Fourth Century Christianity

Reference:	CPG 5217
Incipit:	Τοῖς μὲν τὴν ἀγίαν γραφὴν πολυπραγμονεῖν ἐθέλουσι
Date:	Spring 430
Greek Text:	ACO 1.1.6:13-31
English Translations:	P.E. Pusey. Library of Fathers, vol. 47 (Oxford, 1881), pp. 1-37; adapted for FCC by A. Claflin and J Schwark; see also the translation of Russel for par. 7-20.

Cyril refers to Nestorius sometimes in second person, sometimes in third person. Usually the referent is clear from context, but clarification has been added in some cases when a sudden change in person is unclear. Any direct quotes from Nestorius’ works are in italics.

Theotokos and related words are transliterated and italicized. This title of Mary is a main point of contention for Nestorius and is addressed mainly in Tome 1. The main topic of the Tomes is the union of natures in Christ, which Cyril defines as a union κατὰ ὑπόστασις and accuses Nestorius of thinking of it as a συνάφεια. Ὑπόστασις has been translated as ‘subsistence,’ by which Cyril means a being which subsists in itself. He uses ὑπόστασις interchangeably with πρόσωπον (person). Cyril writes that the union results in one ὑπόστασις in Christ. He accuses Nestorius of teaching a συνάφεια, which has been translated ‘connection.’ This word implies two different beings side-by-side, moving in synchrony but nevertheless distinct. This is Cyril’s main argument against Nestorius, that he teaches not one but two Christs, one man and one divine.

For more information on the Five Tomes, click here.

Contents:

1. Introduction – The Importance of Addressing Doctrinal Errors (1–4)

2. Cyril’s Christology – The Word Made Flesh and Emptied for Us (5–6)

3. Nestorius’ Error – Disusing Theotokos and Dividing the Son (7)

4. Cyril’s First Argument – Nestorius Teaches Against the Incarnation (8–12)

5. Cyril’s Second Argument – Nestorius’ Doctrine of Incarnation is Flawed (13–20)

6. Cyril’s Third Argument – Nestorius’ Incarnation is a Separation of Natures (21–25)

7. Cyril’s Fourth Argument – Nestorius’ Defense is Unsuccessful (26–33)

8. Cyril’s Fifth Argument – Nestorius Condemns His Own Teaching (34–38)

9. The Nicene Creed (39–50)

10. Cyril’s Final Argument – Nestorius’ Concerns are Unfounded (51–56)

BOOK 1

1. Introduction – The Importance of Addressing Doctrinal Errors

Κυρῦλου τοῦ ἀγιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας κατὰ τῶν Νεστορίου δυσφημιῶν πεντάβιβλος ἀντίρρησις ἤγουν οἱ πέντε τόμοι τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου.	Saint Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, wrote a five-book rebuttal against the slanders of Nestorius: the five tomes of Saint Cyril.
Τοῖς μὲν τὴν ἀγίαν γραφὴν πολυπραγμονεῖν ἐθέλουσι καὶ ἀποδιώκουσι μὲν τὸ ῥάιθυμον ἐν τούτῳ, δεδιψηκόσι δὲ μάλλον τοῦ πράγματος τὴν κατόρθωσιν ἐγκειμένοις τε νεάικῶς καὶ ὄκνου δίχα παντὸς περιέσται δὴ πάντως τὸ ἐν παντὶ γενέσθαι καλῷ. φωτὸς, γ̀αρ τοῦ ϑείου τὸν οἰκεῖον ἀναπιμπλᾶσι νοῦν, εἶτα τοῖς τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτὸν ἐνιέντες δόγμασιν ἅπαν μὲν ὅσον ἐστὶν ὀρθῶς τε καὶ ἀκιβδήλως ἔχον, προσίενται καὶ λίαν ἀσμένως καὶ τοῖς ἐσωτάτω τῆς ἑαυτῶν ψυχῆς ἐναποκλείουσι θησαυροῖς, ἐπιγάνυνται δὲ οὕτω τοῖς ἐξ εὐμαθείας συνειλεγμένοις ὡς ἂν εἰ καί τινες ἑτέροις τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον ἢ λίθους τινὰς Ἰνδικὰς ἢ χρυσὸν ἀπλήστως συναγηγερκότες, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἔτι μειζόνως κρεῖσσον γὰρ σοφία λίθων πολυτελῶν, πᾶν δὲ τίμιον οὐκ ἄξιον αὐτῆς, καθὰ γέγραπται. κρῆναι δὲ φημὶ τοὺς οἴπερ ἂν <ὦσι> σοφοὶ καὶ ἀγχίνοι καὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἐπιστήμονες, διαμεμνῆσθαι χρησίμως γεγραφότος τινὸς τῶν ἁγίων μαθητῶν· ἀδελφοί, δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα εἰ ἐκ θεοῦ εἰσι, δεδωρῆσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἁγίοις φησὶ καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος διακρίσεις πνευμάτων.	1. To those who wish to avoid idleness by exploring the Holy Scripture, who thirst to attain what is upright and apply themselves vigorously and without laziness—they shall indeed become noble in every way, for their minds will be filled with the divine light. Then, applying it to the doctrines of the church, they readily accept everything that is correct and undefiled and lock it up as a treasure for their souls. In their eagerness for collecting this knowledge they exult as much as others who insatiably gather the things of this world, or gems from India or gold—yes, even more, as it is written, “For wisdom is better than precious stones, and nothing valuable can equal it in worth” [Prov. 8:11]. For I say that those who are wise, prudent, and skilled in the divine doctrines ought to remember what one of the holy disciples has helpfully written: “Brothers, test the spirits to see whether they are from God” [1 John 4:1]. And the divine Paul says, to the saints has been given the “discerning of spirits” [1 Cor. 12:10].
οἱ μὲν γὰρ λέγοντες ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς, φαῖεν ἂν οὐχ ἑτέρως αὐτὸ πλὴν ὅτι διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· οἵ γε μὴν ἐξ ἀμαθίας παλίμφημον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς γλῶσσαν ἀνέντες καὶ δι’ ὧν ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν ἐγνώκασι, μόνον οὐχὶ λέγοντες ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦν, τοῦτο δρῶιεν ἂν ὡς ἀπό γε τοῦ Βεελζεβούλ. δεῖ δὴ οὖν ἄρα λεπτῶς τε καὶ διεσμιλευμένως δοκιμάζειν ἅπαντα μεμελετηκότας καὶ νῷ διεγηγερμένῳ χρωμένους περιτυγχάνειν ἡμᾶς τοῖς τινων συγγράμμασι καὶ βασανίζειν εὐτεχνῶς οὕσπερ ἂν ποιοῖντο λόγους περὶ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ἀπομιμεῖσθαί τε καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς τοὺς ὅτι δὴ μάλιστα δοκίμους καὶ ἐμπειροτάτους τῶν ἀργυροπρατῶν, οἳ προσίενται μὲν τῶν νομισμάτων τὸ εὐδοκιμοῦν, ἀπόβλητον δὲ ποιεῖσθαι σπουδάζουσι τὸ παράσημον καὶ μεμωμημένον. καὶ πρός γε τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος παραθήγει, λέγων γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται· πάντα δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε, ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε. ἔστι δὲ δὴ καὶ ἑτέρως πάναισχρόν τε καὶ ἀκαλλὲς ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς κατὰ τόνδε τὸν βίον πράγμασι κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον ἡμᾶς ἠφειδηκότας ὁρᾶσθαι τοῦ τελοῦντος εἰς ὄνησιν, πειρᾶσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον περὶ πολλοῦ ποιεῖσθαι φιλεῖν τὰ δι᾽ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο βιῶναι λαμπρῶς, ἀλογῆσαι δὲ τῶν οὕτω σεπτῶν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι παρ᾽ οὐδὲν τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν βόθροις τε αὐτὴν ἐγκαθιέναι καὶ τέλμασι, πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν ἁπλῶς τοῖς ἐθέλουσι λαλεῖν ἃ μὴ προσῆκεν, ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε παραρριπτοῦντας τὸν νοῦν, οὐκ ἀναμύοντα πρὸς τὸ ἀληθὲς οὔτε μὴν ἐθέλοντα πολυπραγμονεῖν τί μέν ἐστι τῶν ἀνεγνωσμένων ὀρθὸν καὶ ὀνησιφόρον, τί δὲ δὴ τὸ διάστροφον καὶ δογματικῆς ἀκριβείας ἐκβεβηκὸς καὶ ζημίαν ἐμποιοῦν τὴν εἰς αὐτὴν ὁρῶσαν ψυχήν, ἧς ἀντάξιον οὐδὲν παρά γε τοῖς ἀρτίοις τὴν φρένα.	2. For “those who say Jesus is Lord” say it no other way except “through the Holy Spirit”[1 Cor. 12:3], and those who ignorantly reply with contradicting statements against those who think rightly are all but saying “Jesus be cursed” [1 Cor. 12:3], and this they do as from Beelzebub. We must then examine all things carefully and completely and, with an alert mind, approach the writings of certain men and skillfully put to the test the words they use concerning Christ the Savior of us all. We will imitate judicious and experienced money dealers, who accept genuine coins and reject those that are counterfeit and tainted. And the blessed Paul invites us to do this and tells us to be prudent money dealers: “test everything; hold on to what is good; reject every kind of evil” [1 Thess. 5:21–22]. It is also totally disgraceful and improper to be seen to spare nothing in order to accrue profits in this life and to focus on and strive after the trappings of a splendid life while neglecting things so sacred and devaluing the salvation of the soul, letting it sink down into pits and swamps and openly exposing the mind to the pleasure of those who choose to say what they should not say. Such people are not vigilant for the truth and do not choose to search diligently for the true and profitable meaning of what has been read, but rather pervert and overstep the accurate understanding of doctrine, to the detriment of their souls. But for the mature, nothing is more valuable than this understanding.
δοκιμαστέον οὖν ἄρα καὶ λίαν ἰσχνῶς τὰς περὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων συγγραφάς, κἂν μέν τις ἴοι κατ᾽ εὐθὺ τοῦ σκοποῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων καὶ τὴν ἔν γε τουτοισὶ σαφῆ καὶ ἀπλαγεστάτην διάιττοι τρίβον, κατακροτείσθω καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν ταῖς εἰς ὀρθότητα ψήφοις· εἰ δὲ ψυχρὸν καὶ ἐξίτηλον καὶ μεμωμημένον, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ὀλέθρου πρόξενον τοῖς ἐντευξομένοις ἐξυφαίνοι, τὸν λόγον, ἀκουέτω παρὰ πάντων ἀλλὰ ἡμῖν λαλεῖτε καὶ ἀναγγέλλετε ἡμῖν ἑτέραν πλάνησιν.	3. Therefore we must plainly test writings about the divine doctrines, and if any should go along with the sacred Scripture and confess its clear and most unerring way, let us also acclaim it with testimonies to its orthodoxy. But if its language should be cold and astray and incorrect, it rather brings destruction to its readers, and therefore let it hear from every mouth, “But you are uttering and telling us another error” [Is. 30:10].
οὐκοῦν ἢ ποιείτωσαν τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλὸν ἢ ποιείτωσαν τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ϑησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ προφέρει τὰ ἀγαθά, ὁ δὲ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ προφέρει τὰ πονηρὰ κατά γε τὴν ἀψευδῆ τοῦ σωτῆρος φωνήν. ἐσκότισε μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων αἱρετικῶν εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, πεπλάνηνται δὲ πολυτρόπως. οἵ μὲν γὰρ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς φύντα λόγον ἐν μείοσι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος εἶναί [τέ] φασιν οἱ δείλαιοι καὶ τὸ ἐκφυλόν τε καὶ δουλοπρεπὲς αὐτῷ προσνέμοντες μέτρον οὐ καταπεφρίκασιν, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἁγίῷ πνεύματι τὸ ἀνόσιόν τε καὶ ἀκρατὲς ἐπιθήγοντες στόμα δικαίως ἀκούουσι τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ὑμεῖς δὲ προσαγάγετε ὧδε, υἱοὶ ἄνομοι, σπέρμα μοιχῶν καὶ πόρνης· ἐν τίνι ἐνετρυφήσατε καὶ ἐπὶ τίνι ἠνοίξατε τὸ στόμα ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τίνι ἐχαλάσατε τὴν γλῶσσαν ὑμῶν; οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τέκνα ἀπωλείας, σπέρμα ἄνομον; ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν πορεύσονται τῷ ἑαυτῶν φωτὶ καὶ φλόγας εὑρήσουσιν, ἃς ἐξέκαυσαν αὐτοί·	4. Therefore either let them “make the tree good and its fruit good,” or let them “make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt.” For the “good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil things” [Matt. 12:33–35], according to the word of the Savior, which never lies. For “the god of this world blinded the understandings of the unbelieving” heretics, “lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should shine” [2 Cor. 4:4]: and they have been deceived many times over. For some (miserable!) say that the Word sprung of God the Father is lesser than he who begot him and have not shied away from assigning to him a foreign measure fit only for a slave. Others who rouse their unholy and intemperate mouths against the Holy Spirit rightly hear the prophet say, “But you, ungodly sons, draw near, seed of the adulterers and the whore. Against whom have you set yourselves? And against whom did you open your mouth and on whom did you let loose your tongue? Are you not children of destruction, a lawless seed?” [Is. 57:3–4]. But these shall “walk in their own light” and find “the flames” that they themselves “kindled” [Isa: 50:11].
ἡμᾶς δὲ ἀκόλουθον, οἷς ὀρθότητος μέλει, σοφόν τε καὶ ἀκριβῆ τὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ποιεῖσθαι λόγον καὶ τῆς ἐκείνων ἀθυροστομίας παραιτεῖσθαι τὰ ἐγκλήματα, ἵνα μή τι πταίοντες καὶ ἁμαρτάνοντες εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς πλήττοντές τε αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν εἰς Χριστὸν ἁμαρτάνωμεν. ἀκουσόμεθα γὰρ λέγοντος εὐθὺς ὅτι εἰ ὁ ἐχθρὸς ὠνεῖδισέ με, ὑπήνεγκα ἄν, καὶ εἰ ὁ μισῶν με ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐμεγαλορρημόνησεν, ἐκρύβην ἂν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. σὺ δέ, ἄνθρωπε ἰσόψυχε, ἤγεμών μου καὶ γνωστέ μου, ὃς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐγλύκανάς μοι ἐδέσματα, ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὸρεύθημεν ἐν ὁμονοίαι. ἀλλ᾽ ἴοι μὲν εἰς ἐχθρῶν ταυτὶ κεφαλάς, οἳ τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καταστρατεύονται δόξης καὶ τρυφὴν ἡγοῦνται τὰς εἰς αὐτὸν βλασφημίας, ἡμᾶς δέ, ὡς ἔφην, ἀκόλουθόν τε καὶ ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς τὰ αὐτῷ δοκοῦντα φρονεῖν σπουδάζοντας μὴ … τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκκεκομισμένον ἢ γοῦν ἐτέρωσέ ποι διάιττοντα καὶ νενευκότα πρὸς τὸ ἐξίτηλον, τὸν πρός γε φημὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ χεῖρα καὶ ταῖς εἰς ὀρθότητα ψήφοις ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας στεφανούμενον.	Ιt is necessary that we who care about orthodoxy should give a wise and accurate account of each of the divine doctrines and should shun the charges put forth by their unbridled mouths, lest by stumbling and sinning “against the brothers” and wounding “their weak conscience, we sin against Christ” [1 Cor. 8:12]. Let us therefore listen to him who said, “If the enemy had reproached me, I could have borne it, and if he who hated me had spoken proudly against me, I would have hidden myself from him. But you, a man intimate to me, my guide and my friend, who enjoyed food together with me, in the house of God we went in harmony” [Ps. 55:12–14]. But let these things be upon the heads of the enemies, who wage war against the glory of our Savior and esteem blasphemy against him. For us, rather, it is good and necessary (as I said) to be zealous and savor those things that please him. We should not follow that which is alien to the truth or which diverges in any other direction and tends to decay, but rather that which is for the good of our flock and is crowned by the truth itself with testimonies to its rightness.

2. Cyril’s Christology – The Word Made Flesh and Emptied for Us

καὶ ταῦτα φημὶ τινὶ τῶν βιβλίων περιτυχὼν ὑπό τοῦ συντεθειμένῳ καὶ πολλὴν μὲν ἔχοντι τῶν ὁμιλιῶν τὴν ἄθροισιν, στοιχηδὸν δὲ καὶ ὡς ἐν τάξει κειμένων, ἡμοιρηκότι δὲ κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον τοῦ κατελέγχεσθαι δεῖν. καὶ εἰ μὲν εἰρητό τι παρὰ τοῦ συγγεγραφότος, ὃ ταῖς εἰς λήθην ἀποδημίαις ἠφανίζετο, κἂν ᾠήθην δεῖν σιγὴν τε ἔχειν αὐτὸς καὶ ἑτέροις συμβουλεῦσαι τοῦτο δρᾶν, ὡς ἂν μὴ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις καὶ τοῖς μεθ’ ἡμᾶς εἴη γνώριμα τὰ οὔτως ἐκτόπως καὶ ἀτημελῶς εἰρημένα· ἐπειδὴ δὲ δυσφημιῶν ὄχλος ἐνσεσώρευται τῷ βιβλίῳ καὶ πολλή τις γέγονεν ἡ κατάρρησις τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας καθυλακτοῦσα δογμάτων, πῶς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡμᾶς μόνον οὐχὶ καὶ ἀνταποδύσασθαι καὶ ὑπεραθλῆσαι τῶν ἐντευξομένων, ὡς ἂν μή τι πάθοιεν ἐντεῦθεν τὸ βλάβος, εἰδεῖεν δὲ μᾶλλον ἀποκρούεσθαι γεννικῶς τὴν ἀπὸ γε τῶν οὐκ ὀρθῶς εἰρημένων ζημίαν;	5. And this I say having met with a certain book compiled by someone, which contains a large collection of homilies, orderly and systematically arranged and in no way lacking applications for the reader. And if something had been said by its author which should quickly be forgotten and come to nothing, I would have deemed it necessary both to hold my peace myself and to counsel others to do the same, lest things so uncarefully and wrongly said should become known to many others and to those after us. But since a multitude of blasphemies has been heaped into this book and some great accusation has been made, howling against the doctrines of the truth, how was it not necessary that we in turn should (so to say) strip for combat and should fight on behalf of its readers, that they may not take harm from it, but may rather know how to bravely repulse the damage from what is unrightly said?
ὁ μὲν γὰρ θεσπέσιος Ἰωάννης υἱὸς ὠνόμασται βροντῆς παρὰ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ, καὶ μάλα εἰκότως, διά γε τὸ μόνον οὐχὶ κατακτυπῆσαι τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν καὶ καταβροντῆσαι τῆς γῆς, ὡς μέγα τι καὶ ἐξαίσιον εἰρηκώς. διατρανοῖ γὰρ εὖ μάλα τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸ σεπτὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ μέγα μυστήριον. ἔφη μὲν γάρ· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ θεὸς ἦ ὁ λόγος. πάντα δι‘ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀκριβῆ καὶ τετορνευμένην ἐποιήσατο τὴν μυσταγωγίαν καὶ θεὸν ὑπάρχοντα καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπορρήτως γεγεννημένον ἀπέφηνε τὸν μονογενῆ [καὶ] κτίστην καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, τότε δὴ τότε καὶ λίαν ἐπὶ καιροῦ τῆς πανσόφου λοιπὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τε καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πεπραγμένης οἰκονομίας ἄρχεται καί φησι· καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. σάρκα μὲν γὰρ ἔφη τὸν λόγον, τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐνώσεως, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τῆς καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν νοουμένης, ἐμφανίζων τὴν δύναμιν· διὰ δὲ τοῦ καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτὸν σκηνῶσαι λέγειν οὐκ ἐφίησι νοεῖν εἰς σάρκα τὴν ἀπὸ γῆς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν μεταχορῆσαι λόγον. ᾠήθη μὲν <γὰρ> ἂν οἵμαί τις τῶν οὐ λίαν ἠκριβωκότων ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ θεία τε καὶ γενητοῦ παντὸς ἐπέκεινα φύσις, τάχα που καὶ τροπῆς εἶναι δεκτικὴν αὐτὴν καὶ καταραιθυμῆσαι μὲν δύνασθαι τῶν ἰδίων καὶ οὐσιωδῶς αὐτῇ πρυσπεφυκότων ἀγαθῶν, μεταφῦναι δὲ ὥσπερ εἰς ἕτερόν τὶ παρ᾽ ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ τοῖς τῆς κτίσεως ἐγκαθικέσθαι μέτροις, ἀλλοιώσεσι καὶ μεταβολαῖς ἀδοκήτως ὑπενηνεγμένην· ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τὸ χρῆμά ἐστιν ἀμήχανον παντελῶς (ἐρήρεισται γὰρ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσις καὶ ἀκράδαντον ἔχει τὴν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐστι διαμονήν), μεμαρτύρηκεν εἰπὼν τὸ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καίτοι σὰρξ γεγονὼς ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας σοφὸν εὐτεχνῶς ἐξηγούμενος καὶ τό γε μὴ δεῖν τὴν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν συκοφαντεῖσθαι πρὸς τινος ὡς σάρκα γεγενημένην ἐξ ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ παρατροπῆς εὖ μάλα τετηρηκώς.	For the divine John was called by Christ the Savior of us all the ‘son of thunder,’ and with reason, for he sounded out over all beneath the heaven and thundered over the earth, uttering something vast and immense. For he makes known full well the truly dreadful and mighty mystery of the incarnation of the Only-Begotten: for he said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made” [John 1:1, 3]. Having begun so accurately and completely, he then declared that the Only-Begotten, who is God and ineffably begotten of God by nature, is maker and creator of all things. Then, at the proper time, he at length began the work of salvation for our sakes and on our behalf, and says, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” [John 1:14]. For he said that the Word was flesh, showing the force of the true union, i.e., understood as a union of subsistence. And by saying that “he dwelt among us`” he does not allow us to conceive that the Word which is of God by nature passed into flesh which is of the earth. For someone who does not understand exactly what the divine nature is which surpasses all created things might, I suppose, have deemed that it is perhaps capable of change, and could corrupt its own inherent and essential good qualities. He might suppose that it could change (so to say) into something other than what it is, and be brought down to the measures of the creation, subjected in an unexpected way to changes and alterations. But he has testified that this is utterly impossible (for the nature of God is established and remains unshaken in what it is), saying that the Word dwelt among us, albeit made flesh, both skillfully explaining the wisdom of the plan of salvation and ensuring that the nature of the Word not be accused by any as though it had become flesh by change and deviation.
φαμὲν οὖν ἄρα καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ τὸν τῶν θεηγόρων ἰχνηλατοῦντες σκοπὸν καὶ τὸν τῆς πίστεως ὅρον κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον ἐκβαίνοντες τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τὸν μονογενῆ τὸν ἐν κόλποις ὄντα τοῦ πατρός, τὸν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα, καίτοι τὴν πρὸ παντὸς αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνων ἱδικὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχοντα καὶ ἀεὶ συνυφεστηκότα τῷ γεγεννηκότι, καθικέσθαι μὲν εἰς ἑκούσιον κένωσιν ἐν ἐσχάτοις τοῦ αἰῶνος καιροῖς καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν, τουτέστιν ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι καὶ ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομικῶς ὁμοιωθῆναί τε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς κατὰ πάντα διὰ τοῦ μεταλαχεῖν ὁμοίως, αἵματος καὶ σαρκὸς οὕτω τε μεθ’ ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὑπομεῖναι γέννησιν καὶ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς τὴν εἰς τὸ εἶναι πάροδον εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναλαβεῖν [καί], οὐ δευτέρας ἀρχῆς τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι δεδεημένον (ἦν γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀνακεφαλαιώσηται γένος, <ὡς> ἀπαρχὴ πάντων δευτέρα μετὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐκείνην τικτόμενος κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γυναικὸς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. οὕτω γὰρ ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν, ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀνακομίζων πλοῦτον καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐνωθείσης αὐτῷ σαρκὸς πάντας ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ· οὕτω γὰρ οὕτω συντεθάμμεθα μὲν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, συνεγηγέρμεθα δὲ καὶ συνεκαθίσαμεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. γέγραφε γὰρ οὕτως ὁ τῶν αὐτοῦ μυστηρίων ταμίας, ὁ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν θεσπισμάτων ἱερουργός, ὁ σοφώτατος Παῦλος. ἀναγκαῖον τοιγαροῦν εἰς τὴν τοῦ μυστηρίου πίστιν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ παράδειξιν ἀκριβῆ τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἑνώσεως χρῆμα, τῆς καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν λέγω, ἵνα καὶ ὁ τῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεννήσεως τρόπος τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸ ἀνεπίπληκτον ἔχῃ, οὐ πρὸς ὕπαρξιν, ὡς ἔφην, κεκλημένου δευτέραν (αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστι τῶν αἰώνων ὁ ποιητής), ἑαυτὸν δὲ μᾶλλον καθέντος, οἰκονομικῶς εἰς ἀνθρωπότητα δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος οὐκ ἀτιμάσαντος νόμους, ἑλομένου δὲ μᾶλλον μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς γέννησιν ὡς ἰδίαν ἔχειν. ταύτῃ τοι φαμὲν γεγεννῆσθαι κατὰ σάρκα τὸν ἀεὶ συνυπάρχοντα τῷ πατρί. κατέκρινε γὰρ οὕτω τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ καὶ κατήργηκεν ἐν ἡμῖν τοῦ θανάτου τὸ κράτος, καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονὼς ὁ μὴ εἰδὼς ἁμαρτίαν, ὁ ἐν ᾧ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν.	6. We ourselves also speak then, tracking the aim of what is inspired and in no way stepping outside the boundary of the faith. We say that he who is of God by nature¾the Only-Begotten, he who is in the bosom of the Father, he through whom and in whom are all things, albeit having before every age and time his own existence, and ever co-existing with him who begot him¾descended unto voluntary emptiness in the last times of the world, and took the servant’s form, i.e., took on our human condition according to its economy, and was “made like his brothers in every way” [Heb. 2:17], by partaking similarly of blood and flesh. He thus underwent birth with us and like us, and took into himself the passing into being of his own flesh, not as needing a second beginning unto being (for the Word was in the beginning and was God) but, that he might “gather together” [Eph. 1:10] the human race, a second first-fruits of all things after that first one, born according to the flesh of a woman, according to the Scriptures. For being “rich, he became poor” [2 Cor. 8:9], bringing us again to his own wealth and having all in himself through the flesh which was united to him. For thus have we been buried with Christ through Holy Baptism [Col. 2:12], have been raised and made to sit with him in heaven [Eph. 2:6]. For so the steward of his mysteries has written, “the herald and apostle” [1 Tim. 2:7] and minister of the Gospel oracles, the wise Paul. Therefore, just as the faith of the mystery and its exact demonstration is necessary, so also is the fact of true union (I mean the union of subsistence) that the mode of generation according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten may be without blame. He was (as I said) called to no second existence (for he himself is the creator of the world) but lowered himself according to the economy to manhood for our sakes. He did not despise the laws of human nature but chose rather to have the generation in the flesh as his own together with the flesh. Therefore we say that he was born according to the flesh and is ever co-existent with the Father. For thus “he condemned sin in the flesh” [Rom. 8:3] and has brought to naught the might of death in us. And he “who knew no sin” [2 Cor. 5:21], “in whom we live and move and exist” [Acts 17:28], was made like us.

3. Nestorius’ Error – Disusing Theotokos and Dividing the Son

ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ἀδικοῦσί τινες τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων τὸ ἱερώτατον κάλλος καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν τε καὶ πάναγνον ῥυτιδοῦσι παρθένον, εἰς ἀκαλλῆ σαθρότητα τῶν ἰδίων αὐτὴν κατακομίζοντες ἐννοιῶν καὶ ξένων ἡμῖν εὑρημάτων ἐπιτεχίζοντες ὄχλον. γράφονται μὲν γὰρ ὡς νόθην τινὰ καὶ οὐκ εὐφυᾶ, μᾶλλον δὲ ὡς πέρα παντὸς ἰοῦσαν τοῦ καθήκοντος λόγου τὴν θεοτόκος φωνήν, ἣν ἐπὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρϑένῳ συντεθείκασιν οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν ἅγιοι πατέρες, διιστάσι δὲ ἀνὰ μέρος τέμνοντες εἰς υἱοὺς δύο τὸν ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἀποφέρουσι δὲ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς πάθη, καίτοι παθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς ἰδίαν φύσιν, καθὸ νοεῖται θεός, οὐδὲ ἡμῶν εἰρηκότων, ἀνατιθέντων δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτῷ μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τὰ τῇ σαρκὶ συμβεβηκότα πάθη, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολοτῆται σωτήρ. τῷ γὰρ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον καὶ μεμαλάκισται μὲν αὐτὸς διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καίτοι τοῦ παθεῖν τὸν μαλακισμὸν ἀνεπίδεκτος ὤν, σεσώσμεθα δὲ ἡμεῖς τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀναλαβόντος θάνατον διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος.

7. But some (I know not how) corrupt the most sacred beauty of the dogmas of the Church and wrinkle the holy and pure virgin, bringing her down to the unseemly rottenness of their own ideas and arming against us a multitude of new-fangled inventions. For they accuse the word Theotokos—which the holy fathers before us have constructed for the holy virgin—as something illegitimate and uncomely, indeed as going beyond all fit language. They divide into two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ and take the sufferings of the flesh away from God the Word, though not even we have said that he suffered in his own nature as God. Rather we attribute to him along with the flesh the sufferings also that befell the flesh, that he too may be confessed to be Savior. For “by his wounds were we healed,” as it is written, and he has been “wounded for our transgressions” [Is. 53:5], albeit not recipient of suffering any wound. We have been saved by his undergoing death for us through his own body.

4. Cyril’s First Argument – Nestorius Teaches Against the Incarnation

πειράσομαι δὲ ἅπερ ἔφην, ἐπιδεῖξαι σαφῶς. ἀναγνώσομαι γὰρ ἤδη τὰς τοῦ τὸ βιβλίον συγγεγραφότος φωνὰς καὶ πρό γε τῶν ἄλλων ἐκείνας αἳ γεγόνασιν αὐτῷ τῆς θεοτόκος φωνῆς οὐ μετρίως κατειρηκότι. ἐπειδὴ δὲ πλειστάκις διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔρχεται λόγων, ἀντανισταμένους δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἰέναι πλειστάκις ἐννοιῶν ἀναγκαῖον, δότε δὴ δότε συγγνώμην οὐ ταυτοεπεῖν ᾐρημένοις, ἀλλ᾽ ᾗπερ ἂν ἴοι τῶν ἐκείνου λόγων ὁ σκοπός, ταύτῃ καὶ ἡμῖν ἀντιφέρεσθαι δεῖν εὖ μάλα διεγνωκόσιν. ἔφη τοίνυν ὠδὶ τὴν ἐπί γε τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρθένῳ κατακιβδηλεύων φωνήν, φημὶ δὲ τὴν θεοτόκος·	8. But I will demonstrate clearly what I said, for I will now read the words of him who has compiled this book, and first of all those with which he protests in no slight terms against the word Theotokos. But since he repeatedly goes through the same words, and it is necessary that we should repeatedly go through the same ideas, pardon, (I pray) pardon us who do not willfully repeat ourselves but have resolved that in whatever direction the aim of his words goes off, there we too ought to oppose it. He then spoke thus, debasing the title of the holy virgin, Theotokos:
Ἠρώτησα, φησί,πολλάκις αὐτούς, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας αὐτῷ· τὴν θεότητα λέγετε γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου; ἀποπηδῶσιν εὐθὺς πρὸς τὸ ῥῆμα· καὶ τίς, φησί,τοσαύτην βλασφημίαν νοσεῖ, ὥστε ἐκείνην τὴν γεννήσασαν τὸν ναόν, λέγειν παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τὸν θεὸν ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἐκτίσθαι; εἶτα ὅταν ἐπαγάγω πρὸς ταῦτα· τί οὖν ἄτυπον ἡμεῖς λέγομεν συμβουλεύοντες φεύγειν τὴν φωνὴν καὶ ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν σημαινόμενον τῶν δύο φύσεων; τότε νομίζεται αὐτοῖς εἶναι βλάσφημον τὸ λεγόμενον. ἢ ὀμολόγησον σαφῶς θεότητα γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τῆς μακαρίας Μαρίας ἢ φεύγων ὡς βλάσφημον τὴν φωνήν, τί τὰ αὐτά μοι λέγων ὑποκρίνῃ μὴ λέγειν;	9. [Nestorius:] “I often (he says) asked them (i.e., those who contradict him), do you say that the Godhead has been begotten of the holy virgin? They straightway recoil at the saying. Who (he says) is sick of such exceeding blasphemy, as to say that God was formed in her who bore the temple by the Spirit? Then when I reply to this, ‘How do we err when we advise not using that word, and come to the common phrase significant of the two natures?’ Then this appears to them to be blasphemy. Either clearly acknowledge that the Godhead has been born of the blessed Mary, or if you avoid this expression as blasphemy, why do you pretend that you are not saying the same thing I am?”
Οὐκοῦν οἷς ἔφης αὐτὸς καὶ μὴν καὶ φρονεῖν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ἀξιοῖς, οἱ τὰ ἐναντία δοξάζοντες μεμαρτύρηνται σαφῶς καὶ διὰ τῆς σῆς φωνῆς ὀρθὴν καὶ ἀπλανεστάτην τὴν ἐπί γε τῷ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρι Χριστῷ ποιούμενοι δόξαν καὶ πίστιν ἔχοντες εἰς νοῦν, ἣν ταῖς εκκλησίαις παραδεδώκασιν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶν θείων ἡμῶν μυστηρίων ἱερουργοὶ καὶ ταμίαι γνήσιοι. ἀποσείονται μὲν γὰρ καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς ὡς ἀμαθίας τε ὁμοῦ καὶ τῆς εἰς ἄκρον ἡκούσης δυσσεβείας ἀπόδειξιν ἐναργῆ τὸ κἂν γοῦν οἰηθῆναι μόνον τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον εἰς ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι κεκλῆσθαι δευτέραν ἢ γοῦν τῆς ἰδίας ὑπάρξεως ῥίζαν ὥσπερ τινὰ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου τὴν σάρκα λαβεῖν, πλὴν ὀνομάζουσι θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὡς ἀποτεκοῦσαν δηλονότι θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν τὸν Ἐμμανουήλ· γέγονε γὰρ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν θεὸς ὢν φύσει καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ὁ λόγος. ἆρ᾽ οὖν οἷς δοξάζειν ἐγνώκασι, τἀναντία φασίν; ἐρεῖ γὰρ οἶμαί τις τῶν τὰ αὐτά σοι φρονεῖν ᾑρημένων· εἰ μὴ τὴν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν γέννημα σαρκὸς εἶναι φὴς καὶ τῶν εἰς τοῦτο σαυτὸν ἀπαλλάττεις αἰτιαμάτων, πῶς δὴ ἄρα θεὸν ἀποκυῆσαι διαβεβαιοῦ τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον; ἀντακούσεται δὲ πρὸς ἡμῶν· σάρκα γενέσθαι φησὶν ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφὴ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον, τουτέστιν ἀσυγχύτως τε καὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθῆναι σαρκί. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀλλότριον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐνωθὲν αὐτῷ σῶμα, καίτοι γεγεννημένον ἐκ γυναικός, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἴδιον τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἑκάστῳ τὸ αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τουτονὶ τρόπον καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἴδιον ἦν καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρου τὸ σῶμα· οὗτω γὰρ καὶ γεγέννηται κατὰ σάρκα.	10. Therefore those who think contrary to the things which you yourself said and which you believe are worthy of thinking (I know not how), your own mouth has testified to them that they hold the right and most unerring opinion in regard to Christ the Savior of us all, having in mind the faith which was handed down to the churches from those “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” [Luke 1:2] and priests of our mysteries and faithful stewards. For they rightly dismiss as proof of unlearning and extreme impiety the mere notion that the Word of God the Father has been called to a second beginning of being, or that he took flesh from the holy virgin as a root of his own existence. But still they call her Theotokos as having borne Immanuel who is by nature God. For the Word, although God by nature and above us, has been made like us. Do they therefore speak contrary to what they think? For one of those who thinks like you will (I suppose) say, “If you say that the nature of the Word is not offspring of the flesh, and free yourself from this charge, how do you affirm that the holy virgin bore God?” But you in turn will hear from us, “The God-inspired Scripture says that the Word of God the Father became flesh, that is, was without confusion united to flesh in subsistence. For the body which was united to him and born of a woman is not alien to him, but as with each of us his body is his own. In this same way is the body of the Only Begotten his own and no other’s, for thus was he too born according to the flesh.
εἶτα πῶς ἄν, εἰπέ μοι, γέγονε σὰρξ οὐ παρειλημμένης γεννήσεως τῆς ἐκ γυναικός, τῶν τῆς ἀνθρωποότητος νόμων εἰς τοῦτο καλούντων καὶ τῆς σαρκικῆς ὑπάρξεως <εἰς> τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐχ ἑτέραν ἔχειν δυναμένης τὴν ὁδόν; οὐ γάρ που ταῖς Ἑλλήνων τερθρείαις προσεσχηκότες ἐκ δρυυὸς ἢ πέτρας τὰ ἀνθρώπων τίκτεσθαι σώματα καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ῥαψῳδήσομεν, νόμους δὲ τοὺς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡ φύσις ὡρίσατο, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς φύσεως ὁ δημιουργός. τίκτεται γὰρ ὥσπερ ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν ὄντων τὸ συγγενές, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἔχοι τὸ χρῆμα, πόθεν; ἀνέφικτον μὲν γὰρ παντελῶς οὐδὲν ὧν ἂν ἕλοιτο κατορθοῦν, τῇ θείαι τε καὶ ἀπορρήτῳ δυνάμει, ἔρχεται δὲ διὰ τῶν εἰκότων τῇ τῶν ὄντων φύσει, τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτῆς τεθειμένους οὐκ ἀτιμάζουσα νόμους. καὶ ἦν οὐκ ἀνέφικτον τῷ πάντα ἰσχύοντι λόγῳ, κεκρικότι μὲν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, παραπτουμένῳ γε μὴν γέννησιν τὴν ἐκ γυναικός, ἔξωθεν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει πλαστουργῆσαι τὸ σῶμα, καθάπερ ἀμέλει γενέσθαι φαμὲν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ προπάτορος Ἀδὰμ (ἔλαβε γάρ, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἔπλασε τὸν ἄνθρωπον)· ἐπειδὴ δὲ πρόφασις αὕτη τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἦν συκοφαντεῖν ἐθέλουσι τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τὸ μυστήριον καὶ πρὸ γε τῶν ἄλλων τοῖς ἀνοσίοις Μανιχαίοις, οὓς ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω δεδιέναι φὴς μὴ ἄρα που τοῖς θεοτόκον λέγουσι τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον ἐπιπηδήσειαν ὡς ἐν μόναις φαντασίαις διαβεβαιουμένοις γενέσθαι τοῦ λόγου τὴν σάρκωσιν, κεχώρηκεν ἀναγκαίως διὰ τῶν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως νόμων καὶ ἐπείπερ ἦν ὁ σκοπὸς αὐτῷ πληροφορῆσαι σύμπαντας ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀληθῶς, ἐπελάβετο σπέρματος Ἁβραὰμ καὶ μεσιτευούσης πρὸς τοῦτο αὐτὸ τῆς μακαρίας παρθένου παραπλησίως ἡμῖν μετέσχεν αἴματος καὶ σαρκός. ἦν γὰρ οὕτω καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρως μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν γενέσθαι θεόν. χρειωδεστάτη δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἡ τοῦ λόγου σάρκωσις ἢ γοῦν ἐνανθρώπησις ἦν. εἰ μὴ γὰρ γεγέννηται καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς κατὰ σάρκα <καὶ> εἰ μὴ τῶν αὐτῶν ἡμῖν μετέσχε παραπλησίως, οὐκ ἂν τὴν ἀνθρώπου φύσιν τῶν ἐν Ἀδὰμ ἀπήλλαξεν ἐγκλημάτων οὐδ᾽ ἂν τῶν ἡμετέρων σωμάτων ἀπεσόβησε τὴν φθορὰν οὐδ᾽ ἂν κατέληξε τῆς ἀρᾶς ἡ δύναμις, ἣν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ γυναικὶ γενέσθαι φαμέν· εἴρηται γὰρ πρὸς αὐτήν· ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα.	Then how (tell me) would he have become flesh, except that he received birth of a woman? For the laws of human nature demand this, and bodily existence is able to have its beginning in no other way. For we shall not (I suppose) by giving attention to the trickery of the Greeks, also pretend that the bodies of men are born of oak or rock. Nature¾or rather, nature’s Creator¾set us our laws, for just as everything that exists is born of its own kind, so also are we without exception. For nothing which divine and ineffable power desires to accomplish is impossible, yet it operates according to the nature of things that are, not dishonoring the laws set by itself. And it was not impossible for the Word that can do all things, having determined indeed for our sakes to become as we are, yet to refuse the birth of a woman and from without to fashion to himself a body by his own power, just as we say was done in the case of our forefather Adam. For it says, “God took dust of the ground and formed man” [Gen. 2:7]. But since this was an opportunity for the unbelievers who desire to accuse the mystery of the incarnation¾and before all for the unholy Manicheans, whom you say over and over that you fear lest they should spring upon those who call the holy virgin Theotokos, as though they were affirming that the incarnation of the Word existed in mere fantasy¾he did progress through the laws of human nature. Since his aim was to assure all that he has become truly man, he “took hold of the seed of Abraham” [Heb. 2:16], and the blessed virgin was the means to this same end. He “took part like” us in “blood and flesh” [2:14]; for in this way and no other could he become God with us. The Incarnation, or becoming human, of the Word was necessary in another way for those on earth. For if he had not been born like us according to the flesh, he would not have taken part like us of the same and would not have freed the nature of man from the blame contracted in Adam, nor would he have driven away decay from our bodies, nor would the might of the curse have ceased which we say came on the first woman. For it was said to her, “In pain you will bring forth children” [Gen. 3:16].
ἀλλὰ νενόσηκε μὲν ἡ ἀνθρώπου φύσις τὸ ἀπειθὲς ἐν Ἀδάμ, γέγονε <δὲ> νῦν εὐδόκιμος ἐν Χριστῷ διὰ τῆς εἰς ἅπαν ὑπακοῆς· γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ὥσπερ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. πέπονθεν ἐν Ἀδὰμ τὸ γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ· πεπλούτηκὲν ἐν Χριστῷ τὸ κατ<ευμεγεθῆσαι> δύνασθαι τῶν τοῦ θανάτου βρόχων καὶ οἱονεὶ κατορχεῖσθαι φθορᾶς, ἐκεῖνο λέγουσα τὸ προφητικόν· ποῦ ἡ νίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅιδη; γέγονεν ἐπάρατος, ὡς ἔφην, ἀλλ᾽ ἤργησεν ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ τοῦτο. καὶ γοῦν εἴρηταί που πρὸς τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον, προφητευούσης ἐν πνεύματι τῆς Ἐλισάβετ· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου. βεβασίλευκεν ἡμῶν ἡ ἁμαρτία καὶ ὁ τῆς ἁμαρτίας εὑρετὴς καὶ πατὴρ τῶν ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν κατεσοβαρεύετο, τῶν θείων νόμων τὴν παράβασιν ἐγκαλῶν· ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Χριστῷ τὴν ἀνθρώπου φύσιν ὡς ἐν ἀπαρχῇ τοῦ γένους δευτέραι παρρησίαν ἔχουσαν ὁρῶμεν πρὸς ϑεόν. ἔφη γὰρ ἐναργῶς· ἔρχεται ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ εὑρήσει οὐδέν.	11. But the nature of man which had fallen into the disease of disobedience in Adam has become now approved in Christ through his utter obedience. For it is written, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so too by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” [Rom: 5:19]. For in Adam it had suffered: “Dust you are and to dust you will return” [Gen. 3:19]. But in Christ it has gained the riches of being able to be superior to the toils of death, and (so to say) to exult over decay, saying those words of the prophet, “O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting?” [Hos. 13:14, cf. 1 Cor 15:55]. It became accursed, as I said, but in Christ was this too brought to nothing. And truly it has been said somewhere to the holy virgin when Elizabeth prophesied in spirit, “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb” [Luke 1:42]. Sin has reigned over us and the inventor and father of sins behaved himself proudly over all beneath the skies, objecting [to them] the transgression of the divine laws. But in Christ we see the nature of man, as in a second firstfruits of our race, having confidence with God. For he said clearly, “The prince of this world has come, and in me shall find nothing” [John 14:30].
ἀλλ᾽ ὦ βέλτιστε, φαίην ἂν εἰκότως, εἰ μὴ γέγονε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὁ μονογενῆς, γέγονε δὲ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οὐχ ἑτέρως πλὴν ὅτι διὰ γεννήσεως σαρκικῆς τῆς ἐκ γυναικός, οὐκ ἂν ἡμεῖς τὰ αὐτοῦ πεπλουτήκαμεν. ὡς γὰρ ὁ σοφίπατος γράφει Παῦλος δεύτερος, ἡμῖν Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἀπό γε τῆς γῆς κατὰτὸν πρῶτον, ἀλλ’ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πέφηνεν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ. ὁ γὰρ ἄνωθέν τε καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς λόγος οὐκ εἰς τὴν τοῦδέ τινος οὔτε μὴν εἰς ἀλλοτρίαν καταπεφοίτηκε σάρκα, καθάπερ ἤδη προεῖπον, οὐδ’ αὖ ἐφ’ ἕνα τινὰ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς καταβέβηκεν, ὡς ἐνοικήσων αὐτῷ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐν προφήταις ἦν· ἀλλ’ ἴδιον ποιησάμενος σῶμα τὸἐκ γυναικὸς καὶ γεννηθεὶς ἐξ αὐτῆς κατὰ σάρκα τὴν ἀνθρώπου γέννησιν ἀνεκεφαλαιοῦτο δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, μεθ’ ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα γενόμενος ὁ πρὸ παντὸς αἰῶνος ἐκ πατρός ταύτην ἡμῖν τῆς πίστεως τὴν ὁμολογίαν αἱ θεῖαι παρέδοσαν γραφαί, σὺ δὲ δεδιέναι μὲν προσποιῇμὴ ἄρα τις τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὑποπτεύσειε τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ γηίνης σαρκὸς ἐσχηκέναι τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ φύντα λόγον, ἀναιρεῖς δὲ εἰς ἅπαν τῆς μετὰ σαρκὸς οἰκονομίας τὸ μυστήριον, μὴ χρῆναι λέγων ὀνομάζεσθαι πρὸς ἡμῶν θεοτόκον τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον, περιτρέπεις δὲ ὥσπερ εἰς ἄφυκτόν τε καὶ ἀναγκαίαν ὁμολογίαν τοὺς θεοτόκον λέγοντας αὐτὴν τοῦ δεῖν οἴεσθαι σαρκὸς γενέσθαι καρπὸν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὧδε τοῦτ’ ἔχει, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ. ὁ γὰρ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχων τὴν παντὸς ἐπέκεινα χρόνου (καὶ γάρ ἐστι τῶν αἰώνων δημιουργός) ἐν ἐσχάτοις τοῦ αἰῶνος καιροῖς, ἐπεί τοι γέγονε σάρξ, γεγεννῆσθαι λέγεται κατὰ σάρκα. εἰ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα νοεῖται, πῶς οὐ πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως τὴν τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος γέννησιν οἰκειώσεται; ἀλλ’ ἐπῄνεσας ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν τῶν οὕτω δοξαζόντων ὀρθὴν καὶ ἀβέβηλον πίστιν, εἰ [δὲ] σαυτὸν ἀναπείθειν ἤθελες διαλογίζεσθαι καὶ ὁμολογεῖν ὅτι θεὸς ἀληθῶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, εἷς τε καὶμόνος ὢν <υἱὸς> τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, οὐ διῃρημένοςεἰς ἄνθρωπον ἰδικῶς καὶ ὁμοίως εἰς θεόν, ἀλλ’ ὁ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος καὶ ἐκ γυναικὸς ἄνθρωπος καθ’ ἡμᾶς μετὰ τοῦ μεῖναι θεός.	12. But, good sir (would I with reason say), we would not have been enriched with what belongs to the Only-Begotten had he not become like us, that is, by means of birth in the flesh from a woman. For as the most wise Paul writes to us, Emmanuel “the second Adam” has appeared to us, not from the earth like the first, but “from heaven” [1 Cor. 15:47]. For the Word that is from above and from the Father has come down not into the flesh of any one [person] nor into alien flesh (as I already said), nor again has he descended upon any one of those like us to dwell in him, as he was in the prophets. But having made his own the body which was from a woman and born from her according to the flesh, he who is of the Father before all ages gathered up man’s birth through himself, made like us according to the flesh. This confession of faith the divine scriptures delivered to us. But you pretend to fear lest any of us should suppose that the Word begotten of God had the beginning of his being from earthly flesh. You utterly take away the mystery of the economy with flesh, saying that the holy virgin ought not to be called by us Theotokos. You accuse those who call her Theotokos—an inevitable and necessary confession—of supposing that the Word out of God became the fruit of flesh. But it is not so—far from it! For he who has his being of God the Father before all time (for he is the framer of the ages), in the last times of the age, since he became flesh, is said to have been begotten according to the flesh. For if the body is conceived of as his own, how will he not wholly and entirely appropriate the birth of his own body? You yourself too would have approved the right and undefiled faith of these who hold to this, if you would have persuaded yourself to reason and to confess that Christ is truly God, the one and only of God the Father, not severed separately into man and likewise into God, but the same, both Word out of God the Father and man out of woman like us, while he remains as God.

5. Cyril’s Second Argument – Nestorius’ Doctrine of Incarnation is Flawed

ὅτι δὲ συκοφαντεῖς τοῦ λόγου τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν, δύο πρεσβεύων υἱοὺς πανταχῇ καὶ διατέμνων τὸν ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, οὐ διὰ τῶν ἐμῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν σῶν δειχθήσεται λόγων.	13. But that you attack the birth according to the flesh of the Word, in every way declaring two sons and dividing the one Lord Jesus Christ, shall be shown not by my words but by your own.
Τοῦ Νεστορίου. Βλέπε τὸ συμβαῖνον, αἱρετικέ. οὐ φθονῶ τῆς φωνῆς τῇ Χριστοτόκῳ παρθένῳ, ἀλλ’ οἶδα σεβασμίαν τὴν δεξαμένην θεόν, δι’ ἧς παρῆλθεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης, δι’ ἧς ἀνέλαμψεν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὁ ἥλιος. πάλιν ὑποπτεύω τὸν κρότον· πῶς τὸ παρῆλθεν ἐνοήσατε; οὐκ εἴρηταί μοι τὸ παρῆλθεν ἀντὶτοῦ ἐγεννήθη· οὐ γὰρ οὕτω ταχέως ἐπιλανθάνομαι τῶν ἰδίων. τὸ παρελθεῖν τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Χριστοτόκου παρθένου παρὰ τῆς θείας ἐδιδάχθην γραφῆς, τὸ δὲ γεννηθῆναι θεὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς οὐδαμοῦ ἐδιδάχθην. Καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα· Οὐδαμοῦ τοίνυν ἡ θεία γραφὴ θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Χριστοτόκου λέγει γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ Ἰησοῦν, Χριστόν, υἱόν, κύριον. Προσεπάγει δὲ τούτοις ὅτι μὴ θεὸς ἀληθῶς, θεοφόρος δὲ μᾶλλον ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ Χριστός, ὡς γοῦν οἴεται καταδεικνὺς τὴν τοῦ ἀγγέλου φωνὴν τῷ μακαρίῳ λέγοντος Ἰωσήφ· ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον. εἰδέναι δέ φησι καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, καίτοι σοφωτέρους ὄντας ἡμῶν, ὅτι παιδίον ἦν.	14. [Nestorius:] “Look what follows, heretic. I hold nothing against the term Christotokos for the virgin, but I know that she who received God is noble, and the Lord of all passed through her, and through her the sun of righteousness beamed. Again I suspect your applause: how did you understand ‘passed through’? I have not said ‘passed through,’ in the sense of ‘born,’ for not so quickly do I forget my own words. The divine Scripture taught me that God passed through the virgin Christotokos; that God was born from her, was I never taught.” And more: “Never therefore does the divine Scripture say that God was born of the Christotokos, but rather Jesus, Christ, Son, Lord.” And here he adds that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, as he supposes, putting forward the angel’s voice saying to blessed Joseph, “Arise, take the young child” [Matt. 2:13], and says that the angels too, though wiser than we, knew that he was a child.
Αἱρετικὸν μὲν οὖν ἐν τούτοις ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα καὶ τεθαυμασμένην ἐπὶ Χριστῷ τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἐπείπερ ἐστὶ θεὸς ἀληθῶς, θεοτόκον ὀνομάζοντα τὴν τεκοῦσαν αὐτόν· γένοιτο δ’ ἂν οὐδενὶ τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ἀμφίλογον ὅτι τοῖς ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν ᾑρημένοις τὸν τῶν αἱρέσεων μῶμον ἀνάπτων αὐτὸς τῶν ἰδίων καθοριεῖ λόγων τὸ ἀκαλλές, μόνον δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ διωμολόγηκεν ἐναργῶς ὡς ἔξω που τῆς εἰς εὐθὺ φέρεται τρίβου καὶ τροχιὰς ποιεῖται τὰς διεστραμμένας. εἶτα πῶς οὐ φθονεῖς, εἰπέ μοι, τῆς τοιᾶσδε φωνῆς τῇ ἁγίαι παρθένῳ, καίτοι τῆς θείας γεννήσεως ἀναιρῶν τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ θεοτόκον οὐκ εἶναιλέγων αὐτήν; κατακιβδηλεύων δὲ τὴν λέξιν καὶ βλασφημίας ἐπίμεστον εἶναι διαβεβαιούμενος, τίνα τρόπον ἐφίης τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἀπονέμειν αὐτὴν τῇ ἁγίαι παρθένῳ; καίτοι σεβασμίαν ἀκούω λέγοντος αὐτήν. εἶτα τὴν βλάσφημον οὕτω φωνὴν κατά γε τὸ αὐτῷ σοι καὶ μόνῳ δοκοῦν πρέπειν οἰηθεὶς τῇ σεβασμιωτάτῃ κοσμεῖν καὶ στεφανοῦν ὑποπλάττῃ, γέρας ὥσπερ ἐξαίρετον ἀνατιθεὶς αὐτῇ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου συκοφαντίαν; εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ὅλως τῶν ἀπηχθημένων τῷ ἐκ θεοῦ φύντι λόγῳ τὸ γέννησιν ὑπομεῖναι σαρκικήν, εἶτα θεοτόκον ὀνομάζεσθαι συγχωρεῖς τὴν οὐ τεκοῦσαν θεόν, ἆρ’ οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὡς καταπεφρόνηκας ἐναργῶς τῶν δεσποτικῶν θελημάτων; οὐκ ἂν ἁλοίης περιυβρίζων μᾶλλον τὴν σεβασμίαν ἢ γοῦν, ὡς αὐτὸς οἴει τε καὶ λέγεις, τιμᾶν ᾑρημένος, τὴν τῷ θεῷ κατεστυγημένην φωνὴν ἀπονέμων αὐτῇ; εἰ γὰρ οὓς τιμᾶν ἐγνώκαμεν, τούτοις ὀνόματα χαριούμεθα τὰ δι’ ὧν <ἂν> ἡ τῆς ἀνωτάτω φύσεως ἀδικοῖτο δόξα, πρῶτον μὲν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς τοιαύτης δυσφημίας ἐγκλήμασιν ἐνιέντες ἀγνοήσομεν,εἶτα πρὸς τούτοις οὐ μετρίως ἀδικήσομεν, ὡς ἐν ὑπολήψει τιμῆς τοὺς ἐπαινουμένους τοῖς οὐκ ἐπαινοῦσι κατασεμνύνοντες καὶ θεομισὲς αὐτοῖς ἐξυφαίνοντες τὸ ἐγκώμιον.	15. Therefore here he labels as a heretic the one who holds the right and admirable faith about Christ, and who, since Christ is truly God, calls the one who bore him Theotokos. But there will be no doubt to any of those who think correctly that it is he himself who is establishing the ugliness of his own words by fastening the blame of heresies on them who choose to believe what is right. He has all but confessed openly that he is outside of the straight way and is making crooked paths. Next, how (tell me) do you not oppose this title for the holy virgin, although you take away the dignity of the divine birth, and say that she is not Theotokos? Rather, since you dishonor the expression and affirm that it is full of blasphemy, what do you say about those who want to apply it to the holy virgin (though I hear you call her noble)? And if the word is so blasphemous to you (and to you alone), how then is it fit to adorn the most noble one? How is it that you pretend to crown her with such a slur against the Word of God as if it were some great honor? For if it is fully abhorrent to the Word who is sprung of God to endure a birth according to the flesh, and you permit her who did not bear God to be called Theotokos, is it not true to say that you have openly despised the Lord’s will? Will you not be caught insulting rather the noble one, rather than (as you suppose and say) electing to honor her, by allotting to her a name hated by God? For not to those whom we determine to honor do we give names by which the glory of the supreme nature is dishonored. First of all we shall unintentionally be involving our own selves in the charge of such impiety, and next we shall do them no slight wrong, as if in honor decking those we praise with what is no praise, and weaving for them a laudation hated by God.
θαυμάσειε δ’ ἄν τις πρὸς τούτῳ κἀκεῖνο. ἄνω τε γὰρ καὶ κάτω ταῖς τῶν ἀνοσίων αἱρετικῶν ἐπιπλήττων φωναῖς καὶ κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον ἐφιεὶς ἰσχύειν αὐτάς, ὅτι τῶν θείων δογμάτων παραιροῦνται τὸ ἀληθές, εἶτατὴν θεοτόκος φωνὴν οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγαις τιθεὶς αἰτίαις καὶ ὁμοῦ ταῖς ἄλλαις γραφόμενος ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῶς καὶ δύσφημον, συγχωρεῖν φὴς καὶ οὐ φθονεῖν τῇ παρθένῳ, κἂν εἰ ἕλοιτό τις εἰπεῖν θεοτόκον αὐτήν. ἐφίης οὖν ἆρα καὶ τοῖς τὴν Ἀρείου νοσοῦσι μανίαν ἐν μείοσιν εἶναι λέγειν τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἢ γοῦν τοῖς ἄλλοις, οἳ τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος κατακομίζουσι φύσιν τῆς θεοπρεποῦς ὑπεροχῆς; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἂν ἕλοιο τοῦτο δρᾶν, κἂν εἴ τις ἐθέλοι τὴν αἰτίαν ἀναμαθεῖν, ἐρεῖς δή που πάντως ὅτι φωνῆς οὐκ ἀνέχομαι δυσσεβοῦς. οὐκοῦν εἰ μή ἐστι θεοτόκος, εἶτα τοῦτο λέγεσθαι συγχωρεῖς, ἴσθι λελοιπὼς τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ σμικρὰ φροντίζων ἔτι τοῦ δοκεῖν εἶναι σοφός. ἢ γὰρ οὐχὶ καὶ τὴν Ἐλισάβετ ἢ γοῦν ἑτέραν τῶν ἁγίων γυναικῶν αἰδοῦς ἁπάσης ἀξίαν εἶναι φής; ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ φθονήσεις, εἰ δή τις ἕλοιτο θεοτόκους καὶ αὐτὰς εἰπεῖν; ἀλλ’, οἶμαι, πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως ἀνταναστήσῃ λέγων· οὐχ οὕτω ταῦτ’ ἔχει· τετόκασι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους ἡγιασμένους καὶ ἦν ἐν ἐκείνοις θεὸς κατὰ φύσιν οὐδείς. οὐκοῦν ἢ γυναικὸς ἁπάσης ἀποσόβει τὸ χρῆμα ἢ γοῦν ἔχειν ἐφιεὶς μόνῃ παρὰ πάσας τῃ ἁγίᾳ παρθένῳ, ποίοις ἄρα κεχρήσῃ λόγοις εἰς ἀπολογίαν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθὲς ἐπ’ αὐτῇ τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ θεὸν τέτοκεν ἀληθῶς, ὡς σάρκα γεγονότα τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον ὁμολόγει σὺν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἀπαλλάξεις σεαυτὸν τῶν εἰς δυσσέβειαν ἐγκλημάτων· εἰ δὲ θεὸν οὐ τέτοκε, τὸ ἐφεῖναι λέγειν τισὶ θεοτόκον αὐτὴν κοινωνεῖν ἐστι τῆς δυσσεβείας αὐτοῖς. ἀλλ’ ἔστι θεοτόκος, ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὁ μονογενής, σαρκὶ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἡνωμένος καὶ σωματικὴν ὑπομείνας γέννησιν καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως οὐκ ἀτιμάσας νόμους, καθάπερ ἤδη προεῖπον.	16. Moreover, one may marvel at this too: though you strike right and left against the words of the unholy heretics and in no way allow them to prevail (because they take away the truth of the divine doctrines), and though you take so strong a stance against the term Theotokos and accuse it among other things of being untrue and impious, yet you said that you pardon it and will not hold a grudge against someone even if he should choose to call the virgin Theotokos. Therefore, will you also permit it to those who are diseased with the madness of Arius, to say that the Son is inferior to the Father? Or again to the rest who bring down the nature of the Holy Spirit from an excellency fit for God? You would not choose to do this. And if any one desire to learn why, you will (I suppose) surely say that you cannot endure a blasphemous word. Hence, if she is not Theotokos, and you permit this to be said—know that you are deserting the truth, and care little about any longer appearing wise. For do you not say that Elizabeth too or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? Will you then not be bothered if anyone should choose to also call them theotokes?¹ But I suppose that you will surely and utterly oppose them and say, “This is not so; for they bore sanctified men, yet none of them was God by nature.” Therefore, either permit this term to apply to no woman, or if you allow the holy virgin alone among all to have it, what words will you use for your defense? For if it be true of her and she has truly borne God, in that the Word of God has been made flesh, confess this with us, and you will free yourself from the charge of impiety. But if she has not borne God, to permit any to call her Theotokos is to participate in their impiety. But she is Theotokos because the Only-Begotten has been made man as we are, in truth united to flesh, and enduring fleshly birth and not dishonoring the laws of our nature, as I said before.
Ἐπειδὴ δέ φησιν εἰδέναι σεβασμίαν αὐτήν, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον, φέρε δὴ φέρε καταθρήσωμεν καὶ τῆς ἐπ’ αὐτῇ γενομένης αἰδοῦς <τὰς> αἰτίας. οἶδα γάρ φησι σεβασμίαν αὐτήν, δι’ ἧς παρῆλθεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης, δι’ ἧς ἀνέλαμψεν ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἥλιος. πῶς δὴ ἄρα φὴς ὑποδέχεσθαι θεὸν αὐτήν; ἢ τίνα παρῆλθε τρόπον δι’ αὐτῆς ὁ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης; ἢ καὶ ὅπως ἀνέλαμψεν ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἥλιος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ τέτοκε θεόν, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα φημί, πῶς ἐδέξατο θεόν; πῶς παρῆλθε δι’ αὐτῆς; ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἐρεῖς τὸ σὸν δὴ τοῦτο καὶ σοφόν, ὡς γοῦν οἴει τε καὶ λέγειν ἀποτολμᾶις· θεὸς γὰρ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἀνθρώπῳ τε συνημμένος καὶ ἐνοικῶν αὐτῷ. ἀλλ’ ἥ γε τῆς πίστεως παράδοσις τοῖς εἰς τοῦτο σοῖς ἀνταποδύεται λόγοις· οὐ γὰρ θεοφόρον ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ’ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα θεὸν προσκυνεῖν δεδιδάγμεθα, σὺ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως φής. εἶτα πῶς οὐκ αἰσθάνῃ ληρῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς θείοις δόγμασι παραχαράττων ἀλήθειαν; γέγονε γὰρ σὰρξ ὁ λόγος. ἀνθ’ ὅτου δὲ δὴ καὶ θεὸν ὑποδέχεσθαι φὴς αὐτήν, εἰ μὴ πεπίστευκας ὅτι θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν ἐκτέτοκε τὸν Ἐμμανουήλ; πῶς δι’ αὐτῆς παρῆλθεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης καὶ ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἀνέλαμψεν ἥλιος καὶ τίνα τοῖς τοιούτοις ὀνόμασι κατακαλλύνειν ἀξιοῖς; ἆρα κοινὸν μὲν ἄνθρωπον ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς, πλὴν ἡγιασμένον ὡς ἔνοικον ἔχοντα τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον; εἶτα πῶς ὁ τοιοῦτος τῶν ὅλων ἔσται δεσπότης καὶ ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἥλιος; τὸ γὰρ δεσπόζειν τε καὶ κρατεῖν τῶν ὅλων δύνασθαι καὶ φωτίζειν τὰ νοητὰ πρέποι ἂν οὐ μέτροις τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ἀνακείσεται δὲ μόνῃ τῇ ὑπερτάτω καὶ ἀνωτάτω φύσει.	17. But since he says that he knows that the holy virgin is noble, let us consider the reason too of the reverence that was done her: “for I know (he says) that she is noble, through whom the Lord of all passed, through whom the sun of righteousness beamed.” How then do you say that she received God? Or in what way did the Lord of all pass through her? Or how beamed the sun of righteousness? For if she has not borne God (after the flesh I mean), how did she receive God? How did he pass through her? But you will accidentally say this wise word of yours as you think and dare to speak it: God the Word was both connected with man and indwelling him.² But the tradition of the faith stands against your words in this matter. We have not been taught to worship a God-bearing man, but rather God incarnate. But you do not say this. How then do you not see that you are babbling and treating falsely the truth that is in the divine dogmas? For the Word has been made flesh. How did you now say that she received God except if you believed that she has borne Emmanuel who is God by nature? How did the Lord of all pass through her and how beamed the sun of righteousness? And who is he that you think fit to embellish by such names? Is he a common man, like one of us, yet holy, as having the Word of God dwelling in him? Then how will such a one be Lord of all, and sun of righteousness? For the power of lordship and dominion over all and of illumining things possessing intelligence will pertain not to our measures, but will be attributed to the supreme and most high nature alone.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ διῆλθεν ὅλως οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅθεν λαβὼν τέθεικας ἐπὶ θεοῦ, διασάφει τὴν λέξιν. τί τὸ χρῆμα τῆςἐνθάδε λεγομένης διόδου; τῆς σῆς εἴη ἂν φρενὸς ἠγνοηκόσιν εἰπεῖν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὕτω διῆλθεν αὐτὴν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, ὡς ἐκ τόπου πρὸς ἕτερον μεταχωρῆσαι τόπον, αὐτόθεν καταβαλεῖ σε· ἀκούσῃ γὰρ λέγοντος αὐτοῦ διὰ φωνῆς τῶν ἁγίων· μὴ οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ; λέγει κύριος. οὐ γὰρ ἐν τόπῳ τὸ θεῖον καὶ μεταστάσεις οὐκ οἶδε σωματικάς, πληροῖ γὰρ τὰ πάντα. εἰ δὲ ἐπείπερ τὸν τῷ τόκῷ πρέποντα περιμείνας καιρὸν σχετικὴν ἐν ἀνθρώπῷ τὴν ἐνοίκησιν ἐποιήσατο, διελάσαι φὴς τὸν θεὸν τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου ἢ γοῦν παρελθεῖν <δι’> αὐτῆς (κεχρήσομαι γὰρ πανταχῇ ταῖς ἱεραῖς σου φωναῖς), οὐδὲν ἄρα τὸ περιττὸν ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρθένῳ παρὰ τὰς ἄλλας ὁρῶμεν. ἐκτέτοκε γὰρ ἡ Ἐλισάβετ τὸνμακάριον βαπτιστὴν ἡγιασμένον διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, δι’ οὗ πνεύματος καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ἐν ἡμῖν αὐλίζεται. καὶ μαρτυρήσει λέγων ὁ σοφὸς Ἰωάννης· ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστιν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν. διῆλθεν οὖν ἄρα καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν Ἐλισάβετ ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ λόγος, καὶ πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως ἐνῳκηκὼς τῷ βρέφει διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος.	18. But, since you have taken the word ‘passed through’ (from where I do not know) and have applied it to God, explain the word. Your wisdom will possess the meaning of the ‘passed through’ about which we are speaking, so that you are able to tell us who don’t know it. For if the Word of God so passed through her, as to pass from one place to another, you immediately cast him down; for you will hear him saying by the voice of the saints, “Do not I fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?” [Jer. 23:24]. For the Godhead is not in a place nor does it bodily change places, for it fills all things. But if while awaiting the right time for birth, he made an incidental indwelling in man, and so you say that God made passage through the holy virgin, or ‘passed through’ her (for I will use all your holy words), then we see nothing special in the holy virgin more than in other women. For Elizabeth bore the blessed Baptist who had been made holy through the Spirit, through whom the Son himself also makes his dwelling among us. And the wise John will witness saying, “By this we know that he is in us, because he gave us his Spirit” [John 4:13]. The Word of God therefore passed through Elizabeth herself too, indwelling in the babe through the Spirit even before its birth.
Ἀλλ’ ὑποπτεύεις τὸν κρότον, ὡς ὀρθά σοι λαλεῖν ᾑρημένῳ λοιπὸν γεγονότα παρὰ λαῶν. ἥλιον γὰρ δικαιοσύνης ὠνόμασας καὶ τῶν ὅλων δεσπότην τὸν ἐκτῆς ἁγίας παρθένου γεγεννημένον. εἶτα πάλιν ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι προσποιῇ καὶ τὸν κρότον αἰτιᾷ καὶ χαίροντας ἐπὶ σοὶ γράφῃ πάλιν ὡς οὐ νενοηκότας.ὢ πολλῆς ἰσχύος, ἣ τοῖς σοῖς ἔνεστι λόγοις. οὐ γέγονας μελλητὴς εἴς γε τὸ χρῆναι καταλυπεῖν αὐτούς,ἔστρεψας εὐθὺς εἰς πένθος τὴν χαράν, διέρρηξας τὴν εὐφροσύνην καὶ διέζωσας σάκκον, ἐπαπαγὼν εὐθύς [εἶτα] πάλιν ὑποπτεύω τὸν κρότον· πῶς τὸ παρῆλθεν ἐνοήσατε; οὐκ εἴρηταί μοι τὸ παρῆλθεν ἀντὶτοῦ ἐγεννήθη· οὐ γὰρ οὕτω ταχέως ἐπιλανθάνομαι τῶν ἰδίων. τὸ παρελθεῖν τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς Χριστοτόκου παρθένου παρὰ τῆς θείας ἐδιδάχθην γραφῆς, τὸ δὲ γεννηθῆναι θεὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς οὐδαμοῦ ἐδιδάχθην.	19. But do you feel suspicious of the applause as though it came to you from the people for having chosen to speak right things? For having called him who was born of the holy virgin ‘sun of righteousness’ and ‘Lord of all,’ you then again pretend to speak with precision, and find fault with the applause, and accuse again those who are rejoicing over you of not having understood. What great strength is in your words! You have made no delay in troubling them; you immediately turned their joy into mourning; you tore off their rejoicing and clothed them with sackcloth, straightway adding, “Again I suspect your applause. How did you understand ‘passed through’? I have not said ‘passed through’ in the sense of ‘was born’, for not so quickly do I forget my own words. That God passed through the virgin Christotokos, I was taught by the divine scriptures; that God was born of her, was I nowhere taught.”
Οὐκοῦν σὰ μὲν ἦν ἐκεῖνα τὰ διεστραμμένα, τῷ γε μὴν ἐν ὑποψίαις ὀρθότητος τὸν σὸν γεγενῆσθαι νοῦν ὁ ἐξ ἀγάπης <ἐγένετο> κρότος. ἐνστήσομαι δὲ καὶ νῦν οὐδὲν ἧττον, ἐκεῖνο λέγων· τί τὸ παρῆλθεν ἐστὶν εἰ μὴδηλοῖ τὴν γέννησιν; ἆρα γὰρ ἐρεῖς ὡς αὐτὸς καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ δίχα σαρκὸς ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ λόγος διήλασε τῆς παρθένου; καίτοι πῶς οὐ τῆς ἁπασῶν ἀβελτηρίας ἔμπλεως εἴη ἂν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ; ἢ γὰρ πεποσῶσθαι τὸ θεῖον ἀνάγκη νοεῖν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι κίνησιν τὴν ἐκ τόπου πρὸς τόπον ἕτερον μεταστατικήν, ἢ εἴπερ ἐστὶ τὸ θεῖον ἀσώματον, εὐρὺ δὲ καὶ πανταχοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ καὶ περιγραφῇ, πῶς ἂν δι’ ἑνὸς παρέλθοι σώματος; ἀλλ’ ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστιν ὃ φής, πῶς οὐκ ἔδει διατρανοῦν καὶ ἐναργέστερον εἰπεῖν, εἰ ταῖς σαυτοῦ περὶ τούτου δόξαις τεθαρσηκὼς μαρτυρεῖν ἔχεις αὐταῖς τὸ ἀμώμητον; ποῦ δὲ δὴ καὶ ἀκήκοας τῆς θεοπνεύστου λεγούσης γραφῆς ὅτι παρῆλθεν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος διὰ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου; ὅτι μὲν γὰρ βραχὺς καὶ συνεσταλμένος τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ὁ βίος, ἐδίδαξελέγων ὁ μακάριος Δαυίδ· ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ χόρτος αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ· ὡσεὶ ἄνθος τοῦ ἀγροῦ, οὕτως ἐξανθήσει, ὅτι πνεῦμα διῆλθεν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρξει· περὶ δὲ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου τί τοιοῦτον ἔχειςγεγραμμένον εἰπεῖν; ὅτι δὲ γεγέννηται θεὸς ἐξ αὐτῆς, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα φημί, διαμεμήνυκεν ἐναργῶς ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφή.	20. Those, then, are your perverted sayings. The applause was of love, in that your mind had some guise of orthodoxy. But I will press on now too no less and ask: What is ‘passed through,’ if it mean not birth? Will you say that the Word out of God himself by himself and apart from flesh hastened through the virgin? Yet how would this not be replete with all foolishness? For it would be necessary to suppose that the Godhead were recipient of quantity, and of movement which travels from one place to another. Or if the Godhead be unembodied, at large and everywhere, and not in place and limited, how will it pass through a single body? But whatever it be that you are saying, how do you not need to clear it up and say it more openly? If you are confident in your own opinions about it, aren’t you able to testify to their incorruption? Where (I pray) have you heard the God-inspired Scripture say that the Word of God passed through the holy virgin? For David taught that the lives of those on earth are brief and contracted. He said about man that “his days are as grass, as a flower of the field so he flourishes; for the wind passes through him and he shall not be” [Ps. 103:15–16], but of the holy virgin what thing of this sort can you say has been written? That God has been born of her, after the flesh I mean, God-inspired scripture has clearly shown.

6. Cyril’s Third Argument – Nestorius’ Incarnation is a Separation of Natures

Εἶμι δὲ δὴ πάλιν ἐπί γε τοὺς σούς, ὦ πανάριστε, λόγους. διωμολόγηκας γὰρ καὶ αὐτός, καὶ τοῦτο πλειστάκις, ὅτι γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ λόγος, καὶ οὐκ ἀπόβλητον ἐποιήσω τὴν φωνὴν καὶ πρός γε τούτῳ κἀκεῖνο· τὴν γάρτοι τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεότητα σαφῶς καὶ ἀναφανδὸν ἐνανθρωπῆσαι φής. γέγραφας δὲ τουτονὶ τὸν τρόπον	21. But I will go again to your own words, most-excellent one, for you have yourself also confessed, and this very often, that the Word has been made flesh, and you reject it not. And this too you say besides: for you say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten was clearly and openly incarnate. You have written in this way,
Οὕτω καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις φησίν· ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃνἔθετο κληρονόμον πάντων, δι’ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν· ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης· θεὶς τὸ υἱός,καλεῖ τοῦτον ἀσφαλῶς καὶ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ θετὸν κληρονόμον, κληρονόμον μὲν κατὰ τὴν σάρκα θετόν, ἀπαύγασμα δὲ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δόξης κατὰ τὴν θεότητα· οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστη τῆς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα σαρκωθεὶς ὁμοιότητος. Καὶ πρός γε δὴ τούτῳ πάλιν οὕτω φησί· Τοὺς γὰρ χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεριδὼνὁ θεὸς τὰ νῦν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παραγγέλλει μετανοεῖν, καθότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὥρισε, πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. πρότερον εἰπὼν ἐν ἀνδρί, προστίθησι τότε τὸἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἵνα μηδεὶς τὴν ἐνθρωπήσασαν ὑποπτεύοι τεθνηκέναι θεότητα.	22. [Nestorius:] “Thus it says elsewhere too: ‘He spoke to us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds, who is the brightness of his glory’ [Heb. 1:2–3]: having put ‘Son,’ it calls him fearlessly both ‘brightness of his glory,’ and appointed ‘heir;’ heir, appointed after the flesh, brightness of the Father’s glory after the Godhead. For though made flesh, he did not depart from likeness to the Father. And in addition it again says thus, ‘for God tolerated the times of ignorance, but now commands all men to repent, because he fixed a day in which he will judge the world by the man whom he appointed, having given assurance unto all men in that he raised him from the dead’ [Acts 17:30–31]. Having first said, ‘By the man,’ he then adds, ‘In that he raised him from the dead,’ that no one might suppose that the Godhead incarnate had died.
Τίς οὖν ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ σεσαρκωμένος ἢ τίνα σεσάρκωταιτρόπον; ποία δὲ θεότης <ἡ> ἐνανθρωπήσασα; φράσαις ἄν, ὦ βέλτιστε, τοῖς ἐθέλουσι μαθεῖν. ἆρα σεσαρκῶσθαι δώσομεν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν λόγον καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι φαμὲν αὐτὸν ὡς καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονότα καὶ γεγεννημένον σαρκί; ἢ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδαμῶς, ἄνθρωπον δὲ νομιοῦμεν πρὸς τοῦτο ἐλθεῖν θεῷ συνημμένον κατὰ σέ; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι, φαίης ἂν ὡς ἄμεινον δή που καὶ σοφὸν τὸ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι φρονεῖν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον καὶ σάρκα γενέσθαι κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. οὐ γάρ που τὸ ἐν ᾧ τίς ἐστιν, ὁρῷτο ἄν, οἶμαι, προσλαβών· εἰ δὲ δὴ γένοιτό πως ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἦν ἐν ἀρχαῖς, κεκαινουργῆσθαί τι περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκδείξειεν ἂν ὁ λόγος εὐθύς. οὐκοῦν ἀμαθὲς τὸ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγειν καὶ σάρκα γενέσθαι τινὰ τῶν τελούντων ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὅρους ἐκβεβηκότα, πρέποι δ’ ἂν καὶ μάλα εἰκότως ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις ἢ γοῦν ἡ σάρκωσις τῇ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐπέκεινα φύσει. εἰ δὲ ἐνηνθρώπησεν ἀληθῶς καὶ γέγονε σάρξ, ἄνθρωπος δή που νοεῖσθαι πεπίστευται καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ τινὶ συνημμένος κατὰ μόνην τὴν ἐνοίκησιν ἢ γοῦν κατά τινα τῶν ἔξωθεν σχέσεων ἤτοι συνάφειαν, ὡς σὺ φής. πλὴν εἰ καὶ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἀναπόβλητον ἔχει τὸ εἶναι θεός. οὔτε δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς εἰς τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν γενέσθαι φαμὲν μεταβολήν, ἡγούμεθα δὲ καὶ τὸ ἔμπαλιν οὐχ ὧδε ἔχειν· μεμένηκε γὰρ ἡ τοῦ λόγου τοῦθ’ ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ ἑνωθεῖσα σαρκί.	23. Who then is he who was incarnate? Or in what way was he incarnate? Tell, most excellent sir, what Godhead was incarnate? Tell us who wish to learn it. Shall we grant that the Word, God out of God, was incarnate, and say that he was made man, as having become as we and born in flesh? Or shall we in no way allow this, but suppose that a man came to this, connected with God, according to you? But you will (I suppose) say that it is better and wise to think that the Word out of God was incarnate and made flesh, according to the scriptures. For (I suppose) where one is can’t be seen beforehand, but if he come somehow to be where he was not at first, reason will rightly admit that something new has happened regarding him. Therefore it is unlearned to say that any of us who have stepped forth of the definitions of human nature have been incarnate and made flesh; but the incarnation, or being made flesh, will befit (and that with much reason) the nature that is beyond humanity. But if he was truly incarnate and has been made flesh, he is accredited as man and not connected with a man by mere indwelling or external relation or connection, as you say. Yet even though he became man, he securely possesses the being God, nor do we say that any change took place of the flesh into the nature of Godhead. And we hold that neither did the reverse take place, for the nature of the Word has remained what it is even when united to flesh.
οὐκοῦν ἃ μηδεὶςκἂν γοῦν ἐν ψιλαῖς ἐννοίαις φρονεῖν ἀξιοῖ, διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν ὡς ἀληθῶς εἰρημένα τιθεὶς ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λόγοις τοῖς τῆς εὐσεβείας δόγμασι συναθλεῖν ὑποκρίνῃ; τὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς κράσεως ὄνομα τεθείκασι τινὲς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων· ἐπειδὴ <δὲ> δεδιέναι φὴς μὴ ἄρα τις ἀνάχυσις συμβῆναι νομισθῇ, καθάπερ ἐν τάξει τῶν ἀλλήλοις συγκεκραμένων ὑγρῶν, ἀπαλλάττω σε δειμάτων. πεφρονήκασι γὰρ οὐχ ὧδε, πόθεν; κατακέχρηνται δὲ τῇ λέξει, τὴν εἰς ἄκρον ἕνωσιν τῶν ἀλλήλοις συμβεβηκότων καταδηλοῦν σπουδάζοντες, συμβῆναι δὲ φαμὲν καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον καὶ ἀναλλοιώτως ἔχουσαν τῇ ἰδίᾳ σαρκὶ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον. εὑρήσομεν δὲ καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν θεόπνευστον γραφὴν οὐ σφόδρα τὴν λέξιν ἐκβασανίζουσαν, τιθεῖσαν δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐν καταχρήσει καὶ ἁπλῶς. γέγραφε γοῦν ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος περί τινων· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ συγκεκραμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν. ἆρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαί τε ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, καὶ ἀνάχυσίν τινα τῶν ὑποστάσεων τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλας παθεῖν οἱ περὶ ὧν ὁ λόγος, ἢ μᾶλλον ἑνοῦσθαι κατὰ ψυχὴν κατά γε τὸ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσιν τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων γεγραμμένον ὅτι τοῦ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μία; ἀλλ’ οἶμαι, τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἢ ἐκεῖνο. ἔξω δὴ οὖν τῶν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔσο δειμάτων· ἀσφαλὴς γὰρ λίαν τῶν ἁγίων ὁ νοῦς.	Therefore why do you put in your book what no one would consider even to think, as though actually uttered, pretending to contend for the doctrines of piety? For the name ‘mixture,’ some of the holy fathers too have put. But since you say that you are afraid lest any confusion be deemed to take place, as in the case of liquids mingled with one another, I rid you from your fears, for they did not consider it in this way (how could they?), but they used the word improperly, anxious to declare the extreme union of the things that had come together. And we say that the Word of God came together with his proper flesh, in an indissoluble and unalterable union. And we find that God-inspired scripture itself also does not look minutely into the word, but uses it rather by analogy and simply. Truly the divine Paul has written of some, “But the Word preached did not profit them, who were not mixed in faith with its hearers” [Heb. 4:2]. Were they of whom he spoke going to be mixed one with another, after this fashion, as wine with water, and to undergo a confusion of subsistences, or were they rather to be united in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, “And of the multitude of them that believed was the heart and the soul one”? [Acts 4:32]. But this I suppose is the truth, not the other. Be free then from all fear on this score, for firmly established is the mind of the saints.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγειν τὴν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν οὐδὲν ἕτερον, οἶμαι, ἐστὶν ἢ ἐκεῖνο φρονεῖν ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐ δίχα γεννήσεως τῆς ἐκ γυναικός, ταύτην γὰρ οἶδε καὶ μόνην τὴν ὁδὸν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων σωμάτων ἡ φύσις, πῶς οὐκ ἐδιδάχθης τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ μονογενοῦς παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς; καίτοι καὶ αὐτός, προκειμένων σοί ποτε προφητικῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν, περὶ τοῦ τεχθέντος παιδίου τοιάδε τινὰ φής. Μέγα τοῦ δώρου τὸ μυστήριον. τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ βλεπόμενον βρέφος, τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον πρόσφατον, τοῦτο τὸ σπαργάνων σωματικῶν δεηθέν, τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὁρωμένην οὐσίαν ἀρτίτοκον· υἱὸς κατὰ τὸ κεκρυμμένον αἰώνιος, υἱὸς τῶν ὅλων δημιουργός, υἱὸς τοῖς τῆς ἰδίας βοηθείας σπαργάνοις τὸ τῆς κτίσεως εὐδιάλυτον σφίγγων. Καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις δὲ πάλιν·Καὶ τὸ βρέφος γὰρ θεὸς αὐτεξούσιος· τοσοῦτον ὁ θεὸς λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπεξούσιος εἶναι διέστηκεν, Ἄρειε, δι’ ὃν καὶ τὸ συνημμένον σῶμα θεὸν προσηγόρευσε. Καὶ πάλιν· Γνωρίζομεν τοίνυν τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τοῦ βρέφους καὶ τὴν θεότητα· τὸ τῆς υἱότητος τηροῦμεν μοναδικὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητος καὶ θεότητος φύσει. Ἰδοὺ δὴ καὶ μάλα σαφῶς τὸ βρέφος τὸ πρόσφατον τὸ ὁρώμενον τὸ ἀρτίτοκον τὸ ἐσπαργανωμένον υἱὸν εἶναι φὴς καὶ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν, τέτοκε δὲ τὸ βρέφος ἡμῖν ἡ ἁγία παρθένος. οἶσθα δὴ οὖν ἄρα θεὸν κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου μεμάθηκας γραφῆς. τίς γὰρ ἂν νοοῖτο τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς πλὴν ὅτι μόνος ἐκεῖνος ὁ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν ὁ πατήρ;	24. But since to say that the nature of the Word was incarnate is (I think) nothing else than to hold that it has become man and not without birth of woman (for the nature of human bodies knows of only this way), how were you not taught by the God-inspired scripture the birth according to the flesh of the Only-Begotten? When the prophetic lessons were before you that “Unto us a child was born, unto us a son was given” [Is. 9:6], you yourself say about the child that was born, “Great is the mystery of the gift, for this is the babe that is seen, this the newborn that appears, this that needed swaddling clothes for his body, this the newborn according to the being which is seen, in the hidden part everlasting Son, Son Creator of all, Son who by the swaddling bands of his own aid binds the instability of the creation.” And elsewhere again you say, “And the child is God all-free, so far removed is God the Word, O Arius, from being subject to God,” in which words he styled even the body connected with him God. And again, “We recognize therefore the human nature of the child and his Godhead, and we preserve the oneness of the Sonship in the nature of manhood and Godhead.” Here with all clearness you say that the child, the infant, the visible, the newborn, the swaddled, is Son and Creator of all, and the child the holy virgin has borne to us. You know therefore that God has been born after the flesh, and this you have learned from God-inspired scripture. For who will be conceived to be Creator of all, save he alone through whom the Father has made all?
ἀλλ’ ἔφην, ἴσως ἐρεῖς, κατὰ τὸ κεκρυμμένον υἱὸς καὶ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργός. καλῶς, συνθήσομαι, ἐρήσομαι δέ· τὸν κεκρυμμένον εἶναι φὴς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν· πῶς οὖν ἡμῖν ἀρτίως μόνον οὐχὶ καὶ δακτύλῳ τὸ πρόσφατον καὶ ἀρτίτοκον καὶ τὸ ἐν σπαργάνοις κατέδειξας βρέφος καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸ καὶ υἱὸν ὠνόμαζες θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν; ἦ τάχα που μεταπεποιῆσθαι νενόμικας εἰς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς φύσιν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον καὶ γράψῃ μᾶλλον σαυτόν, οὐχ ἑτέρους ὡς τοῦτο φάναι τολμήσαντας; ἢ εἴπερ ἐστὶ τὸ βρέφος ὁ κεκρυμμένος υἱὸς καὶ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργός, γεγέννηται δὲ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, ὡμολόγησας οὐχ ἑκὼν θεοτόκον σὺν ἡμῖν ἀδοκήτως αὐτήν; ἐπεὶ πῶς βρέφος θεὸς αὐτεξούσιος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὕτω φὴς αὐτεξούσιον, ὡς ἂν νοοῖτο τυχὸν καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἕκαστος ὡς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ προαιρέσεως πεπιστευμένος παρὰ θεοῦ τὰς ἡνίας, τί τὸ ἐξαίρετον παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν αὐτῷ; ἢ διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν καθάπερ τι θεοπρεπὲς καὶ ἐξαίρετον ἀληθῶς ἀξίωμα τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἀνάπτεις αὐτῷ, καίτοι μετὸν ἅπασι τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔχειν τε αὐτὸ καὶ ἤδη λαχοῦσιν; εἰ δὲ δὴ σημαίνοι τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἐν τούτοις τὸ μὴ δεῖν ὑποκεῖσθαι τοῖς ἑτέρου νόμοις, εἶναι δὲ οὕτως ἐλεύθερον ὡς ἂν καὶ αὐτὴ τυχὸν ἡ θεία νοοῖτο φύσις, τίνα δὴ τρόπον ἐν τοῖς οὕτω σεπτοῖς καὶ πρέπουσι μόνῃ τῇ ἀνωτάτω φύσει τε καὶ δόξῃ τὸ ἀρτίτοκον βρέφος εἶναι φής, καίτοι παντὸς τοῦ κεκλημένου πρὸςὕπαρξιν κατεζευγμένου θεῷ καὶ τὸν τῆς δουλείας ὑποτρέχοντος ζυγόν; ἀλλ’ οἰήσῃ τάχα που πρὸς ἅπαντά σοι ταυτὶ τὸν εἰκαῖον ἐκεῖνον ἀρκέσαι λόγον τὸν ἐπί γε τῷ δεῖν ἀλλήλαις τὰς φύσεις συνάπτεσθαι καὶ οὔ τί που καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν τιμῇ μᾶλλον ἀπαραλλάκτῳ καὶ ἐν ἰσότητι τῆς ἀξίας· ταυτὶ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀεὶ λέγεις ἀμαθῶς. ὅτι δὲ σαθραῖς καὶ εὐδιακλάστοις ἐννοίαις ἐπερηρεισμένος τὰ τοιάδε λέγων ἁλώσῃ, δειχθήσεται καὶ οὐκ εἰς μακράν, παρενεγκόντος ἡμῖν τοῦ καιροῦ καὶ πρός γε ταυτὶ τὸν λόγον.	25. “But I said (you will perhaps say) in the secret part Son and Creator of all.” Well, I agree, but I will ask you: You say that what is hidden is the Word of God and that this is the Creator of all. How then did you just now point out as with your finger the child, infant and newborn and in swaddling clothes, and called this same both Son of God and Creator of all? Or do you perhaps suppose that the Word out of God has been transformed into the nature of the flesh, and accuse yourself, not others, of daring to say this? Surely if the child be the hidden Son and Creator of all, and has been born of the holy virgin, you have acknowledged with us even against your will that she is Theotokos in some unlooked-for way, for how is a child God all-free? For if you use the word ‘all-free’ in the sense in which each one of us too may be so conceived, as entrusted by God with the reins of his own free will, what is there special in him beyond the rest? Or why do you ascribe to him the freedom, as some God-befitting and truly choice dignity, even though it is in the power of all upon the earth to possess it and indeed they already have it? But if the freedom here signifies not being subject to the laws of another, and he is free in such sort as the divine nature itself too is conceived of, how do you say that the newborn child is so noble and befitting only the supreme nature and glory, even though all which is called into being is subject to God and runs under the yoke of bondage? But you will perhaps think that empty word of yours suffices unto all this—I mean in respect to the natures being connected one with another, and that, not in subsistence, but rather in unvarying honor [in each] and equality of rank. For this is what you are always unlearnedly saying to us. But by saying such things, you will be caught standing upon rotten and fragile conceptions, as will be shown (and not at length) when we have the opportunity to speak about this too.

7. Cyril’s Fourth Argument – Nestorius’ Defense is Unsuccessful

Συνείρει δὲ τούτοις ἕτερ’ ἄττα, δι’ ὧν ᾠήθη δύνασθαικαὶ μάλα ἐμφρόνως ὡς ἀκαλλῆ καὶ ἀνέφικτον τὸν τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεννήσεως ἀποφῆναι τρόπον, καὶ ἀντανίστησι μὲν ἑαυτῷ τοὺς πρὸς ἡμῶν λόγους, οἴεται δὲ κατευμεγεθήσειν ῥαιδίως καὶ οὐδὲν ὄντας ἀποφανεῖν, καίτοι πρεσβεύοντας τἀληθές. ἔφη δὲ οὕτως.	26. But to these he adds some others by which he thinks that he can skillfully show that the mode of a generation like ours is improper and impossible. He arrays our words against himself and thinks that he can overpower them easily and show that they are nothing, although they set forth the truth. He says thus:
Εἰ θεός, φησίν, ὁ Χριστός, ἐτέχθη δὲ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τῆςμακαρίας Μαρίας, πῶς οὔκ ἐστιν ἡ παρθένος θεοτόκος; οὐδὲν κρύπτω τῶν παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀντιθέσεων·ὁ γὰρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστὴς πάντα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ ψεύδους ἑαυτῷ προσλαβὼν ἀντιτίθησιν. Εἶτα τὴν λύσιν ἐπιφέρειν πειρᾶται, τοιαύταις τισὶν ἐννοίαις χρώμενος· Πλάττεται μὲν γάρ, φησίν, ἐν μήτραι τὸ βρέφος· ἀλλ’ ἕως μὲν οὔπω μεμόρφωται, ψυχὴν οὐκ ἔχει, εἰδοποιηθὲν δὲ ἤδη ψυχοῦται παρὰ θεοῦ. ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ γυνὴ τίκτει μὲν τὸ σῶμα, ψυχοῖ δὲ θεὸς καὶ οὐκ ἂν λέγοιτο γυνὴ ψυχοτόκος, ὅτι ἔμψυχον ἐγέννησεν, ἀνθρωποτόκος δὲ μᾶλλον, οὕτω, φησί, καὶ ἡ μακαρία παρθένος, καὶ εἰ τέτοκεν ἄνθρωπον συμπαρελθόντος αὐτῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου (ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐχρήσατο τῇ φωνῇ), οὐ διὰ τοῦτο θεοτόκος.	27. [Nestorius:] “If Christ (says he) is God, and Christ is born of the blessed Mary, how is not the virgin Theotokos? I hide none of their objections, for the lover of the truth takes and objects to himself all that comes from falsehood.” Then he endeavors to apply the solution, using some such conceptions as these. “For the child (he says) is formed in the womb, but so long as it has not yet been formed, it has no soul, but being formed at length, it has a soul by God. As then the woman bears the body, God gives it a soul, and the woman is not called psychotokos,³ because she bore a man endowed with soul, but rather anthropotokos,⁴ so (he says) the blessed virgin too, even though she has born a man, the Word of God passing by together with him (for this word did he use) therefore she is not Theotokos.”
Ἀρ’ οὖν, εἰπέ μοι, διαβεβλήσεται παρὰ σοῦ τὸ πρὸς ἡμῶν εἰρημένον; ἆρά σοι δοκεῖ τοῖς οὕτως ὀρθῶς καὶ ἀκιβδήλως ἔχουσιν ἀσυνέτως ἐπιτιμᾶν καὶ οὐχὶ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι δοξάζειν ἃ χρή, τῆς σαυτοῦ διανοίας καθοριεῖς τὰ ἐγκλήματα; οἷς γὰρ ἂν ἀπάιδοι τὸ ἀληθές, τούτοις ἂν γένοιτο, καὶ λίαν ἑτοίμως, ἐν παραδοχῇ τὸ μὴ οὕτως ἔχον καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἀριστοεπεῖν εἰωθόσιν ἐπιτιμᾶν εἴη ἆν οὐκ ἀζήμιον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἤδη καὶ ἀπόδειξις ἐναργὴς τοῦ προσκεκλίσθαι τῷ ψεύδει καὶ τοῦ ἑλέσθαι τιμᾶν ἃ καὶ μισεῖν ἄμεινον ὡς λογισμοῦ τοῦ εἰκότος ἡμαρτηκότα. ἀλλὰ τῶν οὕτως αἰσχρῶν ἐννοήσας οὐδὲν ἑαυτὸν μὲν ἔφη τῆς ἀληθείας γενέσθαι τὸν ἐραστήν, ἡμᾶς δὲ τεκταίνεσθαιτὸ ψεῦδος αὐτῷ, καίτοι τὸ χρῆμα ἔστιν ἐξ ἀντιστρόφου μᾶλλον ἰδεῖν ὅτι τε ὀρθῶς ἔχει καί ἐστιν ἀληθές. ὁ γάρτοι τοῦ ψεύδους καὶ τῆς ἀπάτης συνήγορος τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας συνασπισταῖς ἀνάπτειν πειρᾶται τῆς ψευδομυθίας τὸν μῶμον, τάχα που καὶ εἰς λήθην ἐληλακὼς τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος εἰς φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς εἰς σκότος·	28. Tell me, therefore, do you condemn what we are saying? Does it seem right to you without understanding to find fault with what is so rightly and purely said, and do you not rather attach the blame of not being able to think correctly to your own understanding? For they to whom the truth is repugnant will readily receive what is not true, and the rebuke of those who speak most excellently will not be without its harm. Rather it will be even a manifest demonstration of their decline into falsehood and of choosing to honor what would be more right to hate, in that they have missed correct reason. But no man has conceived of things so base. He said that he himself was the lover of the truth, and that we had contrived the lie, although one may see on the contrary that ours is right and true. For the advocate of the lie and fraud endeavors to fasten the blame of his falsehood on the champions of the truth, perhaps driven to forgetfulness of the prophet who says, “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness” [Is. 5:20].
πλὴν ἐκ τοῦ παροισθέντος αὐτῷ παραδείγματος μηδὲ εἰδότα σαφῶς ὃ λέγει, διελέγξαι πειράσομαι. τίκτεται μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ σαρκὸς ἡ σὰρξ ὁμολογουμένως,ὁ δέ γε τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς καθ’ ὃν οἶδε τρόπον τε καὶ λόγον, ποιεῖται τὴν ψύχωσιν. ἀλλ’ ἡ τεκοῦσα γυνή, καίτοι μόνης οὖσα πηγὴ τῆς σαρκός, ἄνθρωπον ὅλον ἀποτεκεῖν πιστεύεται, τὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς δὴ λέγω καὶ σώματος, καίτοι πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ὕπαρξιν τῶν παρ’ ἑαυτῆς συνεισενεγκοῦσα μηδέν, ὁ δέ γε ἄνθρωπον εἰπὼν συνεσήμηνέ που πάντως τῷ σώματι τὴν ἑνωθεῖσαν αὐτῷ ψυχήν. ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ γυνή, καίτοι τὸ σῶμα τεκοῦσα μόνον, τὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀποτίκτειν λέγεται, διαλυμανεῖται δὲ τοῦτο τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς λόγοις οὐδὲν ὡς σάρκα τὴν τῆς ἰδίας ὑπάρξεως λαμβανούσης ἀρχήν, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς μακαρίας παρθένου. εἰ γὰρ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστὶ τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐκτέτοκεν ἑνωθέντα αὐτῇ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν λόγον, κἂν εἴ τις λέγει θεοτόκον αὐτήν, οὐχὶ δή που πάντως καθοριεῖ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τὸ νεώτερον οὔτε μὴν τῆς ἰδίας ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιῆσθαι τὴν σάρκα, συνήσει δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς οἰκονομίας τὸν τρόπον καὶ δὴ καὶ θαυμάσας τὸ χρῆμα ἐρεῖ· κύριε, εἰσακήκοα τὴν ἀκοήν σου, καὶ ἐφοβήθην· κατενόησα τὰ ἔργα σου, καὶ ἐξέστην.	29. But I will endeavor to show by the example he presented that he does not even clearly know what he is saying. For flesh admittedly is born of flesh, and the craftsman of all furnishes the soul in the mode and way that he knows. Yet it is the woman who bears; although she is the source of the flesh only, she is believed to bear the whole man, made up (I mean) of soul and body, although she contributes nothing of her own to the being of the soul. Yet when one says ‘man’ one signifies surely the soul united to the body. Therefore as the woman, although she bears the body alone, is said to bear him that is made up of soul and body, and this no way damages the account of the soul, as though it found in flesh the origin of its being. Thus you must consider concerning the blessed virgin too. For even though she be mother of the holy flesh, she has nevertheless borne God the Word out of God truly united to the flesh. And though someone should call her Theotokos, he will not be defining a more recent beginning of God the Word nor that the flesh has been made the commencement of his being, but will understand rather the mode of the salvation and wondering at it will say, “Lord, I have heard your fame and was afraid, I considered your works and was astonished” [Hab. 3:2].
ἀλλ’ ὁ πάνσοφος ἡμῖν καὶ ἀγχίνους ἐξηγητὴς τὴν τοῦ παραδείγματος δύναμιν <μὴ> νενοηκώς. Οὕτω, φησί, καὶ ἡ ἁγία παρθένος, καὶ εἰ τέτοκεν ἄνθρωπον συμπαρελθόντος αὐτῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου, ἀλλ’ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο θεοτόκος. οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τῆς μακαρίας παρθένου τὸ ἀξίωμα τῷ λόγῷ, ἀλλ’ ἦν φύσει θεός.	30. But our all-wise and prudent expounder, having pondered the force of the example says, “Thus the holy virgin too, even though she has borne man, God the Word passing by together with him, yet not therefore is she Theotokos. For the dignity of the Word did not come from the blessed virgin; rather he was God by nature.
Τὸ μὲν οὖν συμπαρελθεῖν τῇ σαρκὶ τὸν λόγον ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστιν, αὐτὸς ἂν εἰδείη καὶ μόνος, ἄγαμαι δὲ σφόδρα τῆς οὕτω λεπτῆς ἀκριβείας αὐτοῦ. ἡνῶσθαι μὲν γὰρ τῇ σαρκὶ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πρεσβεύει λόγος, τὸ δὲ συμπαρελθεῖν οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅ τι λέγων διαβεβαιοῦται συχνῶς. εἶτα περὶ φύσεως ἡμῖν καὶ τῆς καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσεως τοῦ παντὸς προκειμένου λόγου καὶ διερευνᾶν σπουδάζοντος, οὐχ ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ λόγος, ἀλλ’ εἰ γέγονεν οἰκονομικῶς ἄνθρωπος ἰδίαν ποιησάμενος σάρκα τὴν ἐκ γυναικός, εἰς ἕτερα μεθιστὰς ἀλλοκότως τὸ ζητούμενον. Οὐ παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, φησί, τὸ ἀξίωμα τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ’ ἦν φύσει θεός. Καίτοι πῶς οὐχ ἕτερόν τι καὶ ἕτερον ἐναργῶς ἀξίωμά τε καὶ φύσις; ἀλλ’ οὐ πολὺς ἄγαν τῆς ἔν γε τούτοις ἡμῖν ἰσχνομυθίας ὁ λόγος· τὸ δ’ οὖν ἐφεξῆς ἀναγκαῖον ἰδεῖν. ἐπιτειχίζει γάρ τι καὶ ἕτερον τοῖς πρὸς ἡμῶν λεγομένοις, ὡς γοῦν οἴεταί που, καὶ δυσδιάφυκτον κομιδῇ καὶ ἀποχρώντως ἔχον εἴς γε τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ μάλα νεανικῶς ὕθλον εἰκαῖον ἡμῖν τὴν ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀποφῆναι γέννησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ἔφη δὲ οὕτω πάλιν.	31. Therefore he alone knows the meaning of ‘the Word passed by together with the flesh,’ but I marvel much at his sophistry. For the word of truth sets forth that the Word of God has been united in subsistence to the flesh, and he keeps affirming the ‘passing by together with,’ meaning I know not what. Next, when our discussion was all about nature and union of subsistence, and aimed at inquiring not what the Word of God is in respect to dignity, but whether he has been made man for the purpose of salvation, making his own the flesh born of a woman he turned the question to rather different matters, saying, “The dignity of the Word was not from the holy virgin, but he was God by nature.” But how are not dignity and nature two entirely different things? But our discourse on this subject does not require much skill, and we must therefore see what comes next. For he fortifies yet another outpost against what we have said, as he thinks invincible and competent to show with all force that Emmanuel’s birth out of woman is empty talk of ours. He says again thus,
Ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς προκηρύττεται παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὅτι πλησθήσεται τὸ βρέφος πνεύματος ἁγίου ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔχων, οὕτως ὁ μακάριος βαπτιστὴς ἀπετίκτετο. τί οὖν; καλεῖς τὴν Ἐλισάβετ πνευματοτόκον; ἐνταῦθα τὸν νοῦν συνάγαγε, κἄν τινες ὦσιν ἐν ὑμῖν πρὸς τὰ λεγόμενα ξενιζόμενοι, σύγγνωτε τῆς ἀπειρίας αὐτοῖς.	32. [Nestorius:] “The blessed John the Baptist is announced by the holy angels, that the babe shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, and having the Holy Spirit, was this blessed Baptist born. What then? Do you call Elizabeth pneumatokos?⁵ Apply your mind here. Although there be some among you who are startled at what is said, pardon their inexperience.”
Καὶ τίς τῶν τοιούτων ἐπακούσας λόγων οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐρεῖ τὸ διὰ τῆς τοῦ προφήτου φωνῆς· ὁ γὰρ μωρὸς μωρὰ λαλήσει καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ μάταια νοήσει τοῦ συντελεῖν ἄνομα καὶ λαλεῖν πρὸς κύριον πλάνησιν; πλάνησις γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως καὶ ἕτερον οὐδὲν τὸ ψυχραῖς οὕτω καὶ μειρακιώδεσιν ἐννοίαις ὡς ἀληθέσιν ἐπιθαρσεῖν. τῆς μὲν οὖν ἡμερότητος κατατεθήποι τις ἂν αὐτόν· καὶ συγγνώμης γὰρ καὶ φιλανθρωπίας ἀξιοῦσθαι δεῖν ἔφη τοὺς τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῦ λόγων τὴν ἐμπειρίαν οὐκ ἔχοντας. ἀλλ’ ἦν τοῦτο καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τριπόθητον, εἰ συνέβη, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἅπασι τοῖς τελοῦσιν ἐν Χριστιανοῖς· μοχθηρῶν γὰρ οὕτω καὶ διεστραμμένων ἀπαλλάττεσθαι λόγων πῶς οὐχ ἅπασι δι’ εὐχῆς; πλὴν ἐκεῖνο φαμέν· τέτοκε μὲν γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ἡ Ἐλισάβετ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι κεχρισμένον ἐν μήτραι τὸν μακάριον βαπτιστήν, ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν εἴρηταί που παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ὅτι καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα γέγονε σάρξ, ὀρθῶς ἂν ἔφης ὀνομάζεσθαι δεῖν πρὸς ἡμῶν πνευματοτόκον αὐτήν· εἰ δὲ ψιλῇ καὶ μόνῃ λέγεται τὸ τεχθὲν τετιμῆσθαι χρίσει, τί τὸ τῆς σαρκώσεως χρῆμα παρισοῦν ἀξιοῖς τῇ κατὰ μέθεξιν χάριτι; οὐ γάρ ἐστι ταυτὸν σάρκα τε εἰπεῖν γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον καὶ ὅτι κέχρισταί τις διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεύματι προφητικῷ. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου γέγραπται· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ τόκος ὠνόμασται καὶ μὴν καὶ Ἐμμανουὴλ ὁ τεχθείς, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός· περὶ δέ γε τῆς Ἐλισάβετ ὅτι γεννήσει υἱὸν ὃς προελεύσεται μὲν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου, προπορεύσεται δὲ πρὸ προσώπου κυρίου ἑτοιμάζων τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ. οὐκοῦν ἥκιστα μὲν εἴη ἂν πνευματοτόκος ἡ Ἐλισάβετ,ἐκτέτοκε γὰρ προφήτην ὑψίστου· θεοτόκος γε μὴν ἀληθῶς ἡ ἁγία παρθένος, ὅτι θεὸν ἑνωθέντα σαρκὶ τέτοκε σαρκικῶς, τουτέστι κατὰ σάρκα. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἡ τεκοῦσά ἐστι, ταύτῃ τοι καὶ μάλα ἐμφρόνως τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον ἀνθρωπίνωςπεπρᾶχθαι φαμέν. ἦν γὰρ οὕτω καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρως δύνασθαι καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τὸν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν φύσιν, οὐ τοῦ εἶναι τοῦθ’ ὅπερ ἐστίν, ὀλιγωρήσαντα, πόθεν; μεμενηκότα δὲ μᾶλλον ὅπερ ἦν τε καὶ ἔστι καὶ ἔσται· τροπῆς γὰρ ἀμείνων ἡ θεία τέ ἐστι καὶ ὑπερτάτη φύσις.	33. And who on hearing such words will not straightway say in the prophet’s voice, “For the fool will utter folly and his heart will conceive vanity, to accomplish iniquity and to utter error against the Lord”? [Is. 32:6]. For we confess that it is indeed error and nothing else to trust in such frigid and childish thoughts as though they were true. One may then marvel at him for his gentleness, for he said that they ought to be esteemed worthy of pardon and clemency who had no acquaintance with those words of his. Yet it was greatly longed for by us ourselves (if so be), indeed by all who are also Christians! For how should not all long to be rid of words so burdensome and perverse? But we say this: Elizabeth has admittedly borne the blessed Baptist anointed in the womb with the Holy Spirit. And if it had been anywhere said by the God-inspired scriptures that the Spirit too was made flesh, rightly would you have said that she ought to be called by us pneumatokos; but if the child is said to have been honored with bare anointing only, why do you think it is right to put the fact of incarnation on an equal footing with the grace of participation? For it is not the same thing to say that the Word was made flesh and that one has been anointed through the Spirit with prophetic spirit. For of the holy virgin it is written, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son” [Is.7:14], and he who is born is called the fruit, and moreover Emmanuel, “which, when translated, is ‘God with us’” [Matt. 1:23]. But of Elizabeth it says, “She shall bear a son who shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah and shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways” [Luke 1:13, 17, 76]. By no means therefore is Elizabeth pneumatokos, for she bore a prophet of the Highest. But the holy virgin is truly Theotokos, for she has borne carnally (i.e., according to the flesh) God united to flesh. For since she who bore is human, therefore we rightly say that the mode of generation has been wrought in a human way. For thus and in no other way was it possible that he who is over all nature could become as we are, not slighting the being what he is (how could he?) but rather abiding what he was and is and will be. For the divine and most holy nature is superior to change.

8. Cyril’s Fifth Argument – Nestorius Condemns His Own Teaching

ὀρθὰ μὲν οὖν ὅτι φρονεῖν εἰθίσμεθα θεὸν γεγεννῆσθαικατὰ σάρκα ἐπὶ σωτηρίαι τῶν ὅλων διαβεβαιούμενοι, μεμαρτύρηκεν ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφή· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῖς νεωτάτοις αὐτοῦ δόγμασι τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ αὐτὸ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς πίστεως ἀντεξάγει τὸ σύμβολον ὃ διὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος φωταγωγίας οἱ κατὰ καιροὺς ἐν τῇ Νικαέων συναγηγερμένοι πατέρες ὡρίσαντο, δεδιὼς μὴ ἄρα πως ὑγιᾶ τὴν πίστιν διασώσαιντό τινες ταῖς ἐκείνων φωναῖς παιδαγωγούμενοι πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, πειρᾶται συκοφαντεῖν καὶ τῶν λέξεων ἐναλλάττει τὴν ἀπόδοσιν, καὶ αὐτὴν δὲ τῶν ἐννοιῶν <τὴν> δύναμιν παρασημαίνειν ἀποτολμᾶι. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ μέσης ἐκκλησίας βεβήλοις ἐχρῆτο καινοφωνίαις, ἀνήρ τις τῶν ἄγαν ἐπιεικῶν καὶ τελῶν μὲν ἐν λαικοῖς ἔτι, πλὴν οὐκ ἀθαύμαστον συναγηοχὼς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν παίδευσιν, θερμῷ τε καὶ φιλοθέῳ κεκίνηται ζήλῳ καὶ τορόν τι κεκραγὼς αὐτὸν ἔφη τὸν προαιώνιον λόγον καὶ δευτέραν ὑπομεῖναι γέννησιν, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τὴν κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ἐκ γυναικός. θορυβησάντων δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα τῶν δήμων καὶ τῶν μὲν πλείστων καὶ συνετῶν οὐ μετρίοις αὐτὸν ἐπαίνοις τετιμηκότων ὡς εὐσεβῆ τε καὶ συνετώτατον καὶ τῆς τῶν δογμάτων ὀρθότητος οὐκ ἠμοιρηκότα, λελυττηκότων γε μὴν κατ’ αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄλλων, διαλαβὼν αὐτὸς ἀποδέχεται μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκείνους οὓς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διδάσκων ἀπολώλεκεν, ἐπιθήγει δὲ τὴν γλῶτταν αὐτῷ τε τῷ μὴ ἀνασχομένῷ τὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴν καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν οἳ τὸν εὐσεβῆ τῆς πίστεως ὅρον ἡμῖν τεθεσμοθετήκασιν, ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον.	34. Therefore God-inspired scripture has testified that we think correctly in affirming that God has been born according to the flesh for the salvation of all. But against his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very symbol of the church’s faith, which the fathers who gathered together at Nicaea through the illumination of the Spirit once defined. He, fearing lest any should keep whole the faith, instructed toward the truth by their words, endeavors to denigrate it and alters the significance of the words, and dares to coin with false stamp the very force of its ideas. For while he himself in the midst of the church was using profane babblings, a certain layman of great piety and learning was moved with fervent and devout zeal. With a piercing cry he said that the Word himself who is before the ages endured a second generation also, namely according to the flesh and forth of a woman. The people were disturbed at this. The wiser majority honored him with no mean praises as pious, full of wisdom and upright in regards to doctrine; the rest were mad against him. He [Nestorius], interrupting, straightway approves those whom he had destroyed by his teaching, and sharpens his tongue against the one who could not endure his words, indeed, and against the holy fathers who have decreed for us the pious definition of the faith “which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast” [Heb. 6:19], as it is written.
Χαίρω γὰρ ἔφη, τὸν ὑμέτερον θεασάμενος ζῆλον. αὐτόθεν ἐστὶ σαφὴς τῆς τῶν λεχθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ δειλαίου μιαρίας ὁ ἔλεγχος. ὧν γὰρ δύο γεννήσεις, τούτων δύο υἱοί· ἡ δὲ ἐκκλησία ἕνα οἶδεν υἱόν, τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν.	35. For he said, “I rejoice at beholding your zeal. But from the thing itself is a clear confutation of what has been said by the pollution of this wretched man. For where there are two births there are two sons, but the Church knows one Son, Christ the Lord.”
Ἀνοητότατα μὲν οὖν τὸν τῶν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐννοιῶν ὅρον ἐξηνέγκατο λέγων· ὧν γὰρ δύο γεννήσεις, τούτων καὶ δύο υἱοί· ἰσχνομυθίας γε μὴν τῆς ἔν γε τούτοις ἀφέμενοι, τέως πρὸς τὸν τοῦ λόγου σκοπὸν τὰἐξ ἀκριβοῦς ἐρεύνης φέρε δὴ φέρε συλλέγωμεν. οὐκοῦν ἀπαράδεκτον ἐποιήσατο, χρῆναι δέ φησι μίαν ὁμολογεῖσθαι πρὸς ἡμῶν, ἵνα μὴ δύο νοῶμεν υἱούς, ὡς ὂν ἐπάναγκες, εἰ δύο πάντως αἱ ἀποτέξεις εἶεν, δύο καὶ υἱοὺς εἰσφέρεσθαι, διδασκέτω παρελθὼν ποίαν ἄρα τῶν γεννήσεων παραδέξεται, τὴν προαιώνιόν τε καὶ ἐκ πατρός, καθ’ ἣν οὔπω σεσαρκωμένος θεὸς ἦν ὁλόγος, ἢ γοῦν ταυτηνὶ τὴν πρόσφατον καὶ ἐκ γυναικός;	36. Most foolishly therefore he put forth the definition of his ideas on this matter, saying, “for where there are two births, there are two sons.” But, letting alone for a while his sophistries herein, come, let us gather what is relevant to accurate investigation for the consideration of the matter. He therefore made it inadmissible [to speak of two generations] but says that one ought to be confessed by us, that we conceive not of two sons (as though it were necessary if the births be two, that two sons also should be introduced). Let him come forward and tell us which of the generations he will admit: the one which was before the ages and of the Father, in which the “Word was God not yet incarnate,” or this one, recent and of a woman.
εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐκείνην ἐρεῖ καὶ μόνην, τὴν προαιώνιον λέγω καὶ ἐκ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἂν εἴη καὶ μόνος υἱὸς ὁ ἐξαὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, οὔπω σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος κεκοινωνηκώς, εἰκῇ δέ, ὡς ἔοικε, τὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως λαλεῖται μυστήριον καὶ κεκένωκε μὲν ἑαυτὸν κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον οὔτε μὴν ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου γέγονε μορφῇ, μεμένηκε δὲ οὕτω, τὴν πρὸς σάρκα σύνοδον ἀληθῆ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παραιτούμενος· ἀλλ’ <εἰ> ὁ ἐν ἐσχάτοις καιροῖς ἐκ γυναικὸς αὐτὸς [ἂν] λέγοιτο καὶ μόνος υἱὸς καὶ δὴ καὶ μίαν ταυτηνὶ τὴν ἐκ γυναικὸς παραδεξόμεθα γέννησιν, ἀπώλισθεν ἀναγκαίως τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ φύσιν υἱὸς ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος.	37. If then he say that that one and he alone—I mean the one before the ages and of Father—that he alone is Son, who is out of him by nature and is not sharing in flesh and blood, then vainly (as it seems) is the mystery of the incarnation uttered, and in no way has he emptied himself nor been made in servant’s form. Rather, he has remained thus, rejecting the true concurrence with flesh even until now. But if he who was born of woman in the last times is to be called ‘son,’ and him alone, and (what is more) if we even accept this one generation out of woman, he has necessarily slipped from being the Son and Word of God the Father by nature.
ἀλλ’ ὁρᾶι που πάντως ὁ θεοφιλὴς τὴν τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἀτοπίαν καὶ τὸ λίαν ἀπονενευκὸς εἰς ἀσέβειαν. ἵνα τοίνυν ὁδὸν ἐρχώμεθα τὴν βασιλικήν, δύο φαμὲν γενέσθαι τὰς ἀποτέξεις, ἕνα δὲ τὸν δι’ ἀμφοῖν υἱόν, οὔπω μὲν ἐν σαρκὶ γεγονότα τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ σεσαρκωμένον καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς τὴν ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀνατλάντα γέννησιν κατὰ σάρκα. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἔφασκε τὸ χρῆναι δὴ πάντως δύο νοεῖσθαι τοὺς υἱούς, εἰ [δὲ] δύο γεννήσεις ὀνομάζομεν, ὀρθῶς ἂν ἔφη καὶ ἦν ἀληθές· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ Χριστοῦ μυστήριον καὶ ὁ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως λόγος ἑτέραν ἔχει τὴν ὁδὸν καὶ οὐκ ἔν γε τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἰσοτρόπως ὁρᾶται, τί ταῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς συνηθείαις ἐνορῶν, εἶτα τοῖς παραδόξοις καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον τὸν νοῦνἐνιείς, εἰς ἀδρανεστάτην καὶ ἀμαθῆ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν καταφωρᾶται πεσών; Ὃ δέ μοι θαυμάζειν ἔπεισιν, ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν· ἕνα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ὁμολογῶν υἱὸν εἰδέναι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, προστεθεικὼς δὲ ὅτι τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν, οὐκέτι τετήρηκεν ἕνα. διίστησι γὰρ ἀλλήλων τὰ ἡνωμένα καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος ἑκάτερον τίθησιν, οὐ τί μέν ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν ὁ λόγος, διερευνώμενος, τί δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ, ἄνθρωπον δὲ μᾶλλονκαὶ θεὸν ὡς ἐν ἰσότητι μόνῃ τῆς δόξης, καθάπερ γοῦν οἴεται, συλλέγων εἰς ἕν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ παντελῶς ἀπίθανον, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἀνέφικτον καὶ τὸν τοῦ μυστηρίου λόγον κατασείει πρὸς τὸ ἀκαλλές. ἔφη δὲ οὕτως	38. But the pious man certainly sees the absurdity of such ideas and its excessive swerving into impiety. In order then that we may proceed along the royal road, we say that there were two births, one Son through both, the Word out of God not yet made in flesh, the same afterwards incarnate and enduring for us the birth of a woman according to the flesh. For if one said in regard to men that two sons must surely be conceived of, if we speak of two births, he would speak rightly and it would be true. But since the mystery of Christ and the mode of the incarnation have another path which is not the same as ours, why is he looking at our habits and then fastening his mind on what is marvelous and above speech, caught falling into the feeblest and unlearned pettiness of belief? What surprises me is this: although he has here confessed that the church knows one Son, he adds that he does not keep on Lord Christ. For he divides the united things one from another and sets each apart; he does not seek not what the Word is by nature which the flesh is also, but rather gathers man and God into one in equality of glory only (as he supposes, which is a thing utterly implausible and impossible) and casts down the scheme of the mystery to something uncomely. He says thus:

9. The Nicene Creed

Δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς (νῦν γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς ἔννοιαν) καὶ τὴν κατὰ Νίκαιαν σύνοδον μαθεῖν οὐδαμοῦ τολμῶσαν εἰπεῖν ὅτι θεὸς <λόγος> ἐγεννήθη ἐκ Μαρίας· ἔφη γὰρ ὅτι πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰςἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. προσέχετε ὅτι πρότερον τεθεικότες τὸ Χριστός, ὅ ἐστι μήνυμα τῶν δύο φύσεων, οὐκ εἶπαν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἔλαβον τὸὄνομα τὸ σημαῖνον ἀμφότερα, ἵνα ὅταν ὑποκαταβαίνων ἀκούσῃς θάνατον, μὴ ξενίζῃ, ὅταν τὸν σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα, μὴ πλήττῃ τὴν ἀκοὴν ὡς θεότητος ταῦτα παθούσης. Εἶτα τούτοις ἐπιφέρει· Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, τὸν ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, τὸν κατελθόντα [ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν] δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. οὐκ εἶπον ὅτι καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Διερμηνεύοντας δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας τί δὴ ἄρα τὸ σαρκωθέντα ἐστί, φησὶν εἰπεῖν τὸ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. τί δὲ τὸ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα κατασημήνειεν ἄν, διατρανῶν αὐτὸς ἔφη πάλιν· Οὐ τροπὴν τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως ὑπομεινάσης εἰς τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνοίκησιν τὴν εἰς ἄνθρωπον.	39. [Nestorius:] “But we must (for it has now come into my mind) learn that the Synod of Nicaea too nowhere says that God was born of Mary; for it said, ‘We believe in One God the Father Almighty and in One Lord Jesus Christ.’ Observe that having first put the word Christ, which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, in one God the Word, but took the name that signifies both, in order that when lower down you hear of death, you think it not strange, in order that the words crucified and buried may not strike the ear as though the Godhead suffered these things. Then it goes on, ‘We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, begotten of the Father, consubstantial with the Father, who came down from the heavens for our sakes, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit.’ They said not, ‘and begotten of the Holy Spirit.’” And he says that the holy fathers, interpreting the meaning of incarnate, say “made man.” And he says again what he thinks being ‘made man’ means, “His own nature not undergoing change into flesh, but inhabitation in man.”
Ἆρα ἂν ἀνάσχοιτό τις τῶν τελούντων ἐν Χριστιανοῖς ἢ τῆς ἐνούσης τοῖς λόγοις ἀβελτηρίας ἢ τῆς τῶν ἐννοιῶν δυσσεβείας; ἆρ’ οὐκ ἐναργὴς εἴη ἂν τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἀρτίφροσι βωμολοχία ταυτὶ καὶ τρόπος οὐκ ἀγεννὴς τῆς κατὰ Χριστοῦ γλωσσαλγίας; συκοφαντεῖ γὰρ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. οὐκ εἶναί φησιν υἱὸν ἀληθῶς αὐτόν ἑτέρῳ τοῦτο προσνέμων· προσέχετε γάρ φησιν ὅτι πρότερον τεθεικότες τὸ Χριστός, ὅ ἐστι μήνυμα τῶν δύο φύσεων, οὐκ εἶπαν· πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν λόγον. καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ ὀνόματος, φημὶ δὲ δὴ τοῦ Χριστός, μετὰ βραχὺ διερευνήσομαι πότερόν ποτε τῶν δύο φύσεων σημαντικόν ἐστιν ἢ μή· τὸ δὲ ἐν χερσίν, ὡς ἔνι, διαγυμνάζωμεν. οἰστὰ μὲν οὖν εἶεν ἂν κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον τὰ οὕτως ἐκτόπως καὶ ἀτημελῶς αὐτῷ πεφλυαρημένα, φαίη δ’ ἂν οἶμαί τις, τοὺς ὑπέρ γε τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ποιούμενος λόγους· τί δρᾶις οὕτως, ὦ γενναῖε, γλῶσσαν τὴν ἄγροικον ἐφιεὶς ἀνδράσιν ἁγίοις, οἷς ἂν πρέποι τὸ λέγεσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ· οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν; τί γὰρ οὐ νενόηται τῶν λίαν ἀπεξεσμένων εἰς ἰσχνότητα τὴν τεθαυμασμένην; τί τῶν ἀναγκαίων παρῶπται δογμάτων ἢ ποῖος αὐτοῖς ἀσφαλείας ἠμέληται τρόπος; Οὐ τετολμήκασι, φησί, τοῖς περὶ τῆς πίστεως ἐνθεῖναι λόγοις ὅτι θεὸς λόγος ἐκ Μαρίας ἐγεννήθη. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ταύτης ἕνεκα τῆς αἰτίας τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν γεγονότας αἰτιᾶι καὶ λελυπῆσθαι φὴς ὅτι μὴ ἀπαραλλάκτως ταῖς σαῖς εὕρηνται κεχρημένοι φωναῖς, ὥρα τάχα που συναιτιᾶσθαι καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους καὶ εὐαγγελιστάς. συγγεγράφασι μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἐπὶ Χριστῷ μυσταγωγίας τὰς βίβλους, αὐτολεξεὶ δὲ ταῖς σαῖς οὐκ ἂν ἐπιδείξειέ τις χρησαμένους φωναῖς. ἀλλ’ εἴ σοι δοκεῖ, τουτὶ μὲν πάρες ὡς ἄθρει δὲ μᾶλλον τὴν τοῦ πράγματος δήλωσιν <εὖ> μάλα πεποιημένους. πράττεται μὲν γὰρ πρὸς ἡμῶν ἡ πίστις εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ὁμοούσιον τριάδα· ἐπειδὴ δέ φασι πιστεύειν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, οὐχ ἕτερος δὲ καθ’ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς κύριος παρὰ τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱόν, ὃς ἐκ θεοῦ πεφηνὼς καὶ θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγοςγέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, διὰ γεννήσεως δὲ δηλονότι τῆς ἐκ γυναικός, τίνα τρόπον οἱ τὸν τῆς οἰκονομίας κηρύττοντες λόγον οὐκ ἂν ἁλοῖεν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ γυναικὸς κατὰ σάρκα λαλοῦντες γέννησιν; τότε γὰρ δὴ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὠνόμασται θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ ζωὴ καὶ φῶς ὁ υἱός. πρόδηλον οὖν ὅτι τῆς τοιᾶσδε κλήσεως ὁ καιρὸς συνειστρέχουσαν ἔχει τὴν γέννησιν, τὴν διά γε φημὶ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου. ὅτι <δὲ> πιστεύοντες εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸν πιστεύομεν, ἀναφοιτώσης τῆς πίστεως εἰς τὸν πατέρα δι’ αὐτοῦ, σαφὲς ἂν γένοιτο διακεκραγότος αὐτοῦ τῷ κόσμῳ παντί· ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ πιστεύει εἰς ἐμέ, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν πέμψαντά με καὶ ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμὲ θεωρεῖ τὸν πέμψαντά με καὶ πάλιν πιστεύετε εἰς ἐμέ, καὶ εἰς τὸν θεὸν πιστεύετε. καὶ οὐ δή που φαμὲν ὡς δύο πίστεις πρὸς ἡμῶν αἰτεῖ, διδάσκει δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς εἴ τις εἰσδέξαιτο τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν, αὐτῷ πεπίστευκε τῷ πατρί.	40. Will anyone who is a Christian endure either the infatuation in these words or the impiety of his ideas? To those of sound mind are not these things obviously irreverent, and no small sort of defamation against Christ? For he slanders the truth, he says that he is not truly Son, allotting this to another (for “observe (he says) that having first put the word ‘Christ’ which is the indication of the two natures, they did not say, ‘We believe in One God the Word’”). And as regards the name, I mean Christ, I will presently enquire whether it be indicative of the two natures or not, but what is before us we will exercise ourselves in, as we can. For things so absurdly and heedlessly babbled by him cannot be endured, but one might (I deem) say, speaking on behalf of the holy fathers, “What are you doing, noble sir, speaking so rudely against holy men, about whom Christ himself the Savior of us all said: ‘It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you’? [Matt. 10:20]. For which of the things exceedingly well polished and admirably crafted has not been conceived of by them? Which of the needful doctrines has been overlooked, or what method of safeguard neglected by them? “They have not dared (he says) to insert in their words concerning the faith that God the Word was born of Mary.” If, therefore, for this reason you accuse those who have been before us and claim you are grieved because they are not found to use your exact words, it is time (I suppose) to accuse along with them the holy apostles and evangelists too, for they have compiled the books of instruction concerning Christ, yet one will not find them using word for word your expressions. But (if it please you) pass this over as …⁶ , but consider rather that they have well hammered out their explanation of this matter, for faith in the holy and consubstantial Trinity is demanded of us. But since they say that they believe in “One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ his Son,” and none other (according to us) is Jesus Christ the Lord than the one true Son by nature, who, shining from God and being God the Word, became man by birth—that is, out of woman— how will they who proclaim the mode of the work of salvation not be found to speak also of his birth of a woman according to the flesh? For then truly has the Word which is God and wisdom and life and light, the Son, been named Christ Jesus. It is obvious therefore that the time of such naming is concurrent with the birth (that I mean through the holy virgin). Believing in Christ Jesus, we believe in the one true Son by nature, our faith mounting up to the Father through him. This is clear, in that he himself has cried aloud to the whole world, “He who believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me, and he who sees me sees him who sent me” [John 12:44–45], and again, “Believe in God, and believe in me” [John 14:1]. And we do not (I suppose) say that he asks of us two faiths, but rather he teaches that if any admits faith in him, he has believed in the Father himself.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς τῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμωνυμίᾳ κεχρήσεται, κοινὰ λέγων εἶναι τό τε Χριστός καὶ τὸ κύριος καὶ μὴν καὶ <τὸ> υἱός πρέπειν τε αὐτὰ διαβεβαιώσεται τῷ ἐκ πατρὸς φύντι λόγῳ, κἂν εἰ νοοῖτο μόνος καὶ σαρκὸς οὔπω μεταλαχών, καὶ μὴν τῷ ἐκ παρθένου φύντι ναῷ, δεῖται δέ, οἶμαι, βασάνου πολλῆς ὁ ἐπὶ τούτοις λόγος, εἰς καιρόν, ὡς ἔφην, τὸν αὐτῷ πρέποντα χρησίμως αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ παρὸν ἀναθέμενοι, ἐφ’ ἑτέραν ἴωμεν τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου φωνήν, ἣν οὑτοσὶ παρατρέπων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτῷ δοκοῦν τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας καταβιάζεται δύναμιν. φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι γεγράφασιν οἱ πατέρες· πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, τὸν ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, τὸν κατελθόντα δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. ἐπιφέρει δὲ τούτοις καί φησι περὶ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων Ὑποκατιόντες δὲ ἑρμηνεύουσι τὸ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα· τοῦτον λέγομεν σαρκωθέντα, οὐ τροπὴν τῆς θείας φύσεως ὑπομεινάσης εἰς τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνοίκησιν τὴν εἰς ἄνθρωπον. Ἐν ἐξηγήσει δὲπάλιν <ἑτέραι> τῆς αὐτῆς ἔχεται διανοίας καὶ δὴ καὶ οὕτω φησίν.	41. But (as is probable) he is making use of the shared nature of the names, saying that Christ and Lord and also Son are common titles, and affirming that they suit the Word that sprung from the Father—even though he is conceived of as alone and not yet sharing in the flesh—and likewise the temple that sprang of a virgin. This matter needs (I think) considerable investigation, but setting it aside for a moment as is appropriate (as I said), let us go to another utterance of the holy synod which this man perverts to his own liking, and so does violence to the meaning of truth. For he says that the fathers have written, “We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son, the begotten of the Father, consubstantial with the Father, who came down for our sakes, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit.” He adds here and says of the holy fathers, “lower down they interpret being made man; this is what we mean by incarnation, not that the divine nature endured a change into flesh, but the inhabitation in man.” In his explanation he again keeps hold of the same mind and moreover says thus:
Ἠκολούθησαν τῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ· καὶ γὰρ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἔφυγε γέννησιν εἰπεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου καὶ τέθεικε σάρκωσιν. ποῦ; ἄκουσον· καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. οὐκ εἶπε· διὰ σαρκὸς ἐγεννήθη·ὅπου γὰρ μνημονεύουσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἢ οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τιθέασιν ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἐκ γυναικός. πρόσεχε τῷ λεγομένῳ, παρακαλῶ. ὅπου <γὰρ> λέγουσι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ ὅτι ἐτέχθη ἐκ γυναικός, τιθέασι τὸ ἐγεννήθη· ὅπου δὲ μνημονεύουσι τοῦ λόγου, οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν γέννησιν διὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος. ὁ γὰρ μακάριος Ἰωάννης ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸν λόγον καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν αὐτοῦ, ἄκουσον οἷά φησιν· ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.	42. [Nestorius:] “They followed the evangelist, for the evangelist too when he comes to the being made man, shunned saying ‘birth in respect of God the Word,’ and has put ‘incarnation.’ Where? Hear, ‘And the Word became flesh’ [John 1:14]; he said, not ‘was born through the flesh.’ For where the apostles or the evangelists make mention of the Son, they put that he was born of a woman. Give heed to what is said, I beseech you. For where they utter the name of the Son, and that he was born of a woman, they put the word ‘born.’ Where they mention the Word, not one of them speaks of birth through the human nature. For hear what the blessed John the Evangelist says, when he came to the Word and to his Incarnation: ‘The Word became flesh.’
Φέρε δὴ οὖν παραθέντες οἷς ἔφη, καὶ τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς συμβόλου τὴν ἀπόδοσιν, ἴδωμεν εἰ μή τι κεκαινοτόμηται παρὰ τούτου καὶ περὶ αὐτήν·	43. Come therefore and place the definition of our creed alongside what he said, and let us see if anything has been innovated by this man regarding it too.
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς αὐτοῦ, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐντῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέραι, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.	44. “We believe in One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten (that is, of his essence), God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth. For us men and for our salvation he came down and was incarnate and made man, suffered and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.”
Ἴθι δὴ οὖν, ὦ γενναῖε, ποῦ τεθείκασιν, εἰπέ, περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ· σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου; ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἐκδείξειεν ἂν ἥκιστά γε, πλὴν ἐκεῖνο ἄθρει. φασὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον, τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, τὸν δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, σαρκωθῆναί τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι παθεῖν τε καὶ ἀναστῆναι καὶ μὴνὅτι κατὰ καιροὺς ἐπανήξει κριτής.	45. Come then, noble sir, tell me where have they put concerning the Son “incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary”? But this he can by no means show. But consider this: they say that the Word of God, the Only-Begotten, he who is from the essence of the Father, he through whom are all things, the very light—was both incarnate and made man, suffered and rose, and also that he will in time come again as the judge.
ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ ταῖς παρ’ αὐτοῦ φωναῖς ἀκριβῆ τὴν βάσανον ἐνιέντες ἴδωμεν τί τὸ χρῆμα τῆς ἐνούσης αὐταῖς ἀμαθίας, διαβεβαιοῦται σαφῶς σαρκωθῆναί τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον αὐτοὺς εἰπεῖν καὶ ταῖς εἰς ἀλήθειαν ψήφοις ὡς τὰ εἰκότα λέγοντας στεφανοῖ. ἆρ’ οὖν, εἰπέ μοι, σαρκωθῆναί τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγοντες ἕτερόν τι σημαίνουσι παρὰ τὸγεγεννῆσθαι κατὰ σάρκα; σαρκώσεως γὰρ οὗτος ἂν γένοιτο καὶ μόνος ὁ τρόπος τῷ καὶ ἔξω σαρκὸς καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ὑφεστηκότι. οὐ γάρ που τὴν σάρκα σεσαρκῶσθαι φαίη τις ἂν οὐδ’ ἂν γένοιτό τις ὃ ἦν, ἀλλ’ εἴπερ τις νοοῖτο περὶ αὐτὸν γενομένη μετάστασιςοἰκονομικὴ ἐφ’ ἕτερόν τι παρ’ ὅπερ [οὐκ] ἦν, ἔχοι ἂν ὁ λόγος ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ δὴ τότε πολὺ τὸ εἰκός. οὐκοῦν εἰ σεσαρκῶσθαί φασι τὸν μονογενῆ, διὰ γεννήσεως σαρκικῆς δρῷτο <δ’> ἄν, οἶμαι, τουτὶ καὶ οὐ καθ’ ἕτερον τρόπον, πῶς οὐκ ἔφασαν ἐναργῶς ὅτι γεγέννηται κατὰ σάρκα θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος;	46. But let us submit his words to accurate scrutiny so that we may see the amount of unlearning that is in them. For he affirms in plain terms that they say that the Word of God was both incarnate and made man, and he crowns them with his assurance of their truth as saying what was convenient. Do they therefore (tell me) in saying that he was both incarnate and made man mean anything else than that he was begotten according to the flesh? For this (and this alone) would be the mode of incarnation to one who has his existence both external to flesh and in his proper nature. For no one would say (I suppose) that flesh has been made flesh, nor will anyone be made what he was [already]. But if one should conceive a certain economic change to have been made regarding him into something else which he was not, the expression will then be very appropriate. Hence if they say that the Only-Begotten has become incarnate—and this would be brought about (I suppose) through generation in the flesh and in no other way—how have they not plainly said that the Word being God has been begotten according to the flesh?
ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὠνόμασται, φησίν, ἐναργῶς ἡ γέννησις. ἀλλ’ἥ γε τοῦ πράγματος φύσις οὐχ ἑτέραν οἶδε, καθάπερ ἤδη προεῖπον, τοῦ σεσαρκῶσθαι τὴν ὁδόν, ὥστε κἂν εἰ μή τι λέγοιτο σαφῶς ἔν γε τοῖς τοιούτοις πράγμασιν, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο τὴν μόνην τῇ φύσει διεγνωσμένην ὁδὸν ἀπολελοιπότες ἐφ’ ἑτέραν ἥξομεν. γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν τῷ τῆς Γενέσεως βιβλίῳ· καὶ τῷ Σὴθ ἐγένετο υἱὸς καὶ ἐπωνόμασε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐνώς. ἆρ’ οὖν, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ γραφὴ τέθεικε τὸ ἐγένετο,τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον οὐ παραδεξόμεθα; εἶτα πῶςτοῦτο οὐκ ἀμαθές; αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἡ τοῦ πράγματος φύσις μόνον οὐχὶ καὶ οὐχ ἑκόντας ἐκβιάσεται πρὸς ὁμολογίαν τὴν τοῦ τετέχθαι νοεῖν αὐτόν. πῶς οὖν ἀκούων τὴν σάρκωσιν οὐ τὰς περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως ἐννοίας εἰσδέχεται παραχρῆμα; ὠνομασμένης δὲ ὅλωςἐνανθρωπήσεως, πῶς οὐ συνῆκεν εὐθὺς ὡς τὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως χρῆμα πρέποι ἂν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ μᾶλλον, ἵνα μὴ αὐτό τι φαίνοιτο γεγονὼς ὃ ἦν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐκ θεοῦ φύντι λόγῳ, οὗ δ’ ἂν ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις ἀληθῶς γενέσθαι πιστεύηται, ἐκεῖ που πάντως ἡ γέννησις, δι’ ἧς ἂν ὁρῷτο γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος;	47. But (he says) the birth is not named in plain terms. Yes, but the nature of the matter knows (as I already said) no other way of being incarnate. So that, although it is not said in plain terms in matters of this kind, we will not for this go off to another, forsaking the only way recognized by nature. For it is written in the book of Genesis, “And Seth had a son, and he named him Enosh” [4:26]. Shall we then, because the scripture has put, “was made,” not admit the mode of birth? How would this not be unlearned? For the very nature of the matter will all but compel us even against our will to confess the idea of birth. How then, on hearing of the incarnation, does he not immediately admit the idea of birth? And when ‘being made man’ has been plainly mentioned, how did he not straightway understand, that being made man would befit not a man, lest he should seem to be made what he already was, but the Word originating from God? But where being made man is believed to truly take place, surely there is also full birth through which he may be seen to be made man.
ἀλλ’ οὐκ αὐτό σοι δοκεῖ κατὰ τοῦτον χρῆναι νοεῖσθαι τὸν τρόπον τὸ σαρκωθῆναί τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγεσθαι τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον· ἔφης γὰρ πάλιν, ταῖς ἁπάντων ἐννοίαις ἀνταίρειν ἐπιχειρῶν, σημαίνειν τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν οὐ τὴν εἰς σάρκα μεταβολὴν τῆς θείας φύσεως, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνοίκησιν τὴν εἰς ἄνθρωπον. τὴν μὲν οὖν τῆς θείας φύσεως εἰς σάρκα παρατροπὴν ἀνέφικτόν τε εἶναί φησι καὶ κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον αὐτῇσυμβαίνουσαν (καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς· ἐπαινέσομεν γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἀριστοεπεῖν ᾑρημένον, φημὶ γὰρ ἀκράδαντον ὑπάρχειν αὐτὴν καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἂν μεταθεῖτο πρὸς ἕτερόν τι παρ’ ὅπερ εἶναι πεπίστευται)· διημάρτηκε δὲ ὅτι τοῦ πρέποντός τε καὶ ἀληθοῦς ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν εἶναι διαβεβαιουμένῳ τὴν εἰς ἄνθρωπον ἐνοίκησιν, καταδεῖξαι πειράσομαι. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐφ’ ἑνός τε καὶ μόνου τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ χρῆμά φησι, διδασκέτω τὴν αἰτίαν (μαθεῖν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχω), ἢ γοῦν ὁριστὴν αὐτὸν καὶ νομοθέτην ὧν ἂν βούλοιτο λέγειν ἀκατασκέπτως, ἀνάσχοιτο ἂν οὐδείς· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐφ’ ἑνὸς μὲν ἴσως ἡ τῶν ὁρισθέντων διήκει δύναμις οὐ διαβεβλήσεται μὲν κἂν εἰ κατὰ πάντων εἴη τυχόν. οὐκοῦν οὐχ ἅπαξ, ἀλλὰ πλειστάκις ἐνηνθρωπηκότα θεὸν εὑρήσομεν καὶ οὔ τί που μόνον τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον, προσθείην δ’ ἂν ἔγωγε καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα καὶ προσέτι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. ἔφη μὲν γὰρ δι’ ἑνὸς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν περὶ τῶν ἐνπίστει δεδικαιωμένων ὅτι ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός. ἔφη δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Χριστός· καὶ ἐάν τίς μου ἀκούσῃ, ἐλευσόμεθα ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ μονὴν παρ’ αὐτῶ ποιησόμεθα καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ καταλύσομεν. γέγραφε δέ που καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος Παῦλος· καὶ Μωσῆς μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς θεράπων εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων, Χριστὸς δὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, οὗ οἶκος ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς, καὶ μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; οὐκοῦν εἰ τὸ ἐνοικῆσαί τισι λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις ἢ γοῦν ἡ σάρκωσις, λεγέσθω καὶ ἐφ’ ἑκάστου τῶν τῆς θείας φύσεως γεγονότων κοινωνῶν καὶ μὴν καὶ ἔνοικον ἐσχηκότων αὐτὸν ὅτι[τε] καὶ ἐνηνθρώπησε καὶ πρός γε τούτῳ τὸ ἐσαρκώθη. οὗ δὴ γεγονότος καὶ παραδεχθέντος ὡς ἀληθοῦς, πλειστάκις κἂν λέγοιτο γεγενῆσθαι σὰρξ ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ἐνοικεῖ δὲ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο πολλοῖς τῶν σεβομένων αὐτόν.	48. But it doesn’t seem to you that it should be thought of this way, that the Word of God was both incarnate and was made man. For you said again, endeavoring to oppose the idea of everyone else, that the being made man means not the change into flesh of the divine nature, but its indwelling in man. He says then that the conversion into flesh of the divine nature is impossible and that it in no way befalls it. (This he says very rightly, for we will approve him who has chosen to speak correctly about this. For I say that it is stable and that it will not be transformed into anything else than what it is believed to be.) But his discourse has missed what was fitting and true, in that he maintained that the being made man is the indwelling in man. This I shall attempt to show. For if he says that this matter is true of Emmanuel singly and alone, let him teach the reason why (for I cannot learn it), or no one will tolerate him as one who defines and lays down the law in respect to those things about which he is pleased to speak inconsiderately. But in case the force of the things defined does not extend to one [alone], there will then be no blame, even though it extend to all. Hence not once for all but many times over shall we find that God has been made man, and not only the Word of God the Father, but I will add both the Father himself and also the Holy Spirit. For he said through one of the holy prophets about those who have been justified in faith, “I will dwell among them and walk among them and I will be their God and they shall be my people” [2 Cor. 6:16; Lev. 26:12]. And Christ himself also said, “And if any man hear me, my Father and I will come and make our home with him and dwell in him” [John 14:23]. The most wise Paul too has somewhere written, “And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of the things which were to be spoken of, but Christ as a Son over his own house, and we are that house” [Heb. 3:5–6]; and moreover of the Holy Spirit too, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” [1 Cor. 3:16]. Hence when the God of all is said to dwell in anyone, if this be the being made man or the incarnation, let it be said in respect also to each one of those who were made “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Pet. 1:4] and have moreover had him dwelling in them, that he [Christ] has both been made man and besides was incarnate. This now being so and admitted as true, the Word of God the Father might even be said to have been most often made flesh, and indeed he dwells even now in many of those who fear him.
ἀλλὰ ναί, φησί, γέγραπται περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ὅτι ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, ἔφη δὲ καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος περὶ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατῴκηκε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.	49. Indeed (he says), “for it is written of God the Word, that he lived among us. The divine-uttering Paul too said of Christ the Savior of us all, that ‘in him has dwelt bodily all the fullness of the Godhead’” [Col. 2:9].
ἐσκήνωσε μὲν ἐν ἡμῖν ὁμολογουμένως·γέγραπται γὰρ ὡδί· καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅτι κατῴκηκεν, οὐκ ἀντιτάξομαι λέγοντί σοι· βούλομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τὰς τῶν θεηγόρων βασανίζειν φωνάς. ὁ μὲν γὰρ μακάριος εὐαγγελιστὴς προειρηκὼς ὅτι καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, προσεπήνεγκε χρειωδῶς καὶ τὸ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, ἵνα δι’ ἀμφοῖν ἀδιαλώβητον ἡμῖν ἐνεργάσηται τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου τὴν γνῶσιν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἡνώθη σαρκὶ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, διαμεμήνυκεν ἐναργῶς διά γε τοῦ σάρκα γενέσθαι λέγειν αὐτόν· ὅτι δὲ σὰρξ γεγονὼς οὐκ εἰς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς μετακεχώρηκε φύσιν, τροπὴν ὑπομείνας τὴν εἰς ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ γενέσθαι καθ’ἡμᾶς μεμένηκεν ὅπερ ἦν, διατρανοῖ πάλιν τὸ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν τῷ πρώτῳ προστεθεικώς. κατοικῆσαι δέ φησιν ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, ἵναμὴ ἁπλῆν ἢ γοῦν σχετικὴν τὴν κατοίκησιν ὑποτοπήσειέ τις, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἔφην ἀρτίως, ἀληθινήν τε καὶ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἀσώματός τέ ἐστι καὶ ἀναφὴς ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, οὐκ ἠγνόηκεν ὁ πνευματοφόρος· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον τὴν τοῦ μυστηρίου δήλωσιν κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον ὁρᾶσθαι μεμωμημένην, ἀκριβῆ δὲ οὕτω γενέσθαι καὶ διηρθρωμένην εἰς τὸ εὐθύ τε καὶ ἀληθές, ὡς ἐπέκειναπαντὸς ἰέναι θαύματος, καταβιάζεται τὸ εἰκὸς καὶ μόνον οὐχὶ τὸ πρέπον ὑπερορᾶι τῇ ἀσωμάτῳ τε καὶ ὑπερτάτῳ φύσει.προστέθεικε γὰρ τὸ σωματικῶς, οὐχ ἑτέρως ἔχων εἰπεῖν ἢ ὡς ἂν γένοιτο καὶ νῷ καὶ γλώττῃ τῇ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐφικτόν.	50. We agree that he lived among us, for so it is written. Moreover, I will not oppose you saying that he has lived among us, but rather will I search into the words of those inspired by God. For the blessed evangelist, having said before, “And the Word was made flesh”, profitably added too the “lived among us” [John 1:14], that by means of both he might work in us unmutilated the knowledge of the mystery of Christ. For he has openly declared that the Word of God the Father was united in subsistence to flesh by saying that he was made flesh. Having been made flesh, he has not passed into the nature of flesh, undergoing change into what he was not. Rather, together with becoming as we are, he has remained what he was. Again he clearly states, adding to the former the ‘lived among us.’ And the divine-uttering Paul has said that “in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form” [Col. 2:9], that no one might suppose that the indwelling was simple or accidental but (as I said just now) true and in subsistence. That the Word of God is incorporeal and not subject to touch, the inspired writer was not ignorant. But since it was needful that the declaration of the mystery should be seen to be in no way a matter of blame, but should be made so accurate and exact to what is right and true as to be beyond all marvel—he is doing violence (it seems) and all but overlooking what befits the unembodied and supreme nature, for he has added, ‘bodily,’ being able to speak in no other way than may be attained by our mind and tongue.

10. Cyril’s Final Argument – Nestorius’ Concerns are Unfounded

μὴ τοίνυν ἁπλῆν ἡμῖν ὀνομάζοντα ἐνοίκησιν οἴου τι λέγειν αὐτὸν τῶν οὐ σφόδρα διαβεβλημένων· ἀνατρέπων γάρ, καθάπερ οὖν οἴεται, καὶ μάλα νεανικῶς τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ υἱοῦ, συντίθησι λογισμὸν γραοπρεπῆ καὶ ἠλίθιον καὶ ὑποβάθραν οὐκ ἔχοντα τὴν ἐξ ἀληθείας. γράφει γὰρ καὶ ὧδε πάλιν, πεποίηται δὲ πρὸς Ἀρειανοὺς ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ·	51. Do not therefore, when he tells us of simple indwelling, think that he is saying anything that needs not the strongest rebuke. For vigorously overthrowing (as he thinks) the birth according to the flesh of the Son, he creates an argument befitting old wives and fools and having no foundation in truth. For he writes again in this same manner )and his discourse was made about the Arians):
Ὅμως δὲ κἂν θεότητος μείζονος τὸν θεὸν λόγον ληροῦσι νεώτερον· οὗτοι δὲ αὐτὸν τῆς μακαρίας Μαρίας ἐργάζονται δεύτερον καὶ μητέρα χρονικὴν τῇ δημιουργῷ τῶν χρόνων ἐφιστῶσι θεότητι, μάλλον δὲ οὐδὲ μητέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν Χριστοτόκον ἐῶσιν. εἰ γὰρ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου φύσις, ἀλλὰ θεὸς [ὁ] λόγος ἦν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοί φασιν, ὁ παρ’ ἐκείνης, ἡ τεκοῦσα τοῦ τεχθέντος οὐ μήτηρ· πῶς γὰρ ἂν εἴη τις μήτηρ τοῦ τῆςφύσεως αὐτῆς ἀλλοτρίου; εἰ δὲ μήτηρ παρ’ αὐτῶν ὀνομάζοιτο, ἀνθρωπότης τὸ τεχθέν, οὐ θεότης· πάσης γὰρ ἴδιον μητρὸς ὁμοούσια τίκτειν. ἢ οὖν οὐκ ἔσται μήτηρ ὁμοούσιον ἑαυτῇ μὴ τεκοῦσα ἢ μήτηρ παρ’ αὐτῶν καλουμένη τὸν ἑαυτῇ κατ’ οὐσίαν ἐγέννησεν ὅμοιον.	52. [Nestorius:] “Yet though they babble that God the Word is junior to the greater Godhead, these make him second to the blessed Mary, and they set over the Godhead, the creator of times, a mother born in time. Rather they do not even allow that she who bore Christ is Christotokos. For if God the Word was not the nature of man but, as these say, that which is of her, she who bore was no mother of that which was born. For how will anyone be mother of him who is alien from her nature? But if she be called mother by them, that which is born is manhood, not Godhead, for it is the property of every mother to bear what is consubstantial [with her]. Either then she will not be mother, not bearing what is consubstantial with herself, or being called mother by them, she bore that which was in essence like herself.”
Ὡς βαθὺ τὸ χρῆμα τῶν ἐννοιῶν, δεινὴ δὲ καὶ δυσδιάφυκτος τοῦ τὰ τοιάδε συγγεγραφότος ἡμῖν ἡ ἐκτῶν συλλογισμῶν ἀνάγκη φαίνεται. πόθεν ἡμῖν τὰ τοιάδε συναγηγερκὼς εἰς μέσον ἔρχῃ μυθάρια; ἢ τίς ὅλως ἀμαθίας εἰς τοῦτο κατώλισθεν ἐννοιῶν, ὡς οἴεσθαί τε καὶ λέγειν τὴν θεότητα τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὐ προαιώνιον ἔχειν τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἐκ πατρός, ἀρχὴν δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρόδου σάρκα τε καὶ αἷμα λαβεῖν; τίς οὕτως ἐμβρόντητος καὶ ὀλιγογνώμων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἀνήκοος παντελῶς; τίς οὐ διαμέμνηται διακεκραγότος μὲν Ἡσαίου περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; γεγραφότος δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννου σαφῶς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. καὶ εἰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ, πῶς τῶν δι’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότων ὀψιγενέστερος εἴη ἂν ὁ πρὸ παντὸς αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνων; τί τοίνυν τὸ πᾶσιν ἀπόβλητον ὡς εἰρημένον εἰσφέρεις; παῦσαι συκοφαντῶν τοὺς τὰ σὰ δικαίως ἐπαιτιωμένους καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀμαθίας διαγελῶντας τὸ μέγεθος. Ὅτε τοίνυν οὐδεὶς ὁ λέγων ἐστὶν ὡς ἐκτέτοκεν ἡ παρθένος ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν, μὴ διατείνου μάτην λογισμοὺς ἡμῖν ἀναπλέκων οὐκ ἐξ ἀληθῶν καὶ ἅπασιν ὁμολογουμένων γεγονότας λημμάτων.	53. How deep the matter of his thoughts! The reasonings of him who has compiled such things clearly produce dreadful compulsions which are hard to escape! From where has he come who has gathered such fables into our midst? Or whoever sank down to this extent of unlearning in his conceptions, as to think or say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten does not have its existence before the ages from the Father but rather makes flesh and blood the beginning of its passing into being? Who is so distraught and slight of understanding and wholly without regard for the holy scriptures? Who does not remember Isaiah who has cried aloud of him, “Who shall declare his generation?” [Is. 53:8], and John too, who has clearly written, “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 nothing made”? [John 1:3]. And if all things came through him, how will he who is before every age and time be later in birth than the things that were made through him? Why then do you bring in what is repudiated by all, as though it had been said? Cease accusing those who rightly blame what you say, and who laugh at the vastness of your unlearning. Since therefore there is no one who says that the virgin has borne from her own flesh the nature of the Godhead, stop contending to no purpose, weaving for us reasonings not made out of premises that are true and acknowledged by all.
τί δέ σε τὸ πεπεικὸς ἀκρατῆ καὶ ἀπύλωτον οὕτω χαλάσαι τὴν γλῶτταν κατὰ τῶν ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν διεσπουδακότων καὶ παντὸς τοῦ σεβομένου θεὸν ἔγκλημα καταχέαι δεινὸν καὶ παγχάλεπον; ἔφης γὰρπάλιν ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας	54. But what was it that persuaded you to let loose a tongue so sheer and unguarded against those who are zealous to think correctly, and to pour down awful and cruel accusations upon every worshiper of God? For you said again in church,
Εἶπον δὲ ἤδη πλειστάκις ὅτι εἴ τις ἢ ἐν ὑμῖν ἀφελέστερος εἴτε ἐν ἄλλοις τισὶ χαίρει τῇ τοῦ θεοτόκος φωνῇ, ἐμοὶ πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν φθόνος οὐκ ἔστι· μόνον μὴ ποιείτω τὴν παρθένον θεάν.	55. [Nestorius:] “But I have already often said that if any simpler one either among us or any other rejoices in the word Theotokos, I have no grudge against the word; only let him not make the virgin a goddess.”
Πάλιν ἡμῖν διαλοιδορῇ καὶ πικρὸν οὕτως ἐπιθήγεις στόμα, ὀνειδίζεις δὲ τὴν συναγωγὴν κυρίου κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς γε, ὦ τᾶν, οἱ θεοτόκον λέγοντες αὐτήν· τεθεοποιήκαμεν δὲ οὐδένα πώποτε τῶν τελούντων ἐν κτίσμασι, κατειθίσμεθα δὲ θεὸν εἰδέναι τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς, ἴσμεν δὲ ἄνθρωπον οὖσαν καθ’ ἡμᾶς τὴν μακαρίαν παρθένον. ἁλώσῃ δὲ καὶ οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν ἄνθρωπον ἡμῖν θεοφόρον ἀποφαίνων αὐτὸς τὸν Ἐμμανουὴλ καὶ τῶν σῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων τὴν κατάρρησιν ἐπιτιθεὶς ἑτέρῳ.	56. Again do you rail upon us, and put on a mouth so bitter and reproach “the congregation of the Lord” [Num. 27:17], as it is written? But we, my friend, who call her Theotokos have never at all deified any one of those that are numbered among creatures, but are accustomed to know as God the one who is so truly by nature. And we know that the blessed virgin was woman in our nature. But you yourself will be caught—and that at no long interval—representing to us Emmanuel as a God-bearing man and putting upon another the condemnation due to your own arguments.

Back to Documents from the Escalating Controversy

Last updated 9/14/2026 by JSW

Theotokes is the plural of Theotokos.
It seems that Cyril is either quoting or paraphrasing Nestorius.
Psychotokos means “bearer of soul.”
Anthropotokos means “bearer of man.”
Pneumatokos means “bearer of the Spirit.”
“Here the MS. leaves a blank of about 12 letters: these blanks sometimes indicate that the scribe could not decipher the word in the ms. which he was copying” (Oxford edition, p 29)

No Responses yet

"What did the Fathers do except seek and present the clear and open testimonies of Scripture?" — Martin Luther, Against Latomus (1521)

Tome 1 Against Nestorius (CPG 5217)

Search

What's New

Tools

Primary Texts

Website Related

Meta