Church-history of the government of bishops and their councils abbreviated including the chief part…

Many more such passages are in Cyril. Here Derodon proveth, 1. That Cyril took not [Greek or Hebrew] for Persona. 2. That he took not [Greek or Hebrew] for Division but Distinction: If he did, it was an ill quarrel, when Nestorius asserted not a Division, but a Distinction. 3. That Cyril still reproveth Nestorius for asserting only a union secundùm personam, and not secundùm naturam 4. That Cyril (as Dioseorus) declares what union he meaneth, not by Confusion, Commixtion or Transmutation, but by Composition, (and so said the Eutychians.)

Many more such passages are in Cyril. Here Derodon proveth, 1. That Cyril took not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 for Persona. 2. That he took not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 for Division but Distinction: If he did, it was an ill quarrel, when Nestorius asserted not a Division, but a Distinction. 3. That Cyril still reproveth Nestorius for asserting only a union secundùm personam, and not secundùm naturam 4. That Cyril (as Dioseorus) declares what union he meaneth, not by Confusion, Commixtion or Transmutation, but by Composition, (and so said the Eutychians.)

The second order of Derodons proofs is from all the places where Cyril pleads for one hypostasis, and he showeth that by hypostasis Cyril meant natura or substantia singularis. The citations are too long to be repeated.

The second order of Derodons proofs is from all the places where Cyril pleads for one hypostasis, and he sheweth that by hypostasis Cyril meant natura or substantia singularis. The citations are too long to be repeated.

•. 3. His proofs are from all the Texts where he saith the Word, and Humanity concurred [Greek or Hebrew].