But those who gathered at Chalcedon, and said that he is the same perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity, did not wish to add, as the wise Cyril did, what restrains the separation of duality after the union, namely, "from the two, humanity and divinity, the same Christ is marvelously gathered into one." We have already shown how these anthropolaters dared to adulterate this opinion, and imposed upon the order of expression and the harmony of the structure of discourse, and changed the formula "from the two perfect" to "in the two perfect," in order to show that composite, one from two, as separated according to subsistence and according to mere contemplation, divided according to hypostases. Indeed, the formulas "in two" or "in each" are again taught by the careful and learned voice of the wisest Cyril regarding two hypostases. For in a letter to Acacius, bishop of Scythopolis, who had inquired about the scapegoat, elucidating the legal text, he said: CYRILLUS: "Two goats were taken and lots fell upon them; and the one upon whom the lot of the Lord fell was sacrificed; but the one upon whom the lot of emission fell was sent into the wilderness, not sacrificed: from this very act it obtained its name and was called emissary; for it was sent into emission, as sacred Scripture says. These two, however, prefigured Christ, who in the sacrificed goat was prefigured to suffer in the flesh and to offer himself to God and the Father as a sweet-smelling savor; in the other goat, not sacrificed but sent into the inaccessible desert, the same was understood, who remained outside the passion. For naturally God is impassible, the same who according to the economy was made unchangeably man for us. Also raised from the dead, he went to the inaccessible place, ascending to the higher throne of heaven, inaccessible to all creation, but accessible to him alone, as to the Father and the Spirit, and thus he opened a new way for us, as it is written, to the heavenly dwellings."
But the master says that no one should, on account of the type of the two goats, divide one Christ into two sons; for it would not have been possible, with only one goat taken, to prefigure through it both what was to be sacrificed and what remained unsacrificed, the same Christ dying for us in the flesh and appearing divinely outside of death. And because the type was weak, and with one goat it could not fully represent all that was prefigured—which the power of truth demanded—two goats were necessarily taken, so that each in part could scarcely express what was prefigured, not, however, so that Christ should be recognized individually and separately as man and God. Thus he says that the two goats differ in nothing according to what they are, but fully rejoice in the identity of species; yet we, adhering to the weakness of the types, are not to say that divinity and humanity, from which Emmanuel is, differ in any way. Just as the identity of species of goats in no way harms the truth—since from the weakness of the type we escape by recognizing the vast and immense difference of divinity and humanity, from which one Christ is understood—so neither does the duality of goats bring any detriment to truth, because again we escape from the weakness of the type, nor do we understand the two sons to be one Christ. In the same way, two pigeons were taken when offering a sacrifice for the purification of a leper; and one indeed was sacrificed, the other sprinkled with the blood of the sacrificed one and was let go unsacrificed; neither the duality of the pigeons nor the identity of species of each harms the beauty of truth, because the figure of the type is insufficient to reach fullness and precision of signification.
When he had indicated all these things most clearly, he added: CYRILLUS: "Thus the image was the law and the type of the truth of the things being carried in the womb. Therefore, although necessity introduced two goats to show the mystery of Christ, and likewise the duality of the pigeons was present, yet he was one in both, both in passion and beyond passion, and in death and above death." You see how the master used the formula "one from two" regarding the two goats and the two pigeons, divided in hypostases; yet Christ is not divided together with the types of goats and pigeons, in whom he was prefigured as in a shadow. For in the Scholia he says: CYRILLUS: "He compares Christ to two pigeons, not because there are two sons, but one from two, gathered into unity from divinity and humanity."
However, when the type, through the duality of the goats and pigeons, shows division, and through the identity of the species of each suggests confusion and the destruction of the difference of divinity and humanity, from which there is one and only Christ, the master commands us to escape from the types, which, as we have said, cannot in every respect reach the accuracy of truth, but have something entirely different from the subjects themselves. Therefore, regarding the emissary, he says: CYRILLUS: "It is to be understood according to the reasoning suitable to them; for they fall far short of the true things and sometimes provide only a partial demonstration of the things signified. We say, however, that it was a shadow and a type, a law." And in the explanation of the Gospel of Matthew, in the eleventh book, he used the formula "in two" or "in both" regarding the two hypostases, narrating about two servants who received part of the talents, one five and the other two, and each of whom doubled what had been given, yet was deemed worthy of equal reward: CYRILLUS: "Therefore, equal in both is the readiness and diligence of the soul for labor; for they reached the summit of virtue inherent in themselves." Similarly, in the eighth book of the explanation of John: "Therefore the type of translation is faith, which justifies; which, when the Son takes it to himself, he truly also offers to the Father; for there is one divinity in both and the inseparable dignity of the substance."
Behold, everywhere it is shown that when speaking "in two" and "in both," it is as if referring to two hypostases subsisting in their own proper existence.
But regarding the divine incarnation, we say that there is one hypostasis and one nature of the incarnate Word, by no means "in two" or "in both," so that we do not dissect that one hypostasis into two natures or hypostases, which in contemplation alone is separated, in order to recognize again that divinity and humanity, from which Emmanuel exists, are neither of the same nature nor consubstantial. Therefore, formulas "from two" and "from both" are also spoken of, which prohibit and prevent the duality of natures after the union. For the master wrote in the same eighth book of the explanation, long before the previously mentioned sentences, thus: CYRILLUS: "It has been clarified to us, not the bare Word, which is from God and the Father, was shown to us, but one, showing the Son, who is ineffably recognized from humanity and divinity, he says 'Son of man.' For there is one Son and Christ, in whom after the incarnation no division occurs, except insofar as we speak to signify only the nature of the Word and the nature of the flesh, and that they are not the same according to cognition: one is from the substance of God and the Father, the other, however, has its beginning on the holy earth from the Virgin; yet Christ is one, not divided into the duality of sons after the concurrence of those things spoken, but existing and recognized in the dignity of divinity even with the flesh."
Therefore, the Chalcedonians, who did not write "from two natures" in their definition but chose and defined "in two natures," have fallen into the duality of sons. For what one confesses by saying "from two natures" affirms one Christ, which is destructive of this duality; but what is said "in two natures" presents those natures as divided according to hypostases, as the very statement shows. Moreover, the designation "one person," according to the identity of the name of sonship, applies to both, and in the same way, the name of one hypostasis: "For to call a person is, he says, to call a hypostasis," as we have demonstrated in Theodoret, using the testimonies of Nestorius, to John of Cilicia, in what we have previously examined at length.
The wise Cyril, when the Orientals had said "For a union has been made of two natures," and the doctors, in their manner, replied to them, as mentioned above, inserted the formula "from two" as if expelling a root of a certain malady, and as signifying the hypostatic union, from which it follows that the one nature of the incarnate Word of God is proclaimed, which in subtle contemplation alone and as if in subtle thoughts is separated only to indicate the difference according to the substance of those things which have come together into one through natural conjunction, which prevents and restrains absolute division, so that those things which appear two in contemplation because of the diversity of species and the diversity of substance toward one another are no longer two, but are resolved into one from both; for the hypostasis is one from two. Although he said in the second epistle to Succensus that they "were ignorant" who turned the proposition upon itself, saying: HERETICS: "How can we not allow two natures to subsist after the union?" nevertheless he also opposed those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son.
CHAPTER—NINETEEN
When Saint Cyril condemns those who assert that two natures subsist inseparably after the union, because they oppose those who affirm one incarnate nature of the Son and insist on separating even in contemplation as if in hypostasis, and fraudulently and entirely superfluously say that Christ suffered "by the nature of humanity," when according to the Scriptures it should be said "in the flesh," the Chalcedonians, openly contradicting him, defined Him as "in two individual natures" and, through the Tome of Leo, sought to determine which nature was crucified. The ridiculous Grammarian, although condemned among them, as if concerning matters not evident, even attempts to swear, saying: I am not a mad heretic.
When the heretics might also think to defend their perverse opinion from what is said by us, namely that the nature of humanity suffered in Emmanuel, who from two natures, divinity and humanity, is one, and frame their proposition thus: "Nothing prevents one from saying that He suffered by the nature of humanity. If this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" the master answers them: This does not help you in asserting two natures after the union; for to name the human nature and the divine nature, from which Emmanuel exists, is not to separate the one into two, for humanity was made proper to the Word, and the one Son is understood with it. Moreover, it is useful to hear the sacred voice itself on this matter, added to the previously cited statements which present, as an example of the divine union, the type of a man like ours. He therefore says: CYRILLUS: "We do not set the natures apart, nor again do we allow the full power of division into them, but we understand them to be one, so that these two natures are no longer two, but each is resolved into one living being."
Therefore, although they speak of the human and divine nature of Emmanuel, yet humanity was made proper to the Word, and the one Son is understood with it.
He who is thus and is one of the two, and is seen in one person and in one hypostasis and nature, namely the incarnate Word, is rightly said to have suffered in the flesh; and even if one confesses that He suffered by the nature of humanity, he does not speak wrongly, because he simultaneously confesses that the Word incarnate is one in nature and hypostasis, and not two natures after the union. For one who holds this intention does not separate, but shows that he confesses the Word incarnate to have suffered as much as it is capable of suffering, while all suffering is inaccessible to Him as God. Thus Succensum, to whom he wrote, received it with praise, saying: CYRILLUS: "Very rightly and most wisely does your perfection speak concerning the salutary passion, saying that the Only Begotten Son of God suffered not as He is conceived and exists in His own divine nature, but suffered those things proper to the body, rather through the earthly nature. It is necessary to observe both in one and according to the truth to the Son, both what cannot be suffered divinely and what is said to be suffered humanly; for His flesh indeed suffered." Likewise, in the fifth tome against the blasphemies of Nestorius he declared: "Just as he who says 'man' signifies simultaneously the soul with the body, although according to nature they are of different kinds, and if it is said perhaps that the body of someone is dead, the whole man is understood to have suffered, though the soul is not subject to death; so also it is with regard to our Savior Christ. For that Word from God the Father, as we have often said, communicated to blood and flesh as we do, and made that body from the holy Virgin His own, and thus was also called the Son of Man; therefore, with His flesh dead, the true reason of the union attributes suffering to Him, but He knows that He remained beyond suffering, because He is God by nature and life."
He therefore clearly exposed those who insisted, saying: HERETICS: "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?"
and declared that they spoke entirely superfluously in claiming that Christ suffered "in the nature of humanity," as if to appear to separate two sons, one of whom suffered and the other did not, and that He was not one incarnate, suffering indeed in human flesh but remaining beyond suffering in His divinity. For when they first stated, "Nothing prevents us from saying that He suffered in the nature of humanity," they added: "How then can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" The master therefore affirms that He suffered "in the flesh," according to the Scriptures, not "in the nature of humanity," although both expressions are the same for the orthodox and harmless when not spoken maliciously. Thus those pressing the proposition spoke entirely superfluously in claiming that He suffered in the nature of humanity, saying: "How then can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" For against them, extending the whole discourse, he condemned them as opposing those who say that the Son incarnate is one in nature, boldly asserting two natures subsisting and even separating in contemplation, so that they might appear divided according to the substance of what is united in one, and even treating Him as a hypostasis apart, thus separating and dividing Him into singular and absolute diversity. He declares that in this perverse sense they say superfluously that Christ suffered in the nature of humanity. He also condemned their contention and their collusion with those who confess one incarnate and uninhumanated nature of the Son. He adds further, as previously noted: CYRILLUS: "Since Scripture says that He suffered in the flesh, it is better for us also to say so rather than 'in the nature of humanity,' although even this, unless maliciously spoken by some, does not harm the mystery. For what is the nature of humanity except flesh animated by an intelligent soul? Therefore we say that the Lord suffered in the flesh. Hence, they speak entirely superfluously that He suffered in the 'nature of humanity,' as if to remove and properly separate it from the Word, so that two might be understood and not one incarnate and uninhumanated Word from God the Father."
And thus when the master clearly condemns those who assert that Christ subsists in two individual natures, opposing those who say that the Son incarnate is one nature and speak superfluously and maliciously that He suffered in the nature of humanity, so that two might be recognized and not one incarnate, the ridiculous Grammaticus, confessing that the two natures make one Christ and thus subject to condemnation, writes of us: GRAMMATICUS: "But they will say, 'You maliciously use this word!' the audacity of adversaries! For if we said only two natures and did not again proclaim the other confession, namely that the incarnate Word is one nature, they would have no grounds for accusation. But now, what just accusation remains for them against us? Who, however, does not rightly reproach those who anathematize those who say that two natures are united hypostatice?" It is appropriate to say to such a madman: We did not say that you maliciously use this word! Like a dog, you cease not to bite stones uselessly, neglecting the slinger, and striking your teeth in vain against the truth. For against those pressing the proposition and saying: HERETICS: "Nothing prevents us from saying that He suffered in the nature of humanity. If this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" the wise Cyrillus overwhelmed with spiritual stones, crying out: CYRILLUS: "They speak entirely superfluously that He suffered in the 'nature of humanity,' as if to remove it from the Word and properly set it aside, so that two might be understood and not one incarnate and uninhumanated Word from God the Father."
But more ridiculous is what you say, that you confess two voices, which you even call confessions, namely that it must be confessed that Christ subsists in two individual natures after the union, and that it must be said that the incarnate Word of God is one nature. Yet again you are overwhelmed by the master's throw of spiritual stones. For when those who prepared the proposition said, "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" he struck them down, strongly prostrating them, saying: "The proposition still opposes those who say that the Son incarnate is one nature, and they, wishing to show this as absurd, everywhere try to assert that two natures subsist." Thus you assert that confessions mutually opposing each other are joined into one, and that you confess those two opposing and contending voices together! I give you the greatest thanks for your ingenuousness, by which you cut off the proposition and did not bring it in your sacrilegious and ignorant little book, in which the heretics say: "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" so that you might mix what cannot be mixed and appear faithless and absurd as a reconciler of voices mutually opposed, which the eminent Cyrillus declared to oppose each other.
They express this opinion even in your ridiculous and impious folly, by which you think that we, as if concerning matters that are not evident but lack arguments, so to speak, and by oaths, are disputing with you whether you speak neither maliciously nor entirely superfluously that Christ suffered "in the nature of humanity." And you are ignorant that, while you say that two individual natures subsist after the union, you bear on your face, like those contemptible men, the stigma of disgrace which the holy Cyrillus imposed on those saying, "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" and this is: CYRILLUS: "They say superfluously that Christ suffered in the nature of humanity, as if they remove it from the Word and properly separate it, so that two are understood and no longer one incarnate." How then, since the master has blocked every approach of perverse machination and has said that it must not be said that Christ suffered "in the nature of humanity," although this is said by the orthodox without malice, as he testified to Succensus, has he introduced a prudent formula for this expression, writing: "Since the inspired Scripture says that he suffered 'in the flesh,' it is better for us also to say thus than 'in the nature of humanity'"—how, I say, did those who gathered at Chalcedon contentious and, as it is said, openly, go in the opposite direction and define that Christ is to be understood indivisibly in two natures, and through the Tome of Leo inquire which nature was pierced by nails while he hung on the wood of the cross?
CHAPTER—TWENTY
The wise Cyrillus, in the Lord, instructed those asserting that Christ subsists in two natures after the union, as if they were heretics and contentious, to reject even the formula rightly used by the orthodox, which says that Christ suffered in the nature of humanity, and Theodotus forbids that those who follow the opinions of Nestorius should name a division according to thought; in this way they imitated the great Athanasius and the supreme God, for he indeed restrained the Arians, and here the false prophets, even by rejecting the words which were spoken by themselves.
No one, however, should think that the holy Cyrillus was introducing anything new by saying that those who pressed a proposition against him, saying, "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" were asserting in vain that Christ suffered in the "nature of humanity," as if removing and separating it so that two might be recognized, and not one incarnate and inhumanated Word from God the Father—which the orthodox confess without malice, similarly saying that the Word suffered inhumanly in the "nature of humanity," so that they assert He suffered in the flesh according to the Scriptures—wherein we also find the great Athanasius in his first oration against the Arians writing that even then no faith should be given to them when they utter scriptural or orthodox words: "For even if they cite words from the Scriptures, do not consent to the writers; even if they speak words of the orthodox confession, do not pay attention to the speakers. For they do not speak with a right mind, but, clothed in these words like a sheep's skin, inwardly assent to the opinions of Arius, like the leader of heresy, the devil. For he also spoke words taken from the Scriptures, but silence was imposed on him by our Savior. For if he had perceived what he said, he would not have fallen from heaven. But now, having fallen in his mind, this malefactor speaks with simulated words."
Likewise, against the wicked Nestorius and his followers, who utterly divided Emmanuel and asserted two natures subsisting individually and united after the union, and did not confess Christ as one from the two, with one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word, but simulatedly claimed to separate Him only according to thought, the holy and zealous Phinehas-inspired Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, forbids such men from saying that Christ is "separated according to thought." Therefore, the wicked Nestorius, in the work he wrote by question and answer against the Theopaschites or Cyrillians, writes thus: "He indeed is one Son, consubstantial with the Father, as I rightly said before; but the natures of the Son, because of consubstantiality with the Father and with us, are divided according to thought." Again, in the oration titled "On that: 'The kingdom of heaven was likened to a king who made a wedding for his son'": "Therefore the union of natures is indivisible, yet the substances of those united are divisible, not by section of the union, but by the thought of divinity and humanity. Hear likewise, and most clearly: Christ, as Christ, is indivisible; yet composed as God and man; simple according to filiation, but double according to the one who clothes and the one clothed; singular according to the person of the Son, yet shining as if with two eyes, the natures of humanity and divinity."
Behold how, giving the reason that He separates according to thought and only recognizes the difference according to the substance of those things which are joined, dividing God and man according to hypostases, the one clothed and the one clothing, and uniting them only by the identity of the name of filiation and, as he said, following dignity, as was also shown above, he says in the homily entitled "In commemoration of Saint Mary, after first preaching Proclus," whose beginning is: "Applaud those who speak of the Blessed Mary, from the gatherings most devoted to Christ, it is not surprising": Nestorius: "Therefore let us confess one dignity of the union, but the natures have twofold hypostases." Wherefore Saint Cyril, writing to Eulogius, said: "Thus also concerning Nestorius: although he says two natures, signifying the difference of the flesh and of the Word of God—for one nature is that of the Word, another of the flesh—yet he does not confess the union with us. For we, uniting them, confess one Christ, one Son the same, one Lord, and furthermore one nature of the incarnate Son."
Therefore, Theodotus of blessed memory, adducing the reason of that impious man who ostentatiously assumed the appearance of an orthodox person and claimed indeed to separate according to thought but assumed the difference according to substance as the cause of the absolute division of the natures from which one Christ exists, forbids him to say this very thing, that he separates according to thought, which is rightly proclaimed by the orthodox doctors, who confess one of the two natures and the hypostasis of the incarnate Word, and acknowledge the difference according to substance of those things which have indiscriminately concurred into one, namely divinity and humanity, a difference which appears according to mere thought and contemplation. Therefore, in his homily entitled "On the Nativity of Christ," he wrote thus: Theodotus: "That He may be one and the same, glorified divinely, and having suffered in the human nature. And this all who confess the union of divinity and humanity confess with us. For that which is united is no longer two, but is called one. But if you separate by thought and contemplate each individually, you dissolve the union. For it is impossible simultaneously to preserve the union and contemplate each individually. But that which is united has been made inseparably one, nor does it again become two. But by thought alone you separate, he says. Therefore by the same thought you also dissolve the union; for in removing one from the other, by that very act you also dissect the union. What then, understanding two and despising the union, do you dissolve the saving dispensation?"
It must be understood, however, that in opposing the absolute separation, which no longer wishes to say "two" after the signification of difference and the thought of union, but remains in the absolute division of duality, they say this, since they claim the separation has been made by thought alone and, as they want to say foolishly, remove the human from the Word of God. For later, in the same oration, he adds also these words: Theodotus: "Furthermore, we show that He became poor for our sake, who was rich according to divinity, and made salvation easily attainable for all. As the great Paul also signified, saying: 'For our sake He became poor, though He was rich, that we through His poverty might be enriched.' And who was He that was rich? And why rich? And how did He become poor for us? Let those tell us who divide the human from the Word of God and separate what is united by the commemoration of natures, calling Christ twofold and bringing the formula 'by thought alone' in defense of themselves."
These things clearly show that against those who divided the one Christ into the human individually and God separately, and, to defend the division into two sons and two Christs, brought forward the pretext of separation according to thought, and presented that separation as a simulated defense, Saint Theodotus arose and at last rejected the separation according to thought, by which the teachers, who rightly treated the Word of truth, had used it to signify the difference according to substance, simultaneously considering also the undivided character of the hypostatic union, and acknowledging as one of the two Him who is absolute in this union, one person and one hypostasis and the nature of the incarnate Word.
But since those who impiously introduced the duality of Christs assumed the substantial difference of the natures, from which Christ alone is one and true, as a cause of absolute division—as I have also shown with Diodorus, acting and being reproved by Saint Cyril, and adding division to the difference and the absolute separation of duality, forgetting, as the Spiritually wise Cyril said himself in the second volume against the blasphemies of Nestorius: "In the mystery of Christ, the principle of union does not indeed ignore difference, but excludes division: not because it confuses or mingles the natures among themselves, but because the Word of God, made participant of flesh and blood, is understood and called the one Son also in this way"—therefore, Theodotus, zealous, forbids those who advanced with separation according to thought, so that they would not also divide Emmanuel according to hypostases, and who joined to the difference according to substance also absolute separation and division. Wherefore he adds in the same oration also these words: Theodotus: "You say one Christ, the same God and man; therefore also understand one. But if you say indeed one, yet think of two, your thought is contrary to your speech. Do not therefore say two, as if by some difference removed from each other; if by speech you unite, do not dissect by thought; but if you dissect by thought, you have denied the union. Therefore do not admit thought to the divided natures, marveling at the supreme union of God."
You see how he also forbids separation according to thought and cuts it off from those who extend difference to completely divided natures and turn it into singular and absolute division. For from that difference, which does not stop at acknowledging the natural diversity of those things ineffably united in one, but proceeds to the absolute section and division of Emmanuel, according to which they say there are two natures after the union, even Saint Cyril turns away, writing in a prosphontic oration to the most pious Emperor Theodosius: CYRIL: "Let anyone learn in another way neither to reject faith at all, nor to admit it without any section and difference as if in its own person, even if he has become man. For when he healed the blind man from his mother's womb, and a sweet but unusual light had been implanted in him, he was rightly an object of admiration to all. Yet he, who had been freed from the disease, was interrogated by the Jews and confessed the physician. But Christ, happening upon him, said to him: 'Do you believe in the Son of God?' And he cried out: 'Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?' He replied, saying: 'You have seen him, and he who speaks with you is he.' And he said: 'I believe, Lord,' and worshiped him. Yet how is it not evident to all that the divine and supreme nature is completely invisible? For 'No one has ever seen God,' as it is written. If therefore he, removing humanity from himself and presenting the Word naked and alone, wished faith to be applied, why did he not rather admonish him to consider what the divine nature is, but showed himself bodily, as can also be seen by the eyes themselves? For he said: 'You have seen him, and he who speaks with you is he.' Or do we say that he did not show the flesh? Yet how is he flesh, unless he is understood according to the union as he who is himself what is proper to him? Something similar is conceived also of us: for he designates a man like ourselves indivisibly and perfectly, composed of soul and body, even through his flesh alone."
This difference, which leads to absolute division and splits Emmanuel into two hypostases and natures after the inexplicable union, but does not acknowledge that from distinct and not mutually consubstantial things, from divinity and humanity, there is one inseparably united nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God, was likewise expelled by the distinguished Cyril, saying "without any section and difference," and showing that he does not deny the difference according to the substance of those things which are joined in one, divinity and humanity—for these are of different species and not at all consubstantial, and ineffably made one Christ from two without change—but he denies that section into two natures and hypostases, which is simultaneously understood with the difference, and which our Savior himself rejected, who, having healed the blind man from his mother's womb, showed himself bodily, and openly said to him, "You have seen the Son of God," yet did not dissect himself according to the difference of visible flesh and invisible divinity, because he was one of the two, who is understood to have appeared through visible flesh and is believed: CYRIL: "For thus, he says, one designates a man like ourselves indivisibly and perfectly, composed of soul and body, even through his flesh alone."
But those who separate, lacking the spirit, wildly extend that difference, which is understood by thought and mere contemplation, of the substance of divinity and humanity, from which Christ exists without confusion, not as a difference according to substance but as a section into two natures and an absolute separation of one hypostasis from the two. To them, the blessed Theodotus spoke, forbidding even this distinction according to contemplation, which by a certain wicked art they transfer to divided natures and hypostases and divide one Christ. Likewise, the holy Cyril acted, shutting off all introduction of division to those who assert that after the union Christ subsists in two individual natures, prohibiting the claim that Christ suffered according to the human nature, and declaring their speech entirely superfluous, for they wished and strove to separate the human nature from the Word of God, so that two are understood and no longer one incarnate Son. For although, he says, this formula is not spoken maliciously by the orthodox, it is better and safer to confess, as the inspired Scripture says, that Emmanuel suffered "in the flesh" rather than "according to the nature of humanity."
Thus that which was rightly thought and spoken by pious men was perversely taken up and uttered through the cunning of heretics, and rejected. We find such a thing done even by God, the dispenser of all wisdom and prudence, from whom the true and faithful followers of truth borrow the patterns of their actions. For just as the holy prophets often called the form of prophecy revealed to them a "burden"—as also the divine Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi called the prophecy inspired and mystically shown to them a "burden," so that it would be shown to the listeners that they spoke not from their own hearts what pleased them, but receiving divine grace from above, they ministered in word; for, as it is written, "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights"; "what do you have that you did not receive? If you received it, why do you boast as if you had not?" Paul also cried out to those who thought the gifts granted by God were their own virtues. In the days of Jeremiah, when a foul crowd of false prophets had grown, they prophesied, for impure gain and miserable profit, what pleased the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Confronting this, the prophet Micah says: "And the prophets prophesied by money, and they rested upon the Lord, saying: 'Is not the Lord in us? No evil shall come upon us,'" and thus, selling their unjust and flattering oracles, even regarding the contemptible "burdens," which I said were sold, they dared to use this title "burden of the Lord," as if it had been given from above and by God, and not spoken by themselves according to what pleased them and was acceptable and desired by their audience.
Therefore so precious a name and type of prophecy was despised and made vile because of foolish burdens and contemptible rewards, and anyone could hear it mockingly questioned: "What is the burden of the Lord?" Wherefore the Lord arose against this hypocrisy and spoke concerning Jeremiah about those who deceitfully used this phrase: they shall no longer call prophecy "the burden of the Lord," or whoever does shall suffer intolerably. "And if this people or prophet asks you, saying: 'What is the burden of the Lord?' you shall say to them: 'You are the burden, and I will overthrow you, says the Lord.' And the prophet or priest or people who say 'the burden of the Lord,' I will demand punishment from that man and from his house. Thus each shall say to his neighbor and each to his brother: 'What did the Lord answer, and what did the Lord speak?' and you shall no longer call it 'the burden of the Lord.' Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have spoken this word 'the burden of the Lord,' and I sent to you saying: You shall not say 'the burden of the Lord,' behold, I will seize and overthrow you and the city which I gave to you and your fathers, and I will bring upon you everlasting reproach and everlasting shame, which shall not be forgotten."
By the legal appellation and name "burden," prophecy was designated! It showed God as the giver of grace, and at the same time admonished the receiver and urged him to humility, since he who received it must minister the word with fear and trembling. Because of those who maliciously used this name, God forbade its mention, and to those who named it after the prohibition, He delivered them to other punishments. Following this divine judgment, Saint Cyril, against those who assert that after the union Christ subsists in two individual natures, and who opposed the confession of the one nature of the incarnate Son, forbade that it be said Christ suffered "according to the nature of humanity," even though orthodox men of sound sense said this; just as the apostolic man Athanasius said concerning the Arians, that we should never believe them, not even when they speak orthodox words.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-ONE
The most wise Cyril indeed praised Succensus for saying that Christ suffered according to his earthly nature, but he forbade those who pressed the proposition upon him, asking "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" to say this, showing that a formula rightly and without madness spoken by the orthodox, confessing two natures after the union, should not be prohibited as if by heretics; for just as it is the role of physicians to forbid certain foods to the sick that are tolerable for the healthy.
But the most excellent Grammarian, running beyond the point, as is said, and not knowing, as I have often stated, "neither what he speaks nor about what he affirms," thinks he brings something valid by saying that Succensus, praised by the wise Cyril, had said that Emmanuel suffered "according to his earthly nature." For who denies that Cyril bestowed praise? How indeed could he not have praised what was rightly and not maliciously spoken by the orthodox? Yet, after he praised Succensus for saying this, he immediately, consequently, presents the proposition of the heretics, in which they said: HERETICS: "Nothing prevents one from saying that he suffered according to the human nature. But if this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?"
To whom speaking and pronouncing a grave sentence of reprobation, he said: CYRIL: "Therefore they superfluously say that he suffered 'according to the human nature,' as if they were removing it from the Word and properly separating it, so that two are understood and no longer one incarnate and inhumaned from God the Father, the Word. That which is added 'inseparably' is indeed regarded by us as a sign of correct doctrine; but they do not understand it so. For 'inseparably' among them, according to the vanities of Nestorius, is understood differently. For they say that man, in whom he dwelt, is inseparable from God the Word in equality of honor, identity of will, and authority. Thus they do not simply speak words, but with some deceit and malice." Therefore, if you had not taken the proposition from your obscure little book, you would certainly have known that Cyril prohibited those who say, as you also say, that after the union Christ subsists in two individual natures, from saying that he suffered "according to the human nature," but encouraged them rather to confess that he suffered "according to the flesh," as it is written. Succensus, however, was not among those who urged the proposition, saying: "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" Therefore he was rightly first praised for saying that Christ suffered "according to the earthly nature." But what was rightly said by him and by all professing sound doctrine, he forbade those who asked: "How can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?" asserting that they did this superfluously, removing man from God the Word and maliciously saying 'inseparably,' as the folly of the unclean vanities of Nestorius demands. Therefore, when Saint Cyril pronounced this sentence against those who asserted that Christ subsists in two individual natures after the union—namely, opposing those who claimed that the Son incarnate has one nature, superfluously asserted that he suffered according to the human nature, divided him into two, and usurped 'inseparably' according to the vanities of Nestorius—how can all the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, full of madness, not see that it defined Christ to be recognized in two individual natures, and ask which nature was pierced by the nails while hanging on the wood of the cross? Those who, in defending their impiety, laid hands upon the eminent teacher Cyril and were enemies of the truth, while pretending to fight against us.
How can any prudent physician rightly compare himself to him who received the Orientals, turned away from the disease and corruption of Nestorius, and ambiguously said that the union of two natures had occurred, adding nothing from that plague—equality of honor and unity of filiation I mean; who, condescending to their weakness, did not demand that they confess what was absolutely united, that is, that there is one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God, but prudently, addressing them, brought what had been ambiguously posited by them to sound understanding, inserting the formula "from two," which generates the hypostatic union and resolves one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word of God, thus saying: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of natures is acknowledged, from which we say that an ineffable union has been made."
For by contemplation alone discerning the difference according to substance, we subtly perceive that a union and concurrence of two natures has occurred; but after considering the union, we believe that the incarnate Son's nature is no longer two but one from the two. And we present this mode of wise correction often preached by Cyril in his writings to Acacius, thus: CYRIL: "Therefore, apprehending in thought those things from which there is one and only Christ, we say indeed that the two natures are one; but after the union, as if the division into two has been removed, we believe the Son's nature to be one, as of one, true, unhumaned, and incarnate." But to those who, worthy of this correction, drag the difference according to substance to absolute division and separation, saying: HERETICS: "And nothing forbids that it be said he suffered according to the human nature. If this is true, how can we not concede that two natures subsist after the union indivisibly?"—he reproves the audacity of impiety, writing plainly: "It opposes again and nevertheless the proposition of those who say that the incarnate Son has one nature"; but he again salutarily forbids that they say even that which is rightly used by the orthodox with sound sense, the formula "he suffered according to the human nature," just as a physician, when someone sick greedily desires a solid food and excessively eats it, falling again into disease from which he had been delivered, entirely forbids that food.
For he who at first had condescended and had not required from those asserting the union of two natures that they add what is absolutely united, namely that Christ is one from two and they believe and firmly admit one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God, again, because they fall into their sickness anew, forbids them also the formula they may rightly use, that is, he forbids them to say "he suffered according to the human nature," even though it had been said by orthodox men not maliciously but rightly and fittingly. Therefore, to those who asserted that Christ subsists in two individual natures after the union, he assigns a worthy condemnation, saying that they thus oppose those who confess the Son's incarnate nature to be one and everywhere try to show two natures subsisting, and impose the force of difference according to substance, proclaimed by the Fathers, on what converged into one, which difference is discerned by contemplation alone, so that they bring it to absolute division and to the separation of hypostases, and even forbid them to use the formula rightly employed by the orthodox with sound sense, namely "Christ suffered according to the human nature," just as Athanasius said to the Arians that words, though spoken by those simulating sound and orthodox speech, are not to be believed.
The writing of the first part of the second book (oration three) of Saint Severus, Patriarch, against the Grammaticus, is complete. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HERE ENDS THE FIRST PART OF THE THIRD ORATION.