Fourth Century Christianity

Reference:	CPG 5217
Incipit:	Ἡ γλῶσσα μὲν πῦρ καὶ ἀκατάσχετόν ἐστι κακόν
Date:	Spring 430
Greek Text:	ACO 1.1.6:32-52
English Translations:	P.E. Pusey, pp. 38-80, adapted by R. Read and J. Schwark; see also Russel pp. 140-160 for par. 1-5 and 19-45.

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 Dangerous Power of the Tongue for Heresy (1)

2. Nestorius’ Error – Teaching Indwelling Rather Than Incarnation (2)

3. Cyril’s Illustrations of the Union (3–5)

4. First Argument – Nestorius’ “Equality of Rank” Is No Union at All (6–9)

5. Second Argument – Nestorius Divides the Natures by Dividing the Acts (10–18)

6. Third Argument – Nestorius Denies the Divinity of Christ (19–24)

7. Fourth Argument – Nestorius Teaches a Connection Rather Than Union (25–31)

8. Fifth Argument – Nestorius Simultaneously Unites and Divides the Natures (32–34)

9. Revisiting the First Argument – Refuting Nestorius’ “Equality of Rank” (35–40)

10. Sixth Argument – Nestorius Deifies a Human Being (41–59)

BOOK 2

1. Introduction – The Dangerous Power of the Tongue for Heresy

Ἡ γλῶσσα μὲν πῦρ καὶ ἀκατάσχετόν ἐστι κακόν, καθὰ γέγραπται· τὰ δὲ ἐντεῦθεν βλάβη διωθούμενος ὁ θεσπέσιος ψάλλει Δαυίδ· “Θοῦ, κύριε, φυλακὴν τῷ στόματί μου καὶ θύραν περιοχῆς περὶ τὰ χείλη μου· μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς τὴν καρδίαν μου εἰς λόγους πονηρίας.” τὸ μὲν γὰρ εὐστομεῖν δύνασθαι καὶ ἀκριβῆ τὴν ἐπιτήρησιν ἐπὶ γλώττης ἔχειν ὧν ἂν δεήσῃ λέγειν ἢ μή, θεόδοτον ἀληθῶς εἴη ἂν καὶ τὸ χρῆμά ἐστιν οὐκ ἐν μικρῷ λόγῳ παρά γε τοῖς οὐκ ἀθαύμαστον ἐπιτηδεύουσι πολιτείαν· τό γε μὴν προαλὲς εἰς λόγους καὶ τὸ ἀχάλινον εἰς τερθρείας κινδύνου μεστὸν καὶ εἰς πέταυρον ᾅδου κατακομίζει τοὺς κεχρημένους. γέγραπται δὲ ὅτι “Θάνατος καὶ ζωὴ ἐν χειρὶ γλώσσης, οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες αὐτῆς ἔδονται τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς.” προσπεφώνηκε δὲ καὶ ἕτερός τις ἡμῖν τῶν σοφῶν· “Εἰ μὲν ἔστι σοι λόγος συνέσεως, ἀποκρίθητι· εἰ δὲ μή, χεὶρ ἔστω ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου.” ἀμαθοῦς γὰρ λόγου πῶς οὐκ ἀμείνων ἡ σιωπή; ἐπάρατον δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως τὸ πικροὺς ἐρεύγεσθαι λόγους καὶ τῆς ἀπορρήτου δόξης καταχέαι φωνὰς τὰς ἀλιτηρίους, καίτοι δέον ἀκαταλήκτοις αὐτὴν εὐφημίαις καταγεραίρεσθαι πρὸς ἡμῶν. “ἁμαρτάνοντες” δὲ “εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τύπτοντες ἀσθενοῦσαν τὴν συνείδησιν εἰς Χριστὸν” ἁμαρτάνομεν· γέγραφε γὰρ οὕτως ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος.

1. The tongue is a fire and an unrestrained evil [Jas 3:6, 8], as it is written. David pushes away the harm caused by it, singing under inspiration, “Give my mouth a guard, O Lord; put a door around my lips to enclose them. Do not incline my heart to wicked words” [Ps. 141:3–4]. For the ability to speak finely and to have precise control over the tongue—what it should and should not say—is truly a gift of God; it is no small thing for those who admirably engage in civil affairs. Rash speech and unbridled sophistry, on the other hand, are outright dangerous and bring those who use them down to the trap of Hades. It is written, “Death and life belong to the tongue, and those who conquer it shall eat its fruits” [Prov. 18:21]. Another one of the wise has also said to us, “If you have an intelligent word to speak, answer; if not, put your hand over your mouth.”¹ For how is silence not better than ignorant speech? But in yet another way it is accursed to blurt out angry words and to pour out sayings that offend against the inexpressible glory, although we ought to honor it with unceasing praise. And “when we sin against our brothers and wound their weak conscience, against Christ” do we sin [1 Cor. 8:12], for thus has Paul written under inspiration.

2. Nestorius’ Error – Teaching Indwelling Rather Than Incarnation

καὶ ταῦτα φημὶ τοῖς Νεστορίου λόγοις ἐντετυχηκὼς καὶ οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν ἀποφάσκοντα βλέπων τὸ χρῆναι λέγειν ἡμᾶς ὡς ἔστι μὲν θεοτόκος ἡ ἁγία παρθένος, ἐκτέτοκε δὲ θεὸν ὄντα τὸν Ἐμμανουήλ, ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἔτι πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ καθ’ ἑτέρους τρόπους τῇ Χριστοῦ δόξῃ πολεμεῖν ἐγνωκότα· θεοφόρον γὰρ ἡμῖν αὐτὸν πειρᾶται δεικνύειν καὶ οὐχὶ θεὸν ἀληθῶς, ἄνθρωπον δὲ θεῷ συνημμένον ὡς ἐν ἰσότητι τῆς ἀξίας. οὕτω γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ μόνῳ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἄλλους δοκεῖ φρονεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν, καίτοι τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἣν αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ παρέστησεν ὁ Χριστός, τὰς τοῦ τὰ τοιάδε συγγεγραφότος οὐκ ἐχούσης ῥυτίδας, οὔσης δὲ μᾶλλον ἀμώμου καὶ ἀνεπίπληκτον παντελῶς τὴν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ γνῶσιν ἐχούσης καὶ τῆς πίστεως τὴν παράδοσιν εὖ μάλα πεποιημένης. “Πιστεύομεν” γὰρ “εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητὴν καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον,” ἑπόμενοι δὲ ταῖς τούτοις ἐπενηνεγμέναις τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ὁμολογίαις αὐτὸν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς οὐσιωδῶς φύντα λόγον καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι φαμὲν σαρκωθῆναί τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, τουτέστιν ἑαυτῷ σῶμα λαβεῖν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ ἴδιον αὐτὸ ποιήσασθαι. οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται καὶ ἀληθῶς εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὕτως αὐτὸν ὡς ἕνα προσκυνήσομεν, οὐκ ἀνὰ μέρος τιθέντες ἄνθρωπον καὶ θεόν, ἀλλ’ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύοντες ὡς ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι, τουτέστι θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον.

2. I say this as one who has read Nestorius’s words and sees that he denies the necessity of us saying that the holy virgin is Theotokos and has borne Emmanuel who is God. In addition to this, I see that he has also determined to wage war against the glory of Christ in many ways. For he tries to prove to us that he bears God and is not truly God but rather a human joined with God, as in equality of rank. It seems good to him alone to think and speak thus, contrary to everyone else. The universal church, which Christ himself presented to himself, does not have the wrinkles of the one who has composed such writings. On the contrary, she is blameless and keeps her knowledge of him completely free from blame and has highly esteemed the tradition of the faith. For “we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of all things seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit,”² and, in accord with the confessions of the holy fathers subjoined to these points, we say that the very Word, begotten of God the Father in his essence, became like us, was incarnate, and became human. That is, he took for himself a body from the holy virgin and made it his own. In this way he will truly be one Lord Jesus Christ; in this way we will worship him as one, not separating human and God but believing that he is one and the same person in deity and in humanity, that is, he is both God and human.

3. Cyril’s Illustrations of the Union

ὁ δέ γε τῆς νεωτάτης ἡμῖν ἀσεβείας εὑρετής, καίτοι Χριστὸν ἕνα λέγειν προσποιούμενος, διαιρεῖ μὲν πανταχοῦ τὰς φύσεις καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος ἵστησιν ἑκατέραν, οὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀλλήλαις συμβῆναι λέγων αὐτάς, προφασιζόμενος δὲ προφάσεις ἐν ἁμαρτίαις κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ἐπινοεῖ τινα συναφείας τρόπον, τὸν κατὰ μόνον, ὡς ἔφην, τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς ἀξίας, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ δειχθήσεται λόγων. καὶ ἐνοικίζει μὲν μεθεκτῶς ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ κοινῷ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον, μερίζει δὲ τὰς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις φωνάς, ὡς ποτὲ μὲν τάσδε τινὰς μόνῳ τε καὶ ἰδικῶς ἀνατιθέναι τῷ λόγῳ, ποτὲ δὲ ἰδίᾳ τῷ ἐκ γυναικός. καίτοι πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν εἴη ἂν οὐκ ἀναμφιλόγως ἔχον ὅτι θεὸς ὢν φύσει γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ὁ μονογενής, οὐ κατὰ συνάφειαν ἁπλῶς, ὡς γοῦν ἐκεῖνός φησι, τὴν θύραθεν ἐπινοουμένην ἤτοι σχετικήν, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ, ἀπορρήτως τε καὶ ὑπὲρ νοῦν, οὕτω τε εἷς νοεῖται καὶ μόνος ἅπας τε αὐτῷ πρέπει λόγος καὶ ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς προσώπου τὰ πάντα λελέξεται; μία γὰρ ἤδη νοεῖται φύσις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἡ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν νοοῖτ’ ἂν εἰκότως. ἄνθρωπος γὰρ εἷς ἀληθῶς συγκείμενος ἐξ ἀνομοίων πραγμάτων, ψυχῆς δὴ λέγω καὶ σώματος. ἐπισημήνασθαι δὲ καὶ νῦν ἀναγκαῖον ὅτι τὸ ἑνωθὲν τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ σῶμα φαμὲν ἐψυχῶσθαι ψυχῇ λογικῇ, προσθήσομεν δὲ κἀκεῖνο χρησίμως· ἑτέρα μὲν γὰρ παρὰ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον ἡ σὰρξ κατά γε τὸν τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως λόγον, ἑτέρα δὲ πάλιν οὐσιωδῶς ἡ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου φύσις. πλὴν εἰ καὶ νοεῖται διάφορα καὶ εἰς ἑτερότητα φυσικὴν διεσχοινισμένα τὰ ὠνομασμένα, ἀλλ’ εἷς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν νοεῖται Χριστὸς καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ ἀλλήλοις συμβεβηκότων, θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος.	3. But he who invents for us the most recent impiety, although he pretends to speak of one Christ, always divides the natures and sets each by itself, saying that they did not truly come together. And he makes excuses in sins [Ps. 141:4], as it is written; he devises some manner of connection—a mere equality of rank, as I said. I will prove this from his own words. And it is as if he makes the Word of God dwell in a common human by participation; he splits up the sayings in the Gospels, now attributing certain sayings to the Word alone and by himself, now separately attributing certain ones to him who is born of woman. Yet how could anyone doubt that the only-begotten, being God by nature, has become human, not simply—as he claims—by a connection thought of as something external or incidental, but by a true union which is inexpressible and beyond understanding? Thus he is thought of as only one, every word is proper to him, and everything will have been said of one person. For now the incarnate nature of the Word himself is thought of as one after the union, just as one would (of course) also reasonably think of us. For a human is truly one although composed of dissimilar things—soul and body, I mean. But at this point it is necessary also to indicate that we say the body united to God the Word is animated with a rational soul. And it is useful for us to add this also: the flesh is unlike the Word of God according to the flesh’s proper nature, and again the nature of the Word itself is unlike the flesh in essence. But even if the things named are thought of as different and separated into distinct natures, nevertheless out of both one Christ is thought of, since deity and humanity have come together with each other in true union.
ἐμπεδοῖ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφὴ διὰ μυρίων μὲν ὅσων πραγμάτων τε καὶ λόγων, παραδείγμασι δὲ χρωμένη, δι’ ὧν ἄν τις καὶ λίαν ἀκονιτὶ πρός γε τὸ δύνασθαι κατιδεῖν τὸ Χριστοῦ μυστήριον διελάσειε σαφῶς. ἔφη τοίνυν ὁ μακάριος προφήτης Ἡσαίας· “Καὶ ἀπεστάλη πρός με ἓν τῶν σεραφὶμ καὶ τῇ χειρὶ εἶχεν ἄνθρακα, ὃν τῇ λαβίδι ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ στόματός μου καὶ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ ἥψατο τοῦτο τῶν χειλέων σου, καὶ ἀφελεῖ τὰς ἀνομίας σου καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου περικαθαριεῖ.” πολυπραγμονοῦντες δέ, ὡς ἔνι, τὸ τῆς ὁράσεως βάθος, οὐχ ἕτερον εἶναι φαμὲν πλὴν ὅτι τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ κείμενον ἄνθρακα νοητόν, ἐφ’ ᾧ παρ’ ἡμῶν εὐωδιάζει θυμίαμα τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί· δι’ αὐτοῦ γὰρ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν δεκτοί τε ἐσμὲν τὰς πνευματικὰς τελοῦντες λατρείας. οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ ἄνθραξ ὁ θεῖος ὅταν ἅψηται τῶν χειλέων τοῦ προσιόντος αὐτῷ, διεσμηγμένον εὐθὺς ἀποφανεῖ καὶ ἁπάσης ἁμαρτίας ἠμοιρηκότα παντελῶς, ἅπτεται δὲ τίνα τρόπον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν χειλέων, διδάξει λέγων ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος· “Ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, ὅτι ἐὰν εἴπῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς, καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ· καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν.” ἄνθρακι δὲ παρεικάζεται διά τοι τὸ ἐκ δυοῖν νοεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνομοίων πραγμάτων, συνόδῳ γε μὴν τῇ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν μόνον οὐχὶ συνδεῖσθαι πρὸς ἕνωσιν· εἰσδεδυκὸς γὰρ τῷ ξύλῳ τὸ πῦρ εἰς οἰκείαν αὐτὸ μεταστοιχειοῖ τρόπον τινὰ δόξαν τε καὶ δύναμιν, καίτοι τετηρηκὸς ὅπερ ἦν.	4. God-breathed scripture affirms us in this by ten thousand acts and words, using examples through which one may effortlessly drive forward towards the ability to clearly behold the mystery of Christ. The blessed prophet Isaiah therefore said, “One of the seraphim was sent to me. In his hand he had a live coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth and said, ‘See, this has touched your lips; it will take away your iniquities and cleanse your sins’” [Is. 6:6–7]. Peering, as we are able, into the depth of the vision, we say that the spiritual coal lying on the altar is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ, on which altar he brings forth the sweet smell of incense from us to God the Father. For through him we have gained access and acceptably offer spiritual worship. Therefore, when this divine coal touches the lips of the one who approaches it, it will immediately render him cleansed and completely freed from all sin. How it touches our lips, blessed Paul will teach when he says, “The word is near you—in your mouth and in your heart. For if you say with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with your heart you believe, resulting in justification, and with your mouth you confess, resulting in salvation” [Rom. 10:8–10]. And he is compared to a coal because he is thought of as from two dissimilar things, yet by a true union they are all but knit together into unity. For when the fire has entered into the wood, it somehow transforms it into its own glory and power, although it has retained what it was.
μαργαρίτῃ δὲ πάλιν ἑαυτὸν ἀφομοιοῖ λέγων ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός· “Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ ἐμπόρῳ ζητοῦντι καλοὺς μαργαρίτας, εὑρὼν δὲ ἕνα πολύτιμον μαργαρίτην ἀπελθὼν πέπρακεν ὅσα εἶχε, καὶ ἠγόρασεν αὐτόν.” ἀκούω δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν καταδεικνύντος καὶ λέγοντος· “Ἐγὼ ἄνθος τοῦ πεδίου, κρίνον τῶν κοιλάδων.” ἔχει μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἰδίᾳ φύσει τὴν θεοπρεπῆ λαμπρότητα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, εὐωδιάζει δὲ πάλιν αὐτό, κατά γε φημὶ τὴν νοητὴν εὐοσμίαν. ὥσπερ τοίνυν ἐπί γε τοῦ μαργαρίτου καὶ μὴν καὶ τοῦ κρίνου νοεῖται μὲν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ἡ δέ γε ἐν αὐτῷ λαμπρότης ἢ γοῦν εὐωδία κατ’ ἴδιον λόγον ὡς ἕτερα μὲν παρὰ τὰ ἐν οἷς εἰσιν, ἴδια δὲ πάλιν αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἀλλότρια τῶν ἐχόντων ἐστὶ τὰ ἀχωρίστως ἐμπεφυκότα, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν οἶμαι τρόπον λογιούμεθά τε καὶ <νοήσομεν καὶ> φρονήσομεν καὶ ἐπί γε τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. ἑτεροῖα μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν θεότης τε καὶ σάρξ, ἀλλ’ ἴδιον ἦν τοῦ λόγου τὸ σῶμα, τοῦ δὲ σώματος οὐ κεχωρισμένος ὁ ἑνωθεὶς αὐτῷ λόγος. νοοῖτο γὰρ <ἂν> ὧδέ τε καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρως ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ, τουτέστι μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. τοιγάρτοι ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκ τῶν τῆς κενώσεως μέτρων ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν ἐμφανῆ καθιστὰς ἔφασκεν “Οὐδεὶς αἴρει τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ·” ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν ὡς θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ νοούμενος καὶ εἷς μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς “Οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκε,” φησίν, “εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.”	5. Again, our Lord Jesus Christ compares himself to a pearl, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking good pearls. When he found a pearl of great value, he went and sold all he had and bought it” [Matt. 13:45–46]. I hear him in another way introducing himself to us and saying, “I am a flower of the plain, a lily of the valleys” [Song 2:1]. For he has in his proper nature the divine splendor of God the Father and again brings forth a sweet smell—I am speaking of spiritual fragrance. Now in the case of the pearl and also the lily, the thing itself is thought of as the substance, while the splendor or sweet smell in them is thought of, strictly speaking, as something other than those in which they exist. But, again, the inseparably innate qualities are their own properties and not foreign to those which possess them. I believe we should reason, consider, and think the same way in the case of Emmanuel too. For deity and flesh are by nature different, yet the body of the Word was his own; the Word who was united to the body is not severed from it. For in this way Emmanuel, that is, God with us, should be thought of, and not otherwise. Therefore at one time, as a human, making himself visible to us by the limitations of the emptiness, he said, “No one takes my life from me” [John 10:18], and again at another time he spoke like God, being the Word, thought of as from heaven and one with his own flesh: “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man” [John 3:13].

4. First Argument – Nestorius’ “Equality of Rank” Is No Union at All

Πανταχόθεν τοίνυν εἰς ἕνωσιν ἀδιάτμητόν τε καὶ ἀληθῆ συνδέοντος ἡμῖν τοῦ ἱεροῦ γράμματος τὸν υἱὸν καὶ εἰς πρόσωπον ἓν ἀποφέροντος ἐν πίστει, διίστησι πολλαχῶς ὁ περιττὸς οὑτοσὶ καὶ <κατα>πεφλυάρηκεν εἰκῇ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, θεὸν ὀνομάζων <μόνον> τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον, καθάπερ ἀμέλει προιὼν ὁ λόγος ἐκδείξει σαφῶς [ὡς] ἐν οἰκείῳ καιρῷ καὶ τόπῳ. ὑποπλάττεται μὲν γὰρ δεδιέναι μὴ ἄρα τις αἰδοῖ τῇ περὶ τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον ἡττώμενος, εἶτα θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὀνομάσας φυρμὸν καὶ ἀνάκρασιν, τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλας φημί, τῶν ὑποστάσεων γενέσθαι νομίσας τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων καταχέῃ τὸ ἀκαλλές, καίτοι τοῦτο φρονοῦντος οὐδενός, ἐπανορθῶν δέ, ὡς οἴεται, τὸ δεινόν, ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τὰ πάντα συγχεῖ, τῶν εἰς ὀρθότητα καὶ ἀλήθειαν ἀφειδήσας ἐννοιῶν. ἔφη γὰρ οὕτως	6. Therefore, although Holy Scripture thoroughly knits the Son together into an unbroken and true union and carries us back in faith to one person, this remarkable man severs the Son in many ways and has made wild assertions even against Christ himself, to no avail; the Word of God the Father is the only one he calls God, which our discourse will clearly demonstrate as it advances, at the proper time and place. For he pretends to be afraid that someone overcome by reverence for the holy virgin, calling her Theotokos, might suppose that there is a blending and mixture of subsistences into each other and pour down what is unseemly on the church doctrines. But no one thinks that way. So as he corrects what he thinks is a terrible error, he throws everything into utter confusion and disregards upright and true ideas. For he said:
“Εἰ μετὰ πίστεως ἁπλῆς τὸ θεοτόκος προέφερες, οὐκ ἄν σοι τῆς λέξεως ἐφθόνησα, τὸν νοῦν ἐξετάζων τοῦ ῥήματος· ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ ὁρῶ σε προφάσει τῆς περὶ τὴν μακαρίαν Μαρίαν τιμῆς τῶν αἱρετικῶν βεβαιοῦντα τὴν βλασφημίαν, διὰ τοῦτο τὴν τῆς λέξεως προφορὰν ἀσφαλίζομαι, τὸν ἐν τῇ λέξει κρυπτόμενον κίνδυνον ὑφορώμενος. ἵνα δὲ αὐτὸ σαφέστερον καὶ πᾶσιν εὐληπτότερον εἴπω, τοῖς Ἀρείου καὶ Εὐνομίου καὶ Ἀπολιναρίου καὶ πάντων τοῖς χοροῖς τῶν τῆς τοιαύτης φατρίας σπουδὴ θεοτόκον εἰσάγειν, ὡς κράσεως γινομένης καὶ τῶν δύο φύσεων μὴ διαιρουμένων μηδὲν τῶν εὐτελῶν εἰς τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα λαμβάνεσθαι καὶ χώραν αὐτοὺς λοιπὸν κατὰ τῆς θεότητος ἔχειν, ὡς πάντων λεγομένων παρ’ ἑνός, οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς συναφείας ἀξίαν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. εἷς μὲν γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ εἷς κύριος· ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς λέγω υἱοῦ, καὶ τὸ Χριστός καὶ τὸ υἱός ποτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος, ποτὲ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, <ποτὲ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος> καὶ θεότητος.”	7. [Nestorius:] “If you had uttered the word Theotokos in simple faith, I would not have resented you for it after examining the sense of the word. But because I see that you affirm the blasphemy of the heretics under the pretext of honoring blessed Mary, I am on my guard against uttering that word, suspicious of the danger concealed in it. But to make myself more clear and understandable to everyone, those who belong to Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, and all similar factions are eager to bring in Theotokos, as if to suggest a mixing has taken place and the two natures are not divided and none of the human nature’s lowly qualities were taken. Thus they finally have an opportunity against the divinity, as if everything were said to issue from one, not according to his rank based on the connection, but according to nature. For Christ is one, and the Lord is one, but about Christ (I am talking about the only-begotten Son) both Christ and Son are said—at one time of the deity, at another time of the humanity, at yet another time of the humanity and deity.”
Ὁρᾷς ὅπως πολυτρόποις ἐννοιῶν εὑρήμασιν ἀνοσίως καταποικίλλεται καὶ τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἐσομένην πειρᾶται δεικνύειν, εἰ μή τις γένοιτο τῶν ὑποστάσεων εἰς ἀλλήλας ἀνάχυσις ἢ γοῦν σύγκρασις; καίτοι τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων οὐ τοῦτον ἡμᾶς μυσταγωγούντων τὸν τρόπον. σύνοδον γὰρ ἀληθῆ γενέσθαι φαμέν, ἑνώσαντος μὲν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ λόγου τὸ σῶμα, μεμενηκότος δὲ ὅπερ ἦν· ὃ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων εἰς νοῦν ἔχων οὐδὲν δεδυσσέβηκεν οὐ μετρίως, διιστὰς εἰς δύο πρόσωπά τε καὶ ὑποστάσεις ὁλοτρόπως ἀλλήλων διῃρημένας ἑκατέρᾳ τε λόγους τοὺς αὐτῇ πρέποντας ἀνατιθεὶς ἰδικῶς. καὶ πάλιν ἕνα φησὶ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν κύριον, ὡς ἀνθρώπου θεῷ συνημμένου κατὰ μόνην τὴν ἀξίαν, οὐ καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ, τουτέστι τὴν κατὰ φύσιν. πῶς οὖν <εἷς> ἐστι Χριστὸς καὶ υἱὸς καὶ κύριος, εἴπερ ἀμφοῖν ἀνὰ μέρος ἁρμόσειεν [ἄν], ὡς ἔφης, τὸ ὧδέ τε κατονομάζεσθαι καὶ εἶναι κατὰ ἀλήθειαν διά τοι τὸ συμβῆναι καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἥκιστα μὲν ἀλλήλων τὰς ὑποστάσεις, ἑνοῦσθαι δὲ κατὰ μόνην τὴν ἀξίαν ἤτοι τὴν αὐθεντίαν ἢ γοῦν ἐξουσίαν; καίτοι τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων πολυπραγμονοῦντες φύσεις τὰ ἐν ἰσότητι τῆς ἀξίας οὐ ταύτης ἕνεκα τῆς αἰτίας ἀποβεβληκότα καταθρήσαιμεν ἂν τὸ ὑπάρχειν ἰδιοσυστάτως οὔτε μὴν τὸ ἰσομοιρεῖν εἰς δόξαν ἀρκέσει πρὸς ἕνωσιν.	8. So you see how with wily invented ideas he impiously embellishes even the fleshly generation of the Only-Begotten as he tries to show that it could not take place in any other way than by a confusion or blending of the subsistences with each other? But the teachers of the church do not instruct us in this way. For we say there was a true union when the Word united the body to himself yet remained what he was. But because he keeps none of these things in mind, he has blasphemed more than a little, dividing him into two persons and subsistences wholly separated from each other and individually attributing to each the sayings proper to it. And again he says “one Lord Jesus Christ” as if to suggest human were connected with God by rank only, not by true union, that is, by nature. How then is he one Christ, Son, and Lord, if being called such and truly being such applies to each separately, as you say, because the subsistences did not at all come together in union with each other but rather were united only in respect to rank or status or authority? Yet if we should inquire into the nature of things, we would observe that things equal in rank do not for this reason cease to exist individually, nor, indeed, is it sufficient for union to have an equal degree of glory.
οἷόν τι φημί, Πέτρος τε καὶ Ἰωάννης ἄμφω μὲν ἤστην ἀπόστολοί τε καὶ ἅγιοι καὶ ταῖς ἰσομέτροις τιμαῖς καὶ δυνάμεσι ταῖς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος κατηγλαϊσμένοι παρὰ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ· ἤκουον γὰρ ὁμοῦ τοῖς ἄλλοις· “Ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου” τούτου, καὶ πάλιν· “Ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε.” ἆρα οὖν ἐξ ἰσομοιρούσης ἀξίας ἢ γοῦν αὐθεντίας αὐτοῖς ὑπάρξαι φαμὲν τὸ εἰς ἄνθρωπον ἕνα καταλογίζεσθαι τοὺς δύο καὶ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο πρὸς ἕνωσιν, τὴν ὡς ἔν γε ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι λέγω; εἶτα πῶς οὐκ ἠλίθιον κομιδῇ τὸ ὧδε φρονεῖν νοοῖτ’ ἂν εἰκότως; τί τοιγαροῦν ὑποπλάττῃ μὲν εἶναι τὴν πίστιν ὀρθὸς ἕνα λέγων Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν κύριον, εἶτα διατέμνων εἰς δύο πρόσωπά τε καὶ ὑποστάσεις τὸν ἕνα [καὶ] τὸν μὲν τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἑνώσεως ἀτιμάζεις τρόπον, δι’ ἧς ἀληθῶς εἷς τε καὶ μόνος ἂν εἴη ὁ Χριστός, συνάφειαν δὲ ἀμαθῶς ὀνομάζεις τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν; ποῖος γὰρ οὗτός ἐστι συναφείας τρόπος; ἢ οὐκ οἶσθα ὅτι φίλον πως ἀεὶ τοῖς κατὰ τόνδε τὸν βίον τὸ ἐν εὐκλείαις εἶναι κοσμικαῖς, οἳ τὰς παρὰ τῶν κρατούντων πλουτοῦσι τιμάς, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἴσοις ὄντες ἀξιώμασιν ἔσθ’ ὅτε διεστήκασιν ἀλλήλων, ὑπάρξει τε τῇ καθ’ ἕνα φημὶ καὶ μέντοι τῷ <μὴ> βούλεσθαι τὰ αὐτὰ φρονεῖν τε καὶ δρᾶν; ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἦν τις δεσμὸς ἀναγκαῖος εἰς ἑνότητα συλλέγων αὐτοὺς τῆς ἀξίας ὁ τρόπος καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ σύμβασις φυσική, οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἰσότητι γερῶν ἤτοι τῆς ἀξίας ὑπάρχοντες ὑποστάσεσί τε καὶ γνώμαις εἰς τὸ ἕτερος εἶναι καὶ ἕτερος ἰδικῶς ἀλλήλων ἀπενοσφίζοντο. ποῦ τοιγαροῦν τὴν σὴν συνάφειαν θήσομεν, τί δὲ καὶ δρᾶσαι λογισόμεθα; ὁμογνωμονεῖν ἄρα πέπεικεν αὐτοὺς ἢ συμβῆναι παρεσκεύασεν εἰς ἑνότητα μυστικήν; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἂν ἔχοις εἰπεῖν. ἐκδέδειχε γὰρ ὁ λόγος πρὸς ἄμφω ταυτὶ πολὺ νοσοῦσαν τὸ ἀδρανές.	For example, Peter and John were both apostles and saints and were glorified with equal honors and powers through the Spirit by Christ, the Savior of us all. For they, along with the rest, heard, “You are the light of this world” [Matt. 5:14], and again, “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons” [Matt. 10:8]. Do we therefore say that, because of their equality of rank or status, they too should be considered one human, and this is sufficient for unity—that is, unity in their subsistences? How could such an opinion not fairly be considered quite foolish? Why, then, do you pretend to be upright in faith, saying that the Lord Christ Jesus is one while severing the one into two persons and subsistences? And why do you dishonor the mode of the true union by which there is only one Christ and ignorantly call it a connection with respect to equality of honor? What sort of connection is this? Or do you not know that those who receive rich rewards from rulers in this life always love to be in worldly glory, yet although they are sometimes equal in dignity, they are nevertheless separate from each other—in individual being, I mean—and moreover in their desire not to think and do the same things? But even if the character of rank were necessarily some sort of bond—bringing them together into unity just like a physical conjunction, for example—because they were equal in honors or rank, they would not have been parted from each other in subsistences and minds so as to be one and another separately. Where, then, will we put your connection, and what will we conclude it accomplished? Did it persuade them to be of one mind? Did it cause them to come together into a mystic union? But you cannot speak. For reason has shown that connection is utterly useless for both of these.
φράζε δέ μοι κἀκεῖνο· προσερήσομαι γὰρ ἀναγκαίως τί τὸ τῆς ἀξίας ὤνησε χρῆμα τόν, ὥσπερ ἔφης αὐτός, τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ συνημμένον ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ γυναικός; ἆρα γὰρ ἴσον ἀπέφηνεν ἐν δόξῃ καὶ ὑπεροχῇ καὶ τοσοῦτον εἶναι παρεσκεύασεν ὅσος ἂν εἶναι πιστεύοιτο καὶ αὐτός; εἶτα πῶς οὐ διαψεύσεται λέγων· “Τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω”; πεφλυάρηκε δὲ μάτην καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ θεσπέσιος μελῳδὸς ὡδί που λέγων “Ὅτι τίς ἐν νεφέλαις ἰσωθήσεται τῷ κυρίῳ ἢ τίς ὁμοιωθήσεται τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ;” ἢ οὐχ ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον ὁ κατ’ ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἑνότητος ἀληθῶς διεσχοινισμένος; εἶτα πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἴσον μὲν τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ πεποίηκεν ἡ ἀξία τὸν συνημμένον, ὁρᾶταί γε μὴν καὶ ἔστιν ἐν μείοσι. πῶς οὖν ἕνα φὴς Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν καὶ κύριον, καίτοι προὔχοντος ἑνὸς κατά γε τῶν ἐννοιῶν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ ὑφιζηκότος ἑτέρου τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἰσότητός τε καὶ δόξης;	9. Tell me this too, for I must also ask, how did rank benefit the human born of woman who was, as you said, connected with God the Word? Did it make him equal in glory and excellence? Did it make him as great as he himself is also believed to be? How, then, will he not speak falsely in saying, “I will not give my glory to another”? [Is. 42:8]. And the singer has also talked nonsense to us without reason, somewhere saying under inspiration, “Who among the clouds will be made like the Lord, or who among the sons of God will be likened to the Lord?” [Ps. 89:6]. Or would he who in his proper subsistence has been truly parted from union with the Word not be another in addition to the Word, who is one by nature and from God the Father? How, then, is it not clear to all? But rank cannot make one who is connected equal to God the Word. Yet he appears to be and really is lesser. So how do you say one Christ, Son, and Lord if one is at least logically preeminent and the other sinks down from equality with him and glory?
ἄλλως τε (προσεποίσω γὰρ οἷς ἔφην, καὶ τόδε) δεδώρηται κατ’ αὐτὸν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος τὴν ἰδίαν ἀξίαν τῷ ἐκ γυναικός· κατὰ τίνα δὲ τρόπον αὐτὸ δὴ τουτὶ πεπρᾶχθαί φησι, βασανίζειν ἄξιον. ἆρα γέγονε καὶ αὐτὸς φῶς ἀληθινόν; ἆρα φύσει θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δημιουργὸς καὶ δύναμις, εἰκὼν καὶ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ πατρός, καὶ τὰ τῆς ἄνω δόξης πλεονεκτήματα κεχώρηκε φυσικῶς εἰς ἕνα τινὰ τῶν πεποιημένων; τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ ἐξαίρετον ἐν τῷ κατὰ φύσιν θεῷ; τί τὸ μέγα καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, εἰ ἐνδέχεται τὴν κτίσιν καταπλουτεῖν δύνασθαι καὶ τοῦτο οὐσιωδῶς τὰ ἐν οἷς ἐστιν, ἀγαθά; ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν μεθέξει τῆς θείας τυχὸν ὑπεροχῆς πεφόρηκε τὴν ἀξίαν; δύο δὴ πάλιν ἀναμφιλόγως υἱοί, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθὲς ὡς ἕτερόν τι καὶ ἔλαττον κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ τοῦ τὴν μέθεξιν ἐμποιοῦντος αὐτῷ τὸ σχέσει τῇ πρὸς αὐτὸν τιμώμενον. ἀλώσῃ δὴ οὖν οὐδὲ εἰδὼς ἃ λέγεις.	Besides, I will add to what I said that the Word of God the Father according to himself has given his proper rank to the one born of woman. But it is useful to examine how he says this happened. Has he become true light? Is he by nature God, life, wisdom, creator, and power, the image and radiance of the Father’s substance? Have the virtues of the supreme glory come into the nature of one of the creatures? Then what is exceptional about God’s nature? Why is God’s nature great and above us if the creature can, by essence, possess the blessings present in God’s nature? But perhaps it has held rank by sharing in the divine excellence? Then without question there are again two sons if it is true that something else, lesser by nature than the one who caused it to share in him, is what is honored because of relationship to him. So you are now convicted of not even knowing what you are saying.
αἰτιᾷ δὲ ἀνθ’ ὅτου τοὺς ἑνὶ προσώπῳ προσνέμοντας τὰς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις φωνάς; ἆρ’ οὐχὶ δύο καινοτομῶν υἱούς; πῶς γὰρ ἔτι κύριος εἷς καὶ Χριστὸς καὶ υἱός, εἰ πρόσωπον ἰδικὸν ἑκατέρῳ καὶ λόγος καὶ μὴν καὶ ὑπόστασις ἀναχωροῦσα πρὸς ἑτερότητα καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἑνώσεως χρῆμα παραιτουμένη καὶ τὸ ἀσύμβατον ὁλοτρόπως ἔχουσα πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν; καὶ τό γε παράδοξον καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ δυσφημιῶν ἀποφαῖνον τὴν βδελυρίαν, κοινά φησιν εἶναι τὰ ὀνόματα, τό τε υἱός φημὶ καὶ Χριστός καὶ κύριος. καὶ εἰ μὲν εἶναι κοινά φησιν ὡς ἑνὶ τῷ Χριστῷ καί τισι παρ’ αὐτὸν ἑτέροις, ἔχοι ἂν εἰκὸς ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ· εἰ δὲ διίστησιν ἀμαθῶς οἴεταί τε πρέπειν αὐτὰ καὶ ἰδικῶς τῷ λόγῳ καὶ μὴν τῷ ἐκ γυναικός, δύο που πάντως πάλιν καὶ ἀναμφιλόγως Χριστοὶ καὶ υἱοὶ καὶ κύριοι. ἔφη γὰρ ὅτι “τὸ Χριστός ὄνομα ποτὲ μὲν θετέον ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος αὐτῆς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἢ καὶ ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν,” ὀνήσειεν δ’ ἂν ἡ ὁμωνυμία τὸ σύμπαν οὐδὲν εἴς γε τὸ δεῖν ἕνα νοεῖσθαι Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν καὶ κύριον, τέμνοντα δίχα <μετὰ> τοῦ καὶ αὐτὰς ἀλλήλων τὰς ὑποστάσεις ἀποφοιτᾶν καὶ εἰς ἰδικὴν ἑτερότητα τῶν προσώπων διεσταλμένων.	Now why do you censure those who attribute the words in the Gospels to one person? Is it not because you are inventing two sons? For how is there still one Lord, Christ, and Son if each has his own person and mode of being and subsistence—which reverts to difference, denying the reality of true union and being utterly irreconcilable with the other? And the following is incredible and shows the disgusting nature of his blasphemies: He says that the names are common—I mean Son, Christ, and Lord. If he means they are shared, that is, they belong to one Christ and to others besides him, his statement would be reasonable. But if he ignorantly severs Christ and supposes that these terms suit both the Word by himself and the one born of woman, there are certainly two Christs, sons, and lords again. For he said, “The name Christ must at one time refer to the deity itself, at another time to the humanity, or even to both.” But their having the same name could not at all help him to think of one Christ, Son, and Lord while he severs in two so that the subsistences themselves part from each other and the persons are set apart into their own difference.

5. Second Argument – Nestorius Divides the Natures by Dividing the Acts

ἐμφανῆ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἡμῖν καθιστὰς τῆς ἐνούσης αὐτῷ δυσμαθίας τὴν δύναμιν, προσεπάγει καί φησιν “Ὅταν οὖν ἡ θεία γραφὴ μέλλῃ λέγειν ἢ γέννησιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ἐκ τῆς μακαρίας παρθένου ἢ θάνατον, οὐδαμοῦ φαίνεται τιθεῖσα <τὸ> θεός, ἀλλ’ ἢ Χριστός ἢ υἱός ἢ κύριος, ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα τὰ τρία τῶν δύο φύσεών ἐστι σημαντικά, ποτὲ μὲν ταύτης, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκείνης, ποτὲ δὲ ταύτης κἀκείνης. οἷόν τι λέγω, ὅταν τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γέννησιν ἡμῖν ἡ γραφὴ διηγῆται, τί λέγει; ‘Ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ.’ οὐκ εἶπεν· ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν θεὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ λαμβάνει τὸ ὄνομα τὸ μηνῦον τὰς φύσεις τὰς δύο. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς ἄνθρωπός ἐστι καὶ θεός, λέγει· ‘Ἐξαπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός,’ ἵνα ὅταν ἀκούσῃς τὸ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, εἶτα ἴδῃς τὸ ὄνομα προκείμενον τὸ μηνῦον τὰς φύσεις τὰς δύο, [ἵνα] τὴν γέννησιν τὴν ἐκ τῆς μακαρίας παρθένου υἱοῦ μὲν καλῇς· υἱὸν γὰρ ἐγέννησε θεοῦ καὶ ἡ Χριστοτόκος παρθένος, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ διπλοῦς ἐστι τὰς φύσεις, οὐκ ἐγέννησε μὲν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐγέννησε τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἥτις ἐστὶν υἱὸς διὰ τὸν συνημμένον υἱόν.”	10. Indeed, as if to make manifest to us the degree of his innate slowness to learn, he says in addition: “So when Holy Scripture is about to speak either of the birth of Christ from the blessed virgin or of his death, nowhere does it use God, but either Christ, Son, or Lord, because these three refer to the two natures, at one time to this nature, at another time to that nature, at another time to both this nature and that nature. For example, when scripture declares to us his birth out of a human, what does it say? ‘God sent his Son’ [Gal. 4:4]. It did not say, ‘God sent God the Word’; rather, it uses the name which indicates the two natures. For because the Son is human and God, it says, ‘He sent his Son, born of a woman’ [Gal. 4:4], so that, when you hear ‘born of a woman’ then see the name put forth which indicates the two natures, you refer to the birth from the blessed virgin as the Son’s birth. For the virgin mother of Christ also gave birth to the Son of God, but since the Son of God is twofold as to his natures, she did not give birth to the Son of God but to the humanity which is son on account of the Son joined to it.”
Ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς γε, ὦ τᾶν, οἱ τῶν σῶν τερετισμάτων τὰ ἀμείνω φρονεῖν ἐγνωκότες καὶ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ἰχνηλατοῦντες τὸν σκοπὸν ἕνα λεγούσης τὸν πατέρα καὶ θεόν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα παρήχθη πρὸς γένεσιν, ὅταν ἀκούσωμεν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι Χριστόν, τότε δὴ τότε καὶ μάλα ἐμφρόνως καὶ κατ’ εὐθὺ τῆς ἀληθείας ἰέναι σπουδάζοντες τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς φύντα λόγον ἐνανθρωπῆσαί τε φαμὲν καὶ ἑνωθῆναι σαρκὶ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν γεννηθῆναί τε κατὰ σάρκα καὶ τῆς σῆς εἰς τοῦτο τερθρείας οὐκ ἀνεξόμεθα, ἑνὶ δὲ καὶ μόνῳ τῷ κατὰ φύσιν υἱῷ τὸ Χριστός ὄνομα προσνεμοῦμεν εἰκότως, γεννήσεως ὀνομαζομένης τῆς διὰ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου. κοινὰ μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, αὐτῷ καὶ ἑτέροις εἶεν ἂν τὰ τοιάδε τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμολογουμένως, πολλοὶ γὰρ υἱοὶ κατὰ χάριν καὶ θεοὶ καὶ κύριοι ἔν τε οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καθὰ καὶ ὁ θεσπέσιος ἡμῖν γράφει Παῦλος, πλὴν ὡς ἐν μεθέξει τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ μίμησιν· τὸ δέ γε Χριστός ὄνομά τε καὶ χρῆμα πρέποι ἂν κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον τῷ ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντι λόγῳ γυμνῷ καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἔξω σαρκὸς πρὸς ἡμῶν νοουμένῳ. εἰ δὲ δὴ λέγοιτο κενῶσαί τε ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου καθικέσθαι μορφῇ καὶ καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι διὰ τὴν σάρκα, κεκλήσεται καὶ αὐτὸς διά τοι τὸ κεχρίσθαι Χριστός. οὐ γὰρ κέχρισται κατ’ ἰδίαν φύσιν θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος, γέγονε δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ χρίσις αὐτῷ περὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον. οὕτω τοιγαροῦν προεισβεβηκότος ἐκείνου [περὶ] οὗ γέγονεν ἡ χρίσις (αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις, περὶ ἣν ἡ χρίσις), ὅταν ἡμῖν ὀνομάζηται Χριστός, οὐ κατά γε τὴν σὴν ἀθυροστομίαν ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς ὑποτοπήσομεν διῃρημένον τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος κείμενον ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας τετέχθαι παρθένου, ἀλλ’ αὐτόν, ὡς ἔφην, τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον ἑνωθέντα σαρκὶ καὶ τῷ ἐλαίῳ τῆς ἀγαλλιάσεως κεχρισμένον ἀνθρωπίνως παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός.	11. But we, sir, who know to think better thoughts than your empty chatter and who search for the aim of God-breathed scripture, which says there is one Father, even God, from whom all things came into being, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came into being [1 Cor. 8:6]—when we hear that Christ has been born of the holy virgin, then, then indeed, with good sense, zealous to follow the straight path of truth, do we say that the Word begotten of God the Father became human, was united to the flesh in subsistence, and was born according to the flesh. And we will not put up with your sophistry, but to one and one only—the Son by nature—we will appropriately allot the name Christ in speaking of his birth through the holy virgin. For, as I said, we confess that he shares such names with others, for by grace there are many sons and gods and lords both in heaven and on earth [1 Cor. 8:5], as Paul also writes to us under inspiration. But this is by sharing with him who is such by nature and in imitation of him. The name Christ and what it communicates would not at all fit the bare Word of the Father if we consider him by himself, apart from flesh. But if indeed we say he has emptied himself and has come down in servant’s form and has become like us on account of the flesh, he himself will be called Christ because of the anointing. For the Word has not been anointed according to his own nature, because he is God, but the anointing has happened to him in regard to his humanity. In this way, therefore, since that one to whom the anointing belongs has entered beforehand (for the incarnation, to which the anointing pertains, is his), when we name Christ, we will not go along with your impudent words and suppose that a mere human, severed and separate from the Word, was born of the holy virgin. Instead, as I said, the very Word of God the Father, united to flesh and anointed as a human with the oil of gladness by God the Father, was born.
ὅτι δὲ γέγονε τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ περὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἡ χρίσις, ὅτε πέφηνε καθ’ ἡμᾶς, <τὸ> ἱερὸν ἡμᾶς πιστώσεται γράμμα. ὁ μὲν γὰρ θεσπέσιος Ἰακὼβ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαίρων ἑστίας εἰς τὴν τῶν ποταμῶν ἠπείγετο μέσην καὶ πρὸς Λάβαν ᾔει τὸν τοῦ Βαθουήλ, ἑνὶ δὲ τῶν διὰ μέσου χωρίων ἐμβεβληκὼς κατηυλίζετο. καὶ δὴ καὶ λίθῳ τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑποκλίνας τὸν ὕπνον εἰσδέχεται κλίμακά τε τεθεαμένος τὴν ἐκ γῆς ἄνω διήκουσαν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβαίνοντάς τε καὶ καταβαίνοντας δι’ αὐτῆς τοὺς ἀγγέλους, ἐπεστηριγμένον δὲ τὸν κύριον ἐπ’ αὐτῆς, θαῦμα μὲν τῶν ὁράσεων ἐποιεῖτο πολύ, λαβὼν δὲ τὸν λίθον, “Ἔστησεν αὐτὸν στήλην καὶ ἐπέχεεν ἔλαιον ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον αὐτῆς.” ἄθρει δὴ ἐν τούτοις τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸν ὡς λίθον ἀναστηλούμενον· καὶ γάρ ἐστι λίθος ἐκλεκτὸς ἀκρογωνιαῖος ἔντιμος, εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας καὶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιὼν τεθειμένος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός. ἄθρει δέ μοι πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ τίνα κέχρισται τρόπον· οὐ γὰρ ὅλον δι’ ὅλου τῷ ἐλαίῳ κατέδευσε τὸν λίθον ὁ θεσπέσιος Ἰακώβ, ἐπέχεε δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον αὐτοῦ. οὐκοῦν, ἵν’ οὕτως εἴπωμεν, οὐχ ἅπας οὔτε μὴν ᾗ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ μονογενής, εἰς ἰδίαν αὐτὸς κέχρισται φύσιν (πῶς γὰρ ἂν νοοῖτο μετεσχηκὼς τοῦ ἰδίου πνεύματος;), χρίεται δὲ μᾶλλον, ὡς ἔφην, ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον, τουτέστιν ἐξωφανῶς καὶ οἷον ἐν μέρει καὶ ἄκρῳ τῷ καθ’ ἕνωσιν τὴν ἀληθινὴν ἰδίῳ σώματι καὶ ὥσπερ λέγεται παθεῖν σαρκὶ ἀνθρωπίνως, καίτοι τὴν φύσιν ὑπάρχων ἀπαθὴς ὡς θεός, οὕτω νοεῖται κεχρισμένος κατά γε τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, καίτοι χρίων αὐτὸς τῷ ἰδίῳ πνεύματι τοὺς οἷς ἂν πρέποι μεταλαχεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ.	12. But Holy Scripture will serve as proof for us that in view of his humanity the anointing happened to God the Word when he became like us. Holy Jacob left his father’s home and was hurrying to Mesopotamia, to Laban son of Bethuel. When he reached a certain place on the way, he set up camp. And he laid his head on a stone and went to sleep. He saw a ladder stretching upward from earth to heaven, angels ascending and descending along it, and the Lord resting on it. He marveled much at the vision, so he took the stone, “set it up as a monument, and poured oil on top of it” [Gen. 28:18]. Now, consider in these words our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only true Son, as a monumental stone. For he is a chosen stone, a precious capstone, placed as the head of the corner and as the foundation of Zion by God the Father. And consider, as well, how it was anointed: Holy Jacob did not soak the whole stone throughout with oil; rather, he poured oil on top of it. Therefore, it is not the case that he himself has been anointed in respect to his proper nature, neither as a whole, so to speak, nor with respect to the fact that the Word is only-begotten (for how could one think of him participating in his own Spirit?), but, as I said, he is rather anointed on the surface, that is, externally and partially, on the surface of his own body—his by true union—and just as one says he suffered in the flesh as a human, although he is by nature impassible as God, so does one think of him anointed with regard to the human nature, although he himself with his own Spirit anoints those for whom it would be proper to partake of his holiness.
ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς μὲν ὧδέ τε φρονεῖν ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ ὀρθοποδεῖν εἰθίσμεθα τὴν βασιλικήν τε καὶ ἀδιάστροφον ἐρχόμενοι τρίβον, σημαντικὰ δὲ λέγων οὗτος τῶν δύο φύσεων τὰ τοιάδε τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἑκατέρᾳ τὸ δοκοῦν ἀπονέμει μετ’ ἐξουσίας καὶ τὸ μέτριον εἰς λόγους τῆς μετὰ σαρκὸς οἰκονομίας αἰσχύνεται κἂν ἀκούσῃ λέγοντος τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου “Ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον,” “Ἄπαγε,” φησί, “μὴ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ φύντα λόγον ἀπεστάλθαι νομίσῃς· οὐ γὰρ γέγονεν ἐκ γυναικός, οὐ γέγονεν ὑπὸ νόμον.”	13. But we are determined to think this way and are accustomed to walking correctly, following the royal and unturning path. He, however, says that such names signify the two natures, freely allots to each what seems good to him, and is ashamed of the moderate speech applied to the economy with flesh. Although he hears blessed Paul say, “God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” [Gal. 4:4], he says, “Begone! Do not think that the Word begotten of God has been sent. He has not been born of a woman. He has not been born under law.”
Ὅτι δὲ οὐ φενακισμὸς εἰκαῖος τὰ παρ’ ἡμῶν, κεχρήμεθα δὲ μᾶλλον ταῖς αὐτοῦ φωναῖς, αὐτὰ δὴ πάλιν εἰς μέσον οἴσω τὰ εἰρημένα “‘Ἐξαπέστειλε’ γάρ” φησιν, “‘ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον.’ ἐνταῦθα μηνύει μὲν τὰς δύο φύσεις, τὸ συμβὰν δὲ περὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα λέγει, ἐπεὶ ἀπαίτησον τὸν φιλόνεικον· τίς ἐγένετο ὑπὸ νόμον; ὁ θεὸς λόγος;”	14. And to show that these words of ours are not a rash false accusation, but rather we have used his own sayings, I will again introduce the very things he said. He says, “For ‘God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law’ [Gal. 4:4]. Here he reveals the two natures, and he says what took place regarding the human nature, since the contentious demand it. Who was made under the law? Was it God the Word?”
Εἶτα πῶς οὐκ ἐμβρόντητος ἀληθῶς εἴη ἂν τὰ οὕτω σαφῆ καὶ ἅπασιν ἐγνωσμένα καὶ ἀναμφιλόγως ἔχοντα, τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτόν, ἀνατρέπειν πειρώμενος; τίνα πέπομφεν ἡμῖν ἐξ οὐρανῶν ὁ πατὴρ σωτῆρα καὶ λυτρωτήν; οὐ τὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ φύντα λόγον; τίς ἐστιν ὁ καταβὰς καὶ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, “ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα”; ἆρα τὸ πάντα δύνασθαι πληροῦν τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς φύσεως ἔργον εἶναι φὴς καὶ τοῖς τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἀνάψεις μέτροις; περὶ τίνος γέγραφεν ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης “Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν”; ἢ τάχα που καὶ αὐτὸς ψευδομυθήσειεν ἂν τοῖς Ἰουδαίων δήμοις ἐπιτιμῶν τε καὶ λέγων “Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν κάτω ἐστέ, ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί,” καὶ πάλιν “ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου”; εἰ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γυναικὸς καθ’ ἕνα τῶν ἄλλων καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον σεσαρκωμένος καὶ ἐν ἀνθρωπείᾳ μορφῇ πεφηνὼς ὁ ἄνωθέν τε καὶ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, πῶς ἂν νοοῖτο καὶ ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; πῶς ἐπάνω πάντων καὶ οὐκ ἀπό γε τοῦ κόσμου, καίτοι κόσμου μέρος ὑπάρχων διὰ τὴν σάρκα καὶ ὅσον ἧκεν εἰπεῖν κατά γε τὸ πρέπον τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι μέτρον, γεγονὼς μετὰ πάντων ὑπὸ θεοῦ; ταύτῃ τοι καὶ θεὸν ἑαυτοῦ κατωνόμαζε τὸν πατέρα, καίτοι φύσει καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων θεὸς καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πεφηνὼς υἱὸς μονογενής. περὶ τίνος ἄρα φησὶν ὁ μακάριος Δαυίδ· “Ἐξαπέστειλε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσατο αὐτούς”; σέσωκε γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐ πρέσβις οὐκ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος κατὰ τὰς γραφάς.	15. How, then, would he who, to the degree he is able, tries to overturn such clear things—things known by everyone and firmly believed—not be truly stupid? Whom has the Father sent to us from heaven as Savior and Redeemer? Was it not the Word begotten of his essence? Who is he who descended and ascended far above the heavens “in order to fill all things”? [Eph. 4:10]. Do you say that being able to fill all things is associated with our nature? Will you connect that to the capacities of humanity? Of whom did blessed John write, “He who comes from above is over all”? [John 3:31]. Or perhaps he would lie in rebuking the Jewish people, saying, “You are from below; I am from above,” and again, “I am not of this world”? [John 8:23]. For if he were a human born from woman like the others rather than the Word of God the Father from above, incarnate and appearing in human form, how could one think of him being from above and out of heaven? How would he be over all and not of this world although a part of the world because of the flesh and, so to speak, according to the capacity which fits human nature, having been made along with everything by God? Therefore he called the Father his God, though he too is God by nature and shone forth from his essence as only-begotten Son. Of whom does blessed David say, “He sent forth his Word and healed them”? [Ps. 107:20]. For it was not an ambassador nor an angel who saved us but the Lord himself, according to the scriptures.
“ἀλλὰ ναί, φησίν, ὁ πάντα πληροῦν δυνάμενος θεὸς λόγος ἀπέσταλται· τίνα τρόπον; ποῦ γὰρ οὐκ εἶναι φαμὲν αὐτόν; ἢ καὶ ὅποι πεμφθήσεται;”	16. But he says, “God the Word, who is able to fill all things, has indeed been sent.” How? For where do we say he is not? Or where will he be sent?
καταγορεύσεις οὖν ἄρα καὶ τοῦ πανσόφου Μωσέως ὡς τὴν ἀπόρρητον τοῦ θεοῦ δόξαν οὐ μετρίως ἠδικηκότος; ἔφη γὰρ ὅτι καταβέβηκεν ὁ θεὸς εἴδει πυρὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος Σινᾶ. κἂν ἀκούσῃς λέγοντος τοῦ μακαρίου Δαυὶδ πρὸς τὸν τῶν ὅλων κρατοῦντα θεόν· “Ἐξαποστελεῖς τὸ πνεῦμά σου, καὶ κτισθήσονται καὶ ἀνακαινιεῖς τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς,” ἀπιστήσεις τάχα που καὶ ψευδηγορεῖν οἰήσῃ τὸν πνευματοφόρον; οὐ γάρτοι κίνησιν μεταβατικὴν ποιεῖται τὸ θεῖον οὐδ’ ἂν ἐκ τόπου πρὸς τόπον μεταχωρήσειεν ἄν, ὡς οὐκ ἐνὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν πᾶσιν εἶναι καὶ τὰ πάντα πληροῦν. ταῦτά που […] καὶ σαυτόν, λογιῇ δὲ πάλιν καὶ τῶν ἀληθῶν ἀπαναστήσῃ δογμάτων σαυτῷ τε καὶ μόνῳ κατακολουθεῖν ᾑρημένος. ἀλλ’ ἦσθά που πάντως ἐν ἀμείνοσιν ἐννοίαις, ἐκεῖνο διενθυμούμενος ὡς ἅπας ἡμῖν περὶ θεοῦ λόγος πεποίηται μὲν ἀνθρωπίνως, νοεῖταί γε μὴν ὡς ἂν αὐτῷ καὶ μόνῳ πρέποι·	17. Will you, then, accuse all-wise Moses also of having wronged the unspeakable glory of God in no slight degree? For he said that God descended with the form of fire on Mount Sinai. And if you hear blessed David say to God, who rules over all, “You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created; you will renew the face of the earth” [Ps. 104:30], will you then doubt in some degree and suppose that the inspired writer speaks falsely? For the divine makes no motion involving change of place, nor could he pass from one place to another, as though being in all things and filling all things were not inherent in him. Perhaps you will persuade even yourself to think this, but you will again be reasoning and rising up against true doctrine, having chosen to follow yourself alone. But you would surely have better thoughts if you took into consideration that all our speech about God has been framed humanly but is understood in a way that could fit only him.
τεθορύβηκε δὲ οὐ μετρίως αὐτὸν τὸ ὑπὸ νόμον λέγεσθαι τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγενῆσθαι λόγον. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν ἐν τούτῳ τὸ δεῖμα· μεμένηκε γὰρ ὃ ἦν, νομοθέτης δηλονότι καὶ θεός. καὶ εἰ μὲν οὐ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, οὐ γέγονεν ὑπὸ νόμον· ἐπειδὴ δέ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ὅτι τεταπείνωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὁ κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ἄνω που καὶ ὑψηλός, εἶτα γέγονε καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὁ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν καὶ πλούσιος ὢν ἐπτώχευσε διὰ τοῦ γενέσθαι καθ’ ἡμᾶς, πῶς οὐκ ἂν λέγοιτο μεθ’ ἡμῶν γενέσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ νόμον; ἢ γὰρ οὐ λογιούμεθα φρονοῦντες ὀρθῶς τὸ τῆς ἀνθρώπου φύσεως ὁρίζεσθαι μέτρον ὡς ἔν γε τῷ δεῖν καὶ ὑποκεῖσθαι νόμῳ; τὸ γὰρ ἄφετόν τε καὶ ὑπὲρ νόμον φύσει τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐλεύθερον εἴη ἂν ἕτερον οὐδὲν πλὴν ὅτι τὸ θεῖον. οὐκοῦν ὅτε γέγονε σάρξ, τότε γέγονε καὶ ὑπὸ νόμον· συνετέλεσε γὰρ τοῖς δασμολογοῦσι τὸ δίδραχμον, καίτοι κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ἐλεύθερος ὢν ὡς θεὸς καὶ υἱός, καὶ ὅτε γέγονε σάρξ. εἰ δέ σοι δοκεῖ τὸν ἕνα τέμνειν εἰς δύο καὶ ἰδικῶς ἡμῖν ἄνθρωπον ἀποφαίνειν τὸν ἐκ γυναικός, πῶς ἂν λέγοιτο γενέσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ νόμον ὁ τῆς ὑπὸ νόμον φύσεως ὤν; οὐ γάρτοι τὸ ἔχον τὸ δεῖν ὑποκεῖσθαι νόμῳ γένοιτ’ ἂν ὑπὸ νόμον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φύσιν ἔχον τὴν ὑπὲρ νόμον καὶ ἔξω νόμου. μόνη γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, ἐστὶν ἡ θεία τε καὶ ὑπερτάτη φύσις καὶ νόμων ἐπέκεινα καὶ μέντοι καὶ ἐλευθέρα καὶ τὸν ἐπιστάτην ἔχουσα παντελῶς οὐδένα, κατάρχουσα δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτὴ τῶν ὅλων καὶ πᾶσι τὸν ἑαυτῆς ἐπιτιθεῖσα ζυγόν.	18. But it has troubled him more than a little that it says the Word of God the Father became under law. But there is nothing to fear in this, for he remained what he was, namely, lawgiver and God. And if he has not become human, he has not become under law; but since it is true that he who in his own nature is somewhere on high and mighty humbled himself, and moreover he who is above all creation has become like us and, though rich, became poor by becoming like us, how could one not say that he has also become under law with us? Or, if we think rightly, will we not conclude that the rule of human nature is marked out as obligation and subjection to law? For what is exempt, above the law, and naturally and truly free would be none other than the divine. So when he became flesh he became under law also, for he paid the two drachmas to the collectors, although free in his own nature as God and Son even when he became flesh. But if to you it seems good to sever the one into two and to declare to us that he who is from woman is properly human, how could one say that he, being of the nature which is under law, also became under law? For that which must be subject to law would not become under law, but that which has a nature above and beyond law. In fact, only the divine and supreme nature, as I said, is both beyond law and, of course, free, and certainly has no master; rather it itself rules all and subjects all to its yoke.

6. Third Argument – Nestorius Denies the Divinity of Christ

ὃ δὲ λογισμοῦ τοῦ πρέποντος διημαρτηκὼς δυσσεβείας εἰς τοῦτο κατώλισθεν ἐννοιῶν καὶ εἰς ἄκρον ἥκει σκαιότητος ἀπό γε τοῦ διαιρεῖν εἰς δύο τὸν ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ὡς ἀνυποστόλως εἰπεῖν μήτε θεὸν ἀληθῶς μήτε μὴν υἱὸν εἶναι κατὰ φύσιν τὸν Ἐμμανουήλ, ὠνομάσθαι δὲ οὕτω Χριστὸν καὶ ἅγιον, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἕτεροί τινες τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἢ γοῦν τῶν λελατρευκότων τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις δαίμοσιν· ἔφη γὰρ οὕτω πάλιν	19. But this man, having entirely missed right reasoning, slid down to such an extent of impiety in his ideas that he arrived at a summit of insensibility. He divides the one Lord Jesus Christ into two, so as to say without hesitation that Emmanuel is neither truly God nor yet Son by nature, but is called Christ and holy just as indeed certain others of those like us also or of those who have worshiped impure demons were called. For again he said this:
“Ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ λέγομεν θεὸν τὸν πάντων δημιουργὸν καὶ θεὸν τὸν Μωσέα (θεὸν γάρ φησι, τέθεικά σε τοῦ Φαραώ) καὶ υἱὸν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (‘Υἱὸς’ γάρ φησι, ‘πρωτότοκός μου Ἰσραήλ’) καὶ ὥσπερ λέγομεν Χριστὸν τὸν Σαούλ (‘Οὐ μὴ’ γάρ φησιν, ‘ἐπιβάλω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν, ὅτι Χριστὸς κυρίου ἐστί’) καὶ <τὸν> Κῦρον ὡσαύτως (‘Τάδε λέγει κύριος τῷ Χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ’) καὶ τὸν Βαβυλώνιον ἅγιον (‘Ἐγὼ’ γάρ φησι, ‘συντάσσω αὐτοῖς, <ἡγιασμένοι εἰσὶ κἀγὼ ἄγω αὐτούς>’), οὕτω λέγομεν καὶ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν καὶ θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον. ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν κοινωνία τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμοία, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ δὲ ἀξία.”	20. “But just as we say that the creator of all is God and Moses was god (for it says, ‘I have made you god to Pharaoh’ [Exod. 7:1]) and Israel is God’s son (for it says, ‘Israel is my firstborn son’ [Exod. 4:22]), and just as we say that Saul was Christ (for it says, ‘I will not lay my hand on him, because he is the Lord’s Christ’ [1 Sam. 24:6]) and Cyrus was likewise (‘This is what the Lord says to Cyrus, my Christ’ [Is. 45:1]), and the Babylonian was holy (for it says, ‘I marshal them; they have been sanctified, and I lead them’ [Is. 13:3]), so we say that the Lord is Christ and god and son and holy. But while the community of names is similar, the rank is not the same.”
Τί φής; ποῖον ἐρεύγῃ λόγον ἀπὸ καρδίας τῆς σῆς καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ στόματος κυρίου κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον; οὐδεὶς λέγει ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦν εἰ μὴ ἐν Βεελζεβούλ. ὡς ἂν νοοῖτο τυχὸν ἢ λέγοιτο πρὸς ἡμῶν θεὸς ὁ Μωσῆς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστός, καθ’ ὁμοιότητα δὲ τὴν πρός γε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ εἴη ἂν καὶ υἱός; εἰπέ μοι. ὢ τῆς δυσσεβείας· ὢ λόγων ἠφειδηκότων τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κατεπαίρεσθαι δόξης· ὢ δυσμαθείας ἀκράτου καὶ πάντα νικώσης ὄκνον, τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ χρῆναι φημὶ τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων ἀνοσίως καταθρασύνεσθαι. ψαλλέτω καὶ νῦν ὁ μακάριος Δαυίδ· “Οἱ ἐχθροὶ κυρίου ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ.” Μωσῆς μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεσπέσιος ἄνθρωπος ἦν καθ’ ἡμᾶς τὴν φύσιν καὶ ἕτερον οὐδέν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ θεοῦ λέγοντος “Δεῦρο, ἀποστείλω σε πρὸς Φαραὼ βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξάξεις τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου,” παραιτήσεως ἀφορμὰς ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ἰσχνομυθίαν καὶ τὸ μὴ εὔλαλος εἶναι πρὸ τῆς χθὲς καὶ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης, ἤκουσε θεοῦ λέγοντος· “Ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραὼ καὶ Ἀαρὼν ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σοι ὑποφήτης.” ἀδρανὴς μὲν γὰρ ὁ νόμος εἰς τὸ ἀπαλλάττειν δύνασθαί τινας τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ διαβόλῳ δουλείας, μεσιτεύοντος δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦτο κατώρθωται, καθάπερ ἀμέλει συνόντος τὸ τηνικάδε τοῦ Ἀαρὼν τῷ θεσπεσίῳ Μωσεῖ τῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ δουλείας ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπηλλάττετο, ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατὰ καιροὺς ἔμελλεν ὁ Χριστὸς γενέσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς καθ’ ἡμᾶς τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος, τέθειταί πως ἐν δευτέροις τοῦ Μωσέως ὁ Ἀαρών. καὶ ὁ μὲν τοῦ μυστηρίου λόγος οὑτοσί·	21. What are you saying? What sort of word are you uttering out of your own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord [Jer. 23:16], as it is written? No one calls Jesus anathema except by Beelzebub. As, for instance, we could think of Moses as god or call him god, so also would the Christ be called god, and in the same way as Israel would he be son also? Tell me! O impiety! O words that recklessly disparage the glory of our Savior! O untempered stupidity which even overcomes all fear—I mean fear with respect to profanely insulting the doctrines of the church. Let the blessed David sing even now, “The enemies of the Lord lied about him” [Ps. 81:15]. For holy Moses was by nature human like us and nothing else, but when, although God said, “Come, I am sending you to Pharaoh king of Egypt, and you will bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt” [Exod. 3:10], he used his slowness of speech and lack of eloquence since yesterday and the day before as an excuse to refuse, he heard God say, “Look, I have made you god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your interpreter” [Exod.7:1]. For the law was useless to set anyone free from bondage under the devil, but with Christ acting as mediator, even this has been achieved, just as Israel was delivered from bondage in Egypt when Aaron was along with holy Moses. But since Christ was about to become under law too at the appointed times, in that he was like us and human, Aaron was in a certain way put in second place to Moses. And the explanation of the mystery is indeed this.
πλὴν εἰ ἕλοιτό τις κἀκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ὡς τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ κλήσει καὶ ὁ μέγας ἐκεῖνος τετίμηται Μωσῆς κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν δὴ τοῦτο καὶ ὡς ἐν χάριτι καὶ φιλοτιμίᾳ τῇ παρὰ θεοῦ [τὸ] πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰρημένον· “Ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοὶ ἐστὲ καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες,” ἆρα καὶ οὕτω θεὸς ὁ Χριστός; καίτοι πῶς οὐ μανία τοῦτό γε καὶ φρενὸς ἀμαθοῦς ἀπόβρασμα κενόν; ὃ μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, ψιλῇ καὶ μόνῃ τετίμηται κλήσει τὴν φύσιν ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ὃ δέ ἐστι θεὸς ἀληθῶς· θεὸς γὰρ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἐν ἀνθρωπείᾳ μορφῇ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως τὴν κατὰ πάντων ὑπεροχὴν ἀδιαλώβητον ἔχων. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐν παρατροπαῖς ταῖς ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἡ θεία γένοιτο φύσις διά γε τοῦ καθικέσθαι πρὸς κοινωνίαν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός. καὶ γοῦν ὡς θεὸς ἐπιγινώσκεται καὶ ἄνθρωπος πεφηνὼς καὶ τούτου σαφὴς ἀπόδειξις τὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα. ἔφη γὰρ ὁ θεσπέσιος Ἰωάννης· “Ὡς δὲ ἦν ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντα καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.” καίτοι τὸ καθορᾶν δύνασθαι καρδίαν ἀνδρὸς εἰδέναι τε τὰ κεκρυμμένα πρέποι ἂν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ, πόθεν; τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἑνί, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἂν ἑτέρῳ τῳ τῶν πεποιημένων, μόνῳ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐκείνῳ ὃς καὶ πλάσαι λέγεται κατὰ μόνας τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.	But if one should choose to say this also—that by being called god the mighty Moses has also been honored in line with what has been said about us also, as by God’s favor and benevolence: “I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High’” [Ps. 82:6]—is Christ also God in this way? Yet how is this not madness and empty froth of an unlearned mind? For, as I said, the one is human by nature and has been honored only with the mere title, while the other is truly God. For the Word was God in human form, having uninterrupted preeminence over all from his own nature. For the divine nature’s descent to commonality in blood and flesh could not result in it changing for the worse. He is indeed recognized as God when he appeared as man also, and a clear demonstration of this is what has been written in the Gospels concerning him. For John said under inspiration, “Now when he was in Jerusalem during the festival, many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he was doing, but Jesus himself was not entrusting himself to them because he knew all things and did not need any one to testify about the person, for he knew what was in the person” [John 2:23–25]. But being able to see the heart of man and to know its secrets would not belong to any human like us (how could it?), nor yet to anything else that has been made, but rather only to him who is said to fashion our hearts by himself [Ps 33:15].
εἶτα πῶς ψιλῇ καὶ μόνῃ τετίμηται κλήσει κατὰ Μωσέα χρηματίζων θεὸς ὁ Ἐμμανουὴλ καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον ὑπάρχων τοῦτο κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ὅπερ εἶναι καὶ λέγεται; γράφει δὲ οὕτω πάλιν ὁ Ἰωάννης περὶ αὐτοῦ· “Ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεός, τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσι τὸ πνεῦμα.” συνιεῖς οὖν ὅπως καίτοι καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὁρώμενος ἄνθρωπος, τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ; θεῷ γὰρ μόνῳ τῷ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀληθῶς πρέποι ἂν ὡς ἐξαίρετον καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν τὸ καὶ ῥήματι δύνασθαι κατορθοῦν τὸ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτῷ καὶ μετόχους ἀποτελεῖν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος τοὺς ἐν πίστει δεδικαιωμένους, ἴδοι δ’ ἄν τις ἐν τούτοις ὄντα Χριστόν. ἔφη μὲν γὰρ τῷ λεπρῷ· “Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι,” τῷ δὲ τῆς χήρας υἱῷ· “Νεανίσκε, σοὶ λέγω, ἐγέρθητι·” μετόχους δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος τοὺς ἰδίους ἀπέφηνε μαθητάς, “Ἐνεφύσησε” γὰρ “αὐτοῖς λέγων· λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον.” εἶτα τίνα τρόπον ὁ εἰς τοῦτο διεληλακὼς καὶ θεοπρεπέσιν εὐκλείαις κατεστεμμένος οὕτω θεὸς ἂν εἴη καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ὁ Μωσῆς; τὴν τίνος <ἐκεῖνος> ἔγνω καρδίαν; τίς πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ; τίνα δεδικαίωκε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς εἰς ἑαυτόν; ποῦ λελάληκεν ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα; καίτοι γε κεκραγὼς ὁρᾶται τοῖς ἐξ Ἰσραήλ· τάδε λέγει κύριος, καὶ μέτρον ἔχων οἰκετικόν· γέγονε γὰρ πιστὸς ὡς θεράπων ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ θεοῦ.	Then how is it that Emmanuel has been honored like Moses with only the mere title when he is called God rather than truly being what he is also called? Thus John again writes of him, “He whom God sent speaks the words of God, and he gives the Spirit beyond measure” [John 3:34]. Do you understand, then, how, although he meets the eyes as a human like us, he speaks the words of God? For, as a special honor beyond the capability of a creature, it would belong only to him who is truly God by nature to be able to accomplish his will with even a word and to make those who have been justified by faith partakers of the Holy Spirit, and one can see that Christ meets these criteria. For he said to the leper, “I am willing; be clean” [Matt. 8:3], and to the widow’s son he said, “Young man, I say to you, get up” [Luke 7:14]. He made his own disciples partakers of the Holy Spirit, for it says, “He breathed on them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” [John 20:22]. Then how could he who has advanced to this point and has been crowned with glory worthy of God be ‘god’ the same way Moses, for instance, was? Whose heart did Moses know? Who has believed in Moses’s name? Whom has Moses justified through faith in himself? Where has Moses spoken God’s words as God’s Son? And yet he has openly cried to those of Israel, “Thus says the Lord,” and has a servant’s position, for he was faithful as a servant in the house of God [Heb. 3:5; Num 12:7].
εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ οὕτως υἱὸς ὁ Ἐμμανουὴλ καθὰ καὶ ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεγονὼς Ἰσραήλ, κατεκόμισας ἐν δούλοις τὸν κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ἐλεύθερον, κἂν εἰ γέγονεν <ἐν> δούλου μορφῇ διά τοι τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰ αὐτῆς· ἐν ἴσῳ τέθεικας μέτρῳ τοῖς κατὰ χάριν υἱοῖς τὸν δι’ ὃν ἐκεῖνοι τὴν τῆς υἱοθεσίας πεπλουτήκασι χάριν. κεχρημάτικε μὲν γὰρ πρωτότοκος ἡμῶν διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, πλὴν καὶ οὕτω μεμένηκε μονογενὴς ὡς θεός. ταύτῃ τοι καθά φησιν ὁ σοφώτατος Παῦλος, εἰσενεχθέντα παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην προστάττονται προσκυνεῖν αἱ ἄνω δυνάμεις καὶ τὸ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ μαθοῦσαι μυστήριον ἀκαταλήκτοις δοξολογίαις γεραίρουσι τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱόν. εἰ γὰρ δίδωσιν ἐξουσίαν τοῖς λαβοῦσιν αὐτὸν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι κατά γε τὴν Ἰωάννου φωνὴν καὶ εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθὲς ὡς υἱοποιεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς (“Ἐξαπέστειλε” γὰρ “ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κράζον ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ”), ἀνάσχοιτο ἂν οὐδεὶς τῶν εὖ φρονεῖν εἰωθότων τούτου λέγοντος οὕτως εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν υἱὸν ὡς τὸν Ἰσραήλ.	22. And if indeed Emmanuel was son in just the same way as Israel according to the flesh, you have brought him who is free in his own nature down among slaves, even though he has become in the form of a slave by reason of the flesh and the things associated with it. You have made him equal with the sons by grace—him because of whom they have been enriched with the grace of sonship. For he has been called the firstborn of us because of his humanity, but even so has remained only-begotten as God. For this reason, as wise Paul says, the powers above are commanded to worship the firstborn when the Father brings him into the world [Heb. 1:6], and on learning the mystery about him they honor the one true Son by nature with ceaseless praises. For if he gives those who received him authority to become children of God [John 1:12], as John says, and if it is true that his Spirit makes us sons ourselves (for “God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying, ‘Abba, Father’” [Gal. 4:6]), none who are accustomed to think rightly will put up with this one saying that he is son in the same way as Israel.
πῶς δὲ καὶ οὕτω Χριστὸς καὶ ἅγιος ὡς ἂν εἶναι λέγοιτο Χριστὸς Κῦρός τε ὁ τῶν Περσῶν βεβασιλευκὼς καὶ μὴν καὶ αὐτοὶ Πέρσαι τε καὶ Μῆδοι; ὥρα γὰρ εἰπεῖν μηδὲ ἡγιάσθαι Χριστὸν ἀνθρωπίνως, καίτοι καταπτάντος ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς. Κῦρος μὲν γὰρ ὁ Καμβύσου κατεστράτευσε τῆς Βαβυλωνίων κατὰ καιρούς, πεπλάνητο δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις δαίμοσιν ἀνετίθει τὸ σέβας· ἐπειδὴ δὲ θεοῦ παραθήγοντος καὶ διανιστάντος αὐτὸν εἰς ὀργὰς εἷλε τὴν Βαβυλωνίων, ὀνόματι κοινῷ, καίτοι πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ μὴ κεχρισμένος, εἴρηται Χριστός, ἅγιοι δὲ οὕτω Πέρσαι τε καὶ Μῆδοι οἱ συνασπίζοντες αὐτῷ· λελατρεύκασι γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα θεὸν καὶ προσκεκυνήκασι τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν ἰδίων χειρῶν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ ἅπαξ κατά γε τὰς ἐν τῷ Μωσαικῷ νόμῳ φωνὰς τὸ ἀφορισθὲν τῷ θεῷ θύμα, κἂν εἴτε μόσχος εἴη τυχὸν ἢ ὄις, ἅγιον ὠνομάζετο, ταύτῃ τοι καὶ διὰ τῆς τοῦ προφήτου φωνῆς ἅγιοι κέκληνται καὶ αὐτοὶ διά τοι τὸ ἀφωρίσθαι τοῖς θείοις νεύμασι πρὸς <τὸ> ἁλῶναι τὴν Βαβυλωνίων. εἴπερ οὖν ἐστιν οὕτω Χριστὸς ὁ Ἐμμανουὴλ καθὰ καὶ ὁ Κῦρος, καὶ οὕτως ἅγιος καθὰ καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Πέρσαι, φαίη τις ἂν εἰκότως ὡς ἀπό γε τῆς τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἀτοπίας μήτε κεχρίσθαι τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι μήτε μὴν ἅγιον ὑπάρχειν αὐτόν. ψευδοεπήσει δὴ οὖν ὁ θεῖος ἡμῶν Δαυὶδ πρὸς αὐτόν που λέγων· “Ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀδικίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.”	23. In addition, how is he Christ and holy in the same way that both Cyrus, king of the Persians, could be called christ, and moreover the Persians and Medes themselves? For it is fitting to say that Christ was not even sanctified humanly, even though the Holy Spirit flew down on him in the form of a dove. For Cyrus, son of Cambyses, made war against the land of the Babylonians in his time, but he was in error and used to offer worship to the foul demons. But when he took the land of the Babylonians after God stirred him up and roused him to wrath, he was called christ by a shared name but was not anointed with the Holy Spirit. And in this way the Persians and Medes allied with him were holy, for they too served the creature more than God the Creator and worshipped the works of their own hands. But since—according to the words of the law of Moses—even the offering that was once set apart for God, whether calf or sheep, was called holy, therefore the prophet’s voice has called them holy too because they were set apart, with God’s assent, to capture the land of the Babylonians. If, then, Emmanuel is Christ the same way Cyrus was and holy in the same way the Medes and Persians were, one might with reason say that he has not been anointed with the Holy Spirit nor is he holy at all, as if from absurd ideas. Our divine David will therefore lie by saying about him somewhere, “You loved righteousness and hated wrongdoing; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your partners” [Ps. 45:7].
καταφλυαρήσας δὲ οὕτω τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπεροχῆς τε καὶ δόξης, ἀποκρούεσθαι δοκεῖ τὰ ἐκ τῶν δυσφημιῶν ἐγκλήματα, μειρακιῶδές τι καὶ ἀσύνετον λέγων· “ἡ μὲν γὰρ κοινωνία,” φησί, “τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁμοία, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ δὲ ἀξία.” πῶς; εἰπέ μοι· νοεῖν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχω. εἰ γάρ ἐστιν οὕτω θεὸς ὡς ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ Μωσῆς, καὶ οὕτως υἱὸς ὡς Ἰσραήλ, οὕτω τε Χριστὸς ὡς Κῦρος, καὶ μὴν καὶ οὕτως ἅγιος ὡς Μῆδοι, πῶς ἂν διαφύγοι τὸ καὶ ἐν ἰσότητι κεῖσθαι δεῖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς τῆς ἀξίας;	24. But having in this way made wild assertions against our Savior’s supremacy and glory, he thinks he refutes the charge of blasphemy, saying something childish and unintelligible: “For,” he says, “the community of names is similar, but the rank is not the same.” How? Tell me, for I cannot understand. For if he is God the same way Moses was, son the same way Israel was, Christ the same way Cyrus was, and moreover holy the same way the Medes were, how could he escape having to be equal to them in rank?

7. Fourth Argument – Nestorius Teaches a Connection Rather Than Union

ἁλώσῃ δὴ οὖν καὶ εἰς αὐτὴν δεδυσσεβηκὼς τὴν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν· ἔφης γὰρ πάλιν “Εἰπὲ τὸν ἀναλαβόντα ὅτι θεός· πρόσθες τὸν ἀναληφθέντα ὅτι δούλου μορφή· ἐπάγαγε μετὰ ταῦτα τὸ τῆς συναφείας ἀξίωμα, ὅτι τῶν δύο ἡ αὐθεντία κοινή· ὅτι τῶν δύο ταὐτὸν τὸ ἀξίωμα, τῶν φύσεων μενουσῶν, ὁμολόγει τὴν τῆς ἀξίας ἑνότητα.” Διατέμνει μὲν οὖν εἰς δύο δὴ πάλιν, ἀσυνέτως δὲ σφόδρα τὴν τῆς ἑνώσεως δύναμιν τῇ ἀξίᾳ χαρίζεται, τάχα που μὴ συνιεὶς ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ ἕνωσις καὶ τί τῆς ἀξίας τὸ χρῆμα. πλὴν ἐκεῖνο φαμέν· μίαν ἔφη τῶν δύο φύσεων τὴν αὐθεντίαν καὶ ἓν τὸ ἀξίωμα. ὅτε τοίνυν ὁ ἐν ἰσότητι δόξης τῇ πρὸς θεὸν λόγον οὐχ ὑπερκείσεται τὸν Μωσέα κατά γε τὸ εἶναι θεός, δῆλον ἂν εἴη δήπουθεν ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ λόγος ἰσοστατήσειεν ἂν τῇ τοῦ Μωσέως τάχα που φύσει καὶ δόξῃ. εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ἐοικὸς καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως ἔχον πᾶν ὁτιοῦν τῷ πρώτῳ καὶ τρίτῳ τὸ διὰ μέσου, εἴη ἂν οὐχ ἑτεροῖος αὐτοῖς ὁ τῆς φύσεως λόγος.	25. Now, therefore, you will be convicted also of profaning the very nature of the Word. For you again said, “Say that he who assumed is God; add that what is assumed is the servant’s form; next, bring in the dignity of the connection—that the authority of the two is common, that the dignity of the two is the same. While the natures remain, acknowledge the union of rank.” Therefore he again divides into two; severely lacking understanding, he grants to rank the force of union, perhaps not understanding what union is and what the substance of rank is. But this we say: he said that the authority of the two natures is one and the dignity one. Since, then, he who has equal glory with God the Word will not surpass Moses in respect to being god, I suppose it would be clear that the very Word of God would have equal status in nature and glory with Moses. For if the one in the middle is like the first and third and in every respect has exact resemblance with them, the plan of their nature would not be differentiated.
ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἐρεῖ τῆς ἀξίας τὸν τρόπον οὐκ εἶναι καὶ φύσιν. οὐκοῦν ἀνθ’ ὅτου τὰ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα κοινωνίας καὶ μὴν καὶ ἰσότητος οὐσιωδῶς τοσοῦτον ἀφεστηκότα συλλέγειν εἰς μίαν, καθὰ φὴς αὐτός, αὐθεντίαν καὶ τιμαῖς ταῖς ἴσαις στεφανοῦν ἀξιοῖς; ὅπου γὰρ ὅλως μειονεκτεῖται φύσις ἑτέρας ὑπερκειμένης, πῶς ἂν αὐτῇ προσγένοιτο καὶ γερῶν ἰσότης καὶ ἰσομοιροῦν ἀξίωμα καὶ ὁ τῆς εὐκλείας οὐχ ἕτερος τρόπος;	26. But perhaps he will say that the mode of rank is not nature. Why, then, do you see fit to gather authority into one and to crown with equal honors things so essentially severed from communion with each other and also from equality, as you yourself say? For where a nature is completely inferior, with the other transcending it, how could it have both equality of honors and equal dignity, and how could the mode of glory not be different?
Ὅτι δὲ συνάφειαν ὀνομάζων τάχα που τὴν κατ’ ἐγγύτητα μόνην καὶ κατὰ παράθεσιν ἢ γοῦν σχετικὴν νοουμένην αὐτὸς τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀντανίσταται λόγοις, ἃ κατέλυσεν, οἰκοδομῶν καὶ ἀνιστὰς τὸ καθῃρημένον, σαφὲς ἂν γένοιτο καὶ διὰ τοῦδε δὴ πάλιν· ἔφη γὰρ οὕτως “Διὰ τοῦτο βούλομαι ὑμᾶς μετὰ ἀσφαλείας κροτεῖν· διαίρεσις οὐκ ἔστι τῆς συναφείας, τοῦ ἀξιώματος, τῆς υἱότητος. αὐτοῦ τοῦ εἶναι Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔστι διαίρεσις, τῆς δὲ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος ἔστι διαίρεσις. ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὸ Χριστὸς ἀδιαίρετος […] οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν δύο Χριστοὺς οὐδὲ δύο υἱούς. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι παρ’ ἡμῖν πρῶτος <Χριστὸς> καὶ δεύτερος οὐδὲ ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος οὐδὲ πάλιν ἄλλος υἱὸς καὶ ἄλλος πάλιν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός ἐστι διπλοῦς οὐ τῇ ἀξίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ φύσει.”	27. But it would again be clear that, by mentioning connection, perhaps thought of as mere proximity and juxtaposition, or as incidental, he himself rises up against his own words, building what he tore down and setting up what was overthrown, also by the following. For he said, “Therefore I want you to weld him together securely. There is no dividing of the connection, of the dignity, or of the sonship. There is no dividing of his being Christ, but there is a dividing of the deity and humanity. Christ, in that he is Christ, is indivisible, for we do not have two Christs nor two sons. For with us there is not a first Christ and a second, nor yet one and another, nor again one son and another son, but the Son himself is twofold, not in rank but in nature.”
Φράζε δή μοι πάλιν τί δὴ ἄρα τὴν ἀδιαίρετον συνάφειαν εἶναι φής; ἆρα τὴν ἕνωσιν, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τὴν καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, ἣν ἡμεῖς πρεσβεύομεν τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας συναθλοῦντες δόγμασιν, ἢ ταυτηνὶ τὴν κατὰ παράθεσιν καὶ τὴν πρὸς τόδε τι τοῦ δεῖνος ἐγγύτητα νοουμένην; δέχεται γὰρ οὕτω τὴν λέξιν ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφή. καὶ γοῦν ἔφη πρὸς Μωσέα τὸν ἱερώτατον περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας ἐκείνης σκηνῆς συντιθεὶς τοὺς λόγους· “Καὶ ποιήσεις κρίκους πεντήκοντα χρυσοῦς καὶ συνάψεις τὰς αὐλαίας ἑτέραν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τοῖς κρίκοις.” πέντε γὰρ οὖσαι καὶ ἰδικῶς ἑκάστη πρὸς τὸ ἑτέρα τις εἶναι παρὰ τὰς ἄλλας ἔχουσα, συνῆπτο τοῖς κρίκοις. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτω φαμὲν πεπρᾶχθαι ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ τὴν ἕνωσιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὥσπερ ὁ δεῖνα τυχὸν τῷ δεῖνι συνάπτοιτο ἂν ἢ κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὁμοψυχίας τρόπον ἢ γοῦν κατὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς ἐν σώματι, οὕτω καὶ αὐτός, ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὡς ἤδη πλειστάκις ἔφην, ἴδιον ἐποιήσατο σῶμα τὸ ληφθὲν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, καὶ ἀληθῶς ἡνῶσθαι φαμὲν οὐκ ἀψύχῳ σαρκὶ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον.	28. Tell me again, what is this inseverable connection you speak of? Is it the union (clearly meaning the union of subsistence) for which we advocate, striving together toward true doctrines? Or is it this connection you think of as juxtaposition and proximity of anyone to anything? For this is the way God-inspired scripture understands the word. He said to holy Moses when conversing with him about that ancient Tabernacle, “You shall make fifty golden curtain rings, and you shall connect the curtains one to another with the curtain rings” [Exod. 26:6]. For with there being five curtains, and each one individually existing separate from the rest, they were connected by the curtain rings. But not in this way do we say that the union has been wrought with Christ, for in his case it did not happen as one connected to another either in respect to unanimity or to bodily nearness, but (as I have repeatedly said) he made that which was taken from the holy virgin his own body. And we say that the Word of God has been truly united to flesh which does not lack a soul.
οὐκοῦν τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῦ λεγομένης συναφείας ἡ δύναμις εἰ τὴν καθ’ ἡμᾶς νοουμένην ἑνότητα δηλοῖ, φημὶ δὴ τὴν καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, ἔφη ἂν εἰκότως μηδεμίαν εἶναι Χριστοῦ τὴν διαίρεσιν κατὰ τὸ εἶναι Χριστόν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος οὔτε μὴν υἱὸς καὶ υἱός, ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, πρῶτος καὶ δεύτερος, ἀλλ’ εἷς δηλονότι καὶ πρὸ σαρκὸς καὶ μετὰ σαρκός. ἔσται γὰρ οὕτω κατά γε τὴν ἀξίαν, ὡς σὺ φής, καὶ μέντοι τὴν δυναστείαν ἀδιαίρετος, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ αὐτός. εἶτα πῶς τὸν ἕνα καὶ ἀδιαίρετον διπλοῦν εἶναι φὴς καὶ οὐχὶ τῇ ἀξίᾳ μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ τῇ φύσει; οὐ γὰρ ἐπείτοι σάρκα λαβὼν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος προῆλθεν ἄνθρωπος καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ταύτης ἕνεκα τῆς αἰτίας ὀνομάζοιτο ἂν καὶ διπλοῦς· εἷς γάρ ἐστι καὶ οὐ δίχα σαρκὸς ὁ κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν ἔξω σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος. ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴ τις τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον ἀποκτανὼν οὐχ ὡς δύο που μᾶλλον ἠδικηκὼς ἀνθρώπους κατηγοροῖτ’ ἂν εἰκότως, ἀλλ’ ἕνα καὶ μόνον, κἂν ἐννοοῖτο τυχὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος καὶ τῶν ἀλλήλοις συμβεβηκότων, ἡ φύσις εἴη ἂν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ διάφορος, οὕτω πάλιν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ νοητέον. οὐ γάρτοι διπλοῦς ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ εἷς τε καὶ μόνος κύριος καὶ υἱὸς ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος οὐ δίχα σαρκός. ἀνθρωπότητος μὲν γὰρ καὶ θεότητος δοίην ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ πλείστην εἶναι τὴν διαφορὰν ἤτοι διάστασιν, ἕτερα γὰρ κατά γε τὸν τοῦ πως εἶναι λόγον καὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλήλοις ἐοικότα φαίνεται τὰ ὠνομασμένα· παρενηνεγμένου γε μὴν εἰς μέσον ἡμῖν μυστηρίου τοῦ κατὰ Χριστόν, ὁ τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγος οὐκ ἀγνοεῖ μὲν τὴν διαφοράν, ἐξίστησι δὲ τὴν διαίρεσιν, οὐ συγχέων [τὰς φύσεις] ἢ ἀνακιρνῶν τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ’ ὅτι σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος μετεσχηκὼς ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος εἷς δὴ πάλιν καὶ οὕτως υἱὸς νοεῖται καὶ ὀνομάζεται. σὺ δὲ μὴ χρῆναι λέγων Χριστοὺς ὀνομάζεσθαι δύο μήτε μὴν υἱοὺς ὁμολογεῖν εἶναι δύο καὶ τῆς εἰς τοῦτο δογματικῆς ὀρθότητος ὑποκλέπτων τὴν δόκησιν, δύο δὴ λέγων ἁλίσκῃ Χριστοὺς καὶ εἰς ἰδικὴν ἑτερότητα διιστὰς ἄνθρωπον καὶ θεόν, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἐνεργούμενον, τὸν δὲ καὶ ἐνηργηκότα καταδεῖξαι πειρᾶσαι. ἔχει δὲ οὕτω τὰ παρὰ σοῦ	29. So if the force of the connection spoken of by him signifies the union we think of—I mean the union of subsistence—he would say with reason that there is no dividing of Christ, in that he is Christ. For there is not one and another, nor yet one son and another son, this one and that, first and second, but one—that is to say, both before flesh and with flesh. For in this way he will be inseverable in respect to rank (as you say) and also power, or rather the same. Then how do you say that the one and inseverable is twofold, and that not in rank but in nature? For not because the Word of God the Father, having taken flesh, came forth as a human like us would he also be called twofold, for he who in his proper nature is external to flesh and body is one even with flesh. For just as, if someone were to kill a human like us, he would not reasonably be accused of having wronged two men but only one, even though we think of the man as consisting of soul and body. And though the nature of the things brought together is not the same but different, so again must we think of Christ. For he is not twofold, but the Word of God the Father with flesh is the one and only Lord and Son. For even I myself would grant that the difference or contrast between humanity and deity is very great, for the things which have been named are plainly different as to the mode of their being and nothing like one another. But when the mystery with respect to Christ is brought before us, the plan of the union does not ignore the difference, but puts aside the dividing, not confounding or mingling the natures. But, because the Word of God, having shared in flesh and blood, is again one, in this way the Son is thought of and called Son. But although you say two Christs ought not be named, nor is it possible to confess two sons, and thus you steal the appearance of right doctrine, you are indeed caught in saying two Christs and dividing human and God into individual distinction, and you try to show that the one is the object of action, and the other is in action. For these are your words:
“Ἡ γοῦν τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐδοξία ποτὲ μὲν τῷ πατρὶ περιῆπται (‘Ἔστι’ γάρ φησιν, ‘ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με’), ποτὲ δὲ τῷ πνεύματι (‘Τὸ’ γὰρ ‘πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας,’ φησίν, ‘ἐμὲ δοξάσει’), ποτὲ δὲ τῇ Χριστοῦ δυναστείᾳ· ‘Ἐξελθόντες’ γάρ φησι, ‘διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ <τῶν> ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.’”	30. “The honor of the Only-Begotten sometimes is ascribed to the Father, for he says, ‘My Father is the one who glorifies me’ [John 8:54], other times to the Spirit, for he says, ‘The Spirit of truth will glorify me’ [John 16:13–14], other times to the power of Christ, for it says, ‘They went forth and preached the word everywhere, with the Lord assisting and confirming the word through the signs which followed’” [Mark 16:20].
Εἰ μὲν ὡς δόξης ἐπιδεᾶ τὸν μονογενῆ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, καθὸ ἔστι καὶ νοεῖται λόγος καὶ οὔπω σεσαρκωμένος, δεδοξάσθαι φησὶ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὅτι καὶ παραπταίει καὶ διημάρτηκε τἀληθοῦς, παρήσω λέγειν εἰς τὸ παρόν, ἄγει γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐφ’ ἕτερον ὁ καιρός· ἐπιλελῆσθαι δέ μοι δοκεῖ τῶν ἀρτίως αὐτῷ τεθεωρημένων τε καὶ εἰρημένων. ἔφη γάρ· “Οὐχ ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος ὁ Χριστός, οὐκ ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος υἱός· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχομεν Χριστοὺς δύο καὶ υἱοὺς δύο.” ἀλλ,’ ὦ συνετώτατε, φαίην ἄν, εἰ τῇ Χριστοῦ δυναστείᾳ περιῆφθαι διαβεβαιοῦ τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐδοξίαν, πῶς οὐχ ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος εἶεν ἂν ἢ πῶς οὐ δύο πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως, εἴπερ ἐστὶν οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς ὁ διδοὺς καὶ δεχόμενος ἢ γοῦν περιάπτων ὡς ἑτέρῳ παρ’ ἑαυτὸν τὰ φύσει προσόντα αὐτῷ. ἐνήργηκε γοῦν ἐνεργούμενος, ὡς ἕτερός τις ὑπάρχων Χριστὸς παρὰ τὸν μονογενῆ. εἰ γὰρ περιῆπται μὲν αὐτῷ, καθὰ φής, ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐδοξία, τῇ δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι διεκήρυττον τὸν <λόγον> καὶ ἠργάζοντο τὰς θεοσημείας οἱ θεσπέσιοι μαθηταί, πῶς οὐκ ἀληθὲς ὅπερ ἔφην; ἐνήργηκε γὰρ ἀλλοτρίᾳ δυνάμει χρώμενος, ἵν’ ὁ ἐνεργήσας καὶ οὐκ αὐτῷ που μᾶλλον παρὰ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ δοξάζηται. τί οὖν, εἰπέ μοι, τὸ πλέον ἔν τε αὐτῷ φαίνεται καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις; ἀποτετελέκασι γὰρ οὐκ ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει τὰς θαυματουργίας καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοὶ ὡμολόγησαν ἐναργῶς, ἀξιάγαστοι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες καὶ τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοῦντα δοξάζοντες. εἶτα πῶς οὐκ ἔδει τὸν ἐνεργούμενον παρ’ ἑτέρου κατὰ σὲ Χριστὸν καὶ θύραθεν ἔχοντα τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐδοξίαν τοῖς προσιοῦσιν ὡς θεῷ καὶ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῦ δεδεημένοις ἐπικουρίας ἐπιφωνεῖν· ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἢ γοῦν ἐν δυνάμει τόδε τί σοι γένοιτο τῶν ἀγαθῶν; τοῦτο γὰρ ἔδρων οἱ πάνσοφοι μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀνομάζοντες πανταχοῦ. ἀλλ’ οὐδενὶ μὲν τοῦτο προσπεφώνηκε παντελῶς, ἀνετίθει δὲ μᾶλλον ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει τὰ κατορθούμενα, ποτὲ μὲν λέγων τοῖς τυφλοῖς “Πιστεύετε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι;” καὶ τὴν συναίνεσιν ἀπαιτῶν, ποτὲ δὲ μετ’ ἐξουσίας [ἀπαιτῶν] λέγων “Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι.” τί μὴ παρεὶς τὰ σαυτῷ τε καὶ μόνῳ ἐξηυρημένα γραοπρεπῆ μυθάρια σοφῇ διανοίᾳ τὸ τοῦ μυστηρίου περιεργάζῃ βάθος;	31. If he says that the only-begotten Word of God, as if lacking glory—insofar as he is Word and is thought of as such and as not yet incarnate, is glorified by the Father and the Holy Spirit—I will forgo saying for the present that he both blunders and has missed the truth, for the occasion leads us to something else; however, he seems to me to have forgotten what he had just now thought out and said. For he said, “Christ is not one and another; the Son is not one and another. For we do not have two Christs and two sons.” But I could say, O wisest one, if you affirm that the honor of the Only-Begotten is ascribed to the power of Christ, how would he not be one and another, or how would he not be wholly and completely two if in fact the same one is not the giver and the receiver or if he ascribes to one other than himself the things associated with him by nature? Then Christ as the object of action has operated upon as one other than the Only-Begotten. For if, as you say, the honor of the Only-Begotten is ascribed to him, and the holy disciples, using the power that came from him, preached the word and worked miracles, how is what I said not true? For he has worked with another’s power in order that those in the world may glorify him who worked and not rather the thing itself, perhaps. Tell me, then, what appears more in him than in the holy apostles? For they worked miracles not by their own power, and they themselves clearly confessed it, and they were admirable also in this knowledge and in glorifying him who worked in them. Then how was it not necessary that Christ, who, you say, was possessed by another and had the honor of the Only-Begotten from the outside, respond to those who approached him as God and prayed for aid from him, “In the name of the Only-Begotten, or by his power, may this good thing happen for you”? For the wise disciples did this, always naming Jesus of Nazareth. But he did not say this to anyone; rather, he attributed what was accomplished to his own power, one time saying to the blind man, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” [Matt. 9:28] and requiring his assent, another time saying with authority, “I am willing; be clean” [Matt. 8:3]. Why do you not let go of the fables fit for old women, invented by yourself alone, and instead investigate the depth of the mystery with wise mind?

8. Fifth Argument – Nestorius Simultaneously Unites and Divides the Natures

ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἀναγκαίων εἰς ὄνησιν ὀλίγος αὐτῷ παντελῶς ὁ λόγος, δέδιε δὲ ὥσπερ μὴ ἄρα τι καὶ τῶν ἀληθῶς <ἐχόντων> παραφθέγξαιτο καί τι τῶν ἐπαινουμένων ἁλοίη πεφρονηκώς, οἴεται δὲ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν τῶν ἀπηχεστάτων καὶ ἀκατάσκεπτον κομιδῇ τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων ποιεῖται τὴν κατάρρησιν, καίτοι μεμνῆσθαι δέον αὐτὸν θεοῦ λέγοντος διὰ φωνῆς Ἰεζεκιὴλ τοῖς τῶν λογικῶν ποιμνίων προεστηκόσιν ὅτι “Τὴν καλὴν νομὴν ἐνέμεσθε καὶ τὸ καθεστηκὸς ὕδωρ ἐπίνετε καὶ τὸ κατάλοιπον ἐταράττετε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ πρόβατά μου τὰ πατήματα τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν ἐνέμοντο καὶ τὸ τεταραγμένον ὕδωρ ὑπὸ τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν ἔπινον.” ταῖς μὲν γὰρ θεοπνεύστοις γραφαῖς τὸν νοῦν ἐνιέντες ἡμεῖς τὴν καλὴν νομὴν νεμόμεθα κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ πίνομεν τὸ καθεστηκός, τουτέστι τὸν ἀμιγῆ τῷ ψεύδει διειδῆ τε καὶ καθαρώτατον τοῦ πνεύματος λόγον, ἐμφύροντες δὲ καὶ ἀναμίσγοντες θολὸν ὥσπερ τινὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἐνθυμημάτων τὸ ἀτερπὲς αὐτῷ ταῖς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀγέλαις ἐπιβουλεύομεν.	32. But one may see that he cares very little for things necessary for profit. Rather, he is afraid lest he let slip anything true and be caught thinking anything praiseworthy. He thinks everything whatsoever that is discordant and makes an altogether reckless condemnation of the doctrines of the church, although he should have remembered God saying to those who are over the spiritual flocks through Ezekiel, “You grazed on the good food from the pasture and drank the standing water, but you stirred up what was left with your feet, and my flock grazed on what your feet had trodden and drank the water your feet had stirred up” [Ezek. 34:18–19]. For when we apply our minds to the God-breathed scriptures, we graze on the good food, as it is written, and we drink the calm water, that is, the clear and pure word of the Spirit without falsehood mixed in, but if we defile it and mix with it our own joyless thoughts like mud, we plot against the Savior’s flocks.
ἐκδείξειε δ’ ἂν καὶ τοῦτο ἡμῖν ὥς ἐστιν ἀληθές, τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ πάλιν αὐτῷ τεθεωρημένα τε καὶ ἀτημελῶς εἰρημένα, ἔχει δὲ οὕτως “Ἦν μὲν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς λόγος καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως υἱὸς καὶ θεὸς καὶ συνὼν τῷ πατρί, ἀνέλαβε δὲ ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφήν. ἀλλ’ ὢν πρὸ τούτου υἱὸς καὶ καλούμενος, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν οὐ δύναται καλεῖσθαι κεχωρισμένος υἱός, ἵνα μὴ δύο υἱοὺς δογματίσωμεν· ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ ἐκείνῳ συνῆπται τῷ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντι υἱῷ τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν συναφθέντι, οὐ δύναται κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς υἱότητος διαίρεσιν δέξασθαι, κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα φημὶ τῆς υἱότητος, οὐ κατὰ τὰς φύσεις. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Χριστὸς ὁ θεὸς λόγος ὀνομάζεται, ἐπείπερ ἔχει τὴν συνάφειαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν διηνεκῆ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἄνευ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος πρᾶξαί τι. ἀπηκρίβωται γὰρ εἰς ἄκραν συνάφειαν, οὐκ εἰς ἀποθέωσιν κατὰ τοὺς σοφοὺς τῶν δογματιστῶν τῶν νεωτέρων.”	33. And the things he has thought out and rashly said about Christ will show that this too is true. He said the following: “For God the Word was Son and God and of one mind with the Father even before the incarnation, but in the last times he took the form of a servant. Yet although he was Son before this and was called Son, after the assumption he cannot be called Son separately lest we teach a doctrine of two sons. But since he has been connected with him who was Son in the beginning, who was connected with him, he cannot permit division with regard to the rank of sonship—with regard to the rank of sonship, I say, not with regard to the natures. For this reason God the Word is also called Christ, since he has a perpetual connection with Christ, and it is impossible that God the Word do anything without the humanity. For it has been brought completely to consummate connection, but not to deification, as the wise among the recent theologians say.”
Ὁ φάναι τολμήσας τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς εὐδοξίαν τῇ Χριστοῦ περιῆφθαι δυναστείᾳ καὶ τὸν τῆς ἑνότητος σύνδεσμον διασπάσας συνάγει πάλιν εἰς ἕνωσιν διαλύει τε αὖ καὶ ἐξίστησιν ἀλλήλων τὰς φύσεις πλεῖστά τε ὅσα περὶ τούτων ἡμῖν κενολογεῖ καὶ τερατεύεται, ἵνα κἂν εἴ τι φαίνοιτο λέγων τῶν εἰς ὀρθότητα νενευκότων, ἐξελέγχηται σαφῶς μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ ἐνθάδε φησὶ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον καὶ υἱὸν καὶ θεὸν καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μὴν ὅτι καὶ ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀνέλαβε τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφήν. φράζε δὴ οὖν, εἰ μή σοι δοκῶ τὰ εἰκότα λέγειν, τίς δὴ ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λεγόμενος καὶ τί τὸ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι φής; τίς ὁ τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν ἀναλαβών; ἀνελήφθη δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῦ τίνα τρόπον; ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἄνθρωπον ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγων γέλωτος ἀξίαν ἀποφανεῖ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φρένα, πῶς ἂν ἐνδοιάσειέ τις; ὁ γὰρ ὢν ἄνθρωπος κατὰ φύσιν πῶς ἂν ὃ ἦν, γένοιτο πάλιν καὶ ὡς ἐφ’ ἕτερόν τι μετακεχωρηκὼς εἴη ἂν κατά γε φημὶ τὸν τῆς φύσεως λόγον, τὸ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίαν οὐκ ἐλεύθερον τίνα τρόπον ἂν λέγοιτο γεγενῆσθαι δοῦλον, ὡς τοῦτο οὐκ ὂν ἐν ἀρχαῖς; οὐκοῦν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ πρέποι ἂν τὸ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, πολλοῦ γε δεῖ, καὶ τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν λαβεῖν οὐχὶ τῷ καὶ ἐν ἀρχαῖς τὸ τῆς δουλείας ἔχοντι μέτρον, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνῳ μᾶλλον, ὃς οὐκ ὢν ἄνθρωπος κατὰ φύσιν τοῦτο γενέσθαι πιστεύεται καὶ τῶν ὅλων ὑπάρχων δεσπότης ὡς θεὸς καθῆκεν ἑαυτὸν ἐν τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν ἀναλαβών. οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται καὶ ἀληθὲς ὅπερ ἔφης, ὅτι “μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν οὐ δύναται καλεῖσθαι κεχωρισμένος υἱός, ἵνα μὴ δύο υἱοὺς δογματίσωμεν.”	34. As for him who dared to say that the honor of the Only-Begotten has been ascribed to the power of Christ and who tore the bond of unity apart, he again gathers into union and once more dissolves it and parts the natures from each other. He talks vainly and speaks magniloquently to us about these things very plentifully, so that even if he should seem to say something that inclines toward orthodoxy, he may clearly be convicted of not knowing what he says. For here he says the Word of God is both Son and God even before the incarnation and moreover that in the last times he took the form of a servant. Tell me, then, if you think I do not speak what is proper: Who is it, now, that is said to become human, and what do you say becoming human is? Who took the form of a servant? How did he take it? So how could anyone doubt that, by saying a human became human, you prove your own understanding is worthy of ridicule? For how could he who was by nature human become what he was again, as if he were changing into something else—I am speaking in respect to nature—and how could that which was not free in its own nature be said to become a servant, as if it were not so at the beginning? So becoming human would not fit with a human (far from it!), and taking the form of a servant does not belong to him who even at the beginning had the capacity of servitude but rather to him who, though not human by nature, is believed to have become so, and, though Lord of all as God, abased himself in becoming like us, by uniting the human nature to himself in subsistence and taking the form of a servant. For in this way what you said will also be true, that “after the assumption, he cannot be called Son separately lest we teach a doctrine of two sons.”

9. Revisiting the First Argument – Refuting Nestorius’ “Equality of Rank”

καὶ ἡ μὲν τῶν δογμάτων ὀρθή τε καὶ ἀδιάστροφος καὶ εἰς εὐθὺ διᾴττουσα τρίβος ἥδε τέ ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρα· αὐτὸς δὲ δὴ πάλιν ὁ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἡμῖν ὀνομάσας τοῦ ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντος λόγου μόνον οὐχὶ καὶ εἰς λήθην εὐθὺς ὧν ἔφη, παρενεχθείς, διίστησι πάλιν εἰς δύο τὸν ἕνα καὶ ταῖς τῶν νοημάτων ἐξιτηλίαις ἀσυφήλως ἐπινηχόμενος καὶ φωναῖς ἀβασανίστοις ἀεὶ κεχρημένος. ἔφη γάρ “Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ ἐκείνῳ συνῆπται τῷ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντι υἱῷ τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν συναφθέντι, οὐ δύναται κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς υἱότητος διαίρεσιν δέξασθαι, κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα, φησί, τῆς υἱότητος, οὐ κατὰ τὰς φύσεις.” Ὀρθῶς γε, ὦ τάν, τὸ ἀνασφαλὲς εἶναι δοκοῦν <ὡς> ἀχρεῖον παραιτῇ, <τὸ δ’> ἀεὶ διεγηγερμένῳ κεχρῆσθαι τῷ λόγῳ διὰ σπουδῆς τέθειταί σοι. ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἰδοὺ διαιρῶν τὰς φύσεις συλλέγεις εἰς ἕνωσιν κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς υἱότητος. ἆρ’ οὖν ἀπόχρη πρὸς ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλήλων διεστηκόσιν ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ταὐτότης ἢ γοῦν ὁμωνυμία καὶ τὸ κατ’ αὐτὴν ἀξίωμα; σοὶ γὰρ καὶ οὕτω φάναι δοκεῖ. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδήπερ τό τε Χριστός ὄνομα καὶ μὴν τὸ υἱός καὶ κύριος κοινὰ τέθεινται καὶ ἑτέροις (πλεῖστοι γὰρ ὅσοι γεγόνασι Χριστοί, κέκληνται δὲ καὶ υἱοὶ καὶ κύριοι), εἶεν ἂν καὶ αὐτοὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς υἱότητος ἀδιαίρετοί τε ἀλλήλων καὶ ἓν οἱ πάντες καθ’ ἕνωσιν, ἣν δὴ πεπρᾶχθαι νομίζεις αὐτὸς καὶ ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ. διεστήξει δὴ ὅλως πρὸς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον ἄνθρωπος καθ’ ἡμᾶς. εἶτα πῶς οὐ διῄρηνται πάλιν, πῶς δὲ καὶ υἱὸς εἷς, οὐκ ἔχω νοεῖν, εἰ μὴ καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ συμβεβηκέναι φαμὲν τῷ λόγῳ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον.	35. This and no other is the upright, undistorted, and straight-going path of doctrines. But he who spoke to us of the Word of the Father becoming human—carried almost immediately to forgetfulness of what he said—again divides the one into two, foolishly swimming on fallacious ideas and always using untested words. For he said, “But since he has been connected with him who was Son in the beginning, who was connected with him, he cannot permit division with regard to the rank of sonship—with regard to the rank of sonship, (he says), not with regard to the natures.” Rightly, my friend, do you reject as unprofitable that which seems to be insecure, and it has been set before you to take pains to use speech that is always upright. For behold, behold! You divide the natures, but you gather them into union with regard to the rank of sonship. Then is sameness or identity of names (and the rank in line with it) sufficient for true union of things divided by nature from each other? For it seems good to you to say this, too. Then because the name Christ and also Son and Lord have also been given to others as shared names (for very many have been made christs and have been called sons and lords), with regard to the rank of sonship they would also be indivisible from each other, and they would all be one in line with the union which you yourself think was wrought also in the case of Christ. But the fact is that a human like us is entirely distinct from the Word of God. I cannot understand, then, how they have not been severed and how there is one son, unless we say that the human nature has come together with the Word by a true union.
ἐπειδὴ δὲ χρὴ διά γε τὰς τούτου φωνὰς καὶ εἰς ἐκτόπους ἐννοίας περιενεγκεῖν τὸν λόγον, ἵνα πανταχόθεν ἐλέγχηται πεφρονηκὼς οὐκ ὀρθά, φέρε δὴ φέρε κἀκεῖνο λέγωμεν. εἰ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ πρὸς ἕνωσιν τῆς υἱότητος τὸ ἀξίωμα, ἐπειδὴ καλεῖταί τε καὶ ἔστιν υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος, κοινὸν δὲ πολλοῖς ἄλλοις τοὔνομα, τί τὸ λυποῦν, εἰπέ μοι, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἡνῶσθαι λέγειν αὐτῷ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας, ἵνα μηδὲν ἔχῃ παρ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ πλεῖον ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ; φιλονεικήσει γὰρ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἴσων ἁμιλλήσεται τὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων ἠξιωμένον καὶ τῆς συναφείας ἡμῖν ὁ τρόπος κατὰ ψιλὴν καὶ μόνην ἔσται τὴν κλῆσιν ἢ γοῦν τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν. εἶτα τί τὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως νοεῖται χρῆμα; τί δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου καθικέσθαι μορφῇ; εἰ γάρ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτὸν ὁ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τρόπος συνάφειά τις ψιλὴ καὶ κατὰ μόνον τῆς υἱότητος τὸ ἀξίωμα, τί τὸ κωλῦον ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι πεπρᾶχθαι λέγειν αὐτήν; ἀλλ’ ὁρᾷ που πάντως ὁ φιλομαθὴς τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἀκαλλές. ποῖ δὴ οὖν ἀποφέρεται, πρὸς ἃ μὴ θέμις, ἐξεστηκώς; εἰρήσεται δὲ πρὸς ἡμῶν αὐτῷ τὸ διὰ τῆς Ἱερεμίου φωνῆς· “Ταῖς πολυοδίαις σου ἐκοπίασας·” κλυδωνίζεται γὰρ “ἀνέμῳ παντὶ περιφερόμενος,” καθά φησιν ὁ σοφώτατος Παῦλος. οὐκοῦν δέχου τὴν ἄγκυραν τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἀσφαλῆ καὶ βεβαίαν, στῆσον ἐπὶ πέτραν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ πόδας· εἰ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι φὴς τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, ἀρκέσει τοῦτο πρὸς δήλωσιν τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τὸν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν· ἔλαβε τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφήν, καίτοι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἔχων ὡς θεός. ἦν γὰρ ἐν ἰσότητι τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ τὸ κατὰ πάντων ἔχοντος κράτος. παῦσαι διαιρῶν τὰς φύσεις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἕτερόν τι καὶ ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἥ τε θεία καὶ ἡ ἀνθρώπου φύσις, πρέποι ἂν εἰδέναι καὶ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φημὶ τοῖς ἀρτίφροσι, διεστήκασι γὰρ ἀλλήλων καὶ ἀσυγκρίτοις διαφοραῖς· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ συνεισενεγκὼν εἰς ἕνωσιν τὴν ἀληθῆ τε καὶ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, παραιτοῦ τὴν διαίρεσιν. ἕνα γὰρ οὕτως ὁμολογήσεις Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν καὶ κύριον.	36. On account of his words, however, we must reduce this argument to its absurd conclusion, so that this heretic may be refuted from every angle. So come now and let us speak of this. For if the rank of sonship is sufficient for union—since the Word which is from him is called and truly is the Son of God the Father, and the name is common to many others—where is the harm (tell me) of saying that they and all the rest have also been united with him, in order that Emmanuel may have nothing more than they? For anything worthy of the same names will likely be contending with him and competing for equality, and the mode of his connection with us will lie in bare and mere designation or in having the same name. What, then, does it mean to become human? What, too, the descent into the servant’s form? For if the mode of becoming human is (according to him) a mere connection and only the rank of sonship, what is to hinder our saying that it has been accomplished regarding all the rest too? But the friend of learning surely sees the uncomeliness of what is said. To where, then, is he now being carried off senseless, to what is not law? We will say to him the words of Jeremiah, “By your long journeys you became weary” [Is. 57:10], for he is tossed back and forth, “carried here and there by every wind” [Eph. 4:14], as says wise Paul. Therefore grasp the firm and secure anchor of the soul, stand your feet upon the rock. If you say that the Word of God became human, that will suffice to show that he who is above all the creation became like us. He took the servant’s form although he possessed freedom as God. For he was in equality with the Father, who possesses dominion over all. Stop dividing the natures after the union! It may be fitting (even necessary, I say) for those of sound mind to know which is the divine and which is the human nature, for they are separated from each other by incomparable differences. But although you unite Christ, our Savior of all, in the true union of subsistence, you beg for the division. For in this way you still confess one Christ and Son and Lord.
ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως ὁ τῶν ἐξιτήλων ἡμῖν δογμάτων εὑρετὴς ἐν σμικρῷ μὲν κομιδῇ πεποίηται λόγῳ τὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως χρῆμα, διωσάμενος δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν δύναμιν κεχώρηκε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτῷ δοκοῦν καί φησι “Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Χριστὸς ὁ θεὸς λόγος ὀνομάζεται, ἐπείπερ ἔχει τὴν συνάφειαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν διηνεκῆ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἄνευ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος πρᾶξαί τι. ἀπηκρίβωται γὰρ εἰς ἄκραν συνάφειαν, οὐκ εἰς ἀποθέωσιν κατὰ τοὺς σοφοὺς τῶν δογματιστῶν τῶν νεωτέρων.” Ὅτε τοίνυν Χριστὸν ὠνομάσθαι φησὶν ἰδικῶς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον ὡς ἔχοντα τὴν συνάφειαν πρὸς Χριστόν, ὡς πρὸς ἕτερόν που δηλονότι, πῶς οὐ πεφλυάρηκέ που μάτην εἰρηκὼς ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν οὐ δύναται καλεῖσθαι κεχωρισμένος <υἱός>, εἴπερ οὐχ ἕν τι νοεῖται πρὸς ἡμῶν τὸ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ σχετικῶς συνῆφθαι λεγόμενον; δύο γὰρ πάντως τὰ ἀλλήλοις συμβαίνοντα καὶ οὐχ ἓν αὐτό τι τὸ ἑαυτῷ συναπτόμενον νοοῖτ’ ἂν εἰκότως. ψευδομυθία δὴ οὖν τὰ ἐκείνου καὶ λῆρος ἑτέρως· ἡμεῖς δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, κἂν εἰ θεὸν λόγον ὀνομάσειέ τις, οὐ δίχα νοοῦμεν αὐτὸν τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, κἂν εἴπῃ Χριστόν, σαρκωθέντα τὸν λόγον ἐπιγινώσκομεν.	37. But I do not know how the inventor of fading doctrines has written about the treasure of the union with so little care. By pushing away both it (in all likelihood) and the power of the truth, he has gone again to what seems good to him and says, “Therefore is God the Word also called Christ, since he has a perpetual connection to Christ, and it is not possible for God the Word to do anything without the humanity. For it has been brought completely to consummate connection, not deification, as the wise among the recent theologians say.” Therefore, when he says that the Word from God the Father has been separately called Christ, as having a connection with Christ, that is, with another, how has he not spoken folly by saying that after the assumption he cannot be called ‘Son’ separately, since we do not conceive of him as one said to be relationally joined with another? For [by Nestorius’ reasoning] it is suitable for him to be conceived as two walking side by side and not as one joined together with himself. Therefore, his are fictional tales and otherwise futile talk. But after the union, though we name God the Word, we do not conceive of him apart from his own flesh; though we say Christ, we recognize the Word incarnate.
τίς δὲ δὴ ἄρα καὶ ὁ τῆς παρὰ σοῦ λεγομένης συναφείας νοεῖται τρόπος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡνῶσθαι φὴς καθ’ ὑπόστασιν τῷ ἐκ θεοῦ φύντι λόγῳ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, τί τὴν θείαν, εἰπέ μοι, περιυβρίζεις σάρκα, καίτοι προσκυνεῖν αὐτῇ μὴ παραιτούμενος, πρέποντος μόνῃ τῇ θείαι τε καὶ ἀπορρήτῳ φύσει τοῦ προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν; εἰ δὲ ἀληθῆ μὲν οὐκ οἴει γενέσθαι τὴν ἕνωσιν, συνάφειαν δὲ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ὀνομάζεις τὴν κατά γε τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν καὶ τὴν ἐν ψιλαῖς καὶ μόναις ταῖς ἴσαις κλήσεσιν ἀξίαν, τί σεμνοληρεῖς ἀπηκριβῶσθαι λέγων τὸν ἐκ γυναικὸς πρὸς ἄκραν συνάφειαν, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τὴν πρὸς τὸν λόγον; ὁμώνυμον μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις εἶεν ἂν τό τε υἱός υἱῷ καὶ κύριος κυρίῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν ἀλλήλων μειονεκτοῖτο ἂν τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ τὸ περιττὸν ἐν τούτοις πολυπραγμονεῖν εἰκαῖον οἶμαί που· υἱὸς γὰρ υἱοῦ κατὰ τὸ υἱός οὔτε τὸ μεῖζον οὔτε τὸ ἔλαττον ἔχει. περισσοεπεῖς οὖν ἄρα καὶ μάλα σαφῶς, ἀπηκριβῶσθαι λέγων αὐτὸν πρὸς ἄκραν συνάφειαν. πρέποι δ’ ἂν κατά γε τὸ αὐτῷ μοι δοκοῦν οὐχὶ ταῖς ὁμωνυμίας τὸ ἀπηκριβῶσθαι λέγειν αὐτὰς ἀλλήλαις, ἐκείνοις δὲ μᾶλλον, ἃ τὴν εἰς πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ἰσότητά τε καὶ ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἓν εἶναι πεπιστευμένων διαλαχόντα φαίνεται, οἷον φέρε εἰπεῖν ἀπηκριβῶσθαι φαμὲν πρὸς ἄκραν ἐμφέρειαν τῆς τοῦ δεῖνος μορφῆς ἢ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγονότα υἱὸν ἢ φέρε εἰπεῖν εἰκόνα, κατὰ δέ γε τὸν τῆς συναφείας τρόπον πῶς ἂν ἀπηκριβῶσθαι λέγοιντο καὶ νοοῖντό τινα;	What, then, shall we think about the ‘mode of connection’ of which you speak? For if you say that the human nature has been united in subsistence with the Word that sprang forth from God, why (tell me) do you insult the divine flesh? Although you refuse to worship it, it is fitting and necessary to worship only the divine and ineffable nature. But if you do not think that a true union took place—rather, you call it a connection to us by virtue of having the same name and rank, which is merely being called equal—why do you speak so solemnly, saying that the one born of the woman has been brought completely to consummate connection—that is, with the Word? For they are synonymous one with another, son with son, and lord with lord, but neither is inferior to the other, with respect to names; to meddle about which of them is superior is purposeless, I say. For a son, inasmuch as he is a son, has nothing greater nor anything less than a son. You are therefore talking superfluously (clearly so) in saying that he has been brought completely to consummate connection. But (it seems to me) it is not fitting to say about things sharing a name that they are consummately connected to each other, but rather about things which appear to share both the equality in everything and the likeness—that is, those who are believed to be one. As for example, let us say—we say that either the son that is begotten from him or (let us say) his image has been consummately connected to the form of such a one: but as regards the mode of connection, how can anything be said or even thought to be consummate?
ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς μὲν ἡμῖν ἡρμήνευσε τῆς συναφείας τὴν δύναμιν· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι, φησί, τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἄνευ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος πρᾶξαί τι. ὁμόφρονες οὖν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ὁμογνώμονες κατὰ σέ, καὶ ἀπὸ κοινῶν σκεμμάτων ἐφ’ ἕκαστα τῶν πρακτέων ἰέναι πιστεύσομεν τὴν τῶν παρὰ σοῦ λεγομένων υἱῶν ξυνωρίδα· εἶτα πῶς οὐ δύο Χριστοὶ καὶ υἱοὶ καὶ κύριοι; ἀλλ’ ὡς ὀργάνῳ τῷ σώματι κεχρῆσθαι τὸν λόγον διισχυρίζῃ κατὰ τὸ εἰκός. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ἕνα φὴς υἱὸν καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν τὴν τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην, οὐκ αὐτὸς ἔσται θεότητος ὄργανον, κεχρήσεται δὲ μᾶλλον οἷάπερ ὀργάνῳ τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ψυχή. οὐκοῦν ὁμολόγησον ἕνα, μὴ διαιρῶν τὰς φύσεις, μετὰ τοῦ εἰδέναι καὶ φρονεῖν ὅτι σαρκὸς μὲν ἕτερος ὁ λόγος, θεότητος δὲ πάλιν ὁ αὐτῇ καὶ μόνῃ πρέπων. ἥκιστα μὲν γὰρ θεότητα γενέσθαι φαμὲν τοῦ λόγου τὴν σάρκα, θείαν δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ. εἰ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου σὰρξ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη λέγεται, τί τὸ κωλῦον ἔτι καὶ θείαν εἰπεῖν τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου; τί τοίνυν διαγελᾷς τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ κάλλος, ἀποθέωσιν ἡμῖν ὀνομάζων τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός, μόνον δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ κατονειδίζων τοῖς ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν ᾑρημένοις τὴν θεοποίησιν; καίτοι λέγων αὐτός	38. But he himself explained to us what he means by connection, “For it is impossible (he says) for God the Word to do anything without the humanity.” Therefore, they are likeminded with one another and united, according to you, and we shall believe that this ‘pair of sons’ (so called by you) approaches each action with common counsel. How then are there not two Christs and sons and lords? But you affirm that the Word likely used his body as an instrument. Yet if you say one Son and one subsistence, the incarnate subsistence of the Word, he will not be an instrument of Deity but rather will use his own body as an instrument, just as (for instance) a man’s soul does. Therefore, confess one without dividing the natures, at the same time knowing and understanding that the count of the flesh is one; furthermore, it is fitting to say the same and only that about the Deity. For by no means do we say that the flesh of the Word became Deity, but rather that it became divine, as being his own. For if the flesh of a man is called human, what forbids us from calling the flesh of God the Word divine? Why then do you mock the beauty of the truth, telling us of the deification of the holy flesh and insulting what God has done before those who have chosen to think rightly? Although you yourself say,
“Ἵνα τοίνυν δειχθῇ καὶ τοῖς μάγοις τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ παρ’ αὐτῶν προσκυνούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τίνα ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἡ χάρις, ὅτι οὐκ ἐπὶ ψιλὸν ἁπλῶς θεωρούμενον βρέφος, ἀλλ’ ἐπί τι σῶμα συνημμένον ἀρρήτως θεῷ.”	39. [Nestorius:]“Therefore, in order that it might be shown also to the Magi who this is, whom they are worshiping and to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit led them—that it was not simply a mere baby they found, but a body connected ineffably with God.”
Ὅτε τοίνυν ἀρρήτως συνῆφθαι θεῷ τὸ σῶμά φησι, τὸ δὲ ἀπόρρητον ἀληθῶς ὑπὲρ νοῦν ἐστι καὶ λόγον, ἀληθής που πάντως ἡ ἕνωσις ἢ γοῦν ἡ συνάφεια κατ’ αὐτόν. ἀπόρρητα γὰρ τὰ τοιάδε καὶ τῶν οὕτως ἀλλήλοις συμβεβηκότων οὐκ ἂν οἶμαί τις εἰδείη τὸν τρόπον. εἰ δὲ οἶσθα λέγειν οἴει τε δύνασθαι διατρανοῦν τῆς συναφείας τὴν δύναμιν, πῶς ἀπόρρητον ἔτι τὸ χρῆμά ἐστι;	40. Therefore, when he says that the body has been ineffably united to God—and that which is truly ineffable is beyond understanding and speech—especially true is the union or the so-called connection. For such things are unspeakable, and of things that thus come together with one another one would not (I think) know the mode. But if you know what you are saying and think that you can clearly articulate the force of the connection, how is it any longer unspeakable?

10. Sixth Argument – Nestorius Deifies a Human Being

θαυμάζω δὲ ὅτι καίτοι σῶμα λέγων συνῆφθαι θεῷ καὶ τοῦτο ἀπορρήτως, οὐκ αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦτο καὶ ἴδιον εἶναί φησιν, ἵν’ ὡς ἓν νοοῖτο μετ’ αὐτοῦ, μερίζει δὲ πάλιν εἰς ἄνθρωπον καὶ θεὸν ἀνὰ μέρος τε καὶ ἰδικῶς τὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν ὑποπλάττεται λέγων “Ἀλλ’ οὐ ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστός, συκοφάντα, ἀλλ’ ἄνθρωπος ὁμοῦ καὶ θεός. εἰ δὲ μόνον ὑπῆρχε θεός, ἐχρῆν εἰπεῖν, Ἀπολινάριε· τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι, θεὸν ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα; <νῦν δὲ λέγει· ‘Τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα;’> οὗτος ὁ τὸν ἀκάνθινον περιθέμενος στέφανον· οὗτος ὁ λέγων ‘Θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;’ οὗτος ὁ τριήμερον τελευτὴν ὑπομείνας· προσκυνῶ δὲ σὺν τῇ θεότητι τοῦτον ὡς τῆς θείας συνήγορον αὐθεντίας.”	41. But I marvel that although he says that the body has been connected with God and that ineffably, he does not say that it is his very own, in order that it might be conceived of as one with him. Rather, he divides the one Christ and Lord Jesus into man and God again, each by itself in turn, and feigns that he thinks aright, when he says, “Yet Christ is not a mere man, O accuser. but man and God united. Had he been God alone, it would have been necessary, Apollinaris, for him to say, ‘Why seek you to kill me, God, who has told you the truth?’ But now he says, ‘Why are you trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?’ [John 8:40]. This is he who was encircled with the thorny crown, this he who said. ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ [Matt. 27:46], this is he who remained dead three days, this is he whom I worship with the Deity as the advocate of divine authority.”
Ἄθρει δή μοι πάλιν συναρπάζοντα μὲν καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν μόρφωσιν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ περιθέντα λόγοις (οὐ γὰρ ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος, φησίν, ὁ Χριστός, ἆλλ’ ἄνθρωπος ὁμοῦ καὶ θεός), διιστάντα δὲ πάλιν καὶ οὐχ ἕνα λέγοντα καὶ ἀνυπόθετόν τι δεχόμενον ἀμαθῶς καὶ κατασκευάζοντα τὸ δοκοῦν. ὡς γὰρ λέγοντός τινος γυμνὸν ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ δίχα σαρκὸς ὦφθαί τε ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ποιήσασθαι λόγους ἢ γοῦν ἐνεργῆσαι τὰς θεοσημείας, ἢ γοῦν ὅτι κοινὸς ἦν ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος γέγονε σάρξ, οὐ ψιλός, φησίν, ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεός. ἡμεῖς δέ, ὦ βέλτιστε, φαίην ἂν ἔγωγε, κἂν λέγωμεν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ θεόν, οὐκ ἀνὰ μέρος τιθέντες τὰ τοιάδε φαμέν, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ μᾶλλον εἰδότες καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως υἱὸν καὶ θεὸν καὶ λόγον τοῦ πατρός, ἄνθρωπον δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονότα καὶ σεσαρκωμένον. ὃ δὲ διισχυριζόμενος μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον νοεῖσθαι ψιλόν, ἀλλὰ θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀπονέμει μὲν τὸν ἀκάνθινον στέφανον καὶ τὰ ἕτερα τῶν παθῶν ἰδικῶς ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, προσκυνεῖν δὲ ὁμολογεῖ σὺν τῇ θεότητι τοῦτον καί, τὸ ἔτι δυσσεβέστερον, ὡς οὐκ ὄντα μὲν κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ υἱόν, συνήγορον δὲ γεγονότα τῆς αὐθεντίας τοῦ λόγου. ὅτι γὰρ διίστησιν ἐναργῶς, σαφηνιεῖ πάλιν τὸ σὺν τῇ θεότητι προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν. τὸ γὰρ ἑτέρῳ συμπροσκυνούμενον ἕτερόν που πάντως ἐστὶ παρ’ ἐκεῖνο μεθ’ οὗ προσκυνεῖσθαι λέγεται. ἡμεῖς δὲ μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τιμᾶν εἰθίσμεθα τὸν Ἐμμανουήλ, οὐ διιστάντες τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἑνωθὲν αὐτῷ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν σῶμα.	42. Now, for my sake, look at him who snatches up the form of the truth by placing his own words around it (for not mere man, says he, is Christ, but man and God together), and who separates him again and says that he is not one, and who ignorantly accepts something without foundation and constructs whatever seems good to him. For as though someone were saying that the Word had appeared to us upon earth bare and without flesh and had conversed with us or wrought his divine signs, or that he was common man and not the Word himself become flesh—he says, Christ is not mere man, but God also. But we, most excellent sir, I say—even though we say that he is man and God together, we do not speak thus as putting them apart, but rather knowing that the same even before the incarnation was Son and God and Word of the Father, and after that has become man and flesh like us. But he asserts that he ought not to be conceived of as mere man but God and man. He assigns the crown of thorns and the rest of the sufferings to man severally and apart, while he confesses that he worships this man with the Deity, and still more impiously, as not being (in all likelihood) truly God and Son, but advocate of the authority of the Word. That he clearly severs [the natures], his confession that he ought to be worshiped along with the Deity will clearly show. For that which is co-worshiped with another is altogether other than that with which it is co-worshipped. But we are accustomed to worship Emmanuel with one worship, not severing from the Word the body that was united to him in subsistence.
τί δ’ ἂν νοοῖτο τὸ τῆς θείας συνήγορον αὐθεντίας, βασανίζειν ἄξιον. ἆρα γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καθ’ ἕνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ εὐαγγελιστῶν ἕτερον τῷ κόσμῳ διεκήρυξε Χριστὸν ἢ γοῦν υἱὸν καὶ κύριον ὡς θείαν ἔχοντα τὴν ἐφ’ ἅπασιν αὐθεντίαν ἢ γοῦν ἐξουσίαν, συνηγόρευσε δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ ἑτέρου δόξῃ; καίτοι τῶν θεηγόρων ὁ χορὸς Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα τῷ κόσμῳ διακηρύττουσι καὶ τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν ὁ τρόπος διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ὁμολογίας ἔρχεται, δικαιούμεθα δὲ πιστεύοντες οὐχ ὡς <εἰς> ἕνα τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν φύσει τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ὄντα θεόν. καὶ γοῦν ἄθεα μὲν τὰ ἔθνη διετέλουν κατὰ τὸν κόσμον, Χριστὸν οὐκ εἰδότα ποτέ, καθά φησιν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐγνώκασιν, οὐ μεμενήκασιν ἐν ἀγνοίαι τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ὄντος θεοῦ. οὐκοῦν διδασκέτω τῇ τίνος δόξῃ καὶ αὐθεντίαι συνηγόρευσεν ὁ Χριστός, καίτοι τῶν προσιόντων αὐτῷ τὴν πίστιν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ μὲν αἰτῶν, ἀνατιθεὶς δὲ ταύτην [ἐν] αὐτῷ τῷ πατρί. καὶ γοῦν ἔλεγε· πιστεύετε εἰς ἐμέ, καὶ εἰς τὸν θεὸν πιστεύετε, καὶ πάλιν· “Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ πιστεύει εἰς ἐμέ, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν πέμψαντά με καὶ ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμὲ θεωρεῖ τὸν πέμψαντά με.”	43. But it is worthwhile to investigate what ‘the advocate of divine authority’ means. For did our Lord Jesus Christ himself, just as one of the holy apostles and evangelists, preach to the world another christ or son and lord as having divine authority or power over all, and so he collected the glory of another for himself? On the contrary, the choir of God’s heralds proclaim to the world Jesus Christ who is from the seed of David according to the flesh. The way of our faith comes through our confession to him, and we are justified, believing not in one who is a mere man like us, but in him who is by nature and truly God. And the Gentiles remained in the world without God as long as they did not know Christ [Eph. 2:12], as blessed Paul says, but since they learned of him, they have not remained in ignorance of him who is by nature God. Let him therefore teach us whose glory and authority it was that Christ spoke for, although from those who came to him he demanded faith in himself, and he even attributed this faith in him to the Father. And verily he said, “Believe in me and believe in God” [John 14:1], and again, “He who believes in me does not believe in me but in him who sent me, and he who sees me sees him who sent me” [John 12:44–45].
ἀλλ’ ἴσως τὸ συνηγορεῖν κατὰ τὸ αὐτῷ δοκοῦν τάχα που ὑπεμφήνειεν ἂν τὸ ἰσηγορεῖν· ἐφίημι γάρ, καίτοι τῆς λέξεως ἑτέραν ἐχούσης τὴν δήλωσιν. εἶτα πῶς ἰσηγορήσειεν ἂν ἄνθρωπος θεῷ, κατὰ σὲ καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων παροινίας διενεγκών; φέρε γὰρ τὸν ἑκατέρῳ πρέποντα καταθρήσωμεν λόγον. πρέποι δ’ ἂν εἰπεῖν τῷ γε ὄντι θεῷ κατὰ φύσιν· εἰμὶ μὲν ἀόρατος ἀναφὴς καὶ τοῦ παθεῖν ἀνώτερος καὶ μὴν καὶ ἀσώματος, ζωὴ καὶ ζωοποιὸς καὶ ἐπάνω πάντων ὡς θεός· ὃ δὲ τὴν ἰδίαν ἡμῖν, ὅπως ἂν ἔχοι, φύσιν ἐξηγούμενος ἔφη ἂν εἰκότως· ὁρατός εἰμι καὶ ἁπτός, παθητὸς καὶ ὑπὸ φθορὰν καὶ ὑπὸ θεῷ. ἆρ’ οὖν ὁ τὰ τοιάδε λέγων ἰσηγορήσειεν ἂν τῷ προύχοντι καὶ ὑπερκειμένῳ κατά γε τοὺς τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως λόγους; εἶτα πῶς τοῦτο οὐκ ἀμαθὲς εἰπεῖν; διαψεύσεται γὰρ πάντως ἢ ἐκεῖνος ἢ οὗτος. συνηγορίαν δὲ λέγων ἢ γοῦν συνηγόρευσιν, οὐχ ἕτερόν τι πάλιν ἑτέρῳ συνηγορεῖν καὶ οὐχ ἑκὼν ὁμολογεῖς ὁ συνάφειαν ἡμῖν ὀνομάζων καὶ ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ κύριον [καὶ] τέμνων εἰς δύο προσκυνεῖς, μᾶλλον δὲ συμπροσκυνεῖς καὶ ἀπαλλάττειν οἴει τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ τῆς θεοποιίας ἐγκλήματος, θεοποιῶν αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπον καὶ οὐχ ἕνα λέγων υἱόν, κἂν εἰ μὴ δίχα νοοῖτο τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός; προσκυνήσεις γὰρ τότε καὶ ἀνεγκλήτως καὶ γνώσῃ ποῦ ἦσθα κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποφοιτῶν δογμάτων.	44. But perhaps ‘to be an advocate’ (as it seems to him) possibly means ‘to speak as an equal.’ I concede, the word does indeed have this other meaning. Then how may a man speak as an equal to God (according to you) while enduring the drunken behavior of the Jews? Come, let us examine the speech befitting each one. It would be fitting for him who is by nature God to say, “I am invisible, impalpable and above suffering, moreover incorporeal, life and life-giving and above all as God.” The other describing to us his own nature (how it is) will reasonably say, “I am visible and palpable, subject to suffering, subject to decay and subject to God.” Will then the one who says such things speak as an equal to him who excels and is superior, according to the measure of his own nature? Then how was this not an ignorant thing to say? Certainly, one of them is lying, either that one or this one. But by saying he is an advocate or that he speaks as one and not that he is one advocating for another, you who tell us of a connection confess one Christ and Lord even against your will, and cutting them into two you worship them, or rather co-worship. And although you think that you are freeing the church from the charge of god-making, you yourself deify a man and will not name one Son, even though he may not be conceived of apart from his own flesh. For then you would worship him unblamed and would know where you were, as it is written, deserting from the doctrines of the truth.³
“ἀλλὰ ναί, φησίν, εἴρηκε τῷ λεπρῷ ‘Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι,’ καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου θυγατρὶ ‘Ἡ παῖς, ἔγειραι,’ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ‘Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο·’ συνήγορος δὴ κατὰ τοῦτο· τοὺς γάρτοι θείους ἐφθέγγετο λόγους, δι’ ὧν ἦν πάντα δύνασθαι κατορθοῦν εὐκόλως.” δύο δὴ οὖν οἱ προστάττοντες καὶ ἀμφοτέρων εἶναι δώσομεν τοὺς ἐφ’ ἅπασι λόγους. ὅταν οὖν λέγῃ· “Τί με ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα;” τίνος, εἰπέ μοι, τοὺς τοιούσδε λόγους εἶναι φής; ἢ ἐκείνους μὲν ἀπονέμεις τῷ λόγῳ, τούτους γε μὴν ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ παρ’ αὐτὸν ἑτέρῳ τῷ ἐκ γυναικός; εἶτα ὅποι ποτὲ θήσεις τὸν ἱερώτατον Παῦλον λέγοντα σαφῶς· “Ἡμῖν δὲ εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ”; ὃ δὲ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω λέγων· “εἷς υἱὸς καὶ οὐκ ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος οὔτε μὴν Χριστὸς καὶ δεύτερος Χριστός,” τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ διαμαχεῖται λόγοις, δυσὶ προσώποις καὶ ὑποστάσεσιν ἰδικαῖς τάς τε τῶν θεηγόρων καὶ τὰς αὐτοῦ διανέμων φωνάς.	45. [Nestorius:] “But yea (says he), he has said to the leper, ‘I am willing; be clean’ [Matt. 8:3], and to the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, ‘Child, get up’ [Luke 8:54], and to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still!’ [Mark 4:39], and herein he was an advocate, for he uttered the divine words whereby it was possible to achieve all things easily.” Two, then, are they that command, and let us grant that the words in every case belong to both. Then when it says, “Why are you trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?” [John 8:40], tell me, whose words do you say that these are? Or do you allot those to the Word, these to a man born of a woman as other than he? Where then will you put the most holy Paul who says clearly, “But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came into being and for whom we live; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came into being and through whom we live”? [1 Cor. 8:6]. But he, over and over saying, “One Son and not one and another, nor yet Christ and a second Christ,” contends against his own words, allotting the words of God’s heralds and his own words to two subsistences and distinct beings.
Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῶν ἰδίων οὐκ ἀμελήσας ἐννοιῶν, ἐπιφέρει πάλιν “Σέβω αὐτὸν ὡς τῆς παντοκράτορος εἰκόνα θεότητος. ὑπερύψωσε γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.”	46. Yet not neglecting his own notions, again he adds, “I worship him as image of Almighty Deity; for he highly exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” [Phil. 2:9–11]
Καὶ τίς ἂν νοοῖτο πάλιν ὅν, ὥς γε οἴεται, σέβειν ὁμολογεῖ καὶ τῇ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοιώσει τιμᾶν ὑποκρίνεται, ἢ ἐκεῖνός που πάντως ὃν ἀρτίως ἡμῖν ὠνόμαζεν, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅτι λέγων, τῆς θείας συνήγορον ἤτοι συνεργὸν αὐθεντίας, ὃν τῇ θεότητι συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν ἀνοήτως ἔφασκεν ὡς ἕτερον ὄντα καὶ ἰδικῶς υἱὸν παρὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον; αὐτὸν καὶ ὑψῶσθαι λέγει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα λαβεῖν τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, ἵνα καὶ πᾶν αὐτῷ γόνυ “κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.”	47. And who again will be conceived of as he whom (as he supposes) he confesses to worship and pretends to honor as being like to God? Is it that one whom he just specified to us (although he did not know he was saying it) as an advocate or co-worker of divine authority, whom he foolishly said ought to be co-worshiped with the Deity as being a son separate and distinct from the Word of God? He says that he has also been exalted by God the Father and even that he received the name which is above every name, that to him both every knee “of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” [Phil. 2:10–11].
εἰ μὲν οὖν θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνθάδε λεγομένης ὑψώσεως ὑψοῦ τέθεικεν ὁ πατήρ, τὸν τῆς μεταξὺ ταπεινώσεως πολυπραγμονοῦντες τρόπον οἰκονομίαν τινὰ σοφὴν εὑρήσομεν, καθ’ ἣν ἀδοξήσας διὰ μέσου γέγονε πάλιν ἐν οἷς ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ οὐσιωδῶς ἐνυπάρχων, καὶ ἐν ἰδίοις ἀληθῶς ὑψώμασιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν οὐχί, καθάπερ οὖν οἴεται καί φησιν, ἕτερον δέ τινα παρὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον τὸν αὐτῷ συνημμένον ἄνθρωπον προσκυνητὸν ἐποίησεν οὐρανῷ τε καὶ γῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔτι κατωτέρω, τεθεοποίηκεν ἄρα καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον, αἰτιάσεται δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐκέτ’ ἐν [τῷ] κόσμῳ λοιπὸν ὡς θεοποιεῖν ἐθέλοντας τὸν οὐκ ὄντα θεόν, καίτοι δέον ἀνάπτειν αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ τῆς ἐπ’ αὐτῷ δὴ τούτῳ πλημμελείας τὰ ἐγκλήματα. ὁρᾷ δὴ οὖν ὁ χριστομαθὴς ὅποι ποτὲ αὐτῷ διεκπαίουσιν οἱ λόγοι καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἀκράτου ταυτησὶ δυσβουλίας εὑρήματα πρὸς ποῖον αὐτῷ καταίρει λόγον. ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν τὸν υἱόν, τουτέστι τὸν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον καθικέσθαι φαμὲν εἰς ἑκούσιον κένωσιν, ἀναφοιτῆσαι δὲ αὖ καὶ μετὰ σαρκὸς εἰς τὸ τῆς ἐνούσης ὑπεροχῆς αὐτῷ θεοπρεπὲς ἀξίωμα· προσκυνεῖται γὰρ καὶ μετὰ σαρκὸς ὡς καὶ πρὸ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχων προσκυνητός, ἦν γὰρ καὶ ἔστι κατὰ φύσιν θεὸς καὶ πρὸ τῆς κενώσεως καὶ ὅτε τὴν κένωσιν ὑπομεῖναι λέγεται γεγονὼς καθ’ ἡμᾶς·	48. If, therefore, the Father has exalted him, who is God on high by nature even before the here-mentioned exaltation, then upon investigating the mode of the intervening humiliation we shall find a certain wise economy, according to which, although he held no esteem in the intervening time, he came again into the exaltation wherein he always and essentially was, exaltation which was truly his own. If this be not so (as he thinks and says) but rather he made someone other than the Word of God—the man connected with him—an object of worship by heaven and earth and those lower yet, he has deified a man like us. No longer can he properly accuse us as though we desired to deify him who is not God, whereas he must fasten on God the Father himself the charge of transgression in this matter. The one learned in the doctrine of Christ sees in what direction his words burst forth and brings down the inventions of his untempered mis-counsel with such words. For we say that the Son—that is, the Word of God the Father—although he is God by nature, came down into a voluntary emptying, and returned again even with the flesh to his position of divine authority. For he is also worshiped with the flesh as he was worshiped even before it, for he was and is God by nature, both before the emptying and when he is said to endure the emptiness, having become like us.
ὃ δὲ τῶν οὕτω σεπτῶν καὶ ἀκιβδήλων δογμάτων ὑπερορῶν ἄνθρωπον συνάπτει θεῷ κατά γε τὴν ἔξωθεν σχέσιν καὶ ὡς ἐν ἰσότητι τῆς ἀξίας καὶ ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ συμπροσκυνεῖν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται. διατείνεται δὲ […] φησίν, ὡς ἄηθές τι καὶ ξένον καὶ ὡς ἐν χάριτος μοίραι λαβεῖν τὸ κάμψαι τε αὐτῷ πᾶν γόνυ καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶσαν ἐξομολογήσασθαι γλῶσσαν ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. καὶ εἰ μὲν φύσει θεὸν γενέσθαι φησὶν αὐτόν, δεδυσφήμηκεν ἐναργῶς, γενητὴν εἶναι λέγων τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν· εἰ δὲ ἥκιστα μὲν κατὰ φύσιν, δοτὸν δὲ καὶ θύραθεν ἑλόντα τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ ὡς ἐν μόνῃ φωνῇ, πῶς οὐκ ἐκεῖνό φησιν ἐναργῶς ὅτι λελατρεύκαμεν τῷ μὴ φύσει θεῷ καὶ σὺν ἡμῖν, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ ἡ τῶν ἄνω πνευμάτων πεπλάνηται νῆψις καὶ τούτων ἡμῖν αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ πρόφασις; πῶς ἂν οὖν ἔτι διαμωμήσαιτο τοὺς παρ’ αὐτὸν τῇ κτίσει προσκυνεῖν ᾑρημένους; γράφεται δὲ ἀνθ’ ὅτου <καὶ> κολάζει τοὺς πεπλανημένους, εἰ τοῖς αὐτοῦ νεύμασι πεπλάνηται […] προσκυνητὸν ἡμῖν ἀποφήναντος τὸν οὐκ ὄντα φύσει θεόν;	But the one who thus disdains august and genuine doctrines connects a man with God by an external relation and is not ashamed to co-worship him as with equality of dignity and as one with another. And he stoutly maintains (he says) that he received it as something unusual and strange and as a matter of favor that to him every knee should bow, and besides that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And should he say that he was made God by nature, he has blasphemed openly, saying that the nature of the Deity is generate; and should he say on the one hand “according to nature,” and on the other “granted” and “from outside,” taking the position as on only a word, how is he not openly saying that we worship him who is not by nature God? And that together with us (as it seems) even the sobriety of the spirits above has been misled? And that the Father himself is the beginning and cause of these things for us? How then will he yet find fault with them who have chosen to worship the creature rather than him? And why does he indict and punish those that have wandered if they were misled by his direction, when he displayed him who is not God by nature to us as one to be worshiped?
ἐπειδὴ δὲ παρατιθεὶς τὸ ῥητὸν ἐν τούτοις, φημὶ δὴ τὸ ἐν χερσὶν ὅτι αὐτῷ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, παρῆκε τὸ λεῖπον καὶ ἐφεξῆς ἀναγκαίως τῷ μακαρίῳ Παύλῳ προσεπενηνεγμένον, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅ τι διενθυμούμενος, φέρε προσθέντες ἡμεῖς ἐκεῖνο λέγωμεν· ἐξομολογεῖται γὰρ πᾶσα γλῶσσα “ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.” οὐκοῦν εἰ μὴ φύσει θεός ἐστι, διὰ συνάφειαν δὲ σχετικήν, τὴν πρός γε φημὶ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον, προσκυνεῖσθαί φησιν αὐτὸν πρός τε ἡμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων, εὐκλείας τις ἄρα τρόπος ἐξηύρηται τῷ πατρὶ τὸ θεοποιεῖσθαι σὺν αὐτῷ τὴν κτίσιν καὶ λελύπηται μάτην ἐπί τισιν ὡς τοῦτο πεποιηκόσι. καὶ εἰ πρὸς εὐκλείας ἦν τὸ χρῆμα αὐτῷ, πῶς οὐκ ἔδει καὶ ἀμοιβῆς ἀξιοῦν ἐπαίνου τε καὶ δόξης τοὺς τοῦτο δρᾶν ᾑρημένους;	49. But since he cited the exact word in these (I mean the one in our hands) that to him every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, he omitted what follows and was necessarily added by the blessed Paul (I don’t know what he was thinking). Come, let us add and say this, for every tongue confesses “that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” [Phil. 2:11]. Hence, if he be not God by nature but on account of relational connection—that is, with the Word of God—he says that he is worshiped both by us ourselves and by the holy angels—some manner of glory has been invented by the Father, so that the creature should be deified along with himself, and he is offended in vain by any who do this. And if this thing were to his glory, how should he not deem them who have chosen to do this worthy of recompense, praise and glory?
ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἐκεῖνο φαῖεν ἄν· τίνα τρόπον πρὸς εὐκλείας ἔσται τῷ πατρὶ τὸ κάμψαι πᾶν γόνυ τῷ Ἐμμανουήλ; ὅτι θεὸς ὢν φύσει καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ λόγος, προσκυνεῖται δέ, ὡς ἔφην, ὡς εἷς τε καὶ μόνος καὶ ἀληθῶς υἱὸς μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, δοξάζεταί γε μὴν ὁ πατὴρ ὡς θεὸς ἔχων ἀληθινὸν τὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντα υἱόν, ὃν καὶ σάρκα γεγονότα δέδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα σαρκὶ παθὼν διασώσῃ τὴν ὑπ’ οὐρανόν, “ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον,” ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν αὐτὸν θεωρῇ τὸν πατέρα. ζωοποιὸν δὲ τὸ χρῆμα, καὶ τοῦτο ἡμῖν ὑπάρχον ἀληθῶς αὐτὸς ἐκδέδειχεν ὁ υἱός, ἔφη γάρ· “Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.”	50. But perhaps they will say this: How is it any honor to the Father that every knee should bow to Emmanuel? Because the Word, who is by nature God and out of him—that is, out of his essence—has become flesh and is worshiped (as I said) as the one and only true Son with his own flesh. And the Father is glorified as God, having a genuine Son who was begotten from his essence, whom, having become flesh, he has also given for us, in order that he, having suffered in the flesh, might save all under heaven, “that everyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” [John 3:16], that everyone that sees him might see the Father [John 14:9]. Now this is a life-giving thing, the Son himself has shown that it is truly ours: for he said, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent” [John 17:3].
Καὶ ἡ μὲν εἰς εὐθὺ καὶ ἀπλανεστάτη τῶν ἐννοιῶν αὕτη τε καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρα τρίβος ὃ δὲ ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τὰ πάντα κυκῶν “Διὰ τὸν φοροῦντα, φησί, τὸν φορούμενον σέβω· διὰ τὸν κεκρυμμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον.”	51. And this and none other is the way to the right and most unerring insight, but he, confounding above and below, says, “Because of the wearer I revere the worn; because of the hidden I worship him that is seen.”
Ἄθρει δή μοι πάλιν φεύγοντα πανταχοῦ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ δεδιότα τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων τὴν ὀρθότητα παραιτούμενον. οὐχ ἕτερος ἦν ὁ φορῶν παρὰ τὸν φορούμενον, ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐν συνόδῳ νοούμενος θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος εἷς τε καὶ μόνος ἀληθῶς υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός. οὐκοῦν ὡς ἕνα προσκύνει μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκὸς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον. ἐπεὶ φράσον εἰ μή σοι δοκῶ τὰ εἰκότα φρονεῖν τὴν σὴν ἐν τούτοις ἰσχνομυθίαν ὡς ἀδρανῆ παρωθούμενος. ἆρα γὰρ εἰ δή τις ἕλοιτο λέγειν περὶ ὁτουοῦν τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπων ἢ γοῦν ἐφ’ ἑνὸς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς βασιλέων· διὰ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ψυχὴν σέβω τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὸν κεκρυμμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινόμενον, οὐκ ἄν τις εὐθὺς ἐπισκήψειε· τί δρᾷς, ὦ οὗτος; λέγων, εἷς που πάντως ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ κρατῶν, κἂν ἐκ δυοῖν ὁρῷτο συγκείμενος, ψυχῆς δὴ λέγω καὶ σώματος; τί τοίνυν ἡμῖν εἰκῇ βατταρίζεις, φοροῦντα καὶ φορούμενον, κεκρυμμένον καὶ φαινόμενον ὀνομάζων καὶ ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ συμπροσκυνεῖν ὁμολογῶν καὶ τὸν τῆς ἑνώσεως ἀτιμάζων τρόπον, ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ κύριον ἀποφαινούσης ἡμῖν τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος; ἢ οὐκ οἶσθα ὅτι τεθεράπευκε μὲν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις τὸν ἐκ γενετῆς τυφλόν, εἶτα τοῦτον εὑρὼν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, βεβαίαν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱδρυμένην ἐνετίθει τὴν πίστιν; ἤρετο γὰρ προσελθών· “Σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ;” καὶ πρός γε ταυτὶ διακεκραγότος ἐκείνου· “τίς ἐστι, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν,” ἔφη πάλιν αὐτός· “καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν.” ὁρᾷς ὅπως οὐ τὸν φοροῦντα δέδειχεν, οὐ τὸν ἔσω κεκρυμμένον, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἕνα μᾶλλον ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῆς σαρκός; καὶ γοῦν ὁ σοφὸς Ἰωάννης “Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς,” φησίν, “ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.” καίτοι τὸ θεῖόν ἐστιν ἀναφές, ἀλλὰ γέγονεν ἁπτὸς ὁ λόγος ὡς διὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, ἀόρατος κατὰ φύσιν, ἀλλ’ ἦν ἐμφανὴς διὰ σώματος. σὺ δὲ δὴ πάλιν διιστᾷς ὁλοτρόπως καὶ κατασοφίζῃ τὸ ἀληθές, τὰς μὲν φύσεις χωρίζων, ἑνῶν δέ, ὡς φής, τὴν προσκύνησιν. ἀλλ’ εἰ χωρίζεις τὰς φύσεις, συναποφοιτήσειεν ἂν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰ ἑκατέρας ἴδια φυσικῶς, ἐλάσει δὲ διαμπὰξ τῆς διαφορᾶς ὁ λόγος. δύο δὴ οὖν ὁμολογουμένως·	52. Again, I pray, consider how he everywhere shuns the union, fears the truth, and deplores the correctness of the divine doctrines. The wearer is nοt another from the worn, but rather the same is conceived of as a coming together of Deity and humanity, and truly he is the one and only Son of God the Father. So worship the Word of God as one with his own flesh. Tell me, if I do not seem to you to think reasonably by rejecting your subtle disputing in these things as feeble. Indeed, suppose one should choose to talk about any such man such like us or about one of the kings of the earth: “Because of the king’s soul I reverence his body, because of the hidden I worship him that is seen.” Would not one immediately denounce him, saying: “O sir, what are you doing? Certainly the ruler is one man, even though he seems to be composed of two!” (I mean soul and body)? Why then are you idly babbling to us, naming wearer and worn, hidden and visible; confessing that you co-worship as one with another; and dishonoring the mode of union? Inspired scripture reveals to us one Christ and Lord, the Word of God the Father with his own body! Do you not know that he healed in Jerusalem the man blind from birth, and, finding him afterward in the temple, he planted in him a firm and established faith? For he came to him and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” and to this he cried out, “Who is he, sir? So that I may believe in him,” he again said, “Even you have seen him, and the one who is speaking with you is he” [John 9:35–37]. You see how he has shown him not the wearer, not the hidden within, but rather himself as one with the flesh? And verily the wise John says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands touched, about the Word of life” [1 John 1:1]. Although the Deity is intangible, the Word has become tangible through his own flesh; invisible by nature, yet he was visible through the body. But you completely sever and confound with the truth, separating the natures, uniting (as you say) the worship. But if you separate the natures, then each one’s own natural qualities will also diverge and the degree of their difference will drive right apart: hence two are they confessed.
πλὴν ἐρομένῳ φράσον· τί τὸ διιστὰν ἀλλήλων τὰς φύσεις καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τίς ἂν εἴη ὁ τρόπος; ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖς που πάντως ὡς ἕτερον μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ἄνθρωπος ἢ γοῦν ἀνθρωπότης, ἕτερον δὲ θεὸς ἤτοι θεότης, καὶ ἣ μὲν ἀσυγκρίτως θατέρας ὑπερηρμένη, μείων γε μὴν ἐκείνη τοσοῦτον ὅσον ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ. πῶς οὖν, εἰπέ μοι, μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τιμᾶν ἀξιοῖς τὰ οὕτως ἀλλήλοις ἀνισοφυῆ καὶ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ· πως εἶναι λόγον ἀσυγκρίτοις διαφοραῖς διεσχοινισμένα; ἆρα γὰρ ἵππῳ περιθεὶς τὴν ἀνθρώπου δόξαν ἐργάσῃ τι τῶν ἐπαινουμένων; ἢ μᾶλλον ἐξυβριεῖς τὸ ὑπερτεροῦν, κατασύρων εἰς τὸ δυσκλεὲς τὴν ἀμείνω φύσιν;	53. But I say to those who ask: what is it that severs the natures from each other and what will be the mode of their difference? You will surely say that one is man or humanity by nature, the other God or the Deity, and the one exalted incomparably above the other, and the other as inferior as man is to God. How then, tell me, will anyone worship them as one, honoring them as comparable, although they are incomparable to each other, since they are separated by incomparable differences? Would you be doing anything praiseworthy if you conferred the glory of a man on a horse? Would you not rather be insulting that which is superior, dragging down the better nature into dishonor?
Ἀλλ’ ἐξηύρηταί τι σοφὸν εἰς ἀπολογίαν αὐτῷ· προσεπάγει γάρ “Οὐ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ θεὸς τὸ πλασθὲν ἐπὶ μήτρας· οὐ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ θεὸς τὸ κτισθὲν ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος· οὐ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ θεὸς τὸ ταφὲν ἐπὶ μνήματος. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἦμεν ἀνθρωπολάτραι καὶ νεκρολάτραι σαφεῖς. ἀλλ’ ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τῷ ληφθέντι θεός, ἐκ τοῦ λαβόντος ὁ ληφθείς, ὡς τῷ λαβόντι συναφθείς, συγχρηματίζει θεός.”	54. But he has invented something clever in his defense, for he adds: “That which was formed in the womb is not God by itself; that which was created from the Spirit is not God by itself; that which was buried in the tomb is not God by itself. For then we would have been man-worshipers and plain worshipers of the dead. But since God is in that which was assumed, because of assumer the assumed is also called God, because it is connected with assumer.”
Ἰδοὺ δὴ πάλιν ἡμῖν ὁ τὴν συνάφειαν ὀνομάζων πανταχοῦ καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπολατρίας ἐγκλήματα δεδιὼς ἥλω γεγονὼς ἀνθρωπολάτρης καὶ τοῖς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυσβουλίας βρόχοις ἐνίσχηται καὶ καταφωρᾶται πεσὼν εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν. τὸ γάρτοι τεχθὲν ἐκ μήτρας οὐ καθ’ ἑαυτό, φησί, θεός. ὡς ἄγαμαί σε τῆς ἀγχινοίας καὶ φρενὸς τῆς οὕτω λεπτῆς. τίς γὰρ ὅλως ὁ τοῦτο φάναι τεθαρσηκώς; ἢ τίς ἠγνόηκεν ὅτι “Τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν”; ἀλλ’ ἦν ἰδία τοῦ λόγου καὶ εἷς νοεῖται μετ’ αὐτῆς <ὡς> καθάπερ ἀμέλει φθάσαντες εἴπομεν, καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος. ἆρ’ οὖν εἴ τις ἕλοιτο καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν εἰπεῖν <ὅτι> οὐκ ἄνθρωπος τὸ σῶμα καθ’ ἑαυτό, οὐ περιττὸς εἰς λόγους καὶ εἰκαιόμυθος ὀνομάζοιτο ἂν εἰκότως; ἀρνήσεται γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὅτι μὴ ἄνθρωπος τὸ σῶμα καθ’ ἑαυτό, σῶμα δὲ μᾶλλον ἀνθρώπου λέγοιτ’ ἄν· πλὴν οὐ δίχα διατεμὼν καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος τιθεὶς ψυχήν τε καὶ σῶμα φαίη τις ἂν ὅτι συγχρηματιεῖ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ πρὸς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου δήλωσιν (εἴη γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἐν κόσμῳ γεγενημένος ὁ τοιόσδε λόγος, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἀμαθίας ἔμπλεως), ἄμφω γε μὴν καθ’ ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν συνενεγκὼν εἰς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου σύστασιν, τότε καὶ ἄνθρωπον ὀνομάσει καὶ κἂν οὕτω δόξῃ ἀσύφηλόν τε καὶ ἀκαλλὲς εἰπεῖν. ἔδει τοίνυν, εἴπερ τις ἦν ὅλως σοφός τε καὶ νουνεχής, σῶμα μὲν εἰπεῖν τὸ ἐκ γυναικός, προσομολογῆσαι δὲ ὅτι τῇ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει συνενεχθὲν τῷ λόγῳ Χριστὸν ἕνα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ κύριον ἀποτετέλεκε τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον·	55. See again, he who everywhere tells us of connection and fears the charge of man-worship has been caught being a man-worshiper! He is entangled in the snare of his own ill counsel and has been caught falling into faulty thinking. For he says that which is born from the womb is not by itself God. How I marvel at your shrewdness and your so subtle thinking! Who has ever dared to say this? Or who does not know that “what is born of the flesh is flesh”? [John 3:6]. But it was the Word’s own flesh, and he is conceived of as one with it, just as (as we actually said before) the soul of man is one with his own body. If one should choose to say also about us: “the body is not man by itself,” would not such a one reasonably be called superfluous in his words and a random talker? For no one will deny that the body by itself is not man, but it will be rather called the body of a man; even if we split them apart and place the body and soul separately, no one would say that by the body’s association with the soul they signify a single man (for such a speech would not be in order but rather filled with ignorance). But if they were brought together in a natural union to constitute one man, one would call him a man, even if he seems to say what is foolish and uncomely. Therefore, if anyone is wholly wise and sensible, they must say that the body is from a woman and confess that, since it has been brought together with the Word in union of subsistence, he is complete, one Christ and Son and Lord, God and man the same.
νυνὶ δὲ τοῦτο μεθεὶς ἵεται μὲν τὴν διεστραμμένην τῆς εἰς εὐθὺ διεκπίπτων ὁδοῦ, δύο δὲ ἡμῖν διακηρύττει θεούς, ἕνα μὲν ὡς φύσει καὶ ἀληθείαι τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον, ἕτερον δὲ παρ’ αὐτὸν τὸν συγχρηματίζοντα αὐτῷ, ὅνπερ τρόπον οὐδεὶς ἂν λέγοιτο τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ καὶ μόνῳ συνδιαιτᾶσθαι τυχόν, ἑτέρῳ δὲ μᾶλλον συνδιαιτήσεται. κἂν εἴ τινα λέγοι τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς βασιλέων ἑαυτῷ συμβασιλεύειν, ὄφλοι ἂν εἰκότως γέλωτα καὶ βατταριεῖ τὸ ἐφ’ ἑνός τε καὶ μόνου τιθεὶς καὶ λέγων ὡς ἐπὶ δυοῖν. οὕτως ἀσύνετον κομιδῇ τὸ συγχρηματίζειν οἴεσθαι καθ’ ἑνός τε καὶ μόνου δύνασθαι χωρεῖν· δύο γάρ που πάντως εἶεν ἂν καὶ ὃ μέν ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν θεός, ὃ δὲ τάχα που καὶ μόνον τό γε συγχρηματίσαι θύραθέν τε καὶ ἐπίκτητον ἔχων πρόσφατος ἡμῖν ἀνεδείχθη θεός. ἆρ’ οὖν ψεύδεται λέγων ὁ φύσει τε καὶ ἀληθῶς τῶν ὅλων θεός· “Ἐὰν ἀκούσῃς μου, οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ θεὸς πρόσφατος οὐδὲ προσκυνήσεις θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ”; εἶτα πῶς προσκεκυνήκαμεν τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ αὐτῷ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ; πῶς δὲ καὶ σέβειν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖς, καίτοι δεδιώς, ὡς ἔφης, τὸ ἀνθρωπολάτρης εἶναι δοκεῖν;	But now he has abandoned this and fallen upon the crooked way, escaping the straight way, and proclaims to us two gods: one as in nature and truth, the Word from God the Father; and one other than He, who is co-named with him. Just as, for example, none of us would be said to live ‘with himself,’ but rather he would live with another. And if anyone were to say that any of the kings of the earth co-reigned with himself, he would reasonably incur ridicule and would be babbling, explaining what belonged to one only but speaking of two. It is just as unintelligible to think that it is possible to comprehend co-naming as meaning one and alone. For he would certainly be two: one who is God by nature, and another who is revealed to us as a new god, although he only has (it seems) this external and acquired co-naming. Then is he who is truly God of all by nature lying to us when he says, “If only you would listen to me! There shall be no new god among you, nor shall you worship a foreign god”? [Ps. 81:8–9]. Then how have we worshiped Christ, and how shall every knee bow to him? How do you confess that you venerate him, even as you fear (as you said) to be called a man-worshiper?
ἀλλ’ ἔχει τινά, καθάπερ οὖν οἴεται, σοφὸν ἐπὶ τῷδε λόγον· ὡς γὰρ τῷ λαβόντι συναφθείς, συγχρηματίζει θεός. πῶς ἐλήφθη, φράσον, ἢ τίνα συνήφθη τρόπον; εἰ μὲν οὖν καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ, τὴν καθ’ ὑπόστασιν λέγω, παῦσαι μερίζων τὸ ἡνωμένον, ἐπὶ καιροῦ δὲ οἶμαι καὶ πρός γε ἡμῶν εἰρήσεται διατέμνοντί σοι τὸ ἄτμητον· “Ὃ οὖν θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω·” εἰ δέ γε τὴν λῆψιν ἢ γοῦν τὴν συνάφειαν ἔξωθέν τε καὶ σχετικὴν εἶναι φής, πῶς ἠγνόηκας ὅτι καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἔστι θεὸς καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτῷ συναπτόμεθα σχετικῶς καὶ κοινωνοὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ γεγόναμεν φύσεως; ψάλλει γοῦν ὁ θεσπέσιος Δαυίδ· “Ἐκολλήθη ἡ ψυχή μου ὀπίσω σου.” συγχρηματιοῦμεν οὖν ἄρα καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ κατὰ φύσιν θεῷ, […] θεοὶ κατ’ αὐτόν, κάμψει καὶ ἡμῖν πᾶν γόνυ. τί προστέταχε τοῖς ἄνω πνεύμασιν ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, διδασκέτω παρελθὼν ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος· “Ὅταν” γάρ φησιν, “εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει· καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.” οὐκοῦν ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τούτοις τὸ σὸν δὴ καὶ σοφὸν οὐκ ἐπενήνεκται, προσκυνεῖσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον προστέταχεν ὡς ἕνα που πάντως καὶ οὐχ ἕτερον σὺν ἑτέρῳ, τίς δὴ ὁ παρὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων προσκυνούμενος; καίτοι τὸν πρωτότοκον ἡ θεία λέγει γραφή, πρωτότοκον δὲ ὠνομάσθαι φαμὲν τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγον, καίτοι θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν καὶ υἱὸν μονογενῆ καὶ ἀσύντακτον τῇ κτίσει κατά γε τὸν τῆς θεότητος λόγον, ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς πρωτότοκος.	56. But he has (so he thinks) an ingenious answer to this problem: since he is joined with the assumer, he is co-named as God. How was he assumed (pray tell) or what is the mode of the connection? If the mode is that of true union—that is, of subsistence—stop dividing what has been united! At every opportunity (I think) we shall also say to you who divide the indivisible, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let no human separate” [Matt. 19:6]. But if you say that the assumption or connection is external and incidental, how do you not know that God is also in us, and we are connected to him incidentally and have been made partakers of his divine nature? [2 Pet. 1:4]. Yea, divinely inspired David sings “My soul clings to you” [Ps. 63:8]. Then shall we also be co-named with him who is by nature God, […] gods like him, and to us also shall every knee bow? What God the Father has commanded the spirits above let the divine-uttering Paul come forward and teach, for he says, “When he brought the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him’” [Heb. 1:6]. Therefore, since herein your sophistry has not been added, but rather he has commanded that he should certainly be worshiped as one and not as one along with another, who is he who is worshiped by the angels? Divine Scripture says “firstborn,” and we say that the Word of God the Father has been called firstborn—although he is God by nature, only-begotten Son, of a different class than the creature on account of his deity—because he became human and firstborn among many brethren [Rom. 8:29].
εἷς οὖν ἄρα πρὸς τῶν ἄνω πνευμάτων ὁ προσκυνούμενος, ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός· τότε γὰρ τότε καὶ ὡς πρωτεύων ἐν πᾶσι νοεῖται πρωτότοκος. Ἀλλ’ αἱ μὲν θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ Χριστὸν ἕνα διακηρύττουσι καὶ υἱὸν καὶ κύριον, δύο γε μὴν ὁ περιττὸς οὑτοσί, καὶ προσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον τῇ ἁγίᾳ τε καὶ ὁμοουσίῳ τριάδι προστιθεὶς οὐκ αἰσχύνεται· φησὶ γὰρ πάλιν	57. Therefore, there is one who is worshiped by the spirits above, the Word from God the Father with his own flesh; for then, even then, he was conceived of as firstborn, having the preeminence in all things [Col. 1:18]. But, although the God-inspired Scriptures proclaim one Christ and Son and Lord, this overcurious man says “Two!” and is not ashamed to add a man to be worshiped with the Holy Trinity of one substance. For he says again,
“Ἀλλ’ οὗτος ὁ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ συγγενής, ὁ κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κατὰ τὴν Παύλου φωνὴν ἐκ σπέρματος γεγεννημένος Δαυὶδ παντοκράτωρ τῇ συναφείᾳ θεός.” Εἶτα τούτοις ἐπάγει· “Ἄκουσον ἀμφότερα τοῦ Παύλου κηρύττοντος· ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρότερον καὶ τότε τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ συναφείᾳ θεολογεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον, ἵνα μηδεὶς ἀνθρωπολάτρην τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ὑποπτεύῃ. ἀσύγχυτον τοίνυν τὴν τῶν φύσεων τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν· ὁμολογῶμεν τὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ θεόν· σέβωμεν τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παντοκράτορι θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον.”	58. [Nestorius:] “But this kinsman according to the flesh of Israel, man according to appearance, begotten of the seed of David according to Paul’s voice, is Almighty God by connection.” Then he adds to these, “Hear Paul proclaiming both; he confesses the man first and then deifies what is visible by connection with God, so that no one may suspect Christianity of worshiping a man. Therefore, let us keep the connection of the natures unconfused; let us confess God in man; let us worship the man who is co-worshiped by a divine connection with the Almighty God.”
Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄνθρωπον ὀνομάζων οἶσθα μετὰ τούτου καὶ θεὸν ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν αὐτόν, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι καὶ πεπαύσομαι· εἰ δὲ μερίζων τὰς φύσεις οὐχὶ τῷ εἰδέναι μόνον τίς μὲν ἡ ἀνθρωπεία, τίς δὲ δὴ πάλιν ἡ θεία, διιστὰς δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς πρὸς ἑνότητα συνδρομῆς, ἀνθρωπολατρεῖς ὁμολογουμένως καί σοι πρὸς ἡμῶν εἰρήσεται· “Τοὺς καρποὺς τῶν πόνων σου φάγεσαι.” σκληρὸς δὲ καὶ ἀνουθέτητος ὢν μόνος ἴθι τὴν διεστραμμένην· ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν εὐσεβῆ καὶ ἀμώμητον τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἰχνηλατοῦντες τρίβον τοῖς τε ἀποστολικοῖς καὶ εὐαγγελικοῖς συγγράμμασιν εὖ μάλα παιδαγωγούμενοι, ὁμοῦ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τιμήσομεν τὸν ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· δι’ οὗ καὶ μεθ’ οὗ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ δόξα σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.	59. If, when you call him a man, you know that he himself is also God by nature, all is well, and I will stop. But if you sever the natures, not only to know which is the human, which the divine, but rather you separate the concurrence of unity, you are a man-worshiper by confession, and it shall be said to you by us, “You will eat the fruit of your labors” [Ps. 128:2]. And since you are unyielding and unadmonished, go alone on the crooked way. But we, tracking the pious and blameless path of the holy fathers and instructed full well in the writings of the apostles and evangelists—we will honor with one worship God the Father and the Holy Spirit and the one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to God the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

Back to Documents from the Escalating Controversy

Created 4/4/2025 by JSW

Sirach 5:12.
Cyril quotes, in abbreviated form, the Creed of the Council of Nicaea of 325.
Cyril may be alluding to a passage such as 2 Tim. 4:4 or Titus 1:14, but it is unclear.

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 2 Against Nestorius (CPG 5217)

Search

What's New

Tools

Primary Texts

Website Related

Meta