Against Nestorius

THE FIVE BOOKS OF CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS, BY OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

ARGUMENT OF THE WHOLE WORK

BOOK ONE. CHAPTER ONE.

Those who desire to investigate the divine Scriptures diligently, and in that matter banish sluggishness, and rather thirst to bring that work to completion, and apply themselves to it strenuously, having laid aside all inertia—it will fall to them absolutely to arrive at all things that are most noble. For they fill their mind with divine light; and when they apply it afterward to the dogmas of the Church, whatever is right and unadulterated, they accept most gladly, and in the inner recesses of their soul [they store them].

*The Reader is to be warned that the various readings, where they have been found in other codices, have been noted without any addition; where, however, they were not taken from books but from conjecture, the adverb 'fows' [perhaps] has been placed before them. AGELLIUS.*

^A and very gladly; and they store them up in the inmost treasures of their own souls. They delight in those things gathered through sound learning, just as some others, who are occupied with the things of this life, having greedily heaped up either Indian gems or gold; or rather, and even more significantly: "For wisdom is better than precious stones; and every precious thing is not worthy of it," as is written. I say that those who are wise, and sagacious, and learned in divine dogmas, ought to remember profitably what was written by one of the holy disciples: ^B "Brethren, test the spirits, whether they are from God." And the blessed Paul also says that the discernment of spirits has been given to the saints. For those who say that Jesus is Lord would naturally say it only through the Holy Spirit; but those who, out of ignorance, unleash a blasphemous tongue against them, and because they have resolved to think correctly, almost say "anathema" to Jesus, they do this, in effect, from the instinct of Beelzebub. Therefore, it is necessary for us, being trained to test all things subtly and accurately, to read the writings of some with a vigilant mind, and to inquire diligently what they say about Christ, the Savior of us all; and to imitate most correctly the most proven and experienced money-changers, who accept the good coins, but studiously reject the counterfeit and adulterated ones. For this matter, the blessed Paul exhorts us, saying: ^C "Become approved money-changers: test all things; hold fast what is good; abstain from every form of evil." Moreover, it is otherwise shameful and unsightly, if, while we appear by no means to neglect what is useful in matters relating to this life—nay, we rather strive to value highly the things by whose aid we may live in splendor—we conversely despise things so holy, and account the salvation of the soul as nothing, but cast it into pits and filth, while we throw our mind, closed to discerning the truth, before whoever wishes to speak things that are not proper, and unwilling to inquire what, among the things read, is right and profitable, and what is perverted, and remote from the accurate rule of dogmas, and bringing loss to the soul itself, for which there is no equal exchange among those who are truly wise. Therefore, those things which are written regarding divine dogmas must be examined, and indeed most subtly; and if anyone journeys on the straight path toward the goal of the sacred Scriptures, ^D and walks in the certain and true track in these, let him be greeted with the applause of our own opinions that approve his straight path: but if he weaves a cold and futile and adulterated, or indeed even pernicious discourse for those who read, let him hear from all: "But speak to us, and..."

report to us another seduction." ^A Therefore, let them either make the tree good and its fruit good, or let them make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt. "For the good man brings forth good things out of the good treasure of his heart; but the evil man brings forth evil things out of the evil treasure of his heart," according to the truthful voice of the Savior. "For God has blinded the minds of the unbelieving heretics of this age, so that the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of Christ might not shine," and they have been led astray in many ways. For some, the wretches, say that the Word begotten of God the Father is inferior to the Begetter, and they do not shudder to assign to Him a measure that is base and servile. Others urge an impious and unrestrained mouth against the Holy Spirit, so that that prophetic word may justly be spoken against them: ^B "But you, approach here, you lawless children, offspring of adulterers and of a harlot; in whom did you take delight, and against whom did you open your mouth, and against whom did you loosen your tongue? Are you not children of destruction, a lawless offspring?" But they indeed shall walk in their own light, and they shall find flames which they themselves have kindled. But for us, for whom the straight path is a concern, it is fitting to speak wisely and accurately concerning each of the divine dogmas, and to beware lest we incur the crime of their rashness in speaking, and by offending and sinning against the brethren, and striking their weak conscience, we sin against Christ. For let us hear Him saying directly: "For if my enemy had reproached me, I would have endured it; and if he who hates me had spoken great things against me, I would perhaps have hidden myself from him. ^C But you, O man of like soul, my leader, and my acquaintance, who together with me made sweet the food; we walked in the house of God in agreement." But let these things be turned upon the heads of the enemies, who have waged war against the glory of our Savior, and who hold the blasphemies cast against Him as a delight. But for us, as I said, it is fitting and necessary, since we strive to know those things which are pleasing to Him, to provide that our discourse be not removed from the truth, nor tend toward some other thing and look to empty vanity—that is, I say, what is held for the subject—but that it be rightly brought forth and be commended by the suffrage of truth itself. I say these things because I happened upon a certain book ^D composed by someone, in which many discourses were heaped together according to the letters and disposed as if in order, and there was no reason lacking to it, whereby it might be retained. And if something had been said by a writer of such a kind that, having been consigned to oblivion, it would vanish, I might perhaps have decided that I too should remain silent, and should advise others to do the same, lest such absurd and imprudent things be known to many others and our descendants. But because a swarm of blasphemies is heaped together in that book, and much has been declaimed and barked against the dogmas of the truth, how was it not necessary

for us, as it were, to gird ourselves for the struggle and to fight on behalf of those who might read it, so that they might not suffer any harm from it, but might know instead how to repel with vigor the injury resulting from those things that have been wrongly said? For the blessed John has been named the Son of Thunder by Christ, the Savior of us all ^A, and most deservedly, being one who, by uttering something great and unusual, almost shook the whole world with his sound and terrified the lands with his thunder. For he declares most excellently that truly venerable and great 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 made nothing" .

But when he had set forth the mysteries accurately and with refinement, and had proclaimed the Only-begotten to be both God and born ineffably of God according to nature, the creator and maker of all things, then at last, and indeed in due season, he begins to narrate that most wise economy performed for us and on our behalf; and he says: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" . For by calling the Word "flesh," he manifests the power of the true union, that which is understood, of course, according to hypostasis; but by also saying that he "dwelt among us," he does not permit us to suppose that the Word, who is from God according to nature, has changed into earthly flesh. For any one who was not sufficiently skilled in what that divine nature—which is situated beyond every created thing—really is, might perhaps have ^C supposed that it was even capable of change, and negligent of the good things naturally inherent in it by essence, and that it had somehow degenerated into something else, different from what it is, and become suddenly subjected to alterations and changes, and reduced to the measures of creatures. But that this is utterly impossible—for the nature of God is fixed, and remains unshaken in that which it is—he testifed when he said: "He dwelt among us"; for surely the Word also became flesh. In which words he both prudently explained the wisdom of the economy and guarded most vigilantly against anyone slandering the nature of the Word itself, as if it had become flesh out of change and conversion.

Therefore, we ourselves also assert, while tracing the aim of those who speak by God, and by departing in no way from the rule of faith, that he who is from God according to nature, that Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father 17, through whom are all things and in whom are all things 18, although he had his own existence before all ages and times and always subsisted together with his Begetter, descended in the final times of the aeon to a voluntary emptying, and took upon himself the form of a servant 19, that is, underwent what is ours, and was made man according to the economy, and was made like his brethren in all things, in that he partook similarly of flesh and blood 20: and thus with us and

endured the birth that is according to us; and to take back into himself the passage of his own flesh into being, and not needing a second beginning for his being: for he was in the beginning, and the Word was God; but that he might recapitulate the human race, a ^A second beginning of all things after that first one, being born according to the flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For thus he who was rich became poor, bringing us back into his own wealth, and through the flesh united to him, having all things in himself. For thus, thus have we been buried with Christ through holy baptism, and have been raised with him, and have sat together in the heavenly places. For so has written the steward of his mysteries, the herald, and Apostle, and minister of the evangelical decrees, that most wise Paul. It is necessary, therefore, for the faith and at the same time the precise demonstration of the mystery, [to establish] the matter of the true union, that which is according to hypostasis, I say, so that the manner of the birth according to the flesh of the Only-begotten may also have ^B exemption from blame, not being called, as I said, a second beginning of existence—for he himself is the maker of the ages—but rather that he lowered himself economically to humanity for our sake, and did not despise the laws of humanity, but rather chose to have also the birth of the flesh along with the flesh, as his own. For this reason we say that he who always coexists with the Father has been born according to the flesh. For thus he condemned sin in the flesh, and destroyed the power of death in us, having become like us, he who knew no sin, he in whom we live, and move, and have our being.

But I know not how some wrong the most sacred beauty of the Church’s dogmas, and wrinkle the holy and all-pure Virgin, bringing her down into the ugly rottenness of their own thoughts, and ^C walling against us a crowd of new inventions. For they write of the term *Theotokos*, which the holy Fathers before us composed to honor the holy Virgin, as if it were illegitimate and not genuine, or rather as if it went beyond all reasonable duty; they distinguish and divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons; they also take away from God the Word the sufferings of the flesh, although we ourselves do not say that he suffered in his own nature, in so far as he is understood to be God, but rather that we ascribe to him, together with the flesh, the sufferings that befell the flesh, so that he himself may also be confessed as Savior: for by his stripe we are healed, as it is written; and he himself was ^D weakened because of our sins, although he was void of any capacity for weakness; and we have been saved, while he took upon himself our death through his own body. I will attempt, therefore, to demonstrate clearly what I have said. For I shall now recite the words of him who wrote the book; and first, those which he poured forth while he was excessively criticizing the term, *Theotokos*. But because, when he often inculcates the same words, we also, who oppose him, are forced to repeat the same.

thoughts, grant, I pray, grant indulgence to those who do not choose to repeat the same things, but who have determined it right to oppose him in the same manner as the scope of his words proceeds. He speaks, therefore, in this way, debasing the term for the holy Virgin, I mean the term *Theotokos*. "I asked," he says, "often those"—it is clear that he means those who contradicted him—"Do you say that the Divinity was born from the holy Virgin?" To these words they immediately recoil: "Who," they say, "labors under such a disease of blasphemy, that he would say that she who gave birth to the temple, by the work of the Holy Spirit, gave birth to God Himself as if created in her?" Then, when I add to these things: "What, therefore, is absurdly said by us, when we indeed urge them to utter this term, but to move toward the common signification of the two natures?" Then it is thought by them to be blasphemous, that which is said: "Either confess clearly that the Divinity was born from blessed Mary, or, if you flee this term as blasphemous, why do you pretend not to say it, while saying the very same things as I?" ^B

Therefore, from these things which you yourself say, and somehow, I know not how, think should be accepted, there is borne clear testimony even by the confession of your own voice concerning those who think otherwise—namely, that they hold a right and true opinion regarding our common Savior, Christ, and have in their minds the faith which those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, and faithful dispensers of our divine mysteries, delivered to the Churches. For they rightly and deservedly turn away, as from an evident argument of ignorance and extreme impiety, from even the mere thought that the Word from God the Father was said to begin a second beginning of existence, or that He received the flesh ^C of the holy Virgin as a kind of root of His own subsistence; but yet they call her *Theotokos*, as she who truly gave birth to that Emmanuel who is God by nature: for that Word, who was God by nature and above us, became with us. Do they therefore assert things contrary to what they believe? For someone as I suppose, of those who have chosen to think the same as you, will say: "If you deny that the nature of the Word is the offspring of flesh, and clear yourself of this charge, how then do you assert that the holy Virgin gave birth to God?" But he shall hear from us on the contrary: The divinely inspired Scripture says that the Word from God the Father became flesh, that is, was united to flesh without confusion and according to hypostasis; for the body united to Him was not alien to Him, nor born of a woman, but just as to each of us our own body is our own, in the same manner also the proper body of the Only-Begotten was His own, and not another's: for thus He was also made according to the flesh. ^D Furthermore, tell me, how did He become flesh, if birth from a woman is not attached to Him, when the laws of human nature require this, and carnal existence...

^A can have no other way from the beginning? For we, by no means clinging to the trifles of the Greeks, shall ourselves compose myths that human bodies are born from an oak or a stone; but nature, or rather the Creator of nature, has defined the laws according to us. For just as that which is akin is generated from each of the things that exist, so too it is from us; and the matter could not be otherwise. For to the divine and ineffable power, nothing of those things which it might choose to accomplish is impossible; yet it proceeds through those things which are natural to the nature of existing things, not dishonoring the laws established by itself. And it was not impossible for the Word who is powerful in all things—who had decided for our sake to become as we are—while yet refusing a birth from a woman, to fashion a body for himself from without, by his own power, just as we say happened in the case of our first ancestor, Adam. ^B For it says: "God took dust from the earth, and fashioned man" (Gen. II, 7). But since this was a pretext for the unbelievers who wish to slander the mystery of the incarnation, and indeed before all others for the unholy Manichaeans, whom you say you fear up and down, lest perhaps they might attack those who call the holy Virgin Theotokos, as asserting that the incarnation of the Word happened only in phantasy, it came about necessarily through the laws of human nature. And since his intention was to convince everyone that he had truly become man, he "took hold of the seed of Abraham" (Hebr. II, 16), and with the blessed Virgin mediating for this very thing, he partook of "blood and flesh" (Hebr. II, 14) in a manner similar to us. For in this way, and not otherwise, was it possible for God to exist with us. ^C But the incarnation, or rather the humanization, of the Word was also most useful for those on earth in another way. For if he had not been born after our manner according to the flesh, if he had not partaken of the same things as us in like manner, he would not have delivered human nature from the charges contracted in Adam, nor would he have driven away corruption from our bodies, nor would the power of the curse, which we say occurred upon the first woman, have ceased; for it was said to her: "In sorrow shall you bring forth children" (Gen. III, 16). But human nature, which had suffered from the disease of disobedience in Adam, has now become well-regarded in Christ through his obedience in all things; for it is written: "For as by the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of the one man, many shall be made righteous" (Rom. V, 19). ^D It suffered in Adam: "You are earth, and to earth you shall return" (Gen. III, 19); but it has become rich in Christ, so as to be able to trample upon the snares of death, and as it were to dance in triumph over corruption, saying that prophetic word: "Where is your victory, O death? Where is your sting, O Hades?" (1 Cor. XV, 55; Osee XIII, 14). It had become cursed, as I said, but this too was made void in Christ. And so it was said to the holy Virgin, as Elizabeth prophesied in the Spirit: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luc. I, 42). Sin has reigned over us, and the inventor of sin...

that father of sin, boasted proudly against all who were on earth, charging them with the violation of divine laws. But in Christ we see human nature, as in the first fruits of a second race, having confidence toward God; for He said clearly: "The prince of this world is coming, and he will find nothing in me" (Joan. XIV, 30).

^B But, O excellent man, I would reasonably say, if the Only-Begotten did not become as we are, and if He did not become as we are in any other way than by carnal generation from a woman, we could never have been made rich in His blessings. For as the most wise Paul writes, that Emmanuel did not appear to us as a second Adam from the earth according to the first, but from heaven (I Cor. XV, 47). For the Word, who is from above and from the Father, did not descend into the flesh of any particular person, nor into a foreign one, as I have already said, nor did He descend upon one of us as if dwelling in him, as indeed He was in the prophets; but having made for Himself a body from a woman, and having been born of her according to the flesh, He recapitulated human generation through Himself, becoming with us according to the flesh, He who existed from the Father before all ages. This confession of faith the holy Scriptures have handed down to us. But you pretend to fear lest someone of us might suspect that the Word born of God had the beginning of His existence from earthly flesh; and you utterly destroy the mystery of the dispensation in the flesh, when you deny that the holy Virgin should be called by us Theotokos, and you draw those who call her Theotokos into an inevitable and necessary confession, so that it must be thought by them that the Word is a fruit of flesh. But it is not so; it is far otherwise. For He who is the Son from God the Father, who has an existence beyond all time, since He is the Creator of the ages, because He became flesh in the last times of the age, is said to have been born according to the flesh. For if His body is understood to be His own, how shall He not at all and in every way claim for Himself and assert the birth of His own body? But you would have approved the upright and unshakeable faith of those who believe thus, if you had wished to persuade yourself to ponder and confess that Christ is truly God, and is one and the same Son of God the Father, not divided into a man separately, and into God similarly, but that He is the same, both the Word from God the Father, and man from a woman like us, while remaining God. That you slander the generation of the Word according to the flesh, ^D everywhere proclaiming two sons and dividing the one Lord Jesus Christ, will be made clear not by my words, but by your own.

NESTOR. [See what follows, heretic. I do not begrudge this title to the Virgin who gave birth to Christ, but I know that she who received God is to be venerated, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun of Justice shone forth. Again, I am suspicious of this applause. How did you understand that word, "He passed through"? It has not been said by me, that He passed through, in place of...]

the fact that He was begotten: for I do not so easily forget my own sentiments. That God passed through the Virgin, the Mother of Christ, I have learned from the Holy Scriptures, but that God was begotten of her, I have never learned.] And after other words: [Nowhere, therefore, do the Holy Scriptures say that God was begotten of the Christ-bearing Virgin, but Jesus, Christ, the Son, the Lord.] To these he adds that Christ was not true God, but rather a "God-bearer" man, as he supposes, bringing forth that voice of the angel saying to the blessed Joseph: "Arise, and take the child": and he says that the angels themselves, who are without doubt wiser than we, knew that He was a child. ^B

CHAP. II.

you should ^A treat the term "Theotokos" with such suspicion in many of your arguments, and write that it is not truly said, as well as being blasphemous, and yet say that you permit it and do not begrudge the Virgin, if anyone should see fit to call her Theotokos. Will you, then, also grant to the insane followers of Arius that they may say the Son is lesser than the Father, or to others who lower the nature of the Holy Spirit from its divine excellence? But you would not choose to do this; and if anyone wished to learn the reason, you would surely say in every case: "Because I do not tolerate an impious expression." If therefore she is not the Theotokos, and yet you allow this to be said, know that you have abandoned the truth, and care little whether you appear to be wise. For do you not say that Elizabeth, or certainly any other of the holy women, is worthy of all reverence? Will you, then, not begrudge it if someone should choose to call them "Theotokos" as well? Indeed, I think you would disagree in every way, and say that this is not how things stand. For they gave birth to holy men, indeed, but no one of them was God by nature. Therefore, if you remove the use of this term from all other women, or if you permit it to the holy Virgin alone above all others, what reason will you bring forward in reply? For if this word is truly spoken of her, and she truly gave birth to God, as the Word of God having become flesh, confess it with us, and you will free yourself from the charges of impiety. But if she did not give birth to God, then to allow some to call her Theotokos is nothing other than entering into a partnership of impiety with them. But she is the Theotokos, because the Only-Begotten became man like us, united to flesh in truth, and underwent bodily generation, and did not disregard the laws of our nature, as I have already said before.

^B But since he says that he knows her to be venerable—the holy Virgin, that is—come now, let us examine the causes for the reverence shown to her. [I know, he says, that she is venerable, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the Sun of righteousness shone forth.] How, then, do you say that God was received by her? How also did the Lord of all pass through her? Or how did the Sun of righteousness shine forth? For if she did not give birth to God, I mean according to the flesh, how then did she receive God? How did He pass through her? But perhaps you will give that response of yours which you consider wise, and which you do not fear to say: [For the Word was God, and was joined to man, and dwelt in him.] But the tradition of the faith ^C opposes your words on this matter. For we have been taught to worship not a "God-bearing man," but God incarnate; yet you say otherwise. Further, how do you not notice that you are talking nonsense, and adulterating the truth of divine dogmas? For the Word became flesh. But why, then, do you...

^A say that you receive her, if you do not believe that she has given birth to the Emmanuel, who is God by nature? How did the Lord of all pass through her, and the Sun of righteousness arise? And whom do you deem worthy to adorn with such titles? Is it, perhaps, a common man, like one of us, save that he is sanctified, as having the Word of God as an inhabitant? Then how shall such a one be the Lord of all, and the Sun of righteousness? For to be Lord and to be able to rule over all things, and to illuminate the things that are understood, might befit not the measures of those like us, but will be assigned only to the most high and supreme nature.

Since, however, you have set down the word, “He passed through,” upon God—though I know not at all from where you took it—explain the expression. What would be the substance of the passage spoken of here, if it were in your mind to tell those who are ignorant? For if the Word of God passed through her in such a way as to move from one place to another, you are forthwith brought down; for you shall hear Him saying through the voice of the saints: “Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?” ^B For the Divine is not in a place, and it knows no bodily transitions; for it fills all things. But if, because He awaited the time fitting for the birth, He made His dwelling in man in a relative sense, and you say that God passed through the holy Virgin—for I shall use your sacred words everywhere—then we see nothing extraordinary in the holy Virgin beyond the others. For Elizabeth gave birth to the blessed Baptist, sanctified by the Spirit, by which Spirit the Son Himself also dwells in us. And the wise John will testify, saying: “In this we know that He is in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” The Word of God therefore passed through Elizabeth too, having dwelt in the infant through the Spirit even before his birth.

But you suspect the applause, as if you had been chosen to speak correctly to the people. For you called the Sun of righteousness, ^C and the Lord of all, Him who was born from the holy Virgin. Then again you pretend to be pedantic, and you blame the applause, and write again that those who rejoiced for you did not understand. O the great power that is in your words! You did not delay in bringing sorrow upon them; you turned their joy instantly into mourning, you rent their gladness, and girded yourself with sackcloth, immediately afterward adding: “[Again I suspect the applause; how did you understand ‘He passed through’? I did not say, ‘He passed through,’ in place of ‘He was born’; for I do not so quickly forget my own words. That God passed through from the Christ-bearing Virgin, I have been taught by the divine Scriptures; but that God was born from her, I have nowhere been taught.]” Therefore, those perverse statements are yours; and it was the applause of charity that arose because they suspected you had begun to think correctly.

But I will insist even now, nonetheless, and ask: What is this, “He passed through,” if it does not signify the birth? For...

^A what will you say? That the Word from God passed through the Virgin by Himself, and without flesh? And yet, how could that expression not be filled with the utmost folly? For one must think either that the Divine is condensed into quantity and is moved in a change from place to another place, or, if the Divine is incorporeal, and extensive, and everywhere, and is not contained in a place or by circumscription, how could it pass through a single body? But whatever it is that you say, why was it not necessary to explain it, and to speak more clearly, if you are confident in your own opinions about this matter and are able to demonstrate their blamelessness? And where, pray, have you heard the divinely inspired Scriptures say that the Word of God passed through the holy Virgin? For that the life of men who dwell on earth is short and contracted, the blessed David taught, saying, “Man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he will blossom; for a spirit passed through him, and he shall be no more.” But as regards ^B the holy Virgin, what do you have written of such a kind to bring forward? Yet that God was born of her—according to the flesh, I mean—the divinely inspired Scripture has clearly indicated.

I return, then, again to your words, O most excellent man. For you have yourself confessed, and this very often, that the Word became flesh; and you did not think that such a phrase was to be avoided. And, furthermore, you said that the divinity of the Only-begotten openly and plainly became man, when you wrote in this manner:

NESTOR. [So also in other places he says: “He has spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages; who being the radiance of glory.” He calls him the Son safely, and radiance of glory, and appointed heir, indeed, according to the flesh, but radiance of the glory of the Father according to the divinity; for He did not depart from the likeness of the Father in being ^C incarnate. And furthermore, to this he says again: “For God, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now commands all men everywhere to repent; because He has established a day in which He is about to judge the world in a man, whom He appointed, providing faith to all, having raised him from the dead.” Having previously said, “In a man,” he then adds, “having raised him from the dead,” so that no one might suspect that the divinity which became man died.] ^D

CAP. III.

Who, then, is the one who became incarnate, or in what manner has he become incarnate? And what divinity is it that became man? Tell me, I pray, excellent sir; for we desire to learn this. Shall we grant that the Word, who is God from God, became incarnate, and shall we affirm that He became man, having become as we are and born of flesh? Or shall we in no way grant this, but rather consider that a man came to this, conjoined with God, as you claim? But, unless I am mistaken, you would say that it is better and more wise to believe that the Word from God became man and became flesh, according to the Scriptures.

For one would not, I suppose, be seen to have assumed that in which one already exists; but if he should somehow be in what he was not in at the beginning, the word would immediately ^A show that something concerning him had been innovated. Therefore, it is ignorant to say that he became man and became some flesh of those who belong among us, having gone beyond the boundaries of humanity. But incarnation, or rather flesh-taking, would befit, and quite reasonably so, the nature that is beyond humanity. But if he has truly become man and has become flesh, it is believed, I suppose, that he is to be understood as man, and not as someone joined to a man by mere indwelling, or by some external relation, or as you say, by conjunction. Yet, even if he has become man, he does not cease to be God. Furthermore, we do not say that the flesh has been changed into the nature of the Godhead, nor do we think the reverse is the case; for the nature of the Word has remained ^B truly what it is, even while united to flesh. Therefore, why do you pretend to be contending for the dogmas of piety by putting forward in your own discourses, as though they were truly said, things which no one would deem it right to think of even in mere notions? For some of the Holy Fathers have indeed used the word "commingling" (krasis); but since you say you are afraid that some confusion might be thought to have occurred, just as with liquids that are mixed together with one another, I shall relieve you of these terrors: for they did not think in this way—how could they? Rather, they have misused the word, being eager to declare the perfect union of things suitable to one another. But we say that the Word of God came together with his own flesh in an inseparable and immutable union. ^C And we shall find that divinely inspired Scripture itself does not examine the word too anxiously, but uses it rather loosely and simply. At any rate, the blessed Paul wrote concerning some: "But the word heard did not profit them, not being commingled [mixed] by faith with those who heard." Therefore, were those of whom he speaks to be commingled with one another in the way you describe, as wine is mixed with water, and to undergo some confusion of substances with one another; or were they rather to be united in mind, as it is written in the Acts of the holy apostles, that the heart and soul of the multitude of those who believed was one? But I think this is truer than that. Cease, therefore, to be afraid ^D on this account, for the mind of the saints is very secure.

Since to say that the nature of the Word has become man is, I suppose, nothing other than to think this, that he has become man, and not without birth from a woman—for nature knows this as the only way of human bodies—how have you not been taught the birth according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten by the divinely inspired Scripture? Although you yourself, when prophetical readings were once set before you, namely, "A child has been born to us, a son has also been given to us," said such things concerning the child who was born: "Truly great is the mystery of such a gift; for this one who is seen as an infant, this one who appears new-born, this one who...

requires physical swaddling bands, this one who in his visible essence is newly born, is the Son, as Scripture teaches, eternal; the Son is the Maker of the universe; the Son is he who binds with the swaddling bands of his own assistance the dissoluble nature of creation." And in other places again: "For the infant is also a divine being possessed of free power: so far is God the Word from being under the power of God, O Arius." In which words he also called the united body God. And again: "We acknowledge, therefore, the humanity of the infant and his divinity; we preserve the singleness of sonship in the nature of humanity and divinity." ^A Behold, therefore, very clearly you say that the infant, the one who is seen, the one newly born, the one swaddled, is the Son and Maker of all things. Yet the holy Virgin bore this infant for us. You certainly know, then, God born according to the flesh; and you have learned this from divinely inspired Scripture. For who could be thought of as the Maker of the universe, except that one alone through whom the Father made all things? But perhaps you will say, you may reply, that you spoke of the Son and Maker of all things according to what was hidden. You are right; I agree. But I will ask: Do you claim that the hidden one is the Word from God, and that he is the Maker of all things? How, then, did you point out to us but a moment ago, almost with your finger, the newly born infant, already brought forth and wrapped in swaddling clothes, whom you also called the Son of God and the Maker of all? Or do you perhaps think that the Word of God has been transformed into the nature of flesh? But in that case you will accuse yourself rather than others, whom you as though dared to affirm this. Or, if the infant is the hidden Son and Maker of all, and this one was born from the holy Virgin, have you not unwillingly and unexpectedly confessed with us that she is the Theotokos? ^B For how is an infant a God possessed of free power? For if you speak of "free power" in such a way as any one of us might be supposed to be, as one who has had the reins of his own will entrusted to him by God, what is exceptional in him beyond others? Or for what reason, as though it were a divine and truly exceptional title, do you attribute this "free power" to him, although it is permitted to all who dwell on earth to have it, and they already do? But if "free power" signifies in this regard not being subject to the laws of another, as even the divine nature itself is understood to be, then in what way do you say that the newly born infant is included in these conditions, so august and becoming only to the supreme nature and glory, although everything that has been called into existence is subject to God and placed under the yoke of servitude? ^C But perhaps you will think that to all these things that foolish argument will be sufficient for you, which is that natures are joined together not according to hypostasis, but rather in the same honor and equality of dignity: for these are things you often imprudently impress upon us. But that you are persisting in weak and fragile fabrications in saying these things will be shown clearly in a few words when the occasion offers itself to discuss this. To these he adds certain other things through which he thinks the manner of generation is like our own, as though it were unbecoming, ^D

and impossible, he demonstrates it quite keenly; and he sets against himself our arguments, thinking that, even if we cultivate the truth, he will easily overwhelm us by the sheer weight of his own arguments, and show that we are men of no account. Thus, therefore, he spoke:

NEST. ^A If God is Christ, he says, and Christ is sprung from the blessed Mary, why should not the Virgin be the Mother of God? I hide nothing of the objections made by them; for the lover of truth takes all that can be said by falsehood and sets it against himself. Then he attempts to offer a solution, using such notions as these: For an infant, he says, is fashioned in the womb, but until it has received its shape, it has no soul; but when it has been shaped, it is then ensouled by God. As therefore a woman brings forth the body, but God grants the soul, and for that reason she would not be called the mother of a soul, because she brought forth an ensouled being, but rather the mother of a human, so too the blessed Virgin, he says, even if she brought forth a human, with the Word of God passing through along with him (for this is the expression he used), ^B she is not on that account the Mother of God.

CHAPTER IV

Must you then, I ask, think it blameworthy what is said by us? Does it seem to you that what is so right and upright should be foolishly censured? And should you not rather accuse your own mind for its inability to judge rightly? For to those whom the truth displeases, it comes to pass, and very easily, that they embrace what is otherwise; and to reprehend those who speak rightly is not without guilt, nay, it is a clear proof of a mind prone to falsehood, and of embracing those things which it is better to execrate as being at variance with right reason. ^C But, thinking not at all how base these things are, he declared himself a lover of truth, and that we, on the contrary, fabricate falsehood; although the matter is such that it is easier to see that it is the opposite which is correct and true. For indeed the advocate of falsehood and deceit tries to fasten the reproach of false myth-making upon the champions of the truth, having perhaps fallen into forgetfulness of the prophet who says: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." But by the example he has brought forward, I shall endeavor to prove that he clearly does not know what he is saying.

For flesh is born of flesh, beyond doubt, and the Maker of all things, in a manner and reason which He alone knows, brings it about that it is ensouled; yet the woman who has brought it forth, although she is the source of the flesh only, ^D is believed to have brought forth the whole human, I mean both soul and body, although she has contributed nothing of herself to the existence of the soul. Yet he who has said "man" has signified at the same time the soul united to the body. As therefore a woman, although she has brought forth the body only, is said to have brought forth one consisting of body and soul, and yet this in no way hinders the properties of the soul,

^A nor indeed does this at all frustrate the implications of the soul, just as the flesh, which takes its beginning from its own existence, does so also in the case of the blessed Virgin. For even if she is the mother of the holy flesh, yet she has brought forth the Word of God who is from God, truly united to it. And if anyone calls her Theotokos, he will not by any means define the Word of God as being more recent, nor will he understand the flesh to have made a beginning of its own existence; rather, he will better understand the mode of the dispensation. And indeed, marveling at the matter, he will say: "O Lord, I have heard thy report, and was afraid; O Lord, I have considered thy works, and was amazed." ^B But this most wise and acute expounder, having grasped the power of the example, says: "[Thus, he says, even the blessed Virgin, though she has brought forth a man, with the Word of God passing along with him, is not on that account Theotokos; for the dignity of the Word did not begin from the blessed Virgin, but He was God by nature.]" Now what it is for the Word to pass along with the flesh, he himself perhaps knows, and he alone. But I cannot sufficiently marvel at his subtle diligence. For the word of truth proclaims that the Word of God Himself is united to the flesh according to hypostasis, but this man, repeatedly insisting on "passing along with" (what he means by this term I do not know), affirms it. Then, when the whole argument is proposed to us concerning nature and the union according to hypostasis, and he is eager to investigate not what the Word from God is in respect of dignity, but whether He became man by dispensation and made the flesh from a woman His own, he absurdly transfers the question into other matters and says that His dignity did not come to the Word from the blessed Virgin, but that He was God by nature. But how is it not clear that dignity and nature are altogether different things? ^C But in these matters we do not attach much importance to subtlety of speech. However, I think it necessary to examine what follows: for he opposes another argument to what we say—as he himself surely thinks, an inevitable and sufficiently valid one—so that he can, and indeed boldly, render for us the very generation of Emmanuel from a woman a jest and an empty fable. And so he says again:

Nestor. [Concerning the blessed John the Baptist, it is proclaimed by the holy angels that the infant will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb; and this blessed John the Baptist was born having the Holy Spirit. What then? Will you call Elizabeth the mother of the Spirit? Bring your mind to this: and if there are any among you who are moved at what is said as at something unheard of and unusual, give pardon to their ignorance.]

CAP. V.

Quisnam his verbis auditis non continuo in illam prophetæ vocem erumpat: ^D "Stultus enim stulta loquetur, et cor ejus vana cogitabit, ut perficiat iniqua, et loquatur adversus Dominum seductionem?" For it is clearly seduction, and other

nothing, to trust so frigid and childish concepts as if they were true. One might perhaps admire his kindness in that he judged that pardon and benevolence should be granted to those who did not have the experience of his words. ^A But for us, too, this was a primary desire, had it occurred, or rather for all who are numbered among Christians; for how is it not the prayer of all to depart from such wicked and perverted words? Nevertheless, this is what we say: Elizabeth undoubtedly brought forth the blessed Baptist, anointed in the womb by the Holy Spirit. But if it had been written in the sacred Scriptures that the Spirit also became flesh, you would correctly have said that she should be called by us the Mother of the Spirit. If, however, the child born was honored by a simple and sole anointing, why do you judge that the solidity of the incarnation should be equated with grace acquired by participation? For it is not the same thing to say that the Word became flesh and that someone was anointed by the Spirit with a prophetic spirit. For it is written of the holy Virgin: "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," ^B and he is called "born," and moreover "Emmanuel," that is, being interpreted, "God with us." But regarding Elizabeth, it is said that she would bring forth a son who would go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to prepare His ways before the face of the Lord. Therefore, Elizabeth is in no way the Mother of the Spirit, for she brought forth a prophet of the Most High; but the holy Virgin is truly the Mother of God, because she gave birth carnally, that is, according to the flesh, to God united to flesh. For because she who brought Him forth is a human, for that reason we most rightly assert that the manner of the generation was observed according to human custom. For He who excels above all nature could not be born among us otherwise, not so that He should disregard what He was—by no means—but rather that He should remain what He was ^C and is and shall be; for that divine and supreme nature is superior to change. Therefore, that we think rightly, asserting that God was born according to the flesh for the salvation of all, the divinely inspired Scriptures testify. But because he opposes the truth with his new dogmas, and also opposes the very symbol of ecclesiastical faith, which the Fathers gathered at Nicaea, enlightened by the light of the Holy Spirit, once defined, fearing perhaps that some might preserve the sound faith, being instructed in the truth by their words, he attempts to slander it, and perverts the interpretation of the terms, and dares to adulterate the very power of its meanings. For when he was using profane neologisms in the midst of the church, a certain man, truly upright, who was still among the laity, but who had nonetheless gathered for himself admirable learning, moved by ^D fervent and religious zeal, and crying out with a more insistent voice, said that the Word Himself, who is before the ages, had undergone a second generation, that is, that which is according to the flesh and from a woman. When the people were in an uproar at these words, and the greater and sounder part was extolling him with the greatest praises as a man who was pious and wise above all, and [as a teacher] of sound dogmas...

while the others raged against him; yet having distinguished this, he immediately welcomes those whom he had corrupted by his own teaching, but sharpens his tongue against him who had not endured his dogmas, and against the holy Fathers who had set down for us the pious definition of the faith, which we have as a safe and firm anchor for the soul, as ^A it is written.

[NESTOR. For I rejoice, he says, seeing your zeal. From this, what has been wickedly said by the wretched man can be clearly refuted: for of whom there are two generations, of these there must necessarily be two sons: but the Church acknowledges one Son, the Lord Christ himself.]

CAP. VI.

^B Most senselessly he brought forth the definition concerning what should be thought on these matters, saying: [For of whom there are two generations, of these there must also be two sons.] But letting pass the more meager argumentation concerning these matters, let us for the time being gather what can be found upon diligent inquiry for the purpose of our discourse. Therefore, he judged that it is by no means to be admitted that there are two generations. He asserts further that one birth is to be confessed by us, lest we understand two sons, as if it were a necessity that, if there are absolutely two generations, two sons must also be brought in. Let him come forward, therefore, and teach which generation he prefers to admit: that one before the ages and from the Father, through which the Word of God was not yet incarnate, or truly this recent one, and from a woman? For if he says that one alone—I mean that before the ages and from the Father—he will be the one and indeed only Son, who was born of Him according to nature, before He partook of flesh and blood ^C; but then the mystery of the incarnation is asserted rashly and in vain, for in no way did He empty Himself, nor did He undergo the form of a servant, but He remained as He was, and he rejects the true union with the flesh even until now. But if indeed he who in the extreme times was born of a woman is he who shall be called the only Son, and we admit only this generation from a woman, then he has necessarily lost that Word from God the Father, so that He is not the Son according to nature. But the man who is a lover of God sees entirely how absurd these opinions are, and how greatly they verge toward impiety. Therefore, so that we may walk the royal road, we say that there were two births ^D, yet one Son in both: the Word from God when He was not yet in the flesh, and the very same one afterwards also incarnate, and who for our sake underwent the generation according to the flesh from a woman. For if he had said that among men it is necessary, if we speak of two generations, that there be two sons, he would have spoken rightly and truly: but because the mystery of Christ and the reason of the incarnation holds a different path, and in matters

^A that are among us it is not seen in the same way, why does he, having looked at the custom that prevails among us, and then applying his mind to things admirable and which transcend reason, manifestly slide into a weak and foolish faithlessness? But that which comes to my mind to marvel at is this: for when in these words he had confessed that the Church acknowledges one Son, and had subjoined, namely, that very Lord Christ, he has nowhere afterward kept him as one, but separates the things that have been united, and sets each part by itself, not inquiring what the Word is by nature, and what the flesh is also, but rather collecting man and God into one, as he himself thinks, by equality of glory only: which is neither credible to anyone nor possible to be; and he drags the reason of so great a mystery to absurdity. For thus he said:

^B [NESTORIUS: But it behooves us—for now the thought has come to my mind—to attend also to the Nicene synod, which nowhere dared to say that God was begotten of Mary; for it says: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ. Attend, that when they had first placed the name, "Christ," which indicates two natures, they did not say: In one God the Word, but they took a name that would signify both, so that when you hear of death further down, you might not be troubled, lest those words, "crucified and buried," might offend your ears, as if the divinity had suffered these things.] Then he adds to these: [We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, born of the Father, consubstantial with the Father; who for us descended from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit. They did not say, also, Born of the Holy Spirit. Further, the holy Fathers, he says, that they might interpret what that is, "was incarnate," said that, "He was made man."] But what it is, "He was made man," he himself, explaining it again, says: [Not by his own nature undergoing a change into flesh, but by entering into the indwelling of a man.]

CHAPTER VII

Could anyone who is reckoned among Christians endure either the ineptitude of his words or the impiety of his sentiments? Should not these words, in the judgment of prudent men, be held as scurrility, and a kind of malice against Christ not of the lowest order? For he slanders the truth: he says that he is not truly the Son, while attributing this name to another. [Attend, he says, for when they had first placed this name, "Christ," which indicates two natures, they did not say, We believe in one God the Word.] And concerning this name, I mean "Christ," I shall discuss ^D shortly, whether it signifies two natures or otherwise; but let us examine what is currently before us, as far as we can. Therefore, the trifles which he utters so absurdly and ignorantly are in no way to be endured: but someone, perhaps, in order to defend the holy Fathers, will say: What are you doing, O good man, when you utter a savage tongue against holy men, to whom it would be fitting to have said by our Savior Christ himself of all, “Are not

you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you?” ^A For what has not been perceived by them, which has not been polished with the most admirable subtlety? What necessary dogma has been passed over, or what method of caution has been neglected? [They did not dare, he says, to place among the statements of the faith that God the Word was born from Mary.] If, therefore, on this account you accuse our ancestors, and say that you are vexed because they have not used the very same words that you use, it remains that you should charge the holy apostles and evangelists as well; for although they have written books concerning the mystery of Christ, no one could show that they used your words word for word. But if it pleases you, let these things pass, as if something were missing, ^B and consider rather the explanation of the matter itself set forth by them. For a faith in the holy and consubstantial Trinity is required of us. Since, therefore, they profess to believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son; and since for us Jesus Christ the Lord is not another than that one, who is by nature and truly the Son begotten of God, and that which was God the Word became man, through that birth from a woman, beyond any doubt—how can it be that those who preach the dispensation should not be clearly convicted of speaking of his birth from a woman according to the flesh? For then that Word which was God, and that Son who was wisdom, and life, and light, was named Jesus Christ. It is clear, therefore, that that birth from the holy Virgin concurred in time with such an appellation. ^C But by believing in Christ Jesus, we believe in that one who is by nature and truly the Son, while this faith returns through him to the Father, which becomes clear from what he himself proclaims to the whole world: “He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me,” and, “He who sees me, sees him who sent me,” and again, “Believe in God, and believe in me.” Nor do we indeed claim that he requires a double faith from us; but rather he teaches that whoever has received faith in him, has believed in the Father himself. But because, as it was fitting for him to do, he will use the equivocation of names a little later, saying that the name of Christ, and of Lord, and also of Son are common, ^D and will affirm that they belong both to the Word begotten of the Father, even if he is considered alone, not yet having assumed flesh, and also to that temple born of the Virgin; and because, as I think, the discussion on these matters requires great inquiry, having profitably deferred it for the present to a more convenient time, let us pass on to another utterance of the holy synod, which this man, distorting to his own purpose,

contradicts the most potent truth itself. He says, namely, that the Fathers have written: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, born ^B of the Father, consubstantial with the Father, who for us came down, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit." To these words he adds, and says concerning those holy Fathers: "Further ^C, they interpret him who is called 'incarnate' as 'made man,' not that the divine nature was changed into flesh, but that it dwelt in man." In his exposition, he again adheres to the same opinion, and indeed he speaks thus:

[NEST.] "They followed the evangelist; ^D for the evangelist, when he came to the humanation, avoided saying 'generation' in regard to the Word of God, and put 'incarnation'. Where? Hear: 'And the Word became flesh'—he did not say, 'He was born through flesh.' For where the apostles or the evangelists make mention of the Son, they state that he was born of a woman. Attend, I pray, to what is said: for where they speak the name of the Son, and that he was born of a woman, they put the word 'born'; but where they make mention of the Word, not one of them dared to say 'begotten through humanity.' For the blessed John the evangelist, when he came to the Word, and to his humanation, hear what he says: 'The Word became flesh.'"

CHAPTER VIII.

Come now, having set beside these what he has said, and the delivery of our Creed, let us see if anything has been audaciously innovated by this man even in it: "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, born of the Father ^B only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the same; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth: who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man; suffered, and rose again the third day; ascended into the heavens; is to come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit."

Come ^C then, O distinguished man, tell me where they have placed concerning the Son, that he was "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary"? But this you will be least able to show; yet consider this. For they confess the very Word of God, that Only-begotten, that one from the substance of the Father, that one through whom are all things, that true light, to have been incarnate ^D, and made man, and to have suffered, and to have risen again, and even that he will return in his own time as judge. But now, in order that, by applying a most certain standard to his words, we may see

what the nature of the ignorance ^A contained in them is, he clearly asserts that the Word of God was made flesh and became man, and he adorns them by giving his approval to their truth, as if they were speaking appropriately. Tell me, then, I pray you, when they say that he was made flesh and became man, do they mean anything else than that he was born according to the flesh? For this is the only way in which incarnation can occur for him who exists outside of flesh and according to his own nature. For no one would say that flesh had been made flesh, nor could anything become what it already was; but if any change is understood to have occurred in him by way of dispensation into something else than what he was, then only would the expression have much probability. If, therefore, they say that the Only-Begotten was made flesh (and this, if I am not mistaken, can occur through carnal generation and in no other way), how can one deny that they have openly confessed that God the Word was born according to the flesh? But, he says, the generation has not been explicitly named; yet the nature of the thing itself ^B knows no other path of incarnation, as I have already said; wherefore, even if something is stated less clearly in such matters, we should not for that reason abandon the path which alone is known to nature and cross over to another. For it is written in the book of Genesis: "And to Seth a son was born, and he called his name Enos." Is it the case, then, that because the Scripture has used the word "was born," we will not admit the mode of generation? But how could that be anything other than most foolish? For the nature of the thing itself almost forces us, even against our will, to confess that we must understand him to have been brought forth by birth. Why then, upon hearing of the incarnation, does he not immediately admit the understanding of generation? And when the term "humanation" was mentioned in general, why did he not immediately understand that the very matter of humanation does not at all befit a mere man, lest he should appear to have become what he already was, but [rather] the Word born of God? For ^C wherever humanation is believed to have truly occurred, there is entirely a generation, through which he is understood to have been made man. But this, in your view, does not seem the way it should be understood when it is said that the Word of God himself was made flesh and became man; for, striving to fight against the understanding of all men, you said that humanation does not signify this—that the divine nature was changed into flesh—but that it dwelled in man. Now, his statement that a change of the divine nature into flesh is impossible and in no way befits it, we acknowledge to have been most rightly said. For he is to be praised by us for having intended to speak correctly in this point. For I also confess that it remains unshaken, and that it could by no means be changed into anything else than what it is believed to be; but he has erred in that his argument for himself, regarding ^D the appropriate and the true, regarding the humanation…

^A of God, and his assertion that it is merely an indwelling in man, I shall attempt to demonstrate. For if he asserts that this matter is true in the case of one and the only Emmanuel, let him teach the cause; for I am unable to learn it; surely no one would endure this man as a definer and legislator of things which he might carelessly choose to say. But the power of these definitions perhaps does not extend to just one; it will not be calumniated, even if it happens to be regarding all. We shall find, therefore, that God did not become man once, but very often; and not only that Word from God the Father, but I would surely add ^B also the Father himself, and moreover the Holy Spirit. For He said, through one of the holy prophets, concerning those who have been justified by faith: "I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and will be their God, and they shall be my people." And Christ himself also said: "And if anyone hears me, I and my Father will come, and we shall make an abode with him, and in him we shall dwell." And the most wise Paul also wrote somewhere: "And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken; but Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house we are." And furthermore, concerning the Holy Spirit: "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?" Therefore, if to be said to dwell in some is the very thing that is the humanation, or rather the incarnation, let it be said ^C of each one of those who have become partakers of the divine nature, and who have even possessed him as an indweller, that he both became man and, in addition to this, became incarnate. And if this has happened, and is admitted as true, then nothing prevents the Word from God the Father from being said to have become flesh very often; and he dwells even until now in many who worship him. But, he says, it is written concerning the Word of God: "He dwelt among us." And the divinely inspired Paul also said concerning the Savior of us all, Christ, that "In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." I confess that he dwelt among us (for so it is written), and I will not oppose you when you say he dwelt in him; but I would rather examine ^D the voices of the theologians. For the blessed evangelist, when he had first said, "The Word was made flesh," added opportunely, "And dwelt among us," so that by both he might deliver to us the whole understanding of the mystery of Christ. For he clearly indicated that the Word from God the Father was united to flesh according to hypostasis when he said that he himself was made flesh; but that having become flesh, he did not pass into the nature of flesh, nor did he undergo a change into that which he was not, but with that which was made according to us

^A, he remained what he was. He clarifies this again, adding the phrase "He dwelt among us" to those former words. But the blessed Paul says that "all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily," so that no one might suspect a simple or habitual indwelling, but a true one, as I have just said, and one according to hypostasis. For that man, full of the Spirit of God, was not ignorant that the Word of God is incorporeal and impalpable. But because it was necessary that the explanation of the mystery should not in any way appear lacking, but should be delivered so accurately and distinctly according to the right rule and truth as to surpass every wonder, he compels the probability, and almost disregards what is fitting for that incorporeal and transcendent nature: for he added the word "bodily," not having any other way to say it than as it could be grasped by our mind and tongue. Let no one, therefore, because he mentions to us a simple indwelling, think that he is saying something that is not altogether to be condemned. For in order to overturn, as he himself thinks—and that most audaciously—the generation of the Son according to the flesh, he composes an old-womanish and foolish line of reasoning, having no foundation in truth. For he writes again in this way, when he has set up an argument against the Arians:

^B [Nestor. Yet, while they foolishly argue that the God Word is more recent than a greater divinity; these men, on the other hand, make him later than the blessed Mary, and set a temporal mother over the Divinity who is the Creator of times; nay, they do not even allow the Christ-bearer to be the mother of Christ: for if it was not human nature, but God the Word, as they say, whom she gave birth to, then she who gave birth is in no way the mother of that which was born. For how could anyone be the mother of one who is alien to her own nature? But if she is called mother by them, it is humanity that was given birth to, not divinity; for it is the property of every mother to bring forth that which is consubstantial with herself. Either, then, she will not be a mother, having not brought forth one who is consubstantial with her; or if she is called mother by them, she gave birth to one like to herself in substance.]

^C

CHAPTER IX

How profound, truly, is the weight of the opinions, and how vehement and inescapable appears the force of the syllogisms of the man who has written such things to us! Whence, I ask, do you bring forward fables of this kind, having collected them into our midst? Or who is so wholly slidden into such folly of ideas as to think and say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten does not have its existence from the Father before the ages, but rather that it received a beginning of its coming ^D into being by taking flesh and blood? Who is so thunderstruck, and simple-minded, and altogether ignorant of the holy Scriptures? Who does not remember Isaiah crying out about him: "Who shall declare his generation?" Or John clearly writing: "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 were through him, how could those

...produced by Him be posterior in time to Him who is before all ages and times? Why, then, do you bring forward as though it had been spoken that which is rejected by all? Cease to slander those who justly complain of your own [statements], and who mock the magnitude of the ignorance found in them. ^A Since, therefore, there is no one who says that the Virgin brought forth the nature of the Godhead from her own flesh, do not labor in vain, weaving for us reasonings from premises that are neither true nor universally admitted. And what motive induced you to loosen your impotent and unbridled tongue against those who have striven to think correctly, and to bring a grave, nay, the most atrocious, accusation against all the worshippers of God? For you said again in the Church: [NESTOR. I have said already, many times, that if any of you, or any others, are simple-minded and rejoice in the word "Theotokos," I have no contention with the word—only let him not make the Virgin a goddess.] ^B

CHAPTER X

VOLUME TWO

^A It is a detestable thing, and especially so to belch forth bitter words and to pour out impious speech against that ineffable glory which ought rather to be celebrated by us with perpetual praises. Moreover, when we sin against the brethren and strike their weak conscience, we sin against Christ. For thus did the blessed Paul write. I say this because I have encountered certain discourses of Nestorius, and I see that he not only denies that we should call that holy Virgin "Mother of God," and that she gave birth to Emmanuel who was God, but he has also determined to oppose the glory of Christ in other ways as well. For he tries to show him to us as "God-bearer" [Theophoros], not as God in truth, but rather as a man joined to God in an equality of dignity. For so it pleases him—and him alone, unlike all other men—to think and to speak, even though the Catholic Church, which Christ himself presented to himself ^B as having no wrinkles—for it is immaculate and its knowledge of him is entirely devoid of any fault, and it has most rightly composed the tradition of faith—has no such wrinkles as the one who wrote these things. For we believe in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. And following the confessions of the holy Fathers brought forward to these ends, we say that the Word himself, substantially born of God the Father, became like us, was incarnate, and was made man—that is, he took for himself a body from the holy Virgin and made it his own. For in this way it comes to pass that there is truly one Lord Jesus Christ; in this way we shall worship him as one, if we do not place man and God separately, but believe him to be one and the same in divinity and humanity, that is to say, God and man at once.

But this author of our most recent impiety, although he pretends to speak of Christ as one, yet everywhere divides the natures and sets each one apart, asserting that they have not truly come together, but "making excuses for his sins," as it is written, he devises a certain mode of conjunction—that is to say, solely according to the equality of dignity, as I have said, as we shall clearly demonstrate from his own words—and he makes the Word from God to dwell in him by participation, as if in a common man, and he divides the utterances found in the Gospels so as to attribute certain ones sometimes solely and properly to the Word, and at other times separately to him who is born of woman. Yet how is it not most certain to all that the Only-Begotten, being God by nature, was made man, not by a simple conjunction, as he asserts—something devised from the outside, or merely affective—but by a true union, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner? Thus he is also understood both to be one and alone; and all that is said is fitting for him, and all things will be counted as if spoken by one person. For after the union, that nature of the Word itself—having become flesh—is already understood as one, just as indeed

happens with us. For man is truly a single being, composed of dissimilar things—by which I mean soul and body. ^A And it is now necessary to note that we confess that the body united to the Word of God was animated by a rational soul. I might also add, not inappropriately, that the flesh is one thing in relation to the Word of God (insofar as it refers to the account of its own nature), while the nature of the Word itself is essentially another. But although these things are understood to differ and are distinguished by their natural diversity, yet Christ is understood as one from both, because through a true union the divinity and humanity come together. The divinely inspired Scripture confirms us in this conviction, not only by countless deeds and sayings, but also by using examples through which anyone might very easily attain to a clear understanding of the mystery of Christ. ^B The blessed prophet Isaiah says: "And one of the Seraphim was sent to me; and he had a coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar, and he touched my mouth and said: Behold, this has touched thy lips, and shall take away thine iniquities, and shall purge thy sins" (Isa. vi, 6, 7). Seeking, as far as our strength allows, the depth of this vision, we say it is nothing other than our Lord Jesus Christ, the spiritual coal laid upon the altar, upon which incense is offered by us to God and the Father; for through Him we have access, and we are accepted while performing spiritual worship. This divine coal, then, when it touches the lips of the one approaching it, will immediately render him cleansed and completely devoid of all sin. How is it that it touches our lips? The blessed Paul teaches us, saying: "The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. x, 8-10). ^C He is compared to a coal because He is understood to be from two dissimilar things, yet things which truly and in such a way agree that they are brought together, as it were, into a unity. For where fire has penetrated wood, it transfers it into its own brightness and power, yet keeps what it was. ^D Our Lord Jesus Christ again compares Himself to a pearl when He says: "The kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant seeking good pearls. Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went his way, and sold all that he had, and bought it" (Matt. xiii, 45, 46). I hear Him also indicating Himself to us in another way, saying: "I am the flower of the field, the lily of the valleys" (Cant. ii, 1). For while He has in His own nature the divinely befitting brightness of God and the Father, He also breathes forth the sweet scent of spiritual fragrance. Just as therefore, in the pearl and also in the lily, although the underlying body is perceived in them, yet the brightness or the scent is known as something distinct from those things in which they reside—

they are again their own and not foreign to those who possess them, being inseparably engrafted. We ought, I think, to think and reason in the same way also concerning Emmanuel. For divinity and flesh are indeed diverse by nature; yet the body was the property of the Word, and the Word united to it was not separated from the body. For Emmanuel, that is, "God with us," is to be understood in this way and no other. Therefore, sometimes as man, and manifesting himself to us from the measures of his emptying, he said: "No one takes my soul from me"; ^B sometimes again, as being God the Word, and understood as from heaven, and one with his own flesh, he says: "No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man." Since, therefore, the Holy Scriptures everywhere link the Son unto an inseparable and true unity, and reduce him into one person in faith, this vain man nevertheless disjoins him in many ways, and even against Christ himself speaks rashly, calling that Word from God the Father "God," just as the discourse proceeding in its own place and time will clearly teach. For he pretends to fear that anyone, overcome by reverence for the holy Virgin and then calling her Theotokos, might think that a confusion and mixing of the substances into one another had taken place, and so might defile the dogmas of the Church, although no one thinks so; but in order to correct, as he supposes, this grave evil, he mixes everything up and down, having neglected the straight and true judgment. For he spoke thus:

NESTORIUS: If you were bringing forth "Theotokos" with simple faith, ^C there would be no ill-will from me toward the term, as I examine the meaning of the word. But because I see that you, under the pretext of honor toward the blessed Mary, are confirming the blasphemy of the heretics, for this reason I cautiously fortify the usage of the term, suspecting the danger lying hidden in it. That I may speak more clearly, and that it may be more easily grasped by all: those who have followed the sect of Arius, and Eunomius, and Apollinarius, and all the choirs of men of that kind of family, have been eager to introduce the appellation "Mother of God," so that by a mixing having taken place, and the two natures by no means being distinguished, nothing of the lowly things might be received concerning the humanity, and that a place might henceforth be open to them against the divinity itself, as if all things were spoken by one (person), not by reason of the dignity resulting from the conjunction itself, but by reason of nature itself. ^D For there is one Christ, and one Lord; but in Christ, I mean in the Only-begotten Son, both the name of Christ and of Son is spoken now of divinity, now of humanity, now of humanity and divinity.

CAP. I.

You see how he impiously varies with manifold inventions of concepts, and tries to show that the birth of the Only-begotten according to the flesh could not have happened otherwise_

unless there were some confusion or commingling of the hypostases with one another. ^A And yet the teachers of the Church have not handed down this way to us; for we say that a true union took place, in that the Word united the body to Himself, yet remained what He was. But he, having nothing of such things in his mind, has sinned not moderately, separating into two persons and hypostases, which are entirely divided from one another, and assigning to each the words fitting to it individually. And again he says that Christ Jesus is one Lord, as if a man were joined to God according to dignity alone, and not according to a true union, that is, according to nature. How then is He Christ and Son and Lord, if, as you say, it would be appropriate for both separately, ^B both to be named thus, and for this to be so in truth, because by the union the hypostases are in no way joined to one another, but are united only according to dignity, or authority, or power? Even if we were to examine the natures of things, we would see that those which are of equal dignity do not on that account lose their own existence separately, nor is the fact that they are of equal glory sufficient to produce a union. For example: Peter and John were both apostles and holy men, and were adorned with equal honors and powers by the Spirit through our Savior Christ; for they heard together with the others: ^C “You are the light of this world.” And again: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons” (Matt. 5, 14; ibid. 8, 8). Do we therefore say that from the fact that they had equal dignity or authority, they also had it that, although they were two, they were considered one man, and that this is sufficient for the union of the hypostases, I mean? How then is it not utterly foolish to hold such things, as one might reasonably think? Why, therefore, do you feign to hold the faith rightly, saying that Christ Jesus is one Lord, while you divide the one into two persons and hypostases, and disparage the mode of true union ^D through which Christ could truly be one and alone; yet you call that equality of honor a "conjunction" in truth? For what kind of mode of conjunction is this? Or are you ignorant that men who live in this world desire to possess worldly glory and to receive honors from those in power? But although they sometimes have an equal degree of dignity, they nevertheless differ from one another both in individual existence, and in the fact that they do not choose to think and do the same things. But if the principle of dignity were a necessary bond by which they were gathered into unity—as that natural conjunction is, without a doubt—they would never, having been placed in an equality of honors or dignity, be separated from each other privately in hypostasis and also in sentiment, so that one should be this, and the other that. In what place, therefore, shall we put your conjunction? And what shall we consider it to accomplish? Did it persuade them to be of one mind, or did it cause them to come into a mystical unity

^A of nature? But thou wouldst not have it in thy power to say so; for the argument has clearly shown that ^B both these are very sickly and lacking in strength. Tell me, moreover—for I will necessarily follow this up—what benefit did the title of dignity confer upon the man who was, as you yourself say, conjoined to the Word of God and born of a woman? Did it make him equal in glory and excellence, and did it make him as great as it is believable that the Word himself is? But how will He not prove a liar when He says, "My glory will I not give to another"? [*Isa. XLII, 8.] And that divine poet of the psalms would have trifled in vain, saying somewhere: "Who among the clouds shall be likened unto the Lord? And who among the sons of God shall be likened unto the Lord?" [*Psal. LXXXVIII, 7.] Or is he not someone other than that one and only Word of God the Father by nature, who is truly separated from His unity in respect of his own hypostasis? And to whom is this not most evident? But if the dignity did not in truth make him who was conjoined equal to the Word of God—for it is manifest that he is inferior to Him—how then do you claim that there is one Christ, and Son, and Lord, even though, if we consider the force of the expressions, one is pre-eminent, and the other is inferior and lesser in majesty and glory? Furthermore, to add this also to what we have said: the Word from God the Father granted, as he supposes, His own dignity to that son of a woman. But it is worth the effort to inquire in what manner this very thing is said to have been accomplished. Has he himself become the true ^C Light? Is he God by nature, and Life, and Creator, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Image and Radiance of the Father’s hypostasis? And have the ornaments of that glory on high flowed naturally into some one of the created men? What, then, is pre-eminent in Him who is God by nature? What is great and above us, if it is possible for a creature to be enriched with these goods which He has, and indeed substantially? But perhaps he held the dignity as if by participation in divine excellence; therefore there will be, without a doubt, two sons again, since it is true that that which is honored because it has a relation to Him is different from, and inferior by nature to, Him who imparts the participation. You are convicted, therefore, of not even knowing what you say. But why do you accuse those who assign the utterances in the Gospels to one Person? Is it not because you are introducing two sons in a new fashion? For how will there be one Lord, and Christ, and Son any longer, if to each there is a specific person, and reason, and even hypostasis, separating off toward difference, and refusing the reality of true union, and having that which is entirely incompatible with the other? And the paradox, which also reveals the foulness of his blasphemies, is this: he says that the names—I mean "Son," and "Christ," and "Lord"—are common. And if he says they are common in the sense that they belong to one Christ, and to certain others besides Him, his argument might have a plausibility. But if he ignorantly separates them, and thinks that they fit both the Word specifically and that son born of a woman, then in every way there are again, without a doubt, two Christs, and Sons, and Lords. For he said that the name "Christ" ^D must sometimes be applied to the divinity itself, and sometimes to the humanity, or even to both; and he would profit the whole system with this homonymy, or—

^A even if the hypostases were not separate from each other, they are distinguished by the proper diversity of the persons. For, as if demonstrating to us the strength of the ignorance that is in him, he adds and says:

^B [NESTOR. Where, then, the sacred Scriptures set forth the birth or the death of Christ from the blessed Virgin, they nowhere appear to use the term "God," but rather "Christ," "Son," or "Lord." For these three are indicative of the two natures: sometimes of one, sometimes of the other, sometimes of both—what do I mean? When the Scripture describes to us the birth from heaven, what does it say? "God sent forth His Son." It did not say, "God sent forth God the Word," but it takes the name that signifies the two natures. For because the Son is man and God, it says: "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman," ^C so that when you hear "born of a woman," you might then see before you the name that signifies the two natures, so that you might call the birth from the blessed Virgin the birth of the Son; for the Virgin, the Christ-bearer, also gave birth to the Son of God. But because the Son of God is double in natures, she gave birth [not to humanity, which is a son, but she gave birth] to the Son of God, through the joined Son.]

CHAPTER II

But we, indeed, my good sir, having decided to think better things than your trifles, and searching out the purpose of the inspired Scripture, which says there is one Father and God from whom are all things, and one Lord ^D Jesus Christ through whom all things were brought into being—when we hear that Christ was born of the holy Virgin, then, at that very moment, acting quite prudently and hastening directly on the path toward the truth, we say that the Word who sprang from God the Father became man, and was united to flesh according to hypostasis, and was born according to the flesh; and we will in no way endure your juggling in this matter. We ascribe the name "Christ" to the one and only Son by nature, and rightly so, since that bringing forth through the holy Virgin is called a generation. For, as I have said, such names are admittedly common to Him and to others as well. For there are many sons by grace, and gods, and lords, in heaven and on earth, just as the blessed Paul writes to us, but by participation in and imitation of Him who is such by nature. But the name "Christ" and the reality itself in no way befit that Word existing from the Father, considered naked and by Himself and outside of flesh. But if it is said that He emptied Himself, and descended into the form of a servant, and became like us on account of the flesh, He Himself, insofar as He is anointed, will also be called Christ; for the Word, who was God according to His own nature, has not been anointed, but rather the anointing occurred for Him in the human nature

when He is named Christ to us; we shall not, according to your unbridled speech, suppose Him to be a common man, divided from the Word and set apart, born of the holy Virgin, but Him, as I said, the Word from God the Father, united to flesh, and anointed humanly with the oil of gladness by God the Father. That the anointing for the Word of God occurred with respect to the human nature, when He appeared among us, sacred Scripture will confirm for us. For the blessed Jacob, departing from his father's house, was traveling to the land between the rivers, and was going to Laban the son of Bethuel; having turned aside into one of the intermediate regions, he lodged there. And indeed, having inclined his head upon a stone, he yielded to sleep. And having seen in a vision a ladder reaching from earth up to ^B heaven, and angels ascending and descending by it, and the Lord supported upon it, he was greatly astonished at the vision; and taking the stone, he set it up as a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. Consider now in these things our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only and truly Son, as the stone being set up; for He is the elect, precious, corner stone, placed for the head of the corner, and for the foundations of Sion by God and the Father. Consider also with me at this point in what manner He has been anointed; for the blessed Jacob did not drench the whole stone everywhere with oil, but poured it upon its top. Therefore, if we may express it thus, not the whole Unigenitor, nor in His own nature in which He is the Word, is anointed; for how could it be understood that His own Spirit is bestowed upon Him? But rather, as I said, He is anointed at the top—that is, outwardly, and as it were in a part and extremity, namely, in the body that is His own through the true union. And just as He is said to suffer in the flesh humanly, although by nature He is impassible as God, so He is understood to be anointed according to the humanity, although He Himself anoints with His own Spirit those who are to partake of His holiness. Thus we resolve both to think and to be accustomed to walk rightly, going along the royal and straight path. But he, ^C when he says that such names signify two natures, attributes to each what he pleases according to his own whim, and blushes at the humble words pertaining to the dispensation of the flesh; and although he hears the blessed Paul saying: "God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law," "Away," he says, "do not think that the Word born of God was sent; for He was not born of a woman, he was not born under the law." And so that we may show that what we say is not a vain invention, but that we are using his own utterances, I shall now bring his words forward again into the middle. ^D NESTORIUS. For He sent, he says, God [sent] His Son, born of a woman, born under the law. In this place he indicates indeed two natures, but he says that which

^A pertains to humanity: otherwise ask the contentious man, who was it that became under the law? Was it the God the Word?

Chapter III

Now, how could he not be truly senseless who attempts to overturn things as clear as these, known to all, and beyond all doubt, so far as he is concerned? Whom did the Father send to us from heaven as Savior and Redeemer? Was it not the Word, born of His very substance? Who is it that has descended and ascended above the heavens, that He might fill all things? Do you think that to be able to fill all things is the work of our nature, and do you assign it to the limits of humanity? Regarding whom did the blessed John write: ^B "He who comes from above is above all"? Perhaps you would even slander him, rebuking the crowds of the Jews and saying: "You are from below; I am from above"; and again: "I am not of this world." For if He were a man from a woman, just like any other, and not rather that Word from God the Father, incarnate and manifested in human form, how could He be understood as being from above and from heaven? How could He be above all and not of the world, even though, because of the flesh, He was a part of the world, and, as far as it is proper to say, had become subject to God with all things according to the measure that befits humanity? For this reason, He also called the Father His own God, although He Himself was also God by nature, and the only-begotten Son, manifested from His substance. Regarding whom, then, does the blessed David say: "He sent His Word, and healed them"? For He saved us, not a legate, ^C not an angel, but the Lord Himself, according to the Scriptures. But, he says, the Word, who is able to fill all things, has been sent. In what way? For where do we say He is not? Or where will He be sent? You will therefore accuse Moses, the most wise, as having done no small injury to the glory of God; for he said: "God descended in the form of fire upon Mount Sinai." Even if you hear the blessed David saying to the almighty God: "You shall send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth," perhaps you will not believe, and will think that the man filled with the Spirit of God is telling a lie? For the Divine does not make a transitional movement, nor would He pass from place to place, as if it were not proper to Him to be in all things and to fill all things. These things you might also think over for yourself; and you will depart from the true ^D doctrines, determined to follow only yourself, though you would certainly be in a better disposition if you considered that all speech of ours about God is indeed uttered in a human manner, yet it is to be understood as is fitting for Him alone. But that which has troubled him not a little is that the Word of God the Father is said to have been made under the law; there is, however, no place for fear in this matter; for He remained what He was, a lawgiver

^A and God. And if He had not been made man, He would not have been made under the law. But since it is true that He who is by His own nature high and sublime has humbled Himself, and then was made as we are—He who is above all creation—and being rich, became poor by being made like unto us, how could He not be said to have been made with us and under the law? Or do we not correctly understand the measure of human nature to be defined by the fact that it is subject to the law? For there can be nothing else that is loose and above the law, and by nature truly free, except the divine [nature]; therefore, when the Word was made flesh, at that time He was also made under the law; for along with those who paid the tax, He paid the didrachma, although by His own nature He was free, as God and Son, and [remained so] when He was made flesh. But if it pleases you to divide the one into two, and to pronounce the one born of a woman a man separately, how could he be said to be made under the law who, by nature, is placed under the law? For that which is already subject to the law cannot be made under the law, but only that which has a nature superior to the law, and is outside the law. For, as I said, that divine and supreme nature alone is outside the law, and is, moreover, free, and has absolutely no one over it, but is rather itself the mistress of all, and lays the yoke of its own dominion upon all things. But this man, having strayed from the straight path of reasoning, has fallen into such impiety of thought, and has reached such a height of foolishness from the fact that he divides the one Lord Jesus Christ into two, that he has audaciously said that Emmanuel Himself is neither truly God, nor, moreover, the Son by nature; but [is] called Christ and holy just like some others among us, or like those who have worshiped unclean demons. For he said ^B thus again:

[NESTOR. But just as we call God the Creator of all things, and Moses a god: “For I have set thee a god to Pharaoh,” he says; and Israel the Son of God: “Israel is my son, my firstborn,” he says; and just as we call Saul a christ: “For I will not,” he says, “stretch out my hand upon him, because he is the Lord’s anointed [christ]”; and Cyrus likewise: “Thus saith the Lord to my anointed [christ] Cyrus”; and the Babylonian a holy one: “For I,” he says, “command them [11]”; so we call the Lord Christ also, and God, and Son, and holy. But although the communion of names is the same, the dignity is not the same.]

CAP. IV.

^A and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written? "No man saith, Anathema to Jesus, but [by the Spirit of God]"—and [by the Spirit] in Beelzebub? If it were to be understood, for the sake of argument, or spoken by us that Moses is God, is Christ so too? And would he be a son according to that same likeness to Israel? Tell me: O the impiety! O the words that do not spare from rising up against the glory of our Savior! O the unalloyed ignorance, and that which conquers all hesitation, which I say is [that which leads one] to dare impiously to rise up against the dogmas of the Church! Let the blessed David sing even now: "The enemies of the Lord have lied unto him" (Ps. LXXXI, 16). For the blessed Moses was a man like us in nature, and nothing more. But because, when God said, "Come, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and thou shalt bring forth the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt" (Exod. III, 10), he made his own stammering ^B an excuse for refusal, and [the fact] that he was not eloquent from yesterday and the day before, he therefore heard God saying: "Behold, I have given thee as a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy interpreter" (Exod. VII, 1). For the law is indeed feeble for delivering anyone from the slavery of the devil. But this also has been accomplished through Christ the mediator, just as at that time in Egypt, when Aaron himself was joined to the blessed Moses, Israel was set free from slavery. But because in the passage of times it was to be that Christ also should be made under the law, being as he is like unto us and man, therefore Aaron was set in the second place after Moses. And this indeed is the reason of the mystery. But yet, if one should wish to say this also, that that great man Moses was honored with this title of God, according to that common [expression], and by the grace and magnificence of God spoken toward us: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" (Ps. LXXXI, 6); is Christ therefore God in this way also? Yet how is this not madness, and an empty excretion of a foolish mind? For he ^C, as I have said, was honored by a bare and simple title, being a man by nature; but this one is truly God (for the Word was God) in human form, preserving intact the excellence of his own nature by which he excels all things; for the divine nature cannot ever be turned for the worse by the fact that it descended to the communion of flesh and blood: and therefore, even when he appeared as man, he is yet recognized as God, and the arguments for this thing are clear, having been written about him in the Gospels. For the blessed John said: "But when he was in Jerusalem at the feast, many believed in his name, seeing the signs which he did. But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all things, and because he had no need that anyone should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man" (Joan. II, 23-25). And yet, to be able to look into the heart of a man, and to know hidden things, does not befit any man from among those like us; nor does it befit any other of the things that have been created; but rather [it befits] only him who is also said to fashion ^D the hearts of us individually. If this is so, in what way is Emmanuel honored by a sole and simple title, so that just as Moses was call

^Aed God, ^B so too he is not rather this by nature and in truth, that which he is both called and is? John again writes thus concerning him: *"For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; and he does not give the Spirit by measure."* Do you understand, then, how, although he is seen as a man like us, he speaks the words of God? For it would be appropriate for God alone—the One who is so by nature and in truth—as being exceptional and above the creation, both to be able to accomplish by his word whatever is pleasing to him, and to make those who are justified by faith participants in the Holy Spirit.

One might see Christ present in these things: for he said to the leper, *"I will, be thou made clean,"* and to the widow's son, *"Young man, I say to thee, arise."* And he also made his own disciples participants of the Holy Spirit, for he breathed on them, saying, *"Receive the Holy Spirit."* Since these things are so, how will he who is so sublime, who is adorned with divine honors, be God just as Moses was? For whose heart has he known? Who has believed in his name? Whom has he justified through faith in himself? Where has he spoken the words of God as a Son? And yet he is seen crying out to those from Israel, *"Thus saith the Lord,"* and he possessed the measure and status of a domestic; for he was himself as a servant in the house of God.

If, then, Emmanuel is Son in the same way as that Israel who was made so according to the flesh, you have reduced him who is free by nature ^C to the order of slaves, even though, because of the flesh and the properties of the flesh, he was made in the form of a servant; and you have placed him in the same measure and the same order with those who are sons by grace, even though it is through him that they have been enriched with the grace of adoption.

For he was made our Firstborn on account of his humanity; but even so, according to the reality by which he was God, he remained the Only-begotten. For this reason, as the blessed Paul says, the Father commands the supernal powers to worship the Firstborn when he is introduced into the world; and these, having been instructed in the mystery hidden within him, honor him with ceaseless glorifications as the One who is truly and by nature the Son. For if he gives to those who have received him the power to become children of God, as John says, and if it is true that his Spirit makes us ourselves also sons—for *"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father"*—no one in his right mind would declare him to be Son in the same way as Israel.

How, moreover, can it be possible that Christ is called [Son] in the same way as that Cyrus, king of the Persians, is said to be, and indeed the Medes and Persians themselves? ^D For it would now be permissible to say that Christ was not even sanctified in a human sense, although the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove. For Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, once led an army against the Babylonians, but he nevertheless lived in error and was caught up in the worship of impure demons; and even those (12) Persians and Medes as well: for it is time to say that Christ was not even sanctified humanly speaking, although...

[index: entries preserved]

He was indeed anointed with the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. For Cyrus, son of Cambyses, campaigned against the Babylonians in his own time, yet he was deceived and offered worship to impure demons. But when God spurred him on and urged him to anger, he took the land of the Babylonians; and by a common name, although not anointed with the Holy Spirit, he was called christ. In this way the Persians and Medes who sided with him are also called holy. For although they served the creature rather than God the Creator, and worshipped the works of their own hands, yet because once, according to the expressions in the Mosaic Law, that which was set apart as a sacrifice to God—whether it happened to be a calf or sheep—was called holy, for this reason they too were called holy by the prophet’s voice, because they had been set apart by divine impulse for the taking of Babylon. If, then, Emmanuel is Christ in the same way as Cyrus, and holy in the way that the Medes and Persians are, one might reasonably say—from the absurdity ^B of such notions—that He was neither anointed with the Holy Spirit nor is He holy. Thus our blessed David would be lying when he says to Him: "You loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions" (Ps. XLIV, 8). Having thus slandered the majesty and glory of our Savior, he seems to think he is warding off the charges of blasphemy, offering something puerile and foolish: "The communion of names is similar," he says, "but the dignity is not the same." What dignity, pray tell? For I cannot understand. For if He is God in the same way that Moses is, and Son just as Israel is, and Christ just as Cyrus is, and indeed holy just as the Medes are, how will he avoid the conclusion that He must be considered equal in dignity with them? You are therefore caught being impious even against the very nature of the Word, for you have said again: ^C [NESTOR. Speak concerning the Assumer, that He is God: add to the Assumed, that He is the form of a servant: infer afterwards the dignity of the conjunction, that the authority of the two is common: that the dignity of the two is the same: while the natures remain, confess the unity of dignity.]

CAP. V.

and indeed to their equality—being so widely separated by the great distinction of essence—to be gathered into one, as you yourself say, authority, and are you deemed worthy to crown them with equal honors? For where nature is altogether inferior, with another placed over it, how could there accrue to it equality of honors and a status of equal worth, and a mode of glory that is not different? ^B That by calling it a conjunction, he opposes his own arguments—perhaps because it is understood solely by way of proximity and [is. 1] by way of juxtaposition, that is, relatively—and that he builds up what he has destroyed and raises up what he has demolished, will be made clear by this again; for he spoke thus:

NESTOR. Therefore, I wish you to hold firmly and with caution: there is no division of the conjunction of dignity or of sonship; this very thing which Christ is, suffers no division, but there is a division of the deity and the humanity. Christ, as Christ, is indivisible; for we do not have two Christs, nor two sons; for there is not among us a first and a second, nor one and another, nor again another Son and another again; but he who is the one is twofold—not in dignity, but in nature. ^B

CHAPTER L

Explain to me again, what do you say this indivisible conjunction is? Is it a unity, according to substance, surely, which we ourselves proclaim when we contend for the truth of the dogmas, or is it rather this one which is understood according to juxtaposition and the proximity of something to something? For even ^C Holy Scripture receives this term in this way: and so God spoke to the blessed Moses, speaking of that old tabernacle: "And you shall make fifty golden hooks, and you shall join the curtains one to another." For since they were five, and each one was separately distinct from the others, it was joined by the hooks. But we do not say that the union in Christ was achieved in this way; for he is not joined to another, for example, either by way of unanimity or by way of bodily proximity, as that man is joined; but, as I have already said very often, he made his own the body taken from the holy Virgin, and we say that from her the Word of God was truly united to flesh, not inanimate. Therefore, if the force of the conjunction, as he himself calls it, signifies that unity which we ourselves understand—that, I say, according to substance—he said quite rightly that there is no division of Christ, as Christ is; for there is not one and another, nor son and son, one and another, prior and second, but one, surely, both before the flesh and after the flesh: for thus he will ^D be, as you say, indivisible according to dignity and also according to power, or rather indeed the same. If that is the case, how do you say that he, who is one and indivisible, is twofold, and not in dignity, but in nature? For not because the Word of God the Father proceeded as a human being like us, having assumed flesh, is he for this reason to be called twofold; for he is one and not without flesh, who according to his own nature outside

of flesh and blood. For just as if someone were to kill a man among us, he would not reasonably be accused of having wronged two men, but one only, even if he might be considered to consist of soul and body, and the nature of the things conjoined to one another [in him] would not be the same, but rather different; so too must it be understood again in the case of Christ. For he is certainly not twofold, but is one and the same Lord and Son, the Word from God the Father, not without flesh. For I myself also acknowledge that there is a very great difference, or rather separation, between humanity and divinity; for the things indicated by these names are other, so far as concerns the definition of essence, and they seem in no way to resemble one another. But when the mystery of Christ is brought before us, the principle of union does not indeed ignore the difference, but it excludes division; not by confounding or mixing the natures, but because the Word of God having become a partaker of flesh and blood, ^B the Son is again in this way understood and named as one. But you, while saying that it is not right to call [us] two Christs, and while not confessing that there are two sons, and while feigning the appearance of the correctness [or simplicity] of doctrine in this regard, are yet convicted of saying that there are two Christs, and of distinguishing man and God into a personal difference, and of attempting to show that the one is being acted upon, and the other is the one who has acted. Your words are as follows:

[It means the glory of the Only-begotten is sometimes ascribed to the Father: "For it is my Father," he says, "who glorifies me"; sometimes to the Spirit: "For the Spirit of truth," he says, "will glorify me"; and sometimes to the power of Christ: "For they went out," he says, "and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the signs that followed."]

CHAPTER VII

If he says that the Only-begotten Word of God, as He is and is understood to be the Word, and not yet incarnate, is in need of glory and is glorified by the Father and the Holy Spirit, that he both stumbles and has missed the truth, I will omit to say for the present; for the occasion leads us to another matter. But he seems to me to have forgotten the things lately considered and said by himself. For he said, "Christ is not one and another, nor is the Son one and another; for we do not have two Christs, and two sons." But, O most prudent man, I would say, if you assert that the glory of the Only-begotten is ascribed to the power of Christ, how would they not be one and another, or how would they not be two in every respect and altogether, if it is not the same person who gives and receives, or who ascribes to another, as if to one different from himself, the things that naturally belong to him? Therefore Christ has worked, and having been moved to work as one who exists as another Christ than the Only-begotten—for if, as you say, the glory of the Only-begotten is ascribed to him, and the blessed disciples were preaching and performing divine signs while using the power given by him,

^A how can what I said be denied? He will have ^B operated while using an alien power, so that he who moved him to the work, and not he himself, might be glorified by those who were in the world. What, then, I ask you, is seen to be greater in him than in the holy apostles? For they did not perform miracles by their own power; and they themselves openly confessed this. They are indeed worthy of praise, both because they recognized this and because they glorified the one working in them. If this is so, was it not right that Christ, who, as you assert, was moved to act by another and who possessed the glory of the Only-begotten from without, should call out to those approaching him as to God and in need of his help: "In the name, or by the power, of the Only-begotten, may this benefit, for instance, come to you"? For that is what those all-wise disciples did, everywhere naming Jesus of Nazareth. But he addressed no one in such a way at all; rather, he attributed the signs he performed to his own power, at one time saying to the blind, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" and demanding their assent; at another time commanding with authority and saying, "I will; be clean." Why, then, setting aside the old-wives' tales which you alone have contrived for yourself, do you not inquire into the depth of the mystery with prudent counsel? But it is clear that he has very little care for things that are primarily useful, and he seems in a way to fear lest he speak anything true, or be found to perceive anything right; he thinks up the most absurd things and very inconsiderately accuses the dogmas of the Church. Yet he ought to have remembered the words of God, speaking through the voice of Ezekiel to those placed over the flocks of rational beings: "You were eating the fine pasture, and you were drinking the settled water; and you were troubling the rest with your feet, and my sheep were feeding on the things trampled by your feet, and they were drinking the water troubled by your feet." For we, applying our minds to the divinely inspired Scriptures, feed on the fine pasture, as it is written, and we drink also the settled water—that is, the word of the Spirit, not at all mixed with falsehood, but clear and most pure. But where we mix into that word the murky dregs, as it were, of our own thoughts, and muddle it, we lie in wait for the flocks of our Savior. That this is true, the things which have again been thought out by him and rashly spoken about Christ will make clear to us; they are as follows:

[NESTOR. For the Word of God was indeed Son and God, even before becoming man, and was in agreement with the Father; but in later times he took upon himself the form of a servant. But although he was ^C Son before this, and was called such, after the assumption he cannot be called Son separately, lest we dogmatize two sons. But because he is conjoined to that Son who was in the beginning, and who is united to him, he cannot admit of a division as far as the dignity of sonship is concerned—I say, as far as the dignity of sonship is concerned, not as far as the natures are concerned. For this reason Christ is also called that God ^D the Word, since he has the connection

the perpetual union with Christ: nor does it happen that God the Word does anything without humanity; for he has been brought to the highest conjunction, not to deification, as the wise among the more recent dogmatists assert.] ^A

CHAPTER VIII.

He who dared to say that the glorification of the Only-Begotten is attributed to the power of Christ, and he who tore apart the bond of the unity, joins them together again into a union, and separates them again, and keeps the natures distinct from one another, and speaks many vain and portending things to us about these matters, so that even if he appears to say anything right, he is clearly convicted of not knowing what he is saying. For in this passage he asserts that the Word of God himself is both Son and God, even before he became man; and furthermore that in later times he took ^B the form of a servant. Explain, therefore, unless I seem to you to say things that follow, who he is who is said to have become man? And what do you mean by "to have become man"? Who is he who took the form of a servant? And in what way was it taken by him? That he will appear to make his own mind worthy of laughter by saying that he "became man" as a man, how could anyone doubt? For he who is a man by nature, how could he become what he already was, and as though he had passed into some other thing—I speak according to the rationale of nature? And he who is not free by his own nature, in what way could he be said to have become a servant, as though he had not been such from the beginning? Therefore, it would not be fitting for a man to "become man," far from it! And to take ^C the form of a servant would not be fitting for one who even from the beginning had the measure of servitude, but rather for him who, not being a man by nature, is believed to have become this; and, being Lord of all as God, he humbled himself to our state, uniting to himself the human according to hypostasis, and taking the form of a servant. For thus it will be true what you said, that after the assumption he cannot be called a Son separately, lest we dogmatize two sons. And the path of the doctrines is indeed straight and undistorted, and moves directly toward the rule, and this is it and no other. But he himself again, who named for us the becoming human of the Word who is from the Father, as if immediately carried away into forgetfulness of what he said, divides the one into two again, floating absurdly upon the inanities of names, and always ^D using words that have not been examined. For he says: "[But because he is joined to that Son who was in the beginning, being coupled to him, he cannot, as far as the dignity of sonship is concerned, receive division: as far as the dignity of sonship, I say, not as far as the natures.]" Rightly, indeed, my good sir; you avoid as useless that which seems not to be safe. It has always been your zeal to use vigilant speech. For behold, behold, while dividing the natures, you collect them into a union according to the dignity of sonship. Does, therefore, identity of names, or rather homonymy, and the dignity which arises from it, suffice for a true union of things which are separated by nature from one another? For it seems to you that one should speak in this way. Surely, therefore, since both the Chri-

Christ’s name, and the name of Son and Lord, are commonly given to others—for there have been very many Christs, and they have also been called sons and lords—they would themselves also be, according to the dignity of sonship, indivisible from one another, and all would be one by that union which you yourself think has happened even in the case of Christ. In that case, the man who is like us will be totally separated from the Word who is from God. Then, how they are not divided again, and how Christ is yet one Son, I cannot understand, unless we say that the human has come to be ^B united to the Word according to a true union.

But since, because of this man’s expressions, it is necessary to carry the argument even through absurd propositions, so that he may be convicted from every side of not having thought rightly, come, let us say this also: For if the dignity of sonship is sufficient for union—since the Word who is from the Father is called and is the Son of God, and this name is common to many others—what, I ask you, prevents us from saying that they too, and all others, are united to Him, so that Emmanuel has nothing preeminent above them? For it is reasonable that one who has attained the dignity of the same names will contend with Him for equal honor; and that mode of conjunction will consist in a bare and sole appellation, or homonymy. But what, then, is the act of becoming human to be understood as being? Or what, furthermore, is that which descended to the form of a servant? For if, as he asserts, the mode of the becoming human is a certain simple conjunction, and one according to the dignity of sonship alone, ^C what prevents us from saying that this has occurred in the case of all others? But, without doubt, whoever is clever and sharp-sighted sees the absurdity of such an argument. Where, then, is he carried, having gone astray to things which it is not right to say? It shall be said to him by us that word of Jeremiah: "You have wearied yourself in the multitude of your ways." For he is tossed to and fro by every wind, as the most wise Paul says. Therefore, receive the anchor of the soul, safe and firm; set your feet upon the rock. If you say that the Word of God Himself became human, this is itself sufficient to explain that He who is above every creature has become like us; He took the form of a servant, though He had the freedom as God. For He was in the equality of the Father, who holds the dominion over all things. Cease from dividing the natures after the union. For I say to those of sound mind ^D that it is proper and necessary to know that the divine nature and the human nature are one thing and quite another. For they are separated from one another by incomparable differences. But in the case of the Savior of us all, Christ, having brought them into a true and hypostatic union, reject the division; for thus you will confess one Christ, and Son, and Lord. But, I know not how, the finder of teachings that lead us to ruin has made the matter of the union in a very small argument; see, O lover of learning, O lover of God, O lover of excellence, see for me the vigilance of the prophetic thoughts.

^A and likewise, according to what is plausible and the power of truth, he has turned again to what he thinks, and he says: [“For this reason, also, Christ is named God the Word, since he has a perpetual conjunction with Christ. And it is not possible for God the Word to do anything without humanity. For it has been perfected unto an extreme conjunction, not unto deification, according to the wise ones among the more recent dogmatists.”] When, therefore, he says that the Word who is from God the Father is named Christ specifically, as having conjunction with Christ as if with another, clearly, how has he not trifled in vain, having said that after the ascension he cannot be called separately? For if it would not be conceived by us that what is said to be conjoined relatively to another is one; for the things that occur with one another are by all means two, and one would not plausibly conceive of that which is conjoined to itself. His words, then, are false fables and nonsense in another way. We, however, after the union, even if someone should name the Word of God, we do not conceive of him separate from his own flesh; and even if he says Christ, we recognize the Word made flesh. But what, then, is the mode of the conjunction spoken of by you? For if you say that the human has been united according to subsistence to the Word born from God, why, tell me, do you insult the divine flesh? Although you do not refuse to worship it, while it is proper that ^B worship should be rendered only to the divine and ineffable nature. But if you do not think that the union truly took place, but rather you name for us a conjunction according to homonymy, and a dignity set in the bare and mere equal appellations, why do you speak grandiosely, calling what was born of a woman "perfected unto an extreme conjunction"—and clearly with the Word? For "Son" and "Son" and "Lord" and "Lord" would be homonymous with one another; but the names would have no advantage over one another; and to be excessively busy about the superfluity in these, I think, is random: for "Son" of "Son," and [insofar as Son, or according to Son] has neither the greater nor the less. Therefore you are clearly and very obviously speaking superfluously in saying that he has been perfected unto an extreme conjunction. It would be fitting, at least as it seems to me, not to say that the "perfected" applies to homonyms in relation to one another; but rather to those things which are believed to have a distribution of equality and similarity in all things whatsoever; for instance, to speak, we say that the son born from him, or, for instance, an image, has been perfected unto an extreme likeness of the form of so-and-so. But according to the mode of conjunction, how could they be said to be "perfected" and conceived in any way? Yet he himself interpreted for us the power of the conjunction: [“For it is not possible,” he says, “for God the Word to do anything without humanity.”] Are they, then, like-minded and of one opinion according to you, and shall we believe that the pair of sons spoken of by you go to each of the things to be done from common deliberations? Then, how are there not two Christs, and sons, and lords? But you insist that the Word has used the body as an instrument, according to what is plausible. But if you say that there is one Son, and one subsistence, that of the Word made flesh, ^C he himself will not be ^D treated as an instrument of Divinity.

^A Indeed, he uses his own body as an instrument, just as, of course, the soul of a man does. Therefore, acknowledge one, without dividing the natures, while at the same time knowing and understanding that the Word is one thing, and the Divinity is another; for the one is appropriate to it and to it alone. We do not at all say that the flesh has become the Divinity of the Word, but rather that it is divine, as being his own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what prevents us from also calling the flesh of the Word of God divine? Why then do you mock the beauty of the truth, calling it theization of the holy flesh for us—which is almost the same thing—and reproaching those who have chosen to think correctly for their deification? Yet you yourself say: [NESTOR. That it might be demonstrated even to the Magi who this is that is worshipped by them, and to whom the grace of the holy Spirit led them—namely, not to a mere infant visible to the masses, but to a body ineffably united to God.] ^B

CAP. IX.

CAP. X.

^A human being, and not the Word himself who became flesh. [“It is not, he says, a mere human being that is Christ, but also God.”] But I would say, O most excellent man, even if we speak of him as being both human and God at once, we do not say these things by dividing them into parts; rather, knowing the same one to be, even before he was made man, both Son and God and the Word of the Father, and later made man such as we are, and incarnate. Yet he, while affirming that one ought not think of him as a mere human being, but as God and human, assigns the thorny crown and the other sufferings specifically and separately to the human being; and he confesses that we must worship him along with the Godhead; and, what is even more impious, [he treats him] as though he were not—as is consistent—truly God and Son, but [rather] an advocate for the authority of the Word. For that he distinguishes them clearly will again become apparent from the fact that he confesses he must be worshipped with the Godhead; for that which is worshipped along with another is altogether different from that with which it is said to be worshipped. We, however, are accustomed to honor Emmanuel with a single act of worship, not dividing from the Word the body united to him according to hypostasis.

But what might be meant by "an advocate for divine authority" is worthy of examination. For did our Lord Jesus Christ himself, like one of the holy apostles ^B and evangelists, preach another Christ to the world, or Son, or Lord, as one having divine authority over all things—that is, power—and did he himself advocate the glory of another? Yet the choir of those who speak of God preaches to the world Jesus Christ who was from the seed of David according to the flesh; and the method of our faith proceeds through the confession made in him; and we are justified by the fact that we believe not in him as one of us, a simple human being, but in him who is by nature and truly God. And indeed, the nations were living in this world without God, not knowing Christ at any time, as the blessed Paul says; but once they knew him, they did not remain in ignorance of him who is God by nature. Therefore, let him teach whose glory and authority Christ advocated, even though he demands of those approaching him that faith be in himself, and attributes that same faith in himself to the Father; and so he used to say, “Believe in me, and believe in God,” and again, “He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in him who sent me; and he who sees me, sees him who sent me.”

But perhaps this word "advocate," ^C as it seems to him, might suggest the same as "to account as equal"—I grant this, although the expression has a different meaning. Yet how would a human being, as you suppose, account himself as equal to God, even while having endured the insults heaped upon him by the Jews? Come, let us consider the language appropriate to each. For it would be fitting for him who is truly God by nature to say: "I am invisible, intangible, and superior to suffering, and moreover, incorporeal, life and life-giving, and above all things as God." But one who explains his own nature to us, such as it is, would fittingly say: "I am visible, and tangible; subject to suffering, and subject to corruption, and subject to God." ^D

^A Well then, would one who speaks these things be an advocate for the one who is over him and above him, according to the arguments of his own nature? And then, how is it not ignorant to say this? For either he will prove himself a liar, or the other will. When you speak of an "advocacy," or rather an "intercession," do you not thereby confess—even against your will—that one is pleading for another, you who mention to us the name of "conjunction," and while you acknowledge one Christ and Lord, you divide him into two in your worship? Nay, rather, you worship them together, and you think to free the Church from the charge of making a man a god, while you yourself make a man a god, not speaking of one Son, even if he were to be understood as not existing apart from his own flesh! For then you would worship without reproach, and you would know where you were, according to what is written, when you wandered from the dogmas of the truth. ^B But indeed, he says, he said to the leper: "I will, be clean"; and to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue: "Maiden, arise"; and to the sea: "Peace, be still." An advocate, according to this argument! For he was uttering divine words, by which it was easy to accomplish all things. Therefore, there were two who were commanding, and we shall grant that the words of both were uttered in all matters. When, therefore, he says: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?"—whose, I beseech you, do you say these words are? Will you attribute some to the Word himself, and these others, as if to a man distinct from the Word, himself born of a woman? And where, pray, will you place the blessed Paul clearly saying: "But to us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him"? ^C But he who repeats "up and down" that there is one Son, and not one and another, nor again one Christ and another Christ, fights against his own words, ascribing the utterances of those who speak of God in part to one, and in part to his own, by means of two persons and distinct hypostases. But not neglecting his own notions, he adds again: [NESTOR. I worship him as the image of the omnipotent divinity: for "he highly exalted him, and bestowed upon him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth; and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."]

CHAPTER XI

^A of those under the earth; and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If, therefore, the Father has set in a high place him who was God by nature, even before this exaltation mentioned here, then by investigating the mode of the intermediate humiliation, we shall find it to have been a certain wise dispensation, through which, having for a time become inglorious, he returned again to those things in which he had always been, and which were essentially his, and to his own true heights. But if this is not the case, as he himself thinks and says, but he has made a certain man other than the Word of God, who is conjoined to him, to be worshipped by heaven and earth and those even lower; then he has deified a man like us, and he will no longer have the right to reproach us, as if we wished to deify one who was not God, since the charge for this crime would have to be laid at the feet of God and the Father himself. See, therefore, ^B O student of Christ, to what lengths his arguments finally slip, and to what kind of words the figments of this monstrous folly arrive. For we say that the Son himself, who was God by nature—that is, the Word begotten of God the Father—descended to a voluntary humiliation, and returned again with his flesh to that divine dignity and loftiness which belonged to him. For he is worshipped even with his flesh, just as he was to be worshipped before the flesh; for he was and is God by nature, both before the humiliation and when he is said to have undergone the humiliation, having become like us. But this man, despising such venerable and unalloyed dogmas, joins a man to God according only to an external relationship; and as if in an equality of dignity, he is not ashamed to worship him ^C as another together with the other. He asserts, however, as though it were some unusual and novel thing, and as if he had received it by way of grace, that every knee should bow to him, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And if he says that he was made God by nature, he has blasphemed openly, saying that the nature of the Godhead was made. But if it is not by nature, but he possessed that dignity as given and received extrinsically, and as if it were placed only in words, how does he not clearly assert that we serve and offer worship to one who is not God by nature, and that along with us, as is the logical consequence, even the vigilant intelligence of the beings above has been seduced into error, and that ^D the Father himself is the beginning and cause of these crimes for us? How, then, does he still blame those who, perverted by him, chose to worship the creature? Or why does he accuse and punish men who have been led into error, if they were led into it by his own nod and will, since he had made one who was not God by nature worshipable to us? But because, in citing the passage which is in our hands—that to him every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord—he omitted what remains and what follows, which must necessarily be added by the blessed Paul, I do not know for what reason he is preoccupied; come, let us add it and say: “Con-

Confitetur enim omnis lingua, quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloriam Dei Patris.” ^A Therefore, if He is not God by nature, but is said to be worshipped by us and by the holy angels on account of a relative conjunction—I mean that which relates to the Word from God—then some mode of glory has been discovered for the Father, in that the creature is deified together with Him. He is angered to no purpose at certain people as if they had done this; and if this thing was to His glory, why was it not also necessary to deem worthy of reward, praise, and glory those who had set out to do so?

But perhaps they might say: “How will it be to the glory of the Father that every knee should bow to Emmanuel?” It is because the Word, being God by nature and from Him—that is, from His substance—became flesh. And He is worshipped, as I said, as the one and only and truly Son, along with His own flesh. The Father, however, is glorified as God, having the true Son begotten from His own substance; whom He even gave as having become ^B flesh for us, so that, having suffered in the flesh, He might save the world beneath the heaven: “that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life;” that “everyone who sees Him, may see the Father.” And the Son Himself has shown that this very thing is truly life-giving for us; for He said: “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”

And this is truly the straight and most unerring path of understanding, and there is none other besides it. But he, ^C mixing all things up and down, [“On account of the bearer,” he says, “I worship the borne; on account of the hidden one, I adore the visible.”] Observe, I pray you, how he flees from the union everywhere, and fears the truth, and avoids the right path of divine dogmas. The bearer was not a different one from the borne; but rather the same, as He is understood in the union of deity and humanity: one and only truly Son of God and Father. Therefore, worship the Word from God as one together with His own flesh. Otherwise, explain to me, if I do not appear to you to think rightly, by rejecting your subtlety of expression in these matters as feeble. For if anyone were to choose to speak regarding any one of us human beings, or regarding one of the kings on earth: “On account of the soul of the king I worship his body; on account of the hidden one, I adore that which is visible,”—would not anyone immediately rebuke him and say: “What are you doing, ^D O good sir? There is altogether one man who holds power, even if he appears to be combined of two things, I mean of soul and body. Why, therefore, do you trifle with us in vain, when you call Him bearer and borne, hidden and visible, and confess that you worship one together with another, and despise the mode of the union? Whereas the divinely inspired Scripture proclaims to us that the Word from God the Father with His own body is one Christ and Lord.

^A Or do you not know that He healed the man born blind at Jerusalem, and then, finding him in the temple, He implanted in him a firm and established faith? For He approached and asked: "Do you believe in the Son of God?" And to this, when he cried out: "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" He said again to him: "You have both seen Him, and it is He who speaks with you." Do you see how He showed Himself not as one carrying [God], nor as one hiding [God] within, but rather as one with the flesh, as an individual? And indeed, the wise John says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life." Although the Divine is untouchable, yet the Word became touchable through His own flesh; invisible by nature, yet He was visible through the body. ^B But you, on the other hand, divide [them] completely, and evade the truth with your sophistries, separating the natures, but uniting, as you claim, the worship. But if you separate the natures, those things that are naturally proper to each will also depart along with them; and the account of their difference will carry through completely: so that there will be two, without a doubt. But, I ask, explain to me: what is that which separates the natures from one another, and what would be the mode of this difference? But you will surely say that man, or humanity, is one thing by nature, and God, or divinity, is another; and that the latter is incomparably superior to the other, while the former is as much inferior as man is lower than God. How, then, tell me, do you think to honor with one worship things that are so unequal in nature to one another, and separated by such incomparable differences in the definition of their being? For if you were to place the ornaments of a man upon a horse, would you be doing anything worthy of praise? Or would you not rather insult that which is superior, by dragging the better nature down into dishonor? But he has found something shrewd to say in response; for he adds: [NESTORIUS: That which was formed in the womb is not God of itself; that which was formed by the Spirit is not God of itself; that which was buried in a tomb is not God of itself; for otherwise we would clearly be man-worshippers and corpse-worshippers. But because God is in what was assumed, the one who was assumed, being joined as to the one who assumed, is also called God.] ^C

CHAPTER XII

^A if one were to choose to say of us, that the body by itself is not a man, would he not justly be called a trifler and a speaker of vain myths? For no one will deny that the body by itself is not a man, but would rather be called a man's body. Yet no one, dividing it into two parts and placing soul and body apart, would ever say that the body is called by the same name as the soul to signify one man; for such speech would not be appropriate, but rather full of ignorance. But when one has joined both according to a natural union for the constitution of one man, only then will he call him man, and he will not seem to speak in a discordant and unsightly manner. It was necessary, therefore, if one were at all wise and sensible, to say that the body is that which is from the woman; and to confess that, having been brought into union with the Word according to subsistence, it has rendered Christ one, and Son and Lord, the selfsame being God and man.

But now, ^B leaving this aside, he walks a perverse path, departing from the straight road, and proclaims to us two Gods: one, according to nature and truth, the Word from God the Father; but another, beside Him, who is at the same time called God with Him. For, just as no one of our kind would be said to live with himself and only with himself—for example's sake—but would live with another, and if anyone were to say that one of the kings on earth reigns together with himself, he would justly be laughed at, and he would babble, placing upon one and the same what is said of two, so too it is utterly senseless to think that the term "together" can apply to one and the same. For they would then be two absolutely; and the one is God by nature, but the other, perhaps having the designation of "together" only from outside and as an acquired thing, has been held forth to us as a recent god.

Does, therefore, He who is by nature and truly the God of all lie when He says: ^C «If you will hear Me, there shall be no recent god in you, nor shall you worship a strange god?» If this is so, how do we worship Christ, and to Him every knee shall bow? How do you also confess that we must reverence Him, while yet fearing, as you said, to seem a man-worshipper? But he has for this—as he himself thinks—an acute answer: for he says that He is called God "together" as being joined to the one who assumes. Tell me, how was He assumed, or in what manner is He joined?

If, then, it is according to a true union—I mean that which is according to subsistence—cease at last from dividing what is united; and it will be said to you, appropriately, even by us, that you are dividing what is indivisible: «What therefore God has joined, let not man separate.» ^D But if you say that this assumption or conjunction is external and relative, how have you failed to perceive that God is also in us, and we are joined to Him relatively, and have become partakers of His divine nature? The inspired David sings, therefore: «My soul has cleaved after Thee.» Shall we, then, also be called, by that same token, gods together with the God who is by nature, and to us shall every knee bow? What then—

since God and Father has commanded ^A the supernal spirits [to adore Him]? Let the divinely inspired Paul come forward and teach us: «For when,» he says, «He brings the Firstborn into the world, He saith: Let all the angels of God adore Him.» Therefore, since this wise invention of yours is not attached to these words, but He has commanded Him to be adored as one, without a doubt, and not one [person] alongside another, we ask: Who is this who is adored by the angels? Although the divine Scripture calls Him the Firstborn, we say that the Word from God the Father is called the Firstborn, although He is God by nature and the only-begotten Son, and is not counted among the creatures, so far as the concept of divinity is concerned; yet because He became man, He is the firstborn among many brethren. There is, then, but one who is adored ^B by the supernal spirits: the Word from God the Father with His own flesh; for then He was begotten, and as holding primacy in all things, He is understood as the Firstborn. But the divinely inspired Scriptures proclaim one Christ, and Son, and Lord; yet this prattler is not ashamed to add to the holy and consubstantial Trinity a man to be adored, saying again:

[NESTOR. But this one, according to the flesh, is kinsman to Israel; this one, according to a visible nature, is man; this one, according to the voice of Paul, born of the seed of David, is God almighty by that very conjunction. Then he adds to these: Listen to Paul preaching both; he confesses the man first, and thus, because of that very conjunction with God, he consecrates the visible nature with the name of God, so that no one may suspect the Christian of being a man-worshipper. Let us ^C therefore keep the conjunction of natures without any confusion; let us confess one God, let us venerate the man who, by divine conjunction, is adored together with almighty God.]

CHAPTER XIII.

If, therefore, when you name man, you understand with this that He is also God by nature, it is well, and I shall cease. But if you divide the natures, not merely to know which is human and which again is divine, but in order to draw them away from that concurrence into unity, it is certain that you are a man-worshipper, and it shall be said to you by us: «You shall eat the fruits of your labors.» ^D But since you are stubborn and refuse to be corrected, go alone upon the crooked path. We, however, following the pious and blameless path of the holy Fathers, and being well instructed by the apostolic and evangelical writings, together with God and Father, and

and with the Holy Spirit, we shall honor with one adoration the one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom, to God and the Father, be glory with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

THIRD TOME

^A Great, without a doubt, is that mystery of godliness, and marvelous even to the holy angels themselves, and the most wise Paul confirms us in this when he says: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." For it is wisdom in very truth, and by no means human, but rather divine, and hidden in a certain ineffable depth and incomprehensibility is the mystery of Christ: therefore the blessed David sings: "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." In which, by "darkness," I suppose he means nothing else than the perception of the understanding that is hard to discern, coming upon the eyes of the mind like a mist. On this account we say that the mystery of Christ has no need whatsoever of subtle questions and of a curiosity to which the intellect cannot attain, but rather of a faith that is handed down simply and without any cunning. Thus we ourselves have learned to think, and have believed that the Son, proper to God and the Father, being God by nature, was sent by God and the Father, and was made man and born of a woman according to the flesh, that he might justify those who believe in him; ^B and, by his own kind and most merciful nod, having freed them from sins committed in ignorance, might present them pure and undefiled through himself to God and the Father, and make those who were subject to death and corruption partakers of his own divine nature; and that he might proclaim sight to the blind, and bring the flocks of erring men to the light of the true knowledge of God; and might teach, finally, who is God by nature and in truth, and the Creator of all things: for he has become the fragrance of the knowledge of God and the Father, and in him we have beheld Him from whom he has been begotten by nature, and we have clearly known the way that brings us to eternal life. That the Son would thus shine forth also upon the flocks of the nations, the blessed prophet Isaiah proclaimed long before, saying: "Thus saith the Lord: Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come in chains after thee, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God. Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And ^D it has also been said, without a doubt, to the Son, again as if from the person of God and the Father: "Behold, I have given thee for a covenant of the people, to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." For to the people from the blood and

race of Israel He ^A gave the laws of the New Testament, the former having already been made old; and He shone forth even unto the ends of the earth to the Gentiles and peoples who were in every land and city. For they have worshipped Him, and indeed they follow Him spiritually, bound as if by certain shackles with the indissoluble bonds of love, saying almost exactly what was spoken through the voice of Jeremiah: "Behold, we will be thine, for thou art the Lord our God." And observe, I pray, the vigilance of the prophetic insights. "They shall bow down to thee," he says, "and in thee they shall worship, because God is in thee, and there is no God besides thee." For as one inspired by the Spirit, he knew for a certainty that the Word of God the Father would dwell in us, as the blessed evangelist John says; for this reason he says, "In thee is God," yet he did not allow Emmanuel to be divided into two. But although the Only-Begotten became man, he confessed Him to be one again, and therefore added ^B immediately: "There is no God besides thee." For observe diligently the voice of the prophet; for when, as I said, he had addressed Him with these words, "In thee is God," he did not add, "There is no God besides Him who is in thee," but, joining it into a dispensational unity, he says, "There is no God besides thee."

That the Only-Begotten Word of God, having become man, is proclaimed through the entirety of divinely inspired Scripture, so to speak, it is very easy to demonstrate by many passages, but at present it will suffice to have said this. For God said at one time to the blessed David: "And I will raise up [seed] after thee, who shall be of thy belly, and I will prepare his kingdom. He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish his throne forever. And I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." But someone might say, I suppose, that these things were not said of Emmanuel, but rather of Solomon. Yet the most wise Paul strongly ^C opposes those who wish to understand it in this way, for he accepts these words regarding Christ and asserts that He is the one of whom it was said by God and the Father, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son."

Moreover, that He, having become like us—that is, man—would perform the priestly office to God and the Father, through the faith of those believing in Him, who are saved throughout the earth, he made clear by saying in other places: "And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do all things that are in my heart and in my soul: and I will build him a faithful house, and he shall walk before me all the days." Consider again, I pray, how when he had said elsewhere, "This one shall build a house to my name," the Father promises that He himself will build the house for the Son. And when the inspired Paul understood this, he said that Moses ^D indeed was faithful in all His house, as one holding the rank and measure of a servant, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are. And the manner of His priestly office is that of our condition; not the blood of bulls and calves, but the confession of faith of all men. [alt-version omitted]

^A And the blessed Paul will again confirm this, having written: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to Him that made Him." We say, therefore, that the Word who is from God the Father, when He is said to have emptied Himself for our sake by taking the form of a servant, then also lowered Himself to the measures of humanity, to which it is very fittingly appropriate that He should be thought to have been sent, and that His ^B ministration should be regarded as the mediator of that highest honor. For if, since He became as we are, He worshipped with us as man—even though the heavenly multitude and the holy spirits worship Him, and Moses says concerning Him, "Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him"—what is strange or discordant to the principles of the economy, if He has functioned as High Priest, as one who offered Himself to God and Father for us, and us through Himself and in Himself, as an odor of sweetness? "For we are the good odor of Christ," as it is written. But this noble man again asserts that these things were done in a way that is least becoming, and almost mocks those who think that these things are so, impiously censuring the divine counsels; he speaks roughly in this manner: ^C [NESTOR. For when they hear the name of apostle, they understand the God Word to be the apostle. When they read the appellation of high priest, they imagine for themselves a divine high priest, through a new species of madness. For who, when he has learned the office of an apostle, does not immediately understand that a man is indicated? Who, hearing the appellation of high priest, would consider the essence of divinity to be the high priest himself? For if the Godhead is the high priest, who is it that is served by the ministration of the priesthood? If it is God who offers, there is no one to whom He offers; for what is worthy of the Godhead, such that it should offer as an inferior to a greater? He adds to these: ^D Whence did they suppose God to be called high priest now, when He does not need a sacrifice for His own progress, as high priests do? The possessor of Deity, assumed from among men, is constituted on behalf of men in those things which pertain to God.]

CHAPTER I.

Therefore, do you not even assert that the Word of God Himself was sent into this world? Therefore, does the most blessed Paul, by consequence, deceive the men called by his ministry? For he said, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." By your judgment, blessed David is also refuted for having rashly woven a song and for seeking out inscrutable things; for he said, addressing the Father who is in heaven and God: "Send forth Thy light

and Thy truth." ^A What then, tell me, will not the Son Himself also be lying when He says presently: "For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him"? And again: "I came forth from the Father and I am come." Further, the blessed John also writes somewhere concerning Him: "He who receives His testimony has sealed that God is true; for He whom God has sent speaks the words of God." Now we say that the Word of God was sent, possessing the name and the reality of the apostolate together with the measures of the emptying. But you, in your ignorance, fear and—I know not for what reason—blush to attribute to Him both the name and the reality of the apostolate and of the priesthood. ^B Or do you think it befits that man from a woman, as though he were different from Him, and having—as you yourself think—a simple conjunction and an equality merely of dignity? How then is the Word Himself, who was God, seen to have helped our affairs, if we have been brought to God and the Father through another? For we no longer have our access through Him; rather, a man like us has become our mediator, having the name of divinity as a mere pretense. But he says: "Yes, it would be a small thing for the Word born of God the Father to perform priestly functions." It is admittedly a small thing; I agree with you, as you are preaching the truth. But He did not appear to those on earth using His divinity in its naked state; rather, He became man like us, to whom the office of priesthood is a great and preeminent thing. If, however, he refuses to perform priestly functions as befitting a man, or some other person possessing the measure of servitude, how would it not have been far better to refuse the becoming-man even before this office? ^C But He did not deem the birth for our sake something to be rejected; yet this man, as I said, is ashamed of the truth, thereby showing himself to be unwise and unlearned. And this despite the blessed Paul saying: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for it is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes." One would marvel at the Word of God, for the sake of the salvation and life of all, having deigned to suffer such a humiliation, which this inventor of inept doctrines, I know not how, is ashamed even to confess; whereas it would have been more fitting to marvel at Him for this reason, and at the same time to cry out with the blessed Prophet: "O Lord, I have heard Thy report, and I feared; I considered Thy works, and I was amazed." ^D For since all the divinely inspired Scriptures oppose him and set forth the truth, showing the discourse by which he defends his own inventions to be cold and empty and supported in no part, he has labored under no small dearth of right and true doctrines and investigations; for this reason, he makes use of these, the like of which no one who has ever been renowned for the right method of handing down dogmas is found to have either thought or said, as provocations for his arguments; he fights with shadows and strives in vain, when no one is resisting or contending with him about these matters, which I suppose is what it means to beat the air. For he said: "Who, when he has learned the office of the Apostle, does not immediately...

know that a man is being indicated? Who, upon hearing the name of High Priest, would think that the essence of the Divinity is the High Priest?" Since, therefore, no one says this, with whom, tell me, do you contend? And do you think that this victory will be yours, as if you alone overthrown a notion condemned by the judgment of all? ^A Yet how is it not true that, since no one says this, you yourself bring it into the middle—when it were better to keep silent and not to cast it into the souls of the simpler-minded? For who is so thunderstruck as to think that the High Priest is the essence of the Divinity? Aaron was a man, although he attained to the point of excelling others in that divine priesthood. How, therefore, could anyone think that the High Priest is the essence of the Divinity? Or how would he not entirely and in every way acknowledge that it is a man who is being commemorated, whenever the brother of Moses is named as High Priest? ^B But he, by setting forth a discourse that is common and applies to every priest among us, attempts to weaken the admirable glory of the dispensation which is understood in Christ, and dares to overturn, as it were from the very foundations, our divine mystery; not reflecting that Christ established the Church upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For he deigns not to follow the common opinion of all who think rightly; he recklessly treads a new path of his own opinion alone. For we, as I have already said, say that the Word from God the Father, having become man, offered to Himself and to the Father the confession of our faith, and performed the dispensation in a manner fitting and in no part inconsistent with the measure of His emptying. ^C But to him these things do not appear to be so; rather, where he has privately and separately distinguished—as if that Christ who is from the holy Virgin were another than the Word from God the Father—he asserts that He, the former, was the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. And he thinks he is thinking piously and religiously when he says: "If it is God who offers, there is no one to whom it is offered; for what is worthy of the Divinity, that He should offer, as an inferior to a superior?" But if there were any one who were contending and saying that the Word truly begotten from God the Father was set in the office of priesthood even before He became man, and was established in the order and measure of ministry, and for that reason was rightly called High Priest and Apostle, he would have wisely refuted him, and it could be said that his reasoning on this matter was aptly concluded. ^D For the nature that rules over all did not lack those performing sacrifice, that it should show forth its own holy service to itself. But because the Only-begotten, who was God by nature and received holy services from the priests, descended to the measure of those who performed the priesthood—becoming man, as I said—there is nothing absurd if He is also called a priest by us. Or did He not descend in the form of a servant, precisely taking the form of a servant, although He was the figure and splendor of the glory of the Father? Is there absolutely anyone who doubts this? Since, therefore, He, in accordance with

who is free by His own nature, as God—He who is in the form and equality of the One who begat Him—was made a servant, not measuring ^A the service of those under the yoke of slavery in a dispensational way, why do you fear to call Him High Priest on account of His humanity? For He consecrates us into a sweet-smelling savor through faith, and has offered Himself to the Father for us as a most aromatic sacrifice. But the man, I do not know what he is saying, immediately adds to these points: "Whence then was God supposed by them to be called High Priest now, He who needs no sacrifice for His own progress? ^B Being a possessor of Deity, since He was taken from among men, is He established to be regarding the things toward God?" Whence, then, he was, or for what reason He has been named Christ—that is, the Word of God having become man, Apostle and High Priest—the argument has shown us abundantly just recently. But I think we must not leave his unusual and strange language unexamined. For does he say that the Word from God is a possessor of Deity, even if one should wish to conceive of Him ^C separately and without flesh? Or does he distinguish His divinity as if it were something different from Him, of which, I do not know how, as he himself says, He has become a possessor, as if it were accepted from the outside and had come upon Him, even though it were not His by nature at any time? Just as it is in the case of that ancient woman, I mean Eve, when she had given birth to Seth (19): "I have possessed a man through God." But, I think, this interpretation is entirely to be rejected by him and by all. Why then does he talk nonsense and cast out ^D reckless words on such grave matters? Should one not be considered laughable and incur the charge of insanity if anyone wished to call one of our kind a possessor of humanity, or a horse a possessor of equine nature? Who then is that "possessor of divinity," "who, being taken from among men, is established to be regarding the things toward God?" Perhaps he will say, dividing the one Christ into two, that it is He who is from the holy Virgin: for his whole intent looks to this. Therefore, has the divinity itself become a possession of man, I ask you, and has it befallen any one of us to become God by nature and in truth, and to be enriched with the superiority of the supreme and most excellent essence of all? Away with such foolish thinking, man; for no one among those who are counted among created beings will possess and have as his own the nature of divinity. The body of the Word was His own; and together with it, the creation itself worships Him as one God and Christ and Son and Lord, and the heavens glorify Him, and with them we also do. For as the prophet says: "His virtue covered the heavens, and the earth is full of His praise," not because a man has possessed divinity—for who is he, or whence?—but because the Word from God the Father took on human flesh. But let it be conceded, perhaps, that He who was taken from among men, if a possessor of divinity...

as you yourself like to imagine, how is He established in those things which pertain to God, that is to say, as a high priest? Does He, then, being naked of the divinity which He possessed, offer sacrifice to God, or does He do so having it, in a way, as His own? For this, in my opinion, signifies nothing other than what is said, that He "possessed" it. If He is naked, He did not possess it; but if He has it as His own, then the divinity will undoubtedly offer sacrifice to God. Why, then, do you surge and perturb all things up and down, and do not blush to adulterate the tradition of the faith? ^A The Word from God the Father has a necessary reason, even if He is said to have offered sacrifice to God and Father; for He performed the office of priesthood, not indeed without flesh, but having become like us, as I said, to whom the splendors of the priesthood are reckoned in the order of glory.

And in another way, too, it is effortless to see that it is truly most absurd and full of immense folly to call Him who was assumed from among men a possessor of divinity, and to say He is established in those things which pertain to God. For if He was assumed by God, how did He acquire and possess the nature that assumed Him? For the thing assumed will, without doubt, be the possession of the one who assumes, and it does not possess the one who assumes it. For example: if someone has become a possessor of money, or of some knowledge of any kind, is it not clear to all that he himself is not the possession of the money, or of the knowledge added to him, but that the thing received is possessed by him? That,1 ^B I think, is in no way ambiguous. Therefore, if, by inquiring too curiously into the manner in which He, the Only-Begotten, became man, we find a man who has become God through the assumption of divinity, let it be permitted, according to your prescription, to call Him a possessor of divinity—for the divinity itself has become His. But if the Word Himself, being God, "laid hold of the seed of Abraham," and existing in the form of God the Father, "took the form of a servant" and became man, how could anyone be so senseless as to wish to say that the thing assumed became enriched by the possession of the nature from which it was assumed, and not rather that it became the property of the nature that assumed it?

Moreover, that he ignorantly reduces the force of his own words and discoveries, and indeed even the name of priesthood itself, to a simple man—I mean him who is from a woman—and takes it away from the Only-Begotten and Word brought forth from the Father, he will further declare through what follows; for he wrote thus again: ^C NESTOR. "He does not lay hold of angels, but He lays hold of the seed of Abraham." Is the divinity the seed of Abraham? Hear also the subsequent voice: "Whence it was necessary," he says, "in all things to be made like to His brethren." Did God the Word have any brothers similar to Him by reason of His divinity? Consider also what is immediately joined to these: "That He might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God; for in that wherein He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to help them that are tempted." Therefore, the one who suffered is the merciful high priest, but the temple itself is passible, not the God who was vivifying that which was suffering. The seed of Abraham is He who is yesterday and today, according to the voice of Paul, not He who... ^D

said, "He who has seen Me, has seen the Father." ^B

CHAPTER II

Therefore, He took hold of—as He Himself has just confessed—the seed of Abraham, being the Word, who is God. How then is He still the possessor of divinity, He who is from the seed of Abraham, if He were assumed by God, and is not seen to have assumed divinity Himself? The seed of Abraham, therefore, could least of all be the nature of the divinity; rather, it became the body of the Word of God, according to the Scriptures, and His very own. And He who, as God, cannot be reckoned by nature with the creation, ^C when He became man—which is a part of the creation—then indeed, and very reasonably so, He deigns to call us brothers, saying: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers." That the Word, from God the Father, descended through the measure of the emptying to the point of needing to designate those on earth as brothers to Himself, the most wise Paul will clarify, as he wrote concerning Him and us: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: 'I will proclaim ^D your name to my brothers.'" For before the incarnation, the name of kinship with us was very insignificant for the Word born from God. But when He had descended into a voluntary emptying, although it was small, it had nevertheless begun in an acceptable way; for He partook of flesh and blood, and became a brother to those who are in flesh and blood. For if He is sanctified—as we are—in that He has become man, even though He is God by nature, and is Himself the One who gives the Spirit, how, if He is called a brother, would this not be said reasonably? For this very cause He became like us, that He might make us brothers and free. "For as many as received Him," He says, "to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." For the Word from God the Father has been born with us according to the flesh, so that we too might be enriched with the birth from God through the Spirit, no longer being called children of flesh, but rather being transformed into things above nature, and being called children of God by grace. For He, who is by nature and truly the Only-Begotten Son, became as one of us; and the Word of God is truthful. The inspired Paul will confirm us in this, speaking somewhere thus: "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father.'" Why, therefore, do you do violence to the wisdom of the dispensation, so that it seems not to have been done in a manner befitting the world, by saying, "Is the divinity the seed of Abraham? Did He have some brothers who were like the divinity?" Is this not clearly madness? For that which is strangely perverted

and leads into blasphemy things that are in themselves upright and blameless—so far as pertains to the doctrine of the economy conceived in Christ—what is it but a demonstration of the ultimate folly? For it is acknowledged that, according to the nature of the body, or the reason of humanity, which He possesses in its perfection, the Word from God the Father has become like us, and in all respects resembling us, with the sole exception of sin. But I will ask him who says this: "Did the Word of God have any brothers like unto Him in divinity?" What, then, was the blessed Paul thinking when he wrote to some: "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you"? And furthermore, to those elsewhere who were being perfected in the spirit through faith: ^B "But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." If, therefore, he says these things to the Galatians as though they lacked the forms of bodily liberty—to those who are like Him from the seed of David according to the flesh—and travails with them so that Christ might in some way be figured and fashioned in them according to the flesh? And yet, how would not everyone, I suppose, and without doubt, say that all who are on the earth are conformed to one another, and to Christ Himself, in so far as He is considered as a man who is like us and exists with us? What manner of fashioning, then, was required in them that is like Christ? Or how are we "transformed from glory to glory"? What is the form we leave behind, and into what are we transformed? Therefore, let that divine teacher, that proclaimer of divine mysteries, that teacher of the nations in faith and truth, come forward and teach us: ^C "For those whom He foreknew, he says, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Therefore, as I said just now, in so far as He was made man and was of the seed of Abraham, we are all conformed to Him. All those, therefore, whom the Father foreknew—the men who are on the earth—and predestined, these, when He had called them, He sanctified and glorified. But indeed, not all were predestined; not all were sanctified or glorified. Therefore, this very thing, that we are conformed to the Son, is not to be understood in the nature of the flesh or humanity alone, but also in another way. And this the blessed Paul declares to us when he said: "And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." By the image of the earthly, he understands that of the first parent, Adam; and by the heavenly, that of Christ. What, then, is that former image of the first parent? It is, of course, that readiness to sin, and being subject to death and corruption. ^D What, again, is that of the heavenly? It is to yield in no way to the passions; it is not to know how to transgress, and to be in no way subject to death and corruption.

^A Indeed, justice, sanctification, and all things kindred and similar to these, one would say, in my opinion, are fitting for the divine and incorruptible nature; for sanctification and justice are superior to sin and corruption. The Word from God the Father also brings us up into these, showing us to be partakers of His own divine nature through the Spirit. Therefore, He has brothers who are like Him and who bear the image of His divine nature, as far as the manner of sanctification is concerned. For thus is Christ formed in us, while the Holy Spirit transforms us, in a way, from human things unto His own. For this reason the blessed Paul also said to us: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." ^B Therefore, the Son brings nothing at all of created things into the nature of His own divinity, for it is impossible; but there is imprinted, in a way, upon those who have become partakers of His divine nature, through the participation of the Holy Spirit, that intelligible likeness to Him, and that ineffable beauty of the divinity shines forth in the souls of the saints. Why, then, are you not ashamed to attribute to us the mere likeness of flesh alone, having neglected, or rather having altogether done away with, the divine and intelligible formation? And yet the Lord of all and the Only-begotten God humbled Himself unto emptying for our sake, that He might bestow upon us the dignity of brotherhood with Him, and the desirable beauty of the nobility that is in Him. But this man, despoiling us of all the most excellent things, says that a man ^C has simply been made a brother to us, and, as he thinks, he puts forth a faithful account concerning these things, adding: "See also what is immediately joined to these, 'That He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest before God; for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.'" Therefore, the One who suffered is that merciful High Priest; but the temple that suffered is passible, not the God who was animating what suffered. Now, that one who is disposed to think in this way, and moreover dares to say it, again divides ^D that Word from God the Father and that one whom he has just now introduced to us as a God-bearing man into distinct hypostases and even into two persons—if indeed the one who suffered is different and separate from the one who gives life—I think no one would doubt at all. But he raves also in another way, having drunk wine from the vine of Sodom and being made drunk with error, and perhaps not even knowing what he says. For where has the "God of Christ" ever been named—I shudder to say it—the Word from God the Father? For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and one faith in Him; not as in two and separately, but as through one baptism into one Son and God and Lord, the Word from God the Father, and even when He became man. For it is not the case that because He has become like us, He will lose the fact of being God; nor, truly, because He is God by nature, does He fail to admit of likeness, and refuse to be man; but He has remained, just as He is God in humanity, so also being in the nature and preeminence of divinity,

^A and one and the same is Emmanuel both God and man. But this good man, rejecting the manner of the dispensation as unlovely, removes from the God Word those things that are human, so that He may no longer be seen in any way to have benefited our state. For he says that Scripture does not speak of Him as having become a merciful and faithful high priest; but rather assigns that office to the one who suffered, as if he were someone other than Himself. And yet, how ought not one who wishes to be a wise teacher of the mysteries to have gathered accurately the words and meanings of the divinely inspired Scripture? And [how ought he not] to consider that this office is truly worthy of God, and not alien to the reason ^B that is becoming and suitable to His emptying? And in what way we shall state this, we will say as briefly as possible. For that God of all gave the law to those men of old, through Moses as interpreter; but there was not in the law the power for those who wished to perform the good blamelessly: “For it made nothing perfect.” But neither was the first testament free from blame. It is called by the all-wise Paul “the ministry of condemnation”; and I hear him saying, “We know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight.” For the law works wrath, and the letter kills; and as he says somewhere else, “He who has despised Moses’ law, dies without mercy, on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Since, therefore, the law condemned those who sinned, and sometimes ^C determined the ultimate punishment for those who had neglected it, and in no way showed mercy, how was the appearance of the truly merciful and compassionate high priest not necessary for those dwelling on earth, who, putting an end to the curse, and checking the judgment, and setting free those who had sinned, by a grace that holds no grudge, and by the nods of His gentleness [gave relief]? “For I am,” He says, “He who blots out your iniquities, and will not remember them.” For we have been justified by faith and not by the works of the law, as it is written. In whom, therefore, do we believe and become justified? Is it not in Him who for our sake suffered death in the flesh? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? Is it not by proclaiming His death and confessing His resurrection that we have been redeemed? If, therefore, we have believed in a man, one of ourselves, and not rather in God, then the act is beyond doubt ^D the worship of man, and nothing otherwise of an acknowledged sort. But if we believe that He who suffered in the flesh is God, who has even become our priest, we are in no way in error; rather, we acknowledge Him who is the Word from God having become man; and thus our faith is required toward God, who sets us free from judgment and the snares of sins, who has authority, the Son of man...

to forgive sins on earth, as He Himself says somewhere. ^A Since, therefore, we compare the severity of the Law, if I may so call its harshness, with the salvation and grace offered through Christ, we say that Christ has become a merciful High Priest. For He was and is God by nature, always kind and merciful; and this did not come about in time, but He was shown to us as such. He is named "faithful," as One who remains what He is forever, according to that which is said also of the Father Himself: "Faithful is God, who will not suffer us to be tempted beyond what we can bear." Therefore, Immanuel has become for us a merciful and faithful High Priest. For as Paul says: "There were many priests, because they were prevented by death from remaining; but He, because He remains forever, has an unchangeable priesthood; whence He is also able to save to the uttermost those who approach God through Him, always living to intercede for them." ^B That the Word from the Father has remained God, even though He has become a priest according to what is written, is sufficiently confirmed for our assurance by the words of the blessed Paul, who spoke according to the standard and measure appropriate to the economy with the flesh. For he said again: "Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a High Priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Observe then, observe the Word begotten of God, ^C excelling indeed as God in transcendent glories, and sitting upon the thrones of the Godhead, yet performing the priestly office as man; and offering to the Father not some earthly sacrifice, but a divine and intelligible one, and having heaven itself as a holy tabernacle. For He did not become High Priest according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life, as it is written. Faithful then is He also in this respect, and a surety to those who approach Him, in that He is able—and very easily so—to save them; for by His own blood and by one oblation He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. For I think this is what the holy Paul means when he says to us: "For in that He Himself has suffered being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted." Why then, having abandoned the thoughts that pertain to piety and having wandered away from right and true words, does he say: "The High Priest is indeed the merciful One who suffered, but the temple is passible, not the God who suffered, the Giver of life"? ^D That the Word of God willingly suffered in the flesh for our sake will be shown in due time; but that he divides the indivisible and proclaims two Christs by the force of his own arguments, even if at times he may seem to say one Christ, will nevertheless be refuted by what he immediately adds; for he said again: [Nestorius]: "Semen Abraham is he who is yesterday and today," according to the voice of Paul, "not he who said: 'Before Abraham was, I am.'" "Like in all things to the brothers," who took on the brotherhood of human soul and flesh...

^A For he who said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," is not he who was sent. But he who is consubstantial with us was sent, and he has been anointed, preaching release to the captives and sight to the blind. "For the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the sake of which he anointed me."

CHAPTER III

He divides, therefore, once again into two, as is clear: but how are you not convicted of being a natural man, and not having the spirit, as that disciple of our Savior says? But the very power of the truth surely opposes your words, O you who think this way. For we affirm that the Word himself from God the Father took hold of the seed of Abraham, ^B and made his own a body endowed with a rational soul, that body, I say, taken from the holy Virgin; and therefore, through a true union, we say that he is one and the same yesterday and today and unto the ages, who according to his divinity was before Abraham, and who after this became man and underwent birth from a woman. He does not, then, lie when he says: "Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." But this man does not understand at all what that "yesterday and today and unto the ages" is. For in order to show that the Word of God is eternal and exists in the same way according to nature, and is not subject to change or turning, even if he has been made man, he divided all time into three periods; and he spoke of the past as "yesterday," of the present as "today," and of the future as "unto the ages." But this ignorant man, ^C affirming insensibly that "yesterday and today" were spoken of him as of a common human being, does not at all understand that he is declaring him to be older and prior to his own birth, since he existed entirely even "yesterday," which has the signification of past time. Furthermore, that the yesterday and today Jesus Christ is not one, and he who says, "Before Abraham was, I am," another, but rather one and the same according to a true union, with the God Word having become man similar to us, and having preserved even when he became flesh the condition of his own nature which is without beginning in time, anyone can very easily perceive from the sacred scriptures. For the blessed evangelist John says concerning the Savior of all, Christ: John bears witness concerning him, and cries out, saying: ^D "He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was prior to me"; and again: "The next day he sees Jesus coming toward him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world; this is he of whom I said: After me comes a man who has been made before me, because he was prior to me." You see, therefore, very clearly that the wonderful Baptist calls Jesus a man, and as coming after him, late-born and after him; yet he declares that he pre-existed him and existed beforehand—for this, I think, is signified by "Because he was prior to me, and has been made before me." Yet if he is a man, how is he understood to have existed before, or is said to have begun to be before him who was prior in time, and prior in birth according to the flesh?

If indeed this ^A were said of any one of us, I think that anyone would be at a loss, and would be quite unable to find an apology; yet in the case of the Saviour of us all, Christ, there is no obstacle: for the One from God claims the birth of His own flesh as His own; yet He did not fail to know that He is the Creator of the ages, and existed beforehand as God, and is coeternal with His own Father. For we do not say that He has the beginning of His subsistence coeval with the birth of His own body, but He was, as I said, ineffably begotten from the essence of God and the Father. Since, therefore, He has being before Abraham as God, even if He has become man, He would not lie in saying that He is truly one, both Son and Lord: "Before Abraham was, I am." And do not wonder if He has honored His own nature by being before Abraham; but consider rather that, although He had taken a body from the holy Virgin, He said to Nicodemus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of man"; although He has also been designated ^B Son of man, having been born of a woman according to the flesh. Will He then lie, saying that the Son of man, that is, Himself, has descended from heaven? Far from it; for He Himself is the truth. How then could the Son of man be rightly understood as being from above? Because, being the Word and God, and from that essence which is above all, He is said to have descended and to have taken the form of a servant. Then He speaks to us, no longer as the naked Word, but as a man like us, and as one already understood together with the flesh united to Him; and just as, because it is fitting for the emptying, He claims all things of His own body as His own, although in nature He is incorporeal, so also, being Himself from above and from heaven, He attributes to Himself that coming from above even when He has become man, even if He was born according to the flesh with us from a woman. What belongs to the humanity therefore became proper to the Word, and again, what belongs to the Word became proper to the humanity. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood. But since this innovator has added that "He is like ^C to [His] brothers in all things," [He] who has taken upon Himself the brotherhood of a human soul and flesh, and not he who said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," come now, let us again examine as best we may what he means by these words. For that the Son is the image and character of God and the Father, even he himself admits; but whoever has taken upon himself the brotherhood of a human soul and body, let him come forth and speak. For no one would ever say that a man who is seen to be like us—for example, perhaps Barnabas, or Paul, or any other one of those who are numbered among men—could be said to have taken upon himself the brotherhood of a human soul and body, as if he were something else different from this, which he had later taken; but rather, while he remains what he is: therefore not ^D

as some man already existing, who might be thought to take on what he is—since that would be something else distinct from himself—but rather it would be fitting for the Word sprung from God, who has no relation to us according to the principles of his own nature, to take on the brotherhood of a human soul and body with us. And to this, the logic of the truth fights on our behalf, ^A along with the tradition of the spotless faith. It is established, then, that in the form of God and Father, the God-Word became our brother in all things by taking on the brotherhood of a human soul and body, and he would not lie when saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." For if any of us, through the ignorance of our thoughts, had fallen into such a state as to imagine that even the Father and God, who is in the heavens, must be brought down—to the point, I say, of necessarily having our likeness, and clearly a bodily one—he would rightly fear, lest when Christ says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," he might also suspect that the very One from whom he is, exists in our form and in the structures of a body. But since, even while having become the Son of man, he preserved what he was, God, and retains the beauty of his own nature immutable, ^B I would in no way hesitate to say that he also has the likeness to us, inasmuch as he is human—that is, from soul and body—although he is God by nature, and the stamp of the substance of the One who begat him. One and the same, therefore, is like to his brothers according to the flesh, and yet he also manifests the Begetter himself in his own nature, insofar as he is God. But this person does not understand this in any way; rather, adulterating the straight and pure logic of the mystery, he introduces to us one Christ and another, and, caught in the snares of the Jewish crimes, he perceives neither where he is, nor from where he has come in his wickedness. For those who were of the blood of Israel were hearing God crying out through one of the holy prophets concerning Emmanuel: ^C "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, are little to be in the thousands of Judah; from you will come forth to me one to be a ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." And again: "Who shall recount his generation? Because his life is taken from the earth." Then, since they did not understand the mystery at all, nor know that, although he was God by nature and had an invisible and incomprehensible beginning of his existence, he had nevertheless been called a Bethleemite, as being from the root of Jesse and David, born there according to the flesh, they were saying among themselves: "Is this not he whom they were seeking to kill? Behold, he speaks openly, and they say nothing to him. Have the rulers ever learned that this is the Christ? But we know where this man is from; ^D but when the Christ comes, no one knows where he is from." For they heard, as I said, the prophet saying clearly: "Who shall recount his generation?" and that he has his goings-forth, or his existence, before every age. Now I would have you consider again how great was the astonishment of the Jews. For when they were saying, "When the Christ comes, no one knows where he is from," they were again saying among themselves:

^A "This is truly the prophet." Others, he says, were saying, "This is the Christ." But still others said, "Does the Christ come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the village of Bethlehem, where David was?" Do you see how they are both intoxicated and yet acknowledge his beginningless nature according to his divinity, and his generation in time according to the flesh? But they would never have been led off into such absurd and senseless opinions if they had truly understood that the Word, being God, came forth from the root of Jesse and David and from the holy Virgin as a man, and that the Lord of earth and heaven and all things is also called a Bethlehemite. For, being rich, he made himself poor along with us, as it is written. Why, then, do you cast yourself into the trifles of the Jews, and think and speak things that are neither lawful to utter nor harmless to conceive? Confess that there is one Christ with us, and do not divide him again into two, but rather say this: "He who is consubstantial with us was sent, and he has been anointed, preaching liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind." And yet, to what point will the words of the theologians, who were teachers of the whole world, eventually lead? For they proclaimed that the Word from God the Father became the Savior and Redeemer of all, not as some man distinct from him and acting as a mediator—as, to be sure, Moses did—but rather as he himself who descended to us in form and bodily likeness. For it is he who is anointed as High Priest and Apostle; and thus he rebuked the Jews, saying, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called those gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" But for what reason are we to exclude from those divine and truly admirable ^B achievements wrought for us the One who humbled himself for the sake of the emptying-out in order to save the world under heaven, by saying that he who was sent to us is someone consubstantial with us other than himself? And yet, how would it not be better to say—and indeed, to think from the heart—that it was he who was sent and became consubstantial with us, that is, a man, but that he nonetheless remained the same, consubstantial with God the Father, by which he is conceived to be, and was, and is God? For he is—he is, I say—what he was, even when he assumed human nature; and having the same essence with the Father who is in heaven and is God, he assumed by wise counsel our likeness also. He has even been set as a mediator, who through himself binds into a relative unity those things which, by the laws of nature, were wholly separated from one another. For being God by nature, he truly became man, in order that we also might become a race no longer of the first [man], that is, the earthy one to whom it was said by God, "You are earth, and to earth you shall go," who also delivers us to death; but of the second, who is from above and from heaven—I mean Christ—who led us back to immortal life and rendered our nature, which was subject to death, incorruptible and freed it from sins. ^C

The Father Himself speaks thus to the Son: ^A "Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out the prisoners from the bonds, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." And again through the voice of Isaiah: "The beasts of the field shall honor Me, the sirens and the daughters of the ostriches; because I have given water in the desert, and rivers in a dry land, to give drink to My chosen lineage, the people whom I have acquired to tell of My virtues." The blessed Peter, understanding this very well, writes to those who were called from the nations through faith to the true knowledge of God, saying: ^B "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God." But if, just as it pleases you to think and say, He who was sent to us is co-substantial with us, but not with the Father Himself, then we have in no way become partakers of the divine nature; we have remained, as I said, and we are still the generation of the first man, who transmits to us curse, death, and the liability of sin. We have been rendered vain, therefore, and we are held now just as we were ^C formerly, before His coming. How, then, have the old things passed away, and behold, all things have become new? And where is the saying: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature"? But you are ashamed to confess that God, the very Word of God, became man like us? You rebuke Him, therefore, and say that He did not wisely take counsel in emptying Himself for our sake. You shall hear Him saying: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Search with us through the God-inspired Scripture. It was seen long ago by the patriarch Jacob when he was departing from the house of Laban, and had already arrived, in fact, at the fords of Jabbok, as it is written: ^D "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." And again after other things: "And Jacob called the name of that place, the Vision of God: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. And the sun rose upon him when he passed over the Vision of God." Understand, therefore, that it was not as the bodiless and intangible Word that He deigned to appear to the patriarch at that time, as to show him in advance the type of the mystery; but He who wrestled was a man, and he spent the whole night in that struggle. Yet at the dawning of the day, and as the aurora arrived,

^A His mission, he says, was effectively to destroy the struggle. It is necessary to explain the rationale of this mystery: for to those who still continue as if in night and darkness, and who have a spiritual mist upon their mind and heart, and who do not yet have the strength to understand the mystery concerning Him, He is accustomed to wrestle, to fight, and to conquer. But to those who have come into the light, and are, as it were, in the spiritual dawn, and have understood the mystery well, He does not deign to wrestle, but rather distributes spiritual blessings. Therefore, even if you come late and with difficulty, and you yourself exist with us in the light, and as it were in the dawn, He who conquers all will cease from fighting against you.

Consider how the blessed Jacob, when the man was wrestling with him, says that he saw God face to face. The sacred Scripture further adds: “The sun rose upon him when he passed the appearance of God.” Why then do you blush at the measure of the emptying, when everyone who holds the right faith and carefully examines the intent of the God-inspired Scripture proclaims that the Word from God the Father was incarnate and became man? He, therefore, ^B who is consubstantial with us, insofar as He was made man, and likewise with the Father, insofar as He remained God even in His humanity, was sent to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to heal the brokenhearted, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. For these great achievements toward us were His alone, and of no other. The holy prophets will confirm this for you, one saying: “Not an ambassador, not an angel, but the Lord Himself saved us.” He also says most clearly: “Therefore my people shall know my name in that day, because I myself who spoke am present.”

But if He who was sent were some mere man, how could He be understood to be the same one who long ago gave the law to those of old? For if He were first as a man, it could never be said that He was made man, so as not to appear to have an existence older than the beginning when He came to be; but since He pre-existed as God, He indeed spoke the law, but He said that He is present in a new and unusual way when He became man. ^C But, he says, the Word, being God, fills all things: how then was He even sent? For where was He not, who fills all things? Tell me, are we to suppose that the divine and holy Trinity is cramped, or is it extended through all things and filling everything? If this is so, how does the great Moses, when some of the ancients were building a tower reaching to heaven, introduce God as saying: “Come, let us go down and confuse their tongues there”? What need had that nature, which fills heaven and earth, of an act of descending? It is written also concerning the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world.” The blessed David also sings, speaking to God who has the power to give life, regarding those who are placed on the earth: “You will send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth”—how then is He sent ^D who fills all things? Do not, therefore, as if proposing something astute and unassailable, contend that the Word from God the Father, since He can fill all things, can in no way be sent.

^A You strive to overthrow the truth and the power of the mystery; but consider rather that divine matters are spoken of in the human manner, yet are to be understood by us in the way that God alone knows and as it is His custom to act. But because he thinks of the anointing as a small and lowly thing, and far unworthy of the glory of the Only-Begotten, let us speak about this matter from the things that are harmonious, so that we may remove the occasions of scandal. If, therefore, He had not become man, let human things be rejected, let the dispensation be refused as something that renders Him inferior and far removed from that supreme glory and divine excellence; for all our things are indeed small for the Word Himself. But because this mystery is full of wisdom, and the work of emptying is not to be rejected by Him, why do you audaciously accuse those things which are rightly established, and why do you turn away as indecent what is commended by His judgment? Have you seen Him anointed in the human manner? See the same One anointing in the divine manner. For it is written ^B that "John bore witness, saying: I saw the Spirit descending as a dove, and remaining upon Him; and I knew Him not, but He who sent me to baptize in water, He said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit; and I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." Do you say that it is the work of humanity to be able to baptize believers in the Holy Spirit? Yet how could it not be foolish to think that these things are so? For how would that which is less grant the participation of a thing that is far greater? I wish you also to consider that He Himself, upon whom the Spirit is said to have flown down and remained, baptizes in the Holy Spirit, because, being God, He clearly anoints believers with His own Spirit; and thus He rose from the dead and breathed upon the disciples, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit," and they who had received Him said: "We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we may know the things that are given to us by God." The most wise Paul also writes: "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." And again in another place: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God." ^C When, therefore, you see Him anointed with His own Spirit, remember His dispensation in the flesh, and think of human nature; when you see the Spirit given by Him, admire Him at the same time as God even in humanity. But this contentious man, taking account of none of these things, says thus again: ^D [NESTOR. This man, having become a high priest faithful to God (for he was made, he was not from eternity); this man, little by little, ...]

^A Ah, heretic, having progressed to the dignity of high priest! Listen to the voice sounding more clearly to you: “Who in the days of his flesh,” he says, “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” ^B And that which progresses little by little is brought to perfection, heretic; regarding which John also cries out in the Gospels: “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor.” Consonant with these words, Paul speaks: “Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” This is he who is compared to Moses in regard to the type of leading an army; he who is called the seed of Abraham; he who is in all things like unto his brethren; he who in time became high priest; he who was made perfect through sufferings; he who, in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, is able to succor them that are tempted; he who is called high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Why, then, do you interpret against Paul, mingling the impassible Word of God with an earthly body, and making a passible high priest?

CHAPTER IV.

You make a very bold and indeed most spirited assault, my good sir, on the dogmas of piety. And the blessed Baruch, ^C indeed, pointing out the Word of God as now having become man and having appeared in our likeness, says: “This is our God; none other shall be accounted in comparison of him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward did he appear upon earth, and conversed with men.” But you, repeating this “this” very often, and almost stretching out your hand, whom do you show to those who believe, and set before their eyes, and even assert that he progressed little by little to the priesthood? I think, by all means, it is he whom you were lately pointing to when you said: “Therefore, he who suffered is the merciful high priest, not he who is the life-giving God of the one who suffered.” That one is the seed of Abraham yesterday and today, ^D according to the voice of Paul, not he who said: “Before Abraham was, I am.” He is like his brethren in all things, he who took upon himself the brotherhood of human soul and flesh, not he who says: “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And that you are guilty of no moderate sin, having involved yourself in the charges of inescapable blasphemy by asserting that the life-giving Word of God is the God of the one who suffered, has been demonstrated by effective reasoning. But I am surprised that, forgetful of your own words, you are unmindful of the progress...

^A You dare to say and to think that he advanced to the dignity of high priest, whom you also assert to be omnipotent God. For, with the Epistle written to the Hebrews lying before you, you are caught saying: “But this one, the kinsman of Israel according to the flesh, according to the perceptible nature a man, having been born from the seed of David according to the flesh, is omnipotent God by conjunction.” How, then, did he advance to the dignity of high priest, as you rashly fable, even though he is omnipotent God—a fact testified to even by your own words? Even if you designate the ignoble conjunction—which I do not know how you, and you alone, have invented—I will pass over it for now. However, I will demand that the discourse proceed in order, and that it aim at a scope that is fitting for it and not at all alien to the subject. ^B Does that which is promoted to priesthood and glory not make a step, or receive an increase, towards things that are better and more excellent? And who, pray, would not approve the truth of this sentiment with his own vote? Therefore, is the office of priesthood greater than being omnipotent God? If this is the case, how does he who fulfills the priesthood minister and stand by as a servant to God, and as a slave to the Master, offering the customary sacrifices and presenting oblations, while the other—adorned with the supreme glory—receives the sacrifices and is honored by being served? That, I suppose, you will say: that the same being, the omnipotent God, has become high priest. Therefore he has emptied himself and humbled himself, casting himself down into lesser things. How then did he advance to dignity by having become a priest? Remember, again, your own words; for you said thus a little above: “But if the Godhead is the high priest, who is the one served by the ministry of the priesthood? If it is God who offers, there is no one to whom it is offered. For what is worthy of the Godhead, such that it, as something inferior, would offer to the greater?” ^C Halt now, at least in your own words; but you will never be able to do this, since you are carried about by every wind, and, being tossed hither and thither, you do not even perceive it, leaping now from those to these, and now in turn from these to those; nor are you in any way afraid of that which was said by the voice of Paul: “For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” But perhaps you are going to say this: “Since you yourself affirm everywhere that Christ is one and the Son and the Lord—the Word from God the Father with his own flesh—how do you say he was appointed high priest and apostle? And by saying this, do you not insult the transcendent dignity of his divine glory?” Because, O best of men, I would say, the only-begotten Word of God became man, and the office of the priesthood is not unsuitable to the measures of humanity, and indeed it is not unsuitable to say that he was sent. For he despised shame, as the divine Paul writes, ^D and suffered for our sake things even lower and more ignominious. For he gave his back to the scourges, and he did not turn away his face from the shame of spitting, and he patiently endured the outrageous acts of the Jews. But you shrink from calling him priest, as he is God? Accept the ...

^A Consider the emptying, the descent to the form of a servant. We do not say that the Word of God progressed and ran to a position of honor when He became our high priest, but rather that He descended into this emptying. For how could He have been emptied and said to be humbled, while He possessed immutability and existed in the form and equality with His own Begetter in every respect? And how did He progress little by little, and that, as you say, to the dignity of the high priesthood? What sort of advancement did He receive for this? If you mean the advancement of the body, I will ask again: Does the growth of the body bring about the glory of the priesthood? Then let this matter be common, and let this argument of yours apply to all who grow corporally; and yet, it is not fitting for all who happen to grow in body to perform the priesthood. How, then, are you not ashamed to adduce for the proof of what you said the words spoken by the blessed Luke: "Jesus progressed in age and wisdom and grace"? But you say that the advancement took place in wisdom; yet how is this not ignorant? For we have believed that Christ, the Emmanuel, being God from the womb and the virgin's bed, came forth as man, full, no doubt, of all the wisdom and grace that was naturally in Him. What sort of advancement, then, would He receive in whom are all the treasures of wisdom, and who is the co-giver of grace from above with God the Father? How, then, is He said to progress? As I think, it is because ^B the Word of God, in proportion to the growth and age of His own body, manifested those divine goods that were already within Him. For let us consider that, although He was made man like us, He sought to remain hidden at the beginning, managing the power of the mystery little by little, as it were without noise and in silence; and God the Father Himself will be for us a rich witness to this, when He says: "Jacob is my servant; I will take hold of him. Israel is my elect one; my soul has received him. I have given my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the nations. He shall not cry out, nor shall He lift up His voice, nor shall His voice be heard outside. A bruised reed He shall not crush, and smoking flax He shall not quench." He even rebuked the holy apostles themselves, so that they would not make Him known. Therefore, it would have been shown to be a strange and unusual thing, worthy of curiosity, if, while He was still an infant, He had provided the divine display of wisdom; but when He made it manifest to all by gradually and suitably regulating it according to the age of the body, He can very well be said to have progressed. How, then, tell me, did He progress little by little into the priesthood, as if being perfected in virtue? ^C And then, how or whence could anyone doubt that what is sinful will be subject to blame, and not entirely admirable, or perhaps even worthy of the charge of sin, compared to the one who is perfect in virtue? Yet it is true that He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth.

^A

He was, therefore, a most perfect man in every respect, and in no way was anything lacking in him for the attainment of absolute and perfect virtue. For when was he who was God even in the womb less than perfect in virtue? Concerning whom the prophet Isaiah also says: “Butter and honey shall he eat; before he knows or chooses the evil, he will choose the good.” That is, before the child knows good or evil, he opposes wickedness in order to choose the good. From where, then, do you find it possible to demonstrate an imperfection of virtue in Christ? Or what progress could he require, he who is so absolute that he opposes all wickedness, prefers nothing to virtue, and indeed chooses only virtue? But I know not by what reasoning one who asserts and says, “He who little by little progressed to the dignity of the high priesthood,” and who, in order to confirm his own words, brought forward that which is written: “But Jesus progressed in age and wisdom and grace,” almost condemns his own words as having been spoken with little propriety, and having forgotten what he thought were well said, affirms that the mode of perfection was absolute in another way, saying: “This man, by the passage of time, became a high priest, he who was perfected through sufferings.” Is this not a manifestation of plain stupidity; or rather, is it not an indication of total deceit? For our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed perfected through sufferings; but this man, although not ignorant of the manner in which he was perfected, leads the minds of the simpler ones into certain remote labyrinths of thought, and says that he progressed into being a high priest, and was perfected in this, because, having been made such, he is said to have been “emptied.”

Now, having already acted as if he had sufficiently demonstrated that the Word of God himself neither became flesh nor was born of a woman, he rebukes those who think such things, saying: “Why then do you misinterpret Paul, by mixing the impassible Word of God with an earthly body, and making a passible high priest?” Hear, therefore, from us, to whom the truth is far dearer, why you perversely interpret Paul, or rather, why you slander all the God-inspired Scripture, withdrawing the Word of God from the dispensation of the flesh, and setting over us as priest a mere man honored by a naked conjunction, although you hear the same one called high priest and at the same time sitting upon the same throne with God and the Father, as we have already said. For Paul said: “We have such a high priest, who has seated himself at the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens.” ^D For that the Word from God the Father is impassible is, to be sure, plain to everyone; but that he suffered in the flesh for us, the voice of the theologians will confirm as the truth. But if you withdraw the Word from God from the earthly body, everything will collapse for you into nothingness; for if he was not made man, he did not even die for us; and if he did not give his own body to death, how is he called the firstborn from the dead? Therefore, Christ neither died nor rose again. Let the blessed Paul, then, come into our midst and cry out and say: “If the dead do not rise, neither has Christ risen; vain is your faith, you are

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished? But Christ has been raised from the dead; ^A for the only-begotten Word of God became man, and having taken a terrestrial body, and having united it to Himself according to hypostasis, by the grace of God, according to that which is written, He tasted death for everyone. He also became the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, having been raised from the dead. Our faith, therefore, which we have as a safe and firm anchor for the soul, according to what is written, is secure and not vain. But just as, having in no way wronged the accounts of the economy with the flesh, by saying these things, he pours forth an unbridled and most detestable vomit against the dogmas of the truth, as if he had in no way violated the accounts of His economy with the flesh, he proceeds to another madness, or rather, to open impiety, and says: ^B [NESTOR. Since, therefore, this one alone is for us a merciful, kindred, and firm high priest, take care that you are not moved away from faith in Him; for He was sent to us from the seed of Abraham for the promised blessing, offering the sacrifice of His body as if for Himself and for His own kind.]

CHAPTER V

Therefore, do you say that the merciful, kindred, and firm High Priest, and furthermore that He is the only one whom your discourse clearly pointed out to us just now? For you said: "The seed of Abraham yesterday and today according to the voice of Paul," not the One who says: "Before Abraham was, I am," similar to His brothers in all things, the One who assumed the brotherhood of a human soul and flesh; not the One who says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." ^C He was sent to us consubstantial, and has been anointed, preaching release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. This one, then, is understood as kindred to those who are on earth, and not, as you assert, He who says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." For if, by gathering both into one through a true union, you confess with us one Son, you have acted rashly by joining each separately and privately, and by distinguishing them in an alien manner by hypostases and persons; not understanding that, while the nature of the flesh is indeed different from the divine, yet by the true union it has become proper to It. But if, desiring to seem in no way to agree with us in opinion, and shunning unity everywhere, you assert one being and another, and that the one is begotten of God the Father, but the other is kindred to us and consubstantial with us, explain to me, I beseech you, how you say that one ought not to turn away from belief in Him, and we shall believe Him to be kindred, while dismissing Him who says: “Before Abraham was, I am.” We shall ascribe to Him the name of God, ^D Who assumed with us the brotherhood of a human soul and flesh, while rejecting Him who said: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”? And yet He Himself says: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that ev-

^A For if anyone believes in him, he shall not perish, but have eternal life; and again, He that believes in him is not judged; but he that believes not, has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Is it then to be understood that he who is from the seed of Abraham is uniquely and solely the Only-Begotten, although John has clearly written, The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him? And moreover, another holy Scripture says: When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God worship him. Now the Firstborn would be, altogether and in every way, he who is among many brethren, not he who is the only one begotten of the only God and Father. We shall follow your distinctions for the time being, my good sir, while we watch carefully where your words eventually lead. Therefore—for I shall draw the discourse back to its beginning—he who assumed the brotherhood of human soul and flesh with us, and was born of the seed of Abraham, would certainly be the firstborn, as being among many brethren; but he who is in the bosom of God and the Father is the only-begotten God, the Word. Since then the holy Scripture says that we must believe in the only-begotten Son of God, why, when you have set him before us as our kinsman and consubstantial with us, do you say that we ought not to depart from faith in him? Therefore, it is necessary to join them into one Lord and Christ, by a union according to hypostasis, so that the same person may be understood as both only-begotten and firstborn; for the very Word from God the Father, being God by nature, became man like us, and of the seed of Abraham. For he seems to have discovered something acute for himself, and thus he says again: ^{B C} [NESTORIUS. And you surely remember those things which I have often said to you, when I distinguished two natures in Christ: for there are two, if you look at the nature; but if you look at the dignity, it is single: for the authority of the natures is one because of the union, the natures indeed always remaining in their own order, but united in dignity, as I have already said, into a single authority.]

CHAPTER VI

But you would have understood this quite easily if you had resolved to follow the divine Scriptures, which speak of one Lord Jesus Christ, and do not separate the one who is of the seed of Abraham from the Word who is of God the Father. And in addition to this, it was necessary to consider that divinity is one thing, and the humanity like unto us is another, according to the reason that resides in their natures; but by the assembly according to the true union, Christ is one from both, as we have often said. But if the hypostases, as you say, are divided into two, and are understood to exist separately and privately, how could an assembly into one person come about, unless one were in some way said to be the property of the other: just as, of course, a body is understood to be the property of the human soul, although it is of a different nature from it; for surely it is not the case that soul and body are the same. But perhaps someone will say:

^A "How is the holy and adorable Trinity distinguished into three hypostases, yet maintains one nature of divinity?" I would say that it is because the difference of natures—or, as others would have it, hypostases—necessarily brings the mind of the believers to a single nature of the Godhead, which follows in substance. But in the case of Emmanuel, since the Godhead is something other than the humanity, if we do not say that the body became proper to the Word through a true union, how can a single person be formed from both, when each side brings its own substance, as if they were placed separately and apart? And if that which was assumed did not become proper to the One assuming it, a conjunction by a mere union of dignity and authority will not suffice to perfect for us one and the same Christ, who is at once both God and man. For then, and then most of all, the faith in Him would be subverted, even if He be understood as being of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. When you say that He is one and then another, ^B and then affirm that faith must be brought to Him who is of the seed of David, know for certain that you cast upon your own head the charge of man-worship, even though you rightly shrink from appearing to be a worshiper of a man. But, caring very little for right-mindedness, he slanders in another way that great mystery of godliness. For he adds immediately: "For He was sent to us from the seed of Abraham for the promised blessing, as if offering the sacrifice of His body both for Himself and for His own race." Has Christ Himself, then, been made under sin, through whom—according to the voice of the Psalmist—the mouth of those who speak iniquity is stopped? Has the darkness of accursed vileness also touched the very light of the Truth? Did He, through whom is all redemption and hope of salvation, Himself have need of a redeemer and savior, just as we do? It would be fitting for Him, according ^C to this line of thinking, to offer up thanksgivings along with us, seeing as God says in forgetfulness of injury: "I am He who blots out your transgressions, and I will not remember them." But the father of sin will accuse Him also, just as he accuses us. If this is so, how is He not a liar when He says: "The prince of this world is coming, and he will find nothing in Me"? The leaders of the Synagogue of the Jews once cast insults at Him; for because they were being consumed by the arrows of envy, seeing the man born blind cured unexpectedly, they impiously said: "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner." But our Lord Jesus Christ, refuting those who spoke insolently, said plainly: "Which of you convicts Me of sin? But if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?" Therefore, if He offered the sacrifice, ^D not only for us but also for Himself, He surely needed it necessarily, just as we who are under the yoke of sin

Convict Him, therefore, of sin: if He has sacrificed with us, show us that He has sinned with us. Being a good shepherd, for whom did He lay down His own life? For Himself, rather, or for the sheep? I hear Him saying concerning us: "For their sake I sanctify Myself;" and, as the blessed Paul says, "By the grace of God He tasted death for ^A everyone;" and again, "He was delivered for our offenses, and rose again for our justification;" and as the prophet Isaiah says, "The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed." He is not Himself healed by the sufferings of His own flesh. He was delivered for our offenses, not at all for His own—far from it ^B indeed. For we all confess that the nature of man, through that transgression in Adam, has been cast down into curse and death, and in addition has labored under the facility of sinning in the flesh, so that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For this reason He has even been called the last Adam; not that He suffered from the failings of that former one, but rather, as in Himself and as the first, He delivered the human nature from the charges of that ancient transgression. For though it was condemned in Adam, yet it clearly appeared most approved and especially admirable in Christ. That one, therefore, is earthly, but Christ is heavenly; and although it fell in that former one, and was cast down into disobedience, which is sin, yet He preserved a state free from transgression in Christ, and as in another beginning for our race, it appeared whole from the wound of sin, and stronger than malediction, condemnation, death, and corruption. ^C But blessed Paul confirms us, writing thus: "For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Therefore, whoever is held by the guilt of sin needs a sacrifice for his own transgressions; and Christ offered Himself for the race according to the flesh, that is, for us, but not for Himself, since He was superior to sin, as He is God. For if He were sacrificed for Himself, we would not have been the only ones bought by His blood according to the Scriptures, but He Himself would also have been bought along with us; and according to the voice of Isaiah, "The Lord did not deliver Him up to our sins," but He would have been given for His own as well. For where there is a sacrifice and offering, there is surely also the remission of sins. Therefore, has the blessed Paul deceived the whole world, writing of Him: "For such a high priest was fitting for us, holy, innocent, undefiled, ^D separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who has no need daily, as the high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself. For the law makes men high priests who have infirmity: but the word of the oath, which is since the law, makes the Son perfect forever"

^A How then is Christ a holy high priest? Or in what way is He guileless and undefiled, if He needs, along with us, to have a sacrifice offered for the remission of sins, and for the justification of those who have sinned? How is He separated from sinners, if He is justified along with them, the sacrifice not having been offered for the sake of any other than these very people? I am amazed that, though Paul cries out, and indeed most clearly, that He is not similar to those who are commanded to offer sacrifices for their own transgressions, and then to intercede for the people, you do not fear to preach things contrary to what he said, but dare to assert that, in the likeness of those who became priests according to the law, He also offers a sacrifice for Himself. And if it is true that the law constitutes as high priests men who have infirmity, but the word of the oath, which is since the law, makes the Son perfect forever: why do you recount Him among the number of those who are accustomed to be infirm, He who is separated from the crowd of them, and possesses a perfection that is above the law, both ^B inherently and by nature, if He is truly the Son, and for this reason God? But let us see, also from the legal and ancient writing, in what way and for whom Emmanuel offered Himself to God and the Father as an aroma of sweetness. For the law was confessedly a shadow, but it contains an outline of the mystery concerning Christ, and gives birth to the formation of the truth. Indeed, Christ said somewhere, speaking to the Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me: for he wrote about me." How then did the Israelites, when they were about to depart from the lands of the Egyptians, sacrifice the lamb? Was it for themselves alone, or was it also for the lamb itself? Whom did He redeem by His blood? Was it those who were under the yoke of slavery, and were oppressed by the most heavy domination of the Egyptians, or Himself as well? From whom was He averting the destroyer? To whom did that God of the universe say: "And I will see the blood, and I will protect you"? Was it to those who were in need of protection, or to the lamb itself? For God and Father designated in the law, as if on a tablet, the sacrifices to be immolated for sin, still prefiguring the mystery of Christ; and He spoke thus to the interpreter of sacred rites, Moses: "If the whole congregation of the children of Israel should act in ignorance unintentionally, and a word escapes the eyes of the Synagogue, and they do one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done, and they transgress, and the sin which they have committed becomes known to them; then let the congregation bring a calf from the herd without blemish for sin." ^C But as to how the things of the sacrifice ought to be accomplished, and [how] the priest shall make atonement for them, and their sin shall be forgiven, you should therefore consider, I wish, that a calf is indeed brought as a type of that most pure Christ, who has no blemish; but those who bring it are delivered from their own crimes, not the calf at all. For it was sacrificed not for itself, as you say, but for the infirmity ^D

for which that legal priest offered prayers: so that you may again turn your attention to that advocate made for our sake, the innocent and holy priest, separated from sinners. Therefore, since the adversary’s discourse labors under absurdity on every side, we declare that the Word from God the Father Himself became the priest and apostle of our confession, ^B when, having become man, He humbled Himself for the emptying, and assumed our nature, so that by offering Himself for all to the Father as a sweet-smelling savor, He might acquire the whole world, deliver it from ancient guilt, justify it by faith through grace, make it victorious over death and corruption, and render it holy, sanctified, and perfected in every kind of virtue. We confess Him as our Savior and Redeemer, through whom and with whom, to God and the Father, be glory with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

FOURTH VOLUME

Blessed Paul, by showing that the shadow of the Law was not at all useless for men choosing to live piously, and by setting forth the events that happened to the ancients of old, like a tablet of sorts and a description of truer realities, most clearly before the minds of all: “These things,” he says, “all happened to them in a figure, but they were written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Come then, let us take a passage from the legal Scriptures and say that the children of Israel, when they had departed long ago from the lands of the Egyptians and were hastening to the land of promise, dwelt in the wilderness; and since the wretches were forgetful of the miracles performed in Egypt, and, having cast away the memory of the love of God, murmured impiously, they perished from the serpents, as it is written. ^C But they escaped the bites of the venomous beasts when Moses, warned by the oracle of God, the Savior of all, erected a bronze serpent for them. “Make for yourself,” He says, “a serpent, and place it upon a sign; and it shall be, if a serpent bites a man, everyone who has been bitten, looking upon it, shall live.” This figure, therefore, was a mystery of Christ. For since the only-begotten Word of God was God, and good by nature from a good Father, He became participant of blood and flesh—that is, He became man—and was akin to us who were evil, in that He was certainly man like us. And He was also placed on high: that is, He endured the cross upon the wood, and death according to the flesh, even if He came back to life on the third day, having trampled down the empire of death. When, therefore, we speak most foolishly against the dispensation of the flesh, and ^D

^A define it as something unlovely, we are ashamed to think or say that the Word of God became man as we are, and was united to flesh in truth. At that time, too, the dragon, the author of apostasy, will kill us, casting into our minds his own perversity, just as he casts confusion into our thoughts. But we shall escape, and we shall ward off the harm of his malice, if we look with the eyes of the heart upon the serpent—that is, if we contemplate the mystery of Christ with an accurate mind. For then, and only then, thinking correctly and without doubt, we shall confess that the Word of God became flesh, and came forth from a woman while remaining God, and that He is the same God and man at once. He is neither blushing at the measures of humanity because of the dignity of His preeminence, nor is He deprived of divine authority and supreme glory because of the humanity. But those who are well accustomed ^B to distinguishing such things, and who understand clearly and accurately both the one in both and the mystery concerning Him, say: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?” (Rom. xi, 33). But I do not know why this man, as if pushing aside these things as impossible and absurd, dares so proudly to detract from the glory and excellence of our Savior, and assigning to Him nothing more than our own measure, says that He was glorified by the Holy Spirit, not as using power that was His own, nor, through His own power, fulfilling the divine signs, but as being equipped with ^C an external and adventitious power, so that He might now be seen, in our fashion, to have received the grace of healings, and ought to say with the blessed Paul: “By the grace of God I am what I am.” For those to whom it is adventitious and externally imparted to be something and to be able to accomplish something, these could rightly say such a statement. For wishing to show, as he thinks, that the holy Trinity is of equal efficacy in all things, he says again in this way:

NEST. “The Word of God became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1, 14). “The Father has seated with Himself the assumed humanity: ‘For He says, the Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand’ (Ps. cix, 1). The Spirit, descending, prepared the glory of the one assumed: ‘When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will glorify me’ (John xvi, 13, 14). Do you wish that we add another efficacy of the Trinity to these? The Son dwelt in a body; the Father commended the baptized one; the Spirit fashioned Him in the Virgin.” Then he says again concerning the holy apostles: “The Son chose: ‘For I,’ He says, ‘chose you’ (John xv, 16). The Father sanctified: ‘Father,’ He says, ‘sanctify them in Thy truth’ (John xvii, 17). The Spirit made them orators.”

CHAPTER 1.

That the whole discourse held by him is indeed unwise and unpleasing, ^D

it is very easy to show; but I shall also explain how he is insane in this. For there is one nature of the Godhead, but the Father subsists ^A distinctly, and likewise the Son, and the Spirit too. Yet everything is done from the Father, and through the Son in the Spirit. And as if the Father were moved to the bringing about of certain things, the Son performs them by all means in the Spirit; and if anything is said of the Son or the Spirit to be performed, this is entirely from the Father, and passes through the whole holy and consubstantial Trinity, whose operation and will extends to everything whatever.

Nevertheless, we must say this regarding these matters. Behold again, how clearly and manifesty, although he says the Word born of God the Father became flesh, he yet corrupts the force of these sentiments and leads them far away from the right path, while declaring the incarnation to be as it were an operation of His. For he immediately subjoins: “Do you wish for another operation of the Trinity besides these?” ^B as if he had already demonstrated a first operation of God the Word—that which became flesh, according to the Scriptures. And what is this other operation following the first one which he points out, as he thinks? He says: “The Son dwelt in the body. Therefore Christ will be a God-bearing man.” Then it will be clear that the Word of God and the Father wrought only this in man; and so, even if the blessed evangelist says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he signifies to us nothing else than this alone, namely, that the Word, being God, dwelt in man, just as He does in us ourselves. For we are temples of the living God, and in this we know that He is in us, because He has given of His Spirit.

But perhaps you will not say this, fearing blasphemy; rather, you will confess with us that the Word of God became man, and that this is the incarnation. ^C You will also agree that He remained God, and preserved the beauty of His own nature, even if He has been called Son of man, and has become this in truth. What then has come over you, that you should say that the Father caused the assumed humanity to sit with Him, and did not rather, by the good pleasure of God and the Father, plant it in the seats of His own Godhead, the Word who sprang from Him having become man, that His humanity might not be thought or spoken of by us as some other thing beside Him, although the union in truth shows Him to be one to us, and that His flesh is not alien to Him?

You are convicted, therefore, of being a liar in this also, and of wandering not a little from right reasoning. And if to say that the Word became flesh is nothing else than that He became man, while preserving the excellence of His Godhead, ^D and remaining what He was, what need had He of glory from without, when He Himself is the Lord of glory? For He was glorified, indeed, beyond doubt, by the Spirit performing signs, but not as a God-bearing man, obtaining the thing as a gift from an alien and superior nature, as happens to us, but rather as one using the Spirit as His own. For He was God by nature, and therefore the Spirit was not alien to Him.

^A We say, therefore, that the efficient power of the Spirit was not given to Him from without, nor was it acquired from another, just as it is given to us, or rather, to the holy apostles. For Christ gave them power against unclean spirits, so that they might cast them out; and He commanded them to heal every disease and every infirmity among the people. The Spirit is therefore from within and from Himself. And a clear proof of this would be that He is able to grant it to others, and not by measure, as the blessed evangelist says; for God over all does indeed measure out the grace through the Spirit to the holy men—and to one He gave the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; and to another the gift of healings; and this, I think, is what it means to be able to act as if from a measure for those who possess the energy.

But our Lord Jesus Christ, pouring forth the Spirit from His own fulness, ^B just as the Father Himself does, does not give it to those worthy to receive it as if by measure. For what reason then, O most excellent man, do you place Him who gives the Spirit not by measure among the number of those who have it as a measured portion, while you say that His glory was composed by the Spirit, and that He was instead energized—as if He were one of us, having received the composition or action from Him by way of grace—so as to work these divine signs rather by His own Spirit? For the Jews, those most daring men, sharpening a bitter tongue against Him, said impiously: "This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons." But our Lord Jesus Christ, refuting them for their no small ignorance, or rather also for their impiety, says: "If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" ^C For the bright and great choir of the holy apostles was in admiration when they performed miracles in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene; and so they returned rejoicing and saying: "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name." But if it is possible that in the name of one of those who are moved to action by another, others could also perform equal things, let him come forward and say: for what reason does no one acquire fame because he has rebuked impure spirits in the name of any holy man, or performed any other thing beyond reason? But though they are moved to the work by the Spirit and possess a measured grace, He, as God, works, and as if through His own Spirit performs miracles without labor. ^D Finally, that woman who was laboring under a flow of blood, having approached secretly from behind, as it is written, touched the hem of His garment, and immediately the flow of her blood ceased. And Christ, perceiving this, says: "Who touched me?" And when the holy apostles said to Him: "Master, you see the crowds pressing and crushing you," He said again: "Someone touched me; for I knew that power went out from me." You understand, therefore, how not a force from without

^A but from within and from himself, he has the ability to work and to deliver from infirmities. The blessed evangelist Matthew writes somewhere also: "And all the crowd sought to touch him, because power went out from him and he healed all." His power, therefore, is his Spirit; and the divinely inspired David will confirm this by saying: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." By the mouth of God and Father, he designates the Word from him, by whose Spirit those things which were made through him are held together so as to exist. ^B Hitherto, therefore, I have said how he brings to nothing the mystery of piety, which even the holy angels themselves admire, and, neglecting the dogmas of the truth, he diminishes it, saying: "Do you wish that we should add to these also another operation of the Trinity? The Son dwelt in a body; the Father commended the baptized; the Spirit formed him in the Virgin." Furthermore, that the truth agrees with the things which have been said by us, and that we have not composed a feigned declamation against his words, but an open and true refutation, he himself will make clear, when he says elsewhere:

NESTOR. [And the evidence of this cooperation is clear: The Son was made man, the Father placed him on the throne, the Spirit honored him with signs.]

CHAPTER II

^C Can anyone, then, even after this, doubt that the intent of his notions looks toward ignorance and at the same time impiety, and that he audaciously rises up against the dogmas of piety? For just as he foolishly rejects that the Word of God himself became flesh, saying that that inhabitation was worked in a man, so he again receives what he is made man; although all the holy Churches throughout the world, and the venerable Fathers themselves, who set forth to us the definition of the right and immaculate faith, the Holy Spirit speaking in them, understand that the Word of God being incarnate and made man is nothing else than that he was made man like us, ^D and was born in the flesh from a woman, because he who is above the law as God was made under the law with us. Since, however, as I have said already many times, his purpose is to weaken the truth, for this cause he indeed audaciously struggles alone, and fights against the judgment of all, and moves his weapons against the ineffable glory; and he attempts to bring into the Churches of God as if they were base trifles what pleases him and him alone. For he asserts that the incarnation is nothing else than an inhabitation, and not rather that the Word of God from God chose to partake of blood and flesh similarly to us; even though the Word has dwelt and still dwells in all holy men, but he was made once among us, and communicated in one flesh according to substance, in which also he is believed to have died and risen for us, and he suffered willingly in the flesh. That this...

^A person casts forth words rashly, and cares little for the absurdity of his expressions, when he says that Christ is graced by signs performed through the Spirit, ^B we have, I think, shown sufficiently in the preceding discourse: let us therefore examine his other statements, if it pleases you. "The Father," he says, "commended him." But what the word "commended" could mean in this context, I cannot understand; for that expression is from the common marketplace, and is full of cheap public chatter and plebeian trifling; but I suppose he wishes it to mean "deposited," for example, or "has borne witness." How then, tell me, did the Father "commend" one who was deemed worthy of divine indwelling? Or rather, does he not do this at all, but instead point out his own Son ^C who became man, yet remained in the flesh the very thing that he was, and is, and shall be, namely God? "For Jesus Christ is yesterday and today, the

^A same, and forever." ^B Therefore, to each hypostasis he assigns privately what the other did not do. Again he says thus: "The Son chose; for I, he says, chose you. The Father sanctified; the Spirit made them orators." Oh, the immoderate insanity of a deranged mind! If all things are done by the Father through the Son in the Spirit, and nothing happens from God and Father except in this very way, how would he not be completely stupid, and with good reason, who assigns to the hypostases privately and properly the operations of the pure and one divinity in certain things, and does not rather affirm that each of the things that are done have been performed by the Father through the Son in the Spirit? For if the Son is the counsel, and wisdom, and power of the Father, the Father will surely operate all things through the Son, as through [his] counsel, wisdom, and power. Thus, with reason, he chose the disciples; thus we say those who have been chosen have been sanctified; thus they have been made orators, as coming, plainly, from the one divinity, from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. "Holy Father," he says, "sanctify them in your truth." Therefore, Truth itself, that is, the Son, sanctifies; he likewise both sends the Holy Spirit and makes them wise, and through the operation of the Holy Spirit, makes them religiously eloquent. And so, in the Gospel of Matthew, he said to his disciples: "But when they deliver you up, do not reflect on how or what you are to speak; for it will be given to you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." But in the Gospel of Luke: "Therefore, set it in your hearts not to premeditate how to answer. For I will give you a mouth and ^C wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist." Do you hear how, while the Holy Spirit is speaking in them, he himself gives the mouth? For he is the giver of speech, inasmuch as he is the Word, and the bestower of the Spirit, as one who possesses him naturally as his own, just as the Father himself does. Therefore, the holy Trinity operates the same things, and whatever the Father works and wishes to accomplish, the Son does the same things in the same way; and the Spirit likewise. But to assign operations to the individual hypostases separately, as proper to each, is nothing other than to declare there are three separate and completely mutually disjointed gods. For in the holy Trinity, that principle of natural unity shows one movement in all works. But if we say that, when one hypostasis is moved to a work, the other two are inactive, how can it be denied that a corporeal division is being introduced, assigning a kind of space to each of the hypostases, in that it is conceived as outside ^D the rest and apart—not in the sense that it subsists individually (for this is indeed true), but in the sense that, in the diversity of each thing, it does not allow for a reason that gathers it into a natural unity? For the one nature of divinity is understood in the holy and consubstantial Trinity. But this good man dares to belittle the God Word, who is consubstantial with God and the Father, just as if he were ignorant that he was made man, not by casting away what he is as God, but rather by assuming what he was not.

^A For he endeavors to belittle him who, as has been said, is being championed by the Holy Spirit, while he heapest insults upon the Son, speaking thus to certain of those who have chosen to hold the opinions of Arius:

[NESTOR. They are heaping, he says, a greater injury upon him, and separating the Spirit from the divine nature, who formed his humanity: "For that which is born in Mary," he says, "is of the Holy Spirit," who refashioned according to righteousness what had been fashioned; "For he was manifested," he says, "in the flesh, justified in the Spirit"; who made him to be terrible to demons: "For I," he says, "in the Spirit of God cast out demons"; who made his flesh a temple: "For I saw," he says, "the Spirit descending like a dove, and it remained upon him"; who granted unto him the assumption: "For commanding," he says, "the holy apostles whom he had chosen, through the Holy Spirit, he was taken up." This one, therefore, who has granted unto Christ so great glory, they make to be Christ’s servant.]

CHAPTER III

To dare to cut off the Spirit from that divine and immaculate nature is, I declare, the act of a wicked and profligate mind, and one removed by a great distance from what is fitting. For he is consubstantial with God and the Father, and indeed with the Son himself as well; and he is believed to be God and to be from God. But I think that, leaving these things aside for the present, we ought to examine the words now in our hands, and accurately discern ^C where they are aiming. "For they are heaping," he says, "a greater injury upon him"—it is clear, of course, that he means the Word from God the Father—"and separating the Spirit from the divine nature, who formed his humanity." Whose humanity, most excellent sir, do you assert to have been formed by the Spirit? And yet, you had just now been speaking to us about the Only-Begotten himself, who was ineffably born of God the Father; for you were calling him the divine nature. Therefore, I suppose you are speaking of his humanity, and not another's. Do not, then, be unmindful of your own words; for you say that that flesh, endowed with a rational soul, is the Word's own—for thus will his humanity be formed. If, then, the Word who is from God the Father is one with his own flesh, how can you think that he is in need of divine powers, and that it was the Holy Spirit who made him terrible ^D to demons, as though he were not able to accomplish this from his own nature? And furthermore, how can you think that the ability to crush Satan was something given by another, and obtained with difficulty as a gift? If, therefore, you are not ignorant that to cut off the Spirit from his divine nature is to be held the most shameful of crimes—and indeed rightly so—it is, without a doubt, the Spirit’s own, as he who proceeds through his ineffable nature and is consubstantial with him,

^A nor would he have needed, as if it were some power from outside or imported, anything from him; rather he will use it as his own Spirit, and through it will show himself terrible to the demons.

If it seems good to you to pronounce those who sever [the Spirit] as immune to the crime of impiety, how is it that you have so recently called them insolent? Furthermore, do you not perceive that you are making yourself a member of their number, if you say that the Word from God the Father, having become united to flesh, like one of us and common—if I may put it simply—needed the assistance of the Spirit, in order to be seen as terrible to the unclean spirits? For even if he says that he casts out demons in the Spirit of God, was it not right to view his dispensation of speech, which is worthy of marvel? For the leaders of the Jews, envious of the glory of our Savior and opening a mouth against him without restraint, slandered him, poor wretches, asserting that he casts out demons in Beelzebub, the prince of demons. ^B But he, using his innate tranquility toward all, and wishing to turn those who were wandering—that is, those intent on being insolent against him—toward what is better and true, attributed the glory achieved from the power of crushing Satan rather to God, who is such by nature, saying that he casts out evil spirits in the Spirit of God; and he did not place himself outside of being God by nature, or having the Holy Spirit as his own.

Since it was fitting, and worthy of divine ingenuity, to yield to the anger of murderers and to cut off the occasions for those who were scandalized at him—for they were encroaching upon him, saying: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God" ^C —because of this, accommodating himself most kindly to the minds of men who were still weak, he speaks of the Spirit of God; for he knows well, as I have said, that he himself is God by nature, together with him who begat him, and that he has everything that is his, apart solely from being the Father. Therefore he also said to him: "All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them." And even to us ourselves, when he was speaking about the Holy Spirit, he said: "All things, he says, that the Father has are mine: on that account I said to you that he will take from what is mine and will declare it to you."

For just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, existing as his own by nature, so too does he proceed in the same manner through the Son himself, being naturally the Son’s and consubstantial with him. Therefore, even if he is glorified through the Spirit, he is understood to be glorifying himself as if through his own Spirit, ^D and that does not come to him from the outside, even if he is seen to have become man, like us. It is dangerous, however, to say in addition this about the Holy Spirit, that he made his flesh a temple. For the flesh was indeed the Word's own, and this you yourself confessed just before; for you have said that the humanity was his, and that holy body taken from the holy Virgin was his temple. Also, that Spirit of his is his own, nor is that Word of God ever understood without his own Spirit. It is better and wiser...

therefore, to declare the body ^A a temple of the Word, and his flesh his own; and to believe that his Spirit is always with the Word, just as, without doubt, it is with the Father himself. Nor would I say that it is without fault, when one speaks as if it were of some common man, that his assumption into heaven was bestowed upon him as a gift by the Spirit. For although he chose his disciples through the Holy Spirit, he was assumed as God; he did not receive this status as a gift from another. Rather, he himself—as the first-fruits, as it were, of a human nature renewed into incorruption (25)—showed himself to God and Father, and initiated for us a new and living way, entering into the inner part of the veil, where he is said to have entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. ^B That the Holy Spirit was present in the ascending Christ as his very own, no one would doubt. Why then, tell me, did you not fear to say: "Do they then make the servant of Christ to be this one who bestowed such great glory upon Christ?" For those who make him a servant of Christ are impious beyond doubt, and they dishonor the Word of God himself, who is consubstantial with him, by surrounding with servile measures that which is of him and in him by nature, and is his very own. To speak of that glory as having been given to him as a gift by the Spirit is a clear proof of the utmost stupidity. In this, you will be caught having trifled in vain, and having failed to understand the mystery of the matter; indeed, you are thinking and saying things that are contradictory to yourself. For if you believe ^C that the Word, being God, became flesh (for you said the humanity was his own), why do you say that he, the Lord of glory, needed glory given by the Spirit, as if he did not possess his own, and why do you count him within the measures of a creature, which has everything from without and as a gift? For it is fitting to say to a creature, "What do you have that you have not received?" But you say: "I find Emmanuel himself saying: 'Father, glorify your Son.'" Therefore, add what is missing; this is: "That your Son may also glorify you." For if you claim that the Son asks for glory from the Father as one lacking glory, what will you say when the Father himself is glorified by the Son? Is he glorified in such a way as if he did not possess glory, ^D or as one needing it to be bestowed upon him by another? Away with that evil intent; such things are trifles and impiety of thought, and nothing else. For that divine nature, and the nature that is beyond all others, dwells in light inaccessible, and rules over all things, and is clothed in glory that is most fitting to it alone. But because the only-begotten Word of God became man, and by the grace of God tasted death for all through his own flesh,

and was about to overthrow the invincible strength of death, he offers prayer as a man, and desires the Father to consent to him, by transforming his own nature into the state in which it was before, and to renew it unto incorruption, and render it stronger than the snares of death, the old curse and that vengeance which had been inflicted upon the first-formed man having of course been undone. Therefore, because even while he is seen in the flesh, he is proclaimed by nature and in truth to be the Son of God: "Glorify," he says, "thy Son, O Father," as a man, and by rendering him stronger than death and corruption, that he may be believed to be life by nature as God, according to the principle of his own nature—for then the Son also shall glorify thee. It is truly glory to God and the Father that he is believed by us, that being true God and life, and life-giving, he begat a Son equal and similar to himself in all respects

^A [Nestor: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Remember that the discourse is about his flesh. "As the living Father sent me," me the visible one. But sometimes I interpret it otherwise. Let us hear what follows: "As the living Father sent me," he speaks of the divinity, I of the humanity. Let us see who it is that interprets falsely. The heretic says here that the divinity sent me, God the Word: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father," God the Word [sent me]. Then after this: "And he who eats me, he also shall live." Whom then do we eat, the divinity, or the flesh?] ^B

CHAPTER IV

You affirm, then, that only the flesh was sent, and you assert that ^C he who is seen is that very flesh. It is sufficient, therefore, that this alone be available to us for the purpose of being able to vivify the nature oppressed by the tyranny of death. Why, then, do the God-inspired Scriptures din into our ears in vain that the Word from God the Father became flesh, asserting it up and down? For what need would there be at all for the Word, if human nature were sufficient for us, even if it were considered alone and by itself, to be able to abolish death and undo the power of corruption? And if, as you think and desire to opine, it is not God the Word who was sent by becoming like us, but—as you said—only the visible flesh was sent by the Father, how is it not clear to all that he has had no participation whatsoever in a human body and in our own properties? Why, then, do you elsewhere mock those who are of this opinion? For you said again:

[Nestor: I will also state the words of that scandal; the Lord Christ was arguing with them about his own flesh: "Unless you eat," he says, "the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves." Those who heard could not bear the sublime nature of the words; they thought, out of ignorance, that he was suggesting anthropophagy.]

CHAPTER V

^D And how, then, is this matter not a clear case of anthropophagy? And in what way will that mystery still be sublime, if we do not say that the Word from God the Father was sent, and if we do not confess that the mode of the mission is the very incarnation? For then, and only then, shall we see that the flesh united to him has the power to vivify, and not that it is the flesh of another, but that it has become the property of him who has the power to vivify all things. For if this sensible fire [has] the power of its natural operation...

to the materials it happens to encounter, so that it even turns water itself, although it is cold by nature, into a quality that is contrary to its nature, and makes it hot; what is the wonder, or in what way could it be unbelievable, if the Word from God the Father, being life itself by nature, made the flesh united to him vivifying? For it is his own, and not that of some other being distinct from him who is understood separately and as one of us in number. But when you sever the vivifying Word of God from that mystical and true union with the body, and separate them entirely, how will you show the body itself to still be vivifying? Furthermore, who is it that says: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”? For if it is some man separately, ^B and not rather the Word of God himself made similar to us, the act itself that is being carried out will be anthropophagy, and that participation will be entirely useless. For I hear Christ himself saying: “The flesh profits nothing; it is the spirit that gives life.” For as far as its own nature is concerned, the flesh is corruptible and will in no way vivify others, since it labors [(28)] inwardly from the disease of corruption. But if you say that the body is the proper body of the Word himself, why do you speak monstrously and rashly, and contend that the Word from God the Father was not sent, but rather that visible one, as though he were someone other than him—that is, his flesh—even though divine Scripture everywhere proclaims Christ to be one, and maintains ^C completely that the Word became man, similar to us, and the tradition of the true faith is contained within these bounds? But he blushes, moved by an excessive and extreme piety, as is likely, at the measures of the emptying, and cannot bear to see the Son, co-eternal with God and the Father, and in the same form and equality of all things with the Begetter, brought down to humility; he accuses the dispensation and perhaps the divine plan, and does not allow his consideration to be free from reproach. For he pretends that he is searching out the force of the words of Christ, and as if ruminating on the depth of the sentences, he then leads what is said by us, as he thinks, to appear to have been spoken absurdly and ignorantly. “Let us see,” he says, “who it is that interprets correctly: ‘As ^D the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; and he who eats me, he also will live.’ Whom are we eating, the divinity or the flesh?” Do you not yet perceive where your mind is at? For the Word of God says that he himself was sent, “And he who eats me,” he says, “he also will live.” We, however, eat—not consuming the divinity, away with such folly—but the proper flesh of the Word, which has its power to work and accomplish from within, since the Creator has devised good things concerning us. [alt-version omitted]

^A For we do not say that the Word is vivified by the Father by an external participation or an adventitious one, but rather we maintain that He is life by nature; for He is begotten of the Father as if from life itself. For just as the radiance sent forth from the sun, if it should be said to be bright on account of the one who sent it, that is, the one from whom it is present, does not possess this brightness by participation, but rather bears the excellence of the one who sent it, that is, the one who shed the light, as if by a natural nobility; in the same way, I think, and by the same reasoning, even if the Son says He lives because of the Father, He thereby claims for Himself that nobility which is from the Father, and does not admit that He possesses life—mingled with the other creatures—as an added and external thing. ^B And just as that body of the Word Himself is life-giving, which He made His own through a true union that surpasses both understanding and speech, so too we, becoming participants in His holy flesh and blood, are entirely vivified, while the Word remains in us not only in a divine way through the Holy Spirit, but also in a human way, through that holy flesh and His precious blood. The most holy Paul confirms that what I have said is true, writing thus to those who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ at Corinth: "I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." ^C For having participated in the Holy Spirit, we are united both to Christ Himself, the Savior of all, and to one another; and we are "concorporal" in this way, "because there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." For the body of Christ which is in us binds us into unity, and it is in no way divided. That we are brought into unity with Him, and indeed brought together with one another, through the body of Christ, the blessed Paul confirms by writing: "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God that was given to me for you, that by revelation the mystery was made known to me, as I wrote briefly, when you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, concorporal, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ." ^D But since some of those who had believed, at the beginning, were ignorant of the tradition and power of this mystery and wished to turn aside from what was fitting, filling the churches with public banquets and common feasts—as is the custom of those who do such things—the blessed Paul reproves them, writing: "For do you not..."

have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the Church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. For I received from the Lord, which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, He broke it and said: This is my body, which is for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after ^A supper, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do, as often as you do it, in my remembrance. As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

That this is a divine mystery, that its participation is life-giving, and that the power of this unbloody sacrifice is vastly superior to the worship under the Law, is very easy to see, particularly from the fact that those things which were ordained for the ancients through Moses are called a "shadow," whereas Christ and all that belongs to Him are called the "truth." The most wise Paul will join us in this, having written: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses; how much worse punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has considered the blood of the Covenant to be common, in which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" For those of old did indeed eat the immolated lamb; but the power of that food did not simply serve to satisfy the stomach, nor was the ritual of sacrificing observed according to the Law for that reason, but so that while death befell others, they themselves might be superior to suffering and escape the exterminator. And so, in one night, the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain; but they, protected by a simple figure, were alone saved by it, and having the shadow as an aid, they appeared superior even to death itself. Thus, the figures did indeed save those ^B who were before us. How much more excellent, then, are our own things, to whom the truth itself, that is, Christ, has shone forth, offering His own holy flesh for participation? How is this not manifest to all? For they are, without a doubt, much more excellent and superior.

And that our Lord Jesus Christ might declare the power of this mystery, He says: "Amen, amen, I say to you, he who believes in me has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died; this is the bread coming down from heaven, so that if anyone eats of it, he may not die. I am the living bread who came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." For because those born of the blood of Israel marveled at Moses for the provision of the manna—which, as it had been sent down for the men of that time through the desert, ^D bore a type of the mystical

^A blessing: for the law was a shadow. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ very prudently weakens the type, in order to transfer us to the truth. For He says that He was not that bread of life, but rather, "I am the one who came down from heaven, and I vivify all things, and I insert myself into those who eat, even through the flesh that is united to me." And this He made still clearer, saying: "Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, he who eats me, he also shall live" ^B. See, therefore, in what way He remains in us and makes us victors over corruption while He lets Himself down into our bodies—as I have said, even through His own flesh, which is indeed true food, whereas that legal shadow and the worship instituted through it do not possess the truth. And the rationale of the mystery is simple and true, not artfully composed with various inventions of thought for the sake of impiety, but as I said, simple. For we believe that the Word from God the Father, when He united Himself to the body born of the holy Virgin, which possessed a rational soul—which union was utterly ineffable and mystical—rendered that same body vivifying, inasmuch as the Word, being God, is life by nature, so that He might make us partakers of Himself, not only in a spiritual but also in a corporeal manner, ^C and might render us superior to corruption, and, having annulled through Himself the law of sin placed in the members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But these things, I think, in no way please the dogmatist of our new inventions, who, like some calf that has deserted the herd, rushes only toward what pleases him, and diminishes the power of the mystery, saying:

[NESTOR. Audi etiam hoc nomen, Dominum, aliquando de humanitate Christi, aliquando de divinitate ejus, aliquando de utroque positum. « Quotiescunque manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis ».] ^D Hear from the preceding text the ignorance of those who raise objections, as they read what the benefit of the mystery is, and whose memorial it provides to men; and hear not me saying these things, but the blessed Paul: "As often as you eat this bread." He did not say: "As often as you eat this divinity"; [but] "As often as you eat this bread." See that it is proposed to him concerning the body of the Lord: "As often as you eat this bread, of which the body itself is the antitype." Let us see, therefore, whose death this is: "As often as you eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord." Hear also in what follows more clearly: "Until He comes."

come? They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much glory: and what is greater, the prophet shows more manifestedly than the apostles that He is coming, and cries out concerning the Jews, saying: "They shall look on him whom they pierced." Who then is it that is pierced? The side; and the side is of the body, not of the divinity.]

CHAPTER VI.

Again, therefore, it behooves us to defend the dogmas of the truth, and to withstand your words, O excellent man; and before all things to declare to those who are studious that this is your aim, and that you strive greatly toward it: to assert again that there are two Christs, to whom the title of lordship may belong separately. And that you contend for this most ignorantly will be shown by us without much labor. For come now, tell me, I pray, which Christ you define, whose humanity and divinity you say exist: if indeed you are speaking of the Word from God the Father, you will openly confess that the same is also man; for you have said that the humanity is His own: but if [you speak of] Him from the Virgin, as you yourself assert, you will be shown to have pronounced that the same man is also God; for you have said that the divinity is also His own. Compelled, therefore, even against your will, to the truth, you must confess with us one Christ and Lord; for thus you will cease to say: "Hear also this name, 'Lord,' ^B sometimes applied to the humanity of Christ, sometimes to His divinity, sometimes to both together." For where there is one Son, how can there be room to say it of both? And why is it that you mock those who admire that divine mystery of ours, saying most impiously: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord?" Hear from the preceding arguments the ignorance of those who object, as to what they consider to be the great utility of this mystery, and of whom it brings a commemoration to men. Hence that unbloody sacrifice has nothing excellent, and brings only very meager utility, and the power of its utility will be confined only so far as to announce the death of a man, and to make a commemoration ^C of one of our own number. Therefore He who knows not how to lie, that is Christ, lies when He calls it life-giving; and we too have been deceived, having had a vain opinion concerning Him; and now, even late, have we scarcely at last been led to the discovery of the truth, where we have fallen upon these words of yours. But to you choosing this opinion will be addressed by us that prophetic word: "Behold, thine eyes are not, nor is thy heart good." For he does not understand at all that, while we proclaim the death of Christ, and moreover confess His resurrection, and from that event achieve the perfection of faith, then becoming partakers of His divine nature, we obtain the fellowship of His unity, being sanctified and vivified spiritually ^D and corporally at once. "For it is necessary that the corruptible..."

this corruptible put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.” And Christ has become for us a garment from heaven, both incorruptible and effective of immortality; which the most blessed Paul confirms, writing at one time: “Put on our Lord Jesus Christ,” and at another time: “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,” Him who says divinely and truly: “I am the resurrection and the life.” ^A And fearing nothing in response to such things, he declares a blasphemy even more abominable, adding: ["Hear these things said not by me, but by the blessed Paul: ‘As often as you eat this bread,’ of which the body is the antitype. Let us see, therefore, whose is the death. ‘As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death,’—hear also what follows more clearly—‘until He comes.’ Who then is the One coming? ‘They will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with great glory.’ And what is greater, the prophet before the apostles shows more clearly the One coming, and cries out concerning the Jews, saying: ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced.’” Who then is the One pierced? The side. And the side belongs to the body, not to the divinity.] Truly, ^B as I said, the profit of the unbloody sacrifice is small, because forsooth it is not possible that the nature of the divinity should be consumed together with the flesh; nor do we obtain things that are impossible, such as feeding upon the incorporeal nature itself, bare. But you seem to me to have forgotten that the object set forth upon the holy tables of the Churches is by no means the nature of the divinity, but the own body of the Word born of God the Father, and the Word is God by nature and truly. Why therefore do you confuse all things, and foolishly jumble together, almost mocking the bread from heaven that gives life to the world, because it has not been called “divinity” by the voice of the theologians, but rather the body of Him who for us became man, that is, of the Word from God the Father? ^C But tell me, do you name it a Lordly body at all, if you do not know it to be divine and of God? For all things are subservient to the Creator. But those things which you hold in your mind are not held correctly, and you believe the Emmanuel Himself to be merely a man who is a God-bearer. Then, ignoring entirely the thoughts and words which are combined with piety, you imagine that the sacred minister of the truth, that wise architect and teacher of the gentiles, the truly holy and all-wise Paul, will be a helper to you in your calumny, while you twist the power of those things which were rightly and sincerely said by him away from the straight and approved path. For “Let us see,” he says, “from this, whose is the death: ‘Until He come’; who then is it who comes? ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced.’ ^D There shall come, therefore, He who from the human condition endured death, and divinely rose again, who returned to heaven, performing the work of the Gospel.

^A, and who glories in the seats of the ineffable Godhead and sits with the Father, while the Seraphim obviously stand round in a circle, and those who are the highest Powers, not ignorant of the measure of the service by which they are made subject to Him, and every Power and Lordship worships Him; for "every knee shall bow to Him, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." He shall come, as I said, not appearing in the lowliness that is ours, but rather in most god-befitting glory, with heaven and the spirits above ^B attending Him as to God, and King, and Master of all, and standing by. If therefore the Word of God the Father is not in the flesh, that is, has not become human, but is a "God-bearing" human having a bodily side and having endured the piercing, how is He seen on the throne of the supreme Godhead, as if He were a fourth God, some new one set forth to us after the Holy Trinity? Do you not shudder to speak of a common man, devising that worship be rendered to a creature? Are we then held fast in the ancient snares? Has that holy multitude of the spirits above offered injury to God and been seduced into error with us? If we have been redeemed from the ancient error, having rejected the worship of the creature as an impious thing, why do you cast us back into the ancient crimes and make us out to be man-worshippers? For we know and believe that the Word from God the Father assumed flesh and blood: but since He remained the same—that is, God—He preserved the dignity of His pre-eminence above all things even while He was in the flesh just as we are. Furthermore, since He is as much God at this time as He was of old, although He became human, yet He has heaven serving Him and the earth worshipping Him; for it is written: "The earth is full of the praise of the Lord; Thy glory covered the heavens, O Lord." But you, on the contrary, because of your excessive ignorance, do not see Him who is of such amplitude both in nature and in glory; for you said: "Who is it that comes?" "They shall see," you say, "the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven," as if you were afraid lest ^C anyone might disbelieve the one saying that it is the Son of man who comes. And you confirm the argument with a prophetic testimony: for you say that it is written: "They shall see Him whom they pierced;" and to this, as you supposed, you add most thoughtlessly what is stronger for the purpose of refutation: "What, then," you say, "is that which was pierced? The side; but is the side of the body, or of the Godhead?" But if there were some who said that the Word of God had not become human like us, but had come to those who are on earth using only His naked Godhead, or to sight and appearance, and as if in a shadow, as it seemed good to some of the impious heretics to think, then you would have some not-absurd occasion for constructing such a line of reasoning: but now, since the preaching of the truth clearly and evidently states that the Word of God Himself became flesh, and was like us, and was the Son of man, and suffered in the flesh for our sake, and shall thus come, as if into heaven ^D

^A according to the voice of the angel. But tell me, against whom are you contending? Whose opinion do you rebuke as foolish and inept, when you strive to show us that He who came is a man, having a corporeal side pierced by the lance? But it is your purpose, as I have said, to bring forth to us in the midst Emmanuel as a man bearing God, and not as God become man; for the Word of God Himself has become man. This faith accords with the sacred and divine Scriptures, and the scope of the apostolic and evangelical tradition tends toward this very thing. But you, on the other hand, talk to us of monstrosities of words in another way. For you pretend to rebuke those who mingle the nature of flesh and divinity into one essence, although there is no one, I suppose, who confuses these things or mixes them one with another. Therefore you say:

^B NESTORIUS: "But why also, as we heard a little before, if both are, as you suppose, mingled, does our Lord, when delivering the power of the mystery to the disciples, say thus? Having taken bread and given thanks, He gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, all of you; for this is my body.' Why did He not say: 'This is my divinity which is broken for you'? And again, when giving the cup of the mysteries, He did not say: 'This is the divinity which is poured out for you,' but: 'This is my blood which is poured out for you for the remission of sins.'" ^C

CHAPTER VII

That it is altogether foolish to wish to oppose those who are nothing at all, and to contend in vain, and to take up into opposition something that it seems no one perhaps ever thought or said, who does not see that this is plain to all? For if one were to choose to contend that an ox is not by nature a horse, nor indeed is a man a horse—when no one thinks or says this—how is he not ridiculous, and besides this, a vain babbler, beating the air and fighting into the uncertain, and for nothing proposed to himself inventing for himself labors and hardships? For I say that it behooves some point to be ^D acknowledged and set forth first, so that then the refutation might be reasonably subjoined by us. Nevertheless, it seems this must be said: for if there were someone who dared to say that the Word of God from God had been transformed into the nature of a body, someone would accuse him, and indeed with right, because He did not say when giving the body: "Take, eat, this is my divinity which is broken for you, and this is not my blood, but the divinity which is poured out for you." But since the Word, being God, made for Himself a body born of a woman, without having undergone any alteration or change, why ought He not to [compared]

[...or suffered change, how was it not just for Him to say to us without any falsehood: "Take, eat, this is my body"? Since, however, He was Life as God, He made it both life and life-giving. If, therefore, you were to look even a little toward the truth, you would yourself accuse yourself of superfluity of speech, since you trifle everywhere, and imprudently oppose this adulterated and troublesome speech of yours to the dogmas of piety.

VOLUME FIVE

^C The blessed Paul boasts of the passions of Christ, and says now: "Far be it from me to glory, except in the cross of Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"; now again: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." And in this way that man, full of the Spirit of God, thought both that he himself should think, and that others should be instructed. For he did not write these things in vain, but that he might persuade us, being zealous to emulate the integrity of the faith that was in him, to glory in the passions of Christ. But some are ashamed of the cross of Christ, and of the teachers who have existed throughout the world, because they prefer to think the contrary; by resisting impiously, the wretches almost mock at the passions of Christ, and are ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, since they labor under Jewish folly, and are in no part inferior to them in ignorance. For the cross of our Savior has become a scandal to them: and so, when they saw that Author of Life and End of the Law nailed to wood, they shook their God-hated heads against Him, in no way believing that He who had become man and had descended into humiliation was truly God; but thinking rather that He was simply one man from our own number, and, as if bringing forth evil things from the evil treasury of their heart, they said: "You who destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days, save yourself: if you are the Son of God, descend from the cross." And again: "He saved others, himself he cannot save: if he is the king of Israel, let him descend now from the cross, and we will believe in him." For they did not, as I just said, think Him to be God by nature, nor truly the Son of God and the Father, but ^D that He was asserting things about Himself and audaciously arrogating to Himself the opinion of divinity. And so they would say: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God"; and then they would lead Him to Pilate, and beg that He be crucified. Then, when they were asked by him to state the causes of such malevolence against Him, they immediately accused Him and cried out, saying: "Because He made Himself the Son of God." But behold, even at this time, not from the Israelites, nor from the multitude of the Pharisees,

but from those who are deemed to be Christians, and who are numbered among the teachers, and among those who have obtained the divine ministry, the same thing is seen to be suffered. ^A For it is disbelieved that He is also God by nature, one and only and truly the Son of God and the Father. And the pretext for their ill-counsel regarding this very matter is His having chosen to suffer in the flesh the death for our sake; and that for this reason He descended into the emptying (kenosis) by dispensation, so that having suffered in the flesh for us, He might abolish the power of death, being Himself by nature Life, and having sprung from the Life of God and the Father.

For human nature had fallen ill with corruption, as in its first beginning and root—that is, Adam. For since he had offended the Lawgiver and God ^B through disobedience, and the One who had brought him into existence, he was immediately accursed and subject to death; and death reigned from Adam until Moses, the penalty for that crime extending to all the seed and race derived from him. For as if having sprung from a corrupt root, we too were corruptible, and we miserable ones remained ensnared in the traps of death.

But since the Creator considered better things for us, and wished, once corruption had been removed, to reform human nature back to its original state, He caused a second root to flower for us, which could not be held by death—namely, the one Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the God Word from His own essence, having become a man like us, born of a woman. For we do not say that there is a man ^C who is simply "God-bearing" (theophoros), but that the very God Word from God was in truth united to flesh, so that having laid down His own soul for us, and having by dispensation offered His own body to death for our sake, then having shown it superior to corruption through the resurrection from the dead, He might persuade all who believe in Him that He will raise us up too, and declare us superior to the bonds of death, and—treating the webs of corruption as of little account—might render us stronger.

For this reason, I think that blessed Paul also attached the greatest importance to, and most admired, the love of God and the Father toward us. For he spoke thus: "What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also, with Him, graciously give us all things?" ^D Although a great many men are by grace and adoption sons—for we have been called gods, and all of us sons of the Most High—yet one and only He is the Son by nature, and His own, namely, the God Word from Him, even at the time when He became flesh. For thus even He...

declares that He was given for all, as He Himself says somewhere: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life.” ^A He who was given is, therefore, the Only-Begotten; for the Word, being from Him and in Him, sprang forth alone from the essence of God and the Father. But since He became man, on this account we place our faith in Him, proclaiming His death in the flesh and confessing the resurrection, knowing Him to be the pre-temporal Son, and in the last times man by dispensation, having suffered death for us in the flesh and having been raised from the dead. But I do not know how it is that the advocate of Jewish ignorance resents our words; for he said again:

[That the divine Scripture uses the name “Son” at the time of the birth from the Theotokos Virgin, we have made clear. ^B Hear also concerning His death, if the name “God” is ever placed there, so that we might introduce a passible God: “For if when we were enemies,” he says, “we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.” He did not say, through the death of God the Word.]

CHAPTER I

It is true as it is written: “The righteous man perishes in his righteousness.” For even a resolute mind is occasionally turned away from that which is just by a person composed for wrongdoing, when he secretly puts on the semblance of utility. For he fancies that he is cultivating piety not a little, while he strives to confirm that which everyone confesses: and for this reason he says that the Son from God the Father is by His own nature far removed from passions, ^C and that He could in no way be assailed by death, inasmuch as Life itself would somehow or other die. Yet he resists even now the dogmas of the Church, utterly despising that dispensation of the Only-Begotten with the flesh, and in no way considering the depth of so great a mystery. Certainly, if we ourselves were to inquire what that nature of the Word is, or were to explain it to others asking and desiring to learn, it would undoubtedly be consequent and necessary, by diligently traversing all wise and true notions, to show that there is no access for death to it, and that it is altogether removed from passions. But since the manner in which He was made man effects, as regards the reasons of the dispensation, that even if He wills to die by the flesh, He suffers nothing in His own nature; ^D why do you strip us of our most beautiful jewels? For you heard Him saying: “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” Therefore, even if He be said to have suffered, we know Him to be impassible as God, but we say that He suffered death by dispensation in His own flesh, so that, having trampled it underfoot, and rising again, in as much as He is by nature Life and Lifegiver, He might transform it toward incorrupti-

incorruption that which was held by the tyranny of death, that is, the ^A body. And thus the power of His achievement also flows back into us, while it extends to the entire race. And indeed the inspired Paul says: "I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God; I have been crucified with Christ. Yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." I do not reject the grace of God. For it is not that we live our own life, but rather that of Christ; and true is that saying, "One died for all, that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." For before that only-begotten Word of God shone upon us, we were held in ignorance ^B and darkness, and pressed by the yoke of sin, and impiously paying worship to the creature, having abandoned the Creator and Maker, and freely practicing every kind of wickedness, we wretched ones dwelt in discord, seeking things which were inimical to Him. But we have been reconciled through the death of His Son, as it is written. But you, on the other hand, in a brief discourse, have made nothing of the truth; and, proclaiming your own speech with unbridled course toward vanity, you assert that the world has been reconciled to God, yet not through the Only-Begotten, that is, the Word begotten of the Father. But hearing of the death of the Son, and then testing, as you suppose, with subtlety the utterances of the God-inspired ones, you did not fear to say: [He did not say, through the death of the God Word.] ^C Then how could such a saying, tell me, be wise, or rather, how could it not be full of utter madness? For how was it consistent to declare Life subject to death, I ask you? And to pronounce corruption of the nature which enlivens all things, how could this not be judged with good reason a capital charge of sheer dementedness and supreme blasphemy? Therefore, the mind of the holy men assents not to your subtleties in this matter, nor to your empty babblings, but understands that the Word of God suffered in the flesh for our sake, and that by the death of His own body He called the world to peace to be reconciled with the Father who is in the heavens. And so when He was speaking to one of the holy disciples, He said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life; and no one comes to the Father except through Me." But who else would be the Truth and the Life and the Way, ^D other than that Word begotten of God, even if He has become like us, having taken the form of a servant? But that through Him we have been made partakers of the divine nature, and that we who were once far off have become near, being united relatively through Him to the Father, and moreover to one another as in one faith and oneness of mind through having become participants of the one Spirit, He Himself will provide certainty, saying to the Father and God who is in the heavens:

^A “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one.” ^B Understand, then, how He is indeed naturally in His own Father, but has been appointed as mediator and reconciler by having become similar to us. He is in us, both through His own flesh which vivifies us in the Spirit, and through participation in His holiness—which, clearly, is again that which is through the Holy Spirit. He asks for glory from the Father as a substitute for His own, that it might make His nature manifest to us, in that He is vivifying and superior to corruption as God. And indeed He said again: “I have glorified You on the earth, having finished the work which You have given Me to do; and now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” ^C But we are the finished work, as we are in Him and, through Him first, overcoming corruption and trampling down the power of death; for He rose again from the dead, having all men in Himself. But if, perhaps, you distort what is said to another understanding, and do not think that these things are to be understood of the God the Word, but, taking them away from Him and separating him who was born of the holy Virgin as a separate son, you yourself assert that such things befit him, and even hasten to persuade others to think and speak the same things as you, you will surely say that the only-begotten God the Word, being Lord of glory, would never have asked for that glory from the Father as if He were lacking it. ^D Therefore, receive this answer also from us: if you do not say that He is the only-begotten Son born of God according to nature, who in these words is asking for glory from the Father, who then was He who was saying: “Glorify Me with the glory which I had with You before the world was”? Tell me, then, how was he who is from the holy Virgin, man as you understand him, set apart and existing before the world? Does it not befit the Creator of the ages to have an existence older than the world, and to be co-eternal with the Father? Certainly, no man in his right mind would doubt it. When, therefore, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, then indeed, and then only, wishing to return to the glory that was naturally His own, and together with the flesh united to Him, He says at the appropriate time: “Glorify Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one.” Through Him, therefore, we have received reconciliation; for thus He finished the work which the Father gave Him to finish. I shall again summon as an advocate of my words the most holy Paul, writing thus to those who were called from the Gentiles:

^A “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.” ^B And again in another place: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” We have therefore been reconciled to God and the Father through the death of His Son, who abolished, or rather put to death, the enmity in His own flesh, according to the faith of the Holy Scriptures.

You, however, overturn the reasons for the dispensation, and refuse to confess that the Word of God suffered for us in the flesh, using certain unskilled sophistries. For you say that the name “Son” is common to the Word born of God and to us ourselves. Then, stripping of activity the Word of God, through whom we are saved, concerning the good things that have happened for us, you are clearly caught attributing the things for which He is glorified to someone else—as if to another understood separately and as one from our own number. And you think that to confirm the things you have said, and the things you do not correctly think, that the very homonymy will be enough for you; not noticing that even if, with things that have it by nature to be something, some other things are called by the same name, it is not for this reason that the things which are naturally their own are to be expelled ^C by always attributing to them the things that are said by position or by imitation. But it is necessary, I suppose, for the natures of what is being discussed to be examined, and to attribute them to those to whom they most especially befit. For example, the Father is and is called God in truth: “from whom every paternity in heaven and on earth is named,” as it is written. But there are also other fathers of ours, both carnal and spiritual. Would it then be appropriate, if something of the most God-befitting things were said of God and the Father, to also apply it to those who have received the same title as Him by position, and would the mode of homonymy strip Him of the things that belong to Him and to Him alone most fittingly? Yet how is it not clear to all that it is absurd and discordant for some to wish to think ^D or speak in this way among us? Why then, by constantly repeating the homonymy to us, do you dishonor the Son by nature and in truth, and placing Him outside the benefits bestowed upon us, declaring Him a stranger—when it was necessary to gather into union those things which you do not blush to divide completely, and to understand the Word from God the Father with His own flesh as one? For in this way you will relieve yourself of much labor, and having thought rightly you will henceforth be praised, and you will not in any way say that the divinity of the Only-Begotten is passible, but you will confess with us that He is life and vivifying by nature, and also far beyond all passion. Then, when the joined

^A flesh had suffered, by the grace of God, as it is written, He tasted death for everyone; that having shown His temple to be more powerful than death, which had conquered all who are on the earth, He might be called the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, and the firstborn from the dead; transmitting also to us that grace, as He is one and the only Son both before the incarnation and after it, He is still called Savior and Liberator of all; and when, as I said, He had freed from sin all who believed in Him, there might be peace to those who are far off and those who are near, reconciling through Himself to God and the Father those who had formerly served the creature, and through sin had been enemies to the all-good God. But again, dividing the one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons, he speaks somewhere thus:

NESTOR. [Hear also another testimony of theirs: "For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." Behold, he calls Him Lord of glory. He does not call the humanity by this name, but the divinity. But this is the practice of those who tear asunder the exact union; for when you say that this one is not the Lord, but that one is, you make Christ a mere man. What then are you saying under an ecclesiastical guise, O heretic? Is the man himself also Lord, or not? If indeed he is Lord, the things said ^B are shared between them; but if he is not Lord, do not, while making Christ a bare and simple man, cast this reproach upon me. Then he says: Let us hear blessed Paul openly crying out, who it is that was crucified. Hear therefore most openly his voice: "For He was crucified out of weakness, but He lives by the power of God." If He was crucified out of weakness, who was weakened, heretic? Was it God the Word?]

CHAPTER II

He is carried away into absurd opinions and a reprobate mind, in no way understanding the power of the mystery, as it seems to me, but following his own conceits everywhere, and perhaps fearing lest he be convicted of feeling or saying anything that is right or true. For he objects to himself, as he imagines, the voices of orthodox men; but he is found to be putting forward again things that no one of those who are accustomed to walk straight in the faith would endure to say, even if another were speaking them. For we say that the Lord of glory is the one who was crucified, and this is in accordance with the truth: ^C but acknowledging the Word of God to be indivisible and one with the flesh joined to Him, which is endowed with a rational soul, we say that He Himself is the one who, as an immaculate sacrifice and most fragrant offering of His own body, offered Himself to God and the Father, and nailed the handwriting that was against us to the cross. Certainly, by the voice of David one may hear Him saying:

^A “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for me; burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You did not take pleasure in. Then I said: Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me, to do, O God, Your will” (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9; Hebr. X, 5-7).

The commandment according to the Law now being ineffectual and accomplishing nothing, and God and the Father no longer desiring sacrifices made through blood, He says that a body was prepared for Him, ^B in order that, having given it as a ransom for the salvation and life of all, He might deliver everyone from death and corruption, and furthermore from sins. We say, therefore, that it was the Word from God the Father who chose to suffer in the flesh for our sake, according to the Scriptures. Thus the most holy Paul has initiated us into the mystery: “Who, existing in the form of God, did not treat being equal to God as a prize, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, and death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted Him” (Phil. II, 6-9).

Consider, then, how He who existed in the form of God and the Father as God, the ^C character and figure of His substance (Hebr. I, 3), and who was in no way lesser, being and being conceived as equal in every respect, emptied Himself and voluntarily lowered Himself into humiliation. Tell me, then, what is the mode of this emptying, and how it is that He is humiliated—by taking the form of a slave, and by becoming obedient even to death, and death on a cross? Or is it not evident to everyone that it is the sublime that is humiliated, not that which is inherently and naturally lowly and in a state of subjection? Is it not the full that is emptied, being in need of nothing? Is it not that which was by nature free before it that receives the form of a slave? Or that he is found a man who was not this before he was found to be so? Who, therefore, is He who is sublime by nature and has cast Himself down into humiliation? Who is the full, that He might be understood to be emptied? ^D Who is beyond the measures of servitude, that He might be said to have taken the form of a slave? Who is said to have been found in this way, when he was not previously a man like us? For to dare to attribute these things to one of our own number, and to a common man, would be foolish, and truly full of the ultimate folly; but they fit, and very aptly so, the supreme nature.

But that Word of God, out of His exceedingly great kindness and love for mankind toward us, offered His own body for us, and taking the form of a slave, became obedient to God and the Father even unto death; and He did not deem it a thing to be rejected to choose to suffer in the flesh, even though in His nature as God He is impassible. Yet this man foolishly blushes at these, His most divine purposes for us, and while thinking he is honoring Him, he does Him an injury; for he removes Him from suffering, even though no one says that He suffered in His own nature; nor does he perceive that he prevents us from confessing Him as the Savior and Redeemer of all, if He through whom we are saved, and by whose venerable cross we have been redeemed, be someone other than Him, properly and distinctly, as Son and Lord. For if He is a simple man, and not...

rather the Word from God the Father who has appeared in the form of man, let him come forward, let him show, even He who exists in the form of the Father, and indeed in equality—for He did not deem it robbery to be equal to God—and who additionally took the form of a servant, as though He did not have it at one time, and who became emptied, as One who had the fullness in His own nature. For ^B the blessed Paul says that He who was in the form and equality of God and the Father, became obedient unto Him even to death, even the death of the cross. Is not the absurdity of these notions manifest? For when the blessed Paul calls the crucified One the Lord of glory, no one would surely assert that he does not speak of the humanity, but of the divinity. For we confess one Christ and Son and Lord of glory, the Word from God the Father who became man for our sake, and suffered in the flesh for our sake, according to the Scriptures. Nevertheless, he not lightly accuses those who attribute the name of Lordship to the Word of God, but take it away from the humanity, as wishing—as he himself says—to tear asunder the precise union; as though, forgetful of what he said, he is caught tearing the one into two, and caring little regarding that supreme union, as he calls it. For he asks ignorantly: "Is the man also Lord, or otherwise?" If indeed He is Lord, the statements are in agreement. Therefore, if, according to your ignorant questioning, the Word is Lord properly and distinctly, and the man is also Lord, there will undoubtedly be two lords and two sons. Thus, ^C the power of your supreme union will in no way profit believers in regard to the necessity of conceiving of one Christ and Lord and Son, together with the flesh united to Him. For the person of Emmanuel being set forth and brought into the midst, whether one speaks of the man, we understand it to be the Word from God the Father who took the form of a servant, and we say that this is declared from the measures of the emptying; or if one speaks of the only-begotten God, we believe Him to be the same who has already become man and incarnate. But, as I said, attributing the works of the dispensation with the flesh to the one and only man, and understood as distinct from that Word from the Father, he asserts that He Himself endured the cross for us, and affirms that He is the Lord of glory, and places upon a naked creature the ornaments of the supreme nature of all things. For he says: [Let us hear the blessed Paul clearly crying out, who that crucified One is: For He was crucified through ^D weakness, but He lives by the power of God.] Who was weakened, O heretic? Was it God the Word? God the Word from God the Father is believed by us to be altogether void of all weakness. For He Himself is the Lord of Hosts. But explain this: do you fear to receive the name of weakness regarding Him? For what reason? Since that dispensation through the flesh exempts Him from injury, even if He is said to have suffered something of those things which are alien to His nature and glory? For if, when He was rich, He became poor, and was made like us by taking the form of a servant, even if He is said to be weakened through the humanity, there is nothing absurd in this.

^A For you see the rich One in poverty, the exalted One in humiliation, and the Lord of powers in our weakness. And for this reason, the mystery concerning Him is a cause for wonder. For how is He said to hunger, when He Himself is the bread of life, and has descended from heaven, and gives life to the world? In what way is He fatigued by the journey, He who with His own Spirit fixes the heavens? But you will not endure, in all likelihood, that these things should be said of the Only-Begotten Himself, even though, when I examine your words more closely, I find you saying clearly, as if from the person of the Only-Begotten:

NESTOR. [Because, being in the form of God, I have put on the form of a servant; because, being God the Word, I am seen in the flesh; because, being the Lord of the universe, I have put on the person of a poor man for your sake; because, while I hunger visibly, I provide food for those who hunger.]

CHAPTER III.

^B How then, tell me, since you fear the name of weakness and would remove it from Him—even if the rationale of the dispensation resists—do you say that He hungers visibly, that is, humanly, yet provides food divinely to those who hunger? Do you deny that it is a kind of weakness to be in need of food and to be said to hunger after our manner? But the mode of the dispensation will firmly withstand those who wish to find fault with it in general. We are therefore compelled, if we wish to remove Him from all those things which are said of Him humanly and in a lowly manner, to attribute such passions to a mere man; or, if we ponder that He, being God, was made like us, we must acknowledge Him to be impassible by the nature of His divinity, but, in addition to this, say that He suffered for us the weakness that belongs to the human, by which I mean ^C the condition of the flesh. Otherwise, explain to me, if you please. The blessed Paul says that He was crucified out of weakness; yet he himself removes this matter from God the Word, saying that it is something petty and vile, and unworthy of Him. Therefore, the one crucified would be someone other than He whom that divine teacher also calls the Lord of glory, saying: "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Did the Lord of glory, then, remain as He was, even though He was weakened and endured an affliction so indecent and lowly? If He remained so, He suffered no loss from the fact that He was weakened. Why, then, do you fear to say that the Word of God ^D descended to these things for the sake of the dispensation? But if He really lost the status of still being the Lord of glory, and if anyone asserts that the matter stands thus, he will deservedly incur the charge of the highest impiety. "For to Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." For the glory of Christ, who suffered for us in the flesh, as we have said very often, is extended throughout the whole world. When, therefore, you hear a man filled with the Holy Spirit say, "He was crucified out of weakness, but..."

He lives by the power of God," understand this piously. For he says that He suffered in a human way, although He possessed a nature entirely removed from suffering. ^A Possessing this nature, He allowed the flesh to be infirm, and having suffered death in a human manner, He revived in a divine manner, Himself having quickened His own temple, as being the power of the Father. And indeed, when the time had now come in which He was to endure the cross for our sake, He went away and prayed, saying: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." And He added to these words at the end of the prayer: "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou [wilt]." Since, however, once for all—though being the omnipotent Word and God—He determined to undergo our infirmity, in order to render the cause of the act, He says by a most wise dispensation: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." ^B Consider, therefore, how He Himself being in no way cast down, nor even taking infirmity into His own nature, allowed the flesh to proceed according to its own laws: and the matter is called His own, precisely because it is His own body. Therefore, the very infirmity of the flesh declares Him a man to us, but we recognize Him as God, ignorant of infirmity, in that He did not suffer death, and He repelled corruption from His own body. For He is the Life and the Power of the Father. For that He made that infirmity, which was strange and involuntary to Him in these circumstances, voluntary in the good pleasure of God and the Father, in order that He might save the world, He Himself will teach when He says: "Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me: that of all which Thou hast given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." But how, if the will of the Father is good, does the Son say that He has another will of His own, ^C without doubt good, yet different from that? For if He is not good, how is He believed to be His image and figure? And how will He speak truly saying: "I and the Father are one"? and: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"? For no one could discern Him who is good by nature in one who is not good. But indeed, the Son is good, born of a good Father, and is His image, invariant in every respect. What will, then, did He forsake, which He declares to be His own, to perform that of the Father? He was about to deliver from death those who were subject to it by the death of His own flesh, that is to say, us. But to die in the flesh was shameful, and unaccustomed, as I have said, and abhorrent to Him. Yet He endured even this for our sake in the good pleasure of the Father. For He knew, He knew most clearly, that if He were for a little while inglorious on account of the sufferings of the flesh, He would deliver all by translating them to a far better state. "If any man, therefore, is in Christ, he is a new creature: old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new," as it is written. ^D Therefore, the divinely inspired Scriptures proclaim Christ as one and the Son and the Lord to the world, and assert that He is that very Lord of glory; and that for our sake He voluntarily endured the injuries inflicted by the Jews, and death upon the wood, by [divine] dispensation.

^B He endured this, not that He might remain dead with us, but that, having overthrown the sovereignty of death—which was invincible to all—He might restore human nature to incorruption. For God was in the flesh. But this man, seeking again on all sides to gather for himself pretexts for dividing the One into two, struggles in vain against those who do not exist at all, and charges some with having spoken against the truth and having adulterated the rationale of Christ’s mystery. Therefore he says:

NESTOR. [I would gladly, at this point, inquire of the heretics who commingle the nature of the divinity and humanity into one essence: who is it that is now delivered by the traitor to the Jews? For if a commixture of both has taken place, both were held at the same time by the Jews, both God the Word and the nature of the humanity. Who, then, is it that suffered the slaughter? I am compelled to use humbler language so that what we say may be clear to all. Upon whom, I ask you, did the action of the deed fall? If upon the nature of the divinity itself, how do you dare to commingle both? If God remained such that He could not be held by the Jews, and in the suffering of the slaughter had no association with the flesh, whence, I ask you, do you introduce this commixture?]

[h ] CHAPTER IV

If, therefore, there are any who say that a confusion of the natures has occurred, and who maintain that the nature of the Word could suffer an impossible commixture, or that It could be changed into flesh, or that the flesh united to It could at last be transformed into divinity, they stray from the truth and are far removed from a right understanding; nay, rather, suffering from the most extreme madness, let them hear from us: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." ^C For that nature of God the Word is unshakable and knows not how to suffer the shadow of turning; but having communicated with flesh and blood, and having become a participant of the same things in like manner as we, as it is written, It remained the same. But if anyone educated in the sacred Scriptures deems it a crime even to hear with his ears that any change has occurred in the Only-Begotten, why do you, while accepting such base opinions—which are condemned by the vote of all and altogether rejected—as if they were true and declared, endeavor to divide the indivisible even after the union? For if you should truly desire to learn who it is that was delivered by the traitor to the Jews and endured the slaughter, you shall hear clearly: He is one and the same Christ, and Son, and Lord; that is, the Word from God who took the form of a servant and became man and was incarnate. For He was sold by the traitor to the leaders of the Jews, and He was held according to human condition indeed, for He was also man while remaining God; ^D but He manifested divinely the weakness of those by whom He was held. And this is made clear to us

^A by the blessed evangelist John, who wrote in this manner: “Judas then, having received a cohort and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forth and said to them, ‘Whom seek you?’ They answered Him, ‘Jesus the Nazarene.’ Jesus says to them, ‘I am.’ And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. When therefore He said to them, ‘I am,’ they went backward and fell to the ground.” You hear how He does not permit the soldiers gathered by the traitor to exalt themselves against His glory. For He offered Himself, saying, “I am,” but they, at the mere sound of His voice, with broken strength went backward. And that it was not by their power that the seizing of Him was effected, but because He was accepting the death for us when the time and work required it, He confirmed, saying: “As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take Me; daily I was sitting in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me.” But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. For what He had long ago predicted through the holy prophets, He fulfilled when He who was above every creature humbled Himself into the emptying ^B and was found in fashion as a man, He who was in the form and equality of the Father. Why, then, striving to foist the term “mixture” upon the ears of the simple, do you violate the miracle of His dispensation with the flesh? For it is not fitting that one should burst forth into our midst and say in a harsh and bitter manner, “Was the Word of God Himself held captive? Did the nature of His divinity undergo the slaughter?” That you do not say such things out of sheer ignorance, you shall learn from this, and very easily. We say that the holy martyrs are perfected, having chosen to suffer all things, that having fought the good fight, having finished the course, having kept the faith, they might receive the crown owed to a sincere love for Christ. If, therefore, someone should come forward and ask: “When the bodies of the saints were torn with iron, or consumed by fire, or when they were first thrust into prison, were their souls bound together with their bodies? Were they also consumed by fire and iron?” We certainly say that they were alien to the bodies, as they took no such injuries into their own nature. Shall they, therefore, I ask, be deprived of crowns because they did not undergo the bodily punishments? Yet the proclamation of the truth does not exclude them from the passion, since their own bodies suffered, and not those of others. It is foolish, therefore, to inquire ^C zealously whether the nature of the divinity was surrendered with the flesh, or bound in the snares of the Jews, or whether It underwent the slaughter Itself; rather, it befits piety to consider that the Word altogether claims for Himself, as His own, the passions that happened to the flesh, while yet remaining impassible as God, and otherwise not without a suffering body. Here, then, regarding matters conducted with such great dispensation, fixing the charge of absurdity, and from above

and below saying that it is not fitting for the nature of the Divinity to be said to have undergone the slaughter, he impiously restricts the power of the mystery specifically to a man; and he says that he himself is the one who was crucified, and who endured death for the life of the world. For I hear him saying, in another exposition again: ^A

[He is the one who put on the crown of thorns; he is the one who said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; he is the one who endured a three-day death.]

CAP. V.

He himself, indeed, following his own aim, says these things; but we shall point out to him more wisely and more truly regarding Emmanuel, the Savior and Redeemer of the whole world. For as we have already said very many times, the Word became flesh, ^B and having made for Himself a proper body, one capable of suffering, He gave it for us, and, as the blessed Paul says, He endured the cross, despising the shame. For is it not a disgrace, and a sort of confusion, for the One who is all-powerful and life-giving, and who possesses a nature removed from passions, to be thought to have been crucified and to have suffered death according to the flesh because of human weakness? And accordingly, the same [Scripture] says somewhere through the voice of Isaiah: "I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows; and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spittings." And again: "For this reason I was not ashamed, but I set my face as a hard rock, and I knew that I would not be put to shame, because He who justifies me is near." ^C For as far as the impious herds of the Greeks, and indeed even of the Jews, are concerned, the mystery of Christ has been considered both a scandal and foolishness; for those wretches smile at the precious cross. But the end of what they think is his weakness has turned into a power of glory that is truly most divine. For it has been attested through the resurrection from the dead that He is both God, and truly the Son of God, as one who is superior to death and corruption, and who is worshipped by all in common with the One who begat Him. Hear, moreover, the sacred Scripture proclaiming this very thing to us: "Thus says the Lord: 'Sanctify the one who despises his own soul, the one abhorred by the nations, by the slaves, by the princes. Kings shall see ^D him, and princes shall arise and worship him.'" Confess, he says, that He is holy by nature as God; that is [the One] who despised His own soul, that is, the One who showed contempt for His own soul. For He laid it down for the sheep, as a good shepherd: whom the nations indeed abhorred, and servants and ministers dishonored with blows, when the crowd of the Pharisees impiously insulted Him. This one...

kings shall see and shall arise; princes shall worship Him, as God clearly humbled to the emptying of Himself, that by suffering in the flesh He might save the world under heaven. This is He who for us was crowned with a wreath of thorns; this is He, and no other, who was crucified as a man and said: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" ^A but by His divinity He restrained the light of the sun and set darkness in the middle of the day, so that we should not confess Him to be a mere human being, ennobled by a bare conjunction, as you assert, by which He was supposedly joined with the God-Word; but rather that we should believe Him to be God, in our own appearance and in the form of a servant, being mindful of Him through the voice of the holy prophet saying: "And I will clothe the heaven with darkness, and I will make sackcloth its covering." For He who was speaking is present, and what He formerly foretold as God, He fulfilled in its own time, when crucified in His humanity. For the heaven put on darkness almost as if it were mourning attire; and the sun, since it no longer gave the splendor of its rays to those who had dared to insult the Lord and God of all, foreshadowed the darkness that was about to be poured into their minds and hearts. ^B For the blessed David also sings surely of them: "Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and bow their back down always." The veil of the temple was also torn asunder, disclosing to those believing in Him the Holy of Holies, and revealing those innermost sanctuaries; just as that former tabernacle no longer held its standing, but the way of the saints had now been made manifest, that is to say, the way that leads into the Holy of Holies. For the law itself was indeed holy, inasmuch as it was an arbiter of justice and a pedagogue to Christ; but the life in Christ is understood to be by far holier, and superior to that worship in shadows and figures, and better is that which is exhibited in spirit and truth. Are not works of this kind divine and above the nature of man? Has not that saving passion restrained that turning sword, and led man back into paradise? ^C For Christ said to the thief suspended with Him: "Today you shall be with me in paradise." Did He not shine forth to those who were in darkness, and cry out with power: "Be revealed"? For He emptied Hades as God, and loosed those who were in it from their bonds; and He Himself was the One who of old cried out to the most patient Job: "Have you come to the foundation of the sea, and have you walked in the paths of the abyss? Do the gates of death open to you from fear, and have the porters of Hades been terrified at the sight of you?" Why, then, are you not ashamed to attribute things so divine to one of our own number and a mere man? For that the Word of God Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having communicated with flesh and blood, did not refuse to give up His own body to death for our sake, and being by nature impassible, voluntarily suffered in the flesh, the blessed Paul will verify when he writes: "Giving thanks to the Father, who has made us worthy to"

^A share the inheritance of the saints in light; who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, the remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: because in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: all things were created by him and in him; and he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might hold the primacy."

Behold, the steward of his mysteries most clearly says that the Word of God himself, through whom are all things and in whom all things are, who is the image of the invisible God, by whom were brought into existence both things in heaven and on earth, things visible and invisible, the one who is before all, in whom all things consist, has been given as head to the Church, and that he himself is the firstborn from the dead. But you will perhaps say, "The Word from God the Father is life by nature; how then, or in what manner, could Life die?" The question is excellent, necessary, and profitable. Therefore, to the power of the mystery it is usefully accepted that we should understand and also say that the Word of ^B God, ever living and life-giving, became flesh, that is, he made for himself a body capable of death, so that he himself might be understood to have suffered, because the body that suffered was his own. For thus we say that he became the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, and the firstborn from the dead. For he who raises the dead is said to have been placed with us in the tomb through his own flesh, that we might also be raised together with him; for he has renewed this way for us, and for this reason he emptied himself, descending into kenosis and into humanity with us, although he was God by nature and had shone forth from God the Father, the Only-Begotten.

But he [Nestorius], in his usual manner, thinks that those who suppose these things to be so, and who truly judge them to be right, have reached the end of the highest madness. While pretending everywhere that it is necessary to confess the Word from God the Father as impassible, he removes the manner of the dispensation—indeed, in its entirety—and in a way disdains even to think or to say that he suffered for us, although the sacred Scriptures say that he suffered in the flesh, ^C even though he is impassible and incorporeal, because the body that suffered was his own and united to him. He said again in this manner:

NESTORIUS

^A God raised,' the one who is manifest, the one who is seen with the eyes, the one who was nailed to the wood, the one who was touched by the hands of Thomas, the one who cried out to him: 'Touch and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me having.' Persuaded by these words, and by the touching of the crucified body, the disciple, having been made certain of the resurrection, glorified the miracle-working God: 'My Lord and my God, glory to you,' not calling the one touched God; for divinity is not found by touch. And after other things, concerning this one who could be touched, Peter also cried out: 'This Jesus God raised.' 'Being exalted, therefore, by the right hand of God.' But the Word of God, Arius, did not need the right hand to help him. ^B

CHAPTER VI

Therefore, even if the Father is said to effect the life-giving of that divine temple, he has effected it through the Son; and even if the Son again is seen to have effected it, yet it is not without the Father in the Spirit; for there is one nature of divinity, understood in three proper hypostases, having in all things that are done movement and operation, intelligibly and in a manner worthy of God. The body, therefore, yielded to the laws of its own nature, and received the taste of death, and the Word united to it permitted it to suffer this opportunely; yet it was made alive by the divine power of the Word united to it according to hypostasis. We understand Emmanuel, which is interpreted 'God with us,' as a whole when we hear the blessed Peter saying: 'This Jesus God raised,' even if you speak of him as visible and nailed to the wood, the one who was touched by the hands of Thomas,

^A whom you crucified, God has raised.' Though handled by hands, we nonetheless understand that the Word from God the Father became incarnate, and we confess that he is one and the same Son. For though he was invisible by nature, he became visible, since the body that was seen was his own proper body. The divine David therefore sings to us: 'God will come manifestly, our God, and he will not keep silence.' And indeed the blessed Habakkuk also says: 'God will come from Teman, and the Holy One from the shady, wooded mountain.' Although he was impalpable, he is said to have become palpable by reason of the body united to him. Luke certainly writes: 'Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us, according as they handed them down to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.' And in addition ^B to this, wise John says: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and we announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.' But if he had not become palpable and visible, as having for his own a body subject to touch and sight, how did the all-wise disciples become eyewitnesses of the Word? Or how did they see, and how do they say that they handled the Word of life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us? Thomas, therefore, recognized this very one who was palpable and visible, the one who had been nailed to the wood, and most rightly confessed him to be God and Lord. For he said immediately: 'My Lord and my God.' Then our Lord Jesus Christ said to him: 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.' What, I ask you, did they believe? Is it not that he, while being God by nature, raised his own temple from the dead? ^C And yet how does this matter carry any ambiguity? But this good man, almost foolishly blushing at the disciple’s words, says, 'He did not confess, he says, that he who is the firstborn from the dead is Lord and God'; but rather he twists the force of the statement to his own opinion and says that he glorified God, the worker of marvelous deeds, when he said: 'My Lord and my God.' He even adds to this: 'Not calling that which was handled God, for divinity is not found through handling.' Are you reproving the disciple, tell me, for calling Christ Lord and God? And yet the argument has just shown us that the Only-begotten, being God by nature, impalpable and invisible, has also become palpable and visible. But when you say: 'For divinity is not found through handling,' we say in return: Why, pushing aside the dispensation, do you discourse as if about a naked divinity? Having forgotten, as it were, that the impalpable and incorporeal one was also incarnate and became man, you do not endure the divinely inspired Scripture which calls him God, even though he was handled in the flesh—you who are faint-hearted in the same way as the holy apostles? But we, my good man, together with the blessed Thomas, [confess] the one who was nailed to the wood, the one handled by hands, and seen by human eyes, with those ^D

' he says, 'God raised,' ^A crowning him with the praises befitting him, saying, 'My Lord and my God.'

That even if someone says that the Word of God suffered in his own flesh, he would not fail to be praised and to choose to think correctly (for he has remained impassible even so), I shall endeavor to demonstrate once more, from things that you yourself have written, or rather, that you have said in the churches. For instance, you deem our holy Fathers, who were at one time gathered at Nicaea, worthy of praise, as having composed for us a precise and polished confession of faith. Yet you do not think as they did, not at all, nor do you desire to proceed correctly with your mind fixed on the dogmas of the truth, ^B but "you limp, as it were, on both legs," according to the Scripture, thoughtlessly reproaching the lovers of the right path, while confirming as true what seems right to you; nay, you do not even think that you should remain in what you yourself have said. For I find you saying concerning the holy Fathers:

[NESTOR.: Since, however, if they had said, "We believe in one God the Word," it would have come to pass that death would be attributed to the divine nature, therefore they receive a common name, namely, Jesus Christ, so that they might signify both him who died and him who did not die. He adds to these: Therefore, just as if someone were to say, "That man is dead," although the soul is immortal, yet because he said a name that signifies two natures, both the body that dies and the soul that is immortal, ^C there is no danger in that word, for both are called man, both body and soul; thus, therefore, also that great chorus spoke concerning Christ.]

CHAPTER VII

That they, by calling him Christ Jesus, signified not two sons separately who share this name, Christ Jesus, but rather the Word from God who became man, I think no one who is sound-minded would contest. And beyond what has already been said, to state more words on this matter is, I think, superfluous. Nevertheless, if by the things said by us you cannot be persuaded to understand—even though we say that the Word of God himself suffered for us in the flesh, yet we guard him as impassible as God—grant at least to your own words that they appear correctly stated. For just as he who said "man" signified at once the body and the soul, ^D even though the latter has a nature different from the former, so that even if the body of someone is said to have died, the whole man is reasonably understood to have suffered it, although he has a soul not subject to death; so the matter stands in the case of Christ, the Savior of us all. For because the Word from God the Father, as we have often said, partook of flesh and blood in a manner similar to us, and made for himself that body from the holy Virgin, and thus became also the Son of Man, for this reason, his flesh having died, the true rationale of that union attributes the passion to him.

^A seeing that he knows it remained beyond suffering, since he is God by nature, and Life. And so the blessed Peter, putting before us the teaching of such a mystery, speaks thus concerning him to those who believe in him: "Whom having not seen you love; in whom, though now you see him not, yet believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified, receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you, searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." ^B Do you hear how the Spirit of Christ was in the holy prophets, and testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow? Do they then proclaim to the world that it was a mere man who suffered for us? And is this the mystery which has been given in faith through our holy apostles and evangelists, and into which he says the angels desire to look? Yet how should he not be rejected, who attempts to confine the power of so great a mystery within the limits of humanity alone? He himself who, existing in the form of God and the Father, is God the Word, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and underwent his birth according to the flesh for our sake; he himself suffered for us in his own flesh, and rose again as God, having emptied Hades, and having said to those in bonds, "Come forth," and to those in darkness, "Be revealed." ^C Why then do you attempt to overthrow a dispensation so venerable and worthy of all love, through which we have been saved and have attained unto every good? For you will know very clearly what we have gained through it, from the blessed Paul who thus wrote: "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight: if ye continue in the faith." Faith, then, truly profits those who have chosen to keep it unshaken; and the all-wise John will assure us how it profits, saying: ^D "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; because this

is the witness of God, in that he hath testified of his Son; he who believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he who believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believed not the witness which he hath testified of his Son. ^A And in what way God and Father testified of the Son, the blessed John the Baptist shall declare to us, saying, "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ is testified to by the voice of the Father, that He is His Son by nature and in truth; and no less is He testified to by the water, and the blood, and the Spirit. For with the holy water He cleanses the sins of those who believe, while He gives life through His own blood and joins to God those who are upon the earth. ^B And since He is God by nature, He also bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit abundantly, pouring it forth as His own into the souls of those who believe, making them partakers of the divine nature and crowning them with the hope of future good things. Therefore, we confess one Son, Christ Jesus and Lord, that is, the Word of God who became man and was incarnate, and this same one crucified and risen from the dead, who will come at the appointed times in the glory of God the Father with the holy angels. Through Him, and with Him, let there be glory to God and the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

THE SAME SAINT CYRIL’S DIALOGUE WITH NESTORIUS: THAT THE HOLY VIRGIN IS THEOTOKOS AND NOT CHRISTOTOKOS

^A NESTORIUS. When divine Scripture discusses the birth of Christ from Mary the Virgin, or his death, it never sets forth the term "God," but rather "Christ," or "the Lord," or "Jesus," since these three things are indicative of the two natures, sometimes of the one, sometimes of the other. For example: when the Apostle informs us of the birth of Christ from the Virgin, he says, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman." He did not say, "God sent forth God the Word"; but he uses the term "Son," which denotes both natures, namely that of God and that of man, since Christ is double. For the Virgin gave birth to the Son of God, in the sense that it was said, "You are gods and all of you are sons of the Most High." Wherefore we have learned from Scripture to say "Christotokos," "Kyriotokos," and "Anthropotokos," but we have never been taught to call the holy Virgin "Theotokos."

CYRIL. Isaiah cries out in the Spirit, saying, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is translated" ^B