Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St.

Cyril, Festal Letter

17]:
Festal Letter 17: "[He was] allowing the nature like ours to move according to its
own laws, while at the same time preserving the purity of the divinity"
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Festal Letter
17]:
2 Paragraphs earlier, the Festal Letter 17 reads:

“but we follow Holy Scripture both in binding our nature into unity with the Word sprung from God, and
interweaving into the one that which is from both (εἰς ἕν τι τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν)”

St. Cyril, Festal Letter 17

St. Cyril said that this human nature denoted as "our nature" became united with the Word. He clarifies that there is
one thing from out of both You can not say that this oneness is a oneness at the level of anything other than nature.
St. Cyril confirms that the statement "One from out of Both" is a oneness of nature
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Festal Letter
17]:
“But being made one according to nature (κατὰ φύσιν).. ..The one and only Christ is not
twofold even though he is understood as compounded out of two different elements in an
indivisible unity, just as a man is understood as consisting of soul and body and yet is not
twofold but rather is one from out of both.”

Ephesus 431, St Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Festal Letter
17]:
The phrase “our nature” refers to the humanity that Christ assumed which is consubstantial
with ours. St. Severus makes a similar remark:

“though he did not come down from heaven in that he became man, for he did not bring the
flesh down from heaven, but he received it from the holy Virgin, flesh that is of our race, and
of our nature.”

St. Severus, Letter 25

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Festal Letter
17]:
“By His all-perfect and distinct humanization, philanthropically He received shape in our
nature, and among us, the divisibles, immutably came forth according to one nature [φύσιν
ἑνὸς].”

St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 3

The phrase “our nature” is not in contradiction to the one-nature formula.

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
12]:
Thesaurus Ch. 12: If He who is in the form of God took the form that is consubstantial to us
because it belongs to us, and the Son is the form of God, then He is consubstantial to God whose
form He is.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
12]:
St. Cyril defines what is meant in his language by “Form of God” and “Form of the Servant”

“In a form like our own, could he be made manifest to earthly creatures. He thought it good to be
made man and in his own person to reveal our nature honored in the dignities of the divinity. The same
one was at once God and man, and he was “in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7) since even though he was
God he was “in the fashion of a man” (Phil 2:8). He was God in an appearance like ours, and the Lord
in the form of a slave. This is what we mean when we say that he became flesh, and for the same
reasons we affirm that the holy virgin is the Mother of God.”
St. Cyril, Unity of Christ,
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
12]:
Again, St. Cyril himself says that this is the language of what is meant by “The Word became
Flesh” There is nothing at all in support of the dyophysite formula as all Miaphysites confess
that He who was in the form of God took the form of a Servant. The problem is in confessing
two particular forms after the union each one operating. St. Cyril’s language in both the
Thesaurus and in Unity of Christ Demonstrates to us that by form he is speaking of the
humanity in abstraction that Christ assumed which is consubstantial with us, and the divinity
of the Word which is consubstantial with the Father.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
24]:
Thesaurus Ch. 24: Some things He says as man and some as God, for He has authority in both
natures. As man He says, "Now is my soul troubled," but as God He says, "I have power to lay
down my life and to fake it up again." To be troubled, then, pertains to the passion of His flesh,
but to possess power to lay down His soul and to take it up again is an act belonging to the
power of the Logos.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
24]:
The greek and latin does not contain the phrase “in both natures” it only states “In both”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
24]:
This type of language is completely orthodox. It doesn’t entail the idea that Christ is subsisting
in two distinct particular natures after the union each one properly working
The Saints use the same language:

(St. Ambrose, De Fide 2.9.77:) “In both there speaks one and the same Son of God.. as man He speaks the things of man..”

(St. Severus of Antioch, Philalethes:) “and indeed of two, yet one man, remaining in both of them what he is”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Thesaurus Ch.
24]:
St Cyril says that the phrase ‘In’ means according to:
“Hence it is quite clear that the expression “in the flesh” is simply equivalent to “according to the flesh” in just the same way
that the expression “in the divinity” is equivalent to “according to the divinity.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas Against the Bishops of Oriens, Second Anathema

We ought to read the phrase: ‘For He speaks as a man, and He speaks also as God, having authority in both’ as Christ can
speak according to his humanity and Christ can speak according to his divinity because he has authority according to both.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Nestorius]:
2nd Letter to Nestorius: there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures
is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the
one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Nestorius]:
Here when St. Cyril explains the “difference not being taken away” and being preserved, we
ought to understand it in his own language.

“And according to this and only this is the difference of natures, that is, of hypostases, to be understood, for divinity and
humanity are doubtless not the same in natural quality. ..the human mind doubtless sees the two ineffably and unconfusedly
joined to each other in a union; but the mind in no wise divides them after they have been united, but believes and admits
strongly that the one from both is God and Son and Christ and Lord.”

St Cyril, Letter 40 to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Nestorius]:
St. Cyril continues in the same letter to show how this “unconfused” union where the
difference still exists is still to be understood within the “one nature” formula
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we
accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one
nature of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh. ..and let the entirely unconfused union be
confessed on our part.”

St Cyril, Letter 40 to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Nestorius]:
If professing a difference in the natures where they remained unconfused is “Dyophysite” then all the oriental orthodox saints are vindicated:

(St. Severus, Letter 1:) “but the difference also is preserved, and the propriety in the form of natural characteristics of the natures of which Emmanuel
consists, since the flesh was not converted into the nature of the Word, nor was the Word changed into flesh. We mean in the matter of natural
characteristics”

(St. Severus, Letter 1:) “But, since you have thought fit to ask me what is the difference that appears in natural characteristics, I mean of the natures
from which Emmanuel is, I will explain clearly and not conceal.”

(St. Severus, Letter 11:) “It was sufficient to banish this unseemly supposition, that 'difference in characteristics' was not stated absolutely, but the
word 'natural' was added.. we can know of what kind each of the natures is which have combined in the unity and made up one hypostasis and
manifestly declare that Emmanuel is one out of two opposite things, Godhead I mean and manhood, as Gregory the Theologian said, Let distinctness be
maintained in the unity.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Nestorius]:
In St. Cyrils christology, recognizing the difference in nature is still not enough to make Christ twofold in nature:

(St Cyril, 2nd Tome to Nestorius:) “There is no reason to claim that He is twofold in nature. While there is a vast difference between
His Manhood and Godhead, the mystery of Christ's union acknowledges this difference but rejects separation.”

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 44:) “The same holds good of Nestorius if he says 'two natures to indicate the difference between the
flesh and God the Word-the point being that the nature of the Word is other than that of the flesh. However, he fails to affirm the union
along with us. We unite these, acknowledging one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord and, further, one incarnate nature of the Son..
So, recognizing the difference of natures is not dividing the one Christ into two.”

(St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to Succensus:) “The term ‘one’ can be properly applied not just to those things which are naturally simple, but
also to things which are compounded in a synthesis. Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are quite
different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man,
even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present within the system of the composition. So,
those who say that if there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, then it necessarily follows that there must have been a mixture or
confusion with the human nature being diminished or ‘stolen away’, are talking rubbish.

(More on this bottom quote in the next ‘dyophysite’ quote)

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Succensus]:
2nd Letter to Succensus: Your Perfection expounds the rationale of the salvific Passion most
correctly and very learnedly when you assert that the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he
is understood to be, and actually is, God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own
nature, but suffered rather in his earthly nature.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Succensus]:
In the exact same letter, St. Cyril explicitly said that some people use this language as an argument to show two natures
enduring after the union,

he then refutes it:

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Succensus]:
St. Cyril explicitly shuts down this line of argumentation when he says: “then there is nothing to prevent one from saying that he
suffered in the nature of the manhood, and if this is the case then how can we deny that the two natures endured after the union?” He
explicitly says about the phrase “suffering in his human nature” the following: “And so they are simply splitting hairs when they talk
about him suffering in the nature of the manhood, which serves only to separate it from the Word and set it apart on its own so that
one is led to think of him as two and no longer the one Word of God the Father now incarnated and made man.”

St. Cyril only said the phrase: “Did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own nature, but suffered rather in his earthly nature.” In
light of the explanation he gave in the same letter on the theoretical distinction/division.

Keep in mind how St. Cyril explicitly condemns “two natures enduring after the union” and defending the statements he made by saying
“this objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. hey want to show that the idea is
foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured.”

The Chalcedonians today are employing the same arguments that St. Cyril was refuting to the point St. Cyril said: “there is nothing to
prevent one from saying that he suffered in the nature of the manhood, and if this is the case then how can we deny that the two
natures endured after the union?” Very ironic.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to
Succensus]:
St. Severus employs similar language:

(St. Severus, Letter 25:) “For, being God, he became man, not by departing from being God; for he did not became man by
departure from Godhead, nor did he become God by growth from man: but, being the Word, he became flesh on account of
suffering, while he remained invariable in his nature'.”

(St. Severus, Letter 25:) “Indeed, since he himself said that 'he is one, and not without flesh', how can it be anything but
wholly unreasonable, and presumptuous and irreverent, for us to gainsay this, and contend that he is without flesh? But the
words which he went on to add, 'who in his own nature is without flesh and blood', plainly introduce this thought, that in his
own nature, that is in the Godhead, he has no association with flesh and blood.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 39]:
Letter 39: We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a
reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us
and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his
Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we
confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be
Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken
from her with himself. For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord
common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God
on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 39]:
Firstly, we ought to recognize St. Cyril’s position itself, as this is just a documentation of what theologians do.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Second Tome against Nestorius:) “So just as everything is spoken of the one person — for one nature
is recognized as existing after the union, namely that of the Word incarnate.”

So in Letter 39, when Cyril says: “For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching
about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures” St. Cyril’s
position is already clarified in his own words above.

Secondly, dividing some of Christ’s sayings as pertaining to his two natures can be viewed as valid when we recognize the
division theoretically. For example when Christ says: “Now my soul is troubled” While we recognize that all his sayings
pertain to the one nature after the union, the whole (which is the one nature) can speak according to either his humanity or
divinity (which are parts) Not just in Christ’s sayings, but in everything he did.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 39]:
(Acts of the Council of Ephesus, St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily II at Ephesus:) “For the Jews did not crucify a mere man,
neither did they nail the visible nature only, but they brought (their) daring to the God (who was) in it, who had appropriated
the sufferings of the united nature.”

We wouldn’t say the human nature was crucified (a part), we would say that the whole (united nature) was crucified according to his
humanity. This is clarified further by St. Mark the Ascetic

(St. Mark the Ascetic, On the Incarnation against Nestorius:) “And, in general, whenever Holy Scripture speaks about him
bodily, you cannot show that it is speaking about the flesh as one part of the whole, but rather united: he made the deeds of
the flesh his own.”

The same way, we wouldn’t say that a nature (part) spoke, but the Incarnate Word (whole) spoke according to either of his
parts. This is what is meant by Letter 39’s: “other things they divide as to the two natures”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 39]:
Lastly, let’s imagine that this quote from letter 39 that the dyophysites use against us actually teaches a division of natures and different sayings
issuing directly from the natures. Even if it doesn’t teach this system I presented in which the whole acts according to his parts, those words that
were cited weren’t even St. Cyril’s words. Letter 39 States:

(St. Cyril Letter 39:) “My lord, the most reverend bishop, Paul, brought forward a document containing an irreprehensible confession of the faith
and verified that this was composed by your holiness [John of Antioch] and by the most God-loving bishops there. The document is as follows, and
is inserted in this letter of mine in the exact words:”

The portion which taught: “For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as
pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures,” Is a portion from the letter which John of Antioch had sent
through Paul of Emesa that St. Cyril cited.

In St, Cyril’s Letter 40, quite literally 1 Letter Later, See what St. Cyril has to say about this letter that John of Antioch wrote which he cited:

“They sent to Alexandria the most reverend and God-loving bishop Paul, the Bishop of Emesa, with whom I had a great many long talks.. I
enquired whether he brought with him a letter from the most religious bishop John. He then produced a letter to me which did not contain the
things that it should contain, but which had been dictated in a manner in which it should not, for it had the force of provocation not of
encouragement. And I did not accept this letter.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 39]:
Not only did the dyophysites cite John of Antioch’s letter which St. Cyril cited in letter 39 (Not even Cyril’s) one letter later
(Letter 40), St. Cyril straightly admits that he did not accept the letter, then in the same letter 40 the distinction in two is done
away with after the union:

"Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we
accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one
nature of the Son."

St. Cyril, Letter 40, to Acacius

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch. 13]:
Scholia on the Incarnation, Ch. 13: While recognizing the difference of the natures and preserving them with each other without
confusion, we maintain that Jesus Christ is one and the same.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch. 13]:
St. Cyril already shows us how he and nestorius had agreed on the difference of the natures, but St. Cyril united these while Nestorius didn’t

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 44:) “The same holds good of Nestorius if he says 'two natures to indicate the difference between the flesh and God
the Word-the point being that the nature of the Word is other than that of the flesh. However, he fails to affirm the union along with us. We unite
these, acknowledging one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord and, further, one incarnate nature of the Son.. So, recognizing the difference of
natures is not dividing the one Christ into two.”

Even Maximus the Confessor, a Chalcedonian father, had come to this conclusion when he cited this letter 44 of St. Cyril

(Maximus, Letter 12:) “That is, while we profess union and devoutly analyze its image with precision, we do not use the verbal designation of
difference to express union, but, by appropriately choosing some words for difference and others for connection ..Hence, however, it is clear that both
he and Nestorius affirmed two natures,.. .. Nestorius confesses difference with us, affirming two natures, but does not profess union with us. He does
not affirm "one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word."

Even in the Scholia, St. Cyril shows us this system:

(St. Cyril, Scholia on the Incarnation:) “But in respect of the Nature of the Word and of the Manhood, the diversity herein indicates to us only the
difference [of natures]. For One Christ is conceived of out of both.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch. 13]:
Even in the exact same chapter 13 of the Scholia on the Incarnation, St. Cyril expresses his same christology that he holds in
his Second Tome to nestorius, one that rejects Christ being “twofold in nature”

(St. Cyril: Scholia on the Incarnation:) “One therefore is He Who both before the Incarnation was Very God and in the human
nature hath remained That He was and is and shall be. We must not then sever the One Lord Jesus Christ into Man separately
and into God separately, but we say that Jesus Christ is One and the Same, yet knowing the distinction of the Natures and
keeping them unconfused with one another.”

(St Cyril, 2nd Tome to Nestorius:) “There is no reason to claim that He is twofold in nature. While there is a vast difference
between His Manhood and Godhead, the mystery of Christ's union acknowledges this difference but rejects separation.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
He orders two small, living, clean birds to be taken', he says, 'so that you might understand from winged
creatures the man from heaven, at once man and God, in two natures, inasmuch as he came to be in the
separate definition that belongs to each. He who shone forth from God the Father was Word, in flesh from a
woman.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
In the Context of the Glaphyra, St. Cyril says the following about the two birds:

(St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch:) “Even though it says there were two birds, however, we are certainly not saying that
we understand there to be two Christs. This matter brings us to a learned and necessary consideration. For the
Only-Begotten, although he was God by nature, bore the flesh of the holy Virgin, and was indeed composed, as it were, of two,
by which I mean his heavenly nature and his human nature, in a way that is ineffable and beyond understanding.
Notwithstanding, the Lord Jesus Christ is one. The account, then, in these two birds gives consideration to the coming
together of two into one.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
Whenever St. Cyril mentions the any “composition” or “two become one” it’s always at the level of nature:

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Bishops of Oriens:) When the discussion has considered closely what elements have come
together to become, or to compose, the single person and nature, or hypostasis, then it may use either of the terms, “together
with” or “with,” because it has already secured what it denotes and has thereby defined it as a single composite entity rather
than dividing it into a duality.

(St Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius:) But being made one according to nature (κατὰ φύσιν).. ..The one and only Christ is not
twofold even though he is understood as compounded out of two different elements in an indivisible unity, just as a man is
understood as consisting of soul and body and yet is not twofold but rather is one from out of both.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
After, multiple paragraphs later explaining how the two birds become one composite Christ out of two, St. Cyril says the
following in the supposed ‘dyophysite’ quote:

(St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch:) “For it prescribes that two living birds which are clean should be taken, so that
through these birds you may understand both the heavenly man and God at the same time, these being in fact two natures,
distinct with regard to the properties proper to each one. For when the Word shone forth from God the Father, he was from a
woman in respect of his flesh, and yet he was not divided, for Christ is one coming from two”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
Dr. Nicholas P. Lunn translates the text as: ‘these being in fact two natures’. The greek is: ‘εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις’, which is
literally translated as into two indeed natures. This cannot be at all speaking in reference to Christ subsisting in two natures
after the union because St. Cyril expresses, using the greek particle μὲν, a contrast in light of: ‘distinct with regard to the
properties proper to each one.’ The sentence right before it explains that the εἰς/into is understood in light of the understanding
of the two birds. For example if I were to say “that through these stick figures you might understand, Bob and Jill, into two
indeed characters, holding hands next to each other.”

This cannot refer the “in two” as in subsisting in two things post unity, St. Cyril himself contradicts this view when he says in
the very next sentence: ‘..and yet he was not divided, for Christ is one coming from two’ St. Cyril recognizes two natures in
terms of distinction, but one thing and an abolition of duality when it comes to separation.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
There's a perfect parallel to this understanding in St. Cyril’s corpus.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 44:) “The same holds good of Nestorius if he says 'two natures to indicate the difference between the flesh
and God the Word-the point being that the nature of the Word is other than that of the flesh. However, he fails to affirm the union along with
us. We unite these, acknowledging one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord and, further, one incarnate nature of the Son.. So, recognizing the
difference of natures is not dividing the one Christ into two.”

(St Cyril, 2nd Tome to Nestorius:) “There is no reason to claim that He is twofold in nature. While there is a vast difference between His
Manhood and Godhead, the mystery of Christ's union acknowledges this difference but rejects separation.”

The same way in letter 44, St. Cyril recognizes two natures, in the Glaphyra St. Cyril said there were two natures in regards to to their
distinction. In letter 44, St. Cyril explains how despite this, there is one incarnate nature of the Word and recognizing the distinction is not
dividing the One Christ into two. St. Cyril says in the Glaphyra despite how he recognizes distinction, there is no division for Christ is one out
of two. In the 2nd Tome to Nestorius, this rejection of separation is a rejection of Christ being twofold in nature. St. Cyrils oneness is at the
level of natural union which rejects any duality but his distinction allows him to say two natures. Two natures after the union is a separation,
two natures in terms of distinction is orthodox.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Glaphyra on the
Pentateuch]:
Even the latin text of the Glaphyra had understood this statement of “into” is not a reference to Christ’s subsistence post union
as two natures after the union.

(St. Cyril, Glaphyra in Latin:) “He commands that two birds be caught alive and clean, so that you may understand that
through living birds there is both the heavenly God and the human who came to us, of dual nature (qui duplicis naturæ ad nos
venit), each of which must be thus distinguished: for the Word was glorified from God the Father, and born of a woman in the
flesh, yet not divided. For Christ is one, from each nature."
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:

He is said to be sanctified by the Spirit, yet he himself sanctifies those who come to him. He is baptized in the
flesh, and he baptizes in the Holy Spirit. How can the same one sanctify and be sanctified, baptize and be
baptized? By virtue of his different natures. In his humanity he is sanctified and baptized; in his divinity he
sanctifies, and he baptizes by his Holy Spirit. The same One who raises the dead is raised from the dead, and he
who is Life by nature is said to have been given life. And how is this? Again, by virtue of his different natures;
for the same One has been raised, and is said to have been given life in reference to his flesh, but he gives life and
he raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer by virtue of his different natures. In his humanity he
suffers in the flesh as man, but in his divinity he is impassible as God. He worshipped with us, for he says, "You
worship what you do not know, but we worship what we know".but he is also the object of worship for every knee
will bow to him. Again
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:
The text does not say “by virtue of his different natures.” The latin says Secundum aliud et aliud Which
literally means according to one way and another. And coincidentally we get a fragment of the original greek
which states: Κατ' άλλο καὶ ἄλλο; Which means the same thing. The text was purposely mistranslated to say
“according to his diverse natures.” That is not in the text.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:
An accurate reading according to the entire chapter is as follows:

(St. Cyril, Scholia on the Incarnation, Ch.19:) How then is he both the one who sanctifies and the one who is
sanctified, baptizes and is baptized? According to one way and another. For he is sanctified as man, as he is
also baptized; but he sanctifies as God, and baptizes in the Holy Spirit. ..but he also gives life and raises the
dead, as God. He suffers and does not suffer, according to one way and another: he suffers indeed as man in
the flesh, because he is a man; but he is impassible divinely, as God.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:
This type of language is not in any exclusion to the miaphysite formula, see the Orthodox Fathers:

(St. Dioscorus, To the Monks of the Hennaton:) They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon
the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man,
and they saw Him giving drink, as God. ..it is an Impiety to speak of Two Natures in God The Word Incarnate

(St. John Chrysostom, In quatriduanum:) “(acting) now as man, now as God, both indicating the nature, ..and by this unequal
mixture of actions, interpreting the unequal union of the natures, as man, I was hungry and tired; as God, I calmed the raging
sea, as man I was tempted by the devil; as God, I expelled devils, as man I am about to suffer for men.”

(St. Severus, Letter 1:) Between the things performed and done by the one Christ the difference is great. Some of them are acts
befitting the divinity, while others are human. ..the one nature did not perform the one, and the other the other; nor, because the
things performed are different, shall we on this account rightly define two natures or forms as operating.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:
St. Cyril is not in agreement with the Chalcedonian position as he later says in the same chapter 19:

(St. Cyril, Scholia on the Incarnation, Ch.19:) “nor should it be said that the man is adored together with God by
equality of dignity, with substances divided.”

Compare this with Leo.

(Pope Leo, The Tome of Leo:) “As the Deity [deus] is not changed by showing mercy, neither is the man [homo]
devoured by the dignity received.”

(Pope Leo, Sermon 64:) Catholic Faith takes up both and defends both, for it believes that—the distinctive natures of
the divine and of the human substances
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Scholia on the
Incarnation, Ch.19]:
Compare as well Cyril’s language of how The Word is acting in the flesh to Leo:

(St. Cyril, Scholia on the Incarnation, Ch.19:) For he himself has been raised from the dead, and it is said
that he gives life according to the flesh

(St. Mark the Ascetic, On the Incarnation Against Nestorius:) that he suffered in the flesh, not that flesh
suffered; that he died in the flesh, not that flesh died… And, in general, whenever Holy Scripture speaks
about him bodily, you cannot show that it is speaking about the flesh as one part of the whole, but rather
united: he made the deeds of the flesh his own.

(Pope Leo, The Tome of Leo:) he Word performs what belongs to the Word, while the flesh performs what
belongs to the flesh. The one performs brilliant miracles, the other sustains acts of violence.”
Saint Cyril the Miaphysite in the Scholia
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten, Section IX, "On the coal":) once united, is
accounted one with it, making His own what is its, and Himself too introducing into it the operation of His own
Nature.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten:) When then any of those things which do
not possess like nature one with another, are seen. brought together to unity by composition, and the one (for
example) is said to dwell within the other; we must not sunder them into two, seeing that the concurrence unto unity
is in no wise injured, even though one of the things united be separately called by us what the two together are. For
in man too(as I said) is said to dwell his spirit; yet both the spirit separately and likewise the body are called man.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Commentary on
John, Book 1]:
He is God by nature even with the flesh, for we know that he possesses the flesh both as his own
and as something other than his nature; and so he is worshipped both in and with his flesh
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Commentary on
John, Book 1]:
This text is severely mistranslated (PG 73, 160-162): The latin translation reads:

(St. Cyril, Commentary on John, Latin:) “Therefore, God is also according to nature in flesh,
and with flesh, since He who has it as His own, and yet so that something else is understood by
it, and in it, and with it is worshipped”

(St. Cyril, Commentary on John, Greek:) “He is also God according to nature in flesh, and with
flesh, having it as His own, and yet understanding something else by it, and being worshipped
in it and with it”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Commentary on
John, Book 1]:
Even if the “dyophysite” translation was true. This is not even problematic as St. Cyril affirms the
nature of God is other than that of the Flesh and that these are two natures according to their
distinction but together they are the One Incarnate Nature of the Word:

(St. Cyril, Letter 44:) “The same holds good of Nestorius if he says 'two natures to indicate the
difference between the flesh and God the Word-the point being that the nature of the Word is other
than that of the flesh. However, he fails to affirm the union along with us. We unite these,
acknowledging one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord and, further, one incarnate nature of the Son”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 53]:
I know that the nature of God is impassible, unchangeable, and immutable, even though by the
nature of his humanity Christ is one in both natures and from both natures.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 53]:
This quote does not exist. It is a fragment from Leontius
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Cyril, Letter 53]:
Scholarship regarding Leontius of Jerusalem with whom this quote first originated from, is given below

Yet unlike Leontius of Byzantium, as a comparative study shows, Leontius of Jerusalem was a careless user of sources.
The one scholar ever to make a serious study of the florilegia of the period, Marcel Richard, has no kind words for our
Leontius on this score: "The little collection of definitions of Christ with which [the first florilegium] opens would have
made Severus jump for joy... Not only does he not indicate from which works he borrowed his texts, but he also altered
almost all of them in his own way. He goes on to add that Leontius cut most of them so short as to leave their meaning in
doubt, copied them inaccurately, and generally left them in great disorder.

(M. Richard. Les Florilèges diphysites du V et du VI siècle', Opera Minora, i (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), no. 3, 741)

Gray makes the same observation with respect to Miaphysites and Chalcedonians in the sixth century. Speaking, e.g.,
about the sixth-century dyophysite florilegium of Leontius of Jerusalem (based on unpublished research of Richard), he
writes: "Of the one hundred and fourteen texts in his dyophysite florilegium, twenty-six are forgeries in the strict sense or
else misattributions, and a further ten are suspect. All five texts attributed to Justin Martyr, and eight of the eleven
attributed to John Chrysostom are forgeries!" Gray, "Forgery" (n. 112 above), 284–85.

( Jack Tannous, In Search of Monotheletism,, Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 68 (2014), pp. 29-67)
Supposed Dyophysite Quote “Paul of Emesa’s Homily”

In this story Saint Cyril supposedly sat

through Paul of Emessa giving a homily in
which he taught vague statements about
two natures.
Supposed Dyophysite quote REFUTED
● This account is only maintained by Justinian in his work “Against the
Monophysites” which contains, as shown before, many inaccurate quotations
(Scholia on the incarnation, Commentary of John, etc)
● This Story reads more like a play than it does of a actual event, in synods or
other records of homilies throughout the early 10 centuries of the Church they
have never recording assent to a homily like this. “They stood up and
applauded”
● Saint Cyril sat through the Homilies of Saint Theodotus of Anchyra at Ephesus
I which condemned two nature language, and these homilies were included into
the Acts of the Synod as dogma.
 Supposed Dyophysite Quote REFUTED
For the Jews did not crucify a mere man, neither did they nail the visible nature only, but they brought (their)
daring to the God (who was) in it, who had appropriated the sufferings of the united nature. - St. Theodotus of
Ancyra, Homily Il at Ephesus

How did he impoverish himself on our behalf? Let those who separate the manhood from God the Word, parting
him who was united by mention of natures, who say Christ is "two things," introducing for their defense a
merely invented unity - let them tell us. - St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily II at Ephesus

There were not two things or two natures but what was seen was one and the same thing. The righteous bear
witness: Ask not the mode of God's miracles. St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily II at Ephesus

"For that very reason I admit the same (being is) God and man, on the one hand, God before time, on the other, a
human being who came to be, beginning from the birth, not two, but one, not being declared as one, yet
rationalized (as) twofold: for it is necessary that the concept does not fight with the word. We do not think
two, and we admit a single one..." - St Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily I at Ephesus
Supposed Dyophysite quote Refuted
For the union (of two) does this: (it) combines to each one the things of the other. Because of this, then, being God,
he became a human being, in order that a human being might also become God, lifted up towards divine glory by
this combination, so as to be a single one and itself, both divinely glorified and suffering what is human. And all
who admit the union of divinity and humanity would agree with us on them! For what has been united is no longer
named two but one, [if] by concept you divide again and examine each according to itself. Surely then you undo
the union: for it is impossible both to preserve the union and to examine each at the same time according to itself,
but what was united came to be one indissolubly and no longer becomes two.
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily I at Ephesus

Where is he who divides the Christ? Where is he who does equivocality to our mystery, and on the one hand says
Christ (is) one, but on the other supposes two? One the slave, the other the lord; one the sufferer, the other the not
suffering? What is the benefit of one single appellation, while positing two things?
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily Ill at Ephesus
Saint Cyril the Miaphysite
" But being made one according to nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say
that the soul of man does in his own body. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does
not suffice for natural oneness."
(St Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius, ratified by council of Ephesus 431)
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart: that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your
heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' It's called a 'Coal' because it signifies the union of two
dissimilar elements, which, through a true collaboration, are brought together into unity. Just as fire transforms wood into
its own glory while retaining its essence.
'" 2nd Tome against Nestorius, St Cyril of Alexandria

"Imagine if someone were to say about a regular human being or a king, "Because of the king's soul, I revere his body; because
of the hidden, I worship what is seen." You'd probably correct them and say, "What are you talking about? The king is one
person, even though he is composed of two parts-body and soul. So, why are you confusing us by talking about a wearer and
the worn, the hidden and the apparent, and confessing that you worship them separately? You are undermining the concept
of union. The Holy Scriptures reveal to us One Christ and Lord, the Word from God the Father, together with His own
Body." 2nd tome against Nestorius, St Cyril of Alexandria
Saint Cyril the Miaphysite
"Remember the story of how Jesus healed a man born blind in Jerusalem. Later, He found the man in the temple and asked if
he believed in the Son of God. The man asked,”Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus replied, "You have both
seen Him and it is He that is talking with you." Jesus did not present Himself as the wearer or the hidden one within; He
revealed Himself as One with the flesh. " 2nd tome against Nestorius, St Cyril of Alexandria

"However, he goes on to say that the One and Inseverable is twofold, not in rank but in nature. This statement is
problematic. The Word from God the Father is One and Only both before and after taking on flesh, not twofold. There is no
reason to claim that He is twofold in nature. While there is a vast difference between His Manhood and Godhead, the mystery
of Christ's union acknowledges this difference but rejects separation. Christ is not twofold; He is the One and Only Lord and
Son, the Word from God the Father, who assumed flesh but remains One " 2nd Tome Against Nestorius, St Cyril of
Alexandria

"He is not divided into a separate human nature and a separate divine nature, but rather, He is the same-both the Word
from God the Father and a Man born from a woman, just like us, while remaining God." - 1st tome against Nestorius, St
Cyril of Alexandria
Saint Cyril the Miaphysite
St. CYRIL- And not that He on the flesh alone, impoverished of a rational soul, but He was born put of a
woman in truth, and became man, Who is living, existing, and co-Eternal with God; and the Logos of God the
Father, taking the form of a bondservant (cf.Phil. 2:7), just as He remains perfect in divinity, is also perfect
in humanity--being not a composite of the divinity only and the flesh into one Christ, Lord and Son, but as
I say, out of the two perfections, the humanity and the divinity, bound together paradoxically into one and
the same. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Christological Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten
"Because, therefore, he is truly God and king according to nature, and because the one crucified has been called the
Lord of glory, how could anyone hesitate to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God Adore him as one, without
dividing him into two after the union. Then, the senseless Jew shall laugh in vain; then, in truth, he shall be the one
who slew the Lord, and he shall be convicted as the one who has sinned, not against one of those who are like us, but
against God himself, the Savior of all."
- Letter 1, Saint Cyril of Alexandria
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [Sylvester of Rome]
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [Sylvester of Rome]
This is once again only found in Leontius the forgeror

Scholarship regarding Leontius of Jerusalem with whom this quote first originated from, is given below

Yet unlike Leontius of Byzantium, as a comparative study shows, Leontius of Jerusalem was a careless user of sources. The one scholar
ever to make a serious study of the florilegia of the period, Marcel Richard, has no kind words for our Leontius on this score: "The little
collection of definitions of Christ with which [the first florilegium] opens would have made Severus jump for joy... Not only does he not
indicate from which works he borrowed his texts, but he also altered almost all of them in his own way. He goes on to add that Leontius
cut most of them so short as to leave their meaning in doubt, copied them inaccurately, and generally left them in great disorder.

(M. Richard. Les Florilèges diphysites du V et du VI siècle', Opera Minora, i (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), no. 3, 741)

Gray makes the same observation with respect to Miaphysites and Chalcedonians in the sixth century. Speaking, e.g., about the
sixth-century dyophysite florilegium of Leontius of Jerusalem (based on unpublished research of Richard), he writes: "Of the one
hundred and fourteen texts in his dyophysite florilegium, twenty-six are forgeries in the strict sense or else misattributions, and a
further ten are suspect. All five texts attributed to Justin Martyr, and eight of the eleven attributed to John Chrysostom are forgeries!"
Gray, "Forgery" (n. 112 above), 284–85.

( Jack Tannous, In Search of Monotheletism,, Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 68 (2014), pp. 29-67)
Supposed Dyophysite Quote Philippians 2:5-11
Philippians 2:5-11
- Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not
consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of
a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and
of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote REFUTED
All the fathers who talk about the “forms”referred to in this quote used miaphysite
terminology in their explanation. Saint Cyril talks about the forms uniting, resulting
in one Lord due to the union, and not two natures.
commentary on Philippians 2:8 Saint John Chrysostom:

Thus much against these heretics. I must now speak against such as deny that He took a soul.
If the form of God is perfect God, then the form of a servant is a perfect servant. Again,
against the Arians. Here concerning His divinity, we no longer find He became, He took, but
He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; here
concerning his humanity we find He took, He became. He became the latter, He took the latter;
He was the former. Let us not then confound nor divide the natures. There is one God, there
is one Christ, the Son of God; when I say One, I mean a union, not a confusion; the one
Nature did not degenerate into the other, but was united with it.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote REFUTED
We know perfectly well that the divine, transcendent nature cannot experience any "shadow of turning," nor
did the Word of God give up being what he is to be transformed into a fleshly nature. Since he points out that
God's form took upon himself the form of a servant, let him go on and explain whether it was just these
"forms" that came together by themselves, quite apart from their hypostases. Well, I reckon that even he
would shrink from saying that, for it was not mere resemblances and forms, things with no hypostasis, that
conjoined together to bring about the saving union; rather, it was a convergence of the very things
themselves, of two hypostases. Then we can really have faith that a genuine incarnation took place.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defense of the Twelve Chapters against Theodoret of Cyrus, Defense 1

If this verse is Dyophysite, why did no Fathers think it taught Christ subsisting in
two natures after the union, but rather in Miaphysitism?
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [On the Trinity, Book
9:11]:
Do you see that thus are proclaimed His humanity and His divinity, that death is attributed to the man, and the
quickening of the flesh to the God, though He Who dies and He Who raises the dead to life are not two, but one
Person? The flesh stripped off is the dead Christ: He Who raises Christ from the dead is the same Christ Who stripped
from Himself the flesh. See His divine nature in the power to raise again, and recognise in His death the dispensation
of His manhood. And though either function is performed by its proper nature, yet remember that He Who died, and
raised to life, was one, Christ Jesus.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote Refuted [On the Trinity,
Book 9:11]:
This quote is extremely mistranslated to try and press the dyophysite view which teaches two natures operating. Let us read
the actual translation of the passage.

(St. Hilary, De Trinitate, Book 9, Par 11:) Do you see how God and man are preached: that death belongs to man (ut mors
homini), but the resurrection of flesh belongs to God; yet not as if one who died is different from the one through whom he
rises again? For the stripped flesh, Christ, died, and again Christ, raising from the dead, is the same Christ who strips Himself
of flesh. Understand the nature of God in the power of resurrection; understand the dispensation of man in death. And since
they are actions within accordance to their own natures, (Et cum sint intraque suis gesta naturis) remember that it is one
Christ, Jesus, who is both."

Firstly, "homini" was mistranslated into "The Man" to try and mimic the particular "homo" which has his own energy in the
Tome of Leo. Homini refers to a generic humanity in this context in light of the generic Godhead. For example if I say "man is
doomed" I'm referring to the entire human species in abstraction and not a particular individual. In this case, St. Hilary is
saying that death is a property of manhood and resurrection is proper to God yet St. Hilary makes clear that it was one
individual who did the the former (death) and the latter (resurrection).
Supposed Dyophysite Quote Refuted [On the Trinity,
Book 9:11]:
St. Hilary himself says:

(St. Hilary, De Trinitate, Book 9, Par 11:) yet not as if one who died is different from the one through whom he rises again? For the stripped flesh,
Christ, died, and again Christ, raising from the dead, is the same Christ who strips Himself of flesh.

This is in line with the Orthodox teaching as St. Severus says, we can recognize that some actions of the incarnate Word are proper to humanity and
others are proper to the divinity yet they both belong to the one individual.

(St. Severus, Letter 1:) Between the things performed and done by the one Christ the difference is great. Some of them are acts befitting the
divinity, while others are human. For example, to walk and travel in bodily form upon the earth is without contention human; but to bestow on those
who are maimed in the feet and cannot walk upon the ground at all the power of walking like sound persons is God-befitting. Yet the one Word
incarnate performed the latter and the former, and the one nature did not perform the one, and the other the other; nor, because the things performed
are different, shall we on this account rightly define two natures or forms as operating.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote Refuted [On the Trinity,
Book 9:11]:
The latter part of the St. Hilary quote is mistranslated to say "either function is preformed by its proper to nature" The latin of the text
reads: Et cum sint intraque suis gesta naturis Intraque means "within and" so the gesta or actions are modified to be within and or within
accordingly to "natures" This is not teaching two particular individuals acting, but one individual acting according to his natures. The
Fathers teach that Christ acts as man and acts as God.

Keep in mind St. Hilary had already stated in this exact same Book 9, that all of Christs sayings belong to numerically one nature:

(St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 9, Par 6:) "That whole, which abides in him, is the speech of his nature. (totum illum, qui
ejus manet, naturæ suæ esse sermonem) If Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and he wasn't only God before becoming human, nor
was he not God while being human, and even after becoming human, within God, the entire humanity is fully divine. It is necessary that
the sacrament of his utterances be one and the same. (unum atque idem necesse est dictorum ejus sacramentum esse)
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [On the Trinity, Book 9:3]:
Himself one Person, both man and God. For He, being of two natures united for that Mediatorship, is the full reality
of each nature; while abiding in each...
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [On the Trinity, Book 9:3]:
Despite this quote being completely orthodox (as it teaches of two natures), this text is insanely butchered and mistranslated.
The actual latin text doesn’t contain those sets of phrases:

(St. Hilary, De Trinitate, Book 9, Par 3:) “He himself established as the Mediator for the salvation of the Church; and by that
very sacrament of the mediation between God and humans, both existing as one (utrumque unus exsistens), while from the
uniting of the natures into the same thing (idipsum), the nature that is of both (naturæ utriusque) is the same (eadem est); yet,
in such a way that neither lacks in the both of them,

St. Hilary has another parallel passage for this union of natures.

(St. Hilary, De expositione epistola ad Timotheum:) and when it says, Christ died, and when it says, the Word was made flesh;
the Word is not to be stripped by the fraudulent exposition of the reader. For where Christ is a man, he precedes, being the
Mediator between God and men: so that from each of the two (ex utroque), God and man, one might subsist; and he might be
the mediator between man and God, confessing in himself the nature that is of both. (utriusque naturae) But where Christ
died, it is subjoined, He who rose again, who is at the right hand of God. In his death, there is the weakness of our flesh; in his
resurrection, there is his power; in the session of God, there is his dignity."
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [On the Trinity, Book 9:3]:
When St. Hilary says "utriusque naturae" St. Hilary isn't saying that the quiddity of both as in the two separate quiddities are being
ascribed to both God and Man, he uses the phrase "utriusque" Such as when one says ‘juris utriusque doctor’ you wouldn't say that there
is two seperate doctorates ascribed to two laws, but one doctorate being resulted of two laws See St. Hilary's use here:

(St. Hilary, Commentary on Matthew :) "But this Son is the rejected stone by the builders, set at the corner, marvelous in the eyes of all,
and the conjunction between the law and the nations, the building that is of both (aedificii utriusque)”

He isn't saying that there is two separate buildings predicated to both the law and the nations, but one building arising of both or
utriusque Hence when St. Hilary says that there is a nature of both, in the immediate context he's already explained how the mediator is
one subsisting from both, hence the naturae is "of God and Man"

Even if this is incorrect, both phrases still teach that there is one thing subsisting from the union of both God and man, the same On the
Trinity Book 9 which is being quoted already teaches one individual nature

(St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 9, Par 6:) "That whole, which abides in him, is the speech of his nature. (totum illum, qui
ejus manet, naturæ suæ esse sermonem) ..It is necessary that the sacrament of his utterances be one and the same. (unum atque idem
necesse est dictorum ejus sacramentum esse)
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [Commonitorium]:
For he would not allow that there are in Christ two substances, one Divine, the other human;
one from the Father, the other from the mother;
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [Commonitorium]:
Not only is this man not even venerated by us, this specific quote isn’t even problematic as he continues
saying a sentence later:
(Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium:) ..[Apollinarius] thought that the nature itself of the Word was
divided, so as that a part should remain in God, but another part should be turned into flesh: so that
whereas the truth saith that Christ is One, out of two substances, he in contrariety to the truth
asserts that out of the one Divinity of Christ there have been made two substances.

Vincent of Lerins is refuting Apollinarius who teaches that the one divine nature of the word was split
into two substances (one nature into two natures) then says that truth states there is one Christ out of
two substances. If he's refuting 1 nature into 2 natures, then he must hold to 2 natures becoming 1
nature. In the context itself, there is the major allusion that he is teaching two natures into one nature
in response to one nature divided into two natures and the idea that he is teaching some other
“Chalcedonian” one out of two is completely dishonest and special pleading in light of the context
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [Commonitorium]:
Obviously the statement of two substances isn’t heretical as Vincent of Lerins teaches one Christ out of two. If you
insist that this refers to two substances after the union, then if you take Vincent of Lerins with honesty, he must
teach three substances after the union:

(Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium:) for not only in the present life, but in the future also, each individual man will
consist of soul and body; nor will his body ever be converted into soul, or his soul into body; but while each individual
man will live forever, the distinction between the two substances will continue in each individual man forever.

The Oriental Orthodox would affirm that there are two substances in Christ, Just like there is two substances in man
despite him being one nature out of the two:
(St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to Succensus:) they constitute the single nature of man.. We recognise two natures in him; for there is
one nature of the soul and another of the body.. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one
living creature is rendered complete.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 38]:
He came forth then as God with that which He had assumed, One Person in two
Natures, Flesh and Spirit, of which the latter deified the former.
St. Gregory the Theologian (372-383),
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 38]:
This is a common mistranslation, the Greek for this oration is as follows “Ἐν ἐκ δύο
τῶν ἐναντίων, σαρκὸς καὶ Πνεύματος”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 38]:
This translates to "One out of two of the opposites, of flesh and Spirit."
In Greek, the words for "person" and "nature" are as follows:

- "Person" "πρόσωπο" (prosopo)is not there originally in Greek.

- "Nature" "φύση" (physis)is not there originally in Greek.

This quote is not Dyophysite at all, within the full context of the Oration it is Miaphysite
Oration 38
He comes forth, God with what he has assumed, one from two opposites, flesh and
spirit, the one deifying and the other deified. O the new mixture! O the paradoxical
blending! He who is comes into being, and the uncreated is created, and the
uncontained is contained, through the intervention of the rational soul, which
mediates between the divinity and the coarseness of flesh. The one who enriches
becomes poor; he is made poor in my flesh, that I might be enriched through his
divinity. The full one empties himself; for he empties himself of his own glory for a
short time, that I may participate in his fullness.
(Saint Gregory The Theologian, Oration 38:13

How can something that remains two be mixed and blended?

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
Their tenth objection is the ignorance, and the statement that Of the last day and hour knows no man, not
even the Son Himself, but the Father. And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything-that is, Wisdom Who
made the worlds, Who perfects them, Who remodels them, Who is the Limit of all things that were made, Who
knows the things of God as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him? For what can be more perfect
than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all
things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing
would be like a riddle; as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did
not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night-where
knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and
knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the
absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son,
gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it
to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
Earlier in this Oration, Saint Gregory affirms that the natures would compose Christ
are intermingled (united) in reality
And what else can this be than God?-and that every knee should bow to Him That
was made of no reputation for us, and That mingled the Form of God with the form
of a servant, and that all the House of Israel should know that God has made Him
both Lord and Christ? For all this was done by the action of the Begotten, and by
the good pleasure of Him That begot Him.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
Earlier in the supposed ‘dyophysite’ quote, Saint Gregory makes the distinction in
thought alone due being them united and one in reality
And an indication of this is found in the fact that wherever the Natures are
distinguished in our thoughts from one another, the Names are also distinguished;
as you hear in Paul's words, "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
"Glory." The God of Christ, but the Father of glory.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
This completely shatters the idea that that St. Gregory the Theologian is teaching two natures after the union with two intellects, As
St. Gregory is saying that this is a distinguishment in thought. Even the Chalcedonian father, John of Damascus, explains what is
meant by saying the humanity is ignorant:

(John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, Book 3:) “If, then, like Gregory the Theologian, you distinguish what is seen from what is
thought, then the flesh will be said to be servile and ignorant. However, by reason of the identity of person and the inseparable union,
the Lord's soul enjoyed the knowledge of future events as well as the other signs of divinity. For, just as the flesh of men is not of its
own nature life-giving, whereas that of the Lord, being hypostatically united to God the Word Himself, became life-giving by reason
of its hypostatic union with the Word without losing its natural mortality ..while His human nature did not of its essence have
knowledge of future events, the Lord's soul, by reason of its union with God the Word Himself and the identity of person, did, as I have
said, enjoy, along with the other signs of divinity, the knowledge of future events,”

We can separate the parts on their own theoretically and explain how the humanity would be certain things according to its essence
apart from unity with the Word.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
This quote is nothing that would disagree with Miaphysite christology or
metaphysics, since we understand that Christ is one composite whole from parts, in
this model, which Saint Gregory the Theologian follows (Letter 101) “For both (the
Natures are one being compounded” you can account for the Whole being ignorant
in accordance with it’s inferior part, but being all knowing in accordance with it’s
Superior part, as Saint Gregory says within the Oration 30 quote, in thought alone.

Saint John Chrysostom explains how we account for this in the composition model
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
So truly it is our way also, when we talk of man, to speak things both high and low.
For when we say that "man is nothing", "man is earth," "man is ashes," we name the
whole man from the inferior part. But when we say that "man is an immortal
animal" and that "man is rational and related to the higher (beings)," we again name
the whole man from the superior part. So also with Christ: sometimes Paul speaks of
Him from the inferior part, and sometimes from the superior part.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Hebrews
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 30]
The Same Oration rejects the Dyophysite idea of two wills

Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from
Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is
altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely
follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words,
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not
likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will. But since, as this is the
language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed,
we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own,
besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, "not to do Mine own Will, for there is none
of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will."
St. Gregory the Theologian, Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30)
Miaphysite Saint Gregory
The Idea that Saint Gregory the Theologian would accept two natures after the
union, each with their own mind, will, and operations is impossible, since he
explicitly rejects introducing two natures after the union, since this would cause
separation and confusion.

“...and then they accuse us of introducing two natures, separate or conflicting, and of
dividing the supernatural and wondrous Union" Saint Gregory the Theologian;
Against Apollinarius; The Second Letter to Cledonius.
Miaphysite Saint Gregory the Theologian
Saint Gregory in the dogmatic letter read at Ephesus I clearly believed that the the product of the two natures uniting is
is one composite nature, even stating that the names are mingled like the natures which came together in union

•For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods. For neither in
this life are there two manhoods; though Paul speaks in some such language of the inner and outer man. And (if I am
to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same
with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons. God forbid! For both
natures are One by being compounded the Deity being made Man, and the Manhood deified or however one should
express it. And I say different Elements, because it is the reverse of what is the case in the Trinity; for There we
acknowledge different Persons so as not to confound the persons; but not different Elements, for the Three are One and
the same in Godhead...For the words, 'The Second Man is the Lord from Heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47) and 'As is the
Heavenly, such are they that are Heavenly" and "No man has ascended up into Heaven save He which came down from
Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven" (John 3:13) and the like. are to be understood as said on account of
the Union with the heavenly; just as 'All Things were made by Christ' (John 1:3) and that 'Christ dwells in your hearts"
(Ephesians 3:17) is said, not of the visible nature which belongs to God, but of what is perceived by the mind, the
names being mingled like the natures, and flowing into one another, according to the law of their intimate union."

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter to Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, read and Made dogma at Ephesus I
Miaphysite Gregory the Theologian
In Oration 2 he upholds elemental composition, believe the natures united to consist
of one, consisting in one composed nature.

This is the emptied divinity; this is the assumed flesh; this is the new union, God and
man, one from both, and the two are both one. (Δι ἑνὸς ἀμφότερα) For this reason,
God was made flesh through the midst of the soul, and the separated things were
united by the familiarity of the Mediator; and all things came for all into one

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2, Par 23

Miaphysite Gregory the Theologian
In Oration 37, he upholds the natures coming into a composite one of the same
Category, and that he is one of out two

Having assumed, he has become one from the two, For both are God, that which
assumed, and that which was assumed; having come together, two natures into one
(δύο φύσεις εἰς ἓν), not two sons. Let not the composition (σύγκρασις) be denied

St. Gregory The Theologian, Oration 37

Miaphysite Saint Gregory the Theologian

In his poems against Apollanarius, he upholds a nature of diversities came together in one, with his
flesh being blended and admixed with God. How is he Dyophysite?
How did a nature of diversities come together in one? This is something ineffable, I perceive,
when, with a tiny reason, I seek to measure things exceeding reason. The purifying Spirit came
upon a virgin within whom the Word was formed into a man, the total price of redemption for the
total mortal man. And, seeing as God has no admixture of flesh, while soul and mind stand, as it
were, in middle ground, the flesh, then, is both God's housemate and his icon: God's nature mingles
with what is akin to it, and from there has communion also with the flesh. Thus, both what deifies
and what is deified are the one same God. What then was the outcome, on each hand? I'd say this:
that the one was blended with flesh, while the other, being flesh, participated in all that is mine,
save the passions of sin.
St Gregory The Theologian, On God and Man, Against Apollinarius, Poem 1.1.10
Saint Gregory the Theologian, The Miaphysite
Again he used the Miaphysite one out of both formula regarding the incarnation, and then says the
natures had mixed
Foolish is he or she who does not worship the ever-existing Word of God, the Lord, as equally God
with the supernal Father. Foolish is he or she who does not worship the Word, the Lord, a human
here appearing, as equally God with the heavenly Word. The one divides the Word from the great
Father, the other our human form and fleshiness from the Word. Though being God, the Father's
Word took on our human being, to mingle it with God, and be little amongst earthlings. He is one
God out of both, being so human as to make me God, instead of human. Be merciful, O wounded one
on high! Let that much suffice you. What more have I to do with an ineffable mind and mixture?
Both are God, you mortals, be content with reason's limits. If, then, I've won you over, much the
better. But if you blacken the page with many myriads of words, come, and I'll inscribe these little
verses upon tables with letters from my carving pen, which have no blackness in them.
St Gregory The Theologian, On God and Man, On the Incarnation of Christ,
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory of Nyssa,
Letter 32:]
For we do not say that he is of one nature in his divinity and flesh, as in the absurdities of those who say he is of 'blended
substance', but that he has a twofold existence and is susceptible to passion in the one and not subject to it in the other.

For he alone, being made man, partook of both created and uncreated nature, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and
uncircumscribed, and he did not, because in these last times he was made man, cease to be God or quit his
consubstantiality with the Father. The voice of the Lord provides firm assurance of this where he says I and the Father
are one (Jn 10.30), I in the Father and the Father in me (cf. Jn 10.38 14.10 17.21) and other similar passages.

Christ then, existing in two natures (Greek: Xristos Duo Iparkon fuseon) and truly made known in them, has the person
of his sonship as a single entity, yet bears in himself the unconfusible and indivisible distinction between the Word and
the ensouled flesh, through which the principle of the properties is preserved integrally
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory of Nyssa,
Letter 32:]
Letter 32 is not real, it only existed in a fragment 200 years after he lived only by
Chalcedonians (Leontius of Jerusalem), and the full letter was first only maintained
by a man named John Maron 100 years after that, who was a mono-energist heretic
that the Chalcedonians condemn. Scholarship regarding the dubious origin of this
letter included below
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Gregory of Nyssa,
Letter 32:]
Scholarship regarding Leontius of Jerusalem with whom this quote first originated from, is given below

Yet unlike Leontius of Byzantium, as a comparative study shows, Leontius of Jerusalem was a careless user of
sources. The one scholar ever to make a serious study of the florilegia of the period, Marcel Richard, has no kind
words for our Leontius on this score: "The little collection of definitions of Christ with which [the first florilegium]
opens would have made Severus jump for joy... Not only does he not indicate from which works he borrowed his
texts, but he also altered almost all of them in his own way. He goes on to add that Leontius cut most of them so
short as to leave their meaning in doubt, copied them inaccurately, and generally left them in great disorder.
(M. Richard. Les Florilèges diphysites du V et du VI siècle', Opera Minora, i (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), no. 3, 741)

Gray makes the same observation with respect to Miaphysites and Chalcedonians in the sixth century. Speaking, e.g.,
about the sixth-century dyophysite florilegium of Leontius of Jerusalem (based on unpublished research of
Richard), he writes: "Of the one hundred and fourteen texts in his dyophysite florilegium, twenty-six are forgeries
in the strict sense or else misattributions, and a further ten are suspect. All five texts attributed to Justin Martyr,
and eight of the eleven attributed to John Chrysostom are forgeries!" Gray, "Forgery" (n. 112 above), 284–85.
( Jack Tannous, In Search of Monotheletism,, Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 68 (2014), pp. 29-67)
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [St. Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius Book V]
It is not the Human Nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot suffer that weeps
for him when he lies in the grave: the tear proceeds from the Man, the life from the true Life. It is not
the Human Nature that feeds the thousands, nor is it omnipotent might that hastens to the fig-tree.
Who is it that is weary with the journey, and Who is it that by His word made all the world subsist?
What is the brightness of the glory, and what is that that was pierced with the nails? What form is it
that is buffeted in the Passion, and what form is it that is glorified from everlasting? So much as this
is clear, (even if one does not follow the argument into detail,) that the blows belong to the servant in
whom the Lord was, the honours to the Lord Whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason
of contact and the union of Natures the proper attributes of each belong to both
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [St. Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius Book V]
Within the full context of Book V, It is clearly talking about the difference of the parts which compose Christ
in Contemplation, and not in reality. This sentence proceeds the division according to the mind alone, and is
typically not included by Dyophysites with the rest of the quote.

The Word was in the beginning with God, the man was subject to the trial of death; and neither was the
Human Nature from everlasting, nor the Divine Nature mortal: and all the rest of the attributes are
contemplated in the same way.It is not the Human Nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot
suffer that weeps for him when he lies in the grave: the tear proceeds from the Man, the life from the true Life… -
Book V Against Eunomius
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [St. Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius Book V]
Even before this within the work, Saint Gregory of Nyssa affirms that in reality, the two are one by Mixture,
right before he talks about the parts in contemplation, and that this is one and the same word, and rejects
dividing Christ into two.

"If, then, in view of such a confession, he does not reproach himself with the duality of Words, why are we
falsely charged with dividing the object of our faith into “two Christs”? — we, who say that He Who was
highly exalted after His Passion, was made Lord and Christ by His union with Him Who is verily Lord and
Christ, knowing by what we have learned that the Divine Nature is always one and the same, and with the
same mode of existence, while the flesh in itself is that which reason and sense apprehend concerning it,
but when mixed with the Divine no longer remains in its own limitations and properties, but is taken up to
that which is overwhelming and transcendent." - Book V Against Eunomius
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [St. Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius Book V]
Again, later on in the work, Saint Gregory affirms the natures having been infused, commingled, and mixed, like a drop
of Vinegar in the water of the sea, which Chalcedonians hold to be Eutychian language and condemn.

"He Who, because He is the Lord of glory, despised that which is shame among men, having concealed, as it were, the
flame of His life in His bodily Nature, by the dispensation of His death, kindled and inflamed it once more by the power of
His own Godhead, fostering into life that which had been brought to death, having infused with the infinity of His
Divine power that humble first-fruits of our nature, made it also to be that which He Himself was — making the
servile form to be Lord, and the Man born of Mary to be Christ, and Him Who was crucified through weakness to be
Life and power, and making all that is piously conceived to be in God the Word to be also in that which the Word
assumed, so that these attributes no longer seem to be in either Nature by way of division, but that the perishable
Nature being, by its commixture with the Divine, made anew in conformity with the Nature that overwhelms it,
participates in the power of the Godhead, as if one were to say that mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the
deep to be sea, by reason that the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which
overwhelms it." - Book V Against Eunomius
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [St. Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius Book V]
Same work holds that Christ is one by the combination of a superior and inferior part, the inferior part which becomes elevated by its
composition and mixture
.
“The Apostle does not present the pre-eternal existence of the Lord through the spoken word but rather the transformation of the
humble into the exalted through God's right hand, thereby clarifying the mystery of piety through this phrase. The one who said, 'By
the right hand of God, He was exalted,' clearly reveals the hidden economy of the mystery, indicating that God's right hand, the creator
of all that exists, through which all things were made and without which nothing exists, lifted the united humanity to its own height
through a compounding that is natural to it, thus making it both Lord and King. For the king is named Christ, achieving these things
for him. Just as being in the highest, it was exalted above all; so too in immortality, he is immortal; in light, he is light; in the
incorruptible, he is incorruptible; in the invisible, he is invisible; in Christ, he is Christ; in the Lord, he is Lord. It's natural even in
physical combinations, that when one part greatly exceeds another, the lesser is completely transformed by the dominant. This is
also clearly taught in the mystery of the word through Peter's voice, that the humility of the one crucified out of weakness—where
weakness signifies the flesh, as we have heard from the Lord—was not confined to its original limits and characteristics through the
mixing with the boundless and undefined good, but was raised by the right hand of God and made from a servant to Lord, from a
subject to Christ the King, from humble to the Most High, from human to God.” Book V Against Eunomius
Miaphysite Saint Gregory of Nyssa
Saint Gregory of Nyssa can not be dyophysite, since he denied that numerical distinction can be
made.
For the first fruits of human nature that he assumed have been mixed with the all-powerful Godhead,
like (as one might say using a simile) a drop of vinegar in the boundless sea, and are in the Godhead
rather than in their own peculiar characteristics. For a duality of Sons could logically be
acknowledged if some heterogeneous nature could be recognized by its own identifying
characteristics within the ineffable divinity of the Son, the former being weak, small, corruptible, or
temporary, the latter powerful and great and incorruptible and eternal. But as all those characteristics
that can be seen to be associated with what is mortal have been transformed into the characteristics of
the Godhead, no distinction between them can be perceived; for whatever one can see of the Son is
divinity, wisdom, power, holiness, and impassibility. So how could the unity be separated into a
duality, since no numerical distinction can be made?
• St Gregory of Nyssa, Letter to St Theophilus of Alexandria
Miaphysite Gregory of Nyssa
His divine nature, on the other hand, cannot be confined by a name, but the two elements became one,
through the mixture, so, by virtue of the human element, even God is given a name. -St. Gregory of Nyssa,
Against Apollinarius - Translated by Robin Orton

The Most High clearly has not need of exultation; however, the humility [of human naturel raised on high
acquired a sublimity which it did not originally have. Human nature united with the Lord becomes one with
the divinity whose loftiness exalts it from its humble state. - St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius -
Translated by Richard McCambly

In a wonderful way, in the Incarnate Lord, what is lofty appears in what is lowly and appears there
without sacrificing its loftiness. Again, how wonderfully the deity is mingled with human nature,
becoming one with it and being it."
-St. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, 23
 Miaphysite of Gregory of Nyssa
For as fire is seen on a lamp, taking hold of the underlying matter, and reason distinguishes between the fire on
the matter and the matter kindling the fire, but in action these cannot be severed from one another, to show the
flame by itself, disjoined from the matter, but both together are one. And let no one, I pray, latch onto the
corruptible [nature] of the fire in the illustration, but, accepting only whatever is well-fitting in the image, let him
disregard what is dissimilar-in the same manner, then, as we see the flame that was fastened on the underlying
[matter] and not enclosed by the matter, what prevents us from understanding a sort of union and
approximation of the divine nature with human [nature], and yet in the approximation preserving a
God-befitting thought, believing all circumscription to be outside the divine, even if he should be in man?
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Discourses, Part 3, making an analogy for divinity and humanity

Even the human mind is not confined by the flesh. Further, in man we see the union of soul and body, an
analogy for the union of God with man.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Discourses, Part 3
Miaphysite Saint Gregory of Nyssa
But as it is, the most high humbled himself, for the sake of union with the lowly state of our nature. Once he had
been united with the form of the slave which he assumed, and so become one with it, he made his own the passions
of the slave. - St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius - Gregory of Nyssa The Early Church Fathers by
Anthony Meredith

It is clear he is not your dyophysite hero, Chalcedonians.

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
Let us take heed to the distinction of the Godhead from the flesh. In both there speaks one and the same Son of God, for
each nature is present in Him; and if it is the same Who speaks, He speaks not always in the same way. Behold in
Him, now the glory of God, now the passions of man. As God He speaks the things of God, because He is the Word; as
man He speaks the things of man, because He speaks in my nature.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
The phrase for "In both" is in utraque. St. Ambrose is stating that the One individual, the Son of God, "Dei Filius",
speaks in both, aka he speaks according to both of them

According to St. Cyril "in divinity, or in humanity" means according to them, dyophysites misinterpret the "in" as an
in existing after the union as two distinct divisible parts.

(St. Cyril, Defense of the Twelve Anathemas:) Hence it is quite clear that the expression “in the flesh” is simply
equivalent to “according to the flesh” in just the same way that the expression “in the divinity” is equivalent to
“according to the divinity.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
All in all this St. Ambrose quote teaches that the one individual (The One Incarnate Nature of the Word) acts
according to his natures, he speaks as man and as God and acts as man and as God, He speaks in his divinity and in
his flesh, this is contradictory to the Chalcedonian position which holds that the Flesh and the Word act, not that one
individual acts according to his natures that exist within him.

See how St. John Chrysostom teaches that Christ is "acting as man and acting as God both indicating the one nature"
And St. Cyril says that Christ speaks as Man and as God having authority "in both" and compare it with the
Chalcedonian position:

(St. Cyril, Thesaurus, Chapter 24:) "For he speaks as a man, but he also speaks as God, having authority in both."

(St. John Chrysostom, In quatriduanum:) “(acting) now as man, now as God, both indicating the nature, ..and by this
unequal mixture of actions, interpreting the unequal union of the natures, as man, I was hungry and tired; as God, I
calmed the raging sea, as man I was tempted by the devil; as God, I expelled devils, as man I am about to suffer for
men.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
All in all this St. Ambrose quote teaches that the one individual (The One Incarnate Nature of the Word) acts according to his
natures, he speaks as man and as God and acts as man and as God, He speaks in his divinity and in his flesh, this is
contradictory to the Chalcedonian position which holds that the Flesh and the Word act, not that one individual acts according
to his natures that exist within him.

See how St. John Chrysostom teaches that Christ is "acting as man and acting as God both indicating the one nature" And St.
Cyril says that Christ speaks as Man and as God having authority "in both" and compare it with the Chalcedonian position:

(St. Cyril, Thesaurus, Chapter 24:) "For he speaks as a man, but he also speaks as God, having authority in both."

(St. John Chrysostom, In quatriduanum:) “(acting) now as man, now as God, both indicating the nature, ..and by this unequal
mixture of actions, interpreting the unequal union of the natures, as man, I was hungry and tired; as God, I calmed the raging
sea, as man I was tempted by the devil; as God, I expelled devils, as man I am about to suffer for men.”

He said/does x according to his flesh is not the same as Chalcedon's flesh says/does x
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
Touching back on the "each nature is present in him"

The "in Him" according to St. Ambrose is the twofold nature (compound nature in latin) as you understand the
presence of both Godhead and Manhood having been discovered the "twofold nature"

(St. Ambrose, De Fide, Book III, 65:) “The Scripture, then, having, as I showed above, discovered the twofold nature
in Christ, that you might understand the presence of both Godhead and Manhood,”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
A "twofold nature" is a compound nature in early patristics and latin writings. See St. John Chrysostom and Aurelius Prudentius
Clemens:

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) “or this human life is two-fold, since it is compounded of two substances,”

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) This living creature man is two-fold, since he is compounded out of two
substances.

(Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, Poems:) “But while the twofold substance [of man] still is one, Let it be mindful of its Author and let, It
humbly worship Him”

(Aurelius Prudentius, Discourse of the Martyr St. Romanus Against the Pagans:) “For us Christ died, for us as God Christ rose again; In
dying He is man, His nature is twofold.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
(St. Ambrose, Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento, Book 1, Chapter 5, Par 35:) "Whom the holy prophet David
describes as a giant, owing to that twofold and twin nature, it is one sharer of divinity and body".. "although God was
always eternal, he undertook the sacraments of the incarnation, not as divided, but as one, because both are one, and
He is one in both, that is, even in divinity and in body”

See what St. Ambrose says about this “twofold nature”

Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
St. Cyril even says that within a "one nature" if its a compound, the difference of the constituents is still present
within the system of composition

(St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to Succensus:) “Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are
quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the
single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present
within the system of the composition.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide]
St. Cyril even says that within a "one nature" if its a compound, the difference of the constituents is still present
within the system of composition

(St. Cyril, 2nd Letter to Succensus:) “Such is the case with a human being who comprises soul and body. These are
quite different things and they are not consubstantial with each other, yet when they are united they constitute the
single nature of man, even though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still present
within the system of the composition.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide
Book 2]
When we read, then, that the Lord of glory was crucified, let us not suppose that He was crucified as in His glory. It
is because He Who is God is also man, God by virtue of His Divinity, and by taking upon Him of the flesh, the man
Christ Jesus, that the Lord of glory is said to have been crucified; for, possessing both natures, that is, the human and
the divine, He endured the Passion in His humanity, in order that without distinction He Who suffered should be
called both Lord of glory and Son of man
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide
Book 2]
In the latin, this citation teaches that Christ is a sharer of both natures. It was mistranslated as: “for, possessing both
natures,” as St. Ambrose says: quia consors utriusque naturae. St. Ambrose also says that it is the twin nature
which is a consors Between divinity and body:

(St. Ambrose, Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento, Book 1, Chapter 5, Par 35:) "Whom the holy prophet David
describes as a giant, owing to that twofold and twin nature, it is one sharer (consors) of divinity and body"..
"although God was always eternal, he undertook the sacraments of the incarnation, not as divided, but as one,
because both are one, and He is one in both, that is, even in divinity and in body”

St. Ambrose is teaching that Christ is the One Incarnate nature of the Word which is a sharer of two natures. This is
why he often times applies the “One nature” as a subject rather than a possessed ousia. As miaphysites we confess
that the One Christ is the One Nature as St. Cyril uses nature as hypostasis.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide
Book 2]
(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Third Anathema:)If anyone separates the hypostases in the one Christ after the [hypostatic] union, joining them
together only by a conjunction according to dignity, that is, by authority or power, and not rather by a combination which is according to
a natural union, let him be anathema.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation:) Hence we shall learn that the natures or hypostases have remained without
confusion.

(St. Cyril of Alexandria, A Defense of the Twelve Anathemas against Theodoret:) The result is that we believe the hypostases to have
been united and the Word to have become man and incarnate, and hence we appropriately refer to the union as “natural.”

(St. Ambrose of Milan, Veni, redemptor gentium, Par 4:) “Let the giant twofold substance proceed from his chamber, the royal hall of
modesty, eager to run His way.”

In other words. When St. Ambrose says Christ is a sharer of divinity and body. He is truly saying that the One Incarnate nature of the
Word is the sharer of divinity and body as he addresses the One nature as Christ himself. A nature can’t proceed from a chamber.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Ambrose, De Fide
Book 2]
A "twofold substance" is a compound nature in early patristics and latin writings. See St. John Chrysostom and
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens:

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) “or this human life is two-fold, since it is
compounded of two substances,”

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) This living creature man is two-fold, since he is
compounded out of two substances.

(Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, Poems:) “But while the twofold substance [of man] still is one, Let it be mindful of its
Author and let, It humbly worship Him”

(Aurelius Prudentius, Discourse of the Martyr St. Romanus Against the Pagans:) “For us Christ died, for us as God
Christ rose again; In dying He is man, His nature is twofold.”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [John Cassian, On the
Incarnation Book 1]
and so we must hold that there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and without
any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can never be divided, existing in two
natures (who was also spoken of as a giant ) in the days of His Flesh truly took upon Him all that
belongs to man, and ever truly had as His own what belongs to God: since even though He was
crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [John Cassian, On the
Incarnation Book 1]
This is a blatant mistranslation:

(John Cassian, On the Incarnation Book 1:) therefore, one person of flesh and Word must be
understood, so that faithfully without any doubt we believe the same Son of God, inseparable always
of twofold substance, (inseparabilem semper geminae substantiae) even named a giant in the days of
his flesh, and truly always having done all that belongs to man, and truly always possessing what
belongs to God. For he was thus crucified out of weakness, but lives by the power of God.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [John Cassian, On the
Incarnation Book 1]
In early patristics, twofold substance has always referred to a compound substance:

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) “or this human life is two-fold, since it is compounded of
two substances,”

(St. John Chrysostom, De Prophetiarum Obscuritate Homiliae:) This living creature man is two-fold, since he is
compounded out of two substances.

(Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, Poems:) “But while the twofold substance [of man] still is one, Let it be mindful of its
Author and let, It humbly worship Him”

(Aurelius Prudentius, Discourse of the Martyr St. Romanus Against the Pagans:) “For us Christ died, for us as God
Christ rose again; In dying He is man, His nature is twofold.”

(St. Ambrose, Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento, Book 1, Chapter 5, Par 35:) "Whom the holy prophet David
describes as a giant, owing to that twofold and twin nature, it is one sharer of divinity and body".. "although God was
always eternal, he undertook the sacraments of the incarnation, not as divided, but as one, because both are one,”
Supposed Dyophysite Quote, [John Cassian, On the
Incarnation Book 1]
Later into the patristic tradition of the latins, a twofold substance could simply refer to two separated
substances, We know what context John Cassian was speaking in as he himself confirms the
following in his On the Incarnation, Book III

(St. John Cassian, On the Incarnation, Book III:) We do not separate the flesh from the Divinity…
What room is there here for division and separation? In the voice we hear Jesus, in the majesty we
see God. How can we help believing that in one and the same substance God [the Word] and Jesus[’s
humanity] exist.
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Melito of Sardeis, On
Pascha]
For he was born a son, and led as a lamb, and slaughtered as a sheep, and buried as a man, and rose from the dead
as God, being God by his nature and a man
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Melito of Sardeis, On
Pascha]
Firstly this is a mistranslation, the literal greek reads: φύσει θεὸς ὧν καὶ ἄνθρωπος. | Or: By nature God and Man
Supposed Dyophysite Quote [St. Melito of Sardeis, On
Pascha]
Even with their reading, there is nothing incorrect as we believe he is God according to his divine nature

(St. Severus, Letter 25:) “For, being God, he became man, not by departing from being God; for he did not became
man by departure from Godhead, nor did he become God by growth from man: but, being the Word, he became flesh
on account of suffering, while he remained invariable in his nature'.”

(St. Severus, Letter 25:) “Indeed, since he himself said that 'he is one, and not without flesh', how can it be anything
but wholly unreasonable, and presumptuous and irreverent, for us to gainsay this, and contend that he is without
flesh? But the words which he went on to add, 'who in his own nature is without flesh and blood', plainly introduce
this thought, that in his own nature, that is in the Godhead, he has no association with flesh and blood.”