in impiety introduce—that God the Word speaks through him whom they call the assumed man—this is also indicated by Theodorus, who was the bishop of Mopsuestia, who in the exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote: THEODORUS: "But he spoke to us through the assumed man; and indeed he works as God, yet he spoke to us decently through him."
But this Saint Ambrose of blessed memory was also slandered by Macedonius, bishop of the royal city, when he composed a book of excerpts and fabricated passages, by which he wished to show that the distinguished Cyril agreed with Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, and their throng of blasphemies, while Nestorius adhered to the orthodox, and likewise the impious Cyrus of Cilicia and the wicked Eutherius of Tyana. This book was seized in the hands of Paschasius, then apprehended by the most eminent princes, because he was Macedonius' deacon and a practitioner of the Jewish religion. A certain part of this book is as follows: FROM THE BOOK COMPOSED BY MACEDONIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: From the chapters of Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan, on the Catholic faith: "Therefore, if the flesh of all submitted to injuries in Christ, how is it thought to be one hypostasis with the divinity?" From Saint Cyril the monk: "For there is one hypostasis, which is of two natures, a substance, which is different from all others according to substance." From Saint Eutherius, bishop of Tyana, from what he wrote against Cyril: "Or what will one say of the one, which is of two, hypostasis? The Word alone? But the nature of the flesh resists. And if you say Christ, you have given a name of dispensation, not of substance." To these he also added a certain passage of Nestorius, which he inscribed "Of the Father"; and very often it pleased him to inscribe the words of the unclean passages of that "Father attacked by calumny," as if the deposition of that one had been done by calumny. Now, the passage described in the proposed chapter is as follows: "Of the Father: And briefly, to speak the mystery of doctrine: God the Word was in the temple, which had been formed by the Holy Spirit. But the temple inhabited by one other than God is another. The temple is dissolved by death; but the temple of the inhabitant is to raise the temple. The word is not mine; I read the Lord's voice: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.' Therefore, let us confess one dignity of the union, and the hypostases of the natures as two. Otherwise, the Spirit would be found to be a creature of the Word. But the Holy Spirit neither created nor begot God the Word."
Behold, through the aid of related commentaries and slanders, Ambrose also seemed to confess Christ not as one hypostasis of two, but rather in two natures and hypostases, and, to speak the truth according to the rebuking voice of the wise Cyril, in the duality of Christs and Sons. Concerning these impious and audacious commentaries, which were falsely spread against the teachers of orthodoxy, Saint Cyril, writing to John, then bishop of Antioch, and to his synod in council, and prohibiting in one decree such volumes, in a letter whose beginning is "That dragon, the apostate, truly the worst and hostile beast to God, has not rested," wrote thus: CYRILLUS: "Therefore it was necessary for us to act gloriously on these matters, casting out, with perverse opinions, every utterance of Nestorius, wheresoever issued, which agreed with his falsehoods." And after a few words: "But the infamous opinions of Diodorus, I say, and Theodore, or of certain others, whom it was better not to praise, lest, to speak more seriously, they be borne in some measure against the glory of Christ, let no one, we pray, attribute to our holy and orthodox Fathers, to Athanasius and Basil, and to the three disciples of Gregory, to Theophilus also and others, in any way, that occasion for scandal is given, truly thinking and teaching thus, to the men who were guardians of the whole orthodoxy, who left books attacking perverse opinions not only of Nestorius, but also of others, who had previously held and committed to writing the sentiments of Nestorius."
Such anxiety to fabricate false words and corrupt the truth belonged to the band of leaders of the Nestorians after the holy Council of Ephesus. When of blessed memory Celestine had changed this age and gone to God, and Saint Xystus had received the throne of the Roman Church, they forged a letter, as if written by the presbyter Philip in the Italian tongue and translated into Greek, which we have in our hands, full of the wickedness of Nestorius and the artifice of his commentaries. That Philip had been numbered among the Roman clergy and had held the place of Saint Celestine at the illustrious Council of Ephesus. Moreover, the wise Cyril also mentioned this forged letter in writing to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, saying: CYRILLUS: "If anyone brings a letter as if written by the chaste Philip, presbyter of the Roman Church, sounding as if the most holy bishop Xystus had taken Nestorius' deposition with offense and had been angry at him, let not Your Holiness believe this. He wrote in harmony with the holy synod, confirmed all its deeds, and agrees with us. But if any letter is shown as if written by us, as if I were grieving over what we did at Ephesus, let it be received with laughter. By the grace of the Savior, we are of sound mind and have not fallen from right reason." A similar falsification and audacity occurred in the letter of Saint Athanasius to Epictetus, as Cyril wrote to Succensus: "Having been defeated by the confutations thenceforth presented, they contrived something dreadful and worthy of heretical impiety.
For having adulterated the letter, removing some parts and adding others, they published it so that the man, worthy of perpetual memory, appeared to think in harmony with Nestorius and his followers." Yet the impudent band was not satisfied with this alone! For they also fabricated a certain foul oration of Nestorius, which they did not dare to produce in the contest against Saint Cyril—for otherwise they would have been convicted of adulteration—but they inserted it among the orations of the great Athanasius, impiously attributing the commentary to him, so that it might be found in old books, even after many years had passed. Thus it stands: FROM THE ORATION WHICH THE HERETICS FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO ATHANASIUS: "For all to whom the Father commands and rules, the Son also commands and rules, wholly similar to the Father as a whole, as the Lord himself says: 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.' He is begotten in an inexplicable way and cannot be comprehended, for 'who will declare his generation?' who, having descended at the end of the ages from the bosom of his Father, took up our man, Christ Jesus, from the inviolate Virgin Mary, leaving it to his own proper will to suffer for us, as the Lord says: 'No one takes my soul from me; I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.' In this man he was crucified and died for us, and rose from the dead and was exalted into heaven."
If, therefore, according to those empty fables, the Word of God took up the man Christ Jesus from Mary, then he is not Christ, or if the Word of God is indeed Christ, and yet took up Christ who is from Mary, then there are two Christs. But if the man Jesus, who is from Mary, alone is Christ, and the Word of God is not, so that two Christs are not found, then David is mistaken in his mind when he sings and calls him God and the eternal throne of his kingdom, not the recently acquired one, namely him who was immutably incarnate for us and anointed for us according to the dispensation with the oil of gladness, which is the participation of the Holy Spirit, although he is not one of those who receive it—yet he is counted among them because of the measure of voluntary emptying—but the giver of participation to those who lack sanctification, himself indeed obtaining fullness substantially in all things, as the Only-Begotten full of grace and truth from the Father, sending grace to us, of whom he became the firstfruits. For David says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions."
Against all these impure notions, the voice of the apostolic teacher Athanasius stands opposed and contradicts them. Indeed, he called the Lord's man the incarnate Word in his writings, as if anyone were to call the Lord and God inhuman. To divide this one into two and to say that the Christ, who is from Mary and is the Lord's man, was assumed by the Word of God, is alien to Athanasius, but pertains to those who contrive two Christs and two Sons, as Nestorius also wrote: "Therefore Christ is called God the Word, because he has perpetual union with Christ." But how did Athanasius write that from the Word of God the man Christ Jesus was assumed from the immaculate Virgin Mary, whom he delivered for us to suffer, when he wrote to Epictetus words from the opposite position, uprooting the opposing impiety with the very words and sentiments? These words are: Athanasius: "How, then, have those who are called Christians dared to hesitate whether the Lord, who was born of Mary, is by nature and substance the Son of God, yet according to the flesh from the seed of David and from the flesh of the holy Mary? Who, then, has become so shameless as to deny that Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, is Lord and Savior and God and Son of the Father? Or how do they wish to be considered Christians who say that the Word came into a holy man, as if into one of the prophets, and not himself became man, taking a body from Mary, but is another Christ and another Word of God, who was the Son of the Father before the ages and before Mary? Or how can they be Christians, saying that one is the Son and another the Word of God?"
And it would be too long and beyond proper measure to bring forward all the apostolic words of his that pertain to this. The falsifiers, however, present him as writing things which were not the words of Christians. For how could it be the words of Christians to say, "The Word of God assumed our man Christ Jesus from the immaculate Virgin Mary, whom he delivered for us"? From these and similar commentaries, Grammaticus and Scythopolitanus thought they would confirm their opinion, and rightly so; for they rely on the commentaries of those whose impiety they support. But we have vindicated and established Saint Ambrose of blessed memory, from the passages of his approved by the holy and universal synod of Ephesus, from the slander of the commentator, showing how he knew the one Son, who has eternal generation from the Father and was made of a woman when the fullness of time came, and was made under the law, so that he might be both eternal according to divinity and man in the end according to the economy, without any change, lest the Arians, removing "was made" from the flesh, apply it to his incorporeal and timeless generation.
Therefore, he also says that he spoke in both ways, divine and human, because in him both natures are seen and exist, since through separation according to thought the difference is manifested and made known according to the substances from which one Christ is; nor does he receive an absolute division, as Saint Julius also said: "Indeed, in him what is created is proclaimed in the union of the uncreated, and that which is uncreated in conjunction with the created, one nature subsisting from both parts, the Word fulfilling partial operation in whole with divine perfection. What is done in a common man, from two imperfect parts perfecting one nature and designated by one name."
Following this, Saint Cyril, freely and diligently preaching the sense of the preceding doctors' words, said: "Let him also be similar to our man. For we understand two natures even from him, one of the soul and the other of the body. But separating them through mere thoughts and apprehending the difference in a certain way by subtle contemplations or phantasms of the intellect, we do not place the natures apart, nor do we allow a perfect division of power into them, but we understand them to be one, so that these two natures are no longer two, but each is perfected into one animal."
CHAPTER—EIGHTEEN
Those who, after the union, confess two natures as distinct and united, yet persist in separation according to contemplation, unwilling, according to the teaching of the wise Cyril, after reflecting on the union, to acknowledge the one who is made complete from the two, are convicted of mutilating and altering the words of the doctors. And the phrase "in two" is not fittingly said of one composed hypostasis, but of two subsisting separately.
But those who confess two individual natures after the union exert a force of separation according to thought and contemplation, which indicates difference only according to substance, so that they draw it toward absolute division, because they do not admit that the one who is made complete from the union is one from two, nor do they allow it to remain one, but impiously dissolve it in that from which it subsists, namely into a duality of natures after the union. Therefore, the most wise Cyril, by the same reasoning and contemplation, distinguishes the difference of the natures from which Emmanuel is, and unites him, who is made complete from the union, into an indivisible unity. In the prosphonetical oration to the most religious Emperor Theodosius, he wrote thus: CYRIL: "And just as he is perfect in divinity, so also he is perfect in humanity. He did not coalesce into one Christ, Lord, and Son from divinity alone and flesh, but from two perfect [natures], from humanity and divinity, wonderfully united into one and the same."
But those who say that Christ subsists in two individual natures after the union, extracting division, which according to contemplation alone provides us an indication of difference according to substance, and remaining in it, bring about the cause of absolute separation, and say: HERETICS: "If he is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, rightly we say that Christ subsists and is recognized in two natures." But they will hear from us: Why do you dissect the perfection of the union and do not confess Christ, as the master said, "from two perfect [natures], from humanity and I say divinity, wonderfully united into one and the same"? For indeed it is permitted for us to separate and consider individually the perfection of divinity and the perfection of humanity, not diminished nor confused, up to contemplation in thought and subtle phantasms of the intellect, and to confess that what is made marvelously complete from the union is one from two perfect natures, not diminished nor confused, from divinity and humanity, as one Christ; but not to say that he is one according to hypostasis from two, nor to make the difference according to the substance of those things which have come together into one the cause of removing it mutually into absolute and singular diversity.
But since these things are thus, and that indeed concerning contemplation regarding difference it is as if in mere thoughts two are seen, yet the one who is marvelously made complete from the union is proclaimed Christ, one from two, and the one nature of the Word incarnate, as if already taken up into two, is asserted again by the words of Saint Cyril, which we have often cited, from the letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: CYRILLUS: "Therefore, apprehending in thought those things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, we say that there are indeed two natures; but after the union, as if already taken up into two, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one, true inhuman and incarnate." AND AFTER A FEW WORDS: "But if anyone inquires more curiously how he is incarnate and inhuman, he will see that the Word of God, who is from God, assumed the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, as it is written. And according to this alone is understood the difference of natures or hypostases; for divinity and humanity are not the same according to natural quality; otherwise, how was the Word emptied, though he was God, and lowered himself to the lower, that is, to our things? Therefore, when the manner of the incarnation is diligently inquired into, the human intellect sees two ineffably and unconfusedly united according to the union; nevertheless, where they are united, it separates them in no way, but believes and firmly admits that the one who is from the two is God and Son and Christ and Lord."
Behold, it is indeed allowed to see two only in the contemplation of the intellect, discerning the difference as if in natural quality; but that which after the union, that is, after the thought of union, is absolute and in no way separated by the division of duality, one from two, and to believe and firmly admit that he is God and Son and Christ and Lord.