Month: September 2026

The divinely inspired Paul shows that the shadow in the Law is not ineffective for the benefit of those who have chosen to live godly lives. He clearly presents to everyone's minds, as a picture and representation of the truer reality, the things that happened long ago to the people of old. He says, "But these things happened to them as types, but were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." So let us now select from the writings of the Law and say this: the Israelites were camping in the desert long ago when they left the land of Egypt and were traveling toward the Promised Land. But when they—wretched people!—forgot the wonders done in Egypt and their love toward God, they began to murmur impiously, and they were destroyed by serpents, as it is written. Yet they escaped the bites of the poisonous creatures when Moses raised up the bronze serpent for them, since God the Savior of all had commanded, "Make yourself a serpent and set it as a sign, and it shall be that if a serpent has bitten anyone, everyone who is bitten and looks at it shall live." The image, then, was the mystery pointing toward Christ, for the Only-Begotten Word of God, being God and Good by nature from a Good Father, partook of flesh and blood—that is, was made man—and became like us sinful people, in the sense that He is human as we are. And He too was lifted up on high, that is, He endured the cross on the wood and death according to the flesh, even though He rose again on the third day, having trampled on the power of death.

The Divine-uttering Paul, shewing that not ineffective for the profit of those who have elected to live piously, is the shadow in the Law and besides full well setting before the minds of all, as a picture and representation of the truer, the things which long ago befell them of old, says, But these things happened unto them typically, but were written for our admonition unto whom the ends of the world are come. Come now therefore selecting out of the writings of the Law let us say, that they of Israel were camping in the desert of old time when they departed out of the land of the Egyptians and were speeding unto the Land of Promise: but when (wretched ones!) unmindful of the wonders in Egypt and of their love to Godward, they began unholily to murmur, they were destroyed of serpents, as it is written. Yet they escaped the bites of the venomous creatures, Moses having reared up for them the brazen Serpent, God the Saviour of all having commanded, Make thee a serpent and set it for a sign and it shall be, if a serpent have bitten a man, that every one that is bitten, seeing it shall live. The figure then was the mystery Christ-ward, for the Only-Begotten Word of God being God, and Good by Nature out of a Good Father, partook of flesh and blood, i. e., was made man, and like unto us wicked ones, in regard I mean that He is man as we. And He has been set up on high too, that is, He endured the cross on the wood and death after the flesh, even though He rose again the third day having trampled on the might of death.

When we are burdened by profound misunderstanding and complain about the economy with flesh, viewing it as inappropriate, we become ashamed to think or say that the Word of God became human like us and was truly united to flesh. At such times the dragon, the prince of evil, will destroy us, pouring into our minds error like the poison of his own wickedness. Yet we will escape and ward off the harm of his deceitfulness if we look with the eyes of our heart upon the serpent—that is, if we consider with careful attention the mystery of Christ. For then, indeed then, thinking rightly we will confess without hesitation that the Word of God has been made flesh and was born of a woman while remaining God, and is the same, both God and man at once. He is neither ashamed of the limitations of human nature because of the dignity of his excellence, nor stripped of his God-befitting authority and supreme glory on account of his human nature. And those who are well practiced in discerning such things, clearly and through careful examination understanding through both natures the one Christ and the mystery concerning him, say, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable his judgments and his ways impossible to trace; for who has known the mind of the Lord?"

When therefore of exceeding great lack of understanding murmuring against the economy with flesh and charging it with uncomeliness, we are ashamed to think or say that the Word of God became Man as we and was united to flesh in verity, then will the dragon, the prince of evil, slay us, infusing into our minds error, as it were the venom of his own perverseness: yet shall we escape and repel the damage of his crookedness, if with the eyes of our heart we look on the serpent, that is, if we consider with accurate mind the mystery of Christ. For then, then, deeming right shall we confess unhesitatingly that the Word of God has been made flesh, and proceeded forth of a woman along with remaining God, and is the Same God alike and Man, neither shaming of the measures of the human nature by reason of the Dignity of the Excellence, nor yet reft of His God-befitting Authority and Supreme Glory on account of the human nature. And they who are used full well to discern such things, clearly and by accurate scrutiny understanding through both the one, and the Mystery regarding Him, say, O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable His judgements and His ways not to be tracked; for who knew the mind of the Lord?

Yet this man somehow pushes these things aside as impossible and unseemly, and dares to make no small accusation against the glory and excellence of our Savior. He assigns to Him our measure and nothing else, saying that He has been glorified by the Holy Spirit—not using as His own power the ability to work signs through Himself, but receiving from outside and from elsewhere the power to accomplish anything miraculous. This would make Him appear, like us, as the recipient of a gift of healing, perhaps, and bound to say with blessed Paul, "By the grace of God I am what I am." For those to whom both existence and the ability to accomplish anything are imported and come from outside will reasonably speak such words as these.

Yet doth somehow this man thrusting away these things as impossible and uncomely, dare to make no small accusal against the glory and excellence of our Saviour, and allotting to Him our measure and nought else, says that He has been glorified by the Holy Ghost, not using as His own Power, that through Him to work signs, but gaining from without and introduced, the power of achieving ought miraculous, that He may appear as we the recipient of a gift haply of healing, and be bound to say with blessed Paul, By the Grace of God I am what I am. For to whom being and being able to achieve ought is imported and from without, these will with reason utter such word as this.

For in desiring (as he thinks) to prove the Holy Trinity equal in operation in all things, he says again as follows:

For he desiring (as he thinks) to prove the Holy Trinity equal in operation unto all things, says again thus;

Nestorius: "God the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us. The Father seated together with Himself the manhood that was assumed, for it says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My Right Hand.' The Spirit descending completed the glory of what was assumed, for when He says, 'When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will glorify Me.' Do you also want another work of the Trinity regarding these same things? The Son dwelt in the body, the Father approved Him when He was baptized, the Spirit formed Him in the Virgin." Then again he says concerning the holy Apostles, "The Son chose them, for He says, 'I chose you.' The Father sanctified them, for He says, 'Father, sanctify them in Your Truth.' The Spirit made them speakers."

Nestorius: " God the Word was made Flesh and tabernacled in us. The Father co-seated with Himself the manhood which was assumed: for (it saith) The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right Hand; the Spirit descending consummated the glory of that which was assumed, for when (He saith) the Spirit of Truth is come, He shall glorify Me. Desirest thou also another operation of the Trinity in respect of these very things? The Son indwelt in the body, the Father commended Him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." Then again he says of the holy Apostles, "The Son chose them out, for I (He says) chose you forth; the Father sanctified, for (He says) Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth, the Spirit rendered them orators."

That his entire argument has been constructed both foolishly and unfortunately is very easy to demonstrate. And in this matter too he goes astray, and I will explain how. For the Nature of the Godhead is indeed One, but the Father exists in His own proper mode, and the Son also, and likewise the Spirit. Yet all things are accomplished by the Father and through the Son in the Spirit, and when the Father is moved (so to speak) to do anything, the Son truly works in the Spirit. And though the Son or the Spirit is said to accomplish anything, this is certainly of the Father. And throughout the entire Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, the Operation and Will toward everything runs alike.¹

That his whole discourse has been framed both unwisely and unhappily, is full easy to shew. And in this too he wanders, and how, I will say. For One indeed is the Nature of the Godhead, but the Father exists in His Proper mode and the Son too and likewise the Spirit: yet are all things wrought by the Father and through the Son in the Spirit, and when the Father is (so to say) moved to ought, yet does the Son surely work in the Spirit; and though the Son or the Spirit be said to fulfil ought, this is full surely of the Father: and through the whole Holy and Consubstantial Trinity runs the Operation alike and Will unto everything.¹

On this subject we say this. But see again how clearly and evidently, although he says that the Word from God has been made Flesh, he distorts the force of these concepts and carries it far away from correctness, representing the Incarnation as an operation of His. For he immediately adds, "Will you have another operation of the Trinity besides these?" as though he had already shown the first operation of God the Word to be His being made Flesh according to the Scriptures. And what the other operation after the first one is, he shows, as he thinks. He says, "The Son indwelt in the body." Christ is therefore a God-bearing man. Next, the Word of God the Father is shown to be operating this alone for man, so that even though the blessed Evangelist says, "The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us," it indicates nothing else to us but just this alone: that the Word, being God, dwelt in a man just as He does in us too. For we are temples of the living God, and by this we know that He is in us, because He gave us of His Spirit. But you will not say this, I suppose, shuddering at the blasphemy, but will confess with us that the Word of God has been made Man (and this is the Incarnation), and will agree that He has remained God and kept the Beauty of His proper Nature, even though He has the name Son of Man and has truly been made so. Why then did you learn and say that the Father co-seated with Himself the manhood that was assumed, and not rather that there sits on the Throne of His proper Godhead, in the Good-Pleasure of God the Father, the Word who sprang from Him, when made Man too? This is so that His Human Nature may not be conceived and spoken of by us as something other than He, although the union that is of truth shows us that He is One and that His Flesh is not alien from Him.²

On this subject we say thus. But view again how clearly and evidently, although he says that the Word out of God has been made Flesh, he mis-coins the force of the ideas, and bears it far away from rightness, representing the Incarnation as an operation of His: for he adds forthwith, "wilt thou another operation of the Trinity besides these?" as though he had already shewn the first operation of God the Word, His being made Flesh according to the Scriptures. And what is the other after the first operation, he shews as he supposes. He says, "The Son indwelt in the body:" a God-clad man therefore is Christ. Next the Word of God the Father is shewn operating this alone for man: so that even though the blessed Evangelist say, The Word was made Flesh and tabernacled in us, it indicates nothing else to us but just this alone, that the Word being God dwelt in a man just as in ourselves too. For we are temples of the living God, and herein know we that He is in us because He gave us of His Spirit. But thou wilt not (I suppose) say this, shuddering at the blasphemy, but wilt confess with us, that the Word of God has been made Man (and this is the Incarnation): and wilt agree that He hath remained God, and kept the Beauty of His proper Nature, even though He have the name, Sow of Man, and have been made so of a truth. What then didst thou learn, and say that the Father co-seated with Himself the manhood that was assumed, and not rather that there sitteth on the Throne of His proper Godhead, in the Good-Pleasure of God the Father, the Word That sprang from Him, when made Man too: in order that His Human Nature be not conceived and spoken of by us as something other than He, albeit the union that is of truth shews us that He is One and that His Flesh is not alien from Him?²

In this too you will be caught speaking falsely and making no small error in proper reasoning. And if to say that the Word has been made Flesh is nothing other than that He, while being in the Excellence of Godhead and remaining what He was, has become Man, what glory from outside will He need, being Himself the Lord of Glory? For admittedly He was being glorified, with the Spirit working divine signs; yet not as a God-bearing man, receiving this from an alien and superior Nature, as we do, but rather as using His own Spirit: for He was God by physis and His Spirit is not alien to Him. Therefore we say that the operation of the Spirit has not been given to Him from outside or by adoption, as it has to us or to the holy Apostles: for Christ has given them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and commanded them to heal every sickness and every disease among the people.

In this too thou wilt therefore be caught speaking falsely and in no slight degree erring from fit reasoning. And if to say that the Word has been made Flesh is nought else than that He being in the Excellence of Godhead and abiding what He was, hath become Man, what glory from without will He be in need of, Himself the Lord of Glory? For confessedly was He being glorified, the Spirit working Divine signs; yet not as a God-clad man, gaining this thing from an alien and superior Nature, even as do WE, but rather as using of His own Spirit: for He was God by Nature and not alien to Him is His Spirit. Hence we say that not from without nor by adoption has the operation of the Spirit been given to Him, even as unto us, or to the holy Apostles: for to them hath Christ given authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and commanded them to heal both every sickness and every ailment in the people.

From within therefore and from Himself is His Spirit. And a clear demonstration of this will be His ability to supply It to others too, and not by measure, as the blessed Evangelist says. For the God of all measured out to the saints the grace through the Spirit, and to one He gave the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another gifts of healing. And I think this means that those who have the operation possess power in measure. But our Lord Jesus Christ, putting forth the Spirit out of His own fullness, just as the Father Himself does, gives It not by measure to those who are worthy to receive It. Why then, most excellent sir, do you count Him Who gives the Spirit not by measure as numbered together with those who have It in measure, saying that His glory has been cemented by the Spirit and that He has been operated upon, like one of us, receiving as a grace support from Him, rather than working Divine signs through His own Spirit?

From within therefore and from Himself is His Spirit, And an evident demonstration of this will be His being able to supply It to others too and not of measure, as the blessed Evangelist saith. For the God of all measured to the saints the grace through the Spirit, and to one He gave the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another, gifts of healing: and this I think is that those who have the operation have power of measure: but our Lord Jesus Christ, putting forth the Spirit out of His own fulness, even as doth the Father Himself, gives It not as of measure to those who are worthy to receive It. Why then, most excellent sir, dost thou make Him Who giveth the Spirit not of measure, connumerate with those who have It in measure, saying that His glory has been cemented by the Spirit and that He has been operated on, like one of us, receiving as a grace support from Him, rather than working Divine signs through His own Spirit.

For the recklessly bold Jews, sharpening their bitter tongues against Him, said impiously, "This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub the prince of demons." But our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of no small foolishness and indeed of impiety, says, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, prince of demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" For the glorious and mighty group of the holy Apostles, performing miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is marveled at. And truly they returned rejoicing and saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your Name." But if it is possible that through the name of any person who has been worked upon, others too should be able to accomplish similar things, let such a person come and tell us why no one is marveled at for rebuking unclean spirits or for having accomplished anything else that surpasses reason in the name of any saint.

For the all-daring Jews, whetting against Him a bitter tongue, unholily said, This man casteth not out devils save in Beelzebub the prince of the devils; but our Lord Jesus Christ convicting them of no small folly yea rather of impiety, says, If I in Beelzebub, prince of devils, cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? for the glorious and mighty choir of the holy Apostles, performing miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is marvelled at: and of a truth they returned rejoicing and saying, Lord even the devils are subject to. us in Thy Name. But if it be possible that in the name of any one of those operated on, others too should avail to accomplish the like, let him come, let him tell us why no ono is marvelled at for rebuking unclean spirits or having accomplished ought else that passes reason, in the name of any saint.

But they are operated upon by the Spirit and have a measured grace, while He, as God, works inwardly and through His own Spirit accomplishes effortlessly the things for which He is marveled at. And truly the woman who was sick with the issue of blood came one time secretly behind Him (as it is written) and touched the border of His garment, and immediately her flow of blood stopped. Christ, perceiving this, says, "Who touched Me?" And when the divinely-inspired disciples said, "Master, the crowds are surrounding You and pressing against You," He said again, "Someone touched Me, for I know that power went out from Me." Do you understand, then, that He has the power to work inwardly and to free people from weaknesses not as something introduced from outside, but from within and out of Himself?

But they are operated upon by the Spirit and have a measured grace, He, as God in-worketh, and through His own Spirit achieveth without toil the things whereby He is marvelled at. And verily the woman who was sick of the issue of blood came one time secretly behind Him (thus is it written) and touched the border of His garment and immediately her issue of blood stanched, which Christ now understanding, says Who touched Me? and when at this the Divine-speaking disciples said, Master, the multitude are thronging Thee and pressing Thee, He said again, Somebody touched Me, for I know that might went forth of Me. Understandest thou then that not as introduced from without, but from within and out of Himself hath He the power to inwork and to free from weaknesses?

The blessed Evangelist Matthew also writes somewhere, "And the whole multitude were seeking to touch Him, for there went power out of Him and healed all." His power, then, is His Spirit, and the divinely-inspired David will give us proof, saying, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established and by the Spirit of His Mouth all their power." He says that the Mouth of God the Father is the Word who comes from Him, by whose Spirit the things made through Him are established in their existence. I have now therefore said that he brings to nothing the Mystery of Godliness, which has been marveled at even by the holy Angels themselves, and caring nothing for the doctrines that pertain to truth, he dismisses them saying, "Do you want another operation of the Trinity besides these? The Son dwelt in the body, the Father commended him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." And that the truth will surely follow upon the things which we have said, and that we have made no mere condemnation of his words, but rather a clear and true conviction of them, he himself will show by saying elsewhere in this way,

And the blessed Evangelist Matthew too somewhere writeth, And the whole multitude were seeking to touch Him, for there went might out of Him and healed all. His might then is His Spirit, and the Divine-uttering David will give us proof, saying, By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens stablished and by the Spirit of His Mouth all their might. The Mouth of God the Father he says is the Word That is out of Him, by Whose Spirit the things made through Him, are stablished in being. I have now therefore said that he brings down to nothing the Mystery of Godliness, which has been marvelled at by the holy Angels themselves too, and recking nought of the dogmas that pertain unto truth, he makes light of them saying, "Wilt thou another operation of the Trinity besides these? the Son dwelt in the body, the Father commended him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." And that the truth will follow surely upon the things which we have said, and that we have made no mere condemnation of his words, but rather a clear and true conviction of them, himself will shew saying elsewhere on this wise,

The proof that they work together is clear: The Son became man, the Father enthroned Him, and the Spirit honored Him through signs.

Nestorius: "And the proof of co-work is evident, The Son became man, the Father enthroned Him, the Spirit honoured Him by signs."

Will anyone doubt even after this that the aim of his ideas leads to both ignorance and ungodliness, and is audacious against the doctrines of piety? For just as he unwisely rejects the idea that the Word of God was made Flesh and says instead that He simply dwelt within a man, so too he also reinterprets the meaning of being made man—even though the holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who set forth for us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith (the Holy Spirit speaking through them), taught that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man. He understands this to mean nothing other than being made man just as we are, and being born according to the flesh from a woman, because He has also been placed under the Law along with us—He who as God is above the Law.

Will any one doubt even after this that the aim of his ideas looks to unlearning alike and unholiness, and is bold against the doctrines of piety? for like as he unwisely casts forth the Word of God from being made Flesh and says that He wrought an indwelling in man, so too again does he take the being made man, albeit the holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man, conceiving that this is nought else save only the being made man as we, and being born after the flesh of a woman, because He hath also been made with us under the Law, Who as God is above the Law.

But since (as I have already said many times) his aim is to destroy the Truth, he alone vigorously exalts himself and opposes everyone else's opinions. He raises arms against the Ineffable glory, and what he alone thinks, he tries to smuggle in secretly like rubbish into the churches of God. For he maintains that the Incarnation is an indwelling, rather than that the Word from God partook of blood and flesh just as we do—even though the Word has dwelt and still dwells in all the saints, yet he has been made as we are once, and has partaken personally in a single flesh. In that flesh he is believed both to have died and to have risen for us, for he willingly suffered in the flesh.

But since (as I have already full often said) his aim is to undo the Truth, therefore he alone (and that strenuously) lifts himself up, and opposes the opinions of all, and brandishes arms against the Ineffable glory, and what he alone thinks, endeavours to bring in secretly as a kind of rubbish upon the churches of God: for he maintains that the Incarnation is indwelling, and not rather that the Word out of God partook like us of blood and flesh, albeit the Word hath indwelt and indwells yet in all the saints, but has once been made as we, and has partaken Personally in a single flesh, wherein He is believed both to have died and to have risen for us: for of His own will He suffered in the flesh.

But that he is flinging words about carelessly and paying little attention to the absurdity of his language when he says that Christ was ennobled by signs through the Spirit, the words just cited have already shown sufficiently, I think. But let us examine, if you please, his other words. "The Father," he says, "commended." What "commended" means here, I cannot understand, for the word is admittedly a word of the marketplace and the crowd, and full of commonplace trickery. But I suppose he wanted to indicate "set forth," for example, or "has witnessed to." How then, tell me, did the Father commend? Did He present someone counted worthy of divine indwelling? Or was it not this at all, but rather His own Son made man, yet remaining even in flesh what He was and is and shall be, that is, God? For Jesus Christ who was yesterday and today is the same even forever.

But that to no purpose is he flinging about words, and recking little of the absurdity of his language, says that Christ was ennobled by signs through the Spirit, the words which have been just cited, sufficiently (as I think) shewed: but let us examine, if you please, his other words. 'The Father (he says) commended;' what then commended here is, I cannot understand: for the word is confessedly a word of the market and the mob, and replete with commonplace trickery; but I suppose that he wanted to indicate, set forth, for example, or, hath witnessed to. How then (tell me) did the Father commend? did He exhibit one counted worthy of Divine Indwelling? or was it not this at all, but rather His own Son made man, yet abiding even in Flesh, what He was and is and shall be, i. e. God? For Jesus Christ Who was yesterday and to-day is the Same even for ever.

Let's examine what is said about Him. What does the Evangelist say? "And John bore witness, saying, I have seen the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and abiding upon Him. This is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost: and I have seen and testified that This is the Son of God." For our Lord Jesus Christ was about to sanctify the Jordan economically, and He graciously chose to be baptized with us, ordering the Mystery of the Economy with flesh in the ways that are fitting for it. For it was necessary that the Word from God the Father should be known to have been made Man. Yet He was baptized as Man, while He baptized divinely in the Holy Ghost. And we do not say that He ministered the participation of the Holy Ghost to those being baptized either as a servant or through any intermediary, but rather He sanctified them, Himself infusing into them out of His own Fullness as God by Nature. How then do you, disregarding both words and thoughts that belong to right understanding, say that indwelling in man was accomplished by God the Word? Even though very many saints have had the God of all indwelling in them, none of them baptized with his own spirit or has been said to indwell divinely in anyone and has so indwelt. And Christ Himself dwells in us through the Holy Ghost, which is His own too, just as it is God the Father's. And He Himself confirms this to us saying, "But when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me."³

Come then, let us examine what is spoken of Him. What says the Evangelist? And John bare record, saying, I have seen the Spirit descending from, Heaven like a dove,…. and abiding upon Him, This is He That baptizeth with the Holy Ghost: and I have seen and testified that This is the Son of God. For our Lord Jesus Christ was about to sanctify economically the Jordan, and deigned with us to be baptized, ordering the Mystery of the Economy with flesh through the ways that beseem it: for it was necessary that the Word out of God the Father should be known to have been made Man. Yet was He baptized as Man, He baptized Divinely in the Holy Ghost. And we do not say that He ministered the participation of the Holy Ghost to the baptized either as a servant or by means of any other, but hallowed them, Himself infusing into them out of His own Fulness as God by Nature. How then dost thou, disregarding words alike and thoughts that belong to rightness, say that indwelling in man was wrought by God the Word; albeit whereas very many saints have had the God of all indwelling in them, none of them baptized with his own spirit or has been said to indwell Divinely in any and has so indwelt? and Christ Himself dwells in us through the Holy Ghost, Which is His own too, even as God the Father's. And this Himself ratifies to us saying, But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.³

See then how He says that the Spirit who proceeds from God the Father is also the own Spirit of the Truth, and He Himself is certainly the Truth. How then, if He is truly not rather God made man, but man having the Divine Indwelling as His Energy, does He promise to send down the Spirit of God the Father as His own upon those who believe in Him? Yes, as I said, he destroys the glory of the Mystery, dividing the operation of the Holy Trinity with respect to the things done, and assigning to each of the Persons separately what the other has not accomplished.

See then how He says that the Spirit Which proceedeth from God the Father is the own Spirit of the Truth also: and He Himself is of a surety the Truth. How then, if He be of a truth not rather God made man, but man having the Divine Indwelling as His Energy, doth He promise to send down, as His own, the Spirit of God the Father upon them who believe on Him? Yea, as I said, he shakes to nothing the glory of the Mystery, distributing the operation of the Holy Trinity in respect of the things done, and allotting to each of the Persons by Himself what the other hath not wrought.

Again he says this: "The Son chose, for I, He says, chose you; the Father sanctified; the Spirit made them orators." What utter confusion! If all things have been done by the Father through the Son in the Spirit, and nothing is done by God the Father except in exactly this way—how is he not clearly out of his mind, distributing to each Person separately the operations of the undefiled and One Godhead, instead of maintaining that each thing that is done has been accomplished by the Father through the Son in the Spirit? For if the Son is both the Counsel and Wisdom and Power of the Father, then surely the Father will work all things through the Son, as through His Counsel and Wisdom and Power. Thus He chose His disciples for their excellence, thus we say that those who were chosen were sanctified, thus that they were made orators, from out of One Godhead—that is, by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. For He says, Holy Father, sanctify them in Your Truth. Therefore the Truth sanctifies—that is, the Son. He also infuses wisdom into them and renders them devoutly eloquent through the operation of the Holy Spirit. And truly He said in the book of Matthew to His own disciples, When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak, for it is not you who are the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you; and through the book of Luke, Settle it therefore in your hearts not to think beforehand what you shall answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to contradict or resist. Do you hear how when the Holy Spirit speaks in them, He Himself gives the mouth? For He is as Word the Giver of word and Bestower of the Spirit, as having It as His own naturally—just as the Father Himself does too. The Holy Trinity therefore has the same operation, and whatever things the Father does and wills to accomplish, these things the Son also does in equal manner, and likewise the Spirit also. But giving the operations separately to each of the Persons individually is nothing else than setting forth three gods separately and wholly distinct from one another. For the count of natural unity in regard to the Holy Trinity shows, I suppose, one motion toward everything that is done. But if we say that while one Person is moved, for example, to work, the two remain inactive, how is a gross separation not secretly introduced, assigning to each Person a certain position—being conceived of as external to and isolated from the rest? Not in respect of His individual being (for that would be true), but in respect of utter diversity which does not allow language that gathers them into natural union. For one physis of Godhead is conceived of in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.⁴⁵

Again he says on this wise, "The Son chose forth, for I, He says, chose you: the Father sanctified, the Spirit made orators." O distraction without measure! if all things have been done by the Father through the Son in the Spirit and nothing be done by God the Father, save in this very way;—-how is he not surely distraught, who distributes to the Persons severally the Operations unto ought of the Untaint and One Godhead, and doth not rather maintain that each thing that is done has been wrought by the Father through the Son in the Spirit? For if the Son is both the Counsel and Wisdom and Might of the Father, full surely will the Father work all things through the Son, as through His Counsel and Wisdom and Might. Thus chose He for their excellence His disciples, thus do we say that those who were chosen out were sanctified, thus that they were made orators, from out One Godhead; that is, by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. For He says, Holy Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth. The Truth therefore sanctifies, i. e. the Son; He infuses….. too and renders them wise and through the operation of the Holy Ghost; devoutly eloquent. And verily He said in the book of Matthew to His own Disciples, When they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given yon in that hour what ye shall speak, for not YE are the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you; and through that of Luke, Settle it therefore in your hearts not to meditate before what ye shall answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist. Hearest thou how when the Holy Ghost speaketh in them, Himself gives the mouth? For He is as Word Giver of word and Bestower of the Spirit, as having It as His own Naturally; even as the Father Himself too. The Holy Trinity has therefore the same Operation, and whatsoever things the Father doth and willeth to accomplish, these things doth the Son too in equal manner, likewise the Spirit also. But the giving of the Operations severally to Each of the Persons individually is nought else than to set forth three gods severally and wholly distinct from one another. For the count of Natural Unity in regard to the Holy Trinity, shews I suppose one motion unto every thing that is done. But if now we say that while One Person is moved, e. g., to work, the Two remain ineffective, how is not a gross severance privily introduced, allotting as a certain position to each Person, the being conceived of external to and isolated from the rest, not in respect of His Individual Being (for that were true), but in respect of utter diversity which does not endure language that gathers them into Natural Union? For One Nature of Godhead is conceived of in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.⁴⁵

But this man dares to diminish God the Word, who is Consubstantial with God the Father, as though he does not know that He became human without casting aside what He was, but rather by taking on what He was not. For he is an advocate for (as has been said) the Holy Spirit and insults the Son, saying this to some who have chosen to think along with Arius:

But this good man dares to abridge God the Word Consubstantial with God the Father as though he knows not that He has been made Man, not casting away what He was, but assuming rather what He was not: for he is an advocate for (as has been said) the Holy Ghost and insults the Son, thus saying to some who have elected to think with Arius,

Nestorius says: They devise an even greater insult against Him by separating from the Divine Nature the Spirit who formed His Human Nature (for Scripture says, "that which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost"), who restored to righteousness what had been formed (for it says, "He was manifested in flesh, was made righteous in Spirit"), who made Him terrifying to demons (for He says, "I in the Spirit of God cast out devils"), who made His Flesh a Temple (for it says, "I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him"), and who granted Him to be taken up (for it says, "having given commandment to the holy Apostles whom He chose forth, He was taken up through the Holy Ghost"). This Spirit, I say, who bestowed such great glory on Christ, they make into Christ's servant.⁶

Nestorius: "They (he says) contriving greater insult against Him, and severing from the Divine Nature the Spirit Which having formed His Human Nature (for that, it says, which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost), reformed unto righteousness that which was formed (for He was manifested, it says, in flesh, was made righteous in Spirit), Which made Him terrible to devils (for I, He says, in the Spirit of God, cast out devils); Which made His Flesh a Temple (for I saw, it says, the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him); Which granted Him to be taken up (for, it says, having given commandment to the holy Apostles whom He chose forth, He was taken up through the Holy Ghost): This I say which bestowed on Christ so great glory they make Christ's bondman."⁶

To dare to sever the Spirit from the Divine and Untainted Nature is, I agree, the mark of a wicked and sinful mind, one far removed from what is proper. For the Spirit is Consubstantial with God the Father and also with the Son Himself, and is believed to be God and from God. But I think we should set this aside for now and examine the words before us, paying close attention to what they mean. For he says, "Doing a greater insult against Him (that is, the Word from God the Father) and severing from the Divine Nature the Spirit which formed His Human Nature." Whose Human Nature, my good man, are you saying has been formed through the Spirit? Yet you were just speaking to us about the Only-Begotten Himself, who was begotten ineffably from God the Father. You were calling Him "Divine Nature," and it is His Human Nature, I suppose, and no one else's, that you say it is. So remember your own words, for you said it was the Word's own Flesh—that is, with a rational soul in it—for this is how the manhood will be His. Then how, if the Word from God the Father is one with His own Flesh, can you suppose that He lacks God-befitting power and that the Holy Spirit made Him terrible to devils, as though He could not do this by His own nature? And again, how could the ability to crush Satan be something given by another and merely borrowed?

The daring then to sever the Spirit from the Divine and Untaint Nature, is (I assent) the part of a bad and sinful mind and one far removed from what is fit (for He is Consubstantial with God the Father, and moreover with the Son Himself and is believed to be God and out of God): but I think that we should, letting this be for the present, examine the words before us and with all attention see whither they look. For says he "Doing a greater insult against Him (i. e., the Word out of God the Father) and severing from the Divine Nature the Spirit Which formed His Human Nature." Whose Human Nature, most excellent sir, sayest thou has been formed through the Spirit? albeit thou hadst but now made discourse to us about the Only-Begotten Himself Who was begotten Ineffably out of God the Father; for thou wert calling Him "Divine Nature," and His I suppose and none else's you say the Human Nature is. Therefore call to mind thine own words, for thou saidst it was the own Flesh of the Word, i. e., with a reasonable soul therein, for thus will the manhood be His. Then how, if the Word out of God the Father be One with His own Flesh, dost thou suppose that he lacks God-befitting Might and that the Holy Ghost made him terrible to devils, as though he could not do this of his own nature? and again the being able to crush Satan, as by the gift of another and hardly borrowed?

If you know that separating the Spirit from His Divine Nature is (quite rightly) the most disgraceful accusation possible, then the Spirit clearly belongs to Him, proceeding through His Ineffable Nature Itself and being Consubstantial with Him. Therefore He will not need the power that comes from the Spirit as something external and added from outside, but will rather use Him as His own Spirit, and will make Himself terrible to the demons through Him. But if you want to show that those who separate the Spirit are free from charges of impiety, why did you just now call them insolent? And how do you not realize that you are counting yourself among them, if you say that the Word from God the Father, united to flesh, needed the help of the Spirit just like any of us or a mere man, in order to be terrible to the unclean spirits? For even though He says that He casts out demons in the Spirit of God, how can one not see that the arrangement of this expression is worthy of admiration? The leaders of the Jews, envious of our Savior's reputation and opening their mouths unrestrainedly against Him, used to babble (wretched as they were) saying that He cast out demons by Beelzebub the prince of demons. But He, with His natural clemency toward all, drawing those who had erred or who were choosing to let loose their tongues against Him toward what was better and true, was attributing the glory of being able to crush Satan to God Who is by Nature, saying that He drove away the wicked spirits in the Spirit of God. He did this not by placing Himself outside of being God by Nature and having the Holy Spirit as His own, but because it was appropriate and worthy of God-befitting skill to intercept the wrath of those who desired His death and to cut off opportunities from those who were offended at Him. For they were attacking Him saying, "We do not stone You for a good work but for blasphemy, because You, being a man, make Yourself God." Therefore He skillfully condescends to those who were still weak by saying "the Spirit of God." For He knows, as I said, that He is God by Nature together with the One Who begot Him, and has all things that are His, except only being Father. This is why He also said to Him, "All Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine, and I have been glorified in them," and speaking to us concerning the Holy Spirit, He says, "All things that the Father has are Mine, therefore I said to you that He will take of Mine and declare it to you." For just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, being His by Nature, in the same way He is also through the Son Himself, His Naturally and Consubstantial with Him. Therefore, even though He is glorified through the Spirit, He is still understood as glorifying Himself through His own Spirit, and not as though it came to Him from outside, even though He is seen as made Man like us.

If then thou knowest that to sever the Spirit from His Divine Nature is (and justly) the most disgraceful of charges, His (it is manifest) is the Spirit, as proceeding through His Ineffable Nature Itself and Consubstantial with Him, and He will not need the might that is from It as something external and adventitious, but will use Him rather as His own Spirit, and will render Himself terrible to the devils through Him. But if it seem good to thee to shew that they who sever are unimplicated in charges of impiety, how didst thou just now call them to us insolent? and how dost thou not perceive that thou art numbering thyself with them, if thou sayest that the Word out of God the Father united to flesh, needed just like any of ours and a mere man, the aid of the Spirit that He might be terrible to the unclean spirits? For even though He say that He casts out devils in the Spirit of God, how must one not see that the economy of the expression is worthy of marvel? For the chiefs of the Jews, envious of the renown of our Saviour and opening against Him an unbarred mouth, used to babble (miserable ones!) saying that He cast out devils in Beelzebub prince of the devils: but He with His innate clemency toward all, drawing unto what was better and true those who have erred or who were choosing to let loose their tongues upon Him, was attributing rather to God Who is by Nature, the glory of being able to crush Satan, saying that in the Spirit of God He chased away the wicked spirits: and not as putting Himself outside of being God by Nature and of having the Holy Ghost as His own: but since it was meet and worthy of God-befitting skill to intercept the wrath of those who were desiring His death and to cut off occasions from those who were offended at Him, for they were attacking Him saying, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy, because THOU, being a man, makest Thyself God: therefore skilfully does He condescending to them who were yet weak say, the Spirit of God,: for He knows, as I said, that He is God by Nature together with Him Who begot Him, and has all things of His, save only the being Father. Wherefore did He also say to Him, All Mine are Thine and Thine Mine and I have been glorified in them, and to ourselves making discourse concerning the Holy Ghost, He says, All things that the Father hath are Mine, therefore I said unto you that of Mine shall He take and, declare it unto you. For as the Holy Ghost proceedeth out of the Father being His by Nature, in equal wise is He through the Son Himself too, His Naturally and Consubstantial with Him. Hence even though He be glorified through the Spirit, yet is He conceived of as glorifying Himself through His own Spirit, and not as though it came to Him from without even though He be seen as made Man like us.

It is also unsafe to say this about the Spirit: "Which has made His Flesh a Temple." For it was the Word's own Flesh, and you yourself have just acknowledged this to us, since you said that the human nature is His, and the Holy Body taken from the holy Virgin is called His Temple. His Spirit is also His own, and the Word from God the Father will never be conceived of without His own Spirit. Therefore it would be better and wiser to say that the Body is the Temple of the Word and the flesh is His own, and to believe that His Spirit is always with the Word, just as the Spirit is also always with the Father Himself.

It is besides unsafe to say this also concerning the Spirit, "Which hath made His Flesh a Temple." For it was the own Flesh of the Word, and this thyself has just now acknowledged to us, for thou saidst that His is the human nature, and the Holy Body taken out of the holy Virgin is called His Temple: His own again is His Spirit, and never will the Word out of God the Father be conceived of without His own Spirit. Better therefore were it and wiser, to say that the Body is the Temple of the Word and the flesh His own, and to believe that with the Word is ever His Spirit, just as also with the Father Himself too.

I would say his claim that the Spirit gave the Assumption into Heaven to Him as a mere man is not without blame. For He chose His disciples through the Holy Spirit, and He was taken up as God, not receiving this as a gift from Another. Rather, He Himself presented Himself to God the Father as a first-fruit of human nature renewed unto immortality, consecrating for us a new and living way that enters into the inner part of the veil, where the forerunner is said to have entered on our behalf, made a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. But no one will doubt that when Christ ascended above, the Holy Spirit was in Him as His own. How then did you not fear, tell me, to say that "They make Christ's bondman of This Which gave such great glory to Christ"? For those who make Him Christ's bondman are clearly impious and dishonor the Very Word Who is Consubstantial with God Himself, treating the Spirit—Which is of Him and in Him by nature (physis) and is His own—as befitting a slave. But to say that the glory was given to Him by the Spirit is clear proof of the greatest delusion.

Not without blame moreover would I say that is his saying that Assumption into Heaven has been given Him by the Spirit as to a mere man. For He chose His Disciples through the Holy Ghost, He was taken up as God, not receiving this as a gift from Another; but Himself rather as a first-fruit of the human nature renewed unto immortality presenting Himself to God the Father and consecrating for us a new and living way and that entereth into the inner part of the veil, whither the forerunner is said to have entered in our behalf, after the order of Melchiscdech made an High Priest for ever. But that when Christ ascended above, the Holy Ghost was in Him as His own, none will doubt. How then didst thou not fear (tell me) to say that "This Which gave this so great glory to Christ, they make Christ's bondman?" For they who make Him Christ's bondman are confessedly impious and dishonour the Very Word Who is Consubstantial with God Himself, arraying in slave-befitting measures the Spirit Which is of Him and in Him by Nature and His own: but the saying that the glory was given Him by the Spirit, is a manifest proof of the uttermost infatuation.

But you will be caught talking nonsense here, not understanding the mystery concerning Him—indeed, both thinking and saying things that completely contradict yourself. For if you have believed that the Word, being God, was made flesh (since you said that the human nature was His), why do you say that the Lord of glory, as though He had no glory of His own, needed it from the Spirit, and why do you count Him among created things to which everything comes from outside and is given? For "what do you have that you did not receive?" is something that befits the creature to hear.

But you will be caught idly babbling herein, and not understanding the Mystery to Him-ward, yea rather both thinking and saying clean contrary to yourself. For if thou hast believed that the Word being God has been made Flesh (for thou saidst that His was the human nature) why dost thou say that the Lord of glory, as though He had not glory of His own, needed it from the Spirit, and reckonest Him in the measures of the creature to which all things are from without and given? for what hast thou that thou receivedst not, will it befit the creature to hear.

Yes, but he says, I find Emmanuel saying, "Father, glorify Your Son," so add what comes next: "that Your Son also may glorify You." If you claim that the Son, as if lacking glory, desires the Father's glory, what do you say when the Father is also glorified by the Son? Is it because He doesn't have glory or needs it from another? Away with this bad advice! For truly it is trickery and ungodly thinking and nothing else. For the Divine Nature, which surpasses all natures, dwells in unapproachable light and has authority over all things, and to Him is attributed the glory that most fittingly belongs to Him alone. But when the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man and was about to taste death for every man by the grace of God through His own flesh, and undo death's overwhelming power, quickening His own Temple as God, He makes the prayer as Man, and wills the Father to agree with Him who was transforming the nature of man back to what it was in the beginning and renewing it to incorruption, and displaying it victorious over the traps of death—so that the ancient curse and the sentence upon the First-formed might be undone.

Yea but (he says) I find Emmanuel saying. Father, glorify Thy Son: add therefore what remains; this is, That Thy Son too may glorify Thee. If thou assert that the Son, as lacking glory, desires that of the Father, what dost thou say, when the Father too is glorified of the Son? is it as not having glory or needing it of another? away with the mis-counsel! for verily is it trickery and unholy thought and nought else. For the Divine Nature and that passeth all natures dwelleth in the light unapproachable and hath authority over all things and to Him is ascribed the glory which most befits it alone: but when the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man and was about by the grace of God through His own flesh to taste death for every man, and undo its might hard-to-withstand, quickening as God His own Temple, He devises the prayer as Man, and wills the Father to consent with Him Who was transforming the nature of man to what it was at the beginning and renewing it unto incorruption, and displaying it superior to the meshes of death: that ancient curse and the sentence upon the First-formed being undone.

Since He is visible in the flesh, He is preached as Son of God by physis and in truth. He says, "Father glorify Your Son," making Him as Man superior to both death and decay, so that He may be believed to be Yours, being as God Life by physis, according to the measure of His own physis. For then the Son too will glorify You. It is truly glory to God the Father that we believe He begat—as Very God and Life and Life-giving—One equal and like to Himself in everything, ineffably and beyond understanding: the Son, who was in no lesser state even though He became flesh, but preserved wholly unimpaired the supernatural and excellent beauty of His inherent natural nobility, being Himself also Life from Life, and all-powerful and achieving without effort and bestowing incorruption on those subject to death and decay.

Hence since visible in flesh, He is preached Son of God by Nature and in truth, He says, Father glorify Thy Son, rendering Him as Man, superior to both death and decay, that He may be believed to be Thine, being as God Life by Nature, according to the count of His own Nature: for then will the Son too glorify Thee. Glory truly is it to God the Father that it be believed by us, that He, Very God and Life and Life-giving, begat equal and like to Himself in everything, ineffably and beyond understanding, the Son, Who was in no lesser state, even though He have been made in flesh, but preserved wholly unimpaired the Supernatural and Choice Beauty of His inherent Natural Nobility, being Himself too Life as out of Life, and all-availing and achieving without toil and bestowing in-corruption on those subject to death and decay.

Hence, even though the Son is said to be glorified by the Father, consider the measure of human nature, but do not divide the One Christ and Son and Lord into two [after the Union]. Instead, confess One and the Same, God made Man, and the Same likewise Lord of glory as God, and recipient of glory in His human nature. For consider this: although He is by nature and in truth God and King of all and Lord, He is said to have been appointed King when, having become man as we are, He humbled Himself and was made obedient to God the Father and, along with us, under the Law. Therefore, the things that belong to the limitations of the self-emptying will in no way trouble those who are wise and understanding and established in the faith. Rather, from these things alike and from the things that belong to the divine nature, they acknowledge the Son as the Same, both God and Man.⁷

Hence even though the Son be said to be glorified by the Father, consider the measure of the human nature, sever not into two [after the Union] the One Christ and Son and Lord, but confess One and the Same, God made Man, and the Same in like manner Lord of glory as God, and recipient of glory in His Human Nature. For consider that, albeit by Nature and in verity God and King of all and Lord, He is said to have been set King, when, made man as we, He hath humbled Himself and been made obedient to God the Father and with us under the Law. In no wise therefore will the things that pertain to the measures of the emptiness trouble the wise and understanding and settled in the faith; but from them alike and from the things that befit the Divine Nature, do they acknowledge the Son, the Same God and Man.⁷

But he does not come forward with sound words. Instead, having swerved exceedingly toward what is unruly, he busies himself without understanding and deems it fit to hold only what pleases himself and what he thinks is rightly understood. And in addition to what he has said, he destroys others too by severing the One Lord Jesus Christ into two, and by slandering our Divine Mystery itself through his refusal to confess with us that Christ was not like one of the holy Prophets, or again like the Apostles and Evangelists, a God-clad man, but rather God made Man, who has truly partaken of blood and flesh. He spoke again in this way, putting forth his words as though from the prosopon of Christ:

But he comes not forward with sound words, but having swerved exceedingly to what is unruly, he busies himself without understanding, and deems fit to hold what please himself alone and what he thinks well to deem are understood aright. And he destroys others too, in addition to to what he has said severing into two the One Lord Jesus Christ, calumniating also our Divine Mystery itself from not enduring to confess with us, that not like one of the holy Prophets, or again Apostles and Evangelists, was Christ a God-clad man, but God rather made Man, and hath partaken in verity of blood and flesh. He said in this wise again, putting forth his words as of the Person of Christ,

Nestorius: "He that eats My flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him. Remember that what is said concerns the flesh. As the Living Father sent Me—Me, the visible one—but sometimes I misinterpret. Let us listen to what follows: As the living Father sent Me, he says the Godhead, I the Manhood. Let us see who is actually misinterpreting. The heretic says that here the Godhead sent Me, God the Word. As the living Father sent Me, according to him, and I live, God the Word, because of the Father. After this: And he that eats Me shall also live. Do we eat the Godhead or the flesh?"⁸⁹

Nestorius: " He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. Remember that what is said is about the flesh. As the Living Father sent Me, Me, the visible: but sometimes I misinterpret. Let us hear from what follows: As the living Father sent Me, he says the Godhead, I the Manhood: let us see who it is who is mis-interpreting. The heretic says [he says] here the Godhead, Sent Me God the Word. As the living Father sent Me, according to him, and I live, God the Word, because of the Father. After this, And he that eateth Me he too shall live. Whether do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?"⁸⁹

You are therefore saying that the flesh alone has been sent, and you claim that this is what is seen. According to this, the flesh by itself would be sufficient to give life to what is tyrannized by death. Why then do the God-inspired Scriptures speak pointlessly and repeatedly assert that the Word from God the Father was made flesh? For what need would there be at all for the Word, if human nature is sufficient for us—even when understood alone and by itself—to be able to destroy death and undo the power of decay? And if things are as you suppose and choose to think—that it is not God the Word who has been sent by being made as we are, but the flesh alone which is seen has been sent by the Father—how is it not clear to everyone that we have been made partakers of a human body that differs in no way whatever from our own? How then do you elsewhere ridicule those who think this way? For you said again,¹⁰

Thou sayest therefore that the flesh alone has been sent, and affirmest that it it is which is seen: it therefore suffices also alone by itself to quicken that which is tyrannized by death. Why then do the God-inspired Scriptures tell a tale to no purpose and over and over assert that the Word out of God the Father was made Flesh? for what need at all would there be of the Word, if the human nature sufficeth for us, even though conceived of alone and by itself, so as to be able to bring to nought death and to undo the might of decay? and if it is as you suppose and choose to think, not God the Word Who has been sent through being made as we, but the flesh alone which is seen has been sent by the Father, how is it not clear to all, that we have been made participant of a human body and one in no wise whatever differing from our own? how therefore do you elsewhere laugh at those who so think? for thou saidst again,¹⁰

Nestorius says: "I will also speak the offensive words. The Lord Christ was speaking to them about His own Flesh when He said, 'Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.' The hearers could not tolerate the elevated nature of what was said. In their ignorance, they thought He was introducing cannibalism."

Nestorius: "I will speak the words too of offence. Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them; Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you: the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said, they imagined of their unlearning that He was bringing in cannibalism."

And how is this not simply cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery still lofty, unless we say that the Word from God the Father has been sent, and confess that the manner of that sending was the Incarnation? For then, only then, shall we see clearly that the Flesh which was united to Him and not someone else's flesh is able to give Life, but only because it has been made the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things. For if this visible fire infuses the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in contact, and changes even water—though cold by nature—into what is contrary to its nature and makes it hot, what wonder is it, or how can one disbelieve, that the Word from God the Father, being the Life by physis (nature), rendered the Flesh which is united to Him Life-giving? For it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and as one of us. But if you remove the Life-giving Word of God from the mystical and true union with His Body and sever them utterly, how can you show that it is still Life-giving? And who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me and I in him? If then it is a man by himself and the Word of God has not rather been made as we, the deed would be cannibalism and the participation wholly unprofitable (for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains to its own physis, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, being itself sick with the decay that is its own). But if you say that it is the own Body of the Word Himself, why do you speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the very Word from God the Father has been sent, but some other than Him—"the visible," or His Flesh—although the God-inspired Scripture everywhere proclaims One Christ, clearly affirming that the Word was made Man as we and defining in this the tradition of the right Faith?¹¹

And how is the thing not plain cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word out of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that sending was the Incarnation? For then, then we shall see clearly, that the Flesh which was united to Him and not another's flesh, avails to give Life, yet 'because it has been made the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things,' For if this visible fire infuses the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in contact, and changes water itself though cold by nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what wonder or how can one disbelieve that the Word out of God the Father being the Life by Nature rendered the Flesh which is united to Him, Life-giving? for it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and of one of us. But if thou remove the Life-giving Word of God from the Mystical and true Union with His Body and sever them utterly, how canst thou shew that it is still Life-giving? And Who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me and I in him? If then it be a man by himself and the Word of God have not rather been made as we, the deed were cannibalism and wholly unprofitable the participation (for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains to its own nature, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, sick itself of the decay that is its own): but if thou say that it is the Own Body of the Word Himself, why dost thou speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the very Word out of God the Father has been sent, but some other than of Him, "the visible," or His Flesh, albeit the God-inspired Scripture every where proclaimeth One Christ, full well affirming that the Word was made Man as we and defining herein the tradition of the right Faith.¹¹

But out of excessive reverence, he apparently recoils at the measures of emptiness and cannot endure to see the Son co-eternal with God the Father—Him who exists in the form and equality in everything with the One who begat Him—come down to lowliness. He finds fault with the economy and perhaps does not leave the divine counsel and plan unblamable. For he pretends to investigate the force of the things said by Christ, and claims to grasp the depth of the ideas. Then, trying to twist my words (as he thinks) into a seeming absurdity and ignorance, he says: "Let us see who is misinterpreting. 'As the living Father sent Me, for I live'—according to him, God the Word lives because of the Father—'and he that eats Me shall also live.' Which do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?" Don't you see at last how confused your mind has become? For when the Word of God says that He is sent, He also says, "He that eats Me shall also live." But we eat—not consuming the Godhead (away with such folly!)—but the very flesh of the Word, which has been made life-giving because it has been made the possession of Him who lives because of the Father. And we do not say that the Word is quickened by the Father through some participation from outside and coming from elsewhere; rather, we maintain that He is Life by physis, for He has been begotten out of the Father who is Life. For just as the sun's brightness that is sent forth, though it may be said (for example) to be bright because of the sender or because of that from which it comes, yet does not have its brightness by participation but wears the excellence of him who sent it or flashed it forth as a natural nobility—in the same way and manner, I believe, even though the Son says that He lives because of the Father, He will bear witness to His own noble birth from the Father, and will not confess promiscuously with the rest of creation that He has life imparted and from outside.¹²

But out of overmuch reverence, he blushes (it appears) at the measures of emptiness and endures not to see the Son Co-Eternal with God the Father, Him who is in the Form and Equality in everything with Him Who begat Him, come down unto lowliness: he finds fault with the economy and haply leaves not unblamed the Divine Counsel and Plan. For he pretends to investigate the force of the things said by Christ, and as it were taking in the depth of the ideas; then bringing round (as he thinks) my words to a seeming absurdity and ignorance; "Let us see, he says, who it is that mis-interprets. As the Living Father sent Me, for I live (according to him) God the "Word, because of the Father, and he that eateth Me he too shall live: which do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?" Perceivest thou not therefore at length how thy mind is gone? for the Word of God saying that He is sent, says, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. But WE eat, not consuming the Godhead (away with the folly) but the Very Flesh of the Word Which has been made Lifergiving, because it has been made His Who liveth because of the Father. And we do not say that by a participation from without and adventitious is the Word quickened by the Father, but rather we maintain that He is Life by Nature, for He has been begotten out of the Father who is Life. For as the sun's brightness which is sent forth, though it be said (for example) to be bright because of the sender, or of that out of which it comes, yet not of participation hath it the being bright, but as of natural nobility it weareth the Excellence of him who sent it or flashed it forth: in the same way and manner, I deem, even though the Son say that He lives because of the Father, will He bear witness to Himself His own Noble Birth from forth the Father, and not with the rest of the creation promiscuously, confess that He has Life imparted and from without.¹²

Since the Body of the Word Himself is life-giving—He having made it His own through a true union that surpasses understanding and language—we too who partake of His holy Flesh and Blood are quickened in all respects and wholly, with the Word dwelling in us divinely through the Holy Spirit, and humanly again through His holy Flesh and precious Blood. The most holy Paul will confirm the truth of what I said, writing to those believers in Corinth in our Lord Jesus Christ: "I speak as to wise men; judge what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? For we, who are many, are one bread and one body, for we all partake of the one bread." For having partaken of the Holy Spirit, we are made one both with Christ Himself, the Savior of all, and with one another. We are of the same body in this way: though we are many, we are one bread and one body, for we all partake of the one bread. The Body of Christ which is in us binds us together into unity and is in no way divided. But that through the Body of Christ we have been brought together into unity with Him and with one another, the blessed Paul will confirm, writing: "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles—if you have heard of the economy of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how He made known to me by revelation the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, by which when you read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body and co-participants in the promise in Christ."

And as the Body of the Word Himself is Life-giving, He having made it His own by a true union passing understanding and language; so WE too who partake of His holy Flesh and Blood, are quickened in all respects and wholly, the Word dwelling in us Divinely through the Holy Ghost, humanly again through His Holy Flesh and Precious Blood. The most holy Paul will confirm the truth of what I said, writing thus to those in Corinth who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, I speak as to wise men, judge YE what I say, the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? for one bread one body are we who are many, for we all are partakers of One Bread. For having partaken of the Holy Ghost, we are made one both with Christ Himself the Saviour of all and with one another: we are of the same body in this way, that we being many are one bread one body, for we all are partakers of the One Bread. For the Body of Christ which is in us binds us together into unity and is in no way divided. But that through the Body of Christ wo have been brought together into unity with Him and with one another, the blessed Paul will confirm, writing, For this cause I Paul the Prisoner of Jesus Christ in behalf of you Gentiles, if ye heard of the economy of the grace of God which was given me to you-ward, how that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men as now it is revealed unto His holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body and co-participant in the promise in Christ.

Some believers, though they initially had faith, were ignorant of the tradition and meaning of the Mystery. They were pleased to turn away from what was right by celebrating banquets and public feasts in the churches. The blessed Paul criticized those who did this, writing: "Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread and gave thanks and broke it and said, 'This is My Body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' Likewise also the Cup after supper, saying, 'This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes.'"

But since some of those who at first believed, ignorant of the tradition and force of the Mystery were pleased to be borne aside from what was right, celebrating in the churches banquetings and public feastings, the blessed Paul found fault with those who used so to do, writing, For have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not; for I received of the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was delivered up, took bread and gave thanks and brake and said, This is My Body given for you, this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise the Cup too after supper saying, This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood, do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me: for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye are declaring the Lord's death, till He come.

It is easy to see that the Mystery is divine, that participation in it is life-giving, and that the power of this unbloody sacrifice is far superior to the worship under the Law. We can see this from the fact that what was ordained through Moses to the people of old was a shadow, while Christ and what belongs to Him is the truth. The most wise Paul supports this when he writes: "One who despised Moses' Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment do you suppose he will be thought worthy who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, counted as common the Blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" Those who sacrificed the lamb in ancient times ate from it, but the purpose of eating it was not simply to satisfy their hunger, nor were the sacrifices under the Law performed for that reason. Rather, when death fell upon the rest, those who ate the lamb were able to avoid suffering death and to escape the destroyer. Indeed, in one night the firstborn of the Egyptians were destroyed, but those who were protected by this mere type alone were saved by it. Having the shadow as their shield, they gloriously prevailed even over death itself. If the types saved those who came before us, what about our situation—we upon whom the Truth itself, that is Christ, has finally shone, who sets before us His own life-giving Flesh to partake of? Is this not clear to everyone? Our situation is exceedingly and vastly superior. Our Lord Jesus Christ makes clear the power of the Mystery when He says: "Truly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died. This is the Bread which comes down from Heaven so that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he will live forever, and the Bread which I will give is My Flesh, which is for the life of the world." The people of Israel had marveled at Moses for the gift of manna sent down to those in the desert at that time. This manna provides a type of the Mystic Eucharist, since the Law is a shadow. Therefore, with great skill our Lord Jesus Christ diminishes the type, driving them from it to the truth. He says that the manna was not the Bread of Life, but rather He Himself is—He who is from Heaven, who gives life to all things, and who infuses Himself into those who eat Him through His Flesh which is united to Him. He made this even clearer when He said: "Truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My Flesh is true food and My Blood is true drink. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him. As the Living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also he who eats Me will live because of Me." Consider, then, how He abides in us and makes us superior to corruption by infusing Himself into our bodies, as I said, through His own Flesh, which is true food, whereas the shadow in the Law and the worship under it do not possess the truth.

And that the Mystery is Divine and the participation Life-giving and the might of this unbloody Sacrifice far better than the worship under the Law, is easy to see even from his saying that the things ordained through Moses to them of old time were a shadow, but Christ and what is His the truth. The most wise Paul too will help us herein, thus writing, One that despised Moses' Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who trod under foot the Son of God and accounted common the Blood of the covenant wherein he was sanctified, and did despite unto the Spirit of grace? For they that of old did sacrifice the lamb ate thereof, but the force of the eating amounted not simply to the satisfying of the belly, nor was it for this that the sacrifices were performed under the Law: but that when death fell on the rest, they might be superior to its suffering and might escape the destroyer. And verily in one night were the first-born of the Egyptians destroyed, but these fenced by the bare type, alone were saved by it, and having the shadow for their shield, prevailed gloriously over death itself too. The types then saved those before us; in what condition are our matters, on whom at length beamed the Truth itself, that is, Christ, Who setteth before us His own Life-giving Flesh to partake of? is it not clear to all? For very exceedingly better and in vast superiority are they. And the might of the Mystery our Lord Jesus Christ making manifest saith, Verily I say to you, he that helieveth on Me hath everlasting life, I am the Bread of Life: your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died, this is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die, I am the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven, if any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread Which I w ill give is My Flesh Which is for the Life of the world. For since they of the blood of Israel had marvelled at Moses for the largess of manna sent down to those of that time in the desert, which fills up a type of the Mystic Eucharist (for the Law is a shadow), therefore with exceeding skill doth our Lord Jesus Christ minish the type, driving them [from it] unto the truth. For not that (He says) was the Bread of Life, but rather, I Who am out of Heaven and Who quicken all things and infuse Myself into them that eat Me, through My Flesh too that is united to Me. Which indeed He made clearer saying, Verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not Life in you: he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day, for My Flesh is true meat and My Blood is true drink; he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the Living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. Consider then how He abideth in us and maketh us superior to corruption, infusing Himself into our bodies, as I said, through His own Flesh too, which is true meat, whereas the shadow in the Law and the worship under it possess not the truth.

The plan of the Mystery is simple and true, not overburdened with complicated schemes of imagination that lead to ungodliness, but simple as I said. For we believe that the Word from God the Father united Himself to the body born through the holy Virgin, which had a rational soul (the union is unspeakable and wholly a Mystery!), and made it Life-giving, since He is by physis Life as God. In this way, by making us partakers of Himself both spiritually and bodily, He might make us superior to decay and through Himself abolish the law of sin which is in the members of the flesh, and condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But this does not at all please (I think) this teacher of new doctrines, who like a wandering calf runs after only what pleases himself and diminishes the power of the mystery by saying,

And the plan of the Mystery is simple and true, not overwrought with varied devices of imaginations unto unholiness but simple as I said. For we believe that to the body born through the holy Virgin, having a reasonable soul, the Word out of God the Father having united Himself (unspeakable is the union, and wholly a Mystery!) rendered it Life-giving, being as God Life by Nature, that making us partakers of Himself spiritually alike and bodily, He might both make us superior to decay and might through Himself bring to nought the law of sin which is in the members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But this no wise (I deem) pleases this dogmatist of new inventions, who like some straying calf runs after only what pleases himself: and minishes the force of the mystery saying,

Nestorius: "Notice that the word 'Lord' is sometimes used of Christ's human nature, sometimes of His Godhead, and sometimes of both. 'As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you proclaim the Lord's Death.' Learn from what precedes how to correct those who oppose us—how they should understand the great benefit of the mystery and whose memorial it conveys to people. Do not listen to me saying these things, but to the blessed Paul: 'As often as you eat this bread.' He did not say, 'As often as you eat this Godhead.' 'As often as you eat this bread.' See what stands before us concerning the Lord's Body. 'As often as you eat this Bread,' of which the Body is the antitype. Let us therefore see whose Death it is. 'As often as you eat this bread and drink this Cup, you proclaim the Lord's Death.' Listen even more plainly to what follows: 'Till He come.' Who is it that is coming? 'They will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory.' And even more clearly, the Prophet before the Apostles revealed more plainly the One who is coming and cried out proclaiming concerning the Jews, 'They will look on Him Whom they pierced.' Who then is the one who was pierced? The Side. Does the Side belong to the body or the Godhead?"

Nestorius: "Hear the word Lord too, sometimes put of the human nature of Christ, sometimes of His Godhead, sometimes of both. As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's Death. Hear from the foregoing the unlearning of the gainsayers, how they read the mighty profit of the mystery, and whose memorial it imparts to men, and hear not me saying these things, but the blessed Paul, As oft as ye cat this bread, he said not, As oft as ye eat this Godhead. As oft as ye eat this bread. See what is before us concerning the Lord's Body. As oft as ye eat this Bread, whereof the Body is the antitype. Let us see therefore whose is the Death. As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's Death. Hear yet plainer in what follows, Till He come, who is it Who is coming? They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory. And greater still, the Prophet before the Apostles did more clearly shew Him Who is coming and hath cried aloud proclaiming of the Jews, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced. Who then is he that was pierced? the Side: belongs the Side to the body, or the Godhead?"

Again we must speak on behalf of the doctrines of the Truth and oppose your words, sir, and before all else we must say this to those who will hear: Your aim is, with all diligence, to present two christs to whom the title of lordship might separately belong, but it shall be shown by us, without any great effort, that you arrive at this in a most unlearned manner. For come, tell me who asks you: which Christ are you defining when you say that both the manhood and likewise the Godhead belong to him? If you mean the Word from God the Father, you have clearly confessed that the Same is also man, for you said that the human nature is His. But if you mean him who is born of the Virgin according to your understanding, you will be caught no less pronouncing that He is God too, for you said that the Godhead is also His. Therefore, driven on all sides even against your will to the Truth, confess with us One Christ and Lord. For in this way you will stop saying, "Hear the word Lord too, sometimes applied to the human nature of Christ, sometimes to His Godhead, and other times to both"—for where there is One Son, what room is there to speak of both? And why do you mock those who honor our Divine Mystery, saying most unholily, "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you declare the Lord's death"? Hear from what has been said the ignorance of those who oppose, how they reckon the mighty benefit of the mystery and whose memorial is set before men.

Again must we speak for the doctrines of the Truth, and oppose, sir, thy words, and before all else must say this to those who will hear: Thy aim is and with all diligence to represent two christs, to whom severally may belong the title of lordship, but it shall be shewn by us, without any great toil, that you go to this in most unlearned wise. For come tell me who ask thee, what Christ you are defining, whose you say is both the manhood and likewise the Godhead: if the Word out of God the Father, you have clearly confessed that the Same is man also, for you said that His is the human nature: but if him that is born of the Virgin according to thee, you will be caught no less pronouncing that He is God too: for you said that His is the Godhead also. On all sides therefore driven even against thy will to the Truth, confess with us One Christ and Lord: for thus will you cease from saying, "Hear the word Lord too, one while put of the human nature of Christ, one while of His Godhead, other while, of both:" for where there is One Son, what room is there to speak of both? and why dost thou smile at those who honour our Divine Mystery, saying most unholily, " As oft as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye declare the Lord's death? Hear from the foregoing the unlearning of the gainsayers, how they read the mighty profit of the mystery and Whoso memorial is set before men."

There is therefore nothing excellent in the unbloody sacrifice, but it profits very little, and he will place the force of its benefit in merely declaring a man's death and making a memorial of one like us. Therefore He lies in saying that He is Life-giving, He Who does not know how to lie, Christ: We too have been deceived, holding a vain opinion of Him, and only now late and with difficulty are we being guided to the discovery of the truth by reading these words of yours. But to you who choose to think in this way, what is spoken through the Prophet's voice shall be said: Behold, your eyes are not good, nor is your heart. For he does not understand at all that we, setting forth the Death of Christ and also confessing His Resurrection, and thereby gaining perfection in the faith, then becoming partakers of His Divine Nature through participating in unity with Him, are sanctified both spiritually and bodily and are made alive. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality, and Christ has become for us the robe that is from Heaven, undecaying and productive of immortality. And our proof is the most holy Paul writing, at one time, Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and at another, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ, Who says in a manner befitting God and truly, I am the Resurrection and the Life.

There is therefore nothing excellent in the unbloody sacrifice, but it profits exceeding little, and he will put the force of the gain thereof in just merely declaring a man's death and making a memorial of one like us. Therefore He lies in saying that He is Life-giving Who knows not how to lie, Christ: "WE too have been cozened having a vain opinion of Him: and now late and with difficulty are we being guided unto the finding of the truth, by reading these thy words. But to you who choose to think thus, shall be said what is spoken through the Prophet's voice, Lo thine eyes are not, nor thine heart comely. For he by no means understandeth, that we setting forth the Death of Christ, confessing too His Resurrection, and gaining thereby perfection in the faith, then becoming partakers of His Divine Nature and that through participating of unity with Him, are sanctified spiritually alike and bodily and are quickened. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal put on immortality: and the robe that is out of Heaven and undecaying and productive of immortality hath Christ become to us. And our proof is the most holy Paul writing, one while, Put ye on our Lord Jesus Christ, at another again, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ, Who saith in God-befitting way and truly, I am the Resurrection and the Life.

He adds even fouler impiety to these things without any fear, saying: "Don't listen to me saying these things, but listen to blessed Paul: 'As often as you eat this bread, of which the Body is the antitype.' Let us see from this whose death it is. 'As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death.' Listen even more plainly to what follows: 'Until He comes.' Who then is the one who is to come? 'They will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory.' And even greater, the Prophet before the Apostles showed more clearly the One who is coming and cried out proclaiming concerning the Jews: 'They will look on Him whom they pierced.' Who then is He who was pierced? Does the side belong to the Body or to the Godhead?" Therefore, as I said, the profit of the Unbloody Sacrifice is petty, because perhaps it has not been feasible that the physis of the Godhead should also be consumed along with the Flesh, since we do not possess impossibilities and cannot eat the Incorporeal by Itself. But you seem to me to forget that it is by no means the physis of Godhead that lies upon the holy Tables of the Churches; yet it is the own Body of the Word Begotten of God the Father, and the Word is God by physis and in truth. Why then do you confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all but mocking at our Bread which is out of Heaven and gives Life to the world, because it is not called Godhead by the voice of theologians but is rather called the Body of Him who has become Man for us—that is, of the Word out of God the Father? And why, tell me, do you call it the Lord's Body at all, unless you know it to be Divine and God's? For all things serve their Maker.

To those things does he fearing nought put forth yet fouler impiety, adding, "Hear not me saying these things but the blessed Paul, As oft as ye do eat this bread, whereof the Body is the antitype. Let us see therefore herefrom whose is the death. As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's death. Hear yet plainer in what follows, Till He come: who then is he that is to come? They shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory. And greater yet, the Prophet before the Apostles did more clearly shew Him Who is coming and hath cried proclaiming concerning the Jews, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. Who then is He which was pierced? The Side, belongs the Side to the Body, or to the Godhead?" Petty therefore as I said, is the profit of the Unbloody Sacrifice, because perchance it hath not been, feasible that the Nature of the Godhead too should be consumed along with the Flesh, because we are not in possession of impossibilities, having the Incorporeal by Itself to eat. But you seem to me to forget that it is by no means the Nature of Godhead that lieth upon the holy Tables of the Churches, yet is it the own Body of the Word Begotten of God the Father: and God by Nature and in truth is the Word. Why therefore dost thou confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all but mocking at our Bread Which is out of Heaven and giveth Life to the world, because it is not called Godhead by the voice of the Divines, but rather the Body of Him Who hath become Man for us, that is, of the Word out of God the Father? And why (tell me) dost thou call it the Lord's Body at all, save because thou knowest it to be Divine and God's? for all things serve their Maker.

Your thoughts are not correct; instead, you believe that Emmanuel is merely a God-bearing man. And then, showing complete disregard for thoughts and words that belong to true piety, you assume that the Priest of Truth, the wise master-builder and teacher of the Gentiles, the truly holy and all-wise Paul, will support you in your false accusations by twisting the meaning of what he rightly and purely stated away from the straight and most reliable path.

Yea the things in thy mind are not right, but thou believest Emmanuel to be merely a God-clad man. And then utterly heedless of thoughts and words that belong to piety, thou supposest that the Priest of the Truth, the wise master-builder and teacher of the Gentiles, the truly holy and all-wise Paul will support thee in thy calumniating, bearing away from the straight and most approved path the force of what are rightly and without adulteration said by him.

For "let us see," he says, "whose is the death from this point. Till He come. Who is He Who is coming? They shall look on Him Whom they pierced." Therefore He will come Who suffered death humanly, has been raised divinely, Who also ascended into the Heavens, Who with all majesty is on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead and sits together with the Father, the Seraphim standing around, and the Highest Powers, not ignorant of the extent of their subjection to Him. Every Authority and Power and Lordship worships Him, for to Him shall every knee bow and every tongue confess, "Lord Jesus," to the glory of God the Father. He shall come (as I said) seen not in our lowliness, but rather in most God-befitting glory, Heaven and the Spirits above surrounding Him as their God and King and standing by the Lord of all. If therefore the Word of God the Father is not rather in flesh, or made Man, but is a God-clad man with a bodily side who endured the piercing, how is He seen on the Throne of the Supreme Godhead, revealed to us as a new god, fourth after the Holy Trinity? Have you not shuddered at presenting a mere man for worship of the creature? Are we then held in the ancient snares? Have we then insulted God and has the holy multitude of the spirits above gone astray with us? If we have been set free from the ancient deceit, refusing as blasphemous to worship the creature, why do you, casting us again into the old charges, present us as man-worshippers? For we know and believe that the Word from God the Father assumed flesh and blood. But since He has remained the Same, that is, God, He retained the Dignity of His inherent Excellence over all, even though in flesh as we are, yet being no less God now than before, even though He has been made Man. He has Heaven as His worshipper and the earth worshipping Him, for it is written, "The earth is full of Your praise, Your Power covered the Heavens, O Lord."¹³

For "let us see (he says) herefrom whose is the death. Till He come. Who is He Who is coming? they shall look on Him Whom they pierced. " He will come therefore Who suffered death humanly, has been raised Divinely, Who ascended too into the Heavens, Who with all state is on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead and co-sitteth with the Father, the Seraphim standing around, and the Highest Powers, not unknowing of the measure of their subjection to Him; every Authority and Power and Lordship worshipping Him: for to Him shall bend every knee and every tongue shall confess, Lord Jesus, to the glory of God the Father. He shall come (as I said) seen not in our littleness, but rather in most God-befitting glory. Heaven and the Spirits above encompassing Him as their God and King and standing by the Lord of all. If therefore the Word of God the Father be not rather in flesh, or made Man, but a God-clad man with bodily side and who endured the piercing, how is He seen on the Throne of the Supreme Godhead, revealed to us as a new god fourth after the Holy Trinity? hast thou not shuddered at a mere man, devising worship for the creature? are we then holden in the ancient snares? have we then done insult to God and has the holy multitude of the spirits above gone astray with us? if we have been set free from the ancient deceit, refusing as blasphemous to worship the creature, why dost thou casting us again into the old charges, exhibit us man-worshippers? for WE know and believe that the Word out of God the Father assumed flesh and blood: but since He hath remained the Same, i.e., God, He retained the Dignity of His inherent Excellence over all, albeit in flesh as we, yet being no less God, now too than of old, even though He have been made Man, He hath the Heaven His adorer and the earth worshipping Him: for it is written, that the earth is full of Thy praise, Thy Virtue covered the Heavens, O Lord.¹³

But you, in your extreme foolishness, do not see that He is this way in Nature and Glory. You said, "Who is he who comes? They will see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven," as if you were afraid people might not believe you when you say that the one who comes is son of man. You confirm your proof with prophetic testimony as well, saying that it is written, "They will look on Him whom they pierced." And thinking it would be even stronger proof, you most foolishly added, "Who then is the one who is pierced? The Side—does the Side belong to body or to Godhead?" If there were people who claimed that the Word of God did not become like us but came among those on earth in bare Godhead alone—that is, in appearance and as if in shadow, as some of the unholy heretics chose to think—you would have some excuse for framing your words this way, though still not staying within proper bounds. But since the preaching of the truth says clearly and plainly that the Word of God was made Flesh and was called son of man like us, and suffered for us in the flesh, and will also come in the same way He ascended into Heaven according to the Angel's voice too—then tell me, whom are you opposing? Whose teaching are you cutting down as ignorant and worthless when you try to show us that the One who comes is a man with a bodily side that was pierced through with the spear?

But THOU again, of thy over much infatuation, seest not that thus He is in Nature and Glory: for thou saidst, "Who is he who cometh? they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven," as though thou fearedst lest any should disbelieve thee saying that He Which cometh is son of man. Thou confirmest the proof thereof with prophetic testimony also: for thou sayest that it is written, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced. And yet mightier for proof as thou supposedst, most foolishly adding, "Who then is it (he says) that is pierced? the Side: belongs the Side to body or to the Godhead?" If there were any who say that the Word of God have not been made as we, but came among those on earth in bare Godhead, i.e., in semblance and as it were in shadow, as some of the unholy heretics thought good to think, you would have had some plea for such like framing of words; not passing the bound of what was meet: but since the preaching of the truth says clearly and manifestly that the Word of God was made Flesh and was called as we son of man too and suffered for us in the flesh and will also so come as He went up into Heaven, according to the Angel's voice too: whom (tell me) dost thou opposing, and whose opinion cutting off as unlearned and of no account, dost thou strive to shew us that HE Who cometh is a man with bodily side which has been pierced through with the spear?

But your goal (as I said) is to smuggle in to us Emmanuel as a God-clad man and not rather God made Man, for the Word of God has been made Man. And this faith agrees with the holy and Divine Scriptures, and the intent of the Apostolic and Evangelic Tradition points to this same thing. But YOU are also talking arrogantly in another way: for you pretend to be finding fault with those who blend into one ousia the physis of the flesh and of the Godhead (although there is no one as I believe who blends them together or mixes them with one another), and you say,

But thine aim (as I said) is to bring in privily to us Emmanuel as a God-clad man and not rather God made Man, for the Word of God has been made Man. And this faith goes along with the holy and Divine Scriptures and the aim of the Apostolic and Evangelic Tradition tends to this same thing. But THOU again art talking big in another way too: for thou pretendest to be finding fault with those who mingle into one essence, the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead (albeit there is no one as I deem who mingles them up or mixes them one with other), and sayest,

Nestorius: "Why, as we were just now hearing, when both are mingled together according to you, does our Lord, as He gives the disciples the power of the Mystery, say this: He took bread and gave thanks and gave it to His disciples saying, 'Take, eat, all of you, for this is My Body'? Why did He not say, 'This is My Godhead which is being broken for you'? And again, when giving the cup of the Mysteries, He did not say, 'This is My Godhead which is being poured out for you,' but rather, 'This is My Blood which is being shed for you for the remission of sins.'"¹⁴

Nestorius: "Why, as we were just now hearing, when both are according to thee mingled, does our Lord, delivering to the disciples the force of the Mystery, thus say, He took bread and gave thanks and gave to His disciples saying, Take, eat all of you for this is My Body. Why said He not, This is My Godhead Which is being broken for you? and again giving the cup of the Mysteries, He said not, This is My Godhead Which is being poured forth for you, but This is My Blood which is being shed for you for the remission of sins. "¹⁴

It is therefore utterly foolish to want to oppose positions that no one actually holds, and pointless to rush forward claiming to refute what nobody (I suppose) has bothered to think or say—how is this not obvious to everyone? For if someone chose to argue that an ox is not by physis a horse, nor is a man a horse, when no one would even consider thinking or saying such a thing, wouldn't he be laughed at as someone who talks in vain, beating the air and fighting against uncertain things, creating pointless effort and struggle against something that doesn't exist? For I am saying that what is actually confessed must first be established, so that then our own arguments can be properly set against it in due order.

That it is therefore an exceeding folly to want to oppose oneself to those who are not at all, and to no purpose to march forth, taking for contradiction that which no one (I suppose) cared either to think or say, how is it not manifest to all? for if one chose to contend that the ox is not by nature an horse, nor yet man an horse, whereas no one would even endure to think or say this;—-how would he not be laughed at and besides a vain talker, beating the air and fighting against things uncertain and devising for himself sweat and toil against what was not there? For I say that something confessed ought first to be laid down, in order that then in duo order ours may be ranged against it.

But let us consider this: if anyone should dare to say that the Word from God had been transformed into the physis of the body, one might very reasonably object to him that He, when giving His Body, did not rather say, "Take, eat, this is My Godhead which is being broken for you," and "this is not My Blood but rather My Godhead which is being poured forth for you." But since the Word, being God, made His own the Body born of a woman without undergoing any alteration or turning, how must not He who speaks no untruth say, "Take, eat, this is My Body"? For being Life as God, He made it Life and Life-giving.

But let us come to this: for if there be any who should dare to say the Word out of God had been transformed into the nature of the body, one might very reasonably object to him, that He on giving His Body did not rather say, Take eat this is My Godhead which is being broken for you, and, this is not My Blood but rather My Godhead which is being poured forth for you. But since the Word being God made His own the Body born of a woman, without undergoing any alteration or turning, how must not He who saith no untruth say, Take eat this is My Body? for being Life as God, He rendered it Life and Life-giving.

Having opened your eyes even a little to the Truth, I suppose you will now accuse yourself of your own excessive talking, which on all sides stammers and ignorantly directs this false and joyless argument of yours against the doctrines of piety.

Having therefore opened your eyes but a little to the Truth, you will I suppose charge, yourself against yourself, your superfluity of language, on all sides stuttering and unlearnedly arraying against the Doctrines of piety this thy counterfeit and joyless discourse.

Great indeed is the mystery of godliness, marveled at by the holy angels themselves, and the most wise Paul confirms this for us when he says, "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith." For the Mystery of Christ is truly wisdom—not human wisdom (how could it be?), but rather divine wisdom, stored in certain ineffable depths and incomprehensibilities. And the blessed David sings, "And He made darkness His secret place, around Him His pavilion dark water in clouds of the skies," calling darkness, I suppose, nothing other than the altogether dim conception of ideas that falls like mist upon the eyes of the understanding.

Great confessedly is the mystery of godliness, and marvelled at by the holy Angels themselves also, and hereto the most wise Paul confirms us saying, To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith. For wisdom verily, and that not human (how could it?) but Divine rather and deposited in certain ineffable depths and incomprehensibilities, is the Mystery of Christ. And the blessed David singeth, And He made darkness His secret place, around Him His pavilion dark water in clouds of the skies, palling darkness (I suppose) nought else save altogether the dim conception of ideas, falling like mist upon the eyes of the understanding.

We say, therefore, that the mystery of Christ has not at all required subtle investigations and searching beyond the reach of the mind, but rather faith that holds the tradition in a simple and sincere way. We ourselves have been taught and have believed that God the Father sent His own Son, who is God by physis, made man and born of a woman according to the flesh, so that He might justify those who believe in Him. Having freed them from stumbling through ignorance by His good and most gentle authority, He might present them clean and undefiled through Himself to God the Father, and might make those who are under death and decay partakers of His own divine physis. Indeed, He might preach recovery of sight to the blind, and might bring the flocks that had strayed into the light of the true knowledge of God, and might teach at last who it is who is truly and by physis God and the Creator of all. For He became the fragrance of the knowledge of God the Father, and in Him we have seen the One from whom He was begotten by physis, and we clearly know the way that leads us to everlasting life. The blessed prophet Isaiah cried out beforehand that the Son should shine upon the multitude of the Gentiles as well, saying, "Thus says the Lord, Egypt toiled and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over to You and they shall be Your servants, and they shall come after You bound in fetters: and they shall worship You, and in You shall they pray; for in You is God, and there is no God except You, for You are God and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Savior." And it is said somewhere to the Son, as from the person again of God the Father, "Behold, I have set You for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, that You may be for salvation to the end of the earth." For He established the new covenant for those of the blood and race of Israel, the first having grown old, and He shone as far as the boundaries of all that is under the sky also, to the nations and people in every place and city. For they have worshiped Him and they follow Him spiritually, held by the unbreakable chains of love, as in fetters, and nearly say what is in the prophet Jeremiah, "Behold, we will be Yours for You are the Lord our God." See, I ask, the keenness of the prophet's thoughts. "They shall worship You," he says, "and in You shall they pray, for in You is God, and there is no God besides You." Being clothed with the Spirit, he knew without question the Word from God the Father, who was to dwell in us, as the blessed evangelist John says. Therefore he says that God is in You. Yet he has not allowed Emmanuel to be separated into two gods, but even though the Only-Begotten was made man, he acknowledged Him even so as One and immediately added, "There is no God except You." For consider the prophet's utterance carefully. Having first declared, as I said, that God is in You, he has not added, "And there is no God except He who is in You," but gathering it into the unity of the economy (divine plan), says, "There is no God besides You."

We say therefore that the mystery of Christ hath by no means needed subtil investigations and search beyond the reach of mind, but faith rather that holds the tradition simple and guileless. Thus we ourselves also have been taught and believed that God the Father sent His own Son who is by Nature God, made Man and born of a woman after the flesh, that He might justify them that believe on Him and having freed from stumblings through ignorance, by His Good and most gentle authority, might present them clean and undefiled through Him to God the Father, and might make partakers of His own Divine Nature them who are under death and decay, yea and might preach recovery of sight to the blind, and might bring over the flocks which had strayed into the light of the true knowledge of God, and might teach at length who it is Who is by Nature and truly God and the Creator of all. For He became the savour of the knowledge of God the Father, and in Him we have beheld Him out of Whom He was begotten by Nature and know clearly the way that leadeth us unto everlasting life. That thus the Son should beam upon the crowd of the Gentiles too, hath the blessed Prophet Isaiah cried beforehand saying, Thus saith the Lord, Egypt toiled and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over unto Thee and they shall be Thy servants, and they shall come after Thee bound in fetters: and they shall worship Thee, and in Thee shall they pray; for in Thee is God, and there is no God save Thee, for THOU art God and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Saviour. And it is said somewhere to the Son, as from the Person again of God the Father, Lo, I have set Thee for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, that Thou mayest be for salvation unto the end of the earth. For He hath instituted to them of the blood and race of Israel, the new covenant, the first having waxen old, and He beamed as far as the boundaries of that beneath the sky also, to the nations and people in every place and city. For they have worshipped Him yea and they follow Him spiritually, holden by the indissoluble chains of love, as in fetters and well-nigh say what is in the Prophet Jeremiah, Behold WE will be Thine for THOU art the Lord our God. See (I pray) the vigilance of the Prophet's thoughts, They shall worship Thee (he says) and in Thee shall they pray, for in Thee is God, and there is no God beside Thee. He knew then confessedly as being Spirit-clad the Word Out of God the Father, Who should tabernacle in us, as saith the blessed Evangelist John: therefore he saith that God is in Thee; yet hath he not suffered Emmanuel to be Severed into two gods, but even though the Only-Begotten was made man, he acknowledged Him even so as One and straightway added, There is no God save Thee. For Consider accurately the Prophet's utterance. For having first declared (as I said) that God is in Thee, he hath not added, And there is no God save He that is in Thee, but gathering it into the Unity of the Economy, says There is no God beside Thee.

But that the only-begotten Word of God became man is declared to us by (so to speak) the whole God-inspired Scripture, and this is easy to show without effort by very many proofs. However, I think it is enough for now to say this. God said somewhere to blessed David, And I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall proceed from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name and I will establish his throne forever, and I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son. But someone (I suppose) will say that these things were spoken not of Emmanuel, but rather of Solomon. Yet the most wise Paul will strenuously oppose those who would understand it this way, for he takes the words of Christ and says that it is he to whom it has been said by God the Father, I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son. But that when made like us—that is, man—he should offer to God the Father all under heaven who are saved through faith in him, he made known saying elsewhere, And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who shall do all that is in my heart and in my soul, and I will build him a sure house and he shall walk before me forever. Observe (I ask) that having elsewhere said, He shall build a house for my name, the Father here promises to build the house for the Son. And the divine Paul, understanding this, said that Moses was faithful in all my house having the measure belonging to a servant, but Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house we are. And the manner of the ministry is things pertaining to us, not the blood of bulls and calves, but the confession of the faith of us all. And blessed Paul will again confirm it, writing thus: Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to him who appointed him. We say therefore that the Word from God the Father, when receiving the form of a servant and said to have been emptied for our sake, then also humbled himself to the measure of human nature, to which will belong (and very reasonably) both the appearance of being sent and the reckoning of the ministry as the sign of the very highest honor. For if when he became as we are, he worshiped with us as man, even though the host above and the holy spirits worship him, and Moses says of him, Rejoice, O heavens, with him and let all the sons of God worship him, what is there strange or what is inconvenient to the nature of the economy if he has been called High Priest as offering for us as a fragrance of a sweet smell himself and us through himself and in himself to God the Father? For we are a sweet fragrance of Christ, as it is written. But this noble person again affirms that these things have been done in no proper order, and all but smiles at those who conceive that these things were so, and impiously finding fault with the divine purposes, says thus:

But that the Only-Begotten Word of God made man, is declared to us by the (so to speak) whole God-inspired Scripture, is easy to shew without toil by very many proofs: but I think it is enough for the present to say this. God said somewhere to blessed David, And I will set up out of thy seed after thee Him who shall proceed out of thy bowels and I will prepare His Kingdom: He shall build an house for My Name and I will stablish His Throne for ever, and\ will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son. But some one (I suppose) will say that these things were said not of Emmanuel, but of Solomon rather: yet the most wise Paul will strenuously oppose those who would thus understand it, for he takes the words of Christ and says that it is He to Whom it has been said by God the Father, I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son. But that when made like unto us, i. e., Man, He should offer to God the Father, all beneath the sky saved through faith in Him, He made known saying elsewhere, And I will raise Me up a faithful Priest who shall do all which is in Mine heart and in My soul, and I will build Him a sure house and He shall walk before Me for ever. Observe (I pray) that having elsewhere said, He shall build an house for My Name, the Father here promises to rear the house for the Son. And the Divine Paul understanding this, said that Moses was faithful in all My house having the measure pertaining to a servant, but Christ as a Son over His own house, Whose House are WE; and the mode of the ministry, things pertaining to us, not the blood of bulls and of calves, but the confession of the faith of us all. And blessed Paul will again certify it, writing thus, Wherefore holy brethren partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him That appointed Him. We say therefore that the Word out of God the Father, when receiving servant's form He is said to have been emptied for our sake, then too did abase Himself in the measure of the human nature, whereto will pertain (and very reasonably) both the seeming to be sent and the accounting the ministry the token of the very highest honour. For if when He became as we, He have worshipped with us as Man, albeit the Host above and the holy spirits worship Him, and Moses says of Him, Re joice O ye heavens with Him and let all the sons of God worship Him; what is there strange or what inconvenient to the nature of the Economy if He have been called High Priest as offering for us for an odour of a sweet smell Himself and us through Himself and in Himself to God the Father? for we are a sweet savour of Christ, as it is written. But this noble person again affirms that these things have been wrought in no fit order, and all but smiles at those who conceive that these things were so, and impiously finding fault with the Divine purposes, says thus:

When people hear the title Apostle, they think God the Word was an Apostle; when they read the title High Priest, they imagine—through a kind of absurd madness—that the Godhead was High Priest. For who, learning about the work of an Apostle, would not immediately recognize that a human being is meant? Who, hearing the title High Priest, would suppose that the ousia (essence) of the Godhead was High Priest? For if the Godhead is High Priest, who is the one served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? If God is the one who offers, there is no one to whom the offering is made, since there is nothing worthy of the Godhead to which it should offer as if to something greater. And to this he adds: "Why then do they suppose that God, who does not need sacrifices for his own advancement as the high priests do, has now been called High Priest? Is the possessor of Godhead taken from among human beings and ordained for human beings in matters relating to God?"

Nestorius: "For they hearing the name of Apostle, deem that God the Word was Apostle; reading the name High Priest, they fancy that the Godhead was High Priest, by a species of paradoxical craziness: for who learning of the ministry of an Apostle, would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on hearing the appellation of High Priest, would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High Priest? for if the Godhead be High Priest, who is he who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? if God be the Offerer, there is none to whom offering is made: for what is there worthy of Godhead that as less It should offer to the greater?" And hereto he adds, "Whence then is God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement like the high priests? Is the possessor of Godhead, taken from among men, ordained for men in things God-ward?"

Therefore do you say that the Word of God has not even been sent into the world? The very wise Paul has apparently deceived those who were called through him, for he said, "God sent forth His Son made of a woman, made under the law." The blessed David too will be found, according to you, idly fantasizing and seeking impossible things, for he said somewhere to God the Father in Heaven, "O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth." And what (tell me) will not the Son Himself also speak falsely in saying, "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved," and again, "I came forth from the Father and am come"? The wise John too writes somewhere of Him, "He that receiveth His testimony set to his seal that God is true, for He Whom God sent speaketh God's words." But we say that the Word of God has been sent, having with the measures of the emptying the name and reality of being sent. But YOU—why do you ignorantly fear and blush to assign to Him the name and reality both of the apostolate and the High-priesthood? Would it be fitting, do you suppose, as if He were someone other than Himself—the man born of a woman having, according to you, a mere connection and that in equality of dignity only? How then is the Word, being God, seen to benefit our condition any longer, if we have been presented to God the Father through another? For we no longer have access through Him, but a man like us has become our mediator, having the name of Godhead put on him.

Therefore dost thou say that the Word of God has not been even sent into the world? The most wise Paul hath cozened (it appears) those who were called through him, for he said, God sent forth His Son made of a woman, made under the law: the blessed David too will be found according to thee idly romancing and seeking impossible things, for he said somewhere to God the Father in Heaven, O send out Thy Light and Thy Truth. And what (tell me) will not the Son Himself too speak falsely in saying, For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might he saved, and again, I came forth from the Father and am come. The wise John too writes somewhere of Him, He that receiveth His testimony set to his seal that God is true, for He Whom God sent speaketh God's words. But we say that the Word of God hath been sent, having with the measures of the emptying the name and fact of being sent: but YOU why do you unlearnedly fear and blush to allot to Him the name and fact both of the apostolate and the High-priesthood? would it befit (do you suppose) as other than He, the man born of a woman having (according to you) a mere connection and that in equality of dignity only? how then is the Word being God seen to profit any longer our condition, if we have been even presented to God the Father through another? for no longer have we had the access through Him, but a man like us has become our mediator having the name of Godhead put on.

Yes, he says, the priesthood is too small for the Word begotten from God the Father. Too small, I agree—you are stating the truth—but He did not appear to those on earth in bare Godhead. Rather, He became human like us, and for us the priesthood is something great and excellent. But if He refused the priesthood as something belonging to humanity, or indeed anything that pertains to the condition of servanthood, would it not have been far better to refuse the Incarnation itself before this?

Yea (says he) the priest's office is petty to the Word begotten out of God the Father. Petty confessedly, I agree with you enunciating the truth, but not in bare Godhead did He dawn on those upon the earth, but rather made man as we, to whom the priesthood is some great and choice thing. But if He refused the priest's office as belonging to man, or indeed ought that appertains to the measure of bond-service, how were it not better far, before this to refuse too the Incarnation?

He did not reject being born for our sake. But this man, as I said, is ashamed of the truth, showing himself foolish and ignorant, even though blessed Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes." One may well marvel that the Word of God, for the salvation and life of all, endured such great humiliation—yet the inventor of these pointless teachings for us is somehow ashamed even to acknowledge it, though he ought to wonder at this and cry out with the blessed Prophet, "O Lord, I have heard Your report and was afraid, I considered Your works and was amazed." But since the whole God-inspired Scripture in effect rises up against him and arrays the truth against him, showing that his argument in favor of his own inventions is cold, lacks any real substance, and is without support from anywhere, and is greatly lacking in the concepts and ideas that lead to what is right and true—therefore what no one who has a good reputation for correct doctrine has ever thought or said, this he makes the subject of his argument. He fights with shadows and exhausts himself pointlessly, with no one opposing him or wanting to argue about these matters. I consider this to be beating the air. For he said, "Who, upon learning of the ministry of an apostle, would not immediately know that a man is indicated? Who, upon hearing the title of High Priest, would suppose that the ousia of Godhead were High Priest?" Since there is no one who says this, with whom, tell me, are you contending? And as though you alone were refuting what is condemned by everyone's voice, are you perhaps thinking your opposition is even worthy of honors? Yet how is it not true that since no one says this, it is you who are bringing forward what it would be better to keep silent about and not instill into the souls of the simpler people? For who is so insane as to suppose that the ousia of Godhead were High Priest? Aaron was a man, though he obtained preeminence over the rest in Divine Priesthood. How then will anyone suppose that the ousia of Godhead is High Priest, or how will he not completely and certainly confess that a man is being mentioned when the brother of Moses is named to us as High Priest? Yet he, putting forth some language that commonly belongs to and befits every high priest among us, tries to undo the marvel of the Economy understood in Christ, and dares to shake our Divine Mystery from its very foundations, not considering that Christ has founded the Church upon a rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. For he does not at all condescend to follow the common doctrine and that of all who are accustomed to think rightly, but he alone introduces without examination whatever he pleases. For WE, as I said before, say that the Word out of God the Father, made Man, offered to Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith and carried out an Economy befitting and by no means out of harmony with the measures of the emptying. But this does not seem right to him. Instead, taking separately and apart him that is from the holy Virgin as though he were another Christ than the Word That is out of God the Father, he says that he became the Apostle and high priest of our confession, and he supposes that he is thinking what contributes to piety when he says, "If God is the offerer, there is no one to whom offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that, as though It were lesser, It should make offering to the greater?" Now if there were anyone contending and saying that He That is truly Word out of God the Father had been appointed to the office of priesthood even before the Incarnation and was in the measure of ministry and was for this reason to be called High Priest and Apostle, he would have given a wise rebuke, and one would say that his argument on this had been made at the right time. For the physis That rules all is not lacking in priests, that He should minister in that capacity Himself. But since the Only-Begotten, being God by physis and receiving from the hands of those who execute the Priest's office their ministrations, has descended to the measure of those appointed to the priesthood, having become Man (as I said), it will be nothing strange if He is also called by us High Priest. Has He not come down in servant's form, having taken the form of a servant, though He is the Impress and Brightness of the Father's Glory? No one will doubt it. When therefore He Who is in His own physis Free as God, He Who is in the Form and Equality of the Father, has been called a slave—economically not rejecting the measure of those who are under the yoke of bondage—why do you fear to call Him High Priest too by reason of the Manhood? For He dedicates us as an odor of a sweet smell through faith, and He Himself has offered Himself for us as a most sweet-smelling offering to the Father.¹

Yet He rejected not for our sakes the Birth. But this man (as I said) is ashamed of the truth, shewing himself unwise and unskilled, albeit the blessed Paul saith, For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. And one may well marvel that the Word of God for the salvation and life of all endured to suffer so great abasement, which the inventor for us of idle teachings is (I know not how) ashamed merely to acknowledge, albeit he ought to wonder hereat and to cry with the blessed Prophet, O Lord, I have heard Thy report and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was amazed. But since the whole God-inspired Scripture in a manner rises up against him, and arrays against him the truth, shewing that his discourse in favour of his own inventions, cold and without any real being and destitute of support from any quarter, lacks in no small degree the conceptions and ideas that tend unto Tightness and truth; hence what no one of those well reported of for rightness of doctrine, ever either thought or said, this he makes the occasion of his discourse, and fights with shadows and strains himself to no purpose, no one opposing him or wishing to contend about these matters. And this (I deem) is to beat the air. For he said "Who on learning of the ministry of an apostle would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on hearing the appellation of High Priest would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were High-Priest?" Since therefore there is no one who says this, with whom (tell me) are you striving, and as though yourself alone were overthrowing what is condemned by the voice of all, are haply thinking that your opposition is worthy even of honours? albeit how is it not true that since no one saith this, it is you who are bringing forward what it were better to be silent on and not to instil into the souls of the more simple? For who is so crazed as to, suppose that the Essence 'of Godhead were High Priest?' Aaron was a man, albeit he obtained preeminence of the rest in Divine Priesthood. How then will any one suppose that the Essence of Godhead is High Priest, or how will he not wholly and surely confess that mention is made of a man when the brother of Moses is named to us as High Priest? Yet he putting forth some language that commonly belongs to and befits every High Priest of those among us, essays to undo the marvel of the Economy understood in Christ, and dares to shake from the very foundations our Divine Mystery, not considering that Christ hath founded the Church upon a rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. For he no wise condescends to follow the common doctrine and that of all who are wont to think aright, but he alone innovates without examination what he pleases. For WE (as I said before) say that the Word out of God the Father, made Man, offered to Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith and wrought an Economy befitting and by no means out of harmony with the measures of the emptying. But not so does it seem to him, but he taking separately and apart him that is from forth the holy Virgin as though another Christ than the Word That is out of God the Father, says that he became the Apostle and high priest of our confession and supposes that he is thinking what conduce unto piety when he says, "If God be the offerer, there is none to whom offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as though less It should make offering to the greater?" Now if there were any who were contending and saying that He That is truly Word out of God the Father had been appointed to office of priesthood even before the Incarnation and were in the measure of ministry and were for this reason to be called High Priest and Apostle, he would have given a wise rebuke, and one would say that his argument hereon had been made in season. For not in lack of priests is the Nature That rules all, that Himself should minister therein. But since the Only-Begotten, being God by Nature and receiving from the hands of those who execute the Priest's office their ministrations, hath descended unto the measure of those appointed unto the priesthood, having become Man (as I said), nought strange will it be if He be called by us High Priest too. Hath He not come down in servant's form, having taken that is the form of a servant, albeit Impress and Brightness of the Father's Glory? None will doubt it. When therefore He Who is in His own Nature Free as God, He Who is in the Form and Equality of the Father, has been called bond, economically not thrusting from Him the measure of those who are under the yoke of bondage, why dost thou fear to call Him High Priest too by reason of the Manhood? for He dedicates us for an odour of a sweet smell through faith, and Himself hath He offered for us as a most sweet-smelling offering to the Father.¹

But he (saying I don't know what) immediately adds to these things: "From where then were God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest, who does not need sacrifices for His own advancement? Is the possessor of Godhead taken from among men and appointed for men in things pertaining to God?" From where then Christ, that is, the Word from God made man, came, or why He was called Apostle and High Priest, our discussion has already clearly shown. But I think it is right not to leave his unusual and strange statement unexamined. For does he say that the Word from God is Possessor of Godhead, even if anyone should wish to think of Him apart and without flesh? Does he define His Godhead as something other than Himself? I don't know how (as he says) He has become possessor of it, as though it came to Him and was added to Him from outside, although He was not once God by Nature—like what that ancient woman, I mean Eve, said when she bore Seth: "I gained a man through God." But I think this must be completely rejected by him and by all. Why then does he speak so imprecisely, and throw around words without understanding in matters so important? Would not someone earn laughter and be accused of insanity if one chose to say that any among us were the possessor of human nature, or a horse of horse-nature? Who then is the possessor of Godhead, who is taken from men and ordained in things pertaining to God? Perhaps he will say, dividing into two the One Christ, that it is Him who is from the Holy Virgin—for I suppose this is where his aim is now directed as well.

But he (saying I know not what) straightway subjoins to these things; "Whence then were God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement? is the possessor of Godhead taken from among men appointed for men in things God-ward?" Whence then Christ, i. e., the Word out of God made man, was, or why He was called, Apostle and High Priest, our discourse has already clearly shewn, but I think it right not to leave unexamined his unwonted and strange utterance. For doth he say that the Word out of God is Possessor of Godhead, even though any should wish to conceive of Him apart and without flesh? doth he define His Godhead as other than He? whereof I don't know how (as he saith) He hath become possessor, as though it accrued to Him and came to Him from without, although once not God by Nature, like what was said by that ancient woman, I mean Eve, when she bare Seth, I gat a man through God. But this I deem is wholly to be spurned by him and by all. Why then doth he speak with inexactness, and fling about words without understanding, in matters so cogent? would not one earn laughter and accusal of insanity, if one chose to say that any among us were the possessor of human nature, or a horse of horse-nature? who then is the possessor of Godhead, who taken from men is ordained in things to Godward? Haply he will say severing into two the One Christ, Him that is forth of the Holy Virgin: for to this I suppose now too is his aim directed.

Has the Godhead (tell me) become the possession of a man, and has it happened to any one of us to become God by physis and in truth and to be rich in the excellence of the ousia that is above all and supreme? Away with this bad advice, O man, for none of those counted among created things may acquire and possess as their own the physis of Godhead. The Body of the Word was His own, and as one with it, God and Christ and Son and Lord have been worshipped by creation, and the Heavens praise, and we praise with them. For as the Prophet says, His Goodness covered the Heavens and the earth was full of His Praise—not as though a man obtained Godhead (for how or from where could he?), but because the Word from God the Father had taken possession of human flesh. But suppose that the one who was taken from among men was the possessor of Godhead (as you seem to think)—how is he ordained in things pertaining to God, that is, as High Priest? Will he therefore, lacking the Godhead which he obtained, minister in the priestly office to God, or already having it as his own? For this and nothing else is what saying that he obtained it would mean. But if he lacks it, he did not obtain it; if he has it as his own, then Godhead will surely minister in the priestly office to God. Why then do you wander around confused and mix everything together and feel no shame, falsely marking the tradition of the Faith?

Hath the Godhead then (tell me) become the acquisition of a man, and hath it befallen any one of us, to become God by Nature and in truth and to be rich in the excellence of the Essence that is above all and Supreme? Away with the ill-counsel, o man, for none of those accounted among things generate may acquire and have as his own the Nature of Godhead: His own was the Body of the Word and as one therewith God and Christ and Son and Lord hath the creation worshipped, and the Heavens do praise and we with them. For as the Prophet saith, His Goodness covered the Heavens and of His Praise was the earth full, not as though a man gat Godhead (for how or whence could he?) but that the Word out of God the Father had come into possession of flesh of man. But be it that he who was taken out of men was owner of Godhead (as seems good to yourself), how is he ordained in things to Godward, i. e., as High Priest? will he therefore bare of the Godhead which he gat, minister in the Priest's office to God, or already having it as his own? for this and nought else will the saying that he gat it signify. But if bare of it, he gat it not; if having it as his own, Godhead will surely minister in the Priest's office to God. Why then do you wander distractedly and jumble all together and blush not, stamping with false mark the tradition of the Faith?

The Word from God the Father has compelling reason to be said to carry out the priestly office before the Father, for He has been called Priest not separately from flesh, but having been made like us (as I said), to whom the glory of the priesthood is considered an honor.

The Word out of God the Father hath cogent reason even though He be said to execute the Priest's Office before the Father; for He has been styled Priest not apart from flesh, but made (as I said) as we, to whom the glory of the priesthood is accounted an honour.

There is another way to see that it is utterly absurd and full of foolishness to say that the one who was taken from among human beings and appointed to serve God possesses Godhead. If he was taken by God, how could he possess the physis (nature) that took him? Whatever is taken belongs to the one who takes it as a possession; it is not the case that what is taken becomes the possessor. For example, when a man comes to possess wealth or acquires skill in something, isn't it obvious to everyone that he will not himself be the possession of the wealth or of the skill that came to him, but rather the possessor of what he has obtained? This, I think, is beyond doubt.

In another way too it is not hard to see that it is the absurdest possible thing and replete with much folly to say that he who was taken out of men and ordained unto God-ward, is possessor of Godhead; for if he were taken by God, how possessed he the Nature Which took him? for that which is taken will rather belong to him who took it, as a possession, not that which is taken be the possessor. As for example, A man has become the possessor of wealth, or again of skill unto anything: is it not plain to all that he will not himself be the possession of wealth or again of the skill that accrued to him, but rather the possessor of what he has gotten? but this is I think in no way doubtful.

Therefore, if when we investigate the manner of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find that a man became God by coming to possess Godhead, then let him be called (using your expression) possessor of Godhead, since the Godhead has become his. But if the Word, being God, took possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father became man by receiving the servant's form, how could anyone not be out of his mind if he chose to say that what was taken possessed the physis that acquired it, rather than having become the very own property of the one who took it?

Hence if on enquiring into the mode of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find that man became God as coming into possession of Godhead, let him be called (after your phrase) possessor of Godhead, for his hath the Godhead become. But if the Word being God came into possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father, hath become Man, receiving the servant's form, how would one not be distraught, if he chose to say that that which was taken possessed the Nature That acquired it and hath not rather become the very own of Him Who took it?

But he shows that he carries the force of his own words and inventions, and even the very name of high priesthood itself, in an unlearned way to a mere man born from a woman, taking it away from the Only-Begotten and Word who is from the Father. He will make this clear in what follows, for he has written again in this way:

But that he carries round the force of his own words and inventions and moreover the very name of high Priesthood in unlearned wise unto a mere man born from forth a woman, bearing it away from the Only-Begotten and Word That is out of the Father, he will make manifest by what follows too: for he has written again on this wise:

Nestorius: "He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of Abraham's seed. Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? Listen also to this statement: 'Therefore it was necessary for Him,' he says, 'to be made like His brothers in all things.' Did God the Word have brothers who were like His Godhead? Notice what immediately follows: 'That He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, for in that He Himself has suffered being tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted.' Therefore, the One who suffered is a merciful High Priest. What is passible is the Temple, not the life-giving God of the one who has suffered. The seed of Abraham is the one who is yesterday and today, as Paul says, not the One who says, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' The one who is like his brothers in all things is the one who took on the brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not the One who says, 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father.'"²

Nestorius: " Not Angels doth He take hold of, but Abraham's seed He taketh hold of. Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? Hear the following utterance too: Wherefore it behoved Him, he saith, in all things to be made like unto His brethren. Had God the Word any brothers like unto His Godhead? Mark what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be made a merciful and faithful High Priest in things to God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore He Who suffered is a merciful High Priest: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him that has suffered: the seed of Abraham is he which is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He That saith, Before Abraham was I am. Like to his brethren in all things is he which assumed brother-hood of human soul and flesh and not He which saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. "²

The Word, being God, took Abraham's seed (as Nestorius has just now confessed). How then can he who comes from the seed of Abraham still possess Godhead, if he was taken by God rather than himself taking Godhead? The seed of Abraham will by no means be the physis of Godhead, but rather has become the Body of God the Word, according to the Scriptures, and His own. And He who in His own proper physis is not counted among the creation, as God, when He became Man who is part of the creation—then, and rightly so, He condescends to call us brothers, saying, "I will declare Your Name to My brethren." But that because of the extent of emptiness, the Word from God the Father has descended even to the point of calling those on earth His brothers, the most wise Paul will clearly show, writing of Him and us: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, 'I will declare Your Name to My brethren.'" For before the Incarnation, the name of brotherhood with us was exceedingly insignificant to the Word who sprang from God. But when He had descended to voluntary emptiness, it was still insignificant, yet it has come fittingly, for He has partaken of blood and flesh and has been called Brother of those in flesh and blood. For if He is sanctified in that He has become Man although He is God by physis and Himself the Giver of the Spirit, how, if He is also called Brother, will it not be said in proper order? For He has become as we are so that He might make us brothers and free, for "as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe on His Name, who were begotten not out of blood nor out of the will of the flesh nor out of the will of man but out of God." For the Word from God the Father has been born among us according to the flesh so that we too might be enriched with the birth from God through the Spirit, no longer called children of flesh but transformed rather into what was above nature and called sons of God by grace. For He has been made as one of us who is by physis and truly Only-Begotten Son.

The Word therefore being God took (as he too hath just now confessed) Abraham's seed; how then is he that is forth of the seed of Abraham any longer possessor of Godhead, if he were taken by God, did not himself take Godhead? The seed of Abraham then will by no means be the Nature of Godhead, but rather hath become the Body of God the Word, according to the Scriptures, and His Own, and He Who in His own proper Nature is uncounted among the creation as God, when He became Man who is part of the creation, then, then and with reason deigns He to call us brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. But that by reason of the measure of emptiness, the Word out of God the Father hath descended even to having to call those upon the earth His brothers, the most wise Paul will clearly shew, writing of Him and us, For both He That sanctifieth and they who are being sanctified are all out of one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. For before the Incarnation, exceeding petty to the Word Which sprang of God was the name of brotherhood with us: but when He had descended unto voluntary emptiness, petty was it thus too, yet hath it come fitly in, for He hath partaken of blood and flesh and of those in flesh and blood has been styled Brother. For if He is sanctified in that He have become Man albeit God by Nature and Himself the Giver of the Spirit, how if He be called Brother too, will it not be so said in due order? for for this cause He hath become as we that He might render us brothers and free, for as many (it says) as received Him, to them gave He authority to become children of God, to them that believe on His Name, which were begotten not out of blood nor out of the will of the flesh nor out of the will of man but out of God. For the Word out of God the Father has been with us born after the flesh that we too might be enriched with the birth out of God through the Spirit, no longer termed children of flesh but transelemented rather into what was above nature and termed sons of God by grace: for He has been made as one of us who is by Nature and truly Only-Begotten Son.

And the word is unerring; Paul, who speaks divine truth, will give us assurance of this, saying, "And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father." Why then do you do violence to the wisdom of the economy as if it had been accomplished in some unfitting order, when you say, "Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? Did he have any brothers like to the Godhead?" Is this not clear madness? For to absurdly investigate and twist into blasphemy things so right and blameless regarding the economy in Christ—what else is this but proof of complete distraction? For confessedly, with respect to the physis of the body or of human nature perfect as far as it is concerned, the Word out of God the Father has been made like us and in every way like us except sin alone. But I will ask him who says "Did God the Word have any brothers like to the Godhead?"—what idea, I ask, did the most holy Paul have in mind when he wrote to certain people, "Little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," and elsewhere too to those who through faith are perfected in spirit, "But we all with unveiled face reflecting the glory of the Lord are changed into his image from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit; now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord, there is liberty"? Does he therefore say this to the Galatians because they do not have the impress, in regard to bodily form, of that which is of the seed of David after the flesh, but is he travailing again with them that Christ after the flesh may somehow be engraved on them and formed in them? Yet surely everyone, I suppose, will unhesitatingly say that all who are on earth are conformed to one another and to Christ himself, insofar as he is conceived of as man, who is both man and with us. What formation unto Christ, then, was being sought for in them? Or how are we transformed from glory to glory? What form are we leaving, and into what are we being changed? Let therefore the divine initiator come forward and teach us, the priest of the divine mysteries, the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth; for "whom he knew, and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, them he also called." Therefore, as I just said, in that he was made man and was of the seed of Abraham, we all are conformed to him. All therefore who are on earth, the Father both foreknew and foreordained; and these having called, he sanctified and glorified. But truly not all were foreordained, not all were sanctified or glorified. The fact therefore of conformation to the Son will not be conceived of as existing in the physis alone of the flesh or of manhood, but in another way also, and this the blessed Paul sets before us saying, "And as we bore the image of the earthy we shall bear the image too of the heavenly"—calling the image of the earthy that of our forefather Adam, and of the heavenly, that of Christ. What then first is the image of our forefather? Proneness to sin, becoming subject to death and decay. What again is that of the heavenly? Being in no way overcome by passions, not knowing how to transgress, not being subject to death and decay, holiness, righteousness, and whatever is akin to and like these. But these, I suppose, will befit the divine and untainted physis to possess, for holiness and righteousness are superior to both sin and decay. Herein does the Word out of God the Father restore us too, rendering us partakers of his own divine physis through the Spirit.

And unerring is the word; the Divine-uttering Paul will give us assurance thereto, saying on this wise, And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father. Why then do you offer violence to the wisdom of the economy as though it appeared to have been wrought in no fitting order, in that you say, "Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? had He any brothers like to the Godhead?" Is not this clear madness? for the absurdly enquiring into and bearing away unto blasphemy, things so right and unblameable in respect of the Economy in Christ, what else is it than proof of the most utter distraction? for confessedly in respeot of the nature of the body or of human nature perfect as far as itself is concerned, has the Word out of God the Father been made like unto us and in every thing like save sin alone. But I will ask him who says "Had God the Word any brothers like to the Godhead?" what idea (I pray) had the most holy Paul in his mind when he wrote to certain, Little children of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, and elsewhere too to those who through faith are perfected in spirit, But WE all with unveiled face reflecting the glory of the Lord are changed into His image from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit; now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord, there liberty? Doth he therefore say this to the Galatians as not having the impress in regard to bodily freedom, of that which is of the seed of David after the flesh, but is he travailing again with them that Christ after the flesh may somehow be engraven on them and formed in them? albeit how will not every body (I suppose) unhesitatingly say, that all who are on the earth are conformed one to another and to Christ Himself, in so far as He is conceived of as man, Who is both Man and with us? what formation then unto Christ was it that was sought for in them? or how are WE transformed from glory to glory, what form leaving, unto what are we transelemented? Let therefore the Divine initiator come forward and teach us, the Priest of the Divine Mysteries, the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity; for whom (says he) He knew, and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, them, He also called. Therefore (as I said just now) in that He was made man and was of the seed of Abraham, we all are conformed to Him: all therefore who are on earth, the Father both fore-knew and fore-ordained; and these having called He sanctified and glorified. But verily not all were fore-ordained, not all were sanctified or glorified:—-the fact therefore of conformation unto the Son will not be conceived of as existing in the nature alone of the flesh or of manhood, but in another way also, and this the blessed Paul sets before ua saying, And as we bare the image of the earthy we shall bear the image too of the heavenly; calling the image of the earthy, that of our forefather Adam, of the heavenly, that of Christ. What then first is the image of our forefather? proneness to sin, becoming under death and decay. What again that of the heavenly? being in no wise overcome of passions, not knowing to transgress, not being subject to death and decay, holiness, righteousness, and whatever are akin to and like these. But these (I suppose) will befit the Divine and Untaint Nature to possess: for superior to both sin and decay is Holiness and Righteousness. Herein does the Word out of God the Father restore us too, rendering us partakers of His own Divine Nature through the Spirit.

He has brothers like Himself who bear the image of His Divine Nature with regard to holiness, for this is how Christ is formed in us—the Holy Spirit, as it were, transforming us from human things into things that are His own. Therefore the blessed Paul also said to us, "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." So the Son does not transfer anything that has been made into the Nature of His own Godhead (for that would be impossible). Rather, the spiritual likeness with Him is impressed on those who have been made partakers of His Divine Nature through their partaking of the Holy Spirit, and the Beauty of the Ineffable Godhead shines upon the souls of the saints. Why then, assigning only the likeness of the flesh, do you not blush with shame, disregarding the Divine and Spiritual forming—indeed, taking it away entirely? Yet the Lord of all and Only-Begotten God lowered Himself to emptiness for our sakes, so that He might bestow on us the dignity of brotherhood with Him and the Beauty, worthy of all love, of His Innate Nobility. And this man, robbing us of all that is most lovely, says that a mere man has become our brother and shows that his account of this is certain (as he supposes), adding: "Mark too what is straightway joined on to these, 'That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.' Therefore a merciful High Priest is He That suffered: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him which hath suffered." Therefore, by choosing to think this way and moreover daring to say it, he severs again into distinct hypostases and into two prosopa the Word from God the Father and him whom he has just introduced to us as a God-bearing man—if indeed one person by himself is he that suffered, and another is he that quickens. I suppose no one will doubt this.

He has therefore brothers like to Himself and bearing the image of His Divine Nature, in regard of holiness; for thus is Christ formed in us, the Holy Ghost as it were transelementing us from things human unto those that are His own. Therefore to us too said the blessed Paul, But YE are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Therefore the Son transfers not ought at all of things that have been made into the Nature of His own Godhead (for that were impossible): but there is impressed on those who have been made partakers of His Divine Nature through their partaking of the Holy Ghost the spiritual Likeness with Him, and the Beauty of the Ineffable Godhead flashes upon the souls of the saints. Why then dost thou assigning the mere and alone likeness of the flesh, not blush, disregarding the Divine and Spiritual forming, yea rather taking it utterly away? Yet the Lord of all and Only-Begotten God lowered Himself unto emptiness for our sakes, that He might bestow on us the Dignity of brother-hood with Him and the Beauty worthy of all love, of His Innate Nobility: and this man, bereaving us of all that is most lovely, says that a mere man hath become our brother and shews that sure (as he supposes) is his account hereof, adding "Mark too what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore a merciful High Priest is He That suffered: passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him which hath suffered." Therefore that by choosing thus to think and moreover daring to say it too, he severs again into distinct hypostases and into two Persons, the Word from forth God the Father and him whom himself has just introduced to us as a God-bearing man, if so be that one and apart by himself is he that suffered, and another he that quickeneth, I suppose that no one whatever will doubt.

But he is also mistaken in another way, having drunk wine from the vine of Sodom and become intoxicated with error, perhaps not even knowing what he is saying. For where has the Word from God the Father been called (I shudder to say it) the God of Christ? There is one Lord Jesus Christ, and one faith in Him—not as if in two distinct prosopa, but as through one baptism into one Son and God and Lord, the Word from God the Father even when He became man. For He will not lose being God simply because He became as we are (how could He?), nor does He consider likeness to us inadmissible or reject being man simply because He is God by physis. Rather, just as He has remained God in human nature, so being both in the physis and preeminence of the Godhead, He is nonetheless man. Therefore both are in the same one, and one God and man is Emmanuel.

But in another way also is he beside himself, having quaffed wine from forth the vine of Sodom, and drunk with error and haply not even knowing what he saith: for where hath the Word out of God the Father been called (I shudder at saying it) the God of Christ? for there is One Lord Jesus Christ, and one faith in Him, not as though in two distinct persons, but as through one Baptism into One Son and God and Lord, the Word out of God the Father even when He became Man. For not because He became as we, will He lose the being God (how should He?) nor yet because He is God by Nature, doth He hold the likeness to us inadmissible nor will He reject the being man; but as He hath remained in human nature God, so being both in the Nature and Pre-eminence of the Godhead, none the less is He Man. Both therefore in the Same, and One God and Man is Emmanuel.

But this fellow, rejecting the pattern of the Economy as inappropriate, removes the human nature from God the Word, so that he may finally be clearly seen to have in no way helped our condition. For he says that it was not the Word who became a merciful and faithful High Priest, but assigns this instead to the one who suffered as being someone other than the Word. Yet how could he not, if he had wanted to be a wise teacher, have carefully examined the expressions and concepts that are in the God-inspired Scripture and recognized that this is something which is both truly fitting for God and not incompatible with what befits and is appropriate to the emptying? And we will explain how, as briefly as we can.

But this good man rejecting the mode of the Economy as uncomely, removeth from God the Word the human, that He may at last be clearly seen to have in no way aided our condition. For he says that not He became an High Priest both Merciful and Faithful, but allots this rather to him that suffered as being other than He. Yet how should he not, if he had desired to be a wise initiator, have made an exact muster of the expressions and ideas that are in the God-inspired Scripture and considered that this is a thing which is both truly God-befitting and not apart from what befits and beseems the emptying: and how we will say as briefly as we can.

The God of all gave the Law to the people of old, with Moses as mediator. But the Law did not have the power to enable those who wanted it to do good without any fault, for it perfected nothing. Nor was the first covenant found to be without fault, but the all-wise Paul called it the ministry of condemnation. I hear him say, "We know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may come under judgment before God, because by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (for the Law produces wrath, and the Letter kills), and as he himself says somewhere, "He who despised Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses." Therefore, since the Law condemns those who sin and sometimes decrees the most extreme punishment on those who disregard it, and shows no pity at all, how was it not necessary for a Compassionate and truly Merciful High Priest to appear to them on earth? One who would make the curse cease, stop the condemnation, and free sinners with forgiving grace and with the inclination of mercy? For "I," He says, "am He who blots out your transgressions and will not remember." For we have been justified by faith and not by the works of the Law, as it is written. In whom, then, are we justified by believing? Is it not in Him who suffered death for us according to the flesh? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? Have we not been redeemed by proclaiming His Death and confessing His Resurrection? Therefore, if we have believed in a man like us and not rather in God, this is man-worship and clearly nothing else. But if we believe that He who suffered in the flesh is God, who has also been made our High Priest, we have not erred at all, but acknowledge the Word from God made Man. And thus faith directed toward God is required of us, who removes from condemnation and frees from sin those who are held by it. For the Son of man has authority on earth also to forgive sins, as He Himself says. Therefore, contrasting the salvation and grace that comes through Christ with the harshness (so to speak) of the law's severity, we say that Christ was made a Merciful High Priest. For He was and is God Good by physis and Compassionate and Merciful always, and did not become this in time but was revealed to us as such. And He has been called Faithful, as remaining what He is always, according to what is also said of the Father Himself: "But God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able."³

The God of all uttered the Law to them of old, Moses being mediator. But there was not in the Law the power of achieving good without any blame, to those who wished it (for it hath perfected nothing). But neither was the first covenant found faultless, but the all-wise Paul called it the ministry of condemnation. I hear him say, We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become under sentence before God, because by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, (for the Law worketh unto wrath, and the Letter killeth), and as himself somewhere saith, He that despised Moses' law dieth without mercy under two or three witnesses. Seeing therefore that the Law condemneth them that sin and decreeth sometimes the uttermost punishment to them that disregard it, and in no wise pitieth, how was not the manifestation to them on the earth of a Compassionate and truly Merciful High Priest necessary? of One Who should make the curse to cease, should stop the condemnation and free sinners with forgiving grace and with the bending of clemency? for I (He says) am He that blotteth out thy transgressions and will not remember. For we have been justified by faith and not out of the works of the Law, as it is written. On Whom then believing are we justified? is it not on Him who suffered death for us after the flesh? is it not on One Lord Jesus Christ? have we not on declaring His Death and confessing His Resurrection been redeemed? If therefore we have believed on a man like us and not rather on God, the thing is man-worship, and confessedly nothing else: but if we believe that He That suffered in the flesh is God, Who hath been made also our High Priest, we have no ways erred, but acknowledge the Word out of God made Man: and thus is required of us faith God-ward, Who putteth out of condemnation and freeth from sin those that are taken thereby. For the Son of man hath authority on the earth also to forgive sins, as Himself too saith. Contrasting therefore with the salvation and grace that is through Christ the harshness (so to speak) of the law's severity, we say that Christ was made a Merciful High Priest. For He was and is God Good by Nature and Compassionate and Merciful always, and hath not become this in time but was so manifested to us. And He has been named Faithful, as abiding what He is always, according to what is said of the Father Himself too, But God is faithful Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.³

Emmanuel has therefore been made for us a merciful and faithful High Priest. For, as Paul says, the former priests were many because death prevented them from continuing, but He, because He continues forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. That the Word from the Father has remained God, even though made priest as it is written, on account of the manner and mode fitting the Economy with flesh—the word of the blessed Paul has been sufficient for our full assurance, for he said again: Now this is the sum of what has been said: We have such a High Priest who sat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. See therefore how the Word who sprang from God is shown to be God in supreme excellencies and in the seat of Godhead, and the same One executing the priest's office as man and offering to the Father no earthly sacrifice but rather a divine and spiritual one, and how He has heaven as His holy tabernacle. For He has been made High Priest not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indestructible life, as it is written. Therefore He is faithful in this also, and certain to those who come to Him, that He is able quite easily to save them completely, for with His own blood and with one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. For I think this is what the holy Paul shows us when he says: for in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted. Why then, disregarding thoughts that pertain to piety and straying from words of rightness and truth, does he say, "He who suffered is a merciful High Priest, the passible temple, not the life-giving God of Him who suffered"?

A merciful and faithful High-Priest therefore has Emmanuel been made unto us; for (as Paul saith) the one were many priests because they were by death hindered from remaining, He, because He continneth for ever, hath a priest-hood that passeth not, wherefore He is able to save also unto the uttermost them that come unto God through Him, ever living to intercede for them. That the Word out of the Father hath remained God, albeit made priest, as it is written, on account of the fashion and mode that befitteth the Economy with flesh, the word of the blessed Paul hath been sufficient unto our full assurance, for he said again, Now of the things which have been said this is the sum, We have such an High Priest, Who sat at the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the Very Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Yiew therefore view the Word Which sprang of God illustrious as God in supremest excellencies and in the Seat of Godhead, and the Same executing the Priest's Office as man and offering to the Father no sacrifice of earth but Divine rather and spiritual and how He has Heaven as His Holy Tabernacle. For not after the law of a carnal commandment has He been made High Priest, but after the power of an indissoluble life, as it is written. Faithful therefore is He in this too, and sure to them who come to Him, that He is able full easily to save them quite, for with His own Blood and with One Offering hath He perfected for ever them that are sanctified. For this I deem doth the holy Paul shew us saying, for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. Why then unrecking of thoughts which pertain unto piety and straying from words of rightness and truth, does he say, "He That suffered is a Merciful High Priest, Passible the Temple, not the Life-giving God of Him Who suffered?"

That the Word of God has willingly suffered in the flesh for our sake will be demonstrated at the appropriate time. However, the author will be convicted of dividing the Indivisible and presenting two Christs through the implications of his ideas—even though he clearly states there is One Christ—based on what he immediately adds next. For he said again,

That the Word of God then hath of His own Will suffered in the flesh for our sakes, shall be shewn in its own time: but that he is severing the Inseverable and setting forth two christs by the effect of his ideas, even though he clearly say One Christ, he shall be no less convicted through what has been forthwith subjoined, for he said again,

According to Nestorius, the seed of Abraham is the one who was yesterday and today, as Paul says—not the one who says, "Before Abraham was, I am." The one who took on the brotherhood of human soul and body, being like his brothers in every way, is not the one who says, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The one who was sent is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, for "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, and therefore he anointed me."

Nestorius: "Abraham's seed is He Who was yesterday and to-day, according to the voice of Paul, not He Who saith, Before Abraham was, I am. Like to His brethren in all things, He Who assumed brotherhood of human soul and body, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, He was sent Who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, for the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, wherefore He anointed Me."

You therefore clearly divide Him into two again, so how are you not convicted of being fleshly and not having the Spirit, as the Saviour's disciple says? But the power of the Truth will stand against your words, O man. For we affirm that the Word Himself from God the Father took hold of Abraham's seed, and made His own the body having a rational soul, the body which was assumed from the holy Virgin. And truly by true union we say that One and the Same is He Who was yesterday and today and forever, and Who before Abraham existed divinely, and was made man afterward and underwent birth from a woman. Therefore He will not lie in saying, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham was I am.

Thou severest therefore into two again and that patently, then how art thou not convicted of being sensual and having not the Spirit, as saith the disciple of the Saviour? but the might of the Truth will array itself (o man) against thy words. For we affirm that the Word Himself out of God the Father took hold of Abraham's seed, and made His own body having a reasonable soul the body which was assumed of the holy Virgin. And verily by true union do we say that One and the Same is He Who was yesterday and to-day and for ever, and Who before Abraham Divinely, was made man after and underwent birth of a woman. Hence He will not lie in saying, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am.

But he does not understand at all what "yesterday and today and forever" means. For in order to show that the Word of God is eternal and unchangeable by nature, even though He has become man, the writer divided all of time into three periods and put "yesterday" for past time, "today" for present time, and "forever" for future time. But this crude man unreasonably says that "yesterday" and "today" are spoken by the writer of a common man, not considering that this will certainly show Him to have been older and pre-existent to His own birth, if He were at all of "yesterday," which indicates past time. That He who is "yesterday and today," Jesus Christ, is not one person, and He who says "before Abraham was I am" is another person, but One and the Same through a true union—the Word having become man like us and having preserved to His own nature, even when He became man, the attribute of being without beginning in time—one can see this without difficulty in the God-inspired Scripture. For as the blessed Evangelist John says about Christ the Savior of us all, "John bears witness of Him and cried out saying, 'He that comes after me has been made before me, for He was before me,'" and again, "The next day he looks at Jesus coming to him and says, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me comes a Man who has been made before me, for He was before me.'" You see then, very clearly, the divinely-inspired Baptist calling Jesus a man and coming after him, as being born later and after him, yet preceding him and pre-existing, for this, I think, is what the words "for He was before me" and "has been made before me" mean. How then, if He is a man, is He conceived of as pre-existing and said to be before him who had the start of Him in time and whose birth in the flesh was older than His? For if this were said of a man like us, everyone would (I suppose) be at a loss to defend it, but regarding Christ the Savior of us all, there is no difficulty. For He who is from God makes His own the birth of His own flesh, yet He is not ignorant that He is Maker of the worlds and has pre-existence as God, and is co-eternal with His own Father. For we do not say that He has His being contemporaneous with the birth of His own body, but was (as I said) ineffably begotten of the essence (ousia) of God the Father. Therefore having His being before Abraham as God, even though He became man, He will not speak falsely in saying, as One in truth both Son and Lord, "Before Abraham was I am."

But he does not the least understand what yesterday and to-day and for ever is. For that he may shew that the Word of God is Eternal and that by Nature and superior to change and turn, even though He have been made Man, he parted the whole of time into three periods, and puts yesterday of past time, to-day of the present, and for ever of the future. But this boorish man against reason [says] that yesterday and to-day are spoken by him of a common man, not considering that it will full surely shew Him to have been older and pre-existent to His own Birth, if He were at all of yesterday, which is indicative of time past. That not one is He that is yesterday and to-day, Jesus Christ, another He Who saith, before Abraham was I am, but One and the Same by a true Union, the Word having been made Man as we and having preserved to His own Nature, even when He was made man, the being without beginning in time, one may see and that without trouble, in the God-inspired Scripture. For as the blessed Evangelist John saith of Christ the Saviour of us all, John beareth witness of Him and hath cried saying, He That cometh after me has been made before me, for He was before me, and again, The next day he looketh at Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world, This is He of Whom I said, After me cometh a Man Which has been made before me, for He was before me. Thou seest then and that very clearly the Divine-uttering Baptist calling Jesus a Man and coming after, as being late-born and after him, yet preceding him and pre-existing, for this, I deem, the words, for He was before me and has been made before me, mean. How then if He is a Man, is He conceived of as pre-existing and is said to be before: him who had the start of Him in time and had his birth in the flesh older than His? For if this were said of a man like us, every body would (I suppose) be at a loss to defend it, but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, there is no difficulty. For He Who is out of God makes His own the birth of His own flesh, yet is He not ignorant that He is Maker of the worlds and hath pre-existence as God, and is Co-eternal with His own Father. For we do not say that He hath His Being contemporaneous with the birth of His own body, but was (as I said) ineffably begotten of the Essence of God the Father. Therefore having His Being before Abraham as God even though He was made Man, He will not speak falsely in saying, as One in truth both Son and Lord, Before Abraham was I am.

Do not be surprised if He has assigned to His own physis the existence before Abraham. Rather, consider that although He had taken a body from the holy Virgin, He said to Nicodemus, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" and "No one has ascended up into heaven but He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man"—although He was also called son of man, born of a woman according to the flesh. Will He then be false in saying that the son of man, that is, Himself, has come down from Heaven? Not at all, for He is Himself the Truth. How then can the son of man be rightly understood as from above? Because the Word, being God and out of the ousia that is above all, is said to have come down and to have taken the servant's form. Therefore He speaks with us, no longer as bare Word, but as man like us, and as already understood as One with the Flesh united to Him. And just as, by reason of what befits the emptying, He makes His own all that belongs to His own Flesh, although by physis unembodied, so Himself being from above and out of Heaven, He assigns again the coming from above to Himself even when He has been made Man, even though He has been born according to the flesh with us of a woman. The properties therefore of the human nature have become the very own of the Word, and those of the Word Himself, the very own of the human nature. For thus is understood One Christ and Son and Lord.

And marvel not if He hath apportioned to His own Nature the being before Abraham, but consider rather that albeit He had taken a body of the holy Virgin, He said to Nicodemus, If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things? and no man hath ascended up into heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son of Man, albeit He was called son of man too, born of a woman after the flesh. Will He then be false in saying that there hath come down from Heaven the son of man, i. e., Himself? Not so, for He is Himself the Truth. How then will the son of man be rightly conceived of as from above? because the Word being God and out of the Essence That is above all, is said to have come down and to have taken the servant's form. Therefore He converseth with us, not as any longer bare Word, but man as we, and as already conceived of as One with the Flesh united to Him. And as by reason of what beseemeth the emptiness, He maketh His own all that belongs to His own Flesh, albeit by Nature unembodied; so Himself being from above and out of Heaven, He allotteth again the coming from above to Himself even when He hath been made Man, even though He hath been born according to the flesh with us of a woman. The properties therefore of the human nature have become the very own of the Word, those again of the Word Himself, the very own of the human nature: for thus is conceived of One Christ and Son and Lord.

But since this innovator has added that "like to His brethren in all things is He Who assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who says, 'He that has seen Me has seen the Father,'" let us now consider again, as best we can, what he is saying here. For he too has confessed that the Son is the Image and Impress of God the Father. But let him come forward and teach who it is that "assumed brotherhood" of human soul and body—that is, with us. For no one would say that a man like us, such as (for example) Barnabas or Paul or any other of those counted among human beings, could be said to take brotherhood of human soul and body, as though he were something other than this and thus took it. Rather, he simply is what he is by being it. Therefore no one who is a man could be thought of as taking what he already is, as though it were something other than himself. But it would be fitting for the Word who came forth from God, who has no place among us in regard to the count of His own physis, to take "brotherhood of human soul and body" with us. And the word of truth contends on our side, as does the tradition of the undefiled Faith. It holds that God the Word in the Form of God the Father has been made our Brother in all things, taking "brotherhood of human soul and body," and will not speak falsely in saying, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." For if anyone among us had fallen into such unlearning in his ideas as to suppose that God the Father Himself who is in Heaven must necessarily come down, even to having likeness with us (I mean bodily), he might well have feared that when Christ says, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father," he might be imagining that He too from Whom He is was in form as we are, and in bodily fashion. But since when He was made man He preserved His being as God, and holds the Beauty of His own physis untarnished, I would in no way shrink from saying that He possesses likeness with us, in respect of His being man as we are, Who is of soul and body, although He is God by physis and Impress of the prosopon of Him Who begot Him. Therefore one and the same is He, like to His brethren after the flesh, yet showing in His own physis Him too Who begot Him, in regard, I say, to His being God.

But since this innovator has added that " like to His brethren in all things is He Who assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," come now let us again consider as we can what it is which he here saith. For that the Son is the Image and Impress of God the Father, he too hath confessed: who again "He is Who of human soul and body assumed brotherhood," i. e., with us, let him come forward and teach; for no one would say that a man like us, such as (for example) Barnabas or Paul or any other of those who are reckoned among men, would be said to take brotherhood of human soul and body, as though he were ought else than this, and so took it, but he is so rather in being what he is. Not one therefore who is man could be conceived as taking the being what he is, as though it were other than he: but it will beseem rather the Word which sprang forth of God, having no rank among us in regard to the count of His own Nature, to take "brotherhood of human soul and body" with us. And the word of the truth contends on our side and the tradition of the undefiled Faith. It holds then that God the Word in the Form of God the Father has been made our Brother in all things, taking "brotherhood of human soul and body," and will not speak falsely in saying, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For if any among us had fallen into such unlearning in his ideas as to suppose that God the Father Himself Which is in Heaven must needs come down, even to the having likeness with us (I mean bodily); he might well have feared lest that when Christ says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, he might be imagining that He too out of Whom He is, was in form as we, and in fashion of body. But since when He was made man, He preserved the being God, and holdeth the Beauty of His own Nature untarnished, I would no wise shrink from saying that He possesseth likeness with us, in respect of His being man as we, Who is of soul and body, albeit God by Nature and Impress of the Person of Him Who hath begotten Him. One therefore and the Same is He, like to His brethren after the flesh, yet shewing in His own Nature Him too Who begat Him, in regard I say to His being God.

But this man does not understand this (how could he?). Instead, he corrupts (so to speak) the plan of the mystery which is right and pure, and introduces to us one christ and another christ. Caught up in Jewish accusations, he does not perceive where he is or into what depths of evil he has fallen. For those of the blood of Israel heard God crying aloud through one of the holy Prophets concerning Emmanuel, "And you Bethlehem house of Ephratha, little are you to be among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall He come to Me to be ruler in Israel, and His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity," and again, "His generation who shall tell? because His life is raised from the earth." They did not understand the mystery at all, nor did they know that although He is God by physis and has the origin of His Being as Invisible and Incomprehensible, He was called a Bethlehemite because He was born there in the flesh from the root of Jesse and David. They said to one another, "Is not this the one they seek to kill? Look, He speaks boldly and they say nothing to Him. Do the rulers know that this man is the Christ? Yet we know this man and where He is from, but when Christ comes, no one knows where He is from." For they heard (as I said) the Prophet saying plainly, "His generation who shall tell?" and that He has His goings forth or His Being before every age. Consider again (I pray) the vastness of Jewish stupor: for after saying "When Christ comes, no one knows where He is from," they said again to one another, "Of a truth this is the Prophet." Others said, "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Did not the Scripture say that Christ comes from the seed of David and from Bethlehem the village where David was?" Do you see how they stagger, confessing both His being apart from beginning, Divinely, and His fleshly generation in time? But they would not have been carried away into such extravagant misunderstanding if they had truly known that the Word, being God, proceeded as Man from the root of Jesse and David and from the holy Virgin, and that the Lord of earth and Heaven and of all was also called a Bethlehemite, for He shared poverty with us though being Rich, as it is written.

But this man doth not understand this (whence should he?) but adulterating (so to speak) the plan of the mystery which is right and unalloyed, he introduces to us one and another christ, and caught in Jewish accusals, perceives not where he is nor in what reach of ills he hath come. For they of the blood of Israel heard God crying aloud through one of the holy Prophets respecting Emmanuel, And THOU Bethlehem house of Ephratha, little art thou to be among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall He come to Me to be ruler in Israel, and His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity: and again, His generation who shall tell? because His life is raised from the earth. And they, no wise understanding the mystery nor yet knowing that albeit God by Nature and having the origin of His Being Invisible and Incomprehensible, He was called Bethlehemite as being there born after the flesh out of the root of Jesse and David, said one to another, Is not this He Whom they seek to hill? lo, He speaketh boldly and they say nothing unto Him; do the rulers know that This Man is the Christ? Yet we know this Man whence He is, but Christ when He cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. For they heard (as I said) the Prophet saying plainly, His generation who shall tell? and that He hath His goings forth or His Being before every age. View again (I pray) the vastness of Jewish stupor: for on saying The Christ when He cometh, no one knoweth whence He is, they said again one to another, Of a truth this is the Prophet: others (it says) said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? said not the Scripture that out of the seed of David and from Bethlehem the village where was David, the Christ cometh? Seest thou how they stagger, confessing both His being apart from beginning, Divinely, and His fleshly Generation in time? But they would not have been carried away into mis-counsel thus extravagant, if they had known truly that the Word being God, proceeded Man out of the root of Jesse and David and of the holy Virgin, and that the Lord of earth and Heaven and of all was called a Bethlehemite too, for He shared poverty with us being Rich, as it is written.

Why therefore are you plunging yourself into the deceptions of the Jews, both thinking and saying what it is neither lawful to say nor harmless to conceive? Confess with us one Christ, and do not divide him into two again by saying this: "He who was sent is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind." Where then will the teaching of the inspired teachers go, who have instructed everyone under heaven? For they have proclaimed that the very Word from God the Father was made Savior and Redeemer of all—not as though some man other than he were mediating, like Moses, but rather as having come down to us in bodily likeness and form, for thus he has been anointed as High Priest and Apostle. And indeed he rebuked the Jews saying, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" Why, I ask, should we exclude him who emptied himself to save all under heaven from the most God-befitting and truly admirable achievements that have been wrought for us, by saying that someone other than he, consubstantial with ourselves, has been sent? Yet would it not be better to say and to think that he has been both sent and has been made consubstantial with us—that is, man—yet remaining consubstantial with God the Father himself also, as he is both conceived of and was and is God? For he is what he was, even when he assumed the humanity, and having the same ousia with God the Father who is in heaven, he grasped in wisdom the likeness with us too. He has also been set forth as Mediator, combining through himself into a union of relation things completely separated from one another according to the pattern of their physis. For being God by physis, he was made man in truth, so that we too might be called offspring no longer of the first, that is, of the earthy one to whom it was said by God, "Earth you are and to earth you shall return," who leads even to death, but of the second, from above and out of heaven—Christ I mean, who brings us again to purest life, and makes incorrupt what is held by death and frees from sins what was enfolded by the toils of sin. Thus the Father himself says somewhere to the Son, "Behold I have given you for a covenant of the race, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring forth from chains the bound and from the prison-house those who sat in darkness." And again by the voice of Isaiah, "The beasts of the field shall honor me, the sirens and the daughters of the ostriches, because I gave water in the wilderness and rivers in the thirsty land to give drink to my offspring, chosen, my people whom I won for myself, to declare my virtues." Understanding this very well of the Gentiles called through faith to true knowledge of God, the divinely-speaking Peter writes and says, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should tell out the virtues of him who calls you out of darkness into his wondrous light, once not a people, but now a people."

Why therefore plunging thee in the sleights of the Jews dost thou both deem and say what it is neither lawful to say nor yet harmless to conceive of? confess with us One Christ, and do not severing into two again say this, "He was sent that is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. " Whither then will go the word of the divines, who have been initiators of all under Heaven? for they have cried aloud that the very Word out of God the Father, was made Saviour and Redeemer of all, not as though a man other than He were mediating, like as Moses, but rather as come down to us in bodily likeness and form, for thus has He been anointed as High Priest and Apostle. And indeed He rebuked the Jews saying, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? if he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken: Him Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do YE say [to Him], thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? why (I pray) shall we put Him Who abased Himself unto emptiness that He might save all under Heaven, forth of the most God-befitting and truly admirable achievements that have been wrought unto us-ward, by saying that there has been sent some other than He consubstantial with ourselves? albeit how were it not better to say and thus to chuse to think, that He has been both sent and hath been made consubstantial with us, i. e., man: yet abiding Consubstantial with God the Father Himself too, as He is both conceived of and was and is God? for He is, He is what He was, even when He assumed the humanity, and having sameness of Essence with God the Father Which is in Heaven, He grasped in wisdom the likeness with us too; as Mediator too has He been set forth, combining through Himself unto an union of relation things completely dissevered one from another as to the plan of their nature. For He being God by Nature has been made man in truth, that we too might be called offspring, no more of the first, that is, of the earthy, to whom it was said by God, Earth thou art and unto earth shalt thou return, who conducteth even unto death, but of the second, from above and out of Heaven, Christ I mean Who bringeth us again unto purest life, and rendereth incorrupt that which is holden of death and freeth from sins that which was enfolden by the toils of sin. Thus saith somewhere the Father Himself to the Son, Behold I have given Thee for a Covenant of the race for a Light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring forth of chains the bound and of the prison-house them that sat in darkness; and again by the voice of Isaiah, The beasts of the field shall honour Me, the Sirens and the daughters of the ostriches, because I gave water in the wilderness and rivers in the thirsty land to give drink to Mine offspring, chosen, My people whom I won for Myself, to declare My Virtues. The which understanding very well of those of the Gentiles called through faith unto true knowledge of God, the Divine-uttering Peter writeth and saith, But YE are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should tell out the Virtues of Him Who calleth you out of darkness into His wondrous light, of old not a people, but now a people.

But if, as you think it good to think and say, "he who was sent is consubstantial with us," then he is no longer consubstantial with the Father. In that case, we have in no way been made partakers of the Divine Nature, but have remained, as I said, and still are, offspring of the first man, who leads us to curse and death and under the penalty of sin. We have therefore been deceived and are still in the same condition we were in long ago, before the Advent. How then did old things pass away and become new? And where is the truth of "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature"?⁴

But if as seems good to thee to think and say, "he was sent who is consubstantial with us," no longer with the Father, in no wise have WE been made partakers of the Divine Nature, but have abode as I said, and are yet offspring of the first, of him who conducteth unto curse and death and under penalty of sin. We have therefore been deceived and are no less now too in that case wherein we were of old and before the Advent. How then did old things pass away and lo they have become new? and where is, If any be in Christ, he is a new creature?⁴

But are you ashamed to confess the Word of God made man as we are? Do you therefore criticize Him and say that He planned nothing wise when He emptied Himself for our sakes? Therefore you will hear Him say, "Get behind Me, Satan, you are an offense to Me, for you do not savor the things that are of God but those of men." Search with us the God-inspired Scripture: He appeared long ago to the Patriarch Jacob too, when he was departing from Laban's household and was at the very fords of Jabbok, as it is written: "For Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him until morning, and he knows that he does not prevail against him, and he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh stiffened in his wrestling with him. And he said to him, 'Let me go, for the dawn has come,' and he said, 'I will not let you go unless you bless me.'" And after this again, "And Jacob called the name of that place, The Form of God, for I saw God face to face and my life was preserved; and the sun rose upon him when he passed by the Form of God." Understand therefore how He did not deign to show Himself then to the Patriarch as an incorporeal and impalpable Word, foreshadowing to him the type of the mystery, but He who wrestled and spent the whole night at it was a man. But when the day was dawning and it was morning, He says, "Let me go," which was clearly the word of one who was bringing the wrestling to an end.

But are you ashamed to confess the Word of God God made man as we? do you therefore chide Him and say that He hath planned no wise matter when He emptied Himself for our sakes? Therefore thou shalt hear Him say, Get thee behind Me Satan, thou art an offence unto Me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those of men. Search with us the God-inspired Scripture; He appeared of old to the Patriarch Jacob too when he was departing from Laban's hearth, and was at the very fords of Jabok, as it is written: for Jacob was left alone and there was wrestling a man with him until morning, and he knows that he prevaileth not against him and he touched the flat of his thigh and the flat of Jacob's thigh stiffened in his wrestling with him; and he said to him, Dismiss me for the dawn hath gone up, and he said, I will not dismiss Thee except Thou bless me. And after other again, And Jacob called the name of that place, The Form of God, for I saw God Face to face and my life was preserved; and the sun rose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Understand therefore how not as incorporeal and impalpable Word did He deign to shew Himself then to the Patriarch, foreshewing to him the type of the mystery, but He Who wrestled and consumed the whole night thereupon was a man. But when the day was dawning and it was morning, He says, Dismiss Me, which was clearly the word of one who was bringing to an end the wrestling.

And we must explain what the plan of the mystery is. With those who remain as if in night and darkness, and have a spiritual mist over their mind and heart and cannot yet understand the mystery concerning Him, He typically wrestles and fights and overcomes. But with those who are now in light and, so to speak, in spiritual morning and have good understanding of the mystery, He no longer thinks it good to wrestle, but instead dispenses spiritual blessings to them. Therefore, if even eventually and with difficulty you yourself should also enter into the light and, so to speak, into the morning, He who conquers all would stop fighting with you. And see how, although it was a man who wrestled, the divinely-speaking Jacob says that he had seen God face to face, and the sacred Scripture added that the sun rose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Why then, I ask, are you ashamed of the measures of the emptiness, even though everyone (I suppose) who both holds the right faith and examines accurately the purpose of the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word from God the Father was both incarnate and made man? He therefore who is consubstantial with us in that He has been made man, and with the Father Himself in that He has remained God even in human nature, was sent preaching remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to heal the broken in heart, and to call the acceptable year of the Lord. For these deeds which have been done for us are His alone and no one else's, and one of the holy prophets shall be our guarantee, saying thus: No ambassador, no angel, but the Lord Himself saved us, who also most clearly says to us, Therefore My people shall know My Name in that day, I who speak am present. Yet if the one who has been sent were some mere man, how would He Himself be thought of as having spoken the Law which was given long ago to those of old? For if He were not proceeding as man, He would not be said to have been made man, lest He should be seen to have an existence earlier than His coming into being. But preexisting as God, He has indeed spoken the Law, but says that He is present in some strange and unusual way when He has been made man.

And what is the plan of the mystery, it is necessary to say. With them who abide as it were in night and darkness, and have a spiritual mist o'er mind and heart and I cannot yet understand the mystery Him-ward, He useth to wrestle and fight and overcome; but with them who are now in light and so to speak in spiritual morning and have good understanding of the Mystery, He thinketh not good any longer to wrestle, but dispenseth to them instead spiritual blessings. Hence if even at length and hardly you should enter in yourself too into the light and so to speak into the morning, He Who conquereth all would cease fighting with you. And see how whereas it was a man who wrestled, the Divine-uttering Jacob says that he had seen God Face to face: and the sacred Scripture added that the sun arose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Why therefore (I pray) are you ashamed at the measures of the emptiness, albeit every one (I suppose) who both holds the right faith and examines accurately the aim of the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God the Father was both Incarnate and made Man? He therefore Who is consubstantial with us, in that He has been made Man, and to the Father Himself, in that He hath remained God even in human nature, was sent preaching remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to heal the broken in heart, and to call the acceptable year of the Lord: for His Alone and of none other are the deeds which have been wrought us, and one of the holy Prophets shall be our pledge, thus saying, No ambassador, no angel, but the Lord Himself saved us, who also most clearly saith to us, Therefore My people shall know My Name in that day, I Who speak am present. Albeit if he who has been sent were some mere man, how would Himself be conceived of as having spoken the Law which was long ago given to them of old? for not at all proceeding as man, would He be said to have been made man, lest He should be seen to have an existence elder to His coming into being: but preexisting as God, He hath spoken indeed the Law, but says that He is present in some strange and unwonted way when He has been made Man.

But yes, he says, the Word being God fulfills all things: how then was He also sent, for where was He not Who fulfills all things? What shall we admit—that the Divine and Consubstantial Trinity has been contracted rather than that it is spread over all and fulfills all things? Then how has the great Moses, when some of the people of old were building the tower reaching to Heaven, presented God saying, "Come let us go down and there confound their tongues"? What descent did the Nature that fills both Heaven and earth need? It is written of the Holy Spirit too, "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the earth." The blessed David sings and says of those who lie in the earth to God Who is able to give life, "You shall send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created and You shall renew the face of the earth." How is that sent forth which fills all things? Do not therefore put forward as something clever and hard to overturn the idea that He Who is able to fulfill all things, the Word out of God the Father, cannot possibly have been sent. Do not rush to undo the truth and overturn the power of the Mystery. Rather, consider that He speaks in human terms about the things that belong to God, and they are understood by us only in such a way as He alone may know, and as He is accustomed to act.

"But yes (says he) the Word being God fulfils all things: how then was He also sent, for where was He not Who fulfils all things?" what (tell me) shall we admit that the Divine and Consubstantial Trinity has been contracted rather than that it is spread over all and fulfils all things? Then how hath the great Moses, when some of them of old were building the Heaven-reaching tower, introduced God saying, Come let us go down and there confound their tongues? what descent needed the Nature That fills both Heaven and earth? it is written of the Holy Ghost too, The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the earth; the blessed David sings and says of them that lie in the earth to God Who is mighty to quicken, Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth. How is That sent forth which filleth all things? Do not therefore (putting forward as something clever and hard to be overturned, that He Who is mighty to fulfil all things, the Word out of God the Father, has His mission an impossibility) hasten to undo the truth and to overturn the power of the Mystery; but consider rather that He speaketh in human wise of the things that belong to God and they are conceived of by us in such sort as both Himself Alone may know, and as He is wont to act.

But since He receives the anointing as something small and human and vastly beneath the dignity of the Only Begotten, come, let us say what is reasonable about this point too, clearing away stumbling blocks. If He had not been made Man, let Him cast off human things, let Him reject the Economy as placing Him in an inferior position and putting Him below the Supreme Glory and God-befitting Excellence, for what is ours is petty to the Word. But since the Mystery is truly wise and the fact of the emptying cannot be rejected by Him, why do you recklessly find fault with things that are right? And why do you turn away as unseemly what is crowned with His approval? Did you see Him anointed humanly? Behold the same One also anointing divinely, for it is written that John also bore witness saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him, and I knew Him not, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, This is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost, and I have seen and borne witness that This is the Son of God. For do you say that it is the work of the human nature to have power to baptize with the Holy Ghost those who believe? Yet how would it not be foolish to think this were so? For how would the lesser bestow the participation of that which is immeasurably superior? And observe that this very person upon whom the Spirit is said to descend and remain upon Him baptizes with the Holy Ghost, anointing (it is clear) as God with His own Spirit those who believe. And truly He rose from the dead and breathed on His disciples, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost. And they, receiving it, say, We received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. The most wise Paul too writes, They that are in the flesh cannot please God, but you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you: if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person is not His. And elsewhere too, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Therefore when you see Him anointed with His own Spirit, remember the economy with flesh and take account of the human nature: when you see Him give the Spirit, marvel at this—God in human nature too.⁵

But since as little and human and in boundless degree below the dignity of the Only Begotten He receives the unction, come let us say what is reasonable upon this point too, undoing occasions of offence. If therefore He have not been made Man, let Him shake off things human, let Him repudiate the Economy as putting Him in inferior position and setting Him behind the Supreme Glory and God-befitting Excellence; for petty to the Word is what is ours. But since the Mystery is of a truth wise and the fact of the emptying not to be rejected by Him, why dost thou foolhardily find fault with things that are right? and turn away as uncomely what is crowned with His Approval? didst thou see Him anointed humanly? behold the same also anointing Divinely: for it is written that John too bare record saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him and I knew Him not, but He That sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, This is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, and I have seen and borne record that This is the Son of God, For dost thou say that it is the work of the human nature to have power to baptize with the Holy Ghost them that believe? albeit how were it not folly to think that this were so? for how would the less bestow the participation of that which is immeasurably superior? And observe that this very person upon Whom the Spirit is said to soar down and to remain upon Him, baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, anointing (it is plain) as God with His own Spirit them that believe. And verily He rose from the dead, and breathed on His disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And they receiving, say, WE received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit Which is out of God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. The most wise Paul too writes, They that are in the flesh cannot please God, but YE are not in the flesh but in the spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you: if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, this man is not His. And elsewhere too, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Therefore when thou seest Him anointed with His own Spirit, remember the economy with flesh and take count of the human nature: when thou seest Him give the Spirit, with this marvel at God in human nature too.⁵

But this contentious man pays no attention to these things and says the following again:

But taking no account of these things this contentious man says again thus:

Nestorius: "This is the one who was made a faithful High Priest to God, for he was made so—he was not so from eternity. This, heretic, is the one who gradually advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood. Hear a clearer voice calling out to you: 'Who in the days of His Flesh, when He offered up prayers and supplications with mighty cry and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death and was heard for His Piety, though He were Son, He learned obedience by the things He suffered and, made perfect, became to them that obey Him the Author of indissoluble salvation.' What is perfected is what advances gradually, heretic. Concerning this, John also cries out in the Gospels: 'Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace.' In keeping with these things, Paul also says: 'Made perfect He became to all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation, called of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.' This is the one who is compared with Moses in regard to leadership, who is called the seed of Abraham, who is like his brethren in all things, who was made High Priest in time, who was perfected through sufferings, who because he suffered being tempted is able to help those who are tempted, who is called a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Why then do you interpret contrary to Paul, mixing together the Impassible God the Word with an earthly body and making Him a passible High Priest?"⁶

Nestorius: "This is he who was made a faithful High Priest to God, for he was made so, he was not so from eternity, this, heretic, is he who by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the high priesthood. Hear a clearer voice calling out to thee, Who in the days (it says) of His Flesh, when He offered up prayers and supplications with mighty cry and tears unto Him That was able to save Him from death and was heard for His Piety, though He were Son, He learned obedience by the things He suffered and, made perfect, became unto them that obey Him the Author of indissoluble salvation. That is perfected which advances by little and little, heretic. Respecting which John too cries out in the Gospels, Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace, conformably to which things Paul too speaking says, Made perfect He became unto all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation, called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedelc, this is he who is compared with Moses in regard to generalship, that is called seed of Abraham, that is like in all things to his brethren, that was made High Priest in time, that was perfected through sufferings, that in that he suffered beting tempted is able to succour them that are tempted, that is called an High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. Why then interpret contrary to Paul, commingling the Impassible God the Word with earthly body and making Him a passible High Priest?"⁶

Most vigorous attack, my friend, and truly spirited you have made upon the doctrines of piety. And the divine-speaking Baruch, pointing out the Word of God already Incarnate and seen in likeness to us, says, This is our God, there shall be no other accounted in comparison with Him. He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved: afterward He showed Himself upon earth and conversed with men. But you, calling out and that very often, This, indeed almost putting forth your hand—who is it that you manifest to believers and cause to be seen by them, and say that he advanced little by little to the High Priesthood? I suppose it is surely he of whom you just now specifically said, "Therefore a Merciful High Priest is he who suffered, not the quickening God of him who suffered: the seed of Abraham is he who is yesterday and today, as Paul says, not he who says, Before Abraham was I am; like his brethren in all things is he who assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He who says, He who has seen Me has seen the Father." And that in affirming that the Life-giving Word of God is God of him who suffered, involving yourself in the charge of inevitable blasphemy, you have done no small wrong, as sufficient reasoning made clear to us. But I marvel that you, oblivious of your own words, think it right to say and believe that He advanced little by little to the dignity of the High Priest, whom you say is even God Almighty. For with the Epistle written to the Hebrews before you, you are caught saying, "Yet this is the man who according to the flesh is akin to Israel, who in what is visible is Man, who according to Paul's statement was made from the seed of David, by connection God Almighty." How then did He advance, according to that idle talk, to the dignity of High Priest although testified by your own voice as Almighty God?

Most vigorous onslaught, my friend, and truly spirited hast thou made upon the doctrines of piety. And the Divine-uttering Baruch, pointing out the Word of God already Incarnate and seen in likeness to us, says, This is our God, there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him, He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved: afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and conversed with men. But THOU calling out and that full often, This, yea all but putting forth thine hand;—-who is it that you manifest to believers and cause to be seen of them, yea, and say that he advanced by little and little unto High Priesthood? I suppose it is surely he of whom but now specifying thou saidst, "Therefore a Merciful High Priest is he that suffered, not the quickening God of him that suffered: the seed of Abraham he who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not he who saith, Before Abraham was I am; like to his brethren in all things he that assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." And that in affirming that the Life-giving Word of God is God of him who suffered, involving yourself in the charge of inevitable blasphemy, you have done no slight wrong, sufficient reasoning made clear to us. But I marvel that thyself oblivious of thine own words, thou deemest right to say alike and think that He by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the High Priest, Whom thou sayest is even God Almighty. For the Epistle written to the Hebrews being before thee, thou art caught saying, "Yet is This man Who after the flesh is akin to Israel, Who in that which is visible is Man, Who according to Paul's speech was made out of the seed of David, by connection God Almighty." How did He yet advance, according to that idle talk, to the dignity of High Priest albeit testified by thy voice too as Almighty God?

And though you bring up that notorious connection, invented I don't know where by you alone, I will pass over it for now. But I will ask, letting the argument proceed straight along its own proper course: Does not that which advances toward priesthood and glory make its advance or progress toward something better and more excellent? And who would not agree that this is true? If so, then the high priesthood would be greater than being Almighty God. But then how does the one who has the priesthood also minister and stand as a worshiper before God, and as a servant before his master, offering what is customary and bringing sacrifices, while the One who is crowned with supreme glory receives the sacrifices and is honored by the service?

And though you utter the ill-famed connection and invented I know not whence by yourself alone, I will pass it over for the present: but I will ask, bidding the argument advance straight on its own befitting and proper course, Does not that which advances unto Priesthood and glory make its advance or progress unto the better and more excellent? and how will not every one whatever give his vote for the truth of this? Greater therefore than the being Almighty God, is the High Priesthood. Then how does he whose lot is the Priesthood minister too and stand as a worshipper by God, and as a servant by his master, offering what is customable and bringing sacrifices, and He Who is crowned with the Supreme glory receives the sacrifices and is honoured by the service?

But you say (I suppose) this: Being God Almighty, the Same has become High Priest. He has therefore been emptied and has humbled Himself by descending into the inferior. How then did He yet advance to dignity when made a High Priest? Remember again your own words, for you said a little earlier: "If the Godhead is High Priest, who is He who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? If He who offers is God, there is no one to whom the offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that, as inferior, it should make offering to a greater?" Stand by your own words at least now. But you cannot do this, for you will be tossed about (so to speak) by every wind, and you do not perceive that you are being driven around, sometimes jumping from one position to another, and then from that one back again, and you are not at all afraid of what Paul says: For if I build again what I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.⁷

But thou sayest (I suppose) this, Being God Almighty the Same hath become High-Priest. He hath been emptied therefore and hath abased Himself by descent into the inferior. How therefore did He yet advance unto dignity when made an High Priest? Remember again thine own words, for thus thou saidst a little above, "If the Godhead be High Priest, who is He who is served by the ministry of the High Priesthood? if He Who offereth be God, there is none to whom the offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as inferior It should make offering to a greater?" Stand now at least to your own words; but this you cannot do, for you will be borne about (so to say) by every wind, and perceive not that you are being driven about, one while springing off from those into these, other while again from these into those, and in no wise are you afraid of what Paul saith, For if what I destroyed this I build again, I make myself a transgressor.⁷

But you will perhaps say: If you affirm that the Word from God the Father is everywhere one Christ and Son and Lord together with His own Flesh, how can you now say that He has been set forth as a High Priest and Apostle? By saying this, are you not insulting the supreme dignity of His divine glory?

But you will perhaps say, Affirming that the Word out of God the Father is everywhere One Christ and Son and Lord, with His own Flesh, how sayest thou now that He has been set forth as an High Priest and Apostle? dost thou not in so saying insult the Supreme Dignity of His Divine Glory?

Because, good sir, I would say that the Only Begotten Word of God has been made man and within the limits of human nature, the fact of priesthood does not ill suit Him, and moreover the statement that He has been sent, for He despised the shame, as the divinely inspired Paul writes, and endured yet lower and worse things for our sakes: for He gave His back to the scourges, He did not turn His face away from the shame of spitting, and He patiently bore the insults of the Jews. But do you think it inappropriate to call Him priest, since He is God? Accept the words pertaining to the Economy, consider the emptying, the descent to the form of a servant. For we do not say that the Word of God advanced and hurried toward dignity if He has been called our high priest, but rather that in this too He descended to emptiness. Since how has He been emptied and is He said to have been humbled, even though He possesses unchangeableness and is in form and equality in everything with His Father? How also did He advance little by little and this (as you yourself say) to the dignity of the high priesthood? What sort of growth did He receive for this? If it was a bodily one, I will ask again: Does bodily growth lead up to the glory of the priesthood? Then let this be common to all and let this method of reasoning of yours belong to everyone who advances bodily. But in truth the priesthood does not suit all those who customarily advance to bodily growth. How then are you not ashamed in putting forth to us as proof of those things which you said, what was spoken by the divinely inspired Luke: "But Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace"?

Because, good Sir, (shall I say) the Only Begotten Word of God has been made man and in the measures of the human nature, the fact of Priesthood will not unbefit Him, and moreover the saying that He has been sent, for He despised the shame, as the Divine-uttering Paul writes, and endured yet lower and worser things for our sakes: for He gave His bach to the scourges, His Face He turned not away from the shame of spittings, and endurant He bore the contumelies of the Jews. But thou deemest not meet to call Him Priest, as being God? admit the words pertaining to the Economy, consider the emptying, the descent unto the servant's form. For we say not that the Word of God advanced and hastened unto dignity, if He have been styled our High Priest, but rather that He descended herein too unto emptiness. Since how has He been emptied and is He said to have been abased, albeit He possesseth unchangeableness and is in Form and Equality in everything with His Father? how too advanced He by little and little and this (as thyself sayest) unto the dignity of the High Priesthood? what sort of growth received He hereunto? If then it were a bodily one, I will ask again, Doth bodily growth lead up to the glory of the Priesthood: be then this common [to all] and let this method of reasoning of yours belong to every one who advanceth bodily, But of a truth the Priesthood beseemeth not all those who customably advance unto bodily growth; how therefore blushest thou not in putting forth unto us for demonstration of those things which thou saidst, what was spoken by the Divine-uttering Luke, But Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace?

But you say that the growth was toward wisdom, yet how is this not without learning? For we believe that from the very belly and womb of the Virgin, Emmanuel—being God—came forth as Man, fully possessing the wisdom and grace that are inherent by nature. What kind of growth, then, will He admit of, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom, who is with God the Father the co-giver of grace from above? How then is He said to advance? It is, I think, by God the Word measuring out alongside the increase and stature of His own body the manifestation of the most God-befitting goods that are in Him. For let us consider that although He was made man as we are, He was eager to remain hidden at first, and administered little by little, as it were quietly and in silence, the power of the mystery. And of this, God the Father Himself will be our assurance, saying: "Jacob My Servant, I will defend Him, Israel My chosen, My Soul received Him, I gave My Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles: He shall not cry nor lift up, nor shall His voice be heard without: a bruised reed He shall not break and smoking flax He shall not quench." And somewhere He was rebuking the holy apostles themselves that they should not make Him known. Therefore something unusual and strange and worthy of examining would have been shown if, while still an infant, He had made a God-befitting demonstration of wisdom. But by extending it little by little and proportionably to His bodily stature and making it manifest to all, He will be said to advance—and that with good reason. How, therefore, did He advance little by little toward the priesthood, tell me, by being perfected in virtue? Then how or why may anyone doubt that what falls short of perfection in virtue will be under blame and not wholly an object of admiration—indeed perhaps even under charge of sin? But it is truly written that He committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth. Therefore He is fully perfect, being such in every way, and in no way will He lack what is needed to be complete in achieving virtue. And when was He who was God even in the womb not perfect toward good—of whom the prophet Isaiah also says, "Butter and honey shall He eat, before He has knowledge to prefer evil, He shall choose the good," because "before the Child shall know good or evil, He shall disobey vice to choose the good"? Where, then, will you be able to demonstrate Christ's imperfection toward good? Or what advance will He need who is so perfect as to disobey vice and prefer to it—indeed, only choose—good?⁸

But thou sayest that the growth was unto wisdom, albeit how is not this without learning? for we believe that out of the very belly and womb of the Virgin, Emmanuel being God proceeded forth Man, full surely of the wisdom and grace that are inherent of Nature. What sort of growth then will He admit of, in Whom are all the treasures of wisdom, Who is with God the Father Co-giver of the grace from above? how then is He said to advance? it is, I deem, by God the Word co-measuring with the increase and stature of His own Body, the manifestation of the most God-befitting goods that are in Him. For let us consider that although He has been made Man as we, He was zealous to lie hid at the first, and administered by little and little as it were noiselessly and in silence the might of the Mystery; and of this God the Father Himself will be our assurance saying, Jacob My Servant, I will defend Him, Israel My chosen, My Soul received Him, I gave My Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles: He shall not cry nor lift up, nor shall His voice be heard without: a bruised reed. He shall not break and smoking flax He shall not quench. And He was somewhere rebuking the holy Apostles themselves that they should not make Him, known. Hence a thing unwonted and strange and worthy of looking into, would have been shewn, if being yet a babe, He had made a God-befitting demonstration of wisdom: but He little and little and proportionably to bodily stature, extending it and making it manifest to all, will be said to advance and that with reason. How therefore did He advance by little and little unto the Priesthood, tell me, by being perfected in virtue? Then how or whence may one doubt that that which faileth of perfection in virtue, will be under blame, and not wholly an object of admiration, yea rather haply under charge of sin? But it is indeed true that He hath done no sin neither was guile found in His Mouth, as it is written. Full-perfect therefore is He being such unto every thing, and in no wise will He have the lack of being complete unto the achievement of virtue. And when was He That was God in the womb too not Perfect unto good, of Whom the Prophet Isaiah too saith, Butter and honey shall He eat, before He have knowledge to prefer evil, He shall choose the good, because before the Child shall know good or ill, He shall disobey vice to choose the good? where then will you be able to demonstrate Christ's yet imperfectness unto good? or what advance will He need who is so Perfect as to disobey vice and to prefer to it, yea only choose, good?⁸

Yet I don't know how someone who affirms and says "This is he who gradually advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood," and who brought forward as proof of his words the text "Jesus advanced in stature and wisdom and grace"—almost marking out the impropriety of his own words and slipping into forgetfulness of what he claimed was right—now tells us that the mode of perfection was accomplished in a different way, saying "This is he who in time has been made High Priest, who was perfected through sufferings." Is this not obvious confusion? Or rather, proof of complete recklessness? For our Lord Jesus Christ has been made perfect through sufferings, but this man, even though he was not ignorant of the mode of being made perfect, leads the minds of simpler people astray into certain strange distortions of ideas and says that He advanced to being High Priest and has been perfected to this point, "who is said to have been emptied because this took place." And as though he had clearly shown that neither was the Word of God made flesh, nor did a Man proceed from a woman, he rebukes those who have chosen to believe this way and says, "Why then do you misinterpret Paul, mixing the Impassible God the Word with an earthly body and making Him a passible High Priest?" Hear then from us too, for whom the truth is dear: Why do you misinterpret Paul, or rather slander the whole God-inspired Scripture, removing the Word of God from the economy with flesh, and setting over us as priest a mere man honored with a connection? Yet you hear that the Same is both High Priest and Co-Throned with God the Father, as we have already said. For Paul said, "We have such an High Priest, who sat on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." That the Word out of God the Father is Impassible is, I suppose, clear to everyone; that He suffered for us in the flesh, the voice of inspired men will confirm as truth. But if you yourself take the Word out of God away from an earthly body, the whole thing falls apart. For if He has not been made Man, neither did He die for us, and if He has not given His own Body to death, how is He said to be the firstborn from the dead? Therefore Christ neither died nor rose again. So let the divinely-speaking Paul come forward and cry aloud, saying, "If the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised; if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless, you are still in your sins; those also who fell asleep in Christ have perished." But Christ has been raised from the dead, for the Only-Begotten Word of God has been made Man and, taking an earthly body and uniting it personally to Himself, by the grace of God, as it is written, tasted death for every man. He has been named firstfruits of those who slept, having been raised from the dead. Therefore our faith is now sure and not worthless, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written.

Yet I know not how he who affirmeth and saith "This is he who by little and little advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood," and who brought forward in proof of his words, Jesus advanced in stature and wisdom and grace, all but marking out the uncomeliness of his own words and gliding into forgetfulness of the things of which he assumed were right, affirms to us that the mode of perfection was wrought in another way, saying, "This is he who in time has been made High Priest, who was perfected through sufferings." Is not this manifest distraction? yea rather a proof of utter recklessness? for our Lord Jesus Christ has been made perfect through sufferings, but this man albeit he was not ignorant of the mode of being made perfect, carries away the minds of the simpler unto certain strange perversions of ideas and says that He advanced unto being High Priest and has been perfected unto this, "Who is said to have been emptied because this took place. And as though he had full clearly shewn that neither was the Word of God made flesh, nor yet proceeded Man out of woman, he chides those who have chosen thus to hold and says, "Why therefore doth thou mis-interpret Paul, commingling with earthly body the Impassive God the Word and making Him a passible High Priest?" Hear therefore from us too, to whom rather the truth is dear, Why dost thou mis-interpret Paul, yea rather slanderest the whole God-inspired Scripture, withdrawing the Word of God from the economy with flesh, and settest over us as priest a man honoured with mere connection? albeit thou hearest that the Same is at once High Priest and Co-Throned with God the Father, as we have already said. For Paul said, We have such an High Priest, Who sat on the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens. For that the Word out of God the Father is Impassible, is I suppose clear to every one: that He hath suffered for us in the flesh, the voice of inspired men will seal up for a truth. But if thyself bear away the Word out of God from earthly body, the whole will come to nothing. For if He have not been made Man, neither did He die for us, and if He have not given unto death His own Body, how is He said to be the first begotten from the dead? Hence Christ neither died nor revived. Let the Divine-uttering Paul therefore come forward, let him cry aloud saying, If the dead are not raised, neither has been Christ raised, if Christ have not been raised, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins: they also which fell asleep in Christ perished. But Christ has been raised from the dead, for the Only-Begotten Word of God has been made Man and, taking an earthly body and uniting it Personally to Him, by the grace of God, as it is written, tasted death for every man. He has been named first-fruits of them that slept, having been raised from the dead. Sure therefore and not vain is now our faith, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast, as it is written.

And he, as though he had not at all wronged the plan of the economy with flesh by saying such things and pouring out unrestrained and most foul vomit upon the doctrines of the truth, proceeds to another piece of bad advice—or rather to open blasphemy—and says,

And he, as though he had in no wise wronged the plan of the economy with flesh, through saying such things and pouring forth untempered and foulest vomit upon the doctrines of the truth, proceeds to another mis-counsel, yea rather manifest blasphemy and says,

Nestorius: "This man alone is therefore our High Priest, who feels for us and is our kinsman and is trustworthy. Do not turn away from the faith toward Him, for He was sent as the blessing that was promised to us from the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of His Body for Himself and His race alike."⁹

Nestorius: "This man alone therefore being our High Priest, feeling and kin and sure, turn ye not away from the faith Him-ward; for He was sent, the blessing which was proraised us out of the seed of Abraham, as offering the sacrifice of His Body for Himself alike and His race."⁹

You say that the High Priest who is kin to us and feeling and sure and moreover only is the one whom your discourse just now clearly taught us about. For you said, "The seed of Abraham is he who is yesterday and today, as Paul says, not He Who says, Before Abraham was I am; like his brethren in all things, he who assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who said, He that has seen Me has seen the Father; sent was he who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind." This man therefore will be conceived of as being kin to those on the earth, and not as you say, He That says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father. For if you gather both into one according to true union and confess with us One Son, you have labored in vain in carrying away each separately and apart from the other, severing into hypostases and prosopa completely—not in the mere knowledge that the nature (physis) of flesh is other than the Divine Nature but by concurrence into true union has become Its own. If on the other hand you desire to show yourself irreconcilable in opinion with us and utterly reject the union, and you say that He is one and another, and that the One has been begotten out of God the Father, the other of kin and consubstantial with us—how, tell me, do you say that we ought not now to turn aside from faith toward Him? And we shall believe him to be our kin, letting go Him Who says, Before Abraham was I am. We shall take as our god him who assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh, letting go Him Who says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father, although He Himself says, For so God loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, and again, He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Is he therefore who is from the seed of Abraham conceived of as Only-Begotten apart and by himself, although John has clearly written, The Only-Begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father, He declared Him, and moreover another Holy Scripture, But when He brings in the First-begotten into the world, He says, And let all Angels of God worship Him? But First-born wholly and surely will He be Who is among many brethren, not He Who is begotten Alone of the Alone God the Father. For thus far will we follow, sir, your distinctions, keenly awaiting for the economy's sake where the words burst through upon us. Hence—for I will call back the argument to its beginning—he that assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh, yet was made out of the seed of Abraham, will be the Firstborn among many brethren, but He that is in the Bosom of God the Father, the Only-Begotten God the Word. Then when the God-inspired Scripture says that our faith must be had in the Only-Begotten Son of God, why do you, putting forward one kin and consubstantial with us, say that we ought not to turn away from faith toward him? It is therefore necessary to link together the two in One Lord and Christ, by personal coalescence, that is, in order that the Same may be conceived of as Only-Begotten and First-Begotten in the Same, in that the Word out of God the Father being God by Nature has been made Man as we and out of the seed of Abraham.

Thou sayest that a High Priest both kin to us and feeling and sure and moreover only, is he whom thy discourse but now clearly taught us of. For thou saidst, "The seed of Abraham is he who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He Who saith, Before Abraham was I am; Like to His brethren in all things, he who assumed brother-hood of human soul and flesh, not He Who said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; sent was he who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission unto the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. " This man therefore will be conceived of as of kin too to those on the earth, and not as THOU sayest, He That saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For if gathering both into one according to true union thou with us confessest One Son, thou hast laboured in vain, in bearing away each separately and apart from other, severing into hypostases and persons, completely, not in the mere knowledge that the nature of flesh is other than the Divine Nature yet by concurrence unto true union hath become Its own: if on the other hand desiring to shew thyself irreconcileable in opinion with us and utterly repudiating the union, thou sayest that He is one and another, and that the One has been begotten out of God the Father, the other of kin and consubstantial with us; how (tell me) dost thou say that we ought not now to turn aside from faith to Him-ward? and we shall believe him to be our kin, letting go Him Who saith, Before Abraham was I am: we shall take as our god him who assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh, letting go Him Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, albeit Himself saith, For so God loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, and again, He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Is he therefore who is forth of the seed of Abraham conceived of as Only-Begotten apart and by himself, albeit John hath clearly written, The Only-Begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father, He declared Him, and moreover another Holy Scripture, But when He bringeth in the First-begotten into the world, He saith, And let all Angels of God worship Him? But First-born wholly and surely will He be Who is among many brethren, not He Who is begotten Alone of the Alone God the Father: for thus far will we follow, sir, thy distinctions, keenly awaiting for the economy's sake, whither the words burst through upon us. Hence (for I will call back the argument to its commencement) "he that assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh," yet was made out of the seed of Abraham, will be the Firstborn among many brethren, but He that is in the Bosom of God the Father, the Only-Begotten God the Word. Then when the God-inspired Scripture says that our faith must be had in the Only-Begotten Son of God, why dost thou, putting forward one kin and consubstantial with us, say that we ought not to turn away from faith in him-ward? It is therefore necessary to link together 3 in One Lord and Christ, by personal coalescence that is, in order that the Same may be conceived of as Only-Begotten and First-Begotten in the Same, in that the Word out of God the Father being God by Nature has been made Man as we and out of the seed of Abraham.

But now he thinks he has discovered something clever, and so he says again:

But now something clever has been found out as he thinks by him and thus again says he:

Nestorius: "Remember above all what I have often said to you, rejecting two natures in our Lord Christ that are twofold in nature but single in dignity: for the rule of the natures is one for the sake of their connection, while the natures always remain in their own proper order, but the dignity is connected as I said before to a single rule."

Nestorius: "Remember by all means what I have full often said to you, refusing two-fold natures in our Lord Christ, two-fold in nature, single in dignity: for the sway of the natures is for the connection's sake, one, the natures abiding ever in their own order, but the dignity connected as I said before unto a single sway."

Yes, you were an eager student, choosing to follow the God-inspired Scripture, which says "One Lord Jesus Christ" and does not separate Him who is from the seed of Abraham from the Word who is from God the Father. And we must also consider this: Godhead is one thing, and manhood like ours is another, according to the inherent nature of things. But through coalescence into true union, there is One Christ from both, as we have often said. But when the hypostases, as YOU say, have been separated into two and are thought of as existing separately and apart, how will there be a coalescence in one prosopon, unless one is thought of as the property of the other? This is just as a man's body will be thought of as the property of his soul, even though it is of a different nature than the soul, for soul and body are not the same things.

Yea apt at learning wert thou, who hast chosen to follow the God-inspired Scripture, which says One Lord Jesus Christ and does not put apart Him Who is out of the seed of Abraham and the Word out of God the Father. And besides one must consider this too: for one thing indeed is Godhead, another, manhood like ours, according to the inherent nature of things; but by coalescence unto true union, One Christ out of both, as we have full often said. But when the hypostases, as YOU say, have been severed into two and are conceived of as existing separately and apart, how will there be a coalescence in one Person, except one be conceived of as the property of the other: just as of a man's soul his body will be conceived of as the property, albeit of other nature than it, for not the same things are soul and body?

But (one may perhaps say) how is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished into Three Hypostases, yet results in One Nature of Godhead? Because (I would say) the identity of Essence necessarily following upon the difference of [persons] leads the mind of believers upward to One Nature of Godhead. But with respect to Emmanuel, since Godhead is something other than manhood, unless we say that the Body of the Word became His own by true Union, how will One Prosopon be brought about, when each hypostasis, separately by itself, presents to us the distinctive property of both? And unless what was assumed has been made the own of the one who assumed it, a mere connection by coming together in dignity and authority alone will not be sufficient to bring about One Only Christ, the Same both God and Man. For then, truly indeed, it will be necessary not to turn aside from the faith toward Him, even though He is understood to be from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. But if you say that He is one thing and another thing, and then affirm that our faith must be placed in him who is from the seed of Abraham, be well assured that you are bringing down upon your own head the charge of worshipping a man, even though you reject and rightly so the reputation of being a man-worshipper.¹⁰¹¹

But (one may perchance say) how is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished into Three Hypostases, yet issues in One Nature of Godhead? Because (I would say) the identity of Essence following of necessity upon the difference of…., carries up the mind of believers unto One Nature of Godhead: but in respect to Emmanuel, since Godhead is something other than manhood, unless we say that the Body of the Word became His own by true Union, how will One Person be effected, when either hypostasis, apart by itself, brings before us the property of both? And except the assumed have been made the own of the assumer, connection by concurrence simply in dignity alone and sway will not suffice to effect One Only Christ, the Same God Alike and Man. For then, then, in very sooth, [it will behove not] to turn aside from the faith unto Himward, even though He be conceived of as out of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. But if you say that He is one and other and then affirm that our faith must be put in him that is out of the seed of Abraham, be well assured that you are pouring down upon your own head the charge of man-worship, albeit you repudiate and rightly the repute of being a man-worshipper.¹⁰¹¹

Yes, and considering it too insignificant to think correctly, he slanders the great Mystery of godliness in yet another way as well. For he immediately adds the following:

Yea and thinking it too little to deem aright, he slanders in another way too the great Mystery of godliness. For he subjoins forthwith,

Nestorius: "For he was sent to us, the blessing having been promised from the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of his body for himself and also for his race."

Nestorius: "For he was sent to us, the blessing being promised out of the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of his body for himself alike and his race."

Was Christ Himself also made subject to sin? He through whom sin's accusation against us is silenced, according to the Psalmist's voice? Did the darkness of accursed crime touch the Very Light Himself? Did He who is all redemption and hope of salvation need a redeemer and Savior along with us? It would suit him, it seems, to offer thanksgiving along with us when God in His clemency says, I am He who blots out your sins and I will not remember them. The father of sin will accuse him too, just as he accuses us. And then how will he not speak falsely when saying, The prince of this world comes, and in Me he shall find nothing? The leaders of the synagogue of the Jews once blasphemed against Him, for when they were worn out by the arrows of envy at seeing the man blind from birth healed in an unprecedented way, they impiously said, Give glory to God, we know that this man is a sinner. But our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of their unbridled speech, said plainly, Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe Me? Therefore, if He has offered sacrifice both for us and moreover for Himself too, He surely has needed it, just as we too who are under the yoke of sin. Convict Him therefore of sin. If He has offered sacrifice with us, show Him to be a co-sinner with us. Being the Good Shepherd, for whom has He laid down His life—for Himself or for the sheep? I hear Him saying of us, For their sakes do I sanctify Myself. And as the divinely-inspired Paul says, By the grace of God He tasted death for every man, and again, He was delivered up because of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification. And as the Prophet Isaiah says, The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, with His stripes we were healed—not He Himself has been healed by the suffering of His own Flesh. He was delivered up because of our transgressions, not because of His own—far from it, for confessedly has the physis of man been brought down by the transgression in Adam to curse and death, and it is moreover sick with proneness to sin in the flesh—in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For this reason He was also named the last Adam, not enduring to be sick with the things of the first one, but rather ridding the physis of man in Himself first from the blame of that ancient transgression. For it was condemned in Adam, but in Christ was seen most approved and worthy of wonder. Therefore the first is earthy, but Christ is heavenly. And it was put to shame in the first, brought down to disobedience which is sin, but in Christ it has preserved non-transgression, and as in a second firstfruits of the race, was seen both unwounded by sins and superior to curse and doom and death and decay. And the most wise Paul confirms us in this, writing thus: For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall the many be made righteous. Everyone who has become guilty of sin therefore needs sacrifice for his own transgressions, and Christ has offered Himself for His kin according to the flesh, that is, for us. But for Himself not at all, being superior to sin as God. For if He has been sacrificed for Himself, not we alone have been bought by His Blood according to the Scriptures, but Himself too will have been co-bought with us. No longer according to Isaiah's voice did the Lord give Him up for our sins, but He has been given rather for His own. For where there is sacrifice and offering, there surely is also remission of sins. The divinely-inspired Paul therefore has exposed those everywhere under heaven by writing regarding Him: For such a High Priest was fitting for us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens, Who does not need daily, as the high priests do, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins then for the people's, for this He did once when He offered up Himself. For the Law makes men high priests who have infirmity, but the word of the oath which came after the Law makes the Son Who has been perfected for evermore. How therefore is Christ a holy High Priest? Or in what way is He harmless and undefiled? And if He needs sacrifice with us, having made His offering for remission of transgressions and for justification of those who have sinned, how has He been separated from sinners if He is justified along with them, the sacrifice having been offered for none other than these very persons? But I marvel that whereas Paul has cried aloud and very clearly that He is not like those who have been commanded to offer for their own transgressions and then for the people's, you were not afraid to put forth the contrary to what he said, and dared to say that after the likeness of those who were made priests according to the Law, He too offered up sacrifice for Himself. And if it is true that the Law makes men high priests who have infirmity, but the word of the oath which came after the Law makes the Son Who has been perfected for evermore, why do you count among those who are subject to infirmity Him who has been removed from their multitude and possesses the perfection which is above the Law, of His own and by physis, if indeed He is truly Son and therefore God?

Was Christ then Himself too made under sin? He through whom sin's mouth against us is stopped, according to the Psalmist's voice? did the darkness of accursed crime touch the Very Light Himself? needed then with us He through Whom is all redemption and hope of salvation a redeemer and Saviour? it will befit him (it seems) with us to offer thanksgiving, when God in His Clemency says, I am He That blotteth out thy sins and I will not remember them; him too even as we will the father of sin accuse. And then how will he not speak falsely saying, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me he shall find nothing? The presidents of the synagogue of the Jews once blasphemed against Him, for when they were worn out by the darts of envy, at seeing the blind from his birth in unwonted manner healed, they impiously said. Give glory to God, WE know that this man is a sinner, but our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of unbridled utterance said plainly, Which of you convicteth Me of sin? and if I say the truth, why do YE not believe Me? Hence, if He have offered sacrifice, both for us and moreover for Himself too, He surely hath needed it, even as we too who are under the yoke of sin: convict Him therefore of sin; if He hath offered sacrifice with us, shew Him co-sinner with us. Being the Good Shepherd, for whom hath He laid down His Life, for Himself rather or for the sheep? I hear Him saying of us, For their sakes do I sanctify Myself, and as the Divine-speaking Paul saith, By the grace of God for every man tasted He death, and again, He was delivered up because of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification, and as the Prophet Esaias saith, The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, with His stripes were WE healed, not Himself has been healed by the suffering of His own Flesh. He was delivered up because of our transgressions (not because of His own, far from it, for confessedly has the nature of man been borne down by the transgression in Adam unto curse and death, it is moreover sick of proneness to sin in the flesh), in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in its who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. For therefore was He also named the last Adam, not enduring to be sick of the things of the first one, but rather ridding in Himself first the nature of man from the blame of that ancient transgression. For it was condemned in Adam, but in Christ was seen most approved and worthy of wonder. Earthy therefore is he, but Christ heavenly. And it was put to shame in the first, borne down to disobedience which is sin, but in Christ hath it preserved untransgression, and as in a second firstfruits of the race, was seen both unwounded by sins, and superior to curse and doom and death and decay. And the most wise Paul confirms us herein, thus writing, For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so too by its obedience of one shall the many be made righteous. Every one who has become guilty of sin needs therefore sacrifice for his own transgressions: and Christ hath offered Himself for His kin according to the flesh, i. e., for us; but for Himself not a whit, being superior to sin, as God. For if He have been sacrificed for Himself, not WE alone have been bought by His Blood according to the Scriptures but Himself too will have been co-bought with us, no longer according to Isaiah's voice did the Lord give Him up for our sins, but He has been given rather for His own. For where is at all sacrifice and offering, there surely is also remission of sins. The Divine-uttering Paul therefore hath beguiled those throughout all under heaven by writing regarding Him, For such an High Priest became us, holy harmless undefiled, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens, Who needeth not daily as the high priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins then for the people's, for this He did once when He offered up Himself: for the Law maketh men high priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore. How therefore is Christ an holy High Priest? or in what way harmless and undefiled? And if He need with us sacrifice, having made His offering for remission of transgressions and for justification of them that have sinned, how has He been separated from sinners, if He be justified along with them, the sacrifice having been offered for none else than these very persons? But I marvel that whereas Paul hath cried aloud and that full clearly that He is not like those who have been bidden to offer for their own transgressions, and then for the people's, thou wert not afraid to put forth the contrary to what he said, and durst say that after the likeness of them who were made priests according to the Law, He too offered up sacrifice for Himself. And if it be true that the Law maketh men High Priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore, why makest thou connumerate with those who are used to infirmity Him Who has been removed from their multitude; and possesses the perfection which is above the Law, of His own and by Nature, if so be He be Son of a truth and therefore God?

But let us also examine the legal and more ancient scripture to understand in what manner and for whom Emmanuel offered Himself as a fragrant aroma to God the Father. For the Law was admittedly a shadow, yet it contains the outline of the mystery pointing toward Christ and struggles to express the form of the Truth. Indeed, Christ said somewhere when speaking with the Jews, "If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote about Me." How then did those of the blood of Israel sacrifice the Lamb when they were about to leave the Land of the Egyptians? Did they sacrifice it for themselves alone or for the Lamb's sake as well? Whom did it redeem by its blood? Was it those who were under the yoke of slavery and were enduring the unbearable oppression of the Egyptians, or itself as well? Whose destroyer did it drive away? To whom did the God of all say, "And I will see the blood and will protect you"? Was it to those who needed His protection, or to the Lamb itself as well?

But let us see from the legal and more ancient scripture too in what manner and for whom, Emmanuel hath offered Himself for an odour of a sweet smell unto God the Father. For a shadow confessedly was the Law, yet hath it the outline of the mystery Christ-ward and travails with the form of the Truth. And indeed Christ said somewhere when conversing with the Jews, Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed Me, for of Me he wrote. How therefore did they of the blood of Israel when about to depart out of the Land of the Egyptians sacrifice the Lamb? for their own selves alone or for the Lamb's sake too? whom did it redeem by its blood? was it them who were under the yoke of bondage, and were enduring the oppression hard to bear of the Egyptians, or itself too? whose destroyer did it scare away? to whom said the God of all, And I will see the blood and will shelter you? was it to those who needed His shelter or to the Lamb itself too?

In the Law, God the Father was depicting the sacrifices that would be made for sins, as if on a tablet, sketching out the mystery of Christ. He said to the high priest Moses: "If the whole congregation of the children of Israel sins unintentionally and the matter is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the Lord's commandments that should not be done, and have transgressed, and the sin they committed becomes known to them, the congregation shall offer a young bull without blemish from the herd for the sin." After explaining in full detail how the sacrifice should be performed, He adds: "And the priest shall make atonement for them and the sin shall be forgiven them." Notice, then, that the bull was offered as a type of Christ the All-Pure, who has no spot, and that those who offer it—not the bull itself—were set free from their guilt. For He was sacrificed not for Himself, as you claim, but for the weak, for whom the high priest under the Law used to make supplication, so that you may again understand Him who was made an Advocate for us, a High Priest undefiled and holy, separated from sinners.

For God the Father was representing the sacrifices that were to be made for sins, in the Law as on a tablet, outlining yet the mystery of Christ, and thus He said to the hierophant Moses, If the whole congregation of the children of Israel sin unwillingly and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done, and have transgressed and the sin be known to them which they have sinned therein, the congregation shall offer a young bullock without blemish from among the herd for the sin. And having fully gone through how the details of the sacrifice should be done, He adds and says, And the priest shall make an atonement for them and the sin shall be forgiven them. Observe then that the bullock was offered as a type of Christ the All-Pure and That hath no spot, and they who offer and not surely the bullock were set free from their guilt. For He has been sacrificed not rather for Himself, as THOU sayest, but for the infirm, for whom the high priest according to the Law used to make supplication, that you may again understand Him That was made an Advocate for us, a High Priest undefiled and holy, separated from sinners.

Since our opponent is thoroughly afflicted with confused speech, we say that the Word from God the Father became the High Priest and Apostle of our confession when He became Man, humbling Himself to the point of emptiness and taking on our human condition. He did this so that by offering Himself to the Father as a fragrant sacrifice on behalf of all people, He might win everyone under heaven, remove the ancient guilt, justify by grace through faith, make those who confess Him as their Savior and Redeemer superior to death and decay—people who are holy, sanctified, and thoroughly trained in every kind of virtue. Through Him and with Him, glory to God the Father with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

Since therefore our opponent is on all sides sick of uncomeliness of speech, we say that the Word out of God the Father was made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession when He was made Man, abasing Himself unto emptiness and in our condition: in order that having offered Himself to the Father for an odour of sweet smell in behalf of all, He might win all under Heaven, might remove the ancient guilt, might justify by grace through faith, might render superior to death and decay, holy and hallowed and full well versed in every kind of virtue, confessing Him their Saviour and Redeemer, through Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for evermore. Amen.

The tongue is a fire and an unruly evil, as it is written. Driving away the harm that comes from it, the God-inspired David says, Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, a door of protection around my lips, incline not my heart to words of wickedness. To be able to speak correctly and to have precise control over the tongue—knowing what it should say and what it should not—is truly a gift from God, and is no small matter for those who live a life worthy of admiration. But carelessness in speech and unrestrained freedom to deceive are full of danger and drag down to the pit of hell those who practice them. And it is written, Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who master it shall eat its fruits. Another wise man has also said to us, If you have a word of understanding, answer, but if not, lay your hand upon your mouth. For how is silence not better than ignorant speech? But it is cursed in yet another way to pour out bitter words and to pile sinful sayings upon the ineffable Glory, even though it ought to be honored by us with unceasing praises. And when we sin against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, for so the God-inspired Paul has written.

The tongue is a fire and an unruly evil, as it is written; thrusting from him the mischief therefrom, the Divine-uttering David says, Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, a door of fencing around my lips, incline not mine heart to words of wickedness. For to be able to speak aright, and to have an exact control over the tongue, as to what it should speak, what not, is of a truth God-given, and is no slight matter with those who practise a conversation not void of admiration. But recklessness in speech and unbridled licence unto trickery, are replete with danger and bear down to the pit-fall of hell those who use it. And it is written, Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, they that master it shall eat the fruits thereof. A certain other too of the wise men hath said to us, If thou hast a word of understanding, answer, if not, lay thine hand upon thy mouth; for how is not silence better than unlearned speech? But accursed is it in another way too to belch forth bitter words, and to heap down sinful sayings upon the ineffable Glory, albeit it ought to be honoured by us with unceasing praises. And when we sin against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, for so hath written the Divine-uttering Paul.

And I say this having read Nestorius' words and seeing that he not only says we should not call the holy Virgin Mother of God and that she gave birth to Emmanuel who is God, but also in many other ways he is determined to attack the glory of Christ. For he tries to show us that Christ is God-bearing and not truly God, but a man associated with God in a relationship of equal rank. For this is how he alone—apart from everyone else—thinks it right to think and speak, even though the Catholic Church, which Christ Himself presented to Himself, does not have the wrinkles of one who has put together such things. Rather, as unblemished, she keeps completely beyond reproach her knowledge of Him and has fully preserved her tradition of the Faith. For we believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. And following the confessions attached to this of the holy Fathers, we say that the very Word, who essentially came forth from God the Father, became as we are and was Incarnate and made Man—that is, took to Himself a body from the holy Virgin and made it His own. For in this way He will be truly One Lord Jesus Christ; in this way let us worship Him as One, not separating Man and God, but believing that He is one and the same in Godhead and in Manhood—that is, God and Man alike.

And this I say having read Nestorius' words and observing that he not only says that we ought not to say that the holy Virgin is Mother of God and that she hath borne Emmanuel Who is God, but yet in addition to this and in many ways is he minded to make war upon the glory of Christ. For he endeavours to shew us that He is God-bearing and not truly God, but man associated with God; as in equality of rank. For thus seems good to him alone apart from every one else, to think and to speak, albeit the Catholic Church, which Christ Himself presented to Himself, has not the wrinkles of him who has compiled such things, but rather as unblemished, she keeps wholly without rebuke her knowledge of Him, and hath made full well her tradition of the Faith. For we believe in One God, the Father Almighty, of all things both visible and invisible the Maker, and in One Lord Jesus the Christ, and in the Holy Ghost: and following the confessions annexed hereto of the holy Fathers, we say that the Very Word Essentially sprung from forth God the Father, was made as we and was Incarnate and made Man, that is, took to Himself a Body from forth the holy Virgin, and made it His Own: for thus will He be truly One Lord Jesus Christ, thus let us worship Him as One, not putting apart Man and God, but believing that He is One and the Same, in Godhead and in Manhood, that is, God alike and Man.

But the inventor of the most recent impiety, although pretending to speak of One Christ, constantly divides the natures and sets each one apart by itself, saying that they did not truly come together. Instead, making excuses in sins, as it is written, he devises some mode of connection consisting merely (as I said) of equality of rank, as will be shown from his own words. He makes the Word from God indwell by participation, as in an ordinary man, and distributes the sayings in the Gospels so that sometimes he attributes certain ones to the Word alone and by Himself, and at other times to the one born from a woman separately. Yet how is it not obvious to everyone that the Only-Begotten, being God by nature, has been made man—not by mere connection (as he says) considered as external or accidental, but by true union, ineffable and beyond understanding? And thus He is conceived of as One and Only, and everything said befits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the incarnate physis of the Word Himself is, after the union, now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived regarding ourselves too, for man is truly one, compounded of unlike things—soul I mean and body. But it is necessary now to point out that we say the body united to God the Word is ensouled with a reasonable soul. And I will add this too for profit's sake: the flesh is other than the Word from God in regard to its proper nature, and the physis of the Word Itself is again other essentially. But even though the things named are conceived of as diverse and separated in diversity of nature, Christ is still conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together with one another in true union.¹²

But the inventor of the most recent impiety, albeit making feint of saying One Christ, ever divides the Natures and sets Each by itself, saying that they did not truly come together; but making excuses in sins, as it is written, devises some mode of connection, of merely (as I said) equality of rank, as shall be shewn from his own words: and he makes the Word out of God indwell by participation, as in a common man, and distributes the sayings in the Gospels, so as one while to attribute certain to the Word alone and by Himself, other while to him that is born from forth a woman separately. Yet how is it not obvious to all that the Only-Begotten being God by Nature has been made man, not by connection simply (as he says) considered as external or accidental, but by true union, ineffable and passing understanding. And thus He is conceived of as One and Only, and every thing said befits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the Incarnate Nature of the Word Himself is after the Union now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived in regard to ourselves too, for man is really One, compounded of unlike things, soul I mean and body. But it is necessary now too to notify that we say that the Body united to God the Word is ensouled with a reasonable Soul. And I will for profit's sake add this too: other than the Word out of God is the flesh, in regard to its proper nature, other again Essentially the Nature of the Word Itself. But even though the things named be conceived of as diverse and sundered in diverseness of nature, yet is Christ conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together one to another in true union.¹²

The God-inspired Scripture confirms this for us through countless words and acts, using similitudes by which one may (and without difficulty) clearly advance to behold the Mystery of Christ. The blessed Prophet Isaiah therefore said, "And there was sent to me one of the Seraphim and in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he touched my mouth and said, Lo this hath touched thy lips and shall take away thine iniquities and purge thy sins." When we search according to our ability into the depth of this vision, we say that none other than our Lord Jesus Christ is the spiritual coal laid on the altar where it gives forth to God the Father the sweet savor of incense through us, for through Him we have had access and are acceptable, offering the spiritual worship. This Divine Coal, therefore, when it touches the lips of the one who approaches it, will immediately show him to be pure and wholly without participation in any sin. And the blessed Paul will teach us in what way it touches our lips, saying, "Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that if thou say with thy mouth Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." And He is compared to a Coal because He is conceived as being from two unlike things, yet by a true coming together they are nearly knit together into union. For the fire entering into the wood will somehow transform it into its own glory and might, although it has retained what it was.

And the God-inspired Scripture confirms us hereto by ten thousand words and acts: using similitudes whereby one may (and that without labour) clearly advance so as we may behold the Mystery of Christ. The blessed Prophet Isaiah said therefore, And there was sent to me one of the Seraphim and in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he touched my mouth and said, Lo this hath touched thy lips and shall take away thine iniquities and purge thy sins. And searching according to our power into the depth of the vision, we say that none other save our Lord Jesus Christ is the spiritual coal laid on the altar whereon by us it gives forth the sweet savour of incense to God the Father: for through Him have we had access and are acceptable, offering the spiritual worship. This Divine Coal therefore, when it touches the lips of him who approaches thereto, will straightway exhibit 'him pure and wholly imparticipate in any sin. And in what way it touches our lips, the blessed Paul will teach saying, Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that if thou say with thy mouth Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised, Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. And He is compared to a Coal, because conceived of as from two unlike things, yet by a true concurrence they are all but knit together unto union. For the fire entering into the wood, will transelement it somehow into its own glory and might albeit it hath retained what it was.

Our Lord Jesus Christ also compares Himself to a pearl, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it." I hear Him revealing Himself to us in another way when He says, "I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the valleys." For He has in His proper nature the God-befitting brightness of God the Father, and He gives forth His fragrance—I mean in respect of spiritual fragrance. Therefore, just as in the pearl and also the lily, the thing itself is understood as a body, while the brilliance or fragrance within it is considered in its proper definition as something other than the things in which they exist, yet these properties remain inseparably inherent and belong to those which possess them—in this same way, I believe, we should both reason and think about Emmanuel. For Godhead and flesh are of different kinds by physis, yet the Body of the Word was His own, and the Word is not separated from His Body to which He is united; for only in this way can Emmanuel, that is, God with us, be rightly understood. Therefore, at one time as Man, manifesting Himself to us from the measures of the emptying as well, He said, "No one takes My life from Me." At another time, understood as God the Word and from Heaven and one with His proper flesh, He says, "No one has ascended into Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man."³

Our Lord Jesus Christ again likens Himself to a Pearl, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls, who when he had found one Pearl of great price hath gone and sold all that he had and bought it. I hear Him in another way manifesting Himself to us and saying, I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the valleys. For He has in His Proper Nature the God-befitting Brightness of God the Father, and gives forth again His Savour, in respect I mean of spiritual fragrance. As therefore in the pearl and also the lily, the thing itself is conceived of as body, the brilliancy or fragrance therein considered in its proper definition as other than they in whom they are, yet are the things inseparably innate again the own properties and not alien from those which possess them:—- in this way (I deem) shall we both reason and think of Emmanuel too. For of diverse kind by nature are Godhead and flesh, yet was the Body of the Word His own, and not severed from His Body is the Word which is united thereto; for thus and not otherwise will Emmanuel, i.e., God with us, be conceived of. Hence one while as Man, and making Himself manifest to us from the measures of the emptiness too, He said, No man takes My life from Me, another while again conceived of as God the Word and out of Heaven and One with His proper flesh, He says, No man hath ascended up to Heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son of Man.³

The Holy Scripture therefore from every side weaves the Son together into an inseparable and true union, and leads us back in faith to One Person. But this extraordinary man divides this in many ways and has spoken foolishly, calling the Word from God the Father "God of Christ Himself too," as our discussion will clearly demonstrate in its proper time and place as it proceeds. For he pretends to be afraid that anyone, overcome by reverence for the holy Virgin and calling her Mother of God, might suppose there is a mixture and blending of the Persons one with another and thus pour forth indecency upon the doctrines of the Church—although no one actually thinks this way. And while correcting (as he imagines) something so terrible, he completely confuses everything, disregarding ideas that pertain to correctness and truth. For he said this:

The Holy Scripture therefore from every side knitting together unto inseverable and true union the Son and bearing us back in faith unto One Person, this extraordinary man manifoldly severs, and hath babbled idly, calling the Word out of God the Father God of Christ Himself too, as our discourse as it advances will clearly demonstrate in its own time and place. For he feigns that he is afraid lest any overcome by reverence for the holy Virgin, and calling her Mother of God, should, supposing that there is a mixture and immingling of the Persons one with another pour forth uncomeliness upon the doctrines of the Church, albeit no one thus thinks: and rectifying (as he deems) a thing so dire, he utterly confuses all things, regardless of ideas which pertain to rightness and truth: for he said thus;

Nestorius: "If you had been promoting the term Mother of God out of simple faith, I would not have objected after examining what the term means. But since I see that under the pretext of honoring the blessed Mary, you are actually maintaining the blasphemy of the heretics, I therefore resist the use of this term, suspecting the danger hidden in it. But to speak clearly and more intelligibly to everyone, it is the goal of the followers of Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius and all who share their beliefs to introduce Theotokos, as if a mixing had taken place and the two physis were not divided, so that nothing of the lower things were taken from the human physis, and they ultimately applied them to the Divinity, as though all things were spoken of One, not in regard to rank from connection, but to physis. For One is Christ, and One Lord: but with respect to Christ, I mean the Only-Begotten Son, both Christ and Son are said sometimes of the Godhead, other times of the Manhood and Godhead."⁴⁵

Nestorius: "If in simple faith you had been putting forward the word Mother of God, I would not have grudged it you, on examining the sense of the word. But since I see that you, on plea of honouring the blessed Mary, are maintaining the blasphemy of the heretics, I therefore ward off the putting forth of the word, suspecting the danger that is concealed therein. But to speak clearly and more intelligibly to all, it is the aim of the party of Arius and Eunomius and Apolinarius and of all who are of like brotherhood, to bring in Theotokus, as though, a mingling having taken place and the two natures not divided, nought of the meaner things were taken of the human nature, and they had place at length against the Divinity, as though all things were spoken of One, not in regard to the rank from connection, but to Nature. For One is Christ, and One Lord: but in respect of Christ, I mean of the Only-Begotten Son, both Christ and Son are said, one while, of the Godhead, another while of the Manhood and Godhead."⁴⁵

Do you see how, with various inventions of ideas, he impiously embellishes even the fleshly generation of the Only-Begotten? He tries to show that it cannot take place except through some infusion or mixing of the substances. But the Teachers of the Church do not instruct us this way. We say that a true coming together took place—the Word united the Body to Himself while remaining what He was. But this man, paying no attention to these things, has blasphemed to no small degree. He divides Him into two prosopa and hypostases that are completely separate from each other, assigning to each separately the words that belong to it. Then he says "One Lord Jesus Christ," as though man were connected to God by rank only, not by true Union—that is, by Nature. How then is He One Christ and Son and Lord, if to both separately will belong, as you say, the title and the reality of being called this and truly being this? This would be the case because the hypostases would not come together in any way by union with one another, but would be united only in respect to rank or rule or authority. Yet if we examine the nature of things, we will observe that things which have equality of dignity have not for this reason given up their individual existence. Nor will having equal degree of glory be sufficient for union. For example, Peter and John were both Apostles, holy, and adorned with equal honors and power through the Spirit by Christ the Savior of us all. They, along with the rest, heard "You are the light of the world," and again, "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." Shall we therefore say that from their equality of rank or rule it follows that they too should be counted as one man, and that this is sufficient for unity—I mean unity of their prosopa? And how will such an opinion not reasonably be regarded as extremely foolish? Why then do you pretend that you are right in the Faith, saying that Christ Jesus the Lord is One, yet then dividing the One into two prosopa and hypostases? You dishonor the mode of the True Union through which the Christ is One and Alone, and you ignorantly call equality of honor a connection. What is this mode of connection? Do you not know that it is always precious to those in this life who are rich in honors from the rulers to be in worldly renown? Yet they, being sometimes in equal dignity, are still separate from one another in individual being and also in their desire to think and do the same things. But if the kind of rank were any necessary bond gathering them into unity just like a physical coming together, they would not, being in equality of honors or rank, have been divided from one another in prosopa and mind so as to be one and another. Where then shall we place your connection? What shall we count that it accomplished? Did it persuade them to be of one alliance? Did it cause them to come together into a mystical union? But you cannot say this, for reason has shown that the connection is utterly weak for both these purposes.⁶

Seest thou how with manifold inventions of ideas he impiously embellishes the generation after the flesh also of the Only-Begotten, how he essays to shew that it will take place no otherwise than by some infusion or commingling of the substances having place: albeit the Teachers of the Church do not initiate us this fashion; for we say that a true concurrence had place, the Word uniting to Himself the Body, yet abiding what He was. But this man taking nought of these things to mind, hath blasphemed in no mean degree, parting Him into two persons and hypostases wholly severed one from the other, and attributing to either separately the words to it belonging: and again he says One Lord Jesus Christ, as though man were connected with God by rank only, not by true Union i. e., by Nature. How then is He One Christ and Son and Lord, if to both severally will belong, as thou sayest, the being thus called and so being in truth, by reason of the hypostases coming together in no wise by union one with another, but being united in respect of rank only or sway or authority? And yet if we examine into the nature of things, we shall observe that things which are in equality of dignity, have not for this reason parted with their individual existence: nor yet will the having equal degree in point of glory, suffice to union, as for example, Peter and John were both of them Apostles and holy and adorned with equal honours and might through the Spirit by Christ the Saviour of us all. For they along with the rest heard, Ye are the light of the world, and again, Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. Shall we therefore say that from their equality of rank or sway accrues to them that they too should be counted as one man, and this is sufficient for unity, I mean unity of their persons? And how will not such an opinion be with reason conceived of as foolish exceedingly? Why then dost thou feign that thou art right in the Faith, saying that One is Christ Jesus the Lord, and then, severing into two persona and hypostases the One, dishonourest the mode of the True Union through which the Christ is One and Alone, and unlearnedly callest equality of honour connection? What is this mode of connection? knowest thou not that dear it always is to those in this life who are rich in honours from the rulers to be in worldly renown? yet they being in. equal dignity sometimes, are yet separate one from another in individual being and moreover in their desire of thinking and doing the same things. But if the kind of rank were any necessary bond gathering them into unity just like a physical coming together;—-they would not, being in equality of honours or rank, have been parted one from another in persons and mind so as to be one and another. Where then shall we put thy connection, what shall we count that it wrought? did it persuade them to be of one league, did it cause that they should come together unto a mystic union? But you cannot say this, for reason has shewn that the connection is utterly weak to both these.⁶

Tell me this too (for I will ask it as well, since it is necessary): what good did the rank do for the man born from a woman who was (as you said) connected with God the Word? Did it make him equal in glory and excellence, and render him as great as He is believed to be? And how then will He not speak falsely when saying, "My Glory will I not give to another," and how has the divinely inspired Psalmist not spoken in vain when he said, "Who among the clouds shall be made equal to the Lord? Who shall be made like to the Lord among the sons of God?" Is not the man other than the Word, who is One and by physis (nature) from God the Father, since he has in his own person been truly separated from union with Him? And how is this not clear to everyone? Now rank has not made the one who was connected equal to God the Word, but he is seen to be and is in a lower place. How then do you say there is One Christ and Son and Lord, even though one excels while the other, at least according to the force of your reasoning, settles down below equality with Him in glory? Besides (for I will add this too to what I have said), the Word who is from God the Father has given (according to him) His own rank to the one born of a woman. But we need to examine how he says this very thing has been accomplished. Has that man too been made Very Light? Is he by physis God and Life and Creator and Wisdom and Might, Image and Brightness of the hypostasis (Person) of the Father? And have the endowments of the Supreme Glory passed naturally into one of the created things? What then is the excellence in God by physis? What is great and above us, if it is possible for the creature to be rich essentially in the good things in which God Himself is? But perhaps it has been clothed in rank as a participant in the Divine Preeminence? Then there are again undoubtedly two sons, if it is true that something other and inferior by physis to Him who worked the participation in him is what has been honored with relationship to Him. You are therefore caught now as not even knowing what you are saying. For why do you blame those who attribute the words in the Gospels to One prosopon (Person)? Is it not because you are inventing two sons? For how is there any longer One Lord and Christ and Son, if each has his own prosopon and mode of being and moreover hypostasis withdrawing into diversity, repudiating the reality of true union and having utter irreconcilability with the other? And what is strange and shows the loathsomeness of his blasphemies, he says that the names are common—I mean Son and Christ and Lord. And if he were to say that they are common, that is, to One Christ and to others besides Him, his statement would have some probability. But if he ignorantly divides them and supposes that these terms apply to the Word by Himself and also to the one from a woman, then there are again surely and unmistakably two christs and sons and lords. For he said, "The name Christ must sometimes be understood of the Godhead Itself, other times of the Manhood too, or also of both." But the sharing of names will not help him at all to conceive of one Christ and Son and Lord while he divides (even though the hypostases themselves do not separate from one another), and the prosopa (Persons) are disjoined in their own proper diversity.⁷

Tell me this too (for I will ask it as well, as matter of necessity), what good did the rank do for the man born from out a woman who was (as you said) connected with God the Word? for did it make him equal in glory and excellency, and render him as great as He too is believed to be? And how then will He not speak falsely saying, My Glory will I not give to another, and vainly hath the Divine-uttering Psalmist too prated, saying on this wise, Who among the clouds shall be made equal to the Lord? who shall be made like to the Lord among the sons of God? Is not he other than the Word, One and by Nature and forth of God the Father, who in his proper person has been verily parted from union with Him? and how is this not clear to all? Now rank has not made equal to God the Word that which was connected, but it is seen to be and is in lower place: how then dost thou say One Christ and Son and Lord, although one excels, at least according to the force of reasoning, the other settles down below equality with Him and glory? Besides (for I will add this too to what I said) the Word That is forth of God the Father has given (according to him) His proper rank to him that is born of a woman: but how he says that this very thing has been wrought, it is meet to examine. Has he too been made Very Light? is he by Nature God and Life and Creator and Wisdom and Might, Image and Brightness of the Person of the Father? and the Endowments of the Supreme Glory, have they passed Naturally into some one of things made? what then is the Excellence in God by Nature? what great and above us, if it is possible for the creature to be rich and that essentially, in the good things wherein Itself is? But perchance it has been clad in rank, as participant of the Divine Preeminence? there are again two undoubted sons, if it is true that something other and inferior by nature to Him Who wrought in him the participation is that which is honoured with relationship to Him: you are therefore caught now as not even knowing what you are saying. For why do you blame those who attribute the words in the Gospels to One Person? is it not because you are inventing two sons? for how is there any longer One Lord and Christ and Son, if each have his proper person and mode of being and moreover hypostasis withdrawing unto diverse-ness, repudiating the reality of true union and having utter irreconcilability with the other? And what is strange and shews the loathsomeness of his blasphemies, he says that the names are common. I mean Son and Christ and Lord. And if he say that they are common, i. e., to One Christ and to others besides Him, his statement would have probability: but if he ignorantly sever and supposes that these terms befit the Word by Himself and moreover him that is forth of a woman, there are again surely and unmistakably two christs and sons and lords. For he said, "The name Christ must one while be put for the Godhead Itself, other while for the Manhood too, or also for both." But the community of name will help him not a whit to conceive of one Christ and Son and Lord while he severs (even though the hypostases themselves part not one from another), and the Persons are disjoined in their own proper diverseness.⁷

For by revealing to us the strength of his inborn lack of learning, he adds and says,

For making manifest to us the force of his innate unlearning he subjoins and says,

When therefore the Divine Scripture is about to speak of either the birth of Christ from the blessed Virgin or His Death, it never uses the name God, but rather Christ or Son or Lord, since these three names signify the two natures—sometimes one nature, sometimes the other, sometimes both together. For example, when Scripture tells us of the Generation from humanity, what does it say? God sent forth His Son; it did not say God sent forth God the Word, but instead uses the name that indicates the two natures. For since the Son is both Man and God, it says, Sent forth His Son made from a woman, so that when you hear the phrase made from a woman, you may notice the name used indicates the two natures, and you may call the Birth from the blessed Virgin the Son's Birth, for the Virgin mother of Christ also bore the Son of God. But since the Son of God is twofold in His natures, she bore indeed the Son of God, but bore the manhood which is son by reason of the connected Son.⁸

Nestorius: "When therefore the Divine Scripture is about to speak of either the birth of Christ which was forth of the blessed Virgin, or His Death, it is never seen to put God, but either Christ or Son or Lord, seeing that these three are significant of the two natures, one while of this, other while of that, other while of this and that. As for example when the Scripture declares to us the Generation out of man, what says it? God sent forth His Son; it did not say, God sent forth God the Word, but it takes the name which indicates the two natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, Sent forth His Son made from out a woman, that when you hear the word made out of a woman, then you may see the name put forth which indicates the two natures, that you may call the Birth from forth the blessed Virgin, the Son's Birth, for the Virgin mother of Christ too bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is two-fold in His Natures, she bare indeed the Son of God, but bare the manhood which is son by reason of the connected Son."⁸

But we, my friend, know how to think better than your empty whistlings, and we trace out the pattern of God-inspired Scripture, which says that there is one God the Father from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things were brought into being. When we hear that Christ was born of the holy Virgin, then—with all wisdom and eagerness to walk the straight path of truth—we say that the Word who came forth from God the Father was both incarnate and united personally to flesh and born according to the flesh. We will not tolerate your trickery, but we will assign the name Christ, with good reason, to the one and only Son who is such by nature when we speak of the birth through the holy Virgin. For such names will admittedly be common to him along with others—as I said—since many are sons by grace and gods and lords both in heaven and on earth, as the divinely inspired Paul also writes to us. Yet they are so by participating in the one who is so by nature and by imitating him. Still, the name Christ and its reality will in no way apply to the bare Word from the Father, considered by us as bare Word by himself and apart from flesh. But if he is now said to have emptied himself and to have come down in the form of a servant and been made as we are by reason of the flesh, then he too will be called Christ by reason of the anointing. For the Word, being God in his own nature, was not anointed, but the anointing happened to him with regard to his humanity. Therefore, when that has first entered in with regard to which the anointing takes place—for the incarnation is his, and the anointing belongs to it—when Christ is named by us, we will not (according to your unbridled speech) suppose that just a man, severed from the Word and set apart, was born of the holy Virgin, but rather the very Word himself (as I said) from God the Father, united to flesh and anointed humanly with the oil of gladness by God the Father.

But WE my friend, who know how to think better than thine empty whistlings and who track out the order of the God-inspired Scripture which says that One is God the Father out of whom are all things and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things were brought into being: when we hear that Christ has been born of the holy Virgin, then, then in all wisdom and zealous to go the straight way of the Truth, do wo say that the Word Which sprang forth of God the Father was both Incarnate and united Personally to flesh and born after the flesh: and we will not endure thy trickery, but to One and Only, the Son That is by Nature, will we allot the name Christ, with reason, when the Birth through the holy Virgin is spoken of. For common (as I said) to Him with others also will such names confessedly "be, for many are sons by grace and gods and lords both in heaven and in earth, as the Divine-uttering Paul too writes to us: yet [they are so] as participating with Him Who is so by Nature and in imitation [of Him]. Still the name Christ and its reality will pertain in no wise to the bare Word from forth the Father, conceived of by us as bare [Word] by Himself and apart from flesh: but if now He be said to have emptied Himself and to have come down [to be] in servant's form and been made as we by reason of the flesh, He too will be called by reason of the anointing, Christ; for not in His own Nature has the Word being God been Anointed, but the anointing hath happened to Him in regard to His Humanity. Thus therefore when that has first entered in, in regard to which the anointing takes place (for His is the Incarnation whereto belongs the anointing), when Christ is named by us we will not (according to thy unbridled speech) suppose that just a man, severed from the Word and put apart, has been born of the holy Virgin but the very Word (as I said) out of God the Father united to flesh and anointed humanly with the oil of gladness by God the Father.

But that the anointing happened to God the Word with respect to his manhood, when he became as we are, holy Scripture will prove to us. For the divinely-inspired Jacob, departing from his father's home, was hurrying on his way to Mesopotamia and going to Laban the son of Bethuel. He came upon a certain place on the journey and was staying there, and laying his head on a stone, he slept. He saw a ladder stretching upward from earth to heaven, with angels both ascending and descending on it, and the Lord resting upon it. He marveled greatly at the vision and took the stone and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. Now see in this our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only and truly Son, as a pillared stone. For indeed he is a choice stone, a head corner-stone, precious, set as the head of the corner and as the foundation of Zion by God the Father. Notice, I ask, how it was anointed—for the divinely-inspired Jacob did not pour oil on the whole stone throughout, but rather poured it on the top of it. Therefore not wholly (so to speak), nor in that the Only-Begotten is Word, has he been anointed with respect to his proper physis (for how could he be thought of as partaking of his own Spirit?), but rather is anointed (as I said) on the surface, that is, externally and as it were in part and on the surface on the body that was his own by true union. And just as he is said to suffer in the flesh humanly, though by physis impassible as God, so is he conceived of as anointed in regard to the human nature, though he himself anoints with his own Spirit those whom it is fitting to partake of his holiness.

But that the anointing hath happened to God the Word in respect of the manhood, when He became as we, holy Scripture will prove to us; for the Divine-uttering Jacob departing from his father's hearth was hastening on his way unto Mesopotamia and going to Laban the son of Bethuel, and having lighted on a certain place on the way thither he was lodging there and, laying his head on a stone, he sleeps: and having seen a ladder, stretching on high from earth to heaven and angels both ascending and descending by means of it and the Lord resting thereupon, he marvelled much at the vision and taking the stone he set it up as a pillar and poured oil upon the top of it. Regard now herein our Lord Jesus Christ, the One and only and truly Son, as a pillared stone. For indeed He is a choice stone, a head corner-stone, precious, set for the head of the corner and for the foundation of Zion by God the Father. Regard (I pray) moreover how it was anointed, for not the whole stone throughout did the Divine-uttering Jacob bedew with oil, but rather poured it upon the top of it. Therefore not wholly (so to speak) nor in that the Only-Begotten is Word, has He been anointed in respect of His proper Nature (for how could He be conceived of as participate of His own Spirit?) but rather is anointed (as I said) on the surface, i. e., externally and as in part and on the surface on the Body that was His own by true union: and as He is said to suffer in the flesh humanly, albeit by Nature Impassible as God; so is He conceived of as anointed in regard to the human nature, albeit Himself anointing with His own Spirit those whom it befits to partake of His holiness.

Thus we are inclined to think and are accustomed to walk rightly, going on the royal and straight road. But he, saying that such names are indicative of the two natures, assigns to each with authority whatever seems good to him and is ashamed of the humble language belonging to the economy with flesh. And though you hear the blessed Paul say, "God sent forth His Son made from a woman, made under the law," this man says, "Away with that! Do not think that the Word who sprang forth from God has been sent, for He has not been made from a woman, He has not been made under the law."

Thus are WE minded to think and are accustomed to walk aright, going on the royal and unperverted road: but he saying that such names are indicative of the two natures, allots to either with authority what seems good to him and is ashamed of the lowliness of speech belonging to the economy with flesh, and though you hear the blessed Paul say, God sent forth His Son made from out a woman, made under the law, Away, says this man, think not that the Word Which sprang forth of God has been sent, for He has not been made from out a woman, He has not been made under the law.

And to prove that our words are not empty deception but that we have actually used his own statements, I will once again present the very things he said.

And that our words are no empty guile, but we have used rather his own speech, I will again bring forward the very things he said,

Nestorius says: "For God sent forth His Son made of a woman, if made under the law." Here he points out the two natures. He says what took place regarding the human nature, because the objector demands: Who was made under the law? Was it God the Word?⁹

Nestorius: "For God (he says) sent forth His Son made of a woman, if made under the law. Here he points out the two natures, he says what took place as to the human nature, for demand of the wrangler, Who was made under the law? was it God the Word?"⁹

And how could someone not be truly confused who tries to overturn, as far as he is able, things that are so clear, universally known, and beyond doubt? Whom has the Father sent to us from heaven as Savior and Redeemer? Was it not the Word who came forth from His Essence? Who is the one who descended and ascended far above the heavens so that He might fill all things? Do you claim that the ability to fill all things belongs to our nature, and will you assign it to the limits of humanity? Of whom has the blessed John written, "He who comes from above is above all"? Or will He also be lying when He rebukes the Jewish people, saying, "You are from beneath, I am from above," and again, "I am not of this world"? For if He were a man from a woman like everyone else, and not rather the Word who is from above and from God the Father, who became incarnate and appeared in human form, how could He be understood as both from above and from heaven? How could He be above all and not of this world? Although He is part of the world by reason of the flesh and, so to speak, according to the measure appropriate to human nature, created along with everything else under God. Therefore He called the Father His God, even though He too is God by nature (physis) and shone forth from His Essence as Only-Begotten Son. Of whom does the blessed David say, "He sent forth His Word and healed them"? For no elder, no angel, but the Lord Himself has saved us, according to the Scriptures.

And how will not he be verily distraught, who essays to overturn, as far as in him lies, things so clear and known of all and undoubted? Whom hath the Father sent to us out of heaven, Saviour and Redeemer? was it not the Word Which sprang forth of His Essence? Who is He That descended and ascended far above the Heavens that He might fill all things? Dost thou say that the being able to fill all things is the work of our nature and will you affix it to the measures of humanity? of whom hath the blessed John written, He that cometh from above is above all? Or will haply Himself too lie in rebuking the people of the Jews and saying, Ye are from beneath, I am from above, and again, I am not of this world? For if He were man out of woman like one of the rest, and not rather the Word That is from above and out of God the Father, Incarnate and appearing in human form, how will He be conceived of as both above and out of heaven? how above all and not of this world? albeit a part of the world by reason of the flesh and (so to speak), according to the measure that befits the human nature, made along with all under God. Therefore He called the Father His God, though He too is God by Nature and beamed forth out of His Essence Only-Begotten Son. Of whom says the blessed David, He sent forth His Word and healed them? for no elder, no angel but the Lord Himself hath saved us, according to the Scriptures.

Nestorius: "But yes, he says, God the Word who is able to fill all things has been sent. How? For where do we say that He is not? Or where will He be sent to?"

Nestorius: "But yea, he saith, God the Word able to fill all things has been sent. How? for where do we say that He is not? or whither will He be sent?"

Will you therefore also accuse the all-wise Moses of having seriously wronged the ineffable glory of God? For he said that God descended in the form of fire upon Mount Sinai. And if you hear the blessed David say to God who is mighty over all, "You shall send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth," will you then perhaps dismiss the Spirit-inspired writer and suppose that he speaks falsely? For the Godhead does not make any motion that involves a change of place, nor does it pass from place to place, as though being in all things and filling all things were not inherent in it. You understand these things yourself too, I suppose; but you will be reasoning again and rising up against the true doctrines, choosing to follow yourself alone. But you would surely think better if you reasoned like this: that all our speech about God has been framed in human terms, but is to be understood as befits him alone.¹⁰

Will you accuse therefore the all-wise Moses too, as having wronged in no slight degree the Ineffable glory of God? for he said that God descended in the form of fire upon the Mount Sinai. And if you hear the blessed David say unto God mighty over all, Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth, wilt thou then perchance put aside the Spirit-clad and suppose that he speaks falsely? for no motion involving change of place does the Godhead make, nor will It pass from place to place, as though the being in all and filling all things were not inherent in It. These things (I suppose)……..thyself too; but you will be reasoning again, and rising up against the true doctrines, choosing to follow yourself alone. But you would surely have better thoughts if you reasoned thus, that our whole speech as to God has been framed in human wise, but is understood as befits Him Alone.¹⁰

But it has troubled him not a little that the Word from God the Father is said to have been made under the Law. But there is no real danger here, for He has remained what He was—that is, Lawgiver and God. And if He had not been made man, He would not have been made under the Law. But since it is true that He who in His own physis is above and exalted has humbled Himself, that He who is above all creation has been made as we are, and that being rich He became poor through being made as we are, how will He not be said to have been made under the Law along with us? Shall we not, if we think rightly, conclude that the measure of human nature is defined by the fact that it must be subject to the Law? For no one is exempt and above the Law and by nature and in truth free except the Godhead. Therefore, when He was made flesh, then He was made under the Law too, for He paid the two-drachma tax to the collectors, even though in His own physis He was free as God and Son even when He was made flesh. But if it seems good to you to divide the One into two and to declare to us that the one who came forth from a woman is a man separate and by himself, how will he be said to have been made under the Law too, when he is of the nature that is already under the Law? For it is not what already has to be subject to the Law that will be made under the Law, but rather what has a physis above the Law and outside the Law. For the divine and Most High physis alone, as I said, is both beyond law and also free, and has no master whatsoever, but rather itself rules all and subjects all to its own yoke.¹¹

But it has troubled him not a little that the Word out of God the Father is said to have been made under the Law. But the fear herein is nought, for He hath remained what He was, Lawgiver (that is) and God. And if He have not been made man, He hath not been made under the Law; but since it is true that He hath humbled Himself Who in His own Nature is above and high, hath been made as we Who is above the whole creation, and being Rich became poor through being made as we, how will He not be said with us to have been made under the Law too? Shall we not, if we think aright, conclude that the measure of man's nature is defined to lie in his having to be subject to the Law? for the exempt and above the Law and by Nature and in truth free will be none other than the Godhead. Hence when He was made flesh then was He made under the Law too, for He paid to the collectors the didrachm, albeit in His own Nature Free as God and Son oven when He was made flesh. But if to thee it seems good to sever into two the One and to declare to us that he which was forth of a woman is man apart by himself, how will he be said to have been made under the Law too, who is of the nature which is under the Law? for not that which hath to be subject to the Law, will be made under the Law, but that which, hath a Nature above Law and external to Law. For the Divine and Most High Nature alone (as I said) is both beyond law and also free, and hath no master whatever, but Itself rather ruleth all and subjecteth all to His own yoke.¹¹

But this man, having missed correct reasoning, slid down to this extent of impiety in his ideas and reached such a height of awkwardness by dividing the One Lord Jesus Christ into two, that he unshrinkingly said that Emmanuel is neither truly God nor Son by physis, but is called Christ and holy in the same way as certain other men like us or those who have worshipped impure demons. For this is what he said again:

But this man having missed right reasoning, slid down to this extent of impiety in his ideas and arrived at such height of awkwardness, from dividing into two the One Lord Jesus Christ, as unshrinkingly to say that Emmanuel is neither truly God nor yet by Nature Son, but is so called Christ and holy, as certain other too of men like us or of those who have worshipped impure devils: for thus again hath he said:

Nestorius: "Just as we say that the Creator of all is God and Moses is god (for Scripture says, 'I have made you a god to Pharaoh'), and Israel is God's son (for it says, 'Israel is My firstborn son'), and just as we say that Saul was christ (for it says, 'I will not stretch out my hand against him, because he is the Lord's christ'), and Cyrus likewise ('Thus says the Lord to Cyrus My christ'), and the Babylonian holy (for it says, 'I marshal them')—in the same way we say that the Lord is christ and god and son and holy. But while the names are shared in common, the rank is not the same."¹²

Nestorius: "But as we say that the Creator of all is God and Moses god; for it says, I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh: and Israel God's son, for it says, Israel is My firstborn son; and as we say that Saul was christ, for it says, I will not stretch forth my hand upon him, because he is the Lord's christ, and Cyrus likewise, Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus My christ, and the Babylonian holy, for I (it says) marshal them: so do we say that the Lord is christ and god and son and holy. But the community of names is similar, the rank not the same."¹²

What are you saying? What word are you belching forth from your own heart and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written? No one calls Jesus anathema except in Beelzebub. For instance, just as we may conceive of Moses or call him God, so will Christ be too? Will He also be Son after the likeness of Israel, tell me? O impiety! O words that do not hesitate to lift themselves up against the glory of our Savior! O sheer stupidity! And that overcomes all hesitation, I mean, in respect of unholy daring against the doctrines of the Church. Let the blessed David now also sing, "The enemies of the Lord lied to Him." For the divinely-inspired Moses was by physis (nature) a man as we are and nothing else. But when God said, "Come, I am sending you to Pharaoh king of Egypt and you shall bring the children of Israel forth from the land of Egypt," and Moses put forward as a reason for begging off his slowness of speech and lack of eloquence since yesterday and the third day, he heard God say, "See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh and Aaron your brother shall be your interpreter." For the law was too feeble to free anyone from bondage to the devil, but when Christ became our Mediator, this too was achieved, just as here when Aaron was alongside the divinely-inspired Moses, Israel was delivered from bondage in Egypt. But since Christ was going to be made under the Law in due course of time, in that He was as we are and was man, Aaron was put in second place to Moses. And the plan of the mystery is thus—but if one should choose to say this too, that by the calling of God that mighty Moses too has been honored, according to what has been said to us in common and as by God's favor and generosity, "I said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High"—is Christ God in this way? Yet how is this not madness and the empty froth of an unlearned mind? For the one (as I said), being man by physis, has been honored with the mere title only, while the Other is truly God (for the Word was God) in human form, having the preeminence over all with His own physis unmutilated (for the Divine physis will not undergo change for the worse by reason of descending to share in blood and flesh), and truly He is recognized as God even when appearing as Man also. And a clear demonstration of this are the things that have been written in the Gospels concerning Him. For the divinely-inspired John said, "Now when He was in Jerusalem at the feast, many believed in His Name when they saw the miracles which He was doing, but Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all things and needed not that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man." Yet the ability to see the heart of man and to know its secrets will not belong to anyone (how could it?) of men like us, nor yet to anything else that is made, but rather to Him alone who is said to fashion our hearts by Himself. Then how has Emmanuel, being called God, been honored like Moses with the mere title alone, and is He not rather in truth that which He is also said to be? Thus again John writes of Him, "For He whom God sent speaks the words of God and gives not the Spirit by measure." Do you understand then how, although He is beheld as a man like us, He speaks the words of God? For to God alone who is by physis and truly will belong as something distinctive and above the creature the ability to achieve what He wills by a word and to make partakers of the Holy Spirit those who have been justified in faith—and one may see that Christ is in this case. For He said to the leper, "I will, be clean," to the widow's son, "Young man, to you I say, Arise," and He manifested His own disciples as partakers of the Holy Spirit, for He breathed on them, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Then how will He who has advanced to this point and been crowned with God-befitting renown be god in the same way as Moses was? Whose heart did Moses know? Who has believed on his name? Whom has he justified through faith in himself? Where has he as son spoken the words of God? Yet he has openly cried to those of Israel, "Thus says the Lord," and has a servant's measure, for he was made faithful as a servant in the house of God.¹³¹⁴

What are you saying? what word are you belching forth out of your own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord, as it is written? No one calleth Jesus Anathema save in Beelzebub. As Moses for instance may be conceived of or called by us God, so will Christ too? after the likeness of Israel, will He too be Son, tell me? O impiety! O words that reck not of lifting up themselves against the glory of our Saviour! O sheer stupidity! and that overcomes all hesitancy in respect I mean of unholy daring against the doctrines of the Church. Let the blessed David now too sing, The enemies of the Lord lied unto Him: for the Divine-uttering Moses was by nature a man as we and nought else: but when on God saying, Come I am sending thee to Pharaoh king of Egypt and thou shalt bring the children of Israel forth of the land of Egypt, he was putting forward as reason for begging off, his slowness of speech and want of utterance, since yesterday and the third day, he heard God say, See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy interpreter. For feeble was the law to rid any from bondage unto the devil, but on Christ becoming our Mediator, this too has been achieved, just as here when Aaron was along with the Divine-uttering Moses, Israel was delivered from the bondage in Egypt. But since Christ was about in due course of time to be made under the Law too, in that He was as we and was man, Aaron was put in second place to Moses. And the plan of the mystery is thus,—-but if one should choose to say this too, that by the calling of God has that mighty Moses too been honoured, according to this which has been said to us in common and as by God's favour and munificence, I said, Ye are gods and all of you sons of the Most High: —-is Christ in this way God? yet how is not this madness and the empty froth of an unlearned mind? for the one (as I said) being man by nature has been honoured with the mere title only, the Other is truly God (for the Word was God) in human form, having the preeminence over all of His own Nature unmutilated (for not in change for the worse will be the Divine Nature by reason of Its descending to communicate in blood and flesh), and verily He is recognized as God when appearing as Man also. And a clear demonstration of this are the things that have been written in the Gospels concerning Him. For the Divine-uttering John said, Now when He was in Jerusalem in the feast, many believed in His Name when they saw the miracles which He was doing, but Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all things and needed not that any one should testify of man, for He knew what was in man: albeit the being able to see the heart of man and to know its secrets, will not belong to any one (whence should it?) of men like us, nor yet to ought other of things made, but rather to Him Alone Who is said to fashion our hearts by Himself. Then how has Emmanuel, being called God, been honoured like Moses with the mere title alone, and is not rather in truth that which He is also said to be? Thus again does John write of Him, for He whom God sent speaketh the words of God and giveth not the Spirit by measure. Understandest thou then how, albeit beheld a man as we, He speaketh the words of God? For to God Alone Who is by Nature and truly will pertain as something choice and above the creature, the being able by a word to achieve what He will and to render partakers of the Holy Ghost them who have been justified in faith:—-and one may see that Christ is in this case. For He said to the leper, I will, be clean. to the widow's son, Young man, to thee say I, Arise: and His own Disciples He manifested partakers of the Holy Ghost, for He breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Then how will He Who has advanced to this point and been crowned with God-befitting renown be god after such sort as was Moses? whose heart knew he? who hath believed on his name? whom hath he justified through faith in himself? where hath he as son spoken the words of God? albeit he hath openly cried unto them of Israel, Thus saith the Lord, and hath a servant's measure, for he was made faithful as a servant in the house of God.¹³¹⁴

And if Emmanuel was a son in the same way as Israel, who was made so according to the flesh, you have brought down among slaves the One who is Free by His own physis, even though He became in the form of a slave because of the flesh and the things that belong to it. You have placed on equal footing with the sons by grace the One because of whom they have been enriched with the grace of sonship. For He has been called firstborn of us because of the manhood, yet even so He has remained Only-begotten as God. Therefore, as the most wise Paul says, the powers above are commanded to worship the Firstborn when introduced by the Father into the world, and upon learning the mystery regarding Him, they extol with ceaseless praises the One who is by physis and truly Son. For if He gives authority to those who received Him to become children of God, as John says, and if it is true that His Spirit brings it about that we too should become sons (for God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father), no one who is accustomed to think rightly will tolerate this man saying that He too is a son in the same manner as Israel was.¹⁵

And if Emmanuel was son in the same way too as was Israel who was made so after the flesh, thou hast brought down among bondservants Him Who is in His own Nature Free, even though He became in the form of a bondman by reason of the flesh and the things thereto pertaining: thou hast set in equal measure with the sons by grace Him on account of whom they have been enriched with the grace of sonship: for He has been called first-born of us by reason of the manhood, yet even so hath remained Only-begotten as God. Therefore (as saith the most wise Paul) the powers above are bidden to worship the First-begotten when introduced by the Father into the world, and on learning the mystery regarding Him, with ceaseless praises do they extol the One and by Nature and truly Son. For if He gives authority to them that received Him to become children of God, as John saith, and if it is true that His Spirit effects that we too should become sons (for God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father), none who are accustomed to think aright will endure this man saying that He too is son in such manner as was Israel.¹⁵

And how was He Christ and holy in the same way that both Cyrus the King of the Persians and the Persians and Medes themselves may be called christ and holy? For it would be time to say that Christ has not been sanctified in a human way, even though the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove. For Cyrus son of Cambyses led an expedition against the land of the Babylonians in his time, but he was in error and used to worship foul demons. But when God stirred him up and roused him to anger, and he took the land of the Babylonians, he was called christ by a common title, though he was not anointed with the Holy Spirit. And in this way the Persians and Medes who were his companions were holy (for they too served the creature rather than God the Creator and worshipped the works of their own hands). But since the offering that was once set apart for God according to the words of the Mosaic Law, whether calf or sheep, was called holy, therefore they too have been called holy through the Prophet's voice, because they were set apart by Divine consent to take captive the land of the Babylonians. If then Emmanuel is christ in the same way that Cyrus was, and holy in the same way that the Medes and Persians were, one might reasonably say—considering the absurdity of such a notion—that He has neither been anointed with the Holy Spirit nor is He holy at all. The Divine David will therefore be lying when he says to Him, "You loved righteousness and hated wrong, therefore God, Your God, anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows."

And how was He in such wise too christ and holy, as may be called christ both Cyrus the King of the Persians and yet again the Persians and Medes themselves? for it were time to say that neither has Christ been sanctified humanly albeit the Holy Ghost soared down upon Him in form of a dove. For Cyrus son of Cambyses led an expedition against the land of the Babylonians in his time, but he was in error, and used to offer worship to foul devils: but when, on God stirring him up and rousing him into wrath, he took the land of the Babylonians, by a name common, albeit not anointed with the Holy Ghost, he was called christ. And in this way were the Persians and Medes holy who were his fellows (for they too served the creature more than God the Creator and worshipped the works of their own hands); but since the offering that was once, according to the words of the Mosaic Law, separated unto God, whether calf or sheep, was called holy; therefore have they too been called holy through the Prophet's voice, by reason they were set apart by the Divine assent to take captive the land of the Babylonians. If then Emmanuel is in such sort christ as was Cyrus too, and in such wise holy as were the Medes and Persians, one might with reason say as of their absurdity of notion that neither hath He been anointed with the Holy Ghost nor is He holy at all. The Divine David will therefore lie saying unto Him, Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst wrong, therefore God, Thy God, anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.

And after babbling on in this way against the preeminence and glory of our Savior, he thinks he pushes away the charge of impiety by saying something childish and lacking understanding: "for the community (he says) of names is alike, not the rank the same." How is this so, tell me, for I do not understand? For if He is God in the same way that Moses was too, and Son in the same way that Israel was, and christ in the same way that Cyrus was, and moreover holy in the same way that the Medes were, how will He escape being placed in equality of rank with them?

And he chattering after this sort against the Preeminence and glory of our Saviour, thinks that he thrusts away the charge of impiety, by saying something childish and without understanding, "for the community (he says) of names is like, not the rank the same." How, tell me, for I do not understand? For if He is in such wise God as was Moses too, and in such wise son as was Israel, and in such wise christ as was Cyrus and moreover in such wise holy as were the Medes, how will He escape having to be in equality of rank with them?

Now therefore you will be caught having blasphemed against the very Nature of the Word itself, for you said again,

Now therefore you will be caught in having blasphemed against the very Nature of the Word too, for thou saidst again,

Nestorius: "Say that the one who assumed is God, and add that what was assumed is the servant's form. Then bring in the dignity of the connection, so that the authority is common to both and the dignity is the same for both. While the natures remain, acknowledge the union of rank."

Nestorius: "Say of Him Who assumed that He is God, add of that which is assumed that it is the servant's form, bring in next the dignity of connection, that of the two the sway is common, that of the two the dignity is the same; while the natures remain, acknowledge the union of rank."

He divides things into two again, and in his great lack of understanding he attributes the power of union to rank alone, perhaps not understanding what union really is or what rank actually means. But we say this: he claimed that one sway and one dignity belong to the two natures. Since therefore the one who is in equality of glory with God the Word will not surpass Moses in being god, it is clear, I think, that the very Word who is from God will have equal status in nature and glory with Moses. For if the middle term is like the first and third and has exact resemblance to both in every respect, the structure of their nature will not be different.

He divides therefore again into two, in exceeding lack of understanding he lavishes on rank the force of union, haply not understanding what union is, and what the rank really is. But this we say; he said that of the two natures one is the sway, one the Dignity. Since then he who is in equality of glory with God the Word will not surpass Moses in respect of being god, it is I suppose clear that the very Word which is forth of God, will have equal status in nature and glory with Moses, for if the mean be like and in every respect have exact resemblance with the first and third, the plan of their nature will not be diverse.

But perhaps he will say that the mode of rank is not physis: how then do you think it fitting to gather into one (as you yourself say) sway and to crown with equal rank things that are essentially so far separated from participation with one another and also from equality? For where one physis is wholly in an inferior place, with the other surpassing it, how will there come to it both equality of honors and even dignity, and how will the mode of glory not be different?

But haply he will say that the mode of rank is not nature: how therefore do you deem it fit to gather into one (as yourself say) sway and to crown with equal rank things essentially so far severed from participation one with another and also from equality? for where a nature is wholly in inferior place, the other overtopping it, how will there accrue to it both equality of honours and even dignity and the mode of glory be not diverse?

But the fact that when he mentions connection—which he perhaps understands as merely being close together and placed side by side, or as something accidental—he actually contradicts his own words, rebuilding what he tore down and setting up again what he had overthrown, will also be clear from this: for he said the following:

But that on mentioning connection, haply conceived of as that of mere proximity and juxtaposition, or as an accidental one, himself rises up against his own words, building what he undid and setting up what has been overthrown, will be clear by this again also: for he said thus;

Nestorius: "Therefore I want you to hold firmly with complete confidence: there is no separation of the connection of the dignity of sonship, there is no separation of his being Christ. Of the Godhead and Manhood there is a separation; Christ is indivisible in that He is Christ, for we do not have two christs or two sons, since there is not with us a first and a second, nor one thing and another thing, nor one son and another son; rather, the One is Himself twofold, not in rank but in physis."¹⁶

Nestorius: "Therefore I would have you hold fast with all assurance: there is no severance of the connection of the dignity of the sonship, there is no severance of his being Christ, of the Godhead and Manhood there is a severance; Christ is indivisible, in that He is Christ, for we have not two christs nor two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second, nor yet other and other, nor again another son and another again; but the One is Himself twofold, not in rank but in nature."¹⁶

Tell me again what you mean by inseverable connection: is it the union in respect of prosopon that we set forth, striving together for the doctrines of the truth? Or is it what is conceived of as one of juxtaposition and proximity of one thing to another? For this is how the God-inspired Scripture uses the word. Indeed, he spoke to the most holy Moses when discoursing with him about that ancient tabernacle: "And you shall make fifty clasps of gold and connect the curtains one to another with the clasps." For though there were five curtains, each having individually a being other than the rest, they were connected by the clasps. But we do not say that the union has been accomplished in Christ in this way, for neither was he united as one person might be connected with another—whether in respect to like-mindedness or bodily nearness. Rather, as I have repeatedly said, he made his own the body which was taken from the holy Virgin, and we say that the Word from God has been truly united to flesh not without a soul.

Tell me again what it is you term inseverable connection: is it the union, I mean in respect of Person, which WE set forth, striving together for the doctrines of the Truth? or is it this which is conceived of as one of juxtaposition and proximity of any to anything? for thus does the God-inspired Scripture take the word. And verily He spake to the most holy Moses, when He was discoursing with him respecting that olden tabernacle, And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold and connect the curtains one to other with the taches. For being five and each having individually the being other than the rest, they were connected by the taches. But not thus do WE say that the union has been wrought as to Christ, for neither as one may be connected with another, either in respect to like mindedness or bodily nearness, was He too like this, but (as I have repeatedly said) He made His own the Body which was taken from forth the holy Virgin; and we say that the Word out of God has been truly united to flesh not without a soul.

Hence, if the force of the connection he has spoken of signifies the union we mean—that is, of Person—he will reasonably have said that there is no severance of Christ, in that He is Christ. For He is "not one and another, nor yet son and son, other and other, first and second," but One both before flesh and with flesh. For in this way He will be inseverable—indeed, rather the Same—in respect of rank (as you say) and also of authority. Then how do you say that the One and Inseverable is twofold, and that not in regard of rank but of physis? For the Word out of God the Father did not become twofold simply because He took flesh and came forth as man like us. He is One—and not without flesh—He who in His proper physis is external to flesh and body. For instance, if someone were to kill a man such as we are, he would not reasonably be accused of having wronged two men but one alone, even though the man is conceived of as being composed of soul and body, and the physis of the things that have been brought together is not the same but diverse. So again must we conceive of Christ, for He is not twofold, but One and Only Lord and Son is the Word from God the Father, not without flesh. For I myself would also allow that the difference or interval between Manhood and Godhead is very vast, for the things which have been named are plainly other in respect of the mode of their being and nothing like one another. But when the mystery Christ-ward is brought before us, the plan of the union does not ignore the difference, but puts aside the severance, not confounding the physeis or mingling them, but because the Word of God, when He partook of flesh and blood, is even thus conceived of and called One Son. But you, in saying that they ought not to be called two christs, nor should one confess two sons, and hereby stealing the appearance of rightness in doctrine, are caught in the act of saying two christs and dividing into his own separateness man and God, and you try to show that the one is operated upon, the other operates. For your words are thus:¹⁷¹⁸

Hence if the force of the connection which has been spoken of by him, signify the union which we mean, i. e. of Person, reasonably will he have said that there is no severance of Christ, in that He is Christ; for He is "not one and another, nor yet son and son, other and other, first and second," but One both before flesh and with flesh: for thus will He be in respect of rank (as THOU sayest) and also of sway, inseverable, yea rather the Same. Then how dost thou say that the One and Inseverable is twofold, and that not in regard of rank but of nature? for not because the Word out of God the Father having taken flesh, proceeded forth man as we, will He for this reason be called also twofold, for One and that not without flesh is He Who is in His proper Nature external to flesh and body. For as, were one to kill a man such as we are, he would not with reason be accused of having wronged two men but one alone, even though the man be conceived of as being of soul and body, and the nature of the things that have been brought together be not the same, but diverse: so again must we conceive of Christ, for He is not twofold, but One and Only Lord and Son is the Word from forth God the Father, not without flesh. For that of Manhood and Godhead most vast is the difference or interval I myself too would allow, for other in respect of the mode of their being and nothing like one to another are plainly the things which have been named. But when the mystery Christ-ward is brought before us, the plan of the union ignores not indeed the difference, but puts aside the severance, not confounding the natures or immingling them but, because the Word of God when He partook of flesh and blood, even thus is conceived of and called One Son. But you in saying that they ought not to be called two christs, nor should one confess two sons, and hereby filching the semblance of rightness in dogma, are caught in the act of saying two christs, and dividing into his own diverseness man and God, and you endeavour to shew that the one is operated, the other operates: for your words are thus,¹⁷¹⁸

Nestorius: "The good glory of the Only-Begotten is sometimes ascribed to the Father, for He says, 'My Father glorifies Me,' sometimes to the Spirit, for He says, 'the Spirit of Truth shall glorify Me,' and sometimes to the power of Christ, for it says, 'they went forth and preached the word everywhere, the Lord co-working and confirming the word through the signs that followed.'"¹⁸

Nestorius: "The good glory of the Only-Begotten one while is ascribed to the Father, for it is, He says, My Father which glorifieth Me, other while to the Spirit, for the Spirit of Truth, He says, shall glorify Me, other while to the power of Christ, for they, it says, went forth and preached the word everywhere, the Lord co-working and confirming the word through the signs that followed. "¹⁸

If he says that the Only-Begotten Word of God, as though lacking glory in what He is and is conceived of as Word before becoming incarnate, is glorified by the Father and the Holy Spirit—I will leave aside for now saying that he both blunders and has missed the truth (since the occasion leads us to something else). But he seems to me to have forgotten what he had just thought out and said, for he said, "Not one and another is Christ, not other and other son, for we have not two Christs and two sons." But, most understanding one, I would say: if you affirm that the good glory of the Only-Begotten is ascribed to the power of Christ, how will He be not one and another, or how not wholly and surely two? For if the giver and receiver are not the same, or if he ascribes to another than himself the things which belong to him by nature, then Christ has worked being possessed, as being other than the Only-Begotten. For if the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been (as you say) ascribed to him, and the divinely-speaking disciples used the power that came from him to preach and work miracles, how is what I said not true? For he has worked using another's power, so that the one who worked—and not himself—may rather be glorified by those in the world. What then, tell me, appears more in Him than in the holy Apostles? For they have worked wonders not by their own power, and they themselves clearly confessed this. They were worthy of admiration in knowing this too and glorifying Him Who works in them. Then how ought not Christ—who according to you was possessed by another and had the good glory of the Only-Begotten from outside—to have proclaimed to those who approach Him as God and supplicate help from Him: "In the name of the Only-Begotten, or in His might, let this good thing come to you"? For this is how the all-wise disciples used to do it, everywhere naming Jesus of Nazareth. But to no one at all has He declared this; rather, He used to attribute what was accomplished to His own power, one time saying to the blind man, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" and requiring their assent, at another time commanding with authority, saying, "I will, be clean." Why do you not let go of these old wives' tales which have been invented by yourself alone, and occupy yourself with wise mind about the depth of the mystery?¹⁹²⁰

If he says that the Only-Begotten Word of God, as though lacking glory in that He is and is conceived of as Word and not yet Incarnate, is glorified by the Father and the Holy Ghost:—-that he both blunders and has missed the truth, I will leave saying for the present (for occasion leads us to something else); but he seems to me to have forgotten what he had just now thought out and said, for he said, "Not one and another is Christ, not other and other son, for we have not two Christs and two sons." But, O most understanding, would I say, if thou affirm that the good glory of the Only-Begotten is ascribed to the power of Christ, how will He be not one and another, or how not wholly and surely two? for if not the same be giver and receiver, or he ascribe to another than himself the things which accrue to him by nature, Christ hath wrought being possessed, as being other than the Only-Begotten: for if the good glory of the Only-Begotten have been (as you say) ascribed to him; and the Divine-uttering disciples using the power that came from him, preached and wrought miracles, how is that not true that I said? for he hath wrought using other's power, that he which wrought and not himself rather may be glorified by those in the world. What then (tell me) appears there more in Him than in the holy Apostles? for they have wrought wonders not by their own power, and this themselves clearly confessed, for they were worthy of admiration in knowing this too and glorifying Him Who worketh in them. Then how ought not Christ Who according to thee was possessed by another and had from without the good glory of the Only-Begotten, to have proclaimed to those who approach Him as God, and supplicate succour from Him, In the name of the Only-Begotten, or in His Might, be to thee this good thing: for so used to do the all-wise disciples, every where naming Jesus of Nazareth. But to no one whatever hath He declared this, but rather to His own power used He to attribute what was accomplished, one time saying to the blind man, Believe ye that I am able to do this? and requiring their assent, at another ordering with authority saying, I will, be clean. Why dost thou not, letting go the fables fit for old women which have been invented by thyself alone, occupy thyself with wise mind about the depth of the mystery?¹⁹²⁰

But one can see that he cares little about things necessary for spiritual benefit, and is afraid that he might let slip anything true or be caught thinking anything praiseworthy. He considers everything that is most contradictory and makes utterly thoughtless condemnations of the church's doctrines, even though he should have remembered God speaking through the mouth of Ezekiel to those who shepherd the spiritual flocks: "You ate the good pasture and drank the pure water and troubled the rest with your feet, and My flock fed on what your feet had trampled and drank the water your feet had muddied." For when we apply our minds to the God-inspired Scriptures, we eat the good pasture, as it is written, and we drink the untroubled water—that is, the word of the Spirit unmixed with falsehood, clear and most pure. But if we make it thick and mix into it, like mud, the dreariness of our own inventions, we plot against the Saviour's flocks.

But one may see that he little recks of things needful unto profit, but is afraid lest he let drop ought true and be caught thinking anything praiseworthy: and thinks every thing that is most discordant and makes a condemnation utterly inconsiderate of the doctrines of the church, albeit he should have remembered God saying by the mouth of Ezekiel to those who are over the spiritual flocks, Ye ate the good pasture and drank the pure water and troubled the residue with your feet, and My flock fed on the treadings down of your feet and drank the water troubled by your feet. For when WE apply our minds to the God-inspired Scriptures, we eat the good pasture, as it is written, and we drink the untroubled water, i. e. the unmixed with falsehood, translucent and most pure word of the Spirit: but if we thicken it and immingle therewith like mud the cheerlessness of our own devices, we plot against the flocks of the Saviour.

And that this too is true will be shown by the things he has thought out and carelessly said about Christ, for it is as follows:

And that this too is true, the things which he has thought out and heedlessly said of Christ, will shew; for it is thus:

Nestorius: "For God the Word, even before the Incarnation, was Son and God and of one mind with the Father, but in the last times He took the form of a servant. Yet since He was Son before this, and was called such, after the assumption He cannot be called Son separately, or else we would be teaching the doctrine of two sons. But since He has been united with Him who is Son from the beginning, the one who was united with Him may not be separated in respect of the dignity of sonship—I mean in respect of the dignity of sonship, not in respect of the natures. Therefore God the Word is also called Christ, since He has His connection with Christ perpetually. And it is not possible that God the Word should do anything without the manhood, for it has been brought into exact connection with complete precision—not into deification, as the wise ones among the neo-dogmatists say."

Nestorius: "For God the Word even before the Incarnation was Son and God and of one mind with the Father, but in the last times He took the form of a servant. Yet being before this Son, and being [so] called, after the assumption He cannot be called Son separately, lest we teach the doctrine of two sons. But since he has been connected with Him which is in the beginning Son, Him who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance in respect of the dignity of sonship, in respect I say of the dignity of sonship, not in respect of the natures. Wherefore God the Word is called Christ also, since He has His connection with Christ perpetual. And it is not possible that God the Word should do ought without the manhood, for it has been with all exactitude brought unto exact connection, not unto deification, as the wise ones of the neo-dogmatists say."

The one who dared to say that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been attributed to the power of Christ, and who tore apart the bond of Oneness, brings things back into union and then dissolves them again, separating the natures from one another. He talks endlessly and boastfully to us about these matters, so that even if he should say something that tends toward orthodoxy, he may be clearly convicted of not knowing what he is saying. For he says here that the Word of God "is both Son and God even before the Incarnation, and that in the last times He took the form of a servant." Tell me then, if I do not seem to you to be speaking appropriately, who is it now who is said to be made man? And what do you say that being made man is? Who is he that took the servant's form? And how was it taken by him? Therefore, in saying that a man was made man, you will show your own understanding to be worthy of ridicule—how can anyone doubt this? For how will someone who is man by nature be made what he already was, and pass as though to something else, in respect of nature I mean? How will that which is not free in its own nature be said to have become bond, as though it were not so at the beginning? Hence, to have been made man will not pertain to a man—far from it—and to take the form of a servant does not belong to him who even at the beginning has the measure of servitude, but rather to Him who, not being man by nature, is believed to have been made so, and who, being Lord of all as God, abased Himself in our condition, uniting to Himself personally the human nature and taking the form of the servant. For thus will that too be true which you said, that "after the assumption, He cannot be called Son separately lest we teach the doctrine of two sons."²⁰²¹

He that durst say that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been ascribed to the power of Christ, and that plucked asunder the bond of Oneness, gathers again into union and again dissolves it and parts the natures one from other. And most plentifully does he vainly talk and rhodomontade to us respecting these things, so that even though he should say ought that tendeth unto orthodoxy, he may be clearly convicted of not knowing what he saith. For he says here that the Word of God "is both Son and God even before the Incarnation, moreover that in the last times He took the form of a servant." Tell me therefore, if I do not seem to thee to say what is meet, Who is it now that is said to be made man? and what dost thou say that being made man is? who is he that took the servant's form? and how was it taken by him? That in saying therefore that a man was made man, you will display as worthy of ridicule your own understanding, how can one doubt? for he that is man by nature, how will he be made what he was, and pass as though to somewhat else, in respect I mean of nature? that which in its own nature is not free, how will it be said to have become bond, as though it were not so at the beginning? Hence to have been made man, will not pertain unto a man, far from it, and to take the form of a servant, belongs not to him who even at the beginning has the measure of bondservice, but to Him rather Who being not man by Nature, is believed to have been made so, and Who being Lord of all as God, abased Himself in our condition, uniting to Himself Personally the human nature, and taking the form of the servant. For thus will that too be true which thou saidst, that "after the assumption, He cannot be called Son separately lest we teach the doctrine of two sons."²⁰²¹

And the right, unperverted, and straight path of doctrines is this and no other. But he who mentioned to us the becoming-man of the Word Who is forth from the Father is carried almost immediately into forgetfulness of what he said, and severs again into two the One. He drifts about feebly in the weakest ideas and uses words that are always untested, for he said, "But since he has been connected with Him Who is in the beginning Son, Who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance as regards the dignity of sonship—as regards dignity of sonship I say, not as regards the natures." Rightly, my friend, do you reject as unprofitable what seems to be insecure; it has been carefully set before you to use an ever-vigilant mode of speech. For look, look—severing the natures, you gather them into union as regards the dignity of sonship. Does sameness or identity of names and dignity in respect of this suffice for true union in things severed one from another by nature? For so it seems good to you to say. Therefore, since the name Christ, and moreover son and lord, have been given to others too as names common to several (for very many have been made christs and have been called sons and lords), they too will be, as regards the dignity of sonship, both severable one from another and all of them one in respect of the union which you think was wrought in respect of Christ too. But a man such as we are will be wholly distinct from the Word out of God. How therefore they have not been severed, how too there is one son, I cannot conceive, unless we say that the human nature (physis) and the Word have come together by a true union.

And the right and unperverted and straight-going path of doctrines, is this and no other. But he again who mentioned to us the being-made-man of the Word Which is forth of the Father, borne almost straightway unto forgetfulness of what he said, severs again into two the One, both in vile sort floating in feeblest ideas and using ever words untested, for he said, "But since he has been connected with Him, Who is in the beginning Son, Who was connected with him, he may not admit of severance, as regards the dignity of sonship, as regards dignity I say of sonship, not as regards the natures." Rightly, my friend, dost thou reject as unprofitable that which seems to be insecure, studiously has it been set before thee to use ever vigilant mode of speech. For lo, lo, severing the natures, thou gatherest them into union as regards the dignity of sonship. Sufficeth therefore unto true union in things by nature severed one from another, the sameness or identity of names and the dignity in respect of this? for thus too does it seem good to thee to say. Therefore since the name Christ, and moreover son and lord, have been given to others too as names common [to several] (for very many have been made christs and have been called sonsand lords); they too will be as regards the dignity of sonship, both disseverable one from another and all of them one in respect of the union which you think was wrought in respect of Christ too. But a man such as we will be wholly distinct from the Word out of God: how therefore they have not been severed, how too there is one son, I cannot conceive, unless we say that the human nature and the Word have come together by a true union.

But since we must, because of his words, take the argument to its absurd conclusion so that he may be shown on all sides to have thought incorrectly, come now, let us say this too. For if the dignity of sonship is sufficient for union, since the Word who is from the Father is called and is Son of God the Father, and since the name is common to many others, what is to prevent us (tell me) from saying that all the rest have also been united with him, so that Emmanuel would have nothing more than they do? For the claim of the same names will apparently be competing with him and striving for equality, and the mode of connection will lie in bare and mere appellation or community of name. What then is being made man understood to be? What also is the descent in the servant's form? For if the mode of being made man is (according to him) a mere connection, and consists only in the dignity of sonship, what is to prevent us from saying that it has been accomplished in all the rest as well? But the friend of learning surely sees the unseemliness of what is being said. Where then is he now being carried off to, distracted, toward things not lawful? We shall say to him what is spoken by Jeremiah's voice: You grew weary in much journeying, for he is tossed back and forth, carried about with every wind, as the most wise Paul says. Therefore receive the anchor of the soul sure and steadfast, set your feet upon a rock. If you say that the Word of God was made man, this will suffice to show that he who is above all creation was made as we are. He took the servant's form although he possessed freedom as God, for he was in equality with the Father, who possesses dominion over all. Stop severing the natures after the union, for that the divine physis and the physis of man are one thing and another, it will be fitting to know, and I consider it necessary for those who are sound in mind (for they are separated from one another by incomparable differences), but with regard to Christ the Savior of us all, having brought them together into true union and of prosopon, reject severance, for thus you will confess one Christ and Son and Lord.

But since one must, on account of these words of his, carry round the argument even unto absurdity, that on all sides he may be convicted of having thought not aright, come now, come, let us say this too. For if the dignity of sonship suffices unto union, since the Word Which is from forth Him is called and is Son of God the Father, and the name is common to many more, where is the harm (tell me) of saying that the rest too all of them have themselves been united with Him, in order that Emmanuel may have nought more than they? for the claim 7 of the same names will (it seems) be contending with Him and be striving for equality, and the mode of connection will lie in bare and mere appellation or community of name. What then is being made man understood to be? what too the descent in the servant's form? for if the mode of the being made man is (according to him) a mere connection, and consist in the dignity only of sonship what is to hinder our saying that it has been effected in regard to all the rest too? But the friend of learning sees assuredly the uncomeliness of what is said. Whither therefore is he now borne off, distraught, unto things not lawful? by us shall be said to him what is uttered by Jeremiah's voice, Thou waxedst weary in much journeying, for he is tossed to and fro borne about with every wind, as saith the most wise Paul. Therefore receive the anchor of the soul sure and stedfast, set thy feet upon a rock. If thou sayest that the Word of God was made man, this will suffice to shew that He Who is above all the creation was made as we. He took the servant's form although He possessed freedom as God; for He was in equality with the Father, Who possesseth dominion over all. Cease to sever the natures after the union: for that one thing and another is the Divine Nature and the nature of man it will be fit to know, and needful I deem to those who are sound in mind (for they are parted one from another by incomparable differences), but in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, do thou having brought them togetherinto union true andof Person, reject severance, for thus wilt thou confess one Christ and Son and Lord.

I don't understand how the one who invents weak doctrines has made so little of the union itself. Pushing aside both the union (it seems) and the power of the truth, he has gone back to what he personally prefers and says, "Therefore God the Word is also called Christ, since He has a perpetual connection with Christ. And it is not possible for God the Word to do anything without the manhood, for it has been accurately adjusted to exact connection, not deification, as the wise ones among those with new teachings say." So when he says that the Word from God the Father has been separately called Christ, because He has a connection with Christ—that is, with another person—how has he not spoken foolishly in saying that after the assumption He cannot be called this separately? What is conceived of by us is not one thing that happens to be connected with something else, for the things that come together will rightly be understood as two, and not as one thing connected with itself. Therefore his words are false, and in another sense they are nonsense. But we, after the union, even if someone names God the Word, do not think of Him apart from His own flesh. Even if someone says Christ, we recognize the Word made flesh. What then do you think is the nature of the connection you are talking about? For if you say that the human nature has been united in hypostasis with the Word who came forth from God, why (tell me) do you insult the divine flesh? You do not refuse to worship it, even though the duty of being worshipped belongs only to the divine and ineffable physis. But if you do not think that a true union took place, but instead call it by the name of connection—referring to a status that consists in having the same name and merely the same title—why do you speak so solemnly, saying that the one born of the woman has "been accurately adjusted to exact connection," that is, with the Word? For they are synonymous with each other, son with son, and lord with lord, and the names are in no way inferior to one another. To investigate any superiority among them is (I suppose) pointless, for son compared to son as son has neither greater nor less. You are therefore speaking unnecessarily (clearly so) in saying that he has been "accurately adjusted to exact connection." But to say that they have been accurately adjusted to one another will belong (as it appears to me) not to things that share the same name, but rather to things that possess equality and likeness in every respect to things that are believed to be one. For example, we say that there has been accurately adjusted to exact correspondence with the form of someone either the son who is begotten from him, or one might say his image. But regarding connection, how can things be conceived of and said to have been accurately adjusted?²¹²²

But I know not how the inventor of feeble doctrines has made exceeding petty account of the fact of union, and thrusting away both it (as seems) and the might of the truth, hath gone again unto what liketh himself and saith, "Therefore is God the Word called Christ also, seeing that He hath His connection with Christ perpetual. And it is not possible for God the Word to work ought without the manhood; for it hath been accurately adjusted unto exact connection, not deification, as the wise ones of the neo-dogmatists say." When therefore he says that the Word from forth God the Father has been separately called Christ, as having connection with Christ, i. e., with another, how has he not idly prated in saying that after the assumption He cannot be so styled separately? since not as One is that conceived of by us which is said to have been accidentally connected with ought else, for two of a surety will be rightly conceived to be the things which come together, and not one, itself connected with itself. False speech therefore are his words, and in another sense are they idle talk: but WE after the union, though one name God the Word, conceive not of Him apart from His own flesh; though one say Christ, we recognize the Word Incarnate. What then is the mode of the connection which you speak of conceived to be? for if you say that the human nature has been united Personally with the Word That sprang forth from God, why (tell me) do you insult the Divine Flesh? albeit you refuse not to worship it, while the duty of being worshipped belongs only to the Divine and Ineffable Nature: but if you do not think that a true union took place, but call rather by the name of connection, the rank which consists in identity of name and in mere and only equality of style, why do you prate in solemn language, saying that he that is born of the woman has "been accurately adjusted unto exact connection," i. e., with the Word? for they are synonymous one with another, son with son, and lord with lord, nor are the names a whit inferior one to another, and to inquire into any superiority in them is (I suppose) idle, for son than son qua son, hath neither greater nor less. You are therefore talking superfluously (clearly so) in saying that he has been "accurately adjusted unto exact connection." But to say that they have been accurately adjusted one to another will belong (as appears to me) not to things possessing an identity of name, but to those rather, which obtain the equality and likeness in every thing of things that are believed to be one. As for example we say that there hath been accurately adjusted unto exact correspondence to the form of such an one, either the son that is begotten from out him, or one might say his image: but as regards connection, how can things be conceived of and said to have been accurately adjusted?²¹²²

But he himself explained to us what he means by "connection": for "it is not possible," he says, "that God the Word should do anything without the human nature." Therefore, according to you, we must believe that the pair of sons you speak of are like-minded with one another and harmonious, advancing to each action from common counsel. How then are there not two christs and sons and lords? But you claim (it seems) that the Word used His Body as an instrument. Yet if you say One Son and One prosopon, the Incarnate prosopon of the Word, He will not be an instrument of Deity, but rather will use as an instrument His own Body, just as a man's soul does. Therefore confess One, not dividing the natures, while at the same time knowing and maintaining that the flesh has one count; the Godhead again has that which befits It alone: for we say that the flesh of the Word by no means became Godhead, but rather Divine, as being His own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what prevents that of God the Word from being called Divine? Why then do you mock the beauty of the Truth, telling us about the deification of the holy flesh, and all but throwing in the teeth of those who have chosen to think rightly a charge of god-making, although you yourself say,

But himself interpreted to us the force of connection: for "it is not possible (he says) that God the Word should do ought without the human nature." Likeminded therefore with one another and harmonious according to thee, and from common counsel advancing unto each action shall we believe the pair of sons spoken of by thee. How then are there not two christs and sons and lords? But you affirm (it is like) that the Word used His Body as an instrument. Yet if you say One Son and One Person, the Incarnate Person of the Word, He will not be an instrument of Deity, but rather will use as an instrument His own Body, just as a man's soul too does. Therefore confess One, not dividing the natures, at the same time knowing and holding, that of the flesh the count is one; of the Godhead again, that which beseems It alone: for we say that the flesh of the Word by no means became Godhead, but rather Divine, as being His own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what hinders that that of God the Word should be called Divine? why then dost them mock at the beauty of the Truth, telling us of the deification of the holy flesh, and all but casting in the teeth of those who have chosen to think aright, a god-making, albeit thyself sayest,

Nestorius: "So that it might be shown to the Magi as well who this one is whom they worshiped, and to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit led them—that it was not simply a baby by itself, but a body ineffably united with God."

Nestorius: "In order therefore that it might be pointed out to the Magi too, Who this is That is worshipped by them, and to Whom the grace of the Holy Ghost led them—-that it was not to a mere babe viewed by itself, but to a body connected ineffably with God."

Since he says that the body has been ineffably united to God, and that which is truly ineffable is beyond understanding and speech, then the union or the connection (as he calls it) must truly be real. For such things are ineffable, and when things come together with one another in this way, one would not (I think) know the manner of it. But if you are able to say it, and you think you can explain the force of the connection, how is it any longer ineffable?

Since therefore he says that the body has been ineffably united to God, and that which is truly ineffable is beyond understanding and speech, true of a surety is the union or the (according to him) connection. For such things are ineffable, and of things that thus come together with one another one would not (I deem) know the mode. But if thou art able to say it, and deemest that thou canst declare the force of the connection, how is it any longer ineffable?

But I am amazed that although he says the Body has been connected with God and that ineffably, he does not say it is His very own, so that it might be understood as one with Him. Instead, he divides again into man and God, separately and apart, the one Christ and Lord Jesus, and pretends that he thinks correctly when he says,

But I marvel that albeit he says that the Body has been connected with God and that ineffably, he does not say that it is His very own, in order that it might be conceived of as one with Him, but parts again into man and God, separately and apart, the One Christ and Lord Jesus, and feigns that he thinks aright, when he says,

Nestorius: "Yet Christ is not merely a man (O accuser), but both Man and God alike. If He had been God alone, it would have been right for Apollinarius to say, 'Why do you seek to kill Me, God, Who have told you the truth?' This is the one who was crowned with thorns, this is the one who said, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' This is the one who endured death for three days. This one I worship together with the Godhead as sharing equally in the Divine rule."²²

Nestorius: "Yet not mere man is Christ (o accuser) but Man alike and God: had He been God alone, it had been right, of Apolinarius, to say, Why seek ye to kill Me, God, Who have told you the truth? This is He Who was encircled with the Thorny Crown, this He Who said, My God, My God, why forsookest Thou Me? this He Who endured the three days death, this do I worship with the Godhead as co-partner in the Divine sway."²²

Look now, I ask you, at how he seizes upon and wraps his own words in the appearance of truth (for he says, "Christ is not mere man, but both Man and God"), yet he separates them again and says that He is not One, and foolishly grasps at something without foundation and constructs whatever pleases him. For as though someone were saying that the Word had appeared to us on earth bare and without flesh, and had conversed with us and performed His divine signs, or that He was an ordinary man and that the Word Himself had not become Man—he says, "Christ is not mere man, but God also." But we, most excellent sir, even though we say that He is both Man and God, do not speak this way as if separating them, but rather knowing that the Same, even before the Incarnation, was Son and God and Word of the Father, and after it has become man like us and been made flesh. But he, asserting that He ought not to be conceived of as mere man but as God and Man, assigns the Thorny Crown and the rest of the Sufferings to man separately and apart, while he confesses that he worships this man with the Godhead, and even greater impiety, as if he were not truly God and Son, but a co-partner in the rule of the Word. For that he clearly separates them, his confession that he ought to be worshipped along with the Godhead will clearly show. For that which is co-worshipped with another is altogether other than that with which it is co-worshipped. But we are accustomed to worship Emmanuel with one worship, not severing from the Word the Body that was personally united to Him.

View now I pray again how he snatches at and puts around his own words the form of the truth (for "not mere man, says he, is Christ, but Man alike and God,") yet severs again and says that He is not One, and stupidly takes hold of something without foundation and constructs what pleases himself. For as though some one were saying that the Word had appeared to us upon earth bare and without flesh, and had conversed with us, and wrought His Divine signs, or that He was common man and that not the Word Himself has been made Man:—-he says, "Not mere man is Christ, but God also." But WE, most excellent sir (will I say), even though we say that He is Man alike and God, do not speak thus as putting them apart, but rather knowing that the Same even before the Incarnation was Son and God and Word of the Father, and after it hath become man as we and been made flesh. But he asserting that He ought not to be conceived of as mere man but God and Man, allots the Thorny Crown and the rest of the Sufferings to man severally and apart, while he confesses that he worships this man with the Godhead, and yet greater impiety, as not being (it is like) truly God and Son, but co-partner in the sway of the Word. For that he clearly severs, his confession that he ought to be worshipped along with the Godhead will clearly shew. For that which is co-worshipped with other is altogether other than that with which it is co-worshipped. But WE are accustomed to worship Emmanuel with one worship, not severing from the Word the Body That was Personally united to Him.

But we need to investigate what being "advocate of the Divine Sway" means. For did our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, like one of the holy Apostles and Evangelists, preach to the world another christ or son and lord as having the Divine Sway or Authority over all, and did He Himself speak for the glory of another? Yet the choir of God's heralds proclaim to the world Jesus Christ who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, and the plan of our faith advances through our confession directed toward Him, and we are justified, believing not in a mere man like us, but in Him who is by physis and truly God. The Gentiles indeed were living in the world without God when they did not know Christ, as blessed Paul says, but since they came to know Him they have not remained in ignorance of Him who is by physis God. Let him therefore teach us whose glory and sway it was that Christ spoke for, even though He demanded faith in Himself from those who came to Him, and He attributed this faith in Him to the Father. And truly He said, "Believe in Me and believe in God," and again, "He who believes in Me believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me," and "He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me."

But it is meet to investigate what the being "advocate of the Divine Sway" means. For did our Lord Jesus Christ Himself too like one of the holy Apostles and Evangelists preach to the world another christ or son and lord, as having the Divine Sway or Authority over all, and Himself too speak for the glory of another? albeit the choir of God's heralds proclaim to the world Jesus Christ who is forth of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the plan of our faith advances through our confession to Himward, and we are justified, believing not on a mere man like us, but on Him Who is by Nature and truly God. And the Gentiles indeed were living in the world without God, when they knew not Christ, as blessed Paul saith, but since they knew Him they have not remained in ignorance of Him Who is by Nature God. Let him therefore teach us Whose glory and sway it was that Christ spoke for, albeit of them that came to Him He demanded faith in Himself, and this faith in Him He attributed to the Father: and verily He said, Believe in Me and in God believe, and again, He that believeth on Me believeth not on Me but on Him That sent Me, and he that seeth Me seeth Him That sent Me.

But perhaps "to speak for" according to him may mean the same as "to speak as." I concede this, although the word has another meaning. Then how can a man speak as God (according to you) when enduring the insults of the Jews? Come, let us consider the speech appropriate to each. It will be fitting for Him who is truly God by physis to say, "I am invisible, impalpable and superior to suffering, moreover Incorporeal, Life and Life-giving," and above all as God. The other, explaining to us his own physis as it is, will reasonably say, "I am visible and palpable, passible, subject to decay and subject to God." Will he who says such things then speak as He who excels and is superior, with regard to the account of His own physis? How could this not be an ignorant thing to say? For one will surely speak falsely, either that one or this. But in saying advocacy or speaking for, that it is nothing else than to speak for another, you confess even against your will—you who tell us of connection and of One Christ and Lord—and severing them into two you worship them, or rather you co-worship them, and think that you are freeing the Church from the charge of god-making. Yet you yourself are making a god of a man, and not saying One Son even though He is not to be conceived of apart from His own flesh. For then you would worship Him blamelessly, and will know where you were, as it is written, going astray from the doctrines of the truth.

But haply to speak for according to him may mean the same as to speak as: I concede, albeit the word has other meaning. Then how may man speak as God (according to thee) when enduring the contumelies of the Jews? For come let us view the speech befitting each. It will be meet for Him Who is in truth God by Nature to say, I am invisible, impalpable and superior to suffering, moreover Incorporeal, Life and Life-giving and above all as God: the other expounding to us his own nature how it is, will reasonably say, I am visible and palpable, passible, subject to decay and subject to God. Will then he who says such things speak as He That excels and is superior, as regards the count of His own Nature? how were this not an unlearned thing to say? for one surely will speak falsely, either that one or this. But in saying advocacy or speaking for, that it is nought else than to speak for another, you confess even against your will who tell us of connection and of One Christ and Lord: and severing them into two you worship them, yea rather you co-worship, and think that you are freeing the Church from the charge of god-making, yourself engoddening a man, and not saying One Son even though He be not conceived of apart from His own flesh: for then would you worship Him unblamed, and will know where you were, as it is written, going astray from the doctrines of the truth.

But yes, he says, Christ said to the leper, "I will, be thou cleansed," and to the ruler of the synagogue's daughter, "Maid, arise," and to the sea, "Peace, be still," and in this he was a co-partner, for he spoke the Divine words by which it was possible to accomplish all things easily. So there are two who command, and let us grant that the words on all subjects belong to both. When it says, "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth," whose words (tell me) do you say these are? Or do you assign those words to the Word, and these to a man born of a woman as someone other than He? Where then will you place the most holy Paul who clearly says, "But to us one God the Father from whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through Him"? But he, repeatedly saying "one Son and not one and another, nor Christ and a second christ," argues against his own words, and assigns the expressions of the Divine Scriptures and his own statements to two prosopa (persons) and distinct hypostases.

"But yea (saith he) he hath said to the leper, I will, be thou cleansed, and to the ruler of the synagogue's daughter, Maid, arise, and to the sea, Peace, be still, and herein was he a co-partner, for he uttered the Divine words whereby it was possible to achieve all things easily." Two then are they that command, and let us grant that the words on all matters belong to both. When then it says, Why seek ye to kill me, a man which have told you the truth, whose words (tell me) do you say that these be? or dost thou allot those to the Word, these to a man born of a woman as other than He? Where then wilt thou put the most holy Paul who says clearly, But to us One God the Father out of Whom all things and we unto Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things and we through Him. But he, over and over saying, "One Son and not one and other, nor yet Christ and a second christ," contends against his own words, and to two persons and distinct hypostases allots the expressions of the Divines and His own.

Yet he does not put this forward without regard to his own ideas, but instead brings it up again,

Yet not regardless of his own notions, he puts forth again,

I honor him as the image of Almighty Godhead, for God highly exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.²³

Nestorius: "I venerate him as image of Almighty Godhead; for He highly exalted Him and gave Him a Name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth and every tongue should confess Lord Jesus Christ. "²³

And who will be understood as the one whom (as Nestorius supposes) he confesses to venerate and claims to honor with likeness to God, except surely the one he just mentioned to us, calling him an advocate or co-worker of the Divine rule? Nestorius foolishly said this one ought to be co-worshipped with the Godhead, as a son who is other and separate from the Word of God. He says that this one has also been exalted by God the Father, that he moreover received the Name which is above every name, that to him every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

And who again will be conceived of as he whom (as he supposes) he confesses he venerates and pretends to honour with likeness to God, save surely him whom he but now mentioned to us, calling him an advocate or co-worker of the Divine sway? whom he foolishly said ought to be co-worshipped with the Godhead, as son other and severally than the Word of God: he says that he has also been exalted by God the Father, that he moreover received the Name which is above every name, that to him should both every knee how, of heavenly and earthly and neath the earth and every tongue confess Lord Jesus Christ.

If therefore the Father has placed him, being God by nature, on high even before the exaltation mentioned here, then when we examine the manner of the humiliation that came between, we will find some wise economy in regard to which, though dishonored for a time, he became again in the exaltation what he always was—an exaltation that exists essentially and is truly proper to him. If this is not so (as he thinks and says), but rather God made some other than the Word of God, the man connected with him, an object of worship by heaven and earth and those lower still, then he has made a man like us into God. He will no longer be able to rightly blame us for wanting to make a god of one who is not God, because the charge of transgression in this matter must be fastened on God the Father himself. Anyone who is eager to learn can see, therefore, in what direction his words burst forth, and at what conclusion the inventions of his unbalanced folly end up. For we say that the Son, being by nature God—that is, the Word out of God the Father—descended to a voluntary emptying, and ascended again with the flesh to the God-befitting dignity of his inherent excellence. For he is worshipped with flesh as well, since he was an object of worship even before it, for he was still by nature God, both before the emptying and when he is said to endure the emptiness, made as we are. But this man, disdaining such magnificent and spotless doctrines, connects a man with God by mere outward accident, and is not ashamed to co-worship him as if in equality of dignity and as one with another. He maintains (he says) that this man received as something unwonted and strange and as a matter of favor that every knee should bow to him, and besides that every tongue should confess Jesus Christ as Lord. And if you say that he was made God by nature, he has blasphemed openly by saying that the nature of the Godhead is generated. And if not by nature, but he receives the dignity as a gift from outside and by mere title, how is he not openly saying that we worship one who is not by nature God? And along with us (it seems) the seriousness of the spirits above is also in error. And the Father himself is the origin and justification to us of these things. How then will he still find fault with those who have chosen to worship the creature rather than himself? And why does he indict and punish those who have erred, if the error has been by his own will, in exhibiting to us as an object of worship one who is not by nature God?

If therefore the Father hath placed Him, being God by Nature, on high even before the here-mentioned exaltation: on investigating the mode of the intervening abasement, we shall find some wise Economy in regard to which dishonoured meanwhile, He had become again in the exaltation wherein He ever was, exaltation essentially inexisting and verily Proper to Him. If this be not so (as he deems and says) but He made some other than the Word of God, the man connected with Him, an object of worship by heaven and earth and those lower yet:—-He hath engodded a man like us: no longer will He meetly blame us as though we desired to engod him that is not God, whereas one must fasten on God the Father Himself the charge of the transgression hereto pertaining. He that is studious for learning sees therefore in what direction his words burst forth, and the inventions of his untempered miscounsel at what a word they terminate. For WE say that the Son being by Nature God, i. e., the Word out of God the Father, descended unto voluntary emptying, ascended again with the flesh too unto the God-befitting Dignity of His inherent Excellence: for He is worshipped with flesh too, as being an object of worship even before it, for He was even yet by Nature God, both before the emptying and when He is said to endure the emptiness, made as we. But this man disdaining so august and spotless doctrines connecteth a man with God by mere outward accident, and is not ashamed to co-worship him as in equality of dignity and as one with another, and maintains (he says) that he received as somewhat unwonted and strange and as a matter of favour that to him every knee should bow, and besides that every tongue should confess Lord Jesus Christ. And shouldst thou say that he was made God by Nature, he hath blasphemed openly saying that the Nature of the Godhead is generate; and if not by Nature but he receive the dignity of gift and from outside and by mere title, how is he not openly saying that we worship him who is not by Nature God? And together with us (it is like) the gravity of the spirits above too is in error. And the Father Himself is the beginning and plea to us of these things. How then will He yet find fault with them who have chosen to worship the creature rather than Himself? and why does He indict and punish those that have erred, if the error have been by the will of Himself, in exhibiting to us as an object of worship him who is not by Nature God?

But since he cited this passage—I mean the one before us, that "to Him shall bow every knee" and "every tongue shall confess Lord Jesus Christ"—he (I do not know what he was thinking) omitted what remains and was necessarily added in order by blessed Paul. So let us add it and say this: for "every tongue confesses Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father." Therefore, if He is not God by physis, but he says that on account of an accidental connection—I mean with the Word from God—He is worshipped both by ourselves and by the holy angels, then some mode of honor has been invented by the Father so that the creature should be made god along with Himself, and He has no reason to be displeased with anyone for having done this. And if this thing were to His honor, how would He not consider worthy of recompense, praise, and glory those who have chosen to do this?

But since citing here this word, I mean the one before us, that to Him shall bow every knee and every tongue shall confess Lord Jesus Christ, he (I know not how minded) pretermitted what remains and was of necessity added in order by the blessed Paul, come let us adding it say this, for every tongue confesses Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. Hence if He be not by Nature God, but he says that on account of accidental connection, I mean with the Word out of God, he is worshipped both by ourselves and by the holy angels:—-some mode of honour has been invented by the Father, so that the creature should be engodded along with Himself, and to no purpose has He displeasure against any for having done this: and if this thing were to His honour, how should He not deem worthy of recompense, praise and glory them who have chosen to do this?

But perhaps they will say this: How is it any honor to the Father that every knee should bow to Emmanuel?

But haply they will say this, How is it any honour to the Father that every knee should bow to Emmanuel?

Because the Word, being by physis God and out of Him—that is, out of His ousia—has been made flesh, and is worshipped (as I said) as One and Alone and Truly Son with His proper Flesh. And the Father is glorified as God, having as Very Son Him who was begotten from His ousia, whom He has also given for us after making Him flesh, so that having suffered in the flesh He might save all under Heaven, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, and so that everyone who sees Him might see the Father. Now the Son Himself has shown that this too is truly a life-giving thing for us, for He said, "This is eternal life, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent."

Because the Word being by Nature God and out of Him, that is, out of His Essence, has been made flesh, and is worshipped (as I said) as One and Alone and Truly Son with His proper Flesh. And the Father is glorified as God, having Very Son Him who was begotten from forth His Essence, whom made flesh also He hath given for us, in order that He having suffered in the flesh might save all under Heaven, that every one who believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life, that every one that seeth Him might see the Father. Now that this too is to us verily a life-giving thing, the Son Himself hath shewn: for He said, This is Life Eternal that they might know Thee, the Only Very God and Jesus Christ whom Thou sentest.

And this alone is the way to right and completely unerring thinking, but he is utterly confusing everything and says,

And this and none other is the way to the right and most unerring line of thought, but he utterly confounding every thing says,

Nestorius: "I reverence what is worn because of the one who wears it; I worship the one who is seen because of the one who is hidden."²⁴

Nestorius: "Because of the wearer I reverence the worn, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen. "²⁴

Look again, I ask you, at how he everywhere avoids the union and fears the truth and rejects the correctness of the divine teachings. The one who wears was not different from what is worn, but rather the same one conceived of in the coming together of Godhead and manhood, and One and Alone in truth, Son of God the Father. Therefore worship the Word from God as one with his own flesh. For tell me, if I do not seem to you to think correctly, pushing aside your weak and slow speech on this matter as feeble. For suppose someone should choose to say of any human being like us or of any one of the kings of the earth, "Because of the king's soul I reverence his body, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen"—would not someone immediately rebuke him and say, "Sir, what are you doing? The ruler is surely one man, even though he is clearly composed of two things, I mean soul and body. Why then are you babbling idly to us, speaking of a wearer and a worn, a hidden and an apparent, and confessing that you worship-together as one with another, and dishonoring the mode of union, when the God-inspired Scriptures reveal to us one Christ and Lord, the Word from God the Father with his own body?" Do you not know that he healed in Jerusalem the man blind from birth, and afterward, finding him in the temple, he planted in him a firm and established faith in himself? For he came to him and asked, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" And when the man cried out to this, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?" he said again, "You have both seen him and it is he who is speaking with you." You see how he has shown him not the wearer, not the one hidden within, but rather himself as one with the flesh? And truly the wise John says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we viewed and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life." Although the Godhead is untouchable, yet the Word has been made touchable through his own flesh; invisible by nature, he was yet manifest through the body. But you again completely separate and deal cunningly with the truth, dividing the physis, uniting (as you say) the worship. But if you divide the physis, along with them the natural properties of each will also diverge, the accounting of their difference will rush apart: hence they are confessedly two.²⁵

View again (I pray) how he every where shuns the union and fears the truth and refuses the rightness of the Divine doctrines. Not other than the worn was He who weareth, but rather the same conceived of in concurrence of Godhead and manhood, and One and Alone in truth Son of God the Father. Worship therefore the Word out of God as One with His own Flesh. For tell me, if I do not seem to thee to think aright, thrusting aside as feeble thy slow speech herein. For suppose one should choose to say of any man such as we are or of any one of the kings of the earth, Because of the king's soul I reverence his body, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen, would not one straightway chide him and say, O sir what are you doing? one man surely is the Ruler, even though he be evidently compounded of two, soul I mean and body. Why then are you idly blabbing to us, speaking of a wearer and a worn, a hidden and an apparent, and confessing that you co-worship as one with another and dishonouring the mode of union, whereas the God-inspired Scripturs reveals to us One Christ and Lord, the Word out of God the Father with His own Body? Knowest thou not that He healed in Jerusalem the blind from his birth, afterward finding him in the temple, He engrafted into him a firm and stablished faith in Himself? for He came to him and asked, Dost THOU believe on the Son of God? and when to this he cried out, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? He again said, Thou hast both seen Him and it is He that talketh with thee. Thou seest how He hath shewn him not the wearer, not the hidden within, but rather Himself as One with the flesh? And verily the wise John says, That Which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we viewed and our hands handled, of the Word of Life. Albeit the Godhead is impalpable, yet the Word has been made palpable through His own flesh; invisible by Nature, He was yet manifest through the Body; but Thou again completely severest and dealest subtilly with the truth, parting the natures, uniting (as you say) the worship. But if you part the natures, along with them will diverge the natural properties too of either, the count of their difference will speed apart: hence two are they confessedly.²⁵

But tell me, I ask you, what is it that separates the natures from one another, and what will be the mode of their difference? You will surely answer, I suppose, that one thing by physis is man or the manhood, another is God or the Godhead, and the one is exalted incomparably above the other, and the other is as much inferior as man is less than God. How then, tell me, do you consider it right to honor with one worship things of such unlike physis that are separated, as regards their mode of being, by incomparable differences? For would you, if you put a man's glory around a horse, be doing anything praiseworthy? Would you not rather be insulting the superior, dragging down the better physis into dishonor?

But tell me who ask, what is it that severs the natures one from another and what will be the mode of their difference. You will (I suppose) surely answer that one thing by nature is man or the manhood, another God or the Godhead: and the one exalted incomparably above the other, and it as much inferior as is man less than God. How then (tell me) dost thou deem right to honour with one worship things of so unlike nature and parted, as regards their mode of being, by incomparable differences? For would you, if you put about a horse a man's glory, be doing anything praiseworthy? would you not rather be insulting the superior, dragging down the better nature into dishonour?

But he has invented something clever in his defense, for he adds:

But he has invented something clever in his defence, for he subjoins:

Nestorius: "What was formed in the womb is not God by itself, what was formed from the Spirit is not God by itself, what was buried in the tomb is not God by itself—for if this were the case, we would be worshippers of a mere man and indeed worshippers of the dead. But because God is present in what is assumed, the assumed nature receives the name 'God' from the one who assumes it, since it is united with the assumer."²⁶

Nestorius: "Not by itself God is that which was formed in the womb, not by itself God that which was formed forth of the Spirit, not by itself God that which was buried in the tomb; for so should we have been man-worshippers and very worshippers of the dead. But since God is in that which is assumed, from that which assumeth is the assumed co-named God, as connected with the assumer."²⁶

Look, once again the one who constantly speaks to us about connection and fears the accusation of man-worship is caught in the act of being a man-worshipper. He is trapped in the net of his own bad reasoning and is exposed as falling into a corrupt way of thinking. "For," he says, "that which is born from the womb is not by itself God." How I marvel at your cleverness and your supposedly subtle mind! For who has ever dared to say this? Or who does not know that what is born of the flesh is flesh? Yet it was the Word's own flesh, and He is understood as one with it, just as we said a moment ago that the soul of a man is also one with his own body. If therefore someone should choose to say of us too, "The body by itself is not man," would not such a person reasonably be called superfluous in his words and a rambling speaker? For no one will deny that the body by itself is not man, but it will rather be called the body of a man. Nevertheless, one will not separate them and set soul and body apart, saying that the body is co-named with the soul in order to signify a single man, for such speech would not be orderly but would rather be full of ignorance. But when bringing both together by physical union into the condition of one man, he will then call him a man, and will not in this way seem to say what is trivial and inappropriate. One must therefore, if one would be altogether wise and sensible, say: a body which is from a woman, and confess that joined by hypostatic union to the Word, it has made the Same both God and Man, One Christ and Son and Lord. But now, passing over this and falling completely away from the straight path, he proceeds along the perverted way and proclaims to us two gods: one, as if by physis and in truth, the Word from God the Father, and other than Him, the one who is co-named with Him. For just as no one of us would be said to live, for example, with himself alone, but rather he would live with another, and if anyone were to say that any of the kings of the earth co-reigned with himself, such a person would reasonably incur ridicule and would be babbling, attributing and saying what belongs to one only as though he were speaking of two—just so it is extremely lacking in understanding to suppose that being co-named can apply with respect to one only. For they will surely be two; and the one is God by physis, the other having, it seems, the mere being co-named as something from outside and added to him, is presented to us as a new god. Does therefore He Who is by physis and truly God of all lie when saying to us, "If you will listen to Me, there shall be no new god in you, neither shall you worship an alien god"? Then how have we worshipped Christ and how shall every knee bow to Him? How do you confess that you venerate Him, even though you fear, as you said, to be called a man-worshipper?²⁷

Lo again is he who every where telleth us of connection, and feareth the charge of man-worship, caught in the act of being a man-worshipper, and is holden in the meshes of his own mis-counsel and is detected falling into a reprobate mind. 'For (says he) that which is born from the womb is not by itself God.' How I marvel at thy shrewdness and thy so subtle mind: for who ever is there who hath dared to say this? or who that knows not that that which is born of the flesh is flesh? yet was it the own flesh of the Word and He is conceived of as one with it, just as we said but now that the soul of man too is one with his own body. If therefore one should choose say of us too, The body by itself is not man, would not such an one reasonably be called superfluous in his words and a random talker? for none will deny that the body by itself is not man, but it will be rather called the body of a man: natheless one will not severing them asunder and putting soul and body apart say that the body is co-named with the soul in order to signify a single man, for such a speech would not have been made orderly but would rather be replete with unlearning; but on bringing both together by physical union unto the condition of one man, he will then style him a man, and will not in this way seem to say what is paltry and uncomely. One must therefore if one would be in all wise and sensible say, A body which is from forth a woman, and confess that conjoined by personal union to the Word, it has rendered the Same, God and Man, One Christ and Son and Lord. But now pretermitting this, falling quite away from the straight road he thinks…… b the perverted way, and proclaims unto us two gods: one, as if by Nature and in truth, the Word forth of God the Father, and other than He, him who is co-named with Him. For just as no one of us would be said to live (for example) with himself alone, but rather he would live with another, and if any one were to say that any of the kings of the earth co-reigned with himself, such an one would reasonably incur ridicule, and would be blabbing 8, putting and saying what belonged to one only, as though [he were speaking] of two: just so is it exceeding lack of understanding to suppose that to be co-named can have place in respect of one only. For they will surely be two; and the one is God by Nature, the other having (it seems) the mere being co-named [as something] from without and accruing to him, is exhibited to us as a new god. Does therefore He That is by Nature and truly God of all lie in saying to us, If thou wilt hearken unto Me, there shall be no new god be in thee, neither shalt thou worship an alien god? Then how have we worshipped Christ and how to Him shall every knee bow? how dost thou confess that thou veneratest Him? albeit thou fearest (as thou saidst) to be called a man-worshipper.²⁷

But he thinks he has a clever answer to this: "He is called God because of His connection with the one who assumes Him." Tell me, how was He assumed, and what is the nature of this connection? If it is by a true union—I mean a union of Person—then stop dividing what has been united. For I think we can rightly say to you, who are separating what cannot be separated, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." But if you say that the assumption or connection is external and accidental, don't you realize that God is in us too, and we are connected to Him in a relative way and have been made partakers of His divine nature? Yes, the divinely-inspired David sings, "My soul clings fast to You." So shall we too be called gods by nature because we share God's name? Shall every knee bow to us as well? Let the divinely-inspired Paul come forward and teach what God the Father has commanded the heavenly spirits: "For when He brings the First-begotten into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'" Since your wise argument has not been included here, but God has instead commanded that He should be worshipped as certainly One and not one together with another, who is He whom the angels worship, even though the divine Scripture calls Him First-born? We say that the Word from God the Father has been called First-born, although He is God by nature and Only-Begotten Son and is not counted among the creatures as far as His Godhead is concerned, because He became man and was the First-born among many brethren.

But he has as he thinks some clever answer to this, "he is co-named god as connected with the assumer:" how was he assumed (tell) or what the mode of the connection? If therefore by true union, I mean of Person, cease dividing what has been united; for seasonably (I deem) by us too shall be said to thee who art severing the inseverable, What, therefore God joined together let not man put asunder. But if thou say that the assumption or the connection is extraneous and of accident, how knowest thou not that in us too is God and WE are connected to Him relatively and have been made partakers of His Divine Nature? yea the Divine-uttering David singeth, My soul is fast joined after Thee. Shall WE too therefore be co-named with God by Nature gods according to him, to us too shall every knee bow? What God the Father hath enjoined to the spirits above let the Divine-uttering Paul come forward and teach; For when (saith he) He bringeth the First-begotten into the world He saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him. Since therefore herein thy wise word has not been added, but He has enjoined rather that He should be worshipped as of a surety One and not one along with another: who is He who is worshipped by the Angels, albeit the Divine Scripture calls Him First-born? We say that the Word out of God the Father has been called First-born albeit He is God by Nature and Only-Begotten Son and not reckoned with the creature, as far as regards Godhead, because He was made Man and First-born among many brethren.

The one who is worshipped by the spirits above is therefore the Word from God the Father together with His own flesh, for He bore it then, and being conceived of as having preeminence in all things, He is the First-born. The God-inspired Scriptures proclaim entirely one Christ and Son and Lord. But this overly inquisitive man says there are two, and he is not ashamed to add a worshipped man to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, for he says again:

One therefore is He Who is worshipped by the spirits above, the Word forth of God the Father with His own flesh: for then did He bear Him and, as having the preeminence in all things, is He conceived of as First-born. And the God-inspired Scriptures wholly proclaim One Christ and Son and Lord: but this too-curious man says Two and he is not ashamed to add a worshipped man to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity: for he says again,

Nestorius: "But this kinsman according to the flesh of Israel, a man according to what is visible, born according to Paul's words from the seed of David, is Almighty God by connection." Then he adds, "Hear Paul proclaiming both. He confesses the man first and then deifies what is visible by connection with God, so that no one may suspect the Christian of being a worshipper of a mere man. Let us therefore keep the connection of the natures unconfused. Let us confess One God. Let us reverence the man who is worshipped together by a divine connection along with Almighty God."²⁸

Nestorius: "But this kinsman after the flesh of Israel, man according to what is manifest, begotten according to Paul's voice of the seed of David, is by connection Almighty God" and then adds, "Hear Paul proclaiming both, he confesses the man first and then deifies what is manifest by connection with God, that none may suspect the Christian of being a man-worshipper. Keep we therefore unconfused the connection of the natures, confess we One God, reverence we the man who is co-worshipped by a Divine connection along with the Almighty God."²⁸

If therefore, when you name Man, you understand that He is with God by physis, that is well and I will say no more. But if you are severing the natures—not merely in the sense of knowing which is the human and which again the Divine, but rather separating them from their convergence into unity—you are confessedly a man-worshipper, and we will say to you: You shall eat the fruit of your labors. And being stubborn and rejecting correction, go alone on your twisted path. But we, following the pious and blameless path of the holy fathers and being thoroughly instructed in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, will honor together with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, with one worship, the One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Spirit unto ages of ages.

If therefore on naming Man thou knowest that He is with this God by Nature, it is well and I will stop: but if severing the natures, not merely in respect of knowing which is the human, which again the Divine, but rather parting them from their concurrence unto unity, confessedly thou art a man-worshipper, and it shall be said to thee by us, Thou shalt eat the fruit of thy labours: and being hard and spurning admonition, go alone on the perverted way. But WE, tracking the pious and blameless path of the holy fathers, instructed full well in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, will honour together with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, with one worship, the One Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost unto ages of ages.

When Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, died in A.D. 412, his nephew and successor, Cyril, suddenly appears before us. We have only a few scattered references to Cyril's earlier life. We do not know what year he was born, anything about his parents, or where he was raised. That Cyril received a thoroughly good education is abundantly clear—not only from his very extensive reading, which a mind as broad as Cyril's would always seek out for itself, but also because his reading was so well digested, which indicates good early training. The great accuracy of his theology indicates a most accurate theological education. That education included a wide range of secular study as well as divinity, and probably involved a good deal of memorization, not only of the holy Scriptures but also of non-Christian authors, as shown by a line of Antipater Sidonius quoted in his Commentary on Zechariah. He also quotes Josephus on the Jewish war. On Habakkuk 3:2, he mentions interpretations of that verse of two different kinds; on Hosea he gives a long excerpt from a writer whose works we apparently do not possess. Tillemont remarks that "his books against Julian show that he had a large acquaintance with secular writers."¹

On the death of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, in A.D. 412, his nephew and successor, S. Cyril, comes suddenly before us. For of S. Cyril's previous life we have only a few scattered notices. We do not know in what year he was born, nor any thing of his parents, nor where he was brought up. That S. Cyril had received a thoroughly good education, is abundantly clear; not only from his very extensive reading, which a mind of such large grasp as S. Cyril's would ever provide for itself, but that his reading being so well digested implies good early training. The great accuracy of his Theology implies a most accurate Theological education. That education included a large range of secular study as well as of Divinity, and probably comprised a good deal of learning by heart, not only of the holy Scriptures but also of profane authors, as witness a line of Antipater Sidonius quoted in his Commentary on Zechariah. He quotes too Josephus on the Jewish war. On Hab. iii. 2, he mentions interpretations of that verse of two different kinds: on Hosea he gives a long extract from a writer whom we do not apparently possess. Tillemont remarks, that " his books against Julian shew that he had a large acquaintance with secular writers."¹

We can deduce that Cyril was raised in a monastery, which served as a place for Christian education. Given the great respect he always showed to Isidore, Abbot of Pelusium, it seems quite possible that Isidore was his teacher during part of his early life. Isidore hints at some special connection in one of his short letters to Cyril when he was Archbishop. Near the start, Isidore writes, "If I am your father as you say I am, or if I am your son as I know I am, since you occupy the chair of Mark, etc." The many Platonic terms in Isidore's letters seem to suggest that he too had read Plato extensively, and Cyril may have gained some of his knowledge of Aristotle from him.²

We may infer that S. Cyril was brought up at some monastery, as a place of Christian education, and from the great reverence which he ever paid to S. Isidore, Abbot of Pelusium, it seems not unlikely that S. Isidore was his instructor during some part of his early life. S. Isidore alludes to some especial tie, in one of his brief letters to S. Cyril, when Archbishop. Near the beginning, S. Isidore says, " If I be your father as you say I be,…..or if I be your son as I know I am, seeing that you hold the chair of S. Mark &c." The large number of Platonic words in S. Isidore's letters seem to indicate that he too had extensive reading of Plato, and S. Cyril may have acquired from him some of his knowledge of Aristotle.²

But a mind of Cyril's breadth would have felt itself lost in the desert, longing for its own calling, and another letter from the same Isidore to Cyril, reproaching him for having his heart set on the world, may belong to this period. His uncle, Archbishop Theophilus, invited him to live with him and, we may reasonably conclude, ordained him as a priest and made him one of his clergy. In a very long letter that Cyril wrote around A.D. 432 to the elderly Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he mentions in passing the fact that he was present at the Synod of the Oak in A.D. 403, where Chrysostom's troubles began. Cyril would naturally have been there as part of Archbishop Theophilus' official entourage. Cyril says, "When your holy synod was gathered at great Constantinople, and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying this—"³⁴

But a mind of S. Cyril's grasp would feel itself lost in the desert, yearning for its own calling, and another Letter of the same S.Isidore to S.Cyril, reproaching him with his heart being in the world, may belong to this period. His uncle Archbishop Theophilus had him to live with him and, we may infer, ordained him priest and made him one of his Clergy. In a very long letter which S. Cyril wrote about A.D. 432 to the aged Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he incidentally mentions the fact that he was at the synod of the Oak, in A.D. 403, where S. Chrysostom's troubles began. S. Cyril would of course be there, as a portion of Archbishop Theophilus' official attendance. S. Cyril says, " When your holy Synod was gathered at great Constantinople…. and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying thus.—-"³⁴

When Cyril became Archbishop of Alexandria, he immediately gained a position of great power in the city. The early part of his time as archbishop brought trials related to the conflict between him and Orestes the governor, which resulted from a Jewish uprising against the Christians. This was followed by several years of relative peace, during which Cyril seems to have been rarely heard of outside his large diocese. Even in the quietest times, the Archbishops of Alexandria maintained yearly contact with churches everywhere through the annual letter they wrote to announce the date on which Easter would fall. Cyril's letters were clearly intended primarily for his own Egypt. For example, in his seventh Paschal homily in 419, he speaks very strongly about acts of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. Cyril introduces the subject with "And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian territory," showing that the letters themselves had a broader scope. I do not know at what time the letter was sent out so that it would reach the distant churches of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch in time to announce when Lent would begin. However, although Cyril became Archbishop in October 412, his first letter was for 414, in the early part of which (as Tillemont points out) Cyril speaks of having succeeded his uncle. He introduces the subject by mentioning the natural fear that people of old had regarding "the greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as examples of this, adds that "since the role of the priesthood calls one to preach, in fear of the words, Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."⁵⁶⁷

S. Cyril's accession to the Archiepiscopal Throne of Alexandria brought him at once into a position of great power in Alexandria; and brought too, in the early part of it, trials in regard of the disunion between him and Orestes the Governor resulting from the Jewish insurrection against the Christians. To this succeeded some years of great quiet, during which S. Cyril seems to have been very little heard of, outside his Great Diocese. The Archbishops of Alexandria, even in the very stillest times, were brought into yearly contact with the Churches every where by the annual Letter which they wrote to announce the day on which Easter would fall. S. Cyril's letters were evidently intended primarily for his own Egypt. Thus in his seventh Paschal homily A.D. 419, he speaks very strongly about deeds of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. S. Cyril introduces the subject with, " And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian territory," shewing that the Letters themselves had a larger scope. I do not know at what time the Letter was sent out, so as to reach the distant churches of Rome and Constantinople and Antioch in good time to announce when Lent would begin. But although S. Cyril became Archbishop in October A.D. 412, his first Letter was for 414, in the early part of which (as Tillemont points out) S. Cyril speaks of having succeeded his Uncle. He introduces the subject by mentioning the natural dread of those of old, of " the greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as instances of this, adds, that "since the garb of the priesthood calls to preach, in fear of the words, Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."⁵⁶⁷

During these quiet years, Cyril probably spent much of his time working on his earlier writings. Two of these dealt with selected passages from the Pentateuch: one volume was dedicated to passages Cyril believed could be understood as types of our Lord, while the other covered the remaining passages as types of the church. The commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets, as well as the books written against the Emperor Julian, likely belong to this period. In addition, Cyril followed the example of his great predecessor Athanasius by writing two books against the Arians: first, the Thesaurus, in which Cyril applied his knowledge of Aristotle; then the de Trinitate, which was written before A.D. 424, though not published until later. In his Paschal homily for A.D. 424, Cyril also discussed the Eternal Generation of the Son, and toward the end of the homily he opposed the Arian terms "Generate" and "Ingenerate."⁸

Much of these quiet years S. Cyril probably employed on his earlier writings: of these, two were on select passages of the Pentateuch; one volume being allotted to those which S. Cyril thought could in any way be adapted as types of our Lord, the other to the rest, as being types of the church. The commentaries on Isaiah and the Minor Prophets and the Books against the Emperor Julian probably belong to this period. Besides these S. Cyril, following the example of his great predecessor S. Athanasius, wrote two Books against the Arians: first, the Thesaurus, in which S. Cyril brought to bear his knowledge of Aristotle; then the de Trinitate, which was written, though not published till later, before A.D. 424. In his Paschal homily for that year A.D. 424, S. Cyril also speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son, and towards the close of the homily he opposes the Arian terms "Generate," "Ingenerate."⁸

In A.D. 429, when writings by Nestorius began circulating in Egypt, Cyril first wrote about the heresy of Nestorius. There is little doubt that the powerful mind of Leo, who was the driving force behind the Council of Chalcedon, learned through those writings in his younger days when he served as Archdeacon under Pope Celestine in 429, just as Cyril himself had been taught by the writings of Athanasius.

A. D. 429, the circulation of tracts of Nestorius in Egypt occasioned him first to write on the heresy of Nestorius. There can be little doubt that the powerful mind of S. Leo, who was the soul of the Council of Chalcedon, was, in his young days when S. Celestine's Archdeacon in 429, taught through those writings; as S. Cyril himself had been taught by the writings of S. Athanasius.

The 12 Chapters, which were attached to his final letter to Nestorius, caused problems for Cyril later in his time as bishop. Because of this, it is worth presenting them in full here. They were written to prevent any evasion of what that letter stated.

The 12 Chapters, appended to his last letter to Nestorius, were made a trouble to S. Cyril at a later period of his Episcopate, so that it may be well to give them in full. They were framed to preclude any evasion of that letter.

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God because she bore in the flesh the Word from God who became flesh, let him be anathema.

1. If any one confess not, that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she hath borne after the flesh the Word out of God made Flesh, be he anathema.

2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been personally united to flesh, and that He is one Christ with His own flesh—the same being both God and man—let him be anathema.

2. If any one confess not, that the Word out of God the Father hath been personally united to Flesh, and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.

3. If anyone divides the Hypostases of the one Christ after the Union, joining them only by a connection of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together into Unity of Nature, let him be anathema.

3. If any one sever the Hypostases of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a concurrence unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema.

4. If anyone distributes the words in the Gospels and apostolic writings—whether spoken about Christ by the saints or by Christ about Himself—to two persons or hypostases, attributing some to a man considered separately from the Word who is from God, and others as befitting God to the Word alone who is from God the Father, let him be anathema.

4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is out of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is out of God the Father, be he anathema.

5. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man bearing God, and not rather that He is truly God as being the one Son and that by nature, because the Word became flesh and shared in blood and flesh like us, let him be anathema.

5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son, and That by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh, be he anathema.

6. If anyone dares to say that the Word who is from God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, rather than confessing that the same one is both God and man because the Word has been made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

6. If any one dare to say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema.

7. If anyone says that Jesus was indwelt as a man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten was placed upon Him, as though He were someone other than the Word Himself, let him be anathema.⁹

7. If any one say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.⁹

8. If anyone dares to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and called God together with Him, as one person in another person (for the prefix "co-" that is constantly added forces us to understand it this way), and does not instead honor Emmanuel with a single act of worship and offer to Him one doxology, since the Word has been made Flesh, let him be anathema.

8. If any one shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one worship, and send up to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

9. If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, using the Spirit's power as if it belonged to another, and receiving from the Spirit the power to work against unclean spirits and to accomplish divine signs among men, and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, through whom He also worked the divine signs, let him be anathema.

9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs towards men, and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom also He wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.

The Divine Scripture says that Christ has been made the High Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us as a fragrance of a sweet smell to God the Father. If anyone therefore says that it was not the very Word from God who was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made flesh and man like us, but that the man born of a woman was made this separately by himself as someone other than He, or if anyone says that He offered the sacrifice on His own behalf as well and not only for us alone (for He who knows no sin had no need of an offering), let him be anathema.

10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the Sigh Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that, not the Very Word out of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart by himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and that it is the very own flesh of the Word Himself who is from God the Father, but instead says that it belongs to someone other than Him, connected to Him only by dignity or as having divine indwelling, and does not rather confess that it is life-giving (as we said) because it has become the very own flesh of the Word who is able to give life to all things, let him be anathema.

11. If any one confess not, that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father, but says that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only, and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.

If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the firstborn from the dead—since as God He is both Life and Life-giving—let him be anathema.

12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.

The great diocese of Antioch, barely recovering from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness, oppression, and false belief, had been closely confronted with Apollinarianism—a false belief that the Only-Begotten Son took flesh only without a rational soul, and that His mindless body was somehow mixed together with the Godhead. Saint Athanasius and others add, among the forms of this false belief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's body was consubstantial with His Godhead. Saint Cyril in his Dialogue speaks of the great fear widespread among some people that if one Incarnate physis (nature) were held, the body must be believed to be consubstantial with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme western boundary of that great diocese or province of Antioch, sent to Saint Cyril a question to the same effect. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these chapters were issued, had held that the manhood of the Only-Begotten was a distinct man, having some undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings. So great was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy that there seems to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern bishops. Nestorius had cleverly sent the chapters to John of Antioch apart from the letter to himself, which would have made misinterpretation impossible. He sent them as propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church. John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, immediately pronounced them, thus unexplained, to be Apollinarian. He applied in an encyclical letter to the bishops of his patriarchate to have them disclaimed, but without naming the author, whom John did not believe to be Saint Cyril, and asked two of the bishops of his province, Andrew Bishop of Samosata and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shows that he read the chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly replies not to the chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that they contained. His reply is mainly orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as if his belief was rather vague, but he twists Saint Cyril's words so as to mean mixture, and so replies. Theodoret seems never to have gotten over his misapprehension. For in his long letter to the monks of his province—Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia—he still speaks of chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed into flesh, and of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms personal union and natural union, teaching through these names a mixture and confusion of the divine physis and the bondman's form. This is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation. And after speaking of chapter 4, he sums up, These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly more wicked descendants of a wicked parent. In his letter to John Bishop of Germanicia, written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, Let them deny now the chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed.^{10111213141516}

The Great Diocese of Antioch, barely rallying from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness oppression and misbelief, had been in close quarters with Apollinarianism, a misbelief that the Only-Begotten Son took flesh only without a reasonable soul, and that His mind-less Body was somehow immingled with the Godhead. S. Athanasius and others add, among the forms of the misbelief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's Body was consubstantial with His Godhead. S. Cyril in his Dialogue speaks of the great fear prevalent among some, that if One Incarnate Nature were holden, the Body must be believed to be consubstantial with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme west boundary of that great Diocese or Province of Antioch, sent to S. Cyril a question to the same effect. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these Chapters were issued, had held that the Manhood of the Only-Begotten was a man distinct, having some undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings; and so great was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy, that there seems to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern Bishops. [Nestorius had dexterously sent the Chapters to John of Antioch apart from the Epistle to himself, which would have made misinterpretation impossible. He sent them as 'propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common Church.'] John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, pronounced them at once (thus unexplained) to be Apollinarian; applied in an Encyclical letter to the Bishops of his Patriarchate to have them 'disclaimed, but without naming the author,' whom John did not believe to be S. Cyril, and asked two of the Bishops of his Province, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shews that he read the Chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly replies, not to the Chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that they contained. His reply is in the main orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as if his belief was rather vague, but he twists S. Cyril's words so as to mean 'mixture,' and so replies. Theodoret seems never to have got over his misapprehension. For in his long Letter to the Monks of his Province, Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, he still speaks of Chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed into flesh; of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms, Personal Union and Natural Union, "teaching through these names a mixture and confusion of the Divine Nature and the bondman's form: this is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation." And after speaking of Chapter 4, he sums up, "These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly more wicked descendants of a wicked parent." In his letter to John Bishop of Germanicia, written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, "Let them deny now the chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed."^{10111213141516}

Andrew of Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have had a much clearer position on the Incarnation and to have believed that some of Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian without objecting to all of them. Andrew's main objection to chapter 1 appears to have been that he misunderstood the phrase "for she bore according to the flesh (σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the Birth was entirely natural and therefore not from a Virgin. Andrew passes over chapter 2 as if the term "Personal Union" had not even struck him as problematic. In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an unacceptable expression for something that is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that because the words are not to be assigned to distinct Persons, Cyril must have meant that they are not to be assigned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the One Person of the Incarnate God. Cyril had said throughout his life that they were to be assigned in this way, but Andrew had obviously not read Cyril's writings. Andrew shows his own clear belief by using the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις (entire union) here, and the closing words of his reply to chapter 11 are "we confess the union entire (τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and divine and incomprehensible to us." These are almost identical to Cyril's expressions "we shall not take away the difference in nature by uniting them entirely (διὰ τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν)" and in his reply to Andrew, διὰ τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.¹⁷¹⁸

Andrew of Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have been decidedly more definite in his belief on the Incarnation, and to have thought that some of S. Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian without objecting to all. Thus Andrew's chief objection to chapter 1 appears to have been that he mistook the words "for she hath borne after the flesh ( σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the Birth was entirely in the order of nature and so not of a Virgin. Andrew passes over chapter 2, as though the term, "Personal Union," had not even struck him as a difficulty. In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an inadmissible expression, as to what is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that because the words are not to be apportioned to distinct Persons, therefore S. Cyril meant, that they are not to be apportioned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the One Person of the Incarnate God. S. Cyril had all his life said that they were to be so apportioned, but Andrew had of course not read S. Cyril's writings. Andrew shews his own definite belief by the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις, entire union, here; and, ' we confess the union entire ( τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and Divine and incomprehensible to us,' are the closing words of his reply to chapter 11. These are almost identical with S. Cyril's expressions, "we shall not take away the unlike by nature through wholly uniting them ( διὰ τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν)," and in his reply to Andrew, διὰτὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.¹⁷¹⁸

Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, and there is nothing in them that one would expect him to reject. He agrees with chapter 7, simply adding that in rejecting what Cyril rejects, we must not reject the apostolic words which speak of Christ in his human nature. Andrew also agrees with chapter 8, but does not fully understand it. In chapter 9, he overlooks the words "as though it were Another's." In chapter 10, Andrew thinks that the statement "the very Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means that the Godhead by itself was made such.

Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, nor is there anything in them which one would expect him not to accept. With chapter 7 he agrees, merely saying that in rejecting what S. Cyril rejects, we must not reject the Apostolic words which speak of Him in His human nature. "With chapter 8 too Andrew agrees, but does not quite understand the co. In chapter 9, he overlooks the words, "as though it were Another's:" in chapter 10, Andrew thinks that " the Yery Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means 'the Godhead apart by Itself was so made.'

We can see in our own times how prejudice can distort the meaning of words that are in themselves perfectly clear. Otherwise it seems inconceivable that language as plain as that of the Anathematisms, if read with the aim of understanding their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret, and Andrew. Much unholy dissension would have been avoided if John, instead of asking Theodoret and Andrew to respond to them, had sought an explanation from Saint Cyril himself. Saint Cyril, fully conscious of his own meaning, would naturally have given the explanation which later satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of Emesa.

[We see in our own times, how prejudice can distort the meaning of words in themselves perfectly intelligible; else it seems inconceivable that language so clear as that of the Anathematisms, if read with a view to understand their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret, and Andrew. Much unhallowed dissension would have been saved, if John, instead of asking Theodoret and Andrew to reply to them, had sought an explanation from S. Cyril himself. S. Cyril, in clear consciousness of his own meaning, would, of course, have given the explanation which afterwards satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of Emesa.

Petavius examined S. Cyril's anathematisms with his characteristic thoroughness, comparing them with Nestorius's counter-anathematisms, the criticisms from the Orientals and from Theodoret, and S. Cyril's responses. His conclusion is that there is nothing in S. Cyril's Anathematisms that is not correct and consistent with the Catholic rule, and that those who criticized or opposed them failed to make their case against him except through nitpicking and foolish slander. De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully examined in English in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.

S. Cyril's anathematisms have been weighed by Petavius with his usual solidity, as compared with the counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, the criticisms of the Orientals and of Theodoret, and S. Cyril's answers. His summary is, 'There is nothing in S. Cyril's Anathematisms not right and in harmony with the Catholic rule, nor did those who detract from or oppose them maintain their ground against him except through cavils and foolish calumnies.' De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully compared in English in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.]

Though Apollinarianism in its early form, before it spread widely as Eutychianism, seems to have mainly troubled Asia rather than Egypt, Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he clearly mentions and rejects Apollinarian errors and denies the claim "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." Cyril's tenth Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, just as much as what Cyril wrote when the Nestorian troubles had begun. In his commentary on Habakkuk, Cyril affirms, as he does throughout his whole life, that our Lord was not diminished by the Incarnation: "Yet even though He has been made flesh and has been set forth by the Father as a propitiation, He has not cast away what He was, that is, being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."¹⁹²⁰

Though Apollinarianism in its early form, ere its great spread as Eutychianism, seems to have chiefly troubled Asia rather than Egypt, S. Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he distinctly mentions and repudiates Apollinarian errors and denies the οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ γέγονε, "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." S. Cyril's tenth Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, not less than what S. Cyril wrote when the Nestorian troubles had begun. On Habaccuc S. Cyril affirms, as he does through his whole life, that our Lord was not worsened by the Incarnation; "Yet even though He has been made flesh and hath been set forth by the Father as a propitiation, He hath not cast away what He was, i.e., the being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."¹⁹²⁰

In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to become Archbishop of Constantinople. Because S. Cyril's famous Paschal homily for the following year, A.D. 429, dealt with the subject of the Incarnation, some have assumed that rumors of the denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. However, the Paschal homilies for A.D. 420 and 423 show that the Incarnation, the foundation and support of our souls, was a subject S. Cyril loved to focus on. During the year 429, however, even Egypt was disturbed by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons made their way into Egypt and were read and studied in the monasteries. This caused so much trouble in the minds of some of the monks that S. Cyril wrote a letter to them, explaining that the Incarnation means that God the Son united to Himself His own human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This letter circulated widely and reached Constantinople. It annoyed Nestorius. There was still a lingering bitterness toward Alexandria stemming from Theophilus' treatment of S. Chrysostom. Besides this, the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation—the manhood united by God the Son to His own self—was to Nestorius Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so himself. In his letter to S. Celestine he speaks of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and describes it this way,^2122232425

In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to be Archbishop of Constantinople. From the circumstance that S. Cyril's celebrated Paschal homily for the next year, A.D. 429, was on the subject of the Incarnation, it has been supposed that rumours of the denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. But the Paschal homilies for A.D. 420 and 423, shew that the Incarnation, the foundation and stay of our souls, was a subject, which S. Cyril loved to dwell on. In the course of the year 429, however, even Egypt was troubled by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons passed into Egypt, and were read and pondered over in the Monasteries. This occasioned so much disturbance in the minds of some of the Monks, that S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them, pointing out that the Incarnation means, that God the Son united to Him His own human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This Letter had an extended circulation and reached Constantinople. It vexed Nestorius. There was still a traditional soreness towards Alexandria, from the behaviour of Theophilus to S. Chrysostom. Besides this, the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, the manhood united by God the Son to His own self, was to Nestorius, Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so. In his letter to S. Celestine he tells of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and thus describes it,^2122232425

This is no small illness, but one closely related to the corrupt teachings of Apollinarius and Arius. For they reduce the Lord's union with humanity to a kind of confused mixture, to the point that even certain clergy among us—some from lack of understanding, others from heretical deception long hidden within them—are infected with heresy and openly blaspheme God the Word who is Consubstantial with the Father. They act as though He began His existence from the Virgin mother of Christ, was constructed together with His Temple, and was buried together with His flesh. They claim that the flesh after the resurrection did not remain flesh but passed into the physis of Godhead. They trace the Godhead of the Only-Begotten back to the beginning of the flesh that was joined with it, they make it subject to death along with the flesh, and they blasphemously say that the flesh joined with Godhead passed over into Godhead—using the very term "deifying," which amounts to nothing less than corrupting both.²⁶

'It is a sickness not small, but akin to the putrid sore of Apollinarius and Arius. For they mingle the Lord's union in man to a confusion of some sort of mixture, insomuch that even certain clerks among us, of whom some from lack of understanding, some from heretical guile of old time concealed within them.. are sick as heretics, and openly blaspheme God the Word Consubstantial with the Father, as though He had taken beginning of His Being of the Virgin mother of Christ, and had been built up with His Temple and buried with His flesh, and say that the flesh after the resurrection did not remain [miscuisse seems an error for mansisse] flesh but passed into the Nature of Godhead, and they refer the Godhead of the Only-Begotten to the beginning of the flesh which was connected with It, and they put It to death with the flesh, and blasphemously say that the flesh connected with Godhead passed into Godhead, using the very word deifying, which is nothing else than to corrupt both.'²⁶

Nestorius repeats the same thing in his second letter to Saint Celestine. Saint Cyril had clearly set forth the mode of the Union in his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius using these words. Nestorius does not understand this language and says the following about it:²⁷

Nestorius repeats the same in his second letter to S. Celestine. S. Cyril having in his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius put forth clearly the mode of the Union in these words, Nestorius does not understand the language and says thus of it,²⁷

I now turn to the second chapter of your letter, where I begin to praise the separation of the natures with regard to Godhead and Manhood and their union into one prosopon, and that we must not say that God the Word needed a second birth from a woman, and must confess that the Godhead cannot receive suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and oppose the bad reputations of all the heresies regarding the Lord's natures. As for the rest, whether they bring to the readers' ears some hidden, incomprehensible wisdom is for your precision to determine; to me they seem to overturn what came before. For the one who in the preceding section is proclaimed impassible and incapable of receiving a second birth, they introduce as somehow capable of suffering and newly created, as though the qualities naturally inherent in God the Word were corrupted by union with the Temple, etc.²⁸

'I come now to the second chapter of your Love, wherein I begin to praise the parting of the natures in regard to Godhead and Manhood and their connection into one Person, and that we must not say that God the Word needed a second generation out of a woman, and must confess that the Godhead is unrecipient of suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and counter to the ill-reputes of all the heresies, as to the Lord's natures. As to the rest, whether they bring to the ears of the readers some hidden incomprehensible wisdom, pertains to your accuracy to know; to me they seem to overturn what preceded. For Him Who in the preceding is proclaimed Impassible and non-recipient of a second birth, they introduce as somehow passible and new-created, as though the qualities by nature adherent in God the Word were corrupted by connection with the Temple &c. '²⁸

And yet St. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded that no one who believed in the true union of Godhead and Manhood in the incarnate Son would mistake it.

And yet S. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded, that no one who believed in True Union of Godhead and Manhood in the Incarnate Son would mistake it.

Nestorius appears not to have paid any attention to Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the Letter to the Monks more than once, as we can see from the excerpts of his sermons that Cyril had access to. The passages from the Letter to the Monks that Nestorius referred to are:

Nestorius does not appear to have taken any notice of S. Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the Letter to the Monks more than once, as we see from the extracts of such of his sermons as S. Cyril had access to. The passages of the Letter to the Monks referred to by Nestorius are;

These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian…. He, omitting to tell me by letter whether anything appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked, moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him, turns to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to understand the force of the doctrines. And finding the man's simplicity in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion deceives his ears with crafty letters, having long ago sent him my writings as irrefutable proof, as though I were making Christ out to be a mere man—I who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.²⁹

' These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian…. He, omitting to tell me by letter whether any thing appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked, moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him, turns him to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to fathom the force of the doctrines. And finding the simplicity of the man in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion circumvents his ears with crafty letters, long ago sending him my writings, as a proof which might not be gainsaid, as though I were making Christ out to be a mere man, I who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.²⁹

But he compiled writings by weaving together extracts from my sermons, so that the slander against me created by piecing together these extracts would not be discovered. He added some things to my sermons, broke off bits of others, and took what I had said about the Lord's Incarnation as if I had said it about a mere man. Things I had said in praise of the Godhead he cut away entirely from their context, leaving some out of their proper place, and thus created a plausible deception. To expose his wickedness in a few instances as it appears in the rest: I said somewhere, speaking against the pagans who claim we preach that the Essence of God was newly created from a Virgin, "Mary, my friends, did not bear the Godhead; she bore a man, the inseparable instrument of Godhead." But he changed the word "Godhead" and made it, "Mary, my friends, did not bear God." Now, to say "God" and to say "the Godhead" makes a very great difference. For the one signifies the Divine and unembodied Essence, but does not mean the flesh. For flesh is composite and created. But the word "God" also applies to the temple of the Godhead, which obtains its dignity by union with the Divine Essence of God, yet is not changed into that Divine Essence.

'But he compiled writings, interweaving extracts of my sermons, in order that the slander put on me by the piecing of extracts might not be found out. And some things he added to my sermons, he broke off bits of others and pieced what I had said of the Lord's Incarnation as though I had said them of a mere man. Things again which I had said in praise of the Godhead he cut entirely away from the context, leaving some out of their proper place, and thus made out a plausible misleading. And to publish his wickedness in a few instances such as it is in the rest, I said somewhere, speaking against the heathen who say that we preach that the Essence of God has been newly created from a Virgin, 'Mary, my friends, bare not the Godhead; she bare a man the inseparable instrument of Godhead.' But he changing the word, Godhead, made it, 'Mary, my friends, bare not God.' Here to say God, and to say the Godhead, makes very much difference. For the one signifies the Divine and unembodied Essence, but does not mean the flesh. For flesh is compound and created. But the word God belongs to the temple also of the Godhead, which obtains the dignity by union with the Divine Essence of God, yet is not changed into that Divine Essence.

In another place I spoke against those who, when they hear the same name used, are offended as though the same honor were also being given. When I say "Mother of Christ," they shudder as though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were being denied by this name, since many have been called by this name in the Old Testament. And so they think we are calling Him Christ in the same way as these others. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in church sermons that equality of honor does not follow from similarity of name. And this is what I said: "Or if the Temple of Godhead—we say that the descent of the Holy Spirit is not the same as what was accomplished in the Prophets, not the same as what was celebrated in the Apostles, nor yet the same as what takes place with regard to the Angels who are strengthened for the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, even as to the body. Therefore, just as we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet Scripture also calls Moses god, for it says, 'I have made you a god to Pharaoh,' and yet we by no means attach equal honor to that word, so neither should we stumble at the similarity of expression just because the word by which we say 'Christ' and 'Son' is common. For just as Israel is named son, for He says, 'Israel is My first-born son,' and the Lord is also called Son, for He says, 'This is My Beloved Son,' yet the expression being one does not mean the meaning is also one. And just as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ and, besides, the Babylonian, although they were surely not equal in piety to David, so we call the Lord also Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not make an equality of dignity." From this which I said, he everywhere removed the last words, that is, "Christ," and "we say that not the same is the indwelling as was accomplished in the prophets, not the same as was accomplished in the Apostles," and "we by no means assign like honor by like words," and "yet the community of names does not make equality of dignity." Cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he throws in people's ears what comes before these words, that is, "We call the Creator of all God, yet Scripture also calls Moses god," and "Israel is called God's son, the Lord too is called Son," and "Saul is called christ and David christ and even the Babylonian; thus then do we also call the Lord Christ christ." He therefore, by piecing these things together and cutting them off from the rest (as we said), created here through his slander something like what would happen if, from Paul's words by which he argues in writing, "If you are circumcised Christ will profit you nothing," one were to tear off what he says first, "If you are circumcised," and accuse Paul as though he preached, "Christ will profit you nothing." And why should we prolong our account by going through each instance? In short, Cyril, using many such thefts and additions as pleased him, soon led astray not only others but also Celestine by his deceptions.³⁰

'Again in another place I spoke against those who, hearing the like name, are offended as though like honour were also given. And when I say, Mother of Christ, they shudder as though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were denied by this name, seeing that many have been similarly called by this name in the Old Testament. And hence they think that we are calling Him Christ like these. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in church-sermons, that equality of honour does not follow likeness of name. And this is what I said, 'Or if the Temple of Godhead, wo say that the descent of the Holy Ghost is not the same as was wrought on the Prophets, not the same as was celebrated on the Apostles, nor yet the same as takes place in regard to the Angels who are strengthened unto the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, as to the body too. As therefore we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet does the Scripture call Moses too god, for it says, I have made thee a god to Pharoah, and yet we by no means attach equal honour to that word, so neither, because the word is common by which we say, Christ and Son, ought we to stumble at the likeness of expression. For as Israel is named son, for He says, Israel is My first-born son, and the Lord again Son, for He says, This is My Beloved Son, yet not, as the expression is one, is the meaning also one. And as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ and, besides, the Babylonian, albeit they were surely not equal in piety to David; so we call the Lord too Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not makes an equality of dignity.' From this which I said, he every where subtracting the last words, i.e. 'Christ,' and, 'we say, that not the same is the indwelling as was wrought on the prophets, not the same as was wrought on the Apostles,' and, ' we by no means allot like honour by like words,' and, 'yet the community of names does not make equality of dignity; ' cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he flings in the ears of men what precedes these words: i.e., ' We call the Creator of all God, yet does the Scripture also call Moses god:, and, 'Israel is called God's son, Son too is the Lord called;' and, 'Saul is called christ and David christ yea and the Babylonian; thus then do we call Christ the Lord also christ.' He therefore thus piecing these things and chipping them off from the rest (as we said), made up here by his slander like as if from Paul's words by which he contests writing, If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, one were to rend off what he says first, If ye he circumcised, and accuse Paul as though he preached, Christ shall profit you nothing. And why need we prolong our recital by going through each instance? In short Cyril using many such robberies and additions as pleased him, soon not others only but Celestine also were led away by his misleadings.'³⁰

Around this time, Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on the Incarnation. The treatise is very simple and almost free of controversy, explaining the Incarnation through simple analogies and biblical types. It contains one of Cyril's most careful statements of the doctrine, explicitly rejecting Apollinarianism. In the concluding sections, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with Nestorius, are striking and simple statements showing how the Passion belongs to God the Son, even though the Godhead cannot suffer.^31323334

Much about this time S. Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on the Incarnation. The treatise is very simple and almost uncontroversial, illustrating the Incarnation by simple analogies and Bible-types. It contains one of S. Cyril's most careful statements of the doctrine, excluding Apollinarianism. In the concluding sections, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with Nestorius, are striking and simple statements, how God the Son's Passion is His, though Godhead cannot suffer.^31323334

Shortly after this, Cyril wrote his first surviving letter to Nestorius, a brief letter in which he said he had heard that Nestorius was very angry about Cyril's letter to the monks. However, since certain teachings, whether Nestorius's or not, had been brought to Egypt and had seriously misled many people, it became his duty to God to set forth the correct doctrine. Cyril also mentioned that Celestine and the bishops with him had asked whether those teachings that had reached them were Nestorius's or not. Cyril did not know. Finally, Cyril asked him to resolve the confusion by using the single term Theotokos for the Holy Virgin. To avoid being misunderstood, he also mentioned a book he had written during the episcopate of Atticus of blessed memory, on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which he had woven in some material on the Incarnation similar to what he had now written.

Soon after this S. Cyril wrote his first extant letter to Nestorius, a short letter, saying that he hears that Nestorius was very angry at S. Cyril's letter to the Monks, yet that since 'expositions,' whether Nestorius' or not, had been brought to Egypt and had gravely misled many, it became a duty to God to put forth the right doctrine. S. Cyril also says that S. Celestine and the Bishops with him had asked whether those 'expositions' which had come thither were Nestorius' or not. S. Cyril did not know. Finally, S. Cyril asked him to heal the confusion by the use of the one word Theotocos, of the Holy Virgin. For fear of misapprehension he mentions also a book, which he had written in the Episcopate of Atticus of blessed memory, on the Holy and Consnbstantial Trinity, in which he had interwoven some things on the Incarnation, like what he had now written.

We do not know how much time passed between this and the second letter that Cyril wrote in synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation. Because of its acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church afterward, this letter has ecumenical authority. It was probably written before the end of 429 and is the letter quoted above, which Nestorius' reply showed that he could not understand. It has been suggested that because of Nestorius' reference to the imperial court at the end of his reply, Cyril wrote his three treatises de recta fide. The first of these is addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, and the other two are addressed to the emperor's queen and sisters. John, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following Cyril, quotes from both among his extracts in defense of the Council of Chalcedon. From the title with which he introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer treatise was addressed to the emperor's two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the three to the two Augustas, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia and his eldest sister Pulcheria, who had the title of Augusta from having been regent for the emperor during his minority. Cyril later recast his treatise to the emperor in the form of a dialogue, omitting what was specifically addressed to the emperor and making small adjustments to the language here and there. Thus the expression "neither do we say two Christs, even though we believe that the temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul" becomes in the dialogue "neither do we say two Christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel." A little further on, "we say that the whole Word out of God has been co-united with the whole manhood that is of us" becomes "we say therefore that the whole Word has been united to whole man." This dialogue was probably appended by Cyril to his older dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those dialogues. The other two treatises are mainly made up of expositions of biblical texts to prove that Christ is God and man. Near the beginning of the one addressed to the Augustas, Cyril refers to his earlier treatise.^{35363738394041}

We do not know what time intervened between this and the second Letter which S. Cyril wrote in Synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation, which, from its acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church subsequently, has Ecumenical authority. It was probably written before the close of A.D. 429 and is the Letter quoted above, which Nestorius' reply shewed that he could not understand. It has been supposed that it was in consequence of Nestorius' allusion to the Imperial Court in the close of his reply, that S. Cyril wrote his Three Treatises de recta fide; whereof the first is to the Emperor Theodosius; the other two to the Emperor's Queen and Sisters. John Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following S. Cyril, quotes from both among his extracts in defence of the Council of Chalcedon. From the title with which he introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer Treatise was addressed to the Emperor's two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the Three to the Two Augusta's, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia, and his eldest sister Pulcheria who had the title of Augusta, from having been Regent for the Emperor in his minority. S. Cyril afterwards recast his Treatise to the Emperor in the form of a Dialogue, omitting what was specially addressed to the Emperor, and giving little touches here and there to the language. Thus the expression " neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that the Temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul," becomes in the Dialogue, " neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel." A little further on, " we say that the whole Word out of Grod has been co-united with the whole manhood that is of us," becomes, " we say therefore that the whole Word has been united to whole man." This Dialogue was probably appended by S. Cyril to his older Dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those Dialogues. The other two treatises are chiefly made up of expositions of texts to prove that Christ is God and Man. Near the beginning of that to the Augusta's, S. Cyril alludes to his former treatise.^{35363738394041}

In my treatise to the holy Virgins (that is, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had embraced the virgin life), I provided a very large collection of more straightforward statements that had nothing difficult to understand. But in this work I have included the more obscure points. For your Pious Authority should both know these and not be ignorant of the others, so that through both, perfection in knowledge may dwell like a light in your most pure understanding.⁴²

"In my treatise to the holy Virgins [i. e. the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had embraced the virgin estate] I made a very large provision of more obvious sayings which had nothing hard to understand; but in this I have made mention of the obscurer. For your Pious Authority ought both to know these and not to be ignorant of the other, in order that by means of both, perfection in knowledge, like a light, may dwell in your most pure understanding "⁴²

Bishop Hefele believes there are signs that the two Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, supported Cyril and opposed Nestorius.⁴³

Bishop Hefele thinks that there are indications that the two Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, spoken for Cyril and against Nestorius.⁴³

Of the five sermons of Nestorius on the Incarnation that Marius Mercator translated into Latin, Saint Cyril quoted extensively from the second one. The fourth and fifth sermons in Mercator's collection belong to the end of A.D. 430. The fourth is dated December 6 (the eighth of the Ides of December), the Saturday after Nestorius received Saint Celestine's Letter through Saint Cyril's four bishops, along with Saint Cyril's letter containing the 12 Chapters. In this sermon, Nestorius repeats some of the teaching that Saint Cyril had quoted from an earlier sermon, specifically concerning God sending forth His Son. We have only fragments of that earlier sermon, but it was preached against Saint Cyril's letter to the monks. Nestorius refers to Saint Cyril as "the wrangler" and "the heretic," and he directly addresses Saint Cyril or Saint Proclus as "O heretic in clerical form."^44454647

Of the five sermons of Nestorius on the Incarnation which Marius Mercator translated into Latin, S. Cyril has cited copiously from the second: the fourth and fifth of Mercator's collection belong to the close of A.D. 430; for the fourth is dated the eighth of the Ides of December (Dec. 6), the Saturday after Nestorius had received S. Cyril's four Bishops with S. Celestine's Letter and S. Cyril's with the 12 Chapters. In it Nestorius recapitulates some of the teaching which S. Cyril had quoted from an earlier sermon, i.e. on God sending forth His Son. Of that earlier sermon we have only fragments, but it was preached against S. Cyril's letter to the Monks. Nestorius speaks of S. Cyril as the " wrangler, " the heretic," and he apostrophises S. Cyril or S. Proclus, "O heretic in clerical form."^44454647

The last sermon in that series from Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday, December 7.

The last of that series in Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday Dec. 7.

Count Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon provides it in a different translation.⁴⁸

Count Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon gives it in another translation.⁴⁸

One of the interests and activities of the bishops during their first days at Ephesus would have been getting to know some whom they had never met before. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between St. Cyril and Acacius, the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia toward Cappadocia. The long letter which he wrote to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, suggests that St. Cyril had reached some degree of closeness with him. He also wrote to Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, on the west coast of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships as well that came from the long stay at Ephesus. Some of St. Cyril's letters show how warm-hearted and sensitive he was, despite his strong will and unwavering purpose.

One of the interests and employments of the Bishops during their first days at Ephesus will have been the becoming acquainted with some whom they had never before seen. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between S. Cyril and Acacius the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia towards Cappadocia: the long letter which he wrote to Valerian Bishop of Iconium points at S. Cyril's having readied some degree of intimacy with him; he wrote too to Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, on the west of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships too as the fruit of the long sojourn at Ephesus. Some of S. Cyril's letters shew how warm-hearted and sensitive he was, notwithstanding his mighty will and unswerving purpose.

But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus: sickness and death. The sickness was probably the fever so common now along all that unhealthy coast, and in many cases it turned into dysentery. We do not know which Bishops the Council lost, for our knowledge of those who were present comes from the lists of names at the opening of the first and sixth sessions and the signatures to those two sessions. But the fact is mentioned several times. S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says,

But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus, sickness and death, the sickness probably the fever so prevalent now along all that poisonous coast, and passing in many cases into dysentery. "We do not know what Bishops the Council lost; for our knowledge of those who composed it is derived from the lists of names at the opening of the first and sixth session and the signatures to those two sessions. But the fact is mentioned several times: S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says,

some have fallen into sickness and some are dead;

"some have fallen into sickness and some are dead;"

the Council, in its report to the Emperors, says,

the Council in its Relatio to the Emperors, says,

Some of the holy bishops, burdened by old age, could not endure staying in a foreign place; some were endangered by illness; some even met their death in the city of Ephesus.

"and some of the holy Bishops weighed down by age did not endure their stay in a strange place; some were imperilled in weakness; some have even undergone the close of their life in the Capital of the Ephesians;"

in its report to Saint Celestine,

in its account to S. Celestine,

although many bishops and clergy were both afflicted by sickness and burdened by expense, and some had even died.

"although many both Bishops and Clergy were both pressed by sickness and oppressed by expense and some had even deceased."

After waiting two weeks—during which time, if everyone had been present, the business could have been finished and the bishops sent home—St. Cyril wrote to John, Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his report to the Emperors, says,

After waiting a fortnight, during which time, if all had been there, the business might have been completed and the Bishops dismissed, S. Cyril wrote to John Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his Relatio to the Emperors, says,

Two days before they held their assembly [the Council], Cyril of Alexandria himself sent word to me in Antioch that the entire Synod was waiting for my arrival.⁴⁹

"and Cyril himself of Alexandria sent to me of Antioch two days before the assembly made by them [the Council], that the whole Synod is awaiting my presence."⁴⁹

Cyril also refers to the Letter. He says about John,

S. Cyril too alludes to the Letter. He says of John,

He was always friendly and dear to me, never once finding fault with my words. He wrote to me kindly and received letters from me.⁵⁰

"he who was ever friendly and dear, who never at any time found fault with my words, who wrote kindly and received letters from me."⁵⁰

While this letter was being delivered, some of the bishops from John's party arrived, bringing with them a letter to Saint Cyril in which John said he was only about four days away. The bishops from John's party were Alexander, Metropolitan of Apamea, and Alexander, Metropolitan of Hierapolis; and apparently, though we are not explicitly told this, Theodoret and Meletius, bishop of Neocaesarea, were with them as well. The Council, in its report to Saint Celestine, describes their arrival and says,

While this letter was on its way, some of the Bishops of John's party arrived, and with them a letter to S. Cyril in which John spoke of being only about four days off. The Bishops of John's party were Alexander Metropolitan of Apamea and Alexander Metropolitan of Hierapolis; and, to all appearance, though we are not told so, Theodoret and Meletius bishop of Neocaesarea. The Council, speaking of the arrival in their Eelatio to S. Celestine, says,

Nevertheless, after the sixteenth day, some of the bishops who were with him went ahead—two metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis. When we complained about the late arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said repeatedly, "He told us to inform your Reverence that even if he should still delay, the synod was not to be postponed, but rather should do what was right."⁵¹

" Nevertheless after the sixteenth day there preceded him some of the Bishops who were with him, two Metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis; and when we complained of the tardy arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said not once but over and over, 'he bid us tell your Reverence that, if he should even yet loiter, the synod was not to be put off, but rather to do what was meet.' "⁵¹

Saint Cyril says nearly the same thing in his Apology to the Emperor. Nevertheless, it is clear that John meant the words "if I yet loiter" to be understood in connection with his own letter to Saint Cyril stating that he was only five or six days away, and so he should be allowed that interval.⁵²

S. Cyril says nearly the same in his Apology to the Emperor. Nevertheless it is plain that John meant the words, 'if I yet loiter,' to be taken in connection with his own letter to S. Cyril that he was but 5 or 6 days off, and so that he should have that interval allowed him.⁵²

The Council, however, despite the distress of many of its members, decided to meet the next day. Nestorius' friends, led by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, drafted a petition to the Council asking them to wait for John of Antioch, "who is now at the very door, as he has indicated in his letters," and for some Western bishops. The document also speaks of the unlawfulness of allowing excommunicated or deposed bishops to be admitted into the Council and concludes with these threatening words,⁵³

The Council however, in the distress of many of its members, determined to assemble the next day. Nestorius' friends headed by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, got up a memorial to the Council that they should wait for John of Antioch, "who is himself now at the door, as he has intimated by his Letters," and for some Western Bishops. The document further speaks of the unlawfulness of excommunicated or deposed Bishops being admitted into the Council and ends with the threatening words,⁵³

And let your Reverence know that everything done in a hasty way by reckless men will be turned back against the recklessness of those who act so presumptuously, both by Christ the Lord and by the Divine Canons.

"And let your Reverence know, that all that shall be done in an abrupt way by daring men will be turned back against the daring of them who so presume, both by Christ the Lord and by the Divine Canons."

There follow 68 signatures, 16 from the Province of Antioch including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while delivering John's message, did not consider it as preventing a four-day delay), and about 30 other friends of Nestorius. They also obtained about 23 other signatures. However, these 23 joined the Council the next day as a matter of course and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza, who signs for himself and for his Nestorian Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session, but he does sign the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had arrived late.

There follow 68 signatures, 16 of the Province of Antioch including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while they delivered John's message, did not consider it as precluding four days' delay) about 30 other friends of Nestorius. They procured also about 23 other signatures. These 23 however joined the Council next day as a matter of course, and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza who signs for himself and for his Nestorian Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session; but he signs the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had come in late.

No deliberative body would accept such an insulting memorial as this one from Nestorius's friends, and naturally it does not appear in the Acts of the Council. Count Irenaeus, who was a friend of Nestorius and later became Bishop of Tyre, preserved it for us along with other interesting documents from his party.

No deliberative body whatever would accept such an insulting memorial as this of the friends of Nestorius, and of course it does not appear in the Acts of the Council. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, has preserved it to us with other curious documents of his party.

Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century copied most of a unique manuscript from the Monastery Library of Monte Cassino. The compiler is believed to be African; he lived at the same time as Facundus, Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very enthusiastically on behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very forcefully in defense of Theodoret. His main source was an interesting and extensive collection of documents and letters assembled by Count Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains letters that were exchanged between the different bishops in the Province of Antioch concerning Nestorius and St. Cyril, and their views about reconciliation with St. Cyril, and one can see how eagerly the leading bishops obtained a copy of any new letter that St. Cyril wrote. This collection alone preserves St. Cyril's important letter to Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, in response to the first demand of the Eastern bishops that the Nicene Creed was sufficient and that St. Cyril should destroy everything else he had written on doctrine. St. Cyril refers to this letter of his in his letter to his representatives at Constantinople, and a fragment of it is preserved by John, Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in his Thesaurus of excerpts from St. Cyril in defense of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent, Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the first half of the sixth century.⁵⁴⁵⁵

Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century transcribed the greater part of an unique manuscript in the Monastery Library of Monte Cassino. The compiler is thought to be an African; he was a contemporary of Facundus, Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very eagerly in behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very strongly in defence of Theodoret. His principal material was a curious and extensive collection of documents and Letters made by Count Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains Letters that passed between the different Bishops in the Province of Antioch about Nestorius and S. Cyril, and their views as to reconciliation with S. Cyril, and one sees how eagerly the principal Bishops got hold of a copy of any fresh letter which S. Cyril wrote. This collection alone preserves S. Cyril's great Letter to Acacius Bishop of Beroea, in reply to the first demand of the Eastern Bishops that the Nicene Creed was enough and that S. Cyril should burn all else which he had written on dogma. S. Cyril alludes to this Letter of his in his letter to his Proctors at Constantinople and a fragment of it is preserved by John Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine in his Thesaurus of extracts of S. Cyril in Defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent, Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the earlier half of the sixth century.⁵⁴⁵⁵

Irenaeus was a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, and all the letters and documents he collected seem to have been accepted without any question about whether they were genuine. We also have several documents from other sources. However, the Compiler, who used Count Irenaeus' collection, also added near the end of his compilation some documents from other manuscripts he had access to. One of these is completely worthless: a confession of faith claiming to be from Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, but clearly written at a later date.

Irenaeus being a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, all the letters and documents collected by him seem to have been accepted without any doubt as to their genuineness. We also possess several from other sources. But the Compiler, who made use of Count Irenaeus' collection, has also inserted towards the end of his compilation, some documents from other MSS. to which he had access: one of these is absolutely worthless, viz. a confession of faith, purporting to be that of Acacius Bishop of Beroea, but evidently of later date.

Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived at the end of the 12th century, mentioned this work in his catalogue of church writers. Ebed-jesu says, "Irenaeus of Tyre compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and everything that happened at that time." Two or three pages earlier, Ebed-jesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings, also lists "A Book of a Tragedy."^5657585960

Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived in the end of the 12th century, has mentioned the work in his catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers. Ebedjesu says, "Irenaeus of Tyre compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and all that happened at that time." Two or three pages before, Ebedjesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings, gives also, "A Book of a Tragedy."^5657585960

The short treatise or confession of Saint Athanasius from which Saint Cyril quotes in his book against Theodore is placed by Montfaucon, Saint Athanasius' editor, among the doubtful works. Montfaucon's reasons for doing this are twofold: first, that the very famous expression "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" seems to contradict what Saint Athanasius says in other writings; second, that the treatise was challenged by Leontius of Byzantium at the beginning of the seventh century.⁶¹⁶²

The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century.⁶¹⁶²

Regarding the first reason for doubt, only someone who has studied Athanasius extensively has any right to offer an opinion. The second reason amounts to nothing. Leontius says,

Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says,

The party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch, presents another passage as belonging to Athanasius, from his treatise on the Incarnation. It goes like this: "And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word." To this we respond: first, it does not oppose us at all, because we do not hold two natures, one to be worshipped and the other not. Rather, we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Second, it is not by Athanasius. When we ask them where this passage is found and they cannot easily show it, they produce in their confusion some small treatise, about two pages long, which contains this passage. But it is clear to everyone that all of Athanasius' writings are very lengthy.

"They [the party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.

But what can we say when they bring forward blessed Cyril, citing this passage against Theodore as though it were Saint Athanasius's? We say that it does indeed appear in blessed Cyril's writings against Theodore, yet this is an old mistake. For Dioscorus, who succeeded blessed Cyril and found his works, might well have added whatever he wanted. We might even suppose that blessed Cyril himself did not cite it against Theodore, and that this is so is clear from the following. For Theodoret, speaking in defense of Theodore and overturning all the passages that blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, nowhere mentioned this one. To this they reply that Theodoret passed over it deliberately, for being unable to answer it since it was so obvious, he intentionally ignored it. To this we say that far from passing it by if it had been there, when Saint Cyril said elsewhere "One Nature Incarnate of God the Word," if Theodoret had known that this passage had been presented by blessed Cyril as quoted from Saint Athanasius, he would not have so ignorantly said, "Which of the Fathers said 'the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word'?" But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by Saint Athanasius that he said, "As the Fathers have said." To this we say that everyone is eager to show that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, then at least in meaning.⁶³

"But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?' But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense."⁶³

It is clear that no serious objection could be based on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact that one's opponent passes over an objection would not prove that the objection, which is admittedly there, was not made. The rest of Leontius' objection rests on the suggestion that "perhaps Dioscorus added something."

It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, " perhaps Dioscorus added something."

This confession was very well known to Saint Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it at the beginning of his Treatise on the True Faith to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to show that Saint Athanasius used the term Mother of God. Saint Cyril also cited two portions of it to show that in his eighth chapter, where he says that Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had only said what Saint Athanasius had also said. In all three citations the words "One Physis Incarnate of the Word" occur, and in the case of Saint Cyril's defense of his eighth chapter, the whole passage exists in the Latin translation (believed to be by Saint Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator), which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion—besides the fact that the citation forms an integral part of Saint Cyril's defense of his chapter.⁶⁴

This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces of it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.⁶⁴

It is therefore proven that these words were quoted as belonging to Saint Athanasius by Saint Cyril, the same Saint Cyril whose own thinking had been shaped and instructed by the writings of Saint Athanasius, and who in A.D. 431 brought out from the archives, probably of his own Church of Saint Mark, an authentic copy of Saint Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.

It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.

If this Confession is not genuine, it simply shows that, being only human, we make mistakes even in areas we know best.

If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.

Montfaucon concludes, "I would not dare to say whether the excerpts were inserted into Cyril's writings after his death, or whether someone created a short work like this before Cyril's time and attributed it to Athanasius."

Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."

My son had printed these fragments of a preface to the volume before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me clearly fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications of how they were to be completed. I have thought it might be useful to compile as a supplement some accounts of the development of the heresy of Nestorius and of the character of St. Cyril as they illuminate his controversy against him. E. B. P.

[My son had had these fragments of a preface to the volume printed, before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me manifestly fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications, how they were to be filled up. I have thought it might be useful to put together as a supplement, some notices of the course of the heresy of Nestorius, and of the character of S. Cyril as illustrating his controversy against him. E. B. P.]

The specific form of the disease to which the name of Nestorius became attached was hereditary in the great Province of Antioch. This is all the sadder because it came to him lurking in the writings of men of even great reputation, commentators on large parts of Holy Scripture, who seem to have inherited it unawares: Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both had died in the peace of the Church. Diodore, who had the very highest reputation, had shared in the persecution of Saint Meletius by the Arians, had been one of the Bishops of the Second General Council, and had helped to form the mind of Saint Chrysostom. Theodore, in whom the heresy appears more abundantly yet incidentally, had during the thirty-eight years of his episcopate written against other heretics—Arians, Eunomians, Origen, Apollinarius—and was intimate with Saint Chrysostom and with Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. The way of truth, as well as the way of life, is narrow.⁶⁵

THE special form of the disease, to which the name of Nestorius became attached, was hereditary in the great Province of Antioch. It is the sadder, because it came to him, lurking in the writings of men of even great name, commentators on large parts of Holy Scripture, who seem to have inherited it unawares; Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both had fallen asleep in the peace of the Church. Diodore, of the very highest reputation, had shared in the persecution of S. Meletius by the Arians, had been one of the Bishops of the Second General Council, and had helped to form the mind of S. Chrysostom. Theodore, in whom the heresy appears more copiously yet incidentally, had, during the thirty-eight years of his Episcopate, written against other heretics, Arians, Eunomians, Origen, Apollinarius, and was intimate with S. Chrysostom and with S. Gregory of Nazianzus. The way of truth as well as the way of life is narrow.⁶⁵

It appears to have been a tradition of heresy standing over against the tradition of faith. There is no doubt about the last two stages of this heretical tradition. This is clear from the fragments of their writings that still survive. Saint Cyril speaks fully about Diodore of Tarsus, saying that Nestorius's mind was darkened by his books. Leontius says that Diodorus had been for Theodore the author, leader, and father of those evils and impieties. In the ninth century, the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius as their three fathers. A Nestorian Patriarch-elect promised that he would hold to the true Nestorian faith, the synods of East and West, and the three fathers: Diodorus, Theodore, and Nestorius. An eminent Syrian writer of the century after Saint Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham, who held the title of honor "the Persian Preacher or Philosopher," says that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from Ebion, that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul. Theodore held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not, but the heresy concerning the Incarnation was much alike in both.^66676869

It appears to have been a tradition of heresy over against the tradition of faith. Of the last two stages of the heretical tradition there is no doubt. Of both it is clear from the fragments of their writings still extant. S. Cyril speaks fully as to Diodore of Tarsus, 'by whose books,' he says, 'the mind of Nestorius was darkened.' Leontius says, that 'Diodorus had been to Theodorus the author and leader and father of those evils and impieties.' In the 9th century the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodorus and Nestorius their 'three fathers.' A Nestorian Patriarch elect promised, ' that he would adhere to the true [Nestorian] faith, and the Synods of East and West, and the three fathers, Diodorus, Theodorus, Nestorius.' An eminent Syrian writer in the century after S. Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham (who had the title of honour of, 'the Persian Preacher or Philosopher ') says, that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from Ebion; that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul. Theodore held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not; but the heresy on the Incarnation was in much alike.^66676869

A parallel was drawn between the teaching of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation in a public adjuration issued by the clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of the Nestorian heresy and published in a church. The parallel went as follows:⁷⁰

In an Adjuration publicly put forth by the Clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of the Nestorian heresy and published in a Church, a parellel was drawn between the teaching of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation. The parallel ran;⁷⁰

Paul said, "Mary did not bear the Word." Nestorius, in agreement, said, "Mary, my good man, did not bear the Godhead." [The Anathema approved by Nestorius denied that "Mary bore God," not "the Godhead."] Paul said, "For he did not exist before all ages." Nestorius said, "And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times." Paul said, "Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word." Nestorius said, "How then did Mary bear Him who is older than herself?" Paul said, "Mary bore a man like us." Nestorius said, "He who was born of the Virgin is man." Paul said, "but a man superior in all things, since He is from the Holy Spirit, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon Him." Nestorius said, "It says, 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and abiding on Him,' which granted Him the Ascension. 'Commanding, it says, the Apostles whom He had chosen, He was taken up through the Holy Spirit.' This then was what conferred on Christ such glory." Paul said, "that neither should He who is of David, having been anointed, be alien from Wisdom, nor should Wisdom dwell in any other in the same way, for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in Christ as in the Temple of God." And elsewhere he says, "the Word is one thing and Jesus Christ is another." Nestorius said, "That it was not possible that He who was born before all ages should be born again, and that according to the Godhead." Look, the transgressor is revealed, saying that He who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. Look, he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that "the Word is one thing and Jesus Christ is another" and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.

Paul said, 'Mary did not hear the Word;' Nestorius, in harmony, said, 'Mary, my good man, did not bear the Godhead;' [the Anathema approved by Nestorius denied that 'Mary bare God' not 'the Godhead.'] Paul, 'For he was not before ages.' Nestorius,—- 'And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times.' Paul, 'Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word.' 'Nestorius, 'How then did Mary bear Him Who is older than herself?' Paul, 'Mary bore a man like unto us.' Nestorius, 'He Who was born of the Virgin is man.' Paul,—- 'but a man in all things superior, since He is from the Holy Ghost, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon Him.' Nestorius said, 'It saith, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and abiding on Him," which bestowed upon Him the Ascension. "Commanding, it saith, the Apostles whom He had chosen He was taken up through the Holy Ghost." This then it was, which conferred on Christ such glory.' Paul said, 'that neither He Who is of David having been anointed be alien from Wisdom, nor that Wisdom should dwell in any other in like way, for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in Christ as in the Temple of God.' And elsewhere he says, that 'other is Jesus Christ and other the Word.' Nestorius said, 'That it was not possible that He Who was born before all ages should anew be born, and that, according to the Godhead.' See, the transgressor is made manifest, saying, that He Who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. See, he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that 'Other is the Word and other Jesus Christ' and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.

The heresy stumbled at humanity's usual stumbling-block: God's love in the Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb." Theodore held it was madness to say that God was born of a Virgin. He held that the man who was born in this way was united to God only by grace, and that he was a son only by adoption.⁷¹⁷²⁷³

The heresy stumbled at man's wonted stumbling-block, the love of God in the Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb." Theodore held it to be madness to say that God was born of a Virgin; he held that the man who was so born was united to God only by grace, that he was a son only by adoption.⁷¹⁷²⁷³

This false doctrine and others likely went unnoticed because they were scattered throughout controversial writings against the Apollinarians or in scriptural commentaries. They were brought to light by the vanity of Nestorius.

This and other false doctrines had probably escaped notice, because they were scattered up and down in controversial writings against the Apollinarians, or in interpretations of Holy Scripture. They were brought out by the vanity of Nestorius.

Born of at least humble origins, he possessed the dangerous gift of great fluency in impromptu preaching and "a very beautiful and powerful voice." He was also considered an ascetic. Saint Cyril said to the Emperor,⁷⁴

Born of low parentage at least, he had the perilous gift of great fluency of extempore preaching and 'a very beautiful and powerful voice.' He was moreover accounted an ascetic. S. Cyril said to the Emperor,⁷⁴

He was chosen as someone practiced in the teachings of the Gospels and Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right faith, entirely without blame. Your Pious Majesty desired to have such a man, as did all who were set over the holy Churches, and I myself as well. And indeed when the letters of the most pious Bishops concerning his consecration were sent around by those who promoted him to this position, I wrote back without delay, rejoicing, praising, and praying that by the decree from above every choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.⁷⁵

' he was chosen as one practised in the doctrines of the Gospels and the Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right faith, altogether blamelessly. Your Pious Majesty longed to have such a man, and all who were set over the holy Churches, and I myself also. And indeed when the letters of the most pious Bishops about his consecration were sent round by those who advanced him thereto, I wrote hack without delay, rejoicing, praising, praying that by the decree from above all choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.'⁷⁵

Saint Celestine wrote to Nestorius himself that he had been concerned about the bishops who were successively appointed to his see.

S. Celestine wrote to Nestorius himself, that he had been anxious as to the Bishops successively appointed to his see,

because good things tend not to last, and what joy he had experienced in the successor of the blessed John Chrysostom, Atticus of blessed memory, the teacher of the Catholic faith; then in the holy Sisinnius, who was so soon to leave us, for his simple piety and pious simplicity; and when he was removed, the report of the messenger who came gladdened our soul; and this was immediately confirmed by the account of our colleagues, who were present at your consecration, who gave you such testimony as was fitting for one who had been elected from elsewhere [Antioch]. For you had lived before with such high reputation that another city envied you to your own people… Evil (as far as we can see) has followed upon your good beginnings; beginnings so good, so well reported to us, that in our response to the account of the brethren, we showed how we shared in the joy.⁷⁶

' because good is apt not to be lasting, and what joy he had had in the successor of the blessed John [Chrysostom], Atticus of blessed memory, the teacher of the Catholic faith; then in the holy Sisinnius, who was so soon to leave us, for his simple piety and pious simplicity; and when he was removed, the relation of the messenger who came rejoiced our soul; and this was straightway confirmed by the relation of our colleagues, who were present at thy consecration, who bare thee such testimony as was meet to one who had been elected from elsewhere [Antioch]. For thou hadst lived before with so high estimation, that another city envied thee to thy own people… Evil (as far as we see) has followed on thy good beginnings; beginnings, so good, so well reported of to us, that, in our answer to the relation of the brethren, we shewed how we were partakers of the joy.'⁷⁶

Saint Celestine dwells even fondly on this recollection, which stood in such sad contrast to the letter he had to answer.

S. Celestine lingers even fondly over the reminiscence, which was such a sad contrast to the letter which he had to answer.

Who could easily believe, asks Vincent of Lérins, that he was in error, when they saw he had been chosen by such judgment of the Empire and held in such high regard by the Bishops? He was so loved by the holy, so favored by the people, and daily taught the words of God while refuting the poisonous errors of Jews and Greeks. Who could he not persuade that he taught rightly, preached rightly, and believed rightly, when he persecuted the blasphemies of all other heresies in order to make room for his own heresy? But to pass over Nestorius, who had more admirers than usefulness, more fame than experience, and whom human favor had made great in the eyes of the people for a time rather than Divine grace—⁷⁷

'Who could readily believe,' asks Vincentius of Lerins, 'that he was in error, whom he saw to have been chosen by such judgement of the Empire, the object of such estimation of the Bishops? who was so loved by the holy, in such favour with the people, who daily discoursed on the words of God, and confuted the poisonous errors of Jews and Grentiles. Whom could he not persuade that he taught aright, preached aright, held aright, who in order to make way for his own heresy persecuted the blasphemies of all [other] heresies? But to pass by Nestorius who had ever more admiration than usefulness, more fame than experience, whom human favour had made for a season great in the eyes of the people rather than Divine grace—-'⁷⁷

The outward change was sudden, Vincentius also says,

The outward change was sudden, Vincentius too says,

What a temptation that was recently, when this unhappy Nestorius suddenly changed from a sheep into a wolf and began to attack Christ's flock, while those who were being attacked still largely believed him to be a sheep, and so fell all the more easily into his jaws!⁷⁷

' What a temptation was that lately, when this unhappy Nestorius, suddenly changed from a sheep to a wolf, began to rend the flock of Christ, when they too who were torn, in great part still believed him to be a sheep, and so the more easily fell into his jaws!'⁷⁷

Theodoret, who had defended him for so many years, spoke more harshly of him than any other writer after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon. Theodoret had an affectionate nature. The great curse of his life was that he would believe any evil of St. Cyril rather than suspect his former friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed St. Cyril to be an Apollinarian, which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic, which he was. When St. Leo took up his cause against the worthless successor of St. Cyril, Dioscorus, and showed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have felt toward Nestorius as the cause of an almost lifelong error from which he was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known, died unrepentant in a heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of Nestorius is,⁷⁷⁷⁸

Theodoret, who had for so many years defended him, after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon, spoke more severely of him than any other writer. Theodoret was of an affectionate disposition. The great bane of his life was, that he would believe any evil of S. Cyril, rather than suspect his former friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed S. Cyril to be an Apollinarian which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic which he was. When then S. Leo espoused his cause against the worthless successor of S. Cyril, Dioscorus, and shewed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have felt towards Nestorius as the occasion to him of an almost lifelong error, from which he was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known, died unrepentant in an heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of Nestorius is,⁷⁷⁷⁸

From the start, Nestorius showed what he would be throughout his life: he cultivated a merely popular eloquence that drew empty applause and attracted the unstable crowd. He went about dressed in mourning clothes, walking with a heavy step, avoiding public gatherings, and trying to appear ascetic through his pale appearance. At home he was mostly occupied with books and lived quietly by himself. He continued into old age enticing many people through such habits and pretenses, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than actually being one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.⁷⁹

' From the first, Nestorius shewed what he was going to be all his life through: that he cultivated a mere popular eloquence, eliciting empty applause and attracting to himself the unstable multitude; that he went about, clad in a mourning garment, walking heavily, avoiding public throngs, seeking by the pallor of his looks to appear ascetic, at home mostly given to books and living quietly by himself. He went on to advanced age enticing the many by such habits and counterfeits, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than to be one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.'⁷⁹

The progression of his heresy is described in summary by Theodoret.

The course of his heresy Theodoret describes in summary.

His innovation began with the claim that we must not confess the Holy Virgin who bore the Word of God, having taken flesh from her, to be Theotokos, but only Christotokos, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago taught us to call her Theotokos and believe her to be the Mother of the Lord.⁷⁹

' The first step of his innovation was that we must not confess the Holy Virgin who bare the Word of God having taken flesh of her, to be Theotocos, but Christotocos only, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago (tw~n pa&lai kai\ pro&palai) taught to call her Theotocos, and believe her the Mother of the Lord.'⁷⁹

Then he mentions the defense offered by Nestorius.

Then he mentions the plea of Nestorius,

that the name Christ signifies the two natures (physis), the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that the name God refers absolutely to the simple and incorporeal essence (ousia) of God the Word, and that the name man refers to human nature (physis) alone. Therefore it is necessary to confess that the Virgin is Christotokos and not Theotokos, lest we unwittingly say that God the Word received the beginning of His existence from the holy Virgin, and so be forced logically to confess that the Mother was older than the One who was born from her.

'that the name Christ signifies the two Natures, the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that of God absolutely the simple and incorporeal essence of God the Word; and that of man the human nature alone; therefore it is necessary to confess the Virgin to be Christotocos and not Theotocos, lest unawares we say that God the Word took the beginning of His Being from the holy Virgin, and so should be obliged consistently to confess that the Mother was older than He Who was born of her.'

Finally, he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, that in the Church of the orthodox he shouted out many such words as "Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she bore a man who was the instrument of God," and again among other follies, "The pagan is blameless when he gives a mother to the gods."

Lastly he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, that in the Church of the orthodox he shouted out many such words as 'Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she bore a man the instrument of God;' 'and again among other follies,' 'The Gentile is blameless, when he gives a mother to the gods.'

Here is his teaching at Constantinople in outline. He concentrated his efforts on replacing Theotocos with Christotocos, and instead of "God made Man," he promoted a human Christ connected with God, corrupting through frivolous statements the minds he was able to influence.

Such is the outline of his teaching at Constantinople. His efforts were concentrated on the substitution of Christotocos for Theotocos; for 'God made Man,' a human Christ connected with God, corrupting by flippant sayings the minds which he could influence.

He gained favor with Theodosius, who relied on those around him. His elevation to the Patriarchate was a marked distinction, since it involved a call from a different Patriarchate at the nomination of Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed to himself called to great things. According to Socrates, he had not yet, in the words of the proverb, tasted the waters of the city when, in an inaugural speech before the Emperor and a large crowd of people, he addressed the Emperor: "Give me, O king, the land cleared of heretics, and I in turn will give you heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and I will destroy the Persians with you." He must have meant, of course, that he could promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. People noticed, we are told, the vanity, passion, and vainglory of the speech. At the very least, it was a summons of civil power against those he himself knew nothing about and for whose conversion his predecessors had waited patiently, and it promised victory over a warlike people based not on self-humiliation before God but on the extermination of men who did not share his errors. An Arian congregation, seeing their church destroyed, in desperation set it on fire and threw themselves into the flames. This earned Nestorius, among all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of "the Incendiary." The persecution caused much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to restrain his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, and Caria were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia on his way from Antioch to his See, so that it was even thought he had absorbed his heresy at that time. Those he brought with him were from the same school.^8080818283

He gained favour with Theodosius who leaned on those around him. His elevation to the Patriarchate was a marked distinction, as being a call from a different Patriarchate, at the nomination of the Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed to himself called to great things. 'He had not,' Socrates says, 'tasted, according to the proverb, the waters of the city,' when in an inaugural oration before the Emperor and a large concourse of people, he apostrophised the Emperor, "Give me, O king, the land clear from heretics and I in turn will give thee heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and I will destroy the Persians with thee." He must have meant, of course, that he could promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. Men noticed, we are told, the vanity and passionateness and vainglory of the speech. It was, at the least, a calling in of the civil sword against those, of whom he himself knew nothing, and for whose conversion his predecessors had waited patiently, and promising victory over a warlike people, not upon self-humiliation before God, but upon the extirpation of men who had not the same errors with himself. An Arian congregation, seeing their church destroyed, in desperation fired it and threw themselves into the flames. This gained to Nestorius, with all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of 'the Incendiary.' The persecution occasioned much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to repress his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians and the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, Caria, were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia in his way from Antioch to his See; so that it was even thought that he had imbibed his heresy then. Those whom he brought with him were of the same school.^8080818283

He began cautiously at first. He used ambiguous language, but all of it was directed against the one crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin bore God—that is, Him Who was at once both God and Man—our Lord plainly would not have been God. And with that, the doctrine of the Atonement would have perished too, which Nestorius also did not believe. For a brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God a ransom for him. Too dear is the redemption of their souls, and it ceases forever.⁸⁴

He began at first warily. He used ambiguous language, but all directed against the one crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin 'bare God,' i. e. Him Who was at once both God and Man, our Lord plainly would not have been God. And therewith would have perished the doctrine of the Atonement too, which also Nestorius did not believe. For a "brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God a ransom for him. Too dear is the redemption of their souls, and it ceaseth for ever."⁸⁴

He used whatever terms he could to make up for the inadequacy of his conception. He could think of our Lord as a man, an instrument of Deity, a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit, and having a close or continual or the highest connection with God. But still, the connection was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.⁸⁵

He used what terms he could, to eke out the poverty of his conception. He could think of our Lord as a man, an instrument of Deity;' ' a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit,' and haying a close or continual or the highest connection with God; but still the 'connection' was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.⁸⁵

The ancient title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret recognized as "the Apostolical tradition" after his conflict with Cyril ended, ruled out this way of making our Lord merely human. And so Nestorius (a serious historian says) kept teaching about this in the Church and tried in every way to get rid of the term Theotocos, fearing it like people fear hobgoblins. He did this, Socrates adds, "out of great ignorance."⁸⁶⁸⁷⁸⁸

The hereditary title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret, when his strife with S. Cyril was over, recognised as ' the Apostolical tradition,' excluded this humanising of our Lord. And so Nestorius (a grave historian says) continuously teaching hereon in the Church, endeavoured in all ways to expel the term Theotocos, and dreaded the term as they do hobgoblins. This he did, Socrates adds, 'out of great ignorance.'⁸⁶⁸⁷⁸⁸

Being naturally a fluent speaker, he was thought to be well-educated. But in truth, he was poorly trained and scorned to study the books of the ancient interpreters. For being puffed up by his fluency of speech, he did not pay careful attention to the ancients, but thought himself superior to everyone.

'Being by nature fluent of speech, he was thought to have been educated; but in truth, he was ill-trained, and disdained to learn the books of the ancient interpreters. For being puffed up for his fluency of speech, he did not attend accurately to the ancients, but thought himself superior to all.'

Yet the term Theotokos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of Saint Athanasius, whose Council first condemned Arius; by Saint Athanasius himself; by the Arian Eusebius; and by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, who did not use the word Homoousios. The Emperor Julian the Apostate said, in controversy with the Christians, 'Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? But you do not cease calling Mary Theotokos,' confirming that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two Saint Gregories. It was also used by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, Saint Chrysostom, as well as by Ammon, Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by Saint Ambrose, Cassian, and Vincent of Lérins.^{89909192939495969798}

Yet the term Theotocos had been in such familiar use by every school for nearly two centuries, that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of S. Athanasius, whose Council first condemned Arius; by S. Athanasius himself; by the Arian Eusebius; and by S. Cyril of Jerusalem, who did not use the word Homoousion. The Apostate Emperor Julian said, in controversy with the Christians, ' Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear God? but ye do not cease calling Mary Theotocos,' attesting that the word was in the mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two S. Gregories. It was used also by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, S. Chrysostom, as also by Ammon Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin Church by S. Ambrose, Cassian, and Vincent of Lerins.^{89909192939495969798}

John of Antioch, at a later time, urged Nestorius to accept the term in order to prevent the coming schism, saying to him,

John of Antioch, at a later period, entreating Nestorius to accept the term, in order to prevent the impending schism, said to him,

This title has not been rejected by any of the church's teachers. Many distinguished figures have used it, and those who have not used it have never accused those who did use it of being in error.

'This name no one of the ecclesiastical teachers has declined. For those who have used it have been many and eminent, and those who have not used it have never imputed any error to those who used it.'

John tried to make it easier for him to accept the word.

John endeavoured to smoothe to him the adoption of the word.

The ten days that Celestine allowed are very short, but the matter could be settled in a single day, or perhaps even in just a few hours. For it is easy to use a suitable word in the divine plan of our Sovereign Ruler Christ for us—a word that has been used by many of the fathers and is true regarding the saving Birth from the Virgin. Your holiness should not refuse this, nor consider it a reason for concern that one should not act contrary to established practice. For if your mind agrees with that of the fathers and teachers of the Church (and this, my lord, I have heard from many mutual friends), what difficulty is there in expressing a pious thought with the appropriate word?⁹⁹

' The ten days, which Celestine allowed, are very short, but it might be made matter of a single day, perhaps only of a few hours. For to use a convenient word in the dispensation of our Sovereign Ruler Christ for us, which has been used by many of the fathers, and is true as to the saving Birth of the Virgin, is easy; which thy holiness ought not to decline, nor take that into account, that one ought not to do things contrary. For if thy mind is the same as that of the fathers and teachers of the Church (for this, my lord, I have heard from many common friends), what grief has it, to utter a pious thought in a corresponding word?'⁹⁹

Nestorius seems to have thought it was his role to convert the Church to his false belief. He says,

Nestorius seems to have thought it to have been his office to convert the Church to his misbelief. He says,

I see in our people much reverence and the most fervent piety, but they are blind when it comes to the dogma of the knowledge of God. However, this is not the people's fault, but rather (how can I say this politely?) the teachers did not have the opportunity to present to you any of the more accurate teaching.¹⁰⁰

' I see in our people much reverence and most fervent piety, but that they are blinded as to the dogma of the knowledge of God. But this is not the fault of the people, but (how shall I say it courteously?) that the teachers had not opportunity to set before you aught of the more accurate teaching.'¹⁰⁰

This was strong language—that the people of Constantinople were in error regarding the faith because of the fault of its former bishops. But by this he also acknowledged that his faith was different from theirs. Cassian then challenges him: "Are you, then, the one who corrects former bishops, the one who condemns former priests? Are you more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, surpassing John?"¹⁰¹

This was strong language, that the people of Constantinople were in error as to the faith through the fault of its former Bishops; but he also owned thereby, that his faith was different from theirs. 'Art thou then,' Cassian apostrophises him, 'the amender of former Bishops, the condemner of former Priests? art thou more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius, surpassing John?'¹⁰¹

Nestorius appears to have taken on the role of mediator between opposing factions. In his third letter to Saint Celestine, he says,

Nestorius seems to have chosen for himself the office of arbiter between ideal parties. In his third Epistle to S. Celestine he says,

Your Holiness knows that if two sects oppose each other, and one uses only the word Theotocos while the other uses only Anthropotocos, and each sect tries to force the other to accept its own confession—so that if it does not succeed, there is danger that it will separate from the Church—then it will be necessary for someone appointed to examine this matter, having concern for each sect, to remedy the danger facing both parties by using a word provided by the Evangelist that signifies both physis. For that word, Christotocos, moderates the claim of both sides, because it both removes the blasphemy of the Samosatene which speaks of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were merely a man, and also drives away the wickedness of Arius and Apollinarius.¹⁰²

' It is known to your Blessedness, that if two sects stand over against one another, and one of them only uses the word Theotocos, and the other only Anthropotocos, and each sect draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it do not obtain this, there is peril lest it fall from the Church, it will be necessary, that one deputed to the consideration of this matter, having care for each sect, should remedy the peril of either party, by a word delivered by the Evangelist which signifies both natures. For that word, Christotocos, tempers the assertion of both, because it both removes the blasphemy of the Samosatene which is spoken of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were a pure man, and also puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinarius.'¹⁰²

It is strange that he did not see (if indeed he failed to see what everyone else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' that is, mother of Him who would be the Messiah. Vincent of Lérins uses the simple illustration,

It is strange that he did not see (if indeed he did not see what every one else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' i. e. mother of Him who should be the Messiah. Vincent of Lerins uses the homely illustration,

just as we speak of the mother of a presbyter or a bishop, not meaning that she gave birth to someone who was already a presbyter or bishop, but to a man who later became a presbyter or bishop.¹⁰³

' as we speak of the mother of a Presbyter or a Bishop, not that she bare one who was already a Presbyter or a Bishop, but a man who was afterwards made a Presbyter or Bishop.'¹⁰³

Saint John Damascene says that we must understand that the Virgin is the Mother of God, not as if the divinity of the Word took its beginning from her (since the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God, being perfect from eternity), but because from her the Word was born according to the flesh. For the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The flesh was united to the Word hypostatically from the very moment of conception, and therefore she is called Mother of God, because God was born from her according to the flesh. For it is not accurate to say that a mere man was born from her, and that afterward God came to dwell in him, but rather that God was united to the flesh in her womb itself, and was therefore born according to the flesh, condescending to grant birth to himself.

S. John Damascene says,

We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos because Nestorius invented it to deny the term Theotocos.¹⁰⁴

' We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos, because Nestorius invented it to deny the word Theotocos.'¹⁰⁴

The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been something he invented himself, in order to make room for his own term Christotocos as a middle option. No one would use that name as a descriptive title, no matter how much they believed our Lord to be merely a man; and Nestorius speaks of those who called the Blessed Virgin Anthropotocos as if they were within the Church.

The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been a fiction of his own, in order to make room for his own term Christotocos, as an intermediate term. No one would give the name as a descriptive name, however they may have held our Lord to be a mere man; and Nestorius speaks of those, who called the Blessed Virgin Anthropotocos, as in the Church.

However, in his own Patriarchate, Nestorius had his own way for three years. S. Cyril mentions this period in his full letter of explanation to Acacius of Beroea, who must have been aware of the accuracy of the statement.

However, in his own Patriarchate, for three years Nestorius had his own way. S. Cyril names that period in his full letter of explanation to Acacius of Beroea, who must have been cognizant of the accuracy of the statement.

But when we all waited for Nestorius while he spent a period of three years blaspheming, both we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him back from those errors and to the doctrines that belong to rightness and truth.¹⁰⁵

' But when we all waited for Nestorius, while he spent a period of three years in blaspheming, and we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him back from them, and to those doctrines which appertain to rightness and truth.'¹⁰⁵

Peter, the notary, read out the same statement in the first session of the Council. "Not many days having elapsed" after his consecration. Saint Cyril says this in his letter to Saint Celestine.¹⁰⁶

Peter, the notary, rehearsed the same in the first session of the Council. ' Not many days having elapsed' [after his consecration]. S. Cyril in his letter to S. Celestine says,¹⁰⁶

During the past I have kept silent and have written absolutely nothing either to your Religiousness or to any of our fellow ministers about the one who is now at Constantinople and rules the Church, believing that hastiness in these matters is not without blame.¹⁰⁷

' During the past I have kept silence and have written absolutely nothing either to your Religiousness, or any of our Fellow-ministers, about him who is now at Constantinople and ruleth the Church, believing that hastiness in these things is not without blame.'¹⁰⁷

Within Constantinople, Nestorius on two apparent occasions provoked a strong public outcry by statements he approved that flatly denied the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest he had brought from Antioch, whom he held in high regard and used as an advisor—a passionate supporter of Nestorius and his Jewish teachings. Anastasius declared openly in a sermon, "Let no one call Mary theotocos: for Mary was human, and it is impossible for a human being to give birth to God." The people could hardly tolerate this. Nestorius defended it vigorously.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

Within Constantinople, Nestorius, twice apparently, gave occasion to a great expression of popular feeling by utterances which he sanctioned, absolutely denying the doctrine of the Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest whom he had brought from Antioch, whom 'he held in great honour, and employed as a counsellor; a fiery lover of Nestorius and his Jewish dogmas.' He burst out in a sermon openly, ' let no one call Mary theotocos: for Mary was human; but it is impossible that one human should bear God.' This the people could ill-endure. Nestorius supported it with vehemence.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹

The other statement that reached Cyril, which he mentioned to some people in Constantinople who criticized him for his letter to the monks, came from Dorotheus, Bishop of Marcianopolis. Dorotheus said openly, "Anathema if anyone calls the holy Mary Theotocos."¹¹⁰

The other statement which reached S. Cyril, and which he mentioned to some at Constantinople, who blamed him for his letter to the monks, was by Dorotheus Bishop of Marcianopolis, who said openly, 'Anathema, if any call the holy Mary, Theotocos.'¹¹⁰

This went much further than the former statement. It pronounced anathema (as S. Cyril understood) upon all who held what everyone held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius immediately received him into communion.

This went much further than the former. It pronounced Anathema (as S. Cyril saw) upon all who held what all held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius at once received him to Communion.

Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotokos. In his first sermon, he says that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin should be called Anthropotokos or Theotokos. He appealed to his hearers,

Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotocos. In his first Sermon he says, that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin was to be called 'Anthropotocos or Theotocos.' He appealed to his hearers,

Does God have a mother? If so, then paganism can be excused for giving mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar when he says of Christ's Deity, "without father, without mother, without descent." Mary did not give birth to God, my good friends. For what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. The creature did not bear the Uncreated. The Father did not beget God the Word. For "in the beginning was the Word," as John says. The creature did not bear the Creator, but she bore a man, the instrument of Deity. The Holy Spirit did not create God the Word, for what was born of her was of the Holy Spirit. Rather, He formed from the Virgin a temple for God the Word to dwell in.¹¹¹

' Has God a mother? Then heathendom may be excused, bringing in mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar, who saith of the Deity of Christ, 'without father, without mother, without descent.' Mary bore not God, my good friends. For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The creature bare not the Uncreated: the Father did not beget God the Word. For 'in the beginning was the Word,' as John saith. The creature did not bear the Creator, but she bare a Man, the instrument of Deity: the Holy Spirit did not create God the Word; for that which was born of her was of the Holy Spirit; but He framed of the Virgin for God the Word a temple wherein He should dwell.'¹¹¹

Nestorius continued to preach the same message, sometimes using language that was sound in itself, but within the context of what is unsound.

Nestorius continued to preach the same, sometimes in terms, in themselves sound, but in the context of what is unsound.

From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence of the Emperor, or through his personal influence with Theodosius, he was able to overpower most opposition. As had been observed, what opposition there was came first from the laity, then from the clergy, and lastly from the bishops.

From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence of the Emperor, or his personal influence with Theodosius, he could overbear most opposition. What opposition there was came, it had been observed, first from the Laity, then from the Clergy, lastly from the Bishops.

In his first letter to Saint Celestine, Nestorius told him that he had used both "anger and gentleness" every day in suppressing the Theotokos. What he meant by "anger and gentleness" can be seen from a formal petition to the Emperors submitted by Basil, a deacon and archimandrite, and Thalassius, a reader and monk. According to the words of this petition,

Nestorius, in his first epistle to S. Celestine, told him that he had daily used both 'anger and gentleness' in repressing the Theotocos. His idea of 'anger and gentleness' may be gathered from a formal petition to the Emperors from Basil, a deacon and Archimandrite, and Thalassius a reader and monk, in their petition to the Emperors. In the words of this petition,

By his command and invitation, we went to the bishop's residence to be fully instructed whether what we had heard concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely allowed us to say what we wished. But when he had heard from us that what he had said—that 'Mary only bore a man consubstantial with herself' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh'—is not orthodox language, he immediately had us seized. From there, beaten by the crowd of officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What we do not say that clerks, archimandrites, or monks, or indeed any secular persons, suffer in the civil courts, we endured in the Church unlawfully from lawless men. Oppressed and starving, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this. After all this, by some deceit we were handed over to the most Excellent Prefect of this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison. Afterwards we were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no accuser, we were again led back by the guard to the prison. Thus he again punished us, striking us on the face, and having spoken and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of God, that He was born of the holy Mary the Theotocos, since there is another Son—so he dismissed us.¹¹²

' By his command and invitation, we went to the See-house, to be fully instructed whether what we had heard concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely bade us say what we wished. But when he had heard from us, that what he had said, that 'Mary only bore a man consubstantial with herself,' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh,' is not orthodox language, immediately he had us seized, and thence, beaten by the crowd of the officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners and subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What in the civil courts we do not say that Clerks, Archimandrites, or monks, nay, or any secular persons do not suffer, we endured in the Church lawlessly from the lawless ones. Oppressed, famished, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this, but after all this, by some deceit we were delivered over to the most Excellent Eparch of this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison, and afterwards were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no accuser, we were again led back by the guard in the prison and thus he again chastised us smiting us on the face, and having discoursed and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of Grod, that He was born of the holy Mary the Theotocos, since there is another Son; so he dismissed us.'¹¹²

Basil, who tells this story, also says that

Basil who relates this, says also,

Some of the most respected presbyters frequently rebuked to his face the man who is now entrusted with the episcopate (if he should be called a bishop), and because of his stubbornness in refusing to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos or Christ by nature true God, they have withdrawn from communion with him and still remain separated. Others do so secretly. Still others, because they spoke against the misguided renewal of this teaching in the holy church of Eirene-by-the-Sea, have been silenced. At this, the people, wanting to have the usual sound teaching, cried out, "We have a king, but we have no bishop." But this protest by the people did not go unpunished. Some were seized by the attendants and beaten in various ways in the imperial city, using methods not even practiced among barbarians. Some publicly contradicted him to his face in the church and suffered no small trouble. A monk of simpler background was driven by zeal to block this preacher of impiety from entering during the liturgical celebration, calling him a heretic. After beating him, Nestorius handed him over to the high-ranking governors, and after being beaten again and paraded publicly with a crier announcing his offense, Nestorius sent him into exile. And not only this, but even in the most holy church after his impious sermon, his supporters who controlled everything would have shed blood, had God's help not prevented it.¹¹³

' Some of the most reverend Presbyters frequently rebuked to the face him who is now entrusted with the Episcopate (if he should be called a Bishop) and, because of his self-will that he will not call the Holy Virgin Theotocos, or Christ by nature true God, have put themselves out of his communion, and so still remain; others do so secretly; others, because they spoke in this holy Church Eirene-by-the-sea against the ill-renewal of this dogma, have been silenced. On this the people, desiring to have the wonted sound teaching, cried out, 'A King we have; a Bishop we have not.' But this essay of the people did not remain unavenged; some were seized by the attendants, and beaten in divers ways in the royal city, as is not practised even among the Barbarians. Some contradicted him publicly to the face in the Church and underwent no little trouble. A monk of the simpler sort was constrained by zeal in the midst of the Church to hinder this herald of impiety from entering in at the Celebration, being a heretic. Him having beaten, he delivered to the Magnificent Governors and being again beaten and paraded publicly, the crier proclaiming (his offence), he [Nestorius] sent him into exile. And not this only, but even in the most holy Church after his impious homily, those on his side who held down every thing, would have shed blood, had not the aid of God prevented it.'¹¹³

They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, God knows, to avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as

They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, Grod knows, to avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as

intimidating, threatening, driving out, expelling, mistreating, acting recklessly and wickedly, and doing everything without restraint to establish his own madness and ungodliness. He neither fears God nor feels shame before men, but is clothed with contempt for all, confident in his anger and in the power of some who have been corrupted, and—to speak boldly—in your Majesty.

'intimidating, threatening, driving, expelling, maltreating, acting recklessly and ill, and doing all unsparingly to establish his own mania and ungodliness, neither fearing God, nor ashamed before men, but clothed with contempt of all, confident in his wrath and in the might of some who have been corrupted, and (to speak fearlessly) in your Majesty.'

It is strong language, but language that is all the more responsible because it was formally addressed to someone who held absolute power, who used that power in ways no modern ruler could, and who was known to favor the Patriarch against whom it was directed.

It is strong language, but language, the more responsible, as formally addressed to one who held absolute power, who used it as no modern Sovereign could, and who was known to favour the Patriarch, against whom it was directed.

Nestorius boasted to Saint Celestine about his success against those who had left him.

Nestorius boasted to S. Celestine of his success against those who had departed from him.

Moreover, they have dared to call the Virgin who bore Christ (Christotocos) in a certain way Theotocos. They do not shrink from calling her Theotocos, even though those holy fathers at Nicaea above all are recorded as having said nothing more about the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. I am not even speaking of the Holy Scriptures, which everywhere, both through angels and apostles, present the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. Because of these things, your Blessedness has probably already been informed by reports about what conflicts we have endured. Note also that we have not struggled in vain, but by the grace of the Lord, many of those who had been departing from us have been corrected.¹¹⁴

' Moreover they have dared to call the Virgin who hare Christ (Christotocos) in a certain way Theotocos. For they do not shudder at calling her Theotocos, although those holy fathers above all praise at Nice are read to have said nothing more as to the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. I do not speak of the Holy Scriptures, which every where, both by Angels and Apostles, set forth the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. For which things' sake what strifes we have endured, I suppose that report has, before this, instructed your Blessedness; observing this also, that we have not striven in vain, but by the grace of the Lord, many of those who were departing from us have been amended.'¹¹⁴

To Saint Cyril he says,

To S. Cyril he says,

Know that you have been deceived by the clerks of your own persuasion, who have been deprived of their positions here by the holy Synod because they held the same views as the Manichees.¹¹⁵

' Know that those hast been deceived by the Clerks of thine own persuasion, who have been deprived here by the holy Synod, because they were minded as the Manichees.'¹¹⁵

Cyril in the synodal letter from Alexandria, announcing Nestorius's impending excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as Cyril had informed Celestine, the most holy bishop of great Rome and fellow-bishop. Celestine also requires as a condition of communion that Nestorius should restore to the Church all those excluded for the sake of Christ its head. In his letter to John of Antioch, Celestine suggests that others may have done this as well.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

S. Cyril in the Synodal letter from Alexandria, announcing his impending excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as he had 'indicated to Celestine the most holy Bishop of Great Rome and our fellow-bishop.' S. Celestine also requires as a condition of Communion that he should ' restore to the Church all excluded for the sake of Christ its Head.' In his letter to John of Antioch he supposes that this may have been done by others also.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

Within Constantinople, Nestorius was opposed by those whose position protected them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, who had been appointed Bishop of Cyzicus but whom the Cyzicans refused because they wanted to appoint their own bishop, and who therefore remained a bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who

Within Constantinople Nestorius was opposed by those whose position secured them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, appointed Bishop of Cyzicus, whom the Cyzicans declined, wishing to appoint their own Bishop, and who remained a Bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who

being a man of great piety and skill among the laity, and having acquired no small amount of learning, was stirred by fervent and devout zeal and declared with a piercing cry that the Word himself, who exists before the ages, underwent a second generation through his birth in the flesh from a woman.¹¹⁸

' being of great piety and skill among the laymen, having gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal, and said with piercing cry, that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation by that after the flesh and from a woman.'¹¹⁸

Nestorius responded to him by speaking of the "pollution" of these wretches and saying that if there were two births, there must be two sons. In other words, he claimed that our "one Lord Jesus Christ" could not be begotten of the Father before all worlds and yet also be born of the Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation.

Nestorius answered him by speaking of the 'pollution' of these wretches and saying, "that if there were two births, there must be two sons," i. e. that our 'one Lord Jesus Christ' 'could not be Begotten of the Father before all worlds' and yet 'for us men and for our salvation' be born of the Virgin Mary.

Leontius says that Eusebius was also reported to be the author of the comparison between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.¹¹⁹

Leontius says that Eusebius was also said to be the author of the parallel between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius.¹¹⁹

Different accounts exist of how people's minds were affected. St. Cyril says that when Dorotheus pronounced the Anathema,

Different accounts are given of the way in which the minds of the people were affected. S. Cyril says that on the Anathema pronounced by Dorotheus,

There was a great outcry from all the people, and they rushed out of the church. They refused to be in communion with those who held such views. Even now the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except for some frivolous individuals and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their archimandrites, along with many members of the senate, do not commune with him. They fear being deceived concerning his faith and the faith of those who came with him from Antioch, all of whom speak perverse things.¹²⁰

' There was a great cry from all the people, and a running out [of the Church.] For they would not communicate with those so minded. And now too the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except some of the lighter sort and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their Archimandrites and many of the senate do not communicate: fearing lest they should be wronged as to his faith and that of those with him, whom he brought when he came up from Antioch, who all speak perverse things.'¹²⁰

Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the end of his response to Saint Cyril's second letter,¹²¹

Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the close of his answer to S. Cyril's second letter,¹²¹

Church affairs among us are making daily progress, and through God's grace the people are growing so much that those who see their numbers cry out with the prophet that the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord as abundant water covers the sea, and the Emperors are exceedingly joyful, being enlightened regarding the doctrine; and, to put it briefly, one may see daily, concerning all the heresies that fight against God and the orthodoxy of the Church, that this word is daily being fulfilled among us: the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker, and the house of David grew stronger and stronger.

'Church matters with us advance daily, and the people through the grace of God so grow, that those who see their multitude, cry out with the prophet, that the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much water covereth the sea, and the Emperors are in exceeding joy, being enlightened as to the doctrine; and, to speak briefly, one may see daily, as to all the heresies which fight with God and the orthodoxy of the Church, that word is daily fulfilled with us, the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, and the house of David waxed stronger and stronger.'

It is not particularly significant that the Emperor told Saint Cyril that the Churches were united and would become even more so, and that he was forgiven (for Nestorius had convinced him that Saint Cyril was merely a troublemaker), or that Nestorius once mentioned that the people were crowded together. But some were even ready to oppose those who objected to his teaching, and many clergy and laymen from Constantinople who came to Antioch and Beroea agreed with what Dorotheus said, believing it contained nothing contrary to apostolic doctrine or the faith of Nicaea.^122123124125

It is not much that the Emperor told S. Cyril, that the Churches were united and would be yet more, and that he [S. Cyril] was forgiven; (for Nestorius had persuaded him that S. Cyril was a mere disturber of the peace) or that Nestorius on one occasion speaks of the people being thronged. But some were even ready to turn against those who objected to his teaching, and 'many Clergy and laymen from Constantinople coming to Antioch and Beroea agreed with the saying of Dorotheus, as having nothing contrary to Apostolic doctrine or the faith of Nicaea.'^122123124125

During these three years, Cyril had broken his silence only three times: first in his letter to the monks in Egypt; then in a letter to Nestorius explaining why he had written that first letter after hearing that Nestorius was offended by it; and finally in his second complete statement of doctrine in the letter that was received by the Council of Ephesus.

In these three years, S. Cyril had only broken silence three times; once in his letter to the monks in Egypt; a letter to Nestorius, explaining the occasion of that letter when he heard that Nestorius was offended by it; and the second full statement of doctrine in the Epistle, which was received by the Council of Ephesus.

The first was his 'letter to the Monks of Egypt.' Some of them had been deeply troubled—even concerning the Divinity of our Lord—by certain writings attributed to Nestorius. St. Cyril answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his writing,

i. The first was his 'letter to the Monks of Egypt.' Grave perplexity had been occasioned to some of them, even as to the Divinity of our Lord, through some writings attributed to Nestorius. S. Cyril answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his writing,

When Nestorius' homilies were brought to Egypt, I learned that some of the less serious people were influenced, and said doubtfully among themselves, 'Is he right?' 'Is he wrong?' Fearing that this problem might take root in the minds of simple believers, I wrote a general letter to the monasteries of Egypt, strengthening them in the right faith.¹²⁶

' When his [Nestorius'] homilies were brought to Egypt, I learnt that some of the lighter sort were carried away, and said doubtingly among themselves, 'does he say right?' 'Is he in error?' Fearing lest the disease should root in the minds of the simple, I wrote a general Epistle to the monasteries of Egypt, confirming them to the right faith.'¹²⁶

No bishop who was competent in his office could have done anything other than work to remove those uncertainties from the minds of the people under his care. Others distributed what he had written in Constantinople. Saint Cyril continues his account,

No Bishop, competent for his office, could have done otherwise than set himself to remove those perplexities in the minds of the people committed to his charge. Others circulated what he had written, in Constantinople. S. Cyril continues his account,

Some people took copies to Constantinople. Those who read them benefited greatly, and many officials wrote letters thanking me. But this only increased his anger toward me, and he [Nestorius] opposed me as an enemy, having no other basis for criticism than that I cannot agree with his views.

'Some took copies to Constantinople. And those who read them were much benefited, so that very many of those in office wrote, thanking me. But that too was fresh nutriment of displeasure against me, and he [Nestorius] contended against me as an enemy, having no other ground of censure than that I cannot think as he does.'

Cyril's two letters to Nestorius, written before the sentence of condemnation that he was authorized to announce if Nestorius did not retract his views, were letters of explanation.

ii. iii. S. Cyril's two Epistles to Nestorius (previous to the sentence of condemnation which he was commissioned to announce, unless Nestorius should retract) were letters of explanation.

The first letter was intended to address the offense that Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It reads as follows:

The first was to remove the offence, which Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It runs;

People who are completely trustworthy have come to Alexandria and have told me that Your Piety is extremely angry and is doing everything possible to cause me grief. When I tried to find out the reason for Your Piety's distress, they said that some people from Alexandria were circulating the letter I wrote to the holy monks, and that this was the cause of the hatred and displeasure. I was surprised that Your Piety did not instead consider that the disturbance concerning the faith did not begin with my letter, but with certain papers or exegeses that were circulated—whether written by Your Piety or not. We then worked hard, wanting to restore those who had been misled. For some people would barely acknowledge that Christ is God, but rather said He was merely an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man, and even things worse than this. I therefore had reason to complain about the things that Your Piety either wrote or did not write. (For I do not fully trust the papers that are being passed around.) How then could I remain silent when the faith is so damaged and so many people are being led astray? Will we not be brought before the judgment seat of Christ? Will we not have to give an account for our untimely silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is proper? What should I do now? For I must consult with Your Piety. And when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the God-beloved bishops with him, report concerning the papers brought there—I do not know how, whether by Your Piety or not—they write that they are extremely scandalized. And how shall we appease those who come from the East from all the churches and complain about the papers? Or does Your Piety think that only a small disturbance has arisen in the churches from such homilies? We are all struggling and working hard, bringing back those who have somehow been wrongly persuaded to think differently. When it is Your Piety who has necessarily made everyone complain, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that for no reason, and not instead correct Its own speech to stop this worldwide scandal? For although the speech is in the past, since it is still spreading among the people, let it be corrected through revision, and please grant one word to those who are offended by calling the holy Virgin Theotokos, so that by soothing those who have been grieved and having a good reputation among all, we may celebrate the Communions in the peace and harmony of the peoples. But let Your Piety not doubt that we are ready to endure all things for the faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself. But I speak the truth: even while Atticus of blessed memory was still alive, I composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I also wrote about the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten in agreement with what I have now written, and I read it to bishops and clergy and those laypeople who were eager to hear, but I have not given it out to anyone until now. If it should be published, it is likely that I may be blamed again, even though the little work was composed even before Your Piety's consecration.¹²⁷

' Persons deserving of all credit have come to Alexandria and have informed me that thy Piety is exceeding angry, and setting every thing in motion to grieve me. And when I would learn the cause of the grief of thy Piety, they said that some from Alexandria were circulating the letter written to the holy Monks, and that this was the occasion of the hatred and displeasure. I wondered then, that thy Piety did not rather think with Itself, that the disturbance as to the faith did not originate with my letter, but with some, whether written by thy Piety or no, but any how papers or exegeses which were circulated. We then toiled, wishing to restore those misled. For some would hardly admit that Christ is God; but that He was rather an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man, and things even beyond this. I had then reason to complain of the things, which thy Piety did or did not write. (For I do not much trust the papers which are carried about.) How then should I be silent, when faith is so injured and so many are perverted? Shall we not be placed before the Judgement-seat of Christ? Shall we not give account for the unseasonable silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is meet? What shall I do now? For I must consult with thy Piety. And that, when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the God-beloved Bishops with him, report about the papers brought thither, I know not how, whether by thy Piety or no. For they write, as exceedingly scandalized. And how shall we soothe those who come from the East from all the Churches, and murmur against the papers? Or does thy Piety think, that only a little disturbance has sprung up in the Churches from such homilies? We are all struggling and toiling, bringing back those who are somehow mispersuaded to think otherwise. When then it is thy Piety, who made all of necessity murmur, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that to no purpose, and does not rather correct Its own speech, to stop this world-wide scandal? For though the speech is past, yet as being diffused among the people, let it be set straight by revision, and do thou vouchsafe to concede one word to those who are offended, by calling the holy Virgin Theotocos, that soothing those who have been, grieved, and having a right repute among all, we may celebrate the Communions amid the peace and harmony of the peoples. But let not thy Piety doubt, that we are ready to endure all things for the Faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself. But I say the truth, that even while Atticus of blessed memory still survived, I composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I wrote also about the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten agreeably to what I have now written, and I read it to Bishops and Clerks and those of the laity who were fond of hearing, but I have not given it out hitherto to any one. If then it should be published, it is probable that I may again be blamed, whereas the little tract was composed even before the consecration of thy Piety.'¹²⁷

Writing to a Patriarch was certainly an unpleasant task, especially to one who was in high favor with the Emperor of both East and West, who had a very high opinion of himself and his writings, and who was extremely angry with Saint Cyril for writing against them. The task was to tell him that he was actually in the wrong, that Saint Cyril could not have acted differently than he did with the judgment seat of Christ before him, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had done, which had turned both East and West against him. These were not pleasant things to write, but I do not know how they could have been expressed more gently. Saint Cyril assures Nestorius that there was nothing personal in what he had written, since he did not even know for certain whose writings he was responding to, but that they were spreading wrong doctrine among those entrusted to Saint Cyril's care—wrong doctrine that Nestorius would not agree with. He explains that he had no part in circulating what he had written in Constantinople, that he had written similar things many years before, and that this earlier writing too might become a fresh subject of accusation if it were published, even though its date showed it could have no connection to Nestorius. He makes only one request of him, the same request that John of Antioch, Nestorius's friend, also made—by accepting which Nestorius might have escaped his own shameful legacy and avoided being the author of the miserable division in the body of Christ—that he would be willing to accept one word, Theotokos. But doing so would have meant giving up his heresy.

It was, of course, an unpleasant office to write to a Patriarch, in high favour with the Sovereign of both, who had no slight opinion of himself and of his writings, and was very angry with S. Cyril himself for writing against them, to tell him that he was in fact himself in the wrong; that he, S. Cyril, could not have done otherwise than he did, having before him the judgement-seat of Christ, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had done, which had set East and West against him. They were not smooth things to write; but I do not know how they could have been conveyed more smoothly. S. Cyril assures Nestorius, that there was nothing personal in what he had written, for he did not even know certainly, whose writings he was answering, but that they were conveying wrong doctrine among those with whom S. Cyril was put in trust; wrong doctrine, which Nestorius would not go along with; that he [S. Cyril] had had no part in the circulation of what he had written in Constantinople; that he had written the like many years before, and that this too might become a fresh subject of incrimination, if it should be published, whereas from its date it could have no bearing on Nestorius. One only request he makes him, the same, which John of Antioch the friend of Nestorius also made, by acceding to which he might have escaped his own evil memory and being the author of the miserable rent in the body of Christ, that he would vouchsafe to concede one word, Theotocos. But it would have been to give up his heresy.

The presbyter Lampon, who delivered Cyril's letter, could only get the following arrogant response from Nestorius, in which he avoided every topic that Cyril's letter had addressed.

The Presbyter Lampon who took S. Cyril's letter, could only obtain from Nestorius the following haughty answer, in which he avoided every topic of the letter of S. Cyril.

Nothing is more powerful than Christian fairness. We have therefore been compelled to write this present letter through the most religious presbyter Lampon, who said many things to us about your Piety and also heard much, and finally would not yield to us until he extracted this letter from us, and we have been overcome by the man's persistence. For I admit that I have great reverence for all Christian goodness in every person, since God dwells in him. We then, although many things have been done by your Religiousness (to put it gently) that are not in keeping with brotherly love, continue in patience and the friendly exchange of letters. But experience will show what the result is of the pressure applied by the most religious Presbyter Lampon. I and those with me greet all the brotherhood together with you.¹²⁸

' Nothing is mightier than Christian equity. We have then been constrained thereby to the present letter through the most religious presbyter Lampon, who said many things about thy Piety to us, and heard also much, and at last did not give way to us, until he wrung the letter from us, and we have been conquered by the man's importunity. For I own that I have great awe of all Christian goodness of every man, as having God residing in him. We then, although many things have been done by your Religiousness (to speak mildly) not according to brotherly love, continue in long-suffering and the friendly intercourse of letters. But experience will shew, what is the fruit of the constraint of the most religious Presbyter Lampon. I and those with me salute all the brotherhood together with thee.'¹²⁸

The response from Nestorius was essentially an apology he made to himself for condescending to write to Cyril.

The answer of Nestorius was in fact an apology to himself for vouchsafing to write to S. Cyril.

The second letter of Saint Cyril is also an apology.

The second Epistle of S. Cyril is also Apologetic,

in response to some people who are constantly gossiping to your Piety against my reputation, especially watching for opportunities when those in power are meeting.¹²⁹

' in answer to some who are babbling to thy Piety against my reputation and that incessantly, watching, above all, the seasons of the meetings of those in power.'¹²⁹

The letter is entirely doctrinal in content. However, there is no real dispute with Nestorius in it, except for the appeal at the end asking him to think and teach these things. It is simply a careful statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation that explicitly excludes what Nestorius called Apollinarian.

The Epistle is throughout doctrinal. But there is not the slightest controversy with Nestorius, except in the appeal at the end that he would think and teach these things. It is only a careful statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation, expressly excluding what Nestorius called Apollinarian.

Nestorius's reply is written in a tone of mocking condescension. He claims to overlook "the insults of your remarkable letters, since they call for patient forbearance like medicine"; "the supposedly all-wise words of your Love"; he advises Cyril to pay attention to doctrine—meaning that Cyril should not, as he had done, read the tradition of the most holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] superficially and thereby display an ignorance that required forgiveness. Nestorius treated Cyril's letter as self-contradictory and concluded in a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was obviously pointless. In fact, Nestorius's quotation from Saint Paul seems intended to close the discussion entirely.¹³⁰

The answer of Nestorius is in a tone of ironical condescension. He professes to pass by 'the contumelies of thy wondrous letters, as needing a medicinal long-suffering;' 'the all-wise words of thy Love;' advises him to attend to doctrine, i. e. not as he had, reading superficially the tradition of the all-holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] to shew an ignorance, which needed forgiveness; treated his letter as self-contradictory and ended in a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was of course useless. Indeed, the quotation from S. Paul seems intended by Nestorius to close the subject.¹³⁰

These are our recommendations, given from one brother to another. But if anyone seems inclined to argue, Paul will call out through us as well: "We have no such custom, nor does the Church of God."

'These are the counsels from us, as from a brother to a brother. But if any one seem to be contentious, to such an one Paul will cry out through us also, We have no such custom, neither the Church of God.'

It's possible that St. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family were prompted by Nestorius's claim that the Emperor was delighted to be instructed about the dogma. However, while Cyril clearly explains the facts to them, he neither mentions Nestorius by name nor quotes any known statement of his.

It may be that S. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family may have been occasioned by the statement which Nestorius gives of the joy of the Sovereign on being enlightened as to the dogma. But although he states the fact clearly to them, he neither mentions Nestorius, nor quotes any known saying of his.

He himself waited. He had probably learned from his passionate loyalty to his uncle and early benefactor, Theophilus, and the injustice it caused to the memory of Saint Chrysostom. He tells those who criticized him for his letter to the monks of Egypt that he could have responded to anathema with anathema.

He himself waited. He had learned probably from his fiery adhesion to his uncle and early benefactor, Theophilus, and its injustice to the memory of S. Chrysostom. He says to those who reproached him for his letter to the monks of Egypt, that he might have returned anathema for anathema,

Since we who are still living, and the bishops throughout the world, and our fathers who have departed to God, have been anathematized. For what prevented me from writing the opposite of his words: 'If anyone does not say that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema?' But I have not done this up to now for his sake, so that no one should say that the Bishop of Alexandria—that is, the Egyptian Synod—has anathematized him. But if the most devout bishops in East and West learn that all have been anathematized (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotokos), how will they react? How will they not be distressed, if not for themselves, then for the holy fathers, in whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary called Theotokos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find this word used not once but many times, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos.¹³¹

' Since we who are yet living, and the Bishops throughout the world, and our fathers who have departed to God have been anathematised. For what hindered me too from writing the converse of his words, 'If any one say not that Mary is Theotocos, be he anathema?' But I have not done this hitherto for his sake, lest any should say, that the Bishop of Alexandria, i. e. the Egyptian Synod, has anathematised him. But if the most religious Bishops in East and West shall learn, that all have been anathematised, (for all say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotocos) how will they be disposed? How will they not be grieved, if not for themselves, yet for the holy fathers, iu whose writings we find the holy Virgin Mary named Theotocos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find not once but many times this word used, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotocos.'¹³¹

When he finally wrote to ask the advice of Saint Celestine, he says.¹³²

When at last he wrote to ask the advice of S. Celestine, he says.¹³²

During the past time I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing about the man who is now in Constantinople and leads the Church, either to your Piety or to any of our fellow ministers, believing that hasty action in these matters deserves blame.

'During the time past I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing concerning him who is now at Constantinople and rules the Church, either to your Piety or to any other of our fellow-ministers, believing that precipitancy in these things is not without blame.'

However, the confusion was already significant. St. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius:

Yet the confusion was already not slight. S. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius;

There is no one from any city or country who does not say that these things are on everyone's lips, and ask what new teaching is being brought into the Churches.¹³³

' There is no one from any city or country, who does not say that these things are in every one's mouth, and, what new learning is being brought into the Churches?'¹³³

To Nestorius himself he said, "The books of your exegeses are circulated everywhere."¹³⁴

To Nestorius himself he said, ' the books of your exegeses are circulated every where.'¹³⁴

Vanity probably hastened the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low opinion of the abilities of S. Celestine.

Vanity probably precipitated the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low estimate of the abilities of S. Celestine.

Nestorius says, "The Egyptian [S. Cyril], frightened by the fear of being found guilty, and looking for some problem to help him, turns to Celestine of Rome, viewing him as too simple-minded to understand the power of theological teachings. Finding that man to be indeed simple, he childishly deceives him with the illusions of his letters."¹³⁵

' The Egyptian [S.Cyril] terrified,' he says, 'by the dread of being convicted, and seeking for some trouble to stand him in stead, betakes himself to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to penetrate the force of dogmas. Finding moreover the simplicity of that man, he childishly circumvents his ears with the illusions of letters.'¹³⁵

It did not occur to Nestorius that divine truth is seen through simple piety, not through proud intellect. He was also unaware that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius when he was a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was later to be developed on these very subjects—the one who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian.¹³⁶

It did not occur to Nestorius that Divine truth is seen by simple piety, not by proud intellect. He was not aware also, that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius when a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was afterwards to be developed on these very subjects; him, who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian.¹³⁶

To this same Celestine, whom he thought so little of, Nestorius wrote two letters. Ostensibly he was consulting him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality he was presenting his own heresy in the most persuasive way he could. He began by laying down,¹³⁷

To this S. Celestine, of whom he thought so lightly, Nestorius wrote two letters, ostensibly to consult him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality to propound his own heresy in as plausible a manner as he could. He began by laying down,¹³⁷

We owe each other brotherly discussion, since we must fight together in unity against the devil, the enemy of peace. What is the purpose of this introduction?

'We owe to each other brotherly conference, as having to fight in harmony together against the devil, the enemy of peace. To what end this preface?'

Julian and others, claiming to be bishops of the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him that they were being persecuted despite being orthodox. Since he was unaware of the facts of the case, he asked Saint Celestine to inform him, because a new sect requires great vigilance from true pastors.

Julian and others, alleging that they were Bishops of the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him, that they were persecuted being orthodox; so he, being in ignorance of the merits of the case, asked S. Celestine to inform him. 'For a new sect claims great watchfulness from true pastors.'

In his second letter, Nestorius says that he had written 'often' about these Pelagian Bishops. He himself might have known (as Celestine reminds him), since his predecessor Atticus had written to Celestine, what Celestine had done in their case. In both letters, Nestorius speaks of his efforts against 'something similar to Apollinarianism.' In his second letter, he says that he is working hard to 'root it out.' Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal, says that Nestorius wrote this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to win it over to his side.¹³⁸

In the second letter, he says that he had 'often' written about these Pelagian Bishops. He himself might have known (S. Celestine reminds him) since Atticus his predecessor had written to S. Celestine, what he had done in their matter. In both letters, he speaks of his efforts against 'something akin to Apollinarianism:' in his second, that he is at much pains to 'extirpate' it. S. Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal, says that Nestorius wrote this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to carry it away with him.¹³⁸

Through these letters to Celestine, Cyril became the reason why a letter in which he finally consulted Celestine about the matter of Nestorius was shown to Celestine. Cyril had instructed his deacon Posidonius: if he should find Nestorius's books of scriptural interpretations and his letters already delivered to Celestine, then deliver my letters as well; if not, bring them back here to me undelivered. Posidonius, finding that the interpretations and letters had been delivered, was therefore obliged to deliver Cyril's letters as well.¹³⁹

By these letters to S. Celestine, he was himself the occasion of a letter, in which S. Cyril at last consulted him about the matter of Nestorius, being shewn to S. Celestine. For S. Cyril had given instructions to his Deacon Posidonius,' if he should find the books of his [Nestorius] exegeses and his letters delivered to him [S. Celestine], deliver my letters also; if not, bring them here [to S. Cyril] undelivered. He then, finding the exegeses and the letters delivered, had himself also to deliver them.'¹³⁹

A synod was then held at Rome in which, after many sessions, the bishops declared that he had devised a new and very serious heresy, and they condemned him.¹⁴⁰

A synod then was held at Rome, in which, after many sessions, the Bishops declared him to have devised a new very grievous heresy, and condemned him.¹⁴⁰

A fragment of a speech by Saint Celestine is preserved, in which he cited the authorities of Saint Ambrose in his "Veni redemptor gentium," Saint Hilary, and Saint Damasus. Saint Celestine announced the result to Nestorius.¹⁴¹

A fragment of a speech of S. Celestine is preserved, in which he cited the authorities of S. Ambrose in his Veni redemptor gentium, S. Hilary and S. Damasus. S. Celestine announced to Nestorius the result;¹⁴¹

Unless you teach about Christ our God the same doctrine that the Church of Rome, the Alexandrians, and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well before you came, and unless within ten days counted from the date of this warning you revoke by an open written confession that faithless innovation which attempts to divide what holy Scripture unites, you are expelled from all communion with the Catholic Church.

'Unless you teach as to Christ our God the same which the Church of the Romans and the Alexandrians and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well till you, and, within the tenth day counted from the day of this admonition, annul by an open confession in writing that faithless novelty which undertakes to sever what holy Scripture unites, thou art cast out of all communion with the Catholic Church.'

Saint Celestine wrote the same message to John of Antioch. He had entrusted this decision to Saint Cyril, who was acting in his place. Saint Cyril wrote to John of Antioch about what had happened and about the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod, informing him that the Council had written similar letters to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and other bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them, and to Juvenal, Bishop of Aelia. He urged John to follow their decision and asked him to consider what steps to take to prevent this break in communion.¹⁴²¹⁴³

S. Celestine wrote the same to John of Antioch. This judgement he had entrusted to S. Cyril, holding his place. S. Cyril wrote what had passed and the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod to John of Antioch, telling him, that the Council had written the like to 'Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and other Bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them,' and to Juvenal Bishop of Aelia; that he himself should follow their decision, and asking him to consider what to do to hinder this breach of communion.¹⁴²¹⁴³

John of Antioch was alarmed at the prospect of this division and wrote to Nestorius to prevent it by accepting the word Theotokos. He wrote not only in his own name but also in the name of six other bishops who were with him at the time, including Theodoret. He wrote in complete sympathy with Nestorius and in opposition to those who opposed him. He speaks of the many as "unrestrained against us" and asks, "what will they be now that they have gained support from these wretched letters?" He assumes that Nestorius's faith was sound. He had heard that Nestorius had said he would use the word Theotokos if anyone of high standing in the Church suggested it. John tells him that he is not urging him to make a disgraceful change or engage in what might be called "boyish stubbornness." He notes that "though my lord Celestine had set a very short time for the answer, yet one day, perhaps even a few hours, would be enough." He urges Nestorius to seek the counsel of those who share his views, allowing them to speak fearlessly about what is useful, not what is pleasant. John himself held and stated the true faith, and he believed the word Theotokos was the appropriate and true way to express it, and that rejecting it would endanger the unspeakable mystery of the Only-Begotten Son of God.¹⁴⁴

John of Antioch was alarmed at this prospect of a rent, and wrote to Nestorius to prevent it by accepting the word Theotocos. He wrote not in his own name only, bat in that of six other Bishops who were then with him, among them Theodoret. He wrote in entire sympathy with Nestorius, in antagonism to those opposed to him. He speaks of the many, as 'unrestrained against us,' and asks, 'what will they be, now that they have gained support from these wretched letters? He takes it for granted that the faith of Nestorius was sound; he had heard that he had said that he would use the word [Theotocos] if any of those in high repute in the Church suggested it, tells him that he does not exhort him to disreputable change, or, so to say, 'boyish contradiction;' that 'though my lord Celestine had fixed a very narrow time for the answer, yet one day, perhaps a few hours would be enough; and urges him to take the counsel of those of his own mind, allowing them to speak fearlessly what was useful, not what was pleasant.' John himself held and stated the true faith, and thought the word Theotocos the convenient and true way to express it, and that to reject it would jeopardise the unspeakable mystery of the Only-Begotten Son of God.¹⁴⁴

Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement:

Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement;

I thought people could have launched any accusation against me except the false charge that I do not hold correct views about the piety of faith—I who have been pleased that thousands of hostilities have arisen against me because of my battle against all heretics. But I must endure this trial too with joy, for it also, if we are very careful, may give us much confidence in piety.¹⁴⁵

' I thought that people could have set anything in motion against me rather than the calumny that I do not hold aright as to the piety of faith, I who hitherto have been delighted that many thousand hostilities rise against me on account of the battle which I have against all heretics. But this temptation too I must bear with joy; for it too, if we watch very carefully, may confer on us much confidence to piety.'¹⁴⁵

He says in response that many heretics have adopted the word Theotokos as their own, and that some people here, by using the word carelessly, fall into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinarius. His own solution was that the word Theotokos should be explained harmoniously after we all deliberate together. He commands John

He says in answer, that 'the word Theotocos is assumed by many heretics as their own;' that 'some here, using the word incautiously, fall thereby into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of the impious Arius and Apollinarius:' that his own solution was that 'the word Theotocos should be explained harmoniously after the deliberation of us all.' He bids John

dismiss all anxiety, knowing that by the grace of God we have thought and do think the same regarding the piety of the faith. For it is clear that if we meet, since God has granted us this Synod for which we hope, we will settle this matter and whatever else must be done for the correction and benefit of everyone, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things that are decided by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters of faith, and will give no one an occasion for objection even if he is very eager to object. But regarding the customary presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness should not be surprised, since we have had many examples of this for a long time. Shortly, if God wills, our counsel in this matter too will be worthy of praise.

'dismiss all anxiety, knowing that hy the grace of God we have and do think the same in what relates to the piety of faith. For it is plain that if we meet, since He has given us this Synod which we hope, we shall dispose this and whatever else must be done for the correction and benefit of the whole, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things which may be ordained by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters of faith, and shall give no one an occasion of contradiction even if he be very ready for it. But as to the wonted presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness ought not to wonder, since we have of old very many instances of this. After a little, if God shall will, our counsel herein also will be matter of praise.'

He adds in a postscript,

He adds in a postscript,

We have, by the grace of God, drawn more people—both clergy and laity, as well as those in the imperial court—to the teaching we publicly proclaim in the Church, through the letters from your Religiousness.

'We have by the grace of God attracted more both the Clergy and people and those who are in the imperial mansions, through the Epistles of your Religiousness, to that doctrine which we give publicly in the Church.'

To Saint Celestine, after writing in his usual manner about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, and Christotocos, he writes triumphantly:

To S. Celestine, after writing in his wonted strain about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, Christotocos, he writes exultingly:

The most devout Emperors have decided, with God's help, to call a worldwide Synod from which no one may excuse themselves, in order to investigate other church matters. I don't think any uncertainty about terminology will require difficult inquiry or prevent us from discussing the divinity of the Lord Jesus.¹⁴⁶

' The most pious Emperors have been pleased, with the help of God, to appoint a Synod of the whole world, from which no one is to excuse himself [inexcusabiliter] for the enquiry into other ecclesiastical matters. For any doubt about words will not, I suppose, involve any difficult enquiry, nor be a hindrance to treating of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.'¹⁴⁶

Saint Celestine says,¹⁴⁷

S. Celestine says,¹⁴⁷

He asks for a field of battle; he calls for an examination by priests, though he would not be present at it. Who would have thought that the one who requested a synod would be absent from the synod?

'He asks a field for battle; he calls for a sacerdotal examination, at which he would not be present. Who would have thought that he who asked for a synod [petitorem synodi] would be absent from the Synod?'

The Emperor's relationship to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter he wrote to Cyril, commanding him to attend. The letter can hardly have had any purpose other than to intimidate Cyril, since he had already received the circular summons to the Council, of which the only surviving copy is addressed to him. The letter was written entirely from Nestorius's perspective, for the Emperor treats Cyril as the one who caused the current confusion, and presents the doctrine as something yet to be examined and settled by the Council.¹⁴⁸

The relation of the Emperor to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter which he wrote to S. Cyril, commanding his attendance at it. The letter can hardly have had any other object than to intimidate S. Cyril. For he had already received the circular summons to the Council, of which the only extant copy is addressed to him. The letter was written altogether in the mind of Nestorius. For he treats S. Cyril as the author of the existing confusion, and the doctrine as one hereafter to be examined and settled by the Council.¹⁴⁸

Everyone knows that religion stands firm not because someone orders it to, but because of understanding. Now explain to us why you have ignored us—knowing as you do how much we care about godliness—and all the priests everywhere who could have resolved this dispute better, and have instead, as far as it depends on you, thrown confusion and division into the Church. It is as if rash impulsiveness is appropriate for questions about godliness rather than careful precision, or as if we value recklessness more than carefulness, or as if we prefer complexity in these matters to simplicity. We did not think that your Piety would receive our high regard this way, or that everything would be thrown into confusion, especially since we also know how to be displeased. But for now we will look after the sacred peace. But understand that you have disturbed everything in a way you should not have.¹⁴⁹

' It is plain to every one that religion has its firmness not from any one's bidding but from intelligence. Now then let thy Piety instruct Us, why, overlooking Us (whom thou knowest to have such care of godliness) and all the priests every where, who could better have solved this dispute, thou hast, as far as in thee lies, cast confusion and severance into the Church. As if a rash impetuosity became questions as to godliness, rather than accuracy; or as if carefulness had not more weight with Ourselves than rashness; or as if intricacy in these things were more pleasing to Us than, simplicity. And yet we did not think that Our high estimation would be so received by thy Piety, or that every thing would be thrown into confusion, inasmuch as We too know how to be displeased. But now We shall take heed to the sacred calm. But know that thou hast disturbed every thing as thou oughtest not.'¹⁴⁹

Then, after reproaching him for trying to sow division within the Imperial family through his letters to the Emperor, the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and telling him that wanting to split apart both Churches and royal power belongs to the same kind of person, as if there were no other way to gain prominence, he continues:

Then, having reproached him, as having tried to sow dissension in the Imperial family, by his letters to him and the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and told him that it belonged to one and the same, to wish to dissever Churches and Royalties, as though there were no other way of obtaining distinction, he resumes,

But so that you may know our position, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will be even more united at our command, with the providence of our Savior Christ, and that your Piety is forgiven, so that you may have no excuse, nor be able to say that you are blamed on account of religion. For we desire that all things shall be laid open at the holy Synod and that what seems good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from the fathers or not. We certainly will not tolerate that cities and Churches should be thrown into confusion, nor that the question should remain unexamined. Those who everywhere preside over the Priesthood must sit in judgment on these matters; and through them we have and shall have firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall anyone, who has even the slightest share in the polity, be allowed freedom of speech, if in his self-confidence he chooses to evade such a judgment. He shall not be permitted; for our Majesty must praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this inquiry, and will not tolerate it if any choose to command rather than be counseled about these matters. So then your Reverence must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and must not expect to recover the relation to us in any other way than by ceasing from all grievousness and turbulence, and coming willingly to the investigation of these questions. For thus you will appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and inconsiderately, yet still on behalf of your opinion, not through any private spite or undue hostility to anyone, and to be willing to do with justice what remains to be done. For if you choose to do otherwise, we will not endure it.

'But that thou mayest know Our state, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will be yet more united at Our command, with the providence of our Saviour Christ, and that thy Piety is forgiven, that thou mayest have no pretext, nor be able to say that thou art blamed on account of religion. For we will that all shall be laid open at the holy Synod and that what shall seem good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from the fathers or no. We certainly will not endure that cities and Churches should be thrown into confusion, nor that the question should remain unsifted. Of these they must sit in judgment, who every where preside over the Priesthood; and by them We have and shall have firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall any one, who has ever so little share in the polity, be allowed liberty of speech, if in his self-confidence he choose to evade such a judgement. He shall not be permitted; for Our Majesty [lit. Divinity] must praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this enquiry, and will not endure if any choose to command rather than be counselled about these matters. So then thy Reverence must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and must not expect to recover the relation to Ourselves in any other way than that, ceasing from all grievousness and turbulence, thou come willingly to the investigation of these questions. For thus thou wilt appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and inconsiderately, yet still in behalf of thy opinion, not through any private pique or undue hostility to any one, and to will to do with justice what remains to be done. For if thou willest to do otherwise, We will not endure it.'

A Caesar who wrote in this way could not be approached. It appears that he expected Saint Cyril to be condemned rather than Nestorius. Saint Cyril did not attempt to address the offense of his letters to the Imperial family until he had been permitted to return from the Council to his own diocese.

A Caesar who so wrote could not be approached. It seems that he expected S. Cyril to be condemned rather than Nestorius. S. Cyril did not attempt to remove the offence of his letters to the Imperial family, until he had been allowed to return from the Council to his own diocese.

Cyril explains his own attitude toward Nestorius to a zealous supporter of Nestorius with remarkable straightforwardness.¹⁵⁰

S.Cyril explains his own mind towards Nestorius to a zealous adherent of Nestorius, with a singular simplicity.¹⁵⁰

If I were writing to someone who didn't know my character, I might use many words to convince them that I am an extremely peaceful person, not inclined to strife, not fond of conflict, but someone who desires to love everyone and to be loved by everyone. But since I am writing to someone who knows me, I will say this briefly: if a brother's distress could be removed by the loss of money or possessions, I would gladly have done it, so that I would not appear to value anything more than love. However, since this is a question of faith, and all the Churches throughout the entire Roman Empire (so to speak) are offended—what are we to do, we who have been entrusted by God with the divine mysteries? For those who have been taught the faith will accuse us on the Day of Judgment, saying that they held the faith as we taught it to them. Let the faith alone be preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to no one in loving the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius more than I love myself. God is my witness that I wish he might be of good reputation in Christ and remove the stain of the past, and show that what is commonly said by some concerning his faith are false accusations.¹⁵¹¹⁵²

' If I were writing to one who knew not my disposition, I might have used many words, persuading that I am a person exceeding peaceful, not given to strife, not fond of warfare, but one who longs to love all and to be loved by all. But because I write to one who knows me, I say briefly, 'If a brother's grief could be removed by loss of money or goods, I would gladly have done it, that I might not seem to hold anything of more value than love. But since it is a question of faith, and all the Churches (so to say) in the whole Roman Empire are offended,—- what shall we do, who are entrusted by God with the Divine mysteries?' For those who are taught the faith will accuse us in the Day of Judgement, saying that they held the faith as taught by us….. Only be the faith preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to none as loving more than myself the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, who (God is my witness) I would might be of good repute in Christ and efface the blot of the past, and shew that what is commonly said by some as to his faith, are untrue accusations.'¹⁵¹¹⁵²

And again to the clergy at Constantinople:

And again to Clergy at Constantinople,

I must make my meaning plain to you, and so I write again. Although I naturally love peace and am very ignorant of strife, I still wish that the Churches should have peace, and that the priests of God living in peace should remember us, since Jesus Christ the Saviour of all says, "My peace I give unto you, My peace I leave with you." Say then in conferences that much has passed from them to injure us. Yet there will be peace when he ceases to think or speak such things. If he professes the right faith, there will be a full and most firm peace. If he desires this, let him write the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If this is written from his inmost heart, I too am ready, as far as it lies within me, to write the same and publish a book and say that none of our fellow-bishops ought to be aggrieved, because we learn that his words have a right intention and clear purpose. But if he continues in the perverseness of vain-glory and asks for peace, nothing remains but that we resist with all our might, lest we should seem to agree with him. For to me my chiefest desire is to labor and live and die for the faith which is in Christ.¹⁵³

' I must make my meaning plain to you and so I write again, that although I by nature love peace, and am very ignorant of strife, yet I wish that the Churches should have peace, and that the priests of God living in peace should remember us, since Jesus Christ the Saviour of all saith, "My peace I give unto you, My peace 1 leave with you." Say then in conferences, that much has passed from them to injure us; yet there will be peace, when he shall cease to think or speak such things. If he profess the right faith, there will be a full and most firm peace. If he desires this, let him write the Catholic faith and send it to Alexandria. If this be written from his inmost heart, I too am ready, as far as in me lies, to write the like and publish a book and say that none of our fellow-bishops ought to be aggrieved, because we learn that his words have a right intention and manifest purpose. But if he continue in the perverseness of vain-glory and asks for peace, nothing remains but that we resist with all our might, lest we should seem to agree with him. For to me my chiefest desire is to labour and live and die for the faith which is in Christ.'¹⁵³

There could hardly be a more straightforward offer—setting aside everything of his own to "write the Catholic faith." Nestorius was not bound to any theological expressions, but only to the simple faith. He could not write it because he had stopped holding it.

There could scarcely be a franker offer, putting aside every thing of his own, to 'write the Catholic faith.' Nestorius is tied down to no Theological expressions, but to the simple faith. He could not write it, because he had ceased to hold it.

The bishops assembled in that synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lérins, writing about three years after it was held, speaks of its

The Bishops assembled in that Synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lerins, writing about three years after it was holden, speaks of its

great humility and holiness, noting that they were mostly metropolitans of such character and learning that nearly all of them were capable of debating matters of faith. Yet they claimed no authority for themselves, but took care to pass down to those who came after them only what they themselves had received from the Fathers.¹⁵⁴

' great humility and holiness, that they were for the more part metropolitans, of such condition and doctrine, that almost all could dispute about matters of faith, and yet they claimed nothing for themselves, but were careful to hand down nothing to those after them, which they had not themselves received from the Fathers.'¹⁵⁴

Saint Cyril, in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them "men very well known to your Majesty, and highly praised for their excellence in all things."¹⁵⁵

S. Cyril in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them ' men, very well known to your Mightiness, and exceeding well spoken of for excellence in all things.'¹⁵⁵

Nestorius came to the Council immediately after the Feast of Easter with ten or fifteen bishops who were his supporters. He was also backed by a few Pelagian bishops whom he had admitted to Communion and who were temporarily kept in their positions by Theodosius's order that everything should remain unchanged until the Council made its decision. It is said that he found many bishops already present. If this is true, they must have been bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus, since the others are reported to have arrived later. The Council was Nestorius's idea, and he naturally came among the first to guide its decisions, as he hoped to do. When S. Cyril arrived, he found that there had been active but unsuccessful efforts against the faith. He wrote, "The Evil one, the sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but achieves nothing." The Evil one is, of course, Satan, but Satan works through human agents. Nestorius says that he had no contact with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, a eunuch of the Emperor and his friend: "Cyril has previously avoided any conversation with us entirely, and continues to avoid it until now, thinking that he will thereby escape the conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without being challenged they are heretical." If, as has been suggested, it was at this time that S. Cyril made the extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers containing the true doctrine, he had enough to keep him busy. There is no reason to think that S. Cyril preached against Nestorius at this time.^{156157158159160161}

Nestorius came to the Council ' immediately after the Feast of Easter' with 10 or 15 Bishops, his adherents. He was also supported by a few Pelagian Bishops, whom he had admitted to Communion, and who for the time were retained in their office by the requirement of Theodosius, that everything should remain as it was, until the decision of the Council. He is said to have found many Bishops present. If so, they must have been Bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus. For the rest are related to have arrived later. The Council was the plan of Nestorius, and he naturally came among the first, to guide, as he hoped, its decisions. S. Cyril, on his arrival, found that there had been active, though ineffectual, efforts against the faith. He wrote, ' The Evil one, the sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but avails nothing.' The Evil one is, of course, Satan; but Satan acts through human agents. Nestorius says, that he had no intercourse with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, an Eunuch of the Emperor and his friend; 'Cyril has both heretofore entirely avoided any converse with us, and until now avoids it, thinking that he shall thereby escape the conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without contradiction they are heretical.' If (as has been conjectured) it was at this time that S. Cyril made the extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers, containing the true doctrine, he had enough to do. There is no reason to think that S. Cyril preached at this time against Nestorius.^{156157158159160161}

The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was revealed through the attempts of Theodotus of Ancyra and his pious friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith. To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's sacred infancy and childhood—that he would not call him God who was two or three months old, or who was nursed at the breast, or who fled into Egypt. This was stated under oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It provided what was still missing: the knowledge that Nestorius had not abandoned the heresy for which he had been condemned the year before. Saint Celestine had given formal advice to Saint Cyril that if Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment of the Council's opening, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the blasphemies which before he had sanctioned in his adherent Dorotheus. If one who plainly denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to Saint Cyril, which was formally condemned by the Council: that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind, although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.¹⁶²¹⁶³

The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was elicited by the attempts of Theodotus of Ancyra, and his pious friend, Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith. To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's sacred Infancy and Childhood, that he would not call Him God, who was two or three months old, or who was nurtured at the breast, or who fled into Egypt. This was stated upon oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It supplied what was yet wanting, the knowledge that Nestorius had not laid aside the heresy, for which he had been condemned the year before. S. Celestine had given the formal advice to S. Cyril, that if Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment of the opening of the Council, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the blasphemies, which before he had sanctioned in his adherent, Dorotheus. If one who nakedly denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to S. Cyril which was formally condemned by the Council, that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind, although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.¹⁶²¹⁶³

There could be no question among anyone who listened to the evidence, just as there was none among those who heard it. He was deposed based on the evidence from his own letter to Saint Cyril, from twenty statements in his acknowledged works, and from contradictions to the faith made in Ephesus itself.

There could be no question among any who listened to the evidence, as there was none among any of those who heard it. He was deposed on the evidence of his own letter to S. Cyril, of twenty sayings in his acknowledged works, and of contradictions to the faith in Ephesus itself.

Saint Celestine had, it appears, gathered a new Synod at Rome, from which he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that¹⁶⁴

S. Celestine had, it seems, collected a new Synod at Rome, from which he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that¹⁶⁴

Although the entire body of bishops was prevented from coming to Ephesus because of the distance, they gathered in their own regions under Celestine's leadership and unanimously expressed our position on the faith. Those who did come explained to our Synod by letter the thinking of the whole Western Church.¹⁶⁵

' although the whole multitude of Bishops were hindered from coming to Ephesus by the distance, yet being gathered in those parts, they, Celestine presiding, with entire consent, uttered our mind as to the faith. Those who came, explained to this our Synod by letter the mind of the whole Western Church.'¹⁶⁵

Philip, a presbyter and Roman legate, declared after reading the Acts that all things had been judged according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical discipline.¹⁶⁶

Philip, a presbyter, and Roman legate, after reading the Acts, declared that all things had been adjudged ' according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical discipline.'¹⁶⁶

After the representatives of John's party had spent a long time trying to get the Synod's sentence overturned, the Prefect finally wrote to Nestorius.

After long canvass on the part of the deputies of John's party to obtain a rescinding of the sentence of the Synod, the Prefect at last wrote to Nestorius,

We have long delayed what appeared to be accomplished by the judgment of the Synod, even though many people strongly criticized us and urgently pressed for it to happen. But now the letters from your Holiness have been delivered to us, showing that the prolonged stay at Ephesus is unpleasant to you, and that your Religiousness wishes to travel. We have ordered those who should attend to you throughout the entire journey to serve you by sea or land, all the way to your monastery. We do not think you need consolation, given the wisdom of your soul and the countless good qualities with which you are blessed beyond all others.¹⁶⁷

' We have delayed long what seemed to be done by the judgment of the Synod, although many greatly blamed us and were instant that it should be. But now the letters of your Holiness have been delivered to us, shewing that the lingering at Ephesus is distasteful to you, and that your Religiousness desires to journey, we have directed those, who ought to minister to you along the whole journey, to minister to you [by sea or land], on the whole way to your monastery…..We do not suppose that you need consolation, considering the wisdom of your soul, and the many thousand goods by which you are endowed above all others.'¹⁶⁷

Nestorius in his response accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.

Nestorius in his answer accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.

For nothing is more honorable to us than being removed for the sake of piety. But I beg your Highness, for the sake of religion, to frequently remind the pious Emperor to publicly note everywhere, through official Imperial letters, the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has judged against, so that this should be read throughout the orthodox Churches. Otherwise, in the absence of letters from the pious Emperor, if Cyril's writings should be said to be condemned by him, this could cause scandal among the simple believers, as if it were not truly said.¹⁶⁸

' For nothing is more honourable to us, than a removal for piety. But I beseech your Highness, for the sake of religion, often to remind the pious Prince to set a note everywhere, by public Imperial letters, on the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has adjudged, so that it should be read throughout the orthodox Churches, lest in the absence of letters of the pious Emperor, if the writings of Cyril should be said to be condemned by him, an occasion of scandal should arise to the simple, as if it were not said truly.'¹⁶⁸

Nestorius does not appear to be troubled by his own deposition, as long as the sentence against Cyril and Memnon is also upheld. This is confirmed by Count John's report to the Emperor that John's party calmly accepted the announcement of Nestorius's deposition when it was issued together with those of Cyril and Memnon.¹⁶⁹

Nestorius does not seem to mind his own deposition, so that the sentence against Cyril and Memnon be also confirmed; as Count John reported to the Emperor, that the party of John bore patiently the notice of the deposition of Nestorius, when united with that of Cyril and Memnon.¹⁶⁹

The public statement that Nestorius gave was that he was permitted, at his own request, to retire to his monastery, which was located no more than two furlongs outside of Antioch.¹⁷⁰

The public account which Nestorius gave, was, that 'he was allowed, at his own request, to retire to his monastery,' which was not more than two furlongs outside of Antioch.¹⁷⁰

There, Nestorius says, he 'received all kinds of honors and respectful gifts.'

There, Nestorius says, he 'received all sorts of honours and respectful presents.'

There, he says himself, he stayed for four years. The strong appeal of Saint Celestine to Theodosius to "remove him from all contact with others, so that he might have no opportunity to destroy others" went ignored. After four years, by decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius provides the detail that his former friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continuing blasphemies, and so "Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment."¹⁷¹¹⁷²

There, he himself says, he remained for four years. The adjuration of S. Celestine to Theodosius to 'remove him from all intercourse [with others], that he might have no facility to destroy others,' remained unheeded. After four years, by the decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius supplies the fact, that his former friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continued blasphemies, and so 'Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment.'¹⁷¹¹⁷²

He was prevented from spreading his heresy in person, but he could and did write in its defense. The Oasis, where he was finally sent, was not an unpleasant place in itself. However, it was exposed to raids by a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. The Church had no responsibility for his sufferings there, which resulted from the Emperor's edicts. The Emperor's treatment of him remains unexplained. But these sufferings were God's temporal judgment carried out through the State. The Church bore no guilt for them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth," they showed that God had not abandoned him to the very end.

He was removed from propagating his heresy personally, but could and did write in defence of it. The Oasis, to which he was finally removed, was a place not unpleasant in itself. It was however open to the incursions of a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. With his sufferings there, in consequence of edicts of the Emperor, the Church had nothing to do. His treatment by the Emperor is unexplained. But the sufferings were God's temporal judgement inflicted through the State. The Church was guiltless of them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth," they shewed that God had not abandoned him to the last.

Saint Cyril's relationship with Nestorius ended with the sentence passed against him. His own troubles then began. Saint Cyril himself, upon his arrival, had expected the Council to conclude quickly. The Bishops had urged Saint Cyril to speed up the hearing. Some of the Bishops were burdened by old age; some were in danger of dying from illness; some had already died; some were struggling with poverty. The Council had waited sixteen days after Pentecost, which the Emperor had strictly fixed as the opening date for the Council. The entire Synod had declared that he did not wish to be present. They assumed that he was afraid that the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under his authority, would be deposed, and was perhaps embarrassed by the whole affair.^173174175

S. Cyril's relation to Nestorius ended with the sentence upon him. His own troubles then began. S. Cyril himself, on his arrival, had anticipated a speedy close of the Council. The Bishops had urged S. Cyril to hasten the hearing. ' Some of the Bishops were weighed down by years; some were in peril of life through illness; some had died; some were straitened by poverty.' The Council had waited 16 days after the day of Pentecost, which the Emperor had peremptorily fixed for the opening of the Council. The whole Synod had exclaimed that he did not wish to be present. They supposed that he feared, ' lest the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under his jurisdiction, should be deposed, and was perhaps ashamed of the business.'^173174175

John's delay might well have been puzzling in those days when news traveled slowly. He did not explain it to the Council himself, though he did explain it later to the Emperor. There had been a food shortage at Antioch and resulting riots among the people, so much time was lost in departing. Constant rains made the roads poor. The Bishops at Ephesus naturally knew nothing of all this. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land journey instead of coming by sea, and even so, under normal circumstances, he could have arrived on time. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' journey from Ephesus. From the end of Easter week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had passed before there was any news of his arrival. Why would he delay, unless he did not want to be there? Even Eutherius, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

John's delay might well be puzzling in those days when tidings travelled slowly. He himself did not explain it to the Council, although he did subsequently to the Emperor. There had been a scarcity at Antioch and consequent tumults among the people, so that much time was wasted in setting out. Incessant rains made the roads bad. Of all this the Bishops at Ephesus naturally knew nothing. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land-journey instead of coming by sea, and even thus, under ordinary circumstances, he might have been punctual. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' journey from Ephesus. From the close of Easter-week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had elapsed before there was any notice of his arrival. Why should he delay, except that he did not wish to be there? Even Eutherius, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

According to John's statement, Cyril wrote to him two days before the Council opened, saying that the whole Council was waiting for his arrival. Cyril intended, then, to wait for him. Modern scholars describe Cyril as arbitrary, but no one has dared to say he was inconsistent. Therefore, something must have happened that caused him to give in to the bishops' wishes. The change would make sense if Cyril had meanwhile learned about the attitude in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it. Their representatives may have informed Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them and who at that time used Nestorianizing language that was condemned at the Fifth General Council, says,

According to the statement of John, S. Cyril wrote to him two days before the opening of the Council, that the whole Council was awaiting his arrival. He meant then to wait for him. Moderns speak of S. Cyril as arbitrary; no one has ventured to say he was fickle. Something then must have intervened, which occasioned him to yield to the wish of the Bishops. The change would be explained, if S. Cyril had come in the meantime to know of the mind, in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it. Their deputies may have informed S. Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them, and who at that time used Nestorianising language which was condemned at the 5th General Council, says,

Before we left for Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most God-beloved Bishop Eutherius of Tyana, Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these Chapters the teaching of Apollinarius. At Ephesus, our basis for deposing the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Ephesus was the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. Many synodical letters were written to the victorious Emperor, the high magistrates, and likewise to the people at Constantinople and the most reverend clergy. Moreover, when we were summoned to Constantinople, we held five formal meetings in the presence of the Emperor himself, and afterward we sent three protests to him.¹⁷⁸

' Before we departed to Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most-God-beloved Bishop Eutherius of Tyana, and Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these Chapters, teaching of Apollinarius. And at Ephesus our deposing him of Alexandria and him of Ephesus had for its ground the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. And there were many Synodical letters written to the Victorious Emperor, and the High Magistrates, and in like way to the people at Constantinople, and the most reverend Clergy. And moreover, when summoned to Constantinople, we had five resolutions in the presence of the Emperor himself, and we sent three protests to him subsequently.'¹⁷⁸

These accusations were the core substance of the various documents issued by John's irregular council. Naturally, violation of the Emperor's commands was placed first; but no assembly calling itself a Synod could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop simply for ignoring or violating an Emperor's orders. The heresy that was claimed could be the only basis for deposition. John presented this in the preamble that was accepted by his irregular council.

These charges were the pith of the different documents put forth by John's Conciliabulum. Of course, contravention of the Emperor's orders was put in the forefront; but no assembly, calling itself a Synod, could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop for neglecting or contravening the orders of an Emperor. The heresy alleged could be the only ground of deposition. John set forth this in the preamble which was accepted by his Conciliabulum.

I wish that none of those set apart as priests of God should be cast out of the Church. But since cutting off incurable members is necessary for the health of the whole body, it is fitting that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed as the leaders of the recent lawlessness and of the trampling upon ecclesiastical ordinances and the pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and because of the heretical meaning of the aforementioned Chapters, and that those under their authority should be excommunicated until, recognizing their offense, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril and agree to abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nicaea, not adding anything other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects under investigation, and establish the pious faith.¹⁷⁹

' I would that no one of those set apart as priests of God should be cast out of the Church. But since the excision of incurable members is necessary for the health of the whole body, it is meet that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed, as the chiefs of the past lawlessness and of the trampling upon Ecclesiastical ordinances and the pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and on account of the heretical meaning of the aforesaid Chapters, and that those subject to them should be excommunicated, until, recognizing their offence, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril, and agree to abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nice, not superadding any thing other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects of enquiry, and establish the pious faith.'¹⁷⁹

This same tone appears throughout every document from John's assembly.¹⁸⁰

This same note sounds throughout, in every document of John's Conciliabulum.¹⁸⁰

If Cyril had any knowledge of this attitude among the Antiochenes, it explains his sudden decision not to wait for them but to grant the wishes of the other bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed the previous year. The Council itself was only a scheme by Nestorius to avoid his condemnation. He had already been cut off from communion with the greater part of Christendom. The Council represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt, Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia. The fifteen or seventeen bishops with John of Antioch, even if united with the ten or fifteen bishops with Nestorius, were only a small fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But serious confusion and scandal might have followed John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the charge of heresy that his Conciliabulum so persistently alleged against Cyril and Memnon, it would have fallen to Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to decide in what order the charges should be heard. Candidian threw himself so completely onto John's side—even intercepting the Council's report to the Emperor—that he would undoubtedly have given priority to the charge of heresy against Cyril. What the result would have been, only He can know Who sees the things that have not happened as if they had happened. We cannot describe what has not happened, since God alone knows the hearts He made and how they would have responded under trials He spared them. But Nestorius had shown himself skilled at inflicting violence, as Dioscorus had not up to the eve of the Latrocinium. The soldiers of Theodosius had little respect for bishops. Those who carried the news of Nestorius's deposition to Count Irenaeus brought back to the Council the marks of their mistreatment. Nestorius had brought his own guard of soldiers and a large number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople. Candidian had drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been noted that the sailors who brought Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasants from the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The entire population of Ephesus was enthusiastic for the ancient doctrine, as they showed by their overflowing joy when the sentence for which they had waited from morning to evening was announced.^181182183184

If S. Cyril had any intimation of this mind of the Antiochenes, it accounts for his sudden resolve not to wait for them, but to accede to the wishes of the other Bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed in the previous year. The Council itself was only a device of Nestorius to ward off his condemnation. He had already been severed from the Communion of the greater part of Christendom. The Council represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt, Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia. The 15 or 17 Bishops of John of Antioch, even if united with the 10 or 15 Bishops of Nestorius, were but a fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But grave confusion and scandal might have ensued upon John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the charge of heresy, which his Conciliabulum alleged so perseveringly against S. Cyril and Memnon, it would have rested with Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to rule in what order the charges should be taken. Candidian threw himself so entirely into John's side (even in intercepting the Relation of the Council to the Emperor), that he would, without doubt, have preferred the charge of heresy against S. Cyril. What the result would have been, He only can know, Who sees the things which have not been, as if they had been. We cannot write the things which have not been, since God Alone knows the hearts which He made, and how they would have developed under trials which He spared. But Nestorius had shewn himself practised in inflicting violence, as Dioscorus up to the eve of the Latrocinium had not. Soldiers of Theodosius had not much respect for Bishops. Those who carried the news of the deposition of Nestorius to Count Irenaeus brought back to the Council the marks of their ill-treatment. Nestorius had brought his own guard of soldiers and a great number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople. Candidian had drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been noticed that the seamen who brought S. Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasantry of the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The whole population of Ephesus were enthusiastic in behalf of the ancient doctrine, as they shewed by their exuberant joy, when the sentence, for which they had waited from morning to evening, was announced.^181182183184

We can't know anything more about this beyond speculation. However, the second Council of Ephesus, which became known as the Latrocinium under Dioscorus's leadership, was convened with just as much legitimacy as the first Council.

It would be mere matter of imagination to picture anything further. But the second Council of Ephesus, which became the Latrocinium under the guidance of Dioscorus, was called just as legitimately as the first.

However this may have been, it doesn't require much humility to think that Cyril, in the midst of the events, knew more than we do, since we see them only through some fragmentary records of the past. Even apart from the threat posed by Candidian, someone as far-sighted as Cyril must have known that he would incur the serious displeasure of Theodosius by overriding his orders, that there was a strong prima facie case against him for violating them, and that the Emperor, who had written to him as he had, was not one to be trifled with. Yet he braved it all. It was important to the Church that the heresy of Nestorius should be condemned. Once the sentence was passed it could not be reversed, because the whole Church except the Antiochenes agreed with it.

However this may have been, it does not require much humility to think that S. Cyril, in the midst of the events, knew more than we, who see them only through some fragmentary records of the past. Even apart from the menace of Candidian, one so long-sighted as S. Cyril must have known that he would incur the grave displeasure of Theodosius, by superseding his orders; that there was a strong prima-facie case of contravening them against him; and that the Emperor, who had written to him as he had, was not one to be trifled with. Yet he braved it all. It was of moment to the Church, that the heresy of Nestorius should be condemned. The sentence once passed could not be reversed; because the whole Church except the Antiochenes agreed in it.

So Cyril agreed to the Council's wish not to delay, and faced the Emperor's displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone.

So S. Cyril assented to the wish of the Council not to delay, and braved the Emperor's displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone.

His earthly future, after the Council ended, remained uncertain for some time. Candidian sent an unfavorable report to the Emperor; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints as if they had been the Council; Nestorius sent his account; Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first condemned the condemnation of Nestorius, annulled the proceedings of the Council, and forbade any bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his court, or to return home. The supporters of Nestorius in Constantinople prevented any news of his deposition from arriving either by sea or by land. Candidian blocked access from a distance. Cyril's deposition by John's Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople as if it were the act of the Council; consequently, Cyril understood that it was being deliberated at court whether he should be banished.^{185186187188189190191192}

His earthly future, after the Council was over, remained for some time in the balance. Candidian sent to the Emperor an adverse report; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints, as if they had been the Council; Nestorius sent his account; S. Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first condemned the condemnation of Nestorius; annulled the proceedings of the Council; forbade any Bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his Court or to return home. The adherents of Nestorius in Constantinople hindered any tidings of his deposition coming both by sea and by land: Candidian precluded access at a distance. S. Cyril's deposition by John's Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople, as if it were the act of the Council; it was (S. Cyril understood) consequently deliberated at Court, whether he should not be banished.^{185186187188189190191192}

His deposition was accepted, and he himself was placed under guard, with soldiers stationed even at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote that they were sometimes deprived of necessities and were insulted by the country people and the mob that Nestorius had brought with him. S. Cyril was at peace. He wrote,¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

His deposition was accepted, and he himself put under a guard of soldiers placed even at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote, that they were sometimes deprived of necessaries, were insulted by the rustics and the rabble which Nestorius had brought. S. Cyril was at peace. He wrote,¹⁹³¹⁹⁴

Since the letter from the most religious and Christ-loving Emperors has been read, stating that the deposition of the three was to be accepted, we have been held under guard, not knowing what the outcome will be. But we give thanks to God if we are thought worthy for His Name's sake not only to be prisoners, but also to endure everything else besides. For it is not without its reward—as the blessed David says, "I am ready for the scourge."¹⁹⁵

' Since the letter of the most religious and Christ-loving Emperors has been read, in which it was said that the deposing of the three was to be accepted, we have been kept in ward, not knowing what will be the issue. But we give thanks to God, if we be thought worthy for His Name's sake not to be prisoners only, but also to endure all besides. For it is not without its reward.—-As the blessed David says, "I am ready for the scourge." '¹⁹⁵

At the request of the Council, he used the free time during his imprisonment to explain his Anathematisms.¹⁹⁶

At the wish of the Council, he employed the leisure of his imprisonment in explaining his Anathematisms.¹⁹⁶

The Conciliabulum, when sending out 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical chapters,' said that he 'thereby showed his impiety more clearly.' They were even surprised that the Council kept going, despite the fact that Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned. They write as a Synod,¹⁹⁷

The Conciliabulum, in transmitting 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical chapters,' said that he 'thereby shewed his impiety more evidently.' They even wondered at the perseverance of the Council, notwithstanding the imprisonment of Cyril and Memnon. They write as a Synod,¹⁹⁷

Count John is keeping Cyril and Memnon under very strict guard, separating each one and placing many soldiers around each man's house. Yet even this has not quieted those who turn everything upside down and have filled the world with confusion and rebellion. Instead, acting as they usually do, they create disorder and set in motion a rule against themselves. For though they have been excommunicated, they have boldly taken upon themselves the ministry of the priesthood, and so on.¹⁹⁸

' Count John holds in most guarded custody Cyril and Memnon, thrusting [detrudens] each apart, and placing a multitude of soldiers around the house of each. Yet not even thus are they still, who turn every thing upside down and have filled the world with confusion and sedition, but acting as usual, make a confusion, and set in motion a rule against themselves. For, being excommunicated, they have audaciously assumed to themselves the ministry of the priesthood, &c.'¹⁹⁸

And again in their letter to Acacius of Beroea,

And again in their Epistle to Acacius of Berrhoea,

Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the Council] have been excommunicated by us because they cooperated with the insanity of the heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and wickedly, and have presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned. And they commit these things knowing that those most harmful persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust away and are kept under guard by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting each one apart, they guard them night and day; therefore let your Holiness pray, etc.¹⁹⁹

' Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the Council] have been excommunicated by us, because they co-operated with the insanity of the heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and iniquitously, and have presumed to exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned.—-And these things they commit, knowing that those most injurious persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust [trusi] away and are kept by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting [trudentes] each apart, they guard them night and day; wherefore let your Holiness pray &c.'¹⁹⁹

The Bishops of the Council also appear to have believed that the Nestorianizers intended to exhaust them in order to reverse what they had accomplished. A short statement at the end of their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says,

The Bishops of the Council seem also to have thought that it was the intention of the Nestorianisers to wear them out to undo what they had done. A brief memorial at the end of their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says,

We are dying from the heat because of the oppressive atmosphere, and nearly every day someone is buried. All the servants have been sent home, and all the other bishops are in the same condition. Therefore, we ask your Reverences to go to the gracious Emperor and tell him that the Synod is being oppressed by those who refuse to allow any deadline to be set, so that we are completely dying from exhaustion. But your Reverences should know that even if they pressure us until we all die, we will not decree anything other than what our Savior Christ has taught us.²⁰⁰

' We are being killed with the heat through the heaviness of the air, and some one is buried almost daily; so that all the servants are sent home, and all the other Bishops are in the same state. Whence we pray your Reverences to go to the gracious Sovereign and say that the Synod is oppressed by those, who prevent any term being given, so that we are altogether perishing by exhaustion. But your Reverences should know, that although they press upon us till we all die, we will not do any thing other than our Saviour Christ has taught us to decree.'²⁰⁰

The barrier was set up with complete security to prevent any news from the Council from reaching the Emperor's ears. It was broken through by a beggar. The clergy of Constantinople wrote,

The cordon was drawn with all safety to hinder any report from the Council reaching the Emperor's ears. It was snapped by a mendicant. The Clergy of Constantinople wrote,

Since no one can do anything against God (for what is man?), by God's ordering a letter written from Ephesus arrived to the holy bishops and monks, sent by a beggar who tied it inside a reed and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it. Immediately all the monasteries with the archimandrites rose up and went to the palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the archimandrites, had not left his monastery for forty-eight years but remained enclosed. Our most pious emperor went to him and saw him. Since there were frequent earthquakes in Constantinople, the emperor often asked him to come out and say litanies, but he never would. But when he was praying about this matter, a voice came down from heaven commanding him to go out. For God did not want His flock to perish utterly.²⁰¹

' Since no one can do any thing against God (for what is man?), by the ordering of God there arrived an Epistle written from Ephesus to the holy Bishops and monks sent by a beggar who tied it within a reed, and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it. Forthwith all the monasteries with the Archimandrites arose and went to the palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the Archimandrites, had not left his monastery for 48 years, but remained enclosed. Our most pious Emperor went to him and saw him. There being ofttimes earthquakes in Constantinople, the Emperor ofttimes requested him to come forth and say litanies; he never would. But when he was praying about this, a voice came down from heaven bidding him go forth. For He did not will that His flock should perish utterly.'²⁰¹

The Archimandrites were admitted and prevailed. Theodosius learned with surprise that while the Nestorians had free access to come and go, the deputies of the Council had been refused access to him.²⁰²

The Archimandrites, who were admitted, prevailed. Theodosius learnt with surprise that while the Nestorians had free ingress and regress, the deputies of the Council had been refused access to him.²⁰²

The Emperor tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the Antiochenes with St. Cyril.

The Emperor tried in vain to reconcile the Antiochenes with S. Cyril.

The Antiochenes, in their third indignant protest, reproached the Emperor for ignoring their obedience and reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire. They warned that he needed the true faith to prevail in the war then engulfing Africa, that God would fight for him if he would defend the holy faith, and that He would not allow the body of the Church to be cut off—yet it would be cut off if the meaning imposed upon the faith by Cyril and confirmed by others were allowed to stand. They claimed that people mixed in with the Churches were teaching the doctrine of Apollinarius, Arius, and Eunomius, and were unlawfully and irregularly exercising the priesthood. They concluded with a prayer that he would not allow anything to be secretly introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nicaea. If, after this warning before God, the Emperor did not comply, they declared—echoing Saint Paul—that they shook off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all men." "We have not stopped, night and day, from the time we arrived at the holy Synod, protesting to the Emperor, judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen not to be betrayers of the faith handed down by the fathers."²⁰³

The Antiochenes, in their third indignant protest, reproached the Emperor with their obedience, reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire, that he needed the true faith to prevail in the war which then encircled Africa, that God would fight for him, if he would defend the holy faith, and would not allow the body of the Church to be cut of, but it would be cut off, if the meaning superinduced on the faith by Cyril and confirmed by others should stand; that persons intermixed with the Churches taught the doctrine of Apollinarius and Arius and Eunomius, and unlawfully and irregularly exercised the office of the priesthood. They conclude with the prayer that he would not allow any thing to be stealthily introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nice. If after this admonition before God the Emperor did not acquiesce, they 'with S. Paul shook off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all men." "We have not ceased night and day, from the time we came to the holy Synod to protest to the Emperor, Judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen, not to be the betrayers of the faith delivered by the fathers.'²⁰³

It was a destructive internal conflict that continued even after the Eastern bishops returned to their sees. The Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of Cyril, Memnon, and all their supporters, and that their teaching should be condemned.

It was an internecine war, continued even after the return of the Eastern Bishops to their sees; the Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of S. Cyril Memnon and all their adherents, and that their teaching should be proscribed.

When Cyril returned to Egypt, he demonstrated his peace-loving character. The Orientals had caused his imprisonment, its hardships and humiliations, and the threat of exile. They did this by mimicking a Council, but without the proper procedures of a Council and without investigating what the real Council had actually done. They assumed the real Council had done what it had not—that is, formally approved the Anathematisms that Cyril had written not as a rule of faith but to block the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were heretical. They convinced the Emperor that their 40 Bishops, who represented only one Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world that he had called together. Until they realized it was pointless to mention Nestorius's name to the Emperor, they pressed for his restoration and Cyril's deposition. Cyril had escaped in spite of their efforts. They refused to accept that Nestorius was the heretic he actually was, and they kept repeating that Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, even though they must have known that he was at least neither Eunomian nor Arian.²⁰⁴

S. Cyril shewed his peace-loving disposition on his return to Egypt. The Orientals had brought upon him his imprisonment, its privations and indignities, and the prospect of banishment. This they had done by aping a Council, yet without the formalities of a Council, without enquiring into anything which the real Council had done, assuming that they had done what they had not done—-formally sanctioned the Anathematisms which S. Cyril had framed, not as a rule of faith but to cut off the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were heretical. They had persuaded the Emperor, that their 40 Bishops, who represented one Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world, which he had convoked. Until they found it useless to mention the name of Nestorius to the Emperor, they urged his restoration and the deposition of S. Cyril. He had escaped in despite of them. They would not be persuaded that Nestorius was the heretic which he was; and they would repeat that S. Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, although they must have known that at the least he was neither Eunomian nor Arian.²⁰⁴

There was nothing Saint Cyril could do regarding them. They had fallen into the trap Nestorius had set by sending the Anathemas, which were meant to test his own sincerity, without the Epistle that would have explained them. It became a fixed principle for Theodoret that the Anathemas were heretical. Saint Cyril could only wait. Saint Sixtus III, a peace-loving bishop who had succeeded Saint Celestine, testifies that Cyril immediately showed how mindful he was of the faith and how unconcerned he was with the insults he suffered gloriously, according to the Apostle. Cyril wanted the Churches to be well-ordered rather than seeking vindication for himself. Since one person (Nestorius) had shipwrecked himself, Cyril was eager that all the rest should be saved from the waves. Sixtus writes: "We share the same mind: to act gently toward them when they stop being impious toward God. Let those who wish to return to the right way be received." He addresses Saint Cyril himself,

There was nothing then for S. Cyril to do in regard to them. They had fallen into the trap which Nestorius had laid for them by sending the Anathemas meant to test his own sincerity, without the Epistle which would have explained them. It became an axiom with Theodoret that they were heretical. S. Cyril then could but wait. S. Sixtus iii., a peace-loving Bishop who had succeeded S. Celestine, bears him witness that he had shewed at once how mindful he was of the faith and how regardless of contumelies, which he suffered gloriously, according to the Apostle, wishing that the Churches should be well-ordered, rather than that he should be righted himself; that one [Nestorius] having wrecked himself, he was anxious that all the rest should be saved out of the waves. 'The same mind is in us also; to act tenderly towards them, when they cease to be impious towards God. Let those then, who will to return to the right way, be received.' He addresses S. Cyril himself,

Hold on firmly, dearly beloved brother, to what has been accomplished by the Council and what has been decided by us. For a brother sets aside insults that benefit him before the Lord of all. Such insult is actually victory. Therefore he has endured all the harsh attacks patiently, and those things did not trouble him in which he now rejoices, because he was striving for a crown. He knows what rewards await the victors in such struggles.²⁰⁵

' Hold fast, most beloved brother, what has been done by the Council, and what has been defined by us. For a brother dismisses contumelies which benefit him before the Lord of all. For such contumely is victory. Whence he has borne meekly all the sharp blows, nor did those things grieve him, wherein he now rejoices; for he strove for a crown. For he knows what prizes are in store for the victors in such conflicts.'²⁰⁵

Sixtus completely agreed with Cyril, but spoke forcefully: "Let him [John] know that he will be one of the Catholic body only if, by reversing everything that was undone by the Synod, he shows himself to be a Catholic priest."

S. Sixtus coincided altogether with S. Cyril, but spoke strongly; 'let him [John] know that he shall be one of the Catholic body, if, undoing all undone by the Synod, he shew himself a Catholic priest.'

Cyril required nothing for himself. The bishops whom the Emperor assembled at Constantinople proposed the terms, which greatly pleased the Emperor.

S. Cyril required nothing for himself. The Bishops, whom the Emperor assembled at Constantinople, propounded the terms, at which the Emperor was 'exceedingly pleased.'

The devout Bishop John of Antioch must anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius and acknowledge his deposition in writing. Once this is done, the Bishop of Alexandria will, out of love, completely forget and consider as nothing the insults he suffered at Ephesus, even though they were very serious and difficult to bear.²⁰⁶

' The Bishop, full of piety, John of Antioch, must anathematise the doctrine of Nestorius, and acknowledge in writing his deposition; and this being done, the Bishop of Alexandria will, out of love, forget altogether and regard as nothing the contumelies which he endured at Ephesus, very grievous as they were, and hard to endure.'²⁰⁶

John's party would not accept these terms. The first conditions for peace from John's side, which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest option, were in reality conditions of unconditional submission.²⁰⁷

John's party would not accept them. The first conditions of peace on John's side, which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest, were in fact, of unconditional submission.²⁰⁷

The terms were,

The terms were,

We recognize the Nicene Creed as sufficient, but the letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We therefore stand by it and reject all teachings that have been recently introduced, whether through letters or chapters, as disturbing the common faith.²⁰⁸

' We acknowledge the Nicene Creed as sufficient, but the letter of S. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We abide therefore therein, and cast off all doctrines recently superinduced, either by Epistles or Chapters, as disturbing the common faith:'²⁰⁸

In other words, he was to acknowledge that he, not Nestorius, had been the one who disturbed the Church. Cyril most gladly received the Epistle to Epictetus, but showed them that their own copies had been corrupted by heretics. As for the rest, he said that withdrawing what he had written would mean taking back everything that had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, expected to withdraw by his own single action those Epistles—one of which had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus both individually and as a body, while the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts with no one objecting—and undo his entire work at the command of John and five other bishops.^209210211

i. e. he was to acknowledge that he, not Nestorius, had been the disturber of the Church. S. Cyril most gladly received the Epistle to Epictetus, but shewed them that their own copies had been corrupted by heretics. For the rest, he said that to withdraw what he had written would be to unsay all which had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, to withdraw by his single act Epistles, of which one had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus, individually and as a body, the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts (no one excepting), and undo his whole work at the dictum of John and five other Bishops.^209210211

The Orientals then chose a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burdened with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' at the Synod. This brought about the only reminder of past ill-treatment: 'They who ought to seek pardon for the past, how do they add fresh insults?' When these complaints were withdrawn, S. Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart,' and 'contrary perhaps to his expectations,' Paul found him fully ready for peace. S. Cyril's account shows how deeply he felt the division as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written (John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us in harmony.' He gave to Paul a statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the joyful letter, beginning with the words of the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of partition is dissolved; what caused sadness has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'^212213214215

The Orientals then selected a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burthened with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' in the Synod. This occasioned the only reminiscence of the past ill-treatment, ' They who ought to seek pardon for the past, how do they add fresh contumelies?' When these were withdrawn, S. Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart;' and 'contrary perhaps to his expectations,' Paul found him fully disposed for peace. S. Cyril's relation shews how deeply he felt the rent as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written (John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us in harmony.' He gave to Paul a statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the exulting letter, beginning with the words of the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of partition is dissolved; what saddened has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'^212213214215

He says, in a kind of undertone to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius,²¹⁶

He says, in a sort of under-tone to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius,²¹⁶

He says, speaking as if in private to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius: "Strife and contention do not rule among us. Instead, we all have one goal, aiming for peace. If those who from the beginning disagreed with us and separated themselves from us had been willing, there would have been no strife or division among the churches. But blessed be the Savior, who has calmed the storm, and so on."

'Strife and contention reign not among us, but we have all one mark, looking to peace. And if those who from the first have differed in opinion from us and cut themselves off from us, had willed, there would have been no strife or difference among the Churches. But blessed be the Saviour, Who hath lulled the storm &c.'

It was Cyril's lot, then as now, to be misunderstood. He was blamed for making peace, just as he had been blamed earlier for the conflict. Theodoret could not help but accept the approval of his own synodal letter, but he believed it directly contradicted the Twelve Chapters. Writing to "his lord and truly God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius," he apologizes for the peace and assures him that he holds Cyril in abhorrence as the author of all the disturbance throughout the whole world. The Nestorianizers were of course very angry, but he had to explain himself even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene and to others as well. The man whom the Orientals had so relentlessly persecuted was now their defender, showing that they were not Nestorians and patiently trying to win back to the communion of the Church individuals who were still alienated.^217218219

It was S. Cyril's lot, then as now, to be misunderstood. He was blamed as to the peace, as, before, for the conflict. Theodoret could not but acquiesce in the acceptance of his own Synodal letter, but held it to be directly contradictory of the twelve Chapters. To his lord and truly God-loving and venerable holy father Nestorius' he apologises for the peace, and assures him, that he holds Cyril in abhorrence, as being the author of all the disturbance of the whole world. The Nestorianizers were of course very angry; but he had to explain himself, even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene as also to others. He whom the Orientals had so unrelentingly persecuted was now their defender, shewing that they were not Nestorians, and trying patiently to win back to the Communion of the Church individuals still alienated.^217218219

He had to endure something even more difficult: the reproaches of S. Isidore, for whom he had a son's affection. S. Isidore had earlier told him about the mockery of many at Ephesus, as if he were acting out of personal hostility rather than seeking, as an orthodox believer, the things of Jesus Christ. For they said, "He is a nephew of Theophilus."²²⁰²²¹

He had to bear what was still harder, the reproaches of S. Isidore, to whom he had a filial affection. S. Isidore had told him before of 'the jeers of many at Ephesus, as if thou wert wreaking thine own enmity, and not seeking, as one orthodox, the things of Jesus Christ. For, say they, he is a nephew of Theophilus.'²²⁰²²¹

He had explained to him again the faith concerning the Incarnation as something "you yourself would not deny," and now, when St. Cyril had accepted that same statement as Isidore presented it, Isidore wrote,²²²

He had again set forth to him the faith of the Incarnation as something which 'thou thyself wouldest not deny,' and now, when S. Cyril had himself accepted the same statement as propounded by him, he wrote,²²²

Amazing man, you should remain always consistent, not betraying heavenly things or appearing to contradict yourself. For if you compare what you have now written with your earlier writings, you will appear guilty of flattery or of being a servant of carelessness, giving in to vain-glory, instead of imitating the struggles of all those great holy fighters who endured mistreatment their whole lives in a foreign land rather than even listen to a single thought of evil doctrine.²²³

' Wondrous man, thou oughtest to remain ever unchanged, not betraying the things of heaven, nor appearing contradictory to thyself. For if thou comparest what thou hast now written with thy former writings, thou wilt seem chargeable with flattery, or the minister of off-handed ness, yielding to vain-glory, instead of imitating the strivings of all those great holy combatants, who endured to be ill-treated all their life in a foreign land, rather than even hear a thought of evil doctrine.'²²³

Saint Isidore, in his eagerness for Saint Cyril's spiritual growth, appears to have written to him based on what others had said. It must have been difficult to be so unfairly criticized by a saint, but Saint Cyril seems to have accepted the undeserved rebuke in silence.

S. Isidore, in his zeal for S. Cyril's perfecting, seems to have written to him according to the sayings of others. It must have been hard to be so unjustly blamed by a saint, but S. Cyril seems to have received the undeserved censure in silence.

One more occasion is recorded when he was asked to give a public statement about the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

One more occasion is recorded in which a public expression of opinion was asked of him, as to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The Council, while avoiding his name, had already condemned one of his creeds, which some Nestorians had presented to many Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church. St. Proclus sent John of Antioch a document containing Nestorian passages from Theodore (equally avoiding his name), asking him to have them condemned. Maximus, the messenger, contrary to his instructions, inserted the name. After this, the Antiochenes would not condemn the passages, even without the name. Maximus, an archimandrite, came to Alexandria, "speaking much and strongly" against the Easterners, saying "the orthodox have no room there nor freedom to speak the faith." A high-ranking palace official presented to St. Cyril, when at Jerusalem, a long letter from many clergy, monks, and lay people, accusing the Eastern bishops that they, while suppressing Nestorius' name, claimed to oppose him, yet clung to Theodore's books on the Incarnation, in which lie many more serious blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of Nestorius' false teachings, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition. The Alexandrians, having refused to sign St. Proclus' document, appealed to St. Cyril. St. Cyril indignantly rejected any similarity between "the disreputable doctrine of Diodore and Theodore" and that of the great fathers whom John cited. To John of Antioch he wrote that no one should speak Theodore's ungodly doctrines in church, but he emphasized the gentleness with which those returning should be received, and not be reproached for the past. To Proclus, he wrote that Theodore had died in communion with the Church; that in rejecting his creed the Council had deliberately spared his name, lest some should separate from the Church; that in rejecting Nestorius' blasphemies they had effectively condemned what resembled them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it would be best for the sake of others; but since John of Antioch wrote that "they would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the stilled flame?" He added that those who wished the writings condemned might be persuaded to be quiet rather than cause scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not commune with John because of some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to admit their fall.^{224225226227228229230231232}

The Council, while sparing his name, had already condemned a Creed of his, which had been presented by some Nestorians to many Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church. S. Proclus sent to John of Antioch a Tome containing Nestorian passages of Theodore (equally sparing his name), requesting him to have them condemned. Maximus, the bearer, contrary to his instructions, inserted the name. The Antiochenes, after this, would not condemn the passages, even without the name. Maximus, an Archimandrite, came to Alexandria, 'speaking much and strongly' against the Easterns, the 'orthodox have no room there nor freedom to speak the faith.' ' A noble officer of the Palace presented to S. Cyril, when at Jerusalem, a long Epistle of many Clergy and monks and laity, accusing the Eastern Bishops, that they, suppressing the name of Nestorius, professed to be averse to him, and bounded down to the books of Theodore on the Incarnation, in which lie many more grievous blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of the ill-doctrines of Nestorius, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition.' The Alexandrians, having refused to sign the Tome of S. Proclus, appealed to S. Cyril. S. Cyril indignantly set aside any likeness of 'the ill-reputed doctrine of Diodore and Theodore' to that of the great fathers whom John alleged. To John of Antioch he wrote, that no one should utter in Church the ungodly doctrines of Theodore; but he dwelt on the tenderness, with which those returning should be received, and not be reproached for the past: to Proclus, that Theodore had died in the communion of the Church; that in rejecting his Creed the Council had purposely spared his name, lest some should separate from the Church; that in rejecting the blasphemies of Nestorius they had virtually condemned what was like them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it would be best for the sake of others; but that since John of Antioch wrote, that 'they would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the stilled flame?' that those who wished the writings to be condemned might be persuaded to be quiet rather than give occasion of scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not communicate with John because of some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to own their fall.^{224225226227228229230231232}

Everywhere he acted as a peacemaker. The experienced pilot who, under God, had steered the ship through the storm sat watching each cloud as it appeared. His single concern was: "Peace has been restored; let us be careful not to break it again."

Everywhere he is the peace-maker. The veteran pilot, who, under God, had guided the ship through the storm, sat, watching each cloud, as it arose. His one thought was, 'Peace has been restored; take we heed that it be not again broken.'

Cyril thought it was right to correct Theodore's errors in writing, but this disturbed no peace since Theodore was dead. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret did not have Cyril's accurate theological mind. Cyril, in his ninth Anathema, called God the Holy Spirit "the very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ," adopting the language of Athanasius, that "the Holy Spirit was the very own Spirit of the Son." Theodoret objected chiefly as if Cyril had said this of the humanity of our Lord, not of his divinity. But Theodoret added, at the end, the sad words: "If he calls him this as one in physis and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if as having his existence from the Son or through the Son, we will reject it as blasphemous and ungodly." Theodoret could not have been, at that time, familiar with the great writers before him—Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem—who used the "from" or the "through" which he rejected. Cyril's carefully weighed and complete language has continued to teach humanity until now. The impulsive language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, contrary to our baptismal creed.²³³²³⁴

S. Cyril thought it indeed right to correct in writing the errors of Theodore; but this disturbed no peace, since Theodore was gone. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret had not S. Cyril's accurate Theological mind. S. Cyril, in his 9th Anathematism, called God the Holy Ghost, 'the Very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ' adopting the language of S. Athanasius, that ' the Holy Spirit was the Very own Spirit of the Son.' Theodoret declaimed chiefly, as if S. Cyril had said this of the Humanity of our Lord, not of His Godhead; but adds, at the end, the sad words, 'If he so calls Him as One in Nature and proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if, as having His existence from the Son or through the Son, we will fling it away as blasphemous and ungodly.' Theodoret could not have been, at that time, acquainted with the great writers before him, S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, who used the 'from' or the 'through' which he 'flings' from him. S. Cyril's well-weighed and full language has continued to teach man until now. The impetuous language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, contrary to our Baptismal Creed.²³³²³⁴

Theodoret decided to defend Theodore against Cyril, arguing against all the authorities that Cyril had cited. The one fragment that survives is sharply written. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms in response to Theodoret's attacks, because the estranged Antiochenes had to be reconciled and a breach had to be healed. This criticism of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he continued on his way in peace.²³⁵²³⁶

Theodoret thought good to defend Theodore against S. Cyril, arguing against all the authorities which S. Cyril had adduced. The one fragment which remains is written sharply. S. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms against Theodoret's attacks; for the alienated Antiochenes had to be reconciled, and a breach to be healed. This censure of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he went on his way in peace.²³⁵²³⁶

Cyril's strong natural affection has been mentioned in passing. It would be hard to imagine him, as he is usually portrayed, in his later years embracing and kissing a letter from his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, who was asking about a typological figure in the Old Testament—the scapegoat. Yet since all service to God must involve self-denial, perhaps someone with strong natural affection was better suited as God's instrument for the difficult work of that wearisome conflict, just as it must have helped him in the more agreeable task of reconciling those who had become alienated.²³⁷²³⁸

S. Cyril's strong natural love has been incidentally noticed. One could hardly picture him, such as he has been ordinarily represented, in advancing years, enfolding and kissing the letter of his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, enquiring about a type in the Old Testament, 'the scapegoat.' Yet since all service to God must involve self-denial, perhaps one of strong natural love was the fitter instrument of God for the hard service of that dreary warfare, as it must have aided him in the congenial office of reconciling the alienated.²³⁷²³⁸

External events reveal little about a person's inner thoughts. Cyril is now mainly known (to the extent he is known at all) as an eager defender of the Faith. But it was the Faith in Him—his God and his All. He must have spent many peaceful years before his own people's needs called him to defend God's truth against a living opponent. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his critic Theodoret admired, despite his intense hostility) was written, he says, at many people's urging, because pagans were troubling Christians by claiming that Julian went unanswered because he could not be refuted. So this too was written out of love for souls. He himself explained to Nestorius that in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things similar to what he was then writing, but with no reference to Nestorius, since it was written before Nestorius himself had written.²³⁹²⁴⁰

Outward events give but little insight into the inward mind. S. Cyril is now chiefly known (as far as he is known at all) as the zealous defender of the Faith. But it was the Faith in Him, his God and his All. Many must have been his peaceful years before he was called out by the needs of his own people, to defend the truth of God against a living assailant. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his opponent Theodoret admired, in the midst of his hottest hostility) was written, he says, on the exhortation of many, because the heathen perplexed Christians, alleging that he was not refuted, because he could not. This then too was written out of a love for souls. He himself explained to Nestorius that, in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things akin to what he then wrote, but with no reference to him, since it was written before Nestorius himself wrote.²³⁹²⁴⁰

Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus lists him among those who were said to have written commentaries on all of Holy Scripture. His commentaries make up the largest portion of his surviving works, yet even these are only part of a larger body of writing. He was drawn away from these peaceful reflections on God's word when his monks were disturbed by the writings of Nestorius.²⁴¹²⁴²

Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus counts him among those who were said at least to have commented on the whole of Holy Scripture. His Commentaries are the largest portion of His extant works, yet these are but a part of a larger whole. From these peaceful meditations on God's word he was roused by the disturbance of his monks through writings of Nestorius.²⁴¹²⁴²

We have already noted that in his first book on the Pentateuch, "On Worship in Spirit and in Truth," his main interest was in types of our Lord. His faith in the Incarnation and our union with God through it naturally stands out, as this theme shines through his work everywhere. His approach was the exact opposite of Theodore of Mopsuestia from the Antiochene school. As has been said of Bishop Horne and another figure, "one sees Christ everywhere, the other nowhere." A mind that meditates on God's word in this way—not focusing on isolated phrases but on the whole—is not the mind of a fierce controversialist, as some recent writers have portrayed him.²⁴³²⁴⁴

It has been noticed already that types of our Lord were the chief object of interest to him in his first book on the Pentateuch, 'on the adoration in spirit and in truth:' his faith in the Incarnation and our union to God through It, are naturally prominent, as indeed it gleams through everywhere. His was the exact contrary of the mind of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the Antiochene school: as has been said of our Bishop Horne and another, 'the one sees Christ every where, the other no where.' A mind which so meditates on God's word, not on particular expressions, but on the whole, is not that of the fierce controversialist which some of late have pictured him.²⁴³²⁴⁴

It only remains to gather together what has been said about the contents of this volume.

It remains only to collect what has been said as to the contents of this volume.

The Five Books against Nestorius have been described as essentially a defense of St. Proclus. In this work, St. Cyril primarily responds to the sermons that Nestorius preached against St. Proclus. The first two books deal with the Virgin being Theotokos (God-bearer) and with the term "birth" being applied to God. The third book concerns Christ being our Priest, who is God. The fourth and fifth books focus mostly on God suffering and dying.²⁴⁵

i. The Five books against Nestorius. 'These,' it has been said, 'may be well called, a Defence of S. Proclus. For S. Cyril in it mainly answers the sermons preached by Nestorius against S. Proclus. For the first two books are on the Virgin being Θεοτόκος, and the term 'birth' ascribed to God; the third is of His being our Priest, Who is God; the fourth and fifth are for the most part on God suffering and dying.'²⁴⁵

Cyril himself says that he took on this work reluctantly, but the homilies were written in a popular and appealing style and were filled with serious accusations against orthodox doctrines, leaving him no choice. Nestorius is not mentioned by name in it. Because of this, scholars have concluded that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus. Photius notes that "in the first book, he refutes six points of Nestorius's blasphemies; in the second, fourteen; in the third, six; in the fourth and fifth, seven each." He adds that "his method of interpretation follows his usual manner of expression, though adapted to a simpler style."^246247248

S. Cyril himself says that he undertook the work with reluctance, but that the homilies were written in a popular and attractive style and were full of heavy accusations against the doctrines of the truth, and left him no choice. Nestorius is not named in it. Hence it has been inferred that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus. Photius notices that 'in the first book, he refutes six heads of the blasphemies of Nestorius; in the second, 14; in the third, 6; in the fourth and fifth, 7 each.' He adds that 'his mode of interpretation is framed according to his wonted way of expression, yet brought down to a lower style.'^246247248

Photius says the Scholia contain much that is useful. St. Cyril, with his customary simplicity, describes them as brief expositions of the dispensation of Christ, very good and useful. A modern writer says the value of the work can be inferred from the fact that almost every later writer who used Cyril's authority to explain the mystery of the Incarnation included at least one passage from the Scholia. This work was also quoted, along with two other passages of St. Cyril, among the testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers that were attached to St. Leo's Epistle to the Emperor Leo. It concluded the collection presented to the Council of Chalcedon, and then came the acclamations: Eternal be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught alike. It is even quoted by Theodoret along with sayings of nineteen other fathers as proof that the Saints distinguished the natures (physeis) after the union. He cites three passages from it, two from Cyril's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, one from the Epistle to Nestorius, one from the defense against the Easterns, and two more that cannot be identified. The Scholia are also quoted repeatedly by Facundus, Leontius of Byzantium, and St. Ephrem of Antioch. They not only quote it as St. Cyril's but also confirm the faith by citing testimonies from it.^{249250251252253254255256257258259260}

ii. The Scholia are said by Photius to 'contain much which is useful.' S. Cyril, with his wonted simplicity, speaks of them as ' brief expositions of the dispensation of Christ, very good and useful.' A modern writer says, ' The value of the work may be inferred from this, that scarce any subsequent writer, who employed the authority of Cyril in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, failed to take a passage or more from the Scholia.' This work also was quoted, with two other passages of S. Cyril, among the testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers, appended to the Epistle of S. Leo to the Emperor Leo. It closed the collection laid before the Council of Chalcedon and then ensued the acclamations, 'Eternal be the memory of Cyril.—-Leo and Cyril taught alike.' It is quoted even by Theodoret with sayings of 19 other fathers, in proof that 'Saints distinguished the Natures after the Union.' He alleges three places from it, two from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, one from the Epistle to Nestorius, one from the defence against the Easterns, and two more not identified. The Scholia are quoted also by Facundus, Leontius of Byzantium, and S. Ephrem of Antioch repeatedly. They not only quote it as S. Cyril's, but confirm the faith by testimonies from it.^{249250251252253254255256257258259260}

It was translated into Latin by Marius Mercator, a contemporary of S. Cyril. It also exists in a Syriac translation, which my son used occasionally to correct or clarify Mercator's Latin text.

It was translated into Latin by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator. It is extant also in a Syriac translation, from which my son, here and there, corrected or explained the Latin text of Mercator.

Garnier comments on the careful organization that St. Cyril used in constructing this work. He first explains individual terms: what is Christ; what is Emmanuel; what is Jesus; what is One; what is Union. Then he addresses the statements commonly used about these terms and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel is One; Jesus is One—that is, One Lord, and so forth. Further, he examines how the Word is said to have been "emptied," united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not thereby changed or ceasing to be God. From there, he shows how Christ is not a man who is Theophoros (bearing God) or inspired by God, but is truly God-Man. Then he explains in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos (God-bearer). Finally, he shows that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh, is called God and Man, and how He suffered. In this last section he refutes those who assume that things belonging to man can be spoken of God only in a relative sense. I have already said that nearly every chapter is full of distinctions useful for countering the objections of heretics. Photius divides the work into ten topics. He said these things are clearly explained in it: What is Christ; in what way the word "Emmanuel" is to be understood, and what is "Jesus the Christ"; and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we mean by the Union, and about the coal that Isaiah saw, and other similar matters.²⁶¹

Garnier remarks upon the careful arrangement which S. Cyril employed in its construction. 'He first explains single words; what is Christ; what, Emmanuel; what, Jesus; what, One; what, Union. Then, he turns to the propositions, commonly used herein, and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel, One; Jesus, One; i.e. One Lord, &c. Further, how the Word is said to have been 'emptied,' united with the flesh, made Man, and yet not therefore changed, or ceasing to be God. Thence, how Christ is not a man Θεοφόρος, [bearing God,] or inspired by God, but is really man-God [better, God-Man]; then, in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos. Lastly, that the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh is called God and Man; how He suffered: in which last he refutes those who suppose, that things belonging to man can be spoken of God, relatively only. I have already said, that almost every chapter is full of distinctions useful in turning aside the objections of heretics.' Photius divides it into ten heads; ' These things,' he said, 'are clearly explained in it; What is Christ; in what way the word 'Emmanuel' is to be understood, and what is 'Jesus the Christ;' and in what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we say is the Union, and about the coal which Elias saw, and other things like these.'²⁶¹

That Christ is One. This treatise must have been written after Nestorius was condemned, since he is refuted by name in it. However, it must have been written no later than A.D. 441, since Andrew of Samosata quotes it. It is quoted with praise by S. Eulogius and Leontius of Byzantium. Father Garnier says of it: "Cyril wrote nothing more precise and carefully worked out concerning the history of the doctrine, so that the work appears to be that of a craftsman thoroughly trained by his previous labors."^262263264

iii. That Christ is One. The treatise must have been written after the condemnation of Nestorius, since he is refuted by name in it. It must, however, have been written not later than A. D. 441, since it is quoted by Andrew of Samosata. It is quoted with praise by S. Eulogius and Leontius of Byzantium… The Père Garnier says of it; ' Eo nihil exactius elucubratiusque ad historiam dogmatis Cyrillus scripsit, ut videatur opus artificis praecedentibus laboribus absolute eruditi.'^262263264

Cyril wrote the three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and the one against the Synousiastae (those who hold a particular Christological position associated with Apollinarius) at a later time. This was when the writings of Nestorius had been condemned, and supporters of Nestorian views turned instead to the works of Diodore and Theodore, who were the actual founders of Nestorianism. The fragments have been carefully gathered from every source known up to this point. Some were readily available, having been collected for the Fifth Ecumenical Council and included in its official records. Others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in his defense of the Council of Chalcedon, which still exists in manuscript form in both Syriac and Greek at Venice and at Cairo, where my son saw it. Still others were collected by Severus of Antioch. The sources from which these excerpts are taken are indicated in the notes. The original texts, as they exist in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of fragments attached to my son's third volume of Cyril's Commentary on John. This is the most complete collection in existence.²⁶⁵²⁶⁶

iv. S. Cyril wrote the three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and that against the Synousiastae or Apollinarians at a later period, when, the writings of Nestorius being proscribed, Nestorianisers betook themselves to those of Diodore and Theodore, the real originators of Nestorianism. The fragments have been collected with great pains from every source, hitherto known. Some were ready at hand, having been collected for the 5th General Council, and embodied in its Acts; others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in his defence of the Council of Chalcedon, which is still extant in MS., in Syriac and in Greek at Venice and at Cairo (where my son saw it); others by Severus of Antioch. The sources, whence the extracts are derived, are mentioned in the notes. The originals, as extant in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of Fragments appended to my son's third volume of S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John. It is the completest collection extant.²⁶⁵²⁶⁶

Saint Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection between the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker almost reached. At my request, in his constant filial love, my son took as the central work of his life to make the text of his works as accurate as it could be made. For this purpose he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Mount Athos, Cairo, Mount Sinai, and applied to this work his knowledge of Syriac, which he had perfected with another goal in mind that I had suggested to him: the re-editing of that now much undervalued critical authority, the Peshitta. Almighty God chose to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his Preface to his volume I have clarified anything regarding the self-forgetful, God-devoted character of my early benefactor, Saint Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and Who took away.

S. Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection of the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker all but reached. It was at my wish that, in his uniform filial love, my son took as the central work of his life, to make the text of his works as exact as it could be made. For this he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Mt. Athos, Cairo, Mt. Sinai, and applied to this the knowledge of Syriac, which he had perfected in view of another object which I had suggested to him, the re-editing of that now much undervalued Critical authority, the Peshito. Almighty God was pleased to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his Preface to his volume I have cleared any thing as to the self-forgetful, God-devoted character of my early Benefactor, S. Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and Who took away.

E. B. P.

E. B. P.

CHRISTMAS EVE, 1881.

C HRISTMAS E VE, 1881.

Those who want to study the holy Scriptures and who drive away laziness in doing so, and instead thirst to master them, and apply themselves energetically and without any laziness—such people will possess every good thing, because they fill their minds with the divine light. Then, applying it to the teachings of the Church, they readily accept everything that is correct and pure, and store it in the hidden treasures of their souls. They rejoice as much in what they have gathered through their desire for knowledge as worldly people do in endlessly collecting Indian gems or gold—or rather, even more. For wisdom is better than costly stones, and no precious thing is worthy to be compared with her, as it is written. I say that those who are wise and prudent and skilled in the divine teachings ought to remember what was profitably written by one of the holy disciples: "Brethren, try the spirits whether they be of God." And the divine Paul says that the saints have been given discernment of spirits.

THOSE who wish to explore the holy Scripture and who drive away negligence in doing so, and thirst rather for the attainment thereof, and apply themselves vigorously and apart from all sloth—-the being in every good shall be their's, for they fill their mind with the Divine Light: and then applying it to the doctrines of the Church, they admit every thing that is right and unadulterate, and that most readily, and lay it up in the hidden treasures of their soul, and rejoice as much in what they in their desire of knowledge have collected, as others who are worldly, in insatiably collecting Indian gems or gold, yea rather, yet more: for wisdom is better than costly stones, and every precious thing is not worthy of her, as it is written. For I say that they who are wise and prudent and skilled in the Divine doctrines, ought to remember what has been profitably written by one of the holy Disciples, Brethren try the spirits whether they he of God. And the Divine Paul says that to the saints has been given discerning of spirits.

Those who say "Lord Jesus" will say it only through the Holy Spirit, while those who out of ignorance let loose a contradictory tongue against them, and think wrongly where others think rightly, practically say "Jesus is Anathema"—they will do so from Beelzebub. We must therefore study to examine all things carefully and thoroughly and with an alert mind, search through the writings of certain people, and test skillfully what words they use concerning Christ the Savior of us all. We should imitate, and correctly so, the most approved and experienced money changers, who accept proven coins and diligently reject the counterfeit and faulty ones. The blessed Paul invites us to this, saying: "Be skillful bankers, prove all things, hold fast that which is good, abstain from every form of evil." It is also in other ways completely disgraceful and unseemly that in the affairs of this life we should be seen sparing nothing that leads to profit, and rather make it important to aim and strive after those things by which we may live splendidly, yet neglect such sacred things and count the salvation of the soul as nothing, but let it sink down in pits and swamps. Sometimes we expose our mind—not vigilant for the truth, nor choosing to search diligently what is the true and profitable meaning of what has been read, what is the perverted meaning that oversteps accuracy in doctrine and causes loss in the soul that looks to it—to the mere pleasure of those who choose to say what they ought not. Yet for those who are perfect in understanding, nothing is equal in value to the soul.¹

For the one who say Lord Jesus, will say it none otherwise than through the Holy Ghost: and they who out of unlearning let loose a contradicting tongue against them, and wherein those think rightly, these all but say Jesus Anathema, from Beelzebub will they do so. We must then studying to prove all things subtilly and in a finished manner and with mind awake, light on the writings of certain, and test skillfully what words they use of Christ the Saviour of us all, and imitate, and that aright, the most approved and experienced of money dealers, who admit proved coin, and diligently reject the counterfeit and amiss. And to this the blessed Paul invites us saying, Be ye skilful bankers, prove all things, hold fast that which is good, abstain from every form of evil. And it is in other ways also all-disgraceful and unseemly, that in the affairs of this life we should be seen no whit sparing of what conduceth to profit, but rather make it of moment to aim and strive after those things whereby we may live splendidly, and neglect things so sacred and count for nothing the salvation of the soul, but let it sink down in pits and swamps, sometimes exposing unto the mere pleasure of those who choose to say what they ought not, our mind, not vigilant for the truth, nor choosing to search diligently what is the true and profitable meaning of what has been read, what the perverted one and that outsteps accuracy in doctrine and works loss in the soul that looks to it. Yet to the soul is there nought equal in value in their sight who are perfect in understanding.¹

We must therefore examine very carefully writings on divine doctrines, and if any should agree with the sacred Scriptures and advance clearly along their most unerring path, let us also acclaim it with testimony to its orthodoxy. But if it fashions its language in a cold, wandering, and faulty way—or rather, in a way that brings destruction to its readers—let it hear from every mouth: "You are uttering and telling us another error."

We must try therefore and that most straitly, writings on the Divine doctrines, and if any should go along with the sacred Scriptures and speed its clear and most unerring way therein, let it be acclaimed by us too with testimonies to its orthodoxy: but if it form its language cold and astray and amiss, yea rather giver of destruction to the readers, let it hear from every mouth, But ye are uttering and telling us another error.

Therefore, either let them make the tree good and its fruit good, or let them make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt. For the good man brings forth good things from the good treasure of his heart, and the evil man brings forth evil things from the evil treasure of his heart, according to the truthful word of the Savior. For the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelieving heretics, so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should not shine on them, and they have been deceived in many ways. For some—wretched people!—say that the Word who came forth from God the Father is lesser than the One who begot Him, and they have not hesitated to assign to Him a measure that is foreign and fitting only for a slave. Others, sharpening their unholy and unrestrained mouths against the Holy Spirit, rightly hear the Prophet say, "But draw near here, you ungodly sons, seed of adulterers and the whore; against whom did you amuse yourselves? Against whom did you open your mouth, and against whom did you let loose your tongue? Are you not children of destruction, a lawless seed?" But these shall walk in their own light and find the flames they themselves kindled. For us whose concern is orthodoxy, it is fitting that we should give a wise and accurate account of each of the divine doctrines and should avoid the charges from their unbridled mouths, lest in any way stumbling and sinning against the brethren and wounding their weak conscience, we sin against Christ. Let us therefore listen to Him who says, "If the enemy had reproached Me, I could have borne it, and if he who hated Me had spoken proudly against Me, I would have hidden Myself from him, but you, a man My intimate, My guide and My friend, who shared sweet food together with Me—in the house of God we walked in harmony." But let these things fall upon the heads of the enemy who war against the glory of our Savior and consider blasphemy against Him to be their delicate food. For us it is fitting and necessary, as I said, that we who are zealous to appreciate those things that please Him should not follow doctrine that is alien to truth or that diverges in any other direction and tends toward decay, but rather that which is for the good of our flock and is crowned by the Truth itself with testimonies to its correctness.²

Therefore either let them make the tree good and his fruit good, or let them make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bring eth forth evil things, according to the unlying word of the Saviour. For the god of this world blinded the understandings of the unbelieving heretics, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should shine: and they have been deceived manifoldly. For some (miserable!) say that the Word sprung of God the Father is lesser than He that begot Him, and have not shuddered at apportioning to Him an alien and slave-befitting measure; others, whetting against the Holy Ghost their unholy and intemperate mouth, do rightly hear the Prophet say, But draw YE near hither, ungodly sons, seed of the adulterers and the whore, against Whom did ye sport yourselves? and against Whom opened ye your mouth and on Whom let loose your tongue? are YE not children of destruction, a lawless seed? But these shall walk in their own light and find the flames that themselves kindled: for us whose care is orthodoxy, it is meet that we should give a wise and accurate account of each of the Divine doctrines and should shun the charges [put forth by] their unbridled mouth, lest in ought stumbling and sinning against the brethren and wounding their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, Let us therefore hearken unto Him Who saith, If the enemy had reproached Me, I could have borne it, and if he that hated Me had spoken proudly against Me, I would have hid Myself from him, but THOU, a man Mine intimate, My guide and My friend, who sweetenedst food together with Me, in the house of God we went in harmony. But let these things go upon the heads of the enemy, who war against the glory of our Saviour, and esteem blasphemy against Him, their delicate meat: for us it is meet and necessary (as I said) that we, zealous to savour those things that please Him, should not follow [doctrine] which is alien from truth or which diverges in any other direction, and tends to decay, [but follow] that which is for the good of our flock and is crowned by the Truth itself with testimonies to its rightness.²

I say this because I have come across a certain book compiled by someone, containing a large collection of homilies arranged in an orderly and systematic way, with everything needed for the reader. If the author had said something that would simply fade into forgetfulness and come to nothing, I would have considered it my duty both to remain silent myself and to advise others to do the same, so that these carelessly and thoughtlessly spoken things would not become known to many others and to future generations. But since a multitude of blasphemies has been heaped into this book and a serious accusation has been made, barking against the doctrines of the truth, how could we not prepare ourselves for combat and fight on behalf of its readers, so they may not be harmed by it, but rather know how to bravely repel the damage from what is wrongly said? For the divine John was called by Christ the Savior of us all the Son of Thunder, and with good reason, because he practically sounded forth over everything under heaven and thundered across the earth, uttering something vast and immense. He makes known very clearly the truly awesome and mighty mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, for he said: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made. But when he had provided accurate and complete instruction and declared that the Only-Begotten, being God and ineffably begotten of God by physis, is Maker and Creator of all things, then—at that point—he at last begins to explain the wise plan that was carried out for our sake and on our behalf, and says: And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us (and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. He said that the Word was flesh, showing the force of the true union, that is, understood as one of prosopon, and by saying that He tabernacled among us, he does not allow us to think that the Word who is from God by physis passed into flesh which is from the earth. For someone not thoroughly precise about what the divine physis that surpasses everything created is might suppose that it was perhaps capable of change and could become indifferent to its own essentially inherent goods, and change into something other than what it is, and be brought down to the level of creation, unexpectedly subjected to changes and alterations. But that this is utterly impossible (for the physis of God is established and has unshaken stability in what it is), he has testified by saying that the Word tabernacled among us, although made flesh. In this way he both skillfully explains the wisdom of the plan and carefully guards against anyone accusing the physis of the Word as though it had become flesh by change and transformation.

And this I say having met with a certain book compiled by some one, having a large collection of homilies, orderly and systematically arranged and in no wise lacking in due appliances for the reader. And if ought had been said by its author, which by passing into forgetfulness should come to nought, I would have deemed it a duty both myself to hold my peace and to counsel others to do the same; lest things so unmeetly and unheedfully said should become known to many others, and to those after us. But since a multitude of blasphemies has been heaped into this book and some great accusation has been made, baying against the doctrines of the truth, how was it not necessary that we in turn should (so to say) strip for combat and should fight in behalf of its readers, that they may not take harm thence, but may rather know how to repulse bravely the damage from what is unrightly said? For the Divine John was called by Christ the Saviour of us all the Son of thunder, and with reason, for that he well-nigh sounded forth o'er all beneath the heaven and thundered over the earth, uttering something vast and immense. For he makes known full well the truly dread and mighty Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten: for he said, In the, beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made. But when he had made accurate and complete initiation, and declared that the Only-Begotten being God and ineffably begotten of God by Nature, is Maker and Creator of all things; then, then, in fit season, does he at length begin the allwise economy that for our sakes and in our behalf was wrought, and says, And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled in us (and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. For he said that the Word was flesh, shewing the force of the true union, i.e., understood as one "of Person:" and by saying that He tabernacled in us, he does not allow us to conceive that the Word which is out of God by Nature passed into flesh which is of the earth. For one not thoroughly exact as to what the Divine Nature Which surpasses every thing generate is, might (I suppose) have deemed that It was haply recipient of change and could become regardless of Its own Essentially-accruing goods, and change (so to say) into something other than what It is, and be brought down to the measures of the creation, subjected in unlooked-for way to changes and alterations. But that this is utterly impossible (for the Nature of God is stablished and hath unshaken abidance in that wherein it is), he hath testified saying, that the Word tabernacled in us, albeit made flesh: both skilfully explaining the wisdom of the Economy and guarding full well that the Nature of the Word be not accused by any as though It had become flesh by change and turning aside.

We ourselves therefore say, following the intent of the inspired writers and in no way transgressing the definition of the Faith, that He Who is out of God by Nature, the Only-Begotten, He Who is in the Bosom of the Father, He through Whom are all things and in Whom all things exist—though He had His own existence before every age and time and eternally coexisted with Him Who begot Him—descended to voluntary emptiness in the last times of the world and took the servant's form. That is, He became Man according to the economy and was made like His brothers in all things by sharing similarly in blood and flesh. Thus He underwent birth with us and like us, and took into Himself the coming into being of His own flesh. He did this not because He needed a second beginning of existence (for the Word was in the beginning and was God), but so that He might gather together the human race, becoming a second first-fruits of all things after that first one, born according to the flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For though He was rich, He became poor, bringing us again to His own wealth and having all things in Himself through the flesh which was united to Him. For thus we have been buried with Christ through Holy Baptism, have been raised and made to sit with Him in heavenly places. For so has written the steward of His mysteries, the herald and Apostle, and minister of the Gospel oracles, the most wise Paul. Therefore, both for the faith of the Mystery and for its exact demonstration, the fact of true union—I mean according to prosopon—is necessary, so that the mode of generation according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten may be without blame. He was not called to a second existence (for He Himself is the Maker of the worlds, as I said), but lowered Himself according to the economy to manhood for our sakes, and did not despise the laws of human nature but chose rather to have as His own, together with the flesh, the fleshly generation as well. Therefore we say that He Who eternally coexists with the Father was born according to the flesh. For thus He condemned sin in the flesh and has brought to nothing the power of death in us, being made as we are, though He knew no sin, He in Whom we live and move and are.³

We ourselves too then say, tracking the aim of the inspired, and in no way outstepping the definition of the Faith, that He Who is out of God by Nature, the Only-Begotten, He Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He through Whom are all things and in Whom all things, albeit having before every age and time His Own Existence, and ever co-existing with Him Who begot Him, descended unto voluntary emptiness in the last times of the world, and took the servant's form, i.e., became in our condition and Man economically, and was made like in all things unto His brethren, by partaking similarly of blood and flesh, and that He thus underwent birth with us and like us, and took into Himself the passing into being of His own Flesh, not as needing a second beginning unto being (for the Word was in the beginning and was God) but, that He might gather together the human race, a second first-fruits of all things after that first one, born after the flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For so being Rich, became He poor, bringing us again unto His own wealth and having all in Himself through the flesh which was united to Him. For thus have we been buried with Christ through Holy Baptism, have been raised and made to sit with Him in heavenly places. For so hath written the steward of His mysteries, the herald and Apostle, and minister of the Gospel oracles, the most wise Paul. Necessary therefore, alike to the faith of the Mystery and to the exact demonstration thereof, is the fact of true Union, I mean of Person, that the mode of generation according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten may be without blame, Who was (as I said) called to no second existence (for Himself is the Maker of the worlds), but lowered Himself economically to manhood for our sakes, and despised not the laws of human nature but chose rather to have as His own together with the flesh the fleshly generation too. Therefore do we say that He was born after the flesh Who is ever Co-existent with the Father. For thus condemned He sin in the flesh and He hath brought to nought the might of death in us, made as we, Who knew no sin, in Whom we live and move and are.³

But some people—I don't know how—distort the most sacred beauty of the Church's teachings and disfigure the holy and all-pure Virgin, dragging her down to the unseemly corruption of their own ideas and arming themselves against us with a multitude of newfangled inventions. For they accuse the word Mother of God, which the holy fathers before us constructed for the holy Virgin, as something illegitimate and improper—indeed as going beyond all fitting language. They split apart and divide into two separate sons the One Lord Jesus Christ, and they strip away from God the Word the sufferings of the Flesh. Yet even we have not said that He suffered in His own physis as God, but rather we attribute to Him along with the Flesh the sufferings that happened to the Flesh, so that He too may be confessed to be Savior (for by His stripes we were healed, as it is written, and He was wounded for our transgressions, though He did not receive any wound as suffering). And we have been saved by His undergoing death for us through His own Body.

But some (I know not how) wrong the most sacred beauty of the dogmas of the Church and wrinkle the holy and all-pure Virgin, bringing her down to the unseemly rottenness of their own ideas and arming against us a multitude of new-fangled inventions. For they accuse, as something bastard and uncomely, yea rather as going beyond all fit language, the word Mother of God, which the holy fathers before us have constructed for the holy Virgin; and sunder, dividing into two several sons, the One Lord Jesus Christ, and take away from God the Word the sufferings of the Flesh, though not even we have said that He suffered in His own Nature, as God, but we attribute rather to Him along with the Flesh the Sufferings also that befel the Flesh, that He too may be confessed to be Saviour (for with His stripes were WE healed, as it is written, and He has been wounded for our transgressions, albeit not recipient of suffering any wound): and WE have been saved by His undergoing death for us through His own Body.

I will now try to demonstrate clearly what I said, because I am going to read the words of the person who compiled this book, beginning with those statements he made attacking the word Mother of God in no uncertain terms. But since he repeatedly goes through the same arguments, and we must necessarily address the same ideas repeatedly, please forgive us—we are not repeating ourselves by choice, but we have decided that wherever his arguments are aimed, we too must oppose them. He spoke as follows, degrading the title of the Holy Virgin, namely Mother of God:

But I will essay to demonstrate clearly what I said, for I will now read the words of him who has compiled this book, and first of all those which he made, inveighing in no slight terms against the word Mother of God. But since he repeatedly goes through the same words, and it is necessary that we should repeatedly go through the same ideas, pardon (I pray) pardon us who do not wilfully repeat ourselves but have resolved that in whatever direction the aim of his words goes off, thither we too ought to oppose. He then spake thus, debasing the title of the Holy Virgin, I mean Mother of God:

Nestorius says: "I often asked them" (that is, those who oppose him) "do you claim that the Godhead was born from the holy Virgin? They immediately draw back from such a statement: Who (says one) is so afflicted with such extreme blasphemy as to say that in her who bore the temple by the Spirit, God was formed in her? Then when I respond to this, What then is improper in what WE say when we advise fleeing from that word and adopting the common expression that refers to both natures? It seems to them that what is said is blasphemy. Either clearly admit that the Godhead was born from the blessed Mary, or if you reject this expression as blasphemy, why do you, while saying the same thing as I do, pretend that you are not saying it?"

Nestorius. "I often (he says) asked them" (i. e., those who contradict him) "do you say that the Godhead has been begotten of the holy Virgin? They straightway recoil at the saying: who (says one) is sick of such exceeding blasphemy, as to say that in her who bare the temple by the Spirit, in her was God formed? then when I reply to this, What then that is incongruous do WE say in advising to flee the word, and come to the common phrase significant of the two natures? then seems it to them that what is said is blasphemy. Either clearly acknowledge that the Godhead has been born of the blessed Mary, or if you flee this expression as blasphemy, why saying the same as I, dost thou feign thou sayest it not?"

Those who think contrary to what you yourself said and think it good (I don't know how) to hold this position have been clearly testified to by your own mouth as having a right and most accurate opinion regarding Christ the Savior of us all, and as holding in their mind the faith that was delivered to the churches by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and priests of our Mysteries and faithful stewards. For they shake off (and most rightly so) as a clear proof of both ignorance and extreme impiety the mere idea that the Word from God the Father has been called to a second beginning of being or took flesh from the holy Virgin as a foundation of His own existence. Still, they call her Mother of God, since she bore Emmanuel, who is by physis God. For the Word has been made with us, being God by physis and above us. Do they therefore say things contrary to what they think? For someone who thinks as you do will probably say, "If you say that the physis of the Word is not offspring of the flesh, and free yourself from this charge, how do you affirm that the holy Virgin bore God?" But you in turn will hear from us: The God-inspired Scripture says that the Word from God the Father was made Flesh, that is, was without confusion and personally united to flesh. For the Body that was united to Him and born of a woman is not alien to Him, but just as each of us has his own body, in this same way the Body of the Only Begotten is His own and no one else's, for in this way He was also born according to the flesh. Then how, tell me, would He have been made Flesh, unless He had received birth from a woman, since the laws of human nature called Him to this, and bodily existence could have its beginning in no other way? For we will not, I suppose, pay attention to the fantasies of the Greeks and imagine like them that human bodies are born from oak or rock. But the laws of nature were set for us, or rather by nature's Creator, for just as the offspring of each existing thing belongs to its kind, so too with ourselves, and it could not be otherwise. For nothing at all that the Divine and Ineffable Power wills to accomplish is impossible for It, yet It proceeds through what befits the physis of existing things, not dishonoring the laws It has set for Itself. And it would not have been impossible for the Word who can do all things, having determined for our sakes to become as we are, to refuse birth from a woman and to fashion a body for Himself from outside by His own Power, just as we say was done in the case of our forefather Adam, for God took, it says, dust from the ground and formed man. But since this would give occasion to the unbelievers who desire to accuse the Mystery of the Incarnation, and especially to the unholy Manichees (whom you say repeatedly that you fear lest they attack those who call the holy Virgin Mother of God, as though they were affirming that the Incarnation of the Word existed in mere appearance), He necessarily proceeded through the laws of human nature. And since His aim was to assure everyone that He has truly become Man, He took hold of the seed of Abraham, and with the blessed Virgin being the means to this end, He took part like us in blood and flesh, for in this way and no other could He become God with us. The Incarnation or taking human nature by the Word was most necessary in another way too for those on earth. For if He had not been born as we are according to the flesh, if He had not taken part like us in the same nature, He would not have freed human nature from the blame contracted in Adam, nor would He have driven away from our bodies the decay, nor would the power of the curse that we say came upon the first woman have ceased, for it was said to her, "In sorrows you shall bring forth children."

They therefore who think contrary to what yourself said and think good (I know not how) to hold, these have been clearly testified to by your own mouth as having a right and most unerring opinion in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, and as holding with their mind the faith which they had delivered to the churches which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word and priests of our Mysteries and faithful stewards. For they shake off (and that most rightly) as a patent proof of unlearning alike and extremest impiety, the mere imagining that the Word from forth God the Father has been called unto a second beginning of being or took flesh of the holy Virgin as a root of His own existence: still they call her Mother of God, as having borne Immanuel Who is by Nature God: for the Word has been made with us, being God by Nature and above us. Do they therefore say contrary to what they think? For some one of those who think with thee will (I suppose) say, "If thou say that the Nature of the Word is not Offspring of the flesh, and free thyself from this charge, how dost thou affirm that the holy Virgin bare God?" But thou in turn wilt hear from us, The God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God the Father was made Flesh, i. e., was without confusion and Personally united to flesh: for not alien to Him is the Body which was united to Him and born of a woman, but as with each of us his body is his own, in this same way is the Body of the Only Begotten His own and none other's: for thus was He also born according to the flesh. Then how (tell me) would He have been made Flesh, except He had received birth of a woman, the laws of human nature calling Him thereto, and bodily existence being able no otherwise to have its beginning? For not (I suppose) giving heed to the juggleries of the Greeks, shall we too romance that the bodies of men are born of oak or rock: but our laws nature set us, yea rather nature's Creator, for as of each of existing things is the kin to it born, so of ourselves too, and no otherwise (how could it be?) For nought at all of what It willeth to accomplish is impracticable to the Divine and Ineffable Power, yet doth It proceed through what befits the nature of things that are, not dishonouring the laws set by Itself. And it were not impracticable to the Word That can do all things, having determined indeed for our sakes to become as we, yet to refuse the birth of a woman, and from without to fashion to Himself a body by His own Power, just as we say was done in the case of our forefather, Adam: for God took (it says) dust of the ground and formed man. But since this were occasion to the unbelievers who desire to accuse the Mystery of the Incarnation, and (before all) to the unholy Manichees, whom thou sayest over and over that thou fearest lest they should spring upon those who call the holy Virgin Mother of God, as though they were affirming that the Incarnation of the Word existed in mere phantasy; needs did He progress through the laws of human nature, and since His aim was to assure all that He hath become truly Man, He took hold of the seed of Abraham, and the blessed Virgin being the mean to this same end, He took part like us in blood and flesh; for so and no otherwise could He become God with us. Most needful in another way too unto those on the earth was the Incarnation or Inhumanation of the Word. For if He had not been born as we according to the flesh, if He had not taken part like us of the same, He would not have freed the nature of man from the blame [contracted] in Adam, nor would He have driven away from our bodies the decay, nor would the might of the curse have ceased which we say came on the first woman; for it was said to her, In sorrows shalt thou bring forth children.

But human nature fell into the disease of disobedience in Adam, yet it has now been vindicated in Christ through complete obedience. For it is written, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." In Adam it suffered, "Dust you are and to dust you shall return," but in Christ it gained the riches of being able to overcome the struggles of death and, so to speak, to triumph over decay, saying those words of the Prophet, "O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting?" It became accursed, as I said, but in Christ this too was abolished. And truly it has been said somewhere to the holy Virgin, with Elizabeth prophesying in the Spirit, "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Sin reigned over us and the inventor and father of sins behaved arrogantly over all under the skies, holding against them the transgression of the divine laws. But in Christ we see human nature, as in a second firstfruits of our race, having confidence before God. For He said clearly, "The prince of this world comes, and in me he will find nothing."

But the nature of man hath fallen into the disease of disobedience in Adam, it has become now approved in Christ through the utter obedience: for it is written. As by one mail's disobedience many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. For in Adam hath it suffered, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, in Christ hath it gained the riches of being able to be superior to the toils of death, and (so to say) to exult over decay, saying those words of the Prophet, O death, where thy victory? o grave, where thy sting? it became accursed, as I said, but in Christ was this too brought to nought. And verily it has been said somewhere to the holy Virgin, Elizabeth prophesying in spirit, Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Sin hath reigned over us and the inventor and father of sins behaved himself proudly over all beneath the skies, objecting [to them] the transgression of the Divine Laws: but in Christ we see the nature of man, as in a second firstfruits of our race, having confidence with God. For He said clearly, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me shall find nothing.

But, good sir (I would reasonably say), if the Only-Begotten had not become as we are—and He became as we are in no other way than through birth in the flesh from a woman—we would not have been enriched with what is His. As the most wise Paul writes to us, Emmanuel the second Adam appeared to us not from the earth like the first, but from heaven. For the Word who is from above and from the Father came down not into the flesh of any particular person nor into alien flesh (as I already said), nor did He descend upon any one of those like us to dwell in him, as He did in the Prophets. Rather, having made His own the body that came from a woman and was born from her according to the flesh, He gathered up human birth through Himself, having been made as we are according to the flesh, He who is from the Father before all ages. The divine Scriptures delivered this confession of faith to us. But you pretend to fear that any of us might suppose the Word begotten of God had the beginning of His existence from earthly flesh. You completely remove the mystery of the Economy with flesh, saying that the holy Virgin ought not to be called by us Mother of God. You redirect those who call her Mother of God toward an inevitable confession, one that would require them to suppose that the Word from God became the product of flesh. But this is not so—far from it. For He who has His existence from God the Father before all time (for He is the Maker of the ages), in the last times of the age, since He became flesh, is said to have been begotten according to the flesh. For if the body is understood as His own, how will He not wholly and entirely claim as His own the birth of His own body? Yes, you yourself would have approved the right and undefiled faith of those who hold this position, if you would have persuaded yourself to reason and to confess that Christ is truly God, the one and only Son of God the Father, not divided into man separately and likewise into God, but the same—both Word from God the Father and man from woman as we are, while He remains God.

But, good sir (would I with reason say) except the Only-Begotten had become as we, had become as we no otherwise than by means of birth in the flesh from forth a woman, WE had not been enriched with what is His. For as the most wise Paul writeth to us, Emmanuel the second Adam hath appeared to us, not from the earth like the first, but from Heaven. For the Word That is from above and from forth the Father hath come down not into the flesh of any one nor into alien flesh (as I already said), nor again hath He descended upon any one of those like us to dwell in him, as He was in the Prophets; but having made His own the body which was from forth a woman and born from her after the Flesh, He gathered up man's birth through Himself, made as we after the flesh, Who is before all ages from the Father. This confession of faith the Divine Scriptures delivered to us. But THOU feignest to fear lest any of us should suppose that the Word Begotten of God had the beginning of His Being from earthly flesh: thou takest away utterly the Mystery of the Economy with flesh, saying that the holy Virgin ought not to be called by us Mother of God: thou turnest round those who call her Mother of God unto a confession inevitable and as of necessity, of supposing that the Word out of God became fruit of flesh. But it is not so, far from it. For He That hath His Being of God the Father before all time (for He is the Framer of the ages), in the last times of the age, since He became Flesh, is said to have been begotten after the flesh. For if the Body is conceived of as His own, how will He not wholly and entirely appropriate the birth of His own Body? Yea yourself too would have approved the right and undefiled faith of these who thus hold, if you would have persuaded yourself to reason and to confess that Christ is truly God, the One and Only of God the Father, not severed into man separately and likewise into God, but the Same, both Word out of God the Father and Man out of woman as we, while He abideth God.

But the fact that you condemn the Birth according to the flesh of the Word, declaring in every way two sons and dividing the One Lord Jesus Christ, will be shown not by my words but by your own.

But that thou dost accuse the Birth after the flesh of the Word, every way declaring two sons and dividing the One Lord Jesus Christ, shall be shewn not by my words but by thine own.

Nestorius: "Look at what follows, heretic. I do not begrudge calling the Virgin 'mother of Christ,' but I know that she is august—she who received God, through whom the Lord of all passed, and through whom the Sun of righteousness shone forth. Again I suspect your applause: how did you understand 'passed through'? I have not said 'passed through' in the sense of 'born,' for I do not forget my own words so quickly. Divine Scripture taught me that God passed through from the Virgin mother of Christ; nowhere was I taught that God was born from her." And after more: "Therefore Divine Scripture never says that God was born of the mother of Christ, but that Jesus, Christ, Son, Lord, was so born."

Nestorius: "Look what follows, heretic. I grudge not the word to the Virgin mother-of-Christ, but I know that she is august who received God, through whom the Lord of all passed, and through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed. Again I suspect your applause: how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through, in the sense of born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words: that God passed through from out the Virgin mother of Christ was I taught by the Divine Scripture, that God was born from her, was I nowhere taught." And after more; "Never therefore does the Divine Scripture say that God was born of the mother of Christ, but that Jesus, Christ, Son, Lord, [was so born]."

And to this he adds that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, as he supposes, putting forward the Angel's voice saying to blessed Joseph, "Arise, take the young child," and says that the Angels too, though wiser than we, knew that He was a child.

And hereto he subjoins that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, as he supposes, putting forward the Angel's voice saying to blessed Joseph, Arise take the young child, and says that the Angels too, though wiser than we, knew that He was a child.

In this passage, he labels as a heretic the person who holds the correct and admirable faith about Christ and who, because Christ is truly God, calls the one who bore Him the mother of God. But it will be clear to anyone who thinks correctly that he himself is the one who, while pinning the accusation of heresy on those who choose to believe rightly, is demonstrating the ugliness of his own words and has almost openly admitted that he is straying from the straight path and making crooked roads. Next, how is it (tell me) that you do not begrudge this title to the holy Virgin, even though you take away the dignity of the Divine Birth and say that she is not Mother of God? You debase the expression and claim that it is full of blasphemy, yet how do you tell those who wish to do so to apply it to the holy Virgin (though I hear you call her august)? And then you consider this blasphemous word (as you alone think it is) suitable to honor the most august one, and you pretend to crown her, placing around her as some special honor a slander against God the Word? For if it is completely repugnant to the Word who proceeds from God to undergo fleshly birth, and you permit her who did not bear God to be called Mother of God, is it not accurate to say that you have openly despised the Lord's will? Will you not be caught insulting the august one rather than (as you suppose and claim) choosing to honor her, by assigning to her a name that is hateful to God? For we do not give to those we intend to honor names by which the glory of the Supreme Nature is dishonored, since first of all we will unwittingly be involving ourselves in the charge of such impiety, and second we will do them no small wrong, adorning as if in honor those we praise with what is no praise, and fashioning for them a tribute that is hateful to God.

Herein therefore he stiles heretic him who holds the right and admirable faith about Christ, and who since He is truly God, calls her mother of God who bare Him. But there will be no doubt to any of those who think aright, that it is himself who, fastening the blame of heresies on them who choose to deem aright, is establishing the unbeauty of his own words, and has all but confessed openly that he is being borne outside of the straight way, and is making crooked paths. Next how (tell me) do you not grudge this title to the holy Virgin, albeit you take away the dignity of the Divine Birth, and say that she is not Mother of God? but debasing the expression and affirming that it is full of blasphemy, how do you bid those who so will, to apply it to the holy Virgin (though I hear you call her august)? and then deem the so blasphemous word (as you alone think it) meet to adorn the most august one, and you feign to crown her, putting about her as some choice honour, a calumny against God the Word? For if it be wholly abhorrent to the Word Who is sprung of God to endure fleshly birth and you permit her who did not bear God to be called Mother of God, is it not true to say that you have openly depised the Lord's will? will you not be caught insulting rather the august one, than (as you suppose and say) electing to honour her, by allotting to her a name hated of God? For not to those whom we determine to honour [do] we give names whereby the glory of the Supreme Nature is dishonoured, first of all we shall unawares be involving our own selves in the charge of such impiety, next we shall do them no slight wrong, decking as if in honour those we praise with what is no praise, and weaving for them a laudation hated of God.

One may also marvel at this: you strike out in all directions at the words of the unholy heretics and refuse to allow them to prevail, because they take away the truth of the divine doctrines. Yet you then assign no small blame to the term Mother of God and accuse it, among other things, of being untrue and impious. Then you say that you pardon it and will not begrudge it to the Virgin, even if someone should choose to call her Mother of God. Will you then also permit those who are infected with the madness of Arius to say that the Son is inferior to the Father? Or again, will you permit the rest who drag down the physis of the Holy Spirit from its God-befitting excellence? But you would not choose to do this. And if anyone wants to learn why, you will surely say, I suppose, that you cannot endure a blasphemous word. Therefore, if she is not Mother of God, and you permit this to be said, know that you are abandoning the truth and care little about still appearing wise. For do you not say that Elizabeth or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? Will you then not begrudge it if anyone chooses to call them mothers of God as well? But I suppose you will surely and utterly oppose them and say, This is not so, for they bore sanctified men, and none among them was God by physis. Therefore either drive this away from every woman, or if you allow the holy Virgin alone among all to have it, what words will you use for your defense? For if it is true of her and she has truly borne God, in that the Word of God has been made flesh, confess this with us, and you will free yourself from the charge of impiety. But if she has not borne God, to permit anyone to call her Mother of God is to share in their impiety. But she is Mother of God, because the Only-Begotten has been made man as we are, united in truth to flesh, and undergoing fleshly birth without dishonoring the laws of our nature, as I said before.

One may moreover marvel at this too: that striking right and left at the words of the unholy heretics and in no wise allowing them to prevail, because they take away the truth of the Divine doctrines, next allotting no slight blame to the word Mother of God and accusing it amongst other things as untrue and impious, you said that you pardon it and will not grudge it to the Virgin even if one should choose to call her Mother of God. Will you permit it therefore to those too who are diseased with the madness of Arius, to say that the Son is inferior to the Father? or again to the rest who bring down the Nature of the Holy Ghost from its God-befitting excellency? But you would not choose to do this; and if any one desire to learn why, you will (I suppose) surely say, I do not endure a blasphemous word. Hence if she be not Mother of God, and you permit this to be said, know that you are deserting the truth, and reck little about any longer appearing wise. For do you not say that Elisabeth too or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? will you then not grudge it, if any one choose to call them too mothers of God? But I suppose that you will surely and utterly withstand them and say, This is not so; for they bare sanctified men and none among them was God by Nature. Hence either drive away this from every woman; or if you allow the holy Virgin alone among all to have it, what words will you use for your defence? For if it be true of her and she has truly borne God, in that the Word of God has been made flesh, confess this with us, and you will free yourself from the charge of impiety: but if she hath not borne God, to permit any to call her Mother of God is to partake of their impiety. But she is Mother of God, because the Only-Begotten has been made man as we, united of a truth to flesh, and enduring fleshly birth and not dishonouring the laws of our nature, as I said before.

But since he says that he knows that she, meaning the holy Virgin, is august, come I pray come let us consider the reason too for the reverence that was shown to her: "for I know (he says) that she is august, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed." How then do you say that she received God? Or in what way did the Lord of all pass through her? Or how did the Sun of righteousness beam? For if she has not borne God—in the flesh I mean—how did she receive God? How did He pass through her? But perhaps you will speak this clever word of yours as you think and dare to say it: "The Word was God both connected with man and indwelling him." But the tradition of the faith stands ready against your words on this matter. We have been taught to worship no God-bearing man, but God Incarnate. But you do not speak this way. How then do you not see that you are babbling and falsely representing the truth that is in the divine teachings? For the Word has been made flesh. How did you now say that she received God unless you have believed that she has borne Emmanuel who is God by nature (physis)? How did the Lord of all pass through her and how did the Sun of righteousness beam? And who is he that you think fit to embellish with such names? Is he a common man, like one of us, yet hallowed because he has the Word of God indwelling? Then how will such a one be Lord of all, and Sun of righteousness? For the power of lordship and dominion over all and of illumining things possessing intelligence will not pertain to our measures, but will be attributed to the Supreme and Most High Nature alone.⁴

But since he says that he knows that she, i.e. the holy Virgin, is august, come I pray come let us consider the reason too of the reverence that was done her: "for I know (he says) that she is august, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed." How then do you say that she received God? or in what way did the Lord of all pass through her? or how beamed the Sun of righteousness? For if she hath not borne God, after the flesh I mean, how received she God? how passed He through her? But haply you will say this wise word of yours as you think and dare to speak it " The Word was God both connected with man and indwelling him." But the tradition of the faith makes itself ready against your words as to this, No God-bearing man, but God Incarnate have we been taught to worship: but not so speakest THOU: how then do you not see that you are babbling and falsely marking the truth that is in the Divine dogmas? For the Word has been made flesh. How did you now say that she received God except you have believed that she hath borne Emmanuel Who is God by Nature? how passed the Lord of all through her and how beamed the Sun of righteousness? And who is he that you think fit to embellish by such names? is he a common man, like one of us, yet hallowed, as having the Word of God indwelling? Then how will such an one be Lord of all, and Sun of righteousness? For the power of lordship and dominion over all and of illumining things possessing intelligence, will pertain not to our measures, but will be attributed to the Supreme and Most High Nature alone.⁴

But since you have taken the phrase "passed through" (I don't know from where) and applied it to God, explain what this phrase means. It will be up to your wisdom to tell those of us who don't know what this "passing through" actually signifies. If the Word of God passed through her in the sense of moving from one place to another, you immediately degrade Him, because you will hear Him saying through the voice of the saints, "Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?" The Godhead does not exist in physical space and does not undergo bodily changes of location, for it fills all things. But if, while waiting for the proper time of birth, He temporarily dwelt in human nature, and you therefore say that God passed through or made passage through the holy Virgin (I will use all your holy words), then we see nothing more in the holy Virgin than in other women. For Elizabeth bore the blessed Baptist, who had been sanctified through the Spirit, through whom the Son Himself also dwells in us. And the wise John will testify, saying, "By this we know that He is in us, because He gave us of His Spirit." Therefore the Word of God passed through Elizabeth as well, dwelling in the child through the Spirit even before his birth.

But since taking (I know not whence) the word passed through, you have applied it to God, explain the word; the meaning of the passage through here spoken of, will belong to your wisdom to tell us who know it not. For if the Word of God so passed through her, as to pass from one place to another, you cast Him down forthwith; for you will hear Him saying by the voice of the saints, Do not I fill Heaven and earth saith the Lord? For not in place is the Godhead nor knoweth It bodily changes of place, for it filleth all things. But if while awaiting the fit period of birth, He made an incidental indwelling in man, and so you say that God made passage through the holy Virgin, or passed through her (for I will use in all thy holy words): we see nought in the holy Virgin more than in other women. For Elisabeth bare the blessed Baptist who had been hallowed through the Spirit through Whom the Son Himself also makes His abode in us. And the wise John will witness saying, Hereby know we that He is in us, because He gave us of His Spirit. The Word of God therefore passed through Elisabeth herself too, indwelling in the babe through the Spirit even before its birth.

But you feel suspicious of the applause as though it came to you from the people for having chosen to speak rightly? For having called Him who was born of the holy Virgin "Sun of righteousness" and "Lord of all"? You then again pretend to speak with precision, and find fault with the applause, and accuse those who are rejoicing over you of not having understood. What great power there is in your words! You have made no delay in frustrating them where it was needed; you turned their joy into mourning at once, you tore away their rejoicing and clothed them with sackcloth, immediately adding, "Again I suspect your applause. How did you understand 'passed through'? I have not said 'passed through' in the sense of 'was born,' for I do not forget my own words so quickly. That God passed through from out of the Virgin Mother of Christ, I was taught by the Divine Scriptures; that God was born of her, I was nowhere taught."

But you feel suspicious of the applause as though it came to you from the people for having chosen to speak right things? for having called Him Who was born of the holy Virgin Sun of righteousness and Lord of all; you then again feign to speak with precision, and find fault with the applause, and accuse again those who are rejoicing over you of not having understood. O great strength which is in your words! you have made no delay in the needed vexing of them, you turned straightway their joy into mourning, you rent off their rejoicing and girt them with sackcloth, straightway adding, "Again I suspect your applause, how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through in the sense of was born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words. That God passed through from out the Virgin Mother of Christ, was I taught by the Divine Scriptures, that God was born of her, was I nowhere taught."

Those are your perverted statements. The applause came from love, because your thinking had some appearance of orthodoxy. But I will press on no less and say: What does "passed through" mean, if not birth? Will you claim that the Word from God Himself, by Himself and apart from flesh, hastened through the Virgin? Yet how would this not be completely foolish? For it would be necessary to assume that the Godhead was capable of receiving quantity and of movement from one place to another. Or if the Godhead is without body, unlimited and everywhere, and not in a place or confined by boundaries, how will it pass through a single body? But whatever you are saying, why do you not need to clarify it and speak more plainly, if you are confident in your own views about it and able to testify to their soundness? Where, I ask, have you heard the divinely inspired Scripture say that the Word of God passed through the holy Virgin? For the blessed David taught that the life of those on earth is brief and limited, saying, "Man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourishes; for the wind passes through him and he shall not be." But what thing of this sort can you say has been written about the holy Virgin? That God has been born of her—in the flesh, I mean—divinely inspired Scripture has clearly shown.

Those therefore are thy perverted sayings; the applause was of love, in that your mind had some guise of orthodoxy. But I will press on now too no less and say, What is passed through, if it mean not birth? will you say that the Word out of God Himself by Himself and apart from flesh hastened through the Virgin? yet how would not this be replete with all folly? For it would be necessary to suppose that the Godhead were recipient of quantity, and of movement which bears from one place to another; or if the Godhead be unembodied, at large and everywhere, and not in place and circumscript, how will it pass through a single body? But whatever it be that you are saying, how do you not need to clear it up and say it more openly, if confident in your own opinions about it, you are able to testify to their incorruption? where (I pray) have you heard the God-inspired Scripture say that the Word of God passed through the holy Virgin? For that brief and contracted is the life of those upon earth, the blessed David taught saying, Man, I his days as grass, as a flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth through him and he shall not be, but of the holy Virgin what thing of this sort can you say has been written? That God has been born of her, after the flesh I mean, God-inspired Scripture has clearly shewn.

But I will turn again to your own words, most excellent one, for you yourself have also confessed, and very often at that, that the Word has been made Flesh, and you do not reject this. You say this as well, for you say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten was clearly and openly Incarnate. You have written in this manner,

But I will go again to your own words, O all-excellent, for you have yourself too confessed and this most often that the Word has been made Flesh, and you reject it not. And this too you say besides: for you say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten was clearly and openly Incarnate. You have written in this wise,

Nestorius: "So Scripture says elsewhere too, 'He spoke to us in His Son Whom He appointed Heir of all things through Whom also He made the worlds, Who being the Brightness of His Glory.' After using the word 'Son,' it fearlessly calls Him both 'Brightness of His Glory' and 'appointed Heir'—Heir appointed according to the Flesh, Brightness of the Father's Glory according to the Godhead, for when He became flesh He did not depart from likeness to the Father. And in addition it says again, 'For the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all people to repent, because He fixed a Day in which He will judge the world by the Man Whom He appointed, having given assurance to all people in that He raised Him from the dead.' Having first said 'By the Man,' Paul then adds 'In that He raised Him from the dead,' so that no one might suppose that the Godhead Incarnate had died."⁵

Nestorius: "Thus it says elsewhere too, He spoke to us in His Son Whom He appointed Heir of all things through Whom also He made the worlds, Who being the Brightness of His Glory: having put Son, it calls Him fearlessly both Brightness of His Glory, and appointed Heir; Heir, appointed after the Flesh, Brightness of the Father's Glory after the Godhead: for He departed not, made flesh, from likeness to the Father. And in addition it again says thus, for the times of ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men to repent, because He fixed a Day in which He will judge the world by the Man Whom He appointed, having given assurance unto all men in that He raised Him from the dead. Having first said, By the Man, he then adds, In that He raised Him from the dead, that no one might suppose that the Godhead Incarnate had died."⁵

Who then is He Who was Incarnate, or in what way was He incarnate, what Godhead was incarnate—tell us, most excellent sir, who would learn it. Shall we grant that the Word, God out of God, was Incarnate, and say that He was made Man, having been made as we are and born in flesh? Or shall we not allow this at all, but suppose that a man came into existence, connected with God, according to your view? But you will, I suppose, say that it is better and wiser to think that the Word out of God was Incarnate and made flesh, according to the Scriptures. For one is not seen assuming that wherein one already is, but if one comes somehow to be in that wherein one was not at first, reason will immediately admit that something new has been done regarding him. Therefore it is ignorant to say that any of us, having stepped out of the boundaries of human nature, have been incarnate and been made flesh. But the Incarnation, or being made flesh, will suit (and that very reasonably) the Nature that is beyond humanity. But if He was truly Incarnate and has been made flesh, He is recognized as Man, and not connected with a man by mere indwelling or external relation or connection, as you say. Yet even though He became Man, He possesses the being God in complete security, nor do we say that any change took place of the flesh into the Nature of Godhead, and we hold that the reverse did not take place either, for the physis of the Word has remained what it is even when united to flesh. Why then do you put in your book something that no one even in bare thought thinks of holding, as though it were actually spoken, and pretend to be defending the doctrines of piety? For some of the holy fathers have also used the term mixture, but since you say you are afraid lest any confusion be thought to take place, as in the case of liquids mingled with one another, I free you from your fears. For they did not think this way—how could they?—but they used the word improperly, wanting to declare the extreme union of the things that had come together. And we say that the Word of God came together with His proper Flesh in union indissoluble and unalterable. And we find that the God-inspired Scripture itself does not examine the word closely, but uses it rather improperly and simply. And indeed the Divine Paul has written of some, "But the word preached did not profit them, who were not mixed in faith with its hearers." Were those of whom he spoke going to be mixed with one another in this fashion, as wine with water, and undergo a confusion of persons? Or were they rather to be united in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, "And of the multitude of them that believed was the heart and the soul one"? But this, I suppose, is the truth, not the other. Be free then from all fear on this matter, for the mind of the saints is firmly established.

Who then is He Who was Incarnate, or in what way was He incarnate, what Godhead was incarnate, tell (O most excellent sir) to us who would learn it. Shall we grant that the Word, God out of God, was Incarnate, and say that He was made Man, as having been made as we and born in flesh? or shall we allow this in no wise, but suppose that a man came hereto, connected with God, according to thee? But you will (I suppose) say, that it is better and wise to think that the Word out of God was Incarnate and made flesh, according to the Scriptures: for one is not I suppose seen assuming that wherein one is, but if one come somehow to be in that wherein one was not at first, reason will forthwith admit that something new has been wrought regarding him. Hence it is unlearned to say that any of us having stepped forth of the definitions of human nature have been incarnate and been made flesh; but the Incarnation, or being made flesh, will beseem (and that with much reason) the Nature That is beyond humanity. But if He was truly Incarnate and has been made flesh, He is accredited as Man, and not connected with a man, by mere indwelling or external relation or connection, as you say. Yet even though He became Man, He possesseth the being God in all security, nor do we say that any change took place of the flesh into the Nature of Godhead, and we hold that neither did the reverse take place, for the nature of the Word hath remained what it is even when united to flesh. What no one therefore even in bare idea thinks of holding, why do you putting this in your book, as though actually uttered, pretend to be contending for the doctrines of piety? For the name mixture, some of the holy fathers too have put: but since you say that you are afraid lest any confusion be deemed to take place, as in the case of liquids mingled with one another, I rid you from your fears, for not so did they deem (how could they?) but they used the word improperly, anxious to declare the extreme union of the things that had come together; and we say that the Word of God came together with His proper Flesh, in union indissoluble and unalterable. And we find that the God-inspired Scripture itself too, does not look minutely into the word, but uses it rather improperly and simply. And verily the Divine Paul hath written of some, But the Word preached did not profit them, who wore not mixed in faith with its hearers. Were they of whom he spoke going to be mixed one with another, after this fashion, as wine with water, and to undergo a confusion of persons, or were they rather to be united in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, And of the multitude of them that believed was the heart and the soul one? But this I suppose is the truth, not the other. Be free then from all fear on this score, for firmly established is the mind of the saints.

But since to say that the physis of the Word was Incarnate is (I believe) nothing other than to hold that It has been made Man and not without birth from a woman (for this is the only way that the physis of human bodies knows of), how were you not taught by the God-inspired Scripture about the Birth according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten? Yet you yourself too, when the prophetic lessons were before you, "Unto us a Child was born, unto us a Son was given," say this about the Child who was born: "Great is the mystery of the gift, for this is the Babe Who is seen, this the newborn That appears, this that needed bodily swaddling bands, this the just-born according to the ousia (essence) that is seen, in the hidden part Everlasting Son, Son Creator of all, Son Who by the swaddling-bands of His own aid binds the instability of the creation." And elsewhere again, "And the Babe is God All-free, so far removed is God the Word, O Arius, from being subject to God." In these words he called even the body connected with Him God. And again, "We recognize therefore the human physis of the Babe and His Godhead, we preserve the oneness of the Sonship in the physis of manhood and Godhead." Look here with complete clarity you say that the Babe, the just-born, the visible, the newborn, the swaddled, is Son and Creator of all; and the Babe the holy Virgin has borne to us. You know therefore that God has been born according to the flesh, and this you have learned from the God-inspired Scripture. For who will be conceived to be Creator of all, except He alone through Whom the Father has made all?

But since to say that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate is (I deem) nought else than to hold that It has been made Man and not without birth of woman (for this only way does the nature of human bodies know of), how were you not taught by the God-inspired Scripture the Birth after the flesh of the Only-Begotten? albeit yourself too, when the prophetic lessons were before you, Unto us a Child was horn, unto us a Son was given, say thus of the Child that was born, " Great the mystery of the gift, for this is the Babe That is seen, this the new-born That appears, this that needed bodily swaddling bands, this the just-born after the Essence that is seen, in the hidden part Everlasting Son, Son Creator of all, Son Who by the swaddling-bands of His own aid binds the instability of the creation. " And elsewhere again, " And the Babe is God All-free, so far removed is God the Word, O Arius, from being subject to God." In which words he styled even the body connected with Him God. And again, We recognise therefore the human nature of the Babe and His Godhead, we preserve the oneness of the Sonship in the nature of manhood and Godhead. " Lo here with all clearness you say that the Babe, the just-born, the visible, the new-born, the swaddled, is Son and Creator of all; and the Babe the holy Virgin hath borne to us. You know therefore that God has been born after the flesh, and this you have learnt out of the God-inspired Scripture. For who will be conceived to be Creator of all, save He alone through Whom the Father hath made all?

But I said (you will perhaps say) "in the secret part Son and Creator of all." Well, I agree, but I will ask you: You say that the hidden one is the Word of God and that this is the Creator of all. How then did you just now point out with your finger the infant just born, newborn and in swaddling clothes, and call this same one both Son of God and Creator of all? Or do you perhaps suppose that the Word out of God has been transformed into the physis of the flesh, and thereby accuse yourself, not others, of daring to say this? Surely if the infant is the hidden Son and Creator of all, and has been born of the holy Virgin, you have acknowledged with us even against your will that she is Mother of God in some unexpected way, since how is an infant God all-free? For if you use the word "all-free" in the sense in which each one of us too may be so conceived, as entrusted by God with the reins of his own free will, what is there special in him beyond the rest? Or why do you attribute to him this freedom as some God-befitting and truly exceptional dignity? Yet it is in the power of all upon the earth to possess it, and indeed they already have it. But if freedom here signifies not being subject to the laws of another, and he is free in the way that the Divine Nature itself is also conceived of, how do you say that the newborn infant is in a condition so august and befitting only the Supreme Nature and glory? Yet everything that is called into being is subject to God and runs under the yoke of bondage. But you will perhaps think that empty word of yours suffices for all this—that I mean in respect of the physeis being connected one with another, and that not personally but rather in honor unvarying in each and equality of rank. For this is what you are always saying to us without learning. But that in saying such things you will be caught relying upon rotten and fragile conceptions will be shown, and not at great length, when opportunity arises for us to speak upon this too.⁶

But I said (you will haply say) " in the secret part Son and Creator of all." Well, I agree, but I will ask you: You say that the hidden is the Word of God and that this is the Creator of all: how then did you but now point out as with your finger the Babe just-born and new-born and in swaddling clothes, and called this same both Son of God and Creator of all? or do you haply suppose that the Word out of God has been transformed into the nature of the flesh, and accuse yourself, not others, of daring to say this? Surely if the Babe be the hidden Son and Creator of all, and have been born of the holy Virgin, you have acknowledged with us even against your will that she is Mother of God in some unlooked-for way, since how is a babe God all-free? For if you use the word, all-free, in the sense in which each one of us too may be so conceived, as entrusted by God with the reins of his own free-will, what is there special in Him beyond the rest? or why do you put about Him the freedom, as some God-befitting and truly choice Dignity? albeit it is in the power of all upon the earth to possess it and indeed they already have it. But if the freedom here signify the being not subject to the laws of another, and He be free in such sort as the Divine Nature itself too is conceived of, how do you say that the new-born Babe is in case so august and befitting only the Supreme Nature and glory? albeit that all which is called into being is subject unto God and runs under the yoke of bondage. But you will perchance deem that that empty word of yours suffices unto all this, that I mean in respect of the natures being connected one with another, and that, not Personally, but rather in honour unvarying [in each] and equality of rank: for this is what you are always unlearnedly saying to us. But that in saying such things, you will be caught to be staying yourself upon rotten and fragile conceptions, will be shewn and not at length, when opportunity offers to us to speak upon this too.⁶

But after these points he adds some others by which he thinks he can demonstrate—and skillfully at that—that a mode of generation like ours is unfitting and impossible. And he arrays our words against himself, and thinks he can easily overpower them and show that they are nothing, even though they set forth the truth. He says this:

But to these he subjoins some others by which he deems that he can shew and that skillfully that the mode of a generation like ours is unmeet and impossible. And our words he arrays against himself, and deems that he can over-master them easily and shew that they are nothing although they set forth the truth. He says thus:

Nestorius says: "If Christ is God, and Christ was born of the blessed Mary, how is the Virgin not the mother of God?" I am not hiding any of their objections, because the lover of truth considers and objects to himself everything that comes from falsehood. Then he tries to provide a solution using ideas like these. He says: "The baby is formed in the womb, but as long as it has not yet been formed, it has no soul. Once it is formed, God gives it a soul. Just as a woman bears the body and God gives it a soul, the woman is not called mother of the soul just because she bore a human being endowed with a soul, but rather mother of the human being. In the same way," he says, "the blessed Virgin, even though she bore a human being with the Word of God passing forth along with him"—this was the word he used—"is not therefore mother of God."⁷

Nestorius: "'If Christ (says he) be God, and Christ be born of the blessed Mary, how is not the Virgin mother of God?' I hide none of their objections: for the lover of the truth takes and objects to himself all that comes of the falsehood;" and then he endeavours to apply the solution, using some such conceptions as these. " For the babe (he says) is formed in the womb, but so long as it have not yet been formed, it hath no soul, but being formed at length, it has a soul made it of God. As then the woman bears the body, God ensouls it, and the woman is not called mother of soul, because she bare a man endowed with soul, but rather mother of man, so (he says) the blessed Virgin too, even though she have borne a man, the Word of God passing forth along with him" (for this word did he use) "not therefore is she mother of God."⁷

Is therefore (tell me) what we say blamed by you? Does it seem right to you to find fault without understanding what is said so rightly and purely, and do you not rather attribute the blame of not being able to think correctly to your own understanding? For those to whom the truth is repugnant will too readily be receptive to what is false, and the rebuke of those who are accustomed to speak most excellently will not be without harm. Indeed, it will even be a clear demonstration of having declined into falsehood and of choosing to honor what it would be more right to hate, since one has missed right reason. But no man, having conceived of such base things…, he said that he himself was the lover of truth and that we had contrived the lie, although one may see on the contrary that ours is right and true. For the advocate of lies and fraud tries to fasten the blame of his falsehood on the champions of truth, perhaps driven to forgetfulness of the Prophet who says, "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness."⁸

Is therefore (tell me) that blamed by you which is said by us? does it seem right to you without understanding to find fault with what is so rightly and purely said, and do you not rather attach the blame of not being able to think aright to your own understanding? For they to whom the truth is repugnant, to them will belong (and too readily) the receptivity of what is not so, and the rebuke of those who are wont to speak most excellently, will not be without its harm, yea rather will be even a manifest demonstration of the having declined unto falsehood and of choosing to honour what it would be more right to hate, in that one has missed of right reason. But no man, having conceived of things so base…, he said that himself was the lover of the truth, and that we had contrived the lie; albeit one may see on the contrary that ours is right and true. For the advocate of the lie and fraud endeavours to fasten the blame of his falsehood on the champions of the truth, haply driven to forgetfulness of the Prophet who says, Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness.⁸

But I will try to show by the example he used that he doesn't even clearly know what he is saying. For flesh is admittedly born of flesh, and the Creator of all things performs the ensouling in the manner and way that He knows. Yet the woman who gives birth, even though she is the source of the flesh only, is believed to give birth to the whole man, composed (I mean) of soul and body, although she contributes nothing of her own to the existence of the soul. Yet when someone says "man," one surely means the soul united to the body. Therefore, just as the woman, even though she gives birth to the body alone, is said to give birth to one who is made up of soul and body, and this in no way damages the understanding of the soul, as though it found the origin of its existence in flesh—so too should you think about the blessed Virgin. For even though she is mother of the holy Flesh, she has nevertheless given birth to God the Word from God truly united to it, and though anyone may call her Mother of God, he will not be defining a more recent beginning for God the Word, nor claiming that the flesh has been made the starting point of His existence. Rather, he will understand the manner of the economy and, marveling at it, will say, "O Lord, I have heard Your hearing and was afraid; I considered Your works and was astonished."⁹

But I will endeavour to shew by the example adduced by him that he does not even clearly know what he is saying. For flesh confessedly is born of flesh, and the Artificer of all performs the ensouling in the mode and way that He knows. Yet is the woman who bears, albeit she is the source of the flesh only, believed to bear the whole man, made up (I mean) of soul and body, although she contribute nothing of her own to the being of the soul. Yet when one says man, one signifies surely the soul united to the body. As therefore the woman, albeit she bear the body alone, is said to bear him that is made up of soul and body, and this no wise damages the account of the soul, as though it found in flesh the origin of its being; so will you conceive as to the blessed Virgin too: for even though she be mother of the holy Flesh, she hath nevertheless borne God the Word out of God truly united thereto, and though any call her Mother of God, he will not be defining a more recent beginning of God the Word nor that the flesh hath been made the commencement of His Being: but will understand rather the mode of the economy and wondering at it will say, O Lord, I have heard Thy hearing and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was astonished.⁹

But our all-wise and prudent interpreter, having carefully considered the force of the example says, "In the same way, the holy Virgin, even though she has given birth to a man with God the Word passing along with him, is nevertheless not therefore Mother of God. For the Dignity of the Word did not come from the blessed Virgin, but He was God by physis."

Bat our all-wise and prudent expounder, having pondered the force of the example says, "Thus the holy Virgin, too, even though she hath borne man, God the Word passing along with him, yet not therefore is she Mother of God: for not from the blessed Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He was God by Nature."

What therefore he means by saying that the Word passed forth along with the flesh, he alone knows, but I am greatly amazed at his subtle refinement. For the word of truth declares that the Word of God has been personally united to the flesh, yet he keeps insisting on the passing forth along with—meaning something I do not understand. Next, when our entire discussion concerned nature and personal union, and aimed at investigating not what the Word from God is with respect to dignity, but whether He has been made man economically, making His own the flesh born of a woman—he shifts the question to completely different matters and says, "Not from the holy Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He was God by physis," although how are not dignity and physis two entirely different things? But our discussion on this point does not require excessive skill. We must therefore see what comes next. For he fortifies yet another defensive position against what has been said by us, which he thinks is invincible and capable of demonstrating with full force that the birth from a woman of Emmanuel is merely empty talk on our part. He says again as follows:¹⁰

What therefore is the meaning of, that the Word passed forth along with the flesh, he alone knows, but I marvel much at his subtil refinement. For the word of truth sets forth that the Word of God has been Personally united to the Flesh; and he keeps affirming the passing forth along with, meaning I know not what. Next, when our discussion was all about nature and Personal Union, and aimed at enquiring not what the Word out of God is in respect to Dignity, but whether He has been made Man economically, making His own the flesh born of a woman: he removing the question to quite other matters says, "Not from the holy Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He was God by Nature:" albeit how are not Dignity and Nature two entirely different things? But our discourse hereupon does not need overmuch skill 4: we must therefore see what comes next. For he fortifies yet another outpost against what has been said by us, as he thinks invincible and competent to shew with all force that the Birth out of woman of Emmanuel is empty talk of ours: he says again thus,¹⁰

Nestorius: "The blessed John the Baptist is announced beforehand by the holy Angels, saying that the child will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, and having the Holy Spirit, this blessed Baptist was born. What then? Do you call Elizabeth mother of the Spirit? Pay attention here, even though there are some among you who are shocked at what is being said—forgive their lack of experience."

Nestorius: "The blessed John Baptist is fore-heralded by the holy Angels, that the babe shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb, and having the Holy Ghost, was this blessed Baptist born. What then? call you Elizabeth mother of the Spirit? apply your mind here, although there be some among you who are startled at what is said, pardon their inexperience."

And who on hearing such words will not immediately say in the Prophet's voice, "The fool will utter folly and his heart will conceive vanity, to accomplish iniquity and to utter error against the Lord"? For this is admittedly error and nothing else—to trust in such weak and childish thoughts as though they were true. One may marvel at him for his gentleness, since he said that those who had no acquaintance with his words ought to be considered worthy of pardon and mercy. Yet this would be something we ourselves would long for three times over (if it were possible), and indeed all who are Christians would long for it too. For how could everyone not long to be freed from words so burdensome and perverse? But we say this: Elizabeth admittedly bore the blessed Baptist anointed in the womb with the Holy Spirit, and if the God-inspired Scriptures had said anywhere that the Spirit too was made flesh, you would be right to say that she ought to be called by us mother of the Spirit. But if the child is said to have been honored with bare anointing only, why do you think it right to put the fact of incarnation on an equal footing with the grace of participation? For it is not the same thing to say that the Word was made flesh and that one has been anointed through the Spirit with prophetic spirit. For of the holy Virgin it is written, "Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son," and He who is born is called the fruit and moreover Emmanuel, which being interpreted is "God with us." But of Elizabeth, "she shall bear a son who shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, and shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways." By no means therefore is Elizabeth mother of the Spirit, for she bore a prophet of the Most High. But the holy Virgin is truly mother of God, for she has borne carnally—that is, according to the flesh—God united to flesh. For since she is human who bore, therefore and rightly do we say that the mode of generation has been accomplished in human fashion. For in this way and no other way was it possible that He Who is over all nature could become as we are, not ceasing to be what He is (how could He?), but rather remaining what He was and is and will be. For the Divine and Most High Nature is superior to change.¹¹

And who on hearing such words will not straightway say in Prophet's voice, For the fool will utter folly and his heart will conceive vanity, to accomplish iniquity and to utter error against the Lord? For error confessedly is it and nought else, to trust in such frigid and childish thoughts as though they were true. One may then marvel at him for his gentleness, for he said that they ought to be esteemed worthy of pardon and clemency who had no acquaintance with those words of his: yet were it a thing thrice-longed for by us ourselves (if so be), yea rather by all too who are Christians; for how should not all long to be rid from words so burdensome and perverse? But we say this: Elizabeth hath confessedly borne the blessed Baptist anointed in the womb with the Holy Ghost: and if it had been any where said by the God-inspired Scriptures, that the Spirit too was made flesh, rightly would you have said that she ought to be called by us mother of the Spirit; but if the bairn is said to have been honoured with bare anointing only, why deem you it right to put the fact of incarnation on an equal footing with the grace of participation? for it is not the same thing, to say that the Word was made flesh and that one has been anointed through the Spirit with prophetic spirit. For of the holy Virgin it is written, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and He who is born is called the fruit and moreover Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us; but of Elizabeth, she shall bear a son who shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, and shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. By no means therefore is Elizabeth mother of the Spirit, for she bare a prophet of the Highest: but the holy Virgin is truly mother of God, for she hath borne carnally, i. e., according to the flesh, God united to flesh. For since she is human who bare, therefore and rightly do we say that the mode of generation has been wrought in human wise; for thus and no otherwise was it possible that He Who is over all nature could become as we, not slighting the being what He is (how could He?) but rather abiding what He was and is and will be: for superior to change is the Divine and Most High Nature.¹¹

That we think correctly in affirming that God has been born according to the flesh for the salvation of all, God-inspired Scripture has testified. But since he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's Faith with his most novel doctrines—the symbol which the fathers once gathered together at Nicaea defined through the illumination of the Spirit—he fears that some might keep the Faith whole, having been instructed in the truth by their words. So he tries to slander it, alters the meaning of the words, and dares to falsify the very force of its ideas with a counterfeit stamp. For while he himself was using profane babblings in the midst of the Church, a certain man of great piety, though a layman, who possessed no small learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal and cried out sharply that the Word Himself, Who exists before the ages, endured a second generation also—namely, that according to the flesh and from a woman. The people were disturbed at this. The majority and the wiser ones honored him with considerable praise as pious, full of wisdom, and not lacking in doctrinal uprightness, while the rest were enraged against him. Nestorius, interrupting, immediately approved those whom he had destroyed by teaching them his own doctrine, and sharpened his tongue against the man who could not endure his words—and indeed against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written.¹²¹³

That we therefore think aright in affirming that God has been born according to the flesh for the salvation of all,.. God-inspired Scripture hath testified: but since to his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's Faith, which the fathers once gathered together at Nicea through the illumination of the Spirit defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the Truth by their words, endeavours to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words, and dares to coin with false stamp the very force of its ideas. For while himself in the midst of the Church was using profane babblings, a certain man of those who were of great piety and yet among the laity, but who had gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved with fervent and devout zeal and with piercing cry said that the Word Himself Who is before the ages endured a second Generation also, viz., that after the flesh and forth of a woman; the people being disturbed hereat, and the more part and wiser having honoured him with no mean praises, as pious and most full of wisdom and not imparticipate in uprightness of doctrine, the rest being mad against him, he [Nestorius] interrupting, straightway approves those whom by teaching his own he had destroyed, and whets his tongue against him who could not endure his words, yea and against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, as it is written.¹²¹³

Nestorius said: "I rejoice when I see your zeal, but the matter itself clearly refutes what has been said through the pollution of this wretched man. For where there are two births, there are two sons, but the Church knows one Son, Christ the Lord."¹⁴

Nestorius: "For (said he) I rejoice at beholding your zeal; but from the thing itself is a clear confutation of what has been said by the pollution of this wretched man; for whereof the births are two, two sons are they, but the Church knoweth one Son Christ the Lord."¹⁴

Most foolishly, therefore, he puts forward the definition of his ideas on this matter, saying, "for whereof the births are two, two sons are they." But leaving aside for a while his subtle precision on this point, come, let us gather what pertains to accurate investigation for the consideration of the matter. He therefore made it inadmissible to speak of two generations, but says that one ought to be confessed by us, so that we do not conceive of two sons (as though it were necessary, if the births are two, that two sons also should be introduced). Let him come forward and tell us which of the generations he will admit: that before the ages from out the Father, in which the Word was God not yet Incarnate, or this one, recent and out of a woman.¹⁵

Most foolishly therefore put he forth the definition of his ideas on this matter saying, "for whereof the births are two two sons are they." But letting alone for a while his subtil accuracy herein, come, come let us gather what pertains to accurate investigation for the consideration of the matter. He therefore made it inadmissible [to speak of two generations] but says that one ought to be confessed by us, that we conceive not of two sons (as though it were necessary if the births be two, that two sons also should be introduced): let him come forward and tell us which of the generations he will admit, that before the ages from out the Father, wherein the Word was God not yet Incarnate, or this one, recent and out of a woman.¹⁵

If then he says that alone—I mean the one before the ages from the Father—that one alone will be Son who is out of Him by physis and not yet a participant in flesh and blood, then the Mystery of the Incarnation is spoken of in vain (as it seems), and in no way has He emptied Himself or been made in the form of a servant, but has remained as He was, rejecting the true union with flesh even until now. But if the one who is in the last times out of woman shall be called by himself son, and we will admit this one generation—I mean out of woman—then the Word from God the Father has necessarily fallen away from being Son by physis.

If then he say that alone, I mean the one before the ages from out the Father, that one alone will be Son Who is out of Him by Nature and not yet participate of flesh and blood: and vainly (as it seems) is the Mystery of the Incarnation uttered, and in no wise hath He emptied Himself nor been made in servant's form, but hath remained thus, rejecting the true concurrence with flesh even until now. But he who is in the last times out of woman, shall be styled by himself son, and we will admit this one generation, I mean out of woman; needs has the Word out of God the Father fallen away from being by Nature Son.

But the devout person clearly sees the absurdity of such ideas and how severely they swerve toward impiety. So that we may proceed along the royal road, we say that there were two births, yet one Son through both: the Word from God not yet made flesh, and the Same afterwards incarnate and enduring for us the birth of a woman according to the flesh. For if someone said with regard to human beings that two sons must surely be conceived of if we speak of two births, he would speak rightly and it would be true. But since the Mystery of Christ and the mode of the Incarnation follows another path and is not seen in the same way as ours, why does he, looking at our situation and then fixing his mind on what is marvelous and beyond speech, get caught falling into the weakest and most ignorant narrowness of belief? What surprises me is this: while confessing here that the Church knows one Son and adding "the Lord Christ," he has no longer kept to One, for he severs from one another things that are united and sets each apart. He does not ask what the Word is by physis, or what the flesh is, but instead gathers into one, man and God, in equality of glory only, as he supposes—which is something utterly implausible, or rather impossible—and he brings down the pattern of the mystery to uncomeliness. Thus he says:

But the pious man sees full surely the absurdity of such ideas and its exceeding swerving unto impiety. In order then that we may proceed along the royal road, we say. that two were the Births, one the Son through both, the Word out of God not yet made in flesh, the Same afterwards Incarnate and enduring for us the birth of a woman after the flesh. For if one said in regard of men that two sons must surely be conceived of, if we speak of two births, he would say rightly and it would be true; but since the Mystery of Christ and the mode of the Incarnation hath another path, and is not beheld in like wise with what is ours, why is he, looking at our habits, and then fastening his mind on what is marvellous and above speech, caught fall ing into feeblest and unlearned pettiness of belief? What surprises me is this: he confessing herein that the Church knows one Son, and adding, The Lord Christ, hath no longer kept One, for he sunders one from another things united, and putteth each apart, not enquiring what the Word is by Nature, what the flesh also; but gathering rather into one, man and God in equality of glory only, as he deemeth, which is a thing utterly implausible, yea rather impossible, he casts down the scheme of the mystery unto uncomeliness. Thus he saith:

Nestorius: "But we must (since this has now come to mind) recognize that the Synod of Nicaea also nowhere dared to say that God was born of Mary. Instead, it said, 'We believe in One God the Father Almighty and in One Lord Jesus Christ.' Notice that having first used the word Christ, which indicates the two natures (physeis), they did not say 'in one God the Word,' but used the name that signifies both, so that when you hear about death later on, you would not find it strange, so that the words 'crucified' and 'buried' would not strike the ear as if the Godhead suffered these things." Then it continues, "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, begotten from the Father, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, who came down from heaven for our sake, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit. They did not say 'and begotten by the Holy Spirit.'" And he says that the holy fathers, interpreting what "incarnate" means, say "made man." And explaining what "made man" means, he himself said again, "His own physis not undergoing change into flesh, but dwelling in man."

Nestorius: "But we must (for it has now come into my mind) learn that the Synod of Nicea too nowhere durst say that God was born of Mary; for it said, We believe in One God the Father Almighty and in One Lord Jesus Christ. Observe that having first put the word Christ, which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, in one God the Word, but took the name that signifies both, in order that when lower down you hear of death, you think it not strange; in order that the words crucified and buried may not strike the ear as though the Godhead suffered these things." Then it goes on, "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, the Begotten out of the Father, the Consubstantial with the Father, Who came down from the heavens for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the Holy Ghost. They said not, and begotten of the Holy Ghost." And he says that the holy fathers interpreting what is the meaning of Incarnate say, Made Man. And what being made Man means he himself making clear, said again, "His own Nature not undergoing change into flesh, but inhabitation in man. "

Will any Christian tolerate either the delusion found in these words or the impiety of his ideas? To those with truly sound minds, aren't these things obviously absurd and no small outburst of blasphemy against Christ? For he slanders the truth, saying that He is not truly Son, assigning this to another (for "observe," he says, "that having first put the word Christ which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, We believe in One God the Word"). Regarding the name Christ, I will soon examine whether it indicates the two natures or not, but let us focus on what is before us as best we can. For what he babbles forth so absurdly and carelessly is completely intolerable, but one might well say, speaking on behalf of the holy fathers: What are you doing, good sir, directing your crude tongue against holy men, to whom applies what Christ Himself, the Savior of us all, said: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you"? For what have they not conceived of things refined to admirable subtlety? What needful doctrine have they overlooked, or what method of safeguarding neglected? "They have not dared," he says, "insert in their words concerning the Faith that God the Word was born of Mary." If you therefore accuse our predecessors for this reason, and say you are aggrieved because they are not found to use your exact words, then I suppose it is time to accuse along with them the holy Apostles and Evangelists too, for they compiled the books of instruction concerning Christ, yet one will not find them using word for word your expressions. But (if you please) pass this over… but consider instead that they have done well in their explanation of this matter, for faith in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is required of us. But since they say they believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and no other (according to us) is Jesus Christ the Lord than the One who is by nature and truly Son, who shining forth from God and being God the Word has been made Man, by birth (that is) from a woman, how will those who proclaim the manner of the economy not be found also to speak of His birth from a woman according to the flesh? For then truly has the Word who is God and Wisdom and Life and Light, the Son, been named Christ Jesus. It is therefore clear that the time of such naming coincides with the birth, namely through the holy Virgin. That believing in Christ Jesus, we believe in the One who is by nature and truly Son, our faith ascending to the Father through Him, will be evident, since He Himself has proclaimed to the whole world, "He who believes in Me believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me," and "He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me," and again, "Believe in God, and believe in Me." And we do not (I suppose) say that He asks of us two faiths, but rather He teaches that if anyone admits the faith directed toward Him, he has believed in the Father Himself.¹⁶¹⁷

Will any one of those who rank as Christians endure either the infatuation that there is in these words or the impiety of his ideas? To those of really sound mind are not these things a manifest ribaldry, and no mean kind of openmouthedness against Christ? for he slanders the truth, he says that He is not truly Son, allotting this to another (for " observe, he says, that having first put the word Christ which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, We believe in One God the Word)." And as regards the Name, I mean Christ, I will presently enquire whether it be significative of the two Natures or not, but what is before us we will exercise ourselves in, as we can. For in no wise to be borne may those things be that are so absurdly and heedlessly babbled forth by him, but one might (I deem) say, speaking in behalf of the holy fathers, What art thou doing, noble sir, putting forth rude tongue against holy men, to whom will beseem that which was said by Christ Himself the Saviour of us all, It is not YE that speak, but the Spirit of your Father Which speaketh in you? for what has there not been conceived of by them of things exceeding well polished unto an admirable subtilty? what of needful doctrines has been overlooked, or what method of safeguard neglected by them? " They have not dared (he says) insert in their words concerning the Faith that God the Word was born of Mary." If therefore thou for this reason accuse those who have been before us, and sayest thou art aggrieved because they are not found to use thy exact words, it is time (I suppose) to accuse along with them the holy Apostles and Evangelists too, for they have compiled the books of instruction concerning Christ, yet one will not find them using word for word your expressions. But (if it please you) pass this over as……..but consider rather that they have well wrought out their explanation of this matter, for faith in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is exacted of us. But since they say that they believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and none other (according to us) is Jesus Christ the Lord than the One and by Nature and truly Son, Who beaming from out of God and being God the Word has been made Man, by birth (that is) out of woman, how will they who proclaim the mode of the economy not be found to speak also of His Birth of a woman after the flesh? for then in truth has the Word which is God and Wisdom and Life and Light, the Son, been named Christ Jesus. It is manifest therefore that the time of such naming has concurrent with it the Birth, that I mean through the holy-Virgin. That believing on Christ Jesus, we believe in the One and by Nature and truly Son, our faith mounting up unto the Father through Him, will be clear, in that He Himself hath cried aloud to the whole world, He that believeth on Me believeth not on Me but on Him that sent Me, and he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me, and again, Believe on God, and believe on Me. And we do not (I suppose) say that He asks of us two faiths, but rather He teaches that if any admit the faith to Himward, he hath believed on the Father Himself.¹⁶¹⁷

But since (as is likely) he will make use of the shared nature of these names, claiming that Christ and Lord, and indeed Son, are common titles, and will assert that they apply to the Word who came from the Father even when He is thought of as alone and not yet sharing in flesh, and likewise to the Temple born from a virgin, this matter requires (I think) considerable investigation. Setting it aside for now until a time (as I said) that properly belongs to it, let us move to another statement of the holy Synod which this man, twisting it to suit his own preference, does violence to the force of truth. For he says that the fathers have written, "We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, begotten from the Father, consubstantial with the Father, who came down for our sake, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit." He adds to this and says of the holy fathers, "Later on they explain that He who was made man is the one who is said to be incarnate, the divine physis not undergoing change into flesh but dwelling in man." In his explanation he again holds to the same view and moreover says this:

But since (as is probable) he will be making use of the community of the names, saying that Christ and Lord, yea and Son, are common titles, and will be affirming that they suit the Word That sprung of the Father even though He be conceived of as alone and not yet participate of flesh, and likewise the Temple that sprang of a virgin, this matter needs (I think) considerable investigation: putting it off' for the present to a season (as I said) fitly belonging to it, let us go to another utterance of the holy Synod which this man perverting unto his own liking, does violence to the force of truth. For he says that the fathers have written, We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Begotten from forth the Father, the Consubstantial with the Father, Who came down for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the Holy Ghost. He adds hereto and says of che holy fathers, " lower down they interpret that He who was made man, He it is who is said to be Incarnate, the Divine Nature not enduring change into flesh but inhabitation in man." In his explanation he again keeps hold of the same mind and moreover says thus;

Nestorius: "They followed the Evangelist, because the Evangelist also, when he came to the becoming man, avoided saying 'Birth' with respect to God the Word, and used 'Incarnation' instead. Where? Listen: 'And the Word was made flesh.' He did not say, 'Was born through the flesh.' When the Apostles or the Evangelists mention the Son, they say that He was born of a woman. Pay attention to what is being said, I beg you. When they speak the name of the Son and say that He was brought forth from a woman, they use the word 'Born.' But when they mention the Word, none of them dared to speak of birth through the human nature. For the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came to the Word and to His Incarnation, listen to what he says: 'The Word was made flesh.'"

Nestorius: "They followed the Evangelist, for the Evangelist too when he comes to the being made man, shunned saying Birth in respect of God the Word, and hath put Incarnation. Where? Hear, And the Word was made flesh; he said not, Was born through the flesh. For where the Apostles or the Evangelists make mention of the Son, they put that He was born of a woman. Give heed to what is said, I beseech you; for where they utter the name of the Son, and that He was borne from forth a woman, they put the word, Born; where they mention the Word, no one of them durst speak of birth through the human nature. For the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came to the Word and to His Incarnation, hear what he says, The Word was made flesh."

Come then, let us place side by side what he said and the definition of our Creed, and see whether this man has introduced any innovation regarding it as well.

Come therefore putting beside what he said, the definition of our Creed, let us see if ought has been innovated by this man regarding it too.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from his ousia, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth. He came down for us men and for our salvation, and was incarnate and made man, suffered and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.

W E BELIEVE IN ONE G OD THE F ATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, AND IN ONE LORD J ESUS C HRIST, THE SON OF G OD, BEGOTTEN OUT OF THE F ATHER, ONLY-BEGOTTEN THAT IS OUT OF HIS ESSENCE, G OD OUT OF G OD LIGHT OUT OF LIGHT VERY G OD OUT OF VERY G OD, BEGOTTEN NOT MADE, CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE F ATHER, THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, BOTH THOSE IN HEAVEN AND THOSE ON EARTH: WHO FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION CAME DOWN AND WAS INCARNATE AND MADE MAN, SUFFERED AND ROSE THE THIRD DAY, ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS, COMETH TO JUDGE QUICK AND DEAD, AND IN THE HOLY GHOST.

Come now, good sir, where (tell me) have they placed the Son, who was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary? But this he cannot show at all. But consider this: They say that the Word out of God, the Only-Begotten, He who is from the ousia of the Father, He through whom all things were made, the very Light, was both incarnate and made man, suffered and rose, and also that He will come again in due time as Judge.¹⁸

Come now therefore, noble sir, where (tell me) have they put of the Son, Incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary? but this he can by no means shew. But consider this. They say that the Word out of God, the Only-Begotten, He That is from forth the Essence of the Father, He through Whom are all things, the Very Light, was both incarnate and made man, suffered and rose, and too, that He will in season come again the Judge.¹⁸

But in order to subject his words to careful examination and see the extent of the ignorance in them, he affirms in plain terms that they say the Word out of God was both incarnate and made man, and he approves them with his vote as speaking the truth and saying what was fitting. So tell me, when they say that He was both incarnate and made man, do they mean anything other than that He was begotten according to the flesh? For this would be the only mode of incarnation for one who exists both outside of flesh and in his proper nature. No one would say (I suppose) that flesh has been made flesh, nor will anyone be made what he already was. But if one should conceive that a certain economic change has been made regarding him toward something else which he was not, then the expression will have great fitness. Therefore, if they say that the Only-Begotten has been incarnate, and this would be accomplished (I suppose) through fleshly generation and in no other way, how have they not plainly said that the Word, being God, has been begotten according to the flesh?

But in order that submitting to accurate scrutiny his words also, we may see what is the amount of the unlearning that is in them, he affirms in plain terms that they say that the Word out of God was both incarnate and made man, and he crowns them with his vote unto their truth as saying what was convenient. Do they therefore (tell me) in saying that He was both Incarnate and made Man mean ought else than that He was begotten after the flesh? for this would be (and alone) the mode of incarnation to one who has his existence both external to flesh and in his proper nature; for no one would say (I suppose) that flesh has been made flesh nor will any one be made what he was [already]. But if one should conceive a certain economic change to have been made regarding him unto somewhat else which he was not, the expression will then have great fitness. Hence if they say that the Only-Begotten has been Incarnate, and this would be wrought (I suppose) through fleshly generation and in no other way, how have they not plainly said that the Word being God has been begotten after the flesh?

But he says the Birth is not named in plain terms. Yes, but the nature of the thing knows (as I already said) no other way of being incarnate. So even though it is not stated in plain terms in matters of this kind, we will not abandon the only way recognized by nature and go off to another. For it is written in the Book of Genesis, "And to Seth there was made a son, and he called his name Enos." Should we then, because Scripture has used "was made," refuse to admit the mode of birth? How would that not be foolish? For the very nature of the thing will almost compel us, even against our will, to acknowledge the reality of birth. How then, on hearing of the Incarnation, does he not immediately admit the reality of Birth? And when being made man has been plainly mentioned, how did he not straightway understand that being made man would be appropriate not for a man, lest he should seem to be made what he already was, but for the Word originating from God? But where being made man is believed to truly take place, there is assuredly the birth by which he may be seen to be made man.

But (he says) the Birth is not named in plain terms. Yes, but the nature of the thing knows (as I already said) no other way of being incarnate. So that, although it be not in plain terms said in matters of this kind, we will not for this, forsaking the only way recognized by nature, go off to another. For it is written in the Book of Genesis, And to Seth there was made a son, and he called his name Enos. Shall we then, because the Scripture has put, was made, not admit the mode of birth? how would not this be unlearned? for the very nature of the thing will all but compel us even against our will to confess the idea of birth. How then on hearing of the Incarnation does he not forthwith admit the idea of Birth? and when the being made man has been plainly mentioned, how did he not straightway understand, that being made man would befit not a man, lest he should seem to be made that he already was, but the Word originating from God? But where being made man is believed to truly take place, there is full surely the birth whereby he may be seen to be made man.

But you do not think this is how the saying should be understood—that the Word of God was both Incarnate and was made Man. For you said again, trying to oppose everyone else's view, that "being made man" means not the transformation of the Divine Nature into flesh, but its indwelling in man. He says then that the conversion of the Divine Nature into flesh is both impossible and does not happen to it at all (and quite rightly, for I approve of him speaking correctly here; for I say that it is stable and will not be transformed into anything other than what it is believed to be). But I will attempt to show that his argument has missed what is fitting and true when he maintained that "being made Man" is the indwelling in man. For if he says that this applies to Emmanuel alone, let him explain why (for I cannot understand it), or no one will tolerate him as someone who defines and lays down the law about things he is pleased to speak about carelessly. But perhaps the force of these definitions does not apply to one person alone; then there will be no problem even if it applies to all. Therefore, not once but many times we shall find that God has been made man—and not only the Word from God the Father, but I will add both the Father Himself and, besides, the Holy Spirit. For He said through one of the holy Prophets concerning those who have been justified in faith, "I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God and they shall be My people." And Christ Himself also said, "And if any man hear Me, we will come—I and My Father—and make Our abode with him and lodge in him." The most wise Paul too has written somewhere, "And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of the things which were to be spoken of, but Christ as a Son over His own house whose house are we." And moreover concerning the Holy Spirit too, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Therefore, if whenever the God of all is said to dwell in anyone, this is what "being made man" or the Incarnation means, then let it be said of each one of those who were made partakers of the Divine Nature and have moreover had Him indwelling them that he has both been made man and besides was incarnate. This being so and admitted as true, the Word from God the Father might even be said to have been most often made flesh, and indeed He indwells even now in many of those who fear Him.¹⁹²⁰

But not thus does it seem to you is the saying to be conceived of, that the Word of God was both Incarnate and was made Man; for you said again, endeavouring to oppose the idea of every one else, that the being made man, means, not the change into flesh of the Divine Nature, but its indwelling in man. He says then that the conversion into flesh of the Divine Nature is both impossible and that it in no wise befalls it (and very rightly, for we will approve him who herein has chosen to speak aright; for I say that It is stable and that It will not be transformed into ought else than what It is believed to be): but that his discourse hath missed of the fitting and true, in that he maintained that the being made Man is the indwelling in man, I shall essay to shew. For if he says that this matter is true of Emmanuel singly and alone, let him teach the reason why (for I cannot learn it), or no one will tolerate him as a definer and layer down of the law in respect of those things as to which he is pleased to speak inconsiderately. But perchance the force of the things defined does not extend unto one [alone], there will then be no blame, even though it extend unto all. Hence not once for all but many times over shall we find that God has been made man, and not only the Word out of God the Father, but I will add both the Father Himself and besides, the Holy Ghost. For He said through one of the holy Prophets of them that have been justified in faith, I will dwell in them and walk in them and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And Christ Himself also said, And if any man hear Me, we will come I and My Father and make Our abode with him and lodge in him. The most wise Paul too hath somewhere written, And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of the things which were to be spoken of, but Christ as a Son over Bis own house whose house are WE; and moreover of the Holy Ghost too, Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Hence if when the God of all is said to dwell in any, if this be the being made man or the incarnation, let it be said in respect of each one also of those who were made partakers of the Divine Nature and have moreover had Him indwelling them, that he has both been made man and besides was incarnate. This now being so and admitted as true, the Word out of God the Father might even be said to have been most often made flesh, yea and He indwelleth even now in many of those who fear Him.¹⁹²⁰

Yes, he says, for it is written of God the Word that He tabernacled in us. The divinely-inspired Paul also said of Christ the Savior of us all that in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Yea (he says) for it is written of God the Word, that He tabernacled in us; the Divine-uttering Paul too said of Christ the Saviour of us all, that in Him hath dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

He tabernacled in us, admittedly, for that is what is written; and also that He has dwelt—I will not argue against you saying this, but I will rather examine the words of the inspired writers. For the blessed Evangelist, having first said "And the Word was made flesh," profitably added "tabernacled in us," so that through both expressions he might give us complete knowledge of the mystery concerning Christ. By saying that He was made flesh, he openly declared that the Word from God the Father was united personally to flesh. That being made flesh, He did not pass into the nature of flesh by changing into what He was not, but while becoming as we are, He remained what He was—this he again clearly states by adding to the former expression "tabernacled in us." And the divinely inspired Paul says that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, so that no one might suppose the indwelling was simple or accidental, but (as I just said) real and personal. The Spirit-filled writer was not ignorant that the Word of God is incorporeal and not subject to touch; but since it was necessary that the explanation of the mystery should be seen as in no way blameworthy, but should be made so accurate and exact regarding what is right and true as to be beyond all wonder—he seems to be straining and almost disregarding what befits the unembodied and supreme nature, for he added "bodily," being unable to speak in any other way than what our mind and tongue can attain.²¹

He tabernacled in us confessedly, for so it is written; and moreover that He hath dwelt: I will not oppose you saying it, but rather will I search into the words of the Divines. For the blessed Evangelist, having aforesaid, And the Word was made flesh, profitably added too the, tabernacled in us, that by means of both he might work in us unmutilated the knowledge of the mystery Christward. For that the Word out of God the Father was united Personally to flesh, he hath openly declared by saying that He was made flesh: that made flesh, He hath not passed into the nature of flesh, undergoing change into what He was not, but together with becoming as we, hath abode what He was, he again clearly states, adding to the former, the tabernacled in us. And the Divine-uttering Paul saith that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that no one might suppose that the Indwelling was simple or accidental but (as I said just now) Very and Personal. For that the Word of God is Incorporeal and not subject to touch, the Spirit-clad was not ignorant; but since it was needful that the declaration of the mystery should be seen to be in no wise a matter of blame, but should be made so accurate and exact unto what is right and true as to be beyond all marvel:—-he is doing violence (it seems) and all but overlooking what befits the Unembodied and Supreme Nature, for he hath added, Bodily, being able in no other way to speak than may be attained by our mind and tongue.²¹

Do not think, then, when he speaks of simple indwelling, that he is saying anything that doesn't deserve the strongest condemnation. For while he thinks he is vigorously overturning the birth according to the flesh of the Son, he constructs an argument fit for old women and foolish people, one that has no foundation in truth. For he writes again in this way; his discussion was directed against the Arians:

Do not therefore, when he tells us of simple indwelling, think that he is saying ought that needs not the strongest reprobation. For overthrowing as he thinks and that with vigour the birth according to the flesh of the Son, he compounds an argument befitting old wives and foolish and having no foundation of truth. For he writes again after this manner; his discourse was made touching the Arians:

Nestorius: "Even though these people chatter that God the Word is less than the greater Godhead, they make him subordinate to the blessed Mary. They place a mother born in time above the Godhead, the Creator of times. In fact, they do not even allow that the woman who gave birth to Christ is the mother of Christ. For if what came from her was not the nature of man but God the Word, as they claim, then the woman who gave birth was not the mother of what was born. How can anyone be the mother of someone who is alien to her nature? But if they call her mother, then what was born is manhood, not Godhead, because it is the property of every mother to give birth to what is consubstantial with her. So either she is not a mother, since she did not give birth to what is consubstantial with herself, or if they call her mother, she gave birth to what was essentially like herself."²²

Nestorius: "Yet though they prate that God the Word is junior to the greater Godhead, these make Him second to the blessed Mary, and over the Godhead, Creator of times, they set a mother born in time, yea rather they do not even allow that she who bare Christ is mother of Christ. For if not the nature of man but God the Word was, as these say, that which is of her, she that bare was no mother of that which was born. For how will any one be mother of him who is alien from her nature? But if she be called mother by them, that which is born is manhood not Godhead, for it is the property of every mother to bear what is consubstantial [with her]. Either then she will not be mother, not bearing what is consubstantial with herself, or being called mother by them, she bare that which was in essence like to herself."²²

How profound the subject of his thoughts! The compulsion arising from the arguments of the one who has put such things together is clearly dreadful and difficult to avoid! Where does he come from, bringing such fables into our midst? Who has ever sunk to such a level of ignorance in his thinking as to believe or say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten does not have its existence from the Father before the ages, but instead makes flesh and blood the beginning of its coming into being? Who is so confused and weak in understanding and completely deaf to the holy Scriptures? Who does not remember Isaiah, who cried out concerning Him, "Who shall declare His generation?" Or John, who clearly wrote, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; all things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made"? And if all things came to be through Him, how can He who exists before every age and time have been born later than the things that were made through Him? Why then do you introduce what everyone rejects, as if it had actually been said? Stop accusing those who rightly criticize what you say and who laugh at the enormous ignorance in it. Since no one says that the Virgin gave birth to the physis of the Godhead from her own flesh, do not argue pointlessly, weaving together for us arguments that are not based on premises that are true and accepted by all.

How deep the matter of his cogitations! dread and hard to escape is clearly the compulsion resulting from the reasonings of him who hath compiled such things! Whence comes he having gathered into the midst unto us such fables? or who ever sank down to this extent of unlearning in his conceptions, as to think or say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten has not its existence before the ages from the Father but rather makes flesh and blood the beginning of its passing into being? who is so distraught and slight of understanding and wholly without ear for the holy Scriptures? who remembereth hot Isaiah who hath cried aloud of Him, Who shall declare His generation? John too who hath written clearly, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; all things were made through Him and without Him was not any thing made? And if all things through Him, how will He Who is before every age and time be later in birth than the things that were made through Him? why then do you bring in what is repudiated by all, as though it had been said? cease accusing those who rightly blame what you say, and who laugh at the vastness of the unlearning that is therein. Since therefore there is no one who says that the Virgin hath borne from forth her own flesh the nature of the Godhead, do not contend to no purpose, twining for us reasonings not made out of premises that are true and acknowledged by all.

But what persuaded you to unleash such a reckless and unrestrained tongue against those who are eager to think correctly, and to pour out terrible and utterly cruel accusations upon every worshipper of God? For you said again in the Church,

But what was it that persuaded you to let loose a tongue so sheer and unguarded against those who are zealous to think aright, and to pour down accusal dire and all-cruel upon every worshipper of God? For you said again in Church,

Nestorius: "But I have already said many times that if any simpler person, whether among us or elsewhere, takes joy in the word Mother of God, I have no objection to the word; only let him not make the Virgin a goddess."

Nestorius: "But I have already full often said that if any simpler one either among us or any other, rejoice in the word Mother of God, I have no grudge against the word; only let him not make the Virgin a goddess."

Again you rail against us and speak so bitterly, and you reproach the congregation of the Lord, as it is written? But we, my friend, who call her mother of God, have never deified anyone who is numbered among creatures. Rather, we are accustomed to know as God the One who is God by nature and truly so, and we know that the blessed Virgin was a woman just as we are human. But you yourself will be caught, and that before long, when you represent Emmanuel to us as a God-bearing man and assign to another the condemnation that is due to your own attempts.

Again dost thou rail upon us, and put on a mouth so bitter? and reproachest the congregation of the Lord, as it is written? But WE, my friend, who call her mother of God, have never at all deified any one of those that are numbered among creatures, but are accustomed to know as God the One and by Nature and truly so: and we know that the blessed Virgin was woman as we. But thyself wilt be caught, and that at no long interval, representing to us Emmanuel as a God-bearing man, and putting upon another the condemnation due to your own essays.