Five Tomes Against Nestorius — Book I

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."

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.

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."

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.

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:

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.