THE FIVE BOOKS OF CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE BLASPHEMIES OF NESTORIUS, BY OUR HOLY FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
ARGUMENT OF THE WHOLE WORK
In the first book, almost the entire contention is over the term *Theotokos*. In the second, the impiety of Nestorius is refuted, who considered Christ a man who carried God. In the third book, Cyril refutes the dogma of Nestorius, who distinguishes the natures of Christ according to hypostasis, from the fact that he thought it unworthy for the Word of God to be called an apostle, a high priest, the seed of Abraham, like to his brethren, anointed, perfected, having suffered or been tempted; and he joins the same natures by dignity, conjunction, and authority. In the fourth book, he fights against the same Nestorius, who had said that Christ was assumed by the Father through adventitious and external power, and glorified by the Spirit, whereas it is His own, and is given by Him; and who also caviled that it was said that the flesh of the Son of Man is eaten in the Sacrament, not the Word of God Himself; from which he argued that the natures of Christ were divided according to hypostases. In the last book, Cyril convicts Nestorius of having divided the natures according to hypostases, since he interpreted the death of the Son of God, mentioned by the Apostle, as the death of a man, and understood the Lord of glory to be a crucified man, and thought that the same was said to be delivered, put to death, and raised, and touched by Thomas, although these things all belong to the flesh, not to the Word; and he also noted that in the Symbol it was not said "and in one God the Word," but "and in one Lord Jesus Christ," who is consequently declared to have been born, crucified, and dead; from all of which he asserted two hypostases in Christ.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.
In these words, he calls him a heretic who holds a right and approved faith concerning Christ, and who, because He is truly God, calls her who bore Him the Mother of God. Now it is doubtful to no wise person that, while he casts the stain of heresy upon those who have chosen to think rightly, he determines for himself the ugliness of his own words; and he has all but openly confessed that he is carried aside from the path that leads straight, and that he is preparing for himself twisted ways. But come now, I beseech you, how do you not envy this title for the holy Virgin, when you take away from her the dignity of the divine generation, and deny that she is the Mother of God? Yet when you disapprove of this title, and assert that it is full of blasphemy, how do you permit those who wish to do so to attribute it to the holy Virgin? And yet I hear you calling her venerable: do you then, as it seems to you alone, think it fitting to honor her with a word so blasphemous, that it is, according to you, full of blasphemy? You pretend to honor and adorn her, while you style the false calumny against God the Word as the chief gift to her? For if it is altogether among the things loathsome to the Word who sprang from God to undergo a carnal birth; then, if you concede that she who did not bear God be called Mother of God, can it not be truly said that you have held the Lord's will in contempt? Are you not caught bringing more injury to that venerable one, than—as you think and say—wishing to honor her, when you attribute to her a title hateful to God? For we do not bestow upon those whom we have determined to honor names through which the glory of that supreme nature might be violated. For, first, we shall foolishly cast the charges of such blasphemy upon ourselves; and in addition to this, under the appearance of honor, we shall bring no light injury upon those whom we wish to praise, if we overwhelm them with praises that bring no honor, and weave for them a eulogy hateful to God. Furthermore, it is also a wonder that, while you carp at the sayings of the impious heretics up and down, and permit them to have no force in any way, therefore... [index: entries preserved]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