Five Tomes Against Nestorius — Book II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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