THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WRITINGS - VOLUME 69
Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius
c. AD 428 – 450

SermonIndex · sermonindex.net/books/

Texts are public domain except where marked in Sources and Credits.

============================================================

INTRODUCTION TO THIS VOLUME
===========================

HOW THIS BOOK IS ARRANGED

This is the sixty-ninth volume of a series that gathers the writings of the early Church
in order of date, from the generation after the apostles down to the eighth century. This
volume holds Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, from the period about AD 428 – 450.

Within each work the text is divided into chapters and numbered sections, so that any
passage can be found again and cited. The small bold figures in the text are the section
numbers.

THE TRANSLATIONS

The text is in English only. Wherever a modern English version has been prepared for
SermonIndex it is used here; otherwise the book prints an older public-domain translation.
In both cases the wording is the translator’s own: older translations have not been
altered beyond dividing them into sections. The sources for every work are listed at the
back of the book, together with the licence under which each text is released. All the
works in this volume are printed in older public-domain translations.

IN THIS VOLUME

Cyril was patriarch of Alexandria from AD 412 until his death in AD 444. He led the party
against Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, taught that the Word of God is one
with his own flesh, and made peace with the Antiochenes in AD 433. He also wrote long
commentaries on Scripture.

Nestorius was born in Syria, lived as a monk at Antioch, and became patriarch of
Constantinople in AD 428. His objection to calling Mary the Mother of God led to his
condemnation at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, and he was exiled to Egypt. The Bazaar
of Heracleides, written in his exile, survives only in Syriac and was found and printed in
the nineteenth century.

The two parts of this volume stand on opposite sides of the controversy that led to the
Council of Ephesus in AD 431. Cyril’s Five Tomes against Nestorius answer, passage by
passage, the sermons of Nestorius at Constantinople. The Bazaar of Heracleides was written
by Nestorius in exile many years later, and it survives only in a Syriac translation that
was found in the nineteenth century. It is printed here with the two letters that
Nestorius wrote to Pope Celestine in AD 430.

DATES AND AUTHORSHIP

Dates are approximate and are debated by scholars. Each work begins with a short
introduction that states what is known about its author and its date, and what is
uncertain.


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS Cyril of Alexandria

c. AD 376–444

Patriarch of Alexandria; opponent of Nestorius.

INTRODUCTION

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.

3 FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS: SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION: CHRIST IS ONE: FRAGMENTS AGAINST DIODORE OF TARSUS, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, THE SYNOUSIASTS. OXFORD, JAMES PARKER AND CO., AND RIVINGTONS, LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE. PRINTED BY THE DEVONPORT SOCIETY OF THE HOLY TRINITY, HOLY ROOD, OXFORD. 1881.

PREFACE.

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

5 We may infer that S. Cyril was brought up at some monastery, as a place of Christian
education, and from the great reverence which he ever paid to S. Isidore, Abbot of
Pelusium, it seems not unlikely that S. Isidore was his instructor during some part of his
early life. S. Isidore alludes to some especial tie, in one of his brief letters to S.
Cyril, when Archbishop. Near the beginning, S. Isidore says, "If I be your father as you
say I be,.....or if I be your son as I know I am, seeing that you hold the chair of S.
Mark &c." The large number of Platonic words in S. Isidore's letters seem to indicate that
he too had extensive reading of Plato, and S. Cyril may have acquired from him some of his
knowledge of Aristotle. But a mind of S. Cyril's grasp would feel itself lost in the
desert, yearning for its own calling, and another Letter of the same S.Isidore to S.Cyril,
reproaching him with his heart being in the world, may belong to this period. His uncle
Archbishop Theophilus had him to live with him and, we may infer, ordained him priest and
made him one of his Clergy. In a very long letter which S. Cyril wrote about A.D. 432 to
the aged Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, he incidentally mentions the fact that he was at the
synod of the Oak, in A.D. 403, where S. Chrysostom's troubles began. S. Cyril would of
course be there, as a portion of Archbishop Theophilus' official attendance. S. Cyril
says, " When your holy Synod was gathered at great Constantinople .... and I was one of
those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying thus.----" |ix

6 S. Cyril's accession to the Archiepiscopal Throne of Alexandria brought him at once into
a position of great power in Alexandria; and brought too, in the early part of it, trials
in regard of the disunion between him and Orestes the Governor resulting from the Jewish
insurrection against the Christians. To this succeeded some years of great quiet, during
which S. Cyril seems to have been very little heard of, outside his Great Diocese. The
Archbishops of Alexandria, even in the very stillest times, were brought into yearly
contact with the Churches every where by the annual Letter which they wrote to announce
the day on which Easter would fall. S. Cyril's letters were evidently intended primarily
for his own Egypt 5. Thus in his seventh Paschal homily A.D. 419, he speaks very strongly
about deeds of violence in Egypt and mentions the famine there. S. Cyril introduces the
subject with, " 6 And these things we now say to you most especially, who inhabit Egyptian
territory," shewing that the Letters themselves had a larger scope. I do not know at what
time the Letter was sent out, so as to reach the distant churches of Rome and
Constantinople and Antioch in good time to announce when Lent would begin. But although S.
Cyril became Archbishop in October A.D. 412, his first Letter was for 414, in the early
part of which (as Tillemont points out) S. Cyril speaks of having succeeded his Uncle. He
introduces the subject by mentioning the natural dread of those of old, of |x " the
greatness of the Divine Ministry," and speaking of Moses and Jeremiah as instances of
this, adds, that "since the garb of the priesthood calls to preach, in fear of the words,
Speak and hold not thy peace, I come of necessity to write thus."

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

8 A. D. 429, the circulation of tracts of Nestorius in Egypt occasioned him first to write
on the heresy of Nestorius. There can be little doubt that the powerful mind of S. Leo,
who was the soul of the Council of Chalcedon, was, in his young days when S. Celestine's
Archdeacon in 429, taught through those writings; as S. Cyril himself had been taught by
the writings of S. Athanasius. |xi The 12 Chapters, appended to his last letter to
Nestorius, were made a trouble to S. Cyril at a later period of his Episcopate, so that it
may be well to give them in full. They were framed to preclude any evasion of that letter.
THE 12 CHAPTERS. 1. If any one confess not, that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the
holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she hath borne after the flesh the Word out of
God made Flesh, be he anathema.

9 2. If any one confess not, that the Word out of God the Father hath been personally
united to Flesh, and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God
alike and Man, be he anathema. 3. If any one sever the Hypostases of the One Christ after
the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not
rather with a concurrence unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema. 4. If any one allot to two
Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, said either of
Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by
himself apart from the Word That is out of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone
That is out of God the Father, be he anathema. 5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a
God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son, and That by
Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh,
be he anathema.

10 6. If any one dare to say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God or Lord of
Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath
been made Flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema. |xii 7. 9 If any one say
that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-
Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema. 8. If any one
shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the
Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended,
compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one worship, and send up
to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

11 9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit,
using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working
against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs towards men, and does not rather
say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom also He wrought the Divine signs, be he
anathema. 10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the Sigh Priest and
Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell
to God the Father. If any one therefore say that, not the Very Word out of God was made
our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman
apart by himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf
also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who
knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

12 11. If any one confess not, that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is
the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father, but says that it belongs
to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as |xiii possessed of Divine
Indwelling only, and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been
made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema. 12. If
any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in
the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead,
inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema. 13 The Great Diocese
of Antioch, barely rallying from its terrible devastation by Arian wickedness oppression
and misbelief, had been in close quarters with Apollinarianism, a misbelief that the Only-
Begotten Son took flesh only without a reasonable soul, and that His mind-less Body was
somehow immingled with the Godhead. S. Athanasius and others add, among the forms of the
misbelief, that some Apollinarians thought that our Lord's Body was consubstantial with
His Godhead. S. Cyril in his Dialogue 10 speaks of the great fear prevalent among some,
that if One Incarnate Nature were holden, the Body must be believed to be consubstantial
with the Godhead. Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea, at almost the extreme west boundary of
that great Diocese or Province of Antioch, sent to S. Cyril a question to the same effect.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had died only about two years before these Chapters were
issued, had held that the Manhood of the Only-Begotten was a man distinct, having some
undefined connection with God the Son, and this had appeared in his writings; and so great
was Theodore's reputation and the dread of the Apollinarian heresy, |xiv that there seems
to have been an unconscious vagueness in the minds of some of the Eastern Bishops.
[Nestorius had dexterously sent the Chapters to John of Antioch apart from the Epistle to
himself 11, which would have made misinterpretation impossible.

14 He sent them as 'propositions circulated in the royal city to the injury of the common
Church.'] John of Antioch, who at that time believed Nestorius to be orthodox, pronounced
them at once (thus unexplained) to be Apollinarian; applied in an Encyclical letter 12 to
the Bishops of his Patriarchate to have them 'disclaimed, but without naming the author,'
whom John did not believe to be S. Cyril, and asked two of the Bishops of his Province,
Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret, to reply to them. Theodoret's reply shews that
he read the Chapters with the conviction that they were Apollinarian, and he accordingly
replies, not to the Chapters themselves but to the sense which he himself imagined that
they contained. His reply is in the main orthodox, though it looks in one or two places as
if his belief was rather vague 13, but he |xv twists S. Cyril's words so as to mean
'mixture,' and so replies 14. Theodoret seems never to have got over his misapprehension.
For in his long Letter 15 to the Monks of his Province, Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria,
Phoenicia, Cilicia, he still speaks of Chapter 1 as teaching that God the Word was changed
into flesh; of chapters 2 and 3 as bringing in the terms, Personal Union and Natural
Union, "teaching through these names a mixture |xvi and confusion of the Divine Nature and
the bondman's form: this is the offspring of Apollinarius' heretical innovation.

15 And after speaking of Chapter 4, he sums up, "These are the Egyptian's brood, the truly
more wicked descendants of a wicked parent. In his letter 16 to John Bishop of Germanicia,
written after the Robbers' council in 449, Theodoret says of it, "Let them deny now the
chapters which they many times condemned, but have in Ephesus now confirmed." 16 Andrew of
Samosata, on the other hand, seems to have been decidedly more definite in his belief on
the Incarnation, and to have thought that some of S. Cyril's chapters were Apollinarian
without objecting to all. Thus Andrew's chief objection to chapter 1 appears to have been
that he mistook the words "for she hath borne after the flesh (σαρκικῶς)" to mean that the
Birth was entirely in the order of nature and so not of a Virgin 17. Andrew passes over
chapter 2, as though the term, "Personal Union," had not even struck him as a difficulty.
In chapter 3, Andrew thinks that φυσικὴ, Natural Union, or Unity of Nature is an
inadmissible expression, as to what is above our nature. In chapter 4, Andrew thinks that
because the words are not to be apportioned to distinct Persons, therefore S. Cyril meant,
that they are not to be apportioned at all, either to the Godhead or to the Manhood in the
One Person of the Incarnate God. S. Cyril had all his life said that they were to be so
apportioned, but Andrew had of course not read S. Cyril's writings. Andrew shews his own
definite |xvii belief by the expression ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις, entire union, here; and, we confess
the union entire (τὴν ἕνωσιν ἄκραν) and Divine and incomprehensible to us,' are the
closing words of his reply to chapter 11. These are almost identical with S. Cyril's
expressions, "we shall not take away the unlike by nature through wholly uniting them (διὰ
τὸ εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν) 18," and in his reply to Andrew, διὰτὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν.

17 Andrew says nothing on chapters 5 and 6, nor is there anything in them which one would
expect him not to accept. With chapter 7 he agrees, merely saying that in rejecting what
S. Cyril rejects, we must not reject the Apostolic words which speak of Him in His human
nature. "With chapter 8 too Andrew agrees, but does not quite understand the co. In
chapter 9, he overlooks the words, "as though it were Another's:" in chapter 10, Andrew
thinks that " the Yery Word out of God was made our High-Priest and Apostle" means 'the
Godhead apart by Itself was so made.' [We see in our own times, how prejudice can distort
the meaning of words in themselves perfectly intelligible; else it seems inconceivable
that language so clear as that of the Anathematisms, if read with a view to understand
their author's meaning, could be misunderstood as it was by John of Antioch, Theodoret,
and Andrew. Much unhallowed dissension would have been saved, if John, instead of asking
Theodoret and Andrew to reply to them, had sought an explanation from S. Cyril himself. S.
Cyril, in clear consciousness of his own meaning, would, of course, have given |xviii the
explanation which afterwards satisfied John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and Paul of
Emesa.

18 S. Cyril's anathematisms have been weighed by Petavius with his usual solidity, as
compared with the counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, the criticisms of the Orientals and
of Theodoret, and S. Cyril's answers. His summary is, 'There is nothing in S. Cyril's
Anathematisms not right and in harmony with the Catholic rule, nor did those who detract
from or oppose them maintain their ground against him except through cavils and foolish
calumnies.' De Incarn. L. vi. c. xvii. They have also been carefully compared in English
in Dr. Bright's Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, pp. 149-170.] Though Apollinarianism in
its early form, ere its great spread as Eutychianism, seems to have chiefly troubled Asia
rather than Egypt, S. Cyril always writes with full knowledge of it. In his Thesaurus, he
distinctly mentions and repudiates Apollinarian errors and denies the 19 οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ
γέγονε, "made man, came not into a man like as He was in the Prophets." S. Cyril's tenth
Paschal homily for A.D. 420, in its most carefully weighed language, contradicts both
Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, not less than what S. Cyril wrote when the Nestorian
troubles had begun. On Habaccuc 20 S. Cyril affirms, as he does through his whole life,
that our Lord was not worsened by the Incarnation; "Yet even though He has been made flesh
and hath been set forth by the Father |xix as a propitiation, He hath not cast away what
He was, i.e., the being God, but is even thus in God-befitting authority and glory."

19 In A.D. 428, Nestorius was brought from Antioch to be Archbishop of Constantinople.
From the circumstance that S. Cyril's celebrated Paschal homily for the next year, A.D.
429, was on the subject of the Incarnation, it has been supposed that rumours of the
denial of that Faith in Constantinople had already reached him. But the Paschal homilies
for A.D. 420 and 423, shew that the Incarnation, the foundation and stay of our souls, was
a subject, which S. Cyril loved to dwell on. In the course of the year 429, however, even
Egypt was troubled by the false teaching of Nestorius. Some of Nestorius' sermons 21
passed into Egypt, and were read and pondered over in the Monasteries. This occasioned so
much disturbance in the minds 22 of some of the Monks, that S. Cyril wrote a Letter to
them, pointing out that the Incarnation means, that God the Son united to Him His own
human nature which He took, as completely as soul and body are united in each of us, and
in this way His Passion and Death were His own, though He, as God, could not suffer. This
Letter had an extended circulation and reached Constantinople. It vexed 23 Nestorius.
There was still a traditional soreness towards Alexandria, from the behaviour of
Theophilus to S. Chrysostom 24. Besides this, the |xx Catholic doctrine of the
Incarnation, the manhood united by God the Son to His own self, was to Nestorius,
Apollinarianism or mixture. Nestorius says so 25. In his letter to S. Celestine he tells
of the 'corruption of orthodoxy among some' and thus describes it,

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

21 Nestorius repeats the same in his second letter to S. Celestine 27. S. Cyril having in
his first Ecumenical Letter to Nestorius put forth clearly the mode of the Union in these
words, Nestorius does not understand the language and says thus of it, 'I come now to the
second chapter of your Love, wherein I begin to praise the parting of the natures in
regard to Godhead and Manhood and their connection into one |xxi Person, and that we must
not say that God the Word needed a second generation out of a woman, and must confess that
the Godhead is unrecipient of suffering. For such statements are truly orthodox and
counter to the ill-reputes of all the heresies, as to the Lord's natures. As to the rest,
whether they bring to the ears of the readers some hidden incomprehensible wisdom,
pertains to your accuracy to know; to me they seem to overturn what preceded. For Him Who
in the preceding is proclaimed Impassible and non-recipient of a second birth, they
introduce as somehow passible and new-created, as though the qualities by nature adherent
in God the Word were corrupted by connection with the Temple &c. 28 '

22 And yet S. Cyril's language is so carefully guarded, that no one who believed in True
Union of Godhead and Manhood in the Incarnate Son would mistake it. Nestorius does not
appear to have taken any notice of S. Cyril's Paschal Homily, but he preached against the
Letter to the Monks more than once, as we see from the extracts of such of his sermons as
S. Cyril had access to. The passages of the Letter to the Monks referred to by Nestorius
are; ' 29 These letters were directed by me against the Egyptian .... He, omitting to tell
me by letter whether any thing appeared to him to need marking as blasphemous or wicked,
moved by fear of proofs and looking out therefore for disturbances which should aid him,
turns him to Celestine of Rome, as one too simple to fathom the force of the doctrines.
And finding the simplicity of the man in regard to this matter, he in childish fashion
circumvents his ears with crafty letters, long ago sending him my writings, as a proof
which might not be gainsaid, as though I were making Christ out to be a |xxii mere man, I
who at the very beginning of my consecration obtained a Law against those who say that
Christ is a mere man and against other heresies.

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

24 'Again in another place I spoke against those who, hearing the like name, are offended
as though like honour were also given. And when I say, Mother of Christ, they shudder as
though the Godhead of the Lord Christ were denied by this name, seeing that many have been
similarly called by this name in the Old Testament. And hence they think that we are
calling Him Christ like these. Against these people therefore (as I said) I said in
church-sermons, that equality of honour does not follow likeness of name. And this is what
I said, 'Or if the Temple of Godhead, wo say that the descent of the Holy Ghost is not the
same as was wrought on |xxiii the Prophets, not the same as was celebrated on the
Apostles, nor yet the same as takes place in regard to the Angels who are strengthened
unto the Divine Mysteries. For the Lord Christ is Lord of all, as to the body too. As
therefore we say that God is the Creator of all things, yet does the Scripture call Moses
too god, for it says, I have made thee a god to Pharoah, and yet we by no means attach
equal honour to that word, so neither, because the word is common by which we say, Christ
and Son, ought we to stumble at the likeness of expression.

25 For as Israel is named son, for He says, Israel is My first-born son, and the Lord
again Son, for He says, This is My Beloved Son, yet not, as the expression is one, is the
meaning also one. And as Saul is called christ and David christ and again Cyrus christ
and, besides, the Babylonian, albeit they were surely not equal in piety to David; so we
call the Lord too Christ or Son, yet the community of names does not makes an equality of
dignity.' From this which I said, he every where subtracting the last words, i.e.
'Christ,' and, 'we say, that not the same is the indwelling as was wrought on the
prophets, not the same as was wrought on the Apostles,' and,' we by no means allot like
honour by like words,' and, 'yet the community of names does not make equality of
dignity;' cutting out all these expressions with the teeth of slander, he flings in the
ears of men what precedes these words: i.e., ' 30 We call the |xxiv Creator of all God,
yet does the Scripture also call Moses god:, and, 'Israel is called God's son, Son too is
the Lord called;' and, 'Saul is called christ and David christ yea and the Babylonian;

26 thus then do we call Christ the Lord also christ.' He therefore thus piecing these
things and chipping them off from the rest (as we said), made up here by his slander like
as if from Paul's words by which he contests writing, If ye be circumcised Christ shall
profit you nothing, one were to rend off what he says first, If ye he circumcised, and
accuse Paul as though he preached, Christ shall profit you |xxv nothing. And why need we
prolong our recital by going through each instance? In short Cyril using many such
robberies and additions as pleased him, soon not others only but Celestine also were led
away by his misleadings.' 27 Much about this time S. Cyril probably wrote his Scholia on
the Incarnation 31. The treatise is very simple and almost uncontroversial, illustrating
the Incarnation by simple analogies and Bible-types 32. It contains one of S. Cyril's most
careful statements of the doctrine, excluding Apollinarianism 33. In the concluding
sections 34, which may have been written at the very beginning of the controversy with
Nestorius, are striking and simple statements, how God the Son's Passion is His, though
Godhead cannot suffer. Soon after this S. Cyril wrote his first extant letter to
Nestorius, a short letter, saying that he hears that Nestorius was very angry at S.
Cyril's letter to the Monks, yet that since 'expositions,' whether Nestorius' or not, had
been brought to Egypt and had gravely misled many, it became a duty to God to put forth
the right doctrine. S. Cyril also says that S. Celestine and the Bishops with him had
asked whether those 'expositions' which had come thither were Nestorius' or not. S. Cyril
did not know. Finally, S. Cyril asked him to heal the confusion by the use of the one word
Theotocos, of the Holy Virgin. For fear of misapprehension he mentions also a book, which
he had written in the Episcopate of Atticus of blessed |xxvi memory, on the Holy and
Consnbstantial Trinity, in which he had interwoven some things on the Incarnation, like
what he had now written.

28 We do not know what time intervened between this and the second Letter which S. Cyril
wrote in Synod to Nestorius, containing an exposition of the Incarnation, which, from its
acceptance by the Council of Ephesus and the whole Church subsequently, has Ecumenical
authority 35. It was probably written before the close of A.D. 429 and is the Letter
quoted above 36, which Nestorius' reply shewed that he could not understand. It has been
supposed that it was in consequence of Nestorius' allusion to the Imperial Court in the
close of his reply, that S. Cyril wrote his Three Treatises de recta fide; whereof the
first is to the Emperor Theodosius; the other two to the Emperor's Queen and Sisters. John
Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, in the century following S. Cyril, quotes from both among
his extracts in defence of the Council of Chalcedon 37. From the title with which he
introduces his extracts, we learn that the longer Treatise was addressed to the Emperor's
two younger sisters, the Princesses Marina and Arcadia, and the last of the Three to the
Two Augusta's, Theodosius' Empress Eudocia, and his eldest sister Pulcheria who had the
title of Augusta, from having been Regent for the Emperor in his minority. S.

29 Cyril afterwards recast his Treatise to the Emperor in the form of a Dialogue, omitting
what was specially addressed to the Emperor, and giving little touches here and there to
the language. |xxvii Thus the expression " 38 neither do we say Two christs, even though
we believe that the Temple united to the Word has been ensouled with rational soul,"
becomes in the Dialogue, " 39 neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that
out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of
Emmanuel. A little further on, " 40we say that the whole Word out of Grod has been co-
united with the whole manhood that is of us," becomes, "41 we say therefore that the whole
Word has been united to whole man. This Dialogue was probably appended by S. Cyril to his
older Dialogues de Trinitate. It is quoted as the seventh of those Dialogues. The other
two treatises are chiefly made up of expositions of texts to prove that Christ is God and
Man. Near the beginning of that to the Augusta's, S. Cyril alludes to his former treatise.

30 "In my treatise to the holy Virgins [i. e. the Princesses Marina and Arcadia who had
embraced the virgin estate] I made a very large provision of more obvious sayings which
had nothing hard to understand; but in this I have made mention of the obscurer. For your
Pious Authority ought both to know these and not to be ignorant of the other, in order
that by means of both, perfection in knowledge, like a light, may dwell in your most pure
understanding 42" Bishop Hefele 43 thinks that there are indications that the two
Princesses had, in contrast with the Emperor, spoken for Cyril and against Nestorius. Of
the five sermons of Nestorius on the |xxviii Incarnation which Marius Mercator translated
into Latin, S. Cyril has cited copiously from the second: the fourth and fifth of
Mercator's collection belong to the close of A.D. 430; for the fourth is dated the eighth
of the Ides of December (Dec. 6), the Saturday after Nestorius had received S. Cyril's
four Bishops with S. Celestine's Letter and S. Cyril's with the 12 Chapters. In it
Nestorius recapitulates some of the teaching which S. Cyril had quoted from an earlier
sermon, i.e. on God sending forth His Son. Of that earlier sermon we have only fragments,
but it was preached against S. Cyril's letter to the Monks 44. Nestorius speaks of S.
Cyril as the " wrangler 45, " the heretic 46," and he apostrophises S. Cyril or S.
Proclus, "O heretic in clerical form 47."

31 The last of that series in Mercator's collection was preached on Sunday Dec. 7. Count
Irenaeus has also preserved it; the compiler of the Synodicon gives it in another
translation 48. One of the interests and employments of the Bishops during their first
days at Ephesus will have been the becoming acquainted with some whom they had never
before seen. This time was probably the beginning of a lasting friendship between S. Cyril
and Acacius the metropolitan of Melitene, on the borders of Armenia towards Cappadocia:
the long letter which he wrote to Valerian Bishop of Iconium points at S. Cyril's having
|xxix readied some degree of intimacy with him; he wrote too to Donatus, Bishop of
Nicopolis, on the west of Greece, and no doubt there were other friendships too as the
fruit of the long sojourn at Ephesus. Some of S. Cyril's letters shew how warm-hearted and
sensitive he was, notwithstanding his mighty will and unswerving purpose.

32 But there were other sadder things belonging to that summer at Ephesus, sickness and
death, the sickness probably the fever so prevalent now along all that poisonous coast,
and passing in many cases into dysentery. "We do not know what Bishops the Council lost;
for our knowledge of those who composed it is derived from the lists of names at the
opening of the first and sixth session and the signatures to those two sessions. But the
fact is mentioned several times: S. Cyril in the first session of the Council says, "some
have fallen into sickness and some are dead;" the Council in its Relatio to the Emperors,
says, "and some of the holy Bishops weighed down by age did not endure their stay in a
strange place; some were imperilled in weakness; some have even undergone the close of
their life in the Capital of the Ephesians;" in its account to S. Celestine,

33 "although many both Bishops and Clergy were both pressed by sickness and oppressed by
expense and some had even deceased." After waiting a fortnight, during which time, if all
had been there, the business might have been completed and the Bishops dismissed, S. Cyril
wrote to John Archbishop of Antioch. John, in his Relatio to the Emperors, says, "and
Cyril himself of Alexandria sent to me of Antioch |xxx two days before the assembly made
by them [the Council], that the whole Synod is awaiting my presence 49." S. Cyril too
alludes to the Letter. He says of John, "he who was ever friendly and dear, who never at
any time found fault with my words, who wrote kindly and received letters from me 50."
While this letter was on its way, some of the Bishops of John's party arrived, and with
them a letter to S. Cyril in which John spoke of being only about four days off. The
Bishops of John's party were Alexander Metropolitan of Apamea and Alexander Metropolitan
of Hierapolis; and, to all appearance, though we are not told so, Theodoret and Meletius
bishop of Neocaesarea. The Council, speaking of the arrival in their Eelatio to S.
Celestine, says,

34 "51 Nevertheless after the sixteenth day there preceded him some of the Bishops who
were with him, two Metropolitans, Alexander of Apamea and another Alexander of Hierapolis;
and when we complained of the tardy arrival of the most reverend Bishop John, they said
not once but over and over, 'he bid us tell your Reverence that, if he should even yet
loiter, the synod was not to be put off, but rather to do what was meet.' " S. Cyril says
nearly the same in his Apology to the Emperor 52. Nevertheless it is plain that John meant
the words, 'if I yet loiter,' to be taken in connection with his own letter to S. Cyril
that he was but 5 or 6 days off, and so that he should have that interval allowed him. The
Council however, in the distress of many of |xxxi its members, determined to assemble the
next day. Nestorius' friends headed by Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, got up
a memorial to the Council that they should wait for John of Antioch, "who is himself now
at the door, as he has intimated by his Letters," and for some Western Bishops. The
document further speaks of the unlawfulness of excommunicated or deposed Bishops being
admitted into the Council and ends with the threatening words 53,

35 "And let your Reverence know, that all that shall be done in an abrupt way by daring
men will be turned back against the daring of them who so presume, both by Christ the Lord
and by the Divine Canons." There follow 68 signatures, 16 of the Province of Antioch
including the two newly-arrived Alexanders (an indication that they, while they delivered
John's message, did not consider it as precluding four days' delay) about 30 other friends
of Nestorius. They procured also about 23 other signatures. These 23 however joined the
Council next day as a matter of course, and signed the deposition of Nestorius. Among the
signatures is that of Euprepius Bishop of Byza who signs for himself and for his Nestorian
Metropolitan Fritilas of Heraclea. But Euprepius did not remain with his Metropolitan. I
do not see his name on the entry-roll of the Council at its opening session; but he signs
the deposition of Nestorius. His name is among the last signatures, as though he had come
in late.

36 No deliberative body whatever would accept such |xxxii an insulting memorial as this of
the friends of Nestorius, and of course it does not appear in the Acts of the Council.
Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, has preserved it to us
with other curious documents of his party. Christian Lupus at the end of the 17th century
transcribed the greater part of an unique manuscript in the Monastery Library of Monte
Cassino 54. The compiler is thought to be an African; he was a contemporary of Facundus,
Bishop of Hermaeum, and just as Facundus wrote very eagerly in behalf of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, this compiler wrote very strongly in defence of Theodoret. His principal
material was a curious and extensive collection of documents and Letters made by Count
Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, after the Council of Ephesus; it contains Letters that passed
between the different Bishops in the Province of Antioch about Nestorius and S. Cyril, and
their views as to reconciliation with S. Cyril, and one sees how eagerly the principal
Bishops got hold of a copy of any fresh letter which S. Cyril wrote. This collection alone
preserves S. Cyril's great Letter to Acacius Bishop of Beroea, in reply to the first
demand of the Eastern Bishops that the Nicene Creed was enough and that S. Cyril should
burn all else which he had written on dogma. S. Cyril alludes to this Letter of his in his
letter to his Proctors at Constantinople 55 and a fragment of it is preserved |xxxiii by
John Archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine in his Thesaurus of extracts of S. Cyril in
Defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and two or three fragments of it by John's opponent,
Severus of Antioch, both belonging to the earlier half of the sixth century.

37 Irenaeus being a contemporary of the Council of Ephesus, all the letters and documents
collected by him seem to have been accepted without any doubt as to their genuineness. We
also possess several from other sources. But the Compiler, who made use of Count Irenaeus'
collection, has also inserted towards the end of his compilation, some documents from
other MSS. to which he had access: one of these is absolutely worthless, viz. a confession
of faith, purporting to be that of Acacius Bishop of Beroea, but evidently of later date.
Irenaeus' compilation is called a Tragedy 56. Renaudot, in his history, has pointed out
that Ebed-jesu of Soba, who lived in the end of the 12th century, has mentioned the work
in his catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers 57. Ebedjesu says 58, "Irenaeus of Tyre
compiled five Ecclesiastica on the persecution of Nestorius and all that happened at that
time 59." Two or three pages before 60, Ebedjesu, in his catalogue of Nestorius' writings,
gives also, "A Book of a Tragedy."

38 The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in
his Book against Theodore 61 is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia.
Montfaucon's grounds |xxxiv for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression,
One Incarnate Nature of the Word , seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other
writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning
of the seventh Century. Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S.
Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says, "They
[the party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch] put forward another
passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And
that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one
Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One
Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us,
for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One
Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked
by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some
small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that
all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.

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

40 It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of
Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be
no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of
Leontius' objection lies in the, "perhaps Dioscorus added something." This confession was
very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes)
almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses
Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also
cited two pieces of it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that
'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one |xxxvi worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius
too had said 64. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word,
and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant
in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator)
which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms
an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.

41 It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S.
Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and
who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an
authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus. If this Confession is not genuine,
it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.
Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the
writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was
made up and ascribed to Athanasius." [My son had had these fragments of a preface to the
volume printed, before he was so suddenly called away. They seemed to me manifestly
fragments of a larger whole. But there were no indications, how they were to be filled up.
I have thought it might be useful to put together as a supplement, some notices of the
course of the heresy of Nestorius, and of the character of S. Cyril as illustrating his
controversy against him. E. B. P.] |xxxvii

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

43 It appears to have been a tradition of heresy over against the tradition of faith. Of
the last two stages of the heretical tradition there is no doubt. Of both it is clear from
the fragments of their writings still extant. S. Cyril speaks fully as to Diodore of
Tarsus 66, 'by whose books,' he says, |xxxviii 'the mind of Nestorius was darkened.'
Leontius says 67, that 'Diodorus had been to Theodorus the author and leader and father of
those evils and impieties.' In the 9th century the Nestorians counted Diodorus, Theodorus
and Nestorius their 'three fathers.' A Nestorian Patriarch elect promised, ' 68 that he
would adhere to the true [Nestorian] faith, and the Synods of East and West, and the three
fathers, Diodorus, Theodorus, Nestorius.' An eminent Syrian writer in the century after S.
Cyril, Simeon Bishop of Beth-arsham (who had the title of honour of, 'the Persian Preacher
or Philosopher ') says, that Paul of Samosata derived his heresy through Artemon from
Ebion; that Diodore derived his from Paul, and Theodore from Diodore and Paul 69. Theodore
held the true faith of the Holy Trinity, which Paul did not; but the heresy on the
Incarnation was in much alike.

44 In an Adjuration publicly put forth by the Clergy of Constantinople at the beginning of
the Nestorian heresy and published in a Church, a parellel was drawn between the teaching
of Nestorius and that of Paul of Samosata on the doctrine of the Incarnation. The parallel
ran 70; 45 Paul said, 'Mary did not hear the Word;' Nestorius, in harmony, said, 'Mary, my
good man, did not bear the Godhead;' [the Anathema approved by Nestorius denied |xxxix
that 'Mary bare God' not 'the Godhead.'] Paul, 'For he was not before ages.'
Nestorius,---- 'And he assigns a temporal Mother to the Godhead, the Creator of times.'
Paul, 'Mary received the Word and is not older than the Word.' 'Nestorius, 'How then did
Mary bear Him Who is older than herself?' Paul, 'Mary bore a man like unto us.' Nestorius,
'He Who was born of the Virgin is man.' Paul,---- 'but a man in all things superior, since
He is from the Holy Ghost, and from the promises, and from the Scripture is the grace upon
Him.' Nestorius said, 'It saith, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Him and
abiding on Him," which bestowed upon Him the Ascension. "Commanding, it saith, the
Apostles whom He had chosen He was taken up through the Holy Ghost." This then it was,
which conferred on Christ such glory.' Paul said, 'that neither He Who is of David having
been anointed be alien from Wisdom, nor that Wisdom should dwell in any other in like way,
for it was in the Prophets and yet more in Moses and in many Saints, and yet more in
Christ as in the Temple of God.' And elsewhere he says, that 'other is Jesus Christ and
other the Word.' Nestorius said, 'That it was not possible that He Who was born before all
ages should anew be born, and that, according to the Godhead.' See, the transgressor is
made manifest, saying, that He Who was begotten of the Father was not born of Mary. See,
he agrees with the heretic Paul of Samosata who says that 'Other is the Word and other
Jesus Christ' and is not one, as the right Faith teaches.

46 The heresy stumbled at man's wonted stumbling-block, the love of God in the
Incarnation, "when Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man, Thou didst not abhor the
Virgin's womb." Theodore held it to be 71 madness to say that God was born |xl of a
Virgin; he held that the man who was so born was united to God only by grace 72, that he
was a son only by adoption 73. This and other false doctrines had probably escaped notice,
because they were scattered up and down in controversial writings against the
Apollinarians, or in interpretations of Holy Scripture. They were brought out by the
vanity of Nestorius. Born of low parentage at least 74, he had the perilous gift of great
fluency of extempore preaching and 'a very beautiful and powerful voice.' He was moreover
accounted an ascetic. S. Cyril said to the Emperor, ' 75 he was chosen as one practised in
the doctrines of the Gospels and the Apostles, trained in godliness, and holding the right
faith, altogether blamelessly. Your Pious Majesty longed to have such a man, and all who
were set over the holy Churches, and I myself also. And indeed when the letters of the
most pious Bishops about his consecration were sent round by those who advanced him
thereto, I wrote hack without delay, rejoicing, praising, praying that by the decree from
above all choicest good should come to our brother and fellow-minister.'

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

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

49 The outward change was sudden, Vincentius too says, '77What a temptation was that
lately, when this |xlii unhappy Nestorius, suddenly changed from a sheep to a wolf, began
to rend the flock of Christ, when they too who were torn, in great part still believed him
to be a sheep, and so the more easily fell into his jaws!' Theodoret , who had for so many
years defended him, after he had once condemned him at Chalcedon, spoke more severely of
him than any other writer. Theodoret was of an affectionate disposition. The great bane of
his life was, that he would believe any evil of S. Cyril, rather than suspect his former
friend Nestorius to be in the wrong. Under this prejudice, he believed S. Cyril to be an
Apollinarian which he was not, rather than suspect Nestorius to be the heretic which he
was. When then S. Leo espoused his cause against the worthless successor of S. Cyril,
Dioscorus, and shewed at once how the two opposite heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius were
equally inconsistent with Catholic truth, his eyes may have been opened, and he may have
felt towards Nestorius as the occasion to him of an almost lifelong error, from which he
was rescued by his own deposition and disgrace. Nestorius too had, as far as was known,
died |xliii unrepentant in an heresy which denied the Incarnation. His later account of
Nestorius is,

50 '79 From the first, Nestorius shewed what he was going to be all his life through: that
he cultivated a mere popular eloquence, eliciting empty applause and attracting to himself
the unstable multitude; that he went about, clad in a mourning garment, walking heavily,
avoiding public throngs, seeking by the pallor of his looks to appear ascetic, at home
mostly given to books and living quietly by himself. He went on to advanced age enticing
the many by such habits and counterfeits, seeking to seem to be a Christian rather than to
be one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.' The course of his heresy
Theodoret describes in summary. '79 The first step of his innovation was that we must not
confess the Holy Virgin who bare the Word of God having taken flesh of her, to be
Theotocos, but Christotocos only, whereas the heralds of the orthodox faith long ago (tw~n
pa&lai kai\ pro&palai) taught to call her Theotocos, and believe her the Mother of the
Lord.'

51 Then he mentions the plea of Nestorius, 'that the name Christ signifies the two
Natures, the Godhead and Manhood of the Only-Begotten, but that of God absolutely the
simple and incorporeal essence of God the Word; and that of man the human nature alone;
therefore it is necessary to confess the Virgin to be Christotocos and not Theotocos, lest
unawares we say that God the Word took the beginning of His Being from the holy Virgin,
and so should be obliged consistently to confess that the Mother was older than He Who was
born of her.' Lastly he mentions the preaching of Nestorius, |xliv that in the Church of
the orthodox he shouted out many such words as 'Mary, my good man, did not bear God; she
bore a man the instrument of God;' 'and again among other follies,' 'The Gentile is
blameless, when he gives a mother to the gods.'

52 Such is the outline of his teaching at Constantinople. His efforts were concentrated on
the substitution of Christotocos for Theotocos; for 'God made Man,' a human Christ
connected with God, corrupting by flippant sayings the minds which he could influence. 53
He gained favour with Theodosius who leaned on those around him. His elevation to the
Patriarchate was a marked distinction, as being a call from a different Patriarchate, at
the nomination of the Emperor Theodosius, and the people received him with joy. He seemed
to himself called to great things. 'He had not,' Socrates says 80 , 'tasted, according to
the proverb, the waters of the city,' when in an inaugural oration before the Emperor and
a large concourse of people, he apostrophised the Emperor, "Give me, O king, the land
clear from heretics and I in turn will give thee heaven. Destroy the heretics with me, and
I will destroy the Persians with thee." He must have meant, of course, that he could
promise victory over the Persians in the name of God. Men noticed, we are told 80 , the
vanity and passionateness and vainglory of the speech. It was, at the least, a calling in
of the civil sword against those, of whom he himself knew nothing, and for whose
conversion |xlv his predecessors had waited patiently, and promising victory over a
warlike people, not upon self-humiliation before God, but upon the extirpation of men who
had not the same errors with himself. An Arian congregation, seeing their church
destroyed, in desperation fired it and threw themselves into the flames. This gained to
Nestorius, with all the faithful as well as heretics, the title of 'the Incendiary.' The
persecution occasioned much bloodshed at Miletus and Sardis. The Emperor had to repress
his violence against the Novatians. The Macedonians 81 and the Quartodecimans in Asia,
Lydia, Caria, were also persecuted. He had conferred with Theodore of Mopsuestia in his
way from Antioch to his See; so that it was even thought that he had imbibed his heresy
then 82. Those whom he brought with him were of the same school 83.

54 He began at first warily. He used ambiguous language, but all directed against the one
crucial term Theotocos. Unless the blessed Virgin 'bare God,' i. e. Him Who was at once
both God and Man, our Lord plainly would not have been God. And therewith would have
perished the doctrine of the Atonement too, which also Nestorius did not believe. For a
"brother cannot redeem a man; he cannot give to God 84 a ransom for him. Too dear is the
redemption of their souls, and it ceaseth for ever." He used what terms he could, to eke
out the poverty of his conception. He could think of our |xlvi Lord as a man, an
instrument of Deity;' 'a temple created of the Virgin for God the Word to inhabit,' and
haying a close or continual or the highest connection with God; but still the 'connection'
was different in degree, not in kind, from that with any Saint.

55 The hereditary title of the Mother of the Lord, which even Theodoret, when his strife
with S. Cyril was over, recognised as '86 the Apostolical tradition,' excluded this
humanising of our Lord. And so Nestorius (a grave historian says 87) continuously teaching
hereon in the Church, endeavoured in all ways to expel the term Theotocos, and dreaded the
term as they do hobgoblins 88. This he did, Socrates adds, 'out of great ignorance.'
'Being by nature fluent of speech, he was thought to have been educated; but in truth, he
was ill-trained, and disdained to learn the books of the ancient interpreters. For being
puffed up for his fluency of speech, he did not attend accurately to the ancients, but
thought himself superior to all.' 56 Yet the term Theotocos had been in such familiar use
by every school for nearly two centuries, that the aversion of Nestorius to it can hardly
have been simple ignorance. It was probably the instinctive aversion of heresy to the term
which condemns it. Socrates himself mentions that it was used by Origen and Eusebius: it
was used alike by Alexander, the predecessor of S. Athanasius 89, whose Council first
condemned Arius; by |xlvii S. Athanasius himself 90; by the Arian Eusebius 91; and by S.
Cyril of Jerusalem 92, who did not use the word Homoousion. The Apostate Emperor Julian
said, in controversy with the Christians, '93 Did Isaiah say that a Virgin should bear
God? but ye do not cease calling Mary Theotocos,' attesting that the word was in the
mouths of all Christians. A little later it was used by the two S. Gregories 94. It was
used also by the great predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople, S.
Chrysostom, as also by Ammon Bishop of Adrianople in Egypt, and by Antiochus Bishop of
Ptolemais in Phoenicia 95. The corresponding title, Mater Dei, was used in the Latin
Church by S. Ambrose 96, Cassian 97, and Vincent of Lerins 98.

57 John of Antioch, at a later period, entreating Nestorius to accept the term, in order
to prevent the impending schism, said to him, 'This name no one of the ecclesiastical
teachers has declined. For those who have used it have been many and eminent, and those
who have not used it have never imputed any error to those who used it.' |xlviii John
endeavoured to smoothe to him the adoption of the word. ' 99 The ten days, which Celestine
allowed, are very short, but it might be made matter of a single day, perhaps only of a
few hours. For to use a convenient word in the dispensation of our Sovereign Ruler Christ
for us, which has been used by many of the fathers, and is true as to the saving Birth of
the Virgin, is easy; which thy holiness ought not to decline, nor take that into account,
that one ought not to do things contrary. For if thy mind is the same as that of the
fathers and teachers of the Church (for this, my lord, I have heard from many common
friends), what grief has it, to utter a pious thought in a corresponding word?'

58 Nestorius seems to have thought it to have been his office to convert the Church to his
misbelief. He says, ' 100 I see in our people much reverence and most fervent piety, but
that they are blinded as to the dogma of the knowledge of God. But this is not the fault
of the people, but (how shall I say it courteously?) that the teachers had not opportunity
to set before you aught of the more accurate teaching.' This was strong language, that the
people of Constantinople were in error as to the faith through the fault of its former
Bishops; but he also owned thereby, that his faith was different from theirs. 'Art thou
then,' Cassian 101 apostrophises him, 'the amender of former Bishops, the condemner of
former Priests? art thou more excellent than Gregory, more approved than Nectarius,
surpassing John?' |xlix Nestorius seems to have chosen for himself the office of arbiter
between ideal parties. In his third Epistle to S. Celestine he says,

59 It is known to your Blessedness, that if two sects stand over against one another, and
one of them only uses the word Theotocos, and the other only Anthropotocos, and each sect
draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it do not obtain this, there is peril
lest it fall from the Church, it will be necessary, that one deputed to the consideration
of this matter, having care for each sect, should remedy the peril of either party, by a
word delivered by the Evangelist which signifies both natures. For that word,
Christotocos, tempers the assertion of both, because it both removes the blasphemy of the
Samosatene which is spoken of Christ, the Lord of all, as if He were a pure man, and also
puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinarius.' It is strange that he did not see
(if indeed he did not see what every one else saw), that Christotocos, as opposed to
Theotocos, could only mean 'mother of the Messiah,' i. e. mother of Him who should be the
Messiah. Vincent of Lerins uses the homely illustration,

60 '103 as we speak of the mother of a Presbyter or a Bishop, not that she bare one who
was already a Presbyter or a Bishop, but a man who was afterwards made a Presbyter or
Bishop.' S. John Damascene says, '104 We do not call the holy Virgin Christotocos, because
Nestorius invented it to deny the word Theotocos.' The name 'Anthropotocos' must have been
a fiction of his own, in order to make room for his |l own term Christotocos, as an
intermediate term. No one would give the name as a descriptive name, however they may have
held our Lord to be a mere man; and Nestorius speaks of those, who called the Blessed
Virgin Anthropotocos, as in the Church. However, in his own Patriarchate, for three years
Nestorius had his own way. S. Cyril names that period in his full letter of explanation to
Acacius of Beroea, who must have been cognizant of the accuracy of the statement.

61 '105 But when we all waited for Nestorius, while he spent a period of three years in
blaspheming, and we and your holiness and the whole Council with us tried to bring him
back from them, and to those doctrines which appertain to rightness and truth.' Peter, the
notary, rehearsed the same in the first session of the Council. '106 Not many days having
elapsed' [after his consecration]. S. Cyril in his letter to S. Celestine says, 107 During
the past I have kept silence and have written absolutely nothing either to your
Religiousness, or any of our Fellow-ministers, about him who is now at Constantinople and
ruleth the Church, believing that hastiness in these things is not without blame.' Within
Constantinople, Nestorius, twice apparently, gave occasion to a great expression of
popular feeling by utterances which he sanctioned, absolutely denying the doctrine of the
Incarnation. The first was by Anastasius, a priest 108 whom he had brought from Antioch,
whom 'he held in great honour, and employed as a counsellor; a fiery |li lover of
Nestorius and his Jewish dogmas.' He burst out in a sermon openly, '109 let no one call
Mary theotocos: for Mary was human; but it is impossible that one human should bear God.'
This the people could ill-endure. Nestorius supported it with vehemence.

62 The other statement which reached S. Cyril, and which he mentioned to some at
Constantinople, who blamed him for his letter to the monks 110, was by Dorotheus Bishop of
Marcianopolis, who said openly, 'Anathema, if any call the holy Mary, Theotocos.' This
went much further than the former. It pronounced Anathema (as S. Cyril saw) upon all who
held what all held and expressed, upon the whole Catholic Church. Nestorius at once
received him to Communion. Nestorius supported the denial of the Theotocos. In his first
Sermon he says, that he had been asked whether the Blessed Virgin was to be called
'Anthropotocos or Theotocos.' He appealed to his hearers, 111 Has God a mother? Then
heathendom may be excused, bringing in mothers to its gods. Then Paul is a liar, who saith
of the Deity of Christ, 'without father, without mother, without descent.' Mary bore not
God, my good friends. For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit. The creature bare not the Uncreated: the Father did not beget God
the Word. For 'in the beginning was the Word,' as John saith. The creature did not bear
the Creator, but she bare a Man, the instrument of Deity: the Holy Spirit did not create
God the Word; for that |lii which was born of her was of the Holy Spirit; but He framed of
the Virgin for God the Word a temple wherein He should dwell.'

63 Nestorius continued to preach the same, sometimes in terms, in themselves sound, but in
the context of what is unsound. From his position as Patriarch in New Rome, the residence
of the Emperor, or his personal influence with Theodosius, he could overbear most
opposition. What opposition there was came, it had been observed, first from the Laity,
then from the Clergy, lastly from the Bishops. Nestorius, in his first epistle to S.
Celestine, told him that he had daily used both 'anger and gentleness' in repressing the
Theotocos. His idea of 'anger and gentleness' may be gathered from a formal petition to
the Emperors from Basil, a deacon and Archimandrite, and Thalassius a reader and monk, in
their petition to the Emperors. In the words of this petition, 64 112 By his command and
invitation, we went to the See-house, to be fully instructed whether what we had heard
concerning him is true. He put us off a second and a third time, and then scarcely bade us
say what we wished. But when he had heard from us, that what he had said, that 'Mary only
bore a man consubstantial with herself,' and 'what is born of the flesh is flesh,' is not
orthodox language, immediately he had us seized, and thence, beaten by the crowd of the
officers, we were led to the prison, and there they stripped us naked as prisoners and
subject to punishment, bound us to pillars, threw us down and kicked us. What in the civil
courts we do not say that Clerks, Archimandrites, or monks, nay, or any secular persons do
not suffer, we endured |liii in the Church lawlessly from the lawless ones. Oppressed,
famished, we remained a long time under guard, and his mania was not satisfied with this,
but after all this, by some deceit we were delivered over to the most Excellent Eparch of
this renowned city, and loaded with irons we were led back to the prison, and afterwards
were brought up in the Praetorium in the same way with chains, and since there was no
accuser, we were again led back by the guard in the prison and thus he again chastised us
smiting us on the face, and having discoursed and agreed deceitfully (as appeared from
what followed) about Him Who is by nature Son of Grod, that He was born of the holy Mary
the Theotocos, since there is another Son; so he dismissed us.'

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

66 They conclude by asking the Emperor to convene a General Council, 'not, Grod knows, to
avenge our wrongs,' but 'to unite the most holy Church, restore the priests of the true
faith, before the untrue teaching spread abroad.' They speak of Nestorius as
'intimidating, threatening, driving, expelling, maltreating, acting recklessly and ill,
and doing all unsparingly to establish his own mania and ungodliness, neither fearing God,
nor ashamed before men, but clothed with contempt of all, confident in his wrath and in
the might of some who have been corrupted, and (to speak fearlessly) in your Majesty.' It
is strong language, but language, the more responsible, as formally addressed to one who
held absolute power, who used it as no modern Sovereign could, and who was known to favour
the Patriarch, against whom it was directed. Nestorius boasted to S. Celestine of his
success against those who had departed from him.

67 114 Moreover they have dared to call the Virgin who hare Christ (Christotocos) in a
certain way Theotocos. For they do not shudder at calling her Theotocos, although those
holy fathers above all praise at Nice are read to have said nothing more as to the holy
Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary. I do not speak of the Holy Scriptures, which every where, both by Angels and
Apostles, |lv set forth the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word. For which
things' sake what strifes we have endured, I suppose that report has, before this,
instructed your Blessedness; observing this also, that we have not striven in vain, but by
the grace of the Lord, many of those who were departing from us have been amended.' To S.
Cyril he says, 'Know that those hast been deceived by the Clerks of thine own persuasion,
who have been deprived here by the holy Synod, because they were minded as the Manichees.'

68 S. Cyril in the Synodal letter 116 from Alexandria, announcing his impending
excommunication, mentions those whom Nestorius had excommunicated or degraded, as he had
'indicated to Celestine the most holy Bishop of Great Rome and our fellow-bishop.' S.
Celestine also requires as a condition of Communion that he should '117 restore to the
Church all excluded for the sake of Christ its Head.' In his letter to John of Antioch he
supposes that this may have been done by others also. Within Constantinople Nestorius was
opposed by those whose position secured them from his aggression: by S. Proclus, appointed
Bishop of Cyzicus, whom the Cyzicans declined, wishing to appoint their own Bishop, and
who remained a Bishop without a see; and by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who '118 being of great
piety and skill among the laymen, having gathered within himself no mean learning, was
moved with fervent and devout zeal, and said with |lvi piercing cry, that the Word Himself
Who is before the ages endured a second Generation by that after the flesh and from a
woman.'

69 Nestorius answered him by speaking of the 'pollution' of these wretches and saying,
"that if there were two births, there must be two sons," i. e. that our 'one Lord Jesus
Christ' 'could not be Begotten of the Father before all worlds' and yet 'for us men and
for our salvation' be born of the Virgin Mary. Leontius 119 says that Eusebius was also
said to be the author of the parallel between Paul of Samosata and Nestorius. Different
accounts are given of the way in which the minds of the people were affected. S. Cyril
says that on the Anathema pronounced by Dorotheus, '120 There was a great cry from all the
people, and a running out [of the Church.] For they would not communicate with those so
minded. And now too the people of Constantinople remain out of communion, except some of
the lighter sort and his flatterers. But nearly all the monasteries and their
Archimandrites and many of the senate do not communicate: fearing lest they should be
wronged as to his faith and that of those with him, whom he brought when he came up from
Antioch, who all speak perverse things.'

70 Nestorius, on the other hand, boasts at the close of his answer to S. Cyril's second
letter 121, 'Church matters with us advance daily, and the people through the grace of God
so grow, that those who see their multitude, cry out with the prophet, that the earth is
filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much |lvii water covereth the sea, and the
Emperors are in exceeding joy, being enlightened as to the doctrine; and, to speak
briefly, one may see daily, as to all the heresies which fight with God and the orthodoxy
of the Church, that word is daily fulfilled with us, the house of Saul waxed weaker and
weaker, and the house of David waxed stronger and stronger.' It is not much that the
Emperor told S. Cyril 122, that the Churches were united and would be yet more, and that
he [S. Cyril] was forgiven; (for Nestorius had persuaded him that S. Cyril was a mere
disturber of the peace) or that Nestorius on one occasion speaks of the people being
thronged 123. But some were even ready to turn against those who objected to his teaching
124, and 'many Clergy and laymen from Constantinople coming to Antioch and Beroea agreed
with the saying of Dorotheus, as having nothing contrary to Apostolic doctrine or the
faith of Nicaea 125.'

71 In these three years, S. Cyril had only broken silence three times; once in his letter
to the monks in Egypt; a letter to Nestorius, explaining the occasion of that letter when
he heard that Nestorius was offended by it; and the second full statement of doctrine in
the Epistle, which was received by the Council of Ephesus. i. The first was his 'letter to
the Monks of Egypt.' Grave perplexity had been occasioned to some of them, even as to the
Divinity of our Lord, through some writings attributed to Nestorius. S. Cyril |lviii
answered them, but without any mention of Nestorius. He himself gives the account of his
writing, '126 When his [Nestorius'] homilies were brought to Egypt, I learnt that some of
the lighter sort were carried away, and said doubtingly among themselves, 'does he say
right?' 'Is he in error?' Fearing lest the disease should root in the minds of the simple,
I wrote a general Epistle to the monasteries of Egypt, confirming them to the right
faith.'

72 No Bishop, competent for his office, could have done otherwise than set himself to
remove those perplexities in the minds of the people committed to his charge. Others
circulated what he had written, in Constantinople. S. Cyril continues his account, 'Some
took copies to Constantinople. And those who read them were much benefited, so that very
many of those in office wrote, thanking me. But that too was fresh nutriment of
displeasure against me, and he [Nestorius] contended against me as an enemy, having no
other ground of censure than that I cannot think as he does.' ii. iii. S. Cyril's two
Epistles to Nestorius (previous to the sentence of condemnation which he was commissioned
to announce, unless Nestorius should retract) were letters of explanation. The first was
to remove the offence, which Nestorius had taken at 'the letter to the monks.' It runs; 73
'127 Persons deserving of all credit have come to Alexandria and have informed me that thy
Piety is exceeding angry, and setting every thing in motion to grieve me. |lix And when I
would learn the cause of the grief of thy Piety, they said that some from Alexandria were
circulating the letter written to the holy Monks, and that this was the occasion of the
hatred and displeasure. I wondered then, that thy Piety did not rather think with Itself,
that the disturbance as to the faith did not originate with my letter, but with some,
whether written by thy Piety or no, but any how papers or exegeses which were circulated.
We then toiled, wishing to restore those misled. For some would hardly admit that Christ
is God; but that He was rather an organ or instrument of the Deity and a God-bearing man,
and things even beyond this. I had then reason to complain of the things, which thy Piety
did or did not write. (For I do not much trust the papers which are carried about. How
then should I be silent, when faith is so injured and so many are perverted? Shall we not
be placed before the Judgement-seat of Christ? Shall we not give account for the
unseasonable silence, having been appointed by Him to say what is meet? What shall I do
now? For I must consult with thy Piety.

74 And that, when the most religious and God-beloved Bishop of the Roman Church, and the
God-beloved Bishops with him, report about the papers brought thither, I know not how,
whether by thy Piety or no. For they write, as exceedingly scandalized. And how shall we
soothe those who come from the East from all the Churches, and murmur against the papers?
Or does thy Piety think, that only a little disturbance has sprung up in the Churches from
such homilies? We are all struggling and toiling, bringing back those who are somehow
mispersuaded to think otherwise. When then it is thy Piety, who made all of necessity
murmur, how does It justly find fault? Why does It cry out against me, and that to no
purpose, and does not rather correct Its own speech, to stop this world-wide scandal? For
though the speech is past, yet as being diffused among the people, let it be set straight
by revision, and do thou vouchsafe to concede |lx one word to those who are offended, by
calling the holy Virgin Theotocos, that soothing those who have been, grieved, and having
a right repute among all, we may celebrate the Communions amid the peace and harmony of
the peoples. But let not thy Piety doubt, that we are ready to endure all things for the
Faith in Christ and to undergo imprisonments and death itself.

75 But I say the truth, that even while Atticus of blessed memory still survived, I
composed a book on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in which I wrote also about the
Incarnation of the Only-Begotten agreeably to what I have now written, and I read it to
Bishops and Clerks and those of the laity who were fond of hearing, but I have not given
it out hitherto to any one. If then it should be published, it is probable that I may
again be blamed, whereas the little tract was composed even before the consecration of thy
Piety.' 76 It was, of course, an unpleasant office to write to a Patriarch, in high favour
with the Sovereign of both, who had no slight opinion of himself and of his writings, and
was very angry with S. Cyril himself for writing against them, to tell him that he was in
fact himself in the wrong; that he, S. Cyril, could not have done otherwise than he did,
having before him the judgement-seat of Christ, and that Nestorius had to undo what he had
done, which had set East and West against him. They were not smooth things to write; but I
do not know how they could have been conveyed more smoothly. S. Cyril assures Nestorius,
that there was nothing personal in what he had written, for he did not even know
certainly, whose writings he was answering, but that they were conveying wrong doctrine
among those with whom S. Cyril was put in trust; wrong doctrine, which Nestorius |lxi
would not go along with; that he [S. Cyril] had had no part in the circulation of what he
had written in Constantinople; that he had written the like many years before, and that
this too might become a fresh subject of incrimination, if it should be published, whereas
from its date it could have no bearing on Nestorius. One only request he makes him, the
same, which John of Antioch the friend of Nestorius also made, by acceding to which he
might have escaped his own evil memory and being the author of the miserable rent in the
body of Christ, that he would vouchsafe to concede one word, Theotocos. But it would have
been to give up his heresy.

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

78 The answer of Nestorius was in fact an apology to himself for vouchsafing to write to
S. Cyril. The second Epistle of S. Cyril is also Apologetic, 'in answer to some who are
babbling to thy Piety against my reputation and that incessantly, watching, above all, the
seasons of the meetings of those in power.' The Epistle is throughout doctrinal. But there
is not the slightest controversy with Nestorius, except in the appeal at the end that he
would think and teach these things. It is only a careful statement of the doctrine of the
Incarnation, expressly excluding what Nestorius called Apollinarian. The answer of
Nestorius 130 is in a tone of ironical condescension. He professes to pass by 'the
contumelies of thy wondrous letters, as needing a medicinal long-suffering;' 'the all-wise
words of thy Love;' advises him to attend to doctrine, i. e. not as he had, reading
superficially the tradition of the all-holy fathers [the Nicene Creed] to shew an
ignorance, which needed forgiveness; treated his letter as self-contradictory and ended in
a tone of triumph. Further correspondence was of course useless. Indeed, the quotation
from S. Paul seems intended by Nestorius to close the subject.

79 'These are the counsels from us, as from a brother to a brother. But if any one seem to
be contentious, to such an one Paul will cry out through us also, We have no such custom,
neither the Church of God.' It may be that S. Cyril's letters to the Imperial family may
have been occasioned by the statement which Nestorius gives of the joy of the Sovereign on
being enlightened as to the dogma. But |lxiii although he states the fact clearly to them,
he neither mentions Nestorius, nor quotes any known saying of his. He himself waited. He
had learned probably from his fiery adhesion to his uncle and early benefactor,
Theophilus, and its injustice to the memory of S. Chrysostom. He says to those who
reproached him for his letter to the monks of Egypt, that he might have returned anathema
for anathema, 80 '131 Since we who are yet living, and the Bishops throughout the world,
and our fathers who have departed to God have been anathematised. For what hindered me too
from writing the converse of his words, 'If any one say not that Mary is Theotocos, be he
anathema?' But I have not done this hitherto for his sake, lest any should say, that the
Bishop of Alexandria, i. e. the Egyptian Synod, has anathematised him. But if the most
religious Bishops in East and West shall learn, that all have been anathematised, (for all
say and confess that the holy Mary is Theotocos) how will they be disposed? How will they
not be grieved, if not for themselves, yet for the holy fathers, iu whose writings we find
the holy Virgin Mary named Theotocos? If I did not think it would be burdensome, I would
send many books of the holy Fathers, in which you may find not once but many times this
word used, whereby they confess that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotocos.'

81 When at last he wrote to ask the advice of S. Celestine 132, he says. 'During the time
past I have been silent and have written absolutely nothing concerning him who is now at
Constantinople and rules the Church, either to your Piety or to any other of our fellow-
ministers, believing that precipitancy in these things is not without blame.' |lxiv Yet
the confusion was already not slight. S. Cyril says to a friend of Nestorius; '133 There
is no one from any city or country, who does not say that these things are in every one's
mouth, and, what new learning is being brought into the Churches?' To Nestorius himself he
said, '134 the books of your exegeses are circulated every where.' Vanity probably
precipitated the condemnation of Nestorius. He had a low estimate of the abilities of S.
Celestine. 'The Egyptian [S.Cyril] terrified,' he says, 'by the dread of being convicted,
and seeking for some trouble to stand him in stead, betakes himself to Celestine of Rome,
as one too simple to penetrate the force of dogmas. Finding moreover the simplicity of
that man, he childishly circumvents his ears with the illusions of letters.'

82 It did not occur to Nestorius that Divine truth is seen by simple piety, not by proud
intellect. He was not aware also, that S. Celestine had a deacon who, like S. Athanasius
when a deacon at Nicaea, possessed that intuitive perception of truth which was afterwards
to be developed on these very subjects; him, who became S. Leo the Great, who entrusted
the letters of Nestorius to be translated and refuted by Cassian 136. To this S.
Celestine, of whom he thought so lightly, Nestorius wrote two letters 137, ostensibly to
consult him about Julian and other Pelagians, but in reality to propound his own heresy in
as |lxv plausible a manner as he could. He began by laying down, 'We owe to each other
brotherly conference, as having to fight in harmony together against the devil, the enemy
of peace. To what end this preface?' Julian and others, alleging that they were Bishops of
the West, complained both to the Emperor and to him, that they were persecuted being
orthodox; so he, being in ignorance of the merits of the case, asked S. Celestine to
inform him. 'For a new sect claims great watchfulness from true pastors.'

83 In the second letter, he says that he had 'often'written about these Pelagian Bishops.
He himself might have known (S. Celestine reminds him) since Atticus his predecessor had
written to S. Celestine, what he had done in their matter. In both letters, he speaks of
his efforts against 'something akin to Apollinarianism:' in his second, that he is at much
pains to 'extirpate' it. S. Cyril, in his letter to Juvenal 138, says that Nestorius wrote
this letter to the Church of the Romans, hoping to carry it away with him. By these
letters to S. Celestine, he was himself the occasion of a letter, in which S. Cyril at
last consulted him about the matter of Nestorius, being shewn to S. Celestine. For S.
Cyril had given instructions to his Deacon Posidonius 139,' if he should find the books of
his [Nestorius] exegeses and his letters delivered to him [S. Celestine], deliver my
letters also; if not, bring them here [to S. Cyril] undelivered. He then, finding the
exegeses and |lxvi the letters delivered, had himself also to deliver them.'

84 A synod then was held at Rome, in which, after many sessions 140, the Bishops declared
him to have devised a new very grievous heresy, and condemned him. A fragment of a speech
of S. Celestine is preserved 141, in which he cited the authorities of S. Ambrose in his
Veni redemptor gentium, S. Hilary and S. Damasus. S. Celestine announced to Nestorius the
result; 'Unless you teach as to Christ our God the same which the Church of the Romans and
the Alexandrians and the holy Church in great Constantinople held excellently well till
you, and, within the tenth day counted from the day of this admonition, annul by an open
confession in writing that faithless novelty which undertakes to sever what holy Scripture
unites, thou art cast out of all communion with the Catholic Church.' S. Celestine wrote
the same to John of Antioch 142. This judgement he had entrusted to S. Cyril, holding his
place. S. Cyril wrote what had passed and the condemnation of Nestorius by the Roman Synod
to John of Antioch 143, telling him, that the Council had written the like to 'Rufus
Bishop of Thessalonica, and other Bishops of Macedonia, who always agree with them,' and
to Juvenal Bishop of Aelia; that he himself should follow their decision, and asking him
to consider what to do to hinder this breach of communion. |lxvii

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

86 Nestorius had however taken his line. He answers in apparent amazement; 'I thought that
people could have set anything in motion against me rather than the calumny that I do not
hold aright as to the piety of faith, I who hitherto have been delighted that many
thousand hostilities rise against me on account of the battle which I have against |lxviii
all heretics. But this temptation too I must bear with joy; for it too, if we watch very
carefully, may confer on us much confidence to piety.' He says in answer, that 'the word
Theotocos is assumed by many heretics as their own;' that 'some here, using the word
incautiously, fall thereby into heretical and irreligious thoughts, especially those of
the impious Arius and Apollinarius:' that his own solution was that 'the word Theotocos
should be explained harmoniously after the deliberation of us all.' He bids John 'dismiss
all anxiety, knowing that hy the grace of God we have and do think the same in what
relates to the piety of faith. For it is plain that if we meet, since He has given us this
Synod which we hope, we shall dispose this and whatever else must be done for the
correction and benefit of the whole, without scandal and in harmony; so that all things
which may be ordained by a common and universal decree may receive the dignity of matters
of faith, and shall give no one an occasion of contradiction even if he be very ready for
it. But as to the wonted presumption of the Egyptian, your Religiousness ought not to
wonder, since we have of old very many instances of this. After a little, if God shall
will, our counsel herein also will be matter of praise.'

87 He adds in a postscript, 'We have by the grace of God attracted more both the Clergy
and people and those who are in the imperial mansions, through the Epistles of your
Religiousness, to that doctrine which we give publicly in the Church.' To S. Celestine,
after writing in his wonted strain about the terms Theotocos, Anthropotocos, Christotocos,
he writes exultingly: |lxix 'The most pious Emperors have been pleased, with the help of
God, to appoint a Synod of the whole world, from which no one is to excuse himself
[inexcusabiliter] for the enquiry into other ecclesiastical matters. For any doubt about
words will not, I suppose, involve any difficult enquiry, nor be a hindrance to treating
of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.' S. Celestine says 147, 'He asks a field for battle; he
calls for a sacerdotal examination, at which he would not be present. Who would have
thought that he who asked for a synod [petitorem synodi] would be absent from the Synod?'

88 The relation of the Emperor to the Synod is best explained by the personal letter which
he wrote to S. Cyril, commanding his attendance at it. The letter can hardly have had any
other object than to intimidate S. Cyril. For he had already received the circular summons
to the Council, of which the only extant copy is addressed to him. The letter was written
altogether in the mind of Nestorius 148. For he treats S. Cyril as the author of the
existing confusion, and the doctrine as one hereafter to be examined and settled by the
Council. 'It is plain to every one that religion has its firmness not from any one's
bidding but from intelligence. Now then let thy Piety instruct Us, why, overlooking Us
(whom thou knowest to have such care of godliness) and all the priests every where, who
could better have |lxx solved this dispute, thou hast, as far as in thee lies, cast
confusion and severance into the Church. As if a rash impetuosity became questions as to
godliness, rather than accuracy; or as if carefulness had not more weight with Ourselves
than rashness; or as if intricacy in these things were more pleasing to Us than,
simplicity. And yet we did not think that Our high estimation would be so received by thy
Piety, or that every thing would be thrown into confusion, inasmuch as We too know how to
be displeased. But now We shall take heed to the sacred calm. But know that thou hast
disturbed every thing as thou oughtest not.'

89 Then, having reproached him, as having tried to sow dissension in the Imperial family,
by his letters to him and the Empress Eudocia, and his sister Augusta Pulcheria, and told
him that it belonged to one and the same, to wish to dissever Churches and Royalties, as
though there were no other way of obtaining distinction, he resumes, 90 'But that thou
mayest know Our state, be assured that the Churches and the kingdoms are united, and will
be yet more united at Our command, with the providence of our Saviour Christ, and that thy
Piety is forgiven, that thou mayest have no pretext, nor be able to say that thou art
blamed on account of religion. For we will that all shall be laid open at the holy Synod
and that what shall seem good shall prevail, whether the defeated obtain forgiveness from
the fathers or no. We certainly will not endure that cities and Churches should be thrown
into confusion, nor that the question should remain unsifted. Of these they must sit in
judgment, who every where preside over the Priesthood; and by them We have and shall have
firmer possession of the true doctrine. Nor shall any one, who has ever so little share in
the polity, be allowed liberty of speech, if in his self-confidence he choose to evade
such a judgement. He shall not be permitted; for Our Majesty [lit. |lxxi Divinity] must
praise those who shall eagerly and readily come to this enquiry, and will not endure if
any choose to command rather than be counselled about these matters. So then thy Reverence
must come at the time appointed in the other letters, sent to all the Metropolitans; and
must not expect to recover the relation to Ourselves in any other way than that, ceasing
from all grievousness and turbulence, thou come willingly to the investigation of these
questions. For thus thou wilt appear to have done what has hitherto been done harshly and
inconsiderately, yet still in behalf of thy opinion, not through any private pique or
undue hostility to any one, and to will to do with justice what remains to be done. For if
thou willest to do otherwise, We will not endure it.'

91 A Caesar who so wrote could not be approached. It seems that he expected S. Cyril to be
condemned rather than Nestorius. S. Cyril did not attempt to remove the offence of his
letters to the Imperial family, until he had been allowed to return from the Council to
his own diocese. S.Cyril explains his own mind towards Nestorius to a zealous adherent of
Nestorius, with a singular simplicity. 'If I were writing to one who knew not my
disposition, I might have used many words, persuading that I am a person exceeding
peaceful, not given to strife, not fond of warfare, but one who longs to love all and to
be loved by all. But because I write to one who knows me, I say briefly, 'If a brother's
grief could be removed by loss of money or goods, I would gladly have done it, that I
might not seem to hold anything of more value |lxxii than love. But since it is a question
of faith, and all the Churches (so to say) in the whole Roman Empire are offended,---- 152
what shall we do, who are entrusted by God with the Divine mysteries?' For those who are
taught the faith will accuse us in the Day of Judgement, saying that they held the faith
as taught by us..... Only be the faith preserved, and I am his dear friend and yield to
none as loving more than myself the most God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, who (God is my
witness) I would might be of good repute in Christ and efface the blot of the past, and
shew that what is commonly said by some as to his faith, are untrue accusations.'

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

93 There could scarcely be a franker offer, putting aside every thing of his own, to
'write the Catholic faith.' Nestorius is tied down to no Theological expressions, but to
the simple faith. He could not write it, because he had ceased to hold it. The Bishops
assembled in that Synod were of no ordinary character. Vincentius of Lerins, writing about
three years after it was holden, speaks of its '154 great humility and holiness, that they
were for the more part metropolitans, of such condition and doctrine, that almost all
could dispute about matters of faith, and yet they claimed nothing for themselves, but
were careful to hand down nothing to those after them, which they had not themselves
received from the Fathers.' S. Cyril in his Apology to the Emperor, calls them '155 men,
very well known to your Mightiness, and exceeding well spoken of for excellence in all
things.'

94 Nestorius came to the Council ' 156 immediately after the Feast of Easter' with 10 or
15 Bishops, his adherents 157. He was also supported by a few Pelagian Bishops, whom he
had admitted to Communion, and who for the time were retained in their office by the
requirement of Theodosius, that everything should remain as it was, until the decision of
the Council. He is said to have found |lxxiv many Bishops present. If so, they must have
been Bishops from the Exarchate of Ephesus. For the rest are related to have arrived
later. The Council was the plan of Nestorius, and he naturally came among the first, to
guide, as he hoped, its decisions. S. Cyril, on his arrival, found that there had been
active, though ineffectual, efforts against the faith. He wrote, 'The Evil one, the
sleepless beast, is going about, plotting against the faith of Christ, but avails
nothing.' The Evil one is, of course, Satan; but Satan acts through human agents.
Nestorius says, that he had no intercourse with S. Cyril. He wrote to Scholasticus, an
Eunuch of the Emperor and his friend; 'Cyril has both heretofore entirely avoided any
converse with us, and until now avoids it, thinking that he shall thereby escape the
conviction of the Chapters [the anathemas] because without contradiction they are
heretical 159.' If (as has been conjectured) it was at this time that S. Cyril made the
extracts from the works of Nestorius, and possibly those from older writers 160,
containing the true doctrine, he had |lxxv enough to do. There is no reason to think that
S. Cyril preached at this time against Nestorius 161.

95 The pure humanitarianism of Nestorius was elicited by the attempts of Theodotus of
Ancyra, and his pious friend, Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, to bring him back to the faith.
To Theodotus and several others, he repeated the well-known blasphemies about our Lord's
sacred Infancy and Childhood, that he would not call Him God, who was two or three months
old, or who was nurtured at the breast, or who fled into Egypt 162. This was stated upon
oath to the Council. There was nothing further to investigate. It supplied what was yet
wanting, the knowledge that Nestorius had not laid aside the heresy, for which he had been
condemned the year before. S. Celestine had given the formal advice to S. Cyril 163, that
if |lxxvi Nestorius came to a better mind, he should be received. He had, up to the moment
of the opening of the Council, made things worse. He had taken into his own mouth the
blasphemies, which before he had sanctioned in his adherent, Dorotheus. If one who nakedly
denied the Incarnation was not fit to be Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius had
decided against himself. It brought out what lay in his letter to S. Cyril which was
formally condemned by the Council, that our Lord's relation to God was the same in kind,
although not in degree, as that of any devout Christian.

96 There could be no question among any who listened to the evidence, as there was none
among any of those who heard it. He was deposed on the evidence of his own letter to S.
Cyril, of twenty sayings in his acknowledged works, and of contradictions to the faith in
Ephesus itself. S. Celestine had, it seems, collected a new Synod 164 at Rome, from which
he wrote to the Council. The Council itself reported that '165 although the whole
multitude of Bishops were hindered from coming to Ephesus by the distance, yet being
gathered in those parts, they, Celestine presiding, with entire consent, uttered our mind
as to the faith. Those who came, explained to this our Synod by letter the mind of the
whole Western Church.' Philip, a presbyter, and Roman legate, after reading the Acts,
declared that all things had been adjudged '166 according to the Canons and Ecclesiastical
discipline.' |lxxvii

97 After long canvass on the part of the deputies of John's party to obtain a rescinding
of the sentence of the Synod, the Prefect at last wrote to Nestorius, '167 We have delayed
long what seemed to be done by the judgment of the Synod, although many greatly blamed us
and were instant that it should be. But now the letters of your Holiness have been
delivered to us, shewing that the lingering at Ephesus is distasteful to you, and that
your Religiousness desires to journey, we have directed those, who ought to minister to
you along the whole journey, to minister to you [by sea or land], on the whole way to your
monastery.....We do not suppose that you need consolation, considering the wisdom of your
soul, and the many thousand goods by which you are endowed above all others.' Nestorius in
his answer accepts as a gift the command to live in his monastery.

98 '168 For nothing is more honourable to us, than a removal for piety. But I beseech your
Highness, for the sake of religion, often to remind the pious Prince to set a note
everywhere, by public Imperial letters, on the verbosities of Cyril which his Piety has
adjudged, so that it should be read throughout the orthodox Churches, lest in the absence
of letters of the pious Emperor, if the writings of Cyril should be said to be condemned
by him, an occasion of scandal should arise to the simple, as if it were not said truly.'
Nestorius does not seem to mind his own deposition, so that the sentence against Cyril and
|lxxviii Memnon be also confirmed; as Count John reported to the Emperor, that the party
of John bore patiently the notice of the deposition of Nestorius, when united with that of
Cyril and Memnon 169. The public account which Nestorius gave 170, was, that 'he was
allowed, at his own request, to retire to his monastery,' which was not more than two
furlongs outside of Antioch.

99 There, Nestorius says, he 'received all sorts of honours and respectful presents.'
There, he himself says, he remained for four years. The adjuration of S. Celestine to
Theodosius 171 to 'remove him from all intercourse [with others], that he might have no
facility to destroy others,' remained unheeded. After four years, by the decree of
Theodosius, he was banished to the Oasis. Evagrius 172 supplies the fact, that his former
friend John of Antioch reported to the Emperor his continued blasphemies, and so
'Theodosius condemned him to perpetual banishment.' He was removed from propagating his
heresy personally, but could and did write in defence of it. The Oasis, to which he was
finally removed, was a place not unpleasant in itself. It was however open to the
incursions of a hostile tribe, the Blemmyes. With his sufferings there, in consequence of
edicts of the Emperor, the Church had nothing to do. His treatment by the Emperor is
unexplained. But the sufferings were God's temporal judgement inflicted through the State.
The |lxxix Church was guiltless of them. Yet since "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth,"
they shewed that God had not abandoned him to the last.

100 S. Cyril's relation to Nestorius ended with the sentence upon him. His own troubles
then began. S. Cyril himself, on his arrival, had anticipated a speedy close of the
Council 173. The Bishops had urged S. Cyril to hasten the hearing. '174 Some of the
Bishops were weighed down by years; some were in peril of life through illness; some had
died; some were straitened by poverty.' The Council had waited 16 days after the day of
Pentecost, which the Emperor had peremptorily fixed for the opening of the Council. The
whole Synod had exclaimed that he did not wish to be present. They supposed that he
feared, ' 175 lest the Most Reverend Nestorius, who had been taken from the Church under
his jurisdiction, should be deposed, and was perhaps ashamed of the business.' John's
delay might well be puzzling in those days when tidings travelled slowly. He himself did
not explain it to the Council, although he did subsequently to the Emperor. There had been
a scarcity at Antioch and consequent tumults among the people, so that much time was
wasted in setting out. Incessant rains made the roads bad. Of all this the Bishops at
Ephesus naturally knew nothing. They knew only that he had chosen the slow land-journey
instead of coming by sea, and |lxxx even thus, under ordinary circumstances, he might have
been punctual. Antioch was, by land, only 30 days' 176 journey from Ephesus. From the
close of Easter-week to Pentecost there are 41 days, and 14 more had elapsed before there
was any notice of his arrival. Why should he delay, except that he did not wish to be
there? Even Eutherius 177, a Nestorian, thought that he delayed on purpose.

101 According to the statement of John, S. Cyril wrote to him two days before the opening
of the Council, that the whole Council was awaiting his arrival. He meant then to wait for
him. Moderns speak of S. Cyril as arbitrary; no one has ventured to say he was fickle.
Something then must have intervened, which occasioned him to yield to the wish of the
Bishops. The change would be explained, if S. Cyril had come in the meantime to know of
the mind, in which the Antiochenes were coming to the Council. They made no secret of it.
Their deputies may have informed S. Cyril. Theodoret, who was one of them, and who at that
time used Nestorianising language which was condemned at the 5th General Council, says,
'178 Before we departed to Ephesus, the blessed John wrote to the most-God-beloved Bishop
Eutherius of Tyana, and Firmus of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, calling these
Chapters, teaching of Apollinarius. And at Ephesus our deposing him of Alexandria and him
of Ephesus had for its ground the setting forth and confirmation of the Chapters. And
there were many Synodical letters written to the Victorious Emperor, and |lxxxi the High
Magistrates, and in like way to the people at Constantinople, and the most reverend
Clergy. And moreover, when summoned to Constantinople, we had five resolutions in the
presence of the Emperor himself, and we sent three protests to him subsequently.'

102 These charges were the pith of the different documents put forth by John's
Conciliabulum. Of course, contravention of the Emperor's orders was put in the forefront;
but no assembly, calling itself a Synod, could have deposed a Patriarch and a Bishop for
neglecting or contravening the orders of an Emperor. The heresy alleged could be the only
ground of deposition. John set forth this in the preamble which was accepted by his
Conciliabulum. '179 I would that no one of those set apart as priests of God should be
cast out of the Church. But since the excision of incurable members is necessary for the
health of the whole body, it is meet that Cyril and Memnon should be deposed, as the
chiefs of the past lawlessness and of the trampling upon Ecclesiastical ordinances and the
pious decrees of our most pious Emperor, and on account of the heretical meaning of the
aforesaid Chapters, and that those subject to them should be excommunicated, until,
recognizing their offence, they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril, and agree to
abide by the holy faith set forth by the holy fathers assembled at Nice, not superadding
any thing other than it or foreign to godliness, and come together according to the pious
letter of our most pious Emperor and examine as brothers the subjects of enquiry, and
establish the pious faith.'

103 This same note sounds throughout, in every document of John's Conciliabulum 180.
|lxxxii 104 If S. Cyril had any intimation of this mind of the Antiochenes, it accounts
for his sudden resolve not to wait for them, but to accede to the wishes of the other
Bishops and open the Council without them. The mind of the Church had been expressed in
the previous year. The Council itself was only a device of Nestorius to ward off his
condemnation. He had already been severed from the Communion of the greater part of
Christendom. The Council |lxxxiii represented the whole West, North Africa, Egypt,
Jerusalem, Macedonia, Illyricum, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia. The 15 or 17 181 Bishops of
John of Antioch, even if united with the 10 or 15 182 Bishops of Nestorius, were but a
fraction of the Church. No injustice was done to Nestorius. But grave confusion and
scandal might have ensued upon John's arrival. If John had brought into the Council the
charge of heresy, which his Conciliabulum alleged so perseveringly against S. Cyril and
Memnon, it would have rested with Candidian, the friend of Nestorius, to rule in what
order the charges should be taken. Candidian threw himself so entirely into John's side
(even in intercepting the Relation of the Council to the Emperor), that he would, without
doubt, have preferred the charge of heresy against S. Cyril. What the result would have
been, He only can know, Who sees the things which have not been, as if they had been.

105 We cannot write the things which have not been, since God Alone knows the hearts which
He made, and how they would have developed under trials which He spared. But Nestorius had
shewn himself practised in inflicting violence, as Dioscorus up to the eve of the
Latrocinium had not. Soldiers of Theodosius had not much respect for Bishops. Those who
carried the news of the deposition of Nestorius to Count Irenaeus brought back to the
Council the marks of their ill-treatment 183. Nestorius had brought his own guard of
soldiers and a great number of peasants and others from the worst parts of Constantinople.
Candidian had |lxxxiv drawn troops from the garrison at Tripoli in Lydia. It has been
noticed that the seamen who brought S. Cyril were ready to support him, and the peasantry
of the lands of the see of Ephesus to support Memnon. The whole population of Ephesus were
enthusiastic in behalf of the ancient doctrine, as they shewed by their exuberant joy 184,
when the sentence, for which they had waited from morning to evening, was announced.

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

107 So S. Cyril assented to the wish of the Council not to delay, and braved the Emperor's
displeasure, expecting it to fall on himself alone. |lxxxv His earthly future, after the
Council was over, remained for some time in the balance. Candidian sent to the Emperor an
adverse report 185; John's Conciliabulum sent their complaints 186, as if they had been
the Council; Nestorius sent his account 187; S. Cyril was not heard. Theodosius first
condemned the condemnation of Nestorius; annulled the proceedings of the Council; forbade
any Bishop to leave Ephesus, to come to his Court or to return home 188. The adherents of
Nestorius in Constantinople hindered any tidings of his deposition coming both by sea and
by land 189: Candidian precluded access at a distance 190. S. Cyril's deposition by John's
Conciliabulum was reported at Constantinople, as if it were the act of the Council 191; it
was (S. Cyril understood) consequently deliberated at Court, whether he should not be
banished 192.

108 His deposition was accepted, and he himself put under a guard of soldiers placed even
at his bedroom door. Memnon wrote 193, that they were sometimes deprived of necessaries
194, were insulted by the rustics and the rabble which Nestorius had brought. S. Cyril was
at peace. He wrote, '195 Since the letter of the most religious and Christ-loving |lxxxvi
Emperors has been read, in which it was said that the deposing of the three was to be
accepted, we have been kept in ward, not knowing what will be the issue. But we give
thanks to God, if we be thought worthy for His Name's sake not to be prisoners only, but
also to endure all besides. For it is not without its reward.----As the blessed David
says, "I am ready for the scourge." ' At the wish of the Council, he employed the leisure
of his imprisonment in explaining his Anathematisms 196.

109 The Conciliabulum, in transmitting 'the Alexandrian's new exposition of the heretical
chapters,' said that he 'thereby shewed his impiety more evidently 197.' They even
wondered at the perseverance of the Council, notwithstanding the imprisonment of Cyril and
Memnon. They write as a Synod, '198 Count John holds in most guarded custody Cyril and
Memnon, thrusting [detrudens] each apart, and placing a multitude of soldiers around the
house of each. Yet not even thus are they still, who turn every thing upside down and have
filled the world with confusion and sedition, but acting as usual, make a confusion, and
set in motion a rule against themselves. For, being excommunicated, they have audaciously
assumed to themselves the ministry of the priesthood, &c.' And again in their Epistle to
Acacius of Berrhoea, '199 Your Religiousness should know that they [the Bishops of the
Council] have been excommunicated by us, because they co-operated with the insanity of the
heretic Cyril and what he did unlawfully and iniquitously, and |lxxxvii have presumed to
exercise their office and to communicate with the condemned.----And these things they
commit, knowing that those most injurious persons Cyril and Memnon have been thrust
[trusi] away and are kept by a multitude of soldiers. For thrusting [trudentes] each
apart, they guard them night and day; wherefore let your Holiness pray &c.'

110 The Bishops of the Council seem also to have thought that it was the intention of the
Nestorianisers to wear them out to undo what they had done. A brief memorial at the end of
their letter to the Clergy of Constantinople says, 'We are being killed with the heat
through the heaviness of the air, and some one is buried almost daily; so that all the
servants are sent home, and all the other Bishops are in the same state. Whence we pray
your Reverences to go to the gracious Sovereign and say that the Synod is oppressed by
those, who prevent any term being given, so that we are altogether perishing by
exhaustion. But your Reverences should know, that although they press upon us till we all
die, we will not do any thing other than our Saviour Christ has taught us to decree.' The
cordon was drawn with all safety to hinder any report from the Council reaching the
Emperor's ears. It was snapped by a mendicant. The Clergy of Constantinople wrote,

111 '201 Since no one can do any thing against God (for what is man?), by the ordering of
God there arrived an Epistle written from Ephesus to the holy Bishops and monks sent by a
beggar who tied it within a reed, and thus, begging and carrying his reed, brought it.
Forthwith all the monasteries with the Archimandrites arose and |lxxxviii went to the
palace. The holy Dalmatius, one of the Archimandrites, had not left his monastery for 48
years, but remained enclosed. Our most pious Emperor went to him and saw him. There being
ofttimes earthquakes in Constantinople, the Emperor ofttimes requested him to come forth
and say litanies; he never would. But when he was praying about this, a voice came down
from heaven bidding him go forth. For He did not will that His flock should perish
utterly.' The Archimandrites, who were admitted, prevailed. Theodosius learnt with
surprise 202 that while the Nestorians had free ingress and regress, the deputies of the
Council had been refused access to him.

112 The Emperor tried in vain to reconcile the Antiochenes with S. Cyril. The Antiochenes,
in their third indignant protest 203, reproached the Emperor with their obedience,
reminded him that the East was no small part of his Empire, that he needed the true faith
to prevail in the war which then encircled Africa, that God would fight for him, if he
would defend the holy faith, and would not allow the body of the Church to be cut of, but
it would be cut off, if the meaning superinduced on the faith by Cyril and confirmed by
others should stand; that persons intermixed with the Churches taught the doctrine of
Apollinarius and Arius and Eunomius, and unlawfully and irregularly exercised the office
of the priesthood. They conclude with the prayer that he |lxxxix would not allow any thing
to be stealthily introduced against the faith of the holy fathers who met at Nice. If
after this admonition before God the Emperor did not acquiesce, they 'with S. Paul shook
off the dust from their feet against them, saying, "We are clean from the blood of all
men." "We have not ceased night and day, from the time we came to the holy Synod to
protest to the Emperor, Judges, soldiers, priests, and laymen, not to be the betrayers of
the faith delivered by the fathers.'

113 It was an internecine war, continued even after the return of the Eastern Bishops to
their sees; the Easterns still absolutely demanded the deposition of S. Cyril Memnon and
all their adherents, and that their teaching should be proscribed. S. Cyril shewed his
peace-loving disposition on his return to Egypt. The Orientals had brought upon him his
imprisonment, its privations and indignities, and the prospect of banishment. This they
had done by aping a Council, yet without the formalities of a Council, without enquiring
into anything which the real Council had done, assuming that they had done what they had
not done----formally sanctioned the Anathematisms which S. Cyril had framed, not as a rule
of faith but to cut off the evasions of Nestorius, and that these Anathemas were
heretical. They had persuaded the Emperor, that their 40 Bishops, who represented one
Patriarchate, were the Council of the whole world, which he had convoked. Until they found
it useless to mention the name of Nestorius |xc to the Emperor 204, they urged his
restoration and the deposition of S. Cyril. He had escaped in despite of them. They would
not be persuaded that Nestorius was the heretic which he was; and they would repeat that
S. Cyril was an Arian, Eunomian, Apollinarian, although they must have known that at the
least he was neither Eunomian nor Arian.

114 There was nothing then for S. Cyril to do in regard to them. They had fallen into the
trap which Nestorius had laid for them by sending the Anathemas meant to test his own
sincerity, without the Epistle which would have explained them. It became an axiom with
Theodoret that they were heretical. S. Cyril then could but wait. S. Sixtus iii., a peace-
loving Bishop who had succeeded S. Celestine, bears him witness that he had shewed at once
how mindful he was of the faith and how regardless of contumelies, which he suffered
gloriously, according to the Apostle, wishing that the Churches should be well-ordered,
rather than that he should be righted himself; that one [Nestorius] having wrecked
himself, he was anxious that all the rest should be saved out of the waves. 'The same mind
is in us also; to act tenderly towards them, when they cease to be impious towards God.
Let those then, who will to return to the right way, be received.' He addresses S. Cyril
himself,

115 'Hold fast, most beloved brother, what has been done by the Council, and what has been
defined by us. For a brother dismisses contumelies which benefit him before the Lord of
all. For such contumely is victory. |xci Whence he has borne meekly all the sharp blows,
nor did those things grieve him, wherein he now rejoices; for he strove for a crown. For
he knows what prizes are in store for the victors in such conflicts.' S. Sixtus coincided
altogether with S. Cyril, but spoke strongly; 'let him [John] know that he shall be one of
the Catholic body, if, undoing all undone by the Synod, he shew himself a Catholic
priest.' S. Cyril required nothing for himself. The Bishops, whom the Emperor assembled at
Constantinople, propounded the terms, at which the Emperor was 'exceedingly pleased.' 'The
Bishop, full of piety, John of Antioch, must anathematise the doctrine of Nestorius, and
acknowledge in writing his deposition; and this being done, the Bishop of Alexandria will,
out of love, forget altogether and regard as nothing the contumelies which he endured at
Ephesus, very grievous as they were, and hard to endure.'

116 John's party would not accept them. The first conditions of peace on John's side,
which Aristolaus, the Emperor's deputy, selected as the mildest 207, were in fact, of
unconditional submission. The terms were, '208 We acknowledge the Nicene Creed as
sufficient, but the letter of S. Athanasius to Epictetus explains its meaning. We abide
therefore therein, and cast off all |xcii doctrines recently superinduced, either by
Epistles or Chapters, as disturbing the common faith:' i. e. he was to acknowledge that
he, not Nestorius, had been the disturber of the Church. S. Cyril most gladly 209 received
the Epistle to Epictetus 210, but shewed them that their own copies had been corrupted by
heretics 211. For the rest, he said that to withdraw what he had written would be to unsay
all which had been said against the heresy of Nestorius. He was, in fact, to withdraw by
his single act Epistles, of which one had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus,
individually and as a body, the other, with the anathemas, had been placed among its Acts
(no one excepting), and undo his whole work at the dictum of John and five other Bishops.

117 The Orientals then selected a wiser envoy, Paul of Emesa. Yet even him they burthened
with complaints, 'as if some things had been said and done wrongly' in the Synod. This
occasioned the only reminiscence of the past ill-treatment, ' They who ought to seek
pardon for the past, how do they add fresh contumelies?' When these were withdrawn, S.
Cyril says, 'we were filled with gladness of heart;' and 'contrary perhaps to his
expectations,' Paul found him fully disposed for peace 213. S. Cyril's relation shews how
deeply he felt the rent as a work of Satan. He accepted at once a Confession, written
(John said in his letter to S. Cyril) 'by us |xciii in harmony 214.' He gave to Paul a
statement of faith, which John accepted. Paul preached in the great Church of Alexandria
215. 'The people cried out, This is the Faith, the gift of God, orthodox Cyril. This we
sought to hear.' S. Cyril wrote to John the exulting letter, beginning with the words of
the Psalm, 'Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad. For the middle-wall of
partition is dissolved; what saddened has ceased; all manner of discord is removed. For
Christ, the Saviour of us all, has bestowed peace upon all His Churches.'

118 He says, in a sort of under-tone to Maximian who had succeeded Nestorius, 'Strife and
contention reign not among us, but we have all one mark, looking to peace. And if those
who from the first have differed in opinion from us and cut themselves off from us, had
willed, there would have been no strife or difference among the Churches. But blessed be
the Saviour, Who hath lulled the storm &c.' It was S. Cyril's lot, then as now, to be
misunderstood. He was blamed as to the peace, as, before, for the conflict. Theodoret
could not but acquiesce in the acceptance of his own Synodal letter, but held it to be
directly contradictory of the twelve Chapters 217. To his lord and truly God-loving and
venerable holy father Nestorius' he apologises for the peace, and assures him, that he
holds Cyril in abhorrence, as being the author of all the disturbance of the whole world
218. The |xciv Nestorianizers were of course very angry; but he had to explain himself,
even to his old friend Acacius of Melitene as also to others 219. He whom the Orientals
had so unrelentingly persecuted was now their defender, shewing that they were not
Nestorians, and trying patiently to win back to the Communion of the Church individuals
still alienated.

119 He had to bear what was still harder, the reproaches of S. Isidore, to whom he had a
filial affection 220. S. Isidore 221 had told him before of 'the jeers of many at Ephesus,
as if thou wert wreaking thine own enmity, and not seeking, as one orthodox, the things of
Jesus Christ. For, say they, he is a nephew of Theophilus.' He had again set forth to him
the faith of the Incarnation 222 as something which 'thou thyself wouldest not deny,' and
now, when S. Cyril had himself accepted the same statement as propounded by him, he wrote,
'223 Wondrous man, thou oughtest to remain ever unchanged, not betraying the things of
heaven, nor appearing contradictory to thyself. For if thou comparest what thou hast now
written with thy former writings, thou wilt seem chargeable with flattery, or the minister
of off-handed ness, yielding to vain-glory, instead of imitating the strivings of all
those great holy |xcv combatants, who endured to be ill-treated all their life in a
foreign land, rather than even hear a thought of evil doctrine.'

120 S. Isidore, in his zeal for S. Cyril's perfecting, seems to have written to him
according to the sayings of others. It must have been hard to be so unjustly blamed by a
saint, but S. Cyril seems to have received the undeserved censure in silence. One more
occasion is recorded in which a public expression of opinion was asked of him, as to the
writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 121 The Council, while sparing his name, had already
condemned a Creed of his, which had been presented by some Nestorians to many
Quartodecimans and Novatians who wished to return to the Church 224. S. Proclus sent to
John of Antioch a Tome containing Nestorian passages of Theodore (equally sparing his
name), requesting him to have them condemned. Maximus, the bearer, contrary to his
instructions, inserted the name. The Antiochenes, after this, would not condemn the
passages, even without the name 225. Maximus 226, an Archimandrite, came to Alexandria,
'speaking much and strongly' against the Easterns, the 'orthodox have no room there nor
freedom to speak the faith.' '227 A noble officer of the Palace presented to S. Cyril,
when at Jerusalem, a long Epistle of many Clergy and monks and laity, accusing the Eastern
Bishops, that they, suppressing the name of Nestorius, professed to be |xcvi averse to
him, and bounded down to the books of Theodore on the Incarnation, in which lie many more
grievous blasphemies than those of Nestorius. For he was the father of the ill-doctrines
of Nestorius, and by speaking his words, the ungodly man is in his present condition.' The
Alexandrians, having refused to sign the Tome of S. Proclus, appealed to S. Cyril 228. S.
Cyril indignantly set aside any likeness of 'the ill-reputed doctrine of Diodore and
Theodore' to that of the great fathers whom John alleged 229. To John of Antioch he wrote
230, that no one should utter in Church the ungodly doctrines of Theodore;

122 but he dwelt on the tenderness, with which those returning should be received, and not
be reproached for the past: to Proclus 231, that Theodore had died in the communion of the
Church; that in rejecting his Creed the Council had purposely spared his name, lest some
should separate from the Church; that in rejecting the blasphemies of Nestorius they had
virtually condemned what was like them; that if it could be done without disturbance, it
would be best for the sake of others; but that since John of Antioch wrote, that 'they
would rather be burned with fire than do anything of that sort, why should we fan the
stilled flame?' that those who wished the writings to be condemned might be persuaded to
be quiet rather than give occasion of scandal to the Church. To Maximus, who would not
communicate with John because of |xcvii some suspected of Nestorianism, he wrote 232
urging the reception of those willing to return to communion, even though ashamed to own
their fall.

123 Everywhere he is the peace-maker. The veteran pilot, who, under God, had guided the
ship through the storm, sat, watching each cloud, as it arose. His one thought was, 'Peace
has been restored; take we heed that it be not again broken.' S. Cyril thought it indeed
right to correct in writing the errors of Theodore; but this disturbed no peace, since
Theodore was gone. Theodoret, as usual, wrote against him, but Theodoret had not S.
Cyril's accurate Theological mind. S. Cyril, in his 9th Anathematism, called God the Holy
Ghost, 'the Very own Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ' adopting the language of S.
Athanasius, that '233 the Holy Spirit was the Very own Spirit of the Son.' Theodoret
declaimed chiefly, as if S. Cyril had said this of the Humanity of our Lord, not of His
Godhead; but adds, at the end, the sad words, 'If he so calls Him as One in Nature and
proceeding from the Father, we will receive it; but if, as having His existence from the
Son or through the Son, we will fling it away as blasphemous and ungodly.' Theodoret could
not have been, at that time, acquainted with the great writers before him, S. Dionysius of
Alexandria, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril
of Jerusalem 234, who used the 'from' or the 'through' which he 'flings' from him. S.
Cyril's well-weighed and |xcviii full language has continued to teach man until now. The
impetuous language of Theodoret, if it had had any lasting weight, would have fostered the
disbelief of any relation between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, contrary to our
Baptismal Creed.

124 Theodoret thought good to defend Theodore against S. Cyril, arguing against all the
authorities which S. Cyril had adduced 235. The one fragment which remains is written
sharply 236. S. Cyril had explained and re-explained his Anathematisms against Theodoret's
attacks; for the alienated Antiochenes had to be reconciled, and a breach to be healed.
This censure of his work against Theodore concerned only himself, so he went on his way in
peace. S. Cyril's strong natural love has been incidentally noticed 237. One could hardly
picture him, such as he has been ordinarily represented, in advancing years, enfolding and
kissing the letter of his friend Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, enquiring about a type in
the Old Testament, 'the scapegoat 238.' Yet since all service to God must involve self-
denial, perhaps one of strong natural love was the fitter instrument of God for the hard
service of that dreary warfare, as it must have aided him in the congenial office of
reconciling the alienated.

125 Outward events give but little insight into the inward mind. S. Cyril is now chiefly
known (as far as he is known at all) as the zealous defender of the Faith. But it was the
Faith in Him, his |xcix God and his All. Many must have been his peaceful years before he
was called out by the needs of his own people, to defend the truth of God against a living
assailant. His work against the Emperor Julian (which even his opponent Theodoret admired
239, in the midst of his hottest hostility) was written, he says, on the exhortation of
many, because the heathen perplexed Christians, alleging that he was not refuted, because
he could not 240. This then too was written out of a love for souls. He himself explained
to Nestorius that, in his book on the Holy Trinity, he had written some things akin to
what he then wrote, but with no reference to him, since it was written before Nestorius
himself wrote.

126 Controversy was not his natural element. Cassiodorus counts him among those who were
said 241 at least to have commented on the whole of Holy Scripture. His Commentaries are
the largest portion of His extant works, yet these are but a part of a larger whole 242.
From these peaceful meditations on God's word he was roused by the disturbance of his
monks through writings of Nestorius. |c It has been noticed already 243 that types of our
Lord were the chief object of interest to him in his first book on the Pentateuch, 'on the
adoration in spirit and in truth:' his faith in the Incarnation and our union to God
through It, are naturally prominent, as indeed it gleams through everywhere 244. His was
the exact contrary of the mind of Theodore of Mopsuestia of the Antiochene school: as has
been said of our Bishop Horne and another, 'the one sees Christ every where, the other no
where.' A mind which so meditates on God's word, not on particular expressions, but on the
whole, is not that of the fierce controversialist which some of late have pictured him.

127 It remains only to collect what has been said as to the contents of this volume. i.
The Five books against Nestorius. 'These,' it has been said 245, 'may be well called, a
Defence of S. Proclus. For S. Cyril in it mainly answers the |ci sermons preached by
Nestorius against S. Proclus. For the first two books are on the Virgin being Θεοτόκος,
and the term 'birth' ascribed to God; the third is of His being our Priest, Who is God;
the fourth and fifth are for the most part on God suffering and dying.' S. Cyril himself
says that he undertook the work with reluctance, but that the homilies were written in a
popular and attractive style and were full of heavy accusations against the doctrines of
the truth, and left him no choice 246. Nestorius is not named in it. Hence it has been
inferred that the work was written before the Council of Ephesus 247. Photius notices that
'in the first book, he refutes six heads of the blasphemies of Nestorius; in the second,
14; in the third, 6; in the fourth and fifth, 7 each.' He adds 248 that 'his mode of
interpretation is framed according to his wonted way of expression, yet brought down to a
lower style.'

128 ii. The Scholia are said by Photius to 'contain much which is useful.' S. Cyril, with
his wonted simplicity, speaks of them as '249 brief expositions of the dispensation of
Christ, very good and useful.' A modern writer says, '250 The value of the work may be
inferred from this, that scarce any subsequent writer, who employed the authority of Cyril
in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation, failed to take a passage or more from the
Scholia.' This work also was quoted, with two other passages of S. Cyril, among the
testimonies from the books of Catholic fathers, appended to the Epistle of S. Leo |cii to
the Emperor Leo 251. It closed the collection laid before the Council of Chalcedon 252 and
then ensued the acclamations, 'Eternal be the memory of Cyril.----Leo and Cyril taught
alike.' It is quoted even by Theodoret 253 with sayings of 19 other fathers, in proof that
'Saints distinguished the Natures after the Union.' He alleges three places from it 254,
two from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 255, one from the Epistle to
Nestorius 256, one from the defence against the Easterns 257, and two more not identified.
The Scholia are quoted also by Facundus 258, Leontius of Byzantium 259, and S. Ephrem of
Antioch repeatedly 260. They not only quote it as S. Cyril's, but confirm the faith by
testimonies from it.

129 It was translated into Latin by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator. It is extant
also in a Syriac translation, from which my son, here and there, corrected or explained
the Latin text of Mercator. Garnier remarks upon the careful arrangement which S. Cyril
employed in its construction. 'He first explains single words; what is Christ; what,
Emmanuel; what, Jesus; what, One; what, Union. Then, he turns to the propositions,
commonly used |ciii herein, and discusses in what way Christ is One; Emmanuel, One; Jesus,
One; i.e. One Lord, &c. Further, how the Word is said to have been 'emptied,' united with
the flesh, made Man, and yet not therefore changed, or ceasing to be God. Thence, how
Christ is not a man Θεοφόρος, [bearing God,] or inspired by God, but is really man-God
[better, God-Man]; then, in what way the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to
have His own proper Body, and how the Holy Virgin is said to be Theotocos. Lastly, that
the Only-Begotten, appearing in visible flesh is called God and Man; how He suffered: in
which last he refutes those who suppose, that things belonging to man can be spoken of
God, relatively only. I have already said, that almost every chapter is full of
distinctions useful in turning aside the objections of heretics.' Photius divides it into
ten heads; '261 These things,' he said, 'are clearly explained in it; What is Christ; in
what way the word 'Emmanuel' is to be understood, and what is 'Jesus the Christ;' and in
what respect the Word of God is called Man; then, in what respect the Word of God is said
to have been emptied; and how Christ is One, and how Emmanuel is One; and what we say is
the Union, and about the coal which Elias saw, and other things like these.'

130 iii. That Christ is One. The treatise must have been written after the condemnation of
Nestorius, since he is refuted by name in it. It must, however, have been written not
later than A. D. 441, since it is quoted by Andrew of Samosata. It is |civ quoted with
praise by S. Eulogius 262 and Leontius of Byzantium 263. . . The Père Garnier says of it;
'264 Eo nihil exactius elucubratiusque ad historiam dogmatis Cyrillus scripsit, ut
videatur opus artificis praecedentibus laboribus absolute eruditi.' iv. S. Cyril wrote the
three books against Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia and that against the Synousiastae
or Apollinarians at a later period, when, the writings of Nestorius being proscribed,
Nestorianisers betook themselves to those of Diodore and Theodore, the real originators of
Nestorianism. The fragments have been collected with great pains from every source,
hitherto known. Some were ready at hand, having been collected for the 5th General
Council, and embodied in its Acts; others were collected by John, Bishop of Caesarea, in
his defence of the Council of Chalcedon, which is still extant in MS., in Syriac and in
Greek at Venice and at Cairo (where my son saw it); others by Severus of Antioch 265. The
sources, whence the extracts are derived, are mentioned in the notes. The originals, as
extant in Greek and Syriac, are among the collection of Fragments appended to my son's
third volume of S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John 266. It is the completest collection
extant.

131 S. Cyril was my own early teacher on the connection of the doctrine of the Incarnation
and the Holy Eucharist, which Hooker all but reached. It |cv was at my wish that, in his
uniform filial love, my son took as the central work of his life, to make the text of his
works as exact as it could be made. For this he visited libraries in France, Spain, Italy,
Germany, Russia, Mt. Athos, Cairo, Mt. Sinai, and applied to this the knowledge of Syriac,
which he had perfected in view of another object which I had suggested to him, the re-
editing of that now much undervalued Critical authority, the Peshito. Almighty God was
pleased to break off the work "in the midst of the years." If in this completion of his
Preface to his volume I have cleared any thing as to the self-forgetful, God-devoted
character of my early Benefactor, S. Cyril, thanks be for this also to Him Who gave and
Who took away.

132 E. B. P. CHRISTMAS EVE, 1881. [Footnotes numbered and placed at the end] 1. S. Cyrille
d' Alex. Art. i. init. 2. Ep. 370. 3. Ep. 25. 4. Synodicon c. 56. 5. So the three Paschal
homilies of the Archbishop Theophilus preserved by S. Jerome, are addressed, To the
Bishops of the whole of Egypt, t. i. 555, 577, 605 Vall. 6. hom. 7. p. 87 init. 7. hom. 1.
3 c. 4 a. 8. pp. 174 d e 175, 176. 9. "With chapter 7 compare S. Greg. Nazianzen's very
similar Anathema directed against Appollinarius' teaching, in his Letter to Cledonius. 10.
p. 263. 11. [Had he sent the Epistle, John must have known them to have been S. Cyril's.]
12. Synod. c. 4. 133 13. [Passages from Theodoret's reply to the first, second, fourth and
tenth anathematism and from his letter to the monks were read in the 5th General Council
before the condemnation of his writings against S. Cyril. Also from allocutions in behalf
of Nestorius from Chalcedon after his condemnation at Ephesus; from a letter to Andrew of
Samosata, in which he speaks of Egypt [i.e. S. Cyril and the Egyptian bishops] being
'again mad against God,' but owns that those of Egypt, Palestine, Pontus, Asia, and with
them the West are against him, and that the greatest part of the world has taken the
disease; a letter of sympathy with Nestorius after the reunion of the Easterns with S.
Cyril, declaring that, if his two hands were cut off, he would never agree to what had
been done against Nestorius, (which however he did when required by the Bishops at
Chalcedon); a letter to John of Antioch still condemning the Anathematisms, although
accepting the subsequent explanation. Apart from the 'atrocious letter' full of conceits
which it is inconceivable how any one could have written, Mercator, a contemporary, says
it was one of the charges against Archbishop Domnus, that he had been present when
Theodoret preached a sermon, exulting in the peace which would ensue from S. Cyril's
death. 'No one now compels to blaspheme. Where are they who say, that He Who was crucified
is God?' Mercator from, Gesta quae contra Domnum Antioch. Ep. conscripta sunt p. 276. ed.
Garn.]

134 14. ° There is extant a very careful letter of Theodoret on the Incarnation, written
to Eusebius scholasticus, in which Theodoret says, "Nevertheless we do not deny the
properties of the Matures, but as we deem those ungodly who divide into Two sons the One
Lord Jesus Christ, so do we call them enemies of the Truth who attempt to confuse the
natures: for we believe that an union without confusion has taken place and we know what
are the properties of the human nature, what of the Godhead." Then after mentioning the
two natures of a man which do not part him into two, "thus do we know that our Lord and
God, I mean the Son of God the Lord Christ, is One Son after His Incarnation too; for the
Union is inseverable even as without confusion." Ep. 21. p. 1085. 15. Ep. 151. 16. See
bel. p. 20 n. k; p. 24 n. 9; p. 243 n. i.

135 17. Ep. 147. 18. Hom. Pasch. vii. 102 d. 19. Thes. Dial. i. p. 398 c. quoted p. 192 n.
i. 20. Hab. iii. 2, 550 d. 21. Ep. 1 ad Nest. Epp. 20 b. 22. Ep. 1 ad Monach. Epp. 3. a b.
23. See S. Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, Epp. pp. 19 e 20 a. 24. Nestorius alludes to
this, in the sermon which he preached on the Saturday after he had received S. Celestine's
final Letter. Mercat. Opp. p. 76 Bal. 25. see his sermon just quoted, p. 78 Bal. 26. Conc.
Eph. P. i. c. 16. 27. Ib. c. 17. 28. Ib. i. 9. 29. Epist. v. in Garn. Diss. v. ap.
Theodoret Opp. T. v. p. 625 ed. Schulz. 30. The passage occurs, just as Nestorius accused
S. Cyril of garbling it, in Book ii. § 4 p. 54. "We do not possess the complete sermon
from which this extract is taken: we do possess in Mercator's translation four sermons on
the subject of the Incarnation, from the second of which S. Cyril has several extracts. In
the case of this sermon the context leaves no doubt that Nestorius spoke of our Lord's
manhood as a separate man, whom our Lord had indefinitely connected with Himself. This
long extract of Nestorius has been given in full as matter of candour. The thing itself we
have not the means of explaining. Although he makes S. Cyril's extracts from his writings
the cause of S. Celestine's belief that his teaching was heretical. S. Celestine, in his
letter to himself, says expressly, that his conviction came from his own letters.

136 "In your letters you have given sentence not so much in respect of our Faith as of
your own self, choosing to speak of God the Word differently from what is the Faith of
all." Ep. Celestin. ad Nestorium, Conc. Eph. 1. n. 18. Again to the Clergy and people of
Constantinople S. Celestine says, "he preaches things not to be uttered, persuades things
which ought to be shunned, as both his writings sent us by himself with his own signature,
and also the memorial of my holy brother and co-Bishop Cyril" &c. Ib. n. 19. and again
writing to John Archbishop of Antioch S. Celestine says, "he pours into the people most
devoted to Christ certain perverse things against the reverence of the Virgin-birth and
the hope of our salvation. These things have come to us from the sorrow of the faithful;
these things have been published in the books himself sent, and stronger proof yet, these
things have been so conveyed to us in letters fortified with the very signature of their
author, that one may not any longer doubt." Ib. n. 20.

137 Helladius bishop of Tarsus and Eutherius Bishop of Tyana in their memorial to S.
Sixtus, against S. Cyril, the Council of Ephesus, and the reconciliation thereto of John
Archbishop of Antioch, mention this "garbled extract," Synodicon c. 117. 31. See pp.
185-236. 32. § 27, pp. 214, 215. 33. § 36 and 37. 34. pp. 228, 229 and 232, 233. 35. See
it in S. Cyril's 3 Epistles pp. 55. sqq Oxford, 1872. 36. p. 1C. 37. see p. 321. 38. p. 16
b. 39. p. 690 a. 40. p. 18 d. 41. p. 692 b. 42. Opp. v. P. ii. 2. 131 a. 43. Hist. Conc. §
129 near the end. 44. See S. Cyril's books against Nestorius, pp. 20, 51, 141, 164. 45.
see Ib. p. 51. 46. see p. 141. 47. sec p. 164. g. 48. Synod. c. 3. 49. Ep. Conciliab. Eph.
(post Conc. Eph. Act.i.) ad Imp.

138 50. S. Cyrilli Apol. ad Imp. p. 252 c. 51. * Conc. Eph. Act. v. n. 2. 52. l. c. p. 251
b c. 53. Synod, c. 7. 54. It forms Vol. 7 of his collected works, also published by
Stephen Baluz, is incorporated into subsequent editions of the Concilia, and again with
some additions and corrections, after a fresh inspection of the manuscript by Mansi. 55.
Epp. Opp. v. 2. p. 152 c. 56. See the Compiler's words at the end of cap. 94, "are put in
order by Irenaeus in what is called his Tragedy." 57. Published by Assemani, Bibl. Or. t.
3. 1. pp. 4 sqq. 58. c. 25. 59. Ib. pp. .38, 39. 60. c. 20. 61. ° p. 341. 62. See on this
Formula Card. Newman's exhaustive treatise, 'On S. Cyril's formula of the μία φυσις.'
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1874; who however says 'whether S. Athanasius
himself used it, is a contested point.' p. 335.

139 63. Leontius Scholast. Byzant. de sectis, Actio 8. §§ 4, 5 in Gall. Bibl. Vett. Patr.
xii. 651, 652. 64. Apol. adv. Orient, cap. 8 p. 178 b c d e. 65. See below p. 320. n. a.
66. Ep. 1 ad Succens. p. 135. d e: see below p. 321 note. Photius saw it in various
writings of his, "These were contained therein [in the codex] various essays of Diodore of
Tarsus on the Holy Spirit, in which he too is convicted of having been sick beforehand
with the disease of Nestorius." cod. 102 p. 86. Bekk. 67. Contr. Nest. et Eutych. L. iii.
de Nestorianorum impietate secrcto tradita principio. Bibl. Patr. T. ix. p. 696. 68.
Assem. B. O. iii. 1. p. (233 arab.) 236. 69. Assem. B. 0. i. 347, 348. quoted in Card.
Newman's Arians of the 4th. Cent. p. 24. ed. 4. 70. Contestatio publice proposita &c.
Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 13.

140 71. c. Apollin. L. iii. in Synod. v. Coll. iv. n. 1. 72. 'Uniens eum sibi affectu
voluntatis, majorem quandam praestabat ei gratiam.' de Incarn. L. 14. Ib. n. 54. 73. "He
too, meriting adoption by grace, calls God His God, because in like way with other men he
received his being." on S. John L. 6, Ib. n. 13. 74. αἰσχρογενὴς. S. Cyr. Hom. div. p.
383. 75. Apol. ad Theodos. Conc. Eph. P. 3. c. 13. 76. Ep. S. Celestin. ad Nest. Conc.
Eph. P. i. c. 18. 77. Commonit. l. c. 16. 78. Haeret. Fab. iv. 12. Leontius (A. D. 610.)
quotes this work in proof how Theodoret held Nestorius in abhorrence, (against a spurious
correspondence between Theodoret and Nestorius in which they were made to acknowledge each
other) de sectis. iv. 5. Photius (cod. 56.) says of this work of Theodoret, which he had
read, 'he goes down to Nestorius and his heresy, pouring upon him unmingled censure. He
goes on also to the Eutychian heresy,' (the two last chapters of the ivth. book.) No one
attends now to Garnier's paradox that the account of Nestorius was substituted from a
younger Theodoret for the original statement of Theodoret, while the account of Eutyches
connected with it is to be from Theodoret himself.

141 79. Haeret. Fab. iv. 12. 80. Socr. vii. 29. 81. Ib. 31. 82. Evagrius says this on the
authority of Theodulus [a presbyter of Coelesyria about A.D. 480.] i. 2. 83. S. Cyril Ep.
9 ad S. Celestin. p. 37. 84. ° Ps. xlix. 7, 8. 85. Expressions of Nestorius, while denying
the Theotocos. Serm. 1. ap. Mercator. 86. Theod. Haeret. Tab. iv. 12. 87. Socr. H. E. vii.
32. 88. τὰ μορμολύκια. 89. Ep. ad Alex. in Theod. H. E. i. 3. 90. Against Arians Orat.
iii. n. 14, 29, 30. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. quoted in Newman's S. Athanasius
ag. the Arians. Disc. iii. 25. 8. p. 420. n. 1. Oxf. Tr. 91. Vit. Const, iii. 43. in Ps.
109, 4 p. 703. Montf. Nov. Coll. 92. Catech. x. 19. 93. in S. Cyril c. Jul. L. 8. p. 262.
94. S. Greg. Nyss. Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4. Ep. 101. p. 85.
Ben.

142 95. both quoted by S. Cyril de recta fide 49, 50. 96. de Virg. ii. 7. 97. de Incarn.
ii. 5. vii. 25. 98. Common. ii. 21. The above are all quoted in Newman's notes on S.
Athanasius against the Arians Disc. iii. 26. nn. u and x. Dr. Bright adds Tertullian, de
patientia n. 3, 'Nasci se Deus in utero patitur Matris,' and S. Irenaeus, 'ut portaret
Deum,' v. 19. See further Dr. Bright's History of the Church p. 312. ed. 3. 99. Joh. Ant.
ad Nest. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 25. 100. Serm. 2 in Marius Mercator ii. 9. ed. Garn. 101. de
Incarn. vii. 30. 102. in Mercat. pp. 80, 81. 103. quoted by Pet. de Incarn. v. 15. 104.
Damasc. de fide Chr. vii. 12. 105. Synod, n. 56. 106. Conc. Eph. Act. i. init. 107. Ep. 9.
ad Celestin. p. 36. 108. ° Socr. vii. 32.

143 109. Evagr. i. 2. 110. Ep. 6. p. 30. 111. Nest. Serm, i. in Merc. p. 5. 112. Conc.
Eph. P. i. n. 30. 113. Ib. 114. Ep. 1. ad Celestin. Conc. Eph. p. i. c. 16. 115. ad
S.Cyril. Ep. 5. p. 29. 116. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 26. 117. Ep. ad Nest. fin. 118. See below
ad Nest. i. 6. pp. 25, 26. 119. Cont. Nest. et Eutych. L. iii. He says 'ut aiunt.' 120.
Ep. ad Celest. Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 16. 121. Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 9. 122. Sacr. Theod. ad
Cyril. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 31. 123. constipatione laboratis. Nest. Serm. 13. p. 93. Garn.
124. Merc. Nest. Blasph. Capit. xii. p. 117. Garn. 125. Ep. Acac. Ber. Cyrillo Conc. Eph.
P. i. n. 23. 126. Ep. ad Celest. 127. S. Cyr. Ep. 2. Sec an abstract of it, ab. p. xxv.

144 128. ap. S. Cyr. Ep. 3. 129. Ep. 4. 130. Ib. Ep. 5. 131. Ep. 6. p. 30. 132. ad
Celestin. Ep. 9. p. 30. 133. ad quend. Nestorii studiosum Ep. 7. p. 31. 134. Ep. 3 ad
Nest. 135. Synod, c. 6. 136. de Christi Tncarnatione adv. Nestorium. Libb. 7. 137. Ep. ad
Celestin. Conc. Eph. P. 1. nn. 16, 17. 138. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 24. 139. Conc. Eph. Act.
i. init. 140. S. Cyril Ep. ad Joh. Ant. Ib. P. i. c. 21. 141. Arnob. jun. c. Serapion.
Bibl. Patr. T. 8. p. 222. 142. Conc. Eph. P. i. n. 20. 143. Ib. n. 21. 144. Ib. n. 25.
145. Synod. Ep. 3. 146. Ep. Nest. ad Celestin. in Mercator. P. 2. p. 81. Evagrius quotes
from a book, which he wrote in answer to those who blamed him for having wrongly requested
that the Synod at Ephesus should be convoked, i. 7.

145 147. Conc. Eph. P. 3, c. 23. 148. Liberatus (c. 4.) says that Nestorius obtained it
from him. 149. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 31. 150. ζηλωτὴν. 151. Ep. 7. p. 31. Neither the date
of the Epistle nor the person to whom it was written is known. It must have been written
before the heresy of Nestorius had become so plain. 152. as ab. p. lxiv. 153. As
translated by Mercator. Opp. T. 2. pp. 53, 54. § xix-xxi. ed. Garn. 154. Common. i. 42.
155. Apol. ad Imp. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 13. 156. Socr. vii. 34. 157. Ten Bishops signed
with him "the relation of Nestorius and the Bishops with him to the Emperor concerning the
things done in the holy Synod &c." Conc. Eph. Act. i. n. 6. In Baluzii Conc. nova coll. p.
699. six names are added, one omitted. 158. Ep. ad Alex. Conc. Eph. P. 1. c. 34.

146 159. Synodicon c. 15. 160. S. Cyril has been criticised, because words of Apollinarius
were quoted among the authorities as from S. Julius. The words themselves, in their simple
meaning, express the truth, and contradict Apollinarianism. Leontius (A.D. 590), who first
detected the forgery by use of MSS. says, it contains nothing 'quod nobis adversetur,'
i.e. to the Catholic Faith. (de sectis Act. 8.) The words are, 'perfectus Deus in carne et
perfectus homo in Spiritu.' Vitalis confessed that 'Christ was a perfect man,' but
explained it to mean, 'We say so far that Christ was a perfect man, that we ascribe
Divinity to Him instead of a mind.' S. Epiph. Haer. 77. n. 23. See Coustant. Epp. Rom.
Pont. App. p. 71. sqq. 161. The language which Mr. Neale censures [Hist. of the Holy-
Eastern Church B. ii. s. 2. p. 237.] occurs in a Homily utterly unlike S. Cyril's style,
which Aubert admitted among his homilies, [T. v. 2. p. 279] but not the Editors of the
Councils. [See further Dr. Bright's Hist. of the Church, p. 330. n. o.] Of the homilies
delivered at Ephesus, the οἱ τοῖς ἱεροῖς [Aub. p. 350] is said in the collection of
Baluzius [pp. 546-551] to have been delivered after the deposition of Nestorius. So is the
2nd τῆς μὲν τῶν ἁγίων Aub. p. 352. These have no allusion to him, nor has the ὁ μακάριος
προφήτης p. 354. The φαιδρόν ὁρῶ τὸ σύστημα [Aub. p. 354 also in the Acta Conc. Eph. Act.
1. n. 13. upon which the homily quoted by Mr. Neale seems to be founded] speaks of the
condemnation of Nestorius as past, σεαυτὸν ἐξήλειφας, p. 357. ὁ Θεὸς καθεῖλέ σε καὶ
ἐξέτιλε. p. 358. The homily, ἒδει μἐν ἀρκεῖσθαι placed by both after the deposition [Aub.
p. 358. Bal. p. 548.] scarcely alludes to Nestorius.

147 162. Conc. Eph. Act. 1. A Bishop, among his associates, justified the Jews, as having
only slain a man. 163. Ep. ad Cyrill. in Conc. Eph. Act. 2. n. 3. 164. See Baronius H. E.
A. 431. n. 7. sqq. and Pagi. Ib. 165. Relat. Conc. Eph. ad Imper. Act. iii. n. 1. 166.
Conc. Eph. Act. iii. init. 167. Synodicon c. 24. The report mentioned by the delegates of
John's party that Nestorius 'was sent from Ephesus, to go where he liked' [Epist.
Schismat. ad suos. in Eph. Conciliab. n. 12] was accordingly inaccurate. 168. Synod. c.
25. 169. Synodicon c. 26. 170. In a writing, which Evagrius had seen. Evagr. i. 7. 171. S.
Celest. Ep. ad Theodos. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 21. 172. l. c. 173. Conc. Eph. P. 1. n. 34.
174. Relatio Synodi ad Imp. Conc. Eph. Act. l. n. 7. 175. S. Cyrill. Epist. ad Com. et
Potam. Ib. n. 5.

148 176. Evagr. H. E. i. 3. 177. Synodicon Ep. 201. 178. Ep. 112. ad Domnum. 179. Acta
Conciliab. post Conc. Eph. Act. 1. 149 180. The Synod speaks of 'the Chapters sent lately
to Constantinople by Cyril, as agreeing mostly with the impiety of Arius, Apollinarius,
and Eunomius;' 'the Sentence' states that the Synod was 'hurried by Cyril, in order that
the Chapters which agree with the evil and ungodly doctrine of Apollinarius and Arms and
Eunomius might not be enquired into.' The letter to the other Bishops of the Council whom
they had excommunicated, says that they had 'abetted the lawless things done by Cyril of
Alexandria and Memnon the Ephesian, and maintained intercourse with men of an heretical
mind.' They tell the Emperor, that they had so done, 'until they cast out and anathematize
the Chapters sent out by Cyril, full of the evil doctrine of Apollinarius and Eunomius and
Arius.' John, in his own letter to the Clergy of Constantinople, says that the sentence
was passed 'until they anathematize the heretical Chapters of Cyril the Alexandrian, and
receive without guile the faith of the holy fathers gathered at Nice.' To the Senate in
Constantinople, they speak of their 'ceasing from their heretical and evil doctrine and
recovering the faith of the holy fathers of Nice,' as the condition of their being
restored. To the people of Constantinople they say, that they 'do not refuse repentance to
the deposed and excommunicate, but would open the doors of loving-kindness, if they will
very speedily anathematize the Chapters sent out by Cyril, which are alien from the
Apostolic and Evangelic teaching.' They still repeat in their Relation to the Queens, that
they 'had deposed Cyril and Memnon, and removed them from the Episcopate, until they
become conscious of their wounds and truly repent and anathematize the heretical Chapters
of Cyril, agreeing with this impiety of Apollinarius etc.' (Acta Conciliabuli post Act. 1,
Conc. Eph.) The like was repeated in the later Acta of the Conciliabulum and in Theodoret.

150 181. See Tillemont, S. Cyrille, Note 43. 182. See ab. p. lxxiii. 183. Epist. Memnon.
ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 14. 184. S. Cyr. Ep. ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph.
Act. 1. n. 9. 185. Acta Conciliab. init. (post Conc. Eph. Act. i.) 186. Lit. Conciliab. ad
Imperat. l. c. 187. Nest. &c. Relat. ad Imp., Conc. Eph. Act. i. n. 6. 188. Sacra, ap.
Acta Conciliab. post Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 3. 189. Rescript. Epp. Const., Conc. Eph. Act.
vi. n. 9 190. Relat. Conc. Ib. n. 8. 191. Relat. Synod. ad Imp. l. c. Act. v. n. 1. and
more fully Relat. 2. Act. vi. n. 12. 192. Epist. S. Cyr. ad cler. et pop. Const. Act. vi.
n. 13. 193. Ep. Memnon. ib. n. 14. 194. πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων. 195. Ep. ad Theopempt.
Ib. Act. vi. n. 18. 196. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 1.

151 197. Orient. Ep. ad suos in Const., Acta Conciliab. post Act. vi. Conc. Eph. n. 20.
198. Svnodicon c. 18. 199. Ib. c. 19. 200. Common. ad Cler. Const. Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n.
16. 201. Rescript. Epist. Const., Conc. Eph. Act. vi. n. 9. 202. Emperor. 'If it be so,
let the Bishops who have arrived come.' Dalm. 'No one allows them to come.' Emp. 'No one
hinders.' Dalm. ' They have been controlled and hindered from coming.' 203. Synodicon c.
35. 204. Ep. Theodoret. ad Alex. Hierap. Acta 2. Conciliab. n. 13. 205. Xysti Ep. ad Cyr.
in Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. T. i. pp. 46, 47. 206. S. Cyr. Ep. ad Acac. Melit. Conc. Eph.
P. 3. c. 35. 207. Ep. Alex, ad Andr. Samos. Synod, c. 58. 208. Propositiones directae ab
Acacio Berrh. Cyrillo Alex, in Concilio &c. Synodicon c. 53. The Bishops in whose names
Acacius sent it, were John of Antioch, Alexander Hierop., Macarius of Laodicea, Andr.
Samos., and Theodoret.

152 209. Gratissime. 210. Epist. Joh. Antioch. per Paul. Emis. Cyrillo, Synod. c. 80. 211.
S. Cyr. Ep. 31. ad Joann. fin. p. 109. Ep. 38. ad Success. v. fin. p. 140. 212. S. Cyr.
Ep. ad Donat. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 38. 213. S. Cyr. Ep. ad Joh. Ant. Conc. Eph. P. 3. c.
34. 214. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 30. It is translated by Dr. Bright, Hist. of the Church,
pp. 350, 351. 215. Homil. Paul. Ib. n. 31. 216. Conc. Eph. P. iii. n. 39. 217. Ep. 171 ad
Joh. Ant. 218. Ep. 172. A very bitter letter against S. Cyril is ascribed to Theodoret in
the Synodicon c. 121. 219. See Tillemont S. Cyrille d'Alex. Art. 126. and the extracts in
Liberatus Breviarium c. ix. 'De Cyrilli Epistolis pro Orientalibus scriptis.' 220. see
above p. viii. 221. S. Isid. Epp. i. 310. 222. 'That the Very and supreme God became Very
Man, not changed from what He was, and taking what He was not, being from two natures One
Son, without beginning and without end, recent and Eternal, thou thyself wouldest not
deny, having very many evidences thereof from our holy father Athanasius, a man, who,
above nature, soared aloft to the things of God.' Ep. i. 323.

153 223. Ib. 324. 224. Conc. Eph. Act. vi. S. Cyril says that it was the Creed of
Theodore, in his Epistle to S. Proclus Ep. 54. p. 199. 225. Fac. pro def. 3 Capp. viii. 2.
226. S. Cyr. Ep. 59, ad Cler. et Lampon. p. 194. 227. Ib. 228. Johan. Ant. et Syn. S.
Cyrillo, in S. Cyril. Ep. 50. pp. 192, 193. This in itself refutes the calumny of his old
enemy, Count Irenaeus, that S. Cyril, for private reasons, suggested this censure of
writings of Theodore. 229. S. Cyr. ad Joann. Ep. 51. p. 195. ad Acac. Ep. 52. p. 197. 230.
Ep. 51. p. 196. 231. Ep. 54. p. 199, 200. 232. Ep. 49. p. 192. 233. Ep. i. ad Serapion. n.
32. p. 681 234. See at length in 'On the Clause "And the Son," in regard, to the Eastern
Church &c.' pp. 113-123. or Preface to S. Cyril's Commentary on S. John T. i. pp. xxi sqq.
1874. Oxf.

154 235. Leont. de sect. Act. 8. B. P. x. 672. 236. Conc. v. Coll. v. 237. by my son
above, p. xxix. 238. Ep. 36 ad Acac. p.121. 239. mentioned Ep. 83. 240. Praef. ad libb. c.
Julian. Opp. T. vi. P. ii. p. 6. Aub. 241. 'Ferunt.' Cassiod. Praef. ad Institt. init.
242. His Commentaries on select passages of the Pentateuch, on Isaiah, the Minor Prophets,
S. John, are known to all, as forming four out of the seven volumes of his works. Besides
these, much of the Commentary on the Gospel of S. Luke has been preserved in the Syriac
[published with a translation by Dr. Payne Smith]. Fragments of the Commentary of the
Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Hebrews were recovered from Catenae by
Cardinal Mai and Dr. Cramer. The Collection, weeded of some passages wrongly ascribed to
S. Cyril (as is the wont of Catenae), was edited by my son: some things were added from a
MS. of Mount Athos, and the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum [S. Cyril. in D. Joan.
Evang. Vol. iii. Oxon.]. Various old authorities say that he also wrote a Commentary on
S.Matthew, (Tillemont, S. Cyr. d'Alexandrie Art. 158. v. fin). [The fragments on the Acts
and Catholic Epistles, published by the Abbe Migne, did not appear to my son to furnish
evidence of having formed a part of a regular Commentary l. c. p. 441. 445]. Of the O.T.
large fragments of the Commentary on the Psalms and fragments of a Comm. on Jeremiah have
been recovered by Card. Mai. It is certain that he wrote a Commentary on Ezekiel. There
are not a few fragments of his Comment. on the Canticles. He also wrote on the book of
Wisdom. (See Card. Mai Bibl. Nov. Patr. T. iii. Praef.)

155 243. see ab. p. x. 244. see ab. p. xix. 245. Garnier, Pref. to 'the fifth Sermon of
Nestorius de Deo nato et Virgine Qeoto&kw|, the second against S. Proclus,' in his edition
of Marius Mercator P. 2. p. 29. 246. p. 4. 247. Tillemont Art S. Cyrille d'Alex. c. 156.
248. cod. 169. 249. Common. ad Eulogium. Conc. Eph. P. 3. n. 37. 250. Garnier Praef. in
Scholia in M. Mercator. p. 218. 251. Ep. 165 ed.Ball. 252. Conc. Chalc. Act. ii. fin. The
passages quoted are from c. 4. init., below p. 189. and c. 13. p. 201. 253. Dial. ii. fin.
254. § 4 init. bel. p. 189. § 13. bel. pp. 200, 201. § 27. bel. p. 215. 255. See my son's
S. Cyrilli Comm. in D. Joann. T. iii. App. pp. 420, 421. 256. S. Cyr. Opp. T. v. P. ii. p.
23. Aub. 257. Ib. T. vi. p. 157 sq.

156 258. pro defens. 3 Capp. L. vi. 3. xi. 7. 259. c. Nest. et Eutych. L i. quoting c. 35
bel. p. 224. 260. in Photius cod. 229. 261. Cod. 169. 262. in Photius Cod. 230. p. 272
Bekk. 263. Act, 10. p. 329. d. e. 264. Diss. 1 de haeresi et libris Nestorii, in his
edition of Marius Mercator p. 319. 265. See below, p. 321 note. 266. S. Cyrilli in B.
Joannis Evang. Vol. iii. è Typogr. Clar. 1872.


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS continued

BOOK 1

1 47

CYRIL THE MOST HOLY ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

2 FIVE-BOOK CONTRADICTION OF THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS OR THE FIVE TOMES OF S. CYRIL.
[Translated by P.E. PUSEY] Truth of human writings must be tested by Scripture. Arian
errors and against Holy Ghost. Errors of heretics on their heads. Nestorius' book of
Homilies. S. John i. 1,3,14,18. True Union of Person. Mother of God. "Made Flesh;"
Manichees have no plea; without it, the curse and decay would still have been our lot. "
Mother of God" except it express a Truth, may no ways be allowed. 'Passed through,'
objected to. To be Incarnate, belongs to one who was, before He was Man. " Mixture " of
old used in right sense. One of Nestorius' sermons quoted as owning God and Man in one.
συνάφεια. A mother, mother of a man, though the body only is taken of her. Elizabeth
mother of S. John the Baptist. Eusebius of Dorylaeum opposes Nestorius in church. GOD the
SON had two Births. The Creed of Nicea on the Incarnation. The Creed recited. Nestorius
cites from that of Constantinople. "Incarnate" begotten after the flesh. If it did but
mean indwelt it would be common to all. S. John's most careful accurate language. That the
Virgin Mary bare God, does not exclude the Eternal Generation, nor render her an object of
worship.

3 THOSE who wish to explore the holy Scripture and who drive away negligence in doing so,
and thirst rather for the attainment thereof, and apply themselves vigorously and apart
from all sloth----the being in every good shall be their's, for they fill their mind with
the Divine Light: and then applying it to the doctrines of the Church, they admit every
thing that is right and unadulterate, and that most readily, and lay it up in the hidden
treasures of their soul, and rejoice as much in what they in their desire of knowledge
have collected, as others who are worldly, in insatiably collecting Indian gems or gold,
yea rather, yet more: for wisdom is better than costly stones, and every precious thing is
not worthy of her, as it is written. For I say that they who are wise and prudent and
skilled in the Divine doctrines, ought to remember what has been profitably written by one
of the holy Disciples, Brethren try the spirits whether they he of God. And the Divine
Paul says that to the saints has been given discerning of spirits.

4 For the one who say Lord Jesus, will say it none otherwise than through the Holy Ghost:
and they who out of unlearning let loose a contradicting tongue against them, and wherein
those think rightly, these all but say Jesus Anathema, from Beelzebub will they do so. We
must then studying to prove all things subtilly and in a finished manner and with mind
awake, light on the writings of certain, and test skillfully what words they use of Christ
the Saviour of us all, and imitate, and that aright, the most approved and experienced of
money dealers, who admit proved coin, and diligently reject the counterfeit and amiss. And
to this the blessed Paul invites us saying, Be ye skilful bankers, prove all things, hold
fast that which is good, abstain from every form of evil. And it is in other ways also
all-disgraceful and unseemly, that in the affairs of this life we should be seen no whit
sparing of what conduceth to profit, but rather make it of moment to aim and strive after
those things whereby we may live splendidly, and neglect things so sacred and count for
nothing the salvation of the soul, but let it sink down in pits and swamps, sometimes
exposing unto the mere pleasure of those who choose to say what they ought not, our mind,
not vigilant for the truth, nor choosing to search diligently what is the true and
profitable meaning of what has been read, what the perverted one and that outsteps
accuracy in doctrine and works loss in the soul that looks to it. Yet to the soul is there
nought equal in value in their sight who are perfect in understanding.

5 We must try therefore and that most straitly, writings on the Divine doctrines, and if
any should go along with the sacred Scriptures and speed its clear and most unerring way
therein, let it be acclaimed by us too with testimonies to its orthodoxy: but if it form
its language cold and astray and amiss, yea rather giver of destruction to the readers,
let it hear from every mouth, But ye are uttering and telling us another error. 6
Therefore either let them make the tree good and his fruit good, or let them make the tree
corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the good man out of the good treasure of his heart
bringeth forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bring
eth forth evil things, according to the unlying word of the Saviour. For the god of this
world blinded the understandings of the unbelieving heretics, lest the light of the gospel
of the glory of Christ should shine: and they have been deceived manifoldly. For some
(miserable! say that the Word sprung of God the Father is lesser than He that begot Him,
and have not shuddered at apportioning to Him an alien and slave-befitting measure;
others, whetting against the Holy Ghost their unholy and intemperate mouth, do rightly
hear the Prophet say, But draw YE near hither, ungodly sons, seed of the adulterers and
the whore, against Whom did ye sport yourselves? and against Whom opened ye your mouth and
on Whom let loose your tongue? are YE not children of destruction, a lawless seed? But
these shall walk in their own light and find the flames that themselves kindled:

7 for us whose care is orthodoxy, it is meet that we should give a wise and accurate
account of each of the Divine doctrines and should shun the charges [put forth by] their
unbridled mouth, lest in ought stumbling and sinning against the brethren and wounding
their weak conscience, we sin against Christ, Let us therefore hearken unto Him Who saith,
If the enemy had reproached Me, I could have borne it, and if he that hated Me had spoken
proudly against Me, I would have hid Myself from him, but THOU, a man Mine intimate, My
guide and My friend, who sweetenedst food together with Me, in the house of God we went in
harmony. But let these things go upon the heads of the enemy, who war against the glory of
our Saviour, and esteem blasphemy against Him, their delicate meat: for us it is meet and
necessary (as I said) that we, zealous to savour those things that please Him, should not
follow [doctrine] which is alien from truth or which diverges in any other direction, and
tends to decay, [but follow] that which is for the good of our flock and is crowned by the
Truth itself with testimonies to its rightness.

8 And this I say having met with a certain book compiled by some one, having a large
collection of homilies, orderly and systematically arranged and in no wise lacking in due
appliances for the reader. And if ought had been said by its author, which by passing into
forgetfulness should come to nought, I would have deemed it a duty both myself to hold my
peace and to counsel others to do the same; lest things so unmeetly and unheedfully said
should become known to many others, and to those after us. But since a multitude of
blasphemies has been heaped into this book and some great accusation has been made, baying
against the doctrines of the truth, how was it not necessary that we in turn should (so to
say) strip for combat and should fight in behalf of its readers, that they may not take
harm thence, but may rather know how to repulse bravely the damage from what is unrightly
said? For the Divine John was called by Christ the Saviour of us all the Son of thunder,
and with reason, for that he well-nigh sounded forth o'er all beneath the heaven and
thundered over the earth, uttering something vast and immense. For he makes known full
well the truly dread and mighty Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten: for he
said, In the, beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all
things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made.

9 But when he had made accurate and complete initiation, and declared that the Only-
Begotten being God and ineffably begotten of God by Nature, is Maker and Creator of all
things; then, then, in fit season, does he at length begin the allwise economy that for
our sakes and in our behalf was wrought, and says, And the Word was made flesh and
tabernacled in us (and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father)
full of grace and truth. For he said that the Word was flesh, shewing the force of the
true union, i.e., understood as one "of Person: and by saying that He tabernacled in us,
he does not allow us to conceive that the Word which is out of God by Nature passed into
flesh which is of the earth. For one not thoroughly exact as to what the Divine Nature
Which surpasses every thing generate is, might (I suppose) have deemed that It was haply
recipient of change and could become regardless of Its own Essentially-accruing goods, and
change (so to say) into something other than what It is, and be brought down to the
measures of the creation, subjected in unlooked-for way to changes and alterations. But
that this is utterly impossible (for the Nature of God is stablished and hath unshaken
abidance in that wherein it is), he hath testified saying, that the Word tabernacled in
us, albeit made flesh:

10 both skilfully explaining the wisdom of the Economy and guarding full well that the
Nature of the Word be not accused by any as though It had become flesh by change and
turning aside. 11 We ourselves too then say, tracking the aim of the inspired, and in no
way outstepping the definition of the Faith, that He Who is out of God by Nature, the
Only-Begotten, He Which is in the Bosom of the Father, He through Whom are all things and
in Whom all things, albeit having before every age and time His Own Existence, and ever
co-existing with Him Who begot Him, descended unto voluntary emptiness in the last times
of the world, and took the servant's form, i.e., became in our condition and Man
economically, and was made like in all things unto His brethren, by partaking similarly of
blood and flesh, and that He thus underwent birth with us and like us, and took into
Himself the passing into being of His own Flesh, not as needing a second beginning unto
being (for the Word was in the beginning and was God) but, that He might gather together
the human race, a second first-fruits of all things after that first one, born after the
flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For so being Rich, became He poor, bringing
us again unto His own wealth and having all in Himself through the flesh which was united
to Him. For thus have we been buried with Christ through Holy Baptism, have been raised
and made to sit with Him in heavenly places. For so hath written the steward of His
mysteries, the herald and Apostle, and minister of the Gospel oracles, the most wise Paul.

12 Necessary therefore, alike to the faith of the Mystery and to the exact demonstration
thereof, is the fact of true Union, I mean of Person, that the mode of generation
according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten may be without blame, Who was (as I said)
called to no second existence (for Himself is the Maker of the worlds), but lowered
Himself economically to manhood for our sakes, and despised not the laws of human nature
but chose rather to have as His own together with the flesh the fleshly generation too.
Therefore do we say that He was born after the flesh Who is ever Co-existent with the
Father. For thus condemned He sin in the flesh and He hath brought to nought the might of
death in us, made as we, Who knew no sin, in Whom we live and move and are. 13 But some (I
know not how) wrong the most sacred beauty of the dogmas of the Church and wrinkle the
holy and all-pure Virgin, bringing her down to the unseemly rottenness of their own ideas
and arming against us a multitude of new-fangled inventions. For they accuse, as something
bastard and uncomely, yea rather as going beyond all fit language, the word Mother of God,
which the holy fathers before us have constructed for the holy Virgin; and sunder,
dividing into two several sons, the One Lord Jesus Christ, and take away from God the Word
the sufferings of the Flesh, though not even we have said that He suffered in His own
Nature, as God, but we attribute rather to Him along with the Flesh the Sufferings also
that befel the Flesh, that He too may be confessed to be Saviour (for with His stripes
were WE healed, as it is written, and He has been wounded for our transgressions, albeit
not recipient of suffering any wound): and WE have been saved by His undergoing death for
us through His own Body.

14 But I will essay to demonstrate clearly what I said, for I will now read the words of
him who has compiled this book, and first of all those which he made, inveighing in no
slight terms against the word Mother of God. But since he repeatedly goes through the same
words, and it is necessary that we should repeatedly go through the same ideas, pardon (I
pray) pardon us who do not wilfully repeat ourselves but have resolved that in whatever
direction the aim of his words goes off, thither we too ought to oppose. He then spake
thus, debasing the title of the Holy Virgin, I mean Mother of God: Nestorius. "I often (he
says) asked them" (i. e., those who contradict him) "do you say that the Godhead has been
begotten of the holy Virgin? They straightway recoil at the saying: who (says one) is sick
of such exceeding blasphemy, as to say that in her who bare the temple by the Spirit, in
her was God formed? then when I reply to this, What then that is incongruous do WE say in
advising to flee the word, and come to the common phrase significant of the two natures?
then seems it to them that what is said is blasphemy. Either clearly acknowledge that the
Godhead has been born of the blessed Mary, or if you flee this expression as blasphemy,
why saying the same as I, dost thou feign thou sayest it not?"

15 §1. They therefore who think contrary to what yourself said and think good (I know not
how) to hold, these have been clearly testified to by your own mouth as having a right and
most unerring opinion in regard to Christ the Saviour of us all, and as holding with their
mind the faith which they had delivered to the churches which from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and ministers of the word and priests of our Mysteries and faithful stewards.
For they shake off (and that most rightly) as a patent proof of unlearning alike and
extremest impiety, the mere imagining that the Word from forth God the Father has been
called unto a second beginning of being or took flesh of the holy Virgin as a root of His
own existence: still they call her Mother of God, as having borne Immanuel Who is by
Nature God: for the Word has been made with us, being God by Nature and above us. Do they
therefore say contrary to what they think? For some one of those who think with thee will
(I suppose) say, "If thou say that the Nature of the Word is not Offspring of the flesh,
and free thyself from this charge, how dost thou affirm that the holy Virgin bare God? But
thou in turn wilt hear from us, The God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out of God
the Father was made Flesh, i. e., was without confusion and Personally united to flesh:

16 for not alien to Him is the Body which was united to Him and born of a woman, but as
with each of us his body is his own, in this same way is the Body of the Only Begotten His
own and none other's: for thus was He also born according to the flesh. Then how (tell me)
would He have been made Flesh, except He had received birth of a woman, the laws of human
nature calling Him thereto, and bodily existence being able no otherwise to have its
beginning? For not (I suppose) giving heed to the juggleries of the Greeks, shall we too
romance that the bodies of men are born of oak or rock: but our laws nature set us, yea
rather nature's Creator, for as of each of existing things is the kin to it born, so of
ourselves too, and no otherwise (how could it be? For nought at all of what It willeth to
accomplish is impracticable to the Divine and Ineffable Power, yet doth It proceed through
what befits the nature of things that are, not dishonouring the laws set by Itself. And it
were not impracticable to the Word That can do all things, having determined indeed for
our sakes to become as we, yet to refuse the birth of a woman, and from without to fashion
to Himself a body by His own Power, just as we say was done in the case of our forefather,
Adam: for God took (it says) dust of the ground and formed man.

17 But since this were occasion to the unbelievers who desire to accuse the Mystery of the
Incarnation, and (before all) to the unholy Manichees, whom thou sayest over and over that
thou fearest lest they should spring upon those who call the holy Virgin Mother of God, as
though they were affirming that the Incarnation of the Word existed in mere phantasy;
needs did He progress through the laws of human nature, and since His aim was to assure
all that He hath become truly Man, He took hold of the seed of Abraham, and the blessed
Virgin being the mean to this same end, He took part like us in blood and flesh; for so
and no otherwise could He become God with us. Most needful in another way too unto those
on the earth was the Incarnation or Inhumanation of the Word. For if He had not been born
as we according to the flesh, if He had not taken part like us of the same, He would not
have freed the nature of man from the blame [contracted] in Adam, nor would He have driven
away from our bodies the decay, nor would the might of the curse have ceased which we say
came on the first woman; for it was said to her, In sorrows shalt thou bring forth
children.

18 But the nature of man hath fallen into the disease of disobedience in Adam, it has
become now approved in Christ through the utter obedience: for it is written. As by one
mail's disobedience many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous. For in Adam hath it suffered, Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return, in Christ hath it gained the riches of being able to be superior to the toils of
death, and (so to say) to exult over decay, saying those words of the Prophet, O death,
where thy victory? o grave, where thy sting? it became accursed, as I said, but in Christ
was this too brought to nought. And verily it has been said somewhere to the holy Virgin,
Elizabeth prophesying in spirit, Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of
thy womb. Sin hath reigned over us and the inventor and father of sins behaved himself
proudly over all beneath the skies, objecting [to them] the transgression of the Divine
Laws: but in Christ we see the nature of man, as in a second firstfruits of our race,
having confidence with God. For He said clearly, The prince of this world cometh, and in
Me shall find nothing.

19 But, good sir (would I with reason say) except the Only-Begotten had become as we, had
become as we no otherwise than by means of birth in the flesh from forth a woman, WE had
not been enriched with what is His. For as the most wise Paul writeth to us, Emmanuel the
second Adam hath appeared to us, not from the earth like the first, but from Heaven. For
the Word That is from above and from forth the Father hath come down not into the flesh of
any one nor into alien flesh (as I already said), nor again hath He descended upon any one
of those like us to dwell in him, as He was in the Prophets; but having made His own the
body which was from forth a woman and born from her after the Flesh, He gathered up man's
birth through Himself, made as we after the flesh, Who is before all ages from the Father.
This confession of faith the Divine Scriptures delivered to us. But THOU feignest to fear
lest any of us should suppose that the Word Begotten of God had the beginning of His Being
from earthly flesh: thou takest away utterly the Mystery of the Economy with flesh, saying
that the holy Virgin ought not to be called by us Mother of God: thou turnest round those
who call her Mother of God unto a confession inevitable and as of necessity, of supposing
that the Word out of God became fruit of flesh.

20 But it is not so, far from it. For He That hath His Being of God the Father before all
time (for He is the Framer of the ages), in the last times of the age, since He became
Flesh, is said to have been begotten after the flesh. For if the Body is conceived of as
His own, how will He not wholly and entirely appropriate the birth of His own Body? Yea
yourself too would have approved the right and undefiled faith of these who thus hold, if
you would have persuaded yourself to reason and to confess that Christ is truly God, the
One and Only of God the Father, not severed into man separately and likewise into God, but
the Same, both Word out of God the Father and Man out of woman as we, while He abideth
God. 21 But that thou dost accuse the Birth after the flesh of the Word, every way
declaring two sons and dividing the One Lord Jesus Christ, shall be shewn not by my words
but by thine own. "Look what follows, heretic. I grudge not the word to the Virgin mother-
of-Christ, but I know that she is august who received God, through whom the Lord of all
passed, and through whom the Sun of righteousness beamed. Again I suspect your applause:
how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through, in the sense of
born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words: that God passed through from out the
Virgin mother of Christ was I taught by the Divine Scripture, that God was born from her,
was I nowhere taught." And after more; "Never therefore does the Divine Scripture say that
God was born of the mother of Christ, but that Jesus, Christ, Son, Lord, [was so born]."

22 And hereto he subjoins that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, as
he supposes, putting forward the Angel's voice saying to blessed Joseph, Arise take the
young child, and says that the Angels too, though wiser than we, knew that He was a child.
23 §2. Herein therefore he stiles heretic him who holds the right and admirable faith
about Christ, and who since He is truly God, calls her mother of God who bare Him. But
there will be no doubt to any of those who think aright, that it is himself who, fastening
the blame of heresies on them who choose to deem aright, is establishing the unbeauty of
his own words, and has all but confessed openly that he is being borne outside of the
straight way, and is making crooked paths. Next how (tell me) do you not grudge this title
to the holy Virgin, albeit you take away the dignity of the Divine Birth, and say that she
is not Mother of God? but debasing the expression and affirming that it is full of
blasphemy, how do you bid those who so will, to apply it to the holy Virgin (though I hear
you call her august)? and then deem the so blasphemous word (as you alone think it) meet
to adorn the most august one, and you feign to crown her, putting about her as some choice
honour, a calumny against God the Word? For if it be wholly abhorrent to the Word Who is
sprung of God to endure fleshly birth and you permit her who did not bear God to be called
Mother of God, is it not true to say that you have openly depised the Lord's will?

24 will you not be caught insulting rather the august one, than (as you suppose and say)
electing to honour her, by allotting to her a name hated of God? For not to those whom we
determine to honour [do] we give names whereby the glory of the Supreme Nature is
dishonoured, first of all we shall unawares be involving our own selves in the charge of
such impiety, next we shall do them no slight wrong, decking as if in honour those we
praise with what is no praise, and weaving for them a laudation hated of God. 25 One may
moreover marvel at this too: that striking right and left at the words of the unholy
heretics and in no wise allowing them to prevail, because they take away the truth of the
Divine doctrines, next allotting no slight blame to the word Mother of God and accusing it
amongst other things as untrue and impious, you said that you pardon it and will not
grudge it to the Virgin even if one should choose to call her Mother of God. Will you
permit it therefore to those too who are diseased with the madness of Arius, to say that
the Son is inferior to the Father? or again to the rest who bring down the Nature of the
Holy Ghost from its God-befitting excellency? But you would not choose to do this; and if
any one desire to learn why, you will (I suppose) surely say, I do not endure a
blasphemous word. Hence if she be not Mother of God, and you permit this to be said, know
that you are deserting the truth, and reck little about any longer appearing wise. For do
you not say that Elisabeth too or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence?
will you then not grudge it, if any one choose to call them too mothers of God? But I
suppose that you will surely and utterly withstand them and say, This is not so; for they
bare sanctified men and none among them was God by Nature.

26 Hence either drive away this from every woman; or if you allow the holy Virgin alone
among all to have it, what words will you use for your defence? For if it be true of her
and she has truly borne God, in that the Word of God has been made flesh, confess this
with us, and you will free yourself from the charge of impiety: but if she hath not borne
God, to permit any to call her Mother of God is to partake of their impiety. But she is
Mother of God, because the Only-Begotten has been made man as we, united of a truth to
flesh, and enduring fleshly birth and not dishonouring the laws of our nature, as I said
before. 27 But since he says that he knows that she, i.e. the holy Virgin, is august, come
I pray come let us consider the reason too of the reverence that was done her: "for I know
(he says) that she is august , through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun
of righteousness beamed." How then do you say that she received God? or in what way did
the Lord of all pass through her? or how beamed the Sun of righteousness? For if she hath
not borne God, after the flesh I mean, how received she God? how passed He through her?
But haply you will say this wise word of yours as you think and dare to speak it " The
Word was God both connected with man and indwelling him." But the tradition of the faith
makes itself ready against your words as to this, No God-bearing man, but God Incarnate
have we been taught to worship: but not so speakest THOU: how then do you not see that you
are babbling and falsely marking the truth that is in the Divine dogmas? For the Word has
been made flesh. How did you now say that she received God except you have believed that
she hath borne Emmanuel Who is God by Nature? how passed the Lord of all through her and
how beamed the Sun of righteousness? And who is he that you think fit to embellish by such
names? is he a common man, like one of us, yet hallowed, as having the Word of God
indwelling? Then how will such an one be Lord of all, and Sun of righteousness? For the
power of lordship and dominion over all and of illumining things possessing intelligence,
will pertain not to our measures, but will be attributed to the Supreme and Most High
Nature alone.

28 But since taking (I know not whence) the word passed through, you have applied it to
God, explain the word; the meaning of the passage through here spoken of, will belong to
your wisdom to tell us who know it not. For if the Word of God so passed through her, as
to pass from one place to another, you cast Him down forthwith; for you will hear Him
saying by the voice of the saints, Do not I fill Heaven and earth saith the Lord? For not
in place is the Godhead nor knoweth It bodily changes of place, for it filleth all things.
But if while awaiting the fit period of birth, He made an incidental indwelling in man,
and so you say that God made passage through the holy Virgin, or passed through her (for I
will use in all thy holy words): we see nought in the holy Virgin more than in other
women. For Elisabeth bare the blessed Baptist who had been hallowed through the Spirit
through Whom the Son Himself also makes His abode in us. And the wise John will witness
saying, Hereby know we that He is in us, because He gave us of His Spirit. The Word of God
therefore passed through Elisabeth herself too, indwelling in the babe through the Spirit
even before its birth.

29 But you feel suspicious of the applause as though it came to you from the people for
having chosen to speak right things? for having called Him Who was born of the holy Virgin
Sun of righteousness and Lord of all; you then again feign to speak with precision, and
find fault with the applause, and accuse again those who are rejoicing over you of not
having understood. O great strength which is in your words! you have made no delay in the
needed vexing of them, you turned straightway their joy into mourning, you rent off their
rejoicing and girt them with sackcloth, straightway adding, "Again I suspect your
applause, how did ye understand passed through? I have not said passed through in the
sense of was born, for not so quickly do I forget my own words. That God passed through
from out the Virgin Mother of Christ, was I taught by the Divine Scriptures, that God was
born of her, was I nowhere taught."

30 Those therefore are thy perverted sayings; the applause was of love, in that your mind
had some guise of orthodoxy. But I will press on now too no less and say, What is passed
through, if it mean not birth? will you say that the Word out of God Himself by Himself
and apart from flesh hastened through the Virgin? yet how would not this be replete with
all folly? For it would be necessary to suppose that the Godhead were recipient of
quantity, and of movementwhich bears from one place to another; or if the Godhead be
unembodied, at large and everywhere, and not in place andcircumscript, how will it pass
through a single body? But whatever it be that you are saying, how do you not need to
clear it up and say it more openly, if confident in your own opinions about it, you are
able to testify to their incorruption? where (I pray) have you heard the God-inspired
Scripture say that the Word of God passed through the holy Virgin? For that brief and
contracted is the life of those upon earth, the blessed David taught saying, Man, I his
days as grass, as a flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth through
him and he shall not be, but of the holy Virgin what thing of this sort can you say has
been written? That God has been born of her, after the flesh I mean, God-inspired
Scripture has clearly shewn.

31 But I will go again to your own words, O all-excellent, for you have yourself too
confessed and this most often that the Word has been made Flesh, and you reject it not.
And this too you say besides: for you say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten was
clearly and openly Incarnate. You have written in this wise, "Thus it says elsewhere too,
He spoke to us in His Son Whom He appointed Heir of all things through Whom also He made
the worlds, Who being the Brightness of His Glory: having put Son, it calls Him fearlessly
both Brightness of His Glory, and appointed Heir; Heir, appointed after the Flesh,
Brightness of the Father's Glory after the Godhead: for He departed not, made flesh, from
likeness to the Father. And in addition it again says thus, for the times of ignorance God
winked at, but now commandeth all men to repent, because He fixed a Day in which He will
judge the world by the Man Whom He appointed, having given assurance unto all men in that
He raised Him from the dead. Having first said, By the Man, he then adds, In that He
raised Him from the dead, that no one might suppose that the Godhead Incarnate had died."

32 §3. Who then is He Who was Incarnate, or in what way was He incarnate, what Godhead was
incarnate, tell (O most excellent sir) to us who would learn it. Shall we grant that the
Word, God out of God, was Incarnate, and say that He was made Man, as having been made as
we and born in flesh? or shall we allow this in no wise, but suppose that a man came
hereto, connected with God, according to thee? But you will (I suppose) say, that it is
better and wise to think that the Word out of God was Incarnate and made flesh, according
to the Scriptures: for one is not I suppose seen assuming that wherein one is, but if one
come somehow to be in that wherein one was not at first, reason will forthwith admit that
something new has been wrought regarding him. Hence it is unlearned to say that any of us
having stepped forth of the definitions of human nature have been incarnate and been made
flesh; but the Incarnation, or being made flesh, will beseem (and that with much reason)
the Nature That is beyond humanity. But if He was truly Incarnate and has been made flesh,
He is accredited as Man, and not connected with a man, by mere indwelling or external
relation or connection, as you say.

33 Yet even though He became Man, He possesseth the being God in all security, nor do we
say that any change took place of the flesh into the Nature of Godhead, and we hold that
neither did the reverse take place, for the nature of the Word hath remained what it is
even when united to flesh. What no one therefore even in bare idea thinks of holding, why
do you putting this in your book, as though actually uttered, pretend to be contending for
the doctrines of piety? For the name mixture, some of the holy fathers too have put: but
since you say that you are afraid lest any confusion be deemed to take place, as in the
case of liquids mingled with one another, I rid you from your fears, for not so did they
deem (how could they? but they used the word improperly, anxious to declare the extreme
unionof the things that had come together; and we say that the Word of God came together
with His proper Flesh, in union indissoluble and unalterable. And we find that the God-
inspired Scripture itself too, does not look minutely into the word, but uses it rather
improperly and simply. And verily the Divine Paul hath written of some, But the Word
preached did not profit them, who wore not mixedin faith with its hearers.

34 Were they of whom he spoke going to be mixed one with another, after this fashion, as
wine with water, and to undergo a confusion of persons, or were they rather to be united
in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, And of the multitude of them
that believed was the heart and the soul one? But this I suppose is the truth, not the
other. Be free then from all fear on this score, for firmly established is the mind of the
saints. 35 But since to say that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate is (I deem) nought
else than to hold that It has been made Man and not without birth of woman (for this only
way does the nature of human bodies know of), how were you not taught by the God-inspired
Scripture the Birth after the flesh of the Only-Begotten? albeit yourself too, when the
prophetic lessons were before you, Unto us a Child was horn, unto us a Son was given, say
thus of the Child that was born, " Great the mystery of the gift, for this is the Babe
That is seen, this the new-born That appears, this that needed bodily swaddling bands,
this the just-born after the Essence that is seen, in the hidden partEverlasting Son, Son
Creator of all, Son Who by the swaddling-bands of His own aid binds the instability of the
creation. " And elsewhere again, " And the Babe is God All-free, so far removed is God the
Word, O Arius, from being subject to God." In which words he styled even the body
connected with Him God. And again, We recognise therefore the human nature of the Babe and
His Godhead, we preserve the oneness of the Sonship in the nature of manhood and Godhead.
" Lo here with all clearness you say that the Babe, the just-born, the visible, the new-
born, the swaddled, is Son and Creator of all; and the Babe the holy Virgin hath borne to
us. You know therefore that God has been born after the flesh, and this you have learnt
out of the God-inspired Scripture. For who will be conceived to be Creator of all, save He
alone through Whom the Father hath made all?

36 But I said (you will haply say) " in the secret part Son and Creator of all. Well, I
agree, but I will ask you: You say that the hidden is the Word of God and that this is the
Creator of all: how then did you but now point out as with your finger the Babe just-born
and new-born and in swaddling clothes, and called this same both Son of God and Creator of
all? or do you haply suppose that the Word out of God has been transformed into the nature
of the flesh, and accuse yourself, not others, of daring to say this? Surely if the Babe
be the hidden Son and Creator of all, and have been born of the holy Virgin, you have
acknowledged with us even against your will that she is Mother of God in some unlooked-for
way, since how is a babe God all-free? For if you use the word, all-free, in the sense in
which each one of us too may be so conceived, as entrusted by God with the reins of his
own free-will, what is there special in Him beyond the rest? or why do you put about Him
the freedom, as some God-befitting and truly choice Dignity? albeit it is in the power of
all upon the earth to possess it and indeed they already have it.

37 But if the freedom here signify the being not subject to the laws of another, and He be
free in such sort as the Divine Nature itself too is conceived of, how do you say that the
new-born Babe is in case so august and befitting only the Supreme Nature and glory? albeit
that all which is called into being is subject unto God and runs under the yoke of
bondage. But you will perchance deem that that empty word of yours suffices unto all this,
that I mean in respect of the natures being connected one with another, and that, not
Personally, but rather in honour unvarying [in each] and equality of rank: for this is
what you are always unlearnedly saying to us. But that in saying such things, you will be
caught to be staying yourself upon rotten and fragile conceptions, will be shewn and not
at length, when opportunity offers to us to speak upon this too.

38 But to these he subjoins some others by which he deems that he can shew and that
skillfully that the mode of a generation like ours is unmeet and impossible. And our words
he arrays against himself, and deems that he can over-master them easily and shew that
they are nothing although they set forth the truth. He says thus: "'If Christ (says he )
be God, and Christ be born of the blessed Mary, how is not the Virgin mother of God?' I
hide none of their objections: for the lover of the truth takes and objects to himself all
that comes of the falsehood;" and then he endeavours to apply the solution, using some
such conceptions as these. " For the babe (he says) is formed in the womb, but so long as
it have not yet been formed, it hath no soul, but being formed at length, it has a soul
made it of God. As then the woman bears the body, God ensouls it, and the woman is not
called mother of soul, because she bare a man endowed with soul, but rather mother of man,
so (he says) the blessed Virgin too, even though she have borne a man, the Word of God
passing forth along with him" (for this word did he use) "not therefore is she mother of
God."

39 §4. Is therefore (tell me) that blamed by you which is said by us? does it seem right
to you without understanding to find fault with what is so rightly and purely said, and do
you not rather attach the blame of not being able to think aright to your own
understanding? For they to whom the truth is repugnant, to them will belong (and too
readily) the receptivity of what is not so, and the rebuke of those who are wont to speak
most excellently, will not be without its harm, yea rather will be even a manifest
demonstration of the having declined unto falsehood and of choosing to honour what it
would be more right to hate, in that one has missed of right reason. But no man, having
conceived of things so base. . . , he said that himself was the lover of the truth, and
that we had contrived the lie; albeit one may see on the contrary that ours is right and
true. For the advocate of the lie and fraud endeavours to fasten the blame of his
falsehood on the champions of the truth, haply driven to forgetfulness of the Prophet who
says, Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and
light for darkness.

40 But I will endeavour to shew by the example adduced by him that he does not even
clearly know what he is saying. For flesh confessedly is born of flesh, and the Artificer
of all performs the ensouling in the mode and way that He knows. Yet is the woman who
bears, albeit she is the source of the flesh only, believed to bear the whole man, made up
(I mean) of soul and body, although she contribute nothing of her own to the being of the
soul. Yet when one says man, one signifies surely the soul united to the body. As
therefore the woman, albeit she bear the body alone, is said to bear him that is made up
of soul and body, and this no wise damages the account of the soul, as though it found in
flesh the origin of its being; so will you conceive as to the blessed Virgin too: for even
though she be mother of the holy Flesh, she hath nevertheless borne God the Word out of
God truly united thereto , and though any call her Mother of God, he will not be defining
a more recent beginning of God the Word nor that the flesh hath been made the commencement
of His Being: but will understand rather the mode of the economy and wondering at it will
say, O Lord, I have heard Thy hearing and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was
astonished.

41 Bat our all-wise and prudent expounder, having pondered the force of the example says,
"Thus the holy Virgin, too, even though she hath borne man, God the Word passing along
with him, yet not therefore is she Mother of God: for not from the blessed Virgin was the
Dignity of the Word, but He was God by Nature." What therefore is the meaning of, that the
Word passed forth along with the flesh, he alone knows, but I marvel much at his subtil
refinement. For the word of truth sets forth that the Word of God has been Personally
united to the Flesh; and he keeps affirming the passing forth along with, meaning I know
not what. Next, when our discussion was all about nature and Personal Union, and aimed at
enquiring not what the Word out of God is in respect to Dignity, but whether He has been
made Man economically, making His own the flesh born of a woman: he removing the question
to quite other matters says, "Not from the holy Virgin was the Dignity of the Word, but He
was God by Nature:" albeit how are not Dignity and Nature two entirely different things?
But our discourse hereupon does not need overmuch skill: we must therefore see what comes
next. For he fortifies yet another outpost against what has been said by us, as he thinks
invincible and competent to shew with all force that the Birth out of woman of Emmanuel is
empty talk of ours: he says again thus,

42 "The blessed John Baptist is fore-heralded by the holy Angels, that the babe shall be
filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb, and having the Holy Ghost, was
this blessed Baptist born. What then? call you Elizabeth mother of the Spirit? apply your
mind here, although there be some among you who are startled at what is said, pardon their
inexperience." 43 §5. And who on hearing such words will not straightway say in Prophet's
voice, For the fool will utter folly and his heart will conceive vanity, to accomplish
iniquity and to utter error against the Lord? For error confessedly is it and nought else,
to trust in such frigid and childish thoughts as though they were true. One may then
marvel at him for his gentleness, for he said that they ought to be esteemed worthy of
pardon and clemency who had no acquaintance with those words of his: yet were it a thing
thrice-longed for by us ourselves (if so be), yea rather by all too who are Christians;
for how should not all long to be rid from words so burdensome and perverse? But we say
this: Elizabeth hath confessedly borne the blessed Baptist anointed in the womb with the
Holy Ghost: and if it had been any where said by the God-inspired Scriptures, that the
Spirit too was made flesh, rightly would you have said that she ought to be called by us
mother of the Spirit; but if the bairn is said to have been honoured with bare anointing
only, why deem you it right to put the fact of incarnation on an equal footing with the
grace of participation? for it is not the same thing, to say that the Word was made flesh
and that one has been anointed through the Spirit with prophetic spirit.

44 For of the holy Virgin it is written, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son,
and He who is born is called the fruit and moreover Emmanuel, which being interpreted is,
God with us; but of Elizabeth, she shall bear a son who shall go before Him in the spirit
and power of Elias, and shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. By no
means therefore is Elizabeth mother of the Spirit, for she bare a prophet of the Highest:
but the holy Virgin is truly mother of God , for she hath borne carnally, i. e., according
to the flesh, God united to flesh. For since she is human who bare, therefore and rightly
do we say that the mode of generation has been wrought in human wise; for thus and no
otherwise was it possible that He Who is over all nature could become as we, not slighting
the being what He is (how could He? but rather abiding what He was and is and will be: for
superior to change is the Divine and Most High Nature.

45 That we therefore think aright in affirming that God has been born according to the
flesh for the salvation of all,.. God-inspired Scripture hath testified: but since to his
most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the Church's Faith, which
the fathers once gathered together at Nicea through the illumination of the Spirit
defined; he, fearing lest any should keep whole the Faith, instructed unto the Truth by
their words, endeavours to calumniate it and alters the significance of the words, and
dares to coin with false stamp the very force of its ideas. For while himself in the midst
of the Church was using profane babblings, a certain man of those who were of great piety
and yet among the laity, but who had gathered within himself no mean learning, was moved
with fervent and devout zeal and with piercing cry said that the Word Himself Who is
before the ages endured a second Generation also, viz., that after the flesh and forth of
a woman; the people being disturbed hereat, and the more part and wiser having honoured
him with no mean praises, as pious and most full of wisdom and not imparticipate in
uprightness of doctrine, the rest being mad against him, he [Nestorius] interrupting,
straightway approves those whom by teaching his own he had destroyed, and whets his tongue
against him who could not endure his words, yea and against the holy fathers who have
decreed for us the pious definition of the Faith which we have as an anchor of the soul
both sure and steadfast, as it is written.

46 "For (said he) I rejoice at beholding your zeal; but from the thing itself is a clear
confutation of what has been said by the pollution of this wretched man ; for whereof the
births are two, two sons are they, but the Church knoweth one Son Christ the Lord." §6.
Most foolishly therefore put he forth the definition of his ideas on this matter saying,
"for whereof the births are two two sons are they." But letting alone for a while his
subtil accuracy herein, come, come let us gather what pertains to accurate investigation
for the consideration of the matter. He therefore made it inadmissible [to speak of two
generations ] but says that one ought to be confessed by us, that we conceive not of two
sons (as though it were necessary if the births be two, that two sons also should be
introduced): let him come forward and tell us which of the generations he will admit, that
before the ages from out the Father, wherein the Word was God not yet Incarnate, or this
one, recent and out of a woman.

47 If then he say that alone, I mean the one before the ages from out the Father, that one
alone will be Son Who is out of Him by Nature and not yet participate of flesh and blood:
and vainly (as it seems) is the Mystery of the Incarnation uttered, and in no wise hath He
emptied Himself nor been made in servant's form, but hath remained thus, rejecting the
true concurrence with flesh even until now. But he who is in the last times out of woman,
shall be styled by himself son, and we will admit this one generation, I mean out of
woman; needs has the Word out of God the Father fallen away from being by Nature Son. 48
But the pious man sees full surely the absurdity of such ideas and its exceeding swerving
unto impiety. In order then that we may proceed along the royal road, we say. that two
were the Births, one the Son through both, the Word out of God not yet made in flesh, the
Same afterwards Incarnate and enduring for us the birth of a woman after the flesh. For if
one said in regard of men that two sons must surely be conceived of, if we speak of two
births, he would say rightly and it would be true; but since the Mystery of Christ and the
mode of the Incarnation hath another path, and is not beheld in like wise with what is
ours, why is he, looking at our habits, and then fastening his mind on what is marvellous
and above speech, caught fall ing into feeblest and unlearned pettiness of belief? What
surprises me is this: he confessing herein that the Church knows one Son, and adding, The
Lord Christ, hath no longer kept One, for he sunders one from another things united, and
putteth each apart, not enquiring what the Word is by Nature, what the flesh also; but
gathering rather into one, man and God in equality of glory only, as he deemeth, which is
a thing utterly implausible, yea rather impossible, he casts down the scheme of the
mystery unto uncomeliness. Thus he saith:

49 "But we must (for it has now come into my mind) learn that the Synod of Nicea too
nowhere durst say that God was born of Mary; for it said, We believe in One God the Father
Almighty and in One Lord Jesus Christ. Observe that having first put the word Christ,
which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, in one God the Word, but
took the name that signifies both, in order that when lower down you hear of death, you
think it not strange; in order that the words crucified and buried may not strike the ear
as though the Godhead suffered these things." Then it goes on, "We believe in One Lord
Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, the Begotten out of the Father, the Consubstantial
with the Father, Who came down from the heavens for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the
Holy Ghost. They said not, and begotten of the Holy Ghost." And he says that the holy
fathers interpreting what is the meaning of Incarnate say, Made Man. And what being made
Man means he himself making clear, said again, "His own Nature not undergoing change into
flesh, but inhabitation in man. "

50 §7. Will any one of those who rank as Christians endure either the infatuation that
there is in these words or the impiety of his ideas? To those of really sound mind are not
these things a manifest ribaldry, and no mean kind of openmouthedness against Christ? for
he slanders the truth, he says that He is not truly Son, allotting this to another (for "
observe, he says, that having first put the word Christ which is the indication of the two
natures, they did not say, We believe in One God the Word). And as regards the Name, I
mean Christ, I will presently enquire whether it be significative of the two Natures or
not, but what is before us we will exercise ourselves in, as we can. For in no wise to be
borne may those things be that are so absurdly and heedlessly babbled forth by him, but
one might (I deem) say, speaking in behalf of the holy fathers, What art thou doing, noble
sir, putting forth rude tongue against holy men, to whom will beseem that which was said
by Christ Himself the Saviour of us all, It is not YE that speak, but the Spirit of your
Father Which speaketh in you? for what has there not been conceived of by them of things
exceeding well polished unto an admirable subtilty? what of needful doctrines has been
overlooked, or what method of safeguard neglected by them?

51 " They have not dared (he says) insert in their words concerning the Faith that God the
Word was born of Mary. If therefore thou for this reason accuse those who have been before
us, and sayest thou art aggrieved because they are not found to use thy exact words, it is
time (I suppose) to accuse along with them the holy Apostles and Evangelists too, for they
have compiled the books of instructionconcerning Christ, yet one will not find them using
word for word your expressions. But (if it please you) pass this over as ........but
consider rather that they have well wrought out their explanation of this matter, for
faith in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity is exacted of us. But since they say that
they believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and
invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and none other (according to us) is Jesus
Christ the Lord than the One and by Nature and truly Son, Who beaming from out of God and
being God the Word has been made Man, by birth (that is) out of woman, how will they who
proclaim the mode of the economy not be found to speak also of His Birth of a woman after
the flesh? for then in truth has the Word which is God and Wisdom and Life and Light, the
Son, been named Christ Jesus.

52 It is manifest therefore that the time of such naming has concurrent with it the Birth,
that I mean through the holy-Virgin. That believing on Christ Jesus, we believe in the One
and by Nature and truly Son, our faith mounting up unto the Father through Him, will be
clear, in that He Himself hath cried aloud to the whole world, He that believeth on Me
believeth not on Me but on Him that sent Me, and he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me,
and again, Believe on God, and believe on Me. And we do not (I suppose) say that He asks
of us two faiths, but rather He teaches that if any admit the faith to Himward, he hath
believed on the Father Himself. 53 But since (as is probable) he will be making use of the
community of the names, saying that Christ and Lord, yea and Son, are common titles, and
will be affirming that they suit the Word That sprung of the Father even though He be
conceived of as alone and not yet participate of flesh, and likewise the Temple that
sprang of a virgin, this matter needs (I think) considerable investigation: putting it
off' for the present to a season (as I said) fitly belonging to it, let us go to another
utterance of the holy Synod which this man perverting unto his own liking, does violence
to the force of truth. For he says that the fathers have written, We believe in One Lord
Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the Begotten from forth the Father, the
Consubstantial with the Father, Who came down for our sakes, and was Incarnate of the Holy
Ghost. He adds hereto and says of che holy fathers, " lower down they interpret that He
who was made man, He it is who is said to be Incarnate, the Divine Nature not enduring
change into flesh but inhabitation in man." In his explanation he again keeps hold of the
same mind and moreover says thus;

54 "They followed the Evangelist, for the Evangelist too when he comes to the being made
man, shunned saying Birth in respect of God the Word, and hath put Incarnation. Where?
Hear, And the Word was made flesh; he said not, Was born through the flesh. For where the
Apostles or the Evangelists make mention of the Son, they put that He was born of a woman.
Give heed to what is said, I beseech you; for where they utter the name of the Son, and
that He was borne from forth a woman, they put the word, Born; where they mention the
Word, no one of them durst speak of birth through the human nature. For the blessed John
the Evangelist, when he came to the Word and to His Incarnation, hear what he says, The
Word was made flesh." §8. Come therefore putting beside what he said, the definition of
our Creed, let us see if ought has been innovated by this man regarding it too.

55 WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE,
AND IN ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OUT OF THE FATHER, ONLY-BEGOTTEN
THAT IS OUT OF HIS ESSENCE, GOD OUT OF GOD LIGHT OUT OF LIGHT VERY GOD OUT OF VERY GOD,
BEGOTTEN NOT MADE, CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER, THROUGH WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, BOTH
THOSE IN HEAVEN AND THOSE ON EARTH: WHO FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION CAME DOWN AND WAS
INCARNATE AND MADE MAN, SUFFERED AND ROSE THE THIRD DAY, ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS, COMETH
TO JUDGE QUICK AND DEAD, AND IN THE HOLY GHOST. Come now therefore, noble sir, where (tell
me) have they put of the Son, Incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary ? but this
he can by no means shew. But consider this. They say that the Word out of God, the Only-
Begotten, He That is from forth the Essence of the Father, He through Whom are all things,
the Very Light, was both incarnate and made man, suffered and rose, and too, that He will
in season come again the Judge.

56 But in order that submitting to accurate scrutiny his words also, we may see what is
the amount of the unlearning that is in them, he affirms in plain terms that they say that
the Word out of God was both incarnate and made man, and he crowns them with his vote unto
their truth as saying what was convenient. Do they therefore (tell me) in saying that He
was both Incarnate and made Man mean ought else than that He was begotten after the flesh?
for this would be (and alone) the mode of incarnation to one who has his existence both
external to flesh and in his proper nature; for no one would say (I suppose) that flesh
has been made flesh nor will any one be made what he was [already]. But if one should
conceive a certain economic change to have been made regarding him unto somewhat else
which he was not, the expression will then have great fitness. Hence if they say that the
Only-Begotten has been Incarnate, and this would be wrought (I suppose) through fleshly
generation and in no other way, how have they not plainly said that the Word being God has
been begotten after the flesh?

57 But (he says) the Birth is not named in plain terms. Yes, but the nature of the thing
knows (as I already said) no other way of being incarnate. So that, although it be not in
plain terms said in matters of this kind, we will not for this, forsaking the only way
recognized by nature, go off to another. For it is written in the Book of Genesis, And to
Seth there was made a son, and he called his name Enos. Shall we then, because the
Scripture has put, was made, not admit the mode of birth? how would not this be unlearned?
for the very nature of the thing will all but compel us even against our will to confess
the idea of birth. How then on hearing of the Incarnation does he not forthwith admit the
idea of Birth? and when the being made man has been plainly mentioned, how did he not
straightway understand, that being made man would befit not a man, lest he should seem to
be made that he already was, but the Word originating from God? But where being made man
is believed to truly take place, there is full surely the birth whereby he may be seen to
be made man.

58 But not thus does it seem to you is the saying to be conceived of, that the Word of God
was both Incarnate and was made Man; for you said again, endeavouring to oppose the idea
of every one else, that the being made man, means, not the change into flesh of the Divine
Nature , but its indwelling in man. He says then that the conversion into flesh of the
Divine Nature is both impossible and that it in no wise befalls it (and very rightly, for
we will approve him who herein has chosen to speak aright; for I say that It is stable and
that It will not be transformed into ought else than what It is believed to be): but that
his discourse hath missed of the fitting and true, in that he maintained that the being
made Man is the indwelling in man, I shall essay to shew. For if he says that this matter
is true of Emmanuel singly and alone, let him teach the reason why (for I cannot learn
it), or no one will tolerate him as a definer and layer down of the law in respect of
those things as to which he is pleased to speak inconsiderately. But perchance the force
of the things defined does not extend unto one [alone], there will then be no blame, even
though it extend unto all.

59 Hence not once for all but many times over shall we find that God has been made man,
and not only the Word out of God the Father, but I will add both the Father Himself and
besides, the Holy Ghost. For He said through one of the holy Prophets of them that have
been justified in faith, I will dwell in them and walk in them and I will be their God and
they shall be My people. And Christ Himself also said, And if any man hear Me, we will
come I and My Father and make Our abode with him and lodge in him . The most wise Paul too
hath somewhere written, And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a
testimony of the things which were to be spoken of, but Christ as a Son over Bis own house
whose house are WE; and moreover of the Holy Ghost too, Know ye not that ye are the temple
of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Hence if when the God of all is said to
dwell in any, if this be the being made man or the incarnation, let it be said in respect
of each one also of those who were made partakers of the Divine Nature and have moreover
had Him indwelling them, that he has both been made man and besides was incarnate.

60 This now being so and admitted as true, the Word out of God the Father might even be
said to have been most often made flesh, yea and He indwelleth even now in many of those
who fear Him. 61 Yea (he says) for it is written of God the Word, that He tabernacled in
us; the Divine-uttering Paul too said of Christ the Saviour of us all, that in Him hath
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He tabernacled in us confessedly, for so it
is written; and moreover that He hath dwelt: I will not oppose you saying it, but rather
will I search into the words of the Divines. For the blessed Evangelist, having aforesaid,
And the Word was made flesh, profitably added too the, tabernacled in us, that by means of
both he might work in us unmutilated the knowledge of the mystery Christward. For that the
Word out of God the Father was united Personally to flesh, he hath openly declared by
saying that He was made flesh: that made flesh, He hath not passed into the nature of
flesh, undergoing change into what He was not, but together with becoming as we, hath
abode what He was, he again clearly states, adding to the former, the tabernacled in us.
And the Divine-uttering Paul saith that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily, that no one might suppose that the Indwelling was simple or accidental but (as I
said just now) Very and Personal. For that the Word of God is Incorporeal and not subject
to touch, the Spirit-clad was not ignorant; but since it was needful that the declaration
of the mystery should be seen to be in no wise a matter of blame, but should be made so
accurate and exact unto what is right and true as to be beyond all marvel:----he is doing
violence (it seems) and all but overlooking what befits the Unembodied and Supreme Nature,
for he hath added, Bodily, being able in no other way to speak than may be attained by our
mind and tongue.

62 Do not therefore, when he tells us of simple indwelling, think that he is saying ought
that needs not the strongest reprobation. For overthrowing as he thinks and that with
vigour the birth according to the flesh of the Son, he compounds an argument befitting old
wives and foolish and having no foundation of truth. For he writes again after this
manner; his discourse was made touching the Arians: "Yet though they prate that God the
Word is junior to the greater Godhead, these make Him second to the blessed Mary, and over
the Godhead, Creator of times, they set a mother born in time, yea rather they do not even
allow that she who bare Christ is mother of Christ. For if not the nature of man but God
the Word was, as these say, that which is of her, she that bare was no mother of that
which was born. For how will any one be mother of him who is alien from her nature? But if
she be called mother by them, that which is born is manhood not Godhead, for it is the
property of every mother to bear what is consubstantial [with her]. Either then she will
not be mother, not bearing what is consubstantial with herself, or being called mother by
them, she bare that which was in essence like to herself."

63 §9. How deep the matter of his cogitations! dread and hard to escape is clearly the
compulsion resulting from the reasonings of him who hath compiled such things! Whence
comes he having gathered into the midst unto us such fables? or who ever sank down to this
extent of unlearning in his conceptions, as to think or say that the Godhead of the Only-
Begotten has not its existence before the ages from the Father but rather makes flesh and
blood the beginning of its passing into being? who is so distraught and slight of
understanding and wholly without ear for the holy Scriptures? who remembereth hot Isaiah
who hath cried aloud of Him, Who shall declare His generation? John too who hath written
clearly, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; all
things were made through Him and without Him was not any thing made? And if all things
through Him, how will He Who is before every age and time be later in birth than the
things that were made through Him? why then do you bring in what is repudiated by all, as
though it had been said? cease accusing those who rightly blame what you say, and who
laugh at the vastness of the unlearning that is therein. Since therefore there is no one
who says that the Virgin hath borne from forth her own flesh the nature of the Godhead, do
not contend to no purpose, twining for us reasonings not made out of premises that are
true and acknowledged by all.

64 But what was it that persuaded you to let loose a tongue so sheer and unguarded against
those who are zealous to think aright, and to pour down accusal dire and all-cruel upon
every worshipper of God? For you said again in Church, "But I have already full often said
that if any simpler one either among us or any other, rejoice in the word Mother of God, I
have no grudge against the word; only let him not make the Virgin a goddess." §10. Again
dost thou rail upon us, and put on a mouth so bitter? and reproachest the congregation of
the Lord, as it is written? But WE, my friend, who call her mother of God, have never at
all deified any one of those that are numbered among creatures, but are accustomed to know
as God the One and by Nature and truly so: and we know that the blessed Virgin was woman
as we. But thyself wilt be caught, and that at no long interval, representing to us
Emmanuel as a God-bearing man, and putting upon another the condemnation due to your own
essays.

65 [A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references,
follows]


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS continued

BOOK 2

TOME II.

2 [Translated by P.E. PUSEY] The Word after the Union One Incarnate Person. Similitudes of
unlike things united. ' Connection ' does not unite. The Name Christ means God the Son
Incarnate. Jacob's pillar a type. To His human nature belong the anointing and His
subjection to the Law: yet He is God. Cyrus how christ, the Babylonians how holy. Personal
Union. Christ's glory no imparted glory but His own inherent glory. If community of names
unite, Emmanuel has nought more than we. The human cannot be allotted to a distinct
person. God the Son incarnate to be worshipped just as before His Incarnation. Speak not
of 'hidden' and 'manifest' as though Two, they are One. Worship of Him taught by God the
Father. 3 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. |39

4 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.

5 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 1 and by
Himself, other while to him that is |40 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 |41 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 saidbefits Him and all will be said of One Person. For the Incarnate
Nature 2 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.

6 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 |42 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.

7 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 3, 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, |43 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.

8 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; 9 "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, 4 to
bring in Theotokus, as though, a |44 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, 5 as though all things were spoken of One, not in |45 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."

10 §1. 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 6 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 |46 things, we shall
observe that things which are in equality of dignity, have not for this reason parted with
their individual existence:

11 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.

12 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 mysticunion? But you
cannot say this, for reason has shewn that the connection is utterly weak to both these.
13 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 |47 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:

14 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 7, 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 |48 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.

15 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. 16 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 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 |49 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."

17 §2. 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 |50 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:

18 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.

19 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. |51 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.

20 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 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, "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?"

21 §3. And how will not he be verily distraught, who essays to overturn, as far as in him
lies, things so clear and known of |52 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.

22 "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 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 |53
suppose)........thyself too 10; 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.

23 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 11, 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, |54 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.

24 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: "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."

25 §4. What are you saying? what word are you belching forth out of your own heart and not
out of the mouth of the Lord, |55 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 speechand 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.

26 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 |56 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.

27 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:

28 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 |57 the Lord, 14 and hath a servant's measure, for he was made
faithful as a servant in the house of God. 29 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. 15 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.

30 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 |58 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.

31 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 in having blasphemed against the very Nature
of the Word too, for thou saidst again, "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."

32 §5. He divides therefore again into two, in exceeding lack of understanding he lavishes
on rank the force of union, |59 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 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?

33 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; "Therefore 16 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." |60 34 §6. 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.

35 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.17 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 |61 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.

36 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,

37 "The 18 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." 38 §7. If he says that the Only-Begotten Word of God, as
|62 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?

39 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 requiringtheir assent, at another ordering
with authority saying, |63 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? 19

40 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.

41 And that this too is true, the things which he has thought out and heedlessly said of
Christ, will shew; for it is thus: "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 |64
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."

42 §8. 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,20 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?

43 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 |65 saidst, that "after the assumption, He cannot be called Son separately
lest we teach the doctrine of two sons." 44 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.

45 But since one must, on account of these words of his, carry round the argument even
unto absurdity, that on all |66 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 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?

46 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.

47 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 |67 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.21 What then is the mode of the connection which you speak of conceived
to be?

48 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
synonymousone with another, son with son, and lord with lord, nor are |68 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.

49 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? 50 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,

51 "In order therefore that it might be pointed out to the |69 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." §9. 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 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,

52 "Yet 22 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." 53 §10. 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 |70 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.

54 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 |71 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.

55 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 |72 unblamed, and will know where you were, as it is
written, going astray from the doctrines of the truth.

56 "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.

57 Yet not regardless of his own notions, he puts forth again, "I 23venerate 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." §11. 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 |73 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.

58 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.

59 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 |74
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?

60 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?

61 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 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, |75 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.

62 And this and none other is the way to the right and most unerring line of thought, but
he utterly confounding every thing says, "Because of the wearer I reverence the worn,
because of the hidden I worship him that is seen." 63 §12. 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
concurrenceof 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 |76 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?

64 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.25Thou 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.

65 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? |77 But he has invented
something clever in his defence, for he subjoins: "Not 26by 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."

66 §13. 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;

67 but on bringing both together by physical union unto the condition of one man, he will
|78 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...... 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 , 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.

68 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 |79 knee bow? how
dost thou confess that thou veneratest Him? albeit thou fearest (as thou saidst) to be
called aman-worshipper. 69 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.

70 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 |80 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,
"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, 28 "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."

71 §14. 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. [A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical references,
follows]

72 1. See S. Cyril's fourth chapter, " If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the
words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him
of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is
of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he
anathema." Neither Andrew nor Theodoret understood this chapter; Andrew allows that the
words must not be allotted to two persons, and uses the term ἄκρα of the Union of God and
Man both here and on chapter 11 end, just as S. Cyril Hom. Pasch. 7, p. 102 d had said τὸ
εἰς ἄκρον ἑνοῦν and in the Hom. 16 (A.D. 429) so often quoted by Andrew, p. 230 b (as well
as at p. 17 above and elsewhere) had used the expression τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν [Nestorius §
8, below p. 64 had called it ἄκρα συνάφεια]; but appears to think that S. Cyril had denied
any distinction of the words at all. Theodoret after an allotment to the Human nature of
our Lord of words said by Him of His Human nature, shews his misunderstanding of S.
Cyril's chapter by adding what is quite true, but is equally admitted by S. Cyril, "Hence,
the things spoken and wrought in God-befitting sort, we will allot to God the Word, those
spoken and wrought in lowly wise to the servant's form, lest we fall into the sickness of
Arius' and Eunomius' blasphemy."

73 What S. Cyril is objecting to is the notion that He who is One with the Father is God
the Son absolutely distinct from His own Manhood, that He who said. My God My God why
forsookest Thou Me is, not God the Son, speaking of and through the Manhood which He had
for ever united to Himself but, a man distinct and apart. But even in his quite early
writings S. Cyril had never overlooked what the Eastern Bishops were (a year or two after
this treatise was written) so anxious to have brought prominently forward, viz. that "as
to the Gospel and Apostolic words concerning the Lord, we know that Divines make some
common, as to One Person, apportion others, as to two Natures, and give to Christ the God-
befitting according to His Godhead, the lowly ones according to His Manhood " (Confession
of Eastern Bishops, approved by S. Cyril and incorporated by him in his Ecumenical letter
to John of Antioch, Three Epistles p. 72). In his Thesaurus cap. x init., S. Cyril says,
"But we must know and believe that the Word being God and Consubstantial in all things
with the Father, put on man's nature and hath been made Man, in order that He may both
sometimes speak as man by reason of the Economy with flesh, and may also as God utter the
things above man as so being by Nature and when opportunity introduces the need of this.

74 But if any one should wish to refer the things which are more humanly and economically
spoken (as 1 said) to His Godhead and again to refer the things which are Divinely spoken
to the time wherein He has been made man, such an one will wrong the nature of things and
will destroy the Economy: for one while He saith as God, Verily I say to you, before
Abraham was, I am, and again, I have come down from out of heaven. If one wishes to
preserve to Him only the God-befitting Dignity, he will utterly take away His being made
man in the last times (for He was not in human nature before Abraham was nor yet has He as
man come down from Heaven): and again if one should choose to attribute to bare God the
Word before the Incarnation the words and acts of the human nature, such an one will do
impiously: for what will he do when Christ says Now has My Soul been troubled and is very
sorrowful? will he admit that sorrow and dismay befel the Nature of God and that fear of
death gat hold thereof? what when he sees Him crucified, will he admit that the Godhead of
the Son suffered this just as man? or will he repudiate the blasphemy?

75 Therefore let what is suitable thereto be kept to each time and fact and let Theology
practise herself not surely in those things whence it is clear that He is speaking as man,
but those whence He is from forth the Father as Son and God; and let it allow to the
Economy with flesh that He should sometimes say what does not belong to the Godhead bare
and by Itself. pp. 72,73. See also de Trinitate ad Herm. dial. 1. p. 398, dial. 6. p. 600
a b, 602 fin. Hom. Pasch. 7 (A.D. 420) "For as to create in God-befitting manner is not
conceived of as pertaining to a man, so is to die alien from God. p. 104 b and through the
Homily. These belong to the earlier years of S. Cyril's Episcopate: they do not differ
from what S. Cyril wrote about this time, in explanation of his fourth chapter, and in
reply to Andrew's criticisms, p. 171 a b, nor from what, in A.D. 432 when the Egyptian and
Eastern Churches had explained to one another what each meant, S. Cyril wrote to Acacius
Bishop of Melitene as being what the Eastern Bishops said and as being one of the
essential points in which they differed from Nestorius (Epp. pp. 117, 118 a).

76 2. .... S. Cyril in his second Letter to Successus bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria,
written probably about 3 years after this, explains the Term One Nature Incarnate thus, "
For even if the Only-Begotten Son of God Incarnate and Made man be said by us to be One,
He has not therefore been mixed up (as some please to think) nor has the Nature of the
Word passed into the nature of the flesh nor yet that of the flesh into His Nature, but,
while each abides and is conceived of in its natural property, H e united unspeakably and
unutterably shewed us One Nature of the Son, yet (as I said) Incarnate. For not merely of
things which are simple by nature is the One rightly used, but also of those which are
brought together as compounded; such as is man, of soul and body: for such things are
diverse in form and not consubstantial one to another; yet united, they made up one nature
of man, albeit in the plan of the compounding, the difference of nature in the things
brought together into Union exists." Epp. p. 143 a b c. The great estimation in which this
letter was held is indicated by its frequent citations in controversies on the
Incarnation. See also the Letter to Acacius Bishop Melitene, Epp. pp. 115, 116.

77 3. See S. Cyril's first Letter to Successus, Epp. p. 137 d. 4. The following extract
from Tillemont (Hist. Eccles. Les Apollinaristes, Art 2. t. vii pp. 001, 605 ed. 2. Paris
1700), will illustrate that dread of Apollinarianism, which not only Nestorius but John of
Antioch (see a letter of his to S.Cyril, Synodicon cap. 80. Baluz. Nova Collectio
Conciliorum t. i. 783; iv. 346 Col.) Theodoret and the Bishops of that Archiepiscopate
felt. Apollinarianism had been their last great heretical onslaught, only about 60 years
previous, and Antioch its head-quarters. Tillemont says, "Car ne voulant pas reconnoistre
qu'il y eust deux substances et deux natures en J. C, l'une divine et l'autre humaine, ou
bien l'une de Dieu et l'autre de la chair, non seulement ils [les Apollinaristes]
soutenoient, après les Ariens, qu'il avoit une seule nature mixte et composée de la divine
et de l'humaine : mais ils se reduisoient à dire que sa chair estoit consubstantielle à sa
divinité, qu'une partie du Verbe avoit esté changée en chair, en os, en cheveux, en un mot
en un corps et en une nature toute différente de la sienne, que ce n'avoit pas esté un
corps comme le nostre, qu'il en avoit seulement la forme et l'apparence extérieure, mais
qu'il estoit coeternel à la nature divine, formé de la substance mesme de la sagesse
éternelle et de celle du Verbe changée en un corps passible: Qu'ainsi c'estoit la
substance mesme de la sagesse qui avoit creé le monde, et la divinité du Fils
consubstantielle au Père, qui avoit esté circoncise et attachée a la croix ; et non un
corps terrestre comme le nostre.

78 Ils ajoutaient, par une consequence bien naturelle de ce faux principe, que la
substance de son corps n'estait pas prise de Marie, mais avoit seulement passé par elle
comme par un canal [this was the ancient blasphemy of a portion of the Gnostics, see S.
Iren. 3. 11. 3. p. 231 O.T.] : d'où vient qu'ils luy refusoient le titre de Mere de Dieu,
et qu'ils pretendoient qu'on ne pouvoit dire que le corps de J. C. fust tiré d'elle, sans
mettre une quaternité en Dieu au lieu de la Trinité ; de sorte qu'il est visible que selon
eux, le corps de J. C. estoit compris dans la Trinité. Ils disaient aussi que ce corps
avait esté avant Marie et que J. C. l'avoit toujours eu, ayant toujours esté fils de
l'homme, qu'il l'avoit pris du ciel [S. Cyril in his Ecumenic Letter to John Archbishop of
Antioch (see 3 Epistles p. 72) says that some had reported that he himself had held this
very thing], qu'il n'avoit eu qu'à descendre en terre avec son corps qui luy estoit uni
substantiellement, qu'ainsi ce corps estoit non seulement consubstantiel à la divinité,
mais aussi céleste et increé."

79 When therefore S. Cyril insists on the Word having been made flesh, the Eastern Bishops
thought that while using S.John the Evangelist's words, he was pressing the γέγονε to mean
hath become, been actually turned into : and the "One Incarnate Hypostasis of the Word"
seemed to them to mean not Union but the mixture and confusion of the Apollinarians.
Theodoret, in his objections to the 12 chapters which S. Cyril and his Council had drawn
up for Nestorius to sign, does not in general use language that differs very much from S.
Cyril's own mind ; but sets out with the conviction that S. Cyril was an Apollinarian and
so reads and interprets the chapters as really intended to bring in Apollinarian error
secretly by use of veiled language. Thus in reply to S. Cyril's "for she [the blessed
Virgin] hath borne after the flesh the Word from out of God made flesh " (chapter 1),
Theodoret remarks, "we say that He has not been made flesh by nature nor was God the Word
changed into flesh," "it is plain therefore that the Form of God was not turned into form
of servant: in objection to Chapter 2, "Superfluous therefore is Personal union, which as
I think he is putting forward instead of mixture: the objection to chapter 3 ends with the
words, "he who is teaching us mixture by means of other names:

80 in objection to chapter 5, "but that the Word has been made flesh by any turning, we
not only do not say, but we accuse of impiety them that say so: the objection to chapter 6
closes, "for not by being turned did God the Word become flesh, but assumed flesh
possessed of an intellectual soul; in the objection to chapter 8 occur similarly the
words, "For neither did God the Word receive transformation [τροπὴν see S. James i. 17]
nor again did man lose what he was, and become changed into the nature of God: the
objection to chapter 10 begins, "Not into nature of flesh was the Unchangeable Nature
turned : in the objection to chapter 11 occur the words, "for first of all, he nowhere
mentioned flesh endowed with mind nor confessed that he which was assumed is perfect man,
but everywhere he says flesh, following the doctrine of Apollinarius; next he intersperses
in his words the notion of mixture, infusing it by means of other words. Hence it is clear
that Theodoret's objection was not to the chapters themselves but to the chapters in that
he approached them possessed with the notion that S. Cyril was an Apollinarian and was
endeavouring to disseminate their error by dishonest use of apparently orthodox language.

81 5. Nestorius means that whereas it was the object of the Arians and Eunomians to assert
that God the Son was inferior to God the Father, supposing all the lowly actions that are
recorded of God our Saviour and His purely Human actions, His hunger and thirst and
weariness and sorrow and pain, could be referred to His Godhead, it would go to make out
their case. Whereas the actions are not referred to the Godhead considered by Itself, but
all the actions recorded of our Lord after His Birth in the flesh, whether Divine or
Human, are referred to One Person, God and Man in One, of God the Son. Just as (to use our
little comparisons to help our frail understanding) no distinction is made in human
actions; we say, he ate, he slept, he read, he wrote, he thought: we do not distinguish
and say, his body ate, his body slept, his soul read, or wrote, or thought. Part of this
passage is quoted by S. Cyril in his defence of his fourth chapter against Andrew. For the
last portion of the extract compare serm 2, p. 68, Bal.

82 6. One is added on the authority of a Syriac citation in a MS. in the British Museum,
Cod add. 14533 fol. 9and again fol. 30. The Roman editors had given it in their margin as
a conjectural emendation. 7. i.e. as one of the things not imparted to it, but so part of
its own being, that it may not lose it without ceasing to be what it is. 8. Nestorius in
the fourth of the sermons which Mercator has published (preached after he had received
from S. Cyril the Great Letter of the Alexandrine Synod with the 12 Chapters appended,
accompanied by Pope S. Celestine's Letter), preached against opponents of his and re-
affirms what he had said before, repeating a few words here and there from the older
sermon from which these extracts were taken: a sermon not perhaps belonging to the volume
which was first published (see above p. 4) but preached (as was certainly the next piece,
p. 51) to oppose S. Cyril's letter to monks, p. 13 b. In this sermon 4, p. 82 Nestorius
says, "God sent His Son, a name common to the natures, i. e., of man and God. He did not
say, God sending God the Word." See too further on where other similarities or re-
capitulations are referred to in margin. The passage which stands at the head of § 13 (see
below p. 77) is from serm. 2. p. 65 Bal. and some of it also in serm. 1. p. 55.

83 The whole passage as cited here and in the Council of Ephesus (see next note) is given
by Mercator with the title, From the book of Nestorius himself, out of the 16th quire, on
dogma. In the volume from which the extracts were taken for the Council of Ephesus, the
sermon on dogma seems to have nearly followed that which Mercator gives us complete pp.
56-70, and which is there called sermon 2: for the extracts from this sermon 2 are
extracted from the 15th and 10th quires, see Mercatoris opera pp. 205, 207, 210 Bal.:
while the two extracts given from the sermon on Dogma are from the 16th and 17th quires,
viz. this one from the 16th (Merc. p. 201, or 17th as Greek edd.) and the extract at the
head of § 8 below from the 17th quire (Merc. p. 205). The Greek editions of the council
however agree with Mercator in styling this extract εἰς δόγμα, but omit the words in the
title to the other extract, appending it instead to two citations from the 15th quire; one
of which is, in part, at the head of § 14, the other is given by S. Cyril both there and
in his letter to Acacius of Melitene written after the reconcilation with the Eastern
Bishops, Epp. p. 115. 1.5-9.

84 9. i. e. S. Cyril himself: for Nestorius looked not kindly on S. Cyril's Letter to the
monks, to which (p. 13 b) he is here referring, see note on book 4 § 6 below. 10. The
present text as it now stands is ταῦτα που καὶ σαυτὸν, the Roman Editors conjecture κατὰ
for καὶ, but it is just as likely that the difficulty is occasioned by omission from
homoeoteleuton, from which even a good MS. (as is the one in which the Greek text of these
books is preserved) is rarely exempt. 11. i. e., the tribute money of half a shekel which
was the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty appointed in the first instance by God, Exod.
xxx. 12-16. (It does not appear to have been a regular tax, though there seems an allusion
to it in 2 Kings xii. 4, the money of every one that passeth the account. This tax our
Lord paid, S. Matt, xvii. 24-27, yet told S. Peter that He was free, as a Son.) Every male
who had attained the age of 20 was to pay: it amounted to a hundred talents, 1775 shekels
of silver: with the hundred talents were cast a hundred silver sockets for the sanctuary
and the vail, the 1775 silver shekels were used in making hooks for the pillars and in
overlaying the chapiters (Exod. xxxviii, 25-28).

85 Dr. Edersheim, learned in Jewish customs and deeply versed in their books, tells us, "
It had only been about a century before [our Lord's payment for Himself and S. Peter],
during the reign of Salome-Alexandra (about 78 B. C), that the Pharisaical party, being
then in power, had carried an enactment by which the Temple-tribute was to be enforced at
law.....It is a matter of doubt whether the half-shekel had ever been intended as an
annual payment. Its first enactment was under exceptional circumstances, and the mode in
which, as we are informed a similar collection was made during the reign of Joash(2
Chron.xxiv.6-11) suggests the question whether the original institution by Moses was not
treated rather as affording a precedent than as laying down a binding rule. At the time of
Nehemiah we read only of a self-imposed ordinance and at the rate of a third, not a half
shekel (Neh. x. 32-34). But long before the coming of Christ very different views
prevailed." The Temple, its ministry and Services pp. 49, 50 (Religious Tract Society).
Dr. Edersheim tells us that the money was paid in the month previous to the Passover, pp.
47, 48.

86 12. In this passage as cited before the Council of Ephesus are given the words which S.
Cyril also (see de Trin.dial. 6. p. 589 e and elsewhere,) with the Alexandrine MS. of the
LXX. reads, ἡγιασμένοι εἰσιν, they have been sanctified (corresponding to My sanctified
ones in our version) and I lead them. These words are required to explain Nestorius'
assertion that the Babylonian was called holy. 13. See this at greater length in S.
Cyril's Glaphyra on Exodus, lib. i. cap. 4. pp. 305 sq. and especially 306 c; also lib.
iii. 3. pp. 327 sq. 14. This contrast between our Master and our fellow-servants to whom
He had delegated His authority before His own Advent, is argued on by S. Cyril below,
Schol. § 26, also Thes. cap. 12 p. 108 c d and often. 15. S. Cyril in his Thesaurus, cap.
25 p. 238 d says, " He is therefore Only-Begotten by Nature, as Only out of the Father,
God out of God, and Light beaming forth of Light: First-Begotten for our sakes, in order
that all the creation engrafted as it were in a certain immortal root and springing up out
of Him Who ever is (for all things have been made through Him and consist) might itself
too be preserved for aye." (... is Aubert's text slightly emended from the beautiful
Munich Codex 331, written in the tenth century). See also De Trin. ad Herm. dial. l.p. 405
c: and 7th Paschal homily (A.D. 420) p. 103; 10th Paschal homily (A.D. 423) p. 159 e.

87 16. This is given differently in Marius Mercator's collection of extracts made by
S.Cyril from Nestorius'writings. The 17th extract is as follows, "Also from another
tractate quire 25. Wherefore I would have you secure in your assent or acclamation [...,
no doubt rightly]. There is no severance of the connection and of Godhead [deitatis,
perhaps, dignitatis, dignity] nor of the sway. In that the Son is Christ, there is no
severance in these, but in regard to Godhead and manhood there is severance. In that He is
Christ, the Son is undivided, in that He is Son, He is undivided. For we have not two
christs and two sons, nor is there with us a first christ and a second, nor one and
another, nor again one son and again another son, but Himself the Same, Himself a twofold
Son, not in respect of dignity but of nature." p. 117 ed. Baluz.

88 17. flesh and body. Thus I heave translated, following the translation given of this
piece of S. Cyril hy the Syriac MS. in the British Museum (Add. 17154 fol. 21 v) written
in the seventh century. The MS. contains a correspondence betweeh Severus Archbishop of
Antioch and Sergius the Grammarian on the controversy about the two Natures in the
Incarnation. Severus quotes S. Cyril throughout his writings, and this passage is cited in
Severus' reply to Sergius' second letter. The Greek has the more usual phrase, flesh and
blood. 18. S. Cyril had looked on these words of Nestorius as replete with gravest
untruth, for S. Cyril's seventh chapter is, "If any says that Jesus has been in-wrought-in
as man by God the Word and that the good glory of the Only-Begotten has been put around
Him as though He were other than He, be he anathema." They may belong to one of Nestorius'
earlier sermons. Mercator (p. 110 ed. Bal.) cites them as being out of the second volume,
first quire (i. e. of one of the volumes of published sermons, see above p. 48 note n).
Mercator tells us that this volume began, "I have yet much to say to you." (Mercator has
apparently only three extracts out of the first volume, i.e. two on the Creed, and the one
given above p. 51.) In the extracts made for the Council of Ephesus, part of the passage
is also cited and there too as taken out of the first quire: see Merc. p. 207, top of
page, and the corresponding place in the different editions of the Council of Ephesus.

89 19. S. Cyril in his sixth Dialogue to Hermias explains that "Hence He is glorified by
the Father not as though He needed glory while conceived of as apart from flesh, and
believed God forth of God : but since He was man, which does not possess as fruit of his
proper nature, the power of working God-befitting acts, He receives the power by the Union
and Concurrence (...) Unspeakable such as is conceived to be that of the Word with His
human nature." De Trin. ad Herm. dial. 6. p. 601 a b. 20. See this also in the Quod Unus
Christus, below. 21. i.e. S. Cyril says here and elsewhere (de recta fide ad Imperatorem
32 e, ad Arcadiam Marinamque 47 b 70 e 85 e 115 d 120 d, ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam 131 b
148 b, in his Explanation of XIth chapter, and three or four times in the treatise Quod
Unus Christus) that the name Jesus Christ does not belong to God the Son before the
Incarnation, except as looking on to the Incarnation (de recta fide ad Arcadiam Marinamque
120 d) but is the name of God the Son Incarnate God and Man : not as though there were a
connection with Christ but because "God and Man are One Christ."

90 22. This passage again is from sermon 2 in Mercator's selection: it occurs at p. 64
Bal. In the sermon itself, after who have told you the truth, is added, but now He says,
why seek ye to kill Me that Man who was crowned &c. Words here and there are quoted by the
same Mercator, as translations of S. Cyril's citations of Nestorius (p. 114 Bal.) and some
other words among the passages cited before Council of Ephesus where they are said to be
taken from the sixteenth quire, (ib. p. 207 & Conc. t. iii. 1068 Col.) 23. These words are
also a portion of serm. 2 (see p. 65 Baluz.). The closing words, and that every tongue
should confess Lord Jesus Christ, are there omitted but seem to have formed part of the
sermon, since S. Cyril a little below says that Nestorius for some reason or other had
omitted to add, to the glory of God the Father. We do not know where Nestorius used the
words cited a little before, But yea He said to the leper, I will, &c.

91 24. These words are extant in Nestorius' first sermon p. 55 Baluz, but some phrases are
repeated in serm. 2 p. 65 just following S. Cyril's last citation. The words, Because of
the wearer I reverence the worn, are not in this part of the second sermon, yet are quoted
(pp. 114, 115) in a long piece extracted (all but these words) from serm. 2, and again in
page 207 in an extract from the 16th quire in which this sermon was. The words here cited
are likewise cited by S. Cyril in his Great Letter to Nestorius. Three Epistles, p. 64.
25. S. Cyril loves to quote this loyal adoration of our Master on the part of the born-
blind and our Master's acceptance of it; see it mentioned again below Schol. § 36 and de
recta fide to the Emperor Theodosius, 31 a. 26. This belongs to serm. 2. and follows the
last quotation, a few words only intervening. A few words are also quoted in the Great
Letter to Nest. see note v.

92 27. See this expression physical union or unity of Nature of the Union of the Nature of
God and the Nature of man in Christ in S. Cyril's third chapter. S, Cyril says in his
Explanation of his third chapter that he used physical in the sense of true. The word
physical or natural, perplexed Andrew of Samosata, who in his objection to that chapter
supposes natural to have been used in contrast with supernatural. 93 Theodoret, in his
objection, replies that even man himself, though really one, is allowed to be spoken of as
twofold. S. Cyril does not object to this : he speaks in regard to our Lord, of dividing
the Natures in one's conception of them. " Hence in regard of thought and of only seeing
with the eyes of the soul how the Only-Begotten became man, we say that the natures united
are two, but that the Word of God Incarnate and made man, is One Christ and Son and Lord."
Ep. 1 to Successus, p. 137 e. Again, " But they [i. e. they who thought one ought to speak
of two natures as actually existent] did not know that things which are severed otherwise
than in mere conception of them, these will full surely part off one from the other wholly
and separately into diverseness. Take for example a man: we conceive of two natures in
him, one, of the soul, the other, of the body. But severing them in mere idea, and in
subtil conception or fantasy of the mind, admitting the difference, we do not put the
natures apart nor give them their force throughout by severing, but we conceive of One ;
so that the two are no longer two, but through both is One living creature made up. Hence
though one speak of the nature of manhood and Godhead in Emmanuel, yet has the manhood
become the Word's own, and He is conceived of as One Son with it." Ep. 2. to Successus, p.
145 b c.

94 28. something seems to have dropped out here. The Roman Editors conjectured ἴεται
hastens along for οἴεται thinks: "he hastens along the perverted way, falling from the
straight path." 29. These two pieces are both quoted before the Council of Ephesus, see
pp. 204, 206 Bal. where they are called from the fifteenth quire; the Greek editions add
on dogma. S. Cyril cites also the last portion in his letter to Acacius of Melitene Epp.
p. 115 a, see above p. 49 note n.


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS continued

BOOK 3

TOME III.

2 [Translated by P.E. PUSEY] Ps. xviii. 11 hints at the depth of Christ's mystery. Gifts
through Incarnation. Is, xlv. 14, 15 the Incarnate Son. S. John i. 14. 2 Sam. vii. 12-14
explained by S. Paul. 1 Sam. ii. 35. The WORD Incarnate worshipped by Angels worships with
us and is our High Priest. GOD the WORD sent and how: so our High Priest. Sent and High
Priest when Incarnate., Possessor of Godhead, a misnomer. Heb. v. 1. He makes us His
brothers. 'Yesterday to-day and for ever.' S. John i. 30: iii. 13: Micah v. 2, Is. liii.
8. Gen. xxxii. 24 sqq. High Priesthood belongs to Incarnation. 'Sent' of God is a human
word and to be understood worthily of God. The Son Incarnate gives the Holy Ghost as God,
receives as man. High priesthood. Growth "in wisdom and stature and favour." Union alone
permits to attribute to One the properties of either manhood or Godhead. The Paschal Lamb
and the sacrifice for sin of a young bullock types of the sinlessness of our Sacrifice.

3 Great confessedly is the mystery of godliness, and marvelled at by the holy Angels
themselves also, and hereto the most wise Paul confirms us saying, To the intent that now
unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the Church
the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in our Lord
Jesus Christ, in Whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith. For
wisdom verily, and that not human (how could it?) but Divine rather and deposited in
certain ineffable depths and incomprehensibilities, is the Mystery of Christ. And the
blessed David singeth, And He made darkness His secret place, around Him His pavilion dark
water in clouds of the skies, palling darkness (I suppose) nought else save altogether the
dim conception of ideas, falling like mist upon the eyes of the understanding. 4 We say
therefore that the mystery of Christ hath by no means needed subtil investigations and
search beyond the reach of mind, but faith rather that holds the tradition simple and
guileless. Thus we ourselves also have been taught and believed that God the Father sent
His own Son who is by Nature God, made Man and born of a woman after the flesh, that He
might justify them that believe on Him and having freed from stumblings through ignorance,
by His Good and most gentle authority, might present them clean and undefiled through Him
to God the Father, and might make partakers of His own Divine Nature them who are under
death and decay, yea and might preach recovery of sight to the blind, and might bring over
the flocks which had strayed into the light of the true knowledge of God, and might teach
at length who it is Who is by Nature and truly God and the Creator of all. For He became
the savour of the knowledge of God the Father, and in Him we have beheld Him out of Whom
He was begotten by Nature and know clearly the way that leadeth us unto everlasting life.
That thus the Son should beam upon the crowd of the Gentiles too, hath the blessed Prophet
Isaiah cried beforehand saying, Thus saith the Lord, Egypt toiled and the merchandise of
the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over unto Thee and they shall
be Thy servants, and they shall come after Thee bound in fetters:

5 and they shall worship Thee, and in Thee shall they pray; for in Thee is God, and there
is no God save Thee, for THOU art God and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Saviour.
And it is said somewhere to the Son, as from the Person again of God the Father, Lo, I
have set Thee for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, that Thou mayest be
for salvation unto the end of the earth. For He hath instituted to them of the blood and
race of Israel, the new covenant, the first having waxen old, and He beamed as far as the
boundaries of that beneath the sky also, to the nations and people in every place and
city. For they have worshipped Him yea and they follow Him spiritually, holden by the
indissoluble chains of love, as in fetters and well-nigh say what is in the Prophet
Jeremiah, Behold WE will be Thine for THOU art the Lord our God. See (I pray) the
vigilance of the Prophet's thoughts, They shall worship Thee (he says) and in Thee shall
they pray, for in Thee is God, and there is no God beside Thee. He knew then confessedly
as being Spirit-clad the Word Out of God the Father, Who should tabernacle in us, as saith
the blessed Evangelist John: therefore he saith that God is in Thee;

6 yet hath he not suffered Emmanuel to be Severed into two gods, but even though the Only-
Begotten was made man, he acknowledged Him even so as One and straightway added, There is
no God save Thee. For Consider accurately the Prophet's utterance. For having first
declared (as I said) that God is in Thee, he hath not added, And there is no God save He
that is in Thee, but gathering it into the Unity of the Economy, says There is no God
beside Thee. 7 But that the Only-Begotten Word of God made man, is declared to us by the
(so to speak) whole God-inspired Scripture, is easy to shew without toil by very many
proofs: but I think it is enough for the present to say this. God said somewhere to
blessed David, And I will set up out of thy seed after thee Him who shall proceed out of
thy bowels and I will prepare His Kingdom: He shall build an house for My Name and I will
stablish His Throne for ever, and\ will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son.
But some one (I suppose) will say that these things were said not of Emmanuel, but of
Solomon rather: yet the most wise Paul will strenuously oppose those who would thus
understand it, for he takes the words of Christ and says that it is He to Whom it has been
said by God the Father, I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to Me a Son. But that
when made like unto us, i. e., Man, He should offer to God the Father, all beneath the sky
saved through faith in Him, He made known saying elsewhere, And I will raise Me up a
faithful Priest who shall do all which is in Mine heart and in My soul, and I will build
Him a sure house and He shall walk before Me for ever.

8 Observe (I pray) that having elsewhere said, He shall build an house for My Name, the
Father here promises to rear the house for the Son. And the Divine Paul understanding
this, said that Moses was faithful in all My house having the measure pertaining to a
servant, but Christ as a Son over His own house, Whose House are WE; and the mode of the
ministry, things pertaining to us, not the blood of bulls and of calves, but the
confession of the faith of us all. And blessed Paul will again certify it, writing thus,
Wherefore holy brethren partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High
Priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him That appointed Him. We say
therefore that the Word out of God the Father, when receiving servant's form He is said to
have been emptied for our sake, then too did abase Himself in the measure of the human
nature, whereto will pertain (and very reasonably) both the seeming to be sent and the
accounting the ministry the token of the very highest honour. For if when He became as we,
He have worshipped with us as Man, albeit the Host above and the holy spirits worship Him,
and Moses says of Him, Rejoice O ye heavens with Him and let all the sons of God worship
Him;

9 what is there strange or what inconvenient to the nature of the Economy if He have been
called High Priest as offering for us for an odour of a sweet smell Himself and us through
Himself and in Himself to God the Father? for we are a sweet savour of Christ, as it is
written. But this noble person again affirms that these things have been wrought in no fit
order, and all but smiles at those who conceive that these things were so, and impiously
finding fault with the Divine purposes, says thus: 10 "For they hearing the name of
Apostle, deem that God the Word was Apostle; reading the name High Priest, they fancy that
the Godhead was High Priest, by a species of paradoxical craziness: for who learning of
the ministry of an Apostle, would not forthwith know that a man is indicated? who on
hearing the appellation of High Priest, would suppose that the Essence of Godhead were
High Priest? for if the Godhead be High Priest, who is he who is served by the ministry of
the High Priesthood? if God be the Offerer, there is none to whom offering is made: for
what is there worthy of Godhead that as less It should offer to the greater?" And hereto
he adds, "Whence then is God supposed by them to have been now called High Priest Who
needeth not sacrifices for His own advancement like the high priests? Is the possessor of
Godhead, taken from among men, ordained for men in things God-ward?"

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

12 Yea (says he) the priest's office is petty to the Word begotten out of God the Father.
Petty confessedly, I agree with you enunciating the truth, but not in bareGodhead did He
dawn on those upon the earth, but rather made man as we, to whom the priesthood is some
great and choice thing. But if He refused the priest's office as belonging to man, or
indeed ought that appertains to the measure of bond-service, how were it not better far,
before this to refuse too the Incarnation? 13 Yet He rejected not for our sakes the Birth.
But this man (as I said) is ashamed of the truth, shewing himself unwise and unskilled,
albeit the blessed Paul saith, For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth. And one may well marvel that the Word of
God for the salvation and life of all endured to suffer so great abasement, which the
inventor for us of idle teachings is (I know not how) ashamed merely to acknowledge,
albeit he ought to wonder hereat and to cry with the blessed Prophet, O Lord, I have heard
Thy report and was afraid, I considered Thy works and was amazed. But since the whole God-
inspired Scripture in a manner rises up against him, and arrays against him the truth,
shewing that his discourse in favour of his own inventions, cold and without any real
being and destitute of support from any quarter, lacks in no small degree the conceptions
and ideas that tend unto Tightness and truth; hence what no one of those well reported of
for rightness of doctrine, ever either thought or said, this he makes the occasion of his
discourse, and fights with shadows and strains himself to no purpose, no one opposing him
or wishing to contend about these matters. And this (I deem) is to beat the air. For he
said "Who on learning of the ministry of an apostle would not forthwith know that a man is
indicated?

14 who on hearing the appellation of High Priest would suppose that the Essence of Godhead
were High-Priest? Since therefore there is no one who says this, with whom (tell me) are
you striving, and as though yourself alone were overthrowing what is condemned by the
voice of all, are haply thinking that your opposition is worthy even of honours? albeit
how is it not true that since no one saith this, it is you who are bringing forward what
it were better to be silent on and not to instil into the souls of the more simple? For
who is so crazed as to, suppose that the Essence 'of Godhead were High Priest?' Aaron was
a man, albeit he obtained preeminence of the rest in Divine Priesthood. How then will any
one suppose that the Essence of Godhead is High Priest, or how will he not wholly and
surely confess that mention is made of a man when the brother of Moses is named to us as
High Priest? Yet he putting forth some language that commonly belongs to and befits every
High Priest of those among us, essays to undo the marvel of the Economy understood in
Christ, and dares to shake from the very foundations our Divine Mystery, not considering
that Christ hath founded the Church upon a rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail
against her. For he no wise condescends to follow the common doctrine and that of all who
are wont to think aright, but he alone innovates without examination what he pleases.

15 For WE (as I said before) say that the Word out of God the Father, made Man, offered to
Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith and wrought an Economy befitting and
by no means out of harmony with the measures of the emptying. But not so does it seem to
him, but he taking separately and apart him that is from forth the holy Virgin as though
another Christ than the Word That is out of God the Father, says that he became the
Apostle and high priest of our confession and supposes that he is thinking what conduce
unto piety when he says, "If God be the offerer, there is none to whom offering is made,
for what is there worthy of Godhead that as though less It should make offering to the
greater? Now if there were any who were contending and saying that He That is truly Word
out of God the Father had been appointed to office of priesthood even before the
Incarnation and were in the measure of ministry and were for this reason to be called High
Priest and Apostle, he would have given a wise rebuke, and one would say that his argument
hereon had been made in season. For not in lack of priests is the Nature That rules all,
that Himself should minister therein.

16 But since the Only-Begotten, being God by Nature and receiving from the hands of those
who execute the Priest's office their ministrations, hath descended unto the measure of
those appointed unto the priesthood, having become Man (as I said), nought strange will it
be if He be called by us High Priest too. Hath He not come down in servant's form, having
taken that is the form of a servant, albeit Impress and Brightness of the Father's Glory?
None will doubt it. When therefore He Who is in His own Nature Free as God, He Who is in
the Form and Equality of the Father, has been called bond, economically not thrusting from
Him the measure of those who are under the yoke of bondage, why dost thou fear to call Him
High Priest too by reason of the Manhood? for He dedicates us for an odour of a sweet
smell through faith, and Himself hath He offered for us as a most sweet-smelling offering
to the Father.

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

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

19 The Word out of God the Father hath cogent reason even though He be said to execute the
Priest's Office before the Father; for He has been styled Priest not apart from flesh, but
made (as I said) as we, to whom the glory of the priesthood is accounted an honour. In
another way too it is not hard to see that it is the absurdest possible thing and replete
with much folly to say that he who was taken out of men and ordained unto God-ward, is
possessor of Godhead; for if he were taken by God, how possessed he the Nature Which took
him? for that which is taken will rather belong to him who took it, as a possession, not
that which is taken be the possessor. As for example, A man has become the possessor of
wealth, or again of skill unto anything: is it not plain to all that he will not himself
be the possession of wealth or again of the skill that accrued to him, but rather the
possessor of what he has gotten? but this is I think in no way doubtful.

20 Hence if on enquiring into the mode of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find
that man became God as coming into possession of Godhead, let him be called (after your
phrase) possessor of Godhead, for his hath the Godhead become. But if the Word being God
came into possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father, hath
become Man, receiving the servant's form, how would one not be distraught, if he chose to
say that that which was taken possessed the Nature That acquired it and hath not rather
become the very own of Him Who took it? But that he carries round the force of his own
words and inventions and moreover the very name of high Priesthood in unlearned wise unto
a mere man born from forth a woman, bearing it away from the Only-Begotten and Word That
is out of the Father, he will make manifest by what follows too: for he has written again
on this wise:

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

22 §2. The Word therefore being God took (as he too hath just now confessed) Abraham's
seed; how then is he that is forth of the seed of Abraham any longer possessor of Godhead,
if he were taken by God, did not himself take Godhead? The seed of Abraham then will by no
means be the Nature of Godhead, but rather hath become the Body of God the Word, according
to the Scriptures, and His Own, and He Who in His own proper Nature is uncounted among the
creation as God, when He became Man who is part of the creation, then, then and with
reason deigns He to call us brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. But
that by reason of the measure of emptiness, the Word out of God the Father hath descended
even to having to call those upon the earth His brothers, the most wise Paul will clearly
shew, writing of Him and us, For both He That sanctifieth and they who are being
sanctified are all out of one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren
saying, I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren. For before the Incarnation, exceeding
petty to the Word Which sprang of God was the name of brotherhood with us: but when He had
descended unto voluntary emptiness, petty was it thus too, yet hath it come fitly in, for
He hath partaken of blood and flesh and of those in flesh and blood has been styled
Brother.

23 For if He is sanctified in that He have become Man albeit God by Nature and Himself the
Giver of the Spirit, how if He be called Brother too, will it not be so said in due order?
for for this cause He hath become as we that He might render us brothers and free, for as
many (it says) as received Him, to them gave He authority to become children of God, to
them that believe on His Name, which were begotten not out of blood nor out of the will of
the flesh nor out of the will of man but out of God. For the Word out of God the Father
has been with us born after the flesh that we too might be enriched with the birth out of
God through the Spirit, no longer termed children of flesh but transelemented rather into
what was above nature and termed sons of God by grace: for He has been made as one of us
who is by Nature and truly Only-Begotten Son.

24 And unerring is the word; the Divine-uttering Paul will give us assurance thereto,
saying on this wise, And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into
your hearts, crying Abba Father. Why then do you offer violence to the wisdom of the
economy as though it appeared to have been wrought in no fitting order, in that you say,
"Is the Godhead Abraham's seed? had He any brothers like to the Godhead? Is not this clear
madness? for the absurdly enquiring into and bearing away unto blasphemy, things so right
and unblameable in respect of the Economy in Christ, what else is it than proof of the
most utter distraction? for confessedly in respeot of the nature of the body or of human
nature perfect as far as itself is concerned, has the Word out of God the Father been made
like unto us and in every thing like save sin alone. But I will ask him who says "Had God
the Word any brothers like to the Godhead? what idea (I pray) had the most holy Paul in
his mind when he wrote to certain, Little children of whom I travail in birth again until
Christ be formed in you, and elsewhere too to those who through faith are perfected in
spirit, But WE all with unveiled face reflecting the glory of the Lord are changed into
His image from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit; now the Lord is the Spirit, and
where the Spirit of the Lord, there liberty?

25 Doth he therefore say this to the Galatians as not having the impress in regard to
bodily freedom, of that which is of the seed of David after the flesh, but is he
travailing again with them that Christ after the flesh may somehow be engraven on them and
formed in them? albeit how will not every body (I suppose) unhesitatingly say, that all
who are on the earth are conformed one to another and to Christ Himself, in so far as He
is conceived of as man, Who is both Man and with us? what formation then unto Christ was
it that was sought for in them? or how are WE transformed from glory to glory, what form
leaving, unto what are we transelemented? Let therefore the Divine initiator come forward
and teach us, the Priest of the Divine Mysteries, the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and
verity; for whom (says he) He knew, and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His
Son, them, He also called. Therefore (as I said just now) in that He was made man and was
of the seed of Abraham, we all are conformed to Him: all therefore who are on earth, the
Father both fore-knew and fore-ordained; and these having called He sanctified and
glorified.

26 But verily not all were fore-ordained, not all were sanctified or glorified:----the
fact therefore of conformation unto the Son will not be conceived of as existing in the
nature alone of the flesh or of manhood, but in another way also, and this the blessed
Paul sets before ua saying, And as we bare the image of the earthy we shall bear the image
too of the heavenly; calling the image of the earthy, that of our forefather Adam, of the
heavenly, that of Christ. What then first is the image of our forefather? proneness to
sin, becoming under death and decay. What again that of the heavenly? being in no wise
overcome of passions, not knowing to transgress, not being subject to death and decay,
holiness, righteousness, and whatever are akin to and like these. But these (I suppose)
will befit the Divine and Untaint Nature to possess: for superior to both sin and decay is
Holiness and Righteousness. Herein does the Word out of God the Father restore us too,
rendering us partakers of His own Divine Nature through the Spirit.

27 He has therefore brothers like to Himself and bearing the image of His Divine Nature,
in regard of holiness; for thus is Christ formed in us, the Holy Ghost as it were
transelementing us from things human unto those that are His own. Therefore to us too said
the blessed Paul, But YE are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. Therefore the Son
transfers not ought at all of things that have been made into the Nature of His own
Godhead (for that were impossible): but there is impressed on those who have been made
partakers of His Divine Nature through their partaking of the Holy Ghost the spiritual
Likeness with Him, and the Beauty of the Ineffable Godhead flashes upon the souls of the
saints. Why then dost thou assigning the mere and alone likeness of the flesh, not blush,
disregarding the Divine and Spiritual forming, yea rather taking it utterly away? Yet the
Lord of all and Only-Begotten God lowered Himself unto emptiness for our sakes, that He
might bestow on us the Dignity of brother-hood with Him and the Beauty worthy of all love,
of His Innate Nobility:

28 and this man, bereaving us of all that is most lovely, says that a mere man hath become
our brother and shews that sure (as he supposes) is his account hereof, adding "Mark too
what is straightway joined on to these, That He might be a merciful and faithful High
Priest in things God-ward, for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able
to succour them that are tempted. Therefore a merciful High Priest is He That suffered:
passible is the Temple, not the quickening God of him which hath suffered. Therefore that
by choosing thus to think and moreover daring to say it too, he severs again into distinct
hypostases and into two Persons, the Word from forth God the Father and him whom himself
has just introduced to us as a God-bearing man, if so be that one and apart by himself is
he that suffered, and another he that quickeneth, I suppose that no one whatever will
doubt.

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

30 But this good man rejecting the mode of the Economy as uncomely, removeth from God the
Word the human, that He may at last be clearly seen to have in no way aided our condition.
For he says that not He became an High Priest both Merciful and Faithful, but allots this
rather to him that suffered as being other than He. Yet how should he not, if he had
desired to be a wise initiator, have made an exact muster of the expressions and ideas
that are in the God-inspired Scripture and considered that this is a thing which is both
truly God-befitting and not apart from what befits and beseems the emptying: and how we
will say as briefly as we can. 31 The God of all uttered the Law to them of old, Moses
being mediator. But there was not in the Law the power of achieving good without any
blame, to those who wished it (for it hath perfected nothing). But neither was the first
covenant found faultless, but the all-wise Paul called it the ministry of condemnation. I
hear him say, We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become under sentence
before God, because by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His
sight, (for the Law worketh unto wrath, and the Letter killeth), and as himself somewhere
saith, He that despised Moses' law dieth without mercy under two or three witnesses.
Seeing therefore that the Law condemneth them that sin and decreeth sometimes the
uttermost punishment to them that disregard it, and in no wise pitieth, how was not the
manifestation to them on the earth of a Compassionate and truly Merciful High Priest
necessary? of One Who should make the curse to cease, should stop the condemnation and
free sinners with forgiving grace and with the bendingof clemency? for I (He says) am He
that blotteth out thy transgressions and will not remember. For we have been justified by
faith and not out of the works of the Law, as it is written. On Whom then believing are we
justified?

32 is it not on Him who suffered death for us after the flesh? is it not on One Lord Jesus
Christ? have we not on declaring His Death and confessing His Resurrection been redeemed?
If therefore we have believed on a man like us and not rather on God, the thing is man-
worship, and confessedly nothing else: but if we believe that He That suffered in the
flesh is God, Who hath been made also our High Priest, we have no ways erred, but
acknowledge the Word out of God made Man: and thus is required of us faith God-ward, Who
putteth out of condemnation and freeth from sin those that are taken thereby. For the Son
of man hath authority on the earth also to forgive sins, as Himself too saith. Contrasting
therefore with the salvation and grace that is through Christ the harshness (so to speak)
of the law's severity, we say that Christ was made a Merciful High Priest. For He was and
is God Good by Nature and Compassionate and Merciful always, and hath not become this in
time but was so manifested to us. And He has been named Faithful, as abiding what He is
always, according to what is said of the Father Himself too, But God is faithful Who will
not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.

33 A merciful and faithful High-Priest therefore has Emmanuel been made unto us; for (as
Paul saith) the one were many priests because they were by death hindered from remaining,
He, because He continneth for ever, hath a priest-hood that passeth not, wherefore He is
able to save also unto the uttermost them that come unto God through Him, ever living to
intercede for them. That the Word out of the Father hath remained God, albeit made priest,
as it is written, on account of the fashion and mode that befitteth the Economy with
flesh, the word of the blessed Paul hath been sufficient unto our full assurance, for he
said again, Now of the things which have been said this is the sum, We have such an High
Priest, Who sat at the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister
of the sanctuary and of the Very Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Yiew
therefore view the Word Which sprang of God illustrious as God in supremest excellencies
and in the Seat of Godhead, and the Same executing the Priest's Office as man and offering
to the Father no sacrifice of earth but Divine rather and spiritual and how He has Heaven
as His Holy Tabernacle. For not after the law of a carnal commandment has He been made
High Priest, but after the power of an indissoluble life, as it is written.

34 Faithful therefore is He in this too, and sure to them who come to Him, that He is able
full easily to save them quite, for with His own Blood and with One Offering hath He
perfected for ever them that are sanctified. For this I deem doth the holy Paul shew us
saying, for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them
that are tempted. Why then unrecking of thoughts which pertain unto piety and straying
from words of rightness and truth, does he say, "He That suffered is a Merciful High
Priest, Passible the Temple, not the Life-giving God of Him Who suffered?" 35 That the
Word of God then hath of His own Will suffered in the flesh for our sakes, shall be shewn
in its own time: but that he is severing the Inseverable and setting forth two christs by
the effect of his ideas, even though he clearly say One Christ, he shall be no less
convicted through what has been forthwith subjoined, for he said again, "Abraham's seed is
He Who was yesterday and to-day, according to the voice of Paul, not He Who saith, Before
Abraham was, I am. Like to His brethren in all things, He Who assumed brotherhood of human
soul and body, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, He was sent
Who is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind, for the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, wherefore He
anointed Me."

36 §3. Thou severest therefore into two again and that patently, then how art thou not
convicted of being sensual and having not the Spirit, as saith the disciple of the
Saviour? but the might of the Truth will array itself (o man) against thy words. For we
affirm that the Word Himself out of God the Father took hold of Abraham's seed, and made
His own body having a reasonable soul the body which was assumed of the holy Virgin. And
verily by true union do we say that One and the Same is He Who was yesterday and to-day
and for ever, and Who before Abraham Divinely, was made man after and underwent birth of a
woman. Hence He will not lie in saying, Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am. 37
But he does not the least understand what yesterday and to-day and for ever is. For that
he may shew that the Word of God is Eternal and that by Nature and superior to change and
turn, even though He have been made Man, he parted the whole of time into three periods,
and puts yesterday of past time, to-day of the present, and for ever of the future. But
this boorish man against reason [says] that yesterday and to-day are spoken by him of a
common man, not considering that it will full surely shew Him to have been older and pre-
existent to His own Birth, if He were at all of yesterday, which is indicative of time
past. That not one is He that is yesterday and to-day, Jesus Christ, another He Who saith,
before Abraham was I am, but One and the Same by a true Union, the Word having been made
Man as we and having preserved to His own Nature, even when He was made man, the being
without beginning in time, one may see and that without trouble, in the God-inspired
Scripture.

38 For as the blessed Evangelist John saith of Christ the Saviour of us all, John beareth
witness of Him and hath cried saying, He That cometh after me has been made before me, for
He was before me, and again, The next day he looketh at Jesus coming unto him and saith,
Behold the Lamb of God Which taketh away the sin of the world, This is He of Whom I said,
After me cometh a Man Which has been made before me, for He was before me. Thou seest then
and that very clearly the Divine-uttering Baptist calling Jesus a Man and coming after, as
being late-born and after him, yet preceding him and pre-existing, for this, I deem, the
words, for He was before me and has been made before me, mean. How then if He is a Man, is
He conceived of as pre-existing and is said to be before: him who had the start of Him in
time and had his birth in the flesh older than His? For if this were said of a man like
us, every body would (I suppose) be at a loss to defend it, but in regard to Christ the
Saviour of us all, there is no difficulty. For He Who is out of God makes His own the
birth of His own flesh, yet is He not ignorant that He is Maker of the worlds and hath
pre-existence as God, and is Co-eternal with His own Father.

39 For we do not say that He hath His Being contemporaneous with the birth of His own
body, but was (as I said) ineffably begotten of the Essence of God the Father. Therefore
having His Being before Abraham as God even though He was made Man, He will not speak
falsely in saying, as One in truth both Son and Lord, Before Abraham was I am. 40 And
marvel not if He hath apportioned to His own Nature the being before Abraham, but consider
rather that albeit He had taken a body of the holy Virgin, He said to Nicodemus, If I have
told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly
things? and no man hath ascended up into heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son
of Man, albeit He was called son of man too, born of a woman after the flesh. Will He then
be false in saying that there hath come down from Heaven the son of man, i. e., Himself?
Not so, for He is Himself the Truth. How then will the son of man be rightly conceived of
as from above? because the Word being God and out of the Essence That is above all, is
said to have come down and to have taken the servant's form. Therefore He converseth with
us, not as any longer bare Word, but man as we, and as already conceived of as One with
the Flesh united to Him. And as by reason of what beseemeth the emptiness, He maketh His
own all that belongs to His own Flesh, albeit by Nature unembodied; so Himself being from
above and out of Heaven, He allotteth again the coming from above to Himself even when He
hath been made Man, even though He hath been born according to the flesh with us of a
woman. The properties therefore of the human nature have become the very own of the Word,
those again of the Word Himself, the very own of the human nature: for thus is conceived
of One Christ and Son and Lord.

41 But since this innovator has added that "like to His brethren in all things is He Who
assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath
seen the Father," come now let us again consider as we can what it is which he here saith.
For that the Son is the Image and Impress of God the Father, he too hath confessed: who
again "He is Who of human soul and body assumed brotherhood," i. e., with us, let him come
forward and teach; for no one would say that a man like us, such as (for example) Barnabas
or Paul or any other of those who are reckoned among men, would be said to take
brotherhood of human soul and body, as though he were ought else than this, and so took
it, but he is so rather in being what he is. Not one therefore who is man could be
conceived as taking the being what he is, as though it were other than he: but it will
beseem rather the Word which sprang forth of God, having no rank among us in regard to the
count of His own Nature, to take "brotherhood of human soul and body" with us. And the
word of the truth contends on our side and the tradition of the undefiled Faith.

42 It holds then that God the Word in the Form of God the Father has been made our Brother
in all things, taking "brotherhood of human soul and body," and will not speak falsely in
saying, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. For if any among us had fallen into
such unlearning in his ideas as to suppose that God the Father Himself Which is in Heaven
must needs come down, even to the having likeness with us (I mean bodily); he might well
have feared lest that when Christ says, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, he
might be imagining that He too out of Whom He is, was in form as we, and in fashion of
body. But since when He was made man, He preserved the being God, and holdeth the Beauty
of His own Nature untarnished, I would no wise shrink from saying that He possesseth
likeness with us, in respect of His being man as we, Who is of soul and body, albeit God
by Nature and Impress of the Person of Him Who hath begotten Him. One therefore and the
Same is He, like to His brethren after the flesh, yet shewing in His own Nature Him too
Who begat Him, in regard I say to His being God.

43 But this man doth not understand this (whence should he? but adulterating (so to speak)
the plan of the mystery which is right and unalloyed, he introduces to us one and another
christ, and caught in Jewish accusals, perceives not where he is nor in what reach of ills
he hath come. For they of the blood of Israel heard God crying aloud through one of the
holy Prophets respecting Emmanuel, And THOU Bethlehem house of Ephratha, little art thou
to be among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall He come to Me to be ruler in Israel,
and His goings forth from the beginning from the days of eternity: and again, His
generation who shall tell? because His life is raised from the earth. And they, no wise
understanding the mystery nor yet knowing that albeit God by Nature and having the origin
of His Being Invisible and Incomprehensible, He was called Bethlehemite as being there
born after the flesh out of the root of Jesse and David, said one to another, Is not this
He Whom they seek to hill? lo, He speaketh boldly and they say nothing unto Him; do the
rulers know that This Man is the Christ? Yet we know this Man whence He is, but Christ
when He cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. For they heard (as I said) the Prophet saying
plainly, His generation who shall tell? and that He hath His goings forth or His Being
before every age. View again (I pray) the vastness of Jewish stupor:

44 for on saying The Christ when He cometh, no one knoweth whence He is, they said again
one to another, Of a truth this is the Prophet: others (it says) said, Shall Christ come
out of Galilee? said not the Scripture that out of the seed of David and from Bethlehem
the village where was David, the Christ cometh? Seest thou how they stagger, confessing
both His being apart from beginning, Divinely, and His fleshly Generation in time? But
they would not have been carried away into mis-counsel thus extravagant, if they had known
truly that the Word being God, proceeded Man out of the root of Jesse and David and of the
holy Virgin, and that the Lord of earth and Heaven and of all was called a Bethlehemite
too, for He shared poverty with us being Rich, as it is written. 45 Why therefore plunging
thee in the sleights of the Jews dost thou both deem and say what it is neither lawful to
say nor yet harmless to conceive of? confess with us One Christ, and do not severing into
two again say this, "He was sent that is consubstantial with us and has been anointed to
preach remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. Whither then will go
the word of the divines, who have been initiators of all under Heaven? for they have cried
aloud that the very Word out of God the Father, was made Saviour and Redeemer of all, not
as though a man other than He were mediating, like as Moses, but rather as come down to us
in bodily likeness and form, for thus has He been anointed as High Priest and Apostle. And
indeed He rebuked the Jews saying, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? if
he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the scripture cannot be broken: Him
Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, do YE say [to Him], thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God? why (I pray) shall we put Him Who abased Himself unto
emptiness that He might save all under Heaven, forth of the most God-befitting and truly
admirable achievements that have been wrought unto us-ward, by saying that there has been
sent some other than He consubstantial with ourselves?

46 albeit how were it not better to say and thus to chuse to think, that He has been both
sent and hath been made consubstantial with us, i. e., man: yet abiding Consubstantial
with God the Father Himself too, as He is both conceived of and was and is God? for He is,
He is what He was, even when He assumed the humanity, and having sameness of Essence with
God the Father Which is in Heaven, He grasped in wisdom the likeness with us too; as
Mediator too has He been set forth, combining through Himself unto an union of relation
things completely dissevered one from another as to the plan of their nature. For He being
God by Nature has been made man in truth, that we too might be called offspring, no more
of the first, that is, of the earthy, to whom it was said by God, Earth thou art and unto
earth shalt thou return, who conducteth even unto death, but of the second, from above and
out of Heaven, Christ I mean Who bringeth us again unto purest life, and rendereth
incorrupt that which is holden of death and freeth from sins that which was enfolden by
the toils of sin. Thus saith somewhere the Father Himself to the Son, Behold I have given
Thee for a Covenant of the race for a Light of theGentiles, to open the eyes of the blind,
to bring forth of chains the bound and of the prison-house them that sat in darkness;

47 and again by the voice of Isaiah, The beasts of the field shall honour Me, the Sirens
and the daughters of the ostriches, because I gave water in the wilderness and rivers in
the thirsty land to give drink to Mine offspring, chosen, My people whom I won for Myself,
to declare My Virtues. The which understanding very well of those of the Gentiles called
through faith unto true knowledge of God, the Divine-uttering Peter writeth and saith, But
YE are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye
should tell out the Virtues of Him Who calleth you out of darkness into His wondrous
light, of old not a people, but now a people. 48 But if as seems good to thee to think and
say, "he was sent who is consubstantial with us," no longer with the Father, in no wise
have WE been made partakers of the Divine Nature, but have abode as I said, and are yet
offspring of the first, of him who conducteth unto curse and death and under penalty of
sin. We have therefore been deceived and are no less now too in that case wherein we were
of old and before the Advent. How then did old things pass away and lo they have become
new? and where is, If any be in Christ, he is a new creature?

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

50 And what is the plan of the mystery, it is necessary to say. With them who abide as it
were in night and darkness, and have a spiritual mist o'er mind and heart and I cannot yet
understand the mystery Him-ward, He useth to wrestle and fight and overcome; but with them
who are now in light and so to speak in spiritual morning and have good understanding of
the Mystery, He thinketh not good any longer to wrestle, but dispenseth to them instead
spiritual blessings. Hence if even at length and hardly you should enter in yourself too
into the light and so to speak into the morning, He Who conquereth all would cease
fighting with you. And see how whereas it was a man who wrestled, the Divine-uttering
Jacob says that he had seen God Face to face: and the sacred Scripture added that the sun
arose upon him when he passed by the Form of God. Why therefore (I pray) are you ashamed
at the measures of the emptiness, albeit every one (I suppose) who both holds the right
faith and examines accurately the aim of the God-inspired Scripture says that the Word out
of God the Father was both Incarnate and made Man?

51 He therefore Who is consubstantial with us, in that He has been made Man, and to the
Father Himself, in that He hath remained God even in human nature, was sent preaching
remission to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to heal the broken in
heart, and to call the acceptable year of the Lord: for His Alone and of none other are
the deeds which have been wrought us, and one of the holy Prophets shall be our pledge,
thus saying, No ambassador, no angel, but the Lord Himself saved us, who also most clearly
saith to us, Therefore My people shall know My Name in that day, I Who speak am present.
Albeit if he who has been sent were some mere man, how would Himself be conceived of as
having spoken the Law which was long ago given to them of old? for not at all proceeding
as man, would He be said to have been made man, lest He should be seen to have an
existence elder to His coming into being: but preexisting as God, He hath spoken indeed
the Law, but says that He is present in some strange and unwonted way when He has been
made Man.

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

53 But since as little and human and in boundless degree below the dignity of the Only
Begotten He receives the unction, come let us say what is reasonable upon this point too,
undoing occasions of offence. If therefore He have not been made Man, let Him shake off
things human, let Him repudiate the Economy as putting Him in inferior position and
setting Him behind the Supreme Glory and God-befitting Excellence; for petty to the Word
is what is ours. But since the Mystery is of a truth wise and the fact of the emptying not
to be rejected by Him, why dost thou foolhardily find fault with things that are right?
and turn away as uncomely what is crowned with His Approval? didst thou see Him anointed
humanly? behold the same also anointing Divinely : for it is written that John too bare
record saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him and I knew Him
not, but He That sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see
the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, This is He which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost, and I have seen and borne record that This is the Son of God, For dost thou say
that it is the work of the human nature to have power to baptize with the Holy Ghost them
that believe? albeit how were it not folly to think that this were so?

54 for how would the less bestow the participation of that which is immeasurably superior?
And observe that this very person upon Whom the Spirit is said to soar down and to remain
upon Him, baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, anointing (it is plain) as God with His own
Spirit them that believe. And verily He rose from the dead, and breathed on His disciples,
saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And they receiving, say, WE received not the spirit of
the world but the Spirit Which is out of God, that we might know the things that were
freely given to us of God. The most wise Paul too writes, They that are in the flesh
cannot please God, but YE are not in the flesh but in the spirit if so be that the Spirit
of God dwell in you: if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, this man is not His. And
elsewhere too, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.
Therefore when thou seest Him anointed with His own Spirit, remember the economy with
flesh and take count of the human nature: when thou seest Him give the Spirit, with this
marvel at God in human nature too.

55 But taking no account of these things this contentious man says again thus: "This is he
who was made a faithful High Priest to God, for he was made so, he was not so from
eternity, this, heretic, is he who by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the
high priesthood. Hear a clearer voice calling out to thee, Who in the days (it says) of
His Flesh, when He offered up prayers and supplications with mighty cry and tears unto Him
That was able to save Him from death and was heard for His Piety, though He were Son, He
learned obedience by the things He suffered and, made perfect, became unto them that obey
Him the Author of indissoluble salvation. That is perfected which advances by little and
little, heretic. Respecting which John too cries out in the Gospels, Jesus was advancing
in stature and wisdom and grace, conformably to which things Paul too speaking says, Made
perfect He became unto all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation, called of
God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedelc, this is he who is compared with Moses
in regard to generalship, that is called seed of Abraham, that is like in all things to
his brethren, that was made High Priest in time, that was perfected through sufferings,
that in that he suffered beting tempted is able to succour them that are tempted, that is
called an High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. Why then interpret contrary to Paul,
commingling the Impassible God the Word with earthly body and making Him a passible High
Priest?"

56 §4. Most vigorous onslaught, my friend, and truly spirited hast thou made upon the
doctrines of piety. And the Divine-uttering Baruch, pointing out the Word of God already
Incarnate and seen in likeness to us, says, This is our God, there shall none other be
accounted of in comparison of Him, He found out all the way of knowledge and gave it to
Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved: afterward did He shew Himself upon earth and
conversed with men. But THOU calling out and that full often, This, yea all but putting
forth thine hand;----who is it that you manifest to believers and cause to be seen of
them, yea, and say that he advanced by little and little unto High Priesthood? I suppose
it is surely he of whom but now specifying thou saidst, "Therefore a Merciful High Priest
is he that suffered, not the quickening God of him that suffered: the seed of Abraham he
who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not he who saith, Before Abraham was I am;
like to his brethren in all things he that assumed brotherhood of human soul and flesh,
not He Who saith, He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. And that in affirming that
the Life-giving Word of God is God of him who suffered, involving yourself in the charge
of inevitable blasphemy, you have done no slight wrong, sufficient reasoning made clear to
us.

57 But I marvel that thyself oblivious of thine own words, thou deemest right to say alike
and think that He by little and little advanced unto the dignity of the High Priest, Whom
thou sayest is even God Almighty. For the Epistle written to the Hebrews being before
thee, thou art caught saying, "Yet is This man Who after the flesh is akin to Israel, Who
in that which is visible is Man, Who according to Paul's speech was made out of the seed
of David, by connection God Almighty. How did He yet advance, according to that idle talk,
to the dignity of High Priest albeit testified by thy voice too as Almighty God? 58 And
though you utter the ill-famed connection and invented I know not whence by yourself
alone, I will pass it over for the present: but I will ask, bidding the argument advance
straight on its own befitting and proper course, Does not that which advances unto
Priesthood and glory make its advance or progress unto the better and more excellent? and
how will not every one whatever give his vote for the truth of this? Greater therefore
than the being Almighty God, is the High Priesthood. Then how does he whose lot is the
Priesthood minister too and stand as a worshipper by God, and as a servant by his master,
offering what is customable and bringing sacrifices, and He Who is crowned with the
Supreme glory receives the sacrifices and is honoured by the service? But thou sayest (I
suppose) this, Being God Almighty the Same hath become High-Priest. He hath been
emptiedtherefore and hath abased Himself by descent into the inferior. How therefore did
He yet advance unto dignity when made an High Priest? Remember again thine own words, for
thus thou saidst a little above, "If the Godhead be High Priest, who is He who is served
by the ministry of the High Priesthood? if He Who offereth be God, there is none to whom
the offering is made, for what is there worthy of Godhead that as inferior It should make
offering to a greater?" Stand now at least to your own words; but this you cannot do, for
you will be borne about (so to say) by every wind, and perceive not that you are being
driven about, one while springing off from those into these, other while again from these
into those, and in no wise are you afraid of what Paul saith, For if what I destroyed this
I build again, I make myself a transgressor.

59 But you will perhaps say, Affirming that the Word out of God the Father is everywhere
One Christ and Son and Lord, with His own Flesh, how sayest thou now that He has been set
forth as an High Priest and Apostle? dost thou not in so saying insult the Supreme Dignity
of His Divine Glory? 60 Because, good Sir, (shall I say) the Only Begotten Word of God has
been made man and in the measures of the human nature, the fact of Priesthood will not
unbefit Him, and moreover the saying that He has been sent, for He despised the shame, as
the Divine-uttering Paul writes, and endured yet lower and worser things for our sakes:
for He gave His bach to the scourges, His Face He turned not away from the shame of
spittings, and endurant He bore the contumelies of the Jews. But thou deemest not meet to
call Him Priest, as being God? admit the words pertaining to the Economy, consider the
emptying, the descent unto the servant's form. For we say not that the Word of God
advanced and hastened unto dignity, if He have been styled our High Priest, but rather
that He descended herein too unto emptiness. Since how has He been emptied and is He said
to have been abased, albeit He possesseth unchangeableness and is in Form and Equality in
everything with His Father? how too advanced He by little and little and this (as thyself
sayest) unto the dignity of the High Priesthood? what sort of growth received He hereunto?
If then it were a bodily one, I will ask again, Doth bodily growth lead up to the glory of
the Priesthood: be then this common [to all] and let this method of reasoning of yours
belong to every one who advanceth bodily, But of a truth the Priesthood beseemeth not all
those who customably advance unto bodily growth; how therefore blushest thou not in
putting forth unto us for demonstration of those things which thou saidst, what was spoken
by the Divine-uttering Luke, But Jesus was advancing in stature and wisdom and grace?

61 But thou sayest that the growth was unto wisdom, albeit how is not this without
learning? for we believe that out of the very belly and womb of the Virgin, Emmanuel being
God proceeded forth Man, full surely of the wisdom and grace that are inherent of Nature.
What sort of growth then will He admit of, in Whom are all the treasures of wisdom, Who is
with God the Father Co-giver of the grace from above? how then is He said to advance? it
is, I deem, by God the Word co-measuring with the increase and stature of His own Body,
the manifestation of the most God-befitting goods that are in Him. For let us consider
that although He has been made Man as we, He was zealous to lie hid at the first, and
administered by little and little as it were noiselessly and in silence the might of the
Mystery; and of this God the Father Himself will be our assurance saying, Jacob My
Servant, I will defend Him, Israel My chosen, My Soul received Him, I gave My Spirit upon
Him, He shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles: He shall not cry nor lift up, nor
shall His voice be heard without: a bruised reed. He shall not break and smoking flax He
shall not quench. And He was somewhere rebuking the holy Apostles themselves that they
should not make Him, known.

62 Hence a thing unwonted and strange and worthy of looking into, would have been shewn,
if being yet a babe, He had made a God-befitting demonstration of wisdom: but He little
and little and proportionably to bodily stature, extending it and making it manifest to
all, will be said to advance and that with reason. How therefore did He advance by little
and little unto the Priesthood, tell me, by being perfected in virtue? Then how or whence
may one doubt that that which faileth of perfection in virtue, will be under blame, and
not wholly an object of admiration, yea rather haply under charge of sin? But it is indeed
true that He hath done no sin neither was guile found in His Mouth, as it is written.
Full-perfect therefore is He being such unto every thing, and in no wise will He have the
lack of being complete unto the achievement of virtue. And when was He That was God in the
womb too not Perfect unto good, of Whom the Prophet Isaiah too saith, Butter and honey
shall He eat, before He have knowledge to prefer evil, He shall choose the good, because
before the Child shall know good or ill, He shall disobey vice to choose the good? where
then will you be able to demonstrate Christ's yet imperfectness unto good? or what advance
will He need who is so Perfect as to disobey vice and to prefer to it, yea only choose,
good?

63 Yet I know not how he who affirmeth and saith "This is he who by little and little
advanced to the dignity of the high priesthood," and who brought forward in proof of his
words, Jesus advanced in stature and wisdom and grace, all but marking out the
uncomeliness of his own words and gliding into forgetfulness of the things of which he
assumed were right, affirms to us that the mode of perfection was wrought in another way,
saying, "This is he who in time has been made High Priest, who was perfected through
sufferings. Is not this manifest distraction? yea rather a proof of utter recklessness?
for our Lord Jesus Christ has been made perfect through sufferings, but this man albeit he
was not ignorant of the mode of being made perfect, carries away the minds of the simpler
unto certain strange perversions of ideas and says that He advanced unto being High Priest
and has been perfected unto this, "Who is said to have been emptied because this took
place. And as though he had full clearly shewn that neither was the Word of God made
flesh, nor yet proceeded Man out of woman, he chides those who have chosen thus to hold
and says, "Why therefore doth thou mis-interpret Paul, commingling with earthly body the
Impassive God the Word and making Him a passible High Priest?

64 Hear therefore from us too, to whom rather the truth is dear, Why dost thou mis-
interpret Paul, yea rather slanderest the whole God-inspired Scripture, withdrawing the
Word of God from the economy with flesh, and settest over us as priest a man honoured with
mere connection? albeit thou hearest that the Same is at once High Priest and Co-Throned
with God the Father, as we have already said. For Paul said, We have such an High Priest,
Who sat on the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens. For that the Word
out of God the Father is Impassible, is I suppose clear to every one: that He hath
suffered for us in the flesh, the voice of inspired men will seal up for a truth. But if
thyself bear away the Word out of God from earthly body, the whole will come to nothing.
For if He have not been made Man, neither did He die for us, and if He have not given unto
death His own Body, how is He said to be the first begotten from the dead? Hence Christ
neither died nor revived. Let the Divine-uttering Paul therefore come forward, let him cry
aloud saying, If the dead are not raised, neither has been Christ raised, if Christ have
not been raised, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins: they also which fell asleep
in Christ perished.

65 But Christ has been raised from the dead, for the Only-Begotten Word of God has been
made Man and, taking an earthly body and uniting it Personally to Him, by the grace of
God, as it is written, tasted death for every man. He has been named first-fruits of them
that slept, having been raised from the dead. Sure therefore and not vain is now our
faith, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast, as it is written. 66
And he, as though he had in no wise wronged the plan of the economy with flesh, through
saying such things and pouring forth untempered and foulest vomit upon the doctrines of
the truth, proceeds to another mis-counsel, yea rather manifest blasphemy and says, "This
man alone therefore being our High Priest, feeling and kin and sure, turn ye not away from
the faith Him-ward; for He was sent, the blessing which was proraised us out of the seed
of Abraham, as offering the sacrifice of His Body for Himself alike and His race."

67 §5. Thou sayest that a High Priest both kin to us and feeling and sure and moreover
only, is he whom thy discourse but now clearly taught us of. For thou saidst, "The seed of
Abraham is he who is yesterday and to-day, as Paul saith, not He Who saith, Before Abraham
was I am; Like to His brethren in all things, he who assumed brother-hood of human soul
and flesh, not He Who said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; sent was he who is
consubstantial with us and has been anointed to preach remission unto the captives and
recovery of sight to the blind. This man therefore will be conceived of as of kin too to
those on the earth, and not as THOU sayest, He That saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen
the Father. For if gathering both into one according to true union thou with us confessest
One Son, thou hast laboured in vain, in bearing away each separately and apart from other,
severing into hypostases and persons, completely, not in the mere knowledge that the
nature of flesh is other than the Divine Nature yet by concurrence unto true union hath
become Its own: if on the other hand desiring to shew thyself irreconcileable in opinion
with us and utterly repudiating the union, thou sayest that He is one and another, and
that the One has been begotten out of God the Father, the other of kin and consubstantial
with us;

68 how (tell me) dost thou say that we ought not now to turn aside from faith to Him-ward?
and we shall believe him to be our kin, letting go Him Who saith, Before Abraham was I am:
we shall take as our god him who assumed brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh,
letting go Him Who saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, albeit Himself saith,
For so God loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish but have everlasting life, and again, He that believeth on Him is
not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the Name of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Is he therefore who is forth of the
seed of Abraham conceived of as Only-Begotten apart and by himself, albeit John hath
clearly written, The Only-Begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father, He declared
Him, and moreover another Holy Scripture, But when He bringeth in the First-begotten into
the world, He saith, And let all Angels of God worship Him? But First-born wholly and
surely will He be Who is among many brethren, not He Who is begotten Alone of the Alone
God the Father: for thus far will we follow, sir, thy distinctions, keenly awaiting for
the economy's sake, whither the words burst through upon us.

69 Hence (for I will call back the argument to its commencement) "he that assumed
brotherhood with us of human soul and flesh," yet was made out of the seed of Abraham,
will be the Firstborn among many brethren, but He that is in the Bosom of God the Father,
the Only-Begotten God the Word. Then when the God-inspired Scripture says that our faith
must be had in the Only-Begotten Son of God, why dost thou, putting forward one kin and
consubstantial with us, say that we ought not to turn away from faith in him-ward? It is
therefore necessary to link together in One Lord and Christ, by personal coalescencethat
is, in order that the Same may be conceived of as Only-Begotten and First-Begotten in the
Same, in that the Word out of God the Father being God by Nature has been made Man as we
and out of the seed of Abraham.

70 But now something clever has been found out as he thinks by him and thus again says he:
"Remember by all means what I have full often said to you, refusing two-fold natures in
our Lord Christ, two-fold in nature, single in dignity: for the sway of the natures is for
the connection's sake, one, the natures abiding ever in their own order, but the dignity
connected as I said before unto a single sway." §6. Yea apt at learning wert thou, who
hast chosen to follow the God-inspired Scripture, which says One Lord Jesus Christ and
does not put apart Him Who is out of the seed of Abraham and the Word out of God the
Father. And besides one must consider this too: for one thing indeed is Godhead, another,
manhood like ours, according to the inherent nature of things; but by coalescence unto
true union, One Christ out of both, as we have full often said. But when the hypostases,
as YOU say, have been severed into two and are conceived of as existing separately and
apart, how will there be a coalescence in one Person, except one be conceived of as the
property of the other: just as of a man's soul his body will be conceived of as the
property, albeit of other nature than it, for not the same things are soul and body?

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

72 Yea and thinking it too little to deem aright, he slanders in another way too the great
Mystery of godliness. For he subjoins forthwith, "For he was sent to us, the blessing
being promised out of the seed of Abraham, offering the sacrifice of his body for himself
alike and his race." 73 Was Christ then Himself too made under sin? He through whom sin's
mouth against us is stopped, according to the Psalmist's voice? did the darkness of
accursed crime touch the Very Light Himself? needed then with us He through Whom is all
redemption and hope of salvation a redeemer and Saviour? it will befit him (it seems) with
us to offer thanksgiving, when God in His Clemency says, I am He That blotteth out thy
sins and I will not remember them; him too even as we will the father of sin accuse. And
then how will he not speak falsely saying, The prince of this world cometh, and in Me he
shall find nothing? The presidents of the synagogue of the Jews once blasphemed against
Him, for when they were worn out by the darts of envy, at seeing the blind from his birth
in unwonted manner healed, they impiously said. Give glory to God, WE know that this man
is a sinner, but our Lord Jesus Christ, convicting them of unbridled utterance said
plainly, Which of you convicteth Me of sin? and if I say the truth, why do YE not believe
Me? Hence, if He have offered sacrifice, both for us and moreover for Himself too, He
surely hath needed it, even as we too who are under the yoke of sin: convict Him therefore
of sin; if He hath offered sacrifice with us, shew Him co-sinner with us.

74 Being the Good Shepherd, for whom hath He laid down His Life, for Himself rather or for
the sheep? I hear Him saying of us, For their sakes do I sanctify Myself, and as the
Divine-speaking Paul saith, By the grace of God for every man tasted He death, and again,
He was delivered up because of our transgressions and was raised because of our
justification, and as the Prophet Esaias saith, The chastisement of our peace was upon
Him, with His stripes were WE healed, not Himself has been healed by the suffering of His
own Flesh. He was delivered up because of our transgressions (not because of His own, far
from it, for confessedly has the nature of man been borne down by the transgression in
Adam unto curse and death, it is moreover sick of proneness to sin in the flesh), in order
that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in its who walk not after the flesh
but after the spirit. For therefore was He also named the last Adam, not enduring to be
sick of the things of the first one, but rather ridding in Himself first the nature of man
from the blame of that ancient transgression. For it was condemned in Adam, but in Christ
was seen most approved and worthy of wonder. Earthy therefore is he, but Christ heavenly.

75 And it was put to shame in the first, borne down to disobedience which is sin, but in
Christ hath it preserved untransgression, and as in a second firstfruits of the race, was
seen both unwounded by sins, and superior to curse and doom and death and decay. And the
most wise Paul confirms us herein, thus writing, For as through one man's disobedience the
many were made sinners, so too by its obedience of one shall the many be made righteous.
Every one who has become guilty of sin needs therefore sacrifice for his own
transgressions: and Christ hath offered Himself for His kin according to the flesh, i. e.,
for us; but for Himself not a whit, being superior to sin, as God. For if He have been
sacrificed for Himself, not WE alone have been bought by His Blood according to the
Scriptures but Himself too will have been co-bought with us, no longer according to
Isaiah's voice did the Lord give Him up for our sins, but He has been given rather for His
own. For where is at all sacrifice and offering, there surely is also remission of sins.
The Divine-uttering Paul therefore hath beguiled those throughout all under heaven by
writing regarding Him, For such an High Priest became us, holy harmless undefiled,
separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens, Who needeth not daily as the high
priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins then for the people's, for this He
did once when He offered up Himself:

76 for the Law maketh men high priests which have infirmity, but the word of the oath
which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been perfected for evermore. How therefore is
Christ an holy High Priest? or in what way harmless and undefiled? And if He need with us
sacrifice, having made His offering for remission of transgressions and for justification
of them that have sinned, how has He been separated from sinners, if He be justified along
with them, the sacrifice having been offered for none else than these very persons? But I
marvel that whereas Paul hath cried aloud and that full clearly that He is not like those
who have been bidden to offer for their own transgressions, and then for the people's,
thou wert not afraid to put forth the contrary to what he said, and durst say that after
the likeness of them who were made priests according to the Law, He too offered up
sacrifice for Himself. And if it be true that the Law maketh men High Priests which have
infirmity, but the word of the oath which was since the Law, the Son Who hath been
perfected for evermore, why makest thou connumerate with those who are used to infirmity
Him Who has been removed from their multitude; and possesses the perfection which is above
the Law, of His own and by Nature, if so be He be Son of a truth and therefore God?

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

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

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


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS continued

BOOK 4

TOME IV.

2 [Translated by P.E. PUSEY] Brazen serpent a type: how to be cured of the stings. In HOLY
TRINITY Each Person exists yet each work is the work of the Whole TRINITY. Meaning of
"Made flesh." Christ gives the SPIRIT as His own, and works as God through His own SPIRIT.
Nicene Fathers spake through the HOLY GHOST. "Commended." The HOLY GHOST Spirit of the
Truth, i. e., of CHRIST. All Divine Work work of Whole TRINITY. HOLY GHOST out of the
FATHER and the Own of the SON. S. John xvii. 1. Flesh of CHRIST quickens in the Eucharist,
because it is the flesh of the WORD. Its type the Lamb, its mode a mystery. Nestorius
confessed that Godhead and manhood belong to the Same, and contradicts himself: yet the
Eucharist does quicken us: and He is Man having remained GOD. No one taught confusion of
Person in Christ. 3 The Divine-uttering Paul, shewing that not ineffective for the profit
of those who have elected to live piously, is the shadow in the Law and besides full well
setting before the minds of all, as a picture and representation of the truer, the things
which long ago befell them of old, says, But these things happened unto them typically,
but were written for our admonition unto whom the ends of the world are come. Come now
therefore selecting out of the writings of the Law let us say, that they of Israel were
camping in the desert of old time when they departed out of the land of the Egyptians and
were speeding unto the Land of Promise: but when (wretched ones!) unmindful of the wonders
in Egypt and of their love to Godward, they began unholily to murmur, they were destroyed
of serpents, as it is written. Yet they escaped the bites of the venomous creatures, Moses
having reared up for them the brazen Serpent, God the Saviour of all having commanded,
Make thee a serpent and set it for a sign and it shall be, if a serpent have bitten a man,
that every one that is bitten, seeing it shall live. The figure then was the mystery
Christ-ward, for the Only-Begotten Word of God being God, and Good by Nature out of a Good
Father, partook of flesh and blood, i. e., was made man, and like unto us wicked ones, in
regard I mean that He is man as we. And He has been set up on high too, that is, He
endured the cross on the wood and death after the flesh, even though He rose again the
third day having trampled on the might of death.

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

5 Yet doth somehow this man thrusting away these things as impossible and uncomely, dare
to make no small accusal against the glory and excellence of our Saviour, and allotting to
Him our measure and nought else, says that He has been glorified by the Holy Ghost, not
using as His own Power, that through Him to work signs, but gaining from without and
introduced, the power of achieving ought miraculous, that He may appear as we the
recipient of a gift haply of healing, and be bound to say with blessed Paul, By the Grace
of God I am what I am. For to whom being and being able to achieve ought is imported and
from without, these will with reason utter such word as this. For he desiring (as he
thinks) to prove the Holy Trinity equal in operation unto all things, says again thus;
"God the Word was made Flesh and tabernacled in us. The Father co-seated with Himself the
manhood which was assumed: for (it saith) The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right
Hand; the Spirit descending consummated the glory of that which was assumed, for when (He
saith) the Spirit of Truth is come, He shall glorify Me. Desirest thou also another
operation of the Trinity in respect of these very things? The Son indwelt in the body, the
Father commended Him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the Virgin." Then again he
says of the holy Apostles, "The Son chose them out, for I (He says) chose you forth; the
Father sanctified, for (He says) Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth, the Spirit rendered
them orators."

6 §1. That his whole discourse has been framed both unwisely and unhappily, is full easy
to shew. And in this too he wanders, and how, I will say. For One indeed is the Nature of
the Godhead, but the Father exists in His Proper mode and the Son too and likewise the
Spirit: yet are all things wrought by the Father and through the Son in the Spirit, and
when the Father is (so to say) moved to ought, yet does the Son surely work in the Spirit;
and though the Son or the Spirit be said to fulfil ought, this is full surely of the
Father: and through the whole Holy and Consubstantial Trinity runs the Operation alike and
Will unto everything. 7 On this subject we say thus. But view again how clearly and
evidently, although he says that the Word out of God has been made Flesh, he mis-coins the
force of the ideas, and bears it far away from rightness, representing the Incarnation as
an operation of His: for he adds forthwith, "wilt thou another operation of the Trinity
besides these? as though he had already shewn the first operation of God the Word, His
being made Flesh according to the Scriptures. And what is the other after the first
operation, he shews as he supposes. He says, "The Son indwelt in the body: a God-clad man
therefore is Christ. Next the Word of God the Father is shewn operating this alone for
man: so that even though the blessed Evangelist say, The Word was made Flesh and
tabernacled in us, it indicates nothing else to us but just this alone, that the Word
being God dwelt in a man just as in ourselves too. For we are temples of the living God,
and herein know we that He is in us because He gave us of His Spirit. But thou wilt not (I
suppose) say this, shuddering at the blasphemy, but wilt confess with us, that the Word of
God has been made Man (and this is the Incarnation): and wilt agree that He hath remained
God, and kept the Beauty of His proper Nature, even though He have the name, Sow of Man,
and have been made so of a truth.

8 What then didst thou learn, and say that the Father co-seated with Himself the manhood
that was assumed, and not rather that there sitteth on the Throne of His proper Godhead,
in the Good-Pleasure of God the Father, the Word That sprang from Him, when made Man too:
in order that His Human Nature be not conceived and spoken of by us as something other
than He, albeit the union that is of truthshews us that He is One and that His Flesh is
not alien from Him? 9 In this too thou wilt therefore be caught speaking falsely and in no
slight degree erring from fit reasoning. And if to say that the Word has been made Flesh
is nought else than that He being in the Excellence of Godhead and abiding what He was,
hath become Man, what glory from without will He be in need of, Himself the Lord of Glory?
For confessedly was He being glorified, the Spirit working Divine signs; yet not as a God-
clad man, gaining this thing from an alien and superior Nature, even as do WE, but rather
as using of His own Spirit: for He was God by Nature and not alien to Him is His Spirit.
Hence we say that not from without nor by adoption has the operation of the Spirit been
given to Him, even as unto us, or to the holy Apostles: for to them hath Christ given
authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and commanded them to heal both every
sickness and every ailment in the people.

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

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

12 But they are operated upon by the Spirit and have a measured grace, He, as God in-
worketh, and through His own Spirit achieveth without toil the things whereby He is
marvelled at. And verily the woman who was sick of the issue of blood came one time
secretly behind Him (thus is it written) and touched the border of His garment and
immediately her issue of blood stanched, which Christ now understanding, says Who touched
Me? and when at this the Divine-speaking disciples said, Master, the multitude are
thronging Thee and pressing Thee, He said again, Somebody touched Me, for I know that
might went forth of Me. Understandest thou then that not as introduced from without, but
from within and out of Himself hath He the power to inwork and to free from weaknesses? 13
And the blessed Evangelist Matthew too somewhere writeth, And the whole multitude were
seeking to touch Him, for there went might out of Him and healed all. His might then is
His Spirit, and the Divine-uttering David will give us proof, saying, By the Word of the
Lord were the Heavens stablished and by the Spirit of His Mouth all their might. The Mouth
of God the Father he says is the Word That is out of Him, by Whose Spirit the things made
through Him, are stablished in being. I have now therefore said that he brings down to
nothing the Mystery of Godliness, which has been marvelled at by the holy Angels
themselves too, and recking nought of the dogmas that pertain unto truth, he makes light
of them saying, "Wilt thou another operation of the Trinity besides these? the Son dwelt
in the body, the Father commended him when baptized, the Spirit fashioned him in the
Virgin." And that the truth will follow surely upon the things which we have said, and
that we have made no mere condemnation of his words, but rather a clear and true
conviction of them, himself will shew saying elsewhere on this wise,

14 "And the proof of co-work is evident, The Son became man, the Father enthroned Him, the
Spirit honoured Him by signs." §2. Will any one doubt even after this that the aim of his
ideas looks to unlearning alike and unholiness, and is bold against the doctrines of
piety? for like as he unwisely casts forth the Word of God from being made Flesh and says
that He wrought an indwelling in man, so too again does he take the being made man, albeit
the holy Churches in every region under Heaven, and the venerable Fathers themselves who
put forth unto us the definition of the right and undefiled Faith, viz. (the Holy Ghost
speaking in them) that the Word of God was made flesh and became Man, conceiving that this
is nought else save only the being made man as we, and being born after the flesh of a
woman, because He hath also been made with us under the Law, Who as God is above the Law.

15 But since (as I have already full often said) his aim is to undo the Truth, therefore
he alone (and that strenuously) lifts himself up, and opposes the opinions of all, and
brandishes arms against the Ineffable glory, and what he alone thinks, endeavours to bring
in secretly as a kind of rubbish upon the churches of God: for he maintains that the
Incarnation is indwelling, and not rather that the Word out of God partook like us of
blood and flesh, albeit the Word hath indwelt and indwells yet in all the saints, but has
once been made as we, and has partaken Personally in a single flesh, wherein He is
believed both to have died and to have risen for us: for of His own will He suffered in
the flesh. But that to no purpose is he flinging about words, and recking little of the
absurdity of his language, says that Christ was ennobled by signs through the Spirit, the
words which have been just cited, sufficiently (as I think) shewed: but let us examine, if
you please, his other words. 'The Father (he says) commended;' what then commended here
is, I cannot understand: for the word is confessedly a word of the market and the mob, and
replete with commonplace trickery; but I suppose that he wanted to indicate, set forth,
for example, or, hath witnessed to. How then (tell me) did the Father commend? did He
exhibit one counted worthy of Divine Indwelling? or was it not this at all, but rather His
own Son made man, yet abiding even in Flesh, what He was and is and shall be, i. e. God?
For Jesus Christ Who was yesterday and to-day is the Same even for ever.

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

17 See then how He says that the Spirit Which proceedeth from God the Father is the own
Spirit of the Truth also: and He Himself is of a surety the Truth. How then, if He be of a
truth not rather God made man, but man having the Divine Indwelling as His Energy, doth He
promise to send down, as His own, the Spirit of God the Father upon them who believe on
Him? Yea, as I said, he shakes to nothing the glory of the Mystery, distributing the
operation of the Holy Trinity in respect of the things done, and allotting to each of the
Persons by Himself what the other hath not wrought. 18 Again he says on this wise, "The
Son chose forth, for I, He says, chose you: the Father sanctified, the Spirit made
orators. O distraction without measure! if all things have been done by the Father through
the Son in the Spirit and nothing be done by God the Father, save in this very way;----how
is he not surely distraught, who distributes to the Persons severally the Operations unto
ought of the Untaint and One Godhead, and doth not rather maintain that each thing that is
done has been wrought by the Father through the Son in the Spirit? For if the Son is both
the Counsel and Wisdom and Might of the Father, full surely will the Father work all
things through the Son, as through His Counsel and Wisdom and Might. Thus chose He for
their excellence His disciples, thus do we say that those who were chosen out were
sanctified, thus that they were made orators, from out One Godhead; that is, by the Father
through the Son in the Spirit. For He says, Holy Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth. The
Truth therefore sanctifies, i. e. the Son; He infuses ..... too and renders them wise and
through the operation of the Holy Ghost; devoutly eloquent.

19 And verily He said in the book of Matthew to His own Disciples, When they deliver you
up take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given yon in that hour what
ye shall speak, for not YE are the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh
in you; and through that of Luke, Settle it therefore in your hearts not to meditate
before what ye shall answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your
adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist. Hearest thou how when the Holy Ghost
speaketh in them, Himself gives the mouth? For He is as Word Giver of word and Bestower of
the Spirit, as having It as His own Naturally; even as the Father Himself too. The Holy
Trinity has therefore the same Operation, and whatsoever things the Father doth and
willeth to accomplish, these things doth the Son too in equal manner, likewise the Spirit
also. But the giving of the Operations severally to Each of the Persons individually is
nought else than to set forth three gods severally and wholly distinct from one another.
For the count of Natural Unity in regard to the Holy Trinity, shews I suppose one
motionunto every thing that is done. But if now we say that while One Person is moved, e.

20 g., to work, the Two remain ineffective, how is not a gross severance privily
introduced, allotting as a certain position to each Person, the being conceived of
external to and isolated from the rest, not in respect of His Individual Being (for that
were true), but in respect of utter diversity which does not endure language that gathers
them into Natural Union? For One Nature of Godhead is conceived of in the Holy and
Consubstantial Trinity . 21 But this good man dares to abridge God the Word Consubstantial
with God the Father as though he knows not that He has been made Man, not casting away
what He was, but assuming rather what He was not: for he is an advocate for (as has been
said) the Holy Ghost and insults the Son, thus saying to some who have elected to think
with Arius, "They (he says) contriving greater insult against Him, and severing from the
Divine Nature the Spirit Which having formed His Human Nature (for that, it says, which is
conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost), reformed unto righteousness that which was formed
(for He was manifested, it says, in flesh, was made righteous in Spirit), Which made Him
terrible to devils (for I, He says, in the Spirit of God, cast out devils); Which made His
Flesh a Temple (for I saw, it says, the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove and it
abode upon Him); Which granted Him to be taken up (for, it says, having given commandment
to the holy Apostles whom He chose forth, He was taken up through the Holy Ghost): This I
say which bestowed on Christ so great glory they make Christ's bondman."

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

23 If then thou knowest that to sever the Spirit from His Divine Nature is (and justly)
the most disgraceful of charges, His (it is manifest) is the Spirit, as proceedingthrough
His Ineffable Nature Itself and Consubstantial with Him, and He will not need the might
that is from It as something external and adventitious, but will use Him rather as His own
Spirit, and will render Himself terrible to the devils through Him. But if it seem good to
thee to shew that they who sever are unimplicated in charges of impiety, how didst thou
just now call them to us insolent? and how dost thou not perceive that thou art numbering
thyself with them, if thou sayest that the Word out of God the Father united to flesh,
needed just like any of ours and a mere man, the aid of the Spirit that He might be
terrible to the unclean spirits? For even though He say that He casts out devils in the
Spirit of God, how must one not see that the economy of the expression is worthy of
marvel? For the chiefs of the Jews, envious of the renown of our Saviour and opening
against Him an unbarred mouth, used to babble (miserable ones! saying that He cast out
devils in Beelzebub prince of the devils:

24 but He with His innate clemency toward all, drawing unto what was better and true those
who have erred or who were choosing to let loose their tongues upon Him, was attributing
rather to God Who is by Nature, the glory of being able to crush Satan, saying that in the
Spirit of God He chased away the wicked spirits: and not as putting Himself outside of
being God by Nature and of having the Holy Ghost as His own: but since it was meet and
worthy of God-befitting skill to intercept the wrath of those who were desiring His death
and to cut off occasions from those who were offended at Him, for they were attacking Him
saying, For a good work we stone Thee not but for blasphemy, because THOU, being a man,
makest Thyself God: therefore skilfully does He condescending to them who were yet weak
say, the Spirit of God,: for He knows, as I said, that He is God by Nature together with
Him Who begot Him, and has all things of His, save only the being Father. Wherefore did He
also say to Him, All Mine are Thine and Thine Mine and I have been glorified in them, and
to ourselves making discourse concerning the Holy Ghost, He says, All things that the
Father hath are Mine, therefore I said unto you that of Mine shall He take and, declare it
unto you.

25 For as the Holy Ghost proceedeth out of the Father being His by Nature, in equal wise
is He through the Son Himself too, His Naturally and Consubstantial with Him. Hence even
though He be glorified through the Spirit, yet is He conceived of as glorifying Himself
through His own Spirit, and not as though it came to Him from without even though He be
seen as made Man like us. 26 It is besides unsafe to say this also concerning the Spirit,
"Which hath made His Flesh a Temple." For it was the own Flesh of the Word, and this
thyself has just now acknowledged to us, for thou saidst that His is the human nature, and
the Holy Body taken out of the holy Virgin is called His Temple: His own again is His
Spirit, and never will the Word out of God the Father be conceived of without His own
Spirit. Better therefore were it and wiser, to say that the Body is the Temple of the Word
and the flesh His own, and to believe that with the Word is ever His Spirit, just as also
with the Father Himself too.

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

28 But you will be caught idly babbling herein, and not understanding the Mystery to Him-
ward, yea rather both thinking and saying clean contrary to yourself. For if thou hast
believed that the Word being God has been made Flesh (for thou saidst that His was the
human nature) why dost thou say that the Lord of glory, as though He had not glory of His
own, needed it from the Spirit, and reckonest Him in the measures of the creature to which
all things are from without and given? for what hast thou that thou receivedst not, will
it befit the creature to hear. Yea but (he says) I find Emmanuel saying. Father, glorify
Thy Son: add therefore what remains; this is, That Thy Son too may glorify Thee. If thou
assert that the Son, as lacking glory, desires that of the Father, what dost thou say,
when the Father too is glorified of the Son? is it as not having glory or needing it of
another? away with the mis-counsel! for verily is it trickery and unholy thought and
nought else. For the Divine Nature and that passeth all natures dwelleth in the light
unapproachable and hath authority over all things and to Him is ascribed the glory which
most befits it alone: but when the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man and was about by
the grace of God through His own flesh to taste death for every man, and undo its might
hard-to-withstand, quickening as God His own Temple, He devises the prayer as Man, and
wills the Father to consent with Him Who was transforming the nature of man to what it was
at the beginning and renewing it unto incorruption, and displaying it superior to the
meshes of death: that ancient curse and the sentence upon the First-formed being undone.

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

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

31 But he comes not forward with sound words, but having swerved exceedingly to what is
unruly, he busies himselfwithout understanding, and deems fit to hold what please himself
alone and what he thinks well to deem are understood aright. And he destroys others too,
in addition to to what he has said severing into two the One Lord Jesus Christ,
calumniating also our Divine Mystery itself from not enduring to confess with us, that not
like one of the holy Prophets, or again Apostles and Evangelists, was Christ a God-clad
man, but God rather made Man, and hath partaken in verity of blood and flesh. He said in
this wise again, putting forth his words as of the Person of Christ, "He that eateth My
flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. Remember that what is said is
about the flesh. As the Living Father sent Me, Me, the visible: but sometimes I
misinterpret. Let us hear from what follows: As the living Father sent Me, he says the
Godhead, I the Manhood: let us see who it is who is mis-interpreting. The heretic says [he
says ] here the Godhead, Sent Me God the Word. As the living Father sent Me, according to
him, and I live, God the Word, because of the Father. After this, And he that eateth Me he
too shall live. Whether do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh?"

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

33 "I will speak the words too of offence. Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ
discoursing to them; Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
Blood, ye have no Life in you: the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said,
they imagined of their unlearning that He was bringing in cannibalism." 34 §5. And how is
the thing not plain cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say
that the Word out of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that
sending was the Incarnation? For then, then we shall see clearly, that the Flesh which was
united to Him and not another's flesh, avails to give Life, yet 'because it has been made
the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things,' For if this visible fire infuses
the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in
contact, and changes water itself though cold by nature into that which is contrary to its
nature and makes it hot; what wonder or how can one disbelieve that the Word out of God
the Father being the Life by Nature rendered the Flesh which is united to Him, Life-
giving? for it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and
of one of us. But if thou remove the Life-giving Word of God from the Mystical and true
Union with His Body and sever them utterly, how canst thou shew that it is still Life-
giving? And Who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in
Me and I in him?

35 If then it be a man by himself and the Word of God have not rather been made as we, the
deed were cannibalism and wholly unprofitable the participation (for I hear Christ Himself
say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains
to its own nature, the flesh is corruptible , and will in no wise quicken others, sick
itself of the decay that is its own): but if thou say that it is the Own Body of the Word
Himself, why dost thou speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the
very Word out of God the Father has been sent, but some other than of Him, "the visible,"
or His Flesh, albeit the God-inspired Scripture every where proclaimeth One Christ, full
well affirming that the Word was made Man as we and defining herein the tradition of the
right Faith.

36 But out of overmuch reverence, he blushes (it appears) at the measures of emptiness and
endures not to see the Son Co-Eternal with God the Father, Him who is in the Form and
Equality in everything with Him Who begat Him, come down unto lowliness: he finds fault
with the economy and haply leaves not unblamed the Divine Counsel and Plan. For he
pretends to investigate the force of the things said by Christ, and as it were taking in
the depth of the ideas; then bringing round (as he thinks) my words to a seeming absurdity
and ignorance; "Let us see, he says, who it is that mis-interprets. As the Living Father
sent Me, for I live (according to him) God the "Word, because of the Father, and he that
eateth Me he too shall live: which do we eat, the Godhead or the flesh? Perceivest thou
not therefore at length how thy mind is gone? for the Word of God saying that He is sent,
says, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. But WE eat, not consuming the Godhead
(away with the folly) but the Very Flesh of the Word Which has been made Lifergiving,
because it has been made His Who liveth because of the Father. And we do not say that by a
participation from without and adventitious is the Word quickened by the Father, but
rather we maintain that He is Life by Nature, for He has been begotten out of the Father
who is Life.

37 For as the sun's brightness which is sent forth, though it be said (for example) to be
bright because of the sender, or of that out of which it comes, yet not of participation
hath it the being bright, but as of natural nobility it weareth the Excellence of him who
sent it or flashed it forth: in the same way and manner, I deem, even though the Son say
that He lives because of the Father, will He bear witness to Himself His own Noble Birth
from forth the Father, and not with the rest of the creation promiscuously, confess that
He has Life imparted and from without. 38 And as the Body of the Word Himself is Life-
giving, He having made it His own by a true union passing understanding and language; so
WE too who partake of His holy Flesh and Blood, are quickened in all respects and wholly,
the Word dwelling in us Divinely through the Holy Ghost, humanly again through His Holy
Flesh and Precious Blood. The most holy Paul will confirm the truth of what I said,
writing thus to those in Corinth who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, I speak as to wise
men, judge YE what I say, the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the communion of
the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break is it not the communion of the Body of
Christ? for one bread one body are we who are many, for we all are partakers of One Bread.
For having partaken of the Holy Ghost, we are made one both with Christ Himself the
Saviour of all and with one another: we are of the same body in this way, that we being
many are one bread one body, for we all are partakers of the One Bread. For the Body of
Christ which is in us binds us together into unity and is in no way divided.

39 But that through the Body of Christ wo have been brought together into unity with Him
and with one another, the blessed Paul will confirm, writing, For this cause I Paul the
Prisoner of Jesus Christ in behalf of you Gentiles, if ye heard of the economy of the
grace of God which was given me to you-ward, how that by revelation He made known unto me
the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known to the sons of
men as now it is revealed unto His holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit, that the
Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body and co-participant in the promise in
Christ. 40 But since some of those who at first believed, ignorant of the tradition and
force of the Mystery were pleased to be borne aside from what was right, celebrating in
the churches banquetings and public feastings, the blessed Paul found fault with those who
used so to do, writing, For have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the
Church of God and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in
this? I praise you not; for I received of the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the
Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was delivered up, took bread and gave thanks
and brake and said, This is My Body given for you, this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise
the Cup too after supper saying, This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood, do this as oft
as ye drink it in remembrance of Me: for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup,
ye are declaring the Lord's death, till He come.

41 And that the Mystery is Divine and the participation Life-giving and the might of this
unbloody Sacrifice far better than the worship under the Law, is easy to see even from his
saying that the things ordained through Moses to them of old time were a shadow, but
Christ and what is His the truth. The most wise Paul too will help us herein, thus
writing, One that despised Moses' Law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of
how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who trod under foot the
Son of God and accounted common the Blood of the covenant wherein he was sanctified, and
did despite unto the Spirit of grace? For they that of old did sacrifice the lamb ate
thereof, but the force of the eating amounted not simply to the satisfying of the belly,
nor was it for this that the sacrifices were performed under the Law: but that when death
fell on the rest, they might be superior to its suffering and might escape the destroyer.
And verily in one night were the first-born of the Egyptians destroyed, but these fenced
by the bare type, alone were saved by it, and having the shadow for their shield,
prevailed gloriously over death itself too. The types then saved those before us; in what
condition are our matters, on whom at length beamed the Truth itself, that is, Christ, Who
setteth before us His own Life-giving Flesh to partake of? is it not clear to all?

42 For very exceedingly better and in vast superiority are they. And the might of the
Mystery our Lord Jesus Christ making manifest saith, Verily I say to you, he that
helieveth on Me hath everlasting life, I am the Bread of Life: your fathers ate the manna
in the wilderness and died, this is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a man may
eat thereof and not die, I am the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven, if any man eat
of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread Which I will give is My Flesh Which is
for the Life of the world. For since they of the blood of Israel had marvelled at Moses
for the largess of manna sent down to those of that time in the desert, which fills up a
type of the Mystic Eucharist (for the Law is a shadow), therefore with exceeding skill
doth our Lord Jesus Christ minish the type, driving them [from it] unto the truth. For not
that (He says) was the Bread of Life, but rather, I Who am out of Heaven and Who quicken
all things and infuse Myself into them that eat Me, through My Flesh too that is united to
Me. Which indeed He made clearer saying, Verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not Life in you:

43 he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up
at the last day, for My Flesh is true meat and My Blood is true drink; he that eateth My
Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the Living Father sent Me and I
live because of the Father, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. Consider then how
He abideth in us and maketh us superior to corruption, infusing Himself into our bodies,
as I said, through His own Flesh too, which is true meat, whereas the shadow in the Law
and the worship under it possess not the truth. 44 And the plan of the Mystery is simple
and true, not overwrought with varied devices of imaginations unto unholiness but simple
as I said. For we believe that to the body born through the holy Virgin, having a
reasonable soul, the Word out of God the Father having united Himself (unspeakable is the
union, and wholly a Mystery!) rendered it Life-giving, being as God Life by Nature, that
making us partakers of Himself spiritually alike and bodily, He might both make us
superior to decay and might through Himself bring to nought the law of sin which is in the
members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But this no wise
(I deem) pleases this dogmatist of new inventions, who like some straying calf runs after
only what pleases himself: and minishes the force of the mystery saying,

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

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

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

48 To those things does he fearing nought put forth yet fouler impiety, adding, "Hear not
me saying these things but the blessed Paul, As oft as ye do eat this bread, whereof the
Body is the antitype. Let us see therefore herefrom whose is the death. As oft as ye eat
this bread, and drink this Cup, ye declare the Lord's death. Hear yet plainer in what
follows, Till He come: who then is he that is to come? They shall see the son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven with great glory. And greater yet, the Prophet before the
Apostles did more clearly shew Him Who is coming and hath cried proclaiming concerning the
Jews, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. Who then is He which was pierced? The
Side, belongs the Side to the Body, or to the Godhead? Petty therefore as I said, is the
profit of the Unbloody Sacrifice, because perchance it hath not been, feasible that the
Nature of the Godhead too should be consumed along with the Flesh, because we are not in
possession of impossibilities, having the Incorporeal by Itself to eat. But you seem to me
to forget that it is by no means the Nature of Godhead that lieth upon the holy Tables of
the Churches, yet is it the own Body of the Word Begotten of God the Father: and God by
Nature and in truth is the Word.

49 Why therefore dost thou confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all
but mocking at our Bread Which is out of Heaven and giveth Life to the world, because it
is not called Godhead by the voice of the Divines, but rather the Body of Him Who hath
become Man for us, that is, of the Word out of God the Father? And why (tell me) dost thou
call it the Lord's Body at all, save because thou knowest it to be Divine and God's? for
all things serve their Maker. 50 Yea the things in thy mind are not right, but thou
believest Emmanuel to be merely a God-clad man. And then utterly heedless of thoughts and
words that belong to piety, thou supposest that the Priest of the Truth, the wise master-
builder and teacher of the Gentiles, the truly holy and all-wise Paul will support thee in
thy calumniating, bearing away from the straight and most approved path the force of what
are rightly and without adulteration said by him.

51 For "let us see (he says) herefrom whose is the death. Till He come. Who is He Who is
coming? they shall look on Him Whom they pierced. He will come therefore Who suffered
death humanly, has been raised Divinely, Who ascended too into the Heavens, Who with all
state is on the Throne of the Ineffable Godhead and co-sitteth with the Father, the
Seraphim standing around, and the Highest Powers, not unknowing of the measure of their
subjection to Him; every Authority and Power and Lordship worshipping Him: for to Him
shall bend every knee and every tongue shall confess, Lord Jesus, to the glory of God the
Father. He shall come (as I said) seen not in our littleness, but rather in most God-
befitting glory. Heaven and the Spirits above encompassing Him as their God and King and
standing by the Lord of all. If therefore the Word of God the Father be not rather in
flesh, or made Man, but a God-clad man with bodily side and who endured the piercing, how
is He seen on the Throne of the Supreme Godhead, revealed to us as a new god fourth after
the Holy Trinity? hast thou not shuddered at a mere man, devising worship for the
creature? are we then holden in the ancient snares? have we then done insult to God and
has the holy multitude of the spirits above gone astray with us?

52 if we have been set free from the ancient deceit, refusing as blasphemous to worship
the creature, why dost thou casting us again into the old charges, exhibit us man-
worshippers? for WE know and believe that the Word out of God the Father assumed flesh and
blood: but since He hath remained the Same, i.e., God, He retained the Dignity of His
inherent Excellence over all, albeit in flesh as we, yet being no less God, now too than
of old, even though He have been made Man, He hath the Heaven His adorer and the earth
worshipping Him: for it is written, that the earth is full of Thy praise, Thy Virtue
covered the Heavens, O Lord. 53 But THOU again, of thy over much infatuation, seest not
that thus He is in Nature and Glory: for thou saidst, "Who is he who cometh? they shall
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven," as though thou fearedst lest any
should disbelieve thee saying that He Which cometh is son of man. Thou confirmest the
proof thereof with prophetic testimony also: for thou sayest that it is written, They
shall look on Him Whom they pierced. And yet mightier for proof as thou supposedst, most
foolishly adding, "Who then is it (he says) that is pierced? the Side: belongs the Side to
body or to the Godhead?" If there were any who say that the Word of God have not been made
as we, but came among those on earth in bare Godhead, i.e., in semblance and as it were in
shadow, as some of the unholy heretics thought good to think, you would have had some plea
for such like framing of words; not passing the bound of what was meet: but since the
preaching of the truth says clearly and manifestly that the Word of God was made Flesh and
was called as we son of man too and suffered for us in the flesh and will also so come as
He went up into Heaven, according to the Angel's voice too: whom (tell me) dost thou
opposing, and whose opinion cutting off as unlearned and of no account, dost thou strive
to shew us that HE Who cometh is a man with bodily side which has been pierced through
with the spear?

54 But thine aim (as I said) is to bring in privily to us Emmanuel as a God-clad man and
not rather God made Man, for the Word of God has been made Man. And this faith goes along
with the holy and Divine Scriptures and the aim of the Apostolic and Evangelic Tradition
tends to this same thing. But THOU again art talking big in another way too: for thou
pretendest to be finding fault with those who mingle into one essence, the nature of the
flesh and of the Godhead (albeit there is no one as I deem who mingles them up or mixes
them one with other), and sayest, "Why , as we were just now hearing, when both are
according to thee mingled, does our Lord, delivering to the disciples the force of the
Mystery, thus say, He took bread and gave thanks and gave to His disciples saying, Take,
eat all of you for this is My Body. Why said He not, This is My Godhead Which is being
broken for you? and again giving the cup of the Mysteries, He said not, This is My Godhead
Which is being poured forth for you, but This is My Blood which is being shed for you for
the remission of sins."

55 §7. That it is therefore an exceeding folly to want to oppose oneself to those who are
not at all, and to no purpose to march forth, taking for contradiction that which no one
(I suppose) cared either to think or say, how is it not manifest to all? for if one chose
to contend that the ox is not by nature an horse, nor yet man an horse, whereas no one
would even endure to think or say this;----how would he not be laughed at and besides a
vain talker, beating the air and fighting against things uncertain and devising for
himself sweat and toil against what was not there? For I say that something confessed
ought first to be laid down, in order that then in duo order ours may be ranged against
it. But let us come to this: for if there be any who should dare to say the Word out of
God had been transformed into the nature of the body, one might very reasonably object to
him, that He on giving His Body did not rather say, Take eat this is My Godhead which is
being broken for you, and, this is not My Blood but rather My Godhead which is being
poured forth for you. But since the Word being God made His own the Body born of a woman,
without undergoing any alteration or turning, how must not He who saith no untruth say,
Take eat this is My Body? for being Life as God, He rendered it Life and Life-giving.

56 Having therefore opened your eyes but a little to the Truth, you will I suppose charge,
yourself against yourself, your superfluity of language, on all sides stuttering and
unlearnedly arraying against the Doctrines of piety this thy counterfeit and joyless
discourse. [A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical
references, follows]


FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS
============================

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS continued

BOOK 5

TOME V.

2 [Translated by P.E. PUSEY] Jewish disbelief in Christ followed by some Christian
teachers. The SON GOD by Nature gave His own body to death to free us, albeit His Godhead
might not suffer. "Glory before the world was," can be no man's glory but that of GOD.
Father most strictly God the FATHER though He permit such relations to us. 'Crucified out
of weakness,' yet, Lord of glory. 'Servant's form.' 'Not Mine own will.' The forsaking on
the Cross. He raised His own Body. S. Thomas' confession. Nicene Fathers. Testimony of GOD
and man to the SON. 3 THE Divine-uttering Paul glories in the Sufferings of Christ and
says, one while, But to me be it not that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ
through Whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world, another while again,
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation unto every
one that believeth, to the Jew first and to the Greek. And thus did the Spirit-clad deem
right both himself to think and besides to teach others, for he hath written not without
purpose, but that he might persuade us to be zealous for the rightness of the faith that
was in him, choosing to delight us in the Sufferings of Christ. But some are ashamed of
the Cross and impiously rising up against them that have been made teachers of all below
the sun, by reason that they choose to think contrarily, they (wretched ones! all but
smile at Christ's sufferings and and are ashamed of the Gospel, sick with the Jewish
unlearning and in no way inferior to them in infatuation. For the Saviour's Cross hath
become to them an offence:

4 and verily they beholding the Prince of Life, the fulfilment of the Law, affixed to the
wood, they were wagging at Him their impious heads, not believing that God is of a truth
made Man and come down unto emptiness, but supposing rather that He was simply a man as
we, and they said, putting forth as out of the evil treasure of their heart evil things,
Thou That destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days save Thyself; if Thou be the
Son of God, come down from the Cross: and again, He saved others, Himself He cannot save,
if He be the king of Israel, let Him now come down from the Gross and we will believe on
Him. For they thought not, as I said just now, that He was God by Nature, nor yet in truth
Son of God the Father but rather that He was bragging and daring to allot to Himself the
glory of the Godhead. Hence they used to say, one while, For a good work we stone Thee
not, but for blasphemy, because THOU being a man makest Thyself God; another while they
brought Him to Pilate and besought that He should be crucified, and when he demanded that
they should tell the reason of their awkwardness towards Him, they straightway began to
accuse Him saying that He made Himself the Son of God.

5 But lo now too, not at the hands of them of Israel nor yet from the multitude of the
Pharisees, but at their hands who seem to be Christians and are ranked among teachers and
them whose lot is the Divine Priesthood, doth He manifestly suffer equal case. For He is
disbelieved to be both God by Nature, and One and Alone and Verily Son of God the Father,
and the plea of their ill-counsel as to this very thing, that He chose to suffer death in
the flesh, albeit for this cause He descended unto emptiness economically, in order that
suffering for us in the flesh, He might bring to nought the mastery of death, as being
Himself by Nature Life and sprung of Life, God the Father. For the nature of man was sick
of decay, in its firstfruits and original root, i. e., Adam. For since it offended through
its disobedience its Law-giver and God and That brought it forth unto being, straightway
it was accursed and liable to death, and death hath reigned from Adam unto Moses, the doom
for this extending over the whole seed and race that is from him. For as sprung from
corruptible root, corruptible are WE too, and abide (wretched! holden in the meshes of
death.

6 But when the Creator planned good things concerning us and willed to transelement the
nature of man, decay being taken away, unto what it was at the beginning, He adorned a new
root (so to speak) for us, which endured not to be overmastered by death, the One Lord
Jesus the Christ, that is, God the Word out of His Essence made man as we, made of a
woman. For we do not say that just a man is God-bearing, but that the Word out of God has
been of a truth Its very Self united to flesh, in order, having laid down His Life for us,
and given to death His own Body for our sakes economically, and then shewn it superior to
corruption through the Resurrection from the dead, to give pledge to all who believe on
Him that He will raise up us too, and make us superior to the bonds of death, and little
heedful of the nets of decay.

7 Hence I deem it is that the Divine-uttering Paul too, makes a matter of much speech and
marvel, the love towards us of God the Father. For he said thus, What shall we say
therefore to these things? if God he for us, who is against us? He that spared not His own
Son but gave Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him too freely give us all things ?
albeit exceeding many are the sons by grace and of adoption (for we too have been called
gods and all are sons of the Most High), but One and Alone is He Who is so by Nature and
is His Own, that is, God the Word Who is out of Him even when He was made Flesh. For thus
do we say that He has been given even for all, as Himself too somewhere saith, For God so
loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish, but have eternal life. Only-Begotten therefore is He Who was given, for He
Alone sprung from the Essence of God the Father, the Word both out of Him and in Him: but
since He hath, been made Man, therefore do we make our faith in Him declaring His death
after the Flesh and confessing His Resurrection, knowing that the Same is both Son before
the ages and Man economically in the last times and that He suffered in the flesh for our
sakes and hath risen from the dead.

8 But (I know not how) the advocate of the Jews' unlearning is indignant at our words, for
he said again, "That therefore the divine Scripture puts, Son, of the birth from the
Virgin, Mother of Christ, we have shewn. Hear of His death also, whether God is any where
put, so as we might bring in a passible God: Being enemies, it says, we were reconciled to
God through the death of His Son, it said not, Through the death of God the Word." §1.
True is it, according as it is written, There is a righteous man that perisheth in his
righteousness: for that whoso nature is to hurt, putting on sometimes the shew of being
helpful, turns aside from what is right, even the well stablished mind. For he thinks he
is pious in no slight degree, essaying to confirm what is confessed by all, therefore
saying, In His own Nature the Word out of God the Father is as God beyond sufferings and
superior to death; for how should Life die? Yet he not a whit the less too offends against
the doctrines of the Church, wholly unrecking of the economy with flesh of the Only-
Begotten, and in no wise considering the depth of the mystery.

9 If it were under examination by us, what were the Nature of the Word, or we had to
declare it to them who asked and were desirous of learning it; it would I suppose be of a
surety meet and necessary, hastening to go through every wise and true thought, to shew
that It is unapproachable by death and utterly removed from sufferings. But since the mode
of the Incarnation gives Him, so far as pertains to the plan of the Economy, even though
He choose to die in the flesh, to suffer nought in His own Nature, why bereavest thou us
of our fairest boasts? for thou heard'st Him say. The Good Shepherd layeth down His Life
for His sheep. Hence even though He be said to suffer, we know that He is Impassible as
God, we say that He hath suffered death economically in His own Flesh, in order that
treading it and risen in that He is Life and Life-giving, He might transelement unto
incorruption that which is tyrannized over by death, i. e., the body: and so unto us too
spreadeth the might of the achievement, extending unto the whole race. And verily the
Divine-uttering Paul saith, I through the Law died to the law that I might live unto God,
I am crucified with Christ, I live, no longer I, but Christ liveth in me, and wherein I
now live, I live in faith, in the flesh of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself
for me.

10 I do not frustrate the grace of God. For no longer do we live our own life but rather
that in Christ, and true is it that One died for all that they who live should no more
live unto themselves but to Him which died for them and rose. For before that the Only-
Begotten Word of God beamed on us, mastered by unlearning and darkness and having the yoke
of sin and impiously ascribing worship to the creature rather than our Creator and Maker
and practising unblamed every kind of baseness, we wretched abode in severance [from Him],
in mind hostile to Him, but we have been reconciled through the death of His Son, as it is
written. 11 But THOU again hast made but slight account of the truth, and putting forth
unto us thy speech unbridled unto vapidness, sayest that the world has been reconciled to
God, not through the Only-Begotten, i. e. the Word That sprang of the Father; and hearing,
the death of His Son, and investigating subtilly as thou supposest, the words of the
Divine, thou fearedst not to say, "He said not, Through the death of God the Word." Then
how (tell me) were such a word wise, yea rather, how were it not replete with utter
distraction? for how were it meet (tell me) to set forth the Life as subject to death; and
to the Nature Which quickeneth all things to lay a charge of decay, how were it not wholly
distraught and would it not be, and that with reason, a charge of blasphemy reaching unto
the very extreme? By no means therefore does the mind of the saints go along with thy
subtilties herein, or rather thy idle words: for it knows, it knows that the Word of God
suffered in the flesh for our sakes, and through the death of His own Body hath called the
world unto reconciliation with the Father Which is in Heaven. And verily when making His
discourse with one of the holy disciples He somewhere said, I am the Way and the Truth and
the Life and no man cometh unto the Father but by Me: but Truth and Life and Way, who else
may be, save the Word which sprang of God, even though He have been made as we, by taking
servant's form?

12 And that through Him we have been manifested partakers of the Divine Nature and, we who
once were far, have been made nigh, united participatively through Him to the FATHER and
besides to one another in one faith and unity of soul by reason of being made participant
of One Spirit; Himself will give assurance saying unto God the Father in Heaven, Not for
these alone do I ask but for them also which believe on Me through their word, that they
all may be one, as THOU Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us,
that the world may believe that THOU sentest Me, and I. the glory which Thou hast given
Me, have given them, that they may be one even as WE are one, both I in them, and THOU in
Me that they may be perfected into one. Understand therefore how Himself is of Nature in
His own Father but is set forth a Mediator and Reconciler through being made as we: He is
in us, both through His own Flesh Which quickeneth us in spirit and through partaking of
His holiness, I mean again through the Holy Ghost. And He asketh as glory from the Father
to make His own Nature manifest unto us, that It is both Life-giving and superior to
corruption as God. And verily He said again, I glorified Thee on the earth by perfecting
the work which Thou hast given Me to do, and now do Thou glorify Me, o Father, with
Thyself with the glory which I had before the world was, with Thee. And a perfected work
are WE, in Him first overcoming decay and treading on the might of death, for He lived
anew from the dead, having all in Himself.

13 But haply bearing off to other ideas what has been said, thou sayest that not of God
the Word ought these things to be understood, but removing from Him and putting apart by
himself him that is born of the holy Virgin as another son, thou affirmest that him it is
whom such things befit and art zealous to teach others also to think and say with thee:
and wilt (I suppose) surely say that the Only-Begotten Word of God being Lord of glory,
would not as though lacking glory, have sought it from the Father. Hear therefore from us
too, If thou sayest that the Only-Begotten Son Who is out of God by Nature is not He Who
here asketh glory from the Father; who was it who said, Glorify Me with the glory which I
had before the world was, with Thee? How then (tell me) was he that is of the holy Virgin,
conceived of according to thee as man separately, before the world? will it not pertain to
the Creator of the ages, to have a being elder than the world and Co-eternal with the
Father? no one will doubt it of those who are accustomed to think aright. When therefore
He emptied Himself receiving servant's form, then, then, desirous to mount up unto the
glory inherent in Him by Nature and along with the Flesh which was united to Him, in fit
season does He say, Do THOU Father glorify Me with Thyself with the glory that I had
before the world was with Thee;

14 that the world may believe that THOU sentest Me, and I, the glory which Thou hast given
Me, have given them, that they may be one as WE are One, I in them, and THOU in Me that
they may be perfected into one. Through Him therefore have we had the reconciliation, for
thus hath He perfected the work which the Father hath given Him for consummation. And the
supporter of my words will I make again the most holy Paul who thus wrote to those who
have been called out of the Gentiles, But now in Christ Jesus YE who sometime were far off
were made nigh in the Blood of Christ: for He is our Peace, Who made both one and undid
the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His Flesh the enmity, the law of
commandments in ordinances, for to make in Himself of twain one new man, making peace; and
that He might reconcile both unto God in one body through the cross, having slain the
enmity therein, and came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that
were nigh, and again elsewhere too, Justified therefore by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have been reconciled to God the Father through
the death of His Son, who brought to nought or slew the enmity in His Flesh, according to
the faith of the sacred scriptures.

15 But thyself art undoing the words of the economy and deignest not to confess that the
Word of God hath suffered in the flesh for our sakes, making use of certain unskilful
loquacity: for thou sayest that Son is a name common to the Word Which sprang of God and
to ourselves. Then having made God the Word, through Whom we have been saved, no worker of
the good things that have been wrought to us-ward, thou wilt be evidently caught allotting
the things wherein He is glorified to one as we, conceived of as other than He and apart,
and thou supposest that community of name will suffice full well for demonstration of what
thou saidst and unrightly thoughtest; not considering that even though with things which
obtain by nature the being ought, certain other of things that be, be said to be co-named,
one must not therefore thrust away the things that are by nature, ever putting their
properties about those which are by adoption or imitation. But we must (I deem) ever test
the natures of things done and allot them to whomsoever they rightly pertain. As for
example, the Father is named and is in truth God, and from Him is every father-hood both
in heaven and upon earth named, as it is written, yet are there with us other fathers too
both fleshly and spiritual.

16 If therefore ought of things most God-befitting be said of God the Father, will it
belong to those too who by adoption obtain the same title with Him, and will the identity
of name thrust Him away from the things which in the highest degree befit Him alone? yet
how is it not evident to all that it is both absurd and discordant that any of ours should
be minded thus to think and say? Why then dost thou ever talking to us of community of
name, dishonour the by Nature and truly Son, putting Him forth and rendering Him alien
from kindly deeds to usward? albeit thou oughtest to gather into union what thou blushest
not utterly to sever, and [oughtest] to deem one with His own Flesh the Word that is out
of God the Father: for thus wilt thou free thyself from much toil, and deeming aright wilt
at length be praised. And thou wilt in no wise say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten
is passible, but wilt with us confess that He is Life and Life-giving by Nature and
moreover beyond all suffering; next that the flesh suffering which was united to Him, He
by the grace of God, as it is written, tasted death for every man, that having shewn His
own Temple superior to him who had conquered all that are on the earth, He might be called
the firstfruits of them that slept and the firstborn from the dead:

17 transmitting to us too the grace, that being One and Only Son, both before the
Incarnation and after it He might yet be called Saviour and Redeemer of all: and freeing
(as I said) from sin all who believe on Him, might become peace to them that are afar and
to the near, reconciling through Himself to God the Father them who of old worshipped the
creature and through sin were at enmity with the All-good God. 18 But severing again into
a pair of sons the One Lord Jesus Christ, he says after this wise: "Hear their other
testimony also; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Lo he
says the Lord of glory, he calls not so the manhood but the Godhead. But this belongs to
those who pluck asunder the accurate connection, for when thou sayest, This is not Lord,
but the other is, THOU makest Christ a mere man. What then dost thou say, o heretic in
clerical form ? is the man too Lord or not? if then he be Lord, the things said agree; if
he be not Lord, do not THOU making Christ a mere man, fasten the reproach of it on me."
Then he says, "Hear we the blessed Paul openly crying out who He is who is crucified. Hear
then most plainly the voice, For (says he) He was crucified out of weakness, yet He liveth
out of the Power of God. If He were crucified out of weakness, who was it who was weak,
heretic? God the Word?"

19 §2. He is carried away unto absurd thoughts and unto a reprobate mind, in no wise
understanding the force of the mystery, as seems to me, but rather every way following his
own devices and haply afraid, lest he should be caught either thinking or saying ought
that pertains to Tightness or truth. For he arrays against himself, as he supposes, the
words of the orthodox, but is caught again putting those things which no one of those who
are wont to walk aright as to the Faith, would even so much as endure another saying. For
we say that He which was crucified is Lord of glory, and He is so of a truth: yet
acknowledging that the Word of God is inseverable and one with the flesh united, to Him
having a reasonable soul, we say that He it is Who offered Himself, as it were the
Immaculate Offering and most sweet-smelling Sacrifice of His Own Body, to God the Father,
and nailed to the wood the handwriting that was against us. And one may hear Him say by
the mouth of David, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not but a Body preparedst Thou
Me, whole burnt sacrifices and for sin Thou tookest no pleasure in: then said I, Lo I come
(in the volume of the book it has been written of Me) to do Thy Will, o God. The
commandment according to the Law now availing nought, and perfecting nothing, and God the
Father holding the sacrifices through blood unacceptable;----He says that a Body has been
prepared for Himself, in order that giving it a Ransom for the salvation and life of all,
He might redeem all, from both death and decay and yet more from sins.

20 We say then that the very Word out of God the Father chose even to suffer for us in the
flesh, according to the Scriptures: thus hath the most holy Paul instructed us, Who being
in the Form of God held not the being Equal with God a thing to seize, but emptied Himself
taking servant's form, made in likeness of man and found in fashion as a man, He humbled
Himself and became obedient unto death, the death of the cross, wherefore God also highly
exalted Him. View now how He That is in the Form of God the Father as God, the Impress of
His Person and in no wise falling short, being and being conceived of in Equality in
everything, hath emptied Himself and brought Himself down of His own will unto lowliness.
21 What then (tell me) will be the mode of the emptying, how again has He been abased
receiving servant's form and made obedient unto death, the death of the Cross? is it not
clear to all that the High is abased, not that which from itself and of its own nature is
in abasement and brought low; that (I suppose) is emptied which is full and in need of
nought; receives the servant's form which before it was free by nature, He is found to be
man too Who was not so, before He was so found when He was not? Who then is He That was
High by Nature and abased Himself unto lowliness? who the full, that He may be conceived
of as emptied? who He That is beyond the measures of bondage, that so He may be said to
take the bondman's form? who that not being aforetime man as we is said to have been so
found? For I suppose that to dare to allot this to one of those as we and to a common man,
would be folly and verily replete with the uttermost of all unwit, but it will pertain
with all reason to the Supreme Nature.

22 But the Word of God, of His exceeding Clemency and Kindness towards us, hath offered
for us His own Body and having taken the servant's form, hath become obedient to God the
Father unto death: and the choice to suffer in the Flesh, He made not a thing to be
spurned, albeit by Nature Impassible as God. Yet does this man foolishly blush at His most
God-befitting schemes for us, and thinking he honours Him, wrongs Him: for he bears Him
away from the suffering, though no one else says that He suffers in His own Nature; and
does not perceive that he forbids Him to be confessed Saviour and Redeemer of all, if so
be that he is son and lord other than He, separately and apart, through whom we have been
saved and redeemed through the precious Cross. And if so be he be simply man, and not
rather the Word out of God the Father appearing in human form, let him come, let him shew
that he is both in the Form of the Father and in Equality with Him (for He thought not the
being equal with God a thing to seize) and moreover that he took the form of the servant
as at one time not possessing it, and came to be in emptiness, as possessing fulness in
his own nature: for the Divine-uttering Paul says that He Who is in the Form and Equality
with God the Father, was made obedient unto Him even to death, the death of the Cross.

23 Is not then the absurdity of their notions manifest? when blessed Paul calls Him that
was crucified Lord of glory, no one will say, 'He is not speaking of the human nature but
the Godhead.' For we confess One Christ and Son and Lord of Glory, the Word out of God the
Father made man for our sakes and suffering for us in the flesh, according to the
Scriptures. 24 But he in no small measure blaming, as wishing to pluck asunder the
accurate connection (as himself says), those who allot to God the Word the name of
Lordship and bear it away from the human nature:----he falling into forgetfulness of what
he said, is caught plucking asunder into two the One, and little recking of accurate
(according to him) connection. For he unlearnedly enquires, "Is the man too lord or not?
if then he be lord, the things said harmonize." Hence if according to thy witless enquiry,
the Word is Lord by Himself and the man lord, two surely are the lords and sons. The force
then of accurate connection will in no wise profit them who have believed that one ought
to conceive of One Christ and Son and Lord with the Flesh united to Him. For the Person of
Immanuel being put and brought forward, though one should say man, we conceive of the Word
out of God the Father having taken the servant's form and say that He is shewn by the
measures of emptiness: and if [we say] Only-Begotten God, we believe the Same now
Incarnate and made Flesh. But he (as I said) allotting to a man, individual and alone and
considered apart from the Word Which is out of the Father, the achievements of the Economy
with flesh, says that he too endured the cross for us and affirms that he is the Lord of
glory, putting about a mere creature the glories of the Supreme Nature, for he says, "Let
us hear the blessed Paul openly exclaiming who he is that is crucified; for verily He was
crucified out of weakness but He liveth out of the Power of God; who is weak o heretic, is
it God the Word?"

25 Utterly imparticipate therefore of all weakness is the Word out of God the Father by us
believed to be: for He is the Lord of Hosts. But tell me this, art thou afraid to admit
the appellation of weakness in respect to Him? why? albeit the Economy with flesh puts Him
apart from all blame, even though He be said to suffer ought of what is beside His own
Nature and glory: for if being Rich He became poor and was made as we receiving servant's
form, even though He should be said to be weak by reason of the human nature, there is
nought repugnant, that you should see the Hich poor, the High in low estate, the Lord of
Hosts in weakness as we. Marvellous on this account also is the mystery respecting Him.
For how is He said also to hunger, albeit Himself the Bread of Life and Who came down from
Heaven and giveth Life to the world? how was He wearied with the journey, Who stablisheth
the Heavens with His own Spirit?

26 But thou wilt not endure (it seems) if one say these things of the Only-Begotten
Himself, albeit investigating thine own words I find them clearly saying, as of the Person
of the Only-Begotten, "The form of God, I am clad in servant's form: being God the Word,
am seen in flesh: Lord of all, am clad for your sakes in person of a poor man: hungering
visibly, I supply food to the hungry." 27 §3. How then, say, didst thou fearing the
appellation of weakness and bearing it away from Him, albeit the plan of the economy will
it not, say that He hungers visibly, i. e., humanly, yet Divinely supplies food to the
hungry? dost thou not say that it is a form of weakness to be in need of food and to be
said to hunger as we? but against them who desire to be fault-finders, full strong will
the mode of the economy array itself. We must therefore, either bearing Him away from all
things that are said humanly and in mean wise, put such passions about a mere man, or
considering that He being God has been made as we, confess that He is impassible in
respect of the Nature of the Godhead, but say besides that He endured the weakness in our
behalf, according to the human nature and after the flesh, I mean. Since, tell me who ask
thee again, The Divine-uttering Paul says that He has been crucified out of weakness; but
dost thou bear away this thing from God the Word, saying (I suppose) that it is small and
ignoble and not worthy of Him? Other therefore than He is he that was crucified, Whom also
our Divine instructor calls Lord of glory, saying, For had they known, they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory. Hath He, then yet remained Lord of Glory Who put it aside and
endured this ignoble and mean suffering?

28 If therefore He hath remained so, neither hath He any loss through being weak. How then
fearedst thou to say that the Word of God came to be in this case economically? But if He
truly fell from being any longer Lord of glory, and any one affirm that it is so, he will
incur the charge of the most utter blasphemy and that with reason: for to Him boweth every
knee and every tongue shall confess Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. For
over all that is under Heaven extendeth the glory of Christ Who suffered for us in the
flesh, as we have full often said. When therefore thou nearest the Spirit-clad saying, He
was crucified out of weakness but He liveth of the Power of God, understand it piously:
for he says that He hath suffered humanly, albeit He hath a nature utterly beyond passion.
And so having, He bare with the weak flesh and having suffered death humanly, He lived
again Divinely, Himself quickening His own Temple, as the Might of the Father.

29 And verily when the time was now at hand in which He must endure the Cross for us, He
went away and prayed saying, Father if it he possihle, let this cup pass from Me, but
added hereto at the close of His Prayer, Nevertheless not as I will but as THOU. But since
He albeit Word and God all-Powerful, has once been held to be in weakness like we, He
giving the cause of this most economically, says, The spirit indeed is willing, the flesh
weak. Consider therefore how He though Himself letting go nought, nor yet suffering
weakness in His own Nature, permitted His Flesh to go after its own laws, and this thing
is said to be His, because His Body is His own. Hence the being weak according to the
Flesh proved to us that He was Man, the not enduring death and scaring away decay from His
own Body that He is God Who knows not to be weak: for He is the Life and Might of the
Father. For that the weakness herein unwonted and unwilled by Him , He made voluntary in
the good-pleasure of God the Father, to save all under Heaven, Himself will teach saying,
For I have come down from Heaven, not to do Mine own Will but the Will of Him That sent
Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up at the
last day.

30 Yet how, if the will of the Father be good, does the Son say that He has His own Will,
a good one surely, and other than this? For if it be not good, how is He any longer
believed to be His Image and Impress? how will He be true, saying, I and the Father are
One, and, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father? for not in the not good, would one
behold the Good by Nature. But verily the Son being Good hath sprung from a Good Father
and is His exact Image in everything. What Will therefore, which He says is His own, does
He letting go, say that He hath done that of the Father? He was about by the death of His
own Flesh to set free from death those who had become subject thereto, i. e., us. But to
die in the Flesh was ignoble, and unwonted (as I said) and repugnant to Him: yet hath He
endured this too for our sakes in the Good-pleasure of the Father. For He knew, He knew
and that well that a little dishonoured by reason of the sufferings of the Flesh He should
save all, transforming them unto what was incomparably better. For if any be in Christ, a
new creature, old things are gone by, behold all things have become new, as it is written.

31 The God-inspired Scriptures therefore proclaim to the world One Christ and Son and Lord
and say that He is the Lord of Glory and that He of His own Will bare for our sakes the
contumelies of the Jews, and economically endured Death upon the wood, not in order with
us to remain dead, but that having undone the might of death which none might withstand,
He might bring again to immortality the nature of man: for He was God in Flesh. But this
man again essaying to gather to himself from all quarters occasions of severing into two
the One, arrays himself to no purpose against those who exist not at all, and makes
accusal of certain as though they spake against the truth and desired to adulterate the
plan of the mystery, and says, "Here I would gladly enquire of the heretics who mix up
into one essence the Nature of the Godhead and of the Manhood, who he is here who is by
the traitor betrayed to the Jews: for if there have been a mixture of both, both were
together holden of the Jews, both God the Word and the nature of the manhood: which is it
that endured the slaughter? I am obliged to use meaner words that what I say may be plain
to all. To whom (tell me) befell this deed? for if the Nature of the Godhead, how darest
thou commingle both? God hath both remained unholden of the Jews and hath not shared with
the flesh in its slaughter: whence (tell me) dost thou get in the mixture?

32 §4. If then there be who say that there has been a commingling of the natures one with
another and that they undergo an impossible fusion, and who maintain that the Nature of
the Word could suffer change into flesh, or the Flesh united to Him ever pass into
Godhead; they have erred from the truth and, out of their right mind, yea rather sick with
the veriest distraction, they shall hear from us, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures nor
the Power of God; for steadfast is the Nature of God the Word, nor knows it to suffer a
shadow of turning, but participate in flesh and blood and taking part with us in the same,
as it is written, He abode the Same. But if every one who is educated in the Holy
Scriptures holds it repugnant to so much as hear that any change was wrought in the Only-
Begotten, why dost thou admitting as true and really spoken things so disgraceful and
condemned by one voice by all and utterly rejected, essay to sever the Indivisible and
that after the Union? For if thou wouldest indeed of a truth learn who it is who is by the
traitor given up to the Jews, and endured slaughter, thou wilt clearly hear, The One and
Only Christ and Son and Lord, that is the Word out of God Who took the servant's form,
made man and Incarnate:

33 for He was sold by the traitor to the rulers of the Jews, and was holden humanly,
because He was Man too along with abiding God, but Divinely He was convicting the weakness
of them who hold Him. And this the Divine-uttering Evangelist John makes manifest to us,
thus writing, Judas therefore having received the band and officers from the chief priests
and Pharisees cometh thither with torches and lanterns and weapons; Jesus knowing all
things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? they
answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am. And Judas which betrayed Him
was standing with them. When therefore He said unto them, I am, they went backward and
fell to the ground. Hearest thou that He does not let them who have been gathered together
by the traitor behave themselves proudly against His Glory? for He offered Himself saying,
I am, but they unstrung by the voice alone, went backward.

34 And that it was no work of their own strength to hold Him, but that in his season and
in need He made death for us welcome, He hath proved saying, As a robber came ye forth
with swords and staves to take Me? daily did I sit in the Temple teaching, and ye laid no
hold on Me, but all this has been done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be
fulfilled. For what He hath of old foretold through the holy Prophets, this hath He
fulfilled, abasing Himself unto emptiness Who is above all the creation, and found in
fashion as a man Who is in the Form and Equality with the Father. 35 Why then dost thou,
essaying to bring in privily the name of mixture, wrong in the ears of the more simple the
marvel of the economy with flesh? for it does not befit thee bitterly and harshly to come
forward saying, "Was God the Word holden? did the nature of the Godhead undergo
slaughter?" That of no accurate . . . . thou art saying such things, thou wilt know hence
and that easily. We say that the holy Martyrs have been perfected, choosing to suffer all
things in order that having striven the good strife, finished their course, kept the
faith, they might bind on them the crown of true relationship to Christ. If then any were
to come forward and ask, When the bodies of the saints were torn by the steel or wasted by
fire or again when they first became prisoners, were their souls holden along with their
bodies? did they too become the work of fire and sword? albeit we say that they [the
souls] were apart from their bodies, enduring nought of such contumelies in their own
nature. Will they therefore (tell me) be for this reason imparticipate of the crowns,
because they have not suffered the things of the body? But verily the word of truth does
not put them apart from suffering, for they suffered the things of their own, not those of
others' bodies.

36 Unlearned then is it to want to ask whether the nature of the Godhead have been
betrayed along with the flesh, or whether It were holden in the meshes of the Jews or
endured the slaughter also: but it is pious to conceive rather that the Word will surely
and entirely make His own the sufferings that have befallen His own Flesh, but abode
Impassible as God yet not external to His suffering Body . But he involving in charges of
absurdity the things so economically wrought, and again and again saying that the Nature
of the Godhead ought not to be said by any to have undergone slaughter, unholily arrays
the force of the Mystery about a man by himself, and says that he it is who was crucified
and endured death for the life of the world. For I hear him saying in another exposition
of his, "This is he who was encircled in the thorny Crown, this he who saith, My God, My
God why forsookest Thou Me? this he who endured a three days' death."

37 §5. Such things then doth he say, following his own aim, but WE will shew him a wiser
and truer Emmanuel, the whole world's Saviour and Redeemer. For the Word, as we have full
often said, was made flesh, and making His own, a Body which knew to suffer contumelies
and death, He hath given it for us and, as the Divine-uttering Paul saith, endured the
cross, despising the shame. For was it not shame and a sort of abashment to Him that hath
a Nature All-Strong and Quickening and above suffering, to seem to be crucified out of
human weakness and to come to death after the flesh? And verily the Same saith through the
voice of Isaiah, My Back I have given to scourges, My Cheeks to blows, My Face turned I
not away from the shame of spittings, and again, Therefore was I not confounded, but I set
My Face as a firm rock and I know that I shall not be ashamed, for He is near that
justifieth Me. For as far as regards the impious multitudes of the Greeks and also of the
Jews, the Mystery of Christ is reputed a stumbling block alike and foolishness, for they
deride (miserable ones!) the Precious Cross; but the end of the weakness (as it seemed to
them) resulted in might of glory most truly God-befitting. For through the Resurrection
from the dead it has been testified that He is God and Son of God in truth, as superior to
death and decay, and is worshipped by all together with Him Who begat Him.

38 And hear the sacred Scriptures proclaiming to us this very thing: Thus saith the Lord,
Sanctify Him That holdeth light His Soul, Him that is abhorred by the nations, the
servants, the rulers: kings shall see Him and princes shall rise up and worship Him.
Confess (it said) that He is Holy by Nature as God, Who held cheaply His own Soul, i. e.,
despised His own life (for He hath laid it down for His sheep, as Good Shepherd): Him Whom
the nations vilely esteemed, servants and officers insulted with blows, while the
multitudes of the Pharisees impiously outraged Him, Him shall kings see and rise up, Him
shall princes worship, as God, that is, who descended into emptiness, in order that
suffering in the flesh, He might save all under Heaven. This is He Who for us was
encircled with the Thorny Crown, this, not another, He Who as Man is crucified and says,
My God My God why forsookest Thou Me? yet who restrains as God the Light of the sun, and
makes it night in mid-day that we should not confess Him Man, simply honoured with mere
connection (according to thee) with the Word I mean That is out of God, but should believe
rather that He is God, in likeness as we, and in servant's form, remembering Him Who saith
by a Saint's voice, And I will clothe the Heavens with darkness, and I will make their
covering as sackcloth.

39 For He Who speaketh is at hand, and what He of old hath as God foresignified would be,
He in due season was fulfilling, crucified as Man. For the Heaven put on darkness, all but
a mourning dress, the sun no longer giving the brightness of its rays to them who had
durst outrage the Lord and God of all, hath foresignified the darkness which they should
have in mind and heart. For the blessed David too sings somewhere of them, Let their eyes
he darkened that they see not and bow down their back alway. And the veil too of the
Temple was rent, revealing now to those who believe on Him the holy of holies and shewing
the most inward parts, the first tabernacle no longer standing, but the way into the holy
now made manifest, that is into the holy of holies. For holy confessedly was the Law too,
in that it was the furnisher of righteousness, our guide too unto Christ: yet incomparably
holier is the life in Christ esteemed, and more excellent and in better case the worship
in spirit and in truth than that in shadows and types. Will not such achievements then be
God-befitting and above the nature of man? hath not the saving Passion shamed the
wavingsword, brought man again into Paradise? for Christ said to the robber who hung with
Him, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise: beamed He not on them that were in darkness,
uttering with authority, Shew yourselves?

40 For He has emptied Hell as God, and loosed from their bonds those who were in it: and
He it was Who of old crieth out to the most enduring Job, Camest thou into the springs of
the sea? walkedst thou in the tracks of the depth? are the gates of death open to thee in
fear [of thee]? did the doorkeepers of hell seeing thee tremble? 41 Wherefore then
blushest thou not allotting things that are yet God-befitting to one as we and to a mere
man? For that the Word of God Himself, taking servant's form, participate in flesh and
blood, endured to give His own Body to death for our sakes and, being Impassible by
Nature, suffered in the Flesh of His own will, the all-wise Paul will give us proof,
writing, Giving thanks unto the Father Which made us meet to be partakers of the lot of
the saints in light, Who delivered us from the authority of darkness and translated us
into the kingdom of the Son of His Love, in Whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins, Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; for in Him
were created all things in Heaven and upon earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or lordships or principalities or authorities, all things were created through Him and
unto Him, and He is before all things and in Him all things consist, and He is the Head of
the body, the Church, Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all
things He might have the preeminence. See now the Priest of His Mysteries said and that
very clearly that the Very God the Word, through Whom are all things and in Whom are all
things, Who is the Image of the Invisible God; He through Whom were brought into being
both the things which are in Heaven and those on earth, the visible and invisible; He Who
is before all things, in Whom all things consist; has been given as Head to the Church,
and is Himself the firstborn from the dead.

42 But (you will perhaps say) the Word out of God the Father is by Nature Life; how then
or in what way might Life die? well: necessary and useful is your question. Therefore unto
the force of the mystery is serviceably taken, that we conceive and say that the ever-
living and Life-giving Word of God was made Flesh, i. e., made His own a Body recipient of
death, that Himself might be conceived to suffer, because His Very own Body suffered. For
thus do we say that He became the firstfruits of them that slept, and the firstborn from
the dead: for He is said to have been laid with us in a tomb through His own flesh, Who
raiseth the dead, that we too might be co-raised with Him: for this way did He inaugurate
for us and for this hath He humbled Himself, abasing Himself unto emptiness and unto
manhood with us; albeit the Only-Begotten is God by Nature and beamed from God the Father.

43 But he thinks (it seems) that they who suppose that these things are so, and who deem
aright, have advanced to the goal of the uttermost distraction; and everywhere alleging
that we ought to confess the Word out of God the Father to be Impassible, he removes from
Him and that utterly the mode of His Economy: and thinks it not meet either to think or
say that He suffered for us, albeit the God-inspired Scripture says that He suffered in
the Flesh, He both Impassible and Unembodied, because the Body suffered that is His own
and united to Him. He says again thus, 44 "Therefore concerning our first-fruits, blessed
Peter telling, and relating the exaltation by the Godhead of the nature that is seen,
says, This Jesus God raised up. God did not dio, He raised up. Hear, o Apolinarius, the
words of Peter, hear with Apolinarius, thou too Arius. This Jesus, he says, God raised up,
the visible, him who was seen with the eyes, affixed to the wood, handled by the hands of
Thomas, who cried to him, Handle Me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me
have. And by these words the disciple persuaded, and by the handling of the crucified body
persuaded of the resurrection, began to glorify the wonder-working God, Glory to Thee , my
Lord and my God: not addressing as God that which was handled, for not by handling is the
Godhead discerned." And after other, "Of this that was handled was Peter too exclaiming,
This Jesus God raised up, being therefore by the Right Hand of God exalted. God the Word
had no need of an aiding right hand, o Arius." §6. The Son raiseth up the dead and we say
that He is superior to death, for we remember Him Who hath openly said, I am the
Resurrection and the Life: yet when the Divine-uttering Peter announces to us saying, This
Jesus God raised up, we believe that the Word made man is Jesus Himself. How then will one
say that He has been raised by the Father and exalted by His Right Hand? for I think that
this should be clearly set forth to those who cannot understand, in order that cutting off
occasion of stumbling, we may set forth the way of truth straight and most unerring.

45 He gave therefore His own Body to death for a little while: for by the grace of God, as
Paul saith, He tasted death for every man. Then being Himself the Life-giving Right Hand
and Power of God the Father, He rendered it superior to decay and death: and of this He
gives us assurance saying to the Jews, Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise
it up. Understand therefore that Himself promises to rear His own Temple, albeit God the
Father is said to raise it: for the Son is, as I said, the Life-giving Right Hand and
Power of the Father. So that even though the Father be said to work the quickening of the
Divine Temple, He hath wrought it through the Son, and though the Son again be seen to
work it, yet not without the Father in the Spirit. For One is the Nature of Godhead,
conceived of in three several Persons, and having Its motion and Operation, spiritual I
mean and God-befitting, in regard to all things that are done.

46 The body therefore yielded to the laws of its own nature, and admitted the taste of
death, the Word united thereto permitting it for profit's sake to suffer this: but was
quickened by the Divine power of the Word Personally united to it. We conceive then of
Whole Emmanuel, which is interpreted, With us is God, when we hear the Divine-uttering
Peter say, This Jesus God raised up; and though thou speak of the visible and affixed to
the wood, of "him who was handled by the hands of Thomas," no less do WE conceive of the
Word out of God the Father Incarnate, and confess One and the Same Son. For being
Invisible by Nature He hath become visible, because His too was the visible Body. And
verily the Divine David sings to us, God shall come manifestly, our God and shall not keep
silence, and moreover the blessed Habaccuc, God shall come from Teman and the Holy One
from the deep-shaded mountain. He being also Impalpable is said to have become palpable by
reason of the Body united to Him.

47 And Luke writes, Since many essayed to set forth in order an account of those things
which have been most surely believed among us, even as they handed them to us which from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, and to this the wise John
saith, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our
eyes, which we looked on and our hands handled, of the Word of Life, and the Life was
manifested and we have seen and bear witness and declare to you the eternal life which was
with the Father and was manifested to us. Yet had He not become palpable and visible, as
having for His own a Body which is subject to touch and sight, how had the all-wise
disciples been made eye-witnesses of the Word? how had they both seen, and say that they
handled the Word of Life, Which was with the Father and was manifested to us? This very
Same therefore Which was both palpable and visible, Which was affixed to the wood, Thomas
recognized and did rightly confess to be God and Lord: for he said immediately, My Lord
and my God. Then said to him our Lord Jesus Christ, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast
believed, blessed they which have not seen and believed. Believed what, tell me? is it not
that being God by Nature, He raised from the dead His own Temple? yet how could there be
any doubt of this?

48 But this good man, all but foolishly ashamed of the words of the disciple, says not,
'He confessed Him that He is both Lord and God, the Firstborn from the dead:' but rather
he perverts to his own pleasure the force of the word and says that he "began to glorify
the wonder-working God, saying, My Lord and my God," and subjoins, "Not addressing as God
that which was handled, for not by the touch is the Godhead discerned." Blamest thou
therefore (tell me) the disciple calling Christ Lord and God? though our argument has but
just now shewn that the Only Begotten being by Nature God, Impalpable and Invisible,
became palpable and visible. But when thou sayest, "for not by the touch is the Godhead
discerned," we again will say, Why dost thou, thrusting aside the Economy discourse of
Godhead as though bare? and rushing full speed to forgetfulness that the Impalpable and
Unembodied was both Incarnate and made Man, endurest not the God-inspired Scripture naming
Him God, because that He had been both handled in flesh and likewise seen of the holy
Apostles? But WE, my friend, together with blessed Thomas, crowning with the praises
befitting Him, Him That was affixed to the wood, Him That was handled by hands and seen of
human eyes, say, My Lord and my God.

49 But that though a man should say that the Word of God suffered in His own Flesh, he
would not be without share in being praise-worthy nor in having chosen to think the truth
(for even thus hath He abode Impassible): I will essay to shew again from what thyself
hast written or saidst in Church. For thou deemest worthy of praise our holy Fathers,
those (I mean) who were in their season gathered together at Nicea, as having formed full
well for us an accurate and finished confession of faith: yet thou thinkest not what they
do (whence should'st thou?) nor yet fixing thy mind on the doctrines of the truth, dost
thou long to go straight, but haltest on both thighs, as it is written: foolishly blaming
the lovers of right doctrine, yet holding for truth what liketh thyself, yea rather not
even caring to abide in what thyself saidst, for I find thee saying of the holy fathers,

50 "For since if they had said, We believe in One God the Word, death would have been
imputed to the Divine Nature, they admit a common term, Christ Jesus, that they may
indicate both Him That died, and him that did not die." And he adds, "So that if a man
should say, Such an one is dead, though the soul is immortal, yet since he said the word
which iudicates the two natures, both the mortal body and the immortal soul, the
expression is free from risk: for both are called man, both the body and the soul: thus it
is therefore that that great band spake of Christ." 51 §7. That in naming Christ Jesus,
they did not indicate two several sons, having a common name, Christ Jesus, but rather the
Word out of God made Man, I think no one that deems aright will gainsay, and I think it
superfluous for us to yet array many words on this matter besides what have been already
said. Yet if thou be not persuaded by our words to think that though we say that the Word
of God hath suffered in the Flesh for our sakes, we hold Him even thus Impassible as God,
at least allow to thine own words that they appear to have been rightly framed. For just
as he who said man, indicated the soul together with the body although it be of other
nature than it; and even though such an one's body were said to be dead, the whole person
would reasonably be held to have suffered this, albeit he possess a soul which is not
recipient of death: so of Christ too the Saviour of us all. For since the Word out of God
the Father (as we have repeatedly said) hath partaken of blood and flesh in like manner as
we, and made His own the Body that is of the holy Virgin and has thus been called Son of
man too; for this reason when His Flesh died, the plan of true union attributes the
suffering to Him, yet knows that He hath remained apart from suffering because He is both
God by Nature and Life.

52 And verily the Divine-uttering Peter setting before us this teaching says of Him
somewhere to them that believe on Him, Whom having not seen ye love, on Whom, though now
ye see Him. not, yet believing, ye exult with joy unutterable and glorified, receiving the
fulfilment of your faith, the salvation of your souls, of which salvation the prophets
searched out and examined into, who prophesied of the grace to youward, searching what or
what manner of time the Spirit of Christ Which was in them was signifying, when It
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, unto whom
it was revealed that not unto themselves but to us they were ministering the things which
are now declared unto us through them that preached the Gospel unto us with the Holy Ghost
sent down from Heaven: which things the Angels long to look into. 53 Hearest thou that the
Spirit of Christ was in the holy Prophets too, and that they proclaimed beforehand the
sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow? Did they then proclaim to the world
as though a mere man were suffering for us? and is this the mystery which through our holy
Apostles and Evangelists hath been given in trust, and into these things does he say that
the Angels long to look? yet how is not he to be utterly repudiated who essays to shut up
the might of the mystery within the limits of the human nature alone? God the Word
Himself, Who is in the Form of God the Father, hath emptied Himself taking servant's form
and hath undergone birth in the flesh for our sakes, Himself hath suffered for us in His
own Flesh, and He lived again as God, having emptied Hades and said to them that were in
bonds, Come forth, and to them that were in darkness, Shew yourselves. Why then essayest
thou to overturn the so dread and marvellous economy through which we have been both saved
and have been brought within all good? for what we gained through it, thou wilt know and
that very clearly, since blessed Paul hath thus written, And you that were sometime
alienated and enemies n your mind in wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body
oj His flesh through death to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His
sight if so be ye endure in the Faith.

54 Therefore the faith profits them who will hold it unshaken; how it profits, the all-
wise John will assure us saying, Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth
that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ,
not in water only, but in water and blood, and the Spirit is Truth; for three testify, the
Spirit, the water and the Blood, and the Three are One. If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater, for this is the witness of God, because He hath witnessed
concerning His Son: he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself, he
that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believed not the testimony which
He hath testified regarding His Son. And how God the Father hath testified to His Son, the
Divine-uttering John the Baptist will declare saying. And I knew Him not, but He That sent
me to baptize with water, He said to me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending
and remaining upon Him, This is He Which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and have
testified that This is the Son of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ therefore is witnessed to
through the Father's Voice, that He is by Nature and in truth His Son, He is witnessed to
no less through the water and the Blood and the Spirit.

55 For by the holy water He purgeth away the sins of them that believe, He quickeneth
through His own Blood and connecteth to God them on the earth: and since He is God by
Nature He maketh also richly the grant of the Holy Ghost, pouring It forth as His own into
the hearts of them who believe, and making them partakers of the Divine Nature, and
crowning them with the hope of the good things to come. 56 We confess therefore One Son,
Christ Jesus the Lord, that is, the Word of God made Man and Incarnate and Him crucified
and raised from the dead and to come in due time in the Glory of God the Father with the
holy Angels; through Him and with Him to God the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for
ever. Amen. [A small selection of footnotes and marginalia, omitting all biblical
references, follows]


THAT CHRIST IS ONE
==================

THAT CHRIST IS ONE Cyril of Alexandria

c. AD 376–444

Patriarch of Alexandria; opponent of Nestorius.

THAT CHRIST IS ONE

Cyril of Alexandria — THAT CHRIST IS ONE by way of dispute with Hermias

1 [Translated by P. E. Pusey] Wrong thought of Christ either before the Incarnation or
when Incarnate. Nestorius. If Virgin not Mother of God, Christ not God. Objection to the
word "was made." He takes ours, gives us His. Meaning of name "Christ." The Incarnation
gives to the Son names no longer common to the Father and the Holy Ghost. "Connection.,,
"Reference, ,, ἀναφορά. Not Two Natures after the Incarnation : yet no confusion. The
Burning Bush a type. Union. Phil. ii. 5-9. The "emptying." A man not "made man." 2 Cor. i.
19. "Connection,, undoes union. "Yesterday To-day and for ever." S. John i. 29-31: S.
Matth. xiv. 32, xiii. 41. ἀνθρωπαῖος. The Incarnate Son called in O.T. " the glory of the
Lord." Objections put forward: Sanctifier and sanctified, received glory and exalted,
learning obedience and forsaken, fear of death, weariness, sleep, advancing in wisdom.
Perfect through sufferings. Impassible yet "suffered in the flesh." 2 Cor. xiii. 3, 4.
Equality of honour involves duality. S. John iii. 16. Phil. ii. 5-11. S. John xvii. 5, vi.
38. S. Matth. xxviii. 19. 1 Cor. i. 22-25. Suffering in the flesh. ONE SON begotten from
Eternity from forth the FATHER, in the last times born of a woman.

2 A. There shall no satiety of holy teachings ever come to them who are truly sound in
mind and who have gathered the life-giving knowledge into their understanding. For it is
written, Not by bread alone shall a man live but by every word that goeth forth through
the mouth of God. For the mind's nourishment and spiritual bread which stayeth man's
heart, as is sung in the book of Psalms, is the word which is from God. B. You say well.
A. The wise therefore and eloquent among the Greeks admire elegancy of speech, and good
language is among their chiefest aims and they make their boast in mere refinements of
words and revel in bombast of language : and their poets have for their material
falsehood, wrought by proportions and measures unto what is graceful and tuneful; but of
the truth they reck full little, sick with a scarcity of right and profitable doctrine, I
mean regarding God Who is by Nature and truly, yea rather as the most holy Paul says, They
became vain in their imaginations and their heart void of understanding was darkened.
Saying that they were wise they became foolish and changed the glory of the Incorruptible
God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts
and creeping things.

3 B. True, verily of them said God by the voice of Isaiah, Know ye that their heart is
ashes and they are deceived. A. Thus much for them : but they who have become inventors of
unholy heresies, profane and apostate and enlarging their unbridled mouth against the
Divine glory and uttering things perverted, will be caught as having of their folly
slipped into charges not slighter than those of the infatuation of the Greeks or haply
into charges even surpassing theirs. For it were better for them not to have known the way
of truth than having known it to turn back from the holy commandment given to them : for
the true proverb hath come to them, The dog returned to his own vomit, and, The washed sow
to the wallowing in the mire. For they parted amongst themselves the charges of blasphemy
against Christ and like fierce and bitter wolves they waste the flocks for which Christ
died, and despoil what is His, multiplying to themselves that which is not theirs, as it
is written, and weighting their yoke heavily, of whom may be said with much reason, They
went out from us but they were not of us.

4 B. Surely. A. Seasonably does our discourse contend about such things. For some in their
lack of understanding do bring down the Only-Begotten Word of God from His Supreme
Excellence and lower Him from Equality with God the Father, affirming that He is not
Consubstantial, nor liking to crown Him with an Identity Exact and of Nature : others
going as it were along the same road with these and falling into the snare of death and
pitfall of Hades turn aside the mystery of the Economy with flesh of the Only-Begotten and
pursue a folly fraternal (so to speak) with the former. For the one will be caught
dragging down as it were (so far as in them lies) from the heights of His Godhead the Word
sprung of God the Father ere yet Incarnate; the others have elected to make war with Him
Incarnate, well-nigh finding fault (daring ones!) with His Pitying grace, maintaining
forsooth that it counselled not well for that He underwent flesh and the measures of our
emptiness, i. e. was made man and was seen on earth and conversed with men though God by
Nature and co-seated with the Father.

5 B. You say rightly. A. God-inspired Scripture therefore will cry out against the
unlearning of them both, setting forth to us the truth and shewing that feeble and of none
account is their speech, and establishing on the path of the Godhead them who are used to
view with subtil and accurate eye of understanding the Mystery thereof. But who they will
be who in unhallowed wise debase the so august and ineffable Economy of the Saviour (for
you seem to be in no small degree troubled about this very thing) I would fain ask you. B.
You testify rightly, for with jealousy am I jealous for the Lord, and, yet more, goaded am
I distraught and that exceedingly. And I fear when I look whither their words will end.
For they adulterate the faith that was delivered to us, using the inventions of the new-
seen dragon and pouring like venom into the souls of the simpler certain frigid and
perverse things and full of infatuation.

6 A. But who is this new-seen dragon and what his triflings against the doctrines of the
Truth tell to me who ask. B. The new-seen dragon, this crooked one and who has his tongue
drunk with venom, who all-but bids farewell to the tradition of the initiators of the
world, yea rather to all the God-inspired Scripture, and who innovates what seems good to
him and says that the holy Virgin is not Mother of God, but mother of Christ and mother of
man, bringing in moreover other things discordant and senseless, upon the right and
sincere doctrines of the Catholic Church. A. You say (I ween) Nestorius, for I understand,
but I do not know, my friend, the actual state of his words: how does he say that the holy
Virgin is not Mother of God? B. She bare not (he says) God: for the Word was before her
too, yea rather before every age and time, Co-eternal with God the Father.

7 A. They will therefore manifestly deny this too, that Emmanuel is God, and to no purpose
as it seems, does the Evangelist interpret the name saying, Which is interpreted, With us
is God, for thus did God the Father clearly affirm through the voice of the Prophet that
He was to be called Who has been born of the holy Virgin after the flesh, as God
Incarnate. B. Yet it appears to them to be not so, but they would say that with us is God
or the Word out of God, in the way of succouring us: for He hath saved all under heaven
through him who was born of woman. A. And was He not (tell me) with Moses too freeing
Israel from the land of the Egyptians and the tyranny there, in a strong hand and a high
arm, as it is written? shall we not find Him after this also saying clearly to Joshua, And
as I was with Moses so will I be with thee too?

8 B. True. A. Why then was none of these called Emmanuel, but the name befitted Him alone
Who was wondrously born after the flesh of a woman in the last times of the world? B. How
then shall we deem that God has been born of a woman? that the Word partook of Being, in
her and from forth her? A. Away with so frigid ill-advice! For these are the words of one
who wanders, and of a mind diseased with a turning aside to what it ought not, to think
that the Ineffable Being of the Only-Begotten has become fruit of flesh: He was as God Co-
Eternal with the Father Who begat Him and Ineffably begotten of Him by Nature. But to
those who would know clearly how and in what manner He appeared in likeness to us and
became man, the Divine Evangelist John will make it known, saying, And the Word was made
flesh and tabernacled in us (and we saw His glory, (the glory as of the Only-Begotten of
the Father) full of grace and truth.

9 B. Yet if the Word has become (they say) flesh, no longer hath It remained Word but hath
left being what It was. A. Verily this is jugglery and humbug and the inventions of a mind
beside itself and nought else. For they (it appears) are supposing that the word Was made
indicates as of unavoidable necessity, turning and change. B. Yes (they say), and they
moreover confirm their affirmation, taking proofs out of the God-inspired Scripture
itself. For it has been somewhere said (he says) of Lot's wife that she WAS MADE a pillar
of salt, and besides of Moses' Rod that he cast it on the ground and it WAS MADE a
serpent. For in these cases a change of nature took place. A. Therefore when certain sing,
And the Lord WAS MADE to me a refuge, and again, O Lord, Thou WERT MADE a refuge, to us in
generation and generation, what now will they say ? hath He Who is hymned, letting go His
being God, passed by a change into being a refuge, and removed He by Nature into something
other than what He was at first?

10 B. How is such a thing not incongruous and unbefitting Him Who is by Nature God: for
being by Nature without change, He abideth full surely what He was and ever is, even
though He be said to be made a refuge to any? A. You spoke most excellently, and very
right. Hence the mention of God being brought forward, if Was made be said by any body,
how is it not unlearned and unholy exceedingly to suppose that it means change, and not
rather to strive to conceive of it in some other way, and to turn in wisdom to what most
especially befits and is congruous to the Unchangeable God? B. How then do we say that the
Word WAS MADE flesh, preserving to It ever Unchangeableness and without-turning, as Its
own and Essentially innate to It? 11 A. The all-wise Paul, the steward of His mysteries,
the Priest of the Gospel preachings, will make it clear saying, He ye thus minded each one
in yourselves according to what was in Christ Jesus also, Who being in the Form of God
held not the being Equal to God a thing to seize, yet emptied Himself taking bondman's
form, MADE in likeness of men, and, found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, MADE
obedient unto death, the death of the Gross. For His Only-Begotten Word albeit God and out
of God by Nature, the Brightness of the glory and the Impress of the Person of Him Who
begat Him, WAS MADE man and that not turned into flesh, or undergoing commingling or
mixture or ought else of such like, but rather abasing Himself unto emptiness, and for the
joy set before Him despising shame and not dishonouring the poverty of the human nature.
For He willed as God to render the flesh which is holden of death and sin, superior to
both death and sin, and to restore it to what it was in the beginning, having made it His
own, not (as some say) soulless but ensouled with intellectual soul: yet, not disdaining
to go along the path hereto befitting, He is said to undergo a birth like ours, abiding
what He was. For He has been born in wondrous wise according to flesh of a woman:

12 for no otherwise was it possible that He being God by Nature should be seen by them on
earth than in likeness of us, the Impalpable and without body, yet Who thought good to be
made man and in Himself Alone to shew our nature illustrious in the dignities of Godhead:
for He the Same was God alike and man, and in likeness of man, in that herewith He was
also God, but in fashion as a man. For He was God in appearance as we, and in bondman's
form the Lord, for thus do we say that He was MADE FLESH. 13 Therefore do we affirm that
the holy Virgin is also mother of God. B. Does it like you that arraying their words
against yours we make a subtler scrutiny of the conceptions, or shall we yield it simply
to your word that the matter has been well apprehended? A. Irreprehensible as I deem is
all that will be said by us, wisely and skilfully and not repugnant to the God-inspired
Scriptures. But say, yourself too, what seems good to you: for a counter-plea will beget
something profitable. B. The Divine Paul writes (they say) of the Son as having BEEN MADE
both curse and sin : for he says, Him that knew not sin He made for our sakes sin, and
again, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, MADE for our sakes a curse. They say
that He was not MADE actual curse and sin, but the holy Scripture is indicating hereby
something else: thus they say that And the Word WAS MADE flesh is conceived of by us.

14 A. And verily as in saying that He WAS MADE a curse and sin, so this that He WAS MADE
flesh introduces with it and has in its horizon the conception of what follows thereupon.
B. How say you? for when one says of Him, He that knows not sin has BEEN MADE sin for us,
and has bought from the curse of the law also them who were under the law, MADE for their
sakes a curse, how should one doubt that this is in the times wherein the Only-Begotten
was Incarnate and MADE man? A. It introduces therefore with the mention of the Incarnation
the things too that on account thereof are economically brought upon Him Who underwent the
voluntary emptying, as are hunger and weariness. For as He would not have been wearied
Whose is all might, neither would He have been said to hunger, Himself the Food and life
of all, had He not made His own the body whose nature it is to hunger and be weary : so
neither would He ever have been numbered among transgressors (for thus do we say that He
WAS MADE sin ), He would not have been MADE a curse, enduring the cross for our sakes, had
He not been MADE flesh, i. e., been Incarnate and made man, enduring generation like ours
in human wise, that I mean through the holy Virgin.

15 B. I assent, for you deem aright. A. It is without understanding another respects too
to think and to say that the Word was in such sort MADE flesh as He WAS MADE a curse and
sin. B. What way do you mean? A. Was He not accursed that He might undo the curse and did
not the Father make Him sin that He might end sin? B. Thus do they too say. A. Therefore
if it is true, as it is understood by them to mean rightly, that the Word has in such sort
been MADE flesh, as He has been MADE both curse and sin; i. e. to the destruction of the
flesh; how will He render it incorruptible and indestructible, as having achieved this in
His own Flesh first? for He did not leave it to remain mortal and under decay, Adam
transmitting to us the punishment for the transgression, but rather as the flesh of the
uncorruptible God, Own and His, rendered it superior to death and to decay.

16 B. You say well. A. The sacred Scripture somewhere says, that the first man, i. e.
Adam, WAS MADE a living soul. Him that was after, i. e. Christ, a quickening spirit. Do we
then say that as for the destruction of curse and sin He was MADE curse and sin, so that
for the overthrow of being a living soul was He MADE a quickening spirit? for they
twisting into what is incongruous the force of MADE, say that He was in such wise MADE
flesh, as He was made both curse and sin. We must therefore take away the Incarnation, or
being made man, of the Word. Which when it is received as a verity, gone is the whole plan
of the Mystery; neither was Christ born, nor died, nor raised, according to the
Scriptures. Where therefore is the Faith, the word of faith which we preach? for how did
God raise Him from the dead except He also died? how died He except He was born after the
flesh? where too is the living again of the dead, bringing in for the saints a hope of the
undying life, except Christ have been raised? where too the quickening of our human
bodies, which is wrought by the participation of His holy Flesh and Blood?

17 B. We say then that the Word WAS MADE flesh in regard of the birth after the flesh from
a woman, which in the last ages of the world He is said to undergo, albeit before every
age as God. A. Full surely: for thus WAS He MADE in likeness to us in everything except
sin. And the all-wise Paul will testify saying, For since the little ones have partaken of
blood and flesh He too likewise partook of the same that through death He might destroy
him that hath the sway of death, that is the devil, and might free them who in fear of
death were through their whole life subject to bondage: for verily He taketh not hold of
angels but taketh hold of Abraham's seed, whence He ought in all things to be likened to
His brothers. The likeness in all things has as a sort of beginning and introduction
thereof the birth of a woman, and the manifestation in flesh of Him Who in His own Nature
is not visible, and the economic habitation in our estate of Him of mightiest Name, and
the lowliness in human nature of Him Who is high on the Thrones above, and that He Who is
in Lordship of Nature WAS MADE in servants' degree: for the Word was God.

18 B. You deem aright: yet know that those men say this too, that it is impossible and
uncomely to deem and to say that the Word Born of God the Father Ineffably and above our
understanding should undergo yet a second generation from out of woman: for it were enough
for Him (they say) to be once begotten of the Father in God-befitting wise. 19 A. They
find fault therefore with the Son and say that He counselled not aright in undergoing the
voluntary emptiness for our sake: brought to nought too and empty is now the august and
mighty Mystery of godliness, and the fair scheme of the Economy with flesh of the Only-
Begotten they represent as useless to them on the earth. But not to their stutterings does
the Word of truth give the mastery, but rather it will convict them as babbling things
most senseless and knowing not a whit the mystery of Christ. For God the Father hath
begotten of His own Self the Son by a single generation, yet did it please Him in Him to
save the human race by the means of Incarnation or being made man, which must full surely
take place through birth of a woman, in order that by the likeness to us of the Word that
is born from God, the law of sin in the members of our flesh might be condemned, death be
brought to nought in the likeness of the death of Him Who knows not death: for if we have
been co-planted (it says) in the likeness of His death so shall we be also in the likeness
of His Resurrection. Hence needs has He Who is and Who existeth been born after the flesh,
transferring ours into Himself in order that the offspring of flesh, that is we,
corruptible and perishing, might abide in Him Who at length has ours for His own in order
that WE too may have His. For for our sakes became He poor who is Rich in order that WE by
His Poverty might be rich.

20 But they by affirming that not Himself, the Word from out of God, WAS MADE flesh, or
underwent generation after the flesh from out of woman, take away the Economy. For unless
He being Rich became poor, lowering Himself out of His Clemency to our estate, neither
have WE gained the riches that are His, but are yet in poverty and holden of curse and
death and sin: for the Word BEING MADE flesh is the undoing and overthrow of the things
which from curse and penalty befell the nature of man. Therefore if they undermine the
root of our salvation and dig up the foundation of our hope, where will be that which
follows? For (as I said) if the Word have not been MADE flesh, neither is the sway of
death overthrown, sin is in no wise brought to nought, and we are yet subject to the
transgressions of the first man, i. e. Adam, having no return unto what is better, through
(I mean) Christ the Saviour of us all.

21 B. I understand what you say. A. And besides who is he to be understood to be who in
like manner with us hath partaken of blood and flesh, as though other than we by nature?
for one will not say that that it pertains to a man to partake of human nature: for what
one is by nature how can one be conceived of as taking as though it were something else
than what he is? does not my argument seem very reasonable? B. Quite so. 22 A. Consider in
another way too that it is both unhallowed and discordant to attempt to take away from God
the Word His Birth of woman according to the flesh: for how will His Body quicken except
it be His Who is Life? how does the Blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin, if it is that
of a common man and one who is under sin? how did God the Father send His Son, made of a
woman, made under the law? how condemned He sin in the flesh? for it pertains not to a
common man and who has with us his nature despotized by sin to condemn sin. But since it
has BEEN MADE the body of Him Who knows not transgression, therefore with reason did it
shake off the despotism of sin and is rich in the Property of the Word which is Ineffably
and in mode unutterable united with it, and is holy and life-giving and replete with God-
befitting operation. And as in Christ our first-fruits, we too are trans-elemented into
being superior to both decay and sin. And it is true that according to the voice of
blessed Paul, As we hare the image of the earthy we shall hear the image too of the
heavenly, i.e. of Christ.

23 Christ is called an heavenly man, not as though He brought down to us His flesh from
above and from Heaven , but because the Word being God hath come down from Heaven, and
entering our likeness, that is, undergoing birth after the flesh from out a woman, hath
remained what He was, i. e. above and out of Heaven and above all as God even with flesh.
For thus somewhere says the Divine John of Him, He that cometh from above is above all.
For He hath remained Lord of all even when economically made in bondman's form, and truly
marvellous therefore is the mystery of Christ. And verily God the Father said somewhere to
the Jews by one of the Prophets, See ye despisers and perish and marvel because I am
working a work in your days, a work which ye shall not believe if one should detail it to
you. For the mystery of Christ is in peril of being disbelieved by reason of the intensity
of its marvellousness: GOD was in human nature, and in our estate He that is over all
creation; the Invisible, visible by reason of flesh; He that is out of Heaven and from
above in likeness of things earthy; the Impalpable subject to touch; He that is in His own
Nature Free in bondman's form; He Who blesseth the creation WAS MADE subject to curse,
among the transgressors All-Righteousness, and in guise of death Life.

24 For the Body which tasted death, was not another man's but His who is by Nature Son.
Have you ought to find fault with in these things as not right or rightly said by us? 25
B. By no means. A. Consider I pray this too in addition. B. What do you mean? A. Christ
somewhere said to them who would take away the resurrection of the dead, Read ye not that
He which made man at the beginning made them male and female, the Divine Paul too writes,
Marriage is honourable in all and the bed pure. Then how did the Only-begotten Word of
God, minding to enter the likeness to us-ward, not permit the laws of human nature to
prevail, for the subsistence or birth of His own flesh: for not from marriage-bed and
wedlock did He endure to take it but from a Virgin august and unwedded, with child of the
Spirit, the Power of God over-shadowing her, as it is written. Since God therefore
dishonoured not marriage yea rather honoured it with blessing, why did the Word being God
make a Virgin with child of the Spirit the mother of His flesh?

26 B. I cannot tell. 27 A. Yet how is not the reason hereof clear to all who consider
this? the Son came (as I said) or was made man, translementing our estate as in Himself
first unto a holy and admirable and truly marvellous birth and life: and Himself first
became born of the Holy Ghost, I mean as to the flesh, in order that, the grace passing
through as by a path unto ourselves too, we having not from blood nor from the will of the
flesh nor from the will of man but from God through the Spirit our souls' new birth and
spiritual conformation unto the SON Who is by Nature and truly, might call God Father and
might thus abide undecaying, as possessing no longer the first father, Adam, in whom we
decayed. And verily Christ said, at one time, And call no one your father on the earth,
for one is your Father which is in Heaven, at another, for that He therefore descended in
our estate in order that He might bring us to His own God-befitting dignity, I am going to
My Father and your Father and My God and your God. For His Father by Nature is He Who is
in Heaven, our God; but since He that is SON by Nature and truly has BEEN MADE as we, He
says that He has had Him as His God, after the manner that is which beseems the emptying,
and has given His own Father to us too;

28 for it is written, But as many as received Him He gave them authority to BE MADE
children of God, them which believe on His Name. But if we in our unlearning take away
from being MADE in birth as we the Word from out God the Father, Him who in all things
hath the preeminence, as the most wise Paul saith; after whom shall WE any more formed, be
called begotten of God through the Spirit? whom shall we take as a first-fruit for us in
this, or who at all will bring the Dignity unto us? 29 B. They too will say, I suppose,
The Incarnate Word. A. How will this be true, except He have BEEN MADE flesh, i. e. man,
making the human body His own by a union which may not be plucked asunder, in order that
it may be conceived of as His and not anyone's else? for thus will He send unto us too the
grace of the sonship and we too shall be born of the Spirit, in that in Him first the
nature of man attained this. And the Divine Paul appears to me, thinking over with himself
something of this sort, to have said full rightly, For as we bare the image of the earthy
we shall bear the image too of the heavenly: and he said that the first man was from out
of earth, earthy, the second from out of Heaven. But as the earthy such (he says) are the
earthy ones too, and as the Heavenly One such the Heavenly ones also. For we are earthy,
in that there stole in upon us as from the earthy one, Adam, the curse, decay, through
which the law of sin too entered in, which is in the members of our flesh: but we have
been MADE heavenly, receiving this in Christ. For He being God by Nature and out of God
and from above, hath come down in our estate, in an unwonted and strange way, MADE
offspring of the Spirit according to the flesh, in order that WE too as He might remain
holy and undecaying, the grace descending upon us as from out a second beginning and root,
i. e., Him.

30 B. You speak excellently. A. How do they say that He has been made like also in all
things to His brethren, i. e., us? or who at all will He be conceived to be who entered
into this likeness, unless He were other by Nature and not in our estate? for that which
is made like to any, must full surely be different from them and not like to them but
rather of other form, other nature. The Only-Begotten therefore being by Nature unlike us
is said to have been made like when MADE as we, i. e. man: and this will take place
rightly and solely, in birth in our estate, even though in wondrous wise in Him, for He
Who was Incarnate was GOD. Yet let it be acknowledged that the body united to Him has been
rationally ensouled: for the Word being God, would not, letting alone that which is
superior in us, i. e., the soul, have taken thought for the earthy body only, but in
wisdom provided for soul and body alike .

31 B. I agree, for you deem rightly. A. Hence if the opponents say that the holy Virgin
ought to be called in no wise mother of God, but mother of Christ, they blaspheme openly
and drive away Christ from being God and Son: for if they believe that He is really God,
in that the Only-Begotten has been MADE as we, why do they shudder at calling her mother
of God, who bare Him, I mean after the flesh? B. Yea (they say): for the name Christ
because of his having been anointed with the Holy Ghost beseems only him who is of a woman
and of the seed of David: the Word out of God will never need so far as belongs to His own
Nature such grace, seeing He is holy by Nature. For does not the Name Christ indicate that
some anointing took place? A. You said right, that because of the anointing alone is He
called Christ, just as Apostle by reason of Apostolate, and Angel from bearing tidings,
(for such kind of names signify certain things, not special persons or known individuals;
for the Prophets too have been called christs, as is sung in the psalms, Touch not My
christs and deal not wickedly with My prophets; the Prophet Habbacuc too said, Thou
wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, to save Thy christs): yet tell me this, Do
not themselves too say that the Only-Begotten Word of God is One Christ and Son, as being
Lord Incarnate and made man?

32 B. Perchance they say so, yet they want the name Christ not to belong to the Word born
from out of God the Father, by reason that Ho has not been anointed according to His own
Nature as God, but they add this as well: For it is not (they say) one of the names by
which we should speak of the Father Himself or of the Holy Ghost. A. The statement is not
yet quite clear; explain it therefore, for you will do well. B. Listen then: for one can
see the appellation of the Son most manifold and diversely brought out by the God-inspired
Scriptures, for He has been named God and Lord and Light and Life and besides King and
Lord of hosts and Holy and Almighty. But if one pleased to say these things of the Father
too or the Holy Ghost, one would not miss what is befitting. For of One Nature, one full
surely is the Excellence of the dignities. If therefore Christ is a name truly befitting
the Only-Begotten, let it pass (they say) without distinction with the rest both to the
Father Himself and the Holy Ghost: but seeing it is utterly unmeet to accommodate it to
the Father and the Holy Ghost, neither will it rightly pertain to the Only-Begotten
Himself but rather has been apportioned in truth to him of the seed of David in regard to
whom anointing by the Spirit may without any blame be conceived and said.

33 A. We too ourselves say that the names of the God-befitting dignities are common to
Father Son and Holy Ghost, and with equal glories are we wont to crown together with Him
Who begat Him the Son Who is begotten out of Him and the Holy Ghost besides. Yet, o most
excellent (would I say), the name Christ and the fact itself, that is, the Anointing,
along with the conditions of the emptiness have accrued to the Only-Begotten, introducing
to the hearers a manifest proof of the Incarnation: for that He has been anointed in that
He has been made man, it will very well betoken. If therefore we were investigating not
the plan itself of the Economy with flesh but it were proposed to us to look on the Only-
Begotten Word of God as yet external to the measures of the emptiness, it were with good
reason wholly dishonouring to call Him Christ Who has not been anointed: but since the
Divine and most holy Scripture says that He WAS MADE flesh, the anointing too will now
befit Him, which took place in regard to the Incarnation which is His. And truly the all-
wise Paul says, For both the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all out of one, for which
reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name to My
brothers: for He was sanctified together with us when He WAS MADE in our estate.

34 And that truly SON was He Who is anointed in that He WAS MADE flesh, i. e. perfect man,
the Divine David will testify saying to Him, Thy Throne o God is for ever and ever, a
sceptre of Tightness the sceptre of Thy Kingdom: Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst
transgression wherefore God Thy God anointed Thee with the oil of rejoicing above Thy
fellows. Understand therefore how having both said that Ho is God and given Him a Throne
for ever, he says that He has been anointed by God, clearly the Father, with some choice
anointing above those who partake of Him , i. e. ourselves. For if the Word have BEEN MADE
man too, albeit God, yet was He thus too without lack of the Goods of His proper Nature;
being Self-Perfect and full of grace and truth, according to the voice of John: and
Himself Perfect in every kind of thing God-befitting, while from His fulness all we
received, as it is written. Making His own therefore along with the measures of His own
human nature what also belong thereto, He is called Christ, even though He be conceived of
as not anointed, according (I mean) to the Nature of the Godhead or as He is conceived of
as God. Since (tell me) how else will He be conceived of as Christ Son and Lord, if the
Only-Begotten have disdained the anointing and abide not the measures of the emptiness?

35 B. They hasten along another path than ours, unskilfully interpreting the mystery of
piety. For they say that God the Word hath taken a perfect man from out the seed of
Abraham and David according to the declaration of the Scriptures, who is by nature what
they were of whose seed he was, a man perfect in nature, consisting of intellectual soul
and human flesh: whom, man as we by nature, fashioned by the might of the Holy Ghost in
the womb of the Virgin and made of a woman, made under the law, in order that he might buy
us all from the bondage of the law, receiving the sonship marked out long before, He in
new way connected to Himself, preparing him to make trial of death according to the law of
men, raising him from the dead, taking him up into Heaven and setting him on the Right
Hand of God. From whence he being now far above all rule and authority and might and
lordship and every name named not in this world only but in that to come also, receives
worship from all creation as having a connection inseverable with the Divine Nature, the
whole creation allotting to him its worship in reference to and in idea of God. And we say
neither two sons nor two lords: but since God the Word the Only-Begotten Son of the
Father, to Whom this man is connected and partakes, is Son by Essence, he shares the name
and honour of Son: and God the Word is Lord by Essence, to Whom connected, this man shares
the honour. And therefore we say neither two sons nor two lords: seeing that He Who is by
Essence is clearly Lord and Son, he who for our salvation is assumed, having an
unseverable connection with Him, is borne up up along with Him to name and honour of son
and of lord.

36 A. Fie! the folly and distraught mind of them who imagine somehow that these things are
so: for it is unbelief and nought else, and the novelty of impious inventions and the
subversion of the divine and sacred preachings which have proclaimed One Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, the Word that is out of God the Father made man and incarnate, so
that the Same is God alike and man; and to One belongs all, the God-befitting and moreover
the human. For He being and existing ever in that He is God underwent the birth after the
flesh from out a woman. To One therefore and the Same pertaining both that He Eternally is
and existeth and that He in the last times is born after the flesh, Who, by Nature Holy as
GOD, was hallowed with us in that He became man to whom it befitteth to be hallowed; Who,
both in rank of Lord and, having as His own bondman's form, did call the Father His God;
Life and Life-giving as God, is said to be quickened by the Father in that He became Man.
All things therefore are His, and He does not dishonour the economy which the Father
Himself too praised, if it be true which is said by Paul's voice: for in one place he
said, Him who knew not sin He made sin for our sakes in order that WE might be made God's
righteousness in Him, in another. Who verily spared not His own Son but delivered Him up
for all us in order that with Him also He might bestow on us all things. Does not
therefore our discourse go after the scope of the sacred Scriptures?

37 B. Surely. A. If now as our opponents say and choose to hold, the Only-Begotten Word of
God, taking a man of the seed of Divine David and of Abraham prepared him to be fashioned
in the holy Virgin and connected this man with Himself and hath made him to come into
experience of death, yea and raising him from the dead took him up into heaven and seated
him on the Right Hand of God: superfluously (it seems) is He said both by the holy fathers
and by ourselves and the whole God-inspired Scripture to be made man (for this I deem and
nought else did the all-wise John signify when he wrote, The Word was made flesh), and the
mystery of the Economy with flesh has been (it is like) turned right round to the exact
opposite. For one cannot see that the Word being by Nature God and beaming forth from God,
abased Himself to emptiness, taking bondman's form, and hath humbled Himself, but on the
contrary, man was brought up into the glory of the Godhead and the excellency that is over
all, and took God's Form and was rather exalted, co-throned with the Father: is it not
true which I say?

38 B. Full surely. A. If it be true as they say, and the Only-Begotten disdained the
Economy, what shame did He despise? how hath He become obedient to the Father unto death
yea the death of the cross? and if taking a man, He led him both to experience of death,
and bringing him into Heaven too, shewed him co-throned with the Father; where now at last
will His own Throne be seen, if they say not two sons, but one who co-sitteth, him that is
who is of the seed of David and Abraham? how will He too be said to be Saviour of the
world and not rather patron or bringer-forward of a man through whom we have been also
saved, and a man, other than He, has become the completion of law and Prophets? for the
Law uttereth the mystery of Christ and of Him hath Moses written, who hath also become the
bringer of us to Him. Our faith hath come I ween to nought, for it streamed away; wholly
nought is pur august mystery, which the all-excellent Paul too openeth to us saying, Say
not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven? that is to bring down Christ; or, Who
shall go down into the deep? that is to bring up Christ from the dead. But what saith the
Scripture ? Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is the word of
faith which we are preaching: that if thou say in thy mouth, Lord Jesus, and believe in
thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

39 How then is the mystery of piety any longer great and famous and in supremest
admiration, if we are to believe that (as the perverted ones say) a man taken and
connected by way of accident to God the Word, died and lived again: and he was borne up
into Heaven, yet is it I suppose to some past belief, if not being by Nature and truly
God, he delights him in the seat of Godhead, the Son by Nature haply thrust forth
therefrom: and there stand in ministering position Angels and Archangels and the Seraphim
who are higher yet, before----not Him Who is in truth Son and God but before----a man who
is rich in name of sonship by participation and importation and in fashion as we and who
has been vouchsafed the so God-befitting honour? for in no wise do our opponents blush at
saying this too. Is not their dogma replete with the uttermost impiety and blasphemy? for
that which is given and brought in may be lost, and that which is imported from without,
has the loss of it not inconceivable. I pass over the farther blasphemy and incongruity.

40 Why then do they drag down the choiceness of the Economy unto what is uncomely, and
make our Divine and most holy worship, a man-worship and nothing else, taking it from Him
Who is in truth Son and persuading us to worship one connected with Him by way of
accident, whom they say also sped above all rule and authority and lordship, imposing the
blame of having been deceived, not only on them on earth but also on the very rational
powers above, if with us they worship, not the by Nature and truly Son and the Word which
beamed forth of the Essence of God the Father, Incarnate, but as other than He, a man from
forth the seed of David, a god modelled by mere will perchance of His and by external
embellishments, not so in truth? B. Yet although he is conceived of as man severally (say
they), he hath worship from the whole creation, in reference to and in conception of God.

41 A. Then how (tell me) will this reference they talk of be meetly conceived and spoken
of by us? And come, investigating the Divine and sacred Scripture, let us seek the
solution from it. They of Israel therefore, recking little at one time of reverence to
God, bitterly attacked Moses and Aaron: then Moses addressed them, And who is Aaron, that
ye murmur against him? for not against us but against God is this your murmuring. For they
were sinning against Moses and Aaron, but what they did touched the Divine glory, and the
covert intent of them who insult has reference to that glory. Yet Moses and Aaron were not
gods, nor has the creation worshipped them in reference to God. God reigned over Israel
after the flesh through Prophets. And they came and said to the Divine Samuel, Make us a
king like the rest of the nations. At this the Spirit-clad was grieved and with good
reason, yet he heard God say, Not thee have they set at nought but Me that I should not
reign over them. See again here too the mode of the setting at nought has reference to
God.

42 And indeed the Saviour and Lord of all Himself too says respecting those in need,
Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these least, to Me ye did it. Is it then in this way that
if any be said to honour him that is of the seed of David, he hath done it to the Son? and
if any do not believe, hath he surely offended against the by Nature Son, Who haply wishes
him too to be honoured and believed in by us in equal and exact manner? How then hath not
the bond been brought into equal honour with the Lord, that which hath been made and a new
god (according to the Scriptures) is in the excellencies of Godhead, and to the Holy and
Consubstantial Trinity there hath been appended that which is of unequal nature with It
and with It is worshipped and partaketh of equal glory with It?

43 B. They say that the reference must be taken in some such manner as this: viewing God
the Word inseverably connected to him of the seed of David we worship him as God. A.
Suffices it then in order to his duly taking the glory that befits God and to his being
borne above the measures of creation, that he should be only connected with Him, and will
this render him that is not God an object of worship? Yet I find one saying to God through
the Psalmist's lyre, My soul is fast joined after Thee: blessed Paul too writes, He that
is fast joined to the Lord is one spirit. Shall we then (tell me) worship those too in
reference to God as having been fast joined to Him? Yet the word fast-joining has I
suppose a greater and more forcible significance than the word connected, if it be true to
say that what is fast-joined to any has its connection most strait.

44 B. It seems so. A. Why now dropping union, though a word in wonted use amongst us, yea
rather that has come down to us from the holy Fathers, do they call it connection? though
the term union by no means confounds them whereof it is said, but rather shews the
concurrence into one of the things conceived of as united: and not (full surely) will that
which is simple and of one kind be alone said to be One , but those too which are
compounded out of two or more and out of diverse kinds. For so they think to be right who
are skilled in these matters. 45 Most mischievously therefore do they, severing into two
the One and by Nature and Truly SON Incarnate and made Man, reject the Union and call it
connection, which any one else too may have with God, being almost tied to Him by virtue
and holiness, according to that which is by one of the Prophets rightly said to them who
fall back into carelessness, Be ye gathered together and tied together, o undisciplined
nation, ere ye become as a flower that passeth away: a disciple too may be connected with
his teacher by means of love of learning, and ourselves, one with another, not in one way
but in many. Or perchance he too who is an assistant in any work will be reasonably
conceived as not unconnected in point of good-will with him who took him to that service.
And this rather is what the word connection appears to signify to us on the part of the
innovators. For you learnt that they unlearnedly maintain that God the Word taking a man,
as some son other than Himself, set him forth, as a sort of minister of His Will, so as to
make trial of death, and live again, and ascending into the very heaven, sit on the Throne
of the Ineffable Godhead! For is he not through these words full surely seen to be
altogether other than the by Nature and truly Son?

46 B. I admit it. A. But since they have slipped down to this depth of unlearning, as to
think and say that not the Only-Begotten Word of God Himself was made as we, but that He
took a man; in what way do they want the assumption to be conceived by us? is it as fore-
ordained by Him for the accomplishment of somewhat that He willed, just as one of the holy
Prophets says, I was not a prophet nor son of a prophet but I was a goatherd and dressing
mulberries, and the Lord took me from the sheep and said to me, Go, prophesy to My people
Israel? A goatherd, He set him to be a prophet and appointed him minister of His Pleasure.
B. They will say perhaps that not of this kind was the taking, but just as taking
bondman's form is conceived of by us.

47 A. Hence that which is taken will with reason be conceived of as the own of the Taker
by an inseverable Union; so that Jesus is both God and Son, One and Only, of Very God, as
being Word from forth of God the Father, begotten Divinely before every age and time, and
in the last times of the world, the same after the flesh forth of a woman: for not any
one's else, but His has the bondman's form been made. B. How do you mean? A. Will (tell
me) that which is by nature bond be said not incongruously to take bondman's form, or that
which is truly free and is Essentially above the measures of bondage? B. The free I
suppose: for how will it be made what it was by nature? A. Consider then that the Only-
Begotten Word of God albeit made as we and having entered on the measures of bondage
according to the human nature, hath witnessed to Himself freedom by Nature, saying in His
joint-contribution of the didrachma, Surely free are the sons. He receives therefore
bondman's form, making His own the results of the emptying and not spurning the likeness
to usward: for it were not possible otherwise to honour the bond unless that which
befitteth the bond had been made His that it might be made illustrious by the glory that
is from Him: for that which excelleth ever hath the pre-eminence and the shame from our
bondage was wiped out by us. For He Who is above us has been made as we and the Free by
Nature was in the measure of the servants. Hence the dignity hath passed unto us too: for
WE too have been called sons of God and inscribed as our Father Him Who is properly His
Father; for our human things have been made His also.

48 Therefore in saying that He took bondman's form, is the whole mystery of the Economy
with flesh. But if confessing One Son and Lord, the Word from forth of God the Father,
they say that a man, him who is forth of the seed of David has been simply connected with
Him, a partaker of His Sonship and of His glory, time is it that we in friendly grief over
them who choose thus to think should say, Who will give to my head water and to my eyes a
fountain of tears, and I will weep this people day and night? for they are turned aside to
a reprobate mind, denying the Lord Who bought them. For a pair of sons unequal in nature
is proclaimed to us, and the bond is crowned with God-befitting glory, and some
supposititious son is glorified with equal excellencies with the by Nature and truly Son,
albeit God says plainly, My glory I will not give to another: for how is he not other and
apart from the by Nature and truly Son, who has been honoured with mere and sole
connection and taken as an assistant and vouchsafed sonship even as we ourselves are, and
has partaken of glory from another and attained thereto by gift and grace?

49 B. We must not therefore sever Emmanuel into man severally and into God the Word. A. By
no means: I affirm that we must say that He is God Incarnate, and that He is in the Same
both One and Other. For neither hath He, made man, ceased from being God, nor doth He hold
the Economy unacceptable, despising the measure of the emptying. B. Therefore (they say)
consubstantial with the Word was His body, for thus and no otherwise will He be deemed One
Only Son. A. Yet how is not this now raving and clear proof of a mind wandering? for how
can one behold in sameness of essence things so far removed one from another in respect of
their nature? for one thing is Godhead, and another manhood. For of what do we say that
the Union was made? for a person will not say that the things united are one in number,
but either (it may be) two or more.

50 B. We must therefore sever (they say) the things named. A. We must not sever (as I
said) into a several diversity, in regard I mean to their being away from each other and
apart, but must rather bring them together into an indissoluble union. For the Word has
been made flesh, as John saith. B. Have they therefore been confused and both become one
nature? A. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to suppose that either the
Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went
over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we
say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having
assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made,
and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.

51 B. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man? A. Godhead and manhood are
one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ
have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without
confusion and turning . But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union. B. And how
out of two things, Godhead and manhood, will One Christ be conceived of? A. In no other
wise (I suppose) than that whereby the things brought together one to another unto a union
indissoluble and above comprehension will be One. B. As for example? A. Do we not say that
a man like us is One and his nature one, although he has not simpleness [of nature] but is
compounded out of two, I mean soul and body? B. We do. A. Does anybody, taking anew the
flesh apart by itself, and sundering from it the soul that was united to it, divide a
single person into two and not thereby destroy the right description of him?

52 B. Yet the all-wise Paul writes, For even though our outward man perish yet is the
inward renewed each day. A. You said right: for he knew, he knew well from whence he is
one, and makes the distinction [between the two] one to be grasped in idea only: he calls
the soul, the inward man, and the flesh, the outward. For I call to mind the holy
Scriptures which sometimes signify to us the whole living thing from a portion, as when
God says , I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh, and Moses says to them of
Israel, In seventy five souls did thy fathers go down into Egypt. And we shall find that
this has been done in regard to Emmanuel Himself: for after the Union, I mean that with
the flesh, if any call Him Only-Begotten and God from forth of God, he will be conceiving
of Him as not apart from flesh or manhood, and if he say that He is man, he will not be
excluding Him from being God and Lord .

53 B. But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as
Incarnate, all need is there to confess that confusion and commixture take place , the
nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the
excellency of Godhead? A. In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talkerwho says that
confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is
confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true
deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which
they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired
Scripture: if they think that needs, on account of the nature of man being nothing
compared to the Divine Excellency, must it be lost and consumed as they say, we again will
say, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God: for it were not impossible
for God Who loves man to make Himself endurable to the measures of the manhood. And this
He foresignified to us darkly, when initiating Moses and limning the mode of the
Incarnation as yet in types, for He came in likeness of fire on the bush in the
wilderness, and the fire kept playing on the shrub yet was it not consumed. And Moses
marvelled at the sight. Yet how is not a tree a thing that has no alliance with fire? and
how is the readily consumed wood patient of the onslaught of flame? But this matter was
(as I said) a type of a mystery, which exhibited endurable to the measures of the human
nature, the Divine Nature of the Word , at His Will, for to Him is nothing impossible.

54 B. Know well that they will not choose so to think. A. Their speech will be caught
setting forth to us most undoubtedly two sons and two christs. B. Not two: they say that
the Son by Nature, the Word from forth God the Father is One; he that is assumed is a man
by nature son of David , but is son of God by reason of his having been assumed by God the
Word, and that by reason of God the Word dwelling in him hath ho come to this dignity and
hath by grace the sonship. A. Then wherever will they go as regards mind and understanding
who thus think? or how do they say 'not a pair of sons,' when they are severing one from
another man and God, if (according to them) the One has the sonship by Nature and truly,
the other " by grace and came "to this dignity, God the Word indwelling him?" Hath he then
ought greater than we? for He indwelleth in us too. And the most holy Paul confirms us in
this, saying, For this cause bend I my knees to the Father from Whom every family in
heaven and on earth is named, that He would give you according to the riches of His glory
to be strengthened with might through His Spirit that Christ may dwell in your hearts: for
He is in us through the Spirit wherein we cry Abba Father. Hence our position is in no
wise inferior, if we have been vouchsafed the equal by God the Father (for by grace WE too
are sons and gods): we have been surely brought unto this supernatural and marvellous
dignity as having the Only-Begotten Word of God in-dwelling.

55 But profane and distraught altogether is it that they should say that JESUS has been
vouchsafed the sonship and has won the glory thereof as a matter of favour. B. Would you
say how? A. Certainly. For first (as I said) He will be thus conceived of as separately
another son and christ and lord from Him Who is so truly and by Nature: besides this,
another impossibility is brought in and which not unreasonably militates against right
reasoning. B. What is that? A. The all-wise John says of Christ, He came unto His own and
His own received Him not, but as many as received Him He gave them authority to become
God's children. Will then he who has the sonship of grace and has it as an adventitious
dignity that he won the being what he is; will such an one bestow freely on others also
what he has with difficulty grown rich in? does not this appear to you incongruous?

56 B. Very. A. That which accrues not by nature but has been introduced from without, will
it not be to be lost, as far as possibility goes? B. How should it be otherwise? A. Hence
it will be a possible contingency that the son should some time be able to fall from his
sonship: for what is not based on laws of nature is not free from a suspicion of being
lost. B. It is so. A. In another way too one may see that their dogma is both uncomely and
of a truth replete with the supremest ill-counsel: for if it is true that that which is by
adoption and grace is ever in the likeness of that which is by nature and in truth, how
are WE sons by adoption, having referenceto Him Who is truly Son if He too along with us
is among them who are so by grace? how too in the Gospel-parables is He sent as Son after
the servants [had been sent]? whom when the guardians of the vineyard saw they said, This
man is the heir, come let us kill Him.

57 He therefore Who hath appeared in flesh and Who made trial of the crooked ways of the
Jews is SON in truth and Free, as born of the Nature that is Free and is not among those
who are under the yoke, in that He is conceived of as God, even though He hath been made,
as we who are under the yoke, son of bondage, He the SON (as I said) by Nature and truly,
Who is beyond the yoke and above the creation: after Whom WE too who are sons by adoption
and grace have been formed. B. We do not say (say they) that the man is Son of God, lest
we should speak of two sons by Nature. For as the Word Who came down from Heaven is not by
nature son of David, thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David, Son of God by
Nature .

58 A. They will therefore sever into two sons, and both of them will be proved to be
falsely so called, and I think one may say that the mystery of Christ is idle trickery if
it is thus as our opponents foolishly say. Where then is the Union and in regard to what
do they say that it has been wrought? or haply this that the Word was made flesh is found
to be untrue and to have been superfluously brought in, if the Word from forth God the
Father have not been called son of David by reason of His being made from forth his seed
after the flesh. But I think that they ought to hear from us too what was said by Christ
Himself to the chiefs of the Jews, What think ye of Christ? whose son is He? and should
they say, David's, they will hear from us, How therefore does David in spirit call Him.
Lord saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My Right Hand until I put Thine
enemies the footstool of Thy Feet? if therefore David in spirit call Him Lord, how is He
his Son? does he who is not by Nature and truly Son (as our opponents say) co-sit with
God, and is he co-Throned (tell me) with Him Who ruleth all things? albeit, as saith the
all-wise Paul, to no one of the angels hath the Father at any time said, My Son art THOU,
nor yet, Sit on My Right Hand. How then is he who is forth of a woman in supremest dignity
and on the seat of the Godhead and beyond all Rule and Lordship, Thrones and Authority and
every name that is named?

59 And note how the Lord saying, If therefore David in spirit call Him Lord how is He his
Son, induces those who would be searchers of the truth, to hold that the Word when in
participation of flesh and blood hath remained even thus One Son: witnessed to that He is
God from God-befitting Excellency and Lordship, while His being called also Son of David
signifieth full well that He is Man. B. Perhaps they will say to this (for I am pointing
out [their reply]), "Are we then to admit that he too who is forth of the seed of David is
forth of the Essence of God the Father?,, A. Yet how hath not such a question exceeding
worthlessness? and it is incongruous to the might of the mystery and to them who delight
in the truth. B. Tell me how. 60 A. Do not divide, saying that he who is forth of the seed
of David is other than the One Christ and Son and Lord: for right utterance wills that the
Only-Begotten Son Who hath His Being forth of God the Father is Himself, and none other,
him who is forth of David after the flesh. Let them not therefore of their boundless
stupidity say that as the Word Who came down out of heaven is not by nature David's Son,
thus neither is he who is forth of the seed of David Son of God by Nature. For the Word
Who by Nature and in truth beamed forth of the Father, having assumed flesh and blood, as
I just now said, hath remained the Same, that is, by Nature and truly Son of the Father,
being One Only and not as if one with another, that His Person may be conceived of as One.
For thus gathering unto union true and above mind and speech things which by the count of
their nature had been sundered unto unlikeness, we shall advance on the unerring path of
the faith. For we say that One and the Same Christ Jesus is forth of God the Father as God
the Word, forth of the seed of Divine David after the flesh. Do not I seem to you to have
most rightly considered these things?

61 B. Surely. A. I will ask the opponents something else too. B. What is that? A. Are they
not assured that the Only-Begotten God the Word hath His Being from forth God the Father
and do they not affirm that the man taken (as they say) by connection is made from forth
the seed of Divine David? B. So they say. A. The Word therefore being God will most
assuredly surpass both in Nature and in glory him who is forth of the seed of David and
will overpass to the extent of the difference of the natures. Or if it be not as I say,
why do they sever and allot to the one the right to the glory, and bring in the other as
recipient, and as gaining what he is by way of a prize and in the light of a largess? but
less full surely and inferior is the receiver to the giver and to him who gives the glory
that which is participant of the glory from him.

62 B. I suppose that they too would say that most vast is the difference between God and
men. A. Then how does the all-wise Paul, the priest of the Divine mysteries, he that hath
indwelling Him Who is preached, and who speaketh in the Spirit: how does he both call Him
that after the flesh is of the Jews, God and say that He is blessed for ever, amen? what
is there above God Who is over all? what will a man behold in the Word Who is forth of the
Father greater than he is who after the flesh is of the Jews if he be a son other than He
and separate and not truly so? B. But he who is forth of the seed of David was admitted
(they say) by connection and, seeing that the Word being God indwelt him, he shares His
Dignity and His Honour: and this the most holy Paul will teach writing of him that he was
made subject to the Father unto death, yea the death of the cross, wherefore God also
super-exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name: and this name is God.

63 A. Do they then say that to him that is of the seed of David separately and as to
another son apart by himself has been given by God the name which is above every name? B.
Yea (they say), for to the Only-Begotten Who is God and forth of God by Nature, how could
that be given which He hath? A. Therefore, if the receiving is not put respecting Him, let
accurate investigation be made from what the Divine Paul himself hath written: For let
each one of yourselves be of the mind which was also in Christ Jesus Who being in the form
of God held not the being Equal to God a thing to seize , yet did He empty Himself taking
bondman's form, made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man He abased Himself
made subject unto death, yea the death of the cross: wherefore God also super-exalted Him
and gave Him the name which is above every name. If therefore it is, according to them,
the man that is forth of the seed of David conceived of separately and by himself who
received the name that is above all, let them shew him pre-existing in the Form of God,
and not holding the being equal to God a matter for robbery and moreover taking bondman's
form, as though that is he had it not and was not so ere he took it: albeit as themselves
say and choose to think, himself is the bondman's form. Then how can he take it as though
he had it not? how too will a man be conceived of as made in likeness of men, and be found
in fashion as a man? The force of the ideas then will turn them round even against their
will to know the truth.

64 B. What truth? A. God the Word Who is in the Form of God the Father, the Impress of His
Person, Who is in all Equal to Him Who begat Him, hath emptied Himself. B. And what is the
emptying ? A. The being in assumption of flesh and in bondman's form, the likeness to us
of Him Who is not as we in His own Nature but is over the whole creation. Thus hath He
abased Himself, lowering Himself economically into the measures of the human nature; yet
was He even so God, as having not by gift That which comes to Him by Nature. Therefore He
also said to God the Father Which is in Heaven, Father glorify Me with the glory which I
had before the world was, with Thee. For I do not suppose that they will say that he is
asking for the glory which was before the world as being his own, he [I mean] who in the
last times of the world was born of the seed of David, if so be he is son by himself other
than He Who is so by Nature and truly: but this utterance will rather be a most God-
befitting one. For it needed, it needed that He should be co-fashioned in the measures of
the manhood and should have the Excellence of the God-befitting Dignity Unimpaired and
Essentially in Himself just as it is in the Father too. For how will that be true, There
shall he in thee no new god, if according to them a man is made god by connection with the
Word and is declared co-enthroned and sharer of the Father's Dignity? b. You say well.

65 A. How is one to conceive of that which is wisely spoken by voice of Paul, For even
though there be many gods both in heaven and on earth yet to us is One God the Father from
Whom are all things and we from Him, and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom are all things
and we through Him? For there being One Lord Jesus Christ and Paul having full well
affirmed that through Him all things have been brought to their birth, what shall we do,
noble sirs, when ye distinguish from the assumed man as ye call him, the Word from forth
God the Father? which are we to say was the Creator of all? B. The Son by Nature from
forth God the Father, i. e., the Only-Begotten. A. Yet does the priest to us of the Divine
Mysteries say that through Jesus Christ were all things brought to being, and that He is
One and Only. I will recall that when investigating the name Christ we said that it
introduces to us the declaration of anointing: for on account of having been anointed
would any be called christ . Either therefore let them say that the Word from forth God
the Father has been anointed in His proper Nature and that He was in need of
sanctification through the Spirit and of participation from Him, or let them teach how He
is to be conceived of as Christ Who has never been anointed, and how the Only-Begotten
Word of God will be called separately Jesus, although blessed Gabriel says to the holy
Virgin, Fear not Mary, for lo thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bear a Son and
shalt call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.

66 B. Do we then say that all things have been made through a man and that he who in the
last times of the world hath birth of a woman is Creator of heaven and earth and in short
of all things that are in them? 67 A. Do thou too say, for I will ask: Has not the Word
been made flesh? has He not been called son of man? took He not bondman's form? emptied He
not Himself, made in likeness of men and found in fashion as man? If therefore they deny
the Economy, the Divine Disciples will withstand them saying, And WE saw and testify that
the Father hath sent the Son Saviour of the world: whoso shall confess that Jesus is the
Son of God God abideth in him and he in God, and again, Herein is known the Spirit of God,
every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God and
every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not from God. Besides what sense has it, to
conceive of a man that he has come in flesh? to one who is external to flesh and who is of
Nature not ours, will rather belong the being made in flesh also and therewith cominginto
this world together with remaining what He is. Hence even though He have been made man,
there is nothing to hinder our conceiving that through Him were all things brought into
being, in that He is conceived of as God and co-eternal with the Father. For the Word
being God has not been changed, even though He have assumed flesh ensouled with a
reasonable soul, not connecting a man with Himself, as they say who innovate the Faith,
but Himself made flesh as I said, i. e., man:

68 for thus will the having been anointed befit Him nor meet with any objection; and He
will be called Jesus too, being Himself in truth He Who underwent birth in the flesh from
forth a woman. For thus hath He saved His own people, not as a man connected with God but
as God made in the likeness of the imperilled, in order that in Him first the human race
might be re-formed to what it was in the beginning: for all things were new in Him. 69 B.
Hence we must refuse to think or to say that a man has been connected with God the Word
and been made partaker of His Dignity and that he possesses the sonship as a grace. 70 A.
Most entirely: for the sense of the sacred Scriptures acknowledges it not, but it is the
invention rather of a mind loving novelty and feeble and weak and unable to see the depth
of the mystery: for where has anything of this kind been said by the holy Scripture? for
the Divine Paul stating full clearly the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten,
says, For since the little ones have partaken of blood and flesh, He too likewise partook
of the same in order that through death He might bring to nought him that has the power of
death, i. e. the devil, and elsewhere, For the impossibility of the law wherein it was
weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in
us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. But we say that there
has partaken of blood and flesh according to the mind befitting the inspired writers----
not he who is in flesh and blood of his proper nature and cannot be otherwise but----He
Who is not so and is of other Nature than ours; and that He has been made both from forth
a woman and in likeness of flesh of sin Who is for our sakes as we together with being
above us too in that He is conceived of as God.

71 For the Word has been made flesh, yet not flesh of sin: but in likeness of flesh of sin
did He converse with them on the earth as man and has been made in likeness as we, yet not
along with us under sin but removed from knowing transgression (for the Same was God alike
and Man): but they who bear away (I know not how) from the Only-Begotten the so august and
admirable Economy, connect with Him a man by way of accident, embellished with honours
from without and adorned with glory not his; and no true God but partner and partaker with
God, and son falsely so named, saviour that is himself saved, redeemer who is redeemed:
albeit the blessed Paul has written thus, For the saving grace of God appeared to all men,
in order that denying impiety and worldly lusts we might live soberly and religiously in
the present life, awaiting the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great
God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

72 B. Yea, they say: for seeing that He was altogether vouchsafed connection with God the
Word, he too was called great God albeit made of the seed of David. A. For shame, what
madness: affirming that they are wise they became foolish, as it is written. For they
transform (as I said) the force of the mystery of Christ into all that is opposite; and
their saying that he has been vouchsafed will be nought else than declaring that he is
mere man and in ill counsel severing him into an utter diversity, so that a pair of sons
be conceived of, to be worshipped, whereof One is so by Nature and truly, the other
adopted and bastard and having nothing that is his own, that to him too along with
ourselves it may be said, For what hast thou that thou receivedst not: and then whither
will the all-wise Paul go who says, For the Son of God Christ Jesus Who was preached among
you through me and Silvanus and Timothy was not Yes and No but in Him was Yes? For how was
He not Yes and No, if He is said to be God and is not God? if the names SON and LORD are
falsely attributed to Him? and if He be thus as they say, it will belong to Him to have to
say, But by the grace of God I am what I am. For that which belongs not by nature but is
from without and introduced and given by another, will not belong to the recipient but to
Him who imparts it and bestows it. And how did He also say, I am the Truth, if there is
nothing true about Him? haply too He was comprehended by the darkness, if He lies. But He
did not sin neither was guile found in His mouth, as it is written. b. No surely.

73 A. And where is the emptiness? and of whom will it be conceived to have happened? for
one cannot see any one emptied but on the contrary being filled albeit he has not fulness
in his own nature: for he would not have needed what was another's and it would have been
superfluous to him to have received, if he had had, of his own, self-completeness and
sufficiency unto every thing, but of Christ's fulness did all WE receive, and the
preaching of the inspired will not lie. For full is Christ and nothing whatever is given
to Him so far as He is conceived of as, and is, God, even though to receive have been made
His by reason of the measure of the manhood and in that He became as we, to whom it will
be said full rightly, For what hast thou that thou receivedst not? B. Yea, he says, the
Word from forth God the Father is One Christ and Son and Lord, he who is forth of David's
seed being connected with Him.

74 A. But, most excellent sirs, may one say to them, he who has another connected with him
will not be conceived of as one, how could he? but as one with one, i.e. with another, and
these are full surely two. But He will be conceived to be in truth One Son, if we say that
the Same is God the Word Divinely begotten from God, and in marvellous manner man and from
a woman after the flesh. But if setting apart and severing him that is from the seed of
David, they dismiss him from being in truth God and Son and say rather that he is partner
in sonship and partaker of glory not his own, not idly (as I suppose) shall we find the
accusations against Him by the Jews to have been made. For they said, For a good work we
stone Thee not but for blasphemy because THOU being man makest Thyself God.

75 B. And indeed they do say that both Very God and Son is the One Christ, i. e., the Word
out of God taking by connection him who is of David's seed. A. But if the Word out of God
the Father is not He Who is also according to the flesh from a woman, but is Other with
other , how will ho be called Christ who has not been anointed as we already said? B.
Therefore if he who is of the seed of David is none other than the Word from forth God the
Father, let him be called also before time: then how does the all-wise Paul, repelling the
opinion, demand as it were with a question, and say, Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day, is
he the same for ever too? Or in another way too: for Jesus, he says, who is yesterday and
to-day, will be the same for ever too, i. e., recent and yesterday and to-day, albeit God
the Word co-existeth with His own Father.

76 A. They do wrong exceedingly, turning aside the truth unto that which in their unwisdom
seems good to them and corrupting the accuracy of the sacred Scriptures. If now one say
that Christ Jesus is also before time, he will not miss of the truth, if the Word which is
before time is One Son and Lord, Who in the last times underwent birth after the flesh of
a woman. And that the Word made man as we has not been changed, the Spirit-clad has shewn
saying, Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day, the Same too for ever. And yesterday indicates
past time, to-day present time, for ever that which is future and to come. 77 But if they
think that they have thought out something clever, in taking yesterday and to-day to mean
recent, asserting and saying, He that is yesterday and to-day how will he be also for
ever, WE too will transfer the force of the question unto the direct opposite: The Word
which is for ever how will He take to Himself Yesterday and to-day, if Christ is One and
has not been divided, as says the Divine Paul? For that thus He would be known by us, you
will know hence also. For although seen in the flesh and having entered on the measures of
the human nature, He has testified to Himself His Eternal Being saying, Verily I say to
you, Before Abraham was I am, and again, If I told you the things of earth and ye believe
not, how will ye believe if I tell you those of Heaven? and no one hath gone up into
Heaven except He which descended from heaven, the Son of man. For as Word Which ever is
and before the ages, come down from heaven, and then the Same appearing man as we; as One
Christ and Lord even when He was made flesh, does He say these things.

78 B. Another argument too has been discovered by them, it is this: they say that he which
is of the seed, of David, ought so to be called son of God as the Word Which is forth of
God the Father is said to be son of David: for neither is so by nature . 79 A. Now let the
mode of the true Union come in, that so the Word be believed to have been made flesh, i.
e. man, and therefore son of David not falsely but as from forth him according to the
flesh, having remained too what He was, i. e. God out of God. And verily the priests of
the gospel preachings, knowing that the Same is God alike and man, have told us of Him. It
is written of the blessed Baptist that, On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming to him and
saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world: this it is of whom I
said, After me cometh a Man which has been made before me because He is prior to me, and I
knew Him not, but in order that He should be manifested to Israel, therefore came I
baptizing in water. Understand therefore how he saying, a Man, and calling Him a Lamb,
says that none other is He who taketh away the sin of the world, and hath allotted to Him
this great and truly vast and God-befitting Dignity. And he says that He is before and
prior to him, albeit made after him, I mean according to the time of the generation after
the flesh. For if Emmanuel is late-born as man, yet was He before every time as God. His
therefore is both the recent humanly and the Eternal Divinely:

80 hence the all-excellent Peter too, looking on the Word not bare nor without flesh, but
appearing in flesh and blood, clearly and unerringly made his tribute of faith in Him,
saying, THOU art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and heard in reply, Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood revealed it not to thee, but My Father which
is in Heaven. But were not the Mystery deep, and God in the flesh, but [only] a man having
according to them the sonship by grace, how should he have needed an Initiator so great,
that no one of them on the earth revealed it to the disciple, but that he had the Father
Himself as his Instructor in this? 81 And the Divine Disciples too, seeing Him once
traversing the expanse of the sea, were astonished at the miracle and confessed the Faith,
saying, Truly Thou art the Son of God. Yet if he is bastard and falsely-called and has
from adoption that he is son, let them accuse the disciples of falsehood, and that when
they sware it. For they have added Truly, affirming that He is the Son of God the Father.
B. You speak most excellently. A. How too has the Son of man His own angels , and shines
forth in the glory of His Father? for He says, The Son of Man is about to come in the
glory of His Father with His angels, and again. And the Son of Man will send His Angels.
And if they disbelieve yet, even seeing Him crowned in God-befitting glory and dignities
so splendid and supreme, they shall hear Him say, If ye believe Me not believe My works,
and again, If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not . For the beholding in a man
the excellency of the unspeakable glory, supplied not as Another's nor in the light of a
favour, but His very own: how will it not persuade us that He was God in likeness as we
and truly Son of God Who is over all?

82 B. He affirmed (he says) that His were the angels, and He was made the worker of these
signs, the Word indwelling Him and having imparted to Him His own glory and operation: for
it is written, Jesus of Nazareth how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost and power, Who
went about doing good and healing all that are oppressed by the devil. Anointed therefore
both with power and with the Spirit, was He a wonder-worker . A. Then, since the Word
being God, both Holy and having Essentially and by Nature All-Might, will never need
either power from another or an imparted holiness: who now is He Who has been anointed
with power and the Holy Ghost? B. They will perhaps say, The man who is assumed by
connection. A. He therefore is Jesus Christ by himself and separately, of Whom too the
all-wise Paul says, Yet to us One God the Father from Whom all things and we from Him and
One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom all things and we through Him. How then (tell me) are
all things through a man? why is he ranked as Son with the Father and that immediately, no
one intervening? and wherever shall we put the Only-Begotten when we have brought into His
place the man; and that (as he says) inwrought by Him and honoured because of Him?

83 Has not their argument outstepped what is reasonable, is it not borne beyond bound, and
as having utterly missed of the truth, will it not reasonably incur laughter? B. The Word
of God (he says) has been called man in some such way as this: as the man who was assumed
by Him was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, but is called a Nazarene because he dwelt at
Nazareth , so too God the Word is called man because He dwelt in man. 84 A. O
understanding senile and mind unstrung and knowing how to stutter and nought else! Rouse
ye, ye drunkards, from their wine, let one say to the opponents: why do ye violence to the
truth and, turning aside the force of the Divine doctrines, are borne forth of the King's
way? The Word (as it seems) has no longer been made flesh, according to the Scriptures,
but rather a dweller in man, and it were meet that He should be called, of-man, not man,
just as he who dwelt at Nazareth was called, of-Nazareth, not Nazareth. And I think that
there is nothing at all to hinder, if they think that their foolish invention is right,
that together with the Son, the Father and also the Holy Ghost should be called man: for
the fulness of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity dwelleth in us through the Spirit. And
verily Paul saith, Do ye not know that ye are God's Temple and the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you, yea, and Christ Himself, If a man love Me he will keep My word, and My Father will
love him and we will come to him and make Our Abode with him. Yet the Father has never
been called man, nor yet has the Holy Ghost, by reason of indwelling in us: but those men
laugh at the Mystery of the Incarnation and twist round unto what is discordant, the
doctrines of the Church which are so right and worthy of being heard.

85 But let our argument proceed again on its course, bidding farewell to their vomit. For
if, because of the Word being in him, he have been made a worker of signs, they perchance
say that he is one of the holy Prophets, for [the Word] has wrought Divine signs through
the hands of the saints too: but if they say that the Son is in these, they lower Him into
the measure of Prophets or Apostles. B. Yea, they say, for has He not been called Prophet
and Apostle? A. You are not wrong; for Moses said to them of the race of Israel, A Prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up to you out of your brethren, as me: the Divine Paul too
has written, Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the
Apostle and High priest of our confession Jesus. Let them tell then, for I will ask: Would
the grace of Prophecy or the being vouchsafed apostolic prerogative, and being called High
Priest too, be an honour to a man?

86 B. Yes. A. Yet they would say that to Christ in that He is conceived of as God these
things are petty and not worthy of receiving, even though through these very things He is
seen emptied and receiving them with the manhood. But as being God by Nature and Lord in
truth, He took bondman's form, made therein and assuming our estate, so, both giving the
Spirit of Prophecy and ordaining Apostles and establishing Priests, He was made like in
all things to His brethren: for thus was He named, Prophet, Apostle, High Priest. B. But
even though they grant that He was a Prophet, they say that He was not so as one of the
Prophets, but that He was placed far above their measure . For they had the grace meted to
them and accruing to them in time, He was full of the Godhead even straightway from His
very Birth, for the Word being God was with Him.

87 A. It was then in the amount of grace and in length of time that Christ has surpassed
the holy Prophets which were before Him, and it is this which is His special privilege.
The point for investigation is whether He was a Prophet at all, and not His having more or
less or even excelling, seeing that in His being a Prophet and in His not passing beyond
our measure does His low estate consist, even though He be conceived of as this from the
beginning, just as was the holy Baptist too, of whom the blessed angel says, And he shall
be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb. How then was the one a servant,
the Other All-glorious in the dignity of Lord? And of himself blessed John says, He that
is of the earth of the earth he speaketh, but of Emmanuel, He that cometh from above is
superior to all.

88 B. Yet (will they perchance say) the Word which hath beamed forth of God the Father is
above, yea and superior to all; and they are afraid to allot to Him what belong to man,
lest haply He be wronged thereby and brought down to dishonour. Therefore they affirm that
He took a man and connected with Himself this person in regard to whom what belong to man
might have place and be spoken of, and no damage should accrue to the Nature of the Word
Himself. A. Hence he who is assumed will confessedly be conceived of and said to be other
than He. But we will not follow their fatuity nor make them definers and innovators of our
Faith, neglecting the sacred Scripture and dishonouring the Tradition from forth the holy
Apostles and Evangelists: nor, for that a mind weak and most empty of learning has taken
up its abode in them, and one that cannot look into the depth of the mystery, let us also
go astray, sharing their unlearning and refusing to go the straight way of the truth. But
we know that the most holy Paul hath written that we ought to throw down reasonings and
every height which reareth itself against the knowledge of God and to reduce captive every
thought unto the obedience of Christ.

89 But now, can you tell whereat they are offended and in Jewish wise stumble at the stone
of offence? B. I can, for how should I not? they are very many, but they shall be told one
by one. They say therefore that Christ has been sanctified by the Father: for it has been
written, And John witnessed saying, I have seen the Spirit descending out of heaven and It
abode on Him and I did not know Him but He who sent me to baptize in water, He said to me,
Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, This is He Who
baptizes with the Holy Ghost; and I have seen and have witnessed that this is the Son of
God: Paul too hath written of Him, For He Who sanctifieth and the sanctified are all out
of One. For the Word being God and Holy by Nature will by no means be sanctified; it
remains therefore to say that the man assumed by Him in the way of connection has been
sanctified.

90 A. How then does He Who has been baptized and Who received the open Descent of the
Spirit, baptize with the Holy Ghost and perform what belong to and beseem the Divine
Nature alone? for He is the Bestower of holiness. And in proof of this the Incarnate Word
breathed, as a bodily act, His own proper good, upon the holy Apostles saying, Receive ye
the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins ye remit they have been remitted, whosesoever ye retain
they have been retained. And how has the divine Baptist, most clearly indicating Him Who
has been sanctified, borne witness that This is the Son of God, alone and with the
article? For the initiator of the world should, if he knew that it was another son beside
Him Who is truly Son, have signified the Truth, saying clearly, This is he who by
connection with the Son Who is by Nature and in truth has been made son by gift and grace:
but he said nothing of the kind but, knowing that He is One and the Same, both Word from
forth of God the Father, and from forth the seed of David according to the flesh, says
that He was sanctified, as man, and again sanctifies, in that He is conceived of as God:
for He was (as I said) this and that in the Same. If therefore He have not been made man,
if He have not been born after the flesh, from a woman, let us drive away from Him what
belong to man: but if it is true that lowering Himself unto emptiness He hath been made as
we, why do they part from Him the things through, which He will be conceived of as
emptied, with utter ill-counsel undoing the fair scheme of the Economy with flesh?

91 B. If therefore He be said both, to have received glory and been made Lord and to be
exalted by the Father, to be set King also, shall you attribute these too to God the Word
and will you not full surely be damaging His glory? 92 A. That the Nature of God the Word
has been filled with true glory, Royalty and Lordship, how can one doubt? and that He is
firmly to be conceived of as being in heights the most God-befitting? but since He
appeared as man to whom all things are a gift and imparted: therefore He, Full and giving
to all from out His own fulness, in human wise receives, making our poverty His own: and
in Christ was an unwonted and strange marvel, in servant's form Lordship, in human mean
estate God-befitting glory, that which is under the yoke (as to the measure of manhood)
crowned with the dignities of Royalty, and in Supremest Excellences that which is low. For
the Only-Begotten hath been made man, not in order that He might remain in the measure of
the emptying, but in order that taking along therewith what is its. He might thus too be
known to be God by Nature and might ennoble because of Himself the nature of man,
rendering it participate of holy and Divine dignities. And we shall find the saints
themselves too calling the Son even when He was made man, the glory of God the Father, and
King and Lord.

93 For Esaias somewhere says, As if a man gleaneth an olive-tree, thus shall they glean
them, and when the vintage ceaseth, these shall shout with their voice, and they that are
left in the earth shall rejoice together with the glory of the Lord, and again another of
the saints says, Shine o Jerusalem for thy light is come and the glory of the Lord is
risen upon thee: lo darkness and gloom shall cover the earth hut upon thee shall the Lord
appear and the glory of the Lord shall he seen on thee: and James His disciple says,
Brethren, have not in respect of persons the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, the
Divine Peter again, If ye are reproached for Christ, ye are blessed, because the Spirit of
glory and of God hath rested upon you. 94 B. Enough, good sir, of such testimonies: but
tell us how we ought to understand what is written of Christ, Who in the days of His flesh
having offered supplications and entreaties with mighty cry and tears to Him that is able
to save Him from death and, heard for His fear, although Son, learned obedience from the
things which He suffered and, perfected, became author to them that obey Him of salvation
indissoluble; I will add to what I said, this too, My God, My God, why forsookest Thou Me?
for they say that such things are incongruous to God the Word and I would say that they
come very far short of His inherent Excellence. A. I myself too know that these things
would not befit the Word which is sprung forth of God the Father, if the mode of the
Economy be put aside and if we do not admit that He have been made flesh according to the
Scriptures: but since we rest firmly on this, and the doubting one whit abont it involves
a charge of impiety, come let us view closely, as far as we may, the depth of the economy.

95 The Word therefore from forth of God the Father appeared in likeness of us, to aid in
countless ways our human condition and to shew full well the path that leads us to
everything that is admirable. It was then necessary that we should learn, when temptation
attacks them who are in peril for the love of God, what sort of people they ought to be
who have chosen to live a life and conversation noble and excellent; whether they should
be seen by their Saviour remiss and falling back into negligence and out of due season
revelling and spreading themselves out for delight: or intent unto prayer and bathed in
tears and thirsting for aid from Him and for manliness, if He should be pleased that we
should also suffer. It needed besides what we should know to our profit, whither the goal
of obedience ends and through what prizes it goes, what and how great the reward of
endurance. Christ therefore became a pattern of such things, and hereto the divine Peter
confirms us saying, For what renown if sinning and buffeted ye endure? but if well-doing
ye endure, this is thank from God, because Christ too died for us, leaving us an ensample
that ye should follow His steps. Hence the Word of God no longer bare and imparticipate in
the measures of the emptying but in the days of His flesh has been made a pattern to us;

96 in that then without any blame He could use the measures of the human nature and
prolong His prayer and shed the tear and seem now both to need a Saviour and to learn
obedience, albeit Son. For the Spirit-clad was as it were astonished at the Mystery, that
being by Nature and truly Son and Eminent in the glories of the Godhead He let Himself
down unto low estate, so as to undergo the meanness of our human poverty. Yet was the
pattern (as I said) comely and helpful, so as one might learn hence, and that full easily,
that we ought not to hasten another road, when the season calls us to manliness. And
indeed Christ said at one time, And fear not them that slay the body but cannot slay the
soul, but rather fear Him Who can destroy both soul and body in Hell, at another again, If
any man will come after Me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. The
duty of following Him, what else is it than that we must be all-manly against temptations,
and with that, ask the aid that is from above not negligently nor remissly but using
rather intensest prayers and letting fall from our eyes the tear of godly fear?

97 B. You say well. A. If moreover He say, My God My God why forsookest Thou Me, how will
they understand it? B. They would deem, as I suppose, that these are the words of the man
who is assumed. A. Of one who has broken down and who considers the onslaught of the trial
as not to be borne, as intolerable, or how? B. Of one who is distraught (as appears) out
of human faint-heartedness: since to the disciples too He said, Exceeding sorrowful is My
Soul unto death, and fell down before the Father Himself saying, Father, if it be
possible, let this Cup pass from Me, yet not as I will but as THOU. A. And verily this is
nothing else than what we said just now, Who in the days of His flesh having offered both
supplications and entreaties to Him Who could save Him from death with a mighty cry and
tears. If any think that Christ had come down to this point of faint-heartedness and that
He was sorrowful and very heavy, holding it intolerable to suffer, overcome with fear and
mastered by weakness, he clearly accuses Him of not being God, and shews that to no
purpose, as it seems, did He rebuke Peter.

98 B. How do you say? A. For Christ said, See we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of
man will be betrayed into the hands of sinners, and they shall mock Him and crucify Him,
and the third day He shall rise. He being pious, says, [God be] propitious to Thee, Lord,
this shall not be to Thee. And what said Christ to him? Get thee behind Me satan, thou art
an offence to Me, because thou dost not think the things of God but the things of men. And
yet how did the disciple miss of what is fitting, in wanting the trial to be taken away
from his Master, if it were insufferable to Him and by no means tolerable but rather
lowering unto impotence and apt to shiver in pieces Him Who charged His disciples to be
stout against the fear of death and to count suffering nothing, so that the good-pleasure
of God should be accomplished by them?

99 And I wonder that they, saying that he has been connected with the Only-Begotten, and
declaring him partaker of the Divine dignities, subject him to the fear of death, that so
he may be seen to be bare man as we are and to have gained nothing from the Divine
Dignities. B. What then is the plan of the Economy herein? A. Clearly mystical and deep
and to be marvelled at by them who know aright the mystery of Christ. For view I pray, the
words which beseem the emptying and are not incongruous to the measures of the manhood,
how they were uttered in due and needful season, that He Who is over all creation might be
seen to have been made in every respect as we. Hereto will follow again this also. B.
What? A. Seeing that we have been made accursed because of the transgression in Adam and
forsaken of God have fallen under the snare of death, and that all things have been made
new in Christ, and a return of our condition to what it was in the beginning [has taken
place]; need was it that the second Adam which is out of Heaven, He Who is superior to all
sin, the All-holy and Undefiled second first-fruits of our race, Christ, should free from
sentence the nature of men and call again upon it the good favour that is from above and
from the Father and undo the forsaking through His Obedience and entire subjection. For He
did no sin, and the race of man in Him has gained the riches of spotlessness and entire
blamelessness, so that it at length may with boldness cry out, My God my God why
forsookest Thou me?

100 For consider that the Only-Begotten having been made man, gave forth such words as one
of us and in behalf of our whole nature, as though He said , The first man hath
transgressed, he slipped down into disobedience, he heeded not the command given him, by
the wiles of the dragon he was carried off into wilfulness: therefore fall rightly has he
been subjected unto decay and has become subject to doom, but Thou didst plant Me a second
beginning to them on the earth, I am called, Second Adam. In Me Thou seest the race of man
purged, achieving sinlessness, holy, all-pure. Give now the good things of Thy Clemency,
undo the forsaking, rebuke decay and let wrath reach its period. I have conquered Satan
himself too who of old prevailed, for he found in Me no whit of what was his. Such then,
as I think, is the meaning of the Saviour's words; for He was inviting the good favour of
the Father not on Himself but on us rather. For as the [fruits] of wrath passed through as
from the first root, I mean Adam, unto the whole nature of man (for death hath reigned
from Adam unto Moses over them too which sinned not after the likeness of Adam's
transgression): thus too will the [fruits] from our second first-fruits, Christ, pass
through unto the whole human race. And the all-wise Paul will be our warrant, saying, For
if by the transgression of one man the many died, much more by the righteousness of the
One shall the many live, and again, For as in Adam all die so too in Christ shall all be
quickened.

101 B. Unwise therefore and utterly incongruous to the holy Scriptures is it both to deem
and to say that the man assumed used human expressions as forsaken by the Word which was
connected with him. A. Blasphemy, my friend, and a proof of the uttermost stupefaction,
and that full clear, will this be, yet is it not incongruous to those who understand not
to think aright. For since they sever and divide utterly both words and facts and have
allotted the one to the Only-Begotten alone and by Himself, the other as it were to a son
other than He and from a woman, therefore have they missed of the straight and most
unerring way and of clearly knowing the mystery of Christ. B. We must not then divide
either words or facts, when the Gospel and Apostolic preachings are brought forward? A. By
no means, as far as pertains to two persons and hypostases severed from one another and
diverging altogether apart and separately: for in that there is One Son, the Word made Man
for our sakes, I would say that all are His, both words and facts, both the God-befitting
and besides the human.

102 B. Hence even if He be said to be weary from the journey . to be hungry and to share
in sleep: will it be fit (tell me) to allot to God the Word things thus mean and abased?
A. The Word still bare and not yet Incarnate and ere He descended unto the emptying, it
will by no means befit (for you deem aright), but to Him made man and emptied what hurt
can this inflict on Him? for as we say that His flesh was made His own , so again His are
the weaknesses of the flesh through the Economic appropriation of them and after the mode
of the emptying, for He was made like in all things to His brethren, without sin alone.
And marvel not that we say that He has made the weaknesses of the flesh His own along with
the flesh: whence to Himself again hath He allotted the contumelies too from without,
which were put upon Him by the frowardness of the Jews, saying through the voice of the
Psalmist, They parted My garments among themselves and upon My vesture they cast the lot,
and again, All that see Me sneered at Me, they spake with their lips, they wagged the
head.

103 B. Hence though He say for example, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, I and
the Father are One, and to the Jews, Why are ye seeking to kill Me, a man Who have told
you the truth which I heard of God, shall we allow that the words both one and other
belong to One and the Same? 104 A. Most certainly, for Christ has never been divided, but
is believed to be One and Only and Very Son by all who worship Him. For the Image of the
Invisible God, the Brightness of the glory of the Person of the Father, the Impress of His
Essence, took bondman's form, not as though connecting a man to Himself, as they say, but
rather Himself made in that form, yet even so abiding in likeness to God the Father. And
the all-wise Paul hath written, For it is God Who said that the light should shine forth
of darkness, Who shone in our hearts unto the illumining of the knowledge of His glory in
the Face of Christ Jesus. For view how it is in the Person of Christ that the illumining
of the Divine and Ineffable glory of God the Father shines forth: for the Only-Begotten
albeit made man shews in Himself the glory of the Father, for This Alone and none other is
conceived of and called Christ . Else let our opponents teach us how one can behold in a
mere man the illumining or the knowledge of the Divine glory? for not in the form of man
shall we see God: yet in the Word Alone Which has been made as we and made Man and hath
even thus remained by Nature and truly Son, might one in wondrous wise see this too, in
that He is conceived of as God.

105 And verily the steward of His Mysteries, having called Him Christ Jesus as having been
made as we and Incarnate, knows that He is so together with being God by Nature and in
truth: for he writes after this wise, More boldly in part I have written to you, as
reminding you because of the grace given me by God that I should be a minister of Christ
Jesus, ministering the Gospel of God , Zacharias too prophesieth to his own child, I mean
the Baptist, And thou, little one, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High, for thou
shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare a people for Him: and the Divine Baptist
pointed out the Most High and Lord saying, See the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin
of the world: This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man who has been made before me
because He was prior to me. Is it then lawful to doubt that One and Only and Truly Son is
the Word forth of God the Father together with the flesh united to Him and that not
without soul, as some say, but ensouled with reasonable soul and in all respects One
Person with it?

106 B. I would not doubt it in the least, for One Lord, One faith, One Baptism. But if
Jesus be said to advance in stature and wisdom and grace, who is it that has been made in
these? for the Word Who is forth of God the Father being full and Perfect in Himself, what
and whereunto will He take accession or advance? being Himself Wisdom, He will not be said
to be recipient of wisdom . We must enquire then, they say, to whom these things belong.
107 A. We must then (it is like) bring in another son and lord, because some cannot reach
the depth of the holy Scriptures. The wise Evangelist therefore, having first brought in
that The Word has been made fleshy sets Him forth Economically charging His own flesh to
proceed by the paths of its own nature; and it belongs to human nature to advance in
stature and wisdom, I may say in grace also, in that the understanding too that is in each
springs upward conjointly with the measures of the body: for it is one in babes, other
again in those that are now children and upwards. For it were not impossible or
impracticable to the Word from forth of the Father as God, to rear on high even from the
very swaddling-clothes the body which was united to Him and to bring it up to the measure
of perfect stature; I will say too that to shew forth admirable wisdom even in His baby-
state would have been both easy and without obstacle to Him, yet would it have savoured of
wonderworking and been incongruous to the plan of the Economy; for the Mystery was
performed noiselessly. He permitted therefore economically the measures of human nature to
prevail in His own case, for this too will have been arranged in the meet order of the
likeness to usward, whose advance is by little and little to what is greater, as the
season calls us to accession of stature and of understanding not out of harmony therewith.

108 All-Perfect therefore, and un-lacking of ought whatever, and too of increase, is the
"Word from forth the Father, as God: yet makes He His own what is ours seeing He has been
made as we: yet we know that He is even so above us as God. And verily Paul dares, albeit
knowing that He has been made flesh, looking at the Excellences of the Godhead, in places
to say that He is not even man: he writes to them of Galatia, Paul an apostle not from men
nor through man but through Jesus Christ, and elsewhere too, I declare to you the Gospel
which was gospelled by me that it is not after man, for neither did I receive it from man
nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ. B. We must therefore adapt to
Him both the being said to progress in wisdom and stature and grace, just as [we do] the
hungering and being weary and the like: and perhaps even if He be said to suffer and to
have been quickened by the Father, we shall allot to Him these things too.

109 A. Yes, for we say that His are the human by an Economic appropriation, and along with
the flesh that which is its: seeing that no other son beside Him is conceived of by us,
but the Lord Himself hath saved us, giving His own Blood a ransom for the life of all; for
we were bought with a price, not with things corruptible silver or gold but with the
Precious Blood as of a Lamb Immaculate and without blemish,, Christ, Who offered Himself
in our behalf for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. And hereto will be our
warrant Paul most learned in the law, who hath written, Be therefore imitators of God as
beloved children, and walk in love as Christ too loved us and delivered Himself for us an
offering and sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell. But since Christ hath been
made a sweet smell for us shewing in Himself the nature of man in possession of
sinlessness, we have had confidence through Him and in Him with God the Father Which is in
Heaven: for it is written, Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy in
the blood of Christ, which He inaugurated for us, a new and living way through the veil,
that is, through His flesh.

110 Understand therefore how he says that His is the Blood and His the flesh, which he
also calls the veil and with good reason, in order that whatever in the temple the sacred
veil used to effect, concealing full well the holy of holies, somewhat of the same might
the flesh too of the Lord be conceived of as doing, not permitting the marvellous and
choice Excellence and glory of God the Word to it united, to be seen by any bare so to say
and unhidden. And verily some imagined that Christ was Elias or one of the Prophets, but
the Jews, not a whit understanding the mystery respecting Him, railing said, Is not this
the carpenter's son ? how saith He now, I have come down from heaven? for invisible by
Nature is the Godhead, yet was He seen of those on earth in likeness with us Who in His
own Nature is not visible, and the Lord God appeared to us. And this I think the Divine
David teaches saying, God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not be passed over in
silence.

111 B. You think aright, but they maintain that these things are not so, far from it. For
in no wise do they choose to attribute the suffering on the cross to the Word Who sprang
from God, but they say that He prepared the man who was connected with Him in equal
honour, to undergo the contumelies of the Jews and the sufferings on the cross, yea and
death itself and that he became the captain of our salvation, in the might of the Word Who
was co-with him coming back to life and doing to nought the power of death. A. Will they
then be able out of the Holy Scriptures to prove to us that their account hereof is true?
or do they innovate the Faith, uttering things out of their heart and not out of the mouth
of the Lord, as it is written, or haply unable to say, God forbid that I should glory save
in the cross of Christ through which the world hath been crucified to me and I to the
world?

112 B. Yea, they say, for the all-wise Paul confirms us hereto having written thus, For it
became Him because of Whom all things and through Whom all things, bringing many sons to
glory, to perfect through sufferings the Captain of their salvation. For He (they say) in
Whom are all things and through Whom all things will be none other than the Word Which
sprang from forth of God. He therefore perfected through sufferings the captain of our
salvation, i. e. him from forth the seed of David. 113 A. We have therefore been redeemed
by God no more (for how or whence could we?) but by another's blood, and some counterfeit
man and falsely-called son hath died for us, and the august and mighty mystery of the
Only-Begotten was then idle talk and quackery, and neither hath He been made man, but we
will register as our saviour and redeemer, not Him but that other rather, who hath given
his own blood for us. Yet the most holy Paul hath written to The Syriac translation
transposes in and through some, It was therefore necessary that the patterns of the things
in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these; for not into sanctuaries made with hands, figures of the
true, entered Christ, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us,
nor that oftentimes He should offer Himself as the High Priest entereth into the sanctuary
yearly with another's blood, since He must needs often have suffered from the foundation
of the world; but now once in the completion of the ages hath He been manifested for the
abolition of sin through His sacrifice. Hence the type hath, that certain make their entry
with another's blood and are cleansed: the reality, i. e. the Truth, will surely possess
what is better, i. e., that Jesus does this, entering with His own blood, not into any
temporary tabernacle and made with hands, as it were in shadow and type, but into that
which is above and true, into Heaven: for it was necessary that the patterns of the things
in the heavens should be purified with these (i. e. with the typical and another's) but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

114 We must therefore necessarily seek for in Christ what is superior to the types, I mean
the truth, which is in His own Blood. B. You say right. 115 A. But since they set up
against us the Apostle's saying, as though it were put forth of a common man, come let us
say, taking from the beginning of what is written unto a sufficient close of it. It is
written therefore, But we behold Jesus Who has been some little abased below the angels
because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour: for it beseemed Him
because of Whom all things and through Whom all things, bringing many sons to glory, to
perfect the Captain of their salvation through sufferings: for the Sanctifier and the
sanctified are out of one, all of them, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them
brothers saying, I will declare Thy Name to My brothers, and again, Behold I and the
children which God gave Me. Since therefore the children have partalcen of blood and
flesh, He too likewise shared the same, in order that through death He might do to nought
him that hath the power of death, i.e., the devil, and might rid those who in fear of
death through all their life were subject to bondage: for not I suppose of angels taketh
He hold but of Abraham's seed He taketh hold, whence He ought in all things to be likened
to His brothers.

116 See, see and that most clearly, saying that He has been abased below the Angels
because of the suffering of death, yet has been crowned therefore with honour and glory,
he makes evident Who it is of Whom he is discoursing, the Only-Begotten: for he says that
He has partaken of blood and flesh like us, and that He took hold not of angels but of
Abraham's seed. For it beseemed God the Father because of Whom all things and through Whom
all things, to perfect the Son Who had descended to emptying and become man, having taken
bondman's form, through sufferings in that He consecrates His own flesh a Ransom for the
life of all. For Christ hath been sacrificed for us, the spotless Victim, and by One
offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, re-forming man's nature into
what it was in the beginning: for all things in Him are new.

117 For that God the Father hath given His own Son for us, no less will the all-wise Paul
be our warrant, writing of . Him, Who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all,
how will He not with Him too bestow on us all things? and we say that the own Son of God
is the Word Who beamed forth of His Essence, and that He has been given for us, not still
bare and without flesh but when He was made flesh. And His being said to suffer is free
from any blame, for He suffered not in the nature of the Godhead but in His own flesh: for
God the Father as I said above, made Him Who knew not sin sin for us, in order that we
might be made the righteousness of God with Him. B. Do we therefore conceive that He was
made sin, or rather because He was made like to them who are under sin, is He therefore
said to be sin?

118 A. You say right: as therefore He made Him Who knew not sin sin for us in order that
WE might be made the righteousness of God in Him (for the nature of man has been justified
in Him): so Him Who knows not death (for the Word is Life and lifegiving) He caused to
suffer in the flesh, though He remained external to suffering in that He is conceived of
as God, in order that we might live through Him and in Him. Hence also the suffering of
Christ has been named, 'the likeness of death.' It is written therefore, For if we have
been co-planted in the likeness of His death so shall we be too of His resurrection: for
the Word was living, even while His holy flesh was tasting death in order that, death
worsted and decay trodden down, the might of the resurrection might come unto the whole
human race. For it is true, that as in Adam all die so too in Christ all shall be
quickened. Since, how do we say that the Mystery of the Economy with flesh of the Only-
Begotten aided man's nature, unless the Word being God has been made flesh? unless He Who
is above all the creation lowered Himself unto emptying and hath come down to be in our
estate? unless that have been made the body of Life which is subject to decay in order
that it might become superior to death and decay?

119 B. We say therefore that the Word which is forth of God the Father Himself suffered in
the flesh for us? A. Surely, if Paul is true in saying of Him, Who is the Image of the
Invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because in Him were created all things,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities; all
things have been created through Him and unto Him: and He is before all things, and all
things consist in Him, and He is the Head of the Body, the Church, Who is the beginning,
the first-born from the dead, in order that He may become in all pre-eminent. For see,
see, he says and that full clearly, that the Image of the Invisible God, the first-born of
all creation, both visible and invisible, through Whom all things and in Whom all things,
has been given a Head to the Church, and that He is First-born from the dead too. For He
makes His own, as I said, the properties of His own flesh, and endured the cross,
despising the shame. For we do not say that a man simply, honoured (I know not how) by
connection with Him, has been given for us, but it is the Lord of glory Himself Which was
crucified for us (for had they known, he says, they would not have crucified the Lord of
Glory): but He hath suffered for our sake and in our behalf in the flesh, according to the
Scriptures, Who according to the flesh is of the Jews, Who is over all God and blessed for
ever Amen. For thus hath the most holy Paul written, His herald and apostle and who hath
Christ in him.

120 And tell me this besides, how they would understand what has been said by Christ to
the woman out of Samaria, YE worship ye know not what, WE worship what we know, for
salvation is from forth the Jews? albeit there hath saved us, not elder, not angel, but
the Lord Himself, not with another's death and the mediation of a mere man but, with His
own Blood. Hence, with good reason, said the all-wise Paul, One who disregards Moses' law
dieth without compassion at the hands of two or three witnesses: of how much worser
punishment, suppose ye, shall be be accounted worthy who trampled on the Son of God and
accounted common the blood of the covenant and insulted the Spirit of grace in Whom he was
sanctified ? But if it be not the precious Blood of the in truth Son Incarnate but of some
spurious one other than he and one that possesses the sonship of favour, how do they say
that it is not common?

121 Therefore even though He be said to have suffered in the flesh, freedom from suffering
even thus is kept to Him in that He is conceived of as God. Therefore the Divine Peter too
says that Christ once for our sins died for us, the Righteous for the unrighteous, in
order that He might bring us to God, put to death in the flesh, quickened in the Spirit.
For why, might one I suppose say, did the Spirit-clad say not simply or indefinitely that
He suffered, but added, in the flesh? for he knew, he knew that of God was he speaking.
Therefore he hath allotted to Him impassibility in that He is conceived of as God, most
skilfully adding, in the flesh, in respect to which suffering exists. B. Yet they say that
it savours of the marvellous and inclines much to the incredible, that we should have to
say that the Same both suffers and does not suffer . For either surely He hath as God not
suffered or if He is said to have suffered, how will He be God? hence he who suffered will
be said to be only he which is from forth the seed of David.

122 A. Yet how will it not be a most manifest proof of a feeble understanding, to choose
so to say and to think? for God the Father hath given for us, not a common man, taken
aside to be in the rank of a mediator, and having a made-up glory of sonship and honoured
with an accidental connection, but, made in likeness with us for our sakes, Him Who is
above the whole creation, the Word Which beamed forth of His Essence, in order that He
might be seen an equivalent for the life of all. It is (I deem) of all things most absurd,
when the Only-Begotten has been made flesh according to the Scriptures (as I said) and
disdained not the Economy, to find fault as it were with Him as though He had militated
against His own glory and had chosen to suffer in the flesh apart from what was fit. Yet,
good sir, the matter was salvation to the whole world: and since He for this cause willed
to suffer Who is beyond the power of suffering because He is God by Nature, He put about
Him flesh recipient of suffering and made it His own, that His too might the suffering be
called, because it was no one's else's but His own Body which hath suffered.

123 Hence, for that the mode of the Economy gives Him without blame, both to be pleased to
suffer in the flesh, and in the Godhead not to suffer (for He was God alike and Man in the
Same) the opponents speak idly, and most unwisely debasing the force of the mystery haply
deem that they have made a contention replete with praise. For His being at all pleased to
suffer in the flesh seemed to attach some blame to Him, yet it was glorious in another
way: for the Resurrection has testified that He is superior to death and decay, being Life
and Lifegiving as God, for He hath raised His own Temple. Therefore the Divine Paul says,
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one
that believeth, and again, For the word of the cross is to them that perish folly, to us
who are saved it is the Power of God, to them that are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ
God's Power and God's wisdom: and indeed the Son too when about to ascend unto the saving
Passion says, Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in Him, and God will
glorify Him in Himself and will straightway glorify Him. For He lived again, having
spoiled Hades and this not after a long while but as it were straightway and on the very
heels of the Passion.

124 B. Albeit the all-wise Paul says, Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, Who
is not weak but is mighty in us: for verily He was crucified out of weakness yet lives out
of the power of God. Then how will one say that the Word Himself is weak and moreover that
He lives out of the power of God? A. Do we not over and over again say that the Word of
God was Incarnate and made man? B. Yes, for how should it be otherwise? A. Therefore He
Who is weak in the flesh in that He appeared as man, This lived out of the power of God, a
power not alien but inherent in Him, for He was God in flesh. B. And verily the Father is
said to raise Him, for it is written, According to the inworking of the mastery of His
might which He hath inwrought in Christ, having raised Him from the dead and set Him on
His Right Hand in the heavenly places above all rule and authority and lordship and every
name that is named.

125 A. Yet we say that He is the life-giving Power of the Father and it is like that He
rejoices in the Dignities of Him Who begat Him even though He have been made flesh. And
Himself will come in, His own witness, saying, For as the Father quickeneth whom He will,
so the Son too quickeneth whom He will. And able to accomplish this full well without
toil, He hath addressed the people of the Jews saying, Undo this Temple and in three days
I will rear it. But He Who rose hath sat on the Right Hand of the Father in the heavenly
places above all rule and authority and throne and lordship and every name that is named.
Is it therefore as being another son than the Word Which sprang from forth Him, honoured
with mere connection, and receiving the Name of Godhead as a favour; or rather He Who is
by Nature and truly Son, made in likeness of man and found in fashion as a man
economically?

126 B. They would perhaps say that it was the man from forth the seed of David connected
with Him by equality of honour, to whom the suffering death too would belong. A. But that
which is said to be of equal honour with ought, will be not one in number (as I already
said) but one with one; this is I suppose two and they unequal in nature, if the honoured
is in lower case than the honourer: but since one son hath sat down, let them instruct us
who it is that hath been honoured with the seats on high and co-sitteth with the Father,
if it be a thing most exceeding perilous to venture to bring up to equality of honour the
bond with the Lord, the made with the Creator, with the King of all that which is under
the yoke, with Him Who is above all that which is ranked among all.

127 B. You will then clear this up to us still more. A. Albeit as I suppose a clear and
sufficient discourse has already been worked out by me on these subjects, I will without
any backwardness add to what I said other things also, and taking up a not ignoble
advocacy of the Divine dogmas as a sort of full armour I will rear up the truth against
them who think perverse things. 128 For that the Only-Begotten Word of God, no other son
than He mediating the Economy and connected with Him accidentally, hath made void the
mastery of death; but that He by His own Self hath done it, He will prove saying, God so
loved the world that He gave His Son the Only-Begotten in order that every one who
believeth on Him should not perish but have life everlasting. When God the Father exalteth
highly His Love for the world and says that it is exceeding great and vast, why do our
opponents disparage it, saying that not the truly Son has been given for us, but bring up
one of those who are as we, who has the grace of sonship from adoption, into the place of
the Son by Nature, whereas it was the Only-Begotten Who was given for us? and whereas John
hath clearly written, The Only-Begotten God which is in the Bosom of the Father, how will
not one marvel at them for their unlearning who thrust out the Only-Begotten God the Word
from the Economy and bring in in His place (as I said) a certain one embellished with
glories from without him and having the name of Godhead put upon him? and what great and
worthy of admiration will there be any longer apparent in the Love of the Father if He
hath given for it some piece of the world and that a small one? or perhaps it would be
even unblameable to say that the world hath been redeemed, having nothing from God but,
ministered to in this behalf by its own parts.

129 B. They say that the Only-Begotten has been given by the Father, that He should
administer our affairs, not in order that He should suffer ought of what is human Himself
in His own Nature, for it is impossible. 130 A. He will suffer in His own Nature nothing
at all (for being unembodied as God He will full surely be external to suffering), but
since according to His own voice, I mean that through the Psalmist's lyre, a body has been
prepared for Him by the Father, He came, embodied, to do His Will. And this was the
redemption through the Precious Cross and the summing up anew of all things, full well
accomplished through Him and in Him. And the most excellent Paul will aid to what I said,
having written on this wise, Be ye thus minded each one of you as was also Christ Jesus
Who being in the Form of God deemed not the being equal with God a thing to seize , yet
emptied Himself taking bondman's form, made in likeness of men, and found in fashion as a
man abased Himself, made obedient to death, yea the death of the cross: wherefore God also
highly exalted Him and gave Him a Name which is above every name, in order that at the
Name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow of heavenly and earthly and neath the earth and
every tongue confess Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. For whom dost thou
say is He Who is in the Form of God the Father, and when He might have remained in
Equality with Him deemed the so pre-eminent and God-befitting Dignity and the excellency
above all to be not a thing to seize? is it not God the Word Who beamed forth from Him?
how is this not obvious to all? But this He Who was in the Form and Equality of the
Father, taking bondman's form, not by an accidental connection, made in likeness of men
and found in fashion as a man (for He was together herewith God too) abased Himself and
became obedient also unto death, yea the death of the cross.

131 B. But it is said (they say) of Him that God gave Him a Name which is above every
name, in order that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow. That which the Word
was, i.e., God, how will He be conceived as taking? need therefore is it to say rather
that to the assumed man has been given the Name which is above all, that we be not caught
deeming ought incongruous respecting the Only-Begotten. A. Then how were it not
incomparably better to say that it has been given by the Father to the by Nature Son made
man for our sakes, in order that He may be conceived of as God even in human nature and in
supremest heights He Who endured abasement as we, in order that no new and late-appearing
god may be introduced to both angels and men, having the glory of the Godhead not
essentially inexisting but come in from without and as it were at the mere Will of God the
Father.

132 B. To the Word Himself therefore which sprang from forth God the Father do we say that
the Name which is above every name has been given. A. Full surely; and our argument will
not err from its course, if it is not false that He deemed the being Equal with God to be
not a thing to seize, but hath descended unto the not being in glory in that He appeared
as man. Therefore He also said, The Father is greater than I, although He had the right,
in that He ever existeth in Him (as He is conceived of and is God) and hath been begotten
from forth Him by Nature, to have exactness with Him in every thing and to rejoice in the
glory of the Godhead. One must therefore not suppose that He Who for our sakes descended
into the measure of the human nature, fell from His inherent Natural splendour and
Excellence, but that in emptiness that belongs to us He has fullness Divinely and in
abasement loftiness, and that which belongs to Him by Nature, to be worshipped by all, [He
has] as a gift by reason of His human nature: for to Him boweth every knee of things both
in Heaven and upon earth and every rank praiseth, for Christ Jesus is believed to be Lord
unto the glory of God the Father. And verily He said to God the Father which is in Heaven,
Father glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. Was then
(tell me) the man prior to the world , whom they say has been assumed by the Only-Begotten
by a non-essential connection?

133 B. By no means. A. Who then is it who is asking for glory which He says was inexistent
in Himself oven before the very foundation of the world, He ever and continually being
with God? is it not God the Word Co-eternal with the Father, Co-throned and Co-existent
with Him, of Whom the all-wise Evangelist John saith, The Word was with God and the Word
was God? B. How should it not be so? A. As therefore being Lord of glory and then letting
Himself down to the ill-repute of bondman's form, He asks for a recovery of His ever
inherent glory, doing this too as beseemeth man: thus being always God He goes up from the
measures of our estate to the excellence and glory of His Proper Godhead, in order that as
to One Son henceforth by Nature and Very, albeit made as we and Incarnate, every knee
should bow, as I just said. For I think that so minded and thus believing, we shall rid
heaven and earth from the charge of worshipping a man. For it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God and Him only shall thou adore.

134 B. The argument hereon will need very much support: proceed therefore I pray and
elucidate the Mystery to us by means of other conceptions also. A. I will then proceed
very gladly, but I would say that they have missed the truth in coupling, as though
another son, him who is of the seed of David with Him Who is by Nature and truly, I mean
the Only-Begotten, albeit holy Writ clearly cries aloud, The first man of earth earthy,
the second out of Heaven, and moreover the Son Himself, I have come down from heaven not
in order to do Mine Own Will but the Will of Him that sent Me, and this is the will of Him
that sent Me that everything which He hath given Me I should not lose ought from it but
should raise it at the last Day. Whom then do they say is He Who hath come down out of
Heaven? for the body hath been born of a woman.

135 B. The Word that is begotten from forth God the Father, for I suppose that they will
not please to think anything else than this. A. Right my friend, and the all-wise John too
hath somewhere written, He that cometh from above is above all. Then how, when it pleaseth
the Father that all which is given Him should rise, and the thing is good and moreover
God-befitting (for to save is like God), does He say that He came down not to do His own
will but that of the Father? will then any man among us suppose that the Son Who is born
of Him comes behind the Clemency of God the Father and is in no wise good, but that
raising up that which is given and ridding it of decay is a thing uncongenial to Him? B.
There is risk of it. A. Yet we should with reason deem that since He is the genuine
Offspring of a Good Father, He will be conceived of as Himself also Good, or Goodness
itself. For from the fruit the tree is known , according to His own voice, and He will be
True, saying He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, I and the Father are One.

136 B. You say well: clear up then yourself what seems to have been obscurely said. A. We
say that annulling death and driving away decay from men's bodies was a thing not unwilled
by the Son, for He delighteth not in the destruction of the living, and the generations of
the world were healthful, as it is written, but by envy of the devil death entered into
the world. But in no other way was it possible to shake off the cheerless mastery of death
save by only the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten. Therefore hath He appeared as we and He
made His own a body subject to decay according to the inherent plan of its nature, in
order that since Himself is Life (for He hath been begotten of the Father Which is Life)
He might implant therein His Proper Good, life. And when He had once chosen out of His
Clemency and Loving-kindness to undergo likeness with us, needs must the Passion too
befall Him, when the impiety of the Jews was raging against Him. But the disrepute in His
Passion was burdensome to Him. And in truth when the time was coming on, wherein He had to
endure the cross for the life of all, in order that He might shew that the Passion was not
willed , He made His approach as beseems man and in form of prayer, saying, Father if it
be possible let this cup pass from Me, yet not as I will but as Thou. He says that He came
down out of Heaven, to make that which was grievous, not unwilled, in order that He might
achieve resurrection for then on the earth, which He Alone hath new-wrought for the race
of man. For He has been made First-born from forth the dead according to the flesh and
first-fruits of them that are fallen asleep.

137 B. His therefore and not another's will be said to be the Passion in that He hath
appeared as man, even though He hath remained Impassible as He is conceived of as God. A.
Thus I say: call to mind the God-inspired Scripture which says, The first man Adam was
made a living soul, the last Adam a quickening spirit. B. Do we then say that the Word
from forth God, has been called the last Adam? A. Not bare (as I said), but made in
likeness with us. We say therefore that He is, if to quicken be no work of man but God-
befitting. He has too the name of the last Adam, as made out of Adam according to the
flesh and a second beginning of those on earth, the nature of man being transelemented in
Him unto newness of life, life in holiness and incorruption through the resurrection from
the dead: for thus was death done to nought, in that the Life by Nature endureth not to
submit its own body to decay, because it was not possible that Christ should be holden of
it, according to the voice of the most wise Paul , and thus passed through unto us too the
good from this achievement.

138 B. You say well. A. Look now at this besides. B. What do you mean? A. Christ said
somewhere to the holy Apostles, Go disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We have therefore been baptized into the
Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Father Son and Holy Ghost. Is it not true what I say? B.
How should it not? A. Do we not conceive of Him Who hath begotten as Father, the Only-
Begotten God the Word again begotten from forth Him as Son? B. Surely. 139 A. How then
have we been baptized into His Death as blessed Paul saith? for as many (he says) of us as
were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death. Yet One Lord, one faith, one
baptism: and we will not say that we have been baptized into Him that is forth of the seed
of David as into another and several son: but since being by Nature God He is conceived of
as beyond suffering, and was pleased to suffer in order that He might save those who are
subject to decay, He was made like in all things unto them who are on earth and underwent
birth after the flesh from forth a woman and made (as I said) His own a body capable of
tasting death and living again, in order that Himself abiding Impassible, He might be said
to suffer in His own flesh. For He it is Who hath saved that which was lost. And verily He
said in plain terms, I am the Good Shepherd, the Good Shepherd layeth down His Life for
His sheep, and again, No one taketh My life from Me but I lay it down of Myself, I have
authority to lay it down and have authority to take it again. But it belongs not to one of
us nor to a common man to have authority to lay down his life and to receive it back, but
the Only-Begotten and truly Son hath laid it down, and He took it back, placing us outside
of death's meshes.

140 And one may very easily see this outlined in the Mosaic books too in shadow unto them
of old: for the sacrifice of the sheep rescued from death and decay them of Israel and
abashed the destroyer, but it was a type of Christ, for Christ our Passover was sacrificed
for us, in order that He might undo the cheerless mastery of death and might by His own
Blood win all under heaven: for we were bought with a Price and arc not our own, for One
died for all, He He Whose worth surpasses all, in order that they which live no longer
live to themselves but to Him Who died for them and rose; Paul too will aid saying, For I
through the Law died to the Law in order to live to God, I have been co-crucified with
Christ: no longer live I, hut Christ liveth in me: and what I now live in the flesh I live
in faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me. Christ's therefore are we
all and through Him have we been reconciled to the Father, Christ having suffered in the
flesh for us, in order that He might manifest us cleansed.

141 For it has been written, Wherefore Jesus too, in order that He might cleanse the
people through His own blood suffered outside the gate, and again, And you who once were
estranged and enemies in your understanding by wicked wories, He hath now reconciled in
the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and spotless before Him.
Understand therefore how He says that it was His Proper Blood and His Proper Flesh which
was given for us, in order that we should not say that it belonged to a son other than He,
conceived of individually and honoured with a bare connection and having an adventitious
glory and non-essential excellence and, as a cloak and sort of mask thrown over him, the
name of sonship and of the Godhead that is over all things. For if he is by nature in such
case as the opponents like to think, in no wise will it befit him to have to say, I am the
truth: for how is that true which is not as it is said to be, but is something bastard and
falsely-called? But verily CHRIST is truth and over all as God: for the Word hath remained
what it was even though it have been made flesh, in order that He Which is over all and
hath been made among all by reason of the human nature may have preserved to Him the being
above every thing and beyond the measures of the creation.

142 B. But (he says) the being said to suffer will impress on God the Word much ill-repute
and will besides perchance bring accusation upon our august mystery. A. Yet despising the
shame He chose to suffer in the flesh for our sakes according to the Scriptures: and I
would account it a frailty of Jewish mind and a dread charge of Gentile infatuation, to
think it right to be ashamed of the suffering on the cross. The Divine Paul writes, Seeing
that both Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek for wisdom, but WE preach Christ Crucified,
to the Jews an offence, to the Gentiles foolishness, but to them which are called, Jews
and Greeks, Christ God's Power and God's wisdom, because the folly of God, is wiser than
men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. B. How? for I do not at all understand.
143 A. Does he not say that the Suffering on the cross was an offence to the Jews,
foolishness to the Greeks? for the one said, when they saw Him hanging from the wood,
wagging their blood-thirsty heads at Him, If Thou art the Son of God, come down from the
cross and we will believe Thee (for they supposed that worsted by their might He was taken
and suffered, for they were in error, supposing that He was not truly Son of God but
looking to the flesh alone): and the Greeks able in no wise to understand the depth of the
Mystery deem it folly that it should be said by us, that Christ died for the life of the
world. Yet is this very thing that seemeth to he folly, wiser than men. For deep is the
word and verily replete with the highest wisdom, that I mean in regard to Christ the
Saviour of us all, and that which is thought to be weakness by the people of the Jews, is
stronger than men. For the Only-Begotten Word of God hath saved us, putting on likeness to
us in order that having suffered in the flesh and risen from the dead He might set forth
our nature superior to death and decay. And that which has been achieved is beyond the
reach of our estate. Hence stronger than men is that which seemeth to have been wrought in
infirmity as ours and as it were in suffering, and it affords proof of God-befitting
power.

144 B. Then how will the Same (they say) suffer and not suffer ? A. By suffering in His
own flesh and not in the Nature of Godhead. And wholly ineffable is the plan of these
things and no mind can attain ideas so subtil and exalted: yet following reasonings which
tend to right belief and viewing the plan of what is fit, we neither alienate Him from
being said to suffer, lest we first say that the Birth too after the flesh is not His but
another's, nor do we define that the things pertaining to the flesh have been wrought upon
His Divine and Supremest Nature: but He will be conceived of (as I said) as suffering in
His own flesh, albeit not suffering in His Godhead after some such mode as this. And every
force of illustration is feeble and comes behind the truth, yet it sends into the mind a
subtil imagination of the reality and as it were from what is before it, brings it up unto
the height which is beyond the reach of words. For as iron or other such matter in contact
with the onset of fire gives it admission and travails with the flame: and if now it
chance to be struck by ought, the matter [struck] admits of injury, but the nature of the
fire is in nought damaged by that which strikes; thus will you conceive in regard of the
Son being said to suffer in the flesh, not to suffer in His Godhead. And petty (as I said)
is the force of the illustration, but it bears nigh to the truth them who choose not to
disbelieve the holy Scriptures.

145 B. You say well. A. For if the flesh ineffably and above mind and reason united to Him
were not made absolutely the Word's own, how will it be conceived of as life-giving? For I
am (He says) the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven and giveth life to the world, if
any one eat of this bread he shall live for ever, and the bread which I shall give is My
flesh for the life of the world. But if so be the flesh, belong to a son other than He,
appropriated to Him by a non-essential connection, and called by favour to equality of
honour, how doth He name it His own, though He cannot lie? and how will another person's
flesh too quicken the world, if it have not been made the own flesh of Life, i. e. of the
Word which is forth of God the Father, of Whom the Divine John says, And we know that the
Son of God is come and He gave us understanding in order that we might know Him and we are
in His Very Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and Everlasting Life?

146 B. But I suppose that they would say to this, that it had been clearly said by Him,
Verily verily I say to you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood,
ye have not life in you. WE therefore understand (they say) that the honoured body and
blood are not those of God the Word but of the son of man which has been connected with
Him. 147 A. Then wherever will they put the mighty Mystery of piety? for destroyed is the
emptying of God the Word, Who was in the Form and Equality of the Father and chose for our
sakes to take bondman's form and be made in likeness of us, and to partake blood and
flesh, and to make the economy of the Incarnation His largess to all under Heaven. For
through it have been saved, the Father summing up all things in Him , both the things in
Heaven and the things on earth, as it is written. If therefore they say that not He is the
Only-Begotten, Who says in God-befitting way and human wise alike, And the bread which I
will give is My flesh for the life of the world, but that some son of man other than He
conceived of apart by himself hath saved us, it is not the Lord Himself, as it is written,
but one from among ourselves: and the things which are subject to decay are quickened
henceforth, not through God Who is mighty to quicken, but by one of them who are subject
to decay, who received along with us life of favour: but if it is true that the Word has
been made flesh according to the Scriptures and appeared on earth and conversed with men,
having bondman's form as His own, He will be called also son of man; and if some feel
ashamed at this, they will be caught placing themselves under charge of unlearning.

148 For in no other way was it possible that flesh should become life-giving, albeit of
its own nature subjected to the need of decaying, except it have become the Proper flesh
of the Word Which quickeneth all things; for thus it inworks what is His, replete with His
Life-giving Power. And no marvel. For if it is true that fire having intercourse with
matter, renders it warm, though not warm of its own nature (for it puts into it full
richly the operation of its inherent power): how does not rather the Word being God put
His own Life-giving Power and Operation into His Proper flesh, united to it and making it
His own, without confusion, without turning and in mode as Himself knoweth? 149 B. It is
therefore necessary to confess that it hath entirely become (none other intervening) the
Proper Body of the Word that is forth of the Father, though ensouled with reasonable soul.
A . Most certainly, if we define aright the unerring word of the faith and are lovers of
the doctrines of the truth and track the faith of the holy Fathers, not borne aside from
the right way nor letting go the King's path-way, carried off by the vain-speakings of
some unto a debased mind, but rather built up on the very Foundation, i. e. Christ: for
other foundation can no man lay than is laid, as the in truth wise master-builder and
Priest of His Mysteries has written. We believe therefore that One is the Son of God the
Father and conceived of in One Person, our LORD JESUS CHRIST, begotten forth of God the
Father Divinely as Word before every age and time: in the last times of the age the Same
made according to the flesh from forth a woman: and to Him we allot both the God-befitting
and the human, and His we say was the birth after the flesh and the suffering upon the
cross, for that He made His own the whole that belonged to His Proper flesh , yet hath
remained Impassible in the Nature of the Godhead. For thus to Him boweth every knee and
every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord unto the glory of God the Father,
Amen.

150 [Running headers from the pages] 151 The Bible our Food. Heathen errors. 237 238
Errors of heretics worse. Arians, and they who blame Incarnation and miscall B. Virgin.
239 240 The Virgin's Son God made man. Was made, said of God, means not change. 241 242
God born man to enrich man. Made flesh, man: sin and curse to undo them. 243 244 His the
Body, His too all that is its. Made flesh = born: else all is lost. 245 246 Like to His
brethren "begins with Birth. Word made flesh gives us all, our One Hope. 247 248 Body
quickens not except it be Life's own. Incarnation, what. The Virgin-Birth. 249 250
Conceived of the HOLY GHOST that we might be born of the Spirit. Made like = GOD
Incarnate. 251 252 Mary mother of GOD. Christ a title. He took soul too. The Son Incarnate
has distinct Names, before, common. 253 254 God the Son, Perfect Man anointed imparts.
Fantasy that the Son took a man. 255 256 God, Holy, Lord, Life, man, hallowed, worships,
quickened. If God not made man, it is man who co-sitteth. 257 258 We worship Jesus, a man
if God be not made man. ἀναφορὰ not union. 259 260 Union unites, connection does not.
Modes of connection. Taking bondman's form is True Union. 261 262 The FREE made as we,
made us as He: One: though Godhead he one thing, manhood another. 263 264 ONE in mode
wholly passing understanding: Man, i. e. God Incarnate, yet no mixture. 265 266 nor
consumption of the manhood.

152 Bush type of this. Fallacy that son of David was assumed. 267 268 The gained can be
lost, the Free alone give adoption: He God of God and David's Son. 269 270 David's Son God
Incarnate: else a man over all, God blessed for ever, 271 272 and a man the Form of God.
The emptying, what. Δόξα προκόσμιος. One Lord Jesus Christ. 273 274 One, God made man,
anointed, seen, come in flesh, saved His own people, God in our likeness. 275 276 If
Christ not GOD, a redeemed redeemer, a yes and no, a filled full, not emptied, two not
one. 277 278 Jesus Christ before time. Yesterday to-day and for ever. Thus Himself says.
The WORD GOD and man. 279 280 The B. Baptist, S. Peter, Apostles preach Christ GOD, S.
Paul too. A man has not angels of his own. 281 282 If indwelling makes man, Father and
Spirit are men. The Son Prophet Apostle Priest when emptied. 283 284 No dishonour to the
Son in confessing these titles. Holy Scripture our Rule. Sanctifier and Sanctified. 285
286 Difficulties: sanctifies and sanctified, Giver and receives, set King, wept, feared,
learned obedience. 287 288 Supplication and weeping to teach us. Intensest prayers, manly
striving. 289 290 Strange misapprehension of those who sever. The Forsaking makes us
unforsaken. 291 292 Christ calls back on us the Pity of the Father. To God the Son belong
both Divine and human. 293 294 Christ God the Son Incarnate yet still God.

153 Increased in stature and wisdom and grace. 295 296 The Incarnate Son makes His even
the daily growth; He redeemed us, His the flesh and blood. 297 298 If God the Son
Incarnate suffered not, we are redeemed by the blood of a man. 299 300 Heb. ii. 9-17
explained. His own Son. The Word lived, overcame death in the death of His Body. 301 302
Salvation from the Jews. Blood not common. The Son suffers and does not suffer. 303 304
His Suffering and Resurrection. God the WORD abased weak as to the flesh. 305 306 Equal
honour means Two: which of them is enthroned? The Father gave His Son, some deny it.
Impassible. 307 308 The Word emptied Himself, receives, made man, the Name, lost not His
Eternal glory. 309 310 The Incarnate SON out of Heaven, and worshipped. The Passion willed
and nilled. 311 312 His the Passion, He willed it all. The last Adam. Impassible He
suffered, into His Death we baptized. 313 314 Christ's own Blood and flesh given, won,
reconciled all. The shame of the Cross folly wiser than men. 315 316 He suffered
unsuffering; His flesh life-giving, because Life's own flesh: not man quickens us. 317 318
The proper flesh of Him Who quickens all things. The Birth, Suffering and all, belong to
the Impassible Son. 319

154 [A selection of the footnotes. All the marginal notes, which were either biblical
references or words in Greek, have been omitted. Note that OT = Oxford Translation].


TWO LETTERS TO POPE CELESTINE
=============================

TWO LETTERS TO POPE CELESTINE Nestorius

c. AD 386–451

Patriarch of Constantinople condemned at Ephesus.

TWO LETTERS TO POPE CELESTINE

The Second Letter of Nestorius to Celestine of Rome

Written in the early part of 430, Nestorius once again asks for information on the
Pelagians taking refuge in Constantinople after being excommunicated by a synod in Rome .
He tells of his own troubles with heretics in Constantinople , and gives a brief account
of their views: confusion of the human and divine natures in Christ. Translated from the 5
century Latin version of Marius Mercator (Loofs, Nestoriana, 169-172); the original Greek
is not extant. Here begins the second letter of Nestorius to Celestine. 1. I have often
written to Your Beatitude on account of Julian [of Eclanum], Orontius, and the others who
have usurped for themselves episcopal dignity and made an appearance before the most pious
and commendable emperor [Theodosius II], and have succumbed before us to frequent
lamentations as though they were [orthodox men] expelled from the West in orthodox times.
But we have still not received from Your Worship anything written about them. If I had
such documents, I would be able to respond to them and give them a response commensurate
to their weeping. As things stand, apart from the uncertain things they say, there is
nothing to which one might turn [to understand the situation]. Some call them heretics and
say that on that account they have been expelled from the western regions. But they
themselves swear that they are the targets of false accusations and because of
surreptitious activity they have endured this trial for the sake of the orthodox faith.
Our ignorance of them is a heavy burden, whether their account is true or not. For it is a
crime to commiserate with them if they are truly heretics, but it is harsh and impious not
to commiserate with them if they are the targets of false accusations. Therefore, let Your
Soul, most beloved by God, deign to inform us who are still pulled in two ways by the
weight of each impulse, that is, toward hating them and having mercy on them. We wish to
be taught what opinion we should hold about them. For day after day we defer giving a
response to these men, disguising the fact that we still hope and wait on Your Beatitude.
For this is not for us, Your Worship, an insignificant discussion of a pious faction, nor
is the examination of those who do this a trifling matter for us.

2. For we have also expended much energy here [in Constantinople] striving to root out
from the church of God that most despicable impiety, the most harmful opinion of
Apollinaris and Arius. For I do not know the extent to which some ecclesiastical men have
become sick with the sickness of the aforementioned heretics, on account of their
acceptance of the idea that the divinity and humanity of the only-begotten are blended
(contemperationis imaginem ex deitate et humanitate unigeniti). These heretics both dare
to make the bodily passions pour over into the divinity of the only-begotten and pretend
that the divine immutability has passed over to the bodily nature. They confuse each
nature through the mutability that arises through the blending, even though in reality
each nature is adored through an unconfused conjunction of the highest sort (per
conjunctionem summam et inconfusam) in the single person (in una persona) of the only-
begotten. Blind men! They do not remember the account of the holy fathers who openly
contradict them: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate of the
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For this statement [is made] with the title which
signifies each nature, Christ... <lacuna> [the Holy Spirit?] is co-essential (homoousios)
with the divinity of the Father. But the humanity born in these latter times is from the
holy Virgin; on account of its conjunction with divinity, the humanity is worshipped by
angels and humans together.

Therefore, have consideration for the one who is here wearied by so many labors on account
of factional depravity, what he will unavoidably suffer, if he should not know what the
men mentioned above are doing and has a great fear of causing through ignorance of the
heretics more problems in addition to those already here. Therefore I ask that Your
Holiness be diligent in every respect in granting knowledge of the men mentioned above,
especially since the most loyal carrier of the letter, the cubicularius Valerius, can
himself give to Your Beatitude an account of how they vex. I and those who are with me
greet most heartily all the brothers in Christ who are with you. Translated March, 2005 by
Mark DelCogliano

The Third Letter of Nestorius to Celestine of Rome

Written in the latter part of 430, Nestorius claims that the controversy over the term
Theotokos (Mother of God) has been concocted by Cyril to forestall judicial proceedings
against himself. Nonetheless, Nestorius defends Christotokos (Mother of Christ) as a
scriptural term that is preferable because it avoids the heresies to which a
misunderstanding of the terms Theotokos and Anthropotokos (Mother of a human being) can
lead. Translated from the 5 century Latin version of Marius Mercator (Loofs, Nestoriana,
181-182); the original Greek is not extant. To Celestine the Pope, from Nestorius, Bishop
of Constantinople. I have learned that Cyril, the most distinguished bishop of the city of
Alexandria, has become worried about reports against him that we received, and is now
hunting for subterfuges to avoid a holy synod taking place due to these reports. In the
meantime he is devising some other disturbances over terms and has chosen [as a point of
controversy] the term Theotokos and Christotokos: the first he allows, but as for
Christotokos, sometimes he removes it from the gospels, and sometimes he allows it, on the
basis of what I believe is a kind of excessive prudence. In the case of the term
Theotokos, I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the
confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius. Nonetheless, I
have no doubt that the term Theotokos is inferior to the term Christotokos, as the latter
is mentioned by the angels and the gospels. And if I were not speaking to Your Worship who
is already so knowledgeable, I would need to give a very long discourse on this topic.

But even without a discourse, it is known in every way to Your Beatitude, that if we
should think that there are two groups opposed to each other, the one using only the term
Theotokos, the other only Anthropotokos, and each group draws [others] to what it
confesses or, if they have not accomplished this, puts [others] in danger of falling from
the church, it would be necessary to assign someone to such an affair if it arises who
exercises concern for both groups and heals the danger of both parties by means of the
term taken from the gospels that signifies both natures. For as I said, the term
Christotokos keeps the assertion of both parties to the proper limits, because it both
removes the blasphemy of Paul of Samosata, who claimed that Christ the Lord of all was
simply a human being, and also flees the wickedness of Arius and Apollinaris. Now I have
written these very things to the most distinguished bishop of Alexandria, as Your
Beatitude can tell from the copies I have attached to this letter of mine, as well as from
the copies of what he wrote to us. Moreover, with God's help it has also been agreed to
announce a world-wide synod in order to inquire into the other ecclesiastical matters. For
I do not think it will be difficult to investigate a uncertainty over words, and it is not
a hindrance for a discussion of the divinity of Christ the Lord.

Translated March, 2005 by Mark DelCogliano.


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES Nestorius

c. AD 386–451

Patriarch of Constantinople condemned at Ephesus.

INTRODUCTION

NESTORIUS — The Bazaar of Heracleides

1 Newly translated from the Syriac and edited with an Introduction Notes & Appendices by
G. R. DRIVER, M.A. & LEONARD HODGSON, M.A. Fellows of Magdalen College., Oxford. OXFORD AT
THE CLARENDON PRESS 1925 Oxford University Press London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New
York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai Humphrey Milford
Publisher to the UNIVERSITY PRINTED IN ENGLAND

PREFACE

2 The present volume is the result of collaboration between two colleagues, the one a
student of the Semitic languages, the other of Christian doctrine. After the former had
prepared an English translation of the whole work, the manuscript was handed over to the
latter, who read it carefully through; the difficulties were then jointly discussed. The
editors hope that by this means they are able to offer a reliable rendering of the
original text. The absence of any English edition of a work which has given rise to much
theological discussion has, in their opinion, justified them in undertaking the task; but,
although their edition is based on an independent study of the Syriac version itself, they
desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to MM. Bedjan and Nau, the editors of the Syriac
text and of the French translation respectively, their reliance on whom is evident on
every page of the translation and in almost every note; indeed, if they had not already
covered the ground, it is unlikely that the present work would ever have been
accomplished.

3 We wish to express our gratitude also to those whose encouragement and assistance has
enabled us to complete our work: to the President and Fellows of Magdalen College and to
the Trustees of the Denyer and Johnson Fund for most generous financial grants; to the
staff of the Clarendon Press for their courtesy and care; to the Rev. F. W. Green for
reading the proofs, and to him and to Mrs. Margoliouth for many valuable suggestions; to
Dr. B. J. Kidd for permission to draw on his History of the Church to A.D. 461 in
compiling the historical section of our Introduction; to the editors of the proposed
Patristic Lexicon for putting at our disposal for the purpose of Appendix III the material
which they had collected, and to the Rev. T. G. Jalland for his help in drawing up that
appendix; and to the proprietors of the Journal of Theological Studies for permission to
reprint Appendix IV from their pages.

4 G. R. D. L. H. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. October, 1924.

CONTENTS

5 PAGE PREFACE v INTRODUCTION. i. History of The Bazaar ix ii. The Text xi iii. Value of
the Syriac Translation xii iv. History of the Controversy xvii v. The Argument of The
Bazaar xxix TEXT. The Syriac Translator's Preface Book I, Part I Book I, Part II Book I,
Part III Book II, Part I Book II, Part II (N.B.----The following are the chief historical
sections: pp. 96-142, 265-93, 329-80.) APPENDICES. i. Translation of the Syriac Fragments
of Nestorius ii. Critical Notes iii. The word πρόσωπον iv. 'The Metaphysic of Nestorius'
INDEX

ABBREVIATIONS

6 C = Cambridge. S = Strassburg. L = London. V = Van. P = Peshitta Syriac Version.

INTRODUCTION

7 i. History of The Bazaar. The Council of Ephesus met in June, A.D. 431, and was
dissolved in September by the Emperor Theodosius II without the two parties, the Orientals
and the followers of Cyril of Alexandria, having come to an agreement. Nestorius was
bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of
Constantinople in his place. In August 435 imperial edicts forbade the meetings of
Nestorians and decreed heavy penalties against all who should copy, preserve, or read the
writings of their master, which were ordered to be burned. By a rescript of the following
year Nestorius himself was banished to Arabia, but he was actually sent to Egypt, where
from a reference in Socrates he is known to have been in 439. But he was not left in peace
in Egypt, for besides being on one occasion made prisoner by Lybian marauders, the ill
will of his Egyptian opponents led to his being somewhat harshly treated by the imperial
agents responsible for the supervision of his exile.

8 In 1825 Augustus Neander, in referring to the citations made by Evagrius from a history
of his misfortunes written by Nestorius during his exile, wrote 'That the work bore the
title of "Tragedy" is reported by Ebedjesu, a Nestorian metropolitan of the fourteenth
century, in his list of Syrian ecclesiastical writers in Assemani bibliotheca orientalis,
T. iii, p. i, f. 36. This work of Nestorius has unfortunately not come down to us, unless,
perhaps, it may be somewhere found in a Syrian translation.' As a matter of fact, Ebedjesu
mentions six works of Nestorius as extant in Syriac in his day, the Tragedy, the Book of
Heracleides, a Letter to Cosmos, a Liturgy, a book of Letters, and a book of Homilies and
Sermons, and Neander's prophetic hope has been fulfilled by the discovery, not indeed of
the Tragedy, but of The Bazaar of Heracleides. This work was introduced to English readers
by Dr. Bethune-Baker of Cambridge in 1908 in his monograph Nestorius and his Teaching. In
his preface Dr. Bethune-Baker gives the following account of the work.

9 The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there
are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of
Alexandria. Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed
by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following
July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith
of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of
Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided
against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of
the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile
was pronounced upon him. Dr. Bethune-Baker identifies this work with that mentioned by
Evagrius. He conjectures that the Syriac translation may have been undertaken at the
instance of Maraba, Catholicos of the Eastern Church, between 525 and 533, but no absolute
certainty can be attained on this point. Apart from the reference to it by Ebedjesu it is
not again heard of until the nineteenth century. The original manuscript is at Kotchanes
in Kurdistan, and for several years its existence has been known to members of the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyrian Christians, some of whom obtained copies of
it. It was noticed in the last decade of the nineteenth century by two German scholars,
and attention was called to it by Dr. Loofs of Halle in his Collection of Nestorian
remains published in 1905. In 1908 Dr. Bethune-Baker published his monograph, and in 1910
a Syriac text was published in Leipzig by P. Bedjan and a French translation in Paris by
F. Nau.

10 ii. The Text. Our translation is based on Bedjan's Syriac text. Nestorius himself wrote
his defence in Greek; his works were condemned to be burnt and only a few sermons and
letters have survived in Greek and Latin. Now only the Nestorian liturgy and The Bazaar of
Heracleides are known. The Syriac translation of the latter work was made about 535 under
the patriarch Paul, according to Bedjan ; of this there is extant only one mutilated
manuscript, which is preserved in the library of the Nestorian patriarch at Kotchanes, in
Kurdistan. This manuscript has suffered considerable damage, chiefly at the hands of the
Kurds on the occasion of the massacre of Nestorian Christians by the Kurdish chief Bedr
Khan Bey in 1843. Of this manuscript Bedjan says: 'According to the blank pages in the
manuscripts which I have had in my hands, and according to certain brief notes of the
copyists, I have reckoned that at page 146 of my edition [i. e. Syr., p. 146, as given at
the top of each page in our translation] there are very nearly 55 pages which have
disappeared; at page 161, 42 pages are missing; at page 209, 36 pages have been lost. One
can only make this calculation approximately. Further, there are passages where some lines
have been left blank; other places of no considerable length have been obliterated by
age.'

11 There are four copies of this manuscript, the first made in 1889 for the library of the
American mission at Urmiyah. From this two other copies were made: one for the University
of Cambridge, and the other for that of Strassburg. In addition to these, Bedjan had a
copy, written partly at Van and partly at Kotchanes, from the original in the possession
of the Nestorian patriarch. Of these manuscripts only the last mentioned, which is the
archetype of all the others, is of any value for the text; Bedjan himself confesses that,
where his text differs from that, the variations are errors or conjectural emendations of
an original which was not accessible to him. iii. Value of the Syriac Translation. That
the Syriac text is a translation is definitely stated by the writer of the 'Translator's
Preface'. Fortunately, although the Greek original has been lost, we are in a position to
estimate the value of this translation, since the Greek of certain passages has been
preserved in the Fathers. In the first place, Bedjan is undoubtedly right in seeing in the
title 'the Bazaar of Heracleides' a mistake; the original Greek word seems to have been
πραγματεία which connotes both 'business' and 'treatise', which the Syriac translator
rendered by te'gurta 'merchandise'! There are, however, very few bad blunders in that part
of the Syriac text which can be checked by a reference to the original Greek, as the
following list shows, while in many cases the cause of the error can be detected:

12 [Omitted from the online text] Besides these obvious blunders, there is at least one
instance of error through homoeoteleuton, and one where an imperative is translated as if
it were an optative. Secondly, there are a few errors for which no palaeographical
explanation can be found: [Omitted from the online text] No reason also can be assigned
either for the fact that in the phrase 'he who begins and grows and is perfected is not
God, although he is so called on account of the gradual growth' the translator always
substitutes 'revelation' or 'manifestation' for 'growth' (Gk. αὔξησις), or for the fact
that the name Aethericus regularly appears as Atticus in his version. Seeing then that a
certain number of errors can be charged to the account of the Syriac translator and proved
against him, it is not too bold to assume in a few passages similar mistakes. Finally,
three other passages where the Greek and Syriac texts diverge may be mentioned.

13 [Omitted from the online text] There seem also to be two passages where the double
negative οὐ μή in Greek has led the translator into error. On p. 259, for the Syriac 'For
I have not denied that Christ is not God', the context requires 'For I have not denied
that Christ is God' ...; on p. 324, for the Syriac 'how do they escape from saying that
the human attributes do not belong to the ousia of God the Word?', the context requires
'how then do they escape from saying that the human attributes belong to the ousia of God
the Word?' ... Another Greek construction over which the translator seems to have
blundered is that of the double accusative. ... [Omitted from the online text] Against
these errors there can be set a few passages where the Syriac version is clearly superior
to the Greek original, and several others where it can be used to decide between
alternative readings. In the first class come such passages as that on p. 234, where for
the Greek ὑπόστασις the Syriac substitutes πρόσωπον in conformity with the regular usage
of Nestorius; again, the Syriac rightly assigns the quotation on p. 244 to St. Luke, where
the Greek has St. John.

14 In the second category fall the following passages: [Omitted from the online text] The
Syriac translation may therefore be accounted good after its kind. Though occasionally
pedantically accurate, as when the see of Beroea of the original text is called by the
translator that of Aleppo, it aims generally rather at representing the sense of the
original than at reproducing the Greek word for word; for the retention of the Greek
redundant negative even against the sense in a few passages is due rather to the tendency
of the Syriac language to model itself on Greek, regardless of the requirements of Semitic
idiom, than to the slavish fidelity of the translator to his original. This is proved not
only by the loose rendering of individual words and phrases----for example, of αἰδέσιμοι
by 'beloved' (on p. 103)----but also by a certain laxity in regard to the translation of
technical or semi-technical terms, due largely to the relative poverty of the Syriac
language in comparison with the Greek; ... Against this, the translator accurately renders
ἐκκαπηλεύειν, 'to adulterate' (on pp. 323-4), according to its peculiar usage in the
Cyrillian writings.

15 The present editors, therefore, mindful of the fact that they are translating into a
third language a translation----and that one which possesses no grace of style or elegance
of diction----of a lost work, whose meaning depends solely on the precise value assigned
to a number of technical terms, have frequently sacrificed the English to an endeavour to
render faithfully the Syriac version, keeping as far as possible the same English word for
the corresponding Syriac even at the cost of a certain harshness or awkwardness in many
passages; for they have regarded it as their aim not so much to present the reader with
their view of what Nestorius said as to enable him to form his own opinion from a careful
and accurate version of the Syriac text. iv. History of the Controversy. Date. Events.
Refs. in The Bazaar. PAGES (English). 428. April Nestorius becomes bishop of
Constantinople November

16 Anastasius preaches against Theotokos. Christmas Nestorius begins a course of sermons
Day Protest of Eusebius (afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum) 429. Lady Day Proclus' sermon,
replied to by Nestorius. Eastertide Nestorius preaches three sermons in reply to Proclus.
Cyril sends his encyclical Ad Monachos Aegypti. Photius replies to it. Cyril stirs up
accusers against Nestorius. Caelestine of Rome makes inquiries. Letters from Nestorius
reach Caelestine June Cyril Ad Nestorium I 103 ff. Nestorius replies peacefully; his
diocese is disturbed and he is not ready for war. Nestorius is approached by the Pelagian
exiles, Julian and Caelestius. Basil and his monks petition Theodosius II against
Nestorius, and ask for an Oecumenical Council Cyril Ad Nestorium II and Ad Clericos
Constantinopolitanos 101 ff., 143-4, 149 ff., 218, 226, 243, 263 Lent Nestorius replies to
Cyril, this time more pugnaciously Cyril De Recta Fide, (1) Ad Theodosium, (2) Ad Arcadiam
et Marinam, (3) Ad Pulcheriam et Eudoxiam.

17 April Cyril Ad Caelestinum, sent by Poseidonius, with other documents enclosed Cyril Ad
Acadian (of Beroea) ----a fruitless effort to win over 'the East'. August Nestorius is
condemned at a Council at Rome. Caelestine writes to Cyril instructing him to carry out
the sentence, and to Nestorius bidding him to submit and to renounce his 'novel doctrines'
on pain of excommunication. Cyril writes to John of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. John
writes to Nestorius begging him to submit and accept the term Theotokos. November
Nestorius Ad Caelestinum III. Theodosius II and Valentinian III summon a General Council
to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost 431. A Council held at Alexandria. Cyril Ad Nestorium III
(Synodical Letter), with the XII Anathematisms appended December 7 Nestorius receives
Cyril's 'synodical' letter and Caelestine's sentence of excommunication, which cannot be
put into force owing to the Imperial Letter summoning the Council of Ephesus. Dec. 13 & 14

18 Nestorius preaches two sermons (xiii and xiv) and sends them to Cyril with counter
anathematisms. He also replies to John of Antioch, and with the aid of Cyril's
anathematisms wins him over. Cassian De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorianos, written at
the invitation of Caelestine. Marius Mercator Nestorii blasphemiarum capitula, based on
Nestorius' December sermons. John of Antioch enlists Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of
Cyrus on the side of Nestorius. Cyril Apologia contra Orientales, in reply to Andrew, and
Apologia contra Theodoretum pro XII capitibus, and Adversus Nestorii blasphemias libri V.
Cyril writes to Caelestine asking what is to be done if Nestorius recants. 431. May 7
Caelestine replies that 'God willeth not the death of a sinner', and Cyril is to do what
he can to win Nestorius back. June 7 Whitsunday. June 12 By 12th June there are assembled
at Ephesus: (1) Nestorius with ten bishops. (2) Counts Irenaeus and Candidianus, the
latter representing the Emperor, who had given him a letter of instructions.

19 (3) Cyril with fifty bishops. (4) Juvenal of Jerusalem with the bishops of Palestine.
(5) Flavian of Philippi with the bishops of Macedonia. (6) Besulas, a deacon, representing
the African Church. Memnon closes the churches of Ephesus to the Nestorians Conversations
between Nestorius and (a) Acacius of Melitene, (b) Theodotus of Ancyra June 21 Cyril
receives a letter from John of Antioch saying that he hopes to arrive in five or six days.
Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis bring a message from him, that the Council
should not wait for him if he is delayed on his journey. Nestorius and Candidianus wish to
wait for John But Cyril and Memnon, with the support of their followers and the populace
of Ephesus, have Nestorius summoned, and proceed without delay June 22 Candidianus
protests, reads his Imperial instructions, utters his contestatio, and on being overruled
withdraws The Gospels are placed on the throne, as representing the presence of Christ

20 Cyril presides, claiming to do so in virtue of Caelestine's letter of August 430; but
the force of his claim is doubtful since the imperial summons to a General Council had
superseded Caelestine's commission to Cyril to deal with Nestorius, and Caelestine had
himself sent legates to the Council. June 22 Session I. Nestorius refuses to attend. The
following are read: (1) The Creed of Nicaea (2) Cyril Ad Nest. II----received with
acclamation 143-4. 149 ff. (3) Nestorius Ad Cyrillum II----rejected with anathemas 141
ff., 162 (4) Caelestine's Letter to Nestorius of August 430. (5) Cyril Ad Nest. III with
the Anathematisms ----received in silence (6) Testimonies of various bishops concerning
conversations with Nestorius (7) Passages from certain Fathers, including Athanasius,
Theophilus, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa (8) Extracts from the
writings of Nestorius (9) The letter of Capreolus, Primate of Africa. Nestorius is deposed
and excommunicated Cyril, Nestorius, and Candidianus all write to Emperor

21 June 26 Arrival of John of Antioch and the Easterns John immediately holds a Council.
Forty-three bishops are present, and Candidianus. They depose Cyril and Memnon, and
excommunicate all their adherents who will not repudiate Cyril's XII Anathematisms
Candidianus sends reports to the Emperor June 29 An Imperial Rescript arrives in which
Cyril is rebuked for his haste, and the bishops are commanded to await the arrival of an
Imperial Commissioner in Ephesus July 10 Caelestine's Legates arrive----the bishops
Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip In accordance with Caelestine's instructions
they give their support to Cyril. Session II. Cyril presides. Caelestine's Letter to the
Synod, written on 8th May, is read. July 11 Session III. The minutes of Session I are
read. Philip announces Caelestine's assent to the sentence passed on Nestorius. Letters
are sent to the Emperor and to the Church of Constantinople. July 16 Session IV. John of
Antioch and his supporters are summoned, but refuse to attend.

22 July 17 Session V. John sends a message refusing to have anything more to do with the
Cyrillians. They excommunicate him and his adherents, and send reports to the Emperor and
to Caelestine. Events in Constantinople in July. The Cyrillians cannot get their messages
through to the Emperor owing to the activities of Candidianus and Nestorian agents. At
last a beggar carries in a cane a letter from Cyril to the bishops and monks at
Constantinople. With the aid of the abbot Dalmatius they enlist Theodosius' sympathies for
Cyril Theodosius then gives hearing to Cyril's envoys, Theopemptus and Daniel. Nestorius'
letters, and his friend, Count Irenaeus, put the case for the other side, and Theodosius
orders Cyril's deposition. The arrival of John, Cyril's chaplain and physician, turns the
scale. Theodosius decides to treat Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius as all deposed, and to
send a new commissioner to Ephesus July 21 & 31

23 Sessions VI and VII are not directly concerned with the Nestorian controversy. August
Count John, the imperial commissioner, arrives at Ephesus He announces the deposition of
Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, puts them all under arrest, and reports the fact to the
Emperor. The Orientals write to the Emperor, to Antioch, and to Acacius of Beroea. The
Cyrillians send two professedly Synodical letters to the Emperor. Count John tries to
persuade them to confer with the Orientals. They will not, but the Orientals draw up as a
basis of reconciliation, and send to the Emperor, a letter including the formulary which
is later known as the Formulary of Reunion. The Cyrillians ask to be allowed either to lay
their case before the Emperor at Constantinople, or to go home. Their appeals stir up
again the clergy of Constantinople and Dalmatius. 431. August Cyril writes from prison his
Explicatio XII Capitum. September 11

24 Theodosius receives at Chalcedon eight delegates from each side No agreement is
reached, and Theodosius, despairing of a solution, dissolves the Council, sending
Nestorius back to his monastery at Antioch, and ordering the consecration of a new bishop
of Constantinople (Maximian) The rival parties go home, the Orientals accusing Cyril of
having won his case by bribery October 30 Cyril arrives in triumph at Alexandria Maximian
deposes Nestorian bishops; the Orientals renew their condemnation of Cyril, and treat
Nestorius as unjustly deposed. 432. January 27 Caelestine dies, and is succeeded by Sixtus
III Rabbula of Edessa and Andrew of Samosata show signs of going over to the Cyrillian
side. Cyril writes to Maximian, and sends the Emperor his Apologeticus ad Theodosium,
which placates him. April The Emperor suggests as a basis of reconciliation that the
Orientals should give up Nestorius and Cyril his XII Anathematisms. He sends letters to
this effect to John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and St. Simeon Stylites. The letters
and the negotiations are entrusted to the notary Aristolaus

25 John, Acacius, Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus hold
a Synod at Antioch to consider Aristolaus' proposals. They demand the dropping of Cyril's
Anathematisms, but are willing to make peace on the basis of the Nicene Creed as explained
by Athanasius. These proposals are embodied in a letter from Acacius to Cyril, and taken
to Alexandria by Aristolaus. No mention is made of abandoning Nestorius. Cyril replies
that if the Orientals will accept the deposition of Nestorius there need be no trouble
about the Anathematisms John and Acacius wish to agree on this basis Theodoret agrees on
the doctrinal question, but dislikes the abandoning of Nestorius. Andrew wavers and
Alexander stands out. Autumn John and Acacius determine to go forward, ignoring the
opposition of Alexander. They send Paul of Emesa as their envoy to Alexandria Meanwhile
Cyril has been working hard to win over the Court at Constantinople. The clergy and monks
of Constantinople, including Maximian, Dalmatius, and Eutyches, have approached the
Empress Pulcheria, while Cyril has heavily bribed her maids of honour, important eunuchs,
and the Grand Chamberlain Chrysoretes.

26 Winter Paul of Emesa arrives at Alexandria, bringing (i) The Propositions of the Synod
at Antioch, (ii) The Formulary of Reunion, and (iii) A Letter of Introduction from John to
Cyril, cordial but containing no mention of the deposition of Nestorius. When pressed,
Paul agrees to accept that deposition together with the deposition by Maximian of four
Nestorianizing bishops. December 18 Paul is received into communion at Alexandria.
Christmas Day Paul is admitted to preach in Alexandria as an orthodox bishop. Aristolaus
and Paul return to Antioch, and persuade John to agree John announces his decision in a
Circular Letter to Sixtus III of Rome, Maximian, and Cyril, and also sends two private
letters to Cyril. Cyril replies with a letter (Ep. xxxix) afterwards given oecumenical
authority at Chalcedon. The question of the XII Anathematisms is left unmentioned by both
sides Synod of Zeugma. Theodoret, Andrew, and John of Germanicia acknowledge the orthodoxy
of Cyril, but refuse to accept the deposition of Nestorius.

27 Alexander and some Cilician bishops renounce both Alexandria and Antioch. Death of
Maximian. Proclus becomes bishop of Constantinople. An Imperial Rescript orders the
bishops of 'The East' to abandon their resistance to John and Cyril. Theodoret, Andrew,
and others obey The Tome of Proclus is approved by both Cyril and John. April Alexander
and seventeen other irreconcileables are deposed and banished to the Egyptian mines. Some
Cyrillians begin to think that Cyril has compromised the faith by admitting 'two natures'.
Acacius of Melitene writes to Cyril of the general uneasiness, and receives letters
composed to reassure him August Edict of Theodosius proscribing the writings of Nestorius
and meetings of his followers Aristolaus is charged to carry it out. Nestorius is banished
to Arabia, but actually sent to Upper Egypt. Count Irenaeus is also sent into exile
Nestorianism begins to spread in the East outside the Empire, e. g. in Persia.

28 John of Antioch writes to Proclus to say that all have now accepted the deposition of
Nestorius, and that peace is restored. Proclus has the relics of Chrysostom restored to
Constantinople. The Empress Eudocia returns from her pilgrimage to Palestine. John of
Antioch dies, and is succeeded by his nephew Domnus. Sixtus III of Rome dies, and is
succeeded by Leo. The abbot Dalmatius dies, and is succeeded by Eutyches. Eutyches'
godson, the eunuch Chrysaphius, gains an ascendancy over Theodosius, and Pulcheria's
influence declines Cyril dies, and is succeeded by Dioscorus. The Empress Eudocia is
suspected of unfaithfulness and banished Proclus dies, and is succeeded by Flavian, who
neglects to placate Chrysaphius with 'golden eulogies' Count Irenaeus is recalled from
banishment and consecrated bishop of Tyre. Theodoret Eranistes seu Polymorphus. 448.
February An Imperial Rescript proscribes the works of Porphyry and Nestorius, and orders
the deposition of Irenaeus. Dioscorus complains both to Theodoret and to Domnus of the
former's unorthodoxy. Theodoret replies and protests to Flavian and others, but Theodosius
orders him to be confined within his own diocese.

29 May Eutyches writes to Leo to say that Nestorianism is on the increase. June Leo
replies cautiously, asking for more detailed information. September Photius is consecrated
bishop of Tyre in place of Irenaeus. November Synod of Constantinople. Eusebius of
Dorylaeum accuses Eutyches before Flavian Eutyches is summoned, but does not appear till
Session VIII, when after being examined he is condemned. He immediately writes in protest
to Leo, and Chrysaphius procures a letter from Theodosius to Leo on his behalf Eutyches
also writes to Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna. Flavian writes to Leo, giving his
account of the trial, and asking the West to recognize Eutyches' condemnation. Leo,
receiving first the letters of Eutyches and Theodosius, writes to Theodosius and Flavian
complaining that he has had no report from the latter, and asking for one. Eutyches
invites Dioscorus to take his part Chrysaphius promises his aid, and that of Eudocia.
Dioscorus admits Eutyches to communion, and asks the Emperor for a General Council.

30 March Theodosius summons a General Council to meet at Ephesus in August April Eutyches
persuades Theodosius to have the Minutes of the Synod of Constantinople verified, and to
order Flavian to produce a written statement of his faith The Minutes are verified, and
Flavian produces his statement. The Eutychians procure the condemnation of Ibas of Edessa.
May Leo acknowledges the receipt of Flavian's letter. Theodosius summons the abbot
Barsumas to represent the abbots of the East at Ephesus, and tells Dioscorus that Barsumas
is to be allowed to sit and vote. Dioscorus is appointed to preside, Counts Elphidius and
Eulogius to keep order Theodosius' summons to the Council reaches Rome. Leo promises
Flavian his support. June Leo appoints Julius, bishop of Puteoli, the presbyter Renatus,
the deacon Hilary, and the notary Dulcitius to represent him at Ephesus They take with
them letters to Pulcheria, the archimandrites of Constantinople, the Council, and Julian
of Cos, and The Tome for Flavian.

31 August The Latrocinium. The Council meets, charged by Theodosius to put an end to
Nestorianism and the trouble stirred up by Flavian. Dioscorus presides. Of Leo's legates,
Renatus has died and the others, since they sit apart from one another and do not
understand Greek, have little influence Session I. Dioscorus refuses to allow bishops who
had taken part in the deposition of Eutyches at Constantinople to take part in this
Council He has the letters of Theodosius read, but prevents the reading of Leo's Tome The
Minutes of the Council of Constantinople are read Eusebius of Dorylaeum is refused a
hearing Eutyches and his followers are absolved and restored to their lost positions.
Flavian and Eusebius are condemned, a protest being met by Dioscorus calling in the Counts
and the soldiery, and obtaining the verdict by military compulsion Dioscorus sends in his
report to Theodosius. Session II, a fortnight later. Flavian has died from the violence of
Barsumas and his monks

32 Eusebius, Domnus, and Leo's legates are not present. Ibas, Irenaeus, Theodoret, and
Domnus are all deposed Cyril's XII Anathematisms are solemnly ratified. September While a
Synod is sitting on other matters in Rome, letters are received from Theodoret and
Eusebius protesting against the Ephesian decisions, and Hilary brings his account of the
Council. October In the name of the Roman Synod, Leo writes to Theodosius and Pulcheria
protesting against the proceedings at Ephesus. He also writes to various Eastern bishops,
bidding them stand fast. The Eutychians Anatolius and Maximus hold the sees of
Constantinople and Antioch. 450. February The Western Court visits Rome, and Leo persuades
Valentinian III, his mother, Galla Placidia, and his wife, Eudoxia, to write to their
Eastern kinsfolk, but it is all in vain. Theodosius confirms all that was done at Ephesus,
and informs the West that all is well in the East. July Leo offers to recognize Anatolius
if he will accept Cyril Ad Nest. II and his own Tome. There is no response.

33 Theodosius dies from a fall from his horse He is succeeded by his sister, Pulcheria,
who puts Chrysaphius to death and marries the senator Marcian. Eutyches is put under
restraint, and Flavian's body buried with honour in Constantinople. Theodoret and others
are recalled from exile, and many of the bishops who supported Dioscorus at Ephesus
explain that they did so under compulsion. November to June 451 Correspondence between
Pulcheria, Marcian, Anatolius, and Leo. Leo says the trouble is due to Dioscorus and
Juvenal of Jerusalem, and can easily be settled without a Council, which would be
difficult to arrange owing to the invasion of the Huns. Nevertheless, Pulcheria and
Marcian summon a Council to meet at Nicaea in September. Leo appoints legates. Bishops
assemble at Nicaea. Eutyches excommunicates Leo. Marcian cannot go so far as Nicaea for
fear of Huns in Illyricum, and orders the bishops to move to Chalcedon.

34 Strong measures are taken to exclude monks and laymen, and to keep order. 451. October
8 Session I. Dioscorus is treated as defendant and accused by Eusebius of Dorylaeum.
Theodoret is admitted as a bishop. The Minutes of the Latrocinium and of the Synod of
Constantinople are read. Flavian's memory is vindicated, Dioscorus and his supporters are
deposed, and the assembly bursts into singing the Trisagion----the first occasion on which
it is known to have been used Cp. 365 ff. October 10 Session II---- mainly occupied with
the discussion of Leo's Tome. October 13 Session III. Dioscorus is formally deprived of
his episcopal dignity Cp. 375 October 17 Session IV. The Council accepts 'The Rule of
Faith as contained in the Creed of Nicaea, confirmed by the Council of Constantinople,
expounded at Ephesus under Cyril, and set forth in the Letter of Pope Leo when he
condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches'.

35 October 22 Session V. The Definition of Chalcedon, under Roman and Imperial pressure,
is amended so as definitely to exclude Eutychianism, and as adopted includes the following
words: 'Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all teach, with one accord, one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . who for us men and for our salvation, according to
the manhood, was born of the Virgin Mary the God-bearer, one and the same Christ, Son,
Lord----only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without confusion, without change,
without division or separation. The difference of the natures is in no way denied by
reason of their union; on the other hand the peculiarity of each nature is preserved, and
both concur in one Prosopon and one Hypostasis.' October 25 Session VI. Marcian and
Pulcheria attend in state. The Definition receives civil sanction, and is promulgated. v.
The Argument of The Bazaar. Nestorius' apologia contains two lines of defence, historical
and doctrinal. Although the one shades off into the other, as the doctrinal issues are
called to his mind by the memory of the wrongs he has suffered, and vice versa, yet on the
whole three sections of The Bazaar may be distinguished as historical sections in contrast
to the remainder of the book which is mainly occupied with theological discussion.

36 The references to the text in the Historical Summary above provide almost all the
introduction needed for Nestorius' historical sections. His argument is twofold. He claims
to show, first, that his own condemnation at Ephesus was unjust, and secondly, that the
vindication of Flavian, who had suffered from the same causes and for the same faith as
himself, was the vindication of all that he had stood for. To this end he gives a detailed
account of the two Ephesian Councils of 431 and 449, showing how at the first Cyril by
violence and bribery won imperial and episcopal assent to a verdict which was no genuine
verdict of a council constitutionally assembled, while at the second Flavian had suffered
in similar fashion at the hands of Dioscorus. But there was this difference. The injustice
done to Flavian had been recognized by the Church and redressed, while that done to
himself had not. So he claims that he never had a fair hearing, but was condemned untried
for defending the faith which was ultimately accepted by the Church.

37 But though he is not lacking in a lively sense of the wrongs he has suffered, Nestorius
realizes that the triumph of the truth is of more importance than his own fate. Indeed, in
a notable passage he asserts his determination not to press his claim to have been
vindicated in the vindication of Flavian lest the odium of his name should delay the
complete victory of the true faith. It is that victory for which he chiefly cares, and
hence the main bulk of The Bazaar is occupied with the doctrinal discussion of the
Christian faith in the Incarnation. 38 In Book I, Part I, Nestorius sets forth his views
in contrast to those which he holds to be erroneous. The section, which is divided into
ninety-three numbered sub-sections, to which titles have been added by the Syriac
translator, is cast in the form of a dialogue with one Sophronius. Here Nestorius sets
forth as it were the theme of his thesis, and the remaining doctrinal discussions are
little more than variations on it. He begins by a brief review of errors. The heathen, the
Jews, the Manichaeans, the followers of Paul of Samosata, of Photinus, and of Arius are
described, and their doctrines criticized. The theories which deny either the true godhead
or the true manhood of Christ, or which involve the changing of one into the other, or the
production of a third nature by the combination of divine nature with human, are
pilloried. In the fifty-fourth sub-section, in passing over to the positive assertion of
his own christological beliefs, he directly denies that he teaches that there were 'Two
Sons' in Christ, and the remaining sub-sections are mainly occupied with a statement of
his own position, though the last five are again devoted to criticisms of other views
already mentioned. Similar criticisms compose the short Part II of Book I. Having thus
laid down his doctrinal position, in Part III Nestorius begins his historical review of
the controversy between himself and Cyril. The remaining doctrinal discussions, lengthy as
they are, do not carry us farther.

39 They are concerned with contrasting his own views with those of Cyril and his
followers, and repeat over and over again two points. On the one hand his own doctrines
are shown to be consistent with the Scriptures, the faith of Nicaea, and the writings of
accepted Fathers of the Church; on the other hand the teaching of Cyril is exhibited as
self-contradictory and, on the points at issue between Cyril and himself, as having
affinities not with orthodoxy but with the heretics described in the opening section of
the book.The place of that opening section in the plan of the book can therefore clearly
be seen. In it Nestorius describes the general doctrinal issues in the field of
Christology, and sets the stage for the discussion of the particular points of the
controversy between himself and Cyril. 40 What precisely did Nestorius teach? This is the
question over which controversy has raged since the discovery of The Bazaar. It is not the
object of the present volume to enter upon the discussion of this problem, but to provide
English-speaking theologians with the necessary material to study it for themselves. The
following summary of undisputed facts may, however, be given without entrenching upon the
questionable ground. It will be well first to state what Nestorius denies, and what he
assert? (i) He denies that the unity of Christ is a 'natural composition' in which two
elements are combined by the will of some external 'creator'. (ii) He denies that the
Incarnation was effected by changing godhead into manhood or vice versa, or by forming a
tertium quid from those two ousiai. (iii) He denies that God was in Christ in the same way
as in the saints. (iv) He denies that either the godhead or the manhood of Christ are
'fictitious' or 'phantasmal', and not real.

41 (v) He denies that the Incarnation involved any change in the godhead, or any suffering
on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible. (vi) He denies
that the union of two natures in one Christ involves any duality of sonship. (vii) He
asserts that the union is a voluntary union of godhead and manhood. (viii) He asserts that
the principle of union is to be found in the prosopa of the godhead and the manhood; these
two prosdpa coalesced in one prosopon of Christ incarnate. (ix) He asserts that this view
alone provides for a real Incarnation, makes possible faith in a real atonement, and
provides a rationale of the sacramentalism of the Church. 42 It is clear that the crux of
the question is to be found in the eighth of these points, and that the difficulty arises
from the difficulty of determining the sense in which Nestorius used the word prosopon.
His own theory can be stated almost in a dozen words. It is this: Christ is the union of
the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being that the πρόσωπον
of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one πρόσωπον of the two in the
union. Did one know precisely what Nestorius meant by the word πρόσωπον, one would know
precisely how he thought of the Incarnation, and would be able to decide whether the
logical implications of his teaching are those of Nestorianism or of orthodoxy. It is
certain that he himself did not wish to teach what is known as 'Nestorianism'. His
denunciations of Paul of Samosata and his followers show that he had no sympathy with
those who think of the Incarnation on adoptionist lines, and when accused of
'Nestorianism', as on pages 19 and 47, he indignantly repudiates any such views. The
intention of his doctrine is accurately summed up in the heading inserted by the Syriac
translator to the fifty-fourth section of the first part of The Bazaar----'Concerning
this: that God the Word became incarnate and there were not two sons but one by a union.'

43 Nestorius, then, accepted as a matter of religious belief the faith of the Church in a
Christ who was truly God and truly man and truly one, and through reflection on this he
produced a theological theory which he thought adequately related this belief to the
knowledge of the universe gained by metaphysical investigation. The positive teaching of
The Bazaar of Heracleides is simply an elaboration of this theory of a prosopic union.
With wearisome iteration it is put forward again and again, and is shown to be
satisfactory when tested by reference to the teaching of Scripture, the doctrine of the
Fathers, the needs of religion, and the demands of the intellect. In contrast to this the
'hypostatic union' of Cyril is shown to be unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true
religion, and unintelligible----unscriptural because it ignores the scriptural distinction
between the use of the words 'Logos' and 'Christ'; unorthodox since it involves if not
Arianism, then docetism or Apollinarianism; destructive of true religion in that it
abolishes the work of Christ as High Priest of the human race, undermines the doctrine of
the Eucharist, and empties the Atonement of its meaning; and unintelligible to such an
extent that sometimes one is simply baffled by the contradictions in his teaching, and
sometimes forced to conclude that he has confused the essential distinction between
godhead and manhood, thus undermining the true humanity of Christ and dishonouring his
divinity.

44 It seems possible that in this last point lies the solution of the vexed problem of
what was at issue doctrinally between Cyril and Nestorius. Perhaps the most difficult task
for Christian philosophy is the thinking out of its doctrine of creation, in which it is
essential that man be conceived both as owing his existence to God and 'made of nothing'
other than God, and yet also as in a real sense distinct from and other than God. If
sometimes we are tempted to abandon the quest as hopeless, it is well to remember that
even if we give up our Christianity we do not thereby remove our difficulty. The relation
of the temporal to the eternal is no less difficult a problem for the secular philosopher
than for the religious. Now in the fifth century the implications of the doctrine of
creation do not seem to have been thought out. In the struggle with Arianism the Church
had been forced, it seems for the first time, openly to face the question whether or no
God could create directly and not only through some intermediate being, and the assertion
that the Logos 'through whom all things were made' is 'of one substance with the Father'
denies the impossibility of direct creation by God Himself. Before the implications of
this assertion had time to be fully assimilated, the Church was stirred by the
Christological controversies. In these all parties seem to have assumed a conception of
the relations between godhead and manhood which made impossible any union of the two in
Christ such as the Christian religion demanded. It was not noticed that it would also have
made impossible any such direct creation by God as the Fathers at Nicaea had asserted, and
was, in fact, a conception belonging to certain strains of ante-Nicene thought which ought
to have been abandoned through being found to require an Arian rather than an Athanasian
Logos. But Apollinarius provoked reply too soon.

45 It is the heretics, Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, who are the logically
consistent upholders of this outworn conception of the relation between godhead and
manhood. Cyril's teaching, no doubt without his realizing the fact, was inconsistent, for
he had not consciously abandoned this ante-Nicene position, with the result that his
positive teaching on the Incarnation, while consistent with the Nicene doctrine of
Creation, demanded a revision of his conception of godhead and manhood, a fact which he
does not seem to have realized. But, as has happened so often in the history of thought,
the inconsistency of a thinker great enough to recognize truth at the cost of his system
won for his thought a place in posterity far above that of the barren coherence of his
rival. Nestorius has been called a confused thinker, but careful study of The Bazaar of
Heracleides makes it clear that, whatever he was, he was certainly not that. His few
points are repeated again and again with monotonous consistency. His trouble was rather
that that confusion in the apparent nature of things which is the challenge to thought was
too many-sided for so narrow and precise a thinker as he. The Bazaar may be long, and full
of needless repetition, but it never contradicts itself, and were it not for two facts
might well be studied in an abbreviated edition. Only, first, when a man has been for
centuries condemned unheard, it is hardly fair to enforce a closure on the time allotted
to him for his defence; and, secondly, when there is difficulty in determining precisely
what he is trying to say, it is possible that in the course of often repeating an argument
some little variation of detail may give a clue to the meaning of the whole.

46 [Most of the footnotes have been reproduced here, but renumbered]


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

BOOK 1, PART 1

The Book which is called

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES

of Damascus which was composed by MY LORD NESTORIUS

SYRIAC TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . apostolic 3 he
was known and famous in the labours of . . . .4 that your enthusiasm . . . . and in your
fulness . . . . of earthly kings. So you undertook the labour of a long voyage from the
East to the West to give light to the souls which were plunged in the darkness of the
Egyptian error and intent 5 on the smoke of the blasphemy of Apollinarius; men, however,
loved the darkness more than the light, since the eyes of their minds [were dimmed] by
personal prejudice . . . . for your pride . . . . only the darkness . . . . comprehended
it; but, on the contrary, although .... they became old. They were not convinced; they
were convicted of error and exposed. In this firm confidence in the might of your prayers
mine Insignificance draws nigh to translate this book from Greek into Syriac; yet at
least, the hope of the help of the living God being laid upon my tongue and confirmed in
my thoughts, I therefore draw nigh to compose these eight chapters wherein the purpose of
the book is made clear.

1. Concerning the aim of the book. The aim, therefore, which has been proposed by the
writer for this writing is this: that, because many, thoughtlessly [led astray] by the
multitude of men and by the desire of possessions, have fallen without examination into
the slough of prejudice through hatred and through attachment to persons,7 from which . .
. . not . . . .8 they have been condemned to that woe which was written by the prophet:
Woe unto them that call evil good.9 My lord the blessed Nestorius / [set himself] to write
this book to be a remedy to heal souls labouring |4 at this stumbling-block and plunged in
the depth of impiety. For great, to speak as in truth, was the schism which the devil
introduced into the Christian body of the holy Church, such as, if [it were] possible, to
deceive even the elect, and for this reason this remedy has necessarily been required [to
be] a corrective and a healing of the sickness of their minds. This is the aim of the
book.

2. Concerning the utility thereof. I suppose that, before [the beginning of] the text, the
spiritual utility of this book has been revealed to the reader from [its] aim. According
to the punishment that comes upon the doers of injury who make the innocent guilty and the
guilty innocent, it gives indeed light to the eyes of the souls by teaching concerning
that Christian dispensation which is in truth the more excellent theory concerning the
divinity and the humanity. For through this we are both far removed from blasphemy about
the divine nature and about the dispensation, and we are brought nigh unto knowledge
through his manifold mercies. But, that our discourse may not be prolonged concerning the
great assistance which we gain from this book, which succours us .... let us state in a
few words the proof that he clears away the thorns .... and causes the seed to sprout in
[place of] them.

3.....Much has been written concerning the manner of the union, but not even one of them
[that have written about it] in this research makes it clear and establishes it in all
truth; for they have delighted to make many distinctions, and there are others who have
ventured to fuse [the natures] without examination. But this blessed [Nestorius] has
undaunted delivered to us the knowledge thereof which is right. 4. The cause of its title.
It is called indeed the Bazaar of Heracleides, for this is evident that it is the bazaar
of spiritual knowledge; but it is not evident who Heracleides [was]. This is apposite to
the illumination thereof, O reader; namely, Heracleides was a man honoured for his conduct
and |5 esteemed for his knowledge, and he dwelled in the neighbourhood of Damascus. Now
this man, in consequence of his superiority in these things, was famous even before [his]
Majesty for his truthfulness and the justice of his words; who, being superior to all the
passions which remove [men] far from the truth, did everything without partiality. It
seemed [therefore good] to the writer to entitle the book with the title of this man's
name, lest on account of his own name, in that many abhorred it, they should not / be
willing to read [it] and be converted to the truth----[a book] which he sets as a judge
between him[self] and the impious Cyril, speaking and defending themselves. But the book,
nevertheless,. . . . . . . . . .

5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 as that of the
dispensation and of the truth of the inquiry concerning the faith, and the fourth [kind of
literature is that] of history; but this book is placed in the third class, that is of
chapters concerning the faith, to be read after these two books which were made by the
saint----and I mean Theopaschites and Tragoedia, which were composed by him as a defence
against those who blamed him for having wanted a council to be held. 6. Into how many
parts it is divided. Now in the first place he composed one dissertation wherein he speaks
of all the heresies against the Church and of all the sects that exist concerning the
faith of the three hundred and eighteen, arguing valiantly against those who are of
greatest repute among them. And in the second part he assails Cyril, putting before
[everything else] the inquiry touching the judges and the accusation of Cyril. And the
third [contains] his own defence and the comparison of their letters; and with this he
finishes the first book. But the second book he divides into two parts: the defence and
the refutation of the blame for the things on account of which he was anathematized; and
in the second |6 [part he recounts that which took place] from [the time] when he was
anathematized until the end of his life.

7. Concerning the literary form of the book. The literary form of the book is .... and
drawing inferences . . . .12 8. Under what 13 . . . 12 Now for the most part it is
theoretical, because it is teaching us the complete knowledge of the dispensation touching
our Lord Christ. With these [words] we will therefore stop our address / and approach the
body of the book, requiring of those who come by chance upon what has been written by us
that they blame us not as fault-finders, if haply there be [defects] in the composition of
our discourse, but [that] they display a ready will and correct what is deficient in us.
But if he conceives the reverse about us, for us the prayers of those who labour not with
this sickness are sufficient; while the former will prosper in their own affairs, knowing
that we have made no innovations at all. The editor is blameless.

[Here follow the titles of §§ 1-93, which are omitted as they are repeated in italics in
the text.] Finished are the titles of the chapters which are [given] in the preceding
dissertation. And unto Yah [be] glory! Amen. |7 The beginning of the book, that is, the
beginning of the Discourse of the Saint is from here. THE BOOK OF

MY LORD NESTORIUS PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

AND THE CANON OF ORTHODOXY BOOK I. PART I.14 / Preface. Now in my opinion whoever is about
to investigate the truth in all seriousness ought not to compose his discourse with
preconceived ideas, but should bring forward and explain everything which is opposed to
the truth. As those who have a knowledge of gold show the distinction between good gold
and that which is poor by a comparison of the one with the other in the sight of those who
wish to accept what is alloyed as though it were pure, and even in preference to the pure
(for many choose evil instead of good and falsehood instead of truth, in that both are
equal to them, and their readiness is the greater to dispute and to defeat one another [in
argument] than to establish the truth); so, since different people confess different
opinions about Christ and hold fast / only to the name, we ought to set out the fictions
of each one of these heresies concerning Christ, in order that the true faith may be known
by comparison with [these] heresies, and that we may not be shaken, falling into the one
or the other like men who do not see.

1. Wherefore the Heathen do not call Christ God .... The heathen indeed are not content to
name Christ God because of the suffering of the body and the cross and the death, and they
consider that the miracles were [accepted] |8 in error. And they are not differentiated in
name, because there is indeed no distinction between them, in that all of them are
heathen. 2. Wherefore the Jews do not admit that he is Christ. But the Jews do not confess
that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of
15Christ in all great glory and dominion. 3. Wherefore the Manichaeans do not admit that
Christ is also man by nature, but only God. The Manichaeans also, and those who have
sprung up from them and among them, declare that he is not man but only God / because of
the miracles; but as touching his human [qualities], they place them in schema and
illusion and not in nature.

4. Wherefore the Paulinians and the Photinians profess that our Lord Christ himself is
only a man and that he is not also God. But the Paulinians say that he is not God but only
man because of the birth and death; but they attribute to him miracles as to any of the
saints. 5. Wherefore the Arians profess that Christ is neither God whole and without
needs, nor yet a man, but half God and half man. The Arians confess that he is halt God
and half man of soulless body and of created divinity; deeming him inferior to men in
saying that there is not a soul in him and again deeming him inferior also to God in
saying that he is not uncreate and without needs. But because of the incarnation and the
birth of a woman and the death they consider that in his human [qualities] he became God,
and they confuse his divine with his human [qualities], attributing his incarnation not to
[his own] authority, but to an overruling command,17 saying that the union with the flesh
resulted in one |9 nature and not / according to the use of the prosôpon of the
dispensation on our behalf, but even as the soul and the body are bound [together] in one
nature and [the soul] suffers sensibly the sufferings of the body whether it will or not,
even though it has not of itself [the means] to accept them in that it has not a body in
which to suffer. So also they say that God has only one nature in the body, suffering of
necessity, whether he will or not, the sufferings of that nature which he took upon
himself, as though he was not of the nature of the Father impassible and without needs.

And this they say in order that they may not show him alone to be endowed with authority
and command, so that even the command which he accepted is a punishment, and from a
punishment which lies in his nature there is no escape; and, while he wished it not, he
suffered the sufferings of the body by virtue of the sensibility of the nature: he
hungered and thirsted and grew weary and feared and fled and died, and he rose not by his
nature but by the authority and the might of the Father; and in short they say that he
naturally endured whatsoever appertained to the sensible nature which he assumed.18 6.
Which the sects are which agree with the Manichaeans. . . . . In the midst of these there
sprang up heresies, some of the Manichaeans and others of them from the Paulinians. 7. And
which those are which agree with the Arians. |10 . . . 19 / 8. And wherein they are far
removed from them, and in what again they adhere to them. They are far removed from them
.... 9. Wherefore he has not written [the names of] the chiefs of these sects but only
their dogmas. But we wish to decline to [give] the names of their chiefs, so as not to
prolong our discussion nor to be found to have omitted any point in the inquiry by first
becoming entangled in [questions of] names. 10. What the statements are of those who say
that by nature God the Word became flesh without having taken a body.

So they accused the Manichaeans of saying that the body of our Lord Christ was not truly a
nature but a fiction and an illusion; but they tolerate miracles for the most part only of
God, either as though it were impossible or even as though it were not decent that they
should come about through the body. Sophronius.20 It appertains to the omnipotent and
infinite nature to be able to do everything; by its will then all other things are limited
while it is not limited by anything, and it, as God, can do what cannot be [done] by any
one else. For it cannot be [created] by a nature or a cause greater than itself, by which
it possesses [the property] of being / and of not being God. And on account of this they
fear to confess that the flesh truly came into being, lest in saying this they assume that
God is the flesh 21; they say: How could this be, seeing that we confess that the body is
God, for even that which is supposed to be flesh is the nature of God and is the same and
nothing else?

11. How water which becomes ice is in its nature ice, |11 becoming that which it was not
without receiving it from outside: so they say that God the Word became a body without
having taken a body from outside. As, after running and flowing water is frozen and
becomes solid, we say that it is nothing but water which has become solid, so God truly
became flesh though he was by his nature God; and he was in everything and he acted as
God. And, as touching [the operations of] the flesh, he both did [them] also in truth, and
he suffered also as flesh, and he became flesh in the womb, and in that he became [it] he
both was born and grew up truly as flesh; and, after he had chosen to become it, he both
hungered and thirsted and grew weary and suffered and was crucified truly, seeing that he
was truly flesh. For as water, which cannot be broken because it is frozen, can in truth
be broken / and truly accepts the suffering of the nature which it has become, so also God
who became flesh in truth accepted truly all [the sufferings of] the nature which he
became without having been expelled from his [own] nature.

12. As he was revealed in human form to Abraham and Jacob without having taken bodily
frame from outside, so also was his incarnation. As also he was seen of our fathers
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the rest of the saints in truth in visible nature, walking
in him who walked and talking in him who talked, and eating and drinking in him who ate
[so also was his incarnation]; for nothing is done of God through deception, but
everything in truth and in nature; for he is the creator and the creator does nothing in
schema and in illusion but in nature and in truth. But those things which were not in the
nature of the creator are rightly said to be fiction and illusion, since they cannot be
seen in [virtue of] their nature. 13. How they take the [words] 'truly and not in nature',
and in how many ways 'truly' is said.

Nestorius. Truly then they say that God became flesh? Sophronius says: We confess / that
he became flesh truly but not by his nature, in that he who became, became [so] |12 in
truth, and he is the nature but not in the nature. Indeed the flesh has not always
existed, but, as flowing water when frozen has the nature of ice though it is not so in
its nature but has become [so], thus also has God truly become flesh, and he is the nature
of the flesh and not in his nature, in that he is not it always but he became [so]
afterwards. For this is truly the Incarnation, in his nature to become flesh and man and
not in illusion nor in schema nor in fiction without hypostasis, which truly would be no
incarnation. He therefore who wants to suppose that it came about in fiction flees from
the truth.

14. Wherein those who say [this] agree with the Manichaeans and wherein they are supposed
to be distinct from them. Has it then been revealed to thee wherein they are imagined [to
be] the same and wherein they are supposed to have differences and abide by the same? And
we ought to leave out the things which follow these, in order that we may not vainly
suppress the truth in what is confessed. Nestorius says: I for my part say: Let us not
entirely neglect this point, although thou dost wish to run over it as one which is
confessed. Since it has been so unscrupulously said as to / be accounted absurd by the
hearers, I suppose that it is so also to thee. I will now explain this inquiry to any one
who wishes in order that that which surely is supposed may come to explanation; for I do
not see in it anything like or akin to anything [else]. For they are quite as far removed
from one another as fiction is far from truth and [as] the body of fiction [is] from the
body [of truth]. I see many who strongly insist on these [theories] as something [based]
on the truth and ancient opinion. And for this reason I wish thee to examine them not
cursorily but with all care, in order that the words of the faith may not be [treated]
without investigation and lightly, but may be clear and known to all men, as things which
are somehow defined by definitions and natural likenesses, and not like things which are
represented by their shadows [and] resemble this or that so long as they |13 are figured
in the same likeness.22 In what then dost thou say that they say the same thing, in that
they are like the Manichaeans even in the things wherein they reprimand them?

Sophronius. Those who say this are not repudiated by them as though they hold our body in
contempt, for both of them deny that the body was taken, but because they do not say 'in
truth', but that the nature of the flesh is illusion. We see then also their readiness in
these things, [in bringing forward] what plea is justly theirs, lest their blasphemies
should extend beyond what is right. / 15. The refutation of those who say that God the
Wordbecame the ousia of the flesh without having taken a body. Nestorius says: I say
therefore generally [in reference to] what they say more [insistently] than those who
depend on themselves, in order that they may not suppose that they have been condemned
because they had not an advocate nor a helper: for you seem like to me to be fully
convinced of what they say, and with many words you are capable of making their words
prevail, so as to be able to make also the hearers believe that they are so. So then,
constrain thou me also to speak unto them. Take each one of the words that has been spoken
by me and thine also, and bid me give an answer to each one of them if I can. But I can,
if God wills and gives me that which ought to be said [in order] to instruct according to
my own ability. For I indeed am of no worth; but it is for the sake of those who knock and
seek at the door of the truth, when it is the truth.

Sophronius. I say that what I have said is a proof of the divine power to be able to
become truly flesh, being God. For he who says 'God in truth' attributes to him the
[quality] of being able [to do] everything; for everything that he wishes he does. He
wished indeed to become flesh and he became flesh, not the schema of the flesh / but the
nature of the flesh, that is truly flesh. And thereby did he truly become
incarnate,because he was man by nature and not by anything else; |14 and the Trinity was
the Trinity without having accepted the addition of another ousia. Speak then in answer to
these [assertions]: for they appear to use the common words and views in such a way that
to dispute against them would be great boldness. 16. Concerning this: that he who has
become body in ousia ceases to be God and omnipotent and to be as God.

Nestorius. In truth hast thou spoken, and we ought not to dispute what has been said in
truth; for indeed [thou hast said] that God is all-powerful and does all that he wishes.
And because of this his ousia became not flesh, for that which becomes flesh in its nature
ceases to be able to do everything, in that it is flesh and not God.24 For it appertains
to God to be able to effect everything, and not to the flesh; for it cannot do everything
that it wishes. But in remaining God he wills not everything nor again does he wish not to
become God so as to make himself not to be God. For he is God in that he exists always and
can do everything that he wishes, and not in that / he is able to make himself not to be
God; for he into whose ousia the nature of the flesh has entered makes himself not to be
God, and further cannot do everything that he wishes.

Sophronius. He is not able to wish not to be what he is, but only to be that which he is
not. And for this reason he became in truth man, which he was not; that is, he became
truly flesh and man, but not in nature. For that which he is, he is in nature; but that
which he became, he became it not indeed in nature, but truly he was that which he became.
17. Whether it is assumed by them that God the Word became truly a body in ousia or in
illusion. |15 Nestorius. Dost thou attribute 'truly' as in ousia' or 'in illusion and in
fiction'? Sophronius. [Yes,] for both of them can truly be assumed. 18. Concerning this:
If God the Word became flesh by nature and remained God as he was, then God the Word was
two ousias naturally. Nestorius. If that which is supposed to be in ousia is [so] ----thou
sayest therefore that truly God is in ousia / and that he is according to the
flesh----[then] after he became flesh there were two ousias, that in which he was by
nature and that in which he became, the one of God and the other of the flesh.

Sophronius. There is not one ousia and another, but the same ousia of God, which became
also the ousia of the flesh; and for this reason there is one ousia. Just as when water is
running and when it is congealed there are not two ousias of water but one, which exists
both in the liquid and in the solid state, although the solid is supposed [to be] the
opposite of the running state, so also God: the same is body and without body, but in that
he is body he is distinct from that which is without body. 19. Concerning this: that those
things which have no distinction in nature and are distinct, are said to be distinct in
schema. Nestorius. I say therefore that they 25 have no distinction in nature; and things
which have no distinction in nature and are distinguished are distinct in the prosôpon.
But [to be distinguished] by the prosôpon without nature is a schema without hypostasis in
another schema.26 Or dost thou say, like the Manichaeans, concerning the flesh and the
things of the flesh that [they came about] in fiction and illusion, alleging that the
incarnation took place by deception? What then dost thou |16 suppose is true? That we
should concede / that the flesh issued naturally from the ousia of God and [that] the two
ousias become one, and become that which it is impossible that they should become, that
is, that he is not God but flesh, or that he became flesh in illusion?

Sophronius. Things which should properly be received with faith you accept with 'natural
logic' and reduce them to impossibilities. Then you deprive us in truth of the Christian
faith as heathens or Manichaeans who stumble at the Cross of Christ. Nestorius. And who
are those who like heathens and Manichaeans stumble at the Cross of Christ? Are they not
those who accept his humanity as a change of the ousia? For it appertains to the heathen
to say that God works by a change in [his] likenesses in any ousia whatsoever and in ...
into the nature of which he has been changed; and further they set aside the nature,
[even] that which was in the beginning. And the Manichaeans also have taken [these
opinions] from them and say that the change of likeness resulted in a schema without
hypostasis. And you, in saying that, are following them, and you speak as those who
stumble at the Cross of Christ.

20. Concerning this: that those who say that the Incarnation [ lay in] a change of
likeness confess that Christ is neither God nor man. / You do not confess that he is God
in ousia in that you have changed him into the ousia of the flesh, and he is no more a man
naturally in that you have made him the ousia of God; and he is not God truly or God by
nature, nor yet man truly and man by nature. 21. Concerning this: that he who comes into
being by ousia from a preceding hylê is that which he has become and not that which he was
before he became [so], as from a woman there came into being a statue of salt. And it is
nothing else than this, that, as a man of wood and stone is not truly called man, being
the nature of wood and stone, so also neither is he who has become man from the |17 ousia
of God called man by nature, so long as the divine nature subsists.

Sophronius. Then, O admirable man, from stones God can raise up children unto Abraham, and
from a human bodily frame a pillar of salt, and from the earth a man; and nothing has
prevented God nor yet is anything preventing him from doing that which he wishes,
preventing him from becoming flesh. Nestorius. First, then, investigate that which thou
hast said. / Prove this to us, that God wishes it so. For the whole opinion of the world
is agreed that God can do everything whatsoever he wishes. But again thou hast made use of
proofs to the contrary. For he who becomes man from stone or from earth is the nature of
man, in that he truly has become man, and not the nature of stone or of earth; and that
which has become a pillar of salt from a human body is only the nature of whatever it has
become. For things which are changed from their first ousia possess only that nature into
which they have been changed. Therefore, if thou sayest that he became the nature of the
flesh from the former hylê of the nature of God, he possesses that ousia which he has
become without having been [it]. And it is of no importance that, as I have said, the
ousia of man issues from a stone or from earth or from the seed of man, for that which is
from a former ousia is changed into the nature which it has become; and if he is not
changed, he does not at all become flesh by nature.

Sophronius. Divine Scripture solves for us this problem and does not permit us to be
obstinate and to speak arbitrarily. For the staff of Moses, when it became truly a
serpent, was a serpent as well as a staff; and the waters of the Nile, which became blood,
became the nature of blood as well as of water. The ousia was the same although it was
changed and for this reason / the children of Israel used water which had become blood as
the nature of the water, and Moses [used] a serpent as a staff, in that it was truly both
of them. For God sustains natures as he will. |18 22. Concerning this: that the waters of
the Nile, when they were transformed into the ousia of blood, were only that ousia into
which they were changed. Nestorius. Again thou usest proofs like these because, as I
suppose, thou art bewildered. There were then two ousias; for the water which was taken by
the Hebrews was blood and water and that which was taken by the Egyptians was both in the
same way. But if the former was only water and the latter only blood, then they were
afterwards changed; for when they were taken, those which were taken were changed and
further were something else, namely that which they became. How then is it not seen that
that which it became by nature is by all means that which it has become and nothing else?

Sophronius. And behold! we see that Divine Scripture / has said that from the same ousia
there are two things by nature, when that which has become man by nature from dust and
earth and is man by nature, says: I am dust and ashes,if it be that thou mayest not revile
Divine Scripture as though it has said things that are impossible, when it says of him who
was man, by nature man, I am dust and ashes. 23. Concerning this: that one ousia, which
appears in two ousias, is in the one ousia by nature but in the other in schema only.
Nestorius. If Divine Scripture, in reiterating these things about the nature of man, says
[that], and [if] every man is the nature of man and nothing else, then also God the Word,
who truly became man in nature, is dust and ashes in nature and is not of the ousia of God
but of dust and ashes. If it [were the divine ousia] from which he became [man], it
indicates----if indeed every man is this [ousia] 27 by nature while he is not this ousia
but the ousia of God----[that] he was not man except in schema, as the Manichaeans say;
and the statements also concerning him are in schema, that it may not be revealed to every
one what he is; since one ousia, if it be recognized in two ousias, in the one / is ousia
but [is] in the other in schema or in falsehood and in illusion. |19

Sophronius. So thou art attributing to God nothing more than that he should be God truly
by nature and man by nature. It is the same nature in both of them, except that God is in
man. And what is the Incarnation except that he became man by nature in the nature of man
and that he spoke to us in our nature and that he endured naturally all the things that
are ours, since for this thing indeed he became incarnate. But, further, you lay down that
God did [this] by means of an intermediary 28 and the clothing of the schema, and
absurdities such as this, in that he likened himself to tragedians and singers who somehow
disguise themselves. 24. Concerning this: that he who can be visible by his nature has no
need to become anything else in order to be visible in it. Nestorius. But, O admirable
man, it remains to compare the things which have been said by thee, [namely] that he
appeared to us in his own nature without an intermediary. For what reason then hast thou
said that he became the nature of man while remaining God? For he who appeared in his
nature had no need to become another ousia in which to appear. If he appeared in his own,
then thou sayest an impossible thing, that he was a mediator for him[self]. / For a
mediator is not of one, but God is one, and consequently he cannot be God but the mediator
of God.

25. Concerning this: that if, when God appeared to the saints, he appeared in a change of
ousia, he therefore became incarnate in many ousias and not in one. But further be
persuaded to consider this: dost thou predicate of God one incarnation or many? What
sayest thou of this? Then, since you say that he became the nature of man and was seen by
Abraham and Jacob, and by each one of the saints in any schema whatever, in whatever
schema he was, he |20 was naturally changed into the nature in which he was seen and in
the last days he was changed into the nature of man in order to become incarnate.
[Therefore] you predicate many incarnations, if indeed you agree that the Incarnation was
to become incarnate in his nature. There are many changes through which he appeared in
schema. Sophronius. One incarnation do we predicate, [affirming] that at that time he
truly became incarnate in his nature and appeared not to some men, as to Abraham and to
Jacob, but to all men.

26. Concerning this: that if the word incarnation is employed of his appearing to all men
and not to certain ones, as to the saints, / in that he appeared not to all men, he has
not then indeed become incarnate at all. Nestorius. [It follows] from this statement that
he became not incarnate at all, in that he appeared not to all men, but [only] to those in
Palestine. Why then was his incarnation partial and not for all men? Or is this what thou
callest the Incarnation, that he became man in nature when he became incarnate for all
time and appeared to all men? 27. Concerning what has been said about the Incarnation, in
that he appeared in human nature. If then the Incarnation was truly one and for all men
and not for some, both for those who saw him and for those who saw him not, both for those
who were [present] and for those of old, and if the Incarnation happened at the same time
for all nature, we duly confess that God the Word was not the nature of man; for that is
not the nature of man which is not the nature of man but of God. But in the ousia of man
[he is] truly man, of the true nature of the true man in which he became incarnate
altogether for all and which he made his prosôpon, and he was revealed in the things of
men in comporting himself in the nature of man, being God in human nature. As a king in
the schema of a soldier comports himself as a soldier and not as a king, / he is clad in
the manner of a soldier against whatsoever has |21 need of correction, and it is said that
in everything he is [so] clad, in that he has become the schema of one soldier, even that
which clothes all the soldiers. So he became incarnatein one man for all men who are of
the [same] nature, since he was in their nature, and in it he spoke to all men, as if he
spoke in his own nature.

Sophronius. Then, when he was in the nature of man, it is said that he became incarnate;
and through it and in it for all men and not rather on his own account, in that he became
a man in truth and thereby was associated with a man who was of their very nature. And in
truth incarnation took place in that by his own nature he became man and had no need of
another nature. Nestorius. The Incarnation indeed lay not in this, as a king, in using as
a king the schema of soldierhood, becomes not a soldier indeed in the manner of a soldier;
or perhaps it is] as if one were to say that in name only he becomes a soldier. Thus no
more did God become incarnate, being not in human nature, but .... Sophronius. What
meanest thou by 'as a king' and 'as a soldier'?

Nestorius. Just as purple is the clothing of royalty but not of soldierhood and as the
clothing of soldiers is the equipment which belongs to soldiers and not to kings, when /
therefore a king wishes to put on the clothing, that is the equipment, of soldiers and to
lay aside the purple of royalty, though [clothed] in the schema of a soldier of which he
has made use without descending from his royal dignity, he then remains in majesty and
authority over everything, even in this schema. But when he wishes to condescend and to
become one of the soldiers, [wearing] the clothing of one of these soldiers, as if he had
become a soldier, and not [that] of royalty, and concealing himself in it and talking with
them on equal terms and persuading them without constraining them, he so performs the
duties of royalty in the schema of a soldier. Thus also God, when he wished to become
incarnate, if he had not |22 come in human nature but had become flesh in his own ousia,
would not at all have become incarnate, in that he would have become incarnate for them in
his own ousia and not in the nature of men.29

28. Concerning this: that he who by a change of ousia becomes man is of another nature and
not of the nature of men. He indeed who by a change of ousia becomes man is of another
nature and not of the nature of men, in that he has another description of nature and not
that of men; because he is God by nature, and the ousia of man is something else than the
nature of God, as both of them exist by nature: not that he passed from the nature of God
to the nature of man nor [that he was] something else than these; / he is by nature in
both of them, but the man is only man and God is only God. Sophronius. And he had not so
received the incarnation,but [if it] took place in another human nature and not from the
ousia of God, how does the Trinity not accept an addition in [its] nature, since it has
accepted the ousia of another? Or how is this God of the nature of men and not of the
ousia of God?

29. Concerning this: that, in that he has become man in the ousia of man and has not
become man in [his own] ousia, neither in nature nor in prosôpon does he accept any
addition. Nestorius. As a king, who takes the clothes of soldierhood and is [so seen], has
not become a double king, and as the king exists not apart from him, in that he is in him,
and as, further, he is not revered apart from him in whom he is |23 known and whereby men
also have known him and have been rescued; so also God used his own prosôpon to condescend
in poverty and shame even unto the death on the Cross for our salvation; and by it he was
raised up also to honour and glory and adoration. Wherein he was abased, in that also he
was glorified. For the sign of salvation and victory is [a sign] of honour and not of
abasement. Nor did he receive any addition of the ousia, because the ousias remain without
change. For then there is / an addition in the ousia when it accepts another ousia, an
equal ousia.30 But also he received not an addition to the prosôpon, in that he took his
own prosôpon and not another, not for distinction but for the union of his own prosôpon
and that in which he became incarnate; and also his prosôpon 31 is in him and not in
another. For he is clothed in the likeness of a servant, and by it he emptied himself and
has clothed it with his prosôpon and has exalted his name above all names. In the prosôpon
then of the divinity is he adored and in no other, and in consequence of this the prosôpon
is one and the name of the Son [is one].

30. Against those who say not that God was changed into the nature of a man, but that he
changed the ousia of man into the ousia of God.32 Now for those who predicate the union in
a change there follows in any case an addition in ousia as well as in prosôpon. The ousia
indeed, which became flesh out of God the Word, was added to the Trinity, and it is
evident that this prosôpon is a part detached and that it is conceived in detachment; or
it became the nature of the flesh [emanating] from the ousia of God the Word in
detachment, an addition took place .... Whence then is the origin of these things and in
what are they distinct? Further, we have already said the same thing. |24 / Let us turn
then to another sect which has sprung from these and is distinct from them and at the same
time is confounded with them . . . .

Sophronius. They confess then that the body of our Lord is of his own flesh and therein
they mock both at those who say that the flesh was in fiction and illusion and also at
those who say that it was of the ousia of God the Word, saying . . . . 31. What words
those use who say that the nature of the body was changed into the ousia of God the
Word.33 He came not to change his unchangeable ousia and to make it the ousia of the flesh
but to raise up our miserable and changeable [ousia] to his own unchangeable [ousia] and
to make it divine and adorable, not of itself but in the union. And he deems it worthy of
the union with his ousia, in order that it may become one ousia and one prosôpon of one
ousia; and the smaller has been mixed with and deemed equal to the great and unchangeable
divinity. Even as things which are cast into the fire are made equal to the ousia of the
fire and become the nature of the fire which has made them what they have become, so also
the divine nature has accepted the human nature and has mingled it in its own nature, and
has changed it and made it therefore one without distinction in ousia and in prosôpon; /
and neither in nature nor in prosôpon has there truly been an addition to the Trinity; and
thus the Incarnation also took place and is conceived.

32. In what they are distinct from the Manichaeans and in what they confess [the same] as
they. [Nestorius]. These indeed are distinct from the Manichaeans in that they confess
truly that the flesh is of our own nature and that it is not the schema of the flesh but
the nature of the flesh. But some of the others who are with them [are distinguished] in
that they confess that the flesh is true, not belonging to human nature but being divine
and of the nature of the divinity. In this they are distinct and they strive |25 with all
their might. And those who suppose that they serve the church confess that the flesh is of
our own nature and ousia and so its distinction is known to all men. Generally then they
dispute with all:34 with the Manichaeans concerning the [point] that there was an ousia
and an ousia in truth; and with the others that it was not of the nature of God but of our
fathers; but with the church in that they change the flesh into the ousia of God.
Therefore in that they do not allow the flesh to remain in its own ousia, they resemble
the Manichaeans by destroying the ousia of the flesh, but diverge from them in that they
say that God was altogether in the hylê of the flesh. But in that they immediately change
[the flesh] into the ousia of God the Word and are unwilling to / confess that God was
with the human body, they agree with the same opinion and feeling when they exclude the
ousia of the flesh as if it existed not, insisting either on deifying the ousia of the
flesh or, so to say, on making the ousia of God become incarnate in the ousia of the flesh
of the divinity.

33. That those who change the nature of man into the divine nature do not say that God
became incarnate but that a man was deified. He then who is not the human ousia of the
flesh and is called flesh is so called by homonymy, even as a man of gold or silver or of
another ousia of whatsoever material is not man by nature, since he has not the nature of
man; and this is not the incarnation of God but the deification of man. 34. Concerning
this: that those who change the nature of man into the divine ousia make an addition to
the Trinity both in the nature and in the prosôpon. If therefore the nature of the flesh
which has been deified remains in the ousia in which it has been deified, how has the
Trinity not accepted an addition in the ousia and in he prosôpon? / For there is nothing
of human nature in the Trinity, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, |26
but it is alone; and in that which was not with it eternally but which has been [added] to
it, it has received an addition. But how could an addition which is [made] to it not be an
addition? And this also is another story and a Manichaean fable. But if that which was
[added] became not what it was and the nature of men was harmed by the nature of the
divinity as by fire, and [if] thereby the Trinity accepted not an addition, no more is
this an incarnation, but the extinction of the Incarnation. For anything which results in
the extinction of human nature and not in its preservation, is not named an incarnation
but [is] as something which exists in relation to that which exists not.

35. Wherein those who change the nature of the body into the ousia of God agree with those
who change the ousia of God into the nature of the body. And herein they agree with those
who change the divine ousia into human nature; for that is the same thing, that God
becomes the ousia in the nature [of the body] or that he changes the ousia in man into the
nature of God. 36. Concerning this: that it is not possible that the nature of God should
be changed into bodily frame either by mixture or by change, nor yet that the body should
be changed into the ousia of God the Word. / He indeed who changes the divine nature into
human nature brings about its suppression, and he who changes human nature into the divine
nature makes mock of it and makes of it a nature unmade, in declaring a nature [which is]
made unmade, which cannot be. For of nothing the maker easily assembles the ousia and
makes the ousia which is made by change of that which is made. But it is impossible that
[he should make] that which is unmade 35 and that which was not from that which was, as
thou sayest; or else surely thou dost deprive it of being ousia. But there are no means
whereby the ousia which was should cease to be nor whereby that which was made should
become unmade, nor again [are there any means whereby] that which is not should become an
eternal |27 nature and be with the eternal; nor again whereby a nature which was not
should come into being nor whereby that which is not eternal should become eternal either
by a change of nature or by confusion or by mixture; or whereby from the ousia of the
eternal [should come into being] that which is not eternally. For either by mixture or by
confusion of the two ousias a change of ousia took place [making] for one nature which
should result from the mixture of both of them; or one ousia of them was changed into the
other.

It is not possible that the unmade [should become] made and the eternal temporary and the
temporary eternal and that the created [should become] uncreated by nature; that that
which is uncreated and which has not come into being and is eternal should thereby become
/ made and temporary, as if it became part of a nature made and temporary; nor that there
should come forth a nature unmade and eternal from a nature made and temporary to become
an ousia unmade and eternal; for such things are not possible nor conceivable. For how can
anyone conceive that the Maker, seeing that he is in every way other than that which is
made, should change into his being the other which has been made? For in that he is the
Maker, he is unchangeable; since he works by an unchangeable nature, and when he is not
that which he is he works not. In effect either he is what he is by nature, eternally God,
and became not another nature while remaining in the ousia of God; or, not being the
nature of God, he was made and is not the Maker, which is absurd and impossible.

37. Concerning this: that those also who say that the nature has been changed in part, and
not all of it, say [what is] impossible. Although indeed anyone should grant that in part
he changed his nature and in part was not changed, he who makes has in every way the
lordship over him who is made and over him who is changed; for there is nothing which is
more lordly in its [whole] nature than [in] a part of it, but whatever all of it is the
same also / is in its part. Even if then we accept absurdities as well-pleasing, a part
being mentioned in speaking of a nature simple and indivisible, not |28 even so does one
avoid what is absurd and not eternal For wherein does that which is not the ousia come to
be in the ousia? For in so far as he is God he is unchangeable, but when he is not God he
does nothing. How then is that said which cannot even be conceived: that God is changed
into another ousia or again that another ousia is changed into the ousia of God and
becomes that which is the Maker, that is, that what was unmade and was not [became] that
which was made and came into being? These [statements] are in fact contradictory. How then
do the things which have been said appear to thee? Have both parties been sufficiently
treated, those who stand by the statements of those men and [those also] who are of ours?
Or is there still something lacking which they ought to establish? Thou oughtest to fill
it in, as though thou speakest on their behalf.For if anything touching the faith has been
omitted in their statements, we shall lend it our aid with all our might, in order that
their discomfiture may be exceeding great, since they are supposed by many to be unshaken
and unaltered, although they are not.

Sophronius. I suppose then that the statements of both parties have been well handled and
there remains nothing for us [to do], and therefore / indeed I rejoice in an hour of
silence, and I beseech thee also to desist; for I have no good or useful objection that
can be raised against thee, except one word only which people confidently use in regard to
what pleases them. Nestorius. What [is that]? Speak confidently, undaunted, using manfully
and adequately every one of their arguments even as they themselves [do]; for no one who
is hesitating in his thoughts can strive manfully. Sophronius. So must it be in regard to
the union even as the bread, when it becomes body, is one and the same body and not two.
And one also is that which is conceived as the nature of the body, and further it is no
more conceived in its former nature but as itself in that which it has become; wherefore
it is not that which it appears [to be] but that |29 which it is conceived [to be]. And
consequently also the Apostle decreed a fearful punishment against those who supposed the
body of our Lord to be common, when he said thus: If he who has violated the law of Moses
dies without pity out of the mouth of two or three [witnesses], how much more is he
counted worthy of a severe punishment who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has
considered common the blood of his testament, whereby he was sanctified, and has scorned
the spirit of grace. This he said / against those who regarded the blood and body of God
as the blood and body of man, and who erred in supposing that the body and blood whereby
we have been sanctified are common; and the spirit of grace they have scorned in
confessing not that the Son of God is consubstantial with God and the Father, but that the
body of the Son of God is the body of a man, whose body and blood he has raised to his own
ousia and has not let them be upbraided and taunted with a human ousia but has [caused
them] to be adored in his own ousia.

38. Concerning this: that the Apostle speaks also against those who consider the blood and
body of Christ profane and impure, not as though to imply that it 36 has certainly been
changed into the nature of God the Word but as though they refuse to call the blood blood
and to call the body body and [because they assert] that they are not able to save us, as
the Manichaeans say. Nestorius. Is this proof, concerning which thou keepest silence, of
small importance in thy opinion? They indeed insist much on it, and thou oughtest not to
bring it forward negligently. It had indeed escaped my notice in the manner of those who
see the mote but not the beam. [Now that] it has been revealed, let us examine it from all
sides, [to see] how it is and how / Divine Scripture wishes us to understand [it], so that
we incur not blame just and divine.

39. In how many ways the word which in Greek is called koinon is used. And first, let us
speak of the use of the word called koinon in Greek. Now in meaning it refers to [what is]
polluted, |30 and [what is] common and to participation. [It refers to] what is polluted,
as he said in the Acts: Never have I eaten that which is impure and polluted 37; but to
what is common in whatsoever they----the Apostles----had belonged to them in common; but
to participation in the cup of thanksgiving which we bless, is it not a participation, in
the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body
of Christ? And again: He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one;
wherefore he was not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: I shall proclaim thy name to
my brothers and in the midst of the assembly I shall glorify thee; and again: I shall put
my trust in him; and again: Here am I and the children which God has given me .... Since
then the children have participated in the flesh and the blood, he also has participated
likewise in the same things? Since therefore this term is employed of a man who is impure
and polluted and also of that which is common and further of participation, [did he 38 so
use] this expression which covers three uses / and does not distinguish against what
opinion the apostle meant it, when he laid it down that for this reason men trample
underfoot the Son of God?Which of these three [interpretations] is accurate?

Sophronius. [He employed this word] against those who think that he died not for us but
was in his own death as all men, and that both living and dead he was an ordinary man and
that he possessed nothing more [than ordinary men], for they know not that he is the Son
of God and that his blood is the blood of God and not that of a man. Nestorius. Do you say
this, that the body and blood are the ousia of the Son of God, or that the body and blood
are of human ousia and have become the nature of the divinity? For, as you say, the flesh
is not flesh, because it has been changed by him into the ousia of God the Word by means
of a mixture and a union. And it [is what] the blessed Apostle meant when he mocked
exceedingly at |31 those who confessed his body and his blood and [yet] supposed it
impure.

Sophronius. He said not this against those who by no means confess the body in truth, nor
against those who change or corrupt the ousia as by fire or [who suppose] the ousia of the
flesh impure through mixture, but against those who confess the flesh and the blood and
[yet] think that it is common. / Nestorius. As it seems to me, the opinion to which thou
dost cling is not more in harmony with these, but with those who change the ousia into the
nature of flesh and blood without thinking that the ousia of the flesh and blood of our
Lord is common, but that it is of God the Word and not of men. Sophronius. Then one ought
not to return answer to these but a reprimand for having used contradictory expressions.
But speak of those who supposed that the flesh was of the ousia of God.

40. How one ought to understand: 'He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all
of one.' Nestorius. Thou art mistaken, for the Apostle said not two contradictory things.
For he wished to say that he who sanctifies and he who is sanctified are of one and
brothers of one and not of different ousias, and his children as those who are sprung from
him. Thus he said: For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of them of
one? The blood then whereby we have been sanctified and which has been poured out on our
behalf is of one; thereby also are we his brothers, as if of one father, but again also
his sons, [as those who] possess one ousia, wherein we are also sons. In God the Word in
fact there is not anything whereby he and we should be of one, / or whereby we should be
called sons in his likeness, that for this [reason] we should become his brothers, in that
we have no reason for such a likeness, as those who are brothers and of one father; nor
further that we should become his sons, because we do not participate |32 in the same
ousia. So then the blessed Paul said this, accusing those who are not persuaded to admit
that the blood of men can sanctify and who suppose that it is impure as being the blood of
a man and consequently regard as impure the blood of the covenant whereby we have been
sanctified and rescued from death through the true death of a man.

And thereby he tells us that we are of one, and thereby he calls us his brothers on
account of the nature which is born of our fathers and died for us; for in that he was
born he is of our race and we are all of one; but, in that he died on our behalf and has
renewed the future state by immortality and incorruptibility, we are his sons; for he is
the father of the world to come. Are we not all in consequence of that one body in one?
For we all receive from this same one bread, whereby he makes us participate in the same
blood and flesh, which are of the same nature, and we participate with him in the
resurrection from the dead and in immortality. So we are to him his body just as is the
bread; even indeed as the bread is one, / so are we all one body, for we all receive of
this one bread.

41. Concerning this: that, if in Christ the ousia of the body was changed into the
divinity, we also are changed into the ousia of God the Word; for we are all one bodily
frame and one body. We then also have been changed into his flesh and we are his body, and
we are therefore not the body and blood of man, but his own body. The bread indeed is one,
wherefore we all are one body, in that we are the body of Christ. You indeed are the body
of Christ and members in your parts. Is the bread the body of Christ by a change of ousia?
Or are we his body by a change? Or is the body of the Son of God one with God the Word by
nature? But if they are one by nature, there is then no more bread nor again is there
[any] body. But to those who thought that the body of the Son of God was polluted the
Apostle says that |33 they are trampling underfoot the Son of God in rejecting him and
denying him, against those who confess that the body is of our own nature and who regard
it as polluted, although [they admit] that it was given for the salvation of us all
because it was pure and unstained and saved from sins, and that for all our sins he
accepted death and became as it were an offering unto God. For if we are not of one, we
are naturally not called / his brothers nor his sons, nor are we any more his bread and
his bodily frame; but, if all these belong truly to Christ, we are his body and
consubstantial with him, in that we are that which is also the ousia of his body. And
these things are also known through the words of the dogma of those who are changed now
into this and now into that, because they possess not the truth.39

42. Against those who say that the union took place in the ousia of God the Word and that
the nature of the divinity effected the transfusion of the nature of humanity. From these
again another sect has arisen who in some things are like them and in others are distinct
from them, while they indeed agree with the Arians but also dissent from them; but in
another way they are clothed in the prosôpon of the orthodox, whereby again they keep
aloof from the one but so fall into the weakness of the first. They confess indeed that
the body of our Lord is of the nature of our fathers and therein they are to be likened to
those against whom we have spoken a little before; but they are distinct from them in
denying the change of the flesh into the ousia of the divinity and in accepting the union
without mixture and without confusion. But they incline towards the Arians in saying that
the union resulted in one nature, not by change |34 of ousia but by combination and
natural composition, as the soul and the body are combined in one nature, and by natural
force the soul naturally suffers the sufferings of the body, / and the body the sufferings
of the soul. That which each one of them by its nature cannot accept, such as the
sufferings and the activity, it has accepted in the natural combination by mixture, by one
sensibility. They place the union not in revelation 40 and in use, but by natural force in
a passible nature, and they say that the union took place for this [purpose], that they 41
should naturally participate in their activities and in their sufferings. But, further,
they are distinct from the Arians in saying that there was an animal body and soul and
that God the Word is consubstantial with the Father and that he naturally endured union
with the nature, not by command but of his own will in order to accept on our behalf all
the sufferings of human nature, not in any other nature but in his own.

The Apollinarians. He has not surely made a pretence ofour salvation in schema, either by
a change of likeness or by a change of ousia in such a way as not to endure sufferings in
his own nature; for this would be [the action] of him who wished not to become incarnate
because by nature he became man. But if, since he wished not or since he could not enter
where there was an intelligence, he united himself by a natural union to the sensitive and
vegetative soul and to the body so as to complete and fulfil the nature of man [and so as,
starting] from impassibility and immortality, to suffer natural suffering naturally and to
be delivered unto death naturally in the nature of the soul and of the body, from no /
nature he became and he is the nature of a man.42 He had not been in a man but he was man
truly, in that he was with the nature of man |35 and he was bound to the soul and the body
in order to complete [them] and not to dwell [in them]. For he who dwells [in anything] is
far removed from that in which he dwells and accepts neither the nature nor the name of
that wherein he dwells.

Consequently, seeing that he dwelt in all the saints, he is not said to have become
incarnate and become man in any one of them, but only when he became truly man for the
natural completion of the nature of man by constituting himself the intelligence ruling
naturally in the body and the soul, and when he constituted a natural union. And therefore
it was united without intelligence that he might not be supposed as it were to have dwelt
in man, but to have been united for the completion of the human nature. That then is their
[view]. But those who wish rather to adhere to the orthodox attribute to him a body and an
intelligent soul and agree to the union in one nature for the completion of the nature.
And as the body and the soul and the intelligence are the completion of the nature of man,
so also the union of God the Word took place with the body and an intelligent soul for the
completion of the nature. He became man in truth, since he had according to nature all
[the properties] of a man; he was not the half of a complete [man], that is flesh only, or
animal soul, for it is not in this that he became man, / in possessing nothing of man
except animal bodily frame and soul without reason, but [in possessing] a rational soul
and a rational body and a rational life, and not [all these] without reason.

For all that is combined for the completion of nature participates in the same things and
in one nature, since it participates both in suffering and in activity. 43. Against those
who confess a body endowed with soul and a soul endowed with intelligence but [say that]
the union of the divinity resulted in one nature by composition. Nestorius. According to
the former the statements of the latter are well said, that neither the animal soul nor
again the bodily frame of the irrational soul are the body of a man; nor consequently is
he----neither soul, nor body, nor divinity----a man who has nothing of a man; for the
nature of man is not |36 constituted of an animal soul and divinity and body. How then did
he become man by the combination of things which make not the nature of a man, unless
perhaps he became by fusion another nature apart from our own nature? But nothing like
that has taken place in anything nor in all natures which have aforetime existed; and now
[forsooth], after all creation has been completed another nature has come into being apart
from those which were when it existed not!

/ 44. Concerning this: that if the union of the divinity and the humanity resulted in one
nature, that one nature is neither that of God nor that of man, but another nature which
is foreign to all natures. But generally the same things are said [in answer] also to
these: that by man we understand and mean him who from the body and the rational and
intelligent soul has become the nature of man in the combination of nature, but not him
who from divinity and a rational soul and a human body has become man by a combination of
natures; for this is impossible. For human nature is definite, and [the things] which he
possesses who is man in ousia and in nature ought to be his who comes to be in the nature
of man neither more nor less; since the [properties] of the nature are definite. Either
then [he became] man in such a way that the union of God the Word with the body and the
soul took place not with a view to [forming] one nature but in order to serve for the
dispensation on our behalf; or he had the [properties] of another nature apart from that
of men and of God, which is an animate body and God the Word, which nature is neither that
of a man nor that of God, but a new nature, to which belongs [something] of all our
natures.

45. Concerning this: that if the union of God / the Word with the body resulted in one
nature, he is not to be conceived apart from the flesh, in that it is [possible] for him
to become this in his nature. God therefore is no more of an impassible but of a passible
nature, being conceived as of that which he became by the natural union, while he became
anew that which was newly created. |37 If then God the Word, who is consubstantial with
the Father and the Holy Spirit, has been united in a natural union, and thereby has that
which he is, he exists not apart from it, since in it and by it he is united and unites
himself, like the body and the soul which are united in one nature of a man, and are not
to be conceived apart from their nature----but the body [is] in the soul and the soul in
the body together with their sufferings and their operations, the body being natural and
[the soul 43] not in a voluntary habitation, [both] mutually receiving and giving in a
perceptible manner by natural mixture and fusion for the fusing of the nature.

46. Concerning this: that in the union two natures are not conceived as one nature. What
after all is the nature in this natural union which you predicate? Is it that of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, an impassible nature, immortal, eternal and
without needs? Or is it [a nature] mortal and passible and with needs, which came into
being yesterday and to-day and which belongs neither to men nor to God nor to any other
nature, but is mixed from two natures for the completion of one nature? If then they say /
that it is the ousia of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit united by a
natural union, this is not a natural union with the flesh but a voluntary, since they are
united for the use of the prosôpon and not of the nature; since [those things] which are
united in one nature are not united voluntarily but by the power of the Creator, who
combines them and brings them to a fusion in such a way that whatever is not of and
belongs not to each of them obtains it in virtue of a natural and not a voluntary union,
by which it has been united in one nature. By whom then are these united in nature? It is
evident that that which has been united has been so [united] by the creator of the nature.
If anyone says that anything is united of itself, I do not suppose that it is right; for
when the natures are united in the ousias in one nature, it possesses also a certain kind
of change of ousia and it is necessary that that nature which has been united should |38
be bound in virtue of an equality of nature and not by the will.44

47. Concerning this: that natures which are united voluntarily are not said to be united
naturally, but prosôpically. The natures indeed which are united voluntarily acquire the
union with a view to [forming] not one nature but a voluntary union of the prosôpon of the
dispensation. If then they say that the union of the natures resulted in one nature, even
though we ourselves should concede to them that it took place voluntarily, / yet, after it
took place, the union existed not voluntarily in that the natures have acquired it. And it
suffers as being united, whether it will or not, and accepts the sufferings of that nature
to which it has been united, since it is defined by it and not by impassibility nor by
immortality nor by infinity. For the definition and circumscription of all nature is that
in which it has to be. And if it has been united to a nature, it is in that [nature] that
it has to be and also [has to be] as that which exists by the nature. And from this it is
established that both the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are of the same nature, are of a
passible and created nature; for that which the Son has accepted in his nature, the Father
also can accept. For it is impossible that he 45 should be able to accept in nature that
which he 46 is not capable of accepting.

If the Son accepted in virtue of his acceptance of the union of this nature, whereas the
former did not accept, how are they of one nature who are opposed to one another in
accepting or not accepting? And after a change of nature you are compelled to take the
word 'union' according to the interpretation of the Arians,47 that the nature of the Son
has been united by the Creator of nature, in the same manner as he who created and made
the soul and the body also united them; for the very work of creation also requires that
he should unite |39 the soul / and the body in one nature, in that to him also belongs the
realization of the creation of each one of them. 48. Concerning this: that a natural union
is the work of a second creation. The union in fact in one nature of natures which have
been united is the work of a second creation. That which is not of itself naturally united
to each one of them receives this from a second genesis. For indeed to hunger and to
thirst and to perceive sensations by the senses belongs not to the body of itself, nor to
the soul of itself, but comes to them from a second genesis. So if there had also been a
union of nature with the soul and the body for God the Word, in such a way that he
received from the union of nature that which he had not in his nature of itself: hunger
and thirst and weariness and strife and fear and death, in the one genesis indeed of a
second creation [would be found] the first creation both of his ousia and necessarily also
[of] the Creator's, if he endured these things not in fiction but naturally. And vainly do
you give the name of consubstantial to one from whom you were compelled anew to take it
away and were compelled to join either the Arians or Manichaeans in such a way as to admit
either that he suffered not naturally any one of these things or only in illusion and in
fiction. Or, by granting that in nature naturally, by a passible sensibility, / he
accepted sufferings, you evacuate him of impassibility and of immortality, and of being
consubstantial with the Father, because he acquired a change of nature, seeing that [the
Son] accepts and [the Father] accepts not [these sufferings]. Or if he had not had one
change of ousia in his nature, while that of the Father and the Holy Spirit was without
needs and accepted neither suffering nor death, he would have been deprived of being God
in that he was not in everything of an ousia without needs.

49. Concerning this: that things united by nature endure natural sufferings naturally and
not voluntarily. By diminution indeed the nature without needs and impassible became a
passible and needful nature. In the same |40 way as one who by his own will does away with
his hand or his foot or his eye no longer possesses them after they have been done away,
in that he has truly put them away, so he also who by his own will does away with his
immortality and impassibility for the completion of a passible and needful nature no
longer has that impassibility and freedom from needs which were formerly his, in that he
was made equal to a passible nature until he obtained anew impassibility by command
[apart] from nature together with the natural union, since after the resurrection from the
dead he has been in a nature which is immortal and impassible, but not in virtue of his
own nature which [was his] before he became a mortal man by a natural union; since / he
accepted naturally all the properties of nature, he [accepted] also obedience unto death,
even death upon the cross and also an uplifting of exaltation above which there is no
glory, and the adoption of a name which by grace is above all names, before which every
knee in heaven, and on the earth, and beneath the earth bows, for the glory of God the
Father to whom he was subjected and fulfilled all obedience. He did not empty himself nor
yet was he the similar to the Father nor received he anew the similitude from the Father.

For indeed he exalted himself and emptied himself to [the state of] mortal nature and he
became that nature, and that which he had in his nature he took by grace. And from a
nature unmade he became a nature made and created by addition and diminution of natural
power; and the ousia which accepted neither sufferings nor death became mortal and
passible, and he died through weakness and through the power of God he became alive, in
that he became a weak nature and endured the painful sufferings thereof, being in pain and
suffering in consequence of the equality in nature of the soul and of the body, being torn
apart and isolated from his nature; under constraint he was torn out of his nature and
consequently he was not even corrupted by the parting of the soul from the body. As the
body endures the suffering of |41 death and is violently torn apart from any equality
[with the soul] and from the natural / union by division, so also God the Word who was
united for the completion of the natural union must endure naturally all the natural
sufferings of death; therefore also life and death belong in common to those who are
united in nature. He then who concedes this concedes also the rest, whether he will or
not, even if he says a thousand times that he is impassible in his nature;

for he suffered in the nature which he became, whether of flesh or of man or of any thing
else that we might mention. And let us not say that his nature does not accept sufferings,
except that perhaps, as those who are able to die or not to die are not by their nature
immortal, so also might we say of God the Word; for therein is God the Word conceived in
his nature and he has nothing more. If thou sayest that his nature is not subject to
death, in no way is it subject to natural death; the union took place not for nature but
for the use of man according to the dispensation, so that the Incarnation of God the Word,
who is impassible and immortal, took place. What then do they say? I ought fully to treat
two things: to set out their objections and to resolve them as best I can, since thou hast
persuaded me to do both.

Sophronius. They say in fact as follows: how is he called man heavenly and spiritual, if
he is neither spiritual nor heavenly? / He who has been united to human nature is God the
Word by nature as God; and it is said: As the first man was of the dust of the earth, so
also is the Lord from heaven; and: The first man became a living soul and the second man
became a quickening spirit. And not apart from the ousia of the body of dust is he called
a man of dust nor again without the soul is he called animate, but in consequence of their
combination, which results in the nature of man, is he so called apart from the ousia of
the heavenly and the spiritual, which has been united by nature to the nature of man. |42
50. Concerning this: that if the second man, the Lord from 'heaven,' is adopted of God the
Word, then men are heavenly since they are of the nature of God the Word; for ' as is the
heavenly', so also are the heavenly ones '.

Nestorius. Hear then also this, when you read the rest of the book, that as is the
heavenly, so also are the heavenly ones,and as we have clothed ourselves in the likeness
of one of dust, so also [are we] of dust, because all possess the same nature, and as he
is heavenly, so also [are they] heavenly, because they have the same nature as the
heavenly; [so] also all of us, who wait to become [so] in this sort. We men are of the
ousia of God the Word, since our soul and our body have been combined for the completion
of such a nature, and each of us becomes that which God the Word is by nature; / for as is
the heavenly, so also are the heavenly ones, and to the extent that they are heavenly men,
they are Gods the Words, in that each single one of them is both of God the Word and of
the human soul and body, not infinite in his nature, although in each one he exists [in
some sense] infinitely except inasmuch as the nature of each single one of them is finite
and apart from it his existence cannot be conceived. If you so understand the Lord is from
heaven and the second man was a quickening spirit, how do you imagine the rest of it: as
we have been clothed in the likeness of him of dust, so shall we be clothed in that of him
from heaven?

How then have we been clothed in the likeness of him from dust? What do we become? And in
what have we been clothed? Have we become heavenly and spiritual men, [formed] of the soul
and the body and of God the Word? Or has the spirit without body and without soul been
clothed in the likeness of him of dust, [who is] body and soul and who urges us to become
the likeness of spiritual beings, that is, spirits without soul and without body, although
indeed it is not our affair but [that of our] Maker? If this is according to the truth,
how does he urge us to be clothed in the likeness of spiritual man, that is, [of] Christ,
as though Christ were without soul |43 and without body? And how then is he man, if he has
nothing of man? Or how is Christ called spiritual / man, he who has been constituted the
ousia of God the Word to [become] the nature of man, [that is], of soul and body? And we
shall come to be without bodily frame and without soul in becoming as he is, having
nothing that he has not. But this cannot be so. It follows that those who confess that the
nature of God cohered for the completion of human nature say these and such like
absurdities, for a passible and created nature is the result of a natural union with a
passible and created nature.

And therefore they fall either into the opinion of the Arians, who say that by nature God
the Word became the nature of a passible and mortal man, in enduring sufferings sensibly,
or into the opinion of those who say that he became body and soul in fiction, or into
[that of] both of them in inclining now to the one and now to the other side, because they
suppose by such inclining to escape from these absurdities. 51 Against those who suppose
that Christ was a mere man. So far the argument has been against these. Let us look then
also at the heresies of those who dissent and confess that Christ was only a man, [and
see] wherein they are distinct and in what they resemble those above, in order that we may
distinguish and demonstrate their heresies, so that we may not, on account of what has
been wrongly said, again escape / that which has been fairly said and so that further we
may not without distinction accept that which has been wrongly said. For to confess that
Christ is man both by nature and in truth appertains unto the truth and is attested by the
truth; and therein is there no one who blames them. But in that they shun his divinity,
though it exists in truth and in nature, they are to be repudiated, since they suppress
the Incarnation of God the Word.

52. Concerning those who confess God the Word only in name. The Sabellians. Among them
indeed are also those who deny that God the Word exists in ousia and who say only |44 that
the name 'God the Word' is that command: He spoke and it became. But thus also they
predicate the Father and the Holy Spirit in name alone; so in short they agree rather with
the Jews than with Christians. 53. Concerning those who say that God the Word exists
indeed by nature, but that he has not been united by nature but in schema and that there
are two sons. The Paulinians. But others reprove them, confessing that God the Word is a
nature or a hypostasis, as also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Concerning his
incarnationthey agree not with the orthodox, but they approach those / who say that Christ
was only a man and that he comported himself in subjection to the law as one of the
saints, and that by command he observed all the commandments and that by supreme
observance he was without sin as a man, and thereby he is more excellent than all men,
either because, after having been without sin, he appeared freed from death and rightly
accepted immortality which is established for the honour of those who observe the law
without sin, or because, having so comported himself in all these things, after he [had]
observed all the commandments without fault, he accepted for himself to die for us and, in
consequence of that greatness of his obedience, he received the honour and the name of Son
by grace. He is not God the Word but he who has so comported himself and observed all the
commandments. So they say.

The Paulinians: What purpose indeed could it have served that God the Word also should
associate himself with him in operations and should operate with him as though he could
not of himself observe the commandments? And what is that which has been preserved without
sin? Or what is the victory? It is not a high merit if, being unable to be victorious, he
had need of assistance so as with assistance to be victorious, since he [himself] could
not do it [otherwise]. For it is not to him that victory comes but to him that assisted
him and was invincible. What then is a combat for God? |45 And what is the merit? That he
who asks [assistance] of anyone should be the saviour! / For what is he who sees that
there is [nothing in common] between him and the prince who comes and finds nothing in
him, when it is discovered that the [divine] nature has assisted him? And before whom is
he judged, when he who judges and is judged is the judge? Who is it who has accepted the
offering for all men, when it is he who accepts and he who is offered? Who is it who
propitiates and who is propitiated, when he is in both of them? [Who indeed], unless
perhaps they break up one sovereignty into two which are not like one another, and say
that the Father was angry and the Son propitiated him when he was enraged, as they have
learnt from the fables of the Manichaeans, who have foolishly invented them; or [unless]
perhaps the Father manifested his anger in schema against those who erred and appointed a
term hypocritically by showing himself angry and able to be propitiated as by the Word?

Now in another way there adhere also to that which the [followers] of Arius imagine [men]
who say that God has not been propitiated in any other way than by the death of Christ,
who from in the beginning was God and he was God. What urgent need then was there for this
foolish invention? For he who was in him did this not by the death of another; further
also it is not justice that he who is not of one nature should accept death for another
nature for the remission of the debt; nor also has a true remission been shown, but a
schema. / And they say that these things have been divided between two sons in such a way
that some befit the one and others the other, in order that there may be neither
contradictions nor schematisms in all the words that there are. There is one divinity and
one lordship and one authority of the Father and the Son, who accept not any such schema.
These things and such like they say, insisting on their views, and call Christ and the Son
double in prosôpa as well as in |46 hypostases----in like manner as the saints have
received the indwelling of God----and they speak also of his image in the same way.

Nestorius. Let us speak then also with every one of those who, decieved and deceivers,
deny the incarnation which took place for God the Word. And first let us use against them
their very own words. Thou then lay before me their words, those which are persuasive and
are of use in persuading many; and combat manfully for them, so that no cause at all for
excuse may be granted unto them. Since then there is only one divinity and lordship and
authority and knowledge and opinion and power of God the Father and of the Son, by means
of whom everything came from the Father and without whom nothing at all which has come
into being came into being, for what reason does he apply only to God the Word he became
flesh, not he made the flesh but The Word became flesh, even he who was with / God? And
said he not of God the Father he who is with the Father? For he became and he made both
belong unto him, since they make no division; nor is it [said] that the one is and that
the other is not; but perhaps they confess that there are two Words as also two Sons and
that the one is the divinity and the other the passibility in that it became flesh.

Sophronius. And what is there absurd in our confessing so? For this is evident; for the
Evangelist said this also concerning him: he dwelt among us, that is, concerning the Word,
[but] of man this: we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten and: who is
full of grace and of truth was not [said] of the only begotten, nor is it any more by
nature, for he is full of glory, not by virtue of grace but by virtue of nature and he has
no need of any addition. Nestorius. When then the Father said concerning him This is my
Son and again He has given his only begotten Son; and the only begotten who is in the
bosom of his Father has |47 himself told us, did it speak of him who was in the bosom of
his Father or did it speak of three only begottens, one who was from in the beginning God
the Word and another who had the glory as of the only begotten without being / the only
begotten, and a third apart from these whom he gave on behalf of the world?

Sophronius. What then? Did he give God the Word, consubstantial with him, who is immortal
and impassible, unto death? And do not He who is consubstantial, impassible and immortal
and He gave him unto death belie one another? Or is it perhaps so in schema? Nestorius.
Thou wilt confess aloud with us that there are not two Gods the Words or two Sons or two
only begottens, but one, and so on with all the rest of them. Investigation is made on
both sides similarly and rightly how he became incarnate voluntarily, when he was by his
nature immortal and impassible, and how it is said that the Son is dead in nature and in
so far as he is not immortal by nature. Sophronius. But we say these very things to show
clearly, although thou dost not wish [it], that thou dost predicate t\vo sons by nature,
one impassible and immortal and the other passible and mortal.48

54. Concerning this: that God the Word became incarnateand there were not two Sons but one
by an union. Nestorius. It is not at all true; but if it is right in the first place to
speak concerning this, from Divine Scripture itself will we learn that which we confess to
one another. Let us see then what the Evangelist / says concerning God the Word. Does he
speak of one God the Word or of two Words? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was
with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; everything came into
being by him and without him came into being nothing whatsoever that came into being. |48
Concerning whom can these things be said by the Evangelist, except concerning him who is
consubstantial [with the Father] and without bodily frame? And this: In him was life and
the life was the light of men and the same light shineth in the darkness and the darkness
comprehended it not? Did he say it of another or of the very same? Therefore he called him
both the life and the light, which indicate the immortal and quickening ousia, and [he
said] it shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not, as if concerning
things which had been in death and in darkness. But he is not dead, for he is the life and
the light which are not extinguished, and he quickens those who are in death. Concerning
what light does John bear witness, that all men should believe through it?

Surely it was the light of the truth which gives light unto every man who has come into
the world; he was in the world and the world came into being by him and the world knew him
not; he came to his own and his own received him not; and but to those who received him he
gave authority to become the sons of God, to those who / believe on his name, who were
born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God? Did the
Evangelist speak of another Word or of God the Word, by whom everything came into being,
life and the true light, who came unto his own and his own received him not, who gave
authority unto those that received him to become the sons of God, [who] were born not of
blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God? And, further, whereby gave he to those who
received him to become the sons of God? [Was it] to those who were born of the nature of
God? [Or to those who] have been changed in nature into the nature of God and have become
that which God the Word is in so far as he is born of the Father? Or have they remained in
the same nature in which they are and have they become sons of God and have they been born
of God by adoption and by acknowledgement?

As they have received him as being God, who has become |49 [their] kin-by-adoption, and as
they have acknowledged that he is their God who has made everything and who has come unto
his own, so also he has made them his kin-by-adoption and has acknowledged them to be the
sons of God, as sons who have entered into sonship but who possess not the nature. 55.
Concerning this: that God the Word is one by nature and is [so] named and that there are
not many who have been [so] named by homonymy. Those who become sons by adoption and by
acknowledgement [become the sons] of him / of whom they are born not by flesh nor by blood
but by the will and the love of him who has no bodily frame but has become their body by
adoption and by love and by acknowledgement like a father; so also God the Word who has
come into his own has given authority unto those who have received him and confessed him
and believed in his name; for he has not given to those, who are not born of blood nor of
the will of the flesh nor of the will of the man, to become the sons of God----for that
should have been possessed by them beforehand in their natures----but they were born of
God by adoption. Thus therefore he who came into his own and was received gave to those
who believed in his name authority to become the sons of God, and he will be their flesh
by the taking of the flesh and he will make it [his] by adoption and he will acknowledge
it as his body by adoption. Consequently he has said: The Word became flesh; balancing in
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and so on. He also adduced the Word
became flesh and sojourned among us.

As those who have received him have become voluntarily by reception the natural [sons] of
God, so also he, in that he received the flesh and sojourned in it, became their flesh by
adoption and not by change of ousia. Therefore also he adduced the peculiar property of
God, saying And we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of / the |50
Father. He qualifies it not by likeness but as for confirmation, when he says 'full of
grace', in calling that which is of the nature of the only begotten grace; for that is the
fulness. For that which surely participates [in anything] is not full but is deficient in
that of which the nature is altogether it, and he is full of grace and truth; not as one
who has been changed but as one who is that which the beloved Son was; according as they
have received him and according as they have believed in him, so also have they seen him
who was revealed in flesh, [even] him and not another God nor again another Word nor
another life nor another light nor again another only begotten, but the very same who was
revealed in flesh. And of his fulness have we all received that which was not in us; and
of his fulness have we received but not his fulness; for the fulness consists in being
deficient in nothing, as God.

And consequently the only begotten who is in the bosom of his Father has expounded unto us
God whom no one has ever seen; and no one else than he who was in the bosom of his Father
came and became flesh and dwelt among us; and he is in the bosom of his Father and with
us, in that he is what the Father is, and he has expounded unto us what he is in the bosom
of his Father----it being evident that he has not explained the infinity and the
incomprehensibility of the ousia. As he knows our nature / he has expounded unto us in our
very nature that which none of mankind has ever seen. How then is it possible that we
should understand by him one Son and by Christ another Son, who is only such as a man is
and who in the equality and the honour of sonship remains in the image of him whom you
deny to have been sent and to have moved among us? By a kind of divine indwelling he who
was in the likeness of God [so] dwelt, as the Evangelist clearly refers us back from God
the Word to God the Wordand apart from God the Word shows no other Word nor other only
begotten of God, except him [who is] with his flesh. |51

Sophronius.49 But from what has been said understand what the Evangelist says: No man has
ever seen God; the only begotten Son who was in the bosom of his Father has expounded
[him], speaking of him who has been taken up and sits on the right hand of the Father, who
is the Son in the image and glory of the Son, who has been shown unto us, who has come
after me, who is mightier than I,on whom the Holy Spirit has come down and has remained in
the likeness of a dove, who is the elect of God, the Lamb of God, the Nazarene, the Son of
Man; you shall see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of Man. It is not he who in ousia is God the Word, consubstantial with the Father;
for no one has ever seen God, but he has been seen. But he spoke not of him but of the Son
of Man, who by his grace was in the rank of the image of the Son of God, and thereby he
was the Son and the only begotten by good will; in whom dwells all the fulness of the
divinity in bodily frame. He is not the fulness, but all the fulness dwells in him in
bodily frame as it has dwelt in every single one of the saints.

For he who is the Son is not by himself apart nor again is the Father by himself apart,
for the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. And consequently if the
incarnationwhich took place in the ousia is that of the Son of God, it is also that of the
Father and of the Holy Spirit, if you say that he is the Son by nature and not by equality
and honour; for he has been sent in the prosôpon of the Son of God and is clothed in his
prosôpon and everything appertaining unto him is referred unto him, as God is in an angel
and in a mediator, for he is the mediator of God and of men, the Man Jesus Christ. And how
then has there been one Son and |52 an incarnation of God, unless perhaps it is said that
there has been an incarnation of God in every thing whereby God wrought the dispensation
for men, and it is said that God has said and God has wrought and God has been seen in
those things which have been said or wrought by Moses and by the prophets and by the
angels. / Because in fact God by his nature is invisible and incomprehensible, he must
have some mediator, through whom to provide these things, while to him are referred those
things which are wrought or said by them by the doctrine of providence and of the
dispensation and not in the course of nature.

How is he who is man by nature God by nature, and not by grace and activity, as God can
act at his will in the case of all nature, unless, perhaps, God be everything in him? Some
one will say that God and man are acting [alike] and that he is two natures. I turn then
to those things on which the whole investigation hangs. 56. Concerning this: that it is
not said that God became incarnate also in one of the prophets or saints, nor even that he
made use of any of them in his own prosôpon. Nestorius. Since then, as they say, they
adhere to the Divine Scriptures, the statement [of our case] against them causes us no
labour. For never has any of the prophets nor of the angels been seen to make use of the
prosôpon of God in his own prosôpon; but our Lord Christ said: I and God are one,and
whoever sees me has seen God, and that which God has done, that I also do, as he, and as
God has life in his hypostasis and gives life to whom he will, I also, even I, give life
to whom I will, / and if ye believe not on me, believe at least in my works, because I and
God are one? None further of the prophets nor of the angels dared to say these things;
but, whatsoever they said or did, [they said] the Lord said, and not 'God or they'; and
all that they said or did, [they said] that by their means God said [it]; they also said
that God said [it], as the prophets |53 and as the angels. And wherein he took the schema
of a man or of fire, it is said that God appeared or that one saw God; and in another
place, that God gave the law, and again: by means of the angels the law was given. They
are not lies nor further are they contradictory one to another; it is not that he calls
the angels God nor again that an angel calls himself God; but, because he appeared by
means of the angels, both are truly said, both that God appeared by means of the angels in
the fire of a bush and that by means of it God appeared unto him.

57. Concerning this: that according to the Divine Scriptures we have learned to confess
Christ God by nature and Man by nature. Since then he called himself by the two [names],
both the Apostles and the Evangelists say also that he exists in the two: [he is] both God
by whom everything comes about, and he came into the world, and he made the world, and he
was not received by his servants, and to those / who received him and believed in his name
he gave authority to become the sons of God, and he became flesh and sojourned among us,
he and none other. And since he became [flesh] and sojourned among us, he has drawn to
himself the very flesh for [the purpose of] the adoption as for his own prosôpon, which is
in both of them, in that on the one hand [there is] the ousia of God, but on the other the
flesh by the union and the adoption; in such wise that the flesh, which is flesh by
nature, is also Son by the union and the adoption of the prosôpon; although he exists in
both of them, yet he is called one Son and one flesh. And consequently the only begotten
Son of God and the Son of man, the same [formed] of both of them, is predicated in both of
them, because he has made the things of their prosôpa his own prosôpon and is therefore
acknowledged as his own prosôpon by the one as by the other; and he speaks with them now
by virtue of the divinity and now by virtue of the humanity and now by virtue of both of
them; as also the humanity used to speak now by virtue of the ousia of the humanity and
now |54 by the prosôpon of the divinity: on this account he both is the Son of God and the
Son of man and has so spoken.

58. That as also God the Word is conceived to have become flesh and the flesh is one, and
there are not two fleshes, so also the flesh is Son and there are not two Sons. / Is it
not as if the Word were Son only in so far as he became flesh? Since he took the flesh in
his own prosôpon, he became flesh and the flesh was God because of the prosôpon of the
Word, in such wise that God the Word is said to be flesh and man, while the flesh is
called the Son of God. For until he took the flesh in his own prosôpon and was revealed
therein, he was called Son on account of the divinity: in the beginning was the Word and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God; everything came into being through him, and
without him also nothing whatever came into being. But since he became flesh in taking the
flesh, he was named after both of them in both of them, but as though he were one in both
of them, not [in both] in nature, but in the one indeed in nature but in the other in
prosôpon by adoption as well as by revelation. The Son was revealed in flesh, being
similar to his Father: / and my Father are one, he says in a manner demonstrative of his
own prosôpon. He who was seen speaks from him who was conceived as from his own prosôpon,
as though he were one and possessed the same prosôpon. Through one is the other conceived,
and he who is conceived discourses by him who was seen as by the very prosôpon of him who
was seen.

If you do not believe on me, believe in my works, because I and the Father are one. / And
all such things as these which have been said originally of the ousia [are to be said]
accordingly also to speak and to understand and to operate in the very same way in the
prosôpon as by adoption. For they are not far removed either in operation or in word or in
ousia; nor are the things which are to be distinguished the one from the other in the
prosôpon distinct in love, for they are conceived of his prosôpon in the love and the will
of God in that he took the flesh; and therein he was revealed and therein he taught, and
|55 therein and by means thereof he acts as though present and not as though absent. Of
his own prosôpon he made use in the flesh, in that he wished that he should become flesh
and that the flesh should become himself, so that those who see the flesh [see] also God,
as his own body is in the bread and those who see the bread [see] also the body, because
he has taken it for his prosôpon.

He who is the similitude of God has taken the prosôpon of the flesh, the likeness of a
servant, and he has given unto him, unto the likeness of the servant [which is] his
likeness, a name which is more excellent than all names, that is 'Son', at which every
knee shall bow which is in heaven and in earth, and which is beneath the earth} And
consequently there must be two natures, that of the divinity and that of the humanity,
that which has emptied itself into the likeness of a servant and the likeness of a servant
which has been raised into the name which is above all names. For he who does not remain
in his own ousia can neither / be emptied nor diminished nor even raised above all names.
Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a
prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood;
and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs, the one being
known by the other and the other by the one, so that the one is by adoption what the other
is by nature and the other is with the one in the body.

As a king and a lord, who has taken the prosôpon of a servant as his own prosôpon and
gives his prosôpon to the servant and makes known that he is the other and the other he,
is content to be abased in the prosôpon of the servant while the servant is revered in the
prosôpon of the lord and king, and for this reason, even though I should not have said the
one for the other nor the other for the one, it is so with both of them who are one and
possess the same prosôpon ----[so] are these things in regard to the two natures which are
distinct in ousia but are united by love and in the same prosôpon. 59. Concerning this:
that the adoption and the indwelling |56 ought to be accepted as the will of God and that
we ought not to avoid a name as though that which is profane were said in consequence of
the homonymy.51

For although the humanity of ours bears / as mediator the prosôpon only of God by adoption
as well as by the indwelling of the ousia and not only by the indwelling of divinity, yet
this indwelling is such as to result in one prosôpon, which is the same for him who is
revealed as for him who is to be revealed. For the [words] He is and He dwelt are of
necessity to be confessed and interpreted by us according to the will of God. God indeed
is in all creatures; for in him we are and thereby is it defined that, although thus he is
verily in all, he is said to have dwelt in some men; but in regard to others it is even
said that he is not their God. And it is not said that he dwelt in all men in like manner,
but according to his love; in some of us it is said that he only dwelt in a composition as
in a house, as in the believers, while in others, although he is acting, yet [he acts] not
in like manner but to a greater or less degree; in others as in all the apostles and in
others as in the prophets and in others as in teachers and in others according to the
division of gifts. In this one and in that and in another he dwells, and he acts also in
all;

and all of them are not equal to all nor like one another, but [all are] according to the
love of him who dwells in them. Among them some hold the first place and others of them
the second [rank] and in gradually descending order are they attached and joined one to
another, in the same way as are the limbs / in the body. But Christ is the head of all and
in him are we bound together; but also God is the head of Christ, for whom, as he is for
us the head and the prosôpon, is God so also his head and his prosôpon in his incarnation.
Therefore we have received |57 from him to become the sons of God, in that he is the only
begotten Son; so that his flesh becomes that which also is the Son of God and of the
Father so as to become the image of the Father, [being] the Son of the Father whose is the
image; because this same is the prosôpon of the Son, it is he and none other which
[exists] in the two ousias and is not distinguished.

60. Concerning this: that we should not thus think of the Archetype as also of images or
as of angels or as of ambassadors who take the place of him who is absent, but [that we
should think] that he has been united to the body by his own nature and by his prosôpon
and that he has become incarnate in their making use of the body in its own prosôpon and
the body's [making use] of the prosôpon of God the Word. God is not indeed among the
things which are represented in effigy for there things can be said to exist only in the
visible shape, by visible shape and by likeness while far distant from the ousia, nor
again as angels or ambassadors who take the place of those who send them and are thereby
their prosôpa in virtue of service and mere authority, / but he himself has made use of
his very [own] nature and his prosôpon in saying that 'I and the Father are one', and he
is whatever he is in prosôpon and whatever he is in prosôpon he is, not that he made his
likeness in another likeness but in his own likeness, nor in any other likeness like unto
the likeness of a servant but in the very natural likeness of the other, so that the one
became what the other was and the other that which the one was, both the one and the other
remaining.

61. Concerning this: that through the nature of man he received a name which is more
excellent than all names. This in fact is the chief greatness of the nature of humanity:
that, since he remains in the nature of humanity, he accepts a name which is more
excellent than all names; neither in consequence of moral progress nor in consequence of
|58 knowledge and faith, but therein 52 by virtue of his readiness to accept [it] has it
come about that it should become his eikôn and his prosôpon in such wise that his prosôpon
is also the prosôpon of the other. And he is both God and man, and the likeness of God in
condescension and in kenôsis and in schema, [and] the likeness of the flesh as man; and
the man is by exaltation what God is, through the name which is above all names.
Consequently in the kenôsis he humbled himself unto death, even death / upon the cross, in
that he made use of the prosôpon of him who died and was crucified as his own prosôpon,
and in his own prosôpon he made use of the things which appertained unto him who died and
was crucified and was exalted. And therefore [this] is said as of the one prosôpon of
Christ, and the former things and the latter are each thus different, in nature, as the
divine nature is different from the nature of man; so that Christ is two natures, the
likeness of God and the likeness of a servant, that which has been exalted and that which
exalts. If also he is called Christ because of the flesh which has been anointed, there is
one prosôpon of the two natures, because also there is only one name which is more
excellent than all names, [one for] both of them, if the divine nature is meant; for the
names of the natural prosôpa are common in the condescension and in the exaltation.

62. Concerning this: that the dispensation for our sake ought to have taken place by both
of them. And it was congruous with the dispensation which is for our sake that both of
them should be taken into the prosôpon; for, because God created the first man in his own
image and in his likeness and the prosôpa of God the Maker----of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit,----were not revealed to us, so that we might also know the Creator
and obtain completely the teaching of the Divine knowledge and receive in completeness a
complete idea / of the image of God, he has renewed all creation in Christ and has made
known and shown unto us what the Maker is: he who from the beginning was the Word with God
was also God the Maker |59 of all; everything came into being through him and without him
also nothing whatever came into being.

63. Concerning this: wherefore God the Word built for himself the temple of the body. Even
as it must have been fitting that our renewal also should take place through the Maker of
[our] nature, through him who also originally formed us and made us from the earth, he who
took the body and made it in his likeness and constituted it in his prosôpon in everything
as his own in the honour and glory of God, made use of the nature of the Divinity on the
one hand and of the prosôpon of the Son on the other. For the honour of the Father and of
the Son is one in such wise that those who honour the Father honour also the Son. He then
has taught us that he who has created everything is God and that he created [it] with the
Father and the Holy Spirit; for in him he lived, showing the natural union, [to wit] that
the Father is [Father] of the Son and that the Father is in the Son and that the Holy
Spirit lives in them. And he created the body in a new manner [other] than from a man and
a woman, and, since it was an act of creation, he tells of that which is to be created and
of him who creates: The Holy Spirit will come and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow [thee] / ----denoting the Creator. Therefore he who shall be born shall be
called the son of God----that is the Holy One who is to be created;

so that in the creation he calls [him] 'holy' and 'Son', denoting the image and the
likeness which the first man received in the Creation and which he kept not. For, as the
image of God, he ought to have kept himself for God without spot and without blemish, and
that by willing what God wills, since he had the prosôpon of God. For [to have] the
prosôpon of God is to will what God wills, whose prosôpon he has.53 Consequently the
second man was created by the Holy Spirit and the power |60 of the Most High and he has
received from him to be holy and the Son of God. 64. Concerning this: that he 54 has
received to become 'Son' from [the moment of] his formation and not by degrees. [In that
he has received the title to be 'holy'] not as the rest of mankind by virtue of obedience
in faith and in works, but from [the moment of] coming into being by the creation of the
Creator, he has received his prosôpon as something created, in such wise as not originally
to be man but at the same time Man-God by the incarnation of God who in him is what God
was in the first man. He indeed was the Maker of all, the law-giver, without king, the
glory, the honour and the power; he was also the second / man with qualities complete and
whole, so that God was his prosôpon while he was in God. 65. Concerning this: how, in that
he has not the prosôpon of his being, the prosôpon in the union ought to be understood:55

As God appeared and spoke unto Adam in schema, and as it was none other, so will God be
[seen] of all men in the natural schema which has been created, that is, that of the
flesh, appearing and speaking in his own image and the image in the Archetype. So that on
the one hand God appeared in the image, since he is not visible, on the other hand the
image is conceived as representing him who appeared not. For it is not [the fact] that the
image is his being, but that on the other hand the very image and prosôpon [are] the
humanity of the divinity and the divinity of the humanity. The prosôpon of him who is
conceived, who was in the likeness and in the similitude of God took the likeness of a
servant and in schema was |61 found as a man in him who appeared. And he who appeared [is
considered] as representing him who is conceived as touching the prosôpon and the name
which is above all names and honour and glory and adoration. For he gave unto him a name
which is more excellent than all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
which is in heaven and on the earth and which is beneath the earth, and every tongue
should confess that Jesus is the Lord [as it is] narrated. /

66. How the flesh is adored in the prosôpon of the Son and how, since it is in nothing
worthy of that adoration, it is adored in the prosôpon of God the Word. Man indeed is
known by the human prosôpon, that is, by the schema of the body and by the likeness, but
God by the name which is more excellent than all names and by the adoration of all
creation and by the confession [of him] as God. For thereby has he taken the likeness of a
servant and has given his likeness to the likeness of the servant, that it might be equal
with God, and that, as he has accepted it for himself to be his own prosôpon, no one might
refuse to him on account of [his] nature the adoration of the Divinity in heaven and on
earth' and beneath the earth and [the confession] by every tongue, although by nature it
is above all human nature. Who then would refuse him the adoration which belongs to the
Lord of all and which belongs to his own prosôpon and his name? And who again refuses to
prostrate himself before that before which formerly the Creator of all refused not to
prostrate himself? And he prostrated himself to such a degree that his own creation in its
nature was not in honour nor in glory but in contempt and in abasement and in all
humiliation unto death upon the cross; he humiliated himself unto death, even death upon
the cross; there is nothing more scorned than death. It was not wrought / in the same
manner as in Adam, to whom he gave his image in all glory and honour; for he subjected
everything under his feet. In the same way also he gave to the Second Man his image of
glory both in honour and in power. But |62 all these things came to pass in the opposite
way; he surely gave the image of God and he surely took the likeness of a servant in
prosôpon . . .56

67. Wherefore, in taking the likeness of a servant, he took not that which was honourable
but rather that which was contemptible. And consequently he took the likeness of a
servant, a humble likeness, a likeness which had lost the likeness of God, not for honour
nor for glory nor for adoration nor again for authority, although indeed he was the Son,
but for the obedience which it should observe in the prosôpon of the Son according to the
purpose of God; since it had the purpose of the latter and not its own nor anything that
it wished, but that which God the Word wished. For this is the likeness of God, to have
neither purpose nor will of its own / but that of him whose prosôpon and likeness it has.
And therefore the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant, without concealing aught
of the humiliation of the likeness of a servant; but all these things it took, in order
that the likeness might be in all of them in such wise that it might do so without
diminution in its own likeness.

68. Why he took voluntary obedience in the likeness of a servant and did not exhibit a
mechanical [obedience] without volition. Because in fact he took this [likeness] in order
to abolish the guilt of the first man and in order to give to his nature the former image
which he had lost through his guilt, rightly he took that which had proved itself guilty
and had been made captive and had been subjected to servitude, with all the bonds of scorn
and contempt. Apart from his own prosôpon there was nothing divine or appertaining to
honour or to authority. As a son, as long as he is young, possesses not the authority to
inherit or be master of anything, except by obedience, so also the likeness of a servant
which he took for his own prosôpon he accepted as the |63 likeness of a servant, not for
authority but for obedience, even all that obedience from which especially is born the
obedience which is sinless, and he appeared / truly sinless. When then anyone is freed
from all the causes from which disobedience comes into being, then obviously and without
doubt it appears that he is sinless. For this [cause] also he took a nature which had
sinned, lest in taking a nature which was not subject unto sins he should be supposed not
to have sinned on account of the nature and not on account of his obedience. But, although
he had all those things which appertain unto our nature, anger and concupiscence and
thoughts, and although also they increased with the progress and increase of every age [in
his life], he stood firm in thoughts of obedience.

69. Wherefore he accepted not obedience in some commandments, as Adam, but accepted all
the commandments and not single ones. Now in all the primary commandments his inclination
[was] towards obedience, but not in the others, in order that it might not be supposed
that he was able to conquer on account of their easiness; nor again in obedience made he
use of those wherein there was attraction in honour and power and glory, but of those
which in misery and poverty and contempt and weakness could offend the thoughts of
obedience, those also wherein there was no attraction to obedience but rather to
remissness and to negligence, / and in nothing was he helped; but for this only was he
anxious, to obey God, and he loved that which God willed. 70. Wherefore in the moral life
there was no occupation in human affairs on the part of the divinity.

And therefore, while he was poor in everything and was violently drawn away by the
opposite, he in nothing deviated from the purpose of God, although indeed Satan made use
of all these things to remove him far from the purpose of God. And Satan sought much after
this because he saw that none was occupied with him. For also it did not appear |64 that
from the beginning he wrought signs nor again that he had authority to teach, but only to
obey and to keep all the commandments. As he moved among all men, where all the
commandments surrounded him on all sides and showed him the strength of disobedience, he
comported himself valiantly in the midst of them all, in that he used nothing special or
extraordinary for his support, but he made use, as all men, of those very things which are
common so that it should not be supposed that through observance of these things he was
preserved from sin and that without them he could not be preserved. Consequently in eating
and drinking he observed all the commandments and, in whatsoever there was pain and
vexation, he was firm / in his thoughts, because his will was bound to the will of God and
there was nothing to draw him away and make him distinct from him. For he was living not
for himself but for him whose prosôpon he was, and he kept the prosôpon without blemish
and without scar and thereby gave victory to the nature.

71. Wherefore he accepted the baptism of John after he had shown himself sinless. Because
he had fulfilled obedience in every thing, he accepted the baptism of John as [some thing]
supreme, after the likeness of all men; and although indeed he had no need, since he was
sinless, by reason of the greatness of his obedience he accepted it as one in need. For it
belonged to supreme obedience that he should be not as befitted his honour and his glory
but as owing obedience to a commander; and, more than this, not only that he should allow
him to baptize [him] but also that he should be baptized by him as one who is guilty and
requiring to be justified and in need of absolution. For this was universal obedience, to
ask for and exact nothing in his own prosôpon but in that of him whose was the prosôpon,
and to prepare his will; for the prosôpon was properly his own and he considered his
prosôpon as his own prosôpon; and the prosôpon is one.57 |65 Therefore the Father has
declared it from on high, saying: / Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee I am well-pleased;
and the Holy Spirit came down in the likeness of a dove and remained upon him, and he says
not that the Son came down, because it was the Son who possessed his prosôpon and made the
things which were his his own prosôpon without becoming distinguished from him. Therefore
he is one even in the birth of the flesh. The Holy Spirit shall come and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee; therefore also the Holy One who shall be born of thee
shall be called the son of God; and he said not at all that the Son should come, because
he who has taken him in his prosôpon is no other, but the same as he who has given him the
dispensation which is on behalf of all of us, for those reasons which we have said before.

72. Wherefore he made his manner of life with all men and afterwards was led to the
wilderness. Because it was thought that he was more than all an observer of the
commandments, on account of his manner of life among all men, and because if in many
things he was left alone, [it might have been] easy [to fight] against him, where there
was nothing whereby he could be helped, he went forth alone into the wilderness to be
tempted of the devil, while poor in all the things of the world, even in that which is
considered a burden and a distress. And [because of this] removal far from every thing /
he attained to the utmost supremacy to which bodily power could be raised, and instead of
vehement assaults from the concupiscence of the soul, he was bound by the things of God as
though without bodily frame, since he was not busied with his body as though it were his
own but [as if he were] apart from it. For this appertains only to the image of God and to
him who preserves the image |66 of God, to will the same as God the Father; and because
there was nothing else in all that the devil said, he put him to shame as one who stood
apart from the will of God. He raised up his very soul unto God, conforming that which was
according to his will to the will of God in order that he might be the image only of the
Archetype, and not of his being;

for the image according to its [own] being is without likeness and its own proper likeness
is that of the Archetype, and they are indeed two, but it is one and the same appearance.
Since in actions in bodily things he has preserved the likeness of God from all the
sufferings of the body, it was preferable to him that the will of God should be done and
not that of the flesh; and in actions he made himself a likeness to will that which he
wills, that there might be one and the same will in both of them, and one prosôpon without
division; the one is the other and the other is the one, while the other and the one
remain. As he remained firm in all things, / in temptations of body and soul, in cities
and in the wilderness, there was no distinction in his observance and in his obedience.

73. Concerning this: that, when he preached unto us the kingdom of heaven, he received
[this] honour, victory 58 without sin. As then to him who has conquered and been
victorious in all things there has been given in return for the honour of his victory
authority to preach and to announce the hope of the kingdom of heaven, saying: Be of good
cheer; I have conquered the world; now is the judgement of this world, now is the prince
of this world condemned, and I, when I shall be raised up from the earth, shall draw all
men toward me; and whatsoever the Son is, by fear and the suffering which he has borne he
has learnt obedience and has been perfected and has become unto all those who obey him a
cause of life in the world to come. And he was sent to teach all men and to work signs and
wonders and healings with all other things. Not to delight himself in and be zealous for
obedience, but |67 with a view to the faith of those who were being taught, he made use of
all these things with a view to the obedience of the disciples; for until the time of his
victory he was striving to make firm in God the image which had been given unto him.

But because he stablished his own image in all temptations perfectly and without failing /
and without falling short in anything, he comported himself on our behalf, being zealous
to rescue us captives from the violence of the tyrant and to draw us towards him and to
make all of us the sons of his own kingdom, the associates and the heirs and the sons of
God. For the defeat of the tyrant was being [accomplished] without pity, when he threw him
down openly from his primacy and, after he had thrown him down, he took from him also his
might; and when he had taken it from him, his own victory sufficed him not, but it must
henceforth be also ours for which sake he strove; and those who are obedient unto him he
then brings unto him voluntarily and not by force, and those who come he persuades of
their own will to part from him 59 and not of their own will to become his . . . .60
disciples----and what shall I say? enemy? well then, of the enemy.

74. Concerning this: that, after the victory and after it was said of him: 'He is my Son',
he began other hard battles on our behalf. Therefore, after his victory in every thing and
[after] it was said from heaven: This is my beloved Son, he again began other battles . .
. .60 the supremacy and the teaching and the working of miracles with authority. Further
he comported himself with sublime obedience / in our things, that is, in things human and
weak, in such wise that he possessed not any authority or superiority; he was persecuted
and beaten and fearful [with] the fear that terrifies all men; and he had not as the birds
and as the beasts a place to lay his head. He went from place to place and was bruised and
constrained in every way, for the sake of our obedience. He was not constrained by any
one, but he fulfilled [everything] |68 and taught with all zeal, and he endured all
temptations for the sake of instruction; and from wheresoever he was driven out, he was
driven toward those to whom his gospel was not yet preached, so that that for which he was
zealous was accomplished by the zeal of his enemies, who foresaw not the issue of their
work but who looked to hinder him by opposition and works full of contempt and scorn and
fear unto death.

And after his victory and after the choice of God that this is my beloved Son in whom I am
well-pleased, after he had received the authority of the Gospel, after it was revealed
that by his authority he was working the divine works, after he had said I and my Father
are one, he was with all this weakness and contempt in human things, whose burden he could
not endure / by reason of their weight but which on the contrary were a grief unto him and
a negation of grace. And so then there were many things also which hindered him from
preaching the Gospel; and hence also there arose, [claiming to speak] on behalf of God,
accusers of him as one who was a cause of disobedience,61 and they brought him into
contempt and weakness. 75. Concerning this: that he made use of supreme obedience itself
as of a supreme honour so that Christ became also truly man and rejected it not as
contemptible. For for all men contempt which comes after honour is accounted contemptible;
but for Christ, who was in the flesh, it is the contrary. And he possessed as a supreme
honour obedience unto death, even death upon the cross, and he showed unto Satan and unto
every principality and unto every authority that the cause of honour is rather obedience
abounding and not disobedience unto God, whereby Satan suffered, when he was equal in
nature and in honour but endured not the obedience of men, in that he was judging honour
and contempt by the distinction between his own nature and |69 [that] of men and thought
that this obedience was not due unto God. On account of this love of glory he cast down
Adam also into suffering in persuading him not / to obey God. And Adam chose not to show
gratitude [unto God] nor to be obedient in any thing; but, because he was made like unto
his own image, when he was forbidden to eat of one tree, he suffered in that which was not
worthy to be called a suffering and acted against the commandment of God and regarded God
as jealous. On account of all these things God made the second Adam worthy of all this
honour for having practised all obedience; he granted him an honour above which there was
nothing, even as there was nothing surpassing [his] obedience; he accounted himself as
nothing, except to become conformed to the will of God, to become as God willed that he
should become.

76. Wherefore he wrought the incarnation through his own prosôpon so that he also became
incarnate. Consequently also God became incarnate in the man through his own prosôpon and
made his prosôpon his own prosôpon. And there is no condescension comparable unto this,
that the prosôpon of the man should become his own and that he should give him his
prosôpon. And therefore he made use of his prosôpon, in that he took it for him[self]; but
he took it in order to make it not honourable but contemptible, that he might show to
whoever wished to serve [God] that all / greatness grows great by condescension and not in
exalting itself, [that] in that he took the likeness of a servant, he has been found in
schema as a man. The likeness of this servant served him altogether as he wished; but he
wished [it to be] according to what appertained to the nature, not only that he should
obey his own prosôpon for himself,'so that there might be no doubt concerning him, that he
is the Son of God, but also that he might comport himself on our behalf and die for our
salvation: on our behalf, then, not as though we were just or good----for therein there
would have been an attraction for anyone to die for those who are so----but for the
unjust: for |70 hardly would anyone die for the impious, but for the good someone perhaps
would dare to die. Because then he condescended in everything inscrutably with an
incomparable condescension, there was further demonstrated one purpose, one will, one
intelligence, indistinguishable and indivisible as in one.

So also in manliness and in authority and in ordering of life and in judgement, as in all
things, he was associated with God indivisibly as if each thing were in one by the
distinguishing and by the choice of them both, so that he possessed nothing human of his
own in human things, but the will of God became his own will, when he was made firm in the
actions and sufferings of the nature. Thus also, in things divine, nothing is his own
apart from the human humiliation; but, while remaining God in all things, [he is] that
which the man was by his nature in sufferings, even in impassibility. In the same way as
he made use of the likeness of a servant in the kenosis, so in exaltation he participated
in the likeness of God, since he is in them both, in the likeness of the servant and in
the likeness of God, and possesses the same prosôpon of humiliation and of exaltation.62

77. Concerning this: that the incarnation has been for the education of the whole nature
of rational beings. For this reason it was necessary that the incarnationof God the Word
should take place for the whole nature of rational beings, that we might learn to
participate in his grace, in virtue of which, in that he was lacking in nothing, he
wrought everything and abhorred not to do aught, even what is contemptible, and moreover
that he might make man participate in his image, in such wise that every man who is
beneath him might not make use of the likeness for pride but for participation in the
likeness, and that he might do everything according to his might in the sight of God. |71
78. Concerning this: that Satan, in jealousy 63 towards man, wrought everything with a
view to misleading. / Because then Satan for opposition made use of that which was given
unto him by God and because he had fallen away from the purpose of God, he made use of the
image of God not as a model and an example befitting God but, through jealousy towards
man, for misleading away from God, and he deceived man and made him fall from his image,
since he observed not the will of God, and he raised him up as an enemy and an adversary
against God that thereby he might reprimand God as unjust for showing toward man a good
purpose such as this----reprimanding him in that he took vengeance on man for his shame
and punished him with such punishment as was right for what he had done towards him.
Satan, in fact, because he acted in anger and without reflection, forgot that God acts in
contrary wise to that which he wishes.

79. Concerning this: that God has shown the height of his bounty and has laid bare the
height of the wickedness of Satan. For by death God wrought not the destruction of man but
his consolation and his succour that he might not sin nor any more consent to the counsels
of the evil one which lead to destruction; for also it was not [an occasion] to slander
God but for the increase of his grace. He who accounted man worthy of such honour, when he
was nothing, reprimanded the tyrant for his cunning in planning the overthrow of man, /
and he shows that he in no wise plans his overthrow but to preserve him by his grace and
to care for him, in order that he may be restored again to that which he was. For Satan
hoped that after all this love of God towards man, if again he should make him transgress
the commandment of God, God would be angered by all means to destroy him and that he would
have no cause to turn and be healed. But against those who have sinned and have been
accounted worthy of salvation and yet have continued in the same sins, |72 as though they
had not hitherto been liberated from the former punishment, wrath without remission is
stirred up without there being therefore any cause for salvation. Satan then first
meditated of himself the things which he planned for the destruction of man and he
persuaded himself and he condemned man to vengeance without leaving him any cause for
pardon.

And, since he 64 was envenomed by his 65anger and his jealousy, he 64 understood not by
himself the grace of God, and as a result, being so [placed] ..., he destroyed not Satan
himself, who was the deceiver, but endured his wickedness; and by reason of this also God
is long-suffering as touching men who sin and act impiously against him, as though it were
another who deceives them; and he is long-suffering as touching men's being void of
understanding and as touching / the boundless wickedness of the devil against them, of him
whose whole motive was to mislead all and set all against God, that all our race may be
blotted out by him, without any one remaining unto it to become an intercessor for it. And
because Satan showed all this supreme wickedness, though he had not any cause of
wickedness, even amid all this wickedness the grace of God appeared, and he showed his
ineffable grace in doing his good works universally unto all men. Because of the height of
his condescension to him who has been altogether sinful, he came in contempt and in scorn
and in lowliness and he was not ashamed of the scorn for the sake of the advantage. And by
means of his own prosôpon he became the prosôpon of the other and that of God in
fulfilling all that appertains unto God, that is, the instruction of an instructive
condescension.

For the supreme condescension consisting in a humanity, which seeks not its own but the
things of God, has taken place for the teaching of humiliation. And he was united in one
purpose, so that there was not the least room for Satan to introduce disobedience;66 and
because there remained |73 only death to be [endured] for defeat and victory, he endured
this also after every thing so as to have won the victory even over it, utterly
annihilating it. And two things he wrought / thereby: he defeated Satan and he took away
from him all hope of disobedience. 80. Concerning this: that when Christ conquered, his
victory sufficed him not, but he was also pleased to be oppressed for us that he might
obtain the exaction [of ransom] for the oppression which was for us. And since many are
brought low by the fear of death, he endured unto death and gave a just compensation for
us in that he exchanged for our death the death which came unjustly upon him.67 Therefore,
after he had observed all the commandments in such wise as to be exempt from death and to
receive the choice of victory for us, he yet took upon himself this manner of life for the
instruction of those who were deceived and he died on our behalf as on the behalf of the
deceived. And he brought death into the arena,68 since it was necessary that it should be
abolished; for he hesitated not that his own being should be cast down in death since he
had the hope of its abolition. So also therefore he suffered in advance other trials, but
not so as to die unjustly without exacting [the ransom]. In this very hope he obtained
also obedience and immeasurable love, not that he might obtain victory for himself but
that he might secure the exaction of our own [ransom] and conquer not only for himself but
also for all men. In the same way as the defeat / of Adam caused the defeat of all men, so
also the victory of the former made all victorious.

81. Concerning this: that God has shown to all by very deeds, that there is no acceptance
of persons as touching humanity, in that it has suffered in all things. |74 And through
these two all rational powers have learnt that there is no acceptance of persons with God,
but the love of a just judge. For that reason humanity has conquered and Satan has been
defeated. And God has magnified his victory and given unto him an honour which is more
excellent than all names; and so all rational powers together have wondered even at his
victory, kneeling and adoring the very name which has been given, which has been justly
given unto him, and every tongue confesses the just dispensation which has taken place on
behalf of all, whereby he has made peace and concord to reign over the earth, even he who
in all his actions brings them nigh [unto himself] by persuasion and not by force.

82. Wherefore he accepted for himself to become incarnate. Now God indeed perfected the
dispensation, nor came it about by means of any other lest, when he fell into such
contempt and weakness, his commandment should be considered worthy of scorn and further
lest jealousy should straightway be aroused against man. But he received in his being him
/ who could endure every thing, and he raised up as witnesses of the humiliation of his
humanity angels who should strengthen him, that none might say that it was suffering
without suffering, since he strengthened it that it might not suffer, and therefore it had
no reason not to obey. For everything whatsoever could without doubt be conceived or said
concerning him and what he knew that people said concerning him----though they could not
say it either because they feared or because they were obedient----that he did that he
might leave no single cause of doubt; for they were not convinced of this mystery, but it
was hidden even from principalities and authorities and from all powers and it was
revealed unto them as a matter of knowledge and all of them confessed, after this
explanation, the design which has done away with all designs and conquered them. And he
has shown that his incarnation was a universal dispensation for all those who have been
accounted equal with him in one |75 purpose and in one persuasion, to stand against the
enemy of them all, whom he has driven out and whose authority he has suppressed, so that
there is no more place for his deception and for his jealousy.

83 For what cause, when he defeated and convicted Satan, who is the enemy of all, he did
not destroy him but allowed him again to act.69 / And he continues to deceive that it may
be made manifest for his own condemnation and that of those who are persuaded by him,
though he has no more such strength for his deception; and for the sake of the victory of
those who are not persuaded by him; for none will be crowned unless he strives lawfully.
Therefore after the victory and after the bringing to nought of death Christ has remained
[sharing] in the [same] state of life----a state of life which was brought to nought in
Christ----in order that those who are in Christ might comport themselves after the
likeness of Christ, not only by the grace of the Resurrection but also by the works and
manner of life of each one of them; for the former is universal but the latter individual.
And, that it might not be thought that the construction of the nature of Christ was unique
and distinct, that it was constructed to be without sin and for that reason conquered, he
brought it about that he should be conquered by many myriads, in our own nature in the
state of life in which Christ [conquered], by those who keep the exact commandments in
such wise that according to the law they comport themselves in the body almost after a
manner of life without bodily frame; and in times of distress and afflictions and in all
frailty they endure the provocations and the excitements of nature together with violent
assaults from without. And thus they have conquered in all things, so that the increase of
the defeat of Satan |76 becomes an increase [in the observance] of the commandments, while
the latter thought that the fall of men would become much easier by an identical manner of
life.

/ 84. For what reason Satan attained unto all this exaltation so as to rise up openly
against God and make himself equal with God. And therefore, as he ran to and fro, his
defeat became great; and then in consequence of this he increases his wickedness and
reveals it and displays an unbounded audacity in rising up openly against God and making
himself comparable with God and likening himself unto his incarnation, deceiving not
through anything else nor by anything else than by his own prosôpon and by a sublime
deception. And because Christ had done away with the deception as touching their gods and
their incantations, the former also did away with the things of the latter by deceiving.
He put under his own prosôpon all things appertaining to gods and sects and incantations
and other such things, of which he is the controller, for the sake of making himself
great, so that he alone might be considered God. For he makes use of man as an instrument
which he has drawn away and led up to boundless evil, making man even to participate in
the privation of Divine knowledge, as enemies are wont to act; and of necessity and out of
rage he does these things which shall be utterly undone and abolished together with all
his primacy.

And when it has come to an end and he has nothing else to do, it will remain / for him to
pour forth all his wickedness and to be revealed to all as having fought against his
Creator, in return for having made him and having given him such might and having allowed
him to make use of his might, and having endured him when he fought with all these things.
[But] God gathers together all those who would blot out and bring to nought his tyranny.
For he has then no device which can be devised against the elect of God, since all things
have been in all things fulfilled, both his deception and his evasion of the commandments,
and he has been conquered in every thing, in secret and openly, |77 both as to his
persuasiveness and as to all his force of which he has made use in the weakening and
humiliation of the body. And he acted also in regard to the saints in like manner as he
acted in regard to Christ, in order by all means to cast them into cruel distresses, but
they were not conquered thereby. But in that he ceased not of himself after he was
conquered by Christ nor again after he was defeated by the saints, Christ brought his
primacy to an end by the death which unjustly came upon him, and it was utterly brought to
nought by the death of the saints, which by audacity and improperly he brought upon them.

And [God] made him submit to a just judgement for the sake of us whom unjustly he
distressed and with whom he combated for our destruction, and because of all his devices
and his deceptions and every kind of his ingratitude and his arrogance and his tyranny in
opposition to God and to his saints. For all the time / of the long-suffering of God was
given for repentance and that he might come to himself and know his folly and his boldness
in things impossible. 85. What thoughts Satan thought against God, Though he was able to
afflict him passibly and to win him over to the exaction of the ransom, he did this not,
but let him make use of his anger as he willed; for long-suffering toward those who are
envenomed by wickedness works an increase of their wickedness, so that, when they see it
and are accurately convinced of it, they do the opposite to those who see it not; for
there is no repressing the increase of what is wicked in those who carry out their wishes
in opposition to God; for either they think concerning the long-suffering of God that,
because he is unable to cast them down into sufferings, in that they possess an immortal
nature, he will on this account be long-suffering with them, and for this reason they do
those things which are contrary to God, or else, although they grant that he is able to do
everything, they do those things which are contrary to his will, because, when he wishes
it, he will of his long-suffering cause them to change from their wickedness. Since he
wills this, they rise up against his will, doing this or |78 that which is contrary / to
what he wills. They do not ask to have redemption by him on account of their enmity and
their infinite boldness, but they embitter him exceedingly so that he destroys them, in
that they ask neither to be under God nor to live.

And we shall see [Satan] condemned by a condemnation apart from men in a just judgement,
when he shall have neither defence nor [counter-]accusation. For God let him do everything
that he willed in such wise that there is not any cause at all to rescue him; for he
destroyed him not indeed in a single moment by caprice nor further did he let him go
without condemnation. Since in fact God left him no single cause of deliverance, for this
he prepared himself to be by all means beyond repression; as one then who is the prey of
jealousy and ambition, he desists not from his jealousy till the object of his jealousy
[is attained] according to his will, and he is an example to all who are ungrateful. For
him and all those who after his likeness have fallen into this sickness God judges justly
and examines them and condemns them in the sight of all; and they are hated by common
consent, and in him [men] see all ingratitude and all boldness and arrogance and all wiles
and all falsehood and all impiety which springs up and grows great and is brought to
fulness, so that it cannot even receive any increase.

86. Concerning this: that at the time of condemnation Satan will be hated by all / and
even by his own, in so much as he has been unto them a cause of punishment.70 For this
reason all this time of long-suffering has been given unto him, and it is given unto him
until the day of judgement to do whatever he will, lest there should be left unto him any
cause for being able to do anything in it; but a time of long-suffering and of authority
has been given unto him; and after that he will be fully judged and distinguished from the
righteous together with all those who have participated with him in tyranny; by them also
will he be hated and accused as having been the cause of their condemnation. As in purity
of love, in word and in deeds each will love God as good and |79 just, as wise and as
mighty, and as the Maker and as God, and, since they will obtain an example of just
judgement without respect of persons, of the good and of the wicked, all classes of
rational beings will duly learn the examination of the arguments for good and for evil,
and for what reason God allows each man to choose it according to his will, and lets those
who choose the good endure evils and is long-suffering toward those who have chosen the
opposite thereof and who fight against his will, that they may do whatsoever they choose.
And in this wise / the administration of this world is carried on: thus will it be
administered by God until the end.

87. The Consummation. And after this, seeing that everything has been well [done], we
shall be in the joy of the world to come, having no cause [to fear] deprivation thereof
nor that we shall have further need of instruction. 88. Concerning this: that it was
needful that there should be a union of two natures, and that it was not right that it
should take place otherwise. For these reasons, then, and for similar causes, the
incarnation of God took place justly: true God by nature and true man by nature. For there
would not have been any [union] of these, if one of these natures had been left out. If
God became not incarnate, and if he became not [incarnate] in a man [formed] of the nature
of men, [it is] in fact as if it took place in deception and the truth [would be] what the
words of Satan would have been, that Christ surely rejected as contemptible his [physical]
formation after his image. Therefore there would have been no teaching of humility and of
obedience and of condescension: that he, who when he had not taken the likeness of a
servant was the similitude and the likeness of God, should be found in the likeness as a
man.But there would rather be a justification of the words of Satan, who had contemned
[him], because / he had seen him inferior in his nature to the image and the likeness of
the honour of God. And as for all the angels, though they were |80 convinced of him as of
God and were not able to dare to speak against him, this reason forced them not to blame
Satan in anything [but to treat him] as one who had been cast down into sufferings which
were not right for him, for the sake of the boundless honour of human nature, though he
was blamed for this that he ought to have obeyed any commandment whatsoever of God. And
since there was this suffering in their soul, they served him for the sake of him who
commanded them, though not with a good will.

89. Concerning this: that, even if he were in the schema of a man but not in the nature of
a man, the doctrine of an incarnation would not become established. Although a man were to
grant that he became incarnate,yet [in placing the Incarnation] in the schema of a man but
not in the nature of a man, he would predicate the same repudiation of human nature. 90.
Concerning this: that, even if he were to change his own nature into the nature of a man,
the doctrine of the Incarnation would not have been established. And even if he changed
his own ousia for the ousia of a man, it seems that he would have surely repudiated the
nature of a man, since he would have been in his own ousia and not in the ousia of man;
for this ousia is his, not of the earth but of the nature of God the Word, and therefore /
God the Word appears to have grown in wisdom in a human manner of life, so as to remain
without sin as one who is a man while he is God the Word by his own ousia. Thus also he
comported himself as a man though he was not man by nature but God the Word; both when he
had combated and conquered the adversary and when he suffered, he who was impassible by
his nature suffered, and similarly also in these other things. And even if we say that he
took a man and that he changed the nature of the man into his own ousia, did he not set
aside the victory of the things which are rejected, which constitute man? And for this
reason he changed the nature of the flesh which was rejected for him, lest God should be
abased in his |81 being in the nature of a man; and in this way neither were his manner of
life and sufferings and death those of a man, nor again were they for the sake of men.

And so it was no more through the death of God, nay rather, if God had been condemned to
death, if he had willed to avoid it he would have set it aside without his own death
rather than through a schema of death. But. since he was God and immortal, in his prosôpon
which was not guilty he accepted death, that is, [accepted] the mortal and changeable
[prosôpon], [so] that he was able to fight against defeat through the commandments and the
observances, so that victory might fall to his image and to his likeness, that it might /
be the same who accepted death as defeat and to whom [God] gave immortality as a release
from guilt, in that he was preserved without stain in his own image. And as he condemned
him when guilty, so also when he conquered he exalted the name which is above all names;
and he obtained it not by commandments and through ordinances but by victory in his own
right not to be taken away from him, just as a son, who was formerly under authority, on
growing up and becoming adult, has authority to become a son, although he was already such
as a son is.

91. Concerning this: that, even if any one were to grant that the union was by natural
composition, or by mixture, or by confusion, or by intermingling of the natures, the
doctrine of an incarnation would not have been established. On account of this very thing,
even if any one were to grant that God the Word accepted humanity in his own nature,
either by mixture, or by confusion, or by participation of ousia, and sets at nought this
nature of man, he shows that this human nature is to be rejected and that it could not be
preserved without sin, since his nature conquered not ,but he who came into being from
both of them; and he shows that Satan, since he was incapable, was defeated, and [that] in
having defeated at the beginning man who sinned, he defeated him who could not be without
sin because he was not of the sinless nature of |82 God the Word / but of the nature of
sinful man. And Satan appeared to speak with man in judgement but was surely defeated by
God, of whose nature it is to be defeated of nothing. And both of these [theories] are
absurd, in that he commanded Satan and man to do impossibilities. But if the things which
were commanded had been possible to do and had not been observed, justly would Satan have
been condemned; for, when he could obey, he obeyed not but rose up against God by means of
the schema of a man and slandered God before man as jealous, and man before God as
ungrateful; and he is the enemy of all and has received a just judgement and has been
openly convicted.

He has in fact been conquered by Christ through his humanity and by the saints, for openly
he rose up and still is risen up against God, and he has shown that, if he had not been
able to deceive the first man, he afterward would have fought against God openly and not
in the schema of this man or that, and although he could do nothing, he had it in his
intention to do whatever he desired like the Lord, as one who was in everything able to
act and to persuade and to fight. And he was able to destroy him in that moment, since he
was worthy of destruction. But others would not have learnt / that wickedness is powerful
and extinguishes itself, unless they had by all means known that they received subjection
[to God] as a grace and from this subjection obtained grace not to show themselves bold
against God and thereby themselves also to be parted from God with the former. How then
would he have made the Incarnation a stumbling-block by mixture, or by confusion, or by
natural participation, so that he might not be supposed [to be] God nor even man, but one
who is of them both and is neither simple nor undivided? So therefore he is [combined]
with humanity, as a judge in a judgement and in a true trial, possessing it in his own
prosôpon and [having it] obedient unto himself in everything.

And it is not he who combats and is judged, but to the extent of appropriation he has |83
brought it 71 nigh unto his own image and not to the nature of the invincible and
impassible ousia of the divinity. For Satan had no commission from God to make him 72
disobedient to him, but to convince God that his own man was disobedient to him. He, who
in everything accepted obedience with a good intention, exalted his honour in his own
image to show that he is a just judge. 92. Concerning this: that, even if one were to
grant one nature by natural composition, either with flesh without soul or [in flesh]
animated by an animal / soul or by a rational soul according to a natural union, the
doctrine of an incarnation would not have been established. But in this way neither those
who say, as the Arians, that the flesh was united to God by a natural composition and that
it suffered by natural sufferings, nor again those who say that the union took place with
the rational soul and the flesh in such wise that it suffered by a natural sensibility the
sufferings of the body and of the unreasonable and irrational soul, establish in truth the
doctrine of the incarnation. Do they not say this, that by a deception Satan was conquered
by him who had been conquered, and that the latter conquered not by his own might but had
need of a champion, that is of God who created him, who fought either openly or in secret?
For in that Satan, having held no contest with God, was conquered by God, he conquered by
having shown unto all that the love of God toward man was unjust and that the exaltation
of humanity resulted as it were in the scorn of all and the subjection and the prostration
of all supremacy and all authority. Now if he sought to do that for man, he could do it
even without this deception and cunning, for that which he says he also does. Nor further
indeed hid he himself when he made use of this schema; for he who seeks to hide himself,
so long as it escapes him not that, if discovered, he will surely be confuted, is himself
/ his own accuser. So they are |84 constrained to say the contrary of what they seek to
say, so that they accuse God and make excuse for the evil one, and they put forth all
[their] might in vain and reason contrary to the incarnation of God.73

93. Concerning this: that things which are composed in one nature [are so] either that
they may be supreme or that they may be under supremacy and especially wider the soul,
which is supreme in the composite nature, if God the Word is naturally composed. Those
things indeed which are composed and brought to fullness to [form] a nature [are so]
either that they may be constituted chief and in control or that they may be under a chief
and a controller. If then, because the rational soul is in need of being controlled, it is
in need of participation in God the Word that he may be controller either of the body or
of the rational or of the animal soul, then by him 74 he 75 obtained the victory, if it is
fair to call victory that of another nature which is distinct and unlike and unequal to
men, its companions. It seems that he acts in schema and forcibly subjects all to
him[self] and brings [them] under his authority by force like God, so that he who was
defeated by his very own choice could not escape owing to his defeat nor observe the
commandments in his own nature, except by God the Word who is the conqueror for all time.
It is not, in fact, / wonderful and worthy of praise that God the Word became in the body
and observed all the observances of the soul and of the body. For |85 if he had not
remained in his nature above the nature of the body or of the soul or of the intelligence,
he would surely have been required [to do so], since the rational soul also sufficed to
observe the commandments;

but if the latter had not sufficed and for this reason there had been need of the
incarnationof God the Word that for all he might support the sufferings of the body and of
the soul and of the intelligence in a natural union which would have united the nature, he
would have suffered as the body, as the soul [and] as the intelligence in the mixture. But
since he was not conquered as one of them, it appears that he was outside their nature and
therefore was not caught by those things whereby each one of them was caught. Together
with this [there is] another absurdity which they predicate in limiting God himself by the
necessity of nature and ascribing, as the Manichaeans, to hylê such might that it drags
after it by authority and its own force whosoever receives it, and that he suffers in all
ways the actual bodily sufferings [namely] whatever God the Word suffered when he
condescended to the body and supported these bodily sufferings in his own nature when he
was scourged by hunger and thirst, by the natural bonds of the body, though in his own
nature he was exempt from these things; he desired and he was angered / and was fearful
and was suffering, and suffered naturally all these sufferings of the body and the soul,
because he was composed of [one] nature.

For he, who is composed of [one] nature, of necessity adheres in the nature to all the
nature's own properties, whether of a man or of God or of any other nature to which he is
naturally united and combined. And however one would be willing to say that he is in
nothing distinct from me, yet those who are composed of [one] nature support of necessity
that nature's own proper qualities which are naturally and not voluntarily theirs. But
that God ihe Word is so voluntarily and not by force: I have authority over my life, that
I should lay it down and I have authority to take it again. Therefore the words of the
Divine Scriptures befit not Christ in any other manner than this; but as we have |86
examined and found, all refer not to the union of the nature but to the natural and
hypostatic prosôpon.76

[A selection of the footnotes has been transcribed] 1. Viz. the Syriac Translator: this
title is added by Bedjan. 2. These lines are only fragmentarily preserved. 3. Nau
conjectures: [dans sa carriere] apostolique. 4. Nau conjectures: dans les travaux de
l'esprit; see crit. n., p. 398. 5. See crit. n., p. 398. 6. Literally: 'by the precedence
of the parsopha (= πρόσωπον) '. 7. Syr. parsopha'. 8. There is a lacuna here in the text.
9. Isa. v. 20 (P). 10. Added by Bedjan. 11. Several lines are here missing. 12. There is a
lacuna here in the text. 13. See crit. n., p. 398. 14. Syr. ' Dissertation I'. 15.
Literally: 'expect to accept'. 16. Viz. the followers of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of
Antioch in a. d. 260, condemned at the Council of Antioch, a. d. 268 (or 269). Among them,
the semi-Arian Photinus was condemned in 351.

17. This passage illustrates Nestorius' use of the phrase 'natural union', and explains
his refusal to use that phrase to describe the relation of the two natures in Christ. A
natural union comes into being where elements are combined into a whole by some external
force. (This is the meaning of 'in virtue of a command'.) But the incarnation of the Word
was not imposed on him from without; it was due to his own free choice, and his godhead
remained a free co-operator throughout. See below, pp. 36-43, 84-86, 161, 179, 300-1,
303-4, 314. 18. Nestorius' argument seems to be as follows: to speak of the Incarnation as
a 'natural union' implies that union with the manhood was imposed on Christ's godhead from
without, so that the godhead was imprisoned in the manhood like a criminal in gaol. This
involves two impossible positions, (1) the denial of the freedom of Christ's godhead
(hence the language about 'punishment'), and (a) the ascription of passibility to his
godhead.

19. Marginal Gloss. There was not an answer to the seventh question in the original, nor
was there even a place for it. 20. Sophronius. In the text Sofronyos; in the margin
Sofrinos. Sophronius was a common name in the time of Nestorius; but he seems here to be
simply a rhetorical figure devised by Nestorius to enable him to cast his argument in the
form of a dialogue. He is used indifferently to represent any heresy. Nan (in loc.)
suggests a Nestorian Bishop of Telia and a Nestorian layman of that name as possible
references. Cp. Bedjan, op. cit., pp. ix, x. Cp. p. 378. 21. See crit. n., p. 398, 22.
This passage is translated in Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 45, and
referred to on p. 78 of that work. 23. The importance of this point is discussed by Loofs
in Nestorius and his place in the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 126 sqq.; see also
below , pp. 22-26.

24. The non-possession of body or flesh (the two words seem to be interchangeable) is for
Nestorius a distinctive characteristic of godhead, while the possession of body or flesh
is essential to manhood. This antithesis was, of course, common to him and to his
opponents, but he seems to have developed his doctrine by the strictly logical working out
of such principles. They seem to be the leaven which leavens the whole lump of his
thought. Cp. pp. 22, n. 2, 48. 25. i. e. running water and water frozen. 26. This must
surely mean: 'is a change from one schema to another schema while the hypostasis remains
unchanged.' The word schema seems to mean the form or appearance of a thing at any given
moment, e.g. water has one schema when running and another when frozen. But prosôpon,
whatever it is, must be a permanent element in the being of a thing, without which, or if
it were other than it is, the thing would not be what it is. Might it be that the prosôpon
is the unity of the successive schemata of a thing?

27. I.e. an ousia of dust and ashes. 28. Nestorius is here accused of Nestorianism, His
reply is a somewhat ambiguous reference to Scripture, after which he confines himself to
attacking Sophronius' position, leaving till later the task of making clear his own views.
Cp. p. 47, n. 3. 29. See p. 15, n. 2. Nestorius is here developing further the argument on
p. 15. He has there denied that the Incarnation means merely the taking of the schema of
humanity by God the Word; he now shows that it involves the taking of that schema and
more. But the most important point seems to be the establishing of the fact that ousias
are mutually exclusive. Henceforward this must be assumed as one of the presuppositions of
Nestorius' thought. If Godhead and manhood are to be united neither of them can be the
basis of the union. They must be united in some tertium quid. Cp. pp. 14, n. 2, 48, 298.

30. Nau points out that the emphasis is on the otherness, not on the equality, of the
added ousia. The Syriac phrase is equivalent to the Greek ισουσία. 31. Nau suggests,
probably rightly, that the human prosôpon is here meant. 32. This heading refers to the
sect mentioned at the beginning of p. 24, and should probably be transposed to the top of
that page. 33. Nestorius seems here to be dealing with the position afterwards held by
Eutyches. 34. Altering the punctuation of the Syriac text, which puts the stop after
'Manichaeans'. 35. V reads: 'that which is made from that which is unmade '. 36. Viz. the
human ousia. 37. Viz. St. Peter. 38. Viz. the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 39. §§
37-41. Nestorius' argument seems to be: In whatever sense the bread becomes the Body of
Christ, in that same sense we become the Body of Christ by participating in the Sacrament.
Since we can only participate in a human body, the Body of Christ must have been (and be)
human.

In view of the charge commonly brought against Nestorianism that it destroys the universal
significance for all men of the Incarnation of Christ, it is interesting to find that he
defends his own view as alone safeguarding this significance. 40. The Syriac text reads
'revelation ', for which Nau suggests 'will'; but in view of later passages this seems
unnecessary. Cp. e.g. pp. 60-69, 200 n. 1. 41. Sc. God the Word and the Man Christ. 42. If
the text of this passage is right, the last words 'from no nature' must be the apodosis to
the conditional clause beginning ' But if, since he wished....' The sense must be that out
of something which, being incomplete, is no real nature the human nature was made by the
addition of the Logos. 43. The word 'soul' seems to have dropped out of the Syriac text.
44. This seems to mean: If the divine nature is found in Christ in a natural union, it can
only be so in virtue of having been reduced to the level of human nature. If it were
remaining itself and freely co-operating of its own will, the union would be another kind
of union.

45. Viz. the Son. 46. Viz. the Father. 47. Literally: 'for you the word "union"
necessarily takes the meaning of the Arians.' 48. See p. 19, n. 2. Sophronius again
accuses Nestorius of Nestorianism, and this time he defends himself against the charges by
directly denying what is alleged against him. See especially pp. 49-50. 49. Sophronius
here seems to identify himself with Nestorius' point of view, but to deduce from it that
he must go on to conclude that God was in Christ in the same way as in the saints. He is
thus used to represent an accusation commonly brought against Nestorius by the orthodox,
which Nestorius proceeds to rebut. 50. This presumably means that each nature has its own
hypostasis and prosôpon, (So Nau.) 51. In this section Nestorius shows clearly that he is
aware that in using words like 'adoption' and 'indwelling' he is in danger of being taken
to teach psilanthropism, from which he is careful to distinguish his own doctrine.

52. Viz. the humanity. 53. If this were a definition of what it is to have the prosôpon of
God, it would lay Nestorius open to the charge of being a Nestorian. But that it is not is
made clear by p. 62, ll. 14-16. This sentence therefore merely states that willing the
same things as God is implied in having the prosôpon of God. Cp. pp. 70, 163. 54. Sc. the
man Jesus. 55. In this section Nestorius develops the idea that the Incarnation took place
for the purpose of revelation, an idea very prominent in his thought. Cp. p. 34, n. 1, and
references there. The section is also an important one for the determination of the
meaning of prosôpon. 56. Only isolated words and letters have been preserved in the next
five lines of the Syriac text. 57. Bethune-Baker discusses the references of the pronouns
in this passage in Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 126.

58. From the next section it is clear that the victory was that of the Temptation. 59.
Viz. the devil. 60. There is here a short lacuna in the text. 61. This passage is obscure,
but possibly refers to such charges as casting out devils through Beelzebub; threatening
the Temple; and blasphemy. Cp. Mark iii. 22; xiv. 56-64. 62. At the end of his work
Nestorius claims that the Church finally approved a doctrine which was what he had always
taught: cp. p. 378. It is in passages such as this that his orthodox intention is most
clear. Though he never speaks totidem verbis of one persona or one u9po/stasij in Christ,
he seems to be asserting what that terminology was meant to express. Cp. further pp.
246-9, 312-5. 63. Nestorius apparently follows the legend that when the angels were
ordered to serve the later creation, man, some of them fell into jealousy and became his
enemies. Nau refers to the version in the seventh century Nestorian Patriarch George, in
Chabot. Synodes Nestoriens (Notices et Extraits xxxvii. 495).

64. Viz. man. 65. Viz. Satan's. 66. Nestorius here seems to teach that the union in the
Incarnation was so close as to exclude the possibility of sin. Cp. p. 63. 67. Literally:
'he changed our death into the death which . . . .' Nestorius' theology of the Atonement
is somewhat obscure. He seems here to teach in accordance with the line of thought which
looks on the death of Christ as a ransom paid to the devil. Cp. p. 173. But see pp. 45
(propitiation), 63-3, 183, 205, 212 ff. (renewing of fallen human nature), 66-7 (conquest
of Satan). And cp. pp. 75, n. 1, 84, n. 2. 68. Literally: ' into the midst'. 69. Three
points of importance in Nestorius' theology of the Atonement seem here to emerge: (i) the
universality of God's grace in atonement, (ii) the need of its individual appropriation by
men, and (iii) the reality of Christ's moral struggle as man.

70. This and the next two sections show clearly Nestorius' thought on the problem of
reconciling God's omnipotence with the existence of evil. 71. Viz. the humanity. 72. Viz.
Christ incarnate. 73. Cp. p. 73, n. 1. Here we seem to find that although Nestorius looks
on the death of Christ as ransoming mankind from the devil, yet he rejects certain ways of
explaining that theory of the Atonement. Is it not possible that he is denying such a
doctrine as is found extant in Gregory the Great (Moralia xxxii. 12-xxxiii. 6), where the
devil is cheated through ignorance of the Crucified being divine and therefore immortal?
Nestorius argues that the Cross must be a real moral victory by the Man, not an unexpected
triumph by a concealed deus ex machina. Such a triumph would really mean the defeat of
mankind. The individual humanity of Christ might have been exalted, but the devil's
fetters would be rivetted on the rest of mankind. It is interesting that according to the
traditional account of Nestorius' teaching he is himself open to precisely this charge.

74. Viz. God the Word. 75. Viz. The Man Christ. 76. This must surely mean that in
considering each passage of Scripture we have to ask to which of the two natures in Christ
it is appropriate; then the passage is to be referred to the prosôpon which belongs to
that nature and hypo-stasis. Each passage thus refers to a ' natural and hypostatic
prosôpon '. (Cp. pp. 54, 316 sqq.) The two 'natural and hypostatic prosôpa' then somehow
combine to form the one prosôpon of the union. Professor Bethune-Baker's interpretation of
this passage in Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 99, seems to require an unjustified
identification of prosôpon in Nestorius with 'person' in the modern sense of the word, and
does not seem to be borne out by Nestorius' usage and argument in other passages.


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

BOOK 1, PART 2

BOOK I. PART II. — Concerning the Faith.

1 Sophronius says: Because then many accept the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen
which was laid down at Nicaea, both persons who believe in various ways and those who
understand the Divine Scriptures some in one way and some in another and in various ways
He was made flesh and was made man may it please thy Reverence to pass [in review] their
intentions and their opinions; and do thou write and make known unto me how it appears
unto thee and what thou dost approve as well-pleasing, and give no cause to them that seek
cause to calumniate thee. Nestorius. 1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of
our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto
men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men. And, as he appeared unto each
one of the saints, so in the last times he appeared unto all men.

2. But others say that the divine ousia became flesh, so that it should become in its own
ousia the ousia of the flesh for the nature of men, and that he should comport himself and
suffer and set our nature free. For he who became man not in his own ousia but in schema,
has surely not set us free but has surely deceived us, since he appeared in schema and to
suffer for our sakes without having suffered. / 3. Others again confess that God was made
flesh in the flesh as a complement of nature instead of the soul. He was made flesh
naturally in the flesh to work and to suffer, and he naturally endured all the natural
sufferings of the body, being by his nature impassible but by a natural incarnation
passible, even as the soul, which by its nature suffers not the sufferings of the body nor
is pained nor hungers, through a natural economy suffers naturally the sufferings of the
body, being united with it naturally, that he may naturally comport himself and suffer on
our behalf. And not in fiction and in schema or by any other nature but by his own nature
he has set us free from death and corruption.

3 4. But others confess that in body and in soul he was made flesh for the completion of
the nature and that God the Word was instead of an intelligence, so as to be instead of an
intelligence in the nature in the body and in the soul, and to comport himself in the
nature of men and to suffer on our behalf. For he came to suppress that intelligence which
transgressed the commandment and obeyed not God and to be instead of intelligence in the
soul and in the body, and not in a schema without hypostasis nor in another nature nor
again in a bodily frame without a soul. 5. But others [confess] as touching that flesh
wherein God the Word was made flesh that he was made flesh, animate flesh, that felt not
in its nature / and understood not through the soul but understood and felt by the
activity of God the Word. In God the Word this soul felt and also understood, and the body
was a natural instrument; and they divide not Christ into instrument and workman, since
the instrument and the workman act together.

4 6. But others confess two natures in Christ before the union and that each of the
natures should be conceived in its own nature: God the Word on the one hand in the Father
and in the Holy Spirit and men in the flesh; but after the union [they are] not conceived
as two natures in virtue of being united in ousia; and one [ousia] results from the two of
them. They change them from nature to nature in such wise that the same is literally man
and God, so that God comports himself as a man and dies for us as God and rises by his own
might. 5 7. But others say of the incarnation of our Lord [that it was in] an animate
flesh in a rational and intelligent soul, complete in its nature and in its might and in
its natural activities, and not in schema nor in a change of ousia nor again for the
natural completion of the nature of the body and of the soul, or of the intelligence, or
[that it was] mingled into one nature out of two of them or that they were changed from
the one into the other, or / that [it took place] for the completion of the natural
activities in such wise that the flesh should not act in its own nature; but [it was in]
one prosôpon of both natures, both of them maintaining the properties of their own
natures; and the ousia of the divinity remains and suffers not when it is in the ousia of
the flesh, and the flesh again remains in the ousia of the flesh when it is in the nature
and in the prosôpon of the divinity; for the body is one and both of them [are] one Son.
For no other is called God the Word in the flesh apart from him who is in our own flesh;
nor again [is anything else called] the flesh, but it is in the Son, in God the Word:

6 that he should comport himself completely in the nature of men being man, and that he
should rise as God being God by nature, that he in consequence of sinlessness and of
having observed [the commandments] should be delivered to death for our salvation, that he
might preserve the likeness of his own image. In order then to become so, he took not for
[his] likeness a name which is more excellent than all names that the nature of men might
be exalted; for the honour and exaltation has not been given to an ousia which
henceforward is not of man but of God the Word. Our own nature has been honoured in
another nature and not in our own nature; for the exaltation of our own nature to a name
which is more excellent than all names belongs generally to that nature which is the
exaltation of one who remains in his own ousia and can be that which / is in the ousia of
God the Word; this in fact is properly the exaltation, like which there is not [any
other]. For the change of ousia into ousia is the suppression of that ousia which ought to
be exalted, and also of its own, of the exaltation; and there has been no more
condescension of God the Word when once he is changed into the ousia of the flesh, because
he is not the nature which is capable of condescending but is that which has condescended.

7 As a king, if he becomes one of the subjects, is said to condescend though he is truly
king, and on account of the clothes of subjects which he has put on is said to have surely
condescended; in place of his own he has made use of those of the latter in schema, in
such wise that, as those who are under the law of administrators, so will he be
voluntarily under the law though he is their own king, [and king] of the administrators
and of their lords. For there is no more an exaltation in being exalted to his own nature,
but in giving him what he had not, not in taking away from him what he had. For if
exaltation and humiliation belong to that which was and which originally was, humiliation
belongs to this nature which was and which originally was. Of whom is the exaltation?
First he said the ousia which was exalted and afterwards that name wherein it is exalted,
/ which is above all names. For if thou takest away the ousias which accept humiliation
and exaltation, there is no ousia which has been humiliated. Therefore he said he
humiliated himself in reference to a voluntary union, the incarnation and the kind of
humiliation which he showed when he took the likeness of a servant, and again that which
took place resulted in a voluntary and not a natural [union]; in schema he was found as a
man, not in ousia;

8 for in the likeness of God [was] the likeness of the servant. The likeness of God was in
schema as a man, for God was in his own ousia, in such wise that it was conceived also as
an humiliation in him that he took the likeness of a servant, and as an exaltation in the
likeness of the servant that it took a name which is more excellent than all names, and
[so that] it was not conceived as a change of ousia either into an ousia or into a natural
composition of one nature, but as being a voluntary [union], as [being] one in humiliation
and in exaltation; for that of nature is passible and changeable, since it is a nature
created and made, not uncreated nor unmade nor unchangeable nor immutable. 9 Consequently
this man has attributed nothing in the Incarnation to the conduct of the man but [all] to
God the Word, in such wise that he made use of the nature of humanity for his own conduct.
So Arius and Eunomius and Apollinarius say therefore that Christ is God in name but in
reality deprive him / of being God, in ascribing those things in him which are human in
nature to his own ousia, and suppress the genealogy of the family of Christ and the
promises made to the patriarchs, of whose seed arose the Christ after the flesh. Therefore
the Evangelists record all those things which in truth show the nature of man, lest on
account of the divinity it should not be believed that he was also man nor be believed
together with this that it was he who was affirmed by the promises. Therefore the Blessed
Mary was recorded as a woman who was betrothed to a man, of whom he has written both his
name and his race and his trade and his place, in order that there might be nothing to
raise a doubt leading to disbelief that she was a woman.

10 Therefore also [he wrote] of his low estate and with all these things also of the
annunciation of his conception and of his birth and of the manger, to make known him who
was born together with her who bore him, that it might be affirmed that he is truly man,
of [his] sleeping in the manger, of the swathing in swaddling bands such as are natural to
infants, of the offerings which were offered for him for his progress, of his increase in
stature and in wisdom with God and with men, of his manner of life in the world, of his
observances, of his submission, of the prayers which he prayed, of all his fulfilment of
the law, of the baptism and of the saying which was said of him, that he / who from the
womb was son by union was the Son, of the witness to the observance of the customs, of the
word of the Father, of the appearance of the Holy Spirit, of his dispensation with all
zeal on our behalf, not in illusion nor in the schema of a man but in the human nature
[formed] of the body of a man and a rational soul which thinks and reflects in the nature
of men, that it may have everything which is in the nature of man without being deprived
of the union with God the Word.

11 For the union of the natures resulted not in [one] nature or in a confusion or in a
change or in a change of ousia, either of divinity into humanity or of humanity into
divinity, or in a mixture of natures or in the composition of one nature, being mixed and
suffering together with one another in the natural activities of natures which are
naturally constituted. 12 For they suppress all these things through the natural and
hypostatic union and they take everything which is in his nature and attribute them
naturally unto God the Word: the human fear and the betrayal, the interrogation, the
answer, the smiting upon the cheeks, the sentence of the cross, the way thereto, the
setting of the cross upon his shoulder, the bearing of his cross, the removal [of it] from
him that it might be set on another, the crown of thorns, the robes of purple, / the
raising up of the cross, the crucifixion, the fixing of the nails, the gall which was
offered unto him, the other distresses, the surrender of his spirit to the Father, the
bowing down of his head, the descent of his body from the cross, the embalming thereof,
his burial, the resurrection on the third day, his appearance in his body, his speaking
and his teaching that they should not suppose him to be an illusion of the body but truly
body which had also flesh. Because he was not by illusion and by deception a body and a
soul but in truth all that by nature, there was nothing that was hid.

13 All the human things, which now men are ashamed to predicate of him, the Evangelists
were not ashamed to predicate, those which without being ashamed they make over to the
divine nature through the union of the natural hypostasis: God suffering the sufferings of
the body because he is naturally united in nature, thirsting, hungering, in poverty, in
anxiety, meditating, praying so as both to conquer human things wherein he was naturally
suffering and to fight against the nature of men, [they / claim this] so as to bring to
nought our glory and to bring to nought our salvation. And the properties of God the Word
they set at nought and make them human; he would have acted naturally in nature and
suffered in the sensibility of nature, accepting sufferings in his own ousia naturally, as
the body [accepts those] of the soul and the soul [those] of the body. / Surely it is an
awful and dreadful thing to conceive this and to tell men what and what sort of thoughts
they have concerning the Son, that he is both made and created and that he has been
changed from impassible to passible and from immortal to mortal and from unchangeable to
changeable. Although one would make him the ousia of the angels and without suffering and
say that he operated not by his nature nor by his activity nor by his might, but by that
which he became, would he escape withal from suffering sufferings?

14 But it is not possible for one who is naturally united to escape; for if he were not
naturally to suffer the sufferings of the body, he would suffer them as the soul instead
of the soul, because he is instead of the soul which reflected not as intelligence and
whose in its reflection he was instead of intelligence. And he was in schema and by means
of the schema of a man he deceived, as though he had the things of the soul and of the
body and of the intelligence and these were void of operation by their nature. 15 But by
those who pass for orthodox these things are said, that he is of the very nature of the
Father, impassible and without needs and unchangeable and immutable, and then, as the Jews
mocked, calling him Christ, and surely crucified him, / so also the former attribute unto
him in word a nature unchangeable, impassible and without needs, and they ascribe unto him
all sufferings and every need of the body and make over all the things of the soul and the
intelligence to God the Word in virtue of an hypostatic union. And, like those who change
him from his nature, at one time they call him now impassible and immortal and
unchangeable, and afterwards they prohibit him from being then called immortal and
impassible and unchangeable, being angry against any one who repeatedly calls God the Word
impassible. Once thou hast heard; it is then enough for thee. And they predicate two whole
natures of the divinity and of the humanity and they predicate a change of natures by
union, attributing nothing either to the humanity or to the divinity in making over the
things of humanity to the nature and those of the divinity to the nature. And they
preserve not even the things which belong to the divinity by nature, in making God the
Word of two ousias in nature;

16 and they dissemble the man and all that is his own, on whose account the Incarnation
took place and in whom it took place and through whom we have been released from the
captivity of death. And they make use indeed of the name of orthodox, but in fact they are
Arians. And thereby they misrepresent the fullness of God the Word, by all the human
things of nature which they predicate of him as the result of the union of the natural
hypostasis, that he might comport himself and suffer naturally in all / human things. He
made use of humanity not that it might comport itself and suffer for our sakes, but that
God the Word might comport himself not in the prosopon but in the nature, for the union in
prosôpon is impassible; and this is [the opinion] of the orthodox; but one which is
passible is the fabrication of heretics against the nature of the only Son. Each man comes
with whatever he will; for unavoidably one arrives at the opinion of the orthodox and not
at the blasphemy of heretics. He has irreverently written all those things that he has
wished in favour of the hypostatic union in his own Articles and much has been written
thereon by many. We too ought not to make our book endless in busying ourselves with
things that are evident, but above all we ought to reveal unto all men such increase
little by little of impiety.

17 Because I have shown this beforehand, I have not renounced the just course of the
orthodox nor shall I renounce it until death; and although they all, even the orthodox,
fight with me through ignorance and are unwilling to hear and to learn from me, yet the
times will come upon them when they will learn from those who are heretics while fighting
against them how they have fought against him who fought on their behalf.


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

BOOK 1, PART 3

1 Book 1. Part 3.

BOOK I. PART III.

2 WICKEDLY thou hast separated off a party and there was not any one to contend / against
me; on my account thou hast obtained by [thine] authority the documents from a number of
bishops, every one [of whom] was as one dumb and deaf. Thou hast assembled a company of
monks and of those who are named bishops for the chastisement and disturbance of the
church, and there is none of the chiefs who has hindered [it] that it might be prevented.
An assembly such as this which was sent came and appeared as a guard against me in the
Imperial Palace. Thou hast all the support of the Empire, whereas I [have] only the name
of the Emperor, not [indeed] to overpower [you] nor to guard [me] nor for my own help, but
rather as if to [ensure] my obedience. Because indeed I made not use of the support of the
church nor of the support of the chief men nor of the support of the Empire, I am come to
this extremity. But I, who had the chief men and the Emperor and the episcopate of
Constantinople, I, who had been long-suffering unto heretics, was harassed by thee so as
to be driven out; and thou wast bishop of Alexandria and thou didst get hold of the church
of Constantinople----a thing which the bishop of no other city whatsoever would have
suffered, though one wished to judge him in judgement and not with violence. But I have
endured all things while making use of persuasion and not of violence / to persuade the
ignorant; and I looked for helpers, not for those who contend in fight and cannot be
persuaded.

3 You have further with you against me a contentious woman, a princess, a young maiden, a
virgin,1 who fought against me |97 because I was not willing to be persuaded by her demand
that I should compare a woman corrupted of men to the bride of Christ. This I have done
because I had pity on her soul and that I might not be the chief celebrant of the
sacrifice among those whom she had unrighteously chosen. Of her I have spoken only to
mention [her], for she was my friend;2 and therefore I keep silence about 3 and hide
everything else about her own little self, seeing that [she was but] a young maiden; and
for that reason she fought against me. And here she has prevailed over my might but not
before the tribunal of Christ where all [will be] laid bare and revealed before the eyes
of him in whose presence our judgement and theirs will come in the days that have been
appointed by him. But I return again to that point to ... .4 I shall meet Apollinarius and
his dogma. What he holds thou knowest not. However to those who know not I say: Him 5 he
confesses consubstantial with the Father and thereby he obtains the impression that he
agrees with the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible to see his [views] exactly.

4 In that, in fact, the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, he disputes / against
the Anomoeans and is ignorant that he initiates a dispute against the orthodox on [the
point] that he is not consubstantial. But he distorts it, [as may be seen] from this,
since he says that there is a union of the nature of God the Word and of the flesh, as he
has learned from the Arians, he agrees with that which the Arians say, that the Son is not
like the Father in nature, in that he confesses that he suffered the sufferings of the
body by natural sensibility; for the same could not be by nature impassible and passible,
even though he were to unite a soul without intelligence to the body, for he is united to
the nature in the body as well as in the soul and he suffers in very |98 nature his own
natural sufferings of the nature. Although they speak of mixture and change and
composition and the completion of the nature, in every case they bring it to this very
thing: for he who suffers in the natural union is not the same in ousia as he who accepts
not sufferings; but, in consequence of the natural union, he also falls under sufferings,
for he is the nature in which he has become through natural union. But he disputes against
Paul 6 and Photinus, in that he is the Word in nature and in hypostasis and is eternal;

5 but he erred in referring the things of the body to God the Word by a natural union. For
in that he disputed against the Anomoeans, [saying] that the Son is consubstantial with
God the Father, and against Photinus and Paul,6 / [saying] that he is by nature and
hypostasis homoousian with the Father, unwittingly he was accounted as [one of] the
orthodox; nevertheless by not having applied that which was befitting but, like an enemy,
having brought to naught even that which was well said, he pulled down that which he was
supposed to be building upon the faith. 6 And further he disputes on these two points with
those who confess rightly, as though he was in charge of the company of the orthodox, and
he exerted himself to bring his error into the church, and he has introduced controversy.
Now this question came not about in the East and had long since vanished from the church
which I found in Constantinople; and it began not in my days either in Constantinople or
in the East, for I had not yet been born when the question arose concerning these things
and was settled; and again the inquiry received not [its origin] in Constantinople from my
words but in the time of my predecessors. Why then dost thou calumniate me, saying 'He has
posed this inquiry', and call me an inventor of novelties and a cause of disturbance and
war, me who have posed absolutely no such inquiry but, to be sure, found it in Antioch?
And there I taught and spoke concerning these things and no man blamed me, / and I
supposed that this dogma had long been repudiated.7 But |99 in Constantinople, when I
found that men were inquiring and in need of being taught, I yielded to their persuasion
as the truth required.

7 For factions of the people who were questioning this came together to the bishop's
palace, having need of a solution of their question and of arriving at unanimity.Those on
the one hand who called the blessed Mary the mother of God they called Manichaeans, but
those who named the blessed Mary the mother of a man Photinians . . . .8 But when they
were questioned by me, the former denied not the humanity nor the latter the divinity, but
they confessed them both alike, while they were distinct only in name: they of the party
of Apollinarius accepted 'Mother of God' and they of the party of Photinus 'Mother of
man'. But after I knew that they disputed not in the spirit of heretics, I said that
neither the latter nor the former were heretics, [the former] because they knew not
Apollinarius and his dogma, while similarly the latter [knew] the dogma neither of
Photinus nor of Paul.9 And I brought them back from this inquiry and from this dispute,
saying that: 'If indistinguishably and without extrusion or denial of the divinity and of
the humanity we accept what is said by them, / we sin not; but if not, let us make use of
that which is very plainly [affirmed], that is, of the Word of the Gospel: Christ was born
and the Book of the generation of Jesus Christ.

8 And by things such as these we confess that Christ is God and man, for of them 10 was
born in flesh Christ, who is God above all. 'When you call her the Mother of Christ,
[Christ] by union and inseparate, you speak of the one and of the other in the sonship.
But make use of that against which there is no accusation in the Gospel and settle this
dispute among you, making use of a word which is useful toward agreement.' When they heard
these things, they said: 'Before God has our inquiry been solved.' And many praised and
gave glory and went away from me and remained in agreement until |100 they fell into the
snare of those who were seeking for the episcopate. 9 Now the clergy of Alexandria, who
were in favour of his deeds, persuaded them [of Constantinople] as persons deceived that
they should not accept the word 'Mother of Christ', and they were stirring up and making
trouble and going around in every place and making use of everything as a help therein;
for his clergy were sending word unto him, so that he also became their helper in /
everything, because long since he had been wounded by me; and he was in need of an excuse,
because he had not been helped with what are called 'benevolences ': and he was frightened
of me because I had not helped his clergy. For report went out concerning me and grew
strong, that I was neglecting----which I was not----him who was being injured. If the
report is true or if it is false is clear unto God. It stirred up, however, the accusers
of this man and made them take heart to utter against him before the Emperor charges that
should and that should not be said, uttering [them] and asking for me to be judge. But
because they were sent unto me and I had no cause to decline, I sent for his clergy,
demanding to be informed what the matter was. But they grew angry, saying: 'Thou admittest
every accusation against the patriarch and punishest not forthwith without examination the
accusers as calumniators. Knowest thou also surely all these things, that it is easy for
them in this way to accuse . . . .12 of Alexandria;

10 not without constraint have we taken away from thee such authority, for it would be
nothing else than an incitement to bitterness in accusation, so long as it were
advantageous unto thee to keep him as thy good [and] loving friend and not to have him as
thine / enemy, [even] him who is renowned for greatness and who is among the great.' Then
I said unto them: 'I have not any need of affection which would make me guilty of
injustice, but [only] of that which works the things of God without acceptance of
persons.' This I said, and they said unto me: |101 'We will make this known then unto the
patriarch'; and since then he has been mine enemy without reconciliation and has been
ready for anything. And first he brought about a cause of enmity that he might renounce me
as an enemy and, according to his custom, make use of fraud against his accusers and draw
a veil over the accusations against him; and thus he, who had preferred a request that the
judgement should be entrusted to others, did this. And you have learnt from this that the
things which I have said unto you are true and not trifles. What he sent to his clergy who
were meddling in my affairs in Constantinople is clear unto all men.

11 The letter of Cyril to his clergy in Constantinople.13 I have received and read the
copy of the request which has been sent by you, as one which ought to be given to the
Emperor and which you did not want to forward / without my consent. But since there are
therein many accusations against one who is there, if he is a brother and if it is right
that we ought to call him such, forward it not at the present time, lest he rise up
against you and state before the Emperor my accusation [of him] as an heretic.14 But
otherwise at the same time as you renounce his judgement, you shall state also the nature
of his enmity, and, if they are utterly roused up [to proceed] to judgement, you shall
forward it to other chief men. Nestorius. On account of these things this man became my
enemy. But hear thou also the rest of the letter that you may see that he was acting not
for God nor for the fear of God nor for the faith, but on the contrary, although he knew
the faith, he passed over it because of his enmity |102 toward me; and he disturbed and
troubled everything in order that . . . .15 these things of his might vanish and be
dispersed.

12 The rest of the letter of Cyril.16 Read then the copy, and its return......17 use; and
if you see that he continues to wrong us, truly stirring up every kind [of trouble]
against us, zealously inform us, that I may choose some pious bishops / and monks and send
them in good time. For I shall not give sleep unto mine eyes, as it is written, nor
slumber unto mine eyelids nor rest unto my temples so long as I strive in the contest
which is for the salvation of all. 13 Nestorius. You have heard clearly how he has
confessed, even without any schema; he supposes it in fact a wrong that there is any
investigation against him; if I stir not up trouble against him to do him wrong, he also
will not stir up trouble against me and he is striving in a contest for the salvation of
all. But I am friendly and pious and blameless towards him in everything; but if for the
sake of a just judgement I disregard thy 18 blaming thou then becomest embittered and
callest me impious and an heretic. And thou callest up bands of monks and bishops and
sendest [them] against me to the Emperor, and they accuse me, while thou art striving for
thine own salvation and not for the contest of all, but rather in a contest against the
salvation of all. And thou hast troubled and confounded and deceived all; and thus hast
thou persuaded them to become thine instrument[s] of wrong, in |103 order that they may
neither see nor hear nor be convinced, although one should tell them myriads of times that
thou busiest thyself to do these things not for the salvation of all but that thou mayest
escape from thine accusers. For what enmity have I with thee, that thou dost suppose /
that I do these things to wrong thee?

14 For I have had no word with thee concerning anything, neither concerning things nor
concerning possessions nor concerning judgement nor concerning [any] comparison nor about
any other cause, neither before I became nor after I became bishop of Constantinople; but
in all things were we distinct from one another, as Alexandria is distant from
Constantinople, and the interests of the latter are distinct from those of the former. But
there was one cause, which even he himself has clearly proclaimed: that I have not helped
thee to rise up against thine accusers, whether they be truthful or not. Seeing then that
thou art thus perplexed and hast thus made thyself ready, it is known that they are right.
For thereby alone is this to be known, [and so] thou 19 mayest know that the enmity is his
who is prepared for all these things; but also [thou mayest know it] from his letter unto
me.

15 The letter of Cyril unto Nestorius.20 Our colleague, Nestorius, the reverend and godly,
Cyril greets in our Lord. Some men, beloved and worthy of belief, have come unto
Alexandria and have made known that your Holiness has been much angered against us and has
stirred up all that was fair 21 in order to afflict us. / When I wished to learn the
affliction of your Piety, they said |104 that a letter had come to some holy monks, and
men from Alexandria were carrying it around, and that it was the cause of this hatred and
affliction. I then was astonished that your Piety had not considered further; for no
letter had formerly been written by us before the disturbance which took place concerning
the faith. But whether things were said or were not said by your Piety we are not
persuaded. There are in any case pamphlets on doctrine which certain men carry round, and
we are wearied with making inquiry with a view to setting right those things which are
distorted.

16 Nestorius. This is the first letter of friendship which was written to me; and learn
therefrom whatsoever had been previously deposed against me. Tell the cause for which thou
hast spoken: 'this disturbance arose concerning my teaching, so that our works when read
stirred up all Alexandria as well as all the monks of Egypt.' But I leave out both Rome
and the cities which are under her; 'and I stirred up all the rest of the East,' so that
thou wast constrained to compose the letter to the monks so that from there thy letter was
dispatched also unto me in order that I might be afflicted thereby; thou knewest indeed
that I was afflicted. Wherefore didst thou not write first unto me a letter of friendship,
/ which would have instructed me concerning the disturbance and concerning the cause of
the disturbance and concerning its cessation, as a friend unto a friend, or as unto a
bishop or as unto a brother, or as on account of a stumbling-block in the church, or as
though thou wert convinced that the teachings were mine own, or as though thou hadst not
known and hadst required to be instructed and wouldest have parted company with blasphemy
and impiety or wouldest have counselled me what ought to be done?

17 But thy letters against us [were conveyed] to Alexandria and disturbed the monks, and
they reached also Constantinople, and thou hast filled all the churches and all the
monasteries with disturbance against me, so that even the unfeeling have been roused to
feeling; but wouldest thou have wished that I should not be stirred? For what reason were
these things, unless thou wert working and |105 making ready with all zeal to bring about
enmity? For thou wrotest unto me a hostile letter which testified unto me that thou wast
mine enemy, and not mine alone, since also thou hast divided and removed far from me
whosoever rejoiced in disturbance; and others also there are whom thou hast withdrawn from
me, either because of their lack of feeling or because of their ignorance or because of
their simplicity without discernment; thou hast stirred them up / in order that under
pretext of their souls thou mightest show thyself zealous to set them aright, because thou
hadst pleasure in them, or that either I might desist from listening to thine accusers and
those who were ready to accuse thee, who were already armed against thee, since, if that
were to come about, it would then be easy for thee to do whatsoever thou wouldest in
regard to the possessions, or otherwise in oppressing me thou wouldest make believe that
for the sake of the fear of God I was thine enemy and that for this cause I had declined
mine office as judge.

18 And this is not hidden but is evident unto all men and is spread abroad unto every
place in consequence of that enmity which thou hast brought about, because thou didst want
all men as witnesses; though indeed I say not anything nor blame any of the things that
thou hast prepared. Every man is entitled to receive instruction. For also thou art risen
against me as against an impious man and thou art bringing about every disturbance and
every stumbling-block; yet thou dost consider all this as nothing and makest ready easy
solutions, saying 'let us show kindliness and say this word whereat the Church has
stumbled, that is, call the blessed Mary the mother of God'. For he says not 'thou art
obliged' but 'thou wilt show kindliness': not on account of that very thing but on account
of those who because of their weakness were not able to examine those things which were
said by thee and who stumbled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . .
. saying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 |106

19 Sophronius. But we became worn out with waiting, since many were dead or sick and in
want of many things, and thus we were constrained to assemble together and to lay down
conclusions. Nestorius. How long? say I. Until you had done those things wherewith you
were engaged and labouring and [concerning which] you were afraid lest all the Council
should be [assembled] and your judgement should be seen? Until then you were sick and
dying and you were unable to take nourishment; but afterwards how remained you a long
while without enduring any of these things, unless because you were free from the care of
these things? For this reason you have disregarded and disdained Candidianus who would
have hindered an incomplete Council from being [held]. For you had the strength to do
these things, without having convinced by those means whereby you might have succeeded in
convincing those who are not believers; and you have accounted as nothing the testimony
and the oaths before God and before the Emperor whereby you have sworn to do nothing but
to wait for the Eastern Council / which was nigh at hand. For there were some who were
persuading the Emperor, and you did not keep the word of God. And then before the command
of Candidianus you heard the testimony which the bishops who were not assembled in your
incomplete Council addressed to you; they were sixty-eight in number, nor were any of them
contemptible nor unknown,23 but [they were] metropolitans; and Candidianus also came with
them and had testified beforehand unto them concerning the things which had lately been
done.

20 Testimony of the bishops who did not associate themselves with Cyril.24 21 The faith
indeed of the true religion is known first from the preaching of many holy books and
[then] by the |107 assembly at Nicaea of the holy fathers, on whose limbs were the scars
of sufferings according to their number. But by reason of diverse inquiries and disputes
the faithful and very Christian 25 Emperor has summoned by his letters the priesthood of
the orthodox from every place unto Ephesus, being zealous in this also, according to his
custom, out of enthusiasm for the truth's sake, and we are all assembled by the grace of
God, except that there is lacking unto our assembly the holy and godly John, bishop of
Antioch, / whose coming also is close at hand, as his letters, which have just been
written unto us, and the governor [and] the prefects, who have been sent by us unto him,
have made known unto us, and other godly bishops from the West. But your Reverence has
made known unto us that it is burdensome unto you to attend here and that you are anxious
to hold any examination which the Emperor wills even before the coming of the godly
bishops whom we have mentioned. For this reason we have sent this letter unto your
Reverence that you |108 should await the coming of the excellent bishops our colleagues
and that you should not receive at haphazard any whose deposition has been enacted nor
those who have been or are coming under sentence of suspension from their bishoprics. For
it is known what the holy canons ordain on this account, and those who transgress them are
condemned to no slight punishment, which cannot by any means be transgressed by the Holy
Council. May your Reverence then know also this, that everything which is done in boldness
by bold men will be found to recoil on your boldness through Christ the Lord of all and
through the holy canons. / Signature of the bishops.

22 Nestorius. But read also the admonition which was given by the illustrious Candidianus,
Count of the Household, that you may learn also from this the violence which they wrought
irreverently and shamelessly and that he 26 may no longer deceive [you]. But after the
testimony of the bishops who took as their plea the [fact that] they to be sure were in
difficulties in that the bishop of Antioch together with the Eastern bishops was close
upon coming at the gate as the governors who were sent to their provinces who reported
these things learned from the letters of John----when they heard [the testimony] they made
disturbance as with one accord, crying out and shouting and hurling insults, in order to
bring forth the bishops who had been sent unto them and to cast them out, so that even the
blows with which they attacked them were heard by Count Candidianus. But after they had so
reverently driven them out, they returned against him that they might capture him, laying
hands upon those who in consequence of hunger and sickness were not able to stand up, and
they heard not the things which he spake unto them nor even the letters of the Emperor
which were |109 sent unto them all! / And he commanded them that the Council should not be
[held] incomplete, but [that] the things which were [done] by the Council should be
settled in common by vote. But, like a wise man in the midst of fools, he seemed surely to
have become a fool in saying that, for they were not willing to hear. He commanded them to
read this imperial command before them, which ought not to have been read before all the
bishops had been assembled. When he had done this, account was kept of nothing.27

23 Of the contents of the letter, which were as follows: We have commanded Candidianus,
the illustrious Count, to come unto your holy Council, without participating at all in
those things concerning which inquiry takes place among you, since we have thought that he
who is not accounted of the assembly of the bishops ought not to interfere in an inquiry
touching ecclesiastical regulations and in an inquisition concerning the faith. 24 He said
not, in fact, that he should not participate in the assembly but in an inquisition
touching the faith, being ordered not to allow the Council to be [held] incomplete before
the assembly of all the bishops took place. Because then he was constrained to read this
----it ought not to have been read before the coming of all the bishops----they drove out
him who came from / this side with much outcry and hisses and threats that he should be
delivered unto death if he participated in the common inquisition of the Council. And they
then named themselves authoritatively a general Council, for that those who were present
were to be sure so many; and those who had not participated with them in the inquisition
testified unto them, saying unto them: 'we ought to wait for those whose coming is close
at hand'----that is, for the chief of the Council. And that the Count who had been charged
with the maintenance of order among them might not participate with them, they said that
he |110 should not be present at the inquiry touching the faith nor at the inquisition
touching ecclesiastical things. But in everything they were acting by their own authority
and were not obeying the imperial command which made known clearly unto them that he had
been sent for this reason, that he might check the disturbances and the dissensions which
were taking place. But hear also the letters of the Emperor which were sent by the hand of
Candidianus.

25 From the writ 28 of the Emperor.29 Previously indeed we have written what was right,
that your Piety should be assembled in the city of the Ephesians; but since it is right to
provide also for the maintenance of order in the deliberation which will take place in
your assembly concerning the inquiry for which you are assembled, / this also we have not
overlooked but have admonished you to be in all things untroubled; and we are persuaded
that your Piety is not in need of external assistance that you may be zealous for peace;
but this has been our [duty], not to be neglectful in solicitude for an inquiry touching
|111 the truth, that is to send Count Candidianus to your Council, without participating
at all in those things concerning which inquiry takes place among you; since we have
thought that he who is not accounted of the assembly of the bishops ought not to interfere
in an inquiry touching ecclesiastical ordinances and in an inquisition concerning the
faith; but he will expel from the city those seculars and monks who are there assembled
for this purpose and are with you, because such men ought not to be found in your
assembly, lest they excite disturbance and thereby make void whatsoever you duly examine
and rightly do. He will be careful too that no one shall introduce division so as to cause
dispute, lest from this cause your inquiry and the sincerity of true deliberation among
you be delayed. But with patience each shall hear whatsoever is said and each shall be
ready to reply or for reply to be made to him and thus by questions and by replies and by
solution the inquiry touching the true faith shall be judged without any dispute and by
the common examination of your Saintliness it will reach a happy agreement without
dispute.

26 / Nestorius. They did not press for this to be read nor yet were they willing to hear
him who was telling them that 'they should be careful that no one should introduce
division so as to cause dispute, lest from that cause the inquiry concerning the true
faith and the true deliberation among you should be delayed, but that with patience each
should hear whatsoever was said and that each should be ready to reply or for reply to be
made unto him, and thus by questions and by replies and by solution the inquiry touching
the true faith should be 'judged without any dispute, and the common scrutiny of your
Saintliness should attain a happy agreement without any dispute'. Because they knew these
things, they allowed them not to be read, for they hid this word, which, as a divine
prophecy, showed clearly the things which were being done by them. Or was it that the
Emperor, owing to a sign of the things which had been done by him, divined what he 30 was
ready to do and set it down beforehand in his letters? For even slight symptoms suffice to
give a small indication of the habits of the soul, although things like these have not yet
already been [done] |112 by him, while those from which it could have been known have not
yet already been brought to light.

27 God however has brought to light all that concerns him for that to become the judge of
them for the things which / were about to take place, that they might not suppose that
because they had done this in ignorance and were ignorant of the manner of the inquiry and
of the inquisition, [therefore] they said incidentally the things which were [proved]
false by what had been said. Will then a sincere inquiry be settled [even] by sincere
inquirers through division and through that which causes dispute, or through impartiality
and patience on the part of the hearers towards what is said? And [will a sincere inquiry
be settled] by merely laying down the subject of inquiry, or by the giving and receiving
of replies on either side, and their being examined by questioning and unravelling, until
the inquiry which is being examined is [settled] without dispute? Shall we with haste or
without haste find a solution and an answer in harmony therewith when we are asked a
question? Which of these things has been said untruly? But this command was not pleasing
unto thee 31 because thou didst wish to conquer and not to discover the truth.

28 But what shall I do now? Shall I accuse Candidianus of not having observed the imperial
letters and of having caused such a disturbance of bishops against bishops their
colleagues as well as against him who was charged with keeping watch over them and with
the maintenance of order? But he strained himself to persuade with words those who were
not inclined to hearken unto words, who were in need of some one who would control them
against their will according to the imperial command, which was acknowledged by all men to
be just; and otherwise it was not seemly more should be [done] than that he should / carry
out his message, speaking and having answer made to him by question and answer. However
that which was done with intent to deceive was considered by them as a sport. I have not
anything more to say; for he called them to witness by his commands that they should do
nothing before they were all assembled together according to the |113 imperial command,
but they were not willing to hearken even unto the command of the Emperor. Hear then also
his own admonition.

29 The admonition which was uttered by the illustrious Count Candidianus that they should
not assemble before all the bishops were assembled.32 30 To the holy Cyril, bishop of
Alexandria and Metropolitan, and to the bishops who have assembled together with him, |114
Flavius Candidianus, the great and illustrious Count of the most religious Household.
Since I reached the city of Ephesus, nothing else have I demanded of the congregation of
the holy Council except that the [questions] of the orthodox faith should be settled in
peace and unity as the faithful, the victorious [Emperor] also has commanded: of this your
Piety is aware. And it suffices me to bear witness to the truth that I am not more
desirous of anything else than of this. But when I learned that you were ready to assemble
together in the holy church without the will of the other bishops, when John, bishop of
Antioch, had not yet come nor / the bishops who were with him, since one day before that
whereon you were prepared to do this, I rested not from persuading and invoking each one
of you not to think of holding a Council incomplete; and again on the next day, after you
had assembled together in the holy church, I hesitated not in [my] desire to come unto you
and I testified unto you what the faithful Emperor willed, although that was superfluous
since you were already acquainted therewith from the letters which had been written unto
you by his Highness.

31 But although it was indeed so, I instructed you in our pious Emperor's own will, saying
his will was this, that your faith should be defined without delay and confusion by all
and in unity, and that he willed not that the Council should be held incomplete, because
our orthodox |115 faith would be turned thereby to discord and dissension. And further,
when your Reverence demanded that the faithful and godly Emperor's own writ, which had
been sent unto the holy Council, should be read, at first I was opposed to doing so----and
I decline not to say [so]----because those who had been commanded to be at the holy
Council had not yet come and [were not yet] assembled. But when your Piety said that you
were not persuaded of any of the things which the Emperor willed and had commanded to take
place, it seemed / unto me that it was needful, although the presence of all the bishops
was not [complete], to present unto you the august and illustrious letter.

32 And further indeed, after the will of his Lordship was made known to you, I neglected
not to exercise the same persuasion with you demanding of your excellency and testifying
unto you that you should introduce no innovations before all the holy bishops were
gathered together unto the Council, but that you should wait four days only for the holy
John, bishop of Antioch, Metropolitan, and those who were with him, and those again who
were with the holy and pious Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in order that, when you
were together and all the holy Council was assembled together, if there were anything of
which there was inquiry or anything else of which there was dispute, for which we were
superfluous, you, when assembled, together might investigate it. And then, by the consent
of you all, it would be known who was found to believe improperly and outside the canons,
[and] if you all rightly confessed and if you revered the faith of the holy fathers. Not
only then have I surely counselled [you] but I have also persuaded [you] concerning these
things.

33 But because you have not accepted aught of what has been said, while I also have surely
been driven out by you, / I have considered it needful by means of this testimony to make
known unto you and by this charge to testify unto you that you should make no innovations,
but that you should wait for the coming of all the holy fathers, the bishops, and that,
when you were of the same opinion, that which concerned the holy Catholic Church should be
judged. If any one, by the impulse of his own authority, should will to change anything of
that which had seemed [good] to the pure and imperishable Principate, let him know that it
is in his own self that he will be blamed and that he will prove no one guilty in aught.
But I shrink not from saying these same things: that your Holiness is persuaded of and
knows |116 whatsoever the pious Emperor wills: that in the presence of all the holy
bishops who have been summoned by his authority everything whereof there has been
controversy should be settled and the true faith revealed.

34 But for this reason I have set at the head of this protest both the writ which has been
sent to your holy Council and the letters which have been written to me by his Lordship in
order that by means of all this, when you have learned his will, you may desist from those
things which you have been zealous to do. / And know also that a copy of this letter has
been sent unto our pious lord the Emperor. 35 Nestorius. When these things were set forth
and read before them, did not their fury wherewith they were maddened deprive [every] man
of his reason? Or had they reverence for anything? Or feared they the blame and the
testimony? Or respected they their chiefs who were over them and the Emperor himself and
those who were ready to judge them by the divine laws and by the definitions of the
fathers? Nay, they disdained them all; for they had the things which had been made known
unto them by [his] Majesty and all those things which [they were doing] against me were
regarded by them as a sport. And, as I suppose, Candidianus knew them and was frightened
by them; and by words alone would he have hindered them, but he dared not proceed to deeds
and to afflict those who did such things. Whereon hast thou 33 trusted to do what even the
barbarians dared not do of old? For suppose that it was [the case] that thou wast not my
enemy nor my accuser; thou wast at any rate my judge, as thou hast made thyself with the
rest of the others; I say that thou wast even more. And the time of judgement also drew
nigh, wherein it was right that we should be judged; but those who were judges with thee
came not, and you / were constrained to summon them. Thou wast willing to bring over to
thine opinion all who were present;

36 but I, who was demanding that the judgement should take place, I was testifying unto
them all that they ought not to judge me before those who were summoned to the judgement
had been gathered together. |117 There would have been every ground even for thy judgement
if thou hadst not judged on the ground that thou wast summoned [as a party to the case];
34 but, [thou wilt say], it would have been difficult for thee.----Thou hadst authority to
go away and to do this, on the ground that thou wert not able to judge in thine own cause.
----And '[it was] not that I came not' [you will say], 'but I was not able to go away'.
----Thou oughtest to have instructed in this him who had the authority, and the office of
judge would have been conferred by him; for no one believed that thou wouldst have
conferred the office of judge on thyself. And so these things were done. Has not God
constrained you to write those things when you excused yourself and accused Candidianus
himself and John and Irenaeus,35a man who lived in God and served him with his possessions
and with his soul and with his body. And because the things that he did were not pleasing,
they set themselves to accuse him----that you might learn from them their barbarous and
savage and unrighteous boldness.

37 When indeed those who had acted boldly against the law which Candidianus set forth unto
them and the things which they had done against them had been referred to the Emperor, he
made answer openly unto them all. It is / fair that you should hear it, in order that you
all may learn therefrom at the same time how God has condemned them all for me out of
their [own] mouth in the place of judgement. 38 Of the imperial letters which were sent by
the hand of the governor Palladius.36 Our Majesty has learned from what the illustrious
Count |118 of the most religious Household, Candidianus, has written unto us what has
taken place in the midst of disturbance and improperly in the metropolis of Ephesus. when
all the pious bishops unto whom I had sent [word] to assemble together had not yet
assembled and the coming of the holy John, bishop of Antioch, with other metropolitans was
very near; and,' further, when even those who were present had not deliberated with them
nor come to agreement with one another; and, further, when there had not even been inquiry
concerning the faith as there ought to have been or according to the letters which have
always been sent by us. But the enmity of certain persons for certain others is well
known, and for this reason they were zealous to act according to their opinions, without
being able even to make use of a veil, or that they might be thought by people to have
done what they did after reflection. Consequently it has seemed [good] / unto our Majesty
that there should be no place for boldness and that whatsoever has been [done] by them
improperly should be void. And first let the words touching the faith be examined that
they may henceforth prevail, as it has seemed [good] unto us and as it has been decided
and has been pleasing unto the congregation of the Council, since our Majesty accepts not
those things which have been cunningly brought about by a preliminary finding. These [are
the words] of the Emperor.

39 But hear also the report which they sent unto the Emperor, wherein they accused
Candidianus of having misinformed them out of friendship for me and of not having made the
truth known unto the Emperor and maintained that which they have done against me. For
thereby you will know full well their audacity at the same time as their puerility; they
played as with a child and disdained to excuse themselves before him. For they were
rebuked [and asked]: 'for what |119 reason have you held a. Council incomplete before all
the Council was assembled, inasmuch as you have shown thereby that not out of the fear of
God but out of human enmity you did all this and you were not observant with a pure
conscience that all the Council should be assembled.' And they made no answer whatsoever
to these things, but the accusation stands as it was.

40 / Of the report of Cyril which was sent unto the Emperor against the report which
Candidianus sent.37 Hereby it is proved of us that no enmity whatsoever has stirred us up
against Nestorius; but we have laid down the doctrine of the fear of God. After we have
compared it with that of Nestorius, the latter seems to have met with refutation. And
after the letters which have been written by Nestorius and after the interpretations which
have been put forward by him, we have openly published the decision of the judgement, the
holy Gospel having been placed in the midst, and we declare that Christ Himself, the Lord
of all, was present. 41 Nestorius. [This is] like those who, being rebuked for the
violation of oaths, would convince by oaths that they have not violated oaths and make no
convincing reply concerning their acts. For they were rebuked [and asked]: 'For what
reason have you transgressed the general rule and not waited for all the Council, as also
you were summoned all together?' And they returned not any answer to this; and: 'for what
reason, in addition thereto, have not the bishops who were present taken counsel in common
with their colleagues / who were with them as to whether you ought all to have waited?' To
this also they answered nothing. 'For what reason have you not done this by common
agreement, but |120 have divided and separated in one Council of bishops those who were
present from those who were about to come, so that through examination with them 38 the
judgement touching the faith might be defined?' Nor to this returned they answer, but by
anticipation without discretion and by agreeing to that which was pleasing unto them,
being unwilling that they 39 should be judges with them, they made them for themselves
adversaries of the faith. For thou hast not refrained from thy boldness wherewith thou
hast been occupied from the beginning and on account of which thou hast drawn also the
bishop of Rome into the rebellion and hast made void the oecumenical Council. In the face
of all these things they were deaf and speechless. For what reason heard you not this;

42 that 'you shall not hold a Council incomplete before all the bishops are assembled '?
For what reason did you not wait for them, [when] the Count who was sent was restraining
you and persuading you to wait for the bishops who were near and not far off? And you made
no answer unto any one of these things. If Christ had been sitting [there] and if you had
been persuaded that he was sitting with you, would you have done these things, and would
you have made a participation in your impiety----Christ on whom you thus / trample, as if
he, who would have exposed you so openly, could not confute you? For how [in that case]
would you have supposed that your unrighteous and hidden purpose would be surely revealed,
you who were the first to testify unto the bishops of your impiety and also unto the Count
who had charge over you of the things which he has in truth forwarded in the report for
the instruction of the Emperor?

43 But for all those who want to learn your reputation through the letters of [his]
Majesty or through your own reports, all these things will confirm them as being without
doubt true: that you participated not in the opinion of those who were present and that
you detached yourselves from the bishops |121 who were absent and from those who were
present, in that you were not willing to wait fourteen days more. And I sat neither saying
nor doing aught, and 'in your midst sat Christ', who compelled you all so to speak and to
act in my presence. 'No enmity at all against Nestorius has stirred us up.' When I was not
present, my own enemy judged my words and compared them with those that he wanted and as
he wanted, and I should have accepted from them that they preserved no enmity at all
against me! Who will dare to say / this when he sees all the impious and bold acts
wherewith I have been oppressed by them? And will it not rather seem a sport? For do you
say these things to him who would have convicted you for them and for having acted in
enmity toward me? Nay, [you speak] after the likeness of those who smite a man and strip
him and say unto him who would rebuke them to be sure for their sport: 'Surely we were
making sport, and did this not in enmity but in friendship'; but they cast him out wounded
and naked. Thus also have they done unto me, being reproached and reproaching; but the
judge of all will not so make sport. For although in all this I have no human tribunal, I
have that of Christ.

44 But we demand of your Highness that none of those who value the love of man above the
fear of God should be accounted worthy to be received. For we have perceived that the
reverend John, bishop of Antioch, has some such a wish as this, seeking rather to gratify
friendship than to consider aught that is advantageous unto the faith; and that, in
addition to this, not fearing the threat of your Highness and not being stirred by
enthusiasm for the faith which has been delivered unto us from above, he has delayed the
holy Council twenty-one days / beyond the appointed time which has been granted to us by
your Highness, and we have been constrained, we of the orthodox party of the holy Council,
who love only the faith, to inquire into those things which appertain unto the fear of
God.40 |122 45 Nestorius. Have they not openly made known their will without keeping [it]
dark, [showing] that not because they were wearied and worn with sickness and with death
and with the poverty of their lives did they not come for the judgement, but, because they
feared judgement by all men and before all men, they made a judgement, before the bishop
of Antioch came? For what advantage unto me was a delay of twenty days or what gain would
it have brought unto you? For that which would have been done after twenty days could also
have been done as well before as after them all. All the more, in fact, if he had
entertained friendship toward me, he ought surely to have been the first to rejoin me, and
he would have persuaded many of those who were turned away from me and he would not have
let you do that which you have done, because you would have been restrained by him. But,
in order that there might not be an examination, thou hast made use of all means that
judgement might be corrupted. So let it be. You ought then rather to have waited for it,
so that there might be an examination and that you might not give me a cause of escape;
but not one whit of this is true. Suppose then that I concede / unto you that you waited
for the judgement to take place, for what reason did you not act according to the command
of the Emperor?

46 For you would have shown that you did not wait for this reason;41 but you waited not.
Therefore your anxiety from the beginning is evident from all these things; since he acted
so because he feared to come to examination and to judgement, and, because he was grieved
thereat, he was devising means to arrange all these things. If then thou hadst been
confident in what thou wrotest, and if those who would have testified for thee had been on
thy side, that is, the Father and the Divine Scriptures, thou wouldest have rebuked me for
having done |123 that which I have done in enmity and not in truth, and thou wouldest have
blamed me for having disturbed the world for nothing, when I raised the inquiry of the
heretics and of the orthodox. Thou oughtest to have written these things unto the Emperor
and all the other things, if it is on account of this that thou dost suppose that the
things which thou hast done have taken place, as well as that I fled from judgement
because I was not confident in what I had written. But they have done this as things done
in enmity and not in truth; they have fled from judgement, and fabricated a story, that 42
judgement and examination took place, when none of these things occurred. Let him come;
let him be judged;

47 let him make answer to the things wherewith he is rebuked and let him hear the answer
to the things wherewith he rebukes, and let the judgement of both of them take place
without hindrance. / Yea, before the Trinity, on whose behalf I have shown all zeal, for
what reason indeed do others stumble at the things wherein I am confident? These things
brought low thy might, for thou knewest that they were true and convincing; but thou
spakest not and thou hadst not confidence nor didst thou feign to quote the fearful and
terrible saying that 'there will be a judgement and account will be given and answer will
be made by question and answer', for thy voice was enslaved to thy conscience. But what
then? 48 We entreat and we beg of your Highness, in order that the weight of the burden of
the Council, which is [filled] with enthusiasm for God, may be known, to send for the most
noble Candidianus and five of the holy Council, that they may vouch for what has been done
before your Piety. For those who imagine other things apart from the correct faith are
clever at veiling the planning of their deception, so that certain even of the holy
bishops, in that Nestorius has dissembled his deception, have been cajoled and made
participators with him and have given their signature. But when they had asked exactly and
had found that his blasphemy was evident, they withdrew from him and were present at the
holy Council.43 |124

49 Nestorius. Because he 44 fled from the Council, lo! were you not evidently in need that
the Emperor should send for five of / the bishops to expound that which was done? But you
said 'with Candidianus' and not 'with the bishops their colleagues' who would have rebuked
you on equal terms; and [you demand] five against one, and that one a secular, in order
that they may bring forth the holy Gospel and swear by it----they who are five and bishops
----and that they may be accepted as truthful against one secular, for much has been made
void by you in the examination of this problem. When, in fact, Candidianus has come, what
more or less will he have to say than that to which you have previously testified and that
which he has referred to the Emperor? Or what more have those five [to say] than that
which you have written concerning him----that he entertained friendship toward him 45and
that for this reason he has referred false reports to you? But what need was there for you
to swear to your opinion? Was it for this reason that you wrote concerning Candidianus and
the five bishops and demanded that neither Nestorius nor Cyril should come? These were the
very causes of the disturbance; and they ought to have answered one another, but thou wast
not confident because there was no basis of truth in thy discourse. The fear of my words,
in fact, was not due to anything else more than to the truth.

50 Suppose indeed that Candidianus had come and had said that you waited not for all the
Council, though you / knew that they were near, and that he had testified unto you
beforehand and that he had read out before you the letters from the Emperor and that he
had made a request of you but that you were not |125 persuaded: what else would he have
said? Wherein then would you have refuted him? Would you have refuted him for this, that
he spoke a falsehood concerning you that he might entertain friendship toward me? It was
not so.46 You did not do so. But if you have done so, let them come and let judgement take
place, although Candidianus would have lied. But in your own Records you have stated that
the cause wherefore you waited not for all the Council to be assembled was that 'we were
constrained',47 as if you were there alone; but in the report which you sent unto the
Emperor you said that 'we have perceived that the reverend John, bishop of Antioch, has
this wish, to seek to entertain closer friendship' and on this account you were
constrained not to wait; so that, if you had known that he agreed with you, you would have
waited for him, and there would have been no constraint [laid] upon you because of the
place.

51 And in your Records, which you drew up against me, you said that I stood by those very
things which I had written and said from the beginning and had also written openly unto
thee;48 but in that report which you wrote unto the Emperor, you wrote on the contrary
that 'he is indeed surely hiding under a shadow the impiety that he has', 'for those who
imagine other things apart from / the correct faith are clever at veiling their plans, so
that certain even of the holy bishops, in that Nestorius has dissembled his deception,
have been cajoled and made participators with him and have given their signatures to the
things which have been done by him'. How then was that which concerns me to be veiled?
|126 And again you have openly said 49 that 'Nestorius has disputed; when we found that he
manifestly imagined otherwise [than in accordance with the correct faith], we deprived
him. For also even in Ephesus the metropolis he has not dissembled his purpose, so that he
has no need of other accusers, but daily 'he proclaimed, in preaching the doctrine before
many, that which was alien to the faith. And every one of these things we have entered in
the Records which have been drawn up in order, that they might be made known unto your
Piety.'

52 Nestorius. In the same [place] they say the contrary. He then who received all these
things, that is, the Emperor, knew that they had acted contrary to his command, while that
also which they said against me was a foolish and base mockery, for they have not returned
answer unto that wherewith he blamed them: 'For what reason have you dared to hold a
Council incomplete, contrary to what you were commanded, before the bishops of the whole
Council were gathered together?' They say / nothing else than that 'it was pleasing unto
us', though they say it not openly because of the outcry [which would arise] against the
word among those who chanced to hear of it. 'For what reason did you not wait for the
coming of John, bishop of Antioch, when you knew that his advent was nigh?' They had
nothing else to say than that 'we were unwilling to hold the examination with him'; but
[it was] rather because they knew that he agreed not with them. But suppose that John
ought to have been judged because he delayed and came not in time; he ought not to have
been judged by thee but by the Emperor who had jurisdiction over him. And first the
bishops from Rome ought to have been punished for not having come when they were summoned:
how then dost thou adhere unto them? In the same way as thou hast treated the latter so
also thou shouldest have treated John.

53 But thou demandest of John that he should do possibilities and impossibilities, when
there |127 was one cause for which he delayed which was accepted from him by all men,
except by thee thyself, who art far from all affection for mankind and from all the
sufferings of human nature. Thou blamest not thyself, not even when thou art rebuked by
the Emperor, and dost thou feel no scruples that, when thou neededst to have waited four
days at the most for them, in order that the Council might take place without dispute,
thou didst not hear but didst rather choose of thyself to cause trouble? As the kind / of
fishes which are called cuttlefish, which go from clear waters into troubled waters that
they may not be caught, so hast thou also acted. [These methods] are laughable, when one
gives any thought to them, and men are surely not deceived when they demand [satisfaction]
from thee because of them, as when men, playing with little children who struggle with
them, seem indeed to be surely struggling and yet let themselves be conquered by them. For
these are not the words of one who excuses himself but rather of one who is surely
playing; [yet] the Emperor is not one who would surely play with thee, and thou dost not
persuade him who justly rebukes thee nor [reply] to the things wherefore he rebukes thee.
His power is relaxed because there has been bribery.

54 But they say: 50 'We, who have assembled and have canonically issued in agreement a
sentence of deposition against the heretic Nestorius, are more than two hundred bishops
who have assembled from the whole world, the whole West being in agreement with us.' And
what does that mean? You were, in fact, more than two hundred bishops who were in
agreement with thee in all things whereof thou wast making inquiry; thou didst, in fact,
demand of them by no means to tell the truth. For to the report of the bishops who are
with me are affixed the signatures of bishops whose cities are known beyond doubt; how
many of these / hast thou verified? For suppose that we were, as thou dost say, thirty
bishops or, if thou wilt, ten or as many as thou dost wish; does the number establish the
truth of the orthodox and a true Council, |128 or [ensure] its enacting and maintaining
what is right? What then has the Emperor censured in thee and blamed in thee? 'We have
assembled an oecumenical Council in order that generally and by general consent the
inquiry concerning the faith may be confirmed before all men. And thou hast known our
project and hast willed to divide the Council that there might not be a general
examination, and that the faith might not be confirmed before all men clearly and
accurately by the general consent of all men. But now all the pious bishops, to whom I
have sent [word] to assemble, have not assembled, while the coming of John, bishop of the
great city 'of Antioch, together with the other metropolitans, is very nigh. Further, even
those who were present have not deliberated with them nor have agreed with one another;
nor further has there been [held] the inquiry concerning the faith as it ought to have
taken place or according to the letters which have been at all times sent by us.' 51

55 You have written unto him either as unto one who has surely erred or as those who play
or as unto one who was playing with you, since in whatsoever you have said unto him you
have said nothing else unto him / than whatsoever he said ot his own purpose: that you
have done all things without waiting for those who were far off and without having
deliberated with those who were present, but [that] you have separated yourselves from
those who were with you, and by yourselves you have made examination. You have, indeed,
separated yourselves from those who were ready to come for a general examination, and you
have not examined the things which concerned the faith in the right manner, those things
concerning which there was inquiry being brought forward by question and being solved; and
so you would have exculpated yourselves in the eyes of all men. If then you had not done
this, you would justly have made excuses in the report to the Emperor; but if you deny not
the things which the Emperor has accused you of having unrighteously done, and if you put
them in your defence, what else rather is to be conceived than |129 that which men think
of an idle talker, or as if men told tales in play to their playmates and had the
assurance to write them down?

56 You call that an oecumenical Council which was separated from the bishops who were
waiting until the whole Council should assemble, in defiance of him who has rebuked you
because of it, and thou wouldest have persuaded them that all authority should be given
unto those who by reason of their great numbers transgressed justice against those who
observed / the [commands] of the Emperor and of the truth and of the whole Council, for no
other reason than that owing to their great number they surpassed those who observed the
commands. But you would not have dared to say this except to those who were your playmates
for whatever reason it might be. 57 So I come to speak of the present. But perhaps some
one will say: 'Busy not thyself much with that, but inform us how they deprived thee not
justly, after what has been written by thee and by Cyril?' 'For if all those things which
ought to be examined are examined, what art thou advantaged? For thou art rebuked even by
these men, yea, even by all men. In this let us rather investigate above all what we ought
properly to imagine, and let us not be turned aside from orthodoxy either by the premature
decision of this man or by reason of thine own sufferings.' But I was not willing to
recount and to tell my own concerns nor again to accuse others, and especially when the
Council is named; but the faith also was corrupted and calumniated on account of mine own
self in such wise that that of the heretics was confirmed by the judgement and examination
of the Council.

58 Constraint therefore is upon us to prove how their assembly and their judgement were
carried out, and to prove unto all men from those things which all men confess to have
been written that there was neither judgement nor examination, that we may not / be bound
as by the judgement of a Council. The things which God has not allowed to be hidden but
has laid bare by their own hand, by those who have done and have written down the things
which happened----these [are the |130 things] which we also are writing down and are
explaining unto those who rise up and dispute with us whether these things are so; so
that, if one lights upon the documents of the Council which have been drawn up by them,
one learns that they are so and not otherwise, and one knows the calumny which was
[uttered] by the Council against the orthodox and [the things] which were repudiated by
those who were in truth orthodox as [were] those which were [directed] against Athanasius
and Eustathius and ten thousand others. Let us see then in order how the Records have been
drawn up by them against me.

59 [Selected footnotes] 1. Viz. Pulcheria. Suidas, under Pulcheria, says ... This passage
is discussed by Neander, Church History (Eng. Trans. 1855), vol. iv, p. 160. See too the
references to Pulcheria in the Letter to Cosmos of Antioch, in Nau, Appendix I. 2.
Pulcheria was famous for her orthodoxy, and in particular for her anti-Nestorian zeal. Cp.
Labbe (Mansi), vi. 590 d. Presumably Nestorius is here thinking of her later support of
Flavian against Eutyches, for he claims Flavian as the exponent of his own views. Cp. pp.
342, 353-5, 362. 3. Literally: 'I keep in silence'. 4. There is a lacuna in the Syriac
text. 5. Viz. the Son. 6. I. e. Paul of Samosata. 7. Apollinarianism had been condemned at
the Council of Alexandria in 362. 8. Bedjan here marks a lacuna in the text. 9. Sc. of
Samosata. 10. Viz. the Jews. 11. Viz. Cyril. 12. There is here a lacuna in the Syriac
text.

60 13. Nestorius quotes only the end of the letter, which is given in full in Labbe
(Mansi), vol. iv, col. 1003 sq. [Greek omitted from online text] 14. V reads: 'my
accusation [of them] as heretics'. 15. A lacuna is here marked by Bedjan. 16. Labbe
(Mansi), iv. 1008 c, d: The last eight lines of the letter are not quoted. 17. Two words
are illegible in the Syriac text; V reads: and he advised the return [of the letter],
which is clearly incorrect. See the Greek text above. 18. This rapid change of person is
common when Nestorius is referring to Cyril. 19. Here clearly not Cyril but Nestorius'
reader. 20. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 884 b, c. Nestorius quotes the first quarter of the letter:
This was sent in June 429. 21. See introd. p. xiii. 22. The Syriac scribe has here
inserted a note: 'From here one page has been torn out from the original.' It is clear
from what follows that the missing passage must have contained a summary account of the
injustice done to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus through Cyril's refusal to wait
until the whole Council was assembled before proceeding. This grievance of Nestorius is
treated in detail further on.

61 23. Literally: 'from unknown [ones]'. 24. Latin version in Labbe (Mansi), v. 765:
Dominis nostris fratribus & comministratoribus Cyrillo & Juvenali Episcopis Tranquillinus
& Alexander & Helladius & reliqui Episcopi qui cum eis, in Domino gaudere. Nota quidem
rectae glorificationis est fides quae a divinis & adorabilibus scripturis ab olim nobis
est praedicata. Nihilominus haec ipsa nobis a sanctis patribus tradita est qui in Nicaena
synodo congregati sunt, quorum tot passiones erant pro pietate quot membra. Quia vero
propter nonnulla certamina piissimus & amicus Christi Imperator literis suis orthodoxos
sacerdotes undique ad Ephesum convocavit, in hoc quoque imitatus proprium circa fidem
zelum, & sumus pene omnes per divinam gratiam congregati, deest autem praesentiae sanctae
synodi religiosissimus Joannes Antiochenus Episcopus, qui & ipse jam in januis est juxta
quae nuper suis literis intimavit, & per eos quos praemisit praefectianos atque
magistrianos nuntiata sunt. Similiter etiam nonnulli ex occidentalibus Episcopis synodo
adfuturi, mandarunt autem vestrae reverentiae, tamquam qui graviter habent sustinere usque
ad ejus adventum, & urgent de his quae visa sunt piissimo Imperatori, (ne audientia
celebretur antequam praedicti Deo amicissimi Episcopi sint praesentes,) hujus (rei) gratia
has ad reverentiam vestram direximus literas, ut sustineatis Deo amicissimorum
comministrorum praesentiam, & nec eos qui depositi sunt suscipiatis quoquo modo, neque
illos qui ab Episcopis suis vel olim sunt excommunicati vel nuper. Manifesta enim sunt
quae de his definiunt regulae; & praevaricantibus se defixere increpationes non modicas,
quae nullo modo queunt despici a sancta synodo. Et illud vero reverentia vestra cognoscat,
quia omnia quae ab audacibus abrupte fuerint perpetrata, contra praesumentium
retorqueantur audaciam & a Christo Domino & a divinis canonibus. ("There follow the
signatures of sixty-eight bishops.) Compare the Letter to Theodosius, Labbe (Mansi), iv.
1232-6.

62 25. Literally: 'Christ-fearing'. 26. Viz. Cyril. 27. Cp. the two Contestationes of
Candidianus and his Edictum printed in Lupus, Var. Pat. Epist., p. 33 sq., and Labbe
(Mansi), v. 770 sq. 28. Syr. saqra, a transliteration of Lat. sacra [epistola], a
translation of θεῖον γράμμα. 29. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1117E. 30. Viz. Cyril. 31. Viz. Cyril.
63 32. Labbe (Mansi), v. 770; Lupus, Var. Pat. Epist. p. 33: Coniestatio Candidiam
Comitis, quam publice, mane audiens synodum celebrari, in Epheso proposuit: Sanctissimo
Episcopo metropolis Alexandriae Cyrillo, et reverentissimis Episcopis qui cum eo sunt
congregati, Flavius Candidianus magnificentissimus Comes devotissimorum Domesticorum.
Quoniam ex quo in Ephesinam civitatem veni, nihil aliud deprecatus sum communem sanctamque
synodum vestram nisi ut cum pace atque concordia quae ad fidem rectamque glorificationem
nostram exponerentur (v. l. disponerent), sicut et Dominus noster jussit et piissimus
Imperator, scit religiositas vestra; et sufficit mihi testimonium quod ipsa veritas
praebet, quia nihil aliud egerimus praeter haec. Quoniam vero et dum congregandos vos esse
in sanctissimam Ecclesiam praeter aliorum Episcoporum cognoscerem voluntatem, nondum
veniente sanctissimo Episcopo Antiochenae metropolis Joanne vel his qui cum ipso sunt, non
cessavi rogans ut id fieret quod dixi superius; et unumquemque sum contestatus ob hoc, ne
forte parlicularis fieri synodus videretur. Extremo (v. l. externo) vero nihilominus, cum
congregati essetis in sanctissima Ecclesia, occurrere festinavi, et ea quae visa sunt
Domino nostro et piissimo Principi, licet videam (v. l. id jam) ex superfluo facere, dum
semel nosceretis haec eadem ex literis divinitatis cjus directis ad vos. Verumtamen edocui
dispositionem ejusdem Domini nostri et piissimi Principis hanc esse. Velle namque eum dixi
fidem nostram absque ulla discordia ab omnibus idem sapientibus roborari, et nolle
particulares quasdam synodos fieri, quod maxime in haereses et schismata convertere novit
religionem nostram fidemque orthodoxam.

64 Insuper dum reverentia vestra exigeret sacram Domini nostri et piissimi Principis, quae
directa est ad sanctam synodum, relegi, prius quidem id facere non annuebam (nec enim
dicere refutabo) eo quod non adessent omnes qui ad sanctissimam synodum jussi fuerant
convenire; sed quia vestra religiositas inquit ignorare se quae praecepta sint a Domino
nostro et optimo Principe, necessarium mihi visum est apparere, ut etiam non praesentibus
aliis reverentissimis Episcopis omnibus relegerentur divinae atque adorabiles literae.
Nihilominus vero et postquam vobis manifestavi quae sunt decreta divinitus, in eadem
supplicatione permansi, deprecans reverentiam vestram et poscens nihil novum fieri
priusquam cuncti sanctissimi patres atque Episcopi ad synodum convenirent, sed
sustineretis quatuor tantummodo dies sanctissimum Episcopum Antiochenorum metropoleos cum
aliis qui pariter sunt, necnon et illos qui cum sanctissimo Nestorio sunt; ut vestra
religiositate pariter congregata, et omni sancta synodo collecta simul in uniim, si qua
essent quae forsan in dubitationem venirent, a quibus nos sumus extranei, cunctis vobis
praesentibus judicarentur, et tunc cum consensu omnium vestrum ostenderetur quis prave ac
praeter regulas ecclesiasticas credere videretur an certe recte omnes pariter confiteri,
sicut sanctorum patrum religio habet. Hacc igitur non semel sed etiam saepius admonens, et
suppliciter postulans, nihil profeci. Verum quia nihil eorum quae a me sunt dicta servatum
est, sed a vobis injuriose ac violenter expulsus sum, necessarium duxi hoc mea
contestatione vobis constituere manifestum, et per hoc edictum clare dicere nullum vestrum
novi aliquid facere, sed omnium sanctorum Episcoporum sustinere praesentiam, et sic
communi consilio quae ad catholicam sanctamque fidem pertinent judicari.

65 Si quis vero ex propria voluntate ductus ea quae ab immortali et optimo vertice jussa
sunt commovere voluerit, sciat se sibi ipsi reputaturum quicquid evenerit, praejudicium
vero se alii (v. l. ab alio) non inferre. Non enim pigebit me haec eadem denuo iterare.
Quoniam vero, sicut vestra sanctitas novit, hoc placuit Domino nostro et piissimo
Principi, ut sub praesentia simul omnium sanctorum Episcoporum quac ab ejus divinitate
sunt convocati ea quae in dubitationem veniunt dissolvantur, propterea et sacra quae ad
sanctissimum synodum vestram directa sunt, et quae ad me ipsum ab eorum divinitate sunt
scripta, huic edicto praeposui; ut per omnia cognoscentes quae a Domino nostro et optimo
Imperatore praecepta sunt, a tali praesumptione cessetis. Cognoscite igitur quod scripti
hujus exemplar etiam domino nostro piissimo Imperatori transmissum est. 66 33. Viz. Cyril.
34. I.e. 'There would have been every reason for thee not to have accepted the post of
judge which had been offered unto thee.' Perhaps the text is out of order. 35. Count
Irenaeus, afterwards Bishop of Tyre. See Introd. pp.xxiv, xxv. 36. Nestorius quotes about
the first half of the letter; see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1377. 37. The Report is given in full
in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1421. Nestorius gives only a short extract. According to Labbe the
Report was dispatched on July 1, 431. 38. Viz. the former alone. 39. Viz. Nestorius and
the bishops who had demanded that the Council should not be held before the arrival of
John, bishop of Antioch, and his companions. 40. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1424 a. 41. I.e.
through fear of the discussion. 42. Literally: 'they have fabricated, saying that. . .'
43. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1424 d. There are about ten lines omitted between the passage on p.
121 and this passage.

67 44. Viz. Cyril. 45. Viz. Nestorius. 46. Nau treats these two clauses as interrogative,
though they are not so marked by Bedjan in the Syriac text. 47. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv.
1237 a. 48. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1240 a. 49. Nestorius only gives a free paraphrase of
the letter. 50. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1425 c:. 51. Nestorius is here paraphrasing the
document given on p. 117. No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

BOOK 2, PART 1

BOOK II. PART I

2 From the Records of the things which were done against me at Ephesus. Peter, priest of
Alexandria and chief of the secretariessays: 'When formerly the reverend Nestorius
received consecration to become bishop of the holy church of Constantinople, and a few
days were passed by, his homilies which disturbed those who read them were brought by
certain men from Constantinople, so / that there arose on that account much disturbance in
the holy church. When then the reverend bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, learned this, he
wrote one letter and a second unto his reverence, full of counsels and warning; and in
reply to these he wrote that he listened not, hardening himself and resisting the things
which were written. And withal again, when the reverend bishop, Cyril, learned that
letters and books of his homilies had been sent by him to Rome, he also wrote to the pious
bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus, by the hand of the deacon Poseidonius, whom he
commanded, [saying], "if thou findest that the books and the homilies and the letters have
been delivered, give also these things |132 which have been written by me; but if not,
bring them back hither without now delivering them." But when he found that his letter and
his homilies had been delivered, necessarily also he delivered [those of Cyril]. And those
things which were proper, containing a well-known rule, were written by the pious [and]
saintly bishop of the church of Rome, Celestinus. Because then, by the injunction of the
godly Emperor, your holy Council has met here, we necessarily inform you that we have in
our hands the papers concerning these things, with a view to [doing] whatever is pleasing
unto your Piety.'

3 / Nestorius. Cyril then is the persecutor and the accuser, while I am the persecuted;
but it was the Council which heard and judged my words and the emperor who assembled [it].
If then he 1 was on the bench of judges, what indeed shall I say of the bench of judges?
He was the whole tribunal, for everything which he said they all said together, and
without doubt it is certain that he in person took the place of a tribunal for them. For
if all the judges had been assembled and the accusers had risen in their place and the
accused also likewise, all of them would equally have had freedom of speech, instead of
his being in everything both accuser and emperor and judge. He did all things with
authority, after excluding from authority him 2 who had been charged by the emperor, and
he exalted himself; and he assembled all those whom he wanted, both those who were far off
and those who were near, and he constituted himself the tribunal. And I was summoned by
Cyril who had assembled the Council, even by Cyril who was the chief thereof. Who was
judge? Cyril. And who was the accuser? Cyril. Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was
everything. Cyril was the bishop of Alexandria and took the place of the holy and saintly
bishop of Rome, Celestinus.

4 / Who would have believed that these things happened so, if God had not obliged them to
tell [them] and to write [them] down and to send [them] unto all the world? For all those
|133 who were his [followers] read them and believe not that they happened so, and they
doubt even about themselves, since they would rather trust things which happened in dreams
than these, if they were thus as they did happen. What need was there for a Council, when
this man was everything? That these things then were so you will learn from what happened
at Ephesus; for Memnon says that: 'since the period which was fixed in the letters of the
pious and most Christian Emperor, sixteen days have passed.' And he, in that he was lord
of the Council, made use precisely of [these words]: Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says:
This great and holy Council has been patient enough, waiting for the coming of the godly
bishops, who are expected to come.'

5 Nestorius. Is it not evident even to the unintelligent that he was in everything? By him
then, who was busied in everything, I was summoned. And before what tribunal? To what
judgement? To what inquiry? Tell me. 'This great and holy Council has been patient enough,
having waited ' / sixteen days.' Thou sayest that it has waited enough; and you were not
ashamed to have written this as an excellent reason whereby you were constrained not to
wait for the bishops who were far off who were constrained to come, and who had been
delayed in coming by an important reason and besought you to wait for them----those also
who were near and whose coming was by no means unimportant. They were unavoidably delayed
these days, if not more, in order that they might rest from their hardship in journeying
by road and by ship, both for rest and for needful purposes and for the sake of visiting
one another and those who were sick and were in need thereof, and especially because of
those personswho were taking the place of those who were absent from the Council, in those
things wherein constraint had been laid upon |134 them.

6 Although it were indeed the day which was fixed and [on which] the convocation ought to
have taken place, if anything were to happen so that it should be delayed, another
additional day would rightly be granted, even as among men there are many causes which
come upon them of necessity, so that things are not done in accordance with the strict
provisions of the appointed period. But it was not the day of the convocation, but that of
the coming; for the day of the convocation had been decreed by the authority of the Count.
Thou didst thyself usurp [that authority], in that in thy senseless boldness thou hadst
confidence in those who would justify thee perversely. For thou / lovest to persuade and
thou art such that thou dost disregard those who are present and dost require those who
are far off and dismissest those who are present at the Council and lookest for those who
are far off; and thou holdest the Council without those who are far off having arrived.
And he held a Council by himself, before the general Council and summoned those who
participated not with him, that there might be a Council before the Council of all the
bishops. And they testified unto him that he should put no confidence in this Council, to
which he summoned me also, even making use of violence, and of such violence and force
that it would not be believed, were any one to recount [it]; but it has been revealed by
those who have written.

7 Seditious persons indeed filled the city with idle and turbulent men, who were assembled
together by Memnon, bishop of Ephesus; and he was at their head and was making them run
about armed in the city, in such wise that every one of us fled and hid himself and had
resort to caution and saved himself in great fear, as it is also easy to learn from the
language of those who were sent. The latter came under the pretence indeed of summoning me
unto the Council in order that it might be testified that we were not amongst those who
recognized not the Council before the coming of all the bishops; but in reality they came
to carry me off by assault and by violence and to spread the rumour about me that 'he has
surely perished, / and his mouth has been closed over his blasphemies'; or to deprive me
after I had been questioned. |135

8 Hear now from the language of Juvenalius that these things were said.3 Juvenalius,
bishop of Jerusalem, says:3 'But because a crowd of Romans surrounded his house, and since
the pious bishops came and said: 'Let none come nigh there'; it is known that with no good
conscience did he decline to come unto the holy Council.' 9 Nestorius. You see of how much
tyranny I made use and how far I was liable to accusation, because, for the purpose of
rescuing myself from the conspirators who rose up against me, I had need to post soldiers
around my house to guard me, that they might not come against me with violence and destroy
me! Thou accusest me of posting soldiers around my house: [it was] not that they might do
any wrong unto you but that they might hinder you from doing wrong unto me. From the fact
that you reproach us with posting soldiers, it is clear that if they had not first been
posted around me and been a wall for me, I should have been destroyed by violent men. What
indeed would you have called / those who adjured you beforehand that there should not be
an unrighteous Council? Were you assembled for the [end] for which you were summoned? You
made the Council for yourselves and not for us; you expelled those men from the Council
and of yourselves you acted for yourselves just as you wished, and you listened not unto
those who called upon you not to hold a Council but to wait for the bishops who had been
summoned with you and who were nigh unto coming. Now therefore for what purpose did you
summon us after all this violence? Who will hold out and not weep when he remembers the
wrongs which were [done] in Ephesus?

10 It is well [that] they were against me and against my life and not for the sake of
impiety! For I should not have had need of these words as touching a man who was capable
of retribution but only as touching our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is a just judge and for
|136 whose sake I have been content even to endure patiently that the whole bodily frame
of Christ may not be accused. But now they invent [stories] concerning me, because I have
not been able to be silent when I am accused on the subject of the dispensation on our
behalf, so that of necessity I am excusing myself and am persuading all men who say: 'he
has been the cause of this disturbance and disorder'; and I prove myself sincere, because
I have been vexed by him and because of those who have written against me. But thou indeed
/ wast the first to sit in the midst of our judges, and because there were no accusers, in
that they were judges, they put up to accuse me Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia,
and Acacius, bishop of Melitene, who was the interrogator.

11 Theodotus. But Theodotus first replied that he had indeed had some conversation with me
but had not told him 4 the conversation, and the latter asked him not concerning what his
speech was, in order that he might judge both conversations as a judge and accept the one
and reject the other as having evidently fallen into impiety; but it was enough for him
only that [there should be] an accusation. Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, says: 'I am
grieved indeed for a friend, but verily I value the fear of God more than all love, and
consequently it is a necessity for me, although with great sorrow, to speak the truth
regarding those things of which there is question; I think not, however, that our own
testimony is required, since his opinion has been made known in the letters unto thy
Godliness; for those things which he there said are not to be said of God, that is, of the
Only-begotten, counting human qualities a degradation unto him, he says also in
conversation here that it is not right to say of God that he has been suckled nor that he
was born / of a virgin; thus here also he has many times said "I say not that God was two
or three months old "'. |137

12 Nestorius. They have not examined these things as judges, nor further has he spoken as
before examiners and judges, but he stood forth as the witness of a judge-accuser.
Theodotus. 'The things indeed which he there rejected as not to be said of God, that is,
of the Only-begotten, counting human qualities a dishonour unto him, he says also in
conversation here----that it is not right that one should say of God that he has been
suckled nor that he was born of a virgin; thus here also he has said that "I say not that
God was two or three months old ".' 13 Nestorius. And he 5 accepted it without examination
as a judge-accuser, without asking him anything, either: 'What said he unto thee when he
said these things here?' or 'what didst thou say in reply to these things whereinsoever he
seemed against thee? Wait; speak before us that we may know in what sense he has rejected
these very things, in order that we may not accept without reason an accusation against
him while he is far off and pass sentence against him without examination and without
inquisition before those who need to learn exactly for what reason he has been condemned.
Thus also the accused will not be able to deny and he will have no cause / to accuse me of
respect for persons. Therefore, O Theodotus,----thou hast conversed with him----if then
thou art accurately acquainted with his opinion, since thou hast questioned him and he has
returned answer unto thee, [thou knowest that] he says: "I do not say that God is two or
three months old ". Does he say [this] unto thee, as one who says that Christ is not God,
that he was two or three months old, or does he confess that Christ is God but was not as
God born nor [as God] became two or three months old?' 6

14 Thou 7 then, [dost thou confess] that God was born of a woman and that he was two or
three months old, as though |138 his own ousia were changed into the ousia of a man and he
was born and became two or three months old, or [was he as] one who was changed in his
likeness and in his schema into the likeness and into the schema of a man by means of the
ousia and that Christ is to be conceived in the one ousia of God and not in two ousias;
and if in two, [canst thou explain] in what way two [issued] from the owe ousia of God the
Word? Or [was he formed] of two distinct and unlike ousias and was he born with both of
them? Or was he born one of these and did it become two or three months old, as though it
had not existed before it was born and became two or three months old? Or did the ousia
exist eternally and not have a beginning in being born and becoming two or three months
old, whereas he had not in ousia that / which those who are born have of necessity? Or was
he born by adoption of the ousia in the birth of the flesh?

15 For if he 8 had thus been questioned, he would have confessed of necessity what he said
before the Eastern bishops, when he was questioned in writing----that the Only-begotten
Son of God created and was created, the same but not in the same [ousia]; the Son of God
suffered and suffered not, the same but not in the same [ousia]; for [some] of these
things are in the nature of the divinity and [others] of them in the nature of the
humanity. He suffered all human things in the humanity and all divine things in the
divinity; for birth from a woman is human but birth from the Father is without beginning,
whereas the former [is] in the beginning, and the one is eternal while the other is
temporal.9Since he 8 was suffocated by the truth, he was not able to dissemble his opinion
----he who was constrained by the result of the examination to set these things down in
writing;

16 and as is the manner of a dog which, being tied up by force, dissembles its bad habits
and, as soon as it has escaped from its leash, flees to its hole with its companions and
barks at those who caught hold of it and dares not come out and fight in the open but,
remaining within, lays back its cars and puts its tail between its legs, thus also he
dared not promise them that he would speak and conquer by reprimanding nor [do] any such
|139 thing as those would normally do who were confident in their own cause, I mean [as
any one] of them who should take his stand upon the Divine / Scriptures and the traditions
and the instructions of the holy fathers, and win the victory. 17 But hear these things,
howbeit not as though I were speaking. He dares not speak openly of what he says nor
establish from the Divine Scriptures nor from the fathers what they have spoken nor how
they have spoken. Nor again was he constrained to agree to what he had said nor to set it
down in writing. But it is right to tell what I consider to be the truth. He 10 was the
first to withhold it in order that they 11might not know all the conversation and all the
inquiry which was [held] by us, recounting those things against which they could not say
aught. For this reason they wrote them not down, not even in the Records, except only 'it
was not right to say of God that he was suckled nor that he was merely born of a virgin'.
They made examination [only] as far as was pleasing unto them; but we will indeed speak of
these things presently.

18 After him came Acacius and recounted unto them the conversation which he had with me
and which was considered by them [to contain] impossible things. But he recounted his
question, accusing me and not by way of reprimand nor sincerely by means of those things
wherein he was confident; but they accepted his questions as accusations. And lest / you
should suppose that I am creating these things, hear from them their own Records. The
Conversation of Acacius, Bishop of Melitene. 'As soon as I came to the city of Ephesus, I
held [a conversation] with this man, who has been mentioned shortly before, and when I
knew that he thought not |140 correctly, in every way the weight of the burden was upon me
to set him correct and to lead him away from his opinion, and I saw that he confessed with
his lips that he was abandoning any such opinion. But when I had delayed ten or twelve
days, when again some discussion had been raised between us, I began to speak on behalf of
the correct faith and I saw that he held what was contrary to this, and I perceived that
he had fallen into two wrongs simultaneously. First indeed [in] his own question which was
improper; he imposed on those who returned answer the necessity of either denying entirely
that the divinity of the Only-begotten became incarnate or of confessing what is an
impiety----that both the divinity of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit were found in
body with the Word.'

19 Nestorius. Some questioned [and] others answered that these things consisted in
absurdities and impiety; they confess and agree to the word / for which I have reprimanded
them and, after what they have confessed, they will be condemned as impious. Would any one
suppose that it was an [act of] oppression, when they have written down these things in
their Records and make all the world testify against themselves? For suppose that my
question was absurd: thou oughtest not to have accepted it but to have proved the
absurdity of the question, in order that, as a result of correcting the question, thou
mightest not fall into passing over impiety and absurdity; but, in accepting a question
absurd for religion, thou hast therefrom in the next place conic to the impiety of
confessing either that God the Word, the Son of God, was not made man or that the Father
and the Spirit also were made man; that then to which thou didst agree when thou wast
questioned thou oughtest to have made void.12

20 Yet although, like the other, thou hast not corrected me, let us grant that thou hast
not fallen into this absurdity voluntarily or involuntarily: for what reason dost thou not
utter this |141 absurd question whereby you wish to condemn me? But thou dost not utter it
nor do the judges even require it. And if it is so absurd, how has it been left
unconfuted, in such wise as not to be confuted by all your Council? And if you all leave
it unconfuted and if there was none among you capable of confuting it, utter [this] absurd
question, examine it, although you are judges [only] in schema, and write down this
question in schema for those / who have intelligence and are ready to examine your
judgement. But on account of your incapacity you remained in darkness, so that you were
not even able to see things which were evident. But God rather helped you in your
interrogation to write down these things that it might be evident unto all men that the
enmity was without cause.

21 But from what can this be proved? From those things which they have set down in [their]
cunning writings, in the judgement without condemnation. From now hear those things
wherein they have placed the deposit of the faith of our fathers who were assembled at
Nicaca, on two of which we shall rely as on testimonies which will not be declined by him;
and we shall make use of them both against them, whether they act by examination, or in
the likeness of those who accept them without examination, because they are the judges and
they are the judged, like those who account themselves judges in fables and stories. The
faith which was laid down by the fathers at Nicaea. 'We believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of all things which are visible and which are invisible, and in One Lord
Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father, / that is, of
the essence of the Father . . . ' 13

22 . . . . and first laying down the names of the two natures which indicate that these
are common, without the Sonship |142 or the Lordship being separated and without the
natures, in the union of the Sonship, coming into danger of corruption and of confusion.14
23 Observe then first who reduces and takes away from the deposit which has been laid down
by the fathers, but lets not [anyone else] steal aught therefrom. This man 15 [it is] who
has made no mention of the beginning and avoided the beginning and made a beginning which
they laid not down but in this wise passed over the beginning and wished not to make a
beginning therefrom, whereas [it is] I who have established the things which the fathers
rightly said, and I said that we would make a beginning from here showing also the cause
wherefore they first laid down the names which are common to the divinity and the humanity
and then built up thereon the tradition of the Incarnation and of the Sufferings and of
the Resurrection, 'first laying down the names of the two natures which indicate that
these are common, without the Sonship or the Lordship being separated and without the
natures, in the union of the Sonship, coming into danger of corruption and of confusion.'
Why then / hast thou passed by these things as superfluous, as things which ought not to
be said? Was it because thou didst suppose that it was the same and people ought not to
speak thus, but that it was enough for them to begin thence whence thou didst begin and
didst make a beginning and correct them? But those [fathers] anathematize those who make
additions or diminutions, but they have done improperly and not according to the opinion
of the fathers.

24 But he gave a contrary explanation when I said unto |143 him that 'this is the
beginning and thence rather ought we to begin whence I have admonished thee'. But he was
disputing against me as though in his wisdom he were teaching all men lest through their
ignorance they should fall short of this impiety. For what reason then, when thou didst
lay down the faith, didst thou also not begin from here whence they began as touching that
which was under inquiry? For we were searching how we ought naturally to understand and to
speak of these properties of the flesh and of the rational soul and of the properties of
God the Word, seeing that [either] they both belonged by nature to God the Word, or to
Christ, so that both natures were united by the very union of one prosôpon. But I said and
affirmed that the union is in the one prosôpon of the Messiah, and I made known in every
way that God the Word was made man and that God the Word was at the same time in the
humanity, / in that Christ was made man in it. And for this reason the fathers, in
teaching us what Christ is, about whom they used to dispute, laid down first those things
which constitute Christ; but thou [actest] in the reverse way, because thou wishest that
in the two natures God the Word should be the prosôpon of union.

25 Thou allowest these things [to pass] as superfluous and thou makest a beginning after
them, as they do; and thou transferrest from the one unto the other all those things of
which Christ is naturally [formed] and said. And since the Christ of the fathers is the
opposite of thine, thou hast declined to acknowledge him and thou sayest with me, though
thou wishest not, that Christ is in two natures but that God the Word is not in two
natures. 26 But hear [an extract] from what he has written unto me, that you may know that
there is nothing just in him but that he is arranging in everything that there may not be
a judgement and an examination, which would make known his enmity toward me, which was not
on account of the faith. Diverse are the natures which have come unto a true union; but
from them both [there has resulted] one Christ and Son, not because the diversity in the
natures has been |144 abolished by reason of the union, but because they have perfected
for us rather one Lord and Messiah and Son.16

27 Not indeed as though the ousia of God the Word who remains eternally as he is and
receives neither addition nor diminution, was perfected in a change of natures; / but
owing to the concourse of the union of the divinity and of the humanity there came into
being one Christ and not God the Word; for he exists eternally. Christ therefore is the
prosôpon of the union, whereas God the Word is not of the union but in his own nature, and
it is not the same thing to say and to understand [the one for the other]. And for this
reason, O admirable man, the fathers also, adhering to the Divine Scriptures, have said
'One Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son', on account of the prosôpon of the union,
and then teach what those who are united are, and in whom. Who is he who was born of the
Father only-begotten? Our Lord Jesus Christ. 'The only-begotten Son of God, that is, from
the ousia of God the Father. God from God and Light of Light, Very God of Very God, born
and not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all that is in heaven and in earth
was [made].' Of whom have you spoken, O fathers? Of something else or him [of] whom you
have written before, 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God'? Who is this
and of whom?

28 Of the Father, 'Very God of Very God, born and not made, consubstantial with the
Father, through whom all was [made], who on account of us men and on account of our
salvation came down. Who is this? Tell me and him and all men, O fathers. What is he?
Another / or the Only-begotten? Him we teach you and none other, who 'on account of us men
and on account of our salvation came down and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the
Virgin Mary, who also was made man'. Thus far, then, that 'He came down, was made flesh
and was made |145 man', they have taught us about those things which concern the divinity
of Christ: and in 'He was made flesh' about his union with the flesh; but for the rest,
about the flesh wherein he was made flesh: 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son
of God.' For does not 'of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary' teach us concerning the
birth of the flesh? 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.' What is his
nature? That which his Mother also was, of whom the passible flesh was born. And 'He
suffered and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven and will come to judge the
living and the dead'.

29 Who is this? 'One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father.' They call
him both things: 'consubstantial with the Father' and 'consubstantial with the mother, one
Lord Jesus Christ', [speaking not of] God the Word as in both [ousias] by nature, but of
'one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God'. For the union is in the prosôpon
and not in the nature nor in the ousia, but a union indeed of ousias, namely, the ousia of
God the Word and the ousia of the flesh; and they were united not in the ousia----for God
the Word and the flesh became not one ousia and the two ousias became not flesh----[but]
God the Word and the flesh [were so united]. And thou dost confess all these things with
me / when thou sayest that the natures of the divinity and of the humanity are diverse and
that the two natures remain in their own ousia and that their diversities are not made
void by the union of the natures; for the two natures complete one Christ and not one God.

30 Of what then dost thou accuse me? Speak before all those who read our words. For I say
this, and when thou hast spoken and confessed [this], thee too I have praised for what
thou hast said, in that in thy discourse thou hast made a distinction between the divinity
and the humanity and [hast united] them in the conjunction of one prosôpon; and [I have
praised] thy saying that God the Word had not need of a second birth from a woman and that
the divinity admits not of sufferings; faithfully hast thou spoken; and these [are the
words] of those who are correct in their faith and are opposed to the wrong faith of all
the heresies concerning |146 the Lord's nature. Where then have I said that Christ was a
mere man or two Christs and that there was not one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son of God, of the union of the two natures one prosôpon? And even unto thee thyself I
have said, as brother unto brother, that we should not distinguish the union nor the
prosôpon which [results] from the union. Nor again do we begin from God the Word, as from
a prosôpon of union, but from him from whom the fathers began, who were wiser than thou
and who were excellently acquainted with the Divine Scriptures. And see how / they tear up
as from the foundation and destroy all those things which effect a change.

31 For if thou referrest all the properties of the flesh to God the Word, see that, after
stealing, as thou hast said, the properties of the natures, thou dost not say those things
which the three hundred and eighteen fathers have with one voice and with one mouth and
with one conscience rejected: that there was when God the Word was not, that is, [that]
when his flesh was not, then God the Word was not; that is, that, before his flesh was
born, he was not. In that thou hast said that he made for himself all the properties, so
then God the Word was born of things which were not, because his flesh was [formed] of
things which were not, unless thou darest to say that the flesh itself has
eternallyexisted and sayest that God the Word was of another hypostasis and another ousia,
and not of that of the Father but of that of which the flesh was, and [that] God the Word
is changeable and corruptible on account of his flesh which is therein.17 For the fathers
anathematize those who predicate these of God the Father.

32 Now God the Word is not of them both in ousia, nor again is God the Word in flesh, nor
is God the Word of two nor is God the Word two natures. / For herein only, in his being
co-essential with the Father, is God the Word conceived. For he was made flesh and was
revealed in flesh; but if he was made flesh in the flesh, it is evident that [it was] in
that flesh which had been made, and he who was made flesh in |147 that which was made made
not his own ousia the flesh, so as to make the properties of the nature of the ousia of
the flesh his own properties, but with a view to the revelation he carried out all the
operations of his prosôpon. For he made use of the likeness and of the prosôpon of a
servant, not the ousia nor the nature, in such wise that he was by nature in them both, as
being Christ. What therefore has carried him 18 away to find another way and a beginning
apart from that which the fathers had made, so that he came to anathematize all those
things which had been said by them and of necessity to say all those things which had been
anathematized by them?

33 But he first laid down the [words] of the fathers, as though he wished to convince
them, and to say 'I have said the same things as they', and then to accuse me as though I
spoke not in the same way as they. But after he found that I said the same as they and
that I maintained their own [views], he began to lay down laws and to substitute those
terms which they had not said, and to introduce them into the faith, persuading [every
one] that he ought to embrace the latter instead of the former. For thus it was said of
God the Word, when he 19 said that he / existed before the worlds and was born of the
Father and was born in flesh of a woman. But where have the fathers said that God the Word
was born in flesh of a woman? Require him to state the deposit of the fathers which they
have laid down for all men and to which also, thou hast well said, we ought to adhere in
words and in faith. If then thou keepest thy promise in deeds, it is right; for he who has
not spoken as the fathers have spoken is guilty. Prove then that the fathers have spoken
this word, then condemn me with an anathema in the manner of one who has transgressed the
books and the deposit of the fathers, although ten thousand times I have excused myself
and said that I imagined not otherwise in mine imagination.

34 Or if not, let not alone whosoever has defiled aught that the fathers have said in the
terms which have been fixed by them. For those terms which |148 have been fixed by them
ought by all means to be observed, although we have often neglected to explain them; for
if any one otherwise makes use of them, such as they are, [he ought to do so,] not as with
a view to suppression nor as with a view to change nor as with a view to transformation,
but that he may preserve therein with me such an opinion as is correct, I mean, that of
the fathers. 35 What then hast thou to prove concerning this? Did I make wrong use of the
word which is in the deposit of the fathers and ought I to beg for an explanation? Prove
unto me that God the Word was born / in flesh of a woman and then explain how thou
understandest that he was born. For if thou presupposest it and if thou explainest what
has been laid down by thee, thou art not accepted by those who accept the [words] of the
fathers; they are without diminution and for this reason they admit neither addition nor
diminution nor change. For he who explains also establishes those things which have been
written and surely does not suppress them. And if I have made wrong use of the words of
the fathers----I who would have persuaded [every one] by words not to call the holy virgin
the mother of God nor would have called Christ God 20 and thou hast been constrained to
come against me----prove unto me first that I said these things before certain men who
duly examined us and not before those who inclined unto thy side; for thou hast conquered
before the latter and thou hast made use of them as though they had neither reason nor
soul; and thou hast not presented mine own letter, wherein I disputed against thee, as
before men. lest thou shouldest confuse the words of the fathers;

36 but that thou mightest confess one Lord Jesus Christ consubstantial with the Father,
none other but one and the same who is one prosôpon of the two natures: of the divinity
and of the humanity, Lord and Christ; and this also hast thou confessed. It was not
therefore because I confessed not that Christ himself----who is also God, and none other
than God the Word, consubstantial / ----is God, but because I confess that he is also |149
man. If it were that this is so and I had not thus confessed, in teaching I should have
added that Christ is God and consubstantial with the Father and at the same time also man
consubstantial with us. I should not have cursorily passed over the prosôpon of the union
and the ousia of the divinity,as if I were to begin from the common prosôpon of the
divinity and of the humanity as if from one ousia of God the Word, which they both were;
but I should have referred to him naturally all the things which concern him and which
concern his flesh, since he is both of them by ousia.

37 Why then dost thou falsely charge the fathers with that which they say not? And why
again dost thou persuade those who are unwilling to accept anything apart from the deposit
of the fathers to accept thine own rather than that of the fathers? But recollect thyself
and read and know and see that they have not said this and that we have not transgressed
them as ignorant or as wicked men; but thou findest not that those who have written for
thee have said that he who was born of the Father was born in flesh of a woman, if they
have mentioned at all the birth from a woman. How then sayest thou, O calumniator, that
'we have found that the holy fathers thought thus and that they thus were confident in
calling the holy virgin the mother of God. Thus we say that he both / suffered and rose'?
22 First prove unto us that the fathers called her the mother of God or that God the Word
was born in flesh or that he was born at all and at the same time both suffered and died
and rose, and explain unto us how they say that God suffered and rose. But if it has
surely been fabricated by thee, and thou art calumniating [the fathers], how can anyone
without doubt admit the rest of thesethings? Forthou hast made them all doubtful, because
thou hast not said those things which the fathers have said but hast changed even the very
term.

38 For although thou hast supposed the same thing that they make known and there is no
single distinction between 'the Lord and Jesus Christ' and 'God the Word', and though thou
|150 makest known the same thing by this term or by that, thou oughtest not to have made
changes but to have explained and made clear and to have made use of terms which have been
laid down by the fathers. But thou couldest not by those terms prove God the Word passible
and mortal, and for this reason thou makest use of this term whereby thou canst carry away
those who know not what each one of them signifies. 39 Thus also we understand 'He died';
for God the Word is immortal indeed in his nature and incorruptible and quick and
quickening; but, further, because his body by the grace of God, as Paul has said, has
tasted death for every man, it is said that he bore death for us.

40 By / whom [is this said]? By thee or by the fathers? Speak, deceive not the hearers by
means of the fathers, by thy statements that thou agreest with their words and their
teaching. Read therefore: where have they said that God the Word suffered? But thou sayest
that Divine Scripture has said that God the Word suffered; read and dissemble not. But it
exists not for thee to read. For what purpose then dost thou calumniate the fathers? Or
why dost thou take the faith of the fathers as a means for deceiving and forestalling
those who believe simply and without investigating? Makest thou sport of those who read as
men who reflect not? Or correctest thou the faith of the fathers, who have not written
what they ought to have written? For thou first layest it down and thou sayest that we
ought to agree thereto in words and in faith; but thou adherest not at all thereto and
hast not even observed the order of the text nor begun whence the fathers began, and in
addition to these things thou hast referred [to God the Word] all those things which have
been said by them.23 And thou hast neither feigned to make use of the same terms nor hast
thou adhered to their teaching.

41 For |151 'created' and 'made' and 'passible' and 'mortal' and all such things as the
fathers repudiate thou hast predicated of the ousia of God the Word, of whom are
predicated all those things which belong unto the Father in his own ousia and who exists.
For thou maintainest that we should so speak as those men who have not spoken, and then,
to be sure, thou explainest / not, even though indeed thou wouldest preclude God the Word
from being called passible and mortal, but so as to persuade men to say the things, the
saying of which the fathers have refused. Thus we confess one Lord Christ who took his
name at birth from the blessed Mary but is indeed man, yea even in the death, yea even in
the resurrection, yea even in the ascension, yea even in his coming from Heaven; of all
these things thou now strippest him. 'Thus', thou sayest, 'we confess one Christ and
Lord', as thou thyself sayest. We shall then confess that which has not been confessed:

42 Not indeed as though we adore the man with the Word, lest thou shouldest introduce a
semblance of separation in that we have said 'with', but we adore him as one and the same,
because his body is not alien unto him, with which he also is seated with the Father.24
Either he has said it through the blindness of his intellect or he has been compelled by
the necessity of God to fall into that whereat he is vexed in others and into [incurring]
the same reprimand. For he has used the [word] 'with' twice, in that he has said |152
'with him who is seated with the Father'. For the [word] with' is not said of one but [of
one] with another, and the one, who is with the other, is seated with the Father; how will
he not introduce a semblance of separation? He says 'the body' and 'his own body' and
'seated with him' and causes not the semblance of a separation! By 'one and the same God
the Word' he understands also his body; and he understands / the body and again he does
not understand the body; and he understands that his body is with him and he does not
understand that his body is with him but understands it [to be] alone; and he understands
that he is seated with it with the Father and again does not understand that it is seated
with the Father, but he understands him [to be] alone. Who could tell his ineffable
wisdom? But he has taken it for him, not as though again two sons were sitting but one,
owing to the union with his flesh.25

43 And further thou hast said: 'Thou hast 26raised the semblance of a cleavage when thou
givest to imagine one with another'. But [it is] in the union. Of whom? Of Christ? Then
the prosôpon of the union is Christ, but thou sayest that he has taken for him that with
which he also was seated with the Father. . . . Thou hast put a prosôpon in it itself; why
therefore dost thou make [it] void, as if it had been unrighteously said that it also is
seated with him with the Father? Or as if by this [word] 'with' thou hadst been forced to
understand that he is so, and it were possible that thou understandest or imaginest
correctly, in confessing that not two sons were seated but one owing to the union with his
flesh. And thou makest void this [word] 'with', that men may not imagine two. But if that
which thou hast said be impious for thee, return again to this chapter which thou hast
omitted, for it is its aim. For what hast thou written? Hast thou not clearly disproved
[thy statement] that we ought not to write 'with'; and hast thou written that 'He is
seated / with it with the Father '? For he who says these things says that two sons are
seated, but thou disprovest that men ought |153 not to imagine that two sons are seated.

44 And thus in the deposit which has been laid down thou allowest that which signifies two
sons, but thou sayest that we ought not to conceive two sons, but two are of necessity
conceived, as it is supposed according to thine own opinion. But it is otherwise deposited
and to be said, and two sons are not to be conceived. Of what dost thou accuse me, who say
that two are united in one Son, whereby I wished to show the inconfusion of the natures in
the union, in making use of the qualities of the natures? I seek not to make as it were
two sons nor again the dissolution of the union, but I make use of one prosôpon of union
as [formed] of the two ousias, as also Divine Scripture signifies. But by one ousia thou
signifiest two ousias. But if I were to say the things which thou sayest, it would appear
to thee an impiety. But if thou didst have confidence to read the things, thou didst read
them for thyself and not for them[selves], things which cannot be examined in that way, if
in piety. Thou hast further shunned also an examination by the whole Council, because thou
didst judge that these [views] had no accurate defence. And as I was not [there], / what
thou saidest well unto them thou saidest for my sake, and what thou saidest wrongly
against thyself [was] thus again also for my sake.

45 For if this word 'with' hinders there being one Son and his being seated with his flesh
with the Father, there are not two adorations of one Son because he is adored with it,
since he who is seated with that which is alien is adored in one adoration; for there is a
union in the natures----and thou also confessest [it] with me----but the distinction of
the natures is not made void on account of the union. For it was right for me to say many
times those words which have been well said; then thou art astonished, when thou hearest
that which is mine in thine: that there was indeed no union which proved not a diversity,
as [is shown by] the adoration of 'Him who is seated [at the right hand of the Father]'.
But thou takest as the starting-point of thy narrative the Maker of the natures and not
the prosôpon of union. Either then avoid saying two natures united without confusion; or
confess and say these things, and it will not appear an impossibility unto thee to |154
predicate one in the union and another in that which concerns the ousia, not in that which
concerns the union of the prosôpon.

46 But if we decline the hypostatic union as being either incomprehensible or as unseemly,
we fall into predicating two sons: for it is necessary to distinguish and to say of man /
alone that he is honoured with the name of son, but also of God the Word alone that he
possesses the title and the functions of the sonship naturally. It is not right then to
distinguish two sons in one Lord Jesus Christ. 47 I have said unto thee also in the letter
that I do not know [the meaning of] the things which have been said by thee. And thou
feignest to be repentant; thou hast not dissembled those things which thou wast fairly
prepared to say afterwards. And when thou oughtest to have made answer concerning these
things and to write and to persuade and to reprimand the calumniators openly, thou hast
risen up against thyself and me and hast neglected the fathers and the Holy Scriptures.
Why dost thou wish that there should be an hypostatic union, which makes us neither
understand that there is [in the union] the ousia of man nor understand [that he is] man
in nature but God the Word in nature, that is, God who is not in nature what he is in his
nature through the hypostatic union, wherein there are no distinctions and definitions of
the various [elements]. For this reason also this union is a union of those things which
have been defined by the word ousia; and if it be void, there is no more a union; but [it
is the result] of a union, yet not a union. And if every definition of the natures is made
void, how will the union not make void the distinctions of the natures?

48 And if they are conceived neither in nature nor in a union, how hast thou said that he
has made / the property of the flesh his own, since thou sayest that [he is] in the one
indeed by nature but in the other by union? And it is his to have suffered indeed |155 in
nature and to have died, because he has made them his own. How then hast thou sought to
establish the hypostatic union? What is this unintelligible hypostatic union? Or how shall
we accept it, the unintelligible? Or how hast thou understood it? How is it raised up
though incomprehensible? And again, unseemly? Instruct us. But thou art not willing to
instruct me. Thou hast supposed to thyself that the judges speak unto thee and persuade
thee to instruct us and those who are like us, because we know not; and if not, instruct
the whole Council. For neither thou nor the Council are capable of [understanding] the
term 'union'. Because I also say 'union', yet thou acceptest not what I say, because I
distinguish the union. If I say concerning things which have been united that they are
corporeal in ousia and incorporeal in ousia, then [I say that] they are divided from one
another: the one indeed as created, but the other as uncreated; the one indeed mortal and
the other immortal; and the one eternal with the Father and the other created in the last
times, and the one consubstantial with the Father and the other consubstantial with us;

49 for the union makes not void the ousias which have been united in such wise that they
are not to be known [apart]. 50 / Thou sayest unto me 'Thou distinguishest'; but verily
thou also [dost likewise]; even in the very words to which thou hast recourse to accuse
me, thou sayest as follows: 'Diverse are the natures which have come into a true union;
yet from both of them [is formed] one Christ and Son, not as though the diversity of the
natures had been removed because of the union.' Dost thou give us to imagine this even
concerning the hypostatic union? Or [dost thou not speak] as one who distinguishes, saying
that as a result of their diversities the natures which have been united are diverse; and
[then] rush headlong into thy profession that thou introducest not a semblance of
separation? And what do I mean by 'thou introduces 27 a semblance of separation'? And what
do I mean by 'a semblance'? Thou understandest the separation of the natures |156 as
expressing the natures and not as a confusion, since there is not in thy mind any
semblance of definition of the natures whereby to understand that they were united without
confusion, even as the fire was united with the bush and the bush with the fire and they
were not confused. Thou therefore showest them without definition and without distinction,
whereas I show them defined and distinct from one another. If thou then speakest of the
hypostatic union, speak clearly; for I confess to not understanding either then or now;
thou needest to instruct me in such wise that I may agree with thee. Or if I accept not
thy opinion, say that I accept it not, and if the judges / accept [it] of thee, let them
convince me or let them condemn me as one for whom there is no getting rid of his
wickedness.

51 Say therefore [what] the hypostatic union [is]. Dost thou wish to regard a hypostasis
as a prosôpon,28 as we speak of one ousia of the divinity and three hypostases and
understand prosôpa by hypostases? Thou callest therefore the prosôpic union hypostatic;
yet the union was not of the prosôpa but of the natures. For 'diverse are the natures
which have come into a true union, yet from both of them [is formed] 'one Christ'.
Understandest thou the one prosôpon of Christ rather than the hypostasis of the ousia and
of the nature, in the same way as thou speakest of the form of his hypostasis |157 and the
union of the natures? But I say that; and I praised thee for having said it and having
made a distinction of the natures in the doctrine of the divinity and of the humanity and
coherence of these in one prosôpon. For hast thou not said 'diversities without confusion'
and 'it remained without diversity whereby it would be separated'. But even if thou dost
not concede a diversity and that a diversity of natures, thou dost concede a natural
separation without knowing it. But it was not a diversity which became a union, since the
things which are therein remain without confusion, as the bush in the fire and the fire in
the bush. But it appears not that thou sayest this, and thou dost rebuke me as one who
accepts not the hypostatic union.

52 But I am not persuaded of any other / hypostatic union with other natures nor of
anything else which is right for the union of diverse natures except one prosôpon, by
which and in which both the natures are known, while assigning their properties to the
prosôpon. It is well to confess and be conformable to the tradition of the Gospels that
the bodily frame is the temple of the divinity of God the Word and that the temple has
been united by the supreme adherence of the divinity in such wise as to make over to the
one the things which are the other's by the appropriation of the nature of the divinity,
but not that he made them [both] his own ousia. What other hypostatic union, then, dost
thou wish to teach me, which consists in a supreme and divine and ineffable union? I know
not unless [it be that] of one prosôpon where the one is the other and the other the one.
And for this reason I proclaim eagerly in every place that the things which are said
either about the divinity or about the humanity must be taken not of the nature but of the
prosôpon, so that there might be no unreality about the human qualities, [as there would
be] if both of them were united in the ousia.

53 For not in all things is he to be called in |158 ousia that which was in the ousia, but
all those things which indicate the prosôpon of [the ousia\ And it is known that God the
Word is said to have become flesh and the Son of man after the likeness and after the
prosôpon of flesh and of man whereof he made use to make himself known unto the world. For
all the things which are naturally / called flesh are not to be called also God the Word:
as that he should come into being when he was not or was [formed] of that which was not or
whatever the flesh is said [to have been] before it came into being, when it came into
being and after it came into being, in the changes of growth and corruption, and in short
consubstantial with ourselves. Because he is consubstantial with ourselves in everything,
the things which are said of the ousia are not said of any thing else except only of this
ousia, and he is called consubstantial [with us]; for in [the saying of] the things which
are said of the prosôpon and of the likeness of the nature is said that which makes him
known, as the prosôpon [makes known] the ousia. But that which exists naturally is not
said [of God the Word], because the union took not place according to the ousia and the
nature but according to the prosôpon.

54 Thus also the flesh is not to be said [to be] all that God the Word is by nature; for
it was not without beginning nor was it unmade nor was it incorporeal nor was it invisible
nor was it consubstantial with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, although that which is
called Son and Lord and God is also to be called flesh in this manner through the union,
because the union came into being as touching the prosôpon of the Son of God, and neither
the ousia nor the nature, but by means of the natures; and all things which belong to the
prosôpon are its, except the ousia of the prosôpon, not according to the nature but
according to the prosôpon. 55 / What other hypostatic union, then, dost thou predicate, as
if saying that I accept it not, either as incomprehensible or as unseemly, and [that] for
this reason I have fallen into speaking of two Christs: the one man who is honoured under
the title of Son and then apart [from him] God the Word, who possesses naturally the name
and function of sonship? How can he who in the union speaks of one Son, one Christ, |159
one Lord, distinctly speak apart of one Son, God, and one other, and thus of two sons? For
again that would not be called a union but each one of the natures [by itself] in its own
ousia. For neither is God the Word said to have become flesh in his own ousia but by union
with the flesh, nor is the flesh called Son apart from the union with the Son of God. For
this reason there is one flesh in them both and one Son in them both. For he whose it is
by the union to exist and to be spoken of neither exists nor is spoken of in the
definition and the distinction [of each] from one another. As God the Word is by his
nature God incorporeal, nevertheless in the union with the flesh he is called flesh, and
the flesh which is in its nature bodily frame and in its ousia also bodily frame, is yet
God and Son by the union with God the Word the Son of God.

56 There are said to be neither two fleshes nor again two sons: those which are distinct
by nature and exist by the union of the natures. Among / men, in fact, many who are sons
are [so] called by the distinction and by the division of the natures, those unto every
one of whom [sonship] is given only by grace and adoption, as honour is given by the
Emperor unto every one of the princes. For that which exists only in its own hypostasis
belongs also unto many as by grace. For he exists in his hypostasis and has made it the
likeness of his likeness, neither by command nor by honour nor simply by equality of
grace, but he has made it his likeness in its natural likeness, in such wise that it is
none other than that very [thing] which he has taken for his own prosôpon, so that the one
might be the other and the other the one, one and the same in the two ousias, a prosôpon
fashioned by the flesh and fashioning the flesh in the likeness of its own sonship in the
two natures, and one flesh in the two natures, the one fashioned by the other and the
other by the one, the same and the single likeness of the prosôpon.

57 I know not therefore in what sense thou predicatedst the hypostatic union in such wise
that it is incomprehensible or unseemly, in order that I may admit or not admit [it]; and
has he for this reason been defined and called solely man by the title or by the honour
|160 of a son, and then again apart the Word which is from God, to which belongs naturally
sonship and name and title? 58 But what meanest thou by 'uniquely'? / State clearly the
deposit of the faith of the fathers and set down the things which are alike both for me
and for every one to say, for thou hast not made clear the meaning which we ought to mean
and to state. How sayest thou that the nature of man cannot be understood 'uniquely',
especially apart from the ousia of God the Word, which is Son not by nature but by union?
But also thou sayest that there are diversities in the natures which have been combined in
the union of one Son; but the diversity is not voided through the union of the natures; it
is not as though the diversity of the natures were made void because of the union. If then
the distinctions of the natures have not been annulled, the nature of the flesh appertains
solely to the nature of the humanity. But that which is Son consubstantial with God the
Father and with the Holy Spirit uniquely and solely appertains to the divinity; for by the
union the flesh is son and God the Word is flesh.

59 And for this reason whoever speaks thus neither predicates two sons nor predicates two
fleshes, nor predicates two fleshes in the nature nor yet of the flesh in the one and of
the sonship in the other, but makes use of the same in the natural prosôpa of each of them
in what is their own, as the fire was in the bush and the bush was fire and the fire bush
and each of them was bush and fire and not two bushes nor two fires, since / they were
both in the fire and they were both in the bush, not indeed in division but in union. From
the two natures there come into being the natural prosôpa. Either then speak not of
distinct natures when they remain in the distinctions of the natures and are not made
void, or say that they have remained the diversity of the natures, or thou shouldest
define them as a distinction of natures in an inseparable union, not indeed as diversities
of nature made void by the union. . . 29 |161

60 For if then thou understandest them uniquely and not in the natures but in their mutual
distinction, of what am I guilty who confess the indistinguishable union of the two
natures in one prosôpon? And I am addressing my words unto thee as unto one who is in
doubt concerning these things. But predicatest thou but one nature of the hypostatic union
in such wise that after the union the natures preserve not their properties? And thou
correctest the things which were formerly said by thee, but especially thou dost surely
declare them void as a result of the examination against me, in wishing to say the
contrary of the things which I say, because it has befallen thee to will to inquire into
the cause of the distinction not as in sincerity but out of opposition as an enemy. For
this [union] is as one that suppresses the natures, and I accept it not. / But out of
opposition towards me thou hast occupied [thy mind] with definitions, with furious words,
as robbers, that thou mightest conceal thy purpose and might not be discovered; and thou
sayest this and that and all things, but thou speakest not of the hypostatic union for the
making void of the natures but for the [establishing of] a natural union which [results]
from the composition in one nature. As the soul and the body [result] in one nature of the
man, so also God the Word is united with the humanity, and this thou callest the
hypostatic union.

61 But even then, though the natures were to remain, yet there would come to be a union
[resulting] in a nature passible and made and created, for the natural union is a second
creation. For those things which have not [a thing] in their nature receive it in their
nature by the union of nature; but the things which are united in virtue of a natural
union are united with the natural passibility of the other and accept not voluntarily
mutual sufferings, as the body and the soul, receiving not in their nature their own
mutual properties except by the union of nature, participate in one another and give and
receive mutual sufferings by the necessity of nature in such wise that he suffers who
would not have suffered of himself. For in the union the soul of itself neither hungers
nor thirsts nor is pained by a cut or by a burn or by a blow, nor again is |162 the
soulless bodily frame sensible of any of these things; but by the natural / union of
diverse natures they suffer passively and participate in these mutual sufferings by the
necessity of the union.

62 If thou thus predicatest the hypostatic union of the nature, thou sayest, as the
Arians, that it is natural and not voluntary, because he suffered with a natural
passibility. He suffered as a result of the natural union, for the sufferings of the soul
are the sufferings of the body in the natural composition. For he who is unmade, who is by
his nature uncreated, was not composed that he might suffer as though created and made.
For men prove not the one nature of the union by the fact that the soul is in the body and
the body in the soul, for it produces not the union in every bodily frame wherein there is
a soul so as also to be able always to quicken it, but [it is in the body] by such a
composition as has been constructed in one nature by the Maker, both subjected and
involuntarily subject unto a natural limitation, both limited and unable to escape. And
again they are released or bound by the construction in the union of the nature. If
therefore the union of God the Word with the humanity was in one nature, although those
natures remained without confusion but in a union of the nature, the Maker and that which
was made would be constructed by a change either willingly or unwillingly since they have
been so styled and it 31 is made and created.

63 And he who can create everything, that is, God, will be the nature of the union, and it
is not the hypostasis of the humanity which is known [to be] animal in nature, as even the
body / without the soul is not animal in its own hypostasis, but by the construction of
the natural union it is its [property] to be animal. If it is so, it is also through God
[the property] of man to be animal, but it is not his [property through] his own
hypostasis and his nature, but through the hypostatic union which establishes one nature.
64 For this purpose he declines to say that the man is man and that he is animal in his
hypostasis and in his nature, and that |163 God the Word is God the Word in his
hypostasis, in order that he may maintain his nature in the union, and that it may not
become animal as a result of the union. For he 32 received as a result of the construction
of [all] creation by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Spirit to become man, but
to become the only-begotten Son he received from the union with God the Word, for it
belonged not unto his own nature nor did it lie in the natural and hypostatic union. For
that which it was his to become by the natural union was not his to become as a result of
anything else than of the natural construction, as to become one animal results neither
from the bodily frame nor from the soul nor from them both but from the natural
construction. This [union] then is corruptible and passible, but the union of the prosôpa
of the natures is neither passible nor corruptible as [having taken place] through a
voluntary appropriation; and the union was not his involuntarily by condescension or by
exaltation, by command or by subjection unto command. And such a conception as this
consists neither in the making void / nor in the being made void nor in the extinction of
one nature or of the properties of the two natures, but the several qualities in the
natural qualities are distinct in purpose and in will, according to the distinction of the
natures in the one equality, while there is the same will and purpose in the union of the
natures, so that they may both will or not will the same things. 33

65 And because also the prosôpon of the one is the other's and that of the other the
one's, and the one [comes] from the other and the other from the one, the will belongs to
each one of them. When he speaks as from his own prosôpon, [he does so] by one prosôpon
which appertains to the union of the natures and not to one hypostatis or [one] nature.
For the divinity is not limited by the body as each one of the natures which are |164
united in the hypostatis. For they are limited by the nature in that it limits them in
their being and they exist not apart from them, as the soul and the body are bound
together in their being and exist not apart from themselves]. 34 66 If therefore thou thus
sayest that God the Word and the flesh are united and thou callest this an
incomprehensible and unseemly union, I decline not to say clearly: 'Those who say these
things are impious, and this opinion comes not from the orthodox.' For if the Son, who is
impassible, had come unto the necessity of a passible nature in order that he might
sensibly suffer, it would prove that his own ousia was not impassible / but [was] a
passible nature, whereof he had been constituted in the hypostatic union and wherein he
suffered. For he to whose nature it appertains not to suffer, will not suffer in any way
in his hypostasis, if he is impassible; for he who suffers in aught is not impassible in
his hypostatis, but is impassible [only] in such manner as all those who, being passible,
suffer in nature; they do not suffer in all ways, but in that way whereby it appertains to
the nature itself to suffer. Everything suffers not in the same way, neither light nor air
nor fire, nor the animals which are in the waters nor the animals which are on the dry
land, nor birds nor bodily frames nor souls nor angels nor demons, but they are passible
indeed in ousia and in hypostasis. But they suffer according to the disposition of their
nature to suffer either of themselves or by another.

67 But thou sayest neither by confusion nor yet by change of ousia nor by corruption nor
yet naturally, so that one hypostatic union takes place. Thou predicatest therefore this
voluntary one wherein a union without confusion and without the suffering of the natures
in one prosôpon is conceived, and not a natural union. For the prosôpon of a natural union
is predicated of the two natures which have been united, as the man is neither body nor
soul; for the union of these results in a nature and the prosôpon of the nature. But / God
took upon himself the likeness of a servant, and that of none other, for his own prosôpon
and for his sonship, as indeed are those who are |165 united in nature. 35 He took the
likeness of a servant: and the likeness of the servant was not the ousia of a man, but he
who took it made it [his] likeness and his prosôpon. And he became the likeness of men,
but he became not the nature of men, although it was the nature of a man which he took; he
who took it came to be in the likeness of man, whilst he who took and not that which was
taken was found in schema as man; for that which was taken was the ousia and nature of
man, whereas he who took was found in schema as man without being the nature of man.

68 For the nature he took not for himself but the likeness, the likeness and schema of
man, in all things which indicate the prosôpon: as touching the poverty of the schema, he
36 relates: He condescended unto death, even the death upon the cross whereby he emptied
himself, in order to show in nature the humiliation of the likeness of a servant and to
endure scorn among men; for they shamefully entreated him, even him who displayed infinite
condescension. He made known also the cause wherefore he took the likeness of a servant
when He was found in the likeness of men in schema as a man and humiliated himself unto
death, even the death upon the cross. But he suffered not these things in his / nature but
made use therein of him who suffers naturally in his schema and in his prosôpon in order
that he might give him by grace in his prosôpon a name which is more excellent than all
names, before which every knee which is in heaven and on the earth and beneath the earth
shall bow;

69 and every tongue shall confess him, in order that by his similitude with God and
according to the greatness of God he may be conceived as Son who took the likeness of a
servant and was in the likeness of a man and was found in schema as a man and humiliated
himself unto death, even the death upon the cross, and was exalted in that there was given
unto him a name which is more excellent than all names in the schema of the likeness of a
servant |166 which was taken with a view to the union. But he was the likeness of a
servant not in schema but in ousia, and it was taken for the likeness and for the schema
and for the humiliation unto death upon the cross. For this reason it was exalted so as to
take a name which is more excellent than all names.

70 But to understand 'the likeness of a servant as ousia' he appointed Christ for the
understanding; for Christ is both of them by nature. For this reason the properties of the
two natures befit also one prosôpon, not [that] of the ousia of God the Word. And the
prosôpon is not in the ousia, for it is not in the ousia of God the Word, nor is it the
prosôpon of the union of the natures which have been united in such wise as to make two
ousias befit the one prosôpon / of God the Word, for he is not both of them in ousia. God
the Christ is not indeed as it were another apart from God the Word, but he is indicative
of the union of the two ousias of God the Word and of man. But God and man----of them is
Christ [constituted], as thou also hast said. The diversities of the natures are not
destroyed because of the union, but they have rather perfected for us one Lord and Christ
and Son, by an ineffable and incomprehensible concurrence of the divinity and of the
humanity in the union. Although in the things which thou hast said well, where thou
seemest to repent. . . . For the ousia of God the Word was not made perfect by the
divinity and by the humanity, because it is not its [property] in virtue of the union to
become God the Word, as Christ is [constituted] of the divinity and of the humanity. For
the incarnation is indicative of the humanity, for He was made man is all conceived not
only of the divinity but also of the incarnation which makes man.

71 For this reason the Apostle lays down the prosôpon of the union and next the things
wherefrom the union results. He says first the likeness of God, which is the similitude of
God and next it took the likeness of a servant, not the ousia nor the nature but the
schema and the prosôpon, in order that he might participate in the likeness of a servant,
and that the |167 likeness of the servant might participate in the likeness of God, so
that of / necessity there might be one prosôpon from the two natures. For the likeness is
the prosôpon, so that it is the one by ousia and the other by union in respect to the
humiliation and to the exaltation. How then dost thou bid us understand these diversities
of the natures in the union? For the union has not removed the diversities of the natures,
so that we should again understand these diversities anew. For he who took the likeness of
a servant is the property solely of the likeness of God, whereas that which was taken
concerns uniquely the likeness of the servant; but the one belongs to the other and the
other to the one through the union of the prosôpon and not through the ousia, in such wise
that, where the one is in ousia, the other is in union, and not another. That which is in
ousia the likeness of God is consubstantial with this ousia, in that it is a natural
likeness;

72 but by union the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant and the likeness of
God, which is naturally God's, became in schema the likeness of a servant. But the
likeness of the servant, which is naturally the likeness of a servant and in the union the
likeness of God, is not naturally God's, so that we understand severally in nature the
several qualities of each one of the natures and the natural distinctions of each single
one of the natures; and the [properties] of the union we understand [as belonging]
uniquely to the union and not to the ousia. How therefore dost thou bid us not to conceive
any of these things apart in view of / the distinctions of the natures, things which thou
hast said are not destroyed because of the union? But thou canst neither reply unto me nor
convict me of the things whereof thou accusest me; but thou accusest thyself in the things
whereof thou wouldest accuse me and thou speakest against thyself.

73 But you, O just judges, what have you examined of these things? Either concerning the
things which we have subjected to inquiry or of the things which we have said and of the
things which I have confessed and of the things which I have denied that I have imagined,
convict him who has erred or instruct him who is ignorant. For not because of the things
|168 that a man denies is he condemned as an heretic, but because of the things that he
confesses. Thus Arius, thus Eunomius, thus Macedonius, thus each of the heretics was
condemned by the fathers because of the things which they confessed in opposition [to the
faith] and discussed and [which] were subjected to scrutiny. What is there of that which I
have confessed and discussed against them for which they have condemned me as an heretic?
What have you found in my letter that is contrary to the deposit of the fathers? Whether I
have said or have not said [it], speak. Thus he 37 has said that all the things which are
referred to Christ by the Divine Scripture ought to be referred to God the Word: the birth
from a woman, the cross, the death, the burial, the resurrection, the ascension, and the
second coming when he shall come again. It was not / from these things that the fathers
began. . . . But in regard to these things, I have stated why the fathers have not said
them;

74 and for this reason also we ought not to begin from here. I have also stated the
argument, for they purposed not to prove that God the Word is passible, mortal, and made,
and created, nor that he came into being from things which were not----these [are the
doctrines] which those who began from there are constrained to state----but the opposite
of the things which Arius said and taught. For this reason they placed the beginning of
their teaching in the union of the prosôpon of Christ in order that they might duly accept
in order the things appertaining to the divinity and those appertaining to the humanity,
so that there comes about neither confusion nor making void of the natures. But they
combated against all the heresies and were firmly confirmed in orthodoxy when they
answered and spoke these words: 'I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son.'

75 Examine, I said unto him, how they have placed first 'Lord' and 'Jesus Christ', and
'only-begotten' and 'Son', common names of the divinity and of the humanity, as the
foundation, and next build thereon the tradition of the Incarnation and the sufferings and
the resurrection, in order that, placing first the names of the two natures which are |169
indicative of the common [properties], the sonship and Lordship might not be separated and
the natures in the union of the sonship / might not come into danger of corruption and of
confusion. . . 38 76 How then does it appear unto you, O just judges? Because he has
written the opinion which was pleasing unto him, and I also have written my opinion
likewise, and further we have chosen you as judges, what think you of these things? What
opinion have you of them? Who is just or who is unrighteous? And with what thought have
you made examination? Tell us your opinion; write unto us as just judges. Have I lied and
transgressed the faith of the fathers, because I have said unto him 39 that they began
from here, and not with God the Word, but with one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God? You
condemn me as one who has added thereto and you acquit him who has not entirely preserved
their faith but has thought that they have made use of these terms fortuitously and
without distinction. But I have said that they began from here not fortuitously but by the
divine purpose. If I have done impiously therein, show me, and, if not, why do you
repudiate as though the argument which I have made unto him were an impiety, [when I said]
that they began from here because the [properties] of the divinity and of the humanity are
common, as the names indicate, and that they wished to begin with these names / for the
sake of complete and lucid instruction, as if the name of Christ existed truly in the two
natures, man and God?

77 But if for this reason, then you ought to condemn him also, for he has said that the
natures which are combined to come together in union are diverse, but one Christ [is
formed] of them both. There |170 resulted not one God the Word from them both, for the
diversity of the natures is not removed because of the union. Therefore the two natures
belong unto Christ and not unto God the Word. Either therefore condemn my words and his
or, in accordance with his, consider me also innocent, since I confess all things. But if
not, prove, either you or he, how he confesses that God the Word is in two ousias: of what
divinity and humanity has God the Word been perfected by combination? For he has spoken of
one Christ who is [formed] of diverse natures, of the divinity and of the humanity, and
was perfected ineffably by the combination of the natures. And of what ousias? Of what
divinity, of what humanity was God the Word perfected that God the Word should be in two
natures? Either you or he, say unto us now also, although you have not said [it] before,
say: God the Word is by ousia in them both, as you confess that Christ is in ousia in them
both, [formed] from diverse natures. The union has not made void / the diversity of the
natures. But you have said that God the Word is diverse natures.

78 For if of one ousia there result two ousias, of the divinity and of the humanity, there
has been a separation and not a union; but he says that Christ was in the union and
existed in two natures. God the Word became flesh by union and not by ousia; how then does
he indicate that the same is one, he who is two in the union and who is the nature? Or are
nature and union the same thing, and 'in nature' and 'in union', and prosôpon and ousia?
For although the prosôpon exists not without ousia, the ousia and the prosôpon are not the
same. 79 How then have you judged, O wise judges? How then have you considered these
[sayings] of the fathers? Do they agree with the Divine Scriptures in the terms and in the
signification of the terms and have they made use of these terms zealously and clearly?
And from here and from no other point have they been able lucidly to begin their teaching.
But if [they began] from where the Holy Spirit guided them, that nothing might be abridged
and that nothing might be superfluous and that they might do nothing in vain and by
hazard, but everything with examination, [they acted] in such |171 wise that the things
which appear in Christ----all the [properties] of God the Word whose nature is impassible
and is immortal and eternal, and all the [properties] of the humanity, which are / a
nature mortal and passible and created, and those of the union and of the incarnation
since the womb and since the incarnation----are referred to one prosôpon, to that common
prosôpon of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whence the fathers began.
And so by the distinction of language they have taught us 'The divinity is from God the
Father, consubstantial with the Father, light from light, through whom everything was
[made] which is on the earth and which is in heaven'. And then the incarnation of God the
Word and of the humanity----they have said 'He came down and was made flesh for the sake
of us men and for the sake of our salvation'.

80 And then they have said in regard to the things of the flesh, concerning the generation
and concerning the formation, that he was made flesh; in teaching they have said 'He was
made flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary'; they have made known this union
whereby he was made flesh and was made man. For until his incarnation, they taught us
everything in terms ofGod the Word and after he was made flesh they speak of this union
which [proceeded] from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, of the birth and the flesh
which was made flesh, the sufferings and the death and the resurrection and the ascension
and the operations which made known that the body was united unto him as being animate and
intelligent in order that we might suppose that the union was without confusion and
further without change of ousia and of nature, or mixture or / natural composition, so as
to result in the coming into being of one animal, yet in one prosôpon in accordance with
the dispensation on our behalf, in such wise as to participate in us through humiliation
unto death, even death upon the cross. But we shall participate in him in the name which
is more excellent than all names, before which every knee shall bow which is in heaven and
in the earth and beneath the earth and which every tongue shall confess. |172

81 The soul was not without will nor without reflection in the nature of the humanity, nor
was the soul without perception as regards the animal perception of its being, as a result
of the natural union of the body and of the soul. All the natural things, both active and
passive, are in the work of nature and of the unfailing might [of God]. For the union of
God the Word with the humanity took place not in nature, in such wise that the
intelligence of the humanity was without activity and that it reflected with the
intelligence of God the Word, not with the intelligence of the humanity, and that it
perceived not in the union of the living soul, but in the union of the divinity, and that
it lived [its] life and that it perceived, not by the activity of the perception of the
soul but by the might of the divinity; for such a union as this is passible; as the soul
naturally gives perception unto the body, so by means of this perception is given unto it
the perception of the sufferings of the body, / so that the perception of the sufferings
of the body is given by the soul and unto the soul; for it is passible. For this reason
the union is in the prosôpon and not in the nature, and we say not 'the union of the
prosopa' but 'of the natures'.

82 But [there is only] one prosôpon in the union but in the natures the one and the other,
as from the common prosôpon it is known that he took the flesh, the likeness of a servant,
for his own prosôpon, and thereby he spoke in teaching and working and acting; and he gave
his own likeness to the likeness of a servant and thereby he speaks as by his own prosôpon
and by the divinity. For the prosôpon is common, one and the same. The likeness of the
servant belongs unto the divinity and the likeness of the divinity unto the humanity. One
and the same is the prosôpon but not the ousia. For the ousia of the likeness of God and
the ousia of the likeness of the servant remain in their hypostases. 83 The union of the
natures, in fact, was neither without will nor without imagination, as Arius and
Apollinarius have said, but [it resulted] in the prosôpon and in the dispensation on our
behalf and in the union of his image and of his likeness which is in our nature of soul
and body, falling short of nothing except of sin alone. He comported himself [so] |173 not
for the sake of the divinity, but that thereby it might make him combat against guilt by
fulfilling all the commandments of the law / and the chief observances, in order that he
might appear without rebuke in the choice and in the observances of the commandments, and
that he who was without sins might be given unto death because of us, the righteous for
the impious. What indeed is this defeat? And what is this victory? What is this equality
of recompense for the conduct of God and of man? For it is the controller who is united in
the hypostasis in such wise that he participates in the life and conduct and is overcome
by death; the conduct also and the death and the resurrection are those of one who
controls and who is controlled. For either God remains in his nature, as he was in nature,
without sin, or those things which constituted the manner of life of Christ took place in
deception since God the Word comported himself as a man.

84 They both in fact were attracted and torn apart by one another, by the nature and by
the will, and he also was torn apart. For the conduct [of his life] was by command: he was
not of a nature unchangeable, unique and without master, which is not torn to and fro
according to the will and plan of another; but, if there was in truth human manner of life
and conduct, the conduct of God the Word was in nature, and in those [qualities] of the
nature wherein he comported himself he indeed abode, in that he accepted the very nature
and became changeable and variable. Therefore he comported not himself [after] the conduct
of God but of that nature wherein he comported himself. 85 What then have you found in my
letter, wherein I am impious / and [for which] you have condemned me and have regarded
this man as one who fears God? First, then, I convicted him as one who lied concerning the
fathers and abolished all the first principles of the faith, and of himself made a
beginning whence of constraint he made even God the Word passible. Now 'God the Word' and
'Christ' do not indicate the same thing, either in the Divine Scriptures or |174 as he has
said, although Christ exists not apart from God the Word. And I have neither instructed
him in the custom of the Divine Scriptures nor shown him the things which happen from such
and such terms. And I have praised him for the things which he has well said: that he has
preserved without confusion the natures and their properties in such wise that God the
Word was impassible even in the very union; and he makes his the properties of the flesh.
I have proved unto him that they refer not unto his ousia but unto his prosôpon, so that
his prosôpon is his own and so that all things indicate his prosôpon.

86 All the things which [constitute] the prosôpon [constitute] not the ousia, for neither
does God the Word exist in all the things of the ousia of the flesh, nor again also is the
flesh said [to be] in all the things which belong by ousia unto God the Word, but in all
the things which indicate the prosôpon and which are [therein], in such wise that the
union without confusion is preserved also in the diversity of the natures / and the
prosôpon of the union of the natures is undivided. And I have said unto him and have not
dissembled that which I have not understood and about which I have disputed, and I have
propounded the cause and the doubt which has been born in me, that I might not permit him
to say aught of those things which he has formerly said. 87 For what then have you
condemned me? Because I have convicted him of not having adhered to the words of the
Fathers and of having, in opposition to their intention, made God the Word passible and
created and made, and of having caused him [to issue] from things which existed not,
having begun with him and having referred unto him all the properties ----and I taught him
all things. For this reason do you deal harshly [with me]? Or because I have convicted him
of lying concerning the Fathers, of having said that the Fathers called the holy Virgin
the mother of God, without even making mention of the birth itself? For the sake of these
things have you treated me as an adversary? Let none show favour unto any man. But if this
phrase 40 has been employed in the discussion about the Faith by the Fathers at Nicaea,
with [the |175 aid of] whom he combats against me, read it; or if it has been spoken by
any other Council of the orthodox. For it is of the heretics, all of whom fight against
the divinity of Christ, but it has not been spoken by those who have adhered to the faith
of the orthodox. But if it were shown to have been said by a Council of the orthodox, then
even I should confess / that I have been condemned as one who was on the opposite side.

88 But if no one has used this phrase, thou hast risen up against them all to introduce
into the Faith with boldness a new phrase which has not been accepted. And this it was
that I required of thee in order to prove unto thee that it was not laid down by the
Fathers; but it is for the Council, which has been assembled for this purpose and for
nothing else, to judge whether it shall be laid down or not laid down. For it is not for
them to be persuaded by me in any case, but for me to be persuaded of those things which
they examine and judge and select for acceptance. For I have called you judges and have
made you all judges of a just judgement, but that which justly belongs to the Council have
I not given unto one man, who has conducted [his case] with violence and prevailed on the
whole Council to adopt the faith which seemed [good] unto him.

89 What then have you done of those things on account of which you have been assembled?
You have not settled what you ought, and you have broken away from the Council and have
not waited for those who were absent. Nor have you observed what you ought toward those
who were summoned unto the Council; nor have you assembled together as you have been
summoned, but the judges have been as the accused wished. Instead of [being] the accused
you have made him sit as the judge of [his] adversary. And how shall I call him judge? You
have made him sit / at the head of the Council. And what shall I say of those who were
present? And of those who were absent and of those who were not yet come? And you have
given him authority over all, both over those who were there and over those who were
absent, and over those who were alive and over those who were dead. Who of |176 those who
have not chanced upon these things in the document which was [addressed] by them unto the
Council in Ephesus, would believe them? Could a just judgement proceed from such a Council
as this? Yet although I were supposed to say these things, because I have suffered, and
not to have examined them with just deliberation, [and though] none were persuaded of my
words, I would not indeed seek to have any help from men.

90 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come, that I may be
with Christ, on account of whom he has fought with me. But [I am writing] that men may not
be led astray from the right faith because of the name of the 'judgement of the Council'.
For this reason have I said these things. I, however, have said less than the things which
they have written; yet learn from those who have condemned me that there has not been a
judgement and that I have not been condemned in judgement. 91 I indeed have spoken the
[words] of the Fathers and have spoken those of the Divine Scriptures, and I first looked
/ into the plot which was being [made] against the Faith, and I first stated that it was
the confirmation of the faith of the Arians on account of the hypostatic union, which
resembled also [that of] the Manichaeans, in that he would have suffered being passible,
and again [that of] Apollinarius, who agreed thereto with all his hands. And he 41 was
carried away by all the heresies, since he declared it unlawful to predicate the
properties of each of the natures in the union and referred them all, even those of the
flesh, unto God the Word. And thereby you have thought that the orthodox were easily
deceived by the heretics [into supposing] that they have none of those things whereof they
ought to make use against them, since you have surrendered your mouths unto them, and you
have bound your hands and your feet and have surrendered yourselves unto them. Either you
will turn aside from your guilt or you will suffer wrongs without excuse for having, like
irreverent persons, caused heresies to prevail against the orthodox.

92 For supposing that he 41 be found [to be] an Arian, he will call you as witnesses
against those who were assembled at Nicaea, as |177 though indeed they had openly risen up
with audacity against Arius, to say what they ought not, namely, saying that he who is
passible and mortal and made is consubstantial with him who is impassible and immortal and
the maker of all created things. And supposing that he is a Manichaean, you will bear
witness in his favour that, in that he suffered / impassibly, he suffered in schema. For
he, who, when he is supposed to be suffering, suffers not, suffers impassibly: for he who
was not [man] by nature, has not even died. You have hardly confessed the truth, and you
have reprimanded the three hundred and twenty-eight,42 as not having spoken the truth
through acceptance of persons. If in addition to this also you insist on saying: 'We do
not say that God the Word died in nature, since the divine nature is immortal and
impassible, nor in the semblance of the flesh, but in the nature of the flesh, which is
passible and mortal, and that which God the Word became was flesh,' a heathen would accept
this word, accepting [it] in the change of the likeness. And thou sayest that the
Incarnation' took place through the change of the ousia without his own ousia and his
likeness being changed: when he suffered in the passible nature, not before he came to be
in the ousia.

93 Why then do you not say the same things as we, when it is a question of the doctrine of
the Incarnation;but why docs he lead us astray with the birth of a material flesh, with
which God the Word was formed, and why have unconvincing and incredible fables been
fabricated? 94 And if thou sayest against this, that the Incarnation of him who became
flesh and man took place neither through change of ousia nor through change of likeness,
but [that] this man who was taken----who was born / of a woman and suffered and died and
rose and is ready to come to judge the quick and the dead----was changed into the ousia of
God and was no more considered a man, except in name alone, and [if] thou meanest by this
that God died and rose, the heathen also, who practises a religion which predicates the
change of men unto divinity and therefore propitiates and serves him as God, would stand
|178 by thee. How then, sayest thou, is the opinion of heathendom yours? You, who have
combated against me on these [points] until now, are deceived, and thereby have you also
deceived men. And if thou sayest that the Incarnation of God the Word took place neither
by change of ousia nor by change of divinity and the body remained in the ousia without
change, but [that] he became man with a view to the hypostatic and natural union, Arius
also, who mocks at the three hundred and eighteen, would accept this confession: and you
accept it and are not scandalized, and you agree with heart and mind to Arius who speaks
truly when he claims that he became man in the natural hypostasis and was naturally united
in hypostasis, suffering naturally by perception the sufferings of the body; him thou
darest to call consubstantial, him who is the accepter of sufferings.

95 And if you decline this, as one who confesses not the soul and the body among the
things whereof the Word has been constituted in the natural hypostasis nor [that] he
suffered after becoming passible in a passible nature in regard to natural sufferings, he
proclaims the / [doctrines] of Arius and Apollinarius. For Anus says: 'What does it serve
thee that God should become a passible nature by the hypostatic union of the soul to
suffer natural sufferings naturally in his body 'and in his soul?' Does he make him who is
suffering all these sufferings consubstantial with an impassible nature? But Apollinarius
condemns those who say these things while [otherwise] confessing like those who cleave
unto his own faith, and commands them to keep aloof from those who say these things and to
become his own partisans and to anathematize all those who dissent from him. If further he
also is deposed for confessing neither the intelligence nor the will, for such reason as
one who confesses not the Word in the flesh and in the soul and in the intelligence in the
natural and complete union, you will not receive him, since he says all the [same] things
as Arius. Let it be [granted] that he 43 is united to the soul and to the body and to the
intelligence;

96 but if it is an hypostatic and natural union, thou effectest an addition |179 and not a
diminution and thou avoidest a diminution of the sufferings of the body in such wise as to
make subject unto the sufferings of many sufferings him who is consubstantial with him who
is impassible; great is the passibility of those who suppose this. For you give him the
things which make [men] passible because of the hypostatic union, since he is united in a
natural composition, so as to suffer without his will the sufferings of the body and of
the soul and of the intelligence and [since] he is united in ousia and in nature, as the
soul in the body endures / of necessity the sufferings of the soul and of the body. But
thou makest him impassible. Then there has not been an hypostatic and natural but a
voluntary union with the body and with the rational and intelligent soul which are united
hypostatically and naturally in the nature of the man. But the union of God the Word with
these is neither hypostatic nor natural but voluntary, as consisting in a property of the
will and not of the nature. For the things which are united by the natural hypostasis have
a natural and not a voluntary quality.

97 For he took the likeness of a servant for his own prosôpon and not for his nature by
change either of the ousia, of the ousia in the nature of the humanity, or of the humanity
in the nature of the divinity, [so that] it was united and mixed with the human nature
either by confusion or by a natural composition and a change of the activity of the
nature; for this quality is changeable and variable. But the voluntary [activity] is
neither passible nor changeable; it suffers not involuntarily in its natural ousia the
sufferings of the soul and of the body. Those which are naturally united suffer indeed in
ousia with one another, transmitting their own sufferings naturally and not voluntarily.
For although he accepted them as sufferings voluntarily, when, however, he accepted them
and suffered them, he suffered them naturally, in that he suffered them by a natural
property and by perception.

98 / If you say these things thus, you have incited them all and have become heathens in
saying that which he 44 has said who said these things with irreverent audacity; they have
|180 anathematized him,45 who said these things, and laid upon him punishment without
remission and driven him out from the church and even from the inhabited world, as one who
defiles the earth whereon he walks. How then do you say these things? But if he says
concerning me: 'it is because he divides the natures into sundry parts and separates them
and distinguishes them from one another, and not because he says these things clearly but
because he distinguishes them into parts one from another and says: "one son of nature and
one son of grace," as though there were two natures, and he distinguishes them, saying "I
indeed distinguish the nature and I unite the adoration; because of him who is clothed I
adore the clothing" ' 46----every one would say unto you 'O man, you have drunk
mandrakes'.47 If you understand also the Father by the things which have been said by you,
how do you say also of him who has not been kept separate even by one word, that he took
and was taken and made it his own, and [how] do you call [him] man and God? For all these
things belong unto those in whose doctrine the natures are distinguished, and not unto
those who say that there is one ousia;

99 for the union destroys not the diversities of the natures; but if the diversities of
the natures / remain in the union, they are kept separate by the diversities of the
natures, in so far as they are diverse. But how do you say concerning me that I separate
the union by distance of space, since I say: |181 'because of him who is clothed I adore
the clothing'? For the clothing is not apart from him who is clothed nor he who is clothed
apart from the clothing but it is conceived in the same likeness. And for this reason it
is not possible to adore him who is clothed apart from the clothing upon him, clothed
wherein he is seated with the Father; for he is not seated with him without being clothed
in it and that which is seated with him receives also adoration with him. When it is
seated with him it is by all means adored not for its [own] sake but for the sake of him
who is clothed in it.

100 By all means therefore we shun those who predicate the Incarnation [apart] from the
union, either by a change of likeness which is [the view] of the heathen, or in
hallucinations or in a schema without hypostasis [which] suffers impassibly, or in
predicating the natural sufferings of God the Word, as being either by hypos tasis in the
union or in flesh in the flesh either in an irrational or in a rational soul, and [in
asserting] finally that the union resulted in an hypostasis of nature and not in a
voluntary prosôpon, in order that we may not make the union of God the Word corruptible
and changeable nor call it passible and necessary, but a voluntary union in prosôpon / and
not in nature. Either they will renounce my words, admitting that the Incarnationtook
place in the nature, and will make the union passible and changeable, as Arius, or [they
will make it] impassible, as the Fathers. Partisans of which side do you seek to be? It
depends on you: [you are] either on the side of the heretics or on the side of the
orthodox Fathers, or on the side of those who say: '[He is] neither passible nor
corruptible,' or on [that of] those who [say that] the union appertains unto the
hypostasis or on [that of] those who [say that it appertains] unto the prosôpon. But I say
that the union of God the Word is neither passible nor mortal nor changeable. For these
things let him who would anathematize me!

101 I have kept without blemish the faith of the three hundred and eighteen who were
assembled at Nicaca, saying that God the Word is unchangeable [and] immortal, that he is
continuously |182 that which he is in the eternity of the Father. He was not [formed] of
things which existed not nor of any other hypostasis, and there was not when he was not.
Eternally [exists] the Father, eternally the Son, eternally the Holy Spirit; but the flesh
which was made flesh, which was of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, exists not
eternally, but there was when it was not; and it is of another ousia and of another nature
and of another hypostasis, [to wit, of that] of men, and not of the ousia of God the
Father----changeable and mortal and passible and corruptible. Not from [being] the ousia /
of God the Word was it changed into the ousia of the flesh, but [he had] an ousiôdic flesh
and a natural flesh which was not changed from its own ousia. Nor again was he changed in
his likeness from the ousia of God into the ousia of the flesh, he was flesh not in schema
and in semblance of flesh but in the ousia of the flesh, of the ousia of the flesh; the
ousia of the flesh was not changed into the ousia of the divinity and made God;

102 he was made flesh and made man neither by confusion nor by mixture, and he was
composed neither in one plain ousia and uniquely after his kind nor according to a natural
composition after one kind of animal. Nor further was he naturally united by a natural
union in hypostasis, and suffered and was in a natural union, [the natures] participating
in the same things for the sake of the natural participation in the sufferings. 103 For
every natural composition, which participates by participation in one passible and
changeable nature, and is completed in regard to the natures by the very nature of God the
Word, [is completed] not in a natural change but exists voluntarily, in such wise that the
union of the natures takes place in his own prosôpon and not in his own nature; yet the
natures remain in their properties, and there is one prosôpon without separation and
without distinction, having made them its own for the prosôpon. The divinity has obtained
a likeness by the ousia of the humanity and the humanity has obtained / a likeness by the
ousia of the divinity, so that there is one prosôpon of the union and so that the
[properties] of the |183 humanity belong unto God the Word and those of the divinity unto
the humanity wherein it was made man [and so that] they were closely united unto one and
the same with a view to the dispensation on our behalf, since men were in need of the
divinity as for our renewal and for our formation anew and for [the renewal] of the
likeness of the image which had been obliterated by us: but [men had need also] of the
humanity which was renewed and took its likeness anew; for the humanity was congruous, so
as to preserve the order which had existed.

104 For he 48 who was honoured with the honour which he gave him and rendered not unto him
his [due] honour for the honour which he received showed that he had lost the honour
wherewith he had been honoured. For the one also was honoured as the other;48 and he
accepted him not for himself but regarded him as an enemy. When the other 49 was in these
[circumstances] he thus preserved himself, making use of the things belonging to the other
as if of his own; he truly preserved the image of God and made it his own: that [it is]
which is the image and the prosôpon. For this reason there was need both of the divinity
to renew and to create and to give unto it[self] the likeness, so that [it might be
changed] from its own type to the likeness of a servant; and there was also need of the
humanity, so that the likeness of a servant which was taken should become the likeness of
God and God the likeness of a servant and that the one should become the other and the
other the one / in prosôpon, the one and the other remaining in their natures; and he
preserves an obedience without sin because of his supreme obedience, and because of this
he was given unto death for the salvation of all the world.

105 Not indeed as Arius and Apollinarius are those who foolishly say that God the Word in
his grace accepted an earthly mode of life and an obedience unto death through his
Incarnation. For this reason the Incarnation took place in the nature of man by a natural
union, in such wise that the divinity was made man naturally instead of the soul and
comported itself and suffered truly by natural perception in |184 order to be given unto
death on behalf of all men and in respect of death to accept naturally the passibility of
the soul in the union of the natural hypostasis, being torn asunder by force. For this
reason, the latter have attributed the Incarnation of God the Word to one nature of man by
a natural composition and to an incomplete man where the ousia of God the Word is instead
of the things which are lacking from the flesh for the completion of the nature of the
man, being commanded and performing the things which are comprised in the things commanded
and enduring unwillingly the whole human conduct truly in observances difficult and
painful and full of suffering, not doing what he willed through fear of transgressing the
command, thirsting and hungering and fearing [with] human fear, willing / [with] a human
will.

106 And he is in the body, in all the things of the soul, making it in stature according
to the formation and model of the sensibility, understanding, learning, being perfected in
flesh in the nature of the soul by the natural and hypostatic union. And they make void
the voluntary union in virtue of the prosôpon of the natures, establishing a natural and
involuntary property in such wise that God the Word participates in the sufferings of the
soul and of the body; the property [of participation] by force and not by will but
natural[ly] by hypostasis is a union of the natural hypostasis naturally, so that the
nature may become one which suffers. 107 But one ought to be neither Arian nor Manichaean,
[according to] whom the Incarnation took place in schema or in the nature of God the Word
and [who] refer all things to him in their doctrine: the manner of life and the sufferings
and the death. For the nature of God the Word sinned not nor transgressed the commandment,
so that God comported himself and observed all the commandments and died for us as one who
was found without sin by reason of his manner of life. Through man [came] death and
through man the resurrection. For this reason also it was needful for the whole man, for
the purpose of the Incarnation of God the Word, being completed in body and in soul, to
comport |185 himself in the nature of men and to observe the obedience and the moral life
of human nature. And they long for and honour the name of the Mother of God, since they
say that God has died. And, further, as for the Fathers who even unto death have withstood
/ the heretics who said 'Mother of God', they, however, have in no place indeed made use
of these terms nor have they employed them in the documents of the Council. Was it because
they knew not? Or because they hated it? Perhaps they had some such word in their thoughts
whereby indeed to adhere to the divine teaching; and they heeded not the raving of [their]
enemies and gave no opportunity to diminish the divinity by making it passible and mortal.

108 For not he who is in name a theologian is to be called a theologian, but he who is a
theologian in fact and in name does not leave alone those who are ready to make him made
and created; it is not he who provides matter for blasphemy nor does he admit that God the
Word surely came forth from the Virgin Mary, as one who exists and has existed before, and
he declines the [doctrine] that he was born a man from her as one who has not existed but
has come into being. [Art thou] as one who says that God the Word is in two natures, God
and man, and that the man, when he was born, was in the nature of God the Word, or [that]
he was changed into another ousia of man; and sayest thou thus that he was born? For
indeed [in that case] he would not have been of man, but of God the Word would he have
been, and [that] in such wise as to make use of the schema of a man but not of the ousia
of a man. |186

109 [BOOK II. PART I.] Yet some one perhaps will say, 'Thou hast read only the letter; but
read / also thy blasphemies which [are found] in thine instructions; for the letter
perhaps was written by thee with observance and caution as though it was written unto
him,51 whereas thine instructions, which were delivered authoritatively by thee, clearly
explain thy purpose. And for this reason even thy letter has not sufficed us, but we have
also examined thine instructions in order that we might be accurately instructed in all
things concerning thee. Nor even so have we claimed authority for ourselves nor have we
behaved boldly, but we have placed before ourselves also the instructions of the Fathers,
and we have compared [thine] with them and, having thus made our examination with all
accuracy, we have also pronounced sentence, making use of the Fathers against whom thou
hast fought. For in that thou hast been summoned and hast not hearkened, we have done all
these things rightly; we have condemned thy letter, we have examined thine instructions
and we have also studied the instructions of the Fathers as law. What then ought we to
have done and have not done? But he,51 since indeed he was present, said and taught the
things which he ought to say, whereas thou didst then decline [to come]; but now thou dost
blame us, calumniating us. Why dost thou not rather accuse thyself than us? For we judge
not things invisible but visible, and, if we have made omissions and if we have acted in
ignorance, say now if things are such as they are; and if we were / not justly stirred up
against thee, thou oughtest to have said it then and not now.'

110 But I have much whereof to convict them concerning those many things which they have
done and many things also which they have omitted. But I pass this by now, lest any one
|187 should say that he is now saying them because of the inadequacy [of his case]. But
among those things which they have done against me, I convict them of having not justly
condemned me, for they have told lies and have deceived many without having convicted me
by examination, but according to what he 52 demanded. Now he demanded that the things
should not be duly examined, lest the condemnation should be his, but he persuaded them
all as God, as one who knows the secrets which are in the heart, and those who took part
with him so presented him in the sight of many as [to seem] one who was the avenger of
God, namely Christ, and he permitted me not to speak otherwise. And thereafter he carried
every one with him against me, so that they were even unwilling to hear a word of mine, as
one who, while declaring utterly void [the doctrine] that Christ is not man, spoke of
Christ himself [as] man in ousia but God in equality of honour.53 But he anticipated me
and spoke against me as making God himself a man, / as if he conceived of Christ as
nothing else whatsoever than God the Word.

111 And of constraint I directed my words against him, [asserting] that he is also man,
and I proved it from the Divine Scriptures and from the teachings of the Fathers; and he
further made use of this against me, as one who said that Christ is only man, having
dissembled whatever I had said and confessed as regards that which one required him to
confess and [which] he was unwilling to confess. For I rebuked him not for not having
confessed that Christ is God, but because he did not say that Christ was man whole in
nature and in moral life and that God the Word became not the nature of man but in the
nature and in the manner of life of man, in such wise that God the Word became both of
them in nature. And these things I shall prove from the things which were written when he
took [extracts] from my teachings and from his teachings----whether they were thus the
same as in the beginning or whether out of enmity towards me he has changed them into the
opposite----and from the |188 inventions [spread abroad] by the device of the heretics,
but in reality [by men] such as Arius. When he speaks against the ousia of God, he refers
all the human qualities to the nature of God the Word by the hypostatic union, so that he
suffers in natural sensibility all human sufferings.

112 / 'From the Book of Nestorius, from the sixteenth chapter, concerning the Faith.' From
which book of mine? From which sixteenth chapter? What is it that you sought out, when
there was none to argue against you? But this concerns me not much, whether it be clear or
whether it be in need of investigation. I desire, however, to persuade you all concerning
the things whereby he has deceived many and drawn them away from the Faith, as if indeed
there had been an examination touching the Records [of the Council], concerning things
whereof they have accused me by anticipation without examination, which they have accepted
[as] mine and his without examination. . . . When Divine Scripture is about to tell of the
birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary or [his] death, in no place does it appear that it
puts 'God' but either 'Christ' or 'Son' or 'Lord', because these three are indicative of
the two natures, now of this and now of that, now of the one and now of the other. For
example, when the Book relates unto us the birth from the Virgin, whom docs it say? God
sent his Son. It says not that God sent God the Word, but it takes a name which indicates
both the natures. Since the Son is man and God, it says that God sent his Son and he was
born of a woman; and therein thou seest that the name is put which indicates both the
natures. Thou callest [him] Son according to the birth from the blessed Virgin, for the
Virgin Mother / of Christ bare the Son of God. But since the Son of God is twofold in
natures, she bare not the Son of God but she bare the humanity, which is the Son because
of the Son who is united thereto. |189

113 I demand then of you to reflect accurately on these things; for I pass by the things
which they have omitted, and they have clearly not preserved the coherence [of the
argument]. And he accuses me of these things as if I were dividing Christ and making [him
into] sundry parts, the divinity by itself and the humanity by itself, while making use of
[the words] 'honour' and 'the equality of one' in such wise that they tend to bring
together in love and not in the ousias things far apart. Thus he accuses me both as
touching the divinity and as touching the humanity, [of saying] that God the Word is flesh
and man but [that] the humanity is Son, Lord, and God, which has taken place through love
and through coherence. This is his principal calumny, so that you, since you are judges
concerning this, ought at all times to take heed that, if you find that I have imagined
thus----condemn me and I too will condemn myself. And also I will beseech you to accept on
tradition my condemnation, which is just, although I should have combated ten thousand
times and cite convincing arguments to establish that I make use not of ousia but simply
of love, / and that thereby he is called Lord and Christ and Son. But if I have said the
contrary, let them prove that the union is [made] from nature and [that] the union belongs
to nature.

114 But, so far from a union in nature, I predicate one prosôpon, one equality, one
honour, one authority, one lordship; and, in short, [I insert] these things also in virtue
of the union of one prosôpon in all those things wherein the prosôpon of the one and of
the other exists in nature; for the prosôpon of the natures is not one nature, but it is
in nature and is not nature. For the Son of God the Father is by nature consubstantial
with the Father and that which the Father is in his nature the Son also is; for that which
the prosôpon is in nature, the Son, |190 the Father also is not; for the Son, who is in
nature, is not the Father nor is the Father the Son, who is in the nature of the Father
and is the Son by nature; for in prosôpon he is something else. But they are not one thing
and another but one only in ousia and in nature, without division, without separation,
without distinction in all the things which appertain by nature unto the prosôpon; but he
is other by the prosôpon. But certainly as regards the unity of the divinity and of the
humanity it was not so. In whatsoever the prosôpon is by its nature, in those very things
it exists by union as in one prosôpon even in another ousia.

115 For he has taken him for the prosôpon and not for the ousia nor / for the nature in
such wise as to become consubstantial with the Father or another son without there being
one and the same Son. For the prosôpon of the divinity is the humanity and the prosôpon of
the humanity the divinity; for it is the one in nature and the other in the union.
Investigate therefore and see what it is that he has written: 'Whoever predicates two
natures in the Son and who predicates each, one of them by itself as in the remoteness of
the distinction of God by himself and man by itself.' For if I had said merely God and man
and not 'two natures, one Christ', you would have had an opportunity to calumniate me for
calling a man God and him man. Because of my having predicated two natures, man and God, I
have not predicated two natures of man, though he is called God on account of the union,
nor yet two natures of God, although he is called also flesh in the union. Thou hadst not
[any ground] for the calumny, not even one, because I said that one Son and Christ
indicate two natures; I said, however, that the Son is God and man. In the first place I
said that the name of Christ and Son indicates two natures, and I came at the same time to
speak also of 'the natures ';

116 but since the Son is God and man, he is not predicated / solely but he is two natures.
But thou art enraged against me because I have not called God the Word two natures by
change of ousia; for it is not to be imagined otherwise than that I said that he came to
be in the nature of the humanity and the Son was man in the union |191 and not in nature.
Has this that I said alarmed you, or that which he also has said, that the flesh, when it
was born, was said to have been born? Because one considers the birth of his flesh clearly
his; he too has thus said that the flesh was born but [that] he made it his own. What then
have I said at all new, [in asserting] that it is said that, when it was born, there was
born of the Virgin Mary a man, the Son of God, since this humanity was the Son of God by
union with the Son and not by nature? For by the union God the Word made these
[properties] of the flesh his own, not that the divinity was born in the birth of the
flesh, nor again that the flesh was born naturally in the birth of the divinity, but
[that] by the union with the flesh God is called flesh and the flesh by union with the
Son, God the Word, is called Son; otherwise he has not been united, and we calumniate him
[by denying his union].

117 Who has deceived you? For this is the agreement of men deceived. For there is this
agreement concerning the two natures, that in fact [the word] 'Son' is indicative of two
natures, indicating Christ and also Lord. 'The natures which have been combined in a true
union are diverse, but the Son is one with them both,' the natures remaining without /
confusion in the union: 'The diversities of the natures are not made void on account of
the union.'And again, it is by union that the flesh is son and not by nature . . . ,54 for
'that 55 wherewith he sits with the Father is not alien unto him'. 118 Ambrose also has
said: When the Son of God speaks by them both, because there are two natures in him, he
speaks, but he speaks not continually in one manner. Reflect on him, now in glory and now
in the sufferings of man, since as God he teaches the things of God, because he is the
Word, but as man he teaches the things of man, since he speaks in our own ousia. He is the
living bread which came down from Heaven; this bread is the Body, as he has said: This
bread which I give unto yon is my body . He it is who came down, he it is |192 whom the
Father has sanctified and sent into the world. Does not the Scripture also teach you that
not the divinity but the flesh has need of sanctification? How have you cited these things
and anathematized mine? For I have not said anything else. . . . 56

119 But Athanasius leaves thee not alone, saying: These things did not take place
artificially, far from it! as some have supposed, but in reality, truly, our Saviour
became man [and] the salvation of all men came about. For if he had been artificially in
the body, as they say-----but that which is said [to be] artificially is a fantasy----the
salvation and the resurrection of men would have been found by him to have been fictitious
as the impious Manes said; but our salvation exists not in fantasy [and our salvation
takes place truly not for the body alone but for the whole man, for the soul and for the
body].57 Human therefore is that which [issued] from Mary, according to the Divine
Scriptures and truly it belongs to our Saviour. . . Let none admit the saying that God the
Word is in the body artificially but [that he is] God as [being] God the Word, who existed
of old and exists eternally, and came to be in the bodily frame and exists also in the
bodily frame, without having come forth out of his own ousia into the ousia of the |193
flesh, or having endured the birth of the flesh but from our ousia. . . .

120 For human is the nature which [issued] from Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and
truly it belonged to our Saviour. For [as regards] the ousia of God the Word and as
regards the ousia of man I dissociate myself from you, and not as regards the name; for I
have said 'I object not to the appella-tion of the Virgin, the Mother of Christ, but I
know that she is to be honoured who received God, from whom the Lord of all came forth'.
These things thou acceptest not; and how shall one leave thee alone / and believe thee, as
one who sayest in this manner that God was born? 'Human therefore is he who [was born] of
the blessed Mary,' although a thousand times thou wouldest dispute against Athanasius. God
the Word existed in the body, in that which took the beginning of its coming into being
from the blessed Mary; [yet] he took not the beginning of his coming into being. In the
beginning was the Word, and God the Word exists eternally.

121 Confess that the natures exist, confess as thou hast been bidden, confess that God
wished to rescue thee by means of the body and that the body was not changed from the
ousia of God into the ousia of the flesh; it was formed and fashioned and grew and was
perfected in the nature of men and was born, but from the bodily frame of our own form, of
the seed of men; for it was of the seed of Abraham. Why dost thou treat these things of
the body as hallucinations and makest void the things of the bodily frame and assignest
them to God, in such wise as to bring the two generations 58 into doubt, in that thou
makest even the generation of the bodily frame without beginning, from God the Father? For
thou sayest that God the Father is body and man, both subject unto beginning and subject
unto completion 59 and that he was |194 born of the Blessed Virgin, because he became man.
How sayest thou 'the birth of the body'? For to God the Word alone thou dost attribute a
generation from God the Father and from the Virgin. Speak clearly and confess the human
nature, / [born] of the Blessed Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say.

122 And that whereof inquiry was made is solved, that the ousia of God is not subject unto
beginning and growth and completion, although it is so said through the revelation which
[was made] little by little.60 Wherefore makest thou void the names indicative of the
humanity, but wouldest at the same time make us believe in the divinity, as if it were not
unbelief [to say] the divinity came forth from her, just as thou makest void that which
indicates that it derived not [its] beginning from her? And thou makest void the humanity
which was born of the blessed Mary, for thou sayest that she bare not the man; since, as
demons that deceive, showing that man is not man, thou confessest the man but [it is] God
the Word and [then] thou confessest God the Word but [it is] the man. For thou deceivest
men, changing the ousias from the names, for thou sayest 'man' and assertest the ousia of
God the Word; and again thou sayest 'God the Word', and assertest the ousia of man, and
then thou exaltest it with the name of God the Word. They have nought to say. 'It is the
human nature which is from the Blessed Mary';

123 she is then the mother of the man who derived beginning from her and gradually
advanced and was perfected. 'He is not by nature God, although he is so called on account
of the revelation which [was made] little by little. . . .' 60 She is therefore on the one
hand by nature the mother of the man, by revelation on the other hand she is the mother of
God, if by revelation / and not by nature thou sayest that he was born of her; he then
came forth united to him who was born of her in flesh. Wherefore dost thou in part assert
and then make void these things, like miracle-mongers, who make visible things invisible
and in semblance make things which are visible invisible? |195 Christianity exists in
truth: deceive not .... 'He is human who was born of the Blessed Mary ....' 'He who took
his beginning and gradually advanced and was perfected, is not by nature God, although he
is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little . . . .

124 Do you believe that they who say these things are [to be regarded] as truthful? Do you
believe that which you have written----for you have written these things----or do you not
believe them? Or do they say that Christ was a mere man, because they say these things
concerning him? They say that God was not in the body artificially, saying of God that he
began and gradually advanced. For how is [either of] those which are united [to be] called
mere? But thou considerest mere those which exist not both in ousia: the divinity which is
not the humanity and the humanity which is not the divinity; but these things are foolish,
as I suppose, in the mouth of one who has said that the difference of the natures is not
made void by the union. Thou sayest therefore that very thing which I also [say],
commending [it]: that the divinity exists united to the humanity and the humanity exists
in nature and united / to the divinity. And dost thou anathematize those things which [are
found] in my [works]? Anathematize those which are thine, if it is right to call thine
things of which thou art not confident that they are true, seeing that thou remainest in
opposition to the Fathers and to the Divine Scriptures. For admirable and commendable is
this discovery of heresy, wherein thou sayest [of] all these things that none confess
them; thou alone hast set up thine own dogma in opposition to all men and thou dost
suppose that they are held by all men. But, on the contrary, as one who has led all men
through partiality, as partial thou art hated of all men.

125 In order that the truth which is preached by all men may be revealed, which surely
indeed thou knowest, but which thou darest not say, it suffices therefore for those who
seek to know thy mind to learn also of those things for which |196 thou blamest me, as
though I were saying that the ousias are divided by remoteness in space, but participate
together in equality by conjunction and by love and not by that whereby they naturally
exist, [and as though] therefore we make a distinction in the doctrine of the natures, for
the divinity is one thing and the humanity another. But by the conjunction of these things
there is not one and another in the prosôpon. 126 Thus thou hast made men conceive of me,
but it seems that I say the contrary of that which thou dost testify against me; for I
indeed unite the ousias, but by the union / of the ousias I assert one prosôpon in one
equality in everything whatsoever that appertains to the prosôpon, to which also both one
ousia and another belongs, by separation and by being kept remote, but in the same
[prosôpon]. Let us however also pass on as quickly as possible to other things, lest any
one [there be for] whom in these things or by means of them there is blasphemy, and these
also should be refuted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

127 That therefore which we were saying: 'Fear not to take Mary [as] thy wife, for he who
is born in her is of the Holy Spirits For if thou sayest "was born in her" or "came into
being in her", that does no violence at all to the sense; for he who is born in her is of
the Holy Spirit. Yet if we say that God the Word was born in the womb, it is indeed one
thing [to say] "he was with him who was born" and another "he will be born ". For "he who
is born in her is of the Holy Spirit", that is, the Holy Spirit has created that which was
in her. The Fathers therefore, in that they were acquainted with the Divine Scriptures,
have seen that if "he who was born" is added to "he who was found in bodily frame", God
the Word is found either [to be] the son of the Spirit or to have two Fathers. But if we
say "He came into being", God the Word / is found to be the creature of the Holy Spirit.
And, shunning the word "birth", they have laid down He came down for us men and for our
salvation and was |197 found in bodily frame". What means "He was found in bodily frame"?
[Does it not mean] that he was not changed from the divinity into the flesh? For in "He
was found in bodily frame by the Holy Spirit" they concurred with the Evangelist. For the
Evangelist also, when he came to the Incarnation, shunned predicating the birth of the
Word and laid down the being found in a bodily frame. How? Hear.

128 And the Word became flesh. He said not that the Word was born through the flesh. For
wherever indeed the Apostles and the Evangelists make mention of the birth they lay down
that the Son was born of a woman .... Look well unto what has been written, I pray thee;
where they employ the term "Son" and [the phrase] He was born of a woman, they lay down
that he was born, but where they make mention of the Word, none indeed of them dares to
say "the birth through the humanity ". Hear the blessed John the Evangelist, when he came
to the account of his Incarnation, hear what he has said: The Word became flesh, that is,
took the flesh, and sojourned among us, that is, put on our nature while living among us,
and we have seen his glory, the glory of the Son; he said not "we have seen the birth of
the Word ".' |198

129 So then I have stated the reason which I should have supposed satisfactory, / on
account of which the Fathers said in their laying down of the Faith not that he was born
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, but that he was made flesh, in order that they
might not say that the Holy Spirit was Father or that which was created [was] Son, but
rather that he was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, in order that
they might attach 'became' to the flesh, because he was made flesh. But as regards the
history of [his] being made, what do you say? Speak openly. Reprimand those who have
clearly blasphemed, [asserting that] 'He was born of the Holy Spirit'. If he was born, the
Holy Spirit was the Father of the Son or the creator of God the Word; yet these, I have
said, [are things] which neither the Fathers have said nor do I say. Have I blasphemed in
saying these things? Or have I surely calumniated the Fathers? If it is [possible] for you
to show that the Fathers have said these things, speak openly. Which of these things? Is
God the Word a creature or the son of the Holy Spirit? And if he is not a creature, flesh
which is fleshly, then is he no more a creature of the Holy Spirit;

130 speak openly. 'He was made flesh' means that he was in every sense made flesh in his
nature, and it was not another who was made flesh; he is said to have been made flesh. But
he was made flesh in his own ousia, in the flesh which came into being and was born of the
Holy Spirit. For 'he was born', as thou sayest, is contrary to what thou hast said; since,
when he was born, the flesh is said to have been born, as though he made it the birth of
his own flesh, whereas he was not / made flesh in his [own] self but in its own ousia.
Therefore 'he was made flesh' and 'he was born' do not signify the same thing, and for
this reason they have laid down 'he was made flesh' and not 'he was born'. [This is
clear], since they have taken the word 'became' for the flesh; and for this reason also
the Evangelist said that he became flesh and said not that he was born, so that by
'became' he limited not God the Word. But, as touching the flesh which came into being, it
became his flesh. And |199 God the Word sojourned among us; God the Word 'became' not, for
he existed.

131 And hear them; for you would not disclaim these men whom you have brought in
accusation against me. Speak then, O Ambrose, disregard not him who is oppressed; be not
at the beck and call of the calumniators, and condemn not innocent blood before it has
been heard. I say that the flesh came into being of the Virgin Mary [and] appertained not
unto God the Word; for I confess him neither made nor come to be nor created. Yet all
these rise up against me like swords, nor even are they willing to hear my speech
entirely, and in regard to these things they cite thee among the witnesses. Of death I was
not afraid, [I] who have been thus calumniated, but of having been condemned as impious in
thy prosôpon, thine! I have spoken in accordance with Ambrose and I deny not aught that I
have said, although they have drawn the sword against me. / This have I said: 'In
consequence of these things he was ready to come into being of a woman, according to the
[word] "became"'. Thou 62 limitest not the divinity, but the body which was |200 assumed:
namely, he who descended is the same whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the
world. Does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity was not in need of
sanctification but the flesh? If then they have deceived, they have deceived themselves
and not me.

132 And thou also, O Gregory the divine, what then [sayest thou]? What opinion hast thou
concerning these things? I ask, not that I know not, but because in thine own name they
desire to crush the truth. What knowest thou of him who was by the Holy Spirit of the
Virgin Mary, who began and gradually advanced and was fulfilled? I say not in the
prosôpon, but in the ousia. What else at all wouldest thou concede except something which
thou hast conceded unto them in written works? [To wit], that the man who was taken . . .
. 'He indeed who begins and grows and is perfected is not God, although he is so called on
account of the revelation which [was made] little by little.' 'For one and another were
those of which our Saviour was, if the invisible and the visible are not the same, God on
the one hand who was man and man on the other who was made God.'

133 But speak thou also, O wise Athanasius; for thou also hast been calumniated with many
calumnies such as these and hast endured [much] at the hands of the Arians, on behalf of /
the tradition of the Son, God the Word. What opinion hast thou concerning [the statement]
that 'he was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary'? In the nature and not in the
prosôpon which [results] from the union 'we say that one and the same Son and none other
was born of Holy Mary'. But [we call] this one and him only, who was born a son, Christ,
God the Word together with his flesh, and the same one flesh with God the Word. But 'in
ousia God the Word is of God the Father, and the flesh is the flesh |201 which he put on
from the Virgin 'that it might come to be. We say not one and another, for there is one
prosôpon of both natures. But he who by nature came into being by the Holy Spirit, what
was he? And what was his nature? And of what nature was the Virgin, his mother? For
inquiry is made of this. Hear them all.....I have said he is man who was of Mary,
according to the Divine Scriptures, and that he was truly our Saviour. 'For if
artificially the Word was in the body, as they say, he then who is said [to be]
artificially is a phantasy. The salvation and the resurrection of men will be found to
have been fictitious, as the impious Manes has said; but our salvation is not in phantasy
nor in the body alone but in the whole man: to the soul and to the body truly salvation
belongs. Human therefore was he who was of Mary, as the Divine Scriptures say, and he
truly it was who .... [was] our Saviour . . . .'

134 / .... So indeed we name Christ as concerning the flesh, owing to the conjunction with
God the Word, recognizing him since he is visible as man. 'Hear Paul, who says in two
[passages]: Of the Jews is Christ as concerning the flesh, he who is God over all:' He
confesses the man in the first place and then, owing to his conjunction with God the Word,
he calls him who is visible God, that none may suppose that Christianity is the worship of
a man.' 63 That none may accuse me anywhere, take heed and look well, in what sense I say
'a mere man who is far removed from divinity'. I say 'Christ who [is] in flesh', as also I
predicate the same in the divinity. For I have not said 'a fleshly Christ', but 'Christ
who [is] in flesh', I speak of the flesh of Christ by reason of the conjunction with God
the |202 Word, as being indeed united to and not distinguished from God the Word. Nor
indeed with equality was it united but to God the Word himself. And of him who was visible
in ousia, I said that he was of the Jews and not God the Word, since I confess that the
man in respect of ousia and of nature is of the Jews and not God the Word in respect of
nature. And I said 'man in nature apart from the nature of God the Word' / but 'he is God
by virtue of that union which came about in the prosôpon'. Art thou angered with me on
account of this?

135 But hear what Athanasius proclaims unto thee: 'Human then is he who [was born] of
Mary, according to the Divine Scriptures; neither in semblance nor in phantasy is he our
salvation and the resurrection of men, as the impious Manes said; nor only of body but of
the whole man, of soul and of body, became he truly our salvation.' Human therefore was he
who [was born] of Mary, according to the Holy Scriptures and truly was it he who was our
Saviour..... 136 Why therefore deniest thou our salvation? Why therefore have you
condemned as impious whosoever denies not but confesses [it]? You are then either denying
that he is human, as the Manichaeans, or, if you deny not, you cannot condemn him who
denies not but confesses [it]. Hear Gregory proclaiming that he who was taken was human;
for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected' is not God 'although he is so
called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by little'. Seest thou that he
says that he who was taken, who begins and gradually advances and is perfected, is man by
nature but God by revelation? What then is the obscurity before your eyes, that you see
not these things? But if you were to accuse these my [opinions], you ought not to contrast
the one [statement] with the other, since it is [useful] in supporting them. / But if you
accept these and such like things, it is not right to write of them as impious. I have
brought these my charges against those who deny the humanity which has been taken from us
and who confess as the Manichaeans; and not simply that, but I have laid down |203 the
properties of the natures and of the one prosôpon: and [it is] moreover in some respects
two, in that on the one hand which concerns the natures, but in other respects in the
union.

137 And thou hast accepted the prosôpon of those men 64, as if indeed thou wert one of
them, whereas thou art in everything the enemy of those who accept my words. For we take
from these men and we cast before thee [our doctrine], proclaiming that our salvation has
not taken place in phantasy, O men. 'Human is the nature which is of Mary, as the Divine
Scriptures say . . . . He indeed who begins and gradually advances and is perfected has
not become God, although he is so called on account of the manifestation which [took
place] little by little.....' 65 138 But even as we call God the Creator of all and Moses
a god, for [it is written]: / have made thee a god unto Pharaoh; and Israel the son of
God, [for it is written]: Israel is my son, my first-born, and as we call Saul the
anointed, for [it is written]: / will not put forth mine hand against him, seeing that he
is the Lord's anointed; and [as we say] similarly also of Cyrus: Thus saith the Lord to
his anointed, to Cyrus, and [as we called] the Babylonians consecrated, [saying]: / indeed
/ have commanded them; they are consecrated ones, and I shall bring them; so also we call
our Lord Christ and God and Son and consecrated and Christ; yet, whereas on the one hand
the participation in the names is like, the honour on the other is not the same. |204

139 Wherein do you blame these things, O calumniators and wise men? Because I have said
that, even as we call God the creator of all and Moses a god, so also [have we called] our
Lord Christ God of all and Maker? lint, because Moses is called a god and Christ God and
moreover Creator, we do not speak of Moses himself as of Christ; or, because Moses was a
god unto Pharaoh, do we say that he was moreover the Maker of all? Far from it! For
community of names constitutes not community of honour and equality. For the honour of the
Creator of all and that of Moses are diverse: that of the one on the one hand [being] that
of the creator, that of the other on the other hand [being] that of the creature which has
been commanded to become the chief. Thus also both our Lord and Israel are called son; yet
the community of names constitutes not a community of honour: but thus [the one] is by
nature God, consubstantial with the Father, Creator and Maker of all; but not the other.
So also [with] every single one of the rest of them. As we say of God 'Creator of all', so
also do we say of our Lord Jesus Christ 'God and Son and Christ'; for as regards each one
of these things which are called by this name, there is therein a difference between the
nature which created / all and the honours which are surely bestowed;

140 for the rank and the honour which is more excellent than all is the [divine] nature.
For I have said that the name of 'Christ' and [that] of 'Son' are indicative of the two
natures, of the divinity and of the humanity----[a thing] with which there is nothing
equal in those things which have been said----in such wise that it is not right to take
heed of the name but of that which it indicates. Christ on the one hand is God of all and
Creator; on the other hand Moses also is called a god, but he is not called in the same
way a god nor is he conceived as God. 141 But they suppose, then, to overwhelm me on the
subject of the humanity, [saying] that, if he, who was of Mary, was human nature, as the
Holy Scriptures [assert and] yet was God by manifestation and not by nature, thou callest
one of them by grace God and Son and holy. But in answer to you |205 I say this only,
that, if you, like Gregory and Athanasius, confess him who was of Mary and who began and
gradually advanced and was perfected, [to be] human nature, while [he was] God by
revelation and distinct from all men through the purpose concerning that name 66 whereof
he made use for the distinction, to the same extent the Creator is [one] with the creature
because there is one prosôpon ---- thus I also confess. But if you confess not the human
nature which began and gradually advanced and was brought to fullness, as Athanasius and
Gregory have said, / then you are not to be excused as [one of the] orthodox, but stand
forth with the Manichaeans. But Gregory, Athanasius and Ambrose ask you if the flesh is
consubstantial with us and if the soul is consubstantial with us. Whatever it is, it is
also in the ousia of man; therefore it is man, distinct from us in honour and in rank. In
such wise as Israel is called son and as Moses is called a god, so likewise Christ [is to
be called] God, [but] not by nature, and Son of God, [but] not by nature.

142 And as God himself was made man but in the nature of men, he was made man in him who
[issued forth] from Mary.67 But if he has not been made man in man, he has saved him[self]
and not us; but if he has saved us, he has been made man in us and has been in the
likeness of men and has been found in schema as a man and has not himself been man. 143
Say then these and such like things openly. Why then do you make pretence of not speaking
of these things, although you dispute concerning them as if [they were] the things which
you are saying, whereas you are not saying them? And those things which you say you say in
schema, and you are unwilling to call him who was of Mary human nature, as is said in the
Scriptures. Him who calls him not human nature, like one of |206 men, of the natural body
of our fathers, whence we also have come in soul and in body----and he has / all [the
qualities] of the rational part of the soul except sin----him Gregory accuses [in the same
way] as the Manichaeans: for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not
God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by
little.' In that which concerns the humanity he is not by nature divine but by revelation.
But in the nature of the divinity there exists a great difference between those who are
called gods or lords or christs, but in the humanity he is like them all, and there is one
prosôpon in two natures. He is God and he is Lord and he is Christ; for he makes not use
of a prosôpon which has undergone a division but makes use of it as of his [own] prosôpon.
For all the things appertaining to the ousia are his by virtue of the union and not by
nature. Or do you not admit that Christ in his divinity is God and maker of all? He is not
like Moses, although Moses is called a god. For community of names constitutes not
community of honour; for there is one honour of the servant and one of the lord, although
in that which concerns the body he is distinct from the servants.

144 But if thou sayest that the body and the nature of the body and the soul, rational and
intelligent, abide without change and without transformation, but dost not admit the
things which indicate the soul and the body, [some] of them in the union and [others] of
them in the nature, taking / all of them of one nature, thou beliest the truth, making yea
nay and nay yea. And in order to deceive thou callest him who was of Mary human nature, as
the Divine Scriptures [affirm], and accountest not among his own [qualities] according to
nature those of the humanity. But in virtue of the prosôpon thou raisest him above all
humanity, in such wise that he on the one hand, who is eternally even as he is and began
not nor gradually advanced nor was perfected, is one, but he who began and gradually
advanced and was perfected both in the |207 union and in the manifestation in one
prosôpon, is another, God who was made man and man who was made God. He was not
transformed and changed from his divinity, just as also the humanity of Christ is not
changed in nature from [that of] men except in honour and in prosôpon; for he is God of
all and Lord and Son; and in all the things which are the divinity in ousia, in them
exists the humanity in honour, not by another honour but by the same as that of him who
took the prosôpon:

145 the humanity making use of the prosôpon of the divinity and the divinity of the
prosôpon of the humanity, since for this it has been taken and for this he has taken it,
not indeed so that we should not confess him who was taken but that we might confess him.
Confess then the taker as he took, and the taken as he was taken, wherein [each is] one
and in another, and wherein [there is] one and not two, after the same manner as the
manner of the Trinity. 146 / Likewise from the same, from the fifteenth roll. Have this
mind in you which was also in Jesus Christ, who, being in the likeness of God, emptied
himself and took the likeness of a servant. He says not: 'Have this mind in you which was
also in God the Word, who being in the likeness of God took the likeness of a servant,'
but he puts the name 'Christ', which is indicative of the two natures, avoiding all risk,
and he names him the likeness of a servant which he took and [that] of God, those things
which are said in regard to the duality of the natures being divided without blame. It is
also right after this to examine the opinion of every one and first mine; [to ascertain]
if it is, as he 68 says, that I say one thing and another and distinguish the divinity
somehow as it were by remoteness of place, and confess not that he is one and the same.
Yet, avoiding all risk, I have said that he |208 named 'the likeness of a servant' and
'God'; we understand neither that which took nor that which was taken in distinction but
that which was taken in that which took, while that which took is conceived in that which
was taken; for that which took, therefore, is not conceived of itself, nor again that
which was taken, so that he is not [conceived to have been] in the very prosôpon of that
which took and of that which was taken.69

147 / Thou dost censure me, therefore, not for this but because I distinguish the
properties of the union which belongs to each of the natures, in such wise that each one
of them subsists in its hyposiasis, and I say not that they are referred to God the Word
as one who is both of them in ousia; or that the [properties] of the flesh were taken upon
God without [their] hypostasis,70 that he might be revealed only in the likeness of the
flesh and that he might make use of and suffer all the [things] of the flesh, whether he
was changed into the nature of the flesh or they 71 were mixed in one nature, or [whether]
the [properties] of the flesh are referred to the ousia of God by confusion or by
alteration or by natural composition for the fulfilment of the natural composition, in
order that he might suffer passibly the sufferings of the body, without the bodily frame's
fulfilling any purpose in its own nature in the dispensation on our behalf, and without
its performing human actions, either by the will of the soul or by the human imagination,
or by the sensibility of the body, but by the imagination and by the will of God; still by
the sensibility of God he is sensible of all human things. But in name alone he has a
body, without hypostasis and without activity; and for this reason thou callest him man as
something superfluous only in word and in name, in that thou art not content to predicate
the |209 ousia and activity of man or the existence of two natures, each of them with
properties and hypostases and ousia.

148 But some one perhaps will say: 'It is because thou confessest not that / God the Word
and Christ are the same thing.' For this reason then thou 72 dost censure those who say
that Christ is one [thing] and God the Word another, apart from Christ. If then I said
'Christ' and 'God the Word another, apart from Christ', or 'Christ apart from God the
Word', you would have said well; but if I have not said and do not say this but confess
otherwise, still now saying this same thing, pervert not that which I say, and in the very
same thing thou wilt find the distinction of whatsoever it 73 indicates. Now I have said
that the name 'Christ' is indicative of two natures, of God indeed one nature [and of man
one nature 74]. One indeed is the name which indicates two and another [that] which
indicates one which is not anything else. Even as if a man were to say of man too that the
name 'man' indicates one thing and 'rational soul' another. [It is] not that man is one
thing and the soul another apart from man. For he who says 'man' speaks not of him [as]
without a soul, because except for a soul he is not man. But the [name] 'man' on the one
hand is indicative of the union of two natures, of the soul and of the body, but that 75
of a nature, for the nature is one thing and the union of the natures another. What then?
God the Word is nothing else apart from Christ, nor Christ apart from God the Word. Why
dost thou make use of the names indistinguishably, as though the same thing were indicated
by this or / by that? 76

149 But 'Thou makest a division, so that one says not "God the Word" but "Christ", as
though "Christ" were one thing and "God the Word" another.' But hear also from us: He is
not one thing and another; for he would be one thing and another if Christ were apart |210
from God the Father. But, if there is not the very same thing in ousia, [this] indicates
one thing and another, [for example], the visible and the invisible; and those things from
which Christ is [formed] exist in their own ousias and God the Word is not in the nature
of both of them. But thou confessest distinct natures of the divinity and of the humanity
but one Christ from them both; thou sayest not that God the Word himself has different
natures but one; but there is a distinction between him and his concomitant. Thou sayest
therefore that Christ himself is one thing and another, because thou predicatest of him
the different natures of divinity and of humanity. But the nature of God the Word is one,
not different natures. Or, as I have said, [the truth is] that he is not one thing and
another, in that Christ exists not apart from God the Word nor again God the Word apart
from Christ, but he indicates one thing and another, because Christ is of God the Word and
of humanity by union, whereas God the Word is one nature and not of both natures, and it
is not his by union to become God the Word.

150 / And thou too bearest witness, albeit unwillingly, to these words which I say; but
forsooth thou bearest witness when thou sayest that the natures which have been combined
in the union are different, whereas one Christ [issues] from them both. For if thou
indicatest not the one and the other, wherefore hast thou not been the first to make bold
to say that which thou wouldest persuade me to say: that one [issues] from them both, God
the Word? But thou wast unable to speak or I was unable unmistakably to hear thine
impiety, and for this reason thou hast passed it by without indicating it; thou hast been
constrained clearly to confess the truth, so that thou art thereby [proved to be] without
reverence and hast no place of refuge. The one and the other indicate one thing and
another, but it is not one thing and another: for it is one thing and another from which
our Saviour [issues], but he is not one thing and another----far from it!----as he also is
in respect to the Trinity. But thou referrest to God the Word the things of the flesh, so
that he sees and speaks and suffers |211 the things of the flesh, but only as surely
making use of the flesh, as the Arians say when they attribute the activities and the
sufferings to the divinity naturally, and as Apollinarius [says when he maintains] that
instead of the intelligence it performs naturally the operations of the soul and of the
body.

151 Thus this man 78 also makes use of God the Word in all of them, both in the body and
in the intelligent soul, that he may suffer the sufferings of the body and perform the
activities of the rational soul, [making them] the manner of life and conduct of God the
Word. And the properties of his own prosôpon thou dost attribute to the nature / of God
the Word and not to the prosôpon of the humanity, which is moved to and fro by the
humanity in accordance with the nature of man, but [according to you] by God the Word. 152
But what is [this] whole man who neither acts nor is acted upon in accordance with the
nature of man? In name indeed alone is he man and in name body and in name rational soul,
he who is not moved to and fro in the nature of his being, neither as soul by purpose and
will nor again as body by sensibility of soul, but [in whom] God the Word has been
established to become the will and the purpose and the sensibility in the body and in the
soul in such wise that God the Word should act and suffer sensibly these bodily
[sensations] and those of the soul: anger and wrath and lusts and fear and dread and
thoughts and operations and judgement and voluntary choice; all these things he does and
suffers in the place of the soul and in the place of the body, in such wise that by the
victory of God the Word won in suffering and nature that nature which had been guilty was
victorious, since he had given unto it his own victory, in order that it might be
victorious through and by him who had assumed it for his nature. All these things are
changes of the nature of God the Word, being naturally given to him that he might suffer,
and [that] thou mightest predicate of him a nature passible and changeable and variable.

153 For he, who by his nature was impassible but who through a passible nature became the
nature of the other, was passible and corruptible |212 and variable; for he, who by nature
is impassible and / unchangeable and invariable, does not even suffer in any manner in the
human nature, since it is not his to suffer in his nature. But if thou sayest that the
one, whose it is not to suffer in his nature, has suffered in nature, it is a folly to say
that he has suffered in another nature; but he who comes to folly surely deceives, and
like the Manichaeans makes our very salvation to have taken place in deception. 154 Speak;
what say you? Which is the party of the orthodox: [that] of those who teach that God the
Word is unchangeable and invariable or [that] of those who predicate of him the human
nature [received] from Mary, who consider him a rational and intelligent soul and a whole
man and then deny the properties of the humanity and confess not that they are such as
they are in the nature of the man, but attribute to God the Word all things as to a.
changeable and variable [being]: birth and growth and upbringing and gradual advance in
stature and in wisdom and in grace and the commandments and their observance and their
fulfilment and the suffering and the Cross and the death and the resurrection? What say
you? Instruct men. How ought they to think and to confess? Is God the Word two ousias in
nature, or dost thou imagine that man is in his nature two ousias, of divinity and of
humanity? Or is God the Word one ousia, and has his own ousia received no addition / as
that which has existed eternally, and is the ousia of man one, of the nature of men, and
was it also like the nature of the sons of man and did it [so] comport itself? Thou
confessest not these things, nay more thou deniest them.

155 God the Word was made man that he might therein make the humanity the likeness of God
and that he might therein renew [the likeness of God] in the nature of the humanity; and
thereupon he renewed his material elements and showed him [to be] without sin in the
observance of the commandments, as though he alone sufficed for renewing him who had |213
originally fallen by the transgression of the observance of the commandments. Otherwise he
gave himself for him to observe them because he sufficed not to keep himself without sin.
In chat case our fall remains untended as a paralytic man who tends himself and remains
incapable of walking, but for whom the attendant walks or whom he carries, saying not to
him: 'Arise, walk, since thou hast indeed been healed that thou mayest walk.' For this
reason he took the likeness of a servant which was without sin in its creation in such
wise as even in the observance of the commandments to receive a name which is more
excellent than all names and so that whatsoever came into being through the renewal of his
material elementsmight be confirmed by observances and by prudence; for which reason also
the renewal of the material elements took place through the incarnation by means of which
he might contend against defeat.

156 But if the purpose also of his having been made man / had not been fulfilled, it 79
also would surely not have taken place at all, but all things would be fictitious and
foolish, both the disobedience of the first man and the things which made him guilty unto
death; for he who had not a nature which could observe [the commandments] would also have
been unable to observe them. For this same reason the second man also observed [them] not,
but God lived in his stead and observed the commandments, because he was in that nature
which sins not. And if this is so, what was the need for the life of the humanity to show
that he who was God the Word was able to observe those human things which he who was man
was unable to observe? But [there was such need] that he might show that he had not
authority, when he wished, to rescue him[self] from death, because the Father wished it
not; for all [men] he comported himself and kept himself without sin and, as one who has
not sinned, he gave himself for salvation on behalf of all men.

157 These are [the doctrines] of the orthodox, who confess one |214 ousia of the Father
and of the Son and one will and one power; these are (the doctrines] of those who confess
that the things of Christ are neither folly nor fiction. He did nothing in schema, in
hungering and thirsting and fearing, in learning, in not knowing, and [in] all those
things which could convince [one] that he was a man, because / he was God in nature [and]
in truth and man in nature and in truth. And because of this it was needful for the
divinity to renew the humanity and for the humanity to be renewed and to take the very
image [of him] who created it but not his own ousia; and it was needful that it should
observe prudently the conduct of the man who had fallen, because especially for that it
was created, to conduct itself according to the law which is in the nature of men and to
preserve the very image of the Creator by the observance of the commandments without
fault, the divinity making use of its own prosôpon in the likeness of a servant in order
that the humanity by means of that prosôpon wherein it contended might be victorious, its
victory being thereby confirmed. For since the renewal of its material elements it had the
image of the sonship from him who created it;

158 but it 80 had need also of a recompense for the observance of the commandments, in
order that the prosôpon might be common to him who gave and to him who for the sake of his
obedience received the image which, because Adam preserved it not when it was given to him
in his material elements, was taken from him. Destroy not therefore the pattern of the
Incarnation, but concede the properties of the divinity and concede the properties of the
humanity and concede one prosôpon of the union, and all of them [will be] true and all of
them orthodox. If you are willing to hear, hear the same things concerning them according
to the witnesses which you have cited. 159 'I said: Have this mind in you which was also
in Jesus / Christ, who, being in the likeness of God, emptied himself and took the
likeness of a servant. He said not: "Have this mind in you which was also in God the Word,
who, being |215 in the likeness of God, took the likeness of a servant", but he took the
name "Christ", as a title indicative of two natures, avoiding all risk, and named
therewith [both] the likeness of the servant which he took and God.' I said: one and the
same Christ, two natures,' 'the likeness of the servant which he took and God,' without
distinction. Quote these words of Gregory: '[There are] indeed two natures, God and man,
but not two sons; for one and another are those from which our Saviour is, but not one and
another----far from it!----but one by mixture, God who was made man and man who was made
God'; and again: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not
God, although he is so called on account of the revelation which [was made] little by
little.' He predicated not two natures of God the Word and he came not into being of two
natures, neither has the man two natures nor is it [the case] that he is of two natures,
but God and man are two natures. For he took a name common to the natures, Son and
Saviour, and without separation he is named God and Son;

160 and he divides this twofold [Son and Saviour] into those two natures, from which our
Saviour [came into being]; and by the union that which is one thing is called another:
thus / 'God who was made man and man who was made God'----not because he was changed in
respect to his divinity. And 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to
fullness is not God, although he is so called on account of his revelation which [was
made] little by little.' Whom then does he call one? And whom two? And whom in ousia? And
whom by union? 161 But Ambrose also has said the same and not strange things concerning
the union of God and of the flesh: 'The Son of God speaks in both of them, because in him
there were two natures. Regard in him on the one hand the glory of God, on the other hand
the sufferings of the man.' For he also predicates the union of the two natures, not that
two natures |216 [were] one nature but that two natures [were] in the one prosôpon of the
Son:----' the glory indeed of the divinity, but the sufferings of the humanity.' For he
calls not the one son and God the Word another son, but he indicates something else by
prosôpon and ousia. As then is the name 'God', so is the name 'son', the one indeed
indicative of the natures but the other of the prosôpon of the Son. The same is God and
Son, and there is one prosôpon of the two natures and not of the one ousia. For this
reason both of them [are] one Son and in one Son are both the natures. One God the Word is
not both natures nor is one divinity both natures; for there has not been confusion nor
has there been mixture nor again a change of ousias resulting in one nature of the ousia
nor again also a natural composition resulting in a composite nature. / What then have you
heard [that is] strange in my words----and you have condemned me, and you have laid down
these things?

162 For the former has laid down the name 'Son' and the latter 'Saviour' and Athanasius
'Lord'. But how have they who are called Christians dared to doubt whether the Lord, who
was born of Mary, is son in the ousia and in the nature of God the Word, but was born in
flesh of the seed of the house of David? For the flesh was of the Virgin Mary. For thou
also knowest that he who was of the Virgin Mary was human nature, in nature indeed and in
ousia Son of God, in the ousia and in the nature of God the Father, but in flesh human
nature from Mary. For he 82 lays down the common name 'Lord', which is conceived of nature
and in nature, as well as the things which are indicative of the properties of the
natures, indicating them both, the divinity and the humanity, the one from God the Father
in nature and the other of a woman in nature. In calling him who was of God the Father
'human', he calls him not of God the Father in his nature, but rather in the human
properties he indicates two natures. He is not making the human nature nor the divine
without prosôpon and without hypostasis.

163 Nor has the Incarnation taken place on our behalf as something |217 superfluous,
unreal, in such wise as to refer human [attributes] to God, as the Arians say that he
suffered in nature our own sufferings, in his own nature and in his own prosôpon, the
flesh adding not anything [thereto]. But since the humanity is understood completely as
the nature of man, it has completely / all [the qualities] of the sons of man, [acting]
and suffering, as the nature of men is wont [to do]. 164 Likewise from the same, from the
sixteenth roll. 'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow which is / ; / heaven and
on earth and which is under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord. Because of him who is clothed I honour him wherewith he is clothed, and because of
him who is invisible I adore him who is visible. God is not distinguished from him who is
visible; for this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinct; I
distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration. I seek and would persuade you prudently
to look well in every place, lest he 83 blame me for breaking up into several parts and
dividing the divinity and the humanity in the likeness of things which are distinguished
in place from one another. How is he who is clothed distinguished from his clothing and
one who is concealed from one who is revealed? As we have added in our very words: 'God is
not distinct from him who is visible.' . . .

165 But thou sayest unto me that I distinguish the natures. How then are those natures
which are indistinguishable distinguished? For in the formula they are known as ousias
without confusion, without mixture, in such wise that in the |218 union both the natures
are preserved with their natural attributes and naturally with the properties / of the
ousia, so that the divine nature is conceived in nature of God and the human nature is
conceived in the nature of the humanity in the ousia. He [himself] distinguishes in
several parts, he who says that the humanity is conceived by nature in the divinity but
that the humanity is not conceived to be the divinity, and that God the Word was not in
both the natures either in schema or without the substance of the flesh or in passibility
or in the action of the sensibility and in the nature of the flesh. For if he 84were not
so conceived, neither is he to be otherwise conceived without limiting by distinction him
who is infinite and unlimited. For this idea he has also in the very thing which he says
in his letter: 'The diversities of the natures are not made void by reason of the union';
for in the natural differences he distinguishes the things which are united, having
distinguished [them] indistinguishably, for he has made the distinction by the word ousia.
For the word and the idea of divinity are one thing and that of humanity another, since
things which are distinguishable are distinguishable.

166 But I predicate two natures, that he indeed who is clothed is one and he wherewith he
is clothed another, and these two prosôpa of him who is clothed and of him wherewith he is
clothed. But thou also confessest 'of two natures'. Neither of them is known without
prosôpon and without hypostasis in the diversities of the natures. There are not two
prosôpa of the sons conceived nor again two prosôpa / of the men, but of one man who is
moved in the same manner even by the other. For the union of the prosôpa took place for
the prosôpon and not for the ousia and the nature. It is not indeed that one ousia without
hypostasis should be conceived, as if by union into one ousia and there were no prosôpon
of one ousia, but the |219 natures subsist in their prosôpa and in their natures and in
the prosôpon of the union. For in respect to the natural prosôpon of the one the other
also makes use of the same on account of the union; and thus [there is] one prosôpon of
the two natures. The prosôpon of the one ousia makes use of the prosôpon of the other
ousia in the same [way]. For what ousia seekest thou to make without a prosôpon? That of
the divinity? Or that of the humanity? Therefore thou wilt not call God the Word flesh nor
the flesh Son.

167 But if thou predicatest God the Word [to be] in the two natures, God and man, but the
man [to be] nought, it is not right to think aught else of thee [than] that either thou
speakest only of the name and the schema of man without the nature at all, after which God
the Word was named, or [thou speakest] as though the humanity added not anything in nature
to the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf; or, in order that God the Word might be
able to be revealed and suffer human sufferings involuntarily, so that while the humanity
was suffering without sensibility, God the Word was suffering the sufferings of the body /
and the sufferings of the soul and the sufferings of the intelligence and was acting and
being acted upon----so for this reason thou makest all of them God the Word's and dost
expel the humanity. If after this thou dost decline to confess two natures with me, by the
same argument decline also to say that God the Word was made flesh and [renounce] the
flesh in which he was made flesh and was made man. [It is] likewise both in regard to the
man and in regard to God. But he who speaks so 85 makes |220 not two Gods the Words nor
two fleshes, but makes confession completely, without diminution, of the divinity, and of
the humanity in which it was made man, that the humanity might not be conceived [to be]
fictitious, nor further that by a change of ousia and by a change of likeness the nature
of God the Word might even so become the nature of a man. Neither by mixture and confusion
nor by a change of ousia, nor again by a natural change of composition of the humanity, is
he conceived; for all these things are rejected and corrupt and such as befit paganism and
heretics and corrupt the properties of all natures.

168 But, O excellent judges, do you wish to cite the witness which [was borne] by the
Fathers, which was written by them, that I may make use of it; that in my making use of
indubitable witnesses you may learn that I too have said the same things, and [that] you
have condemned me as one who says them not and have condemned me in raging anger and in
darkness? For whatever / else have I said other than that which Gregory has said? 'One
thing indeed and another are the things of which our Saviour is [formed], if the invisible
is not the same as the visible and that which is timeless as that which is time; yet he is
not one thing and another----far from it!----for they two are one by mixture, God on the
one hand who was made man, man on the other hand who was made God.' See then that he calls
the clothing visible but him that is clothed invisible. For God is one thing and man
another, but Christ is not one thing and another but one in prosôpon by union: [that] of
God who was made man and [that of] man who became God. By man indeed is it said that God
was made man, and by God is it said that man was made God. It was not that he was changed
from the divinity; God indeed remained God and was made man, and man remained man and was
made God;

169 for they took the prosôpon of one another, and not the natures. Therefore [they are]
one thing and another, and [he is] not one thing and another in prosôpon. For in that same
doctrine by which it is said that man was made God men by all means attribute unto him
|221 adoration and service. In him, through whom and by whom it befell him to be made God,
[he is adored] with one [and] the same adoration although he is conceived as one thing and
another in the natures. And he is without distinction in the union, but in view of the
natures which are distinct he both is and is conceived one thing and another. 170 Now
Athanasius also has said things which agree with this: 'Now that the Word has become man
and has made the properties of the flesh his own, / the same are not therefore imputed to
the body because of the Word which has come to be in it.' For he said that God the Word
has come to be in the body as one who is clothed in the clothing and the invisible in the
visible, not as though they had been confused nor as though they had been changed, but as
though remaining in both their natures and making the very properties common to him who
acts 86 and to him who is in his own ousia,87 and he 88 possesses all those things which
are made [the common] properties. And it is evident that he says two: 'God the Word and
the body in which he was and whose [properties] he made his own in order that those of the
one might become the other's and those of the other the one's.' But this God the Word
remained impassible even in the body, nor yet was the suffering of the flesh brought nigh
unto him, because God the Word who was in him was born of God; because of the heavenly
Word which was in him he became heavenly, but because of him wherein he was he also was
adored with God the Word who is adorable. Because of him who was clothed I honour the
clothing, for he was clothed in the likeness of a servant, as Gregory said: 'The King of
Kings and Lord of Lords is clothed in the likeness of a servant.' 89

171 Why then have you accepted these things but accused of |222 impiety my words and not
those also of them who have confirmed my own words? [Is it] either because you suppose
that even these which in letter and in spirit are the same / are not to be rejected in
[the rejection of] mine own words? Or [is it] because you make void [both] the former and
the latter, that they may not be spoken, and further employ these of mine, having
destroyed him who spake them? And you too, though involuntarily, are witnesses unto me and
you bear witness unto me by those [words by] which you suppose that you undo these of
mine, since you also are in agreement with them and undo yourselves, because you are
speaking against yourselves. And if I were able to have judges unlike you, I should have
had no labour to convince [them] that it is the same idea, and so on; and I do not suppose
that it would be right to toil much.

172 Likewise, from the same, from the seventeenth roll, concerning the faith. God the Word
indeed was Son and God, and was with his Father even before the Incarnation, but in the
latter time he took the likeness of a servant. Yet having been formerly son and having
been [so] called even after the taking he could not be called son by distinction, lest we
should introduce two sons into our faith; but because he adheres to him who has been son
from in the beginning, we cannot make him who adhered unto him distinct in the honour of
the sonship----in the honour / of the sonship, I say, and not in the nature. For this
reason the Word also is called Christ, because he has continuously adherence in Christ.
But in order that we may not say the same things [and] tire the reader with the same
[subjects], let us pass on to |223 their testimony which they have chosen, as they
suppose, against me, and which they have set down as seemed good to them; whereby I have
proved and shall prove that nothing strange has been said by me [and] that I have been
condemned in this judgement without examination. Hear what Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum,
says of the things which the former have written. . . .

173 For we [distinguish] not the man from the divinity; we call him one and the same
thing; for | we call him] not originally man but God and Son and only-begotten before the
ages, who was not mixed with the bodily frame nor with the things which are in the bodily
frame but in the end took also the man.' 174 How then does it seem to you? That it is
against [me]? Compare them both with one another. 'For God the Word, even before the
Incarnation, was son and God and was with the Father.' Set down the [words] of Gregory:
'Originally indeed not man but only God and Son.' These [are statements] which are
supposed contradictory by you; quote those which have been spoken by me [to see] if they
are applicable. 'But in the last times he took the likeness of a servant.' Set over
against them [those] of Gregory: 'But at the end he took also the man.' Lest / they should
be supposed to be contradictory by you, set down those things which have been said by me:
'But he was before the other and he was called Son, but after his taking he could not be
separated nor distinctly distinguished nor be called Son.' Cite [the words] of Gregory:
For also we separate not the man from the divinity.' Quote the rest of mine (which thou
cuttest short) as having been laid down by me: 'That we may not speak of two sons.' Set
down |224 those of Gregory: 'But we say that he is one and the same.' Quote the rest of my
[words]: 'But because he adheres unto him who was in the beginning son; he who adhered
unto him cannot receive in distinction the honour of sonship, by honour, I mean, and not
by nature.' Set down the words of Gregory:

175 There are indeed two natures, God and man, as also [there are] soul and body, but the
sons are not two; for those from which our Saviour is [formed] are one and another; yet he
is not one and another. Far from it! For both of them are one in the union.' So he has
made the distinction in the nature and not in prosôpa, in saying 'One and another, but one
son'. And again: 'by nature' is other than 'by union', as he is called 'other' in prosôpon
and not in nature. For after the flesh God the Word is flesh, but after the divinity the
flesh or the man is called Son, in such wise that also after that flesh which has been
taken God the Word is called Christ. Read those [words] of mine even as they have been
written. . . . 'For this reason also God / the Word is named Christ, because he has
continuously adherence in Christ.' Quote those of Gregory: 'For [there are] two of them in
the union, God who was made man and man who was made God.' For by adherence unto man God
the Word is said to have been made man, even as also man is said to have been made God by
union with God the Word. For he calls the union a 'mixture '.90

176 Quote the [words] of Ambrose: 'Does not also the very Scripture teach you that not the
divinity needs sanctification, but the flesh?' After the flesh therefore which has been
anointed or after man God the Word is called Christ, as Ambrose has said. But after the
flesh he is named flesh or after man man; is not Christ to be named after the flesh which
has been anointed? And after the flesh he is named |225 flesh; yet they make not two
fleshes nor two men after the man who is named God the Word. Because God is named Christ
after Christ, does it make two Christs? Or preserve harmony between you and the Fathers as
regards 'in the union' and as regards 'in nature', and as regards 'in ousia', and as
regards 'the property of the prosopon', seeing that he has given us his and taken ours.91
177 And thou dost concede unto him all the properties of the flesh and the sufferings and
the cross and death and dost not concede that he should be truly Christ by reason of the
man who was in truth anointed, without there being two Christs, since also [there are]
neither two fleshes nor two men. / But let us add also the rest: [there are] neither two
births nor two sufferings nor two crosses nor two deaths nor two resurrections from the
dead nor the rest [of them], nor everything else which thou referrest from the flesh into
God the Word. He 92 then changes it from the flesh [only] in name and makes all of them
[the property] of God the Word naturally and is grieved with those who speak the truth, as
though they were making two sons. But when thou speakest, thou dost shun change and
transformation and illusion and supposition, and thou dost pretend to be suspected of
saying these things with intent to deceive. But when I say these things, thou leapest from
thy place as if I were speaking of two sons; and again thou deniest and pretendest not to
deny.

178 In this indeed lies the distinction between us, as touching what is in the natures and
what in the union, in order that we may not deny the things appertaining to the natures on
account of that which is predicated in the union, and again that we may not suppose that
to be nature which is predicated of the union on account of that which is in the natures.
In [regard to] the things which thou dost agree not to be predicated of the union, thou
claimest as though they were in the nature and permittest not the mention of the union.
But, being unable to speak of it when thou excusest thyself, thou settest therefore about
accusing me and regardest me as |226 impious, although in excusing thyself from the things
whereof I rebuke thee thou bearest witness unto me that I am pious; / and the same things
are taken as impious in me but fair in him. Or perhaps they issue from thine own
knowledge, that thou mayest strive and labour on their behalf! Yet, for all that [thou
admittest them] of necessity and by constraint, hardly dost thou admit it and confess in
him these human qualities. In what other things then more than these art thou confident of
a just judgement? Even however in the following you have the same examination that by the
same means you may confirm these my [words].

179 Likewise from the same, from the seventeenth roll: 'Concerning the Faith.' Let us keep
without confusion the adhesion of the natures. Thou therefore confessest God who is in
man, but I worship the adhesion of the divinity [where]by man is adored together with God
Almighty. But that we may not make use of the witness of any other, it is fair that we
should make use of his own testimony concerning these our [questions, of his] who says:
'We are keeping without confusion the adhesion of the natures, in that the diversity of
the natures is not made void by reason of the union.' Thereby he indicates one and the
same, and further he indicates God who was in man. God indeed was impassible, in a
passible bodily frame. Therein lies the diversity, nor does it indicate / identity. 'I
worship the adhesion of the divinity where[by] man is adored together with God Almighty,'
and 'the body indeed wherewith he too is seated with the Father is not a stranger unto
him';we have not quoted [these] that thou mightest disclaim them, but that thou mightest
not blame the things which have been well said by thee. But you, O admirable judges
without justice, you have not understood these things when they were |227 read before you;
or else they have surely not been read or you have only been careful of this, that you
might anticipate those who were about to come to the examination.

180 Now I pass by the [words] of Ambrose who says that the union of God and of the flesh
is without confusion: 'In both of them there spake the Son of God in whom there are two
natures, man and God.' But Athanasius also says: 'If God the Word were in the body as it
were artificially, as these men say, that indeed which is said artificially would be a
phantasy; in regard to him both the salvation and the resurrection of men would be found a
phantasy'. 181 But let us again speak of the divine adhesion, since thou shunnest indeed
the term 'adhesion' as impiety, thou who sayest also this, that whoever says [' adhesion'
says] that it has adhered to him as in the prophets or by grace and not that it adhered by
ousia, that is, that it will be adored with him in virtue of the union. And again from
Gregory: 'God indeed who was made man, but man who was made God.' For this was not / his
on account of his own nature, but in virtue of the union of the divinity; for in the
adoration of the divinity which is united unto him he is adored with it, not in his own
adoration. Just as 'He was made God' is not' He was changed into the divinity', so he was
not made God of his own nature but by the union of the divinity. For he is adored with the
adoration of the divinity which is united unto him and not with his own adoration. As
being made God is not to vacate humanity, so he was not made God of his [own] nature but
by the union of the divinity. Things indeed which are diverse in ousia but are adored with
a single adoration are said to be adored together; but when they are mentioned as though
in the union of the prosôpon, since there is no distinction in the prosôpon, how can one
be separated and be said to be adored [apart]?

182 But when mention is made of the ousias, on account of the distinction which exists
between them, it is said: 'He is adored with it' because [he is adored] as if in both
ousias, just as it is said also of the |228 Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in so
far as they are in the union of the divinity, that 'God is adored', and, in so far as they
are distinguished in the prosôpon, although they are not distinguished in nature but
remain always in their being, we say that the Son is adored with the Father and with the
Holy Spirit, in order that we may not, like Sabcllius, make the prosôpa without kypostasis
and without ousia. For he who would suppress [the saying] that the Son is adored with the
Father / suppresses [the saying] that the Son exists in hypostasis. So also concerning
Christ: when we speak of the prosôpon, we say that the Son of God is adored, concerning
also the flesh as united with him; but in discussing the natures and speaking of two
natures, we say that the humanity is adored with the divinity which is united with it. And
he indeed who would hinder the saying of 'two natures' and 'him who is adored with it'
would suppress [the saying] that' the humanity and the divinity exist in ousia and in
hypostasis', even as has been our argument also concerning the Trinity, as also Gregory
says. Our [words are] like those indeed of the Fathers.

183 Therefore look well into the judgement which has been [passed] on these things, as
they have been doing everything at haphazard, fleeing from the examination as from fire.
184 Likewise from the same, from the sixth roll. Ponder the things which follow
immediately thereon: That he may be merciful and a faithful chief priest in the things
which concern God. In that indeed he has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour
them that are tempted. Therefore he who has suffered is the chief priest, but the temple
is passible, not God the impassible who has quickened the passible temple. Who indeed can
undertake the advocacy of blasphemies such as / these? I called the temple passible and
not God |229 the quickener of the temple which has suffered. For this you have condemned
me like the priests for blasphemies, because I have said that God is incorruptible and
immortal and the quickener of all. Or contrariwise [can he be] corruptible and mortal and
in need of life? 'For does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity has not need
of sanctification, but the flesh?' All this Ambrose proclaims unto you and you hearken
not, or rather, you hearken and hearken not, you see and you see not, and you accept
things which are inconsistent. How therefore do you accept these and have not accepted
mine? Naught that is strange have I said, nor again have I written aught that differs
[even] in small details from his own 93 [words]: In that he has suffered and been tempted
he is able to succour them that are tempted.

185 Now he proclaims the nature which has suffered, and you have no need to learn of me or
of others. 'The Scripture proclaims it: "Confess therefore the glory of God and the
sufferings of man."' Ambrose tells it unto all of you. Why are you frightened of accepting
these [words] of Ambrose? And in that you ban my words [you ban] his also. These things he
has said; for these things you have condemned me; then not me but him also, for I have
said the same things as he, those which you have quoted. Who among men will / change these
things and be able to accept them as the reverse? I should have had no need of much
examination to establish my [words], if they had come up for examination and for
judgement, and I should have been teaching in no other manner but by means of what they
have said and what they used in [their] witness. Who had confidence in the judgement? And
who [was it] that fled from him and carried him off by force, and wherefore? And it was by
all means evident even to the unintelligent.

186 Thou hast said that he was impassible in a passible body, and thou accusest me as if I
were speaking impiety [in saying] that the temple of God is passible and that the
quickener of the temple is not passible. If thou art saying with truth that |230 God is
impassible in a passible body, then hast thou not made use of this term 'impassible'
merely with intent to deceive, in order that men may let thee by all [means] say and
maintain that God is passible and mortal, while thereof accusing me who say that the
temple of God is passible and that the quickener of the temple has not suffered? But you
have learned how wise is the judgement of the judges, and I have made you know for what
cause I have been judged. But the rest of these things also it is fair to read. / Likewise
from the same; from the twenty-seventh roll. That you may learn how close was his adhesion
unto God, [know] that even in the infant the flesh of the Lord appeared; for the child and
the Lord of the child were the same. You have praised my argument, but [beware] lest you
laud it without examination; for I have said that the child and he that dwelleth in the
child are the same.

187 Suppose, then, that I have spoken thus; I turn not back from 'the child and the Lord
of the child are the same'. I have said that he is the child and he that dwells in the
child, but I [will] explain in what manner the child and the Lord of the child are the
same, in order that thou mayest not suppose of me that I predicate them both of God the
Word in ousia, as if he were in the two ousias. But, inasmuch as he appeared a child, he
was of our own nature, made and created; inasmuch as he was concealed, he was Lord and
Maker of the child which had been revealed; for there was one prosôpon of them both and
not one ousia. Therefore have I said that he was one in the prosôpon and one and another
in the ousias: the child and the Lord of the child; for 'he who begins and gradually
advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of his manifestation
which [took place] little by |231 little / he is so called'. Gregory also, explaining that
God is predicated in them both, who is in one prosôpon, lest we should suppose that there
is one nature, says: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is
not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place little] by little he
is so called.'

188 Theophilus also says: 'This master-craftsman, the Word of God, living and making
everything, who has disposed everything in fitting order, put not on a body of an
honourable nature and of heavenly attributes and came unto us, but he showed in the clay
the greatness of his craftsmanship in reshaping man who was formed from the clay,' 94 He
hid not that he was made and that he was also the Maker. He has not made the Maker the
made and the Lord the servant in the same ousia, as thou arguest with us. For the earthly
and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible, the limited and the illimitable, are the
same, as Gregory has said: 'The child and the Lord of the child are the same, yet the same
not in the same [ousia], but in the prosôpon; but the child and the Lord of the child are
in the natures one thing and another, [even] those of whom is Christ; but [he is not] one
and another----far from it!' What then makest thou of the things of the prosôpon of the
ousia and of the nature? Thou dost transport the ousia of God / into two ousias and then
removest our own nature and the firstfruits which [are] of us in attributing neither to
the child nor to the Lord of the child diversity of natures but saying that the ousia of
the child and the ousia of the Maker of the child exist in the same ousia of God the Word,
as if [it was] he who made his own ousia and God the Word was the two ousias [issuing]
from the one ousia of God the Word, or as if the ousia of man was changed into the |232
ousia of God the Word. For if thou shrinkest from speaking thus, why censurest thou one
who speaks clearly and accountest him impious and accusest him of impiety?

189 Wherefore then, O judges, you who have been [involved] in folly and in deception and
in violence, have you not examined the testimony which has been written by the Fathers?
You would have proved to him 95 indeed from his own [statements] that he indeed confesses
two natures, one and another, of one and another ousia, as the holy Fathers have said. And
thou also sayest that 'the natures are diverse, but that Christ [is] one of them both,
[yet] not as though the union made void the diversities of the natures'. These things it
appears that thou hast said; and 'The child and the dweller in the child', which thou hast
said, is also the same. I say that he was impassible in a passible body, that he has a
rational soul inasmuch as he is a child, for he is man as well as child. How therefore, in
saying these things and persuading / us to agree with the truth of the faith, condemnest
thou this man 96 on these same [points]? Is not the injustice evident? Thou callest the
natures diverse in Christ, and this man makes the same confession and accepts thy
statement of these things; and [thou sayest] that there is one prosôpon in the diverse
natures, while he too confesses this and accepts thy confession concerning these things.

190 And thou speakest of property and appropriation in consequence of the union, and
admittest that that which exists is one thing and that which is called another, while this
man also speaks of property and appropriation without his 97 having come into being by
[passing] from [his] appropriate and voluntary property into a nature that was without
volition, that he might suffer the natural sufferings. But thou gatherest together the
things which have been said, so that indeed there is neither he who made them his
properties, nor those things which have become his own, but there is one, not [one]
prosôpon but [one] ousia indeed, so that thou makest void all those things that we have
confessed together. 191 If thou callest this correct and not different from the truth,
|233 you ought not to have maligned either the [doctrine] of one prosôpon or again that of
two natures. For naught have you condemned me, not that I do not confess one prosôpon in
having said 'The child and he that dwells in the child are the same'; for 'is the same'
indicates one and the same prosôpon; nor is it as though I confess not two natures, for
'he who dwells' indicates / the nature, as though it was in the child as in the bodily
frame, that the ousia of God might not be supposed to be the same as the ousia of the
child. If then neither thou preachest this, nor this man who has written these things,
thou oughtest not to have accused me and calumniated me as not confessing one prosôpon in
two ousias or as defining them individually 98 in distinction and in division, as things
which are distant from one another. For I have called the 'dweller' one who by all means
dwells in the nature; and the dweller is he who dwells in him in whom there is dwelling,
and he has a prosôpon, while he in whom there is dwelling has the prosôpon of him who
dwells. So by the use of their prosôpa as though they were making use of their own
authoritatively, the one is the other and the other the one, the one and the other abiding
just as they are in their natures.

192 He is truly God, we confess truly that he [is so] also in his nature and is complete,
in naught falling short of the nature of the Father; and we confess that the man is truly
man, completely in his nature, in naught falling short of the nature of men, neither in
body nor in soul nor in intelligence; all these things he has in our likeness, apart from
sin. He was not without activity in his own nature; for although God makes use of these
things in his own prosôpon, he makes use of them as of things appertaining unto man, in
such wise also / as the humanity makes use of the divinity in the things appertaining to
divinity; for they have a union in prosôpon and not in ousia. 193 For this reason it is
right to lay down and to confess that, as he is confessed [to be] the archetype by reason
of the image, since it is therefrom that he is called that which he is, so also, when God
the Word is called flesh, he is confessed |234 [to be] flesh, that from it he is called
flesh and the flesh is God and Lord and Son of God, that from it it is said that the Lord
is in these things, that he may be conceived without either confusion or change or
phantasy in respect to the divinity and in respect to the humanity. But if a man changes
the things appertaining to the image and predicates them of the archetype, necessarily is
he acting foolishly in regard to both of them, both in regard to the divinity and in
regard to the humanity: in regard to the humanity in assigning unto it the nature of the
divinity, and in regard to the divinity because he attributes the things appertaining to
the divinity to the nature of the humanity and changes them both. But these things indeed
would have been so when they were to be examined by the judges, if there had been judges
and they had consulted the [interests] of the orthodox without inclining to the side of
the heretics and had not let them be brought to pass against the rules. But you would not
have been the judges, yea, I would add that [you would have been] not even orthodox, if
you had not also obscured these things. And what shall I say? All of you have one and the
same opinion; but read too what follows.

194 / Likewise from the same, from the first roll. Common indeed is the activity of the
holy Trinity, and they are distinct only in the prosopa; for the majesty of the glory of
the only-begotten applies sometimes to the Father, for It is my Father that glorifieth me,
and sometimes to the Holy Spirit: The Spirit of truth will glorify me, and sometimes to
the might of Christ. What, pray, is there finally in me to rouse them? [Is it] because I
have said: 'The activity of the Trinity is common and the division lies only in the
hypostases.' Or perhaps it |235 is yours to suppose that I have said unto you otherwise
concerning the Trinity that the Son is glorified by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. Not
that he suffices not for his own glory, but I have formerly borne witness abundantly and
for this reason I have laid down 'sometimes indeed by the might of God' as being
sufficient unto his own glory and not in need, because he is not in need. Who then has
deceived you? But perhaps you conceive that I am speaking of the humanity which has been
glorified by the Father and by the Holy Spirit and by God the Word himself.

195 You fight hard, and you are unwilling to name aught of the dispensation. And suppose
that it has been so said by me; for I disclaim not that on behalf of which you are
fighting, but now I establish my theme openly. For naught / else is your fighting by all
[means] against me than this: you confess not that the flesh of the Incarnation is created
and [that] the second Adam is of our own nature and that he is created. You concede not
that he is the creature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and that
further he is glorified by the Creator. Why doubtest thou? What do we make this man?
Either you do not confess that the flesh is made, or you confess that the flesh is made
but is not of an ousia other than [that] of God the Word? So, in order that he may not be
the creature of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, you make him the creator of himself. For
you are very cautious therein, and you make him the maker of himself and say that he is
made of none other than himself. All this is fair and just in your opinion when it is so
said; wherefore do you not say clearly whatever you suppose to be true? But [this] in name
indeed you shun but revert to it in fact, and refer to the nature of God the Word
naturally the attributes of natural flesh. That two natures should be united in one
prosôpon makes not two Sons or two Christs, the diversities of each one of the natures
being preserved.

196 / Thou knowest him who by all means somewhere has said these things. Thou hast in fact
said that the diversities subsist and are not made void by reason of the union of the |236
natures of the divinity and of the humanity. Say one prosôpon in two natures and two
natures in one prosôpon, as Gregory and as Ambrose and as Athanasius, as all the Fathers,
as thou too hast said, that we may not [again] write the same things. If you had been just
judges, he would not have been confident. But he would have made you all participate in
impiety, that you too might shun equity of judgement, because you were afraid of reprimand
for that which you have wrought against me. Are you willing that we should examine the
other things too which they have written? Let it not be tedious unto you to hear the same
thing many times; but you shall compulsorily, of necessity, attend to the things which are
to be said.

197 Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll, speaking of the Son. He it is who
said: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He it is who endured death three days,
and him I adore with the divinity. 'And after three days': on account of him who is
clothed I adore the clothing, on account of him who is concealed [I adore] him who is
revealed, who is not distinguished from the visible. For this reason I distinguish not the
honour of him who is not distinguished; / I distinguish the natures and I unite the
adoration. It was not God by himself who was formed in the womb nor again was God created
by himself apart from the Holy Spirit nor yet was God entombed by himself in the tomb;
for, if it had been so, we should evidently be worshippers of a man and worshippers of the
dead. But since God is in him who has been taken, he also who has been taken is called God
with him after him who has taken [him].

198 Readers ought not to break off, as if they had no more any need of reminding, but to
be willing to go through in the book of their words those which they have set down close
|237 at hand in opposition to me, that 'the bodily frame exists not by itself. This [it
is] concerning which they have unjustly belied me, as though I were speaking of a mere man
and distinguishing him into part[s], as those things which are distinguished from one
another in space. And again contrariwise to this they accuse me, [demanding] from what
reason I call him indistinguishable and infinite, since they hear 'he came into being by
himself, not even for one moment, but God too is in him ever since his coming into being,
since also God is in him that he may come to be in him'. 'For he is impassible in a
passible body who in the fullness of the times assumed the man that he who assumed might
come to be indistinguishably in him who was assumed.' And it was not artificially that he
came to be in the body, but truly he came to be in the body and was / not distinguished
from the body. 'The nature which [was born] of Mary was human and our salvation came not
to pass in phantasy.'

199 From the things which they say, you also know my [words]: 'And he who has been assumed
is named God after him who assumed.' This was not his of his own nature; for he who has
been assumed is the passible man in whom the impassible existed, [that is] the human
nature in which God existed not artificially, the clay wherein the cunning craftsman has
proved his craftsmanship. By the union with the divinity it is his to become Son and to
become God. For 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God,
although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so
called', and he is called that whereunto God is united in nature. For 'one thing and
another are those things whereof our Saviour is [formed], yet [he is] not one and another
----far from it!----but one by adhesion, God on the one hand who was made man and man on
the other who was made God'. By his adhesion he was made God and not by his nature; by the
union of the divinity and of the flesh he became one Son, for both the natures existed in
him. Therefore 'The man is called God by the union of the |238 divinity and is said to be
one Son'----[he is said] to become one son----by this doctrine he is adored with the
adoration of the divinity and is adored with him; yet there are not two adorations, but
one.

200 For in the / one adoration of this one ousia the other also is adored, because he who
is adored with the other is not adored in his own adoration, but both of them together. In
the adoration indeed of the one, the other who is with him, who is adored in the
adoration, also [is adored]; of necessity he is united and not distinguished. For also he
who is adored is not capable of not being adored, nor again [is he] to be adored apart
from him in whom he exists, nor yet again [is he] to be adored in him without the latter
also, in whom he receives adoration, being adored. For he is not adored in his own
prosôpon but in that prosôpon to which he is united, which is common on account of the
union for the union took place in the prosôpon in such wise that the one [became] the
other and the other the one. From him therefore who assumed the prosôpon it is his who has
been assumed to become the prosôpon of him who has assumed it. For this reason the flesh
of God the Word bears the same title with him, and it is not according to the flesh that
God the Word becomes God and Son and Lord; for God the Word is called God and Son in his
nature and not after another in the things derived from the nature.

201 But the flesh has received from God to be named that which he is called, being called
God when bearing the same title with him, making use with him of the name of God; it is
not its after its nature. Otherwise then thou art dividing the union and predicating two
things of him.99 202 And censure one who says that the body is by itself and according to
whom the [properties] of the divinity belong not to the divinity which [is] in the body. /
And before everything censure 100 thyself who hast so spoken; and if indeed thou darest
not to deny that owing to the union the flesh had the prosôpon of the divinity, but
referrest to God the Word alone the [attributes] of the humanity and of the |239 divinity
but to the humanity neither those of the humanity nor those of the divinity, thou yet
dissemblest in that thou namest God the Word in them both; thou art like unto me in being
[too] reverent to suppose that the humanity is not worthy of the prosôpon, and thou
overthrowest the union which thou confessest in schema, where[by] two natures are one
prosôpon, laying down that it is God the Word who is united to the flesh or to the man and
that he is said [to be] in both of them in the nature of God and [to be] man in the union,
but a man who is neither united to the divinity nor even exists.101 And for this reason
man is named Son neither after his nature nor through the union of God the Word. But thus
thou seemest to set up God the Word in both of them but man [in] neither of the two of
them, whether in the nature or in the union with that |240 which is united. 'God on the
one hand who was made man, man on the other who was made God.' 'For he who begins and
gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the
manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.'

203 And all the things which are called after the union in respect to both of those /
things which are united come to be with reference to the one prosôpon. And thou sayest
that the union of the natures took place in one prosôpon, but in fact with all thy might
thou settest up the Incarnation of God the Word of the Arians and of the Apollinarians,
and thou provest to those who have eyes to search thee out that he made use of the body
and of the soul as of an instrumentwithout soul and without reason and without will as if
for his own nature, doing and suffering the sufferings of the body which became
consubstantial. And for this reason thou countest it not with him and thou referrest to
God the Word, even as to a craftsman, all these [properties] of the instrument, but thou
dost attribute to the instrument those of the craftsman, since he was not assumed for
this, that he might do and suffer voluntarily in his nature, but that God the Word might
suffer all human things and do them, while he had not his own will or feeling or
sufferings or humanity; but thou dost attribute unto God the Word feeling and willing and
suffering in all the things of humanity in his nature.

204 And for this reason thou declinest to say that there was aught [added] to the humanity
itself owing to the union with the divinity, apart from what God the Word is in prosôpon,
that is, God and Lord and Son of God; for except the ousia he has all the [properties] of
the ousia owing to the union and not by nature. For the divinity makes use of the prosôpon
of the humanity and the humanity of that of the divinity; and thus we say one / prosôpon
in both of them. Thus God appears whole, since his nature is not damaged in aught owing to
the union; and thus too man [is] whole, falling short of naught of the activity and of the
sufferings of his own nature |241 owing to the union. For he who refers to the one
prosôpon of God the Word the [properties] of God the Word and those of the humanity and
gives not in return the prosôpon of God the Word to the humanity steals away the union of
the orthodox and likens it to that of the heretics. For you have learnt of the orthodox in
the testimonies which they have written, that they give in compensation the [properties]
of the humanity to the divinity and those of the divinity to the humanity, and that this
is said of the one and that of the other, as concerning natures whole and united, united
indeed without confusion and making use of the prosôpa of one another.103

205 How therefore has he swept you away to everything that he wishes, O wise judges?
Either then refute the [sayings] of the Fathers which you have cited in testimony, or else
otherwise it is of necessity [incumbent] upon you to receive one who says on their own
side according to their teaching: 'Two indeed in nature and one prosôpon in the union, in
mixture, in revelation, in adhesion, God who was made man, man who was made God, the one
is said after the other to have been made man and the other said after the one to have
been made God.' Whatever therefore have I said which is alien from them, for which you
have condemned me? Was it not right to confess two natures? Was it not right to confess
one prosôpon belonging to two natures, / of the divinity and of the humanity, that of the
divinity and of the humanity? But although you deny that which you have written you are to
be reprimanded.

206 Read therefore what follows: Likewise from the same, from the third roll: against
heretics, concerning the Holy Spirit. For how is that a |242 servant who [works with the
Son and the Father? And, if any one inquires concerning the Spirit what are his acts, he
will find that he] 104 is with the Father and with the Son, and falls not short of them in
aught. It is not indeed as though one divinity were divided, but the Divine Scripture, for
the proof and the likeness of the Trinity proves that [there is] one power and that it is
distinguished for each single one of the hypostases. And search out likewise from the
works which at sundry times have begun [as follows]: God the Word became flesh and dwelled
among us and caused the humanity which was taken to abide with the Father. The Lord said
unto my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand, to that likeness which was taken, the Holy Spirit
has come down and shown his glory.

207 The reader therefore has not need that we should go back to each one of the things
which have been said before, and that we should say the same things. But we will say unto
them: Is the flesh created or not created? Speak clearly; if thou sayest that it is
created, in whatever manner it be, thou concedest that it has been made by the Father and
by the Son and by the Holy Spirit, for they are entirely distinct in nothing in the making
and all things are wrought by one and the same / will and wisdom. But if thou
distinguishest not between these and separatest [not] the Son from the Father and from the
Holy Spirit, but even [sayest] that he has become flesh in virtue of the flesh and has
dwelled among us and that all the dispensation on our behalf has been effected by one and
the same will and wisdom and |243 might even as also it has been effected, I myself also
and all the company of the orthodox say [the same], according to the Holy Scriptures. If
therefore this is worthy of accusation, let care be taken by thee that naught is left
without accusation. And yet sayest thou that it is created? Say it clearly and suppress
the [doctrine] that God the Word became flesh; for if he became not, how is it said that
he became? For thus he is not admitted [to be] as an act,the work of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit. For thereby it appears that thou art constrained to say that
the flesh of God the Word has need of the Father and the Holy Spirit, the [flesh] which in
its own ousia is naught else than God the Word. But it is not God the Word, who has not
need of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.

208 If thou conceivest the flesh thus, thou well definest it to be so. Look well however
in the Fathers who imagine the opposite concerning the flesh, from whom you have cited
testimony, when they say: 'It is indeed the human nature which [is] of Mary,' and again: /
'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on
account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' For
both natures of which our Saviour is [formed] are one thing and another, even as thou hast
formerly agreed with them to say the same things: 'Diverse are the natures which have been
combined in the union, but of both of them [there issues] one Christ, not indeed that the
diversity of the natures is to be made void on account of the union; for God is impassible
in a passible body; for his body, which also is abiding with him, with the Father, is not
alien unto him.' What then is there to do with the things that I have said, which confirm
the [words] of the former and those of the latter? And they make void thine, while thou
settest aside all those whom thou hast cited as thy testimony. For these reasons the
judges have not come to the examination, lest they should |244 hear these and such like
things and be condemning themselves. But I will cite again the rest of the things which
are like unto them and we will run over them, that you may see through all of them the
cause of his declining the judgement.

209 Likewise from the same, from the sixth roll: in speaking of Christ. He has been sent
forth to preach release to the captives as the Apostle [says], and cites: 'He [it was] who
was trusted of God and was made chief priest;' for he surely became and existed not
eternally from aforetime. He it is who gradually advances little by little to the honour
of the high / priesthood, O heretic! Hear the voice which clearly proclaims unto thee: In
the days of the flesh he offered up a prayer and a supplication with strong crying and
with tears and was heard for his righteousness and, though he was rightly Son, learned
obedience by the things which he bore and was made perfect and became unto all them that
obey him the cause of eternal life. Being surely brought to fullness and made perfect he
gradually advanced little by little, [O] heretic; concerning whom also Luke proclaims in
the Gospel that Jesus increased in stature and in wisdom. Paul also has said things
agreeing therewith: He was made perfect and became unto all them that obey him the cause
of eternal life and was named of God chief priest after the order of Melchizedek, and,
after other things, he was proclaimed chief priest. Why therefore dost thou interpret
against Paul, thou that dost mingle God the Word impassible with an earthly likeness and
makest him a passible chief priest? |245

210 I imagine therefore that all of you, since you constantly say these things and since
the latter brings them forward in his testimony, are like those who make mock of them that
are heavy with sleep and answer differently to different things to those who cry out and
ask them. For this reason, when thou settest aside thine own testimonies, thou dost not
understand. For thy witness Gregory says: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is
brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took
place] gradually / he is so called.' But then he is not thy witness but my advocate, who
has laid down these things in his discourses. Why then dost thou mingle these [arguments]
of one who has laid them down in his very discourses? But Ambrose too [says]: 'Does not
the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the
flesh? Confess the glory of God and the sufferings of man.' [Thou claimest] that he is on
thy side, but knowest not what thou sayest. Whatever then has this man 105 said unto thee
other [than this]? For he who accepts these disputes not against those. If thou accusest
the latter as one who predicates the two ousias, accuse also the former who predicates two
natures, one thing and another.

211 But thou sayest that he who confesses two natures, one and another, of necessity makes
two prosôpa; for it is not possible that two prosôpa should become one prosôpon; but, if
it is right to confess one prosôpon, refer them all to the one prosôpon of God the Word,
in order that they may be predicated of one prosôpon and not of two; just as thou sayest
that he [it is] who suffered, and dividest [it] on thy two fingers and makest proof as if
concerning things [that are] divided. In this indeed thou hast naught [to do] with me, O
admirable man. He, who in word accepts the Fathers and the words of the Fathers, accepts
also my words at the same time. He, who says: 'Does not / the Scripture itself |246 also
teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' predicates one
prosôpon of the flesh and of the divinity, and that the one has need of sanctification,
while the other has not need. And 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to
fullness is not God, although on account of his manifestation which [took place] little by
little he is so called'----and the latter too predicates two: he who has begun and he who
has not begun, and he who gradually advances and is brought to fullness, and further he
who eternally is such as he is;

212 he who is not God in his nature, although through the manifestation he is called God,
and he who is [so] in his nature. For in the natures thou dividest also the prosôpa: man
and God. [There are] not two sons nor two men; but hast thou not been informed that the
Fathers confess one prosôpon of two natures, and that the diversities of the natures,
either of the divinity or of the humanity, have not been made void by reason of the union,
because they are thereby combined in one prosôpon which belongs to the natures and to the
prosôpa? For the diversities subsist, since there has not been confusion or even
suppression, so that thou mightest refer the diversity of the natures naturally to one
nature and to one prosôpon of the same nature and mightest suppress that which is without
prosôpon and without its own ousia, that is, the humanity, and mightest name God and man
God alone.

213 For he, who thus names the one prosôpon of the two natures / God the Word, further
attributes not the [properties] of the divinity to the prosôpon of the humanity in such
wise that there should be one prosôpon of the divinity and of the humanity: the prosôpon
of the divinity and the prosôpon of the humanity are one prosôpon, the one on this hand by
kenosis, the other on that by exaltation. Either thou confessest the confusion of the
natures and the absolute suppression [of the humanity], or thou confessest the
instrumental and natural union of the heretics, whereby he is united to all the
[properties] of men, in order that he may be able to comport himself and to suffer
according to human nature. And the [attributes] |247 of the humanity [are] as the
instrument to the craftsman; that is, thou referrest them to God the Word and dost not
attribute to the instrument, that is, to the humanity, those of the craftsman; and the
[properties] of the humanity, as by an instrument, thou referrest to God the Word, but
thou dost not attribute those of God the Word to the humanity. Thou therefore deceivest,
in that thou makest use of the things which we say in our own name alone and in our own
prosôpon, whereas in fact on the contrary thou suppressest them;

214 and thou makest God the Word himself passible, in suppressing the sensibility and the
will of the humanity, which [according to thee] 'is not indeed sensible in its nature',
but is sensible in the nature of God the Word, nor became willing in its own nature but
became willing in the nature of God the Word. And for this purpose, as regards the
humanity, thou attributest the things of the humanity to the nature and not to the
prosôpon.106 But thou attributest the things of the humanity unto God but dost not
attribute those of the divinity to the humanity. But we / speak of one and another in
natures but of one prosôpon in the union for the use of one another: God on the one hand
who was made man, man on the other who was made God. 215 But further, as in the Trinity,
[there is] there one ousia of three prosôpa, but three prosôpa of one ousia; here [there
is] one prosôpon of two ousias and two ousias of one prosôpon. There the prosôpa exist not
without ousia, nor here again does the ousia exist without a prosôpon, nor also the nature
without prosôpon, nor yet the prosôpon without nature. For of the prosôpon of the one
ousia and not of another the other ousia makes use in the same manner on account of the
union. It has indeed made our own [properties] its very own properties, conceding its own
to him to whom all these things belong completely, except sin. For he has come to aid our
nature, not to take that which belongs to him, and to save and renew in him[self] our
nature through a sublime obedience, and not to remove it from obedience, being obedient in
its stead to all human sufferings, while it is obedient in naught, |248 and not to
participate in the human nature of men. Nor [according to Cyril] did he come into being of
men nor again of the [things] of divinity, but he attributes to the divinity the
[properties] of the humanity without attributing those of the divinity to the humanity;
but he was taken as something to serve as an instrument, not having voluntarily practised
obedience as / a rational nature, with thought and with examination and with the choice of
good and with the refusal of evil.

216 But if thou callest the nature of men in him whole, attribute unto him completeness
also in the operations wherein it seems that it exists, that is, that he trusted in God
and was made chief priest. And he offered up prayer and supplication and entreaty unto him
that was able to preserve him alive from death and rescue him with strong crying and with
tears and was heard on account of his righteousness; and though he were a son, he learned
obedience by the things which he had borne and became the cause of eternal life unto all
them that obey him; and again 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to
fullness is not God, although on account of his revelation which [was made] little by
little he is so called';and again: 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the
divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' Although he was a son, by reason
indeed of the union of the divinity and of the flesh, the Son of God speaks in them both
because both the natures exist in him: 'Now indeed the glory of God and now the sufferings
of the man.' For in saying 'God' and in saying 'in nature', we conceive him not without
the man;

217 and so again in calling him 'man' and in speaking of him as 'in nature', we speak not
of him apart from his being God, but / we name the man God indeed on account of the union
of the divinity but man in nature; yet similarly once more also God the Word is God indeed
in nature, but we call God man by reason of the union of the prosôpon of the humanity. The
[properties] therefore of the natures change not the union nor those of the union the
natures and deprive [not] both |249 of them of the properties of the natures or of those
which are caused by the union in the dispensation on our behalf. 218 But let other things
also be written for the confutation of the condemnation which the judges have pronounced
against me. Likewise from the same, from the seventh roll. Wherefore, holy brethren who
have been called by a heavenly calling, behold this Apostle and chief priest of our
confession Jesus Christ, who [was] faithful unto him that hath made him as [was] Moses in
all his house. And after other things: Since you have this chief priest who suffers with
you and [is] your kinsman and sustains your people, fall not away from the faith; for he,
by means of the blessing which was promised unto him, was sent of the seed of Abraham in
order that he might present himself as a sacrifice on his behalf and on behalf of his
kinsmen. It is to be remarked that I have confessed, that they all had need of sacrifices,
and that I have excepted Christ as one who has not need; but he offered himself as a
sacrifice on his own behalf and on behalf of his race.

219 Who then [is he] that is faithful / unto him that made him chief priest? Make answer.
God the Word? For of him it says that he was made chief priest unto him who made him. Who
is he that made him chief priest? [Was it] he who was faithful unto him, or did he make
himself or [was he made it] by the Father? But if he made himself chief priest, if thou
sayest that that [took place] in the union in the same manner as the Word also became
flesh, thou art constrained to give a nature of our own ousia unto the flesh, after which
he also is called flesh in the union and not in the nature. He is truly chief priest, he
who is consubstantial with us and our kinsman, on account of whom God the Word also is
called chief priest. |250 For there is none that says that the one was of the other and
denies that the other was of the one. Confess therefore in the first place this one who
exists in the nature and next [him] who is said [to exist] through the union; for if this
is not confirmed, there is not even place for it.

220 For each one of the names of an ousia indicates concerning him in the first place the
ousia whose name it is. Bring it before the hearer, and then afterwards thou comest to the
fact that they are said otherwise also and not in ousia. Consequently also when in that
which is said men take first a name which is [used] of a nature, and afterwards of things
which [are said] otherwise, however it may be, they are named either in the manner of
homonymy or even not by nature; for this reason they cover them over as things concealed
and forgotten. When therefore we speak of the things of the union, / thou sayest 'and is
made man', but thou assignest this not to the union but as to the nature. But thou
dissemblest the things appertaining to the nature and thou hinderest those who speak
[them] as persons committing impiety. Thou allowest naught else than to take the [words]
'he became' and 'he was made' of the nature of God, although ten thousand times thou
sayest [that he is] unchangeable; and thou confessest that he who made was made and exists
in his nature and is called what he became; or speakest thou on the contrary in phantasy
[words] which confess two natures of which Christ is [formed] and diverse natures which
are diverse natures? How can men speak otherwise of the natures, unless they make use of
the name of the natures, of the one and of the other?

221 But this [is] weighty. For this reason also I have said that it is to be remarked: he
indeed has been sent unto us of the seed of Abraham through the blessing which was
promised, that he might offer his body as a sacrifice on his behalf and on behalf of his
kinsmen. Remark indeed that I have confessed, that all the chief priests have need of
sacrifices, while Christ, as one who had no need thereof, offered himself as a sacrifice
on his own behalf and on behalf of his race. Suppose that it has been so said by me; for I
decline not to refute the change in your words, lest it should be supposed that, after I
|251 222 have been refuted, I have set myself to accuse [you] because of [your]
inadequacy. For even in these things God has not left me without / excuse for my thought,
which is clear unto all men. For I have said that all the chief priests have need of
sacrifices for their sins, except Christ; whereas I have said that Christ has offered the
sacrifice of himself for himself and for his race, for his race, indeed, that he may
release them from the condemnation of the signed bond of sin. While he was free from sin,
[he] yet [offered himself] for himself that there might be given unto him a name which
[is] more excellent than all names, and he was obedient unto death, and accepted death
upon the cross, he who was free from sin. For he who was not found with sin and was
obedient that he might die for us, received a name which is more excellent than all names,
which was his since the beginning, from birth, since he was a little child. And although
he was indeed Son and there was neither more nor less in him in authority in his sonship,
yet was he made perfect that he might become a Son with authority; similarly the humanity,
which from birth had to become the Son through the union and which had not authority but
obedience, yet through obedience was perfected in authority and received a name which [is]
more excellent than all names. Therefore he was neither passible nor yet mortal but both
in authority and in honour. He was / in them all; apart from the ousia he had all the
[properties] of the ousia; he is one Son who exists in the union.

223 And every chief priest has need of sacrifices for his sins, but Christ had not need
[thereof] for his sins but for his race, that he might release them from sin. But this was
also so for his own sake; because of his unlimited obedience [it was] that he died for
sinners. Both in his will and in his thought he acquired, in short, naught else than to
wish and to will whatsoever God willed in him. For this reason God also was in him
whatsoever he was himself, in such wise that he also became in God whatsoever God was in
him for the forming of his coming into being in his likeness, [to wit] the prosôpon of
God; and whatsoever the humanity became |252 by the obedience which it observed was not
for his prosôpon therein, but for the prosôpon of God in God. This prosôpon will be his
and [he will be] also God, in such wise that, wherein he is one, having acquired no
distinction in the prosôpon, [it is] necessary to give unto him a distinction of the
complete natures. But in the prosôpa of the union, the one in the other, neither by
diminution nor by suppression nor by confusion is this 'one' conceived, but by taking and
by giving,107 and by the use of the union of the one with the other, the prosôpa take and
give one another but not the ousias. The one we conceive as the other and the other as the
one, while the one and the other abide.

224 For when God the Word is called God and man, there are not two prosôpa of God the Word
/ because the two of them are not said [to be] in ousia, but the one is said [to be] in
ousia and the other in the union, and in the use of the one with the other which came
about through both the natures. But he is predicated in them both, in the one and in the
other: in the one indeed by ousia and in the other by union. And so also, when by reason
of the very union we concede to the humanity the being said [to be] in both of them, in
the ousia and in the union, we make not of necessity two prosôpa of the union, in that
there is [only] one belonging to both the natures, belonging to the divinity and to the
humanity as to the humanity and the divinity. In saying 'God indeed who was made man', he
108 has not however left out the compensation, as thou conceivest this in the union, since
the union with the humanity is congruous with God the Word, in such wise that he is called
God in both of them. Nor again [is] the man also man and God; thou takest away the
compensation from the union of the two ousias. For this reason he goes back on his word
and [adds] 'the man who was made God' as depending on the union which makes the prosôpa
and not the natures common.

225 And hear also from the same:----' He who begins and gradually advances and is brought
to fullness is not God, |253 although on account of the manifestation which [took place]
little by little he is so called.' Because he is called God through the manifestation, he
is not to be conceived as man without prosôpon and without nature; because he is man in
nature, he is for this reason God in the manifestation, in order that it may not be
supposed / that he is called God for the suppression of the natures and of their
properties owing to the union, or that the union of God took place only with a view to the
man. Wherefore whatsoever God is by nature is said also by [reason of] the union in
whatever is united, that is, man. For the man, who, as not united, was not what he is by
nature, [namely] man, is called God through that which is united.109

226 For all these things make thy protests absurd; if indeed it be that another man says
that he was man who began and therefore was not God, although by reason of the union he is
so called, he is not foolish; for it is the other who begins and gradually advances and is
brought to fullness, and not God, and he offends your hearing in naught. But if I say that
the other is he who gradually advanced and was perfected for the chief priesthood, thou
rebukest me as though I were introducing another prosôpon; there is, however, no
distinction between a man's saying 'the man who begins' and his saying he who begins', for
all these indicate the same thing, that is, the man. 'Speak of the glory of God and the
sufferings of man': 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need
of sanctification, but the flesh?'Why dissemblest thou these things as one who is ashamed
of them and makest the sufferings of him who suffered for our sakes those of the
impassible, in such wise that the debt on behalf of our salvation was paid and settled
without sufferings, since / he took nothing? But thou hast done all things in |254 schema
and in fiction and agreest neither with thyself nor with the Fathers. For you are not
fighting against me, but through me you are fighting against these. Further, among the
things whereof you accuse me, let us hear these things also:

227 Likewise from the same from the fourth roll. Hear then, you who are inquiring into the
words: He that eateth my body. Recollect that he speaks of the body, and [that] I have not
added the term 'body', in order that it may not be thought by them that I am interpreting
it contrariwise: He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.
And, after other things: But on the present subject he has said: He that eateth my body
and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. Recollect that he says of the body
something which he says: as the living Father hath sent me. The former then has said these
things of the divinity, but I of the humanity; let us therefore see who it is that
interprets [them] contrariwise. As the living Father hath sent me, as they say, I then too
am living, I the Word by reason of the Father. And now after this [it is written]: So he
that eateth me, even he shall live. Whom do we eat? The divinity or the flesh?

228 Therefore, although they are willing to say that I have not interpreted contrary to
the divine / scriptures, they are to be reprimanded by all men. However, since I have
asked, you have considered my request impious: [was it] then that I ought not to have said
whatever divine scripture says, that 'the flesh was eaten '? But divine Scripture has said
simply flesh, whereas you have condemned me, since by 'flesh' I |255 conceive the flesh
and not the divinity, as though I [were] one that makes distinctions, conceiving the one
as flesh and the other as divinity. I distinguish not the union of the natures but the
natures which are united in reference to the ousias, even as being without confusion of
the one with the other. I have said the flesh and the divinity. Suppose that I was not
speaking with precision; I condemn my lack of instruction and my own impiety. Only wait
for me, that you may say this clearly: that the flesh and the divinity are one and the
same in ousia as well as in prosôpon; 110 and we denounce all those who think otherwise
than this as impious. If you do not say this clearly, for what reason have you condemned
me before God?

229 But some one will perhaps say: Wherefore art thou downcast? They have confessed the
death of God and have condemned thee also to death. Whatever else hast thou thought in
opposition to those who stand up for these things, and do not permit men not to attach
death unto God and in fact defy those who confess [it] not? I know then that they have
been / doing this for a long while, but now I am addressing this my discourse to those who
in truth seek to be instructed lest they be deceived by the name 'Council' [and believe]
that I have been condemned by the judgement of the Fathers and by the testimonies which
they have cited. From all this I shall prove that there was no judgement, because they
made no examination, neither amongst themselves nor with the others, nor have they been
content even in schema to divest themselves of the depth of their impiety. 111

230 'For the flesh of our Lord is one thing in ousia and the divinity is another,' says
Gregory; for the things whereof our Saviour [was formed] are one thing and another, the
visible and the invisible are not the same and 'he who begins and gradually advances and
is perfected is not God, although by reason of the manifestation which [took place]
'little by little he is so called '; and 'not artificially was he |256 in the body': and
'human was the body which [was] born of Mary', and the flesh [was] of the holy Mary.
Athanasius said this: 'he took from the virgin a body in the likeness of the latter.' 'For
he took not a body of an hyle precious and heavenly and came among us, but of clay, to
show the greatness of his craftsmanship, in order that he might re-shape the very man who
was formed of clay,' as Theophilus has said.

231 But Ambrose speaks of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'The Son of God
speaks in both of them, since in him were / the two natures. He is the living bread which
came down from heaven; this bread is the body, the body whereof he himself has said: This
bread that I will give unto you is my body. He [it was] that came down, He [it is] that
the Father has sanctified and has sent into the world. Does not Scripture also teach you
that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' Did I alone say this?
Why have I need of other witnesses for protesting that the flesh is not in the same
[manner] God the Word? or that it is [not] for it to become what God the Word is, or that
it is [not] God the Word's to become flesh, although the other is predicated in the union?
If you yourselves are not persuaded and believe not all these things and defy all men,
what have you [to do] with me [and] with all of these? Let him who injures me injure me
and him who persecutes me persecute me and him who kills me kill me; and we consider it a
great favour to be deemed worthy to endure the scars of Christ on our body. If [it is]
pleasing unto you to hear, hear also other things and judge if they are worthy of the
judgement [which has been passed] and if these things are not [the work] of men who look
askance at heaven and contend against God.

232 / Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll. If thou examinest well all the New
[Testament], thou canst not anywhere find that death is imputed unto God but either unto
Christ or unto the Son or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord,
which is taken |257 for the only-begotten from the divine Scriptures, is indicative of two
natures and indicates sometimes the divinity, but sometimes the humanity and sometimes
both of them. When Paul, who was sent forth to preach, says We were enemies, but God has
been reconciled with us through the death of His Son, he proclaims the humanity by the
name of the Son. When the same [Apostle] says unto the Hebrews God hath spoken by his Son,
by whom He made the worlds, he indicates the divinity; for the flesh was not the creator
of the worlds, the [flesh] which has been made after many worlds. And, after other things:
Nor indeed was James the brother of the divinity, nor do we preach the death of God the
Word----eating the Lord's body.

233 Can it be believed that there is in these things [a ground of] accusation wherewith I
should be accused and [for] which I should suffer what I have suffered? Because I have
said that not God the Word, whose nature is immortal, died but the flesh, for this reason
have I been accused? I suppose that not even the demons and they that [are] in enmity with
God, have dared to say or have taught this with their voices. Or is it not because of /
those who fear not God and respect not men that I have said 'If thou examinest all the New
[Testament] together, thou wilt find no place where death is imputed unto God the Word,
but either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son; for the name of Christ or of the
Lord or of the Son, which is taken for the only-begotten from the Scriptures is indicative
of two natures'. Have I lied? Thou hast the Divine Scriptures: read [them]. |258

234 What urgent need is there that we should speak cursorily? He has said: 'God the Word
has suffered'; or else: 'Christ is not God and man of two natures and two natures.' Read.
Either thou sayest [that] God the Word [is] in ousia in the two natures, of two natures
and two natures, and, concerning the one ousia of God the Word, [that] it has been divided
into two ousias, in such wise that, whatever is the nature of which we say that it has
suffered, we attribute unto God the Word having suffered in nature in both of them; or
both natures, distinct from one another, have been combined in the one ousia of God the
Word, so that, of whichever we say that it has suffered, we say that it is one ousia and
the same, which has been combined, that has suffered; or the ousia of the humanity has
only been taken for use, that he might see and suffer, nor was it that they might make use
one of the other at the same time, and to this reason the latter has contributed naught
with the former to the dispensation on our behalf. And he made use thereof according to
his own will / as though [it were] without feeling and without reason and without soul,
without gaining aught, as the Arians say.

235 For he who receives these things is not constrained to refer them to the prosôpon of
him who endured these things, because he made not use of it in order that it might aid
him, but that he might be able to suffer and fulfil all human things naturally, without
that wherein he suffered or whereby he suffered being reckoned with him who suffered. Say
clearly whatever thou dost wish; only [say it] clearly. Why censurest thou me as an
impious person, because I have said 'If thou examinest all the New [Testament], thou wilt
not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but unto Christ or unto the Son
or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord, which is taken for the
only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures is indicative of two natures and indicates
sometimes the divinity and sometimes the humanity and 'sometimes both of them '? These
things I have said, concerning them I am judged, and you are the judges of the things
which are said. Speak thou!

236 For I ought to depose these things of thine also, as thou |259 too hast deposed
against me, and to hide naught; nor indeed shall I show myself like you, who have judged
my words without examination and without comparison. I have said this: 'In saying that God
has not suffered and that Christ has not suffered, thou then inferrest naught else
therefrom than that Christ is not God, while if thou sayest that God the Word suffered,
thou confessest that Christ is God.' / So then you ought not to depose the whole section,
but [only] as far as to bring forward those things which can make it known that I say
these things; but the rest you ought to hide. How so? 'If thou readest all the New
[Testament], thou canst not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but
either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son.' For thus far he can extract them and
make believe that I confess not Christ [as] God; but the rest of the things which have
been deposed by you clearly dispose of this supposition. For 'Christ or Lord or Son, which
is taken for the only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures, is yet indicative of two natures,
sometimes indeed indicating the divinity, but sometimes the humanity, and sometimes both
of them'. For I have not denied that Christ is not God,112 but [I have said] that He is
also God and God by nature; since I have said that it indicates two natures, the divinity
and the humanity. It is not therefore possible that I should be accused of not confessing
Christ [as] God through what I have written.

237 But perhaps [I am accused] because I have called Christ both man and two natures, of
the divinity and of the humanity, one passible and the other impassible, and have not
confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ousta, God the Word who
became the ousia of man, [with the result] either that he who died lived as if he existed
in schema, and we refer / unto God the Word and not unto the ousia of the man the
sufferings, in whatsoever manner it be, and that the |260 humanity contributed naught to
the dispensation, or that he is manifested and is able to suffer in the very human nature
----for this reason it is not reckoned with the divinity----and we refer all these
attributes of the divinity and of the humanity to the divinity, as those of the instrument
[are referred] to the craftsman, whereas he attributes not those of the divinity unto
those of the humanity, in the same way as also those of the craftsman, without whose will
nothing is done, are not attributed unto the instrument. This man's meaning is not evident
in the things whereof he accuses me. But the judges sit deaf and speechless, without
having examined aught. Again constraint [is laid upon me] to make use of the same
testimonies against them in establishing mine own [theories] and in reprimanding those who
for this reason have fled from judgement, because they had no defence. But otherwise let
him who has extracted my words say in passing that the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord
is not indicative of two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity. I say naught else.

238 Read, O man, what thou hast amongst thy testimonies and contend not with a shadow:
'two natures indeed, God and man, but not two sons; for one thing and another are those
things whereof our Saviour [is formed]; yet [he is] not one and another----far from it! /
----but one in the mixture: God who was made man and man who was made God.' 'He who begins
and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although by reason of his
manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Have I written these
things? Have I inserted aught in them all? Have you not written them? Wherefore then are
you accusing me, as though I have predicated two natures of our Saviour? [He is] one thing
indeed in nature in the divinity, but another however in nature in the humanity; the
divinity [is] not two natures nor [is it formed] of one thing and another, neither are
they by mixture in God the Word, but they are two in nature and in the union [there is]
one prosôpon belonging to both of them.

239 Yet again [it is] not as if the prosôpon of the humanity, of God |261 who was made
man, were rejected in the Trinity. 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to
fullness is not God, although by reason of his manifestation which [took place] little by
little he is so called.' Neither does he say that God the Word is both of them in ousia,
nor does he distinguish the humanity from the divinity in such wise that God the Word
should suffer even the sufferings of the flesh and accept them in his nature in his
prosôpon; for the flesh is outside, participating not in the [properties] of the divinity
in its own prosôpon; but by a compensation consisting in the taking and the giving of
their prosôpa he speaks of the union of the divinity and of the humanity. Of God on the
one hand he says that he was made man out of humanity by union; / on the other hand he
says of the humanity that it was made God from the union with the divinity, whereas it was
not that it issued forth from the divinity; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and
is brought to fullness is not God, although by reason of the revelation which [took place]
little by little he is so called'.

240 Ambrose too says the same of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'the Son of
God speaks in both of them, because there were in him both the natures.' Athanasius too
says this, that our Lord, and not the divinity, came forth from Mary, and predicates also
the two natures, calling indeed that of the divinity one thing and the flesh another, and
predicating a union thereof. Therein there are both the natures, not in God the Word but
in the Son; not indeed that the Son is one and God the Word another, but the one indeed
indicates the union and the other the ousia. For the prosôpon is one thing and the ousia
another, even as [it is] in respect to the Father and the Son, [who are] one thing and
another indeed in the prosôpon but not one thing and another in the divinity. Further, in
respect to the union of the divinity and of the flesh, in the prosôpon of the divinity of
God the Word [he is] not one thing and another but the same; yet in the natures of the
divinity and of the humanity [he is] one thing and |262 another. And for this reason
Divine Scripture speaks lucidly of the prosôpon of the divinity and indicates them both in
the prosôpon of the union. But of the ousia of the divinity and in the ousia of God / the
Word there are not both of them; for the things which are said of the ousia are conceived
in one something in so far as they are predicated only of the ousia.

241 For this reason Ambrose also speaks of the union of the divinity and spoke not of the
union of the Son, although not another but out of the same. But the one indeed is
indicative of the prosôpon, while the other is indicative of the nature; and for this
reason, in that there has been a union of the ousias, he speaks of the union of the
divinity and of the flesh, and, because the union of the natures resulted in one prosôpon,
he added that the Son of God speaks in both of them, since in him are both the natures,
[and] not God the Word. For God the Word is one and not two. That therefore which is known
by the ousia is one thing and that which [is known] by the prosôpon is another, and that
which [is known] by the natures is another, and that which indicates the union is another.
For this reason I have said that 'Divine Scripture nowhere at all imputes death unto God,
but either unto the Son or unto Christ or unto the Lord', in order that none may suppose
that the union took place in the ousia and not in the prosôpon. And the prosôpon is not
distinct, so that one nature, [that] of the humanity, would be superfluous, since the
Incarnationis conceived [to consist] in the mutual use of taking and giving, but Divine
Scripture sometimes after the prosôpon of the divinity and sometimes after the prosôpon of
the humanity, / names him Son and Christ and Lord. Gregory has said this, Ambrose has said
this, Athanasius [has said] this: 'The Lord who [was born] of Mary is indeed the Son, by
ousia in the nature of the Father, but by flesh of the seed of the house of David; for [he
is of] the flesh of the Virgin Mary.' |263

242 Have I said anything new? [Have I said] not the same things in the same words, and in
the same sense? For what have you condemned me? Is it possible to imagine for what reason
you have done these things by yourselves and have not waited to make your examination with
all the bishops? But also it is not [possible] to flee from their accusation which they
have brought against me; that which they have finally written without protest ought [here]
to be written. Likewise from the same, from the twenty-fourth roll. Now I observe in [the
case of] our own people that they have acquired a great reverence and fervour of piety but
have lapsed from the rest of the faith of the knowledge of God. Yet this is not [to be
attributed] to the impiety of the people, but, that I may speak justly, [it is] because
the very teachers have not had time at all to set before them the teaching of the exact
faith. . . 113 This man has openly said therein that none of the teachers before him has
spoken before the people / aught that he has spoken.

243 But hear also concerning this----for this discourse is not very difficult and arduous
----and ask these very persons; for they will tell the truth, though unwilling. In what
treatise are these things said by me? [Is it] not in the deposit which was laid down by
the holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea? 114 And what was my aim? [Was it] for the
reprimanding of those who have taught wrongly or [of those] who have taught correctly and
holily and with piety? And I have proved to the people that my own teaching and the
teaching |264 of these men [are] in agreement. Because they have not known the teaching of
the Fathers they have been fighting with me, as though I were teaching outside the deposit
of the Fathers. And I reprimanded them after the deposit of the Fathers, for not making
known that whatsoever they were condemning is constantly in their mouths; and, lest I
should reprimand them with excessive censure and vex them, I withheld myself from the
accusation and I said concerning a person against whom there was no accusation: 'the
teachers of the faith have no time to set before you the exactitude of the faith.' I said
[it] simply without definition. How therefore have I accused all the Fathers before me as
not having taught any of these things which I have taught the people, when my own aim and
my work was this, namely, the teaching of them and the proving, after the deposit, that
they taught these things and that I have said naught else apart from the deposit of the
Fathers? But, from the ignorance and lack of instruction of the accusers they have
supposed / concerning me: 'He is teaching us outside the teaching of these Fathers who
have taught all of us.'

244 I have not then said that the teachers of sundry times have taught otherwise. How
therefore should I have said that [they so taught], if [they taught] rightly? But I have
said that they did not intelligibly and distinctly deliver to the people the deposit of
the Fathers in order that they might hear and admire these things. For it [is] one thing
for us to say that they have taught contrariwise, and another thing for us to say that
they have delivered the very words without explanation, and another thing that, since they
had not leisure, they could not teach according to what their intention was, and another
thing that they were ignorant, or that I have been accusing them as heretics. For if I had
finally accused the teachers before me thoroughly, I should also have accused the three
hundred and eighteen on whose deposit [together] with the Fathers before me I was taking
my stand. For none will say that I have said and taught these things apart from the
teachers who [were] before me. I have said naught, |265 neither in word nor in thought nor
[so as] to teach against those teachers who [were] before me. And yet if they have not
read [it], you have written [it]. But you have nothing against me, because I have not said
aught of those things whereof you have accused me. To this only, the chief point, have you
clung; for this have I reprimanded you all. And you ought not also to believe these other
things, since they have thus irreverently accused me, as persons who fear not God / and
respect not men. But you have been abundantly convinced by him who was sitting with you in
your assembly, as though indeed you could not otherwise escape than by quarrelling and by
calumniating.

245 Those things which were done after the selection of these Chapters. Yet after they
have examined [my words] with all exactitude, as though Christ were seeing [them], they
have condemned me without having found difficulty over anything or having quarrelled and
without having established anything by question or by answer; but they were hastening in
order that those who were about to come might not overtake them, that is, the Council of
the East, which was near, and those from Rome. Neither have they examined nor even have
they read; and, as I indeed suppose, even the things too which they have written they have
written afterwards; the days and the time itself sufficed not for the writing and the
signing. For it was apparent that they were signing against me gladly and freely, even
without a cause; for not one indeed of them has written the cause on account of which they
have deprived me, except only this man [who is] wise and intelligent above all men and
able to say something intelligible, that is Acacius of Melitene: 'Because he has not
confessed that God the Word died, he was worthy to be deprived, since he has made Divine
Scripture to lie and further because he has calumniated Cyril with having said that God
the Word died, / when |266

246 he has not [so] said; and he has also made the Scripture to lie, teaching that the
birth and the suffering concerned not the divinity but the humanity, and he has
calumniated also the very writings of the holy and godly bishop, Cyril, as though they
call God the Word passible, a thing which neither he nor any other of those who think
piously have dared to say. . . .' 247 Now on one of these [points] and not upon two of
them it was right that I should be accused; but they were accepting against me contrary
[charges] and in the greatness of their preoccupation they were not willing to break off
that with which they were engaged, but they were zealous to withdraw themselves and to
dissent, that they might not come under the judgement of the judges. But they disclaimed
[us] as enemies in such wise as to prove their preoccupation and their anxiety and to be
thought fearful by the bishops who were present and who were absent; and they did all
things such as take place in wars. And the [followers] of the Egyptian and those of
Memnon, by whom they were aided were going round the city, girded and armed with rods,
stiff-necked men, who rushed upon them with the clamour of barbarians and forcibly emitted
from their nostrils a spirit of anger with fearful cries at no great distance, breathing
[anger] without self-control, with all pride, against those whom they knew to be not in
agreement with the things which were done by them. / They were taking bells round the city
and were kindling fire in many places and handing round documents of various kinds; and
all those things which were taking place were [matters] of astonishment and of fear, so
that they blocked all the ways and made every one flee and not be seen, |267 and were
behaving arbitrarily, giving way to drunkenness and to intoxication and to a disgraceful
outcry. And there was none hindering, nor even bringing succour, and thus [men] were
amazed. But all of it was being done against us, and for this reason we made use of the
succour of the Emperor and of the authority of the Strategi, who were angered at the
things which were done, though they let them be.

248 But there came the bishop of Antioch with many other bishops, whom they were seeking
to win over to agree with them in what was unjustly and boldly done; and they named
themselves an Oecumenical Council. And after they 116 knew the things which were being
boldly done and their disgraceful audacity and their sudden war and the vehemence of the
madness wherewith they were intentionally doing all things, they degraded from their
episcopal rank the organizers of this disorder, who had raised up all this evil; yea, I
mean Cyril and Memnon. But for the rest / of their organizers, they laid them under
anathema, because they had discharged naught of the work of the episcopate, as persons who
have made use not of the object and traditions, but [only] of the authority of the
episcopate. And, in order that they might not deny or dissemble what was done against
them, they wrote their deprivation in all parts of the city, that there might be for all
of them witnesses that they had deprived them and for what reasons they had deprived them.

249 They made these things known unto the Emperor through the letters of the Council, and
their boldness in all of them and the war which had taken place after the fashion of
barbarians.117 And for this reason also they allowed them not to pray in the apostolic
church of Saint John, but [brought it about] that persons stoned them, and they hardly
escaped and were rescued, and they said also the cause wherefore they made bold to do
this: that whatever had caused this disturbance and division in the churches might not be
examined by the Council; I mean |268 indeed the twelve Articles which were written
irreverently and shamefully against God the Word,118 immortal and incorruptible; and that
great forethought ought to be shown that such blasphemies as these, which not even the
party of Arius have dared to speak openly against God the Word, should not be left without
examination.

250 But Cyril also and his fellow-conspirators wrote to the Emperor, blaming John for many
things, as though / he had boldly deprived Cyril by reason of the love which had been
vowed by him toward me. And they were in need of their confirmation of my deposition and
the setting aside of that of Cyril and of Memnon; for they dared not write the [acts] of
John and of the Council that [sat] with him and their words: 'That, as it has been
ordained by the letters of your Piety, they have been assembled in common with us and we
have been examining the things required dispassionately and accurately in order to confirm
the faith of the religion of the Fathers'----which has been commanded by the Emperor and
required also by the Easterns, who also were constantly expecting these things. Those who
had confidence in the Divine Scriptures and in the teaching of the Fathers dared not say,
though [it were] in schema: 'Let there be a judgement!'----not even in order that they
might escape a slanderous accusation. They indeed dared not hold an inquiry and a
judgement concerning the things which were required to be [judged], because they had not
confidence in the things which they wrote. So [that you may perceive] that I say them
truly, read the report 119 of the latter and of the former, in order that you may know
that the latter were always demanding that there should be a judgement, while the former
were shunning [it]. |269

251 / The letter which was sent to the Emperor by John, bishop of Antioch, and by the
other bishops who were assembled with him. 252 Being commanded by your letters, we have
reached Ephesus, the metropolis, and have found all [kinds of] turbulent fellows and the
business 120 of the churches hampered with civil wars. For Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon
of Ephesus have gathered themselves together and have assembled a vast assembly of
country-folk and have not allowed the feast of Holy Pentecost nor the office[s] of morning
and of evening to take place; and withal they have also closed the churches and the
martyria; but they have assembled with themselves and with those whom they have deceived
and have committed ten thousand iniquities and have trodden [under foot] the canons of the
holy Fathers together with your commands: and that when the most illustrious count
Candidianus, who was sent by your most Christian authority, testified unto them in writing
and without writing that they should await the coming of all the holy bishops, and that
then there should be [done] whatsoever seemed [good] unto the whole assembly, according to
the letters of your Piety. Cyril also the Alexandrian sent [word] unto me by letters two
days before that we should hold an assembly, as all the Council were awaiting my coming.
For this reason we have caused the deposition of those two who have been mentioned above,
of Cyril and of Memnon, and interdicted them / from every spiritual ministration.

253 But the rest of them, who have participated with them in iniquity, we have inhibited
until they anathematize the Articles which have been sent by Cyril which are full of
wicked purpose and are in accord with the teaching of Apollinarius and of Arius and of
Eunomius, and [until] according to the letters of your Piety they have assembled
themselves together unanimously with us in tranquillity and have scrutinized accurately
with us aught that is required and have confirmed the true faith of the Fathers. But as
for my own insignificance, your Majesty knows that, in view of the length of the way and
withal that we are journeying on land, we have advanced quickly and rapidly; for we have
travelled forty stages without even one rest being taken by us during our journey; and
[this], it is within the authority of your most Christian |270 Majesty to learn from the
inhabitants of all the cities through which we have passed. Withal however, both owing to
the famine which has occurred in Antioch and owing to the daily brawls of the [diverse]
parties and owing to the great and continuous rains which have taken place out of season
and owing to the danger which came about through a flood which approached the city, we
were detained also not a few days in the city itself.

254 But after the Emperor had seen these things, he was angered at what was being done
against me without examination and without judgement, and he swore that there should be
naught else except whatever had been before laid down to take place, that is, a judgement
and an examination of the things which were required, so that for this purpose indeed the
Oecumenical Council / was assembled, that it might at the |271 same time be convinced
concerning the examination which should duly take place. But when the followers of Cyril
saw the vehemence of the Emperor who was eager for this, thenceforth they roused up a
disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the Emperor were
opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what
had been done by them and were running hither and thither. And of such effrontery and
boldness [were they that] they took also with them those who had been separated and
removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had
for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with
fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans
and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without
examination the things which were done without examination against me;

255 and at the same time all of them, even those who had participated with me at table and
in prayer and in thought, were agreed, [and] bound themselves together indistinguishably
in affection and in visits to one another and by entertainment in [their] houses, and by
covenant and by the confirmation of the things [done] against me, and were vowing vows one
with another against me. Those too were willing who would surely not formerly have been
supposed to be giving a welcome to heretics, although they were supposed / to be orthodox;
in naught were they divided. There is indeed much to say on the subject of the dreams
which they recounted, which they say that they saw concerning me, while others [saw] other
things. And they amazed the hearers by the saints to be sure whom they saw and by the
revelations which were recounted by them and by a prophecy which was fabricated.122 For
there was none of them who was unaffected nor [any] that was distinct from their
communion; I speak not only of Christians but also [of] pagans. For they were persuading
all men of all the things which they were seeing, likening themselves to angels of light;
and in all these |272 things they had first calmed and [afterwards] roused up the mind of
the Emperor, that the inquiry which had been required and for which the Oecumenical
Council was assembled might not take place.

256 But when he was against their disgraceful [and] irreverent request in requiring that
the judgement should not take place, they gave abundance of money to those who were nigh
unto him. I have naught to say; for the Emperor allowed everything to take place in
practice contrary to that to which he had clung in schema; for they were not frightened by
him nor [feared] to cause sedition and to run about unto all men. 257 But there was added
thereunto also the plotting of evils: for they held assemblies of priests and troops of
monks and they took counsel / against me, helping them in this purpose. And they had as
helpers in these things all the ministers 123 of the Emperor who used to probe into his
very purpose, and they gave confidence to the former. As indeed the schema of the monks
was very dear unto him, so all of them were unanimous in the one purpose of persuading him
that there should be no judgement, while the things which had been done without
examination against me should stand. And all the monks participated in the one purpose
because of me, [even] those who in the rest of the other things were without love among
themselves, [some] being envious and [others] envied, especially for the sake of the
praise of men. And they took for them-[selves] as organizer and chief, in order to
overwhelm the Emperor with amazement, Dalmatius the archimandrite, who for many years had
not gone forth from his monastery; and a multitude of monks surrounded him in the midst of
the city, chanting the offices,124 in order that all the city might be assembled with them
and proceed before the Emperor to be able to hinder his purpose. For they had prepared all
these things in advance in order that there might not be any |273 hindrance and they went
in with [the chanting of] the officeeven to the Emperor.

258 But when the Emperor saw Dalmatius, he shook his head and put up his hand as one who
is in astonishment at the sight of a person; and he said: 'What is the cause which has
constrained thee to break thine own pact? For we were coming unto thee, but now why hast
thou come unto us? And especially in the midst of the city! Thou, one that not even / in
thy monastery hast been seen outside thy cell nor usest to let thyself be seen of all men,
hast now made thyself as it were a spectacle both unto men and unto women. For why should
there not have been many constraining causes which would have needed thy coming forth?
[For example], mine own sickness even unto death and [that] of my relatives, the
disturbances and the tumults which have been in the city and which had need of the
intervention and the prayer of some one that they might not extend unto blood and unto
death; wars and destruction and ruin and famines and earth-quakes, which could have been
stayed by prayer unto God alone----and has not one of these persuaded thee to come forth
from thy monastery?'

259 Dalmatius says: 'Yea, Emperor, it was by no constraint such as this among these things
that there was need of my coming forth. For this reason indeed God has not made me to know
[aught of these difficulties], for he has settled them otherwise. But now God has
commanded me, [even] me, to counsel thy Majesty, and I have been commanded to bear thee
witness that thou transgressest against thyself in transgressing against the Council and
perverting its judgement. Thou hast assembled the Council for judgement and it has judged;
it knows how it has judged; it is responsible unto God.' 260 The Emperor said unto him: 'I
too find no impiety in this man nor any cause worthy of [his] deprivation. I testify unto
thee and unto all men: I am innocent; for through no human / inclination have I loved this
man and done the things which have taken place, so that he has been judged |274 and
condemned, as those who rise up against God and usurp for themselves the [prerogatives] of
the priests. Neither now nor formerly was I zealous for this ordination in such wise that
I should be thought to be surely avenging myself and seeking retaliation on account of his
election; but in participation with you all I caused this man to come by force, though his
fathers' house and his race were loved by him. You have been the cause of these things,
and not I. When, O Dalmatius, I was entreating thee to be [my helper] in this affair and
was requesting thee with many [entreaties] not to decline the service of God, thou yet
didst decline and didst beseech me on the contrary, [saying]: "Constrain me not because I
am a recluse. And I also requested another of the monks, one who was supposed to be some
one and illustrious for piety, and he too declined as one that knew not [how] to carry out
this service, because he was a recluse.

261 For all of you said that Constantinople was in need of a bishop, one who [would be]
loved by all men for his words and for his manner of life and who would be a teacher of
the churches and the mouth of all men in everything. But when I declined for these
reasons, [was it] that I did aught by my authority? Did I not again request of you to
choose one who is such as this man? / Did I not even likewise beseech the clergy of
Constantinople to choose whosoever was suitable? Did I not say the same things unto the
bishops, "It is yours to choose and to make a bishop". And you too in like manner I
besought; did I not leave [it] in your hands all this time, having waited patiently that
you should choose peaceably, lest by haste there should be a mistake in him who was
chosen? However, you chose, and did I not accept your choice? Requirest thou [that] I
should say aught concerning [the rest of] you? Have I spoken of their zeal and their
running about and their gifts and their promise and their oaths and everything [of] those
who were seeking to become [bishops] as by purchase? Among the latter whom would you have
sought to be [bishop]? But I pass over these things; which choice would you have sought to
be [ratified]? |275

262 Thine own or that of the former or of another? For some would have chosen [one and
others] another, not as by choice as making their choice [fall on] the more excellent ones
but on those who were evil; and each was glorifying him who had been chosen by himself and
was speaking evil of the one who was chosen by the others and accusing him with evil
accusations. But you have not agreed upon one and were not agreeing upon him upon whom the
people agreed. I have read before you the utterances of the people concerning each one of
those who have been chosen. What then ought I to have done and have not done? You / monks
agreed not with the clergy, nor had the clergy one purpose, and the bishops were divided
and the people were likewise divided, and one was striving for [one and another for]
another. Nor even so gave I myself authority, but I left the choice with you. But after
all of you were found at a loss, all of you came and gave me [authority] to choose
whomsoever I wanted. But thereupon, after I was hardly convinced, though all of you
besought [me], I bethought me that none ought to be made [bishop] from here, lest there
should be enmity against him and he should be hated; for you were all hating one another
and were hated of one another, seeing that you were all zealous about this affair.

263 But I had wanted a stranger who was not known by those here and knew them not, one who
was famous for his preaching and for his manner of life. For people had informed me that
there was [one] such as this in Antioch, [speaking] of Nestorius. This man I sent [and]
fetched, though I grieved all that city; notwithstanding everything had been like this, I
yet caused him to come for the sake of your own advantage which was more precious unto me
than theirs. But when it happened, it was not supposed by you to be such. What then is it
right to do unto the man? You have not examined him that he may make a defence of that
wherewith he is reproached, nor has your bishop been judged by one consent, but the bishop
of Alexandria / and [the bishop] of Rome have judged that he was one that believes not
correctly and ought to be convinced of their decision. But he requested and awaited the
judgement as if an injustice were done unto him and blamed |276 them for not having
accused him correctly, because he was a bishop and ought to be summoned to the judgement
of the bishops and not to my judgement. Nor was it [the case] that any one whatsoever was
a judge nor ought the bishop of Constantinople to have been heard before [any] one man.
Did I judge as [was] pleasing unto me? I authorized the Council. Who is it that requested
a judgement and submitted not thereto?

264 Who is just? He that submits unto judgement and requests [it]? Or he that flees from
the judgement? Could he liken himself unto the former, to do unto them whatsoever he
himself suffered, and assemble the bishops who were under him and those of the East who
were convinced by him, even so as to judge him guilty and accuse him himself? But he has
indeed done this. But he has submitted unto the judgement, especially [with a view] to
putting an end to these divisions. For there is no law that the bishop of Alexandria or of
any city whatsoever should not be judged when he is to be judged. But also, when the
Council assembled and sat, they required him [to present himself] once or twice, and he
refused even to answer them. For what reason? Speak, dissemble not. For the things which
took place are not forgotten by me; thus have they been irreverently done / so that the
plotting which they plotted could not be hidden. For he has not declined the judgement but
the preparation of the Council which has been [but] incompletely assembled to judge [him],
a thing which pleased not us ourselves. Neither is that wherein an enemy sits among the
judges a Council, nor have we ourselves commanded that aught should take place before all
the Council should be assembled; for an assembly of all of them, and not of some, we call
a Council.

265 Because we saw aforetime the plotting and the trickery which took place, we ordered
that the Council should not be [held] incomplete but that they should await the assembly
of all the bishops that the examination of the thing required might; take place by
question and by answer. They then dissolved the Oecumenical Council and the law of the
tribunal; [it was] they who reckoned our will as nothing. And the bishop of Antioch has
done well in |277 regard to them, since he has deprived them of their episcopal rank lest,
in remaining in their same ranks, they should dishonour their rank. Wherein therefore has
he acted foolishly, who required of them that they should wait for those who were distant
and that the rule which had been given should not be infringed and that there should be no
dissension in the Council? Ought he, who did none of those things which it had been
decided should be carried out, but was content to be judged by every one without
declining, to have been deprived for this? '

266 / After he [had] finished saying these things, he added and said: 'Neither do I find
any cause of blame in this man; I and my empire and my race are guiltless of this
impiety.' And the others agitated themselves at this very reply and seized upon it, as
[if] to be sure he let pass and left alone those things which had been wrought against me
in whatsoever they wrought. And Dalmatius and those with him cried out: 'On me let this
impiety be, O Emperor; I rebuke thee and thine on account of these things; I will make my
defence for these things before the tribunal of Christ, as having done this very deed' . .
. . And after he [had] received this promise, that the responsibility for the impious
deeds committed against me should not be [his], he decreed and confirmed the things which
had been wrought against me. Thus I was judged and thus too was the examination [carried
out].

267 And after the things were finished which were wrought against me by them, the impious
band went forth from [his] Majesty and some spread abroad [some things and others] other
things against me; and they carried Dalmatius around, reclining on a couch which was
spread with coverlets, and mules bare him in the midst of the streets of the city, in such
wise that it was made known unto all men that a victory had been gained over the purpose
of the Emperor, amidst great assemblies of the people and of the monks, who were dancing
and clapping the hand[s] and crying out the things which can be said against one who has
been deprived for iniquity. But after it was known that the intention of the Emperor had
been overcome by them, / all the heretics, who had formerly been |278 deprived by me, took
part with them, and all with one mouth were alike proclaiming my anathema, taking courage
from anything that had taken place, in every part of the city, but especially in the parts
by the sanctuary, in such wise as to add unto them[selves] crowds of the people to commit
iniquity without reverence; and thus they took courage, clapping the hands and saying
naught else except 'God the Word died'.

268 And there was not any distinction between heretics and orthodox, all of them together
rising up against God the Word. And they were fighting without mercy against those who
were not persuaded to predicate the suffering of the nature of God the Word, saying, not
that the immortal adhered to the mortal to cause the mortal to die without its [being
itself liable unto] mortality, but on the contrary that the immortal adhered to the mortal
that it might become mortal and [that] thus it rose, having died with him, in the
immortality of him who rose, and everything like this in that the immortal became mortal,
that indeed again the mortal might become immortal in such wise that it might in its
nature be receiving the [attribute] of immortality and that of mortality according to the
might of him that commanded whereby he can make the immortal mortal and the mortal
immortal. And these things were said openly by these and by those and by other heretics,
being chanted and applauded / in the houses and in the streets and in all the churches, in
consequence of which things thou couldest not distinguish the things which were being said
in the churches or know whether the very churches belonged to the heretics or to the
orthodox, such was the agreement and the zeal to embrace the faith and to confess God
passible.

269 And they were making use of demonstrations such as these while they were being accused
for the same things and were making a defence thereof in the same [terms]. And they all
had one mouth and one heart and one agreement against God the Word, in such wise that the
services in the churches and in the monasteries were forgotten and they were busied with
sedition and persecutions and affairs such as these. As for those who were furnishing them
with money and supplies and provision, by all those things which they were giving they
|279 were both preparing them and demanding of them to be ceaselessly engaged in these
things. 270 It therefore seemed [good] to the Emperor that I should be under [sentence of]
deprivation and that both Cyril and Memnon likewise should be under [sentence of]
deprivation. It would then have been supposed that he did this in order that he might
constrain all of us to come to an agreement and to be accepted and to accept one another
and that he bore patiently my deprivation that he might make us of one purpose. And
further he was waiting without a reconciliation with the others in order that he might
cause me, even me, by all means to come in, as well as through their zeal and their
request on behalf of Cyril, that it might be supposed that the wisdom of [his] Majesty
[had] defeated / their intentions. But this was not so; but, either because his purpose,
which had been correctly [formed] from the beginning, was changed or because this had been
his purpose from the beginning, he was indeed [only] in schema on my side, until he found
patience enough to sell [me] for money. But, howsoever all has happened, I have arrived at
this.

271 But when Count John, who was set over the Treasury, was sent to Ephesus, it was then
supposed that he had come that I and Cyril might speak with one another, all the Council
having been assembled and [that] therefore it was an affair not to be declined. In
everything there had been [cause] for fear and amazement unto the others, such had been
their fear and trembling at speaking with me and at having judgement [passed] according to
our words concerning the things about which inquiry was made. He, however, carried not his
vehemence to the full but slackened, because that which is dear unto men [had] fallen upon
him,125 that which also was thenceforward mentioned as in a rumour; yet at the end he that
reveals hidden things revealed it and brought it to light and made it known unto the eyes
of all men. And it made him ashamed during his life, and after his death he was convicted:
both he who sold the truth, that is John, and he who [did] more than he, that is Cyril,
when the gold of iniquity was / exacted. |280 But let these things be set down in the
midst and [such things] as they proclaim and prove with their voice that they may teach
all men.

272 For, after John had come to Ephesus, he commanded each one to come, and Memnon fled
from the things which were taking place; and when they were bringing him forth from the
altar, he 126 both summoned him as to a friendly conference and handed him over to be
guarded that he might not be found wanting in aught of those things which ought [to be
submitted] to the examination of the authorities, of those which all men ought to do. But
after we were all assembled in order to hear in common the letters of the Emperor, his
purpose to such an extent slackened and became altogether different that he made himself
ridiculous rather than be zealous about the things which were thus worthy of zeal. For
when the letter of [his] Majesty, which had been written unto all men, was about to be
read, Cyril persuaded him and those with him that I should not come into their presence
but that I should hear what the Emperor wrote from the curtain. He brought this about
without letting aught of the things which were right enter into his purpose, because he
had already been bribed. And when they perceived that the things which concerned me were
being read, they praised the Emperor with many praises; but when it came to the [affairs]
of Cyril, they cried out and swore that those things should not be read.

273 Of such childish / licence as this used they to make use, who were formerly in
trepidation and were zealous, if it were possible, to bury themselves in the earth, when
they had no single defence, neither concerning the things which they [had] dared and
carried out outside the command [of the Emperor] nor concerning the examination of the
faith. But after I had been given into custody, so then [was] Cyril also, as though on the
supposition that we should not enter and approach our cities, and----a thing which also
occurred aforetime by the command of the Emperor----that we should not be received by the
chiefs and by those who were charged with the care of the cities. But finally he commanded
|281 me to dwell in my city where it was pleasing unto me, not by permission but in
consequence of mine own request. For I had requested many times and I [had] requested of
those, who had freedom of speech with the Emperor and who were supposed [to be] my
friends, [as] a favour that they would inform the Emperor that for me indeed it was not a
question of the human glory of the episcopate, but that I was longing for mine own cell
----this favour he has done me; but before this, that there should be [held] even without
me an examination of the faith so that they might not be deprived of the faith by reason
of their passion against me.

274 For I had seen the snares and the wars which had formerly taken place against me; and
when there was no cause for accusation against my prosôpon so that they should send me
forth and deprive me from Constantinople, they came on [the pretext of] the faith. And by
reason of their passion against me, they were impassioned also against the faith. So it
seemed unto me that this [was] advantageous and helpful, that I / should disregard myself
that that might take place for which rather there was need; for whenever enmity is
dissolved, how often do men come to themselves? 275 But he 127 gave unto me the dowry of
[his] favour, even that which he had sold unto Cyril, as this too was revealed after the
death of the latter by the confession concerning me which was found in [his] writings; for
immediately that this confession had been [made], there came that death which confutes all
men and spares not; of such aids as this used I to make use. But while I on the one hand
was dispatched in such honour as this, Cyril on the other hand was kept under guard for a
while; but he who was being guarded with all caution hid himself from them that were
guarding him in Ephesus and from the chiefs who had been commanded not to let him cross
over unto Alexandria and set out from Ephesus and gained his [own] city without being
hindered by any one. For this too had been prepared beforehand and bought by him with
money; for he came not out of the city by force but |282 transgressed the letters of [His]
Majesty against the will of the Emperor. He also [brought it about] that he escaped from
the constraint and the punishment for his transgression of the command of [his] Majesty.
But it was surely granted that all these things should occur thus by reason of that rage
which was against him as it were in the folly of deception, in the likeness of which was
also [his] friendship for me, since on account of this that, which was supposed /
friendship for me, was always [a source of] harm unto me, because it was not [friendship]
for me but [a desire] to sell [me]. For the enmity towards the other recoiled in fact upon
me.128

276 Thus then these things against me were carried out from the beginning, and they left
nothing undone which could convict me of having told a lie, and they were convicted by
those [things] which they wrote. For [it is] in the power of every one, who wishes to
examine [these things] with all exactitude and not in anticipation to pass over the things
which were written by the others at Ephesus, to understand by reflection consequently from
their writings who it is that has stirred up all these things and for what reason he has
stirred them up and for what reason he has not consequently acted as a brother towards his
brother, reprimanding, counselling, demanding, looking into these things by himself, but
was the first to reveal them and spread abroad abundantly trouble and war and enmity by
the letters which he had written. For what reason, when I have written an answer to his
letter and when I have accepted [part] thereof as correctly stated and have made known
unto him the things concerning which I doubted whether they were well stated as well as
the purpose wherefore I accepted them not, either instructing or as if on the one hand he
understood not or [as if] on the other hand it were so, |283 that he might establish that
which was written----for what reason has he stirred up the Egyptian and the Roman Council
about the things which [are] against me? / Hast thou requested me to establish mine own
points as brother to brother?

277 But thou didst wish by thyself to select these [writings] of mine and bring about a
verdict against me when I was far away from thee. Wherefore hast thou not come unto me
with thine own Council as one requiring [something] of me or as one reprimanding me, as
they that [were] before thee did in regard to those whom they saw to be in need of their
own coming: as Alexander against Arius and as Timothy 129 against Gregory 130or as
Theophilus against John? 131 For there was none to hinder thee nor yet to deprive him that
was accused of [the right to] defend himself. There is none far away and requiring to be
judged and [yet] judging another; there is no accuser to be the judge of his enemy far
away. For what reason, when thou wast calling an Oecumenical Council, didst thou together
with the incomplete Council decline to come and defend the things [of] which thou didst
accuse me and condemn me, when I was not present? For what reason, when thou earnest,
didst thou not wait for the Council which was required but wast frightened thereof?
Wherefore, when I was requesting thee and hindering thee and adjuring thee to wait for the
Council, didst thou refrain from [awaiting] the coming of the Eastern bishops, and didst
not await the Count who was / charged with the duty of the maintenance of order but didst
despise all of them together?

278 For what reason, after all the bishops came and the Emperor commanded that indeed,
since there had not previously been an inquiry and an examination, inquiry should be held
into them between me and thee and the bishops of the East, didst thou do all [these]
things that there might not be examination and judgement? 279 One was his aim and one his
purpose from the beginning even unto the end: that there should not be a judgement and an
examination on the subject of the things whereof he accused me, while mine [was] that
there should be a judgement and an examination on the subject of the things whereof he
accused |284 me, though not because the flight and the haste of this man had been
victorious. For what reason was I zealous whereas thou didst decline, if thou wert
confident in the proof which thou hadst from the Scriptures and from the Fathers? But he
feared me, [some one will say,] because of the help which [I received] from the Emperor.
He [it was], as men know, who was rather in actual fact for surrendering me and not for
helping; but [granted] that this was [so], who then was hindering the judgement from
taking place without the help of the Emperor? For after it had taken place, after I [had]
already departed from Constantinople and the Council of the East was requiring that there
should be a judgement and an examination of the faith, even without me myself, the Emperor
too had also commanded that the two deprivations of those, whosoever [they were], who had
been deprived by the Council, should be retained without [further] examination, but that
they should choose each seven bishops 132 and [that] they should be sent by both the /
Councils to Constantinople in order that they might speak before the Emperor concerning
the things required and [that] the rest of the bishops might be dismissed from Ephesus.

280 Have they spoken with one another? Yet, since they [had] proceeded to Chalcedon in
Bithynia in accordance with the letters of [his] Majesty, he 133 received the two parties
of the bishops who were sent by the Council. But after he [had] asked of the Easterns the
cause of the division which had taken place, they said that they were introducing a
passible God and that they themselves were not persuaded to agree before inquiry was made
into these things, [adding] 'Even if the Emperor treats us with violence, we shall not be
persuaded to admit a passible God; for he that has not a nature that suffers suffers not,
while he that has such a nature as this is not consubstantial with one who has one such as
the former; but if he who suffers not is consubstantial with the one who suffers, even he
who suffers not can suffer'. And the Emperor |285 was in trepidation as it were at this
supposition, and even his ears could not endure these blasphemies, and he shook his purple
robes, saying: 'I have no part at all with such men as that.' 134 However, he commanded
not to constrain them by violence but, on the contrary, that [the question] should not be
left but that inquiry should be made into the truth in every manner whatsoever concerning
the things to be examined; and with these [words] he dismissed them with many praises,
having commanded them to make ready this examination.

281 / But after this was heard, the others again stirred themselves up that there might
not be a judgement and an examination of these things. But the authority of your Majesty
sent away the Easterns, but commanded you 135----and by 'you' I mean thine own
sympathizers, them that were executing thy vengeance----to enter into Constantinople and
to establish another bishop in mine own place.136 Where then had been the judgement? And
before whom? Say, in whose presence? Although it was a farcical judgement, say, you who
have written the things that took place, how was it brought about? For they were many; be
ye not persuaded by any of them that [are] my own [followers], lest you say that he wrote
out of human love. Lean upon your own [followers], who have written of the things that
were brought about. But you cannot efface what happened thus and was written at that
time.137

282 But perhaps some one will say that whatever was brought about was clearly a farce. But
it was an unscrupulous thing to bring about things which were unbelievable and in need of
much indulgence. For the things which were done thus are unbelievable; but they have
indeed been thus prepared not only against me but also against the faith, on account of
which I was stirred up and was diligent to write and to teach the things which were taking
place just as they were taking place, lest men should suppose that the judgement and the
examination took place and should believe without a reason and depart from the faith. For
the providence / and the judgement of |286 God have been revealed unto all men, although
there are [some] that see and see not, who have arisen against me out of enmity from the
beginning, though now he 138 is willing to be the first to drive every one to evil against
me who have been condemned without judgement. And at the same time he has put a barrier
before all men that there might be no further return for me, and has thereby hemmed in the
party of the Easterns and of the rest of the countries which had not taken part with them
in what they brought about and [which] had given help unto me. Nor was I acquainted with
any of the things which were taking place nor was I the first to think of rebuking and
accusing them for the judgement [conducted] without justice.

283 And I summoned an Oecumenical Council against the Council which had been [held]
incompletely, in order that it might be shown in the sight of all men for what reason they
did what they did; since it was not for the faith that he was confident and enthusiastic
but that his own [affairs] and mine might not be examined, while by means of letters and
various other means he had corrupted those who were nigh unto the Emperor and unto the
Empresses and was persuading [them] that there should not be a Council. And this was told
unto the Emperor and he was much reprimanded by letters, lest he should be able to
dissemble; for he ought to rejoice at a judgement, if all these things were not [uttered]
in semblance, so that he might be zealous in proving to the Emperor that his purpose was
straightforward and just. For this was done in such wise / that he should have no defence,
as one that knoweth not the things of which he is rebuked and denies [them]; and he
hindered the judgement not once nor twice but even unto death. But the Emperor had acted
contrariwise toward him who was blamed by him and condemned me, even me who was honoured
and praised, while many were testifying that I was injured. Thus absurdities were growing
so many that they were not kept dark; but that their oppression might be revealed, he 139
properly made even him 138 a witness and a judge for me, so that [their] oppression might
be indefensible. |287 For all of them testified that we were not found doing iniquity and
that they condemned me without reason. And while I was in the same [condition] without
examination and without judgement, the others worked amongst them[selves] and changed all
the things that concerned me.

284 Concerning the things which were done when Cyril and the Easterns met together and
+before+ 140 seven of each party 141 were sent [to Chalcedon]. 285 But let us speak as in
a few words: perhaps some one will ask: 'How therefore did the Eastern Council also
condemn thee in such wise, that then not even a single cause of defence was left unto
thee?' For by the persuasion of [his] Majesty, and by this [Council] every one is the more
convinced, even so that none can hide it. For one and the same was the word concerning
every one of those who were in accord with me and were accepting / me and were contending
with me and [concerning every one] of those who were being accused with me and were being
insulted with me, since those who were changed over with them had not a single cause to
change over from me. Tell thou us the cause for which they changed over from thee; for [it
is] thy boldness which was against me and thy writings and the Articles which thou hast
composed. They anathematized thee and deprived thee in Ephesus; and thou canst not deny
neither thou nor they, what you have done in your writings. When therefore they were doing
these things, they were testifying about me in two things, both in respect to orderliness
and in respect to piety; but thee on the contrary they were accusing both as a bold man
and as an heretic, and they summoned thee to judgement to reprimand thee for them both and
they judged that thou wast worthy of deposition.

286 And when you were summoned by the Emperor as to judgement, they were the first to
accuse thee; |288 for they were persuaded of your boldness and of your tyrannical
behaviour and of all the evils which you caused in Ephesus. For in Chalcedon also you
closed all the churches against them before the judgement should be [given], in order that
they might not enter to pray, and you blocked the roads [leading] to the Emperor and were
meeting them with stones and clubs and were driving them into narrow places as into places
whence men [that were] strangers, being not acquainted with the roads, had not [any means]
of escape, / since they were coming in the hope of order [being maintained] by the
Emperor; and thus they were hardly rescued from those who were distressing them, until the
Emperor sent the help of the soldiers to rescue them.

287 But there was an assemblage of those who were practised in sedition without
number,---- then was I summoned from Ephesus,----[consisting] at that time of Egyptians
and of monks from Constantinople and of those who were renegade from monasticism and all
those who by reason of any cause whatever had been driven out and were zealous for the
work of agitators and were supposed on account of the habit of monks to be acting with
enthusiasm. Then they were taking from the monasteries robes together with food and
provisions, which were being given unto them as the wages of the fervour of love, and they
were fattening their bodies therewith instead of [practising] continence. From the things
which thou wast sending and bringing from the granaries and the stores of wine and of oil
and of vegetables and all kinds of clothes, thou didst fill the monasteries which were
being set apart for this and other places, in such wise that even the holy places of
prayer were being encumbered, and the issues and the entries of every place which could
receive [them] were full thereof. These things [it was] which were taking place before
every one and thou wast paying for them with the things which |289 are called
'benedictions',142 which were being given instead of wages thereof, a thing which
heretofore / thou hast not done nor [wilt do] hereafter. And thou wast carrying out these
things so that thou mightest not be supposed to be sending these things so as to cause
sedition, but that, as they were coming into the monasteries and were being received by
the monasteries, the recipients might not be convicted for having indeed received them and
for acting irreverently as disturbers and causers of tumult, in being supposed [to be]
enthusiastic. For thou wast letting them bring about anything at all and wast doing
everything that men might not believe that they were doing these things.

288 Tell me therefore for what reason thou wast letting these things be done and for what
thou wast driving out them that were suffering these things, so that they were not even
accounted worthy to be heard concerning aught whereof they were being driven out. What was
their purpose about thee and what about me when they returned to the East? Indeed every
one of them warned his city not to agree to what was carried out against me. For what
reason was a decree sent by the Emperor, by the hand of Aristolaus, to constrain them to
accept whatever was carried out against me? And was it sent unto them as unto persons who
were and because they were [ inclined] toward me? For what reason was he commanding them
to accept thee among the bishops? And what [was] the reason that persuaded them / to
accept thee among the bishops? You saw not one another and you spoke not with one another,
nor have you said nor have you heard for what cause you were divided; and it was for you
to accept without judgement and without examination and without |290 a Council what you
accepted not in judgement, and for the others to accept what they accepted not! But of
yourself you thought that you were reconciled with the others concerning the things
whereof you were justly blamed in order justly to confirm the two Councils either through
fear or by patience or by partiality or by all of them together. What defence have you [to
make] before those who are blaming you for having made a secret agreement in partiality
and by deceitful means? 'The Emperor's command. It is the Emperor who has commanded us and
who has prepared this for us.'

289 Say! why then dost thou ask me how they have accepted my deposition who formerly
accepted it not? Ask me not, but I [will ask] thee; how hast thou accepted the faith which
formerly thou didst not accept? How hast thou hidden thy Chapters on account of which thou
hast been deprived? How have they accepted thee who accepted not thy [writings]? But how
have they, who accepted not thine impious Chapters, accepted the deposition which was
[pronounced] against me? These [questions] need asking and answering. For / the affair
wherein thou wast openly judged by every one, willing and unwilling, made me not
defenceless, but on the contrary it caused me to need no other defence. These things
therefore cause those who are wanting to examine to know how they happened, as you too
will confess with me therein. For the others deprive themselves and condemn themselves by
their own judgement, since they have accepted not what was examined by the Council but
what you have accepted in the participation of both of you 144, willing and unwilling, in
the settlement, apart from the rest of the others, in such wise as not to settle in the
name of the Council things which they wanted [to have settled] once for all for better or
for worse but to prove that they did things pleasing unto the Emperor in accepting what
was carried out against me, though formerly they were not accepting [it]; but they were
zealous, however, to shun [all] mention of the Articles.

290 And they were [attached] to these two parties, [some to one and] others [to the other]
|291 against one another: thou [being inclined] to my deprivation and the others to the
denunciation of thy Articles, on account of which we have accepted every burden. But I
have accepted all sufferings and have not agreed nor----but let this be said with the aid
of God----shall I agree until my last breath. For this reason, in that they have accepted
/ what formerly they accepted not, they are the causes of their own condemnation and are
suppressing also the things which were carried out against me. For by the suppression of
the Articles my deposition also is suppressed with them; or was it not because I accepted
them not [that] my deprivation has taken place? For other cause there was not for my
deposition. 291 But thou sayest: 'I have not suppressed the Articles, but I have accepted
John who has confessed with me and has agreed with me on the faith as against thee.' John
also has said the same: 'I have accepted thee, Cyril, who hast confessed with me on the
words of the faith.' Who then [is] he that has accepted his companion? And who [is] he
that has been accepted? For both of you say them and are persuading those who have
separated themselves and have distinguished [themselves] from the deceptive peace which
you have made: thou indeed, in that the others have accepted my deprivation which they
were not formerly accepting, [and because] thou wast supposing that they accepted also
these Articles which I was not accepting; and he, because he accepts not the writing of
thy Articles in the deposit of the faith----men of whom thou wast determined that they
should agree with thee in the things whereof men were correctly accusing them. Or did not
our inquiry and our war and our strife take place that we might not accept them?

292 But it is [possible] to say that it was not because they were suppressed [that] they
were not written in the deposit of the faith, / when an agreement had been effected, but
because they had been without division and without inquiry. If all our inquiry and dispute
had been for the purpose of the suppression and the refutation of these things, for no
other reason were they not written when the agreement was effected, than that they had not
been accepted by common opinion and |292 agreement. How then dost thou cling to them as
though they were accepted, things which were not accepted in your confessions [of faith]?
For in the course of coming to terms these things were not to be left alone, so that thou
and thine own [followers] made not use of them as (being] orthodox nor the Easterns as
[being] heretical; for that would not be any coming to terms on the faith, but disputes
and divisions.

293 For what reason, however, was there no suppression of these things in confession [of
faith] in the written documents? However, they were left alone. First indeed because they
were giving way to the vehemence of [his] Majesty and men were requiring that every one so
ever should make peace; after this, because they were wanting to do him the favour of not
anathematizing his Articles in written documents, since it sufficed for them not to accept
them and not to write in the written documents those things, which formerly he vehemently
wanted to be accepted. But for what reason did he accept [the proposal] that they should
be left out of the written documents, if he wished for this----as indeed [was] what he was
wishing----that they / should be accepted as orthodox? In the first place indeed [it was]
lest he should come to the necessity of a disputation and should fall and the Easterns
should arise against him and require before everything that he should be deprived for
these things, as one who was condemned----a thing which he feared, for, when he was being
constrained and pressed, it was necessary for him clearly to say what he believed; since
he would either seem to believe what was [written] in the Articles and in his letter or,
otherwise, actually to have imagined as even the Easterns. In both [cases] he would be
accused: either of saying the same things and having appeared as a wrongdoer or of clearly
having revealed himself as an heretic.

294 Yet in order that he might not suffer this, of his own will he agreed and adopted
[their views] in order that they might have peace without the written documents and the
Articles; and next that they might concede unto him that which concerned me, which he was
demanding, that is my deprivation, in order that I might have no further [opportunity |293
of] making answer, in that all of them were come together at the same time against me, a
thing for which he had been eager from the beginning. Yet notwithstanding he succeeded
not, because it came about by the vehemence of [his] Majesty and not through a just
judgement. 295 / The letter of Cyril to Acacius, bishop of Melitene.145 Unto those who
were blaming him for the agreement which he made with the Easterns, and how I made [my]
defence before those who were blaming the agreement which came about. The one 146 indeed
made [his] defence as though he [had] not accepted thy Articles but discarded them, while
all of you were zealous for them. But the other 147 says that he had not been content to
anathematize them, though they were very zealous that they should anathematize the
Articles. The latter however [says]: 'I have brought about what was indeed needful for you
but incredible; [to wit] that they have of their [own] will accepted the deposition of
Nestorius, whereby they have also accepted the Articles.' But the former 146denies not
that he has accepted the deposition, but [it is] because thou hast accepted and confessed
in written document the faith whereby the deposition is set aside; saying that thy faith
is not a [matter of] dispute between thee and us in the written documents according to the
certainty of our words, since thou distinguishest the natures and the divine utterances
concerning both the natures. What we were all zealous to confess and thou confessedst not,
has now come to pass. For he was the first to establish in every possible manner what was
needful for the faith; but we have not hindered the establishment also of those things
wherewith they were calumniated, but rather have we made [ready] the way.

296 / And the one 147 indeed says: 'I have made them say Mother of God", which they used
not formerly to accept.' |294 Moreover he prides himself and extols himself against them
that were disputing against this confession. But the other has confessed that I accepted
quite simply [the name] 'Mother of God'. There is then need to state the meaning,
according to which the hypostatic and the natural union of God and the natural birth from
a woman is excluded. For he says that we confess Saint Mary the mother of God because God
the Word was made flesh and was made man from her and, since the conception, he therein
united himself unto the temple which was taken. And it was not that he was born but that
he was united unto the temple which was taken and was born of her. For we decline not the
term 'birth' but the 'hypostatic union of God the Word'. For this reason we have caused it
to be excluded. And the one 148 indeed predicates of God the Word God whole and man whole
who in ousia is both [ousias];and for this reason he has written, saying, 'He was born of
the Father before the worlds in his divinity, but in the last days the same for us and for
our salvation was born of the Virgin Mary in his humanity'.

297 He says that the same was born of the Father and of the Virgin Mary in the humanity,
here again also because he has not examined clearly with a view to establishing the things
which were required or which are required, that is, one Lord Jesus Christ, whole man
[formed] of a rational soul and of a body, in such wise that Christ / and the Son and
Jesus are in the two ousias. And in everything he is God as well as man by nature and in
everything he is by nature man in the same way as God the Word; both of them exist in
ousia, [and] for this reason each of them [exists] by himself. 298 Because these things
have been laid down without comparison he drags them in to [serve his own] purpose
according to his own aim and defends [them] to his sympathizers and deceives them, there
being none indeed that is not surely calumniated, and each attracts his companion to his
own aim. And he accuses me of not having correctly said that which was said by the
Easterns, who [according to him] say that |295 God was born of a woman, whereas I say [it]
not; and he states my own words according to hearsay; for he says: He 149 says that God
passed through the Virgin, the mother of Christ, [as] we have learned from Divine
Scripture; but we learn not indeed anywhere that he was born of her. And elsewhere in his
interpretation he has said: 'And nowhere therefore does Divine Scripture say that God, but
Jesus and Christ and the Son and the Lord, came into being from the virgin, the Mother of
Christ.' For by saying these things he divides our Lord into two sons, so that the one is
uniquely Son, Son and Christ and our Lord, he that was born of God the Father, God the
Word, and again the other [was] uniquely Son and Christ and Lord, he that was born of the
holy virgin.

299 How dissemblest thou the truth? Not only does the one 150say this clearly, but the
others 151 / name the holy virgin the mother of God because they speak of one Son and
Christ and Lord, whole in his divinity and whole in his humanity. 300 But add what thou
hast accepted and confessed, that there has been a union of two natures and that for this
reason we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And deceive not the wise Acacius and
through him the rest; for it would not escape such a man as he----in such wise as to be
blamed for the faith to which he was reconciled against thee ---- that perhaps thou
clingest also to these [theories] of mine or rather to those of orthodoxy, which thou hast
accepted in all this trouble. For I have confessed two natures united, but thou wast
denying [them]: that there is of the divinity and of the humanity one Christ and one Lord
and one Son; he was not born of woman in the divinity, but in the humanity; not as he is
God |296 is he one Son of two natures united, but he is one as man. Where then do I speak
of two natures, one indeed solely Son and Christ and Lord, God the Word who was born of
the Father, but the other solely Christ by himself [born] of the holy virgin? Thou also
understandest not these sections which thou hast written down: 'We have learned from
Divine Scripture that God has passed through the holy virgin, the mother of Christ', of
which thou hast written / that I say them.

301 How then proclaimest thou that I call God the Word who was born of the Father one
Christ uniquely but the man who [was born] of Saint Mary another Christ? Of whom then
sayest thou that I have said that God passed through her? For it is evident that [I spoke]
of him who was born of the Father, [namely] of God the Word. How therefore do I call
Christ any other than God the Word, him who was born of the Father? I have said that he
passed through even the blessed Mary, because he derived not the origin of [his] birth
from her as the bodily frame which was born of her. For this reason I have said that he
who is God the Word has surely passed through but was surely not born, because he derived
not his origin from her.152 But there both exists and is named one Christ, the two of them
being united, he who was born of the Father in the divinity, [and] of the holy virgin in
the humanity, for there was a union of the two natures.

302 And we ought to say unto thee, Acacius, that I have confessed in one Christ two
natures without confusion. By one nature on the one hand, that is, [by that] of the
divinity, he was born of God the Father; by the other, on the other hand, that is, [by
that] of the humanity, [he was bom] of the holy virgin. How then canst thou name her
'Mother of God', when thou hast confessed that he was not born of her? For if thou hast
said that in the divinity he was born of the holy virgin, she would be called the mother
of God after the nature which was born of her; but if thou, even thou, confessest that
|297 he was not born [of her] in the divinity, in / that thou confessest that he was not
born, how dost thou confess her Mother of God? How canst thou accuse him of saying two
Christs, [who said that] which thou also hast confessed----that Christ is two natures, one
nature of the divinity which is called Christ and one nature of the humanity which also
thou namest Christ? Either thou dost confess two Christs owing to the diversity of the
natures, one indeed the humanity which was born of the holy virgin, but the other God the
Word who was born of God the Father, or thou dost say, as the other says, 'one in the
union' and nothing more? And on account of what hast thou brought thyself to all this and
brought the others with thee to do these things against a man who was saying this?

303 Cyril. But God the Word who [proceeded] from the Father is not one son, while he again
who [was born] of the holy virgin is not another, as was supposed by Nestorius, but one
and the same. For it is made clear and explained afterwards; for he cites 153 that which
signifies God whole and man whole, him who was born of the Father before the worlds in his
divinity but in the last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary in the
humanity, the same consubstantial with the Father in the divinity, the same consubstantial
with us in the humanity. Therefore they divide not the one Son and Christ and Lord / and
Jesus, but they say that the same existed before the worlds and in the last times; but [it
is] known that he who [has proceeded] from God the Father [is] God and [he who was born]
of a woman in the humanity [is] man. . . . How then is he conceived consubstantial with us
in the humanity since he was born of the Father, I have said, in the divinity, if the same
is not conceived and called God and man? |298

304 Now if it [is true] that the one ousia of God the Word, which was born of the Father
and of the Virgin Mary, [was] the same, for what reason dost thou confess two natures in
the union and not [that] there was one belonging to the same who was born of the Father
and of the Mother, as thou wantest and even constrainest us to suppose and to let thee
also suppose? But they that have accepted this confession do not allow thee to lead them
whither thou wantest, but constrain thee and induce thee as a deceiver to abide by the
things which thou hast confessed with them. 305 For thou hast confessed the union of the
divinity and of the humanity, since of two natures was the union. Two thou hast confessed,
and thou sayest that the others have confessed one. Thy cunning [is] great: so thou hast
confessed the union, and thou sayest that the others have confessed the division of the
union, so that the one same ousia is divided into the two ousias, unlike one another, of
the divinity and of the humanity, so that the one ousia, which is divisible into ousias
unlike and of another kind / one from another, is consubstantial. For one ousia cannot be
conceived as two ousias unlike and of another kind one from another, but which are alike
[in the sense] that they are consubstantial one with another, as is that likeness. In
which nature then is the Son consubstantial with the Father and in which [is he]
consubstantial with us? For the ousia of God the Father and our own ousia are alien one to
another. He therefore too would be alien unto his being and would be of two natures alien
one to another. How then is it to be conceived that he is consubstantial with us ourselves
in the humanity when he exists not in the ousia of the humanity? But how is he
consubstantial with the Father, when he exists not in his ousia? Or how [is] the same in
ousia of the ousia of God the Father and of our ousia? And [how] is it the same ousia?

306 And [how] are two ousias alien one to |299 another one, so that each one of the ousias
both is and is conceived in one ousia? But if this is impossible, [it is] also
inacceptable that it should be conceived in the word of truth. It is not a nature [which
is] in its nature of the ousia of the Father and of the ousia of the humanity, so as to
become consubstantial with both of them; but in the ousia of God the Word only is he
consubstantial with God the Father, whereas he is consubstantial with us ourselves in our
ousia; and the same both is and is named one, who [is formed] of the nature of God and of
our nature, in the prosôpon indeed of the union. For in the natures he is naturally /
distinct according to the diversity of the natures which participate not in one another
according to the doctrine of the ousias. And thou canst not unloose aught that thou hast
bound,----to wit, the union of two 'natures; and two natures are not one nature'. For a
union of the diversity of the diverse natures and not of the diversities of its very own
ousia is conceived and said to have taken place; for the coming into being appertains to
the one ousia, while the union is the combination of the ousias.

307 Cyril. But these things appear not so unto Nestorius, but [it seems to him] rather
that the aim thereof tends in the opposite direction in every respect. He used then to say
in the church when interpreting [these doctrines]: 'For this reason too God the Word is
named Christ, because he has adhesion constantly with Christ'; and again: 'He has
preserved the adhesion of the natures without confusion, and we confess God in man; we
honour the man who is adored with God Almighty through the adhesion of the divinity.'
Seest thou how far [from the truth] his word [is]? For it is full of great impiety; for he
says that God the Word was named Christ singly, but that he has adhesion constantly with
Christ. Does he not in effect speak of two Christs? Does he not confess that he honours
the man who is adored with God? Do these things then, O our brother, seem to be akin to
those which have been said by the former? They have not even any coherence / with one
another; for he on the one hand predicates two natures in operation in him, they on the
other hand one; that is, they confess |300 and adore one Son and Lord and God, the same
[proceeding] from the Father in the divinity and from the holy Virgin in the humanity;
[we] say that a union indeed of two natures took place but we confess clearly one Christ
and one Son and one Lord.

308 Nestorius. We ought to say unto thee, wise Acacius: why deceivest thou us? For thou
hast confessed the union of two natures unlike one another and, wherein thou accusest
Nestorius himself, thou seemest to confess [the same] with him, although thou sayest not
that two Christs are predicated; for Nestorius too seems not to have confessed two
Christs. But, after what thou spreadest abroad concerning him, that he says so, though he
confesses not that two Christs are predicated therein, thou too seemest to predicate two
Christs; for thou speakest not of Christ in one nature but [sayest] that he is in two
natures whole in their ousia, unlike one another; Christ exists in the divinity and in the
humanity; for in that he is two, the two natures also are named two Christs by one and the
same name of Christ. For when two natures, unlike one another, are named by the same name,
they are called two / by homonymy. But thou sayest one in the union; this also Nestorius
says: that two natures [result in] one Christ, which are self-sustaining in their natures
and need not, for the support of one another, that they should be supported by |301 the
union; but they have established the dispensation on our behalf. The divinity [is] not in
need of the humanity, nor yet [is] the humanity in need of the divinity, because in their
own nature they need naught.

309 For it was not for the very divinity through the union with the humanity to become God
without need, nor again was it for the very humanity to become man through the union with
the divinity; but [it was that] from [its] creation by divinity in [its] ordinary nature,
although the union also was its as a result of its creation. For the union of the divinity
came about not for the completion of the one ousia but for the prosôpon of the
dispensation on our behalf. Nor again [as to] the divinity, was the humanity for the
completion of its nature, but for the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf. For they
uphold the prosôpon of one another, and for this reason there makes use of the prosôpon of
the one nature the other nature, as of its own. Both of them make not use of the one and
the other in common nor of composition for the completion of the nature, as the soul and
the body [are composed] for [the formation of] the nature of man, but there makes use of
the prosôpon of the one nature the other nature [as though it were] the same as its own.
And for this reason the divinity also on account of the union is named Christ after the
humanity which was anointed, and there exists / of two natures, of divinity and of
humanity, Christ, one Son, one Lord; through the union of the divinity and of the humanity
the same is Son and Lord and God.

310 For 155 the things which have been called one in the union----a 'one' which exists
united in nature----are indeed not predicated distinctly as things which are predicated by
homonymy; yet, if thou dividest them, the 'one' is not divisible with them. For in its own
nature the ousias are together and it is named after both of them owing to its own nature.
Thus [it is] that the soul and the body which are united are named one living being and
are not called two living beings. The soul and the body [constitute] one living being,
because the |302 body lives not in its own life but in the union with the soul; and for
this reason, if they are divided, the life is not divided but there is [left] only [that]
of the soul, since both of them are named after its nature one living being. 311 Let it
then be assumed for demonstration also concerning the divinity and the humanity that there
is one prosôpon in two prosôpa; that cannot be conceived [as] one without the union, but
man [is] man and God God. Both of them [are] one Son, one Lord. For when they are
distinguished it is not theirs that the latter should be called that which the former is;
for this reason thou too confessest the union of two natures, and of two natures unlike
one another; of the divinity and of the humanity, / complete divinity and complete
humanity, one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Or callest thou perhaps one nature Christ and
[sayest] not one Christ in two natures, and the union without confusion of the natures is
superfluous? But if two natures are one Christ, thou sayest, as Nestorius, in [respect to]
the union, that one is named after the other. And why hurriest thou outwardly to pursue
the others, when thou makest [thy] defence on their behalf and the two [opinions] are
found in thee, the former and the opposite thereof? ....

312 And further he 156 shows the same things: We suppose not in fact, as some of the
former heretics have supposed, [that] the Word which [proceeded] from God took a nature,
that is, [that] he constructed by means of the divinity a bodily frame for him, but, in
following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, we affirm that he took [it] from the holy
Virgin. Therefore, as we accept in the understanding those things whereof was [formed]
only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, we predicate two natures united; but after the
union, as though the diversity of two natures was now abolished by him, we confess [that]
the nature of the Son is of one, but that he was made man and was made flesh; but if it
were said that he who was made flesh or was made man was God the Word, [all] supposition /
of change would be far removed; for he remained that which he was; but let the union also
without confusion be confessed by us. |303

313 Nestorius. Thou confessest then those things whereof Christ is [formed], that is, the
divinity and the humanity, and thou hast confessed a diversity in the ousias and that they
have remained without confusion; but they have remained without confusion, as are the
natures; even then in the union they have remained thus. How therefore do the natures
remain without confusion, since they remain not after the union such as they are in
nature?....'For after the union the distinction between the two is suppressed, and we
confess that the nature of the Son is one.' For if the natures have not remained even in
the union such as they were, but their own distinctions, whereby they were conceived as
two, though remaining even in the union without confusion, are suppressed, there comes
about a confusion, a confusion of change and of transformation, a coming to be in one
nature. How then seems it unto thee? 'The union which was united in the natures took place
without confusion.' Two then [are] they whereof was [formed] only one son and Lord and
Jesus Christ, two also in the union; and the natural diversities, wherein they are
conceived as two, are not suppressed, since the one is not the other in ousia nor the
other the one in ousia. For surely thou conceivest not so, but sayest not as / thou
conceivest. How then in thy thoughts acceptest thou two [natures] whereof Christ is
[formed], whereas after the union thou predicatest one nature of the Son as though
suppressing the distinction between two natures?

314 Above thou sayest that those whereof one son is [formed] are two and later that the
nature of the Son is one, as though the union of the natures resulted in the nature and
not in the prosôpon. For the natures of both of them which have been united have become
one. For this union, being variable and changeable, |304 in that it takes place for the
nature and for the completion of the nature, is not of two complete but of two incomplete
natures. 315 For every complete nature has not need of another nature that it may be and
live, in that it has in it and has received [its whole] definition that it may be. For in
a natural composition it seems that neither of those natures whereof it is [formed] is
complete but they need one another that they may be and subsist. Even as the body has need
of the soul that it may live, for it lives not of itself, and the soul has need of the
body that it may perceive, whereas otherwise it would see, even though it had not eyes and
would hear, even though the hearing were injured, so too with the other senses. How then
dost thou predicate one nature of two whole natures, when the humanity is complete,
needing not the union of the divinity to become man? / For it is its to become man not
through the union with the divinity but by the creative power of God, who has brought into
being all that which existed not, although the union took place with its very creation.157
Nor was the divinity in need of the humanity as if for the knowledge or as if for the
perceiving of human [perceptions]. How then resulted the union of the Son in one nature?
Suppress then entirely the [theories pointing to] two natures and there will be room for
that of one nature without soul, as Arius said, and without intelligence, as Apollinarius
said;

316 and thou attributest unto man one nature outside all the natures and afterwards [thou
sayest] this, that God the Word is not without need, because he is not a complete nature
in that he needs the nature of man. But now in the same [place] thou sayest the opposite
to all this: both [that there are] two whole natures whereof the Son is [formed] and that
the union resulted in one nature of the Son. Nor has it therefore been conceived that
there is one Son [formed] of these [two natures], and thou hast spoken of two natures
united, and further [thou hast said] that [they resulted] in one nature of the Son and
dost abolish that of the flesh. And for this reason after the union thou suppressest the
|305 distinction between two [natures] in that the nature of the flesh has thereby been
suppressed either because it has been corrupted or because it has been changed, and thou
believest, however, in 'one nature of the Son who was made man and was found in body'.
Whom and what, whereof one Son is [formed], callest thou the nature? And what is / the one
nature of the Son? But the things which are united from two natures into one nature are
conceived [to be composed] of both the natures which have been united in like manner as
[something] composed of simple [elements].

317 Therefore the one nature of the Son is composite, and for this reason thou hast said:
'[He is] furnished however with a bodily frame.' How further will the distinction between
both be suppressed, that he 158 may not be conceived [to be] with the flesh? And thou
speakest of two and [sayest] that it is not right that they should be conceived [to be]
two after the union, as though indeed suppressing the distinction between both. And thou
speakest of one nature of the Son and attributest unto them the necessity of being
conceived as two, in that thou sayest that he was furnished with a bodily frame after the
union; for he was furnished with flesh in the flesh which was by nature flesh. Thou
attributest therefore two natures unto the Lord after the union, one the nature of the Son
and one the flesh wherein he was furnished with flesh; or before the union two distinct
natures, of the divinity of the Son and of his humanity, are to be conceived, and then
they were combined for the suppression of one nature. And thus too, neither before the
union nor after the union, is the Son conceived as [formed] of two natures; or thou sayest
this, that they continue disunited and undistinguished, and the nature of the Son remains
alone [apart] from the nature of the humanity, as though suppressing the distinction
between both;

318 and thou castest before Acacius himself, as before a dog that is excited and
infuriated against thee, the [view] that after the union the distinction between both is
suppressed, and thou sayest that we believe that the ousia of the Son is / one; and again
[thou proclaimest] before the Easterns that he however was furnished with flesh, in order
|306 that they might not be excited. Thou hast also said this, that the union took place
entirely without confusion, and thou concedest unto every man as he requires. 319
Acacius.159 Yet verily and often indeed opponents will say: 'Lo! evidently these, in
making confession of the correct faith, name two natures and distinguish the sayings of
the theologians according to the diversity of the natures. And lo! how is it that these
[theories] are not opposed to thine, for thou art not persuaded that [one ought] to divide
the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases?' Cyril. But, O wise man, I say that there is
written in the Articles that that man who divides the sayings between two prosôpa or
hypostases, some of them as if to the man who is known outside God the Word and others of
them as though suitable to God the Word alone, who [proceeded] from God the Father, should
be condemned. But we have not in any way abolished the diversity of the sayings, although
we have ruled out the [phrase] 'we divide them' as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from
the Father, and again as [dividing] the man known [as] the Son of a woman. For truly the
nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.

320 Nestorius. By reasoning and the train of examination did he persuade / Acacius of
these words and did he not lead him, as one that was bridled, to follow whithersoever he
required? For he said that there was a union of two natures whence there was [formed] only
one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ and [that] the union took place entirely without
confusion. How then is the nature of the Son one, that which thou hast |307 said is two
natures----that is, [is] in the natures, [being] that which is of them. For there is not a
nature which should be two natures whence there should be one and not two. 'But', [thou
wilt say], 'through the union it is his to become one, and yet he became not one through
the union, and [it is right] that we should conceive two without confusion with the
diversity of the ousias and further that we should not conceive two but one' . . . . Who
understands confusion without confusion, and [how] to divide the sayings unto two prosôpa
or hypostases? These things need much examination, an exact examination of identity and of
difference. 'If one divides the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases,' [he says], and
again: 'Nor [is it right] that we should abolish the diversity of the sayings even in any
single way.' He who says that it is not right to divide the sayings into the prosôpa or
the hypostases further abolishes not even in any way the two diversities of the sayings.

321 For in what way is it by no means right to divide the sayings unto the prosôpa or the
hypostases? From / two thou keepest us afar off; how therefore hast thou not even in any
single way abolished the diversity of the sayings? 'Although we have ruled out the
[phrase] "we divide them", as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from the Father, and
again as [dividing] the man who alone is known as the son of a woman. For even truly the
nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.' In
what way then hast thou not suppressed the diversity of the sayings; whereas thou sayest
that the eternal Son is by nature God the Word? Say [that] thou givest [unto him] also the
flesh even in union and not in remoteness, what is the diversity of the sayings which thou
hast not abolished? For the diversities are [those] of the operations which are set before
us and these diversities are based on the sayings; for when there is no diversity [in the
operations], the diversity also of the sayings is suppressed. Thou confessest two natures
of one Christ and Son, even two diversities, and thou makest the diversities of the
sayings in accordance with the diversities of the natures and thou dividest also the
sayings of the theologians. How hast thou joined |308 together the very things which are
divided, thou that acceptest with a joyful voice him that divides them?

322 How confessest thou two natures of the union of one Christ and one Son and again one
nature of God the Word? For thou hast said that we confess / one nature of God the Word
and not two united. Thou sayest one Son, because thou predicatest of the Son two natures
without distinction, and thou attributest again one nature only nor yet two without
distinction unto God the Word and sayest that he is the Son found in flesh and yet that he
is not in the flesh. But, lest thou shouldest predicate one Son of God the Word in one
nature found in flesh and another Son of two natures united, of one Christ and one Son
thou darest not predicate one nature found in flesh, but thou confidently determinest the
one nature of God the Word found in flesh. Why then? There is one Son, God the Word,
[with] one nature and another Son with two natures whence proceeded the one Son alone! For
the nature of God is not said to be two natures but one nature, in such wise that thou
callest Christ one Son in two natures. And thou sayest all these things, [to wit,] both
two natures of one Son and one nature of God the Word; and thou speakest of the Son [as
formed] of two natures unlike one another and further removest [one of them] from him and
attributest one nature alone unto him;

323 and thou removest one [from him]----I mean the humanity----so that it becomes not the
Son in the union, and thou art constrained by the word 'natures' to distinguish the
properties of each one of them, whether thou art willing or whether thou art unwilling. /
For for what reason hast thou spoken of one nature of God the Word and not of two united?
And further [for what reason] hast thou dared to say that there is only one God the Word
[resulting] therefrom, as thou hast said that only one Son [results] therefrom? Let it be,
as thou hast said, that two natures, which men would call united, are accepted in
imagination; say thus also of God the Word, that thereby only one God the Word is two. I
indeed predicate two natures united, following the Divine Scriptures and the divine
teachings, and [I say] that God the Word is indicative of the nature but the Son of the
prosôpon, but [that] he is one [and] the |309 same God the Word. Thus [it is] that God is
indicative of the nature but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of the prosôpa.
For this reason the divinity indeed [is] one but the prosôpa three; for God is Father and
God Son and God Holy Spirit. The prosôpa are not without ousia.

324 But again in the same way----thus also concerning Christ [there are] two natures, one
of God the Word and one of the humanity, but one prosôpon of the Son, that whereof the
humanity also likewise makes use, and one [of] the man, that whereof the divinity also
likewise makes use. It is not of the nature but of the natural prosôpon of the natures
[whereof they make use]; for even in the union the natures remain without confusion.
Neither [are] the natures without prosôpa nor yet the prosôpa without ousia, nor as in the
nature of an animal has the union resulted in the completion of one animal; it has derived
from both of them / the [power] to become complete. Yet of two complete natures the one is
predicated of the other by appropriation and not in the nature, but in the natural
prosôpon of the natures and not in another nature. That which is another is [so] called by
nature; for by the nature the Son of God [is] God the Word, in such wise that the humanity
also makes use of the same through the appropriation of the union and not through the
nature. For Christ the same yesterday and to-day and for ever [is] the same in prosôpon,
not in the same nature.

325 Why congratulatest thou thyself and confessest that the humanity and the divinity are
not the very same in ousia or, as thou sayest, in natural quality,----if it is right to
call the quality nature? And further thou confessest that the nature of the divinity and
[that] of the humanity are united without confusion; thou understandest two which are
unconfused and which are combined with one another. Thou confessest also [these qualities]
in respect to the natures because they remain without confusion. And by the nature of each
one of them they are conceived as one, though thou confessest not by the prosôpon but by
the nature. So thou suppressest both that are confessed without confusion by thee; for
thou confessest |310 that both were united without confusion, and further two are not to
be conceived----as though suppressing the distinction of both----as that which [is] one.
If the inconfusion of both the ousias had not been in thy mind, how then sayest thou of
that which was combined in one ousia / that one ought to confess this union [to have taken
place] without confusion? And again let us suppose that those [natures] which have been
united without confusion have not been united without confusion or, like the [view] which
thou hast said, that the union took place for [the forming of] one Son from two natures.
But after the union thou removest the humanity from the union which [resulted] in one Son,
and it has been put far away from the union which [resulted] in one Son and is henceforth
conceived apart from the union. But this ousia of the Son is conceived uniquely, nor yet
are those [natures] whereof he is [formed] Son, but only one nature, conceived in the Son.
Yet thou sayest that there is only one nature.

326 [Cyril.] But when the manner of the Incarnation is investigated, the human
intelligence sees inevitably two things which [are united] ineffably and inconfusedly in
one union; yet it distinguishes not entirely what has been united but believes that of two
there is [formed] one, both God and Son and Lord and Christ. Wherein sayest thou 'one'?
That they have been united in the prosôpon of the union of the natures? Thus then the
human intelligence sees those things which are united without confusion; but they are
without confusion in their own natures and in their own ousia and thus they remain and are
conceived. The one is not conceived as the other in ousia nor the other as the one. For in
the matter of the ousias there is a distinction in the nature of each one of them: it both
is conceived and exists. But in the combination of the natures there exists / in the same
one prosôpon without distinction and without division. |311 In the natural prosôpon [there
is] one nature, making use likewise of the prosôpon of another nature. Thus therefore the
natures which have been united are without confusion and are never to be divided in the
same, in that in the matter of the natures they are conceived in the distinction of their
own natures.

327 Cyril. But the wrong opinion of Nestorius is [something] entirely other than this; for
he proves that he confesses that the Word which is God was found in body and was made man;
but, knowing not the force of 'was found in body' he names two natures and distinguishes
them from one another, setting God solely by himself and likewise the man by himself, who
has been joined unto God in proximity and in equality of honour only, and in authority.
For thus he says: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason I
distinguish not the honour of him that is not distinguished; I distinguish the natures and
I unite the adoration. . . .' But these our brothers in Antioch, accepting simply, as
though in imagination only, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed],
predicate the diversity of the natures----because the divinity and the humanity are not
one thing in natural quality, as I have said,----as well as one Son and Christ and Lord;
and, as indeed he is truly one, they say that his prosôpon / is one but distinguish not in
any way at all the things which have been united.

328 Nestorius. And verily, if this had been truly [said], thou too wouldest have been more
confident in this word, while I should not be able to feel confident of being known
thereby, but, as thou sayest, I should be making use [thereof] in schema, and thou
oughtest to have confuted me before all the Council; |312 nor, when I had required [aught]
of thee by request, oughtest thou to have kept it dark but to have waited for the whole
Council; and again, when I was summoned to the Council, thou oughtest not to have
declined. For how often hast thou not done this very thing and wast refuting my wrong
opinion, whereas I was not able to make use of any defence. For he who is confuted of
imagining the contrary of that to which he clings in hypocrisy condemns with all
condemnations the wrongness of his opinion. Yet perhaps it is not so, but the opposite.
Whence knowest thou that I confess that God the Word was made flesh and was made man and
yet say not that he was made flesh and was made man? For he who was made flesh was made
flesh in the flesh, while he who says that they 160 are divided and distinct 161 from one
another does not even confess the incarnation at all; unless perhaps he confesses / the
[view] that he who was not made flesh was made flesh. For how are those things made flesh
which are apart from one another without being united? If therefore I confess two natures
and that he was made flesh, from what [cause] have I been supposed to say that the natures
are distinct and far removed from one another, without conceding the being made flesh and
the being made man of God the Word?

329 For thou hast said that I say: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this
reason [as regards] him that is not distinct I distinguish not the honour.' How does he
who says that God is not distinct from him that is visible distinguish [the two]? For thou
hast said that thou distinguishest not him that is visible from him that is invisible, and
also that the honour of God is not to be distinguished; nor, if I distinguish not God
himself from him that is visible because he is not to |313 be distinguished, do I
distinguish also the honour. 'Who', hast thou said, 'is not to be distinguished? And from
whom is he not to be distinguished? And for this reason I distinguish not even the honour
of him that is not to be distinguished.' But I say that I distinguish the natures but
unite the adoration. Just as thou too hast accepted the union of the natures without
confusion either in truth or in schema, thou distinguishest also the natures in the matter
of the ousias whereof Christ is conceived [to have been formed], whether thou art willing
or whether thou art unwilling. Thou predicatest also the diversity and [admittest] / that
the divinity and the humanity are not the same in natural quality, as thou sayest. For he
that says that the divinity and the humanity are not the same makes by a natural diversity
the distinction that the one is not the other nor the other the one.

330 But the natural diversity is a distinction. The distinction therefore in the diversity
and in the ousia of the natures is one thing and the distinction in the distance apart of
the ousias, which have been combined and united in the combination, is another thing.
Therefore I have predicated the union of the combination of the natures, of the divinity
and of the humanity without distinction, [saying] that God is not distinct from him that
is visible; yet I have said that according to the union without confusion the natures are
distinguished by a natural diversity, but I have called the adoration of those [natures],
which are thus not to be distinguished and are to be distinguished, one, seeing indeed
that they have been combined in one prosôpon and not in one ousia nor in one nature,
because the union of the natures took not place in confusion; nor further [did there take
place] a confusion for the completion of one nature, because the union resulted not from
incomplete but from two whole natures.162

331 For every union which results by a natural composition in the completion of the nature
results from incomplete natures, but that which [results] from complete natures results in
one |314 prosôpon and subsists therein. For God the Word made not use of a bodily frame
without soul nor / of a soul without will and without mind, nor of a bodily frame and of a
soul instead of a soul and an intelligence. But thereby is distinguished the church of the
Arians and [that] of the Apollinarians, which accepts not two whole natures which have
been united. Neither do I distinguish the natures which have been united by abstraction
and by isolation from one another, nor do I speak of an adhesion through love and through
proximity, as though it were between those which are far apart [and] those united by love
and not in the ousias; nor again do I speak of a union in equality of honour and in
authority but of the natures and of whole natures, and in the combination of the ousias I
concede a union without confusion; but in respect to one honour and to one authority I
predicate the union of the natures and not of the honour and of the authority. Otherwise,
prove [it] by what I have said: 'God is not to be distinguished from him that is visible;

332 for this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinguished.' Where
then have I said in these things that I distinguish the natures from one another and speak
of God the Word by himself and the man by himself, [saying] that they adhered together by
proximity of love and by equality of honour or by authority? For, I have said, I
distinguish not God from him that is visible. [I spoke] not of the proximity nor the
equality of honour nor of the equality, but I said that I distinguish not God the Word
himself in his nature from the visible nature, and by reason of God who is not to be
distinguished I distinguish not even the honour; for he is one thing and his honour is
another, and his ousia is another / and whatsoever the ousia is is another. But, although
I have said that I distinguish the natures and unite the adoration, I have not said that I
distinguish the natures from one another by a distinction of distance, as thou accusest me
in thy calumniation.163

333 For if there had not been [any] other manner of distinction between natures than that
only of distance apart, thou wouldest |315 have well found fault with me for
distinguishing them thus. But if there were many others, and especially [if], in the
matter of the natures which all our inquiry concerns, the union of which natures, whereof
I have spoken, took place without confusion or change, how is this to thy thinking? And
[yet] thou examinest up and down, as though I [had] said in this sense that I distinguish
the natures? 164 334 And thou bringest [word] that the others 165 divide not even in a
single way the [natures] which have been united. In the first place thou wast the first to
say that they are distinguished. But these our brothers in Antioch accepting simply, as
indeed only by reflection, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed],
predicate the diversity of the natures, because the divinity and the humanity are not any
one thing in natural quality, as I have said, but one Son and Christ and Lord; and as
indeed he is truly one, so we say that the prosôpon is one. But thou sayest that they
divide not even in a single way the natures which have been united, while they have spoken
of the diversity, / [saying] that the natural quality of the divinity and the humanity is
not the same; and thou sayest that we ought not to divide the diversity, nor is it that
there are the same things in nature, and therein thou predicatest the diversity. For in
every way thou makest distinction, saying that there is a diversity and that the divinity
and the humanity are not the same in natural quality; yet [thou makest the distinction]
not in distance apart but in the matter of the natures, nor by means of a distinction
consisting in a differentiation of functions, but with an obvious meaning. How then do
they not distinguish even in a single way those things whereof Christ is united and
predicate the diversities in the ousia?

335 And further thou sayest: They accept not even the distinction of the natures, as it
seems to have been imagined by the exponent of [these] paltry inventions, but they define
and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying that [some] of them are |316
suitable not to the Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to the Son solely and
[others] also of them again to another Son who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them
to his divinity and [others] of them again to his humanity; for the same indeed is God and
man; but they say that there are also others which [are] common, because they regard both
of them----I mean, [the natures of] the divinity and of the humanity. . . . I indeed
suppose that he does not even know what he says: however, what I suppose [is] that he says
the opposite / of whatever he says in schema that he confesses with the Easterns. For, if
there were not a distinction between the natures, how hast thou said that they have
predicated a diversity of natures? And how are not the divinity and the humanity the same
in natural quality, since they are divided in nature according to [their] diversity? For
therein, if it is supposed of me that I predicate a natural distinction, it belies [me]
not; they are not however [derived] from the exponents of [these] paltry inventions, for
they are not my own inventions, but the apostolic faith and the teaching of the Fathers
and thy own confession also, since thou art constrained and turnest it hither and thither
that thou mayest say it without saying it.

336 And thou hast confessed that those whereof Christ is [formed] are two natures and
[that they are] alien to one another in ousia: 'We do not conceive that God the Word has
taken [aught] of his own, that is, divine nature and has constructed for him[self] a
bodily frame, following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, since we affirm that he has
taken [it] from the holy virgin. We accept as by reason those things whereof [there is
formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, confessing two natures which have been
united.' And the natural distinction is not overlooked, for the indication of the natural
distinction consists in their |317 being called two; but, in respect to the natures, they
are called two, for there is a natural distinction between the natures whereby thou
confessest two but [addest] that they are united without confusion; for this reason also
[they are] two.

337 / Thou sayest again some thing else to the contrary, that after the union [there is]
one nature, because the distinction of the two, both of them his own, has already been
abolished for him. Therein it is not [possible] for him to come to terms with the
Easterns. Thou sayest however that there is even no indication of the distinction between
the two, not, [that is], the distinction of the union but [that] for the diversity of the
ousias. But thou, O wise man, with all thy wisdom dost even confess two after the union
and determinest to confess that after the union there are no more two natures. For thou
predicatest two natures united; it is evident that they are united before the union and
not after the union. How then confessest thou two natures after the union and forbiddest
us to confess two natures after the union? Which should we believe? The first or the
second? Or thine? Since thou confessest with the Easterns who confess two natures, but
Acacius does not, [saying] that it is not right to confess two natures but one after the
union, because the distinction into two has already been suppressed.

338 Thou concedest unto every man as he requires. ... 'But they accept not the natural
distinction,166 but define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying
that they are suitable, yet not saying that [they are suitable some] of them solely to the
Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to a Son and [others] of them again as to
another Son / who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them to his divinity and [others]
of them again to his humanity, for the same is God and man.' .... And me, lying, he
calumniates as though predicating two Sons; and those things also which he has cited
against me therefrom as well as from the letters and from these interpretations |318 which
have been excerpted by him proclaim [it]. But [as regards] his having said that now they
accept not the natural distinction 167 but define and distinguish only the sayings
concerning our Lord, let us see what those that [are come] from the East have said, and in
what way he makes use of these things: 'As for the sayings of the Gospels concerning our
Lord, we know certain theologians who make [some] of them that [are] common relative to
one prosôpon.' Hearest thou how they have confessed? 'Relative to one prosopon' and not to
one nature. Why changest thou their confession, when they make those that [are] common, as
thou hast said, relative to one common prosôpon?

339 And thou makest naught common.168 Whose do they make those that [are] common, since
there is not [anything] common except [in the eyes of] those who make use of one prosôpon?
Predicate then a common prosôpon and predicate of one prosôpon the things that they make
common. It [is this that] makes his one prosôpon common; for that which is made of things
[that are] opposite in anything is made common, so that it is therefore not sole but /
common. As then a serpent receives a wound and coils itself up over the wound and conceals
the wound itself and unwinds itself anew out of pain and shows it, though unwilling, thus
thou also darest to hide what thou hast confessed and afterwards hast confessed, though
unwilling, the things which have been confessed. 340 For hear thine own confession; for
they have required thee to confess with them the things which thou hast written. But as
regards the sayings of the Gospels and of the Apostles spoken concerning one Lord, we know
that certain theologians make [some] of the things which are common relative to one
prosôpon but divide [others] of them as between two natures; those which are suitable unto
God they attribute unto the divinity of Christ and [others] of them, and those them that
are contemptible, unto the humanity.....169 |319

341 These things thou hast confessed [in such wise as] to imagine and to teach [them]; why
art thou now keeping [them] dark? For thou hast said that the things which are distinct
[are] relative to two natures and not to one nature, nor are the divinity and the humanity
the same, but the [attributes] of the divinity indeed [belong] unto the divinity and
[those] of the humanity unto the humanity. They call not by two names one nature, which is
distinct only in the saying and not in the ousia, as thou imaginest. For thou sayest that
the diversities of the sayings are not suppressed but they have indicated in saying the
natures and the distinction / of the natures. And thou confessest [so far as] to say that
there is a distinction of the natures; for thou hast said that they divide the sayings as
[relative] to two natures, [attributing 'some] of them, those which are suitable unto God,
unto the divinity of Christ' and not unto the same ousia in respect to the humanity but to
the nature in respect to the divinity. For they call not the divinity two natures but one
nature and the humanity one nature; for two natures are not named after one nature nor one
nature after two natures.

342 For concerning two natures they have said that a distinction should be made and not
concerning two sayings which indicate one nature but which indicate two natures owing to
the distinction of the diversity of the ousia of the two natures.170 'Those indeed which
are made common [they attribute] as unto one prosôpon, but others of them they divide as
between two natures, [attributing] those which are suitable unto God unto the divinity of
Christ.' The common prosôpon of the two natures [is] Christ, the same prosôpon whereof the
natures make use even likewise, that wherein and whereby both of them, the divinity and
the humanity, are known in ousia without distinction and with distinction. Neither the
divinity nor the humanity exists [by itself] in the common prosôpon, |320 for it
appertains to both the natures, so that therein and thereby both the natures are known;
for it is one in the ousias. For even the ousia of the humanity similarly makes use of the
prosôpon of the ousia of the divinity and not of the ousia, and the ousia of the divinity
/ makes use of the prosôpon of the humanity similarly, and not of the ousia, as thou
pretendest. And they 'predicate not [some] of them solely of the Word who [proceeded] from
the Father as of a Son but [others] of them again of another Son who [was born] of a
woman; but [they attribute some] of them unto his divinity but [others] of them again unto
his humanity;

343 for the same indeed is God and man' . . . . 344 If thou sayest 'solely' in [the sense
of] remoteness apart of the distinction of the natures, thou speakest not unto those who
confess that the natures are united and that they have been united in one prosôpon and are
two natures and indicate therein and thereby two natures which are known [as such]. But if
thou callest him [one and] the same in nature so that the divinity, which was born of God
the Father is one nature and likewise again [that which was born] of the woman, thou
sayest that God is distinct from man only in the saying and [is] the same in ousia. And
thou speakest outside thine own confession and further art hastening to wage war with
thyself. For how hast thou confessed with the Easterns the division into two natures,
[attributing some] indeed of the sayings which are suitable unto the divinity unto the
divinity of Christ, and those which are contemptible unto the humanity of Christ, who is
by nature the humanity and by nature the divinity. [They said] not unto the divinity of
God the Word nor yet unto the humanity of God the Word, for God the Word is not two
natures nor [formed] of two natures / or two names or many-named, [bearing names] which
are the names of the one ousia itself.

345 And (supposing that] the divinity is not conceived in the nature but only in the
saying, wherefore embroilest thou with thyself Acacius, thy loving and intimate [friend],
whom thou oughtest to have let go, whatever |321 happened, who only in the simple term and
in the saying agrees with thee, who dividest the natures not in their ousias, but in
respect to the sayings which subsisted only in the imagination as saying, which indicate
no [real] definition and no [real] nature? In nature on the one hand and in the ousias
they [would have] had no distinction because also they are not ousias; only in the sayings
of the natures on the other hand they [would have] had a distinction, because therein it
is theirs to subsist. 346 Thus also of Christ 171 thou hast predicated two natures, but
thou sayest that the distinction between them is not in the natures and in the ousias but
only in the understanding and in the sayings. 'Our brothers in Antioch call those things
whereby Christ is known a diversity of natures, as though merely accepting [them] in idea
alone, because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing, as I have said, in natural
quality' . . . . Thou hast said in quality and not in ousia. But the quality, however, is
not the nature of the ousia but either the schema of the ousia or of the nature or of
[that which is] not ousia or a view in mere idea 172 only expressed concerning the
natures. [As for] this quality, it has not the natural / diversity of the natures but a
diversity of the natures without ousia; yet thou sayest that they exist only in the
sayings, in reflection about the natures, without ousias. And this he says, that they call
the things whereby Christ is known the diversity of the natures, as though merely
accepting them in idea alone, because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing in
natural quality, as I have |322 said. . . . But they of Antioch are not content either to
say this or to hear any man that says [it];

347 but they say that, touching the sayings of the Gospels concerning Christ our Lord, we
know certain divines who make [some] of the things that are common relative to one
prosôpon, but divide [others] of them between two natures. . . . They have said that they
surely divide; they have predicated the sayings of two natures and accept not the
diversity merely in idea alone. It is not by sayings but by sayings concerning two natures
that they draw a distinction in the matter of the ousias. Two natures, which are to be
distinguished by the sayings indicative of them, are distinguished. The natures are not
without hypostases, nor in idea without the hypostases of the natures do they constitute
[them] by sayings in reflection, but by reflection upon the natures with the ousias, if
not upon the ousias and the natures, they establish the ideas and the natures.

348 For the one is very distinct from the other; for the one says that they accept merely
in idea alone the sayings about the diversities of the natures / and accepts not the idea
of the natures with the ousias, but [says that] they are without hypostases and not
subsisting, [and that] their origin indeed is from reflection and [that] they are whole in
[its] wholeness. The other says that the idea and the sayings about the natures are
indicative of the ousias both at the beginning in the idea and [afterwards] in the natures
and in the ousias, in such wise that there are three kinds arising out of the nature of
the ousias which are required of him who considers: the ousia itself and the idea of the
ousia and the saying indicative of the idea. But whoever says that they [are] merely in
idea alone, says two kinds [of things]: merely the idea and its own saying. For this
reason he attributes the diversity to the idea alone of the nature and not to the ousia,
but to a quality [resting] upon an illusion and upon a supposition of the nature, upon a
schema of the nature and not upon the ousia of the nature. For [as to] the quality of the
nature and the schema as well as the appearance of the ousia, all these things indeed he
deduces and infers that it 173 is without ousia. Who would |323 take account of one who
makes use of divine things so disdainfully?

349 He has not one pure and confident idea and he reckons everything in this way and
surely makes sport of those who are distressed in heart and [who] are zealous to learn the
truth.And he is like unto Origen who says everything so that he may be accepted of every
one, laying up favour with every one in whatever / he says, and persuades all [men]; [it
is] for these things that he is hated of every one, because he turns about and suppresses
the things which he has prepared by means of the opposite. For he wants every one to
persist in whatever things please any one, and whoever changes them as an enemy is as the
enemy of every one. And they rejoice not and are [not] delighted at the things which they
have prepared [so much] as contrariwise they surely blush at the very things which they
have prepared. The others 175 rejoice not at the things which delight him, for they
suppose that they are outside the truth. But he makes [his] defence against those who have
exalted themselves against him as against an enemy of the truth, namely on behalf of the
faith of the Easterns, and he has not kept their own defence, such as it is, without an
admixture [of falsehood].

350 Cyril. For because the confederates of the impiety of Arius, in impiously adulterating
the power of the truth, say that the Word which [proceeded] from God became indeed man but
made use of a soulless body,----but they do this craftily, that, in distinguishing human
sayings [as] his and proving to those whom they deceive that he was in a state of
inferiority to the sublimity of the Father, they might say that he was [of] another nature
than he----therefore the Easterns, fearing this that perhaps then the glory of the nature
of God the Word might be made inferior by reason of the things which are humanly spoken on
account of the incarnation with / the flesh, distinguish the sayings, not dividing the one
Son and Lord into two prosôpa, as I have said, but distinguishing [some] of them indeed
[as belonging] unto his divinity and [others] of |324 them again [as belonging] unto his
humanity, but all of them however [as belonging] unto one.

351 Nestorius. For if they attribute the divine and the human sayings unto the one nature
of God the Word as diverse only in sayings, how do they escape from saying that the human
[attributes] belong to the ousia of God the Word? But concerning the human [attributes]
thou hast said that they [exist] not solely, [and] that they are indeed alien to the
nature of the Father, seeing that he is one. For he is not another in nature in saying
[alone], but also in ousia. For the ousia of man, as thou hast said, is the ousia of God:
'He is God and man.' [He is] then alien to the Father in every way whatsoever and he is
inferior in everything according to thy own imagination, since thou imaginest that he is
man also in the one same ousia. For drive not by force, thinking yourselves wise, though
you are not so in the truth. They have distinguished the sayings, that they may be
supposed to distinguish them as it were between two natures of ousias, and they are blamed
for an attempt against God the Word [in saying] that these are imagined without ousia in
respect to the natures in idea alone, as thou feignest to call the ones and the others.
But the others distinguish these sayings / as though between two natures which exist by
ousia, as in truth they exist. And they reject the calumny of the Arians against God the
Word; for he who joins naturally the two [kinds of] sayings to the one nature and the same
ousia, aids and abets the Arians in every way whatsoever, [teaching] that God the Word
[is] alien to God the Father. |325

352 Cyril. This is not unknown to thy Saintliness, that, in casting upon my letters the
faults of the idea[s] of Apollinarius, they have supposed also that I say [that] the holy
body of Christ was without a soul and that there was a mixing and a confusion and an
intermingling and a change of God the Word with the flesh, or that the flesh was
transformed into the nature of the divinity so that naught was preserved pure and that
[the flesh] was not what it is. But with this they have supposed that I was implicated
also in the blasphemies of Arius in that I was not willing to acknowledge the diversity of
the sayings and to say that [some] of them are suitable to God but [others] of them [are]
human and suitable rather to the dispensation with the flesh. But thy Perfection bears
witness for me unto the others that I am far from such things as these; but I ought
however to defend myself before those who have been scandalized, and for this [reason] I
have written unto thy Piety that I have never been reconciled to the [teaching] of the
adherents of Arius or of the adherents of Apollinarius and that I say not that God the
Word was converted into the flesh nor that the flesh was altered / into the nature of the
divinity, because the Word of God is unchangeable and invariable and incomprehensible in
all things. Nor again have I ever abolished the diversity of the sayings, but I know that
our Lord speaks at the same time divinely and humanly, because he is at the same time God
and man. |326

353 Nestorius. How hast thou said all these things which are supposed against me because
thou wouldest not acknowledge the distinction between the sayings, when thou hast not
abolished the diversity of the sayings? How art thou supposed, after what thou hast not
abolished, to be reconciled to the [views] of Arius or to those of Apollinarius: that God
the Word was changed into the flesh or the flesh was changed into the nature of the
divinity? For in that thou makest [it thy] defence that some persons suspect thee of being
unwilling to acknowledge the diversity of the sayings, by the very cause of [this] defence
thou accusest thyself, as though thou hast given cause for them to suspect thee. But in
those things, whereby thou defendest thyself, saying 'I have not abolished the diversity
of the sayings', thou accusest thine own self both in the eyes of those who suspected
thee, and especially in the eyes of Acacius, without any occasion for suspicion, as indeed
he had accepted these very sayings which formerly thou usest not to accept. Either how
knowest thou of thyself that I have not abolished the diversity of the sayings, while thou
art supposed [to have done] / the contrary?

354 Or how hast thou said that God the Word was not changed into the flesh and the flesh
not into God the Word and [that] the diversity is only [one] of the sayings and not indeed
of ousias, and that the ousia of the divinity persisted in its very nature and the ousia
of the flesh persisted in the very ousia of the |327 flesh, if their ousias were not
changed? Or how assigncst thou human and divine [attributes] unto the one nature of God
the Word, in such wise that God the Word is in the same [ousia] God and man and was not
changed into the flesh or into man? For it is impossible that both of them should be in
the same ousia, when the one ousia is not as also the other [is], or perhaps becomes not
existent. And is it what it became and is it changed into what it became, that is, into
the ousia of man, or [is] the ousia of man [changed] into the ousia of God? If God and man
are in one and the same ousia and in one nature, while the distinction into two is
suppressed, how are the ousia of the flesh and the ousia of God in their being without
being changed, since they are not to be conceived in the natures wherein they are without
change? Yet if indeed they are conceived without change, how are they which are two not
conceived [as] two? How is the distinction into two abolished and suppressed?

355 How would these, even though it were a stone or a demon to whom naught that was
pleasing was pleasant, not move and sink / to the perception of their baseness? 176 For he
proclaims that the work is his own and, like those that are surely mad, that he does all
things and says this and that and other things and all things and nothing. But he makes
all men adhere, however, to absurdities such as these, though they understand neither what
they are saying nor what they are affirming. For they have not one and the same idea
concerning the same thing, but they deny and persist in those things which they deny that
they confess, as though they are indeed the true faith and cling in [their] faith to the
things which are not of the faith and believe not the things which are evident and are
confessed by all men. For the faith is one thing and the nature is another; for he who
says that the things which are evident and known in respect to the ousia are something
else in respect to the faith, suppresses not the [properties residing] in the nature but
seeks to persuade [men] of those which are not in the nature. But that which is in the
nature is compulsorily 177 that which the prosopon is.

356 For example, [in] what he says of the bread: 'It is my |328 body,' he says not that
the bread is not bread and that his body is not a body, but he has said demonstrably bread
and body, which is in the ousia. But we are persuaded that the bread is bread in nature
and in ousia. Yet in believing that the bread is his body / by faith and not by nature, he
seeks to persuade us to believe in that which exists not in ousia in such wise that it
becomes this by faith and not in ousia. If it is [a question of the] ousia, what is the
faith worth? For he has not said: 'Believe that the bread is bread,' because every one who
sees the bread itself knows that it is bread, nor further does he make it be believed that
the body is body; for it is seen and known of every one. But in that which it is not he
requires us to believe that this is [so], in such wise that it becomes this by faith to
them that believe. Therefore it is not possible that the [properties residing] in the
ousia should be one thing and another in one [thing] of which we should believe that it is
said to be another, though it exists not in its own ousia, that they may become two and be
alien to one another in the ousia. But he who therein suppresses the ousia, therewith
suppresses that too which is conceived by faith.

357 Therefore also it is not in any way pleasing that we should openly make use indeed of
what he thus says; for surely he is deceiving [us], since he accepts and suppresses these
things so that he proves to every one that there are [views] true and false, both of
orthodoxy and of heresy, in him; and I have obeyed him as one [would do] in what he
requires. Nor have they been able to prove in any of those things which have been said by
me that I am an heretic, but he has proved me / in all the [doctrines] of orthodoxy. And
the things which he stirred not up in the beginning, he had stirred up in the [arguments]
wherewith he defended himself, as he has now also defended himself on behalf of the
Easterns, howbeit boldly and cunningly. But some one will say: 'Why have the Easterns
accepted the deposition of thine Impiety whereof they accuse thee, although however thou
hast taughtnothing at all alien [to the faith]? But they too seem to accuse [him] of the
same things whereof thou accusest him |329 and they set aside these things while accepting
also those very things, and there is nothing more. . . .' For we ought to ask the one 178
and the others 179 likewise concerning these things.

358 But if you are willing to learn even from me, I will speak of that which [has become
known] gradually unto every one, not that I may be accepted and helped by men----for I
neglect for my part all human things, since I have died unto the world and I am living
unto whom I am living----but I will speak because of those who have been scandalized, not
of myself nor after my own [words], but after this man himself 178 whom Christ has
constrained to make defence on my behalf. For they have said naught else except that they
have been constrained by the command of the Emperor to accept all these things. 359 Cyril.
The bishops at Constantinople have said: 'The pious bishop John must anathematize / the
teaching of Nestorius and confess in writing his deposition.' Nestorius. Therefore until
then, according to the bishop of Antioch and according to the Easterns and according to
the orthodox bishops, I was bishop. Cyril. As then the pious Emperor agreed with them very
joyfully therein, my lord the admirable tribune and secretary Aristolaus was sent for the
correction of this [business].180 But when the command of the Emperor was |330 shown unto
the Easterns, as though it had been [issued] by the will of the holy bishops who were
assembled in Constantinople the capital, they were assembled----I know not what they
thought----with the saintly and pious Acacius, bishop of Aleppo,181 and made him write
unto me about the manner of the reconciliation of the peace of the churches; [that] it
ought not to take place otherwise except in so far as it seemed good unto them. But this
demand was hard and serious; for they were requiring that all the things should be
suppressed which had been written [by me] in letters and books and writings.

360 Concerning what had taken place after the enforced peace. 182 Nestorius. Until then,
when they wrote these things, the other 183 also was [to be found] among the heretics,
when every one, and not [only] certain individuals, knew and was blaming the things which
were written by him. The hand was [the Emperor's] which led them by force, while there was
/ nought at [my] disposal to be done against what they were requiring. For all those who
hear us have understood----for [many a] one used to suffer with us owing to the violence
which took place by the command of the Emperor----that they have brought me |331 to [such]
an extremity as this. But some one will grow angry, [asking] for what reason they abode
not by the things which they once judged. For they are but slightly busied, [in taking
measures] against what has been carried out against me for the sake of the correction and
the confession of the faith and the agreement of the churches. Like the manner, however,
of a tyrant when he comes to capture and cannot take a city, but for the declaration of
peace seeks to procure the death of him who is fighting for them against him, that, when
he has procured it, it may be defeated, thus the latter too has asked for my deposition to
be granted without judgement. Let this be [so]. It concerns not me [to busy myself] with
what has been carried out against me, but only that there may be peace among the churches.
And I endure all things for the ordering of the churches. But all things have happened to
the contrary.

361 For after he [had] received that for which he was anxious, he both reduced them under
his hand for the sake of an apparent peace 184 and knew that he profited naught by what
was carried out against me; but the confession of the faith, for the sake of which there
was war against me, was confirmed. And it had been evident that there was enmity and
violence and that it was a proof of the things which were taking place and that it would
be possible for them also easily to be kept secret. But, that this might not take place,
and further that my own enemies / might not become his accusers, [namely] those who had
formerly aided him in the things which were carried out against me, he began to be drawn
towards the confession of the faith, showing himself wise and making sport of the two
sides with contrary confessions [of faith]. But they accurately examined and knew that
certain among them were become enfeebled and had suffered many things, without even having
been accounted worthy of any aid. And for this reason they were not easily breaking the
peace which they [had] made as a result of the writings which were written by them from
one side and another, desiring to be left in the same [circumstances], that they might
think thus. But |332 because he 185 had been accused by those who were clinging to his
[side] and were confessing [the same faith] with him as one who went beyond the common
opinion and had destroyed alone the zeal of all of them by his authority and by his
disdain of them, he feared lest they should be alienated from him or rise up against him,
and he was zealous to perform more than they were requiring.

362 And like the manner of those who are taken in war, [who,] seeking to prove that they
are like-minded with their captors, spare not friends nor sons nor fathers in order that
they may make them believe that they hate their [own] race, so also he immediately
inclined himself to rise up against the Fathers who aforetime had passed away, against
Diodorus and Theodorus, who were the common Fathers [of all] both while they were living /
and when they [had] passed away, both his own [Fathers] and ours the same. Although he
designated them, with whom he used to participate, as the enemies of every man and was
clinging to the very Fathers and to the orthodox, yet he had even obtained with all zeal
their own labours on behalf of the faith and had commanded [them] to be sent unto all.
Yet, while he sought however to persuade [men] that he held not back against me out of
hatred, he was seeking to anathematize those against whom no one would have expected nor
even [have made bold] to suppose that he would have dared any such thing. And, what is
baser 186 than all things, he destroyed the sermons which were published against
Apollinarius and supported those of Apollinarius, saying, 'It is the faith of the Church'.
[Do you ask] on which party one would lean:

363 on the party of Apollinarius, or that of the holy Fathers in all the world whom also
all the world glorifies and whom it has reckoned with the single zeal as [of] a common
mouth against Apollinarius and Arius and Macedonius and Eunomius and all the heresies, or
on the side of Apollinarius? Suppose that I, who have not been obedient in the things
which thou hast required of me, have been an enemy unto thee; for what reason dost thou
war on my account with those who have passed away in orthodoxy? Or perhaps thou |333
warrest on account of them who [are] with me? / But, that I may speak the truth, thou
warrest with every man because of thine impiety in all things. 364 Tell me: Were there not
Basil and Gregory in the days of Diodorus? Were there not also at Alexandria bishops known
for [their] conduct and for [their] words? Were there not at Rome accomplished men who
would suffice to stand up on behalf of the churches? And were not they who were doctors in
all the world [sufficient] to stand up on behalf of the churches, men who were not
[living] in luxury and in glory and in honour and in pleasure, but in persecutions and in
distress and in wars and in fear, who had preserved and kept the true faith without
wavering, [rather] than he who was an heretic and deceived----that is Diodorus, who was in
every man's mouth and is handed down in books and was a [cause of] fear unto heretics, who
by the word of doctrine and by divine grace raised himself up against the commands of
[his] Majesty for the people of God and let them not perish but increased them manifold,
and the whole concord of the churches was won by him? Then he was not an heretic neither
for them of that time nor yet for thee thyself nor for thy [followers] nor yet during the
disturbance itself which thou madest against me. But after thou wast encouraged and wast
entered [on the way] whereon thou wast entered and [hadst] reached this tyrannical
agreement, then were Diodorus and Theodorus and the rest of the others / become heretics
in thine eyes. For the way was becoming [open] before thee also against Basil and Gregory
and Athanasius and Ambrose and against the rest of the others who at the same time said
the same things.

365 Who is there who would not groan that this idea was come [to pass]: that, encouraged
by the commands of [his] Majesty and by fear and by punishments, they were constraining
the Easterns and, after the peace, were dragging and bringing them like captives and
pressing round them to make them anathematize their Fathers? They reached this peace and
this unanimity: thus they thought one thought, thus they rested from the suffering of
wrongs, when they [had] delivered me |334 over to my enemy. Because they were fearful,
they were saying that it was better that one man should suffer injury and [that] the faith
should prevail. But would indeed that this had been true! How this would not irk me! But
on the contrary I should have surely rejoiced when aught for which they were eager was
receiving correction. But on the contrary they had suffered for [the words] which they
allowed me [to say] and for the things which they let be said and further [for those]
which people allowed them not to say, though I myself was saying them, and for which they
had cast me out. And after that they fought against Theodore and after him against
Diodorus and then also against every single / one of the rest of the others, and they were
intent on the same intention, having set themselves to drive them out with me, as indeed
they were saying those very things and naught else.

366 And they ought either to drive them out with me for the same [reasons] or to accept
me, even me, and to accept them too. But they dared not say that I should be accepted,
because they had once driven me out; and it would have been necessary also for them,
though grieving, to drive them out and afterwards for these same [reasons] to drive out
also the others themselves, because those others were imagining and teaching the same
things, and [saying] that these things were true. And with this boldness he hoped to rise
up against all the saints to accept [their doctrine] and thereupon to invert and to alter
the things which he [had] received. 367 For this man himself 187 showed his [true] self
after the original confession [of the faith], both gradually adding and subtracting and
saying the same things; and he denied therein the compulsion and the authority, acting and
scheming until he suppressed [the doctrine] that those whereof Christ is are two natures;
and he placed the natures in the names and not in the ousias and imposed the confession of
one nature as if by law.188Then, in striving to undo and to overthrow those who predicated
two natures, [he attacked,] not indeed all of them at the |335 same time, but / in the
first place certain men, in order that, when he [had] prevailed against the latter, he
might go to war little by little against the rest of them, as against persons who were
saying these [same] things as the others. For those too of whom they were making use in
[bearing] witness to what the others [had] said, were saying those very things----and this
is not a new discovery----[and] he was driving them out as heretics. And I too say these
[same] things as those [others], and thus they confess as heretics! And they and all of
them at the same time were increasing this very depravity of impiety in the face of every
one. For he was not citing the [words] of the orthodox and of those doctors who [were]
before me so as to prove that I am an heretic, but on the contrary he was taking my own
[words] against them that he might prove that they [were] heretics, because the things
which were said by them were like unto mine. But let us show also the things which were
coming to pass after these things and took [their] beginning therefrom.

368 [Selected footnotes. Note that all the Greek given from Labbe is omitted] 1. Viz.
Cyril. 2. Viz. Candidianus. 3. So marked in the Syriac text as the heading of a new
section. 4. Viz. Cyril. 5. Viz. Cyril. 6. No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac
text. 7. Viz. Theodotus. 8. Viz. Theodotus. 9. No new paragraph is marked here in the
Syriac text. 10. Viz. Theodotus. 11. Sc. the bishops. 12. Nau makes certain additions to
the text and renders: 'that which thou didst admit when thou wast interrogated thou
oughtest [to establish and that which thou didst not admit thou oughtest] to bring to an
end.' No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text. 13. The Syriac scribe adds in a
note: 'Here some leaves have fallen out.'Between the quotation from the Creed and that
from Nestorius' letter, Nau inserts the title Réponse et comparaison des lettres taken
from the Syriac translator's summary. Certainly Nestorius here passes from the historical
section to a resumption of the doctrinal discussion based on a comparison of his own and
Cyril's letters.

369 14. For the reading of the Creed and Nestorius' Letter at the Council, see Labbe
(Mansi), iv. 1137 and 1169; the text of the letter is in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 892 sq.;
Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 173. The passage quoted is in Labbe (Mansi) iv. 893 B, C. 15. Viz.
Cyril. Nestorius' point is that the Fathers at Nicaea begin by using the words 'Lord' and
'Son', which are applicable to both natures, while Cyril substitutes 'God the Word', which
is not. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 888 d, 893 b. 16. From Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius,
Labbe (Mansi), iv. 889 a, c, e. 17. Viz. the hypostasis and the ousia. 18. Viz. Cyril. 19.
Viz. St. Paul; cp. Gal. iv. 4. 20. I. e. (presumably) would have objected to the use of
'God' and 'Christ' as interchangeable terms. 21. Altering the punctuation of the Syriac
text which puts this stop after 'union'.

370 22. From Cyril's Second Letter, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 892 b 23. In the Syriac text this
sentence is given as a question with a mark of interrogation. 24. From Cyril's Second
Letter, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 889 d: Nestorius' argument is obscure in detail, but its main
tenor is clear. Assuming that Cyril does not hold an Apollinarian view of Christ's body,
he argues that to speak of the Son sitting with his body with the father is open to the
accusation of teaching 'two sons' just as much as anything that he himself has said. Hence
Cyril is convicted of inconsistency and can himself be quoted as authority for doctrines
that he denounces in Nestorius. 25. There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac
text. 26. Syr. 'thou hast said'. 27. Nau inserts here a negative which is not found in the
Syriac text. 28. Syr. 'a prosôpon as a hypostasis', apparently mistranslating the double
accusative in the Greek original. See pp. xiv-xv.

371 29. There is apparently a lacuna in the Syriac text here. 30. Viz. the Soul. 31. Viz.
their composition. 32. Viz. (presumably) the human element in Christ, Jesus qua man. 33. A
passage such as this seems to show clearly that Nestorius did not teach merely a 'moral
union', i.e. a union resulting from and consisting in the fact that the two natures in
Christ both willed alike. Like the orthodox he makes that unity of will the consequence of
the union, not its ground. Cp. pp. 59, 62, 70. 34. I . e. each other. 35. Loofs suggests
that the words 'as indeed are those who are united in nature' have been inadvertently
transposed, and are the end of the previous sentence (Nestorius and his Place, &c, p. 91).
Apart from such emendation Nestorius is here either inconsistent or more than usually
obscure. 36. Viz. St. Paul; cp. Phil. ii. 7,8.

372 37. Viz. Cyril. 38. From Nestorius' Second Letter to Cyril. See Labbe (Mansi) iv. 893
B. At the end of this quotation the Syriac copyist adds in a foot-note, 'Here there is a
blank space, six lines'. 39. Viz. Cyril. 40. I . e. the term 'Mother of God'. 41. Viz.
Cyril. 42. Presumably a mistaken rendering of '318' in the Greek. 43. Viz. God the Word.
44. Viz. Arius. 45. Viz, Arius. 46. We have not been able to trace the source of this
quotation. Nau refers to the following two passages: (1) Cyril, ad Acacium (Labbe (Mansi),
v. 320 d). . (2) The following extracts from Nestorius' writings read at the Council
(Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1201 B). 47. For instances in ancient literature of 'belief in the
soporific and narcotic quality of mandragora or mandrake' see Frazer, Folklore in the Old
Testament, vol. ii, pp. 385-6. 48. Viz. Adam.

373 49. Viz. Christ. 50. See p. 95, n. 1. Nau suggests the addition of the words
Refutation des Accusations as the title of Book ii, part i. [Note to the online text: this
extra heading indicates that the editors have rearranged the text -- see note for details]
51. Viz. Cyril. 52. Viz. Cyril. 53. Cp. e.g. Cyril's letter to Acacius of Melitene, on p.
180, n. i above. 54. The Syriac text indicates a lacuna here. 55. Sc. the body. 56. The
Syriac copyist has here added a note to the following effect: 'From here twelve pages have
been torn out and lost from the original by the troops of Bedr Khan Bey, when they
captured the district of Das in the year 2154 of the Greeks (= a. d. 1843).' See Introd.
p. xi. 57. These words are added, as also by Nau, from the Greek text. 58. I.e. the
doctrine of the two generations, (1) that of God the Word 'begotten of the Father before
all worlds'; (2) that of Christ, born in time of the Virgin Mary.

374 59. Literally: 'under beginning and under completion'. 60. Nestorius here uses
language drawn from a passage of Gregory of Nazienzum which was read at the Council, and
which later he quotes frequently as supporting his arguments. See pp. 195 and 200 for the
text. 61. The copyist has added here in the margin the following note: 'Two lines have
been left blank in the exemplar.' Nau suggests that they were so left for the title of the
following section to be inserted in red ink, as elsewhere in the manuscript; cp. pp. 201,
n. 3, 203, n. 2. 62. Viz. Ambrose. The following are the passages from Ambrose read at the
Council to which Nestorius refers. See Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1189 d, e. 63. Nau suggests that
the space of four lines at the head of this quotation in the Syriac was left for the title
to be inserted in red ink.

375 64. Viz. Gregory and Athanasius. 65. The copyist has here added the following note in
the margin: 'These lines in the original are blank,' from which Nau supposes that the
title of the following section has fallen out; cp. pp. 196, n. 2, and 201, 11. 4. 66. Viz.
the name which he took for the purpose of exalting it above all other names. 67. This is
one of the very few passages in which at first sight Nestorius seems to suggest something
very like 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood; cp. p. 224, n. 3. But that this was not
his intention is clear from pp. 225, 312-15. It is interesting that here, immediately
after the suspicious passage, he claims for his doctrine that which 'Nestorianism' has
usually been held to lack----the provision for a universal atonement. 68. Viz. Cyril. 69.
The phrase 'so that he is not' must clearly be taken as expressing a corollary of the view
which Nestorius is rejecting.

376 70. Here Nestorius refuses totidem verbis to deny the human hypostasis of Christ; but
see p. 156, n. 2. This passage surely makes it all the clearer that Nestorius used the
word hypostasis in its older sense as practically equivalent to what Cyril called ousia.
The two words are evidently synonymous in the sentence below beginning: 'But in name alone
he has a body . . .' See too p. 218, n. 3. 71. Viz. the two natures. 72. 1 Viz. Cyril. 73.
I . e. the name 'Christ' as used by Nestorius. 74. These words are added by Nau to
complete the antithesis. 75. Viz. the soul. 76. There is no new paragraph marked here in
the Syriac text. 77. Viz. the Word. 78. Viz. Cyril. 79. Viz. the Incarnation. 80. Viz. the
divinity. 81. Viz. Gregory. 82. Viz. Athanasius. 83. Viz. Cyril. 84. Viz. God the Word.
85. I. e. as Nestorius.

377 86. Viz. the man who suffers and obeys. 87. Viz. God the Word. 88. Viz. Christ. 89.
The previous quotations from Gregory have been from Gregory of Nazianzum. This one is from
Gregory of Nyssa, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1193 d. 90. In passages such as this Nestorius seems
to approach most nearly to teaching Nestorianism as usually understood; indeed it may be
argued that such teaching is logically implied in the language he uses. But that it is not
his own intention to imply it he shows clearly almost immediately in the paragraph on p.
225 beginning: 'And thou dost concede . . .' 91. A gap, not a new paragraph, is marked
here in the Syriac text. 92. Viz. Cyril. 93. Viz. the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. 94. Part of the passage read at the Council from the sixth Paschal Epistle of
Theophilus of Alexandria, Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1189 a.

378 95. Viz. Cyril. 96. Viz. Nestorius. 97. Viz. Christ. 98. Literally: 'by parts' or 'in
parts'. 99. Viz. God the Word. 100. Inserted by Bedjan in the Syriac text. 101. This sums
up Nestorius' dissatisfaction with the Cyrillian conception of the 'impersonal manhood of
Christ', and the question at issue is whether he misunderstood that conception, or rightly
criticized it as unintelligible. See e.g. Loofs, Nestorius and His Place, p. 73.
Consistently with this Nestorius suspects Cyril of treating Christ's manhood as something
less than human; cp. p. 260. 102. Viz. 'the man.' 103. This statement of the doctrine of
the communicatio idiomatum is surely in accordance with that elaborated in Leo's Tome and
accepted as orthodox at Chalcedon. For an estimate of Nestorius' teaching on this point
drawn from other sources than this work see T. H. Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the
Faith, p. 113: 'Leo drew out this at length in the Tome. Nestorius would not or could not
see the validity of this method of speech, nor allow that the Son could enter the sphere
of human life while still remaining within the Divine sphere.'

379 104. The passage in brackets is restored from the Greek. 105. Viz. Nestorius. 106. I.
e. of God the Word. 107. Cp. p. 262,1. 27. For Loof's interpretation of this phrase see
Nestorius and his Place in the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 92-4. 108. Viz. Gregory.
109. There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text. 110. The Syriac text gives
this sentence as interrogative. 111. There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac
text. 112. If this, the literal rendering of the Syriac, be retained, 'not God' must be
taken together as meaning 'human'. But it is much more probable that the 'not' of the
Syriac represents the οὐ of the Greek μὴ οὐ after a negatived verb of denying and should
therefore be omitted in English. 113. Nau, following the Greek, inserts: Pierre, prêtre
d'Alexandrie et premier des notaires, dit. 114. Cp. Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 284, 285.

380 115. Viz. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria. 116. Viz. the new-comers. 117. Cp. the
account given by Nestorius and his adherents in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1232 E-1236 a. 118.
These are the twelve anathematisms appended by Cyril to his third letter to Nestorius,
printed in Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1081 sqq. Together with Cyril's letter they were read at the
Council, and inserted in the Acts, but whether they were formally approved is doubtful,
though the Easterns and the Chalcedonian Council assumed that they were. See Labbe
(Mansi), vi. 937, 972. The anathematisms, with Nestorius' counter-anathemas, the comments
of Theodoret and the Easterns, and Cyril's replies, are printed in Bindley, Oecumenical
Documents of the Faith (2nd ed.), pp. 144 sqq. 119. Syr. 'anaphora. 120. Literally: 'with
which the operations of the churches are full'. 121. Syr. masyonin = Lat. mansiones, one
mansio being equivalent to ten parasangs. 122. A monophysite account of such phenomena as
these, written in Syriac between 512 and 518 A. D., has been edited by Nau with a French
translation; sec Jean Rufus, Eveque de Maiouma, Plerophories (Patrologia Orientalis VIII.
i, Paris, 1912).

381 123. Literally: 'trusted ones', 'intimates'. Nau renders eunuques (see Payne-Smith,
Thes. Syr. i. 233-4). 124. Literally: 'ministering', of which the precise connotation is
shown by the Greek original, ψάλλοντες ἀντίφωνα. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1428 c. For the
part played by Dalmatius, see Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1257-60, 1397-8, 1427-30, and Lupus, Var.
Patr. Epist., p. 419. 125. I. e. he was bribed. 126. Viz. John. 127. Viz. John. 128. The
story of Cyril's bribery is continued below, p. 349. The other evidence for it is
contained in the letters of Acacius of Beroea and Epiphanius the Archdeacon and Syncellus
of Cyril; see Labbe (Mansi), v. 819 and 987-9. The list of gifts referred to by Epiphanius
is reprinted from Florilegium Casinense by Nau in an appendix. These documents are
discussed in Hefele, History of the Church Councils, §§ 130 and 156. Nestorius uses the
following language in a sermon reported by Marius Mercator: Quid me latenter sagittis
aureis iacularis? quid in me sagittas aureas absconditus mittis? . . . Noli me sagittis
aureis vulnerare; non sunt mihi sagittae aureae (Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 299, 308).

382 129. I.e. Timothy I, bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 381. 130. I.e. of Nazianzum. 131. I.e.
Chrysostom. 132. For the names of those chosen by the Orientals see Lupus, Var. Patr.
Epist., p. 65; Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1400 a, h. In Labbe the number is eight. 133. Viz. the
Emperor. 134. Cp. Lupus. Var. Patr. Epist., p. 70. 135. Viz. Cyril 136. I.e. Maximian.
137. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), iv. 1401-7. No new paragraph is marked here in the Syriac text.
138. Viz. Cyril. 139. Viz. the Emperor. 140. Altered rightly by Nau into 'after', on the
grounds that Nestorius has just spoken of the dispatch of the seven bishops to Chalcedon
and that this section deals with the agreement of Cyril with John of Antioch. 141.
Literally: 'seven of the one and seven of the other'. 142. Syr. burkta, 'blessing', a
euphemism for 'presents' or 'gifts'; see Payne-Smith. Thes. Syr., col. 614 b.

383 143. Cp. Kidd, History of the Church, vol. iii, pp. 256-62. In April 432 the Emperor
sent Aristolaus, a tribune and notary, to John of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, and St.
Simeon Stylites. He was to endeavour to make peace by persuading the Easterns to abandon
Nestorius and Cyril to give up his Twelve Articles. After some negotiations, in which Paul
of Emesa joined Aristolaus, Cyril and most of the Easterns came to an agreement before the
end of the year, Nestorius being abandoned but without the explicit withdrawal of Cyril's
Articles. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), v. 277-84, 312, 347-51, 663-6, 827, S28; Lupus, Var. Patr.
Epist., pp. 385, 386. Introd. pp. xxii, xxiii. 144. Viz. Cyril and John of Antioch. 145.
Although the first actual quotation from the correspondence between Cyril and Acacius does
not occur till about two pages further on, the section dealing with that correspondence
seems to begin at this point. There is therefore no need to follow Nau in regarding this
heading as a later insertion in the text.

384 146. Viz. John. 147. Viz. Cyril. 148. Viz. Cyril. 149. Viz. Nestorius. 150. Viz.
Cyril. 151. Viz. the Eastern bishops. 152. There is surely here a confusion in Nestorius'
thought. Would not the divine nature, which prevents us from thinking of God the Word as
being born, prevent us also from thinking of Him in any way as moving through space, e.g.
passing through the Virgin? 153. So the Syriac text; but the true sense is given by the
Greek, where the verb is in the plural, the subject understood being the Easterns with
whom Cyril has come to agreement. See pp. xiii, 401. 154. Viz. the Easterns. 155. The rest
of this paragraph seems to be a statement of the characteristics of a 'natural union'
designed to show that that form of union is inapplicable to the 'Union of the Nature' in
Christ. 156. Viz. Cyril. 157. I.e. the union of Christ's divinity with his humanity took
place simultaneously with the creation of the latter. Cp. p. 237.

385 158. Viz. the Word. 159. The whole passage is taken from Cyril's letter, and follows
immediately on p. 393, n. 2; Nestorius has added the name 'Acacius'. 160. Viz. the
natures. 161. The specific meanings of the words 'divide', 'distinguish', 'separate',
etc., cannot be pressed in this translation. The editors have appropriated one English
word to each Syriac word, but the result is at times unsatisfactory, as here. The sense
required is clearly 'separate', while the Syriac word is that rendered throughout by
'distinct'. See the definitions on pp. 313-16. The Syriac translator seems to have used
these words very loosely and without any precise discrimination of meaning. Cp. p. 154, n.
1. 162. Here Nestorius gives the most concise summary of his position. He then goes on to
contrast it with 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood; see p. 314, n.1 163. Here
Nestorius most directly repudiates 'Neslorianism' as usually underStood; see notes on pp.
205, 224.

386 164. There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text. 165. Viz. the Eastern
bishops. 166. I.e. the distinction of natures; see p. 316, n. 1. 167. I. e. the
distinction of natures. 168. I.e. because Cyril only allows of one nature. 169. From the
letter which John of Antioch sent to Cyril by Paul of Emesa, Labbe (Mansi), v. 292 C. 170.
Cp. the passage from Cyr. ad Nest. iii quoted on p. 325, n. 1. 171. ' Thus also of Christ
. . . .' This passage seems to reveal an important difference of terminology between Cyril
and Nestorius. Nestorius spoke indifferently of two 'natures' or two 'ousias' in Christ,
but he objects to Cyril substituting 'natural quality' for 'nature', assuming that a
'quality' is not necessarily a real element in an object of thought, but may be something
said or thought about it existing only in the mind of the thinker. But if for Cyril
'nature' was the sum of the 'natural qualities' (φυσικαὶ ποιότητες) and they shared its
reality, it is easy to see how there was room for confusion.

387 172. Both 'idea' and 'reflection' represent the same Syriac word. 173. Viz. the
natural quality. 174. Note that Nestorius here charges Cyril's teaching with implied
docetism. 175. Viz. the Easterns. 176. Or 'absurd behaviour'. 177. Or 'in might'. 178.
Viz, Cyril. 179. Viz. the Eastern bishops. 180. The Syriac text ascribes the words 'As
then the pious... of this [business]' to Nestorius, making the second quotation from Cyril
begin at 'But when the command . . .' The correction, accepted by both Bedjan and Nau, is
based on the Greek original, of which the whole section is here printed; cp. Labbe
(Mansi), v. 309E. 181. Nau points out that the name 'Aleppo' is due to the Syriac editor;
for the Greek has 'Beroea'. The See of Beroea only changed its name to that of Aleppo in
a. d. 638. See p. xi. 182. According to Bedjan and Nau, these words are to be regarded,
not as the closing words of the extract from Cyril's writings, but as the Syriac editor's
heading of the following section. Bedjan proposes to place here the beginning of Bk. II,
pt. ii, instead of on Syr. p. 459.

388 183. Viz. Cyril. 184. Literally: 'a peace of schema'. 185. Viz. Cyril. 186. Or, 'more
absurd'. 187. Viz. Cyril. 188. This is Nestorius' most concise summary of Cyril's position
as he understands it.


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

BOOK 2, PART 2

BOOK II. PART II

2 Concerning what was done in the time of Flavian. 3 Now after Proclus Flavian became
bishop of Constantinople, a man who was used to comport himself with uprightness and with
reverence, but had not the ability to speak in public and to expound his discourses. He
then who was accusing all the bishops, he who / was left behind alone of the rest of the
others who had passed away, that is Eutyches, took heart, and, because he was not a
bishop, set himself by means of the authority of [his] Majesty [to behave] otherwise----as
bishop of bishops. For he was taking charge of the affairs of the church, making use of
Flavian who, by reason of the greatness of his humility knew not the things which were
being prepared, as of a minister in [the execution of] the things which were being
commanded at Constantinople, while he was driving out of the church as heretics all those
who were not holding these views of his; but those who were aiding him he raised up and
aided. But apart [from this] he was making use of the authority of the Emperor, a reliable
authority, and he was unwilling that two natures should be predicated of Christ even in
saying, and was mocking at the Fathers who spoke thus, blaming them as hypocrites who by
hypocrisy were dissembling the truth or [who] like heretics expressed these [views] of
mine, since the doctrines of those men ought not to be embraced in the judgement of the
faith. Thus, while he was confirming and preparing these things by the authority and by
the commands of [his] Majesty, all the East was disturbed at these things and there was no
place that had not been stirred up, because he had set aside all things as things / that
were happening in schema; and already he was openly constraining them either to say things
which they wanted not or to suffer wrong and to receive punishment.

4 For Flavian had heard that the churches were disturbed |337 anew over these things and
the monasteries were divided and the people were rising up in parties, and that already
the fire was kindling in all the world owing to those who were going and coming and were
preaching various things that were full of impiety. And he 1 sent unto him,2 as they say,
requesting him and beseeching him to spare the churches of God which were much distraught
by the disturbances which had taken place aforetime and for which those things sufficed
which had been settled while there was peace, and not to stir up against him 'that which
was not stirred up against those who were before me, lest it should be supposed that it
was not stirred up against them out of fear, whereas [it was so] in my own days because of
the greatness of [my] negligence; for I confess that I am a miserable man. But what
couldest thou have befall thee more than others? Yet, on account of my humility, even thou
directest the episcopate and I have done everything that thou hast commanded without
declining.'

5 But the other 2 on the contrary was saying: 'I aid thee / in the episcopate and thou
oughtest to rejoice in the change: that these things, as they were being [done] out of
hypocrisy, against them that [were] before thee will take place in thy days without
hypocrisy. For now, to be sure, it is supposed that men have been purified from these
[heresies] of Nestorius, whereas they have clung to his [views]; and we are supposed to
have had a personal enmity towards the man and not [one conceived] on account of his
impiety, since we have indeed condemned him but have let his faith flourish. Yet we ought
entirely to drive out the things which he has said and confessed; for he was not sent away
as confessing two natures distinguished from one another and [that] each of them was by
itself Son, but because he confessed two whole natures and one prosôpon of two, which of
constraint are called two natures in that the Son is named Son in each of the natures.' 3

6 But when Eusebius of Alexandria, who was bishop of Dorylaeum [and] who was regarded as a
confessor because of |338 the words which had been said [by him] against me,4 had come
unto Eutyches, he 5 indeed praised the freedom of speech which had been [taken] by him
against me in the things which were done against me. He said: 6 'It would be suitable to
thy freedom of speech itself to extirpate those who are encouraged by the impiety of
Nestorius, and for this reason God himself has sent thee, not indeed as though thou
lackest aught, for everything has been prepared beforehand by the Emperor, but indeed so /
that thou shouldcst exult in thy affliction, if this too should come to pass by means of
thee. But thus, if thou dost approach the Emperor in blaming those who need to accept two
[natures], either therefore, thou sayest, that the things which were taking place at the
Council in thy days may not be suppressed. . . .'

7 But the other, supposing that he was neither disturbed nor yet angered at these things,
but that he was quite calm, says unto him: 'Be thou silent, and labour not in vain, ye who
want impossible things to take place, while neither all the Council which was at Ephesus
nor Cyril himself, howbeit he was in agreement with the Easterns, has suppressed them. And
afterwards again an agreement was [reached] concerning these very things, and one let be
the things which were well [able] to be retained. For it is not possible that there should
be taken from the church [the right] that two natures should be predicated of Christ
without confusion, [those] of the divinity and of the humanity, consubstantial with his
Father in the divinity and consubstantial with us in the humanity. . . .' And Eutyches
became perturbed against him and said: 'God confound thee, who [affirmest] that even
formerly Nestorius had said naught against God, but that [he was] turbulent and
vainglorious! For how [is it] that he who says the [same] things as Nestorius, can rise up
against Nestorius? For these |339 words are his whom you have delivered up with much
labour.' But Eusebius said / unto him: 'I know not what thou sayest: for I dispute not
with him because he has predicated two natures, [n]or has the Council blamed him for this,
but because he distinguishes and places [them] in sundry parts, God by himself and man
alike by himself who make use of and are spoken of similarly only in honour and in
equality alike. And in this way thou sayest [that there are] two natures and that the holy
Virgin is not the mother of God, because God made the very birth of his flesh his own.' 7

8 And Eutyches says: 'Thou liest concerning it, because you hold his views without being
supposed to be clinging unto his [views]. For he was proclaiming ten thousand times: "I
say not two sons, I say one; I say not two natures, nor two sons, for the Son of God is
twofold in the natures. For this reason she bare not the Son of God, but she bare the
humanity which is Son because of the Son united thereto." And again: "Since God is not to
be distinguished from him who is visible, how therefore do I distinguish the honour of him
who is not to be distinguished?" It was not then because he had said simply two natures
nor because he [had] said that the natures were not united, for [he said]: "I confess the
twofold [nature], but I adore two in one because of the union", but that even after the
union / he says [that there are] two natures and that the Son is twofold in the natures
and says that the union resulted in one prosôpon and not in one nature. But you also,
acting impiously, say this and nothing more; and all hypocrites ought to be extirpated.
For I acknowledge after the union not another ousia in our Lord nor even do I surely
conceive that our Lord, who is our Lord and our God, is consubstantial with us; but he is
consubstantial with the Father in the divinity.'

9 And Eusebius says unto him: 'Does Nestorius speak thus, as thou sayest, or not? I am not
now for my part concerned to investigate, but this I say: that he who says these things
speaks correctly and thou, who confessest not with the |340 orthodox and, speaking of the
flesh which is consubstantial with ourselves, either suppressest it or changcst it into
the nature of the divinity, [dost not.] For this reason we ought to subject to inquiry
those things which thou sayest [are the views] of Nestorius and whereof thou accusest the
Council and Cyril of surely lying against him, since they imagine so; and thou confirmest
the accusation of that man, that he imagines that the truth is so. Every one anathematizes
this opinion as impious, and I shall prove [it] at a convenient time; for, if there is not
a [human] nature in our Lord, / neither is he also consubstantial with us; the very ousia
of the flesh has thereby been suppressed.' And Eusebius accused him of these things before
Flavian and before the Council which was assembled with him at Constantinople and
[Eutyches] confessed them and continued making a show of his impiety, confessing that the
body of Christ was not consubstantial with us as though [resulting not] in two natures but
in one nature.

10 This had stirred up the Emperor, and he had not wanted him 8 to be thrust out by
deposition, but he was not heard. He therefore prepared all things for the deposition of
Flavian and for the restoration of Eutyches. He commenced by attaching to him[self] the
bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Rome by written accounts of what was done against
Eutyches;9 and one agreed and one agreed not [with him]. For the bishop of Rome had read
the things which were done against Eutyches and had condemned Eutyches for impiety; but,
when I found and read this account, I gave thanks unto God that the Church of Rome was
confessing correctly and without fault, although they 10 were otherwise [disposed] towards
me myself. But he 11 caused also the rest of the bishops to secede from him 12 and made
them hasten unto Eutyches, insulting those who [remained] with Flavian, and without having
vouchsafed liberty of speech before him[self] and before the chiefs; and they were surely
rebuked, yet were they surely not heard / touching that for which they were |341 rebuked;
but men were rising up with insult against them and seizing them and constraining them.
And he caused the clergy also to secede from him, constraining and persecuting them in
what was not given unto them for their sustenance; and the [charges], which he had
commanded should not be exacted of the churches when he respected the church and God, in
furious anger he commanded should be exacted of them with implacable abuse.

11 And prelates were openly seized and rebuked before the crowds, and every bishop who was
not of the party of Eutyches was seized; and he commanded every tax upon the possessions
of their churches which had been remitted unto them by him and by the emperors before him,
[even] the tax of all these years, to be exacted of them at one time; and of those who
were nobles or of the family of noble persons he exacted openly, in return for the honour
which was theirs, a quantity of gold----by which very [means] he commanded vengeance to be
exacted of Eusebius, the accuser of Eutyches, without mercy. For these two [means] were
employed [together] with all the assaults of hunger and of usury and of captivity, things
which were innumerable, and he made the Roman nobility fall at his knees and groan. 12 /
And while Flavian was overwhelmed with all these things, he was keeping the feast of the
Passover, during which the Emperor entered into the church. But he 13 looked not upon him
as an enemy and he took the holy Gospel to have mercy upon them, while all the bishops and
clergy were assembled with him and the [newly] baptized in their attire, while the people
were crying [aloud] with him. And he fell upon his face and prostrated himself in the
church, beseeching them to accept him making his defence, since he supposed that he
respected the Gospel. But the other 14 dismissed him with scorn, menacing him as having
acted insultingly in that he did it, while the bishops and clergy besought [the Emperor]
with him and the [newly] baptized prostrated themselves upon the ground amid the voices of
the people; and they persecuted |342 them as if [they were] acting insultingly towards
[the Emperor], and he withheld himself from that time from entering into the church, and
he commanded that whatever was due should be exacted with insult and [that] no respite
should be granted unto him, so that he was consequently constrained to send [word] unto
the Emperor that he had not possessions of his own, because he was poor, and that not even
the possessions of the church, if they were sold, would suffice to [pay] the quantity of
gold which was being exacted of him.

13 But he had the holy vessels of the church, which he and the emperors his ancestors had
placed [therein], and [he said]: 'I must melt them down, because I am driven [to do so] /
by force.' But the Emperor then said: 'I want not to know [this], but the gold I do want
in any way whatsoever.' And because of this he took out the vessels of the church and they
were melted down openly, so that there was weeping and outcry among all who took part for
these exactions that were being made, as though [they were being] subjected to
persecution.15 14 But after the Emperor heard the things which were taking place, he was
angered exceedingly and bitterly and furiously and as though indeed he 16 [had] brought
about these things to scorn him. And he commanded that an Oecumenical Council should be
assembled against him and that the deposition of Flavian himself should be undertaken. But
Flavian, after he had been closely pressed by all sides and had seen that everything that
he was doing and saying he was doing to his own blame and to his rebuke, and [because] he
had no aid from [his] Majesty----for since, as they say, that came through the choice and
zeal of his sister,17 [and] she was unwilling to show authority in aught in internal
affairs, he had been [filled] with suspicion that on her account he was being wronged----
he purposed to resign from the episcopate and go unto his monastery and dwell there; and
he drew up a document of abdication and |343 gave [it] in. And after the Emperor knew that
he had done this, he sent for him to come back unto him, as though he had done it to
slander himself and to blaspheme against him; and [he sent word] that, if he should not
return unto his church, he would fall into danger, [saying]: 'For I have not / commanded a
Council to be held as if to wrong thee, but for [the purpose of] a true examination and
the satisfaction of the truth in the things that are required.'

15 But, when he came back, he 18 immediately suborned accusers to say that the records
which had been [drawn up] in Constantinople [of the things done] against Eutyches were
false. But the accusers were those that took refuge with Eutyches [and] who were they that
had written down the things which were done against him, and they were accusing themselves
much more than Flavian, so as to be rather praised and not judged. By means of the liberty
[accorded] by the Emperor they were doing all things by force, so that suddenly there came
about the decease of Flavian, distressed so that he had no respite in all the accusations
against him and was amazed and perished. But because he was capable of resisting, he gave
himself up to various absurdities and was doing all things desperately. For he anticipated
also the bishops, who were undecided and who ought to have sat on the bench of judges, and
he won them over and made them his own, such as the Bishop of Ancyra [and] him of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, sending for them and, as though he was vexed at what was done against /
Eutyches, interrogating them whether what was done against him was in truth done; and he
said that the things which were done by the Council were deficient and that they remained
accusers, and [he added]: 'We want to examine them before the governor and before your
Pieties,' and he made them take heart thereby, so that they should not accept what was
being [done] but should submit all things for arbitration to the wisdom of the Emperor.

16 But all these things were being done so that there might be no examination of the faith
but [that] Flavian might be |344 deprived as a result of what was prepared outside [the
Council] and [that] they might accept the [doctrines] of Eutyches, without examination. If
Flavian then had said unto him these things, and that Christ is of two natures, and that
the natures subsist after the union as things that have been united without confusion, and
[that] he is consubstantial in the divinity with the Father and consubstantial in the
humanity with ourselves through [his] mother, these then abbreviated his sayings and
changed what the judges ought [to have heard], and condemned him as one that imagined the
contrary. He was a man [worthy] of aid on account of his having been surely calumniated.
But if they had deprived him as one that said not these things but as one that even then
still persisted in these very [views] of his, confessing that he imagined thus and was
attached unto the heretics who imagined not thus, wherefore do you abandon the examination
concerning him and put into [the minds of] them that are outside [the thought] that there
is in them / [cause for] suspicion, because they were brought about by the accusers? For
they it was that wrote [against him] and they showed great zeal in what was being
examined.

17 For suppose that something was deficient in the sentence of judgement by these or by
those; perhaps even his 19 having been deprived by them was surely deficient. For what
reason then have you not examined it in regard to its having been deficient, in [that for]
which they have truly deprived him and in what he has not in truth agreed with them? For
he who says: 'They have surely failed against me, who have been surely calumniated,'
denies that he has said the things on account of which he has been accused and deposed.
But if he has confessed that they were not two natures that were united and further [that]
the bodily frame of our Lord was not consubstantial with ourselves, and even now is
showing that he abides by the same [views], what is its having been defective, as though
indeed these things are not sufficient to prove him possessed of a strange opinion? But by
any means on the one hand he had denied the things that he said, on the other |345 hand he
strengthened himself thereby against his accusers who deprived him. This then was already
examined and he [had] also accepted the judgement. What other judgement or examination
ought there [to have been] more than that which the bishop of Rome had pronounced? For he,
when he had accepted what was done by the two parties, praised indeed the one but
condemned the other by divine / inspiration, and had not simply passed sentence on them.
And because they felt scruples before the bishop of Rome, they turned back to the bishop
of Alexandria as to one who liked to run with them and was an enemy of the bishop of
Constantinople.

18 Concerning what was done in Ephesus against Flavian. 19 For again indeed they had
reached Ephesus, which is appointed and destined for the deposition of the bishops of
Constantinople; and further the bishops of Alexandria and of Ephesus consented together
and were aiding one another against the bishop of Constantinople. The bishop of Rome was
not [there], nor the See of Saint Peter, nor the apostolic honour, nor the primacy dear to
the Romans, but he of Alexandria sat in authority and made him of Antioch also to sit with
him; and he of Rome----and we mean Julian, who represented the holy bishop of Rome----was
asked if he was in agreement with the holy Council and wished to read in this account what
was done at Constantinople. He,20 as / one that had authority, then asked and spoke as
though even passing sentence against them. Yet they 21 conceded however unto him their
intended purpose, not that he should accept that which they wished nor yet that he should
give unto them the primacy, but that, if the bishop of Rome should agree with him, he
should accept him as an addition to his party, and otherwise, supposing he were found [to
be] against them, he might remove him afar as one that had not authority even in a single
[thing], wanting to prove unto every man that they should not look unto the bishop of
Rome, since he was not able to aid him of Constantinople.

20 For after Julian had said: 'For this |346 do we wish, that the deed which was committed
should be read out, if the letter of our father Leo has first been read,' afterwards
indeed Hilary the deacon of the holy bishop of Rome said: 'After these records which you
now want to read had been read before him, he! then sent that which he sent.When he had
heard these things and there was naught that he ought to say, he 23 passed the opposite
sentence concerning them: that 'this indeed was a procedure pleasing [unto him], that the
things which were done should be read out and then the writings of the pious bishop of
Rome.' 21 Wherein then is the procedure pleasing indeed that in the first place these
things / and then the others should be read and, when they are read, the decision that
thou wantest should be passed upon them? For what [reason] hast thou afterwards commanded
things to be read when thou leavest no room to read them? Then thou commandest them to be
read whose purpose thou wantest to make void! For thou didst know, thou didst know
accurately what was sent concerning these things unto the Emperor and unto the Empress 24
and |347 unto Flavian himself, and contrariwise thou wentest by the road which led towards
the Emperor and whercunto thou wast subjected, and left that which conducted towards God,
and didst concern thyself very little therewith. But I have said too little: that is, [I
have omitted to say] that thou didst not reckon it anything at all and didst despise
him.25 And thou didst even sweep aside the adjurations of the bishop of Antioch26 who
adjured thee with frightful adjurations, by the holy mysteries, not to show thyself
zealous for the deposition of Flavian nor for his harm. 'It is right to look not to what
would be for the consolation of the Emperor but to what will arise therefrom.' For I will
examine and I will gratify the Emperor; [it is for us] to be eager not for defeat but for
victory, because otherwise we cannot aid him, however much we show ourselves eager, when
the Emperor strives with him and is angered [against Flavian].

22 And he is so altogether angered that he will turn unto chastisement unless we give
[him] this room to appease his rage.' Thus by these words / he deceived him 27and brought
him under his control, and so he led him by this word which he had said as though with a
bridle. And he27accepted him and took part with him in the rest of the other [affairs],
and he warred on his side and also [helped him to] deprive him 28 and the others and
whoever in whatsoever manner was supposed to think the [same things] as Flavian. And
concerning these things it seemed thus unto the Emperor. For I pass over the things, which
were being directed against my own person 29 and [that] of Flavian, and all that they were
wanting in order to drive out those who wanted not at all to anathematize us. However,
they deprived him28too by the same [means as me]. But others, who were injured, were
deprived without judgement; for they saw not the judgement nor the place of judgement, nor
was [the right of] defence nor speech granted unto them. Except him who had been pleasing
to the Emperor and to Eutyches, these were depriving and driving them out of their cities.
And |348 those who [were followers] of him of Antioch, had much defence [to make] before
men concerning him to whom this was not conceded;

23 for he was therefore sore beset without [hope of] aid by the very [means] wherewith he
[had] acted against others, suffering for the same things and not on behalf of others. And
[conduct] which had not even any reverence, from which there was no escape, that is his
injury and the transgression of his adjurations, brought him to all these things. For he
made him of Antioch, / who indeed was of such an opinion [as Flavian], an instrument
against the bishop of Rome and against the bishop of Constantinople, since it was not
quite forgotten by him 30 whether he held such an opinion; for they had written many times
to one another concerning these things. Yet he made use however of the holy bishop of
Antioch, such as he was, and he made use [of him] until he made him useless and unworthy
of the work of the episcopate, and he cast him aside and deprived him, while [his]
adjurations were still on his tongue, either [as] one that was useless to him or because
he was frightened of him, seeing indeed that he had fallen into the temptation of having
transgressed [his] adjurations. For this reason he had deprived him in this very [way]
whereby he might be able even otherwise indeed to exact his vengeance.

24 But he was frightened not only of him,31 in case he had this [same] opinion [as
Flavian], but also of the Emperor, and he was doing all things [possible] lest, after
carrying out by [means of] him all these things according to his wish, he should
afterwards turn round and hate him as untruthful and transgressing [his] adjurations and
[as one] who was committing all things unjustly to appease him who was in authority, and
then would also work against him and cast him aside. 25 For it was even like this [that he
was behaving] for the sake of him whom he was appeasing [and] whom he was drawing nigh
unto him[self], and he was both / aiding him and advancing him in what he wanted. And he
was doing all things [possible] and persuading every man to believe that he had undying
love for him, and, when he was supposed |349 to love him the more when he was gathering
the fruit of whatever he wanted, straightway he cast the man aside and then came to hate
him 32 and turned away from him and wronged him; and he delivered him unto his enemies to
be insulted as a man that had done very wrong and had sinned against his will, and he
insulted [him] and transgressed against his adjurations. And for this reason, since he had
known him, he had also wished to tempt him that he might be sinned against [by the very
means] whereby he [had] sinned, in such wise that he might thereby become [his] master and
slander the man before every one. And a trial of these things was made by this very man;
for these things took place no long time before.

26 Concerning what happened about Cyril when the gold was exacted from him.33 27 For
Cyril, who had given many things because of us, when he had gathered the fruit for which
he had given [them], because the Emperor knew that he still had money, was indeed pledged
in written documents [to pay] two thousand pounds [in] gold, as they say, that what was
done against me might be confirmed. But because they had been confirmed / and he who had
imposed upon him the condition that he should give [this sum] unto him,34 that is, John 35
had passed away with insult and in contempt with him who had laboured with him for what
was done against me at Ephesus, and because some thing which he had done in his writings
[had] come unto him, that he should take also that which was left, and should release the
man,36 what did he34 do, according to what men say? He wrote unto him 36 a friendly
letter,37 beseeching him to hear him and to come with him as far as Ephesus, because he
was under a vow touching himself and touching what was done at Ephesus, to bring [it] and
to complete [it] within [the church of] Saint John, |350 for the sake of an [holy] death
through his intercession. And [he said]: 'If there is aught that I have not done well
because I knew not, I want to be rebuked by thee and I will render unto thee the honour
which I owe unto thee,' indicating his 38 flight from Ephesus and what he had done against
him;

28 and he wanted him to correct these things because of those who were rejoicing at his
flight from Ephesus and who were supposing that he hated him and was striving on behalf of
Nestorius. And he 39 required his return [unto Ephesus], so that every man might be
convinced and not suspect these things, 'lest they that oppose [thee] should be [buoyed
up] by a vain expectation, [and that] we may make them subject unto thee'. 29 But the
other,38 since he knew naught thereof, had zealously / done the work, and he filled ships
with all [kinds of] things and presents, as though for the Emperor and for the Imperial
family and for the chief persons as much as was sufficient according to their rank and
according to their honour. And he had come unto Ephesus and had given his presents and was
honoured and caused every man to be amazed, and according to his honour he was in the
mouth of every man. He was so honoured with all honour that he sat with the Emperor upon
the first throne----and I mean [that] of the Emperor----while the Emperor sat on the
second; and this happened also within the palace and in the [imperial] chariot and in
public, so that the seat of the Emperor might be sanctified by his sitting [therein]. And
for this reason he caused him to enter also into Constantinople, so that the brothers of
the Emperor and the household of the Emperor and the city might be sanctified by his
coming. But after he had here also satisfied the cupidity of men with presents and
consequently had nothing [left over], he 39 then commanded that the gold should be
exacted, the two thousand pounds, which he was pledged by written documents [to pay] and
which he could not deny without being further deprived of his honour if he were to deny
[them] and be convicted. But after he knew and perceived that the suffering which |351 had
come upon him [was] a great wrong, he gave pledges for these [two thousand pounds] and
sailed across the sea amid storms and in a great disturbance / and fled, lest he should
fall in with other wrongs by reason of the accusers who were accusing him. . . .

30 But again I revert there to the just judgement of Dioscorus, who had received from
Cyril the primacy and a hatred for the bishop of Constantinople. For their aim was not
this, to attain the truth, but in every way whatsoever to strengthen themselves. For
before Flavian had entered into the assembly, as they say, the other * had taken the seat
and the place of the bishop of Constantinople and had made the others precede him, so that
he sat at the end, as if [treated] with contempt. But he thought indeed nothing like this
and sat down; but the other himself,40 wanting to make a show of his tyranny, in the first
place made this stir----and thou didst it that it might cause suffering unto him of Rome,
as they say----and he arose and constrained him 41 and made him come and sit upon his own
throne. And then the Counts, who had been charged with this, restrained the bishops who
were assembled and were wanting to speak for him outside what was asked of them by the
bishop of Alexandria, who had the power of authority. / And those that had come from
outside to [bear] witness to all the things which happened aforetime and [who] were able,
in respect to the conviction of Eutyches of having said these things also before his
accusation, to prove that there had been no calumny----and I mean the enclosed [monks] in
the monasteries and all those who were supposed to have come on behalf of Flavian----they
made to hide themselves and be in alarm because of their coming, as though they had vainly
and boldly given themselves up on behalf of him who had been deprived by the Emperor from
Constantinople.

31 But all of those with Eutyches----they were monks----were in [the enjoyment of] great
liberty and authority, in such wise that whatever men wished to be [done] by authority
|352 was done by means of them, so that also they delivered unto the chiefs themselves and
unto the inhabitants of the city all those who were indicated unto them. For every man was
made subject unto them, and they were ministering unto them whether they were willing or
whether they were unwilling. For what was being done was displeasing unto many of them,
but they were constrained and [were] weeping. And by every means they were doing the
things which were commanded; and they were carrying off men, [some] of them from the ships
and [others] of them from the streets and [others] of them from the houses and [others] of
them while praying from the churches, and were pursuing [others] of them / that they fled;
and with all zeal they were searching out and digging after those who were hiding in caves
and in holes in the earth. And it was [a matter] of great fear and of danger for a man to
speak with the adherents of Flavian on account of those who were dwelling in the
neighbourhood and keeping watch and were as spies to see who entered in unto Flavian.42
And on account of this they were going and taking part with the adherents of Eutyches,
[some] of them indeed since they feared to bear ill-treatment, and [others] of them since
they had been the first to depend upon his own aid, and were speaking and lying much; and
all that they were saying unto him against the other 43 was approved and [such things]
were said unto him as if for [his] pleasure.

32 But they had dissociated from him 43 Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, who was the accuser
of Eutyches, and they had neither let him come in nor defend himself;44 and they had also
dissociated [from him] all the Council which had heard [him] and which had set him 45
aside at Constantinople [and] which ought to have spoken with him and established the
things which it did. And they isolated him from all sides and made all of them his
accusers, who suffered from fear lest they should bear ill-treatment; for both if a man
were not |353 persuaded and if he were persuaded, it was by all means certain / that he
would bear ill-treatment if he did not belie Flavian and become a partisan of Eutyches.
But thus they were beforehand in settling him 46 and stripping him on all sides and
placing him [in a position] without hope and without freedom of speech, so that there was
even no speech [left] in him. For all of them prepared themselves as if not to hear him
but by all means to condemn him, and they brought him into the assembly, insulting him and
not letting him defend himself against [the things for] which he was rebuked. And before
the presence of the Counts, who were in charge, they were stirring him up and instigating
him, commanding him not to speak. But hear however this speech also which was [extorted]
by force and by constraint for [a proof of] the mockery of the trial of this man.

33 For when the records [of the things] which were [done] in Constantinople against
Eutyches and the agreement and the signature[s] of the bishops opposed to Eutyches, and
especially [that] of Selcucus, bishop of Amasia, who had condemned him, were read, they
examined him neither by any judicial process nor by any [regular] procedure, so as to
exact of him the acknowledgement 47 of his signature, [in order to discover] what his view
was 48 and whether it had been correctly put by him; but they passed sentence without
examination and as if as the result of a labour confused / [and] indiscriminate, which was
uncontrolled and unruly. They were crying out '[These] things are not [the concern of] the
bishop of Amasia; divide thou not the indivisible!' in such wise as thereby to dismay the
man and so that he should agree with those who were accusing him.49 And by this
demonstration |354 they [wished also to] make others fear and deny the sentence which they
[had] passed and calumniate Flavian in one and the same manner; for this [treatment] was
common unto all those who accepted him and agreed with him.

34 There ought therefore to be also a common judgement [both] of those who had condemned
him and [of those who] agreed with him and had repented of the signature which had been
signed against Eutyches, but they were however doing these things in order to show that
they ought by all means to condemn Flavian, as though he had modified their words and the
decision of their judgement, nor was it [possible] for them to make [their] defence
otherwise. But, that they might accuse Flavian, Dioscorus, the instigator of this
examination, while putting to silence the unruly crowd, was crying aloud in his [own]
unruliness: 'Be silent awhile; let us hear also the other blasphemies. Why do we blame
only Nestorius? There is many a Nestorius.' Not one convicted him of holding these views
of mine, nor yet did he allow [any one] to calumniate him in me, / but indeed he 50 spoke
of me as well as of him; for the other too----he was of them that speak correctly----was
however saying: 'I speak in one way and he in another,' and was denying that I said these
very things, either because thou knewest it not or out of fear. Without therefore having
given unto him a chance to defend himself, he anticipated [him] and condemned him, lest,
when he defended himself, the truth should be established concerning the things whereof he
was accused: [that is,] that they were not the doctrines of Nestorius but of the Divine
Scriptures and of the holy Fathers who [had lived] before the three hundred and eighteen
and of those after them. For it was possible through him in all respects to prove that
they 51 were orthodox. |355

35 So therefore that these things might not be examined, in that they could not deny that
they were [the views] of the orthodox, and that, in accepting them as [those] of the
orthodox, they might not again let go that which they were zealous to do, [that is,] to
condemn Flavian and acquit Eu-tyches, they passed over these words and went on to accuse
him of other things, as though he was surely modifying the decision of the judgement. And
they gave him [permission] to defend himself on this charge and not on that on account of
which and by means of which Cyril and the Council of Ephesus were exposed. For among the
things which they had said, the adherents of Cyril and of Eutyches culled / what was in
agreement with them and chose what was pleasing unto them, and the partisans also of
Flavian [acted] similarly in opposition to the former. But Cyril was the father of many
heresies and used to say this and that and otherwise at the same [time], in such wise
that, when they made use of what was contrary, [it was impossible that] they should not
distort those things which happened in the time of Cyril and what happened at Ephesus. And
of necessity they supported my own words [so as] to suppress what was done against me and
that there might be no chance for [the execution of] what was being done against Flavian
on account of the accusation of Eutyches.

36 For these reasons they 53 would not allow Seleucus himself to make [his] defence, nor
even support what was written by him. But in short they had recourse to such an outcry
that no one else dared to make a defence but [only] to say what they wanted against
Flavian, [that is] that the things which were brought about by the decision of the
judgement of Eutyches were [being] modified by him [and] that they would accept such a
signature without a word. For thereby has their aim become known unto every man, but
[even] is it known from the signature of Atticus.54 37 / Now Atticus 54 was a countryman
and a rustic unable even |356 to [understand] evident things; for he was a confidential
servant,55 and had been brought up within the house like slaves, and had been given to the
great palace of the imperial household; and, since he had thus the licence of influence
and greatness, he had been elected among the bishops, though he was not learned in nor
understood ways and triflings and schemings such as these. And they had constrained him
lyingly [to] say that it was surely modified, and he constrained them to say and to make
known unto him the violence, since he understood not what they were saying unto him. For
Atticus the bishop had said: 'Immediately I entered Constantinople and looked upon the
hearers and the monk who was saying: " Sign, my lord," I said unto him: " [Wait] awhile;
allow me to see. And I heard him reading something lying. And after these things he said
unto me: " Sign, my lord. I said: " I cannot sign; truly indeed I know, but I cannot say
aught;

38 I say however that if any one believes not as the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at
Nicaea and those at Ephesus, let him be anathema in this world and in that to come." ' And
Dioscorus, as before a child that is accused, commanded Atticus to deny [these charges]
and to belie himself, and he said what he wanted [him] / to say, [that is:] 'These things
therefore which have been read are lies and trifling.' And Atticus knew not what he wanted
him to say and said: 'I know not,' because they had suggested unto him to say [that] they
were lies and trifling, and Atticus knew not. Again he asked him otherwise, suggesting
unto him: 'Hast thou not said these things?' and hardly, as they goaded him on, did
Atticus know what he wanted him to say; and Atticus said: 'No.' And again they wanted to
confirm what he wanted him to say. Dioscorus grew confident to ask him about the same
things [and] he even said: 'I have heard what has therefore been said by thee.' He said
what he wanted [him] to say and to teach, because he was afraid lest he should reply to
him one thing for another. And Atticus says: 'I have heard.' And |357

39 Dioscorus suggested unto him, saying: 'Then thou hast not said them?' And Atticus,
suggesting [the same thing] as he who was prompting him, said also the same things: 'Have
I not said [it]? ' Thus both before the Emperor and before other men he made use of the
same artifice so as [to ensure] that they would deny their own signature and act against
Flavian irreverently and unjustly. He accepted indeed the things which [were said] by them
/ without examination and the things which had been said under [stress of] evidence, [that
is] that they 56 had been modified, he accepted without hesitation.57 |358 40 But he
wanted Flavian to speak against them, and they allowed him not, since he was quite
[overcome] by constraint such as this and by violence, but they wounded him, as the Counts
say, so that he should surely not speak until the signature against him was complete and
the [affairs] of Futyches were thus confirmed, and that for which they were zealous wholly
attained; for they were therefore assembled as for a dead man. For when that which was
done against Eutyches was read in the records and Flavian had spoken against them, they
said: 'He Is surely lying about our own signature,' and they wounded him, as men say.
Then, after the decision of the judgement and the sentence against him had been
promulgated, as was pleasing unto them, Dioscorus had commanded him to speak, and he said:
'If the godly bishop Flavian knows aught that would aid him, let him say [it] in written
documents.' What ought he, who knew that in all things his just words had been repudiated
with violence such as this, to have said? And they were therefore commanding him as in
sport to say, in addition to what he had said: 'Thou hast inhibited my just words, in that
thou hast accepted every calumny against me without hesitation.

41 / Yet in order that this too might be proved to have been [done] in sport, they had set
down in the records for [our] instruction, even though they were unwilling, in what way
they [had] checked all his just words: that Dioscorus said unto Flavian: 'The holy Council
knows if I have inhibited thee,' and Flavian spoke openly of the violence which had been
[done] unto him, [saying:] 'I have not been let alone nor is it permitted unto me even to
speak,' so that it was also known that these things which were said were [said] in
mockery. He 58 said: 'Say what would aid thee,' and he said that there |359 was no
trifling or lying in the affair of the records; and 'both my lord Eusebius and my lord
Thalassius, who signed and examined [them] with me knew [it]'. And Thalassius and Eusebius
repudiated his statement, [saying] that they had not examined [them]. Then consequently,
in that they were addressed only in mockery, namely, after the sentence, Thalassius said
these [same] things as Dioscorus: 'There is no one restraining thy Saintliness from
speaking,' and Dioscorus mockingly replied unto each one of the bishops who perceived this
artifice, saying: 'My lord Eusebius, say whether these things have not taken place, and
examine, so that he may be found guiltless. But hast thou indeed restrained him from
speaking, and, further, dost thou urge him to speak? ' And, after he had spoken unto him,
he 59 again said the same things: / that this affair had been before my lord Thalassius
and my lord Eusebius, when also my lord Magnus the privy councillor was present, and had
been examined, and naught such as this was found [in it]; every single one of the bishops
who were there present [and] those who heard [the case] would say as before God whether it
had been said lyingly.

42 Dioscorus again mocked him, [saying] that this to be sure was no defence, and the other
supposed that he was in truth offering him [leave] to speak, having let him examine these
things. And again, deriding, he 61 turned to face Stephen and said unto him: 'Hast thou
prohibited him?' and unto all of them: 'Speak, all of you.' And thus he made sport of the
man himself who was not versed in nor knew the wickedness and the wiles of the Egyptians
but supposed that they were [filled] with piety and were eager to speak more than the
truth in the interests of those who were misrepresented by slander. And consequently,
after he 59 knew what they were doing and that there was not [any] urgency at all for
defence nor for proof, he became quiet and bore witness before every man, saying: 'By the
aid of God I am not affected by aught of what you have done unto me; for I have neither
confessed aught and thought at all otherwise, [n]or do I confess [otherwise now].' And he
then was silent [and ceased] to answer / a word unto |360 him as if unto an evident
heretic. And for this reason he had incited him to speak, and he 62 persisted in this
confession.

43 He suffered naught that he ought not, nor was he like unto the bishops of this world of
his time who agreed in all that men were demanding of them, nor did he even change the
likeness of his opinion but persisted in giving himself up to suffer; nor was he resolved
nor even purposed to say: 'I am a simple man and I am far from this exactitude; and also
aforetime we were instructing and persuading Eutyches, and I have condemned him as indeed
I was persuaded [to do] by his accusers who were supposed to know something, having been
persuaded by the opinion of many and not by myself; and now, if it seems [good] unto all
of you together and you have examined [and found] that these [opinions] of Eutyches are
[those] of orthodoxy, I too am persuaded of that whereof all |361 of you are persuaded,
and I will sign with you in order to cling to those of orthodoxy; and reckon me also with
the party of those bishops who need to be condemned!'

44 For all things would have been brought to an end by this discourse, as well as the
anger of the Emperor who clung to the slander and was zealous for tyranny, for which
reason indeed he had caused the Council to assemble. But he had not been persuaded, even
in Constantinople, when all of them / were persuading and beseeching him to do this, nor
yet in Ephesus, where consequently the wrong was nigh at hand, when he was on the verge of
death and it was being said by every man that only this was for him [a means of] escape
from death, while he saw all of them fleeing from him and taking part with Eutyches and
being rescued thereby. And I was a proof for him that neither deprivation from the
bishopric of the city nor yet silence sufficed for me not to give them a cause for change,
but [that] the cause wherefore I was suffering wrong [was] altogether that I was heard to
be [still numbered] among the living. For, as long as thou art alive, expect death from
the wicked; therefore, that thou mayest not surrender the faith, let all these things for
[thine] endurance be [ever] before thine eyes. For immediately after [his] deposition was
suspected, he was carried off as if by bears and by lions by the Counts before whom this
deprivation took place in such a way that he was both dragged away and hurled down, and
some were saying and even doing [one thing and others] another.

45 And he was isolated and perturbed by all of them, and his spirit was vexed. And they
delivered him up to the soldiers and commanded them to lead him away and remove him from
the holy places. And they led him away and incarcerated him, / a man who was fainting, in
prison. And before he came unto himself and was revived and was breathing fresh and pure
air and taking nourishment that strength might be a little [restored] in him, they
delivered him up unto the officer and threatened to send the man away, bruised. 46 And he
was unable to endure the hardship of the journey. The Emperor was as one that desired not
his life but wanted |362 to punish him and not to keep him alive. And thus they brought
him down by force and gave him to a man [that was] a murderer so as to destroy him and to
send him without mercy, in word indeed unto his [own] place, but in reality unto
destruction. And thus he was dragged away and led off, [with strength] sufficient only to
survive four days, as men say, while every day his soul was being released from his body,
and they counted his decease [as] a festival for them[selves]. And wrongs were being
increased against all of them who agreed with him and his fellow believers. And further I
[was] among the first in severe persecutions and in flight and in exiles and in commands
whereby authority was given in every place unto them to do what they were purposing; since
I and Flavian certainly thought the same things. And authority was given unto the people
to lead off and to hale away and to deliver up. Slaves / were accusing their masters by
the same [means], and authority was given unto them [to do so] by the command of the
Emperor;63 and all their eagerness was to lead their own souls into error as well as the
souls [of those] who conceived or thought that God the Word is immortal.

47 And they were saying things more impious than these in such wise as to constrain [men]
to say that it was his ousia, [that] of God the Word, which died. And he 64 had given unto
them authority against every man while the chiefs were not trusted nor the bishops nor all
this world nor enemies nor slaves; but, as though they fell short of their cupidity and
their zeal in regard to those who called God the Word immortal and impassible, they set up
those who were more eager to scrutinize and to search out, to seek for those who were
fleeing. And all these [terrors] overtook them; and the suspicion and the expectation of
sufferings were worse for them than the sufferings; and it was evidently a Pharaonic
struggle against God. 48 / Enumeration of some part of the ills which happened in the
world because of the transgression against the true faith of God impassible, with a
prophecy. But after these things began to take place concerning the |363 faith and in
respect to the discussion against [the doctrine] that God the Word was not immortal and
impassible, it therefore [came to look] as though the immortal God the Word himself had no
care for them;65 for those [who thought] therefore that God the Word was not immortal had
begun to be overthrown and brought to subjection in one way and another and some of them
in all ways and there was none to turn aside the wrath. What happened in [the way of]
earthquakes and wars. 1. They had been worn out with pestilences and famines and failure
of rains and hail and heat and marvellous earthquakes and captivity and fear and flight
and all [kind of] ills, and they came not to perceive the cause of ills such as these; but
they were the more inflamed and embittered against any one who dared to call God the Word
impassible, as though they were suffering these ills because men called God the Word
himself impassible and immortal; and there was no place of refuge.

49 / 2. A twofold upheaval on the part of the barbarians and the Scythians, who were
destroying and taking every one captive, had shaken them and there was not even a single
hope of rescue; and hitherto they understood not that all this was not simply human. 3.
And therewith he 66 had also shaken the earth with earthquakes, the like of which there
was none that remembered. 67 For thus the earth was shaken, as a thing that was being
overturned and burst open or inevitably destroyed. But when again it ceased [from
trembling] and was firm as aforetime, it was like unto a thing that a man had grasped,
[torn] out of its natural place; he indeed who shook it was also shaken therewith. [It
was] not only to the eyes that it showed its shaking which shook it and the stability that
established it [anew in its place], but it brought all men themselves to perceive [it] and
through the greatness of all |364 [these] things it brought knowledge to the minds [of
men] more than speech [would have done].

50 4. The barbarians indeed had drawn nigh and had assailed the Romans and reduced them to
all despair. 5. But in Constantinople, the imperial city, the towers of the wall which
were built with it had collapsed and left the wall [isolated], though it had not suffered
any [injury] from the things whereby it had been shaken, and they remained as things that
have not been shaken, while there was not / even a single indication in them of the
earthquake; and even [in some] of the places in the midst of the walls the stones had
started out of the whole building and from the parts adjoining the building; even the lime
had been shaken out. 6. And some things appeared openly in one part of the city [in one
way, and others in another part] otherwise, and things had not been shaken by a common
earthquake but to convince men that he who was doing these things was immortal and had
authority over them.

51 7. About the Forum of Theodosius the Great. For even the stones which were bound with
iron and lead had been torn up, being borne up into the air and remaining suspended awhile
and then falling; and, when those that were about to meet them were coming out, they
immediately fell. And ten thousand other things and many [there were] which were happening
in other countries and were being heard of and were a great cause of trepidation and fear,
so as to bring men, though unwilling, to supplication and to the beseeching of God to have
mercy upon them, not however as he wished; for some were beseeching him [for some things
and others] for others, according to their [own] calculation, and were praying unto him
for what they possessed. And this one was saying: 'God that has suffered and died for us'
and was beseeching [him], while yet another [was praying] otherwise, as though they were
saying that which was honourable unto them. For they were [filled] with wrath and with
anger against / those who dared to call | him] immortal and impassible; and for this
reason did afflictions and fears which |365 were very fearful crowd the more upon them,
while their wrong deeds recoiled upon them, so that there was no time for them to have
leisure to act wrongly towards the pious who were among them.

52 Concerning Holy God'. But, since he wished to bring them to perceive their blasphemy
and to desist therefrom, because they came not thereto, God himself gave unto them a
manner of intercession ----for he who should do this had not been found----whereby they
should say: 'Holy God, holy [and] mighty, holy [and] immortal, have mercy upon us.' 68 And
every one assented with one mind thereto and left off the things for which they had
yearned [and] for which God had not yearned. And they wrote this down in the basilica and
in public and set it up thus: 'Glory and thanks to the holy one and to the immortal, God
the saviour of all'; and they had almost succeeded in confessing God immortal; and that to
which they clung they denied not, but this was sung in every place. But after the
earthquake had ceased and a few wars were arising, they roused themselves again and
revealed themselves against God; and they were dissembling the confession [of faith] in
God, as persons that remembered not the [formula] 'God the holy one and mighty and
immortal', who was able / to bring wars to peace even without human might, wherein was his
might and except for which there was not [any kind] of preparation [for war]; and they
have made trial of this thing in fact. Now indeed they have ceased even from [this]
supplication.

53 But a little before their war with these barbarians the very cross alone used to teach
them and bring them to believe in God, who more [than all] swept warriors away without a
weapon. But before this, when the barbarian was stirred up by an army, he threw himself
into holes and fastnesses. For, |366 because the people of the Scythians were great and
many and formerly were divided into peoples and into kingdoms and were treated as robbers,
they used not to do much wrong except only as through rapacity and through speed; yet
later they made them a kingdom and, after they were [established] in a kingdom, they grew
very strong, so that they surpassed in their greatness all the forces of the Romans. And
God showed them that he was not become weak, against whom they had already agreed together
and whom they had made subject unto suffering and unto death. And they strengthened the
persecutions against them that confessed God holy and mighty and immortal, and they let be
him in whom they hoped and [by whom] they were rescued from death; and he gave them the
knowledge / to repudiate the death of God but to acknowledge him and to confess that he is
immortal.

54 But, because this had taken place and they had not been converted to glorify the God
who rescued them but blasphemed and constrained every man to confess the death of God but
shunned [the term] 'immortal' as impiety, the barbarian again was stirred up against them,
massacring and swarming over all the land of the Romans and overturning everything. And
they had no means [of escape] nor refuge but were stricken with fear and had no hope. And
he had closed them in and made them insufficient in everything that they were doing for
their salvation; and, because they understood not their former salvation, he had sent this
man whom he had taken from pasturing sheep, who had protested against the privy [purposes]
of the heart of the Emperor. And already he had been stirred up by God, and he commanded
to make a cross; and as though indeed he 69 believed him not, he made [it of] wood with
his own hands and sent [it] against the barbarians. But he had planted another cross also
within the palace and another in the forum of Constantinople in the midst of the city that
it might be seen of every man, so that even the barbarians, when they saw it, fled and
were discomfited. And the Emperor himself, who was already |367 making ready / to flee,
gained confidence to remain, and the nerves of the city, which was enfeebled, grew firm
and all things happened thus.

55 For when the barbarians had fled in discomfiture, while none was pursuing them, and the
Emperor was mightily heartened to engage in thought for his empire, and the city was
mightily filled with encouragement, they found none other cause of [this] sudden change
----because there was none else doing this: to discomfit the one and encourage the other
----except only the cross, which had been set up, of him who was crucified in nature and
in truth, that is, [of] the bodily frame which had been crucified naturally. And it is
known unto us that we should not be ashamed to say that he died, and not God who made
mighty the bodily frame, weak and passible and mortal, which suffered and died by lifting
up [upon the cross]. For this reason also the wood whereon he was crucified was [a means]
to salvation. For, as though for one that believed not and repudiated the crucifixion of
the mortal body which can save, he commanded to make the cross of wood, to effect thereby
salvation such as this in the city and amidst the barbarians, in such wise that it is not
doubted that it is a crucifixion of the body which has given life to all the world, and
not of God who by the lifting up of the body and the cross has effected such a miracle as
this.

56 / But because they had feigned themselves wise in this, as though the divinity was
crucified and not the body, they were still left in opposition to the pious, who were
saying that the crucifixion was not of the divinity but of the body of the divinity and
[that] for this reason he saved us through the cross. Again God raised up anew the
vehemence of the barbarians and earthquakes against this Pharaonic intention. And again,
because he sought to restrain them from [the persecution of] the pious and from
[inflicting upon them] the sufferings which they caused them to bear----for then only were
they revived and set free----by both of them he taught [them] that the impious thought,
wherein was [contained] the confession of [his] death, was not pleasing unto him. |368
For, although they supposed that that which [had been caused] by the barbarians was death
[caused] by men, yet they could not suppose this of that which was being [caused] by the
earthquake. But, after they had not even so come to a perception of the glory of God
incorruptible, and were imputing death and suffering and weakness unto him in manliness
and immortality such as this, he had then taught them by the words themselves 70 not to
impute blemish and decay unto God, because he is holy and free from all sufferings and
even without weakness, he who by a weak cross quitted himself manfully like a man and was
[endowed] with all manliness. So then impute not death / unto him who is alone immortal
and by our own death has proved that he is immortal by means of the confession of the holy
and of the mighty and of the immortal.

57 But because they abode not by what they had been forced to confess and had not believed
in God the mighty and immortal, who is able to make even wars to cease, they had [not only
I become the slaves of the barbarians and been subjected unto slavery to tribute unto them
by the confession of written documents, but were also giving [it] unto those who were
warring on his side. And there was naught that he, who showed the barbarian [to be] master
and the Romans slaves, did not. And thus the supremacy had changed over unto the
barbarians, as though the Romans themselves had not God who [is] over all, holy and mighty
and immortal. For this reason the rest also of the peoples fled unto him but fled from the
Romans, so that they were not even able to rescue themselves. And because they had thus
set up the supremacy, as though they had no urgent need for divine aid and had not come to
themselves, they remembered not even the very confession of the holy one and the mighty
and the immortal which they had taken into their mouths; but contrariwise they were again
maintaining the sufferings of the divinity, by means of which they were showing that not
one of these [attributes] was his. For with the sufferings and the death this also was
assumed:

58 that he was neither holy / by |369 nature nor immortal by nature nor mighty by nature,
until God had again restored [some] of them, whether they wanted or whether they wanted
[it] not, for the reputation of their impiety and for the defence of those who had
suffered wrongfully and for the instruction of those who in anticipation were praying unto
Flavian and Eusebius, whom they would have killed.Because men made compensation unto God,
having confessed him [to be] both holy and mighty and immortal, both by law and by
commands and by penalties they confirmed [their actions] against those who confessed God
the Word [to be] holy and mighty and immortal and [punished them] with despoilment and
exile and death, until Theodosius, who had raised himself up against God, was taken from
[their] midst; and the mouth [of every man] was opened to confess and to glorify and to
adore God the holy and mighty and immortal, speaking without fear.72 For not he who calls
Christ God passible and mortal confesses Christ [to be] God, but he who speaks of Christ
in his divinity which he is in his nature and confesses God impassible and immortal and
mighty and holy in his nature but passible in his humanity, in that he confesses that he
is by nature man.

59 But some will say: 'What participation hast thou with Flavian and with what has been
done against him and on his account? For / thee every man has anathematized and denounced,
and what thou addest after this thou toilest to thine [own] evil name and to thine [own]
accusation and not to a simple and just defence.' That which I say unto him above and
below and always is that it concerns me not to |370 have mercy upon any man such as these,
but to be very anxious whether through my own anathema they are rescued from blasphemy and
[whether] those who are rescued confess God holy and mighty and immortal, without changing
the image of God who is incorruptible unto the image of man who is corruptible and mixing
paganism in the midst of Christianity, but confessing God himself as is his image and
confessing man as is his image, in such wise that the passible and also the immortal arc
confessed in the image of their natures, so that Christianity confesses not a change of
God nor yet a change of man, [after] the likeness of the impiety of paganism. But let yea
be yea and nay nay in truth, so that Christ in truth and in nature may be confessed to be
the saviour and the saved, God and man, who is in nature immortal and impassible as God
and mortal and passible in nature as man. He is not God in both the natures nor yet man in
both the natures.

60 Therefore my own aim and my zeal is that God may be blessed and glorified even on earth
as in heaven. / But may Nestorius be anathematized; but may they say what I pray them to
say concerning God. For I am of those who [are] with God and not of those who [are]
against God, who scorn God himself in the schema of piety and make void [the fact] that he
is God. For he was for the things [for] which I war, and they that war with me against
him; and for this reason on his account I am pledged to endure and to suffer everything,
so that by my own anathema would that every man might be [ready] enough to be reconciled
unto God, because there is naught greater or more precious unto me than this. Nor would I
have declined to say the contrary of what I used to say, if I had known that they were
wanting [me] to say the contrary of these things which I used to say in everything
whatsoever and [that] they were of God, and [that] I should thereby be honoured before God
on account of the [attributes] of God which I have regarded as God and not as man. . . .

61 But otherwise again [it is the case ] that I have not merely said the things touching
Flavian, but I have cited them for a proof of what was done against me with impiety and
with |371 injustice, in such wise that certain men arc not deceived by the name 'Council '
but seek [to learn] the things which took place with all truth and judge [some] of them
before God, although they took place otherwise. For Satan is disguised in the schema of an
angel of light 73 and deceives / men [in order] to remove them afar from God. But further,
since I have judged in my mind that to hide the dispensation which came about through the
might and the wisdom of God without showing and revealing them unto all men is a great
peril and [fraught] with all impiety and ingratitude----for he had done them on their
account, that he might undo the schemes of them that were confirming their impiety and
causing it to shine forth, and expose them bare, while I was not believed in what I was
saying, whereas they were doing and had also done this in their assembly in the Council
----all of which [it was] that I was suffering, and they believed me not.

62 But it was not possible to refute and to undo these things which had been done in the
Council, but the will to impiety was [stronger] than the will of God, by means of which
the impious were convicted of being impious and the pious of being pious; and they
contended unto death and preserved that sincerity of mind which was owing unto God. For
when the time [was] not that under discussion which came by the patience of God [and]
wherein some suffered and others caused them to suffer, the impious were not revealed [as]
impious 74 nor they that were worthy of such forethought as this [as worthy thereof,
forethought] which had turned them aside from the contest against God, in which operations
he was warring and fighting against them and restraining them from kicking against / the
pricks of God; and yet not even so were they converted from their iniquity, while the
pious had not been dispersed nor yet discouraged, while God was patient, from suffering
throughout their whole lives, having adhered unto the purpose of |372 God. For this reason
one finds that diligence and aid have been relaxed by those who had taken it 75 up, and
they have neglected what has been [entrusted] to them and diligence has been [only shown]
by them in making pretence without knowledge concerning what ought to have been corrected,
things which were disregarded and set aside by them.

63 For it would have been right to cut short the things which were wrongly [done] and not
to hide them. Those things then which [came about] as for correction were of God; what
concealed them was not of God but of those who were undoing his [work]. 64 For for what
reason do you suppose that they who possessed the inhabited world [as] their home became
the spoil of the barbarians? Was it not because they made not use of the supremacy which
was given unto them as was right, that the peoples might know the grace which was given
unto them, in such wise that they might learn as slaves what was required, because they
learnt not as masters? For what reason again heard they the word of the Gospel, not from
the orthodox but from the worshippers of creatures? 76 They were / brought into subjection
neither to the supremacy of the Empire nor yet under the religion wherein they were, that
they might know that, when they took the supremacy of the Empire, they preserved not even
in the Empire the supremacy of their religion in God; for this reason also they were not
supreme in aught else, in that the supremacy changed over to [their] enemies. For whereby
they neglected the Gospel, by these very things were they rejected from the supremacy; and
they took part also in the faith of the worshippers of creatures and were distinct [only]
in name and in the use of the term 'consubstantial'.

65 As these confess the created and the uncreated and say 'consubstantial' in one way as
if in praise and attribute the nature in another way by the distinction of the created and
of the creator, thus also those 77 |373 attribute the nature in one way unto the passible
and unto the impassible, the created and the uncreated, and say 'consubstantial ' in
another way in name alone as something [said] in praise, since they hold supremacy and
religion in opposite senses without straightforwardly confessing the nature. For until
even the [term] 'in nature' is freed from suspicion and has taken away the supremacy from
the fear and the fear from the supremacy, [the supremacy] being supported by God, so that
he may be glorified in heaven and on earth and [that there may be] glory in heaven and
peace on earth in the government of the affairs thereof, God ceases not to guide us and to
teach us, just as those / who teach children, making use of plagues and of protests which
ought to teach us and to convince us that we err, and defending the silent and proving
their victory.

66 For what have I done of these things which have happened as they have happened and not
God himself? For because they have betrayed the tradition of the Fathers and have closed
the mouth[s] of those who exacted the rights of the Fathers, so for this reason [some] of
them have inclined unto Arianism according to what has been confessed [by them], and
[others] of them unto Manichaeism, and [others] of them unto Judaism, and [others] of them
unto other [errors, both] new and old. God has raised up of them and among them their own
[judges], as he used to raise up judges from among the Jews, to confute them for their
transgression against God, that is Flavian, who was representing me [in that] whereby he
ought to have been my enemy, as indeed he was unto me both unwittingly or for some other
reason, and Eusebius, who used to war against me. They have confessed without any cause
for alarm, having warred against the adherents of Cyril, who were blaspheming and seeking
to gain their ends. And God abandoned them not until they showed hostility unto Cyril;
since these indeed were citing his words against those, and those again were choosing
those things / which were opposed to these and setting them against |374 them; and they
were mutually disputing, the one [side] with the other. And these were saying that they
were Manichaeans since they referred all things, even the properties of the flesh, unto
God the Word.

67 But these too were accusing those of holding my opinions, since I too say these [same]
things, and of referring the properties of God to the nature of the divinity and the
properties of the humanity to the humanity; and they admitted that the union took place in
prosôpon and not in the nature. And every man was within a very little of disputing with
his neighbour, protesting against him on my account, as though I was surely calumniated.
And these my [words] were quoted with all zeal; and these were refuting them that were
saying that I predicate two sons, as indeed was never said by me; and those were confuting
them that were predicating one nature for calling God himself passible, as I was saying
that they said. 68 Who was it that constrained them to say these [same] things as I, when
through the commands [of the Emperor] their reading was prohibited,78 since they were
warring of themselves to discuss them with all zeal? And, when I was silent, and the
authority to say them [had been] taken away from me, and I was not believed, God raised up
those [men], who were believed when they said these [same] things as I, / which were the
truth, without there being any suspicion therein of their having said these things out of
friendship or out of love for me. And God brought not these things about on my account.
For who is Nestorius? Or what is his life? Or what is his death in the world? But [he has
brought them to pass] because of the truth which he has given unto the world, which was
suppressed from deceitful causes, while he has also confuted the deceivers. And because
they were [filled] with suspicion about me and were not believing what I was saying, as
one that dissembles the truth and represses exact speech, God appointed for this [purpose]
a preacher who was guiltless of this suspicion, Leo, who used to preach the truth
undaunted. And, because the anticipation of the Council caused many to wonder and even the
Romans |375 themselves,79 [so] that they believed not the things which I was saying and
which were left without examination, God allowed these things to come to pass
contrariwise, that he might cause the bishop of Rome,80 who was exercising the direction
of the plotting of the Council in Ephesus against me, to pass away, and [that] he might
make him 81 agree with and confirm what was said by the bishop of Constantinople.

69 And he who was able | to do] everything, that is Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, was
reckoned as naught. I say indeed, as naught, since he had recourse to flight and was
looking out [means] not to be deprived and banished into exile.82[These things took place]
that through what they suffered / they might believe also what had been committed against
me by the Egyptian in the former Council. And, because of the sham friendship of the
Emperor and of the chiefs of the imperial household [toward me], I was suspected of
constraining the Council, which stirred me not to be remiss in the truth, and of being
constrained to agree with the Emperor because of what was committed against me, since,
because they had held no examination about the truth, they suspected me of being a
blasphemer. But God, in order that he might prove that the love which the Emperor had for
me was treacherous, and [that it was felt by him] not for the truth but for the sake of
[my] possessions, proved it by his 83 aid in [the affair of] Eutyches and in [that of]
Flavian, whereby it was seen that he gave not [permission] for an assembly to be held, and
those who were assembled permitted not aught to be said except what they were commanded
[to say]; but they condemned themselves also in fear and in ignominy.

70 Again, because they supposed that my [doctrine] had been summoned to examination and to
judgement, but [that] I was surely trifling [in saying] that they [had] summoned me not to
judgement but to deposition and to a snare of destruction |376 and of death, God, in
protesting against them as being murderers, [even] God allowed Flavian to enter the
Council and to suffer what he suffered at their hands; for it is evident that these were
those things which the other had also committed against me aforetime. And, because it was
supposed that those who had been bishops were disposed / to do naught outside the
judgement which was pleasing unto them, either on account of the Emperor or out of fear or
because of disturbances, God again exposed them as doing the contrary and confuted them
before every man; and they let nothing be to which they bore not witness, but by all of
them he had refuted the causes of error and preached them upon the roofs in such wise that
there was not even a single excuse [left open] to those who feigned themselves without
knowledge. Yet, just as Pharaoh was confuted by God by means of all things, and remained
without excuse for not having been willing to be convinced either by the logic of words,
or by the deeds themselves, or by the protest[s] of men, or again by the things of God,
and for having died in his blasphemy, so also they remained without excuse. . . .

71 When therefore I had seen that these things were brought to pass by God, would you have
wished that I should be silent and hide such a dispensation of God as all this? .... The
prophets of God, who had been cursed as lying prophets by lying prophets as if by [true]
prophets, would not have been distinguished [from the latter], unless they [had] consented
to be cursed by lying prophets for the sake of God; the sons of those men would not have
been worthy of the glory and the instruction of the prophets if they [had] kept agreement
with the lying prophets. Nor would those of the Jews who became / Christians have been
saved and rescued if they had kept to the oppressive judgement of their fathers against
Christ as if [it had been delivered] by holy and righteous men. They would not have become
the apostles of Christ if they had adhered 'to the whole crowd of Jews and to the priests
and to the teachers of the law and to the chiefs as [unto true] teachers of the law and
prophets. They would not have believed in Christ nor even have died |377 for Christ, if
they had supposed death and contempt [to be] not honour but contempt, nor yet would they
have now been honoured by the crowds and by chiefs and by lords, if they had not endured
death and shame at the hands of chiefs and peoples;

72 they would not have been worthy of such as this on the part of emperors and chiefs and
of powers, if they had kept the commands and the laws of emperors and of judges and of
chiefs. Our fathers would not have been reckoned orthodox in this and doctors, if they had
sought to flee from the condemnation of the Council of the heretics and to say the things
which they were saying, and had been hypocrites. We should not have been worthy of the
instruction resulting from the labours of these men, if we had accepted without
examination the agreement [which was reached], as if by a Council, against them. 73 And,
that I may speak briefly, Meletius and Eustathius would not have been bishops of Antioch,
if they had accepted the choice and the judgement / of the Council of the heretics against
them, nor would Athanasius 85 be bishop of Alexandria if he were to accept the judgement
of those who deprived him without hesitation and as [if it proceeded ] from the orthodox.
John 86 would not be bishop of Constantinople, if he were to accept the judgement and the
deprivation which was [promulgated] against him without examination as [if it proceeded]
from a Council; nor again would Flavian have been bishop of Constantinople, if he were to
agree to the pronouncement of the Oecumenical Council which deprived him as a
pronouncement [proceeding] from an [Oecumenical] Council. Every one, of whatsoever city it
may be, who has suffered therein on my account, would not be giving light, even as the
sun, if I |378 had looked towards my accusers and not towards God and [if] also I had not
been deemed worthy to be [given a share] in those things, every single one of which had
been [brought to pass] by God; for this affair was not mine but Christ's who made me
mighty. But every man will give account unto God concerning the things which he has said
or brought to pass or done to cause scandal, or [wherein] he has been zealous with all
zeal to make scandals to cease; but if, when a man does everything, he who is scandalized
is not to be persuaded, let him be scandalized on his own account and not on account of
him who says and cries out unto him and is not heard by him.

74 But, because many were blaming me many times / for not having written unto Leo, bishop
of Rome, to teach him all the things which were committed, such as came to pass, and the
change of faith, as if unto a man who is correct in his faith, especially when there had
been given unto me, [even] unto me, a part of the letter relating to the judgement
concerning Flavian and Eutyches, wherein it was revealed that [he feared]not the
friendship of [his] majesty, for this reason I wrote not, not because I am a proud man and
senseless, but so that I might not hinder from his running him who was running fairly
because of the prejudice against my person. But I was content to endure the things whereof
they accused me, in order that, while I was accused thereof, they might accept without
hindrance the teaching of the Fathers; for I have no word [to say] concerning what was
committed against me. And further I wrote not for the purpose that I, to whom for many
years there was not one [moment of] repose nor human solace, might not be suspected of
surely fleeing from the contest, fearing the labours [thereof]; for sufficient are the
wrongs that have come upon the world [and] which are more able than I to make the
oppression of the true faith shine forth in the eyes of every man.

75 But, because thou blamest me as though I have failed to say clearly the things which
have occurred, O chief of the saints, / Sophronius, hear therefore also the things which
thou |379 knowest and testifiest concerning the truth of the things which are said. For
immediately, as indeed thou art persuaded, thou hast first seen that death has carried off
the daughter of him who was then reigning,87 and thereafter, thou seest, that demon, the
chief of adultery, who cast down the empress with insult and contumely.88 Again [thou
seest] that the cities of Africa and of Spain and of Muzicanus and great and glorious
islands----I mean Sicily and Rhodes and many other great ones----and Rome itself have been
delivered over for spoil unto the barbarian Vandal. 89 Yet there will however be in the
first place and at no longer distance [of time] a second coming of the barbarian against
Rome itself, during which also Leo, who has indeed held well to the faith but has agreed
to the things which these have unjustly committed against me without examination and
without judgement, will deliver up with his own hands the divine vessels of the sanctuary
into the hands of the barbarians and will see with his [own] eyes the daughters of the
emperor who is reigning at that time led into captivity. 90 But I have endured the torment
of my life and all my [fate] in this world as the torment of one day and lo! I have now
already got me / to [the time of my] dissolution, and daily every day I beseech God to
accomplish my dissolution, whose eyes have seen the salvation of God.

76 Conclusion. Rejoice for me, O desert, my beloved and my foster-parent and the home of
my habitation, and my mother |380 [the land of] my exile, who even after my death will
guard my body unto the resurrection by the will of God. Amen. Finished is the writing of
the book which is entitled the Bazaar of Heracleides, composed by [him who is] illustrious
among the saints and all-blessed, my lord Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, a witness
every day and the pride of orthodoxy, a true preacher of the glorious Trinity. And unto
Yahweh [be] unfailing glory. Amen. [Selected footnotes] 1. Viz. Flavian. 2. Viz. Eutyches.
3. There is no new paragraph marked here in the Syriac text, 4. See B. J. Kidd, A History
of the Church to ad. 461, iii. 202; Cyril, Adv. Nest. i. 5 (Migne, P.G.L. lxxvi. 41 d);
and Evagrius, H. E. i. 9. For the text of Eusebius's alleged protest see Labbe (Mansi),
iv. 1008.

77 5. Viz. Eutyches. 6. This is presumably the conversation to which Eusebius referred at
Constantinople; see Labbe (Mansi), vi. 656 a. No other record of it seems to have
survived. 7. Here clearly Eusebius ascribes to Nestorius the teaching commonly known as
'Nestorianism', and is shown to have been mistaken in so doing. 8. Viz. Eutyches. 9. The
letter to Rome is mentioned in Leo, Ep. xxiv, Labbe (Mansi), v. 1341 b. 10. Viz. the Roman
11. Viz. the Emperor. 12. Viz. Flavian. 13. Viz. Flavian. 14. Viz. the Emperor. 15. Cp.
Evagrius, H. E. ii. 2; Niccphorus Callistus, H. E. xiv. 47. 16. Viz. Flavian. 17. Viz. the
emperor's sister, Pulcheria. She was consistently favourable to Flavian, but from 441-50
she was out of favour with Theodosius who was under the influence of the eunuch
Chrysaphius. Flavian had neglected to bribe Chrysaphius, as Eutyches was careful to do.
Cp. p. 97, n. 1.

78 18. Viz. the Emperor. 19. Viz. Eutyches. 20. Viz. the bishop of Alexandria. 21. Viz.
the Romans. 22. Viz. Leo. 23. Viz. the bishop of Alexandria. 24. Presumably Eudocia. See
Nicephorus Callistus, H. E, xiv. 47. 25. Viz. God. 26. Domnus, nephew and successor of
John of Antioch. 27. Viz. the bishop of Antioch. 28. Viz. Flavian. 29. Syr. parsôpha. 30.
Viz. Dioscorus. 31. Viz. the bishop of Antioch. 32. Literally: 'and then was (or became)
hating him'. 33. See above, pp. 279-82. 34. Viz. the Emperor. 35. Viz. Count John. 36.
Viz. Cyril. 37. Literally: 'a letter of love'. 38. Viz. Cyril. 39. Viz. the Emperor. 40.
Viz. Dioscorus. 41. Viz. Flavian. 42. Cp. the speech of Eutyches quoted on p. 346, n. 3.
43. Viz. Flavian. 44. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), vi. 644 B-645 B. 45. Viz. Eutyches. 46. Viz.
Flavian. 47. Literally: 'establishing'. 48. Literally: 'how it was supposed by him'.

79 49. Cp. Labbe (Mansi), vi. 685 b. 50. Viz. Dioscorus. 51. I.e. the views which he was
accused of holding. 52. Viz. the adherents of Flavian. 53. Viz. the adherents of Eutyches.
54. So the Syriac text, reading 'Atticus' passim for 'Aethericus '. 55. Literally:
'trusted', i.e. (probably) a eunuch; see p. 272, n. 2. 56. I . e. the ὑπομνήματα of
Flavian. 57. The following account of the conduct of Aethericus at the Latrocinium is
given in the Minutes of the Council of Chalccdon in Labbe (Mansi), vi. 688-9: 58. Viz.
Dioscorus. 59. Viz. Flavian. 60. Lat. Silentarius. 61. Viz. Dioscorus. 62. Viz. Flavian.
63. Cp. the Sacra Lex Theodosii in Labbe (Mansi), v. 417 a. 64. Viz. the Emperor. 65. I .
e. for those who denied that God the Word was immortal. 66. Viz. God. 67. For these
earthquakes see Evagrius, H. E. i. 17; Philostorgius, H. E. xii. 8-10; Nicephorus
Callistus, H. E. xiv. 46.

80 68. The account of the miraculous revelation of the Trisagion is given in John of
Damascus, De Orth. Fid. iii. 10, and in Niceph. Callist. H. E. xiv. 46, in a form
consistent with Nestorius's references to the matter. For the use of the formula at
Chalcedon see Labbe (Mansi), vi. 936 c. 69. Viz. the Emperor. 70. I . e. the Trisagion.
71. Nau translates 'qu'ils avaient tués'; but see Nöldeke, Syriac Grammar, § 277. Eusebius
of Dorylaeum had been deposed, but not killed. He was exiled and escaped to Rome where he
was welcomed by Leo, who mentions his deposition in Letters lxxix and lxxx, dated 451. See
Labbe (Mansi), vi. 907-36, 107 B, 110 B; Liberatus, xii (Galland. xii. 140); Gest. de Nom.
Acac. (Galland. x. 668). 72. Theodosius died on July 28th, 450, and was succeeded by his
orthodox sister, Pulcheria, who took Marcian as her husband 'vir gravissimus, et non solum
reipublicae, sed etiam Ecclesiae necessarius. Huius edictis apostolicae sedis auctoritatem
secutis, synodus Ephesina damnatur, et apud Chalcedonem celebrari concilium episcopale
decernitur; ut correctis venia mederetur, et pertinaces cum haeresi depellerentur.'
Prosper, Chron. in Migne, P. L. li. 602; cp. Chronicon Paschale in Migne, P. G. xcii. 812.

81 73. Cp. 2 Cor. xi. 14. 74. The Syriac has: 'as not impious', but the repetition of the
negative is probably due to the influence of the Greek original. See p. xiv. 75. I.e. the
discussion of the faith. 76. Viz. the Arians. 77. Viz. the Monophysites. Nestorius's point
seems to be that in ascribing sufferings to God the Word, the Monophysites deny him
consubstantiality with the Father, and thus resemble the Arians. So Nau. 78. Cp. Labbe
(Mansi), v. 413-20. 79. Literally: 'the prosôpon of the Romans'. 80. Viz. Celestinus.
Nestorius apparently ignores Sixtus III. 81. Viz. Leo. 82. Dioscorus was deposed and
exiled at the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius shows no knowledge of this, but only
mentions earlier precautionary measures. See introd. p. x. 83. Viz. the Emperor's. 84.
Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 324-31, returned from Nicaea a strong supporter of the
Nicene faith, and was deposed and exiled through the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea in
330 or 331. He died in exile at Philippi in 337.

82 Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, 361-79, was deposed by Arian influence; the Arian Euzoius
was appointed in his place, and schism followed. 85. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,
326-73, was exiled in 336, 340, 356, and 362. 86. John Chrysostom, Bishop of
Constantinople, 398-404, was exiled in the latter year through the intrigues of Theophilus
of Alexandria. 87. This cannot be Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius and Eudocia, for she
was still living in 455 (see the Cltronicon Paschale in Migne, P. G. xcii. 817 a), but
must be her younger sister Flaccilla, who died in 431. See Du Cange, Hist. Byz. (Paris,
1680), p. 71. 88. Theodosius had Paulinus executed in 444 on suspicion of adultery with
the Empress Eudocia; see the Chronicon Paschale, Migne, P. G. xcii. 801-5. 89. According
to the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, P. G. xcii. 797 c, 801 a, d). The Vandals entered Africa
in 428 and Sicily in 439.

83 90. John of Malala is probably wrong in placing the capture of Eudoxia and her
daughters before the death of Theodosius (Migne, P. G. xcvii. 545). According to the
Chronicon Paschale, they were taken by Gensericus who entered Rome in 455 (Migne, P. G.
xcii. 816-17), but he was persuaded by Leo to spare the lives of the citizens and the
buildings, though the city was plundered and the sacred vessels carried off which Titus
had brought from Jerusalem (Prosper, Chronicon, Migne, P. L. li. 605-6).


THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES
=========================

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES continued

APPENDICES - FRAGMENTS

1 Appendix 1: Fragments Letters Miscellaneous works Homilies Fragments of uncertain
location Appendix 2: Critical notes (omitted) pp.398-402. Appendix 3: The word πρόσωπον
(omitted) pp.402-410. Appendix 4: The metaphysic of Nestorius (omitted) pp. 411-420. Index
(omitted) pp.421-425

APPENDICES — I. Fragments

2 The translation of the fragments is made from the text given on pp. 365-88 of F. Loofs,
Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle, 1905). A. LETTERS XI c. Fragm. 258. From
the letter to Alexander of Hierapolis. But the property which [exists] in the nature of
the divinity and [that which exists in that] of the humanity is indeed distinct from
everlasting. For this reason Paul, the teacher of the churches, not in placing 'God' first
and then adding 'in flesh', but in saying either 'Son' or 'Christ' first, makes 'in flesh'
follow at the end: 'Concerning the Son who was of the seed of David in flesh' and again:
'Of whom [was] Christ in flesh,' nowhere at all saying God first, making 'in flesh'
follow, but Christ or Son.1 XII. Fragm. 276. From the letter to Theodoret, wherein he
blames what was written by Cyril to the Easterns. For what does he say? Although the
diversity of the natures, from which the ineffable union was brought about, is ignored,
this [phrase] 'from which' again [is] as if he were speaking in respect to the Lord's
natures of parts of one another which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from
these' but 'of those [it is] that we say that an ineffable union was brought about'. For
the ineffable union is not of the natures but the things of the natures.2

3 Fragm. 290 is identical with Fragm. 276, except for slight differences in orthography.
Fragm. 310. From what he wrote unto Theodoret from exile, speaking thus about Cyril. For
what does he say? Although the diversity of the natures is known, from which |383 we say
that an ineffable union was brought about: Behold! again 'from which' as if he were
speaking concerning our Lord's .... which became one. For he ought to have said not 'from
them' 3 but 'of those' .... for not of the natures. . .4 Fragm. 226. For he wrote from
exile unto Theodoret, blaming what had been written by the Holy Cyril unto the bishops of
the East. And thus Nestorius concludes: For what does he say: Although the diversity of
the natures is known, of which we say that an ineffable union was brought about. . . .5
Fragm. 243. But then Nestorius, rebuking from exile the patriarch 6 Cyril, wrote unto
Theodoret: Here with a view to dissembling [the truth] he confounds the properties of the
natures.7

4 Fragm. 253. After the deposition of Theodoret took place, Nestorius wrote thus to him.
Surely I have borne what thou hast become; I have not left [it] alone. For not when I was
far removed from the assembly of the impious did I then show myself an enemy to the throne
of the fear of God. For not even Paul, when he was stoning Stephen with the stoning Jews,
was then an Apostle but when he removed himself afar from stoning. When thou too seest
proof herein, although thou wast brought up in godly learning, exult, I counsel [thee] and
deck thyself out in this time which now is, being head and all with them that are
victorious on behalf of religion and, exulting, say these [words] of David: 'Mine is
Gilead and mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the support of my head.' But lay hold of the
departure from Egypt and believe, since thou nearest, in God who now calls unto thy Piety
with a loud voice: 'What hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of
Gihon?' 8 For the people [that is] striving with God is from the beginning and is warring
with the holy fathers.9 |384

5 B. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS II c. Fragm. 208. Records which were forged by him in Ephesus,
concerning which he wrote thus: About what took place at the Council at Ephesus and the
cause which brought about its assembling Nestorius says these things: This was not
supposed by any one of the [followers] of Apollinarius or of Arius just as also these
[believe: namely] the [fact] that they mingle the quality of the natures in one nature.10
Fragm. 305. In these records which were forged by him at Ephesus he wrote thus; This was
not supposed; and not by any .... they mingle.11 III. Fragm. 225. For in the book which is
inscribed 'Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians' he wrote in the form of question and
answer things which have been taken up by us in what was investigated before, Nestorius
[says]: The Theopaschitan says: Now as we are rebuked [on account of] the dual composition
of the natures, we who predicate one nature of Christ which is [that] of God made flesh
----in regard to the reprimand [uttered] against thee thou hopest not for any defence
against the reprimand which is uttered; for thou hast confessed that you obtained for
Christ one nature out of what is without bodily form and [what is without] body and a one-
natured hypostasis of the becoming flesh of the divinity. But such is the mingling of the
two natures, that those natures are deprived of the hypostases which they solely possess,
being mingled with one another; and yet above, as the foolish theory which he has forged
necessitates,12 he introduces the Theopaschitan who says these things: 'For the nature of
the flesh is passible and changeable newly created;13 yet [it is] thus on the contrary the
godhead's very own, as both of them subsist14 in one and the same nature.15

6 Fragm. 307. And in the homily [called] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians, as he
required, he introduced the |385 Theopaschitan who says thus: For I have confessed ....
mingled with one another. And again before this, as was pleasing unto him, he brought in
the Theopaschitan who says thus; For the nature of the flesh is passible. . . .16 Fragm.
304. Likewise, and in the work which [was addressed] to the Theopaschitans, namely the
Cyrillians, he wrote thus: If our dividing of these properties of the flesh or the Son and
of his divinity is named a kind of addition of quaternity on our side, what prohibits also
the incarnation itself of the Son from being passed over in silence as far as concerns
you, because the Trinity accepts not the ousia which makes the manas any addition. For
without the ousia which was made manno one understands that which has made the man. And
again: To confuse the properties of the nature of that which was made and of that which
made the man is very impious.17

7 Fragm. 239. Unto the Theopaschitans or Cyrillians in the form of question and answer
Nestorius [wrote] thus: There is indeed one Son, equal in ousia to the Father, just as
thou hast well said before; but the natures of the Son, in accordance with the identity of
ousia of the Father and of ours, are divided by the distinction in the mind.18 Fragm. 220
is identical with Fragm. 239, except that the introduction is only: 'Nestorius [wrote
thus]' Fragm. 309. The homily [called] 'the Dialogue' against the Cyrillians: he wrote
thus: By 'Christ' or 'Only-begotten' or 'Jesus' or 'Son' or by other [terms] such as these
we preach the term of the union, but by 'man' the ousia which was assumed and by 'God the
Word' the property of the hypostasis which was made man.19 VI. Fragm. 205 a. Again, from
his distinct Chapters against those who say that Christ is God alone: They say that Christ
is God alone, and behold! God is the Trinity; therefore Christ is the Trinity. But, if
Christ is God alone, while the Father |386 is not Christ, we thus distinguish them in the
nature. [So much the more is it] that Christ is the name not of the essence but of the
dispensation. And Christ is God, but God is not Christ.20

8 Fragm. 205b. Again, his [Chapters]: Unto him who asks who it was that walked upon the
water we answer that it was the feet that were walking and the concrete bodily frame
through the strength that dwelled therein. This [it is] that is a [cause of] wonder. For
if God were walking upon the water, that is not astonishing, as also [it is] not in the
air. And the [fact] again that the concrete body came in through closed doors----this too
is [matter] for astonishment. But, if the divine nature came in, it is nothing that I
should desist from what belongs to the infinite.21 Fragm. 205 c. Again, his [Chapters]:
They ask, [saying] that it is written: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' What
is this? Does he speak the truth or does he lie? If he is left alone, where then is the
infinity of God? If he is not left alone, he has therefore lied. What then do we say----
that he neglected to let it 22 suffer for its 22 sake, in order that he might leave him to
adhere to us that the dispensation might be fulfilled?23

9 C. HOMILIES VI. Fragm. 254. From the books of Nestorius; blasphemies. From the homily
against the Jews, of which the commencement is this: 'How great is the might of him who
was crucified,' cry out the devils who possess not that which they used to possess. And
after other things: Dost thou not hear what these say .... who are warring and falling and
they convince him that is abhorred of the judgement concerning the people? We indeed
rebuke not in anything; [but] dost thou not tremble to surpass the proper measure? Dost
thou not judge that excess of praise exaggerated beyond what is proper is worthy of
censure? Dost thou not hear what a child, |387 praising [thee], says on thine account? For
they saw not him who was concealed in the visible.24 VIII. Fragm. 270-272. From another
homily, of which the commencement is this: There is nothing harder to the souls of men
than the sickness of ignorance.25

10 Fragm. 270. And after other things: But I know not how of a sudden they, being sick
with ignorance, have been found [as those] who are equal with them that have not heard;
and somehow they err with an astonishing error, not being placed with the heretics as were
the lovers of the church, and have fallen away as heretics from the teachings of the
church. But these are wretched rather than heretics; for these indeed make God the Word
younger than the essence of the Father, while they even make bold to blaspheme with
similes; for in the nature of the divinity youngness of existence and age of days are
not.26 Fragm. 271. Of the mediator then the mother is she that bore Christ, the Virgin;
but the divinity of the mediator existed before she bare the mediator. How then did she
bear one older than her[self]? Why dost thou prepare God the Word for the creation of the
spirit? For, if God the Word is he who was born of her but he who was born of her exists
according to the word of the angels from the Holy Spirit, God the Word is to be celebrated
as a creation of the Spirit.27

11 And again: If thou conceivest of him who in the nature was born of the Virgin in the
course of months, so [is] he man who was born of a virgin according to the word of him who
was born, who said: 'Why seek ye to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth among you?'
And again: 'One is God, one also the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, a man
who was born of the race of David.' 28 Fragm. 272. And after other things: Hear both
things: Paul preaching: 'Of the Jews is Christ who was in flesh.' |388 What then? A mere
man is Christ, O blessed Paul? No; but 'a man on the one hand is Christ in flesh, in the
divinity on the other hand God over all'.29 X. Fragm. 300. An homily delivered by
Nestorius against the Theopaschitans: As in regard to the abuses [uttered] against the
true and natural union----as that which we 30 say: that the flesh vanished and was
transformed by the nature of the Word, as an eddy of water which the sea swallows up----as
Nestorius himself says: A statue without bulk of water, which vanishes at once in the
vastness of the sea.31

12 XII. Fragm. 297. And in the homily which is inscribed 'The kingdom of heaven is like
unto a certain king which made a banquet for his son',32 and so on; and about the
Incarnation, of which the commencement is: Fearful and pleasant is the trumpet for the
reading of the Gospel. This he wrote. The union then of the natures is not divided: the
ousias of these, which are united, are divided. This [consists] not in the annulling 33 of
the union but in the understanding of the flesh and of the divinity.34 Hear the same
clearly:35 Christ 36is indivisible in that [he is] Christ 37 but double 38 in that [he is]
God and man; in the sonship simple, [but] double 39 in that which he has put on and in
that which is put on; sole in the prosopon of the Son, [but], as in [the case of] the two
eyes,40 dissimilar in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity; for we know not two
Christs or Sons or an original and a new only-begotten, nor a first and a second Christ,
but one and the same who is visible in nature created and not created.41

13 Fragm. 308. For we know not two Christs or Sons or only-begottens or Lords; nor one and
another Son nor an |389 original and a new only-begotten nor a first and a second Christ,
but one and the same who is visible in the invisible and the visible nature. Can a man,
when he hears these things, say that something else was said by him and by those at
Chalcedon and by Leo? For openly he is bold and knows the same Christ who is visible in
the invisible and the visible nature nor has said two Christs and two sons and Lords. And
the Council of Chalcedon said: 'One and the same Christ, son, lord, only-begotten, in two
natures, not changeably, not confusedly, not divisibly.'42 Fragm. 312. For we know not two
Christs or two sons or Lords nor original and new only-begotten nor a first and a second
Christ but one and the same, who is visible in the uncreated and the created nature.43

14 Fragm. 292. Christ in that [he is] Christ is not divided; for we have not two Christs
or two sons, for there is not with us a first and a second Christ nor one and another, nor
again one son and again another; but the son is double not by authority but by nature. And
again: Preserving then without confusion the adherence of the natures.44 Fragm. 285. Who
is visible in the created and the uncreated nature.43 Fragm. 287 is identical except for
the omission of one enclitic pronoun. XIV. Fragm. 262-264. From another homily which is
called 'the Explanation of the Teaching', of which the commencement is this: Not with
clamour do I judge the love which is toward me but with longing for the teaching of the
faith.45 15 Fragm. 262. And after other things: Again, I say it clearly: not an ordinary
danger is ignorance of the teaching of the faith. And I see that many indeed in our
assemblies have modesty and ardent piety but slip out of ignorance respecting the teaching
of the faith. But this is no rebuke for the people but----[to speak] as one who will say
it suitably----[it is] because |390 the teachers have not time to set before you the exact
teaching of the faith. Our Lord Christ then in his divinity is consubstantial with the
Father and the creator of the blessed Mary; for he is the maker of all. But in his manhood
he is the son of the blessed Mary; yet he is our Lord Christ, who is double in his
divinity and in his manhood. But for this reason also I turn aside from ornate speech
because [so] I shall be understood by [my] hearers. Our Lord Christ, who is double in his
divinity and in his humanity, is one Son by adhesion. One then is he [who] was born of
Mary that bare Christ, the Son of God. Many times do I say the same things, because [so]
thou wilt not again, when thou goest forth, calumniate the Word. Remember, I pray, what is
said by you; for there are many calumniators. I extol praise for piety, but I require the
Trinity. He then who was born of Mary that bare Christ is one Son of God; but the Son of
God is double in the natures:

16 God and man. Here sharpen for me your hearing. For here is a [cause of] trespass for
them on whom is laid the prosopon of piety; for they say that the bishop calls Christ a
mere man. Then behold! how many witnesses [there are] to what is said! Our Lord Christ is
God and man. I call not Christ a mere man, O excellent [man], but one adhering to God the
Word.46 17 Fragm. 263. And after other things: That then which I was saying: 'I believe in
one God'----that belief possesses the common name of the natures: 'in one God Almighty,
maker of all things made, visible and invisible.' Give heed therefore from here [onwards]
with [all] exactness: 'and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.' Give heed, I would
persuade |you], to what is said: The fathers were able to say: 'I believe also in one God
the Word the Son of God, who was begotten of the Father.'47 And again: The blessed and
holy company of the Fathers takes up the name of our Lord Christ and calls him the creator
of all, consubstantial with the Father. None was able to rebuke [thee] and say: 'Thou
sayest that he who |391 was born yesterday is consubstantial with the Father. But the
title which has been laid down, which indicates both the divinity and the humanity----but
we mean that of "Christ"----makes the fathers hold both of them true. Consubstantial with
the Father is Christ: this is true; for in the divinity he is eternal. Consubstantial with
us [is he] naturally: this is true; for he too was a man as we also [are]. Again how many
times is exception taken to the saying, if an heretic is near and says: "Behold!" he says
" man as we also [are] " and introduces our Lord [as] a mere [man]!'48

18 Fragm. 264. And after other things: I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-
begotten Son of God; for God the Word is not distinct from him. And after other things:
Many times am I forced to say the same things. For I fear those who change the words 'in
one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God who was begotten by the Father before
all worlds'. Behold! thou hast [there] a birth before all worlds. Can what was born before
all the worlds be born another time? And after other things: Give heed to the words.
Believe; I lie not in what I say. These things have been said of me by some of the
reverent clergy: 'My lord bishop is blaming God.' Until I came none of us took notice of
the words of the bishops of Nicaea, that we are saying these things. And after other
things: For this reason, where the Word is laid down, the birth from a woman is not laid
down, but [it is laid down] thus: 'And the Word became flesh'; he says not: 'And the Word
was born through the flesh.' For this would have been for us to introduce a second birth
of the divinity.49

19 XXI. Fragm. 306. 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith'. But if those
Theopaschitans, while holding true the religion of Apollinarius, were to say that one
nature showed itself after the union, is it proper for us with much indignation to turn
our faces from them because they impiously alienate the two natures from their properties
in consequence of the |392 mixture and the confusion? They therefore as far as concerns
them let neither the divine [nature] in that it [exists] nor the human persist in that
each one of them falls away from its own ousia through the mixture and the confusion and
is altered into the other. But if they say that the natures are of necessity neither mixed
nor confused, they are constrained to concede not one nature of Christ but two, impassible
and passible; and there is established the dogma, accounted true: [that the nature] of the
Trinity is of the same ousia with the impassible divinity.50

20 Fragm. 216. Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.51 Fragm.
215. One and the same which is visible in the nature not created and created.52 And again:
Not one nature but two are we constrained to concede in Christ.53 Fragm. 209. But also in
the homily which is inscribed 'About the Faith' or 'the Deposit of the Faith': that which
is the commencement thereof we confess, [namely] the dogma 'of one ousia'. He wrote thus:
But if we were to say ... of both of them that there are before the union as in a story
two natures. They are to be understood as if in a temporal comparison. This [it is] which
was said by the holy Cyril to Nestorius.54 Fragm. 291. 'About the Faith', namely 'the
Deposit of the Faith'. Because in all of them those two natures also, complete and not
transformed 55 nor distinguished, are seen in our Lord Christ and every nature
acknowledges these things [as] its own. . . .

21 And again: In consequence of these which are known as one Christ 56 in two natures, God
and man, the visible and the |393 invisible, he will hold the future judgement. As there
is one judge in the two natures,57 so also in every one of the natures is there one Son,
because according to the decision of the Apostles that invisible [nature], God the Word,
is about to hold the judgement in a visible man whom he has raised even from the dead; and
there is one judge in every one of the natures, just as also [there is] one Son in the two
natures.58 Fragm. 277 is identical with Fragm. 291. Fragm. 224. And each one acknowledges
these things as its own. And in another place: What we have also laid down among the
things which have been examined before: one and the same which is visible in the uncreated
and the created nature.59

22 Fragm. 223. One and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created nature;
and because in everything those two natures also, complete and not confused and not far
apart, are seen in our Lord Christ and every one acknowledges these things [as] its own. .
. .59 Fragm. 228. But one and the same which is visible in the uncreated and the created
nature.59 Fragm. 229. And again in another homily which is inscribed 'On account of the
Faith ', namely 'the Deposit of the Faith' of which the commencement is: 'We confess the
dogma "of one ousia",' Nestorius [says]: Because in all of them . . . 60 (continued as in
Fragm. 291). Fragm. 280. Concerning Nestorius having said 'one prosopon out of two
[natures]': his own words, from the homily which is called 'Concerning the Faith'. For
harm was not done to the uniqueness of the Son by the diversity of the natures, But in
such wise as the corruptible body is one thing and further the immortal soul is another
thing, yet one man is constituted of them both, so from the mortal and the immortal, from
the corruptible and from the incorruptible, and from what is subject to beginning and from
the nature which |394 has no beginning, that is of God the Word, I confess one prosopon of
the Son.61

23 XXII. Fragm. 256. From another homily which is inscribed 'Concerning the Learning', of
which the commencement is this: Behold! already the time of the holy mysteries is nigh.
And after other things: One is the temple which was made by the Holy Spirit and another is
God, who sanctifies the temple; and the one indeed can be destroyed, while the other
accepts not [its] destruction but even restores that which is destroyed, him who is hung
upon the cross and after three days is built anew.62 XXIII. Fragm. 314. From the homily
which is inscribed 'When the [passage]: How many times, if my brother sins against me,
shall I forgive him? is read:'63 But I, that is the person of the Church for all of
them,64 unto whom I speak, before every man,65 lay down66 one and the same, naming Christ
a whole67 God and a whole67 man, natures which are not mixed68 but which are united.69

24 Fragm. 289. In the homily which is inscribed 'About the [passage]: The kingdom of
heaven (was) is likened unto a certain king' and so on, he said thus: But I, that is the
person of the Church, for all of them unto whom I speak say the same unto every man,
naming whole man and whole God, natures which arc not mixed but which are united.70 XXIV.
Fragm. 265-267. From another homily, of which the commencement is this: Although there is
among men some great vehemence of impiety. . . . |395 25 Fragm. 265. And after other
things: For there was seen by him, I say, an angel from heaven which strengthened him; but
it strengthened him as many times as the picture of agony was stirred up in our Lord who
alone could [suffer] in the sufferings of him who was visible. And after other things:
This one thing thou lackest only, that thou shouldest be led as a lamb to the slaughter
and be silent as a sheep before the shearer. This is the summit of thy [qualities]
illustrious and divine and the height of honours worthy of adoration and the great mystery
of the victories over Satan. For when thou tastest death, thou dost cause death to die,
when thou goest down to Sheol, thou dost liberate the dead; when thou art crucified with
robbers, through these thou dost seize the day of sinners. Thou desirest not, O Lord,
death which is victorious; the cross [it is] which fills a short time, death fills a time,
the grave three days. But the lordship of an everlasting kingdom in heaven----these are
after the grave. All these things, O Theopaschitan, thou makest into parables and into 'he
suffered an impassible suffering', as thou sayest. For he who suffers impassibly has no
need of things to strengthen him; for why should it have been required that he who suffers
not with suffering should need strengthening? 71

26 Fragm. 266. And after unimportant things: For just as is my opinion concerning the
suffering, such also is it concerning the resurrection; as [is the doctrine] that thou
givest death to be destroyed, which is the truth, so is this: that thou givest also the
resurrection which has destroyed death. For if the suffering of the divinity is an
impassible suffering, so is the destruction of the suffering an indestructive destruction.
For with the newness of the words [spoken] by them concerning the teaching of the faith I
am forced to coin new words for new terms.72 Fragm. 267. And after other things: Why are
you disturbed and [why] do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my |396 hands and my feel,
that [it is I who] have come; touch me and see. A spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see
that I have. Why then, in letting the hands and feet of him who suffered be felt and
teaching therefrom the resurrection as he has commanded, dost thou touch the nature that
cannot be touched as though it has suffered? Why changest thou the sacrifice of the Lord?
Why dost thou sacrifice instead of the lamb him who has raised up the sheep that was
slain? Instead of the sheep thou slayest the divinity which has accepted the sacrifice of
the sheep. If thou slayest the divinity as a sheep, thou makest the power of the sacrifice
a dead thing. For this reason had John, when he saw our Lord, said: 'Behold! the Lamb of
God,' not: 'Behold! the lamb God.' For he who is visible is the lamb and he who is
concealed is God. These [properties] of the natures are distinguished.

27 And after other things: As lord of the hosts of the angels with God the Word is he who
is visible; for he has given him, he says, a name which is more excellent than all names,
that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of those in heaven and of those on earth,
and so on. But with him who [was] visible God the Word was not strengthened by the voice
of an angel at the season of the suffering. The flesh possessed with God the Word the
authority of a judge; for God, he says, has appointed a day wherein he will judge the
world in justice in the man whom he hath appointed, giving the faith to every man in that
he has raised him from the dead.73 XXV. Fragm. 257. From another homily,74 of which the
commencement was:75 All hearts which longing for God has seized beforehand and which none
of the things which are of this world either afflict or elate. . . .

28 And after other things: If he said: 'Who was born of Mary?' I return answer unto him at
once: 'The man who adheres to God, the man who is honoured above all men on account of God
who adheres to him. |397 And again: I have said 'the Son' and I have confessed the two
brief [phrases], both 'the created nature' and 'the uncreated'. The power of the Lord's
flesh and of his divinity [is] the same; the same is the adoration of him who appears and
of him who appears not. And after unimportant [things]: But both of them76 have one and
the very same authority. The angels therefore see him who appears and with him adore him
who is concealed in him who appears; for there is no distinction [of him] from him who
appears with honour but only in the property of the nature.77 Fragm. 302. For that unjust
man in the exposition concerning the [passage]: 'I have not spoken of mine own will'78 and
so on, wrote thus: The Son is not to be entitled 'God the Word' distinctly nor yet man
distinctly; for this is indeed nothing else than to construct two natures. But the term
'sonship' is common to both the natures. I have said 'the Son'; two natures have I
indicated. I have said 'Christ' and have not divided either of the natures in the
sonship.79

29 D. FRAGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN LOCATION XIV. Fragm. 231. He who said: 'My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?' was human nature,80 O wise man.81 Fragm. 237 b. And again in
another place he said, as I have deposed above: He who said .... was human nature, O wise
man.82 XV. Fragm. 210. In the homily 'On account of the Incarnation' Nestorius wrote thus:
I hold then to the two natures in the one title 'Christ', because the one 83 is not known
apart from the other.84 XVI. Fragm. 242 a. For if we were to have said, as Nestorius: A
man who, complete in his own hypostasis, in honour and by mercy only adheres to the
Word.85 |398 XVII. Fragm. 244 a. But, as Nestorius, in predicating two natures in one
Christ, began: It is known to all of them who hear and are willing to speak the truth.86

30 [XVIII]. Fragm. 296. And simultaneously he shows in what capacities he calls Christ
one, that is, in authority and in greatness; for they define the gift of sonship [as] the
source87 of authority.88 [Appendices 2-4 have been omitted] [Selected footnotes] 1. See
op. cit., pp. 196-7 and 365. 2. See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 365-6. 3. Frag. 219: from
those. 4. See op. cit., p. 366. 5. See op. cit., pp. 197-8 and 366. 6. Syr. 'father'. 7.
See op. cit., pp. 198 and 366. 8. Cp. Jer. ii. 18; the Hebr. text as well as the Pesh.
have 'the waters of Shihor'. 9. See op. cit., pp. 201-2 and 367. 10. See op. cit., p. 208.
11. See op. cit., p. 368. 12. Literally: 'wishes'. 13. Fragm. 307: and the nature [is]
newly created. 14. Fragm. 307: 'in an identity of natural quality' (sc. ἰσοφυία). 15. See
op. cit., pp. 209, 210, and 369.

31 16. See op. cit., p. 369. 17. See op. cit., pp. 210 and 369-70. 18. See op, cit., pp.
210 and 370. 19. See op. cit., pp. 211 and 370. 20. See op. cit., pp. 218 and 371. 21.
I.e. possibly 'the infinity '. See op. cit., pp. 218-19 and 371. 22. Fem. 23. See op.
cit., pp. 219 and 371. 24. See op. cit., pp. 243 and 372. 25. See op. cit., p. 372 (cp. p.
245, ll. 1-2). 26. See op. cit., pp. 245 and 373. 27. See op. cit., pp. 247 and 373. 28.
See op. cit., pp. 247-8 and 373. 29. See op. cit., pp. 248 and 373. 30. Viz. the
Monophysites. 31. See op. cit., pp. 131 and 374. 32. Matt. xxii. 2 (Pesh.). 33. Fragm.
221: divided, not in the annulling. 34. Fragm. 221: in the consideration of the divinity
and of the humanity.

32 35. Fragm. 221: very evidently indeed. 36. Fragm. 241: and Christ. 37. Fragm. 221: in
that he is Christ. 38. Fragm. 221: twofold. 39. Fragm. 221 and 241: but double. 40. Fragm.
221: as in [the case of] two eyes. 41. See op. cit., pp. 279-80 and 374. 42. See op. cit.,
p. 375. 43. See op. cit., p. 376. 44. See op. cit., pp. 281 and 376. 45. See op. cit., pp.
282 and 376. 46. See op. cit., pp. 282-4 and 377. 47. See op. cit., pp. 284 and 377-8. 48.
See op. cit., pp. 284-5 and 378. 49. See op. cit., pp. 285-8 and 378. 50. See op. cit.,
pp. 329 and 379. 51. See op. cit., p. 379. 52. See op. cit., pp. 330 and 379. 53. See op.
cit., p. 379. 54. See op. cit., pp. 329, 11., and 379. 55. Fragm. 224, 228, and 229:
confused.

33 56. Fragm. 228 and 229: one son. 57. Fragm. 228 and 229: in each one of the natures.
58. See op. cit., pp. 330 and 380. 59. See op. cit., p. 380. 60. See op. cit., pp. 380-1.
61. Or: that is, I confess that God the Word [is] one prosopon of the Son (Loofs). See op.
cit., pp. 330-1 and 381. 62. See op. cit., pp. 331 and 381. 63. Matt, xviii. 21 Fragm. 228
(as introduction): for he said in another book of his. Fragm. 217: as Nestorius has
written. 64. Fragm. 228: those; Fragm. 230 and 294: these. 65. Fragm. 228: before all of
them. 66. Fragm. 228: I propose; Fragm. 217: I prove. 67. Fragm. 228: complete. 68. Fragm.
228: divided. 69. Fragm. 228: not mixed but united. See op. cit., pp. 332 and 382. 70. See
op. cit., p. 383. 71. 4 See op. cit., pp. 332-3 and 383-4.

34 72. See op. cit., pp. 333 4 and 384. 73. Acts xvii. 31. See op. cit., pp. 334-5 and
384-5. 74. Fragm. 313: from the homily. 75. Fragm. 313: is. 76. Fragm. 286 and 313: is the
same. 77. See op. cit., pp. 335-6 and 385. 78. Jn. xii. 49. 79. See op. cit., pp. 336 and
386. 80. Fragm. 233: the nature of the humanity. 81. See op. cit., pp. 360 and 387. 82.
See op. cit., p. 387. 83. Viz. the Word. 84. Viz. the man Christ. See op cit., pp. 361 and
387. 85. See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388. 86. See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388. 87. Literally:
head. 88. See op. cit., pp. 361 and 388; according to Loofs this fragment is a reference
to, not a quotation from, Nestorius' own words.


SOURCES AND CREDITS
===================

Where each text comes from, and the licence under which it may be reused.

FIVE TOMES AGAINST NESTORIUS English translation: an older public-domain translation as
collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.

THAT CHRIST IS ONE English translation: an older public-domain translation as collected in
the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions. SermonIndex has only divided
it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the translator’s own. No Greek or
Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English version has been made. Licence:
Public domain.

TWO LETTERS TO POPE CELESTINE English translation: an out-of-copyright translation as
transcribed, or commissioned and given to the public domain, by Roger Pearse for his
collection Early Church Fathers – Additional Texts ( tertullian.org/fathers ). SermonIndex
has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the translator’s own.
No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English version has been
made. Licence. translated for the site and dedicated to the public domain (2005). Licence:
Public domain.

THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES English translation: an older public-domain translation as
collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.